1

The (Bidding?) War For the DRC

Every few years the Democratic Republic of the Congo rises to international attention. Often this is due to a new round of fighting in the eastern regions of the country, with associated human rights violations. This time, however, Congo’s resources are in the spotlight as nations scramble to secure access to some of the world’s largest and richest deposits of critical minerals ranging from battery metals to rare earths, gallium, germanium, and others vital to “green” economies, national defense, and slowing climate change.

The major “bidders” at the moment include China, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. China of course has been present in the DRC for decades in the mining industry with activities ranging from blatently illegal to merely controversial, as is the case with Tenke Fungurume, one of the world’s largest copper and cobalt mines. In 2006 China entered into an “infrastructure for minerals” agreement with the then-government of Joseph Kabila. Under the terms of this agreement, China built some roads, repaired some airport tarmacs and some government buildings – mostly in the eastern part of the country and in the mineral rich Katanga province. The Congolese people were unhappy with these arrangements as few jobs were created and those which were, involved menial labor. Due to the cheap materials used several projects were of short duration: perhaps the most famous was the road connecting the Bukavu airport with the city, which began eroding and collapsing in places even before the entire project was completed. In exchange, China received some of the richest copper concessions in the Katanga province and rights to other mineral holdings throughout DRC. In 2022 China’s Zijin Mining Group launched a bid to take over the Manono lithium/tin concession being developed by an Australian company and in 2023 was awarded development rights when the DRC government said the Australians had been moving too slowly. The award was revoked, however, and China now is contesting that decision.

In 2021 Saudi Arabia signed a general cooperation agreement with the Tshisekedi government and in January 2024, at the Future Minerals Forum in Riyadh, the two countries signed an MOU governing cooperation in developing Congo’s mineral wealth. Through its Private Investment Fund (PIF) Saudi has established a new vehicle, Manera Minerals, 50% owned by PIF and 50% by the state-owned mining company Ma’aden to actively work on sourcing critical minerals outside of Saudi to support the Saudi 2030 transformative development vision. Manera is charged with taking equity positions in existing companies thereby accelerating Saudi’s access to critical minerals. Unlike the Chinese, the Saudis enjoy a positive public perception. Saudi is seen as a role model and teacher for utilizing natural resources to enrich and develop countries – a major goal for African nations – and also has the resources to invest even during market downturns when commodity companies tend to pull back, thereby ensuring that projects continue to be developed regardless of external pricing constraints. Saudi’s recent agreement with the DRC envisions up to $2 billion in investments in the mining, transportation and infrastructure sectors. Crucially, the MOU envisions investment in processing and refinement of mined products, supporting a long-desired value-add for Congolese mining.

In 2023 the UAE signed a $2 billion deal with one of the DRC’s state mining companies, Sakima, to develop up to 4 mines in South Kivu and Maniema provinces. Sakima has mining concessions for tin, tantalum, tungsten and gold in those areas: another state-owned company, Gecamines, controls copper in Katanga. This broader agreement followed an initial partnership for Primera Group, a UAE firm, to export at preferential rates artisanally-mined gold, coltan, tin, tantalum and tungsten. This agreement supports the DRC Government’s desire to professionalize artisanal mining and ensure miners are getting a better return for their efforts. The DRC also hopes the deal will help strangle access by the militias to the area and cut-off their access to funds supporting continued violence in Eastern Congo.

Russia also is stepping up its interest in the DRC. Russians, like Chinese, have been in the Congo for decades mostly smuggling arms into, and minerals out of, Eastern DRC. Elements of the Wagner Group reportedly had trained and partnered with some of the militias in the area to more directly (albeit still illegally) exploit Congo’s mineral wealth.  In the last six months, following the death of Wagner Group leader Yevgeny Prigozhin, Russian military activities have increased and Russian political influence is emerging. The recent civil unrest in DRC’s capital, Kinshasa, which saw several days of sometimes violent demonstrations in front of the US and European Embassies as well as the UN offices, is believed to have been spurred by Russia. During the Cold War in the 1960’s the DRC had been a strategic site for both the US and Russia: as a bid to keep Russia from increasing its influence in DRC the US supported the rise of then-Sargent Mobutu. It appears that access to critical minerals in the DRC may be fueling another Cold War-style intervention in Africa by Russia – which has offered its military support to several African countries to enable governments to “suppress unrest.”

Meanwhile, what are the US and European countries doing? Very little. Even though by some estimates approximately 70% of the crucial critical minerals are in an arc spanning Central Asia to Africa, and even though in many countries the US remains the preferred partner (when possible) there, so far has been little apparent effort to support US businesses to develop and secure the resources needed for economic transformation and national defense.




The Up and Coming Uranium Boom

An interview with Hallgarten + Company‘s Christopher Ecclestone and the Critical Minerals Institute‘s (CMI) Tracy Weslosky on the Uranium Market

Tracy Weslosky: 

Christopher let’s start with the headlines please…. will the US ban on Russian uranium boost western industry?

Christopher Ecclestone: 

You know the uranium industry in Russia, you can’t put a cigarette paper between it and the industry in Kazakhstan. So really, I would see Russian product going out through Kazakhstan disguised as Kazakh output, not surprised whatsoever. And I don’t know who the West is trying to punish here — because we are getting back to that same issue again, which is the source of our uranium supply. It would be rather hard for some of the western users in the EU to replace the Russian uranium source. The source is the challenge.

Tracy Weslosky: 

You said to me earlier this week about how hot the uranium market and how it’s really “the only game in town”. Can you explain to our audience what you mean by that?

Christopher Ecclestone: 

It is. Well, I’m purely from the primordial point of view. The wheels have fallen off the battery metal complex at the moment – and whether they can be put back on again is another matter…but at the moment — that car ain’t going anywhere. It’s just sort of like on blocks, like the neighborhood thugs have stolen the wheels. So, battery metals are dead in the water for a while. And so, the only game in town is uranium. The other metals are all in holding patterns. You know, gold’s just hanging in there. Uranium’s the only sexy thing around. And as per usual, you know, uranium has its day in the sun every 20-years and that day is now.

Tracy Weslosky: 

Would you give investors some advice on how to select uranium companies because they’re popping up everywhere? We can barely keep track of them.

Christopher Ecclestone: 

Yeah, I think you’ve got to go back to the assets that they have. There are a lot of good assets were found during the last uranium boom. They’re not necessarily in the same companies that they were in there because many of those companies went bust. So got to look at the assets, you got to look at their durability. So, they’re in really, really isolated locations, you know. Like off Broadway, being off Athabasca is not as good as being on Broadway on Athabasca — just being in the general vicinity, but only 500 kilometres away is not good enough. You know, they have to be accessible. They have to be doable. You know, the boom is now. We’re not talking in 10 years. I think that we’re in a good position for a long run boom, but we really want to see assets that have been proven up before. Or not. Now anyone who’s doing Greenfield never been drilled before uranium. Why bother? There were so many assets that were discovered pre-Fukushima. They’re just sort of sat in the cupboard, you know, sitting there waiting for something to happen that we don’t need to find new things. We do not need to reinvent the wheel if it’s got an old resource — let’s go with that, not try and find something new.

Tracy Weslosky: 

Is there a question about uranium you wish people would ask you that no one does? And what would that question be?

Christopher Ecclestone: 

Oh, that’s a tough one. I think it’s got to do with the people involved in it. You know, just being uranium is not good enough. I think that there are a lot of old uranium hands out there, and have been in hiding. People who’ve done it for decades and who’ve really been sitting — sitting on their behinds for the last 15 years that are now coming out of the woodwork, they’re the people to follow. I mean, there was nothing that they could do about the situation. Now they can any just purely move forward, not the promotorial types where you look at them and say ‘oh, where was he before he was doing graphite? And then before that, he was doing lithium and before that he was doing Rare Earths’ — carpetbaggers – not good enough. We know who they are. Avoid them. We do not need promotorial types in the uranium space. We need serious people.

Tracy Weslosky: 

What is your position on modular nuclear reactors we are all hearing about, are they the future of uranium as we are being told?

Christopher Ecclestone: 

Oh, absolutely. I am absolutely convinced that big uranium, big nuclear formats, they’re like brontosauruses. We can see this particularly in the UK where they’ve got a number of projects underway that were, you know, supposed to be two billion pounds And, then you know, 5 billion. And even now the Chinese who are building them, saying we can’t finish this without loads more billions just goes to show that the bigger the plant the harder they fall and small modular reactors are the way to go. It’s just makes sense and the CapEx is lower. they’re easier to build, they’re faster to build. I mean bigger is not better.

Tracy Weslosky: 

What about thorium? There’s a lot of confusion out there.

Christopher Ecclestone: 

Yeah, well, there’s a lot of confusion. This is there’s some craziness in the US running around thorium, not good. I’m in. I’m a believer in thorium. Thorium is really good with Pebble bed reactors and small format reactors. It’s, you know, it’s got potentially its day in the sun. There are lots of thorium stockpiles lying around too, so you don’t even need to mine this. And it’s just sitting there, being waiting for its for its moment. And you know, there’s something to the nuclear establishment that they don’t want to see thorium having any, any progress…plays into the hands of the conspiracy theorists and the nuts, but Thorium should be getting more attention, particularly with these really small format reactors.

Tracy Weslosky: 

So, what your saying is that the nuclear and the uranium industry should not feel compromised by the competitor of thorium, correct?

Christopher Ecclestone: 

Yeah, not exactly. Exactly. We’ve seen many uranium positive story as well. I mean you could pick and choose what you what you. What you extract and you don’t get more value, frankly.

Tracy Weslosky: 

Is there a uranium producer that you love or that you follow? And can you comment on who this is?

Christopher Ecclestone: 

Probably and no. The mere fact that they’re a producer is good, whoever they might be. If they’re producing, yes, please.

Tracy Weslosky: 

Is there a small cap or a new uranium company that’s your watching? Or is there a company that you know about that you find unique or interesting?

Christopher Ecclestone: 

Well, I’m down in Argentina at the moment and Argentina is going to be one of the big playing fields in the up-and-coming uranium boom. I won’t drop the names now, but it’s place to watch.

Tracy Weslosky: 

And that was going to be my next question, is there an area of the world that investors should be more excited about hearing about when looking for uranium companies to invest in? Where should an investor find more comfort when they hear the word uranium?

Christopher Ecclestone: 

Well, Athabasca (Alberta, Canada), obviously SW Africa…whether it’s Namibia or countries around there. Argentina, I’ve mentioned. Australia, it’s easy. This said, they’ve got uranium, but with the states there flipping from being pro uranium to anti uranium they have done itself a lot of damage over recent years. I mean and it’s been really like two bald men fighting over a comb. Because there’s been no need for uranium from Australia — state governments there banning it and then unbanning it. I think Canada is, for once, the most virtuous regime for uranium in the world.




Ecclestone: The BRICS, More Hype than Substance?

In a recent Investor.News interview, Tracy Weslosky spoke with Christopher Ecclestone, Principal and mining strategist of Hallgarten & Company. The discussion revolved around the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) summit in Cape Town and the growing perceptions around this alliance.

When Weslosky brought up Ecclestone’s latest thinkpiece, “BRICS: The Company One Keeps,” he pointed out that while the BRICS concept has resurfaced in light of the Cape Town gathering, it’s essential to see it for what it is. As some nations within the alliance surge forward, others, notably Russia, face staggering economic and diplomatic setbacks. South Africa, despite its mineral wealth, struggles with power problems and economic reputation issues.

Interestingly, the comparison of BRICS as a challenger to the G7 was met with skepticism by Ecclestone. He noted that while G7 nations share many similarities, the BRICS are far more diverse, with their interests and economic trajectories hardly aligning. Ecclestone highlights that the very foundation of BRICS was a marketing strategy by Goldman Sachs in the 1990s to promote emerging market shares. As for its modern relevance, he states, “It’s like a stick to beat the West with, but the West isn’t feeling the blows.”

Echoing a segment from his report titled “Goldman’s Brainchild Disowned,” Ecclestone emphasized that the original creators of the BRICS concept have long distanced themselves from it. They view it as outdated. BRICS was never about a genuine, integrated alliance but more a catchy term, a soundbite for investment opportunities. As Ecclestone succinctly put it, trying to revive its significance now is “like a balloon with a hole in it.”

To access the complete interview, click here

Don’t miss other InvestorIntel interviews. Subscribe to the InvestorIntel YouTube channel by clicking here

Disclaimer: This interview, which was produced by InvestorNews Inc. (“InvestorNews”), does not contain, nor does it purport to contain, a summary of all material information concerning the Company, including important disclosure and risk factors associated with the Company, its business and an investment in its securities. InvestorNews offers no representations or warranties that any of the information contained in this interview is accurate or complete.

This interview and any transcriptions or reproductions thereof (collectively, this “presentation”) does not constitute, or form part of, any offer or invitation to sell or issue, or any solicitation of any offer to subscribe for or purchase any securities in the Company. The information in this presentation is provided for informational purposes only and may be subject to updating, completion or revision, and except as may be required by applicable securities laws, the Company disclaims any intent or obligation to update any information herein. This presentation may contain “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of applicable Canadian securities legislation. Forward-looking statements are based on the opinions and assumptions of the management of the Company as of the date made. They are inherently susceptible to uncertainty and other factors that could cause actual events/results to differ materially from these forward-looking statements. Additional risks and uncertainties, including those that the Company does not know about now or that it currently deems immaterial, may also adversely affect the Company’s business or any investment therein.

Any projections given are principally intended for use as objectives and are not intended, and should not be taken, as assurances that the projected results will be obtained by the Company. The assumptions used may not prove to be accurate and a potential decline in the Company’s financial condition or results of operations may negatively impact the value of its securities. This presentation should not be considered as the giving of investment advice by the Company or any of its directors, officers, agents, employees or advisors. Each person to whom this presentation is made available must make its own independent assessment of the Company after making such investigations and taking such advice as may be deemed necessary. Prospective investors are urged to review the Company’s profile on SedarPlus.ca and to carry out independent investigations in order to determine their interest in investing in the Company.




Jack Lifton on the Critical Minerals Crisis

The Critical Minerals Crisis excerpt — “We are now at an inflection point for our society. If we can secure the supplies and the processing capacity for the minerals critical for the technologies we now take for granted in our daily lives, then our nations will flourish and grow. If not, then our standard of living will decline, and those who have the critical minerals and the industrial bases to refine and fabricate them surge ahead of us. Our politicians and policymakers are woefully ignorant of this reality. This is the greatest danger of all to our lifestyle and security.” — Jack Lifton, Co-Founder & Co-Chairman, Critical Minerals Institute

————————

Jack Lifton asks where are the “experts?”

In American Common Law an “expert” is defined as someone who knows more than the ordinary person about the subject matter at hand. In my youth, after attending graduate school and while attending Law School, I was frequently retained and asked to appear in court as an “expert witness” for litigation around electrical, electronic, and chemical accidents, fires, and explosions. In the fifty years since then I have continued to observe, and, I hope, learn about the operation and management of the material world. This has led me to characterize myself as an “observer” rather than as an expert. Here are my most recent observations and some of my thoughts about them:

The production and volume of production of an individual chemical element in any form, compound, metal or alloy, is a function of its value to society at any given time. The need will be determined by the importance of societal values of the moment. Up to and including 1945 that need was determined almost entirely by war. Since 1945 a new factor, civilian consumerism, has become the dominant driver for the production of many formerly little-known, and rare, and difficult to produce in volume, chemical elements. Although the chemical engineering necessary to produce these rare elements in useful forms and relatively large quantities was paid for as a necessity for future war needs by the U.S. Defense Department (formerly known as the War Department). That funding mechanism faded away along with the lunar exploration program in the 1970s when cold war replaced hot war as the policy of the then two hegemons, the USA and the Soviet Union.

It was, at first, and for a long time not necessary for the big mining, chemical, or metallurgical companies to produce large quantities of the minerals and metals required for the mass production of the consumer and military devices necessary for the modern economies of the rich nations, because those necessary quantities, until the second decade of the 21st century, were small.

Then, in the second decade of the twenty-first century, the political push for EVs and then alternate energy entered the picture through the currently fashionable “fight against climate change.” Unlike, “global winter,” the “covid crisis,” and now the AI “disaster”, all of which were previously, and in the case of “AI”, currently, existential the fight against climate change has manifested itself in a battle to see who can most rapidly (appear to) destroy the cheap energy century that brought so much growth to the West. In North America and Europe, this has materialized as a rush to build out a wind turbine and solar infrastructure to replace fossil fuels as the major source of the energy required to produce electricity. On top of that it has been decreed by the ruling classes of the elected and the elect (the wealthy) that no one who is worthy shall drive any vehicle not powered by the electricity stored in a rechargeable battery that feeds an electric motor.

Thus the relatively small and manageable demand for rare technology metals has exploded into an intense drive to expand the production of these materials. This has driven a focused increase not only in exploration, but more importantly in the researching and developing of new technologies for extracting, refining, and fabricating end-user forms of the rare technology metals. Commercially, so far, there has been little success in developing new extraction and processing technologies. And, ominously, exploration has discovered few “new” discoveries of high enough grade and accessibility to be nominated as “deposits” to be developed into economical mines.

The policymakers, nonetheless, continue to ignore their own failings in understanding the economics of natural resource production and the self-defeating hypocrisy of the anti-mining lobby.

The academic and bureaucratic observers of the economy who advise the policymakers are not at all experts in those things in which they have no hands-on experience.




Investment Ideas as Uranium Rises, Deficits Loom & Countries Seek to Reduce Reliance on Russian Supply

The uranium spot price continues to trend higher leading investors to take a second look at the uranium ETFs and miners. Today we give a brief uranium market update and discuss some of the investment options to gain exposure to uranium.

Uranium spot price 10 year chart – Currently at US$51.00 (as of April 19, 2023)

Source: Trading Economics

Uranium market update

The uranium price has risen to a monthly high of US$51.00 per pound (“lbs”) in April after starting the year below US$49.00/lbs.

The reason for the rise is stated as “…..supply risks mounted and investors continued to assess demand projections worldwide“. One of the supply risks relates to major nuclear energy producers (US, France, Japan, UK, and Canada) who have agreed to form an alliance to leverage resources and jointly reduce reliance on Russian producers from the global uranium and nuclear market.

On April 17, 2023, the U.S Government Department of Energy issued a statement saying:

Statement on Civil Nuclear Fuel Cooperation Between the United States, Canada, France, Japan, and the United Kingdom……In the June 2022 Group of Seven Leaders’ Communique, our Leaders made clear our collective intent to reduce reliance on civil nuclear and related goods from Russia, including working to assist countries seeking to diversify their nuclear fuel supply chains. To this end, the United States, Canada, France, Japan, and the United Kingdom have identified potential areas of collaboration on nuclear fuels to support the stable supply of fuels for the operating reactor fleets of today, enable the development and deployment of fuels for the advanced reactors of tomorrow, and achieve reduced dependence on Russian supply chains…….Collaborating on strategic opportunities in uranium extraction, conversion, enrichment, and fabrication supports our collective climate, energy security, and economic resilience objectives. This multilateral cooperation would enable us to strengthen our domestic sectors and establish a level playing field to compete more effectively against predatory suppliers.

As reported by Trading Economics:

The move is expected to add pressure to the capacity of Western uranium enrichers and converters as Russian enrichers supplied nearly 40% of the global market until the country invaded Ukraine. At the same time, Finland and Japan both announced the restart of key power plants, further adding to demand estimates for nuclear fuel. On the supply side, the world’s top producer Kazatomprom stated its output is set to fall this year due to continued delays of key materials.

All of this bodes well for non-Russian sources of uranium and potentially the uranium price if uranium supply deficits emerge.

This month also saw the end of Germany generating power from nuclear energy as it closed the last three operating reactors as part of a long-planned transition toward renewable energy. However, this should have minimal impact on the uranium price as, according to the World Nuclear Association, Germany required less than 1% of the overall world’s demand in 2022, and uranium demand is expected to increase with projections that power from nuclear generation will more than double from 2022 to 2050.

Investment options to gain exposure to uranium

Investors can consider investing in physical uranium, uranium producers, and/or junior exploration and development companies. Most of this investing can be done directly or via ETFs.

Uranium ETFs

The following ETFs can be considered:

All four of the above ETFs have merit depending on where an investor wants to focus. The advantage of an ETF is broad market exposure. Just be sure to monitor exposure to Russian or Kazakhstan stocks and mines that could potentially be negatively impacted by the move to wean off the Russian uranium supply. For example, the URA ETF has 7% exposure to Kazakhstan companies and 0% to Russia, so should be minimally impacted on the negative side.

Uranium stocks

The global leading uranium stock is Cameco Corp. (TSX: CCO | NYSE: CCJ). It is the world’s largest publicly traded uranium company, based in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.

Other top-tier uranium companies include BHP Group (ASX: BHP | NYSE: BHP), NexGen Energy Ltd. (TSX: NXE | ASX: NXG | NYSE: NXE), Uranium Energy Corp. (NYSE American: UEC), Energy Fuels Inc. (NYSE American: UUUU | TSX: EFR), and Ur-Energy Inc. (NYSE American: URG | TSX: URE).

Uranium junior miners include project generator F3 Uranium Corp. (TSXV: FUU | OTCQB: FUUFF), Western Uranium & Vanadium Corp. (CSE: WUC | OTCQX: WSTRF), and Appia Rare Earths & Uranium Corp. (CSE: API | OTCQX: APAAF).

For great coverage of the uranium sector, investors can visit InvestorIntel.com’s “Energy, Oil & Gas + Uranium” page.

Closing remarks

The recent move, led by the USA and backed by Canada, France, Japan, and the United Kingdom, is a significant move to diversify away from Russian-controlled uranium supply and nuclear-related goods. Only time will tell how successful it will be and it may also depend on the outcome of the war in Ukraine.

The West continues to ramp up moves to create new supply chains both in critical materials and now also in uranium. This can only be a plus for the uranium companies from the Western world and allied countries. Stay tuned.




Unpacking OPEC’s Latest Oil Production Cut: Is China Pulling the Strings?

In a surprise move, OPEC+ decided on the weekend to cut its oil output by around 1.16 million barrels per day. On the surface, this seems like a very bullish move for oil prices, and indeed it was as WTI spiked from just over US$75/bbl to just over US$80/bbl on the news. But is this cut as bullish as it appears? On the surface, I would argue that “no, it isn’t”, as a lot of the cuts primarily involved realigning the quotas with the recent actual production. And it is only 8 members of OPEC+ that are making production ‘cuts’. Nevertheless, I think the impact on oil prices could become like the forecast for interest rates – higher for longer, in light of what some of these actions signal to the global political structure.

China’s recent diplomacy

Without trying to become too much of a conspiracy theorist, let’s look at the timeline of recent events. In late March, China’s President Xi Jinping traveled to Moscow to visit President Vladimir Putin. The “good friends” announced they had agreed to cooperate on a range of economic and business areas, but what stands out most to me was the comment on increasing the use of “local” currency. China has been pushing for the internationalization of its currency for years now (to usurp the US Dollar) and during this visit, Russia agreed to support using the Chinese yuan in transactions between itself and its partners in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. And who’s buying most of Russia’s oil these days, which also accounts for the largest component of Russian GDP? According to Bloomberg News, it is China.

Next, we see the announcement that China has brokered a peace deal between long-time rivals Saudi Arabia and Iran. Obviously, it would have been almost impossible for the United States to pull this deal off given its current relationship (or lack thereof) with Iran, but it came as a surprise to many that China was successful in seemingly a short period of time. Where am I going with this? Arguably the only true cut in OPEC oil production in this latest round is going to come from the 0.5 million barrels per day that the Saudis volunteered.

Inflation, interest rates, and the banking crisis

Who stands to see the most pain from tightening the oil supply, which in turn leads to higher oil prices? Mostly, the developed Western nations who are already fighting with inflation and trying to combat that issue with higher interest rates which seem to be pushing a lot of the G7 countries towards a recession. The U.S. is front and center in this battle and has called the OPEC+ production cuts “inadvisable”.

If you really want to go down the rabbit hole with me on this, I’ll pose one more tidbit before I swing back to less nefarious reasons to be bullish oil. There’s one more case to be made for China trying to control the global puppet strings to disrupt the West and its beloved Democracy. As the financial crisis was percolating and Credit Suisse was getting caught up in the panic (although arguably CS was a sinking ship for a long time and this was simply the straw that broke the camel’s back), its largest investor, the Saudi National Bank, said it could not provide the Swiss bank with any further financial assistance. Coincidence? Perhaps, but part of me thinks China is playing a long game here and is selectively calling in favors that cause the most disruption to the West and its hallmark institutions like the banking system.

Oil production cuts or production reality

Whether one believes there is more to the latest OPEC cuts than simply price management or not, there is certainly reason to pay attention to what is happening globally to oil supply and where that might lead. The reality is, as the world spurns fossil fuels and champions renewable energy, it should come as no surprise that OPEC crude oil production has lagged output targets for quite some time because of dwindling capacity, underinvestment, and Western sanctions to certain OPEC+ members.

And this isn’t just true for OPEC, but virtually all crude oil production globally has not seen the investment required to grow production. On top of that, not only are we not at peak oil demand but we might not even be close yet as growing nations like China and developing nations like India see oil consumption that is growing at a faster rate than renewable energy is reducing overall demand. In fact, OPEC is projecting year-on-year growth of 2.3 million barrels-per-day (“bpd”) in 2023 to over 103 million bpd by Q4/2023.

Source: OPEC Monthly Oil Market Report March 2023

Final thoughts

I’ll be the first to admit, that I may be reading far too much into what I think is Chinese hegemony. That’s fine, but don’t lose sight of what’s really happening to macro oil supply and demand. Demand continues to creep higher and I wouldn’t be surprised to see OPEC reversing its latest cuts before the end of 2023 or possibly even earlier if the U.S. doesn’t slip into a recession. It’s a delicate balancing act between higher prices that kill demand and prices that drop too low and spark demand. The pendulum often swings too far when it comes to the price of oil, but ultimately if there isn’t enough capital being deployed to keep production in line then prices can start moving very quickly.




Ur-Energy’s John Cash on rising interest in NA sourced uranium

In this InvestorIntel interview, Tracy Weslosky interviews Ur-Energy Inc.‘s (NYSE American: URG | TSX: URE) CEO, Chairman, and President John Cash about the current uranium market. Speaking about the geopolitical risks in the uranium market, John explains why North American sources are being prioritized.

With Russia and Kazakhstan being the biggest uranium suppliers, John talks about the vulnerability of the US uranium supply chain. He goes on to provide an update on the recently passed legislation on the US Uranium Reserve and the US government’s increasing support for nuclear energy. Speaking on the uranium supply and demand gap, John explains how Ur-Energy is well positioned to quickly ramp up uranium production.

To access the full InvestorIntel interview, click here

Don’t miss other InvestorIntel interviews. Subscribe to the InvestorIntel YouTube channel by clicking here.

About Ur-Energy Inc.

Ur-Energy is a uranium mining company operating the Lost Creek in-situ recovery uranium facility in south-central Wyoming. We have produced, packaged, and shipped approximately 2.6 million pounds U3Ofrom Lost Creek since the commencement of operations. Ur-Energy has all major permits and authorizations to begin construction at Shirley Basin, the Company’s second in situ recovery uranium facility in Wyoming and is in the process of obtaining remaining amendments to Lost Creek authorizations for expansion of Lost Creek. Ur‑Energy is engaged in uranium recovery and processing activities, including the acquisition, exploration, development, and operation of uranium mineral properties in the United States. The primary trading market for Ur‑Energy’s common shares is on the NYSE American under the symbol “URG.” Ur‑Energy’s common shares also trade on the Toronto Stock Exchange under the symbol “URE.” Ur-Energy’s corporate office is in Littleton, Colorado and its registered office is in Ottawa, Ontario.

To know more about Ur-Energy Inc., click here

Disclaimer: Ur-Energy Inc. is an advertorial member of InvestorIntel Corp.

This interview, which was produced by InvestorIntel Corp., (IIC), does not contain, nor does it purport to contain, a summary of all the material information concerning the “Company” being interviewed. IIC offers no representations or warranties that any of the information contained in this interview is accurate or complete.

This presentation may contain “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of applicable Canadian securities legislation. Forward-looking statements are based on the opinions and assumptions of the management of the Company as of the date made. They are inherently susceptible to uncertainty and other factors that could cause actual events/results to differ materially from these forward-looking statements. Additional risks and uncertainties, including those that the Company does not know about now or that it currently deems immaterial, may also adversely affect the Company’s business or any investment therein.

Any projections given are principally intended for use as objectives and are not intended, and should not be taken, as assurances that the projected results will be obtained by the Company. The assumptions used may not prove to be accurate and a potential decline in the Company’s financial condition or results of operations may negatively impact the value of its securities. Prospective investors are urged to review the Company’s profile on Sedar.com and to carry out independent investigations in order to determine their interest in investing in the Company.

If you have any questions surrounding the content of this interview, please contact us at +1 416 792 8228 and/or email us direct at [email protected].




InvestorIntel Week-in-Review for the Week of September 12-20, 2022

Week-in-Review for the week of September 12-19, 2022 —InvestorIntel Corp. would like to welcome new production managers to our team, Samantha and Riley Klatt, effective today. Also, if you haven’t signed up for an InvestorTalk.com with Pat Ryan Ucore Rare Metals Inc. (TSXV: UCU | OTCQX: UURAF) for Wednesday, September 21st from 9:00-9:20 AM EST – click here. On Thursday, September 22nd we have Robert Vallis from Signature Resources Ltd. (TSXV: SGU | OTCQB: SGGTF | FSE: 3S3). To register for this, click here.

Speaking of registration, get ready for the Critical Minerals Summit on Wednesday, November 9th and if your not already a member of the Critical Minerals Institute, click here to find out more! PS 21 days to a new InvestorIntel website….

The Top 10 Trending Columns on InvestorIntel.com for the last 30-days include:

  1. To M&A or not M&A – that is the question
  2. Neo Performance and Hastings – Will Wonders Never Cease?
  3. Is Putin’s war in Ukraine destroying Russia’s economic future?
  4. Are we slaves to Russian uranium processing?
  5. American Rare Earths triples the Halleck Creek exploration target in Wyoming
  6. Florida’s Ron DeSantis declares war on ESG
  7. Mining our way to the Green Revolution
  8. Maritz Smith of Alphamin Resources talks about its updated tin resource at its Mpama North Mine
  9. The Critical Minerals Institute to host the Critical Minerals Summit 2022 – “Delivering A Mission Critical Supply Chain” Event in Toronto, Canada
  10. John Cash of Ur-Energy talks about renewed support for uranium producers and nuclear energy

InvestorIntel Interviews to WATCH:

InvestorIntel Columns to REVIEW:

ii8 System News Releases for the Week in Review for September 12-19, 2022:




Is Putin’s war in Ukraine destroying Russia’s economic future?

Whether you call it a special military operation, a preemptive strike, an armed incursion or an outright war, the impact of Putin’s actions in Ukraine are likely to have long-term, far reaching impacts on economies around the world, but none more so than that of Ukraine and Russia. I personally believe that Mr. Putin may have underestimated the fierce determination of the Ukrainian people and their military, as well as, the resolve of the majority of the Western world to send a message that what he has done is unacceptable. Looking beyond the short term ramifications of various sanctions and export bans (which we’ll briefly discuss later), the long term impact of his actions could result in a sizeable hole that could take years, if the country can ever dig itself out of.

The primary focus for my thesis today is the importance, if not complete reliance of the Russian economy on fossil fuels. According to this BBC article, oil and gas provided 39% of the Russian federal budget revenue and made up 60% of Russian exports in 2019. This Reuters article suggests that by 2020 oil & gas accounted for over 23% of Russian GDP. It also states that overseas trade made up 46% of Russia’s GDP according to the World Bank. Oil and gas provided more than half its exports, with metals accounting for 11%, chemicals about 8% and food products 7%. Despite Russia being one of the largest global suppliers of wheat, fertilizer and a few other commodities, it’s oil and gas that grease the economic wheels and ultimately finance Mr. Putin’s war machine. Yet it seems Mr. Putin is willing to sacrifice his golden goose in pursuit of something that I’m not sure anyone in the world fully understands.

What do I mean by this? The theory is twofold. For starters, between Western sanctions being imposed on Russian energy and the denied but obvious “weaponization” of natural gas, Europe is rapidly advancing its move to alternative energy sources and ultimately renewable energy. Thus if/when this all settles down and things head back to pre-war type of activity, Russia’s fossil fuels could be worth a lot less due to a combination of demand destruction and more reliable suppliers. In particular, only 13% of the world’s natural gas is moved by tankers and the rest by pipelines. Russia has spent a lot of time and money developing the infrastructure to deliver gas to Europe that can’t readily be replaced to deliver comparable volumes to China, India or whoever is willing to do business with them. And without a lot of foreign investment and LNG expertise, it could be difficult for Russia to access global natural gas markets anywhere.

Following on from the European move away from fossil fuels to renewable energy (of note, I’m talking years not months). As global demand for fossil fuels begins to roll over, I’m pretty sure Middle East oil producers will be the last ones standing and Russia will still “lose” both market share and netback pricing. If Russia is relying on China to buy all their commodities they are likely in for a rude awakening because China tends to look out for #1 and is more than happy to put the screws to anyone who is in a weak bargaining position. My understanding is that today both China and India are already paying significant discounts to WTI or Brent prices for Russian crude, a lot more than the typical quality discount (similar to the heavy oil differential we see for a lot of Canadian crude). That will likely only get more punitive if the world moves to an oil supply surplus and customers have more choice over what regime they are willing to support.

As for what’s going on today, we see things like export bans impacting car and airplane parts. Russian car production, which accounts for over 600,000 Russian workers, is down over 90% in the last 6 months. It has led to Russia easing safety measures to allow cars be built and sold without airbags and anti-lock brakes amongst other measures. Russia’s commercial aircraft fleet is comprised of around 55%-60% of foreign built aircraft (primarily Boeing and Airbus) which are no longer providing parts or maintenance services meaning at some point there will probably be a dramatic drop in air travel capacity. This could have a significant impact on the economy given that over 50% of Russian GDP comes from the service industry which includes hotel and catering services, as well as culture and entertainment. Tough to see the service sector picking up the slack if people find it harder and harder to get from point A to point B.

Looking even further ahead into the future, sanctions and a lack of foreign investment today are likely to make things a lot harder for Russia to be able to develop its own renewable energy industry, albeit they do have most of the raw materials. This puts the country and the economy further in the hole as it relies on the rest of the world for technologies and investment to “catch up”, assuming renewable technologies achieve their goal of not just being better for the environment, but a far more economic source of energy.

I don’t have a crystal ball and I have no idea how this whole situation plays out. However, I find it hard to imagine a scenario where in 5 years from now Russia’s economy is in better shape than it was prior to February 24. And the Russian people have one person to “thank” for that.




Are we slaves to Russian uranium processing?

I think that investors in an economy to be based on decarbonized energy sources have very limited choices. The best man-made addition to nature’s hydroelectric and geothermal processes is nuclear. Quite a few who were skeptical are now seeing how to keep the lights on without burning fossil fuels by using the heat generated by controlled nuclear fission of uranium-235.

Japan has pulled back from its Fukushima tsunami-caused national shut down of its extensive civilian nuclear power fleet of reactors, and ordered the restart of its nuclear electric industry, France, the most nuclearized electricity generating nation in the world, has ordered 14 new reactors. Germany has postponed its shutdown of its nuclear-electric capacity, and the USA, with the world’s largest fleet of civilian power reactors (96 operational), has licensed the test construction of small “modular” reactors (SMRs), which could built quickly and cost far less than the large scale reactors currently in use.

So, what’s the problem? We’ve seen the light and are going to continue to use and even expand the use of carbon-free uranium fueled nuclear electric generators, right?

The problems are two-fold. First, the largest users of nuclear electric generation – the USA, China, and France – do not have, and cannot have, enough domestically mined uranium production in their respective countries to supply even a small fraction of their needs. Second, 60% (!) of the capability and capacity to enrich natural uranium into reactor fuel (zirconium coated pellets of enriched uranium 235) is located in Russia and China, with most of that today (nearly 50% of the world’s total capacity) being in Russia.

The United States has one operational plant that can produce less than a third of its annual domestic needs, and that plant is managed by its UK-Netherlands-Germany owners. China’s China Nuclear Corporation is, of course, working to double its capacity to meet the needs of China’s rapidly growing civilian nuclear reactor fleet, so that by 2030 China plans to have nearly one-third of global capacity, which when combined with Russia’s capacity that year will give the two of them fully two-thirds of 2030’s global capacity to enrich uranium for civilian power reactors.

The USA has no plans to develop or find sufficient enrichment capacity to become domestically self-sufficient by 2030 or any other future date.

And, to compound the problem, the USA today produces just a few percent of its mined uranium demand!

The world’s largest fleet of civilian nuclear power reactors is totally dependent on the kindness of strangers for its continued operation and survival. The USA gets 20% of our national needs for fuel for (nuclear) electricity generation from malevolent dictatorships (Russia, China) and the rest from an energy-starved world that is becoming less interested in saving the world from climate change daily. Neither is likely to have America’s domestic needs at the top of their lists.

As for the mined uranium, Kazakhstan, Canada, and Australia are the world’s principal sources.

It is urgent that the USA mine, refine, and enrich all of the uranium it can from domestic sources as soon as possible.

A prominent American-based uranium miner/refiner told me last week in regard to the above, “Once the US government dropped uranium as a national priority as it once was, things went to hell in a hand basket. Give me $5 billion and 10 years and this can change.”

Perhaps that sum can be obtained from the US Defense Departments’ programs to teach social justice issues like proper pronoun usage to our soldiers, sailors, and airmen.