Dev Randhawa on the uranium market, and Fission 3.0 staking two new properties in the Athabasca Basin

In a recent InvestorIntel interview, Tracy Weslosky spoke with Dev Randhawa, Chairman and CEO of Fission 3.0 Corp. (TSXV: FUU | OTCQB: FISOF) about staking two new properties in the Athabasca Basin, which have the potential for near-surface high-grade uranium deposits

In this InvestorIntel interview, which may also be viewed on YouTube (click here to subscribe to the InvestorIntel Channel), Dev discusses Fission 3.0’s recent raises and how these funds will be directed. Tracy inquires about a wide range of increasing interest in uranium from a wide spectrum of investors that range from ESG funds to millennials in uranium and Dev provides compelling reasons why this interest will not only continue but grow. They discuss the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust, which invests and holds substantially all of its assets in uranium in the form of U3O8, and the impact on the uranium spot price.

To watch the full interview, click here.

About Fission 3.0 Corp.

Fission 3.0 Corp. is a uranium project generator and exploration company, focusing on projects in the Athabasca Basin, home to some of the world’s largest high-grade uranium discoveries. Fission 3.0 currently has 16 projects in the Athabasca Basin region. Several of Fission 3.0’s projects are near large uranium discoveries, including Arrow, Triple R and Hurricane deposits. Fission 3.0 has recently completed an $8 million funding with Red Cloud Securities and is currently planning a winter exploration/drill program on its PLN project. It is also entertaining JV partners with some of its other projects.

To learn more about Fission 3.0 Corp., click here

Disclaimer: Fission 3.0 Corp. 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 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 email info@investorintel.com.




Critical Commodities with Jack Lifton: A Uranium Boom?

We’re inaugurating a new feature this week. Every Monday morning InvestorIntel will bring you a brief commentary on what news’ events drove critical commodity prices during the preceding week. Keep in mind that “news” in the mainstream media is not proof either of new resource discovery or of market demand. It does, however, often drive demand for shares in related mining ventures and in commodity metal exchange prices for the “metals of the week.”

Uranium is the winner of the commodity news cycle for last week not because of any new discoveries or unusual rise in end-user demand, but because a credible, well-financed Canadian fund manager, Sprott, announced that it had raised more than a billion dollars for the purpose of acquiring physical uranium on the spot market. By mid-week, Sprott’s Physical Uranium Trust, an ETF, (TSX: U.UN), reported that it held 27,000,000 lbs of uranium (in the form of “yellowcake,” the oxide form of uranium produced by miners and traded in the markets). Many articles noted that the annual U.S. demand for uranium for its 100+ civilian power reactors is 43,000,000 lbs., and that essentially 100% of this is imported from just three countries, Canada, Kazakhstan, and Australia.

The quoted (reported) spot prices of uranium rapidly rose as the chart below shows:

As these events, the rise in the price of uranium and a sharp increase and decrease in the share price of uranium producers/processors, such as Energy Fuels Inc. (NYSE American: UUUU | TSX: EFR) unfolded. I reached out to InvestorIntel uranium expert and frequent contributor, Dean Bristow, with a question, “Is Sprott trying to corner the physical uranium market?” [A market “corner” is an operation that attempts to control so much of a commodity that the operator controls the price.] Dean responded:

“…I don’t think Sprott is trying to corner the market so much as opportunistically force the market’s hand. The majority of uranium is contracted long-term and very little transacts in the spot market. Apparently, China has a lot of 10-year contracts rolling over so they will be back in the market but if Sprott can crank up the spot price with a relatively small amount of cash (realistically totally screwing with the price dynamic for an entire commodity for $2 billion is pretty inexpensive) then it should be good for all uranium producers across the board.

Not to say that Sprott is trying to be benevolent to the uranium industry. I’m sure their fund is making a pretty good return raising $1.3 billion in a span of 2 months. But the big picture is that if the long-term contractors have to pay up then it could become a new higher threshold for uranium prices. Advantage Cameco and Kazatomprom who are the lowest-cost producers.

However, I’m still on the fence as to how high uranium prices can go given I have to think at some price threshold Kazatomprom (the national uranium company of Kazakhstan, the world’s largest uranium producer), who pulled an OPEC move and shut-in 20% of its production, will start ramping things back up to protect market share. Likely just before the price reaches the point of others firing up their inactive mines. I’m not nearly as bullish as many of the talking heads on the financial networks but I wouldn’t rule out another leg up in uranium stocks before the bloom comes off just like it has for lumber, iron ore, copper, aluminum, etc….”

As far as the effect of Sprott’s operations on the share prices of uranium producers and juniors please look every day at Investorintels’s daily Uranium Investorchannel for that day’s closing prices and percentage valuation changes. I am singling out Sprott’s Physical Uranium Trust as the prime mover in the current uranium boom(let), because it is an excellent example of how one actor can influence the price of a scarce commodity. It is estimated that in 2020 just 124,000,000 pounds of uranium (in the form of  U3O8) was produced worldwide. By contrast, world coal production in 2019 was 17,000,000,000,000 pounds! Yes you read that correctly. Coal production was 10,000 times as large as uranium production. This should give you a feel for the relative energy content recoverable from uranium as compared to coal!

Note that share prices are influenced also by factors such as liquidity (How many shares are typically traded), short-term profit-taking, short selling, and on which exchange(s) the shares are listed. Uranium related shares yo-yo’ed last week mainly for these reasons not just because of the posted price for uranium.

By the way, world demand for uranium in 2020 was estimated at 181,000,000 pounds. Imagine what could happen to the price of uranium if environmentalists ever figure out how much carbon dioxide emissions could be reduced by substituting nuclear for coal as the heat source for the steam needed to turn turbines in electricity generation plants.