Ann: HCO TO ACQUIRE HIGH GRADE KAYELEKERA URANIUM PROJECT, page-66

Ok so first off everyone should do their own research in energy, since I'm no expert, just a mug punter.

Basically imo to be a U bull requires three ingredients:

1. You need to believe the 'Warmists' will win the debate and that the world moves to zero emissions energy because they think if we don't we're screwed. This does NOT mean you need to be a warmist, just that you think they will win the debate. I happen to NOT be a warmist but believe that its inevitable that the warmist belief will win out...it already is. This why I'm big into EV battery resource companies. PS: While I'm not a warmist, I do believe in climate change, just don't believe human intervention will fix it (I would prefer spending money on mitigation of the effects rather than spending money on zero emissions bc imo its a waste of money as I believe wont fix it).

2. You need to believe that nuclear is required to meet the zero emissions target, ie that existing technologies will not be sufficient to do so. Solar, wind and hydro imo are not sufficient, not by a long shot (unless significant tech improvements). Hydrogen is too early stage but may have significant impact in future. I'm not even going to consider the hypocritical argument by greenies that uranium is dirty while solar is clean...complete BS.

3. You need to believe that the level of uranium that will be required on an annual basis is higher than the annual potential production of uranium from feasible mines (and stockpiles such as decommissioned warheads) at the current uranium price, and since a uranium bull should be expecting a much higher U price, the same belief at a higher uranium price. IMO the current U price is nowhere near high enough, thats why Cameco has reduced or stopped production at mines and is instead buying it at spot and delivering into contracts...its cheaper than producing it! There are a heckuva lot of factors that go into this though...the nuke reactors in development or planned versus those being shutdown for example. Seems clear to me though this is very much skewed in favour of those in development or planned.

I happen to satisfy all three of the above criteria. Now there are a lot of sub factors, for example many remote areas cannot be services by solar or wind power etc, but there are now small modular nuclear reactors that can do this. Another example is that many reactors in development or planned, take a LONG time to develop, maybe tech will progress to make these redundant. Another factor (in favour) is that many of the resources around, particularly north America, might e very high grade, but their lead time to actually getting developed is many many years...one for example is at least 7 years.

There is also a very important 4th potential consideration for some people, ie that another significant nuclear 'disaster' such as Fukishima or Chernobyl wont happen. For me personally thats more of an 'acceptable' risk rather than something that I can completely rule out...because I believe it wont happen, but even in the terrible event that it did, it could well be a long time away - 25 years between Chernobyl and Fukushima. And safety has come a long way since both.