U308 - Yellow Cake
Hopefully, this falling knife doesn’t have much further to fall.
Add us as a preferred Google source
For some time now, it has felt almost impossible to discuss any major investment theme without eventually linking it back to AI. Thankfully, the structural uranium thesis doesn’t need AI to work. If anything, AI is likely to exacerbate the investment case over time.
Utilities have spent years contracting less uranium than they consume. Now geopolitics, enrichment constraints and depleted inventories could force them back into the market.
The existing nuclear fleet is enough to justify the move. Thankfully, you don't need to assume a spectacular rollout of small modular reactors, huge Western nuclear construction programs or a massive AI driven power boom to make the uranium numbers interesting.
After more than a decade of utilities contracting below their annual reactor requirements, the nuclear industry is approaching a point where inventories, legacy contracts and secondary supplies can no longer do all the heavy lifting.
Fourteen years is a long time to contract below reactor requirements, so why should year 15 suddenly be different? The honest answer is that I can't be certain it will be. What has changed, however, is the price signal. With both spot and term uranium prices pushing towards historic highs, there are signs that the underlying dynamic may finally be starting to turn. Just remember, in markets things tend to happen slowly until the happen all at once.
The nuclear fuel chain is complicated and slow
It is a sequence of specialised services with long lead times, limited capacity and regulatory dependencies. A utility must secure not only U₃O₈, but conversion, enrichment, fabrication and transport slots years before refueling.
Uranium ore must first be mined and milled into U₃O₈, or yellowcake. It is then converted into uranium hexafluoride, enriched to increase the concentration of uranium-235, and finally fabricated into fuel assemblies in a process that can easily take over 18 months.
This only matters because the fuel cycle cannot react quickly to shortages. Utilities procure years in advance and generally maintain substantial inventories. This creates an illusion of abundance right up until the point those buffers need to be replaced.
The issue isn't whether uranium exists somewhere in the world. The issue is whether enough uranium can be delivered, contracted and processed in the right jurisdiction, at the right time.
Geographical Mismatch
Nuclear fuel supply is a geographically inverted market when you consider source of supply vs consumption.
The nuclear fuel chain remains heavily exposed to Russia, particularly in enrichment. The US has moved to prohibit Russian uranium imports, subject to temporary waivers while alternative supplies are developed. Those waivers are scheduled to disappear in 2028.
Meanwhile, Western utilities need to secure alternative enrichment capacity and uranium supply several years ahead of actual reactor requirements.
Unfortunately, building more Western enrichment capacity ultimately doesn't solve the uranium problem. It just transfers the bottleneck further upstream until mine output responds.
You can build centrifuges, but you cannot manufacture a high-quality uranium deposit. Even when you eventually find one, permitting, financing, building and commissioning the mine can take anywhere from 10-15 years if you have luck on your side.
Could Kazakhstan just produce more?
Historically, the bearish response to higher uranium prices has been simple: Kazakhstan.
As the world's dominant uranium producer, Kazatomprom has long been viewed as the industry's low-cost swing producer. The assumption is that its in-situ recovery operations can simply increase production when higher prices provide the incentive. The reality is proving more complicated.
Recent supply concerns have included sulphuric acid availability, higher well-field development costs, construction delays and logistical issues. Industry research continues to identify constrained supply from Kazatomprom and Cameco as central to the uranium market imbalance.
This matters because it changes the marginal cost equation. Having a large uranium resource is not the same as having uranium production. So far, production numbers are actually declining rather than increasing from the 2 majors.
Utilities are relatively price insensitive
Uranium is unusual because only a relatively small proportion of volumes trade through the spot market. Most material is secured through long-term contracts, which makes term pricing particularly important when assessing the underlying market.
But there is another crucial difference. The cost of uranium represents only a relatively small component of the total cost of generating nuclear electricity. For an operator of a multi-billion-dollar reactor, paying substantially more for uranium is preferable to discovering it doesn't have enough fuel to operate and shuttering operations (which isn't an easy feat if you were wondering).
This makes utilities relatively insensitive to the uranium price when security of supply is threatened.
And right now, both markets are sending a message. Spot uranium is around US$91.85/lb and term uranium around US$98/lb. When both short and long-term prices are pressing towards historic levels, it is hard to ignore the signal.
Finding the right exposure
This is a challenging feat given the lackluster historical performance of uranium miners. This said, the assets I find most interesting have several characteristics:
- Existing production or a credible pathway to production before the early 2030s;
- Contracts that retain exposure to higher uranium prices.
- Manageable development capital and funding sources.
- Established infrastructure and realistic permitting timelines.
- Politically acceptable jurisdictions.
- Balance sheets capable of reaching production without destroying shareholder value through dilution and delays (I can think of a few ASX listed companies that have failed to do this).
You can play the uranium thematic through the established producers, such as Cameco, Kazatomprom and Paladin, which provide exposure to existing production, or move further down the curve into restart and development companies where the operational leverage can be much greater.
The trade-off is relatively straightforward. Established producers offer greater certainty of production and cash flow, but existing long-term contracts can mean realised uranium prices lag the prevailing spot and term markets by a large margin. Restart and development companies can offer significantly greater exposure to current uranium prices and a tightening contracting market, but that upside comes with materially higher financing, permitting, construction and execution risk.
Put simply, the majors generally offer greater certainty, while the developers offer greater leverage. In this case, I’ll let you pick your own poison.
The real uranium bull case doesn't need a nuclear renaissance
The world already has hundreds of operating reactors that need fuel. Utilities have spent years contracting below their requirements. Western governments are trying to unwind dependence on Russian nuclear fuel services. Enrichment constraints may increase natural uranium consumption. Secondary supplies are becoming less dependable, and meaningful new mine supply takes years to develop.
None of that requires a heroic nuclear growth assumption. The existing fuel cycle is the thesis.
New reactors, life extensions, restarts, SMRs and growing electricity demand are just potential upside.
If that thesis is right, the most valuable assets in the uranium market may not be the companies with the largest resources. Just those that can deliver real pounds, to real customers, when those customers finally need them.
Never miss an update
Enjoy this wire? Hit the ‘like’ button to let us know.
Stay up to date with my current content by
following me below and you’ll be notified every time I post a wire
I am fascinated by the world around me and obsessed with understanding how investment markets and complex systems interact. I do not adhere to any single investment philosophy, as my only goal is to make the right decision; and being dogmatic often inhibits this process. At the core of my approach is a simple belief: there is a big difference between a good idea and a good business, and it is the latter that ultimately rewards investors.
Never miss an update
Get the latest insights from me in your inbox when they’re published.
2 topics
4 stocks mentioned
I am fascinated by the world around me and obsessed with understanding how investment markets and complex systems interact. I do not adhere to any single investment philosophy, as my only goal is to make the right decision; and being dogmatic...
Expertise
I am fascinated by the world around me and obsessed with understanding how investment markets and complex systems interact. I do not adhere to any single investment philosophy, as my only goal is to make the right decision; and being dogmatic...
Expertise
Comments
Comments
Sign In or Join Free to comment
most popular
Equities
Question everything
Schroders
Buy Hold Sell
Buy Hold Sell: 5 ASX ‘stayers’ to go the distance
Livewire Markets