Uranium Investor Information Website: Click Here to Return to Main Page GoldSeek.com GoldReview.com MolySeek.com SilverSeek.com 
Advertise - Bookmark - Contact - - Update Page 
List Sign-Up
E-mail
Subscribe
Unsubscribe


 

$100+/Pound Uranium Needed to Satisfy Stealth Demand

By: The Energy Report and Matt Badiali



-- Posted Thursday, January 24 2013 | Digg This ArticleDigg It! |

Source: JT Long of The Energy Report  

 

What's the easiest way to track the ups and downs of energy markets? Watch what governments are doing rather than what they are saying, says S&A Resource Report Editor Matt Badiali. He has been watching behind-the-scenes nuclear energy importing in Germany and Japan and has concluded that the uranium market has hit bottom and is coming back up. In this Energy Report interview, he shares some words of wisdom on U.S. oil and gas bottlenecks.

 

The Energy Report: In a recent piece for the S&A Resource Report titled "Government Lies and an Emerging Resource Opportunity," you said that statements by German and Japanese officials that they plan to be nuclear free in the next two decades were a cover-up for what they're really doing, which is importing nuclear power from other countries and secretly developing uranium supplies in former Soviet countries. How long can they hide these energy sources?

 

Matt Badiali: It's not a case of hiding them. In both cases, the governments are playing politics. In Germany, the government was reacting to negative press and in Japan, which had just experienced a serious natural disaster. The Japanese government told people for decades that nothing of that sort could ever happen, that the nuclear reactors were completely impervious to natural disasters. That put them in a position where if they tried to make any improvements, they would lose face. They backed themselves into a corner and the only solution seemed to be to turn off the reactors. But the reality is that Japan needs nuclear energy. Without it, liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports have soared and the country doesn't have the infrastructure to move it around. The result was a horrendous summer of spiking electricity prices and rolling brownouts; it was bad news.

 

Germany used the Fukushima disaster and the negative sentiment that followed to push through a carbon-free agenda. What is really ironic is that Germany is not in a place that gets earthquakes or tsunamis. It is not at any risk for that. It also isn't a place where solar power works really well. Turning off the nuclear plants leaves the country without adequate energy generation infrastructure, so they increased imports of electricity from France. However, over 75% of France's electricity is generated by nuclear power plants. So really all they did was outsource their nuclear reactors. At the same time, they brought on an enormous amount of coal power, which is the single-worst contributor of carbon dioxide. It was politics at its finest.

 

TER: Is the German press not reporting on this? Are people not wondering where their energy is coming from?

 

MB: I don't read the German press, but what I do see is that the Germans are paying an enormous surcharge for a modest amount of carbon-free electricity. I don't know why there has not been a massive backlash in Germany. If I lived there, I would be furious about the costs. In France, it costs about 0.14 per kilowatt hour (KWh) of electricity. In Italy it costs about 0.20/KWh. In Germany it costs 0.25/KWh. That's an 85% increase in the cost of electricity. It's really amazing, and I haven't seen any pushback.

 

TER: Is the public as accepting of the higher prices and rolling brownouts in Japan?

 

MB: In Japan, we've seen a massive pushback. Shutting down nuclear reactors imposed an almost $56 billion ($56B) loss to the four major Japanese electric companies. That is not economically sustainable. You can't bankrupt your power companies. On the supply side, think about Tokyo: It is an electric-centric life. Rolling brownouts and soaring power prices had an enormous impact on individuals. They reacted by electing a pro-nuclear government.

 

Even before that, the state-owned Japan oil company was spending a significant amount of money exploring for uranium deposits in Uzbekistan. The government was saying one thing and doing another.

 

TER: After Shinzo Abe was elected prime minister at the end of December, the price of uranium bumped up. Was that just a coincidence? Is that a sustainable increase or just a temporary headline reaction?

 

MB: That was absolutely a market response to the idea that Japan is not shutting down nuclear reactors. It is also a reflection of the supply reality. Prices in the $40 per pound ($40/lb) range are significantly below production costs. That led to many big projects being shut down. A total of 65 million pounds (65 Mlb) has come off of the market or will be delayed because the companies can't justify the cost at these prices.

 

TER: How much of an impact could a loss of 65 Mlb in planned supply make on the price? Will we see $130/lb again?

 

MB: It's not just supply loss in reaction to a real or perceived decrease in demand in Germany and Japan. We also have increasing demand from Russia, which has 33 operating reactors and 10 more under construction. Globally, another 65 reactors are under construction and 167 are in planning. Unfortunately, companies can't just jump back in and turn on these new supplies of uranium.

 

The Olympic Dam expansion will take 35 years once the budget is approved. However, this is an 11-year, $2033B project that requires some confidence that the price of uranium will be enough to pay for the investment. There is a lot of wiggle room for price increases. In the big picture for nuclear reactors, the price of fuel is a very small part of the operating cost. You can double the price of uranium with very little impact on a nuclear power plant's bottom line.

 

TER: If uranium is ~$42/lb today, do you think it could be $84/lb in 2013?

 

MB: I have looked at the numbers for all the big public miners and the average cost to run the businesses is about $106/lb. So at $40/lb they are losing about $66 on every pound they sell. You can't make that up without the price going up. So, yes, I think we are going to see the price come up. I absolutely think that we've seen the bottom. I think $80/lb is not unreasonable and $100+/lb is more likely.

 

TER: How much would the price have to go up in order to turn on some of those projects that have been put on hold, like Olympic Dam?

 

MB: I think it's going to be more about sustainable prices. When you are spending billions of dollars, you really need to be making a good profit to pay those loans back. We have to see the prices go up and stay up and then three to five years later we could see production increase.

 

TER: Do you think there will be more M&A?

 

MB: I do because the companies see that we are coming off the bottom and in order to buy low, now is the time to do the acquisition.

 

TER: The other energy play you have written about is shale oil and how it could flood the market with cheap gas. You sold a number of your oil and gas positions over the summer. What is your oil and gas outlook for 2013?

 

MB: I'm staying out of North America; I really am. A number of problems are going on right now that make me bearish on these companies. There are so many bottlenecks involved in getting oil from the new shale plays to the refiners. You can't get your oil out of the Bakken. Producers are getting paid a discount to West Texas Intermediate (WTI), which sells at a discount to Brent. Companies are drilling lots of wells and producing lots of oil but they are getting beaten up on price. Meanwhile, companies are paying a lot of money to ship on railcars. It is twice as expensive to put a barrel of oil on a railcar as it is to put it in a pipeline. I'm keeping my eye on a few places. I like some of the emerging shale plays. I'm looking for small caps. But I haven't made any investments in oil and gas yet. I'm just playing the field right now. I want companies that are exploring outside of North America that are getting paid on Brent prices. It is just easier for companies in Australia, New Zealand and Africa to make a profit because they can charge $20/barrel higher than companies stuck in the Bakken.

 

TER: Streetwise President Karen Roche recently interviewed Porter Stansberry and he's pretty excited about the idea of American oil independence. Do you think that he's more upbeat than you are on oil in the U.S.?

 

MB: He's playing it a different way. Porter's investments are different than mine. I'm strictly a resource stock investor. I don't get into the infrastructure so much. Some of our other guys like Porter and Frank Curzio have both done very well. I am incredibly bullish on North American petroleum. I am a geologist; I have seen these oil kitchens first hand. The shales are where the oil resource formed before it migrated to the oil fields. Years ago, these were interesting but not really useful. You wanted to drill the sands that made up the oil fields. But now we can go back and actually drill the "kitchens," these giant shale deposits. It's an enormous, game changing thing.

 

Some of the largest shales in North America haven't been tapped yet. The Monterey shale in California is going to blow people away. The Mancos shale in western Colorado has huge potential. The Tuscaloosa shale stretches from Louisiana to Florida. There are more in Texas. The question is whether people will take the time to understand the techniques that the industry uses to crack the rocks and make it happen, or will the emotional reactions take over and the energy, jobs and investment potential be left in the ground?

 

TER: So you're bullish on the amount that's there but not on the price that companies are going to get pulling it out?

 

MB: Exactly. We need to get out of our own way and build the pipelines to move enormous volumes of oil out of the middle of the country.

 

TER: Are you a fan of investing in the infrastructure plays such as MLPs, pipeline companies and service companies?

 

MB: There are definitely opportunities there. I like some of the midstream companies, but they fall outside of my bailiwick. Gathering the gas is a pretty good place to be because they are getting paid for the quantity they move and aren't reliant on the price of the commodity itself.

 

TER: Any final advice for energy investors?

 

MB: I'm pretty excited about the developments that are going to happen, but you have to be careful.

 

TER: Thank you for your time.

 

MB: Thank you.

 

Matt Badiali is the editor of the S&A Resource Report, a monthly investment advisory that focuses on natural resources, including silver, uranium, copper, natural gas, oil, water and gold. He is a regular contributor to Growth Stock Wire, a free pre-market briefing on the day's most profitable trading opportunities. Badiali has experience as a hydrologist, geologist and consultant to the oil industry. He holds a master's degree in geology from Florida Atlantic University.

Streetwise The Energy Report is Copyright 2013 by Streetwise Reports LLC. All rights are reserved. Streetwise Reports LLC hereby grants an unrestricted license to use or disseminate this copyrighted material (i) only in whole (and always including this disclaimer), but (ii) never in part.

 

The Energy Report does not render general or specific investment advice and does not endorse or recommend the business, products, services or securities of any industry or company mentioned in this report.

 

From time to time, Streetwise Reports LLC and its  directors, officers, employees or members of their families, as well as persons interviewed for articles on the site, may have a long or short position in securities mentioned and may make purchases and/or sales of those securities in the open market or otherwise.

 

Streetwise Reports LLC does not guarantee the accuracy or thoroughness of the information reported.

 

Streetwise Reports LLC receives a fee from companies that are listed on the home page in the In This Issue section. Their sponsor pages may be considered advertising for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1734.

 

Participating companies provide the logos used in The Energy Report. These logos are trademarks and are the property of the individual companies.

 


-- Posted Thursday, January 24 2013 | Digg This ArticleDigg It! |



© UraniumSeek.com, Gold Seek LLC
The content on this site is protected by U.S. and international copyright laws and is the property of UraniumSeek.com and/or the providers of the content under license. By "content" we mean any information, mode of expression, or other materials and services found on UraniumSeek.com. This includes editorials, news, our writings, graphics, and any and all other features found on the site. Please contact us for any further information.


Disclaimer
The views contained here may not represent the views of UraniumSeek.com, its affiliates or advertisers. UraniumSeek.com makes no representation, warranty or guarantee as to the accuracy or completeness of the information (including news, editorials, prices, statistics, analyses and the like) provided through its service. Any copying, reproduction and/or redistribution of any of the documents, data, content or materials contained on or within this website, without the express written consent of UraniumSeek.com, is strictly prohibited. In no event shall UraniumSeek.com or its affiliates be liable to any person for any decision made or action taken in reliance upon the information provided herein.