“The Secret Metal (Better than Gold) that Could Add a Zero to Your Net Worth”

Sniffing out the latest tease from The Crow's Nest

By Travis Johnson, Stock Gumshoe, December 12, 2013

Irregulars Quick Take Paid members get a quick summary of the stocks teased and our thoughts here. Join as a Stock Gumshoe Irregular today (already a member? Log in)

This latest pitch coming through from the Wealth Daily folks, for Jimmy Mengel’s The Crow’s Nest advisory, has caught the attention of plenty of Gumshoe readers — it starts with a long spiel about tapping into the “secret” holdings of billionaires by using a SEC disclosure rule that these rich folks are all fighting tooth and nail, but then settles in to tease us about a few specific investments that they think will boom (and that they found, presumably, in the pages of these SEC disclosures).

The SEC data they talk about in the ad, by the way, are the 13F filings — generally these are due 45 days after the quarter end from all institutional investors and fund managers, which is why we know quite a bit about the holdings of Warren Buffett or Carl Icahn and most of the other celebrity investors and hedge fund managers, similar to the quarterly disclosures by mutual fundsd. They don’t have to disclose positions that aren’t traded in the US, and they can occasionally get permission to keep one of their investments secret for a bit longer (as Buffett does from time to time when he’s in the midst of trying to build a large position at quarter-end and doesn’t want to boost the price up, I think he last did that when he was buying IBM shares for Berkshire but my memory might be faulty), but other than the fact that this data comes with a time lag that is quite substantial for some investors it is genuinely valuable information.

Of course, everyone who wants it can get it for free from the SEC’s Edgar database so it’s not that valuable. It’s definitely interesting to see the changes in portfolios as big investors shuffle their deck chairs and buy or sell, but the most prominent ones are also widely reported on CNBC and in the investing pundit universe in general and there are a large number of websites and newsletters that track 13F filings to try to turn up exciting info. Surprising new additions or sales of existing positions can certainly move stocks on the day that these 13F filings come out, but that’s definitely the exception (and, of course, the portfolio that’s being disclosed is about six weeks old when these are released — so they could be impacting stocks that the original superstar investor doesn’t even own any more).

And many of these folks have truly massive, diversified portfolios of dozens or hundreds of stocks under their management so there’s plenty of room for smaller stocks or smaller transactions or less-well-known investors to fly under the radar to some degree.

Which seems to be the point of this teaser pitch — though of course, it has to be a “secret” or it wouldn’t be any fun! Here’s a bit of the spiel just to give you a taste:

“Why America’s rich elite will do anything to keep this document out of your hands…

“The story behind this little-known document might make you angry, especially if you’re tired of Wall Street’s rigged game.

“The good news is this document could have a huge impact on your wealth this year.

“The government has been publishing it since 1975 at a non-descript Federal office located at 100 F Street in Washington, D.C., just three miles from the White House.

“Even though it has been publishing it for the past 38 years, 99% of Americans don’t know it exists. And it’s not hard to see why…

“America’s richest investors have done everything they can to keep it off-limits from regular folks like you and me.

“They won’t talk about it. They won’t even acknowledge it. Most of them won’t even tell their own family members this document exists.

“But even with all their attempts to keep this information underground, a small circle of ordinary investors like you and me has managed to access one of THE closest-held investing secrets in history — making their own fortunes in the process.”

And what’s up with the “secret metal” bit? Here’s how they put it in the ad:

“Elite Investor #1: “The Secret Metal that Could Add a Zero to Your Net Worth”

“As you know, from 2002 to 2011, gold went up 600%.

“If you missed that big bull market in gold, don’t worry…

“Now you have a second chance to catch a bull market in another metal. Only this bull market has the potential to be much bigger than the gold bull market.

“One of the wealthiest people in the financial world considers this to be one of the most incredible opportunities he has EVER seen.

“This super-investor turned some $15 million into roughly $460 million for his customers from 1998 to 2006. Now he’s massively investing in this metal.”

The Mighty, Mighty Thinkolator can tell you that this “super-investor” is Rick Rule, who used to run his own shop as a small investment banker and advisor in natural resources, with that incredible run into the mid-2000s, and merged his company with Sprott, the big Canadian asset manager, a few years ago.

And what’s that “secret metal” he’s apparently hot on now? Here’s a bit more:

“I’m not talking about gold, silver, platinum, or palladium; this is an opportunity I doubt anyone reading this has ever considered before.

“It’s completely separate from the U.S. economy, which means no matter what happens to America over the next few years, you could still make five times your money on this single investment.

“In the 1970s, when this metal entered a bull market, it went up tenfold.

“And that was not the only time this metal made a lot of people rich.

“There was another bull market more recently, from 2000 to 2007…

“in the last bull market, this same super-investor was heavily investing in the producers of this metal. He says a lot of people who followed him back them ‘added a zero to their net worth as a consequence of that market.'”

So what’s the deal? What’s the secret metal that Rick Rule made millions from in the last bull market, and that he’s hot on again now?

Uranium.

Well-timed, since our longtime reader Myron Martin shared a piece on uranium just a week or so ago — but you probably knew that already, and we’ve seen a consistently rising level of chatter about uranium from many of the newsletter pitchers and free pundits we follow. It’s a nice story because it has lots of global intrigue and also has a strong catalyst that’s likely to shake up the market in the coming year — so it’s a really hard market to figure out, and not just because it’s not really an “open” market like we have with most commodities (there are no uranium futures, you can’t take delivery and store it in your basement unless you want to create an army of radioactive zombies, etc.).

The “shake up” to the nuclear fuel market is the end of the Megatons to Megawatts program that had Russia dismantling their nuclear warheads and selling the fuel to the US to be reprocessed for our power plants — Putin declined to extend that program into next year, so there will be more Russian fuel on the open market but also more demand from US power plants that will likely mean we need more mined supply from somewhere. Folks are still expanding the use of nuclear power for electricity generation and building new reactors, it’s just that they’re not doing much of that here in the US or in Western Europe or Japan, they’re doing it in China and, to a lesser degree, India. And even without new reactors, existing reactors are being kept alive longer and longer and need refueling.

The uranium market is certainly not super-predictable — uranium prices fell in the late 2000s financial crisis along with everything else, partly because the US was selling down some of its stockpile, then there was a boomlet into 2011 that started to wither just before the Fukushima disaster in Japan and then collapsed following that disaster … and despite the fact that absolutely everyone in the uranium business has been pretty focused on the end of “megatons to megawatts” for several years now, the price of uranium on the spot market (which is a small piece of the market, but as close as we get to real prices) has been falling pretty consistently over the past year.

Here’s a little more from the ad:

“This super-investor believes the stage is set for the next bull market… and he thinks it will be as big as the last one. That’s why he’s investing heavily in companies that produce this metal.

“In short, he thinks these stocks will, on average, quintuple in price in the next two to three years.

“Soon this will become one of the biggest topics in the investment world, as more and more people start hearing about it. I wouldn’t be surprised to see this story on the front pages of every major financial newspaper before the end of the year.”

Do we get any more clues about specific stocks they’re suggesting? Well, beyond the fact that they hint about Rick Rule and presumably they like the uranium stocks that he likes, we do get this:

“In this report, I also reveal the name of that company that rallied almost 18,000% in the last bull market. I wouldn’t be surprised to see this stock returning ten times your money in the coming bull market!”

Well, I don’t know for sure which one that was that rallied 18,000% — the huge winner I see mentioned most often from that last uranium bull is Paladin Energy (PDN in Canada or Australia, PALAY on the pink sheets), which went from a penny to ten dollars (it’s now back to 45 cents), but that’s not quite 18,000 percent, and a great many uranium stocks had spectacular runs and equally spectacular collapses in the past 10-15 years.

And though I don’t know that we’re going to end up seeing all the holdings associated with Rick Rule in SEC filings, he is part of Sprott now and Sprott reports its US holdings on 13Fs like other asset managers.

A quick scan of the 13F pulls up a relatively small position in Cameco (CCJ), the first pure play “Major” in uranium that would come to anyone’s mind, a larger position in Denison Mines (DNN), and no other uranium stocks. But I’m not sure whether he might have other assets that aren’t reported through Sprott and if they’re not holding these stocks in the US, they don’t have to report anyway — so they could easily be holding bunches of little Canadian or Australian uranium miners and not be disclosing them.

If you’re interested in specific stocks in the uranium field, you’re probably going to continue to hear about lots of them this winter — which will mean that lots of little stocks with no real hope of becoming producers get promoted as the attention on uranium grows (assuming, of course, that there isn’t another meltdown or financial crisis first). I’ve heard Rick Rule speak positively about Fission Uranium (FCU in Canada, FCUUF on the pink sheets) and Denison Mines (DNN) in the recent past, and they’re both in the highly appealing Athabasca area where most of the highest-grade uranium deposits (like Cameco’s) have been found. He has also suggested Uranium Participation Corp, which is as close as you get to a direct play on uranium prices (more on that in a moment).

I’ve also seen the recent pitches from other folks at Angel Publishing that appear to me to be teasing the tiny upstart Azincourt Uranium (AAZ in Canada, AZURF on the pink sheets), which is also near Patterson Lake up in the Athabasca area. If you’re looking just at uranium itself, then the easiest exposure is Uranium Participation Corp (U in Canada, URPTF on the pink sheets), which is managed by Denison and acts kind of like an exchange traded fund for uranium — it simply holds a portfolio of physical uranium in storage to profit from a rise in the price. And you can check out Myron’s article from a week or two ago for more ideas in the teensy weensy junior part of the market (the part that spooks me).

Do I own any of ’em? No, and I don’t have to file 13Fs either … but I expect uranium will have a good ten years. Doesn’t mean it couldn’t fall in half again, particularly if there’s another crisis, but I think we need nuclear power (preferably from newer, cleaner, safer plants — let’s keep shutting down the old, leaky ones) and eventually someone’s going to have to be willing to pay more for it or we’re going to stop looking for and mining more deposits. I’d personally probably stick with Cameco, Denison, Uranium Participation or the other relatively big companies — mining uranium is a big deal and it’s expensive, current producers are much more appealing to me than explorers.

So what do you think? Moved to follow Rick Rule into uranium? He’s been saying it’s a long-term no-brainer all year, but is also careful to say that even “no brainers” can take a far longer time than you think to play out. Have a favorite pick in the sector? Let us know with a comment below.

P.S. Yes, there were two other ideas teased in this pitch, too — more on those shortly.

Related Gumshoe Articles

“Warren Buffett’s Secret Marijuana Stash” — what are the picks teased by Jimmy Mengel?

51 Comments Read More

Can “The Blue Chip Millionaires” turn every $10,000 into $1 million in just 36 months?

10 Comments Read More

Leave a Reply

84 Comments on "“The Secret Metal (Better than Gold) that Could Add a Zero to Your Net Worth”"

avatar

T.L.
Guest
0
T.L.
December 12, 2013 10:29 pm

with more countries building reactors there should be a increase in demand for uranium. But no one knows how much production will go up as a result. If too high that might flood the market.

Myron Martin
Author
197
December 13, 2013 5:46 pm

Flooding the market is highly unlikely, there are simply not enough domestic producers to take up the slack as the last Russian shipment is already in transit. Kazakhstan is also cutting back production, Cigar Lake is still not on-line ad infinitum.

Thomas Lepere
Guest
0
Thomas Lepere
December 14, 2013 6:59 pm
Myron, Uranium- based reactors and their proliferation is INSANE in view of their poor past SAFETY records at Fukushima, Japan; in Russia and at 3-mile island in Pennsylvania which all have definitely detracted from hazardous uranium usage. Safer now and being proliferated are MUCH more safer Thorium-based reactors! Hopefully, safer THORIUM-based reactors will quickly REPLACE obsolete URANIUM-based or fueled reactors and their hazardous waste materials over centuries of nuclear byproducts. Nuclear reactors that use uranium which proliferate toxic radioactive wastes as well long beneath mountains storage times of such hazardous waste in our world needs to go obsolete for the… Read more »
Myron Martin
Author
197
December 14, 2013 7:55 pm
Accidents unfortunately are a part of life, and human beings make mistakes. It was certainly a mistake building a nuclear plant at Fukushima from several aspects. Your reaction, though not unusual, ignores alternatives that are currently available and better safety records can be established even with current reactors. The point is that far more people are killed by car accidents and even plane crashes than nuclear accidents, which are fortunately quite rare, but we don’t ban planes or cars in spite of the carnage on the hwys. We NEED energy, and more of it all the time, so the nuclear… Read more »
flyinkel
Irregular
15
December 14, 2013 11:21 pm

Sounds like you have been drinking the coolaid Mr Martin. I would think since we still don’t know how to safely dispose of the spent nuclear fuel rods, we might want to find other energy sources that don’t make you glow when their disposal unfortunately leaks. Because over time, they always do, and we keep kicking this can down the road for future generations to figure out. The only thing that they are figuring out though is the very expensive costs of nuclear clean-up from both a $$$ and environmental perspective.

James B.
Guest
0
James B.
December 15, 2013 1:06 am

If you want to see what the future hold look at http://www.gen4energy.com/

Myron Martin
Author
197
December 16, 2013 9:31 am

Thanks James, any contribution of newer safer technology is certainly welcome, the point remains that there is no “quick fix” to replace existing forms of energy needed to keep the lights on, which unfortunately for many people includes nuclear. From an investment standpoint not all proposed solutions are currently investable. I respect the fact that people like “flyinkel” above may have ethical considerations that would keep them from investing in uranium, but that is no reason to “shoot the messenger” I just report on investment trends from a pragmatic perspective.

Joseph E Fasciani
Guest
0
December 16, 2013 8:43 pm

Hello, James B!
Yes, from what I read at the gen4 website, this approach can answer a LOT of presently unmet power requirements, and promises to do it in a cleaner, safer modality than earlier nuclear-powered electricity generation stations.
I admired their underground placement as well, which is at once both more safe and more secure than previous sites. I’d heard about this approach earlier, but this was the first time I’d seen diagrams representing how it would typically play out.

Thanks for the ‘heads up!’ on it,
Joseph E Fasciani
Victoria, BC

Myron Martin
Author
197
December 16, 2013 10:19 am
Doubt that it will “happen quickly” Thomas no matter how desirable from an environmental point of you. Don’t hold me responsible for something I have no control over, I am simply reporting the facts in respect to uranium as an investment and if you choose not too to do so, that is certainly your right and prerogative given your obviously strongly held feelings. Reality is that even though much safer reactor designs are in the works, and hopefully safer nuclear waste disposal, for the immediate future we are stuck with what we have and unless we are prepared to reduce… Read more »
Ponce
Guest
0
Ponce
December 19, 2013 8:40 pm
People dwell on 3 nuclear plant accidents. But there are hundreds of otherPlants operating safely around the world. The new plants are constructed much safer. The leak at 3 mile was due to the use of regular steel in the tubings. There are no problems like that in Japan as they use only stainless steel. The Russian accident should not happened. That antique design won’t be allowed to operate in USA. CHARGE THAT TO RUSSIAN CARELESSNESS. THE Fukushima is not an issue of bad technology but rather a bad location. Japan being Tsunami prone should not locate any plant beside… Read more »
Ponce
Guest
0
Ponce
December 19, 2013 8:54 pm

Right now the production is not enough to supply existing plants. So the reserve is being used up. In addition to Russia not extending the sale to USA uranium salvaged from nuclear arms, Russia will squeeze further the western countries by them buying Uranium One… a major uranium producer. That was my “Ace in the hole” but it got bought out.

Irving E. Brown
Guest
0
Irving E. Brown
December 12, 2013 10:34 pm

What about IAALF IBC ADVANCED ALLOYS CORP new beryllium (BE) clad fuel that they have tested and patent , some % more effective & cooler in operation ?

Paul
Guest
0
Paul
December 12, 2013 10:46 pm

One can only hope that someday the world will make the switch to Thorium powered reactors (Molten Salt Reactors)…now if anyone knows of a pure Thorium play – that might be interesting.

Wilson Turner
Guest
0
Wilson Turner
December 13, 2013 12:10 am

Thumbs-Up for Thorium! (that was a slogan we were spit-balling at work after one of us read about thorium reactors…) One of the problems with them being adopted, though, might be one of the “problems” with them never being developed the way they should have in the first place, which as I recall from the article was that the fissible material is very difficult to enrich to weapons-grade levels.

Myron Martin
Author
197
December 13, 2013 6:28 pm

If you wait for thorium reactors to become reality you will miss out on the next positive cycle in uranium. Made a lot of money in uranium from 05-07 and the cycle is due for a repeat.

thomas0840
Irregular
83
thomas0840
December 13, 2013 11:14 am

LTBR

Myron Martin
Author
197
December 13, 2013 6:09 pm

Monitoring the field and anything positive hits my radar, irregulars will be the first to know.
In any case, modern reactors being built to-day are much safer than the older reactors at Chernobyl, or even Fukishima, which was a poor choice to build a reactor in the first place.
Sometimes new technology has a learning curve before it is perfected. The world needs energy and nuclear when done properly can be as safe as any other technology and is cheaper and less polluting in total than coal, the old standby.

ventureshadow
Member
0
ventureshadow
December 12, 2013 11:03 pm

The last “megatons to megawatts” shipment was made to the USA from Russia. I read that this is supposed to last for a couple of years. So, maybe the uranium hype is starting rather early.

Myron Martin
Author
197
December 13, 2013 6:16 pm
Not so sure it is as much “early” as it is overdone. That was certainly the case with the Nick Hodge “tease” in Angel Publishing promo. Incidentally, I was not trying to be negative about AAZ (Azincourt Uranium) as much as I was pointing out the incongruity of Nick’s use of this speculative explorer stock as a supposed solution to a “lights out” scenario he was predicting with the demise of the Russian contract. There are however 3-4 U.S. producers that have existing contracts for several years out at prices up to 62% higher than current spot. Details in to-days… Read more »
Myron Martin
Author
197
December 12, 2013 11:54 pm

Better a few months early than a day late when a major event takes place.

Anonymole
Guest
0
Anonymole
December 12, 2013 11:58 pm

Adding zeros to my net worth? I add them every day: 0 + 0 = …

Wilson Turner
Guest
0
Wilson Turner
December 13, 2013 12:11 am

Well played…!

SAGE
Guest
0
SAGE
December 13, 2013 3:51 pm

Thanks for the smile…. 🙂

Myron Martin
Author
197
December 13, 2013 6:18 pm

Been there, done that, how about becoming an irregular and changing course?

ectopicbrain
Irregular
37
ectopicbrain
December 13, 2013 7:41 pm

Love it!

Alan Page
Guest
0
Alan Page
December 13, 2013 12:01 am

With the Fukushima mess and the Pacific being contaminated with nucleaur waiste -I’m not sure I agree that the uranium will go up -Unless there is newer and safer powerplants that won’t wreck the planet -soil – water -fish -birds – air -that I don’t know

John Harris
Guest
0
John Harris
December 13, 2013 11:47 am
Thorium reactors and Molten Salt reactors are both far safer ways to produce electricity. So safe, they literally can’t melt down. Molten salt used existing nuclear waste, and there is enough of that sloshing around in storage all over the world to provide almost unlimited fuel. And Thorium reactors, well use thorium, not uranium. So while demand for Uranium may go up for existing light water reactors that have inherent dangers of meltdown (must be constantly cooled) that is bound to eventually diminish as the world moves to safer reactors. I just wish the environmentalists would wake up to the… Read more »
Myron Martin
Author
197
December 13, 2013 6:23 pm

I understand your skepticism Alan, but in spite of the mess in Japan there are enough new reactors under construction that will be built to much higher safety standards than existing plants that will be kept on line because there is no “quick fix” solution to keeping the lights on otherwise. The world needs more energy and nuclear fits the bill for low cost electricity.

Alan Page
Guest
0
Alan Page
December 13, 2013 6:28 pm

I understand that -sometimes I wish the whole grid would jsut blow up!

Nic from Switzerland
Guest
0
Nic from Switzerland
December 13, 2013 4:34 am

This new way to safe nuclear energy is a real hope: http://www.transatomicpower.com

Myron Martin
Author
197
December 13, 2013 6:31 pm

Thanks for the post, unfortunately the website is not very specific about their technology. Maybe the website is still under construction.

tardis
Irregular
1
tardis
December 13, 2013 7:25 am

Uranium One Inc (TSX:UUU) was a profitable holding for us, in and out as markets moved. Now it has been taken private by JSC Atomredmetzoloto, Russian Company, more here http://www.armz.ru/eng/company/about/ This happened by design, more likely a company this large see’s the future of Uranium in a more positive light…

Myron Martin
Author
197
December 13, 2013 6:35 pm

I made good money with Uranium One from 05-07, but you are right, the Russians now that their agreement for supply has run out are intent on capturing a bigger percent of the world market, which in itself should send prices for uranium higher now that they have the potential to get better prices for what they can supply.

john hryma
Guest
0
December 13, 2013 10:31 am

There’s big rush in Northern Saskatchewan to find the next big Uranium discovery. Recently Alpha Minerals and Fission Energy made a big uranium discovery. Their shares appreciated after the find. Four mining Companies with big land holdings 246,643 Hectares have joined together to form Western Athabasca Syndicate. Combined they have 6 million in Cash to find the next big uranium discovery. These 4 companies have property very close to the Alpha Fission discovery. They are “Noka Resources, Lucky Strike Skyharbour and Athabaska Nuclear. Put these companies on your Watch List. GLTA.

Myron Martin
Author
197
December 13, 2013 6:39 pm

You must be an irregular, I profiled those in my last column with an update in to-days column on another attractive explorer in the Athabasca Basin. I own shares in all 4 for the record, but I think owning at least one would make sense for most investors as it exposes you to a discovery bump in all the players no matter whose property on which it is made.

sassykind
Member
27
sassykind
December 13, 2013 10:47 am
Hi Travis & all, Back about 22/11/13, somewhere in Wall Street Daily – Insider, came across company called Transatomic Power (not listed on S/Exc.) . Apparently it specialises in Molten Salt Reactors using Thorium and nuclear reactor waste products and is able to use spent fuel rods and produce electricity. I’m not telling this very well!!! Check them up… it’s really amazing what they can do. Also the MSRs have a major safety benefit…… are ..considered “walkaway” safe i.e. if MSR loses power, It’s designed to coast to a gradual stop after a few days – even if area is… Read more »
microbiobob
Irregular
4
December 13, 2013 1:23 pm

I missed this discussion that included IBC, my apologies. But, I believe that the beryllium and carbide clad fuel is probably a lot closer to reality than Travis thinks due to the work being done by multiple collaborators. That’s a guess, I know, because no timeline is available.

Myron Martin
Author
197
December 13, 2013 11:27 pm
Agree with you Robert, best to be positioned BEFORE the official announcement, you can miss out on major profits by being too sceptical. Once something is a “sure thing” most profits have already been made. The way to avoid unreasonable risk is not by staying away entirely, you just need to be conservative in your portfolio allocation to individual stocks and have a balanced portfolio spread over different sectors and size of companies. Every study I have seen confirms the statistics that smaller less known stocks return far bigger returns than supposedly Blue Chips that are deemed safe. Ask some… Read more »
denno
Member
24
denno
December 13, 2013 2:53 pm

Uranium is here to stay. You will not outlive uranium. So,invest well and make a lot of money.Reactors + uranium=money. Happy Holidays!

Joan in Houston
Guest
0
Joan in Houston
December 13, 2013 3:14 pm

I own some CCJ ((I love Canada)), which is depressed, and I intend to add to it just as soon as the shares begin to move upward more in value. It seems to me — I am NOT a CFA — that IF China wants to add to its power-generation capacity QUICKLY — they are going to need to turn to nuclear power, regardless of the misfortunes which sadly befell Japan.

Myron Martin
Author
197
December 13, 2013 11:30 pm

Yes indeed Dennis, hope lots of people do and there is lots of time before the end of the year for people to really study these stocks in detail and use stink bids to get the best possible prices on their choices to take advantage of market volatility.

SAGE
Guest
0
SAGE
December 13, 2013 4:08 pm

Yes every-time I read a Nick Hodge pitch it is always sprinkled with past picks of high performance like ” Alternative energy holdings” who were going to build the next generation clean Nuclear plant in Idaho I think… and it returned 400 plus % Well today it can be snapped up at the bargain price of 0.001 So…. if your going to buy on the hype you best not hold for long.

Ray
Guest
0
Ray
December 13, 2013 4:14 pm

Travis,

I believe a penny to $10 is 100,000% but who cares after you get that first 18,000%. A thousand dollars becomes a million dollars rather than a measly $180,000.

Ray

Slick Rick
Guest
0
Slick Rick
December 13, 2013 8:05 pm

With such an abundance of natural gas FCEL should do well in the coming year! Much better than risky nuclear energy for conversion into electric power. . .you can ask the Japanese about that!

Myron Martin
Author
197
December 15, 2013 2:29 pm
Fuel Cell Energy FCEL $1.78 may well be an up and coming technology to be considered. Like Ballard Power Systems BLD-V I had an early interest in however, the stock has been essentially flat for years, but this past week FCEL did bump us almost 5%, so maybe it is finally ready to move. I have been tracking BLD for almost 5 years and it has had numerous false breakouts that ultimately went nowhere. but it likewise was up around 5% this past week, so maybe there is a revived interest in fuel cells. For the record, Ballard Power is… Read more »
Tony G
Guest
0
Tony G
December 13, 2013 8:25 pm

I’ve been watching and accumulating Energy Fuels ( new symbol UUUU ) for sometime now. Reverse split and new listing on the board and off the OTC.. Something up ?

Myron Martin
Author
197
December 13, 2013 11:32 pm

I thinks so, it is well positioned to grow into one of the key uranium suppliers for the U.S.

Carbon Bigfoot
Guest
0
Carbon Bigfoot
December 14, 2013 9:42 pm
This is no gorebull warbling. One of us engineers have offered the entire picture in the book “The Mad, Mad, Mad of Climate Climatism”, written in non-technical, easily readable English, available from Amazon. http://www.wattsupwiththat.com, the Internet’s Award winning scientific website provides current accurate evidence, not consensus opinion. With regard to Nuclear Power we are generations behind because of false and misleading information circulated by envirochondriacs and pseudo-scientists similar to the alarmists in current climate community generating agenda driven political outcomes. NuScale Power and Mitsubishi are working on miniature reactors both Thorium and Uranium powered and would be 2020 timeframe if… Read more »
Carbon Bigfoot
Guest
0
Carbon Bigfoot
December 14, 2013 9:46 pm

The book is “The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism” by Steve Goreham, PE.
Sorry

Joseph E Fasciani
Guest
0
December 15, 2013 5:03 am
How’s that Fukushima thing working for ya these days? I’m nearly 71, and have two top-ranking physicists as friends, but neither one can adequately answer my question, “What do we do with the waste?” Yeah, thorium is blah blah blah great & all that, BUT: TPTB want U2-powered reactors so they can build MORE nuclear weapons, although the current stockpile is enough to kill the entire planet 5000X times over, which according to Dr Joseph C Pearce, is not exactly the definition of “intelligence” at work. Look: even a little radiation is NOT a Good Thing, as the negatives are… Read more »
John Harris
Guest
0
John Harris
December 16, 2013 1:46 pm
MOre people die mining and transporting coal, than all deaths from nuclear accidents combined, and that says nothing of those killed by breathing particulates from burning coal. The mess in Japan will be cleaned up eventually. You get more exposure from cosmic radiation from the sun by far than you get from that wafting around on the jet stream. And will none of the critics here investigate new reactors before spouting off here with ignorant claims? New reactors like Molten salt use high level existing nuclear waste as fuel and leave nothing more radioactive than yellow cake to be buried… Read more »
Austin69
Guest
0
Austin69
December 15, 2013 8:30 am
I hear the distinct sound of hot gas being evacuated from a puntured balloon – I am not a rude person by narure, but the drama queens who seem to proliferate in the investment advice “industry” are really beginning to…make me angry…they make the snake oil salesmen from the Old West seem like paragons of truth and virtue. Not all of them by any means, but I have personal experience with what I believe to be the questionable veracity of Angel Publishing, so Stock Gumshoe’s analysis does not surprise me at all. Keep uo the good work, Travis. You are… Read more »
Carbon Bigfoot
Guest
0
Carbon Bigfoot
December 15, 2013 2:13 pm

Hey Fasciani your CV on Link-in suggest a MIke Holmes wanabee—not impressive. Certainly not anyone that can discuss Nuclear Power given the fact that you never finished college.
I have all the strength to make you look like the fool you are portraying, a loud Mouth Hoser.
But that’s not what the Gumshoe is all about. Your entitled to your opinion, warped as it is—but not to the FACTS.
No one DIED at Fukushima and radiation under 5000 m rems is healthy. You didn’t do your homework assignment HORMESIS. Probably why you didn’t finish college.

Myron Martin
Author
197
December 15, 2013 2:41 pm

For the environmentalists out there, ran across this interesting website while trying to get as much information on Fuel Cell Energy as possible, so thanks to “slick rick” for pointing us in that direction, even if I have my doubts that fuel cell technology is ready for the big time.

http://www.gm.ca/gm/english/ecologic/chevrolet/overview?adv=85042&mkwid=goo_%7C_%5Baccount_name%5D_%7C_Segment+-+Green+-+EXA+-+GG+-+EN+-+PC_%7C_Hydrogen+Fuel+Cell_%7C_fuel%20cell%20power

Joseph E Fasciani
Guest
0
December 16, 2013 6:00 am
The level of rude & crude in yr reply is self-sufficient evidence of yr character such that I will not comment on it, other than to observe it, along with all the syntactical and grammatical errors, which bespeak both your educational attainments and the professional background you boasted about. As to my education and whatever bona fides you care to attach to the educative processes, such as they are, I am a lifelong autodidact, for, as Mark Twain observed about himself, “I made it a point never to let my education interfere with my learning.” And finally for now, let… Read more »
John Harris
Guest
0
John Harris
December 16, 2013 1:58 pm
Evidently neither has heard of Molten salt reactors that use the existing nuclear waste that they are right we have no way to store permanently. But you don’t need to store it if you make more electricity with it and reduce it to very low level waste that is no more radioactive than the yellow cake we mine right now. So this new low level waste can simply be buried. We use the high level waste for fuel, and there is lots of it to use so the issue of fuel for nuclear power is not an issue. You don’t… Read more »
Carbon Bigfoot
Guest
0
Carbon Bigfoot
December 15, 2013 4:03 pm
Comment #20 refers you to http;//www.Bloom Energy.com which Myron Martin did not research or he wouldn’t make a comment like… ” I have my doubts that fuel cell technology is ready for the big time.” Myron you have no excuse on this one because it was previewed twice on CBS’ 60 Minutes. You get a pass not knowing that I’m a Professional Engineer with 50+ years in the Energy business and using a moniker on this website. Bloom Energy’s customers include: AT&T, Staples, Google, Fed X, Nokia, Honda Staples and many more. Is that big time enough for you Myron?… Read more »
Myron Martin
Author
197
December 16, 2013 10:04 am
In response to Carbon Bigfoot I can only say, pardon me for having missed a couple 60 mn. shows, one person can not be up to date on everything. Perhaps my comment was not well worded, my point being that I was not aware of fuel cell technology being on the verge of wide scale acceptance/adoption. Many of these these things get HYPED beyond immediate investment practicality. As I have already noted, now that I am aware of the fact that Ballard Power is finally getting some stock market attention I will do some more research on the technology and… Read more »
David Cannon
Guest
0
April 5, 2014 1:35 pm

Is there a viable fuel cell investment available? Thanks.

Myron Martin
Author
197
April 5, 2014 5:26 pm
David: All you had to do is scroll up to 18 through the comments and you would have found this and more: ” Myron Martin, Special to Stock Gumshoe says: December 15, 2013 at 2:29 pm Fuel Cell Energy FCEL $1.78 may well be an up and coming technology to be considered. Like Ballard Power Systems BLD-V I had an early interest in however, the stock has been essentially flat for years, but this past week FCEL did bump us almost 5%, so maybe it is finally ready to move. I have been tracking BLD for almost 5 years and… Read more »
who noze
Guest
0
December 15, 2013 10:14 pm

attn to GVP [[GSE GUIDE TOproper handling uranuim in short a training o w/ handbooks scale models etc

Carbon Bigfoot
Guest
0
Carbon Bigfoot
December 16, 2013 11:06 am
Fasciani I can tell your a screaming liberal that changes the subject like attacking my sentence structure rather than offering evidence of your position. As a matter of brain power, I am operating with half my parietal lobe as a result of three strokes. Most people that use blogs are more concerned with content than the formality of the King’s English. And I’m just happy I can communicate—with out mincing words–MY BAD. I could give you a list of all the people I have associated with over my career but that serves no purpose. The ECO-TARDS in this country pressured… Read more »
John Harris
Guest
0
John Harris
December 16, 2013 2:12 pm
For the record Mr. Bigfoot, I am a “screaming liberal” and a bonifide tree-hugging backpacking environmentalist. Some of us believe safe nuclear power with no high level waste is a reality already and just needs to be built out. Granted the Sierra club did not get the memo and lots of other progressive outfits have not done the research either to realize it and continue to push giant wind turbines instead. But alas they do slaughter birds and bats and pollute the air with low frequency noise that keeps some people awake all night up to even ten miles away.… Read more »
websun
Member
0
websun
December 16, 2013 8:45 pm

Safety doesn’t necessarily sell. The Candian CANDU Reactor operates at low pressure and is an order of magnitude safer than the US, Russian or Japanese reactors which operate at high pressure. But Canada cannot sell to those countries that protect their own technology, despite safety considerations.

dshisler
Irregular
0
December 18, 2013 12:11 pm
As an aside, If you’re “hanging your hat” on the end of the M to M agreement w/ Russia, then why did Sigma Labs ( http://sigmalabsinc.com/index.php?mact=News,cntnt01,detail,0&cntnt01articleid=87&cntnt01origid=77&cntnt01returnid=59) press release they’re renewed contract w/ Los Alomos. Would they renew a contract like that if there were no longer materials to be processed? That contract is specific to the Russian agreement. I will probably own Lakeland Resources before the end of the year as a lotto ticket. Full disclosure: I own Sigma thanks to a mention by an Irregular re; MEI which I also own! Man this is a great group of people!… Read more »
Zip
Guest
0
Zip
January 9, 2014 10:18 pm

Depends on how long the contract. The term was not stated. If 5-years $178 thousand ain’t much. If 1-year, well, doesn’t it take at least 1-year to burn the fuel, even after the program has ended? Sigma’s 3D process produces human body flesh, right? lol

Dave Shisler
Guest
0
Dave Shisler
January 10, 2014 12:31 am

yeah! they make ears! LOL!!!
Seriously they do have a really cool exploding bullet technology that gives a .50 cal the effectiveness of a 20mm !!
Didn’t jump at Lakeland just yet.

David B
Guest
0
January 10, 2014 1:13 am

This will add zero to my account not a zero. I’ll stick with clean energy technology like Clearsign Combustion CLIR ; Natcore in solar tech NTCXF; and FCEL in hydrogen fuel cells. I’m not a fan of nuclear power–perhaps because I live in an earthquake zone, but mostly due to radioactive waste with its very very long life.

John Harris
Guest
0
John Harris
January 10, 2014 9:54 am
Gee David, have you read any of the posts above? What does it take to assuage your fear of nuclear power? We already have reactors that use the existing nuclear waste for fuel, reducing it to such low level of radioactivity (like yellow cake) that there is no storage issue – you just bury it. New nuclear power plants ARE THE ANSWER to the existing long life nuclear waste problem. So if that is the problem you see then you should be a huge fan of breeder reactors or molten salt reactors that get rid of the existing waste and… Read more »
Lukester
Guest
0
Lukester
March 2, 2014 11:44 am
Too bad the majority of comments here were drawn to the sociopolitical polemics around Nuclear power and not to discussing the core topic – which was “Which Uranium Stocks Will Outperform in A Renewed Uranium Bull Market”. Excellent comments and guidance from Myron Martin. I too rode the Uranium bull market up from 2004-2007. Sold all in 2007 and then started scaling back in 2012. I’ve been early scaling back in so averaged down this past two years but I’ve been reading *everything* surrounding the build out of new nuclear power plants for a decade. There are *very few* real… Read more »
Lukester
Guest
0
Lukester
March 2, 2014 12:15 pm
Athabasca Basin explorers very valuable and leveraged to Uranium (e.g. Fission) but IMO the small and mid-tier producers – transitioning to larger producers, are an excellent spot for outperformance. Explorer UEX holds an incredible land package as does URZ. Better names to look at (in no particular order) FCUUF (aka. FIS.V in Canada), URG, URZ, UEC, DNN, UEXCF (aka. UEX.TO), UWEFF (aka U308), UUUU (aka. EFR.TO), PALAF (aka. PDN.TO troubled but with +++ potential), EGRAF (aka. ERA.AX also troubled but w. Potential), LMRXF (aka. LAM.TO). Best names for large potential rises are (explorers) Dennison, Fission and UEX, and (producers) Energy… Read more »
Myron Martin
Author
197
April 5, 2014 5:06 pm
Thanks Lukester, tend to agree and admit I did not give Dennison the emphasis it deserves, even though I have owned it for some time and recently added more. Will probably have to do an update on the uranium sector in a couple of months as there are at least another half dozen not well known companies in the Athabasca Basin I have not had time to take an in-depth look at. The other point I want to emphasize is that it is okay to have some “dead money” in a promising sector for a few months at least as… Read more »
bupsbups
Member
12
bupsbups
March 2, 2014 12:30 pm

Lakeland Resources mentioned by Myron not too long ago has been doing well. Just a few days ago, a nice write up entitled “Bright Starts in the Athabasca Basin Uranium Hunt” appeared in Seeking Alpha. Thanks Myron!

Lukester
Guest
0
Lukester
March 2, 2014 12:40 pm
Agreed. I missed that one. A lot more speculative than Dennison and Energy Fuels but Lakeland absolutely deserves a mention. But when you start to dig into these names it becomes apparent that Dennison and Energy Fuels will be two of the most valued names. They are the ones that are both conservative and also aggressively positioned. If I had to drop all my shares and only keep two it would be these two. Dennison the Premier explorer with all the choice holdings in Athabasca Basin, and Energy Fuels the junior producer transitioning most securely to mid cap. It’s the… Read more »
james
Guest
0
james
June 18, 2014 7:33 pm

My suggestion is very simple: BE CAREFUL when investing. Also simply put “Add a zero to you net worth…” could be said…$0.00 net worth!!! This is what could happen to your money by adding a $0.00

Lukester
Guest
0
Lukester
June 18, 2014 8:05 pm

Be right and sit tight.

wpDiscuz