Become a Member

“This EXACT SAME Crisis Has Happened Twice in the History of Energy…” (Dr. Kent Moors)

Looking into the Energy Inner Circle teaser pitch about the shortfall in uranium supply and an imminent price spike

By Travis Johnson, Stock Gumshoe, April 17, 2015

This article is a repeat of a solution to a teaser pitch that Dr. Kent Moors has been marketing very aggressively for almost a year.

Why? Because he and his publishers at Money Map are pushing it very heavily again, as they’ve done every few months, and we’re getting questions… and there have been some developments in the market since the ad started circulating. Our original article was entitled, “The Electricity Crisis that Dr. Kent Moors says could bring 100,000% returns” … so if you already read that one back in May of 2014, you can skip along to the bottom to see the additional info I added six months ago in November (and, if you wish, throw your thoughts and comments into the discussion pile… the original discussion is all still there at the bottom as well).

What follows was published on May 14 and has not been edited or updated other than the November 2014 update at the end. The original comments and discussion are also appended. The stock he focused on most, UEC, has bounced from $1 to $1.80 and back a couple times as uranium prospects (and prices) have fluctuated. Uranium is up a bit again in the last few months, to about $40 now (the recent low is $30, the highs were big spikes to $70 in 2011 and $140 in 2007).

—-from 5/14/2014—-

Dr. Kent Moors is pitching the upcoming electricity crisis as a reason to invest in his newsletter and reap your riches from the panic — I imagine you’ve seen this ad, because readers have been peppering me with it since it started running yesterday.

The first couple pages of it are mostly about how horrific things get when electricity production is compromised, with the huge hit to the economy from closed power plants and/or brownouts or rolling blackouts when generation can’t keep up with demand. He has a graph he uses over and over again that shows a gap, at some undetermined point in the near future, where electricity demand will be 16% higher than generation capacity. Here’s a bit of the spiel:

“Bottom line: The cost of a 16% electricity void would result in the massive loss of human lives and trillions of dollars.

“And make no mistake, we are on the brink of a crisis… a 16% electricity void that could decimate the global economy…

“Of course, world leaders aren’t going to let that happen. And in the rush to solve the crisis… you have an extraordinary opportunity.”

Here’s some more of Dr. Moors whetting our appetite:

“…this has happened twice before in the history of energy.

“Both times, it created a slew of new millionaires.

“In fact, the last time this happened, folks who got in early and followed the right signs had a chance to turn $1,000 into $1 million. And that’s on just one trade…

“The evidence makes the case: This crisis is happening again for the third time. And while it’s not 100%, there’s no denying this opportunity could change your life.

“I’ve been tracking this situation for eight years waiting for the right moment to get in. And I can tell you without a doubt:

“The pendulum is starting to swing and the upside is going to be huge.”

OK, so… wanna get a 10,000% return? Me, too! How does he think we can do that?

Well, as you’d know if you had the patience to sit through the first interminable minutes of the presentation or read through a few pages of blather (don’t worry, there’s no shame in NOT reading that far — sifting the blather every day is the strange path we’ve taken, but most people aren’t goofy enough to do that), he’s teasing nuclear energy and uranium. Here’s a bit of that:

“World Leaders Agree: This Fuel is Vital

“As I mentioned, I advise 27 governments on energy matters. And I can tell you right now, every single one of them considers this fuel vital to the world’s energy mix.

“In other words, we can’t do without it. Period.

“That’s because this fuel can do what oil, natural gas, and coal can’t.

“Like I said, it’s 9,500 times more powerful than oil… and 100 times cheaper.

Are you getting our free Daily Update
"reveal" emails? If not,
just click here...


“And get this: This fuel is 100% clean. In fact, it generates zero greenhouse gas emissions.

“In other words, unlike oil, natural gas or coal… it won’t kill the planet.

“As you probably guessed, I’m talking about uranium… the fuel that generates nuclear power.

“Now, I realize nuclear power is very controversial, especially after the accident in Japan in 2011.

“And maybe you’re in favor of nuclear power, and maybe you aren’t.

“But the fact remains, nuclear power is an essential part of the global energy mix, accounting for 16% of the world’s electricity.”

Not the first time we’ve heard the “uranium will boom again” argument, to be sure — uranium collapsed after the Fukushima disaster in Japan, which spurred both the shutdown of Japan’s large nuclear fleet and the global “rethink” on nuclear power, particularly in Western democracies that have the luxury of debate and hand-wringing, but it has also been widely predicted as a commodity likely to boom both because of Japan’s gradual re-start and the continuing development of new nuclear plants in China and India, and because of the drop in supply (at least to the US) caused by the end of the “megatons to megawatts” program that had us cooperating with Russia to recycle their unneeded plutonium into uranium fuel. The end of “megatons to megawatts” was actually on December 31 last year, so I’ve been expecting uranium prices to rise this year — and many investors (and newsletters) have been predicting sharp jumps.

You can check out his presentation here if you’d like to see his arguments about Japan and Germany desperately needing to reconsider their fear of nuclear energy, and about the many countries who rely on uranium for at least a quarter of their electricity (particularly those who would otherwise be completely dependent on natural gas from Putin’s Gazprom or on coal).

But yes, the basic pitch is, “uranium prices should surge” — here’s some more, in his words:

“Uranium Demand is Off the Charts

“Right now, there are 434 nuclear plants worldwide consuming about 180 million pounds of uranium per year.

“Annual supply is only about 140 million pounds per year.

“That’s a 40 million pound supply gap! And it’s only going to grow…

“Already, there are plans to add 553 more nuclear plants worldwide… 70 of which are already under construction or ready to come online.

“That’s more than DOUBLE… and it’s only the beginning….

“…during the last uranium boom, prices soared 13-fold… to hit $140 per pound.”

In many ways this is similar to other “something’s gotta give” pitches — uranium demand increasing, uranium is currently (at $35 a pound or so) changing hands for prices that are too low to spur any development of new mines or expansion of old ones. Moors says that stockpiles are being depleted (like megatons to megawatts), and that $70 is really the price producers need …

“The price must go up – to at least $70 per pound – or uranium supply will disappear.”

And, unlike with most industries, the consumers are not price-sensitive — nuclear power plants don’t shut down because of high fuel prices the way a coal or gas plant might, because the vast majority of the cost is in building and maintaining the plant, not in buying the fuel. Uranium prices have very little impact on the price they have to charge for electricity to make a profit — the interest rate on the massive capital investment required to build the plant, and the cost of safety and maintenance operations, are both larger issues than uranium prices. Here’s what Moors says that means:

“Once their supply is threatened, once they feel the pressure of disappearing stockpiles, the nuclear plants are going to panic and drive prices through the roof.

“And once the price starts to move higher, it will just keep on going…

“This is what happened in 1973 when the price of uranium soared 10-fold. It’s what happened in 2003 when the price of uranium soared 13-fold.

“And it’s what’s going to happen again, for the third time, very soon. The pendulum is starting to swing, and now’s the time to act.”

So what should you buy? Well, obviously he’s suggesting we buy some sort of uranium stock. Here’s how he describes the situation for uranium miners:

“… during the last uranium boom, these companies took huge amounts of investment capital from other investors… and sunk it into their uranium operations.

“And now they are literally sitting on hundreds of millions of dollars of investment in equipment, infrastructure, permits, and geologists.

“In other words, their ‘war chests’ are loaded to the brim!

“But here’s the thing… because of low uranium prices, this immense capital investment isn’t reflected in their share price.

“In other words, these are world-class companies… armed to the teeth… selling for pennies on the dollar….

“And while I can’t promise we’ll see a 100,000% rise like Paladin did last time… the upside potential is there.”

So yes, finally, we do get down to the actual tease — he has four uranium investments to share with you today if you’ll subscribe to his Energy Inner Circle (currently “on sale” for $1,995, roughly half of the “list” price). One of them he gives away for free (yes, it’s the super obvious one), and three are “secret” picks he will explain to his subscribers.

But he does let loose with some hints and clues, naturally, to get you intrigued and excited — so we can tell you what the stocks are if you happen to be one of those intrepid souls who prefers to do your own research.

The freebie is, as you would have guessed the first time I typed the word “uranium”, Cameco (CCJ). Cameco is, as Moors says, the “blue chip” company in uranium, the only really large pure play on uranium mining. He says that “if you’re looking for a world-class ‘blue chip’ that offers good upside, Cameco is a good bet.”

And it’s pretty hard to argue with that — it won’t go up 100,000% because it’s not dirt cheap, it’s already producing, and it’s not a pie-in-the-sky explorer that can leverage a big discovery. But if uranium goes to $70 or spikes even higher, they’ll sure make a lot more money than they do today. They’re reasonably priced at about 15X next year’s earnings, they have a long-lived mine (albeit one that has had some problems, particularly with flooding that delayed production for years — mining is almost never a “safe bet” kind of industry, particularly if you rely on one mine for most of your revenue), and they have a solid enough balance sheet that they can even comfortably pay a nice little dividend.

But it’s a $10 billion company, you’ve almost certainly heard of them, and you can go form an opinion on your own. How about the “secret” stocks he teases?

Here’s the first one, and the pitch is thick and gooey:

“If you’re looking for maximum upside… and you could only own one uranium company to position yourself for the coming boom… this would be the one.

“Years down the road, when people talk about the uranium boom of 2014… this is going to be the company they point to and say, ‘My God, I wish I’d gotten in.’

“You have a chance, right now, to do just that…

“And listen, you’ll be in very good company. In fact, some of the savviest minds in the world are taking a serious stake in this company.

“For example, Li Ka-Shing – the richest man in Asia with a net worth of $33 billion – is loading up on this company.”

Some more details? We learn that Rick Rule, the noted resource investment banker, is also a shareholder, and that Spencer Abraham, former US Energy Secretary, is their Chairman. That pretty much gives us a definitive answer, but here’s a little more just to heighten the suspense:

“This company went public at the PEAK of the last uranium boom in 2007… issuing 89.5 million shares at the price of roughly $7.

“In other words, they raised about $625 million…

“What did they do with the money?

“Simple. They invested in their future… and prepared themselves for the next boom.

“They bought things like equipment, technology, infrastructure, permits, and mining rights… everything they needed to run a profitable operation.

“But here’s the thing… when uranium prices dropped, their stock price dropped to where it sits today – at about $1 per share, giving them a market cap of about $100 million”

It’s a funny kind of argument, that this company has already blown through half a billion dollars in seven years and therefore has become a great buy now — but there is some logic to it if their investments have really added value (reserves, equipment, production capacity) to their asset. So who is it? This is Uranium Energy Corp (UEC).

UEC has been a hotly debated stock over the last decade or so, going up and down on both promotional chatter (and short sellers who derided its stock promoter roots, like this Citron piece from 2010) and on the prospects for uranium. They didn’t actually raise $600+ million in their IPO, but the IPO was for about half that much on the AMEX back in 2007, and I’m sure they’ve raised more money since. They have some uranium production now, but it’s very small scale — their biggest project is the Goliad in-situ recovery project in Texas, and they also have a few neighboring projects that they think they can advance as “hub and spoke” additions near the core processing plant when it comes online.

The development of Goliad has taken many years, it’s at least a few years behind the original schedule — but I guess that’s no surprise, given weak uranium prices. They are explicitly soft-pedaling now, they say, to make sure they don’t ramp up production until prices recover. Production is on track to start this year, they say, but they are expecting uranium prices to recover this year to make it viable. And they are essentially stockpiling potential projects, with about 25 projects on their list, almost all of which are at the “exploration” stage and not currently the focus of investment — all but a couple of them are in the US, mostly in historically producing uranium areas in Wyoming, Colorado and the Southwest.

Will uranium prices really leap higher this year? Well, so far the answer is a resounding “not yet” — they’ve continued to fall, from the $40 that seemed too cheap a year ago to the $35 that seemed like a “breaking point” at the beginning of 2014, to now (depending on who you ask — there’s not really a “spot market” for uranium) dipping below $30. UEC’s cash costs for their existing production are in the $20-25 neighborhood, I presume that Goliad is cheaper but I don’t know — these are very low-grade deposits, but it’s also an in-situ recovery and refining process that I don’t really understand. This is very different from the massive high-grade uranium deposits in the Athabasca region of Canada, which are unique in having big, 10%+ uranium grades (like at Cameco’s Saskatchewan mines), but lower-grade deposits using in situ recovery are not unique to UEC — Cameco also uses in situ recovery at their US mines and in Kazakhstan, and presumably other global producers do as well, and many of them are apparently profitable to operate (if not build) with uranium at $30 a pound, so the high grades at the unusual Saskatchewan mines don’t necessarily mean that low grade mines can’t be developed or compete (and Cameco’s mines have been both geological and technical challenges in many ways, so high grade isn’t everything).

There are many factors impacting uranium pricing, including production and demand but also the drawdown of stockpiles around the world, uncertainty of new plant demand, the closing of old plants for performance reasons (old age) or political reasons, etc. There’s an interesting quick interview here about the current state of the market and the viability of the oft-rumored “Uranium Renaissance” if you want to get your head around it — interestingly, one thing that jumped out from that note for me was the analyst’s forecast that higher prices wouldn’t really come until 2016.

Which means … I don’t really know whether UEC will leap higher this year. It has continued to fall as uranium prices have fallen (except for this week, when Moors’ attention is doubtless sending the price higher — it doesn’t take much to make a $100 million stock all jiggly), and as they have failed to say anything particularly aggressive about boosting production immediately. Bulls and bears have debated the stock loudly at Seeking Alpha and elsewhere, and it’s a tiny little stock that bounces around like crazy on this attention, so beware — but I can certainly see it being among the more highly-levered names to the price of uranium if we do indeed get a huge spike in prices.

For full disclosure, I have some very speculative (and so far money-losing) options positions in both CCJ and UEC, my own little bet from a few months back that uranium chatter (and prices) would rise this year and the stocks might surge. Hasn’t happened so far.

UEC was clearly the stock that most excited Moors in this pitch, he closes with some speculation about the possible economics of their operations:

“At $70 per pound, this company has the capacity to produce five million pounds per year… five times their current production.

“And while they’re currently making about 50 cents per pound with uranium prices at $35… when prices go to the necessary $70… they’re all of a sudden making $35 per pound.

“And again, they have the capacity to produce five million pounds.

“So instead of making 50 cents per pound on one million pounds… they’d be making $35 per pound on five million pounds.
When uranium prices rise, their gross profits could explode from $584,000 to about $175 million… a staggering 300-fold increase.”

And Myron Martin, who writes a mining column for us, has also been a big UEC fan, calling it his favorite uranium stock back in December (he also had a followup on some other uranium juniors here, by the way).

But UEC wasn’t the only stock teased for Dr. Moors’ Energy Inner Circle — we’ve got two more.

I know, I’m getting a little tired of writing this one… and I’m sure by now you’re tired of reading it. But we’ve come this far. What are the other two investments?

Here’s the first one:

“One investment opportunity I’ve uncovered allows you to tap into the entire market… and profit from both rising uranium prices and the rapidly expanding nuclear power industry.

“The exciting thing is, this investment gives you boots on the ground in the biggest uranium-producing countries in the world, including Canada, Australia, Kazakhstan, Niger, and Russia.

“Plus, it gives you an interest in some of the most lucrative mining operations on the planet.

“For example, this investment gives you access to Canada’s MacArthur River Project, the largest uranium mine in the world.

“By the way, the ore grades at this mine are over 100 times the global average, making this project insanely lucrative.

“In addition, this investment gives you access to an exciting new uranium discovery in the world’s most important uranium district: Saskatchewan’s Athabasca Basin.

“This discovery was so unexpected – and so potentially lucrative because of its high-grade ore deposits – that it created a ‘staking frenzy’ as mining companies rushed to claim adjacent properties.

“When you add it all up, this investment allows you to tap into $80 billion of proven uranium reserves… all for just $17.

“As uranium prices rise – and remember, they need to double to keep the lights on – the value of these assets could double, triple, or more… sending this investment soaring.

“And uranium is only the tip of the iceberg for this investment. In fact, this investment gives you access to every aspect of the nuclear power industry.”

Well, Thinkolator sez this one is not a stock, it’s an ETF — the Global X Uranium ETF (URA)

Which does have exposure to most of the huge uranium mines and producers in the world, including nearly a quarter of its portfolio in Cameco and 10% in Denison Mines (DNN), and it also invests substantial chunks in Paladin, Uranerz and other producers… and owns little bites of a bunch of smaller junior names.

But it ain’t at $17 anymore, you can now pick up shares for a bit under $15 if you’re interested. URA has been the ugly stepchild of the nuclear ETF space, with several horrible years compared to the rather flat-to-decent performance of NLR and NUCL, the two broader “nuclear energy” ETFs, but that’s because URA is just uranium companies and NLR and NUCL are really utility ETFs that mostly own nuclear power companies (which are almost all broad-based utilities, like Duke Power and Exelon, who have nuclear plants as part of their portfolio). NLR and NUCL will probably be impacted (very gradually) by the popularity of nuclear power, but they move mostly with the broader utility sector and aren’t driven by the price of uranium — URA is.

And we’re still not done! One more uranium name pitched to us by Dr. Moors:

“The opportunity I’m going to show you now is a pure price play… and allows you to profit from uranium’s imminent rise with very minimal risk.

“We’ve already established that uranium prices must rise. Right now, they’re at $35 per pound.

“But unless prices are at $70 per pound, miners are not going to produce. Stockpiles are vanishing at 465,000 pounds per day… and unless prices rise, the lights are going out….

“the investment I’m tracking today is a new way to play uranium. It’s the brainchild of resource billionaire Eric Sprott, and it wasn’t even available during the last uranium boom.

“This investment allows you to own pure uranium… and profit from the price rise… without actually having to take possession of the uranium yourself.

“In fact, this investment allows you to participate in the coming uranium price rise… without the typical exploration, development or mining risks associated with owning stocks… they have fully licensed warehouses throughout the U.S., Canada, and France chock-full of pure uranium. About 10 million pounds worth….

“Goldman Sachs is sitting on 5,500 tons of pure uranium… and now you can too.”

So who is this? Uranium Participation Corp (U in Toronto, URPTF on the pink sheets). Which was indeed inspired by Eric Sprott, and which is essentially trying to be a “physical ETF” for uranium — they buy it (under the auspices of Denison Mines, which is their regulatory partner but doesn’t control the company) and warehouse it, with the hope of selling it in the future at higher prices.

And one hesitates to sound like a broken record when saying “hasn’t worked yet” … Uranium Participation has been around since the mid-2000s, it was started just in time to participate in the 2007 uranium “bubble”, but since that 2007 spike it’s been mostly downhill (save the brief jump up for uranium pricing in early 2011 just before the Fukushima disaster). They stockpile both U308, which is the main uranium fuel we think of, and Uranium Hexafluoride (UF6), which is used in uranium enrichment. I haven’t looked closely at what it costs them to warehouse this stuff, or how much trading in and out of it they might do at any given time, but they’re fairly passive and should generally be priced based on the current net asset value (NAV) of their warehoused uranium and on your expectations for where those uranium prices are headed.

Currently, U.TO is priced at about a 10% premium to their April 30 NAV — and that NAV was based on uranium a dollar or two higher than most folks report the price now. It’s a fairly simple proposition on this one — if uranium doubles, the NAV should double and the stock price might jump slightly more if folks bid it up to trade at a bigger premium. If uranium falls, the NAV should fall by about the same percentage and the stock may fall a bit lower if investor disgust with uranium causes it to trade at a discount to NAV. That means the possible pricing moves are far, far smaller for U.TO than they are for a miner, even a huge miner like Cameco, because miners should provide a levered response to the price of the underlying commodity (to simplify: if uranium doubles, the costs to produce it don’t necessarily double so profit should go up much faster than the commodity price, which would drive the stock price of producers higher… all else being equal, which it never is).

So there you have it — the consensus grows for a “uranium must go up in price” assessment, but even though the logic is sound the pricing has not, so far, responded to the logic… and the logic can’t tell us where and how large existing stockpiles of uranium are, or how quickly they enter the marketplace, or where political sentiment will go in major nuclear countries like France or Japan, or in waffling countries like the US and Germany, or in emerging and growing nuclear power producers like China and India. I do think we’ll likely see higher prices, and I thought we’d see them this year — but I could easily be wrong or early… and we should always be at least a little skeptical during times like this, when it seems like ALL the newsletter jockeys are 100% certain that uranium prices are on the verge of doubling.

It’s your money, though, so what do you think? Will the Japanese reactor restart get uranium prices rising? (They presumably have large stockpiles from their two years of shutdown too, don’t forget) Will nuclear power recover and grow as projected? Are we going to see a surge in uranium prices that drives the miners higher? Let us know with a comment below.

——11/5/14 update—–

This pitch, the current version of which you can see here, is essentially the same one Dr. Moors used early in the year, and you can’t be blamed for wondering when the uranium price might recover or what Moors meant by a price spike being “imminent” or “in the coming months.”

Just this week there has been a brief spurt of optimism, with spot prices coming back up to the $35 level they were at when Moors first teased this back in the Spring (they since fell down below $30 before bouncing back up again). Spot prices don’t mean a lot, though, since most producers sell on long-term deals… but they are a potential indicator. And UEC is still essentially sitting on its hands waiting for better prices.

As far as the actual prices and when pricing might rise sustainably again for uranium, Moors says this:

“With uranium demand exceeding supply by 40 million pounds, the only thing keeping the lights on is existing stockpiles…

“And those are disappearing at the rate of 465,000 pounds per day.

“At best, they’ll last six months.”

But that’s not necessarily the complete picture. In a recent interview that I found interesting, a uranium stock analyst (Colin Healey from Haywood Securities) noted that although the energy companies are gradually becoming more dependent on primary producers than on stockpiles for supply, the market has been in oversupply for so long that it’s a gradual process.

And importantly, Healey notes the much larger impact that new reactors (being fueled for the first time) have on the uranium market than do existing reactors that need regular partial refueling, so those 70 “planned and under construction” reactors expected to come online in the next few years are an important driver — restarting reactors in Japan is expected to help change sentiment next year, but not demand, since Japan is believed to have large stockpiles of uranium fuel. His firm, for whatever it’s worth, has a target price of $39.50 for uranium next year and $56 in 2016 and $75 “long term” … so it may be that we have to get to that “long term”, or at least an expectation of it among industry players, before there’s a lot more restarting of mines.

The full interview is here if you want to see it, I don’t (of course) know if he’s going to end up being right with his forecasts, but it’s a well-explained position — and his firm currently has “hold” ratings on Uranium Energy and Paladin Energy (PDN in Toronto, PALAY on the pink sheets) and “buy” ratings on Uranerz (URZ) and Ur-Energy (URE, URG in Toronto) and Denison Mines (DNN, DML in Toronto). I don’t know most of those intimately, though Paladin seems the riskiest because of their balance sheet issues (lots of debt due next year) — I mostly shared this interview info because I found that analyst’s nuanced position to be more compelling than Dr. Moors’ certainty.

I’ve kept the old comments on this article from May, so you can see those below — and if you’ve anything to add, or a perspective on uranium or any of these miners, or a likely trend for global nuclear power, well, I hope you’ll add your thoughts to the discussion. Thanks!

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)
guest

12345

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

254 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
vivian lewis
May 14, 2014 2:59 pm

well we have been beating the drum for Cameco, CCJ, for years. And I am a nuclear nut so I am not giving up. And thanks to this website I also know about URZ, Uranz, a much more dodgy US uranium producing company which I bought for my IRA. Who needs expensive Kent Moors newsletters if we read the atomic Gumshoe and look at the ETFs and any stock with the word Uranium in its name?

Add a Topic
1137
Add a Topic
520
Add a Topic
1567
mike999
May 17, 2014 3:05 pm
Reply to  vivian lewis

Vivian
You could also invest in Fission Uranium at a very low price with McQuarie calling them an OUTPERFORM
Regards
Mike

Add a Topic
520
👍 6
David
Guest
David
September 14, 2014 11:52 am
Reply to  mike999

Yes Indeed! Fission Uranium is another “sleeping giant” in this sector and at present a very good price!

Add a Topic
520
Gary
Guest
Gary
March 23, 2015 11:34 pm
Reply to  David

I had it for awhile and made a little, could have made more but a profit is a profit. I’m still holding 10K shares of UEC which is currently under water but was in the money at one point. Prices were moving higher but I haven’t checked them lately.

Add a Topic
5916
Add a Topic
540
ALB
Member
ALB
May 19, 2014 5:19 am
Reply to  vivian lewis

No one needs Moors’ newsletters. He’s just a low-level analyst who pretends he’s important.

Edward
Guest
Edward
November 5, 2014 3:00 pm
Reply to  ALB

Well you know he does advise 27 countries on energy matters, now you also know why they are so messed up(I used a clean expression).

Jim
Guest
Jim
November 5, 2014 4:40 pm
Reply to  Edward

Lol too true! You know I signed up for his energy stock alert service several years back. Since then, I’m amazed how this guy is consistently exactly WRONG! This year earlier he was claiming that due to the Gaza conflict, ISIL and Ukrainian crisis, the price of oil would shoot through the roof! Well, we now are at 4 year price lows and he’s dusted off his uranium package! He’s ALWAYS entertaining but I would bet the farm on his current opinion!

Add a Topic
5971
Add a Topic
359
Add a Topic
520
archives2001
archives2001
November 7, 2014 3:59 am
Reply to  Jim

You mean u’d bet the farm on his current prediction
being like the others don’t u?

👍 94
Jim
Guest
Jim
November 9, 2014 12:07 pm
Reply to  Jim

Yeah, that was a typo! Would NOT bet the farm on any of his predictions! In fact, I personally think a contrarian play may be best. If he says buy, then you go short!:)

Add a Topic
899
rand
Guest
rand
March 10, 2015 5:18 pm
Reply to  ALB

Who ever. ALB is his comment about dr Kent moors could not be farther from the truth, Alb is the the real a mature, please shut up

Add a Topic
1567
Ron Levy
Member
Ron Levy
November 6, 2014 4:08 pm
Reply to  vivian lewis

I’ve responded elsewhere when you’ve featured Kent Moors. He’s a self-proclaimed… nothing. Fluffs his feathers and brags about advising shieks, etc., but I lost thousands with him before I threw in the towel and made money elsewhere.

Add a Topic
1567
rand
Guest
rand
March 10, 2015 5:10 pm
Reply to  vivian lewis

Well I have to say, my girlfriend is about ready to shoot me when I mention dr Kent moors. She thinks I should marry him the way I speak about him. I absolutely love that man when it comes to investing.I think he is probably the best in the business. He tells you like it is and is not afraid to make a decision, never mind that his record is almost perfect. The man knows every angle about investing and has a group of people that know there stuff. There not wishy washy, they take chances, and more often than not they are right. There’s is know one who I would rather have in my corner than dr Kent moors and crew.

Add a Topic
1567
Add a Topic
1567
Vincent
Guest
April 17, 2015 11:20 pm
Reply to  rand

Fluffer.

SageNot
Member
SageNot
May 14, 2014 3:20 pm

There is a UEC ad in the body of your message Travis, plus a FREE report on the company.
I hope they aren’t stealing your thunder my friend.

👍 21650
Klaus
Klaus
March 6, 2015 10:56 am

Travis
I was hoping to find out about the 100,000%.
Even without that unreal tease, investment in nuclear energy looks promising, particularly at current low prices.
Cheers

dgcannon
May 14, 2014 11:35 pm
Reply to  SageNot

Travis,
Great analysis as usual. I personally believe that uranium is yesterday’s
story. I may be wrong, but wouldn’t get near of these stocks. Just wait until the
next disaster.

Add a Topic
520
👍 28
susan
susan
May 16, 2014 9:25 am
Reply to  dgcannon

right on. energy is a commodity we can’t afford to pollute further. Germany is so far ahead of us on solar and its not sunny there so much…

stackinwood
November 6, 2014 7:15 am
Reply to  susan

Lived in Germany recently, saw a lot of wind-power but little solar. Electricity prices have exploded there since Merkel’s irrelevant, unwarranted reaction to a tsunami in Japan. So much for being “so far ahead of us.” The Germans took a step backward and simply shifted the demand for their nuclear-driven electricity to France – where they now purchase it from.

Add a Topic
1029
👍 13
Jagermeister
Irregular
Jagermeister
November 10, 2014 7:01 pm
Reply to  stackinwood

Wind-power is definitely in vogue in Germany; we’re seeing the generators on almost every hill in Hesse. We have family and friends outside of Frankfurt in the Odenwald, whom we visit three to four weeks at a time (2 to 3 times a year) and they say that electricity costs have skyrocketed. In Hesse we do see solar roof arrays frequently, but most all on industrial/commercial structures, including farms. Residential developments seldom have solar arrays, except for hot water heat applications, at least up to now.

Add a Topic
540
rand
Guest
rand
March 10, 2015 5:26 pm
Reply to  stackinwood

VERY few people willing to stick there necks out, make a decision. DR Kent Moors and company do that on a regular basis. Nobody is perfect, but at least they try! There newsletters and info worth every penny to the serious investors, Alb who ever you are, such an amature

Add a Topic
1567
David
Guest
David
September 14, 2014 11:58 am
Reply to  dgcannon

By waiting till the next disaster in the uranium sector is later saying “would-a, could-a, should-a. NOW Is the time to get into this sector. It is perhaps the MOST HATED sector
on earth and so that is when the best gains are made, to buy when things look bad, prices are low, and ride it all the way, and cash out when the top blows off. I have been watching this sector now for three years, and buying EVERY week. I have zero 2nd thoughts. I am stashing away by buying now, for astounding HUGE gains later.

Add a Topic
520
archives2001
archives2001
November 7, 2014 4:05 am
Reply to  David

You can also ride gold down too, as many are doing.
Yeah, sooner or later they will both hit bottom but
we’re headed into much deeper recessionary/depressionary
times for the next yr or two (or more).
Most commodities will probably plummet considerably more
before they turn around.

Add a Topic
210
Add a Topic
5242
👍 94
rand
Guest
rand
March 10, 2015 5:41 pm
Reply to  David

Bravo Dave, here’s a man that knows what to do,and is going to do it. Real simple buy low, sell high, that’s all you have to do. Do that consistently instead of down talking pro investors who are all millioners, who have built offices and newsletters that have customers all over the world, now who are the real loosers

rand
Guest
rand
March 11, 2015 5:39 pm
Reply to  David

VERY well put. I believe Dave is right on and we have hit the lows in uranium. However I have been reading more and more alarming reports, that are suggesting that the fundamentals systems we have been using to detect lows and highs, which industries are ripe for profits, are in real danger of collapsing. Nuclear power might be great for the next ten years, but if we loose the reserve currency or face a major reset, the losses could be in the 75 to 90 percent range, all this due to the increase of the money supply and the debt that has followed. Nothing is for free in this world, I like UEC, but is this the right time to own any stocks

Add a Topic
520
hendrixnuzzles
March 30, 2015 1:14 am
Reply to  rand

A few questions for Thorium people:
How many thorium reactors are in operation worldwide ?
How many thorium reactors are in construction worldwide ?
Are there any thorium reactors approved ?
In your opinion, will the process for building thorium plants be substantially different or take a different amount of lead time than uranium plants ?

Long CCJ, UEC, URZ. God knows when uranium prices will rise.

Add a Topic
1487
Add a Topic
1487
Add a Topic
1487
👍 9968
hendrixnuzzles
April 4, 2015 11:26 pm
Reply to  David

It’s almost the most hated. The coal sector is even more on the outs
than uranium.

Add a Topic
1337
Add a Topic
520
👍 9968
John Harris
Member
John Harris
November 5, 2014 6:11 pm
Reply to  dgcannon

Odd that people worry so much about another nuclear disaster when coal mine disasters happen all the time and coal ash storage ponds at plants spill into rivers and such. Far more people die mining and transporting coal every year than all the deaths that have ever occurred in nuclear plant accidents (or I suspect in uranium mining for that matter because the tonnage is so small by comparison, but don’t have figures on that). And that does not speak to mercury in our air and water and fish from coal burning or all the deaths from lung diseases from the particulates or damage to the environment from acid rain due to coal burning. Nuclear by comparison, even using the old type plants that can melt down (like in Japan) is infinitely safer for society and now we have new style plants that can’t even melt down (Thorium molten salt reactors) and others that burn the existing nuclear waste we can’t figure out where to burry (for centuries). So now even the environmental tree huggers can’t object – the very waste they fear and object to is what these new reactors use for fuel. Hell we have so much stockpiled already, shouldn’t that be considered a renewable energy source? But that of course would limit how much new uranium we need. I am extremely pro nuclear energy and against giant wind turbines for instance and see solar as intermittent and limited. I see nuclear as the obvious answer to climate change and while existing demand may run up the price of Uranium short term, in the long term (more than a decade) I think just our existing waste could produce all the energy needed on earth for another century.

Add a Topic
1337
Add a Topic
1337
Add a Topic
1337
brian remer
November 10, 2014 2:11 pm
Reply to  John Harris

Why don’t you go live in Chernobyl. There’s probably no coal pollution there.
When nuclear goes wrong it’s forever. and there’s no insurance against it.

Add a Topic
1337
Add a Topic
882
Duane Miles
Member
Duane Miles
November 18, 2014 7:33 pm
Reply to  brian remer

You should read up on the current state of affairs in Chernobyl. There are now tours there and the animals are not as messed up as you have been told to expect by the talking heads on TV. Not even close. You may be very surprised in a few more years.

sinksmith
Guest
November 18, 2014 8:17 pm
Reply to  brian remer

A few years ago there was a piece in the Readers Digest about the aftermath of Chernobyl. It was obvious they’d photoshopped the pictures to look as grim as possible and it wasn’t hard to guess what their take was.

I’m not expert on nuclear, but two things I’ve heard are:
1) As a consequence of the Three Mile Island event, more uranium went into the atmosphere as a result of burning more coal than was released in the event.
2) Most nuclear power plants have an awful design, which is locked-in because of a network effect similar to the way we’re stuck with the QWERTY keyboard layout. The story is that Westinghouse needed to react to foreign competition qucikly, and scaled up a design they’d used for a nuclear submarine, which the designers did not think was suitable for the bigger scale.
I can’t promise that either of those are true, and research is complicated by all the advocacy that searches pick up.

Add a Topic
520
Add a Topic
1337
Add a Topic
5814
John Harris
Member
John Harris
March 9, 2015 1:49 pm
Reply to  dgcannon

Uranium may be “yesterday’s story” (yet I have some shared of URA) but I seriously doubt nuclear energy is yesterday. Nuclear energy, even from badly designed plants, is still far safer than energy from coal. But admittedly the rare incident makes huge headlines, but I have heard that all the deaths from nuclear power accidents combined are exceeded in one year by coal mining and transport to say nothing of respiratory illness and exposure to mercury and other toxins from burning coal and water pollution from ash ponds, to say nothing of the mess of global warming from burning coal (or any other fossil fuel). Nuclear energy should held up as the best “renewable” energy source, and the only source with high enough output that is at the same time constant (unlike solar or wind) to replace coal or other fossil fuel electricity plants.. Sure I am for putting solar cells on flat industrial roofs, and I don’t object to giant wind turbines in the badlands of Wyoming at least 10 miles from any inhabited structure. but those are never going to give us the amount of power let alone constant power to replace global warming fossile fuel electricity generating plants. Nuclear can with fuels like Thorium that is found so extensively all over the world as to be essentially renewable. It is waste tailings from most other mines – basically free. And we can build breeder reactors that use the existing nuclear waste that is stockpiled everywhere which we can’t even decide where to bury, that should certainly be called renewable or some even better name. And new style plants, unlike the ones we currently use that must be cooled to keep from causing major disasters, new styles of nuclear power plants can be made safe such that you have to work hard to keep them going, and they just shut down like a fire made with wet wood, if you turn off all the power and pumps, or have a earthquake or whatever. I see nuclear power as THE power source for a green non-warming planet but somehow the news media have not figured that out. And I think we will see lots of new designs that are absolutely safe, can be build on preset preapproved cheap to build designs that don’t require huge and expensive containment vessels with all sorts of permits and inspections that stall the old style reactors. But the new ones won’t make fuel for nuclear bombs (which is why we did not build them in the past). And new ones can be made very small to power one manufacturing plant, perhaps a college campus, or on the other hand as big and powerful as any coal or existing nuclear plant. Safe, small or large, and could be cheap. I think it is inevitable, but we need to lump nuclear power in there with renewables to get the attention to them they deserve for slowing global warming. We put men on the moon. I believe the world, if it wanted to and had the will and vision, could replace all fossil fuel plants worldwide with nuclear plants within a decade. I doubt that will happen and I don’t see any stock to buy, but I will not write off nuclear energy as even close to being past tense. Heck we are only on fission, just wait till someone figures out how to contain fusion.

Add a Topic
520
Add a Topic
1337
Add a Topic
1337
rand
Guest
rand
March 10, 2015 5:30 pm
Reply to  John Harris

VERY well put.

GuyKo
Guest
May 14, 2014 3:27 pm

Excellent article on the nukes – I also was premature on CCJ with options wasted away In Margareta Ville. I think the lopsided demand over supply will hold up with the carbon emissions being a catalyst. Some say though there is more emission to build them than they are worth – ?

Add a Topic
570
👍 21650
John Harris
Member
John Harris
March 9, 2015 2:00 pm

Those are the concerns over old style heavy water uranium reactors,. And yes they make nuclear bomb plutonium so that is all we built in the past in the cold war days. But there are far safer options and have been for decades, from breeders (like they use in France) that use spend fuel nuclear waste as their fuel (ending the waste concern and actually helping dispose of it) to thorium reactors that were actually working in the 70’s that can’t run out of control or melt down, have no more safety issues than any coal plant (actually a lot less) so the siting – where to build – is no more troublesome than any industrial building. And safe designs, like thorium, which can’t melt down – don’t need all sorts of regulatory permits nor the huge containment vessels that existing plants require. Only ignorance keeps us from developing nuclear power full tilt. And with global warming that is a shame. Nuclear power is the answer – well at least in my opinion.

Add a Topic
540
Add a Topic
520
Add a Topic
570
arch1
April 5, 2015 2:20 am
Reply to  John Harris

John I mostly agree,,,Hanford WA reactor was a graphite core like Chernobyl,,that melted down only because some idiot shut off the coolant,,designed strictly to produce Plutonium, not as a power plant. There is hardly any true nuclear waste from fission generation, the fuel rods become contaminated and need reprocessing,,which is what France does. WE should also do be doing that and would but for the nimby mentality.Not In My Back Yard.
Modern modular units have been designed to safely shut down even with sudden catastrophic coolant loss and can be built safely in proximity to use in 200 Megawatt modules. Again NIMBY effect makes politically impossible. For safety concerns alone we should be replacing the 60/70 year old technology with the much safer new tech ..like used on aircraft carriers at a minimum or the even newer and safer ones invented since
navy chose design. If we did that we would be using the safest cleanest and least expensive power available.
If Thorium becomes commercially viable the plants could easily switch to that, perhaps 20 years down the road. IMHO frank

Add a Topic
2575
Add a Topic
1243
Add a Topic
1487
👍 7797
Edward
Guest
Edward
May 14, 2014 3:55 pm
Reply to  GuyKo

Just a quick comment, great coverage of this topic. I have also seen coverage stories on Thorium, which indicated China and India are doing a great deal of research for this type fuel in the future. They stated safer and cheaper. Not sure if you have seen these comments.

Add a Topic
1487
Add a Topic
108
Add a Topic
247
👍 21650
Gary W
Guest
Gary W
May 14, 2014 10:27 pm

Both China and India have their own massive deposits of Thorium and that’s a big reason for their push in to Thorium technology.

Add a Topic
108
Add a Topic
247
Add a Topic
1487
John Harris
Member
John Harris
May 15, 2014 1:41 pm
Reply to  Gary W

The thorium reactor was long ago developed at Oak Ridge in Tenn in 1970 and it worked fine. The only problem at the time was it did not produce any plutonium like uranium reactors did so with the cold war with Russia all about building nukes, the feds insisted we only build uranium reactors and the rest of the western world followed suit all intent on having their own nuclear stockpile. But now the sentiment is changing and India is well on its way and is building thorium reactors. And there are three big reasons to like them. First they can’t melt down. They are inherently safe. Like a wood campfire that you have to keep stoking and adding wood to keep it burning, you have to keep adding fuel to keep a thorium reactor going – it just goes out if you walk away and/or if all the equipment fails. There is no cooling system that must stay intact to keep it from melting down. So as a result there is no massive containment building needed, far less safety engineering required so they are far easier to build, can be built sooner, needs far less permitting and oversight, and you don’t have to worry about one in your back yard. So they are cheap to build in comparison to conventional uranium plants, the second big asset. The third great thing is no high level waste is produced that we can’t figure out where to store – you don’t need to store any waste. Thorium reactors extract so much of the energy in the thorium that the waste is low level stuff you can bury most anywhere. And the fuel – thorium is also dirt cheap – literally – it is a common waste byproduct of mining most other metals and is widespread on the earth so there will never be a shortage of the fuel. Fact is if the environmentalists would wake up to the potential of thorium reactors, they would not care about subsidizing wind or solar – they would all get behind a world wide push to replace every coal and gas electric plant on earth with thorium reactors in the next decade. It would be the one thing we as mankind could do that might actually slow down climate change. As to the price of Uranium, I do see that rising in the short term due to what is said in the article on the supply being less than current demand, but I see older uranium plants (many of ours here in the States need to be replaced now and most all within the next 10 or 20 years) being replaced with safer nuclear designs and long term a large drop in demand for uranium.

Add a Topic
1487
Add a Topic
520
Add a Topic
424
Brad Young
Brad Young
May 17, 2014 12:13 pm
Reply to  Gary W

I understand that Thorium reactors need “seeding” with uranium that would come from nuclear waste stockpiles. Using up (uranium) nuclear waste! There’s another answer to an old problem from this alternative.

Add a Topic
1487
Add a Topic
520
Add a Topic
520
hendrixnuzzles
March 31, 2015 1:47 pm
Reply to  Gary W

Hi Gary…
Is it mined as a primary target or as a by-product?
If there is so much of it around, what happens to it and where is it going ?

👍 9968
dean
Member
dean
June 10, 2014 12:52 pm

Travis, In the latest pitch dated june 4th or 5th, he gets a bit more specific and mentions former secretary of Energy, Spencer Abraham, as being the new chairman of the board of “this small company”… That company is AREVA, based in France… He also mentions it is a small 1$ stock… Areva has 2 ticker symbols.. One is priced at 22ish$ and the other at 2$..
Can you comment on this, and provide which ticker to play. Thank you!
— Dean

Add a Topic
5971
Charles Krakoff
November 7, 2014 3:56 am
Reply to  dean

Spencer Abraham in 2006 was named non executive Chairman of Areva North America, which is the U.S. subsidiary of the French Areva Groupe, which is one of the biggest nuclear companies in the world, engaged in uranium mining and processing, design and construction of reactors, and disposal of spent fuel. He stepped down from that position in 2012. Areva North America accounts for about $1.7 billion of total group revenues of about $12 billion, and 5,000 of its 45,000 worldwide work force. It is not a separately listed company. The primary listing is on Paris NYSE-Euronext and the current price is around 11.50 euros (about $15). There is an unsponsored ADR that trades over the counter in the U.S. (ARVCY) and its current price is around $1.30. It is very thinly traded – 10,000 shares a day or so.

Add a Topic
520
Add a Topic
1340
hendrixnuzzles
March 31, 2015 1:49 pm
Reply to  dean

Areva is not a small company. Maybe Abraham is on another board.

👍 9968
D
Member
D
March 6, 2015 10:57 am

Thorium is definitely worth keeping an eye on. And isn’t it U238? (The naturally fissile isotope is U235.)

Add a Topic
1487
dgcannon
May 14, 2014 11:39 pm
Reply to  Edward

Forgive my ignorance, but what is thorium? Help me out guys.

Add a Topic
1487
👍 28
deepdiver
Member
deepdiver
May 15, 2014 2:58 pm
Reply to  dgcannon

Thorium is a naturally occurring radioactive chemical element with the symbol Th and atomic number 90. Google it.

Add a Topic
1487
👍 9
Byron
Member
Byron
November 5, 2014 4:58 pm
Reply to  dgcannon

Go to You tube and search thorium. There is a good video on the subject. Also see this
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Energy-Voices/2014/0328/Thorium-a-safer-nuclear-power

Add a Topic
1487
Dave Althoff
Member
Dave Althoff
May 14, 2014 3:37 pm

Thanks for the excellent run down on the possibilities for investment in Uranium stocks and ETF’s You do a great job and your response is always very rapid and on point. You saved me the $1995 I could have wasted on Moor’s newsletter. Thanks Travis

Add a Topic
520
Jim Hasak
May 14, 2014 3:40 pm

I plunked down real money the last time the “uranium story” was popular — and walked away with much less than my plunk. The day of uranium may return, but if it does, I think it prudent to await a confirmation, in terms of a serious increase in the price of U, accompanied by a rebound in the moribund stock prices of the miners. I’ll gladly give up those few potential bucks that “might” arise from entering early, in return for confidence that this time it’s real.

Add a Topic
520
Add a Topic
520
Add a Topic
5971
daleto
Irregular
May 14, 2014 4:02 pm
Reply to  Jim Hasak

I’m still glowing from the burn I got from investing in U. To be fair, I was not a member here when that happened and bought into the newsletter claims. Nice to come here 1st.

👍 9
William Armstrong
William Armstrong
May 14, 2014 5:38 pm
Reply to  Jim Hasak

Can’t thank you enough Travis! Jim, I can only say “Amen” to your comments. After several years of following Moores, I have never gained. I’ve also watched on the sidelines at some of his recs. and was very grateful they were never in my portfolio. Have been in CCJ for several years just looking mostly sideways. Will need some technical confirmation on UEC among the others.

Norm
Guest
Norm
May 14, 2014 4:31 pm

About 10% of greenhouse gas emissions come from the manufacture of cement, and heaven knows there’s a lot of concrete in a nuclear plant. Still I seriously doubt whether that’s enough to negate the CO2 emission free production of electricity after that. Thorium is not only a viable alternative to uranium, it is a far better alternative: 99% less waste, resource much more plentiful; much higher rates of efficiency (in a liquid salt reactor), much less nuclear proliferation risk, etc, etc. However we are at least one decade, if not two, from significant electricity production from thorium reactors. Meantime, the current plants need to be fueled. I thought that I had read that Japan sold its uranium inventories after Fukishima.

Add a Topic
1487
Add a Topic
520
Add a Topic
1487
dgcannon
May 14, 2014 11:50 pm
Reply to  Norm

Zeus,
Aren’t you afraid that the market maker will stop you out? I’ve had it happen to me so many times that I’m convinced they are crooks/manipulators. However I still use stops, but never in round numbers—they seem to really get the MM’s attention. I find that I get stopped out far less with an 11% percent stop than say a 10%. Maybe my imagination, but you might want to give it a try.

👍 28
deepdiver
Member
deepdiver
May 15, 2014 3:02 pm
Reply to  dgcannon

My reco is to never put stops into the market for that reason.
Use Tradestops.com.

Add a Topic
4936
👍 9
John Harris
Member
John Harris
March 9, 2015 2:08 pm
Reply to  Norm

In a thorium plant you don’t need a lot of cement. There is no “containment” building. Yes you might need some thick walls in the immediate area of the reactor to block radiation, but those walls while thick would not be large (stories tall or wide) so the amount of cement would be relatively or comparatively small, and certainly not an issue compared to no carbon emissions all the years it runs.

Add a Topic
1487
Zeus
Member
Zeus
May 14, 2014 4:54 pm

Looked at the only JAN 2016 LEAP Calls I could find in CCJ. 154 contract of the $25 strikes went today a $1.80. I struggle to understand the trader logic for the volume at this strike (I’m going to be nice…), Quick math suggests that the $20 strikes at $3.50 are a much better trade if playing a retest of recent highs around $25. I do see a pretty easy trade on CCJ common, entering at $20 with a tight Closing daily Stop of $19.86. Risk is around -1%, the play from here to $25 is a +25% trade. So, the trade sets up at $20 as a 25 to 1 risk reward trade, as long as you honor your Stop. Just say’n…

Add a Topic
571
dgcannon
May 15, 2014 12:05 am
Reply to  Zeus

Teresa,
Virtually all of these newsletters are scams. And in the past I’ve been suckered in, but no more. My thinking is that if I really had a sure-fire way to make millions in the market, would I really let anyone in on it, for any price? No, I’d just sit back, make and then I’d sit back on my yacht somewhere in the Carribean (misspelled) picking lint out of navel and drinking some drink with a flower in it. (The dancing girls I’ll leave out).
Thanks to Travis.

👍 28
Rusty Brown in Canada
Member
Rusty Brown in Canada
November 6, 2014 11:23 am
Reply to  dgcannon

It’s called “talking your book” in the trade, and means trying to ignite enthusiastic buying among the proletariat out there for the things you are holding, to help bid the price up. At which point you sell at the peak to the latecomers.

Jimmy D.
Jimmy D.
March 6, 2015 2:35 pm

Randy:
So true, so true! It took me a little while, to figure that out. Slow learner, or just too gullible, I guess. Although, I do remember wondering, a decade or two ago, why these “experts” were so willing to share their investing knowledge. I guess, back to the old cliche: “Live and learn”

hendrixnuzzles
March 31, 2015 1:52 pm
Reply to  Zeus

Wouldn’t you rather sell the covered call at $ 1.80 than buy it ?
Over a 10% return if it gets called away and you are hanging out with the stock anyway

Add a Topic
5971
👍 9968
Teresa
Teresa
May 14, 2014 5:03 pm

Thank you again for saving me the high subscription price for Moor’s newsletter. I saw a previous presentation a few months ago about the secret MTF companies that would act as “toll keepers” between the recovery of oil and the transportation of it to the refineries and how they could charge whatever fees they wanted. If we bought into the “Energy Inner Circle” subscription, we too could get the names of those companies. Luckily, I did not jump to the bait….. Just last week, he mentioned all three in a regular low priced advisory letter, but was no longer saying they were the bee’s knees!! Hmmmm! Thanks for your great reviews!! We all really appreciate them!

Add a Topic
359
Dominique
Member
Dominique
May 14, 2014 5:13 pm

Hello Travis.
So happy to be a new member of your club.
Your coverage of topics are very thorough and fast.
It is also interesting to read other members.
Keep on the great job.

tompaol
Member
May 14, 2014 6:36 pm

UEC is on a nice romp! I was able to average down and now have little profit built in to the price. URG not so good and I dumped it at $1.01. Also sold most of my DNN (Denison Mines) but am still watching it. CCJ I am not in now but still watching it. I have bought and sold several times at nice little profit. Covered calls worked the best for me on Cameco and I may get back into again as the price is holding steady at $20
Still watching UUUU.

Add a Topic
1137
👍 63
Dave
Dave
May 14, 2014 6:42 pm

U-stocks are subsiding after the recent run-up; CCJ and DNN have lost most of their gains. On the other hand, UEC is up >50% in the last 3 days, presumably due to Kent’s hype. Can we post charts here?

dgcannon
May 15, 2014 12:09 am
Reply to  Dave

If you do, it will be the best investment you’ve ever made.

👍 28
kn562
kn562
May 14, 2014 9:17 pm

hi sir; great job you did on covering kent moore’s recommendations; firstly it has saved me a lot of money in getting the low down assessment on his recs rather than paying his fancy subscription fees; i just wish to say , you are doing a great job; keep up the good work; i think some time down the road, i will become a paid subscriber to gumshoe; many thanks

Lulu
November 5, 2014 2:50 pm
Reply to  kn562

I wasn’t aware one could participate in these threads if one wasn’t a paid subscriber?
At $50 a yr, how does one vindicate ones self for not subscribing. Travis, I hope the children won’t miss a meal cause this cheap o won’t subscribe.

👍 1303
👍 21650
hendrixnuzzles
March 30, 2015 12:33 am

Thanks, Travis. Sorry I don’t have any spare Krugerrands, switched over to
Maple Leafs and Eagles.
Enjoying my subscription immensely. Better value for money than the continuing ed classes at the local community college or my daughter’s college tuition bill. And the entertainment value is very high compared to a couple of nights movies or a meal in a good restaurant.
Anyway I like the supply/demand picture in uranium, but who knows when the prices will up.
Long CCJ, UEC, URZ. Will look at Fission when there is a confirmed move. The investable universe there seems pretty small. The ETFs I looked at are pretty much in these anyway, and seem to just add even more speculative and risky players.

Add a Topic
520
👍 9968
Wegi
Member
Wegi
May 14, 2014 9:42 pm

Several years ago Lighhtbridge (in the USA) LTBR (a Thorium Plant, I believe) was reported to be promising for a long term gain. Also Fission TSX.V (in Canada) looked promising. I hardly know how to research such companies. A couple years ago TSX went up and came back down. Lightbridge is supposed to go up over long term. Has anyone researched them?

Add a Topic
1487
Add a Topic
1515
👍 21650
Mark
Mark
May 14, 2014 9:46 pm

I purchased UEC for my 401(k) about a month ago, just before it dropped from $1.50 to $1.00. I got disgusted and sold out at around $1.10; of course, within days it went all the way back up to $1.50. Not sure what to do at this point; probably wait to see if it pulls back a bit before jumping in again. Appreciate the sleuthing, Travis!

dgcannon
May 15, 2014 12:46 am
Reply to  Mark

Janet,
I agree. I think we are fairly close to solving the hydrogen conversion puzzle. At that point, uranium will become irrelevant, as will oil and nat gas. Just MHO.

Add a Topic
520
Add a Topic
359
👍 28
carbon bigfoot
Guest
carbon bigfoot
May 15, 2014 9:10 am
Reply to  dgcannon

dgcannon what hydrogen conversion problem? Hydrogen is a non-starter pushed by Air Products out of Allentown, PA bought in by the moron Terminator, bodybuilder,actor- governator
It would be helpful to state your CV when you espouse technical opnions.
Mine 45 years in energy as a Professional Chemical Engineer.

Rusty Brown in Canada
Member
Rusty Brown in Canada
November 6, 2014 11:28 am
Reply to  carbon bigfoot

Hydrogen conversion to helium, perhaps?
That would really be a nice energy-producing trick if anyone could do it.

Andrew Keir
Guest
Andrew Keir
March 7, 2015 5:52 am

Hydrogen to helium is called “nuclear fusion”, as happens inside the Sun.
You have to hold the reactor contents inside a mega-strong magnetic field, as no solid material will withstand the temperature.
A nuclear fusion reactor is basically an H-bomb restrained by that magnetic field – you would know the field had failed (whether accidentally or by terrorist action) when you saw the mushroom cloud …
… don’t try this at home, or in any country you love …

hipockets
March 7, 2015 11:23 pm

Andrew Keir– where does the reaction get the energy to start and then maintain the magnetic fieild? Thanks.

👍 1224
hipockets
November 7, 2014 1:58 am
Reply to  carbon bigfoot

Glad to see the old CV vexation is back. Haven’t seen it for a while. 🙂
What’s it stand for, again? Creamy vichyssoise? 🙂

👍 1224
hendrixnuzzles
April 5, 2015 12:28 am
Reply to  carbon bigfoot

Dear Mr. Bigfoot,
You have been highly recommended by your peers as a Qualified Person
to review my Blog/Article entitled OIL…GAS CONVERSION…NANOTCECHNOLOGY.
It seems to be located in a backwater of this site that few people ever go to.
I am feeling very depressed because only 4 people have seen the thing compared to
700 responders to 770 life insurance and 546,838 responses to Dr KSS.
Please do not respond until you have looked at the links provided.
Sincerely,

Hendrixnuzzles

Add a Topic
1208
Add a Topic
882
Add a Topic
3932
👍 9968
Myron Martin
Irregular
November 6, 2014 12:04 pm
Reply to  Mark

Mark: As an experienced long term investor I would point out that the mistake you made is a common one, and in fairness is easy to make. The more in-depth your initial research into a company and its management background the stronger your convictions should be for long term success. Knowing that small caps are by nature very volatile you should avoid market fluctuations for the most part if the fundamentals of the company have not changed, have the courage of your convictions long term.
In other words, in the absence of company specific issues, don’t let market sentiment on a daily or weekly basis sway you into making emotional buy or sell decisions, trust the fundamentals long term rather than the irrational market moves. Remember, a loss is not a loss until you lock it in with a sell, and likewise a profit is not a profit until you actually sell the stock. If you have done your homework, then give a company enough time to work out its game plan.

Add a Topic
5971
gloglo
gloglo
May 15, 2014 12:40 am

There are 23 US reactors built like the GE designed Fukishima. The battery life in case of electrical failure in the US models is 2 hours, in Fuki it was 8. Many links available and in detail re dangerous design problems.
http://burnanenergyjournal.com/map-us-nuclear-reactors-built-like-fukushima/
Plus all those old reactors built along the river and fault line all the way down thru Memphis are disasters waiting to happen IMO.
I think UA for a trade is fine, not a long term investment. sentiment has to be edgy on UA.

Add a Topic
1614
👍 10
dgcannon
May 15, 2014 12:41 am

Mark,
I’m no guru, but Ids look a the chart and see if you can spot a trend. In my opinion the best free chart service online is stockcharts.com. If you scroll down you’ll have an option to get the 20 day moving average (called the moving average exp.) be sure and hit “update”). Further down you’ll another set of optional parameters. The one I choose is the accumulation/distribution option, which give you and an indication as to whether or not the stock is being bought or sold. You can look at 3 month, 5 day or even 3 day trends. Hope this is helpful. I’ve bought some stocks at bargain prices by looking at theses charts.

Add a Topic
5971
👍 28
Lucretia
Guest
Lucretia
November 11, 2014 4:57 pm
Reply to  dgcannon

just started in stock search. This was great info for beginner

Add a Topic
5971
Joseph Rotondi
Guest
Joseph Rotondi
May 15, 2014 12:49 am

Hah. I got in UEC at 1.12 a few weeks ago sold at 1.07 watched it trade all the way down to .95 and had a sigh of relief and saw it shoot up crazy past two days. I was wondering why and I see now that it is being pumped. My timing has been just awful lately.

hendrixnuzzles
April 4, 2015 11:33 pm
Reply to  Joseph Rotondi

The stock is thinly traded so relatively small shifts in buying or selling can dramatically affect the price. To be really sure a new trend is in place, I think what you have to look for is a dramatic move out of it’c current range that is sustained for more than a few days, combined with a positive move in the U308 price and confirmed by moves in the other stocks in the uranium universe . Otherwise you are just seeing noise created by changes in speculative sentiment.

Add a Topic
5971
Add a Topic
520
👍 9968
imawot
May 15, 2014 9:02 am

More than seventy percent of France’s electricity is produced by nuclear plants. Many are reaching their 50 year life span. France knows they have a pending problem but seemingly have no plans for replacement generating plants. What a great opportunity for lots of uranium or thorium?? Or will France build gas fired plants using US LNG? Is the GE/Alstom deal going to help??

Add a Topic
520
Add a Topic
1487
Add a Topic
653
hipockets
May 15, 2014 4:16 pm
Reply to  imawot

I can’t figure out why nuclear plants have such a short life span.

The uranium should not be depleted so soon, and, if it does, (what do I know?) it could be replaced. The concrete should be around for much longer. The instrumentation can be replaced as needed and upgraded when possible. The generators could be replaced. The cooling water? The people running it ( just kidding.) ?

The other puzzling thought: Why can’t uranium reactors be easily upgraded to thorium? I think they orperate on the same principle.

Add a Topic
899
Add a Topic
520
Add a Topic
540
👍 1224
John Harris
Member
John Harris
May 15, 2014 5:32 pm
Reply to  hipockets

The containment vessel (concrete and reinforcing rerod) and pipes and other structures and objects inside the containment area get bombarded with radiation and degrade. The concrete and pipes etc require ultra-sound inspection on a regular basis looking for cracks or defects. .
I don’t know the actual construction of a thorium reactor or if a uranium reactor could be converted. But certainly you could build a thorium reactor right next to a uranium reactor and use some of the same infrastructure, the power grid, perhaps even the turbine and high voltage transformers etc.. The same is true for coal plants – just build the thorium plant next to it and use most of the infrastructure but without the CO2 emissions to say nothing of mercury and particulates that cause asthma to say nothing of no coal ash to store either.

Add a Topic
1487
Add a Topic
520
Add a Topic
1487
T
T
November 7, 2014 2:43 am
Reply to  John Harris

John you are so right. ‘
During the nuclear reaction everything will get bombarded with radiation. That radiation effect greatly to the reactor it self and being a steel structure it hardens over the time. But reactors can be ‘refreshed” by taking production down and install some heating elements around and heavy insulation and by heat, discharge ie rejuvenate steel to original condition. Hence extend lifespan of the reactor another 40 to 50 years.

T
T
November 7, 2014 2:45 am
Reply to  hipockets

Hi Hipockets!
See my comment replay to John Harris below.

hipockets
November 7, 2014 10:04 pm
Reply to  T

Thanks, T.

👍 1224
arch1
April 5, 2015 11:08 am
Reply to  hipockets

Hi Pockets you are correct the fuel rods get contaminated with daughter products that are produced through fission. They can and should be reprocessed as they still contain nearly all the fissionable material they started with. NIMBY effect is the problem so rods are wasted by being stored on site in cooling ponds, the worst possible solution.
The problem in reactors being scrapped is not in the reactor itself but rater in the boiler system,,a crude adaptation of what is used in coal plants and not designed for nuclear use.
Fukushima was shut down because the back up cooling system for the reactor failed…modern design would not let that happen as they can be built fail safe. Your question about Thorium is a good one. The problem is that proposed Thorium plants
use a molten Sodium or similar metal at 600 degrees for coolant/heat exchange which would have to replace the Uranium reactors which use water. Highly reactive/corrosive at that temperature. That problem should be solvable. The containment building could certainly be re-used. Those huge towers ,,always shown with steam coming out the top are merely for cooling. Modern design would not waste all that steam energy so towers would be unneeded. The big selling point for Thorium is you cannot build a nuclear bomb from it. You could however make a dirty bomb that uses conventional explosives to contaminate an area with radioactive material to panic people.

Add a Topic
1337
Add a Topic
1487
Add a Topic
1487
👍 7797
T
T
November 7, 2014 2:52 am
Reply to  imawot

Hi Jerry,
French lost they mojo long time back in their own green wave. Areva has lost most of the know how with the people they have to let go. Areva is a shell of emptiness no more engineering know how, how to make plans and how to build reactors as they used to have. Now they are just sellers of the yellow cake and own some companies digging dirt.

Frenchy
Frenchy
May 15, 2014 12:57 pm

Thanks Travis for the article and saving me $1,995, I was one of those who “peppered” you with Kent’s teaser. I do think Uranium as a medium term investment (1-3 years) will be a decent bet as I believe in the shortage. I will probably play it safe with CCJ as I have Canadian dollars to invest and UEC has been P&D too much by now. Need a better entry price.

Thanks again and our membership is worth every penny!

Add a Topic
520
👍 756
greenfire67
Irregular
May 15, 2014 3:12 pm

Was just going to send this one in to Travis, but I see your already on it. U308 WAS warming up for the last 6mo. but has cooled off quite a bit this last mo. Many explorer and smaller miners have sold off pretty extensively, creating a few bargains. Myron has some good picks, (pick of the litter stocks) in U308. Cameco, CCJ, will be one of the main goto stocks as uranium recovers, probably 6 mo. from now. Fission & Dennison are still at the top of the buyout list.
Thanks again Travis.

Add a Topic
1137
Add a Topic
520
👍 83
1 2 3 5

We use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience. By clicking any link on this page you are giving your consent for us to set cookies.

More Info  
32
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x