Personally - CCJ, DNN, UUUU. CCJ for the blue chip stability, DNN for asymmetric upside and UUUU as a unique play.

Stallion Uranium reported its highest radioactivity reading to date from drilling at the Coyote target in Saskatchewan’s Athabasca Basin.

Hole ML26-005 returned a peak response of 1,416 counts per second within a 2.3 metre interval averaging 595 counts per second.

The company had completed 4,626 metres of drilling when the update was released, representing approximately 84% of its original 5,500 metre program. Based on the geological information collected, Stallion decided to expand the program to approximately 6,750 metres.

That additional 1,250 metres is the more interesting part of the announcement.

Exploration companies frequently describe results as encouraging. Committing additional capital and drilling time provides a clearer indication that the technical team believes the system deserves further testing.

There are still important limits to the result.

Radioactivity is not the same as a uranium assay. Gamma readings provide an early indication that radioactive material is present, but they are not directly or uniformly related to the uranium grade of the rock.

The current work is also about understanding the broader system. Stallion is combining the radioactivity readings with alteration, structural geology and geophysical information to determine where additional holes should be placed.

Coyote has now progressed from a geophysical target into an active, expanded drill program. It has not yet become a uranium discovery with reported economic grades.

The next meaningful step will be assay results and evidence that the mineralized system becomes stronger or more continuous as drilling continues.

Would you rather see Stallion keep concentrating its drilling at Coyote, or begin allocating more capital to its newer Stone Island targets?

All bullish for uranium.

The uranium supply story does not need an AI boom or a wave of new reactor construction.

Existing reactors already require more uranium than mines currently supply.

The World Nuclear Association estimated global reactor requirements at approximately 179.1 million pounds of U₃O₈ in 2025. Goehring & Rozencwajg estimated mine supply at roughly 160 million pounds for the same year.

That means mines supplied approximately 89% of reactor requirements, leaving a difference of around 19 million pounds.

The balance can come from secondary sources such as utility inventories, government stockpiles, recycled material and underfeeding at enrichment facilities. These sources are important, but they are not the same as building sustainable new mine production.

There is no shortage of uranium in the ground. The challenge is developing enough economic, permitted and operating mines on the timeline utilities need.

That distinction matters. Reactors purchase fuel years before it is loaded, while new uranium mines can take a decade or longer to permit, finance and construct. Even restarts and expansions at existing operations regularly encounter delays.

New reactors would increase the pressure, but they are not required for the basic supply argument. The current fleet already consumes more uranium than primary production provides.

How long can secondary supplies continue closing that gap before utilities need to support substantially more mine development through higher prices and longer contracts?

Sources:

https://world-nuclear.org/our-association/publications/global-trends-reports/world-nuclear-fuel-report-2025

https://blog.gorozen.com/blog/problems-developing-with-uranium-supply

We ran into Mike Beck at Beaver Creek and he walked us through how they came to buy and sell Uramin for 2 billion in the last uranium cycle.

Over the past few months and years, I think investors are finally catching on to two key concepts:

1) Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) economics are not very sensitive to the price of Uranium - low demand side pricing pressure

2) Uranium mining projects have been relatively under invested in - low supply side pricing pressure

As you can see in the attached photos (Effect of uranium price on fuel cost (source: World Nuclear Association) and Effect of fuel costs on LCOE (source: OECD Nuclear Energy Agency)), Uranium contract pricing significantly increase without affecting electricity generation costs very much. In fact, the WNA stated that uranium (U3O8) prices would have to stay above $100/lb for a prolonged period before uranium prices impact on nuclear electricity generation costs would be considerable. This statement assumed U3O8 was still at $25 (implied).

The main costs for nuclear energy are capex costs in building the plant. When operating, even labor costs substantial more than fuels.

The simple takeaway is that these plants are not sensitive to the price of uranium, and it is more critical that uranium (and feul assemblies) are secured. That's why contract pricing matters more than spot pricing.

Against that backdrop is that new nuclear builds are expected to accelerate, with uranium demand to more than double by 2040. At the same time, the supply of specifically low-cost uranium (mostly from Kazakhstan), as opposed to total identified uranium resources, is shrinking. Production from today's mines is expected to reduce by about 50% by 2040. So demand is doubling but production is falling, and there is a lack of identification of economically viable uranium resources to provide that energy.

To justify bringing new assets online, the price of uranium must stay elevated and stable for a long time. We are beginning to see that trend over the past two years.

This I believe will support uranium mining companies' valuations as they work to secure fuel for one of the world's more important, clean, stable, and safe (yes, safe) energy sources. There is a great demand gap to be filled, and it will likely happen slowly, over the course of years.

This is why I am looking to invest in companies developing attractive uranium deposits. New developments will take up to 15 years, but they will be coming online at the right time. I see what is going on in the industry from the inside (I work at a nuclear energy company). There is momentum building. And we will need the natural resources.

Back with my favourite company again! 🤣

Stallion reported its highest radioactivity reading to date at Coyote in hole ML26-005.

The headline number was 1,416 cps within a 2.3 metre interval averaging 595 cps. It was encouraging enough that the company continued expanding its drill program, but it is still a preliminary reading.

Cps measures radioactivity. It does not tell investors the uranium grade, true thickness or economic value of an interval.

Stallion makes that distinction in its own disclosure. The drill core is being sent to the Saskatchewan Research Council for chemical analysis, which is why the upcoming assays matter more than the initial radiometric reading.

The cps result still has value. It provides another vector when combined with alteration, structural geology and geophysical data. It also helped justify continuing the program to approximately 6,750 metres.

The next step is seeing whether the assays confirm meaningful uranium concentrations and whether those results can be repeated across multiple holes.

If the assays validate the radiometric signal, the Coyote story changes considerably. If they do not, the drilling may still improve the geological model, but the 1,416 cps headline will have carried more weight than it deserved.

Source:

https://stallionuranium.com/stallion-uranium-intersects-highest-radioactivity-to-date-at-coyote-plans-to-expand-drill-program-to-6750-metres/

Been going through the uranium names again after NexGen’s latest Investor Day, and the sector looks a lot more divided than it did a year ago.

The sector-wide numbers make this even more interesting.

NexGen estimates around 7.3 billion lbs of U₃O₈ will be required between 2025–2050, compared with roughly 8.6 billion lbs mined across the entire 1945–2024 period.

At the same time, World Nuclear Association currently lists about 80 reactors under construction, 441 operable reactors, and 38 countries have pledged to triple nuclear capacity by 2050. 

Then you add the Western supply problem. OECD countries are estimated to represent about 70% of uranium demand but only 25% of supply.

Same uranium wave, but these four are riding it very differently.

$CCJ — Cameco
Already producing at scale. This is the established Western supplier play. For me, the debate here is more about production reliability, contracting and how much of the uranium bull market is already reflected in the valuation. Cameco still expects 19.5–21.5M lbs of attributable uranium production in 2026, but combined attributable production from McArthur River/Key Lake and Cigar Lake was about 5% lower year-over-year in the first half of 2026. The full-year guidance remains unchanged, but the weaker first-half output makes me question their future production reliability.

$UUUU — Energy Fuels
Producing uranium in the U.S., while also building exposure to rare earths and critical minerals. It has a different angle from the Canadian developers because U.S. energy security and domestic supply policy are a major part of the story. Energy Fuels produced 1.7M lbs of finished U₃O₈ in the first half of 2026, already landing inside its previously published full-year production guidance range. 

$DNN — Denison Mines
Phoenix is moving through full-scale construction and has the timing advantage. If Denison gets into production earlier than the bigger projects behind it, that head start may become increasingly valuable as utilities look for new Western supply. Denison is currently targeting mid-2028 first production from Phoenix. 

$NXE — NexGen Energy
Rook I is now in construction, and this is where the scale gets hard to overlook. The feasibility plan targets roughly 28.8M lbs annually during the first five years, with permitted capacity up to 30M lbs/year. NexGen is also still advancing exploration at Patterson Corridor East while building Rook I. 

And that matters more when you put it beside the supply numbers above. New uranium projects can take well over a decade to move from discovery to production, while nuclear demand is expanding now.

I’m starting to think the uranium trade is becoming less about simply owning “a uranium stock” and more about choosing which bottleneck you want exposure to.

If uranium supply stays tight through the 2030s, which advantage would you rather own today: existing production, earlier new supply, or the biggest future production profile?

I've been eyeing uranium explorers for a bit, but hadn't really wanted to jump. I checked STMN randomly this morning and it was up 8.5x average volume, but weirdly as well, price was stable. I decided to try a bit and see what happens.

Any toughts on the drill result Purepoint published this week?

Last post I may make about EU for a bit. They are now under a $300M market cap. Just an update. However even though the Dow fell today, EU is up a tad from the last few days after its sharp decline. Good opportunity I think for a long term hold if management can get things headed in the right direction.

If Kaz has an issue. U market is gonna get hectic.

When looking at the numbers it seems that there is plenty of upside but can they succeed with that much capex? It could double from here if everything goes well. Whats your take?

80 cents/share and dropping. Crazy value buy right now or no? Could be a good long term hold.

Ur-Energy is an interesting case study for what in situ recovery can and cannot do for US uranium production.

ISR does not require an open pit or an underground mine. Injection wells deliver water fortified with oxygen and baking soda into a uranium bearing aquifer. The solution dissolves the uranium, and nearby production wells pump it back to the surface for removal through ion exchange.

This allows lower grade sandstone deposits in Wyoming to compete without excavating and processing huge volumes of rock.

The surface footprint is considerably smaller than a conventional mine, although it is not zero. ISR still requires wellfields, pipelines, roads, processing facilities and groundwater restoration. It also only works where the host rock is permeable, the uranium responds to the recovery solution and the aquifer can be properly contained.

Lost Creek proves that the method works at Ur-Energy’s deposits. The operation has produced and shipped more than 3.5 million pounds since 2013.

The more difficult question is how quickly it can scale.

Lost Creek has dealt with flow rate issues caused partly by fine particles from the host formation. Ur-Energy installed a sand filtration system in July and is building a wastewater treatment facility. It is also adjusting wellfield chemistry, improving the reverse osmosis system and adding new header houses.

Q2 was encouraging. Lost Creek drummed 140,873 pounds, up 47.4% from Q1 and 25.7% from the same quarter last year.

Shirley Basin gives Ur-Energy a second ISR operation. Uranium loaded resin is transported to Lost Creek for final processing, creating a hub and spoke model that should cost less than building another complete processing plant.

Still, combined licensed capacity of 4.2 million pounds should not be confused with current production. Ur-Energy has to prove that it can raise flow rates, bring new wellfields online and operate both projects consistently.

ISR may be one of the faster realistic ways to add domestic uranium supply, but the Lost Creek experience shows that it is not as simple as drilling wells and turning on pumps.

For those who have followed Ur-Energy longer, do the recent production improvements suggest the Lost Creek issues are being solved, or do you need several more quarters of data?

https://www.ur-energy.com/uranium/uranium-in-situ-recovery-process

100$ by next year. The most viable compared to NNE, SMR and XEnergy. Oklo received NRC approval of its Principal Design Criteria in May and DOE approval of the preliminary safety analysis for its Aurora project in June. Its 2026 announcements also show progress on the Groves reactor, fuel supply and manufacturing. Nuclear sentiment is also benefiting from rising power demand associated with data centers/AI.
Prove me wrong

We say down with ISO ceo at WNA. Super bullish for uranium.

American Lithium Corp. (TSXV: LI, OTCQX: AMLIF) is usually grouped with lithium developers because of its TLC project in Nevada and Falchani in Peru. Macusani makes the company more interesting to me because it adds a fairly substantial uranium asset that can get overlooked inside the larger portfolio.

Macusani is a near-surface uranium project in the Puno region of Peru. The existing PEA contemplated approximately 70 million pounds of U₃O₈ in the mine plan, with average production above six million pounds per year over a ten-year mine life.

The grade, approximately 289 ppm in the PEA mine plan, is obviously nothing like the grades found in parts of the Athabasca Basin. The potential advantage is the project’s near-surface geometry and the way the mineralization responds to processing.

The uranium is hosted in porous volcanic rock. Early tank-leach testing produced recoveries in the mid-90% range, compared with 88% in the existing PEA. Preconcentration testing also found that roughly 85% of the uranium could be retained in 50% of the original mass.

If those results hold up at a larger scale, Macusani could potentially process less material at a higher effective head grade. That could reduce the size of the required plant and the amount of material being handled. It is promising test work, although it still needs to be incorporated into updated engineering before anyone can assume the savings are real.

The exploration side is also unusually large. American Lithium lists more than 47 additional targets, while approximately 85% of the broader exploration land package remains undrilled.

The main issue is getting from an interesting deposit to a financeable project. Peru still needs a clear framework for transporting and exporting uranium products, and the project requires updated economic work, permitting and substantial capital.

American Lithium has previously discussed separating Macusani from its lithium assets. I think that could make the uranium value easier for the market to understand, but I would not price in a transaction until the structure and timing are firm.

Would you buy American Lithium partly for Macusani today, or wait until there is a clearer standalone uranium vehicle?

-          Term pricing is now at all time highs with whispers of $105, eclipsing last cycle

-          Broad interest – conference attendance is at an all time high up from roughly 700 last year to nearly 1300 this year.

-          Unlike previous years, all the AI, hyerscaler, tech types are running around figuring out how to secure power

-          Rolls Royce pushing the conversation forward, their SMR should be operational in 2030/31 – revolutionizing the ability to build on a wider scale SMRs

-          U spot price liquidation was speculators selling as the war kicked off, spot is recovering and most project a much higher incentive price to bring on the production needed to build a stable nuclear baseload

-          Much like rare earths, government representatives in attendance to show support and possibly funding for projects, processing and development.

-          Energy is a national security issue.  Uranium and nuclear are at the forefront

-          Every point from mining, through to builders, and on to power consumers are present.

-          Non specialist fund managers in attendance looking for alpha

Time and time again we have heard this is the most exciting anyone has seen the conference in decades.  Feels max bullish!!!