SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: TobagoJack who wrote (187060)4/26/2022 10:02:25 PM
From: TobagoJack1 Recommendation

Recommended By
sense

  Respond to of 217786
 
Following on to issue of nuclear-dom

doomberg.substack.com

Sitting Down With Sprott

DoombergApr 9

There is no substitute for face-to-face reporting and research.” – Thomas Friedman

Late 2021 and early 2022 will undoubtedly be remembered for the tectonic shifts in geopolitics that flowed directly from a crisis in energy. What started as a shortage of natural gas in Europe spread quickly to Asia, and ultimately evolved into an ongoing inflationary spiral for most of the critical inputs that drive our economy. As is all too predictable in such circumstances, military conflict has broken out, and one hopes conflict contagion can be prevented.

Nothing focuses the mind like a crisis, and no technology is poised to benefit more from our inevitable reconciliation with physics than nuclear energy. The early signs of a sober reconsideration of the policy errors that got us in this predicament are finally emerging. Recently, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson completed a near about-face on the topic, lending the full weight of his position in support of a nuclear renaissance:

“Boris Johnson has told nuclear industry bosses that the government wants the UK to get 25% of its electricity from nuclear power, in a move that would signal a significant shift in the country’s energy mix.
Johnson on Monday met executives from major nuclear utilities and technology companies including the UK’s Rolls-Royce, France’s EDF, and the US’s Westinghouse and Bechtel to discuss ways of helping to speed up the development of new nuclear power stations.


In parallel and coincident with these developments, a financial revolution is underway in the market for uranium, the fuel that powers nuclear energy reactors. (In September, we wrote about the significant changes occurring in that market here). By acquiring Uranium Participation Corporation (UPC) and reorganizing it into the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust (SPUT), Sprott Asset Management has set about the task of bringing order and transparent price discovery to the market for uranium. Judging by the events that have unfolded since they embarked on this mission, their timing has been impeccable. The price of Uranium has doubled, SPUT continues to buy and sequester millions of pounds of uranium, the price of many uranium mining stocks has soared, and interest in nuclear power as the ultimate form of green energy is growing.



A few weeks ago, we made an appearance on Antonio Atanasov’s podcast Resource Talks to give an update on our uranium views (you can follow Atanasov on Twitter here, and listen to the uranium portion of our appearance on YouTube here). Shortly after that published, we met John Ciampaglia, CEO of Sprott Asset Management, over email. We had been keenly interested to learn the mechanics of how SPUT actually works and what Sprott’s long-term intentions are with that vehicle and asked if he would sit down with us for an interview. Ciampaglia obliged, and what follows are highlights from that wide-ranging discussion, lightly edited for readability.





Disclosure: Members of the Doomberg team are long SPUT, which trades in the US under the symbol $SRUUF and on the Toronto Stock Exchange under the symbol $U_U. We consider ourselves long-term holders and do not intend to change our position anytime soon. Nothing in this article should be considered investment advice.

We began by asking Ciampaglia how SPUT raises money and how it procures uranium. There is some confusion on Twitter about whether SPUT needs to be trading at a premium to its net asset value (NAV) before it can issue new shares. Ciampaglia’s answer clarified things nicely (emphasis added throughout):

The program is called an at-the-market offering (ATM), and essentially how that works is we have two underwriters, Vertu and Cantor Fitzgerald, both in the United States, and they act as the underwriters for the at-the-market program. The test is fairly simple. If the trust is trading at a higher value than the previous day’s net asset value (NAV), it gives us the ability to issue new units throughout the day. And as an investor, you may buy some shares and you have no idea whether you happened to buy an existing share that was trading on a secondary basis, or you were going to receive a newly minted treasury share that the underwriter sold you, and at the end of the day comes to us and says, ‘I sold 228,000 new units today. Please give them to me because I'm short, so I can settle all my trades.’ And they give us the net cash, and we take that net cash, and we buy more physical uranium.

We completely control the ATM. The underwriters do not. We will send them instructions over the course of the day around where we want them to issue shares, be more aggressive, pull back, turn it off, turn it on. It's a really good tool, and I think the marketplace, once they figure out how it works, has responded accordingly. Because I think since August 17th, when we initiated the ATM, we've now raised about $1.65 billion through it. So, fast forward the trust, $630 million in July, and I think we hit $3.2 billion AUM as of last night.



There is similar confusion related to how and when SPUT buys its uranium and whether the question of premium or discount to NAV is a factor in that decision. Turns out the answer is no:

In terms of us buying uranium, that is a separate decision. Once the cash is raised, we will start immediately looking for pounds. For example, if we were issuing new units this morning, we will literally concurrently be looking to place the capital even before the trades settle, because I know I'll get the cash on T-plus two, but I'll go buy uranium with a T-plus 30 settlement period. Right? So, on days where we're really active with the ATM, we're shopping, basically, all day looking for uranium.

The premium and discount don’t have any bearing on our buying program. Once the cash is in the fund, then our job is to survey the market, find the best available offers. We're not beholden to any one producer. We've purchased uranium from 25 different counterparties so far. And so, we cast the wide net, we talk to people all around the world. It's not an easy product to buy. There's a lot of different time zones. We're often trying to get ahold of people before they go to bed in Asia. It's a lot of manual work.

Building on the discussion about NAV, we asked Ciampaglia whether he worries about the fact that SPUT is a closed-end fund (meaning shares are not redeemable). Typically, closed-end funds can trade at a significant discount to NAV. His answer was illuminating:

Closed-end funds obviously will trade at premiums and discounts to NAV. It's one of their, I would say, their limitations relative to the open-ended ETF structure which, historically, those funds will trade very close to NAV because there is a daily arbitrage mechanism built into those structures. With a closed-end fund, we control the basic supply of shares in the marketplace through the ATM, so that's something that closed-end funds historically don't do. They don't typically raise capital after they initially IPO because, as you mentioned, they historically trade at discounts. But when you look at the Sprott Physical Bullion Trusts, and you look at the Physical Uranium Trust, what you'll notice is that they generally will trade in a pretty tight collar to their net asset value. And that's because we market the funds constantly. We have a very loyal shareholder base, and there's different types of investors that will help arb away any discount if it persists.

One of the structural changes we made to Uranium Participation Corp to help mitigate that risk is we calculated the net asset value every night. And this is the first of its kind. The predecessor vehicle would publish a net asset value once a month. When you think about a commodity as opaque as uranium, I often joke with people that it's almost impossible to find a price on a screen for uranium unless you have professional services, or you have a subscription to one of the pricing reporters. It's really hard to even find a price.

If you're not providing transparency to your shareholders around what the net asset value is on a very frequent basis, and you have an opaque uranium price to begin with, it doesn't give investors the tools or the information to know exactly where the fund is trading and how they should be buying and selling it. And I think our hope is that our trust will trade in a much tighter collar versus the predecessor vehicle, or for that matter, Yellowcake [Yellow Cake PLC, OTCMKTS, Symbol: $YLLXF] right now, which is trading at a 7% or 8% discount to its value, even though it only publishes a NAV once a month.



Although SPUT does trade on the main stock market in Canada, it only trades over-the-counter (OTC) in the US, which can limit the profile of investors who can participate in the trust. A key objective of the Sprott team is to upgrade SPUT’s listing to the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), something many uranium investors are anxiously awaiting. We asked Ciampaglia whether he could give our readers an update on the topic:

… the last piece of the puzzle of our program is to pursue a New York Stock Exchange listing, which we think will be the cherry on top. I think the marketplace has figured out that we've been able to do an enormous amount of good in the marketplace, just with the TSX listing. It's going to be a bit of a battle working through the SEC review process, but it's something we're committed to, something we're paying for out of pocket. And we're very close to actually making that filing. The NYSE just emailed me this morning saying, they're putting the finishing touches on it. So, we hope in the next few weeks, you'll see at least a receipt on New York Stock Exchange website that the filing has been made to the SEC.

Sprott Asset Management made news several months ago when it announced its intent to acquire the North Shore Global Uranium Mining ETF (NYSE Arca, Symbol: $URNM) and reorganize it into the Sprott Uranium Miners ETF. On the day we interviewed Ciampaglia, it became clear that shareholders would approve the deal, and we asked him about his plans for the URNM franchise. His answer lays bare just how small the overall market for uranium mining stocks is compared to other commodities, which he sees as defining the opportunity for future growth:

We are hoping that on or about April 25th, the fund reorganization will be complete, and it will add another uranium product to our suite. We're very excited about it. We think it's the best index in terms of its pure play to the uranium miners. I think Tim Rotolo, the current sponsor, has done an incredible job growing that thing from nothing to over a billion dollars. I just finished a call with my sales team, and they asked me a question about what's some of the biggest objections you think you're going to get about the ETF? And amazingly what we find is it comes down to investability. And what I mean by that is we talked to a lot of institutional investors who said, ‘We've done all this work on uranium. We really love the thesis. It's really great. Now we want to allocate capital, and there's three or four things we're able to buy because the sector's so small.’

And it's like, ‘Wow, that is really telling.’ And look, that's a byproduct of a nine year bear market where hundreds of companies disappeared, capital was washed out, and now money's trying to come back and they say to us, ‘Okay, your fund is pretty big, so that's interesting to us, but beyond one or two producers it's really hard to get invested in these companies.’ And I use this example in a presentation. I say, ‘Look, we did a study and there's about 80 odd publicly traded uranium companies, and the combined market cap of all 80 companies is about $37 billion.’ Exxon is 10 times that.

When you think about these companies producing a critical mineral that happens to generate 10% of the world's electricity, it is pretty mind-boggling that the collective value of them is only $37 billion. Even if you compare it to some smaller companies, some smaller oil and gas companies, those companies are still two times the combined market cap of these 80 uranium stocks. We think there's a lot of room. Even though the stocks have moved, we still think there's a lot of room for them to run as they get recapitalized, and they finally get projects back online that have been mothballed for years.



The third-largest holding of URNM is SPUT itself, which could present a conflict of interest. We asked Ciampaglia how Sprott Asset Management intended to handle this situation:

We will be the sponsor of the ETF and the ETF will license the index from North Shore Indices, and that's Tim Rotolo's company. We want to be arm's length from Tim. We like his index design. We like what he's done, so we wanted to continue that. It’s really his decision if he was going to adjust the index methodology at any time in the future. We'd rather not be involved because of the conflict. We think SPUT being a material holding in there adds a lot of liquidity and diversification against some of the more volatile miners, so we think it makes great sense. But in terms of what the end weight is, that's really up to him and his index methodology.






Note: The full transcript of our conversation with Ciampaglia – including his reaction to the AMC/Hycroft Mining deal and the mechanics of physical redemption in PHYS and PSLV – as well as our thoughts on the potential investment consequences of the consummation of the URNM deal, will be emailed to Doomberg Pro members tomorrow, Sunday, April 10th.

What is clear from our time with Ciampaglia is this: Sprott Asset Management is committed to professionalizing the uranium investment landscape. They intend to offer better investment vehicles with enhanced optionality and liquidity than has ever existed in the space. We suspect all members of the sector will benefit from these efforts.

While no investment is without risk – the uranium industry is always one low-probability nuclear accident away from a severe bear market, after all – we came away excited about the long-term prospects for uranium. We reiterate the need for readers to do their own due diligence before making investment decisions.

We close with a reminder that Doomberg is now open to paying subscribers and we will officially pivot to a paid newsletter after April 30. We’re keeping a spot warm for you in the Chicken Coop – upgrade today!

Join the Coop!



To: TobagoJack who wrote (187060)4/27/2022 4:25:57 AM
From: TobagoJack  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 217786
 
Watch & brief backgrounder re <<gas issue>>

economist.com

If the supply of Russian gas to Europe were cut off, could LNG plug the gap?

Securing shipments will be difficult and costly in the short term



Feb 26th 2022 (Updated Apr 26th 2022)

Editor’s note: On April 26th the state-owned gas firms of Bulgaria and Poland said they had been warned by Gazprom that it would stop all deliveries of gas to them within 24 hours. It would be the first such action by Russia’s energy giant since the outbreak of war in Ukraine. Almost half of Poland’s gas, and nine-tenths of Bulgaria’s, is from Russia.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has led to renewed speculation about the future of European energy, and in particular about its supply of natural gas. The continent gets around a quarter of its energy from gas. In 2019 Russia provided over 40% of that gas. The West has not gone so far as to place limits on Russian gas exports, although Germany has suspended the licensing of Nord Stream 2 (ns2), a completed but not yet operational pipeline between Russia and Germany. But what if Vladimir Putin, Russia’s president, were to cut off gas to the West? One alternative source of energy is liquefied natural gas (lng), which is usually transported by sea. To what extent could lng replace piped Russian gas as a source of energy for Europe?

Europe already uses a lot of lng; it makes up around a quarter of the region’s natural-gas imports. One question is how much more of the stuff Europe can process. lng is first turned into a liquid in order to be transported; it must then be “re-gassed” at terminals, usually near the coast, before it can be used to heat and power homes. Heavy investments in regasification plants mean that Europe has plenty of idle capacity. The region’s import terminals ran at 45% of capacity last year, according to Energy Intelligence, an industry publisher, although not all of these terminals are in the right place. Germany has no terminals, while Spain has a quarter of the continent’s capacity, even though its gas infrastructure is largely isolated from the rest of Europe.

The more pressing problem is the available supply of lng. The biggest exporters of lng are America, Australia and Qatar. Although they all have plenty more gas, all are already exporting at or near full tilt. It takes a long time to expand liquefaction and export capacity, so Europe’s best short-term hope would be to get hold of existing lng cargoes originally destined for elsewhere. But Asia also has a strong appetite for lng. China’s imports grew by 82% between 2017 and 2020, for example; last year it overtook Japan as the world’s biggest importer. And around 70% of lng traded globally is on contracts that run for ten years or more. Europe tends to rely on spot markets and shorter contracts. In the past that has allowed Europe to take advantage of low prices when stocks were plentiful, and ensured that countries did not commit themselves to using fossil fuels decades into the future. But it also leaves Europe at the mercy of the market.


When Europe’s gas reserves dwindled over the autumn and winter, in part because Russian supplies dropped, lng imports shot up (see chart). So did prices. In the past, spot prices in Asia have typically been higher than in Europe. But in recent months the price in Europe has at times matched Asian levels. The invasion of Ukraine has only made things worse. The delivered price for lng into north-west Europe rose by 29% in a day, after Mr Putin announced his “special military operation” on February 24th. Politicians are trying to secure new supplies of lng for Europe. With America unable to provide much more, President Joe Biden has promised to help Europe find sources. So far, his attempts have borne little fruit. On February 22nd Qatar’s energy minister said it was “almost impossible” to quickly supply enough lng to replace the gas piped from Russia. lng is not the only lever Europe has to make up a shortfall in Russian supplies but it is an important one—and a hard one to pull. ¦

Our recent coverage of the Ukraine crisis can be found here

More from The Economist explains
Why Donetsk and Luhansk are at the heart of the Ukraine crisis
What did Ukraine’s revolution in 2014 achieve?
How big is Russia’s military build-up around Ukraine?



To: TobagoJack who wrote (187060)4/28/2022 1:35:37 AM
From: sense  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 217786
 
I did all that analysis and the math... a while back... which is why I ended up buying Gazprom... as a no brainer of an opportunity with "can't get there from here" as the alternatives... in any reasonable time frame.

And, with Biden green-lighting Nord Stream II... why not ?

The Europeans, of course, were warned for decades that they needed to avoid exactly that...

And, the sluggish responses... not just to recognition of the risk... but also to rising prices... showing that price incentives somehow don't work in Europe the way they're supposed to ?

I have plenty of criticisms for China, too, of course... along with Biden et all... but, in China, at least... you won't see them gladly suffering over-paying for anything for very long... even as a point of pride in deflecting from some loss of face... which can always be deflected by some other means... at less expense ?

It's tempting to blame it on ideology... but, it seems a perversity if an ideological bent...

More likely... it's the Euro's grotesquely dysfunctional bureaucracy that's to blame...

A thing we could all do with less of, the European's have such a rich abundance... they merely need to figure out how to get as much energy back out of it as they put in. Or, turn it off... and the problem disappears.




To: TobagoJack who wrote (187060)4/28/2022 1:44:54 AM
From: sense  Respond to of 217786
 
The issue here in the U.S. now...

Growing LNG exports will drive domestic prices higher...

So, some good themes for investment arise...

But,. the TIMING issue isn't properly parsed...

Shifting gas shipments to Europe from other destinations... has no other impact on the dynamic in the market... but, gas prices have been rising in anticipation of selling more U.S. gas to Europe... with that reducing domestic supply... when you really can't produce and ship any more... without having more infrastructure to enable "more"... independent of destination ?

Will rethink what of that is "games being played" and misdirection... and what is covering up for shortfalls occurring now in basic production... forced into decline by "Biden's bad policy choices"...

Of course, if production is already reduced... AND we begin selling more of what is produced into LNG markets... it doesn't harm the investment thesis... but might well generate overlapping reasons for many to find ways to... dissemble... about the reality in the supply end... and future price impacts likely... along with the timing in which they are likely to be occurring...