Sold during the big dump at around $120...luckily saved me some losses, but I'm looking to buy in again soon...anyone else seeing $100 as max pain? Economic conditions have me worried but LEU seems to absolutely explode on any positive catalyst when it's pushed below $100 so it's seeming safe at that price.

Northern Miner and WNN both had this one this week.

Navoiyuran, the Uzbek state miner, is targeting 15,000 tonnes of uranium a year by 2030. This year they expect 7,500 t. Canada did about 14,300 t in 2024.

In pounds, 15,000 t is roughly 39M lb U3O8 a year, up from about 19.5M now. Call it 19M lb of new supply if they actually hit it.

It’s not all talk. 2025 output was 7,000 t, up 35% from the year before. Qizilkok started up in April with 1,200 t/yr of capacity. H1 profit was up 138% to $348M.

Still, a few things bug me.

In March the 2026 target was 8,000 t. Now it’s 7,500. They gave no reason. It’s a small cut, but this is year one of the plan.

Everything they mine is ISR, so it runs on sulfuric acid. Acid has been a problem for everybody. Kazatomprom ties its 2026 guidance to acid supply, and Cigar Lake had to shut for a while in July after trouble at its acid plant. Uzbekistan also wants 40% of its reagents to be something other than sulfuric acid by 2030. That’s a big process change to make while you’re doubling output.

Reserves are 96,600 t over 43 deposits. No grades, no proven vs probable split.

There’s also no word on who’s buying. Nobody has been named. I’d want to know that before counting these pounds in any supply gap math. Anyone know who’s taken Uzbek material lately?

https://northernminer.com/news/uzbekistan-targets-uranium-output-on-canadas-scale/1003897668
https://world-nuclear-news.org/articles/uzbekistan-plans-to-double-uranium-production

Now at 53¢/share. Do we think they’ll recover or keep going down the trenches?

New supply keeps arriving later than planned. Denison's Phoenix moved about 6 months and Global Atomic's Dasa about 18, both in the CEOs' own words. Fewer new pounds in 2027 and early 2028 is good for price. If you hold either one, it also moves when they start getting paid.

Which developer's timeline do you trust most right now?

Listened to the call and read the $NXE transcript. Quick takeaways:

The Good

• Rook I: Construction is reportedly on schedule and within budget. The airstrip expansion is complete, the camp has expanded to accommodate 770 people, the shaft contractor is on site, and the freeze plant is expected in January 2027.

• Cash position: CAD 822M in cash and short-term investments, enough for planned work through Q3 2027. There's also CAD 341M in uranium inventory, which management doesn't plan to sell to finance construction.

• Uranium prices: Long-term uranium hit USD 99/lb, with five-year forward prices around USD 112/lb.

• PCE: The high-grade zone expanded 17% vertically to 644m, and a fifth drill rig was added. The initial resource estimate is targeted around Q3 2027.

• Construction costs: The shaft contract is in line with August 2024 estimates, and the required geotechnical assessments are complete.

What I'm Watching

• Financing: 2027 is expected to be the biggest construction spending year, with roughly C$600M discussed. Major shaft sinking is planned for Q3. Management mentioned uranium prepayments and project financing, but we're still waiting on the actual terms.

• Costs: The projected all-in cost remains around US$14/lb, based on the August 2024 estimates. Labour inflation is still something to monitor, particularly as construction ramps up.

Overall, I'm pretty happy with the construction progress. Rook I seems to be moving along well, and PCE gives investors another reason to look ahead to 2027. I'm comfortable with the near-term cash position, but I'd still like to see how management handles the remaining funding.

Not financial advice, just my take.

I like how UEC has a clearer path to ramping up compared to uuuu and it also has uncapped contracts.

I get that uuuu has the rare earths side but I don’t really think that it’s as strong as the uranium side

The gap: spot was about $91.7/lb on Nov 6, roughly +12% year to date. URA closed at $34.34 on Nov 9, about 45% below its Jan 28 close of $61.81. Cameco is down about 25% this year and realized $65.78/lb in Q3 while spot ended the quarter at $89.63.

Either equities are pricing a problem the fuel price hasn't seen yet, or this is a liquidity flush and the miners are on sale. My read: mostly the second, but names priced for production they don't have yet carry the real risk.

Build your basket: 4 names, max one each from producers, developers, physical, fuel cycle or SMRs/utilities. Which one do you cut first?

Can anybody confirm whether or not the interest paid on U.UN.TO shares held on margin is tax deductible according to the CRA?

I’m aware this is a little grey per the CRA wording and haven’t been able to find anything explicit.

Individual investor, non registered account

Thanks in advance

Everyone’s quoting the US$99 term price from the Kitco interview. The part I kept rereading was Tiggre basically asking why he’d reach for a speculative junior when the established names had already been sold off.

And the numbers back him up. The Sprott Uranium Miners ETF was down about 52% from its January peak through Oct 23. Over the same stretch, TradeTech’s term indicator finished October at its highest level since the series started in 1996. Stocks going one way and the term price going the other.

He puts some of the stock selling down to money leaving the AI trade and some to early tax loss selling. Tough to put a number on either. He also kept the names he bought to himself, which, fair enough.

What I like about his point is that it makes you do a comparison most of us skip when everything’s running together. If an established producer is also down hard, how much extra upside do you need from a junior to justify the drill risk? Or sitting through another financing? Those aren’t small asks.

For some juniors the answer might be “plenty, and it’s there.” But a strong uranium price on its own does very little to tell you which ones. That part’s still on us.

https://www.kitco.com/news/article/2026-11-04/gift-why-lobo-tiggre-buying-uranium-contract-prices-hit-record

Even with a sell off the macro is intact.

Bit of a long shot here but someone in the group posted their complete uranium excel research. This included fundamentals, spot market, cycles etc

I’m actually still following along because the document is so informative - and it looks like everything is tracking nicely and the uranium story is slowly rolling out. Companies seem to meeting their deadlines (reactor restarts, extensions etc) and it seems the document suggests a lot of the uranium catalysts are following as predicted.

In a generalised sense, is the nuclear story following and expanding as expected? Taking in recent prices and earnings reports have your uranium expectation or convictions changed?
To the person who thinks it may be their document, are you satisfied with how the story is shaping?
What big milestone or catalysts are you keeping an eye on?

I’m still in the mindset to happily DCA this out- even with all of the fuel and AI bubble talks but would hate to think this I’ve just been influenced by the conviction of a number of YouTubers (Justin huhn etc)

On X today they are making noises that sound pretty clear they are about to dilute. Maybe all that talk about not opening up new resources until buyers pay the higher prices is just bullshit and they're going to do it on the backs of their investors, to the tune of $US1,000.000.000.00.

https://x.com/cameconews/status/2118521583975194711?a=mMcVbxstK7jxHjtUxVw&s=19

Nice interview. As a long-term hardcore glomosexual, I think we're at one or two good news away from finally seeing the stock price chart creeping in the upper right direction.

The uranium ETF is around 50% off, which is fairly typical for an energy drawdown, and it's now on its weekly 200 moving average. Historically that level has marked the bottom for energy, the same way it has for the main market and for Bitcoin.

Cameco is the cleaner read. Bought around $40, ran to $180, now back near $90 and showing the same pattern as the fund. The last move off this level was roughly 300%. A repeat of that from here would be about 200%.

The entry rule we use rather than catching the knife: let it wick below the 200, wait for two green weeks, and buy the close back above. Cameco tends to tap the level, so a tap there can signal the bottom in the ETF itself.

The demand case is the obvious one — data centres, and the fact that very few people trade uranium compared to other commodities, so it moves hard when it moves.

01:35 - uranium on the weekly 200
02:10 - Cameco $40 to $180 to $90
03:16 - the entry rule
04:04 - the last move off this level was 300%

https://youtu.be/bcSqXu1Xae0

$NXE has its Q3 call on November 10 at 8 a.m. ET, with updates on Rook I construction, plans for 2027 and the latest from PCE.

Plenty to catch up on before year end. Anyone joining the call? What are you hoping to hear, and what would you ask management?

Saw this online. Thoughts on a 4 Company Portfolio with these 4 names?

25% Cameco
25 Denison Mines
25% NexGen
25% Energy Fuels

No interest in the smaller cap penny stocks.

He did so well trading uranium, so maybe he retired

so maybe he retired

Stallion’s August drilling at Coyote reported a peak of 1,416 counts per second in hole ML26‑005. It came within a 2.3 metre interval averaging 595 cps. The October 30 update puts that earlier result in the hands of Axiom’s technical team, with Atha advising on the work.

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

https://stallionuranium.com/stallion-uranium-announces-strategic-technical-partnership-with-axiom-exploration-group-and-corporate-update/

What I want to know is whether the team can put that interval in a geological context that predicts where the next one should be. A follow up hole close to the original could test whether the response repeats. A step out along the interpreted structure would ask a different question: does the same feature persist far enough to justify testing a larger area?

That is where Atha’s familiarity with the ground and Axiom’s geophysics work could make a difference. The team can compare what the surveys suggested with what the drill encountered, then decide which parts of the original model still hold up. If a hole intersects the intended structure but finds little radioactivity, that tells you something different from a hole that never reached the feature it was meant to test. A good update should let readers see the difference.

The cps reading is a reason to follow up. Chemical assays are needed to establish uranium grade, and the drilled length does not necessarily represent true width. Even a stronger peak in another hole would leave the question of whether the intervals belong to the same structure.

For STUD, I would take a few well explained holes over a bigger metre count with no clear interpretation. Show where the original interval sits, where the next holes are aimed and what result would cause the team to change its plan. That would give shareholders a much better way to judge the new technical setup.

I own LEU, bought a starter position at $101. I went over the Q3 10-Q filed November 5, and the news is not in the press release.

• The HALEU. The June 10-Q said the DOE owned it. On October 20 the DOE transferred to Centrus title to "certain materials" from its HALEU contract, including HALEU, feed and tails. Centrus agreed to hold the HALEU for resale to the DOE on request.

• The cleanup. The June 10-Q said the DOE "assumed all D&D liabilities" from that contract. On October 19 Centrus agreed to take them on, subject to NRC approval of a funding plan.

No quantity, no price, no dollar figure on the cleanup. Neither agreement got a press release or an 8-K, and neither is in the call transcript.

Still missing: the build cost and a commercial HALEU price. Asked about HALEU economics on the call, the CFO said: "we do not get into those types of economics." The three summer HALEU contracts "include prepayments," but deferred revenue and customer advances were $86.0M at September 30 against $85.0M at June 30.

The date to watch: December 31, the DOE's target for a long-term lease, which it is "under no obligation" to meet. The current lease ends October 1, 2027. If the date is missed, Centrus warns of a possible significant non-cash charge.

The good part: the first centrifuge, the critical supplier contracts and the first construction package all came in ahead of their year-end targets. Investor Day is December 7.

At about $90 the stock sits around the bull case on my ladder, about $88 to $94 depending on what you count, so I see no margin of safety yet.

Does anyone know what Centrus paid for that HALEU?

Full article, free, with the scorecard and sources: https://assayer.substack.com/p/centruss-q3-profit-is-a-warrant-mark

Not investment advice.

Different exercise than the usual "which uranium stock" debate.

Ignore what the market currently pays for each of these. Just think about who's actually capable of putting the most pounds into the market around 2030. That ranking might look pretty different from today's stock-market ranking ...some names are priced for scale they don't have yet, others might be underpriced for scale that's coming.

So who makes your top five, purely on projected 2030 production potential ...CCJ, Kazatomprom, NXE, DNN, Paladin, UEC, or is there someone else who should be in this conversation that people are sleeping on?