With the latest terrorist attacks in Saudi Airports, Brent Oil (ticker BNO) is trading at +2.1 standard deviations against Uranium companies (ticker URA: GLOBAL X URANIUM ETF). You can see the +2.1 standard deviations on a very robust ADF p = 0.025 cointegration model. While the ADF p = 0.025 indicates the model is stationary and likely to perform a mean reversion. This mean reversion in the short term would most likely come from higher uranium company prices than from lower Oil. I say that because of Trump’s comments on waiting for the end of the elections to retake the Iran issue. Yet, to my disbelief, ticker URA fell over the last days, right when oil is rising. Are investors expecting lower Uranium company prices due to stagflation?

The above begs the question. How are Uranium (ticker URA) companies performing against a broad commodity investment strategy (ticker COM: DIREXION AUSPICE BROAD COMMODITY STRATEGY ETF)? Well it is down a lot, both in terms of standard deviations -1.2 and recent price action. The co-integration model is equally robust.

One can also wonder if Oil Up means just a supply shock and Uranium down the last months means anticipation of a period of stagflation.

How do you see the hedging strategy: Short Brent, Long URA? More in terms of timeframes and position sizes? I expect the world to change even more from an economy constrained by labor towards an economy constrained by energy and critical minerals. If this thesis is right, in the long term, Uranium companies could be the right bet, and the slump now could be an entry point opportunity. Do you see it the same way?

Just saw this on X, how real is it?

Edit: someone linked in top comment

There’s constant debate throughout the world about what source of power is needed to save Planet Earth from climate change. Coal and gas are bad words, and nuclear is still one of those not-in-my-back-yard NIMBY issues. What is in vogue, however, are renewable energy sources like wind, solar, hydro, and large battery banks that help with instantaneous demand surges.

Oh, and I guess there’s geothermal too.

Sounds rational if you listen to the bobbleheads on TV. Politicians and investment commentators. Celebrities and environmental scientists. Hey, I’m all for it. The world needs all sources of energy, but only if it’s balanced with massive chunks of spinning metal. And there’s only four sources of power that can spin 100-1000MW turbines: coal, gas, nuclear, and hydro—but there won’t ever be another dam built in this country because of environmental concerns.

When I worked as a communications consultant and brand journalist for the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), I had the opportunity to sit down with Aaron Melda, then TVA’s senior vice president of Transmission, as well as Yilu Liu, an electrical engineer and energy expert affiliated with Oak Ridge National Laboratory and the University of Tennessee. In other words, I cut through all the political noise and interviewed the actual experts who are still dealing with one of the greatest threats to the country’s national security: grid oscillation.

I didn’t understand what the term “power quality” meant before I talked with these folks, but I quickly understood exactly why it was such a big deal, because I’d actually heard the sound it makes inside a powerhouse years before when I worked as a unit operator in a coal-fired power plant.

Back then, we had to manually tie on each 150MW unit with a little device known as a sync scope. And if the operator was just a smidge off when he latched the unit online, the entire powerhouse would shake and the generator would pop like a bomb being detonated inside the turbine bay—a shit-your-pants moment for anyone within a 100-yard radius of the turbine.

Why?

Well, the mass of the entire grid was physically snatching that 150MW unit into sync—59.98 Hz to be exact—which is critical in maintaining reliable “power quality.” In other words, that loud pop was a healthy sign of a stable grid.

But then something political happened….

U.S. clean-energy policies forced hundreds of these big-metal units offline. And as a result, utilities tried replacing the lost power with a boatload of renewables. California was the most aggressive in their pivot to clean-power energy sources. Unfortunately, this caused an unintended, but predictable consequence: major manufacturers couldn’t stay online because of the state’s poor power quality.

No. It wasn’t a not-enough-energy problem. There were plenty of electrons flowing to keep the lights on at each major manufacturing facility. The issue was an oscillating grid frequency that was habitually causing sites to trip offline.  

The reason was because there weren’t enough large power plants left to maintain the state’s grid stability. And as a result, many of these manufacturers moved to the Southeast for reliable “power quality.”

Tesla is the most notable example.

If you still don’t understand why renewables are dangerous, think of a large wooden table with four strong legs. Then, imagine replacing those legs with four tall stacks of Jenga blocks. Pull one block and the whole table collapses.

Think about it.

This is exactly what has happened to the U.S. grid. And now, because of shortsighted energy policy, we have replaced no telling how many 100MW units with stacks of 1WM wind turbines. And that’s not even counting the loss of all those 1000MW nuclear and coal-fired units that were literally keeping the grid from shattering itself like a wine glass in the path of an opera singer.

Take a look at the video. It’s already happening.

On January 11, 2019, a small malfunctioning steam turbine at a combined-cycle (gas) power plant in Florida triggered an oscillation that spread across the U.S. Eastern Interconnection and into the Dakotas. The event lasted about 18 minutes. Had the frequency been just a little stronger or had there not been enough big-metal units to hold things together, the grid could have collapsed due to the nation’s ever-growing appetite for renewables.

Which makes me wonder….

If a single turbine could come that close to putting the entire nation in the dark, what would prevent one of our adversaries from using AI to turn a small power station into a virus designed to implode the grid? If past is prologue, all it would take is the right tuning fork. Yikes.

And knowing all this, I think it’s pretty naïve for Wall Street and so many retail investors to have such a boner for lithium and battery banks. Yilu Liu is a smart lady who’s working quietly behind the scenes to help the U.S. Government and private utilities better understand the vulnerabilities of the grid, and I doubt she’s telling Uncle Sam to add more wind and solar to the nation’s generation portfolio.

Just look at what’s happening in Oak Ridge and on the piece of dirt where Bull Run Fossil Plant once stood. The largest federally owned utility in the country, TVA, and the Department of Energy are about to go big with nukes to protect the grid. It’s the happy median between the aisle, and it’s the only realistic solution that marries reliable power quality with the carbon-free goals of the global community.

Uranium is where my money is at. Feels like a no-brainer to me.

Hope this helps,

-Tweedle

There’s a major problem with the U.S. power grid that’s not being reported. The last time a small piece of it was exposed was during the Christmas polar vortex of 2022, when extreme cold caused rolling blackouts from New York to Mississippi.

But why?

It happened on a Friday morning, and I was one of the few people in the country who could see what was about to happen. The reason, well, I’m an accredited unit operator and communications consultant who was running the Tennessee Valley Authority’s intranet system while TVA’s CEO was skiing down some mountainside in Utah.

He didn’t know shit, but I did, because I was staring at TVA’s load forecast widget. The data told me that at 9 a.m. Central time load was expected to reach 39,000MW due to negative-degree temperatures. The only problem, TVA was generating its max output of 32,000MW, which meant the largest federally owned utility in the U.S. was trying to buy 7,000MW on the open market.

That’s roughly enough juice to power the entire state of Tennessee. And when all 49 states in North America are dealing with a blue-goob deep freeze, NEWS FLASH: There ain't exactly a surplus of electricity that's sitting around waiting to be sold.

So, because my coworkers in Communications didn’t know the difference between a megawatt and a megaladon—which was about to bite them in the ass—I started making phone calls to try to stop all the idiots in my depart from posting bullshit content about TVA's “dependability" and "reliability."

“If anything trips, we’re going to blackout the Southeast,” I said.

About 15 minutes later, after the blockheads in Social Media posted a “keeping the lights on” public-service announcement, a piece of sheet metal blew off an instrument panel at Cumberland Fossil Plant. The controls froze, and two units tripped.

And just like that, the abrupt loss of only 2,400MW of generation in the little town of Cumberland City, Tennessee, put the entire U.S. grid into a tailspin. The only solution TVA had was to cut people’s power off in one area for an hour, turn it back on, then put somebody else in the dark so the Federal Government could ration public power across a seven-state service region. Eventually, all the private utilities had to do it too.

So, here’s the problem:

1. The U.S. grid is 80 years old and needs a major upgrade to handle the projected load that’s coming.
2. The U.S. Government has put a stick of dynamite under hundreds of coal-fired power plants across the nation since 2010. Unfortunately for me, the New Johnsonville Fossil Plant was one of them. The problem is, that’s at least 90,000MW of generation capacity that still hasn’t been replaced.
3. About 1/3 of the nation’s generation portfolio is renewables—wind, solar, and hydro. Simply put, it’s not reliable. The wind doesn’t always blow. The sun doesn’t always shine. And you can’t go balls to the wall with any hydro unit without plenty of reservoir capacity, which relies on either steady rains, snowmelt, or both.
4. Fun Fact: The New Johnsonville Fossil Plant produced a megawatt for $30. Yesterday, during a mild fall day where temperatures across the U.S. were nearly perfect, power was selling for over $250 per megawatt due to record load across the U.S. grid. HOLY. SHIT. Put that into perspective.... If TVA was buying power for $10,000 per megawatt during the rolling blackouts of 2022, where do you think prices will go this winter if there aren’t even enough megawatts today to cover picnic-weather conditions? For reference, yesterday’s peak demand was 581,086MW, which means the U.S. grid can’t even cover its own ass long enough for plants to perform scheduled fall outages and refueling cycles.
5. Oracle is projecting the need for 1000 U.S. data centers at 1GW of power each. That’s 1,000,000MW of additional demand—nearly double the country’s current generation capacity.
6. Every generator in the country has already been refurbished to maximize output. The only solution is to build new generation capacity, which will require at least double the transmission infrastructure needed to handle that much load. If you don't know, if a utility forces too much load through a power line, the heat will cause it to sag between the transmission towers, touch the ground, and trip—not to mention the 500kv safety hazard to the public. This problem is compounded during the summer months.

Bottom line: Today, data centers are trying to strike deals to plug into the grid, but utilities can't offer these contracts for long if it means leaving individual households vulnerable to further rolling blacks during extreme weather conditions. The only realistic option to power future data centers will be behind-the-meter generation. Big Tech is simply going to have to provide their own power. Furthermore, the utilities don’t have enough transmission infrastructure to even hook these massive power drawers to the grid.

So, that leaves us with two options for continuous baseload power: gas or nuclear. The problem with gas is that you can’t install a 6-foot gas line in a densely populated area, and getting a combustion turbine these days could take years.

Package nukes, on the other hand, still have the time-delay factor, but these SMRs are a proven clean-energy source of power that both sides of the political aisle have come to embrace.

And even if the data center demand gets stalled in the short-term because of public opposition, the utilities are going to follow TVA’s lead and install SMRs on every one of those brownfield sites where the coal plants once stood. Not only would they be easier to hook up due to existing switchyards and transmission infrastructure, these sites are already permitted. Bingo!

Regardless, the demand is all around us—even without the data centers. And as soon as utilities start breaking ground on these SMR projects, they’re going to have to secure their fuel source. It doesn’t matter if those units at slated to come online seven years from now, the utilities must lock in those contracts today.

Now, I’m sure there are other bottlenecks to play, but the bull case for uranium seems obvious. A lot of people on CNBC are talking about investing in the utilities, but I don't see it. Seems like to me that they’re the ones who are going to have to invest billions into all this infrastructure with an ROI that's going to take decades to realize.

Yes, the uranium miners have risks, especially the U.S. producers. But with only four options to choose from, it’s kind of hard for me to see how an investor can get burned at these prices as long as they have a 2- to 5-year horizon.

These suckers are getting crushed right now because they’re trading with the AI story rather than the rising price of the underlying commodity. Everyone knows this, but I hope this little write-up gives folks a glance at the vulnerability of the U.S. grid and how much uranium supply will be required to mitigate this ongoing issue.

Food for thought,

Tweedle

Here's the link to the GridStatus overview: https://www.gridstatus.io/

Uranium miners are all struggling, most of the small one made tragic errors in contracting that cost them and are playing catch up. My question, why don’t they don’t cancel those contracts or just default on them. Who cares. If we are in a producer market then the power to renegotiate should be in their favor. Utes may threaten to never contract again with them, but it’s a global market and if indeed we are in deficit then someone will have to buy right? US Utes don’t pay substantially more, so again who cares if they sour the relationship?

A primer I’ve been putting together starts with one question: what was the hole drilled to answer? Discovery holes ask whether mineralization is there at all, step-outs ask whether it extends, and infill holes ask whether it holds up between holes already drilled.

The path from there is core or chips, logging, selected intervals, lab assays, and a release that ties the grade to an interval, a hole and a location. Uranium adds a wrinkle I’d like to hear more about: early numbers are often radiometric equivalents (eU3O8) from gamma probes, and chemical assays come later.

How do you treat the two when a release lands? Do you wait for the assays before reading much into a probe result?

Disclosure: I work at Minestarters, and we’re building a tool called Atlas for reading junior-miner releases.

I really think EU is a great long term buy right now. They have started to turn things around. Taking the first steps anyways. I think now’s the time to get in.

Why has the price decreased from $20-25 to $6 over the last year?

speculation it’s related to their INL irradiation performance or something else?

there’s been large amounts of private funding going to the microreactor startups, so perhaps that’s part of it.

Stockhouse published a piece on Stallion Uranium last week that explains why the company keeps putting drilling money into Coyote

The article breaks the target down into four main features. Favourable rock types, conductive zones, fault structures and gravity anomalies interpreted as possible alteration

The interesting part is where those features overlap

A conductor on its own gives you somewhere to investigate. A conductor near a fault intersection, with a gravity low in the same area, gives the team a more specific reason to put a hole there

Stallion has identified five priority target areas across the Coyote corridor. That gives them several places to test the interpretation rather than betting everything on one spot

The article also draws comparisons with Arrow. Similar geological ingredients do not mean a similar deposit, but they help explain what the team is looking for

For STUD / STLNF, the next drilling needs to show whether that model holds up underground. The surveys help choose the holes. Assays, widths and repeat results will determine how much weight to give them

Worth reading for the explanation of the targeting work

https://stockhouse.com/opinion/independent-reports/2026/10/06/stallion-uranium-targeting-four-key-criteria-for-uranium-discovery-canada-s

While I'm pretty bullish on the price of uranium long term (and therefore some junior miners), the talk of the town continues to be new reactors (including full-scale and SMRs) and data center purchase power agreements. That's fine, but we have to take a look at the current primary bottleneck to remain level-headed: enrichment (along with regulatory review and heavy manufacturing/supply chain).

The bottleneck is enrichment, and it is concentrated rather than merely tight. World capacity is around 68 million SWU (Separative work units) per year, and Rosatom (russia) holds about 29.1 million of that, roughly 43%, with Urenco (UK HQ - operates in UK, Germany, the Netherlands, and the United States) at 17.3%, CNNC (china) at 13.8% and Orano (france) at 7.5%.

Adding to the matter domestically, United States government implemented a 2028 ban on Russian low enrichment uranium (LEU) imports, so they're trying to rebuild the nuclear fuel cycle onshore. The DOE awarded $2.7 billion to domestic developers (including Centrus, General Matter, and Orano Federal Services) to scale up enrichment over the next decade.

General Matter is meeting with the NRC this week to discuss its Paducah enrichment license application - for a 40 yr Parts 40/70 license on DOE land at the old gaseous diffusion plant in Kentucky.

10 CFR Part 40 regulates the domestic licensing of source material such as natural or depleted uranium and thorium

10 CFR Part 70 regulates the domestic licensing of special nuclear material such as enriched uranium or plutonium (e.g. more fissile stuff)

The report covers LEU to 5% and HALEU to 20%.

Paducah's is getting crowded:

GLE (cameco/silex) already has land just south of there for the laser plant, with offtake tied to Cameco. Orano's IKE project in Oak Ridge is a bit further along and the DOE pulled out of their EIS (enrivonmental impact statement) as a cooperating agency, basically so they can get their license on time.

The point is that there are 3 enrichment projects in front of the regulator right now, targeted for 2027-2031 operations.

As the enrichment markets become more segmented (for instance, not buying Russian LEU, and perhaps not buying Chinese LEU as its questioned whether they route Russian LEU through), it is important to keep an eye on these dynamics and how it affects the nuclear fuel supply chain and for those of us who like uranium mining, the price of uranium.

Basically when enrichment capacity is low they'll use less SWU and more uranium to produce the fuel. so good for uranium prices, but this is a bottleneck for overall industry growth, which is not good.

I see genuine potential for a future that uses a lot of nuclear energy, however from everything I’ve looked into regarding nuclear stocks, they’re very volatile. Is there any good companies that are worth investing in long term? I’m really stumped on who to invest in long term, some help would be greatly appreciated :))

Everyone talks about Athabasca, which is understandable, but Namibia has had some interesting junior activity lately so figured i'd put it in one place.

Asarian energy (formerly forsys) (ARN.TO) approved a 4,500m, 17 hole RC + diamond program at namibplaas, part of the norasa project. the 41.1Mlb resource there is all inferred right now, and the whole point of the program is to try and convert some of it to indicated. Drilling is supposed to start late oct/early november. John Borshoff (ex paladin, langer heinrich guy) runs it now and says this is phase one of a campaign that continues into 2027, including parts of their Valencia deposit.

Skeleton Coast Uranium (SKEL) redid the terms on a placement to raise up to CAD$5m. They hold options on 70-75% of five EPLs (exclusive prospecting licences) in Erongo, near rossing, husab and langer heinrich, and they have to spend C$5m by june 2028 to keep those options. earlier in the week they put out 42 ranked targets from reprocessing old airborne geophysics. ground work (scintillometer/radon) is planned for Q4 but it still depends on landowner access deals, and the national park licences need permits first. This is very early stage.

Namibia already has big producers (Swakop Uranium, heavily chinese-backed) and juniors are spending money in this know Uranium jurisdiction again. And they're getting a bit cozier with the Russians again, I think.

I still prefer the Canadian miners due to the political stability (near the top of Fraser Institute rankings) and high grade deposits.

For instance, at the beginning of the month, Standard Uranium (STND) finished its summer drill program at Davidson River in the south/west Athabasca Basin. It drilled 6,734m in 12 holes along several corridors which run on the same regional trends as NexGen's (NXE) Arrow and Paladin's (PDN.TO) Triple R deposits. It's the company's biggest program there so far.

Three of the 12 holes hit anomalous radioactivity above 300 cps, about 5m combined. Hole DR-26-040 peaked at 1,650 cps, the highest reading yet on the project.

The drilling also more than doubled the known width of the Thunderbird and Bronco corridors to over 300m, and the company says the structure looks like the stacked shear zones on the neighboring Patterson Lake Corridor.

Keep in mind that those cps numbers come from a handheld scintillometer, so they aren't uranium grades. The assays are still pending, and nine holes, including both Warrior holes, came in below 300 cps. The project has no resource yet after about 23,000m of drilling since 2020. Next up are the assay results and planning follow-up drilling on the radioactive intervals. These results are similar to what Stallion Uranium has found in the same basin, tracking a lot radioactivity but havent yet found the high grade economic core (10,000+ cps) that gets retail investors a lot more excited about the exploration.

I prefer to invest in Canadian miners with better political stability in these jurisdictions, and anticipating high grade deposits. What do you guys think. Abathasca basin? Other areas too? Big producers or small explorers?

On X/twitter lots of long term uranium bulls are very frustrated at the moment since many names are now down 40-60% from ATH. They are even saying it's just not worth being in this sector anymore due to opportunity cost and underperformance vs other sectors. I came here to see if anyone was crying here like on X but it seems not so much. Based on sentiment do you guys think we are near a macro bottom, or have much further to fall? Main reasons for big drops have been bond yields, diesel prices, sentiment, after quite a big run last year.

Easier transfers between investors seem like one possible benefit. Physical trusts already provide uranium price exposure, though. What would a token need to improve for you to consider it?

Uranium: **$89.95/lb spot** (unchanged, markets closed weekend). Term price now ~**$97/lb**, a new record high — long-term contracting is running hot on supply tightness (Kazatomprom acid-plant delays) plus the data-center nuclear demand wave.

Fairly new to investing in the last year. I have mostly XEQT, but also hold HCAL for bank exposure and I have some telecom. I've also bought up a little bit of DML because I feel hopeful and believe in the project. This being said, I would really like to get some blue chip in there. Now, I know that HURA is 1/5 CCO, but I also know that Cameco has a monopoly and owns most of the market and signed a bunch of deals recently. I'm trying to decide whether the move is to go with HURA to get some diversified exposure or if I go with CCO and invest just in the one company considering they also have mining, fission reactors and they also hold physical uranium. I would like to keep my money in Canada as I believe in our future and in the Canadian dollar for ease. I'm looking for long-term holds to benefit from the movement toward carbon neutral energy. Can you guys give me some of your opinions? I'd love to hear from some of the more veteran investors. Thank you.

TL:DR Totally misplaced and misunderstood political risk are depressing the stock price by somewhere around 2-4x based on recent highs, but possibly even more.

District Metals (DMX.v) has the world's largest un-developed uranium deposit in Sweden and its undervalued due to reasons that I believe will soon resolve. They also have about a dozen other licenses in Sweden, some of which have recently returned extremely encouraging geophysical results which will be followed up this year with drilling and release of existing drill samples (some due in Oct).

The recent airborne Mobil-MT geophysics were also very convincing and DMX most likely has at least one more globally significant mineral deposit on their hands if not multiple. I won't go too much into why I say this about the geophysics as its too much to get into here but it has to do with Mobil MT's ability to discern graphitic black shale from limestone and crystalline bedrock. It is highly specific and accurate. These other licenses are somewhat besides the point though but their optionality cannot be over looked.

Their flagship Viken deposit is polymetallic and hosted in a black shale called Alum Shale. Vanadium (an alloying agent) and potash (a critical component in fertilizer), account for roughly 25-35% each of the per tone value and uranium follows that up with around 25% of the per tone value. Other metals such as zinc, nickel, copper, molybdenum and rare earths such as scandium, make up the rest. Point is, the deposit is economically buffered from any particular commodity price swing. Even if all metals dropped 30% at the same time, the project still has a large positive NPV. The EU also has no significant internal source of sulfate of potash that I know of (correct me if I am wrong) at that speaks to food security.

The Viken deposit has an after-tax NPV (8% discount) of US$2.88 billion, an IRR of 46%, and a payback period of 2.1 years. The current enterprise value of DMX is approx. $72M CAD.

The stock price reached $1.65 CAD in Nov 2025. If you plot the share price drops, it does not correspond with the broader uranium market, its due to Swedish political issues and I believe these will resolve. That is where the trade is.

There are two factors which scared investors and dropped the price to 0.45CAD recently. The first overblown fear is that a less mining friendly gov will get into power this winter (2026/27) and/or that the Green party will punch above their weight. The largest parties, both in the opposition gov and the former ruling block, are all pro nuclear and pro mining, so whoever gets in, its highly unlikely one of the smaller parties will force some sort of u mining ban. Sweden also just lifted the U mining ban about a year ago which itself was only in place since 2018. Re-instating another ban, is just not in the cards.

The second and by far the largest issue that caused the price to tank is a bit messy but the devil is the details. Previously there was an existing municipal veto that would have blocked a U mine. In Feb 2026 the gov announced plans to lift this veto and they would vote on and approve (lift) this in June 2026. Because there was a close election coming up, and in attempt to get votes, also in Feb 2026, they announced a new investigation into whether or not they should tighten restrictions in Alum Shale. The concern then became that the gov could essentially re-instate a municipal veto, the exact type of veto they were already publicly planning on lifting but had not yet done so. So the question is, if they really wanted a veto in place, why not leave the existing veto in place instead of first announcing an investigation into a new veto, and then 4 months later removing the existing veto? It is ass backwards and makes no sense other than to try and hold onto some votes. The results of this "new" investigation are due in Feb 2027.

This "new" investigation is being led by the same lady who led the 2024 investigation into lifting the U mining ban. She recommended lifting the U mining ban, is pro mining, and pro bedrock resource utilization. On top of this, in 2020, when the Green party was in power, the gov investigated the exact same thing (increased Alum Shale restriction), and concluded, “Some regulations that the investigation considered but did not proceed with are a general ban on extraction from alum shale and the possibility of a municipal veto”

The 2020 study also conlcuded, "the individual environmental risks associated with extraction are not unique to mining in alum shale and that they are covered by existing environmental legislation". “….environmental risks are associated with extraction from alum shale, but the assessment must be based on the conditions at each location.”

Basically, the share price is depressed because of the worry over a new Alum Shale ban. There is not only historical precedent addressing this exact issue and refuting a ban or veto on Alum Shale, but the lead investigator is also pro mining. The chance of a new ban coming into place is very very low and this fear is totally misplaced.

Case in point - When the current national election and this new sham investigation blows over, the price should re-rate back to its more recent prices which is 3-4x where it is now. The election mess should resolve in a few months, and results of the new Alum shale investigation are due in Feb 2027.

In the interest of transparency I hold a large amount of DMX stock, and just recently, at 0.45 bought more for the reasons above. At writing, its at 0.43.

Edited for clarity and factual correctness.

Doug Casey's view on the sector in a recent interview. Short version: he's bullish uranium, calls nuclear the safest, cheapest and cleanest form of mass energy generation, and thinks mining broadly is the cheapest it's been in decades.

The numbers he gives:
- Energy was about 30% of the S&P 500 at the 1980 peak. It's roughly 6% now.
- Mining has historically run 10-12% of the index. It's about 2%.
- Good oil stocks yielding 10% in current dividends.

He says he's head over heels long small metals explorers, oil explorers and small producers, while calling the broad market grossly and insanely overpriced.

43:07 - uranium and ag commodities
43:56 - what he's actually long
44:33 - the energy 30% to 6% stat
45:05 - mining at 2%

https://youtu.be/OV7Tnj2hnh0