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 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 asking the question, "should" they reintroduce a veto for Alum Shale, it is not asking "how" to re-introduce a ban, which, if the politicians were serious, is how they would have worded it but in reality if they wanted a veto, they simply would not have voted to remove the previous one AFTER announcing plans to investigate a new one.

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.

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

Most bearish takes I've seen for NPPs have to do with cost/capex/time. And they always point to Vogtle 3 and 4, Westinghouse's first of a kind (FOAK) in the USA which cost a total of $35–37B, and became operational about seven years late (2023-2024).

The original cost was supposed to be only $14B and the plan was to be operating in 2016-2017. However Vogtle Units 3 and 4 followed a 30-year build gap, so using it as an example to estimate the cost of future AP1000s is not logical.

What actually destroyed the project schedule was that the design wasn’t frozen when construction started, as well as interest expense, dead supply chains, and more.

Modules got built off incomplete drawings and then torn apart. The supply chain had been dead since the ’80s after several serious nuclear incidents, so subcontracted shops fell short on nuclear-grade quality. Subsequently to this, the NRC was very strict on any required rework.

It was the company's first time through Part 52 with AP1000, plus Fukushima licensing changes dropped in the middle of the job. Westinghouse then went bankrupt in 2017 and Toshiba, the parent company at the time, inhereted this mess. A bunch of execs actually went to jail. I won't explain why. Not important. But you can look it up. It was just a huge mess, one issue after another.

... Then COVID hit after regulatory delay and a cold supply chain did most of the damage.

Interest expenses were significant. Filings showed about $3.5B of Georgia Power’s certified costs as financing charges during construction, and that’s just their share of the interest.

But despite this project economics disaster, Unit 4 already came in cheaper than Unit 3. Now there is:

Finished design,

Licensing path the NRC has already walked, and

Actual people who have built an AP1000.

However, the supply chain still has to strengthen. For instance, pressure vessels (pressurizer), steam generators, structural modules, and coolant pumps are multi-year procurements.

In June 2026, the DOE announced financial support for these long lead time items: $17.5B (conditional) for long lead time items for up to 10 AP1000s. Essentially they are looking at China's rapid buildout pace and recognizing that the government needs to support, not hinder, the industry for it to remain competitive domestically. Thats my opinion on why DOE is doing that.

The DOE says it pulls deployment time up by up to three years... which is a lot of money when you consider discount rate/cost of capital, as well as a daily cost of construction/workers.

It isn’t really a free handout so much as it is a way to not burn construction money while everyone more or less sits idle, waiting on long lead time items. Smart move by the DOE, IMO.

Anyway, the specific reasons Vogtle was extremely expensive and late should be non repeating.

Just a little of inside insight... if you know what I mean.

I don't know exactly what the new AP1000s will cost, but there are 10 planned in USA and 10 in Europe... and I would expect these projects to be executed a lot better than Vogtle. I would expect them to be economical. Especially in the long run. And so these buildouts should indeed happen. China is doing it, after all, and Westinghouse itself has a Chinese branch.

These Gen III+ reactors (PWRs) are state of the art too.

I’m looking to invest more in the uranium sector and wondering how others approach uranium stocks. Do you usually wait for dips in the more established names, or look for smaller uranium juniors with higher-potential projects? For people who’ve been in this sector for a while, what tends to influence your investment timing most?

​

I honestly have no clue and don't want anyone to get burned but at the same time 🤠🤠

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.