/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>57495112
First for undervalued gold & silver equities that nobody cares about.
Thank you for playing if you bought and held since the 2021 tippity top all the way down to -40~90% unrlzd, I've been buying those capitulated shares recently.

Uranium chads, who do I invest in?

>>57495242
Nexgen, Fission, Cameco, Kazatomprom or Paladin. There are others but the whole uranium sector is pretty much fairly valued relative to uranium prices, though arguably Cameco is a bit overvalued and Kazatomprom undervalued because the former is easily accessible for Western investors and the latter not available to everybody or considered unfavorable due to being a state owned company in an unfamiliar country. At this point the easy money in uranium has been made a long ago and you're only investing to get exposure to continued bullish uranium fundamentals (which is fine)

>>57495279
Yeah looks like i'm late to the party. Any small outfits with possible big flips? or is that all done and not with the risk.

>>57495310
Global Atomic in Niger may have some higher risk higher return potential, I think they had issues getting permits for a while which they were able to sort out. But they're in a country which the market deems risky so it's cheaper because of those reasons I think.

>>57495320
thanks mate, I will look into those guys.

>>57494986
Gotcha. I remember that
Where does lithium fit in?
Sorry for stupid questions but the shit flinging is half the reason to be here and I feel there were keks I missed that I would like to enjoy

>>57495320
>https://finance.yahoo.com/news/global-atomic-clarifies-nigers-suspension-221500889.html
Good article about them. I guess someone else wanted to move some gold to Dubai without letting them know

Absolutely BOGGED

>>57495694
Welcome to junior mining, thank you for playing! Look forward to the subsequent news release on our upcoming financing and share consolidation as well as our new and exciting uranium project!

>>57495705
Wasn't me thank fuck, the perfectly shaped P&D chart was just too funny

>>57495705
What do you think about Sprott Junior Uranium Miners ETF (URNJ)?

>>57495719
>it's this guy again
o I am laffin

>>57495729
I think it offers you broad uranium exposure if you dislike picking the stocks yourself. It gets the job done, but again the easy money is made and the rest of the gains will come as the bull market unfolds and uranium fundamentals continue to stay accommodative for higher commodity prices. Where the top is I don't know, and there may be some volatility to the downside at times. If you want to have exposure to uranium miners, the uranium ETFs do a good enough job. There's also a physical uranium ETF for direct exposure to uranium and Yellowcake Plc also just stores the stuff for later

I'm just starting to realize how much the DXY and commodity prices inversely correlate. Most commodities are measured in dollars, when the dollar rises, the value of those commodities declines (it takes less dollars to buy the commodity). So we are seeing not just the move in the dollar, but the expected future move in the dollar pricing our commodities out

So the (good) jobs report from this week really signaled that the Fed wouldn't lower rates as soon as expected, which then caused the future expectations of the dollar to rise, which then caused a headwind/re-pricing of commodities in dollars.

In terms of my pet project of steel, this should be a further headwind for now but when the fed drops rates that could change (provided we aren't in a recession). Attached is the DXY and HRC Steel indexed to 100. This might all have been obvious to all of you, but I'm pretty new so still learning, so while I have read similar things it's interesting to see it play out and it's helping me internalize it more.

>>57495112
no problem!

>>57495279
>At this point the easy money in uranium has been made a long ago
based for telling it like it is.

>>57495694
>>57495735
I see you're following it too. Pretty amazed honestly, so much risk in junior mining. Will sell my BLLG on the next run to 2400.

>>57496187
Jesus. That's nuts
Good work anon

>>57496231
I personally don't understand why anybody would want to own a company headed by a man whose history is in cannabis and not mining. More specifically on BLLG, have they even made any substantial progress these past three years while keeping dilution to a minimum? Discovery Silver for example was at an earlier stage resource and an outdated PEA stage at the end of 2020, between then and now they have greatly increased the resource base, advanced the project into feasibility stage and is planning on securing funding for the now derisked construction phase going into next year, all the while only diluting the shareholders out of 15% of their ownership (305m shares -> 352m shares). I remember back at the top of the 2020-2021 bullrun when we had all these shitcos being discussed and Discovery which now sports a tier 1 silver project was considered a dud because the project had a low grade.

Funny what kinds of new perspectives hindsight gives you.

>>57495735
why can't these fucking poos just focus on 1 company? Shawn Khunkhun is another poo that has Dolly Varden and Strikepoint Gold going. I avoided those 2 for that reason but put over $4k in Lagoon now I find out Rana is spreading himself thin

>>57497260
thankfully the break out in gold seems imminent, we should be able to get some nice gainz this year

>>57495320
Jesus you guys are still fucking morons. Look at the chart dumbfuck? There was literally a coup and it crashed the stock.


I keep telling you morons and have told you for four fucking years. Encore energy is the best uranium stock.

Fuck.

>>57497260
why cant I see her holes

>>57495735
I can't believe it.

>>57497506
>Her
Sit down anon. I have some news for you. It's bad news.

>>57497506
email Shawn, ask if she has onlyfans

>>57497536
>>57495735

>>57497446
Calm down RW. You dont think they're buying that nigger shit, right?

I'm gonna come visit you in Oklahoma after I get healed up. Gotta stop in Leadville and find big Bob. Shouldn't be much of a task since it's not a big town

>>57497643
She's very fuckable for an ugly girl.

should I buy bayhorse stock now, or wait for more dilutions?

>>57497713
>Gotta stop in Leadville and find big Bob. Shouldn't be much of a task since it's not a big town
I was sticking up for you. That was a waste of time.

>>57497541
le funny psyop OMG SO FUNNY

>>57497446
Calm down mate. It's not uninvestable if one understands the risk. Look at Orezone, Burkina Faso has had many coups as of late and they're very cash flow positive. Same with B2Gold, their Fekola Mine in Mali is a phenomenal asset. West African Resources is also in BF. The charts may not look exciting but those low prices are a great opportunity if one has the stomach for investing in these countries. Personally I've been buying up B2Gold shares as of late because it's too cheap to ignore, Orezone is still on my radar too but I haven't bought that because I have found more interesting stocks.

Point is, geopolitical risks are just one type of risk category among many in the sector. Anon asked for a higher risk higher return proposition that is not at fair value like all the peers at the moment, and I provided an example. One man's risk is another man's opportunity, that's what makes a market.

Any good silver stocks?

>>57498517
Looking for a producer or a developer? Not that there's that much of a difference when most producers are either breaking even or losing money

>>57498541
Either is fine, silver is a long shot I take it?

>>57498610
Not sure what you mean by "long shot" but I have been using this opportunity to buy silver equities myself as of late since the sector has become so unloved and hated. Silver has only either gone down or done jack shit for the past three years and many a silver stock (and gold stock) is down -40% or more, some are down -80~90% from their ATHs even while their fundamentals have only improved.

I have personally been buying AbraSilver and Discovery Silver, and I own a little bit of Hecla. I've also been eyeing First Majestic which is one of the biggest silver-focused producers along with Hecla and Pan American Silver, I think First Majestic used to be very overvalued and now it's been punished pretty hard and looks pretty attractive. SSR mining and Fortuna Silver interest me due to their valuations but they're maybe as that geared towards silvers as they are to gold. There's also other juniors that interest me here: Guanajuato Silver, Eloro Resources, New Pacific Metals, Gogold Resources and Skeena Resources, the last two are also fairly gold-focused so not 'pure play'.

But again both gold and silver miners are looking way too cheap here so I've been buying up the stocks I like the most in the sector as of late. I only wish I had more to invest. I tend to think that with a timeframe of 3-5 years, buying at these levels I can't go wrong.

>>57498088
That's all we do here tho is waste time. You got any fishing holes around there we can poach?

Bump

>>57500356
PAN MAN, is this bituminous coal in the pic?
The big surface mines around Gillette, Wyoming are subbituminous with a heating value of like 8,800 Btu per pound.
What is the energy density of this British Columbia coal?

>>57500362
not him but as far as I know BC coal is bituminous coking coal for the most part. Still figuring out the basics of coal, got a lot of reading to do

>>57500362
>>57500403
Most operating coal mines in BC are a mix of anthracite and metallurgical coal. We have "brown" coals but I dont believe its mined nearly as much. BC prides its self on mining primarily metallurgic coal as it looks better for world markets. Elkview run by Teck Coal is nearly all metallurgical and anthracite, the closer east you go the lesser the coal becomes. I can get the exact data, but i ll need to go digging online for a bit. I dont focus on coal much as its easy to find in BC and coal licenses are not worth much unless you have an utterly massive deposit.

>>57500356
also thats the Teck Coal Elkview pit for future reference, i usually name my pics when i post them if i can.

>>57500403
Excellent, friend. Coal is really nifty stuff.
I wonder about BC coal's energy content per pound or kilogram.

>>57500458
>>57500448
Thanks so much. I appreciate your knowledge.

>>57500461
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://cmscontent.nrs.gov.bc.ca/geoscience/PublicationCatalogue/OpenFile/BCGS_OF1988-23.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiegZiu75CEAxUOFRAIHYCiDBIQFnoECBcQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1n0cvYrPnrAD9ca0-HRLRQ
This old paper from BC archives from the 1980's discusses different coal mines and development projects at the time there. It seems the CV in BC coal mines ranges from 6,000 to 7,000 kcal/kg

>>57500537
>ranges from 6,000 to 7,000 kcal/kg
Thanks a million!
I'll have to convert that into Btu's per pound to understand it. lol

>>57500537
https://mineralsed.ca/learning-resources/bc-mineral-resources-map/bc-operating-mine-profiles/

This is honestly one of the better simple overviews for operating mines in BC. Its got good run downs on BCs coal mines, including Minfile links which is handy.

>>57500574
https://www.mining-technology.com/projects/fording/?cf-view&cf-closed
Then again this link shows quite a lot higher numbers for Fording River's high vol met, at 32.4MJ/kcal or about 7,700kcal/kg. And medium vol PCI between 29.3 and 33.5MJ/kg or about 7,000-8,000kcal/kg.

So I don't really know maybe the CV is actually upwards of 7,000 more typically? Or maybe these Teck mines are just exceptional, I know Fording River is considered the best of the best

>>57500537
That's 10,800 to 12,600 BTUs per pound. Very good coal for heating energy too. It's similar to the bituminous coals mined in underground coal mines in the Rocky Mountains, in terms of heat content.

>>57500609
>8,000kcal/kg
That's equivalent to 14,400 BTUs per pound. That's the same as the very best coals in the US, like from parts of southern West Virginia.

>>57500621
I can't remember which seams in southern WV produce 14,000+ BTUs/lb. coals, but I think the Pocahontas seam goes up to like 15,000.

>>57500613
>>57500621
>>57500629
Interesting. I've heard Pennsylvania also has high CV thermal coal, do you know about that? I think Consol is operating there at least

>>57500629
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pocahontas_Coalfield

>The coal seams—Pocahontas No. 3, No. 4, No. 6, and No. 11—are some of the best coal to be found in the world, and are rated at 15,000 Btu/lb (35 MJ/kg).[3]

>>57500664
Yes, Pennsylvania coal from the Pittsburgh seam is about 13,000 BTUs per pound. CONSOL operates the Bailey, Enlow Fork, and Harvey mines in Greene and Washington Countries in far southwestern PA, right by the West Virginia northern panhandle and by northern West Virginia.
Greene County PA also has the Cumberland Mine, operated by Iron Synergy.
The Pittsburgh coal seam used to be used for both thermal and metallurgical coal, but since purer coals have been sourced for steelmaking in recent decades, now it produces exclusively thermal coal for power plants.
The Pittsburgh seam has been producing since about 1760 and still produces a whole lot of coal and has enormous reserves left.

>>57500681
That's quite high CV indeed, comparable to Newcastle coal if I'm not mistaken. I would think CONSOL is primarily shipping to Europe considering the geography?

>>57500695
Not sure where they ship. My understanding is much of their product is still used for electricity generation in the U.S. and only some is exported.
The U.S. should, if we had smarter people in charge, build up its coal export infrastructure to supply Europe and whoever else wishes to buy.

>>57500695
I once read a quote that said something like, "The Pittsburgh seam is the seam that built America."
It's why Pittsburgh became the steel capital of the world: so much good coal nearby. The Pittsburgh coal, even though it's no longer used for steelmaking, made the steel that's still in a lot of our older infrastructure and buildings. That seam powered the US industrial revolution.

>>57500719
Are you well informed about the coal to gas conversion of power generation infra in the US? I only have a general sense that there is a trend towards building new gas plants rather than coal in the US but that's all I know. The thermal coal fundamentals are bit murky for me because of the competition from gas. Heck even the seaborne trade is being threatened by a sudden influx of cheaper LNG coming into market these next few years going forward, and Europe is just going full retard with wind and solar while giving both coal and gas the side-eye
>>57500725
I'm learning more from you by the sentence

>>57500739
The big buildout of gas-fired power plants occurred mostly in the 2010s in the U.S. Now the Dems and greenies want to shutter natural gas-fired generating stations because they emit too much CO2, so they say. Also, there have been articles recently about how the natural gas boom has contributed more to global warming in recent years than coal has, due to natural gas tankers and pipelines being "leaky" and putting methane in the atmosphere, which is supposedly far worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas. (If you believe that stuff.)
There is ongoing shutdown and even demolition of older coal-fired power plants (sad!) but the pace has slowed severely in the past few years, compared to the pace seen in the 2010s.
I think natural gas is here to stay for quite a while but it's no longer in the limelight and being praised all around, and the big investment days for it are done.
If anything, we might see a return to thermal/steam coal due to "scientists" now concluding it emits less greenhouse gas because it emits a lot less methane than natural gas leaks do.

I am very happy to share my knowledge with anyone who is interested. Thanks for reading what I blabber about.

As for Europe, they might have to learn that it's hydrocarbons or the end of their comfortable industrialized way of life. These alternative energies don't cut it and the greens may lose a lot of their recent, trendy popularity.

>>57500761
>because they emit too much CO2
*because they emit too much methane

>>57500761
https://coalzoom.com/article.cfm?articleid=34133#:~:text=Preliminary%20research%20by%20Cornell%20University%E2%80%99s%20Robert%20Howarth%2C%20reported,stage%20of%20its%20production%2C%20from%20drilling%20to%20transportation.

>Preliminary research by Cornell University’s Robert Howarth, reported in The New Yorker by Bill McKibben this week, finds that “natural” (methane) gas may be 24 percent worse for the climate than coal in the best-case scenario. That’s thanks to extensive methane leaks at just about every stage of its production, from drilling to transportation.

Sorry for the ridiculously long link. When an Ivy League school is saying natural gas is much worse than coal, then that may be a sign of where elite opinion is shifting on the matter.

>>57500761
I still think coal is much more hated than gas at least in the public perception. More importantly, in such a gas endowed market with developed pipeline infrastructure, gas just seems like such a nobrainer choice for power generation. Gas plants take up much less space and are like four times cheaper to build than coal plants to boot. And there's lots of cheap natgas from oil drilling which is still ramping up in the Permian, and Canada just keeps growing its hydrocarbon production with no end in sight.

It's good to hear the coal plant shutdowns have at least abated for now but I wonder how many new coal plants are being considered due to the favorable economics of gas. Coal has its advantages, mainly that it can be stored whereas natgas' big weakness is that it's always just-in-time, so I certainly think there should at least be some investment in new coal powered capacity. But if the companies and the regulators and the public don't think that then coal usage will just continue to dwindle in the US and Canada. I do know that the developing world's choice is coal though, it's just the conflicting trends of the developed and the developing worlds that muddy the waters on thermal coal for me.

>>57500777
let's not tell them about coal bed methane

>>57500804
funny enough there was a huge push in the early 2000s across BC to use Coal Bed Methane as a cheap utility heat source for major infrastructure projects. There were several major programs done to investigate shale gas in the Bulkley Valley and Fernie districts as well as in the southern interior. Most of these programs were scrapped however due to the worries around gas infiltration into ground water and radon contamination in many wells drilled.

>>57500804
I'm pretty sure those Cornell folks took coalbed methane into account and still concluded that gas is much worse for the supposed greenhouse effect.

>>57500797
Yeah, I think natural gas has a lot of momentum behind it due to the huge push of the 2010s and the attendant change in popular perceptions of gas vs. coal, in favor of gas.
My hope is coal production in the U.S. will stabilize and then, maybe, grow somewhat. I'd really like a coal renaissance to happen in the developed world, but that's just a dream of mine.
At this time, just stabilization of production, rather than continued decline, and a few next-gen, very clean coal-fired power stations would be great.
And coal production does seem to be stabilizing in the U.S. in the 500-600 million tons per year range, in the sense that the downward curve since the 2008 peak of production is leveling out.

>>57500797
i dont think were going to see more coal plants built in North America, but existing plants will probably get converted over to Nat Gas. Coal is fantastic for power, but gas over all will probably end up cheaper, especially as more of Canada's LNG reaches markets.

>>57500852
I think if the US supported, say, developing African economies, it could start shipping coal there for power generation and increase thermal coal production to meet that demand. Sadly doesn't seem like there are any such plans in place but that would be a good way to keep the North American thermal coal industry alive even while domestic consumption decreases

>>57500860
I've had that same thought. Africa has some rapidly growing economies that will need a large, stable, and inexpensive source of energy. The U.S. could win African favor by supplying African nations with abundant and fairly priced coal.
Africans are expected to comprise some 40% of the world's population near the end of this century, so courting Africa is of strategic importance for 21st century geopolitics. China understands this.

>>57500853
That may be right, sir. But I'll be doing my part to keep coal alive in the U.S.
If it goes under, I'll go to Australia, Indonesia, or wherever I need to go in order to stay underground.

>>57500885
coal is always going to have its use, were always going to be using met coal for steel, even with hydrogen modifications for smelters slowly showing up. Coal is also being looked at as a future material in micro processors! Pure carbon sheets can be used to make far faster and cooler operating micro components in tests done by labs in Taiwan, and the tech is actually scalable! The future of computers might honestly be simple old coal!

>>57500881
I think the time will come when Africa will be seen as the next growth center of the world. That mantle belonged to China for the past two years and is now being handed over to India and the rest of SEA. That's where most of the new coal demand is coming from right now, growing Chinese and Indian power generation and steel industry needs. Both countries are ramping up their domestic coal production but it's still not keeping up with the demand, and Indonesia is picking up most of the slack with their exports. One statistic I read was that there's a new coal plant built in China every week.

>>57500901
>past two years
decades! Two decades, not years!

>>57500853
One thing that gives me hope for North American coal is U.S. coal mining companies have been on a hiring spree for years. So they're expecting coal to remain here for quite some time.
And our business environment is so crooked and in bed with the government -- becoming more and more like a command economy -- that this hiring binge might mean the government is looking to ensure there's a future generation of coal miners in place because they anticipate a need for the coal.

>>57500896
Now I want a coal computer. :)

>>57500901
Yep, and US miners could be supplying India and SEA, and then, in a few more decades, supplying Africa when it comes online as the growth center of the world.

>>57500924
I wonder how competitive US exports to SEA would be considering the higher freight costs. Apparently the Chinese sometimes buy US coal when they need to so maybe that's not an issue after all. But I think they favor coal that's available closer by

>>57500931
Definitely, freight costs factor in. Economies of scale in the US, if the US were to build up its coal infrastructure for more production and export, could make US coal more competitive.
But the US is geographically well situated to supply much of Africa.

>>57500931
The U.S. has the resources to ship well over a billion tons per year if the political will and investment were there. And the U.S. has the most leverage in global trade. With such economies of scale, U.S. coal shipped to SEA could definitely be priced competitively.

>>57495519
That was just the commodity behind the companies they were scrapping over iirc, or was at some point. I could be wrong. I just enjoyed the keks like you and occasionally ERPd with the retard to make him sperge out.

>>57500896
>coal computers
with all due respect, and you certainly are to be respected, pan man, but coal is not a good source of high purity carbon. it's probably way easier to get it from hydrocarbons (i.e. refined oil or methane). also, the amount needed for processors would be so incredibly miniscule compared to the amount currently used as energy source. that's a bit like looking at the OSIRIS-REx sample return mission and saying asteroid mining is a thing.
it's possible, but utterly negligible in an economic sense.

>>57502502
the articles i read suggested using anthracite coals as the basic source for processors, something about a specific structure they were interested in that allowed hyper thin strips of carbon to be manufactured. I completely agree though that hydrocarbon produced products would make far more sense overall. I ll post the article in a bit when i find it after i do my morning chores.

>>57502942
What chores does PM have in the morning?
>Chew whole coffee beans then drink boiling water
>Eat core samples then shit out bullion
>Feed pet grizzly bear by hand
>Defrost testicles
>Make bed which consist of grizzly fur stretched across his anvil collection
>Fire up coal burning snowcat and drive to work

>>57503013
Kek.

>>57503013
Ha just doing morning checks for work, your typical note taking and making sure sump pumps are running since apparently were having spring in February this year.

on another note has anyone else seen a bunch of news about the nickel market imploding? Asia dumped massive stockpiles on the market. I dont remember but were there any juniors we were following interested in Nickel?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-02-03/from-green-hype-to-bailouts-the-nickel-industry-has-imploded

>>57498700
Would silver mining stocks pop up if silver goes up? i'm new to commodities, has gold mining gone up with gold prices? I see lots of mining companies with early pumps and long long tails with little value.

>>57504099
Typically yeah that should happen. The reason why gold equities are so cheap while gold is near ATHs I suspect is because investors look at the current rate environment and think gold has to go down. This kind of delta between gold price and gold equity valuations is anomalous so I'm a buyer. Of course cheap can get cheaper and expensive can get more expensive and it's a volatile sector but I personally see great value.

>>57497713
>>57498500
I was just shit talking new fags.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbOMinNwGzc

Was shocked by Agnico profit (43min)

>>57504387
Ah a new Goldfinger video. I love this guy's analysis, watching this now. As he aptly points out, nobody cares at all about gold while all the focus is on frothy tech. Such a great opportunity to buy precious metals equities and I've been gratefully buying. Even deposited €4k of my cash savings into my bank account just so I could take advantage of this silly sale

>>57504099
>Would silver mining stocks pop up if silver goes up?
Yes, just look how much Bayhorse stock price rose as silver spot price rose.

>>57504387
>>57504526
Wasn't aware of this guy, pretty good analysis of the mining sector.

>>57504526
>Goldfinger
As well as being an obese tub of shit, he's a paid pumper, i.e., whore.

>>57505625
Yeah looks like he's pumping some juniors. The fact that he did DIY hit and run tells a lot about him.

>>57505625
Despite this his analysis is valuable to me. I always skip his shilling and just focus on his observations and thoughts about the market

>>57503013
LMAO

>>57502942
>anthracite coal
>writing a masters thesis on organic semiconductors
>not thinking about anthracene (and pentacene etc.)
>anthracite
>anthracene
I am utterly retarded and beg for forgiveness for my arrogance. Gonna check out said paper tomorrow.

>>57503505
But is it real nickel though?
I wanna remind everone of almost one year ago https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/devils-metal-strikes-again-trafigura-nickel-fraud-case-2023-02-17/

>>57503505
Also answering your question I have Cornish Metals Inc. and it's in the shitter like many other explorers (-68%). Got it to diversify into other base metals.
>Cornish Metals Inc. engages in the acquisition, evaluation, exploration, and development of mineral properties in the United Kingdom.
>The company primarily explores for tin, tungsten, zinc, silver, nickel, lithium, and copper deposits.

>>57507189
Good image to consult every now and then. Nickel is somewhere near bottom it seems with mines closing down.
>>57507193
jej

>>57507188
i had the exact same thought but it seems like it was in fact a massive dump of physical concentrates on the market that indonesian based firms had been quietly stockpiling.
>>57507147
it was an article in Bloomberg discussing said topic but i cant find the link anymore, and its not showing up with key words in my history. I ll find it when i can and post it. They probably used a different title than i am thinking of.

>>57507224
i am convinced that 75% of these companies arent in the shits because of their own actions, its the market shorting them into the ground. Cornish metals did ok in their exploration work, and the local region in the UK is thrilled to have them investigating reopening a number of mines in the area, so i have no real idea why they crashed so hard other than something i missed in their releases. If anything, the UK is looking pretty sweet for exploration over all, their gov seems to want to semi reindustrialize at a methodical pace.

>>57504283
New? I've been here since the first thread

>>57507487
It's probably something as simple as investors and speculators jumping out of windows due to lower commodity prices or waning interest. Even higher quality companies that are cash flow positive have gotten shafted. Of course, that's just the beauty of the market and one man's sell is another man's buy

>>57507581
that and simple greed. Everyone wants to invest in the incredible find of a lifetime, but not in the slow burn to greatness discoveries. Even projects that have stellar discoveries get ignored because investment always wants the one up over the last great intercept. Investment also wants quick returns on projects that can take months to years to develop.

>>57507601
Yep. Patience is a rare virtue but one that pays good dividends.

>>57507487
>the UK is looking pretty sweet for exploration over all, their gov seems to want to semi reindustrialize at a methodical pace.
The UK needs to do this, along with the US.

Just as a note, there are a lot of very bright people working in coal mining and in mining in general. Some of the smartest people I've known have been miners. Sure, some miners are semi-literate but are great at their jobs, but others are extremely bright and even bookworms. You just a real cross-section of humanity in the mining industry.

>>57507633
Basically, mining is also a job for big brained people. And you don't have to be a mine engineer if you have lots of brains; you can just be a regular miner and work your way up to $200k+ per year. Your brains will be respected if you have a good personality and can do dirty work.

>>57507669
Big Dick Energy and Big Brain Energy are both welcome in mining.

I did some napkin math and realized that Cameco was priced as if Uranium was going to go to $150/lb on the long-term market. Since it's already overshot by double I sold it for a nice return. Bought for $1,000 sold for $4,400. Tell me where I'm wrong if I'm wrong. I'm still in Nex Gen though because someone will buy it this cycle and it will fetch an equity premium.

What's everyone got their eyes on? I bought some Canadian oil & gas because the Conservatives are going to control the federal government next election and the main agenda of the Conservative leaders locally and federally is to expedite oil & gas development and get rid of carbon pricing.

Also getting into silver because people got blackpilled and ragequit it. The fundamentals of a building supply deficit are still there.

>>57508919
Uranium is going to $500/lb.

>>57509121
this is bullshit but i believe it

>>57509343
Kuppy, Lobbo Tigre, Uranium Insider and others are all talking about the possibility now. Tigre in particular was more bullish gold until KAP's production miss. Now recommending Uranium again. $150 by this summer is guaranteed now. $200 this year or early 2025 is strong possibility, and if KAP and CCJ can't significantly ramp production for 3-5 years $500 is in the cards by 2026.

Bullish on lithium, copper and general mining.

What should I buy?

>>57509428
BHP

>>57508919
Smart move with Cameco but that one is always overvalued relative to current uranium prices since it's pretty much the only "investment grade" uranium stock available to institutions. Nothing wrong with taking profits there though and we think alike on silver. Canadian o&g seems like a decent buy as long as you choose quality over "cheapness" imo but then again natgas may have bottomed. Which stocks have you been buying/looking at?
>>57509121
>>57509357
posts like these make me want to sell too
>>57509428
BHP or RIO

I need to do some reading on coal for my steel research anyways, maybe I'll do some investing in coal also. I have a busy day at work today and tomorrow so probably can't read for a bit, but, any starter pack for coal? (research or names to look for)

I think steel and scrap will continue their downward movement from here. That's going to be a nice buy in some time.

>>57510794
Has to be metallurgical/coking coal as opposed to thermal coal. The latter goes to power generation (and cement). Most important met coal producers are Alpha Metallurgical, Warrior Met Coal, ARCH Resources, Glencore, BHP, and Whitehaven Coal. Glencore and Whitehaven are technically still thermal for now but both made big met coal acquisitions which will finalize this year. I think Peabody is 50/50 thermal and met

>>57507519
Not you brother.

Was the accident your fault?

>>57511195
Idk
Not gonna read the incident reports yet. Focusing on healing and physical therapy. They want me to give a talk in a year about it so I'll read it before then.
Is all that your shroom substrates? Need any psilocybin or psilocin spore prints?

>>57511195
How's the shroom venture going wolfie?

>>57509637
>Which stocks have you been buying/looking at?
I took all the proceeds from the Cameco sale and put it all into ARC Resources (ARX). It's about 60/40 natural gas/oil and has excellent financials and value for the price. The operating margin and return on invested capital are quite high and the dividend has a low payout ratio despite yielding 3.3%. I also looked at the leadership team and the majority of them are White engineers, which gives me great confidence. Rick Rule mentioned them offhand as a high quality company and management team. He tipped me off to the Uranium trade a few years ago and so I tend to trust his judgement.

Quite comfortable holding it for the long term.

https://www.investopedia.com/markets/quote?tvwidgetsymbol=ARX

>>57512183
The thinking man's choice! I'm long ARX and CNQ on the Canadian o&g front. Let's sit back and enjoy the divvies and buybacks fren.

What about silver?

>>57512207
Still researching but I'm narrowing in on just looking at high grade Mexican silver mines. They will probably move the furthest.

What do you think of Silvercrest?
https://www.investopedia.com/markets/quote?tvwidgetsymbol=SILV

>>57510962
That list is spot on.

>>57510794
Brilliant longwall Pepe/Apu
I like how he carries a broom in a coal mine, like that'll make a difference. It fits Apu's personality to be that naive.

>>57512363
I have not looked at Silvercrest, but I should look at it sometime. Of the producers I only own Hecla, and of the developers I own AbraSilver (Argentina) and Discovery Silver (Mexico). Take a look at Discovery and compare their PFS's projected $12/oz AISC and annual 33Moz AgEq production to some of the producers in the market. The value rerating here is going to be enormous if the project gets the go-ahead. Especially good analogue to compare to is First Majestic that's mostly operating in Mexico is trading at C$1.78B while producing about 23Moz AgEq at about $21 AISC. Silver producers tend to be valued at 1x NAV. Discovery, trading at C$250MM is valued at 0.2x NAV.

>>57509343
>>57509637
https://news.az/news/kazakhstans-government-resigns

$200/lb uranium is about to get locked in. And yes, CCJ is overpriced, so selling is ultimately a smart move, but I'd be buying the smaller producers instead. All eyes on CCJ quarterly report this week, if production miss, $200 is guaranteed for this year.

https://twitter.com/ceotechnician/status/1754564081665691843?t=B0Pqw9wdD94zrPEn6RLilQ
>The $HUI Gold Bugs Index just completed its worst month of January since.... wait for it.... 2013.
>In January 2013, the HUI fell 11.3%. Last month, the HUI fell 10.2%
>In 2013, #gold miners suffered one of their worst annual declines in history by declining more than 55%!!

An anon up above mentioned that a Conservative government in Canada will focus on oil and gas. The Republicans here in the United States also focus mainly on oil and gas, ignoring coal.
Why? Because oil and gas are for big time investors, whereas the coal industry is divided among many larger and medium sized coal companies, even some that own only a single mine like Signal Peak in Montana and Sunrise Coal in Indiana (both thermal coal producers). Even the biggest coal company, Peabody, is nothing like the size of Exxon.
So here, in the U.S., Republicans love oil and gas and tend to ignore coal. This was true of Trump. He promised to bring coal jobs back but coal just continued its steep decline under him while he generally ignored the issues.
It's heresy to say this, but here goes: coal production has basically leveled off under Biden, whereas it declined sharply under Trump.
I still tend to support Trump, and Biden really sucks for all sorts of reasons, but Republicans better start keeping their promises to coal miners. Many coal miners, up until recently, were Democrats because of FDR. (I can explain this in more detail later on.) Also, many coal miners are in unions, which tend to support Democrats.
But Republicans, if they want to keep the coal vote, better start keeping their promises to coal miners. No more of this focusing exclusively on Big Oil and Gas while ignoring coal.

>>57513754
Better stack some cash in case this happens lol

>FEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEED MY EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEYS!

https://youtu.be/naoSdrzqh-M?t=222

>RocketRed shitting on SALT
There's a buy signal if I've ever seen one

Oh, noes, Brunswick broes!
Are you ok?
Maybe this time next year?

>>57514129
based

>>57513765
I've known older coal miners who told me about how their parents (coal mining is often a multigenerational calling, with some families in it since the 1800s) were big fans of FDR, since it was due to his New Deal that coal miners finally started getting treated with dignity and got much higher pay and benefits. One old West Virginia coal family told me about how their World War II era grandfather wouldn't let a Republican dine with his family if he insisted on talking politics.
Much of coal country used to be solidly Democrat. Even West Virginia used to be a blue state.
But coal miners, rightly have given up on the Democrats, like so much of the working class. The problem is, now they vote Republican and the Republicans aren't doing a thing for coal miners either. Exhibit A is Trump, who in 2016 countered Hillary Clinton who remarked that she would put a lot of coal miners out of business. Trump won coal country as a result but then did next to nothing to preserve coal mining jobs. Under his administration, coal production continued its steep decline that began with Obama and the shale boom. Under Biden, oddly enough, the decline in coal production appears to be leveling off and coal mining companies appear to be expecting an increase in production, hence their hiring sprees with lots of incentives like bonuses for completing new miner training and sticking around for at least three months (coal mining, especially for new miners, can be a brutally physical job).

And coal votes do matter, since for every coal mining job, there are many more jobs in logistics and production associated with it, and a single coal miner in Appalachia or other low cost areas without many good jobs often helps support extended family. Pennsylvania is the biggest swing state and Greene County is finally turning Republican. It's a small county, but PA's electoral margins could be razor thin, so every county counts.

>>57514450
The FDR and immediately post-FDR generation of coal miners mainly disliked the Republicans for their union busting. It was the unions, and the New Deal, according to them (from what I've heard through family stories), that finally gave dignity and decent pay and benefits to the coal miners.
100 years ago being a coal miner was the lowest of the low. Thousands died every year in American mines, much like they do in China today, and the pay was livable but often low. Plus you were often at the mercy of the company town and were paid in scrip only redeemable at the company stores.
So multigenerational coal miners remembered all this in their families and were hostile to the Thatcher-Reagan union busting movement to put workers back in their place.
It's only recently that coal miners have turned mostly Republican due to remarks like Hillary Clinton's about putting miners out of work and due to Democrats' general snottiness toward blue collar workers.

>>57510962
Thanks! Metallurgical has a better bull argument? Or both do? I have to look into met coal anyways for my steel autism but curious about both.

Thanks so much for these names I will read about them tonight!

>>57512436
Thanks fren

>>57509428
>What should I buy?
Benton resources obviously.
You're welcome.

>>57514616
In my opinion met coal has a more robust bull case yes. Thermal coal plants aren't being built much in the West and old ones are either converted to gas (which is dirt cheap and abundant in NA) or renewables. Even nuclear is picking up the pace now so new coal plants are almost entirely only being constructed in developing economies in SEA where Indonesia's exports are keeping up well with Indian and Chinese demand. Furthermore thermal also competes with LNG which may even enter a glut phase in the seaborne markets thanks to the aggressive buildouts in the USA and Qatar. Thermal coal will be used for decades to come and higher calorific value thermal (East Coast US / Australuan Newcastle) will likely remain a premium product but the medium term and long term fundamentals do face headwinds. Meanwhile met coal remains a required component of steel, and developing economies need to build. EAFs only work with scrap and developing economies don't have enough electricity for them anyway. Also importantly, Indonesia isn't a major player in the seaborne met coal trade and the best met coal reserves come from Canada and the US. Australia also has good met coal assets.

>>57514616
Also please do share what you learned about the steel industry with us! It's an unknown beast to me and I'd love to be spoonfed about it

VUL sisters did I get scammed again

>>57514778
I think this sums it up quite well.
I am hoping for the best for thermal coal, but as you say, there are a lot of headwinds. Best case scenario for now is for US coal production to remain in the 500-600 million tons per year range, then maybe, if the economic situation changes in coming years, then an increase in production.

>>57515025
I think there's a good chance US production will stay at the 500-600Mt level for a few years at least. I know the Blue Creek met coal mine is coming online within a few years, and I think CONSOL or Peabody also had some kind of project slated to begin production.

Also, here's some good news for US coal production:
https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/us-thermal-coal-exports-hit-5-year-highs-top-5-billion-2023-2024-02-01/

>Copper futures fell to below $3.78 per pound, retreating sharply from the one-month high of $3.9 touched on January 30th amid pressure from strength in the dollar and pessimistic industrial sentiment in top consumer China. Strong labor data in the US and hawkish remarks from Fed Chair Powell lifted the dollar used to price copper futures, pressuring the purchasing power of key importers and raising benchmark borrowing costs that are essential to industrial activity. Additionally, persistent macroeconomic headwinds in the Chinese economy continued to hamper the outlook for base metals. Official manufacturing PMI data pointed to a fourth consecutive contraction in the sector during January. The developments triggered a persistent decline in the Yangshan copper premium as factories refrained from purchasing the metal, while inventories in major Chinese warehouses soared by over 120% year-to-date to nearly 70,000 tonnes.

Silver Bullet Mines is the gift that keep giving.

https://youtu.be/JjalyHNlEVU?si=30VjN9FD8P5DNmEt

Uranium futures absolutely MOGGING every other metal insect holder
holy fuck

>>57497260
Dolly Varden is at a pretty good valuation right now compared to a few months ago, i have a nice bid at $0.64. Bob Moriarty likes them too

>>57515280
That is indeed good news, and I tend to agree that the worst phase of decline is over for U.S. coal.

>LITTLETON, Colorado, Feb 1 (Reuters) - United States exporters of thermal coal earned more than $5 billion in 2023 as they shipped out more than 32.5 million metric tons of the high-polluting power fuel, data from ship-tracking firm Kpler shows.

The phrasing in these articles is nauseating, but the information is good nonetheless.

>>57500761
Yea they're trying to delay refurbishment of Enbridge Line 5 that runs through upper Michigan and into SW Ontario. Gov. Whittmer campaigned against it and is making headway in her battle against Enbridge. This is despite the fact that 25% of Northern Michgan households derive their energy needs from Line5 and will be adversely affected by the developments. This is a gas line that was built in the 1950's by Bechtel (Hoover Dam builders) and is in need of repair, but as per usual, bureaucracy always seems to get in the way.

>>57515520
Yep, natural gas is starting to be vilified the same way that coal was last decade. Some states have even proposed banning gas stoves.

>>57515520
>>57515597
What it boils down to is this anti-CO2 bullshit needs to start winding down. That'll only happen if the powers that be and their academic toadies want it to happen for whatever reasons move them.

>>57514945
>Australia
How many times have you been told to only invest in White countries?

>>57515757
australia is whiter than the us

>>57495279
>At this point the easy money in uranium has been made a long ago and you're only investing to get exposure to continued bullish uranium fundamentals (which is fine)
I just put some chips on ura and urnm last week
just need to beat inflation, but hoping to beat spy

>>57515466
I also took a bit of issue with the "high-polluting fuel" as it's clear it was added in order to affect public opinion. (Even though it's technically true that coal is a high-polluting fuel with sulphur, ash, and nitrogen oxide emissions that are all filtrated in a modern thermal power plant operation)
>>57515520
The constant political scuttling of pipelines in Canada and the US keeps boggling the mind, and is sure to keep coal consumption elevated for years to come.

>>57515668
That or energy prices need to rise again like they did in '22. Or maybe the power will cut off again in Texas during the Winter and cause hundreds of casualties again. In the end reason will prevail.
>>57515782
You'll do fine but in the very short term expect some volatility on account of technicals.

>>57515805
>In the end reason will prevail.
I agree with this. We can only defy nature and behave irrationally for so long before nature brings us to our senses.

>>57515805
>in the very short term expect some volatility
yeah I'm not expecting a payoff here for a few months anyway, based on what I've been hearing. or longer. aggravating thing is I was thinking about putting some money on uranium as far back as last year but I was too busy earning a living that I couldnt do even a tiny bit of dd

>>57515785
>I also took a bit of issue with the "high-polluting fuel" as it's clear it was added in order to affect public opinion. (Even though it's technically true that coal is a high-polluting fuel with sulphur, ash, and nitrogen oxide emissions that are all filtrated in a modern thermal power plant operation)
Absolutely. The new-gen Asian coal-fired plants can run extremely clean. I wouldn't mind taking a lot of US coal-fired plants offline for a while to upgrade them.

>>57515864
I had the same issue except it was even more far back. I missed out on most of uranium, oil&gas, coal as well as copper run ups because I was retardedly hyperfocusing on precious metals. Live and learn I suppose, second best thing to do is do better going forward.

>>57515805
Doomberg always says “in the battle between platitudes and physics, physics is undefeated”

The issue is that the bureaucracy won’t ever admit their feel-good, short-sighted resource management and energy polices don’t actually deal with the consequences of physical realities, and they will always try to perform political somersaults in order retain power or to pass the buck onto the next guy.

>>57516324
Yep, irrationality and going against nature can only last for so long before one of two things happens: 1) people come to their senses, including an entrenched, corrupt bureaucracy, or 2) collapse/death/doom
But in the end, we are subjects of the natural world, even though, through knowledge, we learn its secrets and how to make it do some of the things we want. But that doesn't place us above the laws of physics. It just means we're clever with the laws of physics.

>>57515777
Lol
Yeah right

>>57514778
>>57514923
Thank you!

Absolutely I will share what I learn here on steel! I think my main knowledge I've gained so far is that scrap is a leading indicator of steel prices, especially in the US. The reason is that 70% of our steel comes from recycled steel processed in what they call mini-mills (electric arc furnaces), which is recycled steel and a bit of iron and coal. This causes the main price driver to be the cost of "scrap" steel, so that's why I keep making posts about tracking BUS (scrap) and HRC (hot rolled coil) steel. I've been watching scrap and steel futures and trying to learn what triggers the price of steel to rise. A bit move in scrap for sure correlates with a movement up in steel. lately scrap has been falling, so we've seen the opposite. I think learning these patterns, combined with some watching the charts and macro aspects, might make for some good trading.

One macro thing I learned recently was that the DXY and commodity prices inversely correlate pretty well. Most commodities are measured in dollars, so when the dollar rises, the value of those commodities declines (it takes less dollars to buy the commodity). So we are seeing not just the move in the dollar, but the expected future move in the dollar pricing our commodities out. This isn't perfect, but, it's noticeable if you chart some things.

I have never traded futures before, but I want to look into it. Right now I've been trying to analyze what happens to steel stocks when steel prices rise, and they do correlate pretty well but I'm trying to get that pinned down a bit better. It's been racking my brain. See attached correlation analysis that I did which goes back to 2016. I need to just dial in my buy triggers, which is easier said than done. It's basically being a quant and I might be too dumb to be one. That said, it's fun and I'm learning a lot. I've ordered some books on futures trading that I'll read and I'm watching the steel market daily.

Darius Dale joins Macro Voices to discuss why his economic modeling at his 42Macro firm has him bullish in the medium term. Probably the one of the sharpest fund managers out there, so it’s always a great listen.

https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/macro-voices/id1079172742?i=1000643834750

>>57514923
>>57516803

>>57514923
>>57516803
>>57516812
Scrap versus steel. Notice how scrap often moves first before steel! I think this is because scrap is the main input in EAF steel production, about 70% of the cost.

>>57514778
>>57516803
>>57516812
>>57516824
And here is the DXY and steel, indexed to 100 for easier viewing. I mean, I know these aren't perfect correlations, but they seem very actionable. If we pile them up, as in if scrap makes a big move upward and the DXY makes a decent move downward, that seems like (historically speaking) good buy points for steel itself.

The stocks also move somewhat closely with that, if you look at those correlations I posted above. I think there is something here, just trying to nail down where the buy points are. A lot of comments on here I notice are really bull cases for particular things, versus this is more of a "when this happens, this happens" sort of thing that could be profitable if they go down or up. I'm a retard though, and I imagine if I got this far so has a billion other wall street guys that are way smarter, so maybe I'll get my ass handed to me and I'm just dreaming all of this...but it sure seems to add up so far.

>>57516891
It's great to see someone so interested in a heavy industry like steel. Good job, young man! :)
I wish you all the success you want in the future.

>>57516803
I think you should also factor the “flight to safety and liquidity” sentiment that prevails when equities are sold and swapped into cash or bonds. Cash is the most liquid medium so an appreciable rise in DXY would be reflective of not only the likelihood of future Fed actions, but also the resulting flood into dollars as the search for low-beta and liquid instruments ensues.

What I’m trying to get at is a-lot of the upper barrier on prices of various commodity futures in a perceived “risk off” period is not only currency strength affecting the nominal value physical good, but also retail/institutional futures traders not being able to meet increased collateral requirements (if applicable) in order to facilitate the trades that potentially drive up spot in the first place. So instead of participating in the trade, creating trade volume and market depth (signal conviction), we are left with thinned order books as traders exit the market and into dollars until market risk abates and the famed cyclicality of commodities reverses to the upside once more at a later date.

Maybe I’m placing too much weight on traders and their habits, but these markets rely on those traders to be present and making decisions based on the latest macroeconomic data available to them. I just think that this aspect should be considered as well, as opposed to just the high level “dollar is heading this way so commodities must be the opposite” mantra. There’s a lot of traders/ market participants out there trading these products, so there are a lot of market trends that play out based on their own inputs and views, regardless of where the dollar is.

You should listen to that Darius Dale podcast for a bit if you’re getting deep into modelling and processing leading and lagging economic indicators. That guy is a wizard at that stuff, and a lot of the data is publicly available.

>>57516803
>>57516812
>>57516824
>>57516891
Good stuff so far anon! Some points:

1) look into the met coal and iron ore price correlations with steel as well, I'd like to know whether their price moves correlate differently with steel prices than scrap, and which moves first. Lots of steel demand comes from China and India where their own steel mills don't use EAF as much as the US and Europe so they'll be more affected by met coal and iron ore prices.
2) Yes, DXY up usually means commodities down however DXY up also can mean stock market down (USD more in demand = "risk off").

>>57517114
Thank you!

>>57517123
Thanks for this information. Some of it is a bit above my head, but what I've been doing when I run into that is saving it and running through things line by line to fill in my educational gaps. So, your post I will do that. I do hear what you are saying about sentiment in the traders, and I think a lot of these indicators that's a big factor. Like this week the jobs report had a bigger influence on steel prices than the actual fed meeting, and I think that was likely because the good jobs report meant the fed was less likely to lower rates.

I will check out Darius Dale for sure, thanks!

>>57517185
I will look into the met coal correlations, good idea. Not sure if there are met coal futures specifically, I need to look at that. The iron ore correlation is .64, Iron and scrap were .69.

I haven't gotten into the overseas markets enough yet, it's on my list but there is a lot to learn and it's taking me a bit. One thing I think about the Chinese market is that we have to watch their imports... The tariffs in the US hold back cheap Chinese steel, but if the dollar gets strong enough it makes it cheaper to import that steel and I'm not sure where the point is where the tariffs are not high enough to stop the flood. If our dollar is strong, it can be more advantageous to import the steel versus buy it locally.

That makes a lot of sense about the DXY. A lot of these correlations aren't perfect and it seems like to make good decisions it has to be a mix of things. Trades would be more like "based on these factors being favorable, it is likely a good time to buy". Quantitative, technical, and macro all play into what would be a good purchase point. I think the other thing about the correlations is that while some can be strong, they are only really helpful if they lead a bit where they can give clues to future movements. That's where scrap is pretty cool, but I think the key is going to be finding more.

>>57517336
>A lot of these correlations aren't perfect and it seems like to make good decisions it has to be a mix of things. Trades would be more like "based on these factors being favorable, it is likely a good time to buy".
Pretty much. As >>57517123 points out it's a complicated web of criss-crossing trends and indicators and whatnot so it can be a mistake to think about market movements too mechanistically.
>Not sure if there are met coal futures specifically
There should be but I don't know how publicly available that data is exactly. I've seen Matt Warder (analyst dubbed "King of Coal") show coking coal charts from his Bloomberg terminal in In It To Win It's youtube interviews but when I search online I can't find the same charts so maybe it's sort of proprietary or otherwise hard to find data. His chart is with the ticker IAC but I can't find it, though Barchart has Aus Coking Coal charts which seem to be pretty much the same thing (https://www.barchart.com/futures/quotes/U7*0))

>>57517453
And you as well, I have a lot of respect for you too, in all your efforts to learn about these heavy industries and their trade relations.

Recommend me some Small / Midcap, Oil, Gas and Mining stocks

My only exposure currently is in DNN, up 73% and it’s been almost a year since I bought.

Not a huge bag but relative to my portfolio it’s nice. I’d like to get into coal but that’s a very long game no? Uranium likely will have up and downs or so you guys see it steady for the next 30? I’m looking into some coal exposure for an IRA I’m setting up. Any tips?

Here’s 5-6k worth of gold.

New Slogan:
>CO2 is not pollution. CO2 is the solution!

It'll cause faster forest and plant growth, which means more animals, which means more biomass in general and a literally more living earth.
It'll also preclude an ice age.

>>57518055
Thanks coalbro. Doing my best
>>57518099
In a perfect world...

>>57518097
Pretty hard to say what uranium is going to look like 30 years from now but the fundamentals for the next few years at least look undeniably good for yellowcake prices. Do keep in mind that pretty much only Kazatomprom and more risky equities are cheap relative to uranium prices right now, otherwise the sector is fairly valued or maybe even pricing in a higher uranium price than the current price right now. So for all intents and purposes the easy money is made but personally I still see upside coupled with volatility, and it's possible we get to see some kind of silly high price for uranium at the end of this bullrun.

As for coal I'd say the coal companies are still pretty cheap but will probably cool down a bit in the immediate short term because Spring is a shoulder season for coal demand. I plan to buy some coal stocks during March or April after a likely pullback. Coal is a fairly long game as you need to let them cook. Some have growth projects coming online in 3-5 years, others are focusing on returning free cash flow to shareholders in the form of dividends and buybacks. It takes time regardless but fortune favors the patient.

>>57518097
Sorry for the triple post should have gathered all my thoughts in one post.

>Any tips?
Read the thread, we've talked pretty extensively about coal and its fundamentals this thread. Both coking coal and thermal. I also shared a short list of the most important met coal stocks all of which are worth investing in desu

>>57518247
I will read thanks bro

Here’s some ivory from late 1800s

>>57518143
Yes, in a perfect world, but perhaps also in this world.
I am involved in a lot of coal advocacy activity. I am pushing certain pro-coal organizations to take a more aggressive pro-carbon line. That is, instead of just accepting the premise that we need "green energy" but have to move slower, I am advocating to these groups to reject that premise and instead argue there is no need for a green energy revolution because carbon dioxide is itself very green.
How far these messages reach, I don't know. But I feel like I am helping plant seeds that could grow in the coming years -- new popular understanding and talking points about carbon dioxide that would help all the hydrocarbon industries.

>>57518274
Gorgeous stuff
Must be worth a small fortune

>>57518078
BUMP

>>57518274
Love your jewellery and antiques anon. One day I hope to be as wealthy as you

>>57518312
brother read the thread! Previous thread also.

>>57518338
I read it, and it's mostly about coal (that I'm not interested) and no small midcaps

>>57518353
Coal is the patrician's choice!
But on a serious note (though I am serious about that), what are your interests in commodities?

>>57518333
I hope your dreams of becoming wealthy come true. You are bright and dedicated -- what our society really needs nowadays.
I am moderately wealthy, enough to retire somewhat frugally. But I just love being underground.
My family is into cremation. When I die, I want most of my cremains to go to my family, but a small portion set aside (which the funeral home will do) to spread in an underground coal mine, preferably an area about to be permanently sealed, by my mining brothers.
That way, a part of me will be entombed forever with the coal.
Of course, I hope never to have to retire.

>>57518078
Benton resources, it's comically undervalued for what they have.

>>57518353
I'm sure I have talked about uranium, silver and gold miners as well these past two threads

More global warming propaganda

>Cobb said more work should be done with sclerosponges to make sure this work is precise. And regardless of how far we’ve already pushed the Earth’s temperatures, humanity must put the brakes on greenhouse gas production.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/sea-sponges-keep-climate-records-160641887.html

The eco-nuts won't be satisfied until all hydrocarbon energy and modern agriculture is done away with -- meaning billions of dead people and the rest living in poverty. Of course the elites will still fly around on private jets with a private infrastructure built only to accommodate them.

>>57518436
>what are your interests in commodities?
I love my oil stocks and they pay me very good dividends, but I only have big companies, ConocoPhillips, Chevron and Pioneer. I'm looking for small/medium cap oil companies that have potential to grow

I'm also interested in Mining companies, I was thinking on buying Rio or BHP for the dividends, but I'm also very interested in small/medium cap companies, specially in Cooper, lithium and rare minerals, gold is also fine. What I'm not interested is coal; uranium because of to much hype and iron is also meh

>>57518727
Copper juniors are mostly explorers with very high expenditures, no cash flow and a low chance of success. But if you want to check out some likely winners on that front, NGEX and FIL have copper development projects that will likely be bought by majors and built into world class new copper mines, eventually. Lithium is still in a downtrend but names like Sigma Lithium, Liontown, Lithium Americas Albemarle and SQM should be on your lithium watchlist. I don't know much about rare earths so I can't comment on that. Gold miners look very cheap right now but they can get cheaper as well

>>57518804
Thanks bro

>>57495112
>[Open] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed]
The absolute state of CMMG.

>>57517453
Yeah, sometimes the data can be hard to get. For steel a lot of the information is through CRU group, but to subscribe to that is big money, so I'm just making due with what I can get through TradingView inexpensively.

I found this for coking coal futures on TradingView.

>>57518727
Surge Copper and Quebec Copper are two companies to watch, although it looks like copper spot is at a big time pivot zone on the 20-year chart. So there could be a big move at some point as it appears as though the probe has been coiled up and range-bound for some time. I have set limit buys of 0.07 and 0.11 for the respective companies.

The tech layoffs are getting crazy. There was a lot of froth in the sector so it makes sense. We will see how bad it gets.

Mongolian Mining Corp
OTCMKTS: MOGLF

You guys think this run is done?

YESTERDAY GOLD DROPS $12, PORTFOLIO DOWN $5,000

TODAY GOLD UP $12, PORTFOLIO DOWN $300

>>57521957
Ironically gold mining never makes any money

>>57495112

>>57522306
I might not ever buy another gold stock that doesn't have at least a 3% dividend

>>57511263
If it's not your fault you should sue the shit out of the other driver and take the money and start a business.

>>57511355
Were getting our first restaurant contract in three weeks and it will be about $8000 a month if not more.

It's been a lot of fucking work but it's starting to pay off. We're doing about $500 every weekend at farmers markets and the biggest thing is that we can't keep up with demand.

>>57515782
I want to move another big allocation in uranium but I'm hesitant because it's so far stretched over the 200 day moving average. I have about 10k in silj just waiting to be moved.

>>57522389
Nice watchlist anon, soon time to remove Teck out of there though. Very nice downward moves in coal stocks, looking to load up in a month or so perhaps at seasonal bottom

>>57522527
My goodness that is good profit! I wonder if I should copy your homework and do this myself as well, but probably wouldn't work out so well in this sparsely populated Arctic climate country. Everybody's a bloody scrooge here in Finland to boot and there's a lot of competition from other established berry & mushroom salesmen during the Summer

Source energy services up almost 5% just this morning
Hope you guys are getting in on sand while it's cheap

>>57519157
I don't bother deleting those out. If I'm the only one willing to bake (and I asked last time for another baker and no one volunteered), then I'm not going to bother making it pretty.

>>57511195
You look like Alan Thrall's cousin

>>57523836
thank you for your service

>>57524747
Thanks lol

>>57495112
Why trade natural resources over company stocks though? I usually only trade company stocks

>>57525088
>No flaming hat
Rookie move

>>57500448
Hey pan man,
What is your opinion of Benton resources and their expansion of the great burnt property?

They're starting the next phase of drilling after getting 100% success rate on their first round of drilling.
The CEO really seems to know what he's doing.

https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/196071

>>57525449
Here's a real pro.

>>57525569

>>57525203
We trade equities here. But futures trading would be interesting to try as well. I just know my ass would get burnt trying that

>>57525497
i havent looked at them yet as i havent had time, let me go look this evening. There's been a lot of discussion about them though, from that map you provided those are excellent intercepts for copper. The core sample shots on their news releases are fantastic too, solid chalcopyrite. Whats their corporate structure look like? We have seen some stunning core in the past from projects but shit management kills so many of these tasty discoveries.

So I checked out some of the coal stocks mentioned and BTU seems really nice. Trading at like 2x EBITDA. debt isn't too bad. I'm still kinda stuck at look at natural gas too, I mean it's just so cheap now. I guess that's because of the oversupply estimation because of Biden stopping the terminal expansions, but, damn it's cheap. What's the best way to get exposure to natural gas?

Steel and scrap were about even today. Same thing playing out.

>>57526901
A beautiful Pepe/Apu
(I consider Apu just a type of Pepe, which it really is, if you look at the evolutionary tree of Pepe -- he branched out into Apu)

>>57526901
It's pretty hard to go wrong with coal stocks in the long term. They're just silly cheap and they'll pay back very well over the years through divvies and buybacks. Buy the ones you like on weakness and hold for five, ten, fifteen, whatever years.
>natgas
I think Biden is only halting new LNG export facility approvals but the current projects are still coming on as planned. I don't think it's material. Anyways I did some research today on Canadian and US natgas production and Canadian, US consumption as well as Mexican imports from the US and incoming demand from LNG and I think natgas will still likely be in a slight oversupply in the next few years. I think there's a chance that natgas might have periods of high prices during peak demand seasons and probably structurally stronger prices, but I don't see natgas shortages forming especially with oil and gas companies expanding production so aggressively.
>What's the best way to get exposure to natural gas?
Just natgas beta? There are natgas bull ETFs and on the equities side you have a whole assortment of companies in US and Canada.

>>57527078
Thanks. Yes, the coal companies do seem cheap. Some of them have had a pretty good run lately so I'm cautious there, but, I'll start watching them for a good buy point.

There is a lot of stuff looking cheap right now. Silver is tempting even.

>>57526991
Thanks m8. I still make Pepes sometimes (especially comfy ones), but, I feel like Apu is well suited for commodities.

>>57527482
Apu is more affable and cute than his older Pepe ancestor. Apu is suited to all kinds of situations, whereas Pepe has more of a mocking tone.

>>57527482

For anyone interested, Coal Age often puts out some cool articles.

https://www.coalage.com/

Also, you can order a paper version for free; it's sent out every couple months or so. The coal industry pays for it.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-is-bad-for-the-environment-is-liquified-natural-gas-any-better/

>The contentious debate over whether liquefied natural gas is cleaner than coal has been elevated by President Joe Biden’s move to halt approvals of gas export terminals

I'm hoping for a win for coal. Or maybe both coal and gas lose because the greens are twats.

>>57529471
So even the Biden administration is examining whether gas is "dirtier" than coal in terms of CO2.

>>57529502
*in terms of "greenhouse gases" (methane for gas)

>>57529471
>Or maybe both coal and gas lose because the greens are twats.
That's the agenda. It's all narrative though. It doesn't matter whether they like it or not.

>>57518727
Might want to check propetro

Steel continuing it's movement down, 955 this morning. I think more downward pressure to come.

>>57528473
This has some great stuff, thanks! I subscribed!

They mention a company called Alliance Resource Partners that looks pretty good.

I know nothing about aluminum, other than creating a lot of beer empties, but this might be of interest to some

>>57532416
all Lucke has to do it make a small campaign contribution to Hawley and this small matter will be forgotten. Any comms from an elected person are a solicitation for bribes, I mean campaign contributions.

I know you still lurk here.

Small reminder you are forever my little bitch.

>>57533926
I really should have taken profits on Emerita when I was up 200%. Ended up with a solid 50-100% profit can't remember how much it was in total. Lessons learned. Still watching it from the sidelines.

>>57534083
We all make mistake. Didnt take profit when up 1100% on Hercules and now "only up" 700%. Greed is a killer.

>>57534115
Are you still long Hercules without taking profits at all yet? Are you sure it's worth C$200M at such an early exploration stage? I've been watching it ever since they started releasing those copper intercepts and it looks like it could become a mine if it has enough lateral scale at those grades, but it's not cheap in my eyes right now even as a speculation. Great pick though happy for you

>>57534115
>>57534223
I would get out now and buy benton.

>>57526721
>Whats their corporate structure look like?
I don't know what you mean by that, but the CEO came from a family of miners and has been in this industry for a while and seems very honest.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRln83b6n0A

They also have enough cash in the bank and financing opportunities for later drilling. Currently they have $2.7 million cash.

>>57534347
>selling when Barrick and another major I won't name are buying hand over fist
No.

>>57534223
I sold 10% when I was in the 1000% gains, still long. I'll sell 5% there and there when it go up to open new position, won't be irresponsibly long like last time, that was retarded.

Its not cheap for people not having a position but I do think its still a strong hold at this price.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ag8NE4fK-LE

>>57534413
there's a pretty good chance benton would be bought out too if their next drilling cycle proves successful

>>57534460
I made a 4x off hercules and sold at around $1.20 CAD

>>57534517
Their drilling look really robust indeed. I just have too many positions I wanna add to buy Benton where I've no DD. Wish you the best on this play.

>>57534533
based.

>>57534347
I would not buy Benton.
>>57534460
Smart move Frenchbro, you're now playing with the House's money.

>>57534571
>Wish you the best on this play.
Thanks bro.
Benton is my largest position.

>>57534608
>I would not buy Benton.
Why's that?

>>57534622
>>57534347
I remember just watching their first hole in november and was surprised at the market reaction considering it was a twin hole, nothing new at all. Dont know their newest one. This property already had an MRE, no ?

>>57534653
The old holes were very inaccurate and used smaller diameter drilling.
The new holes proved the old data was very inaccurate and the deposit is actually much larger.
>This property already had an MRE, no ?
I don't know.

>>57534622
>Why's that?
Way too small. They have grade but the scale is too small.

My long ARTG position is enjoying the breakout today. I think this is a signal that the red days may be over for gold and silver stocks

>>57534984
it's not that small and it certainly is likely to get much bigger

>>57535118
I wish you good luck anon. I don't see what you see in Benton.

>>57535006
Are you in any other silver stocks?

Sprott is Benton's biggest shareholder

>>57535852
I don't see what Sprott sees in Benton. But then again he has a loose trigger finger with regard to junior miners

Let's see Canada fuck up a easy lay-up once again...

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Natural-Gas/Canada-Looks-To-Capitalize-As-US-Pauses-LNG-Export-Licenses.html

>>57530192
https://www.arlp.com/our-businesses/coal-operations/

I've done maintenance work at Tunnel Ridge, Mettiki, and Gibson South. Their mines have a good reputation and are well maintained.
They do thermal coal but are a solid company as far as I can tell.

>>57529697
Yep, reality will be a splash of cold water on the greens' heads.

Holy crap Grandich is down millions on juniors and holding some turds

>>57536341
Of those I have only heard of Arizona Metals and Big Ridge, and only the former is potentially a good investment desu. Why does this guy have so much money in these shitters?

One of the few things most of us did right was not chase lithium:

Gerald Celente: In recent months, sales of electric vehicles (EVs) have stalled around the world. High sticker prices, high interest rates, and a global economic slowdown have left post-inflation consumers reluctant or unable to pay the more than $50,000 cost of an EV.

As a result, lithium’s price has plunged 80 percent in the past 12 months. It now sits at about $13,200, its lowest price since 2020.

Lithium is the central ingredient in EV batteries.

Plans for new lithium mines have been shelved and mining companies are looking to cut costs to cope with their shrunken market. Partially processed ores have stockpiled along the supply chain, the Financial Times reported.

Pilbara Minerals, a key Australian lithium supplier, saw revenues plummet 46 percent in 2023’s fourth quarter. Liontown Resources had secured a $760-million loan to develop a new lithium mine but the loan was abruptly canceled as lithium’s price collapsed…"

>>57536410
The contrarian in me is telling me that this year is the time to start getting lithium and PGM exposure. Lithium -- maybe, but I'm not as certain about that since there's so much cheap lithium supply. Demand of all three will only go up though.

>>57536409
no idea anon, this guy claims his nickname is "the Wall Street Wiz Kid" but he would have been better of investing with Graeme

>>57536426
>lithium and PGM exposure
Fuck I meant nickel and PGM exposure. Lithium still uncertain for me

>>57536426
Yea i think last thread I shared lithums spot chart and Frontier Lithiums charts, almost nearly identical. FL is trading at like .70 whereas it was like $2.50 plus in its heyday. I'm not a expert on things concerning lithium so I'm unable to say if its indeed a good time to buy, but boy does it look cheap.

>>57535852
Sprott puts huge amounts of money in all sorts of companies, so take what hes doing with a some thought. Hes got a lot of money to use across the industry.

Looks like Blackrock just bought 5.5 % of Encore according to recent 13F filings

>>57495279
>>57515782
So is URA out as a good idea here? was intrigued by uranium prices.

>>57537330
Did it get uplisted to an index? Are they going to create an index?

>>57537886
These are not bad companies to own but it's hard for me to believe the Uranium equities in general will increase by a lot from here. They are overall pretty fairly priced so there's not much beta gains to be made. Back when I bought they were losing money, Japanese still had their reactors offline, the sprott uranium trust didn't exist, covid was happening and the cameco and kazatamprom mines had stopped producing, etc.

Recent news is still bullish for the price and there is a long delay (5+ years) between new mines starting construction and new supply coming online. In my opinion the likely scenario 10 years into the future is Uranium is around $150/lb on a long term basis and Cameco is a solid profitable company. Maybe a large multinational mining company like Glencore buys one of the Jr's and enters the Uranium market.

I think that scenario is priced in to the current Uranium equities market.

>>57538054
>I think that scenario is priced in to the current Uranium equities market.
ah thanks. yeah a 100% gain on the 1 year is a pretty big rip already. especially for something that isnt meme coins or meme tech. is camceo in a bad spot then? i feel like if uranium isnt getting production upgrades for 5+ years they can just farm that out and pay a divy or something soon.

is that 5 year delay of other uranium companies or investment? like is it possible no one invests in production and its limited for even longer? that seems like part of of the scenario with oil, no one wants long term investing in it yet.

>>57537886
Here's how I see it: the uranium price could very justifiably go up from here. If you think that will happen, holding a sector ETF like URA is a good idea because if the spot price keeps climbing the equities will follow. But the fact is, the incentive price has been reached and the price does not HAVE to go up like it did when uranium was trading at $20/lb. Mind, there certainly is a 50Mlbs annual shortfall of U3O8 supply, so if you think that will continue and that is enough to push prices even higher then you should be long. In my view uranium equities are for the most part pricing in the current spot price, some are perhaps pricing in a bit higher prices too. Kazatomprom alone I would consider cheap but it's up to you to decide whether you want to expose yourself to potential political risks on that front.

>>57538203
thanks and no im avoiding russia. too many anons got heemed in smg for buying lukoil right before it got axed. im goinng to do more research on uranium. im not as familiar with commodity trading.

>>57538221
Kazatomprom is Kazakhstan's state-owned uranium company; not Russian. But they do sell a sizable portion of their yellowcake to Russia and China.

>>57538143
>is camceo in a bad spot then? i feel like if uranium isnt getting production upgrades for 5+ years they can just farm that out and pay a divy or something soon.
No it's in a good spot, so good that it's somewhat over valued. It's a low risk bet on Uranium with no political risk which is why you have to pay a premium to own it. The majority of my Uranium investment was in Cameco and it delivered a nice +350% return over a few years. I closed the position out earlier this week.

>is that 5 year delay of other uranium companies or investment? like is it possible no one invests in production and its limited for even longer? that seems like part of of the scenario with oil, no one wants long term investing in it yet.
It takes about 5 years to take a mine from a prospected deposit and make it produce sellable Uranium. And because the Uranium market previously operated off the spot market, getting financing was very difficult. What's recently happened is that the market structure has shifted from companies buying and selling on the spot market to producers like Cameco sell in the form of long term contracts with utility companies to sell X lbs of Uranium at Y/lb for 10+ years. This is obviously way more of a hard number and is way more financeable, so they will now qualify for much more favorable financing terms when they go to a bank for a loan.

I expect existing producers like Cameco will be able to get low interest financing to buy a high quality Canadian Jr. just based off leveraging their existing contracts now. Something that would not have been possible a few years ago.

I still own Nex Gen because it's a very high grade deposit in the same area that Cameco operates. My bet is that someone will buy it to develop it and the tender offer will be more than what I paid for the stock.

>>57538239
>>57538221
Actually, not sure how much actually goes to Russia:
>Kazakhstan has long been a major player in the global uranium market due to its large reserves and low cost of production. The country is the world's largest producer of nuclear fuel, providing around 40% of the worldwide supply. Kazakhstan exports around half of its uranium to China; the remainder goes to Europe, Canada, and the United States. Imports from the Central Asian state meet around 20% of the annual demand for uranium in Europe and about 22% in the United States.

>>57538267
>It takes about 5 years to take a mine from a prospected deposit and make it produce sellable Uranium
More like 15 years. 5 years from feasibility stage to production is more realistic.
>Nexgen
same, holding it for the inevitable takeout bid

>>57538299
uec has mines ready to go, now, in the US?

>>57538322
ISR operations yeah I think. Those have been drilled ages ago. IIRC they're just going off of M&I resources and putting wells in the ground without doing much in the way of studying. Honestly can't remember. Anyway in-situ leaching is a different thing than mining, much more comparable to conventional oil & gas waterflood than your typical mining operation

>>57538267
>long term contracts with utility companies to sell X lbs of Uranium at Y/lb for 10+ years
ohh nice so sort of like oil and nat gas do. with contracts not so much spot price.
>leverage contracts
Nice that makes sense and i can see that happening. maybe i will buy a little camceo to let it ride.
>>57538271
ah kazah thanks. i did think it was russia.

>>57523069
The biggest thing is if there's no one in your area and there's good demand you can make a strong footprint. I'm the only mushroom farm worth a damn within 100 miles.

If you want to be good at it you need about 50k to invest. There's plenty of small time 20-50lb a week farmers that burn out because their operation isn't really worth shit but they tried to go for it anyway. If you have the demand then go big from the start.

>>57536307
AECO will never go above $2.00 again. Quit dreaming.

>>57538346
Check

>>57536325
Thanks for the info!

>>57539050
I move my King to safety. Your turn.

>>57539147
No problem, friend.

Going to list some super wrecked stocks, to see if anyone has thoughts:

Geopacific Resources GPR
Antilles Gold AAU
Excellon Resources EXN

Next bread

>>57539919
>>57539919
>>57539919