Making Money on the Global Warming Crisis

Bad weather may be heading our way. Many veryin nuclear reactors online, about 25 years from now,
smart voices have raised their volume over theBambrough also calculated how much uranium would
number of alarming red flags pointing to a worldwidebe required to fuel those reactors.
environmental catastrophe coming in a few years orAccording to Bambrough, current global uranium
decades hence. One voice, coming from the sharpmining production rests at about the 100 million-pound
mind of James Lovelock is resounding across thelevel. By 2030, if nuclear energy expands as Moore
world's media nearly every day. His solution: get moreinsists it should, then the world's utilities will require on
nuclear reactors online and sequester the carbonthe order of about 1.3 billion pounds every year. With
dioxide emissions as fast as possible.regards to a planetary build-up of nuclear energy,
What's the alternative? Move to the Arctic Circle,Bambrough wrote, "The supply of uranium may well
where you may someday bask year around withbe the most limiting factor."
temperatures pleasantly at 74 degrees Fahrenheit.This may become the new case for a sustained rally
According to findings recently published in the journalin the spot uranium price. Bambrough wrote, "Much
Nature. About 55 million years ago, there washigher uranium prices will be required to attract
something called the Paleocene Eocene Thermalenough investment capital to meet the growth in
Maximum (PETM). In this PETM phenomenon, thedemand." This has already begun, as uranium prices
entire Earth was heated up by a gigantic release ofhave skyrocketed for the past six years. Long-term
greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide. Lovelock hasuranium recently traded as high as $46/pound,
insisted we may see that kind of hot later thisexponentially higher than the spot price of $6.40
century.pound in late 2000. Bambrough is correct in his
Now, another brainy man, with whom we have manyconclusion. Building an underground uranium mine costs
chats this year, has issued a special 56-page report,far more than it did in the glory days of uranium in
entitled "Investment Implications of an Abruptthe 1950s. Environmental regulations force miners to
Climate Change." Co-authored by Market Strategistspend more and take longer in constructing any
Kevin Bambrough and Eric Sprott, Chief Executiveuranium-producing facility, including an ISL operation.
and Portfolio Manager of the world-famous money"Marginal mines will become price setters," wrote
management firm which bears his name, theyBambrough. This helps explain why the Sprott Asset
present a compelling argument as to why and howManagement funds have invested heavily in
global warming and climate change is going tocompanies such as Strathmore Minerals (TSX: STM;
dramatically impact our financial world. You are wellOther OTC: STHJF), Energy Metals (TSX: EMC) and
advised to read it.others. When we first interviewed Strathmore
Take Your Pick: Nuclear Energy or Cheap Arctic LandMinerals Chief Executive, Dev Randhawa, in June
Aside from optioning to buy vast tracts of land near2004, he told us his strategy was to capitalize upon a
the Arctic Circle, as Dr. Lovelock's conclusions forcesustained rally in the uranium price by acquiring
us to briefly consider, what can we do to protectproperties which were uneconomic at the sub-$20
our finances? Global warming, climate change and anlevel. His strategy has rewarded shareholders and
apocalypse soon to dawn on the horizon arecontinued to do so with each uptick in the spot
probably too much reality for the here and now. But,uranium price. If Bambrough's conclusion is accurate,
what will you do ten to thirty years from now? Thisthe junior uranium developers could very well become
past week, we interviewed Julian Steyn, author of Athe Internet high-fliers. That conclusion was reached
Brighter Tomorrow, which he co-wrote with U.S.by newsletter writer James Dines, this past
Senator Pete Domenici. A conservative and rationalNovember, and repeated numerous times in multiple
man, even he admitted in an email, "I am afraid I doreports by others.
agree with his (Lovelock's) concerns.""Large low-cost producers may be able to reap
If one finds logic within the statistical analysisMiddle East-like oil profits for decades," wrote
presented by the United Nations IntergovernmentalBambrough. If the spread between production costs
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a rational mind wouldand spot uranium keeps widening, the smaller uranium
want to start protecting his finances today in ordercompanies are going to hit it big. Those companies,
to ensure future survival for his family and lineage.which postponed uranium mining, will be selling their
Esteemed scientists have picked their way throughuranium production at the kind of
mountains of statistics, charts and projections aboutprofits-to-production spread ExxonMobil or
what is happening with melting glaciers, risingChevronTexaco now enjoy.
temperatures, higher sea levels and so forth. TheyRising uranium prices are probably more of an
do not like what they see, they are not alone, andirritation for fuel traders than the utilities, who worry
the better minds are not endorsing wind farms orabout construction costs. The actual fuel cost to
solar panels as "the solution." They see nuclear fissionoperate a nuclear power plant borders on the absurd.
reactors as mandatory, and the faster these goBambrough wrote in his report, "Fuel costs (for
online, the less we will later have to sweat (literally).nuclear) are merely 4.5 percent of total costs, even
Eric Sprott and Kevin Bambrough have laid out awith uranium at $40 per lb. If uranium rises to $100
possible solution, a cogent thesis as to why we mustper lb (a further 150 percent increase), the cost of
stop fooling around now. They didn't write the reportnuclear power would only rise by approximately 6.75
to alarm and cajole you to lynch the nextpercent." Fuel costs for coal and gas are 35 and 73
environmentalist or anti-nuke whom you come across.percent, respectively. And they release massive
Messrs. Sprott and Bambrough provided a blueprint ofdoses of CO2 into the air.
what must be done by governments andWhat else can be done aside from a worldwide,
decision-makers. More importantly, they have givenunanimous endorsement of nuclear energy? There
us extremely provocative advice on HOW to protectmay still be difficulties ahead. Lovelock told us the
our finances during the brewing crisis.CO2 emissions problem should have been addressed
Remember, it won't just be some meteor hitting the50 years ago. It takes between 50 and 100 years for
earth (although that might happen, too). Globalthe atmosphere to cycle through those emissions.
warming is tantamount to boiling water on yourThe Sprott report co-authors concluded there will be
stove. First, it gets warm, then warmer and warmer.supply problems for food, water and energy. They
Eventually, it gets hot. Then, the water boils. In otherenvision problems with national security, soaring grain
words, the catastrophe will brew for a while, causingprices, and greater investments needed to provide
political and economic instability, and a host of otherwater and energy to those who aren't buried ten
ills, probably better described in biblical terms. Most offeet deep in their indebtedness. They foresee a
us, unfortunately, will wait until the next Hurricanecurrency collapse as central banks flood the money
Katrina is a few miles down the road before wakingsystem to provide liquidity. And, of course, gold will
up.resume the role it has always held during times of
Through the first half of the report, the authorsoverpowering economic calamity.
cover global warming and climate change, in justIs this too much reality for you? Should we just wait
about every way imaginable. Messrs. Sprott anda while and see what transpires? We might not be
Bambrough found nooks and crannies which mayso lucky. Some experts, such as the Chief Claims
alarm you. Did you know the world's largest aquifer,Strategist for Swiss Re, wrote in a March 2006
the Ogallala aquifer in the United States, is drying upCERES report, "Global warming has accelerated from
because the glaciers, which created this aquifer, area problem that might affect our grandchildren, to one
receding? Fresh water is already in short supply forthat could significantly disturb the social and economic
one-third of the world's population. We may beconditions of our lifetime."
surrounded by water, but could lack a glass of freshIn other words, Messrs. Sprott and Bambrough are
water to drink. Ask the Saudis why they are buildingcorrect in their assumptions and conclusions. The time
desalination plants as fast they can. Imagine if thoseto get moving is today, not thirty years from now.
arid conditions prevailed across more than 90 percentFor a second opinion, before completing this column,
of the landmass of earth.we forwarded the Sprott report to David Miller. He
What happens as the earth's temperature goes up?wears many hats, including a consultancy to the
Increased urbanization, growing GDPs and demandInternational Atomic Energy Agency, third-term
for all the niceties that come with "civilization" have aWyoming legislator, president of Strathmore Minerals
price: more CO2 emissions. Deadly CO2 emissions,(TSX: STM) and a walking encyclopedia on uranium,
which raise the earth's temperature, poison our airgeology, nuclear power and politics. He responded
and kill our plants (and us), are very likely going toquite bluntly, "The fuel of the 19th century was coal.
turn this earth into a potboiler before the centuryThe fuel of the 20th century was oil. Both have run
ends.their economic course. Uranium is on its way to
Nuclear Expansion Needs More Uraniumbecoming the energy fuel of the 21st century. The
"This IS the perfect storm," Kevin Bambroughcrescendo of countries clamoring for nuclear energy
warned, not as the abused cliché the term hashas been growing louder in each year of this new
become, but as an angry voice demandingmillennium." Perhaps, we may yet see Moore's energy
decision-makers take to heart the gravity of CO2mix come to pass, or at least dramatic growth in the
emissions. "We need more nuclear reactors now," henuclear sector to more closely approach his targeted
told us. He directed us to environmentalist Patrickpercentage level.
Moore's contention that the U.S. should reverse itsOne key question remains unanswered, during our
energy source mix from an 80-percent dependencetwo-year investigation into uranium and nuclear
upon fossil fuels, relying instead upon nuclear energyenergy. Sure, we've gotten a lot of answers, but we
for 60-percent of our electrical power supply.remain unconvinced. No one has satisfactorily
Under the former Greenpeace co-founder's scenario,answered this question: "Will there be sufficient
Bambrough extrapolated the World Nuclearsupplies of 'already mined uranium' and current mining
Association (WNA) projections for 2030. Nuclearproduction available to the world's nuclear reactors to
power demand is then expected to soar from themeet the anticipated global demand for electricity?"
current 368 Gw, produced by the world's 441 nuclearThe make-break word in the above question is
reactors. He computed, using Moore's premise of a"available." Uranium is nearly everywhere. There are
60-percent nuclear-reliance, that nuclear reactorsabout 1.7 billion pounds of 'already mined uranium' in
would produce 18,900 Twh of the total powerthe world's inventories. But will there be enough
demand in 2030, which the WNA estimates mighturanium made available to the utilities when the time
reach 31,500 Twh. To produce that much electricity,comes?
Bambrough calculated that by 2030, nearly 2700If there is not, today's spot uranium price could look
nuclear reactors will be required across the planet.comparable to gasoline prices, circa 1965, at some
Envisioning the "potential" of a 600-percent increasefuture point.