Making Money on the Global Warming Crisis

Bad weather may be heading our way. Many veryBambrough also calculated how much uranium would
smart voices have raised their volume over thebe required to fuel those reactors.
number of alarming red flags pointing to a worldwideAccording to Bambrough, current global uranium
environmental catastrophe coming in a few years ormining production rests at about the 100 million-pound
decades hence. One voice, coming from the sharplevel. By 2030, if nuclear energy expands as Moore
mind of James Lovelock is resounding across theinsists it should, then the world's utilities will require on
world's media nearly every day. His solution: get morethe order of about 1.3 billion pounds every year. With
nuclear reactors online and sequester the carbonregards to a planetary build-up of nuclear energy,
dioxide emissions as fast as possible.Bambrough wrote, "The supply of uranium may well
What's the alternative? Move to the Arctic Circle,be the most limiting factor."
where you may someday bask year around withThis may become the new case for a sustained rally
temperatures pleasantly at 74 degrees Fahrenheit.in the spot uranium price. Bambrough wrote, "Much
According to findings recently published in the journalhigher uranium prices will be required to attract
Nature. About 55 million years ago, there wasenough investment capital to meet the growth in
something called the Paleocene Eocene Thermaldemand." This has already begun, as uranium prices
Maximum (PETM). In this PETM phenomenon, thehave skyrocketed for the past six years. Long-term
entire Earth was heated up by a gigantic release ofuranium recently traded as high as $46/pound,
greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide. Lovelock hasexponentially higher than the spot price of $6.40
insisted we may see that kind of hot later thispound in late 2000. Bambrough is correct in his
century.conclusion. Building an underground uranium mine costs
Now, another brainy man, with whom we have manyfar more than it did in the glory days of uranium in
chats this year, has issued a special 56-page report,the 1950s. Environmental regulations force miners to
entitled "Investment Implications of an Abruptspend more and take longer in constructing any
Climate Change." Co-authored by Market Strategisturanium-producing facility, including an ISL operation.
Kevin Bambrough and Eric Sprott, Chief Executive"Marginal mines will become price setters," wrote
and Portfolio Manager of the world-famous moneyBambrough. This helps explain why the Sprott Asset
management firm which bears his name, theyManagement funds have invested heavily in
present a compelling argument as to why and howcompanies such as Strathmore Minerals (TSX: STM;
global warming and climate change is going toOther OTC: STHJF), Energy Metals (TSX: EMC) and
dramatically impact our financial world. You are wellothers. When we first interviewed Strathmore
advised to read it.Minerals Chief Executive, Dev Randhawa, in June
Take Your Pick: Nuclear Energy or Cheap Arctic Land2004, he told us his strategy was to capitalize upon a
Aside from optioning to buy vast tracts of land nearsustained rally in the uranium price by acquiring
the Arctic Circle, as Dr. Lovelock's conclusions forceproperties which were uneconomic at the sub-$20
us to briefly consider, what can we do to protectlevel. His strategy has rewarded shareholders and
our finances? Global warming, climate change and ancontinued to do so with each uptick in the spot
apocalypse soon to dawn on the horizon areuranium price. If Bambrough's conclusion is accurate,
probably too much reality for the here and now. But,the junior uranium developers could very well become
what will you do ten to thirty years from now? Thisthe Internet high-fliers. That conclusion was reached
past week, we interviewed Julian Steyn, author of Aby newsletter writer James Dines, this past
Brighter Tomorrow, which he co-wrote with U.S.November, and repeated numerous times in multiple
Senator Pete Domenici. A conservative and rationalreports by others.
man, even he admitted in an email, "I am afraid I do"Large low-cost producers may be able to reap
agree with his (Lovelock's) concerns."Middle East-like oil profits for decades," wrote
If one finds logic within the statistical analysisBambrough. If the spread between production costs
presented by the United Nations Intergovernmentaland spot uranium keeps widening, the smaller uranium
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a rational mind wouldcompanies are going to hit it big. Those companies,
want to start protecting his finances today in orderwhich postponed uranium mining, will be selling their
to ensure future survival for his family and lineage.uranium production at the kind of
Esteemed scientists have picked their way throughprofits-to-production spread ExxonMobil or
mountains of statistics, charts and projections aboutChevronTexaco now enjoy.
what is happening with melting glaciers, risingRising uranium prices are probably more of an
temperatures, higher sea levels and so forth. Theyirritation for fuel traders than the utilities, who worry
do not like what they see, they are not alone, andabout construction costs. The actual fuel cost to
the better minds are not endorsing wind farms oroperate a nuclear power plant borders on the absurd.
solar panels as "the solution." They see nuclear fissionBambrough wrote in his report, "Fuel costs (for
reactors as mandatory, and the faster these gonuclear) are merely 4.5 percent of total costs, even
online, the less we will later have to sweat (literally).with uranium at $40 per lb. If uranium rises to $100
Eric Sprott and Kevin Bambrough have laid out aper lb (a further 150 percent increase), the cost of
possible solution, a cogent thesis as to why we mustnuclear power would only rise by approximately 6.75
stop fooling around now. They didn't write the reportpercent." Fuel costs for coal and gas are 35 and 73
to alarm and cajole you to lynch the nextpercent, respectively. And they release massive
environmentalist or anti-nuke whom you come across.doses of CO2 into the air.
Messrs. Sprott and Bambrough provided a blueprint ofWhat else can be done aside from a worldwide,
what must be done by governments andunanimous endorsement of nuclear energy? There
decision-makers. More importantly, they have givenmay still be difficulties ahead. Lovelock told us the
us extremely provocative advice on HOW to protectCO2 emissions problem should have been addressed
our finances during the brewing crisis.50 years ago. It takes between 50 and 100 years for
Remember, it won't just be some meteor hitting thethe atmosphere to cycle through those emissions.
earth (although that might happen, too). GlobalThe Sprott report co-authors concluded there will be
warming is tantamount to boiling water on yoursupply problems for food, water and energy. They
stove. First, it gets warm, then warmer and warmer.envision problems with national security, soaring grain
Eventually, it gets hot. Then, the water boils. In otherprices, and greater investments needed to provide
words, the catastrophe will brew for a while, causingwater and energy to those who aren't buried ten
political and economic instability, and a host of otherfeet deep in their indebtedness. They foresee a
ills, probably better described in biblical terms. Most ofcurrency collapse as central banks flood the money
us, unfortunately, will wait until the next Hurricanesystem to provide liquidity. And, of course, gold will
Katrina is a few miles down the road before wakingresume the role it has always held during times of
up.overpowering economic calamity.
Through the first half of the report, the authorsIs this too much reality for you? Should we just wait
cover global warming and climate change, in justa while and see what transpires? We might not be
about every way imaginable. Messrs. Sprott andso lucky. Some experts, such as the Chief Claims
Bambrough found nooks and crannies which mayStrategist for Swiss Re, wrote in a March 2006
alarm you. Did you know the world's largest aquifer,CERES report, "Global warming has accelerated from
the Ogallala aquifer in the United States, is drying upa problem that might affect our grandchildren, to one
because the glaciers, which created this aquifer, arethat could significantly disturb the social and economic
receding? Fresh water is already in short supply forconditions of our lifetime."
one-third of the world's population. We may beIn other words, Messrs. Sprott and Bambrough are
surrounded by water, but could lack a glass of freshcorrect in their assumptions and conclusions. The time
water to drink. Ask the Saudis why they are buildingto get moving is today, not thirty years from now.
desalination plants as fast they can. Imagine if thoseFor a second opinion, before completing this column,
arid conditions prevailed across more than 90 percentwe forwarded the Sprott report to David Miller. He
of the landmass of earth.wears many hats, including a consultancy to the
What happens as the earth's temperature goes up?International Atomic Energy Agency, third-term
Increased urbanization, growing GDPs and demandWyoming legislator, president of Strathmore Minerals
for all the niceties that come with "civilization" have a(TSX: STM) and a walking encyclopedia on uranium,
price: more CO2 emissions. Deadly CO2 emissions,geology, nuclear power and politics. He responded
which raise the earth's temperature, poison our airquite bluntly, "The fuel of the 19th century was coal.
and kill our plants (and us), are very likely going toThe fuel of the 20th century was oil. Both have run
turn this earth into a potboiler before the centurytheir economic course. Uranium is on its way to
ends.becoming the energy fuel of the 21st century. The
Nuclear Expansion Needs More Uranium "This IS thecrescendo of countries clamoring for nuclear energy
perfect storm," Kevin Bambrough warned, not as thehas been growing louder in each year of this new
abused cliché the term has become, but asmillennium." Perhaps, we may yet see Moore's energy
an angry voice demanding decision-makers take tomix come to pass, or at least dramatic growth in the
heart the gravity of CO2 emissions. "We need morenuclear sector to more closely approach his targeted
nuclear reactors now," he told us. He directed us topercentage level.
environmentalist Patrick Moore's contention that theOne key question remains unanswered, during our
U.S. should reverse its energy source mix from antwo-year investigation into uranium and nuclear
80-percent dependence upon fossil fuels, relyingenergy. Sure, we've gotten a lot of answers, but we
instead upon nuclear energy for 60-percent of ourremain unconvinced. No one has satisfactorily
electrical power supply.answered this question: "Will there be sufficient
Under the former Greenpeace co-founder's scenario,supplies of 'already mined uranium' and current mining
Bambrough extrapolated the World Nuclearproduction available to the world's nuclear reactors to
Association (WNA) projections for 2030. Nuclearmeet the anticipated global demand for electricity?"
power demand is then expected to soar from theThe make-break word in the above question is
current 368 Gw, produced by the world's 441 nuclear"available." Uranium is nearly everywhere. There are
reactors. He computed, using Moore's premise of aabout 1.7 billion pounds of 'already mined uranium' in
60-percent nuclear-reliance, that nuclear reactorsthe world's inventories. But will there be enough
would produce 18,900 Twh of the total poweruranium made available to the utilities when the time
demand in 2030, which the WNA estimates mightcomes?
reach 31,500 Twh. To produce that much electricity,If there is not, today's spot uranium price could look
Bambrough calculated that by 2030, nearly 2700comparable to gasoline prices, circa 1965, at some
nuclear reactors will be required across the planet.future point.
Envisioning the "potential" of a 600-percent increaseCOPYRIGHT © 2007 by StockInterview, Inc.
in nuclear reactors online, about 25 years from now,ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.