For the astute investor, this environment presents a bifurcation of opportunity: established incumbents utilizing massive government subsidies to fortify their market positions, and high-risk, high-reward junior entities positioning themselves to solve critical supply bottlenecks in uranium discovery and fuel fabrication.

In what follows I’ll provide an analysis of the investment landscape, prioritizing high-asymmetry opportunities while dissecting the complex web of intergovernmental partnerships—specifically the “Sapporo 5” and the U.S.-Korea-Japan trilateral agreements—that are reshaping capital flows. The article will highlight a few macro-thematic catalysts, each with an array of granular actions underneath that stand to incentivize and propel the entire industry forward

Subscribe now

Part 1: The Policy Supercycle: Deregulation, Funding, and the “Energy Dominance” Doctrine

The regulatory environment for nuclear energy in the United States has shifted from a posture of cautious oversight to one of aggressive acceleration. The Trump administration has utilized a combination of executive authority and budgetary realignment to expedite reactor deployment and fuel cycle independence, fundamentally altering the risk-reward calculus for public equities in the sector.

This is seen and highlighted by the administrations “energy dominance” agenda, characterized by actions such as the deployment of $2.7 billion in Department of Energy (DOE) enrichment funding and the issuance of Executive Orders mandating regulatory acceleration. The result is effectively a massive de-risking campaign of the capital expenditure profiles for major fuel cycle participants. Simultaneously, the activation of “Project Janus” by the U.S. Army signals the emergence of the Department of Defense (DoD) as a “market maker” for microreactor technology, creating a guaranteed customer base that bridges the “valley of death” for commercial deployment.

1.1 The $2.7 Billion Enrichment Injection: Reshoring the Fuel Cycle

In January 2026, the DOE announced a historic $2.7 billion investment to expand domestic uranium enrichment, specifically targeting the production of Low-Enriched Uranium (LEU) and High-Assay Low-Enriched Uranium (HALEU). This funding is a direct strategic countermeasure to the dominance of Rosatom (Russia), which has historically controlled approximately 44% of global enrichment capacity and holds a near-monopoly on commercial HALEU production.

The funding mechanism—Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts with task orders—prioritizes execution over entitlement. The awards were distributed as follows:

The administration has also issued four Executive Orders (EOs) designed to quadruple U.S. nuclear capacity to 400 GW by 2050. These orders are not merely aspirational; they contain specific, actionable mandates that directly impact project economics:

• Mandated Licensing Timelines: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is directed to limit construction and operating license reviews to 18 months, a drastic reduction from the multi-year timelines historically observed. This compression of regulatory timeframes directly improves the Internal Rate of Return (IRR) for reactor developers like Oklo and NuScale by reducing the capitalization of interest during construction.

• NEPA Reform: The orders mandate a streamlining of environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to prevent litigation-based delays. This is particularly bullish for uranium miners in the Western United States (e.g., Energy Fuels, Uranium Energy Corp) who have historically faced protracted permitting cycles.

• Defense Production Act (DPA): The administration has invoked the DPA to prioritize domestic uranium procurement, effectively placing a floor under domestic demand.

Likewise, the legislative landscape in the 119th Congress reinforces these executive actions. The ADVANCE Act, signed into law in mid-2024, is now in its implementation phase, reducing licensing fees for advanced reactors and mandating the NRC to update its mission statement to include not just safety, but the “general welfare” of energy security. Furthermore, pending legislation such as H.R. 6805 seeks to expand the scope of the Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program (ARDP) to specifically include microreactors, directly supporting the supply chains of companies like BWX Technologies and Oklo. State-level actions, such as Illinois lifting its moratorium on new nuclear construction, provide additional confirmation of a broadening political consensus that transcends partisan lines.

Subscribe now

Part 2: Project Janus: The Military as the Ultimate Anchor Tenant

“Project Janus” represents a paradigm shift in how the U.S. Army procures energy resilience. Unlike previous attempts at military nuclear power which were often research-focused, Janus utilizes a milestone-based commercial contracting model similar to NASA’s Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program. This program is designed to deploy operational microreactors at domestic installations by 2030, with prototypes achieving criticality as early as 2026.

Operational Parameters / Strategic Necessity

The strategic driver for Project Janus is the vulnerability of the civilian electric grid. In a near-peer conflict scenario involving cyber warfare or physical attacks on grid infrastructure, military installations reliant on external power would be neutralized. Janus seeks to provide “islanded” power—energy independence for critical missions.

• Technical Specifications: The Army requires reactors capable of generating 1-20 MW of electricity, using HALEU fuel (enriched to ≤19.75% U-235), and possessing “black start” capabilities (the ability to restart without external power).

• Deployment Sites: Nine installations have been identified for potential deployment, including Redstone Arsenal (Alabama), Fort Liberty (NC), and Fort Campbell (KY). Redstone Arsenal is particularly notable due to its concentration of missile defense and NASA assets, making it a high-priority site for energy resilience.

Project Janus effectively creates a guaranteed government market that allows reactor developers to mature their supply chains and demonstrate safety before targeting the more cost-sensitive commercial utility or data center markets.

Second-Order Insight: The “Janus Effect” on Data Centers. The success of Project Janus is the critical “proof of concept” required by hyperscalers (Amazon, Meta, Google). If the Army certifies a microreactor as safe for deployment on a populated base like Redstone Arsenal, the regulatory and public perception hurdles for deploying similar units at data centers collapse. Therefore, the winners of the Janus down-select process in 2026 effectively become the frontrunners for the trillion-dollar AI energy trade.

Part 3:. Intergovernmental Alpha: The “Sapporo 5” and the Asian Capital Injection

Read more

The power of the revocation is found in the procedural impact. Removing the predicate is designed to make everything else fall fast. And understood in that light, it’s only one of a sweep of dozens of maneuvers, wide-ranging in consequence, taken by the Trump Administration. Each, a domino set in a long chain aimed at clearing the runway for emerging energy markets.

I. Conceptual Alignment: From NEPA Reform to Todays Recovation

As is not surprising, the “Endangerment Finding” was the lynchpin that held together so much of our modern regulatory architecture: Tailpipe standards. Methane rules. Power-plant carbon rules. Industrial source frameworks. Even when specific rules changed administration-to-administration, the finding itself served as the “because we can” that made the rest possible.

Although sometimes narrowly-construed as the domain of “Clean Air,” parallel mandates have found grounds in adjacent policies, rulings, and legislative pieces. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is one of them. It is the process statute that forces federal agencies to analyze environmental impacts before taking “major federal actions.” Different lanes? Not really. And politically and industrially, they’ve converged into one thematic mega-push to reduce timelines and incentivize energy and infrastructure markets.

The story of U.S. energy and infrastructure in the 2020s isn’t “lack of capital,” and it isn’t even “lack of demand.” It’s lack of throughput — the inability to move projects from concept → permit → build on predictable timelines. NEPA litigation risk and review scope became a central choke point for everything from pipelines to transmission to mines to LNG to large industrial facilities. And in the last two years, the administration (and the courts) have moved to narrow that choke point.

• The White House has made movements for a massive deregulatory push to overhaul NEPA implementation, including the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) moving away from decades of binding, government-wide NEPA regulations and pushing agencies to rely more on their own procedures and guidance.

• The Supreme Court’s Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County (May 29, 2025) decision also narrowed how far agencies must reach when assessing indirect “upstream” and “downstream” effects of separate projects, emphasizing substantial deference to agencies on scoping and drawing cleaner boundaries around what NEPA requires.

Put differently: the overhaul of NEPA is aimed at reducing “analysis sprawl,” compress schedules, and make environmental review a gate that opens — not a maze that expands. And the EPA move is conceptually aligned with that same throughput agenda. One constrains the scope and leverage of environmental review litigation; the other targets the predicate authority for a major category of climate regulation.

Together, they’re not just deregulatory — they’re strategic plays on timeline engineering. Actions around both aim to clear the runway ahead.

II. Understanding the Broader Administrative Strategy

The obvious read on today’s action is “fossil fuels,” and that’s not wrong. But the deeper reading is broader: it’s about a U.S. energy system that is rapidly adding new kinds of load, new kinds of supply, and new kinds of infrastructure — and is running into its own bottlenecks.

Think about what is trying to scale simultaneously:

• AI/data-center load growth that strains generation and transmission buildouts (with federal action explicitly pushing faster development in this space).

• Transmission and large interregional grid projects that face multi-agency review, siting conflicts, and NEPA litigation risk.

• Mining and processing for critical materials (where environmental reviews and federal land decisions are often determinative).

• Industrial buildouts: refineries, petrochemical expansions, hydrogen, carbon capture, LNG export infrastructure, and associated pipelines.

• Nuclear restarts and next-gen builds that require federal coordination and long-duration licensing/permitting confidence.

The Endangerment Finding has functioned as a universal “climate hook” — a basis for rules that shape vehicle fleets, generation choices, and industrial compliance costs. Removing it (or attempting to) is intended to reduce one major category of regulatory uncertainty for developers and manufacturers — particularly in transportation, where EPA’s announcement explicitly targets vehicle and engine standards.

If NEPA reforms shrink the time-to-permit, and Endangerment revocation shrinks the climate-driven compliance frontier, the combined effect is to widen the space for buildouts that were previously slowed by either (a) timeline risk or (b) regulatory cost layering.

That is what “clearing the runway” looks like in practice: not one sector winning, but more sectors getting to move at once.

The strategy of the Trump Administration is to narrow the environmental-review choke points (NEPA), reduce the “climate-law hook” for broad emissions rules (Endangerment), and emphasize national security procurement and the products of industry as trade tools and leverage. It’s important to the administration to clear the runway because what is taking flight seats the basis of their domestic and international economic policy

That’s why what you are seeing is not a single-sector bet. Across the board, you are seeing a shift in the state’s posture: from environmental policing to industrial acceleration.

III. Putting a Magnifying Glass on Nuclear

I’m releasing an article on nuclear energy soon. So, I’ll close this with a little bit of a teaser on how it all relates to that sector.

Consider what else has been happening around the time of this announcement for Nuclear. On February 2, 2026, DOE published a new categorical exclusion under NEPA for certain advanced nuclear reactor actions — with DOE emphasizing it will still decide case-by-case whether a project meets the exclusion’s conditions.

That itself aligns cleanly with an existing White House directive: a 2025 executive order on reactor testing instructs DOE to approve at least three reactors under a pilot program “with the goal” of achieving criticality by July 4, 2026. DOE has also publicly framed its pilot program around achieving criticality by that date. So, in a span of weeks, you have:

• CEQ reshaping the NEPA implementation framework (Jan 8),

• DOE issuing a nuclear NEPA categorical exclusion (Feb 2),

• and a standing federal deadline (July 4, 2026) that effectively forces agencies to treat permitting friction as an enemy.

Broader sentiment over the likelihood of continuing nuclear development is certainly of a stronger magnitude than you would have imagined just a few years ago too. You can see it even here:

Data in partnership with Polymarket

I have wondered, watching these heuristics, whether even now folks are downplaying the speed at which all moves in this administrative cycle. I suppose it’s not surprising.

When the state starts putting dates on “criticality,” you are no longer watching a normal regulatory regime. You are watching a mobilization posture. And in emerging energy markets, the commodity isn’t optimism. It’s permission. And what else is all of this, if not a massive permission slip?

Best,
Steve

Disclaimer: I am not in the business of giving financial advice. That is, I am not a financial advisor. None of what I say here is a recommendation to hold or not hold shares or other instruments of any particular company or series of companies. All that is contained on my page is research in which I convey and substantiate personal views and commentary about sectors, economic policies, and various industries. . As always, please do your own research and understand the risks involved before placing any trades. I am not responsible for any of the decisions you choose to make.

Part 1 details a trading strategy I’m modeling on METC that benefits from time and increased volatility. Part 2 gives a basic overview of how you might manage your trades when they go south, again using METC as an example.

I hope to write an entire series on trading strategies, portfolio management, and lessons learned sometime in the future.

Read more

Consequently, the solicitation has effectively been drafted into national service. It has pivoted from a “resilience” program to a “mobilization” program. The selection committee is no longer just looking for the best science; they are looking for the fastest route to independent defense capability.

In what follows, I’ll show how we can rank the field of candidates using a dual-score framework: Strategic Priority (SP)—how badly the U.S. needs the metal—and Award Probability (AP)—how likely the applicant is to execute.

Read more

Normally, we would analyze this offering by asking which company has the right separation technology for the supplied oxides. However, buried in that RFI is a single sentence that could transform the conversation from a question of chemistry into a question of regulatory survival.

I. The Feedstock Composition

The specific chemical mix the DLA is offering is somewhat unique. According to the RFI solicitation, the composition of the REO as follows:

The 12,600 kg batch is not a typical light rare earth concentrate (which would be mostly Neodymium and Praseodymium, like what MP Materials produces). Instead, the DLA batch is heavily weighted toward the “middle” of the rare earth spectrum. Over 90% of the mass is comprised of just three elements:

• Europium Oxide: ~46.1% (Very high value, critical for defense/electronics)

• Samarium Oxide: ~33.2% (Used in high-temp magnets)

• Gadolinium Oxide: ~11.4% (Used in medical imaging, specialized alloys)

This is called SEG Concentrate (Samarium-Europium-Gadolinium).

Separating these rare earths is difficult because they are chemically very similar. The hardest separations are between elements that sit right next to each other on the periodic table (adjacent atomic numbers).

In this DLA batch, the three primary elements are direct neighbors:

Samarium (Atomic #62)
Europium (Atomic #63)
Gadolinium (Atomic #64)

Separating Europium from Samarium and Gadolinium is time-consuming and expensive using traditional methods. It requires hundreds of mixer-settler stages to achieve high purity (e.g., 99.9%+).

II. RapidSX to the Rescue

If we were looking at this composition on it’s face and asking “Who could most feasibly do the job?” a sensible answer would be UCORE Rare Metals. This midstream player doesn’t use traditional Solvent Extraction (SX), which relies on massive tanks (mixer-settlers) and gravity. They use a proprietary technology called RapidSX. This column-based technology speeds up the transfer of mass between liquids. UCORE claims this allows them to:

• Perform difficult separations much faster (days instead of weeks).

• Use a much smaller physical footprint.

• Achieve purities of 99.5% to 99.99% more efficiently.

UCORE has spent the last two years at their Kingston, Ontario demonstration facility specifically proving they can separate heavy and medium rare earths. In fact, their recent demonstration campaigns have focused intensely on the exact SEG separation challenge the DLA is presenting. That is, they have explicitly targeted separating Samarium, Europium, and Gadolinium.

That makes for a potentially convincing argument in their favor:

The “Chemistry-First” Argument: If you are the DLA, and you have a 12-ton batch of difficult SEG concentrate, you don’t want a generalist. You want a specialist who has just finished practicing on that exact problem. UCORE could reasonably be considered that specialist.

III. The Kill Switch: Section B(xi)

However, there is a catch. The DLA knows that separating Rare Earths carries a dirty secret: when you isolate the valuable minerals, you concentrate the trace radioactive impurities (Thorium and Uranium) into the waste stream. In Section B(xi) of the RFI document, the DLA asks vendors to consider a question with the following constraint:

“If your process cannot prevent concentration of U and Th, please provide responses to Question B(iii) assuming your operation is required to be discontinued once any material fraction reaches a combined concentration of U + Th = 0.05% mass.“

Why does this question matter?

0.05% (500 ppm) is a key regulatory threshold that can trigger “source material” handling and licensing burdens—even if the incoming material is initially compliant. If a factory hits this limit, it typically requires a Part 40 Radioactive Materials License to continue operating.

Most midstream competitors (UCORE, ReElement, MP Materials) operate under light industrial permits or state-level exemptions. They generally cannot legally handle material above this limit without stopping operations.

The DLA is effectively asking: “When your waste turns radioactive, do you have a license to keep running, or do we have to shut you down?”

In other words, even if the feedstock arrives below regulatory thresholds, the physics of separation works against the processor. To get 99.9% pure Europium, you must strip away the impurities. Those impurities (including Thorium) don’t disappear—they concentrate in the waste stream.

The moment that waste stream crosses 0.05%, an unlicensed contractor faces a regulatory failure mode. A “Kill Switch.” A licensed contractor does not.

IV. The Trade: Risk Allocation vs. Chemistry/Technology

It’s reasonable enough to assert that this RFI reveals that the DLA is pre-emptively hoping to solve for Risk and not just Purity. There are two realistic ways this contract plays out if that is true. I wager that understanding the difference is a way to understanding a potential edge in forecasting winners.

Path 1: The “Turnkey” Solution

The DLA decides they want zero liability. They write the final contract to say: “Contractor is responsible for the disposition of all waste streams.”

This might narrow the field rather dramatically - or rather, it might give the edge to a competitor of UCORE. That competitor is Energy Fuels.

Why? They own the White Mesa Mill, which is one of the only currently operating, fully licensed, commercial-scale options in the U.S. for handling and disposing of U/Th-bearing residues.

Moreover, they are also working on rare earth separation and midstream with commercial rare earth production anticipated for Q4, 2026. They are already producing light rare earths at the Mill. Now, they have set their eyes on the rest of the ensemble, having recently finished their piloting of Dysprosium and presently working on piloting Terbium. After these heavy rare earth pilots are completed, their next sight is on Gadolinium and Samarium. They also list Europium in a recently updated feasibility study.

They are the only candidate who can answer Section B(xi) by saying, “We don’t have to discontinue. We are licensed for this.”

Path 2: The “Competitive” Solution

The DLA decides they want the best technology and are willing to take the waste back to ensure competition. They write the contract to say: “Government retains title to waste.”

This opens the door for other players like UCORE or ReElement (or a Teaming Consortium) to win the Prime contract based on their superior chemistry alignment for this specific mixture.

The Catch: This outcome depends on the DLA being willing to retain or centrally manage radioactive residues, which is historically less common, though not unprecedented. Even in this scenario, the waste has to go somewhere, likely forcing the winner to team with a licensed partner. Energy Fuels still retains viability here too, even if only as part of the team.

V. The Scorecard: Candidate Players and their Profiles

1. Energy Fuels (UUUU)

Role: Continuity of Operations and the Regulatory Safety Net.

Thesis: Section B(xi) forces every bidder to have a plan for “hot” waste - and White Mesa is the gold standard for that plan. It’s baked in. They can easily act as the regulatory sink for the radioactive byproduct.

2. UCORE Rare Metals (UURAF)

Role: The Chemist with the Technological Upside.

Thesis: Their RapidSX technology is arguably the best technical fit for the specific Sm/Eu/Gd mix in the table presented at the outset of this article.

If the DLA chooses the second path - that is, if they are structuring the contract to allow competition - then UCORE is a plausible winner. That is, provided they find a way to handle the waste disposal.

3. ReElement – The Wildcard

Role: The Washington Darling.

Thesis: ReElement has undeniable momentum. Just a few days ago, they announced having produced greater than 99.9% pure Samarium. That timing with the RFI is rather coincidental, don’t you think?

Beyond that, they have largely been coming across as the preferred bet from Washington D.C. on domestic rare earth separation and midstream. OK - that statement is a bit of hyperbole. The USA is certainly not betting on one horse. But there is no denying they have made some serious traction over the last few months in the race for dominance in the sector.

You might consider, for example, the recent highlighting of their potential J.V. with POSCO International in the White House Fact Sheet emerging from trade talks in South Korea or the $1.4 billion partnership they have recently secured between the Office of Strategic Planning (OSC) and Vulcan Elements. There is also the partnership with the Republic of Uzbekistan that was a fruit of the C5 + 1 summit.

All that spotlight makes sense: their chromatographic method espouses high purity, modularity, low capex, low environmental footprint. Nonetheless, their Indiana facility lacks the regulatory shield for this specific radioactive risk. However, their chromatography platform may still prove economically decisive inside a licensed facility, even if they are structurally disadvantaged otherwise.

VI. Next Steps and Considerations

The RFI responses are due February 11.

Down the line, if UCORE or ReElement (or another company) announces a partnership with a “Licensed Waste Management Partner,” that is a signal. It means they solved B(xi).

And when the solicitation itself drops (likely in a few months), will there be breadcrumbs to follow?

If we see confirmation that “Contractor Disposes” → this supports the idea that the DLA may favor Path 1 (Advantage Energy Fuels).

If we see confirmation that “Government Retains Title” → this supports the idea that the DLA chose Path 2 (Advantage UCORE or ReElement).

The Bottom Line: The real edge may not always come from understanding the chemistry or the technology. It may also come from understanding who owns the right regulatory model.

To be clear, the magnitude of this solicitation is not that lucrative taken on face - likely, it is just a few million dollars. I see the eventual contract as a credentialing event, with the real monetary value coming further downstream. The big prize is getting paid to prove a domestic, regulation-compliant separation workflow—and then becoming the validated, default, or preferred vendor (or in some cases, mandatory partner) for future DoD lots.

Best wishes,
Steve

Disclaimer: I am not in the business of giving financial advice. That is, I am not a financial advisor. None of what I say here is a recommendation to hold or not hold shares or other instruments of any particular company or series of companies. All that is contained on my page is research in which I convey and substantiate personal views and commentary about sectors, economic policies, and various industries. . As always, please do your own research and understand the risks involved before placing any trades. I am not responsible for any of the decisions you choose to make.

You can access the terminal at the following link: here.

When I find a better work-around, I’ll let you all know!

Warm wishes,
Steve

Happy holidays and see you in the new year -

Q19 from Andrew: You mention Thich Nhat Hanh --- what can you tell us about you have learned about pursuing/achieving wealth, dukkha, attachment, mindfulness, and compassion -- you often make a note of telling us of your love for us -- is that grounded in the brahmaviharas / metta or something else? Also impermanence and emptiness!

I wrote a little about this in my recent article on financial gain and values. As I’ve continued to traverse this path (whether the journey is in finance or in life more broadly), I’ve found as a through-line experiences that, time and time again, validate the idea that our attachments can and do create the conditions for our own imprisonment. I know that might sound cringe, dramatic, or edgy. It’s reminiscent of what a teenager would say, rebelling against western ideology and all of that. But all the same, it is what I have found to be true. We set down a cloth into the stream of our many accomplishments and attainments and then attempt to wring it out into our mouths in order to nourish ourselves. For me, that nourishment is short-lived. And then it’s mostly transformed into a kind-of expectation, where falling short of what it means or implies about us tends to bring suffering, as does the threat of losing it or having it fall away altogether.

Believe it or not, I have yet to spend any of the money I have made this year on anything outside of reinvestments and a few donations to charity. Part of it is genuine bewilderment about how to use it and another part of it is that I’m trying to be mindful of my attachment to it. There are so many goods in this world that we fixate on and essentialize as identity-makers. Wealth, education, communities, hobbies, professions. We glue them onto ourselves and when someone asks “Who are you?” that’s what we show them. But of course, we aren’t any of them. And we can lose more-or-less all of them. A tenure track professor misses the mark and is displaced from their profession, someone that lives to climb rocks or run long distances finds themselves paralyzed, a devoted partner finds their significant other has been unfaithful. We outsource what validates us to something impermanent and then we suffer when it is lost or when the well runs dry in the purpose and meaning it gives to our lives. I know with certainty that if I went and bought a mansion today, my happiness in a years time would not be meaningfully changed than it is today, sitting in my small apartment. Speaking of the brahmaviharas, perhaps we could look to cultivate equanimity instead. And that is cultivated by what is already here.

As far as my experience tells me, equanimity and emptiness are direct markers of each other. And there is unbelievable freedom that comes alongside them. The most breathtaking and beautiful place of peace.

Q20 from CB: You commented in your last publish that Rapidsx is evolutionary and ReElement chromatography is revolutionary. Do you think that these technologies can and will coexist or do you foresee a movement towards one or the other?

They would very likely coexist. But it’s a fair question to ask which would become more dominant between them. And there, I would say that I think if chromatography can be proven to scale, it may well be the preference, especially for projects that haven’t already burrowed into the construction and cost associated with conventional solvent extraction. Lower environmental footprint and capex, modular and supposedly efficient to deploy and implement. I could see the case being made for that technology.

It all depends on proving scalability and executing on high volume contracts, however. It also depends on how licensing is handled. For what it’s worth, I would give rapidsx the advantage if asked the question “Which technology is more likely to scale successfully?” and chromatography the advantage if asked the question “conditional on scaling successfully, which technology would be more attractive?”

As an aside, I think it’s helpful to distinguish between the company and the technology. For the former question on successful scaling, I would give rapidsx the advantage both in terms of having the most compelling conceptual path to scaling (that is, I would wager the tech itself is more likely to be scaled effectively theoretically) and the advantage in terms of the capability of the company behind the technology in being able to execute and scale actually, in the real world, today.

Q21 from Prendi: What are the 11/21 DOW $700M for Vulcan/Reelement implications (or lack-there-of) for Energy Fuels? Thanks!

It’s a bit complicated. I think the implication is that the US government is willing to put their money where their mouth is gambling on the scalability of chromatography over the gold standard methods already established in the industry and which Energy Fuels is building out and relying upon. The upside they see, if successful, is much lower cost and environmental footprint, among other things.

That being said, I think that there are parallel paths that will run in the USA with one set of midstream anchors separating mixed rare earth carbonate and the other set separating monzanite. I made a crudely drawn graphic that goes over that here. I don’t think that there will be one winner between ReElement and Energy Fuels. I think their operations will run in parallel to each other and both streams will be important for domestic and international business, as well as national security and defense.

I think it’s also telling that Energy Fuels has MOU’s with both Vulcan and Posco, just like ReElement (well, the latter has more than MOUs, they have actual offtakes and JV-type partnerships also being floated or executed on paper).

Q22 from Janman: I’m interested on your current thoughts on LYSDY. The market seems to not like them at the moment, but than again, everything else I touched seems to have gone red 🥺

I am a fan of Lynas in the long-term. They ran a lot this year during the months leading up to the sell-off in October. I do have questions about their management and ability to deliver. They are supposed to have a plant in the USA in progress, for instance, but they’ve sort-of bungled that from what I can tell and I don’t think they were particularly forthcoming about that (just my two cents). You can read about that a bit here. I also don’t love that they are reliant on the whims of Malaysia for continued output and success in much of their operations. That is a risk that I wish they hadn’t needed to mingle themselves with.

That all being said, I think that they are well-positioned in a time when there is large-scale incentivization happening across the sector. They were a first-mover on western rare earth commercialization. There is a lot of good that they can see in the future, especially if price floors are established and partnerships continue to build out across western-aligned interests and governmental forces.

Q23 from Josh: Your ability to analyze this sector through the broader lens of Western alignment, geopolitical tailwinds, strategic deficits in the supply chain, and which projects can actually anchor a resilient North American–Australian network has shaped how I evaluate these companies. Seeing the six positions you hold with the strongest conviction would help translate that framework into a real portfolio.

Q24 by Jduffy: You’ve mentioned that you’re working on consolidating your investments to favor a more long term outlook within critical minerals. What are a few of the companies that you’ve divested from within the last couple months and why? And which companies are your strongest long term convictions and why? … What I care most about with these companies is the why behind all of it? You’re very insightful and I have thoroughly enjoyed reading your breakdowns. Makes me ponder my own decision making and you’ve forced me to look inwards at my own investment strategies. As always, thanks Steve.

Just a note that I see and recognize these questions. I think a Q&A allocation can’t really do justice to it. But I am working on this in my own way and my next piece of action will be further updates to the Trading Terminal page. I’ll try to say something there about exits and divestments as well.

Thanks all.

Warmly,
Steve

Disclaimer: I am not in the business of giving financial advice. That is, I am not a financial advisor. None of what I say here is a recommendation to hold or not hold shares or other instruments of any particular company or series of companies. All that is contained on my page is research in which I convey and substantiate personal views and commentary about where sectors, economic policies, industries, so on, may go. As always, please do your own research and understand the risks involved before placing any trades. I am not responsible for any of the decisions you choose to make.

I hope your holidays are going well. This is the next batch of Q&A questions and answers. As a reminder, I am not always answering the questions in linear-order. So, don’t be dismayed if you don’t see yours below.

I will release another batch shortly. Enjoy the weekend!

Q13 by Various Subscribers: What do you think about using artificial intelligence as a tool for your research or investing? Are there any agents you prefer over others?'

Read more

I’m releasing the next Q&A responses in batches with short-succession to each other.

I haven’t been answering the questions in linear-order, so don’t be dismayed if you don’t see yours below. I will release another batch shortly. Happy holidays!

Q1 by Janis. Are y…

Read more

It makes me feel appreciative for all that has unfolded this year: from discovering just how rewarding writing can be, to seeing so many of my convictions come to fruition in real-time. And of course, I feel appreciative for the community that all of my ramblings have given rise to over the last few months.

I’ve discussed my tolerance for risk on many occasions throughout this journey. But I haven’t talked too much about what underlies it. The truth is that it wasn’t always this easy to stomach. When I first began investing, particularly when I first discovered derivatives, I remember that losses, whether realized or not, were difficult to stomach. One of the first positions I ever opened was a small set of AAPL calls which almost immediately went red. The total sum (a few hundred dollars) pales in comparison to the swings that I see in my portfolio now, although I didn’t have much savings at the time relative to what I have earned this year (I believe that my life savings was maybe $30,000 at the time). All the same, I remember my stomach churning watching it lose value - and I remember being harsh with myself about allowing that to happen or for touching derivatives in the first place.

As time went on, this attitude to my portfolio changed rather dramatically. In the height of the critical minerals rush this past October 2025, I shared with you all the way my portfolio had risen and fallen following MP materials prior to the Pentagon becoming their largest shareholder and Apple investing a large sum to support them in tandem. This was from February to June of 2025.

Watching my account oscillate like a pendulum before that pivotal event, which really cemented all that would follow, I reflected on just how much had changed in my attitude towards financial gain and loss. What happened to that sensitivity that I had remembered so sharply from my beginnings in investing all those many years ago?

I am sure some of it is purely desensitization by way of exposure. When you experience loss as many times as I have, it stops having as much of an effect. But so too did it come from a changing understanding of the importance of financial gain altogether. And that understanding has come from movements upwards as much as it has come from all of the downturns. For those that have been following me, the height of my own account a few weeks back was at $45 million (not considering private placements which I entered once I had met the qualified buyer threshold).

But what of it? How did it make me feel? At the risk of sounding cliché, I’ll say that in the western world, we are raised to believe that life-changing sums of money will in fact change your life; that the rise from bracket to bracket brings with it so much that is worth coveting. For myself, however, that didn’t end up feeling all that relatable. Whether it was a tremendous gain or a tremendous loss, I saw that not much had really changed in my life at all. The sun still rose as it did, as beautiful as ever. My latte at the café across the street still cost the same, as did the cost of a movie ticket or a good book. My relationships were also largely unchanged (in some cases, I actually worried a few were being stress-tested).

I don’t mean to sound ungrateful for all I have been given. All I can speak to is my own understanding of myself. And for myself, I have come to see that the merit of financial gain had to do with the alleviation of various causes of suffering related to financial insecurity: debt, housing, food, education, and the trappings of feeling bound to a career and working schedule that give no satisfaction but only serve as a means to one’s own, or their loved ones, survival. Beyond alleviating those sources of stress, it didn’t really seem to make much of a difference. Granted, some of these areas do require substantial capital to attain (particularly, autonomy, or the ability to walk away and not have to work in a way you don’t want to work).

At this point in my life, I write for the joy that comes with it and the small hope that others find something useful in what I say. And I invest for the love of the game itself and because of ambitions I have, not for myself, but in the ways I might be able to give back to the world, were that a path that might open up for me. I mentioned months ago, when my account value was at about ~$15 million, that I had intentions of starting a foundation. And I continue to look forward to that, although I have found that it can be slow-going not only because of the bureaucracy required, but also because I am in some ways still rather lost about what exactly I want in that chapter of my life and what the flavor of that aforementioned institution might look like.

But it is clear to me that service and giving in general is all-too-neglected and all-too-important. And I wager it isn’t just my own leaning that makes me think this. From tradition to tradition, and in psychology, we see and are told of for the ways that generosity can transform our own hearts. If you want to entertain the thought further, I read a great book on it a few months ago by the Dalai Lama and Desmond Tutu called The Book of Joy. In it, the writer Douglas Abrams reflects:

When we practice a generosity of spirit, we are in many ways practicing all the other pillars of joy. In generosity, there is a wider perspective, in which we see our connection to all others. There is a humility that recognizes our place in the world and acknowledges that at another time we could be the one in need, whether that need is material, emotional, or spiritual. There is a sense of humor and an ability to laugh at ourselves so that we do not take ourselves too seriously. There is an acceptance of life, in which we do not force life to be other than what it is. There is a forgiveness of others and a release of what otherwise might have been. There is gratitude for all that we have been given. Finally, we see others with a deep compassion and a desire to help those who are in need. And from this comes a generosity that is “wise selfish,” a generosity that recognizes helping others as helping ourselves. As the Dalai Lama put it, “In fact, taking care of others, helping others, ultimately is the way to discover your own joy and to have a happy life.” (The Book of Joy, page 185)

I’ve said it before, but I hope that one day in the future, my hope is that subscriptions to the Substack can also be purely allocated to this kind of purpose. And I am convinced as ever that the striving towards service of this or any kind is one of the most fundamentally important for anyone that shares the blood of our species.

I hope you all enjoy your weekend.
Steve

Disclaimer: I am not in the business of giving financial advice. That is, I am not a financial advisor. None of what I say here is a recommendation to hold or not hold shares or other instruments of any particular company or series of companies. All that is contained on my page is research in which I convey and substantiate personal views and commentary about where sectors, economic policies, industries, so on, may go. As always, please do your own research and understand the risks involved before placing any trades. I am not responsible for any of the decisions you choose to make.

I thought I‘d share this visualized map of how I’m seeing the western (USA-anchored) supply chain emerging for critical minerals. I’ll update it and clean it up for ease of digesting alongside the full research article I’m working on. It’s just a rough draft I sketched a while ago. However, I figured folks would like to see this sooner rather than later, especially if they are as interested in the subject as I am.

As I’ve said before, we are seeing what looks to me to be an unprecedented level of intergovernmental cooperation. USA, Australia, South Korea, Japan, Malaysia, C5 (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan), UAE, and more, occupying roles ranging the entire chain from feedstock to separation and refining to magnets to OEMs and offtakes ranging from defense to technology/AI to automobile manufacturers and so on. This is not at all exhaustive.

Read more

POSCO International found themselves on my radar earlier this year when they signed an MOU with Energy Fuels to provide materials for the commercial magnets that POSCO’s automaker partners require. In September 2025, Energy Fuels noted that these materials were validated for the requisite magnets. Per the memorandum of understanding, they’ve since been in discussions for a long-term offtake agreement.

There’s nothing out of the ordinary about any of that. But as many of you know, I have been spending a lot of time considering the shape of intergovernmental and corporate cooperation within the western/allied supply chain of critical minerals. And when you’re looking at the entire energy and critical minerals sector with that kind of lens applied, developments with POSCO begins to appear a bit more, well, interesting.

Read more

Questions and Responses #17 - #25:

#17 from MA: I would love to hear any updated thoughts on ASX critical minerals. My holdings are red in an “elevator scene in The Shining” kind of way. Thanks!

Read more

A Few More Q&A Responses Below:

#5 from Casey: What have you found to be the best sources of new information? Teach a man to fish!

I have a rather diverse pot. I check the federal register daily to scan for any policy changes or hints at upcoming funding pipeline or regulation amendments that are relevant. I check congress committee hearing schedules and the white house calendar often as well (and like to dissect executive orders thoroughly as well as relevant legislation text that seems poised to pass or garner support).

Increasingly, I’ve had to look at government sources outside of the USA to get a pulse check on what is happening with intergovernmental cooperation. Since those can be in languages besides English, I use different translation tools there. Often, these efforts don’t lead to much - but every now and again I learn something valuable that I can use for my trading.

Besides all this, I run sweeps on Reuters, Bloomberg, WSJ, the usual suspects.. If I am doing hedge fund analysis, I look at quarterlies and any changes when companies report a large change in ownership (5%<). I also check EDGAR for filings if I suspect something might be up soon and comb over earnings for any crumbs on what might be happening near-term. For my favorite companies, I also scour for interviews, conferences, and I sweep the socials and linked-in profiles for their executives and board members. Did you know that Energy Fuels leadership was in Korea and Malaysia around the time + after APEC in late October?

#6 from Jeremy B: What are your big bets right now with continued back and forth with china? Are you expecting UAMY to get back above $15?

My position here is largely what it’s been. I see negotiations with China as providing short term support to the USA and their supply needs in exchange for pain in my portfolio 😂 a sacrifice I am willing to make!

But seriously, with a longer-term mindset, I feel I don’t pay as much mind to China. I do keep up in order to anticipate if the markets are going to become more volatile or swing downwards near-term. That can influence what kinds of investing instruments I use (e.g. derivatives) and with what expiration outlook if so - as well as to decide if I should be hedging or shifting further towards theta/vega plays rather than riding delta. Overall, I have seen enough to feel assured that the administration isn’t really looking for China as a long-term option. I believe the administration has put their money where their mouth is on that (as has the house and the senate). But all the same, this doesn’t mean that markets understand or align with this perspective. As we have seen, the market reacted to the truce with a lot of downward pressure on the sector. I’m not surprised, I flagged it in my last post. This is a sector that’s been beaten down a lot. It will take time for a lot of investors to feel the area is sufficiently de-risked.

There was a comment here or on reddit yesterday about whether the supreme court rulings on tariffs might substantially impact companies here and portfolios weighted heavily into them. And that’s a concern worth taking seriously. It very well might put more pressure downwards on the sector. Again, that’s one of those areas where we have to decouple between what news actually represents vs. how the markets are likely to respond. Even if the courts strike down the broader tariffs, the government (executive, legislature) has levers they can pull. Section 232 is still an option - and there is also bipartisan support on narrow action on China when it comes to critical minerals. None of that means that the market won’t move down on the ruling, though.

Regarding UAMY, I wouldn’t be surprised on a long-term timeline but can’t speak near-term. II don’t have that much exposure in this one so I don’t track it as closely. Might be worth looking at further when I have time. But with a lot of these companies, my worries end up being more about time-horizon for a return on investment than anything else.

#7 from Zach: Hey Steve, would be great to get an overall update on where your focus is right now. My refined (no pun intended) thesis is aimed at domestic midstream players, but there are a few companies that I am looking at, specifically Pensana and Arafura, that seem to be very well aligned for great things in the 3-5 year timeframe and are on the cheap right now.

Read more

Hi all,

We had a lot of questions submitted and it will take me some time to answer the ones that I can. I won’t make one of these formal posts for every single question I answer but I did want to give at least a little content today. So, here is one question asked that had a lot of support behind it. For those just joining us, these questions were sourced over a period of days by solicitation in the substack chatroom. Join us next time!

Question #1 from CM: What are your thoughts on current pricing of NB, UAMY, CRML, AREC, USAS and UUUU? I’m seeing a lot of pull back and looking for good reentry where I don’t have to see deep red for the next 2 years.

+ #2 from Janis: With constant good news entering the sector, stocks are mostly still red. Some seem to stabilize a bit but still, the sentiment is extremely bullish when reading news and updates and yet nothing is happening.Question: when do you think/speculate a green wave will return? Or at least a slow uphill movement. I‘m personally feeling optimistic but also hesitant to double down in case we might see further downhill movement. Having entered close to the top I want to try as best as I can to DCA well.

+ #3 from Dennis: Hi Steve. What do you think the size of the western REE market will be over the next five years?

+ #4 from Maximus: How do you analyze a market? How do you analyze a company?

I spend a lot of time thinking about the first question and a clear answer is difficult to come by. Allow me to get into the weeds of it for a minute in order to tell you why. Then, I’ll scope out a bit at the end and try to be more actionable.

I would say we can start to answer this question by first considering how much market there is to capture and then evaluate the present and near-term positioning to capture that market alongside the execution and peer-competition risks involved. In reality, this is extremely hard to do because (1) the western chain and the economic supports/incentives the sit underneath are still only starting to take shape and (2) intergovernmental cooperation across western countries and their partners in various regions of Asia is increasing at a breakneck speed, which changes both the market share landscape and the types of support that can be tapped (we already know the levers in the USA, which have been expanded thoroughly: DoD Title III, DoE EDF, DFC, OSC, EXIM. Have we properly considered Australia’s EFA/equity, levers from Japan’s JOGMEC, JIBC, METI, Korea’s MOTIE, G7 instruments, C5+1 streams? What about the increasing role of private-sector capital being used in parallel?)

Regardless, we have seen a lot of mania lately with most of the companies you list. Here is an example. Back when I started writing about Energy Fuels, it had a trading-based market cap around 73M-100M. In the last few months, we saw it take off reaching a high of about 5B. How much of that is pure retail and news-driven mania?

It’s honestly difficult to know because the ceiling is no longer particularly easy to ascertain. There is certainly less room for absolute upside than there was a few months ago. At the same time, the ceiling has also been raised, likely dramatically.

And we haven’t considered the fact that all of these companies are in some way uniquely different from one another in market target even when they appear similar on face. Energy Fuels and ReElement (AREC spin-off, 19% stake retained) are seen as competitors in many ways. And in a way that is true. But how easily can we compare them? Energy Fuels has a section of the uranium chain cornered whilst ReElement has no exposure in that area at all. Energy Fuels uses a cumbersome solvent extraction method for midstream which pollutes heavily and is more capital-intensive but which is tried and true for commercial output. Meanwhile, ReElement has recycling capabilities that Energy Fuels doesn’t and the ability to achieve purity levels that are incredible across the catalogue of critical minerals. They also have the rights to their capex efficient IP which they will likely license out. The downside, on the other hand, is that they still have a large degree of execution risk in play to demonstrate commercial scaling is possible with their approach.

I wish we could just compare midstream to midstream and get a sense of what is overvalued vs. undervalued in present market conditions. But alas, each company presents as a beautiful and unique snowflake that makes such analysis so very difficult.

We could look at the western champions and where their market caps are presently in order to get a better sense of things. But even that is not so easy to do in reality. MP trades on its commercial and first-mover success in the United States. They also trade at premiums because of their movements in vertical integration - an area which neither Energy Fuels nor ReElement are attempting to corner. Lynas is a bit more upstream/midstream focused, but they are also aiming to expand out in vertical integration. Still, I like the idea roughly of thinking that the market cap of the few established players can serve as a heuristic to understand where near-term commercial competitors could get to.

Realistically, a strong midstream competitor could realize at least a valuation pro-rated to these to exclude an estimate of how much is coming from their venture into parts of the chain beyond midstream. That doesn’t really capture what is really here though, because these market caps themselves have (in my view) not come close to aligning with their realistic value either (for better or worse - I will say these established players trade at very high forward multiples). And again, part of the issue here is that economic policy and bilateral trade support is emerging in a way that the market doesn’t yet see and, to be honest, even if they did see it I’m not sure they would know how to really price it yet.

OK - so, I could go on and on about this, but let’s get out of the murky waters and scope out a bit so I can say something that folks might find a little more general and actionable (or not).

Here is what I attempt to do generally speaking:

1. First and foremost, if you can, try to shift your outlook on investment timeline and tolerance for delayed gratification as much as possible. It’s much easier to locate a good candidate for high return than it is to estimate when that return will come.

2. Barring that (or in addition), look for companies that have near-term catalysts that will raise the odds that they lift to profitability sooner rather than later. Which candidates are positioned for massive government support and partnerships (e.g. piloting close to done, demand high, viable execution, feasibility work in progress and demonstrated history). Example: there is so much hype about NB. And there is some good reason for that - they are targeting a niche that would be very valuable. But even if they got all their financing in place today, they wouldn’t realistically have sizable output until 2029. That is a LONG time to be waiting. Accordingly, I’d probably rank them lower than the others unless the play was for a short term news-related financing hike. Same goes with CRML.

3. Among the candidates you identify, which are trading at a larger discount relative to their closest peers? Back when I first started trading Energy Fuels and became interested in others like ReElement (I know you said AREC, but I’m just going to talk about ReElement as I think most of AREC’s value really comes from their small stake and collaboration with ReElement), it was rather obvious to me that they were being slept on. UCORE too. The valuations of the closest established western peers made it easier to see. I wish it was the same nowadays, but in some ways the cat is at least partially out of the bag. A few limbs or a tail at least.

4. Look for unique elements of the candidates that make short-term lift exceedingly likely. Energy Fuels is sitting on massive amounts of uranium as economic and geopolitical policy is positioning to have that sector booming. Moreover, they are right on the cusp of feasibility completion for the Donald Project and White Mesa + terbium piloting + pending negotiations with Posco and Vulcan. That raises credence that the levels we are seeing right now are not likely to stay so suppressed and so would make the present prices feel more palatable even though they still trade at a premium to what they were before (e.g. when I got into Energy Fuels, at $3 a share).
   ReElement is again an interesting case - it has a massively disruptive technology behind it which is seeing increasing validation. It requires less environmental fuss and infrastructure build, less capex, high purity. They also have a negotiated Posco MOU for a partnership to build a refining/magnet complex. That raises the credence that there is going to be further lift sooner rather than later (although, be cautious, as it is one thing to invest in AREC and another ReElement, though the former ties to the latter do make for downstream tailwind support).

Broadly speaking, what we have seen happen in the market lately is painful but not at all surprising to most of us. I flagged it in my research post before the China negotiations - that the outcomes would be a highly binary event in the near-term that could move share prices down a lot. Now, I think the market has likely overemphasized the impact of those negotiations (thinking they changed more than they really did for the landscape of the western sector) and over time the deluge of support and policy streaming in will perhaps steady the ships a bit. Retail is also a rather skittish creature - and it appears to me that the mania has died down a bit - which is hopefully good news. I would like us to get to a point where the sector once again responds to positive news and milestones in a way that it has failed to in the recent weeks following the trade talks.

But as always, there are no guarantees in the market…

Hope this is helpful to consider for you all.

Love,
Steve

Disclaimer: I am not in the business of giving financial advice. That is, I am not a financial advisor. None of what I say here is a recommendation to hold or not hold shares or other instruments of any particular company or series of companies. All that is contained on my page is research in which I convey and substantiate personal views and commentary about where sectors, economic policies, industries, so on, may go. As always, please do your own research and understand the risks involved before placing any trades. I am not responsible for any of the decisions you choose to make.

There comes a time when you may feel you have sailed the seas of the critical minerals sector long enough. Lost in a sea of terbium, with only nickels …

Read more

I. Understanding the Deficits of the Western Supply Chain

When I approach new investments in this sector these day, I consider the following question: Where are the deficits in the different areas of our supply chain (downstream, midstream, upstream)? And which minerals and materials do we need most desperately, given global supply constraints when attempting to divest from our reliance on China?

We can get an answer by starting with an analysis predicting net loss to US GDP relative to risk of supply disruption. That information can be found in the following graphic given to us in a 2025 report by the USGS.

If we look closely, we can see that there are a number of critical minerals that have a high probability of disruption and a high impact on GDP. This isn’t the only metric to use, however. We should also consider that there is a particularly critical need for some of these same minerals for defense purposes - as specifications for defense are stringent and China has restricted exports of the ingredients necessary to produce them this year (tightening their policies recently, as we have seen).

With this in mind, we find that the critical minerals most crucial to secure are largely in areas like heavy rare earths, tungsten, graphite - as well as cobalt given its need for defense and our lack of a non-sullied supply that isn’t refined in China.

Great. From here, we can consider the parts of the supply chain that are most critical in relation to these minerals. And this is where I am excited. When it comes to heavy rare earths, we desperately need companies that can perform at all three broad areas of the supply chain. And although build-out of infrastructure for the midstream and the end of the chain needs to happen in parallel to everything else, we really can’t even get to them unless we have a standing supply of the raw materials.

The United States desperately needs time to get the deposits controlled by domestic companies online in ways that can cover demand. As an example, Energy Fuels (UUUU) has recently secured final permitting necessary for their Donald Project (in Australia) for heavy feedstock. But they won’t be able to meaningfully supply their own from this location until late 2026. At the moment, they have been relying on Chemours limited supply for their processing/refining. But Chemours can’t supply enough - and we aren’t in a position to wait.

With no tenable domestic supplier of the mining-side (the beginning of the chain) and a desperate need for finished heavy rare earth products, we have a massive bottleneck for the rest of the chain (which, as I said, is already is woefully underdeveloped). It looks increasingly likely that the best suited candidate to provide what we need - at least in the interim whilst we get our own infrastructure built out - is Australia.

From here we can consider our strategic investments. I’ll disclose my own below.

II. My Positions ASX

These are the companies I have invested in at the time of writing this. Blessings across the ocean; the island of kangaroos.

Lynas: The champion for rare earth (lights; heavies) that isn’t aligned with China. They have a refining facility in the works in the USA already. Gina Rinehart (Australia’s richest woman) is a large stakeholder and is connected to Trump.

Iluka: A strategic choice for heavy rare earth supply and one of the only viable short-term contenders for partnership with UUUU to cover feedstock requirements before the Donald project is operational. However, keep in mind that Iluka needs these materials for their own purposes too (with their refinery being commissioned around 2027).

Northern Minerals: Partnered with Iluka for heavy rare earth feedstock. They had Chinese stakeholders up until March 2025 that were forced to divest by the Australian government, clearing the path for western partnership and chain independence.

VHM: Heavy feedstock supplier, received a $200 million dollar letter of interest from EXIM recently. They wouldn’t be able to supply companies like Energy Fuels (UUUU) the material they need in the short-term and 60% of the initial product the first few years will be given to Shenghe. Still - they could be a needed and strategic source of product for the western sphere when operational.

Cobalt Blue: A leading candidate for cobalt refining - an area where there is little western capacity at all. This company met with the White House ahead of Trump’s visit to Australia this month. Raw cobalt is mined primarily in the DRC and in Australia.

Arafura: Supplementary light rare earths play, advanced stage relative to competitors outside MP and Lynas. Another slidedeck can be viewed here. Gina Rinehart also has a 10% stake (largest shareholder).

Australian Strategic Metals: Like Cobalt Blue, ASM was also at the White House meeting last month. They are positioned uniquely for downstream activity in the chain - another area we desperately need developed. There aren’t many competitors here.

Aclara Resources: Player in the ASX midstream game. I like them.

III. A Note on China <-> USA Trade Tensions

I wanted to close with just one note of caution. We have seen volatility in our sector’s favor as a result of escalating tensions between Trump and Xi ahead of a potential talk at the end of the month. For anyone new - please do understand that the outcome of these talks will move the sector, causing either a continued lift if a deal is not reached or a (possibly precipitous) retraction if a deal is reached. Plan accordingly.

If you are worried about it - make sure to time your entry and exit to avoid this event. In the long-term, a deal with China is unlikely to stop the USA from continuing to build out its chain. What Washington has seen from the export controls rolled out this year by China is that we cannot allow them to hold such leverage. However, you may find yourself shaken out of your position if the road gets rocky ahead and you don’t have the same resolve or conviction.

Safe investing friends and love you all,

Steve

Disclaimer: I am not in the business of giving financial advice. That is, I am not a financial advisor. None of what I say here is a recommendation to hold or not hold shares or other instruments of any particular company or series of companies. All that is contained on my page is research in which I convey and substantiate personal views and commentary about where sectors, economic policies, industries, so on, may go. As always, please do your own research and understand the risks involved before placing any trades. I am not responsible for any of the decisions you choose to make.

I wanted to briefly highlight four catalysts largely still unrealized in the critical minerals sector. I expect these to continue to feed a sector wide run this coming quarter into early next year.

1. Section 232 Tariffs Pending October-December

Although many have confused this with the administration’s order modifying the scope of reciprocal tariffs, the Section 232 investigation into the national security threat that critical minerals pose and the possible tariffs that may result is a separate process that remains unresolved. Initiated back in April, the investigation order gives cabinet members and those designated by the president until sometime in October 2025 to produce a report on the relation between critical minerals and our national security. After this report is submitted, the president will have two months to decide whether to impose tariffs on the basis of its finding.

The outcome is about as obvious as you can imagine - with China having rolled out export controls back during the beginning of the trade war a number of months ago and our defense industry still struggling to supply themselves with the relevant magnets and materials.

We have seen these investigations result in tariffs for copper and, interestingly enough, graphite has also had tariffs levied upon it by the administration, despite the fact that our own production of graphite is highly constrained. This signals that light and heavy rare earths (the latter which we have almost no domestic production yet) may not be as unthinkable as I would have otherwise believed when I first began researching this sector.

2. Uranium and Critical Minerals Stockpiling

This has been in the works for a while and we are finally beginning to see some movement on it, with a recent announcement regarding uranium and an inkling a while ago pertaining to the deep sea bed. I expect that stockpiling initiatives for other critical minerals will follow.

We haven’t yet seen purchasing agreements roll out with specific suppliers. But we will begin to have those trickling in sooner rather than later - with the USA sensitively aware of how reserves could have alleviated a shuttering of a number of industries, as we saw with automakers having to forfeit production when the supply was critically constrained by China’s bottleneck.

3. DPA/DOW/DOE/DOI Grants, Financing, and Investments

I have mentioned this before, but the MP materials deal with the Pentagon we saw back in June isn’t meant to be a one off. Through more-or-less every avenue available to them, the white house has strategically positioned themselves to open up funding to promising rare earth and critical minerals companies that process, mine, and develop products domestically across the supply chain.

They have signaled as much, broadly speaking, and have quietly made movements in the last number of weeks to provide this funding through the Defense Production Act, the Department of Defense/War, the Department of Energy, and the Department of the Interior. Recently, the administration has also been in talks to set up a 5 billion fund for critical minerals projects.

4. Public and Private Partnership (e.g. Microsoft?) and Relations with Australia

Back in July and August, White House Advisor Peter Navarro met with a number of privately held companies working in the western critical mineral supply space. Alongside Navarro, were giants like Microsoft, Apple, and Corning, which each depend on these materials for the continued growth and success of their respective industries.

Following the MP materials deal with the Pentagon, Apple invested 500 million to further assist the US in moving the dial on domestic production.

What we have seen with other companies following this has been a steadfast pattern - one explicitly mentioned as an expectation and desired outcome by the administration - which is partnership between public and private companies. ReElement, for example, has since partnered with Vulcan Elements, then received a DoD/DoW grant soon after. Energy Fuels also announced an agreement with Vulcan rather recently. Relatedly, there has been further discussion about partnership between Australia and the USA in this sector. Subsequently, we have seen UCORE enter into a partnership with Metallium Limited. Lynas, of course, is perhaps the greatest western-aligned Australian ally in this sector.

Apple, as we have seen, has has laid down their contribution. Where are other giants like Microsoft going to fit in the picture? We have yet to see them throw down the gauntlet in the same kind of way.

Positions and Portfolio

I receive messages every day from folks with beautiful intentions - to help their families, to build a better life, to lift themselves out of adversity. There are no guarantees in this game we play. All the same, I sincerely hope you will each find ways to realize your dreams. I am stricken by the feeling that there is a large degree of good that ultimately underlies so much of your ambitions.

As always, I love you all and I am wishing you success no matter how you realize it.

Steve

Disclaimer: I am not in the business of giving financial advice. That is, I am not a financial advisor. None of what I say here is a recommendation to hold or not hold shares or other instruments of any particular company or series of companies. All that is contained on my page is research in which I convey and substantiate personal views and commentary about where sectors, economic policies, industries, so on, may go. As always, please do your own research and understand the risks involved before placing any trades. I am not responsible for any of the decisions you choose to make.

The federal government has a initiative called (Defense Authorization for Strategic and High‑Tech). Speaking in terms of minerals initiative—it presents as an investment/funding program linked to DPA, DOE, or DoD aimed at accelerating U.S. supply chains in critical minerals (like graphite, rare earths, etc.). It focuses on grants, offtake agreements, and financial backing. They also have a dashboard called FAST-41. This is primarily for permitting and regulatory approvals related to infrastructure, including mining and critical minerals.

As we have seen with the recent MP <-> Pentagon deal, the US government isn’t joking around about providing significant backing to promising rare earth and critical minerals companies that process, mine, and develop product domestically. They have outright said it themselves - they are aiming to provide more funding, and fast.

We can use DASH and FAST-41 to our advantage to help us make investment choices as this run extends across the industry. I expect further DoD funding to trickle in within the next few weeks. Here are some compelling contenders for federal funding and incentivization, analyzed by their relationship with the federal government (existing contracts, speculation, FAST designation, or beyond).

UCORE Rare Metals (UURAF): Strategically placed with exposure to both US and Canadian government investments, this company has compelling technology for the separation of Heavy Rare Earths. They have recently been awarded a DoD grant.

Energy Fuels (UUUU): As both a uranium producer and a producer of rare earth oxides (most recently announcing heavy rare earth oxide production), this company is well-poised for significant government investment.

American Battery Technology (ABAT): Leading in battery recycling, this company has relationships with big names like TESLA and ties to federal funds.

Graphite One (GPHOF): This company has the potential to be come a vertically integrated graphite source. China’s grip over graphite processing is equally as dominant as their grip over rare earth processing.

WestWater Resources (WWR): Also a graphite producer, this company is well-poised for support from Washington. Recently, the administration announced import tariffs on graphite anode from China. That’s big news.

Lithium Americas (LAC): North America’s largest lithium deposit with big name partnerships (e.g. GM invested $650 million dollars into it). This one is as obvious a play as I have ever seen.

The Metals Company (TMC): High risk, high reward. They are awaiting permitting news in the next few months. Unprecedented plan to retrieve minerals from the ocean floor.

I also continue to believe in further upside at MP materials, despite their already magnificent run and news.

II. Import Tariffs via Section 232

In April, Trump initiated a Section 232 investigation into the national security threat that critical minerals pose. Likewise as with Copper, and as we have seen with Graphite just yesterday (linked above), we are likely to see tariffs roll out on further minerals by way of this investigation. After the report is completed, Trump will have a short amount of time to decide whether to impose tariffs or not on the industry.

Which minerals, though? Theoretically, most of them, as they all are strategic to defense. However, our production capacity is not high for certain areas yet (e.g. heavy rare earths), so what will happen exactly is not known to me entirely.

That being said, we know that the administration is not afraid of stepping up to China boldly, nor are they afraid of import controls and tariffs. This is an area to watch carefully. I expect announcements in the next weeks to months, if not sooner.

Lithium in particular stands out to me. Chinese price-gouging of the spot price has made it almost impossible for domestic producers to be able to compete. Take that information as you wish!

That’s all for now folks.

Love,
Steve

Disclaimer: I am not in the business of giving financial advice. That is, I am not a financial advisor. None of what I say here is a recommendation to hold or not hold shares or other instruments of any particular company or series of companies. All that is contained on my page is research in which I convey and substantiate personal views and commentary about where sectors, economic policies, industries, so on, may go. As always, please do your own research and understand the risks involved before placing any trades. I am not responsible for any of the decisions you choose to make.

This morning, I wanted to discuss the implications of the trade war for your investment strategies. I get the sense that many of you are misunderstanding what is happening right now. Retail investors consider this to be the beginning of a bear market. But they don’t realize that a bear market in one sector can mean tremendous opportunity in another. Institutional investors consider this to be the beginning of a major sector rotation into a sector that has been massively undervalued and neglected: American industry, energy, and materials. I am going to explain how you can come to understand all of this as an opportunity.

Those that follow my posts on mining, infrastructure, energy transitions know that I have been anticipating continued actions (including steep tariffs) by the present administration to combat Chinese influence over critical mineral and metal supply chains. My entire portfolio has more-or-less been restructured from the beginning of the  term with this background assumption in mind. My research over the last months has focused on understanding which companies stand to benefit from increased import/export controls. Again, my emphasis is on domestic metals, minerals, and mining specifically.

I. Context Setting

My thesis remains fundamentally unchanged. It is as follows:

Thesis/Summary: the mining industry presents a massive opportunity anywhere from right now to the end of the present US administration and hopefully beyond. The investments that will matter most have to do with the processing, extraction, separation, and manufacturing of titanium, lithium, and rare earth minerals deemed critical. These investments must be allied with western interests, ideally operating in the United States. The issue that is most relevant is the complete market dominance China has over these metals and rare earth minerals. 

In the past, I have supported this position by examining the present administration’s executive orders, legislative agenda, as well as conducting an analysis of major hedge fund and institutional holdings beginning 2024 Q4. In this post, I will instead point out the general features of my most treasured investments which have earned them the right to exist in my portfolio. 

Read more