RE:RE:RE:RE:The argument against a Uranium Bull RunWho knows. Shoddy work for sure.
Makes some highly illogical leaps and assumptions from small time periods and small sample sizes.
EVEN IF the numbers are accurate, which he doesn't provide, or at least doesn't note where he sourced some figures from..
I think the fellow needs to subscribe to Quake's feed on twitter - he is lacking a TON of info lol.
The comment of little started construction since 2016 as a indicator was laughable with the dozens of articles about what is being built and newly approved in just the last few weeks.....So basically, even if his number research is accurate, which I HIGHLY doubt, the writer seems to take a 8-14 month window as a clear indication....?
The 9% production increase by a "small" Australian miner as indication suppy might not decrease much is pretty laughable also....A 9% increase on what? 1000 pounds lol? No facts provided. No comparrison to Cameco cut of Millions of pounds?
You made a good point by ponit reply
Overall - I might not love to read negative stuff as a long, but if it is ACCURATE and logical/realistic it is very valuable - some of the weak info pro and con needs to be sifted through and taken with grains of salt...