RE:RFC Ambrian on price catalyststhis ignores secondary supplies and existing U stockpiles. it also does not take into account the fact that several new mines have started or will start shortly (Husab in Namibia). finally, any price upturn will be courted by new low-cost supply from Kazakhistan. so a meaningful jump in U prices can only happen if we see further mine closures. the supply-side response post-Fukushima has been only a 3% cut of of global U production (yes the HEU deal has expired, too, that's good news, but Russian enrichers underfeeding the market is the most untransparent and thus most overlooked aspect of supply). so for the 2016 or 2017 supply imbalances to meaningfully emerge, we need more mines to close.
i do agree with the observation on increasing action involving mid-term contracts. utilities have been very passive in renewing term contracts for nearly 1.5 years now, so surely it's time to tap the market. this was mentioned by UxC earlier in the week and some producers a few weeks back. though most investors seem to be focusing on spot U prices, term prices are far more important with respect to recovery. the more violent the rebound in term prices, the faster we'll see spot move as well. if we could now ony close more unprofitable mines quickly.