Category: Energy

Release – Alvopetro Announces Record December 2022 Sales Volumes and an Operational Update

Posted on by aweinsoff@channelchek.com

Research News and Market Data on ALVOF

Jan 06, 2023

CALGARY, AB, Jan. 6, 2023 /CNW/ – Alvopetro Energy Ltd. (TSXV: ALV) (OTCQX: ALVOF) announces record sales volumes in December 2022 and an operational update.

December 2022 sales volumes

December sales volumes averaged 2,785 boepd, including natural gas sales of 15.9 MMcfpd and associated natural gas liquids sales from condensate of 125 bopd, and 15 bopd of oil sales, based on field estimates, a 4% increase from our November 2022 average daily volumes.  Our sales volumes averaged 2,724 boepd in the fourth quarter of 2022, an increase of 3% from the third quarter of 2022.

Operational Update

We have completed testing our 182-C2 well on our 100% owned and operated Block 182. We completed drilling the 182-C2 well in October to a total measured depth (“MD”) of 3,185 metres. As previously announced, based on open-hole wireline logs, the well encountered a 223.7-metre-thick section with 121.3 metres of sand estimated above 6% porosity in the sand-dominated interval between 2,704.1 and 2,927.8 metres total vertical depth in the Sergi Formation. The well also encountered 10.9 metres of potential net hydrocarbon pay in the Agua Grande Formation, with an average porosity of 8.9% and average water saturation of 25.1%, using a 6% porosity cut-off, 50% Vshale cut-off and 50% water saturation cut-off. During testing operations of the Sergi and Agua Grande Formations we recovered non-commercial amounts of oil and natural gas. These results indicate lower than anticipated permeability and we are evaluating alternatives to remove any near well bore formation damage and reservoir stimulations to enhance permeability in the Agua Grande and Sergi Formations in this well, and the Sergi Formation in our 183-B1 well.

Corporate Presentation

Alvopetro’s updated corporate presentation is available on our website at:http://www.alvopetro.com/corporate-presentation. 

Social Media

Follow Alvopetro on our social media channels at the following links:     Twitter – https://twitter.com/AlvopetroEnergy     Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/alvopetro/     LinkedIn – https://www.linkedin.com/company/alvopetro-energy-ltd     YouTube –https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgDn_igrQgdlj-maR6fWB0w

Alvopetro Energy Ltd.’s vision is to become a leading independent upstream and midstream operator in Brazil. Our strategy is to unlock the on-shore natural gas potential in the state of Bahia in Brazil, building off the development of our Caburé natural gas field and our strategic midstream infrastructure.

Neither the TSX Venture Exchange nor its Regulation Services Provider (as that term is defined in the policies of the TSX Venture Exchange) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this news release.

All amounts contained in this new release are in United States dollars, unless otherwise stated and all tabular amounts are in thousands of United States dollars, except as otherwise noted.

Abbreviations:bbls                        =              barrelsboepd                    =              barrels of oil equivalent (“boe”) per daybopd                      =              barrels of oil and/or natural gas liquids (condensate) per dayMMcf                     =              million cubic feetMMcfpd                 =              million cubic feet per day

BOE Disclosure. The term barrels of oil equivalent (“boe”) may be misleading, particularly if used in isolation. A boe conversion ratio of six thousand cubic feet per barrel (6Mcf/bbl) of natural gas to barrels of oil equivalence is based on an energy equivalency conversion method primarily applicable at the burner tip and does not represent a value equivalency at the wellhead. All boe conversions in this news release are derived from converting gas to oil in the ratio mix of six thousand cubic feet of gas to one barrel of oil.

Testing and Well Results. Data obtained from the 182-C2 well identified in this press release, including hydrocarbon shows, open-hole logging, net pay and porosities and initial testing data, should be considered to be preliminary until detailed pressure transient and other analysis and interpretation has been completed. Hydrocarbon shows can be seen during the drilling of a well in numerous circumstances and do not necessarily indicate a commercial discovery or the presence of commercial hydrocarbons in a well. There is no representation by Alvopetro that the data relating to the 182-C2 well contained in this press release is necessarily indicative of long-term performance or ultimate recovery. The reader is cautioned not to unduly rely on such data as such data may not be indicative of future performance of the well or of expected production or operational results for Alvopetro in the future.

Forward-Looking Statements and Cautionary Language. This news release contains “forward-looking information” within the meaning of applicable securities laws. The use of any of the words “will”, “expect”, “intend” and other similar words or expressions are intended to identify forward-looking information. Forward–looking statements involve significant risks and uncertainties, should not be read as guarantees of future performance or results, and will not necessarily be accurate indications of whether or not such results will be achieved. A number of factors could cause actual results to vary significantly from the expectations discussed in the forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements reflect current assumptions and expectations regarding future events. Accordingly, when relying on forward-looking statements to make decisions, Alvopetro cautions readers not to place undue reliance on these statements, as forward-looking statements involve significant risks and uncertainties. More particularly and without limitation, this news release contains forward-looking information concerning potential hydrocarbon pay in the 182-C2 well, exploration and development prospects of Alvopetro and the expected timing of certain of Alvopetro’s testing and operational activities. The forward–looking statements are based on certain key expectations and assumptions made by Alvopetro, including but not limited to expectations and assumptions concerning testing results of the 183-B1 well and the 182-C2 well, equipment availability, the timing of regulatory licenses and approvals, the success of future drilling, completion, testing, recompletion and development activities, the outlook for commodity markets and ability to access capital markets, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the performance of producing wells and reservoirs, well development and operating performance, foreign exchange rates, general economic and business conditions, weather and access to drilling locations, the availability and cost of labour and services, environmental regulation, including regulation relating to hydraulic fracturing and stimulation, the ability to monetize hydrocarbons discovered, expectations regarding Alvopetro’s working interest and the outcome of any redeterminations, the regulatory and legal environment and other risks associated with oil and gas operations. The reader is cautioned that assumptions used in the preparation of such information, although considered reasonable at the time of preparation, may prove to be incorrect. Actual results achieved during the forecast period will vary from the information provided herein as a result of numerous known and unknown risks and uncertainties and other factors. Although Alvopetro believes that the expectations and assumptions on which such forward-looking information is based are reasonable, undue reliance should not be placed on the forward-looking information because Alvopetro can give no assurance that it will prove to be correct. Readers are cautioned that the foregoing list of factors is not exhaustive. Additional information on factors that could affect the operations or financial results of Alvopetro are included in our annual information form which may be accessed on Alvopetro’s SEDAR profile at www.sedar.com. The forward-looking information contained in this news release is made as of the date hereof and Alvopetro undertakes no obligation to update publicly or revise any forward-looking information, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, unless so required by applicable securities laws.

SOURCE Alvopetro Energy Ltd.

Oil Producers Had a Great Year; They Could Repeat in 2023

Posted on by phoffman@channelchek.com
Image Credit: Mike Mozart (Flickr)

Can Oil Companies Continue Their Outperformance?

If you predicted that oil prices would go up last year, you were correct. If you predicted they’d go down, you were also correct. I dare say that even with insight as to what was to come, many analysts would have had the timing completely reversed from what actually happened. Why? What caused the volatility? And most importantly, what can we learn from this to help us in 2023 and beyond? After all, in 2022, oil company Exxon increased in market value more than any other company in the S&P 500. It became the eighth largest with a 74.3% increase in share price, up from the 27th largest a year ago. In contrast, WTI Crude closed near its low for the year, the dynamics involved are certainly worth investor exploration.

Background

Twelve months ago, according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA) the price of West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil was considered high at $75.99/bbl. WTI closed the year less than 6% higher at $80.47/bbl. But this is not indicative of the wild surprises in between. There are two events that had a major impact during those twelve months.

Russia’s late February invasion of its neighbor helped crude prices to shoot up above $120/bbl. Oil has only visited that level once before (2008). Very few could have expected this event, so the expectations leading up to the early months of 2022 were, at worst moderate price declines to moderate increases. Those expecting some price increases pointed to the ongoing supply shortfall related to the pandemic response. This is the period that surprised traders with oil on the way up. Then as it became evident the war would be prolonged and Europe and other regions would take steps to move away from Russia’s output, expectations were for further price increases. What was not anticipated was a massive release of oil from the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserves. Along with releases from reserves in other parts of the world, oil prices sank. But, fear of the European winter, lack of support from OPEC+, and anticipation of price caps on Russian oil creating a loss of supply had many talking about upward pressure by year-end. It has not materialized.

The Crude World Order (OPIC?)

What’s changed the expected results related to oil prices and even producer prices? First off, there was a level of unity never-before-experienced and organization among petroleum-importing countries among consuming nations. The pushback and, to some degree taking charge, by nations that are net consumers began in late Spring 2022 when 31 members of the International Energy Agency (IEA) decided to all release oil from reserves to quench demand and impact prices.

The Paris-based IEA promotes what it believes are beneficial energy situations for consumers. It had taken the lead on emergency measures before, but never with this much unity or on this scale.  The amount of reserves sold into the oil market amounts to less than 1%, but it is estimated to have shaved $20 or more off per barrel oil prices in the spring and summer. Brent crude, the international oil benchmark, hit its peak settlement value of $127.98 per barrel in March but had fallen below $100 by July. Recently it has been trading near $80.

Certainly, the drawdown on reserves which borrowed from the future will need to be replenished. Pulling from reserves is unsustainable and therefore limits bargaining power. Nations have pledged to return their reserves to a level deemed in line with national security (the U.S. has a 50-day reserve supply), but the timing is uncertain.

What is positive for consumers is the IEA has learned to stand firm and work together.

Why are Oil Company Stocks Outperformers?

Crude is roughly the same price now as it was at the beginning of last year. Yet, factors including conservation efforts and China Covid policies have caused limited demand growth. And despite favorable economics currently, energy companies have been slow to drill new wells. U.S. rig count, as reported by Baker Hughes, crept up to 779 rigs by the end of the year. This compares to a peak level of 1,600 in 2014.

So why, as mentioned earlier, are oil companies performing as tech companies did in 2021?

On the surface, one might think energy company stock prices would be weakening, but this isn’t the case there are other factors at play. Michael Heim, Senior Energy Analyst, at Noble Capital Markets, explains in his newly released Q4 2022 Energy Industry Report, “Operating cash flow has soared over the last two years, but capital expenditures have barely increased. The result has been a large increase in dividend payments, share repurchases, and debt reduction.” Heim’s report further explains that while capital expenditures lagged well behind, it is inaccurate to conclude that oil production has not increased. The Noble Capital Markets analyst explains, “…current production levels are above that during peak drilling periods in 2014. The implication is that drilling has become more productive. While drilling advances such as the use of horizontal drill and fracking in shale deposits may be old hat, it is worth noting that drillers have been refining drilling techniques for individual drilling locations.” Drillers are improving techniques, improving efficiencies and maximizing production per dollar spent. Heim also attributes some of the efficiencies to well recompletions, which he explains are less expensive to put in service.

Read the Noble Capital Markets Energy industry report here.

Take Away

The S&P index that tracks the Energy sector gained 53.8% last year. If you had had a crystal ball that told you about the events that would transpire, such as the European war, and oil returning to its starting place, it’s a rare investor that would expect the drillers/producers to increase over 50%. While all situations have their own circumstances, understanding why price action happened can provide greater preparedness to face the markets each year.

Sign-up for no-cost Channelchek and receive research reports, articles, and even video interviews with company executives in your inbox each morning. Sign-up here.

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

Sources

https://www.iea.org/

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/The-Fall-Of-Tesla-And-The-Rise-of-Exxon-Amid-The-Energy-Crisis.html

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/The-Fall-Of-Tesla-And-The-Rise-of-Exxon-Amid-The-Energy-Crisis.html

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2022/12/31/the-year-in-energy-prices/?sh=59b071fa5314

https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/weekly/

https://www.channelchek.com/news-channel/energy-industry-report-energy-stocks-resume-their-upward-trend-is-80-oil-the-new-norm

Energy Industry Report – Energy Stocks Resume Their Upward Trend – Is $80 Oil The New Norm?

Posted on by cpatches

Wednesday, January 04, 2023

Michael Heim, CFA, Senior Research Analyst, Noble Capital Markets, Inc.

Refer to the bottom of the report for important disclosures

Energy Stocks Were Strong. Energy stocks rose 21.5% in the fourth quarter far outpacing a 7.1% rise for the S&P 500 Index. For the year, energy stocks were up an impressive 57% versus a 20% decline in the overall market. The strength can largely be attributed to rising energy prices, although we would note that energy prices have largely leveled out after a strong first half of the year.

Oil prices are near $80. Near month oil future contracts are now almost $80 per barrel, below peak prices but significantly higher than historic prices.  At $80 per barrel, most energy companies are very profitable and generating significant excess free cash flow. Despite the favorable economics, energy companies have been slow to drill new wells, and modest production increases have come mainly from improved efficiencies. In addition, there is a growing belief that OPEC’s spare capacity is declining questioning its ability to meet demand increases. As time passes, $80 oil is starting to feel like the new equilibrium level with $40-$60 oil prices a thing of the past.

Gas prices are rising even more than oil prices. Natural gas prices have risen steadily over the last two years even as production levels have been steady. Storage levels, which were running below historical levels, have improved in recent months.

Energy industry fundamentals remain strong. Oil and gas prices are near historical highs and above the levels assumed in our financial and valuation models. Energy company cash flow generation is high, and companies are facing the envious position of trying to decide what to do with the cash. Debt levels have been pared down and managements have been raising dividend levels and repurchasing shares. Drilling is increasing but at a controllable pace that doesn’t seem likely to put prices into a downcycle. We believe the case for smaller cap energy stocks is especially strong. If our belief that a world-wide recession is already factored into energy prices is correct, small cap energy companies will be in the best position to take advantage of any price increase.

Energy Stocks

Energy stocks, as measured by the XLE Energy Index, rose sharply in the most recent quarter after logging in a flat third quarter. In the fourth quarter, energy stocks rose 21.5% far outpacing a 7.1% rise for the S&P 500 Index. For the year, energy stocks were up an impressive 57% versus a 20% decline in the overall market. This year’s strong performance comes after last year’s 50% rise. The strength can largely be attributed to rising energy prices, although we would note that energy prices have largely leveled out after a strong first half of the year.

Oil Prices

Oil prices rose steadily over a two-year period beginning the spring of 2020. WTI prices peaked at $120 per barrel in the first week of June. Prices declined in the third quarter but seem to have leveled off in recent months. Near month oil future contracts are now almost $80 per barrel, below peak prices but significantly higher than historic prices.  At $80 per barrel, most energy companies are very profitable and generating significant excess free cash flow. As time passes, $80 oil is starting to feel like the new equilibrium level with $40-$60 oil prices a thing of the past.

Figure #1

Despite the favorable economics, energy companies have been slow to drill new wells. U.S. rig count, as reported by Baker Hughes, crept up to 779 rigs by the end of the year. This compares to a peak level of 1,600 in 2014. The disparity between increased profitability and increased capital expenditures is shown in the chart below. Operating cash flow has soared over the last two years, but capital expenditures have barely increased. The result has been a large increase in dividend payments, share repurchases and debt reduction.

Figure #2

While capital expenditures have not increased in line with cash flow, it would be unfair to say that oil production has not increased. Indeed, current production levels are above that during peak drilling periods in 2014. The implication is that drilling has become more productive. While drilling advances such as the use of horizontal drill and fracking in shale deposits may be old hat, it is worth noting that drillers have been refining drilling techniques for individual drilling locations. Drillers continue to perfect the ideal number of fracking targets and the materials used to frack. In addition, as we discussed in our September quarter comments, there has been a sharp increase in the number of well recompletions, which are less expensive to complete but not a long-term solution.

Figure #3

Meanwhile, OPEC has been increasing production in recent years after making sharp reductions during the COVID years. However, there are growing concerns that OPEC’s overall capacity is declining and that its spare capacity has consequentially declined. If this is indeed true, OPEC’s ability to fulfill increased demand for oil may be limited. This would bode well, not only for oil prices, but for the role domestic producers will have in meeting demand.

Figure #4

Natural Gas Prices

The chart below shows natural gas prices against production levels. As the chart shows, natural gas prices have risen steadily over the last two years even as production levels have remained steady. To that extent, natural gas prices are acting like oil prices. Natural gas prices tend to track oil prices but with a few distinctions. Natural gas demand and supply is less global than oil. Imports (and now exports) of liquefied natural gas represent a small portion of domestic supply and demand. Secondly, natural gas is used primarily for space heating. That means demand is more seasonal. It also means demand can be affected by weather conditions. On the other hand, natural gas demand is less affected by general economic conditions than oil.

Figure #5

Storage levels, which were running below historical levels, have improved in recent months. We would note that the most recent storage numbers do not reflect the cold snap across the country during the last week of the year. Cold temperatures may send storage levels lower than is reflected in the chart below.

Figure #6

Outlook

Energy industry fundamentals remain strong. Oil and gas prices are near historical highs and above the levels assumed in our financial and valuation models. Energy company cash flow generation is high, and companies are facing the envious position of trying to decide what to do with the cash. Debt levels have been pared down and managements have been raising dividend levels and repurchasing shares. Drilling is increasing but at a controllable pace that doesn’t seem likely to put prices into a downcycle.

 We believe the case for smaller cap energy stocks is strong. Major oil companies are facing increasing pressure to focus on renewable energy instead of producing more carbon-based fuel. Smaller cap energy companies are less tethered and often able to acquire and exploit properties being ignored by the majors. If our belief that a world-wide recession is already factored into energy prices is correct, small cap energy companies will be in the best position to take advantage of any price increase.

GENERAL DISCLAIMERS

All statements or opinions contained herein that include the words “we”, “us”, or “our” are solely the responsibility of Noble Capital Markets, Inc.(“Noble”) and do not necessarily reflect statements or opinions expressed by any person or party affiliated with the company mentioned in this report. Any opinions expressed herein are subject to change without notice. All information provided herein is based on public and non-public information believed to be accurate and reliable, but is not necessarily complete and cannot be guaranteed. No judgment is hereby expressed or should be implied as to the suitability of any security described herein for any specific investor or any specific investment portfolio. The decision to undertake any investment regarding the security mentioned herein should be made by each reader of this publication based on its own appraisal of the implications and risks of such decision.

This publication is intended for information purposes only and shall not constitute an offer to buy/sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy/sell any security mentioned in this report, nor shall there be any sale of the security herein in any state or domicile in which said offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful prior to registration or qualification under the securities laws of any such state or domicile. This publication and all information, comments, statements or opinions contained or expressed herein are applicable only as of the date of this publication and subject to change without prior notice. Past performance is not indicative of future results. Noble accepts no liability for loss arising from the use of the material in this report, except that this exclusion of liability does not apply to the extent that such liability arises under specific statutes or regulations applicable to Noble. This report is not to be relied upon as a substitute for the exercising of independent judgement. Noble may have published, and may in the future publish, other research reports that are inconsistent with, and reach different conclusions from, the information provided in this report. Noble is under no obligation to bring to the attention of any recipient of this report, any past or future reports. Investors should only consider this report as single factor in making an investment decision.

IMPORTANT DISCLOSURES

This publication is confidential for the information of the addressee only and may not be reproduced in whole or in part, copies circulated, or discussed to another party, without the written consent of Noble Capital Markets, Inc. (“Noble”). Noble seeks to update its research as appropriate, but may be unable to do so based upon various regulatory constraints. Research reports are not published at regular intervals; publication times and dates are based upon the analyst’s judgement. Noble professionals including traders, salespeople and investment bankers may provide written or oral market commentary, or discuss trading strategies to Noble clients and the Noble proprietary trading desk that reflect opinions that are contrary to the opinions expressed in this research report.
The majority of companies that Noble follows are emerging growth companies. Securities in these companies involve a higher degree of risk and more volatility than the securities of more established companies. The securities discussed in Noble research reports may not be suitable for some investors and as such, investors must take extra care and make their own determination of the appropriateness of an investment based upon risk tolerance, investment objectives and financial status.

Company Specific Disclosures

The following disclosures relate to relationships between Noble and the company (the “Company”) covered by the Noble Research Division and referred to in this research report.
Noble is not a market maker in any of the companies mentioned in this report. Noble intends to seek compensation for investment banking services and non-investment banking services (securities and non-securities related) with any or all of the companies mentioned in this report within the next 3 months

ANALYST CREDENTIALS, PROFESSIONAL DESIGNATIONS, AND EXPERIENCE

Senior Equity Analyst focusing on Basic Materials & Mining. 20 years of experience in equity research. BA in Business Administration from Westminster College. MBA with a Finance concentration from the University of Missouri. MA in International Affairs from Washington University in St. Louis.
Named WSJ ‘Best on the Street’ Analyst and Forbes/StarMine’s “Best Brokerage Analyst.”
FINRA licenses 7, 24, 63, 87

WARNING

This report is intended to provide general securities advice, and does not purport to make any recommendation that any securities transaction is appropriate for any recipient particular investment objectives, financial situation or particular needs. Prior to making any investment decision, recipients should assess, or seek advice from their advisors, on whether any relevant part of this report is appropriate to their individual circumstances. If a recipient was referred to Noble Capital Markets, Inc. by an investment advisor, that advisor may receive a benefit in respect of
transactions effected on the recipients behalf, details of which will be available on request in regard to a transaction that involves a personalized securities recommendation. Additional risks associated with the security mentioned in this report that might impede achievement of the target can be found in its initial report issued by Noble Capital Markets, Inc.. This report may not be reproduced, distributed or published for any purpose unless authorized by Noble Capital Markets, Inc..

RESEARCH ANALYST CERTIFICATION

Independence Of View
All views expressed in this report accurately reflect my personal views about the subject securities or issuers.

Receipt of Compensation
No part of my compensation was, is, or will be directly or indirectly related to any specific recommendations or views expressed in the public
appearance and/or research report.

Ownership and Material Conflicts of Interest
Neither I nor anybody in my household has a financial interest in the securities of the subject company or any other company mentioned in this report.

Nuclear Fusion Technology Could Be A $40 Trillion Market

Posted on by phoffman@channelchek.com

Nuclear Fusion’s Potential to Be a Highly Disruptive Breakthrough with Investment Opportunities

Scientists at the Energy Department’s Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) in California announced the first-ever demonstration of fusion “ignition.” This means that more energy was generated from fusion than was needed to operate the high-powered lasers that triggered the reaction. More than 2 megajoules (MJ) of laser light were directed onto a tiny gold-plated capsule, resulting in the production of a little over 3 MJ of energy, the equivalent of three sticks of dynamite.

This important milestone is the culmination of decades’ worth of research and lots of trial and error, and it makes good on the hope that humanity will one day enjoy 100% clean and plentiful energy.

This article was republished with permission from Frank Talk, a CEO Blog by Frank Holmes
of U.S. Global Investors (GROW).
Find more of Frank’s articles here – Originally published December 19, 2022.

Unlike conventional nuclear fission, which produces highly radioactive waste and carries the risk of nuclear proliferation, nuclear fusion has no emissions or risk of cataclysmic disaster. That should please activists who support renewable, non-carbon-emitting energy sources such as wind and solar and yet oppose nuclear power.

75th Anniversary of Another Great American Invention, The Transistor

I think it’s only fitting that this breakthrough occurred not just in the U.S., the most innovative country on earth, but also on the 75th anniversary of the invention of the transistor.

Like fusion energy, the transistor’s importance can’t be overstated. Invented in December 1947 in New Jersey’s storied Bell Labs—also the birthplace of the photovoltaic cell, fiber optic cable, communications satellite, UNIX operating system and C programming language—the transistor made the 20th century possible. Everything we use and enjoy today, from our iPhones to our Teslas, wouldn’t exist without the seminal American invention.  

In 2021, the electric vehicle maker unveiled its proprietary application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) for artificial intelligence (AI) training. The ASIC chip, believe it or not, boasts an unbelievable 50 billion transistors.

Private Investment in Fusion Technology Has Been Increasing

Getting your electricity from a commercial fusion reactor is still years if not decades away, but that hasn’t stopped money from flowing into the sector. This year, private investment is estimated to top $1 billion, following the record $2.6 billion that went into fusion research in 2021, according to BloombergNEF.  

Private Sector Investment in Nuclear Fusion May Top $1 Billion in 2022

At the moment, there aren’t any publicly traded fusion companies. However, Bloomberg has a Global Nuclear Theme Peers index that tracks listed companies with exposure to the industry, estimated by Bloomberg to one day achieve a jaw-dropping $40 trillion valuation. Some of the more recognizable names include Rolls-Royce, Toshiba, Hitachi and General Electric.

For the five-year period, the index of 64 “nuclear” stocks has advanced approximately 100%, compared to the MSCI World Index, up 38% over the same period.

The number of private firms involved in R&D continues to grow, raising the possibility that some will tap public markets in the coming years.

Among the largest is Commonwealth Fusion Systems, or CFS, which spun out of MIT’s Plasma Science and Fusion Center in 2018. The company raised $1.8 billion in December 2021, on top of the $250 million it had raised previously. Its investors include Bill Gates and Google, along with oil companies, venture capital firms and sovereign wealth funds. CFS claims to have the fastest, lowest cost solution to commercial fusion energy and is in the process of building a prototype that is set to demonstrate net energy gain by 2025.

Another major player is TAE Technologies. Located in California, the company has raised a total of $1.2 billion as of December 2022, from investors such as the late Paul Allen, Goldman Sachs, Google and the family office of Charles Schwab. TAE says it is developing a fusion reactor, scheduled to be unveiled in the early 2030s, that will generate electricity from a proton-boron reaction at an incredible temperature of 1 billion degrees.

Other contenders in the field include Washington State-based Helion Energy, Canada’s General Fusion and the United Kingdom’s Tokamak Energy. In February 2022, Tokamak broke a longstanding record by generating 59 MJ of energy, the highest sustained energy pulse ever.

As an investor, I would keep an eye on this space!

Solar Accounted For 45% Of All New Energy Capacity Growth In The U.S.

In the meantime, energy investors with an eye on the future still have renewable energy stocks to consider.

2022 has been a challenging year for the industry, with much of it facing supply constraints. According to Wood Mackenzie, total new solar installations in the U.S. were 18.6 gigawatts (GW), a 23% decrease from 2021.

Even so, solar accounted for 45% of all new electricity-generation capacity added this year through the end of the third quarter. That’s greater than any other energy source. Wind was in second place, representing a quarter of all new energy power, followed by natural gas at 21% and coal at 10%, its best year since 2013.

WoodMac expresses optimism in the next two years. Solar projects that were delayed this year due to supply issues may finally come online in 2023, and by 2024, the real effects of President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) should be felt. The U.K.-based research firm forecasts 21% average annual growth from 2023 through 2027, so now may be an opportune time to start participating.

One of our favorite plays right now is Canadian Solar, up more than 11% for the year. On Thursday of this week, the Ontario-based company announced that it would begin mass-producing high efficiency solar modules in the first quarter of 2023. Canadian Solar shares were up more than 1% last week, despite experiencing two down days on this week’s news of continued rate hikes into 2023.

US Global Investors Disclaimer

All opinions expressed and data provided are subject to change without notice. Some of these opinions may not be appropriate to every investor. By clicking the link(s) above, you will be directed to a third-party website(s). U.S. Global Investors does not endorse all information supplied by this/these website(s) and is not responsible for its/their content.

The BI Global Nuclear Theme Peers is an index not for use as a financial benchmark that tracks 64 companies exposed to nuclear energy research and production. The MSCI World Index is a free-float weighted equity index which includes developed world markets and does not include emerging markets.

Holdings may change daily. Holdings are reported as of the most recent quarter-end. The following securities mentioned in the article were held by one or more accounts managed by U.S. Global Investors as of (09/30/22): Tesla Inc., Canadian Solar Inc.

Energy Fuels (UUUU) – Energy Fuels Inc. awarded $18.5 million sales for strategic reserve

Posted on by cpereira@noblefcm.com


Tuesday, December 20, 2022

Energy Fuels is a leading U.S.-based uranium mining company, supplying U3O8 to major nuclear utilities. Energy Fuels also produces vanadium from certain of its projects, as market conditions warrant, and is ramping up commercial-scale production of REE carbonate. Its corporate offices are in Lakewood, Colorado, near Denver, and all its assets and employees are in the United States. Energy Fuels holds three of America’s key uranium production centers: the White Mesa Mill in Utah, the Nichols Ranch in-situ recovery (“ISR”) Project in Wyoming, and the Alta Mesa ISR Project in Texas. The White Mesa Mill is the only conventional uranium mill operating in the U.S. today, has a licensed capacity of over 8 million pounds of U3O8 per year, has the ability to produce vanadium when market conditions warrant, as well as REE carbonate from various uranium-bearing ores. The Nichols Ranch ISR Project is on standby and has a licensed capacity of 2 million pounds of U3O8 per year. The Alta Mesa ISR Project is also on standby and has a licensed capacity of 1.5 million pounds of U3O8 per year. In addition to the above production facilities, Energy Fuels also has one of the largest NI 43-101 compliant uranium resource portfolios in the U.S. and several uranium and uranium/vanadium mining projects on standby and in various stages of permitting and development. The primary trading market for Energy Fuels’ common shares is the NYSE American under the trading symbol “UUUU,” and the Company’s common shares are also listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange under the trading symbol “EFR.” Energy Fuels’ website is www.energyfuels.com.

Michael Heim, CFA, Senior Research Analyst, Noble Capital Markets, Inc.

Refer to the full report for the price target, fundamental analysis, and rating.

The sales, along with recently signed utility contracts, will generate cash flow as UUUU starts up operations. Congress allocated $75 million to establish a national uranium security reserve in its 2020 budget. The US Energy Secretary indicated earlier that it expects to make four individual awards of 100,000-500,000 pounds of U3O8 for a total of 1 million pounds. Energy Fuels, as the largest licensed producer of uranium, was in a good position to receive one of the rewards. The UUUU announcement did not indicate a volume level. Peninsula Energy announced that it received an award for 300,000 pounds but did not specify a sales amount. 

The sales can be done right away before mining operations are restarted. The conditions of the DOE award state that the uranium must be physically located at Honeywell’s conversion facilities in Metropolis, IL. Energy Fuels currently holds about 610,000 pounds of U3O8 at Metropolis worth more than $30 million at current uranium spot prices. A volume awards similar to that for Peninsula seems reasonable implying that the DOE is paying a price near $60/lb. or slightly above current spot prices, and be well within current inventory levels.


Get the Full Report

Equity Research is available at no cost to Registered users of Channelchek. Not a Member? Click ‘Join’ to join the Channelchek Community. There is no cost to register, and we never collect credit card information.

This Company Sponsored Research is provided by Noble Capital Markets, Inc., a FINRA and S.E.C. registered broker-dealer (B/D).

*Analyst certification and important disclosures included in the full report. NOTE: investment decisions should not be based upon the content of this research summary. Proper due diligence is required before making any investment decision. 

Battery Power From EV to the Grid Could Open a Fast Lane to a Net-Zero Future.

Posted on by phoffman@channelchek.com
Source: MIT News

Reversing the Charge – Energy Storage on Wheels

Leda Zimmerman | MIT Energy Initiative

Owners of electric vehicles (EVs) are accustomed to plugging into charging stations at home and at work and filling up their batteries with electricity from the power grid. But someday soon, when these drivers plug in, their cars will also have the capacity to reverse the flow and send electrons back to the grid. As the number of EVs climbs, the fleet’s batteries could serve as a cost-effective, large-scale energy source, with potentially dramatic impacts on the energy transition, according to a new paper published by an MIT team in the journal Energy Advances.

“At scale, vehicle-to-grid (V2G) can boost renewable energy growth, displacing the need for stationary energy storage and decreasing reliance on firm [always-on] generators, such as natural gas, that are traditionally used to balance wind and solar intermittency,” says Jim Owens, lead author and a doctoral student in the MIT Department of Chemical Engineering. Additional authors include Emre Gençer, a principal research scientist at the MIT Energy Initiative (MITEI), and Ian Miller, a research specialist for MITEI at the time of the study.

The group’s work is the first comprehensive, systems-based analysis of future power systems, drawing on a novel mix of computational models integrating such factors as carbon emission goals, variable renewable energy (VRE) generation, and costs of building energy storage, production, and transmission infrastructure.

“We explored not just how EVs could provide service back to the grid — thinking of these vehicles almost like energy storage on wheels — but also the value of V2G applications to the entire energy system and if EVs could reduce the cost of decarbonizing the power system,” says Gençer. “The results were surprising; I personally didn’t believe we’d have so much potential here.”

Displacing New Infrastructure

As the United States and other nations pursue stringent goals to limit carbon emissions, electrification of transportation has taken off, with the rate of EV adoption rapidly accelerating. (Some projections show EVs supplanting internal combustion vehicles over the next 30 years.) With the rise of emission-free driving, though, there will be increased demand for energy. “The challenge is ensuring both that there’s enough electricity to charge the vehicles and that this electricity is coming from renewable sources,” says Gençer.

But solar and wind energy is intermittent. Without adequate backup for these sources, such as stationary energy storage facilities using lithium-ion batteries, for instance, or large-scale, natural gas- or hydrogen-fueled power plants, achieving clean energy goals will prove elusive. More vexing, costs for building the necessary new energy infrastructure runs to the hundreds of billions.

This is precisely where V2G can play a critical, and welcome, role, the researchers reported. In their case study of a theoretical New England power system meeting strict carbon constraints, for instance, the team found that participation from just 13.9 percent of the region’s 8 million light-duty (passenger) EVs displaced 14.7 gigawatts of stationary energy storage. This added up to $700 million in savings — the anticipated costs of building new storage capacity.

Their paper also described the role EV batteries could play at times of peak demand, such as hot summer days. “V2G technology has the ability to inject electricity back into the system to cover these episodes, so we don’t need to install or invest in additional natural gas turbines,” says Owens. “The way that EVs and V2G can influence the future of our power systems is one of the most exciting and novel aspects of our study.”

Modeling Power

To investigate the impacts of V2G on their hypothetical New England power system, the researchers integrated their EV travel and V2G service models with two of MITEI’s existing modeling tools: the Sustainable Energy System Analysis Modeling Environment (SESAME) to project vehicle fleet and electricity demand growth, and GenX, which models the investment and operation costs of electricity generation, storage, and transmission systems. They incorporated such inputs as different EV participation rates, costs of generation for conventional and renewable power suppliers, charging infrastructure upgrades, travel demand for vehicles, changes in electricity demand, and EV battery costs.

Their analysis found benefits from V2G applications in power systems (in terms of displacing energy storage and firm generation) at all levels of carbon emission restrictions, including one with no emissions caps at all. However, their models suggest that V2G delivers the greatest value to the power system when carbon constraints are most aggressive — at 10 grams of carbon dioxide per kilowatt hour load. Total system savings from V2G ranged from $183 million to $1,326 million, reflecting EV participation rates between 5 percent and 80 percent.

“Our study has begun to uncover the inherent value V2G has for a future power system, demonstrating that there is a lot of money we can save that would otherwise be spent on storage and firm generation,” says Owens.

Harnessing V2G

For scientists seeking ways to decarbonize the economy, the vision of millions of EVs parked in garages or in office spaces and plugged into the grid for 90 percent of their operating lives proves an irresistible provocation. “There is all this storage sitting right there, a huge available capacity that will only grow, and it is wasted unless we take full advantage of it,” says Gençer.

This is not a distant prospect. Startup companies are currently testing software that would allow two-way communication between EVs and grid operators or other entities. With the right algorithms, EVs would charge from and dispatch energy to the grid according to profiles tailored to each car owner’s needs, never depleting the battery and endangering a commute.

“We don’t assume all vehicles will be available to send energy back to the grid at the same time, at 6 p.m. for instance, when most commuters return home in the early evening,” says Gençer. He believes that the vastly varied schedules of EV drivers will make enough battery power available to cover spikes in electricity use over an average 24-hour period. And there are other potential sources of battery power down the road, such as electric school buses that are employed only for short stints during the day and then sit idle.

The MIT team acknowledges the challenges of V2G consumer buy-in. While EV owners relish a clean, green drive, they may not be as enthusiastic handing over access to their car’s battery to a utility or an aggregator working with power system operators. Policies and incentives would help.

“Since you’re providing a service to the grid, much as solar panel users do, you could be paid for your participation, and paid at a premium when electricity prices are very high,” says Gençer.

“People may not be willing to participate ’round the clock, but if we have blackout scenarios like in Texas last year, or hot-day congestion on transmission lines, maybe we can turn on these vehicles for 24 to 48 hours, sending energy back to the system,” adds Owens. “If there’s a power outage and people wave a bunch of money at you, you might be willing to talk.”

“Basically, I think this comes back to all of us being in this together, right?” says Gençer. “As you contribute to society by giving this service to the grid, you will get the full benefit of reducing system costs, and also help to decarbonize the system faster and to a greater extent.”

Actionable Insights

Owens, who is building his dissertation on V2G research, is now investigating the potential impact of heavy-duty electric vehicles in decarbonizing the power system. “The last-mile delivery trucks of companies like Amazon and FedEx are likely to be the earliest adopters of EVs,” Owen says. “They are appealing because they have regularly scheduled routes during the day and go back to the depot at night, which makes them very useful for providing electricity and balancing services in the power system.”

Owens is committed to “providing insights that are actionable by system planners, operators, and to a certain extent, investors,” he says. His work might come into play in determining what kind of charging infrastructure should be built, and where.

“Our analysis is really timely because the EV market has not yet been developed,” says Gençer. “This means we can share our insights with vehicle manufacturers and system operators — potentially influencing them to invest in V2G technologies, avoiding the costs of building utility-scale storage, and enabling the transition to a cleaner future. It’s a huge win, within our grasp.”

The research for this study was funded by MITEI’s Future Energy Systems Center.

Reprinted with permission of MIT News” (http://news.mit.edu/)

Russia-Related Supply Issues Delay Gates/Buffett Nuclear Plant

Posted on by phoffman@channelchek.com
Image: Rendering of Natrium Reactor (TerraPower)

Nuclear Power Plant Start Will be Delayed as Reliable US Fuel Production Needs to Improve

The energy and fuel shortages stemming from the Russia/Ukraine war extend beyond oil and gas. A sharp impact is also being felt in the nuclear energy world as uranium is less available for new and existing plants. In the US, TerraPower’s natrium reactor completion date is now estimated at least two years beyond the original plan. This is because of problems securing the proper fuel. TerraPower is a start-up co-founded by Bill Gates with support from Warren Buffett to revolutionize nuclear reactor design and methods. The natrium reactor being built as a test of the technology is being built in  Kemmerer, Wyoming, which is considered a coal town. The original completion date was 2028.

 What is Now Expected

The company expects the natrium demonstration reactor operation to be delayed by at least two years because there will not be sufficient commercial capacity to produce high-assay low-enriched uranium fuel to test come the original 2028 in-service date.

TerraPower’s CEO and President Chris Levesque said Russia’s invasion of Ukraine earlier this year caused “the only commercial source of HALEU fuel” to no longer be a viable part of the supply chain. The company is now working with the US Department of Energy (DOE), Congress, and project stakeholders to explore potential alternative sources. Levesque said, “while we are working now with Congress to urge the inclusion of $2.1 billion to support HALEU in the end-of-year government funding package, it has become clear that domestic and allied HALEU manufacturing options will not reach commercial capacity in time to meet the proposed 2028 in-service date for the Natrium demonstration plant.”

The company has not provided a new schedule but expects to in 2023, when there may be more clarity of what will be available and when. “But given the lack of fuel availability now and that there has been no construction started on new fuel enrichment facilities, TerraPower is anticipating a minimum of a two-year delay to being able to bring the Natrium reactor into operation,” Levesque warned.

About the Plant and its Fuel

Kemmerer in Wyoming was selected in 2021 as the preferred site for the Natrium demonstration project, featuring a 345 MWe sodium-cooled fast reactor with a molten salt-based energy storage system. TerraPower remains fully committed to the project and is “moving full steam ahead” on the construction of the plant, licensing applications and engineering and design work, Levesque added. Work scheduled to begin in Spring 2023 on the large sodium facility will continue as planned, and TerraPower expects “minimal disruption” to the current projected start-of-construction date.

HALEU fuel is enriched to between 5% and 20% uranium-235, and is the fuel type which will fuel most of the next-generation reactor designs. The DOE has projected a national need for more than 40 tonnes of HALEU before the end of the decade to support the current administration’s goal of 100% clean electricity by 2035.

Funding the Construction

Gates helped found TerraPower in 2006 and has been the company’s chairman. TerraPower’s goal is to provide more affordable, secure, and environmentally friendly nuclear energy globally. The plant is expected to cost $4 billion. To date, $1.6 billion has been appropriated by Congress, and private funding of $830 has been raised by TerraPower.

Wyoming US Senator John Barrasso responded to the announcement saying the US  ” must reestablish itself as the global leader in nuclear energy. Instead of relying on our adversaries like Russia for uranium, the United States must produce its own supply of advanced nuclear fuel.” He said he has sent a letter to Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Joe Manchin requesting an oversight hearing early next year to ensure that DOE is “working aggressively” to make HALEU available for the USA’s first advanced reactors. He also said he has written to Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm today “blasting DOE for not moving fast enough to ensure a domestic supply of HALEU”.

Take Away

The Natrium project by Bill Gate’s company, with support from US tax dollars and Warren Buffett, is being constructed as a test. One thing the test bore out is that securing a reliable fuel supply needs a good deal more work.

Natrium plants are smaller and use current technology. These plants are expected to be built faster and cheaper than a traditional large-scale nuclear power plant. When first announced last year, Gates and Buffett said that once successfully demonstrated, the plant could be quickly expanded or replicated elsewhere.

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

Sources

https://natriumpower.com/

https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/HALEU-fuel-availability-delays-Natrium-reactor-pro

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/17/bill-gates-terrapower-builds-its-first-nuclear-reactor-in-a-coal-town.html

Release – Energy Fuels Awarded Contract to Sell $18.5 Million of Uranium to U.S. Uranium Reserve

Posted on by aweinsoff@channelchek.com

Research, News, and Market Data on UUUU

  • DOE program supports critical domestic clean energy & national security priorities
  • Pending membership in DOE HALEU Consortium to support fuel for next generation advanced nuclear reactors

LAKEWOOD, Colo., Dec. 16, 2022 /CNW/ – Energy Fuels Inc. (NYSE American: UUUU) (TSX: EFR) (“Energy Fuels” or the “Company”), a leading U.S. producer of uranium and rare earth elements (“REE“), today announced that it has been awarded a contract to sell $18.5 million of natural uranium concentrates (“U3O8“) to the U.S. government for the establishment of a strategic uranium reserve (the “Uranium Reserve“). The U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration (“NNSA“), an office within the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE“), is the agency tasked with purchasing domestic U3O8 and conversion services for the Uranium Reserve. The Uranium Reserve is intended to be a backup source of supply for domestic nuclear power plants in the event of a significant market disruption. Additionally, the Company announced its application for membership in the DOE’s newly created HALEU Consortium.

Uranium Reserve Award:

Energy Fuels expects to complete the sale of uranium for the Uranium Reserve to NNSA during Q1-2023 and realize total gross proceeds of   $18.5 million. The U3O8 the Company expects to sell to the U.S. government is currently held in the Company’s inventory at the Metropolis Works Conversion Facility, located in Metropolis, Illinois. The sale does not involve the physical movement of material, so the sale and transfer can be completed quickly.

Mark S. Chalmers, President and CEO of Energy Fuels stated: “Energy Fuels is pleased to contribute to U.S. energy security by supplying U.S.-origin uranium to the U.S. uranium reserve. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has highlighted America’s troubling dependence on Russia and its allies for our nuclear fuel and uranium supply, and the need for the U.S. to rebuild its uranium and nuclear fuel capabilities. Today, nuclear energy provides the U.S. with roughly 20% of all electricity, and 50% of our clean, carbon-free electricity. U.S. and European nuclear industries are actively working to shift away from Russian uranium supply, but the process will be difficult and lengthy. The U.S. can rely on supply from allies like Canada, Australia and others for a large proportion of our uranium and nuclear fuel supply, but we must also restore our own capabilities. For the past several years, U.S. uranium production has been near-zero and our only uranium conversion facility has been shut-down. The Uranium Reserve is a small, but important, step toward resolving this untenable situation.”

HALEU Consortium:

On December 12, 2022, Energy Fuels also applied for membership in the DOE’s newly created HALEU Consortium. The HALEU Consortium is a program managed by the DOE’s office of Nuclear Energy (“NE“) intended to help create a secure domestic supply of high-assay, low-enriched uranium (“HALEU“) used by many of the next generation of advanced nuclear reactor technologies. HALEU enables many advanced reactor designs to be smaller and more efficient than traditional reactors. The uranium used in traditional nuclear reactors is enriched to roughly 3% – 5% of the fissionable isotope, uranium-235 (“U-235“). HALEU is enriched to between 5% and 20% U-235. Today, only Russian companies are able to supply HALEU, which is causing delays in the development of advanced reactors. For example, TerraPower recently announced a delay in building its first Natrium reactor in Wyoming. TerraPower is a high-profile next generation advanced reactor developer funded by Bill Gates. TerraPower specifically attributed the delay to the lack of availability of HALEU outside of Russia.

As the leading producer of U3O8 in the U.S., and the owner and operator of the only conventional uranium mill in the U.S., Energy Fuels believes it can play an important role in advising the DOE and teaming with other companies for this critical program. Furthermore, Energy Fuels is pursuing other DOE priorities related to uranium production, including rare earth element and medical isotope production.

Mr. Chalmers continued: “Energy Fuels is increasingly recognized by the U.S. government and other market participants as indispensable to weaning the U.S. off of Russian uranium supply, and as a solid partner in other important priorities. Our White Mesa Mill is critical and unique domestic infrastructure, with licenses, expertise and capabilities found nowhere else in the U.S., that are needed to produce uranium, and many other critical minerals and materials. We stand ready to play a critical role in restoring America’s uranium, rare earths, and other critical material capabilities, while reducing our troubling dependence on Russia and China.”

About Energy Fuels: Energy Fuels is a leading U.S.-based uranium mining company, supplying U3O8 to major nuclear utilities. The Company also produces vanadium from certain of its projects, as market conditions warrant, mixed rare earth element carbonate (“RE Carbonate“) from uranium-bearing monazite ores and is ramping up to full commercial-scale production of separated rare earth oxides. Its corporate offices are in Lakewood, Colorado near Denver, and all its assets and employees are in the United States. Energy Fuels holds two of America’s key uranium production centers: the White Mesa Mill in Utah and the Nichols Ranch ISR Project in Wyoming. The White Mesa Mill is the only conventional uranium mill operating in the U.S. today, has a licensed capacity of over 8 million pounds of U3O8 per year, and has the ability to produce vanadium when market conditions warrant, as well as RE Carbonate from various uranium-bearing ores. The Nichols Ranch ISR Project is currently on standby and has a licensed capacity of 2 million pounds of U3O8 per year. In addition to the above production facilities, Energy Fuels also has one of the largest S-K 1300 and NI 43-101 compliant uranium resource portfolios in the U.S. and several uranium and uranium/vanadium mining projects on standby and in various stages of permitting and development. The primary trading market for Energy Fuels’ common shares is the NYSE American under the trading symbol “UUUU,” and the Company’s common shares are also listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange under the trading symbol “EFR.” Energy Fuels’ website is www.energyfuels.com.

Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements: This news release contains certain “Forward Looking Information” and “Forward Looking Statements” within the meaning of applicable United States and Canadian securities legislation, which may include, but are not limited to, statements with respect to: any expectation that the Company will complete the contemplated sale of uranium to the DOE in Q1-2023 or at all; any expectation that the Company will maintain its position as a leading uranium company in the United States; any expectation that the Company will be admitted as a member of the HALEU Consortium or that the Company can play an important role in this critical program; any expectation that the Mill will be successful in producing RE Carbonate and/or separated rare earth element oxides on a full-scale commercial basis or at all; any expectation that the Company will successfully produce radioisotopes to be used for the production of medical isotopes on a commercial basis or at all; any expectation that the Company is increasingly being recognized by the U.S. government and other market participants as an indispensable party in efforts to wean the U.S. off of Russian uranium supply, and a partner in other important priorities; and any expectation that the Company stands ready to play a critical role in restoring America’s uranium, rare earths and other critical material capabilities, while reducing America’s dependence on Russia and China. Generally, these forward-looking statements can be identified by the use of forward-looking terminology such as “plans,” “expects,” “does not expect,” “is expected,” “is likely,” “budgets,” “scheduled,” “estimates,” “forecasts,” “intends,” “anticipates,” “does not anticipate,” or “believes,” or variations of such words and phrases, or state that certain actions, events or results “may,” “could,” “would,” “might” or “will be taken,” “occur,” “be achieved” or “have the potential to.” All statements, other than statements of historical fact, herein are considered to be forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors which may cause the actual results, performance or achievements of the Company to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements express or implied by the forward-looking statements. Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements include risks associated with: commodity prices and price fluctuations; processing and mining difficulties, upsets and delays; permitting and licensing requirements and delays; changes to regulatory requirements; legal challenges; the availability of feed sources for the Mill; competition from other producers; public opinion; government and political actions; available supplies of monazite sands; the ability of the Mill to produce RE Carbonate to meet commercial specifications on a commercial scale at acceptable costs; the ability of the Mill to separate rare earth oxides to meet commercial specifications on a commercial scale at acceptable costs; market factors, including future demand for rare earth elements; the ability of the Mill to be able to separate radium or other radioisotopes at reasonable costs or at all; market prices and demand for medical isotopes; and the other factors described under the caption “Risk Factors” in the Company’s most recently filed Annual Report on Form 10-K, which is available for review on EDGAR at www.sec.gov/edgar.shtml, on SEDAR at www.sedar.com, and on the Company’s website at www.energyfuels.com. Forward-looking statements contained herein are made as of the date of this news release, and the Company disclaims, other than as required by law, any obligation to update any forward-looking statements whether as a result of new information, results, future events, circumstances, or if management’s estimates or opinions should change, or otherwise. There can be no assurance that forward-looking statements will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such statements. Accordingly, the reader is cautioned not to place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. The Company assumes no obligation to update the information in this communication, except as otherwise required by law.

SOURCE Energy Fuels Inc.

For further information: Investor Inquiries: Energy Fuels Inc., Curtis Moore, VP – Marketing and Corporate Development, (303) 974-2140 or Toll free: (888) 864-2125, investorinfo@energyfuels.com, www.energyfuels.com

In The Global Race for Fusion Energy – the U.S. Leaps Ahead

Posted on by phoffman@channelchek.com
U.S. Department of Energy (Flickr)

Why Fusion Ignition is Being Hailed as a Major Breakthrough in Fusion – a Nuclear Physicist Explains

American scientists have announced what they have called a major breakthrough in a long-elusive goal of creating energy from nuclear fusion.

The U.S. Department of Energy said on Dec. 13, 2022, that for the first time – and after several decades of trying – scientists have managed to get more energy out of the process than they had to put in.

But just how significant is the development? And how far off is the long-sought dream of fusion providing abundant, clean energy? Carolyn Kuranz, an associate professor of nuclear engineering at the University of Michigan who has worked at the facility that just broke the fusion record, helps explain this new result.

What Happened in the Fusion Chamber?

Fusion is a nuclear reaction that combines two atoms to create one or more new atoms with slightly less total mass. The difference in mass is released as energy, as described by Einstein’s famous equation, E = mc2 , where energy equals mass times the speed of light squared. Since the speed of light is enormous, converting just a tiny amount of mass into energy – like what happens in fusion – produces a similarly enormous amount of energy.

Fusion is the same process that powers the Sun. NASA/Wikimedia Commons

Researchers at the U.S. Government’s National Ignition Facility in California have demonstrated, for the first time, what is known as “fusion ignition.” Ignition is when a fusion reaction produces more energy than is being put into the reaction from an outside source and becomes self-sustaining.

The technique used at the National Ignition Facility involved shooting 192 lasers at a 0.04 inch (1 mm) pellet of fuel made of deuterium and tritium – two versions of the element hydrogen with extra neutrons – placed in a gold canister. When the lasers hit the canister, they produce X-rays that heat and compress the fuel pellet to about 20 times the density of lead and to more than 5 million degrees Fahrenheit (3 million Celsius) – about 100 times hotter than the surface of the Sun. If you can maintain these conditions for a long enough time, the fuel will fuse and release energy.

The fuel is held in a tiny canister designed to keep the reaction as free from contaminants as possible. U.S. Department of Energy/Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

The fuel and canister gets vaporized within a few billionths of a second during the experiment. Researchers then hope their equipment survived the heat and accurately measured the energy released by the fusion reaction.

So What Did They Accomplish?

To assess the success of a fusion experiment, physicists look at the ratio between the energy released from the process of fusion and the amount of energy within the lasers. This ratio is called gain.

Anything above a gain of 1 means that the fusion process released more energy than the lasers delivered.

On Dec. 5, 2022, the National Ignition Facility shot a pellet of fuel with 2 million joules of laser energy – about the amount of power it takes to run a hair dryer for 15 minutes – all contained within a few billionths of a second. This triggered a fusion reaction that released 3 million joules. That is a gain of about 1.5, smashing the previous record of a gain of 0.7 achieved by the facility in August 2021.

How Big a Deal is this Result?

Fusion energy has been the “holy grail” of energy production for nearly half a century. While a gain of 1.5 is, I believe, a truly historic scientific breakthrough, there is still a long way to go before fusion is a viable energy source.

While the laser energy of 2 million joules was less than the fusion yield of 3 million joules, it took the facility nearly 300 million joules to produce the lasers used in this experiment. This result has shown that fusion ignition is possible, but it will take a lot of work to improve the efficiency to the point where fusion can provide a net positive energy return when taking into consideration the entire end-to-end system, not just a single interaction between the lasers and the fuel.

Machinery used to create the powerful lasers, like these pre-amplifiers, currently requires a lot more energy than the lasers themselves produce. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, CC BY-SA

What Needs to Be Improved?

There are a number of pieces of the fusion puzzle that scientists have been steadily improving for decades to produce this result, and further work can make this process more efficient.

First, lasers were only invented in 1960. When the U.S. government completed construction of the National Ignition Facility in 2009, it was the most powerful laser facility in the world, able to deliver 1 million joules of energy to a target. The 2 million joules it produces today is 50 times more energetic than the next most powerful laser on Earth. More powerful lasers and less energy-intensive ways to produce those powerful lasers could greatly improve the overall efficiency of the system.

Fusion conditions are very challenging to sustain, and any small imperfection in the capsule or fuel can increase the energy requirement and decrease efficiency. Scientists have made a lot of progress to more efficiently transfer energy from the laser to the canister and the X-ray radiation from the canister to the fuel capsule, but currently only about 10% to 30% of the total laser energy is transferred to the canister and to the fuel.

Finally, while one part of the fuel, deuterium, is naturally abundant in sea water, tritium is much rarer. Fusion itself actually produces tritium, so researchers are hoping to develop ways of harvesting this tritium directly. In the meantime, there are other methods available to produce the needed fuel.

These and other scientific, technological and engineering hurdles will need to be overcome before fusion will produce electricity for your home. Work will also need to be done to bring the cost of a fusion power plant well down from the US$3.5 billion of the National Ignition Facility. These steps will require significant investment from both the federal government and private industry.

It’s worth noting that there is a global race around fusion, with many other labs around the world pursuing different techniques. But with the new result from the National Ignition Facility, the world has, for the first time, seen evidence that the dream of fusion is achievable.

This article was republished with permission from The Conversation, a news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts. It represents the research-based findings and thoughts of, Carolyn Kuranz, Associate Professor of Nuclear Engineering, University of Michigan. Carolyn Kuranz receives funding from the National Nuclear Security Administration and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. She serves on a review board for Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. She is a member of the Fusion Energy Science Advisory Committee.

The Winners of California’s Floating Wind Turbine Projects

Posted on by phoffman@channelchek.com
Image Credit: Scottish Government (Flickr)

How Do Floating Wind Turbines Work? Five Companies Just Won the First US Leases for Building them off California’s Coast

Northern California has some of the strongest offshore winds in the U.S., with immense potential to produce clean energy. But it also has a problem. Its continental shelf drops off quickly, making building traditional wind turbines directly on the seafloor costly if not impossible.

Once water gets more than about 200 feet deep – roughly the height of an 18-story building – these “monopile” structures are pretty much out of the question.

A solution has emerged that’s being tested in several locations around the world: wind turbines that float.

In California, where drought has put pressure on the hydropower supply, the state is moving forward on a plan to develop the nation’s first floating offshore wind farms. On Dec. 7, 2022, the federal government auctioned off five lease areas about 20 miles off the California coast to companies with plans to develop floating wind farms. The bids were lower than recent leases off the Atlantic coast, where wind farms can be anchored to the seafloor, but still significant, together exceeding US$757 million.

So, how do floating wind farms work?

Three Main Ways to Float a Turbine

A floating wind turbine works just like other wind turbines – wind pushes on the blades, causing the rotor to turn, which drives a generator that creates electricity. But instead of having its tower embedded directly into the ground or the seafloor, a floating wind turbine sits on a platform with mooring lines, such as chains or ropes, that connect to anchors in the seabed below.

These mooring lines hold the turbine in place against the wind and keep it connected to the cable that sends its electricity back to shore.

Most of the stability is provided by the floating platform itself. The trick is to design the platform so the turbine doesn’t tip too far in strong winds or storms.

Three of the common types of floating wind turbine platform. Josh Bauer/NREL

There are three main types of platforms:

A spar buoy platform is a long hollow cylinder that extends downward from the turbine tower. It floats vertically in deep water, weighted with ballast in the bottom of the cylinder to lower its center of gravity. It’s then anchored in place, but with slack lines that allow it to move with the water to avoid damage. Spar buoys have been used by the oil and gas industry for years for offshore operations.

Semisubmersible platforms have large floating hulls that spread out from the tower, also anchored to prevent drifting. Designers have been experimenting with multiple turbines on some of these hulls.

Tension leg platforms have smaller platforms with taut lines running straight to the floor below. These are lighter but more vulnerable to earthquakes or tsunamis because they rely more on the mooring lines and anchors for stability.

Each platform must support the weight of the turbine and remain stable while the turbine operates. It can do this in part because the hollow platform, often made of large steel or concrete structures, provides buoyancy to support the turbine. Since some can be fully assembled in port and towed out for installation, they might be far cheaper than fixed-bottom structures, which require specialty vessels for installation on site.

The University of Maine has been experimenting with a small floating wind turbine, about one-eighth scale, on a semisubmersible platform with RWE, one of the winning bidders.

Floating platforms can support wind turbines that can produce 10 megawatts or more of power – that’s similar in size to other offshore wind turbines and several times larger than the capacity of a typical onshore wind turbine you might see in a field.

Why Do We Need Floating Turbines?

Some of the strongest wind resources are away from shore in locations with hundreds of feet of water below, such as off the U.S. West Coast, the Great Lakes, the Mediterranean Sea and the coast of Japan.

Some of the strongest offshore wind power potential in the U.S. is in areas where the water is too deep for fixed turbines, including off the West Coast. NREL

The U.S. lease areas auctioned off in early December cover about 583 square miles in two regions – one off central California’s Morro Bay and the other near the Oregon state line. The water off California gets deep quickly, so any wind farm that is even a few miles from shore will require floating turbines.

Once built, wind farms in those five areas could provide about 4.6 gigawatts of clean electricity, enough to power 1.5 million homes, according to government estimates. The winning companies suggested they could produce even more power.

But getting actual wind turbines on the water will take time. The winners of the lease auction will undergo a Justice Department anti-trust review and then a long planning, permitting and environmental review process that typically takes several years.

The first five federal lease areas for Pacific coast offshore wind energy development. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

Globally, several full-scale demonstration projects with floating wind turbines are already operating in Europe and Asia. The Hywind Scotland project became the first commercial-scale offshore floating wind farm in 2017, with five 6-megawatt turbines supported by spar buoys designed by the Norwegian energy company Equinor.

Equinor Wind US had one of the winning bids off Central California. Another winning bidder was RWE Offshore Wind Holdings. RWE operates wind farms in Europe and has three floating wind turbine demonstration projects. The other companies involved – Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners, Invenergy and Ocean Winds – have Atlantic Coast leases or existing offshore wind farms.

While floating offshore wind farms are becoming a commercial technology, there are still technical challenges that need to be solved. The platform motion may cause higher forces on the blades and tower, and more complicated and unsteady aerodynamics. Also, as water depths get very deep, the cost of the mooring lines, anchors and electrical cabling may become very high, so cheaper but still reliable technologies will be needed.

But we can expect to see more offshore turbines supported by floating structures in the near future.

This article was republished with permission from The Conversation, a news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts. It represents the research-based findings and thoughts of, Matthew Lackner, Professor of Mechanical Engineering, UMass Amherst.

Vanguard Drops Net Zero Pledge – Will Others Follow?

Posted on by phoffman@channelchek.com
Image Credit: Jim Surkamp (Flickr)

Will Asset Managers Start Stepping Back from ESG Pledges?

The Net Zero Asset Managers (NAZM) initiative is an international group of 291 asset managers with 66 trillion in combined AUM. They all signed that they are committed to supporting the goal of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 or sooner. This week the number of asset managers was reduced by one as Vanguard, with $8.1 trillion AUM left the agreement. Vanguard said it made the decision in an effort to better speak for itself on its views and to be certain to balance client’s needs and returns along with climate impact in its funds’ investments.

“Industry initiatives like NZAM can advance constructive dialogue, but they can also create confusion about the views of individual firms. We want to provide greater clarity that Vanguard speaks freely on important matters such as climate risk. After a considerable period of review, we have decided to withdraw from the NZAM in order to provide clarity on what our investors want about the role of index funds and how we think about material risks, including climate-related risk,” said Alyssa Thornton, a spokesperson for Vanguard.

Firms that have signed the NAZM agreement are coming under a lot of pressure from states, pension funds, and others to defend how this is measurably best for the assets left in the care of the manager.

Vanguard, the world’s top mutual fund manager, official statement read, “We have decided to withdraw from NZAM so that we can provide the clarity our investors desire about the role of index funds and about how we think about material risks, including climate-related risks—and to make clear that Vanguard speaks independently on matters of importance to our investors.” Again, the themes are to not be beholden to outside control over its decisions and the company developing its own measurements of material risks from world energy-related moves.

Vanguard, said the change “will not affect our commitment to helping our investors navigate the risks that climate change can pose to their long-term returns.”

Is This Going to Be a Trend?

There is a movement growing with large clients asking investment firms to explain how their energy-investment-related decision is in line with their fiduciary role. Roughly a week ago, Consumers’ Research and 13 state attorneys general asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to review Vanguard’s request to own energy company stocks. “Americans are paying sky-high electricity rates and companies like Vanguard are making the problem worse,” Will Hild, executive director of Consumers’ Research, wrote in an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal.

Another issue Hild has with Vanguard is its meddling with strategic decisions and corporate governance at energy firms. Hild wrote, “With more than $7 trillion in assets under management, the Pennsylvania-based investment firm has publicly committed to pressuring utilities to lower their emissions.” Hild then accused, “Vanguard appears to be not only putting America’s critical infrastructure at risk but violating its agreement only to control utility company shares passively. To protect U.S. consumers and safeguard national security, FERC should investigate the company’s conduct.”

Vanguard isn’t the only firm of the 291 that are being questioned by their largest customers.

Today North Carolina State Treasurer Dale Folwell sent a letter to BlackRock’s board of directors calling for Fink to step aside because the CEO’s “pursuit of a political agenda has gotten in the way of BlackRock’s same fiduciary duty” to its investors. “A focus on ESG is not a focus on returns and could potentially force us to violate our fiduciary duty,” Folwell wrote. North Carolina has approximately $14 billion with Blackrock, and $111 billion under management.

But the fiduciary knife can be cut both ways. Those that are more concerned with any impact that continued fossil-fuel use would have on climate and economies stand behind the argument that it is not in anyone’s best interest not to follow a net zero 2050 goal. “It is unfortunate that political pressure is impacting this crucial economic imperative and attempting to block companies from effectively managing risks — a crucial part of their fiduciary duty,” said Kirsten Snow Spalding, a vice president at sustainability nonprofit Ceres and a NZAM founding partner.

Meanwhile in order to be able to best decipher how to view concepts like net zero investing, the Texas Senate Committee on State Affairs will hold a hearing on December 15 to discuss the impacts of environmental social governance (ESG) policies on state pensions. The panel has asked Vanguard, BlackRock, StateStreet and ISS to appear and answer questions about their ESG practices. Texas previously asked the four firms to turn over documents in August. The Lone Star state had subpoenaed BlackRock to provide additional documents in person after the firm failed to comply with certain aspects of the initial request.

Take Away

All trends, whether investment related or not go through a vetting period, followed by a continued push and pull to seek balance. Firms that have signed on to NAZM can do their own analysis and develop their own plans that best serve their customers. The NZAM may only get in the way. Yet, they don’t have to back-off of caring about and keeping in mind environmental principles, they can just better tailor them to those they are contracted to invest for. An outside global organization is less likely to understand how to be a fiduciary for a Vanguard fund that may be used in the Louisiana state pension system. And with more investment firms acting independently, more and better opportunities will grow from the competition.

ESG, which is in a related family, will also develop and evolve over time. Down the road, investors, analysts, and organizations providing ESG scoring can get revised measures on impact and adjust scoring based on effectiveness.

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

Sources

NetZeroAssetMgars (NZAM)

VanguardLeavesNZAM

VanguardPullsOut

VanguardAntiWoke

Release – Alvopetro Announces November 2022 Sales Volumes and an Operational Update

Posted on by aweinsoff@channelchek.com

Research, News, and Market Data on ALVOF

Dec 07, 2022

CALGARY, AB, Dec. 7, 2022 /CNW/ – Alvopetro Energy Ltd. (TSXV: ALV) (OTCQX: ALVOF) announces November 2022 sales volumes and an operational update.

November 2022 sales volumes

November sales volumes averaged 2,667 boepd, including natural gas sales of 15.2 MMcfpd and associated natural gas liquids sales from condensate of 135 bopd, based on field estimates, a decrease of 2% from the October 2022 average daily volumes and an increase of 1% from our Q3 2022 average.

Operational Update

We have now moved the service rig to our 182-C2 well on our 100% owned and operated Block 182 and expect to commence testing operations shortly. We completed drilling the 182-C2 well in October to a total measured depth (“MD”) of 3,185 metres. Testing of the 182-C2 well will begin with the Sergi Formation, the deepest of two formations with hydrocarbons shows during drilling. As previously announced, the well encountered a 223.7-metre-thick section with 121.3 metres of sand estimated above 6% porosity in the sand-dominated interval between 2,704.1 and 2,927.8 metres total vertical depth in the Sergi Formation. Caliper logs indicate that a significant amount of the wellbore in the Sergi interval contains washouts from drilling and is out of gauge, making open-hole log analysis challenging. As such, hydrocarbon potential in the Sergi will be validated through formation testing. Following testing of the Sergi Formation, testing will proceed up-hole to the Agua Grande Formation where, based on open-hole wireline logs, the well encountered 10.9 metres of potential net hydrocarbon pay, with an average porosity of 8.9% and average water saturation of 25.1%, using a 6% porosity cut-off, 50% Vshale cut-off and 50% water saturation cut-off. This testing will assess the extent, if any, of commercial hydrocarbons associated with the well, the productive capability of the well and will help define the field development plan.

Corporate Presentation

Alvopetro’s updated corporate presentation is available on our website at:http://www.alvopetro.com/corporate-presentation. 

Social Media

Follow Alvopetro on our social media channels at the following links:

     Twitter – https://twitter.com/AlvopetroEnergy     Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/alvopetro/     LinkedIn – https://www.linkedin.com/company/alvopetro-energy-ltd     YouTube –https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgDn_igrQgdlj-maR6fWB0w

Alvopetro Energy Ltd.’s vision is to become a leading independent upstream and midstream operator in Brazil. Our strategy is to unlock the on-shore natural gas potential in the state of Bahia in Brazil, building off the development of our Caburé natural gas field and our strategic midstream infrastructure.

Neither the TSX Venture Exchange nor its Regulation Services Provider (as that term is defined in the policies of the TSX Venture Exchange) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this news release.

All amounts contained in this new release are in United States dollars, unless otherwise stated and all tabular amounts are in thousands of United States dollars, except as otherwise noted.

Abbreviations:

bbls                         =              barrelsboepd                     =              barrels of oil equivalent (“boe”) per daybopd                       =              barrels of oil and/or natural gas liquids (condensate) per dayMMcf                      =              million cubic feetMMcfpd                 =              million cubic feet per day

BOE Disclosure. The term barrels of oil equivalent (“boe”) may be misleading, particularly if used in isolation. A boe conversion ratio of six thousand cubic feet per barrel (6Mcf/bbl) of natural gas to barrels of oil equivalence is based on an energy equivalency conversion method primarily applicable at the burner tip and does not represent a value equivalency at the wellhead. All boe conversions in this news release are derived from converting gas to oil in the ratio mix of six thousand cubic feet of gas to one barrel of oil.

Testing and Well Results. Data obtained from the 182-C2 well identified in this press release, including hydrocarbon shows, open-hole logging, net pay and porosities and initial testing data, should be considered to be preliminary until detailed pressure transient and other analysis and interpretation has been completed. Hydrocarbon shows can be seen during the drilling of a well in numerous circumstances and do not necessarily indicate a commercial discovery or the presence of commercial hydrocarbons in a well. There is no representation by Alvopetro that the data relating to the 182-C2 well contained in this press release is necessarily indicative of long-term performance or ultimate recovery. The reader is cautioned not to unduly rely on such data as such data may not be indicative of future performance of the well or of expected production or operational results for Alvopetro in the future.

Forward-Looking Statements and Cautionary Language. This news release contains “forward-looking information” within the meaning of applicable securities laws. The use of any of the words “will”, “expect”, “intend” and other similar words or expressions are intended to identify forward-looking information. Forward‐looking statements involve significant risks and uncertainties, should not be read as guarantees of future performance or results, and will not necessarily be accurate indications of whether or not such results will be achieved. A number of factors could cause actual results to vary significantly from the expectations discussed in the forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements reflect current assumptions and expectations regarding future events. Accordingly, when relying on forward-looking statements to make decisions, Alvopetro cautions readers not to place undue reliance on these statements, as forward-looking statements involve significant risks and uncertainties. More particularly and without limitation, this news release contains forward-looking information concerning potential hydrocarbon pay in the 182-C2 well, exploration and development prospects of Alvopetro and the expected timing of certain of Alvopetro’s testing and operational activities. The forward‐looking statements are based on certain key expectations and assumptions made by Alvopetro, including but not limited to expectations and assumptions concerning testing results of the 183-B1 well and the 182-C2 well, equipment availability, the timing of regulatory licenses and approvals, the success of future drilling, completion, testing, recompletion and development activities, the outlook for commodity markets and ability to access capital markets, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the performance of producing wells and reservoirs, well development and operating performance, foreign exchange rates, general economic and business conditions, weather and access to drilling locations, the availability and cost of labour and services, environmental regulation, including regulation relating to hydraulic fracturing and stimulation, the ability to monetize hydrocarbons discovered, expectations regarding Alvopetro’s working interest and the outcome of any redeterminations, the regulatory and legal environment and other risks associated with oil and gas operations. The reader is cautioned that assumptions used in the preparation of such information, although considered reasonable at the time of preparation, may prove to be incorrect. Actual results achieved during the forecast period will vary from the information provided herein as a result of numerous known and unknown risks and uncertainties and other factors. Although Alvopetro believes that the expectations and assumptions on which such forward-looking information is based are reasonable, undue reliance should not be placed on the forward-looking information because Alvopetro can give no assurance that it will prove to be correct. Readers are cautioned that the foregoing list of factors is not exhaustive. Additional information on factors that could affect the operations or financial results of Alvopetro are included in our annual information form which may be accessed on Alvopetro’s SEDAR profile at www.sedar.com. The forward-looking information contained in this news release is made as of the date hereof and Alvopetro undertakes no obligation to update publicly or revise any forward-looking information, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, unless so required by applicable securities laws.

SOURCE Alvopetro Energy Ltd.

Demand for Tankers Causes Shipping Rates to Explode

Posted on by phoffman@channelchek.com

Oil Tanker Day Rates To Be Supported By The EU’s Ban On Russian Crude

Over the past 12 months, global container shipping rates have steadily declined to their long-term averages as supply chain snarls have receded and backups at ports have disappeared.

Now, another segment of the cargo shipping industry is seeing day rates explode to record highs.

So-called dirty tankers, those that carry crude oil, are charging over $100,000 a day for their services as international sanctions against Russia force ships—including Suezmaxes, Aframaxes and very large crude carriers (VLCCs)—to take longer, more circuitous routes. Carriers that once made deliveries to the North Sea port of Rotterdam via the Baltic Sea are now having to sail to China, India and Turkey, which are twice or three times the distance. All three Asian countries have said they will continue to buy Russian oil.

The Baltic Exchange Dirty Tanker Index, which measures shipping rates on 12 international routes, rose as much as 243% for the 12-month period through the end of November.

So how high could rates go? According to Omar Nokta, a shipping analyst at Jefferies, they could potentially climb to between $150,000 and $200,000 a day.

We’re almost there now. The Aframax day rate to ship oil from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean hit an astronomical $145,000 a day during the week ended November 18, according to Compass Maritime.

Russia Oil Turmoil To Drive Tanker Market Higher

This week, the 27 countries of the European Union (EU) officially banned crude imports from Russia, the world’s number two producer, and on February 5, 2023, all Russian oil products will be banned. This will have the effect of disrupting global trade routes further, driving up rates even more.

As you can see below, Europe’s imports of Russian oil were already down dramatically from the beginning of 2022, when the country invaded Ukraine. Before the ban, the Netherlands was the only remaining European destination for deliveries outside of the Mediterranean and Black Sea basin. To help offset the loss of Russian supply, Norway will ship a record volume of North Sea oil in January, Bloomberg reports.

Oil Tankers Generating Record Revenues, Stocks Hitting New Highs

Due to changes in shipping routes, demand for oil tankers is expected to surge to levels not seen in three decades, according to Clarkson Research. The U.K.-based group is forecasting that the number of ton-miles, defined as one ton of freight shipped one mile, could increase 9.5% next year. That would mark the largest annual increase since 1993.

Volumes are already at pre-pandemic levels, with VLCCs and Aframaxes having exceeded 2019 volumes for the first time since the second quarter of 2020.

Oil Tankers Generating Record Revenues, Stocks Hitting New Highs

Also supporting rates is the fact that oil carriers are replacing vessels at a historically low pace.

In July, Clarksons reported that new shipbuilding orders for container vessels had surpassed those for tankers for the first time ever. Whereas the global order book for containerships stood at 72.5 million deadweight tonnage (dwt)—a measure for how much weight a ship can carrier—the orderbook for crude oil and oil product tankers was 34 million dwt, a new record low.

This has contributed to massive revenues and net income, which should keep carriers in a strong position even as container rates have dried up. Last week, Mitsui O.S.K. Lines president Takeshi Hashimoto told JPMorgan analysts that he believes profits will remain strong due to the company’s liquified natural gas (LNG) business as well as dry bulkers and tankers.

Frontline, the fourth largest oil tanker company, just reported net income of $154.4 million in the third quarter, compared to $108.5 million estimated.

Below you can see how revenues have surged for companies such as International Seaways, Ardmore Shipping and Scorpio Tankers.

With the S&P 500 still down more than 14% for the year, shares of a number of oil tankers have hit new all-time highs in recent days. Among those are Ardmore, International Seaways and Euronav. Teekay Tankers was up 226% year-to-date, while Scorpio was up 323% over the same period.

Will these returns continue? I can’t say, of course, but the structural support doesn’t appear to be going away anytime soon.

The Baltic Dirty Tanker Index is made up from 12 routes taken from the Baltic International Tanker Routes. The S&P 500 is widely regarded as the best single gauge of large-cap U.S. equities and serves as the foundation for a wide range of investment products. The index includes 500 leading companies and captures approximately 80% coverage of available market capitalization.

Holdings may change daily. Holdings are reported as of the most recent quarter-end. The following securities mentioned in the article were held by one or more accounts managed by U.S. Global Investors as of (09/30/22): Mitsui OSK Lines Ltd.

This article was republished with permission from Frank Talk, a CEO Blog by Frank Holmes of U.S. Global Investors (GROW). Find more of Frank’s articles here – Originally published October 21, 2021

US Global Investors Disclaimer

All opinions expressed and data provided are subject to change without notice. Some of these opinions may not be appropriate to every investor. By clicking the link(s) above, you will be directed to a third-party website(s). U.S. Global Investors does not endorse all information supplied by this/these website(s)  and is not responsible for its/their content.

The Baltic Dirty Tanker Index is made up from 12 routes taken from the Baltic International Tanker Routes. The S&P 500 is widely regarded as the best single gauge of large-cap U.S. equities and serves as the foundation for a wide range of investment products. The index includes 500 leading companies and captures approximately 80% coverage of available market capitalization.

Holdings may change daily. Holdings are reported as of the most recent quarter-end. The following securities mentioned in the article were held by one or more accounts managed by U.S. Global Investors as of (09/30/22): Mitsui OSK Lines Ltd.