r/uranium_io

A lot of the discussion around ARM today centers on its ~18% China revenue exposure (mostly royalty revenue through licensees like Samsung and SK Hynix). Ran the EPS sensitivity instead of just looking at the headline percentage: a 10% cut to that China revenue only moves EPS by about $0.01. The royalty/licensing model has enough operating leverage that revenue shocks don't translate 1:1 into earnings hits.

HPE was up almost identically (+10.0%) the same session, which points more toward broad tech/infra rotation than an ARM-specific catalyst. The AI infrastructure and custom silicon design-win narrative ("physical AI buildout" robotics, edge, data centers) is getting cited as the underlying driver.

Full writeup: https://metricshour.com/briefs/2026-07-10/

Curious if others are seeing the same EPS math or reading the exposure risk differently.

This is preaching to the choir here, but still a great overview.

They cited research showing US data center power consumption is on track to balloon from 176 TWh to a mind-blowing 580 TWh by 2028, a more than threefold increase in just two years. We've been talking about the AI demand narrative every day, but seeing the actual scale of it compared to the physical limits of our grid is a huge reality check.

After years of blockchain pilots and experimentation, major financial institutions are increasingly moving real-world assets on-chain.

BlackRock CEO Larry Fink has called tokenization the “next generation for markets,” while Forbes highlights what it describes as a $5.5 trillion bet as major banks race to build for tokenized finance.

The bigger question is no longer whether traditional finance will use blockchain, but how much of the financial system eventually moves on-chain.

What do you think will be tokenized at scale first: funds, bonds, commodities, equities or something else?

This caught my attention.

India’s parliament is pushing for uranium mining projects to move faster as the country expands nuclear power, with UCIL aiming to double production by 2036.

For a country with more than 1.4 billion people and rapidly growing electricity demand, that feels significant.

Yes, more domestic mining means more supply too, but the bigger takeaway for me is that India clearly expects to need a lot more uranium in the years ahead.

If nuclear capacity grows faster than domestic production, imports will have to make up the difference.

India alone probably won’t move the uranium price, but when you add this to the nuclear expansion happening across China and other countries, the demand picture keeps getting stronger.

Could this be one of the catalysts that eventually pushes uranium prices higher?

Most people don't realize uranium barely trades like a normal commodity at all. There's a small spot market for one-off volumes, sure, but utilities buy the vast majority of what they need through long-term contracts negotiated directly with suppliers like Cameco. That structural quirk is basically the whole reason this market moves so differently from oil or gold, and it matters more than people give it credit for.

Cameco's contract book is actually a pretty clean window into what buyers think prices are doing. As of Q1 2026 they'd locked in contracts requiring average annual deliveries of more than 28 million pounds over the next five years. President Grant Isaac said on a podcast in April that roughly 70% of the volumes contracted in 2025 were already pricing uranium near a $120/lb midpoint, built through floor and ceiling mechanisms, floors in the high $70s, ceilings around $160, both escalating over time. That's utilities, the actual buyers, effectively underwriting sustained triple-digit pricing years out. Not just Cameco talking their own book.

Demand side backs it up too. Cameco just signed a nine-year, roughly $2.6B deal to supply India's Department of Atomic Energy with nearly 22 million pounds of uranium, part of India's push toward 100GW of nuclear capacity by 2047. Westinghouse's AP1000 pipeline has 91 potential reactors in it, backed by a conditional $17.5B DOE commitment to speed deployment. Supply just hasn't kept up with any of this, a decade of underinvestment in new mining plus shrinking secondary supply sources will do that.

Here's the catch management actually admitted on the Q2 call though. Contracting still isn't happening at replacement-rate demand, meaning utilities as a group aren't yet signing enough uranium to fully replace what they're burning through. If that gap stays open, price growth could stall even with supply this tight.

Feels like Cameco is basically a bet that the contract terms getting signed right now are the real signal, not hype. Anyone actually follow the contracting cycle closely enough to know how fast that replacement-rate gap is closing, or is this still mostly a wait-and-see story?

The Committee on Public Undertakings' comments came in a report covering the progress of India's planned nuclear energy expansion.

It included the recommendations from an earlier report and the responses received from Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL) and the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE). The report notes DAE's assurance that by 2036 "Uranium Corporation of India Ltd (UCIL), Jaduguda plans to double the production by enhancing the existing mine capacity as well as setting up uranium mining projects in Jharkhand, Rajasthan and Chhattisgarh".

The committee welcomes the "concrete project roadmap" provided but says "nevertheless, the Committee notes that the timeline for full realisation stretches to 2036, whereas NPCIL's massive capacity additions are front-loaded over the next decade. Any delay in the commissioning of these mining clusters will prolong the strategic sensitivity of relying on imported fuel lines".