Initial testing of the metal powders has already been conducted, and this contract brings MPW and Westinghouse into a more comprehensive stage of assessment, and underscores the growing importance of additive manufacturing in the global nuclear market.

This market has been evaluated at more than USD$36.72 billion in 2025, encouraged by the push for carbon-free energy and small modular reactor (SMR) deployments.

Within this, the CAGR (compound annual growth rate) of the additive manufacturing market in nuclear applications is expected to grow by more than 20% through 2030, providing MPW with positive expectations for its future.

This company has previously engaged with several major industrial and government partners, and continues to test its powders with prospective customers in aerospace, defence, and energy sectors, with efforts continuing to secure additional commercial contracts as part of its strategic rollout.

Co-founder and managing director John Barnes said the contract was an important milestone for MPW.

“The nuclear sector places some of the most stringent demands on material quality, and reflects the precision and reliability of our DirectPowder™ process,” he said.

“We believe additive manufacturing has a transformative role to play in next-generation nuclear technologies, and we are proud to be assessed by an industry leader to help deliver those solutions.”

MPW has been trading at 46 cents.

Join the discussion: See what HotCopper users are saying about MPW and be part of the conversations that move the markets.

Along the way, we’re joined by markets reporter Caroline Smith who also provides insights as we discuss the nuclear debate and the information – and mis-information (ie fear campaign!) – that’s been circulating in the sometimes ugly marketing and media circus surrounding the upcoming vote.

We look at a host of other promises from each side of the fence and address the biggest election issues: The cost of living and housing crises.

Before we go, you’ll hear us explore the question… Are Australia’s Prime Ministers paid enough to really attract the quality of talent needed to run a country?

For the full podcast episode, you can listen below – right here in the browser.

Join the discussion: See what’s trending right now on Australia’s largest stock forum and be part of the conversations that move the markets.

Disclaimer: This article contains information and educational content provided by Jevons Global Pty Ltd, a Corporate Authorised Representative (AR1250727) of BR Securities Australia Pty Ltd (ABN 92 168 734 530) which holds an Australian Financial Services License (AFSL 456663). The Market Online does not operate under a financial services licence and relies on the exemption available under section 911A(2)(eb) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) in respect of any advice given.

The information is intended to be general in nature and is not personal financial advice. It does not take into account your personal financial situation or objectives and you should consider consulting a qualified financial professional before making any investment decision. All brands and trademarks included in this report remain the property of their owners.

The material provided in this podcast is for information only and should not be treated as investment advice. Viewers are encouraged to conduct their own research and consult with a certified financial advisor before making any investment decisions. For full disclaimer information, please click here.

So, is Liberal leader Peter Dutton right in claiming nuclear is crucial for Australia’s future energy needs? Or, Is Labor’s Anthony Albanese being responsible in saying the costs and historical risks outweigh the reward.

Hear from the experts at this week’s WA Mining Club May event at Perth’s Optus Stadium.

The panellists you’ll see in this debate filmed by HotCopper are:

The material provided in this article is for information only and should not be treated as investment advice. Viewers are encouraged to conduct their own research and consult with a certified financial advisor before making any investment decisions. For full disclaimer information, please click here.

The analysis was released on Monday night, hours after Prime Minister Anthony Albanese visited Queensland’s Gympie and Rockhampton as part of a pre-election tour.

Based on calculations from Australian Energy Market Operator figures, it claimed the Liberal-National coalition’s proposal to build and operate two nuclear reactors in the state would affect its economy by $872B, in addition to affecting Queensland’s output by $61.1B in 2050-51 alone.

Commenting on the latter factor, Mr Albanese said opposition leader Peter Dutton’s nuclear plans would take Australia backwards in terms of economic activity.

“Under the Coalition [Dutton’s] vision is for a smaller Australia, is for making less things, is for less economic activity, is for less jobs,” he said.

“A Soviet-style command economy of the energy system with his nuclear plan, because no one in the private sector would touch this with a barge pole because it doesn’t add up economically.”

According to Dutton’s nuclear strategy, seven reactors would be built across Australia, with two in Queensland, these being Tarong, north-west of Brisbane, and Callide, west of Gladstone.

The additional five would be Liddell and Mount Piper in New South Wales (in the Hunter Valley and near Lithgow respectively), Port Augusta in South Australia, Loy Yang in Victoria’s Latrobe Valley, and Muja in Western Australia (near the town of Collie). Per the plan, these would be operational between 2035 and 2037.

The proposal offers a series of challenges to Australia: A country that contains the world’s largest deposits of uranium, but only one nuclear reactor (Lucas Heights in Sydney, used solely for scientific and medicinal purposes).

Like many other Australian states, Queensland has a ban on uranium mining – this has been in place since 1989 – although exploration and development is ongoing at three main deposits.

These are Laramide Resources’ (ASX:LAM) Westmoreland – located in the far north, Paladin Energy’s (ASX:PDN) Valhalla – close to Mt Isa, and Ben Lomond – west of Townsville, which is being developed by Canadian company IsoEnergy. Mining previously occurred within the state, with production from the Mary Kathleen mine (also near Mt Isa) running from 1958 to 1982, when its resources depleted.

And Queensland’s political outlook on the issue is conflicted: On one hand, the state gov’t just recently elected in October under David Crisafulli has indicated it would push back against Peter Dutton’s nuclear plans.

At the same time, figures such as Robbie Katter – the Katter Australia Party member for Traeger (near Mary Kathleen township) – have said he would like to start a conversation about domestic supply.

After a lot of chatter about the coalition’s proposal to place uranium at the heart of its energy strategy, it called on consultancy firm Frontier Economics to produce a financial modelling report, which was duly released in December.

According to this, the capital and operating costs of the coalition plan (of 7 nuclear reactors across Australia and net zero emissions by 2050) would be $331B – or $263B less than Labor’s plan.

According to the coalition’s plan, Australia’s energy market (by 2050) would be comprised of 54% renewable energy and 38% nuclear energy, with the rest made up of storage solutions – gas and batteries. By contrast, Labor’s vision for energy by that time would be built around 94% renewables.

Another difference lies in the approach to coal from each political side: Labor anticipates the phasing out of coal-fired energy by 2034, while the coalition has acknowledged its plan would see coal being a feature of the market past that point, with nuclear reactors not going online until 2036.

But is the argument about lower costs correct? Labor has said no, pointing to statements from national science agency the CSIRO that nuclear energy would be significantly more expensive for Australia.

In December, the CSIRO said building a nuclear power plant would cost twice as much as renewable energy, and that power plants would provide few financial benefits despite having a relatively long shelf life.

Crucially, it argued, “Long development lead times mean nuclear won’t be able to make a significant contribution to achieving net zero emissions by 2050.”

Join the discussion: See what’s trending right now on Australia’s largest stock forum and be part of the conversations that move the markets.

The material provided in this article is for information only and should not be treated as investment advice. Viewers are encouraged to conduct their own research and consult with a certified financial advisor before making any investment decisions. For full disclaimer information, please click here.

This week it was the RIU Uranium Investment Day and for something different it was held at Claremont Football Club.

Now Claremont is in the heart of Perth’s western suburbs, smack bang in what locals like to claim as the city’s ‘golden triangle’ – and you need more than a bit of gold to live there… the state’s most expensive real estate lies in the vicinity.

With more than a week to go, the delegate list for the investment event was well over-subscribed.

But there’s another reason for the venue choice… which I didn’t realise until I spotted a portrait on the wall of the venue – and maybe not all investors are aware of Jaxon Crabb’s connection to the Claremont footy club, nor his notable playing career!

We hit him up on the topic after our interview at the event this week!

Disclaimer: The material provided in this article is for information only and should not be treated as investment advice. Viewers are encouraged to conduct their own research and consult with a certified financial advisor before making any investment decisions. For full disclaimer information, please click here.

In this interview, he gives his view on the macro demand dynamics for uranium in Australia and globally.

Jon was at the RIU Uranium Investment Day at Claremont Football Club this week in Perth.

Disclaimer: The material provided in this article is for information only and should not be treated as investment advice. Viewers are encouraged to conduct their own research and consult with a certified financial advisor before making any investment decisions. For full disclaimer information, please click here.

The price was climbing in late 2023, a bright spot standing out in an otherwise dull global market environment. Just think back to the record low volume of IPOs we saw on the ASX and international markets last year.

But uranium was, forgive the pun, glowing.

Key to converting most bears into bulls for the new year was that uranium prices had breached pre-Fukushima levels. I spent a lot of time writing about uranium upside for this masthead, and so did the rest of the financial commentariat. Even my Grandmother became interested.

All who called a bull run for uranium were then vindicated when prices climbed over US$100/lb during one brief period earlier this year.

Since then, however, the nuclear fuel has been hovering closer to US$85/lb. So what’s going on? And will prices continue to fall, or rise from here?

It goes without saying this is ultimately up to fate, but there are some recent developments in the uranium market we can look at when trying to divine where uranium prices could go – and with it, potentially the share prices of companies that operate in the space.

In terms of infrastructure and supply and demand fundamentals, the major uranium catalyst heading into FY25 ins’t the USA’s tenuous ‘ban’ on Russian uranium; nor is it massive supply increases from Canada’s Cameco (though this is important for sentiment – more on that in a moment.)

And while Kazatomprom’s production issues linger, there’s a fresh catalyst uranium watchers are increasingly eyeing as FY25 gets underway. It’s China – namely, that country’s acceleration of nuclear energy capacity.

The World Nuclear Association (WNA) announced in April of this year that China “has become self-sufficient in most aspects of the fuel cycle.”

Key to this is China’s rapid construction of at least 20 new nuclear reactors in the country underway as of mid-June in 2024.

This becomes more significant when you consider that in a May report, the International Energy Agency (IEA) calculated China had no less than 55 working nuclear reactors already online, able to produce some 53.2GW of power.

While the Chinese economy remains in the doldrums on all fronts – exemplified by iron ore prices – it’s still miles ahead of the USA when it comes to building out nuclear capacity. In fact, the authors of the EIA report stated that “it took the US nearly 40 years to add the same nuclear power capacity as China added in 10 years.”

China’s rapid construction of nuclear power capacity can be underscored by the fact the country is currently building a uranium feedstock storage warehouse on the border of China and Kazakhstan – the world’s largest producer, when it isn’t having output troubles – in Xinjiang.

That warehouse is set to store up to 7.8M pounds of uranium – as part of its Phase I design – which will also become the site of a major uranium trading hub, as described in a recent quarterly update from Kazatomprom.

So that’s the bull case for demand. But then there’s Cameco’s February announcement.

One of the key factors that helped to push uranium futures below US$100/lb earlier this year – Kazatomprom’s output problems notwithstanding – was an announcement from Canada’s largely state-owned uranium miner Cameco.

Cameco, while not the largest producer, can give Kazatomprom a decent run for its money.

And so it was that when the company announced it would boost production through the mid-2020’s and beyond, traders suddenly felt a lot less risk-on.

Cameco has a plan to produce up to 43 million pounds of uranium from its McArthur River/Key Lake project – that’s made up of an 18M pound target for this year, and, an expansion of capacity to 25M pounds on site “when the time is right.”

While China’s economic woes, run-of-the-mill corrections following bull runs and an always-fickle commodities trading market were also part of the downward pressure, it was Cameco’s production boost announcement that really knocked uranium out of the US$100+ range.

ASX stocks here at home were, following the Canadian giant’s announcement, slaughtered in February of 2024.

It appears that Cameco’s announcement was overlooked by many uranium watchers as focus drifted towards the USA’s recently passed legislation “banning” Russian uranium imports (despite actually allowing them up until 2028.)

Cameco announced its production boost news in February of 2024.

On the 5th of that month, uranium prices were US$100/lb. By March 11, prices were at US$85/lb, and they’ve stayed rangebound there since.

A chart tracking NYMEX prices speaks for itself:

At the time of writing – lunchtime on Monday July 1, 2024 – uranium prices remain at US$85.75/lb.

Whether or not this is good reason to adopt a more pessimistic view on the nuclear fuel feedstock is in the eye of the beholder.

Even at US$85/lb, the commodity is up 54% YoY and up +1.42% WoW. But its rangebound nature can be exemplified in that MoM price action is down -5%.

Ultimately, with Kazatomprom still working through issues and Cameco set to fill much of that gap, there’s no real meaningful catalyst immediately obvious to suggest prices will be leaving the US$85 range any time soon.

Of course, that US$85 figure also reflects a still robust historical high for the commodity, still well-above pre-Fukushima prices. If you ignore an anomalous spike in 2006-2007, the price of uranium is still near all time highs.

So with that in mind – what companies on the ASX are operating in the space through FY25?

All of the below financial information is correct as at 1pm Monday 1 July according to a service that ports Morningstar data. TMO has a relationship with Haranga and Infini.

Haranga Resources is a microcap uranium explorer operating in Senegal, West Africa.

The company’s flagship Saraya project has seen geotechs active on-site across FY24 plugging away at metallurgical tests most recently, with the company posting a 90% uranium extraction result on ore from Saraya.

Additional to its flagship is a second region of intense interest called Sanela.

The company is also of interest to many uranium watchers given its novel methodology utilised at multiple times to help get an idea of where uranium mineralisation lies on-site – the company tests termite mounds which, by nature of the insects’ activity, brings up soil samples to surface where they can be easily collected.

Infini Resources is another microcap uranium explorer based in Newfoundland, Canada.

The company most recently gathered trader interest when it shot up 100% to 31cps on Monday 1 July on the back of high-grade uranium assays found in soil samples with some results hitting grades over 1%.

For context, many hard rock uranium mines in production handle ore significantly lower on a parts per million basis. While only a few results clocked over 1%, a number of other assay hits considered high grade were also clocked.

That news followed exploration fieldwork on-site in late May which logged evidence of mineralisation at its flagship Portland Creek project.

Turning away from microcaps and to established majors, Deep Yellow (ASX:DYL) is one of the better known uranium miners on the ASX. In some circles, it’s also a household name.

The long-running stock has rights to one of the largest uranium landholdings on the ASX at Tumas in Namibia and has posted an impressive +71% 1Y return as uranium price movements have rallied upward since this time last year.

That rally saw the company’s April raising oversubscribed to, even as prices had by then slipped from US$100/lb to US$85/lb. In June of 2024, the company officially made it into the ASX200 index – a testament to a still-robust interest in what uranium holds for FY25.

Boss Energy is another established producer within the ASX-listed uranium sector with its onshore Honeymoon project in South Australia the subject of great interest to uranium watchers even before the 2023 rally.

The company most recently flagged fresh uranium intercepts at Gould’s Dam – nearby existing assets – which left management commenting on the target of interest’s “strong potential.”

Most notably – the company anticipates to kick off domestic uranium sales before the start of CY25.

The company also recently flagged a surprise copper find on-site its landholding.

Will the uranium boom last this time around?

In this forum, you can hear from the leaders of 6 ASX-listed uranium companies, as well as Peak Asset Management’s Executive Director, Niv Dagan.

In this webinar, I speak with:

The material provided in this article and webinar is for information only and should not be treated as investment advice. Viewers are encouraged to conduct their own research and consult with a certified financial advisor before making any investment decisions. For full disclaimer information, please click here.