Uranium Outlook 2026

John Ciampaglia: Uranium was added to the 2025 List of Critical Minerals. For many years, the U.S. Geological Survey, which maintains the list, did not include uranium because it argued that it was plentiful. They have just added it to the List of Critical Minerals in the last few months, which is another sign that the government is concerned about its supply chain for critical materials.

James Connor: John, I'd like to discuss nuclear energy and nuclear reactors with you. The fuel that powers the reactors is uranium. I don't think there's another sector that has so many positives or tailwinds as nuclear energy and, by extension, uranium. Yet, the move in the spot price and the term price can best be described as tepid. Why?

John Ciampaglia: I think 2025 was an unusual year for uranium. The reason is basically uncertainty. Uncertainty is primarily related to policy and the entanglement of uranium in trade policy, particularly in the context of events in Russia and the war in Ukraine. All of these factors have had a profound impact on the uranium industry. Additionally, the incoming administration at the beginning of the year created considerable uncertainty for the uranium sector. Fast-forward to the end of the year, and the uncertainty is finally starting to lessen.

The tariff threat on uranium is largely behind us. There are no tariffs. The Inflation Reduction Act, which introduced meaningful changes primarily related to renewable energy, electric vehicles and hydrogen, did not have any negative impacts on the nuclear energy sector. The Trump administration has been incredibly supportive and holistic in its policy approach to nuclear energy. And just a few weeks ago, the U.S. government announced up to $80 billion of funding to build brand-new reactors in the U.S. for the first time in many years.

2025 has been a frustrating year in terms of policy changes and uncertainty. That has weighed on the price as utilities have stepped away from the market. However, it feels as though the market has become more normal over the last few months. Participants are getting back to business because, at the end of the day, they can delay and defer purchasing uranium, but they ultimately have to buy it. It feels as though there's a lot of pent-up demand in the system that is coming to market in the next few months.

As you said, the spot price has swooned. It went from the low $70s per pound to $63 at the bottom of the first week of April. It's been as high as $82 or $83. And now we've settled into the high $70s. So it's been an up-and-down, sideways year. But it feels as though the market wants to move higher. The term price, which is obviously the more important of the two, is starting to move higher after months of stagnant prices. And that's a good sign because it signals that utilities need to pay higher prices. And you've also seen very anemic utility contracting this year. I'm going to put this into context because I think it explains a lot about the range-bound pricing.

The industry requires approximately 185 million pounds of uranium annually to sustain itself. The industry considers the replacement rate to be approximately 150 million pounds. Now, why the difference? Because not all the transactions are reported publicly. Therefore, 150 is considered a proxy for the replacement rate of contracting. So far this year, the first 11 months, we're at 75 million pounds. We're essentially at 50% of the replacement rate. And up until the end of October, we were only at 40 million pounds. As a result, there has been a significant amount of delayed purchasing for most of the year, given the uncertainty and anxiety in the marketplace. That is starting to lift, and we believe that a significant portion of that demand will be deferred to next year. That should help with pricing and send new messages and signals to the marketplace. Producers are still in a supply discipline mode. They're no longer interested in selling uranium at low prices to utilities. The stalemate that we've seen is eventually going to break.

James Connor: As you mentioned, both the spot market and the term market have been relatively quiet, with the spot price more or less flat on the year, but the equities have done very well. And when you look at Cameco, for example, the second-largest producer in the world, as of the last time I checked, I believe it was up 70% on the year, which is a significantly different performance from last year. However, the equities are now almost looking ahead. Do you think that's an indication that the price will be significantly higher in 2026?

John Ciampaglia: It clearly signals that investors are bullish on the space, and they're bullish on the equities because they're bullish on the fundamentals and the long-term pricing for uranium. Investors have obviously responded to the policy and future demand signals being sent out by the marketplace. The utilities are the primary buyers of physical uranium, and they have obviously been lagging in their procurement. The utilities are a lagging indicator, while investors are more of a leading indicator in terms of where the marketplace is and where we believe it is going. 

James Connor: Let's talk about some of the positive news. You mentioned that the U.S. plans to build 10 nuclear reactors. I believe construction is going to start in 2030. They're going to invest $80 billion. The last nuclear reactor constructed in the U.S. was in the state of Georgia, and I believe it took approximately 15 years to complete. Do you think it's feasible for the U.S. to build this many nuclear reactors? Will they be able to do it? Do they have the ability to do it?

John Ciampaglia: That's the big question. I think the answer is that they did it in the '70s, and they have clearly lost their competitive advantage by allowing the entire supply chain to disappear over the last few decades. If you look at what happened in the 1970s, similar to what's happening in China right now, they developed a highly specialized workforce and supply chain, enabling them to build reactors much more quickly. If you examine the four executive orders that the Trump administration issued in May, they indicate that the administration acknowledges the problems, including permitting times and costs, as well as the need to avoid building the same reactor model repeatedly, as is being done in China. By the way, this is approximately five to six years per reactor. They have it down to an absolute science.

Yes, it will be a challenge for the U.S. to reach that scale and efficiency. However, the U.S. government has acknowledged that utilities are not willing to take on the financial risk themselves, and a public-private partnership model is needed to kick-start the next building cycle. And that's exactly what they're trying to do: incentivize utilities to make these investments and de-risk the projects in partnership with the Department of Energy.

It's a very bullish sign because it's been one of the key elements missing from the story. Yes, we have several closed power stations and partially completed power projects. We have power stations in the U.S. coming back online, and several others are undergoing life extensions. However, we really haven't had any net new capacity. This is an important symbolic announcement, and obviously, it will take time to get shovels in the ground, but everything is moving in the right direction. Other governments around the world are making similar announcements. Put that against the backdrop of supply. Well, supply has been growing very slowly. The demand forecast keeps getting better. The supply forecast, I'd say, has been stagnant because producers are signaling that they want higher prices before they bring more pounds out of the ground. I think that's been a part of this stalemate between producers and utilities. With the exception of China, many utilities have been cautious. China continues to purchase large quantities of uranium and stockpile it for its future reactor program.

James Connor: The U.S. government has made many direct investments in mining stocks, Trilogy Metals, Lithium Americas, and MP Materials. Do you foresee them doing the same thing in a uranium company or a uranium producer?

John Ciampaglia: It's one of the most fascinating things that's happened this year in terms of how aggressive the U.S. administration has been to kick-start this reshoring of critical supply chains. As you mentioned, they're doing it with lithium, rare earths, cobalt and bismuth. This is essentially an effort to wrest control or mitigate risks from China, as China is dominant in many of these supply chains. We've seen in this trade war how China can essentially announce export restrictions on critical materials, and how those can have an immediate impact on the industry.

The question investors are now posing is, well, if they're doing this with all these other critical materials, why not uranium? And it's a great question to ask because the U.S. is hugely dependent on other countries for its uranium. I'm going to put this into context for people. The U.S. has the largest fleet of reactors in the world for now. China is expected to surpass it by 2030. And those reactors require almost 50 million pounds of uranium every year. The U.S. is expected to produce a million pounds this year. There is a significant dependence on foreign countries, some of which are friendly, such as Canada and Australia, while others, like Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, are suppliers.

The U.S. has acknowledged that it is highly dependent on other countries for critical materials that supply approximately 19% of U.S. electricity. And U.S. electricity is growing significantly due to the expansion of AI data centers. The administration floated this idea back in September, suggesting that they should consider establishing a strategic uranium reserve.

What does strategic uranium mean? We are aware of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is designed to help mitigate high prices, shortages or disruptions. What could a strategic uranium reserve look like? Well, we don't know because they haven't told us, but it could be things like equity investments in development companies in exchange for offtake for future production. It could be setting a minimum price floor for U.S. domestic uranium production. These are all tactics that they have shown us they're willing to entertain to help resuscitate and reinvigorate local uranium production. However, I think investors are taking notice of some of the deals they've announced with other companies and critical materials, and asking the question: why not uranium? We would not be at all surprised if we received some announcements in 2026 regarding additional funding.

We are aware that a significant amount of funding is currently available for the enrichment and processing of uranium, which has been the sticking point, given the breakdown in relations with Russia. Why not explore upstream opportunities in the uranium mining industry? It's a logical question, and we would not be surprised at all if we see some announcements.

James Connor: I'm reading a lot about Section 232. What exactly is it, and what does it mean for uranium?

John Ciampaglia: The U.S. government is undergoing what they call a Section 232 review on uranium, copper and some other critical materials. Essentially, it's a review to assess the frequency of strategic resilience and vulnerabilities related to critical materials. Given the math I just laid out for you around their dependence on uranium from other countries, it's no surprise that they're going through another one of these reviews. It is delayed due to the U.S. government shutdown, but we expect it to be released sometime in the first half of next year. This report will likely outline the issues the industry is facing regarding its dependence on other countries for uranium. It's impossible to know exactly what actions will result from that, but I think it's essential that it sets the stage for increased investment and intervention. Another recent government action was the addition of uranium to the List of Critical Minerals. For many years, the U.S. Geological Survey, which keeps the list, did not include uranium because it argued it was plentiful. They just added it to the critical material list in the last few months, which is also another sign that the government is concerned about its supply chain for critical materials.

James Connor: It sounds to me like 2026 is going to be a great year for uranium.

John Ciampaglia: It feels like it's setting up. It feels like a lot of this uncertainty is behind us and that everyone's getting back to business, which is building up more capacity and ensuring their future uranium requirements are covered. There are also some very interesting mine developments happening in the first quarter, where a couple of key mines are expected to finally obtain their environmental permits. It's all starting to happen at last. That's very exciting because investors have been waiting a long time for these things to get approved, finally.

James Connor: Well, that was a great overview. Thank you very much for taking the time to speak with us today and sharing your thoughts. If investors would like to learn more about nuclear energy and uranium, where can they find reliable information?

John Ciampaglia: Come to sprott.com. We obviously have all of our products there, the different uranium mining funds and the physical trust. There's a great Insights section. We produce a significant amount of commentary each month, as well as podcasts and webcasts that cover this topic. We like to be the go-to place for all things uranium. Sprott is the largest manager of uranium investments globally. It's something we've made a huge investment in, and education has been a real focal point for us.

James Connor: John, once again, thank you.

John Ciampaglia: Thank you for having me.