Leigh Goehring: Gold's "Massive Bull Market" Just Starting; Uranium and Copper Outlook

[@InvestingNews]

❓ Is the outlook for copper overblown? Tell us in the comments!

[@stephenpaul4258]

Over this year there has been a lot of flawed analysts on copper. China downturn and possible economical recession has to be clarified prior to copper movement opinions.

[@tesskansas]

50$ a pound copper is in our future

[@whiterabbit3439]

Incredibly passionate and knowledgeable guest, Charlotte!

[@derspreewalder2286]

Thanks Charlotte for your interview with Mr. Goehring. 👍👍

[@DanBergman-td1uc]

Silver is in a year over year deficit. There does not appear to be any reason to believe that will change in the near or mid term. In my assessment, that makes silver a more attractive investment. Silver has actual strong and rising industrial demand as well as the hard asset monetary demand aspect in addition to being Increasingly rare. It is somewhat different than past bull market scenarios

[@Myth-zd6ko]

The new solar panels require much more silver than te old ones. If we continue to build out solar which are very likely it will be enough to push silverdemand much higher. Or if Siemens new battery which also requires more silver really takes off. The fundamental demand for silver is much more attractive IMHO.

[@dorotheasaragi178]

Great interview! Thank you so much! Regards from Germany

[@anthonyjowers1923]

He is the the commodities analyst in my opinion

[@littlejohnjp]

Thank you for your wonderful guests and your interviews done with class, Charlotte. Your interviews with a cold glass of beer is a perfect evening.

[@HML-it7te]

8:58 the answer is Gold investment is being “distracted” by both: Chip/Tech stocks, Cryptos. Once those “break”, look out. Until there is a currency system reset they will continue to inflate the dollar value to zero.

[@ejbh3160]

Ok now it's just misleading (copper contrarian segment). Renewables "efficiency" is a misleading argument, especially when comparing efficiency of renewable energy sources like solar and wind with nuclear and fossil fuels. The concept of efficiency in energy systems typically refers to how much of the input energy is converted into usable power. For fossil fuels and nuclear, this means converting heat from burning fuel or nuclear reactions into electricity. But the input energy (coal, gas, or uranium) is limited and requires significant effort to extract, transport, and process. Inefficiencies here mean wasted, non-renewable resources and more pollution. 1 to 100 & 1 to 5? What does he even mean? And there's plenty of co2 in nukes. Not only in the masses of concrete needed to build them, but also to mine the fuel and process it. With solar and wind, however, efficiency works differently. Their "input energy"-sunlight and wind-is freely available, limitless, and naturally occurring. The 'payback' time for the energy put into manufacturing a PV panel at scale is MUCH less than nuclear power stations which take years to build and years to pay back (if they EVER do when you take into account management of the 'waste' for hundreds of thousands of years - which has a 'cost' too) - When we talk about the efficiency of a solar panel or a wind turbine, we're discussing how much of the available sunlight or wind gets converted into electricity-not how much we "lose" in wasteful burning and waste hot water for cooling. Since we’re not burning finite resources, the efficiency metric is far less relevant for renewables. A "low-efficiency" solar panel still doesn’t deplete any fuel and produces clean energy regardless. Comparing the efficiency of renewables to fossil fuels or nuclear is like comparing apples to oranges. Solar and wind don’t need to be highly "efficient" to provide value; they tap into abundant, free sources without polluting. For fossil fuels and nuclear, efficiency losses mean environmental harm, finite resource use, and economic cost. This is why discussions around energy efficiency must consider context-the renewable sources’ low-impact nature and endless availability make efficiency a minor point compared to their overall environmental benefits. Today in the UK a home can put a PV array on the roof with a battery under the stairs and be off-grid for 90% of the year (I do)... and it's only a matter of scale, so within a few years that will be 100% of the year and include heating, cooling, cooking and electric toys... then industry will have to sort its own energy out... and renewables will be the cheapest option there too (in most cases).

[@lorilacour7816]

That was a great interview

[@VancouverStacker]

_.......keep stack'n the metals folks !_

[@danoneill2846]

Many Thanks !

[@michael-z3n7t]

Great content !!!!!!!

[@KILBY999.9]

Fascinating SMR lesson. Also, couldn't agree more regarding multiple black swan events more likely than not. Cold beef stew NYE 2029? BEEF!! Not if Klaus gets his way.

[@miket2916]

How did Leigh find that out about Total? Total accepting renminbi for LNG? Edit: not news that Total is supplying China with nat gas... news that they are accepting China's currency though It seems like you/he has a source?

[@Sprintervan]

Great interview, thank you Charlotte.

[@macca3539]

Super interview. Great questions. Leigh has such a wealth of knowledge. Thanks so much!

[@ruckercarlson6229]

Oil goes up gold stocks tank, gold price moves higher almost all gold stocks sell off or don't move.

[@RichardKut-j7m]

Thanks again,

[@WinfieldMacDonald]

Great interview...thanks

[@DaveG-qd6ug]

Love you both, thanks so much !! 🥰🤗

[@Eric-is1jt]

Here's want to own , Fort Knox & everything in it, hopefully that includes a few million ounces of 24 karat Gold that might still be there! 😂😅😮

[@miket2916]

Wow! Lyn Alden's looking a lot different these days

[@chrish9311]

Legend

[@jaykraft9523]

Nice job!! I think Lou Gehrig would be very proud of Leigh Goehring. Just saying

[@gregfridholm2136]

39:00 Did I misunderstand or falsely remember a recent G&R report that suggests that copper demand will increase because of build outs in India, Indonesia, etc.? So what if renewables are dud? Global copper supply/demand fundamentals are still bullish, eh? Edit: This is the push back. Have you rotated? And how will that new nuclear electricity get transmitted? So don't buy more, but if we're already in, it's okay? Just dividends (yay!), not growth?

[@rickfool1452]

oklo terra power

[@stephenpaul4258]

I still have not heard a rational explanation why the miners are seriously lagging the spot gold price. My view is: 1. The gold bug pumpers have burnt a lot of investors in the past creating fear in the market. Gold ETF's taking money out of the miners which did not exist in the past. Poor management and decisions by some gold miners. Crypto market investments taking money out of the gold market. My strategy on miners is to short term trade momentum on under priced performers.

[@Timothy_Pitt]

Mean reversion will likely return when fundamentals of gold producers force institutions & generalists to buy

[@superstar5123]

buy physical, miners are a waste of time

[@gregfridholm2136]

Most all of the above. The issue is we're early. Learn how to cull the real projects / mines from the scammers, and buy (and hold until silver outperforms gold, then sell) hand over fist now. It's just early.

[@nathanielringdahl]

I’ve heard the explanation that it was central banks buying gold, not western investors yet. The central banks buy gold itself, not mining equities. Once the western investor joins in on the bull market, miners will rerate 🤷‍♂️ Seemed reasonable to me

[@longgowhereto]

The world is out Stephen. After the ADR desaster, the trust is gone. I can stack metal in Asia, but not miners. Canada and US have no pm reserves. Confiscations are clear to expect or of course another theft.

[@johnbutler3141]

If the usa wants resources from the BRICS. Do you think they will accept an unbacked currency. Not a chance.

[@stanmitchell3375]

when he talks about energy efficiency he isnt clear,

[@ejbh3160]

Uranium - what a joke. With breeder reactors we can use the stockpiles of MOX and won't need any new uranium for fuel for about 200 years. Anyone spending billions on massive nuke infrastructure needs their head examined - wind, solar and batteries (WSB) will do the job better and MUCH cheaper. Batteries can provide 'base power' much cheaper than nukes, and making biogas from bio waste is a much more sustainable backup for the WSB system, because we can make that every day and store it, (as LBG) but will only need it occasionally for a few days at a time. Nukes still have a place - but their primary role should be converting all that MOX into something less dangerous, using breeder reactors which transmute it into shorter lived and less toxic isotopes... as a duty to future generation.

[@joe-hp4nk]

I don't think you're a expert in nuclear power.

[@rickfool1452]

neither are you

[@joe-hp4nk]

@@rickfool1452 That make two of us.

[@rickfool1452]

@@joe-hp4nk i never made a claim that someone is or isn't. he knows more than u for sure.

[@joe-hp4nk]

@@rickfool1452 Really

[@rickfool1452]

@joe-hp4nk ye