Welcome to Nuclear Update.

Today we’re doing some arithmetic.

Hang in there.

This is the kind of napkin math that explains why nuclear fuel keeps sneaking back into energy security briefings, why geopolitics is all over the news right now, and why supply headlines matter more than most people think, and not just for investors.

It matters for anyone who cares about nuclear at scale.

This is a sponsored feature in collaboration with Skyharbour Resources (TSX-V: SYH) (OTCQX: SYHBF), and we’ll use their story to show how the numbers add up.

Let’s do the math.

🧮 Calculating nuclear demand is the “easy” part

Nuclear demand is not like trendy consumer tech where the whole world changes in six months.

A reactor is a multi year project. Even once built, it runs for decades. Fuel cycles are planned well ahead. Utilities like stability, regulators demand it, and the grid absolutely depends on it.

So nuclear fuel demand is “easy” to project in the sense that it moves slowly and it is sticky.

We can literally count steel in the ground: right now there are about 70 reactors under construction globally, representing roughly 69 GWe of new capacity that will be coming online over the next several years.

Once those units are operating, a generic rule of thumb is that reactors consume around 400 000 lbs of uranium per GWe per year (depending on assumptions like enrichment tails and fleet efficiency).

That puts the “under construction” fleet at roughly 28 million lbs of uranium per year of incremental annual demand as it ramps into operation.

If a country announces new builds, life extensions, uprates, or a fleet restart trend, that tends to translate into multi year fuel demand planning. The exact timing can slip, but the direction is clear.

The math might be boring, but it doesn’t lie.

🤔 Supply is where the math gets messy

Mines do not appear on command (not even if you close your eyes and wish really hard, and have a pure heart).

Even if you already know the uranium is there, the distance between “ore in the ground” and “pounds delivered” is measured in years, not quarters (same as a nuclear buildout!).

And the punchline is that even today’s supply base is not as big as people assume: global uranium demand is around 190 million pounds per year, while mine supply is closer to 155 million pounds, with the gap covered by inventories and secondary supply.

That gap exists because building supply is a three part problem, and none of the parts move fast: paper(work), rocks and scissors, just kidding, and money.

Start with the paperwork. Uranium is regulated for good reasons, and permits, consultations, and compliance are slow, expensive, and very real execution risk.

Geology also slows things down. Some deposits are deep. Some are structurally controlled. Some need serious engineering just to reach, let alone mine safely and economically.

And finally you have the capital cycle. Money tends to show up late. By the time the financing window opens, the physical timeline still does not magically speed up.

So when people say “just dig up more uranium” what they really mean is “please invent time travel”.

Here is the part that often gets ignored in mainstream nuclear discussions.

The uranium that will fuel reactors in the late 2030s and 2040s is not coming from today’s mines. It has to come from projects that are still being drilled and defined right now. Some of it has to come from deposits that have not even been found yet.

Which means the upstream question is not only “how many pounds are being mined today?” It is also “how many new systems are being discovered and advanced right now?”

Exploration is the first stage of fuel security. No discovery pipeline, no future mine pipeline, and the demand side becomes a lot less “easy” when utilities start competing for fewer options.

So if future supply depends on how many quality attempts we can fund today, the obvious question is: how do you increase the number of shots on goal without constantly tapping the market?

🧩 The Prospect Generator Model

That is math Skyharbour Resources is structured around.

How does a company with ~C$60 million market cap have 37 projects across 600 000 hectares in the prolific Athabasca Basin?

Uranium exploration is a probability game. You want as many high quality shots on goal as possible in the best neighborhood, and the dream setup is simple: keep the upside, share the drill bill.

Skyharbour runs a Prospect Generator model. They build a portfolio of projects in a top tier uranium jurisdiction (Athabasca Basin), advance their highest conviction projects themselves, and bring in partners on other projects.

Those partners fund exploration in exchange for earning an interest over time, which means Skyharbour can keep the upside without paying for every drill program.

Today, Skyharbour has 10 active partners, collectively committing up to ~CAD $118 million in total project consideration, including exploration expenditures as well as cash and share payments to the company.

The clearest example is Russell Lake, where Skyharbour’s strategic transaction with Denison Mines changes what is possible on the ground. The deal includes up to C$61.5 million in combined consideration, an initial C$18 million payment in cash and shares, and up to C$43.5 million in exploration expenditures and cash over 7 years.

Translation for normal people: Russell Lake moved from “interesting ground” to “funded runway,” with a multi-billion dollar partner that’s developing Wheeler River, which is likely to be the next uranium mine coming online in the Basin.

Russell Lake also shares a 55 km border with Wheeler River. When a mine moves from plan to build, infrastructure, expertise, and investor attention tend to cluster around it, and nearby ground suddenly becomes a lot more interesting.

Then you have Moore Lake, which is the other side of the equation: the project they keep for themselves. If Russell is the partner story, Moore is the internal project story.

Skyharbour has been advancing the project with results that continue to build the case for expansion. Recent highlights include 5.0 metres of 4.61% U3O8, including 7.30% over 3.0 metres, along with additional hits extending the project.

Put it together and you get the Skyharbour equation in real life: a core project with a multi year funded pathway and a major partner, another core project with drilling driven momentum, and a broader portfolio where partners can fund multiple exploration shots in the same top tier uranium district.

And that structure should translate into a busy 2026. Both Russell and Moore Lake are shaping up for multiple phases of exploration and drilling, while several partner-funded projects are also expected to see meaningful work, creating a steady pipeline of news flow throughout 2026, with partners helping fund the drilling while Skyharbour keeps exposure to upside.

⚛️ Wrapping up

If demand is the “easy” part of uranium arithmetic, supply is the part that keeps everyone honest.

Supply takes time. Discovery takes time. Permitting takes time.

And exploration is where the clock starts. No drill campaigns today, no new supply stories to talk about later, just a lot of reactors and not enough pounds.

Skyharbour Resources sits right at that upstream edge, combining a prospect generator strategy with two active Athabasca core projects, and a major transaction at Russell Lake that helps unlock a more aggressive pace of work.

Because before uranium becomes fuel, and before fuel becomes electricity, it starts as geology, budgets, partnerships, and a lot of arithmetic.

– Fredrik

For more information on Skyharbour Resources’ work across the Athabasca Basin, visit their website at Skyharbourltd.com or contact their investor relations team at [email protected]

Disclosure: This Deep Dive was created in collaboration with Skyharbour Resources, which sponsored this post. All analysis and opinions are those of Nuclear Update.

DISCLAIMER: None of this is financial advice. Nuclear Update is for informational and educational purposes only, it’s here to help you understand the world of uranium, energy, and the markets that orbit them, not to tell you what to buy or sell. Nothing in this article should be taken as a recommendation or solicitation to make any financial decision. Always do your own research, double-check sources, and talk to a licensed professional before making investments. Markets move fast, opinions change, and yes, sometimes even Fredrik gets things wrong.