Premier American Uranium Positioned for U.S. Nuclear Resurgence Amid Transformational Policy Shift
The four Executive Orders underscore the federal government's commitment to energy independence and call for a transformational scale-up of nuclear infrastructure, including:
Quadrupling nuclear capacity from approximately 100 GW today to 400 GW by 2050;
Reactivating and expanding the domestic fuel cycle, including uranium mining, conversion, and enrichment;
Accelerating new reactor development, with a target of 10 large-scale plants under construction by 2030 and 5 GW in power uprates at existing plants;
Reforming the U.S. regulatory environment, with an emphasis on maintaining world-class safety while enhancing the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) efficiency;
Launching national workforce and innovation initiatives, aimed at advancing next-generation reactors and reinforcing America's global leadership in nuclear technologies; and
These Executive Orders build on a series of recent policy shifts aimed at fast-tracking critical mineral projects, reinforcing the strategic importance of uranium within the broader push for domestic resource independence.
Colin Healey, CEO of PUR, commented, 'Premier American Uranium was created with one goal in mind—to meet the rising demand for domestic uranium driven by America's nuclear resurgence. The recent Executive Orders outline a clear federal commitment to rebuilding the U.S. nuclear fuel cycle. With assets located in three key uranium districts—the Powder River Basin, WY, the Grants Mineral Belt, NM, and the Uravan Mineral Belt, CO—Premier is aligned with the broader objective of strengthening domestic uranium supply. These developments support the direction we have taken with our project portfolio and provide important context for our continued exploration and growth efforts.
PUR is advancing a uniquely American platform focused on near-term exploration and development across important uranium districts in the U.S. including, Wyoming1, New Mexico2 and Colorado3. These regions benefit from supportive state-level policies, existing infrastructure, and deep mining history.
The White House fact sheet accompanying the Executive Orders explicitly cites the urgent need to reverse the U.S.'s overreliance on foreign nuclear fuel, noting that domestic production currently supplies just 5% of reactor demand. Under the new directives, the Department of Energy will implement procurement programs, encourage public-private partnerships, and prioritize the rebuilding of a vertically integrated fuel supply.
About Premier American Uranium Inc.
Premier American Uranium is focused on the consolidation, exploration, and development of uranium projects in the United States, aiming to strengthen domestic energy security and support the transition to clean energy. One of PUR's key strengths is the extensive land holdings in three prominent uranium-producing regions in the United States: the Grants Mineral Belt of New Mexico, the Great Divide Basin of Wyoming and the Uravan Mineral Belt of Colorado.
With current resources and defined resource exploration targets, PUR is actively advancing its portfolio through work programs. PUR benefits from strong partnerships, with backing from Sachem Cove Partners, IsoEnergy Ltd., Mega Uranium Ltd., and other institutional investors. The Company's distinguished team had extensive experience in uranium exploration, development, permitting, and operations, as well as uranium-focused mergers and acquisitions—positioning PUR as a key player in advancing the U.S. uranium sector.
For More Information, Please Contact:
Premier American Uranium Inc.Colin Healey, CEOinfo@premierur.comToll-Free: 1-833-223-4673Twitter: @PremierAUraniumwww.premierur.com
Neither TSX Venture Exchange nor its Regulations Services Provider (as that term is defined in policies of the TSX Venture Exchange) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this news release.
This news release contains 'forward-looking information' within the meaning of applicable Canadian securities laws. Forward-looking information includes, but is not limited to, statements with respect to, planned exploration activities; and other activities, events or developments that are expected, anticipated or may occur in the future. Generally, but not always, forward-looking information and statements can be identified by the use of words such as 'plans', 'expects', 'is expected', 'budget', 'scheduled', 'estimates', 'forecasts', 'intends', 'anticipates', or 'believes' or the negative connotation thereof or variations of such words and phrases or statements that certain actions, events or results 'may', 'could', 'would', 'might' or 'will be taken', 'occur' or 'be achieved' or the negative connotation thereof.
Forward-looking information and statements are based on our current expectations, beliefs, assumptions, estimates and forecasts about PUR's business and the industry and markets in which it operates. Such forward-information and statements are based on numerous assumptions, including among others, that general business and economic conditions will not change in a material adverse manner, that financing will be available if and when needed and on reasonable terms, that third party contractors, equipment and supplies and governmental and other approvals required to conduct the Company's planned exploration activities will be available on reasonable terms and in a timely manner. Although the assumptions made by PUR in providing forward-looking information or making forward-looking statements are considered reasonable by management at the time, there can be no assurance that such assumptions will prove to be accurate.
Forward-looking information and statements also involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties and other factors, which may cause actual results, performances and achievements of Premier American Uranium to differ materially from any projections of results, performances and achievements of Premier American Uranium expressed or implied by such forward-looking information or statements, including, among others: actual results of the market making activities being different than anticipated, the limited operating history of the Company, negative operating cash flow and dependence on third party financing, uncertainty of additional financing, delays or failure to obtain required permits and regulatory approvals, changes in mineral resources, no known mineral reserves, aboriginal title and consultation issues, reliance on key management and other personnel; potential downturns in economic conditions; availability of third party contractors; availability of equipment and supplies; failure of equipment to operate as anticipated; accidents, effects of weather and other natural phenomena and other risks associated with the mineral exploration industry; changes in laws and regulation, competition, and uninsurable risks and the risk factors with respect to Premier American Uranium set out in PUR's annual information form for the year ended December 31, 2023 and the other documents of PUR filed with the Canadian securities regulators and available under PUR's profile on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.ca.
Although PUR has attempted to identify important factors that could cause actual actions, events or results to differ materially from those contained in the forward-looking information or implied by forward-looking information, there may be other factors that cause results not to be as anticipated, estimated or intended. There can be no assurance that forward-looking information and statements will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated, estimated or intended. Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements or information. PUR undertakes no obligation to update or reissue forward-looking information as a result of new information or events except as required by applicable securities law.
________________________________1 Wyoming State Geological Survey; Critical Minerals in Wyoming; https;//www.wsgs.wyo.gov/minerals/critical-minerals.aspx2 Uranium resources in the Grants uranium district, New Mexico: An update Virginia T. McLemore, Brad Hill, Niranjan Khalsa, and Susan A. Lucas Kamat 20133 Chenoweth, William L., 1981, "The Uranium-Vanadium Deposits of the Uravan Mineral Belt and Adjacent Areas, Colorado and Utah. In New Mexico Geological Society Guidebook32, Western Slope, Colorado" and Goodnight, Craig S., William L. Chenoweth, Richard D. Davyaultand Edward T. Cotter, 2005: "Geologic Road Log for Uravan Mineral Belt Field Trip, West-Central, Colorado" Rocky Mountain Section of the Geologic Society of America.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
2 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Trump's aggressive push to take over DC policing may be a template for an approach in other cities
WASHINGTON (AP) — The left sees President Donald Trump's attempted takeover of Washington law enforcement as part of a multifront march to autocracy — 'vindictive authoritarian rule,' as one activist put it — and as an extraordinary thing to do in rather ordinary times on the streets of the capital. To the right, it's a bold move to fracture the crust of Democratic urban bureaucracy and make D.C. a better place to live. Where that debate settles — if it ever does — may determine whether Washington, a symbol for America in all its granite glory, history, achievement, inequality and dysfunction, becomes a model under the imprint of Trump for how cities are policed, cleaned up and run, or ruined. Under the name of his Making D.C. Safe and Beautiful Task Force, Trump put some 800 National Guard troops on Washington streets this past week, declaring at the outset, 'Our capital city has been overtaken by violent gangs and bloodthirsty criminals.' Grunge was also on his mind. 'If our capital is dirty, our whole country is dirty, and they don't respect us.' He then upped the stakes by declaring federal control of the district's police department and naming an emergency chief. That set off alarms and prompted local officials to sue to stop the effort. 'I have never seen a single government action that would cause a greater threat to law and order than this dangerous directive,' Police Chief Pamela Smith said. On Friday, the Trump administration partially retreated from its effort to seize control of the Metropolitan Police Department when a judge, skeptical that the president had the authority to do what he tried to do, urged both sides to reach a compromise, which they did — at least for now. Trump's Justice Department agreed to leave Smith in control, while still intending to instruct her department on law enforcement practices. In a new memo, Attorney General Pam Bondi directed the force to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement regardless of any city law. In this heavily Democratic city, local officials and many citizens did not like the National Guard deployment. At the same time, they acknowledged the Republican president had the right to order it because of the federal government's unique powers in the district. But Trump's attempt to seize formal control of the police department, for the first time since D.C. gained a partial measure of autonomy in the Home Rule Act of 1973, was their red line. When the feds stepped in For sure, there have been times when the U.S. military has been deployed to American streets, but almost always in the face of a riot or a calamitous event like the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Trump's use of force was born of an emergency that he saw and city officials — and many others — did not. A stranger to nuance, Trump has used the language of emergency to justify much of what he's done: his deportations of foreigners, his tariffs, his short-term deployment of National Guard troops to Los Angeles, and now his aggressive intervention into Washington policing. Washington does have crime and endemic homelessness, like every city in the country. But there was nothing like an urban fire that the masses thought needed to be quelled. Violent crime is down, as it is in many U.S. cities. Washington is also a city about which most Americans feel ownership — or at least that they have a stake. More than 25 million of them visited in 2024, a record year, plus over 2 million people from abroad. It's where middle schoolers on field trips get to see what they learn about in class — and perhaps to dance to pop tunes with the man with the music player so often in front of the White House. Washington is part federal theme park, with its historic buildings and museums, and part downtown, where restaurants and lobbyists outnumber any corporate presence. Neighborhoods range from the places where Jeff Bezos set a record for a home purchase price to destitute streets in economically depressed areas that are also magnets for drugs and crime. In 1968, the capital was a city on fire with riots. Twenty years later, a murder spree and crack epidemic fed the sense of a place out of control. But over the last 30 years, the city's population and its collective wealth have swelled. A cooked-up emergency? Against that backdrop, Philadelphia's top prosecutor, District Attorney Larry Krasner, a Democrat, assailed Trump's moves in Washington. 'You're talking about an emergency, really?' Krasner said, as if speaking with the president. 'Or is it that you're talking about an emergency because you want to pretend everything is an emergency so that you can roll tanks?" In Washington, a coalition of activists called Not Above the Law denounced what they saw as just the latest step by Trump to seize levers of power he has no business grasping. 'The onslaught of lawlessness and autocratic activities has escalated,' said Lisa Gilbert, co-chair of the group and co-president of Public Citizen. 'The last two weeks should have crystallized for all Americans that Donald Trump will not stop until democracy is replaced by vindictive authoritarian rule.' Fifty miles northeast, in the nearest major city, Baltimore's Democratic mayor criticized what he saw as Trump's effort to distract the public from economic pain and 'America's falling standing in the world.' 'Every mayor and police chief in America works with our local federal agents to do great work — to go after gun traffickers, to go after violent organizations,' Brandon Scott said. 'How is taking them off of that job, sending them out to just patrol the street, making our country safer?' But the leader of the D.C. Police Union, Gregg Pemberton, endorsed Trump's intervention — while saying it should not become permanent. 'We stand with the president in recognizing that Washington, D.C., cannot continue on this trajectory,' Pemberton said. From his vantage point, 'Crime is out of control, and our officers are stretched beyond their limits.' The Home Rule Act lets a president invoke certain emergency powers over the police department for 30 days, after which Congress must decide whether to extend the period. Trump's attempt to use that provision stirred interest among some Republicans in Congress in giving him an even freer hand. Among them, Rep. Andy Ogles of Tennessee drafted a resolution that would eliminate the time limit on federal control. This, he told Fox News Digital, would 'give the president all the time and authority he needs to crush lawlessness, restore order, and reclaim our capital once and for all.' Which raises a question that Trump has robustly hinted at and others are wondering, too: If there is success in the district — at least, success in the president's eyes — what might that mean for other American cities he thinks need to be fixed? Where does — where could — the federal government go next?
Time Magazine
3 hours ago
- Time Magazine
Trump and Putin Didn't Make a Deal, but Putin Still Won
During the press conference at the end of his brief and lukewarm summit with Vladimir Putin in Alaska, an uncharacteristically subdued Donald Trump said something painfully honest: "There's no deal until there's a deal." There was no deal. In many ways, Trump and Putin got the show they wanted. The ubiquitous television graphics, TRUMP-PUTIN SUMMIT, with fluttering American and Russian flags. The split-screen of Air Force 1 and Russia's executive plane landing at a remote airport in Alaska, and then the two protagonists walking down a skinny red carpet like the end of a buddy movie. The grip-and-grin handshakes, with Trump patting Putin's hand in a gesture known to maître d's everywhere. The cosy ride in "the Beast," a prize not even offered to close allies. Trump is likely happy because the eyes of the world are upon him and he was executive producing the images on the world's television screens. (And no one was talking about Jeffrey Epstein). Putin is happy because a Russian president is always happy when they are treated as equal to American presidents. Remember, Barack Obama said Russia was a second-rate, "regional power." Putin got what he wanted: a summit with an American president, something normally you have to make elaborate compromises to get. An indicted war criminal who cannot travel to over 100 nations, the Russian President literally had a red carpet rolled out for him on United States territory by an American president. And he didn't have to give up anything for it—he just had to show up. Read More: The Real Danger of the Trump-Putin Summit At the press conference, Putin talked about how close Russia was to America (shades of Sarah Palin) and claimed that Russian trade with American has increased by 20%. He made sure to praise Trump in the over-the-top way that has become customary in diplomacy with America. Trump was uncharacteristically restrained and circumspect. Even though Putin had alluded to an agreement, Trump did not do so. The self-professed world's greatest dealmaker left without a deal. He did, however, get in several references to the 'Russia hoax,' while Vlad smirked. The truth is, Trump needed a deal more than Putin did. 'Deals are what I do,' he said, and he didn't do one. In a larger way, the nothing-burger outcome exposes the flaws in Trump's theory of diplomacy. Trump seems to believe personal warmth between leaders will make his adversary more likely to compromise or agree with him. That is naïve and delusional. Earlier this week a White House spokesperson described Trump as a 'realist.' This is the classic foreign policy term, in contrast to a foreign policy idealist, whose legacy comes from Woodrow Wilson and his quest for a League of Nations. But Henry Kissinger, the ultimate American realist, said nations have no permanent friends or enemies, they have interests. That's something Donald Trump doesn't quite understand. Trump stands for himself. Putin stands for Russia. Putin's goals are unchanging; his smile and his handshake are fleeting. Long before Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin wanted to Make Russia Great Again. I spent several hours with Putin in 2006 for TIME's Person of the Year cover, and it was in that interview that he said the greatest tragedy of the 20th century was the disintegration of the Soviet Union. I remember we all wondered for a moment whether that was really what he had said, but the transcript bore it out. He believes it, devoutly. He was a KGB officer in Dresden when the Wall came down, and he was bereft. The Russian President has always wanted to put the Soviet Union back together again. (His foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, was spotted wearing a USSR sweatshirt ahead of the Summit.) Putin believes in a kind of Russian exceptionalism with Russia as the great power between East and West. Putin is nostalgic not just for the Cold War, but the Russian empire of the czars. He has a profound and angry grievance about the West and America. He told me Westerners regard Russians as monkeys. (Yes, he said that.) But then he also told me Russian voters were not sophisticated enough to choose their own leaders. (Yes, he said that too.) Under his leadership, Russia has been trying to destabilize the West for decades. Just last week the U.S. Justice Department announced that Russian hackers had penetrated the federal court system. Putin has been trying to put space between the US and Europe for decades. In his eyes, West and America are always the aggressors and Russia is always the victim—even when negotiating about the war in Ukraine. Read More: Trump's Make-or-Break Moment with Putin Normally, in any wartime negotiation, the country gaining territory does not want to negotiate or give up anything, while the country losing territory wants to negotiate and is willing to compromise. Russia is gaining territory, slowly; Ukraine is losing territory, grudgingly. Russia has a 50-year goal, to re-unite parts of the old Soviet Union; Ukraine has a more immediate goal, to stop the war and not give up any territory to do so. When Putin said during the press conference that they still needed to address the 'root causes' of the conflict, that was a hint to what may have transpired inside. Putin can talk for hours about the idea that Ukraine is not a nation, that the Kievan Rus is the basis of Russia, that the Russian Orthodox Church grew out of the Ukrainian one, and he could have spent the whole time on any of those subjects. And maybe he did. According to the 2020 Senate Intelligence Committee report, after the TIME Person of the Year cover came out, Trump sent Putin a handwritten note of congratulations to saying, 'As you probably heard, I am a big fan of yours!' Putin is still milking Trump's fanboy affection. He was the big winner today because he didn't have to compromise before or after the meeting. He got the superpower treatment even though he is a war criminal. He got equivalence with an American president on the world stage. Zelensky won by not losing. Ukraine could have been crippled today, and instead they live to fight another day. It's true that no deal is better than a bad deal. But what is the Dealmaker-in-Chief without a deal?
Los Angeles Times
3 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
Trump tax law could cause Medicare cuts if Congress doesn't act, CBO says
WASHINGTON — The federal budget deficits caused by President Trump's tax and spending law could trigger automatic cuts to Medicare if Congress does not act, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported Friday. The CBO estimates that Medicare, the federal health insurance program for Americans over age 65, could potentially see as much as $491 billion in cuts from 2027 to 2034 if Congress does not act to mitigate a 2010 law that forces across-the-board cuts to many federal programs once legislation increases the federal deficit. The latest report from CBO showed how Trump's signature tax and spending law could put new pressure on federal programs that are bedrocks of the American social safety net. Trump and Republicans pledged not to cut Medicare as part of the legislation, but the estimated $3.4 trillion that the law adds to the federal deficit over the next decade means that many Medicare programs could see cuts. In the past, Congress has always acted to mitigate cuts to Medicare and other programs, but it would take some bipartisan cooperation to do so. Democrats, who requested the analysis from CBO, jumped on the potential cuts. 'Republicans knew their tax breaks for billionaires would force over half a trillion dollars in Medicare cuts — and they did it anyway,' Rep. Brendan Boyle of Pennsylvania, the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, said in a statement. 'American families simply cannot afford Donald Trump's attacks on Medicare, Medicaid and Obamacare.' Hospitals in rural parts of the country are already grappling with cuts to Medicaid, which is available to people with low incomes, and cuts to Medicare could exacerbate their shortfalls. As Republicans muscled the bill through Congress and are now selling it to voters back home, they have been critical of how the CBO has analyzed the bill. They have also argued that the tax cuts will spur economic growth and pointed to $50 billion in funding for rural hospitals that was included in the package. Groves writes for the Associated Press.
