Fy enw, ddiwedd yn rŵn i'r ysgolwyddoedd nhw'n gwybod. Y prifysg y dyma'r ymgyrch yn ymddiadol sy'n credu'r ysgrifennu. Mae'r cyd-dyn nhw'n cyd-dyn nhw. Mae'n cael y bransio'r llaw o'r cyfnod o'r hyfrifysg. Mae'r cyfnod yn ymgyrch, ac mae oedd yn gwybod yn gweithio, yn cyd-dyn nhw, ac yn gwybod yn y cyfnod. Mae'n gwybod i ei wneud i gael ymddiadol. Oedda ni'n rhan oedd i'r modderau. I'm Dr Tim Gregory from the UK's National Nuclear Laboratory. I work in the lab mostly, so it's kind of nice to be out of the lab, but they do let me out occasionally to come and mingle and talk to our fantastic panellists. We have Dr Charlene Smith, who is an engineer senior nuclear energy analyst at the Breakthrough Institute in Washington DC. We've got Christine Madden, who is the president of the International Youth Nuclear Congress. And over on the far side, we've got Mira Alblushi, who is a senior programme engineer at the Emirates Nuclear Energy Corporation, and they're going to bust some myths for us this afternoon. So, I guess we'll start with maybe the elephant in the room and the thing that, at least when you talk to the public about nuclear power, nuclear energy, it's rolling net zero. One of the things that comes up very early on in the conversation is the safety record of nuclear. It's perhaps one of the biggest myths is that nuclear energy is unsafe. So, what do we think about that? Do we want to address that? Should we start with you? Sure. Good morning, everyone. Thank you for being here today. So, let's bust some myths, bust some myths. So, from the perspective of safety, when you talk about safety, safety is the condition of being unlikely to cause harm, danger or death, right? So, when we think about safety in a larger context, most people, if you ask them, you know, is flying a plane safe or taking a flight safe, they will tell you yes. And so, when you talk about safety, we're really looking at probabilities. And so, with respect to energy production and different energy sources that we use, nuclear energy ranks among the lowest as regards to the amount of deaths that are incurred as a result of accidents, as a result of air pollution per a terawatt hour. So, there is a specific graphic that's published by Orworld and Data. And that graphic is essentially showing the deaths per accidents and per air pollution, per energy source, per a terawatt hour. Follow me. And nuclear energy, if you look at that graphic, it ranks on the low side. It's very close to solar and wind. So, if you look at that graphic, you're going from the safest to least safe energy source. And that rank starts with solar in first place. Nuclear is actually number two. Wind is number three. Gas is number four. Hydro is number four. Gas is number five. Biomass, oil and then coal. And that is considering all the accidents as well that came as a part of, well, the nuclear energy industry's past transgressions. And so, yes, we do have a history of, or, you know, major accidents. And, I mean, so does other energy sources, but when we take a stock of the seriosity and the impact that those accidents have had compared to all other energy sources, nuclear energy actually ranks among the safest. So, that's a very scientific answer, putting numbers to the question of how safe is nuclear. I think a lot of it often comes from a kind of an emotional response. I don't know if that's something that you've come across in your work and going out on the nuclear advocacy. Yeah, and I think, you know, having worked in nuclear power plants at the beginning of my career, one of the things that I always thought was really interesting is there's such a high focus on safety in the workplace. Even things like making sure the door is closed, properly closed in order to the fire doors. And so, I would find myself actually doing this in my house because it became so ingrained in my day-to-day behavior. And I think that, you know, that's just one example of how, of the importance that we put on nuclear safety. And one of the things that I really appreciate about working in the nuclear industry is that we have this really high renaissance for the fact that you have to come to work with a questioning attitude. It doesn't matter what your rank is in the facility, how many years of experience you have, et cetera. If you see something that you don't think is okay, it's your responsibility to bring that forward, and there's not going to be repercussions for that. And I think that's amazing from the perspective that it really creates this culture where people can feel comfortable and confident raising issues, whether it's, you know, related to the way that a procedure is written, whether it's related to the fact that you maybe have a barrier in the field that you weren't anticipating in your pre-job brief. But I think these sorts of things are so important in terms of building a culture where everyone feels heard and respected. That, I think, is the culture kind of gets to the heart of it completely. It's kind of like a self-correction, almost, that just kind of gets better with time, you kind of hone the edges. Is that something that you kind of experienced as a program engineer, that kind of culture of self-correction, been able to speak out, make suggestions for around safety and the culture? Absolutely. So my experience is very similar to Christa's experience. So the power plants that we have in the UAE are, you know, the first in the region. And I think when people hear the word nuclear, they immediately think, ooh, is it safe to work over there? And when I started working, like when you look at the processes, the procedures and how the focus, like safety is the overriding priority all the time. And as Kristen said as well, yes, you always, you have that safety culture. You can always suggest, and again, safety is the overriding priority. Have you seen a shift in the public perception of nuclear since the power plant started recently? I would say that, like in the UAE, there are, there might be misconceptions about nuclear energy, but the most of the people do have a lot of trust in the government. So we don't really have like anti-nukes or people who are anti-nuclear, but I'm sure that some people really do not have the right conceptions about nuclear energy, but they do still support it. Okay, that's encouraging. All right, so we've got the power plant, it's running, it's all safe, it's great. The other elephant in the room, the second elephant, it perhaps glows in the dark in people's minds. When they imagine it in the public, this is of course nuclear waste, an unavoidable byproduct of generating any form of electricity or extracting energy from natural resources. You get waste as a byproduct, nuclear waste. Sounds awful, people are scared of it, people are worried about it. Is it the showstopper that people think it is? Should it stop us reaching net zero by 2050? Is it worth it? What are your thoughts? So from my perspective, I actually think that this is one of the things that sets nuclear apart. The fact that in the cost per megawatt hour, we include the cost of waste and waste management and we ensure that the waste is stored and maintained in a safe configuration. And to my knowledge, we're the only industry that does that. So this wasn't just because I was thirsty, but it's a prop. So this soda can is the equivalent of all the nuclear waste that would be generated if all of your electricity during your entire lifetime came from nuclear energy. So this would be, it would fit into one essentially can of soda. But the cool thing about nuclear technology, nuclear fuel, is that actually about 90% of it is recyclable. So if we were to recycle it as they do in some countries like France, for instance, this would actually be the waste of 10 people, not just one. And so in the nuclear industry, we put a lot of emphasis on ensuring that the nuclear fuel is maintained in safe configurations when they're in these large swimming pools adjacent to the nuclear reactor. And then later on we put them in dry storage. So these are really large concrete containers where we've safely and robustly stored them for generations, following which some countries do decide to recycle. And the idea of these concrete containers is also they're meant for us to be able to go back in and recycle at a later date should that country choose to make that decision. In the nuclear field, or I would say in the broader energy context, nuclear energy is one of the few energies that we really put in emphasis on ensuring that the nuclear material is maintained in a safe and robust configuration. So, and we haven't had any issues to date, and we're always innovating. And I think that's also the really exciting thing is that we have these new reactors, advanced breeder reactors potentially coming online in the next decade or two, which will really even further reduce the amount of waste that there is. And I think that's really important from a generational justice perspective and that we want to leave the future generations with the least amount of waste as possible. But we also want to ensure that when there is waste that it is maintained in a safe configuration and that it's manageable. So, with the mind environmental stewardship and sustainability and recycling of nuclear waste, do you anticipate that that will become more and more prevalent as we go forward in the coming decades? Will more and more countries do you think take, as you say, a French style approach to recycling nuclear waste and increasing the capacity for that? I think from a sustainability perspective that is something that we could see become more popular as we go forward, like Kristen mentioned, more than 90% of that material can be reused. I think when we talk about especially the waste, just to add on to what she was saying earlier, it's really only about 4% of spent fuel that really has extremely long-lived isotopes, the ones that stay radioactive for thousands of years. But with new technologies like the sodium cooled faster reactors or the breeder reactors, you can take that material that has a long radio toxicity lifetime and reduce the radioactivity of that material through reuse and reprocessing down to being radioactive for thousands of years to hundreds of years. And that really targets exactly what we are trying to push forward from not only a sustainability perspective, where we can continually reuse the waste, which is energy resource, but also from the point of view of reducing the radio toxicity of the byproducts that we produce from energy source. Sure, and I think something that's often lost in the conversation about net zero and sustainability is that there's a cost to everything. There's no perfect solution, only trade-offs. But you've just demonstrated that the trade-off of nuclear waste is actually quite small about the size of a soda can. Yeah, and I think on the cost of that as well, I think countries like the US, some of the reasons that I've heard at least that we're not reprocessing is that there is a proliferation risk or the notion that it's cheaper to mine for fresh uranium than to reprocess, spent fuel. We're talking about more than two times the cost of that. So it's not a matter of a technology issue where we can't reprocess it. We have countries that have demonstrated that and I think we need to start thinking from, you know, we need to get out of the thinking of short-sightedness and try to think long-term about how we can create a sustainable energy mix. But for the proliferation side, and at least Kristin can speak a bit more to why that could be a road, a blockade, if you will, for us to stay away or try to diverge from reprocessing as much as we can. I think that short-term thinking that you just touched on that is something that I think about a lot and I know speaking to the people think about a lot as the youth, the younger generation think about net zero and climate change. What comes after net zero is something that we need to be thinking about as well, making better use of our resources, spinning them out further. So if recycling isn't economical now, will it be in the future? I don't know what sort of aspirations you have for the future of nuclear in UAE and spinning out those resources further, making better use of the waste that comes out of reactors through French-style recycling. I'm not quite sure what are the long-term plans for the waste that we have right now, but for short-term we do store them on sites. Cool. I think it's interesting what's going on in Finland as well with the geological repository. I strongly suspect more countries will be making similar pieces of infrastructure certainly before 2050 as net zero becomes more prevalent. So we've touched on the safety, we've touched on the nuclear waste. I guess the third big pillar that a lot of the myths around nuclear rest upon is the cost associated with nuclear energy. It's got a terrible reputation for being expensive. So let's say we've sorted the safety problem, nuclear waste, no problem, but are we going to bankrupt ourselves by investing heavily in nuclear? I think at least from a cost perspective, there are multiple contributors that drive the cost of old nuclear and even new nuclear. A big part of that is the regulatory uncertainty and regulatory burdens. So that's one aspect. The other aspect is that, yes, of course, compared to other energy sources, nuclear energy requires a larger upfront cost. But again, thinking about that longevity of what nuclear energy can offer compared to other energy sources as complements is something that is a missing piece of the equation. We require nuclear energy is very energy dense and our reactors can stay powered for 100 years. So that becomes part of the conversation that gets lost because when you extrapolate the timeline and the energy that a nuclear power plant is able to offer compared to other energy sources, it becomes very economically viable. The main concern, at least here, is upfront cost. But we have ways that we can try to address this. I think the UAE is an extremely good example. I think they spent $24 billion on their four units, 1.4 gigawatts each, which would turn out to be about $6 billion per unit. But even with advanced reactors, you can generally extrapolate that down to say if you wanted to build the largest small modular reactor, if we were using those numbers, we can extrapolate, we can look back down and say that the 300 mW SMR at most would cost $1 billion. But that's the largest SMR you could possibly have in that energy range. And so I think there are things that we can do, especially at least in the US, I think the regulatory barrier is a huge one that is currently driving the cost of nuclear and dissuading investors from investing in nuclear. But at the same time, we do have examples of leadership to look at that we can learn from, but also we have advanced small modular reactors that promise to be more cost effective than or larger conventional reactors. So there are things that we can do to eliminate or to significantly reduce the cost because, as I've said, UAE has done an extremely admirable and inspiring job with Baraka. So what can we learn from UAE? You did it on budget and how do we replicate that? Because I know that in the UK we've got a couple of new reactors in the pipeline and they generally run over cost. How do we keep that down? So I think what makes the UAE a bit different is that it's funded by the government while in other countries nuclear industry is a private sector. So and I think the UAE is really not only focusing on spending on nuclear power plants but really having that energy mix. We have the solar panels, we have wind turbines and also the power plants and I'm sure that there are going to be more plants in the future to meet the net zero for 2015. Do you have anything more to add? Yeah, so I would just add that there's also been a recent study done by the US Department of Energy that looked at this coal to nuclear transition and so what this found was that 85% of retired and operating coal facilities in the US can actually easily be transitioned to nuclear facilities and in doing so you're actually recycling a lot of that infrastructure at that coal facility and on average what they found was that would save about a billion dollars in cost from the perspective of being able to use the grid, the steam generators, the existing infrastructure as well as allow for 90% reduction and then I think like one of the things we also have to remember is we're starting to build new nuclear power plants, they're first of a kind technologies for many of us. So we haven't really built nuclear power plants consistently in decades. So there's a learning curve in terms of the project management, in terms of being resource ready, having the suppliers. So with any project that's new to the market, the first few are always going to cost a lot more. But once we have that infrastructure in place, so we have the people, we have the suppliers, we have the regulatory framework, you're going to also see the cost dramatically decrease. And I think that's also what's so interesting about the small modular reactor concept because essentially it's the same nuclear power plant being output from the same facility, so it's the assembly line. And what we've seen with assembly lines for instance in the car manufacturing industry, cars used to be extremely expensive when they were one of a kind and then when you built this assembly line approach, the cost of those cars over time decreased dramatically such that the accessibility to more and more people became a viability. Do you think the small modular reactors kind of add an element of market competition? Because it's one of the exciting things I think you're seeing all the, they're almost like start-ups with their own ideas about what a small modular reactor looks like and that kind of competition inevitably does two things. Drives innovation, overused word, overused phrase of course, but I think in this sense is very fitting but brings cost down as well. Do you think that will play a big part in the future? I actually think it already is. We recently saw a few countries sign an agreement yesterday where they're actually going to collaborate on infrastructure development, specifically around advanced reactors and SMRs. So they're already laying the framework for when we start building these nuclear power plants in the next five to ten years. So I definitely think that that plays a huge role and as you said innovation is always going to push us in a positive direction. Sure. So it's kind of related to cost but another one of the myths surrounding nuclear it's just something for rich countries to do. The amount of money that you need to build and operate a nuclear power station are so astronomical that it's really only something that the developed world, that wealthy countries can indulge in. What do you have to say about that? Is it just technology for the developed world or can it also help the developing world industrialise whilst promoting environmental stewardship? I would love to see developing countries be able to afford to build but of course they are not developed and may not have as much capital at their disposal to be able to do that. In my case Jamaica is the only Caribbean island that has expressed interest in introducing nuclear energy as a part of our energy mix. But the question comes of who is going to pay for it. I think using the model that the United States has especially in the Inflation Reduction Act where you are incentivising investors globally to invest in that industry in a particular country. Although the Inflation Reduction Act is something that is great for the US for smaller developing countries like Jamaica who may say they want to build SMRs. I think the framework of the IRA has an unintended consequence of maybe taking investors or investing money from building out energy technologies in developing countries to the US because the IRA makes investing in nuclear and clean energy technology so attractive. I think for developing countries the United States should try to replicate a model that is similar for them and specifically coming from the government to try to incentivise those investments within the region so it's not just a thing where Jamaica's government can't afford SMRs to react by themselves and so trying to foster an environment where the public and private partnerships come together in the Caribbean region government perspective to be able to do that is a pathway that I think developing countries could explore. I think going back to the cost structure if you have good projects such that you have designs that we know work you have the people to operate the facilities and you have the supply chain I think that that's also going to drive investment because a lot of these projects as we touched on in the earlier question the issue with them running over costs is that one of these elements is missing and so as more and more reactors come online we're going to have more and more suppliers our project management is going to be refined within the nuclear industry we're extremely collaborative so there is of course the marketing element but at the same time there's also the element that we're going to share our best practices with you and also our failures so that we can all succeed so I think that as we get the supply chain in place we build the pilot plans so we can show that the designs work we have the people in place then when these governments at the front end invest in the feasibility studies I think that then they have the viability of going to external investors, private capital firms banks and saying listen I have this great project I have the supply chain in place I have the technology works I have the people to operate it and to construct it and that's a really good sell once you get there so I think that it's also about working with partners like the IAEA who's pavilion we're in today they have this phased approach that helps countries get there so I think it's about building upon this collaborative environment that we have in the operating realm and that has been further transposed into the new build realm that collaborative spirit is definitely something that I feel for sure being part of the nuclear community is that something that you would say is felt strongly here as a sort of nuclear newcomer on the global scene that kind of collaborative spirit so we always say that the nuclear world is very small and because the nuclear power plants are new to our region so we did really need that support from the other nuclear organisations we do attend a lot of meetings in the US and with different organisations that can help support us getting the training that we need getting the knowledge that we need and then as Kristin said in the future it makes it easier to add on to the nuclear power plants that you have because you already have the knowledge you already have the experience because it's a start-up we have a lot of people who were there during the construction and during the operation of the plant so if the UAE decides to have more power plants in the future we have those individuals who have been there through the whole process of building the reactors and operating them I also read a statistic that the UAE actually had over 50 nationalities involved in the construction in the commissioning so you're not just training a local workforce anymore you're training a global workforce I would say it's very diverse and that comes with its challenges of course but you also have experienced people from all around the globe and since we're talking about diversity I think it's also worth of mentioning that we have 20% of the people who work in our project are actually females which is one of the highest numbers worldwide which I also think is a great thing for the UAE and it shows support for females as well since the three of us are females here today Nice Shift intact ever so slightly I feel like we've done the big three we've done the safety the expense and we've talked about nuclear waste we're at COP there are delegates organisations from literally every single country on the planet all with their own ideas about how we reach net zero the conversation about sustainability particularly when it comes to electricity and energy is dominated by renewables namely wind and solar people tend not to talk very much about the biggest source of renewable energy on the planet which is hydro people are very very focused on wind and solar do we need nuclear at all given that wind and solar are becoming more prevalent they're set to become far more prevalent over the coming decades they're falling in price people are investing in them like crazy do we even need nuclear do we even need to go there we'll start with you so the question is why do we need nuclear if we have other renewable sources of energy my question is why not so if we compare nuclear energy with the other renewable energy resources you know it's available 24-7 regardless of the external factors which makes the grid stable for nuclear power plants also have one of the highest capacity factors on average it's 90% which is higher than the other renewable energy sources and if we're looking to meet our energy demands in the future we need a dense source of energy that is also clean and only nuclear can provide us with that and I think people generally underestimate the value of nuclear power or how much electricity we get from nuclear energy so the amount of energy you can get from five nuclear reactors is equivalent to 3.7 million solar panel rooftops which is quite a lot so the question should be why wouldn't nuclear be part of our energy mix in fact I think it should be a vital part of our energy mix do you think it's possible without nuclear? it's just my personal opinion looking at the energy demands in the future and how the energy demands have increased in the past decades I don't think it would be possible without nuclear we need that dense source of energy I agree, I think globally nuclear energy has to be a part of the solution we're not saying that nuclear energy is appropriate for every country there are different countries that have their own energy mixes that are appropriate for them to the point where they don't need we talked about Saint Lucia and Saint Kitts and Nieves who have immense geothermal capability and geothermal has very high capacity factor there was a study that was done by the University of the West Indies that said that at least Saint Kitts and Nieves had 90% geothermal capacity that's their firm clean base load power so we need to try to introduce nuclear to Saint Kitts and Nieves for the case of Jamaica we're in the Caribbean we have sunlight for most of the year we have solar, we have wind but more than 85% of our energy comes from imported oil so in the case of Jamaica we do have hydro capacity it's very low what value do you have or what can a region do for itself in Jamaica we have very low hydro capability we don't have any geothermal we have solar and wind and oil what we're trying to do here is to displace the oil because what we want is firm energy and so happens to that we also want it to be clean in some cases when I talk to people in the Caribbean pavilion they're saying that the Caribbean is among the countries that have the least emissions we are not the drivers of climate change which is true but on the other hand you can think of it as you want to be able to achieve your global net zero commitments but I think nuclear energy has a lot to offer small and developing nations like Jamaica for advancing the socio-economic infrastructure of the country, Jamaica exports bauxite we could use a small model reactor for example to drive that industry we would create new industries to desalinate water, hydrogen production and build out a very prosperous socio-economic structure in Jamaica electricity is extremely expensive where I was looking at the cost of electricity in Canada versus the cost of electricity in Jamaica in Ontario specifically where their energy mix is mostly nuclear energy and renewables and a little bit of gas in Jamaica it's mostly oil and a little bit of renewables on average the average Jamaican is spending 11% of their income on their electricity bill alone that is without air conditioning compared to the average Canadian living in Ontario or let's say in the US it's only 4% of their income and Americans are very wasteful about energy have air conditioning, have hot water and so there is a huge disparity that can directly be linked to the source of energy that is being used in these regions so I think beyond even nuclear energy being a part of the net zero solution it's definitely something that can boost economies all around the world yeah I like that as a means to grow economies and develop nations and adding to that the international energy agency in their 2023 update to the net zero roadmap found that a low case for nuclear use and decreasing it to 3% would actually increase electricity bills by $20 billion globally and require an additional $500 billion in investment costs if we were to go to 3% nuclear from the 9% that they're projecting the more than doubling so as you said this really illustrates the fact that this can have a significant impact on access to things like education clean water etc so there's so many other applications the non-electric applications of nuclear that I think also make it a really exciting technology when we look at the broader framework of the UNSCGs so with 25 minutes to go are there any audience questions or any myths in the audience that people would like to put to our expert panel we talk about the energy density of nuclear we've got expert density on this panel so pick their brains while they're in front of you I can talk about a question I got so I was in the Caribbean pavilion I think I was in the Bahamas pavilion here and I posed a question about nuclear energy and there were many concerns that primarily stemmed from the fact that oh the Caribbean is comprised of very small islands and the response was that nuclear energy isn't safe because these small islands are vulnerable to natural disasters but the thing is that nuclear power plants nuclear reactors are designed specifically to withstand natural disasters anything from tornadoes the floods, the hurricanes, the earthquakes all of it is specifically designed within the technology to withstand these events and so my example and I can share a spreadsheet of some data that I've collected is that I've looked back 50 years, 40 to 50 years of hurricanes, tornadoes floods, earthquakes that have hit close to or even been where the earthquake epicenter was at a nuclear power plant and we've never heard of that accident the only one that we can pinpoint is Fukushima and we can pinpoint it for very specific reasons but throughout the course of history since the beginning of us building nuclear power plants there have been natural disasters Fukushima isn't the first tsunami that we've seen affect nuclear power plants but the thing is that for all the other cases that we have never heard of the plant did exactly what it was designed to do in the case of Fukushima, yes we had the earthquake and in response to the earthquake the reactor did exactly what it was designed to do it shut itself down so what that means is that you're no longer producing fission isn't occurring to produce heat what's happening then once the reactor is shut down is that you have radioactive decay and you produce heat through radioactive decay if you're not imagining anything you're still producing heat the procedure then is to have an emergency cooling system kick in, right? the problem with Fukushima was not the design of the reactor it was the design of the plant the emergency cooling system was located in the basement naturally you have an earthquake the reactor is shut down here comes a tsunami, your emergency cooling system is in the basement, the tsunami floods that cooling system now you no longer have a method or a way to cool your reactor so your reactor keeps on getting hotter and hotter and hotter to the point where it's boiling off and you have the fuel element that's being exposed and chemical interactions cause the production of hydrogen and through that you essentially get a hydrogen explosion and that's exactly what happened so it wasn't a nuclear explosion? it was a hydrogen explosion, right? but of course you have radioactive material in the core and so that released radioactive material into the atmosphere but the thing is that there were other plants that were even closer to the epicenter of the earthquake but because of their plant design there were much more elevated than Fukushima those systems, those plants weren't affected and so I think as we approach building out SMRs in small island developing nations that are prone to natural disasters like Jamaica we should really robustly put into the plans of the technology and in the area that we've selected to be extreme in the way that in what we plan for because climate change of course we don't expect to slow down anytime soon so we're going to be expecting more extreme events and so in the planning of building a small metal reactor, a nuclear power plant in these small island developing nations we do what we typically do anyway design it to be resistant to natural disasters but then make or design even more robust that we are predicting the craziest event that could happen that would be potentially dangerous to a small island developing nation particularly your tsunami or your hurricanes or your earthquakes as well but that's one of the things that gets lost in the conversation of nuclear energy isn't safe because four small island developing nations or four developing countries because of these extreme weather events 20 to 50 extreme weather events that have been in areas where there are nuclear power plants and there is no damage, there is no release of radioactive material Fukushima is the outlier I bet no one has ever heard of the other 49 on this spreadsheet because there's nothing to say about them and that's the point but I'd also like to add to that that radiation is naturally occurring so this week at our booth upstairs we're giving away bananas because if you eat one banana you get the same amount of radiation as if you live next to a nuclear power plant for an entire year so the United Nations Radiation Safety Board has done a significant study on what happened at Fukushima and the impact of the radiation on persons and the environment that they came to in this very dense report is that the impact on the environment in persons is null because in science we're not going to say zero because we have to quantify it somehow but what they came to was that the impact was null because even though there was some release of nuclear material and radiation it's also naturally occurring in our environment and so the higher you are from an elevation perspective the more radiation that you're going to be exposed to you know just flying here it's a significant more radiation than you would get living or working at a nuclear power plant for an entire year so I think it's also important that we kind of normalize what radiation is and what it is not I think it's really funny talking about radiation because if you look at where we get most of our radiation from or artificial radiation it's all in the medical field 0.1% is coming from nuclear energy and then being close to nuclear power plants but people are comfortable going to the doctor getting an x-ray, getting a CAT scan, getting an MRI but when you look at the spread of where we're receiving radiation from most of it is natural, radiation, right? and just under half of it of all the radiation that we receive is coming directly from the medical industry but we don't protest against cancer treatments which we need but it's also something that we need to consider to put into perspective everything around us is radioactive the ocean is radioactive so I think putting all of that into perspective when we do talk about radiation as this bogeyman cloud that is covering our industry it's important to have that perspective and what's your experience of working in the industry and what's your experience of working in the industry and what's your experience of working in a nuclear environment is radiation something that you think about ever on your day to day work is it something that you consider? Do you just forget about it? Is it a big deal? So I would say before starting to work so my background is mechanical engineering so I didn't really have an idea of how things work at the power plant and as I mentioned earlier when you look at the procedures that we have in the process and how everything is controlled and you have the radiation protection team and it really doesn't scare you anymore because everything is controlled and I think since we've touched on radiation, safety I think that the accidents that we've had has really led the industry to improve the safety protocols the designs of the reactors and this really shows the adaptability of the nuclear industry the best practices, the knowledge sharing and this is all very important for sustainability and even implementing new technologies is really part of how the power plants are maintained and licensed which really shows again that nuclear energy is sustainable and it proves that It's always funny to me that the people who work the most closely with radiation are the people who are least scared of it it's often people who have never ever interacted with anything beyond background radiation who are the most worried about it So when I was an intern at a nuclear power plant maybe naively, we used to have a competition around who could get the most radiation dose during your four month period because it's so controlled in terms of we have this saying Alara as low as reasonably achievable that we put shielding in place we put barriers in place to minimize the amount the most dose that I ever received I was actually working in outage and I was on top of the reactor core during shutdown uncoupling some of our control rods which we used to control the reaction and even in that case, the dose that I received was maybe one-fiftieth of what you would get in a normal year from the lights and so it's you know, as president of the International Youth Nuclear Congress one of the main projects we're focused on for next year is also bringing laboratory exercises into schools so our goal is to place these laboratory kits free of charge in regional locations globally and they'll focus on things like practical laboratory exercises around radiation, around heat transfer so you know, these core scientific principles that we're using really in any sort of industrial environment but also because you know, as we look towards the future and making it more sustainable we need to ensure that children are interested and have access to STEM so that that interest can or essentially we want these laboratory kits hopefully to be a catalyst for that interest in STEM especially for young girls because if we're only using 50% of our workforce we're never going to make it to net zero so like you guys said I think that in terms of the socialisation like what is radiation and putting it into perspective is so important So go grab a banana from upstairs after this session if you haven't already gone to the booth it's in the back corner of the room look for the giant gummy bear it makes sense when you go there perhaps to finish off in the last 10 minutes you mentioned the boogeyman of nuclear not being safe there's a question yes you've got a question sorry, she said eating a banana is like living next to nuclear nuclear science don't you think like if we already have like a radiation that we can't rid of like meds when we accumulate like other radiations from nuclear power it would be more massive like we can't get rid of meds but we can get rid of nuclear power that's my point but I don't know how I don't know if you did get my point so I think I understand what you're saying is essentially that we can't get rid of bananas but nuclear energy we can't get rid of medicine but is nuclear energy providing an unnecessary dose so coming out of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki the scientific community did a lot of studies around what is chronic low dose what is the impact to the body and what they found is that there is no quantifiable impact from chronic low dose and actually in some cultures even historically they've had radiation spas as a result because they think it has really positive impacts on the body so that's why in the power plants in quantifying it as related to a banana it's because that small small dose even if it's received over a long period of time the negative impact to the body in science terms is null so what you have to really be concerned about from a radiation perspective is like super high doses so that's why doctors when they do medical exams for instance like MRIs versus CAT scans they have to weigh the risk versus the benefit of doing such procedures because these are really high amounts of radiation that are being targeted on a specific part of your body it's the same with cancer treatments through radiation and so those high doses are really the concern from a scientific perspective especially on the basis of all of this information that we've collected in following people out of the disasters that happen in Hiroshima and Nagasaki I think to kind of address that as well is that yes we said that eating one banana is equivalent to getting the same radiation if you were to live within a mile of a nuclear power plant and that's a really powerful statistic because it goes to demonstrate the redundancies and safeguards that we do incorporate as a part of the nuclear power plants and your concern is that if we continue to build out more nuclear we're going to have more exposure to radiation so it goes back to the case of all the examples that we do have from all our power plants across the world we do have safeguards that we put in when you talk about radiation we're stopping radiation alpha particles can be stopped by a piece of paper beta, gamma, neutrons stopped by concrete, steel we know exactly how to shield ourselves from these types of radiation and we have been doing it so when we look at yes we want to build one, two, three, four, hundreds of nuclear reactors they're going to be built at the same level of safety or even higher than what we already have now so we are going to eventually be limiting that radiation exposure because safety is a priority and you can even look in the medicine medical industry where we create radioisotopes for cancer treatment those radioisotopes are made in research reactors nuclear research reactors they have the same material, you have the same because I've worked at a nuclear research reactor you have the same worry about radiation dose you carry around your dosimeter at a research reactor the same research reactor that they're producing isotopes to treat cancer it's a similar structure we have nuclear reactors for medical isotope production and we have nuclear reactors for power production but we still have the same safeguards in place to limit the exposure to radiation in a way that it's safe for the workers it's safe for people who are living nearby no problem, good question do you think this worry about radioactivity in the environment from nuclear power stations will become more geographically prevalent small modular reactors, a larger number of smaller reactors people on average will inevitably be living closer to nuclear reactors, is this something that we need to address perhaps as an industry and with the education about nuclear power more generally in the technology design of small modular reactors because you have your conventional reactors and we have this thing called the EPZ protection zone, which is essentially the zone that you would need to to evacuate, because we are scaling down to much smaller technologies, the EPZ it doesn't need to be 10 miles, 20 miles that zone, and so I think based on the design of the technology and even regulatory infrastructure that's being developed right now, you're looking at being able to live near small modular reactors it can be as close as 5 miles away from them and that's again innately coming from the design because we're looking at smaller reactors it's going to have a lot of smaller impact in the event of an incident and so we don't need to have this overly conservative EPZ as a way to put in another redundancy in our safeguard and so that makes small modular reactors more accessible and even safer than our current fleets innately within the design and in the regulations that enforce strict standards and at the same time what we've seen through these studies that are now following people for 70 plus years is that low doses low exposure to radiation is not problematic from a health perspective what becomes problematic from a health perspective quantifiably is large doses one of large doses very very large doses which is why the safety requirements around MPPs are so significant so final question to the three of you what motivates you in your work because in addition to providing the world with the clean energy that it needs to a continuous long march towards being fully developed and achieving net zero one of the things about nuclear is that it's a credible antidote to the despair and the doom and gloom particularly amongst the younger generation to climate change so what motivates you in your work for me it's energy reliability I was born and raised in Jamaica and I came to the US to study energy and it just so happened that because Jamaica most of the year I immediately went into solar energy and I was doing research there for a very long time but my motivation for getting pursuing a technology that produces firm clean base load power comes from the fact that there are blackouts and there is during and in the aftermath of extreme weather events that I've had to live through growing up and that's the primary reason why I wanted to be energy not only in solar but as I continue to be updated on the technology and see what technologies could be the most impactful not only from a reliability perspective but from an economic perspective, from a social perspective and from a net zero perspective nuclear just ended up being the solution that I just jumped on there so when I was looking in high school what I wanted to do, I wanted to contribute to the climate change mitigation discussion so electricity generation is fundamental to life and for me nuclear engineering made sense because not only does it provide you access to clean electricity but it also then provides access to higher standards of living because it allows you to have sanitation it allows you to have hospitals it allows you to build infrastructure to create jobs and so for me that's really what drives me every single day is knowing that at the end of the day the work that I'm doing is making a positive difference in people's lives and I think that that's really really important I've traveled to 59 countries across the globe and you see what the impacts are you don't have access to clean affordable reliable electricity and it's not just that you can't turn on your lights at home you don't have access to wifi it's these basic human, fundamental human needs that electricity enables so for me and this is very personal I think the opportunities that I get as a young female Emirati really drives me to do what I do and it's the reason why it's the reason why I get up every day in the morning and when you work in an industry like that and you see the effect that it has not only in the UAE but also globally and socially and how it also simulates economies and provides jobs and etc everything that we have discussed today and it brings more fulfilment Thank you that's perhaps a nice place to stop if you've got any questions that you think of later this week or today or you would be too shy to ask do come upstairs into the back corner and come and talk to the people in the blue t-shirts or anybody on this panel, pick brains, ask questions there's no question too small or too big we're here to answer your questions and thank you for the question round of applause for the panel please, thank you Thanks everyone


Welcome traders to this week's live treadmill session with me Patrick Munley just to give it another 30 seconds here before we get going. If you could do me a favor if you can hear me and you can see the welcome screen if you type of wines in the chapbox, that would be great so that I know we are set to start. Thanks very much. And that brings us to 2pm UK time. Once again, welcome to today's session. Before we get going, we just want to adhere to the risk disclaimer. Most importantly, for today's conversation, the views expressed by me here today are solely mine and not indicative of all representative of those held by tick mill Europe or tick mill UK limits. So for those that are here for the first time, a brief introduction to myself after I graduated from King's College London I joined a city PLC consulting firm. I left with some colleagues went on to successfully co found an exit consulting startup, which was focused on C sweet executive search for technology businesses, having a front row seat to the dot com bubble witnessing how people make and lose a fortune in the markets quite literally at times overnight.  I started day trading or probably more appropriately day gambling. I started with the S&P 500 after some early beginners luck I racked up some pretty solid gains, however, as is often the case, my beginners that run out. And as the market phase change I began to average down into losing positions giving back all my gains and ultimately experiencing a significant six figure hit my personal capital to say that was a gut wrenching and sobering experiences I really had to stand back and figure out if it was feasible for me to make a living from the market so I decided to get serious about trading and sought out a mentor with an excellent trading track record. Working with my mentor for a period of 18 months or two years, there's a time during which I had not just my technical gain in terms of researching developing its sense of the back and forward testing strategies that crucially sees my personality, all of which were underpinned by a rigorous management approach. But most importantly during the period of mentorship, I significantly developed my mental game. And probably most importantly of all, I made the watershed shift from being a highly goal orientation individual focused on financial gains to becoming purely process oriented. So what does that mean well it means I had to stop focusing on what I could make from the markets and start focusing solely on managing my mindset to allow me to consistently execute my strategy, oftentimes in the face of negative feedback from the markets in the market, losing trades. But once you become process oriented and you have a professional trading mindset, and you understand the true nature of trading being a numbers game in which you're simply playing the probabilities, you lose the emotional investment that hellish emotional role of coaster of living and dying by the outcomes of individual trades. So I'm no longer concerned with the outcome of individual trades or even a small string of trades. I'm concerned with the next 100 trades because I know that if I focus on excellence in execution, my edge will demonstrate itself over an extended series of outcomes. My multi strategy approach has been profitable on an annual basis since in 2013. I've also been managing investor capital through a managed account service again delivering annual positive returns. I'm currently responsible for managing a multimillion dollar portfolio. So 2010 I've also meant to hundreds of private traders of all experience levels from complete novices to former CME floor traders in developing the technical and mental skills to read consistent returns from markets. In addition to my fund management and mentoring, I'm a resident market expert exclusively providing market and trade analysis to tickmail. I provide an in-depth daily market outlook breaking down the fundamental and technical drivers for the day ahead. I also provide daily technical trade setup videos for three to five markets that I'm actively tracking, and they're all shared through the tickmail trading view accounts. I also run tickmills rapidly growing evenly strategy Facebook group where I post a daily video outlining my pre-market trading plan for the cash trading session in New York. I give my bias for the day and specific action areas where I'm looking to engage the markets. These pre-market plans have delivered over 1850 points of profit since we launched the group last April. The second tickmail strategy group I run is for traders who really want to take their trading to the next level. The tickmail futures trading telegram group is a real-time environment where on a daily basis I share in-depth insights and analysis and live trades. I also live stream during the opening hour of the cash session where traders can essentially look over my shoulder and watch in real time as I dissect the market and identify asymmetric trading opportunities. These live trade sessions, a lot may help to act as a platform to help traders develop a professional consistent approach to navigating the markets. And most importantly, the mental mind games that must be mastered to make it as a profitable market operator. Okay, so that gives you a flavor of where I'm coming from. We will jump into the charts. I can see a few questions have come through here. Jess, I will post the link to the Facebook group, you know, in a second. There's the link for the Facebook group, you just have to request access. For those that are interested in learning more about the telegram group, I suggest you email me. My email address is patrick.money at tickmailpartners.com, and I can explain more about what we do there. The one requirement for the telegram group is that you must have a futures account, a live futures account with tickmail. For the Facebook group, that's not necessary. It's just, you just have to request access to the group. Okay, so let's jump into the charts. What I'm going to do is I'm going to run through the main markets that I'm tracking at the moment, some of the setups that I'm monitoring. And then at the end of the session, if you have any questions, I'll open up a brief Q&A, or if there's any chart you'd like me to take a look at, I don't cover in my presentation here. And again, we can look at this in the Q&A. So let's start with the S&P 500. Obviously, we have been in a volatility here, sharp decline, witnessed over January, and we are now seeing a recovery unfold or an attempt to recover. The other lines in the sound for me with respect to whether or not we have seen a meaningful trading low and we're going to retest price cycle highs and move higher still is really this 78.6% retracement of the current decline. We've also got a daily chart. We've also got this high volume note as well. So 46.85 is the area of real interest to me. If we break through there and get a couple of days close above that level, then I think we'll be going back to retest price and on route to making new highs. The rate level then would be 49.70 on the S&P contracts. For the near term, what I'm looking for is a trade, is a corrective move to unfold versus the swing high that we got earlier this yesterday, 45.85, 45.80. So what I'm looking for now is a three way of corrective move, and I'm going to be looking to get involved then on the long side, looking for, so what I anticipate is something like this would be the ideal pattern. And then I'll be looking to bullish reversal patterns to engage on the long side, looking for an extension up into the 46.40 46.29 area. I'm going to go in sides with the underside of the trend line there 46.30s. And then from there that's going to be that should complete an interim cycle. And then once again what I've been looking for would be another correctively probably slightly larger corrective move to unfold and retest support back into the base there 44.46.  If we don't find support there then we could be looking at the next leg to the downside and the target to the downside if we do roll over. I'll be looking for a test of the 4000 level as the next downside objective but the interim setup for me here is going to be watching for a correction into this 45.07. And then I'll be looking at the 400 level and what's bullish reversal patterns targeting move back up through 4600. NASDAQ seen a bit of weakness obviously with the Facebook earnings coming out overnight and they disappointed there, but we've got a similar structure in the NASDAQ here so what I'm looking for is any responsive action from the support here. The 400.06 looking for a three-way corrected move before seeing if fires are going to step back in meaningfully to run up into the 15600 level will be the next objective. What I'm essentially looking at is this to get these targets is the first leg off the low. If it's any way you're interested in that that's obviously the wave one and then when we get that way for corrective load or just a swing over here. I'm always looking for a minimum for a wave one extension to the upside to complete to complete that initial cycle here so that's when I when I'm putting these measurements up it's not I'm just pulling back through these levels out for now I'm using market moves to measure where we're likely to end up when moves are likely to terminate. And one of the things I'm always also always tracking is momentum divergence. And so where we don't get meaningful momentum divergence that then suggests to me that we work that there's a high probability we'll see another high in this in this current leg. So that's what I'm looking at with the NASDAQ Dow Jones. It's a very well defined tier so with the Dow and looking for pullbacks into the support here at 35,000. Again, ideally we get that in a three wave move and then we're looking for an extension to the upside. And I'm looking for a test here at the 36,000 level you can also see on the daily charts. And using the pitchfork we have that projected descending trend line resistance coming in at the 36,000 as well. And the 36,000 also equals 78.6% retracement of this this move to the downside so that's going to be a key area when test they'll be watching to bearish reversal patterns to engage on the short side certainly thinking about a move back down into test the sending trend line resistance to the 34,000, 34,800 level, and then we'll see how how price responds once we get down there. So that's the story in the Russell. It's a little bit, a little bit more of an interesting pattern here to the Russell because we've got this ledge so sweet that we broke down from the first retest of that should attract some interest so you want to pay attention to the above 2100 level. And what I'm looking at now will be a three way extension here so we can get a pullback in the Russell like so. And then we look for an equality objective to take us up into that 2100. And from there we've been looking for various reversal patterns to engage on the short side for a test back down so 2100 is the area to pay close attention to on this Russell and certainly forget it in a three wave structure that will add additional confidence the idea that the move is corrective and as such that we can see a resumption of the current trend which is to the downside. DAX. So DAX, I highlighted this earlier in the week and in the TradingView account, the Tipman TradingView account, I'll post a link to that at the end of the session. DAX has a similar setup to the Russell, we'll just go back to the Russell chart. As you can see we were in this broadening top pattern, spiked the support so found one, one more leg to the upside and then rolled over. You can see that the DAX has a similar scenario developing here. We've got this, this ledger support coming in just below 14900. What I'd ideally like to see here with DAX is just to see if we completed the measured move. So we have this and this and so we can see a little bit more strength here in terms of the DAX we're holding. So I'll be looking at the same pattern at the moment. So what I'd ideally like would be a move up into the 15,845 high-volume node just above 15,920. So I'll be looking for bearish reversal patterns in this zone to sexual positions, targeting a spike of the lows at 15,000 before we get another recovery, and then I'll be looking for the larger push to the downside similar to that pattern that we just highlighted in the Russell. Pay close attention to 15,800 which is the equality objective versus the current swing structure. And if we can get up into that area and watch for bearish reversal patterns to engage on the short side, targeting a move down to the support at 15,000, potentially a spike of those lows. Futures contracts, 10 million notes in the US. It's quite a clean setup that I'm watching here. I'm looking for price to test the 128,27 level. I'm watching for bearish reversal patterns there to engage on the short side. So if we're shorting the Treasury notes or anticipating that the yield is going to rise, price moves inversely to the yield. I've been closely on as an amendment by all market participants as we as we move towards the potential for this move in March from the Fed. So what I'm looking for ultimately is this 125 which represents the equality objective from the high here versus that swing low to that swing high. So 125,10 is the real area of interest. Now, the immediate trade for me to get involved in that is watching how we respond at 128,27. And here's the inverse of that chart with the 10 year yields. So we will be anticipating a break higher in yields, looking ideally for a test up towards the 2% level to broadly co broadly coincide with that 125 low. And then I think we can see a bit more corrective action that you can see we've got a nice triangle pattern developing here. So any break through the triangle would suggest that we are on route to to make this move to grind higher to the to the 2% level. Let's just So we have 1.97 1.947 is the 127 extension of this current consolidation pattern and the initial target so what more often than not what we get what we get when we get this break out. We test the one to whatever you're looking for is a test of the 127 a pullback and then the extension up into 161 target zone. And from there, I'll be looking for certainly a more sustained corrective move. And that would broadly coincide with that 125 test on the actual notes contract dollar index. So bit tweaks in between at the moment. What we're looking for. I'm looking for this 61.8% retracement and the ascending trend line 98 30s to get tested we've seen a bit of a pullback here in recent sessions but ultimately now I'm looking for this move to develop in a three way pattern that gets us down into the 95 20s which is a trend line support and interim trend line support. I'm looking for bullish reversal patterns there to engage on the long side, looking for that move up into the 98 20s 98 30s. At this stage, we really need to see a close below this trend line. 94 60 would have to go to get meaningfully bearish on the dollar. I'm still looking for anticipating that as we head into this, this March meeting that we can see one more high in the dollar for this cycle. We can see that kind of buy the rumors sell a fact type set up into that meeting of the idea that we're up in testing this and then I think we can see some dollar weakness develop. You know, obviously trading the inverse to the dollar. What I'm looking for in the neuro ideally is the test of the descending trend line resistance here let me just pull up this. We also have the 78.6% retracement of the entire client so we are looking for this just above the 110 area to get tested. And that should that would probably coincide then with the dollar achieving that 98 objectives. So I'm looking for one more leg of weakness here in the euro to give the test about 78.6% retracement and then I see, then I see the potential for a more meaningful bounce to develop. So paying close attention to how price responds with checking back into underside of the price support they can see despite yesterday, we're seeing a bit of a reversal here today. So we'll see if you can get follow through on the downside to set set that test of just another 110 level before we get the real sustained corrective move in in the euro. See on the week a chart bunch of trend line support coming in there as well. So that's going to really be a key area of interest and quite a significant inflection point I think for these, these currency markets. Sitting in a triangle, not dissimilar to gold, more often than not. You'll find with me that we'll just turn that while so and so you'll find that the trade in inverse fashion but what we're looking at here with with the dollar yen is the potential now for a pullback to retest support here at the 1369. And then from there be watching the bullish reversal patterns to engage on the long side looking for a break and actually have a target here on the dollar yen that we bring this in for you. But we're looking forward to the quality objective from this area here. So I'm ultimately targeting for this leg test of 1778. And again, if that if the dollar index can hold its support zone that I've highlighted that will coincide with the dollar yen doing this and having a similar set up, and we'll be looking to to engage on the long side in the dollar yen. So the CAD held the help the trend line support that I've highlighted in last week's session, or a couple of weeks ago. So we have this trend line here, and the only concern here at the moment for the dollar CAD is that the move from the loans looks doesn't have really have impulsive qualities as such it looks a bit more corrective because you can see we're actually coming in to test the quality objective here, which is the 12880 so what I anticipate we see here is a move that tests up into that so fails pulls back and then there is the potential to set an inverse head and shoulders pattern to trade to the upside. At this stage, it was really good to get various dollar CAD for me anyway, we need to see a close below this trend line support, and that doesn't look like is like what we're going to be dealing with this juncture. So, I prefer here this inverse head and shoulders scenario so what you're going to move back into 126 30s to get in on the long side, and we're going to look for for a further upside extension, in terms of the dollar CAD. Euro sterling this one's interesting as we have had the BOE obviously it's very easy to be at the moment. And we have spiked into that descending trend line support that I've been paying attention to. So I'm watching that see if we can get a impulsive reaction here from the trend line. Otherwise, as you can see on the weekend chart on the top right there, any clothes through the 80 to 80s will be a significant bearish development. So we have a gap down the lowest there at the 81 handle which would be the next downside objective so watching carefully how price response here this is a pivotal level. If we break, we look for a follow through and then first pull back into this price support as resistance is a high probability scenario. Alternatively, we get an impulsive reaction here and potential for more meaningful bounce and pay close attention to your sterling coming sessions. Dollar, sorry sterling dollar. What I'm anticipating here we got obviously the rain hike in the UK this afternoon. But it's looking like a bit of a by the room itself a fact type scenario here so I'm paying close attention in. You can see we have five ways structure here. We're watching now for a pullback, which ideally will be in a three way pattern like so. And then I think we can get a retest up into the price here as this move looks at the moment to be impulsive. And then we have the sending trend line resistance coming in 3680 so 3680. So this this pattern play out on the interest rate for our time frame that three way direction into the 3435 13490 area, which would bullish reversal patterns there to engage on the long side and we'll see if we eventually get a break at this triangle. The Aussie, the Aussie is training back in a game to let me draw this in. Looking for the Aussie to test. We want to see a test of this trend broken trend line support to act as resistance coming at 72 hands. Let's see if we've got a set up here. We are holding the. What we see now with the Aussie is a three wave move that brings us back into test and hold the 7770 level sorry. And then we're looking for an upside extension up into that 70 to 90 73 area, and that's going to be a decision point because it can recapture prices above there and get acceptance about there. So we've got a trend line coming in back up towards 7450 on the Aussie. So it's going to be interesting to see how we respond if we get this pattern play out in the Aussie we could have an opportunity there on the long side. Kiwi has completed the test of that equality objective pretty much to the pit there. So we're looking at 5550s on the weekly timeframe. So what we're looking for now is a five wave sequence, and we can track one essentially here. So I do get a new hire now that takes us up into the weekly projected range of distance. Then we're looking for that three wave corrected pattern ideally to test back into the 6611 area. So what we're looking for would be an opportunity on the long side to initially play for an equality objective. And we've got a high volume load up at 6810. At this stage, any loss of the lows back into that 6530 6560 area will be a bearish development. And then we'd be thinking about to move down into the 6430s will be the next target on the downside but we're looking for an impulse set up here and a pullback to do something on the long side. Gold in that continuing to prostrate traders in the triangle. But for me at the moment, if we get a pullback into the 1786 level, I'm watching for bullish reversal patterns to actually engage on the long side, looking for a move up into objective sending the distance that comes in at 1860s and see if we do ultimately get a breakout in gold. If, if we do get a move, let's just get a target level. As you can see we have an equality objective up to 1940s as the first target in terms of a potential break of that triangle on gold. Let's jump to Crudor. This is one that I'm monitoring closely at the moment. The chart updates. So we had a potential for a way three high to develop as we tested, despite towards the 90 level yesterday was waiting for the chart to update here. It's a little bit slow there with me. What I'm looking for in crude now is that update. Let's move back into the 82 60s. So if I just scrunch child a little bit and you'll see exactly the pattern I'm tracking it. So we've got a potential way three high as a wedge. So any corrections. Now we look to fail here at the back into the 89 handle. And then we're looking for an extension to the downside to target 82 60s. And we're watching for bullish reversal patterns as we have the five equals one upside objective, which would take us up into the 93 handle is the target to the upside, if this pattern plays out so I'm watching for a break through this to set up and move back into 82 80 80 to 60 area and I'll be watching for bullish reversal patterns there to engage on the long side in terms of crude. Bitcoin. Bitcoin is being rejected at the moment from that trend line again, but it's not. I'm second. Just waiting for this chart to go. So I think in the near term, there could be an opportunity here to play counter trend on the long side. Any pullbacks now that find support. So we can get a bullish reversal from this 35. 35,455 which will British reverse patterns there to engage on the long side and the initial target for that move is going to be quality objective at 41,200. That's one that I'm paying close attention to so pullbacks now that find support again at the 35,500 level are an opportunity alongside targeting 41,200. So at this stage, it would take a loss of the prior lows at the 33,200 to set up the move to get the test here and below of sub 30, sorry, I'm sub 30,000 and I'd be expecting some support to develop there in terms of Bitcoin but in the immediate setup here for me is is a hold of support here extension to the outside. So those are the markets that I'm tracking at the moment where I see opportunities are going to be active obviously this afternoon in the S&P 500 in the E-mini strategy group. Thanks very much Jess. Any questions or anyone like me to take a look at the market that I haven't covered. If you don't have a question, if you type an N in the chat box that's just as helpful so I know I've done a reasonable job of explaining everything and we can wrap the session up here. The, the other Facebook to access the Facebook group just use the link and send a request and I'll, I'll add you into the group. I can't see any other questions so I'm going to wrap this session up here. Thank you very much for the time and hope you found this useful. As always traders, plan the trade, trade the plan, most importantly manage your risk until next time. Thanks very much.


And we start from Africa, where in a half an hour address, Ghani and President Anar Akufo-Ado addressed the nation to explain the raft of measures his government will be taking to see its way out of financial turmoil, including measures to support domestic production. Among these measures, Akufo-Ado announced a 30% cut in budgetary discretionary expenditures and salaries of the president, the vice president, ministers, deputy ministers and police school office holders. The Ghani and leader expressed that even though the country was in crisis, it will not, it would not be an opportunity to resolve, to resolve it just in a short term as urgent problems need long-term structural adjustment. I am in a crisis. I do not exaggerate when I say so. How can we find an example in history when so many malevolent forces have come together at the same time? But as we have shown in other circumstances, we should turn this crisis into an opportunity to resolve not just the short-term urgent problems, but the long-term structural problems that continue to be in our economy. To repair the short-term or public finances and restore balance of payments, once we continue to work in the immediate long-term structural changes that are at the heart of our goal of constructing a resilient, robust Canadian economy and building a Ghana beyond aid. So you get notified about fresh news updates.