PDA

View Full Version : U3O8 Uranium.



Pages : [1] 2 3

stolwyk
05-12-2004, 04:30 PM
The outlook for Oil in long term planning is at best doubtful or very expensive.

And now with the opposition to the use of Nuclear Reactors very much subsided, many countries are resorting to building new power stations:

"Who uses nuclear power?
Over 16% of the world's electricity is generated from uranium in nuclear reactors. This amounts to about 2400 billion kWh each year, as much as from all sources of electricity worldwide in 1960.

In a current perspective, it is twelve times Australia's or South Africa's total electricity production, five times India's, twice China's and 500 times Kenya's total.

It comes from over 430 nuclear reactors with a total output capacity of more than 350 000 megawatts (MWe) operating in 31 countries. A further thirty reactors are under construction, and another 70 are on the drawing board":
http://www.uic.com.au/uran.htm

"The main uranium deposits can be found in Australia (28%), Canada (14%) and Kazakhstan 15%".
____________________________________

The price of U3O8 is slowly rising after a strong advance some time ago and is now $US20.50/lb:
http://www.uxc.com/review/uxc_prices.html

Gerry

Mick100
05-12-2004, 08:47 PM
I'm interested in uranium Gerry
Do you know which companies on the ASX are mining uranium.
There must be a few of them.


Mick

miner
05-12-2004, 09:05 PM
Mick100 this is gerry's set up thread (like his gold one) next he will say SMM for a uranium share,which he just happened to buy the other week.

Same old ramping stuff.

Cheers
Miner

stolwyk
05-12-2004, 09:37 PM
Mick,

Forget this guy Miner. He is just ruining this thread. He should know better since he has been here since Sept 2001 but he continues to flout the rules. Doesn't like this needed thread, I suppose.

I was going to refer to companies in my next post. However, I am not going to give any advice apart from mentioning some companies.

These are from Australia: ERA, HAV, PDN, SMM (and Western Mining now being bid for). There could be others.

HAV has other interests as well but has risen in the last 10 days or so.
PDN has risen a lot as well. They have uranium assets in Africa.

I hold SMM which has more proven uranium than HAV, however the Queensland Govt sofar has forbidden it to mine. SMM is drilling nevertheless and I read that the Chinese Govt is discussing uranium with Australia.

I am having a look at the Canadian market. Have followed one for some time.

May expand this next time by inclusion of websites, charts and some details.


Thanks for your enquiry,

Gerry
Readers, please do your own research and you decide if and when to buy, hold or sell any stocks.

limegreen
06-12-2004, 10:49 AM
WMC Resources (WMR.AU) have recently discovered a higher level of uranium than previously expected at their Olympic Dam site, suggesting that they now have 38% of global economically viable uranium resources.

http://au.biz.yahoo.com/041123/19/26yn.html

This would obviously make them an ideal exposure to uranium, but unfortunately, the ideal entry point was a few weeks back, before a conditional takeover bid was announced.

DISC: WMR

limegreen
14-12-2004, 01:41 PM
[Company Announcement]

WMC 'uniquely placed' for growing uranium demand

With 38% of the world's known economic uranium resources, WMC Resources Ltd (WMC) is uniquely placed among global uranium producers to benefit from forecast increases in uranium demand and prices.

WMC's Olympic Dam mine in South Australia is not only the world's largest uranium mineral resource, but also the world's lowest-cost producer, WMC CEO Andrew Michelmore told a Citigroup Global Markets conference in Sydney today. 'Olympic Dam is the only uranium producer to meet all four requirements that buyers want - diversification, reliability, political stability and long life.'


Current global uranium production meets only 58 per cent of demand, with the shortfall made up largely from rapidly shrinking stockpiles. The shortfall is expected to run at 51 million pounds a year on average from next year to 2020. Uranium prices have doubled in the last year to over US$20/lb and are forecast to settle at US$25-30/lb in real terms in the longer term.
'A uranium supply squeeze is looming and the market is set to remain tight as nuclear power programs expand,' Mr Michelmore said. 'Japan is planning 16 new plants, with India and China building another seventeen. This will come on top of the global supply shortfall facing the current 438 reactors.'

WMC is currently spending $50 million studying expansion plans for Olympic Dam's output to up to 15,000 tonnes of uranium oxide and 500,000 tonnes of copper annually. This could make the mine the world's largest producing and lowest cost uranium mine by 2010. As a by-product of copper production, WMC's marginal cost of producing uranium at Olympic Dam is less than $US3/lb.

'Increased production, plus higher prices will ensure that uranium becomes a much more important part of WMC and Olympic Dam's future value.' Mr Michelmore said. 'The contribution of uranium and gold underpin the viability of the planned expansion at Olympic Dam.'

WMC expects to produce 4,300 tonnes of uranium oxide for export from Olympic Dam in 2004. WMC's uranium is exported to electricity generators in Asia, Europe and North America under bilateral agreements between Australian and host governments.

DISC: WMR

Morch
14-12-2004, 03:35 PM
What a massive gap up in late October. Was this caused by share consolidation or price movement?

Thanks in advance


SMM: Just had a quick scan of recent report and short of a Queensland Government policy change SMM have and unusable uranium resource?

Morch :)

arco
14-12-2004, 03:46 PM
Not sure if these may be of use to anyone....

Uranium Tickers.

ABN.V AFKDY.PK ALS.V ALZ.V ASX.V BCP.V BTT.V CBAG.OB CCJ CCO.TO CLU.V CMKX.PK CVV.V DEN.TO DRTK FRG.TO GDR.V GRS.TO HBE.V IEC.V IUC.TO JNN.V LAM.V LEG.V LGR.V NCR.V NSV.V NWT.V PDN.AX SAN.V SLT.V STM.V SXR.TO TXM.V UCA.V UEX.TO UGS.V URIX.OB USEG USU UVN.V WNP.V
ABN.V AFKDY.PK ALS.V ALZ.V ASX.V BCP.V BTT.V CBAG.OB CCJ CCO.TO CLU.V CMKX.PK CVV.V DEN.TO DRTK FRG.TO GDR.V GRS.TO HBE.V IEC.V IUC.TO JNN.V LAM.V LEG.V LGR.V NCR.V NSV.V NWT.V PDN.AX SAN.V SLT.V STM.V SXR.TO TXM.V UCA.V UEX.TO UGS.V URIX.OB USEG USU UVN.V WNP.V

stolwyk
15-12-2004, 12:05 AM
LISTS OF URANIUM COMPANIES

Nice work Arco, thanks.


More: From A-Z:
http://www.uxc.com/links/uxc_links-a-c.html

Perhaps:
http://www.antenna.nl/wise/uranium/ucomp.html

Gerry

halcyon9
15-12-2004, 03:21 AM
quote:Originally posted by miner

Mick100 this is gerry's set up thread (like his gold one) next he will say SMM for a uranium share,which he just happened to buy the other week.

Same old ramping stuff.

Cheers
Miner




yep, SMM mentioned last;) sly ol dog

right on the $$$ there Miner

no fleas on u:D

limegreen
15-12-2004, 08:38 AM
quote: What a massive gap up in late October. Was this caused by share consolidation or price movement?

I presume you're referring to WMR.AU. A conditional takeover offer was lodged by Xstrata of Switzerland at $6.35. It had traded at a healthy premium to this since then, suggesting there is anticipation of either Xstrata raising their bid, or a bidding war involving another party. I can't predict where the price is going to go from here (it could go much higher, $9-$12 have been suggested should another bidder eventuate; but settling back to $5/$6 should nothing happen is possible as well). Personally, I'd be somewhat sceptical about buying into another stock for exposure to aluminium when WMR have so much uranium, which they're digging up to extract copper anyway. Obviously I hold WMR, so you should be able to work out which colour my glasses are tinted.

Morch
15-12-2004, 09:19 AM
quote:Originally posted by limegreen


quote: What a massive gap up in late October. Was this caused by share consolidation or price movement?

I presume you're referring to WMR.AU. A conditional takeover offer was lodged by Xstrata of Switzerland at $6.35. It had traded at a healthy premium to this since then, suggesting there is anticipation of either Xstrata raising their bid, or a bidding war involving another party. I can't predict where the price is going to go from here (it could go much higher, $9-$12 have been suggested should another bidder eventuate; but settling back to $5/$6 should nothing happen is possible as well). Personally, I'd be somewhat sceptical about buying into another stock for exposure to aluminium when WMR have so much uranium, which they're digging up to extract copper anyway. Obviously I hold WMR, so you should be able to work out which colour my glasses are tinted.


Yes it as WMR, and many thanks for your post. I note they say they are the worlds largest produce of Uranium? and unlike smm are in production so thats very positive. looking at the chart it seems that takeover is quite protracted but given the demand for Uranium your upside suggestion may be the more likley scenario.

Morch :)

limegreen
15-12-2004, 10:13 AM
Rumour (ie, sharebroker, newspapers) suggest that WMR has not been that well managed in the past, making it a fairly attractive takeover target or investment, as they clearly have the mineral resources, so with enhanced management (which is now, allegedly, happening), there is some upside. Or at least that was my relatively uneducated reason for investment.

srotherh
15-12-2004, 06:02 PM
ERA:ASX Energy resources of Australia
Owned approx 60% by rio Tinto
Presently mines uranium in NT
No Debt
Check it out

stolwyk
11-01-2005, 12:46 PM
There is some movement in share prices this morning:
PDN: 68 (+ 12) Got some yesterday.

SMM 19.5 (+2.5), I hold

CVV(CanAlaska--Canadian) 43 (+3), I hold

As to Uranium, no price increase was recorded.

As soon as I get some time I want to get back to studying some Uranium companies and report here.

Gerry
Readers, please do your own research and you decide if and when to buy, hold or sell any stocks.

Packersoldkidney
11-01-2005, 01:25 PM
Gerry.

There's an article on Hotcopper you can copy over to here.

Just a heads up.

Packers.

stolwyk
11-01-2005, 01:47 PM
Thanks.

I have read it but have picked an article for SMM-see thread.

SMM: 21 cents

Gerry

Packersoldkidney
11-01-2005, 01:54 PM
Sounds like you don't trade these companies, Gerry, but are a buy and hold sort of investor. Is this correct?

stolwyk
11-01-2005, 02:06 PM
I do try to hold if at all possible. But many companies are not condusive to holding due to promises not kept, bad governance and overall risk.

A company I trust is CSM

I want to do some work in my garden. Can I leave you to it?

Gerry

Packersoldkidney
11-01-2005, 02:36 PM
Best not leave me to anything, Gerry. I'm a diagnosed pyromaniac, and prone to burn things if left alone with a box of matches. Uranium and pyromania don't really go together, if you ask me - an explosive combination. If you leave, this thread could get hot, and we could all be only left with half-lives.

Enjoy your tomatoes. Got some Apollos, Gross Lizzys, Mighty Reds, Rouge De Mars and Romas myself. Or maybe you have flowers. One should always take time to smell the flowers, so it is said. Have to say it is a practice I dislike, due to the fact sniffing petals gives me hayfever.

stolwyk
12-01-2005, 07:51 AM
(Thanks DUB)

Uranium to be supply driven rather than inventory driven
By: Rhona O'Connell
Posted: '11-JAN-05 07:00' GMT © Mineweb 1997-2004



LONDON (Mineweb.com) -- At the inaugural Uranium Mining Conference held in London on January 10th by stockbrokers Hargreave Hale in conjunction with LM Associates and at which six uranium producers or explorers / developers presented (of which more later this week), the Keynote address concerned the changes in and outlook for the uranium market itself.

The paper was delivered by Dustin J. Garrow, President of International Nuclear Inc., and a seasoned member of the market, with over thirty years’ experience in the uranium and nuclear power industries. His primary conclusions were that the international uranium market is in transition from being inventory-driven to production-driven.

Demand is set to outstrip supply by a considerable margin, the inventories built up during the period of excess (effectively from 1945 to 1986) will not be sufficient to supply the developing shortfall and the uncertainty over potential uranium supply through to 2010 suggests the development of shortages. He contends that the future price trend will accordingly be determined by the price necessary to support new production centres and that a term uranium price at or above US$30 per pound (of U3O8) is not unreasonable.

He also stressed that it is important, when looking at the market, to consider the long-term contract prices that are being struck rather than the spot price, as not much more than 10% of uranium transactions are concluded at spot with the rest in term contracts.

Secondary uranium sources are rapidly declining, notably the US-Russian highly-enriched uranium programme, which has been delivering uranium to the market at the rate of 24m lb per annum and this level is not thought to be viable for the future. In addition China is in transition from being a uranium exporter to importer. And critically, of course, the collapse in market prices through the 1980s and 1990s following record levels at the end of the 1970s (reminiscent of another highly-priced metal) has meant that there was a dearth of exploration during the 1980s and the first half of the 1990s. This was a key feature of some of the producers’ presentations as a number of them have picked up cheap properties and are now looking to develop or joint venture (see separate piece later this week).

As a consequence of market developments, uranium mine production dropped significantly in the first half of the 1980s from approximately 150M lb at the start of the 1980s, when it just exceeded demand, to below 100m lb per annum during the 1990s, while consumption was rising from roughly 150M lb towards 175M lb per annum.

Nuclear power generation has been on the increase over the past decade although during the 1990s there was little freshly commissioned greenfield capacity. This has been due to improved reactor performance, increased fuel burn-up (i.e. the amount of energy recovered from the fuel bundles), extended fuel cycles, and capacity increases of between 5 and 15% at existing plants. The average load factor in the United States has risen from approximately 65% in 1990 to roughly 90% by 2000, while the extension of the fuel cycle now means that the period between refuelling the core in the reactors has extended significantly and now runs at between 18 and 24 months, whereas in the 1970s it could be as short as twelve months. In addition, the average capacity factor for nuclear plants stood in 2003 at 89.6%, compared with 70.6% for coal, while the natural gas-fired plants were operating at only approximately 40% of the time – and renewable, wind-powered plants only operated for one-third of the time.

These increases in efficiency have resulted in considerable cost reduction and in the US nuclear power is now competitive with coal and natural gas ($31-46/MWh post absorption of early plant costs, against $33-41/MWh for coal and $35-45/MWh for batural gas). This is one of the factors that have led to a renais

stolwyk
12-01-2005, 08:14 AM
Uranium prices are set to climb

By Matt Chambers Bloomberg News Wednesday, January 5, 2005
Supplies dwindle even as Asia builds more nuclear reactors

MELBOURNE Prices for uranium, used to generate 16 percent of the world's electricity, may rise by a quarter this year as stockpiles of the nuclear fuel decrease and demand is set to rise from reactors being built in China and India.
.
"You have gone from a buyer's to a seller's market," said Bob Mitchell, who holds physical uranium worth more than $26 million for Adit Capital Management in Portland, Oregon. "Most reactors under construction haven't secured long-term supply and there is no inventory left among utilities."
.
Commercial stockpiles of the fuel dropped 50 percent between 1985 and 2003 because mine output could not keep up with demand, according to a September report by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Mine expansions may not meet demand, pushing up prices for uranium at miners such as Cameco, the world's biggest, and Energy Resources of Australia.
.
Cameco shares rose 68 percent last year and Energy Resources of Australia, which is 68 percent-owned by Rio Tinto Group, surged 94 percent. Paladin Resources, an Australian company that plans to mine uranium in Namibia, rose ninefold.
.
China is preparing to award an $8 billion contract to build four reactors in the world's biggest nuclear power construction program. The country plans to build 27 plants to meet a target of raising nuclear energy output fivefold by 2020. India aims to build 17 reactors to triple nuclear power capacity by 2012.
.
"Uranium prices will advance in 2005," said Mitchell at Adit Capital, who also owns Cameco shares as part of the $200 million he helps manage at another fund, Touchstone Investment Managers. "In China, they'll have to build a couple more reactors a year."
.
Concern about supply shortages helped increase spot prices of uranium to $20.50 a pound as of Dec. 31, according to Metal Bulletin. That is the highest since 1984, according to a report by Jeff Combs, president of Ux Consulting, based in Roswell, Georgia, which publishes spot uranium prices.
.
The spot market, which makes up about 12 percent of uranium sales, according to the World Nuclear Association, sets a price reference for long-term contracts between miners and utilities. Uranium prices rose to a record of more than $40 a pound in the late 1970s, according to Combs at Ux Consulting.
.
Contract prices paid by power companies may rise to $27 a pound this year from $20 a pound last year, a National Bank Financial analyst, Ian Howat, said in a Nov. 24 report. Long-term prices may rise to $26 a pound, a Goldman Sachs JBWere analyst, Ian Preston, said in a Dec. 14 report after attending a uranium conference in Sydney.
.
"It looks like current prices are here to stay and possibly rise significantly," Craig Kinnell, acting chief executive of Energy Resources of Australia, the world's third-biggest uranium miner, said in an interview Dec. 31.
.
"Inventories are falling and there has been little response to that in the way of more mine supply. Our contract prices have risen to reflect the spot price rises."
.
China aims to double total power generation capacity by 2020. It needs to add two reactors a year by then to meet a target of generating 4 percent of its power from nuclear plants.
.
Demand from China may help uranium prices double in the next two years and may triple demand for nuclear power by 2020, said Quinton George, managing director of Trinity Asset Management. The company owns 18 percent of Afrikander Lease, which holds South Africa's biggest uranium deposit.
.
"The supply deficit will affect this market for at least the next 10 years," Geroge said. "In the next two years we could well see uranium touching historical highs, at least doubling current prices."
.
China has begun talks with Australia, which holds the world's largest uranium reserves, to enable the fuel to be exported by Rio Tinto, the world's third-biggest miner, and WMC Resources, which owns the biggest d

Packersoldkidney
12-01-2005, 10:13 AM
That's 83 and 82

stolwyk
13-01-2005, 08:39 PM
Thanks Dynofish,


Australia's Uranium Deposits and Prospective Mines:

http://www.uic.com.au/pmine.htm#westmor

Packersoldkidney
13-01-2005, 09:07 PM
73. 73. Fly like a butterfly, sting like a bee.

dingdong
13-01-2005, 09:11 PM
I'm fortifying my bunker with gold bars, the 5000 day of reckoning beckons.

tracker
13-01-2005, 09:41 PM
isnt it like the whole 200o thingy with the comps
self implosion emolation, or just a big fizz dunno, but maybe it will all subside once over and done with lol
counting down with glee
tracker

dingdong
13-01-2005, 10:04 PM
It's a prophecy come true. The God of Ramping has uranium in his sights, and what can you make with enriched uranium? You guessed it. Not only do we know the end is nigh come 5000, we know how it's going to happen. I shall now line my gold bar fortress with lead.

duncan macgregor
14-01-2005, 10:47 AM
ABDAB, indeed you are unworthy. Gold has the same properties as lead. This gold that you have accumulated will protect you from the curse of this dreaded uranium. There is no need to purchase this usefull metal lead at high cost. Use up this useless yellow metal against this evil new commer. Your mate MACDUNK

dingdong
14-01-2005, 11:38 AM
I praise Allah for your wise comments O Scottish One, I will buy more gold to stave off the famine and pestilence that will engulf this world come 5000.

14-01-2005, 03:09 PM
ABDAB what are yuo going to eat. "Gold"

dingdong
14-01-2005, 08:04 PM
O Enigmatic One the Abdad gold fort is being constructed, tinned produce and bottled water are next on my unworthy list to hoard before the Stolwykos 5000 day of reckoning.

duncan macgregor
14-01-2005, 08:41 PM
ABDAB, Indeed you are well prepared,but perhaps it might be wiser to snuff the candle out rather than spend an eternity sharing cans of beans in a gold fortress with your countless wives and their mothers.
Perhaps your gods will save you from this hell, and call you home early to save you from this fate. MACDUNK

dingdong
14-01-2005, 09:07 PM
O Wind of the Bagpipes the holy scriptures of the the gold groupies have prepared me for this impending apocalypse. Since gold is only valuable for Armageddon type events I'll be damned if I cannot put my gold stash to good use.

Mick100
14-01-2005, 09:21 PM
Don't be fooled by Abdad's dribble Macdunk

Have a look at his picks in the ASX stock picking comp. He's picked 5 miners, 4 of which are primarily gold miners.

So although he is constantly slagging gold, it would appear that he himself is more bulish on gold than any of the "gold groupies" which he refers to.

He's not as stupid as he makes out he is.


Mick

dingdong
14-01-2005, 09:33 PM
I am unworthy of your highly intelligent insights, o fellow gold bug.

The point of picking gold stocks in the ASX comp was not to win, but to see how close I can get to my expected return on gold of 1% in real money.

duncan macgregor
14-01-2005, 09:53 PM
MICK, ABDAB is correct when he says he will not win this competition. It would be an unworthy act that would turn his gods against him. He is showing his worth by being unworthy and trying to come last, by selecting gold stocks

dingdong
14-01-2005, 10:01 PM
Overrated gold stocks.

Mick100
14-01-2005, 10:18 PM
Thanks for the explanation

Mick100
14-01-2005, 10:30 PM
I suspect you have already made well in excess of your 1% real return on your picks abdab - only one week into the comp.

Misc
14-01-2005, 11:49 PM
Hows 'Gerry' going in this years comp ?? Strangely I suspect he is once again a 'bottom' dweller , perhaps he should take a lesson in 'learning to invest' LOL

Misc

stolwyk
16-01-2005, 03:36 PM
Kid, you don't comment unless you have participated in that competition. You started in May 2004, therefore you were not in that competition and if you had good manners, you wouldn't comment.

Now I notice you are not in this new competition either. I normally wouldn't comment but in this particular case I would say you are gutless.

Hopefully that will stop you from commenting next time.

Packersoldkidney
16-01-2005, 04:20 PM
69 to go. 69. Either way up.

stolwyk
16-01-2005, 07:11 PM
URANIUM EXPLORATION COMPANIES

Here is some preliminary rough work. Please note that prices may have changed.

Any comments are not binding but may act as a guide later. Shares/Warranta/Options need checking:

URANIUM: TSX (Toronto) pricing:

JNN-$1.14/60 mill shares?
LAM 95 cents-33.1 m shares, perhaps no.
STM 1.50- 35.3 mill shares -Could be.
TXM $1.20-8.6 mill shares-To watch

UEX $2.20-13 projects, 100% owned
WNP 131 cents-23.5 mill shares-Could be.
PEX 13 cents-38.3 mill shares/fully diluted 50.4 mg
ALS(Altius) $3.80-24.5 mill shares, fully diluted 29 mill.

GRS 51 cents-30 m shares
GDR 80 cents-43.2 mill shares. Website?
NWT 70 cents- 36 mill shares?
UCA 51 cents-22.8 mill shares

JNR $1.17?- 64 mill shares
ASN 50 cents 43.1 mill shares.
BCP 28 cents-31 mill shares
BTT 34 cents-27.9 mill shares

IEC 27 cents-5.4 mill shares
LGR 27 cents- 12.8 mill shares
NSV 22.5 cents- 233 mill shares
SAN 32 cents-42 mill shares

UGS 36 cents-16.2 mill shares
UVN 38 cents-9.2 mill shares


Next stage: Selections to work on.

Gerry
Readers, please do your own research and you decide if and when to buy, hold or sell any stocks.

Packersoldkidney
16-01-2005, 09:08 PM
Make us wait, 68.

Misc
16-01-2005, 11:37 PM
We shouldnt be tooo unkind to 'Gerry' .... when we get to 85 years old I'm we'll be talking to ourselves too LOL

Misc

stolwyk
16-01-2005, 11:53 PM
You are doing that already kid.

BTW I am nearly 77 and my brain is better than yours because sofar I haven't seen a really good post of yours yet. Keep trying, though!

Don't get mislead about competitions. People tend to throw out the stocks they selected for that competition. That may well be done say one month after the competition starts. It would be different if they were allowed to select 10 stocks.

BTW, any flaming comments from you to me will be logged from now on.

Gerry Stolwyk

Misc
17-01-2005, 09:51 AM
LOL , 'Flaming Comments' ??? I think its you who is flaming Mr Stolwyck .. better turn the air-cond. up to max !!

My posts are all factually based .... your denials have a very hollow ring to them imo!

Happy Logging ;)

Misc

stolwyk
17-01-2005, 11:46 AM
You lied when you said that my popularity on HC was similar to that of ST. You didn't know and didn't bother to find out by going there and posting there for some time. Instead, you are suggesting that "others said.....".

You said this: "Do you deny you colluded with other posters to buy stock and team-ramp Stolwyck ? You did get sprung on HC .... have you forgotten ? Should I ask Alpha , Hilldweller etc to refresh your memory ?"
Comment: You lied and moreover you mentioned names. Did you ask these people if they want to be mentioned? No.

I said that I live in NZ. You said I am a liar:
Now, my broker is ABN-AMRO Craig in Auckland. I'l make arrrangements with them today to release to you:

"That they regularly receive mail and cheques from me, signed by G. Stolwyk". That phone calls are made by both parties. The evidence is that I live in NZ.
Suggest you contact them (Edward Gordon only) and find out.

That ought to put you out of your misery.

Now take note that your flaming will be logged and used.

Gerry

17-01-2005, 05:32 PM
Gerry yes I hope your logging is used as I suggested.

stolwyk
17-01-2005, 05:54 PM
You said I was a fraud as I wasn't G.Stolwyk.
The arrangement with my broker has been made so Misc can contact him.

See how you two brave people will shape up.

Gerry

Misc
18-01-2005, 07:57 AM
Talking to a broker proves nothing Stolwyck.
I know people who have accounts set up in the following names with different brokers (for tax reasons):

- Drew Peacock
- Hugh J****
- Alan Drover
- Mike Hunt

Now why wouldnt Gerry Stolwyck be just as fictitious ??

Perhaps you had better explain why there is no such person who:

- Has ever been a company Director in NZ
- Is not on an elctoral roll
- Is not known to the IRD


Are you an overstayer 'Gerry' ... hmmm , back to the 'East Indies' for you it seems LOL

Now ... when replying , please address ALL the above points and dont simply cut/paste/avoid to suit !

misc

stolwyk
18-01-2005, 08:24 AM
You are a slow learner and don't listen.

You wrote: "Now why wouldnt Gerry Stolwyck be just as fictitious ??"

I just don't understand why you don't use my Username spelt out on the left of this post: "STOLWYK" It is not "Stolwyck".

There shouldn't be any "C" in that name yet you persevere with it. If you had read a post from Enigma, he also told you to use the correct name.

There are a few with the name of "Stolwyk" in NZ. A pity, you take so much time and spent so many words to rectify your mistake.

Gerry

Misc
19-01-2005, 12:50 AM
OK , so my dutch spelling is apalling LOL

How about answering thye quetions 'Gerry' ????????????

Misc

stolwyk
19-01-2005, 01:31 AM
I told you that I am a "Stolwyk". They do live in NZ. There are not many.

It is the Username (Or surname in this case) which matters only when posts are written. "Gerry" is of no consequence.

So, my name is G. Stolwyk and that should be enough. Whether I live in Auckland, Timaru or Gisborne doesn't matter, really.

Packersoldkidney
19-01-2005, 02:10 AM
Gerry, what are we up to? 49 by the looks. Charging towards 5k. Rise 'n' shine, 49.

stolwyk
19-01-2005, 10:13 AM
Richard Owen
19jan05

SHARES in Rio Tinto-controlled Energy Resources of Australia, operator of the Ranger uranium mine in the Northern Territory, have vaulted another 30 per cent in the past two weeks as investors continue to zero in on the widening gulf between global demand for yellowcake and supply.



While ERA chairman Brian Horwood advised the annual meeting last year of an increasing focus on the supply side to accommodate expansion of the nuclear power industry, the bourse failed to sit up and take notice of uranium until Xstrata launched its $7.4 billion bid for rival producer WMC Resources late last year.

ERA is 68 per cent owned by Rio and another 20 per cent is held by two customer groups, leaving the market with a free float of just 12 per cent – rendering stock in the company even scarcer than yellowcake supplies.

Consequently, ERA stock has more than doubled in value over the past 12 months and closed up 42¢ at $8.41 on low turnover yesterday after starting the year at about $6.50.

Paladin Resources, which has the Langer Heinrich uranium project in Namibia and several other prospects in Africa and Australia, has also seen its stock price rocket 47 per cent this year. It closed up 2¢ at 72¢ yesterday.

However, WMC closed steady at $7.21 as investors waited for either Xstrata to raise its offer of $6.35 a share or a rival bidder to emerge.

ERA chief financial officer Rod Antal yesterday attributed the recent spike in share price to renewed sector interest following Xstrata's bid for WMC, which controls more than a third of the world's known uranium resources at its massive Olympic Dam copper gold mine in South Australia.

"It's certainly attracted the attention of the investing public to uranium, and if you look around there aren't a lot of places you can invest on the Australian market," he said.

"We are one of the rare ones . . . and we're not very liquid anyhow."

ERA's share price has been moving in lock-step with uranium prices, which have gained more than 40 per cent in the past year to more than $US20/lb.

And they are expected to rise even further and settle at around $US26/lb as stockpiles of the nuclear fuel shrink and demand balloons as more than 70 new reactors to be built in China, India and Russia come on line by 2020 – adding to the 438 already in operation.

Most of these new plants have yet to secure long-term supply contracts.

However, commercial stockpiles of the fuel – used to generate 16 per cent of the world's electricity – have halved since 1985 as mine output failed to keep pace with demand.

ERA posted a June-half net profit of $11.4 million from sales of $94.3 million and is due to report its full-year result on Friday next week – buoyed by a $10.5 million writeback against a provision following a favourable High Court win against the tax office in November.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I hold PDN, SMM and CVV.TSX These have threads on ST.
Readers, please do your own research and you decide if and when to buy, hold or sell any stocks.

stolwyk
20-01-2005, 09:44 AM
U3O8 up 30 cents to $US21.0/lb (Change from previous week)

http://www.uxc.com/review/uxc_prices.html

stolwyk
25-01-2005, 10:52 PM
Nuke power rebirth makes uranium tops
By: Dorothy Kosich
Posted: '25-JAN-05 05:00' GMT © Mineweb 1997-2004



VVANCOUVER--(Mineweb.com) The rebirth of nuclear power may make uranium the top commodity pick of investors at least for the next two years.

In presentations to the Mineral Exploration Roundup in Vancouver, British Columbia, Monday, at least two experts, including an executive for the Scotiabank Group, extolled the virtues of uranium.

Patricia Mohr, Vice President, Economics, Industry & Commodity Market Research for the Scotiabank declared that "uranium is my top commodity pick for investors during the next two years," noting that as of January 25 the spot price was US$21, while the long-term contract price was $25. She predicted a price forecast of spot $25 and long-term contract of $30 per pound in 2006 because utility companies have bid up long-term contract prices due to their concerns over security of supply.

"Both spot and longer-term contract prices are likely to strengthen further in coming years," she added.

Dustin J. Garrow, President of International Nuclear, Inc., declared that "after 30 years in exile, nuclear power is back." Current world nuclear capacity includes 438 reactors in 31 nations. Mohr said the total will increase to 474 reactors by 2013. She predicted that substantial expansions in Asia (38 additional reactors) and in Eastern Europe (11 reactors) will offset a reduction of 24 reactors in Western Europe. However, only 100 million pounds of uranium will be mined annually by that time.

Meanwhile, Russia is busy exporting reactors to nations such as China, India, Japan, South Korea and the region of Eastern Europe. Mohr estimated that a deficit of 175 million pounds of uranium now exists between mine supply and international uranium consumption by utilities. Garrow noted that nations such as Lithuania, France, Slovakia, and Belgium now use nuclear power for at least 50% of their electricity generation.

Garrow said that factors contributing to the revival of nuclear power are improved reactor performance, extended fuel cycles, increased generating capacity, and reduced operating costs. Expansion programs for nuclear-generated power are underway in China, India, Russia, and Finland, he added. Even the nuclear-phobic United States is granted operating license extensions for nuclear power plants, and planning new facilities.

Garrow estimated that world uranium requirements could hit more than 240 million pounds by the year 2019. Mohr In 2003, six nations produced more than 80% of an estimated 92.4 million pounds of total world uranium production. Of those, Canada and Australia produced more than 50% of the world total, he added.

Production also comes from secondary uranium sources, including the U.S.-Russian Highly Enriched Uranium Program, the U.S. Enrichment Corporation Inventory, and the Highly Enriched Uranium Inventory of the U.S. Department of Energy, according to Garrow. However, Mohr said Russia's indication that it will cut potential supplies to western markets by the time the U.S.-Russian HEU Agreement ends in 2013, This means Russia needs to withdraw about 7 million pounds yearly to facilitate the blending of HEU for its own domestic market as well as its developing export markets for which it is supplying reactors.

Garrow said the international uranium market is already making the transition from inventories to production-driven. Therefore, the future price trend will be determined by the "need price" to support new production centers. Due to potential uranium shortages prior to new mines coming on line in 2010, Garrow said a term uranium price at or above $30 per pound is not unreasonable.

Mohr said she did not view uranium as a cyclical commodity, but as a "long-term secular improvement."

Skol
26-01-2005, 08:12 AM
See the comments today on uranium in the business section, www.smh.com.au

stolwyk
27-01-2005, 11:45 AM
Uranium decades away from major new production
By: By Dorothy Kosich
Posted: '26-JAN-05 03:00' GMT © Mineweb 1997-2004



VANCOUVER--(Mineweb.com) Gerald Grandey, President and CEO of major uranium miner Cameco, declared Tuesday that his industry "has been starved for exploration for three decades."

Meanwhile, one of the biggest challenges faced by uranium mining companies is how quickly new projects can be permitted, developed and brought in production. In a presentation to the Mineral Exploration Roundup and a subsequent news conference, Grandey insisted that the uranium mining industry is "decades away from having significant new production."

"The essential issue about nuclear power is not whether it will grow, but how fast," Grandey declared. "Will it grow fast enough to meet the world's urgent need for clean energy? And will exploration for uranium fuel keep pace?"

Three years ago, only ten junior uranium exploration companies were seeking uranium worldwide, he said. "Today, there are over 45 in Saskatchewan, many more in the world and new ones being created every day." Cameco has budgeted C$22 million for exploration in 2005, he added.

Annual world consumption of uranium is 180 million pounds while mines are only producing 100 million pounds yearly, according to Grandey, despite the fact that uranium is 40 times more common than silver. Meanwhile, the spot price of uranium has doubled within the past decade.

Grandey insists that the nuclear power industry "is in the early stages of a renaissance, leading someday to a complete transformation of world energy supply. ...The issue, quite simply is how to meet the world's energy needs in the coming decades."

"In the years to come, all forms of energy will be required--renewables, fossil and nuclear," Grandey explained. "The world is rediscovering the benefits of nuclear energy and so are investors. Nuclear energy is no longer in the proverbial woodshed."

Grandey said more than 440 nuclear power reactors generate 16% of the world's electricity. "These reactors avoid the emission of over two billion tonnes of carbon dioxide annually and large quantifies of toxic air pollutants. ...We will require hundreds of new nuclear power plants by mid-century, producing not only electricity--but clean water and, most like hydrogen," he insisted.

The decision of two significant environmental activists, global warming expert James Lovelock and Bishop Hugh Montefiore, to support nuclear power to reduce global warming is significant in Grandey's opinion. "Studies by MIT, the University of Chicago and projections by the International Energy Agency and the World Energy Council all point to the same conclusion. Our need for clean energy on the scale required cannot be met without increased use of nuclear power," he declared.

"The value of uranium, discovered and yet to be discovered, could be magnified many times over by emerging technologies like hydrogen," according to Grandey. "Hydrogen technology offers a means to store enormous quantities of electricity which can be used, on demand, in cleanly powered transportation and in homes and industry."

Even nuclear waste may prove to be the "strongest singular asset of our industry," Grandey claimed. Used nuclear fuel is a resource, which will retain 90% of its energy after decades.

Grandey noted that very little uranium is hedged, estimating that hedge funds trade about one million pounds annually. Meanwhile, considerable capital is being directed for uranium projects in Australia and Africa. Meanwhile, Cameco is contemplating restarting reactors which belonged to Bruce Power. Within the next six months, Grandey said Cameco will decide if it will get into power generation.

Cameco does not fear being a potential takeover target for the Chinese or other international companies because of Canada's limitation on foreign ownership, he added.

Farouk
27-01-2005, 12:35 PM
Like anybody can tell you, I am not a very nice man. I don't know the word. I have always admired the villain, the outlaw, the son of a *****. I don't like the clean-shaven boy with the collar & tie and the good job. I like desperate men, men with broken teeth and broken minds and broken ways. They interest me. They are full of surprises & explosions. I also like vile women, drunk, cursing women with loose stockings and sloppy mascara faces. I'm more interested in perverts than saints. I don't like laws, morals, religions, rules. I don't like to be shaped by society.

miner
27-01-2005, 06:56 PM
Legend in your own mind is about it Gerry as you are still doing what you always have,ie missing the boat then buying after other people call it then ramping the cr*p out of it and making out that you are onto it.

You only missed the uranium boat by well over a year[B)][:0],your a legend alright but not for your share picking skills.

Cheers
Miner[:X]

stolwyk
10-02-2005, 09:15 AM
The Athabasca Uranium Rush:
http://www.kitcocasey.com/displayArticlePrint.php?id=19

stolwyk
20-02-2005, 02:10 PM
ADD: URANIUM INFORMATION CENTRE:
www.uic.com.au

Extract: Uranium Mining In Australia:
http://www.uic.com.au/mines.htm

stolwyk
23-02-2005, 09:50 AM
Uranium moved up last week by $US0.65 to $US21.75

miner
26-02-2005, 07:46 AM
quote:Originally posted by miner

Mick100 this is gerry's set up thread (like his gold one) next he will say SMM for a uranium share,which he just happened to buy the other week.

Same old ramping stuff.

Cheers
Miner

Mick100
26-02-2005, 09:00 AM
Yeah miner, Gerry has talked about SMM among others. I looked into them and decided to buy some SMM. SMM has got iron ore and phosphate resources to fall back on if the uranium falls over.
SMM is up 100% since I bought them last month so, as they say, it pays to keep an open mind aye.


Mick

stolwyk
26-02-2005, 09:13 AM
I feel sorry for you, Miner. You lost your touch.

This thread is the general U3O8 thread. There is a SMM thread and you know it is there, so why not use that. I suppose, you already have, because you have been sniping at me there already. Now you want to ruin this one.

SMM had a great time, now 42.5 cents. I bought most of it for 10.5 cents.

You guys keep talking about ramping but let the great opportunities go past. There are others like this.

Still, be negative, if you must. I can assure you that as long you refuse to post here but only post to attack me, you won't do any good.
You don't understand why, of course.

I am glad that the HCopper people made a lot of money on this stock and others. I won't discourage them. They have a positive outlook, you don't.

Gerry

stolwyk
26-02-2005, 07:17 PM
A report has come through that Russia will retain 74 mill pounds of uranium obtained from warheads.

SMM shareholders, please take note. No wonder, the Uranium price had risen US0.65 as mentioned a couple of posts ago.

miner
26-02-2005, 09:55 PM
Hi Mick an open mind for sure,Gerry and the like are part of the game and as so are something to keep in mind.

Good on you if your up 100%,you got on the right end of the ramp,my posts are more for those who get on the wrong end.

Unless SMM get to dig up there uranium then the "they have heaps of it so are worth squilions" ramp will wear thin and the rampers will dump and start the SP fall.

So something to keep in mind,as you say though they have iron ore and phosphate also, just have to factor in the ramp price(risk) and know if you missed the ramp part of the SP so have missed the boat,depends how good you are and how you play it, good luck with SMM anyway.

Cheers
Miner

stolwyk
26-02-2005, 10:16 PM
Miner,

That post of yours to Mick is a shambles. You haven't got an open mind anyway. You mentioned me and that gives me the right of reply:

No matter how you try to talk around it Miner, you are working for a lost cause.

I think your object was to get rid of me rather than your concern for ramping.

You really need to attend a de-toxification cause for ramper paranoia.

In the meantime, there was a massive investment in SMM made at an earlier stage by HotCopper posters who can decide to pull out any time, if they want to. I am not. I am a very prominent poster on SMM on HotCopper.

I am repeating that: They and Mick can pull out anytime, if they want to. "Gerry" doesn't come into it!

And you were trying to stop ST posters from buying. How stupid can you get! A prize turkey!

Gerry
Readers, please do your own research and you decide if and when to buy, hold or sell any stocks.

27-02-2005, 08:46 AM
Apparently You cannot understand English Properly Gerry Stolwyk. Miner's post is easily understood by thosewith a basic education. It means You are A Ramper

Norman Z Rogers

tracker
27-02-2005, 09:23 AM
scuse me ignorance or drunkedness (that was for you farouk) and its only 8.20 over here , but i wanna ask a ? for enigma Who the hell is Norman Z Rogers , has he joined the possie of the "We Love Gerry Club" or is he just like a regular gut
ps Gerry get a life
if norman is joining I say the more the merrier that become aware of GERRY
my 2 cents worth but yea
gerry go and make some money without the aid of young blood buying ramps
tracker

stolwyk
27-02-2005, 10:18 AM
Another useless post of yours, Tracker.

Miner,
You have little influence now, one reason is the illegal tactics you have employed.
You don't post on ST and think that with you and a couple of others not posting, the Australian site of ST will collapse. (It won't).

So, you lurk. However, now and then you come out and attack me.
So, you use our info from Sharetrader, lurk and attack. You are in a bad way, my friend.

This is a stupid thing to say, Miner:
"Unless SMM get to dig up there uranium then the "they have heaps of it so are worth squilions" ramp will wear thin and the rampers will dump and start the SP fall".

You don't understand or rather won't understand that the price of Uranium is rising. Therefore, deposits left in the ground will increase in value.

Approval to mine will be given at some stage either by pressure exerted by China or the value of the Uranium becomes so great
that some members of the Queensland Government will overrule the opposition.

Here are some of my latest investment results:

1. SMM: 20 Oct: Bought for 10.5 cents, now 42.5: NET 304.7%.
2. HAV: 20 Sept: 49 cents, 17 Feb: $1.68. NET: 242.8%
3. CSM: 13 Oct: $1.76 now $3.69: NET: 109.7%

I won't worry about the lesser lights. However, I spend twice as much on SMM than I did on the others. So, the NET gain from these shares is: 2*304.7 +(242.8+109.7)= 961.9% or 320.6% per stock.

I would say others would have done better still.

So, your trying to discourage people from investing in these stocks was not a good idea.

I am not suggesting that these stocks are a good investment because I am not allowed to tell posters that.

Gerry
Readers, please do your own research and you decide if and when to buy, hold or sell any stocks.

miner
28-02-2005, 09:35 AM
Now that's just sad that you have spent another weekend in front of your beloved computer Gerry,as for me I got outside and went and found some nice ore to crush,but then I have a life.

You will never admit it as it is the guts of your ramp Gerry but in the ground and dug up and sold are two totally different things(there are heaps of mining company's with stuff in the ground that are doing zip as they are yet to dig it up)and some may never dig it up.

"In the meantime, there was a massive investment in SMM made at an earlier stage by HotCopper posters who can decide to pull out any time, if they want to. I am not. I am a very prominent poster on SMM on HotCopper.",you just shot your self in the foot again Gerry,but thanks for confirming what I am talking about.

"I won't worry about the lesser lights. However, I spend twice as much on SMM than I did on the others. So, the NET gain from these shares is: 2*304.7 +(242.8+109.7)= 961.9% or 320.6% per stock.",hence why you ramp it the most,ouch there goes another toe.

"So, your trying to discourage people from investing in these stocks was not a good idea." wrong again Gerry not trying to discourage them but rather just let them know you are ramping it full on so beware you don't end up being the person buying your dumped shares when you dump.

"You don't understand or rather won't understand that the price of Uranium is rising. Therefore, deposits left in the ground will increase in value.",speaking of stupid things to say Gerry your a legend at that,take a look at the dates on my PDN thread,hell they can even dig there stuff up,but then hey that's no fun for ramping SMM is a much better ramping target for those big back of envelope calculations of when(or should that be IF?) they dig it up they will be worth squillions.

As with all rampers you just quot the ones that go up,what about the ones you used to ramp the crap out of like ASC,LUM,NAL etc whose charts now look like a ski slope??,care to post the % drop on these from when you dumped them to the sheep when you stopped ramping them???.

Anyway enough of talking to a sad old man,of to find some more gold.

stolwyk
28-02-2005, 11:16 AM
Miner,

You are a "Has been". You are not posting anymore on ST, hoping that it will collapse without you-it won't- then you suddenly reappear to give an uncalled sermon: And that will be another useless post.

And on top of that you are not a fair person but are harbouring a grudge against me. Your tactic of ruining threads and your ramper paranoia are beyond your control.

Suffice to say that had you committed these illegal acts on HotCopper, your account would have been closed long ago. We don't want your type there.

You can be a pretty nasty fellow discouraging people to post on my threads here:
_____

Posted - 13/01/2005 : 11:19:36 AM
-----------------------------------

Track when he gets to 5000 he will become a "5 star Guru Ramper",and Mick100 gets to sleep over,not sure about what colour the stars will be though,pink maybe???.

Cheers
Miner

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You use any nasty method available and are not as good example to the rest of the gang, you control.

No wonder they run riot on the HAV thread (3 against me): pages 2 and 3:
http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=20895&whichpage=2&SearchTerms=HAV

Shame on you!

Gerry

Mick100
28-02-2005, 12:14 PM
Gerry, I have warned you not to make refferences to myself during your squabbles with miner etc.

Are you trying to turn another regular poster against yourself, I would have thought there were enough people against you already.

I'm starting to get the impression that you actually enjoy the ongoing squabbles you get yourself into - LEAVE ME OUT OF YOUR POSTS.

Your squabbling posts look like the work of an arrorgant teenager who argues with everyone just for the sake of arguing - grow up Gerry.


Mick

stolwyk
28-02-2005, 12:49 PM
That is on public record and that post was directed at me. I am entitled to use it regardless of anyone else being mentioned.

That is the legal position.

It was used when I needed it.

Mick100
28-02-2005, 01:12 PM
Stolwyk, I'm not a lawyer and I don't give a damn about your legal position.

If you mention my name again in one of your posts, you had better lookout old chap.


Mick

stolwyk
28-02-2005, 01:17 PM
If I had been in your position, I wouldn't have cared a damn were I mentioned in that post-of course I was.

Don't need your advice at the moment.

28-02-2005, 03:59 PM
Gerry the mean and Nasty ramper is at it again. Thinks because he got the tittle Legend That He truly is a Legend and beyond all Critisism.

28-02-2005, 04:00 PM
Why not Gerry Maybe you need a brain surgeon instead.

stolwyk
28-02-2005, 04:14 PM
You sound like a fox terrier; that dog that keeps on yapping and yapping.

So you doubt that my name is real? I can possibly arrange to send a copy of my naturalisation certificate.

Please give me your email address and I'll see what I can do.

Gerry

28-02-2005, 04:45 PM
Gerry send it through share trader but get a JP to certify that you have not borrowed it.

stolwyk
28-02-2005, 05:05 PM
Won't be sending to Sharetrader; also I don't think we have JP's anymore here.
Nobody gives that certificate to someone else.

I have a Birth Certificate. Are you suggesting I borrowed that as well?

I will sent to Dimebag, I think. You can trust him don't you?

28-02-2005, 06:41 PM
Gerry send email through sharetrader or is that beyond your brain power. If JPs have been done away with who certifies legal documents. Because anybody with a computer can make any document they like. Just Scan an original and put in any names you like. Water marks and special threads do not show in emails. And If sent as an attachment will be deleted as a virus protection.

Geoff7
28-02-2005, 09:20 PM
c'mon guys.
I reckon you all have a fairly impressive track record. I for one just want to learn more about U308 and you guys seem a pretty good place to start, you originally had a pretty good thread.
Move on.
(if this is just sport let me know and I'll go).

Cheers.

stolwyk
01-03-2005, 11:38 AM
I really don't want to spend too much time with people who are into thuggery using a gang setting.

The members of this close-knit gang are: Miner (leader), ENIGMA and Tracker. They have email contact.

Bring on those concerted serial attacks, guys (use aliases of course). You are real heroes.

01-03-2005, 01:01 PM
Gerry we are still waiting for you to prove that Gerry Stolwyk is not An alias A name can just as easily be an alias as a nickname. When I gave you my name you say it is bull sh*t. Please proove it. What you have prooved is you are a serial Ramper and A Bigot that does not like critism.

Yours faithfully,

stolwyk
01-03-2005, 01:17 PM
I really don't want to spend too much time with people who are into thuggery using a gang setting.

The members of this close-knit gang are: Miner (leader), ENIGMA and Tracker. They have email contact.

Bring on those concerted serial attacks, guys (use aliases of course). You are real heroes.

01-03-2005, 03:46 PM
Gerry Keep this up and the settlement fee might not be enough to keep you out of court. It seems like you are judging others by your own conduct of consulting with your email buddies for support on postings to improve your ramping

stolwyk
01-03-2005, 04:58 PM
I don't consult asnybody.
You should know that people with an alias have very few legal rights because an alias is a "thing" not a female or male.
People use aliases properly or in your case, they misuse it. Don't think for one minute that people with an alias have all the rights. They are lucky enough as it is.

On the other hand should you write this knowing that my name is real, then you need to watch out. However unlike you, I tend to be tolerant in most cases. So now you know the legal position.
____________________________________________

I really don't want to spend too much time with people who are into thuggery using a gang setting.

The members of this close-knit gang are: Miner (leader), ENIGMA and Tracker. They have email contact. One may a violent nature.

Bring on those concerted serial attacks, guys (use aliases of course). You are real heroes.

01-03-2005, 05:17 PM
Gerry you say you do not consult anybody that might be correct But what I said is you ask others to support your ramping. You are judging others by your own behavoural standards.

stolwyk
01-03-2005, 05:27 PM
Where did I ask others to support your ramping? Prove it.

And while you are at it, prove that you are Norman Z Rogers as you said you were.

Geoff7
01-03-2005, 07:45 PM
ok

Mick100
01-03-2005, 08:18 PM
There are a couple of articles on uranium on the commodities/raw materials thread geoff7

Stolwyc's threads always end up like this one.
I'v suggested to him many times not to respond to the people having a dig at him but he does'nt take good advice.

I'v come to the conclusioin that he actually enjoys the banter even though it ruins the threads. Gives him something to do during the long days and nights in the twilight of his life.

I sure hope that I can find something better to do, than ***** at people on the internet all day, when, or if, I get to that age.

Mick

newz
01-03-2005, 08:35 PM
GDM today sent an alert re a Canadian article:
http://www.freebuck.com/articles/afield/050227afield.htm
covering uranium producer/explorers.
As well as GDM, it mentions CCO, DEN, STM, IUC, JNR, UEX,
EMC, LAM, WMC, PDN, AFL/AFLUY and ERA.
In light of the above contributions, this may be off-topic.
Best wishes, Newz.

Geoff7
01-03-2005, 08:58 PM
Thanks Mick and Newz, I have to say that in fairness Gerry does post some pretty good/ excellent calls, enuff said.
I was at a presentation last week when some numbers were quoted re forcast usage of Uranium.
-Nuclear power currently producs 16% of global energy (zap type I assume).
-To hold this %age in 2050 we would globally need to build over 1000 reactors
This is based on current growth of 2% PA.
(I can only go on this info in good faith)
Now coal is a finite resouce and will not get cheaper (assumed and currently happening).

I dont know af anything that will generate the power we need outside Nuclear power, hence current pricing and forecasting seems really conservative when you include the pressures on coal mentioned above.
Now we know there are few producers/ explorers- but silly question is who builds nuclear plants?
Surely they should start to get busy and for a pretty long time?
Cheers

Packersoldkidney
01-03-2005, 09:07 PM
Silex don't 'build reactors' but they definitely have their finger in the pie some where along the way. Exciting year shaping up for them.

stolwyk
01-03-2005, 09:11 PM
Thanks for your comments Geoff,

I have been busy due the halfyear reports going through, commenting on some at HC and filing these here.

You may recall that I referred to CanAlaska, bought at 39 cents, now 63 cents but I don't honestly know why.

Gerry

Packersoldkidney
01-03-2005, 09:14 PM
That's a good article, Newz, but it has a few errors of fact....one which wasn't was the prospects for Goldstream: great pickup.

Cheers.

Edit: corrected bad sperring.

stolwyk
01-03-2005, 09:24 PM
Thanks Newz,

Good stuff; the more we get, the better.
I worked through most of those some time ago and liked LAM and STM but finished with another one not in your list.

I did mention those ones I thought were the pick but of course, your presentation is far superior.

I thought that the main ones were quite expensive; still the Yanks and Canadians like them.

It so happened that LAM rose because of that Queensland investment; in that case I rather prefer SMM perhaps (I hold SMM).

May have another look at STM.TSX. Their holdings are widely spread.

Gerry

01-03-2005, 09:52 PM
Gerry when did I ask you to email others to support my RAMPING
( Originally posted by Gerry Stolwyk
Posted - 01/03/2005 : 6:27:39 PM Show Profile Email Poster Reply with Quote
Where did I ask others to support your ramping? Prove it)

Gerry if you want me to prove my name let us have a decent bet you say you have funds shall we say 1000,000,000.00 this will certainly increase my retirement fund.

Geoff7
01-03-2005, 09:55 PM
Thanks for the info, enough in one night to keep me busy for a month!
Re HC, I found this (Share Trader) site first, followed the lead of you folk here and looked at HC. I must say I prefer here as it (in my highly uneducated view) seems to have a better educated group commenting, a more friendly user interface and is more concise (phew, full stop).
Re Silex this is pretty impressive stuff (quick glimpse), loved the reply to Greenpeace- nice and clear no BS.

How do you find these??? -- I know hard work and intelectual genius.

Re Goldstream, such a big jump and lick of trades today what's happening (looks like tomorrow is up as well--no real depth). One of the scary thing for us 'young' blokes is the volatility of stocks when people mention the 'U' word. I could lose the Kombi/ or win a Merc in 1 day.

Like the idea it hasnt seen the sun though.
Another ripper is I have to go to Kenya every while already-- tax deduction baby (love the ATO).

Thanks and cheers.
Geoff

stolwyk
01-03-2005, 10:12 PM
Enigma,

I think that line was misplaced in my text.
Here we go again, this is yours:

"But what I said is you ask others to support your ramping".

My comment: You need to prove that. Please supply it now.

I deny, I ramp, so I don't need any support.

As to your name. I think we should both follow the same procedure. What is good enough for me ought to be ok with you too.

The next time I come into town, I'll get my solicitor to certify my person and I will use that naturalisation certificate.

Gerry

Packersoldkidney
01-03-2005, 10:43 PM
Hey, Geoff. Treat sites like ST as good info places - just treat everything you read here with caution. All the warnings of DYOR are good ones. Who knows in 6 months time the market could go a*se up too. And technically that is looking on the cards.

Remember people are attracted to the market when it's at its top, and are usually thin on the ground when it's at the bottom. Make sure you are around and slotting money into the market when its at the b*m end. Each market for everything is different.

Silex is a fundamental play - that I knew about neither through genius nor through hard work. It's just knowledge and I hope that someone makes money off it because I think it may benefit from the uranium situation.

Here's hoping everyone makes some cash.

Geoff7
02-03-2005, 08:45 AM
Point taken. Although you should have a look back over some of the postings you guys have made, with hind sight some even look better.

However in real terms whilst our economy is going rampant and needs to settle down, the rest of the world (ecl China & India) essentially has been struggling.
Thats why I find Uranium and other resources interesting (Aust and NZ will not go Nuke for 30-50 years), but other countries wont have the luxury of choice- cost/ efficiency.
I do got to Africa and other places, these guys need a decent infrastructure and dont have the cash to keep fueling coal flames, parts of Europe are still essentially 19th century.
The changes over the next 20 years, I think will be more significant than people expect.
All of these guys want what they see as rightfully theirs also, as such what do we do.
Power generation is becoming a significant global issue.
I noted an IPO in relation to power storage (ZBB) I am rather surprised that it appears to be struggling, it is part of a solution to the issue.

robbo
07-03-2005, 03:49 PM
For those who like a bit of "Yellow Cake"

Check out today's Just rReleased ASX announcemnt on SIM...Scimitar...

"Scimitar Expands Uranium Portfolio"

Regards,

Robbo :)

arco
22-03-2005, 04:00 PM
Site with Uranium stocks/charts.

May be of interest to followers.

http://stockcharts.com/def/servlet/Favorites.CServlet?obj=ID1004348

stolwyk
29-03-2005, 08:04 AM
PAUL VAN EEDEN: THE FUTURE OF URANIUM
http://www.kitcocasey.com/displayArticle.php?id=54

This is the last of a three-part interview with Paul van Eeden (www.paulvaneeden.com) conducted on March 8, 2005 during the PDAC Conference. Paul, formerly Managing Editor for Doug Casey’s International Speculator and now the publisher of his own weekly stock alert service for high net worth investors, is one of the most original thinkers and analysts working in the resource business today.

Let’s change tacks a little bit, Paul. What are your thoughts on uranium?

PVE: I’m very bullish on uranium. During the 1970s, there was massive expansion of nuclear power production. Demand for uranium for these nuclear plants was increasing and supply wasn’t keeping up. The utilities started panicking because in a nuclear power facility, your biggest cost is the capital to build it. The actual fuel cost for uranium is a very, very small component of your production cost. So, to the utilities, it’s fairly irrelevant what the price of uranium is. What’s relevant is the fact that you cannot run out of fuel. In the ‘70s, the utilities panicked because they saw that current uranium mine supply was not keeping up with the growth in demand. They started buying uranium in the market and stockpiling it so that they wouldn’t run out. And the price of uranium obviously skyrocketed. Now, the interesting thing is that uranium price peaked in 1979 at an average price of $43 per pound. It peaked in 1979 because that was the first year that mine production met current demand. Right now, we’re consuming around 170 million pounds of uranium annually. We’re producing on the order of 80 or 90 million pounds. Let’s say we produce 85 and we consume 170. That’s 50 percent. We need to double uranium production before we meet today’s demand. And in the United States since 1979, uranium demand has increased 35 percent without one additional reactor being built.

Why is that?

PVE: Because the reactors, when they were built, were over-designed. And so they figured out that they could increase capacity. The utilization could increase. By the way, these uranium reactors were all slated to be shut down, but because they were so over-designed, they’re now finding that these things have a lifespan far in excess of original designs. Most of these things are giving extensions on their projected lives. About 16 percent of the world’s electricity is being generated from nuclear power. 20 percent of U.S. electricity comes from nuclear power. 25 percent of Japan’s electricity comes from nuclear. 40 percent for South Korea. 80 percent in France. I was flying through London and I picked up a newspaper and the front was an article that reported a study commissioned by the British government to figure out how they were going to meet the Kyoto protocol. The commission found unequivocally that there’s no way they can do it without going nuclear. Canada conducted a similar study with similar results. China has stated that it is their goal to get either 24 or 26 percent, I can’t remember exactly, of their electricity from nuclear in the next 20 years or so. They’ve also stated that they’re going to build between one and two nuclear power plants every year for the next 20 years.

That's an incredible increase in consumption.

We’re 50 percent short of demand already. The uranium price will not stop rising until current supply meets current demand. Just like in the ‘70s. Nothing has changed – utilities still cannot run out of nuclear fuel. Nuclear power generation is increasing, not decreasing. The drawdown of U.S. government inventories has basically come to an end. We’ve used up probably 50 percent of U.S. government inventories over the last 25 years and I don’t think we’re going to see any further drawdowns. The U.S. now wants to become self-sufficient in the nuclear industry. That means production, conversion and enrichment all within U.S. borders. Right now, there’s no conversion facility in the U.S., but they’re building one. That means uranium is becoming strategical

Geoff7
30-03-2005, 10:15 PM
"PVE: If I find one good investment every two or three months, I’m actually quite happy. Four good investments a year is a good year."

Bloody amatuers, settle too easy I reckon.

stolwyk
31-03-2005, 11:53 AM
Uranium : +50 cents to $22.50

stolwyk
01-04-2005, 09:36 AM
Dough Casey: Uranium Update

http://www.kitcocasey.com/displayArticle.php?id=57

stolwyk
02-04-2005, 01:41 PM
MELBOURNE - Prices for uranium, used to generate 16 percent of the world's electricity, may rise by a quarter this year as stockpiles of the nuclear fuel decrease and demand is set to rise from reactors being built in China and India.

"You have gone from a buyer's to a seller's market," said Bob Mitchell, who holds physical uranium worth more than $26 million for Adit Capital Management in Portland, Oregon. "Most reactors under construction haven't secured long-term supply and there is no inventory left among utilities."

Commercial stockpiles of the fuel dropped 50 percent between 1985 and 2003 because mine output could not keep up with demand, according to a September report by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Mine expansions may not meet demand, pushing up prices for uranium at miners such as Cameco, the world's biggest, and Energy Resources of Australia.

Cameco shares rose 68 percent last year and Energy Resources of Australia, which is 68 percent-owned by Rio Tinto Group, surged 94 percent. Paladin Resources, an Australian company that plans to mine uranium in Namibia, rose ninefold.

China is preparing to award an $8 billion contract to build four reactors in the world's biggest nuclear power construction program. The country plans to build 27 plants to meet a target of raising nuclear energy output fivefold by 2020. India aims to build 17 reactors to triple nuclear power capacity by 2012.

"Uranium prices will advance in 2005," said Mitchell at Adit Capital, who also owns Cameco shares as part of the $200 million he helps manage at another fund, Touchstone Investment Managers. "In China, they'll have to build a couple more reactors a year."

Concern about supply shortages helped increase spot prices of uranium to $20.50 a pound as of Dec. 31, according to Metal Bulletin. That is the highest since 1984, according to a report by Jeff Combs, president of Ux Consulting, based in Roswell, Georgia, which publishes spot uranium prices.

The spot market, which makes up about 12 percent of uranium sales, according to the World Nuclear Association, sets a price reference for long-term contracts between miners and utilities. Uranium prices rose to a record of more than $40 a pound in the late 1970s, according to Combs at Ux Consulting.

Contract prices paid by power companies may rise to $27 a pound this year from $20 a pound last year, a National Bank Financial analyst, Ian Howat, said in a Nov. 24 report. Long-term prices may rise to $26 a pound, a Goldman Sachs JBWere analyst, Ian Preston, said in a Dec. 14 report after attending a uranium conference in Sydney.

"It looks like current prices are here to stay and possibly rise significantly," Craig Kinnell, acting chief executive of Energy Resources of Australia, the world's third-biggest uranium miner, said in an interview Dec. 31.

"Inventories are falling and there has been little response to that in the way of more mine supply. Our contract prices have risen to reflect the spot price rises."

China aims to double total power generation capacity by 2020. It needs to add two reactors a year by then to meet a target of generating 4 percent of its power from nuclear plants.

Demand from China may help uranium prices double in the next two years and may triple demand for nuclear power by 2020, said Quinton George, managing director of Trinity Asset Management. The company owns 18 percent of Afrikander Lease, which holds South Africa's biggest uranium deposit.

"The supply deficit will affect this market for at least the next 10 years," Geroge said. "In the next two years we could well see uranium touching historical highs, at least doubling current prices."

China has begun talks with Australia, which holds the world's largest uranium reserves, to enable the fuel to be exported by Rio Tinto, the world's third-biggest miner, and WMC Resources, which owns the biggest deposit of the radioactive metal.

"We're working with the Australian government to get the ability to sell uranium to China," Bruce Brook, WMC's chief financial officer,

robbo
02-04-2005, 09:16 PM
Great Web Site, you've found here Gerry.....

>>>>... also with terrific links Gerry...:)

Very informative and helpful...plenty of "meat on the bone" to assess and analyze for fruitful applications here.....

Well done for researching this little beauty..

How'd ya find it ??? ..hmmm...v.good....

Many thanks Gerry,

Kind Regards,

Robbo :)

stolwyk
03-04-2005, 11:13 AM
Thanks Robbo,



Bulls eye:

Uranium Miner:

http://www.uraniumminer.net/

stolwyk
06-04-2005, 04:29 PM
I reported a 50 US cts rise on 31 March and now another 50 cents rise to $US23.

stolwyk
16-04-2005, 11:26 AM
Up 20 cents to $23.20

Mick100
16-04-2005, 01:44 PM
quote:Originally posted by stolwyk

Up 20 cents to $23.20


Well done Gerry

That's the first positive post I'v read today

,

stolwyk
21-04-2005, 10:04 AM
Up 30 cents to $23.50

robbo
22-04-2005, 06:35 PM
Uranium Information Centre...(UIC --NOT a Stock Code !!!)

(Aussie based Uranium daily updated Information website

Scimitar (SIM) has a excellent LINK on their brand new Website: at www.scimitarresources.com.au (note the two(2) 'r' 's in the website name; and click on the LINK[/[b]b] to UIC (Uranium INformation Centre) ..... which is a informative and totally Indepedendent Uranium Site with NO affiliates to Scimitar...or any other Uranium explorer./Uranium Miner etc....

Also has a nice very easy LINK to the "Gerry suggested"...American Gold/Precious Metals & Uranium/ Site called KITCO which is also excellent.

These links are super simple even for a computer neanthedral illiterate like me and the guys at the PUB !!

Just go to the www. scimitarresources.com.au and click down the Links section/Tab on the top, and check 'em out !!

Also this latest Shares Magazine ( MAY 2005 editn) Has A Uranium Stocks Special ..... on Pages 50 -- thru to pages 53....reviews 12 ASX listed(twelve) Uranium Stocks in a bit of depth...with this special feature on Uranium....

The reviewer, is Mining specialist and mining director with Herron Resources (ASX code: HRR): Mr Allan Trench....

The stocks reviewed are:

(1)Arafua Resources (ARU)

(2) Deep Yellow (DYL)

(3) Energy Resources Aust (ERA)

(4) Goldstream mining (GDM)

(5) Havilah Resopurces (HAV)

(6) Jindalee Resources( JRL) Marathon Resources (MTN)

(7) Omegacorp (OMC)

(8) Paladin Resources (PDN)

(9) Reefton Mining (RTM)

(10) You guessed it !! :);) Scimitar Resources (SIM)

(11) Marathon Resources (MTN)

(12) Summit Resources (SMM) --One of Gerry's great picks !!:)[:p]

Hope the above info is of some interest and/or help everyone !!

Kind Regards,

Robbo :):)

(2)

newz
24-04-2005, 03:39 AM
RTM should be a cheap pickup for the foolish &/or brave on Tuesday.
CEO has joined chairman in doing a runner.
Best wishes, Newz
Disc: RTMCA.

stolwyk
27-04-2005, 11:28 AM
Up another 50 cents to $24!

robbo
27-04-2005, 05:54 PM
Missed something bleedingly obvious here, quite obviously

So apart from telling me about the pimple on my NOSE...[:I][:I]

Which Stock & Code was that @ $24 Gerry ??

Kind Regards,

Robbo [?[?]:)

stolwyk
27-04-2005, 07:23 PM
Hi Rob,

Uranium rose 50 cents to $US24/lb last week.

Here is a historical graph:

http://www.uxc.com/review/uxc_g_price.html

robbo
28-04-2005, 11:58 AM
Surfs Up 7.5 % At Scimitar (SIM)

Robbo :)

stolwyk
04-05-2005, 09:35 AM
Up $2.25 to 26.25


It was said that someone started a Uranium fund by buying up Uranium. If so, then badly needed uranium will be locked up by a fund.

stolwyk
06-05-2005, 10:23 AM
Uranium Stocks Jump After Big Surge In Spot Price
May 4, 2005
By Lynne Olver Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

VANCOUVER (Dow Jones)--Stocks of Canadian uranium producers and
explorers jumped Wednesday after a consulting firm reported that
prices in the thinly traded uranium spot market surged 9% in the
latest week, a huge increase for a commodity that has been steadily
rising.

Analysts said Ux Consulting's weekly U3O8 spot price jumped US$2.25 to
US$26.25 a pound, while long-term prices remained at US$28 a pound.

In Toronto, shares of producers Cameco Corp. (CCJ) and Denison Mines
Inc. (DEN.T), and shares of junior explorers such as UEX Corp.
(UEX.T), International Uranium Corp. (IUC.T) and Western Prospector
Group Ltd. (WNP.V), closed higher.

Cameco rose 4.3% to C$52.28 on about 909,000; Denison ended up 3.9% at
C$16.89 on about 229,000; UEX gained 9.9% to end at C$1.88 on about
703,000; International Uranium closed up 6.9% at C$4.97; and Western
Prospector finished 11.1% higher at C$3.00.

Toronto-based miner Denison is cited as one reason for the big
commodity price increase. It will be the manager of a new Canadian
corporation that plans to buy and hold uranium for the long term. The
initial public offering of the company, called Uranium Participation
Corp., hasn't yet closed.

Earlier this week, Denison Chief Financial Officer Jim Anderson told
Dow Jones the company had put tenders into the market on behalf of
Uranium Participation for supply of the material, and was evaluating
responses. Actual purchases won't occur until the Uranium
Participation IPO has closed, which is expected later this month. The
final size of the public offering of shares and warrants isn't yet
known, but observers have said it could be up to C$100 million if
underwriters exercise various options.

The jump in spot prices is at least partly due to the new company,
said Haywood Securities analyst Jim Mustard. "The realization that an
C$80-million to C$100-million fund is coming to buy up product to
essentially take it off the market is going to have an impact," both
real and psychological, Mustard told Dow Jones.

It has become a "chicken-and-egg" scenario now, Mustard said, with
parties that have uranium available likely withholding it from sale,
on the expectation that more buyers will emerge, while buyers will
want to be ahead of the curve and buy now, not next month when the
price could be higher.

Uranium spot-market volumes for April were lighter than volumes in
March, but market activity remains strong, RBC Capital analyst Fraser
Phillips said in a note to clients.

"The record-setting jump in spot price is attributable to traders
setting offer prices well above market, and the very visible
solicitation for 3 million pounds of uranium by the newly launched
uranium commodity fund, Uranium Participation Corp.," Phillips wrote.

Denison is to receive a minimum C$400,000 a year fee to manage Uranium
Participation, plus a commission of 1.5% on the purchase and sale of
uranium. The new company has applied to trade under the symbol "U" on
the Toronto Stock Exchange.

On a quarterly conference call Monday, an analyst asked Cameco
President and Chief Executive Jerry Grandey whether the emergence of
Uranium Participation was having an effect on prices in the market.
"Not yet," Grandey replied.

Grandey also said his company wasn't interested in managing a uranium
fund or trust similar to the one Denison will manage. -Lynne Olver,
Dow Jones Newswires; 604-669-1595

stolwyk
06-05-2005, 10:39 AM
DENISON MINES: http://www.denisonmines.com/

Geoff7
06-05-2005, 09:38 PM
Just to keep it real:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/Business/ERA-pleads-guilty-to-water-contaminations/2005/05/06/1115092680198.html

stolwyk
09-05-2005, 10:38 AM
Uranium Participation to list on May 10


2005-05-06 17:50 MT - New Listing

TSX bulletin 2005-0521

An application has been granted for the original listing in the industrial category of up to 25,875,000 common shares, of which up to 18 million shares will be issued and outstanding, and up to 7,875,000 shares will be reserved for issuance upon completion of the initial public offering.

An application has also been granted for the listing of up to 5,175,000 common share purchase warrants, of which up to 4.5 million warrants will be issued and outstanding, and up to 675,000 warrants will be reserved for issuance upon completion of the initial public offering. Each warrant will entitle the holder to purchase one common share of the company at $6.25 for 24 months from the closing of the initial prospectus offering.

Listing of the common shares and warrants will become effective at 5:01 p.m. on Monday, May 9, 2005, in anticipation of the public offering closing on Tuesday, May 10, 2005. The shares and warrants, other than those which have not been distributed to the public, will be posted for trading on Tuesday, May 10, 2005.


Share symbol: U

Share Cusip No.: 917017 10 5



Warrants symbol: U.WT

Warrant Cusip No.: 917017 11 3



Market-maker: Dundee Securities Corp.

Other markets: None


Listing statement No. 5576 is being prepared and the following constitutes information appearing in the statement.


Incorporation: The company is a corporation established pursuant to the Business Corporations Act (Ontario) on March 15, 2005, to invest in, hold and sell uranium oxide in concentrates (U3O8).



Fiscal year-end: Feb. 28

stolwyk
10-05-2005, 03:23 PM
My previous post referred to a new listing. That Company is driving the price of U308. Last week $26.25/lb (+$2.25) and now a rise of $2.75 to $29.0.

Gerry

Moonshine
10-05-2005, 03:43 PM
Hi Gerry,

Please excuse my ignorance on Nuclear powered fuel, but would you mind clarifying a nagging thought for me?

Your article just posted states:

"... as one of the presenting companies pointed out, uranium comprises only 1% of nuclear reactors’ costs, the fundamentals of the market point to sustainable higher prices and a recent academic study suggested that $30-40/lb is not unrealistic for the medium term."

Does the source of the other 99% of reactor costs represent volatile variables that could kill off the halo that currently surrounds Nuclear powered fuel... and hence kill the interest in Uranium stocks?
I.e. Yes the cost of the Uranium is a minute proprortion of the cost of producing Nuclear Power, but could the other costs associated with producing Nuclear power easily/suddenly/unexpectedly increase, such that Nuclear Power would no longer be a favoured avenue for world power needs?

I realise that there is an element of "looking in to the crystal ball" as far as this question is concerned... but I guess I am just seeking clarification on what variables comprise the other 99% of costs in producing Nuclear power... in order to form a firm assessment on the "real" long term attraction of Uranium stocks.

Many Thanks in advance,

Moonshine

stolwyk
10-05-2005, 04:31 PM
Basically, the World Demand for Uranium is about 150 mill lbs and the supply comes from the mines (About 90 mill lbs) and spent weapon grade plutonium-eg dismantled Russian submarines and projectiles.

The latter could last a few years but the problem is that the Holders are not keen to sell it now as they want it for their new Reactors to come.

Hence, we have a tight situation. Now comes this new Participation Fund wanting to lock in some Uranium, starting with about 3.6 mill lbs which is 3.9% of the mined supply.

Either this Fund can enlarge and buy more or more Funds can start up and lock in more U308.

That could drive the User who may store this stuff for his Reactor and buys now rather than later.

China of course could possibly lock in some as well (Perhaps from the Australian Olympic Dam).

So there could be a tendency of locking in Uranium rather than wanting to use it right now.

_____________________________

As to the costs of running a reactor/building one, I am no expert.

The latest ones will be quite different and will be much safer than the earlier ones. The Chinese have done a lot of research on this as well.

However, the cost of Uranium as a percentage of total costs to build a reactor, is small. That is why they say that a good rise in Uranium prices won't matter much.

Cheers,

Gerry
Readers, please do your own research and you decide if and when to buy, hold or sell any stocks.

Mick100
10-05-2005, 05:55 PM
The new pebble reactors are supposed to be meltdown proof and cheaper to build
They are also modular - easy to add capacity

http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_05/george050605.html

,

stolwyk
27-05-2005, 08:19 PM
Uranium push grows
By Katharine Murphy
May 27, 2005

From:
THE Howard Government has told the states to approve more uranium mining as Australia's minerals giants prepare a new push to scrap state bans prohibiting yellowcake mining.

Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane told The Australian yesterday the current policy governing uranium mining and exploration was not promoting sufficient investment and development because there was no national co-ordination.
"At a time when export prices are off the charts and we need the exploration dollars, potential investors must look at a jurisdictional map of Australia and think it's all too hard and confusing," Mr Macfarlane said yesterday.

"Canada has a more cohesive national approach to the industry and as a result they produce 29 per cent of the world's uranium from just 17per cent of the world's deposits," he said.

Advertisement:
"By contrast, Australia has 41 per cent of the world's deposits but produces only 21 per cent of world demand."

The patchwork of regulations in Australia means that uranium mining occurs only in the Northern Territory and South Australia.

Western Australia, Queensland and Victoria ban nuclear activities within their jurisdictions, including uranium mining. Canberra controls export licences and safeguard policies.

There is no uniform policy approach which would allow Australia's low-cost deposits to be exploited in the current global resources boom.

The Industry Minister's warning to the states comes as the Minerals Council of Australia prepares to use a parliamentary inquiry into the development of the non-fossil fuel energy industry in Australia to argue that bans on uranium exploration and mining should be scrapped.

The MCA's new strike follows rising support for the uranium industry among senior ministers in the Howard Government, and signs of a significant shift in sections of the Labor Party away from the ALP's 20-year-old three-mines policy.

South Australian Premier Mike Rann has supported ending the three-mines policy and federal Labor's resources spokesman, Martin Ferguson, has publicly backed the Howard Government's efforts to negotiate an export treaty with China to allow Australian uranium to be shipped for civilian use.

The Minerals Council has called for the Council of Australian Governments to play a greater role in achieving uniformity across state boundaries and to create common regulations between jurisdictions.

"The suggestions that there should be artificial limits on the number of uranium mines are nonsensical, not least because there are no limits on the size of existing mines," the MCA's chief executive Mitch Hooke said.

Mick100
27-05-2005, 08:29 PM
Sounds encouraging Gerry

,

robbo
28-05-2005, 11:37 AM
quote:Originally posted by stolwyk

Uranium push grows
By Katharine Murphy
May 27, 2005

From:
THE Howard Government has told the states to approve more uranium mining as Australia's minerals giants prepare a new push to scrap state bans prohibiting yellowcake mining.

Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane told The Australian yesterday the current policy governing uranium mining and exploration was not promoting sufficient investment and development because there was no national co-ordination.
"At a time when export prices are off the charts and we need the exploration dollars, potential investors must look at a jurisdictional map of Australia and think it's all too hard and confusing," Mr Macfarlane said yesterday.

"Canada has a more cohesive national approach to the industry and as a result they produce 29 per cent of the world's uranium from just 17per cent of the world's deposits," he said.

Advertisement:
"By contrast, Australia has 41 per cent of the world's deposits but produces only 21 per cent of world demand."

The patchwork of regulations in Australia means that uranium mining occurs only in the Northern Territory and South Australia.

Western Australia, Queensland and Victoria ban nuclear activities within their jurisdictions, including uranium mining. Canberra controls export licences and safeguard policies.

There is no uniform policy approach which would allow Australia's low-cost deposits to be exploited in the current global resources boom.

The Industry Minister's warning to the states comes as the Minerals Council of Australia prepares to use a parliamentary inquiry into the development of the non-fossil fuel energy industry in Australia to argue that bans on uranium exploration and mining should be scrapped.

The MCA's new strike follows rising support for the uranium industry among senior ministers in the Howard Government, and signs of a significant shift in sections of the Labor Party away from the ALP's 20-year-old three-mines policy.

South Australian Premier Mike Rann has supported ending the three-mines policy and federal Labor's resources spokesman, Martin Ferguson, has publicly backed the Howard Government's efforts to negotiate an export treaty with China to allow Australian uranium to be shipped for civilian use.

The Minerals Council has called for the Council of Australian Governments to play a greater role in achieving uniformity across state boundaries and to create common regulations between jurisdictions.

"The suggestions that there should be artificial limits on the number of uranium mines are nonsensical, not least because there are no limits on the size of existing mines," the MCA's chief executive Mitch Hooke said.




Hi Gerry...

Good and excellent Research as usual mate...! :)

Thanks.

By the way, if you don't mind replying, where (ie: what publication/source ?? ) ... -- was your sourced quote from Gerry ??

Have a great weekend Gerry

Kind Regards,

Robbo :)

Geoff7
29-05-2005, 12:36 PM
I dont know if this has been posted, but essential reading for those interested or investing in uranium.

http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/isr/uranium/subs.htm

Cheers.

stolwyk
31-05-2005, 12:22 PM
E-mail | Comments | E-Mail Newsletters | RSS


AFX News Limited
Australian govt considers expansion of uranium mining - report
05.30.2005, 08:14 PM

SYDNEY (AFX) - The Australian government is signalling the possibility of a dramatic expansion of Australia's uranium mining industry, identifying Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam as future export markets as South East Asia develops its nuclear industry, The Australian newspaper reported, citing Foreign Minister Alexander Downer.

The newspaper reported that Downer, in a submission to a parliamentary inquiry, said the three countries could become markets for Australian uranium provided safeguard agreements are concluded with them.

Downer also used the submission to the inquiry into the importance of uranium mining in Australia to confirm Australia remains committed to exporting uranium to China.

___________________________
Hi Robbo,

An Australian newspaper, I think. The source wasn't quoted

stolwyk
05-06-2005, 11:59 AM
Dr Appel: IT’S ONLY THE BEGINNING FOR URANIUM

http://www.kitco.com/ind/appel/jun032005.html

robbo
05-06-2005, 01:50 PM
Uranium receiving literaly Tonnes of Media and Poltical support from both sides --Labor and Liberal as a alternatgier worth debating, considereing and re-visiting.

Australian Newspaper Yesterday (Saturday) 4/6/05 --was Full of Uranium--Front Page and many articles throughout the different Paper secions,ninemsn, ABC Radio, and ABC Business, and 60 Minuters on Channel 9 is devoting a feauture Tonight --5/6/05.. on Uranium/Nuclear Power for Australia....

Can sense a Seismic shift, in Austalia, wanting to look at Uranium merits versus Coal...both for Exports and for Local Nuclear Power Usage....

Regards,

Robbo :):)

stolwyk
05-06-2005, 03:26 PM
Robbo,

The Aussie population is being educated and softened up. I gather that the present Coalition could have the majority in the Senate on July 6. If so, then they will override the States.

China is also heavily involved as well and wants this Uranium.

If everything goes to plan then SMM will be one of the chief beneficiaries, I think, because they are so far advanced.

Gerry
Readers, please do your own research and you decide if and when to buy, hold or sell any stocks.

troyvdh
05-06-2005, 03:54 PM
Stolwyk,its my understanding that SMM is 4th/5th in regards to amount known.Wouldnt BHP et al be major players in the first instance.

Enjoy your enthusiastic postings.

Hold SMM BHP

stolwyk
05-06-2005, 05:14 PM
First: WMR (Of which BHP has over 55%), then ERA. SMM is third.


Cheers,

Gerry

Dazza
16-06-2005, 09:36 PM
http://www.iter.org/index.htm

fusion power.... supposedly 2015...


take a read all ur uranium ppl/..... and other power players..

Geoff7
16-06-2005, 09:55 PM
Daz,
It is interesting stuff and no doubt the future is going to be very interesting and hopefully better for all (I have read that between 2k to 20k people could have died in China chasing coal last year- they deserve better).

This technology has been mentioned in submissions to the current Aus inquiry, all seem to agree that it will have some succes but real impact is 40-50 years off.
I think that uranium will have a larger impact for at least the next 20-30 years (Govt/ Industry start the process years before completion).

I think if anyone believes they are seriously looking at nuclear power for Oz or NZ they would be way of track. But for the rest of the world U isnt the big issue we have made it. They already have them, thay are just going to build more.

stolwyk
17-06-2005, 01:39 AM
SMM's SUBMISIONS:

This report has 37 pages and I got it by email. It is not on the website yet. I'll let you know when it is.

Suggest you put your name down for email:
Look for "Shareholder information":

http://www.summitresources.com.au/
___________________________________

INQUIRY INTO DEVELOPING AUSTRALIA’S NON-FOSSIL FUEL ENERGY INDUSTRY MAY 2004 (37 pages)

Extract:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The existing regulatory impediments to the exploration for, and development of, new uranium mines in Australia cannot be justified on rational, factual, political, environmental, economic, commercial, scientific, hazard, health or safety grounds.

In fact the opposite is true. Uranium mining and the processed products are utilised for legitimate peaceful purposes, their use is now on a large scale, is wide spread across the globe and occurs on a daily basis. The nuclear power industry is well established and uranium derived products are used in scientific, medical, commercial and industrial applications. Nations of all political persuasions, in both the industrialised and developing world, already have nuclear industries.

This nuclear industry saves lives, is one of the cleanest, safest industries known to man and generates some of the most cost efficient base load power with the lowest attributable deaths, highest safety record and has virtually zero greenhouse pollutant emissions. Products from uranium mining are used widely in our daily lives.

As well as nuclear power overseas uses here in Australia include, among others, isotopes for Xrays, medical analytical equipment, a large range of laboratory equipment, radiation treatment for cancers, components for smoke alarms and uranium metal for trimming of the leading edge of wings on modern jet aircraft. Further, Australia is already the world’s second largest miner and exporter of uranium oxide and is known to host over 30% of the world’s recoverable resources.

Australia’s current regulatory environment dissuades investment in uranium exploration, favours the entrenched position of three existing producers and leaves limited opportunity for the development of other mines by new entrants and companies that have established potentially commercial resources elsewhere in Australia.

Summit’s submission has attempted to address the issues before the Committee and each section contains relevant information relating to those issues. Key conclusions that can be drawn from Summit’s submission are:

• Australia is in the uranium mining business and produces around 10,000 tonnes uranium oxide a year from three mines and is the world’s second largest producer behind Canada. • The Mount Isa region is one of Australia’s most prospective mineral provinces that has yielded a number of world class ore bodies and mines, including (in the past) successful uranium mines. • Uranium was mined from 1966 to 1984 at Mary Kathleen, 50 kilometres east of Mount Isa, by Riotinto. All mine production since 1976 has been used exclusivelyfor nuclear power generation, monitored, waste managed and stored and mine sites fully rehabilitated. • Summit controls one of the largest undeveloped uranium oxide resources in Australia. • At Mount Isa Summit controls over 75Mlb U3O8 with, using US$26/lb U3O8 prices, an in ground value of well over A$2.0 billion. • Prefeasibilty studies of Summit’s Mount Isa uranium project shows it would produce around 6.0 million pounds (2,750 tonnes) of uranium oxide a year for the first three years and, on scaling up of production, around 9.0 million pounds (4,000 tonnes) of uranium oxide a year. • The project would make a significant financial contribution to the local, State and Federal economies over the first 6 years by: • Capital and infrastructure expenditures of $314 million • Mining operating expenditures of $190 million • Freight expenditure of $2.6 million • State Royalty payments of $61 million • All this expended within Australia and mostly at Mount Isa • Construction employment of around 600 • Direct mine employment of around 400

robbo
17-06-2005, 12:28 PM
Marathon MTN Uranium

Another 14% up again today....after up 16.7% yesterday...

If interested in knowing more information & details, re. MTN.... you may want to look at the MTN thread on this very... Share-trader ASX division -- Internet Site....

& go and See (MTN) Marathon Posts for last few days etc etc.... on the MTM Marathon Thread for details ....:):);)

Kind Regards,

Robbo :)

stolwyk
04-07-2005, 02:08 PM
Mitigating a long-term shortfall of world oil production
Using nuclear energy to extract oil from tar sands?
http://www.worldoil.com/Magazine/MAGAZINE_DETAIL.asp?ART_ID=2594&MONTH_YEAR=May-2005



Overview of Uranium Price, Supply, and Demand
http://www.uraniumminer.net/


Company confident NT uranium mining will go ahead
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200507/s1405390.htm

stolwyk
12-07-2005, 12:51 PM
Radioactive waste

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#Types_of_radioactive_waste

Seneca
14-07-2005, 09:03 PM
Quick Search | Advanced Search | Browse Archives Related News Alert Print Entire Page


Glowing outlook for uranium
Author: Matt Chambers
Date: 08/07/2005
Words: 757
Source: bloomberg
Publication: The Financial Review
Section: Companies


Uranium may trade between $US20 and $US30 a pound until 2008, a level that could encourage the development of new mines, according to Citigroup.

The metal has traded at $US29 a pound since May 11, the highest for 23 years and more than double the price in January 2004.

The price of the radioactive commodity has increased on expectations that reactors being built in China, India and Russia will drain stockpiles.

Mines produced only 55 per cent of uranium consumed in 2003, while inventories and "secondary supplies", such as those from disarmed nuclear weapons, have fallen, according to Citigroup analyst Alan Heap.

"With secondary supplies declining, mine economics will become the driving force of uranium prices," he said in a recent report.

Previously, "prices have been determined primarily by government controls that regulate the rate of release of secondary supply".

Mr Heap, Australia's fifth-ranked commodities analyst in a survey published in October by BRW magazine, has worked as an analyst at Citigroup, the world's biggest financial-services group, since 1992. Before that he worked as a metals trader and analyst in London.

The prediction of $US20 to $US30 a pound to 2008 is almost triple an earlier long-term forecast and reflects the increase in prices since January last year.

Mr Heap said long-term uranium prices were expected to be $US20 a pound from 2009, which should be enough to trigger new mines. The average cash cost to mine uranium is about $US10 a pound.

Still, any unexpected influx of highly enriched uranium from disarmed nuclear weapons and the possibility that stockpiles were greater than estimated might mean prices would fall below the forecast, Mr Heap said.

"The industry has been repeatedly misled into increasing supply in response to expected tightening," he said.

Citigroup said weapons-grade uranium had more than 90 per cent U-235, the uranium isotope capable of undergoing fission to produce energy. Mined uranium has just 0.7per cent.

Uranium rose $US5 a pound in the two weeks to May 11, its biggest fortnightly gain in nine years, according to prices from United Kingdom-based Metal Bulletin.

Prices rose as Uranium Participation Corp, an investment fund, started buying the nuclear fuel and US power producers tried to rebuild dwindling stockpiles.

Mr Heap's prediction is still less than that of JPMorgan Chase analyst Anindya Mohinta, who on June 2 raised a 2006 forecast to $US32.50 a pound from $US29.60.

Greg Barnes, an analyst at Canaccord Capital, Canada's biggest independent brokerage, said in a May 3 report that uranium prices might average $US30 a pound next year, from a previous forecast of $US27.

China plans to build 27 plants to boost nuclear energy output fourfold by 2020, and India aims to build up to 24 reactors, according to the World Nuclear Association.

Mr Heap said uranium demand was expected to grow at 1.7 per cent a year between 2005 and 2010.

"Inventories held by producers and processors are now expected to reach minimum levels by 2007," he said, adding that minimum working inventory was considered to be two-thirds of annual consumption.

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology said in September that commercial stockpiles of uranium dropped 50 per cent between 1985 and 2003 because mine output could not keep up with demand.

Mr Heap said planned projects such as Cameco Corp and Cogema's Cigar Lake in Canada, due to start production in 2007, would not be able to keep up with demand.

Should BHP Billiton increase the scale of a previously announced $4billion expansion at the Olympic Dam mine in Australia, which has the world's biggest uranium resource, the supply gap might be filled, he said.

Southern Cross Resources said in November that it would not

stolwyk
26-07-2005, 04:28 PM
Overview of Uranium Price, Supply, and Demand
http://www.uraniumminer.net/


How Differences in Uranium Deposits Can Affect the Price
http://www.resourceinvestor.com/pebble.asp?relid=11543

Olympic Dam is mentioned.

stolwyk
04-08-2005, 03:44 PM
Govt seizes control of NT uranium mines
August 4, 2005 - 1:49PM


http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Govt-seizes-control-of-NT-uranium-mines/2005/08/04/1123125836681.html?oneclick=true

The federal government has taken control over the future of the Northern Territory's rich uranium deposits, declaring the territory open for business on uranium.

The NT Labor government had promised to ban new uranium mines, despite fierce opposition from the federal government.

But the federal government sought legal advice, and said it had taken over responsibility for the development of new mines, following a meeting between the federal and NT resources minister in Darwin.

"This morning in our meeting with the NT resources minister it was made clear by the territory government that they were abdicating their part of decision-making on uranium mining," Federal Resources Minister Ian MacFarlane said.

"On that basis, and under the NT Mining Act and the NT Mining Management Act, the Commonwealth will assume responsibility for the approval of uranium mines.

"None of those approvals will be considered before they have the full support of the indigenous owners of the area where the mine is proposed."

Advertisement
AdvertisementMr Macfarlane said the federal government was taking control "for the good of the territory" and resources industry.

"We can't allow this confusion to continue," he said.

"This no-uranium policy is a nonsensical policy.

"The Northern Territory is open for business on uranium mining.

"We were reticent to go down this road, even as late as this morning I was asking the territory government to co-operate.

"But if they're not prepared to do that ... the commonwealth will act to accept that responsibility."

About a dozen companies were currently exploring for uranium in the resource-rich territory, which is home to some $12 billion worth of known uranium deposits, he said.

Energy Resources of Australia (ERA) is currently mining at Ranger, which is surrounded by Kakadu National Park.

French nuclear power company Cogema is currently lobbying traditional owners in a bid to mine its multi-million dollar, 14,000-tonne Koongarra deposit in Kakadu National Park.

Mr Macfarlane said he shared the NT government's unease about the Koongarra deposit, but would consider all applications.

easy money
04-08-2005, 03:48 PM
SUMMIT wil be next..will top up i think

IcedPaladin
05-08-2005, 08:18 AM
What are the twelve companies with mining licences in NT?
.

BHP
ARU
MTN
ERA
DYL
JRL
SIM

OTHERS?[/quote]

Geoff7
05-08-2005, 08:36 AM
Add Cogema and Laramide, must be a few others...but I think you have covered the Aussie ones..

Yme
05-08-2005, 09:41 PM
cmr,,,btv,,,

stolwyk
24-08-2005, 12:56 PM
FEDERAL LABOR SUPPORTS URANIUM EXPORTS

see today's Courier Mail article below

YELLOCAKE PRICE NOW US$30.20 POUND

IN WA CHURCH INVESTMENT ARM ENDS BAN ON URANIUM AS PRESSURE GROWS ON STATE TO LET MINING GO AHEAD

Reported in the West Australian today

"A leading Australian ethical investment fund under Anglican Church control has axed its ban on investing in uranium miners as pressure mounts on the Gallop government to allow mining of WA's extensive uranium reserves"


WEST AUSTRALIAN EDITORIAL TODAY

Timid party bosses risk irrelevance on uranium

"Whether or not the WA leaders of the minor parties like it, the issue of uraniun mining will not go away.

Indeed there are stirrings on the back bances across party lines about the need for at least a comprehensive debate on the issue.

If the party leaders cointinue to ignore evidence of increasing support for uranium mining, they will simply render themselves irrelevant in the debate that must happen."


Labor backs export of uranium to China
Matthew Franklin, national political editor
24aug05

FEDERAL Labor has given strong backing for the export of uranium to China, saying Australia has a responsibility to help the booming Asian giant slash growth in greenhouse gas emissions.

Labor resources spokesman Martin Ferguson told the Committee for Economic Development of Australia yesterday that boosting uranium exports for power generation also would reduce the need for users to buy from suppliers with less strict controls over treatment of radioactive waste.


Mr Ferguson's comments, seen as an attempt to boost Labor's trade and economic credentials, are likely to increase tension in the party amid nervousness in some sections of the Left over the environmental and security implications of uranium exports to China.


However, views on the issue are not clear-cut.

Mr Ferguson is from the party's Left faction and other party figures oppose uranium exports – including Premier Peter Beattie (a Right winger) because they could affect Queensland coal exports. The Howard Government earlier this month took control of uranium deposits in the Northern Territory and began negotiating with China for an agreement to ensure any exports would not be used for weapons. Completion of the agreement would clear the way for job creation through the development of Australia's vast undeveloped deposits.

Speaking in Sydney, Mr Ferguson told the CEDA that massive industrial development in China and India would fuel major growth in greenhouse gas emissions. While Australia was fortunate to have abundant supplies of clean coal and gas to meet its own energy needs, 70 per cent of China's present energy production came from brown coal, one of the dirtiest fossil fuels.


"We must clean up coal and the Chinese must have the ability to use other cleaner energy sources as part of their energy mix," Mr Ferguson said. "It is an important debate for Australia in the context of responsible citizenship in the global community.


"Australia cannot withdraw from the international community in terms of the debate about uranium mining, nuclear power and its corollaries – nuclear non-proliferation and the safe and peaceful handling of nuclear waste materials."


He said other countries would meet the uranium demand if Australia did not.


Australia could at least guarantee strict chain-of-custody procedures to ensure its use – and the treatment of waste – was properly monitored, he said.


Mr Ferguson also backed the recently established Asia-Pacific Partnership – comprising Australia, the US, Japan, China, India and South Korea – which he said would encourage the development and adoption of new environmentally friendly technologies and clean energy sources.


Courier Mail Brisbane 24 August 2005



Alan J Eggers

Summit Resources Limited

PERTH 24 August 2005




Voluntary Disclosure: No Position Sentiment: None TOU violation

IcedPaladin
24-08-2005, 04:35 PM
Stolly does that mean you are no longer a holder of SMM?

stolwyk
24-08-2005, 04:41 PM
Why do you make that deduction, pse.


Gerry
Holds SMM

laurie
24-08-2005, 05:43 PM
Price now US$30.20/LB :D

cheers laurie

laurie
26-08-2005, 02:59 PM
Premier Geoff Gallop is under further pressure to allow a debate into uranium mining in Western Australia.

The Member for the Kimberley, Carol Martin, is the latest Labor MP to call for a debate. She says with a growing population and a heavy reliance on fossil fuels, WA needs to look at alternative energy options.

When mining and pastoral MPs Vince Catania and Jenny Archer made the same suggestions earlier this month, the Premier, who opposes uranium mining, was quick to reject them.

Ms Martin says she is not worried about upsetting the Premier because Dr Gallop has always allowed his Parliamentary colleagues to express their opinions.

"Personally I don't like the idea, but you know I'm not the only human being on the planet with an opinion, so you know I just think put all the information out there and make some informed decisions, that's all," she said.

"Geoff has never tried to stifle any of us, I mean let's get that right, I mean you know Vince has an opinion, some of us agree with that opinion."

cheers laurie

stolwyk
28-08-2005, 11:43 AM
WHAT'S THAT URANIUM WORTH?



http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_05/casey082605.html

laurie
28-08-2005, 05:12 PM
stolwyk

Thanks for the link the problem though is that most of the areas in S.A. for e.g. are done by leach feed process would be interested to get a cost compared to actual mining to which the link was refering to

cheers laurie

Epsilon
28-08-2005, 09:45 PM
The method of extracting Uranium through In Situ Leaching, (ISL) is actually cheaper, for you don't have to take the ore to a mill (which could be miles away, thus adding to the overall cost) for crushing and then "cleansing" and filtering it.......
Cheers......Michael......(Stolwyk's "good old friend" from ...other pastures).......!!
Have a wonderfully profitable week!!!!!!

Moonshine
08-09-2005, 12:22 AM
Price up $0.30 to USD$30.50/lb

http://www.uxc.com/review/uxc_prices.html

Cheers,

Moonshine

robbo
08-09-2005, 09:36 AM
Marathon (MTN)

Hi Moonshine.....

Get back to you, but an email attachemnt, from you went mising into cyberspace...??

Regards,

Robbo :)

laurie
08-09-2005, 01:43 PM
Can someone here please explain how I can get an image into my reply I understand there is a "insert image" icon but it will not allow me to drag it into this page from other folder!

cheers laurie

stolwyk
10-09-2005, 12:32 PM
Important development as this could speed up the uptake of Uranium; also, the lead time of this smaller reactor is shorter. Perhaps Queensland wants some as well, LOL:
_____________________________

Russia to Build World’s First Floating Nuclear Power Station for $200,000
Created: 09.09.2005 11:54 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 12:00 MSK, 15 hours 52 minutes ago

MosNews

Russia’s Federal Nuclear Energy Agency has made a decision to build a low capacity floating nuclear power plant (FNPP), the first project of its kind in the world. The plant will be small and will produce roughly 1/150th of the power produced by a standard Russian nuclear power plant. Construction could begin in 2006 if the project finds financing.

The mini-station will be located in the White Sea, off the coast of the town of Severodvinsk (in the Arkhangelsk region in northern Russia). It will be moored near the Sevmash plant, which is the main facility of the State Nuclear Shipbuilding Center. The FNPP will be equipped with two power units using KLT-40S reactors. The plant will meet all of Sevmash’s energy requirements for just 5 or 6 cents per kilowatt. If necessary, the plant will also be able to supply heat and desalinate seawater.

“If conditions are favorable, the floating plant could be operational in four to five years’ time,” said Yevgeny Kuzin, general director of the joint-stock company Malaya Energetika. By “conditions” Kuzin, who is the project leader, means funding. The small nuclear power station will cost about $200,000. Kuzin says that it will be hard to secure the necessary money. Russian businessmen have become used to making quick returns on their investments, and few are prepared to wait for long-term returns. Yet there are still some businessmen who break the mold and are aware of the benefits of taking a longer-term perspective.

And the concept of the FNPP is very promising. Small FNPPs would be a blessing for the Russian regions adjoining the Arctic Ocean. These areas lack centralized energy supplies, and an FNPP would be an independent source of energy. It is specifically this feature of the Russian technological innovation that is attracting attention abroad: Indonesia, Malaysia, and China have all shown interest in the project. The plant off the coast of Severodvinsk will therefore also act as a prototype that can be seen by potential foreign customers.

The steps for implementing FNPP project are as follows. A site for the floating power unit has to be selected in coastal waters, not far from the recipient of the power supply (be it a town, village or enterprise). The unit, which is powered by two reactors and accommodates engineering and amenity services, is then towed out to this site by a tug. The unit should be supported by compact onshore infrastructure — transformers, pumps, heat supply units, etc. Then the plant is commissioned. It will have the capacity to supply energy to a town with a population of 200,000. If the entire capacity of the plant is switched over to desalinization of sea water, it will be able to produce 240,000 cubic meters of fresh water a day. “When the plant is decommissioned and pulled out, it leaves absolutely no pollution,” Kuzin said, quoted by RIA Novosti.

Potential terrorist threats were also taken into account when designing the plant’s security system. The latest scientific and technological advances in this field have been incorporated to prevent unauthorized access to fissile materials aboard the plant. Among other things, fingerprint and iris identification technologies will be used. The plant will also be protected against possible subversive attempts by terrorist divers. Much thought has been given to protecting the plant from external factors. For example, if an airliner, even one as big as a Boeing, were to fall on the plant, there is no way it would destroy the reactor.

The project head also maintained that Russia would not sell the floating nuclear plants to other countries, should a number of them be made in the future. “Russia will only sell its products — e

Geoff7
10-09-2005, 10:46 PM
http://www.mineweb.net/sections/whats_new/483199.htm

U.S., Australia may allow new uranium mines
By: Dorothy Kosich
Posted: '09-SEP-05 05:00' GMT © Mineweb 1997-2004

LAS VEGAS--(Mineweb.com) Uranium experts asserted Thursday that, like it or not, the United States is moving toward a nuclear society, and Australia is on the verge of allowing new uranium mines.

In a panel at the Las Vegas Gold & Precious Metals Conference, Dave Miller, Chief Geologist for Strathmore Minerals, predicted that a century from now, "90% of our energy will come from nuclear power." He suggested that uranium prices are high enough to stimulate new mine production.

Mineweb columnist Doug Casey, Chairman of Casey Research, claimed that nuclear power is the safest form of mass power generation, the cleanest form of mass energy generation, and the cheapest source of power.

Miller predicted that New Mexico, which has a long history of uranium mining for government purposes, will again allow the mining of uranium.

Marc Henderson, President of Laramide Resources, suggested mining investors "watch what the politicians of the world are doing, not what they are saying" when it comes to nuclear energy." For instance, one of the most environmentally conscious nations in the world, Sweden, gets half its power from nuclear energy, he noted.

Casey asserted that the real problem for uranium miners "is the politics of permitting," resulting in decade-long permitting timetables for project approval. Nevertheless, as oil continues to get more expensive, Casey feels interest in nuclear energy will become even stronger in the United States.

Miller noted that only one state, Virginia, has actually banned uranium mining. He also suggested that former uranium producer New Mexico will resume uranium mining,

Even Australia, which Henderson called the "Saudi Arabia of uranium," is rethinking its position against new uranium mines, thanks to economic and political pressures from China. In fact, he added, "we are quite surprised with the speed that the political winds are changing in Australia." Stewart Taylor, Vice President, International Operations for Maple Minerals, said he feels that "there is absolutely no problem with developing new mines in Australia. ...The situation, we feel, is going to change very quickly to be very favorable to uranium mining."

The panelists said they were more concerned about the multitude of junior companies which have jumped into uranium exploration and development, rather than the question of whether nuclear energy will become a major power source. Nevertheless, Henderson asserted that while "uranium is very abundant," it does not "aggregate well into deposits that are economic."

Taylor estimated that at least 230 junior exploration and major mining companies are currently looking for uranium. Nevertheless, he claimed only about 50 of these companies actually have uranium resources. Casey suggested that of the 140 publicly-traded companies in North America who say they are looking for uranium, "most of them aren't serious."

Casey declared that "I am not big on companies spending a lot of money finding new deposits," adding that he prefers companies that have identified historic uranium deposits. He also discounts "most of the juniors who are newbies to the game." Casey also speculated that most competent uranium mining and exploration professionals have "already been scooped up" by junior companies.

In response to a question by panel moderator Jim Dines, Casey refused to recommend any uranium exploration or mining stocks, noting that he examined 35 companies six months ago. "If you buy a stock based on a recommendation from a podium," he said, "that's a recipe for disaster."

Taylor suggested that there are a lot of uranium resources out there "that will never be mined." Maple is searching for resources "that can be mined at current prices." Therefore, "when prices go up, they make a lot of money," he added.

Taylor does not give much credence to predictions hat uranium supplies will meet demand

laurie
14-09-2005, 11:11 AM
Price changed upto US$30.75/lb :)


cheers laurie

stolwyk
14-09-2005, 06:12 PM
India unveils safest thorium reactor (Thanks Katy28)

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1471875,00040006.htm

TEXT:
New Delhi, August 25, 2005

India on Thursday unveiled before the international community its revolutionary design of "A Thorium Breeder Reactor (ATBR)" that can produce 600 MW of electricity for two years "with no refuelling and practically no control manoeuvres."

Designed by scientists of Mumbai-based Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC), ATBR is claimed to be far more economical and safer than any power reactor in the world.

Most significantly for India, ATBR does not require natural or enriched uranium which the country is finding difficult to import. It uses thorium -- which India has in plenty -- and only requires plutonium as "seed" to ignite the reactor core initially.

Eventually, ATBR can be running entirely with thorium and fissile uranium-233 bred inside the reactor (or obtained externally by converting fertile thorium into fissile Uranium-233 by neutron bombardment).

BARC scientists V Jagannathan and Usha Pal revealed the ATBR design in their paper presented on Thursday at the week-long "international conference on emerging nuclear energy systems" in Brussels. The design has been in the making for over seven years.

According to the scientists, the ATBR while annually consuming 880 kg of plutonium for energy production from "seed" rods, converts 1100 kg of thorium into fissionable uranium-233. "This differential gain in fissile formation makes ATBR a kind of thorium breeder."

The uniqueness of the ATBR design is that there is almost a perfect "balance" between fissile depletion and production that allows in-bred U-233 to take part in energy generation thereby extending the core life to two years.

This does not happen in the present-day power reactors because the fissile depletion takes place much faster than production of new fissile ones.

BARC scientists say that "ATBR with plutonium feed can be regarded as plutonium incinerator and it produces the intrinsically proliferation resistant U-233 for sustenance of future reactor programme."

They say that long fuel cycle length of two years with no external absorber management or control manoeuvres "does not exist in any operating reactor."

The ATBR annually requires 2.2 tonnes of plutonium as "seed." Although India has facilities to recover plutonium by reprocessing spent fuel, it requires plutonium for its Fast Breeder Reactor programme as well. Nuclear analysts say that it may be possible for India to obtain plutonium from friendly countries wanting to dismantle their weapons or dispose of their stockpiled plutonium.



Ads by Google

stolwyk
15-09-2005, 06:59 AM
Sorry, no reference.

Life cycle analysis: external costs and greenhouse gases

A principal concern of life cycle analysis for energy systems today is their likely contribution to global warming. This is a major external cost.

If all energy inputs are assumed to be from coal-fired plants, at about one tonne of carbon dioxide per MWh, it is possible to derive a greenhouse contribution from the energy ratio. With major inputs, this is worth investigating further.

Uranium enrichment in USA is by diffusion and some of this capacity is supplied by coal-fired plants. If a national average, allowing for different sources of power, is applied, this input has a value of around 650 kg CO2/MWh. This gives a greenhouse contribution for nuclear power of about 40kg/MWh overall. In France, however, which has the world's largest diffusion enrichment plant, electricity is supplied by on-site nuclear reactors (which also supply the grid). Because of this, the greenhouse contribution from any nuclear reactor using French-enriched uranium is similar to a reactor using centrifuge-enriched uranium -- less than 1kg/MWh for the enrichment input, and less than 20 kg/MWh overall.

Rashad & Hammad conclude that the life cycle CO2 emission coefficient for nuclear power, on the basis of centrifuge enrichment, is 2.7% of that for coal-fired generation. This is consistent with other figures based on fossil fuel inputs.

The ExternE study (1995) attempted to provide an expert assessment of life cycle external costs for Europe including greenhouse gases, other pollution and accident potential. The European Commission launched the project in 1991 in collaboration with the US Dept of Energy (which subsequently dropped out), and it was the first research project of its kind "to put plausible financial figures against damage resulting from different forms of electricity production for the entire EU". A further report, focusing on coal and nuclear, was released in 2001.

The external costs are defined as those actually incurred in relation to health and the environment and quantifiable but not built into the cost of the electricity to the consumer and therefore which are borne by society at large. They include particularly the effects of air pollution on human health, crop yields and buildings, as well as occupational disease and accidents. In ExternE they exclude effects on ecosystems and the impact of global warming, which could not adequately be quantified and evaluated economically.

The methodology measures emissions, their dispersion and ultimate impact. With nuclear energy the (low) risk of accidents is factored in along with high estimates of radiological impacts from mine tailings and carbon-14 emissions from reprocessing (waste management and decommissioning being already within the cost to the consumer).

The report shows that in clear cash terms nuclear energy incurs about one tenth of the costs of coal. In particular, the external costs for coal-fired power were a very high proportion (50-70%) of the internal costs, while the external costs for nuclear energy were a very small proportion of internal costs, even after factoring in hypothetical nuclear catastrophes. This is because all waste costs in the nuclear fuel cycle are internalised, which reduces the competitiveness of nuclear power when only internal costs are considered. The external costs of nuclear energy averages 0.4 euro cents/kWh, much the same as hydro, coal is over 4.0 cents (4.1 - 7.3 cent averages in different countries), gas ranges 1.3-2.3 cents and only wind shows up better than nuclear, at 0.1-0.2 cents/kWh average.

The EU cost of electricity generation without these external costs averages about 4 cents/kWh. If these external costs were in fact included, the EU price of electricity from coal would double and that from gas would increase 30%. These particular estimates are without attempting to include possible impacts of fossil fuels on global warming. See also ExternE web site.

Adding further confirmation to figures already published from Scand

stolwyk
22-09-2005, 04:12 PM
After India's Thorium Reactor (See a couple of posts back, we now have another would be contender:

Public release date: 24-Aug-2004
[ Print Article | E-mail Article | Close Window ]

Contact: Mary O'Malley
m.omalley@unsw.edu.au
61-2-4388-81124
University of New South Wales

Vast new energy source almost here
Solar hydrogen fuel dream will soon be a reality
Australian scientists predict that a revolutionary new way to harness the power of the sun to extract clean and almost unlimited energy supplies from water will be a reality within seven years.
Using special titanium oxide ceramics that harvest sunlight and split water to produce hydrogen fuel, the researchers say it will then be a simple engineering exercise to make an energy-harvesting device with no moving parts and emitting no greenhouse gases or pollutants.

It would be the cheapest, cleanest and most abundant energy source ever developed: the main by-products would be oxygen and water.

"This is potentially huge, with a market the size of all the existing markets for coal, oil and gas combined," says Professor Janusz Nowotny, who with Professor Chris Sorrell is leading a solar hydrogen research project at the University of New South Wales (UNSW) Centre for Materials and Energy Conversion. The team is thought to be the most advanced in developing the cheap, light-sensitive materials that will be the basis of the technology.

"Based on our research results, we know we are on the right track and with the right support we now estimate that we can deliver a new material within seven years," says Nowotny.

Sorrell says Australia is ideally placed to take advantage of the enormous potential of this new technology: "We have abundant sunlight, huge reserves of titanium and we're close to the burgeoning energy markets of the Asia-Pacific region. But this technology could be used anywhere in the world. It's been the dream of many people for a long time to develop it and it's exciting to know that it is now within such close reach."

The results of the team's work will be presented in Sydney on 27 August to delegates from Japan, Germany, the United States and Australia at a one-day International Conference on Materials for Hydrogen Energy at UNSW.

Among them will be the inventors of the solar hydrogen process, Professors Akira Fujishima and Kenichi Honda. Both are frontrunners for the Nobel Prize in chemistry and are the laureates of the 2004 Japan Prize.

Since the Japanese researchers' 1971 discoveries, science has made major advances in achieving one of the ultimate goals of science and technology – the design of materials required to split water using solar light.

The UNSW team opted to use titania ceramic photoelectrodes because they have the right semiconducting properties and the highest resistance to water corrosion.

Solar hydrogen, Professor Sorrell argues, is not incompatible with coal. It can be used to produce solar methanol, which produces less carbon dioxide than conventional methods. "As a mid-term energy carrier it has a lot to say for it," he says.

Moonshine
28-09-2005, 01:35 PM
Price of U308 up USD$0.50 overnight to USD$31.25/lb.

Keeps on keeping on...

Good news for all U stocks... the boom coninues/gains momentum!

stolwyk
05-10-2005, 12:25 PM
U price: +75 cents to $US32.00

laurie
05-10-2005, 09:46 PM
$8 short of 1980 high price of $40 :D

cheers laurie

laurie
09-10-2005, 11:41 PM
quote:The South Australian Labor Party has watered down a motion to tighten regulations for uranium mining.

The ALP's state convention yesterday agreed to urge the Government to apply the strictest environmental conditions on uranium mining.

But delegates stopped short of endorsing a motion by Labor MP Frances Bedford to tighten the regulation of uranium mining.

Premier Mike Rann and Treasurer Kevin Foley have indicated their support for increased uranium mining in South Australia but Ms Bedford is cautious.

"We understand that uranium mining is going to be expanded, there's not a lot we can do about that, but what we need to make sure is that it's done in the most responsible and sustainable way possible," she said.



cheers laurie

Dazza
11-10-2005, 09:29 AM
hot off the press :

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16877600%5E643,00.html


Raisings at risk in mine ban fallout
Nigel Wilson, Energy writer
October 11, 2005
MILLIONS of dollars in capital raisings for uranium floats in South Australia are under a cloud following the State ALP's unannounced decision to block new uranium mines in the State.

South Australia, which houses two of the three operating uranium mines in the country, was the state that was expected to be the most liberal in its approach to uranium mining in the current debate about increasing Australia's uranium exports.

State Premier Mike Rann supports uranium mining for its contribution to the South Australian economy.

But at the weekend the South Australian Labor Party conference strengthened opposition to expanding uranium mining.

The conference endorsed, unanimously and without debate, a platform motion that says: "Labor continues to be opposed to the establishment of any new uranium mines and any expansion into the enrichment process."









In 2005, five companies have raised a total of $25.5 million from the sharemarket to finance the search for uranium in South Australia, their share prices rising strongly since listing.

The Australian Conservation Foundation, which had campaigned for the ban, yesterday welcomed the move. ACF nuclear campaigner David Noonan said the ALP platform would end speculation South Australia would encourage new mines.

"The outcome is that uranium speculators in SA - and their investors - can now have zero confidence in any commercialisation till at least 2010, if ever.

"What this does is clearly show investors in uranium floats in this state have wasted their money," Mr Noonan said.

There was no chance new mines would now proceed, even though the policy did not affect the two existing mines.

Mr Noonan called on the South Australian Government to stop subsidising exploration for uranium, saying this policy - which gives some explorers a 50 per cent rebate on drilling costs - was a waste of public resources, in light of the ALP platform.

The South Australian ALP move comes as the party nationally is increasingly riven by cross-factional attempts to overthrow its three mines policy, which has operated since 1983.

Federal resources shadow Martin Ferguson, who supports the issue being debated at the party's national conference next year, is in Perth to speak to a uranium conference today.

WA Premier Geoff Gallop is strongly opposed to the move but has been unable to stop the issue being placed on the WA ALP conference agenda next month.

Last month Queensland Premier Peter Beattie rejected a suggestion by party broker Bill Ludwig that the three mines policy should be expanded.

Mr Beattie said uranium was a major competitor to coal, and encouraging uranium mining would undermine the wealth of Queensland.

The SA move also included the statement that:

"Labor strongly opposes the location of a national radioactive waste repository in South Australia.

"Given the grave concerns raised by the 2003 Senate Committee on the uranium industry in Australia about the practice of in situ leaching, Labor will ensure there is monitoring of the environmental impact of the in situ leaching method.

"Under Labor, uranium mining has become subject to the scrutiny of the Environmental Protection Authority. Labor also introduced revised reporting arrangements for spills at uranium mines. These regimes will be maintained."

The platform binds an ALP state government until 2010.

Political analysts last night said that with a State election scheduled for March, the ALP wanted to avoid a public clash over uranium.

laurie
11-10-2005, 12:31 PM
quote:If you want to invest in Uranium Companies within South Australia think Giant Copper Gold Uranium Deposits like Olympic Dam or tertiary Uranium.

That's fine if they are around but Olympic Dam U308 is tied in with copper to increase U308 output you need to increase copper output and if the price of copper falls then what!

cheers laurie

aussie joe
11-10-2005, 04:32 PM
The whole uranium sector has taken a nice hit today.

Great buying opportunity.

laurie
12-10-2005, 02:25 AM
This one is interesting when it floats towards the end of this month!
http://www.uranex.com.au/

cheers laurie

Sharp737
12-10-2005, 02:12 PM
I think you are right Aussie Joe. I'm wanting to get back into Summit hopefully. Sold far too early months ago before the big rise. And I see Extract Resources has done well too...Darn. If the stocks stay low just for a bit longer, might be able to unload some other stuff and get some more Summits again.

Sharp - "All things are possible"

mentat
12-10-2005, 02:21 PM
yeah I was in SMM for a while made some nice gains but missed the 60c->90c rise. Been watching a slow slide down to 60c for the last week thinking about re-entering. Not enough support even now for 60c yet to indicate a buy, will keep watching. Why the reason for the drop off anyone?

laurie
12-10-2005, 02:49 PM
quote:
Labor uranium rethink
Mandi Zonneveldt
Resources
12oct05

SHADOW Resources Minister Martin Ferguson has given the strongest indication yet that the Labor Party will re-think its opposition to new uranium mines in Australia.
Speaking at the Australian Uranium Conference in Fremantle yesterday, Mr Ferguson said Australia had a responsibility to provide a clean, safe source of energy to the rest of the world.
"Whether we like it or not Australia is undeniably part of the global nuclear cycle," he said.
"The reality is that we as a nation have to face up to our responsibilities sooner rather than later, the responsibilities that come with being the owners of globally important nuclear energy resources."
The ALP is opposed to the development of new uranium mines in Australia, but Mr Ferguson said the party could not escape the uranium debate.
He said the ALP's uranium policy had not been considered for a long time.
"It's going to be an interesting debate in the lead up to the national conference in 2007," he said.
"I adopt this view. Uranium mining is no less safe than coal mining in Australia."
The right-wing Australian Workers Union has already called on the ALP to re-think its policy.
Incoming ALP president Warren Mundine has also signalled that he would support a change and wants the issue raised at the party's next national conference.
Mr Ferguson's comments come just days after the South Australian Labor Government -- expected to be the most open to the development of new uranium mines -- endorsed a motion at its state conference supporting the status quo.
Western Australian Premier Geoff Gallop and Queensland Premier Peter Beattie are also opposed to an expansion of uranium mining, but Mr Ferguson said they would have to "front up" to the debate.
"Uranium presents a new opportunity and over time people have to grasp these opportunities and front up to their responsibilities," he said.
He said any decision taken to change the party's policy at a national level would be binding on the states.
Australia is home to 40 per cent of the world's uranium resources and is already the second-largest uranium producer, behind Canada.
The Federal Government is pushing for an expansion of the industry, with demand from China expected to easily absorb Australia's current export capacity within the next decade.
Mr Ferguson told the conference Australia had a responsibility to make its uranium available to countries that were not self-sufficient in terms of energy and, in particular, those tackling problems with pollution.
He said Australia also had an obligation to make sure its uranium was used for peaceful purposes and that it was safely disposed of.
Speakers at yesterday's conference said the ALP's opposition to the development of new uranium mines was holding Australia's resource industry back.
Ron Matthews, exploration manager for Canadian company Cameco, said the ALP's position made most of Australia's vast uranium resources inaccessible to mining.
"I think restraints imposed by state governments have severely hampered the development of uranium mining in Australia," he said.
"A change in the misguided perceptions of the ALP . . . is required," he said.
The Association of Mining and Exploration Companies yesterday called for the formation of a new, industry-based lobby group to drive the debate.



There is hope yet :)
cheers laurie

laurie
13-10-2005, 12:58 AM
Uranium up to $33/lb +$1 from last month biggest rise so far great news

cheers laurie

fickle
13-10-2005, 04:02 AM
how come no one is interested in ERA? ok. it myabe too big, can't give you (potential) ten-fold return, not sexy enough(!?)... mometheless, IF australia is really going to open a new uranium mine, jabiluka has to be the first choice, no question about it. yes, the mine faces the same issues as all other uranium mines have, but it's also huge, located in NT, and have full govt support.

Seneca
13-10-2005, 09:12 AM
Era is suffering because the 2 minor shareholders are selling out -- have a look at there company anouncements - may present an opportunity if they get oversold but their p/e is still pretty flash

ASXIOU
13-10-2005, 12:18 PM
B and C class shareholders are selling out. They know it is overpriced. On PE of about 70 [8)][:0]

laurie
13-10-2005, 12:33 PM
quote:how come no one is interested in ERA? ok
I am :D I got in at $3 and still think it has more to go,once MINING stops and stockpiles are treated till 2011 the royalties stop the fate of Jabiluka rests in the hands of 1 women and 3 children their 4 Wheel Drives will run out of petrol and will give the go ahead and I am talking of first hand experience

cheers laurie

fickle
13-10-2005, 01:58 PM
the way i find ERA interesting is that if i value it purely based on its Jabiluka mine, putting ZERO value on its current operation, i have these figures:
EV/reserves: US$13.0/bl;
EV/resources: US$10/bl;
EV/reserves+resources: US$5.7/bl!

same valuation put on SMM, its EV/resources:US$1.9/bl

yes, ERA's valuation is 3X more than that of SMM, but SMM owns 43M bl of U (0.127%), and its deposit is still classified as resources only. ERA, on the other hand, has RESEVES of 157M bl of U (0.51%)+ resources of 203M bl of U (0.54%), together 360M bl of uranium.

ERA has 8X more deposit with much higher grade, i don't think its higher valuation is unjustified. Jabiluka is a world class uranium mine, so huge and important to the uranium industry in australia that govt can't afford to ignore.

anyway, that's how i see ERA, not from an angle of current operation (so i don't care about its PE) but from the depsoit it holds. Of course. if the market doesn't see the company as the way i see it, my analysis is pointless. After all, market always has the final say!!!

laurie
13-10-2005, 03:29 PM
quote:Contamination of Mageela creek is a real concern and contamination of about 1/3 of the Kakadu Flood plain

Totally false!! ERA has commissioned a water filtration plant to over come that what comes out of that plant is better than that you are drinking from your tap

quote:With ERA you are gambling on whether Jabiluka will or will not be mined.
But is that not what most exploration resource companies offer..

cheers laurie

laurie
13-10-2005, 03:38 PM
quote:the way i find ERA interesting is that if i value it purely based on its Jabiluka mine, putting ZERO value on its current operation, i have these figures:

fickle
You cannot put ZERO value on its current operation because it will be used to process the Jabiluka ore it's only 30km away from the Ranger Site

cheers laurie

fickle
13-10-2005, 04:58 PM
putting zero value is just being prudent. my figure is conservative then.
i'm no expert in mining.
yes, my point is exactly that investing in any uranium exploration companies is essentially gambling that one day their deposits will be mined. then, why not choose the biggest and highest quality mine?

tapman
13-10-2005, 05:30 PM
quote:Originally posted by rupert

ERA's Future relies pretty much on Jabiluka.
Contamination of Mageela creek is a real concern and contamination of about 1/3 of the Kakadu Flood plain. This may or may not be mined.
With ERA you are gambling on whether Jabiluka will or will not be mined. There is a very real chance that it may never be mined.


Rupert, Yet again another comment showing your true 'Green'colours.
Laurie seems to have a pretty succinct reply to this statement. ?????

laurie
13-10-2005, 05:59 PM
quote:why not choose the biggest and highest quality mine?


Well said fickle mark my word Jabiluka WILL go ahead WHYbecause ERA supplies power to Kakadu from it's own power station and the N.T. Goverment would have to spend many million of dollars to get a line in from Darwin for 2000 people!! guess what? National Parks refuses to allow a power line into Kakadu lol go figure

cheers laurie

laurie
13-10-2005, 06:10 PM
quote:During 2004 ERA paid $8.1 million in royalties from the Ranger operation to the Commonwealth Government. This money is ultimately distributed to Northern Territory-based Aboriginal groups, including the Traditional Owners. Additionally ERA paid $2.4 million in royalties to the Commonwealth Government for distribution to the Northern Territory government during 2004. Ranger has paid a total of $207.7 million in nominal terms in royalties since the project began in 1980. In net present value terms (i.e. taking into account inflation, plus a ten percent discount rate) this is equivalent to more than $1 billion. In nominal terms, ERA has paid $202.8 million in income tax in the last ten years alone. ERA has also paid $9.86 million in payroll taxes over the past ten years, in nominal terms. ERA is a significant employer in the Northern Territory with an annual payroll, including contracts for services, of $45 million. ERA is the dominant contributor to the Alligator Rivers regional economy, employing more than 300 permanent full time and fixed term contract staff. Many more contractors, sub-contractors and local businesses are also dependant on the company’s business.. As at April 2005 ERA employed 37 Indigenous staff, (including four Aboriginal Trainees). There were a further four Aboriginal people employed under a Community Development Employment Program (CDEP). The company had an Aboriginal participation rate of 11.5 percent of its permanent full time and fixed term contract workforce. The company has provided much of the infrastructure for the town of Jabiru, the main service centre for the Kakadu National Park. The company is working with Aboriginal groups in the region to identify further employment and entrepreneurial opportunities. The company is also working in partnership with other stakeholders through the Jabiru Region Sustainability Project to build a sustainable future for people in the area.



cheers laurie

tapman
13-10-2005, 06:32 PM
quote:Originally posted by laurie


quote:During 2004 ERA paid $8.1 million in royalties from the Ranger operation to the Commonwealth Government. This money is ultimately distributed to Northern Territory-based Aboriginal groups, including the Traditional Owners. Additionally ERA paid $2.4 million in royalties to the Commonwealth Government for distribution to the Northern Territory government during 2004. Ranger has paid a total of $207.7 million in nominal terms in royalties since the project began in 1980. In net present value terms (i.e. taking into account inflation, plus a ten percent discount rate) this is equivalent to more than $1 billion. In nominal terms, ERA has paid $202.8 million in income tax in the last ten years alone. ERA has also paid $9.86 million in payroll taxes over the past ten years, in nominal terms. ERA is a significant employer in the Northern Territory with an annual payroll, including contracts for services, of $45 million. ERA is the dominant contributor to the Alligator Rivers regional economy, employing more than 300 permanent full time and fixed term contract staff. Many more contractors, sub-contractors and local businesses are also dependant on the company’s business.. As at April 2005 ERA employed 37 Indigenous staff, (including four Aboriginal Trainees). There were a further four Aboriginal people employed under a Community Development Employment Program (CDEP). The company had an Aboriginal participation rate of 11.5 percent of its permanent full time and fixed term contract workforce. The company has provided much of the infrastructure for the town of Jabiru, the main service centre for the Kakadu National Park. The company is working with Aboriginal groups in the region to identify further employment and entrepreneurial opportunities. The company is also working in partnership with other stakeholders through the Jabiru Region Sustainability Project to build a sustainable future for people in the area.



cheers laurie



An example of where other exploration/mining companies can work a win-win situation with local aborigines, greenies and the local population in general.

laurie
13-10-2005, 06:56 PM
quote:An example of where other exploration/mining companies can work a win-win situation with local aborigines, greenies and the local population in general

True but Uranium companies ONLY get the bad things they do on the front page :(

cheers laurie

Sharp737
14-10-2005, 09:13 AM
Hey Mentat, where about's in NZ are you?

I'm just south of Whangarei in Ruakak (Marsden Pt). Work at the NZ Refining Company.

Appreciate your reply. Good on you for getting into Extract Resources. Should have done it when the tip off came at 1.4c...now around the 4c! Ah well.

I'm holding some SMM's still, just sold some GBG's and some TAH's on the TSE.

Sharp - "All things are possible"

laurie
14-10-2005, 12:33 PM
Last Update: Friday, October 14, 2005. 9:02am (AEST)
Uranium explorer confident of industry's future
A fledgling South Australian uranium explorer says investment in the market should quickly bounce back after falling in response to Labor's reconfirmation of its no new mines policy.

On the weekend the SA Labor Party endorsed its policy to block new uranium mines until 2010, reportedly causing a slump in the share prices of several junior explorers.

Adelaide-based company Southern Gold has created a uranium-specific subsidiary, Southern Uranium, which is set to begin exploratory drilling on northern Eyre Peninsula in the next fortnight.

Managing director Stephen Biggins says he is confident the State Government strongly supports the uranium industry and investment will remain strong.

"I think the market's perhaps overreacting to, I think it was expecting a little bit more noise from the State Government but essentially the situation hasn't changed, so I think this sort of short-term fluctuation will even itself out and we'll go back to the strong fundamentals for developing the uranium exploration and mining industry in South Australia," he said.

"It may have an impact, but I also believe the comments from the federal shadow minister for mines, who was suggesting that the Labor Party, both at a federal level and we know from a state level, do consider the expansion of Australia's uranium industry to be one that will be addressed, that it can't ignore."

[/quote]

cheers laurie

mentat
16-10-2005, 05:38 PM
From Auckland there Sharp, been trading about 6 months now all ASX now all mining and resource, bullish on Uranium and Gold at the moment...

trader10
16-10-2005, 06:11 PM
Greenies take the fight to the uranium industry


Ben Sharples


Thursday, October 13, 2005
THE final session of the Australian Uranium Conference in Fremantle yesterday saw both sides of the uranium debate square off against each other, with a presentation by the Australian Conservation Foundation getting under the skin of some in the audience.

The ACF's Dave Sweeney started out by pouring cold water over the greenhouse line adopted by industry and politics, but praised the nuclear debate for drawing public attention to greenhouse emissions.

"A good thing about the current nuclear debate is an awareness of the need to change the way that we create and consume energy," Sweeney said. "However, ACF doesn't see nuclear power as a suitable alternative."

"Contrary to what's been said, nuclear is not greenhouse neutral."

Sweeney said the extraction, processing, concentration and transport of ore, including the removal and subsequent processing, re-processing and management of waste, all had a greenhouse footprint.

During his 20 minute presentation, Sweeney also drew links to weapons, radioactive waste, inadequate regulation, industry performance and safety concerns as underlying factors against nuclear energy.

Rather than embracing nuclear technology, Sweeney said Australia's role should be to "enhance, refine, commercialise, apply and export renewable energies and smart technologies" as a way of tackling greenhouse issues.

Despite the applause, not all were sold on Sweeney's views, with Graeme Campbell taking the opportunity during question time after BHP Billiton's presentation to brand the anti-nuclear campaigner's speech "dishonest nonsense", calling on BHPB to take a leading role to counter the "false information" coming from the Conservation Groups.

BHPB's Richard Yeeles took a diplomatic stance, saying there were alternative points of view and dialogue was required to understand each other's stance on the situation, but he couldn't resist a cheap shot at Sweeney's presentation

"I understand your frustration listening to points of view that you know are not based on fact," Yeeles told the audience.


WORK IS WHAT YOU MAKE IT !

"Never believe something is worthwhile if it compels you to break your promise"

laurie
16-10-2005, 10:56 PM
We had a saying in the Uranium industry "Let The Barstads Freeze In The Nights"

cheers laurie

laurie
17-10-2005, 08:49 PM
quote:China is seeking permission from the federal government to explore and mine uranium in Australia.

Wang Jun, from China's National Development and Reform Commission reportedly questioned Australian officials about such mining and was told that the Federal Government would not prevent it.

But the director-general of the Australian Nuclear Safeguards Office John Carlson says the mining would come under state and territory jurisdiction and China would need to get permission as such.

The Northern Territory government says there are already a number of international players exploring sites, which has up to $12 billion in uranium deposits.

Canberra has previously used its powers to intervene, when it comes to uranium mining in the territory, despite opposition from its government.

Australia exported 9,648 tonnes of uranium last year, none of which went to China.


This will be interesting! either they will jump on an existing stock or do what Canada does here in Oz start up their own exploration resource company

cheers laurie

laurie
18-10-2005, 08:43 PM
Bloody Hell!!! Redport [RPT] rose 0.026c from .10c to .126c on late trading volume 33,116,700 something is going on they will get a please explain from the ASX :D

cheers laurie

Winnie Burgers
19-10-2005, 10:19 AM
I've been watching the bids for RPT very closely this morning.
1 single bid came through for 1.8M @ 12.5 ?!! That's one serious buyer!!
What's the rumours??

laurie
19-10-2005, 05:52 PM
quote:What's the rumours??

Winnie

The thing that will push up RPT price up is either a large find or the W.A. Goverment allowing Uranium mining!

cheers laurie

aussie joe
21-10-2005, 03:45 PM
All,

I have never researched or purchased any options b4.

Can someone please give me a quick lesson in options.

I am interested in buying ARUO so if you use this as an example it will be greatly appreciated.[:p]

Joe

Geoff7
22-10-2005, 03:42 AM
Joe,
ARUO, whilst being an option is trades exactly as a share, it is traded on SEATS. As such it is different to buying an option in Tabcorp (as an example).
Essentially you are paying for the right to buy ARU for 20c between now and July 2008.
In simplified theory as we get closer to 2008 the difference between ARU and ARUO should be 20c (it wont be for various reasons).
Currently they trade about 10c lower than the FPO's, this provides for greater leverage when price moves. ie if price goes up 1c on ARU then ARUO should go up 1c, but that is a greater percentage on price.
Please be aware that ARUO is very tight and prone to rapid ups and downs (hopefully finished with now) so it is not always easy to trade in and out of, but great potential.

I hold ARU & ARUO.

small fish
22-10-2005, 09:36 AM
The other thing with options is of course is you have to front up with less money now so you can make use of the rest of the money elsewhere. With some speculative stocks they can be regarded as safer than buying head shares because if the stock encounters bad news you will lose the value of the option instead of the value of the share which could end up being more. If the head share price doesnt reach the 'strike' price by the date the option is to be converted to a head share then they expire worthless and you lose the investment you put into them. Very simple to use but situations do vary from company to company.

Dazza
23-10-2005, 09:09 PM
joe

it seems u like the company ARU, and naturally u are deciding weather to get ARU or ARUO.

well i can at least tell u why im in ARUO instead of ARU

first up
1. ARUO are options expire mm 07/08 i tink?

2. get more leverage, i can buy more of the stock with my capital.

3. i dun have to pay the extra 20 cents till about 2 more years

4. ARUO has an easier chance to be a 1 bagger than ARU, *my strategy is to sell 50% once its gained 100%*.

5. im a student, so in theory in 2 years time, i will be earning 3-6 times what im earning now, so when i have to front up with the capital, its easier :P



ARU a good buying time now with the slump, i was in at the options at 18 cents

Geoff7
23-10-2005, 11:01 PM
I hold both ARU and ARUO, a spin off of uranium assets would not be out of the realms of possibilities in todays climate.
Currently I hold about 10 ARUO to 1 ARU.
Good luck.

laurie
28-10-2005, 08:53 PM
quote:Uranium miner Energy Resources of Australia Ltd (ERA) has extended the life of its Ranger mine in the Northern Territory by three years after boosting its reserves by 14 per cent.

ERA has increased its reserves at Ranger by 6,285 tonnes by reducing the grade at which it considers it is economic to process ore.

The company said that in the past the cut off point had been ore with a uranium oxide content of 0.12 per cent.

But the renewed interest in nuclear power and the resulting increase in the uranium price now meant it was economical to process grades as low as 0.08 per cent uranium oxide.

ERA will still cease mining at Ranger in 2008 as planned, but the processing of ore will be extended from 2011 to 2014 as the miner processes lower grade rock that would previously have been treated as waste and used as backfill.

Shares in ERA, which is 68.39 per cent owned by global miner Rio Tinto, closed up 36 cents on $14.00 on Thursday.



What this now means ERA will re- measure it's stockpile of low grade ore

cheers laurie

stolwyk
02-11-2005, 03:17 PM
Standing Committee on Industry and Resources
Developing Australia's non-fossil fuel energy industry

Telephone: 02 6277 4594 PARLIAMENT HOUSE
Facsimile: 02 6277 4516 CANBERRA ACT 2600
E-mail: ir.reps@aph.gov.au
Website: www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/isr
MEDIA ALERT
Issued: 2 November 2005

Chair: The Hon Geoff Prosser MP
Deputy Chair: Michael Hatton MP Summit Resources to appear at uranium inquiry hearing Canberra public hearing, 3 November 2005

Representatives of Summit Resources will attend this Thursday’s public hearing for a parliamentary inquiry investigating the strategic importance of Australia’s uranium resources.

The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry and Resources is conducting hearings to gather evidence for its inquiry into the development of the non-fossil fuel energy industry in Australia. The Committee has commenced its inquiry with a case study examining Australia’s uranium industry. T

he Committee will receive evidence from Summit Resources, an ASX-listed exploration company headquartered in Perth. Its exploration interests include copper, gold and base metal deposits, along with the development of iron ore and phosphate resources.

Summit controls uranium resources in three deposits (Valhalla, Skal and Andersons) located near Mt Isa in Queensland. The deposits contain a combined total of over 34,500 tonnes of uranium oxide, with an in ground value estimated at over $3 billion.

Summit Resources’ submission asserts that the company was prevented from further assessing and undertaking feasibility studies to develop the Valhalla deposit by the Queensland state government in 1998, when the government advised Summit that it would not grant a Mining License.

The company suffered a serious commercial loss as a result. Summit argues that this situation “gives rise to serious issues of sovereign risk” for uranium mining companies proposing to develop new mines.

The company recommends that the regulatory environment must “deliver certainty to the approval process where large investments are required over several years for new mines to be brought on stream.”

The inquiry is examining the global demand for Australia’s uranium resources, the strategic importance of these resources and the potential implications for global greenhouse gas emission reductions from the further development and export of Australia’s uranium resources. Submissions to the inquiry are available on the Committee’s web site:

http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/isr/uranium/subs.htm PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULE Venue: Committee Room 1R2, Parliament House, Canberra 11.40 am Summit Resources (Submission no. 15) 12.30 pm Close of public hearing For media comment, please contact the Committee Chairman, the Hon Geoff Prosser MP, on: (02) 6277 2055 (Parliament House) or (08) 9791 1146 (Electorate Office in Bunbury, WA) For further information, please contact the Inquiry Secretary on: (02) 6277 4609 or via email at ir.reps@aph.gov.au

laurie
02-11-2005, 09:00 PM
October 31, 2005*
US$33.25/lb
(+0.25)

cheers laurie

laurie
03-11-2005, 04:58 PM
quote:South Australian Premier Mike Rann and BHP Billiton have outlined more details of a proposed $5 billion expansion of the Olympic Dam mine in the state's far north.

Mr Rann has begun a two-day tour of the copper and uranium mine.

If the expansion is approved, Olympic Dam will become the world's largest open-cut mine, doubling copper production and boosting uranium production four fold.



How STUPID is this typicial politician then he goes and ban new U mines in S.A.

cheers laurie

stolwyk
05-11-2005, 09:52 PM
URANIUM: THE SUPPLY SHORTAGE LOOMS:

http://www.aireview.com/index.php?act=view&catid=6&id=3023

laurie
05-11-2005, 10:38 PM
Gerry
Thanks for that link very interesting article

cheers laurie

laurie
06-11-2005, 12:01 AM
Fair enough rupert but the AMWU came out in support of Uranium mining and overseas investors and local investors talk to politicians not members of the Australian Labour Party! so what will happen then if for e.g. Curnamona Energy finds a rich strike and wants to mine it! it's the S.A. Labor Party that will be blamed for not allowing it to proceed,not the man in the street who is a member of the Australian Labour Party even though what you said is true

cheers laurie

Seneca
07-11-2005, 07:20 PM
Its a long wait till 2007 with no guarantees. Another possibility is the Parliamentary inquiry. They have now finished their hearings and will issue a report at some stage. Is it possible that the Federal Government will use this as a springboard to take over all mining in the national interest - the terms of reference of the committee certainly suggest that their report will be a policy setting document

laurie
08-11-2005, 01:23 PM
quote:Originally posted by Seneca

Is it possible that the Federal Government will use this as a springboard to take over all mining in the national interest

I hope your right Seneca but you and I know the States will fight it in court if it gives the power to the Federal Goverment they will argue "What's next....."

cheers laurie

laurie
30-11-2005, 12:17 PM
November 28, 2005*
US$34.50/lb
(+0.25)

cheers laurie

laurie
07-12-2005, 04:56 PM
Ux U3O8 Price
December 5, 2005*
US$35.25/lb
(+0.75)

cheers laurie

aussie joe
07-12-2005, 07:16 PM
oils up, uraniums up and yet the majority of the Uranium shares on the asx are flat or down. Work it out. I can't.[:0][:0][:0]

Don't even get me started on the shortsighted policy of the ALP. And guess what the fat pr*ck beasley is back at the healm. Hasn't won a thing in his life.[|)] Bunch of losers [8)]. No wonder the liberals have got a majority in the senate. :(

aussie joe [8D][8D][8D]

laurie
07-12-2005, 07:33 PM
Yep aussie joe spot on mate I have RPT and have to make a decision sell now or buy more all because of ONE man in W.A. Mr Gallop the pri*k

cheers laurie

aussie joe
07-12-2005, 07:49 PM
I warned you about RPT. Check out the thread. I reckon it will go even lower. My new low will be 6.4c. C how long it will takes to get there once the sophisticated investers start bailing out. I gave it 2 - 3 months to get down to 7.5c and it only took a couple of days.

I think the market and the alp have to realise the importance of Uranium as the only sensible choice for energy in the ST to MT future. We need a bridge the gap as oil is fast running out quickly. have we enough energy to fual global growth. China then India then Africa. I think not.

Be on board when the market does realise the importance.:D:D:D:D:D

aussie joe.[:o)]

laurie
07-12-2005, 11:22 PM
quote:Originally posted by aussie joe

oils up, uraniums up and yet the majority of the Uranium shares on the asx are flat or down. Work it out. I can't.[:0][:0][:0]

I think the Aussie dollar rise may have something to do with that JMHO

cheers laurie

aussie joe
08-12-2005, 11:00 AM
The third uranium boom, or just a simmer?

By JUDY FAHYS
Salt Lake Tribune
11-DEC-05

MOAB, Utah -- Young Jimmy Walker was pumping gas at his uncle's service station here a half-century ago when he caught uranium-hunting fever. He taught himself geology in one of nature's best-endowed classrooms anywhere, the red rock Colorado Plateau. He became a prospector in time for a second uranium boom two decades later.

Now 77, Walker leans forward over his breakfast. It must be cold, the syrup-drenched pancakes and eggs, but he is oblivious. Eyes sparkling, he takes off again on the uranium boom he sees on the horizon, coming fast.

"Let me tell you," he says, "there's no thrill bigger than the thrill of discovery."

Signs of a new boom have people all over southeastern Utah just as stirred up.

But this won't be another bonanza like Charlie Steen's. Not the 1952 uranium boom that sprouted rags-to-riches stories and put Moab on the map as "The Uranium Capital of the World" and transformed sleepy Salt Lake City into the "Wall Street of Uranium Stocks."

Uranium has become an enterprise for corporations, not upstarts. The government has become more impediment than inspiration. And, for some, a half-century of uranium cleanups and lives ruined by radiation exposure have tarnished the glow of the metal used for nuclear-reactor fuel.

"I don't think (a uranium boom) could possibly be like that (first) one," says Salt Lake City author Raye Ringholz.

She examines "the fever" in Uranium Frenzy: Saga of the Nuclear West. A onetime "women's page" writer for the defunct Salt Lake Telegram newspaper, she began the book to put flesh on the incredible tales of prospectors, like Steen, and Salt Lake City's penny stock promoters.

Then she decided to include the darker stories: about uranium workers toiling in cancer-causing radiation, their families living around it. She later added a chapter on Downwinders, who blame their cancers on fallout from atomic bombs made from the uranium.

"This is a two-faced animal," she says. "It has two sides to it, and you can't put just one face on it."

That's been tough lately. The price of uranium has jumped to $30 a pound, up from $7 just four years ago. So, it's easy to let uranium's virtues overshadow its hazards.

County clerks' offices in southeastern Utah have fielded thousands of new claims since last fall, not the usual dozens. Idle mills in White Mesa, south of Blanding, and Ticaboo, south of Hanksville, might soon groan back into action.

Reports like these make lots of people twinkle-eyed. It is a reflection, perhaps, of the near-mythic times that began in 1952, after Charlie Steen happened on an unlikely bonanza in an unlikely spot southeast of Moab.

The Texan was drawn to the area by a federal program under the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) that offered top dollar for uranium, more than other metals fetched. As part of an effort to provide a domestic supply of uranium, the AEC paid a bonus of $10,000 _ roughly $70,000 in today's dollars _ for significant finds.

When Steen's drill tapped into uranium-rich deposits in the Lisbon Valley's Big Indian Wash, a California gold-style rush began.

Four Utah counties saw 309,380 claims between 1946 and 1959. Even shepherds and farmers would set out on family picnics with the AEC's how-to prospect pamphlet and a Geiger counter.

People pulled trailers onto lawns in Moab for living space. Some slept on the courthouse lawn. Schools swelled with prospectors' children. The town's population ballooned from 1,000 to 8,000 in a matter of months.

Steen moved his young family from their tar paper shack into a $250,000 mansion on a bluff overlooking Moab, swimming pool and servants' quarters included. His legendary parties drew thousands, and he created a sensation by flying to Salt Lake in his private airplane for weekly rumba lessons.

Mark Steen, Charlie Steen's son, foresees a resurgence. He and a partner have staked about 2,500 claims since last fall.

He wrote this summer in the Canyon Cou

aussie joe
13-12-2005, 05:58 PM
Too many reds with re: to the U miners today. Anyone care to elaborate as to why?

laurie
21-12-2005, 01:59 PM
Price increase for U308

December 19, 2005*
US$36.25/lb
(+1.00)

cheers laurie

aussie joe
22-12-2005, 08:18 PM
Call to build nuke plants
Sarah Wotherspoon
22dec05

AUSTRALIA should embrace nuclear power as a cheap and environmentally friendly energy source, according to a Melbourne University study.

The six-month study found Australia has much more uranium than was thought.
"We have enough uranium in Australia to power the country for thousands of years," the study's head, Associate Prof Martin Sevior, said.

He claimed the research debunked the widely acclaimed nuclear study by researchers Jan van Leeuwen and Philip Smith that found the costs of building nuclear power plants outweighed their benefits.

Prof Sevior claimed that research had overestimated the energy costs and carbon emissions of building nuclear power plants and mining uranium.

He said there was a case for using new, untested types of nuclear power reactors in Victoria.

"The indications are that these reactors will deliver power cheaply and safely, but until they are tested somewhere in the world we won't know," he said.

Victoria would need eight nuclear reactors to provide its power needs.

Prof Sevior called for an immediate debate on nuclear power in Australia.

"It's really something we have to decide on over the next four years or Victoria will start experiencing blackouts and power shortages," he said.

He said nuclear power was more environmentally friendly than coal power and more economical than solar, wind or hydro-electric power.

But Friends of the Earth nuclear campaigner Dr Jim Green said nuclear power should never be considered as an energy source.

He said greenhouse emissions saved by switching to nuclear power were only about

5 per cent of total emissions and could only be achieved if thousands of reactors were installed globally.

He said an energy debate in Australia was necessary, but it had to go beyond just the nuclear alternative.



privacy terms © Herald and Weekly Times

laurie
23-12-2005, 12:05 AM
The problem though is 3 Labor States W.A. S.A. QLD....and it's 3 mine policy

cheers laurie

aussie joe
23-12-2005, 01:26 AM
ABC Online

Study 'exposes flaws' in anti-nuclear energy debate. 22/12/2005. ABC News Online

[This is the print version of story http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200512/s1536443.htm]


Last Update: Thursday, December 22, 2005. 1:00pm (AEDT)

A new study has endorsed the use of nuclear energy.

Study 'exposes flaws' in anti-nuclear energy debate
By Nick McKenzie for AM

A new study by a group of Melbourne scientists endorses the use of nuclear energy and attacks some of the data used by anti-nuclear campaigners.

The scientists from the University of Melbourne say their research shows that the benefits of nuclear energy have been underestimated and concerns about nuclear waste overplayed.

Associate Professor Martin Sevior of Melbourne University's school of physics leads a small team of scientists and students researching nuclear energy.

He says the team's latest study strengthens the case for Australia to invest more in nuclear energy for both economic and environmental reasons.

"I hope people will take our study, and look at it, and look at the numbers, and see what's real and what isn't," he said.

"Part of what isn't real is this idea that there's not enough uranium in the world and it's not worth the effort because even if we built all these nuclear power plants we'd run out of uranium very shortly.

"I mean, there's a lot of energy in uranium."

Associate Professor Sevior says his research into nuclear waste disposal should help dispel many environmentalists' fears.

"One thing that's perhaps not always realised is that the amount of waste that comes out of a typical plant is around 30 tonnes a year," he said.

"The amount of waste that comes out of a coal-fired power plant is around 1,000 tonnes a day.

"So the actual volume of waste that comes out of a nuclear power plant is actually rather small. And there have been very well-developed proposals to bury it deep underground in the Nordic countries. I think it's entirely feasible to bury it very safely."

Associate Professor Sevior says his study has exposed serious flaws in an often-quoted European study into the limits of the uranium industry.

But while he says nuclear energy investment would be more beneficial than investment in sustainable energy sources, he also acknowledges that debate about nuclear energy has some way to go.

"Part of the reason … we're not all-out saying yes, we must do this, is that part of that credible case depends on nuclear power industry living up to its promises, and one of the promises it makes is that the next generation of power plants that it has on the boards and are touting around the world, live up to their expectations," he said.

Several members of the coalition are open to increasing the nation's nuclear power industry.

Some in the Opposition are also open to more debate about the issue, although Labor Party policy opposes any new uranium mines.

The Australian Conservation Foundation's nuclear campaigner, Dave Sweeney, says the Melbourne University study appears flawed and does not provide a sound argument for the use of nuclear energy.

"It glances over some really key concerns of proliferation, key areas of reactor safety are not delved into too deeply and they have direct links to industry websites for further information," he said.

"I'm not sure it's altogether appropriate or altogether balanced to be referring people to the nuclear industry's own websites for further information on such matters as radioactive waste, nuclear weapons and nuclear reactor safety."

trader10
12-01-2006, 07:57 PM
Aust and China to restart uranium export talks next week

Source: SYDNEY, Jan 12 AAP
Published: January 12 2006, 5:13PM

Australian and Chinese government officials will next week restart talks on setting safeguards to cover planned exports of uranium to China.

Prime Minister John Howard said discussions about the stringent safeguards would begin in Canberra on Tuesday.

"There's no way we will export any uranium to any country without a proper safeguards agreement," he told reporters.

"The conditions were laid down more than 20 years ago as a result of the Ranger inquiry in the time of the Fraser government.

"The question of whether there are exports and so forth that go ahead, well that ultimately is a commercial matter involving companies and involving utilities in China.

"But from the government's point of view we are quite determined that there be proper safeguards and we are having discussions with the Chinese about that."

In August last year, Australia revealed that it was starting work on a safeguards agreement with China regarding uranium exports.

Australia had sent agreement documentation to China and was awaiting a response.

The United States supports Australia's plans to export uranium to China but wants strict controls in place to stop the precious resource falling into the hands of terrorists.

US Energy Secretary Sam Bodman today said Australia, which is home to 30-40 per cent of the world's known uranium resources, had been a responsible supplier in the past to various countries.

"We have confidence that both the supplier and the purchaser will behave under standards that have been formulated by the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) in Vienna," he told reporters.

"We're quite relaxed about that. As long as everyone understands the potential risks for proliferation. If evil people get a hold of this material it could lead to bad things."

Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said Australia exported its uranium reserves only in accordance with specific nuclear safeguards policy.

"We do not export our uranium at all to countries who don't meet the terms of our nuclear safeguards policies.

"We will reach an agreement or we won't with China on the basis of China feeling comfortable with meeting the terms of our nuclear safeguards policy.

"I am hopeful that will be possible to do and that negotiation is well and truly under way."

http://www.tradingroom.com.au/news_research/index.jsp?section=finance_wire&page=/data/news_research/published/2006/1/12/catf_060112_171300_8494.html

Interesting U stocks to watch IMO are : PDN SMM PNN

Good Luck

T10[8D]

trader10
13-01-2006, 09:29 AM
http://www.theadvertiser.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,17806596%255E913,00.html

China sniffing SA uranium supplies

By CAMERON ENGLAND
13jan06
CHINESE companies have approached South Australian uranium companies in a bid to lock down supply, despite not yet being able legally to buy Australian uranium.

One object of their attention has been SA's stalled Honeymoon uranium mine, 500km northeast of Adelaide.

Leigh Curyer, chief financial officer of mine owner sxr Uranium One, formerly Southern Cross Resources, said yesterday a Chinese delegation already had visited the mine.

It also visited "others within Australia in February, 2004, as part of a global search for uranium mining projects".

"The visit is reflective of China's interest in the commodity to service their expanding nuclear power-generation requirements over the coming years," Mr Curyer said.

There had been discussions "based on the Chinese and Australian governments signing the safeguards agreement for the export and use of the commodity specific to power-generation facilities".

No further discussions had "occurred for quite some time".

China cannot yet buy Australian uranium as there is no bilateral safeguards agreement, but this is being negotiated.

Southern Uranium, a subsidiary of Adelaide-based listed company Southern Gold, has been approached by several Chinese interests and is in continuing contact with them.

"We've got down to the level of the exchange of technical information and confidentiality agreements," managing director Stephen Biggins said.

"They understand that they may need to invest in the exploration side to get access to the offtake agreements."

These agreements could include taking an equity stake in a company, or investing in minerals exploration and mine development, in return for a guaranteed mineral supply.

Heathgate Resources president Horst Maerten said yesterday his company - which runs the Beverley uranium mine 520km north of Adelaide - had not been approached by any Chinese companies.

He said Australian governments had to decide to take advantage of the strong global demand for uranium, which was not just coming from China.

Federal Labor Party policy, which binds the State Labor Government, is for no new uranium mines but the State Government wants the policy reconsidered at the next ALP national convention, in 2007.

Uranium Information Centre manager Ian Hore-Lacy said yesterday only about 55 per cent of the world's uranium needs were being supplied by mines, with the shortfall made up through recycling and the reprocessing of nuclear weapons stockpiles.

"The consensus is that there will need to be more mines coming on line by the end of the decade," Mr Hore-Lacy said.

On Wednesday, Adelaide uranium explorer Hindmarsh Resources recommended its shareholders accept a $20 million takeover bid from Canadian company Mega Uranium.

---------------------------------

Well, I still think PDN SMM PNN are quite interesting......[8D]

SAU has a hopeless management and has lot's to learn....I hope they come good as I'm a holder unfortunately.....I want to take some profits and get out !....LMAO heheheeh

good luck

T10:)

laurie
13-01-2006, 03:33 PM
C H I N Awill now start to stockpile Uranium knowing their future requirements and where the price will be it makes sense!.. it's JMHO

cheers laurie

laurie
18-01-2006, 11:47 AM
Uranium up again

January 16, 2006*
US$37.00/lb
(+0.50)

cheers laurie

laurie
18-01-2006, 05:35 PM
quote:Speculation drives uranium miners as Gallop goes
By Jamie Freed
January 18, 2006

SHARES in West Australian uranium explorers rocketed up to 32 per cent higher yesterday in response to the shock resignation of the state's staunchly anti-nuclear premier, Dr Geoff Gallop, on Monday.

Dr Gallop's fierce opposition to uranium mining has hampered opportunities for companies such as Rio Tinto, Paladin Resources, Redport Limited, Nova Energy and Uranex to make progress on their projects in WA.

In an interview with the Herald last month, Dr Gallop insisted WA's uranium deposits would remain in the ground as long as he remained premier.

But with Energy and State Development Minister, Alan Carpenter, tipped as the favourite to replace Dr Gallop, uranium explorers believe a more constructive debate on the merits of yellowcake mining could occur.

"Geoff Gallop appeared to be committed to the notion that uranium mining is a no-go zone in Western Australia," Redport executive chairman Richard Homsany said. "It's too early to call whether the way will be open for uranium mining, but what this may do is … open the issue up for proper debate and investigation in WA."

Paladin managing director John Borshoff said the change in state leadership could spark an industry lobbying campaign. He said the appeal of uranium would give it a high profile in the state.

The state's opposition leader, Matt Birney, has voiced Liberal Party support for uranium mining in the state, and Labor's Federal resources spokesman, Martin Ferguson, has also encouraged WA to examine its uranium mining policy.

Mr Carpenter's views on the issue remain unknown, as he was overseas and unavailable to comment yesterday. Industry sources, however, believe he might view the issue more pragmatically than Dr Gallop.

But former WA Greens MP Robin Chapple, who represents the Anti-Nuclear Alliance of WA, warned yesterday's share price gains might be premature because the new premier would face fierce opposition to uranium mining from within his own party.

"I don't think we'll be seeing any change in policy," he said. "The leader has a view. That view can only ever be supported or not supported by the majority of the caucus - and the [WA Labor] caucus is dominated by the Left."

In an interview with ABC Radio yesterday, Acting Premier Eric Ripper noted there was "virtually unanimous support" for Dr Gallop's uranium mining ban at the most recent state ALP conference in WA.

Uranex shares closed 6c, or 32 per cent, higher at 25c yesterday, and Nova Energy shares closed 9c, or 14 per cent, higher at 72c. Redport shares closed 0.6c, or 7 per cent, higher at 9c, and Paladin shares closed 8c, or 3 per cent, higher at $2.55


cheers laurie

stolwyk
01-02-2006, 05:10 PM
37.5 (+0.5)

trader10
03-02-2006, 09:19 PM
Last Update: Friday, February 3, 2006. 6:15pm (AEDT)

Uranium in water may cause community harm

A research centre will investigate whether uranium in the water supply of a central Australian Aboriginal community is causing long-term damage to its residents.

Barry Noller from the National Research Centre for Environmental Toxicology says uranium levels in the underground water supply of Yuendumu, north-west of Alice Springs, hovers around the drinking water limit.

He says the naturally occurring uranium may be causing kidney damage to residents who drink the water over a long period of time.

"The population in Yuendumu, like many other places in Northern Territory or northern Australia, have impaired renal function, so drinking water at the upper level of the uranium guidelines consistently may have consequences that are not yet fully understood," he said.

Moonshine
17-02-2006, 02:27 AM
Pattersons Brokers Updated February 2006 Uranium Report :

http://www.allianceresources.com.au/documents/060216%20-%20Patersons%20-%20Uranium%20Update%20Feb%202006.pdf

Cheers,

Moonshine

laurie
17-02-2006, 04:00 PM
Moonshine
Thanks for that link one of the best review I've seen for a long time

cheers laurie

trader10
01-03-2006, 07:49 PM
http://www.miningnews.net


The rise and rise of uranium


Wednesday, March 01, 2006

AN UNDERLYING deficit between supply and demand is flagged by those keen on the uranium sector as the key driver of a uranium price that has risen around 300% in past three years. However, not all agree and as always the question is where to from here? Focus Feature by Michael Quinn



A snapshot of the fundamentals shows the world's existing nuclear reactors currently require 77,000 tonnes per annum of uranium oxide containing 66,000tpa of uranium. Around 60% of this reportedly comes from mines, with the balance from stockpiles and secondary sources.

There are 440 commercial nuclear power reactors operating in 31 countries, with an additional 24 currently under construction. According to the world's biggest uranium producer, Canada's Cameco, an additional 65 reactors will be constructed over the next 10 years, most of which will be located in Asia – as quoted from Goldman Sachs report on the sector early last month.

Cutting to the chase, Goldman Sachs JBWere's tip is for a long-term price of $US24 per pound, while Citigroup is plumping for around $US20/lb.

Uranium was recently fetching around $US37/lb, having spent much of the 1990s and the early part of this century in the absolute doldrums of $US10/lb or below.

Both analysts agree the market looks tight for the next three years.

However, Citigroup cautions the bulls by attributing environmental policies and high oil prices as "dramatically" altering the long-standing, negative sentiment towards nuclear power. As opposed to long-term fundamentals!

"Claims that uranium's spot price rise also reflects growth outstripping supply are possibly misleading," Citigroup said.

"Uranium demand is determined by growth in nuclear power generating capacity, forecast to be at a modest 2% per year until 2010.

"Similarly while fuel supply is expected to remain tight over the medium term (possible deficit in 2009), its outlook is generally stable (although constraints exist in enrichment capacity).

"Certainly mine supply appears assured, with the high price prompting much new exploration activity."

For Citigroup, the catalyst for the strong rise in the price – if not the basis – is the same as that for the rest of the resources sector. Namely speculators.

"TradeTech (nuclear power consultants) attributes uranium's recent spot price hike to speculative activity," the analyst said.

"Apparently the renaissance of nuclear power has attracted investors to the uranium market: speculators accounted for 36% of all spot uranium purchases (30 million pounds of U3O8 equivalent) in the uranium spot market in 2005."

On a macro level, Goldman Sachs is generally more bullish: "In our opinion the uranium market will remain tight for at least the next three years and during this period new long term contracts will continue to be set at significantly higher levels than our current long term price assumption of $US24/lb," it said.

While citing the International Atomic Energy Agency's forecasts of the growth of nuclear power's share of electricity generation into the future – 0.5-2.2% over the period 2004-2030 – Goldman Sachs also noted that nuclear electricity generation currently accounts for only around 2% of China's total electricity generation - "well below the world average of around 16%".

Given the low fuel costs of nuclear energy compared with coal, oil, and gas fired plants – all be it balanced to a degree (or two!) by the pain of high capital costs up front with nuclear plants – the attraction for Chinese businesses currently paying high prices for raw supplies across the board would appear obvious.

http://www.miningnews.net

NICEEEEEEEE

T10 :D;)

trader10
01-03-2006, 07:51 PM
http://www.thecouriermail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,18308931%255E3122,00.html

Uranium production set to rise

01mar06

AUSTRALIA'S uranium production is tipped to record an 8 per cent increase in 2005-06 to almost 12,000 tonnes on the back of higher output from BHP Billiton's Olympic Dam mine and Energy Resources of Australia's (ERA) Ranger mine.

Export earnings for uranium are forecast to increase 50 per cent this year to $712 million through higher export prices.
Uranium prices increased strongly in 2005, as the dwindling supply of uranium stocks and increased concerns over the future supply of secondary sources of uranium were the major factors behind the substantial increase in uranium prices.

All of Australia's production of U3O8 is exported.

Australia has only three uranium mines currently operating – BHP Billiton's Olympic Dam mine in South Australia; ERA's Ranger mine in the Northern Territory; and Heathgates Beverley mine, also in South Australia.

In late October 2005, ERA extended the operational life of the Ranger mine by three years. While mining activities at Ranger are still expected to finish in 2008, processing will now continue until 2014.

The spot uranium price in 2006 is forecast to increase by 34 per cent to average over $US38 a pound. Despite this, world uranium mine production is forecast to increase by only 1 per cent in 2006.

This reflects the substantial lead time required to bring new developments on stream. From 2007 world uranium prices in real terms are forecast to decline as strong growth in world mine production and relatively steady supplies of secondary uranium ease concerns about supply availability over the remainder of the outlook period to 2011.

In 2011, uranium prices (in 2005 dollars) are projected to be about $US29 a pound.


http://www.thecouriermail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,18308931%255E3122,00.html




T10 :D [}:)]

laurie
01-03-2006, 07:53 PM
February 27, 2006*
US$38.50/lb
(+0.25)

Cheers laurie

laurie
01-03-2006, 07:57 PM
quote:Originally posted by laurie

February 27, 2006*
US$38.50/lb
(+0.25)

Note ERA/BHP Uranium may not be getting the spot prices many people think they are they have contracts that could have been done when the price was low and are locked in until they expire many years down the track!!

Cheers laurie

trader10
01-03-2006, 08:04 PM
U prices are looking great Laurie ;)