U3O8 Uranium.

[Geoff7]

Just to keep it real:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/Busine...092680198.html

[stolwyk]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...rge050605.html

,

[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.

[Mick100]

Sounds encouraging Gerry

,

[robbo]

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]

I dont know if this has been posted, but essential reading for those interested or investing in uranium.

http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committe...anium/subs.htm

Cheers.