U3O8 Uranium.

[tricha]

Excellent summary Gerry! " $175-$200 is possible this year"

Greed is in, Uranium Mania! It's in every paper and all the share Chat sites are feverish.

Global warming, peak oil.

We have to have U and lots of it.

1 bagger, 10 baggers, 100 baggers, 1000 baggers (Paladin is on its way)

Have U got your U yet [?][?][?][?][?]

[SEC]

quote:Originally posted by tricha

1 bagger, 10 baggers, 100 baggers, 1000 baggers (Paladin is on its way)

Paladin is already a 1000+ bagger, it languished at 1c 4 years ago. Unbelievable. However I've not heard of anyone who bought PDN in April 2003 and still hold.

SEC

[stolwyk]

An interesting situation: Both supplier of U and his counterpart are standing with their pants down: the user wanted the stuff yesterday and the supplier has'nt got the mine running yet.

Add to that the ETFs who are in a hurry to buy and may need to go higher as well as are other speculating funds.

An explosive co-cktail such as never seen before and this can't be compared with the techboom.

Something needs to give and I can only smell higher prices, particularly as there are no derivatives or cartels.

The first succesful buyer in the next spot auction may well be happy that he forced the issue, at least he will be home, perhaps for the time being.

Meanwhile, those who have longterm contracts are heavy gainers or losers, depending on who are buyers or sellers.

That is my opinion,

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

[Skol]

quote:Originally posted by tricha

Yep its a no brainer Stolwyk.

Worth its weight in Gold, Actually I beg to disagree on that one.

Worth its weight in oil, yes peak oil and the only way out is U

Spent this weekend going over U options and come up with another no brainer.

I guess I will need to purchase some on Tuesday to let the cat of the bag [8][8][8]

Cheers [B)][}]

We're all waiting with bated breath Tricha.

[IcedPaladin]

Stolwyk A recent posting of yours suggested that given the political situation in Queensland and
the Rudd Howard battle.
You gave me the impression you were about to bail or had already bailed.
I will do some more research re your postings.
Where are you sitting?

[stolwyk]

Uranium Skyrockets to $113/lb on Supply Shortfall

By Jon A. Nones
10 Apr 2007 at 08:20 PM GMT-04:00


http://www.resourceinvestor.com/pebble.asp?relid=30754

"Uranium at “$200/lb is not unrealistic,” said Doug Casey, chairman of Casey Research, presenter of the Summit. The price has risen about 15-fold since 2001".


Comment: Casey then agrees with my guided forecast of $175-$200/lb.

Gerry

[steve fleming]

quote:Originally posted by stolwyk

WILL THE U PRICE RISE MUCH MORE IN 2007?

I believe so due to the following factors:
1. The well known problems of Cameco and ERA. This slack can't be taken up quickly because Cameco was promising to be a large producer.
2. Global warming calls for more nuclear facilities; substitutes, although wellcome, don't give a reliable baseload of energy.
3. There are no reasonable mines coming on stream apart from those already known and are producing. Those earmarked for production are in the main small producers and few will come in production in 2007.
4. One producing country, Russia, wants to keep U for itself and won't be exporting apart from an arrangement it has with the US re enriched supply from old warheads. There is some argument about pricing and normally this trade would stop in 2012. I can see it being terminated earlier.
5. The demand for U will be underestimated due to the panic caused by the talk about global warming. It is conceivable that trade restrictions may finally be put in place in the case of countries who ignore protocols designed to cut back on pollution.
6. Before any call for finance can be made by private interests building nuclear plants, banks tend to insist that U be bought ahead of building these facilities.
7. Some countries may supply false forecasts of needed nuclear facilities so as not to encourage U price rises.
8. Navies are being modernized and that requires Uranium; China is doing just that.
9. As U prices rise, U may be hoarded; also, ETFs are already in place and this alone will attract more investors as U prices rise. More ETFs are likely to be created. Storage of needed U is being done by larger producers. ETFs will contribute a lot to price rises as U is being locked up.
10. There are no futures or derivatives, so lower prices by shorting using a lot of paper, is not possible.
11. Small quantities of U are being auctioned and it is not too difficult to obtain much higher spot prices at every such auction. Those waiting for lower prices, will need to make a decision sometime, as the waiting list becomes longer. This alone promotes higher pricing although it may become more erratic once the price is much higher. It remains a seller's market in 2007, IMHO.
12. The cost of U as a percentage of overall cost incurred building a nuclear facility is still relatively low.
Summarizing, these and perhaps other reasons are good enough to certify higher U prices in 2007 and $175-$200 is possible this year, IMHO.

The above is not advice but is an opinion, only.

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

Great post Gerry.

Are you perhaps able to expand on point 12 - How U fits into the cost structure of operating a plant?

Cheers

[stolwyk]

The Economics of Nuclear Power
Briefing Paper 8
February 2007

http://www.uic.com.au/nip08.htm

___________________________

Anyway, the problem is that Uranium is being locked up by producing and consuming countries, so it becomes the lack of U which is paramount:


Lack Of Fuel May Limit U.S. Nuclear Power Expansion
4/10/2007
Limited supplies of fuel for nuclear power plants may thwart the renewed and growing interest in nuclear energy in the United States and other nations, says an MIT expert on the industry.

Over the past 20 years, safety concerns dampened all aspects of development of nuclear energy: No new reactors were ordered and there was investment neither in new uranium mines nor in building facilities to produce fuel for existing reactors. Instead, the industry lived off commercial and government inventories, which are now nearly gone. Worldwide, uranium production meets only about 65 percent of current reactor requirements.

That shortage of uranium and of processing facilities worldwide leaves a gap between the potential increase in demand for nuclear energy and the ability to supply fuel for it, said Thomas Neff, a research affiliate at MIT's Center for International Studies.

"Just as large numbers of new reactors are being planned, we are only starting to emerge from 20 years of underinvestment in the production capacity for the nuclear fuel to operate them. There has been a nuclear industry myopia; they didn't take a long-term view," Neff said. For example, only a few years ago uranium inventories were being sold at $10 per pound; the current price is $85 per pound.

Neff has been giving a series of talks at industry meetings and investment conferences around the world about the nature of the fuel supply problem and its implications for the so-called "nuclear renaissance," pointing out both the sharply rising cost of nuclear fuel and the lack of capacity to produce it.

Currently, much of the uranium used by the United States is coming from mines in such countries as Australia, Canada, Namibia and, most recently, Kazakhstan. Small amounts are mined in the western United States, but the United States is largely reliant on overseas supplies. The United States also relies on Russia for half its fuel, under a "swords to ploughshares" deal that Neff originated in 1991. This deal is converting about 20,000 Russian nuclear weapons to fuel for U.S. nuclear power plants, but it ends in 2013, leaving a substantial supply gap for the United States.

Further, China, India and even Russia have plans for massive deployments of nuclear power and are trying to lock up supplies from countries on which the United States has traditionally relied. As a result, the United States could be the "last one to buy, and it could pay the highest prices, if it can get uranium at all," Neff said. "The take-home message is that if we're going to increase use of nuclear power, we need massive new investments in capacity to mine uranium and facilities to process it."

Mined uranium comes in several forms, or isotopes. For starting a nuclear chain reaction in a reactor, the only important isotope is uranium-235, which accounts for just seven out of 1,000 atoms in the mined product. To fuel a nuclear reactor, the concentration of uranium-235 has to be increased to 40 to 50 out of 1,000 atoms. This is done by separating isotopes in an enrichment plant to achieve the higher concentration.

As Neff points out, reactor operators could increase the amount of fuel made from a given amount of natural uranium by buying more enrichment services to recover more uranium-235 atoms. Current enrichment capacity is enough to recover only about four out of seven uranium-235 atoms. Limited uranium supplies could be stretched if industry could recover five or six of these atoms, but there is not enough processing capacity worldwide to do so.

SOURCE: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

http://www.poweronline.com/content/n...&VNETCOOKIE=NO

[easy money]

US$113....PANIC BUYING.

[stolwyk]

Desperately Seeking 500,000 Pounds Uranium:

http://www.stockinterview.com/News/0...t-Stunned.html