U3O8 Uranium.

[stolwyk]

China’s Battle for African Uranium

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/25306.html

COMMENT: It is clear that Uranium is being locked up

[Sharp737]

Good article Gerry.
This would or could mean that China is looking at PDN, DYL?
What other uranium companies are in Nambia I wonder?

Sharp

[aussie joe]

check out

wme, bmn & ext

[stolwyk]

Uranium: $138/lb:

http://stockinterview.com/News/06022...her-Price.html

Too much U wanted > Little being offered.

And my prediction was for $175-$200 for 31 Dec!

[clearasmud]

Lastest uranium report
Clearasmud.

http://www.rcresearch.com.au/j07/Ove..._June_2007.pdf

[stolwyk]

July 13, 2007
Cameco delay means uranium supply shortfalls until 2011
Publisher: U3O8.biz
Author: Luke Brocki

http://www.u3o8.biz/s/MarketCommenta...lls-until-2011

[stolwyk]

Some Amazing Facts about Nuclear Power
August 2002 -- The American public has been led to believe that nuclear power is extremely dangerous and that nuclear waste disposal is an unsolved problem. Those beliefs are based on preposterous distortions perpetrated by irrational environmentalists and an irresponsible mass media. In reality, a reactor meltdown would have to occur every two weeks to make nuclear power as deadly as the routine emissions from coal-fired power, from which we get about half of our electric power in the United States. (Note: some newer nuclear power plant designs cannot possibly meltdown.) And if the United States went completely nuclear for all its electric power for 10,000 years, the amount of land needed for waste disposal would be about what is needed for the coal ash that is currently generated every two weeks.

Anti-nuclear activists like to scare us with horror stories about the "thousands of tons of nuclear waste" that have been produced since nuclear power began some four decades ago. That sounds like a lot -- until you put it into perspective, which anti-nuclear activists and the mass media never do. Consider that one pound of plutonium can produce as much energy as the Yankee Stadium full of coal. And coal-fired power generates something like 100 million tons of waste annually in the United States, or about three tons of ash per second. Every few hours, more coal ash is generated than high-level nuclear waste has been generated in four decades!

Oh, but nuclear waste is far more dangerous than coal waste, isn't it? Actually, it isn't. For a given amount of energy produced, coal ash is actually more radioactive than nuclear waste. How can that be? Simple. The quantity of coal ash is literally millions of times greater than the corresponding quantity of nuclear waste, so even though the radioactive intensity of the coal ash is much less, the overall amount of radiation and radioactive matter is greater.

But nobody worries much about the radioactivity of coal ash because the chemicals in it are far more dangerous. They include several thousand tons per year of mercury and other heavy metals, along with huge amounts of lead, ****nic, and asbestos, for example. Yet even the huge quantities of chemical waste in coal ash are of little concern compared to the gaseous emissions from burning coal, which kill an estimated 10,000 to 50,000 Americans every year, depending on which study you believe. As a point of reference, even the lower estimate approaches the rate at which Americans died in the Viet Nam war, and the higher estimate greatly exceeds it, yet the media rarely report on those deaths.

So let's get this straight. For a given amount of energy produced, coal waste has more radioactive matter than nuclear waste, yet the radioactivity of coal waste is nowhere near as dangerous as the solid chemical waste, which in turn is nowhere near as dangerous as the gaseous emissions. Are you starting to get the picture yet?

But even those staggering figures fail to capture the major environmental advantages of nuclear power over coal-fired power. Why? Because the solid and gaseous emissions from coal burning are generated in such a huge quantity that they cannot possibly be contained. They can only be spewed into the atmosphere and dumped into shallow landfills. There is no conceivable way to isolate waste that is generated at the rate of three tons per second. Nuclear waste, on the other hand, is so miniscule in comparison that it can be almost completely isolated from the environment at a very modest cost. And even though that cost has been greatly inflated by the anti-nuclear hysteria, it is still very managable.

If all the high-level nuclear waste that has ever been generated were simply dumped into the middle of the ocean, it would be many thousands of times less harmful than the coal waste generated over the same period. But the nuclear waste is so miniscule in quantity that it can be isolated almost completely from the environment. In fact, that is exactly what is being done all o

[stolwyk]

Cameco Suspends Operations for 2 Months at Plant After Leak

By The Canadian Press
20 Jul 2007 at 05:41 PM GMT-04:00


SASKATOON (CP) -- Canadian uranium producer Cameco announced today that it has suspended its operations at a processing plant in Port Hope, Ontario, after it discovered uranium and chemicals in soil at the facility. Uranium producer Cameco Corp. [NYSE:CCJ; TSX:CCO] has suspended operations at a processing plant in Port Hope, Ont., after uranium and chemicals were found in soil at the facility.

''The chemicals are in a contained area, so public health and worker safety are not affected,'' the Saskatoon-based company said Friday in a statement.




Cameco, which is the world's biggest uranium producer, said it discovered the contamination when it was excavating within the building for the installation of new equipment.

The plant handles uranium hexafluoride, a chemical form of uranium used during its enrichment process.

The company said the plant will be shut down for at least two months but no layoffs are planned. There are approximately 420 employees at the Port Hope conversion facility.

Further investigation to determine the source of the chemicals and the area affected are ongoing.

''Cameco and third-party experts are investigating to determine the source of the chemicals,'' the company said.

''In addition, holes are being drilled around the area and the soil and ground water are being tested to ascertain the area affected. All regulatory authorities have been notified.''

Due to the nature of the soil at the plant, Cameco said it expects the ground water flow rate to average 40 to 60 metres a year.

Since the perimeter of the plant is about 70 metres from the edge of the property, Cameco said it feels it has ample time to contain and mitigate the affected area, the company said in a statement.

Samples taken in April from wells in the area were not contaminated, and the company has arranged for additional samples to be taken.

Uranium dioxide conversion and other activities at the site are not affected.

Cameco will provide a revised production forecast in its second quarter report. Cost estimates of the leak are not available at this time.

Shares in the company closed down 43 cents at C$49.32 in Friday trading on the Toronto Stock Exchange. They were halted briefly after the close.

The company's stock has been under pressure in recent months after it reported flooding at the Saskatchewan Cigar Lake project, which has delayed its planned production startup to 2011.

It also reported Thursday that Toronto-based subsidiary Centerra Gold Inc. [TSX:CG] has lowered its 2007 gold production estimates for the Kumtor mine in the former Soviet republic of Kyrgyzstan by one-third of the previous level.

http://www.resourceinvestor.com/pebble.asp?relid=34083

[stolwyk]

Uranium and Oil

Comment:

Both are needed and complement each other: Uranium can take on the base loads while oil drives a host of activities, one is transport, be it by plane, ship or car.

Suggesting that ethanol will reduce the demand for oil overlooks the fact that it has'nt got the power of petrol. As more is produced, the discovery of meaningful oilfields becomes less and less while current inventory numbers are highly suspect, considering that the big fields have seen the best and are producing less.

But investors are often tuned to the moment and the seemingly endless supply of oil. They won't act unless with their backs against the wall.

The same applies to Uranium as well, IMHO. Reference was made to the 'important' coming up sale of some 200 tonnes by the US Government. That amounts to only 440,000 lbs within a total demand of some 160 mill lbs.

I do believe that before long the current peace re pricing of oil will undergo a change with more sudden reports indicating the unique scarcity of this resource to come. This means that countries will take the weight off oil whenever possible by planning more nuclear power plants.

It already is an urgent matter as it takes at least some 5 years to build a large scale plant but less for a plant which is not necessaily stationary.

Therefore, I don't take too much notice of claims that Uranium prices will move below $100, after all, it will take a number of years to bring plants into production or projects to be mined.

I do believe that *judicial* longer term investments in Oil and Uranium will pay.

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

[ScrappyO]

U308 down to $85....might see it drop further, since breaking the $90 mark. Interesting to see if it does.