# Uranium, a Raging Bull



## Yippyio (14 November 2005)

FYI - Dines letter.

An interesting read.

“Panic-driven price spike in uranium stocks ahead!”

It’s mind-boggling. We’re in a uranium shortage so huge that half the world’s 441 nuclear power plants might go dark. Yet 80 new plants are in construction or planning””mostly in Asia.

If you think the fight between China and the West for the world’s oil is big, this will be more like a nuclear bomb. And it’s fueling an historic uranium stock-price explosion that will dwarf oil’s surge.

Uranium-mining stocks are just beginning to rise. It’s still early, before they reach historic highs.

Uranium is worth another look: It’s a raging bull that’s only just begun its stampede!


Aussie listed Stocks ready to take advantage of this Bull run are;

BHP, EME, PDN, SMM any others ???


----------



## el_ninj0 (14 November 2005)

RPT


----------



## Yippyio (14 November 2005)

Dynasty Mining have issued a prospectus for an IPO, offering shares @ 0.20cents each. They are looking to raise $ 3.5m.

Does anyone have a view on this company ???, offer closes 18th Nov 05


----------



## speedracer (14 November 2005)

SAU, MTN, DYL


----------



## laurie (14 November 2005)

The only thing holding U share prices back are Politicians!! how stupid was it for Mr Rann S.A. Premier to visit Olympic Dam to give approval for the increase in mine production and place bans on new mines.

cheers laurie


----------



## RichKid (15 November 2005)

Yippyio said:
			
		

> Uranium is worth another look: It’s a raging bull that’s only just begun its stampede!
> Aussie listed Stocks ready to take advantage of this Bull run are;
> 
> BHP, EME, PDN, SMM any others ???




Try this thread and a serach for 'uranium' too: 
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=542&highlight=uranium+stocks


----------



## RichKid (15 November 2005)

Yippyio said:
			
		

> Uranium is worth another look: It’s a raging bull that’s only just begun its stampede!
> Aussie listed Stocks ready to take advantage of this Bull run are;
> 
> BHP, EME, PDN, SMM any others ???




Try this thread and a search for 'uranium' too: 
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=542&highlight=uranium+stocks


----------



## mime (15 November 2005)

I looked at the stocks mentioned and none exept BHP seem profitable.


----------



## Yippyio (15 November 2005)

mime said:
			
		

> I looked at the stocks mentioned and none exept BHP seem profitable.




BHP controls 70% of the world's known Uranium resources, so perhaps BHP represents a fairly safe exposure to this "Uranium Bull Run"


----------



## intellimoney (16 November 2005)

Yippiyio

You missed RIO who are dedicating an entire division of there business to Uranium mining and about a dozen other companies.

South & Wes Australian governments are planning to sell leases to mine whilst the Feds are already in the process of setting up a Nuclear wast dump in the NT.

Do your research as you will probably find that current companies are likely to be competiting against a whole host of others in the next two years. That will likley bring the price of Uranium down not up. The current players have the jump though on their competitors. Checkout ERA's share/Yield its 20+ already


----------



## Kauri (16 November 2005)

intellimoney said:
			
		

> Yippiyio
> 
> 
> South & Wes Australian governments are planning to sell leases to mine whilst the Feds are already in the process of setting up a Nuclear wast dump in the NT.




  Gallop insists there will be no uranium mining in the West whilst he is still premier.


----------



## intellimoney (16 November 2005)

Yep and the mining co's already lobbying him with uranium is a greener fuel causes no global warming.


----------



## Kauri (16 November 2005)

intellimoney said:
			
		

> Yippiyio
> 
> 
> South & Wes Australian governments are planning to sell leases to mine whilst the Feds are already in the process of setting up a Nuclear wast dump in the NT.
> ...




   No problems with the lobbying, just can't understand where this selling of leases comes from. I thought leases are applied for and granted, the only selling that enters the picture is between companies themselves. Uranium leases are being granted almost weekly it seems, but a license to mine....  thats what you really need...and under Gallop wont get.


----------



## laurie (16 November 2005)

DYL may be on the verge of being the first U explorer to collapse after it's so called "Mistake in the lab assay" 80% of those on the market maybe in the same position

cheers laurie


----------



## TheAnalyst (16 November 2005)

Why buy uranium mining stocks if its such a bullish sector, if its a fact go real long on uranium futures and keep rolling the contracts over.


----------



## wayneL (16 November 2005)

TheAnalyst said:
			
		

> Why buy uranium mining stocks if its such a bullish sector, if its a fact go real long on uranium futures and keep rolling the contracts over.




????????????? Uranium Futures? 



> Unlike many of the major metals, uranium has never been traded in the formal futures markets nor has it existed on any kind of a tradable commodities exchange.




http://www.zealllc.com/2005/uranium.htm


----------



## serp (16 November 2005)

wayneL said:
			
		

> ????????????? Uranium Futures?




You can't buy futures in Uranium stocks?


----------



## TheAnalyst (16 November 2005)

Is the SFE that slow they havent started a contract for one yet?

Wayne maybe you could email them.


----------



## wayneL (16 November 2005)

TheAnalyst said:
			
		

> Is the SFE that slow they havent started a contract for one yet?
> 
> Wayne maybe you could email them.




Various Gu'mmints are probably way too involved for there to be a viable exchange, I would think.

Just a guess.


----------



## TheAnalyst (17 November 2005)

I sat down and had a think about why is it that you cannot buy and sell uranium futures? And I think I came up with an answer; it would most likely be unlawful for anyone unless a government authorised entity to take actual possession of the actual underlying uranium that the futures contracts would be written over.


----------



## laurie (23 November 2005)

November 21, 2005*
US$34.25/lb
(+0.30)


----------



## pancho (23 November 2005)

Hi yippio What about UXA  cashed up and some very interesting areas. ??


----------



## johnno261 (24 November 2005)

pancho said:
			
		

> Hi yippio What about UXA  cashed up and some very interesting areas. ??




Uranium stocks are definate leverage plays. New listing last week by the name of Uranex NL -Uranium Exploration, which I think is a stock to watch.Good tenements in S.A.    Currently trading around 20cents I think!


----------



## Chief Wigam (25 November 2005)

UXA is trading at around 14c or 30% down from listing the last I looked.

I'd rather put my money into CMR which is cheap, has good fundamentals and potential for U mining also.


----------



## johnno261 (25 November 2005)

Chief Wigam said:
			
		

> UXA is trading at around 14c or 30% down from listing the last I looked.
> 
> I'd rather put my money into CMR which is cheap, has good fundamentals and potential for U mining also.




Yes I think it listed on quite a RED day. Thought that it may have pulled back up.


----------



## Chief Wigam (25 November 2005)

Johnno, Have a look at the CMR Uranium drilling results announced today.


----------



## Yippyio (25 November 2005)

So far none in my watch list have done any good with the exception of SMM, who is up approx. 10% in the last two weeks. Currently it does not appear that the Uranium price is translating into company valuations.


----------



## mikka (26 November 2005)

Yippyio said:
			
		

> FYI - Dines letter.
> 
> An interesting read.
> 
> ...



----------------------------------------------------

RRS looks interesting


----------



## laurie (30 November 2005)

Price Of Uranium as of:
November 28, 2005*
US$34.50/lb
(+0.25)

cheers laurie


----------



## noirua (2 February 2006)

http://www.uxa.com.au/documents/UXAPressRelease180106.pdf

http://www.uxa.com.au


----------



## noirua (6 February 2006)

http://www.dangerouslaboratories.org/radore.html
http://www.dangerouslaboratories.org/rprospect.html


----------



## michael_selway (6 February 2006)

laurie said:
			
		

> November 21, 2005*
> US$34.25/lb
> (+0.30)




How much is it now?

thx

MS


----------



## laurie (6 February 2006)

January 30, 2006*
US$37.50/lb
(+0.50)

cheers laurie


----------



## 77TRADER77 (6 February 2006)

MEP seems a real 'GO' .Look at the recent ASX Announcement for this stock in Uranium cleverly placing themselves in the loop.

Yes BHP BHP cant lose .political will seems ratified in its favour. I jumped out and jumped back in last week on China/India growth potential. Enjoy the ride fellow BHP boyz!

If all the countries went for 'clean' nuclear fuel we would run out in 50 years.
CRISIS in 10 Years, as more costly uranium dug out and oil dependency really kicks the teeth in. Great for Superannuation I reckon.

Talkin about Superannuation BEMAX! new mine will go for 25 years!


----------



## nizar (6 February 2006)

What is every1s take on Toro Energy, the new float of OXR's uranium assets?

U reckon itll rocket up on the 1st day like EME last yr?


----------



## michael_selway (7 February 2006)

laurie said:
			
		

> January 30, 2006*
> US$37.50/lb
> (+0.50)
> 
> cheers laurie




Thx Laurie

Btw do u have a historic price chart for uranium? longer the better? eg 80s till now?

thx

MS

btw EXT anyone knwo why up so much?


----------



## noirua (9 February 2006)

Uranium prices :-

http://www.uic.com.au/nip36.htm

http://www.mineralstox.com/charts/default.asp?focus=262144&mode=20-year


----------



## noirua (1 March 2006)

http://www.aireview.com/index.php?act=view&catid=2&id=3621&setSub=1


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (7 March 2006)

All Aboard and quick,

If you have a look at the following Uranium Explorers you will notice some sharp price appreciations lately, EME NEL BKY MOX UXA UNX GBE

Now take a look at MTN, I think it hasn't been properly sighted by the market,
Its mkt cap is less than half of NEL it it boasts a deposit in S.A which is better than W.A. its deposit (using a higher cut off grade of 500ppm) is 4x the size.  


Look at this EV per lb UR08 of Companies, the avg is $2.65 MTN's is $0.26 per lb 

http://www.allianceresources.com.au/documents/060216 - Patersons - Uranium Update Feb 2006.pdf


What does it all mean?
HMR was bought by Mega Uranium for $20m and its a pure exploration play, at current prices MTN can be T/O where the bidder is paying 26c per lb of U308, they could even pay up to $1 per lb and it would still be cheap, IMO once MTN releases its fully JORC Compliant Resource its mkt cap has to be around 2-3x more than what it is currently or it is a very very attractive take over target

Its deposit (using 500ppm cutoff) of 30Mt @ 0.07% = 21,000 t U3O8 which would make it the 12-15th Largest Uranium Deposit in the World, I bet that would make companies take notice


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (7 March 2006)

Interesting thought, 

I think Aus will cave in and follow big brother US to allow India access to our U3O8, 

Also looks like the Uranium Bull is getting ready for a really big charge soon, anyone see GBE today? went absolutely nuts, I think the big trigger will Be U3O8 spot prices hitting $40us/lb  IMO that will be the equivalent of when Oil hit $75 and Gold hit $575, ie same effect on stocks, watch and see

As a number of commentators have already pointed out, all of this leaves Australia in a difficult position. Since it started large-scale uranium exports in the 1970s, successive Coalition and Labor governments have argued that India does not qualify for receipt of Australian uranium due to its non-membership of the NPT. 

The argument has been that uranium sales to a non-NPT state would undermine Australia's strong support for the treaty. Somewhat pointedly – though entirely predictably – Indian observers have wasted no time in contrasting Australia's willingness to export uranium to "Communist" China (an NPT member) with its refusal to enter into a nuclear trading relationship with fellow Commonwealth state India. 

In the context of an increasingly competitive world nuclear market, the US policy shift places pressure on Canberra to review this long-standing policy. 

Already, Prime Minister John Howard has signalled he is open to rethinking Australia's position despite Foreign Minister Alexander Downer's apparent preference for the policy status quo. 

Yet any decision to approve sales of uranium to a country that refuses to support the NPT would be at odds with Australia's strong support for the treaty. Any decision to review existing policy will need to be taken carefully with this in mind.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (8 March 2006)

GBE   

Hmmmmm reminds me of EME


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (8 March 2006)

March 6, 2006*
US$39.50/lb
(+1.00) 


Thats the current U3O8 Spot Price, 50cents short of $40 us/lb

I think U3O8 hitting $40US/lb will be as big as oil hitting $75 or gold hitting $575


----------



## idribble (9 March 2006)

Keep your eyes on BLN.

It's flagship project is in WA (Mulga), which has a ban on 'U' mining.  It has Aus$3Mil coming from Lamanide, a huge Canadian Co, providing due diligence is OK ..... which it isn't, coz of the mining ban.  BLN has court proceeding to confirm 50% of Mulga (it's flagship project).

The market will have heavily discouted BLN because of the cumulative effect of the three uncertainties listed.

It's the perfect time to buy!!!!!

BLN will have some of the finest acreage of any listed 'U' miner in OZ.

Court finds in BLN's favour ..... re-rated >>>>> Lamanade kicks in Aus$3Mil ..... re-rated, then a sniff of WA easing the mining ban and off she goes.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (9 March 2006)

As the bull charges caution should be exercised, 

Once all the hype is gone, it will only be companies with ACTUAL Uranium Deposits or very near term upcoming drilling that will continue to excite,

So exercise caution peeps


----------



## tech/a (9 March 2006)

UXA currently belting along


----------



## idribble (10 March 2006)

For those interested in investing in a company that has a huge deposit (assuming the Supreme Court rule in favour) .....

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

Follow the links to get a feel of how big BLN ground (Mulga Rocks) is.  That, incindentally is not their only iron in the fire.    

Dribbs


----------



## BraceFace (10 March 2006)

idribble said:
			
		

> Keep your eyes on BLN.
> 
> It's flagship project is in WA (Mulga), which has a ban on 'U' mining.
> 
> .... then a sniff of WA easing the mining ban and off she goes.




Not a chance.
Premier Carpenter has stated on the record quite a few times that WA is not about to reverse it's Uranium mining ban.

Id go for something with tenements in the NT or maybe SA.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (11 March 2006)

:iagree:  What brace said, stick to companies in N.T. or S.A.



Also Brace, 'sea-change' my friend its coming  :bananasmi 


Uranium export 'on the cards'
Email Print Normal font Large font By Michelle Grattan, Chennai
March 10, 2006


THE chairman of the Australia India Business Council, Neville Roach, has called for Australia to export uranium to India once the US nuclear agreement with that country is in place.

Mr Roach, a member of the business party accompanying Prime Minister John Howard to India, said yesterday the agreement would put in place a new international safeguards regime.

This would in practice supercede the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and distinguish between well-behaved India and Pakistan, which has proliferated nuclear material.

Australia's policy is to sell only to signatories to the treaty. Mr Howard hinted this week an exception might be made for India, a non-signatory, but then reaffirmed that the Government had no "current intention" to change policy. Foreign Minister Alexander Downer has taken a very strong line in defence of the current policy.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (11 March 2006)

My god there's now like 40 articles on this topic, I thought the catalyst was going to be $40 us/lb price, but it looks like it was beaten to the finish line by the US doing the U3O8 deal with India,

Here are some extracts from a few articles I have perused, enjoy!


Australia, more than any other nation, stands to reap huge profits from a global nuclear power boom, says a visiting German expert, Dr Hermann Scheer. He says Australia is under intense pressure to expand uranium mining, including within sensitive environments such as Kakadu National Park.

"The entire nuclear energy community is pushing Australia to dismantle legal barriers to uranium mining and I am sure the world is prepared to pay a lot of money for that," he says.


One part of the message was that Australia supported the deal, thought it was a great step forward and would look to its implications in the future. The other part was that Australia had no intention, right now anyway, of changing its long-standing policy of not exporting uranium to countries that are not signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, that is, India. 

Howard made a constructive contribution in India this week. But the question remains: is Canberra really serious about India? Only by moving in areas of policy that are really important to us, such as nuclear co-operation and APEC, can we answer the question, which has enormous importance for our future, in the affirmative. 
 




But the case points up a bizarre contradiction in Australia's uranium export policy as it still stands after John Howard's visit to India this week.

On one hand, uranium exports to China are OK, because China was one of five countries that exploded a nuclear device before 1967 and could therefore get into the nuclear non-proliferation treaty as a weapons state.

India's nuclear program lagged, so it was unable to carry out its first test until 1974. It pretended this was a "peaceful nuclear explosion" for a long time, but did not pretend it was eschewing the weapons option and stayed out of the treaty.

China did not join the treaty until 1992, and only in 1996 did it specifically stop nuclear assistance to non-treaty states. Before then it was the mother of all proliferators, helping Pakistan attain an untested nuclear capability by the late 1980s. Pakistan's "rogue" nuclear scientist, Abdul Qadeer Khan, later sub-proliferated bomb designs and enrichment centrifuges to Libya, Iran and North Korea.
By contrast, India has never given any hint of nuclear proliferation, and tightened controls at America's request before the first Gulf War on precursor materials for chemical weapons. It has agreed to put 14 of its 22 power reactors under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards and inspections to verify that any foreign-sourced fuel is not diverted to making weapons. These will be comparable to the agency and bilateral verification routines China will have to accept to get our uranium.

Actually, barriers to exporting uranium to India are erected by Canberra's policies, not the treaty's rules. The treaty allows export of "source or special fissionable material" to non-member states for peaceful purposes, as long as safeguards are applied. India's case - like those of Israel and Pakistan - is quite different from those of Iran, Libya and North Korea, which all pursued nuclear weapons development covertly while members of the treaty.

*But neither should we act as though we trust communist China more than democratic India. Canberra's policy needs to be updated.*






URANIUM re-emerged as the hot political topic during the past week with India pleading for access to Australia's bountiful reserves to feed an expanding nuclear power industry as investors swamped yet another alluring yellowcake float.

Market reaction to the Toro Energy uranium exploration float in South Australia demonstrates just how hot the uranium sector has become amid speculation about the imminent death of Labor's anachronistic "three mines" policy. 

Talk of sales to China and possibly India has prompted Queensland's three Liberal senators Russell Trood, George Brandis and Brett Mason to fly to Mt Isa next week to visit Valhalla – one of the state's most promising uranium prospects held by West Australian junior Summit Resources. 

Although keen to see new uranium mines developed in Australia, the Federal Government is sticking for now to a policy of not sanctioning uranium sales to countries such as India and Pakistan, which have not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. 

Canberra generated a great deal of excitement last year by taking over responsibility for approving new uranium mines in the Northern Territory, but Labor regimes running the uranium-rich states of Queensland, Western Australia and South Australia are continuing to adhere to the ALP's "three mines policy" until it is changed. 

The push is on in Queensland though for policy reform since right-wing ALP powerbroker and Australian Workers Union secretary Bill Ludwig took a lead role in urging the State Government to end its opposition to mining. 

However, Premier Peter Beattie tried to fend off the latest mid-week plea for a rethink on uranium policy from Mount Isa MP and Speaker Tony McGrady with the almost absurd suggestion that yellowcake production in Queensland would undermine the state's $11.5 billion export coal industry. 

The Queensland Resources Council quickly put paid to this argument by pointing out the majority of coal exported from Queensland was coking coal used to make steel – not thermal coal used to generate electricity.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (13 March 2006)

And so the press coverage continues, with U3O8 prices poised to break the $40 US/LB level this week, and forecast to reach $50 US/lb within 6 months the fundamentals are very very strong.


Australia `Confident' of China Uranium Export Pact (Update1) 
March 13 (Bloomberg) -- Australia, which has the world's largest known uranium reserves, is likely soon to sign an agreement with China allowing the sale of the fuel for use in power generation in Asia's biggest energy user. 

``Both sides are satisfied with the results of the negotiations and are confident of a successful outcome in the near future,'' a spokeswoman for the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade said today in Canberra. Talks began in January on safeguards to ensure any Australian uranium supplied to China is only used for peaceful purposes.  


Greens leader Bob Brown claims the Federal Government is poised to export uranium to India and China, a stance he says is backed by sections of the Labor Party, including South Australian Premier Mike Rann.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (15 March 2006)

Sound the trumpets!!!!!!

Uranium is @ $40 us/lb!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

   


It should hit $50 us/lb within the next 6 months


March 13, 2006*
US$40.00/lb
(+0.50)


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (15 March 2006)

Uranium deal with China 'close'
Mar 15 13:57
AAP 


The Australian government says it is close to signing an agreement to supply uranium to China.

Federal Resources Minister Ian Macfarlane said on Wednesday Australia could soon export uranium to China.


"We are close to concluding agreements with China, I suspect," Mr Macfarlane told reporters in Perth.

Officials from China and Australia met two weeks ago in Beijing for the latest round of negotiations to set in place a framework to allow Australia to sell some of its vast stores of uranium to the Chinese.

Mr Macfarlane said Western Australia stood to lose billions of dollars if it did not change its anti-uranium stance.



"The opportunity is there for WA to share in the expansion of uranium mining industry," he said.

"It would be reasonable also to expect a diversity of supply would be sought and the Chinese buyers would be looking at an opportunity to source uranium out of Western Australia."

The WA government has decided not to reconsider uranium mining in the state for at least the next three years.

"I think that is a classic missed opportunity," Mr Macfarlane said.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (18 March 2006)

Hmm can't find the thread I started, must have been deleted for some reason 

I was curios if I was the only one who forgot about South Australian Elections

As liberal victory would do wonders for uranium players like MTN, UXA and Toro

But it looks like a pretty secure labour victory      


Still I am suprised that other Uranium watchers didn't bring it up, I hadn't heard anything about it until last night, then again I am in Melbourne and all this state cares about right now is the Games!


----------



## nizar (19 March 2006)

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/uranium-to-china-its-a-deal/2006/03/18/1142582576828.html

Uranium to China: it's a deal

An AGREEMENT clearing the way for massive uranium sales to China is almost certain to be signed when Premier Wen Jiabao visits Australia early next month.

The deal would give Australia the ability to monitor the use of its uranium in China to ensure that it is only used for peaceful purposes.

It is expected to see a significant increase in the amount of uranium mined in Australia. Sales to China could quickly double Australia's annual income from uranium to $1 billion.

The Sunday Age has been told that formal negotiations, which began last August, have proceeded much more rapidly than expected. Those talks, led by officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, were expected to take up to two years.

"It's now 90 per cent certain that the agreement will be signed during next month's visit," an official said yesterday. "That's certainly the target.

"That doesn't mean we are going to be digging up uranium and shipping it off to China the next day," the official said.

An agreement would simply clear the way for the companies owning Australia's uranium mines to begin negotiations with China over prices.

The official said it would be up to the Australian companies to make the investment needed to mine enough uranium to meet Chinese demand.

China is expected to quadruple its use of uranium over the next 15 years to meet a massive increase in the demand for power.

The companies' negotiations may be complicated by the row over an apparent Chinese attempt to impose a price cap on iron ore. China's Commerce Ministry has reportedly issued a notice on the internet accusing the biggest iron ore producers of using their monopoly to make unreasonably high profits and violating the rules of fair trade. Australia responded that any move to impose a price cap would breach World Trade Organisation rules.

China first asked officially to buy Australian uranium in August 2004. Then in June 2005, it emerged that Australia was negotiating conditions for the export of uranium to China. These included a range of nuclear safeguards that could lead to a lucrative export trade.

When Foreign Minister Alexander Downer was asked yesterday for details of the coming agreement with China, he said the Premier's visit was still two weeks away. "It would be terrible to spoil the story of Premier Wen's visit today," he said.

Greens leader Bob Brown condemned the potential deal as outrageous and said it was "farcical to say that Australian uranium would not end up in Chinese nuclear weapons".

"This is selling uranium into a nuclear power which has rockets which can reach Sydney and Melbourne and during the last year has threatened Taiwan with nuclear weapons," Senator Brown said. "Moreover, it has sent nuclear technology to Pakistan and via there to Iran and Libya, all this in an age of handbag-sized nuclear weapons and global terrorism."

with Jason Koutsoukis


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (19 March 2006)

Labour won  in S.A. :swear:  :swear:  :swear:  :swear:


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (22 March 2006)

Up another notch!!!!!!!!!!

March 20, 2006*
*US$40.50/lb*
(+0.50)


----------



## nizar (22 March 2006)

YOUNG_TRADER said:
			
		

> Up another notch!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> March 20, 2006*
> *US$40.50/lb*
> (+0.50)




Looking good for toro!!!


----------



## nizar (25 March 2006)

Let them eat cake

The possibility of China taking Australian yellowcake has people in Roxby Downs talking about the "big expansion". Much rests on Olympic Dam, writes Barry FitzGerald.

When Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao touches down in Perth next Saturday at the start of his whirlwind tour of Australia, he will have the biggest fan of the local resources industry at his side, federal Resources Minister Ian Macfarlane.

Macfarlane's mission will be to brief Wen on the resources industry's ability to keep China's booming "Hungry Dragon" economy fully fed with a broad suite of commodities in a cost-effective, timely and environmentally safe manner.

That will be the sales pitch, anyway. The reality is that there won't be much Wen does not already know about the resources industry.

He was, after all, trained as a geologist.

Then there is China's longstanding direct interests in Pilbara iron ore mines, the North-West Shelf gas project, the Portland aluminium smelter and, more recently, the Arukun bauxite deposit in Queensland. And there is more to come, with Wen expected to give Central Party blessing to new iron ore joint ventures on the West Australian leg of his tour.

But as important as Wen's visit to WA will be in terms of cementing long-term relationships and securing future investments in the mining "boom" state, it won't be until he lands in Canberra on Monday, April 3, that the real game-changing impact of his rock-kicking tour will take hold.

That is because of the strong expectation that Wen and the Federal Government are ready to sign off on a bilateral agreement on nuclear safeguards, clearing the way for first Australian uranium sales to China. The agreement, first flagged by The Age in November 2004, has huge ramifications for the Australian industry, most notably for the new owner of the Olympic Dam mine in South Australia's outback, BHP Billiton.

Residents and would-be residents at Roxby Downs, the mining town of 4000 people nestled between red sand dunes and native pine trees about 16 kilometres south of Olympic Dam, know that all too well.

Expectations of the China deal and its role in underpinning a $5-$10 billion expansion of the operation have forced rents for family homes 20 per cent higher to an average of $420 a week in the past six months, and real estate agents report lists of 80-100 families waiting on accommodation.

For those locals not receiving company rent subsidies or who do not own their own home, Roxby Downs is an expensive place to live, and getting more so. But the promise of plenty of work and above-average pay for all when the "big expansion" kicks off means that retreating 570 kilometres south to the comparatively cheaper lifestyle on offer in Adelaide is not necessarily the best option.

The "big expansion" is local shorthand for the massive expansion plans for Olympic Dam. And because of the looming safeguards agreement that Premier Wen is here to sign, the expansion plans have become inextricably linked to China and its high-growth plans for its nuclear power industry.

While the agreement on nuclear safeguards - which seek to restrict uranium to peaceful uses through a monitoring and inspection regime - is now considered certain, the bells and whistles that could come with the deal remain open to speculation.

Some analysts are convinced that to cement the safeguards agreement, there will also be an announcement of an intention for China to buy the additional output from Olympic Dam that would come with its expansion, with first material available in about 2010-2011.

That could represent more than 10,000 tonnes a year of uranium, worth upwards of $A1.4 billion at current bumper spot prices for uranium of $US40.50 a pound.

There has also been speculation that China could become a direct partner in Olympic Dam, at least in the "expansion" component of the project in much the way Rio Tinto did with Freeport at the giant Grasberg mine in West Papua.

Before BHP's takeover of WMC last year, there was a plan to cut a deal with the French nuclear giant Cogema on future uranium sales that would have helped WMC finance Olympic Dam's expansion.

BHP does not need any financial support in the Olympic Dam expansion but, as China showed when it signed up for $25 billion of liquefied natural gas imports from the Woodside-managed North-West Shelf project, it prefers to do so holding a direct (5.3 per cent) stake in the underlying gas resource.

Olympic Dam is not the only source of Australian uranium, but it is uniquely placed to meet China's demands. The Rio Tinto-controlled Ranger mine in the Northern Territory has a limited life and the company will not develop the big Jabiluka deposit until it has the full agreement of the traditional owners of the land.

Australia's only other uranium mine, Heathgate's Beverley mine in South Australia, is a small operation, with its production capacity not warranting the effort that Australia and China have gone to, to put the safeguard agreement in place.

And with the known uranium deposits of Western Australia and Queensland locked up by entrenched Labor governments with no intention at present of allowing new mine developments, Olympic Dam again comes to the fore.

Apart from being the world's fourth-biggest copper and gold resource, Olympic Dam is also the world's biggest uranium resource. The resource estimate stands at 1.5 million tonnes of uranium oxide. But that is just a starting point. A frenetic exploration/infill drilling program, firstly by WMC and since then by BHP, is expected to lead to a massive upgrade.

More importantly will be the increase in the more certain proved and probable mining reserve, the base from which BHP will plan Olympic Dam's expansion. While WMC was looking at spending $5 billion-plus to expand Olympic Dam's annual output from 225,000 tonnes of copper and 5000 tonnes of uranium to 500,000 tonnes of copper and 15,000 tonnes of uranium, mining analysts now openly speculate that BHP has in mind 1 million tonnes of copper and 30,000 tonnes of uranium.

"We would expect Olympic Dam to be initially ramped up to 650,000 tonnes a year (copper) with a final design conceptually at 1 million tonnes a year," Goldman Sachs JBWere told clients earlier this month. "This could place the mine at a similar size to (BHP's) Escondida (in Chile and the world's biggest) by the middle of next decade," it said.

It is the nature of Olympic Dam - named after a water hole sunk on the Roxby Downs pastoral lease at the time of the 1956 Melbourne Olympics - that along with increased copper comes increased uranium output. But unlike copper, which is easily sold, uranium must find a government-approved home. To be government-approved, there must be a bilateral agreement on nuclear safeguards, as Australia already has with 25 countries and is now about to have with China.

China has earmarked nuclear power as a key growth area as it sets about meeting a surge in demand from a mix of low-greenhouse-impact energy sources, including LNG from the North-West Shelf project.

The matching of BHP's need to find a home for additional uranium production to China's need to source overseas supplies of the radioactive material looks to be a neat solution.

And because of surging copper and uranium prices, the solution could be a highly profitable one for BHP and Australia.

But the full exploitation of the massive Olympic Dam ore body is not without its challenges. Sourcing the huge water resources needed to support an expanded operation is one of the key challenges. Keeping and expanding a skilled workforce at Roxby Downs without them going broke to pay the rent is another.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/busin...1143083984998.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (25 March 2006)

nizar said:
			
		

> Let them eat cake





Would that be Yellow Cake?  :


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (28 March 2006)

Talk about change,

Loook whats on the Nine MSN Poll today


*Poll: Do you think Australia should sell uranium to China?  vote now  * 

I can't believe how far it has come in the last 6 months!


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (28 March 2006)

YOUNG_TRADER said:
			
		

> Also looks like the Uranium Bull is getting ready for a really big charge soon, anyone see GBE today? went absolutely nuts, I think the big trigger will Be U3O8 spot prices hitting $40us/lb  IMO that will be the equivalent of when Oil hit $75 and Gold hit $575, ie same effect on stocks, watch and see




Well I'm pretty happy so far with the results   


Also don't forget upcoming S.A. Conference!

Uranium: to dig or not to dig
By ANNA VLACH
28mar06
NATIONAL CONFERENCE|Policy in the spotlight 

THE hottest topic in the resource sector - uranium exploration and policy - will take centre stage at the 2006 Uranium Conference at the Hilton Adelaide on Thursday and Friday.
Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources head of resources division John Hartwell will present the opening address, on behalf of federal Resources Minister Ian Macfarlane, and Opposition spokesman on resources Martin Ferguson is to speak on day two. 

Conference organiser Bill Repard said Mr Macfarlane's speech was expected to provide an update on the work of the Uranium Industry Framework. 

Launched in 2005, it was designed to be a partnership of government, industry, indigenous and community stakeholders to increase mining and export opportunities. 

Industry observers will also be waiting to see what Mr Ferguson will have to say as debate grows over the federal ALP's reluctance to develop new mines. "The reason we invited Mr Ferguson is that he has been making some terrifically commonsense comments over the past few months," Mr Repard said.  
Efforts to achieve an expansion of Australia's yellowcake supply will also be discussed by senior executives from several explorers including Toro Energy, Curnamona Energy, Maximus Resources, Alliance Resources, PepinNini Minerals, Southern Gold, Marathon Resources, Red Metal, Scimitar Resources and Tasman Resources.  
Mr Repard said it was significant that the conference was being held just days after the stellar listing of new Adelaide-based uranium explorer Toro Energy. 

Meanwhile, Alliance Resources yesterday released a progress update on its joint venture with Quasar Resources at the Beverly 4 Mile uranium prospect at Arkaroola in the state's north. 

Native-title clearance for drilling has been completed, with the drill program to resume upon the availability of rigs and the first two planned pre-collars for later diamond-core drilling completed.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (28 March 2006)

Oh dear oh dear, ENR, when will people learn,


This is exactly like GBE although GBE is at least better quality project,

ENR was a 20c IPO that listed a few days ago, it has 60m shares on issue, and @ $1 = $60m mkt cap, fo a pure exploration play in W.A.

Hmmm Bubble bubble froth and boil!!!!!!!!


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (29 March 2006)

I think this Uranium Charge will last for another week and a bit, ie until say April 7th maybe even more,

Today ENR, GBE and TOE got a mention in the normal 7 9 and 10 News, the reporters also made comments on the super potential of Uranium Companies etc,


IMO opinion this will draw many speculators from the Industrials to the Uranium sector, (much like the Dot Com boom, lambs for the slaughter)

I think we will see a few more repeats of ridiculous prices like ENR and GBE,


I think UXA, DYL, RPT, MTN, SMM, VUL should attract attention,


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (29 March 2006)

Miners enthusiastic about uranium prospects with China PRINT FRIENDLY EMAIL STORY 
The World Today - Tuesday, 28 March , 2006  12:10:00
Reporter: Andrew Geoghegan
KAREN PERCY: Uranium miners and explorers are rubbing their hands at the prospect that China could be given the green light to not only buy Australian uranium, but also explore for yellowcake in Australia.

Such an agreement could mean that China would invest hundreds of millions of dollars in Australia's uranium industry as it seeks to secure its future energy needs.

The Prime Minister, John Howard, says it's possible that a deal with China will be finalised when Premier Wen Jiabao visits Australia at the end of the week.

 


Now I know its pre-mature to make any assumptions, but just imagaine if this deal gets signed what it will mean, (the Chinese are coming the Chinese are coming cry the Aust ASX Uranium Companies)

I think China will firstly deal with the operators of Australias existing 3 mines, with BHP the biggest beneficiary!

Next Companies with actual JORC or almost complete JORC deposits, forget explorers unless they have really good grounds,

Arguably preference will go to N.T. then S.A. then W.A. and last Qld,

N.T. players: EME, DYL, ARU all have some form of JORC or almost complete JORC resource

S.A. players: MTN, PNN, SRZ, again all have some form of JORC or almost complete JORC resource


W.A. players: NEL, RPT, UNX, all have some form of JORC or almost complete JORC resource

QLD: SMM, VUL 


Standout players:    All 3 N.T. companies due to N.T. fed usurping of control

      MTN for its 55m lb@500ppm cut-off to 77m lb@300ppm cutoff DEPOSIT, established by previous drilling, with current drilling underway to be completed with JORC results very soon

UNX for its Tanzanian operations, backed by W.A JORC 13m lb deposit




Explorers that will do well: All of them    joke, seriously don't know which ones will do well ie which ones will actually hold onto gains, but  i do know that UXA is set to begin drilling in 1 week!


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (29 March 2006)

Here's why W.A. and QLD are no good 

PETA DONALD: When China's Premier Wen Jiabao arrives in Australia this weekend his first stop will be Perth, where he'll meet Western Australia's new Premier Alan Carpenter, who's not about to drop the condition attached to mining exploration licenses issued in his state.

ALAN CARPENTER: We issue them with a proviso that uranium mining will not be allowed, and that won't change.

PETA DONALD: The same goes for the ban on uranium mining Mr Carpenter inherited from his predecessor Geoff Gallop.

ALAN CARPENTER: Well, the policy was reassessed internally in the West Australian Labor Party last year, and the no-uranium mining policy was unanimously endorsed at the state conference of the Labor Party at the end of last year.

PETA DONALD: In Queensland today Peter Beattie was equally adamant.

PETER BEATTIE: We have a good relationship with the Chinese. They also are big buyers of our coal, and I want to make sure that they continue to be big purchasers of our coal. 

I don't think the agreement undermines any of our position, but are we going to have more uranium mines? From the Queensland Government point of view in Queensland the answer is no.





DON'T FORGET THIS STARTS TOMORROW! The mines policy will be a topic of hot debate at the 2006 Uranium Conference which begins in Adelaide tomorrow.  

*Presenters will include TOE, NEL, SAU, MXR, AGS, SIM, PPN, KOR, MTN, SRZ, RDM , CUY, MDX & TAS*




And here's why S.A. even though it is Labour Controlled is good 


THE prospect of a huge uranium deal between Australia and China has spurred Premier Mike Rann to make his strongest stand yet on the need for Labor to overturn its no-new-mines policy.

"I believe the current national ALP policy is anachronistic and therefore is likely to be changed," Mr Rann said yesterday.


----------



## kariba (29 March 2006)

Uranium boom time!!! Choose wisely because a ton of money will be made & lost on some of the junk out there.

AGS - has mega resource
GIR - same deal
AEX - fabulous potential with Sth African resource
SAU - unloved & undervalued - has GREAT leases
MEP - Brilliant management, great J/V's
EQN - Will be mining uranium ore next year!!!!!!!
CMR, ARU, & a few more have class

Throw a dart at the rest, make some dough trading them .... but be on the watch

cheers


----------



## Fab (30 March 2006)

Kariba,

Have you got any document to substantial what you are saying about this stocks as I agree that a lot of these stocks are a lot of rubbish with poor prospect that people will buy because it is a " uranium" stock therefore information is crucial here.


----------



## michael_selway (30 March 2006)

kariba said:
			
		

> Uranium boom time!!! Choose wisely because a ton of money will be made & lost on some of the junk out there.
> 
> AGS - has mega resource
> GIR - same deal
> ...




nice list there dude

SAU undervalued u think? what do u think of UNX and KAL?

thx

MS


----------



## powerkoala (30 March 2006)

Kariba,
I have noticed your lists. I wonder what do you think about GBE and DYL?
Both this stock have nice movement lately. 
I should buy lot for DYL


----------



## nizar (30 March 2006)

michael_selway said:
			
		

> SAU undervalued u think?




Substantially

See my post on SAU thread

It was the last to move and its market cap is very much below other similar uranium explorers...

Its started to move from friday till now but still heaps of potential, and a long way to go before that velue is realised...


----------



## nizar (30 March 2006)

kariba said:
			
		

> Uranium boom time!!! Choose wisely because a ton of money will be made & lost on some of the junk out there.
> 
> AGS - has mega resource
> GIR - same deal
> ...




Nice list there

But u forgot one, OMC


----------



## champ2003 (30 March 2006)

Hey guys,

Any reason EXT isn't on the list of good potentials?


----------



## redandgreen (30 March 2006)

read up....
Article in today's Australian  "Uranium bubble looks like trouble" this goes part of the way to explaining today's correction (perhaps)


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (30 March 2006)

Ok, I think here's what we should do so we can see whats really "undervalued" and whats just hype, how about we list the Uranium Companies in 3 Categories, Producer, JORC Deposirs (ie resources)  and pure explorers.

Then we can get an idea based on mkt cap, location etc on what companies are really undervalued and which ones are hype.


----------



## michael_selway (30 March 2006)

redandgreen said:
			
		

> read up....
> Article in today's Australian  "Uranium bubble looks like trouble" this goes part of the way to explaining today's correction (perhaps)




Correction but not bear market right?

the only thing that will truly burst the Uranium Bubble is if it Uranium price drops, which hasnt yet, while all the others have eg, oil , coal, metals etc

thx

MS


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (30 March 2006)

*Producers*

BHP
PDN
ERA



*JORC Deposits*

AGS
ARU
DYL
EME
MTN
NEL
OMC
PNN
RPT
RRS
SMM
SRZ
UNX
VUL


If I have missed any please add


*Pure Explorers*
About 50,

Best are

AUL
BMN
EXT
GBE
GIR
TOE
UXA

If any more should be on his list please say so


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (30 March 2006)

*Uranium Paydirt Conference in S.A.*


Preliminary programme
DAY ONE: Thursday 30th March 2006
08.00am Arrival tea, coffee & registration
Session One Session Chair: Derek Carter, Toro Energy Ltd
9.00am Welcome: Bill Repard, Executive Chairman, Paydirt Media Pty Ltd (5)
9.05am OPENING: John Hartwell, Head of Resources Division, presenting on behalf of Hon Ian
Macfarlane MP, Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources (25)
9.30am Andrej Karpinski, Executive Chairman, Korab Resources Ltd(20)
9.50am Mark Chalmers, Managing Director, Uranium Equities Ltd (15)
10.05am Questions (5)
10.10am Morning tea (30)
Session Two Session Chair: Hugh Wallace-Smith, Bell Potter Securities Ltd
10.40am Ian Hore-Lacy, General Manager, Uranium Information Centre (25)
11.05am Tim Sugden, Chairman, Nova Energy Ltd (25)
11.30am Paul Burton, Consulting Geologist, Toro Energy Ltd (15)
11.45am Chris Giles, Managing Director, Curnamona Energy Ltd, (15)
12.00noon Questions (5)
12.05pm Lunch, sponsored by Curnamona Energy Ltd (90)
Session Three Session Chair: Paul Heithersay, Primary Industry and Resources South Australia - TBC
1.35pm Geoff Hudson, Scientist for Nuclear matters (25)
2.00pm Kevin Wills, Managing Director, Maximus Resources Ltd  (15)
2.15pm Steve Johnston, General Manager, Alliance Resources Ltd (15)
2.30pm Greg Solomon, Executive Chairman, Tasman Resources Ltd (20)
2.50pm Questions (5)
2.55pm Afternoon tea (30)
Session Four Session Chair: Leon Pretorius, Deep Yellow Ltd  – TBC
3.25pm Julia Dnistrianski, Partner, Finlaysons Lawyers (15)
3.40pm Peter Ellery, Consultant in Government and Investor Relations, Peter Ellery and
Associates Pty Ltd (25)
4.05pm Discussion Group, Convener: Peter Ellery (45)
4.50pm Cocktail function, sponsored by Finlaysons Lawyers


DAY TWO: Friday 31st March 200608.00am Arrival tea, coffee & registration
Session Five Session Chair: Chris Giles, Curnamona Energy Ltd  - TBC
9.00am Martin Ferguson MP, Shadow Spokesman for Primary Industries, Resources Forestry
and Tourism (25)
9.25am Norman Kennedy, Managing Director, PepinNini Minerals Ltd (15)
9.40am Chris Anderson, Director, Stellar Resources Ltd (15)
9.55am Terence Topping, Managing Director, Scimitar Resources Ltd (15)
10.10am Questions (5)
10.15am Morning tea (30)
Session Six Session Chair: Tim Sugden, Nova Energy Ltd - TBC
10.45am Mark McGeough, Branch Manager – Geological Survey, Primary Industries and
Resources South Australia (25)
11.10am Rob Rutherford, Managing Director, Red Metal Ltd  (15)
11.25am Stephen Biggins, Managing Director, Southern Gold Ltd (15)
11.40am John Santich, Chief Executive Officer, Marathon Resources Ltd (15)
11.55am Questions (5)
12.00 noon Lunch, sponsored by Curnamona Energy Ltd(90)
Session Seven
1.30pm Greg Bromley, Managing Director, Mindax Ltd, (15)
1.45pm Brad George, Marketing Development Executive, Fugro Ltd (15)
2.00pm Panel Session (45)
2.45pm Closing drinks


----------



## redandgreen (30 March 2006)

YOUNG_TRADER said:
			
		

> *Producers*
> 
> BHP
> PDN
> ...





what about ENR?


----------



## nizar (30 March 2006)

YOUNG_TRADER said:
			
		

> *Uranium Paydirt Conference in S.A.*
> 
> 
> Preliminary programme
> ...




Thanks for that


----------



## michael_selway (30 March 2006)

YOUNG_TRADER said:
			
		

> *Producers*
> 
> BHP
> PDN
> ...




Great category list, pls update when u can, KAL and ENR, RSG, RIO?

Btw what does JORC mean?

thx

MS


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (30 March 2006)

Today was a pull back for Uranium Companies, lets see how the ones on our list went

Producers

BHP Up 
PDN Down
ERA Up (Substanital ie more than 5% given mkt cap)
RIO Up


JORC/Deposits (JORC = Compliance requirement, set by Geological and Mining Standards)  

AGS    Down 6%
ARU                     Flat
BKY                               Up 10%
DYL    Down 10%
EME    Down 10%
MTN                               Up 8%
NEL                                Up 14%
OMC   Down 6%
PNN    Down 15%
RPT    Down 7%
RRS                              Up 2%
SMM  Down 14%
SRZ   Down 12%
UNX   Down 7.5%
VUL   Down 15.4%                       

If I have missed any please add


Pure Explorers
About 50,

Best are

AEX
AUL
BMN
ENR
EXT
GBE
GIR
KOR
KAL
TOE
UXA

If any more should be on his list please say so


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (30 March 2006)

I think that its worth looking at the stocks which went up even more today on such a harsh day and asking why?


Could it be luck that of the three stocks that went up in the Deposits category each has quite a large deposit and had a low EV?

BKY 13k t  EV per lb Uranium = $2.50  
(Shares = 100m fully diluted @ 75c = Mkt Cap $75m, with 30m lbs Uranium)

MTN 33k t = 82c
(Shares = 50m fully diluted @ 1.16c = $58m mkt Cap, with 70m lbs Uranium)

NEL 9k t = $5.20
(Shares = 57m fully diluted @ 1.83c = $104m mkt Cap, with 20m lbs Uranium)


EME only has 1.5k t its EV is quite high well over $10, same with AGS its EV per lb Uranium is also quite high, well over $5



So you don't have to be a brain surgeon to see that both BKY and MTN are very undervalued based on a comparative EV rating, MTN is heavily undervalued @ 82c per lb Uranium,

Understand that EV per resource is what is used when Take overs are considered, ie how much would it costs us to purchase 1 bbl of oil resource, 1 oz of gold resource or in this case, 1 lb of Uranium. 

Thus the lower the EV per reource, the more attractive it is for takeovers and the more underalued it is on a peer mkt comparison,


I generally think $2.50 is a good ev, although current run suggest $5 is now the new mkt EV, but 80c per lb is ridiculously cheap!


I really want some good feedback on what I have posted, so please take the time to give me your thoughts,

Hope this helps


----------



## champ2003 (30 March 2006)

Very interesting reading young_trader. 

Do you or anyone else know how i can get access to up to date  information on the daily Uranium price?


----------



## BillyGoatGruff (30 March 2006)

YT, I'm pretty sure AEX has a JORC resource.


----------



## champ2003 (30 March 2006)

Actually i found the site for U price

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


----------



## michael_selway (30 March 2006)

YOUNG_TRADER said:
			
		

> I think that its worth looking at the stocks which went up even more today on such a harsh day and asking why?
> 
> 
> Could it be luck that of the three stocks that went up in the Deposits category each has quite a large deposit and had a low EV?
> ...




MTN 33k t = 82c
(Shares = 50m fully diluted @ 1.16c = $58m mkt Cap, with 70m lbs Uranium)

Hi how did u get 33k, and 70m lbs uranium?

thx

MS


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (31 March 2006)

33k t = 33,000 tonnes Uranium, to convert to pounds  multiply by 1000 to get kilos, then 2.2 to get pounds,

ie 33,000 t Uranium x 2,200 = 72m lbs Uranium, so say 70m lbs Uranium, if you want to know where I got their JORC resource from, it was released as an announcement by them ages ago, then re-confirmed recenlty, if can wait till tomorrow MTN will be presenting to the Pay Dirt Uranium Conference, they will no doubt re-iterate that they have 25kt Uranium using a 500ppm cut-off and 33k t Uranium using a 300ppm cut off,




Also BillyGoatGruff re AEX and their JORC deposit can u find the info and add it to the post,


----------



## howardlian (31 March 2006)

MTN 33k t = 82c

how  do you get 82c from 33k t?


----------



## howardlian (31 March 2006)

Gold is about US $ 570 per oz

What is 1 m lbs Uranium worth in the market?


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (31 March 2006)

1m lbs Uranium is worth *$40million US +* currently and its lure is that there are heaps of known gold deposits around the world that are in production, how many Uranium deposits are there around the world and in production?

If a company can manage to get its Uranium deposit into production then over 4 years its share price can go from 2c to $5 ie PDN an increase of 25,000%


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (31 March 2006)

howardlian said:
			
		

> MTN 33k t = 82c
> 
> how  do you get 82c from 33k t?





Look the maths is simple enough its called EV (Enterprise Value)

Just divide a company's mkt cap by the lbs of Uranium (or barrels of oil or ounces of gold for that matter) , you then get a number

33,000 t Uranium x 2,200 = 72m lbs Uranium, so say 70m lbs Uranium
(Shares = 50m fully diluted @ 1.16c = $58m mkt Cap, with 70m lbs Uranium)


Whats $58m / 70m = 80cents 


ie if you bought the whole company at todays share price (Take Over) you would get access to its 70m lbs Uranium and at the price you would pay it would only be costing you 80cents a lb,


This applies to all resource companies including Oil, Gas, Copper, Gold, Silver, Zinc and so on and so forth


----------



## Nicks (31 March 2006)

"If any more should be on his list please say so"

SRK - STRIKE


----------



## howardlian (31 March 2006)

1m lbs Uranium is worth $40million US +
MTN have 70m lbs Uranium  and 50m shares

$40million US multiply 70m lbs = US$2800m 
US$2800m divide 50m shares = US$56 per share ????


----------



## Nicks (31 March 2006)

howardlian said:
			
		

> 1m lbs Uranium is worth $40million US +
> MTN have 70m lbs Uranium  and 50m shares
> 
> $40million US multiply 70m lbs = US$2800m
> US$2800m divide 50m shares = US$56 per share ????




Ive looked at it too and it doesnt make sense.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (31 March 2006)

howardlian said:
			
		

> 1m lbs Uranium is worth $40million US +
> MTN have 70m lbs Uranium  and 50m shares
> 
> $40million US multiply 70m lbs = US$2800m
> US$2800m divide 50m shares = US$56 per share ????






Ok I can see you really don't understand what EV is,

For example if Santos has 500million barrels of oil, do you simply multiply that by spot oil price to get its asset value?

No that is a gross value, as there is a cost of extraction, in Oil for example the Mkt EV per barrel of oil is around $30 AUD, ie in general Oil companies 2p reserves are worth $30 a barrel, 

Now for Gold *Producers* the Mkt Avg EV is around $100 AUD per ounce reserve, for explorers it is more like $25 - $50 AUD,

The general rule of thumb is to look at companies which are trading on a lower EV per resource as they are potential take over targets,

For some reason, Uranium Mkt EV's are around $2.65 - $5 for explorers with deposits and around $10 - $15 for producers per lb,


So you only multiply lbs Uranium by EV ie low case $2.65 to get what the mkt cap should be


----------



## Nicks (31 March 2006)

thanks, very useful clarification.


----------



## Nicks (31 March 2006)

YT - whats your view on SRK? have you got some analysis you can provide on this?


----------



## BillyGoatGruff (31 March 2006)

Re: YT JORC AEX

As announced in July 2005, Acclaim entered into an unconditional agreement to acquire the Denny Dalton Uranium / Gold Project in South Africa. During the quarter Acclaim completed the acquisition by payment of the final $3.75m.
• The project area is approximately 4,000 hectares with significant uranium and gold drilling and mining previously undertaken.
• Independent Legal and Geological Reviews completed.
• Inferred JORC resource of 31.5m tonnes of U3O8 at 0.35 kg/t for 11,025 tonnes with associated gold mineralisation.
• Potential to increase orebody dimensions and extend existing resource with down dip investigation and additional farm areas currently under application.


----------



## howardlian (31 March 2006)

thanks,  

Uranium Mkt EV's are around $2.65 - $5 for explorers with deposits and around $10 - $15 for producers per lb, where to find this information.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (31 March 2006)

Re Uranium Conference:

It would appear that hardly any of todays presenters are releasing presentation material, only one I saw was MDX, 








			
				howardlian said:
			
		

> thanks,
> 
> Uranium Mkt EV's are around $2.65 - $5 for explorers with deposits and around $10 - $15 for producers per lb, where to find this information.





Do some research, look through this thread and other Uranium Company threads, I know I have alread posted up this info and can't be bothered doing it again, so do some research!


----------



## MalteseBull (31 March 2006)

the raging bull must've died


----------



## IGO4IT (31 March 2006)

MalteseBull said:
			
		

> the raging bull must've died





I don't think it died, I think sh/holders couldn't believe themselves with the immediate demand & done the bugger all & just kept selling & this is what's stopping the market now from continuing, EVERYONE can't see a point of paying more since ONLY buyers are the ones seeing the U future potential while sellers are selling immediatly with whatever gain.

AEX & EXT both done great but look at them now after 2 days, sellers couldn't believe their eyes that they've made so much money in few days & were happy to keep selling.

imo, Demand is still out there but its very natural when buyers see sellers are happy to empty their bags with only an extra 0.5c then WHY would buyers pay an extra 1c for it?!! Would you buy now? any logical mind will wait until shares relax again & enter on cheaper prices.


----------



## nizar (31 March 2006)

MalteseBull said:
			
		

> the raging bull must've died




Uranium is currently in a bull market.

During a bull market, the stock/commodity/wateva doesn't run in a straight line forever. After a particularly strong run, there are always corrections, as traders/speculators lock in profits. This in turn, provides buying opportunities that will catalyse the next leg up.

Did u expect those U stocks to go 40-50% everyday forever without having a breather?

Lots of money to be made, but be careful, i wouldve want to be the one left holding the dogs when no1 else wants them...


----------



## nizar (31 March 2006)

IGO4IT said:
			
		

> I don't think it died, I think sh/holders couldn't believe themselves with the immediate demand & done the bugger all & just kept selling & this is what's stopping the market now from continuing, EVERYONE can't see a point of paying more since ONLY buyers are the ones seeing the U future potential while sellers are selling immediatly with whatever gain.
> 
> AEX & EXT both done great but look at them now after 2 days, sellers couldn't believe their eyes that they've made so much money in few days & were happy to keep selling.
> 
> imo, Demand is still out there but its very natural when buyers see sellers are happy to empty their bags with only an extra 0.5c then WHY would buyers pay an extra 1c for it?!! Would you buy now? any logical mind will wait until shares relax again & enter on cheaper prices.




Agree, too many day-traders in AEX and EXT especially that are capping a price. Quite a shame really.

U ask why would u buy now?

Well about 150million shares on EXT changed hands this week, so somebody was buying. Not me though.


----------



## michael_selway (31 March 2006)

nizar said:
			
		

> Agree, too many day-traders in AEX and EXT especially that are capping a price. Quite a shame really.
> 
> U ask why would u buy now?
> 
> Well about 150million shares on EXT changed hands this week, so somebody was buying. Not me though.




AEX's chart looks technically good, because its on the up, after a big fall till Jan 06

thx

MS


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (1 April 2006)

For the last 2 or so months I have been going on about Marathon Resources and their potential, 

I felt a bit better when a *Patersons * report named MTN as "the most compelling buy in the Uranium Sector"


I am now happy to add that *Fat Prophets* has joined the ranks,


I found this article in the weekend Australian which shows *Fat Prophets * are now backing Marathon as a clear favourite in the Uranium Sector, 



 WEALTH  


Resource minnows worth fishing for
Look beyond the majors for investment thrills, writes Robin Bromby
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

April 01, 2006 


Uranium has investors running hot at the moment, even though most of the projects are years away from production. 

Most analysts believe the uranium story has been overbought, but *Fat Prophets analyst Gavin Wendt has a clear favourite in Marathon Resources. *
*"The company is one of only a handful of Australian uranium hopefuls that, in our view, have a meaningful prospect of achieving mining status," says Wendt. *
The stock hit a new intraday high of $1.17 yesterday, about double what it was in February. 

*Wendt says two things differentiated Marathon from most uranium hopefuls.* First, it possessed a large identified resource; second, its resource was located in South Australia, a state sympathetic to uranium mining.


----------



## BraceFace (3 April 2006)

YOUNG_TRADER said:
			
		

> For the last 2 or so months I have been going on about Marathon Resources and their potential.





So did you buy some?
How much of a profit are you sitting on now % wise?
Where do you think this one is heading?


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (3 April 2006)

Brace check my posts in MTN,

But like I said its good to know that with Uranium Bull being called hype by some, 2 respected firms like Patersons and Fat Profits have called MTN a favourite (most compelling) buy,

Like I've been saying, don't be suprised to see a takeover bid if this companies mkt cap doesn't double at least (from here is $2+), its called arbitrage, what the mkt doesn't price in, a take over bid will.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (3 April 2006)

Peeps thought everyone would appreciate a price table I found on how Yellow Cake players went today, sorry that its not lining up properly hope it helps   

The 3rd No. is the % gain or less (if it helps to read it)

Stock ASX            Code Close ($) Change (cents) Change (%) Vol (M) VWAP 
Marathon Resources MTN 1.33               26.00         24.30     3.81   132.09 
Toro Energy Limited TOE 1.26                23.50         22.93     14.32 123.53 
Extract Resources EXT 0.14 2.00 17.39 57.23 13.15 
Bullion Minerals BLN 0.42 5.00 13.51 0.38 39.05 
OmegaCorp Limited OMC 0.56 6.00 12.00 2.68 55.94 
Compass Resources NL CMR 2.40 20.00 9.09 0.90 227.78 
Energy Metals Ltd EME 2.37 16.00 7.24 0.14 232.05 
Redport Limited RPT 0.15 1.00 7.14 41.90 15.25 
Nova Energy Limited NEL 1.85 9.00 5.11 0.35 186.30 
Summit Resources SMM 1.33 6.00 4.72 1.74 135.92 
Arafura Resources ARU 0.50 2.00 4.17 1.12 49.92 
Paladin Resources PDN 5.38 20.00 3.86 6.06 538.96 
Berkeley Resources BKY 0.89 3.00 3.51 1.89 87.66 
Heron Resources HRR 0.47 1.50 3.33 0.07 45.05 
Matrix Metals MRX 0.08 0.20 2.60 4.83 7.99 
Equinox Minerals Ltd EQN 1.89 3.50 1.89 0.22 188.36 
Giralia Resources NL GIR 0.33 0.50 1.54 0.47 33.03 
Alliance Resources AGS 0.45 0.00 0.00 1.64 47.01 
Sherlock Bay Nickel SHN 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 
Adelaide Resources ADN 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.14 46.72 
Range Resources Ltd RRS 0.04 -0.10 -2.27 10.48 4.36 
Deep Yellow Limited DYL 0.18 -0.50 -2.70 31.98 19.00 
Cazaly Resources CAZ 1.71 -6.50 -3.67 0.64 169.87 
Stellar Resources SRZ 0.52 -3.00 -5.50 1.08 55.15


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (3 April 2006)

Also a note of caution,

Fat Prophets senior resources analyst Gavin Wendt told MiningNews.net he believed the bulk of the material exported from Australia would be taken up by existing producers, namely BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto.

"There is a lot of hype around the sector at the moment and I don't think it's warranted, particularly at the junior end of the market," Wendt said.
"The market is really getting ahead of itself … and a lot of that is coming from the broking community, they're having a great time."

He said brokers were making hay while the sun shone on the uranium market.

"The broking community has clients that are trading uranium stocks … they don't want to pour cold water on that and … what broker doesn't want to get involved with the next uranium float?" Wendt said.




*Interesting to note that this is the same guy who believes that MTN is not all hype and offers a really good exposure to Uranium*

_Most analysts believe the uranium story has been overbought, but Fat Prophets analyst Gavin Wendt has a clear favourite in Marathon Resources. 
"The company is one of only a handful of Australian uranium hopefuls that, in our view, have a meaningful prospect of achieving mining status," says Wendt. 
The stock hit a new intraday high of $1.17 yesterday, about double what it was in February. 

Wendt says two things differentiated Marathon from most uranium hopefuls. First, it possessed a large identified resource; second, its resource was located in South Australia, a state sympathetic to uranium mining._


----------



## Goose (3 April 2006)

Yeah TOE - booming




			
				Yippyio said:
			
		

> FYI - Dines letter.
> 
> An interesting read.
> 
> ...


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (4 April 2006)

Good old Constitutional law comes to the resuce to do away with Labors tight arse views on Uranium Mining, here's to Australia, being the next Middle East for the new oil of the future, Yellow Cake!!!!!



> PM threatens ALP on China uranium deal
> Patrick Walters and Joseph Kerr
> April 04, 2006
> JOHN Howard has raised the prospect of using constitutional powers to override the states if future exports of uranium to China are jeopardised by Labor's three-mines policy.
> ...







> Yesterday's agreement for Australia to export uranium to China symbolises our role in the realignment of the world economy. In the new world, Australia will be more than ever a resource supplier, digging up minerals to fuel a global economy far, far larger than now.
> 
> *China will be at the centre of this new world, its largest economy, its largest population and, along with the US (and increasingly, India), its most influential power. How it develops, and the relationships it develops with the US, and with us, is perhaps the most important issue facing Australia's future.*
> 
> ...


----------



## tech/a (4 April 2006)

UNX have a look


----------



## Nicks (4 April 2006)

SRK - STRIKE RESOURCES - URANIUM + (IRON ORE ETC) UP 16% TODAY!!!! MORE ANNOUNCEMENTS COMING.


----------



## tech/a (4 April 2006)

tech/a said:
			
		

> UNX have a look





That was fun. 70.5-99c


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (5 April 2006)

Theres just no stopping it!


April 3, 2006*
*US$41.00/lb*
(+0.50)


----------



## tech/a (5 April 2006)

Nor UNX

Should have sold at open this morning.
That hindsite indicator just doesnt cut it!


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (5 April 2006)

Looks like a day of profit taking,

I strongly believe that it will become a good time to buy up those Uranium Companies that get sold down simply because the sector is doing profit taking,

My picks are AEX, AGS, ARU, BKY, DYL, EME, MTN, NEL, OMC, UNX

Try and look at which companies look the most attractive given their deposit size and current mkt caps,

As for the explorers, UXA would look good around 35-40c level


----------



## Bobby (5 April 2006)

tech/a said:
			
		

> Nor UNX
> 
> Should have sold at open this morning.
> That hindsite indicator just doesnt cut it!




Hello Tech,
I bought these in mid Jan but sold soon after-Bugger  .

When did you get yours ?.

Congratulations anyway, wow what a Skyrocket !.

Bob.


----------



## tech/a (5 April 2006)

Yesterday loaded in during pre close of announcement.

In and out in a few hrs.
Every now and then one like this comes along.

Plenty who bought at open would not be happy.
While the announcement was good news it is nothing more than a letter of intent.


----------



## travcorp (5 April 2006)

I reckon buy MTN, lots of potential there and results due soon.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (5 April 2006)

travcorp said:
			
		

> I reckon buy MTN, lots of potential there and results due soon.




x2


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (5 April 2006)

Anyone here a Fat Prophets subscriber?

If so have the published a report on MTN yet?
 ie what exactly does Gavin Wendt think?

Most analysts believe the uranium story has been overbought, but Fat Prophets analyst Gavin Wendt has a clear favourite in Marathon Resources. 
"The company is one of only a handful of Australian uranium hopefuls that, in our view, have a meaningful prospect of achieving mining status," says Wendt. 
The stock hit a new intraday high of $1.17 yesterday, about double what it was in February. 

Wendt says two things differentiated Marathon from most uranium hopefuls. First, it possessed a large identified resource; second, its resource was located in South Australia, a state sympathetic to uranium mining.


----------



## champ2003 (6 April 2006)

Hi Young Trader,

What you've said is almost exactly what Fat Prophets has said. They are very bullish on MTN and they plan on keeping it strongly held in their portfolio.

Cheers!


----------



## champ2003 (6 April 2006)

P.s. i'm not a member. I just heard it from a friend of a friend. 

Cheers!


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (6 April 2006)

Hey Champ, thanks for that,


I do have some specific questions
Did they have a target price in mind?
A Catalyst? ie drilling results
Do they agree with my EV per lb metrics?
Do they think it is a very likely takeover target given it has the lowest EV per lb metrics by far?

It would be nice if a fat prophets member could answer as many of these as possible it would be really appreciated.


----------



## powerkoala (6 April 2006)

What about EME? Fall down from 2.70 to 1.935. Lot correction in there.
Is it good time to buy this baby?


----------



## powerkoala (6 April 2006)

Good news for uranium,

0306 GMT [Dow Jones] Australian PM Howard gives strongest sign yet Australia's
uranium may be sold to India, even though country hasn't signed nuclear
nonproliferation treaty. Calling for end to Labor states' 'no new mines' uranium
policy, Howard tells ABC Radio in Perth: "We have a historic opportunity,
because of the emergence of China - and perhaps also India can come into this -
to sell our resources, including uranium, to these rapidly developing countries
that will form, or contribute, the bulk of the world's middle classes by 2010".
Howard has previously there's no current plan to alter his government's uranium
policy that restricts sales to NPT signatories. (BBA) 

Hope this will make the bull run wild again


----------



## kgee (6 April 2006)

Hi. I've been a member of fat prophets for about 3 months now, their initial buy recommendation was at .72 and their 2nd at 1.07....most of the reasons why they like it have been discussed, particularly their low market cap vs resources and the fact they're in SA.
I wrote to Gavin querying the debate that mining may never occur because of conservation concerns....his reply was that he wasn't aware of any concerns and would investigate....after that their 2nd report came out with the buy up to $1.07.
I have written to MTN with this query and have yet to hear back but will follow it up with a phone call next week if I haven't heard back.

On another subject fat prophets also made a buy rec on EDN which I have bought into and was thinking of starting a thread on...its a small diamond company that is about to produce it's first diamonds from their mining operation in Brazill....I sold a 1/3d of my stock yesterday but will re enter @.46-.48
I'm quite optimistic about this one but a little worried my portfolio is looking like a magpai's lair


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (6 April 2006)

kgee said:
			
		

> Hi. I've been a member of fat prophets for about 3 months now, their initial buy recommendation was at .72 and their 2nd at 1.07




So thats why there was alot of volume sitting @ $1.07 waiting to buy,

Makes sense now, I was thinking why $1.07, why not $1.10 or $1.15 ie round numbers,

Is Gavin waiting for drilling results?
ie did the report say anything about upcoming drillling etc?
This is good to know, I definately think once their results are out and new JORC we will see $2+

In any event I have always stated that this is a very attractive takeover target @ these prices and I think the Hawks like Mega, Laramide and UEX Corp are watching, waiting to swoop


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (7 April 2006)

Uranium bulls take a look at my post on BKY,

Be interested to know what you guys think of my Take Over theory


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (8 April 2006)

As the Honeymoon night draws near, can't help but feel a bit nervous and anxious.


Heres to a new era!


http://www.theage.com.au/news/natio...oon-may-be-over/2006/04/07/1143916721691.html


----------



## Dollarman (8 April 2006)

Yes, and the list goes on. Any mine must be supported with something e.g. gold mining. History shows all good things come to an end. Need to do homework as to what are good bad ugly mines. Not many uranium mines in production. My thoughts are to keep a keen eye - don't want to be left holding candle. Only an opinion - need to do own research.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (11 April 2006)

*Good to know that my views are shared by others, but they are seriously overlooking BKY!!!!!*


Uranium hopefuls
CRITERION
Tim Boreham 
April 11, 2006
THE current valuations being ascribed to even the most rag-tag uranium hopefuls might look reasonable in a decade's time. But it's just as likely that we've solved the Middle East's woes and sent a man to Mars by then as well.
The truth is: even if another ripper uranium resource is proved up, there's bugger-all prospect of an Australian mine being built (and approvals granted) in that period. 

While the world will clamour for more uranium, shorter-term demand is likely to be satisfied by known new mines and existing projects, such as BHP Billiton's Olympic Dam. 

Even Rio Tinto's Leigh Clifford - who's now known for pontificating on commodity prices - warns the current $US40 a pound uranium price - which has almost doubled in the past year - cannot be sustained. 

He notes the planned new nuclear power plants - such as the 40 slated by the Chinese - could take a decade to fire up. 

Clifford's salient warning is supported by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural & Resource Economics, which forecasts a modest 1 per cent per annum uptick in uranium demand over the next five years. 

ABARE forecasts that the value of Australia's uranium exports will decline to $521 million by 2010-11, compared with $712 million in 2005-06. 

"Despite recent significant increases in expenditure on uranium exploration, uranium production over the outlook period is expected to be largely dictated by production from existing operations," ABARE says. 

While there's a big global supply/demand gap, the void is filled by recycling material from decommissioned bombs and reprocessing spent fuel. 

There's also new production this year: Paladin Resources' Langer Heinrich project in Namibia (1180 tonnes per year) and the Zarechnoye mine in Kazakhstan (590 tonnes). 

Next year, it's Southern Cross Resources' Dominion project in South Africa (1800 tonnes), while Cameco (the world's biggest producer) is expanding output at its existing Cigar Lake operation in Canada. 

As with all manias, investors are spoiled for choice in terms of options to do their dough. At least 40 listed miners claim a uranium exposure. Dozens have packaged up their uranium tenements (or, strictly speaking, patches of dirt where uranium might reside) and flogged them off. 

Oxiana, for instance, spun off Toro Resources (TOE) at 20c on March 24. Toro only yesterday announced the start of its drilling program, but that didn't stop the stock leaping to a high of $1.60 in late March. TOE stock yesterday closed 5.5c better at $1.22. 

The uranium mania has been fuelled by political developments which look promising, but might be red herrings more than anything. 

First, Labor's likely rethink on its "three mines" stance could remove a 20-year impediment to the sector's development. Labor governs in the relevant states of South Australia, Western Australia and Queensland, but expect them to handpass the hot potato into the calloused hands of their federal comrades. 

Criterion suspects Labor's policy will change, given Australia has $32 billion of current uranium reserves. Alternatively, Labor is likely to be voted out of office in at least one of these states over the next decade, with Queensland looking the most vulnerable. 

In the shorter term, it's more important for miners to prove up a resource for the politicians and greenies to argue over. 

Uranium enthusiasts have also been heartened by the feds' agreement with China, to allow the Chinese to buy yellowcake and explore for the stuff here. 

Hmm, very promising. But once again, the existing mines will fill the short-term demand. China did sign an exploration deal with Uranium Exploration (UNX), but there's more than a sneaking suspicion it's more interested in Uranex's Tanzanian ground. 

*Criterion ascribes a SELL recommendation to a whole sector: uranium explorers with no proven resources and little hope of achieving production. 

It's a bit tough to tar all the players with the "overvalued" brush, but the valuations look crazy. At the very least, there's no way of knowing whether they're ridiculous or not. 

Examples are Toro, UNX (38.5c), Nova Energy (NEL, $1.74), Encounter Resources (ENR, 60.5C) and Globe Uranium (GBE, 55c).  * 

Paladin (PDN) should make good money from Langer Heinrich and its Malawi project will probably get off the ground. 

But Paladin's market cap stands at $2.1 billion: more than the value ascribed to the Seven Network, Unitab, Dyno Nobel or the soon-to-be-producing Bendigo Mining. 

*A handful are worthy of a SPECULATIVE BUY. Summit Resources (SMM) has a proven ore body at its Mt Isa project: 22,100 tonnes of "measured and indicated resources". It's the local deposit most likely to be developed. 

Marathon Resources (MTN, $1.07) has 33,000 tonnes of inferred resources at its Mt Gee tenement in the Flinders Ranges. 

"Marathon Resources appears to be in the right place at the right time," says stock-picker Fat Prophets. 

Another investor says: "Marathon has run ahead of itself. Needs to do more work." 

Compass Resources (CMR, $2.35) also earns Brownie points for looking in the right place: the Rum Jungle field in the Northern Territory, which supplied Cold War uranium to the British and Americans before being forgotten for four decades. 

Monaro Resources (MRO $1.06) is taking a different tack and looking to the Kyrgyz Republic, Russia's traditional source of uranium. 

Monaro is still setting up, but boasts the biggest acreage in the consonant-rich republic. As well as being deficient in vowels, Kyrgyz also lacks the usual pesky environmental standards and red tape. *  

Alternatively, investors could forget about the blue sky and stick with ERA, the only dedicated uranium producer. 

The trouble is, ERA's output is subject to long-term contracts well below current spot prices. Over time, these contracts will be rewritten at higher prices, so uranium's old-timer will be able to join the party. 

ERA shares look fully valued at $15 but we rate them a LONG-TERM BUY. 

Criterion subscribes to uranium watcher (and Monaro chairman) Warwick Grigor's view that investors should hold back for more drilling results. 

His rule of thumb is that anyone with a 1000-tonne plus resource is worth a look at. 

Grigor believes uranium is not just a cyclical play, but will benefit from sustained long-term energy demand. 

The world certainly can't rely on wind farms if those orange-bellied parrots keep flying in the way. 

Grigor adds: "I think the sector needs to play it cool for a little while." Indeed. 

borehamt@theaustralian.com.au 

The Australian accepts no responsibility for stock recommendations. Readers should contact a licensed financial adviser. The author does not hold shares in the above-mentioned companies.


----------



## noirua (11 April 2006)

http://info.moneyweek.com/article.php?p_id=1781


----------



## Fab (11 April 2006)

I am interested a company that does nuclear waste storage. Can anyone advise on this?


----------



## noirua (11 April 2006)

Fab said:
			
		

> I am interested a company that does nuclear waste storage. Can anyone advise on this?




Waste Storage is one of the most talked about subjects in Australia, mostly behind the scenes. Political parties try to hide this from the Australian people. Several hundred sites store waste materials, many of these in Towns and Cities. Plans are to store at Olympic Dam and to make South Australia the main dumping ground. Some storage is known to be illegal and much is kept secret.

Worldwide, the following companies are involved in waste storage: Silex, Pangea, Xcel Energy, Amec, Nucem GmbH, British Nuclear Fuels, Entergy Gp, Southern Electric, Florida Power and Light, Ansaido Nucleare, Areva, Belgoprocess, Cogemalogistics ...


----------



## michael_selway (12 April 2006)

noirua said:
			
		

> Waste Storage is one of the most talked about subjects in Australia, mostly behind the scenes. Political parties try to hide this from the Australian people. Several hundred sites store waste materials, many of these in Towns and Cities. Plans are to store at Olympic Dam and to make South Australia the main dumping ground. Some storage is known to be illegal and much is kept secret.
> 
> Worldwide, the following companies are involved in waste storage: Silex, Pangea, Xcel Energy, Amec, Nucem GmbH, British Nuclear Fuels, Entergy Gp, Southern Electric, Florida Power and Light, Ansaido Nucleare, Areva, Belgoprocess, Cogemalogistics ...




What about TPI?

thx

MS


----------



## laurie (12 April 2006)

Fab said:
			
		

> I am interested a company that does nuclear waste storage. Can anyone advise on this?






> As an alternative to investing in uranium, you may prefer nuclear engineering companies such as France's Areva (004524, Paris), the world's biggest. Last year it had sales of $8bn from mining uranium, designing power plants and processing nuclear waste. It is 95% owned by the French government, with the remaining 5% in non-voting shares listed on the Paris bourse. It has the political advantage of not being American, British or Japanese, which puts it in the best position to profit from China's huge programme of nuclear plants.




cheers laurie


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (13 April 2006)

BKY has seen good consolidation, I still think that given its resource in Spain, its JV with Areva and its backing by London + Swiss Insto's it will be the next listed Uranium Company into production, 

Only other companies that stand a chance of getting into production are 

EME (has finance and JV support from Lara a huge Canadian U company, but needs bigger deposit, at least 3-4x current)

EXT in Nambia but needs a resource first!

OMC in South Africa (but needs larger size deposit with better grades, not to mention financial backing from a big insto as well as technical JV support from a major) 


Remember think long term, ie PDN went from $10m to $2b in 4 years, 
Who will be next?


----------



## michael_selway (13 April 2006)

YOUNG_TRADER said:
			
		

> BKY has seen good consolidation, I still think that given its resource in Spain, its JV with Areva and its backing by London + Swiss Insto's it will be the next listed Uranium Company into production,
> 
> Only other companies that stand a chance of getting into production are
> 
> ...




Hi do u like these? UNX, KAL, AEX?

thx

MS


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (15 April 2006)

Re Worlds biggest Uranium Deposits, if you have JORC ann's which show another deposit that belongs in here please add to post, also some of these deposits have probably been increased (my data is 3 months old) so please feel free to post up, 

1. BHP's Olympic Dam South Aust 1,410,000 U308

2. Cameco's McArthur River in Canada 246,015 U3O8 

3. ERA/RIO's Jabiluka N.T. Aust 163,013 U308

4. Aflease's Dominion Reef in South Africa 161,200 U3O8

5. Cameco's Cigar Lake in Canada 158,584 U3O8

6. ERA/RIO's Ranger N.T. Aust 72,051 U3O8

7. BHP's Yeelirrie W.A. Aust 52,500 U3O8

8. Rio's Rossing in Nambia 45,500 U3O8
PDN's Langer Hienrich Namibia 45,000 U3O8

9. Rio's Kintyre W.A. Aust 34,925

*10. MTN's Mt Gee S.A Aust 33,000 t U3O8*


----------



## 56gsa (15 April 2006)

Of the U hopefuls who do you think will be next into production?

EQN in Zambia closest but are focusing on the copper resource

With BKY I noticed they only have $2m net assets and can't find any releases of reserves/resources since they bought Spanish leases last year... this would seem to be a fair way off ?

PNN have done review of operational feasibility at their deposit (approx 6kt) in SA which concluded they needed more resource and 15mths for approvals (incl SA Govt) - they also need a funder

Advantage AGS have is they have agreement with Heathgate affiliate and the large deposit (33kt) is very near (less than 5km) Heathgate's existing Beverley mine - they will be drilling 06-07 but if all goes well and SA govt approves could be operation 08?

AEX , MTN need financier - MTN is potential takeover - AEX deposit also have 2.5Moz gold which would help their cause

QLD (SMM, VUL) & WA (RPT,NEL) deposits less likely given politics?

DYL, ARU, EME in NT seem too small to be viable (less than 6kt).

any others??
________________

PS I hold AGS & MTN, wathcing PNN & AEX

Go you HAWKS!


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (18 April 2006)

Re BKY look harder, see ASX release 26/08/05

Also is based on broker research on uranium stocks @ resource capital research,  I can't upload file is too large, go to there web page and have a look http://rcresearch.com.au/documents/  under BKY dec 2005

In any event someone bought 1m shares @ $1.15 pre-market, more hoarding going on? Was a $1,150,000 transaction,


Remember my call the next one into production or takeover which ever happens first


----------



## michael_selway (18 April 2006)

YOUNG_TRADER said:
			
		

> Re BKY look harder, see ASX release 26/08/05
> 
> Also is based on broker research on uranium stocks @ resource capital research,  I can't upload file is too large, go to there web page and have a look http://rcresearch.com.au/documents/  under BKY dec 2005
> 
> ...




Hi in teh event of a takeover/production

how much do u think BKY can go in the ST?

thx

MS


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (18 April 2006)

Who knows Michael? 

But I would be happy with $1.80 - $2


----------



## nizar (18 April 2006)

michael_selway said:
			
		

> Hi in teh event of a takeover/production
> 
> how much do u think BKY can go in the ST?
> 
> ...




To look at what can happen to a company sp under take-over, have a look at HMR and TYC - now smile


----------



## Fab (18 April 2006)

U308 IPO has been over subscribed and closed earlier on the 13/04. Is there any other uranium IPO planned in the near future ?


----------



## 56gsa (18 April 2006)

BTV announced 4 April 06 it was divesting its uranium tenements in NT at a date to be decided, with BTV shareholders getting priority.  I have no idea of quality of or drilling on these tenements.


----------



## nizar (18 April 2006)

Fab said:
			
		

> U308 IPO has been over subscribed and closed earlier on the 13/04. Is there any other uranium IPO planned in the near future ?




This should at least double on open


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (19 April 2006)

Looks like the market thinks I'm right with BKY, its moved up to $1.35 on strength,


The next PDN is on its way!


----------



## michael_selway (19 April 2006)

YOUNG_TRADER said:
			
		

> Looks like the market thinks I'm right with BKY, its moved up to $1.35 on strength,
> 
> 
> The next PDN is on its way!




hehe who else has potential to be the next PDN?

thx

MS


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (19 April 2006)

In my opinion any Uranium Company operating outside of Australia has the potential,

ie BKY, AEX, EXT, OMC, UNX (there are others)

But what sets BKY apart is its deposits, totaling nearly 30,000t, they are of good grade (0.06% - 0.09%)

They have financial backing form London and Swiss Institutions

And they have the strong technical assistance from JV partner (For now partner, owner someday soon  ) Areva!


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (19 April 2006)

I should add I still think MTN is the most undervalued per lb Uranium Play on ASX, but I doubt it will get into production before the other companies operating outside of Australia,


----------



## Aden_1 (19 April 2006)

Watch KAL in the next week...

They are Divesting a big uranium play, they are in advanced negotiations with a company that has made an offer. The directors expect the deal to be complete this week. With an announcement to follow...

Not to mention they also do the following,
> Gold
> Base Metals
> Oil
> Gas

At 23c - Huge value.
http://www.kalgoorlieboulderres.com.au/


----------



## Fab (20 April 2006)

What about SMM ? It has been doing very well recently.


----------



## powerkoala (25 April 2006)

Hi all,
Do you think bulls are leaving uranium stocks or they just taking breather ?
This can be seen with most uranium stocks are going south this past week..
MTN,TOE,BKY,GBE,UNX,etc
Any idea when the bulls will visit again ?


----------



## nizar (25 April 2006)

powerkoala said:
			
		

> Hi all,
> Do you think bulls are leaving uranium stocks or they just taking breather ?
> This can be seen with most uranium stocks are going south this past week..
> MTN,TOE,BKY,GBE,UNX,etc
> Any idea when the bulls will visit again ?




no idea

but i do know this: if u hold anything for long enough, it returns to its intrinsic value

do any of those companies mentioned actually have a uranium resource?


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (26 April 2006)

*UK brokerage still sees life in uranium explorers
By: Gareth Tredway
Posted: '25-APR-06 13:14' GMT  © Mineweb 1997-2004



JOHANNESBURG (Mineweb.com) -- The astounding value gain over the last few years in junior uranium stocks has been phenomenal as shares have tracked a booming uranium price. Now, a research report out from brokerage Hargreaves-Hale in the UK suggests there is more upside. 

For example South Africa’s, sxr Uranium One, formerly Aflease, has risen from a low of about R0.90 a share back in the middle of 2004, to the equivalent of R10.44 a share now, an increase of 1,060%. 

As part of its merger with Southern Cross in Canada last year, Aflease shares were consolidated at 0.18 Uranium One share for each Aflease share owned. Now, the current price is about C$10.56 a share, or R58 apiece in Johannesburg. 

Hargreave-Hale calls the share a BUY, with a target price of C$16.77 a share (R88.88 each). The firm calculates a forward P/E of 21.6 in 2007 and 9.2 in 2008, using the current share price. 

Uranium One is one of the closer to production explorers along with Paladin Resources, which is building a mine in Namibia. The company is currently trading at about C$4.31 a share; Hargreave sees upside to about C$4.67 a share. 

The uranium price, according to the Ux Consulting website (http://www.uxc.com/review/uxc_prices.html), has gone up from just over $6/lb in five years ago, to its current $41/lb. 

With the main driver being the growth in nuclear energy power expected to increase over the next few decades, and supply struggling to keep up. 

The supply/demand fundamentals are so much in the producer’s favour that even consumers of uranium are calling for higher prices. According to Jaco Kriek, head of The Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) the utility industry could absorb higher prices. 

“If you look at the price of uranium or the uranium fuel itself, it actually has a very small impact on the ultimate cost of electricity that’s generated by a nuclear plant,” said Kriek on Mineweb radio (http://www.mineweb.net/radio/mineweb_radio/263149.htm) on Friday, “So you can even double the price of uranium and the cost of electricity will only go up by about 5%. Obviously in future with the huge demand that we foresee for uranium, there will hopefully not be a huge increase, and it will hopefully recover when people find more viable mines for uranium – in other words, when they start to explore for uranium, because that’s up to now not really been done.” 

Speaking in the same interview, Neal Froneman, Uranium One’s chief executive says the selling price could already be higher. “And I dare say that the uranium industry, being as small and as tight as it is, they are responsibly managing that spot price. I certainly believe the actual price of uranium is significantly higher. There is certainly a lot of indication of longer-term contracts being placed well in the $50s now.” 

Froneman even talks of reports pointing at prices of over seven times higher than they are now. “We are not quite sure where it will overshoot to. We read reports of $50 a pound by the end of the year. As I say, I think we are already there it is just a bit masked. I have read credible reports of $300 a pound.” 

While all commodities are reaching multi-decade highs at the moment, some feel uranium will be one of those that will keep going the longest. Wayne McCurrie, managing director of Advantage Asset Managers, says: “I truly believe that this uranium thing – this time around it's different, and I think the oil price at $70-plus, the environmental damage – nuclear energy is clean and it's comparatively cheap. And I think this is literally the next one of these long-cycle things.” 

Other notable mentions in Hargreave-Hale’s report include Australian listed OmegaCorp and Berkeley Resources. In Canada the brokerage expects companies like Aurora Energy, and International Uranium Corporation to still have upside. *


----------



## nizar (29 April 2006)

YT nice to see OMC got a mention as well 



> Even though the price of uranium has rapidly ascended of recent, $40 uranium may seem cheap years down the road.




http://news.goldseek.com/Zealllc/1146241614.php


----------



## greggy (6 May 2006)

I feel that the uranium sector is going through a period of profit-taking.  This has given me the chance to buy some Intermet Resources (ITT).  All of its lease are in SA and the company was the uranium spin off from Hilgrove Resources.  The stock seems cheap at 25c and is drilling for uranium this month at its Watson Project. Any thoughts? As always, do your own research before buying.


----------



## noirua (10 May 2006)

Everything looks set fair for Aussie sales of Uranium ( providing NSW and Western Australia Governments change their tack. ) : http://uranium.getfast.info/uranium/index.asp


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (10 May 2006)

WOW what a jump in spot price, its been rising by 25c -50c for past few months, this was $1.25 jump!!!


*
May 8, 2006*
US$42.75/lb
(+1.25)*


----------



## greggy (10 May 2006)

$1.25 jump! Wow, that's a hell of a jump.  I noticed in the last couple of days, a few of the uranium stocks are starting to move up again, including Torro Energy and Encounter.  Even Intermet Resources (the Hillgrove uranium spin off)  has moved up 2 cents today to 26c.  Uranium is a cleaner energy than oil and will no doubt one day be the main source of fuel.
As ALWAYS, DO YOR OWN RESEARCH BEFORE BUYING.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (12 May 2006)

I didn't realise but we are in ongoing discussions with the Indians re exporting our Uranium to them, see the attached articles, I thought it was a closed issue for now, but there were meetings last week


Australia insists it has no plans to sell uranium to India  

5/12/2006  

          SYDNEY, MAY 11 (AP): Foreign Minister Alexander Downer insisted Thursday that Australia had no plans to start selling uranium to India and dismissed a newspaper report that officials from both countries were trying to strike an export deal.
India is keen to import Australian uranium to fuel its nuclear power reactors and appealed to Prime Minister John Howard during his visit to New Delhi earlier this year.
But Howard's government has a long standing policy of refusing to supply countries that have not signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and India is not a signatory.
According to a newspaper report Thursday, senior Australian diplomats met with Indian counterparts in New Delhi last week and discussed how Australia may agree to lift its ban if India agreed to strict safeguards, as China had done in a deal signed last month.
The deal with Beijing clears the way for uranium exports worth billions of dollars. In return, China, which has signed the NPT, pledged not to divert Australian nuclear fuel into its atomic weapons program.
Citing unnamed Australian government sources, The Australian newspaper said Canberra would require India to agree to inspections of its nuclear facilities by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
"Our position hasn't changed," Downer told reporters Thursday. "I've checked that out with the officials, because the newspaper report surprised me, and the officials have assured me that that's not correct."
He confirmed that officials had traveled to New Delhi, but said India had made it clear it had no intention in the foreseeable future of signing the NPT. India has refused to sign the treaty, saying it restricts nuclear weapons to a few countries rather than eliminates them completely.
"Now, our policy has always been that we'd be prepared to negotiate nuclear safeguards agreements with countries that have signed up to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty," he said. "We've not indicated to the Indians any planned change to that position."  





Australia Has No Plans to Sell Uranium to India, Downer Says 
May 11 (Bloomberg) -- Australia isn't planning to sell uranium to India until it signs the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said. 

``That is our position and we've not indicated to the Indians any planned change to that position,'' Downer told reporters today in Canberra. 

The Australian newspaper said today the government will sell uranium to India even if it refuses to sign the treaty. ``Officials have assured me that that's not correct,'' Downer said. Talks were held in the Indian capital New Delhi last week, the newspaper said, citing sources it didn't name. 

Australia's government, which last month signed an agreement to export uranium to China, wants to expand mining of the nuclear fuel to tap rising global energy demands. It has 41 percent of the world's uranium reserves, though only meets 21 percent of demand, partly due to mining bans by state governments. 

India is a declared nuclear power that first tested atomic weapons in 1974. It has never signed the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty, which subjects countries to international oversight of their nuclear programs.


----------



## Sean K (12 May 2006)

Labor States will only allow mining of the stuff when the national Labor policy is changed. This is only likely to occur if the States all want it to change. 

Why not do it at next years national conference? Because the big coal mining lobby believes opening up uranium mining will eat into their tidy monopoly on energy production. 

Forget the old Cold War mentality of uranium being the death of the planet through MAD. It's only the far left tree hugging greens who really believe this any more. More people have died in coal mining than through uranium production. (excluding the dropping of large bombs)

However, when the general mining boom starts slipping, when supply catches up with demand, then they'll have to find something else to dig up to take all those juicy taxes.  

And there's billions of dollars of it, sitting just under the surface, saying 'mine me. Please!'.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (18 May 2006)

The nuclear/uranium arena looks set to heat up again (pardon the pun)

It seems labour is having a party meeting next month and almost @ the top of the agenda is Aus Uranium Mining, also that other Company (non-listed foreign) in S.A. with the mine, beverley or honeymoon can't remember which one, is set to give go ahead decision in June/July

And finally it seems Tony Blair wants to ramp of Nuke energy in Britain





Blair turns N-power switch to go
Peter Wilson, Europe correspondent 
May 18, 2006
TONY Blair wants to build a new generation of British nuclear power plants, providing another lucrative market for Australian uranium exports.
The British Prime Minister made it clear yesterday he planned to revive his country's 50-year-old nuclear power industry, which had been due to start shutting down in the next few years. 

Australia's uranium miners, with 40per cent of the world's known reserves, are best placed to provide yellowcake to Britain, which joins China, India and possibly Indonesia as potentially lucrative new export markets. 

Green groups reacted furiously to Mr Blair's declaration yesterday that the replacement of Britain's ageing nuclear power plants was back on the agenda "with a vengeance". 

Pre-empting a review of national energy needs commissioned by his Government, Mr Blair said the nuclear option was crucial to securing new power supplies while keeping Britain's promise to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming. 

Mr Blair had previously identified the future of the nuclear industry as one of the long-term challenges he wanted to resolve before stepping down as Prime Minister before the next general election, due in 2010, but yesterday he removed any doubt about his willingness to renew the nuclear option. 

"If we do not take these long-term decisions now, we will be committing a serious dereliction of our duty to the future of this country," the Prime Minister told a dinner meeting of British business leaders. 

Mr Blair's intentions to go nuclear were signalled before his speech, when his official spokesman predicted his comments would provoke "despairing shrieks of outrage". 

Many Labour MPs and environmental groups fiercely oppose an extension of the nuclear power industry, but Mr Blair has the support of his cabinet on the issue and is clearly willing to take on any critics of his decision. 

His long-serving Environment Secretary, Margaret Beckett, was sceptical about nuclear power, but Mr Blair moved her to the Foreign Office two weeks ago and replaced her with one of his strongest supporters, David Miliband, who has already professed "an open mind" on the construction of new nuclear power plants. 

Mr Blair's expected successor, Chancellor Gordon Brown, also supports new power stations, so the mainly left-wing MPs who oppose nuclear power have little chance of prevailing. 

Greenpeace director Stephen Tindale said Mr Blair's decision made a farce of the energy review he set up last November, which is not due to report its findings for another two months. 

"The Prime Minister obviously made up his mind about nuclear power some time ago," he said. 

Mr Blair said tough choices were inevitable, because the run-down of Britain's North Sea gasfields and the imminent closure of most of its nuclear and many of its coal-fired power plants coincided with record high prices for oil and gas and the search for ways to reduce carbon emissions. "We will move from 80 or 90per cent self-reliance on gas to 80 or 90 per cent dependency on foreign imports, mostly from the Middle East, Africa and Russia," he said. 

Those stark facts "put the replacement of nuclear power stations, a big push on renewables and a steep change on energy efficiency, engaging both business and consumers, back on the agenda with a vengeance". 

Mr Blair's decision is a major turnaround for Britain - where no new nuclear plants have been ordered for almost 20 years - and for Europe. 

Outside nuclear-keen France, a reactor in Finland is the only nuclear plant to be commissioned in Europe in the past 20 years, and Germany has pledged to shut down all its nuclear reactors by 2020. 

Almost all of Britain's current nuclear plants will be decommissioned by 2020, but if they are replaced there is plenty of potential for Britain to increase its reliance on nuclear energy. 

Nuclear power provides 19 per cent of Britain's electricity, which is about the same proportion as in the US on 20 per cent, but well down on European Union countries such as France (78 per cent), Lithuania (72 per cent), Belgium and Slovakia (55 per cent), Sweden (52 per cent) and Germany (28 per cent).


----------



## noirua (18 May 2006)

After reading Y_T's post, I hope UXA find some uranium soon.

 Tony Blair, is said to be on the ropes in the UK with his Government under pressure. He said he was going to go and give way to Chancellor Gordon Brown, but is now hanging on. His deputy was having an affair with his Secretary, whilst his wife was waiting downstairs, and that all took place in his office. Two other ministers have been dumped, one for telling everyone Iran was about to threaten with nuclear bombs and the other because he let illegal immigrants stay when they should have been deported, after being released from prison, then he did not have any idea how many there were or what had happened to them.

Tony Blair probably wants to dump the used uranium and why not send it back on the ships that bring it.


----------



## chemist (18 May 2006)

kennas said:
			
		

> Labor States will only allow mining of the stuff when the national Labor policy is changed. This is only likely to occur if the States all want it to change.
> 
> Why not do it at next years national conference? Because the big coal mining lobby believes opening up uranium mining will eat into their tidy monopoly on energy production.
> 
> ...




Moron Beattie was quoted not long ago as being against a change in the ALP policy because uranium mining might "distract" from coal mining   

It's a pity far sighted men like Peter haven't been more common in Australia's political history. We've already made the mistake of letting gas exports distract us from coal, not to mention cotton distracting us from wool, aluminium distracting us from iron, wine distracting us from beer, and diamonds distracting us from opals.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200603/s1593007.htm

cheers,
Chemist


----------



## Smurf1976 (18 May 2006)

This "running out of gas" is something we'll be hearing a LOT more of in the future as demand surges and discovery slips further behind production. 

The rational choices for electricity generation are thus only those options which are not oil or natural gas. A point to remember next time you hear someone trumping up the "benefits" of gas - it's an increasingly scarce and expensive resouce worth more as export $ than as a domestic replacement for coal. At some point we'll likely see "import parity pricing" for Australian gas with those prices ultimately set by Russia and OPEC.  

In simpler terms, the gas industry has followed the oil industry since the early 20th century and is still doing so. No reason to stop now.


----------



## RichKid (18 May 2006)

chemist said:
			
		

> Moron Beattie was quoted not long ago as being against a change in the ALP policy because uranium mining might "distract" from coal mining
> 
> It's a pity far sighted men like Peter haven't been more common in Australia's political history. We've already made the mistake of letting gas exports distract us from coal, not to mention cotton distracting us from wool, aluminium distracting us from iron, wine distracting us from beer, and diamonds distracting us from opals.
> 
> ...




I don't know the detail of this debate but that was one great quip at the end there chemist!


----------



## Sean K (19 May 2006)

*Nuclear power inevitable say PM*

CANBERRA (Dow Jones)--Australian Prime Minister John Howard Friday said he
believed it was inevitable his nation would eventually have some form of nuclear power. 
  "I think it is inevitable," Howard told Melbourne 3AW Radio from Ottowa,
Canada. 
  "The time at which it will come should be governed by economic considerations. Clearly the environmental advantages of nuclear power are there for all to see."

  Howard has previously said nuclear power is not yet economically viable in
Australia because of its coal reserves. 

  Australia, which last year produced about one-fifth of the world's uranium
output, at present exports all the uranium produced by the country's three
mines.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (1 June 2006)

SXR's Honeymoon mine will get decision fromS.A in June/July could cause another mass surge in Uranium,

Also interesting article,



*


Indian company plans $1.2bn spend on uranium 

MUMBAI: India’s nuclear power company plans to spend $1.2bn on a stake in a uranium mine to support an expanded atomic power programme, entering international bidding for the reactor fuel by nations including China and Japan. * 

Nuclear Power Corp of India approached Australian and Canadian companies on a possible joint venture in uranium mining, Chairman S K Jain said, without naming them. India may compete with China for deposits of the metal, he said. 
“Many uranium mines are not being fully exploited today’’ and they will be expanded because of demand from India and China, Jain said in a phone interview from Mumbai on May 24. “This may lead to a temporary peaking in uranium prices.’’
The uranium is needed to run about 28 reactors that India plans to build after the US and other countries end an international embargo on the sale of atomic technology to the world’s second-fastest-growing major economy.  India has doubled its nuclear power generation target to 40,000MW by 2020. 
Prices for uranium, used to generate about 16% of the world’s electricity, have gained about 80% in the past year as demand from utilities rises faster than output. Uranium for immediate delivery was last priced at $43 a pound on May 26, according to Metal Bulletin. 
Higher oil, gas, and coal prices and new controls on emissions have prompted utilities to build nuclear reactors. More than $200bn may be spent on the plants worldwide by 2030, according to the International Energy Agency in Paris.
*India is planning to spend as much as $40bn over the next 16 years to buy nuclear reactors * from suppliers such as France’s Areva SA, Electricite de France and US-based General Electric Co and Westinghouse Electric Co, Jain said in an earlier interview on May 16. 
Nuclear Power Corp is seeking a joint venture in which the state-owned company and the foreign partner will each invest $200mn and $800mn will come from loans, Jain said. “We are looking at investments of $1.2bn per mine.’’ 
*The cost of acquiring energy resources has risen because of increased competition between China, the world’s fastest-growing major economy, and India.*
China outbid India for oil field assets worth $5.6bn in Kazakhstan and Ecuador in the past year and purchased a $2.27bn stake in a Nigerian field that the South Asian nation deemed too risky to buy.
*The rivalry between the two countries increased prices of energy assets, * Subir Raha, then chairman of Oil and Natural Gas Corp, India’s largest explorer, said on December 13. “There is a logical case to work together because by competing we only benefit the seller.’’
*Uranium may become a new area of competition as India follows China in seeking uranium to generate nuclear power to feed increasing electricity demand. * 


*“The Chinese are trying to engage Australian companies, and in fact any company in the world that’s dealing in uranium,’’ said John Borshoff, managing director of Paladin Resources Ltd, Australia’s biggest uranium explorer. “We are aware that the Indians are looking at potential sources, although it is very preliminary.’’ * 

Uranium, a heavy metal, is concentrated through an enrichment process to produce fuel for a reactor. India would need about 700 tonnes of uranium a year from overseas because local reserves are insufficient to meet local demand, and are three times more expensive than imported supplies, Jain said.
“It makes sense,’’ said Gavin Wendt, senior resources analyst at Fat Prophets Funds Management in Sydney. 

*India’s Aditya Birla group’s acquisition of a copper mine in Australia and Gail (India) Ltd’s accord this year to develop coal-seam gas projects along with Brisbane-based Arrow Energy NL are instances of India’s search for resources, he said.
“It would be a logical progression that would then flow on into uranium, * particularly with the US recently seeming to support the Indian nuclear power industry,’’ Wendt said. 

*US President George W Bush has agreed to ask Congress to end nuclear sanctions against the world’s second-most populous nation. The US is also asking the Nuclear Suppliers Group, including France, Russia and Australia, to exempt India from the list of countries banned from receiving nuclear technology. * 

*Australia may lift its prohibition on selling uranium to some countries that haven’t signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, because of a US accord that will bring India’s atomic industry under international supervision, Prime Minister John Howard said in Dublin on May 22.*

“Our current policy is not to sell to countries that don’t adhere to the treaty, but we are interested in the US-Indian agreement,’’ Howard said in response to questions from students at University College Dublin.
Australia’s government, which last month agreed to export uranium to China, wants to expand mining of the nuclear fuel to tap rising global energy demands. – Bloomberg


----------



## MattThomson (1 June 2006)

BMN and EVE. Early stages of developement and exploration in Namibia and Botswana, right next to the big RIO and PDN mines. Have the potential to go off like a nuke  (and looking favourable to do so)


----------



## nizar (1 June 2006)

MattThomson said:
			
		

> BMN and EVE. Early stages of developement and exploration in Namibia and Botswana, right next to the big RIO and PDN mines. Have the potential to go off like a nuke  (and looking favourable to do so)




EVE is Zambia brother - along with OMC


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (2 June 2006)

MattThomson said:
			
		

> BMN and EVE. Early stages of developement and exploration in Namibia and Botswana, right next to the big RIO and PDN mines. Have the potential to go off like a nuke  (and looking favourable to do so)




If you like Nambian plays with good ground, ie Near Langer and Rossing take a look @ WME and give me your thoughts, I thought it worth a specy punt


----------



## MattThomson (2 June 2006)

Theres alot going on around Namibia, I've counted about 4 companies moving in and grabbing tenements etc. Also in Botswana, Zambia, etc. From what I've seen though BMN has got the best propects. Anyone have any thoughts on this? I've seen a geologists predictions about BMN based on drill and mapping data alone and he believes it will go to $2-3. Has anyone got the knowledge to anaylise the data thats coming out of these reports across all of the companies?


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (8 June 2006)

lol does someone want to tell the Uranium Bulls that the bears are having a picnic in our financial markets right now?

Uranium Spot Price jumped $1 a/lb this week its @ $44/lb!

I guess you just can't keep good fundamentals down


----------



## 3 veiws of a secret (8 June 2006)

I think today or yesterday on radio national they had a professor of physics spelling out the virtues of Thorium.....ie safer ,easier to handle ,low storage time ,etc etc . 
If he argues his case correctly then what happens? Crystal ball gazing yes ,but its worry what he says.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (7 July 2006)

Is it just me or have the uraniums slowly started edging up today?


I noticed the following stocks

TOE up 17%
NRU UP 25%
BKY UP 6%
UNX UP 14%
PDN UP 4%
OMC UP 5%
UTO UP 24%
DYL UP 7%
RPT UP 20%
BMN UP 12%

It could just be a good day for juniours but it appears to be a Uranium Specific


Another Bull Run? ? ? ?
Thoughts?


----------



## michael_selway (7 July 2006)

YOUNG_TRADER said:
			
		

> Is it just me or have the uraniums slowly started edging up today?
> 
> 
> I noticed the following stocks
> ...




Yep a second coming maybe?

Btw PDN is trading today?

thx

MS


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (7 July 2006)

Mega T/O for RPT!

Thats 2 takeovers in 2 days,


Keeping in mind the last 2 yrs had seen 1 uranium takeover!


----------



## Sean K (7 July 2006)

Michael, AGS up 10% as well.

Everyone is up for grabs it seems. 

They're taking a calculated risk on Labor growing some common sence though!! I can't see that happening, but happy to be on the momentum for the minute.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (7 July 2006)

Here we go!

I'm loaded up 

OMC
URA
WME
MTN
BKY


Should be plenty of speculation over the weekend of a flurry of T/O's in our Uranium Sector, get set for another short term hyper boom!


----------



## michael_selway (7 July 2006)

YOUNG_TRADER said:
			
		

> Here we go!
> 
> I'm loaded up
> 
> ...




You got some good ones there! BKY, OMC, MTN

*Yeah it appears the world declared war on Aussie Uranium/Coal Juniors!*

Crosby - MTN
Mega - RPT
Peabody - EXL

AUM, PDN, VUL, in trading halt atm, any others?

thx

MS


----------



## Sean K (7 July 2006)

Seems to be worth just thowing a dart at the U3O8 board atm.   

But please, have your finger on the sell trigger!!!!!!


----------



## jemma (7 July 2006)

Your forgot EXT as it is also up 13.95%.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (9 July 2006)

And so it continues, with 3 mergers T/O's in as many days I believe we are ripe for a huge spec upswing in the Uranium Sector,


Strap in for lift off!



*



Paladin leads $200m uranium onslaught 
9th July 2006, 10:57 WST*




Global: Demand for uranium stocks reflects fresh interest in nuclear power, a French staple for many years. Picture: Bloomberg 

The wave of consolidation sweeping the uranium sector gathered speed yesterday as emerging heavyweight Paladin Resources readied for a $100 million-plus deal in Queensland and Canadian predator Mega Uranium unveiled a friendly $100 million bid for Perth junior Redport. 

The deals coincide with record uranium prices above $US45 a pound and come just two days after Hong Kong investment bank Crosby Capital Partners launched a hostile $33 million bid for South Australian uranium explorer Marathon Resources. 

Paladin, the $2 billion Perth miner about to start production at its Langer Heinrich mine in Namibia, yesterday called a trading halt in tandem with Resolute Mining-controlled Queensland explorer Valhalla Resources ahead of a pending “material transaction”. 

It is understood Resolute is negotiating to sell its 83 per cent stake in Valhalla to Paladin. Valhalla shares last traded at $1.22, valuing Resolute’s stake at just over $120 million. 

Valhalla’s primary asset is its 50 per cent stake in the big Valhalla and Skal uranium deposits near Mount Isa, where it is in joint venture with Perth-based Summit Resources. It also holds 41 per cent of the Bigrlyi deposit in the Northern Territory. 

The Valhalla resource is one of the biggest untapped deposits in Australia, with a total resource of 25,600 tonnes of contained uranium oxide, while Skal contains about 5000 tonnes. 

The acquisition, expected to be announced on Monday afternoon, will give Paladin its first substantial asset in Queensland, where Peter Beattie’s State Labor Government is considered likely to drop its ban on uranium mining long before any change of heart by WA Premier Alan Carpenter. 

Paladin’s chief focus remains on Langer Heinrich and the Kayalekera project in Malawi, but it has made no secret of its desire to start mining in Australia within five to 10 years. But its primary local assets, the Manyingee and Oobagooma deposits in WA, remain untouchable under current State Government policy. 

Analysts said yesterday the sale of Valhalla had been expected ever since Resolute flagged its intention to develop the $US120 million ($161 million) Syama gold project in Mali. Resolute chief Peter Sullivan yesterday declined to confirm that a sale of the company’s interest in Valhalla was imminent, but said the company was looking at “all available options” to secure funding for Syama. 

“We have signalled we are considering all sorts of ways of raising money for Syama, whether it be debt, an equity issue, asset sales or a combination thereof,” he said. The prospect of an imminent cash injection sent Resolute shares racing 14 per cent higher to $2.18, while shares in partner Summit also spiked 14 per cent to $1.49. 

Yet the prospects of a trouble-free deal with Paladin appear unlikely, given Summit’s own desire to consolidate the Valhalla and Skal projects. 

Summit managing director Alan Eggers said yesterday Summit was watching the situation closely, however, the company is believed to have sought legal advice on its pre-emptive rights to Resolute’s interest in the joint venture. 

But it is believed Resolute may be able to sidestep Summit’s pre-emptive rights by selling its interest in its subsidiary companies rather than the joint venture interests. 

Redport shares surged 23 per cent to 13.5 ¢ after it unveiled Mega Uranium’s 14 ¢ a share offer.

JOHN PHACEAS


----------



## Sean K (9 July 2006)

SMM must be worth a short term trading punt atm. 

The JV with VUL will surely become a takeover offer from the combined PDN/VUL parent?? 

Will be looking closely at that on Monday. 

What do you guys/girls think?


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (9 July 2006)

Here's my thoughts, 

SMM already commands quite a large mkt cap, $150m + from memory, yet their JORC resource is not that much bigger than MTN's which trades @ $30m mkt cap, given this and the fact that SMM/VUL is in Qld as opposed to MTN's in S.A. I would be very very very suprised if PDN don't make a move on MTN, it just wouldn't make any sense to me,

We all agree S.A. is better state than QLD for Uranium,
If PDN bids for VUL around current prices thats $120m for its 50% interests in Valhalla and Skal projects, how many lb's uranium are we talking there? I can't remember but its only 50% interest anyway, an EV of say $2.50-$3 a lb is the max I would expect from this bid.


Back to your question directly, I'd say punt VUL, as there may be a chance SMM bidding for it to gain 100% control, still just what the doctor ordered for a Uranium upswing


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (10 July 2006)

And more articles supporting my Bull Run 2 thoughts







Uranium fever sends warm glow across the sector
Email Print Normal font Large font Barry Fitzgerald
July 10, 2006
Page 1 of 2 | Single page 
GARIMPEIRO

*STAND by for a second bull run in local uranium exploration/development stocks ”” one driven by a frenzy of merger and acquisition activity.*
The second bull run is just starting to take shape and already it has emerged that there is likely to be three key playmakers ”” Canadian/Australian Mega Uranium, John Borshoff's Paladin and Toro Energy.

They are the ones with the fancy market capitalisations that can make things happen through scrip takeover bids for their smaller brethren.

Their fancy share prices also allow them to tap, at will, the market for equity funding when the right deal comes along.

It was the first bull run in uranium stocks that gave those groups their firepower. It ran out of puff in March after 15 months on the go, with the subsequent repricing of uranium equities at lower levels in April-June setting the scene for the launch of the second, and merger-and-acquisition-driven, bull run.

The first bull run was a response to the growing acceptance that nuclear power has a key role to play in the response to global warming.

Spot uranium prices have responded to the looming surge in demand ”” as well as the fact that current annual consumption outstrips mine supply ”” by advancing steadily and are now more than $US45 a pound.

That compares with the sub-$US10 a pound level of a couple of years back. It's no wonder then that with Australia's known prospectivity for the radioactive material, uranium exploration/development is now the prime focus of no less than 80 listed companies.

The explosion of uranium explorers means that the sector is ripe for some consolidation, with the aim being to achieve some bulkiness, as well as project and country-risk diversity.

Attaining that magical mix could deliver big rewards for those that can pull it off, as the issue of global warming is not about to go away in a hurry.

Evidence that the second bull run is starting to take shape is coming in thick and fast.

Mega kicked it off in January with its $20 million acquisition of South Australian uranium explorer Hindmarsh Resources in a scrip-only takeover bid.

The agreed bid marked the return to the Australian uranium industry of Tony Grey, the Sydney-based Canadian lawyer who founded Pancontinental Mining, of Jabiluka fame, in the early 1970s.

Mega, which has the Ben Lomond and Maureen deposits in uranium-unfriendly Queensland under its belt, is now back for another acquisition.

This time it is a friendly bid worth $98 million for West Australian uranium explorer and royalty holder Redport Ltd.

Redport's royalty is over Paladin's Langer Heinrich mine in Namibia, where mining is about to start. As an aside, it was interesting to see that Paladin went into a trading halt on Friday as it is "negotiating a potentially material transaction".

Also on Friday, Valhalla Uranium, the Queensland and Northern Territory uranium explorer 83 per cent owned by Resolute Mining, went into a trading halt pending an announcement. We will know soon enough if the two trading halts are related.

Further evidence that M&A activity in the uranium sector is on the boil came last week with a $34 million bid for SA uranium explorer Marathon Resources from Hong Kong-based investment bank Crosby Capital.

Unlike the other bids in the sector, it is not friendly. It also differs on the count that it's a cash offer of 68 ¢ a share.

Missing in action so far is Toro, the Oxiana and Minotaur sponsored float that listed with a bang in March, but which quickly drifted back in price.

Toro rose 11.5 ¢ to 69 ¢ on Friday. It has put out some encouraging exploration results but the real reason for the share price running has been put down to Toro's expected lead role in the sector's M&A activity.

It's all well and good to have a bag of the best exploration ground in SA, but it's better to have a proven resource on the books. Expectations of more M&A action in the uranium sector helped on Friday nearly all the junior explorers that might benefit in the long run.

Some of the gains included Arafura (up 2 ¢ to 37 ¢), Giralia (up 1.5 ¢ to 30 ¢), Deep Yellow (up 1.5 ¢ to 15 ¢) and Summit (up 19 ¢ to $1.44).


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (10 July 2006)

SMM's mkt cap is approx $300m, ($1.60x 190m shares)

So I would expect a bit of a bidding war for SMM given it holds the other 50% of SMM's assets, 

ie if SMM is capped at $300m for the same 50% of assets that VUL holds, then VUL is worth at least $250m to SMM if not more, 



Also there's some conference on today

Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Conference on “Australia’s Uranium”


----------



## Matt123 (10 July 2006)

BMN looks set to go with a tenement surrounding PDNs operations in Namibia as well as another next to RIO, early information looks promising. Drilling is planned for August from what I remember. There's also a tenement in Botswana though it's not as important as the first two.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (11 July 2006)

Redport's uranium draws bid
Robin Bromby, Takeovers 
July 08, 2006
THERE goes the junior uranium sector.
A third explorer is now in the sights of a predator with Redport yesterday recommending that shareholders accept a paper offer valued at 14c a share from Canada's Mega Uranium. 

Redport's share price managed to reach only 13.5c yesterday but was a considerable improvement on its drop to 9.4c in May. 

Redport chairman Richard Homsany said Mega's offer represented a 33 per cent premium to his company's recent share price. 

This merger would fulfil Redport's objective of becoming an international uranium company, he added. 

Mega earlier this year paid just under $20 million for Hindmarsh Resources, which had a large number of tenements in South Australia. 

*On Thursday, Hong Kong investment bank Crosby Capital Partners made a 68c-a-share bid for another South Australian explorer, Marathon Resources. This bid, however, is unlikely to succeed as it seems to be pitched too cheaply and because the directors, who own 22.8 per cent, say they won't sell. * 

The effective takeover of Redport adds a new dimension to the inevitable consolidation of the industry: most of its prospects are in Western Australia, where the state Government has banned uranium mining. 

*Only South Australia and the Northern Territory are sympathetic to the industry. * 

This indicates that the Canadians are prepared to take the long view and expect that state government policies on uranium will eventually change. 

But investors are also taking the hint that this is not the full extent of Mega's ambitions. 

They yesterday marked up Nova Energy, which has uranium prospects in the same region of Western Australia, from 15c to $1.39. It is understood that Redport at one stage contemplated a merger with Nova. 

*The new takeovers will be a tonic for the junior uranium sector, where prices have come off substantially after the bull run for many companies in the first months of 2006. * 

Toro Energy, for example, hit $1.395 in March but closed yesterday at 69.5c. Nova itself is well off its $1.85 high on March 4. 

Mega, which is capitalised at about $440 million, holds the advanced Ben Lomond project in Queensland with its 4850-tonne resource along with properties in South Australia and the Northern Territory. 

Mega also has prospects in Argentina, Bolivia and Mongolia. It is offering 10 Mega shares for every 574 Redport counters, along with 10 shares for every 894 Redport 5c listed options and 10 shares for every 1479 unlisted 12c options. 

Redport's main asset is its Lake Maitland project, where it has made good grade intercepts. The deposit is shallow, meaning a low stripping ratio. A resource statement is due by late September. 

Earlier this year, Redport acquired adjacent ground from View Resources, adding an estimated 996 tonnes of uranium.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (11 July 2006)

Its interesting to note PDN's $174m bid for VUL is to get access to 

Measured + Indicated Resource of 14.2m lbs U
   +
Inferred Resource of 4m lbs U

So Measured + Indicated + Inferred = 18.2 m lbs U

Not to mention a whole lot of potential exploration upside!

But $174m for 18.2 m lbs U = EV of $9.50 per lb

Even given that 80% of it is in the Measured and Indicated, I find this an amazing bid as 99% of the resource is located in Qld, one of the worst places to be,

Given that they are prepared to pay so much for assets in Qld, surely they will pay handsomely (ie premium) for assets in S.A. + N.T. and even more so globally 

For example, OMC's 11m lb deposit would be worth at least $15lb (based on a 50% premium to their VUL EV Bid of  $9.50/$10) = $150m or $1+ OMC


There are a whole bunch of others in S.A. AGS, PNN, MTN with JORC deposits


I am very curious as to how this merger and t/o period will unfold, especially with MTN, I will be speechless if one of the majors, Teck, Mega, Lara, ERA, BHP, RIO, PDN don't make a counter bid


----------



## noirua (12 July 2006)

The UK has has given the go-ahead for a new generation of UK Nuclear Power Stations. Full link shortly.  http://news.bbc.co.uk


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (12 July 2006)

Hey thanks Noi, 

Guys you have to search for the articl under UK,

here's a snippet


Nuclear power plants get go-ahead  

Nuclear power to make "significant contribution" 
The go-ahead has been given for a new wave of UK nuclear power stations. 
Industry secretary Alistair Darling told MPs nuclear power needed to be part of the mix of energy supply for the UK over the next 40 years. 

The Conservatives say nuclear power should only be a "last resort". The Liberal Democrats accuse ministers of "surrendering" to the nuclear lobby. 

Tony Blair says new nuclear power stations will reduce future reliance on imports and help tackle climate change. 

 READ THE REPORT 


Energy review [3.2MB] 
Executive summary [131KB] 
Most computers will open this document automatically, but you may need Adobe Reader
Download the reader here 

In a Commons statement on the Energy Review, Mr Darling said: "The government has concluded that new nuclear power stations could make a significant contribution to meeting our energy policy goals. 

"It would be for the private sector to initiate, fund, construct and operate new nuclear plants and cover the costs of decommissioning and their full share of long term waste management costs." 

"Safety and security" would be "paramount" with nuclear plants, he promised. 

"Nuclear does mean we can generate electricity without carbon emissions. It does provide a consistency of energy which wind power cannot," he said. 

Mr Darling stressed that "a mix of energy supply is essential and we should not be over dependent on one source". 

The plans would help meet the government's target of cutting carbon emissions by 60% by 2050, he said. 

And they would ensure the UK had secure energy supplies rather than relying increasingly on foreign gas imports.


----------



## noirua (12 July 2006)

Similar to Y_T's post on UK nuclear power:  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5166426.stm


There are also 3 video links which are too long, I tried them but get something wrong every time.


----------



## Mellow77 (12 July 2006)

G'day All,

I am a greenhorn in stocks and do not have loads of $$$ nevertheless I would like to invest into Uranium.

What company would you recommend me for short term (< 1 year) and for long term???

Thanx for your views fellows


----------



## Smurf1976 (12 July 2006)

Bottom line with the UK is that it is a fine example of how NOT to use natural gas resources.

In short, the UK was almost totally reliant on coal (over 75) and nuclear (most of the rest) for power 20 years ago with a small amount from oil and no significant use of natural gas. Then came the "dash for gas" and the well publicised closue of coal mines and coal-fired power stations.

Fast forward to 2006 and North Sea output of both oil and gas is in serious decline and the UK is faced with near total reliance on imports for oil and gas in the future. 

The UK is now stuck with increasingly expensive and unreliable (to say nothing of the potential to use supply as a political weapon) imports to fuel transport (oil), industry (mostly gas and some oil) and home heating (mostly gas). 

So it makes a lot of sense to stop using gas for electricity. It would have made more sense (cheaper and avoiding relaiance on imports for non-electricity use) to not use it in the first place, it's too late now that the gas is mostly gone.

Hence the new nuclear plants.

For the record, North America has similar problems with gas (and oil) as does New Zealand although the latter is highly unlikely to go nuclear for practical (grid too small) and political reasons. The US is more reliant on coal (a bit over 50% of electricity) but it too would find it hard to go without new nuclear plants, especially as older facilities are retired.  

As for Australia, we're in the midst of ensuring future gas problems by following exactly what the UK and NZ (and to some extent US) have already done with electricity. Every Australian state now depends on gas for electricity to some extent whereas historically we relied on far more abundant coal and renewable hydro-electricity.


----------



## moses (13 July 2006)

not exactly a raging bull today...


----------



## noirua (14 July 2006)

" Pure Energy : Uranium's Explosive Profits "
http://www.stockhouse.com/shfn/editorial.asp?edtID=18475


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (14 July 2006)

Hmmm WME has really hit the ground running in Nambia,

I think out of the four companies I am aware of operating (trying to operate in Nambia) being AUL BMN EXT WME

WME will be the first to release a JORC inferred resource or non-jorc type inferred resource, because per the release yesterday

Past Drilling and Other Work
The Geological Survey of Namibia has reported that to the end of 1982, when the
area was relinquished, around 32,000 metres had been drilled in more than
2,000 holes on the Marenica Project.

Conclusions
Areas of significant uranium mineralisation and radiometric anomalism were drill
tested over the northeast sector of the Marenica licence in the 1970’s and early
1980’s. Although exploration information from this period is currently limited, this
work has defined targets for future exploration and drilling by West Australia
Metals. Detailed exploration data from past programs will be sourced and
validated by the company as far as possible. This information, if located, could
provide an excellent initial database for a more rapid re-assessment and
evaluation of the project including the advancement of drilling programs to allow
JORC Code resource estimation to be conducted.


So basically they'd want to get there hands on this info so as to turbo charge the resource estimation phase


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (14 July 2006)

Also Noi that article is very very interesting, if true could have huge ramifications, I'm a little sceptical as I thought there would be more hype about it,

Maybe its one of those things that will catch the mkt off guard but I doubt it, being Uranium I would have thought there would have been articles galore on this


----------



## noirua (14 July 2006)

YOUNG_TRADER said:
			
		

> Also Noi that article is very very interesting, if true could have huge ramifications, I'm a little sceptical as I thought there would be more hype about it,
> 
> Maybe its one of those things that will catch the mkt off guard but I doubt it, being Uranium I would have thought there would have been articles galore on this




I am looking at some uranium stocks today and expect to buy a few shortly. Staying mainly in cash as the World situation looks mega-dodgy - good luck Y_T et al


----------



## Sean K (14 July 2006)

General market sentiment because of Middle East has effected stocks with no ann today. If things calm down tonight your stocks mentioned will be in play again YT. Just a blip I reckon. Syria and Iran won't get involved. They know darn well the US will join in if they do. Or, they are sillier than they look.


----------



## scsl (14 July 2006)

im a little sus of the article... it could be a case of too good to be true. it's the first of its kind i've read, particularly of Putin's decision to stop supplying cheap uranium to the US and its effects.

however, i have read of the uranium demand/supply fundamentals and seeing as how the the prices keep rising, i could be wrong. though i did find one thing that i thought was contradicting:



> While the world is physically running out of fossil fuels, we're in no danger whatsoever of running out of uranium -- *it's actually found almost everywhere*. According to the World Nuclear Association, "Uranium is a relatively common metal, found in rocks or seawater. Economic concentrations of it are not uncommon. *Its availability to supply world energy needs is great*."



if this is true and companies are able to extract this uranium economically, won't this new supply that is seemingly abundant have a negative effect on uranium prices and companies?


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (16 July 2006)

YOUNG_TRADER said:
			
		

> Also Noi that article is very very interesting, if true could have huge ramifications, I'm a little sceptical as I thought there would be more hype about it,
> 
> Maybe its one of those things that will catch the mkt off guard but I doubt it, being Uranium I would have thought there would have been articles galore on this





Guys, anyone know what happened on this at the G8 Summit?

Did Mr Putin say no more warheads for you Mr Bush to use in your reactors? 
Was it even mentioned?


Also I'm not sure if we've discussed it before but found another very interesting article on Thorium, 

New age nuclear
Issue 8 of Cosmos, April 2006by Tim Dean

Image: Justin Randall 
Nuclear energy produces no greenhouse gases, but it has many drawbacks. Now a radical new technology based on thorium promises what uranium never delivered: abundant, safe and clean energy - and a way to burn up old radioactive waste.

What if we could build a nuclear reactor that offered no possibility of a meltdown, generated its power inexpensively, created no weapons-grade by-products, and burnt up existing high-level waste as well as old nuclear weapon stockpiles? And what if the waste produced by such a reactor was radioactive for a mere few hundred years rather than tens of thousands? It may sound too good to be true, but such a reactor is indeed possible, and a number of teams around the world are now working to make it a reality. What makes this incredible reactor so different is its fuel source: thorium. 

Named after Thor, the warlike Norse god of thunder, thorium could ironically prove a potent instrument of peace as well as a tool to soothe the world's changing climate. With the demand for energy on the increase around the world, and the implications of climate change beginning to strike home, governments are increasingly considering nuclear power as a possible alternative to burning fossil fuels. 

But nuclear power comes with its own challenges. Public concerns over the risk of meltdown, disposal of long-lived and highly toxic radioactive waste, the generation of weapons grade by-products, and their corresponding proliferation risks, all can make nuclear power a big vote-loser. 

A thorium reactor is different. And, on paper at least, this radical new technology could be the key to unlocking a new generation of clean and safe nuclear power. It could prove the circuit-breaker to the two most intractable problems of the 21st century: our insatiable thirst for energy, and the warming of the world's climate.  

The rest is here http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/348

Guess who's the only ASX listed stock with a Thorium deposit?

ARU!


----------



## moses (16 July 2006)

Sounds VERY promising.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (17 July 2006)

Still nothing about if Russia tried to renegotiate it Warhead/Uranium supplies with the US,


Also IT APPEARS THAT THE CHINESE ARE COMING NEXT WEEK!


China eyes uranium power plays
From:  By Mandi Zonneveldt
July 17, 2006  
CHINA has begun sizing up Australian uranium companies in a bid to secure supplies of the nuclear fuel.

*Senior representatives of four Chinese trading companies will attend a conference in Perth next week with a view to signing equity deals with Australian uranium explorers. * 
Xu Gang, chief China representative for Australian consultants Sustainability, who will host the Chinese delegates, told Business Daily the companies were already at various stages of discussion with Australian explorers. 

*He said off-take agreements would almost certainly form part of any deals negotiated. 

China's bid to grab a slice of the sector follows the signing of an agreement in April allowing uranium to be exported to the energy-hungry Asian powerhouse. * 

China plans to build 40 new nuclear reactors by 2020 as the country's demand for power quadruples. 


Advertisement:
 Federal Resources Minister Ian Macfarlane wants Australian uranium exports to double from about 10,000 tonnes a year to meet demand from China. 

BHP Billiton is doing the numbers on a $6 billion expansion at Olympic Dam, with plans to double uranium output from the giant mine. 

But pressure is mounting on the state Labor governments to lift their opposition to the development of new mines in Australia. 

China is jostling for position ahead of an expected policy change next year. 

China has invested hundreds of millions of dollars this year in its bid to shore up supplies of increasingly-expensive natural resources. 

Chinese companies have been particularly active in the junior iron ore sector, prompted by hostile price negotiations with Australia's mining giants. 

Sinosteel, the second largest steel producer in China, has agreements with MidWest, Cape Lambert Iron Ore and Jupiter Mines, while Gindalbie Metals has signed a deal with AnSteel that will see the Chinese company underwrite its mining operations. 

Uranium explorer Uranex has already signed a deal with the China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC), a state-owned body, to explore and develop uranium at its projects in Australia and Tanzania. 

Mr Xu said China's involvement in Australian uranium would repeat the iron ore story. 

*He said Chinese companies were keen to get access to good exploration ground, however he said local knowledge was a big barrier. * 

*"Most likely they will take part in activities of Australian uranium companies that they trust or companies that have (a) clear China background," he said. 

High-level Chinese government officials will also be among the delegates at the Australian Uranium Conference next week. * 

The China Atomic Energy Authority, the state-owned regulatory body, will be represented, as will CNNC and the China Guangdong Nuclear Power Corporation, which is responsible for power plant construction in the southern province. 

Conference co-ordinator Doug Bowie said the conference provided Australian uranium industry players with a rare opportunity to network directly with interested parties from China.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (17 July 2006)

I have been checking and have confirmed the Chinese are coming next week and their coming for our Uranium companies,

I expect this to be the event to really light the fuse under the uranium sector which recently got a nice jump start thanks to a raft of takeover action


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (22 July 2006)

A reminder the Uranium scetor will light up again next week,


The Chinese are attending a Uranium Conference in Perth next Tuesday to Wednesday, with the aim of signing equity deals and offtake deals with Australian Juniour Explorers, so keep an eye out,

For all short term punters and traders should see some excellent 5-10% gains intra-day,

For those fundies who can pick who the chinese will ink paper with should see large price spikes!


----------



## nizar (22 July 2006)

YOUNG_TRADER said:
			
		

> A reminder the Uranium scetor will light up again next week,
> 
> 
> The Chinese are attending a Uranium Conference in Perth next Tuesday to Wednesday, with the aim of signing equity deals and offtake deals with Australian Juniour Explorers, so keep an eye out,
> ...




YT

Who do u reckon stand to benefit the most from this ?


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (24 July 2006)

Hey Nizar,

Hmmm, not sure, I would have thought that those companies with JORC Resources would be top of the list for offtake agreements,

EME, DYL, ARU, AGS, MTN, NEL, PNN, SMM

All come to mind,

As for JV's I have no idea, I was confused that they signed a JV with UNX in March, its grounds aren't that impressive,

Be interesting to see who they ink paper with,


----------



## Realist (24 July 2006)

With Beazley talking about removing Labor's "no new mines" policy. You'd think Uranium stocks will rise tomorrow.


----------



## michael_selway (26 July 2006)

Realist said:
			
		

> With Beazley talking about removing Labor's "no new mines" policy. You'd think Uranium stocks will rise tomorrow.




http://www.uic.com.au/nip01.htm



> Ranger opened in 1981 at a production rate of approximately 3300 tonnes per year of uranium oxide and has since been expanded to 5500 t/yr capacity. Sales are to Japan, South Korea, France, Spain, Sweden, UK, Canada & USA. Ranger is owned by Energy Resources of Australia Ltd (ERA), now a subsidiary of Rio Tinto.
> 
> During 1988 the Olympic Dam project, then a joint venture of Western Mining Corporation and BP Minerals, commenced operations. This is a large underground mine in central South Australia, producing copper, gold and uranium. Annual production capacity for uranium oxide has been expanded from 1800 to 4600 tonnes, with sales to USA, Canada, Sweden, UK, Belgium, France, Finland, South Korea and Japan. It is now owned by BHP Billiton, following its 2005 takeover of WMC Resources.




thx

MS


----------



## 56gsa (26 July 2006)

2 Questions??

How many nuclear power stations does China already have?

And which Oz-listed U stocks are gearing up for production / when?  (PDN soon, EQN 4q07 - others?)

thnks


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (26 July 2006)

Looks like lots of burnt fingers from the March Uranium rally are being more cautious this week,


Am suprised that this Uranium conference in Perth, where the Chinese have said they wish to sign JV Equity deals + Offtake agreements combined with Big Old Beasley's comments on U U-turn havent ignited the uranium rocket!

Sentiment really is everything, Positive sentiment with momentum is unstopable in the short term and knows no reason (AUM, FNT) after short term Newtons law applies (What goes up, must come down)


----------



## gremlin51 (26 July 2006)

Spot price for uranium $47.25 up $1.75


----------



## Dr Stock (26 July 2006)

> Sentiment really is everything, Positive sentiment with momentum is unstopable in the short term and knows no reason (AUM, FNT) after short term Newtons law applies (What goes up, must come down)




The Green Spin machine has been working overtime to try and stop uranium getting a popular positive reception.

Have a look at the number ABC news items saying Greenies oppose uranium.


----------



## noirua (28 July 2006)

Scrapping nuclear weapons is indeed a costly business. How many Billion Dollars have the G8 agreed to pay? All quite ridiculous!

http://www.sgpproject.org/Personal Use Only/G8Chem7-21-06.htm


----------



## Brissydave (28 July 2006)

Scrapping nuclear weapons is expensive sure, but that is the only thing saving the nuclear reactor business. Without decommissioning nukes there would be a huge uranium shortage, and there will be soon, as the number of retired nukes dwindles. Whatever the Greenie's sentiments, when uranium prices go through the roof, with Australia host to half the worlds known uranium resources, we will have mining. Labour for all its posturing in the past will see the huge employment and economic benefits for Australia, and be forced by circumstance to change it's policies, at both state and federal levels.

Here in Australia I personally would like to see solar, wind, and tide power used before nuclear, and this may be possible, with our small population, living, in the majority close to the coast. However I don't see this as possible for already established nuclear "power" states such as France and for the developing countries of China and India. 

Global warming along with hydrocarbon fuel shortages will in the end dictate the need for nuclear power on a global scale .... so I feel that uranium plays will pay off.

Of course this is not a short term, day traders, outlook ... but for long term investment ... the sky is the limit ... I personally will keep uranium miners and exploration co.s on my watchlists.


Cheers ... Dave

-------------------
just an opinion folks


----------



## noirua (2 August 2006)

Aussie Uranium prospects look Great: http://www.busrep.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=3367587&fSectionId=552&fSetlId=662


----------



## nizar (17 August 2006)

YES, now we can finall export more uranium coz AMERICA has given the OKAY!!

THE Bush administration has indicated it will support Australia developing a uranium enrichment industry, despite the White House's policy to restrict new entrants to the world nuclear club. 

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20155550-601,00.html

Who is running this country agaiN???


----------



## Sean K (18 August 2006)

*Physicist talks up uranium potential * 
Friday August 18, 2006, 10:21 am

A British physicist says Australia is well-positioned to supply nuclear energy to the rest of the world.

Brian Cox, from the University of Manchester, will be delivering a talk in Alice Springs tonight as part of National Science Week. 

He says it would be environmentally unsustainable to power China and India's rapidly expanding demand for energy with coal. 

Dr Cox says nuclear power is a clean and safe alternative.

"Maybe Australia has got the resources, in terms of coal and gas, to generate electricity without nuclear power," he said.

"But the uranium, and thorium actually, which is a thing that people don't hear about a lot but it's better than uranium for nuclear power stations, and Australia's got about half of that as well.

"So Australia's incredibly rich in the natural resources everybody's is going to need in the next 50 years."


----------



## billhill (22 August 2006)

Couldn't agree more Kennas. Had my eye on thorium for a while to see what kind of developments happen. From what i've read it stays radioactive for significantly less time then uranium. It more suitable as a nuclear fuel and harder to make nuclear weapons from. Produces less waste and is more abundant in the earths crust.  

Don't know how far away the technology is but i have a feeling that it will eventually overtake uranium as the prefered nuclear fuel source.


----------



## Ageo (22 August 2006)

I just wanna know when its going to be listed on the Futures Exchange as a Commodity.


----------



## billhill (22 August 2006)

At the rate the nuclear fuel industry is expanding and the likelyhood limits will be placed on greenhouse energy such as coal i think we will begin to see its development as a serious fuel within the next 5 years. Maybe sooner if oil prices continue to rise.

From memory india is in the process of building reactors to use thorium.


----------



## Sean K (22 August 2006)

Perhaps we need to start a new thead on Thorium and id the miners digging the stuff up. Or, is it always collocated with uranium? Very interesting....


----------



## billhill (22 August 2006)

Its a common byproduct of mineral sands. So should probably have its own thread.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (23 August 2006)

August 21, 2006
Spot: US$48.00/lb (+0.75)

$50 in a month or so


----------



## michael_selway (23 August 2006)

YOUNG_TRADER said:
			
		

> August 21, 2006
> Spot: US$48.00/lb (+0.75)
> 
> $50 in a month or so




Hi YT has there been a correction in the Spot Uranium price yet?   

thx

MS


----------



## nizar (23 August 2006)

No MS look at the charts its gone up up and up, those closest its been to a correction is being "flat" !

Agree YT im calling $60 by years end...


----------



## Sean K (23 August 2006)

Has to correct at some stage doesn't it? Or, because it's been a slow steady rise, perhaps it's ok? Straight up rises worry me.


----------



## nizar (23 August 2006)

kennas said:
			
		

> Has to correct at some stage doesn't it? Or, because it's been a slow steady rise, perhaps it's ok? Straight up rises worry me.




I think somewhere btw 2008-2010 it will correct
Several mines from Kazakhstan will be producing; along with LH, Malawi and Olympid Dam expansions will kick in by then as well...


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (6 September 2006)

Wow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   

Spot price has jumped to $52 US a lb!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## billhill (6 September 2006)

Its not going to correct any time soon. Supply is falling as soviet missile stocks dwindle and demand still growning with 20+ more powerplants being built worldwide.

billhill


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (20 September 2006)

September 18, 2006
Spot: US$53.25/lb (+1.25)

$60 HERE WE COME


----------



## MalteseBull (20 September 2006)

YOUNG_TRADER said:
			
		

> September 18, 2006
> Spot: US$53.25/lb (+1.25)
> 
> $60 HERE WE COME



Good day to buy: UXA, UTO, PDN??


----------



## dubiousinfo (21 September 2006)

This article is a bit long so will break into 2 parts



> September 20, 2006
> By James Finch, jfinch@...
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## dubiousinfo (21 September 2006)

Part 2



> Tough Times Ahead for Uranium-Seeking U.S. Utilities
> 
> Yesterday, David Christian, Dominion Resources's chief nuclear
> officer, held a media tour to a site in Louisa County (Virginia)
> ...


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (25 September 2006)

Read alot of articles today about Australia on the verge of changing its no policy on allowing India access to our Uranium


----------



## nizar (25 September 2006)

YOUNG_TRADER said:
			
		

> Read alot of articles today about Australia on the verge of changing its no policy on allowing India access to our Uranium




WHich aussie stocks the best to get into YT do u reckon...
(iv got enough overseas exposure!)
I heard SMM is a winner...?
EME iv heard some good things also


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (25 September 2006)

MTN and ARU are my preferred Aus exposures,


MTN because has a T/O offer @ 68c = a floor on price with the possibility of a new higher offer + the fact that its resource is worth 3-7 times current share price


ARU because its in the N.T. has Uranium reource as well as Rare Earths, will be doing an IPO Spin Off which has Candian Laramide as its JV partner and also has Thorium (will be huge over next few years)


----------



## Sean K (26 September 2006)

I think SMM and MTN have the best deposits after the current producers.

I've seen a list of all the producers and their in the ground resources somewhere here, can anyone reproduce it?


----------



## Sean K (26 September 2006)

In The Age today:

*Uranium producers set up new lobby group*

The Australian uranium industry has set up a new lobby group to represent its interests in the wake of huge appeal in exploration and imminent sales to China.

Uranium Information Centre chairman Harry Kenyon-Slaney said the new body, the Australian Uranium Association, would both articulate the national interest associated with uranium mining and export, and advocate the industry's positions to government and the community.

"In recognition of the role of mining in the life cycle of uranium, the association will also support and actively participate in the recently established uranium stewardship working groups that have been established both in Australia and internationally," Mr Kenyon-Slaney said in a statement.

"The objective of the association is to enable the uranium mining and export industry to develop and operate in an environment of policy certainty and regulatory stability.

"Achieving that will ensure the industry delivers on its potential to become a major contributor to the national economy."

The association's first executive director will be Michael Angwin, who most recently served for two years as director of economic policy in the Victorian Department of Premier and Cabinet, and formerly held senior positions at the Business Council of Australia, at mining company Rio Tinto and in consulting.

Uranium production at Australia's three active mines last year totalled more than 11,200 tonnes.

The federal government is currently negotiating an agreement to sell uranium to China for its domestic electricity production, and BHP Billiton's Olympic Dam plans to expand production four-fold to cope with new demand.


----------



## Sean K (26 September 2006)

SEOUL (Dow Jones)--Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power Co. will sign a contract by the end of October to buy a total of 1,000 metric tons of uranium from Energy Resources of Australia Ltd. (ERA.AU) over a period of five years starting 2010, the South Korean government said Tuesday. 

"As the 1,000 tons of uranium accounts for 25% of the country's annual consumption of uranium, it will help maintain a stable supply of the raw material for the nation (South Korea)," the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy said in a statement.

There was another article in The Age quoting Downer saying that it was likely that we would start selling uranium to India as well:

_Mr Downer, normally a strong backer of Australia's current nuclear policy, hinted the government may be willing to consider matching the US agreement.

"We'd have to see all of that (US-India deal) in operation to work out whether this was really going to be a satisfactory solution," he told ABC radio.

"It sounds like, on balance, quite a good idea._


----------



## Realist (26 September 2006)

That is good news.  I own RIO and RIO own 68.4% of ERA..


----------



## Halba (26 September 2006)

era's sux but....they have production/weather related problems which aren't fixed and hedging related problems


----------



## nizar (26 September 2006)

Halba said:
			
		

> era's sux but....they have production/weather related problems which aren't fixed and hedging related problems




LOL their contracts will soon expire and will be negotiated at spot


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (27 September 2006)

September 25, 2006
Spot: *US$54.00/lb * (+0.75)


Gettinng closer to $60/lb


----------



## ekman (28 September 2006)

punters on uranuim stocks - India's deal with US to buy uranium is not likely to be passed by the US senate in this sitting and a very slim chance to get thru in Dec sitting. So most likely Australian Govt won't make any decisions until US congress approves


----------



## Sean K (29 September 2006)

Article in The Age this afternoon:

The spot price of uranium will reach $US65 ($A87) a pound by May 2007, an increase of 22 per cent from the current spot price, Resource Capital Research says.

The current spot uranium price is $US53.25 a pound, which is up 33 per cent from $US40.00 three months ago.

According to the equity research firm's quarterly research report, the price will also increase a further 65 per cent from the current price to $US88 a pound by September 2008.

The prices have been revised upwards from the June uranium quarterly, which indicated a uranium price increase of 11 per cent to $US54 a pound in 2006 and a rise of eight per cent to $US60 a pound by May 2007.

There has been a spate of initial public offerings in uranium producers in Australia, as demand increases in line with diminishing above-ground supply and a push for cleaner fuels.


----------



## stereo21 (29 September 2006)

ekman said:
			
		

> punters on uranuim stocks - India's deal with US to buy uranium is not likely to be passed by the US senate in this sitting and a very slim chance to get thru in Dec sitting. So most likely Australian Govt won't make any decisions until US congress approves



Does it matter if the US congress approves this deal. Or is it a case of if the US approve the deal is it more likely the Aust govt will approve and not seek India to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty?


----------



## Sean K (30 September 2006)

stereo21 said:
			
		

> Does it matter if the US congress approves this deal. Or is it a case of if the US approve the deal is it more likely the Aust govt will approve and not seek India to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty?




I don't think we will approve it if the Yanks don't. If they do, the Canuks will, and so will we.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (2 October 2006)

Kennas who are the canucks?


Also looks like Bill didn't get voted on in the US, will have to wait till Novemeber   

Bad news for the Indo-US nuclear deal
By Praful Bidwai 

NEW DELHI - The controversial US-India "civilian nuclear cooperation" agreement met a major setback over the weekend when *the US Senate recessed without voting on a bill that would have granted President George W Bush the powers to enable the deal to be implemented. * 

The Indian government has been rattled by this development and is pinning its hopes on a brief "lame duck" *session of the US Congress in mid-November, when it reconvenes after elections to be held on November 7. * 

Both the Bush administration and the Indian government had invested a great deal of effort into lobbying for a quick passage of the bill through the Senate. The House of Representatives has already passed broadly similar legislation. The two chambers of Congress are later meant to reconcile the two versions and produce a single, unified law. 

This law would implicitly recognize India as a nuclear-weapons state and permit civilian nuclear commerce with it even though India has not signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and has become a nuclear-weapons state in violation of NPT principles. 

*However, the Senate bill first ran into numerous procedural complications and then got tied up with the extraneous or unrelated agendas of some senators.* 

For instance, Minority Leader Harry Reid moved an amendment that would prevent any spent nuclear fuel coming to his native state of Nevada for storage at the Yucca Mountain Repository. This would presumably include fuel burned in reactors supplied to India by the US or from plants that use materials traded under the India-US nuclear-cooperation deal. 

On Saturday, the Democrats tabled as many as 19 amendments and rejected a proposal by Majority Leader Bill Frist to have the bill passed in its present form through a ”unanimous consent” procedure, with the promise of some changes to be considered and discussed later. 

*Although the Democrats agreed to accord a high priority to the bill in the lame-duck session coming up after November 13 - that is, after the mid-term elections that could alter the makeup of Congress - there is no guarantee that it will really be taken up for vote. The Democrats are expected to do better than the Republicans in the election and may not allow the chamber to re-convene until January. * 

"All this is bad news for the deal," said M V Ramana, an independent nuclear-affairs expert based at the Center for Interdisciplinary Studies in Environment and Development in Bangalore. "But it's not terrible news. There is still a good chance that the Senate resolution will eventually go through. But there is now a higher probability that more and more conditions will be imposed which limit the degree of cooperation permitted under the deal or demand special assurances from India, which are not reciprocally sought from the US." 

If the deal cannot be approved by the present Congress, it will once again have to go through the entire process of drafting of separate resolutions for the two chambers of the new Congress that convenes in January, and of securing agreement on them all over again. 

The more conditions imposed on the deal, the more it will differ in content from the original agreements signed between Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh last March. 

*"It's clear that the fate of the nuclear deal now depends on the arcane processes and parochial concerns that mark US domestic politics, rather than on the dynamics of the burgeoning India-United States strategic relationship," * argued Achin Vanaik, professor of international relations and global policies at Delhi University. "Various senators' preferences and sectional interests will influence the way the agreement is shaped. The initiative is no longer in India's hands." 

The Indian government is particularly disappointed and nervous at the weekend's result because it had made a strong pitch for the deal through its top diplomat and special envoy Shyam Saran and, more recently, through Defense Minister Pranab Mukherjee. 

Last week in the US, Mukherjee met with various members of the India Caucus in Congress, as well as the American Jewish Committee and influential representatives of the Indian-American community. 

Business groups, in particular the defense-industry lobby and manufacturers of nuclear-power equipment, have also been pitching for the nuclear deal, according to Subrata Ghoshroy of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Center for International Studies. He calls the deal a "triumph of the business lobby". But the triumph has not yet been fully accomplished. 

Had the Senate vote gone through before the recess, India would have been in an advantageous position at consultations due this month in the Nuclear Suppliers' Group. The deal must be approved by the 45-member NSG before it becomes effective. The International Atomic Energy Agency too must clear it. 

There may be some opposition in the NSG to the agreement from the Scandinavian states, Ireland and New Zealand. China too is known to be uncomfortable with it but is keeping its cards close to its chest. 

Besides this uncertainty, and problems likely to be caused by a shift in the balance of power between the Democrats and Republicans in the US Congress, the deal faces two obstacles: one in the United States, the other in India. 

First, the Senate bill explicitly prohibits the "export or re-export to India of any equipment, materials, or technology related to the enrichment of uranium, the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel or the production of heavy water". But the Indian nuclear lobby is extremely keen on the right to reprocess spent fuel from power reactors, whether imported or domestic, so that plutonium can extracted from it. 

India has drawn up super-ambitious plans to produce 275,000 megawatts of nuclear-generated power (or more than double the Indian power-generation capacity today from all sources combined) by the mid-21st century. This presumes the use of fast-breeder reactors based on the reprocessing of spent fuel. 

India's Atomic Energy Commission chairman is on the record as saying that he won't accept a deal that does not allow reprocessing of spent fuel. 

It is not clear how the Bush and Singh governments will crack this nut. Their difficulties will grow if the Democrats emerge stronger in next month's election. In that case, the influence of the traditional non-proliferation lobby will grow, and the deal's passage will bear its imprint. 

The domestic Indian obstacle is the political opposition, especially the right-wing Bharatiya Janata Party, which rejects any shift away from the goalposts set by the original July 2005 agreement. 

It will try to hold the Singh government down to its earlier commitments, which call for unconditional nuclear cooperation. This is likely to narrow the government's room for maneuver and compromise.


----------



## bowser (2 October 2006)

YOUNG_TRADER said:
			
		

> Kennas who are the canucks?




The Canadians, lots of yellow cake


----------



## Sean K (3 October 2006)

YOUNG_TRADER said:
			
		

> Also looks like Bill didn't get voted on in the US, will have to wait till Novemeber




Not sure how much of an effect this will have on the price of uranium or our explorers. 

It's going to take new mines quite a long time to come into production anyway, and new reactors in India are going to take time to be built, so we're looking at quite a time for any sales. The ones benefitting now are BHP with the Aus/China deal sewn up. Olympic Dam is going to be very valuable.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (4 October 2006)

Theres just no stopping it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


*
October 2, 2006
Spot: US$55.75/lb (+1.75)*


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (4 October 2006)

PNN nad TOE enjoying the wave,

expect SMM and AGS to continue over the next few days


----------



## Sean K (6 October 2006)

Now we're going to be sending it to Mexico too!!..........

=DJ INTERVIEW: Mexico Seeks Australian Uranium - Macfarlane  05/10/2006 04:14PM AEST  

   By Barbara Adam 
   Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES 

CANBERRA (Dow Jones)--Mexico is seeking enriched Australian uranium to meet its growing energy needs, Australian Resources Minister Ian Macfarlane said Thursday after a G8+ energy ministers meeting in Monterrey, Mexico. 

At the meeting, Mexico's Energy Secretary, Fernando Canales Clariond discussed the prospect of buying Australian uranium, to be enriched in the U.S. or France. 

"They are looking to expand their nuclear capability in terms of generation," Macfarlane said in a telephone interview with Dow Jones Newswires from Mexico. 

Mexico is a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty but is yet to ratify a further nuclear safeguards agreement. 

Macfarlane said that agreement could be ratified in coming months, allowing Australian uranium exports to Mexico in as little as three years. 

Last year Australia produced about one-fifth of the world's uranium output and at present all the uranium from the country's three producing mines is exported. 

Rio Tinto Plc. (RTP), BHP Billiton Ltd. (BHP) and San Diego-based General Atomics each own one of the mines. Canada's SXR Uranium One Inc. (SXR.T) last month announced it will proceed with its as-yet undeveloped Honeymoon project, with the first production expected in 2008. 

Australia only allows its uranium to be exported to countries which have signed the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. 

"If Mexico ratifies it then we could sell them the uranium direct or allow the uranium to be enriched and then delivered to Mexico," Macfarlane said. 

Further talks on uranium exports are expected when Mexican President Vicente Fox visits Australia in mid-November. 

If Mexico decided to expand its current nuclear power plant, it could look to increase its uranium imports in the next three or four years, Macfarlane said. 

If it decided to built a new nuclear facility, the increased demand for uranium would probably occur in the next five to eight years, he said. 

Most of Australia's uranium is committed under long-term contracts with the U.S., Europe, Japan and South Korea. 

Surging uranium prices are expected to boost the value of Australian uranium exports by 45% to A$791 million in fiscal 2007. 

The increased interest in Australian uranium raises the likelihood a fifth uranium mine will be developed, Macfarlane said. 

"I think it (Mexican interest) does increase the opportunity for a new uranium mine in Australia," Macfarlane said. 

"I remain optimistic that we will see an application (for a new uranium mine) in the next year or so." 

Mexico is also interested in Australian coal and liquefied natural gas. 

In January, Mexico awarded Xstrata plc (XTA.LN) and Rio Tinto contracts to supply the government-owned Petacalco power plant in Guerrero state with 8.84 million tons of thermal coal, a deal worth more than A$688 million. 

At the time, Macfarlane expressed hope a similar deal to sell Australian LNG to Mexico could be struck but Australia's LNG output is fully committed for the next four years. 

"The demand for LNG is growing," Macfarlane said Thursday. "That is an opportunity for Australia but one which, in the short term, we won't be able to meet because, basically, we're sold out." 

Macfarlane promised his Mexican counterpart he would investigate the availability of Australian LNG post-2010 LNG supplies and discuss the matter further in November.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (6 October 2006)

Those who missed out on the Mantra and Uranium SA floats may like to take a look at Northern Uranium,

It looks like a decent Uranium IPO, with a 100% interest in a large land holding in the N.T. that was previously explored by Canadian Majors who thought it had similarities to their huge discoveries in Canada

Looks to be a tight float, I'm going to apply


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (9 October 2006)

I knew the Uranium demand supply shortfall was significant but didn't realise the figures,

for 2007 they're forecasting demand to increase to 80,500t and supply to ramp up to 56,200t thats a shortfall of around 30%   and even with ramped up supply the demand increase will either keep pace or outstrip supply growth

link to article 

http://www.fnarena.com/index2.cfm?type=dsp_newsitem&n=114F4151-17A4-1130-F5972902082BA7A8


----------



## noirua (9 October 2006)

YOUNG_TRADER said:
			
		

> I knew the Uranium demand supply shortfall was significant but didn't realise the figures,
> 
> for 2007 they're forecasting demand to increase to 80,500t and supply to ramp up to 56,200t thats a shortfall of around 30%   and even with ramped up supply the demand increase will either keep pace or outstrip supply growth
> 
> ...




Hi Y_T, if all this comes off, then you could become the " Uranium King of ASF ". 

This " Aussie Uranium Mines " link doesn't show any great increase at all in Uranium supply in the immediate future with only one more mine being given a go ahead and Olympic Damn tailing off a bit with the others:  http://www.uic.com.au/emine.htm


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (9 October 2006)

noirua said:
			
		

> Hi Y_T, if all this comes off, then you could become the " Uranium King of ASF ".
> 
> This " Aussie Uranium Mines " link doesn't show any great increase at all in Uranium supply in the immediate future with only one more mine being given a go ahead and Olympic Damn tailing off a bit with the others:  http://www.uic.com.au/emine.htm





lol, I'd prefer to be the Uranium Prince, or no wait the Uranium Night, riding on his powerful stallion (powered by U3O8, greed and crazy investors)


----------



## nizar (9 October 2006)

YOUNG_TRADER said:
			
		

> Those who missed out on the Mantra and Uranium SA floats may like to take a look at Northern Uranium,
> 
> It looks like a decent Uranium IPO, with a 100% interest in a large land holding in the N.T. that was previously explored by Canadian Majors who thought it had similarities to their huge discoveries in Canada
> 
> Looks to be a tight float, I'm going to apply




Thanks for the heads up YT, yeh at a glance it seems this one has potential,

It looks good; previous exploration by a number of companies and some decent grades (0.82% cross-cut sampling, 1.5% rock chiop sampling) reminds me of UTO had decent grades in the prospectus and hey 80c on the open

Most of the projects are in N.T.

Its a small float as well, market cap of $7-8million at the offer price 

Management with uranium exploration experience, id prefer that over mitsubishi motors experience!! LOL (but nevertheless i expect 60-70c for USA)

so it seems to tick a few boxes.

And they mention "olympic dam style" on the website, gotta love that, that alone is worth at least 30% premium !!


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (11 October 2006)

Being a uranium analyst must be a pretty easy job,


*Banker: * So what direction in the Uranium price headed?

*Uranium Analyst: * Let me crunch some numbers, compute some figures and look at some graphs and get back to you on that one..........................

A week later,

*Uranium Analyst:* It looks like its headed UP

*October 9, 2006
Spot: US$56.00/lb (+0.25)*

Is there no stopping it?


----------



## chansw (15 October 2006)

http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,23636,20584042-462,00.html

*Price surge sparks uranium rush*
October 15, 2006 12:00am

THE search for uranium is hotting up in the Northern Territory with companies scrambling to take advantage of the mineral's continuing price surge and investor appeal.

Tenements in the NT are being snapped up quickly, including some by the world's biggest uranium producer. 

Canada's Cameco has joined up with Australia's Uranium Equities to explore NT tenements in the northeast of the huge Jabiluka and Ranger deposits, 250km east of Darwin. 

The joint venture is the first to be signed by Cameco and an Australian junior company. 

Sydney-based Monaro Mining, which has been focusing on uranium in Kyrgyzstan, has picked up a number of tenements in the NT, WA and Qld. 

The company has allied itself with geologist Mohan Varkey, who is credited with the discovery of the Nabarlek uranium deposit in the NT, which was mined between 1979 and 1988.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (25 October 2006)

So anyone want to know why most uranium companies are soaring today?


The worlds next biggest mine Cigar Lake has experienced another setback follwing heavy flooding!


*Junior uranium stocks benefiting from Cameco's misfortune * 
By Jon Nones
24 Oct 2006 at 03:57 PM 

St. LOUIS (ResourceInvestor.com) -- Cameco's [NYSE:CCJ; TSX:CCO] stock fell 9.3% on Monday after reporting a massive flood at Cigar Lake. Today, its shares continued to fall, losing 81 cents to $38.14 by mid-afternoon. 

Amid concerns that the world-largest uranium producer will have difficulties meeting its supply commitments, trading was heavy in a number of smaller uranium mining companies today:

SXR Uranium One [TSX:SXR] was up more than 12% to $11.40, a gain of $1.25, with more than 6.1 million shares traded.
Ur-Energy [TSX:URE], up 10 cents to $3.43 with over four million shares traded. 
Forsys Metals [TSX:FSY], up 12 cents to $2.27 on over 1.1 million shares.
UrAsia Energy [TSXv:UUU], up 10 cents to $3.02 with nearly 7.7 million shares traded.
Denison Mines [TSXEN], up 52 cents to $19.27 with over 760,000 shares traded.
International Uranium Corp. [TSX:IUC], up six cents to $6.74 on trading of one million shares.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (25 October 2006)

A better article on how the Caminco mine flood will effect Uranium Mkt



http://www.fnarena.com/index2.cfm?type=dsp_newsitem&n=7CBF6F11-17A4-1130-F5C16BD6222C5E7F


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (27 October 2006)

Most people would have noticed Uraniums soaring again, well today it was because Warrick Grigor of Far East Capital has released a very thorough Uranium Report, 

see article http://www.theaustralian.news.com.a...857-643,00.html

Anyone got access to this report? I'm trying hard to get it

Has been an excellent week for Uranium companies with Cameco Flood, Rio Rossing Mine Strike and now this new report


----------



## chris1983 (27 October 2006)

Hey YT.

Seen the report and I wouldnt take much notice of it.  Pretty useless.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (27 October 2006)

chris1983 said:
			
		

> Hey YT.
> 
> Seen the report and I wouldnt take much notice of it.  Pretty useless.





Hmmmm that wouldn't be because he's bagging your beloved BMN is it?

I have to agree with his findings,

BMN, UXA and TOE can't justify their mkt caps when compared to the likes of MTN and EVE

And Warrick is a solid operator mate, not just some journalist, he actually has been involved with  hell of a lot of projects and he's respected


----------



## chris1983 (27 October 2006)

Just as an example he say's,

Deep Yellow is very expensive, Bannerman is expensive, Omega corp are fully priced, Toro Energy is overpriced, he says energy ventures are good so you will be happy to hear that.  Alliance are fully priced.

He says Peninsula are good..trust..he is a director of peninsula.  Peninsula are more based on their gold assets in Fiji.  He even say's that Reefton mining are fair!! haha he doesnt know what he's talking about.


----------



## chris1983 (27 October 2006)

I knew you would say that about Bannerman.  I'm saying hes full of crap just because of some of his other predictions.  Which are hilarious.  He sais Nova energy is sound.  Arent their uranium assets based in WA from what I can recall?  He also says Thundelarra are fully priced..they havnt even gone up for their uranium assets! Its a very funny article.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (27 October 2006)

I'd agree with AGS being overpriced when compared to say MTN, but then AGS has Heathgate JV so strategic Advantage

I'd agree with OMC being overpriced when compared to EVE, but then OMC is far more advanced than EVE so strategic advantage

I'd agree that BMN is just plain overpriced, but then thats partly becuase its Mkt Cap is up near $150m and all it has to show are some 0.02-0.03% Uranium Intercepts, but then PDN and RIO are near by so strategic advantage


Any chance of getting the report?

p.s. I agree he is biased re PEN and MRO

I also reckon he's MAD re RTM I wouldn't go near them with a 50foot pole!


----------



## Sean K (27 October 2006)

I think uranium is heading to easily reach $100 a lb next year unless something amazing happens on the supply side. As we've seen this week, just one mine delay and the market jumps on uranium stocks as they know of the supply problems. The only thing on the horizon that I can see putting the breaks on is Olympic Dam drastically accelerating production but I think BHP will control this process so that they still get a balance of increased production and still high prices. The other thing to lower prices maybe the Labor decision to allow more mines in Australia. As we have such massive amounts of resources in the country, and a few potential mines all at similar stages, there may be a flood of material going to market in 3-5 years. So we should have a few years of increasing prices yet.


----------



## chris1983 (27 October 2006)

YT you would agree with everything being overpriced as compared to EVE


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (27 October 2006)

That U price graph looks like the stairway to heaven!


----------



## chris1983 (27 October 2006)

Yeah I'll try get a copy scanned.  Flat out at work atm though and the article isnt mine..its a mates..otherwise I would of brought it home with me and scanned it there.

Trust me its not the best read.  He does say your EVE are a good though.  I agree EVE are underpriced.  You will have your price rise eventually.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (27 October 2006)

chris1983 said:
			
		

> YT you would agree with everything being overpriced as compared to EVE





Nope, 

I'd be quite happy to buy 

ARU (I own but not much)
URA (I own but not much) 
MRO (Don't own) 
MTN (I own) 
WME (Don't own anymore)
MRU (don't own anymore)
AGS (Don't own)
OMC (Don't own anymore)

I work on fundamentals, the higher the mkt cap, the more resources and higher grades the company has to have to justify it


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (27 October 2006)

chris1983 said:
			
		

> Yeah I'll try get a copy scanned.  Flat out at work atm though and the article isnt mine..its a mates..otherwise I would of brought it home with me and scanned it there.
> 
> Trust me its not the best read.  He does say your EVE are a good though.  I agree EVE are underpriced.  You will have your price rise eventually.




Cheers Chris,


----------



## Sean K (27 October 2006)

YOUNG_TRADER said:
			
		

> Nope,
> 
> I'd be quite happy to buy
> 
> ...




YT, I reckon when SMM get their 6 x JORC estimates in by the end of the year this could be undervalued as well. Although by my calcs it's getting pricey. 188m shares x $2.00 = $376 m.....But a massive resource already, currently estimated at a total 35 m tns U308. 

Check out their presentation to investors on their web site. Very interesting is page 1 of Part 2 which gives a run down on all U players in Australia and the size of the resources, correct as at March 06. 

www.summitresources.com.au


----------



## Simmo (27 October 2006)

I agree with Deep Yellow , Bannerman and TORO being overpriced for where they are and EVE under priced. 

Think OMC is fair value currently but by end of the year they will be back to well under priced due to Bungua results coming back.


----------



## chris1983 (27 October 2006)

Simmo said:
			
		

> I agree with Deep Yellow , Bannerman and TORO being overpriced for where they are and EVE under priced.
> 
> Think OMC is fair value currently but by end of the year they will be back to well under priced due to Bungua results coming back.




You know..I understand all your views in saying Bannerman are overpriced.  I still think they will go to $2 in quick time.  I'll give it a year max to reach that price.  They know the uranium is there.  They dont have a JORC deposit yet..but will with time.  I didnt wait for the JORC estimate..and im glad I didnt.  They will be very expensive when that time comes.  Investors obviously think there is a LOT of uranium there.  Goanikontes has the historic drills to prove that.

As for the others..ive read up on eve..they look okay but they need a lot larger resource for the development of a mine.

Anyway i'll try get this article attached for you all to read.


----------



## nizar (27 October 2006)

You guys should look at EME - thats pretty undervalued ($50million, compared to say..... wait for it..... TORO!)
This is the conclusion from Resource Capital Research from their latest uranium sector review:

The project appears to have the conditions neccessary potentially to make quick advancement - close to surface, good metallurgic recoveries, high grades with upside resource potential, and experienced management team and is in a favourable jurisdiction (NT)

SMM is a great stock but beware ALOT hinges on what happens in April next year i mean ALOT... look at their presentations its full of it.... If nuclear policy doesnt change this will plummet to the cents. If it does, then it will still face State opposition BUT that should be easily overcome looking at the economics of the project. Production within 18 months is feasible.


----------



## chris1983 (27 October 2006)

Ok the file size it allows is way to small to upload this article.  Just PM your email if you want to have a read of the article.

Regards,

Chris


----------



## Simmo (27 October 2006)

Bannerman's market cap is now approaching 100 million
with 72.8 million shares on issue at $1.33 is 96.8 million undiluted
then there is an additional 40 million listed options and another 20 million unlisted options.

Bannerman only has 100% success factored into the price at the moment.
The share price just seems to be getting ahead of itself compared to other U stocks at the moment.


----------



## noirua (27 October 2006)

" Future of Uranium in Australia " conference today:

http://www.brr.com.au/event/5URA/60057/16545/wmp/d2/22u0z64


----------



## insider (27 October 2006)

It'd be a good idea for the government to allow more uranium mining because the farming economy is stuffed and farmers are turning to mining for wages. Minig uranium will help balance our economy.


----------



## chris1983 (28 October 2006)

Simmo said:
			
		

> Bannerman's market cap is now approaching 100 million
> with 72.8 million shares on issue at $1.33 is 96.8 million undiluted
> then there is an additional 40 million listed options and another 20 million unlisted options.
> 
> ...




Well it will be interesting to see what happens Simmo.  I believe they will keep going.  I dont care if the whole market thinks they are overpriced.  As long as they get more overpriced im happy.

One thing you must realise..they are right next to Paladin with very similar geology..The Langer Heinrich channel runs into Bannermans Elpse channel.. and they also have the Goanikontes deposit that runs along the strike of Rossing with the Goanikontes prospect..if they find as much uranium as what Paladin have..then hey I'm all smiles because Bannerman have a lot less shares on issue.  I think there is a good possibility that they will have more uranium than Paladin.  So i'll just continue to hold. 

Investors have gone into Bannerman with the same beliefs I have..thats why they are the price they are..I did get in at an earlier price though.  I believe they allready have a sizeable deposit at Goanikontes.  Add Fat prophets and Carmichael to the believers in Bannerman.  Carmichael put a 6 month target of $1.60 on the share which was made in September.

So hey im willing to wait to see their drill results.


----------



## chris1983 (28 October 2006)

YOUNG_TRADER said:
			
		

> And Warrick is a solid operator mate, not just some journalist, he actually has been involved with  hell of a lot of projects and he's respected




I feel sorry for the people who read his report and decided to go buy Metex.  He put a nice rating of Excellent on them :|  I will quote what he said

_"Top of the pile is metex resources"_

See report below..those guys who bought in on his report are gunna get burnt.


SMH report today for Metex (MEE) issued today was not glowing:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/business...grazie-to-metex/2006/10/27/1161749311836.html

Lombardy minister's no grazie to Metex
Desmond O'Grady in Rome
October 28, 2006

THE no-uranium movement in the Italian Alps is celebrating a victory over the Australian exploration group Metex Resources. Metex was seeking a permit to explore the uranium potential of the Valgoglio-Novazza zone, in a valley 85 kilometres north-east of Milan.

The Italian energy authority ENI located uranium there in the late 1970s but dropped further work because Italy voted against building nuclear reactors.

In a statement to the Australian Stock Exchange in September, Metex managing director Ian Walker said the area contained an estimated 870,000 tonnes of material which was expected to produce 130,000 tonnes of uranium, with an in situ value estimated at almost $200 million.

A Metex press release described the Novazza site as the cornerstone of our new energy policy. The news produced a pick-up in the Metex share price although it subsequently fell back to around 6.5c - only to close at 8.2c on Friday.

But the Valgoglio local council, which includes Novazza (together they have fewer than 1000 inhabitants), voted against the Metex project. And on Tuesday the Lombardy Region Minister for the Environment, Mario Pagnoncelli, announced he had given it the thumbs down.

We want to close the question once and for all, Mr Pagnoncelli said. Last week I asked the Metex representatives to withdraw their request but they have not responded.

We've got projects of our own, Valgoglio mayor Augusto Bonardo said by phone. We settled this issue years ago and don't want to reopen it for an anachronistic and dangerous project - uranium mining entails health hazards and environmental damage.

The uranium project was discussed at several public meetings. A no-uranium committee was formed and people were invited to email their disapproval to Metex. It is claimed that 500 did so and a petition was presented to Mr Pagnoncelli with 2500 signatures opposing the project.

The well-organised and nationally based Legambiente movement, with ideals close to those of the Greens, has been crucial to the opposition movement, using arguments such as that radon gas from uranium is already present in considerable quantities in the zone, which has high cancer rates.

Yet several at the public meetings spoke in favour of the Metex project, and there is a growing impatience with the not-in-my-backyard mentality which blocks many development projects in Italy.

A Valgoglio councillor who was absent when it voted against the project, Amedeo Pirola, says the earlier site exploration did no damage, provided work and resulted in construction of a useful road. He pointed out that the Metex application was only for exploration, not extraction.


----------



## bigdog (28 October 2006)

Chris,

"Give me your email. I scanned the report for some of the guys on aussiestock forums"

Where do I locate scanned file on Aussie Stock?


----------



## chris1983 (28 October 2006)

Hey bigdog.

you on here also 

private message me your email address and then I can send you the file..it was too large to upload


----------



## nizar (30 October 2006)

URANIUM SPOT PRICE NOW US$60.25* !!
(up $4/LB ON the week)

SHOW ME The money!!!!!

*as per trade tech: http://tradetech.com/


----------



## legs (30 October 2006)

BMN is shooting up today on the rise. 

Code  Last $ +/-     vol

bmn   1.450 0.120 576,647


----------



## dj_420 (30 October 2006)

could explain the increased interest in SMM. thats excellent news anyway, a decent jump in price.


----------



## nizar (30 October 2006)

dj_420 said:
			
		

> could explain the increased interest in SMM. thats excellent news anyway, a decent jump in price.




SMM is a winner.... was it jorc estimates for 5 or 6 of their deposits planned before the end of the year?!


----------



## Sean K (30 October 2006)

nizar said:
			
		

> SMM is a winner.... was it jorc estimates for 5 or 6 of their deposits planned before the end of the year?!




They are drilling and are to report on 8, but they are saying in their latest ann that 6 more will be reported on by year end. They are listed in the report. 

They have 15 other deposits with known uranium they are going to drill.....

The Valhalla deposit alone has 57 million lbs already JORC with possibility of improvement. $57 m x $57 Uranuim price = $3.2 billion.

This could be a 100 million lb uranium company.

Uranium tipped to go to $100 next year x 100m lbs = $1 trillion, I think.


----------



## Sean K (30 October 2006)

SMM clearing $2.30 now. Market cap exploading..

All uranium stock pumping. Even EVE might end up above $0.10....


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (30 October 2006)

How the hell am I supposed to study when I'm getting Price Alerts for URA (60c ) and EVE(12.5c Finally!)

Euphoranium is starting!


----------



## Fab (30 October 2006)

What so interesting about EVE ??? Looks to me very speculative


----------



## hypnotic (30 October 2006)

YOUNG_TRADER said:
			
		

> How the hell am I supposed to study when I'm getting Price Alerts for URA (60c ) and EVE(12.5c Finally!)
> 
> Euphoranium is starting!




I think the stock market is telling you quit studying your silly laws and make some real cash in the stock exchange.  : 

Seems like a great day for uranium.


----------



## Sean K (30 October 2006)

Fab said:
			
		

> What so interesting about EVE ??? Looks to me very speculative




Speculative in that they have not drilled the entire tennament yet and have only provided one JORC resource for a section. There's a lot of work to go before this is a economic mine. Years I'd say. But that's the case with many of these players. 

It's key investment as far as I'm concerned is African Energy. They announced last week they were about to start a new drilling program that would start 'in the next few weeks'. There's nothing on the immediate horizon to drive the stock except the general market euphoria, or maybe a takeover offer....unlikely at this stage. Day traders grabbing it this afternoon I reckon. Now the spotlight is on it, I wouldn't be surprised if it has another run before profit takers clip it.


----------



## Fab (30 October 2006)

Yep I have to agree with you there Kennas


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (30 October 2006)

kennas said:
			
		

> There's nothing on the immediate horizon to drive the stock except the general market euphoria




Nothing excpet the fact that throughout November they are doing a book build type IPO with UK Financial Insto's for the AIM listing of their Subsid African Energy, so I reckon may see more action throughout November as UK Fundies take a look,

The same Insto's who backed OMC and EXT, so are well versed with African Uranium opportunities (or lack there of)

Also EVE has compiled a JORC from SCRATCH in a few months, so I reckon by this time next year there will be at least 4 JORC Deposits 

In the end PDN or OMC will take out African Energy


----------



## Sean K (31 October 2006)

YOUNG_TRADER said:
			
		

> Nothing excpet the fact that throughout November they are doing a book build type IPO with UK Financial Insto's for the AIM listing of their Subsid African Energy, so I reckon may see more action throughout November as UK Fundies take a look,
> 
> The same Insto's who backed OMC and EXT, so are well versed with African Uranium opportunities (or lack there of)
> 
> ...




Yeah agree that the AIM listing will definately attract attention. Perhaps that is it for the moment and into the comming weeks. If African Energy is going to list at $0.20 then EVE should be at least that, with their other investments adding extra value. 

Hopefully the buyers will be lining up today, but there's a bit of paper profit out there atm. Hopefully it's another good day all round!


----------



## nizar (31 October 2006)

Fab said:
			
		

> What so interesting about EVE ??? Looks to me very speculative




Maybe it looks to u very speculative because u DONT UNDERSTAND

Do u know what the word speculative means??

Let me explain with an example.
If u have company A which has only LAND, in a country with (at least some degree) of political risk, and has done some drilling returning UNECONOMIC grades of 70ppm and ur market cap is $100m.... sure that has SPECULATION PRICED IN... and is VERY SPECULATIVE

But company B which has already a RESOURCE, at ECONOMIC grades, in a country supportive of uranium mining, and the URANIUM IS ALREADY THERE at 400ppm, and the market cap is $15million... This is NOT SPECULATION. SPECULATION MEANS the company is trading at its VALUE + a speculative element ie. it is trading ABOVE its value. SPECULATION means if there is "potential" (with a risk element) priced in.

Company A = Toro
Company B = EVE

There is no speculation at the current price buddy, do your research, are there any other explorers with a resource capped at this price?? if there are, PLEASE TELL ME.

ANd only a VERY SMALL proportion of their land has been drilled so the potential is massive to INCREASE their RESOURCE. Has this potential been priced in?? NO.

Understand??!@!

I think with its current resource EVE is worth at least $40-50million if u compare to its peers. You will see when it lists on AIM, i suspect the poms will value this company more appropriately...


----------



## nizar (31 October 2006)

YOUNG_TRADER said:
			
		

> The same Insto's who backed OMC and EXT,




Exactly.
FAB do u know what happened when overseas buyers bought into OMC and EXT??

I DO.


----------



## Sean K (2 November 2006)

*This is going to keep the focus on uranium and keep driving U stocks even higher IMHO*

CANBERRA (Dow Jones)--Australian Prime Minister John Howard's support for nuclear power may be endorsed by a report on the economic viability of a domestic nuclear power industry due for release Nov. 21.

Former Telstra Corp. chief executive Ziggy Switkowski, chairman of the Prime Minister's uranium mining, processing and nuclear energy review, will release the report and address the National Press Club in Canberra on the findings.

With dire warnings on the economic impact on global warming in the headlines, Howard has been increasingly voicing his support for nuclear power.

Howard said Thursday nuclear power would eventually become competitive with "dirty coal" because carbon pricing would make coal-fired power more expensive.

The Australian government has made a series of funding announcements in recent weeks for the development of clean coal technology, carbon sequestration projects and the world's biggest solar power plant.

Howard has also warned responding to climate change will have an impact on Australia's economy and increase costs to consumers.

With Australia holding around 30% of the world's known uranium reserves, the government is looking at the viability of increasing the nation's involvement in the nuclear fuel cycle in areas such as fuel enrichment and reprocessing.

The taskforce was also asked to examine the potential of "next generation" nuclear technologies to meet safety, waste and proliferation concerns.

At present Australia exports all the uranium produced by its three mines, accounting for 22% of global exports.

Rio Tinto PLC (RTP), BHP Billiton Ltd. (BHP) and San Diego-based General Atomics each own one of the mines. Canada's SXR Uranium One Inc. (SXR.T) owns the approved but as yet undeveloped Honeymoon project.

Switkowski, a former nuclear scientist, was asked to report the taskforce's findings by the end of the year.


----------



## Sean K (4 November 2006)

Hits $60.00. 

There's no stopping it. I can't remember a day it going down. 

All commods up Friday, should be another good day Monday!


----------



## Sean K (4 November 2006)

Investors in Australia are going to start realising the nuclear is the real deal, and policies are going to change. Some of the better U companies in Australia are going to benefit from this considerably. 

On ninemsn:

*Debate to follow govt's nuclear policy*
Saturday Nov 4 13:21 AEDT

A public debate on nuclear energy will follow the publication of a taskforce report on the viability of the industry, Resources Minister Ian Macfarlane says.

Mr Macfarlane said he had received a briefing from former Telstra head Ziggy Switkowski, who heads the government's nuclear energy task force examining the viability of a future nuclear power industry.

"What we are seeing in the community is a willingness now to consider nuclear energy," Mr Macfarlane told reporters.

"We are seeing reports like the Switkowski report which will indicate that nuclear energy will be competitive with low emission coal within 15 years."

Mr Macfarlane said the next step after receiving the report, which is expected to be released in the next few weeks, would be to have a public debate in Australia on nuclear energy, using facts not fear.

"We want to see debate that is based in understanding and knowledge not a debate based on scare tactics," he said.


----------



## gtr (4 November 2006)

*Uranium  Boom*

Very interesting read  www.dinesletter.com    regards  Ren


----------



## djones (5 November 2006)

In your opinions what is the best Uranium stock to buy for short term gain (sell in approx 3-4 months) at the moment?


----------



## Sean K (5 November 2006)

djones said:
			
		

> In your opinions what is the best Uranium stock to buy for short term gain (sell in approx 3-4 months) at the moment?




PDN

Safest bet atm. All the rest could well be lower, but this is about to start actually mining. 

(don't hold)


----------



## djones (5 November 2006)

kennas said:
			
		

> PDN
> 
> Safest bet atm. All the rest could well be lower, but this is about to start actually mining.
> 
> (don't hold)




Thanks. Whats your reason for not holding currently? Also at what price range is it still a good buy in your opinion?


----------



## Sean K (5 November 2006)

djones said:
			
		

> Thanks. Whats your reason for not holding currently? Also at what price range is it still a good buy in your opinion?




I'm waiting for a pull back to $5.25 ish. Might not get there though.   

Broker recommendations and price targets:

ABN Amro   	  31-Oct-06   	  Buy   	  $6.47   	  
UBS 	             31-Oct-06 	     Neutral 2 	    $5.50 	
Deutsche Bank 	04-Oct-06 	Upgrade to Buy from Hold 	$6.07

This is not a short term 'multi bagger' like some of the others (EVE, URA etc), but is the safest due to its stage of mining. DYOR. Check each company thread and make your own mind up.


----------



## 2020hindsight (5 November 2006)

Kennas
call this a feeling in my bones, but comparing this with what appears to be tha main opposition, I plan to stay with Zinc for a few months yet - Uranium for another day for me  - 
Appreciate any comments - as long as you don't mention the bible lol.
______________________
Disclaimer I'm not ramping, although I do plead guilty to rambling.  I never realised that ramping and rambling just turn the b upside down... AHH SHUDDUP!!.   (rambling idiot!!)

PS Is it the case that, when you keep all your eggs in one basket - you end up a basket case.?


----------



## nizar (5 November 2006)

2020hindsight said:
			
		

> Kennas
> call this a feeling in my bones, but comparing this with what appears to be tha main opposition, I plan to stay with Zinc for a few months yet - Uranium for another day for me  -
> Appreciate any comments - as long as you don't mention the bible lol.




PDN is a winner, and i think people are underestimating the potential of this stock. I would not be suprised to see PDN at $20 sometime next year and the price of uranium soars and those contracts roll in.

As for URA, how much will it cost to buy those "advanced projects" that can be mined in a matter of "months" as according to Kate Hobbs. I suspect it will be substantial.

But i agree, zinc for the next 6-12months or so, and it still only be the beginning for uranium.

Borshoff reckons uranium will be in shortage for the next 10 years.


----------



## nizar (5 November 2006)

Article realadin



> Paladin boss warns on yellowcake fever
> 2nd November 2006, 10:00 WST
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## champ2003 (5 November 2006)

nizar said:
			
		

> PDN is a winner, and i think people are underestimating the potential of this stock. I would not be suprised to see PDN at $20 sometime next year and the price of uranium soars and those contracts roll in.
> 
> As for URA, how much will it cost to buy those "advanced projects" that can be mined in a matter of "months" as according to Kate Hobbs. I suspect it will be substantial.
> 
> ...





Nizar PDN at $20 is a very big call for a company not making any money at the moment. It needs to prove that it can generate enough cash and profit to warrant the exorbantly high price that it's currently at. If it does then the market will be looking for further increases in revenue to push it even higher. If it fails to deliver the price will collapse in a big way.


----------



## imajica (5 November 2006)

ERN might be worth a look - have just acquired a number of tenements in Namibia, down the road from Rio Tinto's Rossing Mine and Paladin's Langer Heinrich deposit. radiometrics look pretty impressive!

won't know until they begin drilling but it sure looks promising






Erongo Energy Tenements


----------



## champ2003 (5 November 2006)

By the way has anybody heard of the profit forecast for PDN?


----------



## Sean K (5 November 2006)

champ2003 said:
			
		

> By the way has anybody heard of the profit forecast for PDN?




Good question Champ. Was probably in the BFS based on about $30 uranium price, so would be interesting to extrapolate. I'll look into it myself. Report ron.


----------



## champ2003 (5 November 2006)

Good idea Kennas. I think i'll do the same.


----------



## Georgeb (5 November 2006)

The potental of EXT will come to fruition in 2007. I suspect it will be one of the best performing U stocks in 07. They have the location, to date the grades are excellent and extra tenaments to be announced very soon.


----------



## djones (5 November 2006)

Wht are your thoughts on BMN and LOU (now ERN)?


----------



## nizar (5 November 2006)

Georgeb said:
			
		

> The potental of EXT will come to fruition in 2007. I suspect it will be one of the best performing U stocks in 07. They have the location, to date the grades are excellent and extra tenaments to be announced very soon.




they do indeed have the location, whether geographical proximity means anything is yet to be proven. how many companies were exploring around Olympic Dam since 1975 until now and besides Prominent Hill, nothing substantial has yet been found?

also, another thing, too bad it takes 6 months per 11 holes.

extra tenaments very soon??, i have been waiting for these for several months. Thank God i was waiting from the sidelines.


----------



## Fab (5 November 2006)

Isn't PDN the only obvious choice for a well run good prospect U productivity and low risK uranium company. I am surprised not to read more comment on PDN  in this forum. Maybe in Dec when they start production


----------



## nizar (5 November 2006)

Fab said:
			
		

> Isn't PDN the only obvious choice for a well run good prospect U productivity and low risK uranium company. I am surprised not to read more comment on PDN  in this forum. Maybe in Dec when they start production




every1s busy looking 4 the next paladin


----------



## johnmwu3 (5 November 2006)

nizar said:
			
		

> every1s busy looking 4 the next paladin



Nizar,
May I ask how do you think about CUY  ? it proved some U in it's Orban area.

Cheers,

John3


----------



## nizar (5 November 2006)

johnmwu3 said:
			
		

> Nizar,
> May I ask how do you think about CUY  ? it proved some U in it's Orban area.
> 
> Cheers,
> ...




Im not familiar with the stock. Ill have a look during the week and let u know what i think.

Cheers


----------



## champ2003 (5 November 2006)

kennas said:
			
		

> Good question Champ. Was probably in the BFS based on about $30 uranium price, so would be interesting to extrapolate. I'll look into it myself. Report ron.





I fund the BFS announcement for PDN on the 5/9/2005
Costs for the first 6 years are estimated at 12.20/lb u308 extracted. In the first year PDN's U308 production will be 2.6 million u308. The profit after costs at the current price of $60 U308 is $47.80 therefore 2.6 million U308 x $47.80 = 124 million 280 thousand profit so there we have it. Now it just needs to be worker out if the current share price is worth it according to that.


----------



## champ2003 (5 November 2006)

I meant to say i found the BFS announcement.


----------



## champ2003 (5 November 2006)

Looking at PDN now its almost valued at 3 billion dollars. I hate to say it but it appears as if it's way over valued if i'm right with my calculations. ANyone else got any thoughts on this new info?


----------



## champ2003 (5 November 2006)

Actually if you count their reserves as well as the 60 odd million U308 then thats pretty close to the value of the 3 billion market capitalization.


----------



## insider (6 November 2006)

I thought some people should inform themselves with a bit of background knowledge on Uranium. Here's a link from the World Nuclear Association

World Nuclear Association


----------



## Sean K (6 November 2006)

*Weekly Uranium Spot Price Takes a Breather*

By James Finch

After a record percentage jump of 7 percent the previous week, TradeTech's Uranium spot indicator stalled at US$60.25/pound. According to the consulting service, which is the first to report changes in the spot price, "small quantities of uranium" were offered at the current price.

TradeTech Chief Executive Gene Clark said, "One off-market transaction involving delivery before year-end was concluded this week at, or very near to, TradeTech's Spot Price Indicator of $60.25 per pound U3O8." The term U3O8 refers to uranium oxide, which is the processed uranium before conversion and enrichment for use in powering nuclear reactors.

The spot uranium price has been moving higher through 2006. It has doubled in the past 14 months. "While most sellers adopted a ‘wait and see' attitude, a few decided to capitalize on the recent price run-up," Clark said. "These decisions were prompted by end of year cash needs." Clark explained why there were offers being made available by sellers, "When it gets close to closing the fiscal year, and some sellers see an opportunity to book a sale accompanied with payment before the year ends, offer prices often reflect that hunger for cash."

Clark expects market fundamentals to supper further price increases. Uranium pricing strengthened after a Cameco Corp's advanced uranium project was flooded on October 23rd. Known as Cigar Lake, the uranium mine was anticipated to calm an excited uranium market by providing as many as 18 million pounds of nuclear fuel to global utilities. Utilities were already anticipating a shortage in uranium because of increased Asian demand and the termination of the Russian HEU deal, which benefited U.S. electric utilities.

"The timing of the Cigar Lake flooding, coincident with the need of some sellers to generate cash at year-end, means buyers have a brief window of opportunity to obtain uranium at prices that will likely be considered a bargain in the not-too-distant future," Clark concluded.


----------



## Mellow77 (6 November 2006)

Well, recently it’s been a spectacular up ride for many uranium stocks. Well done 

On the way up, I sold almost all holdings with more or less good profit.

Now, with burning cash in the bank I am divided in opinions. Each part of my brain tells me something else:
•	The bull run was too steep and correction must come very soon.
•	There is still potential for upswing due to high demand and lack of supply…

But with the demand/supply it is a bit of problem. According to my info, only BHP & ERA is currently mining & selling uranium. Am I right?

I know it is a silly question but could you state here some companies worth to have a closer look at?

Thank for your reply.


----------



## Sean K (6 November 2006)

Mellow77 said:
			
		

> Well, recently it’s been a spectacular up ride for many uranium stocks. Well done
> 
> On the way up, I sold almost all holdings with more or less good profit.
> 
> ...




And Heathgate at Beverley. 

A 4th mine, Honeymoon, is going to be up and running soon. 

Uranium One, a subsidiary Southern Cross Resources, have been granted environmental approval to mine, with construction to start this year.

The environmental approval was the final step in the process for Uranium One to proceed with mining at the Honeymoon site in SA's far north-east.

Production is likely to start in 2008.

Uranium One already had been granted a mining licence by the SA government but had to wait for the environmental approval before commencing construction.

Next closest to operate will probably be SMM, if Labor change their poicy, but that won't be operating even after that for some time.


----------



## nizar (6 November 2006)

kennas said:
			
		

> Next closest to operate will probably be SMM, if Labor change their poicy, but that won't be operating even after that for some time.




12-18months?


----------



## Sean K (6 November 2006)

nizar said:
			
		

> 12-18months?



I'm not really sure how long it takes to build all the infrastructure required. They need to complete BFS as well which could take a while. They say that they won't commence BFS until there is a green light from the State Gov, so we're going to have to wait till then. That should occur after Labor change their nat policy in April. Give the State a couple of months to toss over it, so maybe not even a decion to do a BFS until June/Jul 07....It's a long process.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (7 November 2006)

This uranium game is too easy,

I've just been jumping on U-stocks that haven't run and sure enough they do, jumped on OMC this morning, also commented on WME (all be it much higher risk due to placement) both have run 10-15%

Now only decent U-Stock I see left that hasn't run and in fact is down is GBE, due to relese results shortly so ann could get U-Bulls into it


----------



## jemma (7 November 2006)

I suggest you guys take a look at SIM.

They are drilling now next to DYL and AGS and only have 24 million shares on issue.


----------



## sleeper88 (7 November 2006)

are there any other junior U companies that hasn't had a good run yet besides GBE?


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (7 November 2006)

Not that I could find really, mind you I'm refering to decent Uranium companies, but still I can't find any that are sitting at 6 month lows like GBE,

Pick any stock and its run

AEX, AGS, BMN, WME, MRO, MRU, UNX, USA, UXA, SIM, MTN, OMC, PNN, ENR, UTO, PDN, SMM, EME and so on

More include UOG, PEN, DYL, EXT, WMT

So I'd say its a fait to compli that GBE will enjoy some activity


----------



## sleeper88 (7 November 2006)

YOUNG_TRADER said:
			
		

> Not that I could find really, mind you I'm refering to decent Uranium companies, but still I can't find any that are sitting at 6 month lows like GBE,
> 
> Pick any stock and its run
> 
> ...





hey YT, how about TOE? it's cashed up ($14.8m) and it hasn't really been moving for a while, haven't followed this one, just caught my eye a min ago   
(personally i fink UOG is just using the U word to attract investors, i has very little substance..just my opinion..sorry if it offended any UOG holders   )


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (7 November 2006)

Well TOE is cashed up $15m but then its mkt cap is what? $120m? also its up 10% or so over the last few days and up 50% of its lows of 50c about 2 months ago so there is room to move on the downside

GBE on the other hand have $4m in cash, a mkt cap of $25m fully dilluted at 45c and are sitting on 6month lows of 45c, the chart indicates support here so downside is limited,


Take your pick, but I jumped in on GBE those opies were just too tasty!


----------



## juddy (7 November 2006)

has to be some profit taking from this run soon. It has just been going too well.


----------



## nizar (7 November 2006)

sleeper88 said:
			
		

> hey YT, how about TOE? it's cashed up ($14.8m) and it hasn't really been moving for a while, haven't followed this one, just caught my eye a min ago




toro is the most overvalued stock i know, and its been overvalued even on the offer price of 25c IMO. forget about it, please.


----------



## Sean K (9 November 2006)

*Nuclear fuel becoming choice energy investment, experts say*

Greenwire, 7 November 2006 - Hedge funds are quickly making uranium the energy investment of choice as a worldwide shortage and growing demand pushes its value beyond its six-fold gain since 2001, experts said this week.

Nuclear power producers are paying record prices for the ore that fuels 16 percent of the world's electricity. The spot price of uranium has advanced an average of 45 percent per year over the past five years, based on data from Georgia-based Ux Consulting Co.

Experts forecast that uranium, valued at a record $60 per pound last week, may break $70 by this January as a renewed interest in nuclear power worldwide drives demand even higher. Some forecasts predict uranium's value to hit $80 or even $100 per pound.

"It is a very tight, producer's market," said Robert Godsell, chief executive officer of Johannesburg-based AngloGold Ashanti Ltd., whose gold mines also produce uranium. "We're very optimistic about the long-term price of uranium because it's the only alternative to coal and oil-based energy on scale."

The high prices are in part due to virtually no investment in new uranium mines in almost two decades. Mines in Australia, Canada and Namibia are straining to keep up with demand.

"We're in an historic uranium shortage," said James Passin, who manages $580 million at New York-based Firebird Management LLC and began buying shares of uranium producers five years ago. "We're in a global nuclear revival," he said (Evans/Donville, Bloomberg , Nov. 6).


----------



## Sean K (9 November 2006)

*PM foresees nuclear in energy mix*

Katharine Murphy and Liz Minchin
November 9, 2006

JOHN Howard has signalled nuclear energy must be part of Australia's energy mix but said his Government has not made any decisions about the large subsidies required to build new power plants.

The Prime Minister yesterday welcomed a report from the International Energy Agency, which argued in favour of boosting nuclear energy for the first time in the forum's 32-year history.

The IEA assessment comes ahead of a report by Mr Howard's nuclear energy taskforce due on November 21, which is expected to argue Australia could build nuclear power plants within two decades because coal-fired power will become expensive as polluters bear the costs of cleaning up their carbon dioxide emissions.

Labor's resources spokesman Martin Ferguson also welcomed the new IEA assessment, and continued to push debate within ALP ranks by endorsing the use of nuclear power overseas to lower greenhouse gas emissions. Mr Ferguson stuck to his party's position that Australia does not need nuclear energy, but claimed "it will increase in those countries where it is already a fact of life in Europe, Asia and North America".


----------



## Sean K (12 November 2006)

There is still heaps of media covering uranium atm, which is going to keep driving interest on the market imo. Looks set to continue for a bit perhaps??

I'm thinking of jumping into these U stocks again pretty shortly. As soon as I see some sanity, or an opportunity. 

Considering getting back into: EVE, EXT, MTN, and more SMM. Just holding AGS and SMM now due to their imminent JORC announcements. (wouldn't want to be out when that happens) 

I think the fever is still there, which I am surprised at. Thought it would last a few days and then everyone would jump, but it hasn't really been the case. Perhaps this slight pullback is just the start of a larger run? Or a fall??? Aaahhhhh!

Well, I've got the finger poised anyway to take some quick opportunities while the goings good. Wouldn't want to be holding much overnight though, which I think is the only way to be 'trading' safe atm.


----------



## Sean K (14 November 2006)

*Report tips uranium mining shake-up*
13/11/2006 06:28:08 PM

A government-backed think tank largely made up of uranium industry executives has called for a shake-up of the way uranium ore is regulated and mined in Australia.

A report released by the Uranium Industry Framework (UIF) steering group makes 20 wide-ranging recommendations.

The report says the industry should work to promote a better understanding of uranium, that mining laws around Australia be harmonised, and that indigenous communities be encouraged to become involved in mining.

The UIF report comes a week before the federal government nuclear energy task force, headed by former Telstra boss Ziggy Switkowski, is due to report on the future of the nuclear industry in Australia.

The UIF said the Australian uranium industry should establish a "stewardship platform" to promote the industry.

The paper said transport constraints hampering shipping of yellowcake be removed and that state and territory governments should develop radiation safety and protection courses for miners as well as a certification system.

"Demand for uranium is rising with many countries making more use of nuclear power," Resources Minister Ian Macfarlane said in a statement regarding the paper.

"The spot price for uranium has almost tripled over the last three years, creating valuable export opportunities."

He said Australia currently held about 40 per cent of the world's uranium resources, but accounted for only 23 per cent of the world's production.

Australian Uranium Association executive director Michael Angwin said in a statement that the report was another step towards the industry being recognised as part of the mainstream of Australia's resources industry.

"Australia's uranium industry is a source of jobs and prosperity for Australia and Australians and a means by which the world will be able to address the problems of global warming," Mr Angwin said.

The Australian Conservation Foundation said the report was another example of the government showing their ideological support for uranium mining.


----------



## moses (14 November 2006)

We've barely seen the tip of the uranium iceberg, price or activity.


----------



## zed327 (14 November 2006)

Uranium now $61.00 per pound.


----------



## alankew (14 November 2006)

Anybody apply for any of the new uranium IPOs


----------



## nioka (14 November 2006)

moses said:
			
		

> We've barely seen the tip of the uranium iceberg, price or activity.



That sentiment is giving a lot of false hope to those buyimg shares in some of the smaller prospectors whose only claim to fame so far is talking up "chip samples". There will be a lot of disapointments to come.


----------



## nizar (14 November 2006)

nioka said:
			
		

> That sentiment is giving a lot of false hope to those buyimg shares in some of the smaller prospectors whose only claim to fame so far is talking up "chip samples". There will be a lot of disapointments to come.



Who cares.
Whether the company ever makes it to production or not is irrelevant to me. I make money when the share price goes up. Just ride the speculation and profit off the extremes.


----------



## nioka (14 November 2006)

nizar said:
			
		

> Who cares.
> Whether the company ever makes it to production or not is irrelevant to me. I make money when the share price goes up. Just ride the speculation and profit off the extremes.



You may just get caught???. You wont be the first if you do.


----------



## nizar (14 November 2006)

nioka said:
			
		

> You may just get caught???. You wont be the first if you do.




I may indeed. But thats why when it gets too crazy, u sell. Dont be too greedy and leave some profit on the table for the next person.


----------



## moses (14 November 2006)

nioka said:
			
		

> That sentiment is giving a lot of false hope to those buyimg shares in some of the smaller prospectors whose only claim to fame so far is talking up "chip samples". There will be a lot of disapointments to come.



Sure. But thats always the case, and is a matter of choosing investments wisely. My comment refers to the industry as whole, because I don't believe the world is taking global warming as seriously today as it will tommorrow. The cost of energy will go up, and the advantages of nuclear energy will multiply. And because the cost of uranium is such a trivial component of the cost of running a power station (in contrast to coal), I don't see market forces capping the price of uranium so much as driving it up into blue sky. Think in terms of $1000 per lb.


----------



## Sean K (14 November 2006)

moses said:
			
		

> Think in terms of $1000 per lb.



Yes please!!!!!!!


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (14 November 2006)

YOUNG_TRADER said:
			
		

> Not that I could find really, mind you I'm refering to decent Uranium companies, but still I can't find any that are sitting at 6 month lows like GBE,
> 
> Pick any stock and its run
> 
> ...





And today was GBE's day, stock and options were up over 100% from when this post went up!


----------



## Sean K (15 November 2006)

YOUNG_TRADER said:
			
		

> And today was GBE's day, stock and options were up over 100% from when this post went up!



Good work YT.

Any others that haven't run? 

AEX hasn't, but doesn't deserve too.   
KOR has had a little run

??


----------



## chris1983 (15 November 2006)

I would keep a close eye on ERN.  People will say it has run.  But it definately hasn't IMO.

The erongo license contains the erongo mountains.  The erongo mountains is a granitic mountain range and is a volcanic region, originating some 150 million years ago. Granite is the primary host of uranium mineralisation in Namibia right? worth a go IMO.

They also have another license with strong radiometric anomolies and I dont think there is past exploration in their current licenses.  They are currently applying three other EPL's in Namibia.  Dont forget they are cash flow positive with their oil assets in Louisiana.


----------



## imajica (15 November 2006)

THR - Thor Mining

check out their latest announcement - rock chip sample - 31 % Uranium

very promising stuff in NT

apart from that they have a Moly/Tungsten project which will be priducing berfore the end of 2007


----------



## Morgan (18 November 2006)

Some good articles in the latest "Bulletin" regarding the nuclear industry and uranium mining companies. Worth a read. :nuke:


----------



## Sean K (18 November 2006)

Spot at $62.50 now....It just does not take a backward step.


----------



## greggy (18 November 2006)

kennas said:
			
		

> Spot at $62.50 now....It just does not take a backward step.



Hi Kennas,
Thanks for the latest price.
Go the uranium price (and go *VMS*).  Hopefully, the uranium stock boom will continue for a while yet.
As always, do your own research before buy/selling.


----------



## deftfear (18 November 2006)

Has anyone contemplated what will happen if even half of all these uranium juniors actually end up mining the stuff? I can see a major supply glut in 3-5 years, i know demand is increasing, but is it enough to take up all of the extra production that will be coming online?

I can't say it is something I have researched properly as I wouldn't really know where to start, I know China, India and maybe Japan have new reactors planned as well as Kyoto countries probably having to install more as well to meet their obligations there. For example, how much U does a reactor use every year?

Don't get me wrong, I have quite a bit invested in U companies, just curious as to what other people think of this situation.


----------



## nizar (18 November 2006)

kennas said:
			
		

> Spot at $62.50 now....It just does not take a backward step.




Picked up some PDNs yesterday. There was some support at $5.90. Stronger at $5.30-5.40. PDN was up 10%+ last nite on the TSX on heavy volume.  Other uranium stocks rallied also.
Monday should be interesting.


----------



## Sean K (18 November 2006)

deftfear said:
			
		

> Has anyone contemplated what will happen if even half of all these uranium juniors actually end up mining the stuff? I can see a major supply glut in 3-5 years, i know demand is increasing, but is it enough to take up all of the extra production that will be coming online?
> 
> I can't say it is something I have researched properly as I wouldn't really know where to start, I know China, India and maybe Japan have new reactors planned as well as Kyoto countries probably having to install more as well to meet their obligations there. For example, how much U does a reactor use every year?
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I have quite a bit invested in U companies, just curious as to what other people think of this situation.



If Labor changes it's policy and the major explorers all come on line at the same time I am sure it will effect the supply demand equation and spot price accordingly, and therefore future company profits. Get in early before this happens!   And get out when it starts falling over. You've got 5 years probably. Then, it might depend on what other types of energy sources are being developed to replace nuclear. Cold fusion perhaps?


----------



## Sean K (18 November 2006)

greggy said:
			
		

> Hi Kennas,
> Go the uranium price (and go *VMS*).
> As always, do your own research before buy/selling.



Greggy, I'm finding it hard to get excited about VMS's assets and their potential. I've had a good look through their web site and their tennaments, and while in generally good locations, they have not really produced anything of high value yet.  

The rock chip samples at Paulsens Sth sound ok, but they're just rock chip samples. It's very early days.

I am also very wary of companys claiming to have a potential 'Olympic Dam' type mineralisation, when they haven't even done any drilling at Churchhill Dam in the Gawler Graton. This is just blatant ramping by the company. All they've done is a gravity survey here, and they have no heritage clearances to even start drilling yet. This was supposed to start in late Oct early Nov. It's mid Nov now.

Lake Maitland is a very prospective area, but the deposits that are confirmed there already aren't really that grand compared to others like Mt Gee (MTN) or Valhalla (SMM/VUL). All they have here is a tennament that runs adjacents to Redports....No U discovery yet. 

So, I'm not too sure what all the fuss is about yet. It just seems like another new U float getting on the U phoric bandwagon. 

Do you have anymore info on this than I do. You seem very confident in it? 

All the best with it mate. I hope they actually find some uranium out there.


----------



## greggy (18 November 2006)

kennas said:
			
		

> Greggy, I'm finding it hard to get excited about VMS's assets and their potential. I've had a good look through their web site and their tennaments, and while in generally good locations, they have not really produced anything of high value yet.
> 
> The rock chip samples at Paulsens Sth sound ok, but they're just rock chip samples. It's very early days.
> 
> ...




Hi Kennas,

Thanks for your thoughts on VMS. You always put a good degree of effort into it.  Even if you disagree with stock selection, you still wish people well (I endeavour to do the same), unlike some others. 
One has to remember that this stock has only just listed during the past few months.  I just feel that with four  prospects in promising areas (Churchill Dam in SA, Maitland in WA, Paulsens South in WA and Renison West in Tas) and $4.96 million cash that this company has a lot of potential.  I also notice that Credit Suisse has recently bought over 5% of the company's shares.  For more info take a look at the VMS board.
I would also like to disclose that I own shares in VMS which I paid around 24c for.  Time will only tell how it all turns out.
As always, do your own research before buy/selling.


----------



## Morgan (18 November 2006)

Deftear,

This week's "Bulletin" discusses most of the questions that you have mentioned.


----------



## greggy (18 November 2006)

Morgan said:
			
		

> Deftear,
> 
> This week's "Bulletin" discusses most of the questions that you have mentioned.



It was an interesting read and will lead to greater interest in uranium stocks.  I've had over 27 years investing/ speculating experience and this uranium boom could well end up being the biggest resources boom of them all..just my thoughts and don't bet more than you can afford to lose.  I still know one neighbour who bought Poseidon at $200 and held on till the final end. Ouch! l'm stll an optimist though. 
As always, do your own research before buying/selling.


----------



## Sean K (18 November 2006)

greggy said:
			
		

> Hi Kennas,
> 
> Thanks for your thoughts on VMS. You always put a good degree of effort into it.  Even if you disagree with stock selection, you still wish people well (I endeavour to do the same), unlike some others.
> One has to remember that this stock has only just listed during the past few months.  I just feel that with four  prospects in promising areas (Churchill Dam in SA, Maitland in WA, Paulsens South in WA and Renison West in Tas) and $4.96 million cash that this company has a lot of potential.  I also notice that Credit Suisse has recently bought over 5% of the company's shares.  For more info take a look at the VMS board.
> ...



I do agree that the tennaments are in highly prospective areas with very good potential. It's definately worth a punt somewhere along the line IMO, if you have the spare cash and believe that WA is going to have to change their U mining laws in line with Fed Labor. VMS go into quite a bit of detail about the potential of U mining being prevented by the WA gov which is nice to see. Most companys hardly mention it. With all the options of places to put money in potential U players it's difficult to make a decision if you've limited funds. There are a few others around who have the JORC resources and close to logistics hubs and other mines that will be far closer to mining once the green light is given. I reckon AGS will probably be the first to mine due to their close proximity to Beverley and the JV with Quasar (owned by Heathgate operators of Beverley) They won't have to build any plant probably, just truck the ore 8km over a hill to Beverley's existing mill.....Anyway, I agree this has potential, just where it ranks amongst all the others out there is difficult to pin point. 

Will be interesting to see how VMSs sp shakes out next week. Hopefully up, with all other U stocks! 

(I hold AGS)


----------



## alankew (18 November 2006)

Where do i get info on the price of uranium.Thanks in advance


----------



## barney (18 November 2006)

alankew said:
			
		

> Where do i get info on the price of uranium.Thanks in advance



Hi Al, I posted this link on another thread. Updated weekly, but some good info.   You can subscribe if you want full access to all the info, but lots of free stuff as well.  Cheers, Barney.
http://www.uxc.com/review/uxc_Prices.aspx


----------



## nizar (18 November 2006)

alankew said:
			
		

> Where do i get info on the price of uranium.Thanks in advance



http://tradetech.com/


----------



## deftfear (18 November 2006)

Morgan said:
			
		

> Deftear,
> 
> This week's "Bulletin" discusses most of the questions that you have mentioned.




Thanks Morgan, I'll have to check it out then. 

I also agree with Kennas, just imo I was thinking of riding the bull for awhile thinking that it will crash with an oversupply glut in the medium term. I do have a lot more research to do into it however and just gut feelings in regard to the large number of uranium juniors in the asx and tsx.


----------



## alankew (18 November 2006)

Nizar thanks for the reply,is uranium only priced once a week aor is it traded like other commodities


----------



## greggy (19 November 2006)

kennas said:
			
		

> I do agree that the tennaments are in highly prospective areas with very good potential. It's definately worth a punt somewhere along the line IMO, if you have the spare cash and believe that WA is going to have to change their U mining laws in line with Fed Labor. VMS go into quite a bit of detail about the potential of U mining being prevented by the WA gov which is nice to see. Most companys hardly mention it. With all the options of places to put money in potential U players it's difficult to make a decision if you've limited funds. There are a few others around who have the JORC resources and close to logistics hubs and other mines that will be far closer to mining once the green light is given. I reckon AGS will probably be the first to mine due to their close proximity to Beverley and the JV with Quasar (owned by Heathgate operators of Beverley) They won't have to build any plant probably, just truck the ore 8km over a hill to Beverley's existing mill.....Anyway, I agree this has potential, just where it ranks amongst all the others out there is difficult to pin point.
> 
> Will be interesting to see how VMSs sp shakes out next week. Hopefully up, with all other U stocks!
> 
> (I hold AGS)



Hi Kennas,

I've noticed that a lot of uranium explorers with land in WA have been going up lately. One day the WA Government might change its mind. As previously stated, VMS also has areas in SA and Tas (no uranium ground in Tas for VMS). 
Thanks for your thoughts.
As always, do your own research before buy/selling.


----------



## nizar (19 November 2006)

alankew said:
			
		

> Nizar thanks for the reply,is uranium only priced once a week aor is it traded like other commodities




Uranium does not trade on an open market like other commodities. Buyers and sellers negotiate contracts privately. Prices are published by independent market consultants Ux Consulting and TradeTech. These consultants deal with different clients, and the average sale price is what is reported weekly. This is why the prices from these 2 sources are often not the same, but similar.

Ux Consulting Company
$62.50 US$/lb
Npv 13, 2006 
TradeTech
$61.00 US$/lb
Nov 10, 2006


----------



## alankew (19 November 2006)

Thanks Nizar


----------



## 56gsa (21 November 2006)

Plan to export enriched uranium
Dennis Shanahan and Joseph Kerr 
November 21, 2006
AUSTRALIA could quadruple the value of its uranium exports to $2.4 billion a year by enriching uranium oxide before sending it overseas.
The federal Government's energy inquiry report, to be released today, has found "nuclear power can play a role in Australia's future electricity generation mix" on cost and environmental grounds. 

The Government has been advised that the strongly growing global demand for uranium for nuclear power is a significant opportunity for Australia. 

The nuclear options inquiry, headed by former Telstra chief Ziggy Switkowski, finds the $573 million worth of uranium oxide exported last year could have been "transformed into a further $1.8 billion in value after conversion, enrichment and fuel fabrication". 

But the report warns of "very significant" investment and technology obstacles to the development of uranium enrichment capacity. 

Australia is home to more than a third of the world's known low-cost uranium deposits - much of it at BHP Billiton's Olympic Dam mine in outback South Australia - but uranium oxide is sent to countries such as the US and France to be enriched for use in nuclear power plants. 

On the question of cost, the report estimates nuclear power would be 20 to 50 per cent more expensive than coal-fired power stations "if pollution, including carbon dioxide emissions, is not priced". However, when the cost of carbon reduction to cut emissions is taken into account, nuclear power becomes competitive with coal energy. 

The report finds nuclear power "is the least cost, low-emission technology that can provide baseload power available today and can play a role in Australia's future generation mix". 

A discussion paper by the Energy Reform Infrastructure Group says Australia will need to more than double current existing electricity supply by 2050 to meet growing demand. 

Ron Oxburgh, chairman of the British House of Lords science and technology committee and former chairman of Shell Oil, said yesterday that nuclear plants were now much cheaper and faster to build and nuclear power could be available within five years. 

He said most nuclear power plants operating today were designed before the computer age. "Today, because there is a lot of prefabrication, you can now build one of these things in 4 1/2 years," Lord Oxburgh told ABC radio. 

John Howard commissioned the nulear energy review amid a fierce debate on climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. The Prime Minister has argued nuclear power is "clean and green" and being used increasingly overseas to generate electricity, with China expected to rely heavily on it as its economy grows in coming decades. 

The Labor Party is opposed to nuclear power in Australia and the creation of a uranium enrichment industry, although it is likely to lift its limits on uranium mining at the ALP national conference next year. 

The US has been opposed to the idea of countries such as Australia joining the tight club of countries able to carry out uranium enrichment. 

Once developed, the technology can be used to enrich material to the point where it can be used in a nuclear warhead. Some critics view this as a key weapons proliferation risk. But, keen to reduce Australia's heavy reliance on greenhouse-gas-creating fossil fuels, the Government is understood to want to consider enrichment. 

Senior figures wanted the Switkowski review to make its findings without being hamstrung by political pressure. 

The review is understood to have looked favourably on a submission from the director-general of the Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office, John Carlson, who argued that Australia could increase uranium mining and exports without raising any new nuclear proliferation risks. Mr Carlson said the next generation of nuclear reactors offered hope for producing power while substantially reducing the long-lived radioactive waste produced by current models. 

But he warned that any expansion of Australia's nuclear industry into new phases in the fuel cycle - such as uranium enrichment or nuclear power generation - would require key regulatory changes and a boost in personnel. 

Dr Switkowski's report will devote a chapter to the skills and manpower shortages resulting from the long decline of the nation's nuclear industry. 

Bertrand Barre, the former director of reactor engineering at the Atomic Energy Commission in France, said yesterday state and federal governments could establish a national nuclear regulator within one to three years - a key precursor for planning to begin on any domestic nuclear power reactors. 

Additional reporting: Matthew Warren


----------



## Sean K (21 November 2006)

Could be a fiesta for U shares today after the release of this paper.  

:band


----------



## Gurgler (21 November 2006)

kennas said:
			
		

> Could be a fiesta for U shares today after the release of this paper.
> 
> :band




One can only hope! What are your thoughts on the impact of the current Labor leadership destabilasation on the long-term picture for U, Kennas? Is it positive/negative or just a case of 'deck-chairs  on the Titanic'?


----------



## Sean K (21 November 2006)

Gurgler said:
			
		

> One can only hope! What are your thoughts on the impact of the current Labor leadership destabilasation on the long-term picture for U, Kennas? Is it positive/negative or just a case of 'deck-chairs  on the Titanic'?



Good question Gurgler. I've been thinking about this myself. Firstly, I can not see Labor changing their leader at this stage. It would be political suicide. They could not win the next election by changing so late in the game. Having said that, if they did, and say Rudd was the elected sacrificial lamb, then I think this will still be OK as I think Rudd is a pragmatist and will end up seeing the illogicality (is that a word) of the no new mines policy. I think Ferguson is quite a powerful person in the party too, and will play a significant role in any shake up, and he is clearly behind a change of policy. So, I don't think it will be too much of an issue. Labor, must be unified about this policy for them to have a chance to win the election, and since Bomber has stated he wants a change, and he will probably still be leader, I think it'll get up.


----------



## Rafa (21 November 2006)

i think the way Howard has manouvered the U debate... anyone opposing U and still puporting to be green will be comitting politcal suicide...

Labor is going to have no option but to change (atleast the mining policy) if they want to remain relevant.


----------



## billhill (21 November 2006)

Rafa said:
			
		

> i think the way Howard has manouvered the U debate... anyone opposing U and still puporting to be green will be comitting politcal suicide...




Don't quite know about that. I think most people can see right through Howard attempt to be green. The way he's been flogging the uranium industry stinks of corporate bias. I think the 3 mines policy is outdated but we don't need N power in this country. There is still a huge question mark over nuclear energy and i am sceptical about this report commissioned by the government. Ontario state in Canada is in huge debt because their reactors breakdown all the time a it literally ends up costing billions to fix the problems. Then there is the waste issue and the ongoing cost for the next couple of million years dealing with that. Finally why is Germany decomissioning all there reactors it certainly raises questions about the viability of the industry. We should be exhausting all other avenues before we blindly switch to Nuclear.


----------



## Sean K (21 November 2006)

billhill said:
			
		

> Don't quite know about that. I think most people can see right through Howard attempt to be green. The way he's been flogging the uranium industry stinks of corporate bias. I think the 3 mines policy is outdated but we don't need N power in this country. There is still a huge question mark over nuclear energy and i am sceptical about this report commissioned by the government. Ontario state in Canada is in huge debt because their reactors breakdown all the time a it literally ends up costing billions to fix the problems. Then there is the waste issue and the ongoing cost for the next couple of million years dealing with that. Finally why is Germany decomissioning all there reactors it certainly raises questions about the viability of the industry. We should be exhausting all other avenues before we blindly switch to Nuclear.



How old are the plants that keep breaking down Bill? Probably 20+ years. That's why. The waste? Bury it in a safe spot (under Uluru will do) and there is no waste. The safeguards they will have on modern reactors will ensure they don't spontaneously combust. The biggest risk at the moment is inaction. Burning fossell fuels is killing the planet. Change now, or the earth dies.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (21 November 2006)

kennas said:
			
		

> How old are the plants that keep breaking down Bill? Probably 20+ years. That's why. The waste? Bury it in a safe spot (under Uluru will do) and there is no waste. The safeguards they will have on modern reactors will ensure they don't spontaneously combust. The biggest risk at the moment is inaction. Burning fossell fuels is killing the planet. Change now, or the earth dies.




 :iagree: 

And to anyone who disagrees I would ask a very simple question, Have you been to China in the last 3 years to see what their skies look like given that they aren't using 'big bad nuclear power' but instead are using 'eco friendly and clean coal power' ?

If your answer is no, then try and find some pics and get some statistics on what Fossil Fuels are doing to the planet,

Oh right I forgot we can rely on wind and solar power, lets just hope the wind is always blowing and the sun is always shining


----------



## Rafa (21 November 2006)

billhill said:
			
		

> I think most people can see right through Howard attempt to be green.





wishfull thinking...
howard is smarter than all of us put together...

evidence: previous election campaigns and the results...


kennas, your are right... burning fossil fuels kill the planet...

however, they estimate 7 years of fossil fuels need to be burnt to get enriched uranium, and about 5-10 years to build a plant...

so about 17 years of fossil fuels burning is still needed...


still, as this is the stock forum... 

No, i don't see a risk in labor not scrapping the 3 mines policy (at the very least)... to do any thing else would be politcal suicide.


----------



## nizar (21 November 2006)

YOUNG_TRADER said:
			
		

> :iagree:
> 
> And to anyone who disagrees I would ask a very simple question, Have you been to China in the last 3 years to see what their skies look like given that they aren't using 'big bad nuclear power' but instead are using 'eco friendly and clean coal power' ?
> 
> ...




Dont be so quick to bag wind power.
I reckon its the way of the future future. After uranium and thorium is depleted LOL.
Its already used extensively in parts of Europe.

And YT, congrats with what uv made with yourself, already playing with 100k parcels and globe-trotting at 22. Thats Respect.


----------



## Gurgler (21 November 2006)

YOUNG_TRADER said:
			
		

> :iagree:
> 
> And to anyone who disagrees I would ask a very simple question, Have you been to China in the last 3 years to see what their skies look like given that they aren't using 'big bad nuclear power' but instead are using 'eco friendly and clean coal power' ?





YT I am currently in BEIJING but returning to my base in near Shanghai on Friday. I get to travel around a bit and although they are cleaning up the skies in BJ (pre-2008) there are plenty of other cities struggling under the cloud of carbon emmissions (Wuhan is a clear example).

But the "good news' is that with about 20 reactors functioning now and more in the pipeline, (two planned in the sea off Shanghai) there will be huge demand for fueling them in the future. Either side of politics must see the writing's on the wall, at least from a future trade position - and we are told the FTA is on track.

I quote:
"China's nuclear-power market is growing faster than any other in the world. The four planned reactors are the first of more than 20 in a $54 billion push to quadruple Chinese nuclear-power capacity by 2020 – an effort to ease power shortages in an economy that grew 9.5 percent last year. "
( see link: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/200306China.htm)


----------



## billhill (21 November 2006)

Kennas said:
			
		

> How old are the plants that keep breaking down Bill? Probably 20+ years. That's why. The waste? Bury it in a safe spot (under Uluru will do) and there is no waste. The safeguards they will have on modern reactors will ensure they don't spontaneously combust. The biggest risk at the moment is inaction. Burning fossell fuels is killing the planet. Change now, or the earth dies.




Yes the plants are old and yes any new ones will be much better but what are the chances of these N plants not having any quite expensive problems over their lifetime. I agree something needs to be done about the carbon problem but is it really worth rushing into another solution with just as bad a history. Perhaps we will require N power to curb greenhouse gases but at what price. You still cant safely store the waste ( mind you if they just blasted it into space problem solved).



			
				YOUNG_TRADER said:
			
		

> Oh right I forgot we can rely on wind and solar power, lets just hope the wind is always blowing and the sun is always shining




The wind does always blow high up in the stratosphere with more force then we see on the ground and the suns energy can be stored and released at night to provide baseload power. People are too quick to discount other technologies as not the answer. A bit of intuition and humans can do anything.


----------



## Rafa (21 November 2006)

i certainly agree, there are lot better techonologies out there... geothermal is another one...

however, corporates love Uranium... 
the big miners love Uranium
and the Oz Govt. loves Uranium...

we don't always get whats best for us... there is a lot of politics and lobby groups and business interest groups at work here...

personally, i am against Uranium, but as a trader, if your not on the Uranium band wagon, you will be left behind with underperforming stocks...


----------



## djones (21 November 2006)

Tidal Power is also an interesting ecofriendly concept:

http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/425827/764966
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_power


----------



## radio-active man (21 November 2006)

In order to assist global growth, and as JH has rightly pointed out, there needs to be a mix of energy sources to meet the forecasted growth in base load electricity generation. 

Without nuclear in the mix there is no way we can meet the projected demand without killing our planet and everything that lives on it.

More investment is also needed to make the burning of coal more envronmentally friendly.

Go the U bulls...

Australia has finally caught up to what the rest of the planet knew was right...


----------



## Sean K (1 December 2006)

Uranium up another $0.50 this week to $63.00.

Interesting issue at the moment is Kevin Rudd challenging Bomber for the leadership. We can all relax that this might mean that Rudd will not push for a change in the no new mines policy. He is a supporter of more uranium exports.


----------



## mmmmining (2 December 2006)

kennas said:
			
		

> Uranium up another $0.50 this week to $63.00.
> 
> Interesting issue at the moment is Kevin Rudd challenging Bomber for the leadership. We can all relax that this might mean that Rudd will not push for a change in the no new mines policy. He is a supporter of more uranium exports.




Kimbo is the least talented labor leader  (oops, opposition leader) in Australian history. He has no leadership, no idea, no policy, but full of politics.


----------



## Sean K (2 December 2006)

mmmmining said:
			
		

> Kimbo is the least talented labor leader  (oops, opposition leader) in Australian history. He has no leadership, no idea, no policy, but full of politics.



Well, they're all full of politics. Labor are doomed really. Changing the leadership at this stage is doomed to failure, and the ballot is going to divide the party even more. They should just divide into 2 parties, their ideals are such. One should be called the ACP - The Australian Communist Party. The other - the ATLP - The Almost The Liberal Party.

The Liberal Party have too much talent on the front bench for Labor to get back atm, and my hot tip for the day is watch out for Dr Nelson. I was at a Defence dinner a few weeks ago and had the pleasure of listening to him speak and he is the real deal. Watch out JH, PC, and TA, this guy is on the move.


----------



## greggy (2 December 2006)

kennas said:
			
		

> Well, they're all full of politics. Labor are doomed really. Changing the leadership at this stage is doomed to failure, and the ballot is going to divide the party even more. They should just divide into 2 parties, their ideals are such. One should be called the ACP - The Australian Communist Party. The other - the ATLP - The Almost The Liberal Party.
> 
> The Liberal Party have too much talent on the front bench for Labor to get back atm, and my hot tip for the day is watch out for Dr Nelson. I was at a Defence dinner a few weeks ago and had the pleasure of listening to him speak and he is the real deal. Watch out JH, PC, and TA, this guy is on the move.



I agree with most of what you've said, but I work for Defence and don't think highly of him as he is lacking the ability to run his portfolio.  He seems to react to problems only once they go public and is indeed a political opportunist, having once considered running for the ALP.


----------



## Sean K (2 December 2006)

greggy said:
			
		

> I agree with most of what you've said, but I work for Defence and don't think highly of him as he is lacking the ability to run his portfolio.  He seems to react to problems only once they go public and is indeed a political opportunist, having once considered running for the ALP.



Work for Defence and having run for the ALP? I'm sencing some confusion in you greggy? Are you a Buddhist with a Porche?


----------



## greggy (2 December 2006)

kennas said:
			
		

> Work for Defence and having run for the ALP? I'm sencing some confusion in you greggy? Are you a Buddhist with a Porche?



Thanks for the humour.  DR Nelson was once associated with the ALP and for the record, I'm a Christian who voted for Mr Howard last time around, as Mr Latham was not up to scratch.


----------



## insider (2 December 2006)

Which party is better suited for lifting the No new mines policy, Labor or Liberal?
Forget greens... They'll tell everyone to ride bicycles as their solution to global warming


----------



## Sean K (3 December 2006)

insider said:
			
		

> Which party is better suited for lifting the No new mines policy, Labor or Liberal?
> Forget greens... They'll tell everyone to ride bicycles as their solution to global warming



Libs have a policy of new mines.

They have actually stated that they want to overturn the States jurisdiction on mining their own land, and make it a Federal decision. They can make this happen at the moment if they wanted, due to their majority, but they couldn't do it in reality due to the political backlash it would cause. They're in trouble enough with overturning certain State decisions.


----------



## chops_a_must (3 December 2006)

greggy said:
			
		

> Thanks for the humour.  DR Nelson was once associated with the ALP and for the record, I'm a Christian who voted for Mr Howard last time around, as Mr Latham was not up to scratch.



Yes, and Costello was once a hot prospect for the ALP. However, the Liberal party bought him a stunning wife, and he went with them.

It's something that comes up every now and then. Tim and Peter were once very similar in humanist policies.


----------



## sydneysider (3 December 2006)

Another very interesting "little" U stock is AURA -AEE. Listed six months ago and has extensive tenements currently all in WA and all are in very prospect areas. The public float is 25 million shares with another 10 million vendor shares and some oppies. They have cash of $4.5 million. 

They are currently drilling Wondindong which is at the Southern end of Lake Austin where they hold a 20 square km U prospect that has a surface calcrete type U deposit (across the whole prospect) that was defined by WMC thirty years ago. AEE compares this prospect to Nova's Lake Way (which in surface extent is much smaller but richer grade). 

AEE did some drilling (31 holes) in September and they have reported the results. The manner of the reporting is a little hard to understand (they did not explain where each hole went) BUT in essence they reported putting down two drill lines 800 m long 200m apart in the NE corner of the prospect which were all mineralized with at a little over half pound of U per tonne which has from about an inch of surface cover to about 1 meter. The mineralized zone averages just under one meter in thickness. This drilling took in part of the area that was previously considered barren and crossed into a previously known mineralized area. 

They put in a third line of holes at the Southern end of the prospect 3,000 m to the South that gave similar results. The target zone runs about 5,000m from N to S. Attempting a very speculative assumption on target tonnage I assumed that half the target zone may be prospect, That is 5,000x 2000m  x .8 m x 2.5 tonnes per meter =  20,000,000 metric tonnes of potential U bearing rock (maybe more or may be less?? that is the nature of speculation). What AEE is saying is that even with a grade of a little over half a pound per tonne processing costs here will be a very simple "shovel and dig out" akin to moving sand around. AEE claim process costs in such an environment at between US$14 - 21 per pound of U. The current U price is US$63 pound so the profit margin is extremely rich. 

This is the reason that Nova share price quadrupled from50 cents to around $2.50 on the strength of a similar sized deposit nearby.. AEE with a price of 25 cents and a market cap of $9 million (of which $4.5 million is cash) has to be the cheapest U play on the boards and one that is not talking about a few rich grab samples. Please do your own research here.


----------



## chops_a_must (3 December 2006)

sydneysider said:
			
		

> Another very interesting "little" U stock is AURA -AEE. Listed six months ago and has extensive tenements currently all in WA and all are in very prospect areas.



Yeah, and that's why it's worthless.


----------



## sydneysider (3 December 2006)

chops_a_must said:
			
		

> Yeah, and that's why it's worthless.




Then why is Nova at $140 million and counting upwards. Their primary asset is a U deposit at Lake Way & Centipede both in WA and not far from Aura.


----------



## Sean K (3 December 2006)

sydneysider said:
			
		

> Another very interesting "little" U stock is AURA -AEE.



Thanks, will have a look. Not toooo excitied about WA deposits, but I think Carpenter will have to change his tune along with the rest of the country, to unleash the billions of uranium he has laying around in his backyard....

Website looks nice.   

www.auraenergy.com.au

Results they've announced seem ok. Grades seem economic but not very thick. Under 1m mostly. As a comparison, Summit's Valhalla deposit ranges between 10 -50 m in thickness.

SP seems to have settled a bit this month after that 50% gain at the start.   

What were they before this? A dot com?   

Maybe worth a thread Sydneysider?


----------



## michael_selway (3 December 2006)

http://www.allianceresources.com.au... Securities - Uranium Report - 28-11-2006.pdf

Hi soem good info there

thx

MS


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (3 December 2006)

kennas said:
			
		

> They're in trouble enough with overturning certain State decisions.




Not really as technically and constitutionally the N.T. is as the name would suggest a Territory and not a State, hence it was A OK and beng N.T. nobody cares


----------



## Sean K (3 December 2006)

YOUNG_TRADER said:
			
		

> Not really as technically and constitutionally the N.T. is as the name would suggest a Territory and not a State, hence it was A OK and beng N.T. nobody cares



Was really just referring to QLD and specifically WA in this case YT. The Nat Gov can enter legislation to overturn the States right to approve new uranium mines in these States, if they really wanted. And it's been discussed. I was just commenting that even though they could do this with their majority in the lower and upper houses they are unlikey to at this time because the States would just get too pissed off with them for reducing their control over their perceived responsibility. The States are already up in arms about changes to some education and health policies that the Fed Gov has implimented therefore reducing the States control over these functions. I think if JH and PC had their way, they'd centralise all State Gov functions in Canberra!

Land the Gov currently controls, ie all crown land and the territories, can of course be mined. Companies just have to go through the normal regulatory procedures for the potential mining of uranium.


----------



## noobs (3 December 2006)

An interesting read about the Australian Uranium Market from Collins Street Securities dated 28/11/06:

http://www.allianceresources.com.au... Securities - Uranium Report - 28-11-2006.pdf


----------



## chops_a_must (3 December 2006)

sydneysider said:
			
		

> Their primary asset is a U deposit at Lake Way & Centipede both in WA and not far from Aura.



Exactly.

Way way too many factors to come into play before they could get anything going. Carpenter has stated uranium mining will lead to a Nuclear waste dump in WA. The greens look likely to hold balance of power in the upper house, and the Libs are incompetent hacks with criminal records here.

And the federal government forcing uranium mining on a population that doesn't want it = political suicide.

I don't like your chances.


----------



## Sean K (3 December 2006)

chops_a_must said:
			
		

> Exactly.
> 
> Way way too many factors to come into play before they could get anything going. Carpenter has stated uranium mining will lead to a Nuclear waste dump in WA. The greens look likely to hold balance of power in the upper house, and the Libs are incompetent hacks with criminal records here.
> 
> ...



Chops, you're pretty confident that a change in the National Labor Party on a core policy will not force the WA Labor Gov (only in power now, eventually it will change anyway) to follow suite. I think they might express their disagreement, but this is a national issue, not State based, IMO. They will change. I hope.   

Obviously you know more about WA politics though, so I'll wait to be corrected. All the best.


----------



## chops_a_must (3 December 2006)

kennas said:
			
		

> Chops, you're pretty confident that a change in the National Labor Party on a core policy will not force the WA Labor Gov (only in power now, eventually it will change anyway) to follow suite. I think they might express their disagreement, but this is a national issue, not State based, IMO. They will change. I hope.
> 
> Obviously you know more about WA politics though, so I'll wait to be corrected. All the best.



Yeah, look at the fuss made about Ningaloo being protected from oil prospectors.

AND the almost total rejection of the Gorgon project.

The State Labor party here need Green preferences, but with them, they will continue to have large wins.

Carpenter, like I have said, has refused U mining outright, as it opens the way for a nuclear dump here. As WA has the preferred sites. 

The state Labor party is dominated by the left, and continues to be so.

Unless the companies have reserves in NT or SA, they are worthless IMO.


----------



## mmmmining (3 December 2006)

chops_a_must said:
			
		

> Yeah, look at the fuss made about Ningaloo being protected from oil prospectors.
> 
> AND the almost total rejection of the Gorgon project.
> 
> ...




I agree. I will go even further. I guess the PDN's way still the best. Go Africa, Go Central Asia, and Go South America. For all listed uranium juniors, after PDN,I guess the next producer will come from Africa, and EQN and OMC are in commanding position. Within Australia, I fancy CMR to be the most likely one for next uranium mine. Anyone else has no chance within 5 years even they are allowed to mine by state tomorrow.


----------



## spooly74 (3 December 2006)

"Anyone else has no chance within 5 years even they are allowed to mine by state tomorrow"

Alliance Resources could only be 18 months away from production.


----------



## mmmmining (3 December 2006)

spooly74 said:
			
		

> "Anyone else has no chance within 5 years even they are allowed to mine by state tomorrow"
> 
> Alliance Resources could only be 18 months away from production.




I hope it can. But realistically, it is a very long process in Australia. Correct me if I am wrong. Currently, they are just in the resource defining stage. There are tons of work afterwards, such as scope study, pre-feasibility, permits, Bankable feasibility, project finance, construction, and commissioning... In Africa or a communist country, it could happen. But not here.


----------



## 56gsa (3 December 2006)

mmmmmining - what about PNN - they have JORC,  BFS, new office in Adelaide with State Govt connections, and potentially major backer in Sino - if that comes of can use the $30m from Sino to progress financing for $160m as defined last year in the BFS (probably more now...)

i think they would also need to do some more drilling but they do appear relatively advanced - china link may be sticking point?  

what u think?


----------



## Sean K (3 December 2006)

mmmmining said:
			
		

> I hope it can. But realistically, it is a very long process in Australia. Correct me if I am wrong. Currently, they are just in the resource defining stage. There are tons of work afterwards, such as scope study, pre-feasibility, permits, Bankable feasibility, project finance, construction, and commissioning... In Africa or a communist country, it could happen. But not here.



Their advantage is that the Beverley mine is 8 km away. Heathgate, owners of Quasar, the JV partner, will just expand their mill in some way to cope with the new ore. Minimal development, no new roads, logistics in place, talanted workforce ready to expand, and massive funding ready to go. AGS will not be a solo company for long. I reckon Heathgate will buy them out and sell off the gold assets. IMO.


----------



## spooly74 (3 December 2006)

Yep, thats correct. The JORC for the Western part of B4 mine is due out in a few weeks.
In my opinion though I think AGS might just have an edge over other U hopefuls.
Their jv partner Heathgate currently have a mining and export licence, plus a processing plant about 8km from B4 mine.... they could walk it over in wheel barrows!! 
I cannot comment on how long Bankable feasibility, project finance would take because I have'nt got a clue, but from a construction point of view, I assume they would only need a crushing mill and a pipe to connect the plants? ... Although wheel barrows or camels would be cheap  

Cheers


----------



## Sean K (3 December 2006)

spooly74 said:
			
		

> Y
> I cannot comment on how long Bankable feasibility, project finance would take because I have'nt got a clue, but from a construction point of view, I assume they would only need a crushing mill and a pipe to connect the plants? ... Although wheel barrows or camels would be cheap
> Cheers



They'll just truck it over, or put a small railway in. 

I'll walk it over in a backpack for a small fee.


----------



## mmmmining (3 December 2006)

kennas said:
			
		

> Their advantage is that the Beverley mine is 8 km away. Heathgate, owners of Quasar, the JV partner, will just expand their mill in some way to cope with the new ore. Minimal development, no new roads, logistics in place, talanted workforce ready to expand, and massive funding ready to go. AGS will not be a solo company for long. I reckon Heathgate will buy them out and sell off the gold assets. IMO.




Good point. Maybe one factor will make your argument stronger. Beverly mining is ISR type, injection and pump up. No  ore transportation, milling, crushing and sorting etc. But still takes time to figure it out what resources is, to get permits this sort of things.


----------



## spooly74 (3 December 2006)

Hi mmmmmmming , I think ISL will only apply to the Eastern deposit. From the AGM recently AGS believe that the high % U grade in the Western Zone warrants open pit mining to ensure that the maximum value can be extracted.
Cheers


----------



## mmmmining (3 December 2006)

56gsa said:
			
		

> mmmmmining - what about PNN - they have JORC,  BFS, new office in Adelaide with State Govt connections, and potentially major backer in Sino - if that comes of can use the $30m from Sino to progress financing for $160m as defined last year in the BFS (probably more now...)
> 
> i think they would also need to do some more drilling but they do appear relatively advanced - china link may be sticking point?
> 
> what u think?




Correct me if I am wrong. We cannot count previous studies done by other companies. I think that PNN has just done Scope Study, and need more drilling to upgrade resources to justify the capital expenditure at beginning of years' U3O8 price. Sure their case is much stronger now with yellowcake at $63-64/lb if they can lower the cutoff ore grade. The current yardstick is about EV price of US$7 to $10/lb resources. Its share price is surely justified.


----------



## mmmmining (3 December 2006)

spooly74 said:
			
		

> Hi mmmmmmming , I think ISL will only apply to the Eastern deposit. From the AGM recently AGS believe that the high % U grade in the Western Zone warrants open pit mining to ensure that the maximum value can be extracted.
> Cheers



Spooly, Sorry, I only mean the Beverly mine. I have not done any detailed research about AGS as soon as I found it out it can only have 25% of it. But this 25% may be worth a lot more than 100% of average stuff.


----------



## 56gsa (4 December 2006)

Cheers mmmining - some of this info on PNN thread



			
				mmmmining said:
			
		

> We cannot count previous studies done by other companies. I think that PNN has just done Scope Study, and need more drilling to upgrade resources to justify the capital expenditure at beginning of years' U3O8 price. Sure their case is much stronger now with yellowcake at $63-64/lb if they can lower the cutoff ore grade.




not sure what previous study you refer to?  PNN commissioned GRD last year to do BFS - at current u3o8 prices this would suggest a payback period of 2.4 years on  capital investment - more drilling is to extend mine life which was assumed 5 years at 585tpa - this is PNNs currently failing - resource is not big (14.8m lbs) but on the flip side they are futher down the development path than others



			
				mmmmining said:
			
		

> The current yardstick is about EV price of US$7 to $10/lb resources. Its share price is surely justified.




i calculate PNNs EV is still around AUD 4 - way undervalued imo for u3o8 company that is lining things up - but then thats why i hold!    Still perplexed why this doesn't generate more interest...


----------



## mmmmining (4 December 2006)

56gsa said:
			
		

> Cheers mmmining - some of this info on PNN thread
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Thank you for the info. Last year is the scope study even with some financial numbers. According to the recent presentation, the BFS to commence in early 2007, and it will spend $5m, and take 18 months (1.5 years). 

About the volume or interests on PNN, You must heard about that "Market is always right".  if there is no volume, or no interest on certain stock, be it. You can only control your action, but you cannot tell the market what to do. I guess that you are a true believer of PNN, buy some more, or simply enjoy holding it.


----------



## chops_a_must (4 December 2006)

56gsa said:
			
		

> u3o8



Screw U308. Who has polonium 210 at the moment? That's what everyone wants!


----------



## mmmmining (4 December 2006)

chops_a_must said:
			
		

> Screw U308. Who has polonium 210 at the moment? That's what everyone wants!



Sorry, mate, I am afraid you cannot do that. Polonium 210 occurs in uranium ores.


----------



## mmmmining (4 December 2006)

Rudd is in power for labour. Sorry Kimbo, about your brother loss.

Here is his position on uranium
http://www.theage.com.au/news/natio...debate-heats-up/2006/04/03/1143916465815.html
and 
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,20853385-5001028,00.html


But, His position is no uranium for India. 
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20471705-1702,00.html


----------



## bigt (4 December 2006)

Do people think Rudd's victory will put upward pressure (on the SP) on companies with potential mines in certain states i.e SMM in QLD?

I noticed in the Fin Review today, Carpenter re-iterated his stance on no uranium mines in WA...again, will this devalue stocks with potential mines in WA?


----------



## Sean K (4 December 2006)

bigt said:
			
		

> Do people think Rudd's victory will put upward pressure (on the SP) on companies with potential mines in certain states i.e SMM in QLD?
> 
> I noticed in the Fin Review today, Carpenter re-iterated his stance on no uranium mines in WA...again, will this devalue stocks with potential mines in WA?



Carpenter will have to go with Nat policy imo. He's just playing politics by saying no at this time I think.


----------



## sydneysider (4 December 2006)

bigt said:
			
		

> Do people think Rudd's victory will put upward pressure (on the SP) on companies with potential mines in certain states i.e SMM in QLD?
> 
> I noticed in the Fin Review today, Carpenter re-iterated his stance on no uranium mines in WA...again, will this devalue stocks with potential mines in WA?




The WA Government is very keen to export all employment opportunities and the massive cash flows to Africa and other sources of U in the name of "non-proliferation" so that these other countires can become massive exporters of U. The logic of this position totally escapes me.


----------



## mmmmining (4 December 2006)

sydneysider said:
			
		

> The WA Government is very keen to export all employment opportunities and the massive cash flows to Africa and other sources of U in the name of "non-proliferation" so that these other countires can become massive exporters of U. The logic of this position totally escapes me.




Carpenter has his political capital at this moment. WA is number one in iron ore, gold, nickel, mineral sands, maybe natural gas? I don't think they do care about uraniums. They cannot beat SA for the resources and production.

Instead of fighting against the single-minded WA state policies, particularly I am not WA resident,  I stay with minimum exposure to companies with WA uranium assets. I surely avoid pure WA asset no matter what they have. My preference is (in order): Africa, NT, SA, South America, Central Asia, the United Sates and QLD

The only thing I can is to invest less and less in WA's companies. There are plenty of good resource companies based in SA, NT, QLD.


----------



## chops_a_must (4 December 2006)

sydneysider said:
			
		

> The WA Government is very keen to export all employment opportunities and the massive cash flows to Africa and other sources of U in the name of "non-proliferation" so that these other countires can become massive exporters of U. The logic of this position totally escapes me.



Because uranium mining in WA is more likely to lead to a waste dump here. That is his logic, as has been repeated several times, ffs.


----------



## chops_a_must (4 December 2006)

mmmmining said:
			
		

> Sorry, mate, I am afraid you cannot do that. Polonium 210 occurs in uranium ores.



Geez, no one has a sense of humour in these parts.


----------



## sydneysider (5 December 2006)

chops_a_must said:
			
		

> Because uranium mining in WA is more likely to lead to a waste dump here. That is his logic, as has been repeated several times, ffs.




Does Olympic Dam have a waste dump for the uranium it has sold??? The only one headed to a waste dump at the moment is Beazley and his U policies. Rudd says he is in favor of U mining? IMHO opposition to WA and QLD U mining will fade. Too much money, too many jobs involved to say "No" 

There is a free trade and constitutional issue involved here. I would imagine as the price of U keeps heading upwards there should be constitutional challenges from holders of U deposits in WA & Qld.


----------



## Sean K (5 December 2006)

Report in the Fin this am about a joint committee in government supporting a national policy to open up uranium mining for all. Importantly, 3 key Labor members supporting the proposals, including Martin Fergy, who is an important power broker in the Labor Party. Rudds stated he's behind it. All systems go for Nat Labor to change their policy, then 6 months for the states to ratify and then I'm out there with a shovel! Anyone want to peg some land with me and start digging?


----------



## x2rider (5 December 2006)

hi Kennas 
 I am a pretty good watcher , so I think you had better have the shovel and I'll make sure that the hole is deep enough  And we'll go 50/50 

 Cheers Martin


----------



## insider (5 December 2006)

kennas said:
			
		

> Libs have a policy of new mines.
> 
> They have actually stated that they want to overturn the States jurisdiction on mining their own land, and make it a Federal decision. They can make this happen at the moment if they wanted, due to their majority, but they couldn't do it in reality due to the political backlash it would cause. They're in trouble enough with overturning certain State decisions.




Hey in the paper today was a thing that said that Rudd supports new uranium mines... seems like Labor or Liberal is a good choice... I'd be holding to U stocks for a while...


----------



## Sean K (5 December 2006)

x2rider said:
			
		

> hi Kennas
> I am a pretty good watcher , so I think you had better have the shovel and I'll make sure that the hole is deep enough  And we'll go 50/50
> 
> Cheers Martin



How can I refuse an offer like that!!!! 

On the plus side for me is that a lot of Australia's uranium is close to the surface so I won't have to dig very deep.  

All the news about uranium mining laws changing is all very very positive at the moment. The only oil in the water (trying to find the right pun) is Peter Garret (get it?). He is probably going to be on the new front bench of Rudds new crew, and he may have something to say about new mines. He was the head of the Nuclear Disarmament Party at one point....But you'd have to say overall that all is looking extremely bulish for Aussie U explorers with good quality resources, close to logistic hubs right now.


----------



## chops_a_must (5 December 2006)

kennas said:
			
		

> The only oil in the water (trying to find the right pun) is Peter Garret (get it?). He is probably going to be on the new front bench of Rudds new crew, and he may have something to say about new mines. He was the head of the Nuclear Disarmament Party at one point.




Everyone is too stoned to start emission
People too scared to go to prison
We're unable to make decisions
*Political party line don't cross that floor!*
L. Ron Hubbard can't save your life
Superboy takes a plutonium wife
In the shadows of Ban the Bomb we live


What I wouldn't give for two or three sentences with that traitor.


----------



## insider (5 December 2006)

sydneysider said:
			
		

> Does Olympic Dam have a waste dump for the uranium it has sold??? The only one headed to a waste dump at the moment is Beazley and his U policies. Rudd says he is in favor of U mining? IMHO opposition to WA and QLD U mining will fade. Too much money, too many jobs involved to say "No"
> 
> There is a free trade and constitutional issue involved here. I would imagine as the price of U keeps heading upwards there should be constitutional challenges from holders of U deposits in WA & Qld.





The Only way to dispose of uranium safely is to dig deeply into the ground... very deep, about 2 kilometers deep which is below all water tables... so deep down that it's right next to Kim Beazley's approval rating


----------



## mmmmining (5 December 2006)

Sometimes, I am wandering what are these junior busy with? BHP has over 1.7mt of U3O3 resources just for Olympic Dam only, and a uranium miner. The sum of the rest uranium player in Australia still has less than 25% of it.

I guess someday some fat cat LBOs will have a hard look at it. Buy out BHP, split it into 100+ juniors, Sell each one for more than $1b. under todays valuation, the BHP uranium asset will worth anywhere around US$30b.


----------



## sydneysider (6 December 2006)

mmmmining said:
			
		

> Sometimes, I am wandering what are these junior busy with? BHP has over 1.7mt of U3O3 resources just for Olympic Dam only, and a uranium miner. The sum of the rest uranium player in Australia still has less than 25% of it.
> 
> I guess someday some fat cat LBOs will have a hard look at it. Buy out BHP, split it into 100+ juniors, Sell each one for more than $1b. under todays valuation, the BHP uranium asset will worth anywhere around US$30b.




The Wall Street Journal did a half page article on the major Uranium shortage that is a long term issue for the U.S. U prices are going to continue to rise because of this and other worldwide demand. Speculation on the xplorer end may become as big as the Poseidon boom and that one was a doozy. I remember the float of Westralian Nickel where moose pasture went for hundreds of millions of dollars. This boom has not even started yet in comparison.


----------



## chris1983 (6 December 2006)

Toalhurst Noall Research Report.

It was posted on the Bannerman website but it speaks about other uranium stocks also so others mite be interested to read it.

http://www.bannermanresources.com.au/docs/2006/Uranium_Sector_Nov2006.pdf


----------



## mmmmining (6 December 2006)

The Africa is becoming uranium hunting ground. OMC is going to be the first prize. Whoever get the advanced project is the prime target. EQN, EVE, DYL, WME, UNX,... Any other companies?


----------



## insider (6 December 2006)

chris1983 said:
			
		

> Toalhurst Noall Research Report.
> 
> It was posted on the Bannerman website but it speaks about other uranium stocks also so others mite be interested to read it.
> 
> http://www.bannermanresources.com.au/docs/2006/Uranium_Sector_Nov2006.pdf




Thanks alot Chris... my Favorite stock is on the list... MTN (Marathon Resources)


----------



## insider (6 December 2006)

Here is a list of all the uranium companies in the world... Ranging from explorers to producers

http://www.wise-uranium.org/ucompa.html


----------



## Simmo (6 December 2006)

That report looks terrible. 

They are not using fully diluted market caps.

The uranium resources supplied for a lot of companies are either incorrect or at best guesses. Example Bannerman's market cap is a long way off and resource is a guess - no JORC. ACB is another where the resource is assumed. The known resource at mokabaesi is 1.75Mt @0.069%, the 75MT estimate has not been verified by drilling.

Also have no idea where they got where they got an 84MT resource for DYL   

OMC has a JORC that is 13.7mt not 12. They seem to speculate for some companies on resources and not for others

And they can't even spell Kariba.


----------



## mmmmining (6 December 2006)

Another junior is on trading halt. MRO. The Chairman has visited Hong Kong Last week attending "a few very important meetings". (I quote)  I hope that it is not another foreign attack. Common Aussie, weak up. If you don't change the policy, all good uranium assets will be in foreigners hand. Being poor may be worse than the imaginary uranium waste dump.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (6 December 2006)

Committee backs uranium exports to China
Email Print Normal font Large font December 6, 2006 - 10:15AM

Advertisement
AdvertisementA bi-partisan parliamentary committee has backed the export of uranium to China as being in the national interest.

Liberal MP Andrew Southcott has tabled in parliament two agreements between Australia and China on the transfer of nuclear materials and the peaceful use of nuclear materials.

He told parliament Australia could earn $250 million a year from the sale.

"The committee has concluded it would be in the national interest for these two treaties to enter into force," he said.

Labor MP Kim Wilkie said the export plan represented a boon for the nuclear power industry, but Australia should also lead a new initiative to strengthen nuclear safeguards.

However Australian Democrat Andrew Bartlett dissented, saying in the report that Australian uranium mining and exports should be phased out and the government should give more support to other safe, clean and renewable energy sources.

Dr Southcott said Australia exported uranium to countries with which it had safeguards treaties.

The treaties included a ban on Australian uranium being used for military purposes.

He said there were other levels of oversight as China had joined the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Dr Southcott said China, whose power needs were growing rapidly, wanted to diversify away from coal.

The committee had been told that for every 22 tonnes of uranium used instead of coal for power, one million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions would be saved.

Mr Wilkie said there were legitimate concerns about the effectiveness of the international safeguards system to monitor nuclear activity.

The IAEA had said its safeguards department had the same budget as the Vienna police force.

"In this age of international terrorism, this is not good enough," Mr Wilkie said.

The IAEA needed, among other things, advanced satellite monitoring technology.

As reliance on nuclear power spread internationally, safeguard concerns would grow unless the IAEA was better funded, and Australia should take a lead on this, Mr Wilkie said


----------



## 56gsa (6 December 2006)

Thanks for the news re China YT - this is perfect timing for PNN which is soon to report on Sino's prospective involvement...


----------



## mmmmining (8 December 2006)

If anyone senses any change of the wind, here is a short video featured the famous James Dines last month.

http://www.smartstox.com/index.php?company=a_james_dines&ext=yes


----------



## Plan B (10 December 2006)

*Uranium Price Indicator Climbs to $65/pound* 
*Sellers Expecting Price Bump Next Week* 

Aggressive bidding for spot uranium may soon be in the cards. Uranium buyers and sellers anticipate a potentially stronger upward move in the spot uranium price after a U.S. producer offers material for sale this coming week.

Subsequently, the official TradeTech U3O8 Weekly Spot Price Indicator rose another dollar to $65/pound for the week ending December 8, 2006. According to the consulting firm’s weekly Nuclear Market Review (NMR), one utility’s recent uranium purchase fell more than 200,000 pounds shy of material the utility hoped to buy.

Sellers have continued the ‘wait and see’ attitude, established after the late October announcement of flooding at Cameco’s Cigar Lake uranium project. According to NMR editor Treva Klingbiel, “A US producer plans to enter the market next week to auction as much as 200 thousand pounds U3O8 for delivery later this month.” She pointed out “bidding is expected to be aggressive.”

NMR also reported, “Sellers have withdrawn from the market or are making market-related offers in anticipation of a price bump following the auction.” Ten buyers remain active in the market hoping to purchase more than five million pounds of U3O8 equivalent. Nineteen utilities are actively seeking nearly 43 million pounds for delivery beginning in 2007.

Similar tight conditions were reported in the uranium conversion and enrichment markets. Buyers appear unable to obtain the entire requests, settling instead for partial delivery. Up to nine U.S. and non-U.S. utilities are said to be evaluating off-market purchases to meet long-term enrichment commitments.


----------



## champ2003 (10 December 2006)

Excuse my ignorance but can anybody please tell me how much revenue PDN should generate on a yearly basis?

I'm a little confused by the conversion rates . Apparently PDN will produce 1180 tpa u308 per year but how do i convert that into a dollar value?

Champ


----------



## Freeballinginawetsuit (10 December 2006)

champ2003 said:
			
		

> Excuse my ignorance but can anybody please tell me how much revenue PDN should generate on a yearly basis?
> 
> I'm a little confused by the conversion rates . Apparently PDN will produce 1180 tpa u308 per year but how do i convert that into a dollar value?
> 
> Champ




Uranium is currently trading at about 65 bucks a pound,convert that to kilo's,then tonnes and bingo.


----------



## champ2003 (11 December 2006)

Freeballinginawetsuit said:
			
		

> Uranium is currently trading at about 65 bucks a pound,convert that to kilo's,then tonnes and bingo.




Ok that sounds fine but it doesn't really help me in this instance as i'm looking for a dollar figure. Can anyone help me out? Based on the info above what yearly revenue is PDN likely to have???????

Champ2003


----------



## camaybay (11 December 2006)

$168m


----------



## MalteseBull (11 December 2006)

DYL


----------



## deftfear (11 December 2006)

champ2003 said:
			
		

> Ok that sounds fine but it doesn't really help me in this instance as i'm looking for a dollar figure. Can anyone help me out? Based on the info above what yearly revenue is PDN likely to have???????
> 
> Champ2003




Be aware that some of PDN's production has been forward sold at prices much less than the current spot price, however they do get 50% of the spot price above $50 on the uranium that has been forward sold. So at the current spot price of $65, PDN would get the price that the uranium was forward sold at, plus $12.50 (50% of $65 - $50)

Of course dyor.


----------



## Mellow77 (11 December 2006)

Just another positively looking link for the uranium fever. Not so significant atm though.

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/world/16211081.htm

Cheers


----------



## mmmmining (12 December 2006)

A bit of wind change today, PDN, ERA, DYL are taking a bit of hit, while the uranium indicated spot price is record high, and he uranium spot price could be much higher during coming uranium purchase season, according to expert.


----------



## chris1983 (12 December 2006)

Uranium stocks are getting hit because of the following.  my Beloved BMN was having a great run but have retraced. boohoo

_DJ MARKET TALK: US Uranium Sales Plans Hit Paladin, ERA

0454 GMT [Dow Jones] Paladin Resources (PDN.AU) down 42 cents, or 5.8%, at A$6.79 with dealer saying report in Wall Street Journal that US will sell down part of its uranium stockpiles and hence drive prices lower, is affecting stock. Notes that while PDN has run to A$7.45 from A$5 in last 2 months, news causing some caution, despite US Energy Dept first proposing plans in August. Rival producer ERA (ERA.AU) also off in last 2 hours, down 5.5% at A$17.48. (WEL) 

Contact us in Singapore. 65 64154 140; 
MarketTalk@dowjones.com 

(END) Dow Jones Newswires
December 11, 2006 23:54 ET (04:54 GMT)
Copyright (c) 2006 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

Tuesday 12 December 2006 15:54:51:290 AEST_


----------



## barney (12 December 2006)

chris1983 said:
			
		

> Uranium stocks are getting hit because of the following.  my Beloved BMN was having a great run but have retraced. boohoo
> 
> _DJ MARKET TALK: US Uranium Sales Plans Hit Paladin, ERA
> 
> ...




Howdy Chris, Just curious, Did you get that report off a news feed/site that is accessible by all "punters".  PDN's SP dropped that quick I thought the mine had caved in!!  Looks like a typical over reaction if based on the news report alone  ..... Possible buying op??   Cheers, Barney.


----------



## Freeballinginawetsuit (12 December 2006)

You can only have so many screens up and take so much info in at a time, thats what you have risk measures for, to take up the slack.
By the time any of the info comes out, the multiple staffed offices of the brokers have all ready looked after their clients and dumped.
If some bad news hit a stock, mine caving in etc, the share would have tanked before you even got a chance to sell. I didn't even watch PDN 5 minute drop today, was to busy with JMS and before I was onto it my holdings were sold. If I had known about the crappy US thing I probably would have bought back in.

News feed info is good to follow but of no help to the average punter to sell on bad news, too little, to late!. Good for buying though, if youre quick enough


----------



## chris1983 (12 December 2006)

Hey Barney.

I grabbed the post from another poster on another site.  Im trying to also find it on the website.  It seems to be the reason for the drop though. One guy is saying that the department of energy controls the equivalent of 135 million pounds of natural uranium, about 75% of the world's annual uranium consumption of 180 million pounds.  Im on the department of energys website trying to find information.


----------



## barney (12 December 2006)

Freeballinginawetsuit said:
			
		

> You can only have so many screens up and take so much info in at a time, thats what you have risk measures for, to take up the slack.
> By the time any of the info comes out, the multiple staffed offices of the brokers have all ready looked after their clients and dumped.
> If some bad news hit a stock, mine caving in etc, the share would have tanked before you even got a chance to sell. I didn't even watch PDN 5 minute drop today, was to busy with JMS and before I was onto it my holdings were sold. If I had known about the crappy US thing I probably would have bought back in.
> 
> News feed info is good to follow but of no help to the average punter to sell on bad news, too little, to late!. Good for buying though, if youre quick enough




Howdy again F/B, (You are out and about early for a "westy" Hope New Girl didn't wear you out last night    You are right , she is feisty) 

No doubt you are 100% right re the news feed, Still good to know why the Sp dropped, even if it was too late to do anything about it. JMS did good today, so you are probably still cracking open a "carlton"?? (or 2)   Cheers, Barney.


----------



## mmmmining (12 December 2006)

I don't want to say the "C" world. But people who is sitting on a stockpile of profits are nervous. Any change of wind will have butterfly effect. 

I guess for long term investor, it is deja vu, being there, and done that, and opportunity to top up is coming.  But for short-term trader, the sign is not good.


----------



## barney (12 December 2006)

chris1983 said:
			
		

> Hey Barney.
> 
> I grabbed the post from another poster on another site.  Im trying to also find it on the website.  It seems to be the reason for the drop though. One guy is saying that the department of energy controls the equivalent of 135 million pounds of natural uranium, about 75% of the world's annual uranium consumption of 180 million pounds.  Im on the department of energys website trying to find information.




Cheers Chris,  Keep us posted,  Barney.


----------



## barney (12 December 2006)

mmmmining said:
			
		

> I don't want to say the "C" world. But people who is sitting on a stockpile of profits are nervous. Any change of wind will have butterfly effect.
> 
> I guess for long term investor, it is deja vu, being there, and done that, and opportunity to top up is coming.  But for short-term trader, the sign is not good.





Hi Mmmmmmmmmmmm (that might be too many M's)  I agree , Lots of people taking "lots of profit" on Uranium, but U is not a "flash in the pan" ........ U is going to be big imo ............. If Zinc can be as big as it is atm, how big can U get???   All the best Barney.


----------



## Freeballinginawetsuit (12 December 2006)

barney said:
			
		

> Hi Mmmmmmmmmmmm (that might be too many M's)  I agree , Lots of people taking "lots of profit" on Uranium, but U is not a "flash in the pan" ........ U is going to be big imo ............. If Zinc can be as big as it is atm, how big can U get???   All the best Barney.




U is not imune, just take POO for example!, that was immune for a while . Every dog has its day in the........limelight.


----------



## mmmmining (12 December 2006)

barney said:
			
		

> Hi Mmmmmmmmmmmm (that might be too many M's)  I agree , Lots of people taking "lots of profit" on Uranium, but U is not a "flash in the pan" ........ U is going to be big imo ............. If Zinc can be as big as it is atm, how big can U get???   All the best Barney.




Hi, Barney, not many. My station Triple M + Mining, Make sense?

In the past 2-3 years, U stock has experienced 4 major pull backs. But it has reached  new all time high afterwards each time. That means even you are buying at current high, the chance of making money is good only if you can hold them for a while, and the uranium stock you own has something hopeful, particularly the resources. As long as the uranium price is keeping up, soon or later the company with a lot of resources will worth more money, and the company can upgrade the resources amount by simply lower the cut-off grade, i.e. from 500ppm to 250ppm of U3O8. Regards.


----------



## Sean K (14 December 2006)

*Labor's uranium policy 'must change'*
December 14, 2006

LABOR'S uranium policy must change, Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd said today.

Mr Rudd said the ALP's no new uranium mines policy needed modernising. 

"The existing three mines policy or no new mines policy needs to be modernised, needs to be changed," Mr Rudd said in Adelaide today. 



Start buying quality Australian explorers.


----------



## greggy (14 December 2006)

kennas said:
			
		

> *Labor's uranium policy 'must change'*
> December 14, 2006
> 
> LABOR'S uranium policy must change, Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd said today.
> ...



Mr Rudd has more of a get up and go attitude on uranium mining than its former leader. This can only be a positive for the industry.


----------



## Sean K (14 December 2006)

greggy said:
			
		

> Mr Rudd has more of a get up and go attitude on uranium mining than its former leader. This can only be a positive for the industry.



What *Australian * U companies you holding greggy?

I've got:

SMM
AGS
MTN
BHP

Have previously owned but sold on big gains:

ARU
DYL
RPT

I haven't looked at RIO or ERA just cause I thought they were hexy. I think ERA has doubled since then.....  

Anyone else have a resource of 20 m lbs or more?


----------



## mmmmining (14 December 2006)

kennas said:
			
		

> What *Australian * U companies you holding greggy?
> 
> I've got:
> 
> ...




I use to have no discrimination for any good Aussie U stocks, now I have a preference for companies with majority of the assets outside WA, such as CMR, and PNN. So far none of them have let me down yet, and I will hold them for a very long time. 

I have to mention the fact that BHP is a giant in term of U resources. We are talking about over 4000 million lbs resources. Just image, the shutdown every uranium mine in the whole world, and forget about Cigar Lake mess, and if BHP can keep up with the demand, it can supply the whole world for 20 years.

Soon or later someone will do something about it, if it is not BHP itself.


----------



## ekman (15 December 2006)

Considering that BHP holds the majority of world's uranium, does this mean that once it starts digging it out the uranium prices will fall in a heap & crash


----------



## mmmmining (15 December 2006)

ekman said:
			
		

> Considering that BHP holds the majority of world's uranium, does this mean that once it starts digging it out the uranium prices will fall in a heap & crash




Very likely,  but not within 10 years I think. 

The Olympic Dam is happening. Need time, money, and most importantly, the water to get more uranium production. But the asset is too delicious, very strategic. The One in the world.


----------



## Sean K (15 December 2006)

ekman said:
			
		

> Considering that BHP holds the majority of world's uranium, does this mean that once it starts digging it out the uranium prices will fall in a heap & crash



I think the review of OD to be completed some time in early Jan will tell all. They have had 20 drill rigs on site (yes twenty - some companies struggle to get one, on loan) to complete a revisied resource estimate. It's thought that this could be quite significant. Once they have that out they will tell us if, how and when they will be digging the extra stuff up. Ultimately, when Labor do change their policy and the States ratify it, there will be quite a few more mines coming on at about the same time. This will effect the price I'd say. How much depends on demand of course, and there looks to be quite a shortfall going forward. How much? I haven't got a pretty graph, but from what I've seen in the past it looks BIG.


----------



## greggy (15 December 2006)

kennas said:
			
		

> What *Australian * U companies you holding greggy?
> 
> I've got:
> 
> ...



Hi Kennas,

You've got a nice portfolio there.
My uranium stocks include VMS, MRU, STB (they have a JV with Uranex for uranium at Thatchers Sooak in WA) and THR.  I've recently sold HCY who are in the process of obtaining some land prospective for uranium in WA and am still watching it carefully.  I prefer to stick to the smaller ones.  I've done a lot of trading recently (including ITT, RPT and WMT) and have also added MZM (non- uranium, but with Terry Grammeer and Dennis O'Meara on board as directors) to my list of shares.     
DYOR


----------



## lancer (16 December 2006)

Uranium jumps to $72 per pound! This is from trade tech that was just published:
The quest of buyers to
secure uranium at fixed
prices continues to fuel the
price rise, with any spot
material offered up by sellers
creating a “feeding frenzy.”
As a result, the spot price for
uranium jumped $7.00 this
week to $72.00 per pound
U3O8””the single largest
increase reported since
NUEXCO began publishing
prices in 1968 (see chart).

If the $4 jump from cameco's mines made most Junior U's jump 15% I cant wait to see how this will impact them on monday


----------



## Sean K (16 December 2006)

*BHP tips growing uranium demand*

Tan Hwee Ann and Angela Macdonald-smith
December 16, 2006

BHP Billiton, the world's biggest mining company, said demand for uranium would grow as many countries have "massive" expansion plans for nuclear power generation.

The company is in negotiations with potential customers for uranium it could sell, dependent on the expansion of the Olympic Dam mine in Australia, BHP said in a presentation on its website. Prices for uranium sold from the potential expansion may be settled at a higher price than BHP's long-term price assumption, UBS said in a report, citing the company.

BHP's Olympic Dam mine in South Australia contains about 34 per cent of the world's known uranium reserves. The company is carrying out initial feasibility studies into an expansion, which would more than triple production by 2014.

"Demand is poised to grow with many countries embarking on massive nuclear expansion plans," BHP said in the presentation. "Security of supply concerns have increased contracting activity in (the) spot and long-term market."

Spot uranium prices, which have more than tripled in the past two years, were at $US65 a pound on December 13, according to Metal Bulletin.

Olympic Dam's uranium production is currently fully sold forward to 2010 at less than $20 a pound, possibly at about $18 a pound, UBS said.

Uranium demand is forecast to surge by 135 per cent between 2005 and 2030, BHP said, citing forecasts from the World Nuclear Association, with Asian consumption quadrupling.


----------



## barney (16 December 2006)

kennas said:
			
		

> *BHP tips growing uranium demand*
> 
> Tan Hwee Ann and Angela Macdonald-smith
> December 16, 2006
> ...





Howdy Kennas,  34% ...that is impressive ........... BHP must be feeling pretty dirty about the price they are getting for their U considering what it could be at todays prices (not to mention next years prices)

A question for those better informed than myself .......... Considering the price of U atm, and its possible exponential rise into the future, which companies will be best served by the price rise??  eg. PDN who are just about to produce, or smaller Co's who are still building up JORC reserves for the future, and who's SP's will appreciate on speculation rather than earnings??? Any comments appreciated,   Cheers, Barney.


----------



## mmmmining (16 December 2006)

lancer said:
			
		

> Uranium jumps to $72 per pound! This is from trade tech that was just published:
> The quest of buyers to
> secure uranium at fixed
> prices continues to fuel the
> ...



Good one.


----------



## sydneysider (17 December 2006)

greggy said:
			
		

> Hi Kennas,
> 
> You've got a nice portfolio there.
> My uranium stocks include VMS, MRU, STB (they have a JV with Uranex for uranium at Thatchers Sooak in WA) and THR.  I've recently sold HCY who are in the process of obtaining some land prospective for uranium in WA and am still watching it carefully.  I prefer to stick to the smaller ones.  I've done a lot of trading recently (including ITT, RPT and WMT) and have also added MZM (non- uranium, but with Terry Grammeer and Dennis O'Meara on board as directors) to my list of shares.
> DYOR




Another speccy that could have a very big run include Aura Energy AEE. Market cap is $6.5 million (most of which is cash). They have been drilling at Wondining in WA for about three weeks on an extremely large calcrete uranium target that is about 5,000m x 4000m in size. WMC orginally drilled a small number of holes here about thirty years ago and found uranium across the whole area. It is low grade (half to three quarters of a pound per ton) and about three feet thick that sits on surface with cover ranging from a few inches to about three feet. AEE's first set of holes confirms that U mineralization is at both ends of this area and is very widespread. Target tonnage is then 5,000m x 4.000m x 1m (at 2.5 t per cubic meter) = 50,000,000 tonnes. IF U grades hold up and about one third /half the area contains economic grades the stock will go ballistic. They are also drilling some deeper holes to see if there are additional layers of U mineralization. As U prices rise these previously marginal deposits will become very attractive. AEE "ballparks" costs at around US$20 tonne and assuming around half pound u per tonne (or more from richer zones) at $70-100 lb for U the economics gets extremely attractive for very low cost very shallow (one meter) strip mining with dump trucks and dozers.


----------



## Sean K (18 December 2006)

sydneysider said:
			
		

> Another speccy that could have a very big run include Aura Energy AEE. Market cap is $6.5 million (most of which is cash). They have been drilling at Wondining in WA for about three weeks on an extremely large calcrete uranium target that is about 5,000m x 4000m in size. WMC orginally drilled a small number of holes here about thirty years ago and found uranium across the whole area. It is low grade (half to three quarters of a pound per ton) and about three feet thick that sits on surface with cover ranging from a few inches to about three feet. AEE's first set of holes confirms that U mineralization is at both ends of this area and is very widespread. Target tonnage is then 5,000m x 4.000m x 1m (at 2.5 t per cubic meter) = 50,000,000 tonnes. IF U grades hold up and about one third /half the area contains economic grades the stock will go ballistic. They are also drilling some deeper holes to see if there are additional layers of U mineralization. As U prices rise these previously marginal deposits will become very attractive. AEE "ballparks" costs at around US$20 tonne and assuming around half pound u per tonne (or more from richer zones) at $70-100 lb for U the economics gets extremely attractive for very low cost very shallow (one meter) strip mining with dump trucks and dozers.




Yes grades seem very low. From company:



> WMC carried out downhole logging to establish grades of U3O8 in 32 drill holes. Background values of U3O8 in drill holes above and below the position of mineralisation were in the range 1 to 30 ppm (0.0001 to 0.003% U3O8). At the position of mineralisation 21 of the 32 drill holes tested possessed downhole uranium values of greater than 0.02% U3O8 over a minimum width of 0.15 metre. The values of uranium vary from this threshold of 0.02% to a maximum of 0.05% U3O8. Drill holes containing greater than 0.02% U3O8 define an area of uranium mineralisation that is approximately 8 square kilometres.




Perhaps someone might clarrify exactly what 1 to 30 ppm means. Seems pretty darn low to me!


----------



## sydneysider (18 December 2006)

kennas said:
			
		

> Yes grades seem very low. From company:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps someone might clarrify exactly what 1 to 30 ppm means. Seems pretty darn low to me!




This is the reading above and below the mineralized zone. The mineralized zone itself is about three feet thick and is may grade between ane half to three quarters of a pound of U over an extremely large area. The area being drilled is about 20 square kilometers so the target is about 50 million tonnes of calcrete. U need to reead the last drilling report from AEE which was released several weeks ago to better understand what is happening at both ends of the deposit IF grades hold up thru substantial area of the deeposit then AEE will go ballistic.


----------



## Sean K (18 December 2006)

sydneysider said:
			
		

> This is the reading above and below the mineralized zone. The mineralized zone itself is about three feet thick and is may grade between ane half to three quarters of a pound of U over an extremely large area. The area being drilled is about 20 square kilometers so the target is about 50 million tonnes of calcrete. U need to reead the last drilling report from AEE which was released several weeks ago to better understand what is happening at both ends of the deposit IF grades hold up thru substantial area of the deeposit then AEE will go ballistic.



Aaaah, that's a little bit better. 14 of the 31 holes drilled have intersections greater than 200ppm, but you'd really about 300, and thickness 0.5-1.5 m is a little thin isn't it? I'm not sure where you get the 3 feet from. I suppose over 20 square kilometers is pretty good. One hole of 815ppm is nice. But what are the readings on the other 17 holes? Would have liked to see that.


----------



## Sean K (18 December 2006)

Anything not going up 5% must be declared a dog.   

The uranium bull just can't be speared at the moment. 

URA is about to go up about 15% with the Ukraine ann. Hmmm, don't have that one yet either.


----------



## mmmmining (18 December 2006)

I have done a bit more research over weekend for Namibian uranium projects. I found very interesting picture. The following companies are there (If anyone find more, please correct me).

In order of ore grade (approx. depend on cut off, and degree of exploration)
Husab (EXT)
Langer Heinrich (PDN)
Goanikontes Dome (BMN)
Rossing Mine (RIO)
Tubas (DYL)
Valencia (FSY.TO)
Marenica (WME)
Trekkopje (UMN.AIM)

Lower grade seams not a big issue around that area. It is reported most of them can be recovered economically under current uranium price.

In order of the quality of radiometric map (equivalent, and adjusted)
Rossing Mine (RIO)
Husab (EXT)
Trekkopje (UMN.AIM)
Valencia (FSY.TO)
Goanikontes Dome (BMN)
Tubas (DYL)
Marenica (WME)
Langer Heinrich (PDN)

Very interesting that two largest proven resources are siting on both end. Rossing is red hot, on the other hand, Langer Heinrich is sitting on very small area, with little, but very hot spot. However, it is within a palaeochannel system.

Everyone has the opportunity to add resources to whatever they have already. 

I believe there must be some kind of consideration. It is not a lasting picture that a bunch of juniors surrounding the big brothers. I believe it is just matter of time.

It is very hard to tell which one is the best investment, maybe basket approach is a sounding one? I don't know.


----------



## noirua (18 December 2006)

Uranium price is going great guns and so are many Uranium minnows - problem is that most haven't found any Uranium yet.


----------



## Sean K (18 December 2006)

noirua said:
			
		

> Uranium price is going great guns and so are many Uranium minnows - problem is that most haven't found any Uranium yet.



LOL.

There are plenty who have however. Get on the Uphoric train.


----------



## noirua (18 December 2006)

kennas said:
			
		

> LOL.
> 
> There are plenty who have however. Get on the Uphoric train.




I believe it takes about 5 years to fully develop a Uranium Mine. I'm only on one small carriage of a train and no uranium as yet.


----------



## sydneysider (18 December 2006)

kennas said:
			
		

> Aaaah, that's a little bit better. 14 of the 31 holes drilled have intersections greater than 200ppm, but you'd really about 300, and thickness 0.5-1.5 m is a little thin isn't it? I'm not sure where you get the 3 feet from. I suppose over 20 square kilometers is pretty good. One hole of 815ppm is nice. But what are the readings on the other 17 holes? Would have liked to see that.




The uranium is sitting just below the surface covered by a barren layer of between an inch or two to about three feet of dirt. You could dig the stuff out with a shovel!!!. AEE quotes operating costs for several Namibian mines that have 148 - 230 ppm as their average pay and also Nova's WA deposit nearby the AEE property. Have a look at what happened to Nova to see what can happen here. AEE quotes operating costs up to about US$25 tonne. So assuming an average grade of half / three quarters a pound that results in a very healthy surplus at US$72 pound for U. Especially if you are processing several million tonnes per year.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (18 December 2006)

Can anyone confirm this massive price jump in the U-Spot price?


----------



## mmmmining (18 December 2006)

YOUNG_TRADER said:
			
		

> Can anyone confirm this massive price jump in the U-Spot price?




Are you kidding, right? 

Just in case, 


free info from TradeTech: http://www.uranium.info/, could be as early as every Sat morning or as later as every Tue Morning (Syd time)

The free info from UxC is on every Wed morning (Syd time).

http://www.uxc.com/

But, Julie Ickes always one step ahead. Obviously she is not bad looking.
http://www.stockinterview.com/


----------



## nizar (18 December 2006)

YOUNG_TRADER said:
			
		

> Can anyone confirm this massive price jump in the U-Spot price?




YT - check out http://tradetech.com/


----------



## Sean K (19 December 2006)

Bit of profit taking going on after yeasterday's party. 

 

Maybe a buying opportunity?


----------



## mmmmining (19 December 2006)

kennas said:
			
		

> Bit of profit taking going on after yeasterday's party.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe a buying opportunity?




Sell some for Christmas bonus, and buy some for next year's.


----------



## mmmmining (20 December 2006)

The latest Dec Qtr 2006 RCR uranium report is out. Here is the link to get the report of free version.

http://www.rcresearch.com.au/documents


----------



## Sean K (21 December 2006)

I'm not sure when these Australian U companies are going to get overpriced, but one things for certain there is going to be some consolidation in the market.

Anyone got any tips?

My best bet would be PDN and SMM.
I think Heathgate will take AGS and sell off the gold.

*Will 2007 Offer Consolidation For Australia's Uranium Sector?*
FN Arena News - December 20 2006 

By Rudi Filapek-Vandyck

Uranium market enthusiasts and investors are likely to take comfort from the fact that TradeTech's spot price jump of more than 10% to US$72/lb on Friday has now been confirmed by Ux Consulting, who similar to TradeTech, publishes a weekly U3O8 spot price.

Ux Consulting has come with the same assessment as TradeTech during the past week, putting the updated spot price at US$72/lb, up US$6.50 from the previous week.

The news has not escaped commodity analysts at ABN Amro who report this morning they "believe a change in policy would lead to a re-rating of the Australian uranium explorers and potentially to further consolidation of the sector". Investors willing to take a punt should focus on explorers with advanced projects as they will be in the best position to take benefit from a potential change in policy, the broker believes.

FNArena News received verbal confirmation this week that the top of the Labor party is confident the party will change its policy on uranium production and exports in April. This increases the odds for a feeding frenzy and renewed enthusiasm within the local uranium exploration community from the second quarter of 2007 onwards.

As pointed out by ABN Amro, the current Labor Environment Minister, Peter Garrett, opposes the change, but he has already said he will abide by whatever the national conference decides.


----------



## greggy (21 December 2006)

kennas said:
			
		

> I'm not sure when these Australian U companies are going to get overpriced, but one things for certain there is going to be some consolidation in the market.
> 
> Anyone got any tips?
> 
> ...



Hi Kennas,

Interesting article.  I feel that the feeding frenzy is already taking place in anticipation of Labor changing its policy.  If they don't change their policy Labor will continue to remain in the political wilderness.
DYOR


----------



## Sean K (21 December 2006)

greggy said:
			
		

> Hi Kennas,
> 
> Interesting article.  I feel that the feeding frenzy is already taking place in anticipation of Labor changing its policy.  If they don't change their policy Labor will continue to remain in the political wilderness.
> DYOR



The bit I really like is

*ABN Amro who report this morning they "believe a change in policy would lead to a re-rating of the Australian uranium explorers and potentially to further consolidation of the sector".* 

The analysts don't believe that companys are rated with the change in policy yet. There must be more upside to come.

I'm not one to ever really stick my neck out, and I'm hesitant to do it here, but I just think that it has been ever so blindingly obvious that Australian U explorers were/are going to absolutely rocket with a change in policy and that now seems inevitable. Peter G would have to take over Labor now for there to be any going back. Any short term consolidation/correction must be a buying opportunity, unless the overall market crashes, in which case no one will be saved. Except maybe gold.


----------



## greggy (21 December 2006)

kennas said:
			
		

> The bit I really like is
> 
> *ABN Amro who report this morning they "believe a change in policy would lead to a re-rating of the Australian uranium explorers and potentially to further consolidation of the sector".*
> 
> ...



The frenzy has already begun and there is a lot more to come.


----------



## Rafa (21 December 2006)

kennas said:
			
		

> I'm not one to ever really stick my neck out, and I'm hesitant to do it here, but I just think that it has been ever so blindingly obvious that Australian U explorers were/are going to absolutely rocket with a change in policy and that now seems inevitable.




Certainly like the ABN Amro bit... but the way companies are going with their recent announcements (sell on fact), i am will to stick my head out and say the day labor drops the policy, the u stocks will fall 10 %.

Gotta love the market!


----------



## Sean K (21 December 2006)

Rafa said:
			
		

> Certainly like the ABN Amro bit... but the way companies are going with their recent announcements (sell on fact), i am will to stick my head out and say the day labor drops the policy, the u stocks will fall 10 %.
> 
> Gotta love the market!



LOL, I'm with you.

SMM are supposed to be coming out with a few JORC before the end of the year (maybe tomorrow) and I have a feeling they will do a BMN.


----------



## greggy (21 December 2006)

Rafa said:
			
		

> Certainly like the ABN Amro bit... but the way companies are going with their recent announcements (sell on fact), i am will to stick my head out and say the day labor drops the policy, the u stocks will fall 10 %.
> 
> Gotta love the market!



I agree. The day Labor changes its policy, the day the uranium sector will suffer a big correction.  Meanwhile the uranium sector will continue to boom.  These are just my thoughts.
DYOR


----------



## mmmmining (21 December 2006)

Don't forget the Canadians are always look over us. The took a lot of our companies, and properties. I cannot recall any Aussie company has a uranium project in Canada. If you can find one, I will buy its share.


----------



## mmmmining (24 December 2006)

The following is from Dines Letter published by James Dines, about us Aussies, I quote:
----------------------------------------
"Australia’s uranium investors, deceived by their own government into thinking that nuclear power was an idea whose time had come and gone, made the remarkable error of selling out way too cheaply. Their mind set, born in the 
amniotic fluid of a 20-year bear market for uranium, and convinced by their own government that uranium would never be allowed to be mined, sold their properties for *pennies*.....

......Australians will wind up repurchasing many of those properties in the future. 

......and we fully understand how an Australian, having been through a horrendous bear market, would be *thrilled* to see a stock go from $1 to $2, figuring a doubling was certainly a bird in hand being better than two in the bush. But our leadership took a very different tack, and recommended paying double, triple or even higher in order to acquire the properties that we were convinced were destined to go far, far above such levels – which has come true, perhaps a lucky guess." 
-----------------------------------------------

Any comments?


----------



## alankew (27 December 2006)

I am a little late in joining the Uranium party but it seems to me that the U shares are going a little ballistic at the moment,probably due to the recent increase in the price of U.Is U the new Zinc.Any Uranium IPOs that may be worth looking at.Am considering Empire Resources at the mo,any more getting on this one or any others


----------



## radio-active man (27 December 2006)

alankew,

Put thr / thro in your watchlist. NT Uranium explorer hanging around it's ipo price. Has been soewhat overlooked by the market. It will have it's time in the spotlight...

+ USA might be option as well. They are offering all shareholders free attached options excersible form memory at 20c. Not a bad incentive to buy.


----------



## james_dean (27 December 2006)

get long on uranium as we enter the nuclear age


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (28 December 2006)

A possible explanation for the U crazy runs of certain stocks like NTU UNX



Overheated uranium plays spark warnings 
27th December 2006, 9:45 WST

Analysts have warned investors about the risks of getting caught up in the hype surrounding uranium amid expectations that the radioactive metal will continue a blistering market run next year.

Brokers and analysts fear that investors face big losses by blindly jumping on to junior uranium plays that are going to the market with untested uranium sampling results and enjoying over-inflated market valuations. 

A steady diet of trace uranium discoveries, record yellowcake prices and anticipated supply constraints has bulked up the market valuations of most uranium juniors to a hefty premium to their underlying net assets, with many uranium juniors packing on an average of 143 per cent in the past 12 months. 

Far East Capital analyst Warwick Grigor believes investors are overreacting to uranium sampling results that do not warrant the enthusiasm and in some cases are misleading.

In his December uranium sector analysis report, Mr Grigor warned: "In most cases it is the trace of uranium that is exciting punters, and companies are reporting these traces as if they amount to a discovery. 

"This is very misleading. Most of these companies will find that uranium has simply passed on by and the excitement has been premature."

Mr Grigor said it was not good enough for companies to just have a radiometric anomaly covering a paleochannel, companies needed to find out where the transport had stopped and if a deposition has taken place.

Few grassroot explorers with tenements in WA managed to rate above average in Mr Grigor’s sector poll, with Aura Energy, Aurora Minerals, Encounter Resources, Korab Resources, Scimitar Resources and U3O8 just scraping in with a fair rating.

*Northern Uranium and Thundelarra Exploration were among the handful of junior explorers described as possessing good quality assets. * 

Daiwa Securities analyst Mark Pervan said 95 per cent of listed uranium juniors would never see the light of day from a production point of view because they were too small, did not have mining permits and the regulatory environment was too restrictive.

Analysts have warned that many investors were overly excited about uranium and not recognising there were long lead times involved in getting uranium production up and running, resulting in the stocks being priced as if mining and production were already occurring.

Over the past six months the uranium price has climbed 64 per cent, driven primarily by the anticipated energy appetite from the proposed construction of 178 new nuclear reactors, which represents a 40 per cent increase on current global nuclear infrastructure. 

Last week the spot uranium price soared $US6.50 a pound to a new high of $US72/lb, marking the single biggest increase since price publishing began in 1968. 

*Resource Capital Research analyst John Wilson said that companies with advanced projects, such as Uranex, PepinNini Minerals, Berkeley Resources, Wildhorse Energy and Energy Metals were most likely to make rapid gains next year. * 

Mr Wilson forecasts the uranium price to be $US90/lb by mid 2007 and $US115/lb by September 2008. 

Hartleys resources analyst Andrew Muir said most uranium juniors were years away from gaining any upside from higher uranium prices.  

TRACEY COOK


----------



## mick2006 (28 December 2006)

Looks like only a few of the junior explorers got a pass mark, if you read the above article.  I am thinking of getting into Aura Energy (AEE) it seems to have a big uranium player in Mega Uranium from Canada in its corner with some very promising exploration ground.

Judging by the way some of the uranium stocks have been running on no news, it seems that it is only a matter of time before people jump on the AEE bandwagon who have just completed a 300+ hole exploration with results expected in early 2007

Could this be the next uranium stock to have a big run up?
What do you guys think?
Or is there any others you think might be better value at this stage?


----------



## michael_selway (28 December 2006)

YOUNG_TRADER said:
			
		

> A possible explanation for the U crazy runs of certain stocks like NTU UNX
> 
> Overheated uranium plays spark warnings
> 27th December 2006, 9:45 WST
> ...




Nice article, i wonder which year the forecast of uranium will fall? 2009? 2010?

thx

MS


----------



## MalteseBull (29 December 2006)

Nuclear report due

The final report from the government's nuclear taskforce says Australia should move quickly to export more uranium.

The Prime Minister is expected to make the document public today.

The report is understood to estimate Australia could double its earnings from exporting uranium oxide by the end of the decade.

It also reportedly suggests a nuclear power industry could generate significant environmental benefits.

The Prime Minister is likely use the report in his attempts to persuade state Labor governments to remove restrictions on approving new uranium mines.






DYL, BMN, PDN, UXA - 2007


----------



## lancer (29 December 2006)

MalteseBull said:
			
		

> DYL, BMN, PDN, UXA - 2007





One more SMM...The U stocks went crazy on the toronto stock exchange on thursday hopefully they will follow suit today on the asx. Thats great news!


----------



## mmmmining (30 December 2006)

Check this out, there is no owner yet for Angela deposit in NT. News said there are 40 applicants for it. Anyone knows who on the list? It looks like a lotto ticket, whoever get it will hit the jackpot. I wish one of the juniors will have it. 

I quote from UIC:

Angela, NT

The Angela deposit, 25 km south of Alice Springs was discovered in 1973 and extensively drilled by Uranerz Australia in 1989, under a Uranerz-MIM joint venture. It has 11,500 tonnes of U3O8 at 0.13%, spread over several kilometres in sandstone.

After Uranerz departed from Australia in 1991, Angela was held under a retention licence, but this was relinquished due to prevailing Labor Government policy. Uranium Australia NL, renamed Black Range Minerals NL, applied for reinstatement of the licence, but it appears to have lapsed. Black Range has gone into administration.


----------



## Jamesba (30 December 2006)

uranium farms take forever to build - i agree with some of the other posts in this thread that it will take a bit of time before it explodes


----------



## Plan B (30 December 2006)

If you find out , PLEASE let me know.....lol



			
				mmmmining said:
			
		

> Check this out, there is no owner yet for Angela deposit in NT. News said there are 40 applicants for it. Anyone knows who on the list? It looks like a lotto ticket, whoever get it will hit the jackpot. I wish one of the juniors will have it.






> *Nuclear conglomerate wants Aussie arm*
> 
> Mandi Zonneveldt
> 
> ...




http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,20987506-664,00.html


----------



## Sean K (2 January 2007)

Has any uranium player not gone up 50% + in the past 6 months. Could it be getting a bit frothy out there. Just how many of these explorers are going to eventually run a profitable mine. Concerning if you are a mid to long term investor IMO, but if you're trading and locking in profits, what an opportunity it has been. I'm starting to think that a good exit strategy/plan, and or willingness to take some profits off the table might be a good idea. This might go on for a bit longer, but just who knows. Good luck to all punters!


----------



## dj_420 (2 January 2007)

there is some explorers that are looking frothy. IMO however the uranium stocks that do already have deposits there are the ones who will continue to see gains. like SMM, MTN, AGS.

these stocks have significant sized resources and will clearly see benefit of policy change.

after reading that report shows australia is quite behind the 8 ball on the uranium issue. IMO we need to start developing nuclear power program now, we need to develop programs for education in universities nuclear scientists etc. we also need to start building the power plants. it will take a good 10 to 15 years to get a program up and going so changes need to happen today.

i agree with the fact that its pointless for us to continue investing in coal fired power when it will become expensive and obsolete anyway due to emission restrictions.

we have begun to see many larger institutions and energy providers investing in many australian uranium companies. is this due to change in the wind? could it be that the investors are sensing the coal industry will see a large shift??


----------



## Rafa (2 January 2007)

its fair to say that if U sentiment turns sour, in the SHORT term, all U stocks will be hit, and hit hard... regardless of how 'good' they are.

when, and if at all this happens, is anyones guess...
i am loathe to have tight stops, cause of the volatility of the stocks i own, yet, having stops at 8-10% will end up costing me 10's of thousands of dollars!

Long term, you have to go with quality...
i.e. those with a significant proven resource, and shortest time to mine...

i am reasonbly happy that the 4 i own are high quality U stocks, BMN, PDN, MTN, and AGS... They all have significant resources, in mining friendly jurisdictions.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (6 January 2007)

I wonder if this will cause a stir next week or if the blood bath in overall resources will drown out the Uphoria?


Mining industry welcomes China uranium deal
The mining industry has welcomed the ratification of the Australia-China Nuclear Transfer Agreement.

Australia and China have also ratified a Nuclear Cooperation Agreement, paving the way for Australia to export uranium to China.

Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer says the timing and amount of uranium to exported will be a matter for commercial negotiation.

Rob Rawson from the Minerals Council of Australia says he expects negotiations will begin quickly.

"We welcome the ratification, we think it's both timely and opportune," he said.

"It really paves the way for the export of Australian uranium and technology and services and so on without compromising Australia's strict uranium regulatory regime."


----------



## champ2003 (7 January 2007)

Rafa said:
			
		

> its fair to say that if U sentiment turns sour, in the SHORT term, all U stocks will be hit, and hit hard... regardless of how 'good' they are.
> 
> when, and if at all this happens, is anyones guess...
> i am loathe to have tight stops, cause of the volatility of the stocks i own, yet, having stops at 8-10% will end up costing me 10's of thousands of dollars!
> ...




Quote me if i'm wrong but i don't think MTN is in a mining friendly jurisdiction at the moment until the 3 mine policy gets lifted. 

Cheers!

Champ


----------



## Sean K (7 January 2007)

YOUNG_TRADER said:
			
		

> I wonder if this will cause a stir next week or if the blood bath in overall resources will drown out the Uphoria?
> 
> 
> Mining industry welcomes China uranium deal
> ...




*Nuclear deal opens $2bn door for BHP*
Barry Fitzgerald, Resources Editor
January 6, 2007

Ratification of the nuclear safeguard agreements with China has cleared the way for BHP Billiton to begin pinning down contracts for the additional $2 billion a year in uranium it is planning to produce from its Olympic Dam mine in South Australia's outback.

Finding an approved home for the additional 10,500 tonnes a year of uranium is critical to the planned $10 billion expansion of Olympic Dam from 2013.

While the additional 300,000 tonnes of copper a year that would come with the expansion are easily sold into world markets, it is another matter with uranium.

But the task of finding a home for the radioactive material has been made easier by the emergence of China as a potential major customer, with first sales to the country now possible following the ratification of the Australia-China Nuclear Transfer Agreement and the Nuclear Co-operation Agreement.

The two treaties were signed in Canberra in April during a visit by Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao. Canberra said yesterday that the timing and quantities of exports under the agreements remained a matter for commercial negotiation.

BHP has said previously that it is in negotiations with customers for uranium sales contracts to take effect after Olympic Dam is expanded. It is also playing hard ball, insisting in the negotiations that any contracts have a "floating price" as well as a "floor price".

That is an attempt to get away from the current situation where all Olympic Dam's uranium is contracted out to 2010 at prices that are a fraction of the current spot price of $US72 a pound. The contracts were written when uranium was in the dumps. Spot prices ”” as distinct from contract prices ”” doubled last year and are now 10 times the level of six years ago.

Australia's other big uranium producer, Energy Resources of Australia, has also been locked into low-priced long-term contracts. It received only $US15.57 a pound for its production in 2006. But a recent increase in the reserve base at its Ranger mine in the Northern Territory has it in the hunt for new contracts covering 11,100 tonnes of uranium for sale between 2014 and 2020.


----------



## Rafa (7 January 2007)

champ2003 said:
			
		

> Quote me if i'm wrong but i don't think MTN is in a mining friendly jurisdiction at the moment until the 3 mine policy gets lifted.
> 
> Cheers!
> 
> Champ




Sure, the 3 mine policy needs to be lifted first.... that is a national Labor party issue, issue effecting all states except NT.

After that however, i understand its still up to the individual state gov's to give the go ahead... and Queensland and WA have stated that they will be responding in the negative, regardless of the 3 mine policy being lifted or not.

SA Govt's position is... mine mine mine....


----------



## MalteseBull (8 January 2007)

Analysts remain bullish on outlook for uranium after nearly doubling in 2006

By CRAIG WONG

2007-01-07 12:58:00



VANCOUVER (CP) - After nearly doubling last year, the price of uranium appears poised to continue its bull run in 2007 as demand for the radioactive fuel continues to outstrip supply, analysts say.

"It is a commodity that has for years been under a lot of pressure from excess supply and now the seeds have been sown and we're beginning to see the flip side of that," said RBC Capital Markets analyst Adam Schatzker, who has forecast the price will average US$100 per pound in 2007.

"There is not a lot of mine production. The inventories that were being sold into the market are disappearing and we're actually in a supply-demand deficit."

Though hedge funds and other speculators are beginning to move into the uranium market, he said the biggest driver to the recent increase in price is a shortfall in supply and growing demand.

New nuclear power plants are being built in China and other parts of the world, while few new major deposits have been developed, leading to demand that is 40 per cent ahead of current supply.

For years the price of uranium removed the incentive to spend the money building any new production or searching for new deposits. With governments selling their inventories the markets were flooded with cheap uranium and there was no need to dig up new deposits.

But those inventories are depleting and uranium users still need the fuel for their reactors.

The price of uranium averaged US$28.15 per pound in 2005 and jumped to and average of $48.10 per pound in 2006. However the spot price for the radioactive metal was a whopping US$72 per pound at the end of the year.

Scotiabank commodity specialist Patricia Mohr has suggested that the current upswing in uranium prices is a "secular" change in global energy markets, due to the price of oil and that nuclear power generation emits virtually no greenhouse gases.

"While exploration activity has surged for uranium - across Canada, Australia, Africa and in Kazakhstan - there has been little improvement in mine production," Mohr wrote in a recent report forecasting an average price of US$80 in 2007, ending the year close to $90.

She suggested mine production gains this year will be limited as Cameco (TSX:CCO) and Areva will likely boost output in Kazakhstan, the Dominion project will start up in South Africa and Smith Ranch may be expanded in the United States.

The shortfall in supply was made worse when Saskatoon-based Cameco, the world's biggest uranium producer, reported flooding at its Cigar Lake mine in northern Saskatchewan, a project it had hoped to bring into production in 2008.

Construction at the deposit, which has proven and probable reserves of more than 232 million pounds of uranium at an average grade of 19 per cent, began in January 2005, but came to a halt last year after a flood that pushed back completion by at least a year.

Though the company has started round-the-clock work drilling holes to the source of the water inflow so it can pump in concrete, it is not known when the mine will actually be able to come into production.

Some market watchers have speculated that the Cigar Lake mine may never begin commercial production.

Schatzker said the flood at the mine that is expected to produce 18 million pounds a year when it comes does come into production, had a "fundamental impact on the market."

"The range of expectations of where that might go is all over the place because really a lack of information and a lack of clarity," he said.

But even with the trouble, Salman Partners analyst Raymond Goldie still rated Cameco a top pick for the year.

"We believe that investors have been overly concerned about the link between oil prices and uranium prices and about the flood at Cameco's Cigar Lake uranium project," said Goldie, who has a C$55.95 12-month price target on the stock.

"However, as investors realize that what Cameco loses at Cigar Lake on volume, it more than makes up on price, Cameco's share price continues to recover."

Investors have been flocking to uranium stocks, particularly those of junior companies with a lower stock price.

For example, Paladin Resources Ltd. (TSXDN), a small Australian miner that trades on the TSX and has uranium properties in South Africa, has been a top trading stock for several weeks on the Canadian markets.

SxR Uranium One Inc. (TSX:SXR), a Toronto-based resources company, has also been a popular investment as has been Denison Mines Corp. (TSXML), an intermediate uranium producer, with mining assets in the Athabasca Basin of Saskatchewan, and the southwestern U.S. as well as exploration properties in the U.S., Canada and Mongolia.

Investors have been drawn to Denison because the company owns parts of two of the four uranium mills operating in North America today, giving the company a diversified mining asset base as well as milling infrastructure.

The Toronto company recently got C$100 million in financing to back its bid to acquire OmegaCorp Ltd., an Australian-traded miner with uranium projects in southern Africa, including the advanced stage Kariba Project in Zambia.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (8 January 2007)

*WA govt stands by uranium mining ban*
Monday Jan 8 12:06 AEDT
The West Australia government has rejected a federal call to end its ban on uranium mining.

Federal Environment Minister Ian Campbell said WA should reassess its ban because nuclear power could be used in the fight against climate change.

Senator Campbell also said there were huge benefits to be made by the WA and Australian economies from mining uranium as the world was hungry for it.

But Acting Premier Eric Ripper rejected the call to dump the ban, one of Labor's central policies in the 2005 state election.




Mr Ripper dubbed Senator Campbell "a nuclear fanatic".

"I mean, the answer to greenhouse gas emissions is to look at clean coal technology, to promote renewables, solar, wind, wave, biomass, to invest in energy efficiency," Mr Ripper told ABC Radio.

"And, of course, Western Australia is contributing substantially to one of the other answers, which is to export LNG so that it replaces coal, for example, in Chinese power stations."

Mr Ripper said if WA lifted the ban it would come under intense pressure to accept an international waste dump.

"And that's something I know our electorate would be strongly opposed to," he said.

"We went to the people at the last election saying we're opposed to nuclear power, we're opposed to uranium mining and we're opposed to a waste dump in Western Australia, that's the contract we have with the people and we intend to honour that commitment."


----------



## Rafa (8 January 2007)

yes, this is exactly what i was talking about champ2003.
3 mines policy has nothing to do with anything whatsoever, besides being an in-pricipal ability to mine if the state govt allow it.

As far as U mining goes, SA the one, other that NT which is federal territory.


----------



## jet328 (8 January 2007)

Rafa said:
			
		

> Sure, the 3 mine policy needs to be lifted first.... that is a national Labor party issue, issue effecting all states except NT.
> 
> After that however, i understand its still up to the individual state gov's to give the go ahead... and Queensland and WA have stated that they will be responding in the negative, regardless of the 3 mine policy being lifted or not.
> 
> SA Govt's position is... mine mine mine....




This sounds most likely what will occur  

So the next question is, which companies will benefit most from this?
Most likely the more advanced mines in SA?

Cheers


----------



## Sean K (8 January 2007)

jet328 said:
			
		

> This sounds most likely what will occur
> 
> So the next question is, which companies will benefit most from this?
> Most likely the more advanced mines in SA?
> ...



I'd really like to get a statement from the National Labor leadership on what will actually occur. There seems to be quite a bit of conjecture and misunderstanding. For example, many people are calling it a Three Mine Policy, whereas in fact, it was a No New Mines policy. Thus, the Honeymoon mine was approved last year because it had an application in or something prior to Labor instigating their 'No New Mines Policy yonks ago and we will therefore have 4 mines shortly. 

My understanding is that the No New Mines policy is a core national labor policy  and therefore, the States must abide by it, or they get their ar!ses kicked. Like kicked out!

Anyone have any quotes or better on what's going to happen? 

Perhaps an email to Peter G on what will happen?


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (8 January 2007)

Kennas,

From my knowledge of Constitutional and Administative Law (What an ugly subject that was YUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

If the current Federal Executive Govt ie Johny and his boys are pro uranium,

Then the State govt's which regualte mining in their areas are free to go either yes or no

Now even if at the upcoming meeting Labor says YES to Uranium, States are still free to choose,

So W.A. can still say no, there's nothing anyone can do to force them to say yes, hence why S.A. is the best State to be in for Uranium IMO and of course NT


----------



## Rafa (8 January 2007)

kennas said:
			
		

> My understanding is that the No New Mines policy is a core national labor policy  and therefore, the States must abide by it, or they get their ar!ses kicked. Like kicked out!





Exactly... but as YT said, scrapping it, does not mean the converse will happen, it only removes the over-riding rule...

its now up to each state to decide based on state issues.


----------



## Sean K (8 January 2007)

YOUNG_TRADER said:
			
		

> Kennas,
> 
> From my knowledge of Constitutional and Administative Law (What an ugly subject that was YUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
> 
> ...






			
				Rafa said:
			
		

> Exactly... but as YT said, scrapping it, does not mean the converse will happen, it only removes the over-riding rule...
> 
> its now up to each state to decide based on state issues.



Yep, that is making sence to me. So WA and QLD are going to be able to say no to mining even if Labor change the policy.   My SMM shares will be shelved very shortly if this is the case.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (8 January 2007)

Rafa said:
			
		

> Exactly... but as YT said, scrapping it, does not mean the converse will happen, it only removes the over-riding rule...
> 
> its now up to each state to decide based on state issues.




Well said Rafa, a much better answer far more clear, concise and to the point, I think more people will get the drift now

Cheers


----------



## hitmanlam (8 January 2007)

As far as i know, Mr Beattie (QLD) has stated that he MIGHT change his stance if federal labour stance changes.  I wouldn't put on money on that though.  As for Mr Carpenter (WA), there is absolutely NO CHANCE that he will budge.  He has openly said that he will never support uranium cause WA would be the target for being a uranium dumping ground.

"I will sell my wife and kids before I change my stance on uranium"....

22nd November,  The Australian Financial Review, page 34


----------



## Sean K (8 January 2007)

hitmanlam said:
			
		

> As far as i know, Mr Beattie (QLD) has stated that he MIGHT change his stance if federal labour stance changes.  I wouldn't put on money on that though.  As for Mr Carpenter (WA), there is absolutely NO CHANCE that he will budge.  He has openly said that he will never support uranium cause WA would be the target for being a uranium dumping ground.
> 
> "I will sell my wife and kids before I change my stance on uranium"....
> 
> 22nd November,  The Australian Financial Review, page 34



While governments and leaders will change, this sort of talk has to put a dampener on any WA explorer, surely. By the time government, and/or leaders change, the U supply demand equation might have changed resulting in the spot price declining making them unworthy. Hhhmm, food for thought.


----------



## hitmanlam (8 January 2007)

BTW.  That last bit was a joke if u guys didnt pick it up.............


----------



## tech/a (8 January 2007)

Dont know if anyone is interested but I have made up an *INDEX of small cap uranium explorers and miners * those under a market cap of $100,000,000.
I have 43 and as new ones come on I add to it.I have 6 to add.
I have weighted it /$20,000,000 market cap.
BHP and RIO etc arent in it. Here is the chart for the last 12 mths.
I can only fit on the last 8 mths due to capture size limits.


----------



## hitmanlam (8 January 2007)

kennas said:
			
		

> While governments and leaders will change, this sort of talk has to put a dampener on any WA explorer, surely. By the time government, and/or leaders change, the U supply demand equation might have changed resulting in the spot price declining making them unworthy. Hhhmm, food for thought.




Exactly kennas.  I would never buy a WA miner.  It's just pure speculation. Even if they do start production, it will be a long long time away.  There's plenty of other U stocks out there.  I can see some reasoning with buying QLD explorer like SMM.

Anyways, if your looking a a stock with good fundamentals.  These are the things u need to consider, in order of importance:

1.  Look for total JORC resources and compare market caps. (good EV $/lb).  Remember to factor a premium for U miners closer to production.
*2.  U miners in friendly State or in a African country.*
3.  Look for resources close to infrastructure.
4.  Explorers who have tenaments near, or between, or on, similar geology to known miners with good resources. 
5.  And, how much cash do they have in the bank.  They might need to issue more shares if they don't have the money and dilute them.
6.  Joint Ventures with quality companies.  JV with quality companies will help both companies.
7.  Quality of management. Look for directors who have U mining experience in good companies.
8.  Who are the shareholders top 20?  If a big investment company has a stake, u know they did it cause they believe the company will go places.

Alot of things to consider........


----------



## sydneysider (9 January 2007)

YOUNG_TRADER said:
			
		

> Kennas,
> 
> From my knowledge of Constitutional and Administative Law (What an ugly subject that was YUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
> 
> ...




I went to Law School a thousand years ago BUT are there not Constitutional restraint of trade issues at stake when a state decides to "ban" a perfectly legal business activity that is conducted within the Commonwealth and between the other states. 

WA already allows the granting of leases to search for, drill and prove up U resources. There are already some leases that could be legally mined for U (i think from memory Palladin ownws them). That means that at least one U mine would be legal while the rest would be illegal. 

The whole issue about a U waste dump in WA for depleted u is a complete "furphy". I do not think this issue has been taken to the courts because up until now there was no financial incentive. At US$72 pound and above the pressure to seek a legal resolution thru the parliament or courts will be come paramount. Any Constitutional scholars here to comment?


----------



## spooly74 (9 January 2007)

Below is a section from the Age (11/06) on the upcoming conflict between the states and federal gov on Uranium mining . . . link to full article below. cheers

_"...if push comes to shove, the states' ability to resist nuclear power might be about on a par with their ability to stop the takeover of industrial relations.

While the corporations power gave the Commonwealth coverage of only about 85 per cent of employees, constitutional expert George Williams, law professor at the University of NSW, thinks its coverage of the nuclear industry ”” a greenfields area almost certainly wholly run by corporations ”” would probably be 100 per cent. "In any legal battle for control of a nuclear industry, the Commonwealth would emerge victorious. This is because the constitution gives it the overriding voice where there is a conflict between federal and state law ”” providing its actions are based on a constitutional power," Williams says. "_




http://www.theage.com.au/news/opini...1163871546311.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1


----------



## sydneysider (9 January 2007)

spooly74 said:
			
		

> Below is a section from the Age (11/06) on the upcoming conflict between the states and federal gov on Uranium mining . . . link to full article below. cheers
> 
> _"...if push comes to shove, the states' ability to resist nuclear power might be about on a par with their ability to stop the takeover of industrial relations.
> 
> ...




Thank you for the quote to this article. I thought that this was the position all along. By fighting off the Feds the States such as WA will only see a lot of their U assets slip into foreign hands at bargain basement prices while the fight rages.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (9 January 2007)

I think whats important to focus on is not the legal issues but rather if you were going to invest Millions in developing a U mine would you want to operate in 

a) S.A. where the State Govt will bend over backwards to help you, providing you with an easy path through the red tape and even some funding assistance known as PACE

b) N.T. where the Fed govt literally siezed control of mining rights and have said as far as U is concerned anything goes

c) Qld where the State govt has voiced its thoughts on protecting its very large coal interests (some would see coal and uranium in direct competition as an energy source)

d) W.A. where the State Govt is firmly oppossed to U mining, 

Remember just because its legal to do in a State doesn't make it a sure thing, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink" or if you like "You can legalise Uranium exploration in all States, but you can't guarantee that that attempts won't be made to stop iand hinder that exploration"


----------



## nizar (9 January 2007)

YOUNG_TRADER said:
			
		

> I think whats important to focus on is not the legal issues but rather if you were going to invest Millions in developing a U mine would you want to operate in
> 
> a) S.A. where the State Govt will bend over backwards to help you, providing you with an easy path through the red tape and even some funding assistance known as PACE





Very true.
YT u should check out SAU, i used to hold them not anymore, but still think they are a winner. Very prospective holdings and exploration, SG very experienced, and their market cap is a joke.


----------



## spooly74 (9 January 2007)

YOUNG_TRADER said:
			
		

> I think whats important to focus on is not the legal issues but rather if you were going to invest Millions in developing a U mine would you want to operate in
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Rafa (9 January 2007)

well, i hope WA and QLD don't allow mining...

we don't want every mine possible to come on market in a rush... spot price will crash and we'll all be worse off...!


----------



## dj_420 (9 January 2007)

you do realise how long it takes to develop a mine??

i think companies would be looking at 5 years and thats been conservative. how long did PDN take to get mine online.

and all of the uranium players in australia arent going to make it to production stage. IMO only AGS, MTN, SMM have the resource sizes that can make a mine financially viable.

EVEN if these three players came online at once they cant dig up their entire resource in one hit, these deposits could prob support 20 year mining lifetimes. 

and by the time the mines come online the uranium spot will prob well exceed 100 per pound. so a total drop on uranium policy would not effect spot uranium price for at least 7 years IF AT ALL.


----------



## Fab (9 January 2007)

dj_420 said:
			
		

> you do realise how long it takes to develop a mine??
> 
> i think companies would be looking at 5 years and thats been conservative. how long did PDN take to get mine online.
> 
> ...




PDN appears to be the big winner at the moment. They are in production already and not mining in OZ. Their share price is holding very well above $8 and pushing up


----------



## richmond (9 January 2007)

I posted this in another thread - wouldn't mind some hypotheticals if its allowed...


Quote:
Originally Posted by richmond
so, what are the predictions for what will happen should Rudd convince his ALP brethren to change tack on the uranium front and allow mines in Qld and WA?


Sorry guys, I should have been more specific with my question - we all know the ALP Conference is very important regarding how the investment community looks at uranium stocks - I was looking for hypotheticals on the impact of a change in policy on the likes of SMM, AGS, PDN, DYL, et al. Do you think it will go up hugely or has it already been factored in? Especially if Mr Beattie just "goes with the flow" as he has indicated recently?

Cheers
R
Edit/Delete Message


----------



## Sean K (10 January 2007)

richmond said:
			
		

> I posted this in another thread - wouldn't mind some hypotheticals if its allowed...
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by richmond
> ...



I think some of it has been factored in richmond, but there might be some more upside when it's all confirmed. The market caps of these companies, that will not produce for a number of years, are looking a little toppy to me.


----------



## Fab (10 January 2007)

kennas said:
			
		

> I think some of it has been factored in richmond, but there might be some more upside when it's all confirmed. The market caps of these companies, that will not produce for a number of years, are looking a little toppy to me.



This might have an impact on producer such as PDN


----------



## spooly74 (10 January 2007)

_State's ban on uranium mining could lead to costly claims_

_"THE Carpenter Government has conceded that sharply higher uranium prices mean its ban on mining in the state potentially exposes it to huge compensation claims from companies holding mining licences"_

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21036515-2702,00.html
cheers


----------



## mmmmining (10 January 2007)

Is the uranium boom over for this short-term cycle, or because of big-guys in the town taking hair-cut when they are backing to work?

It is very common to see 30% to 50%  gain for uranium stocks between a week before Christmas and first two trading days after new year. 

Cannot find any uranium stock that reaches new high today. Looks like more bearish than correction.


----------



## bigt (10 January 2007)

From a psychological perspective, it would be interesting to see the market reaction to a 0.50c drop in the spot price for uranium...event though the last time it increased by $7.50 or so...I have a feeling they would be running for the hills   Of course, I would not want this to happen, as I hold a good few U stocks, and only bought fairly recently, so am only sitting on small gains.

Just a thought.. :sheep:


----------



## kromey (10 January 2007)

Is USA a new high mmmmining?


----------



## mmmmining (10 January 2007)

kromey said:
			
		

> Is USA a new high mmmmining?




Kromey, yes, you are right. Mainly I am talking about bell-weather stocks, relatively large in market capital, such as PDN, SMM, BMN, EME, AGS, MTN, URA, NEL...

Actually, there are a few small players have reached intro-day all time high. But the overall uranium stocks are depressing. Maybe link to oil price drop??


----------



## Dr Doom (10 January 2007)

Beware this bubble, the lower oil goes the less appealing U is. Remember that there is a long lead time for both mining the resource and building the end use facility. Also, U is not a scarce commodity, quite abundant (even in coal fired power station ash). 

In the meantime a lot can happen. Commodities generally look to have reached a zenith or are very confused about the direction of the US (& therefore the rest of the world) economy, and also as witnessed by the choppy action of the XJO the last 3 days.

The U price could compete with oil to see who can get back to $35 first in a worldwide recession.


----------



## spooly74 (10 January 2007)

Dr Doom said:
			
		

> The U price could compete with oil to see who can get back to $35 first in a worldwide recession.



The U price could compete with oil to see who can get back to $35 first in a worldwide recession.  :kiffer:


----------



## Dr Doom (10 January 2007)

hi spooly, care to forecast a price for U & oil in 12 months time then, to make it interesting?


----------



## spooly74 (10 January 2007)

Dr Doom said:
			
		

> hi spooly, care to forecast a price for U & oil in 12 months time then, to make it interesting?



OK Dr D
just for fun
U @ $102/lb and OIL @ $62.45 IMO only  :alcohol: 
cheers


----------



## champ2003 (10 January 2007)

Dr Doom said:
			
		

> Beware this bubble, the lower oil goes the less appealing U is. Remember that there is a long lead time for both mining the resource and building the end use facility. Also, U is not a scarce commodity, quite abundant (even in coal fired power station ash).
> 
> In the meantime a lot can happen. Commodities generally look to have reached a zenith or are very confused about the direction of the US (& therefore the rest of the world) economy, and also as witnessed by the choppy action of the XJO the last 3 days.
> 
> The U price could compete with oil to see who can get back to $35 first in a worldwide recession.




I can understand oil going down a little due to fundamental reasons however i can't see how the price of U could drop at all due to the tight situation. The fundamentals should remain strong even if Oil drops IMO. Yes Uranium does look more attractive when Oil is more expensive. If oil drops I don't foresee any uranium powerplant construction restraints therefore the price of U should stand firm just IMO.

Cheers

Champ


----------



## johnno261 (10 January 2007)

To compare U in line with Oil is ridiculous. Fundementals are way way different! Sure Oil appears to be heading for $50 us a barrel, but look at the fundementals behind the U situation in the world. I agree with a previous post on U conservatively going to US$100 plb.
Just my thoughts!!


----------



## moses (10 January 2007)

Germany may reverse an old decision to scrap nuclear power plants, partly because Russian oil and gas is unreliable due to political spats. Implications of this weeks shut down of oil pipeline through Belarus are that Europe will place more emphasis on diversification of energy sources and types, and that is more good news for uranium.


----------



## mmmmining (11 January 2007)

Good drilling/trench results can only have 3 minutes fame for uranium stock. People just cannot get over the $53 oil, and hoping fossils fuel will stage a coming back if oil price is keep dropping.


----------



## lancer (11 January 2007)

funny thing is there is no correlation (or not much) between lower oil prices and Uranium. In my opinion it is between Uranium and Coal, and coal is ruining the earth.


----------



## Dr Doom (11 January 2007)

lancer said:
			
		

> funny thing is there is no correlation (or not much) between lower oil prices and Uranium. In my opinion it is between Uranium and Coal, and coal is ruining the earth.




Well I suppose I got that wrong then. What I should have implied was that the oil price could be construed to be a barometer for industrial activity (all things being equal eg supply disruptions etc). If there was reduced industrial activity due to a downturn, softlanding whatever you like to call it, then that would also show up in electricity demand.

Depends on your view of the health of the US economy. I view the US housing market as a pretty good forward looking indicator for the world economy. Housing starts are still dropping, builders are laying off people, transport is declining, less  consumption, less electrical demand. Last qtr GDP will be interesting.


----------



## mmmmining (11 January 2007)

The the rest of world is bigger than US. The impact of what happened in US on the rest of world is diminishing. I hesitate to mention BRIC, so the economic leading indicator should be how many 6-pack we Aussie drink per day.


----------



## Dr Doom (11 January 2007)

40% is still significant 

When everyone thinks alike, there isn't much thinking going on


----------



## mmmmining (11 January 2007)

Sorry, what do you mean 40%? Do you mean 40% of world foreign debt? or 40% drop of US dollar value against Euro? Or 40% world economic growth? or try 40% oil consumption?

I know 40% of real estate agents in the whole world are in US.


----------



## exgeo (11 January 2007)

*State's ban on uranium mining could lead to costly claims*

Interesting article about Uranium mining in WA:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21036515-5005200,00.html


----------



## Dr Doom (11 January 2007)

Er, um,......must have been a typo   

How bout 21% of world GDP?


----------



## sirloin (11 January 2007)

spooly74 said:
			
		

> The U price could compete with oil to see who can get back to $35 first in a worldwide recession.  :kiffer:




Just a thought, uranium has fixed long term users, you dont turn of your power station when U gets more expensive. With oil, people use less,simple.
Also in a recession you may not have a job,car,overseas holidays, etc
But you dont turn off your lights. Kind of recession proof !


----------



## spooly74 (11 January 2007)

sirloin said:
			
		

> Just a thought, uranium has fixed long term users, you dont turn of your power station when U gets more expensive. With oil, people use less,simple.
> Also in a recession you may not have a job,car,overseas holidays, etc
> But you dont turn off your lights. Kind of recession proof !



agree
have a look at the previous post to the one you quoted me from  
cheers


----------



## petal (11 January 2007)

No mention has been made in the media that CUDECO, on it's Rocklands lease 1 kilometre north of its Las Minerale copper cobalt gold find, has the Wilgar Uranium Anomaly reported on by CRA in 1975 as having ore grading 39% uranium.No tonnages are available.
Cudeco has recently advised of it's intention to  drill 4 holes between 500 and 1000 metres  deep close to this anomaly  in a 300 metre wide low magnetic breccia to determine the relationship between the Wilgar Uranium Anomaly and the extension of Las Minerale.
I have a large shareholding in Cudeco.


----------



## spooly74 (12 January 2007)

Good article to balance the U debate at the moment
cheers

_Russia, Speculators to Dictate Future 
Price Swings in Uranium Price

Will 2007 Become the Year of the Big Hiccup?_

http://www.stockinterview.com/News/01102007/Future-Uranium-Price-Swings.html


----------



## Dr Doom (12 January 2007)

sirloin said:
			
		

> Just a thought, uranium has fixed long term users, you dont turn of your power station when U gets more expensive. With oil, people use less,simple.
> Also in a recession you may not have a job,car,overseas holidays, etc
> But you dont turn off your lights. Kind of recession proof !




Not sure I was talking about the relationship between (a high) U price and turning off power stations, though it is a good point. I agree that in a recession people will continue electricity consumption at pre recession levels. They won't have jobs but will continue to buy things with um.... anyhow that's irrelevant, who needs money these days. 

Again, my timeframe is over 12 months away when the supply/demand figures will be converging somewhat, and combined with speculators/hedge funds/derivatives etc there could very well be a sharp correction in the U price. 

Recession to detract from the demand side, more projects coming on line to add to the supply side. No new rules of economics being created here, typical bubble market and blind bulls.


----------



## mmmmining (12 January 2007)

I heard that Chinese Nuclear Corp is out again to check out a few uranium assets in Australia in a few weeks. Anyone heard anything? or which company they are interested in?


----------



## exgeo (12 January 2007)

Uranium supply and demand converging? Everything I have read says the opposite. Demand is increasing slowly and supply is staying constant or falling (check out some of the presentations from NEL and others). This is due to:

1) No new exploration for years and years due to low prices (you could say the same about pretty much any other commodity you care to name)
2) Reprocessed uranium from decommissioned nuclear warheads no longer being available as fuel. Russia has already said it will not renew the contract it has with US utilities to sell their reprocessed uranium when it expires in 2013(?).
3) Demand increasing for the obvious reasons
4) Cigar Lake flooding, delaying its opening by at least a year (to 2009?). Cigar Lake was supposed to be supplying 8% of world demand from 2008.


----------



## champ2003 (12 January 2007)

Dr Doom said:
			
		

> Not sure I was talking about the relationship between (a high) U price and turning off power stations, though it is a good point. I agree that in a recession people will continue electricity consumption at pre recession levels. They won't have jobs but will continue to buy things with um.... anyhow that's irrelevant, who needs money these days.
> 
> Again, my timeframe is over 12 months away when the supply/demand figures will be converging somewhat, and combined with speculators/hedge funds/derivatives etc there could very well be a sharp correction in the U price.
> 
> Recession to detract from the demand side, more projects coming on line to add to the supply side. No new rules of economics being created here, typical bubble market and blind bulls.




No offence but i think that the name Dr DOOM! speaks for itself. I'd expect nothing but negativity and talk of doom and gloom from such a person that has obviously designed the concept of the name with the intent of constantly speaking of ??? you guessed it, Doom!.


----------



## Dr Doom (12 January 2007)

So someone with an alternative opinion cannot upset the club!  I get the message, see you next year.


----------



## mmmmining (12 January 2007)

Dr Doom said:
			
		

> So someone with an alternative opinion cannot upset the club!  I get the message, see you next year.



IMO alternative opinion is here to stay no matter people like or not.  But I appreciate if you can remove your signature. 

We are talking about Aussie Stocks. I will enjoy much more with political statement free. This is Aussie Way.


----------



## Fab (12 January 2007)

When are new U spot price release? I understand it is once every week.


----------



## mmmmining (13 January 2007)

Fab said:
			
		

> When are new U spot price release? I understand it is once every week.



The U spot price is very objective based on the trading, and trading related activities, and not necessarily the actual trading price. This is why the spot price published are different between TradeTech and UxC. They can off the hook by publishing the data at different day (Friday, and Monday).

 If there is no such activities, The price will be the same as last week.

And very importantly, no one is willing to mark it down marginally unless significant shift of market condition. So you can see the steady and up trend, and no yo-yo.


----------



## Sean K (13 January 2007)

mmmmining said:
			
		

> The U spot price is very objective based on the trading, and trading related activities, and not necessarily the actual trading price. This is why the spot price published are different between TradeTech and UxC. They can off the hook by publishing the data at different day (Friday, and Monday).
> 
> If there is no such activities, The price will be the same as last week.
> 
> And very importantly, no one is willing to mark it down marginally unless significant shift of market condition. So you can see the steady and up trend, and no yo-yo.



Will be interesting when we finally get a down price. I imagine U exp/prod will take a tumble, but I think it will be short lived. Perhaps a forward tactic might be to wait for this inevitability and take some more positions.....maybe...I'm waiting for another opp to buy in but they've all run so hard...


----------



## sam76 (14 January 2007)

kennas said:
			
		

> Will be interesting when we finally get a down price. I imagine U exp/prod will take a tumble, but I think it will be short lived. Perhaps a forward tactic might be to wait for this inevitability and take some more positions.....maybe...I'm waiting for another opp to buy in but they've all run so hard...




all have run hard except for EXT


----------



## lancer (14 January 2007)

Fab said:
			
		

> When are new U spot price release? I understand it is once every week.




It is released on fri afternoon evening (states time) or sat morn au time regardless of if it moves up in price or not. But that is only through a membership that you get to have first look at it from tradetech.com. I am no longer a subscriber so I have to wait until they publish on mon or tues to everyone else. I was hoping someone else on here is a subscriber and could offer some kind of hint...


----------



## panem (14 January 2007)

What about that Russian TENEX uranium sells to the US-markets?

25% off all the demand?

That will lead into a total crash in the next month.

I tried to contact TENEX via email but it failed.

I dont know what to think about that since TENEX is very strong in uranium producing companies itself and holds large stock amounts.

A 25% rise in offered uranium?

I see a crash coming...


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 January 2007)

panem said:
			
		

> What about that Russian TENEX uranium sells to the US-markets?..I see a crash coming...



Panem, on the bright side, at least the Russians aren't sending the uranium across via airmail - as they threatened to do during the cold war 
PS can you post the source of that info maybe? thanks.


----------



## panem (14 January 2007)

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/21905.html


I tried to reach TENEX via mail but it was blocked since I am not able to write in Kyrillic...


----------



## 56gsa (14 January 2007)

panem said:
			
		

> What about that Russian TENEX uranium sells to the US-markets?
> 
> 25% off all the demand?
> 
> ...




Good article Panem but from the conclusion I don't see any need to panic -  says late spring / labor day may be when we see a retracing...

"Conclusion 
Between the invasion of Russian-enriched uranium, which may reach a settlement before Labor Day 2007, and the anxiety of speculators now hoarding physical uranium, which we believe has a limited upside potential, 2007 may be remembered as the year of wild uranium price swings. We nicknamed it the ‘Year of the Hiccup,’ *because although the uranium price won’t collapse, it will not provide the near-triple-digit appreciation experienced over the past year.*

The spectacular price rise convinced Rio Tinto to rescind its offer to sell its Sweetwater Mill and U.S. assets to SXR Uranium One. This confirmed Rio felt the uranium price rise was sustainable above production costs for its assets. (Again, the purpose of the uranium price rise was to encourage the development of new uranium mines – dusting off projects which had been mothballed during the twenty-year uranium drought.) With the current forward momentum, it is very possible the price of uranium will surpass the inflation-adjusted high before edging backward.

Despite the Russian invasion, *do not believe the Russians will roll over and flood U.S. utilities with ‘sweet deals.’ * Believing this is foolishness. Comparing how the Russian energy companies have played hardball with the former Soviet states, U.S. utilities may later wish they’d not lobbied as fiercely as they have. If you investigate more closely, the Russian companies tend to demand stock shares, as well as increased cash, in the deals they’ve cut with the state-owned energy companies of other countries. What is to stop the Russians from asking for shares in U.S. utility companies?

How does this impact the uranium mining exploration and development companies? For the rational investor and institutions it should have only a short-term negative influence. *Professional speculators like to call such down cycles in the secular energy bull market ‘buying opportunities.’* For the smaller exploration companies, many will move onto the next ‘greener’ pasture as they are so fond of doing. The less-financed ones will jump sooner.

Those uranium companies with stronger property portfolios, who are also well-financed, will afford the bumps along this great uranium bull market. It won’t end in 2007 or 2008, or anytime soon. This year will just be a hiccup. But enough of one that many of the 400+ junior uranium companies may be considering a name change around this time a year from now."


----------



## panem (14 January 2007)

Great repost!

I see, there is a lot of knowledge here!

Well - I am active at the US Boards, in Germany and here (always as "panem"...).

Quite funny, how different the styles are...

Well: This article came from a uranium bull - which makes it more reliable in my eyes. 


And you are right: The conclusion is still bullish.

BUT: I am active at the Frankfurter BÃ¶rse since 1987:

I have seen a lot of trouble...

And I don't know how the markets would react, if the price for the big U would fall back at - let say - 55$...


----------



## champ2003 (14 January 2007)

panem said:
			
		

> http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/21905.html
> 
> 
> I tried to reach TENEX via mail but it was blocked since I am not able to write in Kyrillic...




This is what they also said in the conclusion in the article.
*With the current forward momentum, it is very possible the price of uranium will surpass the inflation-adjusted high before edging backward.*

Therefore they don't see a crash coming in the immediate future. They stated that it would be toward the end of 2007.


----------



## champ2003 (14 January 2007)

champ2003 said:
			
		

> This is what they also said in the conclusion in the article.
> *With the current forward momentum, it is very possible the price of uranium will surpass the inflation-adjusted high before edging backward.*
> 
> Therefore they don't see a crash coming in the immediate future. They stated that it would be toward the end of 2007.




The inflation adjusted price is $111


----------



## Kauri (14 January 2007)

> Between the invasion of Russian-enriched uranium, which may reach a settlement before Labor Day 2007, and the anxiety of *speculators now hoarding physical uranium*,




  I didn't think this was possible??? Is it tradable??


----------



## Sean K (14 January 2007)

Kauri said:
			
		

> I didn't think this was possible??? Is it tradable??



LOL, You're really going the hard yards here Kauri. I think I might go down the street tomorrow and pick me up some of that physical uranium. Surely you can purchace Yellow Cake at any good bakery???


----------



## rederob (14 January 2007)

Kauri said:
			
		

> I didn't think this was possible??? Is it tradable??



Via funds and tradable equities, it seems:
http://www.uraniumparticipation.com/


----------



## panem (14 January 2007)

champ2003 said:
			
		

> This is what they also said in the conclusion in the article.
> *With the current forward momentum, it is very possible the price of uranium will surpass the inflation-adjusted high before edging backward.*
> 
> Therefore they don't see a crash coming in the immediate future. They stated that it would be toward the end of 2007.





As always: the problem will be the psychological impact of that news and the impact of a slightly decreasing U-price for the junior and explorer shareholders.

So: Better NOT to post that TENEX deal around the world....


----------



## Kauri (14 January 2007)

rederob said:
			
		

> Via funds and tradable equities, it seems:
> http://www.uraniumparticipation.com/




   Ye Gods and little fishes, I hope no-one tells the Axis of Evil..


----------



## Sean K (15 January 2007)

*Asian pledge on oil alternatives*
From correspondents in Cebu 
January 15, 2007 

LEADERS across Asia are set to endorse a pledge to move toward nuclear and other alternative energies to help cut the region's dependence on fossil fuels.

Amid concerns about energy security, the so-called East Asia Summit (EAS) between 16 nations from China and Japan to Australia and India, meeting tomorrow for only the second time, will also vow to open up regional energy markets. 

A draft of the declaration acknowledges that oil still underpins their economies and that their dependence on crude will not disappear overnight, but calls for better efforts to find future alternatives. 

Biofuels, natural gas, nuclear power for selected countries, hydroelectricity and renewable energy should reduce the need for fossil fuels in future, the draft said.

Much of the document reaffirms the bloc's collective commitment to ensuring energy security which was first issued in the inaugural meeting of the EAS in Malaysia in 2005. 

The draft does not mention the stockpiling of oil, a possibility which has been mooted as the energy-hungry region looks to cut its dependence on oil imports from the volatile Middle East. 

Calls to reduce dependence on oil intensified after prices surged to historic peaks last year. While prices have dropped since, their continued volatility - owing in part to geopolitical tensions - remains a threat. 

China, one of the world's biggest energy consumers, has widened its search for energy sources, including venturing as far as Africa.

The declaration said: "Renewable energy and nuclear power will represent an increasing share of global supply."


----------



## panem (15 January 2007)

Kisses, dear Aussies!


The recent days where strong with a discussion about that upcoming TENEX deal and the USA:

We came to the conclusion that there is no thread for the big U at all.

1. They recently had to singn a letter that says that they have to MAKE SURE they will supply ALL OF RUSSIA's plants with uranium for the next 20 years.

There is only one problem: Even TENEX doesn't have that much U!

So - as you can read - they made a JV with Cameco to assure that contract with Putin.

In other words: Even if they HAD 50 Mio. lbs. to grant, they would have to give it to the Russians itself - which means: Even if the deal was on in 2007 they will have to get some nes sources of U (which they are struggling to get right now) to supply the USA market.

2. Ueanium is so rare - even TENEX won't flood the USA with it: They just don't have it: THIS is the mistake in that article: It suggests they HAVE 25% of the demand - but they DONT!


Trust me!


Kisses,

panem

PS: I know you guys need facts: So read the NEWS!

http://www.tenex.ru/digest_en.html


----------



## panem (15 January 2007)

That is the reason we are all laughing in Germany:

FIRST there was this:


"Constituent documents of the Uranium mining company were signed in the collegium hall at the Federal Agency for Atomic Energy on November 2, 2006.

Uranium mining company (UMC) is established by OAO “TVEL” and JSC “TENEX” on a matching contribution basis with the assistance of the Federal Agency for Atomic Energy.

This occasion has emphasized the completion of an important preparatory stage in the consolidation of the nuclear industry’s uranium mining assets and a turn to aggressive enlargement of raw material base for the Russian nuclear energy development. The establishment of UMC will enable to integrate industrial, financial and intellectual resources of the Russian Federation’s nuclear industry in the field of exploration, mining and front-end reprocessing of natural uranium and the other minerals.

The UMC’s main objective is to maintain a long-term and sustainable supply of Russian nuclear industry with uranium feed products in compliance with the program approved by Mr. V. V. Putin, President of the Russian Federation, on June 8, 2006, as well as in compliance with the Federal Target Program “Development of the Nuclear Industrial Complex of Russia for 2007-2010 and over a period up to 2015’.

“The completion of a preparatory stage in the establishment of UMC makes it possible for us to start an actual consolidation of uranium mining assets held by JSC “TENEX” and OAO “TVEL” in Russia and abroad”, Dr. Vladimir Smirnov, Director General of JSC “TENEX”, said.

The UMC will be arranged on a stage-by-stage basis. During the first six months of 2007 institutional arrangements will be undertaken regarding the preparation by the UMC to act as a beneficial owner of uranium assets assigned by the founders.

“We are planning to complete the paperwork to formalize ownership of the uranium mining assets by the UMC during 2007, after which event the company will start full-capacity operation”, Dr. Vladimir Smirnov said"


----------



## panem (15 January 2007)

Then there was this:

"TENEX signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Canadian company Cameco aimed at fulfilling plans to pursue future joint ventures in uranium exploration, development and production.

TENEX and Cameco intend to continue a dialog with the objective of preparing and signing a final agreement to this end. This will allow the companies to work jointly in exploration of uranium deposits in Russia, Canada and other prospective regions, and when such deposits are discovered – to mine uranium ores and to produce uranium. "



Believe me:


TENEX head is burning!


Where to get that  f**** Uranium?


----------



## mickqld (17 January 2007)

Just for the record the USA alone consumes some 25million pounds of Uranium per year and only mines about 2.5million pounds. The world consumes about 90million pounds in 441 plants with some 140 more plants to come online. Do the maths and its hard to see any crash in the U price in the near future. The demand is going to outstrip supply for several years to come as it takes so long to get a mine up and running.


----------



## Uncle Festivus (18 January 2007)

hi all,
Being new to this and reading a couple of threads, I can't understand why the Uranium price isn't at a record. Am I missing something or is there more to it?


----------



## Sean K (18 January 2007)

Uncle Festivus said:
			
		

> hi all,
> Being new to this and reading a couple of threads, I can't understand why the Uranium price isn't at a record. Am I missing something or is there more to it?



Hi Uncle F,

I think you'll find that it is at a record the last time I looked. $72.00.

Or, did you know that?

Kennas


----------



## Uncle Festivus (18 January 2007)

Well yes, but inflation adjusted it should be over $110 or something like that???


----------



## Sean K (18 January 2007)

Uncle Festivus said:
			
		

> Well yes, but inflation adjusted it should be over $110 or something like that???



Well, I'be interested to know too.....


----------



## Uncle Festivus (18 January 2007)

hi kennas,
Is the inflation adjusted price relevant?. If so, the price still has 50% to go before it's a new all time high. What does this mean ie will a stock like PDN go to $20 even though the uranium price has only? reached the previous high?. Not sure how you value these things. Looking the other way, is it a bull market or just the price getting back to a realistic (inflation adjusted) level?. 

Maybe calculate it's real value in oz of gold   

UF


----------



## Sean K (18 January 2007)

Uncle Festivus said:
			
		

> hi kennas,
> Is the inflation adjusted price relevant?. If so, the price still has 50% to go before it's a new all time high. What does this mean ie will a stock like PDN go to $20 even though the uranium price has only? reached the previous high?. Not sure how you value these things. Looking the other way, is it a bull market or just the price getting back to a realistic (inflation adjusted) level?.
> 
> Maybe calculate it's real value in oz of gold
> ...



I think the current price purely reflects demand. And I think the increased demand for uranium might not necessarily be part of a commodities cycle because of the changing landscape of nuclear power generation. Seems that the countries who were going to shut down reactors and switch to other fuels might be going to change policy (eg Germany), and now we have a proposed massive growth coming in from East and SE Asia which will not stop for a number of years. The price of uranium will come back down but only when the demand supply equation turns, and that doesn't seem for some time due to the lengthy time of getting new mines up and running. But, when they do - and uranium is a relatively abundant substance - prices will fall.


----------



## mmmmining (18 January 2007)

An article said China is going to extract uranium from combusted coal ashes generated by coal-fired power plant.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ccn/070116/200701160367518001.html?.v=1

Also it is true you can extract uranium from ocean water. According to my memory, the cost is about US$100/lb.

The question is if uranium price is too high, it will kill the uranium boom instantly by new technology, and new sources of supply, of course, reduced demand.   Just look at oil.

I guess we should not be excited to see triple digits uranium price.

Inflation adjusted price used by some famous analyst is misleading because commodity price is decided by demand and supply. Any price spike is caused by serious imbalance between demand and supply, not on cost basis. The imbalance could be caused by disruption of supply, such as war, etc. Unless you can duplicate the demand and supply situation of last price spike, you cannot use it for the future price predication meaningfully.

But inflation adjusted price is good for government to increase taxes.


----------



## gordon2007 (18 January 2007)

Is this guy the new Uranium king?

http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,23636,21079988-31037,00.html


----------



## mmmmining (18 January 2007)

gordon2007 said:
			
		

> Is this guy the new Uranium king?
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,23636,21079988-31037,00.html



If NT government is smart enough, it should run an auction to the highest bid.


----------



## spooly74 (18 January 2007)

mmmmining said:
			
		

> An article said China is going to extract uranium from combusted coal ashes generated by coal-fired power plant.
> 
> http://biz.yahoo.com/ccn/070116/200701160367518001.html?.v=1
> 
> ...




According to the article the new technology being tested for generating uranium from coal ash, says there is the potential for as much as 273,000 pounds per year. "The local coal has a high ash content (approximately 20-30%) and the coal uranium content varies from about 20-315 parts per million ("ppm") and averages about 65 ppm U" . Thats only about 120 tonnes of very low grade uranium a year from 3 coal fierd plants and the Chinese are under pressure to reduce to number of coal plants and cut emmissions as thousands are dying from breathing the polluted air, and it costs the economy $25 billion a year in health expenditure and lost labor productivity alone.
_And as for the uranium from seawater, it looks like that would take a while!!
And in Japan an adsorption method using polymeric adsorbents capable of specifically recovering uranium from seawater is reported to be economically feasible. A uranium-specific nonwoven fabric was used as the adsorbent packed in an adsorption cage 16 m2 in cross-sectional area and 16 cm in height. We submerged three adsorption cages in the Pacific Ocean at a depth of 20 m at 7 km offshore of Japan. The three adsorption cages consisted of stacks of 52 000 sheets of the uranium-specific non-woven fabric with a total mass of 350 kg. The total amount of uranium recovered by the nonwoven fabric was >1 kg in terms of yellow cake during a total submersion time of 240 days in the ocean._
http://www.ans.org/pubs/journals/nt/va-144-2-274-278

For mine ...the smart money is digging it up the ol fashioned way


----------



## bigt (18 January 2007)

gordon2007 said:
			
		

> Is this guy the new Uranium king?
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,23636,21079988-31037,00.html




Is this the same norman sydney mcleary involved with arafura?


----------



## panem (18 January 2007)

The world is waiting for the Cameco results on the new water-mine...

So: If the problems are substantially there we will see higher prices very soon.

Much higher.


----------



## richmond (18 January 2007)

bigt said:
			
		

> Is this the same norman sydney mcleary involved with arafura?




Yes it is... he was the founder, he's also a major shareholder in Stonehenge Metals (SHE) tin miner in Tassie with nickel ground near AGM's Avebury deposit.
Cheers


----------



## Mellow77 (19 January 2007)

It seems that the Uranium Fever is not over yet for mining companies (hopefully), although some members come up with other ways how to obtain this yellow cake, such as: from coal or sea water, see above.

http://www.stockinterview.com/News/01182007/Uranium-Year-Ahead.html 

Well, to confess my feelings I am divided.
On one hand many are still optimistic and see another rise in uranium spot price which would most probably mean rise in share price of decent uranium companies (bottom line - which are they?).
On the other hand I would say that significant number of people are talking about bear market & economical depression. At least it seems to me, although I have been on the financial market just for about 2 years. Maybe there have always been talks about crash, instability, etc… 
Even now some uranium companies, such as: ERA, PLD, BMN, AGS, SMM drop significantly during one day (so called correction). I would like to know what would happen if there is lets say a crash on Wall Street and Dow would finish -20% lower. Would it be something like -50% in spot price for these not blue chips? Hmmm, probably.

Anyway let stay optimistic, try to minimize risk and good luck to all.


----------



## Uncle Festivus (19 January 2007)

mmmmining said:
			
		

> An article said China is going to extract uranium from combusted coal ashes generated by coal-fired power plant.
> 
> http://biz.yahoo.com/ccn/070116/200701160367518001.html?.v=1
> 
> ...




Hi again,
No, I don't think I was trying to predict the future price, just trying to see where we are right now when compared to previous price action. 
The inflation adjusted price is still relevant because at any one moment in time all factors are supposedly reflected in the current price, including supply & demand. 
As far as having an objective look to see where we are in this current uranium price cycle, and referring back to a previous cycle to compare with, it is indeed valid to compare the two on an inflation adjusted basis. If only to know you are comparing apples to apples. 
I still can't see why the price isn't higher if the supply demand equation is supposedly so far out of balance, as the current price of any commodity is determined by all known factors currently in force. So, the companies that actually use the stuff must not foresee a supply squeeze and the current price reflects that ie sufficient supply for future needs. Otherwise they would be buying all that they could and putting even more pressure on the price.
Anyway, if we can make money on the premise of a bubble then who's complaining?. Just my analysis


----------



## noirua (19 January 2007)

When Canadian supplies reach anticipated levels in 2008, after setbacks last year, the uranium price may well look less bullish.


----------



## lancer (19 January 2007)

noirua said:
			
		

> When Canadian supplies reach anticipated levels in 2008, after setbacks last year, the uranium price may well look less bullish.




That is not taking into consideration the need for more U in the future. Thats assuming the 20% nuclear energy cunsumtion is going to continue. It seems pretty obvious burning coal is not going to continue much longer and the need for more uranium will rise.


----------



## mmmmining (19 January 2007)

Uncle Festivus said:
			
		

> Hi again,
> The inflation adjusted price is still relevant because at any one moment in time all factors are supposedly reflected in the current price, including supply & demand.



The inflation adjusted moving average price maybe more useful than peak price of last cycle.

Looks like uranium stocks are changing gear. Different stocks go to different direction. The all up phase seems over.


----------



## Uncle Festivus (19 January 2007)

Yes, that would be interesting - an inflation adjusted chart - that would show the real story. Any takers?. Where would you get this data?. I still think there are gains to be had in Uranium, but beware a swift about face.

A bit about coal. As far as Australia is concerned, coal is with us for the foreseeable future, ie for the next 10 years min, 15 realistically, unless there is a breakthrough in other energy technology. (As an aside, I think household fuel cell technology will be making inroads soon, maybe the next sector to look at???)


----------



## noirua (19 January 2007)

Uncle Festivus said:
			
		

> Yes, that would be interesting - an inflation adjusted chart - that would show the real story. Any takers?. Where would you get this data?. I still think there are gains to be had in Uranium, but beware a swift about face.
> 
> A bit about coal. As far as Australia is concerned, coal is with us for the foreseeable future, ie for the next 10 years min, 15 realistically, unless there is a breakthrough in other energy technology. (As an aside, I think household fuel cell technology will be making inroads soon, maybe the next sector to look at???)




Coal still works out much cheaper than oil, downside, that coal needs more storage space. New technology, particularly from Germany will increase the use of underground power stations and for the use of lignite, it being the most available coal in the world. 

Whilst NSW and WA are against Uranium Exploration, banned by State Law - "I'm drilling for copper and gold, so I can't see that there Uranium" -, then, they are likely to give further go aheads for coal mining.


----------



## 56gsa (19 January 2007)

not sure if this has been posted here - couldn't find it - anyway good report

http://www.eurekareport.com.au/iis/...9DBA4CA25726600142C06?OpenDocument&loc=center

and worth noting this....

_Before the flooding of the Cameco mine, uranium was enjoying strong support from increasing global demand and a supply deficit forecast until at least 2009 (although not everyone was convinced about this fact). Since the flooding the sector, and those following it, simply had to come to terms with the fact that about 10% of projected new supply will not become available anytime soon. 

*Cameco, the world's largest uranium producer, representing about 21% of global supply, is expected to update the market on its Cigar Lake project on February 6 and 7*. No doubt, this will be the most anticipated event within the sector for a long time. 

Deutsche Bank analysts believe the flooding has altered the industry for many years to come. "Like other commodities which have witnessed phenomenal price increases, the uranium market will eventually restrain itself as exploration and production increases and newer forms of supply are introduced to the market. Nevertheless, until this situation unfolds, we expect continued strength and greater increases in the spot price," the report says. 

So far Cameco management has only conceded that the flooding at Cigar Lake might delay production by about 12 months. Deutsche Bank believes the market has priced in a delay by two years. 

Regardless of whether this is true or false, the broker believes it will take years to bring supply and demand in balance, even when scenarios such as the potential release of secondary material by either Russia or the US Government are taken into account. _


----------



## mmmmining (21 January 2007)

A free report: http://www.uranium.info/NR70119C.pdf


----------



## 56gsa (21 January 2007)

brokers yearly average price for u3o8 from the eureka report...

	            2007	2008	2009
Deutsche Bank	100	105	90
Merrill Lynch	75	80	
RBC Capital	100		
Scotiabank	80		
Raymond James	90	100	100
JP Morgan	90	80	80

Overall average	 $89.17 	 $91.25 	 $90.00 


so we're looking at US$90/lb on average for next three years - i work through what this means for Paladin's profits on the PDN thread.....


----------



## mmmmining (21 January 2007)

56gsa said:
			
		

> brokers yearly average price for u3o8 from the eureka report...
> 
> 2007	2008	2009
> Deutsche Bank	100	105	90
> ...



Their forecast is as good as rolling a dice. Their tracking records are bad, very bad. Try James Dines' forecast.


----------



## Crash (22 January 2007)

gordon2007 said:
			
		

> Is this guy the new Uranium king?
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,23636,21079988-31037,00.html




Fun stuff, be great to see what happens here.


----------



## mmmmining (23 January 2007)

Strange price action today. Both ERA and PDN (producers) are significantly higher. U spot price moving higher, or CAMECO in further trouble? CCJ down $2.19 in NYSE.


----------



## Sean K (24 January 2007)

*Cameco Tries to Respond To Speculation, Share Price Fall*
FN Arena News - January 23 2007 

By Rudi Filapek-Vandyck

World number one uranium producer Cameco saw its shares tumble more than 5% on the Toronto Stock Exchange as investors, and investor chat rooms in particular, were frenetically debating the severity of the problems at the company's Cigar Lake project.

As debates heated up, Cameco spokesperson Lyle Krahn sought to allay fears of Cameco having to abandon the project by talking to Bloomberg who quoted him as "speculation that the mine's development would be delayed indefinitely is "absolutely untrue"."

Cameco's intention is to update the market on Cigar Lake by the end of January while Krahn has flagged another media release between now and February 6-7 when the company is scheduled to inform investors about its December quarter performance as well as its operations.

Cameco has thus far stuck to its official line that production at Cigar Lake, expected to produce circa 10% of future annual market supply, is likely to be deferred by one year. Several experts and market watchers believe this is too optimistic though. Deutsche Bank analysts calculated recently that the market has already priced in a delay of two years in the U3O8 (uranium oxide) spot market.

Spot uranium has remained at US$72/lb so far in 2007. This is double the US$35/lb at the start of 2006.


----------



## spooly74 (24 January 2007)

I personally can't see how there could be any conclusive positive news from Cigar Lake in a couple of weeks.
They are currently drilling holes to an access tunnell and plan to fill it with concrete to try and plug the flow downstream. Up to Christmas the had only completed one hole with another 17 planned although they are working 27/7.
"Drilling through the Athabasca sandstone has been more challenging than anticipated," said Terry Rogers, Cameco's chief operating officer. "However, the experience we gain in the first few holes is expected to accelerate progress in the future." 
This will be only phase 1 (expected to be finished in Jan???) of repairs and with all plans subject to Government regulations for safety reasons . . it could be a slow process. 

So what can we expect from them in a couple of weeks? They will have a cost estimate for repairs but as for a timeframe, I`m not sure they will know that until they can safely go down and have a look. A year at best . . it`s been 4 months already  

For those interested in Cigar Lake, I`ve attached a .pdf on their plans to extract the uranium. It`s quite long and detailed but worth a look.


----------



## spooly74 (26 January 2007)

spooly74 said:
			
		

> For those interested in Cigar Lake, I`ve attached a .pdf on their plans to extract the uranium. It`s quite long and detailed but worth a look.




If long and detailed is not for you . . . here is a simple animation.

http://www.arevaresources.com/uranium/jet_boring_animation.html


----------



## mmmmining (28 January 2007)

From HC, Fox Sky News had a report on uranium. The following companies are on the analyst's recommendation list:

PEN, CMR (twice), ARU, AGS, MTN

I guess the program was pre-recorded before GGY sold the Oasis asset to MGA.TO because EDGAR  recommended GGY because the Oasis uranium assets. Stupid GGY makes EDGAR looks stupid.

I have not watched this program, can anyone verify this? Thanks.


----------



## richmond (28 January 2007)

DAVID SPEERS: The spot price for uranium has doubled over the past year, sending the share prices of the 50-plus Australian uranium explorers soaring along with it.

But for those of us that haven't bought into the sector, is there still value or have we missed the boat? 

Richard Goncalves spoke with the experts, and discovered some prospective buys in this special Sky News Sunday Business report.

RICHARD GONCALVES, SKY REPORTER: It's a sector that may provide some exciting prospects - for investors - and the nation.

MICHAEL ANGWIN, AUSTRALIAN URANIUM ASSOCIATION EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: "We're on the verge of a major economic opportunity."

GONCALVES: Already, 16 per cent of the world's electricity is generated from nuclear power and that's expected to grow dramatically.

ANGWIN: "In the next 25 years, demand for electricity consumption around the world, for power generally and for uranium will increase by 50 per cent."

GONCALVES: Australia is in prime position to take advantage of the world's insatiable appetite, with 85 known deposits and almost half of the world's known uranium reserves.

ANGWIN: "We currently export around 12 500 tonnes of uranium a year, and the prospect is of doubling that in the next 7 to 8 years."

GONCALVES: That's still below the 80 000 tonnes of uranium in demand per year globally and is expected to grow by 120 000 tonnes per year by 2020.

But despite the demand there are some stumbling blocks.

Government legislation restricts new mines from extracting uranium apart from the three existing players: BHP Billiton's Olympic Dam, potentially the largest uranium producer in the world; Rio Tinto's ERA Ranger Mine in the Northern Territory; and General Atomics' Beverly mine in South Australia. Uranium One's Honeymoon project is set to come on stream. It was awarded a license by the South Australian government's environmental agency to commercially mine the deposit.

Despite the ongoing debate on uranium enrichment, its cost effectiveness, cleanliness and waste storage, the federal government's Nuclear Taskforce Review found no sound reasons to prevent uranium mining in Australia.

In fact, Prime Minister John Howard has gone as far as to call the labor state governments, namely Queensland and Western Australia, to end bans on uranium mining as a result.

PETER RUDD, CARROLL PIKE PIERCY ANALYST: "And while that's in place, anybody that does find something won't be able to bring it into production and hence won't be able to make money from it."

GONCALVES: The ALP will review their policy - in a conference in April.

In the meantime, the uranium spot price continues to soar - doubling from $US36 a year ago and is expected to stay on its upward trajectory.

HENRY EDGAR, WILSON HTM ANALYST: "We view this as a re-emerging industry, and not a bubble that's waiting to pop."

PETER ARDEN, INTERSUISSE ANALYST: "We had low interest rates worldwide, we had uranium spot price bottoming out and starting to rise for the first time in 7 years, so that was important, and then the realisation that uranium offered a solution for global warming, it's only really just started to lift."

GONCALVES: Analysts' estimates range from a 10 per cent, to 100 per cent lift in spot prices this year.

EDGAR: "We do not think the market will peak until 2010. At that point we would expect some of the production that we've seen talked about by the current day explorers to come online and start to satisfy. But that doesn't take into account some of the extra demand that will come into the market from the forecast amount of reactors that will pop up all around the world."

GONCALVES: Some explorers have already caught the uranium wave, with Paladin and Summit Resources two of the market winners last year.

Shares in Summit climbed 436 per cent, while Paladin catapulted by 351.

But analysts say, there's still some value out there.

RUDD: "A number of those have run, so we need to look at the ones that haven't, one of those is Peninsula Minerals. It has leases for uranium and molybdenum, in South Africa of all places, and I think that is closer to home here, is Compass Resources which has its Mount Fitch deposit in the northern part of the Northern Territory."

ARDEN: "Our three favorites are Arafura Resources in the Northern Territory, with its Nolans Bore project particularly and the spin out of new power. We like Alliance Resources, it's in the Arkaroola project in South Australia right next to Beverly, and we also like Compass Resources, they hold a substantial position in the Northern Territory. The Mount Fitch deposit is coming up very well and they've got the old Run Jungle Mine."

EDGAR: "So some of the companies we've been looking at is Glengarry Resources in Queensland. They obviously have to overcome a political hurdle, but they have the characteristics of open cut mining and easy extraction. Another player to look at would be Marathon Resources. They're in South Australia. They are of course used to having operating mines in that state, they have a resource that is very similar in nature to Olympic Dam, so easy bulk mining techniques and in a state that's acceptable of mining."

GONCALVES: And if none of those take your fancy, then what about one of 5 that are expected to list on the stock exchange sometime early this year: Bowen Energy; Empire Resources; NuPower Resources; Warwick Resources; and Yellow Rock Resources.

There's no stopping these explorers from extending their arm to the market, in search of funds for their projects.

But, as with any investment, there are risks.

ANGWIN: "Among the issues are skills shortages, transport issues, regulatory issues and access to shipping and that's certainly the kind of agenda that many industries have had to deal with to become efficient and profitable industries."

GONCALVES: The biggest issue is access to land, with restrictions placed because of native title and government policies.

ANGWIN: "I'm sure the government has this well in hand, but what we'd like to see is the consolidation of all the findings of all the reports before it into a single framework for the development of the uranium industry on a sustainable basis."

Richard Goncalves, Sky News Sunday Business, Melbourne


----------



## mmmmining (31 January 2007)

There is a TV program about energy, including uranium. Although in Canada, but good to listen. 

http://www.robtv.com/shows/past_archive.tv?day=mon

Check 12:30 pm program.


----------



## spooly74 (31 January 2007)

Uranium prices have resumed their upward climb after an apparent five-week lull.

The spot price for the fissile metal, the key component of atomic fuel, rose to $75  (U.S.) a pound in the week ended Monday, up $3, Ux Consulting Co. LLC of Roswell, Ga., said in a weekly report.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070130.wuranium0130/BNStory/Business/home


----------



## lancer (31 January 2007)

spooly74 said:
			
		

> Uranium prices have resumed their upward climb after an apparent five-week lull.
> 
> The spot price for the fissile metal, the key component of atomic fuel, rose to $75  (U.S.) a pound in the week ended Monday, up $3, Ux Consulting Co. LLC of Roswell, Ga., said in a weekly report.
> 
> ...




I still see $72 on trade tech and ux..


----------



## spooly74 (31 January 2007)

Hi Lancer,

Yeah might have jumped the gun a bit,  the link is from a Canadian newspaper . . UxC still showing $72 ????


----------



## lancer (31 January 2007)

I was hoping they slipped up, usually it is released at the end of the week. I have heard $75 from a couple sources but I dont think that is official...


----------



## mmmmining (31 January 2007)

Having seen the river of red after the qtr ann. from AGS, ACB, BMN, PNN, URA, BKY, EME, SMM..... 

Not a good sign in short term for uranium stocks unless some dramatic and powerful news coming out....


----------



## spooly74 (1 February 2007)

lancer said:
			
		

> I was hoping they slipped up, usually it is released at the end of the week. I have heard $75 from a couple sources but I dont think that is official...




Uranium up $3 to $75  

http://www.uxc.com/review/uxc_Prices.aspx


----------



## lancer (1 February 2007)

spooly74 said:
			
		

> Uranium up $3 to $75
> 
> http://www.uxc.com/review/uxc_Prices.aspx




Spooly thats great!


----------



## MalteseBull (1 February 2007)

lancer said:
			
		

> Spooly thats great!



whoo hoo


----------



## 56gsa (1 February 2007)

spooly74 said:
			
		

> Uranium up $3 to $75
> 
> http://www.uxc.com/review/uxc_Prices.aspx




interesting that in ABNs recent research on PDN they have used US$95/lb... now if thats the conservative view of a broker....!!!



> ABN Amro rates the stock as Hold - As expected, Langer Heinrich has experienced the odd teething problem, but this has not deterred either PDN or the broker. Production will be slightly less, but in the meantime the broker has increased the target from $6.47 to $8.60 on a US$95/lb uranium forecast.


----------



## TheAbyss (1 February 2007)

What are the pros and cons of the cigar lake update which is due next week? Most are anticipating at least another years delay. What is the prognosis on a positive update versus negative update?

Just trying to get a feel for what impact the announcement will have on our local stocks.


----------



## mmmmining (6 February 2007)

Very interesting today. Almost all uranium stocks have got a big hit except PDN and SMM (have Northern America exposure). 

It seems that the long waited uranium pull back is well on the way. It is official started right after the qtr reporting season. The million dollar question is for how long? I hope this one is a short one, but short one always be a sharp one. So be prepared..


----------



## noobs (6 February 2007)

UNX regaining some ground today also


----------



## happytown (6 February 2007)

Hello ASF community,

 As a cherry-busting exercise, I thought it may be somewhat instructive to re-visit an article from the Australian newspaper, dated 27/10/06 and headed 'Uranium's glow waning, investors warned'.

 In the article, (sorry, no link, only have hardcopy) Robin Brumby sought out the wisdom of Warwick Grigor of Far East Capital fame, who cast his eye over ASX-listed U stocks (as is his want), their prices as at 24/10/06 and his rating of them as a buy.

 In coming to his conclusions, Grigor looked at:

  "the size of the known resource, the market capitalisation per pound of uranium in the ground and exploration results."

 He states that:

  "investors should pick out the companies with sizeable deposits with the potential for between 25,000 and 50,000 tonnes of uranium."

 Further, he warns that some of the

  "beat-ups designed to drive the share price",

 include

  "drilling right beside an old hole that had good grades ... and reassaying previous drilling."

 In looking back at his article, it is important to recognise at least 3 things:

  1. 3 months in the markets is arguably at least as long as a week in politics;

  2. not all currently ASX-listed U stocks were listed as at 24/10/06; and

  3. the spot price for uranium has, in the time since this article breathed life, risen from US$56 to US$75 per lb.

 On to his 3-month plus 'old' conclusions:


                            SP (as at 24/10/06)            Rating as a buy

    Producers

    ERA                    $15.51                             reasonable
    PDN                    $5.48                              fair

    Potential producers

    AEX                    $.39                                good
    ARU                    $.37                                fair
    BKY                    $.73                                fair
    CMR                    $4.47                              very expensive
    DYL                     $.18                               very expensive
    EME                    $2.00                              fully priced
    MEE                    $.061                              excellent
    MRO                    $1.42                              good
    NEL                     $1.70                              sound
    OMC                    $.66                               fully priced
    PNN                     $.68                               fully priced
    SCX                     $.05                               fair
    SMM                    $2.04                              good
    UNX                     $.62                               reasonable

    Advanced explorers

    ACB                     $.58                               reasonable
    ALB                     $1.39                              fair
    AGS                     $.93                               fully priced
    BMN                     $1.15                             expensive
    EVE                     $.098                              good
    GGY                     $.047                              good
    MTN                     $.84                               inexpensive
    SRZ                      $.29                              good
    TOE                      $.74                              overpriced
    UEQ                      $.45                              reasonable
    UKL                       $.38                              fair
    WME                     $.14                              fully priced

    Grassroots explorers

    ARM                      $.235                             fair
    BLR                       $.06                               fully priced
    CTS                      $.41                               expensive
    CUY                      $.58                               reasonable
    ENE                       $.47                              upper end of value
    EXT                       $.067                            expensive
    GIR                        $.34                              fully priced
    GBE                       $.47                               fair
    IVK                        $2.95                             fully priced
    KOR                       $.23                               fair
    MRU                       $.30                              fair
    MDX                       $.15                              inexpensive
    MUR                       $.055                             fair
    NRU                       $.315                             fair
    NTU                       $.20                               good
    PEN                        $.027                             good
    RTM                       $.022                             fair
    SIM                        $.495                             good
    SAU                        $.28                              fair
    SRK                        $1.78                             expensive
    TAS                        $.145                             fair
    THX                        $.46                              fully priced
    UTO                        $.545                            fully priced
    URA                        $.35                              geo-political risk
    UXA                        $.395                            expensive
    UOG                        $.135                            fair
    USA                        $.255                            fair
    WMT                       $.02                              good


 Note: At the time of the article, Grigor was chairman of MRO, a director of PEN and a shareholder in WMT.

 Note further: I am neither a chairman, director nor shareholder, sadly, in any of the above stocks at the time of this posting.

 cheers


----------



## 56gsa (6 February 2007)

happytown - great cherry busting exercise!  I think Grigor revised this report in December too

I have added to your work below, calculating the % change from Oct06 prices (as of 30mins ago) - 1st column of percentages, and % off 52 week high (2nd column of percentages) and listed the stocks according to Grigors ratings from cheap to very expensive...

So MTN was rated cheap but has since jumped 290% and at all-time highs.
DYL rated v.expensive, still jumped 136% but is now 30% of all-time highs

How to find value / opportunities in this table _assuming Grigor got it right_?  Not sure but maybe one way is.....

Stay away from expensive stocks - particularly those that have had large increases DYL, BLR (although there may have been announcements that have changed their situation? BMN?).  Also THX, UXA may have come off enough to justify a look?

In the value stocks (good / fair) look for those that haven't run much or have come off quite a lot from their highs - this would lead you to MDX, SRZ, CUY, NRU  but then you would need to check to see if developments in last 4 months justify their relatively poorer performance.

have fun!!


Symbol // % frm Oct06 // % off 52-wk high // Grigor Rating

MTN.AX	290%	0%	inexpensive
MDX.AX	20%	25%	inexpensive
MEE.AX	138%	24%	excellent
WMT.AX	475%	0%	good
NTU.AX	215%	32%	good
PEN.AX	211%	13%	good
EVE.AX	186%	7%	good
SMM.AX	76%	2%	good
MRO.AX	42%	10%	good
SIM.AX	31%	11%	good
GGY.AX	21%	39%	good
AEX.AX	21%	30%	good
SRZ.AX	2%	58%	good
NEL.AX	90%	15%	sound
UNX.AX	197%	21%	reasonable
ACB.AX	67%	12%	reasonable
ERA.AX	39%	1%	reasonable
UEQ.AX	27%	15%	reasonable
CUY.AX	3%	25%	reasonable
KOR.AX	265%	11%	fair
MRU.AX	227%	0%	fair
SAU.AX	139%	3%	fair
ARU.AX	131%	14%	fair
BKY.AX	105%	11%	fair
ARM.AX	102%	0%	fair
SCX.AX	70%	29%	fair
UKL.AX	66%	19%	fair
PDN.AX	64%	2%	fair
GBE.AX	62%	24%	fair
MUR.AX	56%	39%	fair
TAS.AX	41%	16%	fair
USA.AX	37%	41%	fair
RTM.AX	36%	42%	fair
ALB.AX	33%	8%	fair
UOG.AX	30%	19%	fair
NRU.AX	-13%	42%	fair
TOE.AX	2%	53%	overpriced
URA.AX	209%	36%	geo-political risk
BLR.AX	225%	0%	fully priced
GIR.AX	126%	27%	fully priced
PNN.AX	126%	30%	fully priced
EME.AX	91%	19%	fully priced
AGS.AX	81%	28%	fully priced
OMC.AX	69%	5%	fully priced
IVK.AX	32%	7%	fully priced
WME.AX	11%	38%	fully priced
UTO.AX	10%	31%	fully priced
THX.AX	-4%	15%	fully priced
BMN.AX	120%	17%	expensive
CTS.AX	49%	13%	expensive
SRK.AX	44%	0%	expensive
EXT.AX	39%	40%	expensive
UXA.AX	-9%	38%	expensive
DYL.AX	136%	30%	very expensive
CMR.AX	12%	14%	very expensive
ENE.AX	4%	10%	upper end of value


----------



## mmmmining (6 February 2007)

I found An New website U3O8.biz lunched in Canada. I guess it will cover mostly Canadian shxts.


----------



## mmmmining (6 February 2007)

Tough day for Aussie uranium stock holders. It is part of the game. Up and down, buy and sell, joy and sadness...

Since I have not bought a single uranium stock today, I decide to buy something related to uranium. I cannot find anything in the shop, So I bought a domain name: AU3O8.com. I hope it will worth more money soon. 

I like the name,AU stand for Australia, also element of Gold.

AU3O8.com equal to Australian Gold and Uranium

Anyone want to be my agent to sell it? How about 50% commission?


----------



## TheAbyss (7 February 2007)

Reading the Toro Company overview released today they comment that they want to develop a producing mine and that the fastest method will probably be via acquisition (page 37). The $64 question is acquire who? Any thoughts?


----------



## drmb (8 February 2007)

Just doing my morning reading - http://www.kitco.com/ind/Kirtley/feb072007.html

"Uranium: A Question of Time By Bob Kirtley February 7, 2007 www.uranium-stocks.net/ "The British government recently announced its interest in the need for more nuclear power plants, so where will they get their Uranium?

I recently had the honour of attending the BBC’s television show called Question Time, held in Canterbury, England. The panel was made up of politicians including Ken Clark, Simon Hughes, Harriett Harman, author Frederick Forsyth and another lady who is a member of the House of Lords whose name escapes me. Of the many topics that the programme tried to cover, the nuclear energy topic was the least understood, in my opinion. Simon Hughes a Liberal Democrat wanted to have a long, free and frank discussion about nuclear energy and Ken Clark a Conservative wanted to avoid another oil crises similar to that of the seventies. Time apparently is not a problem. No one mentioned the following relevant factors:

1. We are using uranium at twice the speed we are producing it. The short fall is currently being filled by the dismantling of old nuclear warheads that will dry up shortly.

2. The demand for energy from China, India and Asia is rocketing along with their fast paced modernisation programmes for 3 billion people

3. Oil is in short supply and the oil that is available is vulnerable to a possible war or crisis in the Middle East.  

4. Coal is dirty, although there are various coal to oil gasification possibilities none currently being used have been proven to work effectively.

5. Wind farms: how many, where and when? Wind simply does not have the power to compete with nuclear energy. Also even if all the suitable areas for wind farms in the United Kingdom were used, it would still only produce 10% of Britain’s power demands.

6. The price of Uranium has risen from $6.40 a pound to $75 a pound as we write. Why? Could it be that old economic factor DEMAND? 

In Queensland Australia where I once lived and worked it is against the law to mine the old yellow cake at the moment. This has not stopped the Chinese doing massive deals to lock in the potential supply if and when the law should change and it will. Has anyone noticed that China has stopped the exportation of a number of metals for example tungsten? If you were in charge of China would you state the true number of nuclear plants that you are going to build and risk causing a stampede to buy uranium? No, you would first secure your supply of uranium far out into the future and then you would quietly tell the world. This isn’t difficult is it? They should be applauded for their vision in these matters.

So, where does all this leave us? Well dear readers we are on the verge of some major consolidation in this market. Each nation, as it awakens to this new crises will flex its own financial and political muscle, as we have never seen before. *We believe that we are looking at a uranium price of $200.0 plus in the near future. This will drive the price of uranium stocks through the roof and into uncharted territory.* _(ME: wtf!, sorry t see bmn, go yesterday but still got my pdn and smm) _  If you thought that DOT COM was a boom get into position and hang on for fortunes will be made, possibly exceeding those to made in gold and silver.

On this site (http://www.uranium-stocks.net/) we share with you our thoughts, analysis, anxieties, our purchases and sales. We will also record our progress so that you are fully aware of which uranium stocks we investing in and why. Do your own due diligence before you put your hard earned cash on the table.

Finally, please feel free to put your comments on our website as this will add balance to the Mother of all Debates, the Coming Uranium Bull Market, ready or not!


03 February 2007


----------



## spooly74 (9 February 2007)

Cameco's share price took a hit on Wednesday, as investors and financial analysts put their own interpretation on news from the company that it has asked its nuclear utility customers to defer delivery from Cigar Lake uranium mine production *five to seven* years ...

http://www.canada.com/saskatoonstar...=f8615d73-db61-45c1-a823-36ef8e778911&k=79169


----------



## mmmmining (9 February 2007)

I bet ERA might be back or Dines Letter recommendation list. Maybe he will add BHP as well... let's see tomorrow.


----------



## spooly74 (9 February 2007)

http://www.robtv.com/servlet/HTMLTemplate/!robVideo/robtv0726.20070208.00047000-00047766-clip1/h/220asf///

The above link is from a canadian business Q&A TV program.
Start playing from just before 7 minutes.
This guy says Uranium is now at $80 lb and its dated yesterday.
Can't seem to verify it anywhere again


----------



## mmmmining (9 February 2007)

spooly74 said:
			
		

> http://www.robtv.com/servlet/HTMLTemplate/!robVideo/robtv0726.20070208.00047000-00047766-clip1/h/220asf///
> 
> The above link is from a canadian business Q&A TV program.
> Start playing from just before 7 minutes.
> ...




Yes, I heard it too. I was wondering which day it is today or yesterday. But I am not kind of like that Sprott guy. He seems too sure about everything. But his stock picking skill it not that impressive.


----------



## noirua (10 February 2007)

So many very interesting views on this thread about Uranium. Should have a 4* or 5* rating!
We should see big opportunities to make money in the whole uranium sector. Individual small stocks are extremely risky, so, how many would it seem reasonable to buy?


----------



## Wysiwyg (10 February 2007)

noirua said:
			
		

> So many very interesting views on this thread about Uranium. Should have a 4* or 5* rating!
> We should see big opportunities to make money in the whole uranium sector. Individual small stocks are extremely risky, so, how many would it seem reasonable to buy?




A quicky


----------



## Wysiwyg (10 February 2007)

Uh oh... double posted


----------



## Wysiwyg (10 February 2007)

noirua said:
			
		

> So many very interesting views on this thread about Uranium. Should have a 4* or 5* rating!
> We should see big opportunities to make money in the whole uranium sector. Individual small stocks are extremely risky, so, how many would it seem reasonable to buy?





This is an excerpt from someone that has experience and is also pumping the run too........


If, however, you are looking at getting (much) more bang for your uranium buck, then you’ll want to look to get positioned in a portfolio of carefully selected junior uranium stocks. 

The secret to finding winning uranium stocks? Start by aligning yourself with high-quality management teams with proven uranium expertise. A surprising number of companies now claiming uranium expertise have little to no on-staff experience with this specialized metal. While it is hard to find one that has not already had extreme appreciation, look for “early mover” companies -- those which were actively acquiring projects before uranium became the flavor-of-the-day. They are most likely to be sitting on the most prospective concessions, in the best geological and political settings.

Finally, look for companies that are actually doing the hard work necessary to prove-up their resources, because verified pounds in the ground will be, for most of these companies, the trigger that gets them taken over – at much higher prices -- by a larger company with the specific skill sets to move the project into production.


----------



## Halba (10 February 2007)

get ern bmn

only hopes of real production in africa

forget australia

if you can produce the thing you will be worth more!!!


----------



## mmmmining (10 February 2007)

Wysiwyg said:
			
		

> A surprising number of companies now claiming uranium expertise have little to no on-staff experience with this specialized metal.



By your standard, you should try TOE. The have 6 geologists, find almost nothing...


----------



## insider (10 February 2007)

In todays Herald Sun was an arcticle stating that Australia is closing a Uranium deal with India... This can only do wonders


----------



## insider (10 February 2007)

I found this interesting read. 7 reasons why the Uranium price will hit $100.

Follow the link:

http://www.moneyweek.com/file/25277/seven-reasons-the-uranium-price-will-hit-100-this-year.html

I think I'm holding on for a long time... a very long time


----------



## Plan B (14 February 2007)

*Australia Yet to Get New Uranium Mine Applications (Update3)
*
By Tan Hwee Ann and Xiao Yu

Feb. 13 (Bloomberg) -- Australia's government, seeking to woo investment in its uranium resources as China increases demand, is yet to get any applications to mine the fuel in the Northern Territory 18 months after taking control of approvals.

The government is ``hopeful'' rising exploration in the territory, which has deposits worth more than A$12 billion ($9 billion), will lead to new mines, said Resources Minister Ian Macfarlane yesterday in Perth. Energy Resources of Australia Ltd., which owns the only uranium mine in the Territory, halted its Jabiluka project because of objections by indigenous groups.

The Liberal-National coalition federal government is trying to get state governments, all controlled by the opposition Labor Party, to drop a ban on new uranium mines. The 23-year-old ban has restricted Australia, with 40 percent of the world's uranium reserves, to supplying just 23 percent of global demand.

``Mine start-ups are big decisions for companies, they're not taken lightly and often these decision processes take a long time,'' said Kent Grey, Adelaide-based head of the uranium focus group at lawyers Minter Ellison.

Prices for uranium, used to power plants that supply 16 percent of the world's electricity, have more than doubled in the past year.

Australia and China ratified a nuclear transfer agreement last month, paving the way for uranium exports worth some A$250 million from early this year. Sinosteel Corp., China's second- biggest iron ore trader, is among companies that have applied to explore for uranium in the Northern Territory, Cui Xiaofei, managing director of Sinosteel's Australian unit, said in an interview in Perth today.

Shares in Energy Resources, a unit of the Rio Tinto Group, rose A$1.65, or 7.7 percent, to A$24.42, at the 4:10 p.m. close of the Australian Stock Exchange.

Direct Control

``I haven't had one (application) put before me, but I'm hopeful there will be one based on the increased minerals exploration,'' Macfarlane said. ``There's great potential, but it has to comply with environmental standards and have indigenous owners consultation.''

The federal government took over approval for uranium mining from the Northern Territory in 2005. It's the only region over which it has control of the approval process. Companies exploring for uranium in the Northern Territory include Compass Resources NL and Northern Uranium Ltd.

``These companies are still in the exploration phase,'' Minter Ellison's Grey said. Uranium projects in South Australia and Queensland are best placed to benefit from any relaxation in mining bans by the states, ABN Amro Holding NV said in December.

Labor Opposition

SXR Uranium One Inc., which agreed to buy UrAsia Energy Ltd. for $3.1 billion yesterday to create the world's second- largest uranium producer behind Cameco Corp., was in September awarded a license by the South Australian government's environmental agency to commercially mine the Honeymoon deposit.

South Australia's Premier Mike Rann supports the expansion of uranium mining, opposed by his party. Labor is due to hold a conference in April, where a position on uranium will be decided.

Mining of the metal takes place in three places in Australia: BHP Billiton Ltd.'s Olympic Dam mine in South Australia; Energy Resources's Ranger mine in the Northern Territory; and Heathgate Resources' Beverley mine in South Australia. Heathgate is owned by San Diego-based General Atomics.

Western Australia, where Premier Alan Carpenter, wants to keep the ban on mining, has uranium reserves worth A$40 billion, Macfarlane said today.

Sinosteel Venture

Almost 80 mineral exploration license applications were lodged for 18 exploration areas released in the Northern Territory in December. ``A number of applications'' were from Chinese companies, Northern Territory Mines Minister Chris Natt said last month.

Sinosteel has also signed a joint venture agreement with PepinNini Minerals Ltd, in which Sinosteel plans to take 60 percent stake for A$30.5 million, Cui said. Should the project go ahead, it will be the first uranium project in Australia with Chinese investment.

Australia may produce as much as 60 million metric tons of liquefied natural gas per year within 10 to 15 years, said Macfarlane, who was in Perth to attend the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation's third meeting of mining ministers.

LNG Expansion

ConocoPhillips, which a year ago started up production at an LNG plant in Darwin, Northern Territory, said last year it's planning an expansion of the plant, while Woodside Petroleum Ltd., Chevron Corp. and BHP are among companies studying new LNG projects in Western Australia.

Last March, Macfarlane said the government plans to work with the nation's oil and gas industry to almost quadruple liquefied natural gas exports to more than 50 million tons a year within a decade.

``We would like to do it in 10 years, but you have to build the LNG plants, and before you do that, you need environmental,'' and other approvals, he said.

Competition with miners expanding iron ore, coal and metals output for labor and equipment may also slow any expansion plans, said Macfarlane.

The minister said today Australia will spend A$59 million over five years to help improve geological mapping of under explored areas of the country.

To contact the reporter on this story: Tan Hwee Ann in Perth at hatan@bloomberg.net ; Xiao Yu in Perth at yxiao@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: February 13, 2007 02:30 EST

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a3qk.MHzb9WA&refer=home


----------



## Wysiwyg (14 February 2007)

It looks to me that the Canadians have the drop on Aust.One mob is on their way to prove up 100 million pounds of the stuff. Aurora Energy Resources.By the time Australia gets around to it the desire will be gone.Cigar lake and co. will kick in, the hole will be filled and the Aussies will go...duh... better late than never. 

From a political perspective though,these things need to be thought over and thought over and thought over for a few years and then a few more years to get the mining leases and then a few more years to get into production . 

Then the price should be on a decline (demand covered from elsewhere) just as our Aussie companies get going.Blahhhhhhh  Maybe next peak Aussie will be ready.PDN ..Foresight perfect.


----------



## dj_420 (15 February 2007)

could explain the surge in SMM today, australian uranium looks better and better pending a policy change:

http://allafrica.com/stories/200702140503.html


----------



## Sanhedrin (15 February 2007)

Dont bet your house on the ALP making dramatic amendments to its
U mining policy, History has proved that the ALP is driven more by
ideology then the capitalist system, similar though patterns to 
marxists in soviet russia.


----------



## greggy (15 February 2007)

Sanhedrin said:
			
		

> Dont bet your house on the ALP making dramatic amendments to its
> U mining policy, History has proved that the ALP is driven more by
> ideology then the capitalist system, similar though patterns to
> marxists in soviet russia.



With Mr Rudd in favour of uranium mining, the chance are that the ALP will change their policy in Apr 07.  My only worry though is whether Alan Carpenter will allow uranium mining in WA. After speaking recently to a couple of directors in WA based uranium companies there is a strong feeling that Alan will change his mind.


----------



## mmmmining (15 February 2007)

greggy said:
			
		

> After speaking recently to a couple of directors in WA based uranium companies there is a strong feeling that Alan will change his mind.




Do you believe what directors of uranium companies said to you?

The best way to get ride of him. I guess only the uranium lovers in WA has the capability to do this. Maybe we can help you, such as digging us some of his past, having an affair in RIO, beating up Cazaly guy, etc...

Oh, no, we don't want American style politic dirty tricks. But you can help WA state lib/national.....


----------



## greggy (15 February 2007)

mmmmining said:
			
		

> Do you believe what directors of uranium companies said to you?
> 
> The best way to get ride of him. I guess only the uranium lovers in WA has the capability to do this. Maybe we can help you, such as digging us some of his past, having an affair in RIO, beating up Cazaly guy, etc...
> 
> Oh, no, we don't want American style politic dirty tricks. But you can help WA state lib/national.....



I can't do anything from this end as I live in Melbourne.  But perhaps you can in WA. There is a lot of serious money going into WA based uranium companies (takeovers etc).


----------



## Gurgler (16 February 2007)

From FN Arena:

*China’s CNNC Looking Overseas For Uranium Supply
FN Arena News - February 15 2007 

By Rudi Filapek-Vandyck

China National Nuclear Corp's English website doesn't mention anything about it so we'll have to trust the journalists at the local Xinhua press agency to report that the state controlled company has signed a strategic cooperation agreement with Sinosteel Corp to "jointly invest and explore overseas for uranium resources".

According to Xinhua, CNNC has posted a statement about this on its website, but as said above nothing is to be found on the English version of CNNC's corporate website (sorry, we don't speak Chinese).

Xinhua reports the deal is aimed at ensuring a steady supply of uranium for the country's growing nuclear power sector and follows a similar agreement with conglomerate the CITIC Group.

CNNC is China's largest nuclear power plant construction firm. The company currently operates three commercial nuclear power plants at Qinshan, Daya Bay and Ling'ao.

Xinhua also reports that the Chinese government is aiming to boost the country's nuclear power sector to avoid future power shortages. China is believed to generate circa 2.3% of its total energy needs from nuclear plants. This is scheduled to increase to 4% by 2020. If this goal would be achieved, the press agency reports, it would make China the world's fastest developer of atomic energy.

The latest update on the U3O4 spot price by Ux Consulting has left the price at US$75 per pound, unchanged from the previous week.*


----------



## skegsi (21 February 2007)

*Uranium - How Much Tighter Can The Market Become? 
21/02/2007 By: Rudi Filapek-Vandyck

Investors as well as producers and power utilities in the US will be closely watching the first open auction of uranium this week with one seller offering 100,000 pounds of U3O8 (uranium oxide) at so-called 'market-related pricing terms'. In the current context this means buyer and seller will agree on a bottom price with the final, higher price to be settled at the time of delivery, probably a few months later. 


Advertisement 

The U3O8 spot price hasn't fallen once in nearly four years and chances of it happening in the coming weeks are widely considered nil, especially with the uncertainty of Cameco's flooded Cigar Lake project hanging over the market. 

This week's auction will break the deadlock between buyers and sellers in the uranium market that has kept the spot price thus far unchanged for most of calendar 2007. How far will the price go up? Industry insiders believe a jump to US$80/lb from a current spot price of US$75 is a real possibility. 

In the shadow of the first big auction of the year, analysts, market experts and representatives of the top companies in the sector will be attending a two day conference on uranium organised by Sprott Securities in New York and Toronto on Tuesday and Wednesday. No doubt the overall sentiment at the event will be very upbeat as far as the price prospects for the commodity are concerned. 

FNArena has been fortunate to lay its hand on a copy of the 120 page industry report published by Sprott Securities ahead of the annual conference which this year takes place for the fourth time. The report provides us a rare insight into the latest observations and analysis by one of the highly regarded industry experts in North America. 

Conclusion number one, according to the report, is that everybody, including Sprott, has continuously underestimated how tight the uranium market would become over the past few years. As far as Sprott is concerned, this is likely to be still the case. 

An example: The World Nuclear Association (WNA), whose projections are relied upon by securities analysts worldwide, currently forecasts that combined primary and secondary sources of uranium supply will just meet global demand through 2012, at which time a "significant supply shortfall" will be in place. 

However, current forecasts were made before the flooding of Cameco's Cigar Lake project which was projected to produce up to 12% of annual supply from 2008 onwards. Of equal importance is that the WNA forecasts are based upon the premise that existing production will not experience any disruptions, that scheduled production will be available on time (no delays) and at the anticipated scale, and that prospective production will ramp up relatively quickly. 

Every experienced miner knows: chances of all of this happening on schedule are rather slim. In addition, the report points out the existing WNA model does not consider any impact from demand from investors/speculators or the fact that utilities themselves are attempting to amass internal stockpiles in anticipation of a fuel shortage within the next 7-10 years. 

Some market participants have continuously downplayed the importance of speculators and investors in the uranium market, but Sprott displays no hesitance in the report, stating: 

"Investment fund activity and continued accumulation from public entities such as Uranium Participation Corp and Nufcor Uranium have added a new layer of complexity to the uranium and UF6 markets. Though clarity lacks in the number and volume of transactions that this group of buyers have completed we estimate that between 12-15MMlbs of U3O8 equivalent has been taken from the market in the last 24 months. This accounts for between 5-7% of global uranium production. Though primarily sourced from inventories these actions add further tightness to the market and acts to set new base level pricing for the commodity. We anticipate that the current trend will continue as the uranium price continues to appreciate and supply scarcity persists." 

In addition, Sprott estimates the top ten producers missed their production targets from existing operations by circa 8.5% in calendar 2006. 

Sprott's skepticism regarding WNA forecasts seems to be in sync with the views of the world's largest producer, Canada's Cameco. At the recent World Nuclear Association conference, Cameco presented a paper suggesting uranium suppliers, including itself, were not ready for the impact that new reactor builds will have on the uranium market. 

The paper assumed ten new reactors will be coming on-line each year, starting in 2010 for at least a 10-year period. Sprott believes current WNA forecasts do not take into account that these start-up reactors have to commence stocking uranium up to three years in advance - that is how long it takes to purchase the product and make it ready for usage in the reactor. 

This means that some of the reactors scheduled for 2010 may already be in the market today trying to secure their first supplies. Sprott believes that as a result of this, critically low inventories at US utilities are likely to drop to even lower levels. 

Other assumptions made in the report are: BHP Billiton's (BHP) Olympic Dam expansion will not be finalised before 2012 (two year delay) and remediation of the flooded Cigar Lake project will probably take three to four years (versus the one year Cameco management has conceded so far). The latter will involve re-engineering the mine and the mining method. 

The report also states that close to 85% of global production is currently already contracted through 2012. 

As far as production is concerned it would seem that Kazachstan remains the industry's main hope in the near term. Sprott believes state owned Kazatomprom and its partners should be able to quadruple production by 2010. 

So where does all this leave the sector in the short term? Beyond this week's widely anticipated price jump, Sprott has penciled in an average uranium spot price of US$85/lb in 2007, with a further rise to US$95/lb in 2008, though this is considered to be likely too conservative. 

"If the [uranium spot price] appreciation already witnessed this year is any indication", the report notes, "the uranium price could easily break US$100/lbs." In fact, one of the chapter titles in the report spells it out loud and clear: "Uranium Fundamentals Ã¢â‚¬“ US$100 On The Doorstep..." 

However, the main theme for the sector throughout 2007 will be consolidation, the report suggests. Last week SXR Uranium One and UrAsia Energy announced merger plans to become the number two in the sector. Sprott believes "the acquisition parade has just begun and will become a common theme in 2007". 

Another major change is that the problems at the Cigar Lake project have cost the juggernaut in the sector, Canada's Cameco, its bellwether status. Sprott believes Australia's Paladin Resources (PDN), one of the few new major producers since many years, has now become the global bellwether for the industry. 

Paladin is rated Buy. Until recently the stock carried the tag Top Pick but strong share price appreciation has caused a recommendation downgrade. 

Sprott Securities anticipates a "robust" uranium market for the next few years, with plenty of opportunities for investors in the sector. However, gains are likely to be more modest from here on making stock picking necessary. 

Sprott advocates investors should focus on three types of uranium stocks; producers, imminent producers and "development stories with fundamentally solid assets aggressively moving towards production".

Rudi Filapek-Vandyck is managing editor of FN Arena. 
His ambition is to build the financial news service of the future. Continuous progress towards achieving this goal can be seen at www.fnarena.com (no costs, no obligations).*


----------



## exgeo (22 February 2007)

An interview with James Dines of the Dines Letter (US based tip-sheet). He discusses the reasons for the boom in price, why he thinks it is not a bubble and why a Uranium price correction is unlikely. Downloading to your PC and listening via media player is probably better than listening via the website (no easy way to fast-forward on the website. Free registration required). Go to this section: 







> Part 1 with James Dines, Laramide and Vane Minerals - Download MP3 (right click and select "Save Target As")



http://www.minesite.com/webcasts/commodity_watch_radio.html#c412

The Dines letter:
http://www.dinesletter.com/


----------



## spooly74 (22 February 2007)

Yellowcake's spot price red hot

URANIUM's spot price has risen another *$US10 a pound to $US85 * following an auction of the mineral in the U.S.   

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,21265424-913,00.html


----------



## chris1983 (22 February 2007)

Thanks for the article Spooly.  Looks like uranium stocks are in for another red hot day


----------



## 56gsa (22 February 2007)

exgeo said:
			
		

> http://www.minesite.com/webcasts/commodity_watch_radio.html#c412



great link exgeo - i like dines suggestion that australia will be the saudi arabia of uranium!


----------



## Halba (22 February 2007)

nup aussies too slow at u mining forget aussie


----------



## spooly74 (22 February 2007)

I think it`s too early to call that yet Halba
Let`s wait till after the ALP conference in April.
If/when Australia gets the green light to mine it could go full steam ahead.
It`s simply worth too much $$$$ to all concerned and the spot price could be $90+lb by then, however I do agree it is a lot easier in other countries but Australia has a very large piece of the pie.
cheers


----------



## sleeper88 (22 February 2007)

Halba said:
			
		

> nup aussies too slow at u mining forget aussie




unless your with PDN, it has to be the big winner, taking advantage of the rising U spot price


----------



## 56gsa (22 February 2007)

Halba said:
			
		

> nup aussies too slow at u mining forget aussie




halba - i think PDN would agree with u - do you know where i can find a list of ASX listed stocks that hold interests in african uranium leases?


----------



## sleeper88 (22 February 2007)

56gsa said:
			
		

> halba - i think PDN would agree with u - do you know where i can find a list of ASX listed stocks that hold interests in african uranium leases?




here's a few from the top of my head

PDN
EVE
BMN
OMC
MLS (finalising)
AEX
WMT


----------



## chris1983 (22 February 2007)

56gsa said:
			
		

> halba - i think PDN would agree with u - do you know where i can find a list of ASX listed stocks that hold interests in african uranium leases?





All the ones I have listed are in Namibia.

NEL/BMN/ERN/EXT/WMT/PDN/DYL/MLS


----------



## exgeo (22 February 2007)

> Originally Posted by exgeo
> http://www.minesite.com/webcasts/co...radio.html#c412




I liked even more if Australia will be the Saudia Arabia of Uranium, "Canada is well, maybe an Iran"!

NEL also have an early-stage project in Africa in addition to their advanced WA project. The African thing looks pretty high grade, but there is little historical info about from the earlier drilling. Most of the work will have to be repeated.


----------



## chris1983 (22 February 2007)

exgeo said:
			
		

> I liked even more if Australia will be the Saudia Arabia of Uranium, "Canada is well, maybe an Iran"!
> 
> NEL also have an early-stage project in Africa in addition to their advanced WA project. The African thing looks pretty high grade, but there is little historical info about from the earlier drilling. Most of the work will have to be repeated.




A large portion of NEL's rise IMO has been off the back of their Namibian tenements.  Look when the announcement was released for the granting of their EPL's in Namibia and then watch a large jump in their SP.

The advanced WA project is great if they could do something with it.  Forget WA.  Maybe you can wait for WA long term. 

WA= *W*AIT *A*WHILE.


----------



## Sean K (22 February 2007)

Uranium up $10, but U stocks generally not flying. Must have been factored in.


----------



## Halba (22 February 2007)

nel's u tenements don't have any u ...it doesn't have any big radiometrics or anything lets see, paying $200m for nel is overvalued imho. ERN has 4 u tenements in nambia and its $35m. NEL's WA deposit will never be mined IMHO so its useless

not every tenement will have a commercial u deposit! u gotta be careful.


Forget aussies man just coz aus labour federal say its okay doesn't mean the states will approve..not to mention it has to go through the same rigorous approval/delays


----------



## mmmmining (22 February 2007)

kennas said:
			
		

> Uranium up $10, but U stocks generally not flying. Must have been factored in.




Institution might think $85/lb is as good as you can get for the rest of this year, they are selling on strong news.

A big price hike usually followed by many weeks of no movement of uranium price.

I guess the set back is temporary. The fundamental is still good.

Fear will subdue, and greedy will be back soon..


----------



## Halba (22 February 2007)

my u stocks fairly steady today. i expected that.


----------



## chris1983 (22 February 2007)

Halba said:
			
		

> nel's u tenements don't have any u ...it doesn't have any big radiometrics or anything lets see, paying $200m for nel is overvalued imho. ERN has 4 u tenements in nambia and its $35m. NEL's WA deposit will never be mined IMHO so its useless
> 
> not every tenement will have a commercial u deposit! u gotta be careful.
> 
> ...




I'm not too fancy on NEL either.  I dont hold.  Just wanted to point out they were in WA and WA is a no no for uranium plays.  WA does not like change.

I like ERN because im holding   They have bounced off a low of 50 cents recently and are pretty steady atm and are building a nice base around the 60 cent level.

The new spot price definately must have been factored in..not much happening atm.


----------



## chris1983 (22 February 2007)

Well thats pretty stupid to say I like ERN because I'm holding.  

If you want to know why I like ERN just read the ERN thread.  Definately more of a spec play.  Uranium plays to take advantage of the rising spot price would be PDN.  I dont know any others.  Doesn't ERA have all their long term uranium contracts locked in at lower prices?


----------



## drmb (22 February 2007)

Seems some "Heavyweight" (?  )  is trying to mess the U market with bot selling. Lots and lots of tiny parcels going through today in PDN, SMM and ERA, maybe others. Eg PDN 4 shares (14:18:47 10.4500 4 41.80), 5 shares (14:36:07 10.4400 5 52.20), ERA 8 shares (14:33:13 25.6500 8 205.20), 2 shares (at 14:01:42 25.5000 2 51.00). Seems relentless small parcels from about 11am today, every 5-10 minutes, and maybe even late yesterday afternoon. Somebody please confirm? I'm holding PDN, SMM and BMN


----------



## insider (22 February 2007)

Well today hardly reflects a 10 dollar rise in the price of U. Should be good tomorrow


----------



## Fab (23 February 2007)

insider said:
			
		

> Well today hardly reflects a 10 dollar rise in the price of U. Should be good tomorrow




Indeed I am very surprised that the like of PDN and ERA did not jump further base on the U spot increase.


----------



## Halba (23 February 2007)

fab- did n't they increase 50% into this?


----------



## Kauri (23 February 2007)

Fab said:
			
		

> indeed i am very surprised that the like of PDN and ERA did not jump further base on the U spot increase




   Yes, seems very strange.. I wonder if news about Cigar Lake is leaking already...
*Cameco had previously planned to provide preliminary capital cost estimates and timelines for the remediation in February 2007. However, the information will now be available in late March 2007*


----------



## 56gsa (23 February 2007)

Fab said:
			
		

> Indeed I am very surprised that the like of PDN and ERA did not jump further base on the U spot increase.



what price are punters predicting for U this year, and therefore what is being factored into these company's valuations?

even conservative old ABN has factored in a US$95/lb price for its PDN valuation.  a consensus of a number of brokers from early this year (https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=113928#post113928) was 89, 91, 90 for 2007 and next two years

so why would a leap to 85 rate an increase....

however if we see another rise soon (coupled with a dire cigar lake outlook in march) then brokers and punters may need to revise their outlook for 2007

this is all incremental stuff tho...  after reading some articles on predictions of supply/demand, how the U authorities in making these predicitions haven't really factored in stockpiling, hedge buying, or even strategic buying from Russia (already started apparently) and the US (and how they have optimistically factored in production rates when U mines traditionally disappoint against production targets), and of course listening to Dines (chk the link exgeo gave above) you get the feeling there is going to be a major jump at some point. 

remember - all this is speculation about how far up.... is there anyone in the world saying U is going down in the short to medium term? what other commodity has that sort of outlook / and from dines - what other commodity hasn't had a fall in the last 3 years

jeez, wish i was on this buggy 3 years ago!


----------



## Halba (24 February 2007)

56gsa bit late for comments like that? what action can we implement to take advantage of that- most stocks looks gone


----------



## Halba (24 February 2007)

according to dines: WA labor party won't change policy even if Fed labor change policy


----------



## Kauri (24 February 2007)

Halba said:
			
		

> according to dines: WA labor party won't change policy even if Fed labor change policy



   The W.A Labour party is in a severe corrective B wave  (otherwise known as a Burke wave) at the moment, at the rate they are sacking Ministers there soon won't be enough for a front bench.


----------



## Sean K (24 February 2007)

Kauri said:
			
		

> The W.A Labour party is in a severe corrective B wave  (otherwise known as a Burke wave) at the moment, at the rate they are sacking Ministers there soon won't be enough for a front bench.



 Gold Kauri, Gold. LMFHO.


----------



## greggy (24 February 2007)

Kauri said:
			
		

> The W.A Labour party is in a severe corrective B wave  (otherwise known as a Burke wave) at the moment, at the rate they are sacking Ministers there soon won't be enough for a front bench.



The WA Labour Government is looking very shaky indeed.  Despite its signifcant majority, if things get any worse then maybe they will get tossed out at the next state election.


----------



## 56gsa (24 February 2007)

Halba said:
			
		

> 56gsa bit late for comments like that? what action can we implement to take advantage of that- most stocks looks gone



if the market falls we probably will see a drop in U stocks.  wot i will be looking for then is Aust companies that are going to be the ones buying others or ones that have international partners to advance things, non-Aust deposits in terms of the next producers, and some of the ones that may have slipped under the radar (eg EQN which is copper focused atm but has 20m lbs of U that is not factored into their price)

atm  i hold
PDN, SMM, PNN, EQN, SRK, TAS, CTS

wot i'm looking at

BMN, CMR, .. and some of those others that came out of the list above like ERN which you seem to like.  I thought NEL has potential with some OS deposits and Lake Way being a good deposit that was almost mined in the 70s (altho agree WA is big question but Libs will be in there soon) and with OXR now owning but you're not so keen?


----------



## Sean K (25 February 2007)

It's in the bag. The laws WILL change. Aussie U stocks sure to benefit.

*Gillard backs expanding uranium mining*
February 25, 2007 - 11:24AM

Labor's left-wing deputy leader Julia Gillard has backed expansion of the uranium mining industry, saying it will bring economic prosperity to South Australia in particular.


http://www.theage.com.au/news/Natio...-uranium-mining/2007/02/25/1172338453811.html


----------



## Kauri (25 February 2007)

You have to feel for Peter Garrett, first the US base, and now this..


----------



## 56gsa (25 February 2007)

exgeo said:
			
		

> An interview with James Dines of the Dines Letter (US based tip-sheet). He discusses the reasons for the boom in price, why he thinks it is not a bubble and why a Uranium price correction is unlikely. Downloading to your PC and listening via media player is probably better than listening via the website (no easy way to fast-forward on the website. Free registration required). Go to this section: http://www.minesite.com/webcasts/commodity_watch_radio.html#c412
> 
> The Dines letter:
> http://www.dinesletter.com/



the second part of the dines interview is now on the website - along with the interview with Eggers from Summit


----------



## champ2003 (25 February 2007)

56gsa said:
			
		

> the second part of the dines interview is now on the website - along with the interview with Eggers from Summit




I think that was already there before as i heard them both a few days ago. It goes for ages so you just have to be patient and sit and listen. Pretty sure that there would be nothing new to add from the last time i checked which was 4 days ago when exgeo informed us. It is very informative though, great info. Sounds promising for the industry.

Cheers!

Champ


----------



## kromey (25 February 2007)

Opinions on the best value Uranium stock under $1 for 2007?


----------



## falconx (26 February 2007)

kromey said:
			
		

> Opinions on the best value Uranium stock under $1 for 2007?




Either DYL or UXA. DYL has very expirienced management/geo-scientists and have good tenements in here in Australia and also in Namibia thats just west and SW of Paladins U mine. They have strong ties with PDN and they now own just over 11% of DYL. UXA also looks promising although i don't hold any, I do hold DYL.


----------



## Sean K (26 February 2007)

kromey said:
			
		

> Opinions on the best value Uranium stock under $1 for 2007?



You're probably better to consider market caps instead of price. Maybe start with U players under $100m and then $50m. Then compare these market caps to their actual and potential resources, location, and management team. That will give you a better idea of potential.


----------



## exgeo (26 February 2007)

> Opinions on the best value Uranium stock under $1 for 2007?



 Contact CTS has a low EV/Lb Uranium and also is working in Peru where uranium mining is OK. Similar EV to MTN which is currently one of the cheapest stocks around in terms of EV/Lb.


----------



## mmmmining (26 February 2007)

Go for SIM. Fully diluted aprox 50m share with current price at 67c

It has lands in WA, SA, and NT

In NT, its lands fill the gap betewen Napperby and Nolans Bore deposit, and another lands surrounding Angela Deposits

In SA, all lands are near the uranium hot spots, such as Mt Gee, Beverley, Honeymoon;

The Gencoe land has intercepted some uranium

In WA, Yanrey uranium projects look very good, with assay like 3.25m @2,830ppm, with considerable area


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (27 February 2007)

Interesting, tells me U will be the flavour of March and April as we lead into the Labour U conference



Powerful Aussies push for first nuclear plant
Tuesday Feb 27 05:00 AEDT
Three of Australia's richest men have teamed up to build the first nuclear power plant in the country, The Advertiser reports. 

Hugh Morgan, former head of Western Mining, is the chairman of Australia Nuclear Energy Pty Ltd, and he also holds a 20 percent stake in the company. 

Former SA Economic Development Board chairman Robert de Crespigny, and close friend businessman Ron Walker each have 40 percent stakes in the venture. 


RELATED LINKS
PHOTOS: Nuclear disasters 
VIDEO: Debate heats up
The company is examining South Australia and Victoria as potential locations for its first construction, and The Advertiser reports that the trio has raised its plans with the Federal and State governments. 




"The company was formed to investigate the feasibility of setting up a nuclear plant in Victoria," an unnamed source told the newspaper. 

"Informal discussions have been held with the Federal Government and the South Australian and Victorian state governments." 

The powerful businessmen are also reportedly in contact with US-based company General Electric, which is the world's largest supplier of nuclear generation equipment. 

The business-backed nuclear push comes as the Federal Government examines the Switkowski Report, which recommended Australia to have 25 nuclear plants by 2050. 

Earlier this month South Australian premier Mike Rann said he would not allow construction of nuclear plants to go ahead in SA while he was in power. 

"A nuclear power station costing a couple of billion dollars would not be either financially or economically viable given our population size," Rann said. 

"SA is already leading the nation in renewable energy such as wind power." 

Victorian Premier Steve Bracks vowed late last year to put any proposal for a nuclear plant to a referendum.


----------



## bt777 (27 February 2007)

*Uranium*

The Paladin takeover offer for Summit has given the nuclear group new impetus today


----------



## bt777 (27 February 2007)

While on the topic of Summit, did anyone notice that Newland Resource (NRL) which has a JV with Summit over a huge area of their tenements, went up 6c to 40c on the takeover offer news.

MC Newland 65 Million
MC Summit 1 Billion


----------



## mmmmining (11 March 2007)

Uranium is $90 now, baby!

http://www.stockinterview.com/News/03112007/Uranium-Spot-Price-ERA.html


----------



## mmmmining (13 March 2007)

Anyone has any information about the company:

TERRITORY URANIUM COMPANY LTD

I never heard of it, and cannot find the website.


----------



## greggy (14 March 2007)

mmmmining said:
			
		

> Uranium is $90 now, baby!
> 
> http://www.stockinterview.com/News/03112007/Uranium-Spot-Price-ERA.html



Those knocking uranium should wake up to the fact that with more nuclear power stations being built around the world, demand is likely to increase significantly as time goes by.  It will be interesting to see how the uranium sector reacts should the uranium price crack the $100 mark which is a big psychological mark.
DYOR


----------



## spooly74 (15 March 2007)

mmmmining said:
			
		

> Uranium is $90 now, baby!
> 
> http://www.stockinterview.com/News/03112007/Uranium-Spot-Price-ERA.html




spot price $91 now.
http://www.uxc.com/review/uxc_Prices.aspx

Does anyone know how much u3o8 was purchased during the latest price rise from $75 - $85 and $85 - $90 - $91?
cheers


----------



## madcabbie (16 March 2007)

spooly74 said:
			
		

> spot price $91 now.
> http://www.uxc.com/review/uxc_Prices.aspx
> *
> Does anyone know how much u3o8 was purchased during the latest price rise from $75 - $85 and $85 - $90 - $91?
> cheers*





According to Tradetech: no spot purchases last week, but citing production losses at ERA’s Ranger in NT – raised spot price to $90US/lb noting that 9 new buyers require 4 million pounds. Short supply and lots of demand.

 :boy:


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (18 March 2007)

Anyone know the exact date for the Labour party meeting in Apirl?


----------



## nizar (18 March 2007)

YOUNG_TRADER said:
			
		

> Anyone know the exact date for the Labour party meeting in Apirl?




27-29th ??


----------



## Halba (18 March 2007)

i doubt ALP policy makes much difference...the current u companies still wayyyy off mining ,hence mkt is not pushing them up much anymore


----------



## mmmmining (18 March 2007)

There is a say about commodities:

"High price is killed by high price"

How high uranium price can be before it comes to ground?

Cannot find the answer from the demand and supply, try to figure it out as a power plant investor with a choice between coal and uranium as fuel.
(there are so many numbers, the calculation is approx)

1lb U3O8 natural will need about US$100 for fuel processing and manufacture;
1lb U3O8 natural ~equal 10t standard coal
1t standard coal=US$50
The critical point is U3O8=US$200 from fuel economic point of view.

ATM, if U3O8 is over US$200, there is no way people will build nuclear plant.

Since nuclear power plant need huge investment, I believe U3O8 price should be less than US$100 to make it an attractive investment.

So if U3O8 price reach that level, it might scare off a lot of nuclear lovers. From the Canadian U.To, the uranium ETF, share price is at 16% premium to the NAV when U3O8 is at US$85. Since 35% of the fund is for UF6 appreciate at less rate, it pointed to U3O8 price at 20% premium of U$85. It has been around their for a couple of month, I guess US$100 might be the short-term peak price.

In the meantime, if we speculate any uranium hopeful, I guess we should not use US$100+ uranium price to justify any possible valuation, particularly for the not near term producers.


----------



## champ2003 (18 March 2007)

Halba said:
			
		

> i doubt ALP policy makes much difference...the current u companies still wayyyy off mining ,hence mkt is not pushing them up much anymore




Don't forget that alot of U companies have at least trebled in the last 4 months so it's expected that they will have a little breather.


----------



## champ2003 (18 March 2007)

mmmmining said:
			
		

> There is a say about commodities:
> 
> "High price is killed by high price"
> 
> ...




Something that has to be considered is if they stop biulding power plants then what else will replace that as the world has to stop burning fossil fuels. Climate change could be dramatic if we don't. The only option at the moment is Nuclear.


----------



## mmmmining (18 March 2007)

champ2003 said:
			
		

> Something that has to be considered is if they stop biulding power plants then what else will replace that as the world has to stop burning fossil fuels. Climate change could be dramatic if we don't. The only option at the moment is Nuclear.




How many people might never heard of global warming?
How many people might think global warming is caused by heat generated by burning fuels?
How many republicans in USA don't believe global warming because it is a Al Gore's baby?
Which countries believe global warming, but blame all industralized countries for it, and determine to play catch up game?
Who are those the people that believe global warming, but believe solar, wind, and biomass are the solution, and  hate nuclear energy?


----------



## Sean K (18 March 2007)

I think the day the ann by the Labor Party comes out will be a big boost to Aust U stocks. I have been thinking that it might be 'buy the rumour, sell the fact' but I have a feeling that it might go the other way. Why? I have this little twinge in my lower back......Good luck, will be interesting times.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (18 March 2007)

kennas said:
			
		

> I think the day the ann by the Labor Party comes out will be a big boost to Aust U stocks. I have been thinking that it might be 'buy the rumour, sell the fact' *but I have a feeling that it might go the other way. Why? I have this little twinge in my lower back*......Good luck, will be interesting times.





I had a similar feeling except mine was a burning sensation inbetween my toes, may just be atheletes foot though  :


----------



## TheAbyss (19 March 2007)

I was having a quiet discussion over a beer with a policy advisor in the Qld state Labor Party who was of the opinion that there will definitly be a chnage to the current U policy mainly due to a strong push by a couple of the unions.

I have emailed him to ask if he minds if i use his comments without naming him and if ok i will post his reasoning as to why there will be some good news for investors of australian based U expolorers and producers. 

Also there is a lot of press coverage at the moment educating joe public why it is ok to mine and sell U to other countries with the proviso that the buyers are vetted prior to selling to them. My opinion is that we are being prepared via the media for the change that is coming. If the press and policy advisors are agreeing then it is a strong possibility.

Whether this amendment to to a "cobbled bit of policy from the Bob Hawke era" is built into the price already or some upward movement will come? My thoughts are  that we we should look inside ourselves as traders. We all have that nagging doubt (some more than others) about Australian based miners/ explorers due to the possibility that they wont be able to mine or sell the product. If the doubts are removed then that has to give traders in general some confidence to move forward.


----------



## mmmmining (19 March 2007)

Uranium stocks are ominously quiet. Are we waiting for US$100 uranium?

What about the depreciation of US$? Does it mean anything if Uranium price is up 10%, and Aussie$ has 10% appreciation? 

If this is the case, Would it be an advantage by investing uranium stock has US projects? The depreciation of US$ won't hurt producers in US as much, right?

Recently more and more companies start looking at US uranium properties. How many US players are there? I cannot count:
UKL, WHE, BLR, XST, PEN, WMT, who else?

I understand that things can move a lot fast than in Aussie if there is benefits for every stakeholder. With cheap ISL method, it is possible that some of them can be a producer within 2 years. But you need very strong people to manage projects to be success. I guess the qualification of these companies' management team is very important.

Have you spot one yet?


----------



## greggy (19 March 2007)

kennas said:
			
		

> I think the day the ann by the Labor Party comes out will be a big boost to Aust U stocks. I have been thinking that it might be 'buy the rumour, sell the fact' but I have a feeling that it might go the other way. Why? I have this little twinge in my lower back......Good luck, will be interesting times.



For my 2 cents worth, I feel that should the ALP conference choose to support uranium mining the key will be whether the WA's Mr Carpenter will end his ban on new uranium mines.  But there again, the way WA is going Mr Carpenter may end up resigning as Premier before the conference.
P.S.  I've never met or seen Brian Burke!!


----------



## Jimminy (19 March 2007)

I completely agree........there are quite a lot companies with uranium exploration interests in WA. Uranex is one of the top of my head.

But I think it is a feteaccompli for other states to receive the green light going by the what Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd are on the record as saying.

If WA receives the green light from the carpenter govt then there will be a rally in those with advanced uranium interests.

However, I don't believe that the carpenter govt will allow it. They are categorically on the record as saying that pre-election promise was to make sure there was no uranium mining for their current term.

A commentator wrote some months ago that the likely scenario is the for status quo to prevail until the next election with the next election needed to be completed by the 28 March 2009.

It might then be the case that a Labor govt will only approve u mining in WA if re-elected and a post-election referendum dictates a change in policy.

It was worth noting that this commentator also wrote that many of the Uranium explorers in WA don't care too much for the current politics as most will not require a change in policy til 2009 or later in any case in advancing their projects - such are the early stages of exploration that many companies are in. JORC, BFS, etc etc need to come first.

In any case, if one is willing to gamble on RMG like a few of you are   ; then betting on a WA policy change seems like low risk. :


----------



## spooly74 (19 March 2007)

Update from Cameco yesterday

Production startup for Cigar Lake is targeted for 2010, subject to regulatory approval and timely remediation.

Had initially been planned for 2008, so looks like it's a minimum 2 year delay.

http://www.cameco.com/media_gateway/news_releases/2007/news_release.php?id=175


----------



## Fab (19 March 2007)

spooly74 said:
			
		

> Update from Cameco yesterday
> 
> Production startup for Cigar Lake is targeted for 2010, subject to regulatory approval and timely remediation.
> 
> ...




Thanks bearing in mind Cameco will be delayed for few years now. I am surprised that PDN has not jumped when this was announced. Any idea why?


----------



## spooly74 (19 March 2007)

Fab said:
			
		

> Thanks bearing in mind Cameco will be delayed for few years now. I am surprised that PDN has not jumped when this was announced. Any idea why?




The delay has been expected and I`d imagine it was already factored in months ago.
That said, any further serious delays from Cigar Lake and you could see some more gains.


----------



## the barry (19 March 2007)

spooly74 said:
			
		

> The delay has been expected and I`d imagine it was already factored in months ago.
> That said, any further serious delays from Cigar Lake and you could see some more gains.




If you read the risk factors in the latest Cameco report on Cigar Lake you get the picture that it is no certainty to reach production in 2010. They still have to contend with the flooding which is a real problem. The freezing process sounds incredibly complicated. Not to mention the 180 odd million that is going to cost to fix. origional estimate at 330 mill which has blow out to over 500 million.

They will be lucky to be inproduction by 2010. Read the method of extracting the Uranium to understand how complex it is. There is a lot that can go wrong & most likely will. Add to the mix the ranger mine flooding & it means adecrease in supply & increase in demand. All at the right time for PDN.

Those factors should see more pressure on the spot price to rise.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (20 March 2007)

Guys theres a URANIUM CONFERENCE on this week Thursday and Friday (sure caught me by surprise)

Link http://www.paydirtsuraniumconference.com/

Surprised to see MDX there

Surprised that others like EME aren't there


----------



## purple (20 March 2007)

the barry said:
			
		

> All at the right time for PDN.
> Those factors should see more pressure on the spot price to rise.




still, PDN is on the same roughly 45deg angle upwards movement that it displayed all through '06. has not risen vertically yet.


----------



## insider (20 March 2007)

YOUNG_TRADER said:
			
		

> Guys theres a URANIUM CONFERENCE on this week Thursday and Friday (sure caught me by surprise)
> 
> Link http://www.paydirtsuraniumconference.com/
> 
> ...




I've been waiting 3 months for this conference... Should be some good publicity for those listed as presenters... I hope your favorites are there!!


----------



## mmmmining (20 March 2007)

insider said:
			
		

> I've been waiting 3 months for this conference... Should be some good publicity for those listed as presenters... I hope your favorites are there!!




Neither SMM (cat) nor PDN (dog) 

Also missing BHP, but most of juniors with uranium interests in SA will be there. It seems a SA things.


----------



## wotthe (20 March 2007)

Are uranium shares out of favour since the correction we had to have?

The reason I ask is the lack of interest in LMG and PEN, coupled with UNX, off 9.5 today and, while ERO is up 3, it's been pretty quiet since its recent ann.

Am I just paranoid ... perhaps looking at the wrong companies?


----------



## the barry (20 March 2007)

wotthe said:
			
		

> Are uranium shares out of favour since the correction we had to have?
> 
> The reason I ask is the lack of interest in LMG and PEN, coupled with UNX, off 9.5 today and, while ERO is up 3, it's been pretty quiet since its recent ann.
> 
> Am I just paranoid ... perhaps looking at the wrong companies?




I dont know what you expect from ero, its well up over 50 percent since that announcement.


----------



## Jimminy (20 March 2007)

wotthe said:
			
		

> Are uranium shares out of favour since the correction we had to have?
> 
> The reason I ask is the lack of interest in LMG and PEN, coupled with UNX, off 9.5 today and, while ERO is up 3, it's been pretty quiet since its recent ann.
> 
> Am I just paranoid ... perhaps looking at the wrong companies?




I can comment on unx - this has been slowly dropping over the past few months since its highs around $2.20-2.30. So it has retraced 30%.

I think WA is its problem with Thatcher Soak. Too many people are probably not prepared to wait for the WA govt to change their policy on u mining. Other than Thatcher Soak they don't really have much other spec land in Africa and NT.

But to put a positive spin on it - it had a recent placement at $1.64 and now has $18m cash in the bank to fund its exploration. It should be able to fasttrack alot of things this year with that kind of money.

But yes, quite a few u stocks are taking a breather in the past few weeks/months. Follow the trend is all I can say.


----------



## mmmmining (20 March 2007)

WA government is arrogant sob. The Primer think he is the King of Mighty Resource Kingdom. He and his assocate can decide your humble mining hopefuls' life. The rejection of CAZ's exploration right and PMA's corruption scandal are good examples. 

Their policy is totally insane. They did not take uranium seriously because they are in pole position for: iron ore, nickel, natural gas, gold, copper, ... Anything you name it.

But WA cannot beat SA and NT for uranium. So they decide to ban it. 

Maybe putting them in a greenhouse in a hot summer might change their large but rusty mind.


----------



## greggy (21 March 2007)

mmmmining said:
			
		

> WA government is arrogant sob. The Primer think he is the King of Mighty Resource Kingdom. He and his assocate can decide your humble mining hopefuls' life. The rejection of CAZ's exploration right and PMA's corruption scandal are good examples.
> 
> Their policy is totally insane. They did not take uranium seriously because they are in pole position for: iron ore, nickel, natural gas, gold, copper, ... Anything you name it.
> 
> ...



I am perplexed with the WA Government's attitude towards mining.  Traditionally, its always been pro-mining, but uranium is apparently a dirty word.  The WA Government has the worst attitude towards uranium, yet there are still many companies out there who obviously feel that the situation will change down the track. (e.g. RPT's takeover by Mega just to name one).
This leaves me with one final thought.  Is Brian Burke in favour of uranium mining??


----------



## happytown (21 March 2007)

mmmmining said:
			
		

> ... Their policy is totally insane. They did not take uranium seriously ...




praps if it was a multi-billion dollar annual export industry they would
u exports are only worth in the hundreds of millions of dollars annually currently to aust (by memory from abare figures)
maybe they don't consider them big enough bikkies
and maybe they may just miss the boat
the alp policy meeting in april will provide the answers (depending on the outcome of the vote and subsequent pressures applied) and its only approx a month away 

cheers


----------



## Jimminy (22 March 2007)

it is worth noting the following re; Uranium mining in Western Australia whilst Labor is in power at a State level.

I don't think we'll be seeing any change in policy. The leader has a view (and the leader before that - Gallop). 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.

It has been noted that there was virtually unanimous support to continue the uranium mining ban at the most recent state ALP conference in WA.

A source of frustration for Nova, Uranex, etc....


----------



## insider (22 March 2007)

Jimminy said:
			
		

> it is worth noting the following re; Uranium mining in Western Australia whilst Labor is in power at a State level.
> 
> I don't think we'll be seeing any change in policy. The leader has a view (and the leader before that - Gallop). 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.
> 
> ...





I think the support to ban Uranium mining is actually their support to ban Nuclear reactors in their state... They're worried that if they give the Federal government a hand they will take the arm instead...

Just my thought...


----------



## mmmmining (22 March 2007)

Why fight against WA when we can join SA:

I quote from: www.miningNews.net:

"South Australian Mineral Resources Development Minister Paul Holloway told the Paydirt Uranium Conference in Adelaide that "the State Government is very confident that the no new mines policy will change, allowing South Australia's competitive advantage in the uranium sector to come to the fore".

"It's my opinion that South Australia will move fairly quickly to change our policy," he said, noting that any policy change won't affect existing operations and already strong support for the change from the state's premier and other ministers."

Who is who in SA:
MTN
PNN
AGS
CUY
SIM
TOE
UEQ
USA
DYL
NEL
MOX
CUX
ERO
SOUTHERN URANIUM
.....


----------



## purple (22 March 2007)

happytown said:
			
		

> praps if it was a multi-billion dollar annual export industry they would




well, it would  if they allow all the 400+ U juniors to forge ahead...with only PDN,ERA,BHP producing at the moment, can't getthere..

classic egg and chicken problem...


----------



## insider (22 March 2007)

mmmmining said:
			
		

> Why fight against WA when we can join SA:
> 
> I quote from: www.miningNews.net:
> 
> ...




UXA are in there... but let's just say that this company is more like a chocolate easter egg with nothing inside...  I put them in my personal 'pretenders list'


----------



## mmmmining (22 March 2007)

insider said:
			
		

> UXA are in there... in SA) but let's just say that this company is more like a chocolate easter egg with nothing inside...  I put them in my personal 'pretenders list'



Well said.

Here is a early edition about uranium in SA:

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,21427714-913,00.html

About 60 companies are doing uranium in SA, according to the report. I add WPG and ADN on the list


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (22 March 2007)

Wow what a PR machine!

"I urge investors to be careful when making investment decisions about which state they are investing in. I do urge investors to remember they will be welcome here in South Australia." 

Now if only a few of these miners had a director like this on board!


----------



## nizar (22 March 2007)

Southern Gold is an interesting one, i traded it early last year, havent been in since.
They got the best land, good management, and it soo easily couldve been them instead of HMR!
Heaps of rumours about Canadians, Chinese, nothing ended up happening.

But this float looks good, can sum1 please refresh me on its:
(1)#shares on issue & Market cap at offer price
(2)will SAU retain any of it after its floated and if so how many % 

Many thanks
(yeh i know, i should really be looking this up myself)


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (23 March 2007)

I got ya covered Niz!

Souther Uranium
Total shares: 115m
SAU: 45m
Citic: 20m
IPO: 50m

Cash  on list $14m

I should probably create a thread


----------



## noobs (23 March 2007)

Queensland to open its doors to Uranium Mining!

http://www.fnarena.com/index2.cfm?type=dsp_newsitem&n=7CDFAD13-17A4-1130-F55DA432AF01D590

This can only be good for SMM!


----------



## greggy (23 March 2007)

mmmmining said:
			
		

> Well said.
> 
> Here is a early edition about uranium in SA:
> 
> ...



I like the bit in the article about the HUGE number of protestors, 10 to be exact.  The SA Labor Govt's approach is very business friendly.  Expansion of the uranium industry will create many extra jobs and provide greater export income.


----------



## happytown (23 March 2007)

buy shares in pawnshops,

"Shock, awe: Store owner finds yellowcake uranium

     By Stephen Hudak

      March 10, 2007 

      Every blue moon or so, collectibles dealer and pawnshop owner Frank  Cafaro stumbles upon a buried gem amid an estate's junk and tchotchkes.

      But his latest find was so alarming he called the Fire Department.

      "We were in the warehouse and we pulled out this box of rocks from an  estate sale," Cafaro said.

      "Everything was individually labeled. Amethyst. Topaz. Uranium. The guy  I'm working with says, 'What's that last one? Uranium? I think that's illegal.' "

      Within an hour, the Gold Mine Pawn was swarming Thursday with nearly three dozen emergency workers, including Geiger-counter-waving members of a hazardous materials team and the Marion County Sheriff's Office Domestic  Security Task Force.

      They focused their attention on a lead container the size of a soup can.

      "It was kind of scary when I heard how terrible this stuff was," Cafaro  said.

      "This was an odd one."

      The mineral, which Cafaro traced to an estate sale in Miami about 10 years ago, was turned over to the Florida Department of Health's Bureau of  Radiation Control for disposal, said Susan Livoti, spokeswoman for the  Sheriff's Office.

      FDLE spokeswoman Sharon Gogerty said small amounts of yellowcake are  reported to the agency "on a regular basis" and are not considered  especially dangerous.

      "A lot of times, it seems to turn up in scrap yards," she said.

      Cafaro, 40, said he paid the Miami estate about $10,000 for a collection of natural crystals in which the uranium vial was found.

      The collection filled 50 pickup truckloads, he said. Cafaro planned to  resell the crystals online.

      "There's boxes in my warehouse from this particular sale that still haven't been opened," he said.

      "But to think I hadn't even given it a second thought. For all I know, I  might have listed it on eBay.""

cheers


----------



## greggy (24 March 2007)

According to todays Weekend Australian, Mr Carpenter, the WA Premier, stated yesterday once again that uranium is best left in the ground irrespective of any changes made at the upcoming conference.  Mr Carpenter's attitude is amazing in that he chooses not to lead from the front, yet let the other Labor states do all the running on the uranium front.  I'm getting to the point where I'm just going to keep away from all WA uranium explorers until there clear signs that his inept govt is on the way front. Yet this is a real pity as there are plenty of good uranium prospects in that state.


----------



## Halba (24 March 2007)

good for non-WA stocks IMHO as by not opening up WA's large uranium deposits, this keeps the u price higher, stronger for longer  : 

I hold MTN, AGS, SMM all in non WA states.

I expect strong share price action in all three companies considering these are the ones that have the biggest resources.

SMM is due to release their resource statement re: Andersons on tuesday.


----------



## insider (24 March 2007)

happytown said:
			
		

> buy shares in pawnshops,
> 
> "Shock, awe: Store owner finds yellowcake uranium
> 
> ...




United States!!! It doesn't surprise me... they should have told him that in his country depleted uranium is used in military equipment AND IN CONCRETE REINFORCMENT for building... that's right... they trade it like it's a precious commodity... That's dangerous


----------



## greggy (24 March 2007)

Halba said:
			
		

> good for non-WA stocks IMHO as by not opening up WA's large uranium deposits, this keeps the u price higher, stronger for longer  :
> 
> I hold MTN, AGS, SMM all in non WA states.
> 
> ...



You're probably very happy then with Mr Carpenter's stand.  You're 100% right in saying that his stand will have the non-intentional effect of helping to keep the uranium price higher.


----------



## nizar (24 March 2007)

Halba said:
			
		

> good for non-WA stocks IMHO as by not opening up WA's large uranium deposits, this keeps the u price higher, stronger for longer  :




Those WA deposits are far from production.
Even if Carpenter changed his stance, it would be several years before new supply is brought on market from these mines.

Other factors for example, what happened to Cameco, are far more significant in regards to uranium spot price.


----------



## Halba (24 March 2007)

True but it makes SA Deposits seem "tight as hens teeth" and fund managers will drive up the price of SA deposits.

A case of too much money chasing too few assets.

Funds won't have the greenlight to go into WA stocks but only SA,NT and QLD stocks!


----------



## Fab (24 March 2007)

Any update on the U spot price?


----------



## mmmmining (24 March 2007)

Halba said:
			
		

> good for non-WA stocks IMHO as by not opening up WA's large uranium deposits, this keeps the u price higher, stronger for longer  :
> 
> I hold MTN, AGS, SMM all in non WA states.
> 
> ...




Halba, you have got that right. WA has too many staff in the plate, No1 in gold, iron ore, nickel, cobalt, natural gas.... They don't need to open another can of worm for political risk. So does my investment. Say no uranium to WA.

SA might be the only State with open-arm for anyone to explore and mine anything. To the extend SA government pay you to drill sometimes. I cannot say SA government is smarter than other states. But long-term recession might proven painful. They become very eager to change.

Don't forget NT. A land of Crics eat people. They have a lot of uranium.

In my early post, I predict Peter will change his stand because he is a very bright person, and politically skillful. I feel free when I traveled in QLD (I mean I can drive 120km/hr constantly without a speed ticket. Maybe by luck)


----------



## Kauri (24 March 2007)

nizar said:
			
		

> Those WA deposits are far from production.
> Even if Carpenter changed his stance, it would be several years before new supply is brought on market from these mines.
> 
> Other factors for example, what happened to Cameco, are far more significant in regards to uranium spot price.




   Rio's Kintyre deposit in the Rudall River would I think be amongst the most advanced projects in Australia.. it has been drilled and resources categorised, pits identified, has had a pilot treatment plant built on site, processed bulk sample ore and had the ore put through metallurgical testing to identify the best treatment method. Most other uranium setups in the rest of Australia are still at the rock-kicking/spectrometer stage, some are actually starting basic drill programmes, very few have reached defining a Jorc compliant and feasibility stage...


----------



## Halba (24 March 2007)

Doubt kintyre will see the light for a lllong time.

Any project in WA faces delays...theres just too much happenning in that state and everything will get pushed back.

QLD is the better bet- fulll of major mining houses like Zinifex, BHP Cannington, MIM/Xstrata, All the major coal mines/deposits. Mining culture and infrastructure is best in QLD. SMM is the best fit and Market has reacted accordingly. Their resource estimates due this week keep an eye out.   

Bureacracy/red tape in approvals will hurt SA, they have a poor reputation in this area IMHO.


----------



## Kauri (24 March 2007)

Halba said:
			
		

> Doubt kintyre will see the light for a lllong time.
> 
> Any project in WA faces delays...theres just too much happenning in that state and everything will get pushed back.
> 
> ...




I doubt Kintyre will set up any time soon either, but that really wasn't what I was saying.... incidentally if the W.A Govt. were to change how long do you think it would take???    



> Bureacracy/red tape in approvals will hurt SA, they have a poor reputation in this area IMHO



Bureacracy/red tape in SA hasn't hurt them so far..
There are three operating uranium mines in Australia, Ranger in NT, Olympic Dam and Beverly in South Australia. A fourth is cleared to start construction: Honeymoon, in South Australia.


----------



## Halba (24 March 2007)

Hi I read reports Honeymoon took a LONG time to go through the approvals processes - MARP - mining and rehabilitation program.

Not to mention several mines like Prominent Hill took ages to get through approvals. I'm talking more than just a few months.

Beverly itself took a year of approvals and a lot of opposition.


----------



## zed327 (26 March 2007)

Uranium $95 a pound.    

http://www.newswiretoday.com/news/15734/

Spot Uranium Price Increases to US$95 per Pound - Uranium Mining Stocks Rebounding



NewswireToday - /newswire/ - Sarasota, FL, United States, 03/25/2007 - TradeTech’s Nuclear Market Review reported the weekly spot uranium price indicator was raised to a record US$95/pound. Canadian uranium stock index shows uranium mining shares rebounding.



On Friday, TradeTech’s Nuclear Market Review (NMR) reported a record weekly spot uranium price increase to US$95/pound ahead of this coming week’s sealed-bid auction of 100 thousand pounds of U3O8 in Corpus Christi, Texas.

“Buyers remain willing to pay higher prices,” wrote NMR editor Treva Klingbiel. “Seven buyers continue to seek over three million pounds.” Three transactions took place in the spot uranium market, for immediate and June delivery, for just under one million pounds U3O8 (also known as yellowcake or uranium oxide). TradeTech, the consulting service which polls fuel brokers and utilities, posts changes in the weekly spot price on its website at uranium.info

In a related development, uranium mining stocks have rebounded the past two to three weeks, according to TheInvestar group which tracks 43 North American uranium companies and 25 Australian uranium companies. Matthew Smith, who produces the weekly uranium stock index, told StockInterview the uranium indexes could test their all-time highs over the next two months, as investors return to capitalize on the higher commodity price.


----------



## mmmmining (26 March 2007)

Cannot believe it, $95/lb

here is a bit more info.

http://www.stockinterview.com/News/03252007/Uranium-Price-Increase-Uranium-Stock-Index.html


----------



## greggy (26 March 2007)

Good to see the uranium price continuing to climb.  With demand continuing to grow rapidly the outlook remains positive IMO.
DYOR


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (27 March 2007)

Here's some interesting Info suggesting a U price of $130 US/lb + is needed to bring on significant supply of Uranium


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (27 March 2007)

I'll try again


----------



## mmmmining (27 March 2007)

Nice try by NUP.

Personally, I wish it will never reach US$130 level, unless 1AUS$=1US$. I will sell all my uranium stocks when it crosses that line.

High commodity price is killed by high commodity price.


----------



## mmmmining (27 March 2007)

t is very interesting that people are not as excited as before when someone alleged to have found uraniums in WA. SA and QLD are the la-la lands. 

It is also very funny that the latest excuse for not mining uranium in WA is to keep it for future WA. Just ask yourself, who can about your future? Government?

But it does create a window of opportunity, from a totally idiot, to somehow a liar. It is Darwinism.

Let's guess next excuse. Uranium is not safe for consumer. People might order a yellowcake for someone's birthday party by accident....


----------



## Wysiwyg (27 March 2007)

mmmmining said:


> Let's guess next excuse. Uranium is not safe for consumer. People might order a yellowcake for someone's birthday party by accident....




Also hold on the *coal*slaw & virgin olive *oil*.....


----------



## mmmmining (27 March 2007)

Wysiwyg said:


> Also hold on the *coal*slaw & virgin olive *oil*.....




I like extra virgin...


----------



## mmmmining (28 March 2007)

I forget to read this article from miningnews.net.  Very funny.

Last Green Bottle in Rudd's sights

Monday, 26 March 2007

LIKE the famous green bottles of a famous drinking song that Dryblower once sang with gusto, the opponents of uranium mining in Australia are steadily falling.

The bottles, in the shape of state premiers, and other assorted leaders of the left, are not falling accidentally, as the ditty goes. They are tumbling in a rather predictable, if not orchestrated way.

If Dryblower was in the least bit cynical, he could imagine that what he's watching is a classic piece of Labor Party theatre, a sort of pre-conference cleaning of the decks so their new man, Prime Minister-in-waiting, Kevin Rudd, can stride on stage as the hero of the day without a voice opposing his vision for Australia.

As at last Friday, thanks to the conversion of Queensland Premier Peter Beattie, to the pro-uranium side of the debate, the head count showed that there was only one remaining obstacle standing on the wall, the Green Bottle (sorry, Premier) of Western Australia, Alan Carpenter.

Grumpy, or Carps as he is known, is the man holding the true Labor line of opposing anything to do with uranium.

Dryblower respects his obstinacy. It is in keeping with a fine attitude held by most journalists, or ex-journalists in Grump's case, of never (ever, ever, ever) admitting that you're wrong – or at least never admit an error immediately.

In time, and Dryblower knows this is true because he's played the same game, it's considered alright to drop one opinion and slide into another.

In the case of Alan Carpenter it will either be a case of (a) slowly adopting a pro-uranium stance, or (b) pretending he had never seriously opposed uranium mining, just the storage of waste, or (c) recognising the role to be played by uranium in the global warming debate, or (d) he's told to toe the line by Rudd.

Of these choices, and given that we will never quite know what Rudd said to his old mate Carps in a late night 'phone call (perhaps something like "get into line mate, or I'll iron you out"), it is highly likely that Carps will adopt a save-the-planet line of logic.

The reason Dryblower is enormously confident that this process of re-educating Carps is underway lies in the simple fact that he is one the verge of becoming a lame duck premier.

Corruption at the highest level in the WA Government has reduced the state to a position of irrelevancy in Labor Party politics.

As far as Rudd is concerned, the destruction of confidence in government in WA caused by the Brian Burke affair, in which a former premier used a series of internal government informants to feather his own nest, means that WA is a pariah, and less heard from people like Carpenter, the better for the Party.

Once Rudd is safely installed in The Lodge in Canberra, he will move to clean up Labor politics in the west, perhaps even pressing for a takeover by the national organisers of the party machine in Perth.

As far as Dryblower can see, this is perhaps the only way the stench from the Burke affair can be washed out of Labor's linen.

For readers more interested in mining than politics, this probably all seems a little irrelevant – if it wasn't for the impact these Labor Party processes will have on the uranium debate.

Right now, Australia is poised for a great leap forward into a new world of multiple uranium mines, and the only man standing in the way with any weight in the Labor Party process (albeit a lightweight after the Burke affair) is Carpenter.

But, with Beattie in line, and with a badly weakened Carpenter who is facing a "carpeting" by Rudd, the stars (sorry, bottles) are aligned as they have never been before.


----------



## greggy (29 March 2007)

mmmmining said:


> t is very interesting that people are not as excited as before when someone alleged to have found uraniums in WA. SA and QLD are the la-la lands.
> 
> It is also very funny that the latest excuse for not mining uranium in WA is to keep it for future WA. Just ask yourself, who can about your future? Government?
> 
> ...



Hi Mmmmining,

I'm too sick and tired of hearing Mr Carpenter's excuses.  Why doesn't he just say the honest truth about the matter, the Party's Left faction just won't allow uranium mining. Yet until recently, they allowed contact with Mr Burke.  Corruption is rife on a massive scale in WA and Mr Carpenter, despite his best efforts, is unable to control his party.  Maybe he'll cross the floor along with a few of his more honest mates and join forces with the Opposition.  Interesting theory??


----------



## mmmmining (29 March 2007)

greggy said:


> Hi Mmmmining,
> 
> I'm too sick and tired of hearing Mr Carpenter's excuses.  Why doesn't he just say the honest truth about the matter, the Party's Left faction just won't allow uranium mining. Yet until recently, they allowed contact with Mr Burke.  Corruption is rife on a massive scale in WA and Mr Carpenter, despite his best efforts, is unable to control his party.  Maybe he'll cross the floor along with a few of his more honest mates and join forces with the Opposition.  Interesting theory??




Greggy, I am not sure. We Aussie are different spices, having no respect for traitors. So I don't think it is the best interest for Alan.

But if you read the Miningnet.com article, Rudd might  "iron him out".


----------



## greggy (29 March 2007)

mmmmining said:


> Greggy, I am not sure. We Aussie are different spices, having no respect for traitors. So I don't think it is the best interest for Alan.
> 
> But if you read the Miningnet.com article, Rudd might  "iron him out".



The Fed Labor Party has already had 2 leaders who have become traitors in Billy Hughes and Joe Lyons.  I hope Rudd irons him out. 
It was just some fun speculating on my behalf.  Seriously, if things get too rough for Alan, he may well end up resigning.


----------



## zed327 (29 March 2007)

Uranium is still dirt cheap compared to other forms of energy and for that reason it is going a lot higher as demand continues to increase:

"Two factors work very much in favor of uranium being economically viable at much higher prices. The first is that energy content per unit of weight is very high. For example, 1 kg of uranium has as much potential energy as 2,300,000 liters of gasoline.

The second is that the price of uranium when converted to other forms of energy, such as electricity, is a very small part of the retail price. For example, at a U3O8 (yellow cake) price of about US$70/kg [UC, Oct 2005] the raw material cost of the uranium to produce electricity in thermal reactors is about US$0.0015/kWh [Pendergast, 1990]. If the price of U3O8 were to increase 100 fold to US$7,000/kg, the price of electricity would increase by about US$0.15/kWh, which compares with the current retail price of electricity in North America being US$0.05 to US$0.15/kWh. Thus, if the current price increased even that dramatically, the price of electricity would increase to US$0.20 to US$0.30/kWh, which would be manageable.

However, with fast reactors that “burn” virtually all of the uranium, even if U3O8 increased in price about 200 times from US$70/kg to the current price of gold at US$14,000/kg, the fuel cost for electricity generated by nuclear fission breeder reactors would be less than US$0.003/kWh."

Source: http://www.computare.org/Support documents/Fora Input/CCC2006/Nuclear Paper 06_05.htm


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (29 March 2007)

Time for India to get in on the U rush!

PM backs India-US deal in nuclear forum
Thursday Mar 29 14:12 AEST
Prime Minister John Howard expects a powerful group of nations that export uranium and nuclear technology will back a special deal between India and the United States.

The backing of the Nuclear Suppliers Group is crucial to the historic deal between India and the US, struck last year and paving the way for a potential turnaround in Australia's nuclear supply policy.

India has been lobbying Australia to change its policy which prevents the sale of uranium to the subcontinent because it's not a member of the nuclear non proliferation treaty (NPT).

Australia has faced pressure from Washington and New Delhi to alter its line after the US struck a deal with India that fell outside the NPT.




In a landmark deal, the US agreed to share its technology and uranium in return for India agreeing to let 14 of its 22 reactors - those used for its civilian needs - to be opened to international inspections.

Mr Howard was on Thursday due to meet Indian officials who are reportedly seeking Australian support over the deal with the nuclear suppliers forum.

"It's likely we will support that agreement in the suppliers group," he told reporters.

"I'll have a discussion around that but so far as a change of policy is concerned, we haven't changed our policy.

"But I think I've indicated in the past that I wouldn't rule out a change."

Mr Howard said the government would only change its policy if it was completely satisfied that appropriate safeguards were in place when it was supplying uranium to another country.

"But that is a little premature because there are still aspects of the agreement between the Indians and the United States that need to be nailed down and I don't think we should run ahead of ourselves," he said.

"There's no pressing urgency in relation to this issue.

"We see India as a very responsible country. The relationship between India and Australia is growing. It's a very important relationship. They will be considerations that we will bear in mind but other considerations, of course, are safeguards.

"We would never agree to supply uranium to a country unless we were completely satisfied that appropriate and enforceable and effective safeguards existed."


----------



## mmmmining (29 March 2007)

Johny Howard, please say no to India, and US. 

For India, signed the NPT first, we will sell you uranium. Just in case we are not bombed by the staff we exported.

To US, we are not the 51th States. You can compromise principles as always, we don't. I have no idea why India not sign the NPT. Everybody else does it, even Iran did it. Without NPT, India is free of inspection and monitoring, and can export and transfer the staff to any country, and anybody, include terrorist.


----------



## Mousie (30 March 2007)

mmmmining said:


> Johny Howard, please say no to India, and US.
> 
> For India, signed the NPT first, we will sell you uranium. Just in case we are not bombed by the staff we exported.
> 
> To US, we are not the 51th States. You can compromise principles as always, we don't. I have no idea why India not sign the NPT. Everybody else does it, even Iran did it. Without NPT, India is free of inspection and monitoring, and can export and transfer the staff to any country, and anybody, include terrorist.




Yeah, it's a great way of maintaining high prices with ethical reasons; particularly when Australia is one of the "big boys" in uranium. 

We should be calling the shots, and not just be too eager to deal everywhere there's an invitation to deal. I fear the current Federal Liberal govt maybe selling itself a bit too cheaply at times with no regard to potential cartels being set up by much more astute govts when it comes to THEIR resources, like OPEC and oil in the past half-century. God knows which minerals would be next.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (30 March 2007)

mmmmining said:


> Johny Howard, please say no to India, and US.
> 
> For India, signed the NPT first, we will sell you uranium. Just in case we are not bombed by the staff we exported.
> 
> To US, we are not the 51th States. You can compromise principles as always, we don't. I have no idea why India not sign the NPT. Everybody else does it, even Iran did it. Without NPT, India is free of inspection and monitoring, and can export and transfer the staff to any country, and anybody, include terrorist.




Mate I'd much rather send it over to India than IRAN!!!!!

Also just because Iran signed the MPT do they allow inspectors into their reactors? ? ?


*India hoping to buy Aussie uranium*
Thursday Mar 29 19:55 AEST
India appears to be making progress, albeit slowly, on getting Canberra to agree to its demands to buy Australian uranium.

And if Labor were to win power, it could get a leg up in its attempts to become a member of an exclusive Asia Pacific club.

Prime Minister John Howard on Thursday met former Indian foreign secretary Shyum Saran, India's chief negotiator lobbying to get support for a deal the subcontinent has struck with America.

The backing of the Nuclear Suppliers Group is crucial to the historic deal between India and the US, struck last year and paving the way for a potential turnaround in Australia's nuclear supply policy.




Mr Howard expects the powerful group will back the deal when it meets next month.

"It's likely we will support that agreement in the suppliers group," he told reporters.

"I'll have a discussion around that but so far as a change of policy is concerned, we haven't changed our policy.

"But I think I've indicated in the past that I wouldn't rule out a change."

India has also been lobbying Australia to change its policy which prevents the sale of uranium to the subcontinent because it's not a member of the nuclear non proliferation treaty (NPT).

Australia has faced pressure from Washington and New Delhi to alter its line after the US struck a deal with India that fell outside the NPT.

In a landmark deal, the US agreed to share its technology and uranium in return for India agreeing to let 14 of its 22 reactors - those used for its civilian needs - to be opened to international inspections.

Mr Howard said the government would only change its policy on the NPT if it was completely satisfied that appropriate safeguards were in place when it was supplying uranium to another country.

"But that is a little premature because there are still aspects of the agreement between the Indians and the United States that need to be nailed down and I don't think we should run ahead of ourselves," he said.

"There's no pressing urgency in relation to this issue.

"We see India as a very responsible country. The relationship between India and Australia is growing. It's a very important relationship. They will be considerations that we will bear in mind but other considerations, of course, are safeguards.

"We would never agree to supply uranium to a country unless we were completely satisfied that appropriate and enforceable and effective safeguards existed."

India was also Thursday given a boost in its efforts to join the regional Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) group.

Australia will host the APEC leaders' summit in Sydney in September.

Labor added its voice to calls for India to be allowed to join APEC, which will this year decide whether to open up its club to new members.

"John Howard should use Australia hosting APEC this year to lobby other members to bring India into APEC," opposition trade spokesman Simon Crean said.

"The inclusion of India will make APEC stronger by including the world's fourth largest economy in the forum ensuring it remains the premier economic grouping in the region."


----------



## mmmmining (30 March 2007)

YOUNG_TRADER said:


> Mate I'd much rather send it over to India than IRAN!!!!!
> Also just because Iran signed the MPT do they allow inspectors into their reactors? ? ?



YT, To IRAN? no way, Jose! 

Do you see this picture?

India just made nuclear bombs. A few of them is just enough to deal with Pakisitan. How about China? So India need expand its nuclear capability, that is for sure. If you export uranium to India, how can you be sure that it is not for making bombs? 

As a developing country, India is willing to do anything to make a few bucks by selling any technology. They can sell the India accent to you and me, why not nuclear staff to somebody else?

NPT is a MUST!

In Iran case, NPT does have an impact. UN can sanction Iran. Israel and US can use the NPT violation as excuse to attack Iran anytime soon. 

On the other hand, What is wrong for India to sign NPT? Just sign the damn thing, you can have uranium from us.


----------



## zed327 (31 March 2007)

Any update on the u price.
I heard there was an auction on friday.


----------



## Go Nuke (31 March 2007)

*Re: BMN - Bannerman Resources*

An interesting article in todays Courier Mail newspaper here in QLD.
{Hope Im allowed to do this}

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,21476725-3122,00.html


----------



## captjohn (31 March 2007)

*Re: BMN - Bannerman Resources*



Go Nuke said:


> An interesting article in todays Courier Mail newspaper here in QLD.
> {Hope Im allowed to do this}
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,21476725-3122,00.html




Thanx for article Nuke.....I read  everything I can about U308....

You can also post this 'story' on another Uranium thread... "Uranium the raging bull"....it's for more general news items & discussions about U.


----------



## Halba (31 March 2007)

*Re: BMN - Bannerman Resources*

I have to wonder whether QLD really does have any quality mines, apart from Valhalla. The resource est's released by SMM indicate small 3-5million pound resources do exist and are scattered. But nothing to indicate another Valhalla which could be a one off. There is nothing to indicate a sizeable QLD uranium industry.


----------



## mmmmining (31 March 2007)

Why suddenly BMN talking is grafted to this thread?


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (31 March 2007)

*SOUTH Australia's delegates to the national ALP conference next month are split down the middle on uranium.

It is understood 17 will vote in favour of overturning Labor's existing "no new mines" policy, while 17 will vote to keep the ban, in defiance of Federal Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd and Premier Mike Rann's position. The split echoes Labor's factional division. *
In 1985 a ban on new mines was introduced, allowing Roxby Downs to go ahead but preventing more mines being developed. There are concerns that if the ban is overturned at the conference - as it is widely expected to be - it will allow unlimited uranium mining in Australia. 

Energy Minister Patrick Conlon revealed in The Advertiser this month he supported the export of uranium to China for environmental reasons, and Deputy Premier Kevin Foley firmly supports the Premier's stance that the ban should be scrapped. 

Mr Rann has previously called the ban on new mines "illogical". 

"We are on the edge of a mining boom in South Australia," he said. 

"(The policy) is currently illogical and needs to be sorted out at the national conference in April."


----------



## Mousie (31 March 2007)

YOUNG_TRADER said:


> *SOUTH Australia's delegates to the national ALP conference next month are split down the middle on uranium.
> 
> It is understood 17 will vote in favour of overturning Labor's existing "no new mines" policy, while 17 will vote to keep the ban, in defiance of Federal Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd and Premier Mike Rann's position. The split echoes Labor's factional division. *
> In 1985 a ban on new mines was introduced, allowing Roxby Downs to go ahead but preventing more mines being developed. There are concerns that if the ban is overturned at the conference - as it is widely expected to be - it will allow unlimited uranium mining in Australia.
> ...




Link for this news YT? So I can check it out thanks...


----------



## Plan B (31 March 2007)

Mousie said:


> Link for this news YT? So I can check it out thanks...




Clicky Here !!


----------



## Mousie (31 March 2007)

Plan B said:


> Clicky Here !!




Thanks Plan B


----------



## petervan (1 April 2007)

Did anyone see the news tonight where S.A premier Mike Rann was talking up the uranium industry in S.A while in Chile visiting BHPs new mine.I could have sworn he said theres a new dicovery as big as Honeymoon of very high grade uranium.He said it was one of the neighbouring landholders.Anyone got any idea which company is sitting on this.


----------



## insider (1 April 2007)

petervan said:


> Did anyone see the news tonight where S.A premier Mike Rann was talking up the uranium industry in S.A while in Chile visiting BHPs new mine.I could have sworn he said theres a new dicovery as big as Honeymoon of very high grade uranium.He said it was one of the neighbouring landholders.Anyone got any idea which company is sitting on this.




MTN's Mount Gee


----------



## zed327 (1 April 2007)

AGS -Quasar 4 mile deposit.

I live in hope.


----------



## Sean K (1 April 2007)

insider said:


> MTN's Mount Gee



Mt Gee's no where near Honeymoon really. ?? Maybe I'm wrong.  

Check loc of U mines here:

http://www.sea-us.org.au/uran-res.html


----------



## zed327 (1 April 2007)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------Steve Johnstone is a AGS head honcho--

At the pay dirt conference Steve Johnston was inferring through the use of a power point presentation that the resource was between that of era's ranger deposit of 43900 t and bhp's yeeralie in wa of 52000t . Many analysts from singapore and hong kong to name a few were very impressed with the company.

 There is gunna be a whole lot of buying going on.


----------



## spooly74 (1 April 2007)

*Beattie surprised by 'confusion' on uranium position*

Queensland Premier Peter beattie says he has not changed his position on uranium mining.

_"In terms of how I will vote at the national conference to change the existing, limited number of mines that exist in Australia - I will vote with Kevin Rudd to change that," he said._

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200704/s1886860.htm

he adds,

_"However, if that is not a nationally binding policy on the states, then we will maintain our current position." _

but Labor's decision at the national conference is binding on all states, including Queensland and WA.

IMO it`s a done deal . . . 3 mines will be scrapped


----------



## insider (1 April 2007)

zed327 said:


> AGS -Quasar 4 mile deposit.
> 
> I live in hope.




I'm sure he was referring to defined resources...


----------



## mmmmining (1 April 2007)

insider said:


> I'm sure he was referring to defined resources...




April Foul day. Don't take it serious.


----------



## 56gsa (2 April 2007)

petervan said:


> Did anyone see the news tonight where S.A premier Mike Rann was talking up the uranium industry in S.A while in Chile visiting BHPs new mine.I could have sworn he said theres a new dicovery as big as Honeymoon of very high grade uranium.He said it was one of the neighbouring landholders.Anyone got any idea which company is sitting on this.




looking at this map http://www.sea-us.org.au/images/maps/fromeuran.jpg which may be dated the closest is Oban (CUY) and Mt Vic / Crocker Well (PNN), also Radium Hill where HAV has some land.  Not sure if theres anything at Lake Namba/Benagarie?

The market would appear to be tipping CUY (from 95 to 140 last week) - HAV own 50% of this as well as lots of land in the Curnamona area

Beverley and AGS/MTN are further afield


----------



## petervan (2 April 2007)

Thanks 56gsa. He,s keen to expand uranium mining in S.A and not sure if that was a tactical slip of the tongue.Will watch those stocks this morning.


----------



## stockpile (2 April 2007)

John Howard visiting Olympic Dam site this morning... trying to further the debate on uranium mining and garner support from the state governments.


----------



## petervan (2 April 2007)

front page of advertiser.    The discovery of a MASSIVE new south australian uranium deposit could be the countrys biggest such find in a quarter century.Prospectors hoping to mine near the existing beverly mine in the states far north today will detail the discovery and inform the stock exchange.mr rann said he had been informed of the discovery by heathgate resources affiliate quaser resources and joint venture partner alliance resources


----------



## Sean K (2 April 2007)

In the Fin this am, PB was quoted as saying that if it was up to him he would not allow U mining in QLD. Also, KR stated that if the policy changes it's his preference to give states the right to decide to allow U mining or not. This indicates to me that QLD miners are going to be behind the eight ball here. Meanwhile, MR is out there in the SA desert with a spade looking for uranium himself.

Anyone else varify these comments?


----------



## stockpile (2 April 2007)

Kennas those comments are pretty much on the money from what I saw on Sky Channel early this morning.


----------



## mmmmining (2 April 2007)

According to SIM's Mar 22 ann, it has identified the same formation which hosts the B4M from EL3410 and EL3388. 

Another company GIR could find somethng similar.


----------



## mmmmining (2 April 2007)

Seeing something strange for uranium stocks recently? There is almost identical pattern:

1st: Share price up;
2nd: Placement ann at 10% discount;
3rd: Share price continuously goes up instead of down afterwards;

Mate, cannot be right. Or institutions finally wake up. Can somebody done a parallel analysis to the DOTCOM boom and bust?


----------



## Go Nuke (2 April 2007)

Is it possible that Petter Beattie might face pressure over protecting the states coal industry?

One major problem we have is a skills shortage to get these new mines up and running.

I guess he will just say that it will create more jobs and wealth for the state and that will be the end of it
Start building.

Well ive got my welding tools ready to go, help dig out my future


----------



## siempre33 (3 April 2007)

SA seems to be the new "hot spot" of U prospecting....several ramping stocks, most notably AGS, but there are others, including what I consider the most unknown/undervalued of the bunch...

petervan:
"The discovery of a MASSIVE new south australian uranium deposit could be the countrys biggest such find in a quarter century.Prospectors hoping to mine near the existing beverly mine in the states far north today will detail the discovery and inform the stock exchange.mr rann said he had been informed of the discovery by heathgate resources affiliate quaser resources and joint venture partner alliance resources.."


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (3 April 2007)

siempre33 said:


> SA seems to be the new "hot spot" of U prospecting....several ramping stocks, most notably AGS, but there are others, including what I consider the most unknown/undervalued of the bunch...




Yep SRZ!


----------



## Fab (4 April 2007)

petervan:
"The discovery of a MASSIVE new south australian uranium deposit could be the countrys biggest such find in a quarter century.Prospectors hoping to mine near the existing beverly mine in the states far north today will detail the discovery and inform the stock exchange.mr rann said he had been informed of the discovery by heathgate resources affiliate quaser resources and joint venture partner alliance resources.."[/QUOTE]

Was it explain that this quote in the newspaper was about AGS ?


----------



## siempre33 (4 April 2007)

Fab, see post #819 on this thread....map..


----------



## the barry (4 April 2007)

There was U308 auction last night, anyone know what the spot price was???


----------



## mmmmining (4 April 2007)

It likes a huge garage sale, suddenly goldsmith, blacksmith, can claim they have found some uranium wrapped in a box. Amazing. We have see URL, EDN, ADN, THX,.... the latest one is SMC. They have found some serious staff, such as 6m of 2500ppm! 

My lord, I better to double check historic owner records on my house...


----------



## Sean K (4 April 2007)

mmmmining said:


> It likes a huge garage sale, suddenly goldsmith, blacksmith, can claim they have found some uranium wrapped in a box. Amazing. We have see URL, EDN, ADN, THX,.... the latest one is SMC. They have found some serious staff, such as 6m of 2500ppm!
> 
> My lord, I better to double check historic owner records on my house...



Yes, a bubble is brewing IMO. The trick may be to ride the wave, but be protected. Have parachute handy, and don't over commit. Also, source 'quality undervalued companies' for longer term investments - *and have a parachute handy*. Of course, others will argue of the 'fundamentals' of the U industry, but it's really getting loopy out there IMO.


----------



## mmmmining (6 April 2007)

Based on U.TO share price, U3O8 is expected to be US$110.


----------



## robandcoll (6 April 2007)

It will take a while for the bubble to burst though


http://www.mineweb.net/mineweb/view/mineweb/en/page38?oid=19055&sn=Detail

RBC says uranium bull market thriving and forecasts average $100/lb price in 2007
In a recent study, RBC Capital Markets advised that mining remains in the middle of a uranium bull market with an average $100/lb price this year.

Author: Dorothy Kosich
Posted: Wednesday , 04 Apr 2007 

RENO, NV - 

An RBC Capital Markets research report released last month asserts that uranium remains in the middle of a bull market, with an average price of $100/lb forecast for this year.

In their report, "Investing in Uranium Companies," RBC provides a good introduction to the mining sector, which is applicable to a broader range of hardrock minerals and metals.

RBC's analysis asserts that a supply-gap will exist in uranium after 2013. 

The analysts suggest the two best strategies that a uranium producer or developer can use to drive shareholder returns are "becoming a producer and positioning the company for acquisition. Other strategies include land/area plans or simply the acquisition of as many ‘pounds in the ground' as possible regardless of asset quality-but we believe these are inferior strategies," RBC Dominion Securities Analyst Adam Schatzker wrote.

RBC uses a formula of forward earnings per share (EPS) or CFPS multiples to reflect the valuation of uranium companies with existing operations. For those developing new projects, the analysts use a net asset value (NAV) approach. "For exploration companies where it is too early to calculate an NAV, we look to the enterprise value per pound of U308 (EV/lb) in resources."

The report advises that the most important criteria that needs to be evaluated when examining a uranium project include grade, deposit types, the kind of mining and extraction methods to be used, permitting issues, political risk, production timeline, and reserves, resource and historical resources.

"Due to the lower level of confidence, the application of mining dilution and cutoff grades, and the fact that the final reserve/resource may be smaller, we believe inferred resources should command lower EV/lb than measured and indicated resources and, of course, reserves," according to Schatzker.

He advised that is it worthwhile for investors to focus on uranium ISL (in-situ leach) deposits "as we expected that the contribution from ISL uranium deposits will increase dramatically over the next 10 years. ...ISL mines have the benefit of relatively low capital costs and lower environmental footprints, and they can often be brought into production in a much shorter timeframe than conventional mines."

RBC's top uranium company picks include Canada's Cameco (TSX: CCO; NYSE: CCJ) which is the world's largest publicly traded uranium producer. Currently Cameco is developing two new mines in Canada and Central Asia. Analyst H. Fraser Phillips forecast a 12-month target of Canadian $60/share.

Australia's Energy Resources (ASX: ERA), the world's third largest uranium producer, was selected by analyst Chris Lancaster as "SECTOR PERFORM, ABOVE AVERAGE RISK." Lancaster also selected Paladin Resources (ASX, TSX: PDN) because of its potential to write contracts of five or more years at prices around the current uranium price of US$85/lb. "Over the next four years to 2010, we estimated that PDN will ramp up production quickly to approximately 5.9 million pounds per annum of U308," he said. Lancaster rated Paladin "OUTPERFORM, ABOVE AVERAGE RISK" with a 12-month target of A$12/sh. 

London analyst George Lequime picked First Uranium (TSX: FIU), citing its Ezulwini and Buffelsfontein gold and uranium projects in South Africa. He rated the company "OUTPERFORM, ABOVE AVERAGE RISK," with a 12-month target of Cdn$12/sh.

Toronto-based Schatzker likes sxr Uranium One (TSX: SXR), which recently announced its planned merger with UrAsia to form Uranium One. He highlighted SXR's Dominion Uranium Project in South Africa, forecasting that its atmospheric leach circuit will ramp up to 3.5 million pounds by 2008 and eventually double production by 2015. He rated the company ‘SECTOR PERFORM, ABOVE AVERAGE RISK," with a 12-month target of Cdn$18/sh.

"The EPS and NAV used to calculate our target price incorporate our valuation of UrAsia and assume that the deal proceeds as announced," Schatzker explained. "We believe that SXR will enter into contracts in 2007 that will determine a significant portion of the company's value; the ability of the company to successfully complete these contracts at the prices we forecast will likely be reflected in the share price."

Among the "NOT RATED" uranium companies highlighted in RBC's report were Aurora Energy, Berkeley Resources, Denison Mines, Energy Metals, Forsys Metals, Khan Resources, Laramide Resources, Mega Uranium, OmegaCorp, Strathmore Minerals, Tournigan Gold, Ur-Energy, Ur-Asia Energy, UraMin, Uranium Power Corporation, and Western Prospector Group.


----------



## robandcoll (6 April 2007)

There is more money in actually buying Uranium, stocking and then calling for tenders.

Going down to bunnings tomorrow to me a garden shed.

The Nuclear Market Review (NMR) said buyers were seeking more than three million pounds of the nuclear fuel at the end of March, with several utilities making preliminary inquiries about potential purchases. 

Energy Resources of Australia, which produces about 11 per cent of the world's uranium, warned on Monday that recent wet weather would affect its production for at least a year. 

NMR said the market remained tight and all eyes would be on the sale overnight of 100,000 pounds of uranium by a US producer. 

The frenzy surrounding uranium was exemplified yesterday by a 133 per cent jump in Haddington Resources shares. 

The company announced it had identified new uranium targets on its Northern Territory tenements after a review of historic literature.


----------



## siempre33 (7 April 2007)

My subscription service to TradeTech's Nuclear Market Review arrived at 5:52pm tonight and reports the new spot price is $113/lb, thanks to an auction on Tuesday of only 100K lbs by privately held Mestena Uranium LLC of Texas. We have a market that is melting UP!

mmmmining...you were close...


----------



## Plan B (7 April 2007)

siempre33 said:


> My subscription service to TradeTech's Nuclear Market Review arrived at 5:52pm tonight and reports the new spot price is $113/lb,




Appreciate the courteous and prompt update in the uranium price...... much appreciated.


----------



## Halba (7 April 2007)

I confirm $113/lb is correct.


----------



## Sean K (8 April 2007)

Halba said:


> I confirm $113/lb is correct.



Party time for U stocks on Tuesday. Can't imagine 113 was factored in. Maybe 100, but 113! :band It's my birthday on Tuesday too.  

Still, I'm looking with interest on the day the price goes down. Might see a little correction then. Maybe. If it ever happens.


----------



## kromey (8 April 2007)

kennas said:


> Party time for U stocks on Tuesday. Can't imagine 113 was factored in. Maybe 100, but 113! :band It's my birthday on Tuesday too.
> 
> Still, I'm looking with interest on the day the price goes down. Might see a little correction then. Maybe. If it ever happens.




Not sure when that would be likely Kennas no little corrections in the last 5 years. Demand is further outstripping supply more every year.    Cheers


----------



## Sean K (8 April 2007)

kennas said:


> Party time for U stocks on Tuesday. Can't imagine 113 was factored in. Maybe 100, but 113! :band It's my birthday on Tuesday too.
> 
> Still, I'm looking with interest on the day the price goes down. Might see a little correction then. Maybe. If it ever happens.



I should add, it doesn't mean that all U stocks will be invited to the party! Just the good ones perhaps.


----------



## noirua (8 April 2007)

Hi, I haven't checked information lately on the Canadian Uranium Miner that had a set-back at their mine due to flooding. When this mine eventually comes onstream won't we get a slide in the current uranium price?


----------



## kromey (8 April 2007)

noirua said:


> Hi, I haven't checked information lately on the Canadian Uranium Miner that had a set-back at their mine due to flooding. When this mine eventually comes onstream won't we get a slide in the current uranium price?




Latest forecast is 2010 at the earliest.


----------



## the barry (8 April 2007)

noirua said:


> Hi, I haven't checked information lately on the Canadian Uranium Miner that had a set-back at their mine due to flooding. When this mine eventually comes onstream won't we get a slide in the current uranium price?




They are having continual problems and don't excpect to be in production for years. Not a factor in the short term.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (8 April 2007)

kennas said:


> Party time for U stocks on Tuesday. Can't imagine 113 was factored in. Maybe 100, but 113! :band It's my birthday on Tuesday too.
> 
> Still, I'm looking with interest on the day the price goes down. Might see a little correction then. Maybe. If it ever happens.




Here's an article I got sent to me, http://www.stockinterview.com/News/04072007/Uranium-Price-Over-Hundred.html

Happy Easter U Bulls!

and Happy Birthday Kennas!


----------



## mmmmining (8 April 2007)

Happy Birthday, Kennas, what a birthday present! I have to cancel mine I don't want you to think I am too stingy  

While some ASFers are still not wake up yet, believe the wind blows, sunshines, tide waving are the solution to the global environment problem. I fell sorry for them. The best advice to these people is to live in a cave  

Seriously, and seriously, if these people still can wake up tomorrow, or Tuesday morning, you still can make some serious money.

To these renewable mindset, remember what I said today, if you invest a selective bunch of uranium stocks on Tuesday, I bet my house on that you will make 3 times more return that the best renewable stock you can get.

The mother of all energy is nuclear energy, you like it or not, believe it or not, it is a FACT. Accept it, and enjoy it....


----------



## kromey (8 April 2007)

mmmmining said:


> Happy Birthday, Kennas, what a birthday present! I have to cancel mine I don't want you to think I am too stingy
> 
> While some ASFers are still not wake up yet, believe the wind blows, sunshines, tide waving are the solution to the global environment problem. I fell sorry for them. The best advice to these people is to live in a cave
> 
> ...




Prediction WMT most % gain tuesday.


----------



## rederob (9 April 2007)

kennas said:


> Party time for U stocks on Tuesday. Can't imagine 113 was factored in. Maybe 100, but 113! :band It's my birthday on Tuesday too.




Kennas
Then you are not keeping up with the game, are you!
The sealed bid auction was well known as a big trigger point, and this article came close to getting the forecast number right with some astute analysis - but still underpriced it:
http://www.kitco.com/ind/Kirtley/mar302007.html

Yellow cake for your birthday, kennas?


----------



## Fab (9 April 2007)

rederob said:


> Kennas
> Then you are not keeping up with the game, are you!
> The sealed bid auction was well known as a big trigger point, and this article came close to getting the forecast number right with some astute analysis - but still underpriced it:
> http://www.kitco.com/ind/Kirtley/mar302007.html
> ...




Sounds like it could be a good time to buy some unhedged U stock. Anyone knows which U stock are unhedged ? I believe PDN is well placed and is partially unhedged


----------



## the barry (9 April 2007)

Fab said:


> Sounds like it could be a good time to buy some unhedged U stock. Anyone knows which U stock are unhedged ? I believe PDN is well placed and is partially unhedged




Pdn is hedged 50/50. Definatly one to watch come tuesday.


----------



## nizar (9 April 2007)

I dont think hedged/unhedged really matters.
Obviously it does to company profits, but look at ERA share price the past year, and it sells its uranium at $us16.50/lb!


----------



## Fab (9 April 2007)

nizar said:


> I dont think hedged/unhedged really matters.
> Obviously it does to company profits, but look at ERA share price the past year, and it sells its uranium at $us16.50/lb!




My take on that is that the most unhedged you are at the moment if you are a producer like PDN then your profit will jump as you can sell at market rate so in my opinion being unhedged is a big advantage in the current market but you have to have something to sell


----------



## mmmmining (9 April 2007)

Fab said:


> My take on that is that the most unhedged you are at the moment if you are a producer like PDN then your profit will jump as you can sell at market rate so in my opinion being unhedged is a big advantage in the current market but you have to have something to sell



On ASX, only two pure producers, ERA and PDN. The rest is still on drawing board. Whoever can produce sooner will be the amount the winers.


----------



## zed327 (9 April 2007)

MTN - AGS - PNN  will produce in the next few years and will secure contracts prices of potentially $200 + per pound. 
All of them in South Australia and will get state and federal backing to go ahead.
Australia is politicly safe and the big end of town will support these.
PDN is PDN and will continue to grow at a staggering rate because of a brillant CEO.
PDN will move on one of these (MTN - AGS -PNN ) when it is confirmed that Beattie will not mine u to keep the coal producers happy ( coal miners usually vote labour so you don't mess with your supporters ).


----------



## rederob (9 April 2007)

zed327 said:


> MTN - AGS - PNN  will produce in the next few years and will secure contracts prices of potentially $200 + per pound.
> All of them in South Australia and will get state and federal backing to go ahead.
> Australia is politicly safe and the big end of town will support these.
> PDN is PDN and will continue to grow at a staggering rate because of a brillant CEO.
> PDN will move on one of these (MTN - AGS -PNN ) when it is confirmed that Beattie will not mine u to keep the coal producers happy ( coal miners usually vote labour so you don't mess with your supporters ).



The numbers certainly stack up for the uranium companies with a known resource.
I don't share your faith in how quickly the State/federal governments will move on approving Oz miners to go ahead with a new mine, so I'm staying with PDN's money in the bank approach.
I agree that PDN will probably have a bank account that will enable it to gobble up the juniors, and probably pick and choose which projects to launch into production, thereby giving it some capacity to "time the market" in years ahead.
It will be interesting to see how the juniors' share prices run in months ahead as unless the uranium price keeps stacking on the dollars there is likely to be a desertion of the ranks: Probably good time to do the homework on "value for money" prospects so that a later buy in can be contemplated.


----------



## greggy (9 April 2007)

Halba said:


> I confirm $113/lb is correct.




To break through the $100 mark in such a strong fashion is indeed excellent news.  This may well give the market an extra boost this week coming.  One only has to look back to the start of Mar 07 when many so called "experts" were pushing people to sell their uranium shares.  Luckily I ignored their free advice.
Good luck to all holders of uranium shares.
DYOR


----------



## kromey (9 April 2007)

greggy said:


> To break through the $100 mark in such a strong fashion is indeed excellent news.  This may well give the market an extra boost this week coming.  One only has to look back to the start of Mar 07 when many so called "experts" were pushing people to sell their uranium shares.  Luckily I ignored their free advice.
> Good luck to all holders of uranium shares.
> DYOR




Silly broker said the same thing only yesterday in the sunday times.


----------



## greggy (9 April 2007)

kromey said:


> Silly broker said the same thing only yesterday in the sunday times.



That's one of my main reasons for giving away my  full service broker 7 years ago.  They all seem to think that they are always right and often encourage their clients to trade often in order to maximise their commissions.


----------



## insider (9 April 2007)

rederob said:


> The numbers certainly stack up for the uranium companies with a known resource.
> I don't share your faith in how quickly the State/federal governments will move on approving Oz miners to go ahead with a new mine, so I'm staying with PDN's money in the bank approach.
> I agree that PDN will probably have a bank account that will enable it to gobble up the juniors, and probably pick and choose which projects to launch into production, thereby giving it some capacity to "time the market" in years ahead.
> It will be interesting to see how the juniors' share prices run in months ahead as unless the uranium price keeps stacking on the dollars there is likely to be a desertion of the ranks: Probably good time to do the homework on "value for money" prospects so that a later buy in can be contemplated.




The coal industry, apart from being dinosaur, Won't be affected by uranium mining... Uranium from Australia is catering for power plants of the future which is something not even the coal industry in it's wildest dreams can be apart of unless it woke up and joined in on the band wagon investing in uranium...

Coal will be left behind anyway


----------



## mmmmining (9 April 2007)

Low grade uranium properties should benefit from the skyrocketing spot uranium prices. Companies with lower grade assets are: DYL, TOE, WME, BMN, ERN, CMR and PNN should be very economic to mine. 

Now 200ppm worth US$50/t. Equal to 2g/t gold.


----------



## mmmmining (10 April 2007)

Well, my predication does not come true for the low graders. The market still like companies in SA with advanced project. Diversifying strategy might work things out. 

Nevertheless, it is one of the greatest day in uranium history. A lot of stocks has advanced a lot both in percentage and in absolute value.  It might take a bit of time for market to settle down after the madness.

I hope it will repeat in the near future. At this moment, let's just enjoy our paper gain, or real gain. And being humble. No need to brag, brag always brings bad luck.


----------



## nizar (10 April 2007)

mmmmining said:


> Well, my predication does not come true for the low graders. The market still like companies in SA with advanced project. Diversifying strategy might work things out.
> 
> Nevertheless, it is one of the greatest day in uranium history. A lot of stocks has advanced a lot both in percentage and in absolute value.  It might take a bit of time for market to settle down after the madness.
> 
> I hope it will repeat in the near future. At this moment, let's just enjoy our paper gain, or real gain. And being humble. No need to brag, brag always brings bad luck.




Or NT.
Did you see EME today?

Whos bragging?
Gotta be humble before the markets.


----------



## mmmmining (11 April 2007)

Luck play very important rule in finding uranium. Technical strength, top management are not enough.

For example, TOE, UEQ ENR, UXA, and MRO have either strong technical team, or management, or both, but has found nothing serious. Can Lady Luck will visit them soon? Who knows.


----------



## nizar (11 April 2007)

mmmmining said:


> Luck play very important rule in finding uranium. Technical strength, top management are not enough.
> 
> For example, TOE, UEQ ENR, UXA, and MRO have either strong technical team, or management, or both, but has found nothing serious. Can Lady Luck will visit them soon? Who knows.




Same with SAU last year.
Best land, good management, but couldnt find anthing.
Sometimes these things take times.
How many companies over how many years were searching near Olympic Dam and found nothing until Prominent Hill ?


----------



## mmmmining (13 April 2007)

The battle of Mt Isa is joint begin. 

Prelude: PDN lunch take over Valhalla;
Interlude: GSE found uranium, false start;
Chapter 1: DYL farm in MRX, pay MRX handsomely
interlude: URL found uranium, and DGR acquire large land
Chapter 2: PDN lunch take over SMM, attract French Avera, Threesome battle in progress..
Chapter 3: (unfinished) Take over URL and MRX, DGR or GSE.... with a peanut.


----------



## drillinto (14 April 2007)

Is everyone bullish on uranium stocks ?

http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/gue/2007/0409.html


----------



## champ2003 (14 April 2007)

drillinto said:


> Is everyone bullish on uranium stocks ?
> 
> http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/gue/2007/0409.html




Look at the fundamentals of the industry, the share price apreciations and the overall market sentiment. I think that the answer to that question would have to be that the majority are extremely bullish.


----------



## kromey (18 April 2007)

http://www.moneyandmarkets.com/press.asp?rls_id=753&cat_id=6

A Uranium Feeding Frenzy! (by Sean Brodrick)
4/18/2007 8:00:00 AM



You think the fact that uranium prices have more than doubled in the past 12 months is something? Just wait! I hope you have your safety belt on, because this could be the ride of your life. Here's why …

There's a feeding frenzy going on in Australian uranium stocks right now. For example, two of the best uranium companies in the world, Areva and Paladin Resources, fiercely bid against each other for another company (and its resources).

Larger miners are generally very conservative. So the fact that these two companies are throwing so much money around, tells me that uranium — which recently hit $113 per pound — has a long, LO-O-O-NG way to go.

Plus, the latest news on a second flooded uranium mine came out — it looks very bullish for prices. And if that's not enough, another brand new development on Monday could shift uranium prices into overdrive! I'm talking about the fact that uranium futures will soon be available right here in the U.S. 

More on these two developments in a moment. First, let me tell you a little more about the feeding frenzy …

A Uranium Soap Opera
From Down Under 

Australian miners are waiting with baited breath for the Australian Labor Party to hold its Congress at the end of this month. The group is expected to drop its opposition to new uranium mines, which would signal the start of a new uranium boom in Australia.

Internal Sponsorship 


You buy home insurance to protect your home against fire, storm damage and theft … auto insurance for your car … and perhaps even long-term care insurance to prevent undue erosion of your assets in later years.

But do you take similar steps to protect your investment portfolios?

Click here for details …





However, the bigger companies aren't just sitting on their hands … they're busy snapping up smaller fish. Right now, Summit Resources is one of those fish. It's sitting on at least 37.9 million pounds of uranium … probably double that. And it expects to be producing uranium yellowcake (and vanadium cake) at its Mount Isa location by mid-2010.

Paladin, one of the bidders, already bought out Valhalla Uranium, Summit's partner at Mt. Isa. Summit promptly sued Paladin. So Paladin just turned around and offered A$1 billion (about US$832.6 million) for Summit!


Summit's response: "No way!" And then along came a white knight in the form of French nuclear power giant Areva. It signed a deal to control up to 18% of Summit for $292 million.

Why was Areva interested in jumping into this knife fight? Areva needs good, near-term producing mines. After all, its Canadian subsidiary has a 37% stake in the Cigar Lake Mine that I've been telling you about — where a disastrous flood pushed back its uranium production by at least two years. 

With Areva galloping in to the rescue, Paladin changed horses. It sweetened the deal, raising its bid 22% to A$1.2 billion. Surprising just about everyone, Summit's board agreed to the deal.

Now, I still think they're selling themselves cheap. Mind you, I recommended Summit to my Red-Hot Asian Tigers portfolio two months ago and they didn't do too badly. Yesterday, I told them to exit with between 41% and 61.7% gains … on one stock … in just two months … without futures or options.

I'm not trying to toot my own horn … I'm just trying to show the explosive potential of these uranium stocks!

And this Summit deal is just the latest in a string of mergers in the uranium industry: IUC merged with Denison … Denison then bid for OmegaCorp … Sxr Uranium One gobbled up larger rival UrAsia Energy … the list goes on. By my count, there were about 16 mergers and acquisitions in the uranium field in just the last year!

Again, these smart operators wouldn't be paying top dollar for uranium resources unless they thought uranium prices were headed much higher. And you know what? I think they're right!

Latest News from Ranger 
Mine Signals Higher Prices

Previously, I told you how the Ranger Mine in Australia, which produces a tenth of the world's uranium supply, was flooded by a cyclone, making it the second water-related uranium mining disaster in about five months. [Editor's note: See "Uranium tops $90 a pound!"]

Ranger is owned by Energy Resources of Australia, and the company already warned that production would suffer. On Monday, we got the details — ERA said first-quarter output of the fuel fell 28% to 1,006 metric tonnes from a year ago.

External Sponsorship 


Colorado's Shocking Moneymaking Secret

The state of Colorado holds a powerful money secret that enables ordinary Americans to collect extraordinary jackpot payouts — $1,000, $5,000, sometimes even $10,000 — in as little as 24 hours. CNN Money says it's "like hitting the lottery."

Click here to learn more …





What's more, the company says that output will fall next year as high water levels restrict access into 2008! 

So the uranium supply/demand squeeze — already tight — is going to get much tighter. In fact, some analysts say mine supply won't meet global demand until at least 2017.

You read that right — that's a 10-year bull market!

Now, let's talk about the new development that could be like rocket fuel for uranium prices …

Get Ready for U.S. 
Uranium Futures!

The New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) said on Monday that it signed an agreement to introduce uranium futures on its electronic platforms next month.


NYMEX Chairman Richard Schaeffer told reporters, "We expect to create a benchmark contract for this important and underserved global market."

I think this is where speculators are going to get involved in uranium with both hands. Uranium futures could put us at $500 per pound in the blink of an eye! Because they'll give hedge funds a way to trade in and out of uranium easily.

Traders and speculators might not trust uranium futures at first. They'll be as illiquid as granite. But once things get going, man oh man, we could see some altitude very quickly. 

Further down the road, I'd expect to see a uranium ETF in the U.S. Keep your eyes peeled for that one. It would be yet another force to power uranium prices higher.

Get Your Own Piece of
Uranium's Bull Market

If you want a pure way to play rising uranium prices, check out the Uranium Participation Corp., a Canadian fund that tracks uranium. The symbol on the Toronto Stock Exchange is U. In the U.S., the symbol is URPTF on the Pink Sheets. (On Yahoo, that would be URPTF.PK.)

Uranium Participation Corp. trades at about an 18% premium to its net asset value. I look at that as a vote of confidence that the price of uranium will go at least 18% higher. And as I told you today, a lot of smart people have every reason to believe prices will rise sharply and quickly.

Yours for trading profits,

Sean


----------



## GRTRADER (19 April 2007)

That article almost sounds too good to be true for uranium holders

it will be interesting to see if hes right


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (19 April 2007)

*China to set up uranium reserve *
18/04/2007 14:18 

Beijing - China will build a strategic uranium reserve in the coming years as it pushes a plan for a massive expansion of its nuclear power industry by 2020, state press said Wednesday. 
The system for uranium will become China's third strategic reserve after its strategic grain and oil reserves, the China News Service reported. 

Over the next 10 years, China will construct up to three nuclear power plants each year, resulting in increased demand for nuclear fuels of between four and six times current consumption, the report said. 

The nation's powerful Commission of Science Technology and Industry for National Defense advocated the strategic uranium reserve in its 11th five-year plan for nuclear energy development that spans from 2006 to 2010, it said. 

According to the plan, China will focus domestic uranium exploration in the Yili Basin in northwestern China's Xinjiang region and in the Ordos Basin in Inner Mongolia. 

China will also seek uranium resources overseas, it said. 

In February, China National Nuclear Corp said it signed a strategic cooperation agreement with Sinosteel Corp to jointly invest in and explore overseas for uranium resources. Sinosteel is reportedly in talks to invest in uranium assets in Australia. 

In January, Australia and China ratified a nuclear agreement clearing the way for the export of up to $187m worth of Australian uranium to China annually. 

At the end of 2006, only 1.9% of China's total energy needs were produced by nuclear power but this is set to increase to 4% by 2020.


----------



## ta2693 (19 April 2007)

YOUNG_TRADER said:


> *China to set up uranium reserve *
> 18/04/2007 14:18
> 
> Beijing - China will build a strategic uranium reserve in the coming years as it pushes a plan for a massive expansion of its nuclear power industry by 2020, state press said Wednesday.
> ...




it is a very old news. I saw it in Chinese newspaper around half year ago.


----------



## Wysiwyg (19 April 2007)

As we all know, electricity is part of modern day living.All those who still use a kero fridge and lanterns or candles please put up your hand.As man gets smarter  :headshake  the use of U is taking the place of coal and gas.LARGE countries with LARGE power demand is going there more.

It is unfolding more so than ever right before our very eyes and no one is going to stop it.The initial rush will taper off in my opinion to become accepted in the system of things.

Take note that right NOW we are witnessing the biggest change to life as we know it. 

One day (maybe not in my life time) we will say, remember that stuff we used to burn to make electricity.

Just a look up ahead folks.


----------



## erictjie (19 April 2007)

Wysiwyg said:


> As we all know, electricity is part of modern day living.All those who still use a kero fridge and lanterns or candles please put up your hand.As man gets smarter  :headshake  the use of U is taking the place of coal and gas.LARGE countries with LARGE power demand is going there more.
> 
> It is unfolding more so than ever right before our very eyes and no one is going to stop it.The initial rush will taper off in my opinion to become accepted in the system of things.
> 
> ...




De ja vu
I heard similar saying during tech boom too.
I hope you are right this time.( I Wish)


----------



## kromey (19 April 2007)

erictjie said:


> De ja vu
> I heard similar saying during tech boom too.
> I hope you are right this time.( I Wish)




What has a tech boom got to do with a commodity boom. Supply and demand.


----------



## insider (19 April 2007)

The tech boom is a completely different beast... It was a beast that was based on a simple phrase ".com"... any company that had .com in the name even without an internet connection would jump up in value like crazy... then there were other companies that were tech related, valued at millions of dollars due to hype but was really worth the value of the garage plus the computer that was in it... maybe $5,000 worth of assets...

It was a simple lesson... DYOR and understand what you are buying... In the forum it is pretty clear that we know what we are buying so I don't see a crash like a DOT COM boom happening


----------



## erictjie (19 April 2007)

insider said:


> The tech boom is a completely different beast... It was a beast that was based on a simple phrase ".com"... any company that had .com in the name even without an internet connection would jump up in value like crazy... then there were other companies that were tech related, valued at millions of dollars due to hype but was really worth the value of the garage plus the computer that was in it... maybe $5,000 worth of assets...
> 
> It was a simple lesson... DYOR and understand what you are buying... In the forum it is pretty clear that we know what we are buying so I don't see a crash like a DOT COM boom happening




Let us hope it will not go down like the tech boom/bust path. I want to make some money too


----------



## kromey (19 April 2007)

erictjie said:


> Let us hope it will not go down like the tech boom/bust path. I want to make some money too




No reason why it would. Nuclear Power the future=Uranium to feed not enough get it yet!


----------



## nizar (19 April 2007)

insider said:


> The tech boom is a completely different beast... It was a beast that was based on a simple phrase ".com"... any company that had .com in the name even without an internet connection would jump up in value like crazy... then there were other companies that were tech related, valued at millions of dollars due to hype but was really worth the value of the garage plus the computer that was in it... maybe $5,000 worth of assets...g




Yeh?
This sounds very similar.
When Great Western Exploration (GWE) changed their name to URA (Uran Limited) the price went up by 3 or 4 fold in one day. Remember that?
Seems like similar beast dont you think??


----------



## nizar (19 April 2007)

Just to remind everybody
"Its different this time" are the 4 most expensive words.

Dont fool yourself. SPeed kills LOL 

I meant to say, dont fool yourself, this bullmarket will come to an end. Insider, MTN was a great stock, but for your example you focussed on assets, while when MTN went from $1 to $6 - did their assets increase 6-fold?? I dont think so. But who cares, we make money, its all good.
Just dont be the one holding it at the end when the music stops.
And for someone with no exit strategy, and who doesnt use stops, its you and others like you that really need to have a think about what you are doing.


----------



## kromey (19 April 2007)

Where did i see Uranium plays near Mt Isa?


----------



## stockman (20 April 2007)

EDN about to announce details of their Uranium spin - off float. Details very soon. Need to have EDN shares to get priority. Apparently going to be tightly held. I've been told need 1000 EDN shares to qualify but not 100% sure. Do your own research.

My guess is Monday may be the last day.

Good luck.


----------



## champ2003 (21 April 2007)

Uranium is about to start being traded on the NYMEX the same way oil,gold,silver etc is traded.

The contract, for 250 pounds of the metal, begins trading May 7, and will be available via the electronic trading platforms in most brokerages.


----------



## champ2003 (21 April 2007)

nizar said:


> Just to remind everybody
> "Its different this time" are the 4 most expensive words.
> 
> Dont fool yourself. SPeed kills LOL
> ...




UMM i think MTN is still a great stock Nizar and is still very cheap by comparison to others out there. Sorry but i think that if you check the announcements you will find that their assets have been slowly proven up through drilling which justifies the current share price IMO. The party isn't going to finish for quite a while as well so there is still lots of potential out there.


----------



## nizar (21 April 2007)

champ2003 said:


> UMM i think MTN is still a great stock Nizar and is still very cheap by comparison to others out there. Sorry but i think that if you check the announcements you will find that their assets have been slowly proven up through drilling which justifies the current share price IMO. The party isn't going to finish for quite a while as well so there is still lots of potential out there.




Brother i hold plenty of MTN.


----------



## champ2003 (21 April 2007)

I can't say where i got this article from but it said that another issue in our minds is the increasing proportion of uranium supply that is forecast to come from in-situ leach (ISL) projects. This type of technology is not yet fully proven in our minds. There are significant risks associated with ISL projects and their operational reliability that leads us to factor a significant risk premium into future uranium prices.

Kennas if you want to delete that its fine with me but i can't reveal any more info on that at the moment. Sorry

Champ


----------



## bigdog (21 April 2007)

Who are the major Uranium companies on Aust Stock Exchange?


----------



## Sean K (21 April 2007)

bigdog said:


> Who are the major Uranium companies on Aust Stock Exchange?



BHP, RIO/ERA and PDN.


----------



## Sean K (21 April 2007)

champ2003 said:


> I can't say where i got this article from but it said that another issue in our minds is the increasing proportion of uranium supply that is forecast to come from in-situ leach (ISL) projects. This type of technology is not yet fully proven in our minds. There are significant risks associated with ISL projects and their operational reliability that leads us to factor a significant risk premium into future uranium prices.
> 
> Kennas if you want to delete that its fine with me but i can't reveal any more info on that at the moment. Sorry
> 
> Champ



No drama. Any operational ISL miners at the moment? Perhaps a run through their anns would confirm one way or the other? I'm not trying to ping you on this, it's an important question I'd like answered.


----------



## champ2003 (21 April 2007)

kennas said:


> No drama. Any operational ISL miners at the moment? Perhaps a run through their anns would confirm one way or the other? I'm not trying to ping you on this, it's an important question I'd like answered.




Hi Kennas,

I have no additional info on that at the moment however i'll definitely let you know if I come across any.

Cheers!

Champ


----------



## spooly74 (21 April 2007)

kennas said:


> No drama. Any operational ISL miners at the moment?




There are two ISL uranium mining projects in Australia; 
Beverley and Honeymoon, both in the Lake Frome area of South Australia.

1.The Beverley deposit is 520 km north of Adelaide. The deposit was sold to Heathgate Resources Pty Ltd, an affiliate of General Atomics of USA, in 1990.
Production started in 2000.

2. At Honeymoon,  about 75 kilometres north west of Broken Hill. 
Plans are to bring Honeymoon and the associated deposits into production at about 400 tonnes per year early in 2008.


----------



## Sean K (22 April 2007)

spooly74 said:


> There are two ISL uranium mining projects in Australia;
> Beverley and Honeymoon, both in the Lake Frome area of South Australia.
> 
> 1.The Beverley deposit is 520 km north of Adelaide. The deposit was sold to Heathgate Resources Pty Ltd, an affiliate of General Atomics of USA, in 1990.
> ...



Thanks, will look at their production profile to see if they've had any dramas. Cheers!


----------



## champ2003 (22 April 2007)

Hi Kennas

The article that i found in relation to ISL mines was about problems with the technology once the mines are in production hence you probably won't find anything about the Aussie ISL mines as yet, not until they are in production. The article was focussed more on the uranium price and how they felt that the price will be heavilly supported by many international ISL mines not meeting their initial production forecasts therefore keeping supply tight.

Cheers!

Champ


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (22 April 2007)

champ2003 said:


> Hi Kennas
> 
> The article that i found in relation to ISL mines was about problems with the technology once the mines are in production hence you probably won't find anything about the Aussie ISL mines as yet, not until they are in production. The article was focussed more on the uranium price and how they felt that the price will be heavilly supported by many international ISL mines not meeting their initial production forecasts therefore keeping supply tight.
> 
> ...





Makes sense, Leach operations always struggle, ie Nickel laterite, Gold heap leach etc etc


----------



## Kimosabi (22 April 2007)

Interview with Uranium Analyst Warwick Grigor of Far East Capital on Inside Business.

Warwick Grigor of Far East Capital

Transcript

http://www.abc.net.au/insidebusiness/content/2007/s1903602.htm

Video

http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200704/r138979_475594.asx


----------



## Sean K (22 April 2007)

For those investing in uranium explorers who will come into production after 2010, it's worthwhile having a more considered appreciation of the future price of uranium which will effect the viability of some juniors.

From an article in the Fin this weekend:

Some analysis are expecting the the creation of a futures market on the Mercentile Exchange to have a significant effect even on the current price. Brian Eley, from Eley-Griffin funds management (not sure of the cred) believes that U prices will settle in a range of $US40-70 lb after the introduction of the NYMEX futures. This is going to put a lot of pressure on junior end of the Australian junior sector. 

On the other hand there is conjecture amongst the current producers of where the U price is headed. The ERA CEO reckons there ill be a correction with 5 years, while PDNs says that U price appreciation will be sustained for more than a decade.


----------



## Kimosabi (22 April 2007)

kennas said:


> On the other hand there is conjecture amongst the current producers of where the U price is headed. The ERA CEO reckons there ill be a correction with 5 years, while PDNs says that U price appreciation will be sustained for more than a decade.




Of course the ERA chief is going to say this.  ERA isn't getting any benefit from the higher prices because they've got long-term contracts...


----------



## champ2003 (22 April 2007)

kennas said:


> For those investing in uranium explorers who will come into production after 2010, it's worthwhile having a more considered appreciation of the future price of uranium which will effect the viability of some juniors.
> 
> From an article in the Fin this weekend:
> 
> ...




Thanks for that Kennas. Very interesting to read that some analysts believe that prices will drop to $40-$70. I don't understand how that could possibly happen with the supply of uranium being so low. With demand so high and supply so tight why would sellers of uranium sell for less???

If anything I think that there will be an enormous panick driven spike which will then correct but still at a much higher price than what it is currently IMO. The price of uranium is about to become alot more volatile very soon however that could mean great things for the juniors in the short to medium term.

Cheers!

Champ


----------



## champ2003 (22 April 2007)

http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/19/markets/uranium/index.htm?section=money_markets


----------



## wayneL (22 April 2007)

Uranium futures to begin trading May 7 on Nymex/Globex

It will be interesting to see what sort of liquidity there is. I'm looking forward to it.

http://www.nymex.com/press_releas.aspx?id=pr20070416a


----------



## Wysiwyg (22 April 2007)

champ2003 said:


> Thanks for that Kennas. Very interesting to read that some analysts believe that prices will drop to $40-$70. I don't understand how that could possibly happen with the supply of uranium being so low. With demand so high and supply so tight why would sellers of uranium sell for less???
> 
> If anything I think that there will be an enormous panick driven spike which will then correct but still at a much higher price than what it is currently IMO. The price of uranium is about to become alot more volatile very soon however that could mean great things for the juniors in the short to medium term.
> 
> ...




Perfect...more uncertainty is just the added excitement the whole market needs.Put your hand up if you know what happens next.


----------



## Kimosabi (22 April 2007)

Wysiwyg said:


> Perfect...more uncertainty is just the added excitement the whole market needs.Put your hand up if you know what happens next.


----------



## wayneL (22 April 2007)

Kimosabi said:


>




Fascinating but thoroughly evil things.

The biggest one ever detonated:


----------



## kromey (22 April 2007)

kennas said:


> For those investing in uranium explorers who will come into production after 2010, it's worthwhile having a more considered appreciation of the future price of uranium which will effect the viability of some juniors.
> 
> From an article in the Fin this weekend:
> 
> ...




Eley can blow me what a joke.


----------



## rederob (22 April 2007)

wayneL said:


> Uranium futures to begin trading May 7 on Nymex/Globex
> 
> It will be interesting to see what sort of liquidity there is. I'm looking forward to it.
> 
> http://www.nymex.com/press_releas.aspx?id=pr20070416a



I like the idea of seeing "liquidity" too.
Given that futures markets continue to ultimately play to the tune of supply and demand, the timing of a uranium futures market might not do consumers any favours: The funds can pre-empt this small market and squeeze it for all its worth.
Although I am not sure what funds would do if they actually had to ever take delivery: It's not like you can just store yellow cake anywhere!
All I can say is that if I were a producer into this market, I would not be considering hedging in the foreseeable future unless the contango was exceptionally favourable in the near term.


----------



## noirua (23 April 2007)

The position of uranium stocks is quite unique. Demand is ever rising and looks likely to continue for 10 years or more. Uranium prices are sky high and any meaningful find by a junior explorer will send it into the stratosphere. 

This all means that XYZ Uranium Ltd., priced at 30cents and with a market cap of $20 million, could rise up to 100 fold. All a massive gamble but the stakes have been raised massively.

Markets may increasingly be unable to put a value on the gamble factor. As with all lotteries, if the top prize was $1 million and it becomes $100 million, then interest goes worldwide. 

Buy if you're a gambler and consider your money lost, however, the big prize awaits.


----------



## Dukey (23 April 2007)

Is anyone else here concerned about the apparently inevitable 'Nuclear Future' and Australia's role in it??  
Especially since increasingly viable alternatives exist.  Solar, wind and geothermal all seem to be becoming increasingly viable. (see nuclear power thread)

My concerns are the two obvious ones...
1. Environmental damage from waste. Just need to see what has happened in Russia to get scared about that.  Sure we can say new reactors are/will be better and safer - but they all have to shut down sometime.  What happens to the waste which nobody wants and the Site when it is too F&*^cked for anyone to go near it!!!
Will we care when our rivers are unsafe to use in any way - no fish; no swimming; no drinking; no irrigating?



> [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]* Radioactivity and Nuclear Waste (in Russia)
> from   http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/russenv.html*
> Currently, there are 10 operating nuclear power plants with 30 reactors in Russia, some of which are first generation RBMK reactors similar to the ones that operated in Chernobyl in Ukraine. Although maintenance has improved in recent years and security against terrorist attacks has increased with the cooperation and financial assistance of the United States, the Russian nuclear industry nevertheless continues to register numerous accidents and incidents. The European Union considers the RBMK reactor design to be fundamentally-flawed since it does not have a containment dome. Nevertheless, despite safety concerns, Russia is seeking to extend the operating life of several reactors that are nearing the end of their proscribed operating lifespan, as well as increase the country's nuclear capacity by building 40 new reactors by 2030. [/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]
> Radioactive contamination has damaged several regions in Russia. Lake Karachay, adjacent to the Mayak complex in Chelyabinsk, is one example of the nuclear industry's careless past, and is now considered to be one of the most polluted spots on Earth. *Lake Karachay has been reported to contain 120 million curies of radioactive waste, including seven times the amount of strontium-90 and cesium-137 that was released in the April 1986 explosion of the Unit 4 reactor at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine. *The area surrounding the Mayak complex suffers from radioactive pollutants from over 50 years of plutonium production, processing and storage. [/FONT]
> [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]*Nuclear waste from both civilian and military nuclear power installations has become a severe threat to Russia's environmental health.* Adding to the problem, in 2001 the Russian parliament approved legislation to allow the storage of foreign nuclear waste on Russian soil. Atomic energy authorities claim that between 10,000 and 20,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste could be imported for storage and reprocessing over the next decade, with the storage plan projected to earn the country $20 billion in foreign revenues over the ten-year period. The Russian government has said that it plans to use the revenues to clean up the environment. Neighboring states have expressed safety concerns regarding nuclear waste traveling close to their borders, while environmental groups have voiced their overall opposition to Russia's long-term storage plans.[/FONT]



2. Nuclear weapons proliferation - especially in unstable countries and rogue states etc. We live in dangerous times - maybe some would say 'the age of terrorism' ... will it be a problem for us if our own exported uranium comes back at us in the form of missiles or suitcase nukes from some crazy despot leader in the future???  .... in my opinion the MAD policy only works if *all parties have a desire to live*. It doesn't apply to crackpot leaders who want to die for their god or bring on Armageddon or Jihad.

-----------

Well - obviously I have 'vented' a bit here, and I mean no personal offense to U stock holders - but those are my genuine concerns... When I think about the possible future scenarios it honestly scares the c#@p out of me.
:southpark +  :nuke::nuke::nuke: = ?????????


----------



## disarray (23 April 2007)

i don't see the concern with nuclear waste. dig a big hole in the desert and bury it there, too easy. what we should be doing as well is taking in the worlds supply of nuclear (and maybe toxic) waste, charging them an obscene amount of money and stashing it in the middle of nowhere. we are geologically stable with lots of wide open and largely useless land, why not put it to work for us?

and the whole "it will be dangerous for tens of thousands of years blah blah" is irrelevant as we won't have to store it for very long. the technology will be available in the forseeable future to just blast all the waste into the sun.


----------



## Dukey (23 April 2007)

disarray said:


> i don't see the concern with nuclear waste. dig a big hole in the desert and bury it there, too easy. what we should be doing as well is taking in the worlds supply of nuclear (and maybe toxic) waste, charging them an obscene amount of money and stashing it in the middle of nowhere. we are geologically stable with lots of wide open and largely useless land, why not put it to work for us?
> 
> and the whole "it will be dangerous for tens of thousands of years blah blah" is irrelevant as we won't have to store it for very long. the technology will be available in the forseeable future to just blast all the waste into the sun.




Deep burial may be OK for the waste rods - but how about the site and nearby contamination. There ain't **** anyone can do about that.
And what happens when the waste-rocket does a 'challenger' ?? and we get Nuclear waste spread all over??  What happens when a terrorist shoots it down with 'patriot' style weapon.


----------



## Kimosabi (23 April 2007)

Dukey said:


> Deep burial may be OK for the waste rods - but how about the site and nearby contamination. There ain't **** anyone can do about that.
> And what happens when the waste-rocket does a 'challenger' ?? and we get Nuclear waste spread all over?? What happens when a terrorist shoots it down with 'patriot' style weapon.





Considering the quadzillion KM's of uninhabited desert that Australia has, I can't even see how Uranium disposal is an issue.


----------



## disarray (23 April 2007)

Dukey said:


> Deep burial may be OK for the waste rods - but how about the site and nearby contamination. There ain't **** anyone can do about that.
> And what happens when the waste-rocket does a 'challenger' ?? and we get Nuclear waste spread all over??  What happens when a terrorist shoots it down with 'patriot' style weapon.




site contamination can be minimised (if not eradicated) by correct storage procedures, and is also largely irrelevant when you are surrounded by 1000k's of desert. any further contamination can also be cleaned up with some of the profits made from storage.

you also have the wrong idea about space disposal, in 100 years we'll be using elevators to move stuff into orbit, rocket based launches will be a dead technology before too long.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator


----------



## Dukey (23 April 2007)

Kimosabi said:


> Considering the quadzillion KM's of uninhabited desert that Australia has, I can't even see how Uranium disposal is an issue.




Guess I should be more clear - when I say 'the site' - I'm talking about the original reactor site and local environment. (not the site of deep waste disposal).  
This for example - groundwater contamination - irreversible as far as I can see..    


> ...Indian Point nuclear power plant, unintended releases of tritium           through a crack in the spent fuel pool concrete support wall may have           been the cause of the elevated levels of tritium in groundwater in         the area immediately surrounding the plant's spent fuel pool. In another           instance, at the Braidwood nuclear power plant, unintended releases         of           tritium from a number of vacuum breaker valves at the plant caused       elevated levels of tritium in groundwater in unrestricted, public areas.



??????????  
although groundwater contamination could still be a long term issue for waste disposal. I'm sure we don't know enough about the long term movements and cycling  of groundwater and especially deep groundwaters - to say it is completely safe.   
It may be possible to bury the waste in solid impermeable rock (with zero moisture) I guess.


----------



## spooly74 (23 April 2007)

Dukey said:


> Guess I should be more clear - when I say 'the site' - I'm talking about the original reactor site and local environment. (not the site of deep waste disposal).
> This for example - groundwater contamination - irreversible as far as I can see..
> ??????????
> although groundwater contamination could still be a long term issue for waste disposal. I'm sure we don't know enough about the long term movements and cycling  of groundwater and especially deep groundwaters - to say it is completely safe.
> It may be possible to bury the waste in solid impermeable rock (with zero moisture) I guess.





Hi Dukey,

Interesting stuff about the site contamination although in the link provided the release was an error in both cases ... and it released tritium....still not good though!

http://www.epa.gov/radiation/radionuclides/tritium.htm#environment

As for managing radio active waste ... The Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management facility will be the future home of all ANSTO, CSIRO and other federally-owned waste in Australia.

Currently 3 locations in the NT are being evaluated:
Hart`s Range and Mount Everard near Alice and Fishers Ridge near Katherine.

The facility will consist of near-surface disposal of storage for low-level waste, as well as an above-ground builiding for the immediate-level solid waste.
Intermediate waste will be stored there for 100 years while other disposal options are developed.

Today though , low level waste from HIFAR (High Flux Australian Reactor) lines the shelves of a storage facility at ANSTO`s Sydney complex, where it has sat for the last 40 years.
About 150 new drums are added to the shelves each year and all waste from Australias new nuclear research reactor (OPAL - opened this month) will end up there too.

Currently, the best solution for high level waste is Synroc.
Synroc is an artificial ceramic that hold uranium and thorium titanate minerals , the same thing that keeps radioactive elements locked up in nature for billions of years.
Various forms of Synroc have since been developed by ANSTO, including some that can lock up high level waste such as plutonium - for the US military.
cheers


----------



## purple (23 April 2007)

disarray said:


> dig a big hole in the desert and bury it there, too easy.




we might then get 2 headed geckos, 1 metre long ants and 2 tongued snakes....there's life in the desert too. A more feasible way would be to return it to exactly the same position it was mined from and encase it in concrete.

p/s. er...for the 2 tongued snakes, they might already be existing around us..or sitting in Parliament..


----------



## Dukey (23 April 2007)

Yeah - I've heard a little about synroc - seems like a fairly good concept. But I presume it can't actually 'lock in' the radiation of the waste!!!!!  Unless it can do that - then the synroc still has to be disposed of in whatever safe fashion / place.

True - both of the contaminated water releases in the link I posted before were due to mistakes - and that is in fact my point.  
I think there will always be mistakes and to think otherwise we would be somewhat naive. You have to expect they will happen either due to unexpected events or human error.
The nuclear plants will operate for quite a long time - Smurf (probably our power generation guru here on ASF!!)  suggested maybe 60 years of operation I think. Maybe they can go longer.  But my point is that in that time metal and concrete parts deteriorate and corrode. Ground movements or earthquakes - even small ones - may cause cracks, floods overflow tailings ponds - whatever...  
Additionally - human error is a factor. People (like Homer Simpson) get lax and make mistakes.  
eg... that valve has been OK every week for the last 20 years - it'll be fine - no need to run that test... lets just put in a PASS on that one and go crack a beer. Job well done lads.. .   (next day - boom).

Correct me if I'm wrong - but I seem to recall there have been significant leeks from Ranger mine tailings into sensitive wetlands in the past. I'll see if I can find links to that info.

Basically I just cant see the sense in  nuclear power anywhere - when good clean, safe alternatives ARE available.  But of course the Govt wants the $$$$ - they don't want to think wetlands vary far away from Canberra. 
Nor do they want to see any connection with a scenario like a nuke from India or Pakistan (made from Aussie origin U) escaping into Afghanistan or the like and being pointed back at us sometime in the future.

I know it sounds alarmist but man.... anything can happen and usually does.
That's a truth I learnt driving in Japan!!!!!!


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (23 April 2007)

Thorium reactors actually burn nuclear waste!


----------



## Dukey (23 April 2007)

I agree YT - Thorium reactors sound like good technology in as far as the possibility of burning nuclear waste goes.  Are there any in operation now, or is it 'technology of the future'?  >>> I'd like to check it out further.

But even then -  still doesn't deal with the problems of  Nuclear plant 'local site' contamination (such as groundwater)  OR weapons use.  

I guess my possibly simplistic (?) view is that - the more radioactive material we mine - world wide - the greater potential for eventual use in weapons. And when the next crackpot leader picks one up on the blackmarket , we'll all be running for cover. 
Of course theres probably nothing to stop that happening today - but still - more radioactive **** = more potential for disaster in my book.

Is there something wrong in my reasoning?


----------



## Pat (24 April 2007)

Not sure if this has been dicussed.

What are others thoughts on the govt and there verdict on the U issue?

Mine personally is the govt will say no.
In a nut shell if the majority of the public are against it the the govt is too.


----------



## champ2003 (24 April 2007)

Pat said:


> Not sure if this has been dicussed.
> 
> What are others thoughts on the govt and there verdict on the U issue?
> 
> ...




Pat this has been discussed over and over agian and again in previous posts on this thread. Some states are more U friendly than others. Just have a read at the previous posts and you will soon get a good idea.

Cheers!

Champ


----------



## Halba (24 April 2007)

Pat said:


> Not sure if this has been dicussed.
> 
> What are others thoughts on the govt and there verdict on the U issue?
> 
> ...




Pat its not the 'govt'. Its the ALP federal level. They are not the govt :error:


----------



## kromey (24 April 2007)

Why are we the only country in the world that doesn't want to mine uranium without restrictions.


----------



## Pat (24 April 2007)

champ2003 said:


> Pat this has been discussed over and over agian and again in previous posts on this thread. Some states are more U friendly than others. Just have a read at the previous posts and you will soon get a good idea.
> 
> Cheers!
> 
> Champ





New question.

What do you guys think will occur in the following days after the ann?

Me, a drop in u stocks on the aussie market. Stocks with prospects out of Australia (Africa etc.) take better advantage of the world U "climate".

Anyone else?


----------



## champ2003 (24 April 2007)

Pat said:


> New question.
> 
> What do you guys think will occur in the following days after the ann?
> 
> ...




Oh i think that the stocks are going to go up, then down a little then up again, but then later they will come down again.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (25 April 2007)

champ2003 said:


> Oh i think that the stocks are going to go up, then down a little then up again, but then later they will come down again.




I agree


----------



## dhukka (25 April 2007)

Excuse the ignorance, I haven't been following the discussion in this thread or the debate at large so this argument may not be relevant or new.  Just came across this article today which puts forward an interesting view on the supposed high demand for and high price of uranium.



> http://au.biz.yahoo.com/070425/31/17fa1.html
> 
> Scientist questions nuclear future
> Wednesday April 25, 2007, 11:00 am
> ...


----------



## champ2003 (25 April 2007)

dhukka said:


> Excuse the ignorance, I haven't been following the discussion in this thread or the debate at large so this argument may not be relevant or new.  Just came across this article today which puts forward an interesting view on the supposed high demand for and high price of uranium.




The facts are that there are plenty of Nuclear power plants in construction globally which is to increase demand substantially.

Nuclear power plants may not play a huge part in Aust as we may never build a plant however the likelyhood is that we will. Even so, our uranium will be needed to supply the rest of the world. 

Yes wind energy, solar, Hydro power etc is always very helpful in peak periods of consumption however those methodologies combined won't provide enough power to supply entire cities. We have to stop burning fossil fuels to protect the ozone layer and climate change so the only other way to do this at this stage of our technological stance is use of uranium in Nuclear power stations.

As far as price is concerned, of course no-one could have ever predicted where the price of U is going and who knows how high it will go today!

The only thing that is going to bring the price down is lack of demand/slower demand but the oposite is currently happening as demand is getting stronger year on year and production is in decline so there will continue to be a very tight market in the foreseeable future IMO.

The lack of knowledge globally on the fundamentals of the industy is the reason that the price has taken 6 years to get to where it is today and as the world wakes up to all of these facts the price will start to shoot up alot higher hence the biggest increase in U price was reported last month and it doesn't look like it's about to change any time soon.

Cheers!

Champ


----------



## Halba (25 April 2007)

What has all the talk about nuclear power got to do with uranium supply? We are just supplying a commodity, the price of the commodity/demand for it is the only thing we need to know.


----------



## champ2003 (25 April 2007)

Halba said:


> what has all the talk about nuclear power got to do with uranium supply? we are just supplying a commodity, the price of the commodity/demand for it is the only thing we need to know.




Well as you know, without nuclear power there is no demand and so I was just explaining some facts to people who may not understand.(hey that rhymes LOL)

Cheers Halba!

Champ


----------



## champ2003 (25 April 2007)

http://www.uraniumanalyst.com/sectornewsuraniumboom.html

This is readily available on the internet. It's an update on the U situation.


----------



## kromey (26 April 2007)

STREET PUTS ENERGY BEHIND URANIUM
By ZACHERY KOUWE
 Click to enlarge.April 25, 2007 -- In a bet on the revival of nuclear energy, Wall Street giants including Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley are set to move mountains of cash into uranium when it starts trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange next month. 

The price of uranium has skyrocketed over the past year from around $40 a pound to around $113 as demand has outstripped supply. Goldman and other investors including hedge funds see big opportunities trading uranium because of its high level of volatility. 

Uranium, which is mined by only by a few companies such as Canada's Cameco Corp., is the main commodity used in nuclear power plants. It is not currently traded on an exchange and its price is hard to determine because transactions are private and infrequent. 

The price fluctuations have frustrated nuclear power plant operators, who complain that the current spot market is inefficient and provides little price transparency. 

The Nymex hopes to capitalize on the desire for a more institutionalized uranium market as well as the appetite in the hedge fund community for more investment products. 

The newly created uranium futures contract will begin trading on the Nymex's electronic system on May 7, according to the exchange's VP of marketing Randy Warsager. Most of the Nymex's products are traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange's Globex system under a joint agreement between the two markets. 

A bevy of hedge funds including Citadel Investment Group, GLG Partners and Fortress Investment Group have set up teams to begin trading uranium. Other traders will include owners of nuclear facilities including Duke Energy, Exelon Corp., and electronic futures broker Alaron Trading.


----------



## dj_420 (26 April 2007)

if they scrap policy then SA explorers will rocket, then depending on each states particular stance will either show appreciated or depreciation. QLD what is beattie doing? WA what is carpenter doing? (IMO both are just dragging their feet and need to show some decision and strength on what is best for their state economies and stop backflipping all over the place).

if they dont scrap policy expect to see some major increases in australian uranium explorers with interests in africa, peru, europe, usa, canada etc.

these explorers will benefit from uranium friendly countries that dont hinder economic progress with ridiculous red tape stopping development and growth.


----------



## Uncle Festivus (26 April 2007)

dj_420 said:


> these explorers will benefit from uranium friendly countries that dont hinder economic progress with ridiculous red tape stopping development and growth.




So I take it that means you would have no problem with a nuclear power station being built next door to you - yes or no?


----------



## noirua (26 April 2007)

Despite the giant bull Uranium we do need to take care as Uranium.com rises way beyond realistic prices.

I think I might start a company called "Uranium in my backyard Ltd". With 1 hectare of land and a bucket and spade, afterall, it is North East of the Oxiana find. 
I'm using the very new "state of the art technology", which must remain secret, to complete my surveying from the roof of my property, and straight away I can report numerous anomalies that appear quite near the surface. Previous exploration has been carried out by my Great Grandfather, who told me that there's gold and silver in that there land.
So I'm offering shares at just $1 dollar each and at any moment I expect the Board of Directors of Paladin to come through my front gate. 
No need for expensive drilling rigs. I infact started digging this evening, but my spade handle broke and the local store was sold out of spades. Probably due to the rush by others with adjoining backyards.

Daft it may all seem, but take care my friends.


----------



## Uncle Festivus (26 April 2007)

noirua said:


> Despite the giant bull Uranium we do need to take care as Uranium.com rises way beyond realistic prices.
> 
> I think I might start a company called "Uranium in my backyard Ltd". With 1 hectare of land and a bucket and spade, afterall, it is North East of the Oxiana find.
> I'm using the very new "state of the art technology", which must remain secret, to complete my surveying from the roof of my property, and straight away I can report numerous anomalies that appear quite near the surface. Previous exploration has been carried out by my Great Grandfather, who told me that there's gold and silver in that there land.
> ...




Yep, similar story to my company, Duke-Nukem NL, except my mine has been flooded and the chief geologist has gone shopping. Time for a capital raising


----------



## Jimminy (26 April 2007)

dj_420 said:


> if they scrap policy then SA explorers will rocket.




Disagree. SA U mining to be approved is old news. Followers of U stocks have known about this for a while now.

Buy on rumour, sell on fact. I don't think there will be much movement at all in these stocks once the ann is made by Rudd. It's all a game of perception rather than reality at this ALP conference.

SA will change and the market already know this.


----------



## dj_420 (26 April 2007)

Uncle Festivus said:


> So I take it that means you would have no problem with a nuclear power station being built next door to you - yes or no?




i think i would be significantly less oposed to a nuclear plant rather than coal fired power station opening up next door.

would you be in favour of a coal fired power station been built next door to you?


----------



## dj_420 (26 April 2007)

Jimminy said:


> Disagree. SA U mining to be approved is old news. Followers of U stocks have known about this for a while now.
> 
> Buy on rumour, sell on fact. I don't think there will be much movement at all in these stocks once the ann is made by Rudd. It's all a game of perception rather than reality at this ALP conference.
> 
> SA will change and the market already know this.




jiminy i think _anticipation_ of the policy been dropped is been priced in not _confirmation_ if you think that SA uranium stocks have already had their run if policy is dropped then i think you are mistaken.

a change in policy will confirm what market thinks and send these stocks on another run IMO


----------



## Sean K (26 April 2007)

dj_420 said:


> jiminy i think _anticipation_ of the policy been dropped is been priced in not _confirmation_ if you think that SA uranium stocks have already had their run if policy is dropped then i think you are mistaken.
> 
> a change in policy will confirm what market thinks and send these stocks an another run IMO



I agree. And I think QLD and WA grass roots explorers may be hurt. Hope I'm wrong for holders there.


----------



## noirua (26 April 2007)

kennas said:


> I agree. And I think QLD and WA grass roots explorers may be hurt. Hope I'm wrong for holders there.





Hi, hopefully most of the explorers have tenements dotted all over Australia and those in NSW and WA are few in number and may be seen as a bonus. Some explorers in NSW are drilling for Copper and gold, not Uranium of course.


----------



## noirua (26 April 2007)

Labor to abolish Uranium Mines Policy:  http://www.mudgee.yourguide.com.au/...ews&subclass=general&story_id=578657&category


----------



## Gurgler (27 April 2007)

And this today in The Age:

*US deals itself into nuclear reactor boom
Ralph Vartabedian, Washington
April 27, 2007


THE Bush Administration's plan for a rapid expansion of nuclear energy worldwide went a step further when the US Government agreed to joint research on new reactors and a new type of nuclear fuel with Japan.

The Energy Department has been pushing an ambitious but controversial agenda to build a large number of nuclear power plants, based on prospective technology that would include reprocessing radioactive wastes.

The agreement with Japan is the first formal international deal under the program, known as the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership.

The program would make the US a more important player in the current worldwide nuclear building boom, in which 222 new reactors are planned, said Dennis Spurgeon, assistant secretary of Energy. "That is $US1 trillion ($A1.2 trillion) of business on the horizon."*

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world...ar-reactor-boom/2007/04/26/1177459878555.html


----------



## Sean K (28 April 2007)

Well, perhaps if Labor change their policy it won't matter anyway. The PM looks set to take the states decision powers away:



			
				The Age said:
			
		

> *PM flicks switch to nuclear*
> 
> Katharine Murphy, Sydney
> April 28, 2007
> ...




Nice cartoon:


----------



## zed327 (28 April 2007)

He will get slaughtered at the next election with that agenda.

WA for one does not want it and if i was a serving liberal member i would be hitting the panic button right now!

What planet is this bloke on.

Nuclear power stations need lots of water thats means on the coast. 

Do you want one next to you because he hasn't outlined where they are going to be placed.

I believe in nuclear energy and it will come here but only when it is transparent and not just dropped on us for political purposes.


----------



## nizar (28 April 2007)

kennas said:


> Well, perhaps if Labor change their policy it won't matter anyway. The PM looks set to take the states decision powers away:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice cartoon:




Clearly the man (read little boy) is desparate to keep his job.
I dont think it will work.
Kennas, where exactly did you get this point from:
_The PM looks set to take the states decision powers away_

Coz this would be very significant and result in a massive re-rating of non-SA/NT U companies.


----------



## TheAbyss (29 April 2007)

Posted the below on another thread and have copied below as i am interested in everyones thoughts on this.

So the consensus seems to be that the SP has this weekends decision factored in already?

Buy in from OS companies may well be increased due to this?

My questions are, Now that the path has been cleared somewhat, why do australian companies need to go exploring offshore and what markets are they after that cannot be sold into directly via Australian U mining into the future? We do have a large resource base to work with here (the largest?). This may not impact on actual producers OS or those close to production however those OS explorers who are still in early stages may be chasing a product that is easier to source direct from Australia in the future by the end users?

Australia, the one stop resource shop for all things mineral?

Just a question as i have a slice of the namibian explorers and have a cloud appearing that needs the winds of reason to sweep them


----------



## Sean K (29 April 2007)

nizar said:


> Kennas, where exactly did you get this point from:
> _The PM looks set to take the states decision powers away_
> 
> Coz this would be very significant and result in a massive re-rating of non-SA/NT U companies.



That is a deduction taken straight out of the article. It's my understanding that the Fed Govt has always had the right to take over the States decisions on mining. They just have to pass it as Fed legislation, and if they control the lower and upper house then they can do what they like.


----------



## Ang (29 April 2007)

Watch the U stocks tommorow especially AGS, now that Labour has given the green light for more that 3 mines policy
Extract from Nine MSN:



> "I think we got up in the end by just 10 or 15 votes out of many hundreds of delegates."
> 
> Before the vote, Mr Garrett made a passionate plea to his colleagues not to support the policy, but did not secure enough support.
> 
> ...


----------



## Pommiegranite (29 April 2007)

Ang said:


> Watch the U stocks tommorow especially AGS, now that Labour has given the green light for more that 3 mines policy
> Extract from Nine MSN:




I hold AGS...but at the current SP/Market Cap...I would like to see some big profits.

On that note does anyone have a link to AGS' P&L?


----------



## Sean K (29 April 2007)

Pommiegranite said:


> I hold AGS...but at the current SP/Market Cap...I would like to see some big profits.
> 
> On that note does anyone have a link to AGS' P&L?



Yep, looks pricey doesn't it. I'm unconvinced that Arkaroola is worth this, but Mr Market thinks so. I'm holding until it breaks down on TA.

For P&L you should try their web site Pommie:

http://www.allianceresources.com.au/

Last cash flow and activity reports are there.


----------



## Pommiegranite (29 April 2007)

kennas said:


> Yep, looks pricey doesn't it. I'm unconvinced that Arkaroola is worth this, but Mr Market thinks so. I'm holding until it breaks down on TA.
> 
> For P&L you should try their web site Pommie:
> 
> ...




Cheers Kennas,

I'm new to commodoties, but old to financial statements...and I have alarm bells ringing with AGS.

I think I'll let a little more Euphoria kick in, before I bail out on AGS....probably before Nymex futures go live on May 7th.

As I have no TA skills...I will have to rely on gut feeling. 

PG


----------



## Sean K (29 April 2007)

Pommiegranite said:


> As I have no TA skills...I will have to rely on gut feeling.
> PG



I'm pretty new at this too, but from my reading of the chart, a cup and handle has formed and if the break though $2.50 (and the lip of the cup) is confirmed, then there is a price target of $3.40 ish. Obviously, this is just a probable projection, and is no sure thing. What will definately hold it back will be a the extended market cap on a possible 25% of B4M and anything else at Arkaroola. Well done those people that spotted this at 15 cents!


----------



## Ang (29 April 2007)

I agree, I also hold AGS and will be looking at accumulating tommorow if it breaks $2.60. This is a solid weekly formation of a Darvas box. I will then follow this with a trailing stop loss once it hits $3. 
It would be a typical Nicolas Darvas trade where in the early 1900 he was buying the tech type stocks that were a rage back then, he actually made more money trading stocks with higher value.
Kindreg
ang


----------



## Sean K (30 April 2007)

Ang said:


> I agree, I also hold AGS and will be looking at accumulating tommorow if it breaks $2.60. This is a solid weekly formation of a Darvas box. I will then follow this with a trailing stop loss once it hits $3.
> It would be a typical Nicolas Darvas trade where in the early 1900 he was buying the tech type stocks that were a rage back then, he actually made more money trading stocks with higher value.
> Kindreg
> ang



Ang, what's your strategy if it does not make $3.00, which is a strong possibility. It's market cap may be well too overextended then depending on what results they produce. Shouldn't you have a trailing stop from the moment you buy in. For eg, if it does hold over $2.60, then what is your out strategy at that moment. Stop at your buy in price, or do you set an initial stop 10% below?


----------



## siempre33 (30 April 2007)

"THE dumping of the Labor Party's illogical "three mines" uranium policy is a long overdue bonanza for South Australia."

it appears only SA is ready to proceed at full speed in bringing on new U mines, thus I have brought my focus to
the leading candidates, the best co.s with the best prospects, in that state....
SA was also the focus of a recently hally-hooed discovery....speculation runs red-hot down-under...

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,21638761-5006336,00.html


----------



## bigdog (30 April 2007)

A gain reaction as Labor nukes uranium policy
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21642370-643,00.html

This article includes paragraph:
"Industry experts say very few uranium hopefuls are in a position to go to their bank with a mining plan. Far East Capital analyst Warwick Grigor has 23 companies listed as producers or potential producers". 

Can someone post Warwick Grigor has 23 companies?


----------



## Gurgler (30 April 2007)

From a previous article on 7 April

"*Grigor ranks 23 companies as either being in production or being well on the way to that state. Some of those are - in his view - already fully priced. 

These include Summit Resources, Toro Energy, Marathon Resources (which is starting a scoping study on its Mt Gee deposit), Arafura Resources and Berkeley Resources. 

The ones he would buy now are: his own Monaro Mining, which he argues has undervalued prospects in Kyrgyzstan; Uranium King, which has projects in Nevada and New Mexico (and the Americans support uranium mining); and Contact Resources, with its project in Peru." *

source: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21515082-5001942,00.html


----------



## 56gsa (30 April 2007)

bigdog said:


> Can someone post Warwick Grigor has 23 companies?




see post #658 on this thread...

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=119096&highlight=grigor#post119096


----------



## greggy (1 May 2007)

There's been a fair bit of weakness over recent days in the price of many small uranium stocks.  IMO its been just a correction to a overheated sector.  Also, the market had already priced in a Yes vote at the ALP conference.  May be some people are concerned about uranium being traded on the futures exchange. I feel that as demand for uranium grows so too will the price.  Production has yet to catch up with demand. I'm still a uranium bull as more countries down the track will go down the nuclear path as its environment friendly. Any other views?
DYOR


----------



## dj_420 (1 May 2007)

IMO grigor could now change his idea to which companies will be producing ie CUY, AGS and MTN.

australia has just de-risked the uranium sector and now i think we will begin to see people investing in a sector that is a definite NOT just a maybe. obviously SA and NT stocks will be the best ones to benefit


----------



## james99 (1 May 2007)

Bigdog: You will see that Metex was right near the top. And of course has SA licences.


----------



## champ2003 (1 May 2007)

Does anyone know what may happen if a ban is put in place banning mining on World heritage or national estates within SA? Will that automatically mean that those areas will be protected?


----------



## james99 (1 May 2007)

Yes. It can be imposed at a federal or state level.


----------



## Sean K (2 May 2007)

*Uranium Survey: Price to Head Higher*
April 30, 2007 01:41 PM EST

This past week, Dow Jones MarketWatch reporter Myra Saefong contacted us with some very interesting questions about the NYMEX uranium futures contracts. The New York Mercantile Exchange will introduce on- and off-exchange traded uranium futures products for trading on May 7th.

Rather than simply respond with our opinion, we decided to poll a cross-section of our readership. While not every subscriber was surveyed, we did receive an adequate sampling – about 400 readers.

To achieve a balanced geographical polling, we emailed to readers in about 60 countries. More than 60 percent of our readership is in the United States. Other key geographical regions include Japan, Canada, Germany, Israel, France, Spain/Portugal, Scandinavia, United Kingdom, Mexico, and Australia/New Zealand. Readers included a good cross-section of those interested in the uranium and nuclear fuel sector: utilities, banks, financial institutions, hedge funds and retail investors.

The survey consensus confirmed there would be stronger interest in uranium. But, we also discovered this strong interest would also bring greater price volatility. Many believed NYMEX futures trading would not bring transparency to the uranium price. Less than one-half believed futures trading would bring this about.

More than 66 percent believed the uranium price would go higher, but less than 7 percent said they would trade uranium futures contracts over the next twelve months. More than 40 percent of our readers voted that those most likely to benefit from uranium futures trading would be current and near-term uranium mining companies. 

Current producers include Cameco Corp (CCJ), Denison Mines (DNN), Uranium One (SXRFF); near-term producers include Energy Metals (EMU), Uranerz Energy (URZ) and Strathmore Minerals (STHFJ).

To review the survey results - http://www.stockinterview.com/News/04272007/NYMEX-Uranium-Futures-Survey.html


----------



## eMark (2 May 2007)

Will there be another uranium price auction prior to the May 7 NYMEX futures starting?


----------



## Pat (2 May 2007)

champ2003 said:


> Oh i think that the stocks are going to go up, then down a little then up again, but then later they will come down again.






YOUNG_TRADER said:


> I agree




So why the drop guys?
Most would think a good rise with a good ann eh? 
We had an up morning and mixed emotions in the afternoon on Monday, then Tuesday saw most U stocks with the most potential plummet.
And today no bounce?
To me some of these guys are screaming buys. I don't get it


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (2 May 2007)

Pat said:


> So why the drop guys?
> Most would think a good rise with a good ann eh?
> We had an up morning and mixed emotions in the afternoon on Monday, then Tuesday saw most U stocks with the most potential plummet.
> And today no bounce?
> To me some of these guys are screaming buys. I don't get it




All part of the up and down process


----------



## Pat (2 May 2007)

YOUNG_TRADER said:


> All part of the up and down process




I've heard of the completely random up and down process


----------



## eMark (2 May 2007)

Pat said:


> So why the drop guys?
> Most would think a good rise with a good ann eh?
> We had an up morning and mixed emotions in the afternoon on Monday, then Tuesday saw most U stocks with the most potential plummet.
> And today no bounce?
> To me some of these guys are screaming buys. I don't get it




I would hope that PDN is finding a bottom in the low 9's. It appears to be holding today. I check the TSX most nights (much to my disdain), and PDN over there has continued to fall the last few days. Surely it is due for some kind of boumce soon; that is apart from the 'correction' that we will no doubt have soon enough. (Posted in PDN also)


----------



## champ2003 (5 May 2007)

Does anyone know what is going to happen with the NYMEX trading u308 as I hear that the NYMEX price won't be linked to the physical commodity which is very unusual as all other commodities are linked.

Does this mean that if the NYMEX price goes up to say $150 that it's not linked to the physical commodity and therefore doesn't have a financial impact on the mining companies?

How will we all know what the real going price is for the physical commodity(u308)??


----------



## nizar (5 May 2007)

Uranium will start trading on the futures market on May 7th (this monday).
Should be interesting,,


----------



## Lee33 (5 May 2007)

*All-Time Record Uranium Spot Price: US$120/Pound*

All-Time Record Uranium Spot Price: US$120/Pound

Buyers Fail to Attract Sellers despite Firm Bids

“Bids were made through a variety of channels, including postings on New York Nuclear’s Uranium On-Line,” reported Nuclear Market Review (NMR) editor Treva Klingbiel in Friday’s issue. “Sellers were unresponsive and buyers were unable to conclude purchases by week’s end.” As a result the weekly spot uranium price indicator was increased to US$120/pound.

http://www.stockinterview.com/News/05052007/Record-Uranium-Spot-Price.html?section=news&action=d...


----------



## kromey (5 May 2007)

All-Time Record Uranium Spot Price: US$120/Pound

Buyers Fail to Attract Sellers despite Firm Bids


Whether it’s constant or inflation-adjusted dollars, spot uranium now trades at the highest level in history at U.S. $120/pound. Chart courtesy of TradeTech, which has been reporting the spot uranium price since 1968. Changes in the weekly spot uranium price are posted on the company’s website at www.uranium.info


“Bids were made through a variety of channels, including postings on New York Nuclear’s Uranium On-Line,” reported Nuclear Market Review (NMR) editor Treva Klingbiel in Friday’s issue. “Sellers were unresponsive and buyers were unable to conclude purchases by week’s end.” As a result the weekly spot uranium price indicator was increased to US$120/pound.

As we have advised the growing number of media contacting StockInterview.com, the market is in a ‘wait and see’ phase ahead of NYMEX futures trading. Sellers are not eager to quickly sell out, and continue to stretch their speculation to the limit. The gulf between the weekly spot price and the long-term uranium price now stands at $35/pound. This was the long-term uranium price in November 2005; now the dollar amount is the spread between spot and long-term.

Since January 2001, spot uranium has skyrocketed by 1775 percent. Over the past twelve months, U3O8 is 179 percent higher. The astounding price rise has fueled unusual price predictions across the Internet by less well-informed commentators. Discussions we had with Sprott Asset Management’s Kevin Bambrough, exactly 16 months ago, regarding his notion of a purely hypothetical uranium price of US$500/pound, are presently being forecast by the more enthusiastic price promoters. One of the more naÃ¯ve has announced it could happen ‘in the blink of an eye.’

A strong reason deterring potential sellers from quickly parting with their precious U3O8 is the potential auction at the end of May by Texas-based Mestena Uranium LLC. Recent significant spikes in the spot uranium price followed the opening of sealed bids for modest quantities of the company’s yellowcake production.

According to NMR, both the conversion and enrichment markets remained quiet ahead of the NYMEX uranium futures trading soon commencing. “Market participants are awaiting with great curiosity the debut of NYMEX uranium futures trading,” Klingbiel wrote. Sellers are wary of committing to sales based on market-related pricing without a ‘clear understanding of whether the financially settled futures contract would reflect in the physical market,’ according to NMR.

Utility representatives attended this past week’s NYMEX seminars in New York and Atlanta to better understand how futures trading would impact their ability to purchase uranium. Exelon Corp’s (EXC) Jim Malone reportedly commented he would study futures trading as a possible risk management vehicle for the largest utility in the U.S.


----------



## dj_420 (6 May 2007)

wow people now talking about $500 per pound of uranium!

that would put PDN in great stead for some bumper profits!

anyway i think this increase in particular uranium stocks of late is showing the market is been more selective in which companies to put money in. for australian stocks i see near term producers as:

AGS - Premier supporting mine, starting PFS and obtaining mining lease
CUY - Premier supporting mine, starting insitu leach trial plant second half of this year then permit to mine

so far these two seem the most advanced to me, fast tracking development to take advantage of these high uranium spot prices, and the fact is both will be using in situ leach, quick to setup and very cheap when compared to conventional mining techniques


----------



## nizar (6 May 2007)

dj_420 said:


> wow people now talking about $500 per pound of uranium!
> 
> that would put PDN in great stead for some bumper profits!
> 
> ...





AGS havent even got a JORC yet.
Lets take it one step at a time....


----------



## Punter (6 May 2007)

nizar said:


> AGS havent even got a JORC yet.
> Lets take it one step at a time....




neither does CUY......CUY has a leach plan for what was it 25 t of u308? and they aren't allowed to sell it...CUY is a mine without a JORC compliant resource 

I pull up CUY's market cap and its 2.6*65 = ~$170m. Thats a lot for a company without a JORC or any good grade actual drill hits(which ags has)

In conclusion: CUY is just a bit part explorer.


----------



## bean (6 May 2007)

Just a query 
Uranium has  risen in price for quite a few years.
The price has had no correction during that time.

Now what would happen to shares if the price dropped one week but say it dropped the next week as well. 

I am not saying the price is going to drop.
I am only wondering what reaction the shares would do.
small drop, nothing, or a large drop


----------



## champ2003 (6 May 2007)

bean said:


> Just a query
> Uranium has  risen in price for quite a few years.
> The price has had no correction during that time.
> 
> ...




Have a good look at how the oil price has gone over the last 4 years and how the oil companies share prices have been volatile and that will give you a very good indication. I like volatility as thats when you can make some very good returns.


----------



## dj_420 (6 May 2007)

Punter said:


> neither does CUY......CUY has a leach plan for what was it 25 t of u308? and they aren't allowed to sell it...CUY is a mine without a JORC compliant resource
> 
> I pull up CUY's market cap and its 2.6*65 = ~$170m. Thats a lot for a company without a JORC or any good grade actual drill hits(which ags has)
> 
> In conclusion: CUY is just a bit part explorer.




im only talking about companies that are beginning to fast track to production stage. these two in particular have caught my eye due to the fact that insitu leach can be setup within 1 and half to 2 years.

CUY have yet to release the JORC on their tenements, thats what latest round of drilling has been for apparantly


----------



## dj_420 (6 May 2007)

also the fact that JP Morgan took a placement in CUY at $2 recently, obviously sets a floor. CUY have also been given go ahead for trial leach mining which i CANNOT see any other company doing so far in australia (from explorer point of view) which pending positive trials will apply for commercial mining lease.

qoute from insitu leach trial ann

_If the outcome of trials is positive as we expect then we will seek further environmental and other approvals from the Commonwealth Government to allow us to mine and export uranium. At the same time we will apply for a Mining Lease from the South Australian government and proceed as quickly as possible to production to take advantage of current buoyant uranium prices_

seems more advanced than others just plugging holes in the ground


----------



## mick2006 (6 May 2007)

the race is now on for a new breed of uranium producers, these companies will want to capitalise on the sky high uranium prices.  The operations will be short mine life around 5 years high grade leaching operations, with quick payback and strong cashflow, producers will target between 500-1000 tonnes per year.

Anyone got any thoughts on which maybe the first into production?

For me it is:

PNN in South Australia 
CTS in Peru


----------



## Pommiegranite (6 May 2007)

With Futures about to go live tomorrow. What are we expecting this immediate to short term impact on SP?

of:

a. explorers
b. near miners
c. miners

Thanks as I don't have a clue.


----------



## sleeper88 (6 May 2007)

Its hard to say, i don't believe any of the Australian explorers can be producing in the short term (1-2 yrs time). AGS might be the fastest out of the lot, with CUY behind it, given it has already commenced ISL trials. 

Looking overseas, imo, UKL should be the fastest to begin producing uranium  (2008) If BLR can rapidly prove up a JORC resource by the end of year, they could also be in the running to set up an ISL operation. 

WHE, MTN, PNN, EME, CMR (if it gets pass the environmental stage) would follow these ones, with CTS and BKY being the dark horses. 

I dont feel any other explorer would beat the ones stated above


----------



## nizar (6 May 2007)

dj_420 said:


> also the fact that JP Morgan took a placement in CUY at $2 recently, obviously sets a floor.




Oh you reckon??

What about when that insto took a placement at BDG, at, was it 70c ??

Not saying the same thing will happen to CUY (actually im also bullish on this stock) but you just cant generalise like that....


----------



## Pommiegranite (6 May 2007)

sleeper88 said:


> Its hard to say, i don't believe any of the Australian explorers can be producing in the short term (1-2 yrs time). AGS might be the fastest out of the lot, with CUY behind it, given it has already commenced ISL trials.
> 
> Looking overseas, imo, UKL should be the fastest to begin producing uranium  (2008) If BLR can rapidly prove up a JORC resource by the end of year, they could also be in the running to set up an ISL operation.
> 
> ...




Sound analysis..but BMN is notable by its absence from your list. Any reasons?


----------



## sleeper88 (6 May 2007)

Pommiegranite said:


> Sound analysis..but BMN is notable by its absence from your list. Any reasons?




Sorry Pommiegranite, i overlooked BMN, their recent inferred resource is 100ppm cut off, which is very low imo, however given the current U price, there's no better time to develop these lower grade deposits. They're planning to commence BFS in 2008, they will need to do more confirmation drilling so a rough estimate would be 2010 for production.


----------



## champ2003 (6 May 2007)

sleeper88 said:


> Sorry Pommiegranite, i overlooked BMN, their recent inferred resource is 100ppm cut off, which is very low imo, however given the current U price, there's no better time to develop these lower grade deposits. They're planning to commence BFS in 2008, they will need to do more confirmation drilling so a rough estimate would be 2010 for production.




True 2010 seems to be a viable time frame to mining. Here are a couple of snipets from The Australian.

*If you listen to the market watchers, no one in Australia has a full grip on the enormity of the asset and is undervaluing Bannerman shares. 

Bannerman wants to be in production by 2010 in what would be one of the fastest turnarounds from explorer to uranium producer for an Australian company*


----------



## Punter (6 May 2007)

sleeper88 said:


> Sorry Pommiegranite, i overlooked BMN, their recent inferred resource is 100ppm cut off, which is very low imo, however given the current U price, there's no better time to develop these lower grade deposits. They're planning to commence BFS in 2008, they will need to do more confirmation drilling so a rough estimate would be 2010 for production.




Forsys metals(TSX: FSY) uses an 80ppm cut off......With all due respect even with that cut off, the costs per pound will be less than $25/lb, so still highly profitable..so you can't really discriminate against that cut off which Rossing also now uses...There are higher grades waiting to be drilled and over 38km of potential strike(with 7km of historical drilling)


----------



## alankew (6 May 2007)

Apologies if has already been posted earlier in thread but according to this link U price has risen to $120,no official confirmation but heres the link http://www.uranium-stocks.net/uranium-price-hits-120/


----------



## dj_420 (6 May 2007)

nizar said:


> Oh you reckon??
> 
> What about when that insto took a placement at BDG, at, was it 70c ??
> 
> Not saying the same thing will happen to CUY (actually im also bullish on this stock) but you just cant generalise like that....




BDG is probably another lesson in itself! i think that company has been a gold explorer with an expensive mine shaft and equipment for quite some time.

ok ill re-phrase

ill say the placement at $2 would set a nice confidence level for investors. lol.


----------



## eMark (7 May 2007)

Re - NYMEX Uranium futures May 07, 2007

Does anyone know where or what website will provide ongoing updates re the daily uranium futures. For example Kitco provides regular updates re the base metals. Also the start time if any?


----------



## Kimosabi (7 May 2007)

eMark said:


> Re - NYMEX Uranium futures May 07, 2007
> 
> Does anyone know where or what website will provide ongoing updates re the daily uranium futures. For example Kitco provides regular updates re the base metals. Also the start time if any?




This is the NYMEX Uranium Futures website (You have to agree to the disclaimer to access the website) ==> http://www.nymex.com/UX_cso.aspx

This is sure going to be interesting...


----------



## Pommiegranite (7 May 2007)

Kimosabi said:


> This is the NYMEX Uranium Futures website (You have to agree to the disclaimer to access the website) ==> http://www.nymex.com/UX_cso.aspx
> 
> This is sure going to be interesting...




No action on there yet. Any idea what time the action kicks off (I'm assuming its NY time...8am?)


----------



## champ2003 (7 May 2007)

WOW U308 on the NYMEX opened at $132.05!!!!


----------



## noirua (7 May 2007)

champ2003 said:


> WOW U308 on the NYMEX opened at $132.05!!!!





Hi, Excellent news for miners that have found Uranium. Will be interesting to see if the small fry, who have found nothing yet, get a lift as well.


----------



## noirua (7 May 2007)

Uranium Custom Quotes and Futures:  http://www.futuresource.com/quotes/...,time,last,chgoldsettle,open,high,low,asx,bid


----------



## zed327 (7 May 2007)

Now $135 per pound for july delivery.

What sort of impact will this have on the SA explorers like AGS - CUY - PNN - MTN.

It's going to be very interesting to see what price it finishes at tonight.


----------



## zed327 (7 May 2007)

Sorry that was for june delivery.


----------



## rederob (7 May 2007)

Uranium up over 100% in 6 months.
And nickel is .....?
And silver is ....?
And gold is ....?
And Oil is .....?

Is it a coincidence that BHP - which has the biggest uranium find/mine in the world, is the 3rd greatest producer of nickel, has the largest silver mine (at Cannington), and dabbles in oil and gold as well - is heading firmly north again?


----------



## dj_420 (8 May 2007)

what does this mean for our uranium stocks? i dont really understand the fact that the price is seperate from the actual physical metal. i mean on other futures they are traded as people can take delivery of the physical metal. now as we cant take delivery of yellowcake does this mean the spot price will be different from futures contracts or what?

i would appreciate if anyone who has a good understanding of futures markets could explain the effects thanks.


----------



## zed327 (8 May 2007)

June delivery finished at $140.

How this impacts on uranium stocks is anybody's guess at the moment.


----------



## james99 (8 May 2007)

I suspect that it must impact positively, especially on current or near term producers, and particularly those that have not contracted all of their supply.


----------



## Kimosabi (9 May 2007)

Well, Uranium Futures are currently sitting at US$148 

Go you mighty nuclear powered bull...


----------



## eMark (9 May 2007)

zed327 said:


> June delivery finished at $140.
> 
> How this impacts on uranium stocks is anybody's guess at the moment.



Last night the close was $143.00. Still no real effect on the share prices? Obviously there are are other elements at play within each stock. But it's like it's almost a non event. Could it be that the market being at all time high's, has pushed the good Uranium prices underneath the radar. That's the only reason I can come up with.


----------



## noirua (11 May 2007)

Dec 07 and Jan 08 delivery, immediate payment, finished at US$150.00 (U308 swap).


----------



## Kauri (14 May 2007)

Todays West Australian...

The race is on for uranium companies such as Deep Yellow and Marathon Resources to develop their projects within the next three years to cash in on the booming uranium market, according to a Far East Capital report to be released today.

After comparing the potential profitability of emerging yellowcake producers based on standard industry economics, Far East Capital uranium analyst Warwick Grigor said there was fundamental value in emerging producers but companies needed to fast-track projects if they were to maximise the peak of the price cycle. 
The spot price for the radioactive ore has climbed nearly 180 per cent in the past 12 months to a record closing price of $US120 a pound last week, while Nymex December uranium futures are trading at $US153.90/lb. 
“Overwhelmingly the conclusion is that the economics are real and companies should be pushing ahead full steam to develop their projects,” Mr Grigor said. 
“The biggest winners on our table and in the stockmarket are those lowgrade companies that we had been dismissive of two years ago. Since then the uranium price has quadrupled, catapulting these companies into enviable positions.” 
He estimates that if all 19 Australian potential uranium producers were to reach production it would increase uranium supply by 17,000 tonnes a year, or up to 30 per cent over the next five years. If combined with increasing global supply, this could drag the uranium price back below $US100/lb. 
“This means that the highly leveraged, low-grade companies will need to be up and running as early as possible to maximise the peak of the uranium price cycle, sometime between today and three years time,” he said. 
One of the hurdles will be the high capital costs of up to $300 million to develop many of the low-grade projects. 
The report suggests that this could be a significant issue for Acclaim, Bannerman, Deep Yellow, Toro and Uranex, while better-placed companies include Contact, Energy Metals, Monaro and Uranium King. 
Mr Grigor warned many of the floats now hitting the market were opportunistic plays and that it would be difficult for even potential producers to negotiate their way through regulatory and compliance issues in the three-year time frame. “The ones in the USA are probably the most likely to go ahead because of the greater reliability of the data and the historical information ... but those mines are unlikely to big ones,” he said. 
Mr Grigor said he was constantly being asked if the uranium sector was “another dotcom boom” and the unreserved answer was no because it was possible to run fundamental analysis. 
“You can estimate rates of production, you have a market price for the product and you can reasonably estimate capital and operating costs,” he said. “This is a bull market based on hard factual economics, not fantasies and what-ifs. The conclusion is that at these uranium prices there are enormous cash flows that can be made.” 
Mr Grigor said there were still a number of unknowns in trying to determine the numbers for some companies. 
The main assumptions used in the absence of official numbers included capital expenditure per tonne of capacity of $85 and a spot price of $US113/lb. 
TRACEY COOK


----------



## disarray (14 May 2007)

we would be seeing a flow on to capital goods providers like MAH if uranium plays are about to splurge on equipment to rush build their mines. what other listed companies would stand to benefit?


----------



## bigdog (17 May 2007)

*Uranium exports could earn $10bn a year, says Labor*

Encourging report today with labor position on uranium mining!

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21742434-5005200,00.html

Uranium exports could earn $10bn a year, says Labor
Ashleigh Wilson 
May 16, 2007 

A LABOR frontbencher has defended the party's decision to support the expansion of uranium mining while standing firm against the development of nuclear power in Australia.

Addressing a uranium conference in Darwin today, Opposition transport spokesman Martin Ferguson said nuclear power did not “stack up economically” and was unrelated to the ALP's decision last month to drop its long-standing policy against new uranium mines. 

Mr Ferguson, the Opposition Transport, Roads and Tourism spokesman, acknowledged that the “world has moved on” in the uranium debate, and said ensuring safeguards to guarantee its safe use should be the nation's most important priority. 

Martin Ferguson today urged 300 delegates attending the Australia's Uranium Conference to "turn that huge challenge into a reality". 

"With uranium prices at US$113 a pound and global uranium demand growing rapidly to meet power generation needs in a carbon constrained world we have the potential to export $10 billion a year within the next decade," Mr Ferguson said. 

A long-term supporter of nuclear power, Mr Ferguson said stakeholders needed to espouse the virtues of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) to turn the tide of public support. 

He added: “Each country will choose the energy source that suits its need."

“Australia is an energy-rich nation, the envy of the world. The energy sources that we develop and utilise are what suits out economic future. 

“Contrary to what some suggest at the moment, just because we choose to sell uranium to the world doesn't mean we need to have nuclear power in Australia. The issue of nuclear power enrichment in Australia is a separate debate.” 

Mr Ferguson, who first entered the uranium debate as a young union official in the Northern Territory three decades ago, said the nation's younger generation was more open-minded about uranium mining than their parents. 

“Older people have a different attitude to younger people in the Australian community at the moment,” he said. 

“People of my generation .... in the broader community, there is a hesitancy. But amongst our younger people, especially in the context of the greenhouse debate, there is a willingness to actually debate the issue of uranium mining. The world has moved on both internationally and domestically”


----------



## captjohn (25 May 2007)

*Re: BMN - Bannerman Resources*

The editor of Stockinterview.com wants to do an article next week on;

*"ASX listed Uranium explorers in Namibia"...*

I'm his sorta local 'Clark Kent',but the 'kryptonite' in my pocket is slowing me down ;
so please add to the list below;

 let me know ASAP ( briefly via PM)...the companies you know of in Namibia.
how far advanced & estimated resouces in pounds!

bmn, is top o' the list ...ern,,dyl,wme,nel,ext,............

thanx, capt.yellowcake   Arghhhh!!


----------



## kromey (2 June 2007)

Uranium now $133LB http://www.stockinterview.com/


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 June 2007)

I never thought it would happen... 

Minemakers are talking about mining the uranium deposits that have been known to exist in North-East Tasmania since the 1950's.

I'm not sure exactly what's going on with this. I'm genuinely wondering if it's a hoax to distract the greens and get the pulp mill approved. Either that or Minemakers wants an environmental battle that makes the Franklin and Wesley Vale look like a friendly gathering for a Sunday afternoon bushwalk.

I saw an old van with a full set of triangles from "Dams" to "Mill" the other day neatly lined up along the back window. Perhaps they'll need to add "Mines" to the collection...


----------



## Kimosabi (2 June 2007)

Smurf1976 said:


> I never thought it would happen...
> 
> Minemakers are talking about mining the uranium deposits that have been known to exist in North-East Tasmania since the 1950's.
> 
> ...




Bloody hippies, don't they know that smoking dope is contributing to the Greenhouse effect.

Anyway, does anyone know what the position of the Tasmanian Government is regarding the mining of Uranium?


----------



## eMark (2 June 2007)

kromey said:


> Uranium now $133LB http://www.stockinterview.com/




What? 

Down from $140? 

http://www.futuresource.com/quotes/...,time,last,chgoldsettle,open,high,low,asx,bid

Or up from $125? 

http://www.kitcometals.com/

I'm not sure which price is right?

Here's the actual article re the $133.00 price tag. Thanks Kromey. Sounds like there is a 3rd auction to go. But that's what is confusing. There are spot prices now, and auctions. Have a look at the future source link also.

_June 2, 2007
By Julie Ickes and James Finch 

Uranium Auctions Drive Spot Price 11.5 Percent Higher

Two Auctions Down; Another on June 12th
‘Could Reach Well Above US$140/Pound’ by Monday



According to NUEXCO/TradeTech Uranium Spot History chart, the past three years have witnessed the most dramatic rise in the spot price of U3O8 since this consulting service began keeping records in 1968. Courtesy of Nuclear Market Review, a TradeTech publication. Changes in the weekly spot price are posted on the company’s website: www.uranium.info 

COPYRIGHT © 2007 by StockInterview.com, Inc. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.  


Another wild week in the spot uranium pricing market broke all historical records, no matter how it is calculated. On Thursday night, Nuclear Market Review’s (NMR) month-end report announced US$133/pound. (We posted this on the front page of StockInterview.com as ‘Breaking News’ Thursday night.) Ostensibly, this was the final price for U3O8 auctioned by Mestena Uranium LLC on Wednesday when the sealed envelopes were opened.

But on Friday night, Nuclear Market Review marked the weekly spot uranium price indicator higher – to US$138/pound. This represents an increase of more than 11.5 percent from the previous weekly spot price of US$122.

Losing bids at Mestena were given another chance at a second auction on Friday to win the material they failed to buy on Wednesday, according to Nuclear Market Review editor, Treva Klingbiel.

During a phone call Friday night, we caught TradeTech chief executive Gene Clark between flights (he was on his way to Athens, Greece to make his presentation at the World Nuclear Fuel Market conference). “We issued a conservative increase to US$138 because Friday’s bids have not yet been announced,” Clark told StockInterview.com. “Our sources provided us with guidance of $138, but we believe the final sale could reach well over US$140/pound.” Clark cautioned, “Each auction has taken the spot uranium price higher, and we anticipate this could again occur at the June 12th auction.”

What then happens after June 12th? That’s when yet another auction – the third in less than two weeks – plans to offer 125 thousand pounds of U3O8.

TradeTech increased the consulting service’s long-term U3O8 equivalent price indicator on Friday to US$95/pound. This has been the market’s only month-end long-term price indicator reported, which others tend to utilize or report as their own.

According to Treva Klingbiel, “Long-term demand remains strong with 14 utilities seeking offers totaling approximately 26 million pounds U3O8 equivalent for delivery in 2007 – 2018.”

We have also observed a stronger increase in the spot uranium trading volume, after a hesitant start in 2007. As a comparison, spot volume to date was at about the same level as 1997. Yet by the end of 1997, more spot uranium was sold than at any other time during the ten-year period 1996 to 2006. 

Chart courtesy of www.theinvestar.com which tracks both Canadian and Australian stocks. In the Canadian chart, 43 uranium companies – each with more than C$40 million in market capitalization comprise this weekly index. The Australian Index tracks 25 companies, which own uranium assets. 

Matthew Smith of TheInvestar.com reports uranium stocks are suffering from lower lows and lower highs. This is generally a bearish indicator, but Smith pointed out, “After each new low, we only dip down less than one percent.”

Smith reports that the market needs an uplifting trigger to turn stock prices around. He pointed to additional changes in the spot weekly uranium price and possible deal-making with Energy Metals (NYSE ARCA: EMU) for a possible acquisition of that company.

As we believe, more consolidation is expected in this junior uranium mining space. Any significant drop in the price of uranium mining stocks at this point – especially those expected to become producers before 2013 – could lead to announcements of acquisitions, business combinations or mergers.

Previous comments from the chief executives of Denison Mines (AMEX: DNN) and Uranium One (TSX: SXR) suggest they have been waiting for a better time to make acquisitions. As has been found with most investors, no one really enjoys over-paying for their purchases._


----------



## champ2003 (2 June 2007)

eMark said:


> What?
> 
> Down from $140?
> 
> ...





Emark don't forget that the Nymex u308 price is purely financial and is not linked to the physical commodity itself so the Nymex price is $140 (which is your futuresource.com link) and the physical commodity is up from $125 to $133 which is what you should focus on IMO.

Cheers!

Champ


----------



## kromey (2 June 2007)

http://www.stockinterview.com/uranium-index.html


----------



## 56gsa (2 June 2007)

56gsa said:


> cheers kennas wouldn't it be good if we had an aussie U index so these general trends could be seen more easily...




answering my own question from the NEL thread - seems they do have index but not montioring it every day - any others found an Aussie U index that gets updated daily?

http://www.theinvestar.com/theinvestarsaustralianuraniumaverage.html


----------



## rederob (2 June 2007)

champ2003 said:


> Emark don't forget that the Nymex u308 price is purely financial and *is not linked to the physical commodity *itself so the Nymex price is $140 (which is your futuresource.com link) and the physical commodity is up from $125 to $133 which is what you should focus on IMO.
> Cheers!
> Champ



Champ
I don't trade futures, but understand the settlement is a financial transaction.
I assume the transaction must be "linked" to the physical somehow, as the market introduced this futures contract to give the market pricing transparancy.
If there is no link at all to the physical, then the pricing mechanism has no basis: They might as well be widget futures as uranium.


----------



## champ2003 (2 June 2007)

rederob said:


> Champ
> I don't trade futures, but understand the settlement is a financial transaction.
> I assume the transaction must be "linked" to the physical somehow, as the market introduced this futures contract to give the market pricing transparancy.
> If there is no link at all to the physical, then the pricing mechanism has no basis: They might as well be widget futures as uranium.




Hi Rederob,

I agree with you in that the Nymex futures transactions should be linked to the physical commodity as it is with other commodities however it isn't at the moment unfortunately and that means that there is a danger of the two prices diverging enormously in the future which would cause a little confusion regarding the true value of u308 IMO.

Cheers!

Champ


----------



## eMark (3 June 2007)

champ2003 said:


> Emark don't forget that the Nymex u308 price is purely financial and is not linked to the physical commodity itself so the Nymex price is $140 (which is your futuresource.com link) and the physical commodity is up from $125 to $133 which is what you should focus on IMO.
> 
> Cheers!
> 
> Champ




Thanks for the reply. So does this increase from $125 to $133 bode well for the short term prospects? (i.e enough positive sentiment to lift some our Uranium stocks in the short term). Hard to answer I know. Obviously long term, as Redrob has said fundamentals are in place for companies like PDN.


----------



## kromey (3 June 2007)

eMark said:


> Thanks for the reply. So does this increase from $125 to $133 bode well for the short term prospects? (i.e enough positive sentiment to lift some our Uranium stocks in the short term). Hard to answer I know. Obviously long term, as Redrob has said fundamentals are in place for companies like PDN.




Now $138lb refer to my top link


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (6 June 2007)

*Another take over, US $1.75Billion = $2.2 Billion AUD for 61m lb's Uranium = SXR paid $35 AUD for each pound of Uranium!*


Uranium just got hotter
Merger capitalizes on a metal that has soared 500% since 2003 
ANDY HOFFMAN 

From Tuesday's Globe and Mail

June 5, 2007 at 4:11 AM EDT

In the rapidly shifting uranium sector, where the price of the metal used to make nuclear fuel has soared more than 500 per cent since 2003, the aggressive deal maker has prospered.

Few have been more willing to pull the trigger on a takeover than Toronto's sxr Uranium One Inc. [SXR-T] , which yesterday unfurled its latest purchase, a *$1.75-billion, all-stock offer* for Vancouver's Energy Metals Corp. [EMC-T] , which owns a slew of uranium projects in the United States and a processing facility.

If successful, the deal will create an $8.2-billion entity, amalgamating two of the most active players in the industry, which through a series of rapid-fire acquisitions, have each capitalized on the surge of interest in all things radioactive.

"We believe in our product more so than some people who have been in this business for a long time," Neal Froneman, Uranium One's president and chief executive officer, said in an interview.

Energy Metals


SXR Uranium One


 A nearly bankrupt South African gold company with no production to speak of three years ago, deal making has vaulted Uranium One to its position as the second largest publicly traded uranium producer, behind industry stalwart Cameco Corp. of Saskatoon.

A $3.8-billion merger with UrAsia Energy Ltd. last year gave Uranium One much-needed production assets in Kazakhstan to complement its Dominion mine in South Africa and Honeymoon project in Australia. 

Investment bankers at BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc. have guided the company's transformation, facilitating transactions, a Toronto Stock Exchange listing and a move of its headquarters from Johannesburg to Toronto.

Energy Metals or EMC has also been a keen consolidator.

Amid the rocketing price of uranium concentrate, or yellowcake, EMC snapped up several U.S. uranium properties in 2005 and in 2006 pulled off three acquisitions; Standard Uranium, Quincy Energy and High Plains Uranium. 

The spot price of uranium has more than doubled over the past year to an all-time high of $138 (U.S.) a pound.

"It's really a race to production," Paul Matysek, EMC's president and CEO, said in an interview.

For Uranium One, EMC offers the potential for a major presence in the United States, where demand for yellowcake from U.S. utilities is about 50 million pounds a year, outstripping the annual domestic production of approximately four million pounds by roughly 11 times. Nuclear-generated electricity has returned to favour amid concerns about emissions from coal-fired plants and worries about dependence on energy from foreign sources.

EMC is developing uranium projects in Texas, Wyoming, New Mexico and Utah, among other states, and is expected to begin a modest level of production in Texas next year, followed by a mine startup in Wyoming in 2009 or 2010. *The company, which was advised on the deal by GMP Securities LP, has roughly 61 million pounds of measured and indicated resources.*
"This transaction results in the creation of a powerhouse in the U.S. uranium sector and goes a long way towards reaching our goal of releasing uranium to U.S. utilities," Mr. Matysek, who will stay with the combined company to lead operations in the Americas, said on a conference call.

Mr. Froneman expects U.S. uranium demand to increase and predicts between six and 10 new reactors will be approved for construction in the next few years.

"I do believe we are seeing a U.S. nuclear renaissance," he said.

The bulk of EMC's assets will use "in-situ recovery" or ISR -- a process that uses ground water to leach uranium from deposits. Uranium One's operations in Kazakhstan also use ISR.

Despite Uranium One's rapid growth, Cameco remains the industry giant, with a market value more than double Uranium One's and 10 times its 2007 production. 

Cameco has ignored the flurry of sector takeovers, concentrating instead on its own development projects, including the troubled Cigar Lake mine.

"This transaction results in a larger, higher-growth alternative to Cameco," Mr. Froneman said.

SXR URANIUM ONE:

Close: $16.10, down 53 cents

ENERGY METALS:

Close: $18.44, up 15 cents.

*****

The Deal

sxr Uranium One is offering 1.15 of its shares for each Energy Metals Corp. share or $18.51 based on yesterday's closing price. EMC shareholders will own 21 per cent of the new company.

The Deal Makers: sxr Uranium One

December, 2005: Neal Froneman's Aflese Gold and Uranium Resources completes a reverse takeover of Southern Cross Resources.

July, 2006: Uranium One starts negotiating purchase of U.S. Energy Corp.'s uranium assets. 

February, 2007: Announces $3.8-billion stock-swap takeover of uranium producer UrAsia Energy Ltd.

Energy Metals Corp.

December, 2004: TSX Venture-listed Clan Resources Ltd. changes name to Energy Metals Corp. 

January-November, 2005: EMC stakes or acquires dozens of U.S. uranium properties in Utah, Wyoming, South Dakota and Oregon. 

Nov. 10, 2005: Announces stock deal to buy Standard Uranium Inc., giving it Hobson Plant uranium facility in Texas.

Nov. 16, 2005: Announces all-stock deal for Quincy Energy Corp.

August, 2006: All-stock deal for High Plains Uranium.

The Result

Valued at roughly $8.2-billion, the new company will be the second-largest publicly traded pure-play uranium producer, but still a distant second to Cameco's $19.9-billion market capitalization.


----------



## Go Nuke (3 July 2007)

Thought I would post this link to the "Australian" newspaper from today.

Its just talking up South Australia and all the mining thats happening there.

It gives a small mention to Heathgate,and the expansion of Roxby Downs etc etc. 
I thought the article was interesting over all.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21999951-5005200,00.html

And thois story on Uranium from the same paper today!

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21999893-5005200,00.html


----------



## powerkoala (3 July 2007)

hmm.. nice article.
would this helping to boost uranium stocks that got hammered (20-30%) since june?
we will see whether the market will make another uranium hype.


----------



## borat (4 July 2007)

Uranium has just had a small dip, think it may spark a small sell off or negative sentiment for the short term?

http://energy.seekingalpha.com/article/40012


----------



## Sean K (31 July 2007)

Uranium has hardly been the raging bull lately (for months) but perhaps a bit of M&A action could get the ball rolling again.



> *Australian uranium explorers under a microscope from Haywood's Mustard*
> 
> One of North America’s high profile mining stock analysts, Jim Mustard, showed Australian companies and investors the enormous variance in value of Australian gold and uranium stocks in comparison to their counterparts on the Toronto Exchange. This, he said, was a climate ripe for takeovers and mergers.
> 
> ...


----------



## Gurgler (31 July 2007)

kennas said:


> Uranium has hardly been the raging bull lately (for months) but perhaps a bit of M&A action could get the ball rolling again.




Interesting read, Kennas. Wonder which fertile cows are being stalked by the now quietened bull? (apologies for the mixed metaphoric pictures this throws up!)

And on top of this, a quote from FN Arena article entitled *Australia Leads The Bounce*, this morning:

*The bulls are back feeling smug again of course while the bears are not surprised and point to more pain to come. Is this the eye of the storm? There is a raft of economic data set to hit the US market this week which will no doubt fuel volatility and be seized upon by either camp. The consumption numbers tonight will be particularly scrutinised, although the bears maintain their mantra that any data is rear-view mirror stuff. It will be next month's, and the month after's data that will provide greater clarity. It's not over yet, they warn*.

What are the longer term implications (if any) for the U sector - both here and abroad?


----------



## TheAbyss (3 August 2007)

Interesting article in the Australian today. Thought provoking if nothing else. Could be something to formulate a strategy around? Thoughts?

Uranium fell again for the fourth consecutive week and now sits at $US120/lb. But that is still a great price. 

And the other phenomenon is the haircut being taken by shares in some of the high-value players. Paladin Resources, Alliance Resources, Energy Metals, PepinNini Minerals and, 

particularly, Marathon Resources have all been given a good thrashing by the market. If you were going to pick the bluebloods among the 140 or so uranium stocks, they would be the names that would be among the first to come to mind. And they all have access to the funds necessary to see their projects through. 

Now Pure Speculation has been wagging its finger for some months about all the uranium frenzy, but we have no doubt about the huge future for the metal as the world faces the energy (and greenhouse) crunch. So we would stick with companies that look as if they can actually produce U308. 

As to many of the rest, Fat Prophets' Gavin Wendt makes an interesting point. He believes that many of the smaller uranium floats -- the $3 million or so crowd -- are soon going to face a cash crunch. He argues that, if you raised $3 million or $4 million a while ago, and then deducted costs of the float, and then spent money on administration and then -- perhaps -- even done a touch of exploring, there will soon not be much left of that original grubstake. 

Companies in that situation are soon going to have to come back to the market, and Wendt doubts whether too many of them will find it easy raising cash on the secondary market unless they have something to show for their efforts. And, remember, many of the punters who helped put up those dobs of $3 million did so in the expectation of a quick turn when the price spiked on listing. They're not interested in having the money tied up by the tiresome and frequently unsuccessful business of exploration. 

It will be the companies with attractive projects that will be able to raise new cash. Scimitar Resources did just that, pocketing another $5.1 million last week (and getting Canadian predator Mega Uranium on its register).


----------



## Sean K (3 August 2007)

TheAbyss said:


> Interesting article in the Australian today. Thought provoking if nothing else. Could be something to formulate a strategy around? Thoughts.



I don't think there's any doubt that B4M will be a mine, but AGS still looks expensive. It has since it broke through 20 cents!  LOL That is unless Arkaroola produces a few more U mines, or something IOCGU which has been mooted.

There are still doubts on whether Mt Gee can be mined. The company keeps on coming out with the same blurb that it's in a Class A area and if it's in the 'National interest' it'll get passed. Too vague, but a terrific deposit. My most probable guess is that it will eventually get through after bribing PG the Greens. Although Rann might be investing in it as we speak, so it might not go to Fed level.

PDN has been seriously garotted, and looks like a tasty bite for a BHP, or a big Canadian....If their sp doesn't stand up, then watch out.

BMN is a lame duck at the moment. YT could almost buy them out.

PNN will probably dig some yellow stuff up. 

Doubts on CUY. Grades and thicknesses are unexciting.


----------



## Sean K (3 August 2007)

Those that think my comment about YT being able to buy out BMN was serious, can pick up their sence of humour at the door. Being a 'lame duck' infers they are a TO target. Cheers.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (3 August 2007)

kennas said:


> BMN is a lame duck at the moment. YT could almost buy them out.






kennas said:


> Those that think my comment about YT being able to buy out BMN was serious, can pick up their sence of humour at the door. Being a 'lame duck' infers they are a TO target. Cheers.




You just had to go and make my secret takeover public didn't you Kennariso?

Sighhhh, now I'll probably have to pay more for the takeover, let me check my car's ashtray,

How much was it again $300m $400m,

umm... will a chq do? :

ON A SERIOUS NOTE, its amazing how the Uranium price has fallen from $130+ a lb to $120 lb ie $10 drop and some are thinking correction, crash the end of the U bubble etc,

The truth is fundamentally nothing has changed,

Peak Oil is still upon us, as evidenced by a lack of gigantic new finds, old elephant fields are bieng depleted and the POO is skyrocketing

Global warming and Greenhouse gases is also taking centre stage and while most can't agree on where to go next, everyone agrees, coal has got to go!

This Nuclear Industry was not a swith that was just turned on, but rather a giant ball of uranium rolling down a hill, sure its lost a bit of momentum but its still rolling down that hill,

The only thing that could seriously de-rail the Global Nuclear shift is a Chernobyl or something similar


----------



## dj_420 (3 August 2007)

YOUNG_TRADER said:


> You just had to go and make my secret takeover public didn't you Kennariso?




i thought you were making moves on CTS yt?

anyways i see the uranium bull returning, with a vengeance! BUT only producers or near term producers will benefit

PDN, AGS, PNN, CUY?, CTS?, EME?, MTN?


----------



## nomore4s (3 August 2007)

I knew you'd upset the BMN boys over that comment.

IMO to u sector has cooled off due to the fact some reality is probably setting in re actually digging the stuff out of the ground. If companies like RIO and BHP are having trouble keeping costs down and finding labour, where does that put smaller companies trying to become producers? Let alone the problems with approvals etc.

The high price of U won't mean a thing unless you can get it out of the ground and sell it.

The other thing is the market tends to over do things when it gets excited over something, whether that is prices going up or prices going down it tends to go too far then come back to a more sensible "value", maybe this is now happening in the U sector.

Have some of them now gone too far the other way? Not sure only time will tell.


----------



## Sean K (3 August 2007)

dj_420 said:


> i thought you were making moves on CTS yt?
> 
> anyways i see the uranium bull returning, with a vengeance! BUT only producers or near term producers will benefit
> 
> PDN, AGS, PNN, CUY?, CTS?, EME?, MTN?



Yep, I think BMN will be a mine as well. 

Not sure of any others that have real solid fundamentals right now that will survive a credit crunch. 

DYL might be taken by PDN, depending on what they shore up in Namibia.....but that doesn't make them a miner.


----------



## samtomo (3 August 2007)

Hi, just my . 

From what i see this morning, looks like the U sector is trying to recover? Maybe they're bottiming out? Guess we'll just have to see how the day goes.

When do you think the U sector will recover, if it hasn't so? Should we start thinking about getting back in?... Maybe with all the hype about the market overall, trying to make some ground, everyone's jumping in, and thus the price has still room for downtrend?

Just wondering what you experienced investors/punters think.


----------



## eMark (3 August 2007)

kennas said:


> PDN has been seriously garotted, and looks like a tasty bite for a BHP, or a big Canadian....If their sp doesn't stand up, then watch out.




Kennas. Re your comment on PDN's share price standing up, or failing to do so. Do you mean "watch out" as in the sp will fall significantly further, or be circled for a takeover.


----------



## Sean K (4 August 2007)

eMark said:


> Kennas. Re your comment on PDN's share price standing up, or failing to do so. Do you mean "watch out" as in the sp will fall significantly further, or be circled for a takeover.



Takeover. An opportunist could come in. PDN has been mentioned continuously in the press as a takeover target by one of the larger U groups but I think the sp running away how it did would have put anyone off. It would be opportunistic now for anyone to start raiding their register. As far as dropping any further, depends on the general market I think. These guys won't have much of a cash flow for some time while their ramping up, and it's going take some time before they turn a profit. Not sure what the BFS said about that. So, limited cash flow linked to tighter credit market = potential difficulties. Certainly one of the hardest hit the past 4 months and particularly the last week. $6.50 looks like developing into short term support but you'd be a brave person to be catching all these falling knives right now. Lots of uncertainty still about.


----------



## shag (4 August 2007)

kennas said:


> Takeover. An opportunist could come in. PDN has been mentioned continuously in the press as a takeover target by one of the larger U groups but I think the sp running away how it did would have put anyone off. It would be opportunistic now for anyone to start raiding their register. As far as dropping any further, depends on the general market I think. These guys won't have much of a cash flow for some time while their ramping up, and it's going take some time before they turn a profit. Not sure what the BFS said about that. So, limited cash flow linked to tighter credit market = potential difficulties. Certainly one of the hardest hit the past 4 months and particularly the last week. $6.50 looks like developing into short term support but you'd be a brave person to be catching all these falling knives right now. Lots of uncertainty still about.




kennas don't you think with the speed that pdn dives and shoots up that picking the bottom and getting a good return will be difficult?
i guess i'm also saying is how much is it likely to be worth as a takeover play ie how much fat once the word is out.


----------



## Sean K (5 August 2007)

shag said:


> kennas don't you think with the speed that pdn dives and shoots up that picking the bottom and getting a good return will be difficult?
> i guess i'm also saying is how much is it likely to be worth as a takeover play ie how much fat once the word is out.



Shag, I'm going to ramble a bit here so be prepared. It depends to some extent on your time horizon for your investment and your capital base. Lets _assume _that PDN will recover at some stage and go back to previous highs. How long this takes however, is unknown. 3 months, 2 years? Let's also _assume _that it hasn't hit the bottom yet. Investing in it now, is not drama if you have the _long term _view and can cope with having capital tied up in something that may go down in the near future. I've assumed here that PDN will rise again, because on the balance of probabilities I think it will, but it's no sure thing either. Nothing like this is, IMO. We're also talking about it going down, and up. The possibility of it tracking sideways for some time and not giving you any capital growth is a possibility too, and you're probably not going to get dividends for some time...I suppose you need to sum up all the available information and make an investment decision on it. Ramble over.


----------



## Sean K (6 August 2007)

RIO CEO Tom Albanese as quoted this weekend:



> Mr Albanese also reiterated his bullish outlook for China and uranium, saying 2007 promised to be "an exceptional year for China".
> 
> "I very much like the uranium business and we are certainly investing in growing it. In fact, we've flagged opportunities to potentially double it over the next decade.




I thought Ranger was winding down over the next few years. Rossing can't be expanded that much I think. Jabiluka may not even be mined. Where's the doubling going to come from? Acquisition? Interesting. 

Would be nice to know which 'opportunities' have been flagged.


----------



## 56gsa (6 August 2007)

kennas said:


> I thought Ranger was winding down over the next few years. Rossing can't be expanded that much I think. Jabiluka may not even be mined. Where's the doubling going to come from? Acquisition? Interesting. Would be nice to know which 'opportunities' have been flagged.




As well as increasing out year production figures, ERA is putting a lot more effort into exploration and trying to expand Ranger - this is from ABN report:



> Development pipeline is beefing up... moving from zero to hero
> The feasibility for the pit 3 expansion is expected to be complete in the second half of 2007 (we believe a two-year mine life extension is likely). However, the company is also investigating several other options to increase production including: 1) a further expansion of the Ranger pit; 2) increased processing plant capacity; 3) installation of heap leach technology; and 4) the possibility of going underground. Overall, the outlook for production over the medium term is solid and there is still lots of work to be done to investigate options - maybe even expanding the surface plant to take
> advantage of the high prices.




No idea about the plans at Rossing.... but BMN is always a potential target given their proximity?  Don't forgot they have Kyntyre too in WA if we see a change in govt there




samtomo said:


> When do you think the U sector will recover, if it hasn't so? Should we start thinking about getting back in?... Maybe with all the hype about the market overall, trying to make some ground, everyone's jumping in, and thus the price has still room for downtrend?




I think when we start seeing some big players moving in to pick over the pieces we'll start seeing a revival - the NEL / TOE merger announced today is more opportunistic rather than a strategic buy at the bottom, but it may send a message of support for those U companies with good deposits


----------



## powerkoala (1 November 2007)

ok.. let's revive this thread.
after today's action, i think this is a good time to discuss our nice yellow cakes. 
most of uranium sp got bull today. 
some are still waiting for their turns.
will uranium stocks found it's reversal trend?
or this is only one day action?
discuss...
cheers


----------



## dj_420 (1 November 2007)

Well I dont know if many people have had a look at EQN but they are a copper / uranium company that will start production in around 9 months.

IMO EQN will surely be able to capture significant movement as they would be the closest to been the next producer.

They havent included their uranium figures in their BFS yet, eagerly awaiting those! So far the mine financials have been based on copper production.


----------



## petervan (1 November 2007)

DJ 420 ,have been reading on Canadian forum that what was reported on t.v there yesterday, EQN wish to mine 300000 tonnes per year but they must clear the top soil which contains high grade uranium. Wow what a problem to have


----------



## lancer (3 November 2007)

The US/Canadian stocks finished out the week on a great note today! (despite overall weakness-DJIA)Things have been looking great for u's lately and a few I have been watching are close to their all time high even before the august drop. With the price of U already fallen and hopefully headed back up or even stablizing things are getting exciting again.


----------



## eMark (5 November 2007)

Uranium Heating Up Again, Says Wizard
FN Arena News - November 05 2007 

Just like many other market watchers, the Tech Wizard had been underestimating the technical correction that commenced in June this year and nearly halved the spot price of uranium oxide (U3O8) in a time span of 16 weeks only.


However, weekly spot prices set by industry consultants TradeTech and Ux Consulting have risen again over the past few weeks and the Wizard’s own investigation in the industry has provided him with enough confidence to predict that spot U3O8 will soon surpass the price of a barrel of crude oil again.


Moreover, the Tech Wizard believes we could be talking a spot price of US$100+/lb before the end of this month -under a best case scenario- but most certainly before the end of December. His personal contacts inside the global professional investment community have ensured him hot money is looking at re-entering the sector again, with confidence currently riding high that uranium will regain its hot spot status in the market soon.


To his personal observation confidence amongst professional speculators in the industry hasn’t been this high for months. This strengthens his conviction in retaining a positive bias towards Australian uranium stocks.


Adding to what he believes is the best looking prospect for uranium prices and share prices of uranium stocks since the technical correction commenced in late June is the fact that Canadian market leader Cameco has again further delayed the opening of its flagship Cigar Lake mine. This mine should be supplying the global market with some 10% extra product, but Cameco management last week pushed the projected ramp up date into 2011. Originally, the mine was scheduled to commence production this calendar year already.


This suggests the market is likely to remain undersupplied for longer than currently penciled in by most securities analysts, he says.


The Tech Wizard notes how industry experts have doubted Cameco management’s earlier statements that production would only be delayed by twelve months only. Later that statement had been revised into a projected start up date sometime in 2010-2011. Since last week the market has become aware that Cigar Lake won’t be supplying any yellow cake into the market until at least 2011.


Looking at Australia’s two leading producers from a technical perspective, the Tech Wizard observes that both share prices of Energy Resources of Australia (ERA) and Paladin Resources ((PDN)) have found support at their 20 moving averages (M/A) since the correction began in June.


This is a good sign, he says.


ERA’s share price has bounced back since sinking below $15 and subsequently finding support at the 20 moving average (M/A), the Tech Wizard says.


He says the MACD indicator is bullish and this supports his positive view.





For Paladin the prospects look even better, he says. After topping out above $10 the shares have fallen 50% to bottom out below $5. As said above, after this the share price found solid support at the 20 moving average (M/A), the Wizard says, and this month his chart shows a bullish breakaway gap.


If by the end of November this gap is still in place this would be a very bullish sign for Paladin shares, says the Wizard, as this would indicate there is strong support for the stock at this price level.


Again, the MACD indicator is bullish and this adds to his positive view.





The Tech Wizard currently owns no shares in any of the companies mentioned in this story.


----------

