# Uranium Price - Where is it heading?



## Sean K (4 June 2007)

There's been some discussion in the stock threads about the uranium price and forecast. Thought discussuion might be better in it's own thread to try and get some decent responses.

In my opinion, the immediate picture looks very bullish due to the supply demand equation and it's hard to see what's going to force it back down until the new supply starts comming on and catches demand in the 2010s, probably around 2013 ish. Factors significantly effecting this outcome will the the extent of the OD expansion (output to tripple apparantly), Cigar Lake developments, extension of Jabiluka and opening of Ranger, and how successfully current developers can get their mines in to operation in Namibia, Zambia, Peru, SA/NT, Khazakstan, and the US, amongst other places. 

The other factor perhaps not really considered so far is that once the price of uranium gets too expensive then other options will be looked at for energy production. This is certainly part of the supply/demand equation and can not be overlooked.

So, short term to medium term we're going to see the price continue to rise, to what level may be determined by market factors. It can only go high till it's still desirable. I do not know what this price is. $300 lb?? It's a guess really.

Long term - 10+ years - possible around the time when all this new cake is comming on line - from 2013 +/- perhaps, I have seen prices range from $30 - $60. The only 'expert' reference I have found is from Resource Capital Research and it is probably out of date. This analysis was from mid 06.

http://new.marketwire.com/2.0/rel.jsp?id=601544

And their view is:



> Market forecasts for the long term price of uranium are generally around *US$30/lb*. Given potential rising demand for nuclear power plants (180 new nuclear reactors are currently proposed or planned worldwide) and the potential for delays to forecast new uranium production, we consider *there is upside risk *to this long term price forecast.




Does anyone have any other references to more recent mid and long term forecasts?


----------



## Sean K (4 June 2007)

This 'expert' gives US$85, as the 'long term' price. Need a definition of long term I feel.

*Uranium supply crunch will push prices up *
By Dave Hannon 
Purchasing 
May 30, 2007 

The CEO of the world’s largest uranium mining company says buyers can expect a uranium supply crunch in the near-term due to a lack of investment in uranium mining.

The lack of supply will push uranium prices up in the short term, but long-term prices will come back down as more supply comes online.

"In the near term we've got a little bit of a supply crunch that's going on mostly because for two decades there was almost no investment being made in exploration," Jerry Grandey, CEO of Cameco told the Reuters Global Mining and Steel Summit. "In the long term there's no question that these high prices are going to stimulate more production and as soon as there's a little bit of excess in the marketplace then I think you'll begin to see prices relax."

Grandey said while spot uranium prices were rising dramatically, the long-term price for uranium was about *$85/lb*, and “there doesn't seem to be much upward pressure on the long-term price, at least in the last few months.”

Other market participants, such as Neal Froneman, CEO of Toronto-based SXR Uranium say uranium prices may more than double to $250/lb next year as demand for the nuclear fuel outpaces production.

The uranium supply crunch and price increase is also pushing mining firms such as Rio Tinto Group to expand its mining efforts. In a recent presentation reported by Bloomberg, Rio Tinto Energy Group CEO Preston Chiaro said, “There remains plenty of upside to uranium fuel prices” and that Rio will benefit from higher prices when the company's long-term legacy contracts, signed with customers at lower prices, begin to expire between now and 2012. 

http://www.purchasing.com/article/CA6447783.html


----------



## dj_420 (4 June 2007)

looking good for the future IMO kennas

projects that will be feasible for lower spot price of uranium will be ones to benefit, as well as current producers and near term producers.

PDN looking better and better.


----------



## Sean K (5 June 2007)

The more I search on 'analysts' forecasts for uranium price the more skeptical I get about their assessments. They are all getting it wrong to the downside this year, so you'd have to think their longer term views might be a bit to the downside as well.

This article was from Jan 07. Not long ago. 



> *Uranium 2007 Price Forecast*
> By: James Finch
> 
> It is no wonder the research analysts are bullish about the uranium price. Vicky Binns and Daniel Hynes of *Merrill Lynch forecast an average price of $75/pound in 2007 and $80/pound in 2008*. The analysts stated, “We don’t see a major trigger on the horizon that will force spot prices down.”  Adam Schatzker of *RBC Capital Markets remarked*, “There is not a lot of mine production. The inventories being sold into the market are disappearing and we’re actually in a supply-demand deficit.” *He predicted the uranium price would average $100/pound in 2007. *
> ...




http://www.uraniumseek.com/news/JamesFinch/1168443393.php

There's seems to be too many different views due to too much uncertainty to find an adequate estimate?


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (5 June 2007)

Hey Kenna,

I reckon the analysts have about as much clue as you or I do regarding the Future pirce for Uranium,

I see it as being strong, now I don't know if this menas continued upward movements, BUT I CAN'T SEE IT RETRACING TOO MUCH,

In the Market ... 
The spot uranium price continues to break all historical records, and the spot uranium price reported on May 31 of $133.00 per pound U3O8 has already been superseded by market developments. Bids were due Friday, June 1 to a seller offering 200 thousand pounds U3O8 and 100 tU as UF6 for delivery by June 15. Another seller is auctioning 125 thousand pounds U3O8 for delivery in June. Bids are due to the seller by June 12. Buyers that submitted losing bids earlier in the week to a US producer selling 100 thousand pounds U3O8 adjusted their bids upward in an effort to win the material offered in today’s auction. The introduction of additional supply during the last half of May from a variety of sources (in the form of both U3O8 and UF6) has eased the tight supply situation somewhat. This has served to buffer the market from the dramatic price increases witnessed in the past few months. *As a result, TradeTech’s Spot Price Indictor is up a modest $5.00 to $138.00 per pound U3O8.*  

My call $150 US/lb avg over 2007


----------



## 56gsa (5 June 2007)

kennas said:


> The more I search on 'analysts' forecasts for uranium price the more skeptical I get about their assessments. They are all getting it wrong to the downside this year, so you'd have to think their longer term views might be a bit to the downside as well.



Agree Kennas - heres some numbers I posted 21 Jan - all looking woefully inadequate 



> brokers yearly average price for u3o8 from the eureka report...
> 
> 2007 2008 2009
> Deutsche Bank 100 105 90
> ...


----------



## Sean K (5 June 2007)

YOUNG_TRADER said:


> Hey Kenna,
> 
> I reckon the analysts have about as much clue as you or I do regarding the Future pirce for Uranium,
> 
> ...



I think 'analysts' are probably more conservative generally than we would be. There's probably more negative consequence to them if they get it wrong to the upside. 

I certainly agree that it will be strong short to medium term and I'd think ave $150 this year is possible, but my interest has been long term when some of the juniors may be producing and the long term price may determine their viability. All these new players are probably looking at the mid 10s to produce. Grades and costs per lb start to become more important here. 

I started this thread in the hope that some of the conjecture about how important long term prices are to the juniors could be discussed in order to have a more informed view of their potential to mine.


----------



## dj_420 (5 June 2007)

Auctions Return Excitement To Uranium Market
FN Arena News - June 04 2007 

By Rudi Filapek-Vandyck

Our sources in the industry were quick in notifying us TradeTech's weekly U3O8 (uranium concentrate or yellow cake) spot price had been set at US$138/oz on Friday, an increase of US$16 (13.11%) from the previous week's US$122/oz.

No doubt the market will be closely watching what figure Ux Consulting, the other market watcher that sets weekly spot prices, comes up with this week as TradeTech's figure appears only to include indicative suggestions regarding Friday's auction.

On Thursday, Mestena's monthly auction of 100,000 pounds of yellowcake had pushed the new benchmark up to US$133/oz. It is widely believed Friday's auction will have generated a figure closer to if not above US$140/oz.

Possibly of equal importance is that TradeTech decided to increase its long term price indicator to US$95/oz on Friday as professional investors had been zooming in on the fact that, while the weekly spot price continued rising, the longer term price indicators at TradeTech and Ux had failed to follow suit. This may now take away some of the cautiousness that had been ruling the sector over the past few weeks.

As the next auction is scheduled for June 12 the market is likely to continue enjoying a strong pricing environment this month. Were spot uranium to reach US$150/oz over the next few weeks this would beat the most optimistic forecasts at the beginning of calendar 2007 by about six months. This may serve as a formal indicator about how the tightness in the uranium market has surprised even the staunchest bulls over the past few months. 

Stockinterview.com reports the June 12 auction involves 125,000 pounds of U3O8.

What should boost enthusiasm among investors in Australia is that one of the not so bullish market watchers, Macquarie, has significantly increased its price forecasts for the next few years. Judging by the latest developments, however, another upgrade of the broker's price forecasts may be necessary before the end of this year.

Macquarie forecasts U3O8 spot prices will peak at US$150/lb by year end, to average US$125/lb for the year. The average price for U3O8 is currently already above US$120/lb.

On Macquarie's forecasts, spot uranium should average US$135/lb in 2008. The broker continues to see a "moderating on strong mine supply growth" after that with spot uranium expected to average US$100/lb in 2009.

"While these forecasts represent a central case, we would not be surprised to see prices move up to around US$200/lb over the next two years", the analysts added.





interesting to note forecasts are starting to increase


----------



## MBI (5 June 2007)

YOUNG_TRADER said:


> Hey Kenna,
> 
> I reckon the analysts have about as much clue as you or I do regarding the Future pirce for Uranium,
> 
> I see it as being strong, now I don't know if this menas continued upward movements, BUT I CAN'T SEE IT RETRACING TOO MUCH,




Agree with your view on the analysts and it is a good thing really for investors (long position) that their forecast erred on the conservative side.

I think we found ourselves in relatively uncharted water over a peculiar short-term demand/supply situation contributed by a host of factors:
1.  Sudden surge in uranium demand over the past 2-3 yrs as alternative energy in response to accelerating oil prices and global warming awareness
2.  Supply inelasticity due to depletion of ex-nuclear stockpile.  Current productive mines locked in to long-term pricing supply contracts to finance their projects then, and will see the impact of higher prices coming in around 2009 on contract renewals. It takes 7-10 yrs to bring a prospective uranium mine into production and even so not all are very smooth namely the flooding of Cameco and ERA mines while Paladin is just beginning to contribute to new supply. 
3.  Prices of limited supply exacerbated by the absence of a transparent trading platform.  The spot prices which we use now are based on a closed auction deal between buyers-sellers, although there is a EFT future contract trading platform established in recent months.
4.  Hedge and private equity funds have entered into this limited market in recent months and some has reckoned that they are already holding collectively 15% of current available stockpile.

How long will this honeymoon pricing last?  I wish it will go on and on forever so that our u-counters will go up continuously, but one really know for sure although 2010 seems to be the general thinking.  But one thing most analysts agree is that with the hedge fund mgrs involvement, prices will become pretty volatile as other smaller investors feel the impact of their predatory prowess in the market.  Comparison has been made with the volatile gold bullion prices over the past 1.5 yrs allegedly by these smart players, and warned that it will be worse for uranium due to its limited available supply till 2010.  So one should get ready for a bumpy if not a roller-coaster ride soon once these fellas figure a way to maneuver in the market.  Right now they seem to have their plate full in mega corporate buyouts.

Cheers


----------



## the barry (6 June 2007)

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21856043-664,00.html

Link for mac bank article in the herald sun stating they think due to shortage that the spot price is headed towards $200 per pound in the next two years.


----------



## MBI (11 June 2007)

Like to share with everyone here about this article which I find interesting and very pertinent to this thread on where u prices is heading.  A pretty independent reporting on presentations at the world conference by various big-guns of uranium producers and brokers, and power utility suppliers.


*Utilities, Miners Bitterly Divided on Uranium Price Rise*
Report from World Nuclear Fuel Market Conference
June 8, 2007 - By James Finch and Julie Ickes

http://www.stockinterview.com/News/06082007/nuclear-fuel-conference-uranium-price.html


...Cheers


----------



## Sean K (12 June 2007)

*Uranium Prices Steam to a Froth *

By John Hurst, Resourcex.com 
Jun, 7th

From percolation to effervescence, the heady times of uranium prices can be expected to continue, before steadily declining in a couple of years.

The U.S. spot price currently bubbles at $138 a pound for U308.

And uranium at $200 per pound in two years? Two uranium analysts commented on June 5, “In the near term, with the market expected to remain in significant deficit in 2007-08, risk on the supply side and growing speculative interest, it is hard to see what could prevent spot prices going higher. We would not be surprised to see prices move up to around $200 a pound over the next two years.'' These were Macquarie analysts Max Layton and John Moorhead, based in London and Sydney, respectively. Another seer, Neal Froneman, chief executive officer of SXR Uranium One, said the spot price could reach $250 a pound in 2008.

In the past four years, the price of uranium has erupted from a depressed low of $7 a pound to its current $138. Usage has remained stable, but resources have declined. Cameco, the world’s largest producer, had to curtail production for two years because of a flood in its best mine.

Quoting RBC Capital Markets and other banking outlets, a June 5 Macquarie estimate states that the uranium market supply deficit, which was 10,572 metric tons last year, should halve this year and narrow further next year to 3,945 tons, as supplies increase from new mines in Kazakhstan, Africa and North America. Beyond 2008, the market will probably move into surplus as supply responds to higher prices, it said. 

But according a report by Bloomberg, total supply is forecast to increase by about 46 percent to 90,500 tons by 2013 from 62,192 tons in 2006. Mine supply is set to surge by 85 percent to 72,821 tons by 2013, while secondary supplies are set to fall 23 percent over the period. 

*Macquarie forecasts the average uranium spot price will fall to $100 a pound in 2009, $80 in 2010 and $65 in 2011, then to a longer-term average forecast of $40.* 

How is the price for uranium determined, especially in an era of amply demonstrated scarcity? There are two industry monitors - Ux Consulting and TradeTech. Ux editors have been reluctant in the past to disclose, in a layman’s terms, how the prices are determined.

There is no formal exchange for uranium as there is for other commodities such as gold or oil. Uranium price indicators, Ux says, are developed by a small number of private business organizations, like itself, that independently monitor uranium market activities, including offers, bids, and transactions. Such price indicators are owned by and proprietary to the business that has developed them. 

The latest dispatches from major media outlets reported on June 5 that a British Columbia uranium junior, Energy Metals Corp., envisions a market capitalization of $8.2 billion, once it is sold for $1.7 billion to Toronto’s SXR Uranium One. If done, the deal would place the new entity in second place with world leader, Cameco Corp., of Saskatoon.

http://resourcexinvestor.com/news.php?id=1528


----------



## nizar (12 June 2007)

kennas said:


> *Uranium Prices Steam to a Froth *
> 
> By John Hurst, Resourcex.com
> Jun, 7th
> ...




Tend to agree very much with this article.
Blow off at 200-250 next year, then after 2010 ease to 60-80.

Probably 60-80 long term price for me, not $40.


----------



## HelloU (1 October 2018)

thoughts .....
1.  japan is re-starting at least 1 this month
2.  the pakistan or bangladesh or wherever it is plant is opening soon
3.  the big yank mob closed their mine but they have many years worth of future supply contracts to satisfy, presume they will go spot if they do not announce a lock-in at some stage
4.  the us senate is doing that talkfest about putting a minimum % figure on us sourced U for us use.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (1 October 2018)

Thanks for that link to the uranium article. 

Unfortunately uranium prices depend on politics as much as anything else. 

It is by far the best form of energy as long as the reactors are well sited, maintained and not run by idiot states.

If Germany or what's left of it reversed it's ill advised ban on uranium for example the price would move. It would take something like that to change the lows. 

gg


----------



## DNA2013 (1 October 2018)

Uranium producers have lately cut production and huge players such as Cameco is buying large volumes instead through the spot market to fulfil its contracts. 

Utilities have been buying spot supplies for several years now to take advantage of low prices. But in the last six months, the spot market has been turned on the assumption that continuing supplies have reduced due to the supply cuts.

In perfect economic theory, the spot market should dry up and utilities will have to face the music and sign new long-term supply contracts… in the shadow of a looming deficit.

But its hard to see if real demand is there yet, given the spot market has been overflowing with supply for years, especially since Fukushima.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (2 October 2018)

It was silly to put nuclear reactors in high earthquake prone areas.

I doubt if the U price will see it's past highs anytime soon despite spot and supply movements.

These are too easily corrected by willing producers with debt.

gg


----------



## DNA2013 (2 October 2018)

For many Asian countries, they simply have no options given they do not have a vast mineral resources like Australia, otherwise, Australia would not have had the mining boom previously. 

Countries such as Japan, South Korea (majority of the coal resources is in North Korea) and Taiwan have minimal coal reserves or gas, hence the reliance on Nuclear which although upfront costs/capex are high, is cheaper to run and nil carbon emissions as well.


----------



## DNA2013 (2 October 2018)

From AFR:

_"ASX-listed Boss Resources has sold its stake in its African gold project to its Canadian joint venture partner. 

It is understood Boss is set to announce it has agreed a deal to sell its 49 per cent interest in the Burkina Faso-based Golden Hill project to TSX-listed Taranga Gold Corporation. 

For Boss, funds raised were expected to be plied towards the company's primary focus; the Honeymoon uranium project in South Australia.

Boss Resources is seeking to get Honeymoon back into production in coming years, having recently taken full control of the project. Honeymoon was last producing uranium in 2011."
_
This is interesting news, maybe the producers are sensing the market has changed from supply side issue to a potential increase in real demand going forward.


----------



## Ann (9 March 2019)

*Uranium stocks on the ASX: The Ultimate Guide*


----------



## fiftyeight (5 April 2019)

Struggling to find a good bear case for uranium.

Can anyone point in the right direction?


----------



## Ann (5 April 2019)

G'day fiftyeight

If you want a bear case for uranium, a bear case you shall get!


----------



## fiftyeight (5 April 2019)

Ann said:


> G'day fiftyeight
> 
> If you want a bear case for uranium, a bear case you shall get!
> 
> View attachment 93581




Not sure how I missed that one

Are these record low levels likely to continue? 

Lots of info out there to suggest these lows wont last too much longer, but cannot find much to suggest these lows will continue.


----------



## Ann (5 April 2019)

fiftyeight said:


> Not sure how I missed that one
> 
> Are these record low levels likely to continue?
> 
> Lots of info out there to suggest these lows wont last too much longer, but cannot find much to suggest these lows will continue.




Aww fiftyeight, I thought you wanted a bear chart, would you like me to draw you up a bull chart on the same data?


----------



## Ann (5 April 2019)

I am really trying to be bullish for you by calling it a Symmetrical Triangle, however in reality I think it is more a bearish Descending Triangle (with a typo). Tried my best and it may rise as you will note with my first chart, the highs and lows are getting closer together. That must be a positive! 

However I need to voice my bias. I hate uranium and nuclear power plants. That was even before all the accidents that have occurred. I told people long before anything had happened these places are just a nightmare waiting to happen and **** like Chernobyl and Fukushima will continue to happen. Sorry, had to declare that.


----------



## HelloU (5 April 2019)

for me, cos it is regulated it will exist ....... not necessarily going to make an investor money though ...... and for many countries a strategic asset ....so will continue to be mined/processed (and not talking medicine here). US is making sure they have local defined stockpiles (of mainly US sourced product).

Even if the US (and others) power stations eventually fall out of favour I do see not see any near term alternatives for the fleet.


----------



## Ann (5 April 2019)

HelloU said:


> for me, cos it is regulated it will exist ....... not necessarily going to make an investor money though ...... and for many countries a strategic asset ....so will continue to be mined/processed (and not talking medicine here). US is making sure they have local defined stockpiles (of mainly US sourced product).
> 
> Even if the US (and others) power stations eventually fall out of favour I do see not see any near term alternatives for the fleet.




I believe Russia have a ship load (pun intended) of nuclear subs sunk in the seas up there. Anyone for some Atlantic Salmon?


----------



## fiftyeight (5 April 2019)

Yeah, being a strategic asset can cut both ways.

There definitely seems to be renewed interest in nuclear energy from old players, and a new push from some new entrants.

https://www.nei.org/news/2018/senators-introduce-nuclear-bill

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-g-n/india.aspx

But as you mentioned, it is strategic asset, so state actors will lock up supply as much as possible rather than transact on the open market.

China already has largish stockpiles and is currently buying up uranium miners.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...m-mine-to-china-for-107-million-idUSKCN1NV2A7

And USA is working on limiting their exposure/reliance on possible hostile governments for uranium supplies.

https://www.streetwisereports.com/a...nium-producer-files-section-232-petition.html

But long term contracts will need to be signed at some stage, and if state actors are all trying to lock up supply sooner rather than later while new mines are yet to be developed, prices could rise soon and fast.

This guys seems convinced of it haha

https://twitter.com/quakes99

Even Bill Gates wants more nuclear


----------



## HelloU (5 April 2019)

Ann said:


> I believe Russia have a ship load (pun intended) of nuclear subs sunk in the seas up there. Anyone for some Atlantic Salmon?




i hear u

If peeps are worried then they should avoid bananas as well .......

(on a side note - talking oceans - if you put a wire in the brackish tidal water, and a second wire in the salty water - you make electricity - only saying that cos that SA mirror thing got axed - and Pt Augusta has all that tidal area)


----------



## Ann (6 April 2019)

fiftyeight said:


> Even Bill Gates wants more nuclear



You know, you just shook me awake, I have for a long time been pondering about all this Climate Change bullsh!t and thinking it was being run for a specific agenda. I knew it wasn't for the fluffy animals even though it was mostly WWF if you looked at the protagonists funding and running the agenda. I had actually long suspected the Nuclear Power Industry of being behind it all but had no 'lever' to identify its push, other than it sat as the only power choice if we got rid of gas, coal and oil, then I veered off that thought and was thinking Big Oil was trying to get rid of small oil as they would then control the Oil price and we would have an oil price crisis and price the stuff so high it would be too costly to buy for transport et al.

I knew Gates was involved in Nuclear Power and thought he was trying to develop the 'safer' nuclear power my son talks about but is only still theory I think. I had heard he had abandoned it but didn't look further until now. 

But of course Gates has all the money in the world and now Buffet has given Gates most of his money so why couldn't he buy anyone he wanted to say anything. He would have had the where-with-all to fund the creation of the IPCC and all the pro-websites for CC. He could have funded the universities and created a massive network of _Tax-Free_ foundations and any time anyone wanted crowd funding, it could be funded. 

*Bill Gates's Experimental Nuclear Power Plant Halts Construction in China*



HelloU said:


> If peeps are worried then they should avoid bananas as well .......



Why? I don't like them much myself but others in the house do. 



HelloU said:


> (on a side note - talking oceans - if you put a wire in the brackish tidal water, and a second wire in the salty water - you make electricity - only saying that cos that SA mirror thing got axed - and Pt Augusta has all that tidal area)




I hope once Big Uranium controls our power we don't stop looking for better and cleaner ways to create electricity. Wind turbines won't cut it once the wind stops blowing and they are a right bloody eyesore. Solar won't cut it when there is snow, hailstorms or raging weather. Plus there will be a huge amount of waste product (polution) at end-of-life for solar. Wave energy just got unfunded by WA..... 
*Albany wave energy deal with Carnegie Clean Energy cancelled by WA Government*


----------



## $20shoes (6 April 2019)

There is another aspect limiting the adoption of Uranium or nuclear power and that is the fear paradigm. How does the industry undo decades of misinformation? This is, IMHO, nuclear's biggest hurdle.  

For example, there's a consensus now that Fukushima should never have been abandoned - scientific reports suggest that the incident may hypothetically have shortened some peoples lives by 2-3 years should they have chosen to stay and reside there with no increased risks of disease. And apart from the initial exposure and irradiated water and food in the area, there's no ongoing correlation between incidents at Chernobyl and increased cancer rates etc. 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/apr/05/anti-nuclear-lobby-misled-world

But even grappling with facts over fiction does not remove the fear that people have. It would need to be persuasive and ongoing education, and very policymakers would care to be part of that agenda. Because theres a small but undeniable chance of death and health complications, it remains a challenge. 

A big part of the problem, and a foundation to all of this, is a lack of agreement in the scientific world about what radiation exposure actually does to a person. There's even agreement that the short term exposure indicator tests (like what was used to abandon Fukushima) are probably wrong but there's no better method (that draws consensus) at this time. 

Uranium as a commodity is also difficult to understand. A lot of it is opaque and spot is not a true futures market IMO. As well, uranium can come from many different sources so theres no way to know what the true supply/demand is. 

John Quakes, although a bit uranium bull, made a great analogy on the whole fuel process using coffee beans to clarify the process.


----------



## Ann (6 April 2019)

$20shoes said:


> There is another aspect limiting the adoption of Uranium or nuclear power and that is the fear paradigm. How does the industry undo decades of misinformation? This is, IMHO, nuclear's biggest hurdle.




I don't think it was misinformation from the anti-nuclear folk, it was probably more to do with actual accidents that happened. Up until that time NP had a strong foot-hold. 



$20shoes said:


> For example, there's a consensus now that Fukushima should never have been abandoned - scientific reports suggest that the incident may hypothetically have shortened some peoples lives by 2-3 years should they have chosen to stay and reside there with no increased risks of disease. And apart from the initial exposure and irradiated water and food in the area, there's no ongoing correlation between incidents at Chernobyl and increased cancer rates etc.




I think the Cancer Institutes may disagree with you that there is no correlation between cancer and exposure to radiation. I am sure they have much ongoing scientific evidence for their claims.

_*X-Rays and Other Sources of Radiation*_
_ 
High-energy radiation, such as x-rays, gamma rays, alpha particles, beta particles, and neutrons, can damage DNA and cause cancer. These forms of radiation can be released in accidents at nuclear power plants and when atomic weapons are made, tested, or used._


----------



## $20shoes (6 April 2019)

Ann said:


> I don't think it was misinformation from the anti-nuclear folk, it was probably more to do with actual accidents that happened. Up until that time NP had a strong foot-hold.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Well there's a correlation with Xrays and exposure to fuel rods or radon! You die or get cancer! BEcause the halflives of the atoms are extremely short and extremely damaging in high doses.

But in the general popluation when theres exposure to nuclear radiation from a power plant the criticality is in the dosage of the first few hours after exposure. After that, the effects become less and less, and obviously with half lives of enriched U at low doses theres no correlation whatsoever.

 I think if one camp reports 930,000 deaths versus a few dozen that could be construed as misinformation.


----------



## fiftyeight (6 April 2019)

Ann said:


> You know, you just shook me awake, I have for a long time been pondering about all this Climate Change bullsh!t and thinking it was being run for a specific agenda. I knew it wasn't for the fluffy animals even though it was mostly WWF if you looked at the protagonists funding and running the agenda. I had actually long suspected the Nuclear Power Industry of being behind it all but had no 'lever' to identify its push, other than it sat as the only power choice if we got rid of gas, coal and oil, then I veered off that thought and was thinking Big Oil was trying to get rid of small oil as they would then control the Oil price and we would have an oil price crisis and price the stuff so high it would be too costly to buy for transport et al.
> 
> I knew Gates was involved in Nuclear Power and thought he was trying to develop the 'safer' nuclear power my son talks about but is only still theory I think. I had heard he had abandoned it but didn't look further until now.
> 
> ...




Haha thanks Ann, this one bought a smile to my morning, bloody cant trust anyone these days. 

First the tree huggers hate nuclear and destroy the industry and then they team up with big business in a secret ploy to bring it in. 

You cant trust the government, UN, big business or the hippies!!!!


----------



## HelloU (6 April 2019)

Ann said:


> Why? I don't like them much myself but others in the house do.



(OT - with fear of derail)
high in potassium
potassium is naturally radioactive above most other stuff
(drop in the ocean stuff in real terms)

see ya


----------



## Ann (6 April 2019)

$20shoes said:


> I think if one camp reports 930,000 deaths versus a few dozen that could be construed as misinformation.




No, I don't agree it is misinformation, I see it as conflicting information and would want to see much more information from both sides.



fiftyeight said:


> Haha thanks Ann, this one bought a smile to my morning, bloody cant trust anyone these days.
> 
> First the tree huggers hate nuclear and destroy the industry and then they team up with big business in a secret ploy to bring it in.
> 
> You cant trust the government, UN, big business or the hippies!!!!



I don't think the 'tree huggers' destroyed the industry, I think the evidence of what we were saying about the dangers of NP was demonstrated a couple of times. 

As an 'environmentalist' myself I have seen enough to convince me you can't trust anyone anymore, even if they sing the same song. The more I listen to them singing the more discordant they seem to become.


----------



## Value Collector (10 April 2019)

fiftyeight said:


> Struggling to find a good bear case for uranium.
> 
> Can anyone point in the right direction?




I am not an expert on uranium and short term anything can happen, although with reactors only needing to refuel every 2 - 8 years, it’s a slow market.

But things to think about longterm.

1, renewables and wide spread battery and other storage may limit growth in centralized base load generation.

2. The USA may start reprocessing spent fuel rods (like others already do) and with over 50 years of stored waste sitting around this could be a huge future supply source.

3. New types of reactors like breeder reactors that use 100% of the fuel instead of only 1%, may render mining obsolete, because the fuel already above ground could run the world for 600 years.

4, even if you are a low cost producer, you can still be under cut by miners producing uranium as a by product to copper mining, eg like bhp, as long as the copper is selling at a good price they will continue producing and selling uranium almost no matter the price.

5, retiring old nuclear weapons is also a supply source, if the big players end up building less new replacement weapons than the old retiring ones, you will have a considerable supply of uranium hitting the market, again regardless of price.


----------



## fiftyeight (12 April 2019)

Value Collector said:


> I am not an expert on uranium and short term anything can happen, although with reactors only needing to refuel every 2 - 8 years, it’s a slow market.
> 
> But things to think about longterm.
> 
> ...




Cheers VC

Yeah there are 3 I think spot prices, with one being a 5 year contract.

Most of the above I had considered, but not quantified in any real sense. A few rabbit holes to go down.

One thing I had not considered  was point 4. Will have a look at this as well


----------



## Value Collector (12 April 2019)

fiftyeight said:


> Cheers VC
> 
> Yeah there are 3 I think spot prices, with one being a 5 year contract.
> 
> ...




As I said I am no uranium expert, but to me it seems to be one of those commodities that is easily substituted, in that a growth in demand for the final product eg electricity, won’t automatically correlate with increased demand for uranium.

It’s not like Iron Ore, where as the global economy grows, demand for steel is guaranteed to grow along with it because almost everything is either made of steel, made on or transported on steel.

Uranium is a bit more like cattle, in that if the demand for food rises, it won’t necessarily make cattle farming more profitable, because cattle can be easily substituted with chicken, pork, fish, corn, soy beans or any number of other food stuffs.

Wind, solar, coal, natural gas etc etc will all compete to take market share of any new demand that arises.


----------



## fiftyeight (12 April 2019)

Value Collector said:


> As I said I am no uranium expert, but to me it seems to be one of those commodities that is easily substituted, in that a growth in demand for the final product eg electricity, won’t automatically correlate with increased demand for uranium.
> 
> It’s not like Iron Ore, where as the global economy grows, demand for steel is guaranteed to grow along with it because almost everything is either made of steel, made on or transported on steel.
> 
> ...





Hmm not so sure about that, I had a different take on it. The lead time, life time and expense of NP is such that once it is approved and construction started you almost guarantee the uranium demand for the next 20+ years. As uranium is such small input cost, once built the NP is seeing out its life cycle.


I assume NP have some kind of guaranteed price agreement with the relevant governing body that extends into the decade kind of time period. You cannot simply just shut down a NP if the price of gas suddenly become too cheap. Something else to check up on though. Or they are actually state owned and there for control the market. Too many rich people would have skin in the game to allow that haha


----------



## Value Collector (12 April 2019)

fiftyeight said:


> Hmm not so sure about that, I had a different take on it. The lead time, life time and expense of NP is such that once it is approved and construction started you almost guarantee the uranium demand for the next 20+ years. As uranium is such small input cost, once built the NP is seeing out its life cycle.
> 
> 
> I assume NP have some kind of guaranteed price agreement with the relevant governing body that extends into the decade kind of time period. You cannot simply just shut down a NP if the price of gas suddenly become too cheap. Something else to check up on though. Or they are actually state owned and there for control the market. Too many rich people would have skin in the game to allow that haha




After Fukushima, Japan simply shut off their Nuclear Power plants over night, and turned up the dial on the coal and gas.

But what I mean is, let’s say we knew with 100% clarity that global electricity demand would double in 20 years, there is nothing that would guarantee all this extra demand would translate into extra demand for uranium.

This is what I meant by my example, there are plenty of other ways to supply that demand growth that doesn’t require uranium. 

And, as I said there is also other ways to supply uranium demand, eg reprocessing those annoying stock piles of spent fuel rods.

Can a mine compete on price, when it’s competition is willing to pay money to get rid of its stockpiles?


----------



## fiftyeight (13 April 2019)

Value Collector said:


> After Fukushima, Japan simply shut off their Nuclear Power plants over night, and turned up the dial on the coal and gas.
> 
> But what I mean is, let’s say we knew with 100% clarity that global electricity demand would double in 20 years, there is nothing that would guarantee all this extra demand would translate into extra demand for uranium.
> 
> ...





Electricity demand will grow, and fast. Governments will have to do something to slow price rises.

Currently grid scale renewable are kinda sorta maybe filling the gapish.

Gen 3 and Gen 3 + are viable options now. Contracts can be and are being signed.

MSR, LMFR and other future technologies are gaining momentum, gaining political support. There is a strong chance they will replace current tech. But that could be decades away.

My feelings are demand is likely to grow for the next 10+ years, and then could fall off a cliff.

More reading required


----------



## Value Collector (13 April 2019)

fiftyeight said:


> Electricity demand will grow, and fast. Governments will have to do something to slow price rises.
> 
> Currently grid scale renewable are kinda sorta maybe filling the gapish.
> 
> ...




I have no doubt demand for electricity is going to grow, But we are talking about Uranium not electricity in general.

I would bet heavily that electricity demand will grow, I just think that growth doesn't automatically make a case for rising Uranium demand or rising uranium prices, far more electricity is going to be coming from non conventional sources, and grids are going to become trading platforms, moving energy around from decentralised sources and storage.

I am not an expert though, but as I said I feel much more confident owning companies that produce commodities that are not as substitutable eg Iron ore and copper.

I want to own a company that is a large, low-cost and long life producer of an essential commodity with easy access to the most important markets for those commodities, with option to extend its reserve base.

FMG does that for me.

Uranium is a bit too esoteric for my little monkey Brain to comprehend, I can just see far to many possible risks and a lack of companies that fit my criteria.

Saying that I have exposure to uranium via BHP, so I welcome any uptick in uranium price, I just can't make a pure play investment myself.

 Mining is a hard enough business without choosing a commodity that might see low or no demand growth, while also having huge potential reserves sitting on the side lines that may flood to market at some stage.


----------



## fiftyeight (13 April 2019)

Value Collector said:


> I have no doubt demand for electricity is going to grow, But we are talking about Uranium not electricity in general.
> 
> I would bet heavily that electricity demand will grow, I just think that growth doesn't automatically make a case for rising Uranium demand or rising uranium prices, far more electricity is going to be coming from non conventional sources, and grids are going to become trading platforms, moving energy around from decentralised sources and storage.
> 
> ...





Agreed, increased electricity demand does not automatically lead to uranium price increase.  But I do think that the increased demand will put pressure on governments to find a solution quicker than other large scale solutions are ready. Uranium would make a very good stop gap.

10 - 20 years is long enough for my monkey brain, I dont know what I am doing tomorrow most of the time.

I dont think uranium will be the kind of share you buy and put in the bottom draw, there is a lot going and to stay across. Way back when, my first ever extended report I submitted as part of my science degree was on nuclear power. Wish I still had it. It is something I enjoy reading up on still.


----------



## Value Collector (14 April 2019)

fiftyeight said:


> pressure on governments to find a solution quicker than other large scale solutions are ready. Uranium would make a very good stop gap.
> 
> .




I don't know about that, Nuclear power plants probably have the longest planning and construction phases out of everything, renewables are fairly fast to install in comparison, and remember the 100 day of its free challenge Elon Musk accepted to install the Battery in SA.

The Smart grid is coming, storing electricity and dynamic management of loads is the solution in my opinion.


----------



## Ann (30 April 2019)

The new HBO series on the Chernobyl disaster will not be great PR for the nuclear industry I shouldn't think. There will be a lot of people who weren't born at the time and may know very little if anything about it. This may give them a bit of a jolt when they see it. It looks very well made going by the trailers.

*Chernobyl Review: A Good Disaster Series About Slow Suffering and Bad Politics*

**


----------



## fergee (27 January 2020)

Uranium is the red headed step kid of investments right now and the contrarian in me is really starting to get interested. I have never invested in or done much research into the sector but I found this chart last night while I was trawling for info regarding Uranium supply and demand and thought it was interesting.


----------



## Value Collector (27 January 2020)

fergee said:


> Uranium is the red headed step kid of investments right now and the contrarian in me is really starting to get interested. I have never invested in or done much research into the sector but I found this chart last night while I was trawling for info regarding Uranium supply and demand and thought it was interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Good Luck with it, I have built a fortune on red headed step kids, but I don't have the insights to figure this one out.


----------



## fergee (27 January 2020)

Value Collector said:


> I have built a fortune on red headed step kids, but I don't have the insights to figure this one out.



Hard workers I hear. 
Cheers for the reply.


----------



## sptrawler (27 January 2020)

There is an expectation that the price of uranium will rise.

https://www.mining.com/boss-wants-to-restart-honeymoon-uranium-project/

I suppose if the climate change lobby keep building momentum, there is little doubt that nuclear will feature in carbon reduction strategy.
Just my opinion.


----------



## Smurf1976 (27 January 2020)

Something to bear in mind is that the economics of nuclear power are such that uranium is a minor overall cost. Most of the cost is in construction and in things like regulatory compliance and so on, the actual fuel (uranium) is a comparatively minor issue.

As such there's no real demand side response to changes in the uranium price. Even if it doubles, that's not generally going to result in anyone shutting down or at least reducing the output from a nuclear plant in favour of greater reliance on coal, gas etc for power. Price would need to go seriously high for that to occur which means to the extent there's a response, it's on the supply side. It's not like coal where the price is effectively capped by the price of oil and gas.


----------



## fergee (27 January 2020)

sptrawler said:


> There is an expectation that the price of uranium will rise.
> 
> https://www.mining.com/boss-wants-to-restart-honeymoon-uranium-project/
> 
> ...




Agreed. My logic so far is an increase in EV's on the road and electricity usage in general coupled with a desire for lower carbon emissions can realistically only be accomplished by nuclear generators. Correct me if Im wrong there anyone?

Looks like a theres a good pipeline of new reactors coming online, also a few closures as well, but on balance Uranium demand will increase. Also seems like a lot of suppliers are shuttering up and not interested in selling at loss any more reducing supply. Supply/demand dynamics look good for a bull run some time in the next few years. 

I doubt the Russians will be selling their old nukes either now that the proliferation treaty with the US has expired.

This sector just seems so hated right now, the proverbial animal spirits have left and just roadkill remains of people have bought and held and lost hope. 

@sptrawler Cheers I will check out Boss(great name).


----------



## fergee (27 January 2020)

Smurf1976 said:


> Something to bear in mind is that the economics of nuclear power are such that uranium is a minor overall cost. Most of the cost is in construction and in things like regulatory compliance and so on, the actual fuel (uranium) is a comparatively minor issue.
> 
> As such there's no real demand side response to changes in the uranium price. Even if it doubles, that's not generally going to result in anyone shutting down or at least reducing the output from a nuclear plant in favour of greater reliance on coal, gas etc for power. Price would need to go seriously high for that to occur which means to the extent there's a response, it's on the supply side. It's not like coal where the price is effectively capped by the price of oil and gas.



Great comment @Smurf1976 That inelastic demand is the reason prices could go substantially higher like they did in the previous bull market....classic boom bust economics. Do you follow any Uranium companies at all?


----------



## Value Collector (27 January 2020)

sptrawler said:


> There is an expectation that the price of uranium will rise.
> 
> https://www.mining.com/boss-wants-to-restart-honeymoon-uranium-project/
> 
> ...




I don’t know, The USA has 420 Nuclear Plants, and they will all be defunct and need replacing by 2050, but it hasn’t opened a new one since 1996, the trend of nuclear is down.

Not to mention that the USA has 70 years of Nuclear waste just sitting there ready to be reprocessed into new fuel rods if they ever get the green light.


----------



## Value Collector (27 January 2020)

Smurf1976 said:


> Something to bear in mind is that the economics of nuclear power are such that uranium is a minor overall cost. Most of the cost is in construction and in things like regulatory compliance and so on, the actual fuel (uranium) is a comparatively minor issue.
> 
> As such there's no real demand side response to changes in the uranium price. Even if it doubles, that's not generally going to result in anyone shutting down or at least reducing the output from a nuclear plant in favour of greater reliance on coal, gas etc for power. Price would need to go seriously high for that to occur which means to the extent there's a response, it's on the supply side. It's not like coal where the price is effectively capped by the price of oil and gas.




it works both ways, 

the cost of storing spent fuel rods is so high, if reprocessing into new fuel rods became legal in the USA, companies with large existing stock piles of spent rods would be willing to pay people to take them off their hands, creating a large “free” supply of fuel.


----------



## sptrawler (27 January 2020)

Smurf1976 said:


> Something to bear in mind is that the economics of nuclear power are such that uranium is a minor overall cost. Most of the cost is in construction and in things like regulatory compliance and so on, the actual fuel (uranium) is a comparatively minor issue.




I understand what you mean, I just can't see how they can get sufficient grunt over the medium to long term, without nuclear. I could very easily be wrong, but there doesn't seem to be anything else on the horizon, gas is a limited resource, coal is out, doesn't leave much.
Wind and solar, with storage are fine for places like Australia, which has a large land area and a relatively small population therefore the load may well be met.
But when you get to places like Indonesia, Singapore, Japan etc, it isn't so easy.


----------



## fergee (27 January 2020)

Value Collector said:


> it works both ways,
> 
> the cost of storing spent fuel rods is so high, if reprocessing into new fuel rods became legal in the USA, companies with large existing stock piles of spent rods would be willing to pay people to take them off their hands, creating a large “free” supply of fuel.




Good point about the ability to convert spent fuel rods to a usable substance and as you stated that would be a legislative risk to a Uranium rally and could potentially cap the price. Good for the US but China and India would still be net Uranium buyers for a few more decades Im picking and they are the ones who seem to be bringing the bulk of the new capacity online in the 2020's.

Interesting the video after the one you linked to was about desalination. Water scarcity is another big trend effecting the world and the only way I know of to efficiently desalinate water requires a lot of electricity.


----------



## Smurf1976 (27 January 2020)

sptrawler said:


> I understand what you mean, I just can't see how they can get sufficient grunt over the medium to long term, without nuclear. I could very easily be wrong, but there doesn't seem to be anything else on the horizon, gas is a limited resource, coal is out, doesn't leave much.
> Wind and solar, with storage are fine for places like Australia, which has a large land area and a relatively small population therefore the load may well be met.
> But when you get to places like Indonesia, Singapore, Japan etc, it isn't so easy.




In a technical (engineering) sense it's doable.

To work though it needs a large geographic spread and that requires not having political boundaries in the way. Therein lies the difficulty.

In the Australian case we can do it with wind, solar and hydro plus some batteries. There's no question about that but even here it does involve a lot of geographic spread once you realise that the bulk storage for SA and Victoria will in practice be in NSW and Tasmania and that it's only a matter of time before the idea of a Queensland - PNG link is revived.

That sort of thing works technically and can work economically but fails dismally if there's a war going on etc. Eg Saudi Arabia spends some very serious $ to avoid energy cooperation with Qatar for just one of many such examples. 

In practice nuclear, renewbles and fossils are all going to play a significant role for quite some time yet. There will be places where one dominates as is the case now but we're not going to see 100% renewables globally anytime soon and we're not going to see 100% nuclear either. Nor are we about to see an actual end to coal, oil or gas in the near future.

There'll be an ongoing nuclear industry at the global level for long enough to make any new mines viable.


----------



## Value Collector (27 January 2020)

fergee said:


> Good point about the ability to convert spent fuel rods to a usable substance and as you stated that would be a legislative risk to a Uranium rally and could potentially cap the price. Good for the US but China and India would still be net Uranium buyers for a few more decades Im picking and they are the ones who seem to be bringing the bulk of the new capacity online in the 2020's.
> 
> Interesting the video after the one you linked to was about desalination. Water scarcity is another big trend effecting the world and the only way I know of to efficiently desalinate water requires a lot of electricity.




there is also a large amount of potential supply coming from decommissioned nuclear weapons in the future.


----------



## fergee (28 January 2020)

Value Collector said:


> there is also a large amount of potential supply coming from decommissioned nuclear weapons in the future.



Potentially yes, but the break down of nuclear treaties between the US and Russia and the emergence of a new arms race with China make me think that stock piling nukes is preferred over using them to generate electricity.


----------



## peter2 (18 April 2020)

I discussed the recent rally in uranium and ASX uranium stocks in another thread. I should also post here so further discussion on uranium can continue. This chart of the uranium ETF (US) shows the recent rally from $7 to $10.




Cause? It appears that several large uranium miners have had to shut down some significant mines due to COVID-19 restrictions.  Production will fall, demand is constant and expected to start growing soon as countries attempt to reduce their reliance on carbon based fuels. Prices have rallied in anticipation of increasing demand.

The ASX uranium companies are sitting on large yellowcake resources and are getting closer to production.


----------



## Muckman (4 August 2020)

I thought the plan for modular reactors was to use a MOX fuel using U-238 to fissile plutonium from spent fuel and high lvl waste ?

I don’t see the point in digging up more when you can reuse the Waste we already have a problem with in the first place. It’s the reason why we banned it.


----------



## Muckman (4 August 2020)

Value Collector said:


> there is also a large amount of potential supply coming from decommissioned nuclear weapons in the future.




Where did you get that info?
Reprocessing weapons grade plutonium is big deal and requires a lot of government to get involved. 

The gov owns those cores so for a country to just hand them over to a cooperation is a big dodgy deal and I’d like to know exactly what the deal was.


----------



## Value Collector (5 August 2020)

Muckman said:


> Where did you get that info?
> Reprocessing weapons grade plutonium is big deal and requires a lot of government to get involved.
> 
> The gov owns those cores so for a country to just hand them over to a cooperation is a big dodgy deal and I’d like to know exactly what the deal was.




It's actually being happening for a long time.

in 1993 the Mega tons to mega watts project was initiated to help decommission Russian nuclear warheads.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megatons_to_Megawatts_Program

Here is some 2017 information talking about the decommissioning of older USA war heads that will be sent to into the civilian fuel markets.
https://www.world-nuclear.org/infor...ary-warheads-as-a-source-of-nuclear-fuel.aspx


Its actually the safest method to dispose of the highly enriched uranium, it is de-enriched back to about 5% and fabricated into fuel rods and sold, and has been supplying about 19% of USA nuclear fuel needs, and has the ability to ramp up a lot.


----------



## Muckman (5 August 2020)

I have known about the mea tons to mega watts program. But thought it got scraped because it wasn’t cost effective. I remember reading it was cheeper to just make new fuel as to re proses Russian cores. 
I wouldn’t think they would start using there own cores though that would be new to me. Good idea. But still if much rather to see the, to use the waits that’s laying around then to pull apart a bomb and make more waste. 

Got a feeling we gonna need those nukes at some stage lol


----------



## Value Collector (5 August 2020)

Muckman said:


> I have known about the mea tons to mega watts program. But thought it got scraped because it wasn’t cost effective. I remember reading it was cheeper to just make new fuel as to re proses Russian cores.
> I wouldn’t think they would start using there own cores though that would be new to me. Good idea. But still if much rather to see the, to use the waits that’s laying around then to pull apart a bomb and make more waste.
> 
> Got a feeling we gonna need those nukes at some stage lol




when it comes to disposing of nuclear warheads, or even reprocessing old spent fuel rods cost doesn’t really matter.

I mean people are willing to pay to get rid of waste, they are ok will losing money if it means their waste disappears.

So if America starts ramping up the decommissioning of their warheads, or begins reprocessing the 60 years worth of spent rods they have lying around, we might see a lot of supply hitting the market that is willing to sell at prices below the cost of production.


----------



## Muckman (5 August 2020)

Lol when it comes to anything cost is everything 
It’s the whole reason why nuclear energy never really took off in the first place was because it wasn’t cost effective. 
Nuclear energy was just too expensive in the end and too much regulation so it killed off the industry basically leaving us with old 1950’s GE I and II GEN reactors all over the world that are ready to melt down any time soon lol 
Fukushima was just an example of what’s to come of a dying industry that got neglected and abandoned. 
I really think there will be another GEN II reactor incident soon. Either be from natural disaster, Terrorism or just pure incompetence. They really need to shut those things down.


----------



## Value Collector (6 August 2020)

Muckman said:


> Lol when it comes to anything cost is everything




Not in this case.

Let's look at an example to see what I mean.

Let's say the lowest cost producer of Uranium fuel rods can supply rods for $1000 using virgin uranium, where as a company under contract to dismantle old warheads or spent fuel rods has a cost of $1500 per fuel rod.

Using your logic, the fuel rods made from waste will never enter the market because they cost more to produce.

However you are failing to see that the company making the rods from waste is also paid to take the waste in the first place, they might get paid $1000 for each waste rod they make disappear and there fore only need to sell the end product for $500 to make a profit, so they are able to under cut everyone else.

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

Or in the case of a nuclear power plant that already has a problem storing waste, rather than buying a new fuel rod for $1000 and continue expanding their already over loaded waste storage, they could pay $1500 and have their spent fuel rods reprocessed into new fuel rods.

So they are paying a little more for fuel, but are not adding to their waste issues.

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

Another fact you might be over looking is that in that when you reprocess rods or war heads, you can also remove other radio active elements, which can be refined into material to be used in medical fields or other industrial applications.

So the company selling reprocessed rods is getting income for taking the rods + selling other radioactive elements + the final sale of new fuel rods

These multiple income sources means they don't always have to be focused on getting the highest price for the end product, and can under cut new fuel rod prices.


----------



## jbocker (6 August 2020)

Value Collector said:


> Not in this case.
> 
> Let's look at an example to see what I mean.
> 
> ...



Is this actually really the case? How does this cost compare to developing rods from the raw mined ore. I have no idea what happens with spent rods, are they at the end of the day reasonably 'harmless', compared to a new rod.


----------



## Value Collector (6 August 2020)

jbocker said:


> Is this actually really the case? How does this cost compare to developing rods from the raw mined ore. I have no idea what happens with spent rods, are they at the end of the day reasonably 'harmless', compared to a new rod.




Most countries around the world with nuclear industries reprocess spent fuel rods, except the USA.

At the moment true USA just stock pile spent fuel rods, at the actual power plant where they were used.

which means power plants in the USA a busting at the seams trying to store decades of spent rods.

Eventually they we begin reprocessing, and when that happens there will be a huge new supply of rods that will hit the market that cares very little about price, and is more about clearing these stock piles.


----------



## Value Collector (6 August 2020)

Here is a video showing a nuclear fuel reprocessing plant in France.


----------



## Value Collector (6 August 2020)

I am actually fascinated by the nuclear industry, and have always wanted to invest in it.

But due to the various supply sources, I just never felt understood uranium market well enough to feel confident in knowing where prices we’re heading long term.

I have a small exposure to Uranium via BHP, but that’s it.

If I wouldn’t mind investing in a nuclear plant, or in a company that reprocessed material, but I have never found one that was under priced enough to attract me.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (6 August 2020)

Value Collector said:


> I am actually fascinated by the nuclear industry, and have always wanted to invest in it.
> 
> But due to the various supply sources, I just never felt understood uranium market well enough to feel confident in knowing where prices we’re heading long term.
> 
> ...



PEN is the traditional beloved stock of traders in Uranium. 

Any U3 is for the brave. 

PEN is ASX listed and works out of USA. It is possible that their Lance mine in Wyoming may benefit from the Orange Fool in the White House giving preferential treatment to US miners. PEN is a great stock when it trends up but that is rare, and is a trader's stock for all intents and purposes. 

ERA is the main ASX listed U3 stock. It has had a bit of a run over the last few days.

Uranium stocks tend to decay rather quickly however. 

gg


----------



## Value Collector (6 August 2020)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> PEN is the traditional beloved stock of traders in Uranium.
> 
> Any U3 is for the brave.
> 
> ...




Yeah, as I said I am not really interested in uranium miners.


----------



## Austwide (6 August 2020)

Interesting video, I didn't realise Uranium was recycled.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (6 August 2020)

Value Collector said:


> Yeah, as I said I am not really interested in uranium miners.



Apologies.

I'm only familiar with the Koeberg Nuclear Pwer Station which is situated in Cape Town, north of a lovely beachside place called Melkbossstrand. It is state owned and the only one in Africa. I'd imagine most are owned by large utilities often state owned in their respective countries.

gg


----------



## Value Collector (6 August 2020)

Austwide said:


> Interesting video, I didn't realise Uranium was recycled.




yep, it is in most places except the USA, the power plants in the USA literally sitting on decades of waste, that could eventually hit the recycling market.


----------



## Telamelo (11 August 2020)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> PEN is the traditional beloved stock of traders in Uranium.
> 
> Any U3 is for the brave.
> 
> ...



PEN big price & volume breakout alert! to the upside this morning..

Good news announced "pre-development plans to ramp up Lance activities"!

I'll try put up a chart later on.

DYOR as always..  Cheers tela


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (11 August 2020)

Telamelo said:


> PEN big price & volume breakout alert! to the upside this morning..
> 
> Good news announced "pre-development plans to ramp up Lance activities"!
> 
> ...



lol. 

PEN is like ice for day traders. They usually end up with no teeth. If it trends it can provide some good setups. 

gg


----------



## peter2 (23 August 2020)

Interesting. These ASX uranium companies all appeared in my weekend scan tonight (BMN, DYL, MEY, PDN, PEN, VMY). I also see that other U companies have been rallying as well last week. 
URA (uranium ETF) is in a corrective rally (going up but slowly).
CCJ (large U308 miner) had an up day on Thurs which probably helped the ASX U companies on Friday. However on Friday CCJ gave up all the gains. Hmm.

I'm treating these observations as an indication that demand for uranium is slowly rising.


----------



## Value Collector (24 August 2020)

jbocker said:


> I have no idea what happens with spent rods, are they at the end of the day reasonably 'harmless', compared to a new rod.




No, the spent rods are definitely NOT harmless, they are far more radio active than new rods, and need to be stored in cooling ponds for many years as they continue to generate heat and throw off large amounts of radiation.

At the moment almost every nuclear plant in the USA is just stock piling these spent rods on site, once they are cool enough they remove them from the cooling ponds and seal them in dry storage casks and pile them up.

If the USA ever begins reprocessing these spent rods like the French, Japanese and Chinese do, There will be huge quantities of cheap new fuel rods hitting the market.

----------------
When Atoms of uranium are split in the process of nuclear fission, they transform from into new lighter elements that are much less stable and that throw off far more radiation as they decay into stable elements.

for example Uranium has a half life of thousands of years, so it emits relatively small amounts of radiation over thousands of years, however the spent fuel rods include new lighter elements with half lifespan's ranging from minutes, to decades, to centuries that throw of huge amounts of radiation over their much shorter lives.

think of it kinda of like the difference between a candle releasing the energy from 1 litre of wax over the space of 24 hours vs a 1L bottle of petrol smashing and burning up in 2 minutes, both release similar amounts of energy, but one releases it much faster, so they both are dangerous in different ways and over different time frames, but working around the candle is much safer than the broken bottle of petrol burning up.


----------



## peter2 (8 December 2020)

Uranium price has been on the move for some time now. We've seen the effect in most of the ASX uranium companies. 
Could be a climactic top overnight.


----------



## noirua (Yesterday at 2:03 AM)

Uranium spot price: Https://ycharts.com/indicators/uranium_spot_price

Not making sufficient headway as yet.​


----------



## frugal.rock (Yesterday at 4:07 AM)




----------



## Sean K (Yesterday at 8:16 AM)

frugal.rock said:


> View attachment 151510




It’s been consolidating nicely for some time now. Some of the re-starts still need the price closer to $60 to be confident in turning back on. Last few days look promising.


----------



## frugal.rock (Yesterday at 9:57 AM)

The US ETF URA is getting closer to the pointy end of a wedge channel.
It might not be a sideshow after all @aus_trader it might be the main show soon


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (Yesterday at 2:56 PM)

frugal.rock said:


> The US ETF URA is getting closer to the pointy end of a wedge channel.
> It might not be a sideshow after all @aus_trader it might be the main show soon



Well my dart choice in the Jan Comp, PEN, seems be looking at winning the Comp. 

Unfortunately I believe it to be a Uranium Dog, but who knows?

gg


----------



## frugal.rock (Yesterday at 3:16 PM)

A decent day for the 308 brigade


----------

