# When can uranium hopefuls produce?



## mmmmining (19 March 2007)

Since people are becoming spooked by 10+ year uranium project development timeframe, I started a new thread to guesstimate which year that a company listed on ASX can produce uranium. Existing producers excluded.

I guess:

UKL: in  2009
CMR: in 2010
PNN: in 2011


----------



## Sean K (19 March 2007)

Perhaps it would be handy if each stock had a short summary of what stage of development it was in as well? 

eg,

SMM: Measured JORC 59m lbs, 50:50 JV PDN, PFS, Nil BFS, Mt Isa, QLD, 2010-12.
AGS: Initial JORC pending, 25% free carried Quasar/Heathgate, 8ks from Beverley, SA, 2011. 

Maybe then they could more adequately critiqued??


----------



## mmmmining (19 March 2007)

Agree, otherwise, can be a kind of ramping, or so..

UKL, With JORC resources ato Apex Lowboy in Nevada. Heap leaching the low grade ore around an historical mine, target 300t/yr with contract mining. With 2 years preparation, very likely have production in 2009;

CMR, with JORC resources, and scope study, and in NT, and existing copper oxide plant. Three years will get one of the deposit mined. so in 2010;

PNN, with BFS 20+years ago, and scope study last year when uranium is at the $45. Now at $91, BFS should be passed. of course, labor party change police, or liberal/national takeover the state government is required. By 2011, it should be ready for production.


----------



## Halba (19 March 2007)

Do you hold those MMining?

Another one in the USA like UKL is BLR.

Stage: confirming 25-30 million pound historical resource at Taylor ranch. Putting the JORC's together and potentially ISL'able.


----------



## mmmmining (19 March 2007)

Halba said:
			
		

> Do you hold those MMining?



You know me, what I have and I don't have, and how many shares is not for public. Why you ask this question if you think I am not ramper?

What is your guess? There are still over one hundred stocks you can work out a production year. 

I am sick of some clueless analysts try to fool people that all uranium hopeful needs 10+ year to get production.

This is one way we can calm down people's fear, getting to the bottom of the truth.


----------



## Sean K (19 March 2007)

Halba said:
			
		

> Do you hold those MMining?
> 
> Another one in the USA like UKL is BLR.
> 
> Stage: confirming 25-30 million pound historical resource at Taylor ranch. Putting the JORC's together and potentially ISL'able.



Halba, this isn't the point of the thread. If you want to list another stock and give a time frame to production, fill your boots.


----------



## nizar (20 March 2007)

I agree with 2009 for UKL.
Near term production potential.
JORC resources in politically stable countries (USA, Mexico) - much less soverign risk than, say, Africa.
Market cap at about $40million is a bit of a joke.
Showing a bit of momentum lately.

Disc: i took a position today, $1.10 the previous high looks to be new support.

In my opinion only.


----------



## nizar (20 March 2007)

kennas said:
			
		

> Perhaps it would be handy if each stock had a short summary of what stage of development it was in as well?
> 
> eg,
> 
> ...




Interesting how you mention the two stocks that you hold.
AGS not even a JORC yet and market cap north of $400mil alot of potential there, but in terms of production its much too early to call.

2011 is a fair estimate i would say.


----------



## mmmmining (20 March 2007)

Another one is EQN, which is more a copper play, and a bit of CO as well.

EQN has a BFS several years ago when uranium price is $11/lb as viable by-products. No matter what, they will mine it. It is a matter of priority and profit margin to decide when the are going to process it. I guess 2010 will be the reasonable time because they need to get the copper things up and running smoothly. So EQN 2010

MTN, might be on 2012. I hope PDN will take it over so it can be the developed with PDN's expertise. The chance will increase if SMM reject PDN.

It has considerable resource and simple metallurgical process. I guess it will take sometime and a lot of money for them to get all approval. Again it depends on labor flip policy or flop the state government. 

For MTN I believe it need a stronger support to get the approval things through quickly. PDN, or heavy Chinese involvement will be the short-cut.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (20 March 2007)

nizar said:
			
		

> I agree with 2009 for UKL.
> Near term production potential.
> JORC resources in politically stable countries (USA, Mexico) - much less soverign risk than, say, Africa.
> Market cap at about $40million is a bit of a joke.
> ...




Niz just so you know UKL has 85m shares on issue
So at closing price of $1.30 it had a mkt cap of *$110m *


----------



## mmmmining (20 March 2007)

YOUNG_TRADER said:
			
		

> Niz just so you know UKL has 85m shares on issue
> So at closing price of $1.30 it had a mkt cap of *$110m *




YT, you are right, 86.1m share after today, plus 2.15m options at 20c, with 84m not released for trading.

The tradeable share is only 28.5m+2.1m today.

According to a SS forum (someone posted a research report), Warwick Girgor has a tick up on this one for potential near-term producer. So it should be valued on DCF basis, or a multiple of EBIT, or so,  which might come up a $1.50 something for the Nevada deposit only.

UKL still has the New Mexico's deposit.


----------



## 56gsa (20 March 2007)

CUY has suggested a different approach to the production question...

announced 14-feb they are going to trial a treatment plant that could be scaled up to 40tpa -- thats only about $10m at US$85/lb.  They can field test in situ leach but not sell product,  They say they have $70m now of U (implies 292t of U)  altho no JORC yet, but they also say it could be ten times higher, ie 2920t of U


----------



## Halba (20 March 2007)

UKL looks overvalued for only 6 mil pounds jorc (in the inferred category). I wouldn't value it as a near term producer, as the production /mine life/reserves look very low. Also mngmt is unproven.


----------



## hangseng (20 March 2007)

Halba said:
			
		

> UKL looks overvalued for only 6 mil pounds jorc (in the inferred category). I wouldn't value it as a near term producer, as the production /mine life/reserves look very low. Also mngmt is unproven.




Howard Dawson is honest, capable, experienced and proven both as a Geo and Analyst. He knows exactly what he is doing. Wasn't a bad footy player either.


----------



## Halba (20 March 2007)

What about the small reserves at Apex- 1.5million pounds. Surely it can't be valued like paladin-  the reserve life is low. Its almost laughable that UKL's mkt cap is almost up to MTN's mkt cap(MTN has 80million pounds), UKL has 1.5 producable.


----------



## mmmmining (20 March 2007)

Halba said:
			
		

> What about the small reserves at Apex- 1.5million pounds. Surely it can't be valued like paladin-  the reserve life is low. Its almost laughable that UKL's mkt cap is almost up to MTN's mkt cap(MTN has 80million pounds), UKL has 1.5 producable.



Can we focus on the topics, not get sidetracked. We are not talking about which one is overvalued, or undervalued. We just try to guesstimate a production year.

Here I come up with another one. WHE 2010. 

According to the presentation, they want to get the Bison Basin project into production in 2010. Currently they are doing resource definition and JORC to be finished by the end of this year. And Feasibility study by end of 2008.


----------



## Sean K (20 March 2007)

nizar said:
			
		

> Interesting how you mention the two stocks that you hold.
> AGS not even a JORC yet and market cap north of $400mil alot of potential there, but in terms of production its much too early to call.
> 
> 2011 is a fair estimate i would say.



Actually, I sold them a while ago. Check Blog. Thanks for the compliment.


----------



## insider (20 March 2007)

Just a thought... Even if the three mines policy is lifted in April don't you think Labor would make it hard for Liberal to open new mines? So maybe voting for Labor this Election would be better? What do yous think... It's a fork in the road


----------



## mmmmining (20 March 2007)

Believe it or not, TOE might be a serious producer well ahead of AGS, BMN, MTN, SMM, EME, EXT. Although have not found a gram of uranium by itself. 

The purchase of DYL's Nappberby deposit help TOE jump the ranks. I predict it for 2010 production.


----------



## Sean K (20 March 2007)

mmmmining said:
			
		

> Believe it or not, TOE might be a serious producer well ahead of AGS, BMN, MTN, SMM, EME, EXT. Although have not found a gram of uranium by itself.
> 
> The purchase of DYL's Nappberby deposit help TOE jump the ranks. I predict it for 2010 production.



What stage is this at, mmmmming? JORC, close to infrastructure, workforce??....NT is good. 

2010 seems to be the first anyone can mine in Australia to me. Going to be interesting to see what happens to the sport price when all these extra mines are on the go by 2012 ish.


----------



## robandcoll (20 March 2007)

Is the question - ASX listed when they can mine in Australia *or * ASX listed that can mine global?


----------



## insider (20 March 2007)

kennas said:
			
		

> What stage is this at, mmmmming? JORC, close to infrastructure, workforce??....NT is good.
> 
> 2010 seems to be the first anyone can mine in Australia to me. Going to be interesting to see what happens to the sport price when all these extra mines are on the go by 2012 ish.




What I'd like to know is what will happen in the short term... If investors have to wait from April 2007 until the year 2010 and eventually 2012, what will investors do during that time? There is a lot of speculation surrounding the turning of the three mines policy but what else is there to look forward to? I'm just speculating right now... I have two scenarios in mind:

1) Overseas investors will flood our markets and we will see crazy rises in share prices

OR

2) Investors pull out driving the price down because there isn't as much speculation and not much going on for the next 2 - 4 years

OR

3) 1 followed by 2

What do yas think guys (and girls)? 

I'm probably going to slogged by everyone but it's always been in my nature to ask questions for and against anything...


----------



## mmmmining (20 March 2007)

robandcoll said:
			
		

> Is the question - ASX listed when they can mine in Australia *or * ASX listed that can mine global?



ASX listed, for either domestic or oversea project, or both.


----------



## mmmmining (20 March 2007)

kennas said:
			
		

> What stage is this at, mmmmming? JORC, close to infrastructure, workforce??....NT is good.
> 
> 2010 seems to be the first anyone can mine in Australia to me. Going to be interesting to see what happens to the sport price when all these extra mines are on the go by 2012 ish.




TOE's management claimed that they having uranium mining experiences. With close-space drilling in one of the resources area can have a quick start if they are serious. You know, it is in NT, and a secondary road rn through the deposit.


----------



## Freeballinginawetsuit (20 March 2007)

According to URA they could be a producer by 2008...........



They have quite a unique 'business plan'. Dispense with all the hoohah of the normal explorer and rather go straight to an existing producer/or a M&C one.

Then URA ask to mine the deposit as opposed to the existing Company. Of course URA would have to hand over some money to secure the deposit. But in the end URA would value add and return econimies of scale by efficient mining and make a 'large' bucketload at current U prices.........and hope the current owner wants to make a 'smaller' bucketload.

URA's MC fluctuates a bit through speculation........basically it can half on a knockback from a hopeful client, who choses to make a bucketload themselves.........I mean really how naughty!.

Anyway, Kudos to URA and management and most U companies in the market,who cares if they mine or not, I'd say thats not the reason they floated anyway . They're in it for the same reason as us, the speculation factor..........and passing the parcel.


----------



## mmmmining (21 March 2007)

If you believe what Kate said, URA should produce yellowcake in 2008. But so far she does not show her hands yet, and still suck the blood of average Joe, and try to get most out it for her little baby, Discovery Minerals or something.

Here is another one, CTS in 2009, aimed by the end of 2007, can you believe it. Anyway, Just remember CTS can only have 64% of what ever there (80%x80%). The rest belong to RRS, and another local party. For example, if the resource is JORC 2694t, CTS will have about 1800t.

CTS has a small deposit hosted with volcanic rocks in Peru, possibly with heap leaching with 85% recovery. Further drilling to upgrade the resources is underway, So CTS in 2009


----------



## insider (21 March 2007)

mmmmining said:
			
		

> If you believe what Kate said, URA should produce yellowcake in 2008. But so far she does not show her hands yet, and still suck the blood of average Joe, and try to get most out it for her little baby, Discovery Minerals or something.
> 
> Here is another one, CTS in 2009, aimed by the end of 2007, can you believe it. Anyway, Just remember CTS can only have 64% of what ever there (80%x80%). The rest belong to RRS, and another local party. For example, if the resource is JORC 2694t, CTS will have about 1800t.
> 
> CTS has a small deposit hosted with volcanic rocks in Peru, possibly with heap leaching with 85% recovery. Further drilling to upgrade the resources is underway, So CTS in 2009




CTS are in a good position with the Peruvian government by their side... CTS have upto 80% owner ship on that site the rest is owned by the government of Peru


----------



## mmmmining (21 March 2007)

insider said:
			
		

> CTS are in a good position with the Peruvian government by their side... CTS have upto 80% owner ship on that site the rest is owned by the government of Peru



Sorry, insider, Range will retain a 15% interest. So CTS can only get 65%. (Ann on 2 May 06. Do you have updated info?


----------



## Sean K (21 March 2007)

insider said:
			
		

> CTS are in a good position with the Peruvian government by their side... CTS have upto 80% owner ship on that site the rest is owned by the government of Peru



CTS sounding good. Someone please remind me on Monday. (I'm out for 4 days)

(not holding)


----------



## insider (21 March 2007)

mmmmining said:
			
		

> Sorry, insider, Range will retain a 15% interest. So CTS can only get 65%. (Ann on 2 May 06. Do you have updated info?




THANKS FOR THE CORRECTION... NAH I HAVEN'T UPDATED MY INFO I'VE BEEN DISTRACTED BY SCHOOL AND BY A GAY MIDDLE AGED MAN THAT LIKES TO STALK ME IN A PINSTRIPE SUIT... NO FOOLING  WHAT A FREAK!!! I HOPE HE ISN'T GOING TO BOTHER ME ANY MORE OTHERWISE I'LL KICK HIS A$$


----------



## insider (22 March 2007)

insider said:
			
		

> THANKS FOR THE CORRECTION... NAH I HAVEN'T UPDATED MY INFO I'VE BEEN DISTRACTED BY SCHOOL AND BY A GAY MIDDLE AGED MAN THAT LIKES TO STALK ME IN A PINSTRIPE SUIT... NO FOOLING  WHAT A FREAK!!! I HOPE HE ISN'T GOING TO BOTHER ME ANY MORE OTHERWISE I'LL KICK HIS A$$




NOW THAT I THINK ABOUT IT HE MAY HAVE CONFUSED ME FOR A MALE PROSTITUTE... THE AREA I WAS IN IS NOTORIOUS FOR THAT STUFF... HE STILL STALKED ME FOR 40 MINUTES THOUGH...


ANYWAY BACK ONTO TOPIC!!!!


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (22 March 2007)

insider said:
			
		

> THANKS FOR THE CORRECTION... NAH I HAVEN'T UPDATED MY INFO *I'VE BEEN DISTRACTED BY SCHOOL AND BY A GAY MIDDLE AGED MAN THAT LIKES TO STALK ME IN A PINSTRIPE SUIT... NO FOOLING  WHAT A FREAK!!! * I HOPE HE ISN'T GOING TO BOTHER ME ANY MORE OTHERWISE I'LL KICK HIS A$$


----------



## mmmmining (22 March 2007)

insider said:
			
		

> NOW THAT I THINK ABOUT IT HE MAY HAVE CONFUSED ME FOR A MALE PROSTITUTE... THE AREA I WAS IN IS NOTORIOUS FOR THAT STUFF... HE STILL STALKED ME FOR 40 MINUTES THOUGH...
> 
> 
> ANYWAY BACK ONTO TOPIC!!!!



Sorry, insider, we don't want to know what you have done in that long 40 min... . Eat yellowcake?


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (22 March 2007)

mmmmining said:
			
		

> Sorry, insider, we don't want to know what you have done in that long 40 min... . Eat yellowcake?


----------



## doctorj (22 March 2007)

I want some of whatever he's on.


----------



## Jimminy (22 March 2007)

insider said:
			
		

> What I'd like to know is what will happen in the short term... If investors have to wait from April 2007 until the year 2010 and eventually 2012, what will investors do during that time?
> 
> 2) Investors pull out driving the price down because there isn't as much speculation and not much going on for the next 2 - 4 years
> 
> .




Insider, I would use FMG as an example here. Their work has been in the pipeline for the past few years and they are still not producing, yet we see a $22+ sp.

I believe that explorers who begin to realise their goal of achieving production through consistent announcements over the coming years will continue to appreciate in value just as Fortescue has.

The long term trend is there for U explorers over the next 3-4 years.

I don't think we will see investors going away as too many countries plan to build nuclear power stations, and the production deficit already exists.

 I hold a number of advanced U explorers for the long term and although I have taken a haircut of recent times (with my profit) I have not sold any, yet continue to buy.


----------



## insider (22 March 2007)

He freaked me out... he just kept following me all over Footscray gardens, trailing behind me 30 meters... In hindsight he must have thought I was a male prostitute because I parked near some toilets that are notorious for that stuff... Did he ever think why would a Male prostitute be doing site surveying for a conservation management plan?... Weird... He looked like a real estate agent... explains a lot... lol... I think he realized what I wasn't a prostitute when I got in my car and drove off to which he ran to his car and that was the last I saw of him... 

I knew I was hot but not that hot  : 

These events confused the living daylights out of me...    I wonder if he is watching me now? nup... It cracks me up just thinking about it... I wonder what would happen if word got out to his work colleagues of his lunchtime activities... Blackmail comes to mind...


----------



## insider (22 March 2007)

Jimminy said:
			
		

> Insider, I would use FMG as an example here. Their work has been in the pipeline for the past few years and they are still not producing, yet we see a $22+ sp.
> 
> I believe that explorers who begin to realise their goal of achieving production through consistent announcements over the coming years will continue to appreciate in value just as Fortescue has.
> 
> ...




I was thinking the same thing... I expect that new short term issues and what not will appear as time goes on, things that are too early to spot now... but all of these little things will create speculation...

What's on the calender for the uranium as a sector? Today there is the pay dirt conference... You got April and the three mines policy review... the election in october i think... what else?


----------



## mmmmining (22 March 2007)

Too much gay male talk. Since gay male does not produce yellowcake, or a baby, we should forget about it. Sorry, Insider.

Here is a summary:
URA: 2008
UKL, CTS: 2009
CMR, EQN, TOE, WHE: 2010
AGS, PNN: 2011
SMM: 2010-2012
MTN: 2012

All of them are guesstimated under 10 years. Of course, with a lot of optimistic.


----------



## insider (22 March 2007)

mmmmining said:
			
		

> Too much gay male talk. Since gay male does not produce yellowcake, or a baby, we should forget about it. Sorry, Insider.
> 
> Here is a summary:
> URA: 2008
> ...




Agreed... I'm over it... but I'm homo phobic now... 

I'm just curious as to why you put URA as 2008...
I noticed PDN isn't there... They have massive investors from the States
MTN probably is right after all, environmental issues will always come up to halt work however on the contrary the large deposit may inspire mining progress...


----------



## mmmmining (22 March 2007)

insider said:
			
		

> Agreed... I'm over it... but I'm homo phobic now...
> 
> I'm just curious as to why you put URA as 2008...
> I noticed PDN isn't there... They have massive investors from the States
> MTN probably is right after all, environmental issues will always come up to halt work however on the contrary the large deposit may inspire mining progress...



"Freeballinginawetsuit" put URA 2008, and PDN is a producer already, an ex-hopeful.


----------



## nizar (22 March 2007)

mmmmining said:
			
		

> Too much gay male talk. Since gay male does not produce yellowcake, or a baby, we should forget about it. Sorry, Insider.
> 
> Here is a summary:
> URA: 2008
> ...





Interesting how the companies with the deposits ie. SMM and MTN, you forecast for having production later than those that have absolutely nothing eg. TOE, URA.


----------



## mmmmining (22 March 2007)

nizar said:
			
		

> Interesting how the companies with the deposits ie. SMM and MTN, you forecast for having production later than those that have absolutely nothing eg. TOE, URA.



TOE has got DYL's Napperby deposit in NT, and Freeballinginawetsuit forecasts URA based on company's ann.


----------



## mmmmining (23 March 2007)

mmmmining said:
			
		

> Too much gay male talk. Since gay male does not produce yellowcake, or a baby, we should forget about it. Sorry, Insider.
> 
> Here is a summary:
> URA: 2008
> ...




Talking about optimistic, from the latest Paydirt, PNN want to produce in three years, that is 2010, One year ahead of my guesstimate.

MTN want to do it in 2011. Looks both of my predictions are very "conservative". But I stick to it.


----------



## greggy (23 March 2007)

insider said:
			
		

> He freaked me out... he just kept following me all over Footscray gardens, trailing behind me 30 meters... In hindsight he must have thought I was a male prostitute because I parked near some toilets that are notorious for that stuff... Did he ever think why would a Male prostitute be doing site surveying for a conservation management plan?... Weird... He looked like a real estate agent... explains a lot... lol... I think he realized what I wasn't a prostitute when I got in my car and drove off to which he ran to his car and that was the last I saw of him...
> 
> I knew I was hot but not that hot  :
> 
> These events confused the living daylights out of me...    I wonder if he is watching me now? nup... It cracks me up just thinking about it... I wonder what would happen if word got out to his work colleagues of his lunchtime activities... Blackmail comes to mind...



Hi Insider,

I don't know what to make of your last couple of posts.  Your posts are usually reasonably sound, but the last few are fairly dodgy.  I hope you're all right now, may be the bloke stalking you was just after a few hot share tips.
Take it easy mate.


----------



## Wysiwyg (23 March 2007)

mmmmining said:
			
		

> Talking about optimistic, from the latest Paydirt, PNN want to produce in three years, that is 2010, One year ahead of my guesstimate.
> 
> MTN want to do it in 2011. Looks both of my predictions are very "conservative". But I stick to it.




I read that after hours annou. and wonder how this interest will be maintained for another 3 years.The price per lb. of U will be on the decline and by the time cigar lake comes on will drop out.I can`t help thinking that many of these have missed the boat.Cycles...it`s all about cycles.


----------



## falconx (23 March 2007)

When do you guys think DYL will be ready to produce? IIRC they are starting to drill in Namibia next month and should have the airborne electromagnetic surveys done by june. Is it likely to be JORC compliant before the end of the year?  
As far as production goes I guess it depends a little on if/when the PDN deal occurs.


----------



## mmmmining (24 March 2007)

falconx said:
			
		

> When do you guys think DYL will be ready to produce? IIRC they are starting to drill in Namibia next month and should have the airborne electromagnetic surveys done by june. Is it likely to be JORC compliant before the end of the year?
> As far as production goes I guess it depends a little on if/when the PDN deal occurs.



DYL is not comfortable to be a producer in the near future, so it sold the Napperby deposit to TOE in exchange for shareholding. I believe it could be a good taken over target by PDN if it can find some serious staff.

Namibia staff could support DYL's share price, but I believe it is not a company maker. I believe QLD will decide the future for DYL, believe it or not.


----------



## mmmmining (24 March 2007)

PAYDIRT URANIUM CONFERENCE
Australia should establish uranium index

*Australia must consider establishing a uranium index on the Australian Stock *Exchange (ASX), a uranium conference in South Australia has been told.
Author: Brad Watts
Posted:  Friday , 23 Mar 2007

CANBERRA - 

Mining investment analyst house Far East Capital's managing director Warwick Grigor, told the 2007 Paydirt Australian Uranium Conference that the number of listed companies claiming to be uranium vehicles is approaching 100.

"Ideally, we need an index and it needs to be broken into specific categories of *existing producers, potential producers, advanced explorers and grass roots explorers*," Mr Grigor told the conference in Adelaide. 

"There are remarkably few uranium producers listed not just on the ASX but any exchange worldwide, as 70 per cent of current supply comes from just 10-15 companies."

He said for investors, the producer category was the one to watch.

"*The potential producer category is of more value* as it offers share trading profit potential and can host companies that have some sort of uranium resource able to be exploited over the next two, five or ten years, he said.

He said there was more than a radioactive sniff to these but not all of them will progress to production.

But he also warned investors against the grass roots exploration sector, saying it posed the highest risk, although has the prospect to generate "wonderful discoveries and enormous capital gains".

Mr Grigor was positive about the uranium sector, despite conceding it might be a while before Australia gets any new mines.

"It will be a number of years before we see a new uranium mine in Australia but the predicted supply and demand equation for uranium suggests a* favourable climate for the sector for at least 10 years*," he said.


----------



## mmmmining (25 March 2007)

It feel that uranium stocks with majority of properties overseas will have a good run before the labor's conference, particularly near-term producer. Stocks with US address might continue to show the strength. Stock might rise are: 
Namibia group: BMN, ERN, EXT, WME, and WMT....
USA group:WHE, PEN, XST, BLR, UKL, WMT....
Others: GBE, CTS, URA, AEX, MRO, ACP, MRU.....

I guess people will be nervous to push domestic uranium stocks higher even it is almost a done deal. Because the risk is too high just in case a bunch of labors might ruin the party.

Of course, after the labor D-day, stock with domestic project other than WA might have a good run, particularly the near-term producers.
AGS, PNN, MTN, SMM, TOE, USA, DYL, and dozens....

But I predict that uranium stock with WA focused tenements might be just in line with general uranium trend at best. But I might be wrong. These politicians are suckers if they need your vote. I guess only WA ASFers can make a difference. If it is true, WA uranium hopefuls will have huge upside.


----------



## lounge chair (27 March 2007)

what about cuy, trial plant this year.







mmmmining said:


> Too much gay male talk. Since gay male does not produce yellowcake, or a baby, we should forget about it. Sorry, Insider.
> 
> Here is a summary:
> URA: 2008
> ...


----------



## mmmmining (27 March 2007)

lounge chair said:


> what about cuy, trial plant this year.




ISL technology is a bit different because it must have a trail operation to test the geologic structure. It might be failed completely. Let's assume successful, then

CUY still need to go through resource definition, permitting, BFS.... I would say it could produce uranium on 2010.

Based on the latest information, PNN is a front-runner domestically. 2010.


----------



## mmmmining (28 March 2007)

mmmmining said:


> Sorry, insider, Range will retain a 15% interest. So CTS can only get 65%. (Ann on 2 May 06. Do you have updated info?




My mistake, according to ann  on 29/09/06 and today, CTS can have 100% of the Corachapi Uranium Project in Peru. Good news for CTS, which can move a lot faster to production as a sole owner.


----------



## mmmmining (28 March 2007)

Latest research report from RC Research
Check the free report for Mar 2007

http://www.rcresearch.com.au/documents


----------



## mmmmining (31 March 2007)

What are we going to bid now, Sir?


----------



## Halba (31 March 2007)

ERN jorc by early next year can produce in late 2009. BMN interim jorc imminent (~25 mil pounds) can do BFS late this year/full year next, construct late 2008/early 2009, produce in late 2009. Other stocks I would not bother with.


----------



## Sean K (31 March 2007)

Halba said:


> Other stocks I would not bother with.



No other unanium stocks worth investing in  Or, that won't produce? You own more than just these two don't you?


----------



## Halba (31 March 2007)

> Other stocks I would not bother with.




yep thats right. i woudn't bother with the rest i.e. wouldn't invest in them. these two offer enough superior resources potential and production(being in namibia). Australian resources too expensive, SMM already 1 billion mkt cap, AGS 500mill dollar market cap. Wheres the upside on these at such high market capitalisations. Just have a look at SMM's latest jorc for example. However if some other namibian/african companies come up i will invest.


----------



## Sean K (31 March 2007)

Halba said:


> yep thats right. i woudn't bother with the rest i.e. wouldn't invest in them. these two offer enough superior resources potential and production(being in namibia). Australian resources too expensive, SMM already 1 billion mkt cap, AGS 500mill dollar market cap. Wheres the upside on these at such high market capitalisations. Just have a look at SMM's latest jorc for example. However if some other namibian/african companies come up i will invest.



Totally agree, they seem very expensive to me. I've been saying this for some time, unfortunately, and missed out on some $$. What was the Anderson's JORC? 4.7m lbs. I would have been hoping for 10-20m. Pretty high grade though isn't it? 15 ks from Mt Isa. Gee, they could dig it up and taxi it into town. Adds to the list of resources though. They might still make it to 100m lbs total, if they get the IUJV to themselves, although that's doubtful. Beatie's changed his tune to win some votes, so could be mining relatively soon. Probably sooner than BMN and ERN actually. They're yet to produce JORCs and with the way these drilling programs lengthen out, could be some time before they get an inferred? Then they need all the additional drilling to get to the meassured before PFS....Some time away. I think your estimates aren't very conservative on this and don't count for any fudge. Have you factored in any problems? Like rig availability? Resource definition hold ups like we've seen with SMM and AGS? etc...


----------



## Halba (31 March 2007)

agree but i wouldn't look at rig availability as being a major factor in my decision. if the ground is good there will be demand. I understand BMN are sourcing additional drill rigs as you say. Any further results that point to a big possible JORC , the market will not wait. AGS is valued on more than its JORC, and has the market waited for its JORC to fully value the company

BMN's interim resource estimate is due within a few months(this is based on historical drilling to 70m depth only and confirmatory drilling). Even though it may be small ~25million pounds, that is still nearly equal to 50% of of valhalla which underpins SMM's 1billion dollar valuation(mainly 50% of valhalla). But the main thing BMN is lucky they can deliver a JORC estimate soon- something others can't. The market can't price SMM and BMN on different planets. Its the 1 market.


----------



## nizar (31 March 2007)

kennas said:


> Totally agree, they seem very expensive to me. I've been saying this for some time, unfortunately, and missed out on some $$. What was the Anderson's JORC? 4.7m lbs. I would have been hoping for 10-20m. Pretty high grade though isn't it? 15 ks from Mt Isa. Gee, they could dig it up and taxi it into town. Adds to the list of resources though. They might still make it to 100m lbs total, if they get the IUJV to themselves, although that's doubtful. Beatie's changed his tune to win some votes, so could be mining relatively soon. Probably sooner than BMN and ERN actually. They're yet to produce JORCs and with the way these drilling programs lengthen out, could be some time before they get an inferred? Then they need all the additional drilling to get to the meassured before PFS....Some time away. I think your estimates aren't very conservative on this and don't count for any fudge. Have you factored in any problems? Like rig availability? Resource definition hold ups like we've seen with SMM and AGS? etc...




Great post kennas, I agree with whats being said.
SMM I dont think its overly expensive for their resource and potential. And halba - if you sell or dont buy into the ones that IN YOUR OPINION are overvalued, then you will miss out on many opportunities. Let the market deduce the value.

ERN looking like a great spec play at this stage (under 100mil). 

Alot of money will be made in April.


----------



## Halba (31 March 2007)

Hi nizar if I buy it must have fundamental value. Market will sort out non fundamental spec garbage like NUP over time, and people will lose money. I failed to understand the positive pumping going on in that stock and I was right.

I feel with plenty of my available funds tied up in BMN and ERN I will have no problem with any 'missed opps' in the future.


----------



## mmmmining (31 March 2007)

Halba, from Euphoria to Pessimism just a blink?  

SMM, AGS and EME might look expensive, but they are speculative stocks. Valuation does not apply much.

PNN could be a producer in 3 years if OK with Labor;
MTN is still very cheap, might be cheaper than BMN on EV/lb basis; and 
There are a group of stocks with uranium assets, but has zero value for greenfield project.

If on resources potential basis only, both BMN and ERN are extremely attractive. But I doubt both of them can be a producer by 2009. 

Just have a look for how long does it take for PDN even PDN has well defined resources already in the last uranium cycle.

My money is still on PNN as the front-runner, and EQN CMR will be the second and the third, with CTS as black horse.


----------



## Sean K (31 March 2007)

Halba said:


> Hi nizar if I buy it must have fundamental value.



You'll come around to accept TA as a valuable tool one day Halba.


----------



## Sean K (31 March 2007)

mmmmining said:


> CTS as black horse.



I've put a couple of bucks each way on this one too. I'm moving to Peru in a couple of months, so will drop in and let you know how it's going.


----------



## chris1983 (31 March 2007)

mmmmining said:


> My money is still on PNN as the front-runner, and EQN CMR will be the second and the third, with CTS as black horse.




Guys what is wrong with CTS?  They have a defined resource..they will get over 10 million once the oppies are converted.  I have been researching them.  Is PERU usually a no go zone?  Political troubles?


----------



## mmmmining (31 March 2007)

chris1983 said:


> Guys what is wrong with CTS?  They have a defined resource..they will get over 10 million once the oppies are converted.  I have been researching them.  Is PERU usually a no go zone?  Political troubles?




Chris, I think the management is a bit illusive. I cannot find them, and never return a call.  I back it with a few just in case. Maybe you get lucky,can ask about targeting production in 2007, and other questions, such as location (highland), mineralogy, drilling schedule, and fund raise etc.

No political problem yet. 

PS not 10m once, is about 10m lb


----------



## chris1983 (31 March 2007)

mmmmining said:


> Chris, I think the management is a bit illusive. I cannot find them, and never return a call.  I back it with a few just in case. Maybe you get lucky,can ask about targeting production in 2007, and other questions, such as location (highland), mineralogy, drilling schedule, and fund raise etc.
> 
> No political problem yet.





Ive been trying to find another uranium play and this one looks the goods.  Thanks for the info mmmmining.  I cant see this staying down.  You referred to the location (highland).  These are all very important factors..but their grades are excellent.  This will probably be my next play.  I currently hold BMN and ERN.  CTS will also get 10 million cash (sorry i was referring to cash they will get from converted oppies) at bank when the oppies are converted soon and they allready had 2.5 million at bank as of their last half year accounts.


----------



## Halba (31 March 2007)

hmmm never heard of CTS   will have to check it up

Does it really matter when uranium hopefuls produce? Its all about the resources you have and the project you have. By all practicalities a few months to a year will separate the U companies at this moment.  If your project is not as good and you only produce a little earlier than others, whats the point? The bigger resources u have the more u will be valued!


----------



## chris1983 (31 March 2007)

Halba said:


> hmmm never heard of CTS   will have to check it up
> 
> Does it really matter when uranium hopefuls produce? Its all about the resources you have and the project you have. By all practicalities a few months to a year will separate the U companies at this moment.  If your project is not as good and you only produce a little earlier than others, whats the point? The bigger resources u have the more u will be valued!




I'll probably have to depart with some of my beloved AOE to get them though. noooo.   Have to read further into CTS but they look good and are too cheap atm. I have to old AOE another 3 months to only pay 15% TAX..argg.  CTS could easily run 3 fold.  They are on my to buy list.


----------



## nizar (31 March 2007)

CTS recently iv heard mentioned by a few big players that are usually in the know.


----------



## Freeballinginawetsuit (31 March 2007)

kennas said:


> I've put a couple of bucks each way on this one too. *I'm moving to Peru in a couple of months*, so will drop in and let you know how it's going.





Really?, thats a change in lifestyle!.


----------



## spooly74 (31 March 2007)

nizar said:


> CTS recently iv heard mentioned by a few big players that are usually in the know.




Mentioned in a good way or a bad way?


----------



## mmmmining (31 March 2007)

If you fancy BMN and ERN can produce yellowcake by 2009, you should have a serious look at this little one. WME  (Don't confused with WMT).

From info I collected, it is a bit advanced than BMN, definitely than ERN. (Do argue this please, Halba, it's a fact). I am going to get a few lines out under WME by the end of this weekend, or before Easter.


----------



## nizar (31 March 2007)

spooly74 said:


> Mentioned in a good way or a bad way?





LOL they hold.


----------



## Sean K (31 March 2007)

Freeballinginawetsuit said:


> Really?, thats a change in lifestyle!.



My girlfriend has just got the job of General Manager South America for Intrepid Travel. I'll just be doing the same thing I do now I think, on a different time zone. CTS's U prospect is not far from Cuzco, the area is in the Andes, but it's actually relatively flat once you're up there. I'll go and visit the mine and let you guys know what it looks like. I'll be there for at least 2 years. Perhaps they'll give me a job.


----------



## Go Nuke (31 March 2007)

The charts for CTS and AGS look similar at the moment.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (31 March 2007)

nizar said:


> CTS recently iv heard mentioned by a few big players that are usually in the know.




lol your not talking about me calling it a few days back are you? : 

Seriously though CTS is my current fundamental U play, seriously undervalued, April should see it re-rated


----------



## mmmmining (31 March 2007)

YOUNG_TRADER said:


> Seriously though CTS is my current fundamental U play, seriously undervalued, April should see it re-rated




Before site inspection by Kennas?


----------



## Captain_Chaza (31 March 2007)

Ahoy there

I don't know if this is important but has anyone else noticed that when a speculative miniing explorer gets rerated as a producer the share price often falls

Or Is it just me?

Go figure?

Salute and Gods' speed


----------



## Mousie (31 March 2007)

Captain_Chaza said:


> has anyone else noticed that when a speculative miniing explorer gets rerated as a producer the share price often falls




 examples please?


----------



## Captain_Chaza (31 March 2007)

There are so many !
The sea bottoms are littered with "Producers" 

The old PAS (Pasminco) would be a good example
The old SGW (Sons of Gwalia) another

Salute for now as I scacth my head for more examples
There are hundreds of examples to the lessor of these (only 2) above extremes

And then there are the real oldies like
Poseidon Mk I
Poseidon Mk II
Tasminex


----------



## Mousie (31 March 2007)

Captain_Chaza said:


> There are so many !
> The sea bottoms are littered with "Producers"
> 
> The old PAS (Pasminco) would be a good example
> ...




Errr...Captain, I mean *uranium* producers, which if you're not concerned with you're actually posting in the wrong thread.  

Addressing your question, PDN ain't looking like it's gonna implode soon unless they spend their new-found wealth carelessly, which don't seem to be happening unless you feel the deal with SMM is way overrated, and if so please say why on the PDN and/or SMM thread.

Another reason might be careless hedging arrangements, which PAS and SGW have fallen victim to, but I can't see PDN getting itself into something like this (for now).


----------



## Captain_Chaza (31 March 2007)

Ahoy Mousie

Anything that comes out of the ground I call a Miner/ Producer
In the end they are only left with a hole in the ground to Fill

I do admit that Most do not go to nothing 
BUT
Most go down in share price as in VRE
Fundamentalists  call them "30% -50% Corrections" unless new discoveries are made in the nic 'o'time

Some are lucky to do this as in WSA and power on regardless how much money was lost by so many at the handover date/re-rating to Producer status

Salute and I hope I have made my point to your satisfaction?


----------



## Mousie (31 March 2007)

Captain_Chaza said:


> Ahoy Mousie
> 
> Anything that comes out of the ground I call a Miner/ Producer
> In the end they are only left with a hole in the ground to Fill
> ...




Looks like you have the language to back up your nick Captain  

Understood, though to answer your original question IMO it's gotta do with the way management carries out their work consistently. If the market sense that mgt is tardy or are not meeting targets, impatient ones sell out. Normal dips are caused by profit-taking.


----------



## nizar (1 April 2007)

YOUNG_TRADER said:


> lol your not talking about me calling it a few days back are you? :
> 
> Seriously though CTS is my current fundamental U play, seriously undervalued, April should see it re-rated




Yeah YT you among others.


----------



## mmmmining (1 April 2007)

zed327 said:


> Pulled this of nine msn.
> Edited version below or read the full story    http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=61801
> Mr Beattie urged those angry over any perceived backflip by him on the issue not to get their "knickers in a knot", arguing the ALP national conference motion could give Queensland the flexibility not to go ahead with uranium mines.
> 
> ...




Politician's color never change. It looks like bye-bye to uranium in QLD. Welcome to SA, NT, the land of abundant uranium. And:
USA
Namibia
South Africa
Peru
......
......
......


----------



## mmmmining (2 April 2007)

mmmmining said:


> Politician's color never change. It looks like bye-bye to uranium in QLD. Welcome to SA, NT, the land of abundant uranium. And:
> USA
> Namibia
> South Africa
> ...




I guess the most likely outcome from the labor conference is that states have discretion on the uranium mining. They are politicians for their only interests, their parties interests, not every Aussies interests. 

Definitely uranium companies in QLD will be the biggest loser. SMM will be hit the hardest. 

While Nobody is seriously think WA will change its policy. Not much gain, and not much lose either.

So the sole state that is shining is SA. With AGS, PNN, and MTN as the first tier hopeful.

Second tier is TOE, SIM, DYL, USA, UXA, MOX, GIR, UEQ, UTO, .......

It is very funny that some people think it is worse to have a tough EIA than in a completely banned state. As long as in a friend state, everything can be worked out.


----------



## Jimminy (2 April 2007)

Think you will find most co.s are diversified with their projects. ie...not really biased towards one state. Yes, Summit is a worry.


----------



## Halba (2 April 2007)

mmmmining said:


> Politician's color never change. It looks like bye-bye to uranium in QLD. Welcome to SA, NT, the land of abundant uranium. And:
> USA
> Namibia
> South Africa
> ...





No the policy will be changed. Leaders like Gillard are supporting it. She is influential. Too much $$ at stake. Why would u not change, it would be like shooting yourself in the head.

These summarise the Labor party if they don't change:

:bonk: :iamwithst :hammer: :bath:


----------



## zed327 (2 April 2007)

The only way Rudd can get the 3 mines policy changed is to give the states the say on whether they want to mine.
It's an easy way out for Labour Federally.
That would mean SA  NT   

And  WA  QLD


----------



## mmmmining (2 April 2007)

zed327 said:


> The only way Rudd can get the 3 mines policy changed is to give the states the say on whether they want to mine.
> It's an easy way out for Labour Federally.
> That would mean SA  NT
> 
> And  WA  QLD




Agree, after all, they are politicians, nothing more, and nothing less. Promise a lot, do a little.


----------



## Sean K (3 April 2007)

zed327 said:


> The only way Rudd can get the 3 mines policy changed is to give the states the say on whether they want to mine.
> It's an easy way out for Labour Federally.
> That would mean SA  NT
> 
> And  WA  QLD



Yes, this looks to be the case at the moment after the most recent comments by Rudd and the Premiers. It's hard to say how this news, once policy, will eventually effect explorers/developers in WA and QLD, but it could be a negative. Obviously, SA is going to be OK, and NT as long as the Gov don't give NT Statehood. (Although, I'm not sure if NT even want that themselves yet) On the surface of it, SA and NT miners will be the first to get approval to mine. However, that doesn't mean there's no money to be made in WA and QLD miners. If they come up with outstanding discoveries, then they will be re rated accordingly. Labor won't be in power in the states forever. Imagine the change of sentiment to WA/QLD U company's if the State Govs get rolled! Keep an eye on this one in the next few years...


----------



## mmmmining (3 April 2007)

kennas said:


> Imagine the change of sentiment to WA/QLD U company's if the State Govs get rolled! Keep an eye on this one in the next few years...



I like that. Very easy. Vote Labor into Federal Govt. All state labor will get...


----------



## Broadside (3 April 2007)

zed327 said:


> The only way Rudd can get the 3 mines policy changed is to give the states the say on whether they want to mine.
> It's an easy way out for Labour Federally.
> That would mean SA  NT
> 
> And  WA  QLD




Even if 3 mine policy stays in place AGS can go ahead, they would fall under the existing Beverley mine at B4M, I think AGS can be a producer before the end of this decade, I think 2011-2012 is too conservative.


----------



## MJSJ (3 April 2007)

CTS believes it will be in production in Peru in late 2008 - with at this stage an estimated 9.29M lbs. of Uranium (JORC 7.2M lbs.) {see announcements their site www.contactresources.com.au}. They recently aquired a 100% interest in the Peruvian Corachapi project. CTS's quarterly report is due in the next few weeks.


----------



## Jimminy (4 April 2007)

zed327 said:


> The only way Rudd can get the 3 mines policy changed is to give the states the say on whether they want to mine.
> It's an easy way out for Labour Federally.
> That would mean SA  NT
> 
> And  WA  QLD





I am ruling out Northern Territory also. Perhaps look into the politics there and you will find that NT are not pro-Uranium mining.

Hence the reason CUY, PNN, AGS, are rocketing away into the sunset; but at the same time dragging the others along. Feels like they are in the bride and grooms car driving off for their honeymoon and we are the cans tied to the back of the car copping a rough ride of late....


----------



## mmmmining (4 April 2007)

Introduce another uranium hopeful that can produce soon, MRO.

The advantage is there is uranium mill in Kyrgyz. If it can be re-opened, it could save a couple of years time towards production. 

MRO just needs to find a lot of uraniums, and it seems to be with the latest ann. Within 3-4 weeks, the latest drilling results should be released.

Full diluted mark cap is at $80m, with around 38m shares. The share price is still about 15% less than the all-time high. Worth a look.


----------



## greggy (4 April 2007)

kennas said:


> Yes, this looks to be the case at the moment after the most recent comments by Rudd and the Premiers. It's hard to say how this news, once policy, will eventually effect explorers/developers in WA and QLD, but it could be a negative. Obviously, SA is going to be OK, and NT as long as the Gov don't give NT Statehood. (Although, I'm not sure if NT even want that themselves yet) On the surface of it, SA and NT miners will be the first to get approval to mine. However, that doesn't mean there's no money to be made in WA and QLD miners. If they come up with outstanding discoveries, then they will be re rated accordingly. Labor won't be in power in the states forever. Imagine the change of sentiment to WA/QLD U company's if the State Govs get rolled! Keep an eye on this one in the next few years...



Kennas,

I can't believe the stupidity of the Beattie and Carpenter Labor Govts.  The only effect of their uranium ban will be to send more dollars and jobs into SA and overseas.  I used to think Mr Beattie was pro-business.  Obviously, not any more.  Go Mr Rann!!


----------



## zed327 (4 April 2007)

One suttle change in their wording and it culls a lot of u hopefulls from becoming producers for at least the term of the Beattie and Carpenter governments.
Both WA and Qld have pathetically weak and self destructive oppositions that have no hope of getting in any time soon.
SA u company's are the safest bet then comes the overseas contingent.


----------



## nizar (4 April 2007)

mmmmining said:


> I like that. Very easy. Vote Labor into Federal Govt. All state labor will get...




I think this may happen later this year.
If it does, big money to be made.


----------



## Atomic5 (5 April 2007)

I just read the following in WA Business News online. The border between SA and WA is inland from the Bight, and is one of the most spectacular coastlines (real estate) I've ever seen. 

I can't believe they want to dump nuclear waste there. 

_WA Business News
5-April-07 by AAP
Latest News

*SA and WA outback best place for nuclear dump - Morgan - 05 Apr, 08:41am*

Former mining executive Hugh Morgan says there should be an internationally-owned and run nuclear waste facility in Australia, with the ideal site an area of land straddling the border between South Australia and Western Australia.

The former head of Western Mining Corporation said he was doing preparatory work to establish a nuclear business in Australia.

"What I would propose is that there ought to be an internationally-owned facility in Australia," Mr Morgan told ABC Radio.

Mr Morgan said the facility should be owned by various governments and utilities around the world, together with the Australian government and leading Australian businesses.

He said there were three preferable sites for a nuclear waste dump, the best one being in the Australian outback.

"A site in one of the three most secure geological sequences in the world," Mr Morgan said. "One of those sequences lies in South Australia and extends into Western Australia, one is in South Africa and one is in China."

Mr Morgan said that Australia offered the best geological and political stability for such a facility.

"I would say South Australia - Western Australia. That's where the geological sequence lies," he said.

"I know politically they're (anti-nuclear lobbyists) going to get up and say `not over my dead body, etc, etc.'

"I'm saying that's where ... in the international interest ... you would go."

Mr Morgan said fears about nuclear waste disposal were ill-founded.

"There are many satisfactory disposal locations already ... in Sweden, in France, in the United States," he said.

"There are technologies that are continuing to come forward to provide changes in the nature of the nuclear power plants themselves - the nature of the waste which reduces the time to achieve half life."

Mr Morgan also wanted the public to stop calling facilities for nuclear waste dumps.

"Call it a repository ... not a dump," he said. _


----------



## petervan (5 April 2007)

http://www.equinoxminerals.com/files/document/261_GlobeandMail_Uranium_070323.pdf         Reading this they are looking at 2010 to be in production.


----------



## insider (5 April 2007)

I reckon underneath ayres rock... because no one is gonna used that land for anything else other than a tourist attraction...


----------



## mmmmining (8 April 2007)

On your mark, ready, set, GO!
Time to do another round of check of race to the producer:
Here is the previous discussion:

UKL, CTS: 2009
CMR, EQN, TOE, WHE: 2010
AGS, PNN: 2011
SMM: 2010-2012
MTN: 2012

Add more please....


----------



## kromey (8 April 2007)

mmmmining said:


> On your mark, ready, set, GO!
> Time to do another round of check of race to the producer:
> Here is the previous discussion:
> 
> ...




URA?


----------



## mmmmining (9 April 2007)

kromey said:


> URA?




Don't trust the management anymore. But I still hold a small parcel just in case.


----------



## nanivini (9 April 2007)

Scarcity drives uranium to recordBy Mandi Zonneveldt
April 09, 2007 12:00am
Article from: Font size: + -
Send this article: Print Email 
THE price of uranium has smashed through $US100 a pound as supplies of the nuclear fuel become more scarce.

The uranium spot price soared $US18 last week to $US113 a pound - the largest single jump since NUEXCO began reporting uranium prices in 1968.

Uranium does not trade on an open market like other commodities. 

Buyers and sellers negotiate contracts privately and prices are published by independent market consultants. 

The new benchmark, reported by consultants TradeTech, formerly NUEXCO, was set by an auction in the United States last Wednesday for 100,000 pounds of yellowcake. 

The bidding came as Australian uranium producer Energy Resources of Australia warned that wet weather would hamper its production for at least a year. 

In its newsletter published on Friday, TradeTech said ERA's announcement contributed to the huge price rise last week. 

The US-based consultancy said utilities looking for large amounts of uranium for near-term delivery and continued interest from speculators and hedge funds had also helped push the price up. 

The uranium price has increased 57 per cent since the beginning of this year alone, and is up more than 170 per cent in the past 12 months. 

Resource Capital Research recently predicted the price of yellowcake would touch $US125 a pound this year and rise as high as $US140 a pound in 2008. 

Australian uranium producers have missed out on much of the upside of the uranium boom because most of their uranium is sold under long-term contracts that are only partially influenced by the spot price. 

However, BHP Billiton has begun talking to potential customers about an expansion at its Olympic Dam mine that would triple its uranium output. 

Paladin Resources is also well placed to cash in on recent rises, having just commissioned the world's first new uranium mine in 15 years in Namibia. The company is close to moving on a second project in Malawi. 

The uranium boom has pushed the value of listed explorers in Australia up 23 per cent in the past three months, according to RCR, and up 122 per cent in the past year. 

The exploration industry is keenly awaiting the outcome of debate at the Labor Party's national conference this month, with the ALP expected to end its opposition


----------



## nizar (9 April 2007)

mmmmining said:


> On your mark, ready, set, GO!
> Time to do another round of check of race to the producer:
> Here is the previous discussion:
> 
> ...




Mining.
Any specific reason why BMN isnt up there?
I would consider them much more advanced in their exploration than say, TOE.


----------



## mmmmining (9 April 2007)

nizar said:


> Mining.
> Any specific reason why BMN isnt up there?
> I would consider them much more advanced in their exploration than say, TOE.




You can estimate a production year for BMN. I dare not to since there is no resources defined yet.

But TOE is good one if the management can do it.


----------



## mmmmining (10 April 2007)

A uranium beauty parade in SA

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,21528495-5003680,00.html


----------



## mmmmining (10 April 2007)

MRO should be producer by 2010. The reasons:
Warwick Grigor, or famous uranium figure is the Chairman of the board. He believes it. As an insider, he sticks his neck out on it, I guess he must be right.


----------



## Wysiwyg (11 April 2007)

My research has brought up many companies during the last uranium run that only ever drilled.Most probably because by the time they got moving the price started falling or the nuke issue back then was unacceptable. "No nukes"  was the cry.Bit different these days though with nuclear power becoming widespread.

So maybe the drillers might go on with it this time.If I invested in the companies I  certainly wouldn`t want to wait around for years just to hear that they found some uranium and in the ground it stays.


----------



## siempre33 (11 April 2007)

Wysiwyg said:
"..If I invested in the companies I certainly wouldn`t want to wait around for years just to hear that they found some uranium and in the ground it stays."

FOLLOW THE MONEY!!

Australia will follow the nuclear trend, there is no doubt in my mind.....U miners will be priced at many multiples of their current quote if they find mineable, feasible deposits...

China will eat-up all the natural resources coming out of Awz, and then some....


----------



## mmmmining (11 April 2007)

Watch out, uranium companies with asset in USofA. 60min has aired a program on nuclear energy.

UKL, WHE, PEN, BLR, XST,....

http://www.u3o8.biz/s/MarketComment...ction-and-60-Minutes-put-spotlight-on-uranium
-------------------------------------------------------------
The rest of the world is taking notice of uranium too, including the US, which hasn't built a new nuclear plant since the 1970s. According to a "60 Minutes" report that aired April 8, nuclear power may be poised for a big comeback because it is one of the few efficient means of producing large amounts of carbon-free energy.

The television program examined the nuclear industry in France, which produces about 80% of its electricity from 58 nuclear power plants scattered around a nation the size of Texas. Americans, on the other hand, are cautious of nuclear power, mostly because of the Three Mile Island incident 30 years ago. Clay Sell, the US Deputy Secretary of Energy, told 60 Minutes reporter Steve Kroft that Americans "tend to forget" that 103 nuclear plants currently operate in the US and produce about 20% of its electricity without incident. But Americans are warming up to the idea of nuclear power because of global warming concerns. While no plants are under construction or on the drawing board, about 15 companies are reported to be interested in building more than 30 facilities, which would represent America's next generation of nuclear power plants.


----------



## Halba (11 April 2007)

mmmmining said:


> MRO should be producer by 2010. The reasons:
> Warwick Grigor, or famous uranium figure is the Chairman of the board. He believes it. As an insider, he sticks his neck out on it, I guess he must be right.




Hmm I don't notice MRO having any reserves or even a resource yet..Warwick Grigor sometimes picks a lot of dog stocks as well....only backs what he owns.


----------



## mmmmining (11 April 2007)

Halba said:


> Hmm I don't notice MRO having any reserves or even a resource yet..Warwick Grigor sometimes picks a lot of dog stocks as well....only backs what he owns.




I have to disagree with you about "a lot of dogs". It is a very false statement. A few is possible. Have you ever picked up a dog or two? 

Less than 40m shares on fully diluted basis. It has about 5mlb resources, with very good grade, and potentially very large resources extension. Try to read the latest presentation.


----------



## Bush Trader (12 April 2007)

Takeovers, Dogs & Potential - it's all in black and white below.

Cheers

BT


*Reaching For The Summit
Source: FN Arena News - April 12 2007 
By Greg Peel*

There are two interesting points to note about the deal announced yesterday between French company Areva and local uranium resource owner Summit Resources (SMM): (1) Areva is not a uranium miner; (2) the price paid for a 9% stake implies a resource valuation for Summit's Valhalla/Skal project in excess of US$30/lb.

Yesterday Summit announced that Areva had agreed to subscribe for 9% of Summit at $6.20 per share, with an option to subscribe for a further 9% at $7.20 per share within 2-6 months. This averages to 18% at $6.75 or a 31% premium over Summit's closing price of April 5. This is a typical takeover premium.

Such a premium was also implicit in the earlier hostile takeover offer made for Summit by Paladin Resources (PDN). Implicit, as Paladin's bid offer was for a scrip exchange of one Paladin share for every 2.04 Summit shares. At yesterday's prices, this implies a value of $5.19 per share.

Summit's board had staunchly rejected the Paladin offer, and to date less than 1% of Summit shareholders have caved in. The offer is unconditional and as such still stands, but clearly Paladin has to reconsider its position.
Paladin shareholders had not initially warmed to the scrip offer for Summit, being as it was potentially 16% dilutive. The quandary though is that Paladin may end up with 50% of Valhalla Ã¢â‚¬“ the significant resource in Queensland Ã¢â‚¬“ and to really extract the value would prefer 100%. Even the 50% is unconfirmed, as Paladin has attempted to acquire this through its acquisition last year of Valhalla Resources, and, cutting a long story short, Summit is challenging Paladin's right to the Valhalla project in court as we speak. To win the Valhalla resource now, Paladin may really have to go to town in order to usurp Areva.

The Areva deal involves cash Ã¢â‚¬“ potentially close to $300m Ã¢â‚¬“ which is a significant boost to Summit as it prepares to enter production. Whether or not Summit can actually enter production is still not set in stone, as Queensland premier Peter Beattie continues to wax and wane as to whether he will allow uranium mining in the state or whether he will meekly capitulate to Queensland's powerful coal mining unions. It's not hard to see where Areva's money lies.

Paladin, on the other hand, is only offering its own scrip. Having only just commenced production at its Namibian mines, Paladin does not have the cash to spend. Paladin has been able to make what was an impressive scrip offer (up to yesterday) because its own share price has significantly appreciated over the last year.

All these shenanigans are occurring in the context of last week's biggest ever single percentage jump in the price of uranium. When 100,000 pounds sold for US$113/lb in Texas, local uranium shares went for a run again. Few gobs, however, were actually smacked by the high price, as it is well known that there are plenty of buyers and very few sellers. And the sellers are in no rush.
Just how high can the uranium price go? This question was discussed at length in "Is There Value Left In The Uranium Sector" (Sell&Buyology; 27/03/07). In short, analysts are expecting a significant increase in supply in the next five years. However, there is also a rush to build new reactors, and the great bulk of a reactor's uranium consumption occurs on start-up. As reactors also cost a great deal to build, the actual cost of that uranium is not a huge percentage of the price. In other words, desperate energy companies could potentially afford to pay more yet.

But then as overall cost of nuclear energy spirals upward, at what point does nuclear start to lose its appeal as an alternative energy source when compared to other clean/green sources that are rapidly under development as well? That one's not easy.

One way for nuclear energy companies to overcome the problem of a spiralling uranium price is to stop buying the processed ore and start buying the stuff in the ground. In other words, buy uranium mines. And that is exactly the direction Areva has moved in with respect to its Summit deal.
As noted at the outset, Areva is not a uranium miner, it is an energy company.

Areva provides "reliable technological solutions" for carbon-free power generation, electricity transmission and distribution. It has manufacturing facilities in 41 countries and a sales network in 100. Areva is the world leader in nuclear power. France has the highest percentage of nuclear power generation in the world.

As part of the deal, Areva will provide technical assistance to Summit in the development of Valhalla and in further exploration. It will also retain the right to market two-thirds of Summit's uranium.
That an energy company should be dealing with Summit, as opposed to uranium miner Paladin, opens up the wealth of possibility that not only are Australian uranium resources valued by competing global uranium miners, they are a target for energy companies trying to vertically integrate their way out of the current uranium ore scramble. While Areva is clearly one of the biggies, think what might happen if the Chinese get started.

Also notable in the Summit deal was the implied resource value in excess of US$30/lb. FNArena has constantly made reference recently to the SXR Uranium One/UrAsia merger, which also valued proven uranium resources at over US$30/lb. By contrast, Australian uranium resources such as ERA's (ERA) Ranger had been valued at US$16/lb. Paladin's current resource valuation, according to Macquarie analysts, is US$23/lb. This again raises the question of whether all Australian uranium resources are in need of further re-rating.
If you revalue Paladin on this basis it should be worth $15-17 per share. However, Macquarie analysts are quick to point out that the implied resource value is based off a mere 9% minority holding at $6.20 (implying US$30/lb) or 18% at $6.75 (implying US$35/lb), not the whole box and dice. Furthermore, within the valuation is the right to market two-thirds of Summit's uranium, which is itself a significant money-spinner.

The case of what Paladin should be valued at is thus a tough one. If Paladin is forced to up its bid for Summit with a juicier scrip offer this will imply even further dilution to the Paladin share price. And there is still no guarantee Paladin will secure even 50% of Valhalla, let alone 100%. On the other hand, consolidation in the uranium market Ã¢â‚¬“ involving both producers and users Ã¢â‚¬“ will underpin all uranium stocks. And then there is that resource value consideration.

As far as all Australian uranium hopefuls are concerned, investors must again be wary of just what real potential a local miner has, and just how much the share price has appreciated already. (If the Paladin share price can appreciate another 50%, that's a great result. But it has appreciated more than 1000% in two years, and that sort of upside has now past). Uranium analyst Resource Capital Research publishes a quarterly review of the sector. Its stock recommendations appeared in "Uranium Could Hit US$140/lb Next Year, Juniors Are Enjoying The Ride" (Commodities; 29/03/07).

In a nutshell, RCR advises looking for uranium companies that show the following characteristics: they are unhedged; they have exploration upside; they have projects that are already in some way advanced (eg a JORC resource); they have actual takeover potential.

Investment advisor Far East Capital also follows the uranium sector closely and produces regular reviews. Far East's Warwick Grigor warns that 90% of uranium companies are not yet able to say they actually have a "mineable proposition". Of those that can, many, in Grigor's view, are already overvalued. These include Toro Energy (TOE), Marathon Resources (MTN), Arafura Resources (ARU), Berkeley Resources (BKY) andÃ¢â‚¬¦ahemÃ¢â‚¬¦Summit Resources (a claim made before yesterday).

Grigor prefers Australian listed stocks showing prospects offshore (and not forgetting that uranium mining in Australia is still up in the air). He suggests Monaro Mining (MRO) which has prospects in Kyrgyzstan, Uranium King (UKL) (Nevada and New Mexico) and Contact Resources (CTS) (Peru).

There is clearly no end yet to the uranium story just yet. Once again, investors are advised to know the stocks that they are backing. While blind euphoria may still be ruling the day, you don't want to be stuck without a proper chair when the music stops.


----------



## Gurgler (12 April 2007)

Err, you meant blue and white, didn't you, BT?


----------



## Bush Trader (12 April 2007)

Gurgler said:


> Err, you meant blue and white, didn't you, BT?




TouchÃ©, you must be bored, pedantic or just trying to get you average posts per day up for the May Stock Tipping Comp.

Cheers

BT


----------

