# Uranium Shares have topped out



## sydneysider (1 March 2007)

The U dementia that has been underway in massive doses for many months just topped out. Look at PDN, it has gapped down and hit with massive volumes. Almost all of the U's have similar chart patterns. Distribution tops with yesterday's gap down. Just run thru the list and most of them have the tell-tale gap down on volume. The gap is a very potent bear signal. Time to sell em, because all of those hedge funds that were madly buying will now be liquidating.

IMHO u can now go buy the golds. They have been so quite for so long that many of them are very good buying especially with gold on a scream. Their patterns are totally different from from the U's. My favorite is NWR which IMHO is probably the most exciting (basement priced) gold play in Australia to-day.


----------



## Realist (1 March 2007)

*Re: Uranium Shares have topped out, sell them*

Oh dear.

what rubbish.


----------



## falconx (1 March 2007)

*Re: Uranium Shares have topped out, sell them*



			
				Realist said:
			
		

> Oh dear.
> 
> what rubbish.




LOL   

sydneysider: Demand for U has not dampened at all and so the spot price will continue to rise for at least another year IMO (might even double), no real reason for the down-ramp.


----------



## billhill (1 March 2007)

*Re: Uranium Shares have topped out, sell them*



			
				sydneysider said:
			
		

> The U dementia that has been underway in massive doses for many months just topped out. Look at PDN, it has gapped down and hit with massive volumes. Almost all of the U's have similar chart patterns. Distribution tops with yesterday's gap down. Just run thru the list and most of them have the tell-tale gap down on volume. The gap is a very potent bear signal. Time to sell em, because all of those hedge funds that were madly buying will now be liquidating.




most fund managers wont take any notice of technical gapping down and unless the fundamentals change (which they haven't) this selling down is merely a hiccup in terms of U stocks. If anything this is a healthy retraction for U stocks which seem overvalued but in reality still have huge upside with a rising U price and likely legislatite changes in australia. The top is probably due later this year IMO but there is still a way to go.


----------



## sydneysider (1 March 2007)

*Re: Uranium Shares have topped out, sell them*



			
				Realist said:
			
		

> Oh dear.
> 
> what rubbish.




The whole U sector is a collection of "blow-off" tops followed by yesterday's down side gaps. The whole sector has an enormous number of specs that have tripled since early December. Lots of very hot money (from everywhere) and brokers credit chasing the next runner. Down-side gaps signal substantial corrections after massive rises.


----------



## Freeballinginawetsuit (1 March 2007)

*Re: Uranium Shares have topped out, sell them*

Yep PDN has gapped down and been distributed today for sure, its also been soaked up by some serious bids.

I have been busy the last 10 mins myself, tomorrow I may be busy again.

Lets see what pans out......as far as I am concerned this is one that has a rosy future>long term. Not to fussed on the noise ATM


----------



## petee (1 March 2007)

*Re: Uranium Shares have topped out, sell them*



			
				sydneysider said:
			
		

> The whole U sector is a collection of "blow-off" tops followed by yesterday's down side gaps. The whole sector has an enormous number of specs that have tripled since early December. Lots of very hot money (from everywhere) and brokers credit chasing the next runner. Down-side gaps signal substantial corrections after massive rises.



hi all
Sydneysider has a very good point here...he isnt saying the Uranium sector is stuffed..he is simply saying it so far overheated that its due for a really proper correction and i agree entirly..once all the institutions dump and take profits from the crazy rises then it will tumble to levels of value...this would be seen as healthy...take PDN as a classic example..this stock has risen so far and yet the fundamentals havent changed in the past 6 months or so..anyone think it has has rocks in their head..keep up the balanced posts Syd


----------



## 56gsa (1 March 2007)

*Re: Uranium Shares have topped out, sell them*



			
				petee said:
			
		

> take PDN as a classic example..this stock has risen so far and yet the fundamentals havent changed in the past 6 months or so



petee - do you consider the price of a commodity as a fundamental? 6 months ago ABN was using US$50/lb in their valuation of PDN, they now use US$95/lb (above market price) but are talking US$120-140/lb in terms of setting a target

this seems a fairly fundamental change in last six months?

like gold going from $600 to $1600 in six months


----------



## petee (1 March 2007)

*Re: Uranium Shares have topped out, sell them*



			
				56gsa said:
			
		

> petee - do you consider the price of a commodity as a fundamental? 6 months ago ABN was using US$50/lb in their valuation of PDN, they now use US$95/lb (above market price) but are talking US$120-140/lb in terms of setting a target
> 
> this seems a fairly fundamental change in last six months?
> 
> like gold going from $600 to $1600 in six months



well from the price of U compared to the shareprice rise i think its over the top..ok granted that PDN raised plenty cash from a high shareprice but still remains a concern about ongoing cashflow


----------



## Freeballinginawetsuit (1 March 2007)

*Re: Uranium Shares have topped out, sell them*

Rocks in the head? 
Yep like the single 'rock head' bidder punting half a mill as we speak in PDN's depth.

I mean only 4 months ago I was chopped on this forum for buying them at a new support at $4.15........glad I wasn't a member 2 years ago on the forum.

Speaks volumes of what goes on around here at times


----------



## sydneysider (1 March 2007)

*Re: Uranium Shares have topped out, sell them*



			
				petee said:
			
		

> hi all
> Sydneysider has a very good point here...he isnt saying the Uranium sector is stuffed..he is simply saying it so far overheated that its due for a really proper correction and i agree entirly..once all the institutions dump and take profits from the crazy rises then it will tumble to levels of value...this would be seen as healthy...take PDN as a classic example..this stock has risen so far and yet the fundamentals havent changed in the past 6 months or so..anyone think it has has rocks in their head..keep up the balanced posts Syd




Thank u for your comments. Long term, some of the U's are OK. I am looking at a correction that "shakes the tree" pretty hard and brings sanity back into the sector. U also need some decent economic discoveries to take place. Where are they? U know when the market is overblown when a few samples can make a stock double i.e MKY or when a JV announcement on WMT sets off a tidal wave of buying. A JV with BHP might be fabulous BUT the hard reality is that this might take a year or two to develop (not the next ten days).


----------



## Prospector (1 March 2007)

*Re: Uranium Shares have topped out, sell them*



			
				Freeballinginawetsuit said:
			
		

> I mean only 4 months ago I was chopped on this forum for buying them at a new support at $4.15........




We can only hope that statement doesnt come round to biting you on your.....behind!


----------



## Freeballinginawetsuit (1 March 2007)

*Re: Uranium Shares have topped out, sell them*

LOL, the problem with holding any new miner...........it all goes belly up, but I also travel in planes so I am up for the odds (I'd say Borshoff deserves those odds).


----------



## greggy (1 March 2007)

*Re: Uranium Shares have topped out, sell them*



			
				sydneysider said:
			
		

> The U dementia that has been underway in massive doses for many months just topped out. Look at PDN, it has gapped down and hit with massive volumes. Almost all of the U's have similar chart patterns. Distribution tops with yesterday's gap down. Just run thru the list and most of them have the tell-tale gap down on volume. The gap is a very potent bear signal. Time to sell em, because all of those hedge funds that were madly buying will now be liquidating.
> 
> IMHO u can now go buy the golds. They have been so quite for so long that many of them are very good buying especially with gold on a scream. Their patterns are totally different from from the U's. My favorite is NWR which IMHO is probably the most exciting (basement priced) gold play in Australia to-day.



What a brilliant ploy you have.  Cleary you don't have any uranium stocks and hold NWR shares (amongst other gold shares).  Otherwise why would you mention NWR?
But I guess I should rush out tomorrow and sell out of all my uranium stocks. NOT! (as Borat would say).
P.S. The uranium price still looks in excellent shape.
DYOR


----------



## Realist (1 March 2007)

*Re: Uranium Shares have topped out, sell them*



			
				Freeballinginawetsuit said:
			
		

> LOL, the problem with holding any new miner...........it all goes belly up, but I also travel in planes so I am up for the odds (I'd say Borshoff deserves those odds).




I think travelling in a car is probably more dangerous than travelling in a plane.

I would not have ALL my money in Uranium stocks, that'd be asking for trouble.

But on ther other hand I would not sell all my U stocks now either.

Have a balanced portfolio and you are fine.


----------



## greggy (1 March 2007)

*Re: Uranium Shares have topped out, sell them*



			
				Realist said:
			
		

> I think travelling in a car is probably more dangerous than travelling in a plane.
> 
> I would not have ALL my money in Uranium stocks, that'd be asking for trouble.
> 
> ...



Smart thinking, very wise indeed.
DYOR


----------



## Freeballinginawetsuit (1 March 2007)

*Re: Uranium Shares have topped out, sell them*

Prospector,

I hope I don't get my behind bitten.....although .

In regard to that particular mentioned trade well its movements were pretty clearly stated on this thread, so I think my bums safe on that one.


----------



## BSD (1 March 2007)

*Re: Uranium Shares have topped out, sell them*

From a non-chart perspective - I also would not want to hold any serious exposure to any Uranium stocks. 

They are a 100% hype-play at the moment and when risk capital leaves and margin calls arrive, hype-plays fold hard 

It doesnt matter how strong the Uranium price is - 95% of the U plays dont mine anything (except shareholders) and most havent even drilled a hole. 


The U sector will be the worst hit if this market drops hard -which looks a good bet


----------



## Joe Blow (1 March 2007)

After some thought I removed the 'sell them' part of the thread title. I think it works fine as 'Uranium Shares have topped out' and I would not like to give the impression that this thread was advising anyone to sell anything (due to ASIC regulations). Nothing personal sydneysider!   

As always, please, do your own research and use this thread as a starting point for discussion.


----------



## purple (1 March 2007)

*Re: Uranium Shares have topped out, sell them*

Looks like some people forgot their Economics 101 : Supply - Demand. 

Fund managers, analysts, techies can blow their rhetoric all they want, they still have to adhere to market forces.


----------



## BSD (1 March 2007)

*Re: Uranium Shares have topped out, sell them*



			
				purple said:
			
		

> Looks like some people forgot their Economics 101 : Supply - Demand.
> 
> Fund managers, analysts, techies can blow their rhetoric all they want, they still have to adhere to market forces.




Exactly

Wait for the 'supply' of uranium stocks with no earnings, feasibility studies, reserves, drilling results to hit a market with no 'demand' for similar. 

The buyers of uranium shares have not been interested in the supply/demand function of the uranium market - they have been focussed on finding a bigger idiot to buy their overpriced shares 

Look out below!


----------



## mmmmining (1 March 2007)

I believe James Dines or Warwrick Grigor has the better odds to pick up the uranium top. So far, have not heard it yet.

They led me to uranium, I will not try to outsmart them, to exit without their marching order.


----------



## BradK (1 March 2007)

two words

bull ****


----------



## purple (1 March 2007)

*Re: Uranium Shares have topped out, sell them*



			
				BSD said:
			
		

> The buyers of uranium shares have not been interested in the supply/demand function of the uranium market - they have been focussed on finding a bigger idiot to buy their overpriced shares




I have to say that the birth of Uranium explorers like mushrooms/rabbits or frog spawn is a bit alarming, I've lost count - 400? 500? now.

There is a bit of truth in what you say, and the big drop will come when people start realizing that the earnings of U companies are just not pacing the price per share. 

But for the moment the construction of nuclear powered factories in China/India is not abating, nor is the price for uranium.

So.. nor am I pulling back yet as a U investor!


----------



## reece55 (1 March 2007)

*Re: Uranium Shares have topped out, sell them*



			
				BSD said:
			
		

> Exactly
> 
> Wait for the 'supply' of uranium stocks with no earnings, feasibility studies, reserves, drilling results to hit a market with no 'demand' for similar.
> 
> ...




Completely agree with your points here BSD......

The other thing that makes you wonder is the premiums being paid i.e. PDN SMM. We only need the price in U to decrease for things to get a bit tricky, or the cost of extraction to catch up with the % change in U price......

The reality is that 90% or more of the entire sector will be worth nothing in the end - this is just a fact of life when it comes to junior exploration mining Companies. Either the resource will not be attractive to mine given the costs to get it up or they will just run out of money and no one will want to pay the excessive premium that retail investors have placed on the stocks. 

However, the producers, ERA and PDN, are another story. A longer, fundamental investor may choose to enter and if they hold, chances are they will probably be ok. But the paper rich Companies with next to zero cash will plummet once the endless money tap dries up!

Cheers


----------



## Realist (1 March 2007)

BradK said:
			
		

> two words
> 
> bull ****




Isn't that meant to be one word?    

I agree with you though.

Although others suggesting some U shares are ridiculously overpriced have a very valid point.

BHP and RIO are very underpriced U shares in my humble opinion.  Their PE rations of 10 or less are tremendously low.

So generalisations are unfair.


----------



## Dr Doom (1 March 2007)

Never hurts to have a balanced discussion. There are still some issues on the demand side of the equation coming up against some obstacles - 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thursday, 15 February 2007

The British government is being forced to reconsider its decision to back the construction of new nuclear power stations.

A High Court judge in London has ruled that the consultation process which led to the decision was seriously flawed.

The ruling follows a legal challenge brought by Greenpeace.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair's government has said that building new nuclear reactors as ageing facilities close down is the only way to cut reliance on oil and gas imports and meet rigorous climate change targets.

However, Mr Justice Sullivan said that in coming to its decision the UK government had failed to present clear information on key issues such as the financial costs of new nuclear build and the disposal of radioactive waste.

He found the consultation process put in place prior to the decision 'seriously flawed' and 'procedurally unfair'.

The judge said the exercise was unclear and inadequate.

The document contained no information of any substance on the *two crucially important issues, economics and waste disposal*, he said.

The information given on waste was 'not merely inadequate but also misleading', and information of substance did not emerge until after the consultation period had elapsed.

Mr Justice Sullivan accordingly quashed the government decision.

The British government said afterwards it still believes nuclear power has a role to play in cutting carbon emissions.

However, it could now face the prospect of having to hold a new public consultation on the future of nuclear power in Britain.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Thats why it's never going to happen in my back yard eg Australia


----------



## CanOz (1 March 2007)

*Re: Uranium Shares have topped out, sell them*



			
				BSD said:
			
		

> 95% of the U plays dont mine anything (except shareholders) and most havent even drilled a hole.




ROTFLMAO!


----------



## nizar (1 March 2007)

*Re: Uranium Shares have topped out, sell them*



			
				BSD said:
			
		

> The buyers of uranium shares have not been interested in the supply/demand function of the uranium market - they have been focussed on finding a bigger idiot to buy their overpriced shares




WHo cares?

Does it matter the REASON you buy or sell the shares?
Not really. What matters is the bottom line - YOUR profitability.

So i dont waste time trying to find out why a stock is going up. Instead i trade it. Much more profitable that way.

If you havent made any money trading these "hopefuls" that "wont make any money", and instead have been picking up these bargains which are fundamentally undervalued (read BHP, etc) then you my friend, have missed out BIG TIME.


----------



## bean (2 March 2007)

Buy Google Market Cap US$137 billion and US$447 a share they search and they can find a uranium stock
I am sure they do something else


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (2 March 2007)

*Re: Uranium Shares have topped out, sell them*



			
				nizar said:
			
		

> WHo cares?
> 
> Does it matter the REASON you buy or sell the shares?
> Not really. What matters is the bottom line - *YOUR profitability.*
> ...




Once again words of wisdom!


----------



## BSD (2 March 2007)

I am not questioning your money making strategy in trading this stuff. 

My point is that this type of strategy will not work when the majority of stocks drop 80% and lay dormant for years. Behaving like non-uranium explorers do in the early stage - no volume or volitility.

Plenty of guys that traded tech-rubbish had to go and get a job when the party ended.

You will want to be nimble when the lights get turned out.


----------



## wayneL (2 March 2007)

BSD said:
			
		

> I am not questioning your money making strategy in trading this stuff.
> 
> My point is that t*his type of strategy will not work when the majority of stocks drop 80% and lay dormant for years. *Behaving like non-uranium explorers do in the early stage - no volume or volitility.
> 
> ...



A lot of these guys have never seen a moribund spec market BSD.

The spec sector can have cobwebs for extended periods folks.


----------



## greggy (2 March 2007)

Joe Blow said:
			
		

> After some thought I removed the 'sell them' part of the thread title. I think it works fine as 'Uranium Shares have topped out' and I would not like to give the impression that this thread was advising anyone to sell anything (due to ASIC regulations). Nothing personal sydneysider!
> 
> As always, please, do your own research and use this thread as a starting point for discussion.



Good work Joe.  I thought it was implied from the title that it was a recomendation to sell uranium stocks.  Sydneysider is clearly bearish on uranium stocks, but I feel that there are still some overlooked uranium stocks out there.  Time will only tell what will happen to uranium stocks, but in my opinion this is not the end of the uranium bull market.  When buying uranium sotcks it all comes down to price.  I've tried to select those that I consider to have been overlooked and underpriced.  Hard to do in this bull market, but more value will no doubt soon emerge.
DYOR


----------



## professor_frink (2 March 2007)

wayneL said:
			
		

> A lot of these guys have never seen a moribund spec market BSD.
> 
> The spec sector can have cobwebs for extended periods folks.



And for the U sector presently, it would only take one stupid person to go and do something silly with a bomb, or a small amount of neglect at a power station(or some kind of natural disaster close to one) and the whole thing would come crashing down.  
What will happen to these exploration companies that are still years off mining(if they even get that far) when no one wants the material that they may have in the ground?

It all reminds me of the tech boom- companies that make absolutely no money being talked about by "investors" based on what they could do, not what they have done.

 "This company will be worth billions when they finally get around to making money. The companies market cap of 'x' hundred million is nothing compared with what it will be worth at some undetermined time in the future when they get around to making a profit. It will be too late to buy once they are profitable so I'll put a quarter of my money in it now."

Sound like a familiar kind of statement to anyone?


----------



## sydneysider (2 March 2007)

professor_frink said:
			
		

> And for the U sector presently, it would only take one stupid person to go and do something silly with a bomb, or a small amount of neglect at a power station(or some kind of natural disaster close to one) and the whole thing would come crashing down.
> What will happen to these exploration companies that are still years off mining(if they even get that far) when no one wants the material that they may have in the ground?
> 
> It all reminds me of the tech boom- companies that make absolutely no money being talked about by "investors" based on what they could do, not what they have done.
> ...




I have gone thru a quick check list of U's as follows: PDN has keeled over on heavy volume,  BMN is in orderly retreat, AGS, PNN, DYL topped out in December, January. Among the quality specs AEE, SIM both in retreat. WMT is very overbought, BLR is in distribution mode. MKY cut in half and looking awful. U can make your own check list BUT this is very indicative of the end of "one stage" of a sizzling bull market. U may disagree with some of my intrepretations of these stocks but sectors tend to run to-gether, u can play crap shoot roulette and try to pick the one running against the tide. I do not know if this "distribution phase" will last several weeks or several months. CNBC has devoted a lot of attention to fund managers fleeing speculative waters and U can see this in the distribution patterns especially PDN (due to its multi listing and size).


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (2 March 2007)

professor_frink said:
			
		

> And for the U sector presently, it would only take one stupid person to go and do something silly with a bomb, or a small amount of neglect at a power station(or some kind of natural disaster close to one) and the whole thing would come crashing down.




True,

But what would happen if someone silly blew up a refinery in Sauidi A. or UAE?

What would happen if US and Israel went to war with Iran?

What will happen to the earth re climate change if e continue to use fossil fuels?

What will happen if we sit back and wait, guessing at peak oil and one day it comes knocking?

There are alot of ifs, buts and maybes, what we are seeing in the Uranium/Nuclear Sector is a slow but steady GLOBAL SHIFT, much like the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) phenomenon.

Evolution and change is inevitable, without it mans technology becomes obsolete and man himself may become extinct, so until renewable energy catches up I can't see a change.

p.s. How many Oil tanker disasters have we had at see in the past 50 years?


----------



## nizar (2 March 2007)

YOUNG_TRADER said:
			
		

> True,
> 
> But what would happen if someone silly blew up a refinery in Sauidi A. or UAE?
> 
> ...




Now thats words of wisdom!


----------



## chris1983 (2 March 2007)

YOUNG_TRADER said:
			
		

> True,
> 
> But what would happen if someone silly blew up a refinery in Sauidi A. or UAE?
> 
> ...





HAha nice.

The what if discussion

what if.....


----------



## sydneysider (2 March 2007)

chris1983 said:
			
		

> HAha nice.
> 
> The what if discussion
> 
> what if.....




WHAT IF local brokers reigned in their clients reckless speculation habits
WHAT IF a number of resonable investors decided to cash in their shares after a 300% rise
WHAT IF a bunch of speculators got hurt in the sell-off (not much fun taking a 50% hit on DYL or MKY). 
WHAT IF a bunch of technical analysts told their clients to cash out and wait out the retrace.
WHAT IF the current crop of explorers continue without any sizeable discoveries for another few months. 
WHAT IF gold kept running and cashed up speculators rotated into gold stock (which are currently very cheap).


----------



## nizar (2 March 2007)

BSD said:
			
		

> I am not questioning your money making strategy in trading this stuff.
> 
> My point is that this type of strategy will not work when the majority of stocks drop 80% and lay dormant for years.




I agree wholly.
But its the strategy for NOW.

Go where the money is - and go there often. And for the past 12-18months thats been uranium stocks.


----------



## chris1983 (2 March 2007)

nizar said:
			
		

> I agree wholly.
> But its the strategy for NOW.
> 
> Go where the money is - and go there often. And for the past 12-18months thats been uranium stocks.




It will be that way for awhile IMO.

What if the uranium spot price plummeted <---not gunna happen

What if supply outstripped demand <--- not gunna happen anytime soon

What if China and India didnt exist <--- Definately not gunna happen. 

So in conclusion..uranium is needed to power the world.  I think uranium stocks is the smartest way to go.

Uranium stocks are still the safest bet atm


----------



## professor_frink (2 March 2007)

YOUNG_TRADER said:
			
		

> True,
> 
> But what would happen if someone silly blew up a refinery in Sauidi A. or UAE?
> 
> ...




morning YT,

ifs, buts, maybes are everywhere when you look for them, aren't they  

Agreed, I only touched on one of many possible "ifs" out there, the reason I did so was because it seems to be something that many just aren't even contemplating(and this is being reflected in the share price of many a non profitable Uranium company.)

But to say that a slow, and very gradual shift in Uranium being used around the world is an excuse for non profitable companies to be worth a few hundred million dollars, and justifying it by saying "this time it's different", is a potentially big mistake for investors to be making.

Extrapolating any current trend into the future in a linear fashion is asking for very big trouble IMHO.It was used in the tech boom to justify what was happening, what makes anyone think it's going to be different this time?

Ok, onto my opinion of Uranium as a better energy source-

The day we can say with 100% certainty that we know how to dispose of the waste effectively so it won't be a risk to future generations, and the day we can build a meltdown proof reactor that will absolutely not destroy the area around it if something goes wrong, is the day I agree that it's here to stay, and a major player in power generation. Until then, it looks like the lesser of 2 evils that will be used until something better comes along(or until something unimaginable happens).

Until that day, I don't really see it as a better, greener way to generate power- it's just a different way with a different set of horrible circumstances if something goes wrong.

There's no question that we need to move away from using fossil fuels in the way we have been(and we are, slowly)- but to go from something that spits out alot of smoke and crap out of a large stack to something that will still be creating problems hundreds of years from now doesn't seem like we are moving very far forward.

Comparing an oil spill to a nuclear meltdown isn't a reasonable comparison IMO-Sure an oil spill causes damage, but it can be cleaned up to a certain extent, and the planet can recover from it an awful lot quicker than the Ukraine will after Chernobyl happened. Spill Oil all over Sydney's beaches and it would be terrible, but the current generation would get to enjoy those beaches again at some point. A nuclear meltdown in Sydney, and no one will be coming back for a long,long time to try and clean it up properly. There's no comparing the two.

just my  of course. Feel free to ignore me Uranium speculators, though I'm sure most of you already are


----------



## professor_frink (2 March 2007)

chris1983 said:
			
		

> So in conclusion..uranium is needed to power the world.  I think uranium stocks is the smartest way to go.
> 
> Uranium stocks are still the safest bet atm



I'm sorry, but I completely disagree with that statement. Uranium isn't *NEEDED* to power the world. We have managed to produce just a little bit of electricity around the world over the years without uranium.

Uranium is one of many options to produce power, it's not absolutely essential. The only thing it's essential for is a nuclear weapon.


----------



## chris1983 (2 March 2007)

professor_frink said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, but I completely disagree with that statement. Uranium isn't *NEEDED* to power the world. We have managed to produce just a little bit of electricity around the world over the years without uranium.
> 
> Uranium is one of many options to produce power, it's not absolutely essential. The only thing it's essential for is a nuclear weapon.




Uranium is the future mate.  Face it.  Cleaner energy.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (2 March 2007)

Hey Professor, 

My comments were not about Uranium shares, I completely agree caution is required in the more cpec end of the sector, 

But as you correctly concluded on in relation to Uranium as a energy source,

I agree 100% with what you said, Uranium is not an excellent solution to the worlds problems, but it is by far the *LESSER OF THE TWO EVILS!*

What I was trying to get at is, we can say what if this happens what if that happens re Nuclear Energy, but you want to know something? I know for a fact that Fossil Fuels are damaging the planet, I don't care about the debates etc, it doesn't take a Nuclear Scientist p: ) to realise this.

If anyone needs proof of how bad Fossil Fuels are, take a visit to India or China! Seriously you'll realise just how stuffed we are, 

Unfortuantely renewable energies are just not advanced enough for the world to rely on them yet, however in 50yrs they should be! 

Until then I'd much rather the world shifted away from Fossil Fuels to Nuclear,


Also my point re Oil Tanker spills is that there's probably been a few hundered of them in the last 50yrs vs what 2 Nuclear Problems and I'm aware that there is no comparison in the two, but its worthwhile noting the current way ain't that great either.

Finally as far as global politics go, how many wars have been and are being fought over Oil?

I wonder what would happen if the world wasn't as dependent on Oil?


----------



## Dr Doom (2 March 2007)

chris1983 It will be that way for awhile IMO.

What if the uranium spot price plummeted <---not gunna happen

_~ the dynamics of the world economy are changing daily - syncronised recession could put a brake on it at least_

What if supply outstripped demand <--- not gunna happen anytime soon

[IShould be the other way around - what if supply meets demand - hidden supplies fom Russia drip feeding into the market? [/I] 

What if China and India didnt exist <--- Definately not gunna happen. 

_~China's not looking too good this week - dynamics changed to less demand. _

So in conclusion..uranium is needed to power the world.  I think uranium stocks is the smartest way to go.

Uranium stocks are still the safest bet atm

~~~~~~~~~~~
So nothing will dissaude your current  view. What is your exit strategy ie when will you stop buying U stocks?. A balanced view?.

Hedge funds are a huge part of this small market; wait for the fallout from this weeks rumblings.

Because of the long lead time to fully working power plant, it is highly probable that alternative energy technology will supplant existing methods possibly making U even more unatractive than it is now, especially at current prices. 

Australia will never have a nuclear powered power staion within 15 years - a lot can happen to emerging energy technology in that time. 

Yes, U stocks will be THE way to GO


----------



## professor_frink (2 March 2007)

chris1983 said:
			
		

> Uranium is the future mate.  Face it.  Cleaner energy.



So tell me, how do we dispose of the by-product of this "cleaner energy" in a safe and secure manner?


----------



## professor_frink (2 March 2007)

YOUNG_TRADER said:
			
		

> Hey Professor,
> 
> My comments were not about Uranium shares, I completely agree caution is required in the more cpec end of the sector,
> 
> ...




Interesting thoughts. Will make this comment my final(Hang Seng is opening soon-time to get busy  )

I think the debate about it as an energy source is one that could go on forever with no resolve- only time will tell how much progress we've made in the reliability and safety of Nuclear power.

Living in one of the biggest coal producing areas of the country, and quite close to a somewhat large coal fired plant, I can say with 100% certainty that I wouldn't be living here if it were a nuclear plant 

I personally believe we'll fight wars no matter what it's over-oil or no oil. But that's an entire topic on it's own!

Cheers mate

Actually, another final thought for Chris,

If Nuclear power is the green energy of the future, and you seem to believe this to be the case, I gather you wouldn't have any problems with a nuclear waste disposal facility being built in your neighbourhood.

No need to answer, as I'm pretty confident I know how you'd react to that.


----------



## nizar (2 March 2007)

professor_frink said:
			
		

> So tell me, how do we dispose of the by-product of this "cleaner energy" in a safe and secure manner?




Does it matter?
I mean, seriously.

I dont have a clue about how we dispose of the by-product. I just trade the shares. Thats enough for me. Im trying to make money, not trying to save the world.


----------



## professor_frink (2 March 2007)

nizar said:
			
		

> Does it matter?
> I mean, seriously.
> 
> I dont have a clue about how we dispose of the by-product. I just trade the shares. Thats enough for me. Im trying to make money, not trying to save the world.



Surely you can't be serious. That would have be one of the most idiotic statements I've heard for awhile.

Maybe you should pull your head out of your a$$ and think about what you've just said.

To answer the question- No, obviously it doesn't matter to you. I'm absolutely positive that there are one or two people out there that may have just a tiny bit of concern about how we store something dangerous for the next few hundred years.

Maybe you'd have noticed that if you weren't so concerned with trying to make a few dollars trading speccie shares, which is obviously quite a noble thing to do for the future generations of this planet.


----------



## nizar (2 March 2007)

professor_frink said:
			
		

> Surely you can't be serious. That would have be one of the most idiotic statements I've heard for awhile.
> 
> Maybe you should pull your head out of your a$$ and think about what you've just said.
> 
> ...




Really.
The most idiotic statement iv heard for a long time is:
All chartists are astrologers

Sound familiar?

Haha im juz playing, juz a bit of fun.
Lets end it here before the moderators step in.

No hard feelings? ok Prof?


----------



## chris1983 (2 March 2007)

professor_frink said:
			
		

> Interesting thoughts. Will make this comment my final(Hang Seng is opening soon-time to get busy  )
> 
> I think the debate about it as an energy source is one that could go on forever with no resolve- only time will tell how much progress we've made in the reliability and safety of Nuclear power.
> 
> ...




Nuclear is the future.  Simple.  Its clean.

_"Uranium can supply clean energy for the world's electricity with less greenhouse effect than any other fuel."_

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

_"The world’s 442 operating nuclear plants require 180m pounds of uranium a year, but mines supply only 100m."_

Even now demand is killing supply.  More nuclear power stations are being built.  Thats your problem if you dont buy any uranium stocks..I can tell you one thing.  I will be counting very large profits into the future.  You have probably read the article below..but just in case you havn't ive added its link.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article1433787.ece


----------



## Gspot (2 March 2007)

professor_frink said:
			
		

> So tell me, how do we dispose of the by-product of this "cleaner energy" in a safe and secure manner?



I think it would be great for us West Australians to store it in the dessert and make mega bucks that we could then spend on enviromental/ water problems, as well as enriching what we have in this state. Nows the time!
 And for all the anti-nuclearists, (anti-everything)out there that say we will be stuck with this waste for many thousands of years, and a bigger problem? 
It will be called space junk within 100 years.
  Open your eyes, and look to the future people.


----------



## Rafa (2 March 2007)

As some of you know,
I have a lot of my capital invested in U stocks, but i am with the Prof here...

Nuclear power is not clean, or green. The payback period in terms of the CO2 emitted to mine U, build power plant, etc is > 20 years for a reactor life of 30-40years.

If foreign countries want to buy our Uranium... they can have it.
As far as Oz goes... no Nuclear power here, thank you very much.


----------



## noirua (2 March 2007)

Rafa said:
			
		

> As some of you know,
> I have a lot of my capital invested in U stocks, but i am with the Prof here...
> 
> Nuclear power is not clean, or green. The payback period in terms of the CO2 emitted to mine U, build power plant, etc is > 20 years for a reactor life of 30-40years.
> ...





Australia already stores waste uranium and much of this is near major cities.

http://www.nuclearfreequeensland.org/pdf/NFQuraniumwastedumps.pdf


----------



## chris1983 (2 March 2007)

Rafa said:
			
		

> As some of you know,
> I have a lot of my capital invested in U stocks, but i am with the Prof here...
> 
> Nuclear power is not clean, or green. The payback period in terms of the CO2 emitted to mine U, build power plant, etc is > 20 years for a reactor life of 30-40years.
> ...





Wouldnt there be a payback period to mine any metal?

its clean.  Its right there..have a read 

"Uranium can supply clean energy for the world's electricity with less greenhouse effect than any other fuel."

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


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 March 2007)

The level of optimism on this thread is incredible both financially and technically (energy).

Financially, I just read all the posts on this thread and came away thinking "bubble". Yep, U shares only go up. Just like dot.com shares only went up and how buying any mass produced Sydney appartment with no deposit was certain to make you a millionaire by now. 

It's a reality that most junior mining ventures fail and uranium is no exception. For that matter, it's harder with uranium than, say, zinc given that the latter is subject to far fewer regulations and public opposition to mining.

As for the technical aspects, I must point out that renewable energy _already_ generates more electricity worldwide than nuclear and this is forecast (by the EIA (US Govt)) to continue.


----------



## sydney1963 (2 March 2007)

Mar.01
5:48 PM ET 4 hours ago
Analysts: Good Time To Buy Stocks Cheaply
Posted By:Greg Levine
John Bollinger chides "fat, dumb and happy" investors for their complacency leading up to Tuesday's market quake -- but says quick thinking can salvage opportunity from the correction.

The president of Bollinger Capital Management appeared on "Closing Bell," where he said investors weren't hedging their portfolios defensively as they should've been -- and that there's "no excuse" for that failing, "given today's tools." However, he believes that the Chinese market drop was merely a "one-off event," which will create only a short-term decline. And he urges investors to "take out their shopping lists" and scoop up all the stocks they'd been coveting when the shares were at higher prices.

Bollinger was joined by Binky Chadha, chief U.S. macro equity strategist at Deutsche Bank. Chadha told CNBC's Maria Bartiromo that his team remains "basically bullish" on U.S. equities, despite the "temporary spike in the VIX [Chicago Board Options Exchange's Volatility Index]." He noted that spikes tend to last a mere two-and-a-half to three weeks. A key piece of data he'll be watching: the U.S.


----------



## professor_frink (2 March 2007)

chris1983 said:
			
		

> Nuclear is the future.  Simple.  Its clean.
> 
> _"Uranium can supply clean energy for the world's electricity with less greenhouse effect than any other fuel."_
> 
> http://www.uic.com.au/ueg.htm




To say that nuclear is clean because it doesn't produce greenhouse gasses is simplifying the matter to the extreme. Is coal a better energy source because it doesn't produce any radioactive waste? Do you see what I'm getting at here?

And do you really think giving me a link to read by the Uranium Information centre is going to address the problems nuclear power has?   




			
				chris1983 said:
			
		

> _"The world’s 442 operating nuclear plants require 180m pounds of uranium a year, but mines supply only 100m."_
> 
> Even now demand is killing supply.  More nuclear power stations are being built.  Thats your problem if you dont buy any uranium stocks..I can tell you one thing.  I will be counting very large profits into the future.  You have probably read the article below..but just in case you havn't ive added its link.
> 
> http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article1433787.ece



Good for you that you've made money. Sorry but you don't have to tell me- you've invested in uranium companies-it goes without saying  

The potential substantial profits you speak of-sorry but I'm not impressed. I just hope you manage to keep those paper profits when you sell.

I'm sure some will say I'm missing out by not having my money invested in them, but my chosen area within the market is one I'm quite happy with. Being able to generate returns in any kind of market, and being able to do so on a very regular basis, is more important to me than being reliant on the current bullmarket.

The whole point of my first post on this matter was that it would only take one mishap for that supply/demand situation to change quite considerably-and investors in companies that weren't making any profits yet should be careful of. I'm not doubting the current situation in regards to the supply and demand of Uranium- the spot price is going to reflect that somewhat, but thanks for the article, I hadn't read it yet.


----------



## CanOz (2 March 2007)

Uranium, from what i read, is not the future but the past. The future is Thorium, but how far away is this?

Why are we not building reactors to handle this? Can they be converted?

Less waste, more effeicient, peaceful (no weapons grade material as a BP)


----------



## chris1983 (2 March 2007)

CanOz said:
			
		

> Uranium, from what i read, is not the future but the past. The future is Thorium, but how far away is this?
> 
> Why are we not building reactors to handle this? Can they be converted?
> 
> Less waste, more effeicient, peaceful (no weapons grade material as a BP)




I'm pretty sure I read somewhere Thorium isnt as strong as uranium.  It cant generate as much electricity.


----------



## chris1983 (2 March 2007)

professor_frink said:
			
		

> To say that nuclear is clean because it doesn't produce greenhouse gasses is simplifying the matter to the extreme. Is coal a better energy source because it doesn't produce any radioactive waste? Do you see what I'm getting at here?




The greenhouse layer effect is a major problem.  If they fix that via nuclear energy..they can then look at how to get rid of the waste.  The greenhouse layer effect is more of a problem than the waste IMO.  They can just put it deep under the ground in some desert.


----------



## bean (2 March 2007)

gone 100% cash. will be getting good uranium bargins in a few weeks.  Uranium stocks as well as other stocks will go in the same direction as the ASX


----------



## chops_a_must (2 March 2007)

chris1983 said:
			
		

> The greenhouse layer effect is a major problem.  If they fix that via nuclear energy..they can then look at how to get rid of the waste.  The greenhouse layer effect is more of a problem than the waste IMO.  They can just put it deep under the ground in some desert.



Reminds me of a cat in the hat story...

http://www.amazon.ca/Cat-Hat-Comes-Back/dp/0394800028

"From Amazon.com
That behatted and bow-tied cat from Dr. Seuss's The Cat in the Hat is back, and, not surprisingly, is up to all sorts of mischief. This time, Sally and her brother are stuck shoveling snow: "This was no time for play./ This was no time for fun./ This was no time for games./ There was work to be done." But--you guessed it--the laughing Hat Cat has other ideas, as he lets himself in to eat cake in their tub. He leaves behind "a big long pink cat ring," which he then handily cleans with "MOTHER'S WHITE DRESS!" The dress then loses its pink stain to the wall, then Dad's shoes, then the rug in the hall, until finally the Cat must call in some assistance: from inside his hat comes Little Cat A, then Littler Cats B, C, D, E, and so on, nested like dolls in ever tinier hats. With this pack of felines, Sally and her brother may get rid of those stains, but they'll likely never be rid of that rascally cat. As should be expected from the good doctor, The Cat in the Hat Comes Back provides an excellent reader (and alphabet primer) for those just learning, not to mention ample laughs for everyone else. *(Ages 4 to 8)* --Paul Hughes"

Someone needs to go back to school! Yes he duz! Awww, who's a cuddly wuddly little cwissy wissy? *pats your head*

Along with another simple market force alongside supply and demand, is cost of production. A lot of nuclear reactors in the US wouldn't be able to make a profit if it weren't for the attractive (and highly questionable deals) they have done with the state bodies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_Nuclear_Power_Plant

"Nevertheless, PGE continued to charge its ratepayers for the full cost of the plant, including decommissioning and waste disposal, and the same profit it would have earned if the plant had remained operating. The Oregon Public Utility Commission (OPUC) also allowed PGE to charge ratepayers for the new projects built to replace the plant, along with profits on the new plants.

In 1978, Oregon voters had adopted by a vote of 69% to 21% a ballot measure to prohibit utilities from charging ratepayers any cost of plants not currently providing utility service to customers. Lloyd Marbet and other activists worked on this measure.

In 1995, the OPUC allowed PGE to continue to charge ratepayers both for return of the investment over the original expected 35-year life of Trojan and to charge ratepayers to receive a profit on Trojan of over 13% before taxes, for a total of $251 million of Trojan investment and $304 million for profit over the next 17 years. This is in addition to another $300 million in Trojan decommissioning costs over the next 17 years."

And tell me, if nuclear power plants are battling to be competitive, who the hell is going to commit billions of dollars to a project that wont come to fruition for 10-20 years? Especially if running costs are likely to be higher then, and if we go through a worldwide economic downturn. Who the hell would put down that sort of money for a marginal investment in a time of slow economic growth?


----------



## insider (2 March 2007)

chops_a_must said:
			
		

> And tell me, if nuclear power plants are battling to be competitive, who the hell is going to commit billions of dollars to a project that wont come to fruition for 10-20 years? Especially if running costs are likely to be higher then, and if we go through a worldwide economic downturn. Who the hell would put down that sort of money for a marginal investment in a time of slow economic growth?



I have to agree with you... to an extent... Once upon a time way long ago... back in the times of sherlock holmes, it was cheaper to have a house that was lit by gas than electricity... Eventually this technology was filtered down and heaps of devastating accidents and fires in london prompted everyone to switch to electricity... and then they never looked back.

Nuclear is simply a technology that is being filtered down... it will be even cheaper eventually... Just my thought


----------



## nizar (2 March 2007)

chris1983 said:
			
		

> Well of course uranium explorers in Australia are in danger which is why I dont hold any of them.
> 
> I'll tell you the ones to buy
> 
> BMN/ERN/WMT




Dont forget PDN.


----------



## insider (2 March 2007)

bean said:
			
		

> gone 100% cash. will be getting good uranium bargins in a few weeks.  Uranium stocks as well as other stocks will go in the same direction as the ASX




Not sure... I hold only one stock... MTN... their fundamentals are so good and are so bullish that they finished in the green today and finished the week right where they started... I think there will be a handful of stocks that won't react to the correction as much, and certainly uranium stocks are some... and then there is fewer that probably wouldn't react or barely...


----------



## insider (2 March 2007)

CanOz said:
			
		

> Uranium, from what i read, is not the future but the past. The future is Thorium, but how far away is this?
> 
> Why are we not building reactors to handle this? Can they be converted?
> 
> Less waste, more effeicient, peaceful (no weapons grade material as a BP)



 I did heaps of research on nuclear energy... It certainly is the future... it actually is the only future we have... The reason why uranium was originally selected for power generation was for the development of Nuclear weapons thanx to the USA... Thorium has a lot of positives such as being three times more abundant and the half-life being about half of uranium's. Also meltdowns don't occur... The negatives are... Requires constant electrical stimulation for nuclear fission to occur, it isn't as efficient so that also means more thorium must be processed to produce the same amount of power... 

But remember modern day nuclear reactors are meltdown proof so uranium is safe


----------



## Smurf1976 (3 March 2007)

Nuclear, hydro and brown coal for power generation all have the same fundamental economics. Likewise solar and other non-biomass renewables. They cost a fortune to build and generate electricity at a cost far higher than it is actually worth at the time of construction.

The economics work well only under certain circumstances. You need cheap (borrowed) capital since this is in the order of 90% of total costs over the long term.  

You need to get the plant built reasonably quickly otherwise the ongoing interest bill during construction leads to a massive actual investment by the time it goes online.

And then you need the price of electricity to rise to levels well above that prevailing at the time when construction commenced.

It works under the right circumstances. Victoria and Tasmania (and elsewhere) both underpinned their econonmies for decades using this strategy. In Tasmania's case it went as far as becomming the state's sole significant means of economic development. 

And in both cases it went disastrously wrong when inflation rates dropped in the 1980's. The earlier brown coal and hydro plants were (still are) massively profitable but those which came online in the 80's and 90's are financial disasters by any measure.

And it's the same with nuclear. The same underlying economics as brown coal and especially hydro. It works as long as you get INCREASING rates of inflation. The moment inflation turns down, either the plant is already built or it's not going to be profitable.

Nuclear is basically a bet on increasing rates of inflation for fossil fuel generation for at least the next 2 decades. Same with anything that isn't black coal, oil or natural gas. They are not profitable now but they will be with enough inflation AFTER they are built.

That inflation could be either of the general variety or one specifically affecting fossil fuels, for example a carbon tax. But either way you need that surge in energy prices to make a profit building nuclear / wind / hydro etc with costs at least double the present price of electricity. 

It's like entering a deal now to buy one house per year at double today's market value indexed to CPI for the next 10 years (so each identical house will cost more than the previous one) with no rental income during that period. Then you rent them out at the prevailing market price starting 10 years from now. It works as long as inflation rises but fails if it falls, the key being your locked-in cheap 30 year finance when inflation was lower. Same with nuclear, hydro / renewables, brown coal for power.


----------



## bean (3 March 2007)

Please we know everything. If the markets go down so will stocks.
The reward risk ratio get out.


----------



## chops_a_must (3 March 2007)

insider said:
			
		

> I have to agree with you... to an extent... Once upon a time way long ago... back in the times of sherlock holmes, it was cheaper to have a house that was lit by gas than electricity... Eventually this technology was filtered down and heaps of devastating accidents and fires in london prompted everyone to switch to electricity... and then they never looked back.
> 
> Nuclear is simply a technology that is being filtered down... it will be even cheaper eventually... Just my thought



And I would like to counter.

Nuclear power is still expensive despite half a century of perserverance. It is probably near the limits of its development.

Storage/ safety are an increasing concern and costs are bound to increase because of this. The world (apparently) according to what I have been told, only has enough uranium to supply current demand for another 30 years or so. I can't see how costs could ever become lower given these circumstances.

But then again, if India and China have a lot of nuclear waste, it isn't going to bother them. Given Indians already have significant heavy metal exposure, one more thing isn't really going to bother them. You could even plutonium as food though, apprently it has a metallic taste.

P.S. - I hear they are employing Indian rail engineers for their power plants.


----------



## Freeballinginawetsuit (3 March 2007)

BSD said:
			
		

> I am not questioning your money making strategy in trading this stuff.
> 
> My point is that this type of strategy will not work when the majority of stocks drop 80% and lay dormant for years. Behaving like non-uranium explorers do in the early stage - no volume or volitility.
> 
> ...





If we don't see a down spike but a return to real value in the producers........quickly/slowly whatever. 

Some of these specks will be all that is on offer for volitility, shortlived passing of a monkey until the music ends...........not much of a reward to be passed on really


----------



## mmmmining (3 March 2007)

Friday's (yesterday) commodity report is on uranium.

http://www.robtv.com/

Time slot is 11:30am. The last a few minutes about uranium outlook is good to listen.


----------



## Little1 (3 March 2007)

mmmmining said:
			
		

> Friday's (yesterday) commodity report is on uranium.
> 
> http://www.robtv.com/
> 
> Time slot is 11:30am. The last a few minutes about uranium outlook is good to listen.




Reminds me of my uni days. If this guy is right about the price elasticity of the uranium, doubling the price will make no difference to demand.

Currently hold 1500 PDN shares.


----------



## purple (3 March 2007)

chris1983 said:
			
		

> Nuclear is the future.  Simple.  Its clean.




You must have been in diapers during Chernobyl 86. 

The human weakness, and this is what drives the stock market, I'm sad to say, is that humans have a short memory span. Greed in the stock markets casts blinkers on most of us. the majority has been hyping up and driving the Uranium stocks, and it takes a little correction like this for people to sit back a little and take stock (no pun intended) of the situation.

But I"m sad to say that I too have subscribed heavily into the uranium madness, merely batting some eyelids about PDN's plans to leave tailings above ground in Malawi. 

Good one there, Prof Frink. Nuclear is dangerous stuff and I do not agree to it being the no. 1 source of energy the whole world over.

But to answer accurately the origin of this thread, no, I do not think the URanium bull has stopped to smell the roses, yet.


----------



## Smurf1976 (3 March 2007)

Little1 said:
			
		

> Reminds me of my uni days. If this guy is right about the price elasticity of the uranium, doubling the price will make no difference to demand.
> 
> Currently hold 1500 PDN shares.



Let's have a look at actual costs for construction of plants versus running them. For reference the market value of baseload electricity in Australia is in the order of $35 - $40 / MWh long term average.

Sources. These are my own figures based on the following. Present oil spot price and AUD/USD exchange rate. Expected construction costs of currently proposed gas-fired plant and recent coal fired plant in Australia. Actual operating costs of modern Australian coal and gas-fired plants assuming gas supplied at typical contract rates (Victoria). Existing hydro operation costs and possible new scheme construction costs using data from the Hydro-Electric Corporation (Hydro Tas). Nuclear costs from various Canadian plants adjusted for recent increases in the uranium spot price and assuming that Australia developed a similarly large industry (since costs for one plant only would be higher per unit of production).   

Oil (CCGT). Construction etc costs $19 / MWh. Fuel cost $92 / MWh.

Gas (CCGT). Construction etc cost $19 / MWh. Fuel cost $19 / MWh.

Black coal (conventional pulverised fuel). Construction etc cost $23 / MWh. Fuel cost $15 / MWh.

Nuclear. Construction etc cost $69 / MWh. Ongoing operation around $8 / MWh of which $5 / MWh is actual uranium at recent spot prices.

Brown coal (conventional pulverised fuel). Construction etc cost $60 - $65 / MWh. Ongoing cost $2 / MWh.

Hydro (large scale with no other use of dam over which to spread costs). Construction cost depends on site $40 - $150+ / MWh. Ongoing costs $2 / MWh.

As can be seen, an increase in the cost of uranium won't seriously affect the economics of nuclear power generation. That is one of its key attractions. Hence demand won't fall unless prices reach very high levels.

The overall economics of nuclear are at the same end as brown coal and hydro. It costs a fortune to build and is uneconomic based on present electricity prices. But its low ongoing cost, particularly with respect to fuel, makes it an effective inflation hedge. Given sufficient inflation after construction it becomes profitable as do brown coal and hydro since most of the total cost is locked in at yesterday's prices.

The above figures don't include costs of transmission lines etc to connect the plant to the grid. Nor do they include any decommissioning costs, construction of water supply infrastructure (except hydro) etc. It is assumed the plant is near the coal mine, major gas pipelines or coastal oil terminal as appropriate.


----------



## Freeballinginawetsuit (3 March 2007)

Smurf,

Relax, the last thing punters need is ASF back of 'pie bag' fundamentals on Uranium producers ATM.

Of the producers PDN is unhedged and their marketing board will be well placed to kill the pig or lock in hedges......no need to justify the obvious or justify the energy cycle....the whole world needs it! & uranium is a tighter commodity than most.


----------



## 56gsa (3 March 2007)

mmmmining said:
			
		

> Friday's (yesterday) commodity report is on uranium.
> http://www.robtv.com/



thanks mmmm - that kline guy was a bit of a goose re Australian situation (eg nothing happening on 3 mine policy, therefore buy Canadian - i hope all the canadians heard and so impact of 29 april will be more significant...)

but he was good on the demand/supply stuff - pity it got cutoff - in summary:

SUPPLY

current supply is 60% of demand - there are currently buyers looking for 53mlbs - last sale was for 2mlbs

all U majors last year failed to meet their production targets due to range of reasons - mining lower grade veins / probs like cigar lake / political / strikes

supply scenario is tenuous - 5 yrs from now new supply


DEMAND

5 new facilities this year, 6 next yr, 10 in 2010
this is like fixed consumption because nuclear requires 5-10-15bn capital investment so they won't walk away just cause U price goes up

U is 2.5% of operating cost – minimal (cf gas 40% of cost curve)

Facilities require 2.5 yrs of supply on site by law [so those 2010 reactors would be in the market now?]

Hedge buyers and others are more active


----------



## mmmmining (3 March 2007)

56gsa said:
			
		

> thanks mmmm - that kline guy was a bit of a goose re Australian situation (eg nothing happening on 3 mine policy, therefore buy Canadian - i hope all the canadians heard and so impact of 29 april will be more significant...)
> 
> but he was good on the demand/supply stuff - pity it got cutoff - in summary:
> 
> ...




56gsa, I cannot believe it, your summary is great and accurate. 

Well, we should realize that the correction for uranium stocks is inevitable. It happened a few times in last couple of years. Sometimes, it is painful, could be 50%. But afterwards, most of them have reached new high every time.

If we can get the big picture, and basic facts about uranium and nuclear power right, we should feel confident to ride out the bad time.


----------



## mmmmining (4 March 2007)

Smurf1976 said:
			
		

> Let's have a look at actual costs for construction of plants versus running them. For reference the market value of baseload electricity in Australia is in the order of $35 - $40 / MWh long term average.




From:
http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/france/press/reports/les-co-ts-reels-du-nucleaire.pdf

Clearly the cost depends on the discount rate. Anyway, nuclear is still the cheapest. 

Please the cost to clean CO2 is very high if taken into consideration. est at 0-$30/MWh.


----------



## insider (4 March 2007)

I'm sick of seeing greenpeace... their facts are warped... High density countries cannot have wind turbines to power them... Australia can because we are lucky... We are also lucky to an abundance of coal and gas at our reach... Australia is not the world... Once the nuclear industry gets more competitive it becomes cheaper...


----------



## Smurf1976 (4 March 2007)

mmmmining said:
			
		

> From:
> http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/france/press/reports/les-co-ts-reels-du-nucleaire.pdf
> 
> Clearly the cost depends on the discount rate. Anyway, nuclear is still the cheapest.
> ...



Agreed about the cost of CO2, but unless there is an actual charge imposed or a requirement to capture emissions then the cost is, in practice, zero as far as the plant owner is concerned.

In the context of the US market, nuclear is attractive and that's why there is increasing interest in new nuclear plants there. But in the Australian market, our coal costs are right at the bottom of the US range, our coal-fired O&M costs are very much lower than in the US and our natural gas price is less than half that in the US which doesn't help the nuclear cause.

And then there's always the waste question. I can't see the stuff still sitting around in long since disused power plants 100 years from now. Ultimately a solution has to be found and I can't see it being cheap.

That's no reason not to speculate on the stocks though. Just don't be fooled into thinking that they are long term investments when it's probable IMO that most won't actually mine a single ounce of uranium. Hasn't stopped me making some $ though.


----------



## purple (4 March 2007)

mmmmining said:
			
		

> From:
> http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/france/press/reports/les-co-ts-reels-du-nucleaire.pdf
> .




hmm...the chart doesn't look right. Uranium tailings if left on the ground to slowly rot is cheap but the proper way would be to insert it back into the ground where it came from, all encased in cement. That O&M side of it would be expensive - that would entail (!) going underground twice.


----------



## purple (4 March 2007)

Australia's forging ahead with the nuclear power R&D..

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/switkowski-to-head-nuclear-body/2007/03/04/1172943260008.html

in the report : 

...Dr Switkowski, whose report to government last year suggested a scenario in which 25 nuclear reactors could supply up to 30 per cent of Australia's electricity, would concentrate on developing Australia's nuclear science expertise in his new role with ANSTO...

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

we wouldn't want our Uranium shares to top out, companies to close down when the government is putting so much money into R&D..


----------



## mmmmining (4 March 2007)

I am not try to get too far away from this topics. Uranium stocks might experience a correction recently. But I don't agree it has topped out. So I try to revisit a few fundamentals, to help me and other true believer to ride out the current storm. Still the same, demand is high, supply is short, global warming is real, and fuel is not significant in cost structure for nuclear power.

A couple of "insider" info:

1. Within 5 years, China will open carbon trading business;

2. BP Asia is doing "clean coal" project, experiment carbon capture technology in China;

3. DOE in US is swapped with nuclear power station applications. DOE is not only help the applicants financially, but also provide assistance dealing with legal, political, and environmental issues.

4. SO2 is worse pollutant than CO2 in fossil fuel power station

And I don't care whether there is a nuclear power station in Australia in the future although I think it will be stupid without one. 

As long as China, India, France or USA are begging Aussie for uranium, I am happy smart Aussie will jack up the price.


----------



## Fab (5 March 2007)

mmmmining said:
			
		

> I am not try to get too far away from this topics. Uranium stocks might experience a correction recently. But I don't agree it has topped out. So I try to revisit a few fundamentals, to help me and other true believer to ride out the current storm. Still the same, demand is high, supply is short, global warming is real, and fuel is not significant in cost structure for nuclear power.
> 
> A couple of "insider" info:
> 
> ...




I agree with that statement. Australia decision about having a nuclear power plant is irrelevant in the big picture. So if they change the U mining policy that will give a further boost to the U share price. This trading correction will offer some great value for people who are invested long time. For me PDN will go back to $10 it is a question of time so if it falls back to $6 or $7 in the short term that will be great value.


----------



## noirua (5 March 2007)

There we goes " it's only over when it's over" and it appears to be only early days in the Uranium Stock Boom.  "It's over when the Fat Lady Sings" and she is but 8 years old and it will be a long time before she becomes a fat lady.


----------



## sydneysider (5 March 2007)

noirua said:
			
		

> There we goes " it's only over when it's over" and it appears to be only early days in the Uranium Stock Boom.  "It's over when the Fat Lady Sings" and she is but 8 years old and it will be a long time before she becomes a fat lady.




We have just had a very short sharp correction. PDN shaved a little under 25% from its all time high. The very sharp ascending channel is history and support exists at around $8.00.Technically the stock is now very disorganized and still fraught with risk. ERA has sold off by about 10% from its peak and may be looking for a base around $21-22 but looks in much better shape technically. 

AGS has a very ominous distribution pattern that looks very much like a head and shoulders but may turn out to be a sideways pattern. MTN has clearly busted out of its uptrend, CMR has also gapped lower but still looks in reasonable shape. 

UNX seems to be holding up very well. The U's may get off lightly and trade sideways for the forseeable future and it will become very much a stockpickers market. 

The crucial factor will be how well work markets hold up. Nekkei 225 has fallen to support around 16800 and IF it bounces from here and Wall Street holds together tomorrow we might see a stabilization.


----------



## chops_a_must (5 March 2007)

insider said:
			
		

> High density countries cannot have wind turbines to power them...



Ahahaha! Are you serious?

Ever heard of Holland or Denmark?

But why on earth would you be buying U shares at the moment? It's beyond me. They are by far the hardest hit during this correction and it's not over by a long shot. That PDN thread would be hilarious if people weren't losing serious money.


----------



## mmmmining (6 March 2007)

Something strange happened this morning about uranium hopeful in SA:
PNN open strongly at 1.49 +10c
MTN rebounce from 2.62 to 3.34 high
AGS rebounce from 1.40 to 1.595 high
CUY rebounce from 0.81 to 0.86 high

Somebody lost celebrity status?


----------



## noirua (6 March 2007)

mmmmining said:
			
		

> Something strange happened this morning about uranium hopeful in SA:
> PNN open strongly at 1.49 +10c
> MTN rebounce from 2.62 to 3.34 high
> AGS rebounce from 1.40 to 1.595 high
> ...




Spot on;  uranium hopefuls and the more solid producers appear way underpriced with Uranium at US$85 per pound. Even in a big bear market there are sectors that buck the trend.


----------



## chris1983 (6 March 2007)

This is good to have a listen to if your bored.  I dont know if it has been posted allready. Just in case the link is below.

http://www.howestreet.com:80/goldradio/index.php/mediaplayer?audio_id=543


----------



## lancer (27 March 2007)

Just thought I would bring this page back so synde can see how right he was....Its not too late to buy...

ps many u's have just hit new highs and will continue for some time...


----------



## doctorj (27 March 2007)

lancer said:


> Just thought I would bring this page back so synde can see how right he was....Its not too late to buy...
> 
> ps many u's have just hit new highs and will continue for some time...




It's not too late to sell either.  What makes you think they "will continue for some time"?


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (27 March 2007)

Uranium spot price fuelled by a 2:1 demand supply ratio now and for the next year

ie for every pound of Uranium on supply there is 2 pounds of demand

Also the fact that Cigar Lake is alot more complicated than people realise, for starters, at a grade of + 20% U its not safe for humans to work in and thus requires robots!


----------



## Fab (27 March 2007)

I don’t understand how can people be negative about U stock specially producer. Yes some of them are overpriced but demand outpace offer by a mile and even though Australia do not change their mining policy all the major super power are moving toward nuclear power so in a way a stand off on Oz mining policy should only push the U spot price higher.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (27 March 2007)

Fab I agree with what you say, but I doubt Doc J was being negative about U, looks like he was just seeking some reasons for the statement and was trying to provide balance to the Uranium argument, and balance is always good


----------



## krisbarry (27 March 2007)

Political parties are again talking about uranium and the spot price has yet again increased, sorry folks but the uranium hype is set to continue.

Share prices of uranium stocks are still rising, and some very rapidly.

*Don't listen to the downramper just yet, there is no signs of a bubble, or it bursting in the very near future!*


----------



## krisbarry (27 March 2007)

*Uranium company floats do best*

RESOURCES companies have won the top five places in a list of best performing new floats for this quarter, with uranium companies well represented, a report shows.

The top performing entrants to the stock market were Yellow Rock Resources Ltd, Wolf Minerals Ltd, Prime Minerals Ltd, Sovereign Metals Ltd and Bowen Energy Ltd, the Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu's initial public offerings (IPO) update report for the March quarter found.

All the companies are explorers, with interests respectively in uranium and vanadium, tin and tungsten, uranium and gold, copper and gold and coal and uranium.

"Interest from investors in uranium was a key factor, with three of the top five companies involved in uranium exploration," report author Deloitte corporate finance partner Steve Woosnam said.

"Resources companies accounted for the top 13 places in a ranking of all IPOs in the March 2007 quarter by performance.

"The best industrial float was (pharmaceutical firm) Cyclopharm, which gained 17 per cent since listing."

As at March 21, Yellow Rock's share price had grown 320 per cent since listing, Wolf Minerals added 424 per cent, Prime Minerals climbed 200 per cent, Sovereign Metals improved 122 per cent and Bowen Energy expanded 88 per cent.

Another uranium play, NuPower Resources Ltd, has gained 350 per cent since listing on March 16, but was not included as it was a spin-off from Arafura Resources NL and did not offer shares publicly.

In addition to investments in uranium through explorers, the price of yellowcake itself has also been on the rise, edging closer to the $US100 per pound mark.


----------



## Halba (27 March 2007)

I still wouldn't invest my dough in australian u companies...too long lead time.. Africa is the way to go.


----------



## doctorj (27 March 2007)

Fab said:


> I don’t understand how can people be negative about U stock specially producer.



I don't have an opinion at the moment either way on uranium, I'd just like to see the likes of Lancer reign in the enthusiasm a little and add something to the thread.


----------



## Fab (27 March 2007)

doctorj said:


> I don't have an opinion at the moment either way on uranium, I'd just like to see the likes of Lancer reign in the enthusiasm a little and add something to the thread.




Fair enough but my opinion is if I had waited as you probably did I would not have got on any of the U stocks that I bought about 1 1/2 year ago namely DYL, PDN and SMM and missed on a huge profit. I based my decision on my experience of Nuclear in Europe and in particular in France where I believe 70% of the electricity is nuclear generated. Low risk and extremely efficient and as far as I was concerned not more expensive than here. So I bought into U stock here without a second thought and I have not been proved wrong so far. I believe this will continue there are too many positive factors at the moment that will push U stock higher namely change in policy, huge demand, shortage of supply ...

My preferred stocks are PDN, SMM, PNN, MTN. (Note that I own some of these stocks


----------



## doctorj (27 March 2007)

Fab said:


> Fair enough but my opinion is if I had waited as you probably did I would not have got on any of the U stocks that I bought about 1 1/2 year ago namely DYL, PDN and SMM and missed on a huge profit.



Thanks for sharing some of your reasoning.

I certainly didn't wait.  I started https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1098 back in March 2005.


----------



## lancer (28 March 2007)

lancer said:


> Just thought I would bring this page back so synde can see how right he was....Its not too late to buy...
> 
> ps many u's have just hit new highs and will continue for some time...






			
				doctorj said:
			
		

> It's not too late to sell either. What makes you think they "will continue for some time"?






Because I have a pulse....

Lets face it nothing is a sure bet with investing, but U has a great future.


----------



## lancer (10 April 2007)

lancer said:


> Because I have a pulse....
> 
> Lets face it nothing is a sure bet with investing, but U has a great future.




$113 a pound will not be conducive to u shares topping out..


----------

