CTS - Contact Resources

KIWIKARLOS said:

yeah there are a few but i think that the fact that other people around them have operations doesn't really make that much of a difference to CTS. Uranium supplies aren't that sparse at the moment sure the spot price is high but realistically there aren't more reactors been built or proposed to be built than there are reactors due to be decommissioned. The U market is nowhere near as strong as the iron ore market is and CTS's grades just aren't that good.

I think the U op's that will make good returns in the near term are those with high grades and in established areas. That been said though that doesn't mean you can't make a profit trading CTS these days all you need is a fav ann or two or a bit of spec rumours and you can make dollars.

I just don't believe CTS will be a U miner anytime soon and would require improvements in things outside of its control to turn its deposit into an operation.

Click to expand...

Hi Gents,

I don't usually post, but there is SO much factually incorrect information in above post that I feel I need to set the record straight:

1. I think that the fact that other people around them have operations doesn't really make that much of a difference to CTS.

CTS' tenements are surround by Solex Resource's (TSX) tenements which have been coming up with some decent hits. I am not a geologist but I highly doubt that the mineralisation will somehow stop or dilute just precisely on CTS' land. It could but to dismiss this factor out of hand is unwise I believe.

2. Uranium supplies aren't that sparse at the moment.

Current deficit between supply and demand is about 70m lb of U308 per year with supply problems in existing mines (Ranger, Cigar Lake). PDN is the first U308 mine to open in over 20 yrs and the nearest new contenders will start operations in 2010 at the earliest.

3. Realistically there aren't more reactors been built or proposed to be built than there are reactors due to be decommissioned.

India has recently ran out of U308 for their reactors. The Amercians are approving new plants to be built and the Chinese just signed a $14b deal to built 2 reactors from Areva.... the tip of the iceberg in my opinion if China is seriously about meeting its future energy demand via clean sources. By the way the initial amount of U308 required to start a reactor is about 300t or 675,000 lbs.

4. I think the U op's that will make good returns in the near term are those with high grades and in established areas.

Rossing, one of the world's largest uranium mines, operate on a cut-off of 100ppm or 0.01%. Uramin recently taken over by Arvea in a $2.5b transaction works off 70ppm. Most of the Nambian hopefuls with completed PFS or BFS are in a similar situation.

5. MHL's grades cr@p over CTS.

From what I can tell, MHL's uranium project in Kyrgz is at infant stages and based upon the company's 6 Aug announcement, "sampled grades are 0.03%-0.04% and upgrade to 1.4% in some areas". Aren't these grades similar to CTS' results?

Apologies for the long post.

Cheers

Thanks IceMan (TopGun fan?)

I'm glad someone else did it because I couldn't be bothered,

Iceman has rebutted most of the negatives put up, if anyone disagrees, go ahead and put up copunter arguments, but the key word is arguments, ie back them up with proof like he has, not just random statements,

Mavrick out

YOUNG_TRADER said:

Thanks IceMan (TopGun fan?)

I'm glad someone else did it because I couldn't be bothered,

Iceman has rebutted most of the negatives put up, if anyone disagrees, go ahead and put up copunter arguments, but the key word is arguments, ie back them up with proof like he has, not just random statements,

Mavrick out

Click to expand...

Anytime Mav

The Iceman lost his cool when he saw the blatantly misleading statements that were posted.

Cheers

Iceman23 said:

Hi Gents,

I don't usually post, but there is SO much factually incorrect information in above post that I feel I need to set the record straight:

1. I think that the fact that other people around them have operations doesn't really make that much of a difference to CTS.

CTS' tenements are surround by Solex Resource's (TSX) tenements which have been coming up with some decent hits. I am not a geologist but I highly doubt that the mineralisation will somehow stop or dilute just precisely on CTS' land. It could but to dismiss this factor out of hand is unwise I believe.

2. Uranium supplies aren't that sparse at the moment.

Current deficit between supply and demand is about 70m lb of U308 per year with supply problems in existing mines (Ranger, Cigar Lake). PDN is the first U308 mine to open in over 20 yrs and the nearest new contenders will start operations in 2010 at the earliest.

3. Realistically there aren't more reactors been built or proposed to be built than there are reactors due to be decommissioned.

India has recently ran out of U308 for their reactors. The Amercians are approving new plants to be built and the Chinese just signed a $14b deal to built 2 reactors from Areva.... the tip of the iceberg in my opinion if China is seriously about meeting its future energy demand via clean sources. By the way the initial amount of U308 required to start a reactor is about 300t or 675,000 lbs.

4. I think the U op's that will make good returns in the near term are those with high grades and in established areas.

Rossing, one of the world's largest uranium mines, operate on a cut-off of 100ppm or 0.01%. Uramin recently taken over by Arvea in a $2.5b transaction works off 70ppm. Most of the Nambian hopefuls with completed PFS or BFS are in a similar situation.

5. MHL's grades cr@p over CTS.

From what I can tell, MHL's uranium project in Kyrgz is at infant stages and based upon the company's 6 Aug announcement, "sampled grades are 0.03%-0.04% and upgrade to 1.4% in some areas". Aren't these grades similar to CTS' results?

Apologies for the long post.

Cheers

Click to expand...

1. So your saying if I put a caravan next to kirribilly house it'll be worth 10 mill aswell doesn't matter what your neighbours have unless your sitting on pay dirt to. Geological structures son't just extend across invisible boundaries in all cases. Look at the pilbara region apparently if you have dirt their you have an iron ore operation then. BS! Half these juniors with plots will never eventuate as producers.

2. Sure there isn't enough U to keep up with supply but what commodity isn't in short supply at the moment.

3.You have done a great job at listing a couple reactors to be built in the near future but left out the many many more that are way past their service life and are just sitting there waiting to be decommissioned but now people are realising they are much more expensive to decomission than they thought.
Australia is certainly not going to be building reactors now that Rudds in!

4. Rossing operates in a secure country on a massive economy of scale with little overburden and already established infrastructure. You can not deny setting up operations now are much more expensive than when Rossing was established, material and labour costs are much higher. Not to mention CTS's territory is in a place where Russian, US and chinese interest converge and has never historically been secure for investment and is only an developing economy.

5. MHL's grades are marginally better than CTS and we could argue the pro's and con's of each's business till the cows come home CTS is in a more advanced stage.

Sorry one more point you mentioned Nuclear energy as a clean source of energy?

It may produce less carbon at the power plant but how about digging up millions of tonnes of dirt to recover 0.01% U308 then building massive underground storage for 10000 Years not to mention the side effects and proven non carbon related problems such as the huge amount of depleted uranium ammo which has caused health effects in many countries.

KIWIKARLOS said:

1. So your saying if I put a caravan next to kirribilly house it'll be worth 10 mill aswell doesn't matter what your neighbours have unless your sitting on pay dirt to. Geological structures son't just extend across invisible boundaries in all cases. Look at the pilbara region apparently if you have dirt their you have an iron ore operation then. BS! Half these juniors with plots will never eventuate as producers.

2. Sure there isn't enough U to keep up with supply but what commodity isn't in short supply at the moment.

3.You have done a great job at listing a couple reactors to be built in the near future but left out the many many more that are way past their service life and are just sitting there waiting to be decommissioned but now people are realising they are much more expensive to decomission than they thought.
Australia is certainly not going to be building reactors now that Rudds in!

4. Rossing operates in a secure country on a massive economy of scale with little overburden and already established infrastructure. You can not deny setting up operations now are much more expensive than when Rossing was established, material and labour costs are much higher. Not to mention CTS's territory is in a place where Russian, US and chinese interest converge and has never historically been secure for investment and is only an developing economy.

5. MHL's grades are marginally better than CTS and we could argue the pro's and con's of each's business till the cows come home CTS is in a more advanced stage.

Click to expand...

1. I agree with your comments regarding the iron ore hopefuls, but the key difference is that CTS has a JORCed resource and promising (in my opinion) drill results which most of the former companies lack eg. FDL.

2. Of course every single commodity is in short supply, but you originally stated that uranium wasn't in short supply, and that is blatantly wrong. You also said that uranium prices were unrealistically high, but if you accept the current supply deficit scenario, please explain why current prices unrealistic? Especially since U308 only makes up 7% of the cost of running a reactor, it can hit $500 per lb and still not make a major impact.

3. Germany and several other European countries are actually delaying the decommissioning of their nuclear reactors as they realise with them off, they can't meet the increasing energy demand. I am a proud Australian but when it comes to nuclear reactor demand, Australia with its tiny population makes ZERO impact to the equation. What you need to monitor is the situation in India, China, USA, Russia and Europe, and there are clear signs of a nuclear revival there. Don't take my word for it, visit www.uraniumseek.com for a few weeks and you will see the headlines come through.

4. Costs are definitely exploding but generally speaking, as long as the spot price holds, low grade, high tonnage projects will work. CTS' hits today remind me of BMN's results (probably slightly inferior) but the key thing is that the widths are good. BMN has done a scoping study that says the project is economic based upon a spot price of $45/lb. As long as CTS keeps coming up with thick widths, you can afford to lose some grade, especially since its shallow. The project is also close to a power grid and water supply. It's still early days yet but for you to imply that the project is a write off is misleading.

Nambia is definitely safer than Peru. It is rated safer than Australia! However, if the sovereign risk is so great why is a major like Cameco and numerous Canadian explorers doing there?

5. MHL's project is so early, it does not deserve a comparison with CTS.

To be honest I think your due diligence on CTS and the uranium industry in general is less than complete. You are definitely entitled to your say; just be prepared to be pulled up for misleading comments.

Cheers

KIWIKARLOS said:

Sorry one more point you mentioned Nuclear energy as a clean source of energy?

It may produce less carbon at the power plant but how about digging up millions of tonnes of dirt to recover 0.01% U308 then building massive underground storage for 10000 Years not to mention the side effects and proven non carbon related problems such as the huge amount of depleted uranium ammo which has caused health effects in many countries.

Click to expand...

Statistically, more people have died from coal mining than comparable to U308 mining. In China alone, it is estimated than 5,000 died annually. I shudder to think about the actual number.

U308 waste is definitely nasty, but if you believe in global warming, then there is no other current existing technology that can address the issue. France (80% nuclear powered) scientists did a report whereby it was estimated that the country would need build a windmill every 50m (?) all along the border of the country to replace nuclear power.... what about future demand increases?

About 2billion in China and India want electricity right now. Did you watch the soccer game yesterday? There was a crowd of 80,000. Now mutiple that by 20,000x and you get about 80% of the population of China & India. Both countries are crowded places, there is no way you can build sufficient wind mills or solar panels to meet demand. I shudder to imagine the CO2 if they use coal plants solely.

Since when does U308 mining automatically translate to depleted uranium ammo. That's the work of military industrialists and warmongering govts. and a pretty long bow to draw.

Cheers

Iceman23 said:

Statistically, more people have died from coal mining than comparable to U308 mining. In China alone, it is estimated than 5,000 died annually. I shudder to think about the actual number.

U308 waste is definitely nasty, but if you believe in global warming, then there is no other current existing technology that can address the issue. France (80% nuclear powered) scientists did a report whereby it was estimated that the country would need build a windmill every 50m (?) all along the border of the country to replace nuclear power.... what about future demand increases?

About 2billion in China and India want electricity right now. Did you watch the soccer game yesterday? There was a crowd of 80,000. Now mutiple that by 20,000x and you get about 80% of the population of China & India. Both countries are crowded places, there is no way you can build sufficient wind mills or solar panels to meet demand. I shudder to imagine the CO2 if they use coal plants solely.

Since when does U308 mining automatically translate to depleted uranium ammo. That's the work of military industrialists and warmongering govts. and a pretty long bow to draw.

Cheers

Click to expand...

Mate statistics can be manipulated and viewed in numerous ways to give different results how many people have dies in chernobyl, Hiroshima and nagasaki from the after effects of radiation. Not to mention the thousands of people in the US military that have been exposed during testing and at nuclear weapons plants in the US (not power stations) Thing is coal mining deaths are attributed to accidents and exposure close the mine no probs. Nuclear waste is around for ten's of thousands of years ! more than people have existed in modern form!

You keep saying nuclear will prevent global warming that is baloni. There have been many many studies done that show over the life time of the nuclear process from mining to storage for ten thousand years it actually produces more Co2. Who said that windmills were the best source of renewable energy? Geothermal in oz has the potential to provide BASE load generation for hundreds if not thousands of years. France coincidently has some of the best geothermal resources in europe.

Nuclear is a silly option we are already contemplating a disaster from PEAK OIL and your saying we should link our new economic and energy policies to another finite (if the world went nuclear there wouldn't be enough U308 for 100 years!) and much more polluting energy source. You would think we would have learnt our lesson from fossil fuels!

Depleted Urainum is a by product of power generation and right now the US and russia have hundreds of thousands of tonnes of the stuff its used in aviation for counter weights for planes but there is just so much of the stuff they have to think up new ways to get rid of it and what beeter way than to dipose of it and kill people at the same time. Youy say its war mongers that are the problem but when in history has there not been a war monger? Everyday of every year for the whole of human existing someone somewhere has been fighting. So lets say china and india do start going nuclear do you think they will simply store all the waste or maybe they will make nuclear arsenals that would make an even better world a new arms race. so instead of two countries with the power to destroy the entire planet we may have a dozen!

KIWIKARLOS said:

Mate statistics can be manipulated and viewed in numerous ways to give different results .......There have been many many studies done that show over the life time of the nuclear process from mining to storage for ten thousand years it actually produces more Co2.

Click to expand...

KiwiKarlos point taken, this excerpt from the chairman of BHP Don Argus's presentation at AGM yesterday: (I haven't seen the slides Don Argus refers to)

"Some critics say that the benefits of using nuclear power are outweighed by the lifecycle emissions of mining, converting and enriching the uranium to produce fuel rods.
This is not the case. The savings in emissions from using uranium to fuel power stations greatly exceed the emissions associated with the uranium lifecycle.
The direct and indirect emissions that are associated with a range of different power stations are shown in this slide.
Direct emissions, shown in green, are associated with the burning of fossil fuels in coal, oil and gas fired power stations.
The indirect emissions shown in white are the lifecycle emissions associated with mining and producing fuels and building power stations.
As you can see, nuclear power stations have no direct emissions of carbon dioxide and the indirect emissions from the mining and production of the fuel rods and other parts of the lifecycle are also relatively low and in the same order as renewable energy."

The one thing missing from that equation though is the increased cost. Lets say nuclear does generate as much co2 as renewables it is far more expensive and produces highly toxic pollution where renewables dont. So if the co2 savings are comparable but the actual cost is higher why would you not just go renewable.

The other thing is that the nuclear industry has been around for 60 years and has made alot of advancments renewables are fairly new and there is alot of room for increased efficiency and economic improvements. Technological improvements will undoubtedly make renewables a better alternative.

KIWIKARLOS said:

Mate statistics can be manipulated and viewed in numerous ways to give different results how many people have dies in chernobyl, Hiroshima and nagasaki from the after effects of radiation. Not to mention the thousands of people in the US military that have been exposed during testing and at nuclear weapons plants in the US (not power stations) Thing is coal mining deaths are attributed to accidents and exposure close the mine no probs. Nuclear waste is around for ten's of thousands of years ! more than people have existed in modern form!

You keep saying nuclear will prevent global warming that is baloni. There have been many many studies done that show over the life time of the nuclear process from mining to storage for ten thousand years it actually produces more Co2. Who said that windmills were the best source of renewable energy? Geothermal in oz has the potential to provide BASE load generation for hundreds if not thousands of years. France coincidently has some of the best geothermal resources in europe.

Nuclear is a silly option we are already contemplating a disaster from PEAK OIL and your saying we should link our new economic and energy policies to another finite (if the world went nuclear there wouldn't be enough U308 for 100 years!) and much more polluting energy source. You would think we would have learnt our lesson from fossil fuels!

Depleted Urainum is a by product of power generation and right now the US and russia have hundreds of thousands of tonnes of the stuff its used in aviation for counter weights for planes but there is just so much of the stuff they have to think up new ways to get rid of it and what beeter way than to dipose of it and kill people at the same time. Youy say its war mongers that are the problem but when in history has there not been a war monger? Everyday of every year for the whole of human existing someone somewhere has been fighting. So lets say china and india do start going nuclear do you think they will simply store all the waste or maybe they will make nuclear arsenals that would make an even better world a new arms race. so instead of two countries with the power to destroy the entire planet we may have a dozen!

Click to expand...

Oh dear, you think uranium will run out in 100 years if the entire world switches? Uranium is the 8th most common element on the planet... There are even minute traces of it seawater. There is only a shortage because prices have been depressed for so long it wasn't financially viable to go explore for it.

Nuclear waste can be stored safely several km underground, and it's utter rubbish to say it produces more CO2 in the long run. Tell me how come the founder of Greenpeace (the king of greenies) have come out in support of nuclear power in the last few years?

Geothermal power? Yeah, right. Most geothermal sources will struggle to cover 1 major Indian or Chinese city to say less than providing for a whole country. Geothermal can't even cover the needs of Australia with its 18m population.

You keep using the threat of nukes in your scaremongering, but do you realised that spent uranium has to be further processed into plutonium before it can be used as in nuclear weapons, a technological feat that has been accomplished by probably no more than 10 nations. I have news for you. If countries are bent on wiping each other out, they don't need to use nukes. Massive carpet bombing will decimate the population eventually, albeit at a slower rate.

Finally one last question. If you are so concerned about uranium mining leading to depleted uranium ammo and nuclear weapons (a link that I strongly disagree with), have you ever invested in uranium stocks? If so, don't you feel a little morally responsible for indirectly contributing to potential death and suffering around the world then given your strong vocal objections?

It's a CTS thread folks... not a debate on the merits or consequences of uranium in general. Let's try to keep things relevent here.

Iceman23 said:

Oh dear, you think uranium will run out in 100 years if the entire world switches? Uranium is the 8th most common element on the planet... There are even minute traces of it seawater. There is only a shortage because prices have been depressed for so long it wasn't financially viable to go explore for it.

Nuclear waste can be stored safely several km underground, and it's utter rubbish to say it produces more CO2 in the long run. Tell me how come the founder of Greenpeace (the king of greenies) have come out in support of nuclear power in the last few years?

Geothermal power? Yeah, right. Most geothermal sources will struggle to cover 1 major Indian or Chinese city to say less than providing for a whole country. Geothermal can't even cover the needs of Australia with its 18m population.

You keep using the threat of nukes in your scaremongering, but do you realised that spent uranium has to be further processed into plutonium before it can be used as in nuclear weapons, a technological feat that has been accomplished by probably no more than 10 nations. I have news for you. If countries are bent on wiping each other out, they don't need to use nukes. Massive carpet bombing will decimate the population eventually, albeit at a slower rate.

Finally one last question. If you are so concerned about uranium mining leading to depleted uranium ammo and nuclear weapons (a link that I strongly disagree with), have you ever invested in uranium stocks? If so, don't you feel a little morally responsible for indirectly contributing to potential death and suffering around the world then given your strong vocal objections?

Click to expand...

Where are you getting your facts mate?

A 2006 report by MIT, that took into account the use of Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS), concluded that it would be affordable to generate 100 GWe (gigawatts of electricity) or more by 2050 in the United States alone, for a maximum investment of 1 billion US dollars in research and development over 15 years.[14]

The MIT report calculated the world's total EGS resources to be over 13,000 ZJ. Of these, over 200 ZJ would be extractable, with the potential to increase this to over 2,000 ZJ with technology improvements - sufficient to provide all the world's energy needs for several millennia.

one chinese city aye, well the experts certainly feel otherwise

Also this stuff about U been the 8th most common element
Its actually about number 92 on the list below gold, titanium amounst other "common" elements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundances_of_the_elements_(data_page)

are you making this stuff up? dont mean to be rude but seriously 8th, we would all be glowing and have three heads :

i lied its not 92nd its actually about No.35, my bad :

Anyways back to CTS, the canadian prospectors have hit good grades but there is a chance either way that CTS deposit is no where near as good, these deposits are typically very strong in a localised area and grades go lower over a vast area

YOUNG_TRADER said:

Well it has been a long long wait for me, I am starting to lose patience with CTS

But 2 weeks more isn't that long, thats if its only another 2 weeks

Click to expand...

At first I couldn't believe this sell off, I mean the stock was trading well above 50c for a whole year,

The drill results weren't amazing, but they were comparably good ie WME, BLR, BMN, I thought maybe because those are all African operations and CTS is Peru its get discounted, but that wouldn't explain the dump

Upon reflection I think I understand the selloff, firstly, I have noticed a trend which another ASF'er JUW177 has put forward,

Its a kinda stag the ann or dump on the ann type mentality,

And in CTS's case the drill results were wayyyyy overdue and so add to that this stag the ann mentality and its not hard to see why many holders just dumped after the ann


But as I keep saying the drill results weren't bad, they just weren't amazing,

I will be very very surprised if we're not back at the 50c level soon, but then I've been calling things wrong a bit lately, maybe I'm losing my touch

YOUNG_TRADER said:

At first I couldn't believe this sell off, I mean the stock was trading well above 50c for a whole year,

The drill results weren't amazing, but they were comparably good ie WME, BLR, BMN, I thought maybe because those are all African operations and CTS is Peru its get discounted, but that wouldn't explain the dump

Upon reflection I think I understand the selloff, firstly, I have noticed a trend which another ASF'er JUW177 has put forward,

Its a kinda stag the ann or dump on the ann type mentality,

And in CTS's case the drill results were wayyyyy overdue and so add to that this stag the ann mentality and its not hard to see why many holders just dumped after the ann


But as I keep saying the drill results weren't bad, they just weren't amazing,

I will be very very surprised if we're not back at the 50c level soon, but then I've been calling things wrong a bit lately, maybe I'm losing my touch

Click to expand...

Yeah, must say I'm a bit surprised too and the depth of buyers is not impressive hence the drop in sp/ I get a sense that the money is moving from speculative, non produing stocks to well developed income generating stocks in case the slow down in the US turns into a recession. Their is plenty of caution around at the moment. I mean the US rose 500 odd points our market net over two days...what 25 points??

Been looking at Solex drilling results.....on average higher grade but much less depth...Contact have the highest grade at 0.425 @ 2.2m

KIWIKARLOS said:

i lied its not 92nd its actually about No.35, my bad :

Anyways back to CTS, the canadian prospectors have hit good grades but there is a chance either way that CTS deposit is no where near as good, these deposits are typically very strong in a localised area and grades go lower over a vast area

Click to expand...

Ah, I was mainly working off the top of my head, so I stand corrected. I am allowed to get 1 or 2 wrong! :

I think we'll just agree to disgree. Truce.

YOUNG_TRADER said:

At first I couldn't believe this sell off, I mean the stock was trading well above 50c for a whole year,

The drill results weren't amazing, but they were comparably good ie WME, BLR, BMN, I thought maybe because those are all African operations and CTS is Peru its get discounted, but that wouldn't explain the dump

Upon reflection I think I understand the selloff, firstly, I have noticed a trend which another ASF'er JUW177 has put forward,

Its a kinda stag the ann or dump on the ann type mentality,

And in CTS's case the drill results were wayyyyy overdue and so add to that this stag the ann mentality and its not hard to see why many holders just dumped after the ann


But as I keep saying the drill results weren't bad, they just weren't amazing,

I will be very very surprised if we're not back at the 50c level soon, but then I've been calling things wrong a bit lately, maybe I'm losing my touch

Click to expand...

I think there was also a mismatched expectations with holders expecting an "AGS" (shortish widths, but high grades) which was what they marketed, but the drilling results threw up a "quasi BMN" (long widths, low grades).

Projects falling into the latter category are probably less well understood and harder to get off the ground as well.

Hopefully the next set of drills throw up some 700ppm+ hits otherwise there could be more pain.