NRZ - NeuRizer Ltd
- Thread starter Mistermoon
- Start date
Sean K
Moderator
- Joined
- 21 April 2006
- Posts
- 22,018
- Reactions
- 11,005
Re: MTN - Marathon Resources
Maybe you could fill us in a little? Cheers, kennas
Thanks for that dratoz, very informative and educational.
Maybe you could fill us in a little? Cheers, kennas
Re: MTN - Marathon Resources
Sounds like what people were saying the Singapore Govt took a big chuck of ABS... look how that turned out... remember to do your own research... big houses and banks get it wrong too..
Sounds like what people were saying the Singapore Govt took a big chuck of ABS... look how that turned out... remember to do your own research... big houses and banks get it wrong too..
Re: MTN - Marathon Resources
You are correct not to rely just on big houses etc however I will say someone with that much at stake would be crazy not to do more research than I could possibly do -that 's why I say it is not insignificant - we are always taking risks with any explorer. If a mine goes ahead IMO MTN shares would be worth at least 10x there value now, so in one sense even if there is less than 10% chance of a mine MTN is still cheap.
IMO very few would invest a 13% stake in MTN unless they believed MTN had a good chance of success. This should not be the only reason for ivesting in MTN but it adds to the case FOR.
Other reasons are China has just announce it will have 60GW of nuclear power stations by 2020. Coal is getting expensive, Oil is very expensive,
Real action on climate change is just around the corner.
That tells me we will need good excuses to not mine U - we may have to have mines minimal impact on the environment - but when climate change really begins to bite we might adjust our environmental priorities
__________
PETEAI
You are correct not to rely just on big houses etc however I will say someone with that much at stake would be crazy not to do more research than I could possibly do -that 's why I say it is not insignificant - we are always taking risks with any explorer. If a mine goes ahead IMO MTN shares would be worth at least 10x there value now, so in one sense even if there is less than 10% chance of a mine MTN is still cheap.
IMO very few would invest a 13% stake in MTN unless they believed MTN had a good chance of success. This should not be the only reason for ivesting in MTN but it adds to the case FOR.
Other reasons are China has just announce it will have 60GW of nuclear power stations by 2020. Coal is getting expensive, Oil is very expensive,
Real action on climate change is just around the corner.
That tells me we will need good excuses to not mine U - we may have to have mines minimal impact on the environment - but when climate change really begins to bite we might adjust our environmental priorities
__________
PETEAI
Re: MTN - Marathon Resources
G'Day Kennas,
OK, I will try to be more direct. There were a number of trades where 1 share changed hands, there were a few with 11 shares being involved, and there were a few with similarly low numbers, all traded in the way to support the sp.
In his/her post, Go_Nuke asked what was the go behind the increase yesterday and whether there was an announcement coming. Well, judging by the manipulation (now explained above), one can draw a conclusion that yes, there probably is. This was the "answer" I was referring to. I thought that yesterday's trades supported the assertion that there was an announcement coming. If you look at the latest PRZ announcements, you will probably find a further confirmation of it.
Now I will move on to the other part of my post, the one about the same daily trades being "the source of many more questions". If the sp is manipulated and the announcement is coming, is the sp held high to maximise the gains when it goes up, or is it held there to minimise the fall? I would like to know the answer. I have a theory that (provided that my other theory about an announcement coming up holds) the news will be good. This is based on the strong buying prior to ASX query (the speeding ticket) and based on other things that I have run out of time to write about that one can find in PRZ announcements.
So, with there being two interrelated theories that I would need to have guessed right, this is all highly theoretical, so please DYOR.
Regards,
Dratoz
Thanks for that dratoz, very informative and educational.
Maybe you could fill us in a little? Cheers, kennas
G'Day Kennas,
OK, I will try to be more direct
. There were a number of trades where 1 share changed hands, there were a few with 11 shares being involved, and there were a few with similarly low numbers, all traded in the way to support the sp.In his/her post, Go_Nuke asked what was the go behind the increase yesterday and whether there was an announcement coming. Well, judging by the manipulation (now explained above), one can draw a conclusion that yes, there probably is. This was the "answer" I was referring to. I thought that yesterday's trades supported the assertion that there was an announcement coming. If you look at the latest PRZ announcements, you will probably find a further confirmation of it.
Now I will move on to the other part of my post, the one about the same daily trades being "the source of many more questions". If the sp is manipulated and the announcement is coming, is the sp held high to maximise the gains when it goes up, or is it held there to minimise the fall? I would like to know the answer. I have a theory that (provided that my other theory about an announcement coming up holds) the news will be good. This is based on the strong buying prior to ASX query (the speeding ticket) and based on other things that I have run out of time to write about that one can find in PRZ announcements.
So, with there being two interrelated theories that I would need to have guessed right, this is all highly theoretical, so please DYOR.
Regards,
Dratoz
Re: MTN - Marathon Resources
Dratoz
Perhaps "subjective" may be a better choice of words here, rather than theoretical.
Cheers
jman
Dratoz
Perhaps "subjective" may be a better choice of words here, rather than theoretical.
Cheers
jman
Re: MTN - Marathon Resources
Jman,
I did not promise anyone on this thread not to be "subjective". I advised the readers of the fact that they should do their own research, and that my theories were only my theories. I made it clear this was a "long shot". My theories are mine, so, yes, they are "subjective" as they are mine. I did not mislead anyone to believe otherwise. I referred the readers to the source of further info that is available on a different than MTN website. I did it to address Kennas comment that my earlier post was too criptic to be understood.
I am either too criptic or subjective. I did not intend either. If I happen to be right, though, will I still be "subjective" or will I be "right" then?
Perhaps you are a little "too critical" (no offence intended).
Cheers
Dratoz
Jman,
I did not promise anyone on this thread not to be "subjective". I advised the readers of the fact that they should do their own research, and that my theories were only my theories. I made it clear this was a "long shot". My theories are mine, so, yes, they are "subjective" as they are mine. I did not mislead anyone to believe otherwise. I referred the readers to the source of further info that is available on a different than MTN website. I did it to address Kennas comment that my earlier post was too criptic to be understood.
I am either too criptic or subjective
. I did not intend either. If I happen to be right, though, will I still be "subjective" or will I be "right" then?Perhaps you are a little "too critical" (no offence intended).
Cheers
Dratoz
Re: MTN - Marathon Resources
Punter,
Are you still reading this thread? I have only now realised that you sent me a message on 2 May 07! Sorry. I am not overly proficient in using this forum's website and never noticed your message. I tried to reply, but the system reported an error. You probably changed your name or decided not to post any more. Anyway, thanks for your message, I really appreciate it, despite the delay.
Dratoz
Punter,
Are you still reading this thread? I have only now realised that you sent me a message on 2 May 07! Sorry. I am not overly proficient in using this forum's website and never noticed your message
. I tried to reply, but the system reported an error. You probably changed your name or decided not to post any more. Anyway, thanks for your message, I really appreciate it, despite the delay.Dratoz
- Joined
- 1 February 2007
- Posts
- 1,068
- Reactions
- 0
Re: MTN - Marathon Resources
Haha what a laugh.
The day after MTN gets a speeding ticket TA DA...an announcement to say they have started drilling.
I'm suprised that doesn't get a closer look by the ASX or someone of the like
I think if we start to see the volume pick up then MTN may have hit bottom and be ready to start making some higher lows.
Haha what a laugh.
The day after MTN gets a speeding ticket TA DA...an announcement to say they have started drilling.
I'm suprised that doesn't get a closer look by the ASX or someone of the like
I think if we start to see the volume pick up then MTN may have hit bottom and be ready to start making some higher lows.
Re: MTN - Marathon Resources
Hehe, no worries Dratoz,
It was a tongue-and-cheek comment Dratoz, not intended to be a low-blow. Of course everyone is entitled to an opinion on this forum. Good luck with MTN if you are a holder.
Cheers
jman
Jman,
I did not promise anyone on this thread not to be "subjective". I advised the readers of the fact that they should do their own research, and that my theories were only my theories. I made it clear this was a "long shot". My theories are mine, so, yes, they are "subjective" as they are mine. I did not mislead anyone to believe otherwise. I referred the readers to the source of further info that is available on a different than MTN website. I did it to address Kennas comment that my earlier post was too criptic to be understood.
I am either too criptic or subjective
Perhaps you are a little "too critical" (no offence intended).
Cheers
Dratoz
Hehe, no worries Dratoz,
It was a tongue-and-cheek comment Dratoz, not intended to be a low-blow. Of course everyone is entitled to an opinion on this forum. Good luck with MTN if you are a holder.
Cheers
jman
Re: MTN - Marathon Resources
Uranium Finally Wins Favor with Greenies
posted on: April 02, 2008 | about stocks: BHP / CCJ / RTP: Talk about a makeover. Nuclear power, once an environmentalist's worst nightmare, has transformed into the darling of greenies everywhere, with Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore even publicly proclaiming his faith in fission.
Why the change of heart? We've covered it here before, but essentially, in the quest for alternative energy sources, nuclear power is the obvious choice, a giant among wimps. Its technology is well-understood, with controllable production that doesn't depend on cooperating weather patterns or agricultural crops. Add that to the fact that reactors don't produce any greenhouse gas emissions, and suddenly, nuclear looks pretty sweet.
But you can't have nuclear power without fuel - a fact that has sent uranium prices skyward in recent years.
Uranium's had an exciting millennium so far. In 2003, it began a parabolic rise, with its spot price more than quadrupling from 2004 to 2007. Eventually prices hit $138/lb last June, before pulling back; today, it bounces from $75 to $95, about its price in the 1970s when adjusted for inflation. (See the two-year price of uranium here.)
Part of that's due to a massive shortage of ready-to-use uranium; global demand for the mineral already outstrips supply by 139%. And there's no end in sight. The world's 439 operating reactors aren't nearly enough to satisfy global power needs, so 35 more are under construction - with another 319 either in planning or proposal stages.
As those reactors come online, they'll need even more uranium. But production has been slow to rev up after a lull following the Cold War, and new mines haven't opened quickly enough to keep pace with demand. For the foreseeable future, the shortage will continue.
More-Predictable Demand
What makes uranium especially interesting is that demand for the mineral is far more predictable than other metals, since uranium's price is really only a small factor in calculating total nuclear power costs. Once operational, reactors are very cost-effective to keep fueled at high capacity - just 26% of what it costs to maintain an oil or coal-fueled plant; meaning if electricity demand ever did decline - highly unlikely - utilities would be more likely to cut back production at plants with higher fuel costs, like those fossil fuel generators, than nuclear plants. So uranium demand depends mostly on operational reactors, and less on economic fluctuations.
As these new power plants start producing, uranium prices will probably ease a little in the short term. But the world's insatiable thirst for electricity - especially in China - will keep uranium going up long term.
You can now get in on uranium by purchasing yellowcake futures. In 2007, NYMEX partnered with the Ux Company (which runs the Ux U3O8 index, a weekly uranium price tracker) to start offering monthly contracts of 250 lbs of yellowcake. There have also been rumblings recently about possibly introducing physical uranium contracts on the London Metals Exchange.
Still, the traditional way to access uranium is to go to the source: the mining companies. These include the big guys like BHP Billiton (BHP) and Rio Tinto (RTP), as well as several mid-tier and junior miners like Uranium One (UUU) and Denison Mines (DML).
Another big name is Cameco (CCJ), the world's largest uranium producer, which furnishes 20% of all mined uranium. The company operates the McArthur River Mine - the planet's biggest deposit of high-grade uranium - and the Cigar Lake Mine, its largest undeveloped deposit. And if that wasn't enough, Cameco also runs the Key Lake and Rabbit Lake Mills, the world's largest and second-largest uranium milling operations, respectively.
Cameco's 100-day volatility of 44% isn't atypical for a single stock, but it's a wild ride compared with the S&P GSCI's 28%. Still, Cameco looks good; it's definitely profitable, and sits on millions of pounds of proven uranium reserves.
Plus, the company still struggles with production setbacks from a 2006 flood of its Cigar Lake Mine, which will probably affect the company's earnings for the next few years. This now makes it a great time to buy for long investors: With uranium demand ever growing, once Cameco recovers, it should move back up in a big way.
Another pure-play is United States Enrichment Corporation (USU). The company supplies low-enriched uranium to commercial nuclear power plants, through the U.S.' only enrichment facility and contract with Russia to reclaim uranium from old Soviet-era weaponry. But a major technology overhaul called the American Centrifuge Project - which was supposed to increase USEC's efficiency - is running well behind schedule and over budget.
One last note: Fans of uranium should keep a close watch on thorium prices. Thorium, which can also be used as nuclear fuel, is safer, cleaner, more abundant and more efficient as a fuel source than uranium, and many experts suspect the mineral may be the next big step in nuclear power. So depending on how long you want to go, now could be an excellent time to get into thorium companies, like Thorium Power (THPW).
Links
World Nuclear Association
Uranium Finally Wins Favor with Greenies
posted on: April 02, 2008 | about stocks: BHP / CCJ / RTP
: Talk about a makeover. Nuclear power, once an environmentalist's worst nightmare, has transformed into the darling of greenies everywhere, with Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore even publicly proclaiming his faith in fission. Why the change of heart? We've covered it here before, but essentially, in the quest for alternative energy sources, nuclear power is the obvious choice, a giant among wimps. Its technology is well-understood, with controllable production that doesn't depend on cooperating weather patterns or agricultural crops. Add that to the fact that reactors don't produce any greenhouse gas emissions, and suddenly, nuclear looks pretty sweet.
But you can't have nuclear power without fuel - a fact that has sent uranium prices skyward in recent years.
Uranium's had an exciting millennium so far. In 2003, it began a parabolic rise, with its spot price more than quadrupling from 2004 to 2007. Eventually prices hit $138/lb last June, before pulling back; today, it bounces from $75 to $95, about its price in the 1970s when adjusted for inflation. (See the two-year price of uranium here.)
Part of that's due to a massive shortage of ready-to-use uranium; global demand for the mineral already outstrips supply by 139%. And there's no end in sight. The world's 439 operating reactors aren't nearly enough to satisfy global power needs, so 35 more are under construction - with another 319 either in planning or proposal stages.
As those reactors come online, they'll need even more uranium. But production has been slow to rev up after a lull following the Cold War, and new mines haven't opened quickly enough to keep pace with demand. For the foreseeable future, the shortage will continue.
More-Predictable Demand
What makes uranium especially interesting is that demand for the mineral is far more predictable than other metals, since uranium's price is really only a small factor in calculating total nuclear power costs. Once operational, reactors are very cost-effective to keep fueled at high capacity - just 26% of what it costs to maintain an oil or coal-fueled plant; meaning if electricity demand ever did decline - highly unlikely - utilities would be more likely to cut back production at plants with higher fuel costs, like those fossil fuel generators, than nuclear plants. So uranium demand depends mostly on operational reactors, and less on economic fluctuations.
As these new power plants start producing, uranium prices will probably ease a little in the short term. But the world's insatiable thirst for electricity - especially in China - will keep uranium going up long term.
You can now get in on uranium by purchasing yellowcake futures. In 2007, NYMEX partnered with the Ux Company (which runs the Ux U3O8 index, a weekly uranium price tracker) to start offering monthly contracts of 250 lbs of yellowcake. There have also been rumblings recently about possibly introducing physical uranium contracts on the London Metals Exchange.
Still, the traditional way to access uranium is to go to the source: the mining companies. These include the big guys like BHP Billiton (BHP) and Rio Tinto (RTP), as well as several mid-tier and junior miners like Uranium One (UUU) and Denison Mines (DML).
Another big name is Cameco (CCJ), the world's largest uranium producer, which furnishes 20% of all mined uranium. The company operates the McArthur River Mine - the planet's biggest deposit of high-grade uranium - and the Cigar Lake Mine, its largest undeveloped deposit. And if that wasn't enough, Cameco also runs the Key Lake and Rabbit Lake Mills, the world's largest and second-largest uranium milling operations, respectively.
Cameco's 100-day volatility of 44% isn't atypical for a single stock, but it's a wild ride compared with the S&P GSCI's 28%. Still, Cameco looks good; it's definitely profitable, and sits on millions of pounds of proven uranium reserves.
Plus, the company still struggles with production setbacks from a 2006 flood of its Cigar Lake Mine, which will probably affect the company's earnings for the next few years. This now makes it a great time to buy for long investors: With uranium demand ever growing, once Cameco recovers, it should move back up in a big way.
Another pure-play is United States Enrichment Corporation (USU). The company supplies low-enriched uranium to commercial nuclear power plants, through the U.S.' only enrichment facility and contract with Russia to reclaim uranium from old Soviet-era weaponry. But a major technology overhaul called the American Centrifuge Project - which was supposed to increase USEC's efficiency - is running well behind schedule and over budget.
One last note: Fans of uranium should keep a close watch on thorium prices. Thorium, which can also be used as nuclear fuel, is safer, cleaner, more abundant and more efficient as a fuel source than uranium, and many experts suspect the mineral may be the next big step in nuclear power. So depending on how long you want to go, now could be an excellent time to get into thorium companies, like Thorium Power (THPW).
Links
World Nuclear Association
Sean K
Moderator
- Joined
- 21 April 2006
- Posts
- 22,018
- Reactions
- 11,005
Re: MTN - Marathon Resources
They seem to be in real trouble at Mt Gee.
I have my tail between my legs having assumed that Rann would support anything to bring in some taxes, but the greenies seem to be winning the battle. Damn those vegetarians!!!!!
(What type of hairy rat are they trying to save? F'ing rediculous really. We find and destroy a species almost every day. We will go soon in comparitive terms!!!)
Can't see what this has to do with MTN's current state of affairs, which is beyond supply/demand and U3O8 price etc....Uranium Finally Wins Favor with Greenies
posted on: April 02, 2008 | about stocks: BHP / CCJ / RTP
They seem to be in real trouble at Mt Gee.
I have my tail between my legs having assumed that Rann would support anything to bring in some taxes, but the greenies seem to be winning the battle. Damn those vegetarians!!!!!
(What type of hairy rat are they trying to save? F'ing rediculous really. We find and destroy a species almost every day. We will go soon in comparitive terms!!!)
Re: MTN - Marathon Resources
Theo,
The heads of Greenpeace often go on to become highly-paid consultants to government and industry. They speak for 'the greenies' in the same way that Kevin Rudd speaks for the working class. Sort of / somewhat / sometimes. I wouldn't get my knickers in a twist about it!
Also, advocating nuclear power in nations that already have the power plants operating is one thing. Building new stations and starting an industry in countries that have none is quite another. As any Australian should be acutely aware. Perhaps you might want to read the ACF's Ian Lowe?
But, most importantly, Uranium has nowt to do with the Arkaroola issue.
'The greenies' would be as opposed to a project at Mount Gee if it was a bauxite mine, a hot-rock drill site, or a wind farm (or solar array for that matter!). Or another telescope - it's a great site for it, after all.
They think the place is to important in itself to be stuffed around with.
Hard to fathom, I know! But this is why even a blatantly anti-green and pro-nuclear conservative geologist like Ian Plimer totally opposes this project
Theo,
The heads of Greenpeace often go on to become highly-paid consultants to government and industry. They speak for 'the greenies' in the same way that Kevin Rudd speaks for the working class. Sort of / somewhat / sometimes. I wouldn't get my knickers in a twist about it!
Also, advocating nuclear power in nations that already have the power plants operating is one thing. Building new stations and starting an industry in countries that have none is quite another. As any Australian should be acutely aware. Perhaps you might want to read the ACF's Ian Lowe?
But, most importantly, Uranium has nowt to do with the Arkaroola issue.
'The greenies' would be as opposed to a project at Mount Gee if it was a bauxite mine, a hot-rock drill site, or a wind farm (or solar array for that matter!). Or another telescope - it's a great site for it, after all.
They think the place is to important in itself to be stuffed around with.
Hard to fathom, I know! But this is why even a blatantly anti-green and pro-nuclear conservative geologist like Ian Plimer totally opposes this project
Re: MTN - Marathon Resources
MTN sp seems to be holding around $1.90 now.
A message to the greenies : 1 pellet of uranium (about a teaspoon)
could power a "McMansion" for a year. Most of the world's elecricity comes from coal - Imagine how much C02 the Uranium at Mt Gee could displace
We must ensure the mine follows the highest standards - however it must be said that mining Mt Gee's uranium is good for the environment.
____
Cheers,
PETEAI
MTN sp seems to be holding around $1.90 now.
A message to the greenies : 1 pellet of uranium (about a teaspoon)
could power a "McMansion" for a year. Most of the world's elecricity comes from coal - Imagine how much C02 the Uranium at Mt Gee could displace
We must ensure the mine follows the highest standards - however it must be said that mining Mt Gee's uranium is good for the environment.
____
Cheers,
PETEAI
Re: MTN - Marathon Resources
MTN sp increasing appears to be associated with the action on PRZ side, as predicted. There appears to be a relationship as envisaged some time ago. My 2 theories appear to be working so far (see my recent posts). Reading these two companies' announcements carefully, it is difficult not to find a relationship, but DYOR.
Regards,
Dratoz
MTN sp increasing appears to be associated with the action on PRZ side, as predicted. There appears to be a relationship as envisaged some time ago. My 2 theories appear to be working so far (see my recent posts). Reading these two companies' announcements carefully, it is difficult not to find a relationship, but DYOR.
Regards,
Dratoz
Re: MTN - Marathon Resources
peteai
if you can find any 'greenies' currently protesting U mines not in unique high-conservation value areas i suggest you go and tell the teaspoon story to them (roxby, beverley, beverley 4 mile, honeymoon etc.)
they'll, of course, tell you about carbon-intensive production (roxby is set to consume half the state's electricity - where's that going to come from? currently it's coming from the playford very-dirty coal-fired power plant, isn't it?), nuclear electricity only ever being cost-effective due to massive state-subsidies, new plants requiring huge carbon inputs and taking forever to come online (thereby blowing any chance to save the world via carbon-substitution), diversion to weapons (read 'deception') and, of course, they'll ask you where the waste is going to go and who's going to pay for (and power) it being safely contained for 1000s of years
then they'll mention the opportunity cost of powering the nuclear behemoth for $squillions rather than funding something that's actually affordable clean and safe
one could go on, the debate will run forever - at least until all the accessible U3O8 in the non-sanctuary deposits listed above has been extracted and shipped somewhere (so, yay, nuke investors get to make truckloads of dollars - which, let's face it, is what it's really about, not saving the world - and they'll make it not digging up sanctuaries)
and on current trends during the whole period carbon outputs will continue to rise each year, perhaps marginally less sharply than they might have, though this is debatable, too
to many 'the highest environmental standards' means not going into areas like the heart of the arkaroola sanctuary in the first place
so say all the 'rabid greenies' - such as nick minchin and ian plimer - along, i'd wager, with the majority of the south australian public capable of forming opinions beyond who should go next on 'the biggest loser'
and where precisely do the 22 800 bags of dumped waste and the barrels dumped at hodgkinsons 2 years ago fit into your best practice scenario?
well, if you will post glib comments...
peteai
if you can find any 'greenies' currently protesting U mines not in unique high-conservation value areas i suggest you go and tell the teaspoon story to them (roxby, beverley, beverley 4 mile, honeymoon etc.)
they'll, of course, tell you about carbon-intensive production (roxby is set to consume half the state's electricity - where's that going to come from? currently it's coming from the playford very-dirty coal-fired power plant, isn't it?), nuclear electricity only ever being cost-effective due to massive state-subsidies, new plants requiring huge carbon inputs and taking forever to come online (thereby blowing any chance to save the world via carbon-substitution), diversion to weapons (read 'deception') and, of course, they'll ask you where the waste is going to go and who's going to pay for (and power) it being safely contained for 1000s of years
then they'll mention the opportunity cost of powering the nuclear behemoth for $squillions rather than funding something that's actually affordable clean and safe
one could go on, the debate will run forever - at least until all the accessible U3O8 in the non-sanctuary deposits listed above has been extracted and shipped somewhere (so, yay, nuke investors get to make truckloads of dollars - which, let's face it, is what it's really about, not saving the world - and they'll make it not digging up sanctuaries)
and on current trends during the whole period carbon outputs will continue to rise each year, perhaps marginally less sharply than they might have, though this is debatable, too
to many 'the highest environmental standards' means not going into areas like the heart of the arkaroola sanctuary in the first place
so say all the 'rabid greenies' - such as nick minchin and ian plimer - along, i'd wager, with the majority of the south australian public capable of forming opinions beyond who should go next on 'the biggest loser'
and where precisely do the 22 800 bags of dumped waste and the barrels dumped at hodgkinsons 2 years ago fit into your best practice scenario?
well, if you will post glib comments...
Re: MTN - Marathon Resources
Hi bztm,
I posted the comment to provoke some discussion and admit its more complicated that what can be covered in a few lines.
Nuclear weapons is the biggest issue for me. My counter is that stopping 1 mine will never stop a state building a bomb. As Iran shows getting the technology is the much bigger hurdle than getting the raw U. I would even agree with stopping all mining of U if it would stop bombs - but even that wouldn't stop them because the genie is out of the bottle.
However I will say that we approaching a world wide energy crunch. And global warming will exaccerbate this by taking out the high carbon solutions or at least making them very expensive so many governments are looking to nuclear to fill a gap in their energy supply. Nuclear is getting cheaper & safer & will get a boost once the recent focus gets the best engineers to apply the latest technogies.
As for the waste, it is the high level waste that is the problem and that is mostly the pellets - i.e powering a McMansion for a year also roughly produces a teaspoon of high level waste. And high level waste decays quickly (the decay cause the radiation) so the 1000s of years is refering to low level waste.
Mentioning the electricity consumption at Roxby is misleading because U is a by product (it is at very low concentrations - probably too low to be economical except for the fact that they are mining for other minerals)
Cheers
PETEAI
Hi bztm,
I posted the comment to provoke some discussion and admit its more complicated that what can be covered in a few lines.
Nuclear weapons is the biggest issue for me. My counter is that stopping 1 mine will never stop a state building a bomb. As Iran shows getting the technology is the much bigger hurdle than getting the raw U. I would even agree with stopping all mining of U if it would stop bombs - but even that wouldn't stop them because the genie is out of the bottle.
However I will say that we approaching a world wide energy crunch. And global warming will exaccerbate this by taking out the high carbon solutions or at least making them very expensive so many governments are looking to nuclear to fill a gap in their energy supply. Nuclear is getting cheaper & safer & will get a boost once the recent focus gets the best engineers to apply the latest technogies.
As for the waste, it is the high level waste that is the problem and that is mostly the pellets - i.e powering a McMansion for a year also roughly produces a teaspoon of high level waste. And high level waste decays quickly (the decay cause the radiation) so the 1000s of years is refering to low level waste.
Mentioning the electricity consumption at Roxby is misleading because U is a by product (it is at very low concentrations - probably too low to be economical except for the fact that they are mining for other minerals)
Cheers
PETEAI
- Joined
- 1 February 2007
- Posts
- 1,068
- Reactions
- 0
Re: MTN - Marathon Resources
WOW..what a mighty fall for Marathon from its heyday.
Sub $1 now today.
Anyone still holding (and praying) with this stock?
Can't blame you for being quiet about it
WOW..what a mighty fall for Marathon from its heyday.
Sub $1 now today.
Anyone still holding (and praying) with this stock?
Can't blame you for being quiet about it
Re: MTN - Marathon Resources
Continues to plummet, now 82c. Heck, Buttermere's 68c offer 2 years ago appears within reach. (not currently holding).
WOW..what a mighty fall for Marathon from its heyday.
Sub $1 now today.
Anyone still holding (and praying) with this stock?
Can't blame you for being quiet about it
Continues to plummet, now 82c. Heck, Buttermere's 68c offer 2 years ago appears within reach. (not currently holding).