Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

PEN - Peninsula Energy

Jump to new
dengo said:
Good luck with that!

"Only 'Unevolved Apes Want Nukes!': Japanese Demand End to Nuclear Era"

https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/06/02-0
Click to expand...

A dodgy website at best. Bans users and removes comments that speak out against their propaganda. Cherry picks snippets of articles to 'present' its point of view..... Its supposed to be a progressive site but its not big on free speach !!!
 
"What Happens When Our Nuclear-Power Fleet Is Older Than You Are?

...In the coming years, as the rest of the aging U.S. nuclear fleet starts to push 50, 60, and beyond, worrisome questions will arise. How long can nuclear facilities operate safely or economically?

...In the coming years, as electricity demand grows and more nuclear plants shut down, the bulk of that capacity is likely to be filled by coal and natural-gas plants."

http://news.yahoo.com/happens-nuclear-power-fleet-older-115845145.html
 
dengo said:
You have missed the boat!
Click to expand...

If any more nuke's come on line they will be swamped by others shutting down!

"Germany is shutting its entire fleet and switching to renewables. France, once the poster child for the global reactor industry, is following suit. South Korea has just shut three due to fraudulent safety procedures. Massive demonstrations rage against reactors being built in India. Only the Koreans, Chinese and Russians remain at all serious about pushing ahead with this tragic technology.

Cheap gas has undercut the short-term market for expensive electricity generated by obsolete coal and nuke burners. But the vision of Solartopia””a totally green-powered Earth””is now our tangible long-term reality."

http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/06/07/san-onofre-nuke-plant-is-dead/
 
dengo said:
You are a delusional fantasist
There never will be a demand spike for nuclear energy
You have missed the boat!

http://wyomingpublicmedia.org/post/wyoming-may-have-missed-uranium-boom
Click to expand...

yes Vintage, keep going with your anti-U stance you tree-hugging hippy. to quote someone i'm sure you know well "the times, they are a-changing" - but not the way you think.

"Wyoming may have missed the Uranium boom" - key word "may". That article targets the long wait times for permits in Wyoming and is a nudge for the authorities to get their act together, they missed the last boom - hurry up so you don't miss the next.
Another phrase: "Cameco will now aim to increase production to about 36 million pounds of yellowcake by 2018…rather than the previously announced 40 million pounds." - key word "increase" an increase to 36 down from 40 is still an INCREASE, now why would they "increase" production if there is no need? and of course cameco wants to install fear into their opposition with a bit of down talk, so they can dominate the market, that's why they're talking the price down but still increasing production.

another article: http://www.energytribune.com/77506/...-uranium-sector#sthash.2BmUYXNA.ynskryFZ.dpbs
"While the world’s nuclear power generators will require more than 66,000 tons of uranium this year, current global mine production is only 55,000 tons, the minister, Gary Gray, told the Australian Uranium Association Thursday. - now, why would a country that's been so anti U for so long all of a sudden want to get into the market??? to be ready for the demand spike and the revenue generated.

what about the potential use of U for space exploration - the next frontier:
http://www.space.com/20609-nuclear-fusion-rocket-mars.html

you keep posting the anti U articles and i'll keep posting the pro-U articles - time will be the judge, not you and your ranting and downramping.

the signs are there, maybe you need to get down from the treehouse and have a look:
http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/...-nuclear-in-pandoras-promise-trailer-20130430
and
http://www.ecolo.org/

i noticed you no longer post on topstocks - did the lawyers shut you down like they did to you on HC? i would have thought you would have learnt your lesson.

have a good weekend, i know i will, i'm on holidays for 4 weeks and off to the States and Mexico. maybe i'll stop in and have a cuppa with your buddies over there.
 
colossus said:
actually, maybe it's not vintage. does dengo = tseeker? that could be more like it i think.
Click to expand...

Dengo, your obviously anti-nuclear/Uranium. Do you spend as much time on other Uranium companies threads telling people the same things you do on the PEN thread? If not, then why not? Why concentrate on PEN so much? Would you not be better off on a general Uranium thread? I'm not having a go, am just trying to understand why you care so much about us PEN'ers? We all realise its a risk stock but we are all grown ups..
 
I must admit, with things getting this feisty, it bodes well for PEN - no one would be interested in this "dog" otherwise.
 
dengo said:
Good luck with that!

"Only 'Unevolved Apes Want Nukes!': Japanese Demand End to Nuclear Era"

https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/06/02-0
Click to expand...

dengo ,you are so full of yourself!!full of farts!!heheheh.

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/japans-radiation-disaster-toll-none-dead-none-sick-20130604-2nomz.html

The nuclear debate shouldn't end with Fukushima fear.


inShare
submit to redditEmail articlePrintReprints & permissions
Heard much about Fukushima lately? You know, the disaster that spread deadly contamination across Japan and spelt the end for the nuclear industry.

You should have, because recent authoritative reports have reached a remarkable conclusion about a supposedly "deadly" disaster. No one died, nor is likely to die, according to the most comprehensive assessments since the Fukushima nuclear plant was hit by a massive earthquake and tsunami in March 2011.

The accident competed for media space with the deaths of nearly 20,000 people in the magnitude 9.0 quake – 1000 times worse than the Christchurch quake – and tsunami, which wholly or partly destroyed more than a million buildings.

The nuclear workers were the living dead, we were told; hundreds of thousands would die if the plant exploded; even if that didn't happen, affected areas would be uninhabitable and residents' health would suffer for generations.

Advertisement
Instead, two independent international reports conclude that radiative material released from Fukushima's four damaged reactors, three of which melted down, has had negligible health impacts.

In February, the World Health Organisation reported there would be no noticeable increases in cancer rates for the overall population. A third of emergency workers were at some increased risk.

While infants in two localised hot spots were likely to have a 6 per cent relative increase in female breast cancer and 7 per cent relative increase in male leukaemia, WHO cautioned this was a small change. The lifetime risk of thyroid cancer, which is treatable, is only 0.75 per cent, so even in the worst-affected location it rose to only 1.25 per cent.

Now the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation has drawn on 80 scientists from 18 countries to produce a draft report that concludes: "Radiation exposure following the nuclear accident at Fukushima-Daiichi did not cause any immediate health effects. It is unlikely to be able to attribute any health effects in the future among the general public and the vast majority of workers."

The committee has had two years to build a fuller picture of radiation dosages (measured as mSv) and impacts. It finds most Japanese in the first and second years were exposed to lower doses from the accident than from natural background radiation's 2-3 mSv a year.

Also, "No radiation-related deaths or acute effects have been observed among nearly 25,000 workers involved at the accident site. Given the small number of highly exposed workers, it is unlikely that excess cases of thyroid cancer due to radiation exposure would be detectable."

Those workers, who were allowed a maximum short-term dose of 250 mSv, have been closely monitored. Of 167 exposed to more than the industry's recommended five-year limit of 100 mSv (a CT scan exposes patients to up to 10 mSv), 23 recorded 150-200 mSv, three 200-250 mSv and six up to 678 mSv, still short of the 1000 mSv single dosage that causes radiation sickness, or the accumulated exposure estimated to cause a fatal cancer years later in 5 per cent of people.

So, not even one case of radiation sickness to report.

A swift evacuation of 200,000 residents within a 20-kilometre radius of the plant helped protect them – WHO estimated most residents of Fukushima prefecture received doses of 1-10 mSv in the first year. By August 2011, however, the dose rate at the plant boundary was only 1.7 mSv a year.

The rapid decay of most of the radioactive material (iodine-131, which reduced to a 16th of its original activity in a month) also means the evacuated area has not been permanently blighted. Many residents have returned, although some areas have restricted entry until radiation drops below the 20 mSv-a-year threshold, expected in 2016-17.

Nor has the environment been devastated. The report says: "The exposures on both marine and terrestrial non-human biota were too low for observable acute effects."

The quake and tsunami damage is the real catastrophe.

About 1000 deaths have been attributed to evacuations. About 90 per cent were people older than 66, who suffered from the trauma of evacuation and living in shelters. Sadly, those of them who left areas where radiation was no greater than in naturally high background areas would have been better off staying.

Let's be clear, Fukushima was hit by a worst-case scenario: the world's fifth-most-powerful earthquake since 1900, a tsunami twice as high as the plant was built to withstand, and follow-up quakes of magnitudes 7.1 and 6.3. A Japanese commission of inquiry described it as a "man-made disaster" because of regulatory failure and lack of a safety culture.

This "perfect storm" hit a nuclear plant built to a 50-year-old design and no one died. Japan moved a few metres east during a three-minute quake and the local coastline subsided half a metre, but the 11 reactors operating in four nuclear power plants in the region all shut down automatically. None suffered significant damage. (The tsunami disabled Fukushima's cooling system.)

Yet such is the imbalance of dread to risk on matters nuclear that this accident was enough to turn public opinion and governments against nuclear power. Never mind that coal mining kills almost 6000 people a year, or that populations of coal-mining areas have death rates about 10 per cent higher than non-mining areas, or that coal emissions drive global warming.

And surely the fact that the more modern Onagawa nuclear plant was twice as close to the quake epicentre and shut down as designed, without incident, counts for something.

Japan struggled without 30 per cent of its generating capacity for almost two years before electing pro-nuclear Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in December. About 50 reactors are expected to restart within a year. Worldwide, more than 60 plants are being built and 300 are in the licensing process, the strongest growth since the 1970s.

Fukushima was serious, but it was not the end of the debate about nuclear power, nor should it be. And it's hardly an informed debate when the good news about smaller health impacts than anyone dared expect is so widely neglected.

John Watson is a senior writer.

Ads by Google



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/japan...d-none-sick-20130604-2nomz.html#ixzz2Vc3UiBRl
 
dengo said:
You are a delusional fantasist
There never will be a demand spike for nuclear energy
You have missed the boat!

http://wyomingpublicmedia.org/post/wyoming-may-have-missed-uranium-boom
Click to expand...



An interesting article. Pasted the conclusion only below as it is too long.

http://www.kitco.com/ind/Mills/2013-05-31-Civil-Nuclear-Energy-Renaissance-Restart.html

Concerns about climate change, carbon footprints, energy security and the rising cost of fossil fuels spurred a revival of interest in nuclear power generation. In early 2010 we saw the start of a of a global nuclear renaissance. It was derailed by Fukushima-Daiichi.

The nuclear renaissance, and a bull market you should be aware of, have been restarted.

State of nuclear power in the USA

The USA has 104 nuclear power reactors in 31 states. Since 2001 these plants have achieved an average capacity factor of over 90 percent, generating up to 807 billion kWh per year and account for 20 percent of total electricity generated.

In 2012, U.S. suppliers and civilian owner/operators (COO) purchased 56 million pounds U3O8e.

U.S. uranium suppliers:

Australia/Canada - 35 percent
Kazakhstan, Russia and Uzbekistan - 29 percent
Brazil, China, Malawi, Namibia, Niger, South Africa, and Ukraine – 19 percent

Seventeen percent of the U3O8e delivered in 2012 was U.S. uranium, 83 percent was foreign supplied uranium at a weighted-average price of $54.07 per pound - $2.4 billion sent out of the country to foreigners instead of creating new high quality mining, processing and transportation jobs in the U.S.

Ten percent, or just 4.9 million pounds, of the 49 million pounds U3O8e uranium loaded into U.S. civilian nuclear power reactors during 2012 was from U.S. mined uranium, 90 percent was foreign supplied uranium.

According to the World Nuclear Association (WNA) there are plans for 13 new reactors in the U.S., three reactor units are under construction, and as many as six may come online in the next decade for a total of 10,860 MWe.

The U.S. Department of Energy projects that U.S. electricity demand will rise 24 percent by 2035. Maintaining nuclear energy’s current 20 percent share of generation would require building about one reactor per year starting in 2016, or 20 to 25 new units by 2035.

Each GWe (1 megawatt = 0.001 gigawatts) of increased capacity (enough electricity to power one million homes) will require about 200 tU/yr of extra mine production and each reactor about 400-600 tU for the first fuel load.

Under the terms of the 1993 government-to-government nuclear non-proliferation agreement (Megatons to Megawatts program), the United States and Russia agreed to commercially implement a 20 year program to convert 500 metric tons of HEU (uranium 235 enriched to 90 percent) taken from Soviet era warheads, into LEU, low enriched uranium (less than 5 percent uranium 235). The HEU agreement ends late in 2013 and removes 24 million pounds of uranium supply from the U.S. market.

In 2012, the United States mined just 4.1 million pounds of uranium.

Global Demand

Current annual global uranium consumption is 190 million pounds, annual global mine production is 140 million pounds, inventory draw downs, the down-blending of weapons-grade material and the enrichment of tails material are a large portion of supply and currently make up the difference. However with inventories dwindling and the HEU agreement ending, the drying up of most non-mining uranium supply sources seems certain.

NuCap Ltd., a London-based industry consultancy, says the annual consumption of uranium will increase to 265 million pounds by 2020. According to The Australian newspaper global demand for uranium fuel is going to increase to 280 million pounds U308 by 2030.

According to the World Nuclear Association:

There are 439 operating nuclear power plants in the world
62 new plants are currently under construction
139 new plants are in the planning stage
326 new plants are in the proposal stage
China will build 50 new reactors by 2030 - a 500 percent increase over current reactor numbers - and by 2020 be consuming one third of globally mined uranium. The country currently has 26 reactors under construction and plans to increase installed capacity to between 70 and 80 GWe by 2020 and extend its nuclear capacity to 200 GWe by 2030
India is planning to build 35 new reactors, a 150 percent increase

Japan restarted two of its offline reactors in 2012 and is expected to restart another half dozen before the end of 2013.

Security of Supply

“Under the megatons-to-megawatts agreement, the U.S.’s uranium purchases from Russia have consisted entirely of uranium recycled from decommissioned Soviet warheads. This agreement did serve U.S. national security interests for nuclear non-proliferation. However, that agreement expires in 2013, at which time U.S. utilities will purchase Russian uranium from the country’s state-run nuclear company, Rosatom, and its affiliates. This uranium will be sourced from mines, not decommissioned warheads, and will therefore cease to serve any national security interest.

Reliance on the Russian state-run nuclear company for U.S. nuclear fuel supply poses serious challenges in terms of U.S. energy security. For instance, in the winter of 2008-09, the Russian state-run natural gas company, Gazprom, suddenly cut off all natural gas exports to Eastern Europe for more than a month, leaving millions of homes without heat or electricity in the middle of one of the harshest winters in recent history…

Given the growing demand for electricity and the number of new reactor builds planned, it is likely that the markets for uranium will only grow fiercer, placing the U.S. in a precarious position indeed if it does not develop domestic uranium deposits.” Virginia Uranium Inc.

Consider…

The Somair uranium mine in Niger, owned and operated by France's Paris based Areva (a uranium miner and nuclear reactor builder), was very recently the site of a terrorist attack. Areva, the world's leading nuclear company has been working in Niger for more than 40 years and obtains more than 30 percent of its uranium from the country. Areva produced more than 4,500 tonnes of U3O8 from the country in 2012 - 3,000 tonnes coming from Somair. According to the World Nuclear Association Niger ranks fourth in the world for uranium production and accounts for 10 percent of world supply.

Cameco (TSE: CCO), is the world's largest uranium producer and is planning to increase its U.S. production in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming. Cameco president and CEO Tim Gitzel told an audience at the company's 2013 annual general meeting that utilities will need to return to the market soon to full-fill their requirements beyond 2016, this resupply happening just as the Russian Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) agreement ends late 2013. Gitzel also said Cameco, and many other companies, have put their greenfield projects on hold and with little new supply coming on stream the future remains strong for the uranium industry.

Uranium One (TSE: UUU), is one of the world’s largest publicly traded uranium producers with a primary listing on the Toronto Stock Exchange and a secondary listing on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange. Commercial in-situ recovery (ISR) mining has been ongoing in the Powder River Basin since 1987, with production coming from Cameco Resources Inc.’s Smith Ranch-Highland mine in the southern Powder River Basin and from Uranium One’s Willow Creek ISR mine also in the Powder River Basin. Uranium One’s major shareholder (50 percent) is JSC Atomredmetzoloto (ARMZ) which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Rosatom, the Russian State Corporation for Nuclear Energy.

Uranerz Energy Corp. (NYSE: MKT, TSX: URZ) is a U.S. mining company operating in Wyoming’s Powder River Basin where it controls a large strategic land position. URZ is expected to be in production (initial annual recovery targeted for 600,000 to 800,000 pounds after ramp-up) in 2013. Uranerz has a processing deal with Cameco and long term sales contracts for a portion of their production with Exelon (operator of the largest nuclear fleet in the U.S.) and an undisclosed U.S. utility. The Company’s Nichols Ranch ISR uranium project is licensed for a capacity of two million pounds per year of uranium yellowcake.

Conclusion

There is no shortage of uranium in the ground - there is enough to meet expected demand for the foreseeable future. Unfortunately, a lot of it is just not economic to dig up at current prices. Exploration for new deposits seems to be falling drastically and with lead times approaching a decade or more, the mining industry looks like it is not going to have enough supply to meet the increased demand.

Many analysts expect demand to start exceeding supply in early 2014, if so we should soon see spot prices start moving up towards the current long term contract price of roughly $60/lb. Most uranium, 80 to 85 percent, is sold directly under long-term supply contracts between buyers and sellers, just 15-20 percent of uranium is sold at the quoted spot price.

A source of U.S. market vulnerability is the relatively low level of inventories held by buyers and sellers. Supply price shocks and market disruptions could happen if there are problems (terrorist attack, NGO interference, natural disaster) with any of the major supply sources.

In 2012, U.S. suppliers and civilian owner/operators (COO) purchased 56 million pounds U3O8e - the United States mined just 4.1 million pounds of uranium. Current annual global uranium consumption is 190 million pounds, annual global mine production is 140 million pounds, stockpiles are dwindling and the HEU agreement with Russia ends this year.

The inevitable, the unpreventable U.S. and global mined uranium shortage should be on all our radar screens. Is it on yours?

If not, it should be.
 
colossus said:
the indicator used makes a difference i reckon:

View attachment 52680
Click to expand...

The following chart clearly shows yesterday's bearish breakout from the bearish wedge continuation pattern.

The measured move arrow shows the extent of the losses soon to hit the major U producers...

20%

Hmmm, I wonder if the fact that U hit a new 4 year low last week has anything to do with it...

big.chart.gif
 
dengo said:
The following chart clearly shows yesterday's bearish breakout from the bearish wedge continuation pattern.

The measured move arrow shows the extent of the losses soon to hit the major U producers...

20%

Hmmm, I wonder if the fact that U hit a new 4 year low last week has anything to do with it...

View attachment 52715
Click to expand...

wow nice chart, so yesterday it wasn't worth commenting on but now it is - strange you would waste your time??? i couldn't be bothered, and i'm admittedly not a chartist, but i'm sure that others could draw lines on a chart that could/would show a different story.

all the signs are there dengo, just embrace it and get on before it's too late. you don't have to buy pen, any u stock will benefit from the pending boom.
 
dengo;777259 8th-June-2013 said:
The following chart clearly shows yesterday's bearish breakout from the bearish wedge continuation pattern.

The measured move arrow shows the extent of the losses soon to hit the major U producers...

20%

Hmmm, I wonder if the fact that U hit a new 4 year low last week has anything to do with it...

View attachment 52715
Click to expand...

Uranium has fallen to $39.65 now & the major U players are now down 10% since the last chart

a.gif
 
dengo said:
Uranium has fallen to $39.65 now & the major U players are now down 10% since the last chart

View attachment 52975
Click to expand...

dengo what s the big deal-tax loss selling will make your chart shine like gold but I don`t need that chart just common sense and here you are trying to show how good you care??kids stuff dengo.Maybe the manipulator waiting to push the price down for the end of year bonus????
 
colossus said:
wow nice chart, so yesterday it wasn't worth commenting on but now it is - strange you would waste your time??? i couldn't be bothered, and i'm admittedly not a chartist, but i'm sure that others could draw lines on a chart that could/would show a different story.

all the signs are there dengo, just embrace it and get on before it's too late. you don't have to buy pen, any u stock will benefit from the pending boom.
Click to expand...

He got that one right!
 
PDN up 7% on the sniff of some deal being swung this month made me wonder whether it might be time to start looking at some near producing U juniors like PEN.

That thought led me to find out that Commsec's basic site does not show ALL the market depth available or traded.

Commsec shows zero shares traded on PEN today .... but there have been 363,981 shares traded on the parallel Chi-X platform.

Just thought I'd mention it for anyone else who didn't realise they are NOT getting true Market Depth and Course of Sales data with Commsec ..... maybe I should have known:eek:

ps Make that PDN up 8%:eek:
 

Similar threads

bigdog
  • Locked
MEE - Metex Resources
13 14 15
Replies
296
Views
53K
Joe Blow
Joe Blow
prawn_86
BCC - Buccaneer Energy
16 17 18
Replies
341
Views
71K
zzaaxxss3401
Z
YOUNG_TRADER
CNF - Continental Goldfields
2 3
Replies
55
Views
17K
Boyou
Boyou
motion
Uranium in for correction, not a rout
Replies
0
Views
8K
motion
motion
Top