Found this article on Bloomberg, quoting from "The Australian"
Whilst not specific to PEN, I feel that it gives a good run down of the current U308 market, and possibly a glimpse into the short term future for the the price.
One question though, with todays announcement re Blackrock, does anyone know if the entire contract renegotiated, including the price paid per pound?
If Gus and the crew have managed to keep the $70/lb, (from memory), sale price, then surely this is a master stroke.
Re the article though, I think that the statement re deaths due to radiation exposure in hospitals being greater than the number of deaths caused by Fukishima and Chernoble is utter nonsense. A bit like saying "show me one death certificate that lists the cause of death as smoking"
Ciao Jewels.
October 14, 2013 12:00AM Source: TheAustralian
IT has been suggested that the new fracking boom will deliver such a bounty of cheap gas that nuclear power will be doomed, and that government support for renewables will deliver a coup de grace to nuclear's ambitions. These suggestions are usually accompanied by scaremongering about safety, implying it would be a good idea if nuclear was to be swiftly dispatched by these alternatives.Cheap gas means that new nuclear power supplies are unlikely to be competitive in the US market. However, it is simply wrong to draw the implication that nuclear power will therefore be phased out.Reactors are characterised by large upfront capital costs followed by very low marginal operating costs. So while you wouldn't want to build any new ones in the face of cheap gas, you would continue to operate the old ones for as long as you could.That is what is likely to happen.Moreover, the economics are different in China, where cheap gas is not likely to be available and the capital costs of reactors are significantly lower, making nuclear the cheapest option. Although renewables share a low carbon footprint with nuclear power, they are not only more expensive but they are not available on demand. On a cold, calm winter's night, they provide zero power.Nuclear remains the only viable option for zero-emission baseload power.Again, China provides the best example: there, wind power exhibits less than 20 per cent capacity utilisation, making the real cost very expensive.There is little recognition of the huge strides made in designing inherently safer reactors.The three widely quoted disasters -- Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima -- were all second-generation reactors.All new reactors will be third-generation or higher. It is a bit like criticising Boeing's Dreamliner on the basis of the De Havilland Comet's safety record. Some perspective on associated fatalities is also required.Direct deaths from radiation exposure at nuclear-reactor accidents globally probably only amount to about 65 people; no one died in the Three Mile Island accident; and no one has yet died as a result of exposure at Fukushima.More people have died as a result of exposure to excess radiation in hospitals.The huge numbers attributed to nuclear accidents simply assumes that very low-level exposure spread across a large population results in a significant number of cancer cases -- a claim for which there is no evidence.Uranium spruikers have been talking up its prospects for almost two years, all while the price has steadily declined.However, the cynics that do their forecasting with a rearview mirror and a ruler, and see no recovery in sight, are likely to be proved just as wrong.With the spot price languishing around US$35/lb, new supply simply won't be forthcoming, regardless of new "discoveries".On the demand side, 70 new reactors are under construction. Every new reactor requires about three years of fuel to fill the core for the first time and more as stock for enrichment and fuel-rod fabrication.In other words, there is a wave of demand coming, mostly from China, and the rearview mirror experts will miss it, just like they missed the beginning of the iron ore boom 10 years ago.The impact of temporary and permanent reactor closures in Japan and Germany after Fukushima was the equivalent of cutting global demand for uranium by 14 per cent.The megatons to megawatts program, which has already made its last shipment, is likely to reduce supply by a little less than 10 per cent, which will not be enough to bring the market back into balance.However, add into the mix Japanese reactor restarts, which will commence gradually next year, and the impact of stock building for start-ups, and the expectation is for aggregate undersupply next year.The key unknown factor is the extent of existing physical uranium stocks and the behaviour of their holders when the market tightens.Distressed stockholders -- such as Japanese utilities -- may decide to unwind excessive debt by selling stock as the market improves, but as soon as prices show sustained upward momentum, stocks held become a good investment.Those who say that uranium prices could never double clearly don't remember what happened in iron ore; prices effectively doubled between 2004 and 2006 and then kept on rising, despite the pundits claiming that it couldn't last.The same fundamental drivers characterise the uranium market, with inexorably rising demand from China coming up against excessively long lead times on the supply side.The difference is that, unlike steel manufacturers, who were price sensitive, reactor operators are not because uranium is only a small fraction of their costs, and that is why the uranium market will be "iron ore on steroids".Julian Tapp is chief executive of Energy and Minerals Australia, a uranium development company. He was formerly head of government relations and then director of strategy at Fortescue Metals Group, and before that was an economist with BAE Systems, BP and Ford.
-
See more at:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...y-e6frg9if-1226739255591#sthash.qDlcun66.dpuf