http://tradetech.com/alankew said:
Uranium, a Raging Bull
- Thread starter Yippyio
- Start date
Morgan said:Deftear,
This week's "Bulletin" discusses most of the questions that you have mentioned.
Thanks Morgan, I'll have to check it out then.
I also agree with Kennas, just imo I was thinking of riding the bull for awhile thinking that it will crash with an oversupply glut in the medium term. I do have a lot more research to do into it however and just gut feelings in regard to the large number of uranium juniors in the asx and tsx.
- Joined
- 1 May 2006
- Posts
- 561
- Reactions
- 0
Nizar thanks for the reply,is uranium only priced once a week aor is it traded like other commodities
Hi Kennas,kennas said:
I've noticed that a lot of uranium explorers with land in WA have been going up lately. One day the WA Government might change its mind. As previously stated, VMS also has areas in SA and Tas (no uranium ground in Tas for VMS).
Thanks for your thoughts.
As always, do your own research before buy/selling.
alankew said:
Uranium does not trade on an open market like other commodities. Buyers and sellers negotiate contracts privately. Prices are published by independent market consultants Ux Consulting and TradeTech. These consultants deal with different clients, and the average sale price is what is reported weekly. This is why the prices from these 2 sources are often not the same, but similar.
Ux Consulting Company
$62.50 US$/lb
Npv 13, 2006
TradeTech
$61.00 US$/lb
Nov 10, 2006
- Joined
- 1 May 2006
- Posts
- 561
- Reactions
- 0
Thanks Nizar
- Joined
- 1 April 2006
- Posts
- 509
- Reactions
- 0
Plan to export enriched uranium
Dennis Shanahan and Joseph Kerr
November 21, 2006
AUSTRALIA could quadruple the value of its uranium exports to $2.4 billion a year by enriching uranium oxide before sending it overseas.
The federal Government's energy inquiry report, to be released today, has found "nuclear power can play a role in Australia's future electricity generation mix" on cost and environmental grounds.
The Government has been advised that the strongly growing global demand for uranium for nuclear power is a significant opportunity for Australia.
The nuclear options inquiry, headed by former Telstra chief Ziggy Switkowski, finds the $573 million worth of uranium oxide exported last year could have been "transformed into a further $1.8 billion in value after conversion, enrichment and fuel fabrication".
But the report warns of "very significant" investment and technology obstacles to the development of uranium enrichment capacity.
Australia is home to more than a third of the world's known low-cost uranium deposits - much of it at BHP Billiton's Olympic Dam mine in outback South Australia - but uranium oxide is sent to countries such as the US and France to be enriched for use in nuclear power plants.
On the question of cost, the report estimates nuclear power would be 20 to 50 per cent more expensive than coal-fired power stations "if pollution, including carbon dioxide emissions, is not priced". However, when the cost of carbon reduction to cut emissions is taken into account, nuclear power becomes competitive with coal energy.
The report finds nuclear power "is the least cost, low-emission technology that can provide baseload power available today and can play a role in Australia's future generation mix".
A discussion paper by the Energy Reform Infrastructure Group says Australia will need to more than double current existing electricity supply by 2050 to meet growing demand.
Ron Oxburgh, chairman of the British House of Lords science and technology committee and former chairman of Shell Oil, said yesterday that nuclear plants were now much cheaper and faster to build and nuclear power could be available within five years.
He said most nuclear power plants operating today were designed before the computer age. "Today, because there is a lot of prefabrication, you can now build one of these things in 4 1/2 years," Lord Oxburgh told ABC radio.
John Howard commissioned the nulear energy review amid a fierce debate on climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. The Prime Minister has argued nuclear power is "clean and green" and being used increasingly overseas to generate electricity, with China expected to rely heavily on it as its economy grows in coming decades.
The Labor Party is opposed to nuclear power in Australia and the creation of a uranium enrichment industry, although it is likely to lift its limits on uranium mining at the ALP national conference next year.
The US has been opposed to the idea of countries such as Australia joining the tight club of countries able to carry out uranium enrichment.
Once developed, the technology can be used to enrich material to the point where it can be used in a nuclear warhead. Some critics view this as a key weapons proliferation risk. But, keen to reduce Australia's heavy reliance on greenhouse-gas-creating fossil fuels, the Government is understood to want to consider enrichment.
Senior figures wanted the Switkowski review to make its findings without being hamstrung by political pressure.
The review is understood to have looked favourably on a submission from the director-general of the Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office, John Carlson, who argued that Australia could increase uranium mining and exports without raising any new nuclear proliferation risks. Mr Carlson said the next generation of nuclear reactors offered hope for producing power while substantially reducing the long-lived radioactive waste produced by current models.
But he warned that any expansion of Australia's nuclear industry into new phases in the fuel cycle - such as uranium enrichment or nuclear power generation - would require key regulatory changes and a boost in personnel.
Dr Switkowski's report will devote a chapter to the skills and manpower shortages resulting from the long decline of the nation's nuclear industry.
Bertrand Barre, the former director of reactor engineering at the Atomic Energy Commission in France, said yesterday state and federal governments could establish a national nuclear regulator within one to three years - a key precursor for planning to begin on any domestic nuclear power reactors.
Additional reporting: Matthew Warren
Dennis Shanahan and Joseph Kerr
November 21, 2006
AUSTRALIA could quadruple the value of its uranium exports to $2.4 billion a year by enriching uranium oxide before sending it overseas.
The federal Government's energy inquiry report, to be released today, has found "nuclear power can play a role in Australia's future electricity generation mix" on cost and environmental grounds.
The Government has been advised that the strongly growing global demand for uranium for nuclear power is a significant opportunity for Australia.
The nuclear options inquiry, headed by former Telstra chief Ziggy Switkowski, finds the $573 million worth of uranium oxide exported last year could have been "transformed into a further $1.8 billion in value after conversion, enrichment and fuel fabrication".
But the report warns of "very significant" investment and technology obstacles to the development of uranium enrichment capacity.
Australia is home to more than a third of the world's known low-cost uranium deposits - much of it at BHP Billiton's Olympic Dam mine in outback South Australia - but uranium oxide is sent to countries such as the US and France to be enriched for use in nuclear power plants.
On the question of cost, the report estimates nuclear power would be 20 to 50 per cent more expensive than coal-fired power stations "if pollution, including carbon dioxide emissions, is not priced". However, when the cost of carbon reduction to cut emissions is taken into account, nuclear power becomes competitive with coal energy.
The report finds nuclear power "is the least cost, low-emission technology that can provide baseload power available today and can play a role in Australia's future generation mix".
A discussion paper by the Energy Reform Infrastructure Group says Australia will need to more than double current existing electricity supply by 2050 to meet growing demand.
Ron Oxburgh, chairman of the British House of Lords science and technology committee and former chairman of Shell Oil, said yesterday that nuclear plants were now much cheaper and faster to build and nuclear power could be available within five years.
He said most nuclear power plants operating today were designed before the computer age. "Today, because there is a lot of prefabrication, you can now build one of these things in 4 1/2 years," Lord Oxburgh told ABC radio.
John Howard commissioned the nulear energy review amid a fierce debate on climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. The Prime Minister has argued nuclear power is "clean and green" and being used increasingly overseas to generate electricity, with China expected to rely heavily on it as its economy grows in coming decades.
The Labor Party is opposed to nuclear power in Australia and the creation of a uranium enrichment industry, although it is likely to lift its limits on uranium mining at the ALP national conference next year.
The US has been opposed to the idea of countries such as Australia joining the tight club of countries able to carry out uranium enrichment.
Once developed, the technology can be used to enrich material to the point where it can be used in a nuclear warhead. Some critics view this as a key weapons proliferation risk. But, keen to reduce Australia's heavy reliance on greenhouse-gas-creating fossil fuels, the Government is understood to want to consider enrichment.
Senior figures wanted the Switkowski review to make its findings without being hamstrung by political pressure.
The review is understood to have looked favourably on a submission from the director-general of the Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office, John Carlson, who argued that Australia could increase uranium mining and exports without raising any new nuclear proliferation risks. Mr Carlson said the next generation of nuclear reactors offered hope for producing power while substantially reducing the long-lived radioactive waste produced by current models.
But he warned that any expansion of Australia's nuclear industry into new phases in the fuel cycle - such as uranium enrichment or nuclear power generation - would require key regulatory changes and a boost in personnel.
Dr Switkowski's report will devote a chapter to the skills and manpower shortages resulting from the long decline of the nation's nuclear industry.
Bertrand Barre, the former director of reactor engineering at the Atomic Energy Commission in France, said yesterday state and federal governments could establish a national nuclear regulator within one to three years - a key precursor for planning to begin on any domestic nuclear power reactors.
Additional reporting: Matthew Warren
Sean K
Moderator
- Joined
- 21 April 2006
- Posts
- 22,018
- Reactions
- 11,006
Could be a fiesta for U shares today after the release of this paper.
:band
:band
- Joined
- 26 October 2006
- Posts
- 327
- Reactions
- 0
kennas said:
One can only hope! What are your thoughts on the impact of the current Labor leadership destabilasation on the long-term picture for U, Kennas? Is it positive/negative or just a case of 'deck-chairs on the Titanic'?
Sean K
Moderator
- Joined
- 21 April 2006
- Posts
- 22,018
- Reactions
- 11,006
Good question Gurgler. I've been thinking about this myself. Firstly, I can not see Labor changing their leader at this stage. It would be political suicide. They could not win the next election by changing so late in the game. Having said that, if they did, and say Rudd was the elected sacrificial lamb, then I think this will still be OK as I think Rudd is a pragmatist and will end up seeing the illogicality (is that a word) of the no new mines policy. I think Ferguson is quite a powerful person in the party too, and will play a significant role in any shake up, and he is clearly behind a change of policy. So, I don't think it will be too much of an issue. Labor, must be unified about this policy for them to have a chance to win the election, and since Bomber has stated he wants a change, and he will probably still be leader, I think it'll get up.Gurgler said:
i think the way Howard has manouvered the U debate... anyone opposing U and still puporting to be green will be comitting politcal suicide...
Labor is going to have no option but to change (atleast the mining policy) if they want to remain relevant.
Labor is going to have no option but to change (atleast the mining policy) if they want to remain relevant.
Rafa said:
Don't quite know about that. I think most people can see right through Howard attempt to be green. The way he's been flogging the uranium industry stinks of corporate bias. I think the 3 mines policy is outdated but we don't need N power in this country. There is still a huge question mark over nuclear energy and i am sceptical about this report commissioned by the government. Ontario state in Canada is in huge debt because their reactors breakdown all the time a it literally ends up costing billions to fix the problems. Then there is the waste issue and the ongoing cost for the next couple of million years dealing with that. Finally why is Germany decomissioning all there reactors it certainly raises questions about the viability of the industry. We should be exhausting all other avenues before we blindly switch to Nuclear.
Sean K
Moderator
- Joined
- 21 April 2006
- Posts
- 22,018
- Reactions
- 11,006
How old are the plants that keep breaking down Bill? Probably 20+ years. That's why. The waste? Bury it in a safe spot (under Uluru will do) and there is no waste. The safeguards they will have on modern reactors will ensure they don't spontaneously combust. The biggest risk at the moment is inaction. Burning fossell fuels is killing the planet. Change now, or the earth dies.billhill said:
- Joined
- 18 February 2006
- Posts
- 4,200
- Reactions
- 2
kennas said:
:iagree:
And to anyone who disagrees I would ask a very simple question, Have you been to China in the last 3 years to see what their skies look like given that they aren't using 'big bad nuclear power' but instead are using 'eco friendly and clean coal power' ?
If your answer is no, then try and find some pics and get some statistics on what Fossil Fuels are doing to the planet,
Oh right I forgot we can rely on wind and solar power, lets just hope the wind is always blowing and the sun is always shining
billhill said:
wishfull thinking...
howard is smarter than all of us put together...
evidence: previous election campaigns and the results...
kennas, your are right... burning fossil fuels kill the planet...
however, they estimate 7 years of fossil fuels need to be burnt to get enriched uranium, and about 5-10 years to build a plant...
so about 17 years of fossil fuels burning is still needed...
still, as this is the stock forum...
No, i don't see a risk in labor not scrapping the 3 mines policy (at the very least)... to do any thing else would be politcal suicide.
YOUNG_TRADER said::iagree:
And to anyone who disagrees I would ask a very simple question, Have you been to China in the last 3 years to see what their skies look like given that they aren't using 'big bad nuclear power' but instead are using 'eco friendly and clean coal power' ?
If your answer is no, then try and find some pics and get some statistics on what Fossil Fuels are doing to the planet,
Oh right I forgot we can rely on wind and solar power, lets just hope the wind is always blowing and the sun is always shining
Dont be so quick to bag wind power.
I reckon its the way of the future future. After uranium and thorium is depleted LOL.
Its already used extensively in parts of Europe.
And YT, congrats with what uv made with yourself, already playing with 100k parcels and globe-trotting at 22. Thats Respect.
- Joined
- 26 October 2006
- Posts
- 327
- Reactions
- 0
YOUNG_TRADER said:
YT I am currently in BEIJING but returning to my base in near Shanghai on Friday. I get to travel around a bit and although they are cleaning up the skies in BJ (pre-2008) there are plenty of other cities struggling under the cloud of carbon emmissions (Wuhan is a clear example).
But the "good news' is that with about 20 reactors functioning now and more in the pipeline, (two planned in the sea off Shanghai) there will be huge demand for fueling them in the future. Either side of politics must see the writing's on the wall, at least from a future trade position - and we are told the FTA is on track.
I quote:
"China's nuclear-power market is growing faster than any other in the world. The four planned reactors are the first of more than 20 in a $54 billion push to quadruple Chinese nuclear-power capacity by 2020 – an effort to ease power shortages in an economy that grew 9.5 percent last year. "
( see link: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/200306China.htm)
Kennas said:
Yes the plants are old and yes any new ones will be much better but what are the chances of these N plants not having any quite expensive problems over their lifetime. I agree something needs to be done about the carbon problem but is it really worth rushing into another solution with just as bad a history. Perhaps we will require N power to curb greenhouse gases but at what price. You still cant safely store the waste ( mind you if they just blasted it into space problem solved).
YOUNG_TRADER said:
The wind does always blow high up in the stratosphere with more force then we see on the ground and the suns energy can be stored and released at night to provide baseload power. People are too quick to discount other technologies as not the answer. A bit of intuition and humans can do anything.
i certainly agree, there are lot better techonologies out there... geothermal is another one...
however, corporates love Uranium...
the big miners love Uranium
and the Oz Govt. loves Uranium...
we don't always get whats best for us... there is a lot of politics and lobby groups and business interest groups at work here...
personally, i am against Uranium, but as a trader, if your not on the Uranium band wagon, you will be left behind with underperforming stocks...
however, corporates love Uranium...
the big miners love Uranium
and the Oz Govt. loves Uranium...
we don't always get whats best for us... there is a lot of politics and lobby groups and business interest groups at work here...
personally, i am against Uranium, but as a trader, if your not on the Uranium band wagon, you will be left behind with underperforming stocks...
Tidal Power is also an interesting ecofriendly concept:
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/425827/764966
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_power
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/425827/764966
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_power
