Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Uranium, a Raging Bull

Jump to new
champ2003 said:
Thanks for that Kennas. Very interesting to read that some analysts believe that prices will drop to $40-$70. I don't understand how that could possibly happen with the supply of uranium being so low. With demand so high and supply so tight why would sellers of uranium sell for less???

If anything I think that there will be an enormous panick driven spike which will then correct but still at a much higher price than what it is currently IMO. The price of uranium is about to become alot more volatile very soon however that could mean great things for the juniors in the short to medium term.

Cheers!

Champ
Click to expand...

Perfect...more uncertainty is just the added excitement the whole market needs.Put your hand up if you know what happens next. :cool:
 
kennas said:
For those investing in uranium explorers who will come into production after 2010, it's worthwhile having a more considered appreciation of the future price of uranium which will effect the viability of some juniors.

From an article in the Fin this weekend:

Some analysis are expecting the the creation of a futures market on the Mercentile Exchange to have a significant effect even on the current price. Brian Eley, from Eley-Griffin funds management (not sure of the cred) believes that U prices will settle in a range of $US40-70 lb after the introduction of the NYMEX futures. This is going to put a lot of pressure on junior end of the Australian junior sector.

On the other hand there is conjecture amongst the current producers of where the U price is headed. The ERA CEO reckons there ill be a correction with 5 years, while PDNs says that U price appreciation will be sustained for more than a decade.
Click to expand...

Eley can blow me what a joke.
 
wayneL said:
Uranium futures to begin trading May 7 on Nymex/Globex

It will be interesting to see what sort of liquidity there is. I'm looking forward to it.

http://www.nymex.com/press_releas.aspx?id=pr20070416a
Click to expand...
I like the idea of seeing "liquidity" too.
Given that futures markets continue to ultimately play to the tune of supply and demand, the timing of a uranium futures market might not do consumers any favours: The funds can pre-empt this small market and squeeze it for all its worth.
Although I am not sure what funds would do if they actually had to ever take delivery: It's not like you can just store yellow cake anywhere!
All I can say is that if I were a producer into this market, I would not be considering hedging in the foreseeable future unless the contango was exceptionally favourable in the near term.
 
The position of uranium stocks is quite unique. Demand is ever rising and looks likely to continue for 10 years or more. Uranium prices are sky high and any meaningful find by a junior explorer will send it into the stratosphere.

This all means that XYZ Uranium Ltd., priced at 30cents and with a market cap of $20 million, could rise up to 100 fold. All a massive gamble but the stakes have been raised massively.

Markets may increasingly be unable to put a value on the gamble factor. As with all lotteries, if the top prize was $1 million and it becomes $100 million, then interest goes worldwide.

Buy if you're a gambler and consider your money lost, however, the big prize awaits.
 
Is anyone else here concerned about the apparently inevitable 'Nuclear Future' and Australia's role in it?? :eek:
Especially since increasingly viable alternatives exist. Solar, wind and geothermal all seem to be becoming increasingly viable. (see nuclear power thread)

My concerns are the two obvious ones...
1. Environmental damage from waste. Just need to see what has happened in Russia to get scared about that. Sure we can say new reactors are/will be better and safer - but they all have to shut down sometime. What happens to the waste which nobody wants and the Site when it is too F&*^cked for anyone to go near it!!!
Will we care when our rivers are unsafe to use in any way - no fish; no swimming; no drinking; no irrigating?

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] Radioactivity and Nuclear Waste (in Russia)
from http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/russenv.html
Currently, there are 10 operating nuclear power plants with 30 reactors in Russia, some of which are first generation RBMK reactors similar to the ones that operated in Chernobyl in Ukraine. Although maintenance has improved in recent years and security against terrorist attacks has increased with the cooperation and financial assistance of the United States, the Russian nuclear industry nevertheless continues to register numerous accidents and incidents. The European Union considers the RBMK reactor design to be fundamentally-flawed since it does not have a containment dome. Nevertheless, despite safety concerns, Russia is seeking to extend the operating life of several reactors that are nearing the end of their proscribed operating lifespan, as well as increase the country's nuclear capacity by building 40 new reactors by 2030. [/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]
Radioactive contamination has damaged several regions in Russia. Lake Karachay, adjacent to the Mayak complex in Chelyabinsk, is one example of the nuclear industry's careless past, and is now considered to be one of the most polluted spots on Earth. Lake Karachay has been reported to contain 120 million curies of radioactive waste, including seven times the amount of strontium-90 and cesium-137 that was released in the April 1986 explosion of the Unit 4 reactor at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine. The area surrounding the Mayak complex suffers from radioactive pollutants from over 50 years of plutonium production, processing and storage. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Nuclear waste from both civilian and military nuclear power installations has become a severe threat to Russia's environmental health. Adding to the problem, in 2001 the Russian parliament approved legislation to allow the storage of foreign nuclear waste on Russian soil. Atomic energy authorities claim that between 10,000 and 20,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste could be imported for storage and reprocessing over the next decade, with the storage plan projected to earn the country $20 billion in foreign revenues over the ten-year period. The Russian government has said that it plans to use the revenues to clean up the environment. Neighboring states have expressed safety concerns regarding nuclear waste traveling close to their borders, while environmental groups have voiced their overall opposition to Russia's long-term storage plans.[/FONT]
Click to expand...
2. Nuclear weapons proliferation - especially in unstable countries and rogue states etc. We live in dangerous times - maybe some would say 'the age of terrorism' ... will it be a problem for us if our own exported uranium comes back at us in the form of missiles or suitcase nukes from some crazy despot leader in the future??? .... in my opinion the MAD policy only works if all parties have a desire to live. It doesn't apply to crackpot leaders who want to die for their god or bring on Armageddon or Jihad.

-----------

Well - obviously I have 'vented' a bit here, and I mean no personal offense to U stock holders - but those are my genuine concerns... When I think about the possible future scenarios it honestly scares the c#@p out of me.
:southpark + :nuke::nuke::nuke: = ?????????
 
i don't see the concern with nuclear waste. dig a big hole in the desert and bury it there, too easy. what we should be doing as well is taking in the worlds supply of nuclear (and maybe toxic) waste, charging them an obscene amount of money and stashing it in the middle of nowhere. we are geologically stable with lots of wide open and largely useless land, why not put it to work for us?

and the whole "it will be dangerous for tens of thousands of years blah blah" is irrelevant as we won't have to store it for very long. the technology will be available in the forseeable future to just blast all the waste into the sun.
 
disarray said:
i don't see the concern with nuclear waste. dig a big hole in the desert and bury it there, too easy. what we should be doing as well is taking in the worlds supply of nuclear (and maybe toxic) waste, charging them an obscene amount of money and stashing it in the middle of nowhere. we are geologically stable with lots of wide open and largely useless land, why not put it to work for us?

and the whole "it will be dangerous for tens of thousands of years blah blah" is irrelevant as we won't have to store it for very long. the technology will be available in the forseeable future to just blast all the waste into the sun.
Click to expand...

Deep burial may be OK for the waste rods - but how about the site and nearby contamination. There ain't **** anyone can do about that.
And what happens when the waste-rocket does a 'challenger' ?? and we get Nuclear waste spread all over?? What happens when a terrorist shoots it down with 'patriot' style weapon.
 
Dukey said:
Deep burial may be OK for the waste rods - but how about the site and nearby contamination. There ain't **** anyone can do about that.
And what happens when the waste-rocket does a 'challenger' ?? and we get Nuclear waste spread all over?? What happens when a terrorist shoots it down with 'patriot' style weapon.
Click to expand...


Considering the quadzillion KM's of uninhabited desert that Australia has, I can't even see how Uranium disposal is an issue.
 
Dukey said:
Deep burial may be OK for the waste rods - but how about the site and nearby contamination. There ain't **** anyone can do about that.
And what happens when the waste-rocket does a 'challenger' ?? and we get Nuclear waste spread all over?? What happens when a terrorist shoots it down with 'patriot' style weapon.
Click to expand...

site contamination can be minimised (if not eradicated) by correct storage procedures, and is also largely irrelevant when you are surrounded by 1000k's of desert. any further contamination can also be cleaned up with some of the profits made from storage.

you also have the wrong idea about space disposal, in 100 years we'll be using elevators to move stuff into orbit, rocket based launches will be a dead technology before too long.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator
 
Kimosabi said:
Considering the quadzillion KM's of uninhabited desert that Australia has, I can't even see how Uranium disposal is an issue.
Click to expand...

Guess I should be more clear - when I say 'the site' - I'm talking about the original reactor site and local environment. (not the site of deep waste disposal).
This for example - groundwater contamination - irreversible as far as I can see..
...Indian Point nuclear power plant, unintended releases of tritium through a crack in the spent fuel pool concrete support wall may have been the cause of the elevated levels of tritium in groundwater in the area immediately surrounding the plant's spent fuel pool. In another instance, at the Braidwood nuclear power plant, unintended releases of tritium from a number of vacuum breaker valves at the plant caused elevated levels of tritium in groundwater in unrestricted, public areas.
Click to expand...
??????????
although groundwater contamination could still be a long term issue for waste disposal. I'm sure we don't know enough about the long term movements and cycling of groundwater and especially deep groundwaters - to say it is completely safe.
It may be possible to bury the waste in solid impermeable rock (with zero moisture) I guess.
 
Dukey said:
Guess I should be more clear - when I say 'the site' - I'm talking about the original reactor site and local environment. (not the site of deep waste disposal).
This for example - groundwater contamination - irreversible as far as I can see..
??????????
although groundwater contamination could still be a long term issue for waste disposal. I'm sure we don't know enough about the long term movements and cycling of groundwater and especially deep groundwaters - to say it is completely safe.
It may be possible to bury the waste in solid impermeable rock (with zero moisture) I guess.
Click to expand...


Hi Dukey,

Interesting stuff about the site contamination although in the link provided the release was an error in both cases ... and it released tritium....still not good though!

http://www.epa.gov/radiation/radionuclides/tritium.htm#environment

As for managing radio active waste ... The Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management facility will be the future home of all ANSTO, CSIRO and other federally-owned waste in Australia.

Currently 3 locations in the NT are being evaluated:
Hart`s Range and Mount Everard near Alice and Fishers Ridge near Katherine.

The facility will consist of near-surface disposal of storage for low-level waste, as well as an above-ground builiding for the immediate-level solid waste.
Intermediate waste will be stored there for 100 years while other disposal options are developed.

Today though , low level waste from HIFAR (High Flux Australian Reactor) lines the shelves of a storage facility at ANSTO`s Sydney complex, where it has sat for the last 40 years.
About 150 new drums are added to the shelves each year and all waste from Australias new nuclear research reactor (OPAL - opened this month) will end up there too.

Currently, the best solution for high level waste is Synroc.
Synroc is an artificial ceramic that hold uranium and thorium titanate minerals , the same thing that keeps radioactive elements locked up in nature for billions of years.
Various forms of Synroc have since been developed by ANSTO, including some that can lock up high level waste such as plutonium - for the US military.
cheers
 
disarray said:
dig a big hole in the desert and bury it there, too easy.
Click to expand...

we might then get 2 headed geckos, 1 metre long ants and 2 tongued snakes....there's life in the desert too. A more feasible way would be to return it to exactly the same position it was mined from and encase it in concrete.

p/s. er...for the 2 tongued snakes, they might already be existing around us..or sitting in Parliament..
 
Yeah - I've heard a little about synroc - seems like a fairly good concept. But I presume it can't actually 'lock in' the radiation of the waste!!!!! Unless it can do that - then the synroc still has to be disposed of in whatever safe fashion / place.

True - both of the contaminated water releases in the link I posted before were due to mistakes - and that is in fact my point.
I think there will always be mistakes and to think otherwise we would be somewhat naive. You have to expect they will happen either due to unexpected events or human error.
The nuclear plants will operate for quite a long time - Smurf (probably our power generation guru here on ASF!!) suggested maybe 60 years of operation I think. Maybe they can go longer. But my point is that in that time metal and concrete parts deteriorate and corrode. Ground movements or earthquakes - even small ones - may cause cracks, floods overflow tailings ponds - whatever...
Additionally - human error is a factor. People (like Homer Simpson) get lax and make mistakes.
eg... that valve has been OK every week for the last 20 years - it'll be fine - no need to run that test... lets just put in a PASS on that one and go crack a beer. Job well done lads.. ;);). (next day - boom).

Correct me if I'm wrong - but I seem to recall there have been significant leeks from Ranger mine tailings into sensitive wetlands in the past. I'll see if I can find links to that info.

Basically I just cant see the sense in nuclear power anywhere - when good clean, safe alternatives ARE available. But of course the Govt wants the $$$$ - they don't want to think wetlands vary far away from Canberra.
Nor do they want to see any connection with a scenario like a nuke from India or Pakistan (made from Aussie origin U) escaping into Afghanistan or the like and being pointed back at us sometime in the future.

I know it sounds alarmist but man.... anything can happen and usually does.
That's a truth I learnt driving in Japan!!!!!!:D:D
 
I agree YT - Thorium reactors sound like good technology in as far as the possibility of burning nuclear waste goes. Are there any in operation now, or is it 'technology of the future'? >>> I'd like to check it out further.

But even then - still doesn't deal with the problems of Nuclear plant 'local site' contamination (such as groundwater) OR weapons use.

I guess my possibly simplistic (?) view is that - the more radioactive material we mine - world wide - the greater potential for eventual use in weapons. And when the next crackpot leader picks one up on the blackmarket , we'll all be running for cover.
Of course theres probably nothing to stop that happening today - but still - more radioactive **** = more potential for disaster in my book.

Is there something wrong in my reasoning?
 
Not sure if this has been dicussed.

What are others thoughts on the govt and there verdict on the U issue?

Mine personally is the govt will say no.
In a nut shell if the majority of the public are against it the the govt is too.
 
Pat said:
Not sure if this has been dicussed.

What are others thoughts on the govt and there verdict on the U issue?

Mine personally is the govt will say no.
In a nut shell if the majority of the public are against it the the govt is too.
Click to expand...

Pat this has been discussed over and over agian and again in previous posts on this thread. Some states are more U friendly than others. Just have a read at the previous posts and you will soon get a good idea.

Cheers!

Champ
 

Similar threads

tech/a
Uranium problems - supply and disposal
Replies
4
Views
5K
laurie
L
Top