Uranium resurgence

[enigmatic]

Well the Uranium price continues to climb to $US73 I've been focusing on WCU as they are a current producer and should gain from the climb in Uranium price.

Looking forward to more growth in Uranium

 

[Sean K]

I think uranium will just bubble and pop for the immediate future depending on geopolitics and global economics. So much is dependant on uncertainty....

 

[enigmatic]

Nothing wrong with a bubble and pop although we aren't certain it will pop anytime soon. 2013 is just arround the corner and demand for uranium although will not rapidly increase supply will decrease significantly, is there enough increase in supply over the next few years to cover this drop in supply

 

[mr. jeff]

I would like to propose that anyone who is interested in uranium and its case for ongoing use may help me dig around for some unloved Ux stocks at the moment in anticipation of renewed institutional interest. If you have any stocks that you follow/have followed and believe they are worth discussing then please get them out for an airing.

I have looked briefly at USA, (PEN is one we all know a little of), DYL, ERA. Know nothing about PDN or Toro. If anyone is interested then start talking! Anyone know anything about Summit?

 

[Starcraftmazter]

I would like to propose that anyone who is interested in uranium and its case for ongoing use may help me dig around for some unloved Ux stocks at the moment in anticipation of renewed institutional interest. If you have any stocks that you follow/have followed and believe they are worth discussing then please get them out for an airing.

I have looked briefly at USA, (PEN is one we all know a little of), DYL, ERA. Know nothing about PDN or Toro. If anyone is interested then start talking! Anyone know anything about Summit?

PDN and ARU are my favorites. PDN because it's a solid company with more operating coming online in the next 1-2 years, and ARU because they are also moving into rare earths.

My perspective if quite limited though, especially on ARU I haven't done a lot of research just yet.

 

[mr. jeff]

Thanks for that,

I see today that ARU has been sold down substantially due to revising their BFS on their rare earths. Obviously not a popular move, an extension of 9-12 months don't know what the ramifications will be.

PDN up 8% today, coverage in the Fin Review mentioning possible takeover interest, perhaps there is something to this, mention of Noble Group in the street talk article. May be worth a further look.

Will have a look into Toro shortly.

 

[Knobby22]

Tim Colebatch in today's Age states that China has 9 pilot programs for emission trading.

Of course they lead the world in cheap solar thanks to technology developed by the University of NSW but they also appear to have perfected a way to make nuclear power stations cheaper with plans to increase nuclear capacity to 400 Gigawatts, more than the entire global capacity today.

This will mean real opportunities in this industry imo.

 

[drillinto]

>>> Uranium Prices Finding a Bottom <<<

Source: http://commodityhq.com/2013/uranium-prices-finding-a-bottom/#more-11982
*****

 

[MARKETWINNER]

World uranium demand is forecast to increase over the next decade, according to the World Nuclear Association. In the short run there will be volatility or prices may come down. There are some developments in Japan on nuclear reactors.

I think Germany's coalition government announced a reversal of policy that will see all the country's nuclear power plants phased out by 2022.

My ideas are not a recommendation to either buy or sell any security,commodity or currency. Please do your own research prior to making any investment decisions.

 

[pixel]

In case anybody is interested in U-spot: Kcast from Kitco has added Base Metals to its menu.
Charts on offer include Al, Cu, Ni, Pb, Zn and Uranium.

 

[orr]

There's an up coming Royal Commission to be held in South Australia into Australia's nuclear future.

The ABC's Radio National science arm, have started what appears to be a longer term public education campaign to raise general knowledge on the subject. The latest piece aired is a talk on Ockham's Razor. The concept outlined if feasible is inspiring.

'Dr Oscar Archer from Adelaide argues that Australia needs a new, clean and economical form of power and suggests that we need a revolutionary way of providing energy. He proposes that Australia establishes the world's first multinational repository for nuclear waste and tells us how we can generate power by using that waste.'

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/ockhamsrazor/energy-and-nuclear-power/6261352

 

[Value Collector]

I wouldn't hold my breath, I don't think we will have a nuclear power plant in the next 50 years. Way to many nimby's.

On the subject of Uranium price, has anyone done any calculations as to how much an impact there would be if the USA started reprocessing their waste on a large scale.

I see the USA stockpiles of spent rods as a potentially very large source of future supply, they have enough spent fuel rods to take them out of themselves out of the market for 25 years or more if they started reprocessing, on a large scale, and if the next generations of breeder reactors start coming online, their waste fuel would be enough to take them out of the market permanently.

 

[Pnut]

He proposes that Australia establishes the world's first multinational repository for nuclear waste and tells us how we can generate power by using that waste.'[/I]

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/ockhamsrazor/energy-and-nuclear-power/6261352

This would be clinical insanity. If Australia Gov allowed spent fuel to come here. Fukishima has probably put the death knock on U3O8. Which is good thing when you look at the damage caused to all the sea lions and fish etc in west USA at the moment and over the next 5 years of decommissioning of reactor number 4. Vast areas of barren /dead ocean are being noticed on route to Japan. Some parts of ocean floor said to be covered in dead fish. Thousands of starving sea lions on beaches of USA. That could become a significant break in the food chain.

I would be interested in company's that can clean up nuclear waste and turn it back into something biodegradable at the power plant. That is where the big money is to be made.

My thoughts Pnut.

 

[Value Collector]

Which is good thing when you look at the damage caused to all the sea lions and fish etc in west USA at the moment and over the next 5 years of decommissioning of reactor number 4. Vast areas of barren /dead ocean are being noticed on route to Japan. Some parts of ocean floor said to be covered in dead fish. Thousands of starving sea lions on beaches of USA. That could become a significant break in the food chain.

I think you need to stop getting your news from conspiracy websites.

 

[pixel]

ERA announced today it won't proceed with Ranger 3:
http://www.asx.com.au/asx/statistics/displayAnnouncement.do?display=pdf&idsId=01632637

RIO's reply sounds even more "terminal":

Energy Resources of Australia Ltd - Ranger 3 Deeps Project Update
11 June 2015
Rio Tinto acknowledges Energy Resources of Australia Ltd’s (ERA) release to the Australian Securities Exchange on 11 June 2015, in which it announced it has decided it would not proceed with the Final Feasibility Study of the Ranger 3 Deeps project in the current operating environment.
Rio Tinto agrees with the decision not to progress the study. After careful consideration, Rio Tinto has determined that it does not support any further study or the future development of Ranger 3 Deeps due to the project’s economic challenges.
Rio Tinto recognises the importance of ongoing rehabilitation work at the Ranger mine site, which is surrounded by the World Heritage-listed Kakadu National Park. Rio Tinto is engaged with ERA on a conditional credit facility to assist ERA to fund its rehabilitation program, should additional funding be required beyond ERA’s existing cash reserves and the future earnings from processing ore stockpiles.
Rio Tinto is assessing a potential non-cash impairment charge of approximately US$300 million* (post tax) relating to its shareholding in ERA.

However, demand for reactor fuel is unlikely to drop to zero any time soon, which should offer increased sales opportunities for other U-miners.
Looking at PDN's chart, it seems I'm not alone with that opinion.

Disclosure: I hold PDN and TOE

 

[Value Collector]

However, demand for reactor fuel is unlikely to drop to zero any time soon, which should offer increased sales opportunities for other U-miners.

What do you think about what I wrote earlier in regards to future uranium supply?

I see the USA stockpiles of spent rods as a potentially very large source of future supply, they have enough spent fuel rods to take themselves out of the market for 25 years or more if they started reprocessing, on a large scale, and if the next generations of breeder reactors start coming online, their waste fuel would be enough to take them out of the market permanently.

reprocessing spent fuel rods is a good source of new fuel rods, countries like France, Japan and china all do it. The USA have not ever done this though, so they have a huge amount of feedstock should they decide to start reprocessing, which I see as inevitable considering the size of their stockpiles.

Not only would it likely take the USA out of the market, But they could become a large supplier of fuel rods.

 

[pixel]

What do you think about what I wrote earlier in regards to future uranium supply?

reprocessing spent fuel rods is a good source of new fuel rods, countries like France, Japan and china all do it. The USA have not ever done this though, so they have a huge amount of feedstock should they decide to start reprocessing, which I see as inevitable considering the size of their stockpiles.

Not only would it likely take the USA out of the market, But they could become a large supplier of fuel rods.

Good point, VC; and I had missed that bit earlier.

At this stage, it's big IF though, and I'm not quite across the economies of reprocessing. I mean, spent is spent; you may be able to concentrate some of the remaining fissionable material, which would extend the useful "life" of the material; I'd have to study the subject in some more detail.
In any case, from all accounts that I've read, ERA is leaving a supply gap; if demand is picking up as analysts seem to expect, that can only benefit producers like PDN. I'm also bearing in mind that Kayalekera is already on c&m with Langer Heinrich's economies improving to profitability. PDN charts suggest a bottom reversal, so I'll stick with my holdings; they don't run up to sheep stations anyway.

 

[Value Collector]

I mean, spent is spent; you may be able to concentrate some of the remaining fissionable material, which would extend the useful "life" of the material; I'd have to study the subject in some more detail.

Actually spent isn't spent.

A spent fuel rod actually contains a higher concentration of fissionable material than natural mined uranium.

Mined uranium contains 0.76% Uranium 235, which is the useable bit, this gets enriched to 5% to make a fuel rod, but once the fuel rod is "spent", it still contains about 2% usable material.

Not only does it have nearly 40% of its original uranium 235 left, but some of the original uranium 235 has been converted to plutonium during fission, this plutonium is fissionable and can be used to make new fuel rods called mox fuel.

so the end result is that you can take 3 spent fuel rods and make almost 2 new ones, and when these are used they can be reprocessed.

The USA also has a lot of nuclear weapons, and will most likely be reducing the amount over time, in the past when they have decommissioned weapons it has lead to up to 30% of power station fuel being sourced from decommissioned weapons.

Look up the "mega tonnes to mega watts program"

 

[Smurf1976]

Just thought I'd mention that the cost of uranium is a trivial part of the total cost of power generation using conventional nuclear systems.

It's the cost of building the plant, operating and decommissioning it at end of life which chews up the money. Uranium itself is a comparatively trivial cost.

So far as the uranium market is concerned, the practical implication there is that short term (existing plants) demand is not price sensitive. Even if the uranium price went up 10 fold, nuclear power is still in the category of being hugely expensive on the capital cost side but it's cheap to just operate (versus having it sit idle) an existing plant. The economics there are very similar to brown coal and hydro - $$$ to build but cheap to run on a day to day basis.

As for the idea of using nuclear power in Australia, construction cost is the killer. Even if the fuel is literally free then the economics of the industry still don't really work here. So if we're going to generate power from reprocessing or otherwise using spent fuel rods, then someone would need to be paying us far more than the original value (new) of those rods to dispose of them. Whether or not that would happen I don't know, but the point is that the operating cost needs to be negative, literally being paid to run it, in order to offset the construction and eventual decommissioning cost.

 

[Value Collector]

Just thought I'd mention that the cost of uranium is a trivial part of the total cost of power generation using conventional nuclear systems.

It's the cost of building the plant, operating and decommissioning it at end of life which chews up the money. Uranium itself is a comparatively trivial cost.

So far as the uranium market is concerned, the practical implication there is that short term (existing plants) demand is not price sensitive. Even if the uranium price went up 10 fold, nuclear power is still in the category of being hugely expensive on the capital cost side but it's cheap to just operate (versus having it sit idle) an existing plant. The economics there are very similar to brown coal and hydro - $$$ to build but cheap to run on a day to day basis.

As for the idea of using nuclear power in Australia, construction cost is the killer. Even if the fuel is literally free then the economics of the industry still don't really work here. So if we're going to generate power from reprocessing or otherwise using spent fuel rods, then someone would need to be paying us far more than the original value (new) of those rods to dispose of them. Whether or not that would happen I don't know, but the point is that the operating cost needs to be negative, literally being paid to run it, in order to offset the construction and eventual decommissioning cost.

I agree, but the fact that the Uranium fuel makes up a small percentage of the total cost of the plant, does not mean that any reactor operator is going to pay more than market price for their fuel, and the market price will be the result of supply and demand.

The reprocessing of existing spent fuel rods could provide a very large supply, which will eventually have to enter the market, and could enter the market at a very low cost as plants that are decommissioning seek to clear their stored rods and operating plants seek to reduce the cost of longterm waste storage.