When can uranium hopefuls produce?
- Thread starter mmmmining
- Start date
- Joined
- 8 March 2007
- Posts
- 2,563
- Reactions
- 3,445
There are so many !
The sea bottoms are littered with "Producers"
The old PAS (Pasminco) would be a good example
The old SGW (Sons of Gwalia) another
Salute for now as I scacth my head for more examples
There are hundreds of examples to the lessor of these (only 2) above extremes
And then there are the real oldies like
Poseidon Mk I
Poseidon Mk II
Tasminex
The sea bottoms are littered with "Producers"
The old PAS (Pasminco) would be a good example
The old SGW (Sons of Gwalia) another
Salute for now as I scacth my head for more examples
There are hundreds of examples to the lessor of these (only 2) above extremes
And then there are the real oldies like
Poseidon Mk I
Poseidon Mk II
Tasminex
Errr...Captain, I mean uranium producers, which if you're not concerned with you're actually posting in the wrong thread.
Addressing your question, PDN ain't looking like it's gonna implode soon unless they spend their new-found wealth carelessly, which don't seem to be happening unless you feel the deal with SMM is way overrated, and if so please say why on the PDN and/or SMM thread.
Another reason might be careless hedging arrangements, which PAS and SGW have fallen victim to, but I can't see PDN getting itself into something like this (for now).
- Joined
- 8 March 2007
- Posts
- 2,563
- Reactions
- 3,445
Ahoy Mousie
Anything that comes out of the ground I call a Miner/ Producer
In the end they are only left with a hole in the ground to Fill
I do admit that Most do not go to nothing
BUT
Most go down in share price as in VRE
Fundamentalists call them "30% -50% Corrections" unless new discoveries are made in the nic 'o'time
Some are lucky to do this as in WSA and power on regardless how much money was lost by so many at the handover date/re-rating to Producer status
Salute and I hope I have made my point to your satisfaction?
Anything that comes out of the ground I call a Miner/ Producer
In the end they are only left with a hole in the ground to Fill
I do admit that Most do not go to nothing
BUT
Most go down in share price as in VRE
Fundamentalists call them "30% -50% Corrections" unless new discoveries are made in the nic 'o'time
Some are lucky to do this as in WSA and power on regardless how much money was lost by so many at the handover date/re-rating to Producer status
Salute and I hope I have made my point to your satisfaction?
Looks like you have the language to back up your nick Captain
Understood, though to answer your original question IMO it's gotta do with the way management carries out their work consistently. If the market sense that mgt is tardy or are not meeting targets, impatient ones sell out. Normal dips are caused by profit-taking.
lol your not talking about me calling it a few days back are you?
Seriously though CTS is my current fundamental U play, seriously undervalued, April should see it re-rated
Yeah YT you among others.
- Joined
- 7 October 2006
- Posts
- 877
- Reactions
- 0
Politician's color never change. It looks like bye-bye to uranium in QLD. Welcome to SA, NT, the land of abundant uranium. And:
USA
Namibia
South Africa
Peru
......
......
......
- Joined
- 7 October 2006
- Posts
- 877
- Reactions
- 0
I guess the most likely outcome from the labor conference is that states have discretion on the uranium mining. They are politicians for their only interests, their parties interests, not every Aussies interests.
Definitely uranium companies in QLD will be the biggest loser. SMM will be hit the hardest.
While Nobody is seriously think WA will change its policy. Not much gain, and not much lose either.
So the sole state that is shining is SA. With AGS, PNN, and MTN as the first tier hopeful.
Second tier is TOE, SIM, DYL, USA, UXA, MOX, GIR, UEQ, UTO, .......
It is very funny that some people think it is worse to have a tough EIA than in a completely banned state. As long as in a friend state, everything can be worked out.
No the policy will be changed. Leaders like Gillard are supporting it. She is influential. Too much $$ at stake. Why would u not change, it would be like shooting yourself in the head.
These summarise the Labor party if they don't change:
:bonk: :iamwithst :hammer: :bath:
- Joined
- 7 October 2006
- Posts
- 877
- Reactions
- 0
The only way Rudd can get the 3 mines policy changed is to give the states the say on whether they want to mine.
It's an easy way out for Labour Federally.
That would mean SA NT
And WA QLD
Agree, after all, they are politicians, nothing more, and nothing less. Promise a lot, do a little.
Sean K
Moderator
- Joined
- 21 April 2006
- Posts
- 22,018
- Reactions
- 11,005
Yes, this looks to be the case at the moment after the most recent comments by Rudd and the Premiers. It's hard to say how this news, once policy, will eventually effect explorers/developers in WA and QLD, but it could be a negative. Obviously, SA is going to be OK, and NT as long as the Gov don't give NT Statehood. (Although, I'm not sure if NT even want that themselves yet) On the surface of it, SA and NT miners will be the first to get approval to mine. However, that doesn't mean there's no money to be made in WA and QLD miners. If they come up with outstanding discoveries, then they will be re rated accordingly. Labor won't be in power in the states forever. Imagine the change of sentiment to WA/QLD U company's if the State Govs get rolled! Keep an eye on this one in the next few years...The only way Rudd can get the 3 mines policy changed is to give the states the say on whether they want to mine.
It's an easy way out for Labour Federally.
That would mean SA NT
And WA QLD
- Joined
- 7 October 2006
- Posts
- 877
- Reactions
- 0
I like that. Very easy. Vote Labor into Federal Govt. All state labor will get...
The only way Rudd can get the 3 mines policy changed is to give the states the say on whether they want to mine.
It's an easy way out for Labour Federally.
That would mean SA NT
And WA QLD
Even if 3 mine policy stays in place AGS can go ahead, they would fall under the existing Beverley mine at B4M, I think AGS can be a producer before the end of this decade, I think 2011-2012 is too conservative.
CTS believes it will be in production in Peru in late 2008 - with at this stage an estimated 9.29M lbs. of Uranium (JORC 7.2M lbs.) {see announcements their site www.contactresources.com.au}. They recently aquired a 100% interest in the Peruvian Corachapi project. CTS's quarterly report is due in the next few weeks.
The only way Rudd can get the 3 mines policy changed is to give the states the say on whether they want to mine.
It's an easy way out for Labour Federally.
That would mean SA NT
And WA QLD
I am ruling out Northern Territory also. Perhaps look into the politics there and you will find that NT are not pro-Uranium mining.
Hence the reason CUY, PNN, AGS, are rocketing away into the sunset; but at the same time dragging the others along. Feels like they are in the bride and grooms car driving off for their honeymoon and we are the cans tied to the back of the car copping a rough ride of late....
- Joined
- 7 October 2006
- Posts
- 877
- Reactions
- 0
Introduce another uranium hopeful that can produce soon, MRO.
The advantage is there is uranium mill in Kyrgyz. If it can be re-opened, it could save a couple of years time towards production.
MRO just needs to find a lot of uraniums, and it seems to be with the latest ann. Within 3-4 weeks, the latest drilling results should be released.
Full diluted mark cap is at $80m, with around 38m shares. The share price is still about 15% less than the all-time high. Worth a look.
The advantage is there is uranium mill in Kyrgyz. If it can be re-opened, it could save a couple of years time towards production.
MRO just needs to find a lot of uraniums, and it seems to be with the latest ann. Within 3-4 weeks, the latest drilling results should be released.
Full diluted mark cap is at $80m, with around 38m shares. The share price is still about 15% less than the all-time high. Worth a look.
Kennas,
I can't believe the stupidity of the Beattie and Carpenter Labor Govts. The only effect of their uranium ban will be to send more dollars and jobs into SA and overseas. I used to think Mr Beattie was pro-business. Obviously, not any more. Go Mr Rann!!
One suttle change in their wording and it culls a lot of u hopefulls from becoming producers for at least the term of the Beattie and Carpenter governments.
Both WA and Qld have pathetically weak and self destructive oppositions that have no hope of getting in any time soon.
SA u company's are the safest bet then comes the overseas contingent.
Both WA and Qld have pathetically weak and self destructive oppositions that have no hope of getting in any time soon.
SA u company's are the safest bet then comes the overseas contingent.
Similar threads
