When can uranium hopefuls produce?
- Thread starter mmmmining
- Start date
I just read the following in WA Business News online. The border between SA and WA is inland from the Bight, and is one of the most spectacular coastlines (real estate) I've ever seen.
I can't believe they want to dump nuclear waste there.
WA Business News
5-April-07 by AAP
Latest News
SA and WA outback best place for nuclear dump - Morgan - 05 Apr, 08:41am
Former mining executive Hugh Morgan says there should be an internationally-owned and run nuclear waste facility in Australia, with the ideal site an area of land straddling the border between South Australia and Western Australia.
The former head of Western Mining Corporation said he was doing preparatory work to establish a nuclear business in Australia.
"What I would propose is that there ought to be an internationally-owned facility in Australia," Mr Morgan told ABC Radio.
Mr Morgan said the facility should be owned by various governments and utilities around the world, together with the Australian government and leading Australian businesses.
He said there were three preferable sites for a nuclear waste dump, the best one being in the Australian outback.
"A site in one of the three most secure geological sequences in the world," Mr Morgan said. "One of those sequences lies in South Australia and extends into Western Australia, one is in South Africa and one is in China."
Mr Morgan said that Australia offered the best geological and political stability for such a facility.
"I would say South Australia - Western Australia. That's where the geological sequence lies," he said.
"I know politically they're (anti-nuclear lobbyists) going to get up and say `not over my dead body, etc, etc.'
"I'm saying that's where ... in the international interest ... you would go."
Mr Morgan said fears about nuclear waste disposal were ill-founded.
"There are many satisfactory disposal locations already ... in Sweden, in France, in the United States," he said.
"There are technologies that are continuing to come forward to provide changes in the nature of the nuclear power plants themselves - the nature of the waste which reduces the time to achieve half life."
Mr Morgan also wanted the public to stop calling facilities for nuclear waste dumps.
"Call it a repository ... not a dump," he said.
I can't believe they want to dump nuclear waste there.
WA Business News
5-April-07 by AAP
Latest News
SA and WA outback best place for nuclear dump - Morgan - 05 Apr, 08:41am
Former mining executive Hugh Morgan says there should be an internationally-owned and run nuclear waste facility in Australia, with the ideal site an area of land straddling the border between South Australia and Western Australia.
The former head of Western Mining Corporation said he was doing preparatory work to establish a nuclear business in Australia.
"What I would propose is that there ought to be an internationally-owned facility in Australia," Mr Morgan told ABC Radio.
Mr Morgan said the facility should be owned by various governments and utilities around the world, together with the Australian government and leading Australian businesses.
He said there were three preferable sites for a nuclear waste dump, the best one being in the Australian outback.
"A site in one of the three most secure geological sequences in the world," Mr Morgan said. "One of those sequences lies in South Australia and extends into Western Australia, one is in South Africa and one is in China."
Mr Morgan said that Australia offered the best geological and political stability for such a facility.
"I would say South Australia - Western Australia. That's where the geological sequence lies," he said.
"I know politically they're (anti-nuclear lobbyists) going to get up and say `not over my dead body, etc, etc.'
"I'm saying that's where ... in the international interest ... you would go."
Mr Morgan said fears about nuclear waste disposal were ill-founded.
"There are many satisfactory disposal locations already ... in Sweden, in France, in the United States," he said.
"There are technologies that are continuing to come forward to provide changes in the nature of the nuclear power plants themselves - the nature of the waste which reduces the time to achieve half life."
Mr Morgan also wanted the public to stop calling facilities for nuclear waste dumps.
"Call it a repository ... not a dump," he said.
http://www.equinoxminerals.com/files/document/261_GlobeandMail_Uranium_070323.pdf Reading this they are looking at 2010 to be in production.
- Joined
- 7 October 2006
- Posts
- 877
- Reactions
- 0
On your mark, ready, set, GO!
Time to do another round of check of race to the producer:
Here is the previous discussion:
UKL, CTS: 2009
CMR, EQN, TOE, WHE: 2010
AGS, PNN: 2011
SMM: 2010-2012
MTN: 2012
Add more please....
Time to do another round of check of race to the producer:
Here is the previous discussion:
UKL, CTS: 2009
CMR, EQN, TOE, WHE: 2010
AGS, PNN: 2011
SMM: 2010-2012
MTN: 2012
Add more please....
URA?
- Joined
- 7 October 2006
- Posts
- 877
- Reactions
- 0
Don't trust the management anymore. But I still hold a small parcel just in case.
Scarcity drives uranium to recordBy Mandi Zonneveldt
April 09, 2007 12:00am
Article from: Font size: + -
Send this article: Print Email
THE price of uranium has smashed through $US100 a pound as supplies of the nuclear fuel become more scarce.
The uranium spot price soared $US18 last week to $US113 a pound - the largest single jump since NUEXCO began reporting uranium prices in 1968.
Uranium does not trade on an open market like other commodities.
Buyers and sellers negotiate contracts privately and prices are published by independent market consultants.
The new benchmark, reported by consultants TradeTech, formerly NUEXCO, was set by an auction in the United States last Wednesday for 100,000 pounds of yellowcake.
The bidding came as Australian uranium producer Energy Resources of Australia warned that wet weather would hamper its production for at least a year.
In its newsletter published on Friday, TradeTech said ERA's announcement contributed to the huge price rise last week.
The US-based consultancy said utilities looking for large amounts of uranium for near-term delivery and continued interest from speculators and hedge funds had also helped push the price up.
The uranium price has increased 57 per cent since the beginning of this year alone, and is up more than 170 per cent in the past 12 months.
Resource Capital Research recently predicted the price of yellowcake would touch $US125 a pound this year and rise as high as $US140 a pound in 2008.
Australian uranium producers have missed out on much of the upside of the uranium boom because most of their uranium is sold under long-term contracts that are only partially influenced by the spot price.
However, BHP Billiton has begun talking to potential customers about an expansion at its Olympic Dam mine that would triple its uranium output.
Paladin Resources is also well placed to cash in on recent rises, having just commissioned the world's first new uranium mine in 15 years in Namibia. The company is close to moving on a second project in Malawi.
The uranium boom has pushed the value of listed explorers in Australia up 23 per cent in the past three months, according to RCR, and up 122 per cent in the past year.
The exploration industry is keenly awaiting the outcome of debate at the Labor Party's national conference this month, with the ALP expected to end its opposition
April 09, 2007 12:00am
Article from: Font size: + -
Send this article: Print Email
THE price of uranium has smashed through $US100 a pound as supplies of the nuclear fuel become more scarce.
The uranium spot price soared $US18 last week to $US113 a pound - the largest single jump since NUEXCO began reporting uranium prices in 1968.
Uranium does not trade on an open market like other commodities.
Buyers and sellers negotiate contracts privately and prices are published by independent market consultants.
The new benchmark, reported by consultants TradeTech, formerly NUEXCO, was set by an auction in the United States last Wednesday for 100,000 pounds of yellowcake.
The bidding came as Australian uranium producer Energy Resources of Australia warned that wet weather would hamper its production for at least a year.
In its newsletter published on Friday, TradeTech said ERA's announcement contributed to the huge price rise last week.
The US-based consultancy said utilities looking for large amounts of uranium for near-term delivery and continued interest from speculators and hedge funds had also helped push the price up.
The uranium price has increased 57 per cent since the beginning of this year alone, and is up more than 170 per cent in the past 12 months.
Resource Capital Research recently predicted the price of yellowcake would touch $US125 a pound this year and rise as high as $US140 a pound in 2008.
Australian uranium producers have missed out on much of the upside of the uranium boom because most of their uranium is sold under long-term contracts that are only partially influenced by the spot price.
However, BHP Billiton has begun talking to potential customers about an expansion at its Olympic Dam mine that would triple its uranium output.
Paladin Resources is also well placed to cash in on recent rises, having just commissioned the world's first new uranium mine in 15 years in Namibia. The company is close to moving on a second project in Malawi.
The uranium boom has pushed the value of listed explorers in Australia up 23 per cent in the past three months, according to RCR, and up 122 per cent in the past year.
The exploration industry is keenly awaiting the outcome of debate at the Labor Party's national conference this month, with the ALP expected to end its opposition
Mining.
Any specific reason why BMN isnt up there?
I would consider them much more advanced in their exploration than say, TOE.
- Joined
- 7 October 2006
- Posts
- 877
- Reactions
- 0
You can estimate a production year for BMN. I dare not to since there is no resources defined yet.
But TOE is good one if the management can do it.
- Joined
- 7 October 2006
- Posts
- 877
- Reactions
- 0
A uranium beauty parade in SA
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,21528495-5003680,00.html
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,21528495-5003680,00.html
- Joined
- 7 October 2006
- Posts
- 877
- Reactions
- 0
MRO should be producer by 2010. The reasons:
Warwick Grigor, or famous uranium figure is the Chairman of the board. He believes it. As an insider, he sticks his neck out on it, I guess he must be right.
Warwick Grigor, or famous uranium figure is the Chairman of the board. He believes it. As an insider, he sticks his neck out on it, I guess he must be right.
Wysiwyg
Everyone wants money
- Joined
- 8 August 2006
- Posts
- 8,428
- Reactions
- 284
My research has brought up many companies during the last uranium run that only ever drilled.Most probably because by the time they got moving the price started falling or the nuke issue back then was unacceptable. "No nukes" was the cry.Bit different these days though with nuclear power becoming widespread.
So maybe the drillers might go on with it this time.If I invested in the companies I certainly wouldn`t want to wait around for years just to hear that they found some uranium and in the ground it stays.
So maybe the drillers might go on with it this time.If I invested in the companies I certainly wouldn`t want to wait around for years just to hear that they found some uranium and in the ground it stays.
Wysiwyg said:
"..If I invested in the companies I certainly wouldn`t want to wait around for years just to hear that they found some uranium and in the ground it stays."
FOLLOW THE MONEY!!
Australia will follow the nuclear trend, there is no doubt in my mind.....U miners will be priced at many multiples of their current quote if they find mineable, feasible deposits...
China will eat-up all the natural resources coming out of Awz, and then some....
"..If I invested in the companies I certainly wouldn`t want to wait around for years just to hear that they found some uranium and in the ground it stays."
FOLLOW THE MONEY!!
Australia will follow the nuclear trend, there is no doubt in my mind.....U miners will be priced at many multiples of their current quote if they find mineable, feasible deposits...
China will eat-up all the natural resources coming out of Awz, and then some....
- Joined
- 7 October 2006
- Posts
- 877
- Reactions
- 0
Watch out, uranium companies with asset in USofA. 60min has aired a program on nuclear energy.
UKL, WHE, PEN, BLR, XST,....
http://www.u3o8.biz/s/MarketComment...ction-and-60-Minutes-put-spotlight-on-uranium
-------------------------------------------------------------
The rest of the world is taking notice of uranium too, including the US, which hasn't built a new nuclear plant since the 1970s. According to a "60 Minutes" report that aired April 8, nuclear power may be poised for a big comeback because it is one of the few efficient means of producing large amounts of carbon-free energy.
The television program examined the nuclear industry in France, which produces about 80% of its electricity from 58 nuclear power plants scattered around a nation the size of Texas. Americans, on the other hand, are cautious of nuclear power, mostly because of the Three Mile Island incident 30 years ago. Clay Sell, the US Deputy Secretary of Energy, told 60 Minutes reporter Steve Kroft that Americans "tend to forget" that 103 nuclear plants currently operate in the US and produce about 20% of its electricity without incident. But Americans are warming up to the idea of nuclear power because of global warming concerns. While no plants are under construction or on the drawing board, about 15 companies are reported to be interested in building more than 30 facilities, which would represent America's next generation of nuclear power plants.
UKL, WHE, PEN, BLR, XST,....
http://www.u3o8.biz/s/MarketComment...ction-and-60-Minutes-put-spotlight-on-uranium
-------------------------------------------------------------
The rest of the world is taking notice of uranium too, including the US, which hasn't built a new nuclear plant since the 1970s. According to a "60 Minutes" report that aired April 8, nuclear power may be poised for a big comeback because it is one of the few efficient means of producing large amounts of carbon-free energy.
The television program examined the nuclear industry in France, which produces about 80% of its electricity from 58 nuclear power plants scattered around a nation the size of Texas. Americans, on the other hand, are cautious of nuclear power, mostly because of the Three Mile Island incident 30 years ago. Clay Sell, the US Deputy Secretary of Energy, told 60 Minutes reporter Steve Kroft that Americans "tend to forget" that 103 nuclear plants currently operate in the US and produce about 20% of its electricity without incident. But Americans are warming up to the idea of nuclear power because of global warming concerns. While no plants are under construction or on the drawing board, about 15 companies are reported to be interested in building more than 30 facilities, which would represent America's next generation of nuclear power plants.
Hmm I don't notice MRO having any reserves or even a resource yet..Warwick Grigor sometimes picks a lot of dog stocks as well....only backs what he owns.
- Joined
- 7 October 2006
- Posts
- 877
- Reactions
- 0
I have to disagree with you about "a lot of dogs". It is a very false statement. A few is possible. Have you ever picked up a dog or two?
Less than 40m shares on fully diluted basis. It has about 5mlb resources, with very good grade, and potentially very large resources extension. Try to read the latest presentation.
- Joined
- 4 January 2007
- Posts
- 247
- Reactions
- 1
Takeovers, Dogs & Potential - it's all in black and white below.
Cheers
BT
Reaching For The Summit
Source: FN Arena News - April 12 2007
By Greg Peel
There are two interesting points to note about the deal announced yesterday between French company Areva and local uranium resource owner Summit Resources (SMM): (1) Areva is not a uranium miner; (2) the price paid for a 9% stake implies a resource valuation for Summit's Valhalla/Skal project in excess of US$30/lb.
Yesterday Summit announced that Areva had agreed to subscribe for 9% of Summit at $6.20 per share, with an option to subscribe for a further 9% at $7.20 per share within 2-6 months. This averages to 18% at $6.75 or a 31% premium over Summit's closing price of April 5. This is a typical takeover premium.
Such a premium was also implicit in the earlier hostile takeover offer made for Summit by Paladin Resources (PDN). Implicit, as Paladin's bid offer was for a scrip exchange of one Paladin share for every 2.04 Summit shares. At yesterday's prices, this implies a value of $5.19 per share.
Summit's board had staunchly rejected the Paladin offer, and to date less than 1% of Summit shareholders have caved in. The offer is unconditional and as such still stands, but clearly Paladin has to reconsider its position.
Paladin shareholders had not initially warmed to the scrip offer for Summit, being as it was potentially 16% dilutive. The quandary though is that Paladin may end up with 50% of Valhalla – the significant resource in Queensland – and to really extract the value would prefer 100%. Even the 50% is unconfirmed, as Paladin has attempted to acquire this through its acquisition last year of Valhalla Resources, and, cutting a long story short, Summit is challenging Paladin's right to the Valhalla project in court as we speak. To win the Valhalla resource now, Paladin may really have to go to town in order to usurp Areva.
The Areva deal involves cash – potentially close to $300m – which is a significant boost to Summit as it prepares to enter production. Whether or not Summit can actually enter production is still not set in stone, as Queensland premier Peter Beattie continues to wax and wane as to whether he will allow uranium mining in the state or whether he will meekly capitulate to Queensland's powerful coal mining unions. It's not hard to see where Areva's money lies.
Paladin, on the other hand, is only offering its own scrip. Having only just commenced production at its Namibian mines, Paladin does not have the cash to spend. Paladin has been able to make what was an impressive scrip offer (up to yesterday) because its own share price has significantly appreciated over the last year.
All these shenanigans are occurring in the context of last week's biggest ever single percentage jump in the price of uranium. When 100,000 pounds sold for US$113/lb in Texas, local uranium shares went for a run again. Few gobs, however, were actually smacked by the high price, as it is well known that there are plenty of buyers and very few sellers. And the sellers are in no rush.
Just how high can the uranium price go? This question was discussed at length in "Is There Value Left In The Uranium Sector" (Sell&Buyology; 27/03/07). In short, analysts are expecting a significant increase in supply in the next five years. However, there is also a rush to build new reactors, and the great bulk of a reactor's uranium consumption occurs on start-up. As reactors also cost a great deal to build, the actual cost of that uranium is not a huge percentage of the price. In other words, desperate energy companies could potentially afford to pay more yet.
But then as overall cost of nuclear energy spirals upward, at what point does nuclear start to lose its appeal as an alternative energy source when compared to other clean/green sources that are rapidly under development as well? That one's not easy.
One way for nuclear energy companies to overcome the problem of a spiralling uranium price is to stop buying the processed ore and start buying the stuff in the ground. In other words, buy uranium mines. And that is exactly the direction Areva has moved in with respect to its Summit deal.
As noted at the outset, Areva is not a uranium miner, it is an energy company.
Areva provides "reliable technological solutions" for carbon-free power generation, electricity transmission and distribution. It has manufacturing facilities in 41 countries and a sales network in 100. Areva is the world leader in nuclear power. France has the highest percentage of nuclear power generation in the world.
As part of the deal, Areva will provide technical assistance to Summit in the development of Valhalla and in further exploration. It will also retain the right to market two-thirds of Summit's uranium.
That an energy company should be dealing with Summit, as opposed to uranium miner Paladin, opens up the wealth of possibility that not only are Australian uranium resources valued by competing global uranium miners, they are a target for energy companies trying to vertically integrate their way out of the current uranium ore scramble. While Areva is clearly one of the biggies, think what might happen if the Chinese get started.
Also notable in the Summit deal was the implied resource value in excess of US$30/lb. FNArena has constantly made reference recently to the SXR Uranium One/UrAsia merger, which also valued proven uranium resources at over US$30/lb. By contrast, Australian uranium resources such as ERA's (ERA) Ranger had been valued at US$16/lb. Paladin's current resource valuation, according to Macquarie analysts, is US$23/lb. This again raises the question of whether all Australian uranium resources are in need of further re-rating.
If you revalue Paladin on this basis it should be worth $15-17 per share. However, Macquarie analysts are quick to point out that the implied resource value is based off a mere 9% minority holding at $6.20 (implying US$30/lb) or 18% at $6.75 (implying US$35/lb), not the whole box and dice. Furthermore, within the valuation is the right to market two-thirds of Summit's uranium, which is itself a significant money-spinner.
The case of what Paladin should be valued at is thus a tough one. If Paladin is forced to up its bid for Summit with a juicier scrip offer this will imply even further dilution to the Paladin share price. And there is still no guarantee Paladin will secure even 50% of Valhalla, let alone 100%. On the other hand, consolidation in the uranium market – involving both producers and users – will underpin all uranium stocks. And then there is that resource value consideration.
As far as all Australian uranium hopefuls are concerned, investors must again be wary of just what real potential a local miner has, and just how much the share price has appreciated already. (If the Paladin share price can appreciate another 50%, that's a great result. But it has appreciated more than 1000% in two years, and that sort of upside has now past). Uranium analyst Resource Capital Research publishes a quarterly review of the sector. Its stock recommendations appeared in "Uranium Could Hit US$140/lb Next Year, Juniors Are Enjoying The Ride" (Commodities; 29/03/07).
In a nutshell, RCR advises looking for uranium companies that show the following characteristics: they are unhedged; they have exploration upside; they have projects that are already in some way advanced (eg a JORC resource); they have actual takeover potential.
Investment advisor Far East Capital also follows the uranium sector closely and produces regular reviews. Far East's Warwick Grigor warns that 90% of uranium companies are not yet able to say they actually have a "mineable proposition". Of those that can, many, in Grigor's view, are already overvalued. These include Toro Energy (TOE), Marathon Resources (MTN), Arafura Resources (ARU), Berkeley Resources (BKY) and…ahem…Summit Resources (a claim made before yesterday).
Grigor prefers Australian listed stocks showing prospects offshore (and not forgetting that uranium mining in Australia is still up in the air). He suggests Monaro Mining (MRO) which has prospects in Kyrgyzstan, Uranium King (UKL) (Nevada and New Mexico) and Contact Resources (CTS) (Peru).
There is clearly no end yet to the uranium story just yet. Once again, investors are advised to know the stocks that they are backing. While blind euphoria may still be ruling the day, you don't want to be stuck without a proper chair when the music stops.
Cheers
BT
Reaching For The Summit
Source: FN Arena News - April 12 2007
By Greg Peel
There are two interesting points to note about the deal announced yesterday between French company Areva and local uranium resource owner Summit Resources (SMM): (1) Areva is not a uranium miner; (2) the price paid for a 9% stake implies a resource valuation for Summit's Valhalla/Skal project in excess of US$30/lb.
Yesterday Summit announced that Areva had agreed to subscribe for 9% of Summit at $6.20 per share, with an option to subscribe for a further 9% at $7.20 per share within 2-6 months. This averages to 18% at $6.75 or a 31% premium over Summit's closing price of April 5. This is a typical takeover premium.
Such a premium was also implicit in the earlier hostile takeover offer made for Summit by Paladin Resources (PDN). Implicit, as Paladin's bid offer was for a scrip exchange of one Paladin share for every 2.04 Summit shares. At yesterday's prices, this implies a value of $5.19 per share.
Summit's board had staunchly rejected the Paladin offer, and to date less than 1% of Summit shareholders have caved in. The offer is unconditional and as such still stands, but clearly Paladin has to reconsider its position.
Paladin shareholders had not initially warmed to the scrip offer for Summit, being as it was potentially 16% dilutive. The quandary though is that Paladin may end up with 50% of Valhalla – the significant resource in Queensland – and to really extract the value would prefer 100%. Even the 50% is unconfirmed, as Paladin has attempted to acquire this through its acquisition last year of Valhalla Resources, and, cutting a long story short, Summit is challenging Paladin's right to the Valhalla project in court as we speak. To win the Valhalla resource now, Paladin may really have to go to town in order to usurp Areva.
The Areva deal involves cash – potentially close to $300m – which is a significant boost to Summit as it prepares to enter production. Whether or not Summit can actually enter production is still not set in stone, as Queensland premier Peter Beattie continues to wax and wane as to whether he will allow uranium mining in the state or whether he will meekly capitulate to Queensland's powerful coal mining unions. It's not hard to see where Areva's money lies.
Paladin, on the other hand, is only offering its own scrip. Having only just commenced production at its Namibian mines, Paladin does not have the cash to spend. Paladin has been able to make what was an impressive scrip offer (up to yesterday) because its own share price has significantly appreciated over the last year.
All these shenanigans are occurring in the context of last week's biggest ever single percentage jump in the price of uranium. When 100,000 pounds sold for US$113/lb in Texas, local uranium shares went for a run again. Few gobs, however, were actually smacked by the high price, as it is well known that there are plenty of buyers and very few sellers. And the sellers are in no rush.
Just how high can the uranium price go? This question was discussed at length in "Is There Value Left In The Uranium Sector" (Sell&Buyology; 27/03/07). In short, analysts are expecting a significant increase in supply in the next five years. However, there is also a rush to build new reactors, and the great bulk of a reactor's uranium consumption occurs on start-up. As reactors also cost a great deal to build, the actual cost of that uranium is not a huge percentage of the price. In other words, desperate energy companies could potentially afford to pay more yet.
But then as overall cost of nuclear energy spirals upward, at what point does nuclear start to lose its appeal as an alternative energy source when compared to other clean/green sources that are rapidly under development as well? That one's not easy.
One way for nuclear energy companies to overcome the problem of a spiralling uranium price is to stop buying the processed ore and start buying the stuff in the ground. In other words, buy uranium mines. And that is exactly the direction Areva has moved in with respect to its Summit deal.
As noted at the outset, Areva is not a uranium miner, it is an energy company.
Areva provides "reliable technological solutions" for carbon-free power generation, electricity transmission and distribution. It has manufacturing facilities in 41 countries and a sales network in 100. Areva is the world leader in nuclear power. France has the highest percentage of nuclear power generation in the world.
As part of the deal, Areva will provide technical assistance to Summit in the development of Valhalla and in further exploration. It will also retain the right to market two-thirds of Summit's uranium.
That an energy company should be dealing with Summit, as opposed to uranium miner Paladin, opens up the wealth of possibility that not only are Australian uranium resources valued by competing global uranium miners, they are a target for energy companies trying to vertically integrate their way out of the current uranium ore scramble. While Areva is clearly one of the biggies, think what might happen if the Chinese get started.
Also notable in the Summit deal was the implied resource value in excess of US$30/lb. FNArena has constantly made reference recently to the SXR Uranium One/UrAsia merger, which also valued proven uranium resources at over US$30/lb. By contrast, Australian uranium resources such as ERA's (ERA) Ranger had been valued at US$16/lb. Paladin's current resource valuation, according to Macquarie analysts, is US$23/lb. This again raises the question of whether all Australian uranium resources are in need of further re-rating.
If you revalue Paladin on this basis it should be worth $15-17 per share. However, Macquarie analysts are quick to point out that the implied resource value is based off a mere 9% minority holding at $6.20 (implying US$30/lb) or 18% at $6.75 (implying US$35/lb), not the whole box and dice. Furthermore, within the valuation is the right to market two-thirds of Summit's uranium, which is itself a significant money-spinner.
The case of what Paladin should be valued at is thus a tough one. If Paladin is forced to up its bid for Summit with a juicier scrip offer this will imply even further dilution to the Paladin share price. And there is still no guarantee Paladin will secure even 50% of Valhalla, let alone 100%. On the other hand, consolidation in the uranium market – involving both producers and users – will underpin all uranium stocks. And then there is that resource value consideration.
As far as all Australian uranium hopefuls are concerned, investors must again be wary of just what real potential a local miner has, and just how much the share price has appreciated already. (If the Paladin share price can appreciate another 50%, that's a great result. But it has appreciated more than 1000% in two years, and that sort of upside has now past). Uranium analyst Resource Capital Research publishes a quarterly review of the sector. Its stock recommendations appeared in "Uranium Could Hit US$140/lb Next Year, Juniors Are Enjoying The Ride" (Commodities; 29/03/07).
In a nutshell, RCR advises looking for uranium companies that show the following characteristics: they are unhedged; they have exploration upside; they have projects that are already in some way advanced (eg a JORC resource); they have actual takeover potential.
Investment advisor Far East Capital also follows the uranium sector closely and produces regular reviews. Far East's Warwick Grigor warns that 90% of uranium companies are not yet able to say they actually have a "mineable proposition". Of those that can, many, in Grigor's view, are already overvalued. These include Toro Energy (TOE), Marathon Resources (MTN), Arafura Resources (ARU), Berkeley Resources (BKY) and…ahem…Summit Resources (a claim made before yesterday).
Grigor prefers Australian listed stocks showing prospects offshore (and not forgetting that uranium mining in Australia is still up in the air). He suggests Monaro Mining (MRO) which has prospects in Kyrgyzstan, Uranium King (UKL) (Nevada and New Mexico) and Contact Resources (CTS) (Peru).
There is clearly no end yet to the uranium story just yet. Once again, investors are advised to know the stocks that they are backing. While blind euphoria may still be ruling the day, you don't want to be stuck without a proper chair when the music stops.
- Joined
- 26 October 2006
- Posts
- 327
- Reactions
- 0
Err, you meant blue and white, didn't you, BT?
- Joined
- 4 January 2007
- Posts
- 247
- Reactions
- 1
Err, you meant blue and white, didn't you, BT?
Touché, you must be bored, pedantic or just trying to get you average posts per day up for the May Stock Tipping Comp.
Cheers
BT
Similar threads
