Jump to content

Uranium


michaelirish

The End of Nuclear Power?  

143 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

QUOTE (mgbutler @ Wednesday 22/08/07 09:07pm)

 

A normal BBQ runs on LPG not the same family as natural gas its a by product of oil refining. Certainly some connected to mains gas lines do use normal natural gas but on the main ... they have a gas bottle filled up at the petrol staion and its bloody LPG.

 

 

 

Less than 25% of natural gas used in the US is for power generation.

 

QUOTE
Continued growth in residential, commercial, and industrial
consumption of natural gas is roughly offset
by the projected decline in natural gas demand for
electricity generation.
QUOTE
Stop-Loss Order

An order placed with a broker to sell a security when it reaches a certain price. It is designed to limit an investor's loss on a security position.

Also known as a "stop order" or "stop-market order".ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÂ¢Ãƒ¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚ 

QUOTE
Fanaticism is an emotion of being filled with excessive, uncritical zeal, particularly for an extreme religious or political cause, or with an obsessive enthusiasm for a pastime or hobby.

The difference between a fan and a fanatic is that while both have an overwhelming liking or interest in a given subject, behaviour of a fanatic will be viewed as violating prevailing social norms, while that of a fan will not violate those norms (although is usually considered unusual).

A fanatic differs from a crank in that the latter term is typically associated with a position or opinion which is so far from the norm as to appear ludicrous and/or provably wrong, while the subject of the fanatic's obsession may well be "normal", with only the scale of involvement being abnormally disproportionate.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanatic

 

Whilst I find it amusing to be treated by you as a crank ... you were treating me just as bluntly ... spamming any negative view on uranium when thyey were at their peak prices.

Mentioning some would never get off the ground or very unlikely due to the tiny nature of their deposit or grade like bannerman which has a woeful grade and most of its underground to the AGS which despite a decent grade is a tiny sized deposit.

 

Bannerman when you started was near its peak at $3.80 and hit a low of $1.30 down 65% ... still not much higher than its lows.

 

Even the more worthless and less likely to be mined AGS was at $2.88 and hit a low of $0.83 the other day ..... DOWN 71% from its peak.

 

Not once have you changed your view ... not once ....

 

I do a post with a differening view which has turned out to be correct and you spam 5 different cut and pastes.

 

Anyone else reading this thread I think would agree this is becoming tiresome.

 

Your view unchanged .... just as bullish now as before.

 

Mine is only an opinion and yes to you i am a crank ... you called me one back in April and questioned who I worked for. And its dragged on and on and on post after bullish post month after month ... and in the meantime has it helped Bannerman or PDN or the woeful AGS ? No.

 

The outcomes for these ultra low grade or tiny Underground deposits with very short mine lives .... the lower the spot goes the greater the percentage of initial capex is represented by the IGV of the metal making it less and less likely ever to be mined and totally worthless.

 

Sorry ... but I have tried time and again to explain this concept over the last 4 months. some other readers took my view in ... but you ....

 

I am always saddened and stunned .... in the end someone talking lovingly about a stock or a commodity after the rush.

 

take care

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reply to: kahuna1 on Wednesday 22/08/07 09:43pm

 

Kahuna - your views and mine fundamentally differ. But I have never taken this to a personal level with you.

 

Your point is Uranium is in a bubble and it will go to $50/lb for good! Fine, I can live with that view based on facts which you have tried to argue.

 

My point is that this is a correction!! The U price is still $20/lb above where it was at the beginning of the year. The fundamentals that kick started the U price to move from $10/lb up to $138/lb are still there!! This was a neglected industry for over 20 years - it doesn't correct itself over night.

 

25% of power stations in the US use natural gas. I haven't checked this but that seems correct. 20-25% in the US use Uranium.

 

I'm not going to talk about individual companies but it is fundamentally understood that the world needs new mines in order to keep up with the incessant demand. If you take out the dismantling of nuclear warheads and the DOE auctions U is in a big deficit!! The latter 2 are only shortlived. Those companies that succeed are going to earn big profits - that is the carrot.

 

I'm happy be to be the lone wolf when people sell and panick. That's when I make my big money.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mate - until all these weeby little U-coys get of the ground (those that do), Olympic Dam will be cranking! Have you not noticed the Aussie deals with China, recently India and now considering Russia!

 

I'm very over the Uranium thing. Made me lots of money, but not under any delusions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE
But I have never taken this to a personal level with you.

 

I am being polite ... not personal.

 

I do however take affront to 40 bullish posts on one thread in the space of 4 months when the average priced uranium miner has lost 50% of its value.

 

Time and time again anyone disagrees with your view ... and few rarely do ... out comes some quote from the US lobby group UIC of puff piece from some newsletter writer.

 

 

Usually total rubbish ... factually incorrect.

 

QUOTE
25% of power stations in the US use natural gas. I haven't checked this but that seems correct. 20-25% in the US use Uranium.

 

Try again ... 40% natural gas 10% nuclear.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat2p2.html

 

I give up .....

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kahuna1, we all know you are a Uranium perma bear, and fair enough, one is entitled freedom of worship in these preferences. Though a few things youÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¾Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ve mentioned should not go unchallenged.

 

To begin, the Nymex

 

In its short life, time has proven that the Nymex futures market had almost no relevance to the spot price, so why would it now.

 

The plain fact is, this particular money market has no bearing on the physical trading of uranium, consequently it has proved itself irrelevant. Indeed, it was initially was touted as a mechanism for wider participation by hedge funds et al, (non industry types), but thereÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¾Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢s nothing there for them. Paper shuffling, in the hope it might have turned out to be a viable trading market, thatÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¾Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢s all. Thus, embracing it as a measure of Uranium market trends has grave flaws. Investment flaws.

 

To go on, even the spot market has a life of its own, where yes, in some ways the gap between its value and that of industry reported contract prices does have some relevance. Much the same as the gap between LME spot for many metals and the reality of actual contracts. These gaps tend to act as a measure of sentiment. ie: low LME supplies, high spot. - High LME supplies, producing a low spot. A measure of sentiment, which may have nothing to do with the real world where contracts are signed

 

ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¦.

 

On the US having 10% energy from nuclear power, well it seems at odds with a cursory look at the situation, where double that is nearer the mark.

 

ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’â€Â¦ÃƒƒÂ¢Ãƒ¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…âہ“ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚ÂÂThe Senate is considering legislation that would provide incentives to restart the nationÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¾Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢s nuclear power industry. There are more than 100 reactors in 31 states, providing 20% of the nationÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¾Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢s electric supplyÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚ÂÂÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚ÂÂÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚ÂÂ

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...ar-energy_x.htm

 

ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’â€Â¦ÃƒƒÂ¢Ãƒ¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…âہ“ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚ÂÂIn 1993 there were 109 licensed power reactors in the U.S. and about 400 in the world. They generate about 20 percent of the U.S. electricity.ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚ÂÂÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚ÂÂ

 

http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/nuclear-faq.html

 

ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¦

 

Investor assumptions of the US having a viable natural gas supply going into the future are flawed. They have a looming problem - and its' no hard thing to check

 

HereÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¾Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢s a American commentary

ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’â€Â¦ÃƒƒÂ¢Ãƒ¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…âہ“ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚ Natural gas supply is likely to decline in the next few years, because most of the larger, more productive sites have already been tapped. New natural gas wells are getting smaller and smaller, so that more and more new wells need to come on line each year, just to stay even. For a while, we were able to make up our shortfall with imports from Canada, but these have begun to decline. In the next few years, both US production and imports from Canada will be declining. It is doubtful that liquified natural gas imports from overseas will be able to fill the gap. ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’â€Â¦ÃƒƒÂ¢Ãƒ¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…âہ“ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚ÂÂÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚ÂÂ

ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¦ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¦ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¦.

 

 

 

Lastly --

It would seem that some people are assuming Paladin are locked into forward contracts. Well I would be curious to see their proofs. Reports from the company etc, none of this media speculation or idle chat. Why so, back in December when the spot price of uranium was $65, and the contract price would have been somewhat less, UBS released their own commentary, more or less expressing dismay that Paladin had not locked in forward contracts. Instead they had made a number of agreements with US companies for future supply at whatever prevailing prices might be at the time of delivery.

 

In summary, UBS had no hard numbers to deal with, and it bothered them.

 

John Borshoff soon after, made comments to the interested media that locking in prices was not on the company agenda, whereas agreements to supply were, adding, his role was to maximise revenue, not merely sell uranium at seemingly attractive prices.

 

Since the spot price of uranium has risen above $65, and remains so, then one would think Borshoff has vindicated his stance in a highly visible manner.

 

In light of the simple truth that he was a uranium bull when the metal could have been bought for less than $20, and no one at the time could visualise a better price in the future, IÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¾Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢m inclined to take his views on board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (watchmaker @ Wednesday 22/08/07 11:15pm)

Oh Boy ....

 

Until the moment Cigar Lake was flooded I was bearish ... U may note I owned SMM and three other Uranium stocks for a lot of the rise I even named them.

 

Calling me a permananet bear when I made 50% in 3 weeks off them and SMM around 400% I think is a little unfair ... even could I say stupid.

 

U guys make me laugh .....

 

QUOTE
On the US having 10% energy from nuclear power, well it seems at odds with a cursory look at the situation, where double that is nearer the mark

 

 

The link I provided and their numbers ..... if you read it .... it is the US goverment and their numbers .....

 

I thought maybe the line at the top of the page ..... might have been a hint !!

 

But here is who I quoted ....

 

QUOTE
The Energy Information Administration (EIA), created by Congress in 1977, is a statistical agency of the U.S. Department of Energy.

 

And in return to refute my numbers I get a newspaper article and a blog page from an 87 year old retired pro nuclear bloggers page who's referances by the way ... date from 1974 to 1990.

 

 

Look at the page again ....

 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat2p2.html

 

 

I go to great pains to be accurate .... and provide credible links and back up assertions with facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for PDN and fixed contracts with caps and floors .....

 

 

Ur reasearch .... well ....

 

 

Mine

 

19 January 2006

 

The sales contract is for the purchase of 2,145,000lbs U3O8 for delivery between 2007 and 2012. Pricing will be market related to be determined at time of each delivery with escalating floor and ceiling price components.

 

27 January 2006

 

second sales contract

The sales contract is for the purchase of 2,080,000lbs U3O8 for delivery between 2007 and 2012. Pricing will be market related to be determined at time of each delivery with escalating floor and ceiling price components.

 

24 March 2006

third sales contract via a Letter of Intent

 

The sales contract is for the purchase of over 2.5 million pounds U3O8 for delivery between 2007 and 2012. Pricing will be market related to be determined at time of each delivery with escalating floor and ceiling price components.

 

 

I did not say they were fixed but clearly a FLOOR price was SET and since these were written around the time the spot was US$35 - pre cigar lake flooding numer one .... how far do you think the floor was away from the current spot ? I suspect US$15 ... and ergo the ceiling I presume was set about the same way away on the top.

The ceiling price or MAXIMUM price the could receive was also set at the same time.

 

Whilst not fixed it looked good to PDN to at least get the guaranteed minimum and let the maximum which was miles away stand. One hand they look like a hero if it went back down and the other was unlikely.

 

Oh you have made my day the clown at PDN was patting himself on the back saying how good he was ... when in reality he signed these things .... sure its only 60% of the first mine for 5 years ... but shows how full of it he is. maybe he could become a pollie ?

 

 

Didn't know the clown at PDN was trying to sweep these under the carpet since the spot price obviously well above the likely ceiling of the contracts.

 

The UBS guy ... is wrong and unless PDN misled the ASX which is quite possible if you have ever hear the fellow in charge speak .... the accounts might tunr out to ba naqsty surprise when they come out ... earnings for the first mine at a US$50- lb price instead of the expected US$80 or US$90.

 

 

 

Looked like a good deal at the time

 

US$50- looked great just 18 months ago.

 

These three deals represent around 60% of production for the mine from 2007-2012.

 

They are very clear these releases to the ASX .... whilst they are market related a sales agreement with ... gee golly gee

 

QUOTE
escalating floor and ceiling price components

 

So over time they go up .... how much ? I doubt very much over the infaltion rate.

 

Cigar lake and Uranium at US$50- or more was a wet dream in Jan - Mar 2006.

 

Yet again ....

 

What do you actually think an agreement to supply ... with a guranteed minimum price or floor and a maximum ceiling price actually means ?

 

These are verbatum from the ASX releases.

 

What some analyst from UBS has to do with this is beyond me ... especially since they missed this one. And just a laugh the head of PDN ur trying to tell me was patting himself on the back ? He covered 60% of the first mine and by 2009 when the second thing is up it will not really matter ... we will be there ...

 

most amusing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reply to: kahuna1 on Thursday 23/08/07 12:36am

 

Kahuna - your digging a hole for yourself mate!!

 

From the Energy Information Agency (EIA)

 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/...ion/gensum.html

 

The United States is the world's largest supplier of commercial nuclear power. In 2005, there are 104 U.S. commercial nuclear generating units that are fully licensed to operate. (Note: One reactor, however, Brown's Ferry unit 1 has been shut down since 1985. Therefore, some sources cite only 103 units.) Together, they provide about 20 percent of the Nation's electricity. Individuals not familiar with the nuclear industry may wish to consult the introductory feature for general information.

 

Kahuna - you may wish to consult the introductory feature

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reply to: mgbutler on Thursday 23/08/07 12:45am

This is heartening in terms of commodities in general:

 

BHP Says Credit Crunch Won't Reduce Commodity Demand (Update2)

 

By Chanyaporn Chanjaroen and Brett Foley

 

Aug. 22 (Bloomberg) -- BHP Billiton Ltd., the world's biggest mining company, said a global credit crunch is unlikely to derail the five-year rally in commodity prices being driven by emerging economies such as China and India.

 

A telephone survey of customers in recent weeks showed there was ``undiminished appetite'' for metals such as copper, Marius Kloppers, 44, who will become chief executive officer in October, said today in a conference call from Sydney. ``We see demand continuing to be very strong.''

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...