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

Uranium prices are set to climb

By Matt Chambers Bloomberg News

Wednesday, January 5, 2005

 

 

Supplies dwindle even as Asia builds more nuclear reactors

 

MELBOURNE Prices for uranium, used to generate 16 percent of the world's electricity, may rise by a quarter this year as stockpiles of the nuclear fuel decrease and demand is set to rise from reactors being built in China and India.

 

"You have gone from a buyer's to a seller's market," said Bob Mitchell, who holds physical uranium worth more than $26 million for Adit Capital Management in Portland, Oregon. "Most reactors under construction haven't secured long-term supply and there is no inventory left among utilities."

 

Commercial stockpiles of the fuel dropped 50 percent between 1985 and 2003 because mine output could not keep up with demand, according to a September report by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Mine expansions may not meet demand, pushing up prices for uranium at miners such as Cameco, the world's biggest, and Energy Resources of Australia.

 

Cameco shares rose 68 percent last year and Energy Resources of Australia, which is 68 percent-owned by Rio Tinto Group, surged 94 percent. Paladin Resources, an Australian company that plans to mine uranium in Namibia, rose ninefold.

 

China is preparing to award an $8 billion contract to build four reactors in the world's biggest nuclear power construction program. The country plans to build 27 plants to meet a target of raising nuclear energy output fivefold by 2020. India aims to build 17 reactors to triple nuclear power capacity by 2012.

 

"Uranium prices will advance in 2005," said Mitchell at Adit Capital, who also owns Cameco shares as part of the $200 million he helps manage at another fund, Touchstone Investment Managers. "In China, they'll have to build a couple more reactors a year."

 

Concern about supply shortages helped increase spot prices of uranium to $20.50 a pound as of Dec. 31, according to Metal Bulletin. That is the highest since 1984, according to a report by Jeff Combs, president of Ux Consulting, based in Roswell, Georgia, which publishes spot uranium prices.

 

The spot market, which makes up about 12 percent of uranium sales, according to the World Nuclear Association, sets a price reference for long-term contracts between miners and utilities. Uranium prices rose to a record of more than $40 a pound in the late 1970s, according to Combs at Ux Consulting.

 

Contract prices paid by power companies may rise to $27 a pound this year from $20 a pound last year, a National Bank Financial analyst, Ian Howat, said in a Nov. 24 report. Long-term prices may rise to $26 a pound, a Goldman Sachs JBWere analyst, Ian Preston, said in a Dec. 14 report after attending a uranium conference in Sydney.

 

"It looks like current prices are here to stay and possibly rise significantly," Craig Kinnell, acting chief executive of Energy Resources of Australia, the world's third-biggest uranium miner, said in an interview Dec. 31.

 

"Inventories are falling and there has been little response to that in the way of more mine supply. Our contract prices have risen to reflect the spot price rises."

 

China aims to double total power generation capacity by 2020. It needs to add two reactors a year by then to meet a target of generating 4 percent of its power from nuclear plants.

 

Demand from China may help uranium prices double in the next two years and may triple demand for nuclear power by 2020, said Quinton George, managing director of Trinity Asset Management. The company owns 18 percent of Afrikander Lease, which holds South Africa's biggest uranium deposit.

 

"The supply deficit will affect this market for at least the next 10 years," Geroge said. "In the next two years we could well see uranium touching historical highs, at least doubling current prices."

 

China has begun talks with Australia, which holds the world's largest uranium reserves, to enable the fuel to be exported by Rio Tinto, the world's third-biggest miner, and WMC Resources, which owns the biggest deposit of the radioactive metal.

 

"We're working with the Australian government to get the ability to sell uranium to China," Bruce Brook, WMC's chief financial officer, said in an interview in November. "These guys have announced 32 nuclear power stations to be developed over the next 16 years."

 

The Melbourne-based WMC in November increased its long-term uranium forecast to $30 a pound and said that its Olympic Dam deposit could become the world's biggest uranium mine if a 4 billion Australian dollar, or $3 billion, expansion is approved. Cameco plans to increase production 18 percent at McArthur River in Canada, now the world's biggest uranium mine.

 

"We've got customers who are highly-concerned about the supply chain of uranium," said Brook at WMC, who is also in charge of the company's uranium marketing. "I can assure you the pricing that they have in mind is not going backward. Our expansion and one planned by Cameco won't fill the gap" between supply and demand, he said.

 

World demand will outpace supply by 11 percent in the decade ending in 2013 as inventories decline, the World Nuclear Association estimates.

 

The decline in stockpiles has been hastened by the decision of Russia, the world's biggest uranium exporter after Canada, in October 2003 to limit its exports to conserve fuel for 25 plants it wants to build by 2020.

 

Reactor fuel made from former Russian nuclear weapons powers one out of every 10 U.S. homes, according to the Washington-based Nuclear Energy Institute trade group.

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâ€Â ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’‚¡ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÂ¢Ãƒ¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚© 2005 The International Herald Tribune | www.iht.com

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi X-rayÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâ€Â ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’‚¡ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÂ¢Ãƒ¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¦ ON URANIUM.

Do some research on some of these.

 

They have all bolted significantly in the last 4months or so, some as much as 400%.

 

Paladin Resources Code=PDN was 22c in Sept. 2004 now 84c 90c ish..

 

I like and own WMC Resources the code = WMR...Olympic Dam(one of the largest in the world) just spells money money...

 

Another is Energy Resources of Australia, Code= ERA which is 68% owned by Rio TintoÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâ€Â ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’‚¡ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÂ¢Ãƒ¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¦.

 

Also look into Havilah Resources Sept. 2004 the price was .27c Friday closing price was $1.29c... All I can say X-ray itÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâ€Â ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’‚¡ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’‚¾ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢s almost too dangerous to be out of them LOLÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâ€Â ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’‚¡ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÂ¢Ãƒ¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¦

 

Cheers...

Mx...

P.S Bruce I hope you got my note yesterday I'm still finding my way around ShareScene as I don't use it often..thanks for the welcome anyway if you didn't recieve it..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reply to: Mission X on Saturday 29/01/05 02:55pm

re uanium.

Can anyone tell me how much uranium metal is needed for a normal sized power plant. Prices are of the order $40.00 for the oxide. There must be one hell of cost in getting the oxide to the metal. I understand about 10Kg. is needed for a bomb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you can work it out. My guess would be for a catagory 1 station (or base plant) such as Bayswater 4 x 600MW or 2.4 GW

 

Lets assume a thermodynamic efficiency of 40% then we get

 

fuel consumption of 2.4/0.4= 6GW

 

From E=MC2 we now have

 

6GWx31536000s=massx 301 000 000 x 301 000 000 m/s

 

where mass is in KGs

 

31536000 is the number of seconds per year

 

301000000 is the speed of light in meters per second

 

Delta.mass = 2.1024KG per year

 

2.1024

---------

(1-235/238)

 

=166.79kg of pure uranium per year

 

Divide this number by your purity percentage and you will get your usage with one major flaw. These equation assume 100% radioactive efficiency which is absolutely untrue. By the time all these other numbers are taken into account i think the answer would be around a couple of hundred tons.

 

Not much really

 

Cheers,

mike

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reply to: michaelirish on Monday 14/06/04 05:37pm

'The Dine Investment letter from the US is suggesting that URanium will be the next bull segment in the market..

Which Australian stocks are exporting Uranium "

hOW RIGHT THAT WAS..I bought ERA and PDN on that basis......I can afford to wait for ERG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The WA election may be a close race.From The Australian

 

 

Gallop's back in the running

David King

February 01, 2005

THE Gallop Government has clawed its way back into contention to win a second term in office.

 

After the first week of the West Australian campaign and the exit of Mark Latham as federal leader, Labor and the Coalition are now deadlocked on 50-50 in two-party-preferred terms.

 

With the federal party leadership resolved in favour of popular West Australian MP Kim Beazley, Labor has reached its highest level of primary support since taking office in 2001.

 

And while the Liberal-led Coalition maintains a slight lead in the primary vote, its support has fallen dramatically. According to the latest Newspoll survey, taken exclusively for The Australian, the gap between the state ALP and the Coalition parties on primary vote is now just two percentage points -- a far cry from the 14-percentage-point gulf that separated them in December. The survey, taken last weekend, found support for the Coalition had fallen from 49 per cent in December to 44per cent.

 

Support for Labor increased from 35 per cent at the end of last year to 42 per cent.

 

Newspoll managing director Sol Lebovic said the poll showed the February 26 election would be close.

 

"It's wide open and the campaign will be critical," he said. "The last quarter was artificial in the sense that there were a lot of federal implications coming though, which muddied the waters.

 

"Every state poll we did for the December quarter had Labor going backwards except in Queensland."

 

The Labor Party performed terribly in Western Australia in the October 9 federal poll, with its primary Senate vote dropping to just 32 per cent.

 

The surge in support revealed in Newspoll will be a huge relief for Premier Geoff Gallop, who until recently faced the prospect of an electoral wipe-out.

 

The previous Newspoll showed the Coalition 14 points ahead on the primary vote and 12 percentage points ahead on a two-party-preferred basis.

 

Despite a booming economy, marked by record levels of employment and business confidence, Dr Gallop has weathered sustained criticism for failing to connect with voters.

 

But last weekend's Newspoll showed the two-party-preferred vote had returned to the 50-50 deadlock that existed for half of last year.

 

Dr Gallop continued to lead the approval ratings, with 46 per cent of voters satisfied with his performance, steady with the December quarter.

 

Mr Barnett's satisfaction rating as Opposition Leader improved by 1 point from the last Newspoll, to 38 per cent.

 

On the question of who would make the better premier, Dr Gallop leads comfortably. More than half of voters, 52 per cent, voted for him.

 

Only 31 per cent said Mr Barnett would be better.

 

Mr Lebovic said the Gallop Government could have benefited from the election of Mr Beazley as federal leader to replace Mr Latham.

 

The Nationals' primary vote increased by 1 point to 4 per cent. The Australian Democrats face oblivion, with support at less than 0.5 per cent.

 

The Greens, who helped deliver Labor its 2001 victory, had a 6 per cent primary vote, compared with 7.3 per cent in 2001.

 

One Nation will not affect this election, with support down to 1 per cent from 9.6 per cent.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reply to: ian_whitchurch on Tuesday 01/02/05 05:42pm

Ian

A few extracts from a "Reserve Resource Statement " made by ERA on Jan 31 2005.

 

"develop a new pit design plan which in turn has led to to an increase in reserves /resources"

"proved and probable reserves grading 0.24% U3O8"

 

"the cut off grade which is the level down to which it is economic to process ore remains at 0.12% uranium oxide"

 

So it looks the cut off grade is about 1.2Kg /ton in a pit.

 

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...