Uranium, a Raging Bull

YOUNG_TRADER · 8 January 2007

Kennas,

From my knowledge of Constitutional and Administative Law (What an ugly subject that was YUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

If the current Federal Executive Govt ie Johny and his boys are pro uranium,

Then the State govt's which regualte mining in their areas are free to go either yes or no

Now even if at the upcoming meeting Labor says YES to Uranium, States are still free to choose,

So W.A. can still say no, there's nothing anyone can do to force them to say yes, hence why S.A. is the best State to be in for Uranium IMO and of course NT

Rafa · 8 January 2007

kennas said:
My understanding is that the No New Mines policy is a core national labor policy and therefore, the States must abide by it, or they get their ar!ses kicked. Like kicked out!

Exactly... but as YT said, scrapping it, does not mean the converse will happen, it only removes the over-riding rule...

its now up to each state to decide based on state issues.

Sean K · 8 January 2007

YOUNG_TRADER said:
Kennas,

From my knowledge of Constitutional and Administative Law (What an ugly subject that was YUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

If the current Federal Executive Govt ie Johny and his boys are pro uranium,

Then the State govt's which regualte mining in their areas are free to go either yes or no

Now even if at the upcoming meeting Labor says YES to Uranium, States are still free to choose,

So W.A. can still say no, there's nothing anyone can do to force them to say yes, hence why S.A. is the best State to be in for Uranium IMO and of course NT

Rafa said:
Exactly... but as YT said, scrapping it, does not mean the converse will happen, it only removes the over-riding rule...

its now up to each state to decide based on state issues.

Yep, that is making sence to me. So WA and QLD are going to be able to say no to mining even if Labor change the policy. My SMM shares will be shelved very shortly if this is the case.

YOUNG_TRADER · 8 January 2007

Rafa said:
Exactly... but as YT said, scrapping it, does not mean the converse will happen, it only removes the over-riding rule...

its now up to each state to decide based on state issues.

Well said Rafa, a much better answer far more clear, concise and to the point, I think more people will get the drift now

Cheers

hitmanlam · 8 January 2007

As far as i know, Mr Beattie (QLD) has stated that he MIGHT change his stance if federal labour stance changes. I wouldn't put on money on that though. As for Mr Carpenter (WA), there is absolutely NO CHANCE that he will budge. He has openly said that he will never support uranium cause WA would be the target for being a uranium dumping ground.

"I will sell my wife and kids before I change my stance on uranium"....

22nd November, The Australian Financial Review, page 34

Sean K · 8 January 2007

hitmanlam said:
As far as i know, Mr Beattie (QLD) has stated that he MIGHT change his stance if federal labour stance changes. I wouldn't put on money on that though. As for Mr Carpenter (WA), there is absolutely NO CHANCE that he will budge. He has openly said that he will never support uranium cause WA would be the target for being a uranium dumping ground.

"I will sell my wife and kids before I change my stance on uranium"....

22nd November, The Australian Financial Review, page 34

While governments and leaders will change, this sort of talk has to put a dampener on any WA explorer, surely. By the time government, and/or leaders change, the U supply demand equation might have changed resulting in the spot price declining making them unworthy. Hhhmm, food for thought.

hitmanlam · 8 January 2007

BTW. That last bit was a joke if u guys didnt pick it up.............

tech/a · 8 January 2007

Dont know if anyone is interested but I have made up an INDEX of small cap uranium explorers and miners those under a market cap of $100,000,000.
I have 43 and as new ones come on I add to it.I have 6 to add.
I have weighted it /$20,000,000 market cap.
BHP and RIO etc arent in it. Here is the chart for the last 12 mths.
I can only fit on the last 8 mths due to capture size limits.

hitmanlam · 8 January 2007

kennas said:
While governments and leaders will change, this sort of talk has to put a dampener on any WA explorer, surely. By the time government, and/or leaders change, the U supply demand equation might have changed resulting in the spot price declining making them unworthy. Hhhmm, food for thought.

Exactly kennas. I would never buy a WA miner. It's just pure speculation. Even if they do start production, it will be a long long time away. There's plenty of other U stocks out there. I can see some reasoning with buying QLD explorer like SMM.

Anyways, if your looking a a stock with good fundamentals. These are the things u need to consider, in order of importance:

1. Look for total JORC resources and compare market caps. (good EV $/lb). Remember to factor a premium for U miners closer to production.
2. U miners in friendly State or in a African country.
3. Look for resources close to infrastructure.
4. Explorers who have tenaments near, or between, or on, similar geology to known miners with good resources.
5. And, how much cash do they have in the bank. They might need to issue more shares if they don't have the money and dilute them.
6. Joint Ventures with quality companies. JV with quality companies will help both companies.
7. Quality of management. Look for directors who have U mining experience in good companies.
8. Who are the shareholders top 20? If a big investment company has a stake, u know they did it cause they believe the company will go places.

Alot of things to consider........

sydneysider · 9 January 2007

YOUNG_TRADER said:
Kennas,

From my knowledge of Constitutional and Administative Law (What an ugly subject that was YUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

If the current Federal Executive Govt ie Johny and his boys are pro uranium,

Then the State govt's which regualte mining in their areas are free to go either yes or no

Now even if at the upcoming meeting Labor says YES to Uranium, States are still free to choose,

So W.A. can still say no, there's nothing anyone can do to force them to say yes, hence why S.A. is the best State to be in for Uranium IMO and of course NT

I went to Law School a thousand years ago BUT are there not Constitutional restraint of trade issues at stake when a state decides to "ban" a perfectly legal business activity that is conducted within the Commonwealth and between the other states.

WA already allows the granting of leases to search for, drill and prove up U resources. There are already some leases that could be legally mined for U (i think from memory Palladin ownws them). That means that at least one U mine would be legal while the rest would be illegal.

The whole issue about a U waste dump in WA for depleted u is a complete "furphy". I do not think this issue has been taken to the courts because up until now there was no financial incentive. At US$72 pound and above the pressure to seek a legal resolution thru the parliament or courts will be come paramount. Any Constitutional scholars here to comment?

spooly74 · 9 January 2007

Below is a section from the Age (11/06) on the upcoming conflict between the states and federal gov on Uranium mining . . . link to full article below. cheers

"...if push comes to shove, the states' ability to resist nuclear power might be about on a par with their ability to stop the takeover of industrial relations.

While the corporations power gave the Commonwealth coverage of only about 85 per cent of employees, constitutional expert George Williams, law professor at the University of NSW, thinks its coverage of the nuclear industry ”” a greenfields area almost certainly wholly run by corporations ”” would probably be 100 per cent. "In any legal battle for control of a nuclear industry, the Commonwealth would emerge victorious. This is because the constitution gives it the overriding voice where there is a conflict between federal and state law ”” providing its actions are based on a constitutional power," Williams says. "

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opini...1163871546311.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

sydneysider · 9 January 2007

spooly74 said:
Below is a section from the Age (11/06) on the upcoming conflict between the states and federal gov on Uranium mining . . . link to full article below. cheers

"...if push comes to shove, the states' ability to resist nuclear power might be about on a par with their ability to stop the takeover of industrial relations.

While the corporations power gave the Commonwealth coverage of only about 85 per cent of employees, constitutional expert George Williams, law professor at the University of NSW, thinks its coverage of the nuclear industry ”” a greenfields area almost certainly wholly run by corporations ”” would probably be 100 per cent. "In any legal battle for control of a nuclear industry, the Commonwealth would emerge victorious. This is because the constitution gives it the overriding voice where there is a conflict between federal and state law ”” providing its actions are based on a constitutional power," Williams says. "

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opini...1163871546311.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

Thank you for the quote to this article. I thought that this was the position all along. By fighting off the Feds the States such as WA will only see a lot of their U assets slip into foreign hands at bargain basement prices while the fight rages.

YOUNG_TRADER · 9 January 2007

I think whats important to focus on is not the legal issues but rather if you were going to invest Millions in developing a U mine would you want to operate in

a) S.A. where the State Govt will bend over backwards to help you, providing you with an easy path through the red tape and even some funding assistance known as PACE

b) N.T. where the Fed govt literally siezed control of mining rights and have said as far as U is concerned anything goes

c) Qld where the State govt has voiced its thoughts on protecting its very large coal interests (some would see coal and uranium in direct competition as an energy source)

d) W.A. where the State Govt is firmly oppossed to U mining,

Remember just because its legal to do in a State doesn't make it a sure thing, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink" or if you like "You can legalise Uranium exploration in all States, but you can't guarantee that that attempts won't be made to stop iand hinder that exploration"

nizar · 9 January 2007

YOUNG_TRADER said:
I think whats important to focus on is not the legal issues but rather if you were going to invest Millions in developing a U mine would you want to operate in

a) S.A. where the State Govt will bend over backwards to help you, providing you with an easy path through the red tape and even some funding assistance known as PACE

Very true.
YT u should check out SAU, i used to hold them not anymore, but still think they are a winner. Very prospective holdings and exploration, SG very experienced, and their market cap is a joke.

spooly74 · 9 January 2007

YOUNG_TRADER said:
I think whats important to focus on is not the legal issues but rather if you were going to invest Millions in developing a U mine would you want to operate in

Why not all of them?
Its clear that SA`s Premier Mike Rann, who has big uranium deposits in his state, is openly opposed to Labor's current policy, and as you said in NT anything goes.
That leaves QLD and WA.
Peter Beatie has been quoted
PETER BEATTIE: I don't want to do anything that's going to undermine the coal industry, but the future of uranium's in the hands of the national ALP conference.

REPORTER: Will the national ALP conference stand in the way of Queensland benefiting from a uranium bonanza?

PETER BEATTIE: Let me assure you, nothing involving the Labor Party or anyone else will stand in the way of Queensland's advancement or development.

Seems like he will tow the party line when push comes to shove, and I`ve noticed that the QLD Greens are getting upset, amongst others
http://qld.greens.org.au/media-releases/beattie-sets-scene-for-mining-uranium-in-queensland-1

In WA, Alan Carpenter is firmly against anything to do with uranium but this is where legal issues will arise and Commonwealth could/will intervene.

"PETER COSTELLO: Well, it's constitutional issues, aren't they? But it may be argued that under our trade and commerce power and it may be argued under our external affairs power that the Commonwealth has the ability to facilitate the trade and commerce of uranium and the export of uranium.

I can’t go any further in relation to that, but … you know, here we are in modern day Australia in 2006, where we have the emerging Chinese economy, which needs power, is interested in nuclear power, which is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which will observe all of our conditions, to which we sell some uranium, but people say it can only be sold if it comes from that mine, and not that mine.

Where's the logic? Uranium is either all bad, in which case there should be no mines, or it’s acceptable, in which case there should be such number of mines as are commercial. But there's no logic in saying it's good at three mines and bad everywhere else."

I currently hold one uranium stock from SA and one from QLD and I would certainly agree that SA is the winner at the moment.
It will be interesting if Carpenter kicks up a stink in WA, personally I think it might be a good entry point. WA has 7% of Australias uranium . . . surely it wont go to waste?
cheers
all quotes from abc.net

Click to expand...

Rafa · 9 January 2007

well, i hope WA and QLD don't allow mining...

we don't want every mine possible to come on market in a rush... spot price will crash and we'll all be worse off...!

dj_420 · 9 January 2007

you do realise how long it takes to develop a mine??

i think companies would be looking at 5 years and thats been conservative. how long did PDN take to get mine online.

and all of the uranium players in australia arent going to make it to production stage. IMO only AGS, MTN, SMM have the resource sizes that can make a mine financially viable.

EVEN if these three players came online at once they cant dig up their entire resource in one hit, these deposits could prob support 20 year mining lifetimes.

and by the time the mines come online the uranium spot will prob well exceed 100 per pound. so a total drop on uranium policy would not effect spot uranium price for at least 7 years IF AT ALL.

Fab · 9 January 2007

dj_420 said:
you do realise how long it takes to develop a mine??

i think companies would be looking at 5 years and thats been conservative. how long did PDN take to get mine online.

and all of the uranium players in australia arent going to make it to production stage. IMO only AGS, MTN, SMM have the resource sizes that can make a mine financially viable.

EVEN if these three players came online at once they cant dig up their entire resource in one hit, these deposits could prob support 20 year mining lifetimes.

and by the time the mines come online the uranium spot will prob well exceed 100 per pound. so a total drop on uranium policy would not effect spot uranium price for at least 7 years IF AT ALL.

PDN appears to be the big winner at the moment. They are in production already and not mining in OZ. Their share price is holding very well above $8 and pushing up

richmond · 9 January 2007

I posted this in another thread - wouldn't mind some hypotheticals if its allowed...

Quote:
Originally Posted by richmond
so, what are the predictions for what will happen should Rudd convince his ALP brethren to change tack on the uranium front and allow mines in Qld and WA?

Sorry guys, I should have been more specific with my question - we all know the ALP Conference is very important regarding how the investment community looks at uranium stocks - I was looking for hypotheticals on the impact of a change in policy on the likes of SMM, AGS, PDN, DYL, et al. Do you think it will go up hugely or has it already been factored in? Especially if Mr Beattie just "goes with the flow" as he has indicated recently?

Cheers
R
Edit/Delete Message

Sean K · 10 January 2007

richmond said:
I posted this in another thread - wouldn't mind some hypotheticals if its allowed...

Quote:
Originally Posted by richmond
so, what are the predictions for what will happen should Rudd convince his ALP brethren to change tack on the uranium front and allow mines in Qld and WA?

Sorry guys, I should have been more specific with my question - we all know the ALP Conference is very important regarding how the investment community looks at uranium stocks - I was looking for hypotheticals on the impact of a change in policy on the likes of SMM, AGS, PDN, DYL, et al. Do you think it will go up hugely or has it already been factored in? Especially if Mr Beattie just "goes with the flow" as he has indicated recently?

Cheers
R
Edit/Delete Message

I think some of it has been factored in richmond, but there might be some more upside when it's all confirmed. The market caps of these companies, that will not produce for a number of years, are looking a little toppy to me.

Uranium, a Raging Bull

YOUNG_TRADER

Rafa

Sean K

Moderator

YOUNG_TRADER

hitmanlam

Sean K

Moderator

hitmanlam

tech/a

No Ordinary Duck

Attachments

hitmanlam

sydneysider

spooly74

sydneysider

YOUNG_TRADER

nizar

spooly74

Rafa

dj_420

Fab

richmond

Sean K

Moderator

Similar threads

Uranium, a Raging Bull

Moderator

Moderator

No Ordinary Duck

Attachments

Moderator

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency