Thanks for that Kennas. Very interesting to read that some analysts believe that prices will drop to $40-$70. I don't understand how that could possibly happen with the supply of uranium being so low. With demand so high and supply so tight why would sellers of uranium sell for less???
If anything I think that there will be an enormous panick driven spike which will then correct but still at a much higher price than what it is currently IMO. The price of uranium is about to become alot more volatile very soon however that could mean great things for the juniors in the short to medium term.
Cheers!
Champ
Perfect...more uncertainty is just the added excitement the whole market needs.Put your hand up if you know what happens next.
Fascinating but thoroughly evil things.
For those investing in uranium explorers who will come into production after 2010, it's worthwhile having a more considered appreciation of the future price of uranium which will effect the viability of some juniors.
From an article in the Fin this weekend:
Some analysis are expecting the the creation of a futures market on the Mercentile Exchange to have a significant effect even on the current price. Brian Eley, from Eley-Griffin funds management (not sure of the cred) believes that U prices will settle in a range of $US40-70 lb after the introduction of the NYMEX futures. This is going to put a lot of pressure on junior end of the Australian junior sector.
On the other hand there is conjecture amongst the current producers of where the U price is headed. The ERA CEO reckons there ill be a correction with 5 years, while PDNs says that U price appreciation will be sustained for more than a decade.
I like the idea of seeing "liquidity" too.Uranium futures to begin trading May 7 on Nymex/Globex
It will be interesting to see what sort of liquidity there is. I'm looking forward to it.
http://www.nymex.com/press_releas.aspx?id=pr20070416a
2. Nuclear weapons proliferation - especially in unstable countries and rogue states etc. We live in dangerous times - maybe some would say 'the age of terrorism' ... will it be a problem for us if our own exported uranium comes back at us in the form of missiles or suitcase nukes from some crazy despot leader in the future??? .... in my opinion the MAD policy only works if all parties have a desire to live. It doesn't apply to crackpot leaders who want to die for their god or bring on Armageddon or Jihad.[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] Radioactivity and Nuclear Waste (in Russia)
from http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/russenv.html
Currently, there are 10 operating nuclear power plants with 30 reactors in Russia, some of which are first generation RBMK reactors similar to the ones that operated in Chernobyl in Ukraine. Although maintenance has improved in recent years and security against terrorist attacks has increased with the cooperation and financial assistance of the United States, the Russian nuclear industry nevertheless continues to register numerous accidents and incidents. The European Union considers the RBMK reactor design to be fundamentally-flawed since it does not have a containment dome. Nevertheless, despite safety concerns, Russia is seeking to extend the operating life of several reactors that are nearing the end of their proscribed operating lifespan, as well as increase the country's nuclear capacity by building 40 new reactors by 2030. [/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]
Radioactive contamination has damaged several regions in Russia. Lake Karachay, adjacent to the Mayak complex in Chelyabinsk, is one example of the nuclear industry's careless past, and is now considered to be one of the most polluted spots on Earth. Lake Karachay has been reported to contain 120 million curies of radioactive waste, including seven times the amount of strontium-90 and cesium-137 that was released in the April 1986 explosion of the Unit 4 reactor at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine. The area surrounding the Mayak complex suffers from radioactive pollutants from over 50 years of plutonium production, processing and storage. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Nuclear waste from both civilian and military nuclear power installations has become a severe threat to Russia's environmental health. Adding to the problem, in 2001 the Russian parliament approved legislation to allow the storage of foreign nuclear waste on Russian soil. Atomic energy authorities claim that between 10,000 and 20,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste could be imported for storage and reprocessing over the next decade, with the storage plan projected to earn the country $20 billion in foreign revenues over the ten-year period. The Russian government has said that it plans to use the revenues to clean up the environment. Neighboring states have expressed safety concerns regarding nuclear waste traveling close to their borders, while environmental groups have voiced their overall opposition to Russia's long-term storage plans.[/FONT]
i don't see the concern with nuclear waste. dig a big hole in the desert and bury it there, too easy. what we should be doing as well is taking in the worlds supply of nuclear (and maybe toxic) waste, charging them an obscene amount of money and stashing it in the middle of nowhere. we are geologically stable with lots of wide open and largely useless land, why not put it to work for us?
and the whole "it will be dangerous for tens of thousands of years blah blah" is irrelevant as we won't have to store it for very long. the technology will be available in the forseeable future to just blast all the waste into the sun.
Deep burial may be OK for the waste rods - but how about the site and nearby contamination. There ain't **** anyone can do about that.
And what happens when the waste-rocket does a 'challenger' ?? and we get Nuclear waste spread all over?? What happens when a terrorist shoots it down with 'patriot' style weapon.
Deep burial may be OK for the waste rods - but how about the site and nearby contamination. There ain't **** anyone can do about that.
And what happens when the waste-rocket does a 'challenger' ?? and we get Nuclear waste spread all over?? What happens when a terrorist shoots it down with 'patriot' style weapon.
Considering the quadzillion KM's of uninhabited desert that Australia has, I can't even see how Uranium disposal is an issue.
??????????...Indian Point nuclear power plant, unintended releases of tritium through a crack in the spent fuel pool concrete support wall may have been the cause of the elevated levels of tritium in groundwater in the area immediately surrounding the plant's spent fuel pool. In another instance, at the Braidwood nuclear power plant, unintended releases of tritium from a number of vacuum breaker valves at the plant caused elevated levels of tritium in groundwater in unrestricted, public areas.
Guess I should be more clear - when I say 'the site' - I'm talking about the original reactor site and local environment. (not the site of deep waste disposal).
This for example - groundwater contamination - irreversible as far as I can see..
??????????
although groundwater contamination could still be a long term issue for waste disposal. I'm sure we don't know enough about the long term movements and cycling of groundwater and especially deep groundwaters - to say it is completely safe.
It may be possible to bury the waste in solid impermeable rock (with zero moisture) I guess.
dig a big hole in the desert and bury it there, too easy.
Not sure if this has been dicussed.
What are others thoughts on the govt and there verdict on the U issue?
Mine personally is the govt will say no.
In a nut shell if the majority of the public are against it the the govt is too.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?