SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Gold/Mining/Energy : Precious and Base Metal Investing -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Salt'n'Peppa who wrote (31899)10/29/2004 9:04:21 AM
From: jpthoma1  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 39344
 
Lot of promotion about uranium these days.

He says «But Sprott continues to hint that $100 uranium prices might not be far-fetched, saying, “With demand today at 170 million (pounds), who knows? It might be 300 million pounds in twenty years»»

Here they know:

world-nuclear.org

It takes between 10 and 20 years to build a reactor. And many of them will close during the next 20 years. So make your calculations.

He says:«That’s why we go to Strathmore

This company issued a PR last summer saying it has bought the Dieter Lake Uranium deposit in Québec. Dieter lake is a low grade showing, not a deposit!!!!!!! Ground was available until last March when claimed by a prospector.

Promotion, promotion, promotion!!!!!!

JP



To: Salt'n'Peppa who wrote (31899)10/29/2004 9:08:06 AM
From: zebra4o1  Respond to of 39344
 
Base metals in an economic slow down.

I don't know about uranium, but I liked Sprott's comment about base metals versus energy in a recession.

Simply, energy demand in an economic implosion is pretty inelastic. It doesn’t fall off the table. Demand for zinc, lead, copper, and aluminum can fall quite precipitously if there was an economic slowdown.

But what about supply? I guess supply of both is pretty inelastic.