Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Seeker of Truth who wrote (59628)	1/29/2005 3:48:21 PM
From: ild	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

Here's a fresh example of Russia's coverage in US press. From today's LA Times: latimes.com Yes, this is paper's "COLUMN ONE" article which, I guess, is supposed to tell something important. It describes something very negative that happens 300-400 times a year in a city with over 9 million people. I read LA Times daily and can't recall a single positive article about almost ANY foreign country (Australia and GB would probably be the only exceptions).

To: Seeker of Truth who wrote (59628)	1/29/2005 7:09:46 PM
From: energyplay	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

Re: Uranium - Just off the top of my head (I'm doing some background reading / DD on the Uranium industry) CCJ has mines with high grades of Uranium. There's a lot of rock out there that is 0.5% U, and not much that is > 5% U. More than a few old mines have been shut down for contamination, (UraVan in Colorado, most of the Moab Utah mines) a few others are on caretaker status. (Grants, New Mexico) CCJs mines are large, low cost and enviromentally current. The new Cigar Lake mione will be low cost producer. I don't think Uranium has peaked,since we don't know how many new plants will be built in the world thsi cycle. One big positve is much of the weapons stockpile of U and Pu which was converted to power use has been used up - not 90% but a bit more than half. Still large stockpiles left, but while the nuclear powers are looking to decrease actual deployed waepons, most seem to want to keep buffer stocks of fissle material for rework and replacement, possible newer designs, etc. It's also very expensive to get Uranium to the highly enriched stage (lots of U235)needed for weapons, so why waste money ? There's a similar cost to get 'clean' Pu 239 that has low amount of Pu 240 - you have to operate the reactor with a short tranist time for the U238, thern do chemical separation.

To: Seeker of Truth who wrote (59628)	1/29/2005 7:19:59 PM
From: TobagoJack	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74559

Good morning Malcolm, U, if rises in price like Pt did, will push folks towards breeders, which extends the U supply by double digit fold, so I am told, even though such will produce nasty toxic stuff. I am also told that progress is possible in disposal tecknology and know-how. Coal, I am told, must be gasified / liquified, and such are power-hog processes. US may have centuries of coal, as do Russia, China, and India, but coal gasification/liquification probably require: (a) political will (b) absolute necessity (c) a legal system that does not allow large employers and huge corporations to be sued into terminal decline On largest CCJ and third largest ERA (Australia), I believe Taikun/David had shown us of the BBR the relative valuation per ounce of reserve, and ERA is way cheap. Australia currently does not export U to China. An agreement currently being negotiated (Aussie U cannot be used in Chinese nuclear reactors small enough to fit on top of a rocket) will likely be signed when concluded and that opens up the possibilities of ERA China sales. ERA ore grade is lower, I believe, but not justifying such a wide discount, I think. Areva has 25+- % of the third largest U mine "Cogema" and provides front-end (design/construction/mining) as well as back-end (fuel manufacturing, reprocessing, plant refurbishment) services. It is the only publicly traded one-stop shop. The big contest between Russia, Areva (French), Britain, Canada, and USA for Chinese reactor orders is getting pretty unseemly now. The US VP has been working on behalf of the US producers. I didn't realize that the White House is a marketing organization. I suppose two technologies will be bought, for diversification of technology risk (cannot have 30 reactors of one design, and then find out the design is flawed). I figure Canada and Britain are out, as China can buy other stuff from them, and they do not have oodles of experience. I figure Russia will get orders based on their technology, as their disasters improved their know-how, and because there is so much Russia can/is offering China (weapons/energy/minerals/trouble-free border/etc). So, the fight for the other reactor design boils down to the French against the Americans. A most interesting contest. Let's watch. Chugs, Jay