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 : Uranium Stocks -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Gib Bogle who wrote (2520)4/9/2006 1:47:21 PM
From: Taikun  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 30232
 
NG is used in generating 10% of US energy supplies, oil 2%.

According to a research report by BHPB, China's energy intensity (used to measure the size of its grid) as reported in a CLSA research report is 1, the US is 14, Japan is 6.

The easiest offset for oil and NG-generated electricity is nuclear and that this is where uranium demand will first supplant fossil fuels.

China will grow energy use from 1 to 6 or 6x and some of that will be nuclear. Assuming the NG and oil used in generating the 12% of electricity is replaced with nuclear that will mean that unlike the US where independent E&P's have a market cap of $1.4trl China will have a larger nuclear industry and this will generate the revenue to grow the market cap of uranium companies relative to E&P's.

I just realized that perhaps you don't believe in peak oil but if you do it is obvious to me that there is simply not enough fossil fuel for that $1.4trl market cap of E&P's to grow significantly, and that could in fact decline. As power is generated by nuclear energy that generates (excuse the pun) income and uranium demand and will grow the market cap of the sector.

I feel I'm typing the obvious.

I think YOU should tell ME why you think my comparison is not significant, because if we have peak oil and growing global energy needs I don't see how that relationship (ie $1.4trl to $50bn) can possibly remain static.