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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Uranium Stocks -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TheSlowLane who wrote (13545)	6/16/2008 3:28:04 PM
From: LoneClone	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 30080

I agree TSL. I like GEM's fundamentals, but I sold out at a loss some months ago and won't be looking to get back in until I have given up the first 20% of the pps move north. I'll take the middle 60%, as the saying goes... LC

To: TheSlowLane who wrote (13545)	6/17/2008 11:25:35 AM
From: james flannigan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 30080

4 yrs ago no one thought oil sand jrs would ever be economic and even though some had billions of brls of oil locked in the sand,the oil price was low, so investors thought none of those jrs were worth any kind of investment.The 500% increase in oil in 4 yrs have made early investors in oil sand jr $ billions. I see the same thing in some U jrs. The supply shortage looming when the Russia HEU agreement ends will in my view make at least a $300 U price in the next couple of yrs. In light of that view I am buying large U ore bodies that are not uneconomic in the current spot U price.If I am correct on the forecast on the future U price,a small jr advancing its project like GEM will become a future cash cow just like oil sands became in a higher oil price.I don't want current economic U deposits.I do want uneconomic companies.Why??? Because GEM has been taken out behind the wood shed and has been shot and left for dead.I say not so fast!!! James