[M_B_S]

Wallstreet scans uranium supply

General conclusions of the analysis are:

1. After a 20-year period of dormancy, reactor orders are on the rise because of nuclear’s low operating costs, grid reliability, and zero carbon footprint. Nuclear may be the best new source of power for an electricity-hungry world. We see uranium demand growing by 2.5-3.0% per year between now and 2015. Developing countries, which today account for 15% of global uranium demand will account for 53% of incremental consumption in the period 2006-2020.

2. New uranium mine development was forgotten during uranium’s long price drought (1980-2003). That fact, combined with the “arsenal overhang” that resulted when Russia and the U.S. downblended nuclear warheads into utility fuel after the Cold War, gave the nuclear industry no reason to invest in new mines. Now miners are scrambling to keep up with demand. Given time, the supply problem will resolve itself, but that could be 10 years, as new mines are nearly as hard to authorize and build in many places, as are nuclear reactors.

3. Uranium supply (primary and secondary material) could fall short of demand by 14,000 tons per year out to 2012. The gap will be filled by inventory liquidation (enrichment tailings, ore tailings, and strategic stockpiles) and other tactics (perhaps longer refueling cycles) but uranium prices are likely to remain quite high – though very volatile – by historical standards. We believe than uranium yellowcake will trade in the $75-125 per pound level through the next several years, though it could easily spike or sag out of that range at least temporarily. http://resourcexinvestor.com/news.php?id=2304
***********************************************

OK lets have a look back to the year 1986 and we will see the pink elephant (enough uranium) again....IAEA report

http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publicatio ... 95_web.pdf

Yes, the reality now is totally different from the past projections

http://www.nea.fr/html/ndd/reports/2006 ... nglish.pdf

http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publicatio ... 04_scr.pdf

http://www.fraw.org.uk/mobbsey/papers/oies_article.pdf

http://www.world-nuclear.org/sym/2005/pdf/Maeda.pdf

http://www.world-nuclear.org/sym/2003/pdf/graul.pdf

http://www.naka.jaea.go.jp/SCI/Long-Ter ... Supply.pdf

http://www.gnr2.org/pdf/NF_20070618.pdf

[Anadultmale]

Requesting?

Would like to interview Dr. Thomas Neff of MIT on Nuclear Power for youtube and general the press. It's about time to begin the real story to the people. After Cigar Lake then Cyclone George in Australia. The problems of U308 has been wild. What up? Can only be told by a few. The problem of supply and demand is at question.

[Tanada]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Anadultmale', 'R')equesting?

Would like to interview Dr. Thomas Neff of MIT on Nuclear Power for youtube and general the press. It's about time to begin the real story to the people. After Cigar Lake then Cyclone George in Australia. The problems of U308 has been wild. What up? Can only be told by a few. The problem of supply and demand is at question.

[Starvid]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', '
')According to Hubbert, Peak Coal isn't for another century or two.

[Dezakin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')s Peak Coal nearly as important as Peak Oil? I am not expert or anything, but I would think that with coal at least we have many other ways to produce electricity. Completely different animal (less critical) in my opinion.

[Starvid]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('HydroLuver', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Starvid', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', '
')According to Hubbert, Peak Coal isn't for another century or two.

[Tanada]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('HydroLuver', '
')Is Peak Coal nearly as important as Peak Oil? I am not expert or anything, but I would think that with coal at least we have many other ways to produce electricity. Completely different animal (less critical) in my opinion.

[mkwin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('HydroLuver', '
')Is Peak Coal nearly as important as Peak Oil? I am not expert or anything, but I would think that with coal at least we have many other ways to produce electricity. Completely different animal (less critical) in my opinion.

[padisah]

The ongoing or forming energy crisis on a broader perspective is not only just Peak Oil or Peak Coal, or eventually Peak Natural gas, but instead a shift from high eroi resources to low eroi resources. And that's exactly the main problem, how will the world's economy work, and survive if the eroi gets low, therfore the overall cost for energy becomes high?

And on the other hand if we choose the wrong pill, and go for coal, we will have the worst effects of a global warming with possibly a positive feedback. I never saw any analysis of the global warming after 2100, what will happen after that?

I personnal think that any carbon that is out in the ocean + atmosphere pair is free, and it will not disappear. There are no high scale chemical or biological processes that would eliminate CO2 from these two, while we have a good chance to trigger the oceans to let the CO2 out, that is right now 19 times more than in the atmosphere. This is a dangerous game.

[Denny]

I follow the Canadian miner Cameco, thankfully I don't own shares, its had its rough times with its main mine, and now this. Cameco is a processor of recovered uranium from Russia's nuclear stockpile. They had a long term deal wiht Russia for the pricing, but now if looks like Russia is having second thoughts on that. I guess governments of all stripes are not known for keeping their word. I like this wording, see Marketwire

The wording is so diplomatic, yet extortionate at the same time: "SASKATOON, SASKATCHEWAN--(Marketwire - Oct. 31, 2007) - Cameco Corporation (TSX:CCO) (NYSE:CCJ) reports that the Joint Stock Company Techsnabexport (Tenex) has requested discussions regarding the pricing structure for the last few years of the remaining term of the commercial agreement to purchase uranium derived from dismantled Russian nuclear weapons."

I'd like to be a fly on the wall of those "discussions". I also wonder if the next few years will be rough in Europe, if Russia decides to "discuss" export prices for natural gas.

[dissident]

Deals made under the rule of dictator Yeltsin are not legitimate. The west's whinging about changes to "sell the house for a song" deals for Russia's natural resources are getting tiresome. Currently Russia sells natural gas for less than 40% of the crude oil price on joule for joule basis. And natural gas is already a refined product that is a feedstock for the chemical industry so the price is really less than 30% of the level it should be fairly set at. Yet the bitching is shrill enough that one would think the price was 300% of the fair level.

Now that world Uranium prices are increasing in response to demand, all long term deals that lock the price at some absurdly low level should be scrapped. The real problem is governments making stupid long term deals. Natural resources should be priced at market levels, this is the only way that their use will be regulated. Imagine what would happen if oil was fixed at $10 per barrel. The world economy would ride the oil train right off the edge of a cliff since no incentives would exist for conservation and the development of alternatives.

[Keith_McClary]

It seems that Uranium is becoming too valuable to be wasted on mass murder (eg. Hiroshima & Nagasaki).

[Tyler_JC]

I was under the impression that natural gas prices were set by the market, not individual sellers.

If Russia wants to sell its NG for below market prices (like it does with some Eastern European countries) it can continue to do so and hold that subsidy as leverage.

But the day it charges market rates...that leverage vanishes.

If Russia tried to charge twice as much as the market rate, LNG would put Putin out of business.

[Keith_McClary]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', 'I')f Russia tried to charge twice as much as the market rate, LNG would put Putin out of business.

[Tyler_JC]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Keith_McClary', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', 'I')f Russia tried to charge twice as much as the market rate, LNG would put Putin out of business.

[Keith_McClary]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Keith_McClary', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', 'I')f Russia tried to charge twice as much as the market rate, LNG would put Putin out of business.

[M_B_S]

Peak Uranium in Australia

Data here:

http://civil.eng.monash.edu.au/about/st ... Master.pdf

see

p. 145 => Peak Uranium in Australia was in 2005

q.e.d.

M_B_S

[matt21811]

Australia has a "3 mines" policy. This means the government only allows 3 uranium mines to run in all of Australia at this time. The market wants 10 to 15. Calling peak uranium in Autralia is pure ignorance.

[dissident]

No, natural gas prices are set by contract unlike oil. This is partly due to the fact that oil does not require a pipeline system for delivery. As for LNG, Qatar has 23.7 trillion cubic meters of natural gas reserves. The EU consumed 486 billion cubic meters in 2006. North America consumes nearly 800 billion cubic meters per year. Qatar exported 31.09 billion cubic metres of LNG in 2006. By 2010 Qatar is planning to increase it LNG capacity by a factor of 2.6. Shipping 79.8 bcm by 2010 ain't going to remove demand for Russian natural gas. In fact, the declining production in NA and EU is going to increase the demand since Qatar cannot cover the decline in production and increase in demand.

[M_B_S]

Here I am again

ASPO: Hubbert Curve for minerals


Thesis:

Peak Oil = Peak Minerals (Uranium etc.)



Hubbert Curves for Minerals ASPO



PEAK OIL = PEAK URANIUM

Imagine the Impact