Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Nice one, thanks for the heads up. Farly low float and nice short outstanding balance for the month. In at $3.46
Long Term Indicators
40 Day Commodity Channel Index Hold
60 Day Commodity Channel Index Hold
100 Day Moving Average vs Price Buy
50 - 100 Day MACD Oscillator Buy
20 - 50 Day MACD Oscillator Buy
Long Term Indicators Average: 67% - Buy
100-Day Average Volume - 1313504
Multiple response efforts never hurt as we all have seen and heard what is being used is basically ineffective.
Product / Service / Equipment Information Sheet
http://www.horizonedocs.com/pseform.php
Alternative Technology Response Form
http://www.horizonedocs.com/artform.php
Submit a Suggestion
Submit to the Federal Government
http://www.restorethegulf.gov/suggest_ideas.shtm
The United States Coast Guard Research and Development Center (USCG RDC) issued Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) HSCG32-10-R-R00019 for the purpose of organizing the collection of — and enhancing the Deepwater Horizon Response Team assessment of — technology assistance offers in five technology gap areas:
1. Oil Sensing Improvements to Response and Detection,
2. Oil Wellhead Control and Submerged Oil Response,
3. Traditional Oil Spill Response Technologies,
4. Alternative Oil Spill Response Technologies, and
5. Oil Spill Damage Assessment and Restoration.
Specific instructions are outlined in the BAA for submitting White Papers (i.e., a written description of your idea) to the USCG RDC.
For detailed instructions on how to submit a white paper, please visit U.S. Coast Guard contracting opportunities.
All contractual and technical questions regarding the BAA must be submitted in writing to the following e-mail address: RDC-BAA-DHR@uscg.mil.
Submit to BP
Thousands of people have submitted possible ideas on how to stop or contain the oil in the Gulf of Mexico.
More than 20,000 ideas on how to stop the flow of oil or contain the oil spill have been sent to BP since the Gulf of Mexico incident. These ideas have flooded in from people across the world, ranging from ordinary members of the public to oil industry professionals, and in many languages from Arabic to Russian.
BP has implemented a process to review and evaluate all of these suggestions.
There are two ways to submit a suggestion in this option:
1. Call the Houston suggestion line at (281) 366-5511
2. Fill out the online suggestion form at www.horizonedocs.com/artform.php
Each caller to the Houston suggestion line has their details entered into the Horizon Call Center database. The database then automatically generates and sends the caller a simple form, termed the Alternative Response Technologies form, for them to set out the details of their idea.
Alternatively, the online form is a valuable tool in helping the team to systematically review the technical merits of the idea, as it allows the caller to describe the materials, equipment and skills needed for it to work.
After the caller completes and submits the form, it is sent for triage by a team of 30 technical and operational personnel who will review its technical feasibility and application. Given the quantity of the proposals and the detail in which the team investigates each idea, the technical review can take some time. Each idea is sorted into one of three categories:
* Not possible or not feasible in these conditions;
* Already considered/ planned or;
* Feasible.
The feasible ideas are then escalated for a more detailed review, potential testing and field application. So far, around 100 ideas are under further review.
Each submitter receives a reply informing them of the outcome. Those whose ideas are considered feasible will be contacted by BP if, and when, their support is needed.
Unified Command thanks each submitter for their interest and willingness to share their ideas.
File a Claim
Report a Concern
Volunteer
Submit a Suggestion
BP Horizon Hotlines
Environmental Hotline / Community Information
(866) 448-5816
Assistance Hotline / Boom Reports
(281) 366-5511
Vessels of Opportunity (boats)
(866) 279-7983
Wildlife Distress Hotline
(866) 557-1401
PEC Hotline (Specialty Volunteer Training)
(866) 647-2338
Claims Hotline
(800) 440-0858
(TTY device: 800-572-3053)
Medical Support - Poison Control Center
800-222-1222
Facebook icon
Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Response
http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/go/doc/2931/663195/
Key contact numbers
* Report oiled shoreline or request volunteer information: (866) 448-5816
* Submit alternative response technology, services or products: (281) 366-5511
* Submit your vessel for the Vessel of Opportunity Program: (281) 366-5511
* Submit a claim for damages: (800) 440-0858
* Report oiled wildlife: (866) 557-1401
* Medical support hotline: (888) 623-0287
Uranium sector rallies as access to supply in focus
http://business.financialpost.com/2010/07/16/uranium-sector-rallies-as-access-to-supply-in-focus/
Jonathan Ratner July 16, 2010 – 2:05 pm
Cameco Corp.’s long-term sales to two Chinese buyers near the end of June has helped produce a rally in shares of uranium producers and developers.
Security of supply in the sector has come back into focus as reports continue to surface about Chinese demand and other Asian activity in the industry.
However, access to supply is the real issue, according to David Talbot, analyst with Dundee Securities. He told clients that buyers are competing for stakes in projects and uranium companies, rather than just bids in the spot market.
While production should continue to climb, Mr. Talbot believes that access to uranium may be harder to find, particularly after 24 million pounds of highly enriched uranium goes offline as part of an agreement between Russia and the United States. By 2013, he expects demand to outpace supply.
“Many investors had been waiting for a supply disruption, possibly an act of God, before they expected to see some activity in the space,” Mr. Talbot said in a research note. “But as nuclear power utilities and traders from China, Japan, Korea and Russia gobbling up big companies and uranium projects, and now noticeably cut into supply from Cameco, this leaves less uranium for other end users…”
This includes the United States, which has almost one quarter of the world’s reactor fleet and plans to expand by 31% more by 2020.
China, India and Russia account for 50% of reactor build, with China planning to grow from 11 reactors to 188 by 2020. Russia, meanwhile, has a goal of nuclear power domination, Mr. Talbot said – “it is signing high level trade agreements and going after Uranium One.”
Japan is also stepping up its efforts as companies continue to buy projects. Last week, it announced a new consortium to build and fuel reactors in emerging markets, with legislative and financial support from the government.
Jonathan Ratner
Posted in: Mining, Trading Desk Tags: China, Russia, Uranium, Cameco, Mining, Uranium One
Why Uranium Prices Will Rise
Commodities / Uranium Jul 16, 2010 - 07:24 AM
By: Andrew_McKillop
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article21157.html
Commodities
Best Financial Markets Analysis ArticleNUCLEAR RENAISSANCE, URANIUM SHORTAGE - After a long lost decade, stretching from shortly after the Chernobyl catastrophe of 1986, to around 2003, the nuclear renaissance is in full flood: the pro-nuclear World Nuclear Association (formerly the Uranium Institute) reports that as of July 2010 at least 55 new reactors are under construction in 13 countries. Power capacity added through 2010-2020 is forecast at a minimum of about 75 GW, with other estimates extending far beyond 100 GW.
This capacity hike will increase the world's nuclear capacity, from its current "fleet" of 439 civil reactors producing about 330 GW, to around 410 - 500 GW. Due to expected fast growth of world total electricity consumption, nuclear power's share of total electricity is however unlikely to grow beyond its current approximate 15% (itself down from its share in the 1990s, of up to 18.5%), although some country plans and proposals for nuclear expansion could change this. One example is claims by some Indian nuclear energy proponents, including Indian NPCIL analysts, that India alone could develop about 400 GW of nuclear capacity by around 2040.
The pro-nuclear UxC consulting firm provides characteristically bullish forecasts for the nuclear renaissance, of world reactor numbers increasing to 568 in 42 countries with a total power capacity of 517 GW and uranium requirements rising to 120 000 tons a year, by 2020
Uranium production, stocks, supply and prices are very surely back in the minds of political and economic deciders, if not the press and media, because of simple supply/demand figures.
Taking 2009, and forecast demand for full year 2010, uranium demand for civil reactors totalled about 65 000 tons, and a forecast 68 000 tons. World mine production of uranium in 2009 was only 50 500 t (a large rise on the 43 800 t for 2008), but expected mine output in 2010 will probably not exceed 55 000 t. Actual results could be less, perhaps below 50 000 t, depending on many factors. These include the continuation of major mine expansion programmes, accident-free mine upgrading, avoidance of industrial and technology risks, economic and financial issues including the uranium price, and mine ownership struggles, and in some cases geopolitical and national security issues.
The large growth of world mine output in 2008-2009 has a single cause: Kazakhstan's determination to become N°1 world exporter. Future growth of Kazakh mine capacity and output will however be surely much less than in 2007-2009. Mine operators in world producer countries with the largest export surplus, especially Australia, Kazakhstan, Canada, Niger, Namibia are all engaged in expansion, upgrading, and development programs, as well as exploration and development. Despite this the "Big 5" suppliers , four of which do not presently utilise nuclear energy, are unlikely to achieve future rapid expansion of mine output and export supply.
The world civil reactor "fleet", excluding the world's estimated 250 research and military reactors, therefore has a uranium supply shortfall of well beyond 13 000 t in 2010, in that which concerns "fresh supplies", from mines. This shortfall is about 8 times the USA's total mine output of 2009, or more than 15 times China's total mine output in 2009, and can be compared with Kazakhstan's status of N°1 world uranium miner: its record total production in 2009 was about 13 800 t. Uranium importers face a tight supply situation, with a possible intensification of long-term undersupply, obviously able to drive prices to high or extreme levels.
URANIUM SUPPLY AND PRICES
Apart from fresh-mined uranium, usually produced as uranium nitrate, or better-known yellow colored oxide paste or concentrate ("yellow cake"), uranium supplies are simple to enumerate: stocks of uranium held by miners, power companies, reactor manufacturers, national agencies and a few other sources recycled uranium from used fuel rods, mixed with plutonium and other transuranic elements in MOX (Mixed OXide fuel), only commercially produced in France and to a small extent UK; and recycled, diluted high-activity uranium from surplus nuclear weapons of the USA and Russia, that is "Megatons to Megawatts".
Potential large scale sources of non-mine supply, of uranium or other radioactive materials able to power different types of reactors, include thorium for Canadian CANDU reactors and thorium and plutonium for India's fast breeder reactor programme, upgrading thorium to uranium-equivalent reactor fuel. These non-mine methods of producing uranium or uranium-equivalent fuels are joined by numerous proposals for novel or innovative uranium extraction processes for low grade (low uranium concentration) sources, including biochemical methods. However, technical and industrial feasibility, cost and security issues tend to limit all of these alternatives to uranium, at present. Fast breeder reactors (FBR) have a long and undistinguished history, stretching back more than 50 years, marked by extreme cost and in some cases extreme risks of catastrophic accident: outside India, current activity and interest in the FBR domain is low. Most interest relates to using future FBRs, if they are built, for disposal of nuclear wastes, not fuel production (see eg: http://www.fissilematerials.org/blog/2010/02/history_and_status_of_fas.html ).
At present, the three above cited non-mine sources of uranium are sufficient for reactor needs, but each faces large pressures limiting future supply growth or availability, reinforcing the outlook of supply shortage. Actual shortage is however unlikely to be quickly signalled by sharp price rises of downstream uranium fuel due to the number of steps or stages, and value adding, in the "fuel supply chain". This starts with upstream fresh mined uranium, moving downstream through converted or processed 'separative work units' (SWU) and 'fabricated fuel units' that is processed or enriched uranium, or MOX fuel, packed into fuel rods, calculated on a rising cost per unit weight basis. This pricing method for uranium-based fuels clearly shows the high upstream costs of SWU and the high cost of fuel fabrication (see: http://www.wise-uranium.org/nfccr.html )
Uranium shortage will however be signalled, with some delay, by price moves in the mostly company-to-company sales process for uranium. This small, unquoted, very opaque and essentially B2B uranium spot sales system, for which prices are reported by UxC and a few other sources with a delay often exceeding 1 month from transactions covered, will certainly react to uranium shortage. Supply shortage is highly probable in 2010, and therefore price spikes are very likely, this outlook being made more likely due to the large fall in prices through 2008 and 2009.
The probable coming price spike may perhaps reproduce the price spike of Q2 2007, during which 'spot' prices attained more than US $ 130 per pound, to be compared with the most recent and perhaps 'historic' price low, of around US $ 8 per pound in year 2000.
Very likely, prices will soon fall after the next price peak, as in 2007-2008, but unless new mine supply is developed the next price trough will be a short-term. This sets a certain "opportunity window" for upstream or downstream innovation, probably no larger than the next 5 - 7 years during which large scale and unlikely reductions of specific uranium needs (usually measured as pounds of fuel per reactor Megawatt-day), or unlikely large scale increase in uranium mine output, or major and unlikely reactor technology change reducing uranium's role in nuclear power must be achieved. As the WNA and reactor builders such as Toshiba-Westinghouse, KEPCO, Areva report, one ongoing major trend for uranium conservation and fuel efficiency raising, is the trend towards ever-larger unit size reactors or reactor complexes, now often 1.4 GW to 1.6 GW each reactor, and sometimes over 5 GW per complex, compared with previous technology standards, of 0.9 GW per reactor and single reactor complexes (see eg: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf08.html ).
Despite efficiency raising, and mainly due to fast growth of nuclear capacity without a corresponding increase of world mined or "fresh" uranium supply, the absence of practical solutions being found will logically lead to serious and large-scale shortage of uranium. This will radically raise fuel costs despite uranium prices being only the first link in prices through the uranium fuel "value added chain". In turn this may perhaps heavily reduce the credibility and profitability of nuclear energy, which already suffers the two main handicaps of very high capital cost (usually above US $ 4000 per kW), and both short-term and long-term security risks.
EXTRACTING URANIUM
The average crustal abundance of any wanted mineral or metal should always be considered with its clarke, or ratio of minimum economically and technically feasible orebody richness of the wanted metal or mineral, relative to its crustal abundance. For uranium, quite wide varying figures are given for its average crustal abundance, from around 3 ppm (parts per million) to above 4 ppm, which is about 1000 times gold's crustal abundance (about 4 parts per billion). Gold, to be sure, is not a fuel mineral and is very widely traded, but its present market price is around US $ 1200 a Troy ounce, or US $ 17 570 per pound, while uranium in July 2010 changes hands at about US $ 41 per pound.
Due to its market value, the clarke for gold is much lower than the cut-off concentration ratios needed for economically feasible uranium mining, especially where other high, or relatively high value minerals such as silver, copper, lead, zinc, cobalt, manganese are present in the orebody in extractable quantities. The clarke ratio economically feasible uranium mining, today, is generally around 70 - 250 tiles the crustal abundance of uranium. Current minima for feasible uranium extraction are around 300 ppm, or around 70 times the crustal abundance, for open pit and 'heap leach' extraction methods, and usually above 1000 ppm (0.1 %), or 250 times the crustal abundance, for economically feasible underground mining extraction.
This is the present context, set by a relatively long period (around 20 years through 1985-2005) during which uranium supply and stocks were abundant, and annual reactor orders and building fell to very low levels. Before that period, taking the period during which the 'race for the bomb' was at fever pitch, from the late 1940s to the 1970s, during the peak Cold War period, competition for uranium supplies by the present 'declared nuclear powers', the Big 5 UN Security Council permanent members, drove uranium prices expressed in dollar of 2010 buying power well above the 2007 price peak. In turn, this made uranium extraction feasible from orebodies with uranium contents as low as 100 ppm, or lower (see eg: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraction_de_l'uranium , or in the US 'uranium rush' http://cpluhna.nau.edu/Change/uranium.htm). At the time, gold and uranium were in several cases treated as resources of similar combined economic and strategic value, for example in South Africa (see eg: http://www.datas.ch/article.php?id=445 )
Uranium at low to very low concentrations is naturally found in many types of rocks and minerals including coal, fly ash, shale, sandstones, granite, and to be sure, in even lower concentration (about 1000 time less), in seawater. Naturally occurring uranium concentrations typically occur after geochemical changes including action by acid and basic chemical agents, such as pyrites, hydrogen sulfide acting to slow or stop its solubilization. This naturally occurring uranium is typical insoluble, and thus stable, but is often made easily soluble by oxidation and complexing with phosphates, carbonates or sulfates. In very general terms, concentrations of uranium in mine rocks such as copper mine rocks can extend up to about 40 ppm. To be sure, extraction of uranium from such low concentrations is energy and chemicals intensive, and can only be costly.
To be sure, world mined gold production exhibits 'classic' geological depletion expressed as rising extraction costs and energy intensity, and a large recourse to reworking mining wastes and tailings from orebodies having submarginal clarkes at prevailing previous market prices for gold. Despite this, driven by fast rising gold prices, little or no expansion of total annual gold supply is occurring: current mine output is around 2 450 t per year. The outlook for uranium mining is similar, with a potential recourse to orebodies of low concentration, as the market price rises, reducing the clarke ratio for feasible prospects.
Uranium demand for the world's present reactor 'fleet', as already noted will be about 68 000 t in 2010, and by 2020 the annual uranium requirement could attain 120 000 t.
The present context, of current 2010 uranium requirements being about 68 000 t, with the annual requirement perhaps rising as high as 120 000 t by 2020, has no previous precedent except that of the 'early nuclear age' and Cold War period, referred to above, during which the nuclear industry shifted uncertainly from military-only to military-and-civil. During that period uranium need made the question of price relatively unimportant. Estimates for uranium prices (comparable U235/U238 grade to "yellow cake") during the 1950s, in dollars of 2010 buying power, easily extend beyond US $ 250 a pound. W can conclude that price spikes to these levels are very unlikely in the short-term 2010-2011 period, but a tripling of the 'spot' price from the current July 2010 level is far from impossible.
By Andrew McKillop
gsoassociates.com
Project Director, GSO Consulting Associates
Former chief policy analyst, Division A Policy, DG XVII Energy, European Commission. Andrew McKillop Biographic Highlights
And they call this recycling?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619/#38269840
Charice,
Appreciate your signing up tonight and in your first post you tell the board your dumping all your shares. Bravo, now we can finally get on with life thanks to the insight you`ve left us....
Nice!
This is why we need to contact Senator Landrieu and other representatives:
Landrieu: Fed agency needed for Gulf
Sen. Mary Landrieu said Friday that plans to restore the Gulf Coast cannot succeed without a separate federal agency to oversee the recovery of the fragile coastline after decades of neglect and abuse.
“It would take so long to make this happen under current practice and law that it could potentially take years and years and years to execute some of these projects,” she told POLITICO. “So we need two things. The work can’t be done without a robust, steady, dedicated stream of revenue… And we need a more streamlined ability to plan, execute, design, and build projects.”
Landrieau made the remarks after touring the southeast portion of her home state with Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and Navy Secretary Ray Mabus. The former governor of Mississippi, Mabus was appointed by President Barack Obama to develop a long-term plan for reversing the damage done to coastal wetlands and barrier islands before oil began washing onshore after the BP oil spill.
In April, Landrieu drafted a policy proposal titled “Restoring and Protecting Coastal Louisiana: A New Federal Approach,” in which she outlined how a new governing authority could restore the Louisiana coast and the Mississippi River delta. The report also proposes a science and engineering program called the “national institute for integrated water management and coastal deltaic applied science.”
The Senator sent her proposal to Obama on June 15, but Mabus did not meet with her until this week. Landrieu said meeting with Mabus did not convince her to drop her plan for a separate agency to run a long term restoration project.
While Landrieu did not show her proposal to Mabus, she explained to him why she thought a separate agency was needed, and said he seemed “very open and understanding that [this] needs to be done.” She also agrees with Gulf Coast leaders, like Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, who say local and state plans should be part of the federal strategy.
The real obstacle, Landrieu said, is the funding and execution of such a project.
Bureaucratic overlap between agencies like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Environmental Protection Agencies could slow – or stop – any efforts to reconstruct barrier islands, divert freshwater from the Mississippi river, and plant trees and marsh grasses, she said. “Even if we had the money, let’s say we had a billion dollars a year, we’d still have some difficulty spending it efficiently because of the crisscrossing of jurisdictions,” she said.
Landrieu said she hopes Mabus has returned to Washington with an understanding that there is “single-mindedness of purpose” in Louisiana. Now, she said, is a time for listening and leadership, and if she has it her way, it is time for the development of a new government approach.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39554.html
Proactive investors and those concerned need to contact Senator Mary Landrieu and their representative Senators as to why a solution such as MOP has yet to be deployed or much of any effort to date after the hearing of the entrepreneurship for Gulf Coast oil cleanup.
Contact Senator Landrieu with you concern: http://landrieu.senate.gov/about/contact.cfm
We see boats/people still using ineffective pads/booms and other methods of remediation. I`ve read and watched youtube/company demonstrations videos that show nothing but positive results on all manner of cleanup using MOP products. Demand from our officials to use our tax dollars using a proven method like MOP. What we as individuals can do is astounding and we need to push our Congressional representatives on this issue of cleaning this disaster, it`s everyone's environmental issue. You can contact your representative doing an online search and e-mailing them, i`ve found in the past they are very responsive to e-mail.
I`ve also contacted a number of national radio talk shows yesterday evening to consider interviewing Charles Diamond. All of us need be concerned of the foot dragging by BP and our Government and their being overly irresponsible. It only takes a few minutes to e-mail your representative, so take this Sunday to act.
Funny I pick up another 20,000 shares at 0.18 and they post it as 0.178. MM`s owe me..........
Status Action Quantity
Symbol Type Price
Act. Price
Time-in-Force Reported
Filled Buy 20000 MOPN Limit 0.18 -- -- 15:57:19 07/09/10
Order No. 6533472767 Mop Environmental Solutio...
Entered:15:52:53 07/09/10
Energy Fuels Announces Non-Brokered Private Placement With Dundee Resources Limited
7/7/2010 10:42:58 AM - Market Wire
Proceeds Used to Advance Permitting of Pinon Ridge Mill
TORONTO, ONTARIO, Jul 07, 2010 (MARKETWIRE via COMTEX News Network) --
Energy Fuels Inc. (TSX: EFR) ("Energy Fuels" or the "Company"), an advanced uranium and vanadium exploration and development company, announced the closing today of a non-brokered private placement financing (the "Offering").
Highlights-
-- Gross Proceeds: $3,080,000 in Canadian Funds -- Offering: Non-brokered private placement of 19,250,000 shares -- Offering Price: $0.16 per common share -- Use of Proceeds: Advancement of the approval of the Pinon Ridge Mill License Application, and overall business plan objectives.
Under the Offering, the Company issued 19,250,000 common shares at a price of CDN$0.16 per share for gross proceeds of CDN$3,080,000. Dundee Resources Limited ("Dundee"), a wholly owned subsidiary of Dundee Corporation, subscribed for all of the 19,250,000 common shares issued under the Offering. The private placement is subject to a 5% cash finder's fee payable to an arm's length party.
Dundee has the right to nominate 2 of the 7 members of the Board of Directors of Energy Fuels as long as it holds at least 10% of the outstanding common shares of the Company. Accordingly, Paul A. Carroll and Mark E. Goodman have been appointed to the board and Michael Gundy and Donald Falconer have retired. Birks Bovaird, Chairman of the Company, said "We would like to thank Messrs. Gundy and Falconer for their services as directors during this formative period."
Mr. Carroll is President of Carnarvon Capital Corporation, a corporate management and investment company, and President and CEO of World Wide Minerals Ltd., a former uranium mining and marketing company. He has had a lengthy career in the legal and mining fields and has been a director of many publicly traded and privately held companies, including Dundee Corporation, International Corona Corp. and Zemex Corp. Mr. Goodman is Chairman of the Board of Valdez Gold Inc. and is a member of the board of several publicly traded and privately held companies, including Cogitore Resources Inc., Odyssey Resources Ltd., Corona Gold Corp., Dia Bras Exploration Inc. and the Dynamic Venture Opportunities Fund.
The proceeds from the Offering will be used to advance the approval of the Pinon Ridge Mill License Application through the decision deadline of January 17, 2011, as announced in April by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment; to maintain all existing permits and facilities; and to continue the evaluation of consolidation opportunities.
Steve Antony, President and CEO, stated, "With this additional capital, and at our current cash burn rate, we are funded to continue operations at the current level through calendar 2011. As we get closer to the approval of the radioactive materials license, expected no later than January 17, 2011, we will aggressively pursue long term funding for the capital required to construct and reclaim the Pinon Ridge Mill. We are very excited to welcome Dundee as our single largest shareholder and to have their support of our business model as we execute the plan to become a near-term producer of both uranium and vanadium and participate in the evolving western US uranium business."
Following the Offering, Dundee is expected to hold approximately 19.8% of the issued and outstanding shares of the Company.
About Energy Fuels: Energy Fuels Inc. is a uranium and vanadium mineral development company actively rehabilitating and developing formerly producing mines. With more than 38,000 acres of highly prospective uranium and vanadium property located in the states of Colorado, Utah, Arizona, Wyoming, and New Mexico, and exploration properties in Saskatchewan's Athabasca Basin totaling approximately 32,000 additional acres, the Company has a full pipeline of additional development prospects. Energy Fuels, through its wholly-owned Colorado subsidiary, Energy Fuels Resources Corporation and its British Columbia subsidiary, Magnum Uranium Corp., has assembled this property portfolio along with a first class management team, including highly skilled technical mining and milling professionals based in Lakewood and Nucla, Colorado and Kanab, Utah.
This news release contains certain "Forward-Looking Statements" within the meaning of Section 21E of the United States Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and "Forward Looking Information" within the meaning of applicable Canadian securities legislation. All statements, other than statements of historical fact, included herein are forward-looking statements and forward-looking information that involve various risks and uncertainties. There can be no assurance that such statements will prove to be accurate, and actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such statements. Important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from the Company's expectations are disclosed in the Company's documents filed from time-to-time with the British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario Securities Commissions.
Contacts: Energy Fuels Inc. Gary Steele Investor Relations (303) 974-2140 or Toll free: 1-888-864-2125 investorinfo@energyfuels.com www.energyfuels.com
SOURCE: Energy Fuels Inc.
mailto:investorinfo@energyfuels.com http://www.energyfuels.com
Copyright 2010 Marketwire, Inc., All rights reserved.
Nice, the extra mile taken by you to prove out everyone's investment. Muchas gracias
I think it should be obvious now that the nonofficial government of BP may of had the story squashed! I thought we fought a revolution against England's empire over a different mater once already that was ended in 1783, I must be mistaken. Does history repeat?
stockguard quote:
Most apparent is the lack of access to information to the general public and officials.
Montanore quote:
I agree--this is an ominous sign. Since when did the first amendment get suspended to protect a corporation? Americans need to know the facts!
BP SPILL - THE POSSIBE METHANE TIMEBOMB AND TSUNAMI - PART1/2
The collapse of a massive bulge due to methane gas under the ocean floor, if there is such, would cause water to fill the crater and create a tsunami that would head inland a mile or two within minutes. The methane gas released would be impossible to collect/contain and could cause further problems if a storm is apparent and blowing gas inland.
Lets hope this isn`t the case and the government is not holding back information as the death toll would be the worst in U.S. history and can be avoided. I`m concerned this is likely as BP has operators drilling on the relief drill ship wearing gas mask now.
Most apparent is the lack of access to information to the general public and officials . There is a lot of cover up going on and i`m surprised the people in the U.S. aren`t out in mass protest/demonstration over this disaster.
Even if this ocean floor bulge is incorrect people need to be informed to all case scenarios so they can make the choice to stay or get out.
Appreciate your posting of this plausible issue as many lives would be a stake.
Oil Outlook Darkens
NOAA has just released the latest computer runs which model where the oil from the GOM disaster is likely to go in coming months. Here's the latest 90 day forecast. This is a summary chart of the "Percent of Spill Scenarios that will cause a dull sheen in a given grid as of Day 120 for a 33,000 barrels/day release for 90 days"...
Color-coded map showing the percent of Spill Scenarios that will cause a dull sheen in a given grid as of Day 120 for a 33,000 barrels/day release for 90 days.
http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/dwh.php?entry_id=815
Swaps Fight Is Almost Over—And Banks Are Winning
http://www.cnbc.com/id/37708061
Published: Tuesday, 15 Jun 2010 | 11:35 AM ET
Text Size
By: John Carney
Senior Editor, CNBC.com
Banks yesterday won an important victory over the part of the financial reform package they most feared—and almost no one noticed.
Senator Blanche Lincoln is considering a “compromise” that will neuter her proposal to ban banks from trading derivatives by including a long delay before requiring any change to the swaps business, allowing banking regulators discretion about implementing the provision, permitting special derivatives entities to operate inside of federally supported bank holding companies, and pre-authorizing federal bailouts of the derivatives entities if they blow themselves to financial smithereens.
John Carney
Senior Editor
Lincoln’s spokesperson says the derivatives proposal remains “a strong provision,” which might make you think it remains a strong provision.
Think again.
Under the proposed compromise, any spin-out of swaps desks will be phased in over a two-year period. During that time, federal banking agencies will be tasked with considering the impact of the measure on mortgage lending, small business lending, jobs, and capital formation.
Those vague and open-ended considerations will provide wiggle-room for the federal banking agencies to avoid implementing the new swaps rules.
Make no mistake about what is going on here. The swaps provision is being transformed from a mandatory ban into something over which banking regulators have discretion. And the banking regulators—from Fed chair Ben Bernanke, to FDIC chief Shelia Bair, to SEC head Mary Schapiro—oppose the ban on swaps altogether. Given wiggle room, they will wiggle right past Senator Lincoln rule.
Government Regulation
Even if the new rule were somehow to survive the wiggle of the regulators, Lincoln’s compromise also allows the banks to continue operating swaps desks so long as they are separately capitalized. To put that in perspective: the failed Bear Stearns hedge funds and the Citigroup [C 3.95 0.07 (+1.8%) ] SIVs that collapsed at the start of the financial crisis were also separately capitalized. But that capital proved inadequate, and eventually they had to be “bailed out” by their parent companies.
And the losses at the SIVs and the hedge funds eventually became taxpayer liabilities when the government stepped in to prevent the collapse of Citi and backstop Bear’s losses.
If a new swaps entity gets into trouble, guess what will happen?
It’s not for nothing that some on Wall Street have already nick-named these swaps spin-offs "Swaps & Hedging Independent Trading Companies."
The swaps spin-offs don’t even have to be swallowed by their parents to become taxpayer liabilities. The Lincoln compromise allows the swaps entities to receive “broad based federal assistance.”
Translation: if the government starts bailing out Wall Street again, the swaps spin-offs get a place at the trough.
Why did Lincoln give up so quickly, even before the Capitol Hill conference began formally considering her provision? The conference to reconcile differences between the bills passed by the House and Senate probably won’t even get around to considering the swaps provision until next week. What’s the rush to compromise?
Keep in mind the Lincoln became a harsh critic of derivatives trading in the face of a primary challenge from the left. Her victory in the primary took away the pressure to fight for an effective derivatives ban. All she needs now is the appearance of a “strong provision.”
The six Wall Street banks that dominate the derivatives trading business are still saying they oppose the provision. But somewhere Jamie Dimon, the JP Morgan Chase [JPM 37.90 0.57 (+1.53%) ] executive who has personally been lobbying against the provision, is probably smiling. The banks have all but won this fight.
© 2010 CNBC.com
Sites to keep an eye for daily market direction.
Real Time DOW Streaming Futures Chart:
http://www.futurespros.com/charts/real-time-futures-charts
I would click on the 1min. chart feature.
And keep a close eye on the Euro for U.S. markets direction.
Real-time EUR/USD
http://www.post1.net/lowem/page/livequotes
The first commercial enrichment plant built in the U.S. can begin commercial operations
http://theenergycollective.com/TheEnergyCollective/67965
June 11, 2010
New Mexico uranium enrichment plant gets NRC green light for start-up
greenlight Anyone who thinks there isn’t going to be a nuclear renaissance in the U.S. needs to take a look at the multi-billion bet placed by Urenco at the Louisiana Energy Services plant in Eunice, NM.
The NRC said in a statement it completed the readiness review of the Louisiana Energy in Lea County, N.M., and concluded that the facility can begin operation of the first cascade under its NRC license. A cascade is a series of rotating cylinders using centrifugal force to separate uranium isotopes.
LES CEO Gregory Smith told AP NRC’s approval is a “turning point” for the nation’s nuclear industry. The plant has contracts with Duke, Exelon, Dominion, and Progress Energy, among others, to make fuel for their reactors.
According to a report in Fuel Cycle Week for June 3, NM Governor Bill Richardson said at a ribbon cutting ceremony, "Urenco always kept their word on what they were going to do and what their timelines were."
Demand for nuclear fuel project to increase
At the full operational capacity the $2 billion plant will produce about 3 million SWU of enriched uranium a year or about 25% of current demand in the U.S. market. Demand for enriched uranium is likely to increase over the next decade which is why Urenco amended the NRC license to be able to produce up to 6 million SWU.
There are 104 operating nuclear reactors in the U.S. The NRC currently has 13 license applications pending for new reactors. According to the Department of Energy’s Nuclear Power Deployment Scorecard for June 2010,
* Nine utilities have ordered large, long-lead nuclear component forgings from three reactor vendors.
* Four Engineering, Procurement, and Construction Contracts signed (Vogtle, V.C. Summer, STP, and Shearon Harris).
* TVA resumed construction of Watts Bar 2; construction permits reinstated for Bellefonte 1 & 2.
Additionally, in 2013 the current Megatons-to-Megawatts program that blends down Russian HEU will come to an end. The program, managed by USEC, currently provides up to half the nuclear fuel used by U.S. reactors.
License information
Uranium enrichment The LES URENCO USA Facility was granted an NRC license in June 2006, and the company began constructing the site’s buildings, centrifuges and security structures. The license allows LES to enrich uranium up to 5% U-235 for use in the manufacture of nuclear fuel for commercial power plants.
The NRC said the readiness review takes into account safety systems, training, operating procedures, security and other aspects of facility operation.
“Our inspectors have examined not only the construction and testing of systems, but the additional factors, including training and procedures,” said NRC Region II Administrator Luis Reyes. “Even after the first centrifuge is started, we will continue to inspect the operation to ensure the protection of people and the environment in the area.”
As a result of the green light from the NRC, the plant will begin accepting operational delivery of uranium hexafluoride (UF6) feed stock.
LES is a subsidiary of URENCO, a company that has been using centrifuge technology in Europe for more than 30 years. The Urenco USA facility (formerly the National Enrichment Facility) is the first to use Urenco's European centrifuge technology in the US. The same types of centrifuges are expected to be used in Areva’s Eagle Rock Facility.
In Europe Areva has an equity position in the manufacturer of the centrifuges used in the LES plant and which will also be used in the Eagle Rock Plant.
An interesting nonproliferation note is that the centrifuges are installed by the manufacturer and not by the plant owner and operator.
Other U.S. uranium enrichment plants
There are three other uranium enrichment plants under development in the U.S. They are Areva’s Eagle Rock Enrichment Plant near Idaho Falls, ID; USEC’s American Centrifuge Facility near Piketon, OH; and GE-Hiachi’s Laser Enrichment project at Wilmington, NC.
Areva’s plant recently received a $2 billion loan guarantee from the federal government. USEC said in May it will re-submit its application for a loan guarantee later this year. Neither Urenco nor GE-Hitachi have applied for loan guarantees.
3 Reasons the Market Is Headed Upward
http://seekingalpha.com/article/209765-3-reasons-the-market-is-headed-upward?source=dashboard_macro-view
The level of pessimism in the market regarding the ongoing European Union drama, the Euro currency, China slow-down, BP (BP) oil spill, etc. etc. has reached a point where all the sheeple who are easily frightened (aka the weak hands) have already folded in despair. The MSM pundits attempting to drum up stories and fear by constantly bombarding the common investor with negativity have done their job. The market is down ~14% from it's highs recently. I now forsee a current period of consolidation which will be followed by a push upwards to new highs on positive macro/global/economic news. In particular: A perceived 'solution' to the European crisis and positive economic data here in America will provide legs to a new market rally.
As astute investors have seen throughout history, being a contrarian is the surefire way to outperform the averages. When the market kept breaking new highs on flimsy premises I kept buying more VIX at multi-year lows. When the market rolled over and the commoners panicked I sold my VIX (VXX) for a nice profit and floated bids out on companies I wanted to own long-term at prices I was happy with. I have since filled in many of my positions and am currently profitable in the majority of them.
For the medium term, I see catalysts that will provide the stock market legs will be:
1.
The devaluation of the U.S. Dollar, coinciding with a possible rally of the EURO and the eventual appreciation of the Yuan (Reminibi). The amount of U.S. Debt is staggering and eventually we have to inflate our way out of it, and/or yields must go higher to reward the fools who would even consider buying U.S. Debt.
2.
The coming rotation out of bonds and into stocks, commodities, and other asset classes. It is widely known that bonds were one of the few asset classes to have record inflows in the face of the rally off of the March 2008 lows. Stock cash inflows have been tepid and the common investor still does not trust the market. Many postulate that bonds are the biggest bubble in the current environment, and common sense tells us that rates here in the U.S. have no where to go but up. The question now is "when?" In a rising interest rate environment the last place you want to be parking your cash is in bonds. I expect a broad transfer of wealth out of bonds into either high-yielding, energy-related, defensive, or other equities that have pricing power over their products/services.
3.
The pundits and headlines dominating the news sources constantly spout negativity, fear and doom. I have learned that when everyone else is bearish and negative on the markets in general, then you usually want to start your buying spree. There is a reason the average investor sells the bottoms and buys the tops. It is much easier for the human psyche to follow the pack decision, and possibly lose money, than it is to take the opposite side and fear being left out. This is a genetic trait that will not likely change soon. One must check their emotion at the door and use the analytical side of our brains. In essence, be a computer: Base your decisions on logic, using all past, present, and perceived future stimuli, and then mix in a dash of your own 'gut' intuition to make the 'correct' trade. In addition, no one can time the market perfectly, but you don't have to, just be better than the other 90% out there.
And for a global/macro pairs trade that I am currently recommending for wealthy clients:
Long Chinese Equities (FXI, HAO, China Security & Surveillance (CSR), China Natural Gas (CHNG), Concord Medical (CCM), Advanced Battery Technologies (ABAT), ZST Digital (ZSTN))
VS.
Short U.S. Government Debt (TBT, Short TLT, Short TLH, Short IEF)
I will go into further explanation, but that requires an entire article of it's own, check back soon........
Investor sentiment has turned bearish time to switch to 3x bull TNA for a few weeks?
http://www.safehaven.com/article/16970/investor-sentiment-the-fat-pitch
China gets Q2 iron-ore price from Rio Tinto
May 23, 2010, 12:48 p.m. EDT
By MarketWatch
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/china-gets-q2-iron-ore-price-from-rio-tinto-2010-05-23
BEIJING (MarketWatch) -- China mills received the official iron-ore price offer for the second quarter of this year from Rio Tinto PLC (RTP, RIO.LN) on Friday, an executive in charge of iron-ore imports at one of China's largest steelmakers told Dow Jones Newswires Sunday.
According to Rio Tinto's offer, the free-on-board price for fine ore with grade of 63.5% is about US$123 per metric ton and around US$138 per ton for lump ore, said the executive.
Adding the ocean freight, the final clearing price of iron ore with grade of 63.5% for Chinese mills in the second quarter is around US$135 per ton, roughly twice the annual benchmark price of 2009 settled among global miners and Japanese and Korean steelmakers.
"This official price is US$10-20 higher than the previous provisional price," said the executive.
China Iron and Steel Association, the organizer of the annual iron-ore talks between Chinese mills and global miners, admitted last month that Chinese steel mills and global iron-ore miners had reached private price deals on iron-ore supply, even as formal negotiations are going on.
The biggest steelmakers in China including Baosteel Group Corp. and Shagang Group Corp. later separately acknowledged "every mill in China has a private provisional deal with iron-ore miners."
No one ever publicly disclosed the price but the average price reportedly is US$110.
"We just got the price offer on Friday," the executive said. "Mills and CISA need to discuss it on working days this week."
If China ultimately accepts the price offer, it means the finalization of a shift in term pricing for iron ore to a quarterly basis from an annual system.
Japan's Nikkei reported Thursday that Japanese steelmakers have reached official agreements with global miners. Rio Tinto announced Friday it has reached official agreements with Asian steel mills excluding those in China.
Death by taxes
This was a truly rotten, no-good week in the greater China complex, as the Australian and Brazilian markets have gapped down twice. Moreover major individual stocks in Brazil and Australia closed well under their flash-crash-day lows on Wednesday, including big steel maker Gerdau /quotes/comstock/13*!ggb/quotes/nls/ggb (GGB 12.93, +0.69, +5.64%) , giant forestry products firm Fibria Celulose /quotes/comstock/13*!fbr/quotes/nls/fbr (FBR 15.67, +0.60, +3.98%) , miner Vale do Rio Doce /quotes/comstock/13*!vale/quotes/nls/vale (VALE 25.70, +1.72, +7.17%) and Aussie bank Westpac Banking /quotes/comstock/13*!wbk/quotes/nls/wbk (WBK 94.34, +6.08, +6.89%)
This is a graphic example of the unwinding of the U.S. dollar carry-trade. Every time the dollar ticks higher in reaction to the decline of the euro, it forces fund managers out of their cheaply funded bets on commodities and commodity-producing countries.
But another reason for these declines is fascinating, frightening and emblematic of what world markets face now: Australia plans a massive 40% tax on mining companies' profits to defray the cost of all the borrowing the country did to rescue its financial system last year.
This tax is expected to severely reduce earnings forecasts for mining giants BHP Billiton /quotes/comstock/13*!bhp/quotes/nls/bhp (BHP 62.53, +3.43, +5.80%) and Rio Tinto Plc /quotes/comstock/13*!rtp/quotes/nls/rtp (RTP 42.48, +2.61, +6.55%) , which make up a large percentage of the Australian stock market's total market value.
The worst part is that other countries will consider this a great idea. And that's why Brazilian giant VALE is sinking. Tom Price, commodities analyst at UBS in Sydney, told Bloomberg it could create a "tax contagion" worldwide in which miners in Brazil, Peru, Chile, Canada, South Africa and the United States could face the same fate.
Moody's has estimated that mining companies' earnings could be cut by a third in Australia in 2012 when the tax kicks in, and markets have wasted no time in pricing that into the companies' shares and bonds.
The tax has already boomeranged on the Australian economy, as the country's currency has dived almost 8% since the tax was announced earlier in the month and Fortescue Metals Group, the third-largest iron ore miner in Australia, has already put $15 billion in projects on hold, according to Bloomberg. Think about the rippling effect that will have on machinery makers, individual miners, the transportation subsector and the like. This is the kind of government intervention that could stifle investment around the world.
Government intervention in financial markets is having similarly troublesome effects in Europe. The sudden German ban on naked short selling of stocks, bond and credit default swaps this week was a perfect example. It is becoming clear that Germany decided to launch this plan unilaterally without first consulting its partners in France, the United States or the United Kingdom, catching both investment bankers and other EU policymakers off guard.
As I have mentioned before, the best way that politicians can shrink the impact of speculators is to enact more credible fiscal and monetary policies. It's a classic mistake of trying to kill the messenger rather than to fix the message.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/seven-worries-for-wall-street-and-whats-next-2010-05-22?pagenumber=2
Any one have any insight into the 40% tax and if it will effect HENC
The tax will not effect the oils as they`re not miners. We are due so update.
This would not be good at all especially uranium mining.
http://preview.bloomberg.com/news/2010-05-19/mining-super-tax-may-spread-to-canada-chile-curbing-profit-for-bhp-rio.html
Mining Profit-Tax `Contagion' Is Poised to Spread Worldwide From Australia
By Madelene Pearson and Jesse Riseborough - May 19, 2010
Australia’s planned 40 percent tax on mining profits has set a benchmark for other countries weighing higher levies, reducing earnings forecasts for BHP Billiton Ltd. and Rio Tinto Group and the attraction of mining stocks.
“It could create what the miners are now describing at a global level as a type of tax contagion,” said Tom Price, commodities analyst with UBS AG in Sydney, in an interview. “They might levy a new tax at the miners in Brazil. Canada is another mineral province and South Africa.”
BHP, the world’s largest mining company, Xstrata Plc and Rio said they are reviewing projects in Australia, the No. 1 exporter of coal and iron ore, after the government unveiled the tax this month, saying a country’s resources belong to the people. Citigroup Inc. Sydney-based analyst Craig Sainsbury said Canada, Peru and Chile may be next.
“Resource nationalism” is a major risk facing miners in the next few years, Evy Hambro, manager of BlackRock Investment Management Ltd.’s flagship $14.3 billion World Mining Fund said last month.
Chile, the biggest copper exporter, is proposing a temporary rise in mining taxes to help pay for earthquake reconstruction that may cost BHP, Xstrata and Anglo American Plc $1.2 billion in the next two years. Brazil, the second-biggest iron ore exporter, may tax shipments of the commodity or raise royalties, Energy and Mining Minister Edison Lobao has said.
‘Markets Suicide’
The Australian tax plan is “global financial markets suicide,” according to Charlie Aitken, the executive director of Southern Cross Equities Ltd., the equal top ranked predictor of BHP’s share price performance of 17 analysts, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
Mining companies’ earnings may be cut by almost a third when the tax starts in 2012, Moody’s Investor Services said this week. The tax would be broadly credit negative for the sector and raise uncertainty for some companies over the short-to- medium term, Moody’s said this month.
The tax may also prompt European and Scandinavian nations to seek a greater share of revenue from production, Magnus Ericsson, a senior partner at Raw Materials Group, a mining data and analysis company, said this month. The proposal will make Australian mines the highest taxed in the world, according to Minerals Council of Australia.
“Economies, particularly European economies, are going to have to deal with deficits,” said Jamie Nicol, chief investment officer at Dalton Nicol Reid in Brisbane, which manages about A$550 million ($472 million) including BHP and Rio shares. “They are going to look at some sort of innovative tax solutions to try and claw back some of that.”
Levy Wars
Fortescue Metals Group Ltd., Australia’s third-largest iron ore exporter, has dropped 20 percent and BHP’s Melbourne-traded stock has fallen 8.7 percent, while the Australian currency has slid 8.8 percent since the government announced the tax on May 2. Fortescue this week placed $15 billion of projects on hold, citing the tax.
BHP rose 0.9 percent to A$37.29 at 10:45 a.m. in Sydney on the Australian stock exchange, Rio added 0.1 percent and Fortescue dropped 2.1 percent.
Nations that resist may attract investment. South Africa taxes mining companies at 33 percent, Canada 23 percent and China 30 percent compared with a forecast 58 percent in Australia after the tax, according to Citigroup data. Canada’s Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said this month he’s opposed to raising taxes and the Australian levy makes Canadian companies more competitive.
China Demand
Australian Treasurer Wayne Swan has said he “strongly disagrees” with claims the tax will damage miners. China’s demand for Australian metals will outweigh higher taxes, according to AMP Capital Investors Ltd., a unit of the country’s largest pension plan provider, which hasn’t changed its industry assessment.
The tax will result in a 6 percent to 7 percent increase in mining investment in Australia, Trade Minister Simon Crean told reporters yesterday in Shanghai, citing economic modeling.
Rio, the world’s third-largest mining company, this month said it will spend $401 million to boost iron ore output in Canada, citing the “attractiveness of investing” in the North American nation. BHP has said the tax would stymie investment.
“It doesn’t matter if it’s the Congo or Sudan, or it’s Australia or Canada, these projects require commitments by governments that are 30 years and when they move the goal posts they will have a serious rippling effect,” said Frank Holmes, chief investment officer of U.S. Global Investors Inc., which manages about $3 billion. “They could stifle the world.”
China's Stock Market is Crashing
By: Robert McHugh | Sun, May 16, 2010
Link to story and charts:
http://www.safehaven.com/article/16815/chinas-stock-market-is-crashing
Financial pundits everywhere are saying China is the future, China is where the action is, China will be the world's economic leader.
Well, hate to spoil the party, but China's stock market is crashing. If its stock market is crashing, and stock markets are leading indicators for economies, it means China is about to fall into a deep recession. Further, a huge Head & Shoulders top pattern we show below warns that if the SSEC drops below 1,750ish, China's SSEC could drop to zero, that an economic depression, economic calamity, is coming to China.
China's largest export partner is Europe, not America. With sovereign debt problems threatening the economy of Europe, with programs of spending austerity necessary and mandated, China's economy is about to take a huge hit. Europe's troubles are going to lower aggregate demand world-wide. Stock Index patterns are warning us about this coming threat.
The SSEC topped on August 4th, 2009 at 3,478.01. It fell to 2,604.19 this week, on May 12th. That is an 873 point, 25.1 percent crash in 9 months (We define a crash as a 15 percent decline, some people insist on a drop over 20 percent for a crash. This decline meets both standards). The SSEC was at 3,361.38 as recently as November 2009, and has since fallen 757 points, or 22.5 percent over the past 6 months. And so far in 2010, the SSEC has crashed 673 points from 3,277 on December 31st, 2009, or 20.5 percent.
Yet nobody is talking about this. A contagion of economic woes is starting, and will soon be manifest all across the globe.
Shanghai Composite Index 18-Month Chart
Shanghai Composite Index 12-Year Weekly Chart
Shanghai Composite Index 12-Year Monthly Chart
Meltdown Monday coming. Look out Bulls Bears looking to get nasty, check early futures pre market.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/17689937/
Even Higher Uranium Prices Ahead This Summer
May 2nd, 2010 | Author: 2012 Doomsday Predictions
http://www.2012-doomsday-predictions.com/6918/even-higher-uranium-prices-ahead-this-summer/
Will we see a dramatic spike in uranium prices this summer? Some industry insiders have forecast spikes that could send uranium soaring to between $55 and $100/pound. Most were not expecting this to occur during 2006. However, there are several reasons we believe something could crack wide open in the uranium market over the next 100 days.
RUSSIA
Let’s take the Russian situation. U.S. utilities have been somewhat lackadaisical about uranium pricing because they’ve been getting Russian uranium on the cheap. Russia’s
Rosatom head Sergei Kiriyenko has reportedly told U.S. utilities there will be no HEU-2 deal. Whether this is a ploy to extract a better deal for Russia, or Russia’s announcement it will feed other nuclear-ambitious countries with its uranium is not known.
U.S. utilities are now lobbying the U.S. Commerce Department to end the restrictions on importing enriched Russian uranium. They like the pricing, and are now arguing that higher uranium prices are jeopardizing the nuclear renaissance in the United States.
Because of rising uranium prices, 85 percent of the utilities, which operate nuclear facilities, have formed AHUG (Ad Hoc Utility Group) to terminate the import restriction. If AHUG accomplished its goal, the loser would be USEC, which is now arguing on America’s “overdependence” of nuclear fuel. USEC depends upon the Russian uranium to fund its future enrichment facility program. In a way, this amounts to corporate welfare. USEC is arguing against unlimited Russian uranium.
U.S. utilities are now being fed about 50 percent of their nuclear fuel from decommissioned Russian warheads. Russia is more than a tad upset because the deal they made does not reflect the current spot or long-term price of uranium. Something will likely occur at the G8 Summit in St. Petersburg, Russia on July 14-17. Russia will chair this summit for the first time.
Expect fireworks. On the official G8 website, Russian President Putin announced, “Russia, as the presiding country, regards it as its duty to give a fresh impetus to efforts to find solutions to key international problems in energy, education and healthcare.” It should be noted that Russia is now the world’s second largest oil exporter behind Saudi Arabia. Russia is also hoping to reach a deal in joining the World Trade Organization before the summit opens.
We believe Russia may exacerbate the current tight supply situation in the uranium markets and cause prices to rise after the summit. On June 9th, Russia’s news service Novosti reported the country would start constructing two nuclear power units per year inside Russia beginning in 2007. Kiriyenko also announced Russia would ramp up to four or five nuclear reactors for 2009-2010. President Putin plans to build an international full-service nuclear fuel center in Russia to provide enriched uranium for the growing number of countries wanting nuclear energy programs. It would be hardly likely Russia would provide additional uranium to U.S. utilities in that context.
TRADE TECH LLC
What about going into Russia’s G8 Summit? It appears uranium trading through June could continue to show a very tight supply situation, where sellers continue to set pricing. A recent posting on the Trade Tech LLC website announced the following:
A number of buyers concluded transactions during May, which significantly reduced outstanding demand. The impasse between buyers and sellers ended this past month, with buyers apparently reconciling their expectations with recent price increases and current offers. Sellers moved increasingly toward market-related pricing terms for spot delivery, and buyers showed a renewed willingness to accept these offers. Exceptionally strong long-term demand continues to exert upward pressure on the spot uranium price as each pound held by sellers is considered more valuable with every new buyer that enters the market. At least one, and possibly two, uranium auctions are expected in June. Buyers are expected to compete aggressively for this material and TradeTech expects uranium prices to continue their upward climb in June.
Aggressively competing for tight uranium supplies lends credence to a possible rise through the $50/pound level before the G8 Summit ends.
ANOTHER BAD HURRICANE SEASON
Unusually bad weather drives up energy prices. This summer’s hurricane season may be the equivalent to this past winter’s European gas shortages, which came courtesy of the Ukraine/Russian squabbling and a bad European winter. Many countries began expressing interest in a nuclear energy program after that episode. Another climate event might compel more to head for more nuclear.
Over the past two decades, hurricane watchers have learned to pay attention to Dr. William Gray of Colorado State University’s Department of Atmospheric Science. While based in hurricane-absent Fort Collins, Colorado, his atmospheric studies have proven Nostradamus-like prescient over the past 22 years. Why are we talking about hurricanes? Hurricane announcements tend to drive up energy futures. The number of hurricane days adds pressure to an already tight energy market. Hurricanes start to show up on an investor’s radar during August and remain there through September.
Because of anticipated tight uranium supplies for June utility buying and the anticipation of Russian fireworks in mid July, a fitting climax for a strong surge in uranium pricing might come along with a major hurricane hitting the Gulf Coast. Last year’s Katrina can serve as a reminder that climate changes can impact energy prices, uranium included. Based upon the weather forecasts, we believe in the high probability of an encore to last year’s energy shortages.
While this year’s hurricane season is not expected to match the devastation of 2005, it still highly rates at 195 percent for a Net Tropical Cyclone Activity rating. Last year’s first tropical storm, Arlene, formed on June 9th. This year’s Tropical Storm Alberto formed a year and a day later. Exclude the busiest hurricane season in 154 years of storm-tracking, and this year is expected to rate well above the average hurricane season. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) estimated up to a total of 16 storms, as many as ten hurricanes and up to six Category 3 or higher hurricanes. Dr. Gray’s team estimates similar numbers, but places the brunt of the storms’ impact on the eastern United States.
Storms mainly cause panic. It is the landfall which causes death and destruction. Using Steering Current Predictors, sea surface temperatures, a 52-year statistical hindcast, North Atlantic and Arctic Oscillations and other parameters, Dr. Gray forecast in his recent report, “The odds of a major hurricane making landfall along the East Coast are more than twice the climatological average value this year.” He forecast a 38-percent probability of a major hurricane hitting land along the Gulf Coast this year.
The most chilling comparisons made in the “Extended Range Forecast of Hurricane Activity for 2006? were those which went unremarked by the media. Dr. Gray compared Hurricane Season 2006 to hurricane seasons in 1961 and 2004. Hurricane Carla in 1961 was ranked 3rd worst by barometric pressure at landfall of all hurricanes entering the Gulf Coast. The 2004 hurricane season brought Charley, Frances, Ivan and Jeanne, which were some of the most devastating U.S. hurricanes recorded. Such scenarios would wreak havoc with already strained energy prices, but would be good for the uranium mining bulls. Gray concluded, “We believe that 2006 will be a very active season in the Atlantic basin.” The more active, the more likely a dramatic spike in uranium pricing.
NUCLEAR EXPANSION: A WORLDWIDE PHENOMENON
Yuri Sokolov, Department Head of Nuclear Energy for the United Nation’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told reporters this past week, “There is plenty of uranium assuming the industry keeps moving ahead with exploration and new mines.” Sokolov is confident the “identified resources” of 4.7 million metric tons can be mined for less than $60/pound. That’s about 26 percent higher than the current spot price. There was also a warning buried in his speech. He cautioned the major risk to uranium supplies would come from possible delays in moving from discovery to production. Industry insiders understand it can take between 12 and 20 years after a discovery to reach the production stage. U.S. utilities may get more aggressive to secure supplies as this year and next pass by. Their supply deficit for 2008 through 2012 requires a near miracle to match demand requirements.
Sokolov also set targets in the IAEA’s annual Red Book. Depending upon how quickly the nuclear industry expands, more uranium will be required. By 2025, if global nuclear capacity increases to 22 percent, utilities will need 80,000 metric tons per year. An increase to 43 percent would require 100,000 metric tons annually. The Red Book forecast new mines, over the next five years, would add about 30,000 metric tons to the supply inventories. This new capacity would fill the current uranium supply shortage, unless of course the industry is hit with delays. More new mines would also need to come online to keep pace with the heralded nuclear renaissance. Only the most cynical industry insiders would disagree the uranium mining sector desperately needs a dramatic surge in production between 2010 and 2020 to match the explosive growth ahead for this sector.
SUMMARY
Nuclear energy “hot talk” should also get a boost in August and September, after the North American release of James Lovelock’s Revenge of Gaia (Basic Books). The 86-year old scientist has led the charge among the world’s environmentalists to get the greens to go nuclear. The international media has sought out Dr. Lovelock’s opinions. Figure we’ll see the same boost in “pro nuclear” media appearances going into the autumn. As the author appears on numerous talk shows, the polls should swing more heavily into building more nuclear plants. That could add further pressure on utilities to quickly secure inventory.
Russia’s desire for a uranium/nuclear monopoly, hurricanes, tight supplies through the summer and the likelihood of yet another energy crisis before Labor Day could spell a significant boost in spot uranium pricing. It would not surprise us should spot uranium trade closer to $60/pound over the next 100 days. Any “shock event” could spike the spot uranium price above that level, and possibly make a run for $100/pound uranium.
Such a level would be unsustainable, of course, but it would be an eye-opener and attract renewed interest in the domestic uranium mining sector. The key domestic contenders for adding new mining capacity in the United States appear to be Strathmore Minerals (TSX: STM; Other OTC: STHJF), Uranium Resources (OTC BB: URRE), Energy Metals (TSX: EMC), UR-Energy (TSX: URE.TO), and Uranerz Energy (OTC BB: URNZ). There are others, but we have not followed their developments as closely.
Should the Russians absolutely confirm there will be no HEU-2 deal, U.S. utilities will be driven to closely investigate working relationships with domestic uranium development companies for reliable nuclear fuel supplies. Itochu has established a relationship with Uranium Resources (UOTC BB: URRE), and we expect more of these joint ventures to materialize. As for market capitalizations versus pounds-in-the-ground, during the last uranium bull market (in the 1970s), utility companies were buying uranium companies for about $5-6/pound of uranium. Some of our favorite companies, which host historically reliable and NI 43-101 compliant uranium resources over 100 million pounds, would be severely undervalued under a parallel scenario.
StockInterview’s Investing in the Great Uranium Bull Market: A Practical Investor’s Guide to Uranium Stocks debuts its e-Book edition this coming weekend. The number of investors now following developments in the uranium sector has grown exponentially over the past two years. The mad rush for data about uranium companies and industry developments has catapulted this website’s traffic into the top ten percent of all Internet websites. When the print edition arrives in bookstores and libraries, and is offered through book clubs and other allied groups, the demand for uranium and interest in the nuclear fuel cycle should make another leap forward.
James Finch contributes to StockInterview.com and other publications. Sign up for your free subscription to articles by James Finch by visiting http://www.stockinterview.com
Write to James Finch at jfinch@stockinterview.com
Lone Clone
Thanks for all the years of dedicated posting to this message board. This is a great one stop U site for a quick read.
Regards, Stockguard
It`s evident the share price has and is being held back and i`m surprised that the shorts, with their deep pockets, still hang in. By all signs, they are deep. I know they don`t go by fundamentals or much of anything else when shorting, usually runs and price spikes only draw their attention, but they are way overextended. I would rather see the stocks true value do to their science and the current stages of their trials and not the extreme run that will happen when covering accrues.
I continue to accumulate as I see others do on the stocks daily manipulated price swings.
Stock Short Interest Data
http://www.shortsqueeze.com/?symbol=CYCC&submit=Short+Quote%99
PFGY is overall doing a poor job in comparison to its peers with a Revenues Per Employee, Return on Equity, and Return on Assets of $216,946.00, (27.82%), and (13.50%) respectively. While only average at generating revenues from employees, the company is below average at managing their resources and at managing their owner's equity compared to other companies in the industry.
China Advanced Construction Materials: Still Waiting for a Breakout
http://seekingalpha.com/article/197014-china-advanced-construction-materials-still-waiting-for-a-breakout?source=yahoo
This sums it up and gives insight which i`m sure you`ve already read. I`ve been watching this company for about 6 months waiting on a catalyst for buying, nothing fundamentally yet says buy, so I wait.
Been accumulating since early March now and believe our next catalyst for a move up in stocks price will be the presentation at the American Association of Cancer Research (AACR) Annual Meeting, being held from April 17-21, 2010, in Washington, DC..Looking forward to higher highs and lower lows throughout the year with the companies ongoing progress with there trials. Share price changes over the past year indicates that CYCC will perform very well over the near term. Historical performance should lead to above average price performance in the next one to three months.
Been accumulating for nearly a year now and this month could be the catalyst for the next move up in stocks price range. GLTA
03/31/10 Page # 4
10K
http://studio-5.financialcontent.com/edgar?accesscode=135448810001037
In connection with our search for joint venture partners, Tristone has prepared and managed data rooms presenting technical, environmental and economic information related to our Cooper Basin holdings. The data rooms were opened on January 14, 2010 for research by qualified parties subject to a strict confidentiality agreement. Non-binding joint venture proposals were solicited March 9, 2010.
We have received multiple offers or firm expressions of interest from potential joint venture partners as a result of this process. We are currently reviewing the content of these proposals to determine which, if any, are acceptable to us.
We are encouraged by recent efforts to bolster the
FDA's drug review and oversight capabilities, for
which the agency has been much maligned, and by
recent agency commentary citing enhanced ability
to meet internal review timelines.We maintain a
positive outlook for drug partnering and acquisition
activity, as we see slowing pipeline growth among
big pharma as well as large biotech companies,
while pharma concerns face patent expirations of
over $100 billion in the next few years.We expect
continued adoption of biomarker research and
expansion of genetic-targeted clinical studies to aid
in controlling health care-related costs.
In our view, cancer therapeutics, followed by
infectious diseases and autoimmune and
inflammatory treatments, are the primary growth
areas. All told, we view the competitive environment
for most key diseases as intensifying.
Cyclacel Pharmaceuticals Mar 6,2010
NL SYMBOL:CYCC
S&P Quality Ranking Quantitative Stock Report
Paragraph from current S&P Quality Ranking Quantitative Stock Report for Cyclacel Pharmaceutical, Inc.
Solar stocks in the 20SSI surpassed both major indexes by gaining over 15 points for the week to finish at 385.01, 4.1% up from March 5.
March 8-12: Dow, Nasdaq, Solar Gain Yet Again
By: David Brands Saturday, March 13, 2010 1:29 PM
20 Solar Stocks Index Week of March 8-12, 2010
http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewarticle/articleid/3945236