Nuclear power is the 'way forward'

Adjust font size:

The growth of nuclear power in China and India over the next two decades will outpace other countries, a senior International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) official said Monday.

"China has developed quite fast in the nuclear power industry in the past 20 years," said Yury Sokolov, IAEA's deputy director-general and head of the department of nuclear energy.

"In China, in India, you have very definite plans for increasing the nuclear capacity six to 10 times for 20 years, this is really fast growth.

"The growth of the world is not so fast."

Sokolov said he remained positive about the future of nuclear power.

"Now nuclear power exists in 30 countries," he said.

"And 30 to 40 other countries have expressed their willingness to explore nuclear power."

He made the remarks on the sidelines of an IAEA symposium on nuclear power plant management, which opened on Monday.

China started nuclear power operations in 1991, when Qinshan-I, a 300-megawatt (MW) presurized-water reactor unit, independently developed by China, plugged into the grid.

China has fast-tracked development of nuclear power in recent years with a target to take its nuclear power capacity from about 9,000 MW in 2007 to 40,000 MW by 2020, according to China's long-term development plan for the nuclear power industry.

The Indian Department of Atomic Energy also had plans to increase the country's installed nuclear power capacity, expected to reach 20,000 MW by 2020.

Some Chinese experts said nuclear power was the best choice for China to satisfy its thirst for clean power amid pressure to sustain economic growth.

"The needs for energy consumption as well as for environmental protection are both pressed," Zheng Mingguan, vice-president of Shanghai Nuclear Engineering Research and Design Institute, said.

"Nuclear power is the most suitable choice to meet both needs."

Sun Libin, a scholar with the Institute of Nuclear and New Energy Technology of Tsinghua University, said: "Other forms of new energy, such as wind power and solar power, carry energy density much lower than nuclear power, and are unable to meet the tremendous power demand in China".

(China Daily October 16, 2007)

Price of energy value of Uranium: $20,000 a pound

As I had predicted in my earlier article, OPEC is now blaming speculators for high prices. Regardless what OPEC is saying now or will in the future, it will not derail in the oil bull market. Oil will eventually reach over a $1000 a barrel. No that is not a typo. In the next 10-15 years the export market will contract by over 70%. Assuming essential services required to keep society functioning at whatever level feasible are still around, that would mean that the average person in the US would have to cut his consumption by 90%. I think it will take prices at least 4 fold higher from here to achieve that. That multiplied with the Fed's aim to use the US dollar to put “Charmin” out of business will result in at least $1000 a barrel. But the road will a long and jagged one. Prices will spike and dip at every turn. Rumors of alternate energies being developed will cause “limit down” down days and threats on oil infrastructure will have the opposite effect. Through it all Joe Kernen and his his band of illiterate merry men on CNBC will keep trying to tell you that speculators are destroying your life. Sharron Epperson will keep telling you that oil is going down on a particular day because 2 and half weeks of world oil consumption were discovered somewhere. Although production should start after 5-8 years will make little difference to her astute explanations. (Those who saw her reaction after Devon's Jack discovery know exactly what I am talking about).

Finally I would like to add that in spite of the long term outlook for oil prices being incredibly bullish it is possible that a pullback to $70 -$80 could happen at anytime. This does not negate the long term fundamentals. I have stated my case above for why oil could go up 10 fold or more over the next 10 years. The fundamentals for uranium are even better than that for oil. Although uranium is used exclusively for electricity whereas oil is hardly used for that purpose, in an energy starved, global warming aware world it is also highly likely that Uranium will eventually trade at about BTU parity with oil. That means uranium at over $20,000 a pound. Seems a bargain at $80 a pound.

Paladin Says Uranium May Rise to $110 a Pound in First Quarter

By Claudia Carpenter

Oct. 18 (Bloomberg) -- Paladin Resources Ltd., which runs a uranium mine in Namibia, expects the price of the metal to rise to as much as $110 a pound in the first quarter of next year, a gain of about 40 percent.

``Availability is the issue,'' Paladin Chief Executive Officer John Borshoff said at a BMO Capital Markets meeting in London today. He forecast first-quarter prices at $105 to $110.

The spot price of the metal that's processed as fuel for nuclear reactors rebounded to $78 a pound last week, halting a decline from a record $138 a pound in June, according to TradeTech LLC, a Denver-based pricing service.

``I heard a utility participated'' in the transaction, Borschoff said. ``It wasn't just some hedge fund.''

Perth-based Paladin plans to produce 900,000 pounds of uranium this year and 2.6 million pounds next year, he said.

Macquarie Bank Ltd., Australia's largest investment bank, this week lowered its 2008 forecast for uranium to $100 a pound, from $140.30, citing in part stockpile sales by the U.S. government in August.

To contact the reporter on this story: Claudia Carpenter in London at ccarpenter2@bloomberg.net .

Palladin looks to correct more

Above: Palladin Mining (PDN-TSE) another high quality name now down almost 50% from the absolute highs… one day, this will be an outstanding repurchase candidate, and one day this stock will soar again to dwarf the highs seen in the first half of 2007… long term investors, no worries, it's just a question of following the stock down and letting it tell us when the bottom has been seen.

So what’s next for Uranium and Uranium Miners? In our view, both Uranium and Uranium stocks are in a primary degree correction, meaning a correction that can last many months. In addition, with the prospect of a global recession, if not an outright depression looming directly ahead, we feel that it is best to use a cautious approach and not try to pick a final low. To help clarify this point, on all of the updated charts shown above, the “AFTER” charts through today’s trading we include the three most important moving averages for each stock, the 50 day, the 100 day, and the 200 day. In all cases, the moving averages have rolled over and experienced downside cross-overs, with the slow poke of the group, the 200 day moving average in most cases just turning down. That is a sign that it could still be very early in the downtrend, as normally, declining markets tend to see the 200 day moving average trending down week after week after week after week, until eventually, the darn thing starts to flatten out.

As I write this, I am reminded of Stan Weinstein and his terrific stage analysis, wherein these stocks would all be in stage four declines. For those of you who like to read up on Technical Analysis, Stan is both a gentleman and a scholar, and a number of years ago turned out a first rate tome entitled, “Stan Weinstein’s - Secrets for Profiting in Bull and Bear Markets” -- still a Barbera, “House Favorite.”

Putting a slightly different spin on the Uranium Sector, I note that my GST Uranium Index (which includes about a dozen names among the likes of Cameco, Denison, Strathmore, Paladin, Pinetree, Crosshair, JNR Resources, Mega Uranium, Laramide, UEX Corp., Fronteer Development and SXR Uranium) is now down 51.02% from its April 10th, 2007 peak. Now there are those that would say that’s the entire bear market. Yet, what is common in situations like this is for prices to retrace a proportional amount in relation to the advance which came before. In the case of the Uranium stocks, the percentage increase seen in the last few years is measured in the thousands of percents. When viewed on a semi-logarithmic scale, we note that to date, the very steep percentage decline off the high has only approached a minimum .236 Fibonacci retracement. More common, would be a .382 fibonacci retracement which could carry the index even lower toward the 420 level, with index closing today at a reading of 902.50.

Ok, we can hear the cringe, and readers should understand that while that type of move is possible, it may not in fact develop. What we are trying to point out is even if the entire sector were to be cut in half again from present levels, it would still fall into a clear cut “Wave 2” type of outcome, and would not change the very long term secular bull market view. Admittedly, a move down to the low 400 level on this index would be an unbearable amount of pain, but it is possible within the context of a major crash in the global markets that readings like that could be seen in the months ahead.

For now, the best approach is to be a trend follower and recognize that the trend is now definitively down. Until we see the kind of basing action that would suggest momentum divergences and downside deceleration, readers are advised to remain cautious and ideally on the sidelines and out of harm's way with regard to this group. In many cases, corrective Wave Two patterns traces out an A-B-C structure, within which it is possible that Intermediate Wave A of Primary Wave (2) has just recently bottomed. In this vein, a counter-trend “B” Wave advance could provide those holding these stocks with a loss, the opportunity to reduce the loss into strength and then stand aside as prices move down in Wave C, and into a more important final low.

Correction, not a rout!

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...-18261,00.html

BEING unashamedly and firmly one of the glass-is-half-empty crowd, Pure Speculation needs to detect only a zephyr of doubt to begin looking on the gloomy side of life. And being able to smugly throw in a "we did warn you" rider does add lustre to a spot of bad news.
The latest quarterly report from Sydney-based Resource Capital Research reminds us that the present uranium spot price is $US136 a pound; that's 45 per cent up from the $US95/lb level three months ago and a 111 per cent gain on the $US65.50/lb six months back. RCR is bullish, saying indications are for $US148/lb in the near term and $US165/lb by September 2008.

But we're now seeing a growing tide of reports from Canada saying there is concern the uranium price may have already peaked - although you have to factor in that power utilities are anxious to talk down the price. Buy orders are drying up, and some uranium for sale has been withdrawn from the market. Cameco, the world's biggest producer, saw its stock take a terrific hammering on the Toronto exchange early last week.

But it will be a correction, not a rout. The usual pattern is for buyers to re-emerge once prices come off a little, and there's no doubt that uranium demand will be strong in the years ahead. But those investing in companies with low-grade or unexplored tenements might like to pause for reflection.

NO doubt a good many investors are already scratching their heads at the price retreat in a range of uranium stocks.

Having one mine in operation and another on the way hasn't stopped Paladin Resources falling from $10.70 in April to $8.26 on Friday. On the exploration front, the once hot Toro Energy closed at 95c, compared with $1.28 two months ago. Alliance Resources has a slice of an advanced 15,000-tonne deposit in South Australia, with more high-grade hits last month. No good: its shares are at $1.74 compared with $2.85 in May.

And reports of further high-grade hits at Bigrlyi haven't restored Energy Metals to its April high of $8.34. Other recent market darlings have also suffered share price pain - Crossland Uranium Mines, A-Cap Resources and Black Range Minerals among them.

Yet a few continue to do well. Marathon Resources, one of the better fancied South Australian plays, was $3.88 at the start of April, $6.75 on Friday.

THIS all suggests that buying a uranium project might no longer be the quick fix for a lagging share price. But this hasn't stopped more from leaping in. The latest entrant is Pacific Enviromin. This company has previously been concentrating on bentonite, which, among other things, makes good cat litter. Now it has acquired 22,000sqkm of uranium tenements in the Northern Territory and a smaller parcel in Queensland.

But we still like something a bit more advanced. Thatcher Soak in Western Australia is living up to promise, with Uranex reporting intersections up to 0.82 per cent U3O8.

BACK in 1958, Don Walker acquired the Herberton assets of the Great Northern Tin Co, which had been a Queensland producer of that metal since 1881. He was subsequently Australia's representative on the former International Tin Council. Without him and his tenement holdings, North Queensland Metals would probably not exist.

NQM was a modest float last December, going to market for just $2.5 million with Walker on the board. It has just picked up another 13 tenements in the old tin mining area inland from Innisfail. And the company has an interesting strategy.

Tin mining in the area boomed until the 1930s, revived in the 1960s and then closed down again when the tin market went bust in the 1980s. There were several big companies mining their own deposits as well as buying ore from the hordes of small-time players (there being about 400 recorded mines in the area).

There are still plenty of prospectors with their own piece of turf, and NQM's plan is to develop several deposits on their own to supply one central treatment plant, but then go back to the strategy of the old days in terms of buying from any individuals who want to start producing ore.

The company hopes to have its core Baal Gammon project producing by late 2008 as a copper-tin proposition. But the 5.8 million tonne resource also has indium, used in electronics, at an average grade of 29 grams/tonne. NQM has received a lot of calls from Chinese companies about the indium.

INVESTORS in iron ore players getting up and running in Western Australia's mid-west might soon need to re-crunch their numbers. It had been assumed that companies not near railways would have to build their own and, indeed, Murchison Metals is working on such a study. There is also the Yilgarn Infrastructure Group, which fancies itself as the big port-rail player in the region, but it now faces having its nose put out of joint.

Babcock & Brown Infrastructure Group has entered the picture. It controls WestNet Rail, the 5100km railway network in WA. And it wants to build its own iron ore lines in the mid-west - serving Murchison's Jacks Hill mine near Meekatharra, passing the proposed Midwest Corp Weld Range development, with a branch out to Wiluna where Golden West Resources is working up a resource.

This means B&B would be putting up the capital for rail developments, not the individual mining companies - a huge slice off mine capital costs.

THIS column has always had a soft spot for energy juniors chancing their arm in the US. So it is heartening to see Redfork Energy believing it has a company-maker. This junior reports an initial coal seam methane reserve in Oklahoma of 37.5 billion cubic feet, worth about $270 million at present prices. Pipelines riddle the area, and the city of Tulsa is in close proximity.

Redfork is presently pumping about 600,000 cubic feet of gas a day with prices running at about $US7 per 1000 cubic feet. That's about three times what gas goes for here and the Bank of Oklahoma's long-term forecast is for prices to stay around that figure.

Redfork's David Prentice says margins are "very high". On top of that, each well - which has an expected 15-year life - pays back its capital within a year.

ALISTAIR Cowden wouldn't be the first resources boss with an overseas project to feel the local market is not exactly simpatico. His Vulcan Resources has been building up a considerable portfolio in Finland and needs some big money to develop the Kylylahti copper-cobalt-nickel project and get an idea of how much nickel there is at Kuhmo.

So $49 million of Scandinavian money will be coming in the door and Vulcan will list on the Norwegian Stock Exchange. Companies such as Vulcan are too small for the London and New York main exchanges, and London's AIM is seen as lacking liquidity.

But the Oslo bourse is patronised by a big swag of retail investors and is buoyed by Norway's equivalent of the Future Fund, the Norwegian Pension Fund, the biggest in Europe and primed with billions of krone from North Sea oil.

Kylylahti is particularly interesting because its cobalt element averages 0.24 per cent, which is high for that metal. Cobalt is now fetching $US61,000 a tonne and in high demand. Future supply growth depends on the large nickel laterite projects now in various stages of development (all experiencing delays) and on future mining in the Congo, which also has its problematic elements. In other words, supply is likely to be tight.

The Australian implies no recommendations regarding any of the stocks mentioned. The author does not own shares in any of the mentioned securities.

Green nuclear power coming to Norway | COSMOS magazine

Green nuclear power coming to Norway | COSMOS magazine: "Green nuclear power coming to Norway


SYDNEY: Safer, cleaner nuclear power is a step closer to reality after Norway's state-owned energy company, Statkraft, this week announced plans to investigate building a thorium-fuelled nuclear reactor.

Statkraft (which translates to 'state power') announced an alliance with regional power providers Vattenfall in Sweden, and Fortum in Finland, along with Norwegian energy investment company, Scatec AS, in a bid to produce the thorium-fuelled plant.

Thorium (Th-232), has been hailed as a 'greener' alternative to traditional nuclear fuels, such as uranium and plutonium, because thorium is incapable of producing the runaway chain reaction which in a uranium-fuelled reactor can cause a catastrophic meltdown. Thorium reactors also produce only a tiny fraction of the hazardous waste created by uranium-fuelled reactors (see 'New age nuclear', Cosmos, issue 8).

Statkraft, which is already Europe's second largest producer of renewable energy - mainly thanks to Norway's abundant hydroelectric resources - has recently made thorium-fuelled nuclear power a point of serious consideration. "It would be a sin of omission not to consider it," said Bård Mikkelsen, CEO of Statkraft, in an interview with the Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet.

To date, thorium has seen only limited application, such as by U.S. company, Thorium Power, which produces mixed uranium-thorium fuel for use in conventional nuclear reactors. However a reactor fuelled entirely by thorium would have significant advantages over conventional uranium or mixed-fuel reactors.

Besides their inability to go critical and their low generation of waste, thorium-fuelled reactors don't suffer from the same proliferation risks as uranium reactors. This is because the thorium by-products cannot be re-processed into weapons-grade material.

Thorium also doesn't require enrichment before use as a nuclear fuel, and thorium is an abundant natural resource, with vast deposits in Australia, the United States, India and Norway.

Another advantage of thorium-powered reactors is they can be used to 'burn' highly radioactive waste by-products from conventional uranium-fuelled power plants.

Over the past eight months, there has been a substantial rise in public support for thorium reactors in Norway. In June 2006, polls showed 80 per cent of the population were completely opposed to any form of nuclear technology. Then in February 2007, the same percentage were in favour of investigating thorium reactors as a potential energy source.

"It is an absolutely incredible surprise that it has been possible to turn around the population in a country, just by quietly campaigning and explaining the benefits of the technology," said Egil Lillestøl, a nuclear physicist at the University of Bergen, Norway.

Lillestøl is a keen supporter of the ADS (Accelerated Driven System) technology used in thorium-fuelled reactors. Because thorium is incapable of achieving a self-sustaining chain reaction – unlike uranium or plutonium – it needs energy to be injected into the reactor to keep it running. This energy comes in the form of neutrons from a particle accelerator. For this reason, a thorium-fuelled reactor is also sometimes called a sub-critical reactor.

Statkraft is the third Norwegian company to express interest in thorium reactors this year; Thor Energi and Bergen Energi, have both applied for government licenses to build plants.

The announcement by Statkraft coincides with the first meeting of the Thorium Report Committee – an initiative commissioned by Norway's Ministry of Petroleum and Energy, in association with the Norwegian Research Council, to investigate the benefits and risks of thorium reactors.

The committee will submit its report at the end of 2007. Norwegian legislation currently bans the use of nuclear power, so the report is critical for gaining Government consent to build thorium plants in Norway.

"Norway has taken the lead on this. We are an energy nation; we have large supplies of thorium – not as much as Australia of course – but we have a very advanced energy industry, and we have a responsibility to the world," said Lillestøl. "Without nuclear energy we will destroy the world, we will spend all the coal, oil and gas, and we will be left with an energy desert."

Reza Hashemi-Nezad, a nuclear scientist at the University of Sydney in Australia agrees that thorium is a promising alternative energy source. However, while the European Union, India, the US, Japan and Russia are all working on thorium technologies, Australia is lagging behind.

"Australian industry is very interested in investing in this type of clean, safe and cheap nuclear energy," says Hashemi-Nezhad. "But I am afraid that if Australian scientists and industry do not get adequate support from the government and research institutes in Australia, they may move offshore."

Areva to Buy UraMin for $2.5 Billion - WSJ.com

Areva to Buy UraMin for $2.5 Billion - WSJ.com: "French state-owned nuclear-engineering company Areva SA agreed to acquire Canadian uranium miner UraMin Inc. for $2.5 billion.

Areva said the $7.75-a-share offer 'perfectly fits' into its strategy to significantly increase its presence in the uranium market, in which it already holds a 23% share in sales. Areva's current production of uranium is 6,000 tons a year, which it plans to double by 2011-12 from existing projects, such as those in Niger and Canada, and through the increase in production of its operations in Kazakhstan.

Olivier Mallet, Areva's senior executive vice president of mining, chemistry and enrichment, said the short-term plan to double uranium production was in place before the acquisition of UraMin and therefore didn't take its production into account. He said he expects about 7,000 tons a year of uranium to be added to Areva's production by UraMin."