Posted by dallassteve on 14th of Jan 2010 at 10:23 am
Thanks everyone for the posts on uranium. Does anyone have
opinions on uranium long term?
Looks like it has nowhere to go but up. Brady Willet at
FallStreet.com predicts uranium will put in an historic low in
2010. I am not sure if that means he thinks it will drop more
this year. He also thinks the US dollar hegemony lives for
another year. I am not a subscriber, just saw an interesting
article he wrote for gold-eagle.com.
Anyway, DNN looks good enough for me to take a starter
position.
As the only
current fossil-fuel alternative capable of providing energy on a
large scale and at a low cost, uranium appears to have a bright
future. Furthermore, China and India, two of the world's most
voracious consumers of energy, are making concerted efforts to
increase their respective abilities to generate nuclear energy. And
yet, uranium is one of the few commodities that has not rebounded
over the past 12 months. As evidenced by the following weekly U308
chart, the uranium price has done very little since bottoming in
early 2009.
Why hasn't the
price rebounded? Apart the obvious reason -- that with the price in
the US$40s there has been sufficient supply to meet demand -- we
don't know. The absence of a meaningful recovery has certainly
surprised most of the experts on uranium supply/demand
fundamentals.
It is clear that uranium is 'marching to the beat of its own
drummer' rather than trading up and down with most other industrial
commodities in response to changes in the US$. This could insulate
uranium from the next intermediate-term commodity decline -- a
decline that will very likely be underway by mid-year.
The lack of a sustained advance in the uranium price has
naturally affected the shares of uranium miners, most of which have
been drifting sideways or lower since May of last year.
Posted by dylan398 on 14th of Jan 2010 at 10:37 am
I'm in the engineering buisness and I know many companies are
looking @ a HUGE pick-up in work over the next 5 years for nuclear
work....Westinghouse has 2 HUGE contracts for reactors with China
and the Saudi's
Posted by shamutooth on 14th of Jan 2010 at 10:50 am
I have a friend who works for Babcock and Wilcox in their
nucleur engineering department and he's been busier than hell for 3
years now.Great business to be in right now.
This is just my opinion; I think that the uranium stocks and
will be depressed till there is positive talk out of Washington
about new plants being built in this country. While the rest of the
world has continued to build nuclear power plants over the last 30
years, we have not. The uranium stocks skyrocketed in 2007-08 and
created a bubble which has now found the price at a reasonable
level and the miners should move up from here. There are two big
issues with these stocks, one is the China sydrome from Hollywood,
the other is that these power plants DO NOT contribute to green
house gases. Which side will win???? I don't know?
The biggies are CCJ,BPT,RPT,and then there is
PALAF,PNP,ASXSF,DTEMF,FRCMQ,IDARQ,LEXEF,LMRXF,MGAFF,TSRMF,TVCFF,TUEFF
and there is the etf NLR.
The etf NLR was started at the top in 2007 so it's chart really
doesn't help but here is a chart of
CCJthat shows the rise and fall and now basing of the
industry.
According to a "Frontline" documentary I saw on PBS, there are
something like 93 nuclear plants in the US, utilizing 83 or 85
different designs.
Bring on the standardize pebble bed reactor!!! But then if there
were only 2-3 designs, what would the NRC do? Cut budget, lay off
staff, LOL, not in the govt heavy world we have surrendered to, no
way.
Uranium: opinions?
Posted by dallassteve on 14th of Jan 2010 at 10:23 am
Thanks everyone for the posts on uranium. Does anyone have opinions on uranium long term?
Looks like it has nowhere to go but up. Brady Willet at FallStreet.com predicts uranium will put in an historic low in 2010. I am not sure if that means he thinks it will drop more this year. He also thinks the US dollar hegemony lives for another year. I am not a subscriber, just saw an interesting article he wrote for gold-eagle.com.
Anyway, DNN looks good enough for me to take a starter position.
thanks for uranium comments
Posted by dallassteve on 14th of Jan 2010 at 11:59 am
Thanks everyone for all the posts and PM.
It is good to hear different perspectives.
uranium
Posted by Michael on 14th of Jan 2010 at 12:13 pm
is it not the case that there is no futures market? no levereged speculation, nothing to drive up the market with no good reason.
UEC
Posted by baker on 14th of Jan 2010 at 10:40 am
UEC is one to add to the list. Mervyn Burak does long and short term TA on uranium:
http://techuranium.blogspot.com/
UEX.TO
Posted by upthedownescalator on 14th of Jan 2010 at 10:39 am
chart looks very nice
here are a couple other
Posted by rank10 on 14th of Jan 2010 at 10:32 am
here are a couple other uraniums i forgot to post yesterday
a small excerpt from Steve Saville last update
Posted by Palladin on 14th of Jan 2010 at 10:28 am
Uranium Update
As the only current fossil-fuel alternative capable of providing energy on a large scale and at a low cost, uranium appears to have a bright future. Furthermore, China and India, two of the world's most voracious consumers of energy, are making concerted efforts to increase their respective abilities to generate nuclear energy. And yet, uranium is one of the few commodities that has not rebounded over the past 12 months. As evidenced by the following weekly U308 chart, the uranium price has done very little since bottoming in early 2009.
Why hasn't the price rebounded? Apart the obvious reason -- that with the price in the US$40s there has been sufficient supply to meet demand -- we don't know. The absence of a meaningful recovery has certainly surprised most of the experts on uranium supply/demand fundamentals.
It is clear that uranium is 'marching to the beat of its own drummer' rather than trading up and down with most other industrial commodities in response to changes in the US$. This could insulate uranium from the next intermediate-term commodity decline -- a decline that will very likely be underway by mid-year.
The lack of a sustained advance in the uranium price has naturally affected the shares of uranium miners, most of which have been drifting sideways or lower since May of last year.
I'm in the engineering buisness
Posted by dylan398 on 14th of Jan 2010 at 10:37 am
I'm in the engineering buisness and I know many companies are looking @ a HUGE pick-up in work over the next 5 years for nuclear work....Westinghouse has 2 HUGE contracts for reactors with China and the Saudi's
I have a friend who
Posted by shamutooth on 14th of Jan 2010 at 10:50 am
I have a friend who works for Babcock and Wilcox in their nucleur engineering department and he's been busier than hell for 3 years now.Great business to be in right now.
This is just my opinion;
Posted by ditch on 14th of Jan 2010 at 11:37 am
This is just my opinion; I think that the uranium stocks and will be depressed till there is positive talk out of Washington about new plants being built in this country. While the rest of the world has continued to build nuclear power plants over the last 30 years, we have not. The uranium stocks skyrocketed in 2007-08 and created a bubble which has now found the price at a reasonable level and the miners should move up from here. There are two big issues with these stocks, one is the China sydrome from Hollywood, the other is that these power plants DO NOT contribute to green house gases. Which side will win???? I don't know?
The biggies are CCJ,BPT,RPT,and then there is PALAF,PNP,ASXSF,DTEMF,FRCMQ,IDARQ,LEXEF,LMRXF,MGAFF,TSRMF,TVCFF,TUEFF and there is the etf NLR.
I can't find a chart right off for long term uranium that goes back more then 2007, but it seems it was selling for $25 before the bubble fromed.
The etf NLR was started at the top in 2007 so it's chart really doesn't help but here is a chart of CCJthat shows the rise and fall and now basing of the industry.
NLR
Posted by saturn6 on 14th of Jan 2010 at 11:52 am
Has a nice MA triangle...
Why are nuclear plants so expensive?
Posted by perthx on 14th of Jan 2010 at 11:51 am
According to a "Frontline" documentary I saw on PBS, there are something like 93 nuclear plants in the US, utilizing 83 or 85 different designs.
Bring on the standardize pebble bed reactor!!! But then if there were only 2-3 designs, what would the NRC do? Cut budget, lay off staff, LOL, not in the govt heavy world we have surrendered to, no way.
sounds good. I've been deep
Posted by Palladin on 14th of Jan 2010 at 10:38 am
sounds good. I've been deep into Uranium and hurting for awhile