Koffiekamer Terug naar discussie overzicht

Uranium

1. [verwijderd] 12 januari 2006 19:18

   auteur info

   • [verwijderd]

     Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

     Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

   • Aanbevelingen

     Ontvangen: 0

     Gegeven: 0

   •    Aantal posts: 0

   quote:

   postzak schreef:

   [quote=jurianhoondert]
   73,27 ( 17:14 ) 2,81 / 3,99%
   
   [/quote]
   
   Ja nu al bijna 5% er bij:
   
   finance.yahoo.com/q?s=ccj
   

   Maak daar 7% van...
2. [verwijderd] 14 januari 2006 14:23

   auteur info

   • [verwijderd]

     Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

     Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

   • Aanbevelingen

     Ontvangen: 0

     Gegeven: 0

   •    Aantal posts: 0

   Uranium the hot topic for market traders
   By NATHAN CROSS
   
   14jan06
   
   SHARES in uranium stocks were running hot yesterday following news that Australia had been holding talks with China on the sale of uranium.
   
   Also lifting share prices were comments by delegates to the Asia-Pacific Clean Development and Climate Partnership conference in Sydney that nuclear power was crucial to tackling global air pollution and climate change.
   
   Foreign Minister Alexander Downer claimed on Thursday that nuclear power was "greenhouse-friendly" and backed a U.S. push to debate its use.
   
   Among uranium stocks yesterday, Southern Gold shares climbed 23 per cent or 4c to 21c.
   
   Marathon Resources added 7c to 69c and Monax Mining 2c to 22c.
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   Large-cap uranium stocks Paladin Resources and Energy Resources Australia also gained ground, Paladin up 1c to $2.30 and ERA 52c to $12.87.
   
   But not everyone followed the positive momentum with Curnamona Energy losing 3c to 49c and Pepinnini Minerals 1.5c to 31.5c.
   
   Meanwhile, the broader market made only a slight move despite a fall in U.S. markets overnight.
   
   The all ordinaries index edged 2.6 points higher to 4784.3, just surpassing Thursday's closing record of 4781.7.
   
   Patersons Securities associate director Michael Brindal said there was little major news to give the local bourse a clear direction. "We started out a lot lower and it was quite red. We were following New York's lead," he said.
   
   "But (yesterday) was probably a bit of a testament to the strength of the market generally at the moment - we've built our way back."
   
   The energy sector led the market with Woodside Petroleum gaining 20c to $41.10 and Santos 9c to $12.52.
   
   Westpac fared worst among the big four banks, losing 14c to $23.04, but the other three all edged higher.
   
   The Commonwealth Bank added 3c to $44.13, ANZ 5c to $24.45 and National Australia Bank 1c to $32.64.
   
   www.theadvertiser.news.com.au/common/...,5936,17816185%255E913,00.html
3. [verwijderd] 16 januari 2006 18:25

   auteur info

   • [verwijderd]

     Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

     Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

   • Aanbevelingen

     Ontvangen: 0

     Gegeven: 0

   •    Aantal posts: 0

   Uranium mines: the rush is on
   Chris Pippos
   15jan06
   URANIUM exploration is booming in South Australia as the State Government pushes for more mines, saying that not to allow them would be akin to "the Saudi Arabians keeping their oil in the ground".
   
   New figures show 25 Australian and international companies have 86 uranium exploration licences in SA – an increase of about 100 per cent in three years.
   
   And a further 30 licence applications are being considered.
   
   However, uranium opponents say the Government has wasted more than $1 million of taxpayer dollars to fund the boom and help companies drill for uranium.
   
   The uranium industry is now rushing to peg out sites in the state's north and cash in on the threat posed by high oil prices.
   
   SA Mineral Resources Minister Paul Holloway said SA would expand its number of uranium mines some time about 2010 if Labor's three-mine uranium policy was overturned at the party's 2007 national conference.
   
   "We can't avoid it – it would be like the Saudi Arabians keeping their oil in the ground," Mr Holloway said.
   
   "I think it's inevitable the policy on uranium will be changed.
   
   "I think that, certainly at this stage, the indications are that the world could take all the uranium that we could develop in the near future.
   
   "If we could discover a half-a-dozen Olympic Dams, it would be good ... as the (uranium) price increases the value to this state in terms of royalties is also increasing rapidly."
   
   Only last week, Canadian-listed company Mega Uranium Ltd made a $19.7 million friendly bid for Australian uranium explorer Hindmarsh Resources.
   
   And Chinese officials have reportedly been negotiating with the owner of the Honeymoon Mine, Southern Cross Resources, to buy a share of the project, west of Broken Hill.
   
   The combined output of SA's existing uranium mines at Olympic Dam and Beverley now totals $900 million a year in export income. Commercial mining at Honeymoon has not yet begun.
   
   Australian Conservation Foundation spokesman David Noonan said the Government had spent more than $1 million in subsidies to help uranium companies.
   
   "We'd certainly question why Minister Holloway is putting public funds into mineral exploration," he said.
   
   He said most of the companies were involved in "high-level speculation and going over old ground".
   
   Mr Noonan said even if another uranium mine was permitted in SA, many of the existing companies could not afford a new mill, estimated to cost about $50 million.
   
   "Virtually none of them would have the money to commercialise the deposit," he said.
   
   Federal Resources Minister Ian MacFarlane said uranium companies would simply shift their attention to the Northern Territory if more mines were not permitted in SA.
   
   "Of great concern to SA is the loss of potential investment worth hundreds of million of dollars," he said.
   
   Mr MacFarlane said there was an expectation among the uranium exploration fraternity that more mines would be permitted soon in SA.
   
   Chamber of Mines and Energy chief executive Phil Sutherland said he expected even more new entrants into the state's uranium industry soon.
   
   "Of course, with uranium as a commodity fetching quite high prices globally, it does follow," he said.
   
   "We really need to capitalise on the fact we have so much uranium in our back yard."
   
   SA has 41 per cent of the world's low-cost economic reserves of uranium, with most exported to a range of countries including Canada and the US for power generation.
   
   www.theadvertiser.news.com.au/common/...,5936,17823785%255E2682,00.html
4. [verwijderd] 17 januari 2006 17:59

   auteur info

   • [verwijderd]

     Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

     Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

   • Aanbevelingen

     Ontvangen: 0

     Gegeven: 0

   •    Aantal posts: 0

   Mogelijk interessant voor de uraniumbeleggers onder ons:
   
   ASPEN (ResourceInvestor.com) – As the only uranium company at the International Oil & Gas Investor Forum, UrAsia succeeded in sticking out. However, with $966 million in market capitalization and a 47% share price increase in two months, the company might have stuck out at a uranium investor forum.
   
   Frank Holmes of U.S. Global Investors calls UrAsia “the hottest uranium story this year,” so let’s have a look.
   
   UrAsia [TSXv:UUU] listed on TSX-Venture on November 7 at C$1.60. Today, shares closed at C$3.07 – a quick and rather quite gain of C$1.47. The company has the third largest market cap of a uranium miner behind only Cameco [NYSE:CCJ; TSX:CCO] ($8.5 billion) and Energy Resources of Australia [ASX:ERA] ($1.4 billion).
   
   With the spot price of U3O8 hovering around $37 per pound, and demand surging in Asia and Europe, UrAsia hopes to reap the benefits.
   
   “Nuclear power has been the black sheep of energy for the past 20 years, but this is changing,” said UrAsia President and CEO Phillip Shirvington during a presentation.
   
   The company’s estimated annual production is currently 1.4 million pounds uranium, with a resource base of 84.6 million pounds U3O8. The properties range from about .45% to 1% U3O8 recovery, according to the company.
   
   Assets
   
   UrAsia operates in Kazakhstan, the third largest producer of uranium in the world. According to the company, Kazakhstan hosts 18% of the world’s recoverable uranium – second only to Australia at 28%.
   
   The company has only one operating mine at present, the 70%-owned Akdala mine. The company plans to increase annual production at the mine to 2.6 million pounds this year at an operating cost of $7.49 per pound using in-situ leaching. The mine has a life of 17 years.
   
   In addition, UrAsia plans to commence development of its 70%-owned South Inkai project as well as the 30%-owned Kharassan project this year with initial production starting in 2007.
   
   The South Inkai project will have an estimated annual production of 5.3 million pounds U3O8 with a potential expansion to 10.4 million pounds for seven years. UrAsia estimates the cash cost at $8.49 per pound.
   
   The Kharassan project has a mine life of 17 years with an estimated production of 5.2 million pounds U3O8 – with an expansion potential of 7.8 million pounds. The company estimates the cash cost of Kharassan to be $8.70 per pound.
   
   UrAsia also has seven exploration licenses in the country where it hopes to begin drilling later this year. Shirvington told Resource Investor that the company could eventually expand to Uzbekistan or even north to Mongolia as well.
   
   Management
   
   Shirvington, who has 40 years experience in the industry, leads UrAsia. However, behind the scenes sits Goldcorp President and CEO Ian Telfer as a non-executive chairman.
   
   As we know, Goldcorp [NYSE:GG; TSX:G] has been very aggressive of late with its deal to acquire certain Placer Dome [NYSE:PDG; TSX:PDG] assets in conjunction with Barrick’s [NYSE:ABX: TSX:ABX] takeover, as well as a deal to obtain Virginia Gold’s [TSX:VIA] Éléonore gold project.
   
   As the ex-head of Wheaton River, Telfer has taken the reins from Rob McEwen and turned Goldcorp into promising mid-tier producer. This shines well on UrAsia.
   
   Conclusion
   
   Demand for uranium will only increase as more countries seek alternatives to fossil fuels – there are currently 23 new reactors under construction, not to mention China’s big plans for 30 more.
   
   According to UrAsia, the supply deficit is estimated to be about 10 million pounds per year, and set to increase to roughly 20 million pounds per year by 2015.
   
   Analysts like James Dines of The Dines Letter have been “screaming” about uranium for years now about the supply/demand curve. With U3O8 rapidly approaching $40 per pound, it seems the analysts were on to something.
   
   Even after surging 47% in just two months, UrAsia could be in for further upside. Shirvington said to watch for an AIM listing in February and a TSX listing later on the in year.
   
   www.resourceinvestor.com/pebble.asp?r...
5. [verwijderd] 20 januari 2006 09:07

   auteur info

   • [verwijderd]

     Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

     Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

   • Aanbevelingen

     Ontvangen: 0

     Gegeven: 0

   •    Aantal posts: 0

   Weinig verwonderlijk dat er nieuwe mijnen geopend worden met een uraniumprijs die heel erg hard oploopt:
   
   Australia's Paladin announces first uranium sales from Namibia mine
   
   SYDNEY (AFX) - Paldin Resources Ltd said it has secured its first sales contract for a portion of its uranium yellowcake production from the Langer Heinrich uranium mine in Namibia.
   
   The sales arrangement is with a major US utility for the purchase of 2.145 mln pounds of yellow cake for delivery between 2007-2012, at market price at time of delivery.
   
   'This sales arrangement signifies a very important occasion for Paladin and the uranium supply industry generally,' chief executive John Borshoff said.
   
   'Few new companies have entered into the uranium market in the past 25 years, reflecting a period of dismal outlook and a uranium mining industry essentially in retreat,' he said.
   
   Dual-listed on the ASX and Toronto Stock Exchanges, Paladin is due to begin uranium production in September at its Langer Heinrich mine which contains a resource of 32,800 tons of uranium ore.
   
   Paladin said uranium production from its Kayelekera project in Malawi is due to start in 2008.
   
   The project contains a uranium resource of 11,500 tons.
   
   'The price of uranium has been increasing steadily over the past five years and significant upward price pressure remains as a result of forecast shortages of supply,' Borshoff said.
   
   'In a situation where new mine production is now essential to meet increasing demand, this places Paladin in an excellent position to become a significant player in the global uranium market,' he said.
   
   Paladin also has exploration areas in the state of Western Australia, with the Manyingee project containing uranium resources of 10,890 tons and the Oobagooma project holding 9,950 tons.
   
   At 2:10 pm Sydney time, Paladin (PDN.ASX) was up 0.30 aud or 12.99 pct at 2.61 aud.
   
   (1 usd = 1.34 aud)
   
   www.forbes.com/home/feeds/afx/2006/01...
6. [verwijderd] 20 januari 2006 09:10

   auteur info

   • [verwijderd]

     Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

     Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

   • Aanbevelingen

     Ontvangen: 0

     Gegeven: 0

   •    Aantal posts: 0

   Voorzichtigheid is begrijpelijk...uiteindelijk zal Australie leveren...dit betekent wederom een flinke vraagimpuls voor uranium:
   
   SYDNEY (AFX) - Australia said "good and substantial" progress was made this week in negotiations over the sale of uranium to China - talks that focus on safeguards against its use in nuclear weapons.
   
   Two days of talks between Chinese and Australian officials in Canberra will be continued at a still-to-be-determined time, a foreign ministry spokesman said, according to Agence France-Presse.
   
   Australia has about 40 pct of the world's known uranium reserves and is anxious to broaden its exports with sales to the booming Chinese market, but insists it must first be confident the nuclear material will not be used to build weapons.
   
   "We will not compromise requirements for strict safeguards applied to Australian uranium exported and to ensure it is used solely for peaceful purposes," the spokesman said.
   
   While declining to provide any details of this week's confidential talks that ended yesterday, he said "good and substantial progress was made and close consultation will continue".
   
   China is planning a massive nuclear power expansion to help meet the growing demand for energy from its booming economy.
   
   www.iii.co.uk/news/?type=afxnews&arti...
7. [verwijderd] 20 januari 2006 11:48

   auteur info

   • [verwijderd]

     Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

     Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

   • Aanbevelingen

     Ontvangen: 0

     Gegeven: 0

   •    Aantal posts: 0

   Uranium (gerelateerde) bedrijven. Met dank aan PR
   
   BERKELEY RESOURCES LTD.
   CAMECO CORPORATION COM
   CANALASKA VENTURES LTD COM
   COMPASS RESOURCES ORDINARY
   CRESCENT RESOURCES CORP COM
   CURNAMONA ENERGY
   DEEP YELLOW LIMIT ORDINARY
   ENERGY METALS CORPORATION COM
   ENERGY METALS LTD
   EUROPEAN MINERALS CORP COM
   EXTRACT RESOURCES ORDINARY
   FRONTEER DEVELOPMENT GRP INC COM
   GIRALIA RESOURCES ORDINARY
   HINDMARSH RESOURC
   LARAMIDE RESOURCES LTD COM
   MEGA URANIUM LTD COM
   NOVA ENERGY LIMIT
   ORIEL RESOURCES PLC ORD 1P
   PALADIN RESOURCES LTD COM
   PEPINNINI MINERAL
   PITCHSTONE EXPLORATION LTD. COM
   REDPORT LIMITED ORDINARY
   SOUTHERN CROSS EX ORDINARY
   SOUTHERN GOLD
   STRATHMORE MINERALS CORP COM
   SUMMIT RESOURCES L ORDINARY
   UEX CORPORATION COM
   UR ENERGY INC COM
   URANIUM CITY RESOURES INC COM
   URASIA ENERGY LTD. COM
   USEC INC COM
   WESTERN PROSPECTOR GRP COM
8. -PR- 27 januari 2006 09:41

   auteur info

   • -PR-

     Lid sinds: 05 jan 2004

     Laatste bezoek: 03 dec 2024

   • Aanbevelingen

     Ontvangen: 299

     Gegeven: 101

   •    Aantal posts: 1.301

   Bush Nuclear Waste Plan Would Be About Face
   
   NEW YORK (Dow Jones)--Since the 1970s, U.S. policy for dealing with spent nuclear fuel has been "once around and into the ground." But the Bush Administration may be preparing an about face on the issue.
   
   Senate Energy Committee Chairman Pete Domenici, R-N.M., said Wednesday that President George W. Bush is set to make a major announcement on nuclear waste reprocessing during his Jan. 31 State of the Union address.
   
   If adopted, it would mark a significant shift and involve billions of dollars, the perfection of new technologies and probably over a decade of work. It would also require reactors to be able to utilize a by-product of this process - mixed oxide fuel - in addition to the traditional uranium oxide. The nuclear power industry doesnt dismiss the idea but their approach is lukewarm at best.
   
   "Future reprocessing of commercial used nuclear fuel is a worthy future goal, but it must overcome several challenges before it can be employed in the United States," said Marvin Fertel, the Nuclear Energy Institutes chief nuclear officer, in congressional testimony last year.
   
   Groups opposed to nuclear weapons proliferation are more skeptical.
   
   "The problems with closed-cycle plutonium reprocessing are economics and engineering," said Ivan Oelrich, Vice President of Strategic Security at the Federation of American Scientists. "The required reprocessing technology has never been demonstrated even on a pilot plant scale. The reprocessing technology can be more or less proliferation resistant but never made proliferation-proof."
   
   Currently, the U.K., France, Japan and Russia are the only countries reprocessing spent fuel rods. The U.S. shifted from reprocessing to the idea of permanent underground storage because it cost too much and because of proliferation concerns since nuclear reactions produce plutonium in addition to partially depleted uranium, along with a host of other radioactive isotopes.
   
   Skirting Yucca Mountain?
   
   
   For some in the industry, any shift towards reprocessing spent nuclear power fuel instead of disposing it is an acknowledgment of the stalled project to store waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, even though the Department of Energy says its still committed to that.
   
   Located near a former testing site for nuclear weapons about 100 miles from Las Vegas, Yucca Mountain, is designed to hold spent rods that potentially could emit billions of curies of radiation, compared to 100-150 million curies released following the Chernobyl accident in 1986. Opponents to the development point to the risks that environmental leakage may occur, which some experts say is why the reprocessing idea is gaining traction now.
   
   "I think the industrys view is that this is a diversion of the effort to get Yucca Mountain up and operating," said Ron Witzel, a nuclear fuels consultant at Longenecker & Associates. "Its almost a political concession to Harry Reid and Nevadas senators," referring to the Senate Minority Leader, who is a Democrat from Nevada.
   
   Nuclear power companies have already paid billions of dollars into an escrow account for the construction of Yucca Mountain. The industry says permanent disposal of the nuclear waste is required in order to expand the economic viability of nuclear power, which the Bush administration strongly supports at a time when fossil fuel energy costs have been soaring.
   
   To be sure, a lot has changed in the industry since the 1970s and Bush putting the spotlight on the question of nuclear waste disposal now would highlight that.
   
   Spent rods are now kept in pools of water at reactors all around the country, but many facilities are running out of space and are unhappy about this stopgap solution. At the same time, the market for uranium oxide - used as a fuel for nuclear reactors - has become very tight and there may be a scramble for supply later in the decade when many new Asian plants are completed as the shift to nuclear generation continues.
   
   "Theres some concern as the Chinese, Japanese and Korean plants come online that there would be a shortage of uranium oxide fuel," said David Pointer, a nuclear engineer and vice president of North American Young Generation in Nuclear.
   
   The nuclear fuel cycle consists of elemental uranium being mined, converted into uranium hexafluoride gas and then enriched into fuel rods.
   
   The spot price of uranium oxide was recently quoted at $37 a pound, up 300% in three years and up from about $7 in 2000. With 140 planned new reactors globally on top of 440 today and annual demand already exceeding the output of uranium mines, reprocessing fuel rods would trim demand for newly-mined uranium, possibly helping to mitigate a supply squeeze.
   
   Plutonium Controversy
   
   
   Where the debate is sure to stoke controversy and opposition is the prospects for nuclear waste reprocessing to put separated plutonium into circulation. Embedded in a fuel rod, plutonium would not provide material for a bomb if it fell into the hands of terrorists, but older reprocessing technologies would create it in a pure form. Only 10 kilograms of plutonium would be enough for an explosion equivalent to 13 Hiroshima bombs; much smaller quantities would be sufficient for a devastating radiological weapon.
   
   But Pointer noted that newly available technologies would convert the plutonium into mixed-oxide fuel, which can itself be used as nuclear fuel for compatible reactors. "The key thing is its more proliferation-resistant," he said.
   
   Reprocessing would also eliminate the need for several more Yucca Mountain type sites in the coming decades if the U.S. nuclear industry begins to expand again, Pointer added.
   
   Witzel and others still say the payoff would be very small. There may be clear benefits to the construction of reprocessing facilities, but it would be a major undertaking and the initial impact would be no panacea for the uranium supply or the fuel rod storage quandaries.
   
   "The reality would be it would take at least a decade to get functional reprocessing in place and the increment of fuel that could be handled would be very small," said Witzel.
   
   Construction of such a facility involving untested technology would cost billions of dollars and experts are split on the potential cost differential versus just burying old rods.
   
   Still, with a big interest in Congress on diversifying the U.S. energy supply - from Domenici, who heads the Senate Enegy and Natural Resources Committee and others - the debate is clearly not set to go away anytime soon.
   
9. [verwijderd] 27 januari 2006 17:08

   auteur info

   • [verwijderd]

     Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

     Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

   • Aanbevelingen

     Ontvangen: 0

     Gegeven: 0

   •    Aantal posts: 0

   Interest revives worldwide in nuclear energy
   
   Nuclear power, the long-time foe of the environmental movement, is returning to favour in many countries where issues of energy dependency and the rising cost of fossil fuels are driving policy changes.
   
   On Monday, Britain announced a public consultation on its future energy supplies, raising the spectre of a return to nuclear power, and France stressed the need for nuclear energy as part of future EU policy during representations in Brussels.
   
   Fossil fuels are estimated at present to provide about 80% of the world's energy, but production of gas and oil could reach its maximum in the next three decades, experts say.
   
   Jean-Marie Chevallier, a director of Cambridge Energy Research Associates and professor at France's Paris-Dauphine university, sees the debate about nuclear power as "logical" in the current environment.
   
   Europe's dependence on foreign gas has come under the spotlight in recent weeks following a stand-off between Russia and Ukraine at the start of the year, which saw supplies temporarily reduced to some EU countries.
   
   Furthermore, environmental concerns and the perceived inadequacy of renewable energy to replace fossil fuels have pushed nuclear power back up the agenda.
   
   Nuclear energy appears to be "a partial solution," said Chevallier, who stressed that only three European countries had recently decided to build new nuclear power stations -- France, Finland and Romania.
   
   "Among the countries that one feels are beginning to think about about nuclear power in Europe are Britain, Spain, Switzerland and The Netherlands, which just extended the life of a nuclear power station by 20 years," he added.
   
   European Monetary Affairs Commissioner Joaquin Almunia recently said that it would be "suicidal" for European government to eschew nuclear power.
   
   And French Finance Minister Breton laid out the French government's vision of future energy policy in the EU on Monday.
   
   European energy policy should take into account "the increasingly tense situation worldwide between oil and natural gas supply and demand [and] climate change," he said.
   
   He added: "Maintaining the current contribution of nuclear power to the European energy mix and preserving Europe's technological and industrial edge in this field are issues of strategic importance for the Union."
   
   France, a leading exporter of electricity in the EU, derives nearly all of its electricity from nuclear power.
   
   Debate about nuclear power in Germany, where opposition is more entrenched, is also re-emerging.
   
   Chevallier also stressed that fears about climate change and recognition of the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions were further arguments in favour of nuclear power.
   
   "Finland, a democratic country and very concerned by environmental problems, has chosen to build a nuclear power station rather than using Russian gas," he said.
   
   In the United States, where the nuclear issue is not a hot topic of public debate, authorities are nonetheless keen to acquire a third-generation European Pressurised Water Reactor (EPR), being developed jointly by French nuclear group Areva and Germany's Siemens.
   
   In Japan energy giant Toshiba on Tuesday said it had been named the preferred bidder for US nuclear power plant maker Westinghouse, beating out stiff competition from General Electric.
   
   Westinghouse has built 49 of the nuclear reactors now in service in the United States with 35 constructed by General Electric. The bid by Toshiba comes as Japan is anxious to re-launch its nuclear energy program.
   
   Chinese authorities have meanwhile undertaken a nearly $50-billion effort to build 40 reactors by 2020.
   
   And in France, where 80% of electricity production is nuclear-driven, President Jacques Chirac earlier this month announced plans to develop a prototype fourth generation reactor that would become operational in 2020. - AFP
   
   www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?article...
10. [verwijderd] 27 januari 2006 17:33

    auteur info

    • [verwijderd]

      Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

      Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

    • Aanbevelingen

      Ontvangen: 0

      Gegeven: 0

    •    Aantal posts: 0

    quote:

    postzak schreef:

    Uranium (gerelateerde) bedrijven. Met dank aan PR
    
    BERKELEY RESOURCES LTD.
    CAMECO CORPORATION COM
    CANALASKA VENTURES LTD COM
    COMPASS RESOURCES ORDINARY
    CRESCENT RESOURCES CORP COM
    CURNAMONA ENERGY
    DEEP YELLOW LIMIT ORDINARY
    ENERGY METALS CORPORATION COM
    ENERGY METALS LTD
    EUROPEAN MINERALS CORP COM
    EXTRACT RESOURCES ORDINARY
    FRONTEER DEVELOPMENT GRP INC COM
    GIRALIA RESOURCES ORDINARY
    HINDMARSH RESOURC
    LARAMIDE RESOURCES LTD COM
    MEGA URANIUM LTD COM
    NOVA ENERGY LIMIT
    ORIEL RESOURCES PLC ORD 1P
    PALADIN RESOURCES LTD COM
    PEPINNINI MINERAL
    PITCHSTONE EXPLORATION LTD. COM
    REDPORT LIMITED ORDINARY
    SOUTHERN CROSS EX ORDINARY
    SOUTHERN GOLD
    STRATHMORE MINERALS CORP COM
    SUMMIT RESOURCES L ORDINARY
    UEX CORPORATION COM
    UR ENERGY INC COM
    URANIUM CITY RESOURES INC COM
    URASIA ENERGY LTD. COM
    USEC INC COM
    WESTERN PROSPECTOR GRP COM
    

    laatste dagen stijgt usec (opmerkelijk) harder dan cameco, weet jij misschien hoe dat komt?
12. [verwijderd] 27 januari 2006 17:38

    auteur info

    • [verwijderd]

      Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

      Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

    • Aanbevelingen

      Ontvangen: 0

      Gegeven: 0

    •    Aantal posts: 0

    quote:

    jurrianhoondert schreef:

    laatste dagen stijgt usec (opmerkelijk) harder dan cameco, weet jij misschien hoe dat komt?
    

    Nee, ik heb geen idee.
13. -PR- 27 januari 2006 17:48

    auteur info

    • -PR-

      Lid sinds: 05 jan 2004

      Laatste bezoek: 03 dec 2024

    • Aanbevelingen

      Ontvangen: 299

      Gegeven: 101

    •    Aantal posts: 1.301

    Hieronder een kleine beschrijving van USEC.
    Hierin zie je eigenlijk ook meteen het antwoord op je vraag...
    
    USEC Inc.. The Group's principal activity is to supply low enriched uranium (LEU) for commercial nuclear power plants. LEU is a critical component in the production of nuclear fuel for nuclear reactors to produce electricity. The Group supplies LEU to electric utilities for use in about 160 nuclear reactors. Its customers are domestic and international utilities that operate nuclear power plants. The Group has two reportable segments: Low enriched uranium and U.S. Government contracts. Low enriched uranium concentrate on sales of the both SWU and uranium components of LEU and sales of uranium. The Government contracts segment represents work performed for DOE and DOE contractors at the Portsmouth and Paducah plants. The Group is the exclusive executive agent for the U.S. Government to purchase LEU derived from highly enriched uranium contained in decommissioned nuclear warheads in Russia. On 18-Nov-2004, the Group acquired NAC International.
    
    USEC heeft dus contracten met de US Government.
    En als je dan dat verhaaltje van Bush erbij plaatst wat op een pagina hiervoor staat dan heb je een idee waarom USEC het wat beter doet.
    
    -PR-
14. [verwijderd] 27 januari 2006 18:00

    auteur info

    • [verwijderd]

      Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

      Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

    • Aanbevelingen

      Ontvangen: 0

      Gegeven: 0

    •    Aantal posts: 0

    quote:

    -PR- schreef:

    Hieronder een kleine beschrijving van USEC.
    Hierin zie je eigenlijk ook meteen het antwoord op je vraag...
    
    USEC Inc.. The Group's principal activity is to supply low enriched uranium (LEU) for commercial nuclear power plants. LEU is a critical component in the production of nuclear fuel for nuclear reactors to produce electricity. The Group supplies LEU to electric utilities for use in about 160 nuclear reactors. Its customers are domestic and international utilities that operate nuclear power plants. The Group has two reportable segments: Low enriched uranium and U.S. Government contracts. Low enriched uranium concentrate on sales of the both SWU and uranium components of LEU and sales of uranium. The Government contracts segment represents work performed for DOE and DOE contractors at the Portsmouth and Paducah plants. The Group is the exclusive executive agent for the U.S. Government to purchase LEU derived from highly enriched uranium contained in decommissioned nuclear warheads in Russia. On 18-Nov-2004, the Group acquired NAC International.
    
    USEC heeft dus contracten met de US Government.
    En als je dan dat verhaaltje van Bush erbij plaatst wat op een pagina hiervoor staat dan heb je een idee waarom USEC het wat beter doet.
    
    -PR-
    

    bedankt, over de langere termijn heeft cameco het wel veel beter gedaan als usec.
15. [verwijderd] 28 januari 2006 15:12

    auteur info

    • [verwijderd]

      Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

      Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

    • Aanbevelingen

      Ontvangen: 0

      Gegeven: 0

    •    Aantal posts: 0

    Wat zou dit toch voor de uraniumprijs betekenen...:
    
    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush plans to promote nuclear energy as a way of reducing U.S. oil dependence when he delivers his State of the Union address next week, the White House said on Friday.
    
    "We've been talking with a number of countries about how to move forward on expanding nuclear energy to meet our global energy needs," White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters.
    
    "It's an energy source that is clean, it helps us address economic and -- it helps us address our energy and national security need," he said. "The president is very focused on this matter and has talked about it previously."
    
    Asked if Bush would bring this up in the State of the Union address on Tuesday night, McClellan said, "Yes."
    
    Reports in the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal have said the Bush administration is considering proposals to expand civilian nuclear energy and are looking at initiatives to reprocess spent nuclear fuel.
    
    © Reuters 2006. All Rights Reserved.
    
    today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.as...
16. [verwijderd] 31 januari 2006 18:02

    auteur info

    • [verwijderd]

      Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

      Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

    • Aanbevelingen

      Ontvangen: 0

      Gegeven: 0

    •    Aantal posts: 0

    Update on Uranium Companies Profiled by Resource Investor
    
    By Michael J. DesLauriers
    30 Jan 2006 at 06:55 PM EST
    
    TORONTO (ResourceInvestor.com) -- Given the resurgence of uranium stocks, this seems like a fairly good time to examine some of your correspondent’s favourites in terms of where they were, where they are now, and what has changed since they were initially reviewed. As readers will soon discover, all of the companies that were featured are similar in two distinct ways. Here are the companies that were written on.
    
    Profiled Companies
    
    In June of last year, we profiled Titan Uranium [TSXv:TUE], then trading at 53 cents just after its IPO. The stock closed today at C$1.95.
    
    In mid-September, RI noted that Quincy Energy [TSXv:QUI] was “trading at a discount to its peers, even though by all appearances it looks like a better story.” The stock is only up about 20% since then (a lot less than its peers), but at least its value was recognized by another player, Energy Metals [TSXv:EMC] who made a share offer to merge with Quincy in a three-way-deal, also involving RI featured Standard Uranium [TSXv:URN].
    
    As coincidence would have it, your correspondent’s next pick in early October was Standard Uranium, then trading at C$1.20. Shortly after that heads up to readers, the deal was announced with EMC and the stock began to move up smartly, closing today at C$2.55 per share.
    
    Later in the month of October, your correspondent identified a recent IPO, Pitchstone Exploration [TSXv:PXP] as having above average potential in the Athabasca uranium hunt. The stock was then trading at 70 cents, and closed today at C$1.07, off from a recent high of C$1.22.
    
    In early November, RI noted that the latest Endeavour vehicle, Urasia Energy [TSXv:UUU] was an attractive play and “rewards for early investors in this play could be quite substantial.” Indeed, they have been. Since the write-up at C$1.58, the stock has been as high as C$3.16 and closed today at C$2.88.
    
    Finally, in late November, your correspondent identified yet another IPO as being cheap after it got knocked down to 78 cents as seed round investors took their profits. That stock was Ur-Energy [TSX:URE] and it has performed remarkably well since the piece (which marked the low on the stock), closing today at C$1.53, and hitting a new high of C$1.64.
    
    Conclusion
    
    So here we have six companies. One has quadrupled, three have doubled, and the last two are up 20% and 50%, respectively, all within about six months (for TUE) or for most of the others four months or less. Why?
    
    The truth is that apart from the two that merged with EMC, none of these stories have had any really substantial news (apart from having drill programs nearer to completion) to justify these moves. What has really happened, especially since December, is a marked turnaround in the fortunes of energy plays of all stripes and in particular uranium plays which are seen as increasingly important going forward from a global strategic point of view. The price of uranium is up from $33/lb to about $37/lb and analysts, newsletter writers, and investors are all starting to project prosperity well into the future.
    
    The important thing for investors going forward will be to be selective in choosing their uranium plays and not get quite so caught up in the hype and rising prices. There are certainly more quality exploration, development and soon to be producing vehicles out there than there were a year ago, but one must also remain keenly aware of the risk to reward ratio associated with each, and be sure to understand valuations before making any investment decisions.
    
    While the party seems to be in full swing for the time being, with all of the speculative froth building in many of these plays, it may be advisable to dance close to the door.
    
    www.resourceinvestor.com/pebble.asp?r...
17. -PR- 1 februari 2006 10:15

    auteur info

    • -PR-

      Lid sinds: 05 jan 2004

      Laatste bezoek: 03 dec 2024

    • Aanbevelingen

      Ontvangen: 299

      Gegeven: 101

    •    Aantal posts: 1.301

    PRESS RELEASE: Cameco Reports Higher Fourth Quarter Net Earnings: Company Also Announces Stock Split and Higher Dividends
    
    Cameco Corporation today reported its unaudited financial results for the fourth quarter and year ended December 31, 2005. All numbers in this release are in Canadian dollars, unless otherwise stated. All references to per share earnings are based on diluted amounts per share. For a more detailed discussion of our financial results, see the managements discussion and analysis (MD&A) following this news release.
    
    
    Fourth Quarter 2005
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    Financial Highlights Three Months Three Months
    ($ millions except per Ended Ended
    share amounts) Dec 31/05 Dec 31/04 % Change
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    Revenue 522 361 45
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    Earnings from operations 57 46 24
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    Cash provided by operations (a) 91 59 54
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    Net earnings 81 37 119
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    Earnings per share - basic 0.47 0.21 124
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    Earnings per share - diluted 0.44 0.21 110
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    Adjusted net earnings (b) 74 37 100
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    (a) After working capital changes.
    (b) 2005 net earnings for the three months ended December 31 have
    been adjusted to exclude $7 million ($0.04 per share) in net
    earnings related to the gain on sale of ERA shares ($69 million)
    and the loss recognized in restructuring the Bruce Power limited
    partnership ($62 million). Adjusted net earnings is a non-GAAP
    measure. Cameco believes the exclusion of these items provides a
    more meaningful basis for period-to-period comparisons of the
    companys financial results.
    
    
    
    In the fourth quarter of 2005, our adjusted net earnings were $74 million ($0.40 per share), $37 million higher than in 2004, due to improved results in the uranium business and higher earnings from Bruce Power Limited Partnership (BPLP). These increases were partially offset by lower earnings in conversion services and gold as well as increased expenditures for administration and exploration. Due to the uneven timing of uranium and conversion deliveries as well as scheduled outages at BPLP, quarterly results are not a good indicator of Camecos annual results.
    
    
    Cash from operations in the fourth quarter of 2005 was $91 million compared to $59 million in the fourth quarter of 2004. The $32 million increase reflects higher revenues compared to 2004, partially offset by increased accounts receivable. Due to the timing of sales, the accounts receivable balance was $340 million at December 31, 2005, compared to $183 million at December 31, 2004.
    
    
    Our earnings before taxes from the uranium business improved 73% to $71 million in the fourth quarter of 2005 compared to the same period last year, while the profit margin rose to 25% from 22% due to the higher realized selling price. Compared to the fourth quarter of 2004, revenue in our uranium business rose by 57% to $318 million, largely due to a 46% increase in sales volume and a 16% increase in our average realized selling price (US dollars) for uranium. The average realized price in Canadian dollars, however, increased by only 7% due to the strengthening Canadian dollar relative to the US dollar. The increase in our average realized price was mainly the result of higher prices under fixed-price contracts and a higher uranium spot price.
    
    
    Camecos pre-tax earnings from BPLP in the fourth quarter of 2005 increased to $30 million from $2 million in 2004, as a result of higher spot electricity prices in Ontario. During the quarter, the Ontario electricity spot price averaged $71 per MWh, compared to $51 per MWh in the fourth quarter of 2004. BPLP realized an average price of $57 per megawatt hour (MWh) in the fourth quarter from a mix of contract and spot sales, 21% higher than the price realized in the same period in 2004.
    
    
    "Strong performance from our uranium and nuclear electricity generation businesses in the fourth quarter contributed to Camecos solid 2005 financial results," said Jerry Grandey, noting the company set a record for uranium revenue for the fourth consecutive year. "Looking ahead to 2006, we expect improved results for uranium, conversion and nuclear electricity generation."
    
    
    Year to Date 2005
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    Financial Highlights Year Year
    ($ millions except per Ended Ended
    share amounts) Dec 31/05 Dec 31/04 % Change
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    Revenue 1,313 1,048 25
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    Earnings from operations 123 125 (2)
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    Cash provided by operations (a) 278 228 22
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    Net earnings 218 279 (22)
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    Earnings per share - basic 1.25 1.63 (23)
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    Earnings per share - diluted 1.21 1.56 (22)
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    Adjusted net earnings (b) 211 185 14
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    (a) After working capital changes.
    (b) 2004 net earnings for the year ended December 31 have been
    adjusted to exclude a net gain of $94 million ($0.55 per share)
    related to the Centerra restructuring transactions. 2005 net
    earnings for the year ended December 31 have been adjusted to
    exclude $7 million ($0.04 per share) in net earnings related to
    the gain on sale of ERA shares ($69 million) and the loss
    recognized in restructuring the Bruce Power limited partnership
    ($62 million). Adjusted net earnings is a non-GAAP measure. Cameco
    believes the exclusion of these items provides a more meaningful
    basis for period-to-period comparisons of the companys financial
    results.
    
    
    
    For 2005, our adjusted net earnings increased by 14% to $211 million ($1.17 per share) from $185 million ($1.01 per share) in 2004. The higher earnings are due largel
18. -PR- 1 februari 2006 10:16

    auteur info

    • -PR-

      Lid sinds: 05 jan 2004

      Laatste bezoek: 03 dec 2024

    • Aanbevelingen

      Ontvangen: 299

      Gegeven: 101

    •    Aantal posts: 1.301

    Stock Split and Dividend Notice
    
    
    Cameco announced today that its board of directors has approved a two-for-one stock split of the companys outstanding common shares. This will be completed through a stock dividend with all shareholders receiving one additional share for each share owned on the record date of February 17, 2006.
    
    
    Shareholders who have Cameco stock certificates should retain them. The transfer agent, CIBC Mellon Trust Company, will mail new certificates on February 22, 2006. Upon completion of the stock split, the number of shares outstanding will total approximately 349 million. Camecos common shares are expected to begin trading on a split basis on February 15, 2006 on the Toronto Stock Exchange and February 23, 2006 on the New York Stock Exchange. The stock split will have no unfavourable tax consequences to shareholders in Canada or the United States.
    
    
    Cameco also announced today that the companys board of directors approved an increase in the annual cash dividend from $0.24 per share to $0.32 ($0.16 post-split) beginning in 2006. The quarterly dividend of $0.04 per common share (on a post-split basis) is payable on April 13, 2006 to shareholders of record on March 31, 2006.
    
    
    "Cameco had a very successful year and is now well positioned to benefit from the resurging interest in nuclear energy," said Jerry Grandey, Camecos president and CEO. "Our decision to split the stock and increase the dividend reflects our continuing confidence that we can continue to grow as a nuclear energy company producing uranium fuel and generating clean electricity."
    
19. -PR- 1 februari 2006 10:18

    auteur info

    • -PR-

      Lid sinds: 05 jan 2004

      Laatste bezoek: 03 dec 2024

    • Aanbevelingen

      Ontvangen: 299

      Gegeven: 101

    •    Aantal posts: 1.301

    URANIUM
    
    Highlights
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    Three Months Three Months Year Year
    Ended Ended Ended Ended
    Dec. 31/05 Dec. 31/04 Dec. 31/05 Dec. 31/04
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    Revenue
    ($ millions) 318 203 690 581
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    Gross profit
    ($ millions) 80 45 159 104
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    Gross profit % 25 22 23 18
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    Earnings before
    taxes
    ($ millions)(1) 71 41 131 91
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    Average realized
    price
    ($US/lb) 16.40 14.08 15.45 12.89
    ($Cdn/lb) 20.51 19.09 20.14 17.97
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sales volume
    (million lbs) 15.5 10.6 34.2 32.3
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    Production volume
    (million lbs) 4.8 6.2 21.2 20.5
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    (1) Excludes the gain from sale of ERA shares.
    
    
    Uranium Results
    
    Fourth Quarter
    
    
    Compared to the fourth quarter of 2004, revenue from our uranium business rose by 57% to $318 million due largely to a 46% increase in sales volume. The timing of deliveries of nuclear products within a calendar year is at the discretion of customers. Therefore our quarterly delivery patterns can vary significantly. An increase in the realized selling price also contributed to the higher revenue, rising by 16% (in US dollars) over the fourth quarter of 2004. The average realized price in Canadian dollars, however, increased by only 7% due to the strengthening Canadian dollar relative to the US dollar. The increase in the average realized price was mainly the result of higher prices under fixed-price contracts and a higher uranium spot price, which averaged $34.79 (US) per pound in the fourth quarter of 2005 compared to $20.44 (US) in 2004.
    
    
    Our total cost of products and services sold, including depreciation, depletion and reclamation (DDR.US), was $238 million in the fourth quarter of 2005 compared to $158 million in 2004. This increase was attributable to the 46% rise in sales volume and the higher costs for purchased uranium. The unit cost of product sold rose by 3% compared to the fourth quarter of 2004.
    
    
    Our earnings before taxes from the uranium business improved to $71 million from $41 million last year, while the profit margin rose to 25% from 22% in 2004 due to the higher realized selling price.
    
    Year to Date
    
    
    In 2005, we established a new record for uranium revenue for the fifth consecutive year. Revenue from the uranium business increased by 19% to $690 million in 2005 due to a higher realized selling price, which rose 12% in Canadian dollar terms (20% in US dollars) over 2004. The increase in the average realized price was mainly the result of higher prices under fixed-price contracts and a higher uranium spot price, which averaged $28.67 (US) per pound in 2005 compared to $18.60 (US) in 2004. A 6% increase in sales volume also contributed to higher revenue in 2005.
    
    
    Our total cost of products and services sold, including DDR, was $531 million in 2005 compared to $477 million in 2004. This increase was attributable to the 6% rise in sales volume and a 5% increase in the unit cost of product sold. The rise in the unit cost of product sold was due primarily to higher costs for purchased uranium.
    
    
    Earnings before taxes from the uranium business improved to $131 million from $91 million last year, while the profit margin rose to 23% from 18% in 2004 due to the higher realized selling price.
    
    Uranium Outlook for First Quarter 2006
    
    
    Our earnings from the uranium segment are expected to be significantly greater than in the first quarter of 2005 due to higher sales volumes and realized prices. We expect deliveries to be more than double those of the first quarter of 2005 due to the timing of customer requirements. The realized price is projected to be about 30% greater than in the first quarter of 2005 due to higher realized prices under both fixed-price and market-related contracts.
    
    Uranium Outlook for the Year 2006
    
    
    In 2006, we expect uranium revenue to be 20% higher than in 2005 due to a projected 16% improvement in the expected realized selling price (in Canadian dollars) and a 4% increase in deliveries. Uranium sales volume is expected to total more than 35 million pounds in 2006. Camecos share of uranium production for 2006 is projected to increase slightly to 21.4 million pounds of U3O8 from 21.2 million in 2005.
    
    
    Uranium margins are expected to improve to about 29% compared to 23% in 2005.
    
    
    The financial results outlook for the uranium business segment is based on the following key assumptions:
    
    - no significant changes in our estimates for sales volumes,
    costs, and prices,
    
    - no disruption of supply from our mines or third-party sources,
    and
    
    - a US/Canadian spot exchange rate of $1.15.
    
    Uranium Price Sensitivity
    
    
    For deliveries in 2006, a $1.00 (US) per pound change in the uranium spot price from $33.00 (US) per pound would change revenue by about $4 million (Cdn) and net earnings by $2 million (Cdn). This sensitivity is based on an expected effective exchange rate of $1.00 (US) being equivalent to about $1.22 (Cdn), which accounts for our currency hedge program.
    
    Uranium Price Sensitivity (2006 to 2008)
    
    
    Uranium contract terms generally reflect market conditions at the time the contract is negotiated. After a contract negotiation is completed, deliveries under that contract typically do not begin for up to four years in the future. As a result, many of the contracts in our current portfolio, particularly those signed prior to 2005, reflect market conditions when uranium prices were significantly lower. For example, 2003 was the first year that the spot price averaged over $11.00 (US) since the 1995-1997 period. Before that they were much lower, and only exceeded $11.00 (US) on a sustained basis in the years 1988 and earlier. To the extent contracts have fixed or low ceiling prices, they will yield prices lower than current market prices. Contracts signed prior to 2005 are rolling off at a rate of about 30% per year over the next several years.
    
20. -PR- 1 februari 2006 10:19

    auteur info

    • -PR-

      Lid sinds: 05 jan 2004

      Laatste bezoek: 03 dec 2024

    • Aanbevelingen

      Ontvangen: 299

      Gegeven: 101

    •    Aantal posts: 1.301

    As in previous years, we are continually in the market signing new contracts with deliveries beginning one to four years in the future. Generally, Cameco continues to maintain the target portfolio mix of 40% fixed prices (escalated by inflation) and 60% market related prices, and recently, is obtaining floor prices that escalate over time. In the current market environment of rapidly increasing uranium prices, this strategy has allowed Cameco to add increasingly favorable contracts to its portfolio while maintaining sensitivity to future price movements.
    
    
    The table below shows an indicative range of average prices that Cameco would expect to realize under the current sales portfolio. The prices shown in the table are intended to show how Camecos uranium revenue may be impacted by various market price scenarios. This analysis makes a number of assumptions that are included as table footnotes.
    
    
    As shown in the $35.00 (US) spot price scenario, Cameco would expect to realize an average price of $28.25 (US), or about 81% of the spot price, by 2008 if prices remain at or close to $35.00 (US). If spot prices rose to $45.00 (US), Cameco would expect to realize an average price of $32.75 (US), or about 73% of the spot price, by 2008. On the other hand, if prices fell to $25.00 (US), Cameco would expect to realize an average price of $23.50 (US), or about 94% of the spot price, by 2008.
    
    
    Cameco Expected Average Realized Uranium Price
    (In brackets, expressed as a % of Spot Price)
    Current US $/lb U3O8
    
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    Spot Price 2006 2007 2008
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    $25 $18.25 (73%) $19.75 (79%) $23.50 (94%)
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    $35 $19.25 (55%) $22.75 (65%) $28.25 (81%)
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    $45 $20.50 (46%) $25.75 (57%) $32.75 (73%)
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    
    Key Assumptions:
    
    - 2006 uranium sales volumes of about 35 million pounds U3O8 and
    similar sales volumes for 2007 and 2008,
    
    - sales volume estimates assume no interruption in the companys
    supply from its own production or from third parties,
    
    - 2006 sales volumes are fully committed, 2007 sales volumes are
    almost all committed and 2008 is less committed,
    
    - all uncommitted volumes are assumed to be delivered at the
    prevailing spot price,
    
    - the long-term price in a given year is assumed to be equal to
    the average spot price for that year,
    
    - all other price indicators are assumed to trend toward the spot
    price, and
    
    - the annual inflation rate is equal to 2.5%.
    
    
    Cameco intends to continue targeting a 60 / 40 mix of market-related and fixed pricing mechanisms, however, as market conditions change, it may adjust this ratio. The overall strategy will continue to focus on achieving longer contract terms, floor prices that provide downside protection and retaining an adequate level of upside potential. Today, new contracts tend to reflect contract durations of up to 10 years or more, floor prices at about 80% of the prevailing spot price and, in the case of market price related contracts, exposure to higher prices. It is important to note that not all contracts are market related or have floor prices. This depends upon the other terms negotiated for the contract.
    
    Uranium Market Update
    
    Uranium Spot Market
    
    
    The industry average spot price (TradeTech and UxC) on December 31, 2005 was $36.38 (US) per pound U3O8, up 15% from $31.63 (US) at September 30, 2005. This compares to $20.60 (US) and $20.00 (US) for the same dates in 2004.
    
    
    Spot market volume reported for the fourth quarter of 2005 was 6.5 million pounds U3O8 for a total of 34.8 million pounds in 2005. This compares to 2.7 million pounds in the fourth quarter of 2004 and a total of 19.4 million pounds for 2004.
    
    
    Discretionary purchases, or purchases not for immediate consumption, accounted for about 66% of the 2005 spot volume - with almost 40% of the discretionary purchases attributable to investment and hedge funds. The large gap between spot and long-term prices early in 2005 resulted in a number of buyers, including many utilities, building inventory through discretionary spot purchases. The increase in 2005 spot market volumes is largely attributable to discretionary purchases by investment and hedge funds. If purchases by these groups were deducted from the total, the 2005 volume would be similar to the 2004 level.
    
    Uranium Long-Term Market
    
    
    Long-term contracting in 2005 is estimated to have been in excess of 240 million pounds U3O8, more than two and a half times the 90 million pounds U3O8 contracted in 2004.
    
    
    The industry average long-term price (TradeTech and UxC) on December 31, 2005 was $36.13 (US) per pound U3O8, up from $32.50 (US) at the end of September 2005. This compares to $25.00 (US) and $23.00 (US) for the same dates in 2004.
    
    
    Uranium Operations Update
    
    Uranium Production
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    Camecos Three Three
    share of Months Months Year Year
    production Ended Ended Ended Ended 2006
    (million Dec. Dec. Dec. Dec. Planned
    lbs U3O8) 31/05 31/04 31/05 31/04 Production
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    McArthur River/
    Key Lake 2.7 4.0 13.1 13.1 13.1
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    Rabbit Lake 1.5 1.6 6.0 5.4 5.9
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    Smith Ranch/
    Highland 0.4 0.4 1.3 1.2 1.6
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    Crow Butte 0.2 0.2 0.8 0.8 0.8
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total 4.8 6.2 21.2 20.5 21.4
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    
    McArthur River/Key Lake
    
    
    In 2005, Camecos share of production at McArthur River/Key Lake totalled 13.1 million pounds. The operation approached the licensed annual production capacity limit of 18.7 million pounds by the end of November. Therefore, fourth quarter production was 2.7 million pounds versus 4.0 million pounds in the fourth quarter of 2004 as licenced capacity could not be exceeded. Quarter to quarter variation in production is typical and is a result of timing of plant maintenance shutdowns and normal variation in ore production. Camecos share of production for the first quarter of 2006 is expected to be 3.5 million pounds of U3O8.
    
    
    The collective agreement for unionized employees at the McArthur River and Key Lake operations expired on December 31, 2005. Cameco has enter
21. -PR- 1 februari 2006 10:20

    auteur info

    • -PR-

      Lid sinds: 05 jan 2004

      Laatste bezoek: 03 dec 2024

    • Aanbevelingen

      Ontvangen: 299

      Gegeven: 101

    •    Aantal posts: 1.301

    McArthur River/Key Lake
    
    
    In 2005, Camecos share of production at McArthur River/Key Lake totalled 13.1 million pounds. The operation approached the licensed annual production capacity limit of 18.7 million pounds by the end of November. Therefore, fourth quarter production was 2.7 million pounds versus 4.0 million pounds in the fourth quarter of 2004 as licenced capacity could not be exceeded. Quarter to quarter variation in production is typical and is a result of timing of plant maintenance shutdowns and normal variation in ore production. Camecos share of production for the first quarter of 2006 is expected to be 3.5 million pounds of U3O8.
    
    
    The collective agreement for unionized employees at the McArthur River and Key Lake operations expired on December 31, 2005. Cameco has entered into negotiations with representatives from the United Steelworkers of America.
    
    
    We have applied for an increase in the annual licensed capacity at McArthur River and Key Lake to 22 million pounds U3O8 per year compared to the current 18.7 million pounds. The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) is considering the appropriate process to complete its review of the impacts associated with this proposed expansion. Once the process is identified, we will be in a better position to estimate the time required for the CNSC to reach a decision. If approval is received, we expect it will take about two years to ramp up production to a sustained level, with a planned production rate of approximately 21 million pounds. This production rate may change as we gain experience in ramping up production at this operation.
    
    
    Continued drilling near the McArthur River mine area has yielded positive results. We are conducting additional confirmatory drilling in 2006.
    
    
    Currently, McArthur River uses only raise boring to extract ore from the mine. As we expected from the start of mining, other mining methods may be used to maintain or expand production. In 2005, we determined a new mining method would be better suited for the upper zone #4 at McArthur River. The previous mining plan anticipated using raise boring, which required development in poor-quality ground above the ore zone. The proposed alternate mining method, boxhole boring, will allow development from a safer location. We have done some additional research on this method in 2005.
    
    
    There is uncertainty in the estimated productivity of the boxhole boring method until we have fully developed and tested it. As a result, we have reclassified 108 million pounds U3O8 from proven to probable reserves. (Camecos share is 75 million pounds U3O8). Cameco plans to develop and test the boxhole boring method over the next four years, beginning in 2006.
    
    
    We do not expect this change to significantly impact our long-term uranium production plans. Production from this zone is scheduled to begin in 2012.
    
    
    In addition, the revisions to the proposed mining method for the upper zone #4 and re-interpretation of a small portion of zone #2 have resulted in a decrease in proven reserves at McArthur River of 12.9 million pounds U3O8 (Camecos share is 9 million pounds).
    
    
    McArthur Rivers proven and probable reserves at the end of 2004 was almost 420 million pounds (100% basis). The companys annual update to its reserve base estimates is expected in March 2006 in its annual report and annual information form.
    
    Rabbit Lake
    Rabbit Lake produced 1.5 million pounds of U3O8 during the fourth quarter of 2005 and a total of 6.0 million pounds of U3O8 for the year. The additional production achieved relative to 2004 resulted from a significant increase in milled tonnage. Due to a planned mill shutdown, we expect production for the first quarter of 2006 to be 1.2 million pounds of U3O8. Total production for 2006 is targeted at 5.9 million pounds of U3O8.
    
    
    The underground diamond-drilling reserve replacement program was again successful in 2005. Over 75 km of drilling was completed, contributing to a net increase of 2.8 million pounds U3O8 in reserves and 7.2 million pounds U3O8 in resources after accounting for the 2005 mine production. With further definition and test-hole drilling in 2006, we expect to further extend the mine life of Rabbit Lake.
    
    
    Production mining of two new zones discovered from the reserve replacement program will be underway in the first quarter. More than 4 km of underground lateral development were completed in 2005, with the majority of the development focused on these two new zones.
    
    
    Work continues on the environmental assessment (EA) to process a little over half of the uranium from Cigar Lake ore at the Rabbit Lake mill beginning in 2009. Guidelines that define the scope of the EA were approved by the province in November 2005 and were approved by the CNSC with only minor modifications in December 2005.
    
    
    The technical information provided for McArthur River and Rabbit Lake was prepared under the supervision of Alain Gaston Mainville, who is the Manager, Mining Resources and Methods at Cameco and is a Qualified Person for the purpose of National Instrument 43-101.
    
    Smith Ranch-Highland and Crow Butte
    
    
    Smith Ranch-Highland and Crow Butte in situ leach (ISL.US) mines produced 0.6 million pounds U3O8 in the fourth quarter of 2005 and a total 2.1 million in 2005. The operations are expected to produce 2.4 million pounds in 2006.
    
    Uranium Projects Update
    
    Cigar Lake
    
    
    Construction began on January 1, 2005 and remains on schedule for completion in the first half of 2007, subject to regulatory approval. Once production begins, there will be a ramp-up period of up to three years before the mine reaches expected full production of 18 million pounds per year.
    
    
    The capital costs for the Cigar Lake project are currently forecast at $520 million. Our share is 50% or $260 million. The permanent access road was connected to Saskatchewan provincial road 905 in November 2005 and is currently being utilized for material transport. The final grading of the road will occur in 2006. The development of the second shaft is approximately 85% complete and development of the underground workings is approximately 55% complete.
    
    Inkai
    
    
    The ISL test mine block 2 at Inkai, in Kazakhstan, produced about 0.1 million pounds U3O8 during the fourth quarter of 2005 and 0.5 million pounds U3O8 in 2005. Approval was received in the third quarter to increase the test mines output to 0.8 million pounds U3O8 in 2006. Construction to facilitate this increase is expected to be complete in the first quarter 2006.
    
    
    The regulatory authorities have approved the EA and design plan for the commercial processing facility to be located at Inkai, block 1. Initial civil work at the main processing plant and well field drilling has begun. Commercial operation is scheduled for 2007. The costs, net of sales proceeds from Inkai test mine production, are capitalized until commercial production is achieved. We expect Inkai to ramp up to full production of 5.2 million pounds U3O8 per year by 2010.
    
    Uranium Exploration
    
    Millennium Deposit
    
    
    We have increased indicated resources in pounds U3O8 by 32% at the Millennium deposit through our winter and summer drilling programs. To the end of 2005, indicated resources total 449,000 tonnes at 4.63% U3O8 containing 45.8 million pounds U3O8. A further 280,000 tonn