Beleggen.nl
Uitgebreid zoeken
Markt MonitorMarkt Monitor

Koffiekamer Terug naar discussie overzicht

Uranium

412 Posts
Pagina: «« 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 ... 21 »» | Laatste | Omlaag ↓
  1. [verwijderd] 3 januari 2006 15:15

    • [verwijderd]

      Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

      Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

    • Aanbevelingen

      Ontvangen: 0

      Gegeven: 0

    •    Aantal posts: 0

    Logisch dat uranium zo sterk in prijs stijgt. Overal in de wereld neemt de belangstelling voor kernenergie toe:

    Type III+ nucleaire reactor gecertificeerdDe Nucleaire regulerings commissie (NRC) van de Verenigde Staten heeft de AP1000, een van de meest geavanceerde lichtwater nucleaire reactors, design gecertificeerd. Dit is de laatste stap in de regelgeving die nodig is om een reactor nationaal en internationaal te lanceren.

    De 1100 MW reactor is ontwikkeld door Westinghouse Electric Company, de pionier op het gebied van kernenergie in de Verenigde Staten. De AP1000 is tot nu toe een van de meest veilige en gemakkelijkst te bouwen centrales. In vergelijking met een conventionele centrale bevat deze 50% minder kleppen, 83% minder pijpleidingen, 87% minder controle kabels, 35% minder pompen en 50% minder gebouw volume. Hierdoor kunnen de kosten sterk omlaag en duurt het volgens Westinghouse maar 3 jaar om de centrale te bouwen in plaats van de gebruikelijke 5 a 7 jaar van oudere modellen.

    Gebruikte bronnen:

    Westinghouse Nuclear
    PRN Newswire

    www.peakoil.nl/pivot/entry.php?id=524
  2. [verwijderd] 3 januari 2006 15:56

    • [verwijderd]

      Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

      Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

    • Aanbevelingen

      Ontvangen: 0

      Gegeven: 0

    •    Aantal posts: 0

    Investors' Nuclear Option

    By Howard Simons
    RealMoney.com Contributor
    12/27/2005 12:04 PM EST
    Click here for more stories by Howard Simons

    "You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs."
    -- Josef Stalin, as quoted by Walter Duranty, 1933
    Is there a greater source of discomfort in political economy than the tradeoff between energy production and environmental degradation? I think not. Moreover, even a casual familiarity with thermodynamics is sufficient to prove -- and that's prove, not suggest -- that it will take ever greater investment in terms of money, energy and various negative externalities to produce the next BTU of useable energy.

    No matter how much people recognize you can't get something for nothing, we persist in trying to do so when it comes to energy production, both here in the U.S. and worldwide. Consider the Senate vote last week that once again blocked drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Many of those who voted to preserve the sanctity of ANWR are also those who complain the most about rising gasoline and home-heating bills. The same applies for drilling off the coast of California, allocating water to coal-mining projects in Wyoming's Powder River basin, building windmills off Martha's Vineyard, etc. And for what it's worth, Congress loves net energy-losing projects such as converting corn into ethanol.

    All this is a long-winded introduction to a topic suggested by a RealMoney reader: uranium and nuclear power. My initial reaction was, this is where even rational people start to resemble radio talk-show hosts. So before we move along further, please: I am not trying to nuke the planet, destroy the ozone layer, melt the ice caps, soak the tuna in mercury, annoy the caribou, befoul the beaches, kill the birds, multiply birth defects, enrich the corporate chieftains or anything else you don't like. Save the hate mail -- donate it elsewhere and take a valuable tax deduction before 2005 ends.

    I am highly ambivalent on nuclear power. Commonwealth Edison, now part of Exelon, was a national leader in developing commercial nuclear electricity. They used a cartoon light-bulb called "Little Bill" to advertise what they called "electricity too cheap to meter." Yeah, right. They also assumed that some smart person somewhere would figure out how to handle the waste and decommission the aged power plants; that didn't work, either. But the electricity they produced would have otherwise come from coal, and coal is anything but environmentally benign.

    Watts Up?
    Despite the fact we have not commissioned a new nuclear power complex in the U.S. since the mid-1970s and no new reactors have come on line since 1996, nuclear power still accounts for nearly 20% of our electricity. This 20% share has been a resistance level of sorts over the past 15 years. It is probably safe to assume given the increasing capacity utilization of existing plants and their increasing output since 1990 that nuclear power could have accounted for 25%-30% of total U.S. electricity generation, had we not ceased building new plants. And given electricity's increasing role in the natural gas market, natural gas prices would no doubt be lower today had we kept adding nuclear capacity.

    The U.S. remains the largest producer of nuclear-generated electricity. However, nearly all the growth in demand for nuclear power is elsewhere, in France, Japan, Sweden and, yes, China. Their increasing fuel demands have put uranium prices in a bull market since 2001. This price, as reported by Metals Week, is a "restricted" price for unenriched uranium oxide representing supply-balancing transactions to utilities and other accredited buyers who normally buy on long-term contracts. To paraphrase Groucho Marx, I would not want to live in a country that would let me buy uranium, no questions asked.

    www.thestreet.com/_yahoo/stocks/energ...
  4. [verwijderd] 3 januari 2006 19:15

    • [verwijderd]

      Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

      Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

    • Aanbevelingen

      Ontvangen: 0

      Gegeven: 0

    •    Aantal posts: 0

    quote:

    postzak schreef:

    [quote=postzak]
    Nog maar eens wijzen op Cameco Corporation (CCJ). Sterk presterend bedrijf in de uranium sector:

    finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=CCJ&t=6m&l=o...
    [/quote]

    Momenteel 3.5% in de plus...
    Ongelofelijk Cameco blijft maar stijgen. Voor vandaag al 6% in de plus!
  6. [verwijderd] 3 januari 2006 20:03

    • [verwijderd]

      Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

      Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

    • Aanbevelingen

      Ontvangen: 0

      Gegeven: 0

    •    Aantal posts: 0

    7%, cameco gaat helemaal door het dak.. olieinvloed?

    ook USEC en gespreide mijnbouwaandelen (oa BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto etc.) vliegen met 5% tegelijk omhoog.
  13. [verwijderd] 3 januari 2006 22:50

    • [verwijderd]

      Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

      Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

    • Aanbevelingen

      Ontvangen: 0

      Gegeven: 0

    •    Aantal posts: 0

    quote:

    jurianhoondert schreef:

    [quote=$switch$]
    jurianhoondert - 23 dec 05, 21:21

    Over welk bedrijf gaat dit?

    RDS
    [/quote]

    Doelt hij op die oliewinning uit rotsen?
    Ja daar doelt hij op maar ik kan het mis hebben
  14. [verwijderd] 3 januari 2006 22:55

    • [verwijderd]

      Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

      Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

    • Aanbevelingen

      Ontvangen: 0

      Gegeven: 0

    •    Aantal posts: 0

    quote:

    jurianhoondert schreef:

    [quote=$switch$]
    jurianhoondert - 23 dec 05, 21:21

    Over welk bedrijf gaat dit?

    RDS
    [/quote]

    Doelt hij op die oliewinning uit rotsen?
    Oil Shale...winning uit leistein.
  15. [verwijderd] 4 januari 2006 15:43

    • [verwijderd]

      Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

      Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

    • Aanbevelingen

      Ontvangen: 0

      Gegeven: 0

    •    Aantal posts: 0

    Overal is men op zoek naar alternatieven voor olie, dus ook kernergie komt wereldwijd meer in de picture. Terecht?

    Nuchter artikel in FD van 29 12 05:

    De blik op de toekomst van kernenergie wordt vertroebeld door ernstige misverstanden. Zelfs in het meest ambitieuze scenario zou kernenergie in 2050 niet meer dan enkele procenten van de wereldenergievraag kunnen dekken. Uraniumreserves zijn niet hetzelfde als energiereserves. Bovendien is kernenergie verre van broeikasgasvrij.

    Een van de weinige kranten die energieperikelen met veel aandacht verslaat is het Financieele Dagblad. Op 29 December kwam dit artikel uit waarbij gesteld wordt dat kernenergie verre van broeikasgasvrij is en goed voor maar enkele procenten energie.

    Te vinden op: www.peakoil.nl/pivot/entry.php?id=521...

  16. [verwijderd] 4 januari 2006 15:51

    • [verwijderd]

      Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

      Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

    • Aanbevelingen

      Ontvangen: 0

      Gegeven: 0

    •    Aantal posts: 0

    quote:

    Gert50 schreef:

    Overal is men op zoek naar alternatieven voor olie, dus ook kernergie komt wereldwijd meer in de picture. Terecht?

    Nuchter artikel in FD van 29 12 05:

    De blik op de toekomst van kernenergie wordt vertroebeld door ernstige misverstanden. Zelfs in het meest ambitieuze scenario zou kernenergie in 2050 niet meer dan enkele procenten van de wereldenergievraag kunnen dekken. Uraniumreserves zijn niet hetzelfde als energiereserves. Bovendien is kernenergie verre van broeikasgasvrij.

    Een van de weinige kranten die energieperikelen met veel aandacht verslaat is het Financieele Dagblad. Op 29 December kwam dit artikel uit waarbij gesteld wordt dat kernenergie verre van broeikasgasvrij is en goed voor maar enkele procenten energie.

    Te vinden op: www.peakoil.nl/pivot/entry.php?id=521...

    Lastig. Er zo wel voorstanders als tegenstanders. Beide kunnen een overtuigend verhaal in elkaar zetten. Feit blijft dat de vraag naar uranium veel groter is dan de productie. Er wordt dus ingeteerd op de voorraad of er wordt nee verkocht. Natuurlijk is eea het gevolg van de hoge olieprijs en de speurtocht naar alternatieven hier voor.
  17. [verwijderd] 4 januari 2006 18:09

    • [verwijderd]

      Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

      Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

    • Aanbevelingen

      Ontvangen: 0

      Gegeven: 0

    •    Aantal posts: 0

    quote:

    jurianhoondert schreef:

    7%, cameco gaat helemaal door het dak.. olieinvloed?

    ook USEC en gespreide mijnbouwaandelen (oa BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto etc.) vliegen met 5% tegelijk omhoog.
    En weer 2.5% er bij voor Cameco en BHP.
  18. [verwijderd] 4 januari 2006 22:04

    • [verwijderd]

      Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

      Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

    • Aanbevelingen

      Ontvangen: 0

      Gegeven: 0

    •    Aantal posts: 0

    quote:

    postzak schreef:

    [quote=jurianhoondert]
    7%, cameco gaat helemaal door het dak.. olieinvloed?

    ook USEC en gespreide mijnbouwaandelen (oa BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto etc.) vliegen met 5% tegelijk omhoog.
    [/quote]

    En weer 2.5% er bij voor Cameco en BHP.
    Boven de 70 vandaag :)

    M'n wrld mining fonds doet het een stuk minder, in 2 dagen slechts rond de 2% erbij terwijl de grootste fondsen erin veel meer stegen.. eruit gooien en in bhp misschien. cameco overtreft gelukkig alles :)
  19. [verwijderd] 5 januari 2006 08:26

    • [verwijderd]

      Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

      Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

    • Aanbevelingen

      Ontvangen: 0

      Gegeven: 0

    •    Aantal posts: 0

    Fresh New Year Fires Up the Uranium Market

    By Jon A. Nones
    04 Jan 2006 at 07:53 PM EST

    ST. LOUIS (ResourceInvestor.com) -- Once, twice, thrice the news hit the market today, turning the heads of many a shareholder in the uranium sector.

    Calypso gained almost 20%, Strathmore surged 7.33% and Fronteer jumped 7.76% after respective announcements today. Is this a prelude of good things to come for investors in the uranium sector in 2006? James Dines, editor of The Dines Letter, told Resource Investor to stay bullish.

    “We’re very bullish on uranium,” said Dines. “When uranium was at $8 per pound, I turned bullish and said it will go to $50-$100.”

    The price of U3O8 is now at $36.25 per pound.

    Fronteer

    Fronteer Development Group [AMEX:FRG; TSX:FRG] reported in a press release today two uranium discoveries on new drill targets in Labrador. The find included near-surface uranium in four of seven holes tested at its Jacques Lake site and in four out of 10 holes at its Otter Lake mine.

    “We are extremely pleased with our initial results from Jacques Lake and Otter Lake,” said Fronteer President Mark O'Dea in the release. “This outcome reinforces both our exploration approach and the untapped uranium potential of the district.”

    Of the four drill holes at Jacques Lake, the most noteworthy was 0.10% U3O8 for 9.2 metres including 0.20% for 2.1 metres. At Otter Lake, the highest grade intersection revealed 1.0% U3O8 (22 pounds uranium per tonne) for 0.5 metres and a separate interval that returned 0.14% U3O8 for 1.0 metre.

    “Today’s results are very impressive to me and confirms why I recommended the stock to subscribers,” said Dines.

    The two Labrador drilling areas are 25 kilometres east of the Michelin uranium deposit - one of the largest undeveloped deposits outside Saskatchewan, according to the company.

    “I like Fronteer because they are opening up the whole area,” said Dines. “I’m definitely encouraged, and I think that they might end up as one of the top uranium plays.”

    Strathmore

    In another press release today, Strathmore Minerals [TSXv:STM] said a new study has almost doubled the resource estimate at a New Mexico uranium deposit.

    According to the company, an independent National Instrument 43-101 technical report increased the estimate to 11.8 million pounds of U3O8, from 6 million pounds, for Strathmore's Church Rock uranium property in the Grant's Mineral Belt of McKinley County.

    “I am extremely pleased with the thoroughness of the 43-101 technical report. I am also very pleased with the progress being made by the Strathmore team at the Church Rock project,” commented Strathmore President and COO David Miller in the release.

    Based upon available drill hole information, the report estimates a measured and indicated mineral resource of 11.8 million pounds U3O8 contained within 6.2 million tonnes at an average grade of 0.10% U3O8. An additional 3.5 million pounds U3O8 are estimated as an inferred mineral resource.

    “A lot of these companies that were scorned [when uranium was] at $8 are going to look very impressive at $50,” Dines said.

    Calypso

    And last, but definitely not least with a 20% jump in its share price, is a news release by Vancouver miner Calypso Acquisition [TSXv:CLP-H].

    Today, the company announced that it struck a deal to acquire Argentinian uranium explorer Energia Mineral S.A by issuing 4.6 million shares as payment - worth about C$3.3 million.

    Energia Mineral S.A. currently holds mining rights to about 223,707 hectares in four separate blocks in the Argentinian provinces of Neuquen and Mendoza.

    Dines told RI that mergers of this kind among juniors are exactly what the uranium market needs to take off. He said his strategy with junior uranium miners is one of a shotgun approach. If the spray of the shot hits one, then it’s a success.

    Fronteer stock closed up 25 cents at $3.46 on AMEX today after hitting $3.50 upon the news.

    Strathmore gained 14 cents on substantial volume, closing at $2.05 on TSX-Venture.

    Calypso shares jumped 14 cents to close at C$0.85 on TSX-Venture. It traded as high as C$0.90 earlier – a fresh 52-week high.

    “I think the metal is in a screaming uptrend right now, especially with uranium at $36 and a quarter,” Dines concluded.

    www.resourceinvestor.com/pebble.asp?r...
  20. [verwijderd] 5 januari 2006 08:48

    • [verwijderd]

      Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

      Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

    • Aanbevelingen

      Ontvangen: 0

      Gegeven: 0

    •    Aantal posts: 0

    German Energy Summit to Mull Nuclear Power After Gas Dispute

    Jan. 4 (Bloomberg) -- Germany will review plans to close nuclear power plants at a national summit after a dispute between Russia and Ukraine cut gas shipments to Europe, Economics Minister Michael Glos said.

    ``Russian gas supplies were reliable in the past,'' the lawmaker from the Christian Social Union said in a faxed statement. `Yet we need a fundamental rethink how we can exploit energy available in Germany in the longer term.'' Chancellor Angela Merkel had already planned meetings with energy industry chiefs and a summit on energy policy in February or March.

    Under pressure from the Social Democrats, Germany's coalition in November said it won't amend legislation that maps out a timetable for shutting all nuclear plants from about 2020. The Christian Democratic Union and its CSU sister party won a pledge from the SPD to review the law before 2009, the end of the legislative period. Nuclear plants generate about a third of Germany's electricity.

    Ukraine today agreed to almost double the price it pays Russia for gas, settling a dispute that cut supplies to Europe and damaged Russian President Vladimir Putin's reputation as a reliable energy supplier.

    Ukraine is the main corridor for Russian gas shipments to Europe, and gas companies in Poland, Hungary, Austria, Germany, Italy and France reported delivery disruptions on Jan. 1-2. Europe gets about a quarter of its gas from Russia, the world's largest producer.

    www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000...
  21. [verwijderd] 6 januari 2006 11:12

    • [verwijderd]

      Lid sinds: 01 jan 0001

      Laatste bezoek: 01 jan 0001

    • Aanbevelingen

      Ontvangen: 0

      Gegeven: 0

    •    Aantal posts: 0

    URANIUM to head north of $500/POUND?

    Rising Uranium Price May Consolidate Exploration Sector, Driving Intense Takeover Activity Imagine if you could turn back the clock to the mid 1990s, say 1997. That’s when Internet stock hopefuls, such as Cisco, Yahoo, Sun Microsystems and AOL traded as split-adjusted penny stocks, before soaring to hyperbolic prices. A similar investment story might be found today in the uranium sector. Legendary stock picker James Dines recently compared uranium stocks to the high-flying net stocks of the halcyon days of the Internet expansion era. While the much-hyped and fleeting Y2K crisis never materialized, the U.S. energy crisis for highly sought uranium has been developing for more than twenty years. Still early in the current bullish uranium cycle, investors are scoring triple-digit returns on what some are calling a ‘renaissance in nuclear energy.’ It’s a phenomenon hurtling like a juggernaut through political circles worldwide.

    Just as investors caught the curve of a new paradigm in communications and commerce with Internet stocks, many early birds have already begun investing in the nuclear energy story. It describes a rapidly evolving global scramble to satisfy an inevitable worldwide surge in electricity demand. The nuclear story pitch is simple: How do you accommodate a massive rush for electrical power demand while faced with the dire threat of carbon dioxide emissions and its direct impact on global warming? The growing consensus is that fission-based nuclear power may become the significant stop-gap energy alternative for this century and possibly until reliable technologies can effectively provide the means for renewable-sourced energy.

    Nearly 2 billion people across the planet have no electricity. The World Nuclear Association (WNA) believes nuclear energy could reduce the fossil fuel burden of generating the new demand for electricity. The WNA forecasts a 40-percent jump in worldwide electricity demand over the next five years. The world’s most populated countries, China and India, are in the process of creating the largest energy-consuming class in the history of earth. Both plan aggressive nuclear energy expansion programs. For the first time in decades, many environmentalists remain soberly muted amid the clamor for more nuclear power. Legendary pioneers among the greens, such as James Lovelock (Gaia theory), Patrick Moore (co-founder of Greenpeace) and Stewart Brand (Whole Earth Catalog), have loudly embraced nuclear power. Dozens of lesser developed countries, from Turkey and Indonesia to Vietnam and Venezuela, have announced their eagerness to pursue a civilian nuclear policy to benefit power needs for their burgeoning middle classes.

    Hier verder

    www.stockinterview.com/stm-bambrough....
412 Posts
Pagina: «« 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 ... 21 »» | Laatste |Omhoog ↑

Neem deel aan de discussie

Word nu gratis lid van Beleggen.nl

Al abonnee? Log in

Direct naar Forum

Zoek alfabetisch op forum

  1. A
  2. B
  3. C
  4. D
  5. E
  6. F
  7. G
  8. H
  9. I
  10. J
  11. K
  12. L
  13. M
  14. N
  15. O
  16. P
  17. Q
  18. R
  19. S
  20. T
  21. U
  22. V
  23. W
  24. X
  25. Y
  26. Z
Forum # Topics # Posts
Aalberts 466 7.072
AB InBev 2 5.521
Abionyx Pharma 2 29
Ablynx 43 13.356
ABN AMRO 1.582 51.741
ABO-Group 1 22
Acacia Pharma 9 24.692
Accell Group 151 4.132
Accentis 2 267
Accsys Technologies 23 10.753
ACCSYS TECHNOLOGIES PLC 218 11.686
Ackermans & van Haaren 1 191
ADMA Biologics 1 34
Adomos 1 126
AdUX 2 457
Adyen 14 17.754
Aedifica 3 918
Aegon 3.258 322.881
AFC Ajax 538 7.088
Affimed NV 2 6.297
ageas 5.844 109.895
Agfa-Gevaert 14 2.051
Ahold 3.538 74.341
Air France - KLM 1.025 35.082
AIRBUS 1 12
Airspray 511 1.258
Akka Technologies 1 18
AkzoNobel 467 13.042
Alfen 16 24.931
Allfunds Group 4 1.482
Almunda Professionals (vh Novisource) 651 4.251
Alpha Pro Tech 1 17
Alphabet Inc. 1 406
Altice 106 51.198
Alumexx ((Voorheen Phelix (voorheen Inverko)) 8.486 114.822
AM 228 684
Amarin Corporation 1 133
Amerikaanse aandelen 3.837 243.384
AMG 971 133.699
AMS 3 73
Amsterdam Commodities 305 6.697
AMT Holding 199 7.047
Anavex Life Sciences Corp 2 491
Antonov 22.632 153.605
Aperam 92 15.017
Apollo Alternative Assets 1 17
Apple 5 383
Arcadis 252 8.785
Arcelor Mittal 2.034 320.770
Archos 1 1
Arcona Property Fund 1 286
arGEN-X 17 10.326
Aroundtown SA 1 219
Arrowhead Research 5 9.745
Ascencio 1 28
ASIT biotech 2 697
ASMI 4.108 39.268
ASML 1.766 108.096
ASR Nederland 21 4.502
ATAI Life Sciences 1 7
Atenor Group 1 509
Athlon Group 121 176
Atrium European Real Estate 2 199
Auplata 1 55
Avantium 32 13.687
Axsome Therapeutics 1 177
Azelis Group 1 64
Azerion 7 3.404