Cameco Corp. (CCJ)

All Comments on CCJ

  • commenter
    fireball
    Jul 09 02:53 PM
    Nuclear Power's Second Coming Will Lead to a Uranium Boom [view article]
    gmiki i thought the russian supply was about gone too. i think bhp is sitting on a huge stockpile of yellcake waiting for an o.k. to ship it to china. i do not know if that is true. i will look at bayswater. does anyone have an opinion on silex? i have been sitting on shares for quite some time. it is sometimes great and sometimes terrible. i hope as their enrichment facility (ge ccj and a japanese company are building) nears completion it will do well. Reply
  • commenter
    User 223819
    Jul 09 02:44 PM
    Nuclear Power's Second Coming Will Lead to a Uranium Boom [view article]
    I still worry that we have not resolved the nuclear waste issue..... Can you imagine any method that can keep the waste safe for the next 10,000 years, the approximate 1/2 life? The not-in-my-backyard mentality has resulted in this issue not being resolved yet, and will only get worse in years to come. Reply
  • commenter
    NUCLEAR4WIN
    Jul 09 12:52 PM
    Uranium: Safely and Efficiently Powering the Future [view article]
    Here you go tree hugger! A molecule that solves the storage issues for Liberals. Now go hug a tree and save a Polar Bear!

    physics.about.com/b/20...


    On May 09 10:03 AM fxtrader07 wrote:

    > the only ignorants i see here are the dumb promoters and pumpers
    > of nuclear technology. they have yet to come up with a convincing
    > solution to store the radiactive waste. and no "some technology,
    > some process may be found somewhen" is NOT a solution. it's wish.
    >
    > regarding Co2: there are very credible scientists (much more credible
    > people than businessmen like al gore who just makes millions trading
    > co2 emission rights and promoting himself) who convincingly argue
    > that the global warming thesis is nonsense as far as making CO2 emissions
    > responsible for it.
    > a much much much higher variable are sun-activity, vulcanism and
    > other factors while human activities account for no more than about
    > 5% of co2 emissions. so reducing them by 20% will make a dent, huh?
    >
    > there is no need to store away Co2 somwhere. It#s total nonsense
    > and just another hype to tax people and shuffle the money into pockets
    > of banks, politicians and clever businessmen     Reply
  • commenter
    GMiki
    Jul 09 11:39 AM
    Nuclear Power's Second Coming Will Lead to a Uranium Boom [view article]
    We need everything for energy--nat gas, clean coal (see Silverado Gold, which has a clean coal demo in Mississippi, with state participation), and uranium. The Russian stuff is about used up, but we now have a large shipment of yellowcake from Iraq. However, uranium as fuel is just about in shortage--which won't be the case in a few years as many juniors are developing mines. I hold URRE--I doubled my money and sold, but still hold some--I hold Bayswater (this is a very, very savvy company)--and Pele Mountain. At some point these are going to rise dramatically as will all the mining juniors in various materials. Look at some of the Canadian energy companies such as DEJ, which has both nat gas and uranium. Reply
  • commenter
    DougM
    Jul 09 11:23 AM
    Nuclear Power's Second Coming Will Lead to a Uranium Boom [view article]
    While I generally agree with your position, I would quibble about coal plants being public enemy number one for enviro activists. They oppose nuclear plants with equal fervor. It's just that they've all come to think they won that battle for good back in the late 70s, and are now dismayed to see their own arguments about depletion and emissions coming back to bite them. Indeed, from what I can see they're pretty much opposed to everything, even nat gas (they oppose LNG projects and more domestic production in off-limits areas). Eventually the "unwashed masses" will see through their position when it becomes evident that conservation can't take us to zero, and intermittent renewables can't provide baseload or dispatchable power to the grid (not to mention needing huge amounts of land and long transmission lines through sensitive areas). Germans are already coming to grips with this reality. Reply
  • commenter
    bobbbyc
    Jul 09 11:04 AM
    Nuclear Power's Second Coming Will Lead to a Uranium Boom [view article]
    Recent US contract to Areva to convert 60 tons of plutonium into fuel for atomic power plants, sales of Russian weapons grade uranium for nuclear fuel, and recycling of spent fuel rods in European reactors into reusable fuel rods are also factors that limit prices miners can expect in the future for their yellowcake. Reply
  • commenter
    zenalgorithm
    Jul 09 10:26 AM
    Nuclear Power's Second Coming Will Lead to a Uranium Boom [view article]
    What about peak uranium? It would be dumb for the U.S. to move from one scarce energy resource to an even scarcer one. I think it's OK to build a small handful of nuclear plants, but 100-200 new plants would just set up another energy crisis in 50-70 years. Reply
  • commenter
    theinvesting
    speculator
    Jul 09 10:02 AM
    My Website
    Nuclear Power's Second Coming Will Lead to a Uranium Boom [view article]
    I think nuclear power is a good investment long-term, but with not help our energy use for more thean 10 years. Reply
  • commenter
    Zenfar
    Jul 09 09:13 AM
    My Website
    Nuclear Power's Second Coming Will Lead to a Uranium Boom [view article]
    Norm keep beating the horse, because it isn't the 70's anymore. Gone are the days when one stupid "China Syndrome" movie can keep us from having the ability to impact world energy prices. There is a whole movement of younger environmentalist that surprise actually care about the environment and have a brain, they will support the nuke build out. Reply
  • commenter
    Norm the
    Fed-up
    Jul 09 08:51 AM
    Nuclear Power's Second Coming Will Lead to a Uranium Boom [view article]
    IngleFox, you're a smart man. With an engineering background, I've been extolling the attributes of nuclear power since the first oil shock in the early 70's. But fear of nuclear power from the "unwashed masses" has left us in the mess we're in now. More people with your foresight in the past "government has done nothing" 40 years would have us thumbing our noses at the rest of the world today. But I'm beating a VERY dead horse. Kudos to you. Again, smart man. Reply
  • commenter
    fireball
    Jul 05 04:04 PM
    Seven Uranium Stocks to Fuel Your Portfolio [view article]
    bhp seems the safest to me. if uranium goes up they benifit. if it goes down (which i doubt) they blink. silex seems a much better enrichment play than usu. it seems they are making usu obsolete. Reply
  • commenter
    fireball
    Jul 02 04:25 PM
    Denison Mines: A Play on Escalating Uranium Demand [view article]
    has anyone heard of silex? it seems a better play than usu. i owned shares of ccj about 10 months ago. i got out barely above breaking even. i have been looking at dnn. i am of the opinion that nuclear is coming in a big way whether the u.s. likes it or not. i do own silxf still. it has been a wild ride. i read that ge,ccj and some japanese company are heavily into silex. it is up pretty well for me now but at times i have said a few bad words over it. Reply
  • commenter
    JH2T
    Jun 30 01:28 PM
    Global Warming Up to a Hydrogen Economy [view article]
    Any high school chemistry student knows how to make H2 from H2O. It takes some familarity with thermodynamics and economics to appreciate the costs.

    A catalyst can only permit a reaction that is thermodynamically possible. No catalyst can make H2 from water without input of more energy than you get from making water from H2. The same applies to making carbon and oxygen from CO2. That energy has to come from somewhere. It would take a huge excess supply of nuclear, solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, or tidal power before one could consider a meaningful conversion of CO2 to C and O2 or of H2O to H2 and 1/2*O2.

    How much consideration is being given to use of solar power and biomass (algea?) to use up CO2 and make O2? In Brazil they are making CO2 from forrests in order to make ethanol from sugar.

    The idea of nuclear power to make electricity to make H2, pipe the H2 to homes, make electricity from H2 at the home, and use this electricity to heat the home seems to be, at the least, somewhat inefficient. As a matter of fact it seems like fuzzy thinking taken to a new extreme.
    Reply
  • commenter
    Michael
    Filloon
    (legmaker)
    Jun 30 11:30 AM
    My Website
    Denison Mines: A Play on Escalating Uranium Demand [view article]
    Thanks for all of the attention everyone, to be famous or infamous, all are good. The price per KWH is from Global Energy Decisions 6/07. And estimates on the time frame of nuclear reactor builds are four years not five, but you should check out the new Westinghouse design, they say it is faster. As for the waste from the reactor, I don't know what that has to do with the article, I did do one on ES which does specialize in radioactive waste. Keep talkin, I love to hear what you have to say, but it may be more thought provoking if you actually had some real knowledge from research within the field instead of your basic opinions. Thanks again everyone and God bless. Reply
  • commenter
    tankerman
    Jun 29 05:06 PM
    Denison Mines: A Play on Escalating Uranium Demand [view article]
    Even if everyone on the planet magically "got on board" with nuclear power, and approvals for plants were fast-tracked, we would still be severely capacity-constrained on a critical component of modern nuclear reactors: the containment vessels for the core of the reactor.

    Japan Steel Works, which has a capacity to make four containment vessels per year, supplies everyone except the Russians:

    bloomberg.com/apps/new...

     Reply
Loading...
Symbols:
Authors:
Quick Links: