Uranerz Energy Corp. (URZ)

All Comments on URZ

  • commenter
    paulk8756
    Jun 18 10:59 AM
    RBC Analyst: Low Uranium Prices Could Turn Away Investors [view article]
    So, then, what might happen if the U.S. would resume the licensing of domestic nucler reactors? Would this impact the market significantly? Reply
  • commenter
    Uguy
    Jun 05 05:12 PM
    Seven Uranium Stocks to Fuel Your Portfolio [view article]
    U.S. Energy sold all of its uranium assets. Do your homework! Reply
  • commenter
    John Egan
    Jun 02 09:32 PM
    Desjardins: Uranium Prices Should Stabilize at $60 [view article]
    Re: Mr. Coombes comment: " Extreme resource nationalism by the Russians, withholding promised HEU supply to the US." ...

    The USSR has stated that they intend to increase the cost of their HEU supply considerably. Based on their actions on the petroleum and NatGas fronts, I'd say they intend to do just that. Can anyone say "hardball Comrades!"....

    Thx jegan     Reply
  • commenter
    DaveinHacken
    sack
    Jun 02 07:00 PM
    My Website
    Seven Uranium Stocks to Fuel Your Portfolio [view article]
    Are you sure USEG is still a uranium company? I think it might have sold off all of its uranium properties last year. Reply
  • commenter
    buyforeclosu
    res
    Jun 02 06:33 PM
    Seven Uranium Stocks to Fuel Your Portfolio [view article]
    USEC looks real cheap? P/E and Peg attractive Reply
  • commenter
    Secure
    Energy for
    Prosperity
    Jun 02 02:16 PM
    Desjardins: Uranium Prices Should Stabilize at $60 [view article]
    The uranium bull market and nuclear renaissance are currently being massively overstated, and the dangers of nuclear power downplayed. From a financial standpoint, there is a case for nuclear power, but it is a long-term case.

    This article is the antithesis to the near-term nuclear & uranium bulls, continually arguing that there is a "uranium shortage" and expecting a "uranium buying panic".

    I pointed out months ago in a similar commentary that even with delays in uranium mining capacity coming online, the expected increase in output is a significant proportion of current production. When pressed on the issue of a shortage, the uranium bulls will fall back with the caveat "mining" shortage -- and this is technically true given that a large portion of US uranium supply is met with Russian HEU. But there is no uranium shortage today.

    Nor is there likely to be in the next 5 years. 5 years is the relevant timeframe for two reasons:

    1. The Russian HEU agreement officially expires in 2013.
    2. Any new plants being constructed from here on out in Asia would not come online before 5 years. (Although the Japanese have done some faster than that, its unrealistic to expect this in the near term.)

    As with all energy planning, there is a need to meet near term demand, but an imperative to build supply that can only deliver over a much longer term.

    Contrary to the nuclear bull arguments, Gen III and IV reactors are not "proven" to be failsafe, or ever safer. A lot of technological development is in process.

    The only near term catalysts would be events extraneous to the core nuclear business:

    1. Extreme resource nationalism by the Russians, withholding promised HEU supply to the US.
    2. Strategic buying by Chinese and other SWFs to lock up uranium supply.
    3. A massive oil shock.

    We cannot discount the possibility of any of these. But in any event, the likely outcome of any of these would be more reliance on natural gas (and even coal), while we continue to build out solar and nuclear infrastructure.

     Reply
  • commenter
    eps
    May 28 10:53 PM
    Seven Uranium Stocks to Fuel Your Portfolio [view article]
    Check out the cash per share and net cash (cash minus liabilities) on USEG. Reply
  • commenter
    Muggins
    May 27 09:10 AM
    Seven Uranium Stocks to Fuel Your Portfolio [view article]
    I agree with you on Denison Mines, but Cameco is going through a lot of bad luck lately. They never seem to come out with good news regarding future uranium supplies (Cigar Lake flooding). Their earnings were good but now the latest news was that they have identified more toxic waste in drill samples collected around the Port Hope site. They suspect that it is quite possible that the contamination may be reaching the lake. The costs for that cleanup could be enormous. Reply
  • commenter
    traderstraff
    ic
    May 18 12:21 PM
    An Interview With Uranerz Energy's CEO [view article]
    With the new funding from the Denison Mines and the new filings, we should begin seeing improvements is their stock price. I know mine are up now, but I do see the see sawing around 2.50 and 2.70, just a little more time this company should be seeing some good returns on our investments. Also with the news articles on the price of uranium turning up will also help this company. I did buy in low 2.00 but been watching since 1.25. Was kicking myself when it was in the 6.00 range. Lucky I held out and waited for the correction, dont believe it will go lower then the see sawing 2.50 now. Reply
  • commenter
    BorisinCincy
    May 13 11:11 AM
    Uranium: Safely and Efficiently Powering the Future [view article]
    If its clean and safe you want and you believe solar power is the answer, think silicon tetrachloride. Its a bi-product produced when they make the poly-silicon used in the solor panels, and is just a big of a mess as any other energy source produces.

    There are no easy answers. Nothing is completely clean and safe.

    I don't believe anyone is saying nuclear is completely "clean and safe", it is simply the best answer we have as of today of our energy needs over the next couple of hundred years.     Reply
  • commenter
    ridahoan
    May 12 11:27 PM
    Uranium: Safely and Efficiently Powering the Future [view article]
    Go tell the people of Oregon that nuclear power is great. They are burdened with a billion dollar bailout of the failed Trojan nuclear power plant, and the nuclear dump Hanford that spills radioactivity into the Columbia River from Washington State. Trojan costs taxpayers every year to sit idle, and nobody seems to know what to do about Hanford despite huge amounts of dollars being thrown at it. These are simple facts. Are we so much smarter now that this won't happen again? Of course we are.... Reply
  • commenter
    Andrew Ling
    May 11 08:26 AM
    Uranium: Safely and Efficiently Powering the Future [view article]
    fxtrader07 you need to learn something about the issue before you start ranting. Nuclear power produces less radioactive waste than coal. Is it better to have the radioactivity released into the atmosphere in the case of coal? Nuclear does have serious problems, but all of them are political ones. Reply
  • commenter
    BlueDog
    May 10 09:35 PM
    My Website
    Uranium: Safely and Efficiently Powering the Future [view article]
    What if we could build a nuclear reactor that offered no possibility of a meltdown, generated its power inexpensively, created no weapons-grade by-products, and burnt up existing high-level waste as well as old nuclear weapon stockpiles? And what if the waste produced by such a reactor was radioactive for a mere few hundred years rather than tens of thousands? It may sound too good to be true, but such a reactor is indeed possible, and a number of teams around the world are now working to make it a reality. What makes this incredible reactor so different is its fuel source: thorium. I've posted a few links with my research below.

    Long THPW, CCJ, USU.

    bluedogonwallstreet.bl...

    bluedogonwallstreet.bl...     Reply
  • commenter
    daffy
    May 10 12:30 PM
    My Website
    Uranium: Safely and Efficiently Powering the Future [view article]
    and my shameless plug:

    CXZ was up 24% yesterday and is about to begin trading on the Toronto Exchange Monday morning.     Reply
  • commenter
    daffy
    May 10 12:29 PM
    My Website
    Uranium: Safely and Efficiently Powering the Future [view article]
    What amazes me is that the same people who complain about the source of the energy are the same people who are least willing to do anything about it, except for complain.

    The fact remains, energy cannot be created or destroyed. Also the natural tendency is for energy to be dispersed (increase in entropy).

    No matter what you do, there is going to be a trade off. Every energy source has it's impacts. The environmentalists hate the dams, they hate the oil rigs, they hate the manufacturing plants and corporations that create solar, they hate that the wind turbines kill birds, they hate nuclear waste. Ignoring these people is what needs to be done, and for the people who are in charge to develop a plan where all sources of energy that we know of today are used to effecitively and efficiently. You are not going to decrease the demand for energy, and if there were better alternatives on the market, they would be out there.

    I always laugh at people people who jump up and down about clean energy and say that there are alternatives. This is a global economy, and if you think there is a way to really keep the new energy technology under wraps you are seriously deluded. The market is constrained by energy right now. There a millions of scientists trying to find new and more efficient ways to use the energy we do have (take a look at the cell phone/.PDA market if you need help).

    Nuclera energy is a viable alternative. I studied as much as is available to the general public about chernobyl. Someone effed up, big time. Hmmm, and some people say that socialism and communism are good things. Nuclear energy is being used today, it will continue to be used and it will continue to be researched and developed.

    This society needs energy to run. Plain and simple. You take that away and you will have some serious problems which make a global food crisis seem like a nice, cute little walk in Central Park.     Reply
Loading...
Symbols:
Authors:
Quick Links: