grumpyone's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/62612/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/64887/comments?source=feed#comment-117279 117279
I do not know the percentage of production now, nor anticipated in the future, which is being done in situ, i.e. not by mining in the traditional sense. I know that the properties of the uranium deposit dictate whether that deposit can be recovered with that method, but a certain percent of total world production will be acquired without "mining". There are uranium producers who specialize in this technique, others who use both, others who mine only.

I disagree that nobody is analyzing the true production cost of uranium. I am certain that most every quality operation in the business has that down pat, and could teach us all a lesson on that.

I also disagree on the matter of anti-nuclear bias. From what I read, the tree huggers realize that uranium is a clean fuel and compared to coal, oil, and natural gas, it is a far cleaner fuel to create the world's power - they are in fact now endorsing the use of nuclear vs the carbon fuels, because it is better for the environment.

I do not believe that Mr. Coombes properly addresses the broad supply/demand situation for uranium. As astute as he is, even he cannot know the future supply, nor the future demand, nor the rate of increase of either.

We have almost 300 years supply of coal in the US, more than any other country on earth. Nonetheless, all the coal mine companies are doing just fine. So will the Uranium miners, no matter how many years supply there is in the ground. These mining companies are not stupid.

I don't know where Mr. Coombes got his information that it will be at least a decade before China has nuclear power plants on line. I was in China in October, and that is not what I was told. Their concern to clean up their air is much stronger than you think. They well understand that their coal power plants and manufacturers are polluting their people (especially their children), their water, their land, their health, .... everything. A decade or more to put nuclear power plants on line? I don't think so! They can and will
do it much faster than that. Their testing on pebble bed reactors is almost complete.

There are 440+ nuclear reactors in operation that generalte about 16% of the world's electricity. Another 25 are under construction,
38 are on order, and 115 are proposed. And that is just for now.
Also, there are 284 research reactors, and 220 nuclear-powered ships and submarines patrolling the oceans. The industry is not predicting an over supply of Uranium any time soon - and they may find that they cannot meet the demand, certainly now, maybe never. Only time will tell on this issue. Meanwhile, the miners are buying up more land that they suspect has Uranium deposits. Why in the world would they do that? Not to oversupply the market I am sure!

I am only suggesting that it is possible that Mr. Coombes opinions are just that - his opinions, and he can, and probably, is entirely wrong. I would not let his article scare you away from investing in uranium mining. Instead I would suggest you do your own due diligence, do a LOT of investigation and reading, and decide for yourself. Don't let one man's opinion scare you off. And I am not certain that the "majority" of uranium stock traders are basically inept analysts (while he is not) feverishly drawing trend lines. I think that is simply a hogwash statement to make, and I doubt that he has any facts or evidence to back it up.

Good luck with whatever investing you decide to do - I am going with both big and small uranium miner investments, have already done so, and will do more. And that is just my own decision!











]]> Tue, 19 Feb 2008 20:51:36 -0500
I do not know the percentage of production now, nor anticipated in the future, which is being done in situ, i.e. not by mining in the traditional sense. I know that the properties of the uranium deposit dictate whether that deposit can be recovered with that method, but a certain percent of total world production will be acquired without "mining". There are uranium producers who specialize in this technique, others who use both, others who mine only.

I disagree that nobody is analyzing the true production cost of uranium. I am certain that most every quality operation in the business has that down pat, and could teach us all a lesson on that.

I also disagree on the matter of anti-nuclear bias. From what I read, the tree huggers realize that uranium is a clean fuel and compared to coal, oil, and natural gas, it is a far cleaner fuel to create the world's power - they are in fact now endorsing the use of nuclear vs the carbon fuels, because it is better for the environment.

I do not believe that Mr. Coombes properly addresses the broad supply/demand situation for uranium. As astute as he is, even he cannot know the future supply, nor the future demand, nor the rate of increase of either.

We have almost 300 years supply of coal in the US, more than any other country on earth. Nonetheless, all the coal mine companies are doing just fine. So will the Uranium miners, no matter how many years supply there is in the ground. These mining companies are not stupid.

I don't know where Mr. Coombes got his information that it will be at least a decade before China has nuclear power plants on line. I was in China in October, and that is not what I was told. Their concern to clean up their air is much stronger than you think. They well understand that their coal power plants and manufacturers are polluting their people (especially their children), their water, their land, their health, .... everything. A decade or more to put nuclear power plants on line? I don't think so! They can and will
do it much faster than that. Their testing on pebble bed reactors is almost complete.

There are 440+ nuclear reactors in operation that generalte about 16% of the world's electricity. Another 25 are under construction,
38 are on order, and 115 are proposed. And that is just for now.
Also, there are 284 research reactors, and 220 nuclear-powered ships and submarines patrolling the oceans. The industry is not predicting an over supply of Uranium any time soon - and they may find that they cannot meet the demand, certainly now, maybe never. Only time will tell on this issue. Meanwhile, the miners are buying up more land that they suspect has Uranium deposits. Why in the world would they do that? Not to oversupply the market I am sure!

I am only suggesting that it is possible that Mr. Coombes opinions are just that - his opinions, and he can, and probably, is entirely wrong. I would not let his article scare you away from investing in uranium mining. Instead I would suggest you do your own due diligence, do a LOT of investigation and reading, and decide for yourself. Don't let one man's opinion scare you off. And I am not certain that the "majority" of uranium stock traders are basically inept analysts (while he is not) feverishly drawing trend lines. I think that is simply a hogwash statement to make, and I doubt that he has any facts or evidence to back it up.

Good luck with whatever investing you decide to do - I am going with both big and small uranium miner investments, have already done so, and will do more. And that is just my own decision!











]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/49092/comments?source=feed#comment-101048 101048 Energy is the cause of my taking profits there and shifting some of the money into BQI first thing tomorrow morning. It is interesting, however to note that BQI sold down today (11/5/07) by the close by $.81, and another $.11 in after hours trading. Wonder what has caused that!!! I also own Canadian Oil Sands Trust, but for the time being I am holding onto that as dividends are expected to rise substantially. They also have a BUY on Connacher, which I also own, and may thus buy some more. They also have a buy on OPTI Canada, I was going to buy some Suncor, but their report splashes cold water on that.

There is an "OIL SANDS INDUSTRY UPDATE" put out by the Alberta Economic Development. Last one I have is June 2006 so I am going to try to find a later one on line, they say they publish it every 6 months.
It is a pretty comprehensive overview of the players in the oil sands industry. If anybody knows the exact web location of the report, please let me know at wsb1010@aol.com

The address for the Desjardins report is:
www.oilsandsquestinves...

Another great sector to investigate and invest in is, in my own opinion and that of many industry people, is the uranium sector.

Good luck in investing!!]]> Mon, 05 Nov 2007 21:42:24 -0500 Energy is the cause of my taking profits there and shifting some of the money into BQI first thing tomorrow morning. It is interesting, however to note that BQI sold down today (11/5/07) by the close by $.81, and another $.11 in after hours trading. Wonder what has caused that!!! I also own Canadian Oil Sands Trust, but for the time being I am holding onto that as dividends are expected to rise substantially. They also have a BUY on Connacher, which I also own, and may thus buy some more. They also have a buy on OPTI Canada, I was going to buy some Suncor, but their report splashes cold water on that.

There is an "OIL SANDS INDUSTRY UPDATE" put out by the Alberta Economic Development. Last one I have is June 2006 so I am going to try to find a later one on line, they say they publish it every 6 months.
It is a pretty comprehensive overview of the players in the oil sands industry. If anybody knows the exact web location of the report, please let me know at wsb1010@aol.com

The address for the Desjardins report is:
www.oilsandsquestinves...

Another great sector to investigate and invest in is, in my own opinion and that of many industry people, is the uranium sector.

Good luck in investing!!]]>