# Investing in uranium



## Monkey2funky (17 Oct 2007)

Has anybody invested in uranium? 

I have been reading reports that it is set to rocket in price in the coming months (please, no nuclear weapons jokes).

Does anyone have any tips on what the best play would be, and where to go to invest?


----------



## room305 (17 Oct 2007)

Not aware of any ETFs but this fund  invests in a basket of uranium-related shares.


----------



## MichaelDes (17 Oct 2007)

Monkey2funky said:


> Has anybody invested in uranium? I have been reading reports that it is set to rocket. Does anyone have any tips on what the best play would be, and where to go to invest?


 
Tipped as Hot Gold - presently 16% of global electricity requirements use it but this will change dramatically by 2020, especially China. Now that we are at peak oil and gas it will become an all devouring monster. Since the Cigar Lake fiasco, its started an upward cycle, futures in it are very bullish. I have a few tips on the NYSE but pm me for details, as against rules of AAM. What reports have you been getting and where? Stay away from the small caps - although a lot of M&A going-on they are nonetheless too risky. Nice fund room305 - basket should hedge the risks.


----------



## Monkey2funky (17 Oct 2007)

I subscribed to a news letter called investmentu, and another called Money Morning (Free trails to begin with, they look for a $500 subscription fee there after). They are tipping many of the companies mentioned in room305's report.


----------



## MichaelDes (17 Oct 2007)

Monkey2funky said:


> I subscribed to a news letter called investmentu, and another called Money Morning (Free trails to begin with, they look for a $500 subscription fee there after). They are tipping many of the companies mentioned in room305's report.


 
Money morning personally does my head in as it gives to much information. You can not see the wood for the trees - although they are possibly tipping the same Canadian companies that I would for Uranium. If you subscribe, you can get bombarded with all sorts of spam. Some of their high theory city stuff is not to my tastes.


----------



## Monkey2funky (17 Oct 2007)

I agree, and investmentu talks in riddles before revealing what the commodity or stock it is that they are tipping, leaving a novice investors head such as mine, spinning. Still, if you have the time they both make for better reading than the Daily Mirror.


----------



## z101 (18 Oct 2007)

How do you buy into that fund mentioned above ??


----------



## piglet (18 Oct 2007)

I bought Cameco as part of a ten stock portfolio last year all in the energy sector. It has performed very well but I'd recommend a spread across the energy sector, oil, gas, drilling, uranium, wind, new technologies like clean coal etc.


----------



## neiltheseal (30 Oct 2007)

I've just recently subscribed to fullermoney.com newsletter. There's alsos a free subscription. He has a lot of talk about uranium. Very good down to earth financial advice for both long term and short term - mostly long term.

Neil


----------



## bungaloid (30 Oct 2007)

piglet said:


> I bought Cameco as part of a ten stock portfolio last year all in the energy sector. It has performed very well but I'd recommend a spread across the energy sector, oil, gas, drilling, uranium, wind, new technologies like clean coal etc.



(1) i think you are giving up a lot of value by diversifying, not all parts of energy sector are the same. nuclear has been undercapitalised and wind is a fully subsidy dependent overcapitalised joke. i would like direct exposure to clean coal technology, what do you suggest?
(2) i believe that nuclear construction is going outperform everything else over next 5y. many plants will not come online for 10-15y (egypt just announced plans yesterday, for example) and therefore the rate of consumption of uranium is limited. uranium, by the way, is a relatively common element on earth. extraction technology will do well.
(3) all commodity markets are performing because of weak dollar. buying commodities at the moment is first and foremost a bet against the dollar.


----------



## sapmanie (30 Oct 2007)

Remember that it's not without it's risks: the earthquake in Japan just 2 or 3 months ago damaged its nuclear reactor and released radioactivity into the environment - the extent of which was covered up very quickly. No one wants another 3-mile island for the only viable fuel for the future.But if a more serious accident happend - a Chernobyl - which couldn't be covered up, then your "investments can go down as well as up".


----------



## GeneralZod (30 Oct 2007)

The IAEA inspected the plant in August and said the following



> 'Plant safety features performed as required during the earthquake', and that 'the team's review of plant operator records and analyses support the Japanese authorities' conclusion that the very small amount of radioactivity released was well below the authorised limits for public health and environmental safety.


----------



## bungaloid (30 Oct 2007)

chernobyl nearly killed off the nuclear industry and accidents are a risk for investors. however
(1) hyrdoelectric is by far the riskiest per MW generated. (one dam burst in china in 1970s killed 250,000 people. chernobyl killed 60 according to UN.)
(2) if you invest in an airline you take the risk that a crash hurts your investment. if you invest in a bank you take the risk that they have not made bad loans. the question for an investor is whether these risks are understood by the market and priced in.
(3) new technologies (such as EPR) are a further vast improvement over earlier designs from a safety perspective. remember that chernobyl was a 1950's reactor under soviet management.

there is a very skewed view in ireland about all this. (we used to ban contraceptives after all, now its nuclear energy). but don't be mislead. the view outside ireland is much more positive especially among policy-makers. it is a key part of the climate change strategy.


----------



## sapmanie (2 Nov 2007)

> chernobyl killed 60 according to UN.)


Sure. Only 60 outright. Fair enough. Perhaps you should ask these people & their families what they think of nuclear power. At least hydroelectric wouldn't have done this to them...perhaps being killed outright would have been a blessing.
http://www.blainekendall.com/uploads/blog/chernobyl.jpg
[broken link removed]
http://newint.org/features/2005/09/01/chernobyl-4.jpg
[broken link removed]

..and so on (some are too horrible to link to).

But anyway, just owning nuclear shares seems to be completely hyped: it reminds me of tech shares pre-2000. I'm just reminding people about getting carried away...


----------



## GeneralZod (2 Nov 2007)

sapmanie said:


> Sure. Only 60 outright. Fair enough.



According to the WHO there may eventually be up to 4,000 fatal cancers in addition to the 100,000 normally expected fatal cancers that will occur in the 600,000 people from the most contaminated areas. 

The Chernobyl Forum report points out that there are areas in India, Iran, Brazil & China with higher naturally occurring radiation than in the areas contaminated by Chernobyl.

Figure 4 in the [broken link removed]shows that there is no increase in the background level of congenital malformations at birth in the areas contaminated.


----------



## bungaloid (2 Nov 2007)

terrible images, sapmanie. i'm a parent myself but can't imagine what the people in those pictures have suffered.

what the UN investigated (200 statisticians,15 years) was what additional birth defects, disease occurred over background levels due to the accident. with the exception of thyroid cancer (which is treatable) no additional effects were found. longer term, life expectancies may be reduced (no data yet). but we already know this effect is small and nothing like as bad an economic collapse which can cut decades off peoples lives. of course if you get cancer, you don't care about statistics.

what IS known is that the persistent droughts in the Sahel are caused by anthrogenic greenhouse gas emissions (all of the models show less rain there). i could put links to pictures of 1000's of starving children in Darfur, but we all know what that looks like, and i don't do cheap propoganda. 

nuclear has essentially zero carbon emissions and the waste is OUR problem - not dumped on poor people in africa like our CO2 emissions.

you believe that people who invest in nuclear energy are immoral fools. i don't expect to change your mind about that. the truth is inconvenient. _by investing nuclear now you are promoting a new generation of safer and cleaner reactors and that is what the planet needs at the moment._


----------



## creedgearoid (5 Nov 2007)

i would like to get more info on the fund suggested by room305 before the thread turned into a debate on the nuclear industry. i have found out as much as possible with google etc but i want to know how do i get a piece of this fund and how much the fund has increased in value since its launch in april 07? is there any value left in it now? any info welcome


----------



## sapmanie (6 Nov 2007)

> you believe that people who invest in nuclear energy are immoral fools.


You misunderstand me. I think it's a good idea (from personal financial point of view) to invest in uranium shares: it's the only viable fuel for the future and the price are likely to keep rising, _unless there's a serious accident._ That's the point I was trying to make: while they may have strong growth possibility, don't put all your eggs in the one basket like many did with technology shares.



> I'm just reminding people about getting carried away...


----------



## Janman07 (6 Nov 2007)

Another fund to consider is the ETF Ticker (NLR). Details at [broken link removed]


----------



## bungaloid (8 Dec 2007)

*                             Dublin,                             2nd December 2007                          *

                                  Natural Resources Minister Eamon Ryan today announced that he has declined to grant Prospecting Licences to two companies seeking to explore for uranium in Donegal. This signals a wider policy decision to prohibit such activity in Ireland. 
  Commenting today, Minister Ryan outlined the reasons behind his decision to prohibit exploration for uranium_. “A prospecting license is the first step in the mining process. Granting a license carries an implicit policy agreement permitting its extraction should a viable prospect be discovered. This is where my concern lies. _
_The most likely end use of any uranium extracted in Ireland would be for nuclear electricity generation. It would be hypocritical to permit the extraction of uranium for use in nuclear reactors in other countries, while the nuclear generation of electricity is not allowed in Ireland, and particularly while the Irish Government continues to object to the operation of nuclear power generation at Sellafield and other locations. 
__
There are also significant environmental and public health concerns surrounding uranium mining, including contamination of ground and surface water supplies and radiation levels. _
_I have decided, therefore, that as Minister for Communications, Energy__ & __Natural Resources I will not license any prospecting for uranium in Ireland. In this decision we are following the example set by other countries who remain opposed to the nuclear generation of electricity, such as New Zealand.” 
_

This is an example kind of stuff that runs economies into the ground.

To be consistent the Minister should also prohibit irish residents from investing in companies which mine uranium, or use it. He should also abandon the electricity interconnector, because some of that electricity comes from you know what. 

The Taliban started out as idealistic rebels. They ended up banning music, weather forecasting, ice etc.


----------



## MichaelDes (9 Dec 2007)

bungaloid said:


> * Dublin, 2nd December 2007 *
> 
> _The most likely end use of any uranium extracted in Ireland would be for nuclear electricity generation. It would be hypocritical..._


 
Also is must be hypocritical to be neutral in conflict but allow the logistics of conflict through Shannon etc. In the Shannon case, it is nothing but the government avoiding biting off of the hand which feeds it. Surely Uranium extraction is a very similar parallel that should be overcome. When oil spikes above $200 a barrel then Ireland will realise its dependency on others for energy, only then IMO will it wake up and smell the roses. But like the M50 it will be realised too little too late!!

Back pedaling will cost considerably larger amounts in the future to the Irish consumer. Politic of the day it seems, without thinking of the future.


----------



## stir crazy (9 Dec 2007)

MichaelDes said:


> Back pedaling will cost considerably larger amounts in the future to the Irish consumer. Politic of the day it seems, without thinking of the future.



 Yeah but (if we actually have any) wont it be more valuable to future generations and increasing in value  all the time we leave it there ?


----------



## bungaloid (9 Dec 2007)

stir crazy said:


> Yeah but*(if*we*actually*have*any) wont it be more valuable to future*generations*and*increasing*in*value  all the time we leave it there ?
> 
> 
> The Minister has banned _finding out_ if we have any. The right answer might be to leave it in the ground but he has banned the mere _collection of data_.


----------



## GeneralZod (9 Dec 2007)

Does anyone have any views on what will happen to the price of uranium if the United States drops its ban on the reprocessing of nuclear waste to extract usable material. I've seen forecasts of there being enough material to last billions of years if this is done.


----------



## MichaelDes (9 Dec 2007)

GeneralZod said:


> Does anyone have any views on what will happen to the price of uranium if the United States drops its ban on the reprocessing of nuclear waste to extract usable material. I've seen forecasts of there being enough material to last billions of years if this is done.


 
Any links GZ, would be interested to know more on this development??


----------



## GeneralZod (9 Dec 2007)

MichaelDes said:


> Any links GZ, would be interested to know more on this development??



I'm referring to breeder reactors. The physics has been known for decades but was mothballed in the US by President Carter due to fears of it being used for nuclear proliferation. 

Here's an interesting brief write up of the history from 2006 Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing: U.S. Policy Development

[broken link removed] processes are being worked on by the US Department of Energy.


----------



## z101 (9 Dec 2007)

We cant ignore nuclear for much longer. America is starting to look at Thorium nuclear power now and so should we. It's waste manageable, non proliferation and far more plentiful than uranium.


----------



## GeneralZod (9 Dec 2007)

Ceatharlach said:


> America is starting to look at Thorium nuclear power now and so should we.



I believe India is doing this too as they've Thorium reserves. The US is selling them technology as they're keen to ensure India can counter balance China.


----------



## z101 (9 Dec 2007)

It would solve the Iran problem. or moreso the US's problem with them having nuclear problem.


----------



## joe sod (9 Dec 2007)

I have also heard of the potential of thorium, investors should remember that nuclear power and uranium are not joined at the hip, therefore i would not be betting the house on uranium, i think investing in nuclear technology itself rather than uranium is the better long term stategy. Nuclear power in theory can be extracted from any atom, it is just that so far uranium has been the easiest element to do it with. Many anti nuclear power activists mistakingly believe that nuclear power is dependant on uranium it isn't.


----------



## bungaloid (10 Dec 2007)

Ceatharlach said:


> We cant ignore nuclear for much longer. America is starting to look at Thorium nuclear power now and so should we. It's waste manageable, non proliferation and far more plentiful than uranium.



very interesting Ceatharlach.

Why don't we apply for a Thorium prospecting license and see what the wise Minister Ryan does?


----------



## GeneralZod (10 Dec 2007)

bungaloid said:


> very interesting Ceatharlach.
> 
> Why don't we apply for a Thorium prospecting license and see what the wise Minister Ryan does?



I read up a bit on this thorium business. It doesn't do away completely with the need for uranium and plutonium as you'd need too much thorium by itself to have enough neutrons to sustain the reactor. 

The Minister needs to take a lesson from James Lovelock and accept nuclear as one of the range of alternatives to fossil fuels. Ultimately he or his successors have to or figuratively the lights of the economy will start to go out. It will be good for human health (respiratory diseases) and the environment when he accepts this. If you're in favour of nuclear you're on the winning team for the future. To develop as a civilization we'll need ever more energy and we're not going to get enough of that from wind, hydro, tidal & solar. We just have to generate our energy in ways that don't damage the environment.


----------



## joejoe (11 Dec 2007)

bungaloid said:


> (1) i think you are giving up a lot of value by diversifying, not all parts of energy sector are the same. nuclear has been undercapitalised and wind is a fully subsidy dependent overcapitalised joke. i would like direct exposure to clean coal technology, what do you suggest?
> (2) i believe that nuclear construction is going outperform everything else over next 5y. many plants will not come online for 10-15y (egypt just announced plans yesterday, for example) and therefore the rate of consumption of uranium is limited. uranium, by the way, is a relatively common element on earth. extraction technology will do well.
> (3) all commodity markets are performing because of weak dollar. buying commodities at the moment is first and foremost a bet against the dollar.


what is clean coal?

joejoe


----------



## Pexus1976 (24 Jul 2010)

Monkey2funky said:


> Has anybody invested in uranium?
> 
> I have been reading reports that it is set to rocket in price in the coming months (please, no nuclear weapons jokes).
> 
> Does anyone have any tips on what the best play would be, and where to go to invest?


 
The most cost efficient way to invest would be through a ETF. This commodity seems to be very popular lately. Here a few interesting articles on Uranium.

“Uranium, after decades of being the unwanted stepchild of energy sources, is now likely to offer better percentage returns…than oil, gas or any other energy alternative,” says Doug Casey, the American commentator on natural resource investments.

*Source Moneyweek*

[broken link removed]

Mention uranium, and you are likely to provoke a variety of reactions. Some will remember only its *associations with nuclear power and the Chernobyl disaster of the 1980s. *Others will praise it as a practical fuel and an answer to climate change. But now another angle is emerging: uranium as an alternative investment vehicle.
Canny investors first began to take notice some years ago, when the price of uranium shot up from about $10 per pound in 2003 to more than $130/lb in 2007. The global financial meltdown sent it crashing down again, though it has hovered around the mid-$40s/lb ever since. But experts now believe recent developments could prompt serious price gains.

*Source FT*

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/3123b600-3...44feabdc0.html

Uranium remains a highly emotive commodity. Mere mention of the heavy metal stokes up memories of the catastrophic accidents at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. However, governments across the world, including in the UK, have concluded that nuclear energy produced from uranium is the only viable way to combat climate change and global warming.

*Source Investors Chronicle *

[broken link removed]


----------

