Investing in uranium

M

Monkey2funky

Registered User
Messages
15
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?
 
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.:(
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
Click to expand...

(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.
 
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".
 
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.
Click to expand...
 
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.
 
chernobyl killed 60 according to UN.)
Click to expand...
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...
 
sapmanie said:
Sure. Only 60 outright. Fair enough.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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
 
you believe that people who invest in nuclear energy are immoral fools.
Click to expand...
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...
Click to expand...
 
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.
















 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top