Uranaktien: Minen, Explorer, Produzenten, Anwender

Hab sie aufgestöbert: CA75381Y1060

Mal schaun ob die Order erfüllt wird.

P.S.

Habs grad gesehen, da war ja noch jemand schnell! Danke trotzdem!

REM ist auch eine Band, die kosten jetzt 14.5 cents.
Da habe ich auch zum Schluss zugeschlagen.
So das reicht an Uranium.

Back to goood old Gold und Silber

Gruss

XEX

Hallo Uran Anleger

Da ich hier nur lese und Eure Tipps auch kaufe moechte ich Euch nun auch eine Aktie nochmals erwaehnen die bei mir am Montag ins Depot geht.
Lucky Friday hat die ja schon oben erwaehnt :

""Urasia Energy scheint mir so ein Fall. Anfang Nov.05 Handelsbeginn (wo? natürlich Kanada) Kurs mindestens vervierfacht bis heute - wohl platzierter Uran-Hype. Das meiste Geld, das mit dieser Aktie gemacht werden konnte, ist wohl schon gemacht, das Ding lahmt ja schon.""

Lahmt die wirklich ?????

Schoen langsam fange ich an mich mit der Materie zu beschaeftigen.

Erstmal der jetzige Uranium Preis: (37.50 USD/Lbs)

http://www.uxc.com/index.html

History Chart:

http://www.uxc.com/review/uxc_g_hist-price.html

According to a report by Duncan McKeen, a mining analyst with GMP, global demand for uranium sits at 175 million pounds per year, while just 100 million pounds are produced annually. Demand is set to rise to 185 million pounds per year by 2010 and as to as much as 200 million pounds by 2018.
Money manager Eric Sprott, who has cheered uranium as an alternative to petroleum, has estimated demand could reach 300 million pounds in 20 years, and after factoring in inflation, drive prices to US$100 per pound.

Vom 31. Januar stammt dieser Bericht den ihr mal lesen solltet.
Aber vielleicht kennt ihr den schon ? ( es sind 3 Seiten)

http://www.canada.com/national…0b-4ed3-bc67-21a05ec652c2

URASIA ENERGY (UUU.V) die wurde gelisted bei 1.80 CAD soweit ich es gelesen habe und die hat wie die anderen schoen korregiert in den letzten Tagen. Die war mal kurz uber 3.00 CAD und jetzt bei 2.60 CAD.

IMO die kommt wieder hoch.

Eine andere Amera Resurces muss ich mir noch anschaun was da los ist..

Bei uns strahlt die Sonne keine Wolke am Himmel, es wird heiss in Kapstadt.

Ich wuensche Euch noch ein schoenes Wochenende, so 8 Grad plus koennte ich Euch gerne abgeben.

Herzlichen Gruss

Eldo

eine ernstgemeinte aber nicht ernstzunehmende Meinung zum Thema Uran:


Verdienen kann man als Aktienanleger nur mit virtuellem Uran.


Virtuelles Uran ist wie der schwarze Kater im schwarzem Raum.


Wir sind diejenigen, die behaupten den schwarzen Kater zu sehen.

Voriges Jahr um diese Zeit war mir ein solcher schwarzer Kater

namens Aflease zugelaufen. Zugelaufen war der mir eigentlich

schon viel früher, aber Karneval sahen den plötzlich alle.



Jetzt interessieren uns ja nicht die ollen Kamellen sondern die frischen.

Neulich kam die Nachricht, daß sich wieder so ein schwarzer Kater

eingeschlichen hat ins Depot. Der miaut plötzlich aus einer Ecke,

wo keiner einen Kater vermutet.

Die winzige Batavia Tabak hat einen Trapper ins outback geschickt.

Der soll Uran finden. Es reicht ja wenn es virtuelles Uran ist, siehe oben.

Es spricht einiges dafür, dass der Austral Trapper virtuelles Uran finden wird.

Dieses Posting ist bekloppt und löscht sich in wenigen Stunden selbsttätig.

Gogh

@ Gogh

Ueber Aflease und die Kebble Saga brauchen wir nichts mehr reden.
Ueberall wo der drin war gab es einen Betrug.... er soll nochmal dafuer in der Hoelle schmoren bei seinen fetten Koerper.

Das heisst aber nicht das andere Firmen genauso enden wie die Affenlease.

Ich wusste gar nicht das Batavia nun Uran sucht, soll mir Recht sein da diese im Depot sind aber leider nicht hochkommen aus ihren Sandloch.

Mal schaun wie es weiter geht, das Oil wird zu Ende gehen egal wann. Dann muss man alternative Energien hernehmen falls noch so viele Menschen am Leben sind. Die Erdbevoelkerung soll von 6 MRD auf 9 steigen in 50 Jahren.. ohne Weltkrieg.

Ich habe vor kurzen gelesen das China 25 neue Atomkraftwerke baut und die veraltenden abreisst. Fazit sie bekommen auch nicht mehr Energie um den Bedarf zu decken da noch mehr Strom brauchen.

Wie auch immer 3% sind Uran im Depot schon wert, 3% auf Oil und Sand :D, 1% Palladium, und nun bald 1 % auf Solar das ich ebenso auf 2 % bringe.

Diese 8% geben auch die anderen monatlich locker aus damit sie weiterkommen und nicht frieren.

Uebertreiben werde ich es bestimmt nicht da ich nach wie vor bei Gold und Silber bleibe.

Ich lege oder legte schon diese Aktien rein ins Depot, so auf die schnelle ohne gross zu warten auf gut Glueck.

OIL/SAND:

CNQ.TO REP COS-UN.TO ECA PBG.TO PCZ IMO PPP SU.TO UTS.TO WTO.TO TREN.OB

URAN:

CCJ QUI.V DEN.TO USU HSE.TO STM.V ASX.V CXX.V ERD.TO REM.V FRG.TO EMC.V HBE.V TVC.V WML.V WNP.V IUC.TO UUU.V

OTHERS:

KEP VE CHA ADB.V FCO.TO CBE.V CRJ.TO ALMI.OB 3330.HK GSS.V

SOLAR:

KYO DSTI DESC ESLR SPIR ENER STKL SPWR G1A.DE SWW.DE SWV.DE SOO1.DE QCE.DE CMH.TO BBSE.OB WWAT.OB

Bei Ende naechster Woche sind die alle im Depot.
Bei 10% unter den Schlusskurs vom Freitag auf jeden Fall.
Ob die noch 10% fallen ist eine andere Frage.

ROTAMINT

Nicht dass die einer gleich morgen ordert.

So hiessen frueher blinkende Automaten, die in den Gaststätten

hingen.

Die Dame hat Solaraktien und wartet nun auf die Sonne.

[Blockierte Grafik: http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,578192,00.jpg]

aktuelle Fotoausstellung: München Haus der Kunst


Der finanzielle Aspekt bei meinen Aktien langweilt mich zunehmend.

Will auch niemand anderen beeinflussen.

glueckauf

gogh

09.02.2006

Uran, der Rohstoff für die Atomkraft, wird spätestens in 65 Jahren weltweit nicht mehr verfügbar sein. Das ist die Aussage eines umfassenden Reports, den Greenpeace am Donnerstag in Berlin vorlegt. Damit ist klar, dass die Atomkraft gänzlich ungeeignet ist, die Versorgung Deutschlands mit Energie zu garantieren. Auch als Lösung für das Klimaproblem fällt sie aus

Uran wird knapp und macht abhängig

Die Studie beruht auf Daten der Konferenz für wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung (OECD). Sie weist nach, dass die Uranvorkommen weltweit auch bei reduziertem Bedarf spätestens 2070 ausgebeutet sein werden. Derzeit deckt die Atomkraft nur rund sieben Prozent des weltweiten Energiebedarfs. Würde dieser Anteil so erhöht, dass das Klima profitiert, wären die Uranressourcen in kurzer Zeit erschöpft. Schon jetzt führt die zunehmende Verknappung zu steigenden Preisen.

Thomas Breuer, Atomexperte von Greenpeace, fordert die CDU darum auf, sich langsam mit der Tatsache zu befassen, dass die Atomkraft Deutschland nicht aus der energiepolitischen Abhängigkeit führen kann.

Die EU bezieht das Uran für ihre Atomkraftwerke überwiegend aus Russland, Australien, Kanada, Kasachstan, Usbekistan und Niger. Dabei machen die Lieferungen aus Russland den größten Teil aus: Im Jahre 2004 war es ein Viertel. Breuers Kommentar: Bundeswirtschaftsminister Glos will die Bevölkerung wohl hinters Licht führen, wenn er die Sorge vor einer Abhängigkeit von Russland am Gasmarkt dazu nutzt, die Atomenergie zu propagieren.
Uran bedroht die globale Sicherheit

Neben der Verknappung und der Versorgungsunsicherheit sind weitere gravierende Probleme mit dem Uran verbunden. Uran ist ein äußerst konfliktbeladener Rohstoff. Neben Plutonium ist er einer der Grundstoffe für Atombomben. Länder, die eine zivile Atomwirtschaft besitzen, verfügen auch über das technische Wissen zum Bau von Atombomben.

Hier liegt die Ursache des Atomstreits mit dem Iran. Seinen Wunsch nach einer Urananreicherungsanlage begründet der Iran damit, sich selber mit Brennstoff versorgen zu wollen. Doch mit der gleichen Technologie kann man auch Uran für Atombomben anreichern.

Die Bundesregierung besitzt hohe außenpolitische Glaubwürdigkeit, wenn sie im internationalen Atomstreit mit dem Iran diesen von seinen atompolitischen Plänen abbringen möchte, erklärt Breuer. Nur ein Land, das selbst aus der Atomtechnologie aussteigt, kann anderen Ländern glaubwürdig vermitteln, diesen energiepolitischen Irrweg des zwanzigsten Jahrhunderts zu vermeiden.
Uranabbau zerstört die Umwelt

Völlig ausgeblendet wird in der Diskussion auch die massive Umweltzerstörung, die mit der Gewinnung von Uran einhergeht. Nur ein kleiner Teil der Uranvorräte liegt in Lagerstätten mit hoher Konzentration. Beim Abbau von Uranvorräten mit geringerer Konzentration wird unverhältnismäßig viel Natur zerstört. Genau um diese Lagerstätten geht es aber bei einer Ausweitung der Abbaukapazitäten von Uran.

Versorgungssicherheit und Umweltschutz lassen sich mit Atomkraft nicht realisieren. Die einzige Antwort auf die Energiefrage in Deutschland sind Erneuerbare Energien und Energiesparen zum Beispiel durch die Wärmedämmung von Gebäuden, so Thomas Breuer.

http://www.greenpeace.de/theme…ht_noch_maximal_65_jahre/

Was noch alles knapp wird und wie viel Natur zerstoert wird ist erschreckend aber leider der Preis fuer unser angenehmes Leben.
Die Natur raecht sich auf ihre weise.
Was mach ma dann wenn es kein oil und uran mehr gibt, zurueck in die Steinzeit ?? Vielleicht kommt dann ET vom Mars und bringt uns neue Energie mit.
Ich erlebs nicht mehr, scheiss aussichten so oder so.
Ohne hier gross den Pessimisten zu spielen, ich glaube wir haben einen Weltkrieg bei ca. 2012 nachdem die Amis versuchen die Rohstoffe der anderen zu kontrollieren. Dann mischen sich die Russen und Chinesen ein und haun die Amis raus aus dem nahen Osten.
Da raeumen sie wieder einige Menschen weg die Energie verbrauchen.

Darum, geniesst jeden Tag, man ist laenger Tod als Lebendig.

Cheers

Eldo

Hallo Eldo! Seh ich ähnlich: Carpe Diem! Grüße

Nachdem die Urasia website nicht allzuviel hergibt, sollten Interesierte mal bei Sedar nachgucken.

Besonder die Annual information form vom 31. Januar 2006 ist interresant. Hier werden von Roscoe & Postle die aktuellen Uranprojekte eingeschätzt. Da wird noch viel Geld den Bach hinunterlaufen bis die Produktion auf Touren kommt.

Vielleicht haben sie deshalb 3 Monate nach dem IPO nochmals in die Taschen der Anleger gegriffen.

Viele Grüsse
Harpo

Sorry, its a long one but interesting read.

LIFE DURING WARTIME

by Dan Denning

When I got back from my excursion to the Far East in late 2004 and sat down at my desk in London to write up the story, I emphasized three major trends that would create danger and opportunity for investors.

First, the bull market in energy (oil, gas, electric, nuclear) was going to be one of the longest and strongest you and I would see in our investment lifetimes.

The big drivers are the growth in demand from China and India. Since then, of course, through the work of Whiskey & Gunpowder editor Byron King, we’ve seen how Peak Oil - the exhaustion of all the world’s cheap, easily recoverable oil - is driving up energy prices even higher and faster than I thought, and also has complicated things geopolitically.

Second, the general rise of Asia into the developed world was causing huge demographic and economic dislocations - and creating enormous investment opportunities as Asian economies began to consume as well as produce, to spend as well as save.

Third, I wrote that the rise of the East was accompanied by the simultaneous collapse of the ruling currency regime of the last 30 years, the dollar standard. This last point is still so inconceivable to many people that they refuse to entertain the possibility. Too much would have to change. Too much wealth would be destroyed. Too many vacations would have to be canceled. Yet the inexorable rise of gold shows that this revolution in money is slowly but surely eroding the dollar’s status.

Iran Nuclear Threat: Possible Effects

The current situation with Iran doesn’t change any of those three main trends. It accelerates them, however, and adds the dangerous new element of nuclear holocaust to the table. Let’s be clear about one thing, though: Even if Iran developed a nuclear device tomorrow, it would not likely be the sort of thing they could put on a missile and fire off to Tel Aviv…or Rome…or London. It would be a large, unwieldy thing that they might be able to put on a jetliner. (Incidentally, Iran recently announced the resumption of commercial flights to the United States.)

Still, it’s not a secret anymore what Iran is trying to do. The question is, can anyone stop it? Another question is does everyone really want to stop it? I would argue that both China and Russia, though they might be deeply uncomfortable with having a nuclear Iran, see it as an enormous strategic blow to the United States and a key element of their respective energy alliances with Iran. China and Russia, in other words, are more than willing to let the world’s nuclear club expand. Doubtless, they feel like they’d have some measure of control over Iran, especially since both countries have helped Iran with its weapons program. Whether they will have any control or not remains to be seen.

Let’s leave aside all the speculating about if the United States or Israel can or will attack Iran. I have no idea. Nobody does. In analyzing the whole situation, I found it useful to head to the bookshelf and dust off a copy of Paul Kennedy’s The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500–2000. I’m going to quote from a few sections that I think help explain how what’s playing out across the globe today is a result of both globalization and Peak Oil.

Unfortunately, if we follow Kennedy’s analysis, it’s very bad news for America and for Americans who fail to understand what’s motivating our main economic and strategic competitors. Emphasis added is mine. In the introduction, Kennedy writes:

"The triumph of any one Great Power in this period, or the collapse of another, has usually been the consequence of lengthy fighting by its armed forces; but it has also been the consequence of the more or less efficient utilization of the state’s productive economic resources in wartime, and, further in the background, of the way in which that state’s economy has been rising or falling relative to the other leading nations, in the decades preceding the actual conflict. For that reason, how a Great Power’s position steadily alters in peacetime is as important to this study as how it fights in wartime."

Iran Nuclear Threat: The War on Terror

If you date the war on terror to its beginnings, you could conceivably go back to the Iranian hostage crisis of 1979–80. But let’s use Sept. 11 as our start date. Since that time, how efficient has the United States been at using its productive economic resources? Not very, as I have mentioned ad nauseam. That’s because America continues to consume more than it produces. Debt has driven a boom in American consumption right alongside a war that doesn’t seem to interrupt the daily life of many Americans. If countries rise or fall based on the efficient use of productive economic resources, then China, with its 9.9% growth, is rising and America, with GM’s $8.6 billion loss last year, is not. America has been falling relative to China and India for the last 10 years. Kennedy continues:

"The relative strengths of the leading nations in world affairs never remain constant, principally because of the uneven rate of growth among different societies and of the technological and organizational breakthroughs which bring greater advantage to once society than to another. For example, the coming of the long-range gunned sailing ship and the rise of the Atlantic trades after 1500 was not uniformly beneficial to all the states of Europe - it boosted some much more than others. In the same way, the later development of steam power and of the coal and metal resources upon which it relied massively increased the relative power of certain nations, and thereby decreased the relative power of others."

My first essay for Whiskey & Gunpowder, "The Birth of Cultural Siege Engines," made the simple observation that nuclear proliferation would alter the world’s political structure by making it nearly impossible for one country to invade another. Such as it is, this might actually reduce the incidence of war. It might also mean a very nasty but realistic situation where dictators and tyrants are free to terrorize their populations without fear of being toppled by invasion. After all, King Jong Il is around because he has nuclear weapons. Saddam Hussein will be executed sometime this year because he did not.

Iran Nuclear Threat: Economic Strategy

In historical context, nuclear weapons are the long-range gunships of the Atlantic. They are the great military equalizers. With the technological breakthroughs on the nuclear black market, you can expect more nations to get them. In a strange way, their spread might also dilute their leverage. Once everyone has them, there will be no urgency to get them. Military competition will turn back to economic competition.

For America, this means that we are less likely to be able to use our military as a means to achieve our economic strategy. True, aircraft carriers and long-range bombers still give America the unique ability to project force anywhere in the world. But a nuclear weapon and the means to deliver it, that’s really an army of one isn’t it? How well will America compete now that its great growth is behind it? And what about China and India? They will be boosted, in Kennedy’s terms, by the proliferation of nuclear weapons to the extent that global competition will be more economic than military. And of course, resource-rich countries will enjoy the greatest rates of growth and have the largest advantages of all:

"Once their productive capacity was enhanced, countries would normally find it easier to sustain the burdens of paying for large-scale armaments in peacetime and of maintaining and supplying armies and fleets in wartime. It sounds crudely mercantilistic to express it this way, but wealth is usually needed to underpin military power, and military power is usually needed to acquire and protect wealth."

Here we just find more somber questions for America. America’s productive capacity is being systematically dismantled and shipped to China. If you don’t make anything, how can you sell it? And if you can’t sell it, what will you use to pay for your military? Without the means to generate wealth, how will America maintain its power? By selling bonds to our strategic adversaries? Come again?

In an energy-scarce, nuclear-abundant world, the surest ticket to wealth, and thereby to power, is energy. Those who have it - Russia, Iran, Venezuela - have tremendous leverage - provided they can survive as nation-states. Those who don’t - America, the United Kingdom, Western Europe - will find themselves not only less wealthy but less powerful. The free ride to power, luxury, and apathy that the Peak Oil age provided the West is emphatically, undeniably over.

Kennedy writes of this weakening of national power, "If, however, too large a portion of the state’s resources is diverted from wealth creation and allocated instead to military purposes, then that is likely to lead to a weakening of national power over the longer term." You might add that if states’ resources and capital and their creative energies are diverted and devoted to buying and selling houses and filling them with trinkets bought on eBay, national power is weakened. The consumption lifestyle to which America has grown addicted does not produce capital. It does not produce wealth. It does not produce power:

"In the same way, if a state overextends itself strategically - by, say, the conquest of extensive territories or the waging of costly wars - it runs the risk that the potential benefits from external expansion may be outweighed by the great expense of it all - a dilemma which becomes acute if the nation concerned has entered a period of relative economic decline."

If there have been benefits to the war in Iraq, cheap oil is not one of them. The war is not paying for itself with Iraqi oil exports. That war is not paying for itself at all. It has become a major and costly national undertaking, at just the time when America finds itself on the wrong side of the wealth = energy = power equation and in the fight of its economic life with rising powers India and China.

Kennedy writes:

"The strengths and the weaknesses of each of the leading powers are analyzed relatively, in light of the broader economic and technological changes affecting Western society as a whole, in order that the reader can understand better the outcome of the many wars of this period."

In the last few years, we’ve seen how the broader "economic and technological changes" of globalization are making the world more competitive and changing social structures everywhere. Indeed, many of the great social and economic institutions on which the postwar world was built are falling like dominoes…GM, the pension system, the United Nations, the dollar standard…the beat goes on. In fact, about the only thing preventing this migration of wealth and power IS the dollar standard.

It allows America to fund its wars and consumption with a depreciating currency. It is a tremendous advantage Kennedy does not ignore:

"Since the cost of standing armies and national fleets had become horrendously great by the early 18th century, a country which could create an advanced system of banking and credit (as Britain did) enjoyed many advantages over financially backward rivals."

England survived its many wars with France largely because of the creation of a funded national debt, the issuance of bonds whose interest was paid by the efficient collection of taxes. The modern warfare state is simply not possible without "an advanced system of banking and credit," and that, for now, is exactly what is keeping America afloat. The world still wants our bonds. China has nearly $800 billion in currency reserves, its resource war chest.

But how long will this advantage last? I suspect a lot will have to do with the price of oil. As oil rises in dollar terms - whether from geopolitical tension or the growing realization that Peak Oil is real - the run on the dollar will grow. Hard assets like gold won’t just be fashionable: They will be indispensable to wealth preservation.

Soaring gold and oil prices will be accompanied by soaring interest rates and inflation. The convenient fantasy world where prices don’t rise and the dollar doesn’t lose purchasing power will collapse. One day, Americans will wake up and find that the money in their wallets buys three-quarters or half as much as it did the day before. The dollar will have lost status. America will have lost power. And in the new world that emerges, possession of energy, not a printing press, will be the key to wealth.

Regards,

Dan Denning
for The Daily Reckoning

An interesting video to the subject above:

http://www.howestreet.com/fbn/mediaplayer.php?fbnId=111

Die Finanzierung bei Denison ist abgeschlossen. Momentan gibts sie noch günstig! aktuell ca. 15 CAD.

Denison Mines announced that it closed a public offering of Can$75.65 million, consisting of 4.45 million units at Can$17 per unit. Each unit comprises of one common share and one-half of a common share purchase warrant. Each whole warrant is exercisable to purchase one common share at an exercise price of Can$30 per share for a period of five years from March 1, 2006. Proceeds will be used for financing the Midwest uranium project, potential acquisitions and general working capital.

Grüße

RADIOACTIVE PROFITS

by Kevin Kerr

The Uranium market is one that is like a wild roller coaster, and many of the equities associated with it can make investors queasy from the ride. These equities are no different from many mining stocks; they have to be looked at very closely. Uranium trading was starting to become more stable, or so it seemed. Then, just as fast as it calmed down - bam! - it went right back up. In two the uranium price surged $5 to $29 in just two weeks last year.

After the market woke up and new buying came in, the ultra-precious metal's price climbed another $4, which set the highest uranium price since the early 1980s. The new speculation was triggered by growing expectations that China, India and Russia were planning to build new reactors and more reactors would cause a run on the limited supply of uranium. This speculation may well be right, if the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) stats are even close to true.

According to a report by the IAEA, 130 new nuclear power plants may be built in the next 15 years. Who are the big players? The usual suspects, of course: China, India, Europe, Russia, etc. Nuclear power provides about 16% of the planet's total annual electricity generation and 34% of the European Union's needs. Trust me, they need it - a lot. When my wife Katrin and I were in Estonia recently, it was frigid cold. Likewise, people are freezing to death in Moscow, right now. Nuclear power is a key component to economic survival in both Eastern Europe and the European Union.

I couldn't believe some of the stats for other countries that I found in a great nuclear energy report called Uraniumletter International:

"China: Announced that it plans to build up to 40 nuclear reactors within the next 15 years. Some experts feel this will increase the amount of electricity generated by nuclear power from 2.4% to 4%.

"India: Also getting aggressive and wants to increase mining of uranium ore at four mines, including the existing Jaduguda mine in Jharkhand. The country recently signed a nuclear energy agreement with the United States and could generate 40,000 megawatts of nuclear power in the next 10 years, compared with current production of 3,120 megawatts.

"France: Receives 78% of its electricity from nuclear power.

"Belgium: Gets almost 56% of its power from nuclear plants.

"Sweden: Close to 50% of Sweden's power is nuclear.

"Switzerland, Japan and the United States: Nuclear power provides 40%, 25% and 20%, respectively.

"Korea: Currently uses about 40%, operating on 19 nuclear reactors, and is expected to increase its dependence on nuclear power up to 60% in three decades.

"Asia: Nuclear energy is becoming more and more vital to the growing economies. Without it, Asia's bazillion factories would come to a grinding halt."

I’m not a historical scholar by any stretch, but I am a big history buff and the he history of atomic energy fascinates me. In the 1940s, the U.S. government began buying large amounts of uranium in the effort to produce the world's first atomic bomb.

I mean, a country didn't simply go down to Wal-Mart in those days and buy some. So, it was a major undertaking. Don't laugh, maybe someday we will all have little nuclear reactors in our backyards, and instead of going to get some more wood for the fireplace, you’ll have to run to Wal-Mart to get a bag of uranium.

Nuclear power plants, as we know them, fired up in 1959. That was when the first privately funded nuclear energy plant came on-line, in Illinois. Fast-forward, and by the 1970s that number had exploded (pardon the pun) to 250 nuclear reactors that were planned across the United States - but the dream train of cheap, easy energy derailed a bit.

The disaster in Pennsylvania changed all that. I was just a kid, but I remember that accident. Three Mile Island was a nightmare. My wife Katrin was just a kid when Chernobyl happened. She lived in nearby Estonia. They had to stay inside for days, she told me.

Anyway, the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant accident came close to Armageddon in 1979. Remember that movie? The China Syndrome? In the movie, Jack Lemmon works in a nuclear power plant that is going to have a meltdown. This movie is the kind of hysteria that made the public fear nuclear energy, and basically put the brakes on new construction. People didn't want it near their homes, and I can't say I blame them.

Public ignorance and fear of nuclear power changed the course of nuclear energy, as we’ve known, it for a very long time. Starting in the 1980s, utilities were canceling plants hand over fist. This resulted in the almost complete collapse of the uranium market.

And then, to beat down the market even further, uranium got hit square in the jaw. This second blow came when the Soviet Union fell apart in 1991. Enriched uranium that was removed from Russian bombs was blended down to reactor-grade fuel and put on the market. But, it gets worse.

The third punch came when the Clinton administration dumped 55 million pounds of "yellowcake" (uranium in the form of a yellowish powder) on the market, via a government-owned uranium enrichment program. This was what really caused the freefall for uranium prices - until now.

American uranium production peaked in 1980 at 43.7 million pounds, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. That was the proverbial nail in the coffin for the exploration of uranium. New research and development ground to a halt, as mines could no longer afford to operate, and exploration was basically a waste of time, energy and money. According to Uraniumletter International, Wyoming once had eight uranium operations, which produced 12 million pounds per year. Today, things are different - a lot different. Wyoming now has none. Ouch!

I could go through each state and many countries around the world and cite examples just like that from reports I have read. It seems clear that because of these widespread shutdowns, the once-overflowing uranium supply dwindled in just five to 10 years.

Things didn't seem so bad during the 1990s; the lack of new supply from functioning mines has been supported by other sources. There were excess inventories, for example, and there was also the dismantling and recycling of nuclear weapons, especially from Russia. Also, reprocessed reactor fuel was added to the mix.

But many of those quick fixes are no longer available.

The president's State of the Union address was a rallying cry to uranium producers to get moving...finally, reality is setting in. The dwindling supply of oil and spiraling high prices of fossil fuels are driving interest in nuclear energy as the possible power source that will be used to meet current and future global demand.

Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, unless you lived there, of course, are distant memories to most Europeans and Americans. On their minds are the prices at the pumps and their home heating bills.

Bottom line: New supplies of uranium will come at a much higher cost, which in turn, will continue to put upward pressure on the future price of uranium.

Regards,

Kevin Kerr
for The Daily Reckoning