Breaking Uranium news: Cameco is getting push back on its upcoming license renewal in Feb by first nations.
ich würde das erstmal als shakedown einstufen...
bg bh
Beiträge von Blue Horseshoe
-
-
Wäre die Gefahr gebannt, wenn es genügend Speicher geben würde?
so viel speicher wird es nie geben, ausserdem siehe die erntefaktoren(eroei/eroi) der energieerzeugungsarten sowie deren capacity factor. wenn dich das interessiert -> forumssuche
bg bh
-
Die Möglichkeit, "Atommüll" zu entsorgen, wäre möglicherweise extrem willkommen und nützlich.
das kommt gerade massiv - such mal nach "breed and burn" - habe leider gerade keine zeit mehr. vllt schreibe ich später dazu nochmal - im uranfaden sind dazu beiträge von mir. nicht nur die russen(schnelle reaktoren bn-800/bn1200) sind da dran(bn-800 ist in betrieb!!), gibt auch was von ge hitachi - arc / advanced recycling center(arc) - letztendlich sollten das die sodium gekühlten schnelle reaktoren sein ...
bg bh
-
das Kriterium "nur als Großkraftwerk wirtschaftlich zu betreiben" ist bei einem "Klein"-AKW, das auf rund 4.000 m² Grundfläche auf einem Schiff bzw. Ponton betrieben werden kann, eben nicht erfüllt
na dann aber auf die leistung achten, auch das ist gerade wichtig für die wirtschaftlichkeit.
zwischen 2x35 mw elektrischer leistung und 32 kw besteht da ein enormer unterschied...ich meine "neue Technologie" bzw. "alte Technologie" nicht aus Sicht des Reaktortechnikers, sondern aus Sicht der Anwendbarkeit und ggfs. der Rohstoff-Nachfrage (im Falle von Thorium-Reaktoren)
ok, thorium is a mile away. "reaktor-techniker" haben immer die sicht der anwendbarkeit im blick zu behalten.
unter anderem "hapert" es ja noch daran beim th-u cycle.der TMSR-LF1 sollte fertig gebaut sein, oder wird es demnächst sein.
chinas tmsr projekt hat mitunter die aufgabe probleme im fuel cycle zu lösen.
es gibt zwei arten, liquid fueled(msr-lf) sowie solid fueled(msr-sf).
tmsr basieren nicht auf dem uranium-plutonium fuel cyle sondern thorium-uranium(th-u) fuel cycle.
eines der probleme dabei ist die deutlich schwierigere verarbeitung, der schmelzpunkt von thorium dioxide(3.390°c) liegt ca. 525 grad c. über dem von uranium dioxide(2.865°C).
weiterhin ist thorium wenig reaktionsfreudig, was eine chemische verarbeitung erschwert(nur problematisch bei msr-sf).
weiterhin ist thorum kurzfristig gefährlicher - der th-u fuel cycle produziert u-232 das wiederum zu ti-208(thallium) zerfällt. thallium-208 hat einen gammastrahlen zerfall von 2,6 Mev, was den fuel cycle im handling und aufbereitung verteuert und verkompliziert. auch das bismut macht noch probleme(bi-212)https://www.researchgate.net/p…_Thorium-fuelled_RGTT200K
wen genaueres interresiert tmsr:
Thorium Molten Salt Reactor Energy
System (TMSR) Program Update
Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Generation IV International Forum
https://irfu.cea.fr/Meetings/s…me%20Chinois%20MSR_js.pdfResearch Progress of TMSR design
Yang ZOU
Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics
Chinese Academy of Sciences
SAMOFAR Final Meeting
http://samofar.eu/wp-content/u…ang-ZOU-PDF-version-1.pdfStatus and Perspective of
TMSR in China
PSI,Switzerland.2017-01-24
Hongjie XU,
TMSR Center of CAS, SINAP
https://www.gen-4.org/gif/uplo…5/03_hongjie_xu_china.pdfbg bh
-
"alte Technologie" ist für mich ALLES an Siede- und Druckwasserreaktoren, was
grundlegend NEU wären:
- Reaktoren, die alternative Spaltstoffe verwerten (Thorium, den Abfall der "konventionellen" Reaktoren)
- "kompakte" AKWs wie das AKW-Schiff von Rosatom (mit 32 kW netto-Stromerzeugung)
da wiedersprichst du dir selber, im "akw-schiff"akademik lomonossow sind so weit ich weiß klt reaktoren verbaut.
das sind die selben die ua. in der taimyr klasse(eisbrecher) zum einsatz kommen
dieses design sollte auf dem design des ok-900 aufbauen und ist damit ein druckwasserreaktor.
der einzige vorteil dürfte bei dem klt40s sein das leu als brennstoff konzipiert wurde.da es allerdings schon eine weile her ist seit ich mich damit beschäftigt habe, keine garantie auf vollständigkeit.
bg bh
ps. noch zur "leistung"- auf der akademik lomonossow sollten ZWEI KLT-40S in zwei seperaten reaktorblöcken verbaut sein, mit JE einer nettoleistung von 32 MW! - mit einer thermische leistung von 300MW( ua. fernwärmenutzung)
-
Ich denke es ist schon sinnvoll, Diskussionen um URAN als ROHSTOFF/ggfs. zur Förderung desselben, zu Angebot und Nachfrage (die ja zu 99,x % von AKWs mit alten Technologien kommt)
hmmm... was ist für dich alt. was ist mit den bauten der gen. 3/3+ die letzten ca 10-15 jahre? 99,x % der nachfrage?? na wenn du meinst das deine zahlen so stimmen...
kleinst-übersicht über gen IV
https://world-nuclear.org/info…-iv-nuclear-reactors.aspx
der shidaowan ftgr wird zum jahresende mit dem grid verbunden
http://global.chinadaily.com.c…4101a310efa1bd66a843.htmlhier eine veröffentlichung office of nuclear energy : 5 advanced reactor designs to watch in 2030
https://www.energy.gov/ne/arti…eactor-designs-watch-2030der brest-od-300 ist in bau(mnup brennstoff)
https://www.riatomsk.ru/articl…ially-started-on-tuesday/
Hydrometallurgical and combined technologies fast reactor MNUP and MOX UNF reprocessing
Abstract
Russian Federation is developing the key technologies for closed nuclear fuel cycle with FR used mixed uranium-plutonium nitride or oxide (MOX) fuel within the framework of the project "Proryv". This is a new integrated comprehensive product for nuclear power, which provides in the future
- no accumulation of spent nuclear fuel;
- radioactive waste management based on the principles of radiation-equivalent disposal;
- technological support for the non-proliferation treaty;
- competitiveness with other large-scale power technologies.
https://iopscience.iop.org/art…8/1742-6596/1475/1/012021gruß
bh -
na dann macht mal, wunder mich nach wie vor warum es nun einen weiteren thread nötig hat, selbige themen inklusive brennstoff und brennstoff verarbeitet/hersteller wurden bereits diskutiert ohne eigenen thread.
gruß bh
-
Key points to keep in mind:
- By Canadian 43-101 regs, a PEA can include Inferred resources, but a PFS or FS cannot. Some companies will do multiple PEAs rather than advance to higher levels of study for this reason; they can keep including Inferred resources and not have to spend a bundle drilling them off to higher confidence categories.
- A PFS can’t use Inferred resources, so it’s based on the higher-confidence Measured and Indicated (M&I) categories.
- It’s the publication of a full FS that converts M&I resources into Proven and Probable (P&P) mine reserves.
- In the US, there are no 43-101 resources. You either have P&P mine reserves, or you have nothing. In Australia, there are JORC resources similar to Canadian 43-101 resources.
- It’s common for both the NPV and IRR of a project to decline from PEA to PFS to FS. That doesn’t necessarily mean management was gilding the lily early on, though I’m sure that happens a lot. Remember that any Inferred ounces included in a PEA that don’t get drilled off to M&I standards get cut from the mine plan at the PFS level. Time also passes between PEA, PFS, and FS—and costs (almost) always go up over time.
- Very small projects often yield incredibly high IRR numbers. This is because the initial capital expenditure (capex) is small, making it easier to get high returns. However, the NPV is also small. What’s “small?” Anything less than the equivalent of 100,000 ounces of gold per year is small, and anything less than 50,000 is very small. Generally, small mines are subject to many of the same permitting problems and unwelcome surprises as large mining projects, but don’t pay as much. This is why industry veterans often pass over small projects; they fail the “go big or go home” test.
- Megaprojects tend to have lower IRRs. That’s because of their size and the higher capex needed to build them—often several billion dollars. However, the biggest miners that have been around for decades don’t have much trouble arranging financing for such projects, so the 15% minimum IRR doesn’t apply. I’m not aware of another minimum used for such projects, but I can’t remember seeing one built that had less than a 10% IRR.
- PEA, PFS, FS—none of these studies age well. If a study doesn’t result in the project promptly moving ahead, investors should beware. In the first place, if the project is as good as the study suggests, why was the company unable to advance? In the second place, contractors may become unavailable, engineering firms can get booked by others, equipment can become unavailable, and there’s always inflation. There’s no accepted rule on this, but as a speculator, I’m generally okay with a study published within the last year. If it’s two years or older—especially if it’s a FS—it should be updated.
- Metal/commodity price assumptions are—obviously—critical. A trailing three-year average price is commonly used. In a rising price environment, this is a reasonably conservative figure for most projects a junior miner might build. For long-lived projects of the sort majors might build (some mines last 30, 50, or even 100 years), I'd argue for a much longer-term average price. But watch out; in a bear market a trailing price average results in a price assumption that's higher than the current spot market price. I never bet on a project that needs current spot prices—let alone higher. Generally, the more conservative the price assumption, the more confident I am about a study's results. A project that has a great IRR well below current price levels commands my attention.
- There are many other key figures to look for in feasibility studies, including recovery rates, cash and “all-in” sustaining costs (AISC). For me, the most important one after NPV and IRR is payback. That’s the number of years it will take the mine to deliver enough cash to pay for its construction. Because commodities prices fluctuate so much—and costs always rise—the longer the payback, the weaker the value proposition. Anything less than two years is good. One year is exceptional. Three years isn’t too bad, but it’s pushing it. More than that and it becomes a reason for me not to invest. I think project financiers think similarly, which is why we often see projects that look profitable but have long payback times fail to raise the money needed to go into production.
- Because even a full feasibility study provides only an estimate, it’s appropriate to discount an NPV when evaluating a company. Yes, the NPV has a discount already built in, but getting from a discovery to profitable production is notoriously difficult. Unless we know that a project is already bigger and better than shown in its FS, a development company with a market valuation equal to the NPV is overpriced. An exploration company getting fully values for an NPV in a PFS or PEA is way overvalued. I want a discount to NPV to present me with a compelling case for capital gains… or I look elsewhere. What’s compelling? A 50% discount is enough in a fully funded, permitted project in a good mining jurisdiction. The more warts on the project and the riskier the jurisdiction, the deeper the discount it takes to interest me.
As always, the devil is in the details, but these are my main considerations when I review economic analyses of mining projects I’m thinking of speculating on.
You can think of them as a sort of cheat sheet to help you evaluate company press releases on their feasibility studies—or references to past studies in corporate presentations.
One more thing: all of this relates to economic
feasibility—not political. That’s a whole ‘nother can o’ worms I won’t
get into today. Suffice it to say for now that the NPV and IRR don’t
matter if a project is stuck in Permitting Hell and is unlikely to ever
get built.https://independentspeculator.…ibility-study-cheat-sheet
bg bh
-
hervorragender artikel von lobo
Feasibility Study Cheat Sheet
After a discovery, the key deliverable of a mineral exploration play is a positive feasibility study.
Up until then, all the drilling, testing, and other work can be encouraging, but it doesn’t provide a clear read on the most basic question: “What—if anything—is this worth?”
Given a boatload of assumptions applied to drill results, one can make a wild-a** guess about valuation. But really, anything more detailed than “this looks potentially economic,” or “this doesn’t look economic,” can’t be supported by such data.
Even with an official, 43-101-compliant resource estimate, it’s still guessing when we say what a deposit might be worth. A single factor—like an unknown metallurgical issue or an undetected source of heavy water flow—can make a project that looks like it should gush cash totally uneconomic.
That’s why we do feasibility studies before building mines—or at least, responsible companies following industry best practices do.
This starts with a preliminary economic assessment (PEA). For historic reasons, this is commonly called a “scoping study” in Australia. As the Aussie name suggests, a PEA can’t be relied on for accuracy—it just gives us an idea of the scope and potential profitability of a project. It will be chock full of assumptions about commodity prices, recovery rates, energy costs, and more. If management is smart, they’ll use conservative assumptions so the value and returns don’t plunge upon closer study.
Still, if done well, a PEA can give us a reasonable ballpark guesstimate to answer the “What’s it worth?” question.
A PEA is usually followed by a pre-feasibility study (PFS), and then a full feasibility study (FS).
You’ll see a FS sometimes called a bankable feasibility study (BFS) or a definitive feasibility study (DFS) or other variations. They’re all the same, just a different choice of words.
A PFS is a thorough engineering study based on specific project parameters. It gives us more detailed estimates of costs and returns based on an actual mine plan and process design. It still includes placeholder values, however, as prices of materials, energy, equipment, and services change a lot between a preliminary study and a construction decision.
A PFS is much more specific than a PEA, and should provide a more realistic idea of what a project might be worth.
By the time one gets to a full FS, more time has passed and there’s more data, but the key difference is that a FS includes actual cost figures quoted from the specific equipment suppliers, energy sources, construction companies, contract miners, and such that would be used to build the mine. That said, no matter how detailed a study, it’s still just a study—not reality. Even if all cost figures prove to be 100% accurate, commodity prices always fluctuate. That means that even in a full FS, the value and return figures remain estimates. They can and should be used to hold management accountable for the reality once a mine is built and in operation, but they should not be taken as gospel.
Any of these types of studies provide investors with a lot of data to chew on—so much that most non-engineers find them to be a great remedy for insomnia. I don’t want to dismiss the importance of all that work, but to keep things easier to digest, there are two key figures:- Net present value (NPV). This is a discounted cash-flow number. The discount is often 5% in safer mining jurisdictions and can be 7%, 8%, or even 10% in riskier places. That’s appropriate—and watching for inappropriate discount rates is smart. NPVs are often given pre-tax and after-tax. I always look for the after-tax number when making a comparison to a company’s market valuation.
- Internal rate of return (IRR). This is a return-on-investment figure that accounts for the discount rate applied to the NPV. Generally, it takes at least a 15% IRR to get bank financing for a project. That makes anything above 20% good. Above 30% counts as robust. Above 40% starts to get harder to believe, unless there’s some exceptional circumstance.
-
um einmal beim thema uran eine verbindung zum namen des forums zu verknüpfen:
bg bh
-
Also im Uran Thread wird imo über Bohrlöcher und die betreibenden Firmen gesprochen
den thread den du beschreibst, ist dieser:
Uranaktien: Minen, Explorer, Produzenten, Anwenderich meine:
Uran -- Märkte und Informationen
in diesem wurde mitunter ebenfalls über reactor technik geschrieben!
bg bh
-
brauchen wir ernsthaft NOCH einen thread? steht doch alles im uran thread. @Edel Man wäre es möglich das zusammenzulegen?
Angeblich soll es schon Minireaktoren geben zur Stromerzeugung fuer Doerfer oder grosse Haushalte ab 10KW Leistung
was du meinst ist eventuell das 2015 ins leben gerufene nasa kilopower projekt.
https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/kilopoweransonsten gibt es die unterscheidung:
Uran -- Märkte und Informationen[Blockierte Grafik: https://www.goldseiten-forum.com/attachment/160019-feu309cwqa4epyu-png/]
keiner wird für dörfer oder häuser einen 10kw reactor .... das ist völliger unsinn.
bg bh
-
fünf größten produzierenden down under - nach globaldata:
1. cannington(blei zink) - south 32
2. mount isa(kupfer, blei, zink, silber) - glencore
3. tritton(kupfer, gold, silber) - aeris resources
4. golden grove(kupfer, gold, blei, zink, silber) - emr capital group
5. dugald(zink, blei, silber- eine der größten zinkminen) - china minmetalshier noch ein paar links, die dir evtl. helfen könnten
https://www.bullionbypost.co.u…silver-mine-in-australia/
https://blog.iseekplant.com.au…silver-mines-in-australiabg bh
-
-
-
caspin - cpn
Yarabrook Drilling Intersects Nickel and Copper Sulphides
HIGHLIGHTS
RC drilling at the XC-22 airborne electromagnetic (AEM) anomaly intersects up to 40m zone of
disseminated nickel and copper sulphides in serpentinised ultramafics and pyroxenites.
Intersection in YARC0022 includes a 2m zone of up to 20% sulphides from 46m downhole.
Confirmation that XC-22 anomaly represents a bedrock sulphide source, striking over 500m.
Result may have implications for other AEM anomalies, prompting a review of all previous AEM
anomalies at the Yarawindah Brook PGE-Ni-Cu Project.
Third phase of AEM to cover the remainder of the project area due to commence in early December.
EIS-funded stratigraphic diamond hole completed at 1,199m with multiple zones of sulphides
intersected and lithologies supporting Caspin’s conceptual geological model.https://wcsecure.weblink.com.au/pdf/CPN/02458136.pdf
bg bh
-
https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/105078
Benton and Sokoman Announce Gold Discovery at the Grey River Gold Project, Southern Newfoundland
Assays for six of 13 core samples, "super rushed" for assay, return from 1.34 to 37.64 g/t Au.
Thunder Bay, Ontario--(Newsfile Corp. - November 25, 2021) - Benton Resources Inc. (TSXV: BEX) ("Benton") and Sokoman Minerals Corp. (TSXV: SIC) (OTCQB: SICNF) ("Sokoman"), together (the "Alliance"), are pleased to announce that preliminary results from the maiden drill program at Grey River, Newfoundland, have returned multiple drill intersections of potentially significant gold mineralization. Program highlights include:- 1,026 m completed in five holes over a four-kilometre strike length
- Widespread pyrite mineralization encountered in all holes
- 643 core samples cut and delivered for assay of which 13 samples were "super rushed" for Au analysis; six of the 13 samples "super rushed" returned from 1.34 to 37.64 g/t Au
- 630 samples are pending assay results
bg bh
-
https://www.newswire.ca/news-r…-7-million-836881108.html
Aurion Completes Brokered Offering and Non-Brokered Participation by Kinross for Aggregate Proceeds of C$16.7 Million
bg bh
-
hallo lupo, mit wem "reibst" du dich denn? habs nicht mitbekommen
lese aber bis auf uran nur noch rudimentär mit.rsg.... trauerspiel, verfolge die aber nicht mehr... "saftladen"
bg bh
-
auf die schnelle fehlt mir da aee/aura
vergleicht die mal zb. mit bmn...aee bmn dfs pfs aisc 29,80 lbs 40,30 lbs bg bh
ps. schaut mal auf die aktionäre sowie das neue management bei aee.
I would like to welcome some of our new shareholders including Mr. John Hancock, renowned
resource investor, Mr. Peter Proksa and Mr. Alex Molyneux former CEO of Paladin Energy Ltd.
https://hotcopper.com.au/docum…P5Qq6wBmZofJ8ke92GA%3D%3Djohn hancock ist der sohn von gina rinehart! -> verbindung zu RIO... woher kommt der neue ceo phil mitchell..
von rio und robert friedland(wo er das aquisition team geleitet hat).und warren mundine ist der ehemalige direktor der australischen uranium association.