Section 232 Uranium

[DanilKa + 443]

US consumes ~50MM lb of Uranium and produces ~1MM. Price of uranium is reported to be under cost of production and several operators shut down production (including Cameco's McArthur River) opting to buy from tiny spot market instead.

Two miners petitioned US Department of Commerce to force US utilities to buy 25% of their needs from domestic supply (as oppose to put tariffs on imports) - needless to say, this quota idea is not well received and lobbied against. DOC suppose to give their recommendations in April and President have 90 days to decide.

Is anyone here familiar with intricacies and detailed timeline of the process? Trying to make sense out of it and decide if investable or Kazakhstan and Russia will continue damping the market. 

[Sebastian Meana + 278]

Is not something to invest in, if you wanna to invest in the nuclear sector i would do on the nuclear manufacturing sector, companies that make reactors and develop them,

BUT, if you really want to put your money on something useful the best option would be the chemical industry, with cheap US oil and various disrupts on the international oil producers, (Nigeria is on the top of that list) Chemical companies will enjoy the possibility of getting top dollar on a worldwide market on which everyone outside the US has more expensive and lower quality feedstock

I would never invest in any kind of uranium mining, you are basically trying to get money mainly from selling something that's a waste products of various mining operations in the first place, along with thorium, is not something the world is scarce of, isn't something in high demand, and it will not be in the future, mainly for one reason

Most of Uranium is brought by nuclear companies to produce low-enrichment uranium, you take the 0.7% of the Uranium that's U-235, and for every KG of 5% enriched uranium you get around 7Kg of impoverished uranium

but is not a sustainable business

Reason: MOX Fuel and breeder reactors; most countries with nuclear energy programs plan to replace at some point their water-moderated light-water low-enriched uranium with fast spectrum Pu-239/U238 and U-233/Th232 powered reactors, when you do that you can use nearly 100% of the Uranium you mined for the reactor not the 0.7%, which means also that supposing the thermal capacities on all reactors on earth stays the same, when all reactors are replaced by breeder reactors the demand for uranium will go down by 142 times, that's an immense oversupply in the market.

Let's suppose that the nuclear worldwide capacity with breeder reactors becomes 16TWe, and those rectors will have a efficiency of 50%, if that was the case a worldwide uranium production of 12200 tons would be enough the worldwide production of uranium is already 60500 tons. And that's supposing if all nuclear fuel is uranium

and since nuclear waste disposal has become a very controversial topic engineers and companies are taking very seriously the design and manufacturing of breeder reactors, since basically you are generating money by using the waste reactors and enrichment facilities produce

[DanilKa + 443]

On 3/5/2019 at 3:54 AM, Sebastian Meana said:

Is not something to invest in, if you wanna to invest in the nuclear sector i would do on the nuclear manufacturing sector, companies that make reactors and develop them,

BUT, if you really want to put your money on something useful the best option would be the chemical industry, with cheap US oil and various disrupts on the international oil producers, (Nigeria is on the top of that list) Chemical companies will enjoy the possibility of getting top dollar on a worldwide market on which everyone outside the US has more expensive and lower quality feedstock

I would never invest in any kind of uranium mining, you are basically trying to get money mainly from selling something that's a waste products of various mining operations in the first place, along with thorium, is not something the world is scarce of, isn't something in high demand, and it will not be in the future, mainly for one reason

Most of Uranium is brought by nuclear companies to produce low-enrichment uranium, you take the 0.7% of the Uranium that's U-235, and for every KG of 5% enriched uranium you get around 7Kg of impoverished uranium

but is not a sustainable business

Reason: MOX Fuel and breeder reactors; most countries with nuclear energy programs plan to replace at some point their water-moderated light-water low-enriched uranium with fast spectrum Pu-239/U238 and U-233/Th232 powered reactors, when you do that you can use nearly 100% of the Uranium you mined for the reactor not the 0.7%, which means also that supposing the thermal capacities on all reactors on earth stays the same, when all reactors are replaced by breeder reactors the demand for uranium will go down by 142 times, that's an immense oversupply in the market.

Let's suppose that the nuclear worldwide capacity with breeder reactors becomes 16TWe, and those rectors will have a efficiency of 50%, if that was the case a worldwide uranium production of 12200 tons would be enough the worldwide production of uranium is already 60500 tons. And that's supposing if all nuclear fuel is uranium

and since nuclear waste disposal has become a very controversial topic engineers and companies are taking very seriously the design and manufacturing of breeder reactors, since basically you are generating money by using the waste reactors and enrichment facilities produce

Thanks for taking trouble to write. Your story contradicts what I'm hearing. Thorium is not even on horizon and I know of no plans to move away from current reactor designs. Price is depressed below cost of production for most operators (except Kazakhs) and this is what not sustainable. Nuclear seems to be only practical alternative to burning coal (I don't have issue with that, as long as SOx and NOx are scrubbed) and hydrocarbons (price has to spike as shale oil is more expensive to produce than current price).

Instructive read but from the bull with a vested interest: https://katusaresearch.com/the-absolute-worst-things-youll-read-about-uranium-a-katusa-short-report/

[Guillaume Albasini + 851]

If you really want to invest in the nuclear industry, invest in companies working in nuclear decommissioning.

Most nuclear plants operating in the US were designed for a life of about 30–40 years and the average age of these reactors is now 34 years. Many plants are coming to the end of their licensing period and if their licenses are not renewed, they must go through a decontamination and decommissioning process. So the decommissioning market will be huge in he coming years.

And the same can be said about the European nuclear plants.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,194]

On 3/4/2019 at 9:54 AM, Sebastian Meana said:

Business

SNIP

Reason: MOX Fuel and breeder reactors; most countries with nuclear energy programs plan to

IF Breeder reactors get designed, Uranium ore production will cease for the next 100+ years.  Countries will use the "waste" they already have piled up producing energy while gladly ridding themselves of the waste. 

Russia, China, or India will be the first to design a Breeder reactor as they can simply order it done via fiat and if it works, buy up the waste from other countries or use their own. 

Without a massive cold war to override a populaces ignorant fears stopping nuclear research progress, it will never happen in the west due to the idiots in charge of Hollywood etc who are anti science as it interferes with their perversion of choice.  With massive political upheaval in the USA/West for the next decade, for sure this will not happen anywhere in the west.  Now, when the USA stops baby sitting Europe in the coming decades and all of a sudden they figure out they have no oil, gas, and almost no coal.... Europe, will all of a sudden look towards breeder reactors.  So, maybe France, UK and of the two, my money is on France.  UK is in for a MASSIVE fall.  They produce next to nothing, import everything and the only thing they have is financing and that is going away with or without Brexit as center of financing world moves to USA/Asia.  What will be left is a giant money laundering operation for criminal gangs. 

[NickW + 2,714]

22 hours ago, Wastral said:

IF Breeder reactors get designed, Uranium ore production will cease for the next 100+ years.  Countries will use the "waste" they already have piled up producing energy while gladly ridding themselves of the waste. 

Russia, China, or India will be the first to design a Breeder reactor as they can simply order it done via fiat and if it works, buy up the waste from other countries or use their own. 

Without a massive cold war to override a populaces ignorant fears stopping nuclear research progress, it will never happen in the west due to the idiots in charge of Hollywood etc who are anti science as it interferes with their perversion of choice.  With massive political upheaval in the USA/West for the next decade, for sure this will not happen anywhere in the west.  Now, when the USA stops baby sitting Europe in the coming decades and all of a sudden they figure out they have no oil, gas, and almost no coal.... Europe, will all of a sudden look towards breeder reactors.  So, maybe France, UK and of the two, my money is on France.  UK is in for a MASSIVE fall.  They produce next to nothing, import everything and the only thing they have is financing and that is going away with or without Brexit as center of financing world moves to USA/Asia.  What will be left is a giant money laundering operation for criminal gangs. 

Meanwhile in the Real World the UK is the 9th biggest manufacturer by value. Thats not to say that the position could be a lot better but the UK isn't quite Burkina Faso - yet. 

https://www.brookings.edu/research/global-manufacturing-scorecard-how-the-us-compares-to-18-other-nations/

2015 figures

Country	Manufacturing Output (USD in billions)	Percent of National Output	Percent of Global Manufacturing
China	$2,010	27%	20%
United States	1,867	12	18
Japan	1,063	19	10
Germany	700	23	7
South Korea	372	29	4
India	298	16	3
France	274	11	3
Italy	264	16	3
United Kingdom	244	10	2
Taiwan	185	31

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,194]

19 minutes ago, NickW said:

Meanwhile in the Real World the UK is the 9th biggest manufacturer by value. Thats not to say that the position could be a lot better but the UK isn't quite Burkina Faso - yet. 

https://www.brookings.edu/research/global-manufacturing-scorecard-how-the-us-compares-to-18-other-nations/

2015 figures

Country	Manufacturing Output (USD in billions)	Percent of National Output	Percent of Global Manufacturing
China	$2,010	27%	20%
United States	1,867	12	18
Japan	1,063	19	10
Germany	700	23	7
South Korea	372	29	4
India	298	16	3
France	274	11	3
Italy	264	16	3
United Kingdom	244	10	2
Taiwan	185	31

Meanwhile here in the real world, we do not look at fluff in terms of $$$, but rather at actual industries residing in the country(manufacturing+R&D) who employ a thing called people who generate taxes instead of sucking down benefits while a couple fat cats on top get big $$$.  UK has no industries other than Aerospace and the rump of their car manufacturing which both have a miniscule manufacturing footprint but lots of $$$ for the small amount of product produced.  With Brexit, their last sector(Aerospace) is going to fall. How far?  Who knows. Will probably gain others back, but this takes decades to rebuild.

UK can't build wind turbines even though they have massive wind potential.  Seem good at importing them though... UK can't build their nuclear facilities: importing them from Japan/China, but that is ok they decided not to build a new plant after all.  Last gasp, Land Rover is going as India bought them, how much longer R&D will be done in the UK is anyones guess, but it is already moving to India.   Thankfully this is fairly easy to get back as it has not 100% left yet.  Computers/tech?  UK has none.  Robotics?  UK has none.  Heavy industry?  Gone. 

When the UK's 3rd biggest export is precious metals(gold-not mined) and gems(your mothers jewelry)... You know they are up Shit creek without a paddle.  Biggest export?  Cars which is ancient tech and can be built anywhere.  2nd? Aerospace.  After that?  A rump of petroleum industry. Everything else is WAAAAYYYYY down the list. 

Can UK feed itself? No.

Does UK have raw energy minerals?  No. 

UK has tons of wind for natural resources. 

PS: USA is not in much better position except due to size alone and it has the raw mineral resources.

[NickW + 2,714]

15 hours ago, Wastral said:

Meanwhile here in the real world, we do not look at fluff in terms of $$$, but rather at actual industries residing in the country(manufacturing+R&D) who employ a thing called people who generate taxes instead of sucking down benefits while a couple fat cats on top get big $$$.  UK has no industries other than Aerospace and the rump of their car manufacturing which both have a miniscule manufacturing footprint but lots of $$$ for the small amount of product produced.  With Brexit, their last sector(Aerospace) is going to fall. How far?  Who knows. Will probably gain others back, but this takes decades to rebuild.

UK can't build wind turbines even though they have massive wind potential.  Seem good at importing them though... UK can't build their nuclear facilities: importing them from Japan/China, but that is ok they decided not to build a new plant after all.  Last gasp, Land Rover is going as India bought them, how much longer R&D will be done in the UK is anyones guess, but it is already moving to India.   Thankfully this is fairly easy to get back as it has not 100% left yet.  Computers/tech?  UK has none.  Robotics?  UK has none.  Heavy industry?  Gone. 

When the UK's 3rd biggest export is precious metals(gold-not mined) and gems(your mothers jewelry)... You know they are up Shit creek without a paddle.  Biggest export?  Cars which is ancient tech and can be built anywhere.  2nd? Aerospace.  After that?  A rump of petroleum industry. Everything else is WAAAAYYYYY down the list. 

Can UK feed itself? No.

Does UK have raw energy minerals?  No. 

UK has tons of wind for natural resources. 

PS: USA is not in much better position except due to size alone and it has the raw mineral resources.

I wouldn't dispute the last 20 years have been a travesty as Blair and Liebour progressively deindustrialised the UK further compounded by the incompetence of the Tories from 2010. However there is still a big industrial base from which to recover if there is the political will to do so.

The Uk still manufactures 1.5 million cars per annum

The UK is still one of the biggest defence exporters in the World

The UK may not own the brand names of wind turbine manufacturers but it does build the biggest blades in the world, towers and foundations.

If the Government had properly backed Sheffield Forgemasters and Rolls Royce we could be building reactors to rival Japanese Steel Works today. That could still happen with the right support.

While Tata is moving some old production out of the UK the manufacture of the top will stay in the UK along with design and development.

Computers / Tech - we don't own the big household names admittedly but a huge amount of work is done behind the scenes on development

Heavy Industry - A few examples -  Ineos, British Steel, Sheffield Forge Masters, Croda, JCB, BAE, Anglo American, Rolls Royce

Other manufacturers - Imperial Brands, BAT, ABF, inmarsat

The biggie you forgot was Pharmaceuticals - Astra Zeneca, Glaxo plus a heavy presence of numerous foreign pharma companies

[DanilKa + 443]

On 3/6/2019 at 9:19 AM, Wastral said:

IF Breeder reactors get designed, Uranium ore production will cease for the next 100+ years.  Countries will use the "waste" they already have piled up producing energy while gladly ridding themselves of the waste. 

I don't see it happening on investment time-scale. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor

Thanks for your answer, though

[Edoardo Di Giamberardino + 6]

On 3/4/2019 at 6:54 PM, Sebastian Meana said:

Is not something to invest in, if you wanna to invest in the nuclear sector i would do on the nuclear manufacturing sector, companies that make reactors and develop them,

BUT, if you really want to put your money on something useful the best option would be the chemical industry, with cheap US oil and various disrupts on the international oil producers, (Nigeria is on the top of that list) Chemical companies will enjoy the possibility of getting top dollar on a worldwide market on which everyone outside the US has more expensive and lower quality feedstock

I would never invest in any kind of uranium mining, you are basically trying to get money mainly from selling something that's a waste products of various mining operations in the first place, along with thorium, is not something the world is scarce of, isn't something in high demand, and it will not be in the future, mainly for one reason

Most of Uranium is brought by nuclear companies to produce low-enrichment uranium, you take the 0.7% of the Uranium that's U-235, and for every KG of 5% enriched uranium you get around 7Kg of impoverished uranium

but is not a sustainable business

Reason: MOX Fuel and breeder reactors; most countries with nuclear energy programs plan to replace at some point their water-moderated light-water low-enriched uranium with fast spectrum Pu-239/U238 and U-233/Th232 powered reactors, when you do that you can use nearly 100% of the Uranium you mined for the reactor not the 0.7%, which means also that supposing the thermal capacities on all reactors on earth stays the same, when all reactors are replaced by breeder reactors the demand for uranium will go down by 142 times, that's an immense oversupply in the market.

Let's suppose that the nuclear worldwide capacity with breeder reactors becomes 16TWe, and those rectors will have a efficiency of 50%, if that was the case a worldwide uranium production of 12200 tons would be enough the worldwide production of uranium is already 60500 tons. And that's supposing if all nuclear fuel is uranium

and since nuclear waste disposal has become a very controversial topic engineers and companies are taking very seriously the design and manufacturing of breeder reactors, since basically you are generating money by using the waste reactors and enrichment facilities produce

Interesting perspective in the medium long term (5-10 years)

but in the short term what is your view on s232? Is president Trump prone to sign it ?

what is your view?

 

 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,194]

15 hours ago, Edoardo Di Giamberardino said:

Interesting perspective in the medium long term (5-10 years)

but in the short term what is your view on s232? Is president Trump prone to sign it ?

what is your view?

Just curious, why you posting about a bill(s232) curtailing/eliminated EB-5 Visa in a forum post about Uranium???

There is no investment in Uranium in the near term in any western country. 

[Edoardo Di Giamberardino + 6]

12 hours ago, Wastral said:

Just curious, why you posting about a bill(s232) curtailing/eliminated EB-5 Visa in a forum post about Uranium???

There is no investment in Uranium in the near term in any western country. 

There are listed companies that are owner of uranium mines, that could benefit from trump signature 

idk if he is going to sign it.. I was asking people’s opinion 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,194]

3 hours ago, Edoardo Di Giamberardino said:

There are listed companies that are owner of uranium mines, that could benefit from trump signature 

idk if he is going to sign it.. I was asking people’s opinion 

Tariffs on Canada(SK) and Australia for raw commodities... hrmm highly doubt it.  You will note, ALUMINUM has tariffs, but not bauxite ore...  Steel has import duties, but not iron ore. 

[DanilKa + 443]

DOC report submitted to Trump, awaits his decision - within 90 days from April 14th.

https://www.mining-journal.com/energy-minerals-news/news/1361254/section-232-uranium-review-submitted-to-trump

There is an opinion (voiced by Brandon Munro) that Uranium price will rally regarding the outcome just because uncertainty is removed.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

On 3/7/2019 at 10:40 AM, NickW said:

The biggie you forgot was Pharmaceuticals - Astra Zeneca, Glaxo plus a heavy presence of numerous foreign pharma companies

I am surprised you did not mention the marine trade.  Glasgow and Belfast remain large shipbuilders.  Mirrlees-Blackstone builds large heavy marine diesels.  There is a thriving pleasure-ship industry.  The tool and die industry is right there making good money. How about scientific instruments?  Lots of stuff gets manufactured in the UK. 

Hard to believe that, at one time, the UK totally dominated world manufacturing.  The UK shipped its rail locomotives around the planet.  Same with steam engines for stationary power.  Later for diesels.  the rail lines of the planet were constructed of British rail, British tie plates, and British spikes.  Shipping?  All British.  And today? it is surpassed by Italy.  Who would have thought?  It's been all downhill since the Battle of Trafalgar, I suppose. Oh, well. 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

On 4/12/2019 at 7:02 AM, Edoardo Di Giamberardino said:

but in the short term what is your view on s232? Is president Trump prone to sign it ?

what is your view?

S-232 is a Bill introduced and sponsored by Senator Dianne Feinstein, who is a Democrat from California.  That alone is enough to torpedo the Bill.  The idea that Donald is going to sign a Bill introduced by his political nemesis is curious.  I don't see it happening. 

[DanilKa + 443]

On 4/24/2019 at 2:27 PM, Jan van Eck said:

S-232 is a Bill introduced and sponsored by Senator Dianne Feinstein, who is a Democrat from California.  That alone is enough to torpedo the Bill.  The idea that Donald is going to sign a Bill introduced by his political nemesis is curious.  I don't see it happening. 

I think you may be mistaking proposed reform to 232 process to the particular case of Uranium. Later was petitioned to Department of Commerce by two US Ur producers and strongly opposed by Utilities. I think Trump should be thinking of a ways to stick it to Clintons with Uranium One hence imposing quota (as p[proposed) is less likely than tariffs with exemptions to "friendly" suppliers.

[Sebastian Meana + 278]

On 4/13/2019 at 12:05 PM, Edoardo Di Giamberardino said:

There are listed companies that are owner of uranium mines, that could benefit from trump signature 

idk if he is going to sign it.. I was asking people’s opinion 

The problem is that Uranium (and Thorium) is not something the world is scarce of, literally they are annoying waste products. Is not something with any future at short, medium, or long term.

in some rare earth mines for every ton of Lanthanide you get you can get up to 2 tons of Thorium and half a ton of Uranium, you can also get it by centrifugal separation of oil, and in geothermal powerplant steam filters. A Kg of Th-232 or U-238 has around 23GWh of energy on it

If there's a nuclear Renaissance is gonna be under fast breeder reactors, and fast breeder reactors need 140 times less uranium mined to produce the same ammount of energy (since you can use the 99.3% of U-238 and not the 0.07% of the U-235) that pretty much kills demand for uranium, the russians are doing it with their Bn-800,