Member Info for Playboy007

Does anyone know about the mines over in Kazakhstan. Do they have a lot of reserves, new mines being built, existing life of mines? I feel like I know a lot about the demand side and supply from Canada, Oz and US, but very little about Kazakhstan's supply side.

Thanks SDG.

Global X Ura selling off I reckon. Took a big position in Nexgen today. Anyone got any thoughts on them? (No board for them). Looks like we could see a lot more pain before our time comes. I have a habit of being a little premature.

Did I miss something? Why are all uranium plays getting hammered so much the last few days?

I was an analyst and wasn't there that long. There are some good people there, but the overall outfit feels like a boiler room. Good luck to you all. I just keep an eye on it out of curiosity. Certainly wouldn't put my money down.

I used to work here. Sell before it goes to zero would be my advice.

I haven't bought any Cora. I see the potential of the tenements. But they are already valued at £8.5m. Even if they hit something good, millions more will be needed to prove it up and that means dilution. They need to hit a 1 million ounce to justify this Mcap imo. So far

Royalty/tax Johnny boy...

Price of product rising will increase AISC. But that is a scenario I can live with. Ps NGV, get a job mate.

I except variation due to fuel prices, gold prices and exchange rates. These are the only variables one cannot accurately account for. However, the ASIC should be fairly precise when calculated by the company for particular values of these e.g. 1250 gold price. I can adjust the AISC myself as those 3 change. The CAPEX is known, the grade is known, the reserves are known, the operating contract is known, the recovery rate is known. Therefore AISC should be fairly precise. Ps. Wish I had picked up some Cora on friday, was thinking about it.

I completely disagree, the AISC should not be a guess. There will be error margins, but the proposed AISC should have contingency build in based on the probability/frequency of foreseen events happening. If the AISC is calculated well and everything goes to plan, the realised figure should come in below expectation.

Good chance Oman won't exist by the time Berkeley are producing. I womder what happens then.

I've noticed Fission Uranium and Denison are dropping like stones with the DOW. I am surprised because I considered the nuclear sector as a sort of staple. Sure electricity demand would fall if there was a global recession. The cost of electricity production from nuclear is low when the power plant has been built though. So surely uranium demand doesn't vary much during a recession? The charts I have seen show steady demand for decades. I can understand explorers might find it hard to raise funds during a recession/financial crisis. That might explain why Cameco and Berkely have held up better than Fission and Denison. Does anyone have any thoughts on how uranium miners would be effected by GFC mk2? I had thought uranium would be a safe play even during a market meltdown. I can't see that a recession alters the supply/demand story. Perhaps it is just ease of funding expectations. Assuming mines are built I can't see what would stop the log term fundamental narrative in uranium, other than another meltdown or something.

*replace "some" with "more".

PopeUrbanII, both plate tectonics and continental drift are taught on the GCSE science syllabus. You can't get some accepted than that in both cases. You clearly haven't got a clue what you are talking about. I am sorry to lower the tone, but seriously just stop.

That Pope definitely isn't a saint. You look at the relative abundances of the various isotopes and compare between different samples. You clearly don't read very carefully, because I was never the one asserting that the deposits are from the same origin or comparible. Be careful with investing in those African deposits Baht, natural fission has been known to occur, which depletes U235 and leaves U238. Only really likely in high grade deposits. I am still a little concerned of that in the new high grade Canadian deposits i.e. Arrow/Triple R. Alsays appreciate your input Baht. I'll waste no more of my time on you Godboy, if you want a lesson you'll have to pay for it!

You need to embrace the geological timescale. There were many super-continents before Pangaea. Lots of evidence, i.e. matching facies, geochemistry, isotopes...

I like this one better but only covers 250 myrs. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uLahVJNnoZ4 So imagine 12 times that amount of movement. There are diamond mines in South America and Africa, where the diamonds are identical and thought to have been formed from a meteor impact when the two continents were together. So it definitely can happen.

When you look at it on a geological time scale you'll see those bits of crust really do get around... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UwWWuttntio

Tectonic plates do move due to convection in the mantal and that is known as continental drift. Everything discovered by science is a theory, the basic concept underpinning all science is the scientific method, which assert nothing can ever be proven but you can become more confident as evidence builds. You can indeed get two deposits in very different locations that were originally formed in close proximity via the same processes. All that is besides the point when talking about the two uranium deposits. You need to be aware of how and when the deposits formed. The Earth is a dynamic system, which as Forsterite points out has been in play for billions of years. Even if two deposits formed at the same time and in close proximity they may be very different, as geochemistry can change drastically over distances of millimeters. If you look at the lithology (the rocks) and ore formation processes at the two uranium deposits it is clearly evident they were not formed at the same time, or in the same way. Not only are they not part of an archaic larger deposit, which was subsequently seperated by contintental drift, they are so different that comparison between the two is utterly pointless.