Showing posts with label Uranium. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Uranium. Show all posts

Monday, July 2, 2012

Where to BUY Uranium and other DONGS!

Where to BUY Uranium and other DONGS! Video Clips. Duration : 2.68 Mins.


things you can Do Online Now, Guys. LINKS: music by Jake Chudnow: soundcloud.com Minute Physics: www.youtube.com grow cube games: www.eyezmaze.com continuity: www.kongregate.com blosics: www.andkon.com KILL ME: www.silvergames.com Koala: koalastothemax.com 3D pong: www.addictinggames.com all 10-codes: spiffy.ci.uiuc.edu SCALE OF UNIVERSE: htwins.net CUBE ROLL: htwins.net NO WALKING: htwins.net Joe Sabia: www.joesabia.co Joe's Mario Slot Machine: www.youtube.com Joie's facebook-photo game: www.facebook.com Wikipedia article on Bob Lazar: en.wikipedia.org United Nuclear: unitednuclear.com Brain Hacks www.smashinglists.com

Keywords: DONG, plutonium, uranium, nuclear, secrets, buy, sell, bob lazar, area, 51, area 51, vsauce, michael stevens, physics, games, free, flash, java, newgrounds, user, submissions, radioactive, safety, blosics, grow cube, minute physics, Game, Video Game

Sunday, March 18, 2012

Minecraft - Mod Spotlight - Uranium Mod

Minecraft - Mod Spotlight - Uranium Mod Video Clips. Duration : 6.58 Mins.


Uranium ore and nuclear bombs are the focus of this little (fairly buggy) mod. UraniumMod 1.6 www.minecraftforum.net Title Splashscreen by Cryosignal: browse.deviantart.com

Keywords: uranium, minecraft, mod, nuclear bomb, epic, TNT, reactor, fallout, uranium ore

Monday, December 26, 2011

Depleted Uranium Training Video- DU is a WMD

Depleted Uranium Training Video- DU is a WMD Video Clips. Duration : 10.72 Mins.


Depleted Uranium IS a WMD- Depleted Uranium (DU) weaponry meets the definition of weapon of mass destruction in two out of three categories under US Federal Code Title 50 Chapter 40 Section 2302. DU weaponry violates all international treaties and agreements, Hague and Geneva war conventions, the 1925 Geneva gas protocol, US laws and US military law. The US has illegally conducted four nuclear wars in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and twice in Iraq since 1991, calling DU "conventional" weapons when in fact they are nuclear weapons. DU weapons are very effective kinetic energy penetrators, but even more effective bioweapons since uranium has a strong chemical affinity for phosphate structures concentrated in DNA. See here- www.commondreams.org Iraq to sue US, Britain over depleted uranium bombs- www.presstv.ir BBC article avoids mentioning DU-Disturbing story of Fallujah's birth defects- news.bbc.co.uk Fallujah doctors report rise in birth defects- news.bbc.co.uk US Forces' Use of Depleted Uranium Weapons is 'Illegal'- www.commondreams.org Why Weapons Containing Depleted Uranium Are Illegal- www.nukewatch.com Dennis Kucinich on Depleted Uranium- www.ratical.com Depleted Uranium- www.gulfwarvets.com Depleted Uranium Situation Worsens Requiring Immediate Action By President Bush, Prime Minister Blair, and Prime Minister Olmert- www.uruknet.info Depleted Uranium Dust - Public Health Disaster For The People Of Iraq and Afghanistan- www.globalresearch.ca

Keywords: 91177info, du, depleted, uranium, war, iraq, environment, health, nuclear, nuke, military, simpson, john, Fallujah, brown, phosphorus, evil, birth, defects, children, babies, burnt, cancer, Poison, dust, Consequences, soldiers, veterans, middle, east, tumours, 91177, info

Wednesday, November 23, 2011

Top 10 Reasons Thorium vigor Should Supplant Uranium and Coal As vigor King

Thorium has been used for years in high ability camera lenses and microwave ovens. With many other uses thorium is now destined to be crowned king as an alternative vigor source. Although technically a nuclear energy, thorium properties lend itself to many advantages over uranium - and coal. Here are the "Top 10" reasons Thorium vigor is the most alternative vigor source in the world. Four of the top ten are for the most prominent reasons. The safety and potential survival of mankind.

Safer: Thorium does not furnish plutonium thereby greatly reducing if not eliminating the risk of nuclear proliferation. Safer: Thorium does not need nuclear fuel rods erasing all danger of nuclear melt down as seen in Japan. Safer: Thorium has less than 1% of the nuclear waste as uranium - profoundly safer for storage. Safer: Thorium is used to eliminate existing piles of nuclear arms. United States and Russian scientists are working in conjunction with one another on thorium technology to reduce plutonium in Russia. Energy: One ton of thorium can furnish as much vigor as 200 tons of uranium or as much as 3,500,000 tonnes of coal. This overwhelming declaration made by Carlo Rubia of the European organization For Nuclear Research. Energy: Thorium can be recycled providing more vigor efficiency than any vigor in the world. Abundant: There is practically 3 to 4 times more thorium in the earth's crust than uranium. Cost: Thorium technology will save billions of dollars in safety and transportation cost. safety because microscopic thorium waste means savings on maintenance and nuclear waste plants. transportation because fuel, guarnatee and other associated expenditures in the converyance of nuclear waste will be miniscule in comparison to uranium. Desalinate Water: Thorium waste can desalinate salt water to supply potable water. This can be a life saver on an international scale to countries that have water shortages. Rare Earth Metals: Some thorium deposits have valuable rare earth metals in them. Neodymium is one of the most abundant of the seventeen rare earth metals known. The United States has one of the largest thorium veins in the world that is rich in neodymium.

Nuclear Reactor

Only one of the seventeen rare earth metals is surely rare. The name to chronicle these elements "rare earth metals" was given over a century ago. There wasn't enough technology then to excerpt the metals so they were believed to be rare and the name stuck.

Neodymium is arguably the most prominent of the metals because of its wide use and national safety implications. Reconsider the following: Neodymium magnets are the strongest magnets in the world and are utilized in hybrid cars, aircraft generators, wind turbines, headphones, professional loud speakers, welder's goggles, incandescent light bulbs, computer disks, lasers that emit infrared light and more.

Thorium vigor in a Molten Salt Reactor

Thorium is plainly found as thorium-232 or Th-232. When the thorium decays it absorbs neutrons which in turn causes the Th-232 to furnish U-233 - which is fission. This process of fission or the splitting apart of the atoms releases profound amounts of energy. Not to be confused with uranium-235, which is very dangerous, the U-233 while producing vigor - loses its capacity for bomb making. Nuclear proliferation is virtually eliminated development the world a safer place. The Msr or molten salt reactor is a composition of two salts in a Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor.

The acronym for this very technical reactor is Lftr and pronounced "Lifter". Although there are other thorium reactors, Lftr is being touted as the safest and most vigor sufficient of them all - and for good reason. The salt in the Lftr allows the reactor to operate at very high temperatures without causing pressurization. This means no explosions like in the Fukushima vigor Plant in Japan. Thorium vigor is the most alternative vigor source in the world. It reproduces or recycles vigor from its former source rendering uranium and coal practically useless in comparison. With vigor efficiency levels at 200 to over 3 million times greater than uranium and coal respectively, thorium is the wave of our vigor future.

Do you think this may be why India has already built a multi-billion dollar thorium vigor plant?

Top 10 Reasons Thorium vigor Should Supplant Uranium and Coal As vigor King

Thursday, November 3, 2011

Uranium to Head North of $500/Pound?

Legendary stock picker James Dines recently compared uranium stocks to the high-flying net stocks of the halcyon days of the Internet expansion era. While the much-hyped and fleeting Y2K accident never materialized, the U.S. Power accident for very sought uranium has been developing for more than twenty years. Still early in the current bullish uranium cycle, investors are scoring triple-digit returns on what some are calling a 'renaissance in nuclear energy.'

Just as investors caught the curve of a new paradigm in communications and industry with Internet stocks, many early birds have already begun investing in the nuclear Power story. The nuclear story pitch is simple: How do you accommodate a immense rush for electrical power examine while faced with the dire threat of carbon dioxide emissions and its direct impact on global warming? The growing consensus is that fission-based nuclear power may come to be the significant stop-gap Power alternative for this century and possibly until trustworthy technologies can effectively contribute the means for renewable-sourced energy.

Nuclear Reactor

Nearly 2 billion population across the planet have no electricity. The World Nuclear connection (Wna) believes nuclear Power could cut the fossil fuel burden of generating the new examine for electricity. The Wna forecasts a 40-percent jump in worldwide electricity examine over the next five years. The world's most populated countries, China and India, are in the process of creating the largest energy-consuming class in the history of earth. Both plan aggressive nuclear Power expansion programs. Dozens of lesser advanced countries, from Turkey and Indonesia to Vietnam and Venezuela, have announced their eagerness to pursue a civilian nuclear procedure to benefit power needs for their burgeoning middle classes.

In a nutshell, global utilities are going to need uranium to help feed the expanding amount of nuclear power plants proposed over the next twenty years. Herein lays the crisis: the world has been living off rapidly dwindling inventories since the last uranium up cycle. Uranium is now in shorter available contribute for civilian Power use than ever before. Over the next decade, as examine continues to outstrip supply, analysts are predicting utilities will snap up known uranium inventories sending spot uranium prices to report highs. While this commence phase, investors have taken notice, chasing up the stock prices of many uranium producers and exploration companies.

Uranium Prices May Reach "Unbelievable Highs"

Toronto-based Sprott Asset management explore analyst, Kevin Bambrough, told Stockinterview.Com, "There is a good possibility of a contribute crunch that could drive uranium prices to imaginable highs." assorted analysts predict price targets for spot uranium, in the near-term, above . Canadian Augen Capital Corp's managing director David Mason speculated, "0 (Us) a pound is within hypothesize within the next year or two." Sydney-based resource Capital explore is half as generous, forecasting /pound by 2007, explaining another 40 percent jump in spot uranium prices will be "driven by end users in the power generation market which is urgently trying to gain contribute into the future."

How high could spot uranium prices run? Kevin Bambrough made a hypothetical case for uranium trading north of 0. "It's a ridiculous price," Bambrough confided. "It's hard to hypothesize if this is even going to happen." While he admits that price would not be sustainable, Bambrough makes an captivating point about the concerns facing utility companies, charged with providing us with our electricity. In his futuristic scenario, Bambrough speculated, "There's a opening that some facilities will have to pick shutting down their nuclear plants (if they can not gain uranium to fuel the facility)." On that basis, Bambrough calculated the operating costs of a nuclear installation versus the operating cost of a competing fuel. In his conjectural model, Bambrough used natural gas priced at .

Bambrough explained, "Assuming that the coal-fired plant's operating capacity, before you would basically shut down a nuclear facility, you would be comparing it to what you would have to bring on, which would be natural gas. If there is a shortage there (with natural gas), what price would it take before I am willing to shut down my nuclear facility? If you were to shut off the nuclear capacity, and fire up more gas to replace it, it would send gas prices through the stratosphere." And that doesn't factor in the cost of shutting down a nuclear facility, itself an exorbitant process. The analyst said he reached his calculation of "north of 0/pound" for spot uranium, under an astounding accident contribute crunch, by answering this question: "How much would population pay before they shut it (a nuclear plant) down if there is a shortage of uranium?"

Bambrough's point illustrates that, unlike coal or natural gas, the cost of uranium in the nuclear fuel cycle is minimal. Thus, uranium is branch to an ever greater price rise without the blowback of buyer panic found in rising fossil fuel prices. Uranium prices might have to advent the level of Bambrough's hypothetical forecast before even registering concern on an commonplace consumer's radar.

Despite the up-to-date parabolic rise in spot uranium prices, Bambrough doesn't foresee the uranium frenzy peaking until the years 2013-2015. What will happen then? "There's a good opening that the Heu bargain won't be renewed," said Bambrough. "Russia may not be selling their uranium. The Russians may want to hold onto what they have." And if they do sell, they may not sell to the U.S. In 2004, U.S. Utilities imported more than 80 percent of their uranium supplies from foreign sources. "It could be that the Russians are curious in trying to build nuclear plants for other countries and be in that business," he suggested. "That may go hand in hand with 'we're going to build you the installation and we can warrant you supply.' And Russia would be using the equilibrium of that uranium for their domestic needs." Bambrough also cited the question of mines expiring in the face of a possible new demand.

He concluded, "There are time lags to bring new production on versus what needs to be replaced in that 2013 period." The International Atomic Power branch forecast nuclear electrical generating capacity to soar by more than 40 percent by the year 2030, which may supplementary drive examine for tight uranium resources, especially While the period of Bambrough's forecasted period.

Historical cycles maintain spot prices higher than /pound, a level above where uranium may hover for any years. The current cycle of rising uranium prices closely parallels the leap which occurred in the middle of February 1975 and April 1976. Spot uranium prices soared from to /pound While that 15-month period. While the 1970s cycle, uranium steadily rose from .75/pound in November 1973, peaking in July 1978 at .40/pound. Uranium held above /pound for nearly four years from April 1976 through February 1980. In this cycle, uranium prices bottomed at .40 in January 2001, creeping higher into 2004. Since late last year, spot uranium prices soared with the same momentum seen thirty years ago. If history repeats itself, spot uranium prices should trade above /pound this year, and stay above that level until the end of this decade or possibly for a longer stretch.

The key yardstick in determining how much higher uranium prices will climb is by holding track of the amount of new nuclear facilities being constructed or proposed. Estimates vary wildly, from as few as thirty by 2020 to more than 150 before 2050. "A few years ago, when we first started investing in uranium," Bambrough explained. "There were very few plants being proposed. The numbers have doubled for proposed facilities. And for every one you hear about, there's a lot more being planned." That puts uranium miners into an enviable position. Bambrough added that utilities have to gain their fuel contribute for up to six years out, once they settle to build a nuclear facility. "The fact is the contribute is just not there," warned Bambrough.

According to the U.S. Power information Administration, "Cumulative unfilled uranium requirements for U.S. Civilian nuclear reactors for 2005 through 2014 were reported to be 365 million pounds U3O8e. The quantity of maximum deliveries of uranium for the same period under existing purchase contracts totaled 181 million pounds." Nearly 67 percent of the maximum imaginable market requirements for uranium lack a contract. Over the next decade, U.S. Utilities will need to newly purchase more than 36 million pounds of uranium oxide each year, on average, in order to keep their nuclear power plants running. Agreeing to the branch of Power website, contracted purchases from all suppliers precipitously falls in 2007 below 40 million pounds. By 2008, the amount of contracted uranium sinks below 20 million pounds.

In short, U.S. Utilities may soon be scrambling for uranium list to fuel their nuclear reactors, or face the "ridiculous price(s)" explore analyst Kevin Bambrough warned about. An citation from The International Atomic Power Agency's booklet, pathology of Uranium contribute to 2050, bears out Bambrough's thesis, "As we look to the future, presently known resources fall short of demand." The deficit in the middle of newly mined uranium and reactor examine has averaged about 40 million pounds annually over the past decade, cannibalizing existing inventories. As we begin 2006, the supply/demand imbalance has reached a significant phase.

Where Will the Uranium Come From?

In his September 2004 presentation to the World Nuclear Association, Thomas L. Neff of Mit's town for International Studies, stated, "The net succeed of nearly twenty years of list liquidation is that existing higher-cost suppliers were driven out of business, new mines were discovered from starting, and exploration was neglected." Neff warned in his conclusion, "The question is the one to two decades that will be needed to strengthen (production) capacity and build the flow of nuclear fuel that meet the expanding requirements horizon."

The 1970s price spike in uranium was diminutive because existing uranium mines were speedily ramped up to contribute utilities with fuel. Neff noted, "This is not the case today and a longer period of high prices could prevail." In Neff's analysis, uranium prices would have risen well above 0/pound in the mid 1970s, using constant 2004 Us$. On that basis, Bambrough's hypothetical forecast above 0/pound may be not too far out of reach. Neff summarized why the question has reached a significant stage, "We are currently facing the consequences of what may be the largest sustained discrepancy in the middle of expectations and reality in the 60 year history of uranium."

Kevin Bambrough offered some diminutive relief for the uranium list problem, "There are a amount of mines advent on, and there are talks of expansion." He gave Australia's Olympic Dam as one example, and added, "There's lots of talk about big production advent on in Kazakhstan, but I've also heard reports saying that's very optimistic." The International Atomic Power branch (Iaea) is less sanguine, "Lead times to bring major projects into doing are typically in the middle of eight and ten years from discovery to start of production. To this total, five or more years must be added for exploration and discovery." The Iaea doesn't foresee relief until 2015 to 2020.

For the time being, U.S. Utilities are forced to bide their time while they continue to rely in general upon newly mined uranium imported from Canada or Australia. Once the world's largest uranium producer, the estimated recoverable reserves in the United States now ranks but eighth in the world with four percent of known global reserves. Those 125,000 tonnes of uranium would contribute 250 million pounds of uranium, far less than the unfilled maximum requirement for U.S. Utilities over the next decade. The majority of domestically mined uranium now comes in general from Wyoming, Texas and Nebraska. Permitting operations are progressing in New Mexico, once the country's largest producer of uranium, which may come to be a significant uranium victualer later this decade.

"For population who want to bring on new (nuclear) facilities and contract for it, it's very difficult to do that," said Bambrough. "You have to go to mines that are not even there yet in order to try and contract supply." In this light, it appears the greatest opening will appear with the junior uranium companies, which obtained known uranium resources While the last down cycle, and whose operators abandoned such properties because of low prices. As Neff warned in his presentation, "Uranium prices have recently reversed a twenty year decline, apparently surprising many buyers and sellers." Buyers will be combing the same company lists investors scan. Just as investors will be racing to find the best uranium juniors for speculation purposes, utility buyers and uranium traders will be scrambling to identify which company could contribute them with a long-term uranium supply.

How Can Investors Profit?

Bambrough recalled compiling a worldwide list, in 2003, of a mere 25 fellowships captivating in uranium mining and exploration. "I cut the list down to around ten that looked to be promising," said Bambrough. "I'd say that today there are still less than 30 uranium fellowships that gift a good reward-to-risk ratio considering the immense move the sector has made." Depending upon whose list you believe, the amount of fellowships now mining or exploring for uranium stretches to about 200. The majority trade on either the Canadian or Australian stock exchanges.

So how do you isolate the possible winners from the also-ran's? "People in the industry sort of know who's real and who's not," said Bambrough. "I think a lot of the pure exploration fellowships are more likely to fall on tough times." Bambrough cautioned, "I think there will be a real disjunction in the middle of the have's and the have-not's, those who positively have uranium and economic deposits. A lot of exploration fellowships are more likely to fall on tough times. Those are the ones that will get hurt because they don't have whatever to fall back upon. They have to go to market to keep raising money to do the costly drilling that needs to be done. It costs so much." Miller added, "It will take exploration funds, good geology, and some luck to find new uranium deposits in these frontier areas. The success rate of each personel hope will be far less than 1 in 100."

What sort of fellowships has Sprott Asset management invested in? Bambrough responded, "We have beloved to spend in fellowships that have acquired properties that were once owned and were actively being worked by majors at the end of the 70's bull market." He added, "The cost of uranium exploration is so large there is great value built into many of these properties. Specifically, millions of dollars worth of drilling work and data have been collected on some properties. In some cases, mining shafts have been built that only need rehabilitation at a fraction of the cost of starting fresh with a green fields project." another example of what he does and doesn't like, "The guys that picked up stuff in the last year, when they saw the uranium boom, they just said, 'I'm going to go grab some land.' I have greater trust in the guys that have been there for a longer period of time, bought things when they were being thrown away at the lows, and waiting for the uranium price to rise."

Bambrough shared a few of his popular uranium stocks. "Of the fellowships that we own, we own a larger ration of Strathmore Minerals (Tsx: Stm; Other Otc: Sthjf) than roughly any other company," said Bambrough. "We think they've got some great properties. They were guys who got into the game very early, and who have skills as they do with David Miller (president and chief operating officer of Strathmore Minerals) in insight the uranium business. And they have a very large amount of databases, as does Power Metals Corporation, which is very significant in insight the properties." Both Strathmore Minerals and Power Metals have properties in New Mexico and Wyoming. "I think the hereafter for New Mexico is quite good," Bambrough noted, "as well as Isls in Texas and Wyoming." Said Strathmore's president, David Miller, "Strathmore is the only company to open an office up in New Mexico dedicated to bringing properties into production. The office is staffed by two veteran uranium men, John Dejoia, Vp of Technical Services and Juan Velazquez, Vp of Environmental and Government Affairs. They have a amount of subcontractors doing assorted required work to bring projects forward to gain permits to mine."

Another Sprott Asset management popular is Tournigan Gold Corp (Tsx: Tvc). "You look at a past producing region," Bambrough pointed out. "They went and got old mines." Tournigan recently drilled the historic Jahodna uranium resource in Slovakia, once drilled by the Russians. The company also holds uranium properties in Wyoming and recently acquired uranium properties in South Dakota. He also likes Western Prospector (Tsx: Wnp), saying, "Western Prospector has gone through areas where in some cases, there are shafts there that were dug by the Russians. A lot of work was previously done." Others rounding out Bambrough's beloved list of juniors contain Paladin Resources (Tse: Pdn) and Aflease, now trading as Sxr Uranium One (Tse: Sxr). "We also have a bit of speculation in the Labrador area, and very small, in general in Altius (Tsx: Als)," added Bambrough. "It's something we're watching. We think it's a promising area."

Where the action Is

The more adventurous price action may be found in the ongoing consolidation within the uranium sector. Bambrough observed, "There appear to be a few aggressive junior uranium fellowships that seem to be captivating forward and working to build a 'major' company." In November, one uranium exploration company, Power Metals Corporation (Tsx: Emc) began takeover procedures to gain two other uranium juniors, Quincy (Tsx: Qui) and proper Uranium (Tsx: Urn). proper Uranium has since traded nearly 70 percent higher. "There are population who have neighboring properties, and it makes sense for them to come together," advised Bambrough.

In late December, another of Bambrough's popular uranium companies, Strathmore Minerals (Tsx: Stm; Other Otc: Sthjf), announced it had "engaged National Bank Financial as its exclusive financial adviser to communicate transaction alternatives to maximize shareholder value from its uranium assets." Questioned about this news release, Ceo Dev Randhawa told StockInterview.com, "National Bank has the best technical team and will help us reach the right decision to maximize the benefit to our shareholders." In a December 7th note to his subscribers, Canaccord's David Pescod wrote, "We talked to Dev Randhawa of Strathmore Minerals because Strathmore seemed to be the one company on most people's list as an distinct take-out target. When we talked to Dev, obviously he wouldn't be adverse to a take-out as long as the price is right, and he even gives us a 50/50 bet that they won't be around in the next six to twelve months." In a 2005 explore report, the Cohen Independent explore Group set a price target of C.29/share for Strathmore Minerals, based upon the current spot uranium price.

How does Bambrough envision the uranium bull market unfolding for investors? "I think the market could positively use more large cap uranium companies, since large fund managers currently can positively only look to Cameco (Nyse: Ccj) and Power Resources of Australia (Asx: Era) to get exposure to the uranium market," said Bambrough. "There are any junior fellowships that should come together to form large uranium fellowships to leverage their very significant skilled personnel, lower the exorbitant costs of permitting and exploration, and achieving other economies of scale." How soon would it be before a larger company, combining some of these promising juniors, reaches listed status on the New York exchange? "I would guess that a Nyse listing may not come until 2007 or 2008," responded Bambrough. "I think that when the tap comes for a lot of these companies, it will come to those that are in production. You'll be able to see a nice production profile, any projects, diversification, cash flows, and a nice pipeline of projects."

As for the roughly 200 uranium exploration fellowships that have sprouted up in less than two years, Bambrough advised, "I don't understand why population would put so much money into grassroots properties when there are properties that were (already) worked on, and you can continue on their work. The idea is we are lasting on those projects rather than going grassroots. It's the logical place to go for me." Bambrough is still enthusiastic about the uranium sector and complete his remarks, saying, "I expect that we will see a great out doing by potential uranium fellowships as they move their projects forward. We still see some imaginable values and are still actively investing in the space. We are still in the early days of the uranium bull market."

Copyright © 2007 by StockInterview, Inc. All possession Reserved.

Uranium to Head North of 0/Pound?

Thursday, September 29, 2011

A 'Call' On The Price of Uranium?

Interviewer:

Before we talk about the potential of uranium shortages and the steep price rise in that energy source, could you explain how you got started with this idea, and what is the doctrine behind Strathmore's acquisition program of uranium properties?

Nuclear Reactor

Dev Randhawa:

Several years ago, Strathmore Minerals started with the idea of acquiring properties "out of the money" at very cheap prices in the confidence that the uranium prices would recover so that our assets would be worth more. No one was paying attention to the commodity we chose: uranium. Strathmore Minerals is basically a call on the price of uranium. That's how we started the company. This strategy is similar to what Lumina Copper (Amex: Lcc) used and what Silver proper used. For example, the chairman of Silver proper Resources (Nasdaq: Ssri) is on our board of directors. Our first step was to buy every pound we could for as cheaply as possible. The second step is to buy asset that we think we can put into production. We are actively seeing for those.

Interviewer:

But uranium has a noteworthy environmental stigma. Why, then, are you enthusiastic about this type of energy source?

Dev Randhawa:

As with most people, when I began investigating uranium, I understanding this was bad stuff. I understanding of Three Mile Island and all things else. The more homework I did on this, the more I realized that nuclear power is clean and safe. That is primarily what uranium is used for now. It should be known that no one ever died at Three Mile Island. No one authentically died at Chernobyl. Yes, habitancy got sick. Compare that to coal or the oil spills in the fossil fuel sector, and the damage it has done to the environment. The problem is no one is championing nuclear energy. Frankly, the "greenies" have done a great job of burying the story. As I did homework, I found out France relies on nuclear power for about 78 to 80 percent of its electricity needs. I realized that somebody did a great job lobbying and built a very unhealthy photo toward uranium, when authentically it's needed. We don't talk about the cost of coal. We don't talk about global warming. But, look at what coal has done. Global warming is a function of fossil fuels. That is why you are seeing a growing unavoidable response to nuclear power. For example, one firm has applied to put a new nuclear reactor into the Us.

Interviewer:

To what do you attribute the recent, steep price rise in uranium?

Dev Randhawa:

Since last year, the price of uranium (U3O8) has climbed back steeply back up. At one point, the price was entertaining up about /pound per month. Uranium's price is more in line with the price of oil as opposed to other commodities. For a long time, we've only produced on the mean about 90 million pounds, when we needed 140 (million pounds). There's been an imbalance for a amount of years. This extra came from foreign sources, or from internal Us inventories. Since the 1980s, we've been using more uranium than we have been producing in the western world. As a result, the extra that we've needed has come from Russia, the Us government or list that utilities had.

Interviewer:

But most investors, let alone the consumer, don't know that uranium's spot price has nearly tripled, since bottoming three years ago. Why is that?

Dev Randhawa:

Uranium only makes up one percent of the cost of running a nuclear reactor. The biggest factor in why uranium prices can go up, even more rapidly than gold, is that uranium is insensitive to its use. Uranium prices can go much higher. In casual conversations with a few Toronto analysts, some believe it can go up to or 0/pound. For example, if the price of gold tomorrow went to 0/ounce, it will sway someone's purchasing decision. The guy might say, "I was going to buy this ring and now it's up 70 percent because the price of gold is up. Maybe I will buy a silver ring instead." The same occurs with other commodities. habitancy may convert their purchasing decision based on a commodity price doubling.

If the price of uranium went to /pound, the mean consumer's electricity bill might go up a few dollars. It is not going to force person to turn off their power. However, if the price of oil doubled tomorrow, many of us would be driving smaller vehicles. It would make a fundamental variation in how we behave. That's not going to happen with the price of uranium. It's like buying pencils for your office. It's not going to convert the way you do business. Even if no nuclear reactors come onboard for the next few years, the ones already there will need the pounds (of uranium). We have a shortage advent up.

Interviewer:

Why do you believe a uranium shortage is in the cards?

Dev Randhawa:

Bottom line is: the nuclear reactors are going to run out of fuel. You have to know that permitting takes a long time in the uranium industry. It's not like seeing a gold asset tomorrow and maybe two years from now you are pouring gold. Typically, the permit takes at least three years out. Because nuclear reactors need it, that's what is causing the price rise. Inquire has kept going higher, but production has fallen off the chart. In this business there are only about half a dozen clubs exploring for uranium. At one time, back in the late 1970s and early 1980s, there were approximately 150 uranium companies. There hasn't been any incommunicable mining since the early 1990s. And that doesn't even comprise a wild card: there has been talk that by 2020, 90 percent of the nuclear reactors advent onboard will be for China.

Interviewer:

And what would reverse uranium's steep price rise?

Dev Randhawa:

The only thing that could kill this shop would be if Russia discovered it had a lot more pounds to sell. Or the Us government, straight through Useg, came up with more pounds. When we first entered the market, eight years ago uranium rose to nearby -/pound. Then it fell. What happened was the U.S. Government sold their uranium to a incommunicable group, who turned nearby and dumped it into the market, from then until last year. In October of last year, the Russians were also dumping uranium onto the shop for their hard cash.

Interviewer:

If change value for uranium comes in the form of exploration costs to find and mine this energy source, what would that cost be?

Dev Randhawa:

Realistically, it would be to /pound. I know some are going to say they can do it for less. By the time you take your exploration costs, improvement costs, and so on, you authentically need to get to for most properties to go into production and still make money. That's why most of what you see in the shop are Isl (in situ leach) projects. On one asset we discovered, it would cost between and / pound to pull it out of the ground. But on others, it might take - 22/pound to pull it out of the ground, after labor costs and sell it on a transmit contract. Canada is producing the most uranium because of the grades. Some say Canada has the lowest cost, but that's not quite accurate. What they mean to say is that the cash costs are the lowest. habitancy forget that it costs up to billion to put some of these into production. Cameco (Nyse: Ccj) was a beast of the government at one time. They were treated that way.

Interviewer:

Earlier you noted that investing in Strathmore Minerals was "basically a call on the price of uranium." Can you explain what you meant by that?

Dev Randhawa:

As uranium prices, the share price of Strathmore Minerals should rise. If you look at Bema (Amex:Bgo), when gold prices were at 5/ounce, what was it worth? As the price of gold moved up, it had value. Has it gone into production yet? No. Silver proper (Nasdaq:Ssri) is similar, but it has had to tell its story because habitancy are so focused on gold. The key for investors is not to go where the crowds go, but to go where you can find value. If you believe that nuclear power is the place to be, and the shortage is real, you have got to own uranium stocks.

Interviewer:

What sets Strathmore Minerals apart from any other exploration clubs in this sector?

Dev Randhawa:

I challenge any junior exploration firm to show an individual who has authentically put an Isl (in situ leach) uranium mine into production, along with Cameco. They just aren't nearby because the business has been dead since the early 1980s. There aren't many experts left in this business. The last standing geologist, which Cogema had, was David Miller, who is now working with Strathmore Minerals, as our head consultant. He is the one who has put the Strathmore strategy together. We've been seeing in southern and eastern Africa. Strathmore is going wherever there are pounds that others have overlooked. Our contentious edge is a database we acquired from Kerr McGee (Nyse: Kmd), which used to be amount one in the uranium industry. Recently, we announced properties in Wyoming that could be satellite Isls. We have enough pounds there that we could throw one of them into production. But we still need higher prices. We are still in the acquisition stage.

Strathmore is going to be very aggressive in picking up properties that we think have pounds in the ground or smaller properties that we think can be Isl-able in the Us. all things we're seeing at in the Us is for Isl. In Canada, we have over 700,000 hectares in the Athabascan region. That's a major asset for us. It's one of the richest areas in the world for uranium. Some of our targets are near existing mines. In Quebec, we've got a large asset that was drilled by Uranerz. Robert Quartermain has authentically been a part of that strategy. That's what he did with Silver Standard, and that's what we're doing here. We are aggressively going after properties. When sophisticated investors meet our team, they see the story we've got and they see our management. You'll see why we were able to millions of dollars in financings. Our strategy has been to buy the has-been properties, the low fruit in all the trees. And that's what we've been doing.

*****************************************

Devinder Randhawa

Mr. Randhawa founded Strathmore Minerals Corp. In 1996 and is currently the Company's Ceo. Mr. Randhawa also founded and is currently the President of Rd Capital Inc., a conspiratorially held consulting firm providing venture capital and corporate finance services to emerging clubs in the resources and non-resource sectors both in Canada and the Us. Prior to founding Rd Capital Inc., Mr. Randhawa was in the brokerage business for 6 years as an venture counselor and corporate finance analyst. Mr. Randhawa was at one time the President of Lariat Capital Inc. Which merged with Medicure in November 1999 and the was the founder and former President and Ceo of Royal County Minerals Corp. Which was taken over by Canadian Gold Hunter (formerly International Curator) in July 2003. Mr. Randhawa also founded Predator Capital Inc., which became Predator Exploration. Mr. Randhawa received a Bachelors Degree in firm management with Honors from Trinity Western College of Langley, British Columbia in 1983 and received his Masters in firm management from the University of British Columbia in 1985.

Copyright © 2007 by StockInterview, Inc. All rights Reserved.

A 'Call' On The Price of Uranium?

Tuesday, September 13, 2011

Is the Navajo Nation President Being a Hypocrite about Uranium Mining

According to the U.S. Vigor information Administration, about 80 percent of the electricity in New Mexico is generated each year by burning coal. The irony is that the dominant anti-nuclear group in New Mexico, Southwest study and information center (Sric), has shown no evidence of denouncing coal consumption. Agreeing to Don Hancock, an Sric Administrator who directs the non-profit organization's Nuclear Waste safety Program, the group's "spiritual mentor" is John W. Gofman. The old nuclear physicist is an aging, eccentric author who was discredited by the Atomic Vigor Commission and was branded by the nuclear power manufactures as "beyond the pale of reasonable communication." As a kind gesture, Hancock gave us a copy of a Gofman "cartoon book," whose theme revolves nearby Thoreau's essay, "Civil Disobedience." someone else cosmic ally is Amory B. Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute, a beloved Don Hancock icon.

While Gofman championed solar Vigor in his hey day, Lovins presently espouses hydrogen as a primary clarification for transportation, wind, and increasing efficiency straight through natural gas. However, neither wind power nor solar Vigor is a relevant Vigor source in New Mexico. Hydroelectricity supplies about 0.7 percent of New Mexico's electricity generation. Despite the hoopla and hyperbole, all of other renewable Vigor sources combined contribute New Mexico with a mere 0.6 percent of its electricity. Coal is, in a very big way, the fantastic infer why New Mexicans are not living in darkness and without heat or air conditioning.

Nuclear Reactor

According to the Harvard School of collective Health, about 2400 population die every year from the air pollution caused from each million tons of sulfur dioxide emitted. In 1999, it is estimated that over 1.05 billion tons were produced, releasing 11.856 million tons of sulfur oxides and more than 5 million tons of nitrous oxides. Having personally inspected the first floor library of Sric headquarters, no anti-coal mining literature was discovered. There appears to be scant fund-raising interest from these environmental activists to close down New Mexico's large coal mines. In fact, more U.S. Coal mining deaths were reported in 2005 than deaths from uranium mining (zero). StockInterview.com heard no worries at Sric over the blackening of coal miner's lungs, but the staff appeared very implicated over the radon gas emitted from uranium mining. Uranium mining in New Mexico came to a standstill about twenty years ago. Coal mining continues as it has for seven decades.

Don't expect the coal mines of New Mexico to be ended any time soon, though. No matter how deadly coal mines are, coal production is irreplaceable at this time. Agreeing to the New Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources, tax revenues from coal in 2001 exceeded million. Nearly one-half of the state's Vigor needs are met straight through coal-generated power. The coal manufactures employed 1,800 population in 2001. New Mexico is the country's leader for methane gas production from coal beds. Coal is the state's third largest source of revenues.

An Epa Toxic issue inventory article published in 2000 reported that two power plants and their coal mines in New Mexico's San Juan County released 13 million pounds of chemical toxins into the Four Corner's area (New Mexico, Arizona, Utah and Colorado). It was also reported that 6.5 million tons of solid waste was buried by the two San Juan County power plants on their sites or at nearby coal mines. Those airborne toxins were miniscule compared to over 300 million pounds of other emissions, such as particulates and nitrogen dioxide released into the air, and which can trip for hundreds of miles. Reports confirm those power plants were among the worst polluters in the United States. The eighth worst emitter was Giant Refining, about 17 miles from Gallup, New Mexico, which emitted 608,000 pounds Agreeing to the Epa report. Any visitor to the Gallup area can facilely smell the stench circulating in the air.

Does Navajo Nation President Joe Shirley Jr Have duplicate Standards?

Why haven't the Navajo banned coal mining on the reservation as they have uranium mining? Agreeing to Anna Frazier, a Navajo affiliated with a local environmental group, "Our Navajo Nation is precisely not going to do that. They would rather have the revenues arrival in from the coal clubs and the power plants." Agreeing to a news article published in Indian Country newspaper, "The Navajo Nation receives the bulk of its annual 0 million operating expenses from royalties, leases and taxes from its coal, oil and gas. These revenues contribute operational expenses for the tribal government, including the salaries of the 88-member Navajo Nation Council, the tribe's annual budgets show."

For more than 35 years, Peabody Vigor has operated gigantic mines on Navajo territory. The closure of one such coal mine, the Black Mesa, sent the Navajos rushing for their Maalox. Ironically, it was environmental activists that forced Southern California Edison to close their Mojave Generating center nearly 300 miles away in Laughlin, Nevada. The utility was given a choice: cough up billion to stop polluting the Grand Canyon or shut it down. It had been called "one of the dirtiest coal plants in the West," and air emissions from that plant reportedly polluted half a dozen other national parks in the Southwest. But, that coal mine provided about 15 percent of the Navajo's annual budget. George Hardeen, the Navajo president's media voice, complained about the mine conclusion last October, "This is going to have a terrible succeed on this entire region because the Navajo cheaper is so fragile."

John Dougherty complained about the Navajo Nation's tactics in the Phoenix New Times newspaper in March 2005, observing, "Environmental groups have long exploited the Native American tradition of sacred places to fight their battles to sustain wilderness areas...It's always the soulful Native American who steps transmit as the high clergyman of sacred geography. In the background lurks the environmentalist adequate with charts and data on tree-trunk diameters and spotted-owl nesting sites." Dougherty concluded, "The cries of environmental destruction and cultural murder from Navajo and Hopi leaders ring hollow."

What are not going to be ringing at all will be the cash registers at Albertsons supermarket in Bullhead City, near Laughlin (Nevada), which ended down this week. That's because the Mojave power center ended as advertised because of the dirty Black Mesa coal. Mike Conner, president of the Bullhead Area room of Commerce, said, "The community will be devastated." across the river in Laughlin, Buddy Borden of the University of Nevada at Reno told a group of community leaders the area "will take an practically million hit" in lost power plant payrolls. The factory will lay off 375 employees, who had an median annual wage of ,000. Like dominoes falling, jobs in Nevada, Arizona and in the Navajo Nation were lost.

Recently, Navajo president Joe Shirley Jr. Thought about replacing funds shortfalls with casinos, four in Nevada and two in New Mexico. Last March, Senator John McCain forecast the Navajo casinos would fail because of their remote locations. Shirley quipped back in the Arizona Republic newspaper, "I beg to differ with him." One coal mine that won't be on the Navajo reservation is the first to receive an operating permit in six years. Peabody Vigor announced a coal mine on Lee Ranch, one of New Mexico's largest landowners. It is projected to produce 102 million tons of coal over the next thirty years.

For the time being, the Navajos hope to solve their economic quagmire by just putting up more casinos across a New Mexico landscape, already replete with "truck stop casinos." One can soon get bored guessing when the next casino will surface while driving across whether Interstate 40 or I-25, the state's main arteries. First you see a sign announcing which tribal land you are entering, then the ubiquitous billboard describing which has-been musical act is "now appearing," and then finally the mixture truck stop, casino, restaurant(s) and allowance smoke shop whizzes by. One aging Navajo told us, "It's bad for the families, and it sets a bad example for the younger ones."

On Navajo reservation land and just in New Mexico alone, Joe Shirley Jr may operate more than 75 million pounds of uranium, with a gross value presently exceeding .7 billion. Some say the estimate could run much higher, into the hundreds of millions of pounds. Don't expect Mr. Shirley to over turn his ban on uranium any time soon. Dr. Fred Begay, a Navajo and nuclear physicist at Los Alamos, whose vocation has been featured on Bbc Television and in the pages of National Geographic and famed by the New York Academy of Science, explained the problem, "The Navajo don't get it. They think that they'll have miners. They have illiteracy on mining and uranium." Dr. Begay clarified that the Navajo have failed to differentiate in the middle of accepted uranium mining and Isl operations, which he considers safe, "They think that miners are going in there and digging it out."

Perhaps the illiteracy about mining extends to geochemistry. Coal is big money in New Mexico, and a little-known fact about the mixture of coal may enlighten more than just environmentalists. old Oak Ridge National Laboratory researchers J. P. McBride, R. E. Moore, J. P. Witherspoon, and R. E. Blanco reported in Science magazine (Dec 8, 1978: "Radiological Impact of Airborne Effluents of Coal and Nuclear Plants") the shocking conclusion that "Americans living near coal-fired power plants are exposed to higher radiation doses than those living near nuclear power plants that meet government regulations."

In an article entitled "Coal Combusion: Nuclear resource or Danger," researcher Alex Gabbard, explained, "Coal is one of the most impure of fuels. Its impurities range from trace quantities of many metals, including uranium and thorium, to much larger quantities of aluminum and iron to still larger quantities of impurities such as sulfur. Products of coal combustion contain the oxides of carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur; carcinogenic and mutagenic substances; and recoverable minerals of industrial value, including nuclear fuels simply occurring in coal."

Did you know that the estimate of radioactive thorium contained in coal is about 2.5 times greater than the estimate of uranium? For a large estimate of coal samples, Agreeing to Environmental safety group figures released in 1984, median values of uranium and thorium article have been Thought about to be 1.3 ppm and 3.2 ppm, respectively. Uranium and thorium are In coal.

For the year 1982, assuming coal contains those same uranium and thorium concentrations, each typical plant released 5.2 tons of uranium (containing 74 pounds of uranium-235) and 12.8 tons of thorium that year. Total U.S. Releases in 1982 (from 154 typical plants) amounted to 801 tons of uranium (containing 11,371 pounds of uranium-235) and 1971 tons of thorium. These figures inventory for only 74% of releases from combustion of coal from all sources. Releases in 1982 from worldwide combustion of 2800 million tons of coal totaled 3640 tons of uranium (containing 51,700 pounds of uranium-235) and 8960 tons of thorium. Coal consumption has jumped dramatically since 1982 - by more than double!

Gabbard calculated the net impact of the issue of uranium and thorium from coal burning by the year 2040:
Based on the staggering combustion of 2516 million tons of coal in the United States and 12,580 million tons worldwide while the year 2040, cumulative releases for the 100 years of coal combustion following 1937 are staggering to be:

U.S. issue (from combustion of 111,716 million tons):

Uranium: 145,230 tons (containing 1031 tons of uranium-235)

Thorium: 357,491 tons

Worldwide issue (from combustion of 637,409 million tons):

Uranium: 828,632 tons (containing 5883 tons of uranium-235)

Thorium: 2,039,709 tons

The population efficient dose equivalent from coal plants is 100 times that from nuclear plants. Agreeing to the National Council on Radiation safety and Measurements (Ncrp), the median radioactivity per short ton of coal is 17,100 millicuries/4,000,000 tons, or 0.00427 millicuries/ton. This outline can be used to infer the median staggering radioactivity issue from coal combustion. For 1982 the total issue of radioactivity from 154 typical coal plants in the United States was, therefore, 2,630,230 millicuries.

Gabbard explained further: "Thus, by combining U.S. Coal combustion from 1937 (440 million tons) straight through 1987 (661 million tons) with an estimated total in the year 2040 (2516 million tons), the total staggering U.S. Radioactivity issue to the environment by 2040 can be determined. That total comes from the staggering combustion of 111,716 million tons of coal with the issue of 477,027,320 millicuries in the United States. Global releases of radioactivity from the staggering combustion of 637,409 million tons of coal would be 2,721,736,430 millicuries."

Uranium and the entire nuclear fuel cycle are blamed for a host of ills by the anti-nuclear crowd, but little is reported on the branch of radioactivity released from burning coal. Gabbard writes, "Large quantities of uranium and thorium and other radioactive species in coal ash are not being treated as radioactive waste. These products emit low-level radiation, but because of regulatory differences, coal-fired power plants are allowed to issue quantities of radioactive material that would provoke substantial collective outcry if such amounts were released from nuclear facilities. Nuclear waste products from coal combustion are allowed to be dispersed throughout the biosphere in an unregulated manner. Collected nuclear wastes that get on galvanic utility sites are not protected from weathering, thus exposing population to increasing quantities of radioactive isotopes straight through air and water movement and the food chain."

While environmental groups hold fund raisers to stop uranium mining, protest the nuclear fuel cycle, and lobby to have vested interest groups, such as the Navajo Nation, ban uranium mining on the reservation, little data or statistics can be found about the daily tragedies found straight through coal production. There is no vocal outcry from Southwest study and information center about coal mining, let alone the radioactive dangers found in releasing toxic coal fumes into the atmosphere.

It was a difficult task to locate the data illustrating, as Mr. Gabbard has done, that the radioactivity In coal, from thorium and uranium, is far more deadly than the world's fleet of nuclear reactors. Will Joe Shirley, Jr. Now ban coal mining on the Navajo reservation lands? After all, a greater estimate of radioactivity is released among the Navajo from coal consumption than uranium mining ever would have achieved. Or will Mr. Shirley let that slide because his funds committee wouldn't stand for it?

Copyright © 2007 by StockInterview, Inc. All possession Reserved.

Is the Navajo Nation President Being a Hypocrite about Uranium Mining

Tuesday, June 14, 2011

Thorium Revolt: Mineral to replace uranium as nuclear power source?

Thorium Revolt: Mineral to replace uranium as nuclear power source? Video Clips. Duration : 3.68 Mins.


An obscure metal that could energise our world... It's called thorium, it's eco-friendly, and there's lots of it. Many scientists say it could even replace uranium as a nuclear power source. But despite its potential, the metal is yet to gain a foothold in the market. RT's Laura Emmett explains why... RT on Facebook: www.facebook.com RT on Twitter: twitter.com

Keywords: Thorium mineral, what is thorium, nuclear power, nukes, nuclear, RT, energy, market

Thursday, June 9, 2011

Uranium - Periodic Table of Videos

Uranium - Periodic Table of Videos Video Clips. Duration : 6.05 Mins.


See some real life uranium in this new video about element number 92 - the so-called "bogeyman of the periodic table". Videos like this about all the elements at www.periodicvideos.com Our older video about uranim is at www.youtube.com

Keywords: uranium

Wednesday, May 18, 2011

Dr. Doug Rokke: The Dangers of Using Depleted Uranium - Alex Jones Tv 1/3

Dr. Doug Rokke: The Dangers of Using Depleted Uranium - Alex Jones Tv 1/3 Video Clips. Duration : 14.90 Mins.


Alex welcomes Dr. Doug Rokke back to the show to talk about the dangers of depleted uranium. Rokke served as a member of the 3rd US Army Medical Command's Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical response and special operations team and with the US Army Depleted Uranium Assessment team during Gulf War 1. He was the US Army's Depleted Uranium Project director from 1994 - 1995 and developed congressionally mandated education and training materials and wrote US Army Regulation 700-48, the US Army PAM 700-48, and the US Army's common task for DU incidents. Major Rokke has been subjected to ongoing retaliation from Department of Defense officials who do not want information regarding actual adverse health and environmental effects of uranium weapons and their mandatory but ignored requirements to provide medical care to all casualties and to clean up all environmental contamination. www.infowars.com www.prisonplanet.tv www.infowars.net www.prisonplanet.com

Keywords: Dr., Doug, Rokke, depleted, uranium, us, army, medical, nuclear, biological, chemical, response, special, operations, leader, gulfwar, alex, jones, infowars.com, endgame, 9/11, false, flag, event, uss, liberty, israel, mossad