Comments from KM: This is an important article and comments are included. I have removed to names, but, the information stands alone. here is an article about how the "limping" nuclear engery industry is affecting the price of uranium ... by business magazine FORBES, with interesting quotes from companies. I allowed myself to make a few additions and clarifications marked by numbers, the comments you will find at the END of the text.The impact of price changes on the intention of companies to explore and actually mine uranium should not be underestimated; some of the newer mining projects would have production costs just around / a bit over the actual price of uranium - so any change of the price downwards would make the project economically desinteresting.In addition, companies wanting to explore and mine uranium in Africa and in other countries with lower environmental standards, are profting from those lower standards; once we manage to push environmental standards up higher - some projects might also become economically desinteresting / not feasible.
According to u mining blog, a question is ask "Is there a need for more uranium? ", the answer is NO!
Ken Silverstein, Contributor
9/24/2012
When the March 2011 earthquake and tsunami knocked out Japan’s Fukushima nuclear reactors, they also took down the price of uranium. The hesitance to resume nuclear operations not only in Japan but also elsewhere in the world has caused the demand for the nuclear feedstock to diminish.
Indeed, uranium prices have fallen from about $68 a pound before the nuclear crisis to $47 per pound as of September 2012, which is the lowest they have been in two years.
Analysts had anticipated such a slump but had also said that the rising demand in, especially, Russia, China and India would, again, necessitate the increased development of uranium.
Earlier this month, Japan’s government said that it would end its use of nuclear energy by 2030. Meantime, Germany (2) has said it would also phase out its nuclear program while Italy (3) and Switzerland (4) have expressed similar sentiments.
Cameco, for example, has said that uranium prices must reach their pre-Fukushima levels before development would become profitable.
Meanwhile, BHP Billiton Mitsubishi Alliance just said that it would cease production at one of its Australian mines, noting that it was no long a viable concern in today’s pricing environment. BHP says that production costs exceed revenue from product sales.
It’s understandable and predictable that nations are soul-searching in the aftermath of a devastating nuclear accident 18 months ago.
But all nations are trying to reduce their carbon footprints while at the same time working to construct a reliable energy source.
The company says that the expansion is expected during a period when a number of new mines have been put on hold.
In the United States, half of the uranium is obtained from obsolete nuclear missiles. Most of the rest is mined in places like Australia, Canada and Nambia.
* * * * * *Some additions and clarifications:* CAMECO mentions 60 NEW nuclear power plants "under construction" - and the way the author of the article is quoting this suggests that nuclear is on the rise; however, this is only ONE side of the coin: a number of nuclare reaconts will be PHASED OUT, soem sooner (due ot political decisions etc. see (2)), some because their regular lifetime comes to an end.THUS, nuclear capacity is NOT automatically just rising because of 60 new reactors being build - you also have to substract those which are phased out within the next years; within the past 10 years, the number of phased-out reactors always EXCEEDED the number of new built reactors ...
(again: http://www.worldnuclearreport.org/IMG/pdf/2012MSC-WorldNuclearReport-EN-V2-LQ.pdf )
(2) Germany: Germany has no "sentiments", but a clear political decision to phase out nuclear energy within a number of years: 8 nuclear reactors have been phased out on August 6, 2011;
the remaining 9 nuclear reactor will be phased out between 2015 and 2022.
This is not a "sentiment", those are facts; dismantling of the phased-out reactors will start soon, so it will not be possible to re-start them again.Of course, another Gvt. might overthrow this Gvt's decision, but 80% of Germans are opposed to nuclear power - so it will be hard to overthrow this decision.
(3) Italy:Again, no "sentiment": in a referendum fall 2011, 94% of Italians voted against nuclear energy.After the Chernobyl accident (!), Italy's 4 nuclear power plants had been phased out.
Not really any change to get back to nuclear.
(4) Switzerland:Again, facts are: Different levels of Gvt. in Switzerland made decisions to build no new nuclear power plants, and to phase out the existing ones with ther regular "lifetime"; at latest, that would be 2034.
(5) " ... IF economies would rely heavily on nuclear energy ..."* The construction of NEW nuclear power plants is in most cases clearly over budget and over timelimits.
* Anyone who has ecomic rationale will NOT embark on projects which are 'famous' for being 50% or more over budget and years behind schedule.* In the US, the prime "capitalist" country where decisions depend a lot on economic feasibility, just ONE new nuclear power plant has been licensed in 30 (!!) years: (Reuters) - U.S. regulators on Thursday approved plans to build the first new nuclear power plant in more than 30 years, despite objections of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission chairman, who cited safety concerns stemming from Japan's 2011 Fukushima disaster. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/09/us-usa-nuclear-nrc-idUSTRE8182J720120209)
Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2012/09/24/nuclear-energys-limp-causing-uranium-prices-to-stumble/2/
