Junior Uranium Companies 'Not for Sale'

On the heels of SXR Uranium One's announcement to acquire UrAsia Energy, one might conclude this could spawn the beginning of widespread consolidation in the uranium sector. In the early morning hours after the $5 billion deal was announced, SXR Uranium One chief executive Neal Froneman emailed StockInterview writing, "Our focus on the U.S. has not changed." In previous interviews, Mr. Froneman has kindly been transparent in his intentions to not only build up his uranium assets in the United States, but to pursue a senior stock exchange listing, presumably the New York Stock Exchange.

On Tuesday, the Financial Times (UK) reported that investors wanting high-quality exposure to the uranium bull market are basically limited to buying shares in Cameco Corp. Froneman told the newspaper, "The new Uranium One will provide an alternative to Cameco." He's right, but there are also two mid-size uranium producers - Denison Mines and Paladin Resources - with sufficient market capitalization to acquire one or more of the smaller uranium juniors. Widely respected Justin Reid, uranium analyst at Sprott Securities, told the Financial Times, "for them to retain market share, they have to do something aggressively, and they have to do it now."

Justin Reid's recent thesis, 2007 - Uranium Equities, is appropriately sub-titled, "The Sector Moves Towards Production & Consolidation." His dual theme for uranium mining stocks in 2007 is consolidation and U.S. uranium miners offering a security of supply. Reid wrote in his February 14th report, "We expect that the acquisition parade has just begun and will become a common theme in 2007. Moving forward we suggest that the U.S. will be a focus, as security of supply, aggressive development plans, and a large resource base waiting for exploitation should be attractive to companies looking for production visibility within a stable political climate."

As an aside, we phoned Justin Reid to congratulate him on his brilliant and comprehensive 120-page uranium mining report. We also wanted to thank him for joining the growing minority of analysts who view the numerous advanced uranium exploration companies, developing their U.S. assets, as one of the more promising and safer havens for investors - the dominant theme in our articles over the past year. After all, the United States presently operates more than 23 percent of the world's nuclear reactors and annually consume about 55 million pounds U3O8. By contrast, U.S. uranium production has only recently risen to about three million pounds of mined uranium oxide. U.S. utilities need reassurance there will be security in future supply so this market remains the premier country for uranium mining production for at least the next decade.

Who's on the Menu?

On Thursday, TheInvestar website reported, "... it must be noted that our uranium index for Canada, as well as Australia, has closed at a record high for the past three days. The juniors are showing strength across the board as well as across continents." Investors have been phoning their favorite companies, since Monday, asking if the company is on SXR Uranium One's, or another's, radar. The record uranium price of US$75/pound has helped enhance the currency of not only the potential acquiring companies, but also those on their menu.

In a recent telephone survey with four potential and often-discussed takeover candidates, we found reluctance, not eagerness, was the common thread.

"We are not for sale!" Uranerz Energy Dennis Higgs told us. His company recently acquired additional property in Wyoming's highly promising Powder River Basin. Higgs told us there has been strong interest in his company, but he's not taking any offers seriously at this time. "Because of U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) guidelines about resources, we are probably undercapitalized with regards to our peers." Because his company only trades in the U.S. market, it is not required to file a National Instrument 43-101 technical report on its uranium resources. Higgs also pointed to his company's management team - one of the company's attractive qualities, and told us, "If management doesn't bless the deal, it won't happen."

Uranerz continues to build value in the company as is the case with the other junior near-term producers we interviewed for this report. We asked Uranerz chief executive Glenn Catchpole why his company spent about 25 percent of the company's cash on the recent property acquisition. To which an otherwise poker-faced Catchpole responded, "We spent $3.12 million for properties which may host about four million pounds of U3O8." Not a bad deal - about $1.28/pound.

Another company which threw us for a loop is Strathmore Minerals. While we believed the company would be acquired in 2006, based upon retaining National Bank Financial to help them evaluate and negotiate in the acquisition process, recent company developments suggest otherwise. "Right now, we are doing a lot of work on our properties," Strathmore Minerals chief executive Dev Randhawa told us. "We have begun to maximize our shareholder value by spinning off our assets and doing joint ventures. By joint venturing some of our assets and having partners, we are showing the market these properties have more value than the market has been giving those properties."

Randhawa told us the market has been giving some of the non-core assets zero value. It is something he appears to be in the process of remedying. Recent analyst ratings by Sprott Securities' Justin Reid (Speculative Buy, Target Price: C$4.70) and Raymond James' Bart Jaworski; Target Price: C$5.00) reflect the company's present strategy. In Reid's Wednesday report, he remarked that Strathmore broke out of a large trading base dating back to early 2006, targeting C$6.25/share.

Strathmore has about 20 uranium projects in three countries (U.S., Canada and Peru). And the company has been busy. Over the period of about two weeks, Strathmore announced its intention to form a joint venture with Yellowcake Mining on a Wyoming property, a proposal to spin off its Canadian mineral properties into a new exploration company, and an exclusivity agreement with Fortune Global 500 company to develop its Roca Honda (New Mexico) property and construct a uranium mill in the area.

It appears as a uranium company approaches near-term production, the company must also develop a stomach for responding to investor inquiries about takeover speculation. One chief executive weary of takeover rumors is UR-Energy's Bill Boberg. "Potential opportunities have been discussed since early last year with a number of companies," he told us. "There is nothing to be said at this time." Personally, we believe UR-Energy is too busy, as are the others mentioned here, moving their projects forward. In a recent audio interview with Boberg, he explained the step-by-step procedure his company has been taking in advancing through the permitting process so he can bring the Lost Creek and Lost Soldier properties (Wyoming) into production.

In other discussions we've had with Bill Boberg, we believe he is completely determined to become Wyoming's first uranium miner in the new uranium bull market. As with other companies mentioned here, he has strong faith and loyalty for his team. Mark this one as another company unlikely to sell out in the near future. Sprott's Reid wrote that UR-Energy remains in an uptrend and has been forming another base since November, targeting C$6/share.

One surprise was the emailed comments from the vice president for strategic initiatives at Energy Metals Corporation. Farhad Abasov wrote, "Energy Metals has been aggressively building up its uranium property portfolio in the US via two-pronged growth strategy: organic, staking properties and corporate acquisitions. In the last 13 months Energy Metals completed the acquisition of 3 uranium companies in the US. Now we are gearing up for the first production in Texas in 2008. The company controls over 250,000 acres of land in the US. We will continue scanning the market for good and synergistic acquisition deals. At the same time we are open to opportunities on the other side of the M and A that will enhance our shareholders' value."

During a phone conversation, nearly a year ago with chairman Bill Sheriff, we asked him whether his company was open to be taken over. At the time, Energy Metals traded for about one-quarter of its present market price. Sheriff snorted in response, "No way!" Asked at what price he would consider an offer, he answered, "At $20/share, maybe, but I doubt it." For now, Energy Metals is safely below $20, but perhaps not much longer. Reid wrote that Energy Metals is making new all-time highs and that he foresees a potential toward the upper end of the stock's trading channel - about C$15+ per share.

Conclusion

Thanks to the steady upward uranium price climb, now being heralded as likely to be one of a top-performing commodity in 2007 - and with some analysts calling for US$100 uranium per pound, the sector has attracted several hundred players and want to-be players. The majority will vaporize as many industry experts quietly, and not so quietly, predict. As Justin Reid accurately points out, the uranium sector is fragmented. It is more fragmented in the United States than elsewhere, aside from Australia. In Namibia, the uranium rush forced the country to re-evaluate its issuance of exploration licenses. Lucky stars for Paladin Resources and front-runners in the horse race, such as Forsys Metals and UraMin.

Fragmentation will eventually lead to consolidation. Those with the currency of their market capitalization have the most confidence from their bankers. And the most clout to advance additional consolidation in this sector.

Ultimately, the game boils down to negotiations. In January, SXR Uranium One chief financial officer Jean Nortier had complained about the high price of uranium assets around the world. In the all-stock transaction to acquire UrAsia, both parties agreed the uranium price should continue rising. And as long as this remains the case, further acquisitions should be expected - whether the targets are reluctant or not.

And the next very big deal will probably take place in the United States. Whether the acquirer would be SXR Uranium One or the alternatives in Paladin Resources or Denison Mines is not known. Reid did make Denison his Top Pick, probably to the chagrin of uranium guru James Dines. Sprott Securities terminology for "top pick" is "our best investment ideas, the greatest potential value appreciation." With this strong backing, Denison's currency might improve and provide them with more clout to build their uranium asset base through another acquisition.

Strathmore Mineral's Randhawa best summarized what makes U.S. uranium companies appealing, "By acquiring U.S. uranium assets, those companies with foreign assets also get an insurance policy when they make a deal." Until then, the junior uranium companies continue to move their projects forward, and at some point, the time will be ripe. But not now.

COPYRIGHT © 2007 by StockInterview, Inc. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

James Finch contributes to StockInterview.com and other publications. His focus on the uranium mining and nuclear fuel sector resulted in the widely popular “Investing in the Great Uranium Bull Market,” which is now available on [http://www.stockinterview.com] and on http://www.amazon.com

Drill Campaign Could Re-ignite Utah Uranium Mining Boom

Talk about lousy timing. In the summer of 1980, exploration manager Clancy Wendt, then working for Phillips Uranium, a subsidiary of the oil company, had three rigs and a crew drilling mile centers in Utah's Thomas mountain range. They drilled between 60 and 70 holes, over every square mile, looking for altered versus unaltered rock to indicate uranium. One of those drill holes encountered 0.05% U3O8 over a 100-foot thickness at a depth of 900 feet. Shortly thereafter, Clancy Wendt was transferred to the company's minerals division, Phillips drilled a few more holes, and oh, by the way, there had been an accident about 2,000 miles away near Middletown, Pennsylvania, at a place called Three Mile Island. Utilities stopped building reactors and the uranium exploration business came to a grinding halt.

Phillips Petroleum got out of the minerals business, and Clancy Wendt went on to discover the Mt. Hamilton gold deposit in the Carlin Trend for another company. But that drill hole about 150 miles southwest of Salt Lake City never stopped bugging him. "When you find something, you always remember that," Wendt told StockInterview.com. "I was working with it day and night. That was my project." And it is his project again today.

After a twenty-odd-year hiatus, Wendt staked 540 acres of the property, which had been abandoned, and then optioned the 27 claims to Max Resource Corp (TSX: MXR; OTC BB: MXORF) for what both parties called a reasonable sum. Since then, Max Resource Corp staked around those claims, and increased the company's land position to 195 lode claims comprising 3,900 acres in the Thomas Mountain range. "We staked the entire caldera rim," Wendt explained, "because that is exactly where I think the uranium is going to be, within that rim or within the moat inside that rim." Wendt is now the vice president of exploration for Max Resource Corp.

Max Resource Corp President Stuart Rogers is quite thrilled with the upcoming exploration of the caldera rim that he hopes will yield an economic grade of uranium, "It's felt that the caldera was the source of the mineralization for the nearby Yellow Chief uranium mine." A caldera is a large crater formed by volcanic explosion or by the collapse of a volcanic cone. "This is one that didn't get on the radar screen because it just had the one ore grade hole on it before they stopped exploration," Rogers explained about the PPCO claims. "Clancy was one of the few guys who knew about it."

The Geological Significance

Who would have remembered Utah's Yellow Chief, a uranium mine defunct since the early 1960s? It was a small producing open pit mine of less than 100,000 metric tons with a grade of 0.20 - 0.23 percent U3O8 in the middle of a desert in a mountain range. Delta, the closest town, is 20 miles away with a population of 3209, according to the last census. Uranium might be the last thought on anyone's mind. About 1.5 miles west at Spor Mountain is the world's largest economic beryllium deposit, owned by Brush Wellman (NYSE: BW).

Like enriched uranium, beryllium is high up on the U.S. government's classified list. Beryllium is a strategic material used in most sophisticated U.S. weapon systems, used to control reactors on nuclear powered submarines and surface vessels, as a triggering device for nuclear warheads, and used in guidance, optical and satellite systems for which there are no substitute metals. Needless to say, there probably won't be much environmental challenge in Utah for uranium mining. Clancy Wendt observed, "This is an area that is well known for mining. They all want mining to happen. It helps the community. The Brush Wellman mine runs all year long."

Back to the Yellow Chief mine. Discovered by prospectors in 1953, the ore zone was outlined by rotary drilling in 1955 and open pit mining of tabular ore lenses began in 1959. Most of the ore was mined by 1962. Stuart Rogers explained, "Most people agree the Yellow Chief stopped production because mineralization was faulted off to the east." And that is the direction where Max Resource Corp is going.

Wendt explained the geology of the caldera, "The age of the mineralization is very young, when compared to uranium in Wyoming. It's between 27 and 34 million years. It's found within the caldera ring of the vent within a major vent, which is 40 to 50 miles across. Right at the edge of the circle (it stands out just like a circle on a topography map or land sat image), is where we found the mineralization." Wendt added, "It is postulated that this vent was the source rock for the Yellow Chief sediments. I am hoping a great deal of the ring itself will be mineralized because that's a nice conduit area. It's an area that's going to be permeable because it's along the ring fracture of the major vent."

David A. Lindsay of the U.S. Geological Survey (Denver) who has written extensively about mineralization in western Utah, wrote in a 1978 report, where Yellow Chief was mined and where Max Resource Corp plans to drill, "Uranium occurs in four diverse settings in the Thomas Range:

1. In tuffaceous sandstone and conglomerate at the Yellow Chief mine,

2. In beryllium deposits in water-laid tuff,

3. In fluorspar pipes, and

4. In veinlets of opaline silica in volcanic rocks of all ages."

Wendt, who has talked with Lindsay about the geology at Thomas Mountain, said this about the beryllium tuft, "The mineralization found in our drill hole, I think, is in the beryllium tuff unit. If it is not that unit then it is probably the source." Wendt also explained that background or trace values might be present, but economic values of beryllium would be very unusual. Ore occurs in tuffaceous sandstone that has been correlated with the tuff that hosts beryllium deposits nearby.

Another indicator mineral suggesting uranium mineralization came about by accident on the first pass two decades ago. "When I drove up in my truck and I started walking toward the drill rig," Wendt remembered. "I thought for a minute the drillers had been dumping cottonseed hulls. (Drillers sometimes use cottonseed hulls to plug up formations that might suck up water.) Instead of hulls, I'm looking at this long line of black quartz crystals on the rocks." Smoky quartz, or black quartz, crystals are formed through natural radiation coming from nearby uranium deposits. That confirmed for Wendt that a uranium deposit was in the vicinity. "It's not an indicator mineral in all systems, but it is in this one," said Wendt.

Reverse Circulation Drilling Could Increase Grade

Asked if he would find uranium during this month's drill program, Wendt chuckled after answering "Yep." Why is he certain he would when most geologists pause on questions asking for a guarantee? "Because I found it there before," Wendt laughed. "If I hadn't drilled the hole there before, I would waffle, too. After the first hole, I don't promise any guarantees. That's the one I drilled." Why test what was once drilled in 1980? "We're going to re-drill to confirm the hole so that it complies with National Instrument 43-101," Wendt explained. "Secondly, we want to get a good sample that we can assay."

His comment about getting a "good sample" to assay opened the door to the previous drilling, which was mud rotary style. Wendt explained how mud rotary drilling was done over 25 years ago at the present site:

"You would dig two pits, like baby swimming pools, next to each other, and fill both of them up with water. The rig would start drilling a hole. Out of the hole would come the material that you're grinding. It would go in the first pit, which would be the settling pond for any of the material coming out of the hole. Material would then flow over into the next hole where you've got your intake hose pumping the water back down into the hole. You would catch your sample coming out of a pipe with a colander (just like you would for a salad or spaghetti). You would catch up the ground up material, and dump a lump of it on the ground every five feet, building 20 piles of material in a row - that's a hundred feet. And you would just keep plopping them down. When you got to whatever depth you were going to do it to, you would stop."

Wendt agreed this was not a very scientific method in determining grades. "When you dumped it on the ground, you really didn't get a great sample for assay," he laughed. "You're only getting the chunky material. Any of the "real fine" material" would go through the colander. Wendt is optimistic about establishing a more accurate grade from the upcoming drill program, "It should come in higher." How will reverse circulation provide a different grade? "With reverse circ, you are sucking the material right up out of the center of the pipe," Wendt emphasized. "You are not losing the fine material."

Another reason for reverse circulation is Wendt believes the system is "probably 6-7 million years old and in disequilibrium." He clarified, "This means that you have a reading on the electronic probe that may give you a lower reading than is really there." Lindsay's geological survey report points in the same direction, "Mineralogical and geochemical studies of the (water-laid) tuff have shown it is extensively zeolitized, leached of alkali metals, and likely to have been leached of uranium by ground water, so that the tuff is a possible source for the uranium at the Yellow Chief mine."

The historic grade at the Yellow Chief was 0.2 percent. How would Clancy Wendt feel if the new drilling brought in 0.2? "If I had 100 feet of 0.2, then I'm in heaven. I would have over $100 in my rock. That would be like drilling 100 feet of 0.3 gold. Would that attract anyone?" He knows it would. Perhaps the timing was bad for Phillips Uranium, but just perfect for a very patient Clancy Wendt and Max Resource Corp. As a side note, and a possible parallel, there's now an oil rush in central Utah, according to Associated Press in Salt Lake City. It appears a tiny Michigan-based oil and gas exploration company triggered the "oil rush" after a wildcat strike. Before then, the region had a history of frustrating oil exploration. Will a uranium discovery by Max Resource Corp trigger a 1950's style uranium boom in western Utah?

On July 6, 1952, Charlie A. Steen struck the biggest deposit of high-grade uranium ore in the United States on the other side of Utah. School teachers, insurance brokers, used car salesmen, and shoe clerks around the nation rushed to Utah to seek their fortune. A group of high school students staked forty claims, later selling them for $15,000. Within a few years, nearly six hundred producers were shipping uranium ore. Employment in the industry topped 8,000 workers in the mines and mills. Salt Lake City was dubbed "The Wall Street of Uranium." The boom ended in 1964 when the Atomic Energy Commission announced, "It is no longer in the interest of the Government to expand production of uranium concentrate." A lot has changed over those three decades.

Since 2001, spot uranium has jumped by more than 500 percent. Accompanying the new uranium upswing, many of the old projects in Wyoming, New Mexico and elsewhere are being revived. According to a USA Today article published in mid January, "...a new generation of prospectors is staking thousands of claims in the desert Southwest." The Utah Geological Survey said more than 6,000 uranium claims were filed in 2005. Max Resource Corp's uranium project in Utah may be one of those worth investigating.

COPYRIGHT © 2007 by StockInterview, Inc. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

James Finch contributes to StockInterview.com and other publications. StockInterview’s “Investing in the Great Uranium Bull Market” has become the most popular book ever published for uranium mining stock investors. Visit [http://www.stockinterview.com]

Uranium Mining Revival in New Mexico through Solution Mining

"We've got to get quickly on a track to energy independence from foreign oil, and that means, among other things, going back to nuclear power," U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) recently told Fox News. U.S. Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) invited Louisiana Enrichment Services (LES) to build a gas-centrifuge uranium enrichment facility near Hobbs, New Mexico. The facility is currently undergoing the permitting process. Southwest Research and Information Center's Annette Aguayo told us the group planned to begin working on stopping that project. Some environmentalists remain behind the times.

Other environmentalists, who led before, are leading again. James Lovelock, the spiritual guru of the world's environmental movement, sometimes called the "Father of the Green Revolution," because of his research and widely embraced warnings on DDT and CFCs, wrote in Reader's Digest, (March, 2005), "The figures show that many people's fears of nuclear energy are unreasonable." Dr. Lovelock also said "the Greens are plain wrong to oppose it." In May, 2004, Lovelock wrote, "Nuclear power is the only green solution."

New Mexico is primed for a uranium revival, not with conventional mining, but with ISL operations. The in situ leaching method, also known as solution mining, is environmentally friendly. Because it is low cost and does not contaminate the environment in ways that uranium mining did in the 1950s, many uranium companies plan to use this safer method for mining uranium in New Mexico.

In a conversation, late last year, with Grants Chamber of Commerce and Mining Museum employee Barbara Hahn, a deep resentment resounded in her voice when talking about the collapse of the uranium mining business in the 1980s. Grants (NM) was a boom town, during the 1970s uranium boom, when spot uranium prices climbed, and stayed above $40/pound. "Grants replaced the lost mining jobs by opening prisons," she told us. "Now, others bring us their prisoners." Ms. Hahn believed only 35 percent of the uranium had been extracted from the Grants Mineral Belt. "Most of it is still there," she added. According to a McLemore and Chenoweth geological report, a resource of 558 million pounds (279,000 short tons) might still be extracted. The question in the 1980s as it is today revolves around the spot price of uranium.

The higher the spot price of uranium, the more economic it can be to mine. As the price of uranium rises, then the quantity of an economic resource increases. At $30/pound, the U.S. Energy Information Administrated reported the state of New Mexico held 84 million pounds of uranium oxide, grading 0.28/ton, as of Dec 31, 2003. However, at $50/pound uranium, that quantity would jump to 341 million pounds. The spread on the gross value of the uranium assets between those price levels is nearly $15 billion! As the spot price escalates, the economic reserves grow.

Said William Sheriff, Director of Corporate Development for Energy Metals (TSX: EMC), "Our long-term, big, big projects are going to be in New Mexico. Long term, we think New Mexico is going to be quite valuable to us." He explained his company's plans are to first develop production centers in Texas and Wyoming, before developing ISL operations in The Enchanted State. Sheriff added, "Nothing in New Mexico in terms of the first five years, but that's not to say we're going to sit idly by. We're going to be aggressively pursuing these. The only thing we're going to be pursuing is ISL production." Based upon the company's extensive acquisitions in Wyoming, New Mexico and elsewhere, Sheriff threw down the gauntlet at Cameco and Cogema, whose ISL operations in Wyoming contribute the largest share of U.S. uranium production, "We intend to become the largest ISL producer in the United States."

David Miller, President and Chief Operation Officer of Strathmore Minerals, (TSX: STM; Other OTC: STHJF), believes, "The ISL production method will continue to grow in the United States, but we will also see a return to conventional mining and milling in the western states." In addition to their Wyoming uranium properties, Strathmore hopes to move forward their Church Rock uranium property on the heels of Uranium Resources' (OTC BB: URRE) permitting on Section 17, held by their HRI subsidiary. Basically, all three companies are friendly neighbors in the area. There is evidence they frequently talk among themselves, comparing notes. The three uranium juniors appear to be the current major players in New Mexico for ISL uranium mining.

Ron Driscoll, one of the co-founders of Quincy Energy, which has been acquired by Energy Metals, said, "It will get interesting when the oil companies get involved again." It is probably early for the oil giants to rush back into uranium. In the last uranium boom, many of the major oil companies were leaders in the uranium exploration and mining. Kerr-McGee Nuclear was the number one private sector uranium producer in the world. Other major oil companies involved in uranium mining and exploration included Mobil, Phillips, Conoco, Exxon, Chevron, Amoco and others. Another of the recently arrived uranium juniors, Max Resources (TSX: MXR) also plans to drill at the other end of New Mexico, in Socorro County (about 100 miles south of Albuquerque). MXR's property was once drilled by OxyMin, a subsidiary of Occidental Petroleum, during the 1980s, before the price of uranium fell off a cliff.

Perhaps, one major company will emerge in New Mexico, consolidating the others, or some of the others. "There's a huge number of small uranium plays in the North American market that need critical mass," Neal Froneman, CEO of Uranium One (TSE: SXR) recently told a South African newspaper. "Consolidation will drive our business in the US and Canada, where we think it's tactically smart to be." Uranium One was itself a consolidation between Toronto-based Southern Cross and South African-based Aflease. Froneman concluded, ""It makes sense to have a major presence in North America in order to supply the (U.S.) utilities that will need to be built."

"The geology for this area, with regards to ISL uranium operations, could help make New Mexico an important supplier to U.S. utilities, possibly before the end of this decade," Strathmore's David Miller agreed. "I would not be surprised at all if there were more uranium to be found in New Mexico than is currently estimated. That's why companies have exploration programs." From a state, which has produced over 300 million pounds of uranium, and which may have between 300 million and 600 million additional pounds of uranium, New Mexico will be a prime target for uranium companies as long as the price of uranium continues to rise. Will uranium crash and burn, as it did in the 1980s? After accurately predicting the spot price of uranium would double in a StockInterview feature in June 2004, Miller recently told StockInterview, "I wouldn't be surprised to see the price double again."

COPYRIGHT © 2007 by StockInterview, Inc. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

James Finch contributes to StockInterview.com and other publications. StockInterview’s “Investing in the Great Uranium Bull Market” has become the most popular book ever published for uranium mining stock investors. Visit [http://www.stockinterview.com]

Junior Uranium Miners Flooded by Dollars

Since the October 23rd announcement of Cameco's Cigar Lake uranium mine flooding, several junior uranium companies have behaved in the same way mining markets sometimes react to a major exploration discovery. The massive cobalt-copper- nickel discovery at Voisey's Bay in Labrador comes to mind. Call it a world-class exploration discovery in reverse.

When a junior exploration company makes a discovery, investors pile into the nearby moose, antelope or orangutan pasture hoping their favorite company will catch a piece of the discovery trend. It's called an 'area play,' and most fail to repeat the prime mover's success. In this case, the exploration discovery was the force majeure clause in Cameco's supply contracts with U.S. and other utilities, leaving them with empty hands to fuel their nuclear reactors. Many had been counting upon readily available uranium supply about two to four years hence.

Unlike the typical area play, this one is not geographically isolated to one region. Any company, which can quickly get uranium out of the ground, becomes the horse to bet on. And investors have been flooding their favorite juniors with new money to help propel them into production faster.

The discovery deposit now being mined by the junior uranium companies is the 'complacency' of the world's utilities. Twenty years of relatively inexpensive uranium lulled utilities into believing nuclear fuel would always be available. True, there is no shortage of uranium below the Earth's surface or in the oceans, but it's not cheap to extract. During the uranium depression of the 1980s and 1990s, environmentalists re-wrote the rule book, sending the permitting costs into orbit. Unless one is opening a mine in Namibia, as Paladin has done, or mining in Kazakhstan, one can have 'environmental delays,' that can last a number of years.

In his Weekly Insights, FNArena editor Rudi Filapek-Vandyck wrote last night, "Cigar Lake was scheduled to ramp up over three years from the end of 2007 to reach full production of over 8000 tonnes of U3O8 a year." He put the loss of that much uranium supply to the market in context, "Australia's largest producing mine, Energy Resources of Australia's (ERA) Ranger mine produced around 5200 tonnes in the year to June 2006. BHP Billiton's (BHP) Olympic Dam mine produced just under 4000 tonnes during the period. Paladin Resources' (PDN) Langer Heinrich project in Namibia, still on schedule to ramp up in December this year, is forecast to produce circa 1180 tonnes per year."

Which Junior Uranium Miners Can Help Replace

Cigar Lake's Lost Uranium Production?

The cold, hard reality of Cigar Lake's lost uranium production dawned upon the crowd of uranium suppliers, near-term producers, fuel brokers and global utility fuel managers when the announcement was made at the commencement of last week's Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) Annual Uranium Conference in Quebec City. Cigar Lake's mine flood was the big story - the trapdoor that spelled 'doom' for utilities lacking secure uranium supply sources beyond 2008.

Investors quickly reacted to the news with frenzied bidding for shares in near-term producers SXR Uranium One and Paladin Resources. Potential near-term producers Energy Metals Corp and UR-Energy got the nod. Others among this elite category began attracting the aggressive investor dollars: Forsys Metals, Uranerz Energy and Strathmore Minerals.

Logic dictated the loss of Cigar Lake would drive up the uranium price much higher, possibly to the very limit utilities might pay for nuclear fuel to ensure their reactors would not be closed down for lack of the now very-precious uranium oxide. "Where is the safe haven for my money?" investors asked. On the face of it, the answers appeared to be simple: (a) go the near-term producers and (b) uranium friendly U.S. states, such as Wyoming and Texas.

We tapped on the Chief Executives of companies we featured in Chapter Nine of "Investing in the Great Uranium Bull Market," for their insights into the Cigar Lake disaster. SXR Uranium One Chief Executive Neal Froneman wrote bluntly, "The challenges of bringing new mines into production are very significant." He hopes to not err with overconfidence on his flagship uranium mine in South Africa, "I do not under estimate the challenges of bringing even Dominion into production even though it has a low technical risk." But he added, "Investors are now recognizing the low risk nature of Dominion."

Froneman was clear about his views on becoming a U.S. uranium producer, "Our entry into the United States looks well timed, and at $60/pound a steal. We have always envisioned supplying U.S. uranium to U.S. end users. The uranium supply constraints will make this a natural progression."

He wasn't as optimistic about the time projections of some developing projects as many investors, writing, "Supply constraints for the next few years will intensify as imminent producers will not meet their promises." Froneman concluded, "This will drive uranium prices much higher." Another insight he brought to our attention, "We have put our money where our mouth is by being totally unhedged." Why is that important? He told us, "We have avoided bank debt so that we can avoid being forced by banks to hedge our uranium production." And so, that will indeed help uranium prices climb higher.

We exchanged phone calls and emails with Bill Boberg, Chief Executive of UR-Energy about Cameco's catastrophe. He wrote, "I will that it did not happen, but it is a reflection on the current thin uranium supply and demonstrates why some of us juniors working to bring mines into production in the next few years are worthy of investment." He added, "I think all juniors, but especially those with production relatively near term, have benefited from Cameco's bad news."

But why do we see such strong market activity in the juniors? "I think we have been seeing increasing knowledge of the uranium sector in the past couple years and, with that, an increase in market activity," he told us. "The StockInterview guide to the uranium sector has been a real player in that increase in knowledge base by investors. The rapidity at which the Cigar Lake flooding affected the market activity in junior uranium stocks is a reflection of the knowledge that uranium supply is tight, and that the Cigar Lake flooding made it even tighter for the next few years."

The biggest percentage gainer among junior uranium development companies on Monday, as a result of the recent 7-percent jump in the spot uranium price, was Strathmore Minerals. We talked with Strathmore Minerals Chief Executive Dev Randhawa about the company's 20-percent price rise accompanied by nearly 2.8 million shares of trading. "Investors are looking for a stable environment," Randhawa told us. "The market is demonstrating how tight supplies really are." He also pointed out there was in his company by foreign interests, but would not specify anyone in particular. "Strathmore is a turnkey operation in the United States with proven resources and a highly qualified technical team with many decades of in situ recovery mining experience," he explained.

"All along our strategy, with David Miller, was to acquire uranium properties which could be produced at, or less than, $30/pound," he said. "When we first started this strategy, there were only three or four other companies on the radar screen, so we got the jump on many of the best uranium properties." He explained, "We are well diversified in the United States, Canada and have holdings in Peru." The company is reportedly the largest landholder in the Athabasca Basin as well.

We asked about his Dieter Lake property in Quebec, which previous work suggests might contain as much as 110 million pounds of U3O8 contained. Because it is not compliant with National Instrument 43-101, we don't hear much about it. How does the recent spot uranium spike affect moving forward on Dieter Lake? "Projects and properties which were not previously on the radar screen are now going to be economic," Randhawa responded. "Dieter makes sense now," he added.

Strathmore Minerals also benefited from across the pond on Monday, after Jamie Strauss, Head of Institutional Sales for London-based Hargreave Hale, issued a buy recommendation. His thumbs-up for Strathmore blew the company's shares past the strong buy recommendation and C$2.50/share price target issued by Bart Jaworski of Raymond James on October 20th.

In his desk notes, Strauss wrote, "...the quality and diversity of its asset base, increasing confidence that the company is approaching the title of 'near term producer', a highly competent technical team and above all a valuation which offers not only equity funds the opportunity to invest but also consolidators within the industry..." Strauss added, "Using code-compliant resources only, Strathmore could therefore more than double the share price before hitting fair value." Strathmore Minerals, along with SXR Uranium One and Energy Metals, are among the favorites of Sprott Asset Management.

While numerous uranium mining executives rejoiced over the spot price jump to US$60/pound, one CEO took it with a grain of salt. When we phoned Uranerz Energy Chief Executive Glenn Catchpole for his reaction to the market's behavior, he took it in stride. After we informed him of the 7 percent jump in spot uranium, he dryly responded, "We as a company can benefit - the company will benefit from the increased prices." He did acknowledge Uranerz was getting large trading volume. "We thought the stock would dip, but it hasn't," he told us, referring to large number of share which recently became free trading. Other than that, it was business as usual for Catchpole - getting his in situ uranium recovery operation through the final hurdles to join the ranks of uranium producers. After all, if Cameco won't be mining uranium in Cigar Lake in the foreseeable future, someone has to.

Until then, we anticipate mining analysts will be upwardly revising their price targets on these and other companies. And so the flooding will continue, perhaps at both Cigar Lake and in the junior uranium sector.

COPYRIGHT © 2006 by StockInterview, Inc. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

James Finch contributes to StockInterview.com and other publications. StockInterview’s “Investing in the Great Uranium Bull Market” has become the most popular book ever published for uranium mining stock investors. Visit [http://www.stockinterview.com]

World's Uranium Companies Heading to U.S. Stock Exchanges

Three years ago, one could only find Cameco Corp (CCJ) trading on the New York Stock exchange. As of late November 2006, Energy Metals Corp (EMU) began trading on the NYSE ARCA. Energy Metals is currently developing their Texas uranium in situ recovery mine for production in either late 2007 or early 2008.

One tier down on the American Stock Exchange is the Fronteer Group (FRG), which is a hybrid gold company holding uranium-mineralized assets. A recent entry to the American exchange is first pure-play uranium company to trade on this exchange: Uranerz Energy (URZ). Uranerz is now the second publicly traded company, after Cameco Corp, in which investors can also trade stock options. The announcement was made at the end of January.

After those, there are a number of different companies with some prospects better than others. However, before reviewing those, let's look at what could well become the world's second largest uranium company, by market capitalization, after Cameco Corp. On early Monday morning, Canada's Globe and Mail newspaper published a report that Johannesburg- and Toronto-listed SXR Uranium One (TSX: SXR) planned to acquire TSX- and AIM-listed UrAsia Energy (TSX: UUU) for approximately $3 billion. In what has been announced as a friendly take-over, SXR Uranium One plans to issue some $3.1 billion in stock to buy UrAsia. Before the announcement, SXR was valued at less than CDN$2 billion.

In previous interviews with SXR Uranium One chief executive Neal Froneman, he has repeatedly told us he wishes to list on a U.S. stock exchange. If and when the acquisition closes - it was announced that it should by mid May of this year - the new Uranium One would hold uranium properties on four continents: Africa, Australia, Asia and North America. SXR's Dominion uranium mine should begin producing this March. UrAsia Energy is currently producing in Kazakhstan. SXR's Australian 'Honeymoon' in situ leach uranium operation is scheduled to start producing in early 2008.

According to Canada's national newspaper, the combined companies have the potential to annually produce some 19 million pounds by 2012. That's about what Cameco Corp's Cigar Lake was expected to produce before the mine flooded this past October. Since then, Cameco has delayed in announcing when the company believes its uranium mine will actually be in shape to produce uranium.

Based upon our conversations with Neal Froneman, and in light of this new business combination creating the world's second largest uranium mining company, it shouldn't be too far into the future when Uranium One announces it plans to list on the New York Stock Exchange. The headline of their February 12th news release announced, "Uranium One and UrAsia Energy Announce Combination to Create Emerging Senior Uranium Company." Aside from Cameco Corp, there really is no other senior pure play uranium company.

As for the rest of the companies now trading on the over the counter bulletin board, we have reviewed two which offer hope to investors. Uranium Energy (OTC BB: URME) plans to mine uranium using the in situ recovery (ISR) method. Chief operating officer Harry Anthony appears to be one of the boys in the ISR club with decades of experience behind him. He lives and works in south Texas.

After extensive interviews with Mr. Anthony - which we used in our publication "Investing in the Great Uranium Bull Market" in explaining the ISR method of mining - it became evident to us that if Anthony couldn't get an ISR operation functioning in Texas, that no one else on the planet was likely to do so. From what we understand, Uranium Energy could be producing uranium by 2009 on its Goliad property.

Another newcomer seems to be doing very well, Yellowcake Mining (OTCBB: YCKM). While it appears to be a 'new company,' the company's property is not. Yellowcake Mining acquired the Juniper Ridge (Wyoming) property from powerhouse Strathmore Minerals (TSX: STM; OTC: STHJF) on January 30th. Previous drilling through 1979 outlined up to 15 million pounds of uranium. Plans were made in that year to build a 2000-ton/day mill. But, that was the year when uranium demand fell off, and the mill was never built. With the uranium price continuing to head higher, Yellowcake Mining stands to benefit from uranium-friendly Wyoming and some of Strathmore Mineral's expertise in the form of David Miller.

There are two other major uranium companies, both with market capitalizations in excess of C$1 billion: Denison Mines (TSX: DML) and Paladin Resources (TSX: PDN). Both are producing uranium companies and highly respected in many circles for their separate achievements. The business combination of International Uranium Corporation and Denison Mines has gone smoothly so far. Dissatisfied with producing in just Namibia, Paladin now hopes to mine uranium elsewhere in Africa and possibly in Australia. Both foreign companies could be candidates for future U.S. stock exchange listings.

In 2006, uranium prices nearly doubled. While 2007 has seen uranium slowly creep higher - now at US$75/pound, many analysts believe uranium could trade above US$100/pound before this year ends. If that's the case, then we might expect a number of uranium companies pursuing a listing on either the New York or American stock exchanges over the next few years.

COPYRIGHT © 2007 by StockInterview, Inc. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

James Finch contributes to StockInterview.com and other publications. His focus on the uranium mining and nuclear fuel sector resulted in the widely popular “Investing in the Great Uranium Bull Market,” which is now available on [http://www.stockinterview.com] and on http://www.amazon.com

Junior Uranium Miners: Small Cap Nukenomics 101

Uranium could be setting up to make another +100% move to the upside like it did in 2007, but unlike back then there are a multitude of small cap plays on the precious, yet controversial metal. Before we get into these companies, let's take a look at the argument for higher Uranium spot prices.

Many of the key dynamics that drove the "atomic" rise in '07 are present today: Bullish speculation, aggressive demand forecasts for nuclear energy, and Uranium hoarding have all played an integral role in the recent 50% rise in spot prices over the past few months from around $40 to above $60.

Bullish Speculation - The news wire and Internet may have never been so chuck full of Uranium-related pieces, even when prices were at record highs. In addition, many respected prognosticators have revised the future demand forecasts and adopted a more aggressive future outlook. A global search is underway for a clean & economic alternative to fossil fuels and a growing number of pundits are pushing nuclear power as the energy source of the future. While this may or may not be the case, all eyes are now firmly on Uranium as the next big metal investment while gold and silver digest recent triple digit gains.

Aggressive Demand Forecasts: According to Cameco (NYSE: CCJ) - one of the largest Uranium miners in the world - there will be a net increase of 97 nuclear reactors worldwide in the ten year period following January 2009. Commodities Hoarding - Here's where things get real interesting: Future demand expectations are so high that some parties will do whatever it takes to acquire as much Uranium as possible. In Kazakhstan - the world's largest Uranium producer with 15% of global resources - a former government official reportedly stoleHALF of the nation's supply worth tens of billions of dollars.

The Chinese government is reportedly stockpiling Uranium to control the cost for their upcoming atomic expansion and set to purchase twice what it uses this year. China alone is reportedly planning to build 60 new nuclear reactors over the next decade, which would require about 30% of the Uranium mined today. If this type of growth is to occur, industrial capacity & Uranium supply will need to increase substantially. One roadblock here is the fact that many Uranium producers can't mine profitably when market prices are under $50 per lb, so many have been forced to scale back operations since the beginning of the recession as prices stagnated at around $40 per lb. Russia, which is reportedly planning to build 18 nuclear plants in India and is by many accounts past the point of peak domestic oil production, is boosting Uranium production but slashing exports.

Mega Uranium Ltd (OTCPK: MGAFF) holds the unique potential to become a low-cost Uranium producer because its Lake Maitland, Western Australia resource will not require drilling or blasting. Estimates that I've seen anticipate production in the $25 to $30 per pound range. Adding a level of credibility to the company and its property - which is pegged for initial production in 2013 - is the Joint venture with well-known Japanese investors. AURD (the Japan Australia Uranium Resources Development Co. Ltd.) - a conglomerate of 3 of Japan's largest utilities and ITOCHU Corporation (ITOCHU ) the world's second largest uranium trading house have acquired a 35% stake in the project

Uranium Energy (AMEX: UEC) - became the world's newest Uranium producer earlier this month when the company began processing a 500 cubic foot shipment of uranium-loaded resins from its Palangana ISR project in Texas. In addition to its state-of-the-art processing facility boasts a robust portfolio of Uranium resources throughout the southwestern U.S. and recently announced that phase 1 drill results at its Salvo property in South Texas were extremely positive and exhibit potential for more drilling than was originally anticipated.

Uranerz Energy Corporation (AMEX: URZ) -This "Pure Play" Uranium acquisition, exploration, and development company already has long-term contracts in place with 2 of America's largest nuclear operators, including Exelon (3rd largest nuclear fleet operator in the world). URZ management expects to receive government approval for its first two Uranium mines in 2011 with initial production coming in 2012.

Ur Energy, Inc. (AMEX: URG) - This U.S. & Canada-focused junior miner is striving to become Wyoming's next Uranium producer. With nearly $38 Million in cash on hand and a reported recoverable reserve of about 25 million pounds (more than 2X more than URZ & UEC according to management), the future looks bright for URG. The company is reportedly now in the process of obtaining the permits necessary to bring its Lost Creek, WY Uranium deposit into production and taking steps towards building out a 2 million pound per year processing facility close by at an estimated cost of $30M.

According to the company's December corporation presentation, the initial mining property contains 6.5 million pounds of Uranium (conservative estimate at 80% recovery) and is economic at prices about $40 per lb. On a side note, it is important to note that unlike some comparable peers like URZ & UEC, the company has yet to secure mining licenses or initiate Uranium production.

Uranium One Inc. (SXRZF.PK) - Headquartered in Vancouver, Uranium One has four producing Uranium properties in Kazakhstan as well as3 projects in the U.S. & 1 in Australia, which are in development stage. The company produced approximately 1.75 million pounds of Uranium during the 3rd quarter of 2010 and revenues rise 243% year-over-year to $73.1M ($43 per lb). 2009 production sales were a record 3.2 million pounds and the company boasts what it claims is the lowest cash cost at $20 per pound on a consolidated basis.

SXRZY recently made strides towards achieving its goal of building a top-5, globally diversified Uranium production company with its acquisition of Mantra Resources Limited - operator of Mkuju River Project in Tanzania - in a $1.2 Billion transaction worth $8 per share. If Uranium One can bring all of its Uranium properties into full production mode, annual output would be in the 22 to 26 million pound range.

Denison Mines Corp (AMEX: DNN) - an intermediate Uranium producer with 3 active mines and an interest in 2 North American Uranium mills (1 fully-owned, 1 22.5% owned). DNN produced 1.4 million pounds of Uranium in 2009 and expects output to increase by more than 14% to 1.6 million pound in 2010. The company also churned out.5 million lbs of Vanadium in '09 and anticipates that number to surge by nearly 500 this year to 2.4 million lbs. After securing nearly $65.5M in a financing recently to fund ongoing mining operations, Denison Mines Corp appears to be very well positioned to capitalize on growing demand and potentially higher prices for Uranium going forward.

Uranium Resources, Inc. (OTCPK: URRE) - Incorporated in 1997, the company lays claim to one of the largest in-place mineralized Uranium reserves in the U.S. (about 1 million pounds) and holds the only Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) license in the State of New Mexico. The company has produced more than 8 million pounds of Uranium since its inception and anticipates ramping production back up again by 2013, although there appears to be a number of roadblocks preventing this from happening. Firstly, market prices must continue to make mining economical. In addition, all necessary licenses must be successfully renewed and processing facilities must be built to sustain mining in New Mexico, which will require a joint venture partnership or source of substantial financing. Nevertheless,

Disclosure: The author has not been compensated for coverage of any company mentioned in this piece, holds no position and does not intend to take a position in any company mentioned over the next 72 hours.

Keith Reinhardt:

I provide a premiere source of otherwise hard to find market information on dynamic and innovative emerging growth micro-cap companies that I believe have excellent future appreciation potential.

Visit my website at http://www.AtomicPennyStocks.com

China's Battle for African Uranium

As reported by the Wall Street Journal, Sunday night's revelations that China National Nuclear Corp (CNNC) may strengthen its ties to UraMin could represent a broader picture than an ordinary acquisition of a near-term uranium producer.

There is an ongoing global war for energy security, which appears to be politically inspired. China and Russia are the main opponents, especially in Africa, but have rivaled each other, over the past several years, in Central Asia. The goal for both nations is not only energy security but political influence and alliance over their targeted territories.

On May 12th, Russia, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan signed a declaration to upgrade and expand transport pipelines along the Caspian Sea coast directly to Russia. The project relies mainly upon the vast Turkmen gas reserves. This is part of Russia's growing monopoly of Central Asian gas. Although Europe was shocked by Vladimir Putin's new arrangement, the Chinese were flabbergasted.

We've been following developments in Central Asia, and had reported upon milestone events in both of our uranium publications, and again (with far greater details) in our soon-to-be-released Investing in China's Energy Crisis.

After more than two decades in power, Turkmen strongman Saparmurat Niyazov passed away this past December. In April 2006, Niyazov had signed a framework agreement on oil and gas cooperation. By August, Niyazov had announced a pipeline, designed to pump gas to China, would be opened in 2009. The deal died with the dictator, it appears.

A few weeks ago, a spokesman for China's National Reform and Development Committee announced China was unlikely to reach its natural gas target of a 10-percent portion of the country's energy portfolio by 2010. Increasingly, Russia has shut China out of Central Asia in obtaining long-term, multiple energy sources.

Aside from South America, where China has strengthened the country's ties with Venezuela and others, Africa is a prime hunting ground for China's future energy security. China has established a strong foothold in the Sudan for petroleum. But, Africa is rich in uranium deposits.

According to a report published by the International Atomic Energy Agency in 2005, Africa has 18 percent of the world's known recoverable uranium resources - about six percent less than Australia and one percent more than Kazakhstan. We began coverage on both Namibia and Niger, after Russia sent a delegation to Egypt to discuss the nuclear renaissance. At the time, our research pointed to Africa, particularly those countries, as ripe for future uranium production. Chinese prospectors raced to Niger within weeks after our initial coverage.

During 2006, Namibia became saturated with numerous exploration plays hoping to capitalize on the country's uranium resources and relaxed environment. Consequently, the Namibian Minister of Mines and Energy closed the country's exploration window. Since then, Niger has become a new hunting ground. We expect this country to become just as saturated as Namibia has been.

China is eager to capitalize upon the continent's uranium resources before Russia outmaneuvers them as has been accomplished in Central Asia.

According to an email we received from TradeTech's Gene Clark, after presenting at the China Power & Alternative Energy Summit on May 18th, he told us China's official target for nuclear power capacity was '40 GWe by 2020 and another 18 GWe in the following five-year plan.' This confirms China's aggressive plans to acquire sufficient uranium to reach this capacity, and would be foolish to rely on just Australia.

Typically, China has built its energy portfolio through numerous deals across multiple regions. This past October, Yang Changli, vice president of China National Nuclear, said it would seek uranium not only from Australia, but from Canada, Kazakhstan, South Africa and Namibia. In an interview Yang gave during the 15th Pacific Basin Nuclear Conference, he said, "China won't rely on any single supplier of uranium because of energy security considerations.

Namibia is the First African Focus of Uranium Politiques

On May 14th, Russia's second-largest bank Vneshtorgbank and Russia's state-run nuclear exporter Tekhsnabexport announced they were considered a joint venture to operate in Namibia through licenses they directly hold and through investments in other companies which have obtained licenses in Namibia.

In March Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Fradkov announced his country was prepared to building nuclear plants in Namibia. Neighboring South Africa had previously warned Namibia to expect reductions in energy supplies. Namibia is dependent upon South Africa for electricity and has forecast an energy deficit of 300 megawatts within the next three years.

On May 10th, Russia and Kazakhstan signed an agreement to set up the International Uranium Enrichment Center, anticipated to come onstream by 2013. As part of this announcement, Sergei Kiriyenko, head of the Federal Nuclear Power Agency, said, "Any country can become a member of the center by signing an intergovernmental agreement granting it guaranteed access to uranium enrichment services." We conclude Namibia may wish to participate in this arrangement.

Enter CNNC on Sunday night. The Chinese company's deputy general manager for uranium procurement announced to Bloomberg News that CNNC and UraMin will start 'more formal' talks this week.

UraMin is a prime acquisition candidate for the Chinese because of its uranium prospects in both Namibia and Niger. The company also has holdings in South Africa and the Central African Republic.

We are now facing a new era of uranium politics or rather 'Uranium Politiques.' And there is good reason for this to escalate. Yesterday, the U.S. Energy Information Administration issued 'International Energy Outlook 2007.' The report announced, "World marketed energy is expected to grow by 57 percent between 2004 and 2030."

The most rapid growth in energy demand is anticipated in non-OECD Asia. The majority of this energy demand growth would come from China and India. This was the reference case - the middle ground of growth.

Also on Monday, leading Russian nuclear expert Yevgeny Velikhov, head of the Kurchatov Institute, told reporters at a news conference that the recent surge in uranium prices "may still grow by another order of magnitude." He believes the uranium price will continue to rise as global uranium demand soars while supplies remain tight. "The global energy market is very turbulent," Velikhov said. "The uranium price can hit any mark at a time of crisis." Ironically, both crisis and turbulence have come about because of the Asian and Russian scramble to lock-up the uranium resources of entire countries.

The energy battle in Africa is good news for the two front-runners in Namibia: UraMin and Forsys Metals. We've called this a horse race, over the past several months. Both endeavor to become the 'next miner' following Paladin Resources in this country.

Yet, both companies are vulnerable to acquisition efforts by Russian or Chinese companies. Or either could be acquired by one or more majors hoping to build up their uranium reserves. In the case of Rio Tinto, acquiring one or both could mean expanding uranium operations in this country.

Acquisition Candidates

Just as the announcement by Energy Metals Corp, regarding a potential sale of the company, fueled weekend speculation as to the 'next' takeover candidates, the same could occur this week with African acquisition candidates.

One might be misled into believing China would focus on Niger, where the company has built a foundation, and Russia's focus would remain in Namibia. However, in a state visit to China this week, Namibian Defense force chief exchanged views with Guo Boxiong, Central Military Commission vice chairman, on promoting relations between the two countries.

In February, Chinese President Hu Jintao visited Namibia to sign an economic deal with Namibia giving the country a grant of US$4.3 million and an interest-free loan of the same amount. Reportedly, some of the money would be used to boost group tourism from China to Namibia. This is the same tactic China has utilized in courting relationships in South America to help develop natural resource deals.

With US$1.2 trillion in foreign currency reserves, China is exercising its financial biceps. In March, the country formed the Huijin Fund as the state's investment arm. Up to US$400 billion have reportedly been placed in this fund for investment purposes. On Sunday night, the Huijin Fund invested US$3 billion to purchase a stake in about 9.9 percent of the Blackstone private equity firm. Our research suggests the fund is likely to strongly invest in natural resources.

On this basis, we can not rule out a simple carving of Africa. We don't believe China will quietly step back and focus the country's uranium acquisition efforts in Niger, permitting Russia to concentrate on Namibia and South African uranium.

In Niger, we covered two 'early days' prospective uranium juniors over a year ago. North Atlantic Resources acquired a uranium permit in the 1900-square kilometer Abelajouad in this country. This past April, the company increased its holdings to nearly 3,000 square kilometers. In late April, Northwestern Mineral Ventures announced uranium mineralization in assays from rock samples after a first-pass reconnaissance on its In Gall and Irhazer uranium properties. Both would need to further explore their properties before attracting serious interest from the Chinese.

However, in Namibia both UraMin and Forsys Metals are actively progressing toward mining uranium on their properties. Either could be the first, but we believe both should become winners in the uranium bull market. Because China has carefully aligned with UraMin, or at least shown an inkling to do so, we suspect Russia might begin to look more carefully at Forsys Metals. This is purely speculation based upon our premise of 'uranium Politiques.' We do not have any 'inside track' on this matter.

Fortunately, we had the opportunity to chat with Forsys chief executive Duane Parnham late last week. His company had announced the completion of the pre-feasibility study on the company's Valencia uranium deposit in Namibia. We missed the company's conference call, but were allowed the opportunity to discuss his company's prospects and future plans during a telephone call.

The company's pre-feasibility study was prepared by Australia-based Snowden Mining, which used the guidelines of Australia's JORC code. Subsequently, the Valencia uranium mineral reserve was classified as Probable Reserves. These were calculated at 24 million pounds U3O8.

We asked about production. "We are now modeling 2.4 million pounds per year," Parnham told us. He expects to payback in less than two years. With Forsys as with all near-term producers, some early conversations have begun about pre-selling the company's uranium production after production has commenced.

His company's news release talked about six month of stripping during the initial part of the operation so we started there. "We'll start when we get a mining license and then looking at production." When will the company complete its ongoing environmental assessment? "We are hoping to have an environmental decision by year end," Parnham told us. "We are hoping to have enough data to apply for a mining license in early 2008. If that's successful, then obviously the decision to go forward will be made at that time."

For the time being, the company plans to expand its resource. "The pre-feasibility is just the first snapshot of the situation," he said. "We are finding the pit optimization study is only looking at a very small portion of the overall resource." Does that mean the resource is actually larger, then? "It's a heck of a lot bigger," he told us. "It's just a function of how much data you have available to punch into the model. Then, how much does the model give you back? The evaluation process is ongoing. You'll probably see a change in the pit design very shortly because we have the ability to move more resource into the reserve category."

We talked about his company's horse race with UraMin. How does it look? "Neck and neck, toe to toe," Parnham said. "I think it shows there's opportunity in Namibia, and that's good that there are a number of us working for a common goal."

Finally, we asked what has emerged as the key question: Is Forsys a ripe plum for the picking. He offered both sides of the coin. "Where the real opportunity lies is putting a property into production," he responded. "The operation isn't all that difficult so it's not a deposit that our expanding team couldn't put into production." And then Parnham left the door open. "Anything can happen. It's an open market, and we are a public company. But, we are certainly geared toward putting this into production."

And from what we've seen among the recent, significant consolidations, those companies who have commenced production, and those closest to production, are the prime acquisition candidates. Why should companies developing projects in Africa become the exception instead of the rule? Especially when two super powers are both eagerly trying to establish stronger uranium footholds in this continent.

James Finch contributes to StockInterview.com and other publications. His focus on the uranium mining and nuclear fuel sector resulted in the widely popular “Investing in the Great Uranium Bull Market,” which is now available on [http://www.stockinterview.com] and on http://www.amazon.com

Trade Association Forecasts U.S. Uranium Industry to Produce 20 Million Pounds by 2012

The Uranium Producers of America (UPA) was formed more than twenty years ago. Over the years, this trade association worked with Congress and state legislators to help improve the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle: uranium mining. Today, it has been re-energized with new members and with the task of helping to rebuild the U.S. uranium mining sector. We talked with Jon Indall, an attorney based in Santa Fe, New Mexico, who serves as the Executive Director of the UPA.

Uranium Producers of America members include International Uranium Corporation, Power Resources, Uranium Resources, Cotter Corporation, Energy Metals Corporation, Mestena Uranium, U.S. Energy, Laramide Resources, Strathmore Minerals, Uranium Energy and Neutron Energy.

StockInterview: What is the function of the Uranium Producers of America (UPA)?

Jon Indall: The Uranium Producers of America is a trade association, originally founded in 1985 to promote the viability of the domestic uranium industry.

StockInterview: How did the UPA trade association come into existence?

Jon Indall: The UPA was founded initially by the major U.S. producers, such as Kerr McGee, Homestake, United Nuclear, Rocky Mountain Energy, Union Carbide, Atlas, and Pathfinder. The major operating companies decided to form their own group to focus on specific uranium viability issues.

StockInterview: In what way does the UPA differ from the National Mining Association with regards to the uranium industry?

Jon Indall: Over the years the UPA was sort of a lobbying institution for the domestic industry and handled viability type issues. The National Mining Association has a uranium environmental subcommittee. The NMA has been more involved with the regulatory aspect, but we work together and have a good relationship. There's definitely an overlap between the members of each group, but our charge has been more on the viability aspect.

StockInterview: How do you promote the viability of the domestic uranium industry?

Jon Indall: Our agenda is twofold. We want to continue to promote the viability of uranium production in the United States. In that vein we have been meeting with the Department of Energy (DOE) to explain what's going on out in the field. We let them know there are active companies pursuing mining operations, acquiring properties, doing the exploration and development work, and so forth. We are also urging DOE not to do anything that impacts the market.

StockInterview: How could the Department of Energy affect the uranium market?

Jon Indall: The Department of Energy is sitting on a lot of inventory. We want DOE to be judicious in how they use that material. There's a very solid chance, in our view, going out a few years, there's going to be a gap between available supply and demand. The secondary market is diminishing. We want DOE to hold back their material. If there is a shortage, they can ride to the rescue, and the reactors won't go cold.

StockInterview: Are the utilities going to get back into the domestic uranium sector to ensure their nuclear reactors have sufficient uranium available?

Jon Indall: In the 1970s, when we had the initial boom, the domestic utilities were out making deals with producers. They were actively investing in projects and things of that nature. I don't think that's going to happen this year or next year. But a few years down the line, if things really tighten up, you might see that.

StockInterview: Where do the U.S. utilities stand with regards to a domestic uranium industry?

Jon Indall: In the late 1980s and early 1990s, I think the utilities saw Canada as such a big production center, they lost interest in the domestic producers. They were not too worried about having enough fuel coming in.

StockInterview: But, hasn't the industry changed over the past few years, as the spot uranium price has soared?

Jon Indall: If you read the trade press and everything else, you can see, with the impetus that's going on in Asia and all the reactors that are under construction or planned, I think the utilities have to understand that security of supply is something they need to pay attention to. It's on our agenda to start talking to the utilities a little bit more seriously. Even though you can get this material from other places, it's nice to have a local producer. It's fairly apparent this industry, in the next four to five years, could be producing in the range of 20 million pounds.

StockInterview: Do you believe the domestic uranium industry can produce twenty million pounds over the next four to five years?

Jon Indall: Conservatively, five to six years, but maybe even sooner. Well, let me put it this way: We're producing roughly 3 million pounds now. That's up from two. I could be off by a factor of a few hundred thousand. Power Resources is producing roughly 2 million pounds. With the Uranium Resources production that's come on in Texas, and with Mestena, you've got about another million pounds or so. IUC has just announced that they're going to produce 3.5 million pounds, I think, over the next two years. Some of that is material they're cleaning up for DOE, but it is still production. All the UPA members have plans to be in production at some point.

StockInterview: Yes, but doesn't it take five to eleven years to get the production underway?

Jon Indall: I think eleven years is too far out. I think, if the companies can get with it, you can see four or five In Situ Recovery (ISR) operations producing one to two million pounds apiece. And then maybe somebody gets a conventional mine going here again, like IUC is doing. I can't tell you the exact number, but I think you'll see increased production, assuming that the price continues to rise or stabilize.

StockInterview: How are the uranium companies going to move that fast?

Jon Indall: I think a lot of it, in my mind, is how well the regulatory community accepts what these guys are trying to do. My impression is - and this is just me talking - that a lot of the communities, where this activity has been undertaken before, are not averse to seeing it again. It means good jobs and that type of thing. A lot of these communities are sort of depressed communities. For example in New Mexico, McKinley County is one of the lowest counties in the state economically. I think the average guy out there would welcome the opportunity to see some high paying jobs.

StockInterview: How well would the regulatory community in New Mexico react?

Jon Indall: I recently met with the New Mexico Mining Minerals Division. Since we passed the New Mexico Mining Act in 1993, no one has permitted a mine in New Mexico. We were talking about how we were going to do this. Obviously it's not going to happen tomorrow.

StockInterview: What about senior state officials, such as the Governor of New Mexico?

Jon Indall: I can tell you the New Mexico governor was extremely supportive of the uranium miners when he was in Congress. He introduced legislation supporting our efforts in those days, and some of it he did on his own. He's got a big state to govern, and I think he's looking for jobs. I think if we can show him that we can do this better than we did in the past, then he'll be supportive. That's my hope.

StockInterview: Will the major oil or mining companies return to the uranium industry?

Jon Indall: I don't anticipate the big oil companies coming in again for some time. BHP Billiton initially said, 'We have no interest in uranium mining in New Mexico.' Then they turned around and bought the biggest property in Australia. Now I understand BHP is looking hard at their New Mexico operations. So you might see some of the big mining companies involved.

StockInterview: Who, then, will build up the domestic uranium industry?

Jon Indall: I think it may be more entrepreneurial, which was the way it started back in the 1950s. The early producers, with the exception of Kerr McGee, were individuals - Charlie Steen, Dick Bokum, and Cotter Ferguson in Wyoming. They were the people who really got this industry up and going, with AEC assistance. I am not sure the oil companies are that critical, but I would like to see utilities get into the mix. I think it all depends on how supply and demand is perceived.

StockInterview: How should the major uranium producers, such as Cameco or BHP, deal with the impact of a potential supply shortage for U.S. utilities?

Jon Indall: BHP and Cameco are aggressively trying to increase their production. They wouldn't be doing that if they didn't think there was a market for it. The U.S. market and the U.S. government are so critical to the health of all suppliers, in my opinion, because our government has done more to help and harm domestic and worldwide production than any other entity. I think foreign producers would be wise to recognize that having a viable U.S. industry, which senators and the congressmen care about, because they're creating jobs and income in their states, is not a bad thing. I think it keeps DOE honest. To me, if I were sitting up in Canada, this would be something I might be looking at.

StockInterview: What should U.S. utilities be looking at, with regards to the supply picture?

Jon Indall: You've got the Russians announcing they're not going to proceed with the HEU agreement after 2013. It is my understanding they're looking to beef up supply for themselves. With the utilities, I think it's kind of 'wait and see' right now. I think that they're looking at this from the big picture. I think it's becoming more evident to them nuclear has got to play an ever increasing role. Global warming is really driving a lot of boats here, and I think they're realizing there has to be a real active nuclear power plant production increase.

StockInterview: How are things differently now for the Uranium Producers of America compared to the early days in the 1980s?

Jon Indall: Right now, it's a much different atmosphere than it was in 1985. The market was going down rapidly in 1985. Everybody was kind of fighting for their existence. We were pleading our case that this industry was created by the government - the government did things that really screwed it up. I think, now, we're not asking for so much. We're basically asking for the status quo. We don't want the government to do anything that adversely impacts the price. Let the price work itself out. Let's start producing uranium where cost has some impact. The price and the cost of have a relationship. From about 1985 on, they did not.

COPYRIGHT © 2007 by StockInterview, Inc. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

James Finch contributes to StockInterview.com and other publications. StockInterview’s “Investing in the Great Uranium Bull Market” has become the most popular book ever published for uranium mining stock investors. Visit [http://www.stockinterview.com]

Is the Navajo Nation President Being a Hypocrite about Uranium Mining

According to the U.S. Energy 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 Research and Information Center (SRIC), has shown no evidence of denouncing coal consumption. According 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 former nuclear physicist is an aging, eccentric author who was discredited by the Atomic Energy Commission and was branded by the nuclear power industry as "beyond the pale of reasonable communication." As a kind gesture, Hancock gave us a copy of a Gofman "cartoon book," whose theme revolves around Thoreau's essay, "Civil Disobedience." Another cosmic ally is Amory B. Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute, a favorite Don Hancock icon.

While Gofman championed solar energy in his hey day, Lovins presently espouses hydrogen as a primary solution for transportation, wind, and increasing efficiency through natural gas. However, neither wind power nor solar energy is a relevant energy 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 energy sources combined supply New Mexico with a mere 0.6 percent of its electricity. Coal is, in a very big way, the overwhelming reason why New Mexicans are not living in darkness and without heat or air conditioning.

According to the Harvard School of Public Health, about 2400 people 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 concerned 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 closed any time soon, though. No matter how deadly coal mines are, coal production is irreplaceable at this time. According to the New Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources, tax revenues from coal in 2001 exceeded $30 million. Nearly one-half of the state's energy needs are met through coal-generated power. The coal industry employed 1,800 people 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 Release Inventory report 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 travel 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 according to the EPA report. Any visitor to the Gallup area can readily smell the stench circulating in the air.

Does Navajo Nation President Joe Shirley Jr Have Double Standards?

Why haven't the Navajo banned coal mining on the reservation as they have uranium mining? According to Anna Frazier, a Navajo affiliated with a local environmental group, "Our Navajo Nation is certainly not going to do that. They would rather have the revenues coming in from the coal companies and the power plants." According to a news report published in Indian Country newspaper, "The Navajo Nation receives the bulk of its annual $100 million operating expenses from royalties, leases and taxes from its coal, oil and gas. These revenues provide 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 Energy has operated massive 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 Station nearly 300 miles away in Laughlin, Nevada. The utility was given a choice: cough up $1 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 closing last October, "This is going to have a terrible effect on this entire region because the Navajo economy 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 preserve wilderness areas...It's always the soulful Native American who steps forward as the high priest of sacred geography. In the background lurks the environmentalist equipped 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 closed down this week. That's because the Mojave power station closed as advertised because of the dirty Black Mesa coal. Mike Conner, president of the Bullhead Area Chamber 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 almost $21 million hit" in lost power plant payrolls. The facility will lay off 375 employees, who had an average annual wage of $87,000. Like dominoes falling, jobs in Nevada, Arizona and in the Navajo Nation were lost.

Recently, Navajo president Joe Shirley Jr. considered replacing budget 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 Energy 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 either 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 combination truck stop, casino, restaurant(s) and discount 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 control more than 75 million pounds of uranium, with a gross value presently exceeding $2.7 billion. Some say the number 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 career has been featured on BBC Television and in the pages of National Geographic and celebrated 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 between conventional 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 composition of coal may enlighten more than just environmentalists. Former 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 include the oxides of carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur; carcinogenic and mutagenic substances; and recoverable minerals of commercial value, including nuclear fuels naturally occurring in coal."

Did you know that the amount of radioactive thorium contained in coal is about 2.5 times greater than the amount of uranium? For a large number of coal samples, according to Environmental Protection Agency figures released in 1984, average values of uranium and thorium content have been determined 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 account 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 release of uranium and thorium from coal burning by the year 2040:

Based on the predicted combustion of 2516 million tons of coal in the United States and 12,580 million tons worldwide during the year 2040, cumulative releases for the 100 years of coal combustion following 1937 are predicted to be:

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

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

Thorium: 357,491 tons

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

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

Thorium: 2,039,709 tons

The population effective dose equivalent from coal plants is 100 times that from nuclear plants. According to the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), the average radioactivity per short ton of coal is 17,100 millicuries/4,000,000 tons, or 0.00427 millicuries/ton. This figure can be used to calculate the average expected radioactivity release from coal combustion. For 1982 the total release 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) through 1987 (661 million tons) with an estimated total in the year 2040 (2516 million tons), the total expected U.S. radioactivity release to the environment by 2040 can be determined. That total comes from the expected combustion of 111,716 million tons of coal with the release of 477,027,320 millicuries in the United States. Global releases of radioactivity from the predicted 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 subject 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 release quantities of radioactive material that would provoke enormous public 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 accumulate on electric utility sites are not protected from weathering, thus exposing people to increasing quantities of radioactive isotopes 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 through coal production. There is no vocal outcry from Southwest Research 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 amount 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 budget committee wouldn't stand for it?

COPYRIGHT © 2007 by StockInterview, Inc. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

James Finch contributes to StockInterview.com and other publications. StockInterview’s “Investing in the Great Uranium Bull Market” has become the most popular book ever published for uranium mining stock investors. Visit [http://www.stockinterview.com]