Interviewer: Before we talk about the potential of uranium deficiencies and the steep price rise in that power source, could you explain how you got started with this idea, and what is the philosophy behind Strathmore's purchase programr of uranium properties?
Dev Randhawa: Several years ago, Strathmore Minerals started with the idea of taking properties out of the money at reasonable prices in the idea that the uranium prices would recover so that our assets would be worth a bit more. Nobody was paying attention to the commodity we chose: uranium. Strathmore Minerals is a call on the cost of uranium. That's how we started the company. This strategy is equivalent to what Lumina Copper (AMEX: LCC) used and what Silver Standard used. As an example, the chairman of Silver Standard Resources (NASDAQ: SSRI) is on our board of directors. Our first step was to buy each pound we could for as inexpensively as practicable. The second step is to buy real estate that we think that we can put into production. We're really trying to find those.
Interviewer: But uranium has a powerful environmental stigma. Why, then, are you positive about this sort of energy source?
Dev Randhawa: As with most folks, when I started looking into uranium, I thought this was bad stuff. I presumed of 3 Mile Island and everything else. The more homework I did on this, the more I realized that nuclear power is clean and safe. That is essentially what uranium is employed for the moment. It should be known that no one ever kicked the bucket at 3 Mile Island. No one really expired at Chernobyl. Yes, folk got sick. Compare that to coal or the oil spills in the ordinary fuel sector, and the damage it has done to the environment. The issue is no one is champing nuclear energy. Honestly, the greenies have done a good job of burying the story. As I did homework, I learned France depends on nuclear power for roughly 78 to 80 p.c of its electricity wishes. I noticed that someone did an excellent job lobbying and built a very unhealthy picture towards uranium, when truly it's needed. We don't talk about the price of coal. We do not talk of planetary warming. But , look at what coal has done. Global warming is a result of normal fuels. That explains why you are seeing a growing positive response to nuclear power. For instance, one company has applied to put a new nuclear reactor into the US.
Interviewer: To what do you attribute the present, steep price rise in uranium?
Dev Randhawa: Since last year, the price of uranium (U3O8) has climbed back steeply back up. At one time, the price was moving up about $1/pound per month. Uranium's price is more in accordance with the cost of oil in contrast to other commodities. For a long time, we've only produced on average about 90 million pounds, when we required 140 (million pounds). There's been an imbalance for numerous years. This additional came from foreign sources, or from internal US inventories. Since the 1980s, we have been using more uranium than we've been manufacturing in the western world. As a consequence, the additional that we've needed has come from Russia, the US central authority or inventory that utilities had.
Interviewer: But most backers, not to mention the buyer, do not know that uranium's spot price has virtually tripled, since bottoming three years ago. Why is that?
Dev Randhawa: Uranium only makes up one percent of the price of running a nuclear reactor. The most important account for why uranium costs can go up, rather more speedily than gold, is that uranium is insensible to its use. Uranium costs can go much higher. In casual chats with one or two Toronto analysts, some believe that it can go up to $80 or $100/pound. For instance, if the cost of gold tomorrow went to $800/ounce, it will affect someone's purchasing choice. The man might say, I was going to buy this ring and now it's up 70percent because the price of gold is up. Maybe I am going to buy a silver ring as an alternative. The same occurs with other commodities. People may change their buying choice based totally on a commodity price doubling.
If the price of uranium went to $44/pound, the average consumer's electricity bill might go up a few dollars. It isn't going to coerce someone to turn off their power. But if the cost of oil doubled tomorrow, many folks would be driving smaller vehicles. It would make an elemental difference in how we behave. That isn't. Going to happen with the price of uranium. It's like buying pencils for your office. It is not going to change the way you do business. Regardless of whether no nuclear reactors come onboard for the next few years, the ones already there will need the pounds (of uranium). We have a dearth coming up.
Interviewer: Why do your of the opinion a uranium dearth is in the cards?
Dev Randhawa: Bottom line is: the nuclear reactors are going to run straight out of fuel. You've got to know that allowing takes a considerable time in the uranium industry. It is not like finding a gold property tomorrow and maybe 2 years from now you are pouring gold. Generally the permit takes at least 3 years out. Because nuclear reactors need it, which is what is causing the price rise. Demand has kept going higher, but production has fallen off the chart. In this industry there are only about 6 companies exploring for uranium. At one time, back in the late 1970s and early 1980s, there were just about 150 uranium corporations. There has not been any underground mining way back to the early 1990s. And that doesn't even include a wild card: there's been talk that by 2020, 90 % of the nuclear reactors coming onboard will be for China.
Interviewer: And what would reverse uranium's steep price rise?
Dev Randhawa: The only thing that might kill this market would be if Russia discovered it had a lot more pounds to sell. Or the US administration, thru USEG, came up with more pounds. When we first entered the market, 8 years back uranium rose to round about $17-$18/pound. Then it slipped. What happened was the U.S. Government sold their uranium to a private group, who turned around and dumped it into the market, from then until last year. In October of last year, the Russians were also dumping uranium onto the marketplace for their hard cash.
Interviewer: If replacement price for uranium comes in the shape of exploration costs to find and mine this power source, what would that cost be?
Dev Randhawa: Realistically, it would be $20 to $22/pound. I know some are going to say they can do it for less. By the time you take your exploration costs, development costs, and the like you really need to get $22 to $25 for most properties to go into production and still make cash. That's why the majority of what you see in the market are ISL (in situ leach) projects. On one property we found it would cost between $16 and $17/pound to pull it out of the ground. But on others, it may take $20 - 22/pound to drag it out of the ground, after work costs and sell it on a forward contract. Canada is producing the most uranium thanks to the grades. Some say Canada has the smallest price, but that isn't quite accurate. What they meant to say is that the cash costs are the lowest. People forget that it costs up to $2 bill to put a number of these into production. Cameco (NYSE: CCJ) was a creature of the govt. at one previous point. They were treated that way.
Interviewer: Earlier you noted that investing in Strathmore Minerals was fundamentally a call on the price of uranium? Can you explain what you mean by that?
Dev Randhawa: As uranium costs, the share cost of Strathmore Minerals should rise. If you look at Bema (Amex:BGO), when gold costs were at $265/oz, what was it worth? As the price of gold moved up, it had price. Has it gone into production yet? No. Silver Standard (NASDAQ:SSRI) is comparable, however it has been forced to tell its story because folk are so focused on gold. The key for backers is not to go where the crowds go, but to go where you can find value. If you believe that nuclear power is the spot to be, and the deficit is real, you have got to own uranium stocks.
Interviewer: What sets Strathmore Minerals apart from any other exploration corporations in this sector?
Dev Randhawa: I challenge any junior exploration company to show an individual who has basically put an ISL (in situ leach) uranium mine into production, including Cameco. They just aren't around because the industry has been dead as far back as the early 1980s. There aren't many professionals left in this business. The last standing geologist, which Cogema had, was David Miller, who's now working with Strathmore Minerals, as our head specialist. He is the one that has put the Strathmore method together. We've been looking in southern and eastern Africa. Strathmore is going wherever there are pounds that others have overlooked. Our competitive angle is a database we bought from Kerr McGee (NYSE: KMD), which used to be number one in the uranium industry. Lately, we revealed properties in Wyoming that could be satellite ISLs. We have enough pounds. There that we could throw one of them into production. But we continue to need heavier prices. We are still in the purchase stage.
Strathmore will be awfully assertive in picking up properties that we think have pounds in the ground or smaller properties that we think can be ISL-able in the States. Everything we are looking at in America is for ISL. In Canada, we have over 700,000 hectares in the Athabascan area. That is a major asset for us. It's one of the richest areas in the world for uranium. Some of our targets are near existing mines. In Quebec, we have got a large property that was drilled by Uranerz. Robert Quartermain has actually been part of that plan. That's what he probably did with Silver Standard, and that is what we're doing here. We are assertively going after properties. When complex backers meet our team, they see the tale we have got and they see our management. You'll see why we were able to millions of greenbacks in financings. Our strategy has been to buy the has-been properties, the low fruit in all the trees. And that is what we have been doing.
Dev Randhawa: Several years ago, Strathmore Minerals started with the idea of taking properties out of the money at reasonable prices in the idea that the uranium prices would recover so that our assets would be worth a bit more. Nobody was paying attention to the commodity we chose: uranium. Strathmore Minerals is a call on the cost of uranium. That's how we started the company. This strategy is equivalent to what Lumina Copper (AMEX: LCC) used and what Silver Standard used. As an example, the chairman of Silver Standard Resources (NASDAQ: SSRI) is on our board of directors. Our first step was to buy each pound we could for as inexpensively as practicable. The second step is to buy real estate that we think that we can put into production. We're really trying to find those.
Interviewer: But uranium has a powerful environmental stigma. Why, then, are you positive about this sort of energy source?
Dev Randhawa: As with most folks, when I started looking into uranium, I thought this was bad stuff. I presumed of 3 Mile Island and everything else. The more homework I did on this, the more I realized that nuclear power is clean and safe. That is essentially what uranium is employed for the moment. It should be known that no one ever kicked the bucket at 3 Mile Island. No one really expired at Chernobyl. Yes, folk got sick. Compare that to coal or the oil spills in the ordinary fuel sector, and the damage it has done to the environment. The issue is no one is champing nuclear energy. Honestly, the greenies have done a good job of burying the story. As I did homework, I learned France depends on nuclear power for roughly 78 to 80 p.c of its electricity wishes. I noticed that someone did an excellent job lobbying and built a very unhealthy picture towards uranium, when truly it's needed. We don't talk about the price of coal. We do not talk of planetary warming. But , look at what coal has done. Global warming is a result of normal fuels. That explains why you are seeing a growing positive response to nuclear power. For instance, one company has applied to put a new nuclear reactor into the US.
Interviewer: To what do you attribute the present, steep price rise in uranium?
Dev Randhawa: Since last year, the price of uranium (U3O8) has climbed back steeply back up. At one time, the price was moving up about $1/pound per month. Uranium's price is more in accordance with the cost of oil in contrast to other commodities. For a long time, we've only produced on average about 90 million pounds, when we required 140 (million pounds). There's been an imbalance for numerous years. This additional came from foreign sources, or from internal US inventories. Since the 1980s, we have been using more uranium than we've been manufacturing in the western world. As a consequence, the additional that we've needed has come from Russia, the US central authority or inventory that utilities had.
Interviewer: But most backers, not to mention the buyer, do not know that uranium's spot price has virtually tripled, since bottoming three years ago. Why is that?
Dev Randhawa: Uranium only makes up one percent of the price of running a nuclear reactor. The most important account for why uranium costs can go up, rather more speedily than gold, is that uranium is insensible to its use. Uranium costs can go much higher. In casual chats with one or two Toronto analysts, some believe that it can go up to $80 or $100/pound. For instance, if the cost of gold tomorrow went to $800/ounce, it will affect someone's purchasing choice. The man might say, I was going to buy this ring and now it's up 70percent because the price of gold is up. Maybe I am going to buy a silver ring as an alternative. The same occurs with other commodities. People may change their buying choice based totally on a commodity price doubling.
If the price of uranium went to $44/pound, the average consumer's electricity bill might go up a few dollars. It isn't going to coerce someone to turn off their power. But if the cost of oil doubled tomorrow, many folks would be driving smaller vehicles. It would make an elemental difference in how we behave. That isn't. Going to happen with the price of uranium. It's like buying pencils for your office. It is not going to change the way you do business. Regardless of whether no nuclear reactors come onboard for the next few years, the ones already there will need the pounds (of uranium). We have a dearth coming up.
Interviewer: Why do your of the opinion a uranium dearth is in the cards?
Dev Randhawa: Bottom line is: the nuclear reactors are going to run straight out of fuel. You've got to know that allowing takes a considerable time in the uranium industry. It is not like finding a gold property tomorrow and maybe 2 years from now you are pouring gold. Generally the permit takes at least 3 years out. Because nuclear reactors need it, which is what is causing the price rise. Demand has kept going higher, but production has fallen off the chart. In this industry there are only about 6 companies exploring for uranium. At one time, back in the late 1970s and early 1980s, there were just about 150 uranium corporations. There has not been any underground mining way back to the early 1990s. And that doesn't even include a wild card: there's been talk that by 2020, 90 % of the nuclear reactors coming onboard will be for China.
Interviewer: And what would reverse uranium's steep price rise?
Dev Randhawa: The only thing that might kill this market would be if Russia discovered it had a lot more pounds to sell. Or the US administration, thru USEG, came up with more pounds. When we first entered the market, 8 years back uranium rose to round about $17-$18/pound. Then it slipped. What happened was the U.S. Government sold their uranium to a private group, who turned around and dumped it into the market, from then until last year. In October of last year, the Russians were also dumping uranium onto the marketplace for their hard cash.
Interviewer: If replacement price for uranium comes in the shape of exploration costs to find and mine this power source, what would that cost be?
Dev Randhawa: Realistically, it would be $20 to $22/pound. I know some are going to say they can do it for less. By the time you take your exploration costs, development costs, and the like you really need to get $22 to $25 for most properties to go into production and still make cash. That's why the majority of what you see in the market are ISL (in situ leach) projects. On one property we found it would cost between $16 and $17/pound to pull it out of the ground. But on others, it may take $20 - 22/pound to drag it out of the ground, after work costs and sell it on a forward contract. Canada is producing the most uranium thanks to the grades. Some say Canada has the smallest price, but that isn't quite accurate. What they meant to say is that the cash costs are the lowest. People forget that it costs up to $2 bill to put a number of these into production. Cameco (NYSE: CCJ) was a creature of the govt. at one previous point. They were treated that way.
Interviewer: Earlier you noted that investing in Strathmore Minerals was fundamentally a call on the price of uranium? Can you explain what you mean by that?
Dev Randhawa: As uranium costs, the share cost of Strathmore Minerals should rise. If you look at Bema (Amex:BGO), when gold costs were at $265/oz, what was it worth? As the price of gold moved up, it had price. Has it gone into production yet? No. Silver Standard (NASDAQ:SSRI) is comparable, however it has been forced to tell its story because folk are so focused on gold. The key for backers is not to go where the crowds go, but to go where you can find value. If you believe that nuclear power is the spot to be, and the deficit is real, you have got to own uranium stocks.
Interviewer: What sets Strathmore Minerals apart from any other exploration corporations in this sector?
Dev Randhawa: I challenge any junior exploration company to show an individual who has basically put an ISL (in situ leach) uranium mine into production, including Cameco. They just aren't around because the industry has been dead as far back as the early 1980s. There aren't many professionals left in this business. The last standing geologist, which Cogema had, was David Miller, who's now working with Strathmore Minerals, as our head specialist. He is the one that has put the Strathmore method together. We've been looking in southern and eastern Africa. Strathmore is going wherever there are pounds that others have overlooked. Our competitive angle is a database we bought from Kerr McGee (NYSE: KMD), which used to be number one in the uranium industry. Lately, we revealed properties in Wyoming that could be satellite ISLs. We have enough pounds. There that we could throw one of them into production. But we continue to need heavier prices. We are still in the purchase stage.
Strathmore will be awfully assertive in picking up properties that we think have pounds in the ground or smaller properties that we think can be ISL-able in the States. Everything we are looking at in America is for ISL. In Canada, we have over 700,000 hectares in the Athabascan area. That is a major asset for us. It's one of the richest areas in the world for uranium. Some of our targets are near existing mines. In Quebec, we have got a large property that was drilled by Uranerz. Robert Quartermain has actually been part of that plan. That's what he probably did with Silver Standard, and that is what we're doing here. We are assertively going after properties. When complex backers meet our team, they see the tale we have got and they see our management. You'll see why we were able to millions of greenbacks in financings. Our strategy has been to buy the has-been properties, the low fruit in all the trees. And that is what we have been doing.
About the Author:
There's an amazing Timing Signal program that may teach you about Timing Signal at Timing Methods Which Can Help Stockholders Achieve Long term Wealth. If you want to learn more about Timing Signal, there's no quicker way than this programme. Read some more about it at Timing Signal.
No comments:
Post a Comment