The information on this Website is not reliable and not intended to provide tax, legal, or investment advice. Nothing contained on the Website shall be considered a recommendation, solicitation, or offer to buy or sell a security to any person in any jurisdiction.
CEO.CA members discuss high-risk penny stocks which can lose their entire value. Only risk what you can afford to lose.
@nicholaslepanFT Consensus Recommendation for $CCO Cameco: As of Feb 14, 2017, the consensus forecast amongst 14 polled investment analysts covering Cameco Corp advises that the company will outperform the market. This has been the consensus forecast since the sentiment of investment analysts improved on Oct 09, 2014. The previous consensus forecast advised investors to hold their position in Cameco Corp. 1 analysts has a buy rating, 6 outperform and 7 hold. The 13 analysts offering 12 month price targets for Cameco Corp have a median target of 15.95, with a high estimate of 21.00 and a low estimate of 13.50. The median estimate represents a 2.84% increase from the last price of 15.51. $CCO is currently trading down 12 cents to $15.39 on 1.565 million shares. #uranium
@nicholaslepan$CCO that is the median estimate of the price gain, so with the majority of the analysts reporting in the hold section with 7 analysts, the median would heavily weighted to their conservative estimates
@Goldfinger"In the 40 year history of contracts between $uranium suppliers and utilities there have only been 2 disputes such as we are seeing with Tepco and Cameco $CCJ$CCO. Tepco was the only utility to be directly affected by Fukushima so this is a unique situation that I believe is limited to Tepco (we won't see more long term contract disputes between utilities and uranium producers)." $UEC$uranium
@GoldfingerThis was a quote from $UEC CEO Adnani yesterday ~~~> "There is definitely a correlation between the vibrancy of the $uranium equity sector and U3O8 spot price."..... we definitely saw that this week as uranium equities were down every day this week as U3O8 spot price also fell from above $26/lb to $22.56/lb. $CCJ$CCO$NXE
@Goldfinger$CCJ$CCO holds up very well today while $uranium sector gets pummeled to the tune of 3-5% across the board, $NXE down nearly 10% after disappointing RE2 update announcement. Flight to 'quality' - Cameco is relatively safe...read boring.
@MarshhawkDOE dumping 2100 TPA on market, about to end???
click to invite
@MarshhawkThe US Department of Energy (DOE) has asked for public comment on the effects of potential transfers of its excess uranium inventory on the country's uranium mining, conversion and enrichment industries. The DOE's request was issued the day after the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) raised issues related to excess uranium transfers over the past decade including questions on the DOE's assessment of market impact studies; the valuation of depleted uranium tails; and the legality of some transfers.
The DOE holds inventories of uranium in various forms that have been declared as excess and not needed for US national security missions. These include low-enriched uranium (LEU), highly-enriched uranium (HEU), depleted uranium - a by-product of the uranium enrichment process which is also known as tails - and natural uranium. In recent years the DOE has transferred some of this inventory in exchange for services: for the clean-up of the former Portsmouth gaseous diffusion uranium enrichment plant, and for the downblending of HEU to LEU. DOE currently transfers about 2100 tU per year for these two programs.
In May 2015, then-US Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz issued a determination that transfers of up to 2500 tU in 2015, and 2100 tU in subsequent years, would not have an adverse material impact on the domestic uranium mining, conversion, or enrichment industry.
The DOE is now in the process of considering a new determination covering the potential continued transfer of uranium for clean-up services at Portsmouth. The department last July issued a Request for Information (RFI), soliciting information about uranium markets and the domestic conversion and enrichment industries, and the potential effects of DOE transfers on them. It also commissioned an independent analysis of the potential effects of various levels of uranium transfers from Energy Resources International (ERI), published in January.
Since the close of the comment period on the RFI, the US Energy Secretary has determined the exchange of LEU for the downblending of HEU serves a national security purpose and therefore does not require a secretarial determination.
The DOE yesterday issued, via the US Federal Register, a summary of the information including responses to the RFI, which it will use in the decision-making process for its next determination. It includes comments from the Uranium Producers of America (UPA) organisation and nuclear fuel cycle companies. Interested persons have until 10 April to submit comments, data and further information.
DOE's base scenario sees transfers continuing at the current rate of 2100 tU per year until 2020 - at which point National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) "barters" for the downblending of HEU are assumed to end. The ERI looks at the impacts of this, and three other scenarios. It estimates that uranium spot market prices would be $3.5 per pound U3O8, or 8% lower, if inventory releases take place at the Base Scenario rate over the next 10 years.
The UPA in April 2016 called on the DOE to cease transfers of excess uranium from federal inventory until the uranium market recovers from its current oversupplied state, saying the DOE's inventory sales had a negative impact on the uranium market and the domestic uranium industry. In its latest Annual Report, issued on 1 March, the organisation reiterated its call, saying: "The liquidation of DOE stockpiles … has imparted great harm to the industry." It said such "forced sales" had "contributed greatly to the downward spiral in prices for uranium worldwide over the past several years".
GAO questions transfers
The US GAO this week issued testimony raising issues found in nine of its publications - five reports, three testimonies, and a legal opinion - on the DOE's excess uranium transfers from July 2006 to September 2015.
The GAO expressed concern about the steps taken by the DOE to assess the technical quality of market impact studies conducted in 2012 and 2013. It also queried DOE's failure to develop guidance on determining the value of depleted uranium tails, and questioned the legality of some transfers.
Depleted uranium tails had previously been considered a "waste" and treated as having no economic value, the GAO noted. It said the DOE had disagreed with a May 2014 recommendation to develop guidance for "consistently determining the value of depleted uranium tails when transferring them as an asset", a position DOE had reiterated in 2016. "However, since that time, DOE has continued to receive commercial interest in its tails, underscoring that tails can be viewed as an asset," it said. "GAO continues to believe having guidance that provides a consistent and transparent method for determining the value of tails is necessary to ensure that DOE is reasonably compensated for its material."
The GAO also said the DOE's uranium transfers had, in some cases, violated federal law as the DOE "likely did not have authority to transfer tails because of prohibitions imposed by the USEC Privatisation Act". GAO said legislation introduced in the 114th Congress would have authorised the DOE to transfer tails but had not been passed.
The GAO is an independent, nonpartisan agency that works for the US Congress and is responsible for investigating federal government expenditures.
"Over nearly a decade, GAO has made numerous recommendations to improve DOE's transfers of excess uranium. DOE has neither agreed nor disagreed on some recommendations and has disagreed with others. GAO will continue to monitor the DOE's implementation of these recommendations," it said.
Researched and written
by World Nuclear News
SEDI_botCameco Corporation $CCO just filed 3 reports. View full report: SEDI:CCO
@GoldfingerRemove candlesticks and moving averages and simply focus on price and trends: http://cdn.ceo.ca/1cd12tb-CCJ_Daily_3.20.2017.png+ After nearly doubling during November-January rally $CCJ$CCO has consolidated within a narrowing trading range (ATR has dropped more than 50% from February peak), Bulls want sustained push over $11.25, Bears want breakdown below $10.80. $uranium
wannabeinvestorSure seems like uranium mining in Kazakhistan using ISR is very profitable even at current spot prices, at least on cash cost basis. Excerpt from the recent Uranium One annual report: 'According to Uranium One’s financial results for 2016, the total volume of natural uranium produced was to 4,919t . The cost of sales of uranium oxide fell from $12/lb to $9/lb compared with 2015. This was mainly due to lower production costs in the mining joint ventures in Kazakhstan – down from $9.7/lb to $6.4/lb. Total revenue was $570m in 2016, of which $325m was from foreign operations – 34% up on 2015. Operating profit for the year was $180m.' http://www.neimagazine.com/news/newsrussias-uranium-one-may-reduce-production-in-kazakhstan-5771513?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter#uranium$NXE$CCO