What is nuclear energy and how it is obtained


Making Money on the Global Warming Crisis

Bad weather may be heading our way. Many veryEnvisioning the "potential" of a 600-percent
smart voices have raised their volume overincrease in nuclear reactors online, about 25
the number of alarming red flags pointing toyears from now, Bambrough also calculated how
a worldwide environmental catastrophe comingmuch uranium would be required to fuel those
in a few years or decades hence. One voice,reactors.
coming from the sharp mind of James Lovelock
is resounding across the world's media nearlyAccording to Bambrough, current global
every day. His solution: get more nuclearuranium mining production rests at about the
reactors online and sequester the carbon100 million-pound level. By 2030, if nuclear
dioxide  emissions  as  fast  as  possible.energy expands as Moore insists it should,
then the world's utilities will require on
What's the alternative? Move to the Arcticthe order of about 1.3 billion pounds every
Circle, where you may someday bask yearyear. With regards to a planetary build-up of
around with temperatures pleasantly at 74nuclear energy, Bambrough wrote, "The supply
degrees Fahrenheit. According to findingsof uranium may well be the most limiting
recently published in the journal Nature.factor."
About 55 million years ago, there was
something called the Paleocene Eocene ThermalThis may become the new case for a sustained
Maximum (PETM). In this PETM phenomenon, therally in the spot uranium price. Bambrough
entire Earth was heated up by a giganticwrote, "Much higher uranium prices will be
release of greenhouse gases, like carbonrequired to attract enough investment capital
dioxide. Lovelock has insisted we may seeto meet the growth in demand." This has
that  kind  of  hot  later  this  century.already begun, as uranium prices have
skyrocketed for the past six years. Long-term
Now, another brainy man, with whom we haveuranium recently traded as high as $46/pound,
many chats this year, has issued a specialexponentially higher than the spot price of
56-page report, entitled "Investment$6.40/pound in late 2000. Bambrough is
Implications of an Abrupt Climate Change."correct in his conclusion. Building an
Co-authored by Market Strategist Kevinunderground uranium mine costs far more than
Bambrough and Eric Sprott, Chief Executiveit did in the glory days of uranium in the
and Portfolio Manager of the world-famous1950s. Environmental regulations force miners
money management firm which bears his name,to spend more and take longer in constructing
they present a compelling argument as to whyany uranium-producing facility, including an
and how global warming and climate change isISL  operation.
going to dramatically impact our financial
world.  You  are  well  advised  to  read it."Marginal mines will become price setters,"
wrote Bambrough. This helps explain why the
Take Your Pick: Nuclear Energy or CheapSprott Asset Management funds have invested
Arctic  Landheavily in companies such as Strathmore
Minerals (TSX: STM; Other OTC: STHJF), Energy
Aside from optioning to buy vast tracts ofMetals (TSX: EMC) and others. When we first
land near the Arctic Circle, as Dr.interviewed Strathmore Minerals Chief
Lovelock's conclusions force us to brieflyExecutive, Dev Randhawa, in June 2004, he
consider, what can we do to protect ourtold us his strategy was to capitalize upon a
finances? Global warming, climate change andsustained rally in the uranium price by
an apocalypse soon to dawn on the horizon areacquiring properties which were uneconomic at
probably too much reality for the here andthe sub-$20/level. His strategy has rewarded
now. But, what will you do ten to thirtyshareholders and continued to do so with each
years from now? This past week, weuptick in the spot uranium price. If
interviewed Julian Steyn, author of ABambrough's conclusion is accurate, the
Brighter Tomorrow, which he co-wrote withjunior uranium developers could very well
U.S. Senator Pete Domenici. A conservativebecome the Internet high-fliers. That
and rational man, even he admitted in anconclusion was reached by newsletter writer
email, "I am afraid I do agree with hisJames Dines, this past November, and repeated
(Lovelock's)  concerns."numerous times in multiple reports by others.
If one finds logic within the statistical"Large low-cost producers may be able to reap
analysis presented by the United NationsMiddle East-like oil profits for decades,"
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changewrote Bambrough. If the spread between
(IPCC), a rational mind would want to startproduction costs and spot uranium keeps
protecting his finances today in order towidening, the smaller uranium companies are
ensure future survival for his family andgoing to hit it big. Those companies, which
lineage. Esteemed scientists have pickedpostponed uranium mining, will be selling
their way through mountains of statistics,their uranium production at the kind of
charts and projections about what isprofits-to-production spread ExxonMobil or
happening with melting glaciers, risingChevronTexaco  now  enjoy.
temperatures, higher sea levels and so forth.
They do not like what they see, they are notRising uranium prices are probably more of an
alone, and the better minds are not endorsingirritation for fuel traders than the
wind farms or solar panels as "the solution."utilities, who worry about construction
They see nuclear fission reactors ascosts. The actual fuel cost to operate a
mandatory, and the faster these go online,nuclear power plant borders on the absurd.
the less we will later have to sweatBambrough wrote in his report, "Fuel costs
(literally).(for nuclear) are merely 4.5 percent of total
costs, even with uranium at $40 per lb. If
Eric Sprott and Kevin Bambrough have laid outuranium rises to $100 per lb (a further 150
a possible solution, a cogent thesis as topercent increase), the cost of nuclear power
why we must stop fooling around now. Theywould only rise by approximately 6.75
didn't write the report to alarm and cajolepercent." Fuel costs for coal and gas are 35
you to lynch the next environmentalist orand 73 percent, respectively. And they
anti-nuke whom you come across. Messrs.release  massive  doses  of CO2 into the air.
Sprott and Bambrough provided a blueprint of
what must be done by governments andWhat else can be done aside from a worldwide,
decision-makers. More importantly, they haveunanimous endorsement of nuclear energy?
given us extremely provocative advice on HOWThere may still be difficulties ahead.
to protect our finances during the brewingLovelock told us the CO2 emissions problem
crisis.should have been addressed 50 years ago. It
takes between 50 and 100 years for the
Remember, it won't just be some meteoratmosphere  to cycle through those emissions.
hitting the earth (although that might
happen, too). Global warming is tantamount toThe Sprott report co-authors concluded there
boiling water on your stove. First, it getswill be supply problems for food, water and
warm, then warmer and warmer. Eventually, itenergy. They envision problems with national
gets hot. Then, the water boils. In othersecurity, soaring grain prices, and greater
words, the catastrophe will brew for a while,investments needed to provide water and
causing political and economic instability,energy to those who aren't buried ten feet
and a host of other ills, probably betterdeep in their indebtedness. They foresee a
described in biblical terms. Most of us,currency collapse as central banks flood the
unfortunately, will wait until the nextmoney system to provide liquidity. And, of
Hurricane Katrina is a few miles down thecourse, gold will resume the role it has
road  before  waking  up.always held during times of overpowering
economic  calamity.
Through the first half of the report, the
authors cover global warming and climateIs this too much reality for you? Should we
change, in just about every way imaginable.just wait a while and see what transpires? We
Messrs. Sprott and Bambrough found nooks andmight not be so lucky. Some experts, such as
crannies which may alarm you. Did you knowthe Chief Claims Strategist for Swiss Re,
the world's largest aquifer, the Ogallalawrote in a March 2006 CERES report, "Global
aquifer in the United States, is drying upwarming has accelerated from a problem that
because the glaciers, which created thismight affect our grandchildren, to one that
aquifer, are receding? Fresh water is alreadycould significantly disturb the social and
in short supply for one-third of the world'seconomic  conditions  of  our  lifetime."
population. We may be surrounded by water,
but could lack a glass of fresh water toIn other words, Messrs. Sprott and Bambrough
drink. Ask the Saudis why they are buildingare correct in their assumptions and
desalination plants as fast they can. Imagineconclusions. The time to get moving is today,
if those arid conditions prevailed acrossnot  thirty  years  from  now.
more than 90 percent of the landmass of
earth.For a second opinion, before completing this
column, we forwarded the Sprott report to
What happens as the earth's temperature goesDavid Miller. He wears many hats, including a
up? Increased urbanization, growing GDPs andconsultancy to the International Atomic
demand for all the niceties that come withEnergy Agency, third-term Wyoming legislator,
"civilization" have a price: more CO2president of Strathmore Minerals (TSX: STM)
emissions. Deadly CO2 emissions, which raiseand a walking encyclopedia on uranium,
the earth's temperature, poison our air andgeology, nuclear power and politics. He
kill our plants (and us), are very likelyresponded quite bluntly, "The fuel of the
going to turn this earth into a potboiler19th century was coal. The fuel of the 20th
before  the  century  ends.century was oil. Both have run their economic
course. Uranium is on its way to becoming the
Nuclear  Expansion  Needs  More  Uraniumenergy fuel of the 21st century. The
crescendo of countries clamoring for nuclear
"This IS the perfect storm," Kevin Bambroughenergy has been growing louder in each year
warned, not as the abused cliché the termof this new millennium." Perhaps, we may yet
has become, but as an angry voice demandingsee Moore's energy mix come to pass, or at
decision-makers take to heart the gravity ofleast dramatic growth in the nuclear sector
CO2 emissions. "We need more nuclear reactorsto more closely approach his targeted
now," he told us. He directed us topercentage  level.
environmentalist Patrick Moore's contention
that the U.S. should reverse its energyOne key question remains unanswered, during
source mix from an 80-percent dependence uponour two-year investigation into uranium and
fossil fuels, relying instead upon nuclearnuclear energy. Sure, we've gotten a lot of
energy for 60-percent of our electrical poweranswers, but we remain unconvinced. No one
supply.has satisfactorily answered this question:
"Will there be sufficient supplies of
Under the former Greenpeace co-founder's'already mined uranium' and current mining
scenario, Bambrough extrapolated the Worldproduction available to the world's nuclear
Nuclear Association (WNA) projections forreactors to meet the anticipated global
2030. Nuclear power demand is then expecteddemand for electricity?" The make-break word
to soar from the current 368 Gw, produced byin the above question is "available." Uranium
the world's 441 nuclear reactors. Heis nearly everywhere. There are about 1.7
computed, using Moore's premise of abillion pounds of 'already mined uranium' in
60-percent nuclear-reliance, that nuclearthe world's inventories. But will there be
reactors would produce 18,900 Twh of theenough uranium made available to the
total power demand in 2030, which the WNAutilities  when  the  time  comes?
estimates might reach 31,500 Twh. To produce
that much electricity, Bambrough calculatedIf there is not, today's spot uranium price
that by 2030, nearly 2700 nuclear reactorscould look comparable to gasoline prices,
will be required across the planet.circa 1965, at some future point.



1 A B 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80