Subscribe for 12 months with recurring billing - $199

Buy 12 months of subscription time - $199

 

Search Uranium Stocks
Uranium Price
Our RSS Feed

Uranium Updates

Enter your email address:

Follow Us on Twitter
« UraMin Inc: In talks to sell the company | Main | Uranium Auctions: The Pace Quickens! »
Sunday
Jun102007

Laramide Resources: Where Next?

Laramide Chart 10jun07

It would appear that the uncertainty surrounding Queensland politics weighs heavy on this uranium explorer.

From the chart we can see that that Laramide has already fallen from around $16.00 to around $10.00, which is hard for any investor to stomach. We have to admit that we have underestimated the effect of the recent changes in Australian politics. The Labour party have recently voted to open Australia to uranium mining but the final decision is in the hands of the individual states. In Laramide's case we are talking about the state of Queensland where its Westmoreland Project is expected to become the companies flagship. The current Premier of Queensland relies to some extent on the support of the coal mining community and they could view uranium as a competitor. Can it be resolved and how long will it take to get a resolution is this question on everyone’s lips.

We must now watch closely as Laramide certainly looks to be oversold and any sign of a relaxation to the ban on uranium mining in Queensland could well be the ignition to spark this uranium stock back in to life.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (8)

Queensland’s premier, Peter Beattie, made it clear back in April that he would keep the mining ban in place. Considering the huge amount of uranium they are sitting on, his decision to hold his ground (literally) will likely result in his departure from government (run out on a rail??). With Southern Australia looking forward to an influx of some $10-$12 Billion over the next five years, Queensland and Western Australia will simply fade into the sunset. I guess Beattie and Carpenter are more concerned about their liberal (socialist) doctrine than they are about the welfare of their people or their country.

P.S. Maybe someone should tell the coal miners that the uranium is for export, not domestic use. Australia runs on coal - their jobs are secure!!!

June 11, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterDan Neu

I live in Queensland. We are experiencing major stresses in ALL infrastructure. This is due to both neglect & growth factors. The Sth. East of the State is the fastest growing region in the Southern Hemisphere.Premier Pete has just borrowed AUD$16B for infrastructure upgrade & buildout. Labour is very tight and this is compounded with infrastructure bottlenecks driving into capacity constraints on ALL FRONTS. We also have problems in social infrastructure, e.g. health, education etc. ,as well as a crippling drought. We even had to shut down part of our electricity supply due to water shortages and the public is on water rationing.

Therefore, uranium mining (a political hot potato) IS NOT even on the PRIORITY horizon in the intermediate term. This scenario could also apply even if the opposition political party is elected in 2009.

So it is NOT ONLY a political issue but a social issue of priorities, etc. PEST (political, social, economic, technology)+ environmental analysis is the bare minimum requirement.

I also invest in uranium stocks, locally, regionally,globally. Patience is a virtue. So is proper analysis and due diligence.

June 11, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterSean

Sean,

Thanks for your comments - its always good to get input from someone who is there right on the spot with one finger on the local pulse. With all that Queensland has to do it is a tall order, however, wouldn't nuclear power be of some use later on to Queensland?

June 11, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterUranium Stocks

Hi Sean,

Your points are very well taken and I certainly appreciate the issue of priorities under such dire circumstances.

Obviously, there is not much that any politician –regardless of party – can do when natural disasters, such as a drought, occur. However, borrowing AU$16B to get out of the socio-economic-infrastructure mess will likely compound the problem for the next generation. Someone will eventually have to pay off the debt plus the interest.

That being said - I do believe that borrowing is a reasonable SHORT TERM solution. However, you need to back up the borrowing with a mid to long term plan to generate revenue, attract workers and fuel the economy. You folks are sitting on many billions of dollars of natural resources. These resources need to be part of your recovery plans.

BTW you are correct - patience is a virtue. Just try not to wait too long.

June 11, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterDan

Reply to 3.NO, we don't need nuclear power. We are energy sufficient in every form except oil. We even have shale oil deposits, which actually were producing but the enviro fascists had it closed. If we did ever want to go nuclear we would probably opt for Thorium on cultural/ safety issues. We have huge gas deposits off W.A.,N.T, geothermal prospects in the "Cooper Basin" and strong ocean currents for deep ocean power generation. The latter two could be in the same timeframe as nuclear power. Our thermal/coking coal deposits are vast.Our population is small. New tech. may supercede the need for us to utilise our uranium in local power generation on a time frame basis.
Reply 4. Please re-read infrastructure. We have demand outstripping resource (ALL)infrastructure supplyside rampup causing bottlenecks. The ports& rail are State owned. Money can't buy time. A political change is only rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. The opposition is equally if not more inept. Just toss in the regulatory red tape brigade and the enviro gestapo and all you can do is wait. These problems are global, not just here. Buy into existing producers, very near term producers and further out. Throw in mining risk, weather,supplychain risk, a few hedgefunds, pirate equity, central bank control freaks and welcome to commodities!! Dynamic volatility is the norm in case you forgot.

June 11, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterSean

I have never come across a government that does not need more money and will be surprised if Queensland does not allow the mining of uranium - in the fullness of time.

June 12, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterUranium Stocks

Last reply-time is the issue. The green/environment movement is very strong. President Bush has done more to set back uranium (fear of nukes) mining here than anyone else. We got roped into Iraq/Afghanistan and the public are pissed on this. There are votes in this. I told you they closed down a fully operational shale oil plant.

HOT OFF THE PRESS 12/6/07: "Construction of a new gas-fired power station in southern Queensland -The $780 million facility, to be built at Braemar on the Darling Downs west of Brisbane, would save 2.5 million tonnes of greenhouse gases, compared with a traditional coal-fired power station, Queensland Premier Peter Beattie said today. Origin Energy managing director Grant King said Australia had reached a turning point, where environmentally-friendly power was now expected. Mr Beattie said "To get clean energy, to do it in an environmentally-friendly way, is the best possible outcome for Queensland."

FURTHER: Existing permits are for exploration only. No mining permits have or will be granted in the near future. You also need an export permit- a Federal issue-currently only the three existing exporters have these.
The Asian markets have long frame time horizons. Ditto global players etc. IMHO-2011/2014.
There is nothing good a politician can't make bad or nothing bad they can't make worse.
So if everybody throws in the towel-buy big at the bottom.

Please don't reply until the next decade rolls around!

June 12, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterSean

Mr Grey also highlighted Australia’s split political situation whereby Western Australia and Queensland still oppose the mining of uranium and that they could well miss out while the other states reap the benefit of mining uranium.
It will be interesting to watch this situation unfold and for what it is worth our money is on Queensland and Western Australia changing their stance in the near future. As we wrote back in July 2006 “My bet is that they won’t let politics get in the way of a good money spinning deal” in an article entitled ‘Mega Uranium: A Place in the sun’when are we to have news on this

June 15, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterRon

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>