Jetzt noch besser informiert!

Abonnieren auch Sie unseren kostenlosen Nachrichten-Newsletter und verpassen Sie nichts mehr aus der wallstreet:online Redaktion!

  • Das Wichtigste für Sie zusammengefasst
  • Ausgewählte Artikel unserer Gastautoren
  • Eilmeldungen zu wichtigen Marktgeschehnissen

Wir respektieren Ihre Privatsphäre, es werden keine Daten an Dritte weitergegeben!

Jetzt abonnieren
DAX-0,21 % EUR/USD+0,33 % Gold-0,03 % Öl (Brent)-0,85 %

FISSION ENERGY (FIS.V) - Hathor Area Play mit vielversprechenden Uran-Properties (Seite 101)

Next-Generation Nuclear Power: Thomas Drolet
Source: Brian Sylvester of The Energy Report (3/22/12)

Can the nuclear industry sustain itself with a once-every-ten-years accident frequency? Absolutely not, says Tom Drolet, principal of energy consulting firm Drolet & Associates Energy Services Inc. However, with new reactor technology underway, the industry has an opportunity to show the public it can safely generate reliable, affordable low-emissions energy. In this exclusive interview for The Energy Report, Drolet outlines his vision for U.S. energy policy and how next-generation nuclear energy figures into it.

Companies Mentioned: Athabasca Uranium Inc. - Coalspur Mines Ltd. - Fission Energy Corp. - Prophecy Coal Corp. - Strathmore Minerals Corp.

The Energy Report: Tom, you recently gave speeches in Vancouver and New York City on American energy policy. Please share with us your view of nuclear energy and its role in American power generation.

Thomas Drolet: My speeches at the January Cambridge House International Resources Conference and the March Murdock Capital Partners Conference sessions highlighted two major aspects of the need to reorient U.S. energy policy. The first and foremost is to prioritize baseload power (available around the clock) in the electrical supply system. The U.S. currently has 104 reactors, which only represent 10% of the installed base, but they generate 20% of the actual electricity consumed. All industrialized manufacturing-intensive economies like the U.S., Canada, the EU and Japan require constantly available baseload power. The only other electricity generating methods that can meet that need are hydroelectricity and geothermal power. All other sources are employed as part-time or peaking power sources because they are not built for full-time operational use, nor are their fuel supplies always available.

Secondly, I highlighted the onset of the shale gas technology revolution, meaning fracking and horizontal drilling, as well as the need for the industry to be transparent in disclosing and managing fracking fluids and the copious quantities of water the process requires. I believe natural gas from shale formations will be the major growth fuel for electricity and some forms of transportation. Natural gas transmission and distribution systems need to be massively extended to accommodate this burgeoning fuel supply.

I also participated in a panel at the Murdock Conference on the major new finds of natural gas and oil off the northwestern and southeastern coastal zones of Africa. This is a very progressive, transformational opportunity for the continent.

TER: How does nuclear energy fit into your policy vision? Uranium provides tremendous baseload power and it is also one of the more efficient means of power generation.

TD: That is correct. Efficiency can be measured in several ways, be it in the small amount of uranium fuel and the lack of CO2 emissions or the increasing thermal cycle efficiencies of newer plant designs. Output power is transmitted at very high voltages, so line losses are quite low as long as power is not sent over thousands of miles. All around, nuclear power is a very efficient, productive and constant power system. However, nuclear power entails very high initial capital costs to install the systems. Many very clever engineers are working on reducing those capital costs in the next generation of reactors that are now being commissioned in China, India and many other nations. The operating costs for nuclear reactors are, however, incredibly low.

TER: We are just past the one-year mark of the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan. Has this catastrophe had any positive influence on the industry through resulting upgrades to nuclear reactors and better safety measures?

TD: It is certainly a real wake-up call to the industry. I was part of a small Canadian group that was the first foreign group to go to Russia after Chernobyl in 1986. I bring that up only to paint a picture of the difference between Chernobyl and what it did to the industry versus this recent event in Japan. Seeing that catastrophic failure in Chernobyl and its affect on the development of the industry was a very sobering experience.

My experience with Fukushima in advising some of its institutions suggests that this too is going to have a short- to middle-term effect in specific countries. Japan has 54 reactors installed that were generating approximately 30% of its power. Now, one year after Fukushima, only two reactors are operational. Industries are importing massive amounts of diesel power generation capability. Japan is going to have to make a major decision in the next few months to either bring back some of those shut-down nuclear stations, which are undergoing safety reviews, or be in major trouble again this summer, a peak period from a power supply point of view. Thank goodness that Japan is able to help itself, as it is the most advanced country in the world in implementing energy-efficient technologies and conservation techniques.

TER: Germany decided to shut down its nuclear reactors over the next decade and similar decisions were made in other European countries. Can we expect other governments to follow suit?

TD: I find it somewhat ironic that Germany, as it looks ahead another decade to figure out how to replace some 23% of its power facilities, is talking about importing nuclear power from France and the UK. There are many combined cycle gas turbine manufacturers and energy efficiency and conservation techniques that can offset those shortages, but that would require Germany and Switzerland to depend on shale gas drilling from Russia.

TER: Germany and Switzerland aside, the World Nuclear Association says there will be 650 nuclear reactors operating by 2032. There are currently just under 400 nuclear reactors in use. Which countries are planning on building the bulk of those reactors?

TD: China is currently building 13 reactors with a further 18 under design and site development. Over the subsequent 5-, 10- and 20-year terms, China will build upwards of another 80. Second on the list is India, which has six reactors and is currently planning 20 more. Next would be South Korea. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have announced plans to build about 14 nuclear reactors over the next decade. There are other nations planning to develop their nuclear power programs, too. The U.S. itself has just commissioned two in the southeast of the country with Southern Power and Georgia Power. Those plants will employ Westinghouse-Toshiba AP1000s.

TER: Three Mile Island ocurred in 1978, Chernobyl in 1986 and Fukushima in 2011. Can nuclear power sustain those types of hits to its reputation and still see a 50% growth rate in reactor buildout through 2032?

TD: Absolutely not. Nuclear power cannot remain a viable generation technique if these accidents keep occurring at that frequency. The industry needs to ensure that next-generation reactors are more inherently safe in the event of a breakdown of any sort. New reactor systems are available to address these very real concerns.

TER: Why should the public believe that new reactors are safer and more resilient than current models?

TD: It is going to take a lot of discussion by the industry to prove that to the public. They must come out of their shells and openly debate the issues in a transparent fashion. It's up to them to convince the public.

TER: In 2010, about 118 million pounds (Mlbs) of uranium were produced, while 190 Mlbs were consumed. The difference was supplied by uranium from recycled nuclear weapons, mostly from Russia, but that program ends in 2013. Are you expecting a resulting price spike?

TD: With Putin coming back into power, there is a slight chance that program will be extended or a similar program will be developed. I rate the chance of that at 20%. President Obama has stated that he wants to reduce the number of nuclear weapons around the world over time to much lower levels. So there is also the potential for the U.S. weapons program to be further reduced. However, if the "Megatons to Megawatts" program does end in 2013, then many nations that are big on nuclear power and nuclear weapons and that have strategic uranium reserves, such as the U.S., Russia, France, England and China, could meet uranium shortfalls in a pinch.

TER: There is a strong possibility that most of the supply deficit will come from mined sources. Which jurisdictions will primarily meet the need?

TD: I want to highlight closer-to-home sources. Most of the supply for our reactors in North America should come first and foremost from the Athabasca Basin in Canada. The highest-grade uranium in the world today is in Saskatchewan, Alberta and northeastern Manitoba. Next, we have Wyoming in the U.S.—probably the nation's most prolific future source of uranium. Then would come Utah, Colorado, Arizona and New Mexico, namely the Lisbon Valley and Uravan mineral belt.

TER: Should retail investors take equity positions in companies operating in these specific areas now or should they wait until the uranium price starts its run up as is expected?

TD: There is a critical time between the market price action of uranium and these uranium development companies' stocks. Personally, I would build an investment regime as the price builds up. It is always a better investment strategy in these uncertain times to hedge your risk and invest as the price goes up, which I certainly believe it will over the next several years.

TER: Are there some promising projects in the Athabasca Basin in Wyoming and the southwestern U.S.?


TD: And another company, Fission Energy Corp. (FIS:TSX.V; FSSIF: OTCQX) has an excellent land package up in the central core of the Athabasca basin.

TER: Fission also has a joint venture with KEPCO and a consortium of Korean companies led by KEPCO, right?

TD: That is correct. KEPCO has joined up with Fission Energy and its strong management team. Certainly Fission Energy is getting along on its drill program much faster and further than many other juniors. Some of the results it is coming up with are of quite high-grade quality.


TER: Any parting thoughts for us on the energy space?

TD: Fukushima was a major event for nuclear power, even more than Chernobyl. Fukushima happened within one of the most densely populated land masses on earth and, secondly, it happened in an industrialized nation known for its competence in engineering, construction and operations. In addition, the public was already jaundiced and skeptical about nuclear power because of historical events. This combination makes Fukushima a more noteworthy event, and therefore there is a need for the nuclear industry and its regulators to pause and really think through the nuclear power systems they are building for the future. We need to ensure next-generation reactors are not built in locations where nature's events, like tsunamis and earthquakes, are likely. That said, I would hope the public will give the industry a chance to prove itself through more reasonably priced electricity and demonstratively safe baseload electricity. It's up to the collective nuclear industry to prove its future worth.

TER: Thanks so much.

TD: You are very welcome.
press release

April 25, 2012, 8:31 a.m. EDT

Fission Energy: Drilling Intersects Significant Basement Mineralization at PLS

KELOWNA, BRITISH COLUMBIA, Apr 25, 2012 (MARKETWIRE via COMTEX) -- Fission Energy Corp. ("Fission" or "the Company) /quotes/zigman/474695 CA:FIS +1.70% (otcqx:FSSIF) and its 50% Joint Venture (JV) partner ESO Uranium Corp ("ESO"), are pleased to report that significant anomalous radioactivity has been encountered in drill hole PLS12-016, the final hole of this winter's PLS Property drill program. Hole PLS12-016 intersected multiple intersections of anomalous and variable radioactivity, including 2.50m (136.00m-138.50m) measuring less than 300-799 cps, 7.50m (151.00m-158.50m) of variable radioactivity to a maximum peak of 1725 cps, and 5.00m (177.00m-182.00m) measuring less than 300-378 cps. Hole PLS12-016 was collared 823m east of Hole PLS12-013 (19.50m of anomalous radioactivity; 154-368 cps; see press release dated April 18, 2012) along an EM conductor identified from the property-scale 2012 airborne VTEM survey to the west of Patterson Lake. A weakly anomalous intermittent radiometric anomaly was identified in the overburden, extending into the basement, from 55.00m to 76.00m. Increasingly moderate to strong clay alteration in the basement rock below the overburden/unconformity interface (57.10m) was encountered intermittently from 111.60m to 210.10m. The radioactivity is associated with graphitic pelitic basement rocks, with intervals of quartz veining, clay gouge and semi-massive pyrite.

Two additional drill holes, PLS12-014 and PLS12-015, drilled along the same EM conductor, both intersected variable narrow intervals of weakly anomalous radioactivity. Hole PLS12-015 encountered increasingly strong alteration below the overburden/unconformity interface (96.20m) from 100.80m to 121.10m, and encountered Cretaceous clastic sediments at a depth of 94.50m. These sediments may have been excavated from basement rocks and deposited in much younger rocks above the basement, suggesting that the source of the uranium boulder field may be nearby.

Overall, the three drill holes show anomalous radiometric anomalies with associated alteration along 823m of strike on the same EM conductor. These anomalies present a very significant and encouraging target for follow-up drilling to be carried out by a planned summer drill program. With the completion of holes PLS12-014, 015 and 016, the 2174.3m drill program, which began on the PLS Property in February, has concluded. Drilling tested several favorable basement bedrock targets, as interpreted from airborne and ground geophysics beneath the glacial/sedimentary cover to the "up-ice" area to the east-northeast of the high-grade uranium boulder field identified in June 2011.

The JV's winter drill program appears to have successfully refined the boundaries of the uranium boulder field source target area to the west of Patterson Lake with the results from the previously reported Hole PLS12-013 and the latest results for Hole PLS12-16 providing a meaningful indicator for identifying the potential high-grade mineralized source of the uranium boulder field. Planning is underway for follow-up drilling of this anomalous area located along a significant east-west trending EM conductor, which, to date, has only been partially tested, in addition to introducing sonic-RC drilling, designed to further define and delineate the anomalous till layer which hosts the high-grade uranium boulders.

Table 1: Drill Hole Summaries for PLS12-016,015,014

(i) Mineralization
(greater than 300 cps / 0.5M Uncon-
minimum) Clay form-
-------------------------------- Alteration ity Total
Hole Grid From - Width CPS From - Depth Depth
ID Line Az Dip To (m) (m) Max Peak To (m) (m) (m)
less than
136.00-138.50 2.50 300-799
less than
151.00-158.50 7.50 300-1725
PLS12 less than 111.60-
-016 6200E 0 -90 177.00-182.00 5.00 300-378 210.10 57.10 224.60
PLS12 anomalous 100.80-
-015 5525E 0 -90 radioactivity (ii) (ii) 121.10 96.20 189.20
Weakly No
PLS12 anomalous significant
-014 5390E 0 -90 radioactivity (ii) (ii) alteration 99.50 185.50
----------- ----------------------------------------------------------
(i) Drill holes measured with Exploranium GR-110 total count Super Gamma-Ray
(ii) (although holes 14 and 15 did not show radiometric values greater than
300cps in hand held scint, the down-hole probe showed weak radioactivity in
hole 14 from 150.87m - 155.82m (max 825 cps) and 174.07m - 174.82m (max 908
cps), and in hole 15 from 94.59m - 96.54m (max 12) and 103.49 - 115.39 (max
1483 cps) and 153.04m - 154.14m (max 3234...associated with an interval
showing 100% core loss over 0.90m)

Updated drill location maps and can be found on the Company's website at .

Assay results will be announced when available.

All holes were radiometrically surveyed with a 2PGA-1000 natural gamma probe.

Natural gamma radiation in drill core that is reported in this news release was measured in counts per second (cps) using handheld Exploranium GR-110 total count Super Gamma-Ray scintillometer. The reader is cautioned that scintillometer readings are not directly or uniformly related to uranium grades of the rock sample measured, and should be used only as a preliminary indication of the presence of radioactive materials. All intersections are down-hole; core interval measurements and true thickness is yet to be determined.

Split core samples from the mineralized section of core will be taken continuously through the mineralized intervals and submitted to SRC Geoanalytical Laboratories (an scc iso/iec 17025:2005 Accredited Facility) of Saskatoon for analysis, which includes U3O8 (wt %) and fire assay for gold. All samples sent for analysis will include a 63 element ICP-OES, uranium by fluorimetry (partial digestion) and boron.

The technical information in this news release has been prepared in accordance with the Canadian regulatory requirements set out in National Instrument 43-101 and reviewed on behalf of the company by Ross McElroy, P.Geol., President and COO for Fission Energy Corp., a Qualified Person.

This press release contains "forward-looking information" that is based on Fission's current expectations, estimates, forecasts and projections. This forward-looking information includes, among other things, statements with respect to Fission's development plans. The words "will", "anticipated", "plans" or other similar words and phrases are intended to identify forward-looking information.

Forward-looking information is subject to known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause Fission's actual results, level of activity, performance or achievements to be materially different from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking information. Such factors include, but are not limited to: uncertainties related exploration and development; the ability to raise sufficient capital to fund exploration and development; changes in economic conditions or financial markets; increases in input costs; litigation, legislative, environmental and other judicial, regulatory, political and competitive developments; technological or operational difficulties or inability to obtain permits encountered in connection with exploration activities; and labour relations matters. This list is not exhaustive of the factors that may affect our forward-looking information. These and other factors should be considered carefully and readers should not place undue reliance on such forward-looking information. Fission disclaims any intention or obligation to update or revise forward-looking information, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

FISSION ENERGY CORP. is a Canadian-based resource company specializing in the strategic acquisition, exploration and development of uranium properties and is headquartered in Kelowna, British Columbia. FISSION ENERGY CORP. Common Shares are listed on the TSX Venture Exchange under the symbol "FIS" and on the OTCQX International electronic trading system in the United States under the symbol "FSSIF".


Ross McElroy, President & COO

Neither TSX Venture Exchange nor its Regulation Services Provider (as that term is defined in the policies of the TSX Venture Exchange) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release.

Fission Energy Corp.
Bob Hemmerling
Investor Relations
TF: 877-868-8140…

Small Uranium Equities Tempt Major Players: Rob Chang


Source: George S. Mack of The Energy Report (5/8/12)

Investors may still be holding their breath, but larger mining companies aren't waiting around for the price of uranium to go up. No, indeed, they are buying smaller companies on the cheap. In this exclusive interview with The Energy Report, Equity Research Analyst Rob Chang of Versant Partners makes his case for deep value and discusses his favorite plays. With or without Germany and Japan, life goes on for uranium producers.


Beitrag zu dieser Diskussion schreiben