The Canadian Press: Half of Canada’s mining companies could go bankrupt after dismal year: analyst

Half of Canada’s mining companies could go bankrupt after dismal year: a

Analyst -THE CANADIAN PRESS 22 Dec 08  “…………………..

“I think you’ll have five bankruptcies before the second quarter (of 2009) ends, and some of them will be sizable entities,” predicted Andrew Martyn, a vice-president at Toronto-based investment adviser Davis-Rea Ltd.

“The metals side is just on the edge of apocalyptic. It looks horrible.”

Several Canadian companies – from Vale Inco, Xstrata Canada, Rio Tinto Alcan and others – have scaled back expansions, cut jobs and shut down unprofitable mines to conserve cash and get through one of the industry’s most difficult periods in decades………………………..Uranium, which the company also plans to produce, was hit harder by the commodity price slump – the spot price plummeted from a high of US$137 per pound in mid-2007 to as low as $44 per pound in October…………..First Uranium has been working to reduce its production costs as much as possible.

Tags: nuclear, antinuclear, radioactive, uranium

December 22, 2008 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs | Leave a comment

News – Finance/ Labour: Cost of pebble bed project ‘beyond R16bn’

Cost of pebble bed project ‘beyond R16bn’ http://www.iol.co.za John Yeld
    December 18 2008 The cost of the controversial Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) project that Eskom wants to build at Koeberg is likely to run well beyond the government’s present estimate of R16-billion – and that’s without taking into account the cost of dealing with the resulting nuclear waste.

So says Kommetjie architect and environmentalist Rod Gurzynski in a scathing critique of the specialist study on the financial aspects of the project…………….Gurzynski said.

“Without being specific, the study prepares the way for significant cost over-runs, which is presumed to be acceptable due to this being a ‘first of a kind’ project.”

He also argued that it was clear from the specialist waste management study that the cost of storing and managing high-level nuclear waste off the site had not been included in the government’s figures.

“And (the figures) cannot be (included) because the long-term options (for high-level nuclear waste storage) have not yet been investigated, let alone proven, and therefore cannot be realistically costed.

“Therefore the conclusion is plain that the cost of long-term high-level radioactive waste management will fall on the future taxpayer.”

News – Finance/ Labour: Cost of pebble bed project ‘beyond R16bn’

Tags: nuclear, antinuclear, radioactive, uranium

December 19, 2008 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs | Leave a comment

Constellation-EDF deal puts nukes at the core – MarketWatch

France plants its foot in a changing U.S. power market

By MarketWatchLast update: 4:26 p.m. EST Dec. 17, 2008Comments: 2SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) – Electricite de France placed a big bet Wednesday on the future of the North American power grid, securing a 49.9% stake in Constellation Energy’s fleet of nuclear power plants.
t’s costing them a bundle. EDF is paying $4.5 billion for the privilege of owning just under half of Baltimore-based Constellation’s five reactors

Constellation-EDF deal puts nukes at the core – MarketWatch

Tags: nuclear, antinuclear, radioactive, uranium

December 19, 2008 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs | Leave a comment

Nuke pursuit anything but PowerWise

Nuke pursuit anything but PowerWise
thestar.com David Suzuki, 15 Dec 08 “…………………nuclear has been touted as the most reliable source of that increasing power. “………..Energy conservation makes a lot more sense, and it has been proven to be effective. After the rolling brownouts engineered in California by Enron in 2001, the state embarked on a conservation program that slashed usage and saved billions of dollars………………………..Building new plants will be incredibly costly. Every nuclear power plant built in Ontario so far has had huge cost overruns, has been behind schedule, has failed to deliver the amount of electricity promised, and has had a shorter lifespan than promised.

It gets worse. About half of Ontario’s power plants have had serious problems that have led to shutdowns. So taxpayers paid even more to repair the plants and to purchase electricity from other regions during the shutdowns. Nuclear energy has turned out to be the most expensive form of electricity in Ontario by far. (And that’s not even mentioning the usual concerns, such as terrorism risks and radioactive waste!)

If Ontario’s nuclear power plants were any other kind of high-priced product, customers would demand a refund and complain to the Better Business Bureau. And you can bet they wouldn’t be hoodwinked into making the same purchase again…………………………By focusing on renewable energy, Ontario could create a huge number of sustainable jobs and put clean energy onto the grid immediately. It could retool the manufacturing sector and retrain workers to be part of an innovative green-collar workforce. It could export these products and expertise to other parts of the world.

TheStar.com | Opinion | Nuke pursuit anything but PowerWise

December 15, 2008 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs | Leave a comment

Proposed TVA Nuclear Plant Comes With Exorbitant Price Tag | TriCities

Proposed TVA Nuclear Plant Comes With Exorbitant Price Tag 
Tri Cities.com By Gary Gray
Reporter / Bristol Herald Courier
Published: December 13, 2008“…………………………Using estimates from the nuclear energy industry, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission found that the two pressurized water reactors planned for the site near Scottsboro, Ala., range from $9.8 billion to $17.5 billion. That’s compared to estimates of $6.4 billion to $7.1 billion a year ago.

Proposed TVA Nuclear Plant Comes With Exorbitant Price Tag | TriCities

Tags: nuclear, antinnuclear, radioactive, uranium

December 15, 2008 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs | Leave a comment

Entergy reduces Vt Yankee reactor due ice storms | Industries | Industrials, Materials & Utilities | Reuters

Entergy reduces Vt Yankee reactor due ice storms
NEW YORK, Dec 12 (Reuters) – Entergy Corp (ETR.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) reduced the output of the 620-megawatt Vermont Yankee nuclear power station in Vermont due to snow and ice storms that have left more than 300,000 customers without power in New England, the company and local utilities said Friday.

Entergy reduces Vt Yankee reactor due ice storms | Industries | Industrials, Materials & Utilities | Reuters

Tags: nuclear, antinuclear, radioactive, uranium

December 13, 2008 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs | Leave a comment

Nuclear industry claims it is now ‘sexy’ but admits to rising costs | Environment | The Guardian

Nuclear industry claims it is now ‘sexy’ but admits to rising costs
The Guardian Terry Macalister 5 Dec 08

Widespread doubts about the ability of nuclear power companies to bring a new generation of reactors on stream at the right time and on budget were raised yesterday within an industry that the UK government is relying on to meet its climate change and energy security goals.

EDF, the French power company that has positioned itself as a leading player in the market, admitted that its new European Pressurised Reactor programme at Flamanville in France was already 20% over budget, while delays continue to plague a Finnish facility, the only other new plant under construction in Europe……………………..Lady Barbara Judge, chairwoman of the Atomic Energy Authority, warned  that the safety of existing plants remained paramount……..”Everyone knows just one accident [need occur] and the industry will be shut down for 20 years,” she said.

Nuclear industry claims it is now ‘sexy’ but admits to rising costs | Environment | The Guardian

December 5, 2008 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs | Leave a comment

Nuclear cleanup to cost billions — Page 1 — Times Union – Albany NY

Nuclear cleanup to cost billions
State-funded study puts almost $10 billion price on effort at West Valley TimesUnion.com By BRIAN NEARING, Staff writer December 3, 2008While it will cost taxpayers billions to clean out dangerous radioactive waste from a defunct nuclear fuel reprocessing plant, storing it there would cost billions more over the centuries — and risk contamination of Lake Erie.
That was the conclusion of a state-funded report on the 3,300-acre West Valley nuclear site, closed since the early 1970s and once the nation’s only commercial center for reprocessing spent nuclear fuel.

Released Tuesday, the report comes during a growing national debate about stepping up nuclear power as a way to cut the greenhouse gases that cause global warming. Critics continue to question the fate of spent fuel, which is dangerous for thousands of years.he report by Cambridge-based Synapse Energy Economics claimed it will cost nearly $10 billion to clean radioactive waste from West Valley over the next 60 years and ship it to a federal dump that does not exist yet.

But leaving the waste where it is — about 30 miles from Buffalo— would cost up to $13 billion to keep contained over the next 1,000 years. The report said the task could be technologically difficult in an area prone to erosion. It could cost up to $27 billion if radiation escapes the area a century from now and gets into creeks that flow into Lake Erie, endangering the drinking water supply.

Nuclear cleanup to cost billions — Page 1 — Times Union – Albany NY

December 4, 2008 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs | Leave a comment

Deep Green: Atomic renaissance interrupted | Greenpeace UK

Nuclear renaissance interrupted Rex Weyler
Nuclear economics This year, billionaire investment wizard Warren Buffett withdrew financial support for a US nuclear reactor in Idaho, killing the project. Why? Nuclear power is not economical.A full accounting of nuclear power remains obscured by billions in public subsidy and still-uncertain costs of processing waste and decommissioning plants. Nevertheless, Amory Lovins and Imran Sheikh calculate a kilowatt-hour of electricity from a new nuclear power plant averages about 14 cents compared to a wind farm at 7 cents. Even this calculation does not account for capital financing, security, waste disposal, insurance, or public health impacts. No nuclear plant is insured, even with public guarantees, to the full cost of a Chernobyl scale accident, which becomes an unbudgeted liability on the public’s balance sheet……………………….. Of 36 current nuclear construction projects, 14 remain stalled and most of the surviving projects are state-owned in Russia, China, and India. There is no business case for nuclear power except to socialise costs, privatise profits, and leave the garbage for future generations. In the US alone, 104 “private” nuclear power projects have received over $130 billion in taxpayer subsidies, over $1 billion per reactor. Billions more will be needed to solve the nuclear waste backlog.

Deep Green: Atomic renaissance interrupted | Greenpeace UK

December 4, 2008 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs | 2 Comments

Deep Green: Atomic renaissance interrupted | Greenpeace UK

Nuclear renaissance interrupted
Rex Weyler “……………Some 439 nuclear plants now operate worldwide. To replace even 25 percent of the world’s current oil and coal energy would require over 1000 new reactors, plus replacement of existing plants as they expire. Decommissioning 400 plants and building 1400 new ones would cost $10-20 trillion, at least, and would triple the world’s unresolved nuclear waste problem. Such a plan would also exhaust global uranium supplies long before the 1400 plants could be built……………………

Deep Green: Atomic renaissance interrupted | Greenpeace UK

December 4, 2008 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs | Leave a comment

Going Nuclear

Going Nuclear
REUTERS 3 DEc 08 It is said that all that glitters is not gold. Keep that in mind when considering the bidding war heating up the nuclear power business. France’s EDF has offered $6.5 billion for half of Constellation Energy Group’s nuclear business and some other assets,……………….. If plummeting demand for everything from new cars to tin foil could fell BHP’s monster bid for Rio Tinto, why wouldn’t it weigh on demand for energy? While nuclear power has regained some favor as a cheap, relatively clean alternative to nasty fossil fuels, is it really safe to expect consumers to ramp up electric heat this winter, and air conditioning next summer, when they are worried about losing their jobs? And today brings more evidence that the lengthy, torturous bid process BHP endured before walking away from Rio Tinto may have saved it from dealing with a disastrous downturn in demand.

December 4, 2008 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs | Leave a comment

BBC NEWS | UK | England | Cumbria | Nuclear clean-up’s £22bn contract

Nuclear clean-up’s £22bn contract

BBC News 24 November 2008 An international consortium is signing a multi-billion pound contract to clean up the Sellafield nuclear plant.

Nuclear Management Partners (NMP) is taking over the shares in Sellafield Ltd formerly held by BNFL.

The £22bn contract, which promises improved performance and efficiency, is expected to last up to 17 years. The deal is being struck on Monday.

It will mean that the 12,000 workers at the Cumbrian plant will transfer from the public to the private sector.

However, the land, buildings and nuclear materials – including waste – will remain under the ownership of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, the government agency responsible for the clean-up of the UK’s civil nuclear legacy.

BBC NEWS | UK | England | Cumbria | Nuclear clean-up’s £22bn contract

Tags: nuclear, antinuclear, radiation, uranium

November 26, 2008 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs | Leave a comment

Is costly nuclear energy too big a risk for San Antonio?

Is costly nuclear energy too big a risk for San Antonio? Jan Jarboe Russell – Express-News 23 Nov 08  – “……….CPS Energy has invested $206 million on preliminary design and engineering to build two new nuclear reactors in Bay City and that money will run out at the end of the year.………Do we bet our future on the old energy drivers — coal, fossilized fuels and nuclear — or do we invest substantially in energy efficiency and renewable sources such as wind and solar?…………..there is nothing economical about the price tag of the two proposed nuclear reactors in Bay City. Indeed, there’s no firm price at all.

Recently CPS estimated that the project would cost $6 billon to $7 billion if we build it tomorrow, while others in the industry place the flip-the-switch cost at a low of $12.1 billion and a high of $17.5 billion. Such numbers stagger the mind and make moving ahead with the nuclear option too reckless a choice.

Is costly nuclear energy too big a risk for San Antonio?

November 23, 2008 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs | Leave a comment

Coal Regains Crown As Slump In Nuclear Output Raises Fears Of Power Shortages (from Sunday Herald)

Coal regains crown as slump in nuclear output raises fears of power shortages

sundayherald 16 Nov 08  POWER SUPPLIERS are turning back the clock to use coal-fired plants as their main source of electricity in a bid to avert potential shortages this winter.

Latest figures from the National Grid show that the fuel accounted for 42.5% of all power generation, overtaking natural gas production for the first time in years.

The surge, from a usual level of little more than a third of total output, comes as the major networks seek to fill a gap caused by a slump in nuclear energy output at East Kilbride-based British Energy.

Nuclear power accounted for as little as 10.5% of output during peak times last week. This is roughly half the levels of a couple of years ago and there had been fears that we could see the first power shortages as early as this month………………..imported power from France reached a peak of more than 4% last week………………………..While the UK as a whole is struggling to meet EU targets to gain 20% of its energy from renewable sources, first minister Alex Salmond  believes Scotland could get up to 50% of its own needs from wind farms, tidal energy and biomass as well as hydro-electricity by the same date………………..n contrast, British Energy chairman Bill Coley……….will confirm that the continuing problems among the group’s eight nuclear power stations led to a 27% slump in output in the opening half of the year despite rising production from its coal-fired plant at Eggborough.

The group’s big B21 reactor in Dungeness recently re-opened after four months’ closure, but four reactors at Hartlepool and Heysham will remain closed until early next year for boiler repairs.

Coal Regains Crown As Slump In Nuclear Output Raises Fears Of Power Shortages (from Sunday Herald)

Tags: nuclear, antinuclear, radioactive, uranium

November 17, 2008 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs | Leave a comment

Moneyweb – Investment Insights – Uranium One’s shocker

Uranium One’s shocker
Uranium One writes down USD 2.8bn in the third quarter, mostly attributable to the Dominion debacle in South Africa.
MONEYWEB Barry Sergeant14 November 2008 16:08 JOHANNESBURG –”……………………….During the latest quarter, Uranium One wrote down mineral interests, plant and equipment to the tune of USD 1.8bn on Dominion, USD 0.7bn on US exploration properties, USD 0.2bn on Honeymoon and Australian exploration, and USD 0.1bn on Hobson (US), La Palangana (US) and Shootaring Mill (US).

According to statements from the company released on Friday, the fair value of Dominion at 30 September 2008 has been estimated as its “salvage value” of USD 50.5m.

Uranium One’s stock price has moved from highs in 2007 of CAD 35 a share – the stock holds a primary listing in Toronto – to recent lows of 60 cents a share, a fall of 99%. The stock was most recently quoted at CAD 1.13 a share.

Uranium One has persistently refused to supply even the vaguest answer as to how much shareholder cash Dominion has been wolfing down. -…………………………..Uranium One’s stock price has moved from highs in 2007 of CAD 35 a share – the stock holds a primary listing in Toronto – to recent lows of 60 cents a share, a fall of 99%.

Moneyweb – Investment Insights – Uranium One’s shocker

Tags: nuclear, antinuclear, radioactive, uranium

November 15, 2008 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs | Leave a comment