the critical difference

lets face it, its possible to mount a case based on available stats at any given time, either for or against evidential growth in the U space. Such comparisons can be applied across all commodities.

One thing is clear, the U space has and is changing. The post Fukushima landscape has done one thing and one thing only that is material to investment in the space...lower the price of U308.

the nay-sayers need to be honest about this irrefutable fact. The absolute worst-case scenario for the nuclear industry is NOT a reduction in demand, but demand STATUS QUO. New on stream and planned reactors will replace lost generation due to political action, and many Japanese reactors WILL and ARE returning to operation for one reason only. Other renewables simply cannot compete from scratch with fully amortised, fully paid for, already built, 'flick the switch', totally clean power generation,

Its simply a fanciful notion unsupported by any economic rationale.

Back to the stock.

As for BLR, in which I've been invested for over 2 years (so you know where my risk is), the post 'Fukushima effect' has served a purpose. It raised the bar on global U production so that project size took out probably 2/3 of all investment competion. As an ex EXT holder I saw how badly the Chinese wanted that ground, and why...SIZE and GRADE. AND, the average grade was lower than ours.

Factor in the following...

- Control over a recovery technology applicable to global resource development

-A SP that is peer-comparitively cheapest in the world.

-A project size that elevates BLR onto the development/takeover radar

-AND an equity stake from a U space mover and shaker...and you have a very compelling story indeed.