Novogen Limited Message Board

I really could have said that better, what I meant to say was that it isn't the NRC's role to assess the proliferation risk overall, all they would do along with other federal departments is feed some of the appropriate information back to the federal Government, it is they who would have the final say about anything related to proliferation!
But like I have already said, this was more about competition to existing technologies,I believe the majority of people behind this petition have vested interests in older technology somehow? and it seems so did the NRC in some way?.

It seems to me that some of the petitioners main objections were, that this new Laser technology would be better than what the existing enrichment technologies were and that they were asking the NRC to discourage the development of this new technology because it was better than what they had, they saw it as competition which they could not compete with in my opinion?

I believe they were correct in that assumption this technology would be game changing!

google this
The petition also asserts that
over the next several years, the NRC will be reviewing license applications for new technologies that could carry substantial proliferation risks and be “game changers,” since they would lead to smaller, more efficient, and possibly less expensive methods for the production and use of nuclear materials that would be more difficult to detect

The NRC’s licensing responsibilities under the AEA are regulatory in nature.
The NRC neither encourages nor discourages the development of a particular technology.
Moreover, it is neither the NRC’s role, nor is it within the NRC’s capability , to restrict scientific research into the feasibility of concepts associated with the nuclear fuel cycle.
The petitioner’s concern that issuance of an NRC license may demonstrate that a technology is feasible or commercially viable is not a valid regulatory basis for denying a license under the AEA.

WRONG, it isn't the NRC's responsibility to check proliferation risks, that would have been already done by others, all the NRC would do was implement those non proliferation policies!

google this
The task of assessing proliferation risks is best performed by the Federal Government.
Other Federal agencies, led by the Department of State and including the Department of Energy, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Commerce along with the NRC, have primary responsibility for implementing national nonproliferation policies and goals and conducting proliferation assessments of sensitive technologies, including nuclear technologies

NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 70
[Docket No. PRM–70–9; NRC–2010–0372]
Nuclear Proliferation Assessment in Licensing Process for Enrichment or Reprocessing Facilities

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; denial.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is denying a petition for rulemaking (PRM), PRM–70–9,submitted by the American Physical Society (APS or the petitioner).

The petitioner requested that the NRC amend its regulations to require that each applicant for an enrichment or reprocessing (ENR) facility license include an assessment of the proliferation risks that construction and operation of the proposed facility might pose.
The NRC is also responding to comments received from interested members of the public.
DATES: The docket for PRM–70–9 closed
on June 6, 2013.

Everybody here needs to google this paragraph to get the whole story "That is how the USEC Privatization Act will be repealed, without Congress needing to lift or point a finger. Only all the little people will get screwed."

AND USEC thinks they will get the Loan Guarantee? Don't think so!

USEC has filed a lawsuit in the United States Court of Federal Claims against the Department of Energy, claiming that the DOE owes them close to $38 million in unpaid fees.

And it is further advanced than most people think, you need to google -:
Update on GE's Global Laser Enrichment-interview
26 October 2010

"7 Russian SWU and pricing is long term deal no other American power company has access to"

That is the number one driver for the US DOE to fast track other technologies from other companies to produce LEU, preferably one that is both domociled and owned by a US company, I see only one contender in that field at the moment, GLE!
Because there is no way that the US would be beholden to Russia for the security of one fifth of the US power supply network let alone the supply of Tritium for the Thermonuclear weapons that the US possess, the Tritium comes from the TVA and is passed on to the DOE for extraction and then handed to the Military, the TVA supply of LEU comes from USEC at the moment, which has up until now been produced at the PGDP, but this closure will mean that the LEU will shortly be supplied by Russia.
The TVA back in 2010 in their wisdom already has an agreement with GLE to supply LEU when it starts producing, imagine that? is that a coincidence? don't think so!.

I think it was the DOE that rejected USEC, s proposal, I would have been willing to bet they would have got it due to National Security reasons, perhaps they just asked too much, perhaps they wanted a loan guarantee guaranteed?
This will make it imperative for the US to get a US domiciled and owned company to start producing enriched Uranium ASAP ( GLE?), there is no way the US would ever allow the supply of Tritium let alone the supply of about one fifth of Americas power supply to be at the beck and call of a Russian supply of LEU.

Michael Goldsworthy was on Board Room Radio today, he stated that a Silex plant would cost somewhere between $1 and $2 billion to build, it would produce the same output as that of similar plant using different technologies (like ACP "my words not his")
I have also read that the Laser enrichment gets more from the same amount of raw product than other technologies, that also includes the reprocessing of Tails, it gets more Uranium than other technologies can.

In answer to your question kingedxxxxx from what I have read the ACP will cost around $4.25 Billion from what I have read, so even if they get the $2 Billion LG where is the rest coming from, it is also worth remembering that it is still a loan after all and has to be paid back, they could go broke like Solyndra did I suppose if they weren't competitive enough with GLE , as far as the whole GLE plant costs , I have read before where they believe the whole plant will cost a little over $1 Billion, so it's pretty cheap to build, it doesn't use up a lot of land and uses less people to operate than other systems, but from what I have read, it also has other uses, not just Uranium Enrichment which could be co located maybe in places like Paducah, to use some of the displaced workforce perhaps? From what I have read, I believe it can get more out of the tails or new Uranium than any other competitive technology at this point, that would include ACP.and at a far cheaper price.

Do any of you even know what the Tritium that comes from the TVA is used for?

In some way I see the extension of the PGDP contract, for a short while at least, being connected in some way to the proposed sale of the TVA by Obama or at least a part or parts of it? more to the point "Watts Bar" in particular, because USEC hold the contract for the delivery of Uranium to Watts Bar, who just happen to supply Tritium to the US Nuclear Weapons program, so even when the PGDP does close, and it will eventually when an alternative Uranium Enrichment source is available at Paducah by another domestic US company, it would still mean that the supply of EU for Watts Bar was still under the contract that USEC hold now and that would mean Russia would be the real supplier, but if say the plant (Watts Bar) was owned by someone else? lets just say someone like GE for instance and lets say that at that point GLE already has a laser plant up and running, then it would not matter one iota if the Russians attempted to withhold the supply of enriched Uranium to the TVA in order to stuff up the supply of Tritium for the US,s Thermonuclear Weapons Program would it?

see here -:Tritium Production at TVA
Fact Sheet, November 2003
Chronology of Tritium Production
Fact Sheet
• Tritium is a radioactive isotope of hydrogen required by all U.S. nuclear weapons in order to function as designed. Tritium cannot be used alone to make a nuclear weapon.
• Because it decays at a rate of about 5.5 percent per year, tritium must be replaced periodically. The U.S. has not produced tritium since 1988, when the last tritium production reactor was shut down at Department of Energy’s (DOE) Savannah River Site. DOE currently dismantles U.S. nuclear weapons to meet immediate needs.
• DOE is responsible for reestablishing the capability to produce tritium by approximately 2005, in accordance with a Presidential directive, and therefore is implementing a program that uses civilian nuclear reactors to produce tr

Of course it works, could you ever see GE giving away $15 million as a milestone payment if it didn't , you will also notice in the announcement that they have been working on Phase 2 since last year (sneaky hey?), Phase 3 is the building of the complete commercial plant which will take slightly longer than one year from what I read , the technology is far better than centrifuge in that it is not mechanical, it is solid state and can operate in camera, that is, it can operate in a closed room under controlled atmospheric conditions unlike gas diffusion or centrifuge, because of this attribute alone it lends itself to more than just Uranium Enrichment, but it also does that better than centrifuge as well, Oak Ridge has been working on prototypes (prototypes for what you may well ask?, because it isn't for Uranium Enrichment, I am willing to bet on that), you will also note in the last announcement that Oak Ridge gets a mention, that was not a mistake.

Something else to consider, I believe USEC will continue to operate the PGDP short term at Paducah, it's what comes after that that is the burning question.

I believe USEC have been attempting to blackmail the DOE into giving it it,s loan guarantee for the ACP for a couple of years now?

The reason why I say that is this-:

I just know some here will say this is just a conspiracy theory,I don't care really!

Does anyone here seriously believe that the DOE would "EVER" allow the supply of Enriched Uranium that comes from the tails at Paducah for the TVA today, would end up coming from Russia if the PGDP closed down? that would also mean that the supply of Tritium from the TVA would also be reliant upon Russia delivering the Enriched Uranium? I don't think so somehow!

Something else I should have added is that there are also other parties interested, so USEC won't want to get too big for their boots, especially if they want a loan guarantee in the future?
The LG will be treated as a totally separate issue but keeping on the right side of the DOE would have to help you would think?

Yes we will get some decent news soon.

Dose Escalation Study of the Safety and Pharmacokinetics of ME-344 Single Agent for Refractory Solid Tumors (ME-344-001)

Study Start Date: May 2012
Estimated Study Completion Date: May 2013
Estimated Primary Completion Date: May 2013 (Final data collection date for primary outcome measure)

I agree rjosmo,I should have spelled that out, USEC have the ball in their court IMHO, I believe GLE may have been asked to continue to run the PGDP when they submitted their proposal to build a laser enrichment plant at Paducah, but I believe they declined, I remember reading an article where one of GLE's spokesmen said in the interview, we don't want to run a gas diffusion plant, or words to that effect, at the time I thought to myself, what a strange thing to say? but looking back in retrospect, I believe what he said may have been possible if in fact GLE had been asked to run the PGDP while they built their laser enrichment plant, I believe it may be that GLE want,s to put it's full concentration into building the new plant and let USEC continue to do what it does best.

You may just get a chance to sell on a pop in the next week or so?
Remember that the contract for USEC to operate the Gas Diffusion plant runs out at the end of the month, the DOE will not let the PDGP close imho, purely on national interest grounds.
I reckon USEC will get the nod from the DOE to continue operations at Paducah for maybe one more year, this will be while GLE build a laser enrichment plant there at the Paducah site, any bets?

Yep AVLIS didn't work out, but SILEX laser enrichment did, I believe the first plant will be at Paducah and building will be started soon, at Paducah? I reckon USEC will get the nod to continue enrichment at Paducah for another year while the laser enrichment plant is being built , but this is only my opinion.

There is no way that the US would place themselves in a position where they did not have at least one company that was US owned able to supply enriched Uranium to the US market hence the continuation of USEC while GLE builds it's new plant , what's the bet?

It isn't just the cancer treatment that will benefit from what Novogen has developed, what they have found is a completely new method of manufacturing drugs, one where it will be possible to make existing drugs even better and not only for cancer, this new manufacturing development is a platform technology, it is one that will work for many drugs for different illnesses, it will extend patent life on older drugs under a new patent I believe , but it could just as easily be applied to existing drug pipelines under new patents as well, because it will work thousands of time better, therefore less actives required.
They are working on the cancer development at first, but the rest will follow soon.

Would it not automatically follow that the SWU price would be reflected by the drop of any price in the raw product? i.e. if raw product cheaper, then the enriched product would also be cheaper, but that in itself doesn't mean that the profit on the enriched Uranium necessarily follows in sympathy and also drops, but this is only my opinion.