I agree that when a player like Sprott is such significant participant in such a small market, that attention must be paid to their role and influence. That said, it seems to me that demand for uranium is inelastic in that power plants cannot fuel-switch. Very little crude oil is used for electricity generation. The accident at Cigar Lake has made a tight market go critical.

Certainly investors should use discretion when deciding how to participate but it seems to me that the fundamentals of the market would be strong even without Sprott as a player. Big profits will be made here, but your caveat reminds people to make sure that they emerge from the other side of this market with those profits intact.

Best,
tsl

Another advocate re: the McEwen - Goldcorp appeal.
==========
"Goldcorp and Glamis: All shareholders should have a say", according to The Anderson Governance Group

as it calls for open debate on the merits - and appropriate
mechanisms - of shareholder involvement in corporate decision-making

TORONTO, Nov. 1 /CNW/ - David Anderson, President of The Anderson
Governance Group, called today for a constructive dialogue among shareholders,
directors, executives and regulators on the matter of shareholder involvement
in corporate decision-making. What follows is a statement by David Anderson:
"The evolution of corporate governance is entering a new phase. In the
last 5 years we have witnessed an unparalleled transfer of power from
management to the board. Shareholders have played an active role in
encouraging directors to defend their interests. The results have been clear:
better informed directors, more rigorous debate around the boardroom table,
and a new ethos of transparency and accountability.
To do their job best, directors have made a counter-intuitive discovery:
they must become strategic partners with management, embracing with mature
collegiality and renewed understanding and respect, their responsibilities in
spite of their different but complementary roles. This is not the distant and
impartial oversight envisioned by investors and regulators as the antidote to
the clubby and ineffective boards that previously failed in their duties.
To their credit, investors have recognized the wisdom of directors and
have granted them license to partner with management on the condition that
they, as owners, have a clear mechanism to render their judgment on the
effectiveness of directors and their decisions. Voting for directors on an
individual basis, as opposed to a slate, permits shareholders to voice with
greater specificity who will best represent their interests. Voting on issues
of strategic relevance to the organization gives shareholders a clear voice on
matters affecting their investment.

It is at this juncture where the debate is being waged so actively today.
I make two propositions that, in my experience, find widespread agreement
among those concerned with the integrity of our capital markets:

>

These propositions have both philosophical and practical roots and
implications. It is the second proposition that I address here, as it is at
the heart of the dispute between Mr. McEwen and Goldcorp.
Goldcorp has made a business decision to acquire Glamis with newly-minted
equity equivalent to 67% of the outstanding shares. The quality of the
business decision is beyond my expertise, as is the legal question as to
whether the proposed transaction contravenes Ontario law which requires
shareholder approval for fundamental corporate changes. But the larger
question is not what is required by law in such a transaction, but rather,
does the nature of this transaction warrant the legitimacy of shareholder
approval?
Goldcorp's business case may be solid; the legal underpinnings secure.
Nonetheless, the truly important question remains: should shareholders have a
voice? And if so, in what circumstances, on the specific facts in this case
and more generally?
I believe that Goldcorp's shareholders should be consulted. Not on the
strength of business judgment or legal perspective, but on the principle that
shareholders deserve a means of voicing approval and dissent for proposals
that alter significantly the risk profile and underlying capital structure of
an organization.
In five years, this debate will seem antiquated, just as the debate
surrounding CEO-Chair separation in Canada is today. But the need to foster
vitality and depth in our capital markets will be just as important then as it
is now. Decisions we make today will create the future in which our companies
will compete for global capital and talent.
For Canadian markets to be secure and our companies successful, I believe
we need a robust governance culture; one that supports transparency and
accountability in our companies and complementary power in the framework of
rules and expectations those companies inhabit. Directors, executives and
investors each have valid interests - sometimes in common and sometimes at
odds with each other. We need vital leadership today that chooses a higher
standard of governance, despite narrow, short term interests.
This is why I believe that directors, executives, shareholders and
regulators need to engage in a constructive debate on the merits - and
appropriate mechanisms - of shareholder involvement in corporate
decision-making. This debate should seek to answer these questions of
shareholder involvement not only for the specific issues raised in this
commentary, but also as regards to such matters as director compensation, use
of options, managing conflicts of interest in related party transactions and
insider trading.
And so the evolution of governance continues apace. The issues are real,
the stakes are high and the outcome is yet to be determined. Rob McEwen has
ignited this latest debate. Whatever the outcome, McEwen deserves thanks for
putting himself on the line in the name of shareholder rights."

About The Anderson Governance Group

The Anderson Governance Group (www.taggra.com) is an advisory firm
dedicated to assisting corporate boards and management teams enhance
leadership and governance effectiveness. The firm advises boards, regulators
and investors both nationally and internationally.
David Anderson, President of The Anderson Governance Group, writes and
speaks widely on leadership in governance and management. He authors a regular
column entitled "Inside the Boardroom" for Director, published by the
Institute of Corporate Directors (ICD) in Canada and co-wrote the 2001 Blue
Ribbon Commission Report on Board Evaluation for the National Association of
Corporate Directors (NACD) in the US. David has served as Special Advisor to
four other Blue Ribbon Commissions of the NACD.
David holds a PhD in Industrial and Organizational Psychology from The
University of Western Ontario, where he instructed Organizational Behaviour
and led numerous research initiatives with industry for the Research Unit on
Work and Productivity. In addition, David is a member of the Society for
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, the American Psychological
Association, and the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies.

For further information: For media queries, please contact Vania Blaauw,
Head of Media Relations, The Anderson Governance Group, T: (416) 815-1212, E:
vb@taggra.com, W: www.taggra.com

Paul VanEedon of Cranberry Capitol, Bill has mentioned him previously as a good resource, was on ROB TV a couple of weeks back. (I don't think it is available for replay anymore) Anyhow, with regards to Uranium he opined, although he didn't mention Sprott, that Uranium prices are controlled by a small group and prices for the ore will likely continue to rise to create a bubble. He was definitely bearish and primarily because he believes the enrichment processes will be stepped up to counter the price increase hence he did not see the same supply issues as many others.

A word of warning - such tightness and critical-ness as is happening in uranium happen at market tops. Prudhoe Bay, anyone?

Ignore Bill at your own peril.

I did not see Bill calling a top in the uranium market, though he did say "...be careful. One day, the air will pop from this balloon.". He did not say when. Paul van Eeden, on the other hand, has been vociferously calling a top since $30. I recently finished reading the new book from StockInterview.com on the uranium market. I would certainly not claim to be an expert, but it does help with understanding the fundamentals.

Has David Anderson been mis-quoted, or does he have it ( in part) wrong? There has been an unparalelled transfer of power from boards to management who have taken the infamous "buddy board" to new heights of mis-governance while furthering the ambitions and greed of management who are raiding a treasury owned by shareholders. In reading Bill Dimma's latest tome "Tougher Boards for Tougher Times" I think he would agree but, of course being a charter member of the Bay Street Boys Club, is less forthright in his criticism than myself.