Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tommaso who wrote (165858)	5/14/2002 5:42:07 PM
From: Knighty Tin	Respond to of 436258

It makes sense. Which means it's not possible in this market. ,g>

To: Tommaso who wrote (165858)	5/14/2002 5:52:26 PM
From: Horgad	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 436258

Can't argue with the 10-12% jump, but the correlation to disarming and USU profits wasn't immediately apparent to me either. My simple understanding of USU is that they make fuel for nuclear power plants. This means either refining mined uranium or recycling weapons grade uranium. I don't think there has been much refining going on because of a glut of weapons grade uranium. An increase in the amount of weapons grade uranium available does not do anything for the demand for nuclear power plant fuel, but maybe it decreases USU costs for raw materials? Maybe the profit margin is better on recycling versus refining and the recycling supply was running out? Or maybe USU is somehow being subsidized for helping to get rid of weapons grade uranium? IE they make money even if they don't sell the recycled stuff. I don't have the answers, but it is a interesting stock to follow given their monopoly...

To: Tommaso who wrote (165858)	5/14/2002 10:04:45 PM
From: Joan Osland Graffius	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

Tommaso,>>dismantling of many more warheads will give USU a lot more business. How I see this business is the price of the supply of uranium input material is important for the price of the final product. There are a couple of competitors in Europe and the Asian nuclear power plants subcontract with these companies for fuel. If USU is more cost competitive it will give them more business. It looks to me like the French competitor has higher costs. My view is the French recycle their fuel which drives up their costs, but they seem to be willing to manufacture the fuel and sell it for very little profit. In my opinion USU management has been working to bring down their costs and have to believe the US$ will make a difference when bidding for overseas business. BWDIK Joan