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: Horgad who wrote (165862)	5/14/2002 6:03:12 PM
From: yard_man	Respond to of 436258

>>Maybe the profit margin is better on recycling versus refining << No -- that's what the issue was -- they were paying premium to get the stuff they were recycling -- from the look of things I would guess they reached a compromise, but are still paying a bit more for the material from the weapons.

To: Horgad who wrote (165862)	5/14/2002 9:24:20 PM
From: Tommaso	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

I guess USU looked good to somebody because all those warheads are being dismantled and the uranium has to go somewhere--and that's their business.

To: Horgad who wrote (165862)	5/14/2002 10:40:04 PM
From: Joan Osland Graffius	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

Horgad, >>Or maybe USU is somehow being subsidized for helping to get rid of weapons grade uranium? There is kind-of like subsidy for USU. They are sole source contractor to the EPA for a fair amount of work - and you know it is like dying and going to heaven business with sole source contracts with the government. <g> Also USU has some kind of financial agreement with the government to take this Russian fuel. I have not taken the time to dig into this and since I own the stock it would be a good idea to figure out what they get paid for this effort. There is another piece of their business that we can not obtain information and that is fuel for the navy fleet. Another sole source contract. These government sole source contracts help the bottom line since they can load overhead costs on top of the operating costs and then tack the profit on both of these costs. There are not very many companies that can pass through overhead plus profit on overhead on their products. <g> BTW, it is my opinion the US government must keep USU a financially healthy and a viable business because of national security. A sort of monopoly and national security associated business seems to be a fairly low risk investment as long as they continue to pay nice dividends. It looks to me like the profit charges to the government can be passed through directly to the stockholders. The stockholders need to hope the US treasury cuts checks for the bills sent to them from USU. There could be a problem since there is not sufficient funds to send me interest payment checks for my treasury bonds, notes and bills. <ggg> Joan