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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Uranium Stocks -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TheSlowLane who wrote (4141)	11/19/2006 9:35:17 PM
From: Chuckles_Bee	Respond to of 30231

U3O8 at $200 = only 18.75% increase in total production costs. Maybe :) I probably screwed this all up, but I took the numbers from the 2 links I posted, and attempted some calcs. I rounded 24% & 26% to 25% and I changed U3O8 $52 to 50....just to make the math quick and simple. So.... U3O8 at $50 is 25% of total fuel cost, which is 25% of total production cost (so U3O8 is about 6%). ..so total fuel cost = $200, and total production = $800. If U3O8 = 100, then total fuel = 250 & tot.prod = 850. If U3O8 = 150, tot.fuel = 300, & tot.prod = 900. If U308 = 200, tot.fuel = 350, & tot.prod = 950. At $200 U3O8 (a 300% increase from $50), total production cost is up $150, which is only 18.75% more than the original $800. The total fuel cost would now be 36.84% of total production, but is still waaaaaay less than fuel costs of coal (78%), Nat.gas (94%) and oil (91%). Like I said, I probably read things wrong and screwed this all up, ...so if nothing else, you'll get a giggle out of my mess. If I somehow got it right, then we see U3O8 has plenty of room to go up big time before it has a serious impact. Regards, CB.