% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Lightbridge Corp. Message Board

  • insttrader2 insttrader2 Dec 3, 2010 1:19 PM Flag

    One More Thing

    This company has a very hard time getting whatever story it has tell out there. If as I was told the company changed its name because they no longer wanted the seed and blanket technology to be its centerpiece because along the way they discovered the advantages of all metal fuel rod then say it! What I suspect is they discovered that the LTA for this technology was years and years out and much more money than they led on. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt here-- then they discovered via their endeavors that the fuel rod they were using displayed some interesting properties and that as the fuel rod could be used in existing reactors the lead time for actual deployment and the money required for licensing would be more realistic. So they decided to put on the back burner the whole RTK technology and focus on the fuel rod. They changed their name, came out with their overhyped PR, raised money etc... Now the question is well is this going to be like what happened with the other technology? Fool me once shame on you fool me twice and in the words of George Bush.... well you know. However, I think I know where there are going with this. The fuel rod requires less testing, its less ambitious and possibly very lucrative. Moreover, as the government will bear most of the costs of testing and eventual licensing its a rather easy program to follow. They just need to be more forthright about what it is they are doing, the roadmap for success and the steps they are taking. On the consulting side, it would be nice to see a long term lucrative one. Now I happen to think as another poster said that the other unmentioned client is Qatar. Qatar has undertaken a study pretty verbatim what LTBR said they were contracted to do in that April press release. Moreover, as LTBR said they will reveal the name after the study and as this study is to be released before years end we should have another press release soon outlying this. What I don't know is whether Qatar opted for a more general GCC Nuclear Option for the reasons stated namely economies of scale or whether there is an option whereby Qatar will go about this independently and/or in conjunction with the GCC. But what makes sense is that Qatar was the client and somewhere it was concluded that a broader geographical undertaking made more sense for the region. We shall see. I will say that at 5.20 I have to think risk reward is favorable and I am buying more.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • HA!HA!HA!

      >stop with the nostalgia crap<

      Insta you should know you shouldn't Dig a Hole with a Square Point Shovel.

      Generation Y needs to establish their Foundation.

      I agree they will find their way.

      Besides, I'm working on my Grandson's interpretation of the world. Its great to know you still make a difference.
      Hope you have the something similar in your life.

      Y'ers Here it is.

    • Thanks for your take.
      One tell-tale sign as to the scope of the GCC contract should be to keep watch on new hires for LTBR.
      One would think that such an immense undertaking would require many more hands on/in the field employees.
      Next scheduled numbers filing isn't til the Annual in March 2011.
      I just wish they would be more forthcoming with updates on such matters.
      The old Thorium Power would do just that bi-monthly.
      Maybe with the discression of naming clients now out in the open, Seth will start keeping shareholders in the loop.

      Wishful Thinking???

      • 1 Reply to cdjrth1
      • CD,
        LTBR is mostly consulting in regulatory and legal matters. When they were intially engaged with the UAE they made 30 million setting up the two regulatory arms inside the UAE. Imagine the work needed to set up a supranational regulatory arm to watch over the GCC members. It is a huge undertaking. I think this contract might be worth as much as 300 million dollars over 10 years. Again discounting that with a basic present value analysis and you have 150 million or 13 dollars a share. The problem right now is credibility. I think it will all be resolved soon.

0.451-0.019(-4.14%)May 27 4:00 PMEDT