Vuncanfile, congratulations on your segue from fleeces to feces in that post. Such linguistic skill is a beautiful thing to behold.
And here is the concluding sentence: "Any promising fuel cycle option using these characteristics has a need for development of the supporting technologies, with total development costs estimated in excess of $10B and development time in excess of 10 years."
In other words, forget it.
"Its underwater displacement is about 25 thousand tons, and surface displacement - 22 thousand tons."
Speaking of displacement, what the world needs is displacement of the clypto-thug in the Kremlin.
"May 8th I will decide to either Buy, Hold, or Sell."
Why don't you attend the meeting on May 7 and send us texts from the back of the room?
I'll go one step farther on this, as a wild speculation.
Could this be deal that Poneman worked out with DOE before he came aboard, to provide LEU with the bridge that it needs to the future, while avoiding Congressional carping because it's environmental clean-up?
Concerning this DOE request for proposal, I'm still wondering why Centrus Energy wouldn't be the best candidate to do this work. LEU has the experts and needs the steady source of income until ACP becomes a reality.
Anybody have a thought on that? Thanks.
muffdad, appreciate the technical explanation! Is all that knowledge the result of the Ohio public schools?
Is there any reason Poneman shouldn't be proposing on this work? Who better than LEU to perform these services and provide a cash-flow bridge to the future (assuming that DOE will actually allow a contractor to operate profitably)?
Yes, exactly as expected.
Of the 8% interest rate, Centrus paid 5% in cash and 3% as a PIK of more bonds, for half a year.
What's strange for me?
My wife hasn't spent the money yet.
Huh? Unlike stocks, bonds don't trade lower when they go "ex interest" because accrued interest is not part of the trade price. The seller is reimbursed separately by the buyer for accrued interest (through the broker, of course).
Today I rec'd 5% in cash and 3% in new bonds (based on $1,000 par value) in my Schwab account. Interest has yet to post on the few bonds that I have in an E-Trade account.
Hopefully the bonds will trade higher now that that's out of the way.
Now I'm wondering how the payments in kind get taxed, based on par or the fair value of the bonds that I received. I suppose that I should know that but I don't. Of course, what Schwab reports on my 2014 form 1099 won't necessarily be right either.
He doesn't really care about Iran. Valarie Jarrett is in charge of that. BHO has full attention on his golf game. So, if he missed a two-footer, it must have been nicotine withdrawal.
". . . if Jesus appears on my pancake."
I recommend that you take your camera to breakfast this coming Sunday.
"acp IF IT EVER materializes will not take part in the new fueling for these plants."
VF18, as to the Korean plants, what's your basis for that statement?
" The more complicated they make it the blurrier it becomes."
I agree completely.
"They included a $426.9 million gain from the reorganization as income from continuing operations, but I'd consider it a non-recurring item."
Whether or not that income is from continuing operations, and whether or not it is recurring are two different accounting issues. Yes, it is from continuing operations (since it is not associated with a part of the business that is being sold or shut down), and, yes, it is also non-recurring.
So adjust your expectations for the future accordingly.
Moose, I'm no physicist but somehow all that seems to rank in feasibility some place between cool fusion and a perpetual motion machine.