RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:The SP tells it is a bad deal!sasku3o8 wrote: Sudzie You certainly want things to be fair between supplier and producer, but they are on opposite ends of the boat, so to speak. One wants higher prices, the other wants lower. Utilities don't mind if you're barely making ends meet as a supplier. For FCU, they should be limiting the amount of pounds available (not 35% of everything at PLS), and they should have gotten some fixed price or at least floor price protection (no mention of this in the LOI). For the amount of capital that needs to be expended, financing will want to see some certainty around the revenue stream. The 15% option was not a great idea as you can't lock that supply up with others if it's at the sole option of CGN (and they will exercise that option when it's in their interests, and not Fission's), and if the discount is too large (10-15%), you can't exactly go out and cover it in the market without taking a loss. The up front part (issuing at a premium) only solves the near term problem. In my mind, the long term contract at spot for 35% does not increase the value of PLS, it decreases it. The LOI stated that these were the fundamental terms, so it seems as though the only thing to negotiate is the discount. The better deal would have been a smaller version of this one. If the uranium market is in a turnaround, according to Quakes and Tim Evans, why did Fission need 4 years of funding up front?
Great points. Thanks for sharing your thoughts, sasku3o8