Yes as you say officially DoE procurement should be neutral to...

Yes as you say officially DoE procurement should be neutral to Australia, Canada (and also the UK) - but other factors cannot be ignored. "Other factors" are "military" - only a "US technology" can be used to supply weapons materials which could be extended to power at Military bases and is a factor in procurement for these application and also "mates" in that it's difficult to replicate the close affiliations that "genuine" stars and stripes companies have in the military/political establishment of the US (i.e mates buy from mates). To me it's given that Centrus will get part of the action - the real question is that since the US congress is mandating "at least two companies" who the other (apart from Centrus) company is. My bet is that Urenco is already committed to expansion (i.e does not need DoE largess) but is centrifuge technology. Technology diversification makes a lot of sense and as such I'm backing GLE to get a significant slice of the action., however that may still depend upon success of the commercial prototype in mid 2024 and the DoE may require a "break" should that be unsuccessful. My message is don't under estimate the influence of "mates" in the US system; but in my view there is sufficient merit in GLE's technology to warrant support of GLE as stated in current bills before congress - just my view though - do your own research.