Those are also my thoughts.

I commented on this below, but the pro-nuclear posters are (mostly) neither polite nor very constructive.
Part of the response to a study I mentioned was: "They also appear to indulge in some magical thinking when it comes to the co-extraction of copper at the Olympic Dam mine which is quite amusing.". Condescending comes to mind.

About "Green eco nutters". I give this example(not representative):
http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/Nuclear-Energy-Recovery-TimeOct00.htm)
They state an EROEI of 13, very different from the 4-5 you cite.
The other one is a "more recent Life-Cycle Energy Balance analysis by the university of Sydney". "Life-Cycle Energy Balance and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Nuclear Energy in Australia". They are not anti-nuclear at all, and their conclusions do favor nuclear, but they calculate a EROEI of ~10. That is using Australia's present 0,15% ore grade average, an optimistic assumption for the future.
They are treated as incompetent and ignorant by the poster that aswered.

BTW, I think the argument here should be SYSTEM EROEI, not fuel EROEI.

The argument I think, does just that. But you have to consider EROEI for the fuel cycle in the process.

It is very difficult as you say, to sort out reliable sources. But 100:1 doesn't look right. Such a dream EROI would have made Nuclear really cheap no matter the technology costs and all the world would be building nuclear plants. I guess we'll know for sure only when the good ores are depleted. In a free energy market it has not proved that it is as cheap as they say. And the argument that environmentalists have the power to stop nuclear power development is ridiculous. The societies with most green activism have the most nukes. And I am sure China et al. won't be stopped by those pesky greens. So when the real energy crisis starts, look at what those countries without "greens" do.