I'm not sure I understand your point, or your reference to what someone's "interpretation" of how DOI "viewed" the issue in 2009. Are you suggesting that despite the grandfathering language in the 20-year moratorium, valid existing claimholders can not get permits?

O.k., but then there is this from Energy Fuels concerning the Canyon project...

"Refurbishment of surface facilities development has begun at the Canyon Mine, and the Company recommenced shaft-sinking activities during 2013. In late 2013, the company placed shaft sinking activities on standby due to market conditions."

I am not a lawyer, though I did study some labor law as an undergraduate, and some of my best friends are lawyers (and son-in-law, and cousins, neighbors, waiter at my favorite restaurant, cabbie, etc). However, there is in my mind much confusion over precisely what geography is involved. It also seems nonesensical that mining claims would at all need to be declared invalid "...if economic quantities of mineral could not be demonstrated,..." How stupid is that? Can't be done without drilling where evidence suggests drilling is required for evaluation.

In a related matter, I would not be surprised to begin seeing DOI and EPA revise their attitudes in the coming months as career civil servants jocky for positioning to maintain their jobs going into a new Administration, perhaps one as radically removed from this one as it was itself from GWs. Afterall, civil servants do what the boss says, at least until he's a "lame duck".

Interesting banter, none-the-less. Thank you.

VP