sml early tues morning?, page-11

It is a tad difficult to stay on the sidelines when incorrect info is posted!

HS - I find myself agreeing with a lot of what you post now and I respect the humility and patience with which you are countering some of the recent uninformed posts here.

However, I really must point out that, with respect to comparing Strata's situation with the attempted stay on Ur-Energy, you are comparing apples with oranges.

The only similarity is that they are both ISR uranium miners in Wyoming. Everything else, or relevance, is different, and the Ur-Energy case certainly does not offer any useful guidance as to how the Strata case will go. It certainly does NOT provide any 'precedence'.

These are the key differences:

1. Different agency and legislation (in the Ur-Energy case, the stay was against a decision of the BLM, not the NRC under S2.342)
2. Different permitting procedures (Strata is first to be subject to a 'streamlined' permitting process, where BLM and NRC environmental assessments have been integrated)
3. Different intervenors, with different resources
4. Different contentions (sage grouse at Ur-Energy, groundwater and cumulative impacts at Ross)
5. Different court system (U.S. District Court for Ur-Energy; ASLB for Strata)

There may be other differences as well.

The ASLB's decision will be based on S2.342 of the NRC Regulations.

As Zubana has correctly pointed out, this will be a huge challenge for them (particularly with respect to 'irreparable injury'). But the NRDC is powerful and well-organised so, despite the challenges, there is no way of predicting the outcome