That's not correct; LIS Technologies is also Laser and their CEO...

That's not correct; LIS Technologies is also Laser and their CEO (Christo Leibenberg) was GLE's laser manager from 2006 to 2011. Their "Technical Adviser" is a well known (and credible) founder in the laser enrichment field (Jeff Eerkins) - he is however 93 years old. You can get a much better view of LIST's by reading their patent (see HERE) - it's a technical document. Other details are also HERE where the author draws a comparison between 16 micron (our technology) and 5.3 micron (LIST's) technology. In summary there's is easier to produce with a CO laser but UF₆ s "5000 times weaker photon absorption cross-section of UF6 at 5 microns compared to that at 16 microns" - UF₆ is almost transparent to the laser at 5.3 micron. For us (at 16 microns) the laser energy is absorbed much more efficiently than at 5.3 micron but this frequency was much more costly to produce than with CO2 lasers/raman shifter which was developed by (Christo Leibenberg, Horst Struve, Mike Goldsworthy et al) in the late 1990's to 2010/11). At the last AGM Mike Goldsworthy said that these lasers were "scapped" in 2016/17 and as such Christo Leibenberg does not know what is current. My speculation is that they are now using 16 micron Quantum Cascade Lasers which produce 16 micron IR much more efficiently than CO2/raman shift technology. IMHO 16 microns is a far better wavelength to operate on than 5.3 micron. The other possible difference is the separator where I speculate (but don't know) that we are using something similar to aerodynamic separation (see HERE) but the LIST (CRISLA) patent says that they are using "condensation suppression" which separates the excited ²³⁵UF₆ monomers from 238UF6/G dimers using the difference in condensation rates (i.e ²³⁸UF₆/G dimers condense more quickly than ²³⁵UF₆ monomers.

The other primary differentiator is that Jeff Eerkins dropped development of their technology in the early 2000's since he didn't have a sponsor but did some testing at the University of Missouri up to the early 2000's. His technology we rejected by Cameco in the mid 1990's (see HERE) but our technology was sponsored by USEC (now Centrus) in the 1997 - 2002 period (then dropped for the American Centrifuge - pressure from Oak Ridge NL). SLX continued development in the period 2003 - 2006 by themselves (i.e proved up the enrichment factors) but were then sponsored by GEH up until July 2014 (but some development continued until mid 2017) - MG reckons they spent about US$500m - it then went into limbo until 2019 when SQC sponsored zero spin Si. From 2019 - to now SLX and Cameco have spent a further C$257,355 on it's development (see below) - we are now close to TRL/6 development - LIST "claim" to be at TRL/4 (i.e where we were in 2005)

	Year	Spend (K C$)	CCJ %	Pro rata SLX spend (K C$)	Total spend (K C$)
1	2024	$37,000	49%	$38,510	$75,510
2	2023	$21,036	49%	$21,895	$42,931
3	2022	$12,175	49%	$12,672	$24,847
4	2021	$7,168	49%	$7,461	$14,629
5	2020	$3,965	49%	$4,127	$8,092
6	2019	$6,058	49%	$6,305	$12,363
7	Total	$106,358		$150,997	$257,355