colarado u mill with comparable licence issues, page-2

Thanks illiquid, different licence but no doubt there would be some similarities, if anything it might be able to provide precedence in our case however i'm not sure how that translates from State to State in the States.
This part is interesting in the judgement:
"The court rejected the all of the other ten claims in their entirety, holding that CDPHE and Energy Fuels had complied with statutory and regulatory requirements regarding financial assurance, decommissioning, and air and groundwater standards."
So as long as we comply with the current requirements there's not much more we have to do and hopefully this can be applied in our instance, although it's the getting to this stage that will take time. Obviously i'm not as well researched as Vintage but it seems that in our case, they're more attacking these regulatory standards from what I understand.