I think MG was actually referring to LIS Technologies (see HERE)...

I think MG was actually referring to LIS Technologies (see HERE) - as you say they are well behind GLE is their maturity. - as I recall it MG said "they din't even have a lab". Furthermore they do not have a 5mlbs/yr UF6 resource (like GLE) nor an investment grade partner like Cameco. You can read about the LIS Technologies people HERE - note that Christo Liebenberg was Silex's laser manager from the late 1990's to 2012 and during that time "He (co-)authored at least 10 patents and published many technical papers and reports, mostly in the classified space" - presumably "the classified space" refers to Silex patents which he will have to be careful not to infringe - I'm sure that if they become a serious competitor MG will remind him of his obligations in this context. The patent used by LIS Tech is HERE More information on Jeff Eerkens can be found HERE - he was born in 1931.

Regarding ASP isotopes - their recent SEC US filing is HERE - note that it is IP acquired from Klydon which is a stationary wall centrifuge. Comment on their background and possible connections to SLX can be found in a 2015 paper HERE - an interesting comment in this paper concerning Stationary wall centrifuges is:

"10.1. Silex probably uses selective inhibition of clustering in a molecular beam and perhaps a centrifuge with stationary wall

There are indications that the process is related to developments in South Africa: Greenpeace quotes in 2005 a contract between Silex Systems "with a South African company to work on its research and development project" (p. 17 of [26]; direct information not available anymore) and quotes (at the same place) a report [27] that says that due to financial cuts of the South African Atomic Energy Corporation "some researchers (seem to) have been approached by Silex Systems to work on a similar project in Australia". Whereas these researchers might mean some laser specialists from SDI Lasers/Pretoria (Silex Systems already before bought CO2 lasers from there and is interested in higher repetition rates), there are indications (see below) that also the LIS processes in the two countries are related and that they exchanged expert knowledge in this field. In the 1990s, SDI split into a laser company (SDI Lasers, now part of PaR/Pretoria) and a company (Klydon: klydon.co.za) investigating isotope separation of light elements such as silicon (as also Silex Systems), saying that it would also work with UF6. They call their method Aerodynamic Separation Process (ASP), saying it is based on a centrifuge with stationary wall.

This reminds one of the South African vortex-tube process or the separation nozzle (section 6-7), only combined with a laser. To increase the separation factor in the centrifugal part from ≈1.0216(separation nozzle with UF6 in H2: section 6) to ≈10 (Silex), it would be desirable to drastically increase the mass difference between the isotopic molecules. In fact, this is possible, (a) if the molecular beam is operated under conditions, where collisions form clusters of the kind (UF6)n or UF6·Gm, with small n and m and with G being the carrier gas or a component of it, and (b) if a laser with isotopic selectivity either dissociates clusters containing 235U or inhibits formation of them by selective excitation (heating) of monomeric 235UF6 still in the collisional region of the molecular beam. (The clusters form by condensation during adiabatic cooling. At a distance of a few slit widths downstream from the nozzle, collisions terminate due to the decreased density and temperature.) The mass difference (on which the separation factor depends exponentially in a centrifuge) between the non-associated lighter isotope and the clustered heavier isotope would increase from 3 to 355 u (dimer) or 203 u (cluster with G = cyclo-C4F8, a heavy molecule (200 u) not absorbing at 16 μm), for instance.Both methods, selective cluster dissociation and selective inhibition of their formation, were demonstrated by the van den Bergh group [28-31] with SF6, although with a straight beam without centrifuge. The separation factors were small (≤1.6 for inhibition of clustering with Ar [30]; for IRMPD of SF6 it is easy to obtain values >100 [32]). But they would probably increase on combination with a stationary-wall centrifuge; the beam must then be subsonic, of course. The IR spectra of the clusters are broad (SF6 clusters: [28,29,33], UF6 clusters: [34,35]) compared to uranium isotopic shifts, and complications arise due to the presence of different clusters [31]. Hence the selective condensation inhibition will be the only possibility.In fact, this method was also suggested by J.W. Eerkens (see [36]) for UF6, although without a centrifuge and therefore small enrichment factor. Importantly, Eerkens with his company began merger negotiations with (the precursor of) Silex Systems, but stopped them because of funding disagreement according to [36]; it seems evident that there must be some overlap between Eerkens' "repression of condensation" and Silex, with the main difference perhaps the use of a centrifuge with stationary wall in Silex. (In a straight beam as recommended in [36], separation would be based on diffusion, which only depends on the square root of relative mass difference. This is confirmed by the small separation factor in the SF6 experiments [30]. Another drawback of the straight beam is the very poor cut: The skimmer usually transmits only of the order of 5 percent of the beam [31]. This further decreases the depletion factor, which is anyway poor due to the insufficient repetition rate of the laser.)As already said, one has to irradiate the beam in a region where collisions still take place (i.e. during the initial expansion near the narrowest part of the nozzle [31]). On the other hand, one must avoid too many collisions, because they would lead to equilibration between the isotopes17and thus would destroy selectivity. As a consequence, there will be a distribution of species: cluster formation will not be complete, some of the 238U will be present in monomeric form and conversely some of the lighter isotope (after again cooling down by collisions with the carrier gas) will be found as clusters. This is intrinsic to the process. As a result, the separation process will – also in future – be far from preserving the selectivity of excitation. This conclusion is probably independent of the exact embodiment of the process.Technically, one probably blows the UF6 strongly diluted in a carrier gas (light, to obtain high velocities to increase the centrifugal force; perhaps not too light to avoid the necessity of unrealistic repetition rates, and perhaps with a heavy additive such as cyclo-C4F8 for cluster formation) through a slit nozzle tangentially to a curved wall, such as done with the separation nozzle (Figure 5, with irradiation perpendicular to the plane of drawing, after the narrowest part of the nozzle). (The vortex tube is probably out of question, because there would be too many collisions during the many revolutions of the gas, so that the isotopically selective excitation would be lost.) The slit nozzle has to be long enough to provide sufficient path length of absorption of the laser. For such a length the laser must be not strongly focused; a realistic focal spot might be 1 cm2. (Larger cross sections seem not possible, because the collisional region cannot be easily expanded.) The radius of curvature of the wall (Figure 5) must therefore be larger by two orders of magnitudes than in the conventional separation nozzle, and the operation pressure smaller by the same factor (section 6).The conclusion that Silex uses a gas-dynamic process with selective suppression of clustering and use of a centrifuge with stationary wall is based on indirect evidence and may be only a guess. It implies (two paragraphs above) that the separation factor is intrinsically limited. By contrast, the following consideration is also valid for other molecular-beam methods, hence only depends on point 2 above, which was considered established.

My conclusion is that a sub-sonic (albeit with H2 carrier gas) centrifuge without a 16 micron laser irradiation chamber would have a low enrichment factor of about the square root of current super critical (rotating at about twice sonic speed) which is at best about 1.6 so the enrichment factor of a stationary wall centrifuge would be about 1.26. SLX says their enrichment factor is between 2 - 20 other information (SA "hatch" report) indicates that SLX have an enrichment factor of about 5 - 6. Thus it would appear to me that SLX is far ahead of ISP isotope and really not a viable competitor. It also appears from their SEC filing that they have a long way to go to get the approval necessary to enrich uranium.