IMO at a minimum the US will choose both centrifuge and Laser...

IMO at a minimum the US will choose both centrifuge and Laser isotope enrichment. It would be foolish for them to "put all their eggs in one basket" for an (as yet) unproven technology which is required by the USA for Geo-strategic reasons. From MG's viewpoint IMO it would reduce his (and SLX's) credibility if he were to "categorically says the process is commercially viable" - he is the one with the most to gain - IMO this has to come from an independent source and they can only assert that the process is viable in technical and engineering terms NOT commercial - that's up to the market and many external issues outside of SLX (and MG) control. At the end of the day that's the risk that (as investors) we are taking. Now it would be helpful if MG could come out with some statistics (supported by test results) such as enrichment and separation factors of the process and unit costs - but he may well be under secrecy obligations on this. IMO the current numbers of 2-20 for the enrichment factor are too vague. More technical detail would be very helpful (but as I say likely restricted). There was an independent report (by the IAEA and Los Alamos Lab) from September 2005 (for the summary by John Lyman see HERE) which had issues which have no doubt been largely resolved since - it would however be nice to get confirmation of their resolution from the company. Also Synder outlines several issues in his 2015 paper (see HERE).

Also one of our competitors (LIS Technologies) have "implied" criticism of "16 micron technologies" in their patent of 2017 (see HERE) which could do with a balanced viewpoint (particularly as they now imply that we are " legacy pulsed 16µm CO2 lasers" technology" despite their maturity at their own assessment being TRL/4 and only recently publishing plans to re-establish a laboratory at Oak Ridge no doubt using components from their old prototype which has been warehoused for some years and whose founder (and CTO) was born in 1931 and the current CEO worked for GLE/SLX from Jan 2006 to December 2011. I guess it must be non-disclosure obligations under US/Australian secrecy which do not permit an "informed" view but it's frustrating.