 Today, I have the pleasure of speaking with Jeff Klendo from UR Energy. How are you today, Jeff? Doing great, Tracy. Thanks for having me on again. Jeff, I have to tell you, your Q2 news release you put out yesterday was one of the most well-written news releases I've ever had the pleasure of reviewing. So why don't you go ahead and I don't even know where to start with the highlights from that other than let me say congratulations. This is your seventh year anniversary for production. So how about you tell us the highlights, please? Thank you. Let me start by saying, first of all, credit where credit is due. The wordsmithing on the press release was done by Penny Gottler at our General Counsel and Roger Smith, our CFO. So credit to them, they're both excellent wordsmiths and I think that they do a very good job of highlighting the, well, capturing the high points of our quarterlies. So when you talk about our quarter and our seventh year, we're very pleased. We started production in August of 2013. And I guess the thing that's most astonishing about it is that during that time we've emerged as one of the lowest cost producers, not just in North America, but globally. And so that's something you really don't know until you turn on the pumps and you produce for a while and you see how low you can go in terms of those C1 cash costs. And we've been nothing but pleasantly surprised by lost creep. In addition to that, our recovery rate is in excess of 90%. So not only have we captured at a percentage that's far greater than we would have ever anticipated, but surprisingly, we are still producing minimal pounds, but we're still producing out of our first mine unit seven years after we first started production there. That's extraordinary considering that most mine units last about two and a half years, three years before they're done. So it's a beast of a project. We're in the second mine unit now and we have 10 mine units to go after this. So it's going to be a long life project as well. We're very pleased. Of course, many investors out there are very well aware of the fact that uranium is deemed to be a critical mineral. And in your news release in particular, you were talking about the Russian suspension agreement. Can you tell us a little bit more about that? Well, the Russian suspension agreement, there are a lot of things going on politically right now. The Russian suspension agreement is one of them along with the nuclear fuel working group. But Russian suspension agreement, I would classify as being far and away the most significant. And the reason for that is, is that this is the termination on December 31st of a year of an agreement that's been in place for 28 years with the Russians. And I know that we don't have a lot of time, but maybe a little background is in order here. It was put in place in 1992 for all the right reasons. Plutonia, the wall had just come down, plutonium was disappearing, scientists were disappearing, bombs were disappearing. And we look at this as a way that we could purchase, blend it down, blended plutonium from the Russians and take this out of the market. And so it was done for the right reasons. Unfortunately, Vladimir Putin turned it into something much different than that when he took power at the beginning of the century. So the Russian suspension agreement has now, unfortunately, morphed into a means by which the Russians have been dumping product into our country. And by that, I mean nuclear fuel. And don't get me wrong, I don't blame them for being cost conscious. That is our nuclear utilities. But they're lapping it up with a spoon and in so doing, they are giving the Russians just an inordinate amount of control. And we are developing an inordinate amount of dependency on this nuclear fuel. And it's a very, to say the least, it's unwise energy policy and it's downright dangerous national security policy. So this is in the process of being renegotiated. They are undergoing what is called right now an administrative review. That was supposed to end two days ago on August 4th. And instead, they told it forward, T-O-L-L-E-D, meaning they extended it by 60 days. So the deadline now for the administrative review is October 5th. So by that date, they either have to amend and extend the Russian suspension agreement or the investigation and the tariffs that were in place in 1992 will resume. So the suspension in suspension agreement was the suspension of the investigation and the tariffs. And if we can't come to an agreement with them in terms of amending and extending that agreement, then those will go back into force. And so I think that there's a real incentive by the Russians to enter into a new agreement. But it will extend for a 20-year period of time and that is the great significance of it. So the Department of Commerce is spearheading this, their enforcement division. We are working with them. We do have standing. So we are stakeholders in the process. We're engaged in the negotiations. So I'm limited as to what I can say. I'm bound by confidentiality with respect to those negotiations. But since we are going to have to live with the outcome for 20 years, it's absolutely critical that commerce get this right. Because once it's in place, it's an international treaty between two countries and we have to honor it just as we have for the last 28 years. And I think many of your shareholders are exceedingly appreciative of the work that you've done behind the scenes and addressing this issue. Was it not correct, Jeff, that you were critical for this nuclear, what is now the nuclear fuel working group? Well, the nuclear, the genesis of the nuclear fuel working group was actually the Section 232 trade action which we brought at the Department of Commerce in January of 2018. I personally was responsible for starting Section 232. I'm exceedingly grateful to our partners over at Energy Fuels for being our partners throughout this entire process. The President had the opportunity to impose a quota which would have frankly saved the front end of the fuel cycle. And as Senator Barrasso said when he chose to take no action, we missed a great opportunity there and he was absolutely right. But what came from the nuclear fuel or what came from the Section 232 trade action was the nuclear fuel working group. Originally they had 90 days to come up with a method by which they were going to save the entire fuel cycle. I thought that was a lofty goal for 90 days. It actually took a bit longer than that. But it was delivered over to the White House. The report was in November of 2019 and the report was delivered to the, it was made public on April 23rd of this year. And so it provided for a lot. It provided for the reduction in the amount of material that we have become so reliant upon from Russia. It also called for the development of a uranium reserve to be put in place in this country and so we need to replenish what is called the American Assured Fuel Supply. And so that's what this was designed to do initially to the tune of about 17 to 19 million pounds but it allocates or it pretends to allocate $150 million per year for the next 10 years. And that is solely for the preservation and revitalization of the front end of the fuel cycle. That's us, the miners and the sole converter in the United States and that's Converdyne. Well, of course, we have a lot of investors out in our investment audience and investor intel that really do respect, you know, CEOs that are leaders and in understanding geopolitical issues and, of course, in your case, you're certainly a leader for sustainability mandates in the United States. So we just like to thank you for that. And on another front, there seems to be a buzz in uranium. Jeff, can I get you to switch hats and have a comment for us on that? Well, I'm not sure which bias you're referring to the built-in anti-nuke bias, which is always with us. That's something that we constantly have to overcome. But look, I go to a barbecue and I get somebody telling me just mindlessly, I don't like nuclear. It's not like, well, okay, but every fifth time you turn on a light in your house, you can thank me because we're 20% of the electricity grid, whether you understand that or not. So we are a critical part of energy infrastructure here in the United States and allowing ourselves to become what is now 100% dependent on foreign countries for our nuclear fuel is absolutely absurd. And the problem is a good number of our military bases. In fact, all of our domestic military bases are tied to that fuel grid. And this was another glaring risk and exposure that was exposed by the working group report when it came out on the 23rd of April was that this is a really, this is a huge vulnerability for this country. So yes, we deal with that bias all the time. There's and what we all we can do is try and educate. And one of the great challenges for us has been educating the members of Congress. That's probably the greatest challenge because they don't think geo, they think politically, but they don't think geopolitically and trying to get them to understand something beyond bringing home the pork for their own district is oftentimes very challenging. Fortunately, we have some very good champions in Congress like Liz Cheney and Senator Barrasso and and NZ and Lada and others that have introduced legislation now that would mandate the building rebuilding, I should say, of a nuclear of a uranium reserve here in the United States. So these are steps in the right direction. Well, speaking of steps in the right direction, based on the most recent news release I've read about you, you guys managed to continue to achieve your mandates. You have money in the bank and you're also leaders in our community. So, Jeff, would you mind updating us more regularly? We'd love to have you on once a month to continue to discuss these topics. But thank you so much for joining us today. Happy to do that. The battle will continue to rage on. That's always something to talk about. So it's been my pleasure. Thanks for having me again.