Greetings and welcome to the Uranium Resources, Incorporated Fourth Quarter and Year End 2008 Earnings Release Conference Call. At this time all participants are in a listen-only mode and a brief question-and-answer session will follow the formal presentation. (Operator Instructions). As a reminder, this conference is being recorded. It is now my pleasure to introduce your host Ms. Deborah Pawlowski, IR for Uranium Resources. Thank you. Ms. Pawlowski, you may now begin.

Thank you, Jackie and good morning everyone. We appreciate your time today and your interest in Uranium Resources. With me on the call is President and CEO, Dave Clark; Rick Van Horn, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer; and Tom Ehrlich, Chief Financial Officer. Dave is going to provide some comments regarding the company and the release, informational release as well as the outlook, and Tom will then do a brief review of the financials. After that, we will open it up for Q&A. If you don't have the news, it can be found at our website which is uraniumresources.com As you are aware, we may make some forward-looking statements during the formal presentation and the Q&A portion of this teleconference. Those statements apply to future events which are subject to risks and uncertainties as well as other factors that could cause the actual results to differ materially from where we are today. These factors are outlined in the release as well as in documents filed by the company with the Securities and Exchange Commission. You can find those at our website where we regularly post information as well as at the SEC's website which is www.sec.gov. So, please review our forward-looking statements in conjunction with these precautionary factors. With that, let me turn it over to Dave to begin the discussion.

Thanks Debbie. Good morning everybody. And as Debbie said, thank you for your continued interest and your time in URI. I know this is advertised as they look back to fourth quarter in 2008, but given what kind of the year that was. But I really want to spend my time with today as looking forward where we're going from here. I think this is going to be a very important year for URI. And I also think it has a very decent chance of being a very good year. So let's spend the next couple of minutes really sharing what my vision is and how I expect this year will unfold. As normal, we'll start with a general market analysis and outlook and then discuss our strategy in Texas and our objective there and how we expect the industry to consolidate in Texas this year. Then I'll go into the discussion of all that's happening in New Mexico including what I see as the driving force that's going to help us get into production there. As far as the market itself, I've been in the uranium industry for more than 30 years, and it's always been a market that's traded on zones separate from economic cycles. Nuclear power plants are base-load plants, you need uranium to fuel those. Uranium always had its own market. As many of you heard me say in the past it's a market that's never been imbalanced. As expected -- it's a history of extreme move and I don't see anything that's going to change that. Demand for uranium is still growing. Secondary supplies are still being depleted. It's all being driven by the concerns about global warming. So I think the future of nuclear power itself is still very bright. But what we have…

Thank you, Dave. I am getting an echo here, so everyone can hear me okay? Yeah, I think you are fine, Tom.

Okay, good. In reviewing our recent results, I'll start with production. We produced 41,200 pounds in the fourth quarter bringing our total production for the year to just over 300,000 pounds, the majority of 254,000 of those were produced from our Kingsville Dome project, 37,000 pounds were from Vasquez and about 10,000 from Rosita. As Dave said, the production in the fourth quarter was lower than what we had seen in the prior three quarters as a result of our winding down production and not bringing on new wellfields, not putting on new capital development. Our direct production cost for the quarter, fourth quarter was about $33 a pound with direct production cost for the year just under $48 a pound. At the end of the year, we had just over 36,000 pounds of uranium inventory which was carrying an average cost per pound of about $33.50. Of the inventory that we had at year end, almost 28,000 of those pounds were sold in January of 2009 to our two customers at an average price of just over $51. Our sales revenue for the fourth quarter of 2008 was about $2.2 million on just under 39,000 pounds at an average sales price of 56 -- 76 per pound. Sales for the entire year were about 18.6 million on roughly 285,000 pounds which saw us realizing average sales price of just under $65. Looking at our cost of sales, specifically our cost of produced uranium sales for the quarter and the full year, our direct cost of uranium sold in Q4 '08 was $2.1 million or just over $53 a pound. For the full year, our costs, similar costs were 13.8 million or just under $49 a pound. The direct operating cost of sales for 2008 related to -- again our…

Okay. Now I think we're ready for questions.

Thank you. (Operator Instructions) Thank you. Our first question is coming from David Snow of Energy Equities.

Hi, good morning. I'm trying to remember -- Itochu contracts at $14 a pound, now your release says that this action eliminated the potential for reinstatement of the original 2003 delivery contracts. I am trying to recall how did that go away if you reversed this joint venture?

There were certain conditions, and Tom is going to elaborate if he remembers those that if in the Preliminary Investment Decision, if I recall it correctly probably, if we didn't want to go forward, and they didn't want to go forward or something to that degree that you could revert it back to those original contracts.

That's precisely it. If Itochu were to have make a positive investment decision and we were going to make a negative investment decision meaning that the joint venture did not go forward. And the terms and conditions of the original sales contracts would have been reinstated from that point going forward.

So you didn't reinstate the original contracts, right?

That is correct. We did not.

And the chance to do that is now gone.

Correct.

So are you out of the $14 contracts and the fixed delivery obligations?

Well we have been out of those since we renegotiated the contracts. However, pending the outcome of the joint venture decisions they're allowed for the opportunity for us to step back into those. With this decision, it eliminates the opportunity for us to be required to step back into those old contract terms.

So you'd rather be old contracts all together?

Yes.

Okay.

And part of that the renegotiation was -- the renegotiation at $14 contract was the new pricing structure in Texas and the joint venture at Church Rock. Those two were tied together.

Okay. And I was trying to remember and I couldn't. So you're basically benefiting twice, you got out of any of those contracts and you're 100% in New Mexico.

Now, David, remember, we were not under the conditions of those old contracts. The specter of them being reinstated is what we got out under.

Okay, all right. Well I mean you were still under that specter of being...

Correct.

So you won twice and lost on the 210 on some of the Texas production?

Correct.

Then I'm trying to ask also about -- did I hear in New Mexico you would also be a buyer or seller, I wasn't sure if I heard that right.

What you heard me say is we'll enhance what we have, our objective is to build out our reserve base from 100 million to 300 million.

Okay, and then one last question. Your Alamos, TradeTech and maybe your own website had you're talking South Africa where you thought the price might go to $80 a pound but you're base modeling cases in the 40 range. Can you give us the upside synopsis there again?

To sum again from -- to give clarity to planning, it's the assumption that nothing may change in the $40 market. Again I think that's down, that's the low end of what the market would be. So let's perceive forward on that basis, given all the uncertainty in uranium market and the economy as a whole. Perceive on that basis, that's not my prediction where the market goes.

Okay.

Again I think as long as the price is at s are $40, the more inflations and glaze you're going to see at the same time. The reactors are coming online and the demand is going up and the secondary supplies are being depleted. I think that's all the formula for another price spike. But when that comes I don't know. It's -- where we are as a company right now is not important. What is important is to take advantage of the current conditions which allows us to advance our strategic plans.

Are you totally in spot prices? I am still trying to go back to the old contracted figure?

What we have is the blended prices around $50, if I'm correct, Tom, and part of that is duty contract is based on 650 off a long term price which is at 70 and the others let's say 750 off the spot price for Church Rock.

Okay. Thank you very much. I was trying to remember those. Thank you very much.

Welcome.

(Operator Instructions). Thank you. There are no further questions at this time. I would like to hand the floor back over to Dave for any closing comments.

Thank you again for your time. I hope what we've discussed this morning gave you clarity and that you forward to 2009.

Operator I just noticed -- I am sorry Dave but we just have somebody else queued in for question.

Yes, we do have someone who has just jumped in. I'll go ahead and ...

All right.

No problem.

Sorry about that. Our next question will be coming from Lynn Hedagart, a Private Investor.

Yes, I'd like to know if you've considered any options for acquisitions or being acquired?

That's not something we usually comment on. I think again given the economy and the market, you can make a case that all companies are under valued at this point in time. From our perspective have laid out where I think we build value in this company and we'll follow that strategy.

But are there any partnerships that you're maintaining at this point? Do you have any letters of intent?

Yeah we do. We wouldn't comment on that. The way I view and I think it's a great question, because the way I view -- I think we are close to having what we need to resolve the issues in the Mexico on our own. It will become a question of timing. Do we want to bring in partners just to give us additional security? Or do we want to resolve the issue on ourselves which I think gives us an excellent value for our projects. But that's something you play by year as you move forward. But at this point in time, as I discussed in Texas and New Mexico I think there is consolidation industry in both places and yeah we expect to be a participant there.

One last question. You mentioned technology you're developing for cleaning up the groundwater. Do you see that as a product or service that you can monetize and actually gain revenue from?

I am not sure -- it's a possibility but I am not leading to that. I think where we are working with other ISR companies now because it's in our interest to do that. And in doing it that way, because we all have different operating parameters and different experience I'd rather share the information and lower the cost for all of us than each of us working separately and finding something and then charging somebody else for use of that technology. It is in all our interest, there is a lot of interest on the national laboratories and government agencies to resolve this issue. So moving to the patent side, I'd rather have a free exchange of information to do the best job we can because it's in everybody's interest, including the public.

Are there any companies either private or public that are working to develop a service that they would intend to bring to market?

On restoration technology?

Yes.

There is -- I guess it's different technologies. We're trying hydrogen with Texas A&M. There's other substrates that other companies are trying and again the principle is to increase anaerobic bacteria activity so that it consumes oxygen. There may be other ways. Again it's now that we have laboratories involved in, and there's government financing to do this. It's just really giving it a good hard look on saying what can be done. What generally happens is you have to take the order back to baseline. But the bigger issue is you have to leave with the same utility it had before we started. As I said earlier the water is already poisoned, it can't be used. So we have to leave it in a condition where it's poisoned, it can't be used, which is one thing. You want to make sure that does not migrate offsite, when natural simulation tends to be what happens. So we need to demonstrate that's what happens. When you get into the restoration parameters themselves, it gets into very, very small numbers. It's a lot of time to stay distinction and we got the difference. But if you cannot get all the way down to 0.001 or whatever, you can get down to 0.00015, the opposition says we didn't get it good enough. What we want to get is good as we can and we want to make sure it has the same utility. And if there's private companies that are looking to that technology, it helps but you're really looking at pre-operating ISR approves (ph) in the U.S. you might double or triple that amount. There is an activity in New Mexico and Texas, and Wyoming and Nebraska. So, there will be those companies that are dealing with, and those companies are leading in the technology like we are trying to do. I think it will probably more come from us than the private sector, other company might involve us. Does that answer your question?

Yeah, I guess one other thing is Ariba or any other global concerns involved in any of it?

Ariba has properties in Wyoming which they have restored. So, they have done a lot of work in the technology of it. When you look at the U.S. we -- as we believe -- the substance that puts the oxygen in the water or leave oxygen to put uranium, dissolve uranium in water. In Kazakhstan they use acids, in other countries in Australia they also use acid in some of the projects. We can't use acids here. So it's a different -- it's a different mining technology and therefore different restoration factories for other companies. So the option is pretty much what's used in the U.S. but it's our market.

Thank you.

Welcome.

Thank you. We have a follow-up question coming from David Snow with Energy Equities.

Yeah I got back in queue alone, so nobody else is here. Just to understand these contracts go in Texas as long as you have Tom any production there or what's the duration?

They both UG and Itochu contracts were for 3 million pounds a piece.

And how about ...

Half of the production -- they are not production contracts. So the fact that we are shutting down production has no obligation to deliver.

How much did you deliver versus your 3 million each?

We can get to that number David. It's well off both hands, it's probably between a million and 1.5 million pounds, it's what we've produced since 2004.

You mean to each one.

Total.

And then if you were to resume operations in the future, would you still have that €3 million and million, 1.5 or 2 million left at those prices?

We will have that unless we renegotiate the contracts.

But it will sound like that would give you an advantage in acquiring in Texas. You not only have a mill -- you have prices that are right now above the market.

I think again, we are looking at everything we have and get value out of everything we have, and I'll leave with that.

And then the other thing I wanted to ask about, you were thinking that if Bill Richardson went to Washington it would put deputy under him in charge and unfortunately he didn't pay his taxes or whatever happened. I wondered if, why do you say that -- what clerical faces there are going to help you if any in change of --.

Well Governor Richardson is term limited, so he will be going out in 2010.

Okay. That's a long way though and these new faces around it would help you in addition to that?

There's a (inaudible) is very pro business. She is a Democrat. I think she intends to run for the Governor. She was preparing to takeover Richardson seat. She got involved with uranium issue. She understands it, she's got a mining background. Her family has got a mining background, so it can go a long way. Governor Richardson hasn't come out against uranium mining. So it's not that he has heard of it, it has slowed things in Mexico to some degree. But what we need is just a very pro-business environment and we'll look at it. And that's a political issue along with that all (ph).

So it's pretty much at the end of 2010 election that you are focusing on in the change of the --

Correct.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. There are no further questions. I would like to hand the floor back over to Mr. Clark for any closing comments.

Well I would say is thank you again for your time and I hope you look forward to important -- and I think can be a very important year this year. So thank you very much.

This concludes today's teleconference. You may disconnect your lines at this time. Thank you for your participation.