Greetings and welcome to the Uranium Resources Incorporated Fourth Quarter and Year-end 2011 update conference call. At this time all participants are in a listen-only mode. A brief question-and-answer session will follow the formal presentation. (Operator Instructions). It is now my pleasure to introduce your host, Deborah Pawlowski, Investor Relations for Uranium Resources Incorporated. Thank you Ms. Pawlowski; you may begin.

Thank you very much Emilia and good morning everyone. We certainly appreciate your time today and your interest in Uranium Resources. On the call I have with me President and CEO, Don Ewigleben, who will review the recent events of the last year, the great strides that we have made in 2011 and in the first part of this year and what our focus in strategic initiatives are for the company as we move forward. He’ll be joined by Tom Ehrlich, Chief Financial Officer and Rick Van Horn, Senior Vice President of Operations and Exploration; whom by the way I should point out is in the (inaudible) of New Mexico, so we may lose him off and on, but he’ll be with us to stay on the line, as well as Mark Pelizza, the Senior Vice President of Environment Safety and Public Affairs and everyone should know also Matt Lueras our Vice President of Corporate Development. We will conclude the call with an opportunity for the questions and answers. If you don't have today's news release, it can be found on our website at www.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 news release, as well as in documents filed by the company with the Securities and Exchange Commission. You can find those on our website where we regularly post information about the company, as well as on the SEC's website at sec.gov. So please review our forward-looking statements in conjunction with these precautionary factors. With that, I’d like to turn the call over to Don to begin the discussion. Don.

Thanks Debbie and I too want to thank everyone for joining today’s call, particularly just the fact that we all met I think about a week ago or many of you did in joining the conversation that we had about our Neutron discussion. Today, before I open up for Q&A, I am going to review the progress and objectives in Texas and New Mexico. I’ll briefly hit on the Neutron announcement that we made last week and I’ll provide some information on the feasibility study. However, I will not be able to get into the complete details as it is still being reviewed by our management and by our board. We have not made it public at this point. 2011 is going to be remembered for the tragic events that took place in Japan and led to the events at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Facility. We saw a lot of negative sentiment toward nuclear energy. Some countries such as Germany and Italy and Switzerland made decisions to decommission nuclear power. It also led many countries to review their stands on nuclear energy as well as the safety of their plants and guidelines to be followed for future reactors. Over the course of the year and on into 2012 we’ve seen a gradual improvement in that sentiment. Uranium stocks within the nuclear sector generally is faring better. However, thus far the uranium spot prices have remained relatively flat. The reported weekly spot price this past Monday was $51.75 US and the long term contract prices currently hovering around 60%. Going forward, we believe there is still a number of drivers to support the growth in demand for uranium. For example, Germany, Italy and Switzerland who’ve decided to decommission their power plants combined for less than 6% of global demand for uranium.…

Thank you. We will now be conducting a question-and-answer session. (Operator Instructions) Our first question comes from the line of David Snow from Energy Equities.

Yes, hi. First of all, last week your folks were able to send over a little breakout of the Neutron acquisition and it had a grade of 0.143% and today it has a grade of 0.15%, which is accurate?

The 1.5% is accurate, David. We’ve been evaluating the numbers and you remember we’re talking about average grade here across all of them. The Cebolleta property it’s 11.2 million tons of mineralized material at a weighted average grade of about 1.4% U308. Juan Tafoya property is 4.2 million tons of mineralized material at a weighted average grade of about 1.4% U308. Ambrosia Lake is 3.2 million tons of mineralized material at a grade of around 0.15% U308 and the general average actually is closer to 15 then 14, that is the only difference.

Yeah David, the difference was in the third decimal place of 3 or 5.

At the third decimal place?

It’s a third, yes.

Okay.

So, that’s the rounding.

The numbers that you have are still accurate.

Yes.

You keep referring to 43-101 compliant, are these Neutron measures indicated as yours are or are they 43-101 compliant, or historically what is their status?

Rick, are you available to answer that question?

Yes, I am. David, the resources that we have there are not 43-101 compliant. They are historically here for the most part, they have been reworked by the Neutron staff who has done an excellent job of taking the known data and working it up in the block diagrams kind of the early (inaudible). But really until we are listed on the Toronto exchange or someone who is listed on the Toronto exchange they are not 43-101 compliant.

Thank you. (Operator Instructions) Our next question comes from George Walsh of Gilford Securities.

Don, do you have any data as regard to the cash burn of Neutron Energy historically?

We have reviewed that information. It would be inappropriate for us to release it under our confidentiality agreement, but George, we do have an arrangement under the merger agreements to provide interim funding until close and that has an approved budget if all the parties agreed to and Neutron Energy will be working under that approved budget. So we do understand the expenditures going forward.

Okay. But I guess, so we won’t see that data till the closing and then going forward with pro forma?

Well, it will be as appropriately provided. What I mean by that is we are back in the reviewing session if you will about what they have done. You heard Rick mention the work that was done by the Neutron staff was really stupendous work. And what I mean by that is in all of the activities that we have had looking at various other assets, these projects were probably brought forward from a development standpoint more than any others that we had seen. There is a great deal of detail that needs to be reviewed. So what we will be doing over the course of the time between now and closure of the deal is working with their technical staff to determine how they got to where they did and what expenditures. One of the things we did notice is that they had strong technical staff for doing certain things but they needed to go outside for consultants for some other things. We typically have lesser consulting activities on the outside, so the budgets are less relevant as much as the actual review going forward.

Okay. And given the $10 million you expect to close on here, do you expect less reliance on the aftermarket sales agreement?

Well, at this stage of the game it is not being used, it was used at a particular time to support the functional needs to get to the transaction that we just announced with Neutron. We don’t have that need today and while it is available to us there are no immediate reasons to go back to the market at this point having the available cash necessary to meet our budget as well as Neutron funding budget between now and closure. That said, market conditions can change and it is a tool and nothing more than a tool and we will be very judicious about how we use it. We only put it in place for the purpose of having the funding that we needed to move forward and do the due diligence on this transaction at a time when we weren’t going to be able to go to the markets. Unfortunately, we were in the possession stuff not material public information, so we couldn’t do other things but the ATM provided an ability for us do that as we previously stated, that’s why we raised the $1.8 million to meet those needs.

Okay. And that 143 million shares that you mentioned on the previous call what would be the post deal number of shares outstanding? I guess, that includes the aftermarket sales that were done in November and January?

It does.

Okay great. Alright. Thanks a lot.

Thank you, George.

Thank you. We have another question from the line of David Snow from Energy Equities.

Was the Neutron reserves measured and indicated?

Rick?

Yes, they are.

They are, so you are in –

We are not allowed to report inferred reserves.

Right.

Pardon me?

Go ahead, Rick.

We are not allowed to report inferred reserves.

Okay. So they are really on same quality as your own reported reserves.

Yes, they are.

Terrific. I am wondering how much will it cost per pound to ship from New Mexico to Texas?

You mean, to ship what the resin?

Whatever you are planning. Yes, I guess you are going to ship resin from Churchrock to Texas.

David, I would rather not talk about that because as part of the ongoing feasibility study but it is economic to do it.

Can you give a ballpark as to what the overall operating cost would be?

It’s under $5 a pound.

The total operating cost?

The operating cost?

Okay.

I am sorry, go ahead David.

Yes, what would be the total operating cost for the –

Unfortunately David, we are not in a position to release that public information. It’s simply a matter that the third party qualified person that was doing the work on that report has just come to a final version of that report. We have not been able to review it and get it approved by our board for public dissemination and the numbers you are asking are in that document. So I am afraid we can’t speak to that one today.

Would that document be available on the website?

Once we release it and everything David we will be able to provide you all of the details. It’s just going to be a few more weeks, obviously we are going to give you everything that you need to know, we can’t do it yet.

And what will be Phase 2 in Texas do as compared to Phase 1?

That we can talk about and I will ask Rick to respond.

I guess I need more clarification on the question, David.

Well, how much are we going to drill in Phase 2, Rick?

No, not how much you are going to drill, what is it –

You mean, as far as Los Finados?

Yes.

Okay. In Los Finados we completed I think as you said there, 10 holes in this space, we are going for a 40 hole program there. Some of the holes will be shallow, some of it will be a 1,300 foot well.

Are you looking to follow-up on any leads that you got on Phase 1?

That’s the reason for the shallow hole basically. We will be offsetting some of the defaults we put in.

Okay. And I am wondering what is the cost of your feasibility study, roughly?

A lot of that including our cost and everything I think will probably be in the range of $750,000, something like that.

That’s not too bad. And just on a macro question, the slippage in demand that did occur over the past year, most increased the inventories in the market and the coverage going forward, I understood they were pretty well covered due 2016 now. Can you give a little color on the inventory overhang in the market as a result of the slowdowns in Germany, Europe, and Japan?

Well, actually David, we are not – we don’t hold ourselves as experts. We have been reviewing the recent document that was presented by Ux Consulting. The Uranium market outlook and trying to get a better handle on that situation, but here is what we come down on it. We have always assumed that any of that secondary source that comes in from HEU and is put into the DoE inventory will be coming out at the end of 2013. So we have targeted our production schedule to be for a full year’s production in 2014 to ensure that that overhang if it still exist in the marketplace and I always say that from the standpoint that we think that some of us already baked in to the market place price will change the nature of that pricing for Uranium by 2014 while we are in production for full time.

Well, my question is the amount of material and demand reduction is just about the amount that is coming off of the market from HEU in ’14 and I believe in the near term it adds to the inventories. So I am just trying to get an idea of how much inventories in the mean time is filled out?

Yes, and I wouldn’t argue with you about that point. I don’t have any answer to give you today.

Okay. I’ll get back in queue, thanks.

Thank you.

Thank you. Our next question comes from George Walsh of Gilford Securities.

Don, exclusive of Neutron Energy, just Uranium Resources, do you expect your burn rate for 2012 to be pretty much the same as this year?

No, we actually expect it to be reduced absent the cause of the actual Churchrock construction. The reason for that is we spent a great deal of dollars on a monthly burn rate last year related to the feasibility study that we had going on in house and with an outside provider. That increased our burn rate considerably above our normal burn rate which had been in that $650,000 to $750,000 range. And we went up well over $850,000 on some months as a result of the needs. We also had increased costs for the due diligence activities with regard to Neutron. So going forward what will have are closing costs related to the transaction, a lot of legal work etcetera. There will be new personnel who will be coming on from Neutron over to URI in the course of the year and that will increase our overall burn rate etcetera but likely to be offset by the expenditures that we had with regard to feasibility study.

So, are you in the range of that $650,000 to $750,000 for this year or is a little bit higher than that?

It’s going to be a little bit higher than that, George, primarily because of the continued nature of this closure. It’s a little harder to describe because we contemplate the closing of the agreement somewhere at the early part of the summer but it could go on as long as the end of the summer. So we are sort of estimating at this stage of the game that we will still have a higher burn rate through August as a result and then things will level off back to a normal operating activity, of course it doesn’t include any contractor that will bring on for the construction activities in 3Q and 4Q.

So it will be close to that $850,000 for a while and then kind of come back down?

I believe so and I don’t have an exact number to offer you today.

Okay. It’s just a ballpark I was just going for. Okay, thanks Don.

Thank you, George.

Thank you. Our next question comes from David Snow of Energy Equities.

Hi, I forgot to ask. Will the shipment of pounds from New Mexico to Texas be subject to the two Texas contracts?

No.

No.

Okay, thank you.

Yes, the only production that are subject to that David is what we had been producing on the properties we have been producing on. So things still don’t reside at (inaudible).

Have you got any feedback on yesterday’s meeting with the people in New Mexico that are complaining?

I am sorry, David, you have to ask that question again.

Well, there was some sort of a court hearing alluded to that you went to yesterday to make a statement about your New Mexico activity, I am wondering if you could give us any –

Of the in down?

Yes.

Mark, are you available?

Yes, I am available.

Okay.

To simply put that whole hearing was deferred. I did not attend but what I was told by our attorney is because there had been no activity on the ground yet. That decision was deferred, I wouldn’t say it was moved, but the judge sort no reason to hear the arguments yesterday. So it is deferred for some undetermined time in the future.

And that doesn’t seem to propose a major risk in your judgement or it does?

Our attorneys don’t believe that the client has (inaudible). So we are not treating it lightly but we don’t see that the risk significant.

Okay. Thank you very much.

That’s it Don. If you want to close.

Any other questions?

There are no further questions at this time. I would like to turn the floor back over to management.

Thank you, Emilia. Well, I appreciate all of the questions and we do hope to have some information available with regard to the feasibility study in the future. The direct question was asked would it be on the website that is not been determined at this point. Well, just finishing for an overview look. In a year where the nuclear industry was obviously out of favour for many, we continue with our strategy to advance our assets toward production and grow our asset base. We will continue to move forward on this path and expect the company to be in a position to take advantage of the future growth of the industry by providing a constant and reliable supply of Uranium in politically stable countries. Thank you for your time today and we always appreciate the interest in URI as always you can contact us through the website or make calls directly to me or any other management staff at any time. Thank you for your patience today and my stumbling when I can’t read my own writing. Thank you so much.

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