Premier American Uranium Announces Preliminary Economic Assessment and Mineral Resource Update for the Cebolleta Uranium Project, Outlining Project Economics and Framework for Enhancement

Original announcement by tmx on

Company
Premier American Uranium Inc.
Ticker
PUR
Exchange
TSX
Region
New Mexico
Primary commodity
Uranium
Secondary commodities
None reported
Document categories
Resource update, Metallurgy, Other
Extracted
2026-09-14 19:00:57 UTC

Analysis by Minestarters Atlas

Minestarters Atlas analysis

Summary

Premier American Uranium announced a Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA) for its Cebolleta Uranium Project, outlining a 13-year mine life with an after-tax NPV (8%) of US$83.9 million. The PEA is supported by an updated Mineral Resource Estimate, which increased Indicated resources by 9% to 20.3 Mlb eU3O8 and Inferred resources by 45% to 7.0 Mlb eU3O8. The project contemplates a heap leach strategy with an assumed 80% recovery, demonstrating strong leverage to higher uranium prices.

Reasoning: The Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA) for the Cebolleta Uranium Project outlines positive economics with a significant after-tax NPV and strong leverage to uranium prices. This is supported by a substantial update to both Indicated and Inferred mineral resources, indicating growth and potential, although the preliminary nature of the PEA and reliance on assumed metallurgical recovery introduce some uncertainty.

Positive factors

  • Strong after-tax NPV (8%) of US$83.9M from the PEA
  • Significant increase in Indicated Mineral Resources (+9%)
  • Substantial increase in Inferred Mineral Resources (+45%)
  • Project demonstrates strong leverage to higher uranium prices
  • Low upfront capital requirements for development
  • Heap leach strategy offers potential for lower operating costs

Negative factors

  • PEA is preliminary in nature and includes inferred resources, which are speculative
  • No known mineral reserves have been demonstrated
  • Metallurgical recovery is an assumption, not based on detailed testwork in this document
  • Historical data verification noted no core or QA/QC reference materials available

Low confidence — this extraction should be reviewed alongside the original source.

Facts used in scoring: 7

Classification and evidence

Indicated Resourcepositive

Reasonable geological confidence based on adequate drilling; continuity can be assumed. Basis for Probable Reserves.

Why it applies: The document reports 20.3 Mlb eU3O8 in the Indicated category, which is a reasonable geological confidence for economic studies.

Evidence · text

“Indicated resource: 20.3 Mlb eU3O8 (8.3 Mst grading 0.12% eU3O8)”

Inferred Resourcenegative

Speculative category — limited drilling, geological continuity assumed but not confirmed. Cannot support economic studies alone.

Why it applies: The document reports 7.0 Mlb eU3O8 in the Inferred category, which is a speculative category with limited geological confidence.

Evidence · text

“Inferred resource : 7.0 Mlb eU3O8 (3.6 Mst grading 0.10% eU3O8)”

Category Upgradepositive

Resource confidence improved — Inferred upgraded to Indicated, or Indicated to Measured. De-risking signal.

Why it applies: The Indicated Mineral Resources increased by 9% and Inferred Mineral Resources increased by 45% compared to the previous technical report.

Evidence · text

“increases Indicated Mineral Resources by 1.7 Mlb eU3O8 (+9%) to 20.3 Mlb eU3O8 and increases Inferred Mineral Resources by 2.2 Mlb eU3O8 (+45%) to 7.0 Mlb eU3O8”

Contained Metal Growthpositive

True scale improvement — contained metal ounces/tonnes increased vs prior, accounting for both tonnage and grade changes.

Why it applies: The Indicated contained metal increased by 9% and Inferred contained metal increased by 45% compared to the prior estimate.

Evidence · text

“increases Indicated Mineral Resources by 1.7 Mlb eU3O8 (+9%) to 20.3 Mlb eU3O8 and increases Inferred Mineral Resources by 2.2 Mlb eU3O8 (+45%) to 7.0 Mlb eU3O8”

NI 43-101 Compliantpositive

Resource estimate prepared in compliance with NI 43-101 (Canada) — high reporting standard.

Why it applies: The Technical Report was prepared in accordance with the requirements of National Instrument 43-101.

Evidence · text

“prepared in accordance with the requirements of National Instrument 43-101 – Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects”

QP/CP Signedpositive

Qualified Person (QP) or Competent Person (CP) named and signed off — a member of a recognized professional association (e.g., AusIMM, SME, AIG, P.Geo) with relevant experience.

Why it applies: The scientific and technical information was reviewed and approved by multiple Qualified Persons from SLR International Corporation.

Evidence · text

“The scientific and technical information contained in this news release relating to the PEA and MRE was reviewed and approved by Mr. Mark B. Mathisen, C.P.G., Stuart Collins, P.E., Jeffrey L. Woods, MMSA QP, Lee (Pat) Gochnour, MMSA QP and Matthew Behling, P.E., for SLR International Corporation, the authors of the Current Technical Report, each of whom is a “Qualified Person” (as defined in NI 43-101).”

Resource Updateneutral

Revised estimate for an existing resource — compare to prior to assess progress.

Why it applies: The document presents an updated Mineral Resource Estimate for the Cebolleta Uranium Project, comparing it to a previous technical report.

Evidence · text

“updated Mineral Resource Estimate (“ MRE ”) for Cebolleta increases Indicated Mineral Resources by 1.7 Mlb eU3O8 (+9%) to 20.3 Mlb eU3O8 and increases Inferred Mineral Resources by 2.2 Mlb eU3O8 (+45%) to 7.0 Mlb eU3O8 , compared to the previous technical report on the Project released in April 2024”

PEA-Supportingneutral

Resource estimate prepared to support a Preliminary Economic Assessment — early-stage study.

Why it applies: The Mineral Resource Estimate was prepared to support a Preliminary Economic Assessment for the project.

Evidence · text

“Premier American Uranium Announces Preliminary Economic Assessment and Mineral Resource Update for the Cebolleta Uranium Project”

Heap Leach Routeneutral

Processing via heap leach — lower CAPEX and OPEX, lower recovery expected.

Why it applies: The PEA contemplates a heap leach strategy for processing the uranium.

Evidence · text

“The PEA contemplates a heap leach strategy that produces a uranium-loaded resin”

Theoretical Recovery Onlynegative

Only theoretical or liberation-derived recovery reported, with no actual test result.

Why it applies: The metallurgical recovery of 80% is stated as an assumption for the PEA, not based on actual testwork results detailed in the document.

Evidence · table

“80”

Context: Heap leach recovery

Gravity Routeneutral

Gravity separation forms a material part of the flowsheet.

Why it applies: the document describes a gravity route ("gravity")

Single Domain Onlynegative

Testing limited to one composite or domain — representativeness not established.

Why it applies: only one composite was tested

Extracted facts

Stored fact records: 7. Some facts used in scoring do not have a stored record.

Resource Estimates (6)

indicatedCebolleta Uranium Project · uraniumTonnes: 5343000Grade: 0.15Grade Unit: % eU3O8Contained Metal: 18.14Contained Unit: mlb eu3o8View all details
Link to this fact

Identity

Project
Cebolleta Uranium Project
Commodity
uranium
Region
mexico
Reported Region
New Mexico
Ticker
PUR

Resource scope

Estimate type
resource
Reporting standards
ni_43_101, other
QP Signed
Yes
Qualified person names
Mark B. Mathisen, Stuart Collins, Jeffrey L. Woods, Lee (Pat) Gochnour, Matthew Behling, Dean T. Wilton
Resource group id
resource:aeb244971f17d153d76e
Deposit or zone
Underground
Mining method
combined

Resource Data

Category
indicated
Tonnes
5343000
Grade
0.15
Grade Unit
% eU3O8
Contained Metal
18.14
Contained Unit
mlb eu3o8
Cutoff Grade
0
Cutoff Unit
% eU3O8

Prior Estimate

Resource Date
2025-05-15

Metal Equivalent

Assumptions Disclosed
Yes

Review

Needs Review
No
Historical
No

Dates

Event date
2025-10-30T00:00:00.000Z

Reasoning: This Indicated Underground resource shows a good grade for uranium and contributes significantly to the overall resource, indicating a strong component for future development.

Positive factors

  • High-grade uranium resource for underground mining
  • Part of a significant overall resource increase

Evidence · table

“0.15”

Context: 5.89

Tags used in scoring

Indicated Resourcepositive

Reasonable geological confidence based on adequate drilling; continuity can be assumed. Basis for Probable Reserves.

Why it applies: category is "indicated"

Cut-off Disclosedpositive

Cut-off grade used for resource reporting is clearly stated, enabling like-for-like comparison.

Why it applies: cutoff_grade is stated

QP/CP Signedpositive

Qualified Person (QP) or Competent Person (CP) named and signed off — a member of a recognized professional association (e.g., AusIMM, SME, AIG, P.Geo) with relevant experience.

Why it applies: qp_signed is true

NI 43-101 Compliantpositive

Resource estimate prepared in compliance with NI 43-101 (Canada) — high reporting standard.

Why it applies: reporting_standards includes ni_43_101

Resource Updateneutral

Revised estimate for an existing resource — compare to prior to assess progress.

Why it applies: the release compares against a previous estimate

PEA-Supportingneutral

Resource estimate prepared to support a Preliminary Economic Assessment — early-stage study.

Why it applies: the release names the study this estimate supports

DFS-Supportingneutral

Resource estimate prepared to support a Definitive Feasibility Study — requires high M&I confidence.

Why it applies: the release names the study this estimate supports

indicatedCebolleta Uranium Project · uraniumTonnes: 3456000Grade: 0.07Grade Unit: % eU3O8Contained Metal: 5.61Contained Unit: mlb eu3o8View all details
Link to this fact

Identity

Project
Cebolleta Uranium Project
Commodity
uranium
Region
mexico
Reported Region
New Mexico
Ticker
PUR

Resource scope

Estimate type
resource
Reporting standards
ni_43_101, other
QP Signed
Yes
Qualified person names
Mark B. Mathisen, Stuart Collins, Jeffrey L. Woods, Lee (Pat) Gochnour, Matthew Behling, Dean T. Wilton
Resource group id
resource:acc8b5eb677175b04568
Deposit or zone
Open Pit
Mining method
combined

Resource Data

Category
indicated
Tonnes
3456000
Grade
0.07
Grade Unit
% eU3O8
Contained Metal
5.61
Contained Unit
mlb eu3o8
Cutoff Grade
0.02
Cutoff Unit
% eU3O8

Prior Estimate

Resource Date
2025-05-15

Metal Equivalent

Assumptions Disclosed
Yes

Review

Needs Review
No
Historical
No

Dates

Event date
2025-10-30T00:00:00.000Z

Reasoning: This Indicated Open Pit resource contributes to the project's overall resource base, providing flexibility for mining methods, though at a lower grade than the underground component.

Positive factors

  • Adds to the overall Indicated resource base
  • Supports an open pit mining component in the PEA

Evidence · table

“0.07”

Context: 3.81

Tags used in scoring

Indicated Resourcepositive

Reasonable geological confidence based on adequate drilling; continuity can be assumed. Basis for Probable Reserves.

Why it applies: category is "indicated"

Cut-off Disclosedpositive

Cut-off grade used for resource reporting is clearly stated, enabling like-for-like comparison.

Why it applies: cutoff_grade is stated

QP/CP Signedpositive

Qualified Person (QP) or Competent Person (CP) named and signed off — a member of a recognized professional association (e.g., AusIMM, SME, AIG, P.Geo) with relevant experience.

Why it applies: qp_signed is true

NI 43-101 Compliantpositive

Resource estimate prepared in compliance with NI 43-101 (Canada) — high reporting standard.

Why it applies: reporting_standards includes ni_43_101

Resource Updateneutral

Revised estimate for an existing resource — compare to prior to assess progress.

Why it applies: the release compares against a previous estimate

PEA-Supportingneutral

Resource estimate prepared to support a Preliminary Economic Assessment — early-stage study.

Why it applies: the release names the study this estimate supports

DFS-Supportingneutral

Resource estimate prepared to support a Definitive Feasibility Study — requires high M&I confidence.

Why it applies: the release names the study this estimate supports

indicatedCebolleta Uranium Project · uraniumTonnes: 7527635Grade: 0.12Grade Unit: % eU3O8Contained Metal: 20.31Contained Unit: mlb eu3o8View all details
Link to this fact

Identity

Project
Cebolleta Uranium Project
Commodity
uranium
Region
mexico
Reported Region
New Mexico
Ticker
PUR

Resource scope

Estimate type
resource
Reporting standards
ni_43_101, other
QP Signed
Yes
Qualified person names
Mark B. Mathisen, Stuart Collins, Jeffrey L. Woods, Lee (Pat) Gochnour, Matthew Behling, Dean T. Wilton
Resource group id
resource:fc95a317f711fe9c831c
Mining method
combined

Resource Data

Category
indicated
Tonnes
7527635
Grade
0.12
Grade Unit
% eU3O8
Contained Metal
20.31
Contained Unit
mlb eu3o8

Prior Estimate

Resource Date
2025-05-15
Prior Contained Metal
18.62

Metal Equivalent

Assumptions Disclosed
Yes

Review

Needs Review
No
Historical
No

Dates

Event date
2025-10-30T00:00:00.000Z

Reasoning: The total Indicated resource, after depletion, shows a strong increase in contained metal, enhancing the project's overall confidence and potential for economic viability.

Positive factors

  • Significant increase in contained metal (+9%) compared to prior estimate
  • Forms a substantial portion of the project's total resource
  • High confidence category for economic studies

Evidence · table

“0.12”

Context: 8.30

Tags used in scoring

Indicated Resourcepositive

Reasonable geological confidence based on adequate drilling; continuity can be assumed. Basis for Probable Reserves.

Why it applies: category is "indicated"

Cut-off Undisclosednegative

High-grade interval reported without stating the cut-off grade used for compositing.

Why it applies: no cutoff_grade was stated

QP/CP Signedpositive

Qualified Person (QP) or Competent Person (CP) named and signed off — a member of a recognized professional association (e.g., AusIMM, SME, AIG, P.Geo) with relevant experience.

Why it applies: qp_signed is true

NI 43-101 Compliantpositive

Resource estimate prepared in compliance with NI 43-101 (Canada) — high reporting standard.

Why it applies: reporting_standards includes ni_43_101

Contained Metal Growthpositive

True scale improvement — contained metal ounces/tonnes increased vs prior, accounting for both tonnage and grade changes.

Why it applies: 20.31 against 18.62 previously

Resource Updateneutral

Revised estimate for an existing resource — compare to prior to assess progress.

Why it applies: the release compares against a previous estimate

PEA-Supportingneutral

Resource estimate prepared to support a Preliminary Economic Assessment — early-stage study.

Why it applies: the release names the study this estimate supports

DFS-Supportingneutral

Resource estimate prepared to support a Definitive Feasibility Study — requires high M&I confidence.

Why it applies: the release names the study this estimate supports

inferredCebolleta Uranium Project · uraniumTonnes: 1623800Grade: 0.12Grade Unit: % eU3O8Contained Metal: 4.42Contained Unit: mlb eu3o8View all details
Link to this fact

Identity

Project
Cebolleta Uranium Project
Commodity
uranium
Region
mexico
Reported Region
New Mexico
Ticker
PUR

Resource scope

Estimate type
resource
Reporting standards
ni_43_101, other
QP Signed
Yes
Qualified person names
Mark B. Mathisen, Stuart Collins, Jeffrey L. Woods, Lee (Pat) Gochnour, Matthew Behling, Dean T. Wilton
Resource group id
resource:70254b3ce1d5136476ab
Deposit or zone
Underground
Mining method
combined

Resource Data

Category
inferred
Tonnes
1623800
Grade
0.12
Grade Unit
% eU3O8
Contained Metal
4.42
Contained Unit
mlb eu3o8
Cutoff Grade
0
Cutoff Unit
% eU3O8

Prior Estimate

Resource Date
2025-05-15

Metal Equivalent

Assumptions Disclosed
Yes

Review

Needs Review
No
Historical
No

Dates

Event date
2025-10-30T00:00:00.000Z

Reasoning: This Inferred Underground resource provides additional potential for the project, contributing to the overall resource growth, but its lower confidence category means it requires further drilling.

Positive factors

  • Adds to the overall resource base and future potential
  • Contributes to a significant increase in total Inferred resources

Negative factors

  • Inferred category has lower geological confidence

Evidence · table

“0.12”

Context: 1.79

Tags used in scoring

Inferred Resourcenegative

Speculative category — limited drilling, geological continuity assumed but not confirmed. Cannot support economic studies alone.

Why it applies: category is "inferred"

Cut-off Disclosedpositive

Cut-off grade used for resource reporting is clearly stated, enabling like-for-like comparison.

Why it applies: cutoff_grade is stated

QP/CP Signedpositive

Qualified Person (QP) or Competent Person (CP) named and signed off — a member of a recognized professional association (e.g., AusIMM, SME, AIG, P.Geo) with relevant experience.

Why it applies: qp_signed is true

NI 43-101 Compliantpositive

Resource estimate prepared in compliance with NI 43-101 (Canada) — high reporting standard.

Why it applies: reporting_standards includes ni_43_101

Resource Updateneutral

Revised estimate for an existing resource — compare to prior to assess progress.

Why it applies: the release compares against a previous estimate

PEA-Supportingneutral

Resource estimate prepared to support a Preliminary Economic Assessment — early-stage study.

Why it applies: the release names the study this estimate supports

DFS-Supportingneutral

Resource estimate prepared to support a Definitive Feasibility Study — requires high M&I confidence.

Why it applies: the release names the study this estimate supports

inferredCebolleta Uranium Project · uraniumTonnes: 1641000Grade: 0.07Grade Unit: % eU3O8Contained Metal: 2.62Contained Unit: mlb eu3o8View all details
Link to this fact

Identity

Project
Cebolleta Uranium Project
Commodity
uranium
Region
mexico
Reported Region
New Mexico
Ticker
PUR

Resource scope

Estimate type
resource
Reporting standards
ni_43_101, other
QP Signed
Yes
Qualified person names
Mark B. Mathisen, Stuart Collins, Jeffrey L. Woods, Lee (Pat) Gochnour, Matthew Behling, Dean T. Wilton
Resource group id
resource:6c59c070b3edc4df2237
Deposit or zone
Open Pit
Mining method
combined

Resource Data

Category
inferred
Tonnes
1641000
Grade
0.07
Grade Unit
% eU3O8
Contained Metal
2.62
Contained Unit
mlb eu3o8
Cutoff Grade
0.02
Cutoff Unit
% eU3O8

Prior Estimate

Resource Date
2025-05-15

Metal Equivalent

Assumptions Disclosed
Yes

Review

Needs Review
No
Historical
No

Dates

Event date
2025-10-30T00:00:00.000Z

Reasoning: This Inferred Open Pit resource expands the project's potential, but as an Inferred category, it requires further work to upgrade confidence.

Positive factors

  • Adds to the overall resource base and future potential
  • Contributes to a significant increase in total Inferred resources

Negative factors

  • Inferred category has lower geological confidence

Evidence · table

“0.07”

Context: 1.81

Tags used in scoring

Inferred Resourcenegative

Speculative category — limited drilling, geological continuity assumed but not confirmed. Cannot support economic studies alone.

Why it applies: category is "inferred"

Cut-off Disclosedpositive

Cut-off grade used for resource reporting is clearly stated, enabling like-for-like comparison.

Why it applies: cutoff_grade is stated

QP/CP Signedpositive

Qualified Person (QP) or Competent Person (CP) named and signed off — a member of a recognized professional association (e.g., AusIMM, SME, AIG, P.Geo) with relevant experience.

Why it applies: qp_signed is true

NI 43-101 Compliantpositive

Resource estimate prepared in compliance with NI 43-101 (Canada) — high reporting standard.

Why it applies: reporting_standards includes ni_43_101

Resource Updateneutral

Revised estimate for an existing resource — compare to prior to assess progress.

Why it applies: the release compares against a previous estimate

PEA-Supportingneutral

Resource estimate prepared to support a Preliminary Economic Assessment — early-stage study.

Why it applies: the release names the study this estimate supports

DFS-Supportingneutral

Resource estimate prepared to support a Definitive Feasibility Study — requires high M&I confidence.

Why it applies: the release names the study this estimate supports

inferredCebolleta Uranium Project · uraniumTonnes: 3265866Grade: 0.1Grade Unit: % eU3O8Contained Metal: 7.04Contained Unit: mlb eu3o8View all details
Link to this fact

Identity

Project
Cebolleta Uranium Project
Commodity
uranium
Region
mexico
Reported Region
New Mexico
Ticker
PUR

Resource scope

Estimate type
resource
Reporting standards
ni_43_101, other
QP Signed
Yes
Qualified person names
Mark B. Mathisen, Stuart Collins, Jeffrey L. Woods, Lee (Pat) Gochnour, Matthew Behling, Dean T. Wilton
Resource group id
resource:3ad804f0e26a7963c804
Mining method
combined

Resource Data

Category
inferred
Tonnes
3265866
Grade
0.1
Grade Unit
% eU3O8
Contained Metal
7.04
Contained Unit
mlb eu3o8

Prior Estimate

Resource Date
2025-05-15
Prior Contained Metal
4.83

Metal Equivalent

Assumptions Disclosed
Yes

Review

Needs Review
No
Historical
No

Dates

Event date
2025-10-30T00:00:00.000Z

Reasoning: The total Inferred resource shows a very strong increase in contained metal, significantly expanding the project's potential, though its speculative nature means it cannot support economic studies alone.

Positive factors

  • Significant increase in contained metal (+45%) compared to prior estimate
  • Adds substantial future potential to the project

Negative factors

  • All resources in this total are in the Inferred category, which is speculative

Evidence · table

“0.10”

Context: 3.60

Tags used in scoring

Inferred Resourcenegative

Speculative category — limited drilling, geological continuity assumed but not confirmed. Cannot support economic studies alone.

Why it applies: category is "inferred"

Cut-off Undisclosednegative

High-grade interval reported without stating the cut-off grade used for compositing.

Why it applies: no cutoff_grade was stated

QP/CP Signedpositive

Qualified Person (QP) or Competent Person (CP) named and signed off — a member of a recognized professional association (e.g., AusIMM, SME, AIG, P.Geo) with relevant experience.

Why it applies: qp_signed is true

NI 43-101 Compliantpositive

Resource estimate prepared in compliance with NI 43-101 (Canada) — high reporting standard.

Why it applies: reporting_standards includes ni_43_101

Contained Metal Growthpositive

True scale improvement — contained metal ounces/tonnes increased vs prior, accounting for both tonnage and grade changes.

Why it applies: 7.04 against 4.83 previously

Resource Updateneutral

Revised estimate for an existing resource — compare to prior to assess progress.

Why it applies: the release compares against a previous estimate

PEA-Supportingneutral

Resource estimate prepared to support a Preliminary Economic Assessment — early-stage study.

Why it applies: the release names the study this estimate supports

DFS-Supportingneutral

Resource estimate prepared to support a Definitive Feasibility Study — requires high M&I confidence.

Why it applies: the release names the study this estimate supports

Metallurgical Results (1)

heap leachCebolleta Uranium Project · uraniumRecovery: 80 %Head Grade: 0.11Head Grade Unit: % eU3O8View all details
Link to this fact

Identity

Project
Cebolleta Uranium Project
Commodity
uranium
Region
mexico
Reported Region
New Mexico
Ticker
PUR

Test Work

Program Status
scoping
Test Type
heap leach
Processing Route
crush, heap leach, ion exchange
Sample
LOM average
Leach Time
2160 hours

Recovery

Recovery
80 %
Recovery Basis
assumed
Head Grade
0.11
Head Grade Unit
% eU3O8

Lab

Consultant
SLR International Corporation

Review

Needs Review
No
Historical
No

Dates

Event date
2025-10-30T00:00:00.000Z

Reasoning: The assumed 80% heap leach recovery is a key parameter for the PEA economics, indicating a viable processing route, but its assumed nature means it requires further metallurgical validation.

Positive factors

  • Heap leach is a cost-effective processing method for large, low-grade deposits
  • Recovery assumption is within a reasonable range for heap leach operations

Negative factors

  • Recovery is an assumption for the PEA, not based on detailed testwork results
  • No specific acid consumption data provided for the leach process

Evidence · table

“80”

Context: Heap leach recovery

Tags used in scoring

Heap Leach Routeneutral

Processing via heap leach — lower CAPEX and OPEX, lower recovery expected.

Why it applies: processing_route matches the heap_leach signal

How Atlas produces this analysis

Minestarters Atlas uses automated extraction to summarize mining announcements, identify reported measurements, and classify supporting evidence. Sentiment reflects the extracted narrative and classification rules; it is an interpretation, not a reported measurement. Evidence quotes and context are provided where available. Missing data, low-confidence results, and review flags indicate limitations. Check the original publisher announcement before relying on an interpretation.