N🟁N

Resource estimate for Anderson Uranium Property completed, preliminary feasibility study resource estimate recommended

  //house-home.news-articles.net/content/2010/05/0 .. ibility-study-resource-estimate-recommended.html
  Published in House and Home on Thursday, May 6th 2010 at 6:35 GMT by Market Wire
          ^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication}

 To see Figure 1-1, please go to: [ http://files.newswire.ca/877/F1-1-MinEx-Urange.doc ]

 Table 1.1 Measured and Indicated Uranium Mineral Resource-In-Place Cumulative Mineralization ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Average Mineral- Mineral- Mineral- ized ized ized Average Pounds Resource Area Thickness Tons Grade (% eU(3)O(8) Classification (acres) (ft) (million) eU(3)O(8)) (million) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- CUTOFF: 0.02% eU(3)O(8) and 0.5 ft Thick Measured 156 11.5 3.8 0.059 4.5 Indicated 231 12.4 6.1 0.054 6.6 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Combined Meas. + Ind. 387 12.0 9.9 0.056 11.1 Inferred 261 10 5.6 0.051 5.7 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 Table 1-2. Mineral Resource-In-Place Cumulative Mineralization(+) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mineral- Average Mineral- Average In-place Resource ized Mineral- ized Grade (% Pounds Classification Area(++) ized Tons* eU(3)O(8)) eU(3)O(8) (acres) Thickness(++) (million) (million) (ft) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- CUTOFF: 0.01% eU(3)O(8) and 0.5 ft Thick ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Measured 157 24.0 8.0 0.037 5.9 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Indicated 233 26.7 13.2 0.034 9.0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Combined 390 25.6 21.2 0.035 14.9 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Inferred 270 22.2 12.7 0.031 7.8 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- CUTOFF: 0.02% eU(3)O(8) and 0.5 ft Thick ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Measured 156 11.5 3.8 0.059 4.5 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Indicated 231 12.4 6.1 0.054 6.6 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Combined 387 12.0 9.9 0.056 11.1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Inferred 261 10.0 5.6 0.051 5.7 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- CUTOFF: 0.03% eU(3)O(8) and 0.5 ft Thick ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Measured 156 7.1 2.4 0.077 3.6 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Indicated 231 7.4 3.7 0.072 5.3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Combined 387 7.3 6.0 0.074 8.9 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Inferred 259 5.9 3.2 0.068 4.4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- CUTOFF: 0.04% eU(3)O(8) and 0.5 ft Thick ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Measured 156 4.9 1.6 0.094 3.1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Indicated 230 5.1 2.5 0.089 4.4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Combined 386 5.0 4.1 0.091 7.5 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Inferred 257 4.0 2.2 0.084 3.7 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- CUTOFF: 0.05% eU(3)O(8) and 0.5 ft Thick ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Measured 155 3.6 1.2 0.109 2.6 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Indicated 228 3.7 1.8 0.104 3.7 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Combined 383 3.7 3.0 0.106 6.3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Inferred 253 2.9 1.6 0.098 3.1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- CUTOFF: 0.08% eU(3)O(8) and 0.5 ft Thick ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Measured 151 1.9 0.6 0.154 1.9 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Indicated 216 2.0 0.9 0.147 2.7 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Combined 367 1.9 1.5 0.150 4.5 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Inferred 227 1.6 0.8 0.142 2.2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- CUTOFF: 0.10% eU(3)O(8) and 0.5 ft Thick ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Measured 148 1.4 0.4 0.182 1.6 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Indicated 209 1.5 0.7 0.176 2.3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Combined 357 1.5 1.1 0.178 3.9 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Inferred 211 1.2 0.6 0.172 1.9 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 1-1. Mineral Resource-In-Place Cumulative Mineralization(+) (concluded) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mineral- Average Mineral- Average In-place Resource ized Mineral- ized Grade (% Pounds Classification Area(++) ized Tons* eU(3)O(8)) eU(3)O(8) (acres) Thickness(++) (million) (million) (ft) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- CUTOFF: 0.15% eU(3)O(8) and 0.5 ft Thick ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Measured 143 0.8 0.2 0.252 1.2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Indicated 192 0.8 0.3 0.244 1.6 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Combined 335 0.8 0.6 0.247 2.8 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Inferred 180 0.7 0.3 0.239 1.3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes: 1) The effective date of the Mineral Resource estimate is July 20, 2007. 2) Mineral Resources were estimated using a two-dimensional block model. Block thicknesses and grades were interpolated from the drill-hole composite data utilizing the inverse distance-squared method. 3) The Mineral Resource estimate is based on radiometric data from MinEx drill holes validated by Concentric Energy. 4) The Mineralized Area and the Average Mineralized Thickness refer to the respective dimensions of the resource that encompass mineralization that meets the indicated cutoff grade. 5) The Mineralized tons are based on a host rock average dry tonnage factor of 20.46 cu-ft/ton. 6) The Average Grade is expressed as an equivalent percentage of uranium by weight. 7) The Mineral Resource estimates have not been modified to account for considerations related to mining method such as minimum mining thickness. 8) Mineral Resources have been estimated by applying cut-off grades ranging from 0.01% U(3)O(8) to 0.15% U(3)O(8) at a minimum mineralized thickness of 0.5 ft to Mineral Resource estimation blocks. 9) The geological model employed for the Anderson Property was developed by dividing the claim area into 50-ft-wide by 50-ft-long blocks aligned north-south and east-west. Blocks along the property boundary were subdivided/split to better conform to the boundary shape. The model consisted of a single layer of blocks and, thus, can be considered equivalent to a gridded seam model. Block heights varied according to the estimated thickness of mineralization. 10) Mineral Resources are defined based on their distance from radiometric drill holes. Measured Mineral Resources are located within 50 ft of radiometric drill holes. Indicated Mineral Resources are located between 50 ft to 100 ft of radiometric drill holes. Inferred Mineral Resources are located between 100 ft to 200 ft of radiometric drill holes. 11) No environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation, socio- political, marketing or other issues are expected to materially affect the above estimate of Mineral Resources. 12) Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. 13) Inferred Mineral Resources have a great amount of uncertainty as to their existence and as to whether they can be mined legally or economically. It cannot be assumed that all or any part of Inferred Mineral Resources will ever be upgraded to a higher category. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Figure 1-2. Mineralized Resource Grade-Uranium Pounds Curves To see Figure 1-2, please go to: [ http://files.newswire.ca/877/F1-2-Mineralized.doc ]

 Table 2.1 Inferred Vanadium Mineral Resource-In-Place Cumulative Mineralization(+) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Average Mineral- Mineral- Mineral- ized ized ized Average Pounds Resource Area(++) Thickness(++) Tons* Grade (% eV(2)O(5) Classification (acres) (ft) (million) eV(2)O(5)) (million) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- CUTOFF: 0.02% eU(3)O(8) and 0.5 ft Thick Inferred MinEx 636 11.4 15.4 0.057 17.5 Inferred Urangesellschaft 499 18.2 19.4 0.048 18.6 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total (Minex + UG areas) 1137 14.4 34.8 0.052 36.1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- (+) Defined by unvalidated Urangesellschaft radiometric holes. (++) Refers to resource meeting cutoff. * Mineralized tons based on host rock average dry tonnage factor 20.46 cu-ft/ton. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 Phase I-NI 43-101 Concept-Specific Mineral Resource Estimate Estimated Cost: $980,000 to $2,700,000 Phase I tasks are identified for advancing the current Mineral Resource estimate of total in-place mineralization to a concept- specific Mineral Resource estimate where the resource cutoff is certain. Phase I focuses on (a) defining the Mineral Resource in terms of individual radiometric beds so that alternative mining methods can be considered, and (b) establishing specific cutoffs so that the Mineral Resource can be refined to include only the specific beds that have reasonable potential for recovery by the most probable mining method(s). Specific tasks include: 1. Geologic Model-A comprehensive geologic model is required that (a) cross-correlates radiometric beds between drill holes and improves the definition of the individual radiometric beds, and (b) defines the geometry of lithologic units across the Anderson Property. Estimated cost: $50,000 to $250,000. 2. Geostatistical Drilling-Additional holes should be drilled and gamma surveyed for analysis of the spatial variability of the deposit. A line of holes stepping out on 10-ft centers to a distance of 100 ft, and 20-ft centers thereafter to 200 ft is recommended. A minimum of two lines drilled central to the resource are recommended, one parallel and one perpendicular to the dominant northwest-southeast fault orientation (30 rotary holes total). Estimated cost: $500,000 to $1,000,000. 3. Geostatistical Modeling-The Mineral Resource estimate should be re-calculated on a bed-by-bed basis using a kriging model with the bed-specific variogram models. The radii used for the Measured and Indicated Mineral Resource classifications should be re-visited and revised, if justified, based upon degree of spatial variance determined by variography. Estimated cost: $50,000 to $150,000. 4. Metallurgical Processing-A preliminary investigation of possible metallurgical processes should be completed to a level sufficient to (a) identify the most probable method(s) for processing the Mineral Resource and (b) establish first-pass processing costs. Any probable metallurgical constraints should be included as additional cutoffs in the Mineral Resource estimate. Estimated cost: $200,000 to $750,000. 5. Concept Mine Plan-A preliminary investigation of possible mining methods should be completed to a level sufficient to (a) identify the most probable method(s) for mining the Mineral Resource and (b) establish first-pass mining costs and grade cutoffs. Estimated cost: $100,000 to $300,000. 6. Market Prices-Investigate market prices for uranium to be used for establishing Mineral Resource estimate cutoffs. Estimated cost: $30,000 to $100,000. 7. Revised Mineral Resource Estimate-Recalculate the Mineral Resource Estimate based on the cutoff parameters established for the mining concept. Estimated cost: $50,000 to $150,000. Phase II-NI 43-101 Mineral Resource Estimate for Pre-Feasibility Study Estimated Cost: $20,000 to $1,050,000 The later phase includes additional drilling that may be justified to expand the Mineral Resource estimate or upgrade the resource classification. The results of any additional drilling should be incorporated into a revised Mineral Resource estimate. 1. Additional Drilling-Based on the results of the Phase I work, additional exploration drilling may be justified to (a) expand the size of the Mineral Resource estimate or (b) upgrade the classification. Estimated cost: Up to $1,000,000. 2. Isotopic Analysis-Analyze (235)U and (234)U isotopes for the resource. Deviations from the normal 234U value (about 55 micrograms (234)U per gram total U) may affect marketability and, thus, the value of potential Mineral Reserves. Estimated cost: $20,000 to $50,000.