04 iaea tcm 2012 boytsov

CORPORATE PRESENTATION | JANUARY 2011

Uranium market outlook and the role of
sandstone type deposits in uranium
supply

Alexander Boytsov – EVP Exploration
Vienna, IAEA, June 2012
TCM on sandstone type uranium deposits

|1| TSX: UUU | JSE: UUU WWW.URANIUM1.COM

Cautionary Statement 2011
CORPORATE PRESENTATION | JANUARY

Readers are advised to refer to independent technical reports containing detailed information with respect to the material properties of Uranium One. These technical
reports are available under the profile of Uranium One Inc. at www.sedar.com and provide the date of each resource or reserve estimate, details of the key assumptions,
methods and parameters used in the estimates, details of quantity and grade or quality of each resource or reserve and a general discussion of the extent to which the
estimate may be materially affected by any known environmental, permitting, legal, taxation, socio-political, marketing, or other relevant issues. The technical reports also
provide information with respect to data verification in the estimation.
Scientific and technical information contained herein has been reviewed on behalf of Uranium One by Mr. M.H.G. Heyns, Pr.Sci.Nat. (SACNASP), MSAIMM, MGSSA,
Senior Vice President of Uranium One Inc., a Qualified Person for the purposes of NI 43-101.
Certain of the statements herein are forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements include but are not limited to those with respect to the price of uranium, the
estimation of mineral resources and reserves, the realization of mineral reserve estimates, the timing and amount of estimated future production, costs of production,
capital expenditures, costs and timing of the development of new deposits, success of exploration activities, permitting time lines, currency fluctuations, requirements for
additional capital, government regulation of mining operations, environmental risks, costs of environmental compliance including reclamation expenses, title disputes or
claims and limitations on insurance coverage and the timing and possible outcome of litigation or investigations. In certain cases, forward-looking statements can be
identified by the use of words such as “plans”, “expects” or “does not expect”, “is expected”, “budget”, “scheduled”, “estimates”, “forecasts”, “intends”, “anticipates” or
“does not anticipate”, or “believes” or variations of such words and phrases, or state that certain actions, events or results “may”, “could”, “would”, “might” or “will” be
taken, occur or be achieved. Forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors which may cause the actual results,
performance or achievements of Uranium One to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by the forward-
looking statements. Such risks and uncertainties include, among others, the actual price of uranium, the actual results of current exploration activities, conclusions of
economic evaluations, changes in project parameters as plans continue to be refined, possible variations in grade and ore densities or recovery rates, failure of plant,
equipment or processes to operate as anticipated, accidents, labour disputes or other risks of the mining industry, delays in obtaining government approvals or financing
or in completion of development or construction activities, risks relating to the completion or integration of acquisitions and to international operations, as well as those
factors referred to in the section entitled “Risk Factors” in Uranium One’s Annual Information Form for the year ended December 31, 2011, which is available at
www.sedar.com, and which should be reviewed in conjunction with this document. Although Uranium One has attempted to identify important factors that could cause
actual actions, events or results to differ materially from those described in forward-looking statements, there may be other factors that cause actions, events or results
not to be as anticipated, estimated or intended. There can be no assurance that forward-looking statements will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events
could differ materially from those anticipated in such statements. Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. Uranium One
expressly disclaims any intention or obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise,
except in accordance with applicable securities laws.
For further information about Uranium One, please visit www.uranium1.com.


World Uranium Requirements,
(WNA 2011 Nuclear Fuel Market Report) 2011

tU

 Despite Fukushima accident the prospects for new worldwide reactors construction continue to
be strong.
 In the reference scenario, world reactor-related uranium requirements will grow from 64 ktU in
2010 to 108 ktU in 2030, an increase of nearly 70%.


Uranium demand and supply sources 2011

SUPPLY
DEMAND

Main factors of demand/supply relationship
• Favorable uranium • HEU-LEU program • Selection of tails assay • Uranium as a trading
prices • Commercial and commodity (stocks
• Load factors
• Sufficient and low cost government inventories trading)
uranium resources maintenance • Extending cycle length and
enrichment levels • Inventories build
• Uranium production • Policy in depleted U re-
capacities enrichment, spent fuel • Improved fuel design and
and HEU reprocessing management
• Increased burn up


SecondaryPRESENTATION | JANUARY 2011
CORPORATE
supplies

kt U
20

Expiry of HEU
Agreement
15
tU

10

5

0
2008 2009 2010 2011f 2012f 2013f 2014f 2015f 2016f 2017f 2018f 2019f 2020f

 WNA 2011 Nuclear Fuel Market Report.  Ux Consulting Uranium Market Outlook Q1 2012.
Secondary U supplies decline from 17,000 tU Secondary U supplies after HEU agreement
in 2011 to 14,000 tU after 2013, but in 2019 will expires will decline from 17,000 tU to 9,000 tU
increase to about 16,000 tU.


Anticipated uranium production through 2030 2011

WNA scenarios for prospective uranium production, tU

 Reference production is expected to increase to 75,000 tU by 2020 and to 90,000 tU by 2030.

Source: WNA 2011 Nuclear Fuel Market Report


Historical uranium supply and demand relationship

Source: IAEA/OECD Red Book, January 1, 2009 Source: UxC Uranium Market Outlook Q1 2012

Since 1945 Kt U Production was substantially ahead of reactor requirements until
Produced 2 519 1985, but has since fallen below. Since 1985, requirements have
exceeded production by approximately 450,000 tU. The difference
Consumed 1 978
was covered by inventories and other secondary sources.
Stockpiled 541 Low uranium prices did not stimulate uranium production.


Recent world uranium PRESENTATION | JANUARY 2011
CORPORATE

production
2004-2011world uranium production by country, tU 2004-2011 ISL U production, tU

*

 World uranium production gradually expanded in 2006-2010, by 35%. In 2011 it reached 53 ,2
KtU – slightly lower than in 2010
 An estimated 70% of new global production this decade will come from Kazakhstan and
Africa
 Six countries produce U by ISL method: Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, USA, Russia,
Australia, China
 The share of ISL production increased from 20% in 2005 to 45% in 2011, including 37%
from Kazakhstan (19450t), while other countries maintain ISL production at a level of
4700tU/year

Factors affecting uraniumPRESENTATION | JANUARY 2011
CORPORATE
production

Resources Actual worldwide U production vs. UxC forecast

Financial
risks Technical
risks

U production Political,
Geological and ecological Political,
mining risks and social Deposit
Financial Technical
social
risks risks risks
risks
Actual production is often behind the forecasts: OD expansion V V
 Fukushima accident Сigar Lake V V
 Speculative announcements
Imouraren V V
 Low price – high production cost
Jabiluka V
 Technical problems
 Political, social and environmental factors Elkon V


WNA / UxC reference case uranium supply demand 2011

Source: UxC Uranium Market Outlook Q1 2012
Source: WNA 2011 Nuclear Fuel Market Report

 In 2010-2011 the market was over-supplied. Primary uranium mining and secondary sources
produced 70,755 tU, compared with uranium requirements of 63,824 tU. The explanation is inventory
building in China.
 Beyond 2011, demand and supply are expected to be very much in balance to 2025, with some small
surpluses.
After 2025 demand is expected to continue to rise, with uranium production not quite keeping up
| 10 | TSX: UUU | JSE: UUU WWW.URANIUM1.COM

World uranium resources 2011

(IAEA/OECD Red Book, at January 1st 2009)

IAEA/OECD Red Book January 1, 2009. Identified
Known uranium resources by countries, ktU Resources at cost US$ <260/kgU (~US$ 100/lb U3O8)
totalled 6,306 ktU.
 Identified uranium resources of the cost category
World recoverable U of US$ < 80/kgU constitute 3,742 ktU (59 % of total).
resources - 6306 th.t  Australia amounted to 27% of total Identified
(IAEA/OECD-2009)
Resources in 2009 (~1,700 ktU), followed by
Kazakhstan (832 ktU, 13%), Russia (566 ktU, 9%).
Sandstone type related uranium resources
comprise 26% of total and 22% in below 80$/kgU
Kazakhstan contain 40% of total sandstone type
resources and 65% in below 80$/kgU category

Cost ranges, USD/KgU

Cost ranges
Category <130$/ kg <260$/ kg
<40$/kgU <80$/kgU
U U
RAR 570 2516 3524 4004
Inferred 226 1226 1879 2302
Total 796 3742 5403 6306


Uranium resources as a key factor| JANUARY 2011
CORPORATE PRESENTATION
for
sustainable uranium production
Uranium production forecast by leading companies, tU
2011 uranium resources by leading companies, ktU

Total U resources –
5 Mt (in-situ)

*

* U ranium One – no P1 resources
Depletion of U resources by leading companies, tU

 Aggregated U production in 2012 ––2030 estimated
 Aggregated U production in 2012 2030 estimated
at 1,5 MtU, which is 24% of total resources and
at 1,5 MtU, which is 24% of total resources and
40% of resources below US$80/kgU category
40% of resources below US$80/kgU category
 U resources of primary uranium mines will be
 U resources of primary uranium mines will be
decreased by 2030 more than two fold, more than
decreased by 2030 more than two fold, more than
aahalf of the remaining U resources will be in the
half of the remaining U resources will be in the
Olympic Dam (copper is main)
Olympic Dam (copper is main)
 After 2020, uranium market may face shortage of
 After 2020, uranium market may face shortage of
low cost U resources needed to maintain
low cost U resources needed to maintain
production.
production.
 ItIt is necessary to intensify uranium exploration aimed at
 is necessary to intensify uranium exploration aimed at
discovery new low cost uranium resources.
discovery new low cost uranium resources.


Source: W NA estimates, companies’ data

Principal exploration stages 2011


Regional metallogenic studies 2011

(after I.Pechenkin)

Main target To determine areas favorable for redox front zones

Scale 1: 2 500 000 to 1: 1 000 000 (to 500 000)

Drilling No

Tasks To determine areas for prospecting and exploration

Recognition criteria

Climate Arid and semiarid climate

Geotectonic Post-platform syn orogeny tectonic conditions

Hydrodynamic Artesian basins with infiltrational water exchange

Red bed and brown molasse sediments, interfaced upwards
Lithology
by terrigene grey sediments
Lithification Low consolidated terrigene permeable sediments


Regional reconnaissance

(after I.Pechenkin)
Main target To determine redox front zones and favorable for uranium areas
Scale 1: 500 000 to 1: 200 000
Drill spacing 12,8 x 6,4-3,2km
To develop exploration model, to evaluate prognosticated resources
Tasks
P2
Recognition
criteria
Sand, sand-gravel sediments of alluvial, inshore- and shallow-
Lithology
marine origin
Tectonic Activated syncline, graben, buried paleovalleys
Hydrogeology Infiltration aquifer horizons
Hydrogeochemica Oxygen rich aquifer environment, interfaced by reduction
l environment in direction of migration
Radiogeochemica Favorable source of U in the area, such as primary uranium
l enriched rocks
Mineralogy Aquifers containing sediments enriched by organic matter and iron
disulfides. Epigenetic alterations in permeable sediments


General exploration

(after I.Pechenkin)

Main target Deposit discovery
Scale 1: 100 000 1: 50 000 1: 25 000
Drill spacing 6,4 x 6,4 km 3200 x 1600 (50)m 1600 x 800 (50)m
Mineralization Mineralization
Redox front zone
Tasks detection within the delineation, resources
mapping
redox zone preliminary evaluation
Recognition criteria
Hydrogeology High uranium contents in oxygenous underground waters (> 3x10 -6 g/l U), its high
variation

Hydrodynamic High speed of oxygenic underground waters migration, providing active uranium
supply to redox front zone

Structural Penetration of oxygenic underground waters or reductants through permeable
zones

Geochemistry Oxidation zones interfaces within grey sediments
Microbiological Aureoles of anaerobic bacteria intensive development
Hydrogeochemisry Areas of elevated Eh and uranium concentration reduction in flow direction.
Alteration Indicators of reduction interface at adjacent of oxidation zones: epigenetic
pyritization, redeposited organic matter, radioactive anomalies.


Principal parameters for sulphuricCORPORATEISL mining* 2011
acid PRESENTATION | JANUARY

Lithology Sands, clay fraction below 30%
Ore productivity, kgU/m2 Above 1
Depth of ore body Below 900
Aquifer thickness 1 to 30m
Carbonate (CO2) in ore, % Below 2
Hydrogeology Water confining beds above and below
aquifer, no hydraulic connection
TDS, g/dm3 Below 10
Water table level Above the aquifer
Hydraulic conductivity, m/day Above 1
Transmissivity, m2/day Above 10
Environmental No potable water supply

*- IAEA-TECDOC-1239, Manual of acid in situ leach uranium mining technology.

| 17 | TSX: UUU | JSE: UUU WWW.URANIUM1.COM 17

04 iaea tcm 2012 boytsov

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Ähnlich wie 04 iaea tcm 2012 boytsov

Ähnlich wie 04 iaea tcm 2012 boytsov (20)

Mehr von Monatom Mgl

Mehr von Monatom Mgl (20)

04 iaea tcm 2012 boytsov

Hinweis der Redaktion