Basement-Hosted Uranium Deposits at Horseshoe and Raven

Horseshoe and Raven deposits

A new look at basement-hosted
basement hosted
mineralization in the Horseshoe and
Raven deposits, eastern Athabasca Basin

David Rhys, Sierd Eriks and Leo Horn
UEX C Corporation
ti
Saskatchewan Geological Survey Open House, Nov. 29, 2010


Forward-Looking Statements
This presentation contains “forward-looking statements” that are based on UEX’s current
expectations, estimates, forecasts and projections. These forward-looking statements
include statements regarding UEX’s resource estimates, outlook for our future operations,
plans and timing for the commencement or advancement of exploration activities on our
properties, and other expectations, intention and plans that are not historical fact. The
words “estimates”, “projects”, “expects”, “intends”, “believes”, “plans”, or their negatives or
other comparable words and phrases are intended to identify forward-looking statements.
forward looking
Such forward-looking statements are based on certain factors and assumptions and are
subject to risks, uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual results to differ
materially from future results expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements.
Important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from UEX’s expectations
include
i l d uncertainties relating t i t
t i ti l ti to interpretation of d ill results and geology, additional d illi
t ti f drill lt d l dditi l drilling
results, continuity and grade of deposits, public acceptance of uranium as an energy source,
fluctuations in uranium prices and currency exchange rates, changes in environmental and
other laws affecting uranium exploration and mining, and other risks and uncertainties
disclosed in UEX’s Annual Information Form and other filings with the securities commission
g
on SEDAR. Many of these factors are beyond the control of UEX. Consequently, all forward-
looking statements made in this presentation are qualified by this cautionary statement and
there can be no assurance that actual results or developments anticipated by UEX will be
realized. For the reasons set forth above, investors should not place undue reliance on such
forward-looking statements.
forward looking statements Except as required by applicable law UEX disclaims any
law,
intention or obligation to update or revise forward-looking information, whether as a result
of new information, future events or otherwise.

Hidden Bay setting Horseshoe and Raven deposits

 Horseshoe and Raven are located on UEX’s 100% owned Hidden
Bay project on the eastern margin of the Athabasca Basin


Hidden Bay p j
y project

 57,000 hectare
Tent-Seal property in eastern
Athabasca uranium
district (area has >360
Telephone million lb production +
illi lbs d ti
Shamus Vixen resources, excludes
Cigar Lake)
Rabbit Lake
fault Horseshoe  Contains Horseshoe,
Raven and West Bear
and Raven
deposits
Wolf
 Deposits located only
Rhino 4 km south of Cameco’s
Rabbit Lake mill facility
Dwyer
in an area of excellent
West Bear infrastructure

Horseshoe-Raven history

 Two deposits approx. 1 km apart discovered through follow-up of
a radioactive boulder train in the early 1970’s by Gulf Minerals
 Gulf drilled 202 widely spaced (50 to 100 m apart) drill holes
between 1972 and 1978 to define historical, non-compliant
resources of 23 million lbs U3O8 grading at 0 16% in both
0.16%
deposits

-9
R NC
R
-1

HS

-13
S
A
A
HS

Y

V LIN

-4 3
-4

HS
E

-45
HS
N E

HS
Cross section through Horseshoe

HS
deposit prior to drilling by UEX: 1.5m @
0.25% U3O8
4.11m @
grade continuity perceived to be 0.88%
0 88% U3O8
discontinuous, but drill holes very
0 100
widely spaced 1.2m @
0.22% U3O8 meters

16.0m
16 0
@ 0.8% U3O8 Horseshoe zone
Section 148+00S
View Northeast


UEX drilling,
2005-2009

 Potential to
upgrade and
further explore
the deposits
beyond the Gulf
resources was
recognized.

 Between 2005 and 2009 UEX completed 663 drill holes (198 000 m of
2009, (198,000
drilling) at Horseshoe and Raven to establish resources at 15 to 30 m hole
spacing. Historical drill holes could not be used due to QA/QC concerns.
 Drilling established continuity of mineralization expanded the deposit
mineralization,
footprints into areas not historically drilled, and identified areas of higher
grade mineralization within the deposits.

Resources based on drilling to July 23, 2009
July 2009 43-101 complaint resources for the Horseshoe and Raven
deposits estimated by K. Palmer, P. Geo. of Golder Associates, at a
cutoff grade of 0.05% U3O8 :
0 05%
Deposit Tonnes U3O8 % U3O8 (pounds)

Indicated Horseshoe 5,119,700 0.203 22,895,000

Resources Raven 5,173,900 0.107 12,149,000
Totals 10,293,600 0.170 35,044,000

Deposit Tonnes U3O8 % U3O8 (pounds)

Inferred Horseshoe 287,000 0.166 1,049,000
Resources
R Raven 822,200
822 200 0.092
0 092 1,666,000
1 666 000
Totals 1,109,200 0.111 2,715,000
In addition to these deposits, Hidden Bay also contains the West Bear deposit. At a
p y p
cutoff grade of 0.05% U3O8, West Bear is host to 79,914 tonnes grading 0.908 % U3O8
(1.57 million pounds U3O8) in near surface (<30m) resources (2009 N.I. 43-101
complaint resources)

- property straddles the gradational contact between
the Paleoproterozoic Mudjatik Domain to the NW Geological setting
(granitic gneiss domes + psammitic to pelitic
g Central Hidden Bay property – Geological setting
gneiss), and the Wollaston Domain to the southeast
),

Horseshoe
Raven

- Deposits lie outside of
Athabasca Basin: sandstone
eroded here Geological setting
- Competent metamorphic host
rocks

Local geological setting of the

Host lithologies Horseshoe and Raven deposits

Ca c a os c o calc-silicate gneiss:
Calc-arkosic to ca c s ca e g e ss Qua
Quartzite: >85% quartz, with K-
e 85% qua ,
plagioclase-K-feldspar-pyroxene-biotite- feldspar, biotite, 20-70 m thick –
amphibole – above mineralization hosts upper parts of mineralization

Arkosic quartzite: 40-65% quartz, 20-55%
40 65% 20 55% Lower biotite-quartz-feldspar, p
q p pelitic and
feldspars; massive to banded (relict beds), calc-silicate gneiss: mixed assemblage
20 to 150 m thick – main host to of biotite and calc-silicate bearing ortho-
mineralization and paragneiss – below mineralization

Structural setting Horseshoe and Raven deposits

Folded lower biotite-quartz-
feldspar gneiss beside Raven
camp, view down, top to NE.
Shows style of open D2 (F2)
folding
g

 Two phases of syn metamorphic Hudsonian deformation at amphibolite
syn-metamorphic
grade. Two metamorphic pulses between 1830 - 1795 Ma (Annesley et al.)
 D1 = Early penetrative S1 foliation/gneissosity is dominant foliation.
Regionally associated with tight to isoclinal folds
folds.
 D2 = Open F2 folds with second, steeply dipping spaced to penetrative NE
trending foliation. Form dominant NE trending folds and principal geometry
of lithologies in local area (e g Raven Syncline) with horizontal to northeast
(e.g.
plunging fold axes. Non-cylindrical fold axes regionally.
 Later crenulations and minor folds in later, retrograde lower strain events

Geological setting

Hematite breccias and intense
clay alteration + silicification
along Dragon Lake fault: fluid Local geological setting of the
conduit for mineralization? Horseshoe and Raven deposits

 Post-metamorphic and in part post-Athabasca brittle faulting regionally in
NE trending reverse faults (e g Rabbit Lake, Collins Bay faults) and in
(e.g. Lake faults),
north-trending Tabbernor sinistral faults such as the Dragon Lake fault
 Dragon Lake fault lies on east side of deposit – surrounded by intense
alteration which joins the eastern parts of the Horseshoe alteration zone:
may have been an important fluid conduit for mineralization
 ?Pre-mineral NE trending, SE dipping fault zone along mineralized zones

Uranium
mineralization
 Deposits are entirely
basement hosted and
developed t d th of
d l d to depths f
450 m below the current
surface.
 L
Locally preserved
ll d
paleoweathering
suggests current surface
was close to the now Local geological setting of the
eroded unconformity. Horseshoe and Raven deposits

 Deposits are developed over a 2.3 km strike length along and southeast of
the Raven syncline Mineralization occurs over a strike of 800 m at
syncline.
Horseshoe and 900 m at Raven, with a 600 m poorly mineralized gap
between the deposits
 Mineralization occurs in areas of hematite alteration within and
within,
surrounding southeast dipping clay-chlorite alteration zones that may be
localized along pre-mineral faults

Exploration techniques

Horseshoe

Horseshoe
H h
Raven

Raven

DC resistivity, 175 m
modeled depth,
Horseshoe-Raven
Horseshoe Raven area Gravity data
Warm colours = resistivity highs

Geophysical exploration: Gravity and Resistivity
 Deposits initially discovered partially as a result of a gravity survey by
f
Gulf Minerals, on basis of gravity low over Rabbit Lake deposit, in follow
up of radioactive boulder train
 G i and DC R i i i l
Gravity d Resistivity lows id if areas of clay alteration
identify f l l i
associated with uranium mineralization. Mineralization is often on the
margins of the most intense lows, beside areas of most intense alteration

Exploration techniques
Resistivity section, 4700N

H -02 9
H S-047
U 0
18

H 022
H 054
U 4
U 0

U 1
U 2

U 3
H 9

H 58
H -04

24
H -04
H 2
H -04
1

H -0
-0

U 27
-0
-0

62
-0

65
-0
-
-

69

64
U

U
U
S

H -0
U
U

-0
H

-0

-0
H

-0
Lithologies

S
U

U

U
H
H

H

H
Pelitic gneiss
CARK
400 RL
50
50
m
Metaquartzite
m 50 m 50 m 50 50 m 50 50
50 m m 50 m 50 m m m
50 m
50 m 50 m 50 m 50 m
Arkosic quartzite

10
0
10
0
10
QZIT Calc-arkose
0

100 100 100 100
100 100 100 100 100 100 100
100 100 100 100 Alteration
15
0
15
0
15
0 Hematite
300 RL
150 150 150 150
150
150
150 150 150 150 150
Moderate clay
20 150 150 150
20 0 150
0

Mineralization
200 200 200 200
20 0
200 200 200
200
200 200
Hematite-pitchblende-
0.21 %
200 200 200 200
uranophane-clay
28.95m A zone 0.30 %
200 RL 5.65m 0.395 % Grade U3O8
11.56m
250 250

Core length (m)
250 250 250

0.09 % 250 250 250 250 250

Bz 15.2m A2 zo A3 250 250 250 250

on ne zo
e 0.14 % Drill holes
13 we 0.15 % 0.17 % ne 14.9m ARKQ

35
-0

0
st

m
HS 300
10.4m
300
13.7m
30 0 300 300

300 300 300
0.18 % UEX drill holes
300
8.5m
300

Bz 300 300 300
Historic Gulf drill holes
0.20 %
300

on

5
0.12
0 12 % 0.23 %

04
e

S-
ea 11.0m

H
100 RL 13.9m 15.0m
35 0
0.10 % st
350
15.4m
350 350 350
350

350 350 350 350

400

0 50 100 C zo 400 400 400

ne
Meters
0 RL
Horseshoe Deposit
0.61%
17.65m Section 4700N
4700 E

4800 E

4900 E

5000 E

5100 E
450

Looking Northeast
450

 Resistivity inversion successfully modeled alteration, and patterns are
locally independent of lithology
 Resistivity also showed significant down dip potential of mineralization
beyond the limits of Gulf drilling

Uranium mineralization Horseshoe and Raven deposits

Mineralization
and alteration cut
obliquely across
the folded
metamorphic
sequence and
preferentially
occur in arkosic
quartzite

Horseshoe mineralization style
Pitchblende main U mineral, occurring in common mineralization styles:
 “Nodular” and veinlet, blebby pitchblende in red-brown hematite-clay
alteration. M b b d d and may cut across f li ti with shallow di
lt ti May be banded, d t foliation ith h ll dips
 Disseminated pitchblende in competent arkosic quartzite with hematite-
illite and/or green chlorite alteration (most of eastern Horseshoe deposit)
Paragenetically late U-silicates (boltwoodite, uranophane, and locally
coffinite) overprint pitchblende, overgrowing or crosscutting as veinlets

“Nodular” style Disseminated style

Horseshoe mineralogy

 Dominant pitchblende texture is
“woven intergrowth” – intergrown
with hematite, chlorite and clays
(i.e. synchronous)
 Massive clots and fractures in
quartz also common in both
nodular and disseminated styles

 Mineralization has low As (<100 ppm), Mo (<20 ppm), Se (<2 ppm), Co
(<100 ppm), Ni (<100 ppm), V (<150 ppm) in >0.2% U3O8 samples =
“clean” mineralization no deleterious elements typical of basement
clean mineralization, elements,
unconformity-type uranium signature such as Eagle Point
 Metallurgically simple –composite test samples by Melis Engineering Ltd.
on three HQ diameter metallurgical drill holes from both deposits show
98% uranium leach extraction under relatively mild atmospheric conditions.

HU-16 high grade intercept = 12.35 m @ 4.53% U3O8
2.29 % 0.95 %

22.17 %

8.14 %

Nodular pitchblende Pitchblende in Late yellow boltwoodite-
rimmed by boltwoodite hematite-clay uranophane

Nodular/veinlet style, Horseshoe A zone
2.29 %

Mineralization comprising hematite-
p
pitchblende bands which cross cut
gneissosity at high angle: shallow dipping
morphology to zones.
Examples from HU-28 (191 8-193 4 m =
(191.8-193.4
2.55% U3O8 over 1.6 m)

Horseshoe disseminated
mineralization textures, B east zone
,

Hole HU-063: Interval shown is 348-357 m, typical of broad low grade
m
interval of 60.90 m grading 0.18 % U3O8 from 322.40-383.3 m. Note
competent nature of host rocks in zone.

Horseshoe Section 4640N Horseshoe and Raven deposits


Horseshoe
Section
4724N

- Zones may be
localized around a
l li d d
pre-mineral fault
zone

- Shallow dipping
mineralized zones
may be extensional
and f
d formed i
d in
response to late
reverse faulting


Mineralogy calculated
from multielement
geochem.

Alteration-geochem zoning
(S. Halley, 2008)
 Normative mineralogical assemblages
show illite core with surrounding chlorite-
dominant fringe
 Terraspec patterns show Mg-rich
Chlorite 2250nm
chlorites i mineralization and alteration;
hl i in i li i d l i wavelength ranges =
Mg-rich chlorites
raw Mg-geochemistry shows same proximal to
pattern cutting lithologic sequence mineralization, 4640N.

Horseshoe Horseshoe and Raven deposits
wireframe
models

 Mineralization plunges
to east-northeast
 Eastern margin of
g Horseshoe wireframe
o ses oe e a e
orebody is parallel and view NNE with drill
adjacent to the Dragon holes shown
Lake Fault. Alteration
in the orebody is
contiguous with
intense alteration that
extends to >600 m
t d t 600
depth along the fault.

Horseshoe wireframe
view SSE from above


Raven
R
Raven
wireframe View southwest
from Horseshoe
models Horseshoe
towards Raven with
drill hole traces

Raven Raven
view ENE view NNE

 Horizontal zone: no plunge. Basal planar (L) zone (in red) dips southeast,
with shallower dipping zones above reaching to 60 m from surface

Raven mineralization Horseshoe and Raven deposits

Mineralization discordant to foliation
in drill hole RU-118 from interval at
RU 118,
118.2 m grading 0.63% (in interval =
19.8 m @0.517% U3O8) RU-026 mineralization, 118-124 m.
Concordant mineralization style in
interval of 2.98% U3O8 / 5.2 m)

RU-095
mineralization,
148 149 m.
148-149 m From
interval 0.38% RU-002 , 106.5 m, 0.4 m at 2.13% U3O8
U3O8 over 37.3 m

Raven Horseshoe and Raven deposits
section
5445E

 Like Horseshoe,
mineralization
surrounds a clay
alteration zone
 Lithologies thinner:
mineralization 0
5
4 L
R

U
R
B
8
0
L
-

6

U
R
4
3
0
-

U
R
2
0
L
-

U
R
B
6
1
L
4
0
-

2
7
0
9
6
m
0
5

L

B
0
L
-
0
4 L
R m
0
5 0
5 5
m

m
0
5
m
0
m
0
5 m
0
5 m
0
5

0
5
3 L
R 0
1 0
1

0
1
0
1
0
1 0
1

0
0
1
0
1

extends to

5
1

0
0
5
1

0
5
1
0 0

0
3

0
2
L
R

0
0
2
0
5
1

m
.
2
9
1
0
5
1 0
5
1 0
5
1
0
5
1

0
5
2 m1
.2
6
3
25
8
L
R
m
1 m
1
.
0
2 0
2 0
2 0
2
0
2

m
9
3
2 0
5
m
.
8
1
2

0
2 L
R m
7
.
4
9
2 0
5
2 0
5
2

0
5
1 L
R 0
3 0 0
3

m
1
3

s a o e depths
shallower dept s
than Horseshoe into
calc-arkose
 Upper, thick p
pp , parts of
orebody within 100
m of surface may
be amenable to
open pit mining.

Raven section 5630E Horseshoe and Raven deposits

0
5
4 L
R

U
R
B
8
0
L
-

6

U
R
4
3
0
-

U
R
2
0
L
-

U
R
B
6
1
L
4
0
-

2
7
0
9
6
m
0
5

L

B
0
L
-
0
4 L
R m
0
5 0
5 m
5 m
0
5 m
0
5 m
0
5

0
5
3 L
R 0
1 0
1 0
1 1
0 0
1

5
1 0
5
1 0
5
1 0 0

0
3 L
R
0
2 0
5
1
0
5
1
2 0
5
1
m
.
2
9 0
5
1 0
5
1
0
5
1

0
5
2 5
8
1
L
R
m
1
2
.
6
3 m
1
.2
0 0
2 0
2
2 0
2
0
2

m
9
3
2 0
5
2
m
.
8
1

0
2 L
R m
7
.
4
9
2 0
5
2 0
5
2

0
5
1 L
R 0
3 0 0
3

m
1
3

 Mineralization locally exploits lithologies and lithologic contacts
above a steep SE dipping basal zone and alteration

Conclusions
 UEX successfully upgraded and expanded resources in the
Horseshoe and Raven deposits, increasing the deposit footprint
and establishing continuity of mineralization
 The deposits are remarkable for their great extent into basement
rocks, but with no association with graphitic faults. Geophysical
target is alteration – not graphite. Si il iti t Kiggavik?
t t i lt ti t hit Similarities to Ki ik?
 Basement – basin fluid mixing and redox reaction along Dragon
Lake and pre-mineralization hosting fault zones, and reaction with
p g
reduced wallrocks may have contributed to mineralization formation
 “Basement” signature geochemistry of mineralization: favorable
metallurgy without deleterious elements, similar mineralogy to
elements
Eagle Point
 Occurrence of mineralization in competent hematite alteration
within basement wallrocks allows good geotechnical conditions for
open pit and ramp access underground mining (i.e. no ground
freezing)


Advancing the Horseshoe and Raven deposits
g p

 In anticipation of feasibility, initial metallurgical, g
p y g geotechnical and
environmental baseline studies have been undertaken
 High proportion of resources already in indicated category
 Scoping study underway examining mining methods and options
underway,
for both deposits, including possible future use of any open pit
developed at Raven or Horseshoe as a regional tailings facility for
other deposits in the area
 Area of excellent existing mining and milling infrastructure:
Potential for toll milling at Rabbit or McClean Lake is being
assessed.
 Additional targets in local area will be tested in 2011 which could
e pa d oca esou ce
expand local resource base

Basement-Hosted Uranium Deposits at Horseshoe and Raven

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Mehr von Adnet Communications

Mehr von Adnet Communications (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Basement-Hosted Uranium Deposits at Horseshoe and Raven