DEEP YELLOW BOARD OF DIRECTORS | |
Mr Tim Netscher Mr Greg Cochran | Chairman (Non-executive) Managing Director |
Mr Rudolf Brunovs | Non-executive Director |
Mr Mervyn Greene Ms Gillian Swaby | Non-executive Director Non-executive Director |
Mr Christophe Urtel | Non-executive Director |
CORPORATE DIRECTORY
Level 4
502 Hay Street
Subiaco Western Australia 6008 Telephone: + 61 8 9286 6999
Facsimile: + 61 8 9286 6969 Email: info@deepyellow.com.au
COMPANY SECRETARY POSTAL ADDRESS
Mr Mark Pitts PO Box 1770
Subiaco Western Australia 6904
STOCK EXCHANGE LISTINGS | ||
Australian Securities Exchange | (ASX) | Code: DYL |
Namibian Stock Exchange | (NSX) | Code: DYL |
AUDITOR |
Ernst & Young |
11 Mounts Bay Road Perth Western Australia 6000 |
SHARE REGISTRY |
Computershare Investor Services Pty Limited |
Level 11 172 St George's Terrace Perth Western Australia 6000 |
Telephone: 1300 787 272 Facsimile: +61 8 9323 2033 |
WEBSITE ADDRESS
www.deepyellow.com.au
AUSTRALIAN BUSINESS NUMBER |
97 006 391 948 |
CONTENTS |
Summary Information 1 |
Highlights of the 2015 Financial Year 1 |
Chairman's Letter 3 |
Review of Operations |
Project description and review 4 |
Mineral Resource Statements 9 |
Corporate Governance Statement 11 |
Directors' Report 12 |
Remuneration Report 16 |
Auditor's Independence Declaration 25 |
Financial Statements 26 |
Notes to the Financial Statements 30 |
Directors' Declaration 52 |
Independent Audit Report 53 |
ASX Additional Information 55 |
Deep Yellow Ltd ('DYL' or the 'Company') is an advanced stage uranium exploration and aspiring development company. The Company's focus is in Namibia, where exploration is conducted by its wholly-owned subsidiary Reptile Uranium Namibia (Pty) Ltd ('RUN').
Namibia is a top-ranked mining destination in Africa with a long history of safely and effectively regulating uranium mining. It hosts two large operating uranium mines, one major development project and a number of well-advanced projects.
The Company holds 100% of two Exclusive Prospecting Licences ('EPLs') via RUN and is also the major shareholder and operator of two separate joint ventures that each hold a further two EPLs. The Company's most advanced projects, being Omahola, the Tubas Sands and the Tubas-Tumas Palaeochannels are all located on RUN's wholly-owned EPLs.
DYL's strategy is to successfully make the transition from advanced uranium explorer to developer and producer by single-mindedly focussing on advancing its Namibian projects.
An exploration program, which consisted of infill drilling and interpretation as well as sophisticated geophysical modelling using existing airborne EM survey data, was successfully concluded during the financial year, significantly enhancing the prospectivity potential of the palaeochannels.
The infill drill program demonstrated that the palaeochannels are continuously mineralised with minimal internal dilution and grades in line with prior results whilst geophysical modelling of the depth to basement demonstrated that the lateral extent and depth of the palaeochannels far exceeded previous interpretations.
The combination of the two sets of results together with other studies conducted during the year enabled DYL to infer the potential for a much larger mineralisation envelope contained within these extensive and deep interpreted palaeochannels.
OMAHOLA PROJECTFollowing on from a successful in-house preliminary economic analysis which was completed in 2014 independent consultants were appointed to review the work and provide value engineering input into the analysis.
The final results of this work have not been released however indications are that they will support the conclusions reached in the internal study and that there is scope to reduce cost estimates and enhance the mining schedule of the envisaged heap leach project.
Withthe current resource base the project has the potential to produce between 2.5 Mlbs/a U3O8 upto 3.5 Mlbs/a U3O8 Mlbs/aover a 10 - 14 year mine life with operating costs below USD50/lb U3O8.
TUBAS SAND PROJECTAs a result of the previous year's successful techno-economic trade-off study which confirmed the likely economics of the project under various operating scenarios approaches were made to existing and future Namibian uranium producers to test interest in the offtake concept.
Understandably, under the current market circumstances none of these potential offtakers was willing to commit at this stage although interest undoubtedly remains for the future as the concept of satellite supply to fully utilise existing plant infrastructure is well understood.
An infill, extension and expansion drilling program has been designed and can be launched cost effectively at short notice should there be renewed interest in the offtake.
PROSPECTIVTY ANALYSIS AND TARGET GENERATIONMost of the targets identified in the 2013 Prospectivity Analysis had been reviewed by the end of the financial year by ground geological mapping, with varying results.
Some targets require further investigation which will be conducted in the new year whilst one target, which was the subject of a small reconnaissance drill program, unfortunately proved to be unmineralised.
The geophysical interpretation of the palaeochannels across EPLs 3496 and 3497 also identified additional bed rock targets which will be followed up together with the remaining targets. It is believed that some of these targets would benefit from the application of Induced Polarisation geophysical survey techniques and interpretation prior to additional mapping, trenching and ultimately drilling.
Figure 1: Locality map showing DYL's interests in Namibia as well as uranium mines and projects held by other companies in the region
CHAIRMAN'S LETTERDear shareholders,
Unfortunately, FY 2015 turned out to be another frustrating year for the uranium industry. While there has been a modest uplift in the uranium price, it remains stubbornly well below the level required to incentivise meaningful investment in exploration and the development of new mines. However, encouragingly, the promising signs that were visible at the start of the year are all still very much in evidence, meaning that the fundamentals for a sustained upturn in the uranium price are still intact but have effectively been further postponed.
The major disappointment in the uranium market last year was the much slower than anticipated restart of the idled Japanese reactors. At the time of writing, unit 1 of the Sendai nuclear power plant has been restarted and unit 2 is expected to follow within a couple of months, whilst twenty more reactors are undergoing the restart process.
That said, there are some 66 new reactors currently under construction around the world, representing about 15% of the current number of operational reactors. This translates into an estimated increase in uranium demand of over 20% of current total uranium supply (including secondary supply) or over 25% of current mine supply in the next 5-6 years. There are not many commodities today which are expected to experience this sort of demand growth. These new reactors are spread across a number of countries, including China, South Korea, India and Russia.
In addition to the 66 reactors currently being built, representing firm additional uranium demand, more than 400 reactors are either planned or proposed to be built around the world. Even if only a quarter of these are actually built, that would add a further 20% to the total number of operational reactors. This would increase uranium demand by a further 25 - 30% in the following 5-10 years.
There is little doubt that at least a quarter of these additional reactors will be built - a fact easily supported by the statistics quoted in my chairman's letter in last year's annual report addressing the power requirements associated with the rising living standards of the developing world population, particularly in China. You may recall that I stated that an additional 1,250 GW of electric power generating capacity will need to be built in China over the next 20 years and if only 20% of this is nuclear power, this will account for all of the reactors currently under construction in China plus more than a quarter of those currently planned or proposed worldwide.
A trend that has intensified during the past year is the pressure building in most countries to reduce reliance on fossil fuels. This is likely to mean that nuclear power's share of future generating capacity is likely to be higher than current estimates, rather than lower. So, for example, nuclear energy may actually account for more than 20% of the estimated additional 1,250 GW Chinese generating capacity required over the next 20 years. All this continues to point to a positive future for uranium demand.
On the supply side, the past year saw a net reduction in supply, with production falls being recorded in Canada, Australia, Niger, Namibia and Russia amongst others and increases being recorded only in Kazakhstan, the USA and Ukraine. This resulted in a net decrease in output of almost 6 million pounds per annum from calendar years 2013 to 2014 for a total world uranium mine production of about 140 Mlbs p.a. (about 180 Mlbs p.a. including secondary supply). In addition, without any price incentive, aside from a handful of known new mines under construction (most of which are experiencing significant delays), only limited work is being done in progressing new greenfields projects.
Because of the significant permitting and other special requirements associated with bringing new uranium projects on stream, this means that there is likely to be a significant time lag in a supply-side response to a uranium price rise.
The combination of the demand and supply side circumstances described above unequivocally points to a positive outlook for the uranium price. In fact, it has been some years since so many factors have aligned so uniformly and so positively for a sustained increase in the uranium price. As before, the question is: 'When?'
In today's uncertain world, it is of course difficult to predict the exact timing of a sustained rise in the uranium price and there is little profit for a small company like ours in spending too much time on such predictions. Instead, we remain focussed on ensuring that (a) we will be here when the expected price turnaround occurs and (b) we will be well positioned to take advantage of it when it comes. Accordingly, as before, our strategy continues to be:
Overhead expenditure minimisation, thereby maximising our 'bang for the buck'; and
Protecting our valuable Namibian tenements and ensuring that they remain in good standing.
In conclusion, I would like to thank my fellow board members and our small band of loyal and highly competent employees for their innovative and hard-working approach to steering your company through another difficult year. I am grateful for their persistence and focus on delivering results in a tough environment.
Yours sincerely,
Tim Netscher
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS AND REVIEW
TUBAS-TUMAS PALAEOCHANNEL PROJECTThe Tubas-Tumas Palaeochannels, which straddle EPLs 3496 and 3497 (see Figure 1), contain secondary uranium mineralisation (carnotite) hosted in some areas by shallow fluviatile sheetwash sands and gravels and in other areas, more deeply incised channels.
The shallow resources will likely be free digging with some drill and blast sections, allowing for relatively low cost mining. If the ore can be effectively upgraded it could be used as satellite feed to an existing alkali leach processing plant (such as the nearby Langer Heinrich uranium mine).
REVIEW (ASX Release 16 July 2015)Infill Drilling Program
During the year a 1,450m, 90-hole close-spaced infill drill program was conducted in the Tumas Zone 1 area (see Figure 2). The program confirmed a continuously mineralised front over 160 metres (north-south) and 50 metres wide (east-west), consistent with previous wider spaced drilling results.
Grades obtained by downhole gamma logging and validated by ICP-MS assay were a good match in tenor with historical results and confirmed the existing mineral resource model. Mineralisation was found to be confined to the channel sediments with limited amounts of internal dilution. If a project is developed on the palaeochannels then these factors could make mining simpler and processing relatively straight forward.
The base of the palaeochannel was confirmed to be gently undulating and appeared to have no influence on the mineralisation, uranium grade or thickness.
As a part of the overall assessment an internal study predicted the calcrete-hosted tonnes uranium per lineal kilometre that might be present along the Tumas drainage channel (and by extrapolation potentially the Tubas channel as well). Predictionsranged between 1.8 and 3Mlbs U3O8 perkilometre although these figures should be discounted by 50% in recognition of the relatively low level of definition of the palaeochannel system. Mineralisation grade, consistency and thickness assumptions were made by interpolating historical drilling. The latest drilling results provided evidence to support the prediction and assumptions, albeit over a limited area.
Figure 2: Tumas Palaeochannel on EPLs 3496 and 3497 showing location of Infill Drilling Area
Figure 3: Map showing LEI conductance image with additional interpretation of the palaeochannel system across EPLs 3496 and 3497
Figure 4: Map showing interpretation of depth to basement of the palaeochannel system across EPL 3496.
Note: The red dots show historical holes drilled deeper than 50m
Resource Potentials Geophysical Interpretation - Palaeochannel Interpretation
In 2008 an extensive AeroTEM helicopter electromagnetic survey was flown for RUN covering EPL3496 and EPL3497. A total of 4,107 survey line km were flown at a broad 500m line spacing.
Resource Potentials was commissioned to convert the AeroTEM EM time channel data to conductivity-depth values and then run an auto-picking processing routine on the conductivity-depth data to determine the thickness of conductive cover above fresh bedrock 'basement', and produce a set of georeferenced data products.
Layered Earth Inversion ('LEI') software was used to process the AeroTEM dataset to generate conductivity-depth values for all flight lines. A suite of georeferenced images was created, together with a range of data products encapsulating the LEI and auto depth-picking results; such as grid surfaces and images of the fresh rock depth, conductivity depth slices and other processed EM data.
To test the reliability of the outcome information giving depth to fresh bedrock from drilling was gridded and imaged for selected prospect areas and then compared against the LEI results. In general, the calculated conductive cover thickness broadly agreed with the palaeochannel thickness determined from drilling. Whilst these results are encouraging it is acknowledged that the images and resulting contours of the calculated conductive cover thickness model may only broadly represent the palaeochannels because of the broad line spacing of the original EM survey.
The Palaeochannel depth map can in future be used to interpret the uranium potential of undrilled areas and assist with drill planning for new targets.
The most encouraging result of this interpretation is the confirmation of the lateral extent and potential depth of the palaeochannel system across RUN's two EPLs. As can be seen in Figures 3 and 4 the palaeochannel system is well over 100 kilometres in extent and in places reaches depths of 130 metres.
Exploration Results Competent Persons' Statement
The information in this report that relates to the Tumas Zone 1 Infill Drilling Exploration Results is based on and fairly represents information and supporting documentation prepared or reviewed by Mr Geoffrey Gee, a Competent Person who is a Member of the Australasian Institute of Geoscientists. Mr Gee, who is employed as a contract Exploration Geologist with Deep Yellow Limited, has sufficient experience which is relevant to the styles of mineralisation and types of deposit under consideration and to the activity which he is undertaking, to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the 2012 Edition of the 'Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves'. Mr Gee consents to the inclusion in the report of the matters based on the information in the form and context in which it appears.
The information in this report that relates to previous Exploration Results for the Tubas Calcrete and Tumas Mineral Resources is based on information compiled by Dr Katrin Kärner who is a Member of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (MAusIMM CP(Geo)). Dr Katrin Kärner, who was the Exploration Manager for Reptile Uranium Namibia (Pty) Ltd during 2013, has sufficient experience which is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity which she is undertaking, to qualify as a Competent Person in terms of the 'Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves' (JORC Code 2004 Edition). Dr Katrin Kärner consents to the inclusion in the report of the matters based on her information in the form and context in which it appears.
The information in this report that relates to the Tubas Calcrete Mineral Resource is based on information compiled by Mr Willem
H. Kotzé Pr.Sci.Nat MSAIMM. Mr Kotzé is a Member and Professional Geoscientist Consultant of Geomine Consulting Namibia CC. Mr Kotzé has sufficient experience which is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity which he is undertaking to qualify as a Competent Person in terms of the 'Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves' (JORC Code 2004 Edition). Mr Kotzé consents to the inclusion in this release of the matters based on his information in the form and context in which it appears.
The information in this report that relates to the Tumas Mineral Resources is based on work completed by Mr Jonathon Abbott who is a full time employee of MPR Geological Consultants Pty Ltd and a Member of the Australian Institute of Geoscientists. Mr Abbott has sufficient experience which is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity which he is undertaking, to qualify a Competent Person in terms of the 'Australasian Code for Reporting of
Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves' (JORC Code 2004 Edition') and as a Qualified Person as defined in the AIM Rules. Mr Abbott consents to the inclusion in the report of the matters based on his information in the form and context in which it appears.
The information relating to Tubas-Tumas Mineral Resource Estimates was prepared and first disclosed under the JORC Code 2004. These have not been updated since to comply with the JORC Code 2012 on the basis that the information has not materially changed since it was last reported.
Geophysical Results: Resource Potentials
The information in this report that relates to Geophysical Results and Interpretation is based on information compiled by Dr Jayson Meyers who is a Fellow of the Australian Institute of Geoscientists. Dr Meyers is a full time employee of Resource
Potentials Pty Ltd. Dr Meyers has sufficient experience which is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity which he is undertaking to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the 2012 Edition of the 'Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves'. Dr Meyers consents to the inclusion in the report of the matters based on his information in the form and context in which it appears.
OMAHOLA PROJECTThe Omahola Project is the Company's flagship project which consists of three relatively shallow open pitable hard rock deposits - the Ongolo and MS7 Alaskite deposits and the INCA deposit (Figure 5).
Omahola's current JORC (2004) Compliant Measured, Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resource is 48.7 Mt at 420 ppm U3O8 for 45.1 Mlbs U3O8 at a 250 ppm cut-off. However, the relatively high cut-off grade of 250 ppm was the historical approach to ensure an average project grade above 400 ppm which was believed to be the grade required for an economically attractive, shallow open pit acid tank leach uranium mining project. Subsequent analysis has demonstrated that this is not the case.
As reported last year an internally conducted preliminary economic exercise confirmed that an acid heap leach development strategy would be more economically attractive than a tank leach. Those results were reinforced by independent consultants who were engaged in the 2015 financial year to review and enhance the previous year's work. The work by the consultants was due to be announced just after year-end. It should be noted that extensive metallurgical testwork will be required in future to ensure technical feasibility of this concept.
Figure 5: Omahola Project - Resource Outlines and Drilling - Ongolo - MS7 - INCA Area
Omahola Project Competent Persons' Statements
Exploration Results and Mineral Resource Statement (JORC 2004)
The information in this report that relates to Exploration Results for the Ongolo, MS7 and INCA deposits is based on information compiled by Dr Katrin Kärner who is a Member of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (MAusIMM CP(Geo)). Dr Kärner, who was the Exploration Manager for Reptile Uranium Namibia (Pty) Ltd, has sufficient experience which is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity which she is undertaking, to qualify as a Competent Person in terms of the 'Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves' (JORC Code 2004 Edition). Dr Kärner consents to the inclusion in the report of the matters based on her information in the form and context in which it appears.
The information in this report that relates to the Ongolo and MS7 Mineral Resources is based on information compiled by Malcolm Titley of CSA Global UK Ltd. Malcolm Titley takes overall responsibility for the Report. He is a Member of the Australasian Institute of Geoscientists ('AIG') and the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy ('AusIMM') and has sufficient experience, which is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration, and to the activity he is undertaking, to qualify as a Competent Person in terms of the 'Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves' (JORC Code 2004 Edition).
Malcolm Titley consents to the inclusion of such information in this Report in the form and context in which it appears.
The information in this report that relates to the INCA Mineral Resource Estimates is based on information compiled by Neil Inwood who is a Fellow of the AUSIMM. Mr Inwood was employed by Coffey Mining as a consultant to the Company at the time of the resource estimates and public release of results. As Mr Inwood is no longer employed by Coffey Mining, Coffey Mining has reviewed this report and consents to the inclusion, form and context of the relevant information herein as derived from the original resource reports for which Mr Inwood's consents have previously been given. Mr Inwood has sufficient experience relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity which is being undertaken to qualify as a Competent Person in terms of the 'Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves' (JORC Code 2004 Edition).
The information in this report relating to the Omahola Project Exploration Results and Mineral Resource Estimates was prepared and first disclosed under the JORC Code 2004 and has not been updated since to comply with the JORC Code 2012 on the basis that the information has not materially changed since it was last reported.
TUBAS SAND PROJECTThe Tubas Sand Project consists primarily of a low grade secondary uranium mineralisation deposit (carnotite) hosted in well-sorted aeolian (windblown) sand within the Tubas palaeochannel. The mineralisation is classified as 'free-dig' and the ore is amenable to upgrading via physical beneficiation. Pilot plant testwork in 2011 demonstrated that the deposit could readily be physically beneficiated in a relatively low cost process to produce a uranium rich sand concentrate amenable to alkali or acid leach processing.
Deep Yellow has long pursued a dual development strategy for this project - one being to produce an intermediate product which could be sold to an existing Namibian uranium producer whilst the other is to ultimately supply the Company's own Omahola Project. The strategies are not mutually exclusive.
Tubas Sand Project Competent Persons' Statement Mineral Resource Update - JORC 2012
Where the Company refers to the Tubas Sand Project resource upgrade in this report (referencing the release made to the ASX on 24 March 2014 entitled 'Tubas Sand Project - Resource update'), it confirms that it is not aware of any new information or data that
materially affects the information included in that announcement and all material assumptions and technical parameters underpinning the
resource estimate with that announcement continue to apply and have not materially changed.
Trade-Off Study
Where the Company refers to the Tubas Sand Project preliminary techno-economic assessment and risk analysis study in this report it references an ASX release dated 8 May 2014 entitled 'Tubas Sand Project Trade-Off Study' which was based on metallurgical information reviewed by Mr Val Coetzee (B.Eng (Chem), M.Eng, Pr.Eng, SAIMM). Mr Coetzee is a full time employee of DRA Global, a Consulting Engineering Group. Mr Coetzee is a Professional Engineer registered with the Engineering Council of South Africa and has more than
13 years of relevant experience in this area of work. Mr Coetzee consents to the inclusion in this presentation of the matters based on information provided by him and in the form and context in which it appears.
Where the Company refers to the Tubas Sand Project preliminary techno-economic assessment and risk analysis study in this report (referencing a release made to the ASX dated 8 May 2014 entitled 'Tubas Sand Project Trade-Off Study'), it confirms that it is not aware of any new information or data that materially affects the information included in that announcement and all material assumptions and technical parameters underpinning that analysis continue to apply and have not materially changed.
Forward Looking Statements
Certain statements made in this report, including, without limitation, those concerning the preliminary economic analysis of the Omahola Project and the techno-economic assessment and risk analysis of the Tubas Sand Project, as well as the results from the exploration work conducted on the Tubas-Tumas Palaeochannel Project contain or comprise certain forward-looking statements regarding DYL's exploration operations, economic performance and financial condition. Although DYL believes that the expectations reflected in such forward-looking statements are reasonable, no assurance can be given that such expectations will prove to have been correct. Accordingly, results could differ materially from those set out in the forward-looking statements as a result of, among other factors, changes in economic and market conditions, success of business and operating initiatives, changes in the regulatory environment and other government actions, fluctuations in metals prices and exchange rates and business and operational risk management. DYL undertakes no obligation to update publicly or release any revisions to these forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances after today's date or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events.
The Company notes that an inferred resource has a lower level of confidence than an indicated or measured resource. The Company believes that based on the geological nature of its deposits and the work done over several years by its geological team and its Competent Person that there is a high degree of probability that the inferred resources will upgrade to indicated resources with further exploration work.
Annual Mineral Resources Statements as at 30 June 2015 Namibia (On a 100% basis)Deposit Category
Cut-off (ppm U3O8)
Tonnes (M)
U3O8
(ppm)
U3O8
(t)
U3O8
(Mlb)
Omahola Project - JORC 2004
INCA Deposit
Indicated
250
7.0
470
3,300
7.2
INCA Deposit
Inferred
250
5.4
520
2,800
6.2
Ongolo Deposit #
Measured
250
7.7
395
3,000
6.7
Ongolo Deposit #
Indicated
250
9.5
372
3,500
7.8
Ongolo Deposit #
Inferred
250
12.4
387
4,800
10.6
MS7 Deposit #
Measured
250
4.4
441
2,000
4.3
MS7 Deposit #
Indicated
250
1.0
433
400
1.0
MS7 Deposit #
Inferred
250
1.3
449
600
1.3
Omahola Project Total
48.7
419
20,400
45.1
Tubas Sand Project - JORC 2012
Tubas Sand Deposit #
Indicated
100
10.0
187
1,900
4.1
Tubas Sand Deposit #
Inferred
100
24.0
163
3,900
8.6
Tubas Sand Project Total
34.0
171
5,800
12.7
Tubas-Tumas Palaeochannel - JORC 2004
Tumas Deposit
Indicated
200
14.4
366
5,300
11.6
Tumas Deposit
Inferred
200
0.4
360
100
0.3
Tubas Calcrete Deposit
Inferred
100
7.4
374
2,800
6.1
Tubas-Tumas Palaeochannel Total
22.2
369
8,200
18.0
Aussinanis Project - JORC 2004
Aussinanis Deposit
Indicated
150
5.6
222
1,200
2.7
Aussinanis Deposit
Inferred
150
29.0
240
7,000
15.3
Aussinanis Project Total
34.6
237
8,200
18.0
TOTAL RESOURCES
139.5
305
42,600
93.8
Notes: Figures have been rounded and totals may reflect small rounding errors XRF chemical analysis unless annotated otherwise
eU3O8 - equivalent uranium grade as determined by downhole gamma logging
# Combined XRF Fusion Chemical Assays and eU3O8 values
Where eU3O8 values are reported it relates to values attained from radiometrically logging boreholes with Auslog equipment using an A675 slimline gamma ray tool. All probes are calibrated at the Pelindaba Calibration facility in South Africa in 2007 and sensitivity checks were conducted by periodic re-logging of a test hole to confirm operation between 2008 and 2013. During drilling, probes were checked daily against a standard source. Auslog probes were re-calibrated at the calibration pit located at Langer Heinrich Minesite in 2014 and 2015.
Review of material changes
There were no material changes to the respective resource bases of the Projects as shown in the Resource table above during the financial year.
Competent Person Statement
The information in this Annual Mineral Resource Statement is based on and fairly represents information and supporting documentation prepared or reviewed by Mr Martin Hirsch, a Competent Person who is a Member of the Institute of Materials, Mining and Metallurgy (IMMM) in the UK. Mr Hirsch, who is currently the Exploration Manager for Reptile Uranium Namibia (Pty) Ltd, has sufficient experience which is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity which he is undertaking, to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the 2004 Edition of the 'Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves' and the 2012 Edition of the 'Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves'. Mr Hirsch consents to the inclusion in the report of the matters based on the information in the form and context in which it appears.
AustraliaDeposit | Cut-off Category (ppm U3O8) | Tonnes (M) | U3O8 (ppm) | U3O8 (t) | U3O8 (Mlb) | |
Napperby Project (Northern Territory) - JORC 2004 | ||||||
Napperby | Inferred | 200 | 9.3 | 359 | 3,351 | 7.4 |
Napperby Total | 9.3 | 359 | 3,351 | 7.4 | ||
Mount Isa Project (Queensland) - JORC 2004 | ||||||
Mount Isa | Indicated | 300 | 1.2 | 492 | 590 | 1.3 |
Mount Isa | Inferred | 300 | 0.6 | 500 | 300 | 0.7 |
Mount Isa Total | 1.8 | 494 | 890 | 2.0 | ||
TOTAL RESOURCES | 11.1 | 382 | 4,241 | 9.4 | ||
Notes: Figures have been rounded and totals may reflect small rounding errors XRF chemical analysis unless annotated otherwise
Review of material changes
There have been no material changes to the Company's Australian resource base as shown in the Resource Table above during the past financial year.
Competent Person Statement
The information in this Annual Mineral Resource Statement is based on and fairly represents information and supporting documentation prepared or reviewed by Mr Geoffrey Gee, a Competent Person who is a Member of the Australasian Institute of Geoscientists. Mr Gee, who was previously employed as an Exploration Geologist with Deep Yellow, has sufficient experience which is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity which he is undertaking, to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the 2004 Edition of the 'Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves'. Mr Gee consents to the inclusion in the report of the matters based on the information in the form and context in which it appears.
Governance and Internal Controls
The Company maintains thorough QAQC protocols for conducting exploration, site practice, sampling, safety, monitoring and rehabilitation which are documented in the company's various standard operating procedure manuals (SOPs).
Drilling methods vary according to the nature of the prospect under evaluation. These can include auger, sonic, air core or reverse circulation drilling for unconsolidated formations; to reverse circulation (hammer) and diamond core drilling (HQ & NQ) for hard rock formations. Typically resource estimations are based on a mix of downhole radiometric sampling and chemical assaying. Assay samples are collected over one metre intervals. Radiometric data is acquired at 5 cm intervals and composited to one metre intervals. Where statistical validation confirms radiometric and chemical assay equivalence, the resource estimate is primarily based on the radiometric data.
All radiometric data is acquired digitally by in-house personnel trained to operate the Company's fleet of Auslog downhole probes. All probes were calibrated at the Pelindaba Calibration facility in South Africa in 2007 and sensitivity checks were conducted between 2008 and 2013 by periodic re-logging a Reptile Uranium Ltd test hole to confirm operation. For QAQC controls during drilling probes are checked daily against a standard source calibration sleeve. In 2014 and 2015 the probes were re-calibrated at a calibration pit located at the Langer Heinrich Uranium Mine. Assay samples are acquired by a three tier riffle splitter or cone splitter at the drill site. Duplicate samples are inserted at 1:20 frequency. Diamond core samples are assayed as quarter-core over one metre intervals. When required, anomalously radioactive samples are chemically assayed at external laboratories typically in South Africa or Namibia. QAQC is maintained by incorporating industry standard blanks, duplicates and external reference materials, and are statistically validated. External laboratories assay for uranium by either pressed powder XRF or fused bead XRF. Characterisation of radiometric equilibrium is periodically assessed by submission of samples to ANSTO Minerals Laboratory in Sydney, Australia.
Drill hole collars are DGPS-surveyed by in-house operators, after an initial pick-up by hand-held GPS. Downhole directional surveys are outsourced to independent contractors.
Drill hole sample logging captures a suite of lithologic, alteration, mineralogic and hand-held radiometric data, at one metre intervals. This data is captured as permanent hard copy prior to digital input onto an in-house GBIS database. The parallel collection of drill sample and wireline probe data enables error recognition in depth discrepancies and confirmation of sampling accuracy. Digital data validation is done in-house prior to confirmatory database validation by external resource consultants, commonly either Coffey Mining Pty Ltd, Perth or
CSA Global, Johannesburg.
Drill plans and sections generated from drilling and surface mapping are used to constrain wireframe mineralisation models; upon which resource estimations are made. Resource estimations for currently quoted prospects have been calculated by independent third party consultants; typically either Coffey Mining or CSA Global and have to date mostly been reported under JORC 2004 rules.
|
distributed by
|
