Post on 09-Apr-2018
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 17-1
17 MINERAL RESOURCE AND MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES GENERAL STATEMENT
Scott Wilson RPA updated the Mineral Resource estimate for the Matoush Project
using drill hole data available as of July 25, 2008. A set of cross-sections and plan views
were used to construct three-dimensional wireframe models at a cut-off grade of 0.05%
U3O8. High-grade values were cut to 9% U3O8 prior to compositing. Variogram
parameters were interpreted from two-metre composited values. Block U3O8 grades
within the wireframe models were estimated by ordinary kriging. The Mineral Resources
are contained within three zones: AM-15, MT-22 and MT-34. At a cut-off grade of
0.05% U3O8, Indicated Mineral Resources are estimated to total 250,000 tonnes grading
0.68% U3O8 containing 3.73 million pounds U3O8. Inferred Mineral Resources are
estimated to total 1.3 million tonnes grading 0.44% U3O8 containing 13.07 million
pounds U3O8. There are no Mineral Reserves estimated at Matoush.
RESOURCE DATABASE
Scott Wilson RPA received header, survey, assay, lithology and related data from
Strateco in Microsoft Access format. Data were amalgamated and parsed as required,
converted to ASCII, and imported into Gemcom Software International Inc. (Gemcom)
Resource Evaluation Version 6.13 for modelling. The Matoush Gemcom database
includes 277 diamond core holes. Of these, 217 holes representing 87,000 m of drilling
were used in the modelling process (Table 17-1). The other holes are located outside the
area of the deposit. The wireframe models representing the mineralized zones are
intersected by 117 drill holes.
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 17-2
TABLE 17-1 GEMCOM DATABASE RECORDS PRIMARY DATA Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Project
Table Name Number of Records
Hole-ID 217Survey 2,128U3O8 Values (chemical and gamma-logging) 23,506Geology 1,410Alteration General 1,711Hematite/Limonite Alteration 2,972Fuchsite/Chlorite/Muscovite Alteration 1,004Tourmaline Alteration 350Structure 8,610Radiometric 1,769
The resource modelling used U3O8 values from both chemical analysis and gamma
logging (Table 17-2). A total of 188 of the 217 drill holes contain 5,134 chemical assay
U3O8 values. Sample lengths range from 0.1 m to 5.0 m for a total length of 4,488 m.
The majority (~75%) of the chemical resource assay values range in length from 0.5 m to
1.5 m. The additional 24 holes contain 18,372 eU3O8 values calculated from gamma logs.
These range in “sample length” from 0.7 m to 1.4 m for a total of 13,404 m. Many of
gamma-log values are located outside the resource wireframe models.
TABLE 17-2 SOURCE OF U3O8 VALUES Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Project
Drill Hole Series Source of U3O8 Values
AM-01 to AM-23 Chemical analysis MT-06-01 to MT-08-35 Chemical analysis MT-08-43 Chemical analysis MT-08-36 Cameco probe MT-08-037 to MT-08-064 Strateco probe
Scott Wilson RPA ran several validation queries and routines in Excel, Access, and
Gemcom to identify data errors. Details of this process are described in Section 14 of this
report. Several problems were identified and corrected. Scott Wilson RPA also verified
a significant number of data records with original logs. No discrepancies were identified.
Drill hole AM-15, the discovery hole drilled by Uranerz, was excluded from the drill hole
database due to poor location data plus the fact it was drilled at a low angle to the
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 17-3
mineralized lens. In Scott Wilson RPA’s opinion, the Gemcom drill hole database is
valid and is suitable to estimate Mineral Resources at Matoush.
CUT-OFF GRADE
Development of the Matoush deposit would require an underground mining method,
given its depth below surface and geometry. Scott Wilson RPA assumes that part of the
deposit would be amenable to longhole methods while other parts would require narrow
vein mining. The following economic assumptions were used to calculate an economic
breakeven grade:
• U3O8 price: US$55/lb • Processing cost: US$20/t • Underground mining cost: US$55/t • General and Administrative cost: US$15/t • Power cost: US$10/t • U3O8 recovery: 98%
Cut-off grade = Operating Cost/(Metal Price x Recovery)
= $100/t/($55/lb x 98%) = 1.86 lb/t = 0.084% U3O8
Scott Wilson RPA used 60% of the fully costed cut-off grade to estimate a marginal
cut-off grade of 0.05% U3O8 for reporting of Mineral Resources. The material with grade
above the marginal cut-off grade, but below the fully costed cut-off grade, represents
mineralization that has a reasonable prospect of economic extraction assuming sunk
development costs and that this marginal material does not displace higher grade
mineralization in the mill feed. The marginal material is included largely for purposes of
maintaining resource continuity, and does not make up a large proportion of the total
Mineral Resource.
Upon development of the mine operating costs, it was found that the operating costs
were substantially higher than the $100/t used and closer to the $300/t level. With a
uranium market price of US$75/lb and using the same marginal cut-off criteria as above
would increase this marginal cut-off to about 0.10% U3O8. While the economics were run
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 17-4
on the 0.05% U3O8 cut-off, the effect of the higher cut-off grade was also evaluated and
is discussed in the economics section of the report.
GEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION AND 3D SOLIDS
Scott Wilson RPA created 120 north-northwest–south-southeast oriented vertical
sections spaced 10 m apart and 65 level plans extending from the 0 m to the 650 m
elevation. The sections and plans were used to make an on-screen interpretation of
wireframe models. Composite control intervals were identified for each drill hole using a
0.05% U3O8 cut-off and a 1.5 m minimum true thickness.
The 3D wireframe models were built using 3D wobbly polylines on each cross-
section. Several lower grade intersections were included to facilitate continuity. At
model extremities, polylines were extrapolated 5 m to 25 m beyond the last drill hole
section. Polylines were joined together in 3D using tie lines and the continuity was
checked using the longitudinal section and level-plan views. Three zones make up the
Mineral Resources at Matoush: AM-15, MT-22, and MT-34. Each of the zones is made
up of two or more lenses, all of which strike consistently to the north (~008º) and dip
steeply to the east (Table 17-3 and Figure 17-1).
TABLE 17-3 LENS DIMENSIONS AND DETAILS Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Project
Zone Lens Strike Dip Max. Strike Length
Max. Down
Dip Avg. True Thickness Volume
No. Holes Intersecting
Solid (deg.) (deg.) (m) (m) (m) (m3 x1,000)
AM-15 MZ 008 -85 140 80 6.0 44.0 17 AM-15 NZ 008 -90 80 80 2.2 8.7 8 AM-15 SZ 006 -83 110 70 3.5 16.0 16 AM-15 UZ 011 -90 45 40 2.3 3.8 3 MT-22 MT22a 007 -90 580 370 3.0 518.0 41 MT-22 MT22b 007 -85 78 65 3.6 13.8 2 MT-34 MT34a 007 -85 320 150 7.8 234.0 25 MT-34 MT34b 009 -80 130 160 2.7 54.2 5 Total 008 -85 1,010 560 4.4 892.0 117
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 17-5
The MT-22a lens is a large panel measuring 580 m by 370 m with excellent
geometric continuity. Good grade continuity is observed in two southward plunging
ribbons. These are separated by low-grade zones with a gradual decrease in grade. To
maintain continuity and preserve the grade distribution, lower grade holes were included
in the preliminary wireframe (i.e., soft boundary). The lower grade subzones were later
managed during the block modelling process (see ‘Classification’ section below) to
ensure mineable continuity of the Mineral Resource blocks. MT-34b also includes
several low-grade subzones that were managed during the block modelling process.
FIGURE 17-1 3D ISOMETRIC VIEW OF MATOUSH WIREFRAME MODELS (LOOKING WEST)
MT-34a
MT-22b
AM-15
MT-22a
MT-22a (low grade)
MT-34b
MT-34b (low grade)
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 17-6
U3O8 STATISTICS
Uranium values within the wireframes were tagged with domain identifiers and
exported for basic statistical analysis. The sample population includes the low-grade
values within lenses MT-22a and MT-34b. Results on a zone and lens basis are
summarized in Tables 17-4 and 17-5.
Descriptive statistics and examination of probability plots indicated positively skewed
data approaching a log-normal distribution. All zones and lenses have high coefficient of
variation (CV) values. This is especially true for MT-22a and MT-34b where CV values
are exasperated by the low-grade intercepts that have been included to maintain
continuity. MT34a and the MZ lenses appear to have the highest average grades.
TABLE 17-4 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF U3O8 VALUES BY ZONE Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Project
All Zones AM-15 MT-22 MT-34 Length U3O8 Length U3O8 Length U3O8 Length U3O8
No. of Cases 1,098 1,098 374 374 274 274 450 450 Minimum 0.10 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.10 0.00 Maximum 3.00 18.40 3.00 16.60 3.00 14.51 2.70 18.40 Median 0.69 0.18 0.60 0.18 0.70 0.09 0.69 0.30 Arithmetic Mean 0.70 0.87 0.68 0.81 0.76 0.60 0.68 1.09 Standard Deviation 0.29 1.94 0.32 1.68 0.29 1.58 0.26 2.30 Coefficient of Variation 0.42 2.23 0.47 2.08 0.38 2.62 0.38 2.10
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 17-7
TABLE 17-5 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF U3O8 VALUES BY LENS Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Project
MZ SZ NZ UZ Length U3O8 Length U3O8 Length U3O8 Length U3O8
No. of Cases 217 217 106 106 37 37 14 14 Minimum 0.25 0.000 0.20 0.001 0.300 0.001 0.400 0.003Maximum 2.40 16.600 3.00 7.050 2.200 3.110 1.000 1.050Median 0.60 0.204 0.60 0.186 0.600 0.080 0.750 0.071Arithmetic Mean 0.66 0.911 0.70 0.734 0.659 0.635 0.779 0.143Standard Deviation 0.29 1.968 0.357 1.268 0.372 0.956 0.208 0.271Coefficient of Variation 0.44 2.160 0.511 1.726 0.563 1.506 0.267 1.887
MT22a MT22b MT34a MT34b Length U3O8 Length U3O8 Length U3O8 Length U3O8
No. of Cases 260 260 14 14 421 421 29 29 Minimum 0.30 0.000 0.694 0.093 0.100 0.000 0.694 0.010Maximum 3.00 14.505 1.000 1.310 2.700 18.397 0.695 4.290Median 0.70 0.080 0.900 0.151 0.694 0.320 0.694 0.060Arithmetic Mean 0.76 0.616 0.855 0.357 0.677 1.145 0.694 0.340Standard Deviation 0.30 1.618 0.152 0.410 0.268 2.352 0.000 1.005Coefficient of Variation 0.39 2.625 0.178 1.149 0.396 2.054 0.001 2.959
CUTTING HIGH-GRADE VALUES
Where the assay distribution is positively skewed or approaches log-normal, erratic
high-grade values can have a disproportionate effect on the average grade of a deposit.
One method of treating these outliers in order to reduce their influence on the average
grade is to cut or cap them at a specific grade level. In the absence of production data to
calibrate the cutting level, inspection of the assay distribution can be used to estimate a
“first pass” cutting level.
Scott Wilson RPA’s interpretation of the frequency distributions of the resource
assays suggests cutting high-grade values to 9% U3O8 (Figure 17-2). Inspecting high-
grade values on vertical sections and level plans confirms that uranium values above this
level are spatially erratic and therefore cutting is appropriate. Scott Wilson RPA
recommends that the cutting level be reassessed as more data become available.
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 17-8
Cutting high-grade U3O8 values to 9% affects 15 values which represent 1.4% of the
resource records and reduces the average grade of the resource assays from 0.875% U3O8
to 0.818% U3O8, a 6% decrease (Table 17-6). In the MT-34a lens, where most of the cut
values are located, the standard deviation is reduced from 2.30 to 1.80 and the coefficient
of variation from 2.10 to 1.80.
FIGURE 17-2 HISTOGRAM OF RESOURCE ASSAY VALUES
0 5 10 15 20U3O8 %
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
Proportion per B
ar
0
50
100
150
200
Cou
nt
TABLE 17-6 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF CUT U3O8 ASSAY VALUESStrateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Project
All Lenses U3O8 (%)
AM-15 U3O8 (%)
MT-22 U3O8 (%)
MT-34 U3O8 (%)
Cutting Level 9% 9% 9% 9% Number of Values Cut 15 3 3 9 Percent of Values Cut 1.40% 0.8% 1.1% 2.0% No. of Cases 1,098 374 274 450 Minimum 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Maximum 9.000 9.000 9.000 9.000 Median 0.176 0.178 0.090 0.297 Arithmetic Mean 0.818 0.774 0.578 1.000 Standard Deviation 1.603 1.458 1.401 1.801 Coefficient of Variation 1.959 1.884 2.422 1.801
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 17-9
COMPOSITING
Sample length intervals within the wireframe models range from ten centimetres to
three metres, and average less than one metre (Table 17-4). Assays within the wireframe
models were composited to two-metre lengths starting at the first mineralized wireframe
boundary from the collar and resetting at each new lens wireframe boundary. Several
shorter composites occur at the bottom of the mineralized zone, immediately above where
the drill hole exits the wireframe. Partial composites less than 60 cm long were removed
from the dataset. Non-assayed intervals were treated as zero grade.
Tables 17-7 and 17-8 summarize statistics of the uncut and cut U3O8 composite
values. The decrease in average composite grade, when compared to raw assay grades, is
mainly due to a sample length bias whereby the geologist logging the core selects shorter
sample lengths for the higher grade intercepts, based on scintillometer response. After
compositing, the CV values are mostly below two.
TABLE 17-7 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF U3O8 COMPOSITE VALUES BY ZONE
Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Project
All Zones AM-15 MT-22 MT-34 Uncut Cut Uncut Cut Uncut Cut Uncut Cut
No. of Cases 428 428 141 141 121 121 166 166 Minimum 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.003 0.003 Maximum 11.018 8.065 3.979 3.622 8.431 8.065 11.018 7.813 Median 0.200 0.200 0.198 0.198 0.121 0.121 0.299 0.299 Arithmetic Mean 0.634 0.606 0.541 0.529 0.457 0.447 0.843 0.786 Standard Deviation 1.194 1.044 0.786 0.742 1.131 1.067 1.471 1.212 Coefficient of Variation 1.883 1.724 1.452 1.402 2.474 2.387 1.745 1.542
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 17-10
TABLE 17-8 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF U3O8 COMPOSITE VALUES BY LENS
Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Project
MZ SZ NZ UZ Uncut Cut Uncut Cut Uncut Cut Uncut Cut
No. of Cases 73 73 44 44 17 17 7 7 Minimum 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.009 0.009 Maximum 3.979 3.622 3.083 3.083 2.445 2.445 0.244 0.244 Median 0.215 0.215 0.208 0.208 0.124 0.124 0.079 0.079 Arithmetic Mean 0.628 0.605 0.511 0.511 0.427 0.427 0.097 0.097 Standard Deviation 0.915 0.843 0.636 0.636 0.639 0.639 0.086 0.086 Coefficient of Variation 1.456 1.393 1.244 1.244 1.499 1.499 0.884 0.884
MT22a MT22b MT34a MT34b Uncut Cut Uncut Cut Uncut Cut Uncut Cut
No. of Cases 116 116 5 5 157 157 9 9 Minimum 0.001 0.001 0.100 0.100 0.003 0.003 0.013 0.013 Maximum 8.431 8.065 0.744 0.744 11.018 7.813 2.779 2.779 Median 0.100 0.100 0.294 0.294 0.336 0.336 0.056 0.056 Arithmetic Mean 0.460 0.449 0.394 0.394 0.870 0.810 0.372 0.372 Standard Deviation 1.154 1.089 0.261 0.261 1.494 1.226 0.904 0.904 Coefficient of Variation 2.510 2.423 0.662 0.662 1.718 1.513 2.433 2.433
DENSITY
Scott Wilson RPA received and reviewed rock density and bulk density data collected
by Strateco technicians and Geoanalytical Laboratories of the Saskatchewan Research
Council (SRC), Saskatoon.
In August 2006, Strateco commissioned SRC to make 22 rock density measurements
on crushed drill core using a pycnometer. Results ranged from 2.58 g/cc to 2.82 g/cc and
averaged 2.63 g/cc. These results appear reasonable, however, since rock density does
not include porosity, it cannot be used as a tonnage factor to convert the estimated
volume of the Mineral Resource to tonnes.
Scott Wilson RPA received an Excel spreadsheet of 28 samples labelled “bulk dry
density”. These data appear to be made by SRC, but no official certificates were
produced. Results range from 2.57 g/cc to 3.32 g/cc and average 2.68 g/cc. Removing
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 17-11
the one outlier value of 3.32 labelled “massive” lowers the average value to 2.65 g/cc.
Removing seven samples labelled “semi-massive” lowers the average to 2.61 g/cc.
In June 2008, Strateco technicians began making bulk density measurements using
the water immersion method. As noted in Section 13, core is sealed in plastic wrap to
preserve pore space. Many of the measurements were made on split drill core. The
rough split surface would not permit a tight plastic seal and therefore introduce volume
and ultimately lead to a significant downward bias in the measured bulk density. Scott
Wilson RPA chose to only consider the 60 measurements made on full core. Bulk density
results for those 60 measurements range from 2.27 g/cc to 2.83 g/cc and average 2.52
g/cc. Rock density values for the same 60 samples range from 2.28 g/cc to 2.99 g/cc and
average 2.62 g/cc. The average density of the entire Strateco dataset, including bulk
density measurements made on split core range from 2.03 to 2.84 and average 2.46. Scott
Wilson RPA made several statistical analyses that confirmed that the results from the
split core are biased low.
Considering the methods used and available data verification documents, Scott
Wilson RPA used a global bulk density of 2.52 t/m3 to convert volume to tonnes. Scott
Wilson RPA strongly recommends that the on-going bulk density measurement program
be reviewed and improved. All measurements should be taken on full core. The density
of a “standard”, with similar physical properties to the Matoush mineralization, should be
measured daily. The use of paraffin wax to seal core should also be considered. Scott
Wilson RPA notes that the application of paraffin precludes the option of chemical
analysis.
VARIOGRAPHY AND KRIGING PARAMETERS
Sage 2001 software was used to prepare and interpret variograms from two-metre
composite U3O8 values located within the mineralized wireframes (Figures 25-1 to 25-3
in Appendix 2). The downhole variogram is well developed and indicates a relative
nugget effect of 20%. Long range directional variograms were focused in the plane of
mineralization. In general, the longest ranges were interpreted in the direction of plunge
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 17-12
(southward from -10° to -45°). Equations 1 through 4 list the variogram models
interpreted and applied during the ordinary kriging process.
Equation 1: g i = Co + C1 Sph R1 + C2 Sph R2
Where
g I = Gamma (variogram function) for orientation i (major, semi-major, minor). It is equivalent to the variance of the deposit in that orientation
Co = Nugget effect, calculated from the downhole variogram. Cn = Sill of the nth nested spherical model Rn = Range in metres of the nth nested spherical model
Equation 2: semi-major = 0.2 + 0.25 Sph 25 + 0.35 Sph 50
Equation 3: major = 0.2 + 0.35 Sph 25 + 0.30 Sph 60
Equation 4: minor = 0.2 + 0.8 Sph 5
Scott Wilson RPA used a search ellipsoid measuring 80 m by 40 m by 4 m oriented in
the overall average plane of mineralization. A minimum of one to a maximum of eight
composites were used to estimate the grade of each block. Other search strategy criteria,
unique to each lens, are outlined in Table 17-9.
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 17-13
TABLE 17-9 MATOUSH - SEARCH STRATEGY AND KRIGING PARAMETERS
Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Project
Main Lens South Lens Upper Lens North Lens Principal Azimuth 188 188 188 188 Principal Plunge -20 -20 -20 -20 Intermediate Azimuth 040 008 008 008 High-grade limit none none none none High-grade range 1 n/a n/a n/a n/a High-grade range 2 n/a n/a n/a n/a High-grade range 3 n/a n/a n/a n/a
MT-22a MT-22b MT-34a MT-34b Principal Azimuth 188 188 188 188 Principal Plunge -30 -20 -45 -20 Intermediate Azimuth 008 008 030 040 High-grade limit 5% none 5% none High-grade range 1 60 n/a 30 n/a High-grade range 2 30 n/a 15 n/a High-grade range 3 6 n/a 6 n/a
BLOCK MODEL SET-UP
The rotated (-8º) Gemcom block model is made up of 65 columns, 115 rows, and 65
levels for a total of 485,875 blocks. The model origin is at UTM coordinates 699,104 mE
5,760,154 mN and 653 m elevation. Each block is 10 m by 10 m by 3 m in size and
contains the following information:
• Estimated cut and uncut U3O8 grades related to mineralized blocks inside the mineralization wireframes (Figures 17-3 to 17-6).
• The percentage volume of each block within the mineralization wireframes.
• A global tonnage factor of 2.52 t/m3.
• Mineral Resource classification identifiers for resource blocks.
• The distance to the closest composite used to interpolate the block grade.
• The average distance to all composites used to interpolate the block grade.
• The number of composites used to estimate the block grade.
Strateco Resources Inc.Matoush Deposit
Longsection Section (Looking West)Block Grades, Lens Outlines, DDH Traces
SCO
TT WILSO
N R
PA
Figur e 17-3
MT-07-128
MT-07-127
MT-07-129MT-07-131
MT-07-125MT-07-15
MT-07-124
MT-07-132
MT-07-123
MT-07-121
MT-08-005
MT-08-009
MT-08-010
MT-08-016
MT-07-130
MT-07-104
MT-07-126
MT-08-018
MT-08-020MT-08-022
MT-07-13
MT-08-024
MT-07-12
MT-08-025
MT-08-027
MT-08-028
MT-08-030
MT-07-36
MT-07-62
MT-08-050
MT-08-051MT-08-037
MT-08-052
MT-08-038
MT-08-039
MT-08-054
MT-08-055
MT-07-22
MT-08-056
MT-07-20
MT-08-057
MT-07-19
MT-08-058
MT-07-17
MT-08-059
MT-08-042
MT-08-060
MT-07-16
MT-08-061
MT-07-09
MT-08-062
MT-08-043MT-08-063
AM20
MT-08-048
MT-08-003
AM23
MT-07-116
MT-07-110
MT-08-015
MT-07-101
MT-08-021
MT-07-30
MT-08-033
MT-08-035
MT-07-60
MT-07-21MT-07-18
MT-07-56
MT-06-17
MT-07-53
MT-07-50
MT-06-20
MT-07-120
MT-06-21
MT-07-114
MT-06-22
MT-08-017
MT-06-23
MT-07-90
MT-06-25
MT-08-034
MT-06-26
MT-06-27
MT-07-22A
MT-07-57
MT-07-108
MT-08-023
MT-07-01
MT-07-25
MT-08-019
MT-08-029
-50 0 50 100
Metres
-100
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0.00 0.050.05 0.200.20 0.400.40 0.600.60 0.800.80 1.00
> 1.00
U3O8%
ww
w.scottw
ilson.com
MT-22
a (low
grad
e)
MT-22
a (low
grad
e)
MT-22
a (low
grad
e)
MT-22a
MT-22a
North Lens
MT-34b
MT-34a
Upper LensMain Lens
SouthLens
December 2008
17-14
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Strateco Resources Inc.Matoush ProjectLevel Plan 570
Block Grades, Lens Outlines, DDH Traces
SCOTT WILSON RPA
Figur e 17-4
MT-
07-8
7
MT-
07-8
8
MT-07-46
MT-
06-1
7
MT-
08-0
08
MT-
07-5
1
MT-07-44
MT-07-42
MT-
07-9
0
MT-
07-0
3
MT-
07-3
7
MT-
06-0
6
MT-
06-1
6
MT-06-05
MT-
06-1
5
MT-
07-0
2
MT-
07-3
5
MT-06-04
MT-06-14
MT-
06-3
8
MT-
07-3
2
MT-
07-2
9
MT-
06-3
7
MT-07-27
MT-
08-0
14
MT-
08-0
32
MT-06-12
MT-
08-0
31
MT-
07-1
1
MT-
07-3
9
MT-06-10
MT-
06-1
8
MT-06-09
MT-
06-0
8
MT-06-03
MT-
08-0
11
MT-
06-3
6
MT-
07-8
3
MT-
06-3
5
MT-
06-3
4
MT-07-05
MT-
06-3
3
MT-
07-1
04
MT-
06-3
2
MT-
06-3
1
MT-
07-3
4
MT-
06-0
2
MT-
07-3
1
MT-
06-0
1
MT-
07-2
6M
T-06
-30
AM22
MT-
08-0
07
MT-
07-0
8
MT-
06-2
9
MT-08-037
MT-
06-2
8
MT-
07-0
6
MT-07-56
MT-06-19
MT-
07-3
3
MT-07-54
MT-06-13
MT-
07-1
0
AM20MT-
07-0
7
MT-07-50
MT-08-016
MT-
06-1
1
MT-
06-0
7
MT-
07-0
4
MT-
07-2
8
MT-
07-4
9
MT-07-48
MT-
08-0
04
-25 0 25 50
Metres
6992
00
6993
00
6994
00
5760500
5760600
5760700
www.scottwilson.com
0.00 0.050.05 0.200.20 0.400.40 0.600.60 0.800.80 1.00
> 1.00
U3O8%
Sout
h Le
nsM
T-34
a Le
ns
Mai
n Le
nsN
orth
Len
sLens
December 2008
17-15
5760500
5760600
5760700
Strateco Resources Inc.Matoush Project
Vertical Section 1290NBlock Grades, Lens Outlines, DDH Traces
SCOTT WILSON RPA
Figur e 17-5
MT-07-49
MT-07-110
MT-06-18
MT-07-108
MT-06-29
-200
-100
0 100
200
300
100 Elev
200 Elev
300 Elev
400 Elev
500 Elev
600 Elev
www.scottwilson.com
0.00 0.050.05 0.200.20 0.400.40 0.600.60 0.800.80 1.00
> 1.00
U3O8%
MT-
22a
Lens
Nor
th L
ens
December 2008
17-16
200 Elev
300 Elev
400 Elev
500 Elev
600 Elev
Strateco Resources Inc.Matoush Project
Vertical Section 1120NBlock Grades, Lens Outlines, DDH Traces
SCOTT WILSON RPA
Figur e 17-6
MT-06-36
MT-07-07
40
60
80
100
120
500 Elev
520 Elev
540 Elev
560 Elev
580 Elev
600 Elev
620 Elev
www.scottwilson.com
0.00 0.050.05 0.200.20 0.400.40 0.600.60 0.800.80 1.00
> 1.00
U3O8%
Sou
th L
ens
MT-
34a
Lens
December 2008
17-17
520 Elev
540 Elev
560 Elev
580 Elev
600 Elev
620 Elev
500 Elev
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 17-18
CLASSIFICATION OF MINERAL RESOURCES
Definitions for resource categories used in this report are consistent with those set out
in CIM Definition Standards for Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves (December
2005) and adopted by NI 43-101. In the CIM classification, a Mineral Resource is
defined as “a concentration or occurrence of natural, solid, inorganic or fossilized organic
material in or on the Earth’s crust in such form and quantity and of such grade or quality
that it has reasonable prospects for economic extraction”. Mineral Resources are
classified into Measured, Indicated and Inferred categories. A Mineral Reserve is defined
as the “economically mineable part of a Measured or Indicated Mineral Resource
demonstrated by at least a Preliminary Feasibility Study”. Mineral Reserves are
classified into Proven and Probable categories.
Scott Wilson RPA classified the Mineral Resources based on drill hole spacing, lens
thickness, continuity, and variogram ranges. Most of the AM-15 Zone was classified as
Indicated and the MT-22 and MT-34 zones as Inferred. There are no Mineral Reserves
reported at Matoush.
The drill hole spacing in the AM-15 Zone is generally less than 20 m. The Main and
South lenses were classified as Indicated. Most of the North Lens was also classified as
Indicated. The Upper Lens was classified as Inferred. Although there are some areas of
closely spaced drilling in the Main and South lenses, no blocks have been classified as
Measured because grade continuity has not been established to the confidence level
required for the Measured category, in Scott Wilson RPA’s opinion.
As discussed above, the MT-22a lens includes several low-grade subzones containing
weakly mineralized intersections that do not meet the cut-off grade. These subzones are
therefore not part of the Mineral Resource and were “carved out” using additional
wireframe models (Figure 17-7). Care was taken to maintain mineable continuity. The
average drill hole spacing in the MT-22a lens is 60 m to 70 m. Both MT-22a and MT-
22b were classified as Inferred. Several areas of MT-22a could be upgraded to Indicated
with a few additional holes.
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 17-19
The upper part of the MT-34a lens, which is considered the fault-offset extension of
the Main Lens, has an average drill hole spacing of less than 20 m and was classified as
Indicated. The MT-34b lens includes low-grade subzones that contain weakly
mineralized intersections but do not meet the cut-off grade. MT-34b was treated in a
similar manner as MT-22a and has been classified as Inferred.
FIGURE 17-7 LONG SECTION OF MT-22A SHOWING CLASSIFICATION
MINERAL RESOURCE REPORTING
Tables 17-10 and 17-11 list the Mineral Resources by lens, zone and cut-off grade.
Observations include:
• The average grade of the block model is consistent with the average grade of the composite values.
• Lenses MZ and MT-34a make up the bulk of the Indicated Mineral Resources. • Since the last estimate, there has been a substantial increase in Inferred
Mineral Resources and only a small increase in Indicated Mineral Resources. • Additional drilling will likely upgrade parts of MT-22a to the Indicated
category.
Low grade classified as waste.
Inferred
Inferred
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 17-20
• A large portion of the resources are greater than 0.25% U3O8. • A large portion of MT-34a classified as Indicated has an average grade greater
than 1% U3O8.
TABLE 17-10 MINERAL RESOURCE REPORT BY LENS, JULY 25, 2008
Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Project
Tonnage Grade Pounds U3O8 (x 1,000) (%U3O8) (x1,000)
Indicated MZ 111 0.54 1,320 NZ 15 0.58 190 SZ 36 0.41 330 MT34A 88 0.97 1,890
Total Indicated 250 0.68 3,730 Inferred
NZ 7 0.18 30 UZ 9 0.11 20 MT22A 766 0.38 6,390 MT22B 35 0.38 290 MT34A 480 0.55 5,870 MT34B 47 0.46 480
Total Inferred 1,344 0.44 13,070
Notes: 1. CIM definitions were followed for Mineral Resources. 2. The cut-off grade of 0.05% U3O8 was estimated using a U3O8 price of US$55/lb
and assumed operating costs. 3. Wireframes at 0.05% U3O8 and a minimum true thickness of 1.5 metres were
used to constrain the grade interpolation. 4. High U3O8 grades were cut to 9% prior to compositing to two-metre lengths. 5. Several blocks less than 0.05% U3O8 were included for continuity or to expand
the lenses to the minimum thickness. 6. Totals may not sum correctly due to rounding
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 17-21
TABLE 17-11 MINERAL RESOURCE REPORT BY CUT-OFF GRADE, JULY 25, 2008
Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Project
Cut-off Grade Tonnage Cut U3O8 Cut U3O8 (%) (x 1,000) (%) (lbs x 1,000)
Indicated Mineral Resources AM-15 1.25 6.4 1.434 202 1.00 20.2 1.202 535 0.75 40.8 1.033 930 0.50 68.1 0.864 1,297 0.25 113.3 0.664 1,659 0.05 161.7 0.515 1,838 MT-34 1.25 24.2 1.674 892 1.00 37.8 1.470 1,225 0.75 56.9 1.273 1,596 0.50 68.7 1.161 1,760 0.25 80.8 1.045 1,862 0.05 88.2 0.972 1,891 Total 1.25 30.6 1.624 1,095 Indicated 1.00 58.0 1.377 1,760 0.75 97.7 1.173 2,526 0.50 136.9 1.013 3,057 0.25 194.0 0.823 3,521 0.05 250.0 0.677 3,729 Inferred Mineral Resources AM-15 1.25 0.0 0.000 0 1.00 0.0 0.000 0 0.75 0.0 0.000 0 0.50 0.0 0.000 0 0.25 1.1 0.329 8 0.05 16.2 0.138 49 MT-22 1.25 33.3 2.099 1,542 1.00 54.1 1.709 2,039 0.75 78.2 1.445 2,490 0.50 132.0 1.102 3,207 0.25 436.8 0.578 5,569 0.05 800.5 0.379 6,680 MT-34 1.25 55.4 1.782 2,175 1.00 69.0 1.656 2,517 0.75 112.9 1.349 3,356 0.50 228.6 0.972 4,897 0.25 340.4 0.776 5,820 0.05 527.2 0.546 6,345 Total 1.25 88.7 1.901 3,716 Inferred 1.00 123.1 1.679 4,556 0.75 191.1 1.388 5,846 0.50 360.6 1.019 8,104 0.25 778.4 0.664 11,398 0.05 1,343.9 0.441 13,075
See Notes for Table 17-10 on page 17-20.
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 17-22
MINERAL RESOURCE VALIDATION
Scott Wilson RPA validated the block model by visual inspection, volumetric
comparison, swath plots, and a comparison with results using inverse distance squared
(ID2) grade interpolation. Visual comparison on vertical sections and plan views, and a
series of swath plots found good overall correlation between block grades and composite
grades.
The estimated total volume of the wireframe models is 649,200 m3, while the volume
of the block model at a zero grade cut-off is 649,600 m3. The small difference in volume
is due to Gemcom’s needling method that estimates the percentage of mineralization
within each block. Results are listed by lens in Table 17-12.
TABLE 17-12 VOLUME COMPARISON Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Project
Lens ID
Vol. Wireframe
(m3 x 1,000)
Vol. Block Model
(m3 x 1,000) Difference
(m3 x 1,000) Difference
(%) MT22a 311.2 312.3 1.1 0.3 MT22b 13.8 14.2 0.4 2.7 MT34a 234.1 233.7 -0.4 -0.2 MT34b 19.0 18.8 -0.2 -1.1 MZ 44.0 43.9 -0.1 -0.2 NZ 8.7 8.7 -0.1 -0.8 SZ 14.5 14.4 0.0 -0.3 UZ 3.8 3.6 -0.2 -6.6 Total 649.2 649.6 0.5 0.1
Scott Wilson RPA estimated the average grade of the Indicated Mineral Resources
using ID2 to be 0.70% U3O8. This compares to the average grade of 0.68% U3O8 as
estimated by ordinary kriging. Similarly for Inferred Mineral Resources, the estimated
average grade using ID2 is 0.45% U3O8 compared to kriging, which gave 0.44% U3O8.
The differences are within acceptable limits and may be due to the declustering effect of
the kriging method. Details at various cut-off values are given in Table 17-13.
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 17-23
TABLE 17-13 GRADE ESTIMATION COMPARISON Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Project
Zone Cut-off Tonnage Cut Kriged Cut ID2 Uncut Kriged
(x1,000) (%U3O8) (%U3O8) (%U3O8) Indicated AM-15 1.25 6.4 1.43 1.58 1.56 1.00 20.2 1.20 1.21 1.25 0.75 40.8 1.03 1.06 1.07 0.50 68.1 0.86 0.89 0.89 0.25 113.3 0.66 0.69 0.68 0.05 161.7 0.52 0.54 0.53 MT-34 1.25 24.2 1.67 1.67 1.70 1.00 37.8 1.47 1.48 1.49 0.75 56.9 1.27 1.28 1.29 0.50 68.7 1.16 1.17 1.17 0.25 80.8 1.05 1.05 1.05 0.05 88.2 0.97 0.98 0.98 ALL Indicated 1.25 30.6 1.62 1.65 1.67 1.00 58.0 1.38 1.39 1.41 0.75 97.7 1.17 1.19 1.19 0.50 136.9 1.01 1.03 1.03 0.25 194.0 0.82 0.84 0.84 0.05 250.0 0.68 0.70 0.69 Inferred AM-15 1.25 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 1.1 0.33 0.24 0.33 0.05 16.2 0.14 0.12 0.14 MT-22 1.25 33.3 2.10 2.20 2.20 1.00 54.1 1.71 1.82 1.78 0.75 78.2 1.44 1.56 1.49 0.50 132.0 1.10 1.19 1.13 0.25 436.8 0.58 0.62 0.59 0.05 800.5 0.38 0.40 0.38 MT-34 1.25 55.4 1.78 1.89 2.13 1.00 69.0 1.66 1.73 1.96 0.75 112.9 1.35 1.37 1.57 0.50 228.6 0.97 0.97 1.11 0.25 340.4 0.78 0.77 0.87 0.05 527.2 0.55 0.54 0.61 ALL Inferred 1.25 88.7 1.90 2.00 2.16 1.00 123.1 1.68 1.77 1.88 0.75 191.1 1.39 1.45 1.54 0.50 360.6 1.02 1.05 1.12 0.25 778.4 0.66 0.68 0.71 0.05 1,343.9 0.44 0.45 0.47
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 18-1
18 OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION INTRODUCTION
The Preliminary Assessment for the Project is based on the following assumptions:
• Mineral Resources as described previously, modified by the addition of dilution and extraction factors.
• Starting production rate of 500 tpd, ramping up to a maximum production rate
of 750 tpd (262,500 tpa) in Year 3. • Underground mining by blasthole stoping. • Backfill provided by cemented rock fill and waste rock fill from development. • On-site milling and processing, including crushing and grinding, leaching
using sulphuric acid, followed by Resin-in-Pulp, Resin Elution, Impurity Precipitation and calcining circuits to extract, purify, precipitate and thicken the final uranium product.
• Site layout as illustrated in Figure 18-1.
Scott Wilson RPA evaluated the portions of the study related to mining and site
operations. The processing portion of the study, including cost estimates, was assessed
by Melis within the battery limits of the process plant. The environmental aspects of the
Project, including permitting, licensing, monitoring, and closure, were evaluated by
Golder.
775.0
780.0
775.0
777.5
777.5
777.5
777.5
777.5
777.5
780.0
780.0
78
0.0
780.0
780.0
772.5
772.5
777.5
777.5
775.0
775.0
777.5
777.5
777.5
777.5
777.5
780.0
780.0
780.0
78
0.0
780.0
780.0
780.07
80.0
780.0
780.0
780.0
78
0.0
780.0
782.5
782.5
782.5
782.5
782.5
782.5
782.5
782.5
782.5
782.5
782.5
782.5
782.5
785.0
785.0
785.0
785.0
785.0
785.0
785.0
785.0
785.0
785.0
785.0
780.0
782.5
785.0
772.5
77
2.5
772.5
772.5
772.5
777.5
777.5
777.5
77
7.5
777.5
777.5
777.5
777.5
777.5
777.5
77
5.0
77
5.0
775.0
775.0
775.0
775.0
775.0
775.0
775.0
775.0
775.0
775.0
775.0
77
5.0
780.0
780.0
780.0
782.5
77
7.5
777.5
777.5
780.0
782.5
777.5
777.5
777.5
777.5
777.5
777.5
780.0
780.0
78
0.0
780.0
780.0
772.5
772.5
777.5
777.5
775.0
775.0
777.5
777.5
780.0
777.5
777.5
777.5
780.0
780.0
780.0
78
0.0
780.0
780.0
780.07
80.0
780.0
780.0
780.0
78
0.0
780.0
782.5
782.5
782.5
782.5
782.5
782.5
782.5
782.5
782.5
782.5
782.5
782.5
782.5
785.0
785.0
785.0
785.0
785.0
785.0
785.0
785.0
785.0
785.0
785.0
780.0
782.5
785.0
772.5
77
2.5
772.5
772.5
772.5
777.5
777.5
777.5
77
7.5
777.5
777.5
777.5
777.5
777.5
777.5
77
5.0
77
5.0
775.0
775.0
775.0
775.0
775.0
775.0
775.0
775.0
775.0
775.0
775.0
77
5.0
780.0
780.0
780.0
782.5
77
7.5
777.5
777.5
780.0
782.5
777.5777.5
CONTROL STATIONS
FINAL EFFLUENT PIPE
(APPROXIMATIVE LOCATION)
EXISTING ACCESS ROAD
BE KEPT INTACT
WETLAND TO
ANTICIPATE A
DIVERSION DITCH
PROJECTED ROAD
WETLAND TO
BE KEPT INTACT
ORE STORAGE AREA
WASTE STORAGE AREA
ACCESS ROAD AND
DRAINAGE DITCH
20
GARAGE
EXISTING CAMP
PROJECTED WIDENING
OF CAMP
COMPRESSOR
GENERATOR
FUEL DEPOT
44
35
FEEDING PIPE
(RAW WATER)
PROCESS PLANT
OFFICEMINE
RESCUE
PARKING AREA
OFFICE
WAREHOUSE
LEACHING BED
TREATMENT
POND
MWTP
DRY
10
5 TYP.
PROPANE
20VENTILATOR
PUMPING
STATION
PORTAL
COORDINATES
OF THE PORTAL
X=700 081
Y=5 760 792
WETLAND TO
BE KEPT INTACT
EXISTING ACCESS
ROAD
CONTRACTOR
AREA
5,6
70,2
50
mN
5,6
70,2
50
mN
5,6
70,5
00
mN
5,6
70,7
50
mN
5,6
71,0
00
mN
5,6
70,5
00
mN
5,6
70,7
50
mN
5,6
71,0
00
mN
700,000 mE 700,250 mE699,750 mE
Legend:
Existing Woodland Limit
Projected Woodland Limit
Projected Road and Wideningof the Existing Camp
Existing Access Road
Projected Infrastructure
0 25
Metres
50 75 100
N
December 2008 Source: Strateco Res., Inc., 2008.
Site Plan
Matoush Project
Strateco Resources Inc.
Québec, Canada
Figure 18-1
18-2
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 18-3
MINING OPERATIONS
Inferred and Indicated Resources used in the Preliminary Assessment are shown in
Table 18-1.
TABLE 18-1 MINERAL RESOURCES FOR PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT
Strateco Resource Inc. - Matoush Project
Classification/Zone Tonnes (x1,000) Grade (%U3O8)
Indicated AM-15 162 0.51% MT-34 88 0.97% Total 250 0.68%
Inferred AM-15 16 0.14% MT-22 801 0.38% MT-34 527 0.54% Total 1,344 0.44%
Notes: 1. CIM definitions were followed for Mineral Resources. 2. The cut-off grade of 0.05% U3O8 was estimated using a U3O8 price of US$55/lb
and assumed operating costs. 3. Wireframes at 0.05% U3O8 and a minimum true thickness of 1.5 metres were
used to constrain the grade interpolation. 4. High U3O8 grades were cut to 9% prior to compositing to two-metre lengths. 5. Several blocks less than 0.05% U3O8 were included for continuity or to expand
the lenses to the minimum thickness. 6. Totals may not sum correctly due to rounding
MINE ACCESS Underground access to the Matoush Project will be via a five metre by five metre
ramp decline driven at a -15% gradient. The initial exploration ramp will be driven to a
vertical depth of 300 m, at which point a 1,000 m diamond drill drift will be established.
This will provide an effective drill platform for ongoing diamond drilling, particularly for
the deeper portions of the potential zones, as shown in Figure 18-2. To ensure adequate
ventilation, this phase will also include the development of a ventilation access drift on
the 180 m level and an exhaust raise to surface. The program will include a total of 2,400
m of main ramp access, approximately 1,700 m of access drifts, and about 320 m of
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 18-4
ventilation raise. The initial costs of the exploration ramp program, estimated to be
approximately $50 million, are not included in the current Preliminary Assessment.
The development required to progress to the initial production phase will continue
from these excavations, as shown in Figure 18-3. The exploration ramp will provide
access to the AM-15 Zone between the 180 m and 300 m levels. To access the MT-34
Zone, which is an extension of the AM-15 Zone to depth, the exploration ramp will be
extended to the 480 m level. Access to the MT-22 Zone, located north of the AM-15 and
MT-34 zones, will be achieved by a separate ramp driven off the 300 m level, providing
access between the 300 m and 615 m levels.
The potential for shaft access was explored, particularly for the MT-22 Zone as it
reaches depths greater than 600 m. However, it was determined that the benefits of this
access method would not offset the increased capital costs and necessary lead time. As a
result, the present study maintains ramp access for the Project. Optimization of the
access scenarios will be addressed at the pre-feasibility study level.
December 2008
Matoush Project
Exploration Ramp
Strateco Resources Inc.
Québec, Canada
Figure 18-2
SC
OT
TW
ILS
ON
RP
A
18
-5
ww
w.sco
ttwilso
n.co
m
December 2008
Matoush Project
Mine Development Layout
Strateco Resources Inc.
Québec, Canada
Figure 18-3
SC
OT
TW
ILS
ON
RP
A
18
-6
ww
w.sco
ttwilso
n.co
m
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 18-7
MINING METHOD The mining method selected for the Matoush property will be blasthole stoping. Due
to the variance in widths of the various zones, longhole stoping with both small and large
diameter holes is proposed. The mining methods are shown on the longitudinal and plan
sections in Figures 18-4 and 18-5.
LARGE DIAMETER LONGHOLE STOPING
Figure 18-4 shows the stoping arrangement that utilizes large diameter holes. This
method is applicable where the zone widths are approximately five metres or greater,
such as in the AM-15 and MT-34A zones. For this method, level spacing is assumed to
be 25 m (floor to back) and stope lengths are assumed to be 20 m.
Large diameter longhole stoping will incorporate a primary-secondary stoping
sequence. Once the primary stope has been mined, it will be backfilled with cemented
rock fill (CRF) prior to mining the secondary stopes. With the limited height of the stope
blocks in the AM-15 Zone, mining can commence in the bottom portion (205 m level to
230 m level), with subsequent mining in the upper portion (180 m to 205 m) once the
lower stopes have been backfilled. To limit the use of CRF, secondary stopes can also be
backfilled with waste rock from ongoing development.
SMALL DIAMETER LONGHOLE STOPING
Figure 18-5 shows the small diameter longhole stoping method. This method is
applicable to the zones with narrow widths, such as those found in the MT-22 and
MT34b zones. The widths for these zones average approximately 2.5 m and 3.0 m,
respectively. To facilitate grade control and precision drilling, these zones will need to
be developed with a maximum level interval of 15 m. In general, stope widths will be
approximately 100 m, and mining will proceed upwards from every second level.
Temporary pillars will be left to provide ground stability and avoid dilution from wall
rock by limiting the hydraulic radius of the exposed hanging wall. These pillars will also
be required to permit backfilling in the mining sequence. Once a 15 m level has been
mined, it is backfilled while the adjacent stope block is mined.
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 18-8
Mining on lower levels can be achieved with benching from the access drift, followed
by the development of an ore drift under the consolidated backfill. Alternately, an ore
drift could be developed under a sill pillar, with sill recovery in a subsequent pass. For
each set of 15 m levels that are mined concurrently, the bottom level will be backfilled
using CRF, while the top level will be backfilled using CRF or waste rock fill as
consolidation is not necessary. Depending on ground condition, the proposed stoping
method permits the reduction of stope lengths by leaving pillars (if required) and drilling
new slot raises to commence the stope advance.
The general stoping sequence will begin with central access to the zone, followed by
development to the extents of the zone. Mining will then proceed in a retreat fashion
toward this initial access. A footwall drift will be driven to allow access for mucking and
backfilling. In the MT-22 Zone, it will be necessary to develop three 15 m levels per year
to sustain the required production.
Mucking of the stopes will be carried out using either 5m³ or 3.2m³ scooptrams
equipped with remote controls. Ore will be loaded into 33 tonne capacity low profile
haulage trucks, which will then truck the ore to surface. Truck loading stations will be
established on each level for ease of loading. Tramming distances for the scooptrams
will also be kept to a minimum.
December 2008
Matoush Project
Large DiameterLonghole Stopes
Strateco Resources Inc.
Québec, Canada
Figure 18-4
18-9
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
December 2008
Matoush Project
Small DiameterLonghole Stopes
Strateco Resources Inc.
Québec, Canada
Figure 18-5
18-10
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 18-11
HIGH-GRADE ZONES While the majority of the deposit hosts grades typical for safe radon levels, there may
be areas where the grade is above acceptable levels to be mined by the proposed longhole
techniques. In such cases, a “Non Man Entry” mining method, such as the use of a raise
bore machine or similar technique, will need to be utilized. Although this was not
evaluated in the current study, such areas will be identified in later stages of the project
when the resource model has been refined, and an appropriate mining method designed to
ensure safe mining procedures will be incorporated.
DILUTION AND EXTRACTION
Stope dilution will be incurred from irregularities in the orebody, overbreak from
blasting, and deterioration of stope walls and back during mucking. For the current
evaluation, dilution has been estimated to be 15% for all stoping areas, which is typical
for the proposed mining method and design. This would represent 0.5 m to 1.0 m and 0.3
m to 0.5 m of dilution in the large and small diameter longhole stopes, respectively.
An extraction of 90% was considered appropriate for all stopes.
PRODUCTION RATE
The mine production rate over the Life of Mine (LOM) is based on the annual
production target of approximately 2.0 million pounds of U3O8. Considering the
estimated average grade of the deposit, the required production rate is approximately 600
tpd. The production rate using Taylor’s rule of thumb amounts to approximately 610 tpd,
based on a seven-day per week schedule, 350 days per year and the estimated resource of
1.6 million tonnes.
Scott Wilson RPA feels that based on the required amount of development to prepare
stopes each year, this production rate is achievable and can be sustained.
MINE VENTILATION Adequate ventilation will be critical to ensure effective and safe production. Initially,
the ramp will act as the fresh air source and the exhaust route will be provided with a
ventilation raise that will be driven from the 180 m level to surface. Once the ramp has
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 18-12
reached the 300 m level, an exhaust raise will be driven from that level to the 180 m level
to tie into the system.
An intake ventilation raise will be driven to surface prior to pre-production
development to prepare the mine for production. Fresh air will then downcast from this
raise to provide the required volume or air underground. Each of the levels will be tied
into the fresh air ventilation raise to provide rapid egress from any level. Once the
underground workers have reached the raise location, they will be in a fresh air “base”
and will have a secure access route to surface. Production levels will continue to tie into
this fresh air raise as development progresses.
Exhaust ventilation raises will be developed between levels as required. The AM-15
and MT-34 zones will require one main exhaust raise, while the MT-22 Zone will require
a system of raises at each end of the zone, which is over 500 m in strike length. As
mining progresses downwards, the exhaust raises will be arranged to tie in with the
exhaust system on the levels above. To ensure proper exhausting procedures, sufficient
auxiliary ventilation fans and ducting will also be required to properly ventilate active
development headings. The required safety monitoring system will also be installed to
provide adequate warning in case of high radon gas levels.
MINERAL PROCESSING
The mineral processing is covered in Section 16 of the report.
GEOMECHANICS AND GROUND SUPPORT
The Matoush uranium-bearing zones are hosted in sedimentary rock units. There are
two main units, Active Channel Facies (ACF) and Channel Bar Facies (CBF). The ACF
consists of massive to slightly cross-bedded, gritty, coarse-grained sandstone to
conglomerate. The conglomerates are dominantly matrix supported and the matrix is
composed of clay-silt and medium to coarse sands. The rocks are generally well
cemented with silica. The CBF consists of medium- to coarse-grained, well cross-
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 18-13
bedded, sorted, subarkosic sandstone. The quartz and feldspar grains are subangular to
subrounded. The sandstone is well cemented with silica. Figure 7-2 in Section 7 of this
report shows the cycles of ACF and BCF deposition with the various thicknesses.
Examination of the drill core indicates very continuous core and that core recovery has
been excellent. Presently, little is known about the detailed structural geology of the
Matoush property other than that the stratigraphy is flat-lying and cut by a number of
north and northeast trending faults. The current defined resources at Matoush are all
associated with a north trending fault structure occupied by a mafic dyke. The fault is
located on the east side or footwall of the mineralized zones. The fault appears to be 0.2
m to 0.5 m in thickness and will require attention when passing through it to access the
mineralized zones.
Data collected such as RQD values and discontinuity description including
orientation, spacing, persistence, roughness, weathering, width, infill and water and any
other factors affecting rockmass strength will be used to determine rockmass
characterization in order to develop recommendations for the excavation and support
design.
Samples collected from drill holes will permit laboratory testing including
Unconfined Compression tests, Brazilian Indirect Tensile Strength tests and Point Load
Index tests, which will be very useful in evaluating the rockmass strength and support
requirements.
With the proposed mining method, backfilling of the open stopes will be completed,
thereby reducing the standup time and any negative effects of leaving open stopes for
long periods of time. Backfilling will provide a means of support as well as a means of
disposing of waste rock produced from development.
For the present study, standard support methods are assumed for the ramp
development and in the mineralized zones. These will consist of 2.1 m rebar bolts on 1.2
m centres with #6 WWM (welded wire mesh) screen in the main ramp back, and 1.5 m
split set bolts in the walls. Support in the mineralized zones will include standard 16 mm
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 18-14
diameter rockbolts with #6 WWM screen and 1.5 m split sets in the walls. The need for
cable bolting of the hanging wall is not anticipated. To control and keep the radon gas
emanations to the required levels, it will be necessary to shotcrete the walls and the back
in addition to cementing the floor.
INFRASTRUCTURE
RAMP The main underground mode of access will be via a five metre by five metre ramp
decline driven at a gradient of -15%. This size of opening provides sufficient space for
the required equipment, and ensures that the production targets can be sustained.
Adequate ancillary openings for refuge stations, electrical substations, remuck bays,
safety bays, storage bays, and primary and secondary sumps will be driven off of the
main ramp. Ventilation raises will also connect with the ramp to provide sufficient
ventilation volume to meet regulatory requirements. The mineralized zones reach a depth
of over 600 m vertically. As a result, proper maintenance will be essential to maintain
equipment condition and meet production requirements. Haulage distances from the
deepest portions of the mine will be over four kilometres.
MATERIAL HANDLING Handling of mineralized and waste material will be by 33-tonne low profile trucks
from the underground to the surface stockpile or storage areas. The potential to
incorporate larger trucks will be evaluated at later stages in the Project. On surface, front
end loaders will be utilized to transfer mineralized material into the processing facility.
The tailings produced will be pumped to the tailings facility on surface. The possibility
of using the tailings as paste backfill at this time has not been considered in order to keep
the water usage to a minimum and thereby reduce potential radon emissions.
BACKFILL Backfill will be in the form of CRF or waste fill, sourced from underground waste
development. For the present study, it has been assumed that a paste backfill or CRF
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 18-15
plant will be present on surface. Capital and operating cost allowances have been made
accordingly.
VENTILATION During production, ventilation will be provided by a downcast raise from surface,
combined with several exhaust raises required to ensure a single-pass system of
ventilation air. The required volume of air will be in the range of 500,000 cfm to supply
all areas of the mine, which are spread over a kilometre laterally from north to south. To
maintain reasonable air speed at 2,500 fpm in the raise, the raise dimension would be in
the order of 4.8 m in diameter. The main downcast fresh air raise will be located
centrally to service the underground development headings and mine workings with
exhaust raises located to the south for the MT-34 Zone and to the north for the MT-22
Zone. Main fans complete with a 30 MBTU mine air heating system will provide the
required air volume to properly ventilate the underground. In addition, suitably sized
exhaust fans will be located on surface at the exhaust raises. A manway will be installed
in the fresh air downcast raise to permit egress from any area in the mine. Monitors with
adequate warning systems will be installed to record ventilation volumes and gas levels.
A schematic of the ventilation air flow is shown in Figure 18-6.
Exhaust Raise
Exhaust Raise
Fresh Air Route
Intake Raise
Exhaust Route
December 2008
Matoush Project
Ventilation Schematic
Strateco Resources Inc.
Québec, Canada
Figure 18-6
SC
OT
TW
ILS
ON
RP
A
18
-16
ww
w.sco
ttwilso
n.co
m
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 18-17
DEWATERING Main sumps will be established at the required levels in the mine and all water
pumped to surface will be directed to the Water Treatment Plant (WTP) for treatment
prior to being discharged. Some of this water may be used for the process plant operation
as well.
MAINTENANCE The maintenance of underground and surface mobile equipment will be carried out in
the surface garage. This facility will be approximately 40 ft. by 60 ft., and will host three
bays with an overhead crane. An underground garage will also be developed, and will
but used for minor maintenance repairs only.
A wash bay will be located near surface in the underground ramp. This will provide
for a washing facility for equipment prior to being sent to the surface garage for
maintenance. Water will again be collected and directed to the WTP for treatment.
POWER Both hydroelectric power and diesel-generated power were considered for the Project.
The estimated cost by Hydro Québec for a 161 kV power line extension from the Troilus
mine was estimated at $130 million. Other options for lines from the Eastmain or
Nikamo would cost approximately $180 million. These costs are for dedicated lines and
some reduction in cost would be possible by sharing with other users. Given the capital
requirements for a power line and the uncertainty of this arrangement, the present
evaluation was completed assuming the use of diesel power generated on site.
The total connected power will be 6 MW. The underground distribution would be via
a 4,160 V cable to the underground substation, stepped down by a transformer to 600 V.
The majority of underground power consumption will be from the electric jumbo drills,
main pump stations, and auxiliary ventilation fans.
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 18-18
COMPRESSED AIR AND SURFACE WATER Two main compressors, each providing 1,500 cfm, will be located on surface. Air
will be fed to two air receivers prior to supplying the underground. Due to the depth of
the underground zones, the need for booster compressors on the line may be required to
compensate for the length of the air piping. The main consumers of compressed air
underground will be the longhole drills, airleg drills and auxiliary equipment.
Compressed air is initially delivered via the air line in the ramp, and a permanent line will
be installed in the main ventilation raise. This will reduce the line length and the
resistance, thereby improving the system pressure drop.
Similar to the underground water, surface water drainage from the stockpile areas will
be collected and sent to the WTP for treatment. It will then be recycled or sent to final
effluent.
COMMUNICATIONS Communications underground will be provided via a leaky feeder communication
system. This will also provide monitoring functions for electric ground monitoring
systems, such as ground movement monitors (GMM). Surface communications will be
provided via satellite.
ROADS Road maintenance will be carried out by the surface crew using a grader, dozer and
truck. A portable crusher will be contracted to prepare sufficient crushed material from
the mine waste rock. This will serve as roadbed material and for surface pad preparation.
EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS
The production mining equipment required for the Project consists of the following:
• Four MT436B-33T low profile haul trucks • Two 35T Backfill low profile haul trucks c.w. pushplate • Two M2D (or equiv.) drill jumbo- 2 Boom • Two Axera (or equiv.) drill jumbo-1 Boom • One LH drill Elec.-Hydraulic (64-102 mm dia. holes)
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 18-19
• Two LH drills- Pneumatic (50-62.5 mm dia. holes) • One Grader unit for ramp • Two, Rock-breakers-hydraulic • Three ST1030- 5m³ scooptrams • Two ST710- 3.2m³ scooptrams • Two ML40 Scissor lifts • One RBM (or equiv.) roof bolter • One M40 Crane truck-with Hiab • Four Kubota M59 Service tractors • Two Anfo Loaders • One Shotcrete unit • Two F.E. Loader 5 yd.³. (mine and mill) • One F.E. Loader 2yd.³ • One Backhoe 2 yd.³ • Boom Truck (mill)
Additional equipment will include minor items such as ½ ton pick–up trucks. It
should be noted that a portion of the listed equipment fleet is assumed to be purchased
during the advanced exploration phase when the main ramp is developed to the 300 m
level. Scott Wilson RPA is of the opinion that the equipment list will be sufficient to
sustain the planned production rate of over the LOM.
The surface mobile equipment fleet will consist of front end loaders, a 10 wheel (11
m³) haul truck for miscellaneous haulage purposes (with snow plough quick coupler
system), a grader for road maintenance, a small bulldozer for site preparation and tailings
work, and other smaller equipment.
ADMINISTRATION
The office area includes an administration building, as well as warehousing facilities,
first aid and medical area, and a mine rescue training/emergency control station area.
Arrangements will be required to secure the proper mine rescue equipment from the
Government of Quebec, including BG-4 and ancillary apparatus to respond to an
underground emergency. The administration and mine staff office will be two-floor
building with dimension of 40 ft. by 60 ft. A 40 ft. by 60 ft. mine dry and a 40 ft. by 40
ft. area for a safety/training/first aid/mine rescue centre will also be built. A two-floor 30
ft. by 40 ft. area will be utilized for warehousing inventory.
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 18-20
TAILINGS AND WASTE ROCK DISPOSAL
Based on information provided to Golder, the annual tailings production for the
Project will be approximately 750 tpd, or in the range of 235,000 tpa to 285,000 tpa, with
a total tailings production of 1.8 million tonnes of fine tailings solids over the life of the
mine. There are two options for the mine tailings management: place a percentage of the
tailings solids production as paste backfill in the underground mine cavity, or have the
remaining solids deposited on surface in an engineered tailings management facility
(TMF). For the purpose of this report, it is assumed that all tailings solids production will
be deposited on the surface in an engineered TMF. The total mass of 1.8 million tonnes
of tailings solids at a dry density of 0.9 tonnes per cubic metre will occupy a volume of
approximately 2,000,000 cubic metres in the tailings management facility at the end of
the mine life.
An engineered TMF for the Project will consist of a compacted earth fill perimeter
dyke providing containment for the deposited tailings stream and the impacted direct
precipitation, and will also serve as a diversion of surface water runoff from entering the
tailings storage pond. Liner requirements for hydraulic containment of the tailings fluids
will be based on the hydraulic conductivity of the surficial soils and bedrock at the TMF.
These requirements will be determined in consultation with the regulatory authorities in
the future detailed design stage after the location and size for the required tailings
management facility has been confirmed.
To improve the storage volume available within the constructed perimeter dyke, the
tailings management facility will be located at the site of an existing depression at a
suitable location in proximity to the tailings production mill site. At this stage of the
Project, it is considered that two lakes located in the upper part of the project watershed
would be a suitable location for constructing the tailings management facility. To further
improve the available storage volume, it is proposed that the surficial soils around the
shoreline of the selected lake site and within the perimeter dyke alignment be excavated,
and selectively used for borrow material in the construction of the compacted earth fill
perimeter dyke.
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 18-21
The footprint area required that the project total tailings solids storage volume should
be about 700 m by 700 m (490,000 m2) assuming that the tailings deposit thickness was
in the order of four metres. This TMF may be created by constructing perimeter dykes in
the order of five metres high, assuming that the lake basin (drained) will have an average
depth of about two-metres, and that about three metres of tailings may be impounded
against the compacted earth fill dyke, leaving approximately two metres of freeboard for
water cover and wave run-up provision at the end of mine life.
In addition to the fine tailings solids, the TMF will receive process water and direct
precipitation, which will form a decant fluid at the surface of the tailings and will be
recycled back to the mill for use as process water. Some of the process water will remain
within the pore space of the tailings solids, and a minimum 0.5 m thick water cover will
be maintained over the deposited tailings during the active mine life. At the end of mine
life, a permanent cover will be provided for the TMF.
The approximate dimensions of the compacted earthfill perimeter dyke will be:
• height of 5 m
• crest width of 5 m
• side slopes of 3H:1V
• total perimeter length of 2,800 m
• compacted fill volume of approximately 280,000 cubic metres
Approximately 1.2 million tonnes of waste rock will be generated during the life of
the mine, 50% of which will be returned underground as backfill. There is no
environmental geochemistry data for the waste rock. The current assumptions are that all
waste rock will be stored within the mining infrastructure footprint and that careful
segregation of mineralized waste and “clean” waste rock would be carried out during
mining operations to optimize water treatment cost and facilitate closure.
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 18-22
ENVIRONMENT
PERMITS AND LICENSING The Project is subject to the federal and provincial environmental assessment
processes. The Project requires a licence from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
(CNSC) and hence will be subject to the federal process, as the Canadian Environmental
Assessment Act (CEAA) states that a project requires an environmental assessment (EA)
when the project involves a federal licence. The Project will be subject to the provincial
process, as Quebec’s Environment Quality Act and the James Bay and Northern Quebec
Agreement (JBNQA) specify that mining projects are automatically subject to the
environmental and social impact assessment (ESIA) and review procedure.
Both levels of government may collaborate in a single cooperative environmental
assessment process, although this remains to be determined because projects on the
territory governed by the JBNQA are not tied to the Canada-Quebec Agreement on
Environmental Assessment Cooperation.
In accordance with the CEAA and its regulations, CNSC oversees EAs to make sure
nuclear projects are safe for the environment. CNSC works in concert with the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Agency, while its Commission Tribunal is responsible for
making many EA decisions.
The Project is located on the territory governed by the JBNQA south of the 55th
parallel. As such, the tripartite Quebec/Canada/Cree Evaluating Committee (COMEV)
would issue guidelines for the ESIA based on the Project’s preliminary information
statement. Once the ESIA is completed, it would be reviewed by the bipartite
Quebec/Cree Review Committee (COMEX). COMEX would communicate its
recommendations to the Administrator of the Ministry of Sustainable Development,
Environment and Parks (MDDEP), who would make a final decision based on the
COMEX recommendations.
Once the Project has EA/ESIA approval, it is in a position to advance into regulatory
permitting. There are a number of federal and provincial permits that may be required
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 18-23
depending on the specifics of the Project, including a Mine Facility Licensing Manual
which is specific to uranium mines.
BASELINE STUDY Environmental baseline data were gathered to obtain a general overview of the
physical, biological, and human environment contiguous to the Project. More field work
is required to complete the baseline data to the standard of an eventual environmental
impact assessment.
Field work was conducted in 2007 and 2008 for the Hydrology, Surface Water and
Sediment Quality, Hydrogeology and Groundwater Quality, Fish and Fish Habitat,
Wildlife and Birds, and Vegetation and Wetlands components.
A desktop review was done for all of the components mentioned above, as well as the
following: Air and Climate, Noise, Soil and Terrain, Archaeology, Visual, Socio-
Economics, Land and Resource Use, and First Nations.
In general, a Local Study Area (LSA) was outlined which extended approximately 3.5
km around the Project area and 750 m on either side of the winter access road; however,
the actual area studied can vary according to particular needs of specific environmental
components.
The desktop review for the Air and Climate component indicated that the four nearest
meteorological stations are located 85 km, 155 km, 225 km and 280 km away from the
Project site. The data from these stations give an indication of possible conditions at the
Project; however, site-specific data are needed. In order to meet this data requirement, a
meteorological station has been installed at the site in 2007. Meteorological data from
the meteorological station with complete data records located nearest to the Project site
indicates average yearly precipitation of 946 mm for the period of record (1971-2000).
The monthly average temperatures and monthly precipitation for this station are
respectively -21.0ºC and 57.2 mm for January, -2.2ºC and 58.8 mm for April, 14.6ºC and
131.0 mm for July, and 1.5ºC and 79.7 mm for October.
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 18-24
Available regional data on air quality are very limited, and since the nearest two
stations are located 350 km and 515 km away from the site, no data on current local air
quality conditions are available.
The desktop review for the Noise component revealed no major issue, as the site is in
a remote area, far from any permanent anthropogenic sources or receptors, and is not
classified in any provincial zoning category. Noise, however, may factor in when
considering spiritual or special areas used by First Nations, wildlife and birds, or health
and safety for on-site workers.
The desktop review and field work for the Hydrology component identified all main
water courses within the LSA, established the Project’s local watershed (estimated at 24.8
km2) and outlet point, and allowed to assess stream flows at three stations within the
Project local watershed in September and October 2007. The recorded flows during the
observation period ranged between 2.1 m3/s and 0.1 m3/s for a 6.7 km2 sub-watershed,
between 3.3 m3/s and 0.25 m3/s for an 11.1 km2 sub-watershed, and 0.3 m3/s and 0.07
m3/s for a 3.2 km2 sub-watershed. The data currently available are not sufficient to
establish flows in drought/flood conditions or average yearly flows; however, a field
program is currently under way and will provide additional data.
A field program for the Surface Water and Sediment Quality component including
collection and analysis of surface water and sediment samples was carried out in 2007.
Water samples were analyzed for metals, radionuclides, major ions, nutrients and
suspended solids. Sediment samples were analyzed for metals, radionuclides and organic
carbon. Analytical results indicated exceedances of provincial criteria for aluminum and
suspended solids for surface water samples and exceedances of federal criteria for
cadmium in sediment samples. There were no applicable criteria for radionuclides at the
time of writing the report. The exceedances found are believed to reflect the natural
background as there is no known industrial activity that may have affected the surface
water and sediments in the area.
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 18-25
The desktop review and field work for the Hydrogeology and Groundwater Quality
component allowed evaluating geological conditions and assessing in-situ hydraulic
conductivity of the main sandstone facies and the Matoush Fault. The median value of
estimated hydraulic conductivities for the various facies, contacts between sandstone
facies and the Matoush Fault ranged between 2 x 10-6 m/s and 5 x 10-6 m/s. These values
are typical of upper range conductivity values for sandstone and are consistent with
drilling fluids loss of return reported during the exploration drilling program. Shallow
groundwater samples were collected and analyzed for metals, major ions and
radionuclides. Analytical results showed no exceedances when compared with applicable
mine water discharge criteria (Québec Directive 019).
Bedrock geology is fairly consistent across the site, with one major sandstone unit
(Indicator Formation) present down to a depth of approximately 800 m and resting on
Archean granitic basement. At this point, only the six upper facies (ACF1 to 3 and CBF1
to 3) have been submitted to in situ permeability testing.
Overburden material cover is also very consistent across the site with a glacial till
blanketing the site and the nearest bedrock outcrop located kilometres away from the
Project site. There is no available field data on groundwater level in the overburden and
overburden permeability at the time of writing this report. Vertical gradients between the
overburden and the bedrock along with associated recharge and discharge areas can,
therefore, only be inferred from topography because there are no field data to substantiate
the interpretation.
The conceptual hydrogeological model is, therefore, fairly simple at this point and
can be summarized as a series of sandstone facies (ACF1 to 3 and CBF1 to 3) of similar
bulk hydraulic conductivity, which are likely to be anisotropic as a result of subhorizontal
facies contacts and the subvertical Matoush Fault.
The desktop review for the Soil and Terrain component initially provided regional
information on geology and drainage based on available government maps. Since then, a
detailed compilation of the Project exploration drilling data and detailed interpretation of
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 18-26
overburden geology (Poly-Geo, 2008) has been completed. The updated description of
regional and local bedrock and overburden geology has been presented in Section 7 of
this document.
As for drainage and topography, the terrain surrounding the Project site is generally
flat and is characterized by gentle rolling hills. Slopes are thus not very steep and vary
between 8% in the steepest hills north of the study area and 3% in other areas.
Topography in the Project area is strongly influenced by the shape of the glacial
deposits which show northeast-southwest alignments. The axis of most lakes is a
reflection of the topography of glacial till deposits and drumlins, which produce
topographic lows and highs aligned on a northeast-southwest axis. Maximum and
minimum elevations found on the study area are approximately 800 m in the northwest
and 715 m in the southeast of the site. The study watershed is approximately 24.8 km2
and flows to the southeast. On a regional scale, surface water from the Project site flows
to the south towards the projected biodiversity reserve that is some 19 km from the
Project.
None of the special status species identified during the Vegetation and Wetlands
desktop review was observed during the field work, although the habitat of the Project
site is suitable for one of these species, Hudsonia tomentosa, classified as a species
susceptible of being designated threatened or vulnerable.
The desktop review and field work for the Fish and Fish Habitat component revealed
that lakes in the area are acidic, oligotrophic, and the habitat features are highly uniform.
Brook trout (salvelinus fontinalis) was the dominant species in the 2007 and 2008
collections. Based on available historical information and the results of the 2007-08
sampling, none of the fish species known to be in the area are currently listed as
threatened or endangered under provincial or federal legislation. No spawning grounds
were confirmed during the 2007 field work; the results of the spring and fall 2008
spawning surveys have yet to be compiled. Fish flesh and bones were analyzed for
metals and radionuclides.
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 18-27
The desktop review and field work for the Wildlife and Birds component identified
species likely to occur in the area. The rusty blackbird, Euphagus carolinus, listed as
species of special concern by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in
Canada (COSEWIC), was the only listed wildlife species observed in the LSA during
field work. A woodland caribou, Rangifer tarandus caribou, listed as threatened by
COSEWIC and as vulnerable under the provincial jurisdiction, was observed
approximately 19 km from the Project site. Other species at risk may be present given
the regional habitat.
The desktop review for the Archaeology component revealed that there are no known
archaeological sites; however, eight zones where work with respect to the Project is
foreseen show archaeological potential.
The desktop review for the Visual component included maps, photographs, imagery,
and a video of the visual landscape of the area consisting of forests, wetlands, old burned
areas, lakes, and cleared areas for the mine workers camp and the winter access road.
The desktop review for the Socio-Economics, Land and Resource Use, and First
Nations components compiled information on the demography, education, employment,
and health of the community, traditional knowledge, and available services and
infrastructures. The site is located on Category III Quebec public land that falls under the
JBNQA, where the Cree have exclusive rights to harvest certain aquatic species and fur-
bearing mammals and to participate in the administration and development of the land.
Information for these components will be completed during pre-consultation activities
that started in the fall of 2008.
SITE WATER BALANCE A preliminary site water balance has been made for the Project site based on available
regional meteorological data, estimated preliminary footprint of the surface infrastructure,
fresh water requirements for the ore processing plant, and order of magnitude estimations
of underground mine water seepage.
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 18-28
Since available site-specific data are currently limited and details of the surface
infrastructure including tailings and waste rock storage areas are not determined, the site
water balance was made on a yearly basis and was based on recorded average
precipitation data from a regional meteorological station located 150 km southeast of the
site.
Assumptions made for the water balance are as follows:
• Yearly precipitation within the mine infrastructure footprint including tailings and waste rock storage areas is collected, evaporation is assumed to be negligible and all collected water is included in the mine effluent.
• Yearly precipitation was assumed to be 950 mm. • Process water is lost (mainly as tailings pore water) at a rate of 40 m3/h1. • Precipitation on other mine-related infrastructures, such as the permanent
camp and roads, is not considered to be impacted by mining activities and is not considered as part of the mine effluent.
• All surface runoff outside the tailings storage facility and the mine
infrastructure footprint (including waste rock storage area) will be diverted and is not considered in the mine effluent.
• The area of the tailings storage facility is estimated at 490,000 m2. • The mine infrastructure footprint including waste rock storage area2 is
estimated to be 160,000 m2. • Underground mine seepage rate was estimated to be potentially in excess of
0,5 m3/s for a 1,000 m long, 600 m deep mine with subvertical tabular openings without seepage mitigation measures used (i.e., no grouting or cemented backfill). This is based on the assumption that the bulk hydraulic conductivity of the rock mass is in the order of 10-6 m/s and there is no hydraulic connection between the mine and the adjacent lakes and streams.
Based on these data and assumptions, the yearly water balance indicates positive
influx of water from the tailings area, waste rock area and mine infrastructure footprint
(0.6 million m3/yr) and from mine seepage water (15.7 million m3/yr) and losses (0.4
million m3/yr), resulting in a net effluent volume of approximately 15.9 million m3/yr.
1 Information provided to Golder by Melis Engineering Ltd. 2 Information provided to Golder by Scott Wilson Roscoe Postle Associates Inc.
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 18-29
WATER TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL SCHEME A water treatment plant will be constructed at the mine site. All mine water and
process water will be tested to ensure it meets the effluent quality objectives prior to
being discharged to the environment.
The Project site is located at the top of a watershed and the discharge rate of the mine
effluent is expected to be high as a result of potential high seepage rates from the
underground mine. Since average yearly stream flows near the site (within a radius of a
few kilometres around the site) are likely to be less than the mine effluent, and
considering the physical limitations of natural streams to take up additional flow without
generating uncontrolled erosion and the potential sensitivity of aquatic species, it is
unlikely that the mine effluent discharge point will be close to the mine site.
HISTORICAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS There are no known previous industrial activities within the Project site. The only
known activities other then fishing and trapping are related to mining exploration and
have included geophysical surveys, geological mapping, soil sampling and exploration
drilling. Since the Project drilling program has systematically reported that there has
been no return of drilling fluids, it appears that no drill cuttings have been brought to
surface.
Other impacts from fuel storage and waste water from the exploration camp would be
expected to be negligible, since the site is fairly new and has been submitted to strict
environmental controls.
Thus, impacts from previous activities at the site would be expected to be negligible.
MONITORING Monitoring for radiation in the underground mine and within the mining facilities will
be addressed by the Mine Facility Licensing Manual. Environmental monitoring will
include monitoring of air and surface water quality at several stations around the site,
including reference points outside the Project watershed. Aquatics species, including
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 18-30
tissue analysis, will also be monitored, as well as groundwater at critical locations around
the site.
LICENSING COSTS Initial licensing cost and Environmental Impact Study for the project would be
expected to be in the range of $8 million to $10 million. Yearly cost for maintaining the
licence would be in the range of $0.5 million to $0.9 million a year, which would equate
to $5 million to $9 million for a life of mine of 10 years. This does not include internal
costs related to health and safety and environmental monitoring required for operating the
mine.
MINE CLOSURE PLAN The mine closure plan will address the waste (i.e., tailings and waste rock) storage
areas both in terms of physical and chemical long-term stability. The closure plan will
also address decommissioning and safe disposal of the mining infrastructure; remediation
of impacts from mining, if any; disposal of remaining reagents/products or waste stored
on site; and water management. Finally, the closure plan will address long-term site
safety issues, in particular those related to the mine openings.
The mine closure costs will vary according to initial engineering and adherence to
good environmental practices at the site during the entire mining operation. Progressive
remediation and proactive management of potential environmental liabilities such as
waste rock and tailings storage areas can have a major effect on the closure costs.
Closure costs can range between $30 million for well-managed, low-impact sites and
$100 million for sites with more complex conditions such as existing impacts,
problematic waste rock and tailings, and complex water management issues. For the
purpose of this report, it is assumed that the site will be well managed, with low impacts,
and closure costs will be in the range of $30 million. Engineering and permitting costs
related to closure can be expected to range between $5 million and $10 million. It is
noted that the Quebec mining regulations and CNSC require that a mine closure plan be
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 18-31
prepared and the funds required for site closure set aside gradually in the early stage of
mining operations.
MARKETS
The principal commodity at Matoush is freely traded, at prices that are widely known,
so that prospects of sale of any production are virtually assured. Scott Wilson RPA
assumed a long-term uranium price of US$75/lb of U3O8 for the Base Case, as
recommended in the market analysis that follows. The following market study was
completed by TD Energy Associates Limited.
WORLD DEMAND AND SUPPLY The price of uranium more than quadrupled between January 2005 and July 2007,
primarily as a result of supply shortages and price speculation. A sustained lack of
investment during the 1980s and 1990s has left the uranium industry dependent on non-
mined production, and in 2007 less than 65% of annual uranium demand from utilities
was met from mine production.
Nuclear power currently accounts for approximately 16% of world production of
energy. World electricity demand is forecast to double by 2030 (World Nuclear
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 18-32
Association (WNA), 2007). If nuclear power’s share of future electricity production is to
remain at current levels, nuclear capacity will double by 2030. This is similar to the high
scenario in the recent WNA nuclear forecast (IEA, 2007) and results in a demand for
uranium in 2030 which is more than double current uranium demand.
Availability of uranium for new nuclear reactors is not considered an impediment to
growth of nuclear capacity, as the world known reserves of uranium are more than
adequate to satisfy requirements well past 2030.
The critical issues are how fast uranium production capability will be made available
and at what price. To meet forecast uranium demand, uranium production capacity will
have to more than double by 2020 and almost quadruple by 2030.
DEMAND
The uranium demand forecast used in this study is based on a nuclear build scenario
that maintains nuclear power’s share of electricity production close to the present day
level of 16%. The drivers for this scenario are concerns about climate change, the
increasing cost of fossil fuels and their security of supply, and the improved economics of
new nuclear plant. There also appears to be a growing recognition at the national level
that nuclear power is a key component in any carbon reduction energy strategy.
As uranium is purchased for the first cores of new reactors several years in advance of
start-up, the forecast for nuclear capacity is extended to 2030 while that for uranium only
goes out to 2020.
Nuclear Capacity Forecast to 2030 At the end of March 2008, there were 439 nuclear reactors worldwide with a capacity
of 372GWe. Nuclear capacity is forecast to increase to 520GWe by 2020, up 40% from
2006, and almost double by 2030. The main growth areas to 2020 are China, Korea and
India, where there has been rapid economic growth and strong electricity demand, and
also Russia, where the government is committed to nuclear expansion.
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 18-33
Post 2015, growth continues in these areas, but there is also a significant number of
new builds in North America and Central Europe as concerns about increasing fossil fuel
prices, security of supply and carbon emissions are translated into new orders for nuclear
reactors.
World Nuclear Capacity Forecast (GWe)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030
GW
e
N America Europe & FSU East Asia Other
Uranium demand forecast to 2020
Reactor requirements are forecast to increase from 167 million pounds in 2006 by
almost 30% to 212 million pounds in 2015 and 40% to approximately 240 million pounds
by 2020.
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 18-34
World Uranium Requirements 2006 -2020
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
m lb
s U
3O8
N America Europe & FSU East Asia Other
Uranium demand is dependent on uranium requirement, which is based on installed
nuclear capacity, but is also influenced by several other factors. These include capacity
factors, the actual power generated by a reactor during year expressed as a percentage of
its generation at full power for the same period; technical factors, related to operation,
fuel cost optimization and fuel design; and purchases for first cores and to maintain
‘desired’ uranium inventory levels.
SUPPLY
Uranium production from existing mines is forecast to peak in 2012 as mines in
Kazakhstan reach full production and then gradually decline. Over 70% of this
production is forecast to be from mines in Africa, Australia, Canada and Kazakhstan.
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 18-35
Supply from Existing Mines 2006 to 2020
Australia
Africa
Canada
Kazakhstan
Russia
UkraineUSA UzbekistanOther
-
20 000
40 000
60 000
80 000
100 000
120 000
140 000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
000
lbs
U3O
8
When forecast supply from existing mines is compared with world demand, it is clear
that there is a need for new mines to be developed. Some of the key factors that will
impact on the introduction of supply from new mines will be the political and regulatory
environment of the project and price.
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 18-36
World Supply from Existing Mines vs World Demand 2006 -2020
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
000
lbs
U3O
8
Demand Supply
Secondary Supply Sources
The gap between supply and demand historically has been filled by secondary
supplies and non-government inventory. As the diagram below shows, the end of the
HEU Agreement in 2013 will reduce secondary supplies available to the global markets
by over 40%.
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 18-37
Secondary Supply Sources
0
10 000
20 000
30 000
40 000
50 000
60 000
70 000
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
2013
2015
2017
2019
000s
lbs
U3O
8
HEU I Re-Enriched Tails
Russian Government Stockpile Sales US/USEC Government Stockpile Sales
MOX & RepU
PRICE EXPECTATIONS AND CONTRACTING The uranium spot price peaked in July 2007 at $135/lb U3O8 and is currently in the
mid-$40s/lb U3O8 to mid-50s/lb U3O8 range. However, the spot price tends to reflect
conditions prevailing in the short-term market, which represents approximately 20% of
the total market for uranium, and is predominantly affected by perceptions of supply and
demand in the year as well as sellers’ external liquidity requirements. The market is very
thin and transactions as low as 100,000 lb of U3O8 can have a significant impact on price.
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 18-38
Source: The Ux Consulting Company, LLC http://www.uxc.com/
The fundamentals driving longer term supply and demand remain strong. Demand is
forecast to double by 2030 and production from existing mines currently accounts for less
than 65% of current demand. As a result of many years without investment in
exploration and development, the supply side of the industry has been slow to increase
production but swift to announce plans for future production.
Demand for the next 15 year period will be primarily from reactors that are in
operation, under construction, or at an advanced level in the planning process and should
be relatively predictable.
Production is significantly more uncertain. To meet demand, existing mines will
have to operate at full capacity and new mines will have to be brought on stream. The
situation is further complicated as two of the major new mines represent, between them,
close to 40 million pounds U3O8 per year (a third of anticipated production in 2008) and
any delays to timing will have a dramatic impact on availability of supply and pricing.
Until sufficient new production is brought on line to bring supply and demand into
balance, price is likely to be event-driven and for this reason two scenario-based forecasts
have been developed. The main differences between the scenarios are described below.
Neither scenario includes projects owned by junior mining companies which have not yet
reached a pre-feasibility stage.
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 18-39
It is assumed that these projects will come into production to meet the demand for
new mines if the price is at an appropriate level. However, the current level of the spot
price coupled with recent events in the financial markets have severely reduced junior
mining companies access to funding, resulting in delays and potential cancellations of
some projects.
THE ANNOUNCED PLANS SCENARIO
The Announced Plans scenario assumes that all announced plans by existing mines
and planned mines (post pre-feasibility stage) will go ahead. The Olympic Dam mine
will expand production from 2013, ramping up to full capacity by 2019; Cigar Lake will
start production in 2011 and reach full capacity in 2014; Uranium One’s Dominion is
assumed to produce at a rate of 3.5 million pounds U3O8 per year; and Energy Resources
of Australia’s Jabiluka is assumed to commence production in 2016. This production
scenario has already been proved optimistic by Uranium One’s recent announcement that
the Dominion mine has been placed on care and maintenance.
REASONABLE DOUBT SCENARIO
Production from the Olympic Dam expansion is assumed to start in 2019 and peak at
10 million pounds rather than 22.5 million pounds. Cigar Lake production profile is
maintained, but start-up is delayed until 2014. Dominion is assumed to produce at 0.6
million pounds U3O8 per year and Jabiluka is assumed to start production in 2019.
This is still a conservative forecast, as production in all other areas is assumed to
develop in line with current announcements allowing approximately 20 million pounds of
new production from Kazakhstan by 2012, and approximately 15 million pounds of new
production from Africa by 2013 (6 million pounds from Trekkopje in Namibia). As the
recent shelving of the Dominion mine has proved, even assumptions about production
scaled down from existing and planned mines could be on the high side.
There is also some uncertainty regarding the availability of secondary supplies. The
HEU (highly enriched uranium) agreement ends in 2013, taking 20 million pounds of
equivalent U3O8 (e-U3O8) out of the market, but Russian re-enrichment of tails is
assumed to continue (9 million pounds). This has been assumed to continue under the
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 18-40
Reasonable Doubt scenario but could be considered optimistic, as there have been
announcements by the Russians that they will be ending re-enrichment of tails, and this
could impact on some or all of this quantity.
Production cost estimates for the projects outside Kazakhstan that will be required to
fill the need for new mines fall into a range between mid-$40 per lb and high $60 per lb.
It is assumed that in order to develop these mines and encourage exploration, the long-
term price will have to reflect this reality.
SUPPLY AND DEMAND – ANNOUNCED PLANS SCENARIO
Under the Announced Plans scenario, supply is in excess until 2014 and then stays in
balance until 2019, after which new supply is needed.
Price Implications:
• 2008 to 2012 - no upward pressure on price: o Long-term price range $60 to $90/lb o Spot price $45 to $65/lb
World Supply and Demand from Existing, Planned and Potential Mines and Secondary Sources - Announced Plans Scenario
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
350000
2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024
000
lbs
U3O
8
Demand
Secondary Supply
Announced Plans Scenario for New mines
Existing Mines
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 18-41
• 2013 to 2018 - pressure on price as small changes to production could cause deficit
o Long-term price range $70 to $90/lb, market price: o Spot price range $65 to $120/lb
• 2019 to 2020 - new mines needed post 2020:
o If supply response inadequate: Long-term price range $80 to $100/lb, market Spot price range $80 to $140/lb
o If supply response adequate: Long-term/Spot price range $50 to $70/lb
• Post 2020: Long-term/Spot price range $50 to $70/lb
SUPPLY AND DEMAND - REASONABLE DOUBT SCENARIO
World Supply and Demand from Existing, Planned and Potential Mines and Secondary Sources – Reasonable Doubt Scenario for
Production
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
350000
2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024
000 lbs U3O8
Demand
Existing Mines
Reasonable Doubt scenario for new mines
Secondary Supply
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 18-42
The Reasonable Doubt scenario differs from the previous primarily in the timing and
production levels of three mines.
Under this scenario, there is a need for additional new mines from 2013.
Price implications:
• 2008 to 2011 - no upward pressure on price: o Long-term price range $60 to $90/lb o Spot price $45 to $65/lb
• 2012 to 2016 - pressure on long-term price to bring on new mines:
o Long-term price range $85 to $110/lb, market price o Spot price range $65 to $140/lb
• 2017 to 2022:
o If supply response positive and new mines available in timely fashion: Long-term price range $75 to $90/lb, market Spot price range $70 to $90/lb
o If production response inadequate: Long-term price range $90 to $120/lb Spot price $80 to $160/lb
• Post 2020:
o Long-term/Spot price range $50 to $70/lb
PRICE FOR EVALUATION USE Under the Announced Plans scenario, it would be possible to sign contracts at prices
ranging from $60/lb to $90/lb over the LOM. An evaluation price of $75/lb over the
LOM would seem appropriate.
The price range for the Reasonable Doubt scenario is from $60/lb to $110/lb, and the
suggested evaluation price is $85/lb.
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 18-43
MARKETING STRATEGY CONTRACT STRATEGY
TABLE 18-2 STRATECO’S PLANNED PRODUCTION Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
M lbs U3O8 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Matoush is planned to come into production at a time when the market will be
looking for new supply.
Three of several options that would be open to Strateco are direct marketing, sales via
an intermediary, or sales to a trader/primary producer for part of or total production.
Considering direct marketing by Strateco and assuming an environment of volatility
in the spot market and an upward trend in long-term market prices, it would be prudent to
adopt a contracting strategy which would allow at least 50% of production to be sold
under medium- to long-term contracts three to four years ahead of the delivery year. The
uncommitted production could then be sold either under long-term or spot market
contracts closer to the years of delivery, depending on market conditions.
Strateco would start marketing product three to four years before the first year of
production from Matoush.
The diagram below illustrates a marketing strategy under which Strateco sells
multiple term contracts of around 250,000 lb U3O8 per year for a term of four to six years
and leaves 200,000 lb to 500,000 lb per year for sale in the spot market in the year of
delivery. This strategy allows Strateco to sell into the market every year, thus keeping
abreast of market movements and benefiting from any improvements in market
conditions.
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 18-44
Volume Contracted and Year in which Contract Signed
0200400600800
100012001400160018002000
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Year of delivery
000
lbs
U3O
8
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 20182019 2020 2021 2022
Spot Sales
CONTRACT TERMS Two significant aspects of any long-term contract are:
1. Pricing
Some of the main pricing mechanisms are the following:
• Base Price Escalated A price is agreed at the time of contract signature and is fully or partially escalated by an agreed indicator for the duration of the contract.
• Market Price The price paid is the spot market price, as published by an agreed source, such as Ux Consulting Company or TradeTech, at the time of delivery (or average of an agreed period of time before the delivery), with or without a discount or premium (agreed at the time of signature). This price mechanism usually includes a floor and/or a ceiling price, which, if agreed, would escalate over the period of the contract. The price paid would be the spot price, if it is higher than the floor and lower than the ceiling. If the spot price is below the floor price, the floor price would be paid, and if it is above the ceiling price, the ceiling price would be paid.
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 18-45
• Formula Price The price would be any mix of the Base Price mechanism and the Market price mechanism or could include other published price indicators.
2. Delivery Location The price is the price paid at an agreed conversion facility, such as ConverDyn, Metropolis, Ill, USA; Cameco, Blind River, Canada; or Comurhex, Pierrelatte, France. Strateco would bear the cost of shipping to the conversion facility. Costs of shipping to France are almost 50% higher than shipping to North America.
TARGET MARKET The USA currently represents approximately one third of world uranium
requirements and by 2020 will still account for approximately 25%. Domestic production
in the USA is limited and the US nuclear program will be dependent on imports.
Strategically, the USA and Canada would appear to be Strateco’s primary target
markets:
• Large uranium requirement looking for secure imports • Lower costs of transport when compared with transport to Europe • Major nuclear utilities seeking to improve diversity of uranium supply
A secondary target would be Far Eastern or European utilities with conversion
contracts in North America.
CONTRACTS
Strateco does not have any existing contracts at present that would apply to the mine
operation. Future contracts will be necessary for the delivery of hydroelectric power, if
available, the delivery of both oxygen and sulphuric acid for the processing, the haulage
of yellowcake concentrate to the refinery, the supply of explosives and accessories for the
mine, and other minor items. Scott Wilson RPA is of the opinion that none of these
contracts will present any particular problems to hinder a smooth mining operation.
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 18-46
LIFE OF MINE PLAN
In order to advance the Project, the completion of a Feasibility Study will be required,
with additional work and refinement in several areas. The decision to proceed to the
construction phase will allow for financing and final permitting of the Project.
Construction will be dependent upon equipment lead times and the logistics of
transporting materials and equipment to site.
Scott Wilson RPA notes that the Life of Mine Plan (LOMP) does not consider
underground mine development which has been included in the initial exploration
program.
PRE-PRODUCTION SCHEDULE Construction at the mine is scheduled to start approximately two years prior to
production start-up. During this period, major equipment items for underground mining,
surface operations, ventilation, backfill and mine services will be purchased and
transported to site. Construction of the process plant, expected to last approximately 20
months, will also commence once supplies and materials have been shipped to site.
One year prior to production start-up, construction of the mine site buildings will
begin, including the expansion of the current camp facilities, and additional diesel
generator capacity will be installed. Pre-production development, expected to last
approximately one year, will also commence in the AM-15 Zone to provide access to the
required number of working areas for the start of production. Allowances are also made
to ensure sufficient access to fresh air and exhaust routes.
PRODUCTION SCHEDULE Production for the first two years of operations will come from the AM-15 Zone. In
the third year, the MT-34 and MT-22 zones will begin to supply the production.
A ramp-up period of two years has been assumed to reach the full production rate.
The production rates for Year 1 and Year 2 have been assumed to be 500 tpd and 675 tpd,
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 18-47
respectively. The full rate of 750 tpd will be reached in the third year of production, and
will be maintained through the remaining five years of mine life.
Although the schedule has not been optimized for grade, starting production in the
AM-15 Zone does provide access to a higher-grade portion of the deposits. In general,
the MT-22 Zone hosts lower grades. Therefore, during the years in which the MT-23 and
MT-22 zones are mined concurrently, the production from each zone was varied to
ensure a balanced profile and maintain at least 2.0 million pounds of U3O8 annually.
The LOMP is shown in Table 18-3.
Scott Wilson RPA notes that production grades for the LOMP have been assigned
according to the average grade per level mined. Applying more detail to the production
schedule is not warranted for this level of study.
-2 -1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 TOTAL
PHYSICALS
Ore Production
AM15 & MT34 '000 t 175.0 236.3 131.3 65.6 65.6 131.3 16.1 821.1 Grade %U3O8 0.633% 0.454% 0.371% 0.736% 0.827% 0.520% 0.469% 0.542%
MT22 '000 t - - 131.3 196.9 196.9 131.3 172.3 828.5 Grade %U3O8 0.000% 0.000% 0.353% 0.492% 0.310% 0.223% 0.248% 0.333%
Total '000 t 175.0 236.3 262.5 262.5 262.5 262.5 188.4 1,649.7 Grade %U3O8 0.633% 0.454% 0.362% 0.553% 0.439% 0.372% 0.267% 0.437%Contained Metal '000 lbs 2,440.7 2,362.9 2,097.0 3,201.2 2,540.4 2,151.9 1,108.7 15,902.8
Production Rate tpd 500 675 750 750 750 750 538 - 689
METALLURGY
Mill Feed '000 t 175.0 236.3 262.5 262.5 262.5 262.5 188.4 1,649.7 Grade %U3O8 0.633% 0.454% 0.362% 0.553% 0.439% 0.372% 0.267% 0.437%Contained Metal '000 lbs 2,440.7 2,362.9 2,097.0 3,201.2 2,540.4 2,151.9 1,108.7 15,902.8
Recovered Metal 97.6% '000 lbs 2,382.1 2,306.2 2,046.7 3,124.4 2,479.4 2,100.2 1,082.1 15,521.2
YEAR
TABLE 18-3 LIFE OF MINE PLANStrateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Property
SCO
TT
WIL
SON
RPA
ww
w.scottw
ilson.com
Strateco R
esources Inc. – Matoush Project
Preliminary A
ssessment –D
ecember 17, 2008
Page 18-48
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 18-49
DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE Development from the exploration program will give access to all the levels required
to mine the AM-15 Zone. Pre-production development includes lateral drifting on the
165, 180, 205, and 230 levels. Level access drifts will be extended from the ramp to
reach the mineralized zone, and a drift will be driven in ore to map the ore-waste contact.
Once this has been established, the footwall drift and crosscuts will be developed to
prepare for stope extraction.
A ventilation raise on the north end of the AM-15 Zone will be driven via alimak to
provide an intake route for fresh air, and drop raises will be developed between the pre-
production drifts to permit one-pass air movement through the openings. Additional
intake and exhaust raises will be developed from the 300 drill drift to provide a
ventilation route to the lower portion of the mine.
A pre-production development schedule is shown in Figure 18-7.
Once production begins, lateral and vertical development will advance in the AM-15
and MT-34 zones. A second independent ramp will be developed off the 300 drill level
to access the MT-22 Zone. As the MT-22 Zone is development-intensive and hosts a
relatively narrow mineralized zone, development is required in the first year of
production to prepare for extraction in the third year. All ramping is assumed to be at
minus 15% grade, and level spacing in the AM-15–MT-34 and MT-22 zones is assumed
to be 25 m and 15 m, respectively. All development is planned to be completed one year
prior to the end of mine life.
The single and multi-heading advance rates were assumed to be 6 m per day and 15 m
per day, respectively, amounting to an average of approximately 5,000 m per year. Re-
muck points and safety bays were assumed to be every 150 m and 30 m, respectively.
Additional allowances were made for the equipment setup time for alimak raising.
H1 H2
155 Level
Lateral Development
Ventilation Raises
180 Level
Lateral Development
Ventilation Raises
205 Level
Lateral Development
Ventilation Raises
230 Level
Lateral Development
Ventilation Raises
300 Level
Ventilation Raises
Ongoing (Lateral and Raising)
255 Level
280 Level
300 Level
325 Level
350 Level
375 Level
400 Level
425 Level
450 Level
475 Level
Ongoing (Lateral and Raising)
345 Level
363 Level
381 Level
399 Level
417 Level
435 Level
453 Level
471 Level
489 Level
507 Level
525 Level
543 Level
561 Level
579 Level
597 Level
615 Level
YEAR 7
MT-22 Zone
AM-15 & MT-34 Zones
YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 YEAR 6YEAR -1
ITEM YEAR 1 YEAR 2
December 2008
Matoush Project
Pre-productionDevelopment Schedule
Strateco Resources Inc.
Québec, Canada
Figure 18-7
18-50
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 18-51
Ventilation was a primary consideration in planning and scheduling the development.
To ensure that air was not being re-circulated, a one-pass ventilation system was ensured
by providing a fresh air source and exhaust route for each level.
CAPITAL COSTS
A pre-production capital cost of $297.3 million is estimated to bring the Project into
production. These costs include underground development, mine and process equipment
purchase and transportation to site, construction of surface facilities and infrastructure,
and installation of all services required to support the Project. The estimate includes
capital costs incurred over two years prior to the start of production, with no allowance
for escalation.
Direct costs for the mine and surface infrastructure, inclusive of equipment, materials
and labour, were estimated by Scott Wilson RPA. Mine and surface indirect costs,
inclusive of engineering, procurement, and construction management (EPCM), freight,
construction, owner’s costs, and contingencies were also estimated by Scott Wilson RPA.
Direct and indirect costs related to the process plant facilities were estimated by Melis.
Costs for advancing the Project to the construction stage, such as metallurgical testwork,
process development, permitting, environmental studies and project financing, are not
included in the capital costs.
Total Project capital costs are summarized in Table 18-4.
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 18-52
TABLE 18-4 CAPITAL COST SUMMARY Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Property
Pre-production Ongoing Total
Item ($ millions) ($ millions) ($ millions)
Mine 28.2 - 28.2 Process 149.9 - 149.9 Infrastructure 15.4 - 15.4 Indirects 49.9 - 49.9 Contingency 53.9 - 53.9 Subtotal 297.3 - 297.3
Sustaining Capital - 15.6 15.6 Reclamation - 30.0 30.0
Total 297.3 45.6 342.8
PRE-PRODUCTION CAPITAL The pre-production capital cost includes items from the time of the construction
decision, through two years of construction and into the start of production.
MINE CAPITAL
Underground mine capital for pre-production includes the purchase of mobile
equipment for the mine and surface facilities, lateral and ventilation raise development,
mine services, construction of the cement backfill plant, and equipment for pumping and
ventilation. A summary of mine capital costs during the pre-production period is
presented in Table 18-5.
TABLE 18-5 PRE-PRODUCTION MINE CAPITAL Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Property
Item Total ($ millions)
Underground Equipment 13.9 Surface Equipment 1.3 Development 6.7 Ventilation 1.3 Services 1.0 Backfill Plant (Cement) 4.0
Total 28.2
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 18-53
The underground and surface equipment costs are estimated from the fleet
requirements and recent quotations from manufacturers. Lateral development and
ventilation raise development is assumed to be carried out by owner crews and
contractors, respectively. Raise development by alimak, estimated to cost $3,600 per
meter, is based on quotations from the contractor. Capital costs for ventilation are
inclusive of intake, exhaust, and auxiliary fans, as well as the mine air heating and
propane system. Capital for mine services includes equipment and supplies for the shop,
electrical substations, communication systems, and explosives storage. The cement
backfill plant capital costs include allowances of $1.5 million for construction and $2.5
million for equipment and facilities.
PROCESS CAPITAL
Process capital costs are estimated by Melis for areas within the battery limits of the
process plant, and by Scott Wilson RPA for other areas. A tabulation of the process
capital is shown in Table 18-6.
The capital costs estimated by Melis were completed on an order-of-magnitude basis
to the level of detail typical for a Class IV estimate (-15% to -30% / +20% to +50%).
Equipment requirements and approximate sizing were defined by the design criteria and
process flow sheets. The installed cost of each piece of equipment or material included
the installation labour and material costs, based on budget quotes or Melis file data.
Labour costs were assumed to be $100 per hour, which includes regular and overtime
pay, travel, living allowance, room and board, and flights. The costs of process piping,
electrical, and instrumentation to site were estimated to be $10,000 per tonne, $20,000
per tonne, and $75,000 per tonne, respectively. Freight to site was assumed to be $4,000
per 38 tonne truckload, and an exchange rate of 0.95 was assumed in converting US to
Canadian currency.
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 18-54
TABLE 18-6 PRE-PRODUCTION PROCESS CAPITAL Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Property
Item Total ($ millions)
Storage and Crushing 4.6 SAG Mill Grinding 13.0 Ball Mill 7.9 Neutral Thickening and Leaching 7.0 Resin Loading Circuit 13.2 Resin Elution 4.1 Impurity Precipitation 2.6 Gypsum Filter 3.1 Uranium Precipitation 1.5 Uranium Thickener 1.2 Uranium Calcining 4.5 Uranium Packaging and Scrubbing 2.2 Tailings Neutralization 5.4 Reverse Osmosis 6.6 Effluent Treatment 7.2 Ferric Sulphate and Hydrogen Peroxide 1.6 Oxygen and Magnesia 1.1 Barium Chloride 0.5 Lime 4.5 Flocculent Mixing and Acid Plant 1.6 Fresh and Process Water 3.7 Low and High Pressure, and Instrument Air 1.1 Process Plant/Crusher/Oxygen Plant Buildings 48.0 Reagents (First Fills) 2.7 Tailings Storage 0.5 Mobile Equipment 0.5
Total 149.9
INFRASTRUCTURE CAPITAL Infrastructure capital costs include buildings, power, and administrative items.
Estimated infrastructure capital costs are summarized in Table 18-7.
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 18-55
TABLE 18-7 PRE-PRODUCTION INFRASTRUCTURE CAPITAL Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Property
Item Total ($ millions)
Buildings 10.0 Ore Pad 0.3 Power 4.3 Administration 0.8
Total 15.4
Building costs were estimated using a unit cost of $250 per square foot, which
includes an allowance for additional base support with pilings. Expansion of the camp,
totalling 230 rooms, was estimated at $30,000 per room. Capital costs for power include
the diesel generators, which were estimated at $1,100 per kWh installed. Administration
capital costs include vehicles, general office supplies, and communication systems.
INDIRECT CAPITAL COSTS
Indirect capital costs for the mine and infrastructure have been estimated by Scott
Wilson RPA, and costs for the process plant were estimated by Melis. A summary of the
indirect capital costs is shown in Table 18-8.
TABLE 18-8 INDIRECT CAPITAL Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Property
Item Total ($ millions)
EPCM 23.0 Contractor Overhead and Profit 6.7 Freight 2.1 Construction Mobile Equipment 1.0 Owner’s Costs 16.0 Other 1.1
Total 49.9
With respect to the mine and infrastructure, capital costs for EPCM were calculated
as 10% of total direct capital costs. Freight was estimated to be 8% of direct capital costs
for relevant equipment items. Other indirect capital includes insurance and capital
spares, which were estimated to be 0.5% and 1.0% of total direct capital costs,
respectively.
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 18-56
Indirect capital costs for the process facilities accounted for EPCM and contractor
overhead and profit, which were estimated at 12.5% and 4.5% of direct capital costs,
respectively. Scott Wilson RPA notes that freight for process plant items has been
included as a direct cost.
Owner’s costs are inclusive of labour, room and board, and materials costs for staff
and hourly personnel working on site during the pre-production period. Based on
manpower levels and annual salaries, total owner’s costs are estimated at $16.0 million.
CONTINGENCY
In Scott Wilson RPA’s opinion, many of the direct capital costs were estimated at a
greater level of detail than anticipated for a Preliminary Assessment. Rather than
applying a global percentage to the capital cost estimate, contingencies were varied by
item depending on the level of detail pertaining to the cost estimate.
Mine equipment and building capital, being primarily based on vendor quotations,
were assigned contingencies ranging from 5% to 10%, averaging 9.5% for the total, and
process plant capital costs were assigned a contingency of 25%. The average
contingency for indirect capital items, amounting to approximately 21%, was based on
the average contingencies for direct items.
The total pre-production contingency amounted to $53.9 million, or 22% of direct and
indirect pre-production capital costs. An additional allowance was included for mill
capital spares, based on 1% of total direct process equipment costs.
ONGOING CAPITAL A summary of the ongoing capital costs is tabulated below (Table 18-9).
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 18-57
TABLE 18-9 ONGOING CAPITAL Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Property
Item Total ($ millions)
Sustaining Capital 15.6 Closure and Reclamation 30.0
Total 45.6
Sustaining capital includes costs for waste development that have been capitalized
over the LOM. Closure costs are inclusive of a man-made lined cell, engineered cap for
the tailings, dismantling of the site infrastructure, long-term care and maintenance, and
contouring and revegetation of the site.
EXCLUSIONS The following items are also excluded from the capital cost estimate:
• Project financing • Land acquisition, leases rights of way and water rights • Escalation during construction • Permits and fees • Environmental impact studies • Any additional civil, concrete work due to the adverse soil condition and
location • Taxes • Import duties and custom fees • Cost of geotechnical investigation • Sunk costs • Pilot Plant and other testwork • Exploration drilling • Costs of fluctuations in currency exchanges • Project application and approval expenses • Future expansion • Relocation of any facilities, if required • All facilities outside Process Plant layout battery limit • Permanent communications • Townsite • Rail service • Construction camp
Scott Wilson RPA notes that the capital cost estimate described above is exclusive of
items that will be required during the exploration phase of the Project. Costs for a portion
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 18-58
of the equipment fleet, diesel generators, and service equipment are considered to be sunk
in relation to the scope and timeline of the Project. Direct and indirect costs for these
items amount to approximately $13 million.
OPERATING COSTS
The average unit operating costs over the LOM is $303 per tonne milled. The
operating costs include mining, power, maintenance, site services, and G&A estimated by
Scott Wilson RPA. Estimates for process operating costs were carried out by Melis, with
the exception of labour costs.
Operating costs for the Project are summarized in Table 18-10:
TABLE 18-10 UNIT OPERATING COST SUMMARY
Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Property
Item Total ($/t milled) Mining 82.80 Process 107.77 Power 35.75 Maintenance 24.84 Site Services 28.96 G&A 22.41
Total 302.53
MINING COSTS Mining costs, estimated to average of $82.80 per tonne milled, include labour for
owner and contract crews, explosives, consumables, and equipment operation.
Estimated underground mine operating costs are shown in Table 18-11.
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 18-59
TABLE 18-11 MINING OPERATING COST ESTIMATE Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Property
Item Total ($/t milled)
Labour 65.95 Definition Drilling 5.09 Development 6.39 Stoping 2.37 Backfill 3.00
Total 82.80
Labour costs have been developed using projected manpower levels, estimated
salaries, and loading factors representing potential fringe benefits and scheduled
overtime. Manpower, as detailed in a later section, includes staff labour for mine
supervision, engineering, geology, production, and maintenance.
Costs for definition drilling were based on an allowance of $1.2 million per year.
With the exception of alimak raising, it has been assumed that all development and
stoping will be conducted by owner crews. Developed from first principles, development
and stoping costs included explosives, consumables and supplies, such as water piping,
ventilation tubing and electrical cabling, and ground support. Alimak raising, estimated
to cost $3,600 per metre advance, was based on contract quotations.
Backfill costs, estimated to be $3.00 per tonne milled, account for non-labour costs
associated with sourcing and delivering waste rock fill and cemented rock fill to the
underground.
PROCESSING COSTS Processing costs, estimated to average $107.77 per tonne milled, include labour,
reagents, consumables, and maintenance.
Estimated process operating costs are shown in Table 18-12.
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 18-60
TABLE 18-12 PROCESS OPERATING COST ESTIMATE Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Property
Item Annual Total ($ ‘000)
Barium Chloride 15 Caustic Soda (NaOH) 15 Crusher Wear Parts 19 Diesel (Yellowcake Calcining) 360 Diesel (Steam Generation) 610 Ferric Sulphate (45%) 154 Flocculant, Anionic Polyacrylamide 7 Flocculant, Non-ionic Polyacrylamide 35 Grinding Mill Liners 500 Hydrogen Peroxide (70%) 271 Laboratory Supplies 250 Lime (98% CaO) 2,393 Magnesia (MgO) 48 Oxygen(1) 2,100 Product Drums 28 RIP Resin 378 Steel Grinding Balls (Grinding) 194 Steel Grinding Balls (Lime Slaking) 6 Sulphuric Acid (2) 9,196 Total Consumables 16,579 Maintenance Consumables 1,150 Contingency (15%) 2,659
Total 20,388
Process operating costs, as estimated by Melis, accounted for mill reagents, mill and
laboratory consumables, power, and maintenance consumables. Reagent and
consumables costs were estimated from unit costs and consumptions rates. Maintenance
consumables are estimated at 2% of the mechanical costs. The estimate includes
contingency, estimated at 15% of total reagent and consumables cost.
Scott Wilson RPA estimated the labour component of the processing costs. Costs
were estimated using annual loaded salaries and projected manpower levels based on the
organization chart provided by Melis.
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 18-61
POWER COSTS Average power costs over the LOM are estimated to be $35.75, and account for the
total power consumption on site.
Estimated power operating costs are shown in Table 18-13.
TABLE 18-13 POWER OPERATING COST ESTIMATE Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Property
Item Total ($/t milled) Mine 13.38 Process 19.32 Assay Lab 0.51 Tailings 0.75 Backfill 0.75 Surface 1.04 Total 35.75
Scott Wilson RPA has assumed that the mine, mill and surface will be powered
through the use of diesel generator sets. The potential to power the site using a power
line was considered. Although a reduction in operating cost would be realized with the
use of a power line, the significant capital requirements to install a line far exceed these
benefits.
Power costs for each item are calculated based on equipment unit horsepower (HP),
loading and utilization factors, and a diesel cost of $1.00 per litre.
MAINTENANCE COSTS Maintenance costs, estimated to be $24.84 per tonne milled over the LOM, account
for the mine, surface, and services. Process maintenance costs, as estimated by Melis, are
included with the process operating costs.
A summary of the estimated maintenance operating costs is shown in Table 18-14.
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 18-62
TABLE 18-14 MAINTENANCE OPERATING COST ESTIMATE Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Property
Item Total ($/t milled) Mine 21.64
Surface 2.24 Services 0.96
Total 24.84
The maintenance operating costs are estimated based on the equipment inventory,
projected annual operating hours, and hourly costs. The hourly costs include allowances
for parts, fuel, and consumables, such as lube, tires and wear parts.
SITE COSTS Site operating costs average $28.96 over the LOM, as summarized in Table 18-15.
TABLE 18-15 SITE OPERATING COST ESTIMATE Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Property
Item Total ($/t milled)
Labour 18.02 Camp Operations 8.78 Tailings Disposal 0.25 Building Installation and Maintenance 0.13 Airstrip and Road Maintenance 0.68 Equipment 0.59 Services 0.51
Total 28.96
Labour is estimated based on projected manpower levels and loaded annual salaries.
Camp operations are based on a contracted rate of $35 per person per day for food and
janitorial services. Equipment costs include allowances for the plant maintenance shop,
light and heavy equipment, compressors, and associated freight, fuel handling, and
distribution. Costs for services include operation and maintenance of the water supplies,
sewage, heating system, telecommunications, and services relevant to the plant.
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 18-63
GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS G&A costs are estimated to average $22.41 over the LOM, as shown in Table 18-16.
TABLE 18-16 G&A OPERATING COST ESTIMATE Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Property
Item Total ($/t milled)
Labour 18.42 Air Travel 1.22 Training 0.31 Off-site Overhead 0.31 Freight 0.41 Other 1.74
Total 22.41
Labour costs are based on projected manpower levels and loaded annual salaries. Air
travel costs include charter and commercial flights. Off-site overhead is to account for
head office administrative costs. Other items included in the G&A operating cost include
insurance, property tax, consulting fees, licensing, and office supplies.
TAXES
Due to the uncertainty of the taxes to be applied to the Project at this early stage, the
scoping study was prepared on a before tax basis.
MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS
Crews for construction and operations are assumed to work two ten-hour shifts per
day for periods of two weeks followed by two weeks off site. Table 18-17 shows a
summary of the total manpower required for the operation. Non-integer quantities for
“On shift” and “On site” manpower arises from the counting of unique personnel who are
on site half of the time, and do not have a cross-shift.
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 18-64
TABLE 18-17 TOTAL MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Property
Area On shift On site Total
Administration 16 16 24 Human Resources 13 17 34 Underground Mine 52 83.5 160.5 Process 20.5 28.5 55 Maintenance 17 24 46
Total 118.5 169 319.50
Tables 18-18 through 18-22 tabulate the estimated manpower requirements by area.
TABLE 18-18 ADMINISTRATION MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Property
Area On shift On site Total
Management 1 1 1 Accounting 3 3 5 Superintendents 3 3 3 Community Relations 1 1 1 Safety 1 1 1 Warehouse and Purchasing 3 3 5 Travel 2 2 4 Environmental Monitors 1 1 2 Receptionist 1 1 2
Total 16 16 24
TABLE 18-19 HUMAN RESOURCES MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Property
Area On shift On site Total
Administrative Assistant 1 1 2 Radiation 3 5 10 Training 2 2 4 Logistics and Catering 1 1 2 Security 3 5 10 Nurse 1 1 2 Ventilation/Radiation Tech. 2 2 4
Total 13 17 34
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 18-65
TABLE 18-20 MINE MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Property
Area On shift On site Total
Supervision 5 9 15 Engineering 8.5 8.5 15.5 Geology 7 9 16 Production 31.5 57 114
Total 52 83.5 160.5
TABLE 18-21 PROCESS MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Property
Area On shift On site Total
Superintendent 1 1 1 Foreman 1 1 1 Metallurgist 1 1 2 Technicians 2 2 4 Assay Lab 2 2 4 Trainer 0.5 0.5 1 Maintenance 3 3 6 Operators 10 18 36
Total 20.5 28.5 55
TABLE 18-22 MAINTENANCE MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Property
Area On shift On site Total
Foreman 1 1 1 Electrician 5 7 13 Mechanics 3 6 12 Welders 2 4 8 Equipment Operator 1 1 2 Services 5 5 10
Total 17 24 46
Base salaries and wages have been based on comparable projects and operations. A
loading factor of 40% was applied to the base salaries to account for fringe benefits and
scheduled overtime.
ECONOMIC EVALUATION
A pre-tax Cash Flow Projection has been generated from the LOM production
schedule, capital and operating cost estimates, and is summarized in Table 18-23. A
summary of the key criteria is provided below. The cash flow considers the Project from
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 18-66
the time of the construction decision and includes costs for permitting, pre-feasibility, and
feasibility studies.
ECONOMIC CRITERIA PHYSICALS
• Mine life: 7 years
• Pre-production period: Two years
• Operations: 350 days per year
• Productions rate:
o 500 tpd in Year 1 o 650 tpd in Year 2 o 700 tpd in Year 3 to end of mine life
• Total mill feed: 1.6 million tonnes grading 0.437% U3O8
• Metallurgical recovery: 97.6%
• Average annual production: 2.2 million lbs U3O8
REVENUE
• Metal price: US$75.00 per lb U3O8
• Exchange rate: C$1.00 = US$0.85
• Payable metal: 100%
• Transport change: $0.10 per lb U3O8
• Royalty: 2% NSR
• Average NSR value: $813 per tonne milled
COSTS
• Operating costs (per tonne milled):
o Mining: $ 82.80 o Process: $ 107.77 o Power: $ 35.75 o Maintenance: $ 24.84 o Site Services: $ 28.96 o G&A: $ 22.41 o Total: $ 302.53
• Capital costs: Life of Mine
o Pre-production: $ 193 million
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 18-67
o Indirects $ 50 million o Contingency $ 54 million o Sustaining: $ 16 million o Closure: $ 30 million o Total: $ 343 million
• Unit cash costs (per pound of U3O8)
o Operating: $ 27.33 o Capital: $ 18.77 o Total: $ 46.11
-2 -1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 TOTAL
PHYSICALS
Ore Production
AM15 & MT34 '000 t 175.0 236.3 131.3 65.6 65.6 131.3 16.1 821.1 Grade %U3O8 0.633% 0.454% 0.371% 0.736% 0.827% 0.520% 0.469% 0.542%
MT22 '000 t - - 131.3 196.9 196.9 131.3 172.3 828.5 Grade %U3O8 0.000% 0.000% 0.353% 0.492% 0.310% 0.223% 0.248% 0.333%
Total '000 t 175.0 236.3 262.5 262.5 262.5 262.5 188.4 1,649.7 Grade %U3O8 0.633% 0.454% 0.362% 0.553% 0.439% 0.372% 0.267% 0.437%Contained Metal '000 lbs 2,440.7 2,362.9 2,097.0 3,201.2 2,540.4 2,151.9 1,108.7 15,902.8
Production Rate tpd 500 675 750 750 750 750 538 - 689
METALLURGY
Mill Feed '000 t 175.0 236.3 262.5 262.5 262.5 262.5 188.4 1,649.7 Grade %U3O8 0.633% 0.454% 0.362% 0.553% 0.439% 0.372% 0.267% 0.437%Contained Metal '000 lbs 2,440.7 2,362.9 2,097.0 3,201.2 2,540.4 2,151.9 1,108.7 15,902.8
Recovered Metal 97.6% '000 lbs 2,382.1 2,306.2 2,046.7 3,124.4 2,479.4 2,100.2 1,082.1 15,521.2
REVENUE
Metal Price 75.00 US$/lb 75.00$ 75.00$ 75.00$ 75.00$ 75.00$ 75.00$ 75.00$ 75.00$ Exchange Rate 0.85 US$/C$ 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Gross Revenue '000 C$ 210,186$ 203,488$ 180,590$ 275,684$ 218,775$ 185,315$ 95,477$ 1,369,515$
Transport 0.10 per lb '000 C$ 238$ 231$ 205$ 312$ 248$ 210$ 108$ 1,552$ Net Smelter Return (NSR) '000 C$ 209,948$ 203,257$ 180,386$ 275,372$ 218,527$ 185,105$ 95,369$ 1,367,963$
Royalty 2.0% '000 C$ 4,199$ 4,065$ 3,608$ 5,507$ 4,371$ 3,702$ 1,907$ 27,359$ NSR after Royalty '000 C$ 205,749$ 199,192$ 176,778$ 269,864$ 214,156$ 181,403$ 93,461$ 1,340,604$
OPERATING COSTS
Mining '000 C$ 20,070$ 19,230$ 19,848$ 19,626$ 20,320$ 19,626$ 17,867$ 136,587$ Process '000 C$ 25,397$ 25,397$ 25,397$ 25,397$ 25,397$ 25,397$ 25,397$ 177,781$ Power '000 C$ 8,425$ 8,425$ 8,425$ 8,425$ 8,425$ 8,425$ 8,425$ 58,974$ Maintenance '000 C$ 5,855$ 5,855$ 5,855$ 5,855$ 5,855$ 5,855$ 5,855$ 40,984$ Site Services '000 C$ 6,826$ 6,826$ 6,826$ 6,826$ 6,826$ 6,826$ 6,826$ 47,781$ General and Administrative (G&A) '000 C$ 5,282$ 5,282$ 5,282$ 5,282$ 5,282$ 5,282$ 5,282$ 36,974$ Total '000 C$ 71,855$ 71,015$ 71,633$ 71,411$ 72,105$ 71,411$ 69,652$ 499,082$
Unit CostsMining C$/t milled 114.68$ 81.40$ 75.61$ 74.77$ 77.41$ 74.77$ 94.82$ 82.80$ Process C$/t milled 145.13$ 107.50$ 96.75$ 96.75$ 96.75$ 96.75$ 134.78$ 107.77$ Power C$/t milled 48.14$ 35.66$ 32.09$ 32.09$ 32.09$ 32.09$ 44.71$ 35.75$ Maintenance C$/t milled 33.46$ 24.78$ 22.30$ 22.30$ 22.30$ 22.30$ 31.07$ 24.84$ Site Services C$/t milled 39.00$ 28.89$ 26.00$ 26.00$ 26.00$ 26.00$ 36.22$ 28.96$ G&A C$/t milled 30.18$ 22.36$ 20.12$ 20.12$ 20.12$ 20.12$ 28.03$ 22.41$ Total C$/t milled 410.60$ 300.59$ 272.89$ 272.04$ 274.69$ 272.04$ 369.63$ 302.53$
C$/lb U3O8 30.16$ 30.79$ 35.00$ 22.86$ 29.08$ 34.00$ 64.37$ 32.15$
OPERATING PROFIT '000 C$ 133,894$ 128,177$ 105,145$ 198,453$ 142,051$ 109,992$ 23,809$ 841,522$
CAPITAL COSTS
Direct Capital CostsMine
UG Equipment '000 C$ 6,920$ 6,920$ 13,840$ Surface Equipment '000 C$ 650$ 650$ 1,300$ Development '000 C$ -$ 6,726$ 6,726$ Ventilation '000 C$ 635$ 635$ 1,270$ Services '000 C$ 511$ 511$ 1,023$ Backfill Plant '000 C$ 2,000$ 2,000$ 4,000$
ProcessEquipment '000 C$ -$ 148,886$ 148,886$ Tailings '000 C$ -$ 500$ 500$ Mobile Equipment '000 C$ -$ 500$ 500$
InfrastructureMine Site Buiildings '000 C$ -$ 10,000$ 10,000$ Ore Pad '000 C$ -$ 250$ 250$ Power '000 C$ -$ 4,318$ 4,318$ Administration '000 C$ -$ 830$ 830$
Total Direct Capital '000 C$ 10,716$ 182,726$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 193,443$
Indirect Capital Costs '000 C$ 1,281$ 48,648$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 49,928$
Contingency '000 C$ 2,628$ 50,677$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 53,305$ Capital Spares '000 C$ -$ 575$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 575$ Sustaining Capital '000 C$ -$ -$ 2,556$ 2,985$ 2,590$ 3,182$ 2,620$ 1,631$ -$ -$ 15,564$ Closure '000 C$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 30,000$ 30,000$ Total Capital Costs '000 C$ 14,625$ 282,627$ 2,556$ 2,985$ 2,590$ 3,182$ 2,620$ 1,631$ -$ 30,000$ 342,815$
C$/lb U3O8 22.09$
PRE-TAX CASH FLOWAnnual '000 C$ (14,625)$ (282,627)$ 131,338$ 125,192$ 102,556$ 195,271$ 139,431$ 108,361$ 23,809$ (30,000)$ 498,706$ Cumulative '000 C$ (14,625)$ (297,251)$ (165,913)$ (40,721)$ 61,834$ 257,105$ 396,536$ 504,897$ 528,706$ 498,706$
INTERNAL RATE OF RETURN % 37.1%
NET PRESENT VALUE (NPV) 5.0% C$ million 341.61$ 8.0% C$ million 271.20$ 10.0% C$ million 231.85$ 15.0% C$ million 154.11$
UNIT COST OF PRODUCTION
Operating US$/lb U3O8 25.64$ 26.17$ 29.75$ 19.43$ 24.72$ 28.90$ 54.71$ 27.33$ Capital US$/lb U3O8 18.77$ Total US$/lb U3O8 25.64$ 26.17$ 29.75$ 19.43$ 24.72$ 28.90$ 54.71$ 46.11$
YEAR
TABLE 18-23 PRE-TAX CASH FLOW SUMMARYStrateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Property
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 18-68
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 18-69
CASH FLOW ANALYSIS Considering the Project as a stand-alone operation, the undiscounted cash flow is
$499 million over the seven-year mine life. Operating cash flows average $120 million
per year, and simple payback of pre-production capital is achieved after 2.4 years of
operation.
The pre-tax Internal Rate of Return (IRR) is 37.1%. Pre-tax Net Present Value
(NPV) of the Project at various discount rates is as follows:
• Pre-tax NPV @ 5.0% $ 342 million
• Pre-tax NPV @ 8.0% $ 271 million
• Pre-tax NPV @ 10.0% $ 232 million
• Pre-tax NPV @ 12.5% $ 154 million
In Scott Wilson RPA’s opinion, a discount rate of 10% is appropriate for Base Case
evaluation at this stage of the Project. The economic analysis contained in this report is
based, in part, on Inferred Resources, and is preliminary in nature. Inferred Resources
are considered too geologically speculative to have mining and economic considerations
applied to them to be categorized as Mineral Reserves. There is no certainty that the
production and economic forecasts on which this report is based will be realized.
PROJECT SENSITIVITIES Project risks have been evaluated for economic and non-economic factors. Key
economics risks were examined by performing cash flow sensitivities to head grades,
metal price, operating costs and capital costs. The results are shown in Figure 18-8 and
Table 18-24. The cash flow was evaluated using a variation of ±20% for each variable.
The Project is most sensitive to head grade and metal price, followed by operating
cost and capital cost. The break-even uranium price for the Project is US$53 per lb.
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 18-70
FIGURE 18-8 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
$-
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
$350
$400
$450
0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20
Sensitivity Factor
Pre-
Tax
NPV
@ 1
0% (C
$ m
illio
ns)
Grade Metal Price Operating Cost Capital Cost
TABLE 18-24 SENSITIVITY ANALYSES Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project
Parameter Variables Units -20% -10% Base +10% +20%
Metal Price US$/lb U3O8 60.00 67.50 75.00 82.50 90.00
Head Grade % U3O8 0.35 0.39 0.44 0.48 0.53
Capital Cost $ millions 274 309 343 377 411
Operating Cost C$/t 242 272 303 333 363
NPV @ 10% Units -20% -10% Base +10% +20%
Metal Price $ millions 74.3 153.1 231.9 310.6 389.4
Head Grade $ millions 74.5 153.2 231.9 310.5 389.2
Capital Cost $ millions 285.4 258.6 231.9 205.1 178.3
Operating Cost $ millions 289.3 260.6 231.9 203.1 174.4
Further to the present cash flow analysis, the effect of an increase in the cut-off grade
to 0.10% U3O8 was reviewed. The net effect would be a reduction of approximately
188,000 tonnes of resources at a grade of 0.069% U3O8. This would result in a loss of
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 18-71
approximately 288,000 lbs of uranium. The loss in revenue ($25 million) is evaluated at
about 1.8% of the total revenue and, when weighted against the reduction in operating
costs (10 months less production), the net result would be positive, in the order of $40
million to $50 million. This would improve the Project NPV by approximately $10
million to $15 million.
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 19-1
19 INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS Based on the observation made during the site visits and a review of the available
data, Scott Wilson RPA offers the following conclusions:
• The Mineral Resources, as presented, are estimated consistently with the CIM guidelines. At a cut-off grade of 0.05% U3O8, Indicated Mineral Resources are estimated to total 250,000 tonnes grading 0.68% U3O8 containing 3.73 million pounds U3O8. Inferred Mineral Resources are estimated to total 1.34 million tonnes grading 0.44% U3O8 containing 13.07 million pounds U3O8. The Mineral Resources are contained within three zones: AM-15, MT-22 and MT-34.
• There are no Mineral Reserves estimated at Matoush.
• Preliminary metallurgical testwork, initiated at SGS Lakefield in 2007 under
the direction of Melis as part of development work on the Matoush Project, confirm that high uranium extractions (approximately 98%) can, on average, be achieved from the Matoush mineralization under medium free acid concentrations using oxygen as oxidant. The leach test results show that a low pressure oxygen sulphuric acid leach is the leach option of choice for the Matoush mineralization, achieving very high uranium extractions of 98% or better.
• Considering the Project as a stand-alone operation, the undiscounted cash flow
is $499 million over the seven-year mine life. Operating cash flows average $120 million per year, and simple payback of pre-production capital is achieved after 2.4 years of operation.
The economic analysis contained in this report is based, in part, on Inferred Resources, and is preliminary in nature. Inferred Resources are considered too geologically speculative to have mining and economic considerations applied to them to be categorized as Mineral Reserves. There is no certainty that the production and economic forecasts on which this report is based will be realized.
• Based upon capital costs of $343 million, operating costs of $303 per tonne
and a metal price of 75$/lb of uranium, the Project has a pre-tax IRR of 37.1% and a pre-tax NPV at 10% of $231.9 million. The Project would generate some 15.5 million pounds of uranium (U3O8) over a seven-year period.
• While operating costs were evaluated with the most recent labour and material
cost information available, there are items that are in constant flux due to the present economic situation. A periodic review of certain key components would be required. For example, the most important item in the processing
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 19-2
cost is that for H2SO4, which represents about 55% of the consumables cost, and oxygen, which accounts for about 13% of the consumables cost.
• The mining method recommended is the longhole method, which can be
utilized for the bulk of the mineralization. A “Non Man Entry” method would need to be developed for the areas where the grade exceeds acceptable levels for normal mining operations. The typical method in this case would be the raise bore method. Detailed plans would need to be developed in this case.
• The Matoush Project site is located at the top of a watershed, and the
underground mine is entirely located within fairly permeable sandstone, which will likely be the largest contributor to the mine effluent, and average yearly stream flows within a radius of a few kilometres around the site are likely to be less than the mine effluent average discharge rate. Considering the physical limitations of natural streams to take up additional flow without generating uncontrolled erosion and the potential sensitivity of aquatic species, it is unlikely the mine effluent discharge point will be close to the mine site. There will likely be a trade-off between water treatment cost, water segregation cost, and distance of effluent relative to the mine facilities.
• The permitting process for the Matoush Project tailings facility may be
lengthy and construction costs of the tailings facility may be high if an artificial depression in the ground has to be built and/or if the tailings area has to be lined to very stringent criteria (such as a high security cell).
• Discussions with regulatory agencies may be required regarding fish habitat
loss, impact on wetlands, and the projected biodiversity reserve that is approximately 19 km away from the site.
• Considering the size of the Matoush property, with the numerous interpreted
fault zones and nine areas with anomalous radioactive boulders, there is a vast exploration potential to be investigated. Exploration drilling should continue along the MFZ and on any other major fault structures where geophysical interpretations and uranium-mineralized float boulders suggest potential centres of mineralization. There is also potential for unconformity-type uranium deposits on the Matoush property.
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 20-1
20 RECOMMENDATIONS Within the last year, two new zones of mineralization have been outlined on the
Matoush property where the MFZ is the primary host structure with kilometres of
untested potential. Without proven direct geophysical means of pinpointing mineralized
areas along the MFZ, diamond drilling will remain the principal exploration technique.
A recommended Phase 1 program to run from August 1, 2008, through June 30, 2009,
includes extensive diamond drilling to explore the limits and upgrade the resources of the
three zones already located, AM-15, MT-22 and MT-34. As time and resources permit,
drilling will be directed at targets selected along the north and south extensions of the
MFZ and also at targets associated with interpreted, basement-rooted fault zones.
Consideration should also be given to prioritize areas that might be explored for
unconformity-type uranium mineralization. In all cases, the objective will be the location
of other mineralized centres with potential to host substantial tonnages of economic
uranium mineralization.
The recommended Phase 1 budget includes funds to complete the various studies
such as the current Preliminary Assessment, an Environmental Impact Assessment and
Socio-Economic Study by Golder, and continued metallurgical test work by Melis. To
improve the logistics of transporting supplies, fuel and heavy equipment to the property, a
substantial upgrade to the winter road access is recommended.
Given the size of the Matoush Project, a Phase 2 program is proposed which would
include significant diamond drilling of untested existing targets, plus targets developed
over time as a synthesis of existing and newly acquired data pinpoints new target areas
with potential for uranium mineralization. Advancing to Phase 2 work will in part be
contingent on positive results from Phase 1 work. Nonetheless, it is felt that at the end of
Phase 1 there will still be a number of untested, top priority drill targets. Details of the
programs recommended by Strateco are shown in Table 20-1. Scott Wilson RPA has
reviewed the details and concurs with the recommended program and budget.
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 20-2
TABLE 20-1 PROPOSED BUDGET – STRATECO MATOUSH PROJECT Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Project
Phase 1 Program - August 1, 2008 to June 30, 2009 $ Head Office Services 1,000,000Project Management/Staff Costs 1,000,000Expense Accounts/Travel Costs 100,000Communications - telephone/fax/radio/hardware/software 120,000Camp Costs Supplies-food, lumber 700,000 Fuel-oil, propane 1,200,000Consultants Mining 200,000 Geophysics 325,000 Technical Support 150,000Diamond Drilling ($200/m) all included except fuel AM-15, MT-22 MT-34 (15,000 m) 3,000,000 North Extension (6,000 m) 1,200,000 South Extension, éclat (9,000 m) 1,800,000Downhole probing 150,000Transportation: Charter aircraft, trucks, skidoos 1,000,000Metallurgical Testing 300,000Environmental Impact Assessment 1,300,000Socio-Economic Study 550,000Market Study 70,000Winter Road Access 1,200,000Mapping/topography 30,000Tenure - Option Payments, Fees, Permits 250,000Shipping-couriers, freight 100,000
Subtotal 15,745,000
Contingencies - 10% 1,574,500
Total 17,719,500
Phase 2 Program – 2009-2010 Head Office and camp maintenance, continued drilling, geophysics, resource estimation, and exploration ramp development 50,000,000
Other recommendations include:
• The ongoing bulk density measurement program be reviewed and improved.
All measurements should be taken on full core. A “standard” with similar physical properties to the Matoush mineralization should be measured daily. The use of paraffin wax to seal core should also be considered. Scott Wilson RPA notes that the application of paraffin may preclude the option of chemical analysis.
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 20-3
• Several enhancements to the QA/QC program including the regular use of standards and coarse reject duplicates. Coarse rejects, blanks and CRMs should be submitted at a rate of 1 in 50 or at least one each per sample batch. SRC should be instructed to prepare a second pulp, also at a rate of 1 in 50, to be submitted to a second laboratory. The alternative lab should use similar digestion and analyses methods as used at SRC. Results from all QA samples should be compiled in a separate database with associated queries to identify QA failures.
• Based on results of the current Preliminary Assessment, an underground
exploration program is warranted, beginning as early as June or July 2009.
• Tailings and waste rock will have to be submitted to a geochemical characterization program according to provincial guidelines (Quebec Directive 019) and additional geochemical testing and modelling of the waste rock and tailings material over the long term will likely be required by the CNSC.
• A field investigation for the potential site(s) of the tailings facility and for the potential borrow sources will have to be carried out. The requirements of the applicable guidelines and the cost of a surface disposal facility should be assessed. Similarly, the potential costs/benefits for using tailings for cemented backfill in the underground mine should be assessed considering the potential benefit with respect to reduced mine seepage and the potential increase in control measures for radiation in the mine. Further field work may be required depending on the location of the tailings pond, namely for fish and fish habitat.
• Hydraulic conductivity of sandstone facies ACF4 (400 m thick), the basal conglomerate (28 m thick), the basement regolith (4 m thick) and the Archean granitic basement has not been assessed. Some of these geological features may provide conditions for permeable zones. Assessment of deep bedrock hydraulic conductivity and deep groundwater chemistry should be assessed in the future in order to evaluate potential mine water inflows and mine seepage water quality.
• Mine water seepage in deep uranium mines within or at the contact with sandstones are known to pose major challenges to mining operations. Detailed mine seepage estimations should be carried out and use of mitigation measures should be assessed in order to reduce the operational risks and reduce the volumes of water that could potentially require treatment.
• Consideration to discharging the mine effluent towards the northwest (Eastmain River watershed) rather than to the southeast (projected biodiversity reserve watershed) should be given during the baseline studies and the applicable baseline programs should be developed and implemented. Also, a model predicting water quality changes in the receiving water body should be
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 20-4
developed once predictions are available for treated effluent quality and quantity.
• Survey of wetlands that would be subject to impact or to partial or complete loss once the final infrastructure plan is defined should be carried out to help evaluate potential impacts or to determine wetlands value and assess the appropriate compensation effort that may be required by the MDDEP (Ministère du Développement durable, de l’Environnement et des Parcs).
• Assessment of fish habitat along the road leading to the borrow pits and along shoreline of water bodies within the borrow pit areas should be completed. Additional metal and radionuclide analysis on fish flesh and bones should be conducted from additional water bodies within and outside the Matoush Project site.
• Additional field surveys for wildlife should be conducted to increase confidence in the relative abundance, distribution and habitat use by wildlife within the study areas, and to better determine if listed wildlife is present or not.
• Where archaeological potential has been identified, an archaeological inventory should be conducted before construction starts to ensure that the Project does not impact on archived heritage.
• Cost for consumables should be reviewed periodically in an effort to improve the mine and processing operating costs, given the present day flux in certain consumables prices.
• Direct marketing of Matoush production is recommended. Assuming an
environment of volatility in the spot market and an upward trend in long-term market prices, it would be prudent to adopt a contracting strategy which would allow at least 50% of production to be sold under medium- to long-term contracts three to four years ahead of the delivery year. The uncommitted production could then be sold either under long-term or spot market contracts closer to the years of delivery, depending on market conditions.
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 21-1
21 REFERENCES Baker, D.J., 1980: The metamorphism and structural history of the Grenville Front near
Chibougamau; unpub. PhD Thesis, University of Georgia; 344 p. Bernier, L. and Moorehead, J., 2000: Controles structureaux, caractéristiques
pétrographiques et minéralogiques de la Kimberlite Otish; MER Québec, MB2000-14.
Bisson, E., Delorme, E., Rougerie, E and Solari, A., 1984: Rapport Final 1983, Monts
Otish – Cogema (Canada) Ltée; filed by MRN, Québec as GM 57709 and GM 57710. Caillat, C., and Raynal, M., 1984: Rapport de Fin de Campagne Eté 1984, Vol. 1 of 10,
Cogema (Canada) Ltée, filed as GM 42517 Chown, E.H., 1979: Structure and metamorphism of the Otish Mountains area of the
Grenvillian Foreland Zone, Quebec; Geol. Soc. America Bull., Vol. 90, Pt II, pp 178-196.
Chown, E.H., 1984: Mineralization controls in the Aphebian Formations, Chibougamau,
Mistassini and Otish Areas; Chibougamau-Stratigraphy and Mineralization; CIM Special Volume 34; pp 229-243.
Chown, E.H. and Caty, J.L., 1973: Stratigraphy, Petrography and Paleocurrent Analysis
of the Aphebian Clastic Formations of the Mistassini-Otish Basin; GAC Special Paper 12; pp 49-71.
Cook, R.B., and Ross, D.A., 2007: Technical Report on the Matoush Uranium Project,
Central Quebec, Canada, prepared by Scott Wilson RPA for Strateco Resources Inc., September 27, 2007.
Cook, R.B., and Ross, D.A., 2008: Technical Report on the Mineral Resource Update for
the Matoush Uranium Project, Central Quebec, Canada, prepared by Scott Wilson RPA for Strateco Resources Inc., September 16, 2008.
Di Prisco, G., 2007: Mineralogical Characterization of Drill Core Samples from the
Matoush Property, Northern Quebec; Report to Strateco by Terra Mineralogical Services, 36 p.
Elson, S. and Langridge, R., 2007: Interpretation and logistics Report, 2006 UTEM 3
Survey, Matoush property, Quebec; Lamontagne Geophysics Ltd; 14 p plus Appendices.
Gatzweiler, R., 1987: Uranium Mineralization in the Proterozoic Otish Basin, Central
Quebec, Canada. In Uranium mineralization, new aspects on geology, mineralogy, geochemistry and exploration methods. Monograph series on mineral deposits 27, Gerbruder Borntraeger, Berlin-Stuttgart, p. 27-48.
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 21-2
Genest, S., 1989: Analyse du Bassin d’Otish, Protérozoïque inférieur, Québec. Université de Montréal, Thèse de doctorat, 277 pages.
Girard, R., 2006: Matoush Project, Uranium Exploration in the Lac De L’Hippocampe
Area, Otish Mountains; 2006 Technical Report prepared for Strateco Resources Inc.; 63 p; filed on SEDAR, Oct.5, 2006.
Hardy, F., Paquet, G. and Hardy, C. 2008: Geological and Geomorphologic Study-
Matoush Property; Report prepared by Poly-Geo Inc; 34 pages. Hoeve, J. 1984: Host rock alteration and its application as an ore guide at the Midwest
Lake uranium deposit, northern Saskatchewan; CIM Bull. Vol.77. no 868, p 63-72. International Energy Agency, 2006: World Energy Outlook 2006. Jefferson, C.W., Thomas, D.J., Gandhi, S.S., Ramaekers, P., Delaney, G., Brisbin, G.,
Cutts, C., Portella, P. and Olson, R.A., 2007: Unconformity-associated uranium deposits of the Athabasca Basin, Saskatchewan and Alberta; in EXTECH IV: Geology and Uranium Exploration Technology of the Proterozoic Athabasca Basin, Saskatchewan and Alberta, (ed) C.W. Jefferson and G. Delaney; Geological Survey of Canada, Bull. 588, p 23-76.
Jenkins, C., 1984: Uranerz Exploration and Mining Limited, Assessment Report, Project
71-90, Lac Matoush; filed by MER as GM 41931. Lafontaine, J., 2007: Summary of the Sedimentary Rocks Observed in the Matoush area
of the Otish Mountain Sedimentary Basin; internal Strateco report. Fielder, B.C., Armstrong, K.C., and Melis, L.A., 2008: Summary of Metallurgical
Testwork, Process Plant Operations, Design, Capital and Operating Cost Estimate, prepared for Strateco Resources Inc. by Melis Engineering Ltd., October 29, 2008.
Pauwels, Andre M., 2005: Evaluation Report, Otish Mountain Property, Xemplar Energy
Corp; 60 p; filed on SEDAR, May 9, 2006. Rhys, David, 2007: Matoush Property – Field Visit and Core Evaluation; Strateco
internal report; 18 pp. SGS, 2003: Geology and Mineral and Petroleum Resources of Saskatchewan;
Saskatchewan Industry and Resources; Saskatchewan Geological Survey; Misc. Report 2003-7, 173 p.
Wilson, R.D., 2008: Evaluation of the Strateco gamma logging program; internal report
to Strateco Resources Inc., 6 pp. World Nuclear Association 2007: The Global Nuclear Fuel Market: Supply and Demand,
2007-2030.
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 22-1
22 SIGNATURE PAGE This report titled “Technical Report on the Preliminary Assessment of the Matoush
Project, Central Quebec, Canada” and dated December 17, 2008, was prepared and
signed by the following authors:
(Signed & Sealed) Dated at Toronto, Ontario December 17, 2008 Normand L. Lecuyer, P.Eng. Principal Mining Engineer (Signed & Sealed) Dated at Toronto, Ontario December 17, 2008 R. Barry Cook, M.Sc., P.Eng. Associate Geologist (Signed & Sealed) Dated at Toronto, Ontario December 17, 2008 David A. Ross, M.Sc., P.Geo. Senior Geologist (Signed & Sealed) Dated at Toronto, Ontario December 17, 2008 Bruce C. Fielder, P.Eng. Principal Process Engineer Melis Engineering Ltd. (Signed & Sealed) Dated at Toronto, Ontario December 17, 2008 Normand D’Anjou, ing. Golder Associés Ltée
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 23-1
23 CERTIFICATE OF QUALIFICATION NORMAND LECUYER
I, Normand Lecuyer, P.Eng., as an author of this report entitled “Technical Report on the Preliminary Assessment of the Matoush Project, Central Quebec, Canada” prepared for Strateco Resources Inc. and dated December 17, 2008, do hereby certify that:
1. I am Principal Mining Engineer with Scott Wilson Roscoe Postle Associates Inc. of
Suite 501, 55 University Ave Toronto, ON, M5J 2H7. 2. I am a graduate of Queen’s University, Kingston, Canada, in 1976 with a B.Sc.
(Hons.) degree in Mining Engineering. 3. I am registered as a Professional Engineer in the provinces of Ontario
(Reg.#26055251) and Québec (Reg.# 34914). I have worked as a mining engineer for a total of 30 years since my graduation. My relevant experience for the purpose of the Technical Report is:
• Review and report as a consultant on numerous exploration and mining projects around the world for due diligence and regulatory requirements.
• Vice-President Operations for a number of mining companies. • Mine Manager at an underground gold mine in Northern Ontario, Canada. • Manager of Mining/Technical Services at a number of base-metal mines in
Canada and North Africa. • Vice-President Engineering at two gold operations in the Abitibi area of
Quebec, Canada. 4. I have read the definition of "qualified person" set out in National Instrument 43-101
(NI43-101) and certify that by reason of my education, affiliation with a professional association (as defined in NI43-101) and past relevant work experience, I fulfill the requirements to be a "qualified person" for the purposes of NI43-101.
5. I visited the Matoush Project on June 18, 2008. 6. I am responsible for overall preparation of the Technical Report. 7. I am independent of the Issuer applying the test set out in Section 1.4 of National
Instrument 43-101. 8. I have had no prior involvement with the property that is the subject of the Technical
Report. 9. I have read National Instrument 43-101, and the Technical Report has been prepared
in compliance with National Instrument 43-101 and Form 43-101F1.
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 23-2
10. To the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, the Technical Report contains all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the technical report not misleading.
Dated this 17th day of December, 2008
(Signed & Sealed)
Normand Lecuyer, P.Eng.
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 23-3
BARRY COOK I, R. Barry Cook, M.Sc., P.Eng., as an author of this report entitled “Technical Report
on the Preliminary Assessment of the Matoush Project, Central Quebec, Canada” prepared for Strateco Resources Inc. and dated December 17, 2008, do hereby certify that:
1. I am an Associate Consulting Geologist with Scott Wilson Roscoe Postle Associates
Inc. of Suite 501, 55 University Ave Toronto, ON, M5J 2H7.
2. I am a graduate of Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, in 1962 with a Bachelor in Science degree in Geological Engineering and in 1964 with a Master of Science degree in Geological Engineering.
3. I am registered as a Professional Engineer in the Province of Ontario (Reg. #
9202011) and as a Professional Engineer/Professional Geologist in the Northwest Territories (Reg. # L797). I have worked as a geologist for a total of 43 years since my graduation. My relevant experience for the purpose of the Technical Report is:
a. 40 years of active experience in mineral exploration including uranium
exploration in the Thelon Basin. b. Familiarity with the Athabasca unconformity-type uranium model and to a
lesser extent with the IOCG and intragranitic type uranium models. c. Attendance at a number of short courses and conferences and on field trips
concerning a variety of uranium deposits. 4. I have read the definition of "qualified person" set out in National Instrument 43-101
(NI43-101) and certify that by reason of my education, affiliation with a professional association (as defined in NI43-101) and past relevant work experience, I fulfill the requirements to be a "qualified person" for the purposes of NI43-101.
5. I visited the Matoush Project on June 15-16, 2007.
6. I prepared sections 4 to 15 and collaborated on sections 1, 2, 19, and 20.
7. I am independent of the Issuer applying the test set out in Section 1.4 of National Instrument 43-101.
8. On September 27, 2007, I co-authored a NI43-101 Technical Report on the Matoush property. On October 16, 2008, I co-authored a NI 43-101 Technical Report on the Mineral Resource Update for the Matoush Project.
9. I have read National Instrument 43-101, and the Technical Report has been prepared in compliance with National Instrument 43-101 and Form 43-101F1.
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 23-4
10. To the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, the Technical Report contains all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the technical report not misleading.
Dated this 17th day of December, 2008
(Signed & Sealed)
R. Barry Cook, M.Sc., P.Eng.
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 23-5
DAVID ROSS I, David A. Ross, P.Geo., as an author of this report entitled “Technical Report on the
Preliminary Assessment of the Matoush Project, Central Quebec, Canada” prepared for Strateco Resources Inc. and dated December 17, 2008, do hereby certify that: 1. I am a Senior Geologist with Scott Wilson Roscoe Postle Associates Inc. of Suite
501, 55 University Ave., Toronto, ON, M5J 2H7. 2. I am a graduate of Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada, in 1993 with a Bachelor of
Science degree in Geology and Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, in 1999 with a Master of Science degree in Mineral Exploration.
3. I am registered as a Professional Geoscientist in the Province of Ontario (Reg.#1192)
and for Incidental Practice registered with the Ordre des Géologues du Québec (#106). I have worked as a geologist for a total of 14 years since my graduation. My relevant experience for the purpose of the Technical Report is:
a. Mineral Resource estimation work and reporting on numerous mining and exploration projects around the world.
b. Exploration geologist on a variety of gold and base metal projects in Canada, Indonesia, Chile, and Mongolia.
4. I have read the definition of "qualified person" set out in National Instrument 43-101
("NI43-101") and certify that by reason of my education, affiliation with a professional association (as defined in NI43-101) and past relevant work experience, I fulfill the requirements to be a "qualified person" for the purposes of NI43-101.
5. I visited the Matoush Project most recently on July 15-16, 2008. 6. I am solely responsible for Section 17 of the Technical Report and collaborated on
sections 1, 2, 19, and 20. 7. I am independent of the Issuer applying the test set out in Section 1.4 of National
Instrument 43-101. 8. On September 27, 2007, I co-authored a NI 43-101 Technical Report on the Matoush
property. On October 16, 2008, I co-authored a NI 43-101 Technical Report on the Mineral Resource Update for the Matoush Project.
9. I have read National Instrument 43-101, and the Technical Report has been prepared
in compliance with National Instrument 43-101 and Form 43-101F1.
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 23-6
10. To the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, the Technical Report contains all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the technical report not misleading.
Dated this 17th day of December, 2008 (Signed & Sealed) David A. Ross, M.Sc., P.Geo
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 23-7
BRUCE C. FIELDER I, Bruce C. Fielder, P.Eng., as an author of this report entitled “Technical Report on
the Preliminary Assessment of the Matoush Project, Central Quebec, Canada” prepared for Strateco Resources Inc. and dated December 17, 2008, do hereby certify that:
1. I am Principal Process Engineer with Melis Engineering Ltd. of Suite 100, 2366 Avenue C North, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7L 5X5.
2. I am a graduate of the University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, in 1981 with a B.Sc. degree in Metallurgical Engineering.
3. I am registered as a Professional Engineer in the Province of Saskatchewan (Certificate No. 10309). I have worked as a process engineer for a total of 27 years since my graduation. My relevant experience for the purpose of the Technical Report is:
• 27 years direct and indirect experience in the processing of uranium, and • Previous preparation of capital and operating cost estimates
4. I have read the definition of "qualified person" set out in National Instrument 43-101 (NI43-101) and certify that by reason of my education, affiliation with a professional association (as defined in NI43-101) and past relevant work experience, I fulfill the requirements to be a "qualified person" for the purposes of NI43-101.
5. I visited the Matoush Project on September 3 and 4, 2008.
6. I am responsible for preparation of Item 16 and contributed to items 1, 19, and 20 of the Technical Report.
7. I am independent of the Issuer applying the test set out in Section 1.4 of National Instrument 43-101.
8. I have had no prior involvement with the property that is the subject of the Technical Report.
9. I have read National Instrument 43-101, and the Technical Report has been prepared in compliance with National Instrument 43-101 and Form 43-101F1.
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 23-8
10. To the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, the Technical Report contains all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the technical report not misleading.
Dated this 17th day of December, 2008
(Signed & Sealed)
Bruce C. Fielder
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 23-9
NORMAND D’ANJOU I, Normand D’Anjou, as an author of parts of sections 18, 19 and 20 of this report
entitled “Technical Report on the Preliminary Assessment of the Matoush Project, Central Quebec, Canada” prepared for Strateco Resources Inc. and dated December 17, 2008, do hereby certify that:
1. I am Engineer with Golder Associates Ltd. of 9200 boul. De l’Acadie, Montreal, Quebec.
2. I am a graduate of École Polytechnique de Montréal, Montréal, Qc and Université Laval, Québec City, Qc in 1986 and 1991 respectively with a Bachelor in Geological Engineering and a Master’s degree in Hydrogeology.
3. I am registered as a Professional Engineer in the Province of Québec (Reg.
#42764). I have worked as a geological engineer for a total of 20 years since my graduation. My relevant experience for the purpose of the Technical Report is: • Mining environment consulting for a total of 15 years • Water balance, water quality, waste rock and tailings management
4. I have read the definition of "qualified person" set out in National Instrument
43-101 (NI43-101) and certify that by reason of my education, affiliation with a professional association (as defined in NI43-101) and past relevant work experience, I fulfill the requirements to be a "qualified person" for the purposes of NI43-101.
5. I visited the Matoush Project on June 14 to 15, 2007.
6. I am responsible for preparation of subsections pertaining to the environment
of sections 18, 19, 20 of the Technical Report.
7. I am independent of the Issuer applying the test set out in Section 1.4 of National Instrument 43-101.
8. I have had no prior involvement with the property that is the subject of the
Technical Report.
9. I have read National Instrument 43-101, and the Technical Report has been prepared in compliance with National Instrument 43-101 and Form 43-101F1.
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 23-10
10. To the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, the Technical Report contains all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the technical report not misleading.
Dated this 17th day of December, 2008
(Signed & Sealed)
Normand D’Anjou
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 24-1
24 APPENDIX 1 ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
SASKATCHEWAN RESEARCH COUNCIL – REGULAR ICP PACKAGE METHOD SUMMARY FOR PROCEDURES ICP4-3 AND ICP4-3R
1. Report Scope This method summary report was requested by Strateco Resources. The following report contains a description of Processing Methods performed on all samples received for Strateco Resources as well as the quality control procedures employed to verify the results produced; including the interpretation of control data results and charts for standards used during the procedures.
2. Laboratory Background
The Geoanalytical Laboratories at the Saskatchewan Research Council are unique facilities offering high quality analytical services to the exploration industry. The facilities consist of modern equipment maintained and engineered towards the needs of our customers. The laboratory has a Quality Assurance program dedicated to actively seeking to evaluate and continually improve the internal quality management system. These measures include:
• Standards Council of Canada Accredited ISO/IEC 17025 Laboratory for Mineral Analysis Testing
• Participating in a CANMET base metal and precious metal proficiency testing program.
• Routine Quality control practices • Computerized sample management • Dedicated, experienced key personnel who are available to answer any
questions raised by our customers • Continual review and improvement of all operations at the facility
3. Quality Control
All Quality Control data generated at SRC Geoanalytical Laboratory is reviewed by the Quality Assurance Specialist. The Quality Control Techniques used for verifying all results generated include:
• Data verification:
At least 2 levels of data verification performed prior to reporting results.
• Instrument Calibration: All instrumentation is maintained and calibrated prior to sample analysis. This is to ensure the stability of the instrument during analysis.
• Analysis of Blanks: A digested blank sample is analysed by the same procedure as normal samples along with the sample group to ensure that there is no contamination from the sample preparation.
• Analysis of duplicates:
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 24-2
One sample preparation and analysis is duplicated with each group of samples to ensure that the repeatability of the results generated. All duplicate analysis must be within specified limits. Duplicate Error Determination
Percentage errors were determined by taking the difference between the two results and dividing it by average. Acceptance Criteria for duplicates All duplicates must be within the appropriate range of each other (within 10%). Any duplicate ranges greater than this are reported to the customer.
• Analysis of reference (QC) samples: Various QC samples are analysed with each group of samples and are used to monitor analytical performance. The results of QA analysis is charted using control charts/compare program on LIMS.
• Control Charts: Quality Control charts are produced for each QC standard for all elements analyzed. Upper and lower limits are set at 3 standard deviations. Appropriate corrective action is initiated and the effectiveness of that action is evaluated internally before reporting the final results to the customer. The corrective action taken that may follow a deviation could involve one or more of the following: 1) Reanalyze 2) Re-digest and reanalyze 3) Reprocess original data
• Interpretation: Control Charts
The mean value is represented by the dashed line; the 3 standard deviation line is represented by the black lines (both upper and lower limits). Analytical results for each standard are represented by the black (♦) points. The concentrations are displayed along the vertical axis and the number of analyses displayed along the horizontal axis
• Monitoring of control Charts: Control Charts are monitored by QA on a regular basis. Any deviations or bias observed for a QC in the method shall be documented and reported to the customer.
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 24-3
4. Sample Receipt and Preparation
All samples are received and entered into the Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS). All analytical data which is generated during the analysis of samples is the property of the customer and shall be controlled by QA measures at the laboratory. Depending on the sample type (non-mineralized, mineralized, etc.) each preparation step was performed in designated sample preparation areas. Rock samples were dried in the original plastic bags @80C overnight, then jaw crushed to 60% -2mm and 100-200g sub sample split out using a riffler. The sub sample was pulverized to 90% - 106 microns using a grinding mill (puck and ring or agate, depending on sample). The grinding mills were, at minimum, cleaned between samples, silica sand cleaning was employed in between groups. The pulp was transferred to a labeled plastic snap top vial.
5. Sample Analysis/Testing Overview The samples are tested using validated documented procedures by trained personnel. All samples are digested prior to analysis by ICP. Two separate digestions were preformed: Partial and Total.
6. Sample Preparation: Digestions
Total: Total Digestions were performed on an aliquot of sample for the analysis of the requested elements by ICP. A 0.25g aliquot of pulp was digested to dryness in a Teflon beaker using a hotplate in a mixture of concentrated HF:HNO3:HClO4. The residue was dissolved in 15 ml of dilute HN03. Partial: Partial Digestions were performed on an aliquot of sample for the analysis of the requested elements by ICP. A 2g aliquot of pulp was digested in a digestion tube in a mixture of HNO3:HCl, in a hot water bath for approximately 1 hour, then diluted to 15ml using deionized water.
7. Geochemical Analysis
QC measures and data verification procedures applied ICP-OES: Mutli element on partial and total digestion: Two separate analyses were done for the partial and total digestions. Instruments were calibrated using certified commercial solutions. The instruments used were PerkinElmer Optima 300DV, Optima 4300DV or Optima 5300DV.
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 24-4
Table 1: Detection Limits: Partial Digestion Total Digestion
Ag 0.1 ppm Al2O3 0.01% Ag 0.2 ppm Li 1 ppm W 1 ppm As 0.2 ppm CaO 0.01% Ba 1 ppm Mo 1 ppm Y 1 ppm Bi 0.2 ppm Fe2O3 0.01% Be 0.2 ppm Nb 1 ppm Yb 0.1 ppm Co 0.1 ppm K2O 0.002% Cd 0.2 ppm Nd 1 ppm Zr 1 ppm Cu 0.1 ppm MgO 0.001% Ce 1 ppm Ni 1 ppm Zn 1 ppm Ge 0.2 ppm MnO 0.001% Co 1 ppm Pb 1 ppm Hg 0.2 ppm Na2O 0.01% Cr 1 ppm Pr 1 ppm Mo 0.1 ppm P2O5 0.002% Cu 1 ppm Sc 1 ppm Ni 0.1 ppm TiO2 0.001% Dy 0.2 ppm Sm 0.5 ppm Pb 0.02 ppm Er 0.2 ppm Sn 1 ppm Sb 0.2 ppm Eu 0.2 ppm Sr 1 ppm Se 0.2 ppm Ga 1 ppm Ta 1 ppm Te 0.2 ppm Gd 0.5 ppm Tb 0.3 ppm U 0.5 ppm Hf 0.5 ppm Th 1 ppm V 0.1 ppm Ho 0.4 ppm U 2 ppm Zn 0.1 ppm La 1 ppm V 1 ppm
8. ICP Analysis
QC measures and data verification procedures applied includes the preparation and analysis of standards and blank. The standards used are BL-1, BL-4a, BL2a, BL-3, BL-5, RS211 and an in-house standard (UHU-1). The selection of standards is based on the radioactivity level of the samples to be analyzed. The ICP is calibrated before use using a certified U reference standard. An additional certified Fe2O3 standard is analysed to check for the interference of iron in the analysis. The calibration is checked after every 20 samples analysed in addition to the analysis of standards. Table 1: Detection Limit (%) for U3O8 by ICP
U3O8 (%) 0.001 %
9. Reporting Management has developed quality assurance procedures exist to ensure that all raw data generated in-house is properly documented, reported and stored to meet the confidentiality requirements of all our customers. All raw data is recorded on internally controlled data forms. Electronically generated data is calculated and stored on computers. All computer generated data is backed up on a daily basis. Access to samples and raw data is restricted to authorized SRC Geoanalytical personnel at all times. All data is verified by key personnel prior to reporting results. Laboratory reports are generated using SRC’s Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS). All QC standards and duplicate analysis is included in the final report which is sent to the customer. Hard copy and electronic copies of all reports are retained for a defined time period.
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 24-5
Samples with very low uranium content were analyzed by fluorimetry as follows, with steps 1 through 4 as outlined in the procedure described above.
1. Sample Analysis/Testing Overview The samples were tested using validated documented procedures by trained personnel. All procedural steps were followed in the analysis–no deviations from the method were requested. All samples were digested prior to analysis by Fluorimetry. The digestion preformed for the samples were Total, see section 6.
2. Sample Preparation: Digestions
Fluorimetric: Uranium was determined on the Total digestion. A 0.1ml aliquot of digestion solution was pipetted into a 90% Pt 10% Rh dish and the liquid evaporated @80C. A NaF/LiK pellet was placed on the dish and fused on a special propane rotary burner for 3 minutes then cooled to room temperature. Two calibration blanks and two calibration standards as well as one blank, two QC/QA standards and one replicate were fused with each group of samples.
3. Geochemical Analysis
QC measures and data verification procedures applied Uranium Fluorescence analysis by Jarrel Ash Fluorimeter: The fluorescence of the fused pellets was then measured on a modified Jarrel Ash Fluorimeter. All data are stored on computers. All calculations are done by computer. Calibration standards are made from 10,000ppm U commercial certified solution.
4. Quality Control: Duplicates Duplicate Error Determination
Percentage errors were determined by taking the difference between the two results and dividing it by average. Acceptance Criteria for duplicates All duplicates must be within the appropriate range of each other (within 10%). Any duplicate ranges greater than this are reported to the customer.
5. Standards
Geochemical Grade Standards:
The Quality Control standard utilized to monitor analytical performance of this method is CANMET standard BL1. Limits for this standard are documented below.
U 220 ppm ± 10 ppm
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 24-6
ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES EMPLOYED BY SGS
Method 9-6-1 Determination of Major Element Oxides and Rare Earth Oxides by Borate Fusion-XRF
1. Parameter(s) measured, unit(s):
SiO2, Al2O3, Fe2O3, MgO, CaO, Na2O, K2O, P2O5, MnO, TiO2, Cr2O3, Ni, Co, La2O3, Ce2O3, Nd2O3, Pr2O3, Sm2O3, BaO, SrO, ZrO2, HfO2, Y2O3, Nb2O5, ThO2, U2O8 , LOI; %
2. Typical sample size:
0.2 to 0.5 g
3. Type of sample applicable (media): Rocks, oxide ores and concentrates
4. Sample preparation technique used:
Samples are crushed and pulverized to -150 mesh. This method is used to report, in percentage, the whole rock suite (SiO2, Al2O3, Fe2O3, MgO, CaO, Na2O, K2O, P2O5, MnO, TiO2, Cr2O3) and Ni, Co as well as the rare earth oxides (La2O3, Ce2O3, Nd2O3, Pr2O3, Sm2O3), and other major element oxides (BaO, SrO, ZrO2, Hf O2, Y2O3, Nb2O5, ThO2, U2O8). Sample preparation entails the formation of a homogenous glass disk by the fusion of 0.2 to 0.5 g of rock pulp with 7g of lithium tetraborate/lithium metaborate (50/50). The LOI at 1000°C is determined separately gravimetrically. The LOI is included in the matrix-correction calculations, which are performed by the XRF instrument software.
5. Method of analysis used:
The disk specimen is analyzed by WDXRF spectrometry. 6. Data reduction by:
The results are exported via computer, on line, data fed to the Laboratory Information Management System with secure audit trail. Corrections for dilution and summation with the LOI are made prior to reporting.
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 24-7
7. Figures of Merit:
element Limit of Quantification (LOQ) % SiO2 0.01 Al2O3 0.01 MgO 0.01 Na2O 0.01 K2O 0.01 CaO 0.01 P2O5 0.01 TiO2 0.01 Cr2O3 0.01 V2O5 0.01 Fe2O3 0.01 MnO 0.01 Ni 0.01 Co 0.01 Ce2O3 0.02 Pr2O3 0.02 Sm2O3 0.03 BaO 0.02 La2O3 0.01 Nd2O3 0.02 ZrO2 0.01 Y2O3 0.02 SrO 0.02 Nb2O5 0.01
This method has been fully validated for the range of samples typically analyzed. Method validation includes the use of certified reference materials, replicates and blanks to calculate accuracy, precision, linearity, range, limit of detection, limit of quantification, specificity and measurement uncertainty.
8. Quality control:
One blank, one duplicate and a matrix-suitable certified or in-house reference material per batch of 20 samples.
9. Data approval steps: Step Approval Criteria 1. Sum of oxides Majors 98-101%;
Majors + NiO + CoO 98-102% 2. Batch reagent blank 2 x LOQ 3. Inserted weighed reference materials Statistical Control Limits 4. Weighed Lab Duplicates Statistical Control Limits by Range
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 24-8
10. Accreditation: This method is accredited by the Standards Council of Canada (SCC) and found to conform to the requirements of the ISO/IEC 17025 standard. See www.scc.ca for SGS Minerals Services Lakefield’s scope of accreditation.
METHOD 9-6-2 Determination of As, Sb, Th, U, Ba, Sn and Ta by XRF using Internal Standard Addition
11. Parameter(s) measured, unit(s):
arsenic, antimony, thorium, uranium, barium, tin, tantalum; (%) 12. Typical sample size:
6 g
13. Type of sample applicable (media): Rocks, soils, ores and concentrates
14. Sample preparation technique used:
This method is used as an alternative to fusion for analytical contexts where the analyte is volatile or if levels of detection below that attainable by fusion are required. The internal standard preparation technique forms a powder pellet specimen consisting of sample thoroughly mixed with a known amount of a reference compound and a binding agent. The compound is chosen to provide reference intensity as close to the analyte line wavelength as possible while avoiding interposing major element lines or absorption edges. Within an emission line series, this is usually the adjacent element in terms of atomic number.
15. Method of analysis used:
Xray fluorescence spectrometry 16. Data reduction by:
The results are exported via computer, on line, data fed to the Laboratory Information Management System with secure audit trail.
17. Figures of Merit:
element Limit of Quantification (LOQ) % As 0.003 Sn 0.002 Sb 0.003 Ta 0.003
ThO2 0.001 U3O8 0.002 Ba 0.003
18. Quality control:
One blank, one duplicate and a matrix-suitable certified or in-house reference material per batch of 20 samples.
19. Accreditation Status:
Standards Council of Canada to ISO/IEC 17025.
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 25-1
25 APPENDIX 2 VARIOGRAPHY
FIGURE 25-1 DOWNHOLE VARIOGRAM
FIGURE 25-2 ALONG-STRIKE VARIOGRAM
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 25-2
FIGURE 25-3 DOWN-DIP VARIOGRAM
SCOTT WILSON RPA www.scottwilson.com
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Project Preliminary Assessment –December 17, 2008 Page 26-1
26 APPENDIX 3 SUMMARY OF METALLURGICAL TESTWORK, PROCESS PLANT OPERATIONS, DESIGN, CAPITAL AND OPERATING COST ESTIMATE, BY MELIS ENGINEERING LTD. DATED OCTOBER 29, 2008
SUITE 100, 2366 AVENUE C NORTH, SASKATOON, SK, CANADA S7L 5X5 PH: 306-652-4084 FAX: 306-653-3779 Email: info@meliseng.com Web Site: www.meliseng.com
M E M O R A N D U M
October 29, 2008 Melis Project No. 490
To: Pierre H. Terreault, P.Eng., MPM, Vice President Operations & Engineering, Strateco Resources Inc.
Cc: Normand L Lecuyer, B.Sc., P.Eng., Principal Mining Engineer, Scott Wilson Mining
From: Bruce C. Fielder, P.Eng. Melis Engineering Ltd.
Re: Metallurgy and Process Report for Matoush Scoping Study
Attached, please find the Melis Engineering Ltd. report Strateco Resources Inc. Matoush Uranium Deposit, Quebec, Canada, Summary of Metallurgical Testwork Process Plant Operations, Design, Capital and Operating Cost Estimate –Preliminary.
This report is preliminary, as the capital cost estimate does not include the results of cost comparisons requested by Strateco Resources Inc. and still in progress. In particular, revision to the process plant crane and building cost may reduce the estimated cost. However, delivery of this report has been requested in the knowledge that it is preliminary.
This report may be used as an appendix to the scoping study document. An executive summary has been included in the report which can be extracted and included in the body of the scoping study report.
Yours truly, MELIS ENGINEERING LTD.
Bruce C. Fielder, P.Eng., K.C. Armstrong, P.Eng., Lawrence Melis, P.Eng., Principal Process Engineer Associate Metallurgist President
STRATECO RESOURCES INC.
MATOUSH URANIUM DEPOSIT, QUEBEC, CANADA
SUMMARY OF METALLURGICAL TESTWORK PROCESS PLANT OPERATIONS,
DESIGN, CAPITAL AND OPERATING COST ESTIMATE PRELIMINARY
MELIS Project No. 490
October 29, 2007
Prepared for
STRATECO RESOURCES INC.
by
Bruce C. Fielder, P.Eng. Principal Process Engineer
K.C. Armstrong, P.Eng., Associate Metallurgist
Lawrence A. Melis, P.Eng. President
MELIS ENGINEERING LTD. 2366 Avenue C North, Suite 100
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7L 5X5
Phone: (306) 652-4084 Fax: (306) 653-3779
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Metallurgical Testwork
Testwork on Matoush test composites made up from assay rejects was initiated at SGS Lakefield Research Limited (Lakefield) in Lakefield, Ontario in 2007 under the direction of Melis Engineering Ltd. (Melis) as part of development work on Strateco Resources Inc. (Strateco)’s Matoush Uranium Project located in the Otish Mountains of northern Quebec. This preliminary test program encompassed composite analyses, leach scoping tests, uranium recovery and upgrading, settling/filtration tests, effluent treatment and preparation of tailings to provide preliminary environmental data. In addition, quarter core samples were used for comminution (grinding) testwork.
Metallurgical test composites prepared for testing from assay rejects include sub-composites representing four diamond drill holes as well as a blend of all four sub-composites to provide an overall composite for initial testing. Key analyses of these composites are listed in the table below:
Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Uranium Project Matoush Test Composites – Summary of Analysis
Analyte Unit Composite 2006-11
Composite 2006-30
Composite 2007-03
Composite 2007-06
Overall Composite
U3O8 % 0.34 0.98 1.61 0.30 0.79 Fe2O3 % 2.01 0.72 1.17 0.64 1.13
As % <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 Mo % 0.027 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 0.004 Se % 0.011 <0.005 0.011 <0.005 <0.005
The elemental analyses of the composites show that the Matoush composites prepared for testing were low in deleterious elements such as arsenic, molybdenum and base metals. Selenium was above the detection limit in two of the composites, which implies that the amount of selenium reporting to waste effluents will need to be taken into consideration in effluent treatment testwork.
Mineralogical examination of core samples revealed that the uranium mineralization in the Matoush deposit consists mainly of uraninite (UO2) and carnotite-weeksite K2(UO2)2V2O8·3(H2O) and K2(UO2)2(Si2O5)3·4(H2O). Gangue minerals include calcite, sericite-muscovite, chromite, apatite and tourmaline.
The uranium isotope ratio of the Matoush Overall Composite was measured to
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
confirm that the uranium isotope ratio was close to the naturally occurring ratio of 0.71% U235/U (w/w). Within the limited accuracy of the gamma spectrometry analysis, the measured isotope ratio was approximately 0.52% U235/U (w/w), with a range of 0.37% U235/U (w/w) to 0.69% U235/U (w/w), close to the expected naturally occurring ratio.
Comminution (grinding) tests showed that the Matoush mineralization is of medium hardness. The grindability data were used to develop a preliminary grinding circuit design study using CEET2® technology. The goal of this preliminary study was to develop a suitable SAG and ball mill with pebble crusher (SABC) circuit capable of milling 28.8 t/h (636 t/d at 92% availability) for year 1 to 3, and would allow for expansion in year 4, to increase throughput capacity up to 48.0 t/h (1,061 t/d at 92% availability) to a final P80 of 100 µm.
For year 1-3, the selected SABC circuit design capable of treating 28.8 t/h (636 t/d at 92% availability) to an average P80 of 150 µm comprises:
• One SAG mill of 13’ diameter by 6’ EGL drawing 296 kW at the shell, followed by
• One ball mill of 9’ diameter by 16’ EGL drawing 310 kW at the shell.
• One 3’ diameter pebble crusher is required at all times.
This circuit uses 50 mm grate and 10 mm vibrating screen apertures making a transfer size T80 of 2.4 mm and average circulating load of 16% to the pebble crusher.
Subsequent to this study anticipated mill feed grades and production requirements changed, which reduced actual tonnage requirements to 24.2 t/h for the complete operating period with no further expansion required. The grinding circuit described above, with a capacity of 28.8 t/h, was kept as is for the purposes of this scoping study.
Settling tests completed on leach feed prepared from an overall Matoush composite yielded a thickener unit area of 0.08 to 0.10 m2/t/day.
Leach tests on an Overall Composite prepared from assay rejects confirmed that high uranium extractions (approximately 98%) can, on average, be achieved from the Matoush mineralization under medium free acid concentrations (30 g H2SO4/L) using oxygen as oxidant. The leach test results confirm that a low pressure oxygen sulphuric acid leach is the leach option of choice for the Matoush mineralization, achieving very high uranium extractions of 98 % or better. All four variability sub-composites yielded excellent extractions showing that uniform uranium extractions can be obtained from the Matoush deposit based on the
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
mineralization tested.
Individual leach tests on four separate drill hole sub-composites yielded 98% uranium extractions on three of the four composites and a 95% uranium extraction on the higher grade composite; hence generally matching the uranium extraction achieved on the Overall Composite. The lower uranium extraction obtained on the higher grade composite can likely be increased by increasing the free acid in the leach to a value greater than 30 g H2SO4/L. Acid consumptions were variable ranging from 97.5 to 172.5 kg H2SO4/t and averaging 124 kg H2SO4/t; compared to the approximately 100 kg H2SO4/t consumption observed in the Overall Composite test.
The pregnant leach solution produced in some of the acid leach scoping tests was submitted to an ICP package analysis to give an indication of the elemental make-up of leach solution reporting to downstream uranium recovery. The resulting pregnant leach solution is quite low in deleterious elements, particularly arsenic, molybdenum, selenium and base metals, which will minimize the potential impact on waste treatment requirements. It is also very low in elements which would normally report to the final yellowcake uranium product, in particular molybdenum and vanadium. The relatively high phosphorus content originates from the apatite content in the mineralization.
Ion exchange tests showed that Purolite A660 resin outperformed Dowex 21K resin in terms of loading efficiency with complete uranium adsorption achieved in three stages, yielding a loaded resin containing 60 g U3O8/L. A 90% elution efficiency was achieved using 125 g H2SO4/L sulphuric acid solution at 45 ºC.
Yellowcake precipitation, tailings neutralization, effluent treatment testwork, tailings environmental tests and further resin absorption/elution tests are underway or planned at Lakefield.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
Process Flowsheet Description
This section has been prepared as a description of the uranium recovery circuits in the Matoush process plant. The operation and control of each unit operation associated with the Matoush process plant are detailed in this process description. These include crushing, grinding, leaching, resin in pulp and resin elution, product precipitation, calcining and packaging, tailings neutralization, effluent treatment, reagent preparation, water supply and utilities.
This process description has been prepared for inclusion in the scoping study. Changes to unit operations and control strategies will occur in conjunction with metallurgical design developments. Consequently, this process description will require revisions from time to time to reflect these changes.
A simplified flowsheet for the Matoush process plant is depicted in the flowsheet depicted in the figure below.
TITLE
AREA
DWG. No.
LOC.
DESIGN AUTH. APPROVAL:
DESIGN LEAD APPROVAL:
CHECKED:
DRAWN:
DESIGNED:
DATESCALE (A1):
BRU CE C. FIELD ER, P.EN G. 07 /08/08
MATOUSH URANIUM PROJECT
ABCD
DATE DESCRIPTION26/05/0825/08/0815/09/0810/17/08 SCOPING STUDY RELEASE
DRAFT SCOPING STUDY RELEASESCOPING STUDY RELEASESCOPING STUDY SECOND RELEASE
BYBCF
BC F/KCA
BCFBCF
REVI
SION
S
NO.DATE DESCRIPTION BY DES. LEAD APP..REVIS
IONS
NO.DWG. NO. DESCRIPTIONREFE
RENC
E
FROM MINE
PROCESS MILL
SCOPING STUDY SUMMARY FLOWSHEET
490-F-100
MELIS E GI EERI G LTD.
PROCESS WATER
URANIUM
TREATED EFFLUENT DISCHARGESULPHURIC ACID,
OXYGEN
LIMEFERRIC SULPHATE
FLOCCULANT
HYDROGEN PEROXIDEMAGNESIUM HYDROXIDE
LIME LIME
GRINDING
LEACHING
IMPURITY PRECIPITATION
URANIUM PRECIPITATION
CALCINING
SAG MILL
BALL MILL
CYCLONES
LEACH TANKS
GYPSUM BELT FILTER
IMPURITY PRECIPITATION TANKS
URANIUM PRECIPITATION TANKS
URANIUM THICKENER
URANIUM CENTRIFUGE
URANIUM CALCINER
BARIUM CHLORIDEFERRIC SULPHATE
TAILINGS NEUTRALIZATION
TAILINGS MANAGEMENT FACILITY
REVERSE OSMOSIS
TO PROCESS
FRESH WATER
BARIUM CHLORIDEFERRIC SULPHATELIME, FLOCCULANT
BARREN SOLUTION
SAND FILTERS
SURFACE DRAINAGE
EFFLUENT TREATMENT
SULPHURIC ACID
URANIUM BIN
NEUTRAL THICKENER
FLOCCULANT
TAILINGS THICKENER
TAILINGS TANKS
MONITORING PONDS (3)
REJECTPERMEATE
MINE WATER
TO PROCESS
FRESH WATER TANK
PROCESS WATER TANK
MAIN PROCESS FLOWPROCESS FLOWINTERMITTENT / ALTERNATE FLOW
KEY
RESIN IN PULP CIRCUIT
DILUTION WATER
FRESH ELUATE TANK
RIP TANKS
ELUTION COLUMNS
RESIN SCREEN
LEAN ELUATE TANK
EFFLUENT SAND FILTERS
COARSE ORE BIN
c/w GRIZZLYAND APRON
FEEDER
FINE ORE BIN
FINE ORE BIN APRON FEEDERS
(2)
CRUSHER
CRUSHING
PEBBLE CRUSHER
Summarized below are the production basis for the Matoush process plant and a general description of the unit operations in the milling circuit.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
Production Basis
The process plant is designed to process 193,594 tonnes/a at a feed grade of 0.48% U3O8 and produce 907,185 kg (2,000,000 lbs) U3O8 per year of high quality uranium concentrate. The process plant is designed to operate at 95% availability for 350 days per year, or equivalently, 24 hours per scheduled day for 333 operating days per year.
The slurry circuits (grinding, leaching, resin in pulp and tailings neutralization) circuits are sized for a design feed rate of 24.2 metric tonnes per hour (MTPH) and the downstream solution circuits (resin elution, impurity precipitation, uranium precipitation and calcining and packaging) are sized to produce an average 114 kilograms per hour (kg/h) U3O8.
Overall uranium recoveries are expected to be approximately 97.6%.
Process Description
Crushing is used to reduce the size of run-of-mine ore prior to grinding. The major equipment in crushing consists of a jaw crusher. The crusher has been sized so as to operate for 12 hours/day.
The grinding circuit reduces the size of the process plant feed from the K80 of 85 mm exiting the crusher to a K80 of 150 µm, appropriate for leaching. The major equipment in grinding consists of a SAG mill and a ball mill.
The leaching circuit is used to extract uranium present in the ore (cyclone overflow). Leaching is accomplished through the addition of sulphuric acid and oxygen. The major equipment in leaching consists of the neutral thickener and six leach tanks.
The resin in pulp circuit is composed of the resin in pulp and the resin elution processes.
The resin in pulp preferentially extracts dissolved uranium from the pregnant leach solution by absorbing it into a designed resin. The major equipment in the resin in pulp is the eight tanks of the Kemix carousel, a vendor package.
The resin elution circuit removes the dissolved uranium from the resin, allowing the resin to be recirculated to the resin in pulp circuit. The uranium is stripped from the resin with a sulphuric acid solution. The major equipment in the resin elution circuit is the three resin elution columns.
The impurity precipitation circuit removes excess sulphuric acid and metals co-
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
absorbed on the resin from solution. The precipitated impurities are separated from the uranium bearing solution. The major equipment in the impurity precipitation circuit are six impurity precipitation tanks and the gypsum belt filter.
The uranium precipitation circuit precipitates uranium from solution. The resulting product is thickened to a minimum density of 35% solids (w/w). Uranium is precipitated through the addition of hydrogen peroxide and the pH controlled through the addition of magnesium hydroxide. The major equipment in uranium precipitation are three uranium precipitation tanks and the uranium thickener.
The product calcining circuit cleans the uranium product, dries it and converts it to a high specific gravity product preferred by refineries. The major equipment in the product calcining circuit are the centrifuge, the calciner and three scrubbers. Final product is packaged in standard 205 L drums for shipment to the uranium refinery.
The tailings neutralization circuit treats uranium production process waste flows and precipitate from the water treatment plant. Lime addition increases the pH of the combined streams to pH 10 and the thickened tailings is pumped to the tailings management facility, or to the backfill plant. The major equipment in the tailings neutralization circuit are two tailings neutralization tanks and the tailings thickener.
The effluent treatment circuit removes dissolved impurities from effluent prior to its release or recycle. The major equipment in the effluent treatment circuit are reverse osmosis, the primary and secondary effluent treatment circuits, each consisting of two effluent treatment tanks and a clarifier, three effluent sand filters and three monitoring ponds.
Personnel
The process plant was assumed to operate 24 hours/day, 7 days/week with operators working 12 hour shifts. Two crews were assumed, one on site while the second was off site.
A total of 66 individuals are envisioned to operate (Mill Operations) and maintain (Mill Maintenance) the process plant.
An additional 40 individuals are envisioned to provide support services and administer the site.
Departments not included in the general administration personnel estimate were:
• Mining,
• Mine Maintenance,
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
• Site Services, and
• Housekeeping and catering.
Capital Cost Estimate
The Matoush Scoping Study capital cost estimate is summarized in the table below.
Strateco Resources Inc. Matoush Uranium Project Scoping Study
Summary of Class IV Capital Cost Estimate Cost Area Labour (Hours) 496,200
Labour Cost 49,618,700Material Cost 57,445,370Buildings Cost 39,203,310Reagents, First Fills 2,618,940Total Direct Cost 148,886,320Contractor Overhead and Profit 6,700,000Engineering, Procurement, and Management 18,610,000Total Direct and Indirect Costs 174,196,320Contingency (25%) 43,550,000Capital Spares, 1% of Equipment Cost 1,150,000Total Estimated Capital Costs 218,896,320
Say, 220,000,000Estimated Weight, tonnes 25,910Estimated Operating and Building Power, kW 2,053
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
Process Plant Operating Cost Estimate
The Matoush Scoping Study mill operating cost estimate, excluding operating personnel costs is summarized in the table below.
Strateco Resources Inc. Matoush Uranium Project Scoping Study
Summary of Mill Operating Cost Estimate Operating Cost Class $ (Cdn)/a $ (Cdn)/t $ (Cdn)/lb U3O8
Total Consumables 18,553 95.76 9.28
Electrical Power 3,780 19.51 1.89
Maintenance Consumables 1,150 5.94 0.58
Sub-Total 23,483 121.21 11.74
Contingency (15%) 3,522 18.18 1.76
Total 27,005 139.39 13.50
Simplified Plant Layout
The Matoush Plant is composed of three buildings:
• the process plant building,
• the oxygen plant, and
• the crusher building,
The process plant has been laid out with the following principles:
• that grinding be kept at the far end of the plant area from the laboratory and administration,
• that calcining and packaging be isolated at the far end of the plant area from the laboratory and administration, and
• that the crusher be isolated from the main process building to reduce dust.
The total area covered by the process plant building has been estimated at 7,156 m2, the crusher building area at 100 m2 and the Oxygen Plant area at 126 m2.
Including outside tanks and the tailings thickener, and assuming a 7 m wide paved area surrounding the buildings, tanks and thickener, the total area of the mill apron was estimated to be 13,100 m2.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
The simplified plant general arrangement is shown in the figure below.
84m.
\
GRINDING CIRCUIT
LEACHING CIRCUIT
TAILINGS NEUTRALIZATION
CIRCUIT
IMPURITY PRECIPITATION AND GYPSUM FILTRATION CIRCUIT
SULPHURIC ACID STORAGE TANKS
RIP CIRCUIT
CALCINING CIRCUIT
URANIUM DRUM STORAGE
REAGENT PREPARATION AND STORAGE
URANIUM PRECIPITATION
CIRCUITFRESH AND PROCESS
WATER
REVERSE OSMOSIS
EFFLUENT TREATMENT
COMPUTER ROOM, MCC ROOM MILL DRY, MILL MECHANICAL SHOP
AND LABORATORY
OXYGEN PLANT
CRUSHING CIRCUIT
TITLE
AREA
DWG. No.
LOC.
DESIGN AUTH. APPROVAL:
DESIGN LEAD APPROVAL:
CHECKED:
DRAWN:
DESIGNED:
DATESCALE (A1):
BRU CE C. FIELD ER, P.EN G. 15 /0 8/09
MATOUSH URANIUM PROJECT
AB
DATE DESCRIPTION15/09/0817/10/08
SCOPING STUDY RELEASESCOPING STUDY RELEASE
BYBCFBCF
NO.DATE DESCRIPTION BY DES. LEAD APP..NO.DWG. NO. DESCRIPTION
MELIS E GI EERI G LTD.
PROCESS PLANT
MATOUSH PLANT SIMPLIFIED LAYOUT
490-L-100
EDGE OF PAVED MILL TERRACE
IMPURITY PRECIPITATION
CIRCUIT
Heat Recovery
The recovery of waste heat from process and other streams offers the potential to reduce operating cost. The streams which have been identified as offering potential for this are:
• The RIP discharge slurry may be used to pre-heat the leach feed slurry,
• Waste heat from power generation or the steam boilers may be used to pre-heat ventilation air, and
• The calciner discharge air may be used to pre-heat ventilation air.
A glycol heat exchanger system would be required to isolate the air streams. A direct contact heat exchanger would be sufficient for the slurry.
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1-1
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 FLOWSHEET DESCRIPTION........................................................................1-1
1.1 Production Basis........................................................................................1-1
1.2 Overview....................................................................................................1-1
1.3 Personnel ...................................................................................................1-3
1.4 Consumables .............................................................................................1-4
1.5 Utilities.......................................................................................................1-4
2.0 SUMMARY OF METALLURGICAL TESTWORK......................................2-1
3.0 SUMMARY OF PLANT OPERATIONS.........................................................3-1
3.1 CRUSHING...............................................................................................3-13.1.1 Summary.....................................................................................3-13.1.2 Crushing .....................................................................................3-1
3.2 GRINDING ...............................................................................................3-13.2.1 Summary.....................................................................................3-13.2.2 Grinding......................................................................................3-1
3.3 LEACHING ..............................................................................................3-23.3.1 Summary.....................................................................................3-23.3.2 Leaching......................................................................................3-2
3.4 RESIN IN PULP .......................................................................................3-33.4.1 Summary.....................................................................................3-33.4.2 Resin In Pulp ..............................................................................3-3
3.5 RESIN ELUTION.....................................................................................3-43.5.1 Summary.....................................................................................3-43.5.2 Resin Elution...............................................................................3-4
3.6 IMPURITY PRECIPITATION................................................................3-43.6.1 Summary.....................................................................................3-43.6.2 Impurity Precipitation................................................................3-4
3.7 URANIUM PRECIPITATION ................................................................3-53.7.1 Summary.....................................................................................3-53.7.2 Uranium Precipitation................................................................3-5
3.8 CALCINING AND PACKAGING...........................................................3-6
3.9 Summary ...................................................................................................3-6
3.10 Calcining and Packaging ..........................................................................3-7
3.11 Dust Control ..............................................................................................3-8
3.12 TAILINGS NEUTRALIZATION ............................................................3-9
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1-2
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
3.12.1 Summary.....................................................................................3-93.12.2 Tailings Neutralization...............................................................3-9
3.13 EFFLUENT TREATMENT .....................................................................3-93.13.1 Summary.....................................................................................3-93.13.2 Effluent Treatment .....................................................................3-9
3.14 REVERSE OSMOSIS.............................................................................3-103.14.1 Summary...................................................................................3-103.14.2 Reverse Osmosis .......................................................................3-10
3.15 Tailings Management Facility ................................................................3-10
3.16 REAGENTS AND UTILITIES ..............................................................3-113.16.1 Summary...................................................................................3-113.16.2 Ferric Sulphate .........................................................................3-113.16.3 Hydrogen Peroxide ...................................................................3-113.16.4 Oxygen Plant.............................................................................3-123.16.5 Caustic Soda .............................................................................3-133.16.6 Magnesia ...................................................................................3-133.16.7 Grinding Balls...........................................................................3-133.16.8 Barium Chloride.......................................................................3-133.16.9 Lime ..........................................................................................3-133.16.10 Flocculants ................................................................................3-143.16.11 Sulphuric Acid ..........................................................................3-143.16.12 Water Distribution ...................................................................3-153.16.13 Process and Instrument Air .....................................................3-153.16.14 Steam.........................................................................................3-153.16.15 Safety Shower System...............................................................3-16
4.0 SIMPLIFIED PLANT LAYOUT......................................................................4-1
5.0 HEAT RECOVERY ..........................................................................................5-1
6.0 SUMMARY OF METALLURGICAL ASSUMPTIONS.................................6-1
6.1 Production Rate ........................................................................................6-1
6.2 Operating Days .........................................................................................6-1
6.3 Head Grade ...............................................................................................6-1
6.4 Recovery ....................................................................................................6-1
6.5 Feed Rate...................................................................................................6-2
6.6 Concentrate Grade....................................................................................6-2
6.7 Concentrate Purity....................................................................................6-3
6.8 Discharge Water Quality ..........................................................................6-3
7.0 SUMMARY OF CONSUMABLES USAGE ASSUMPTIONS........................7-1
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1-3
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
8.0 METALLURGICAL TESTWORK..................................................................8-1
8.1 Composite Preparation .............................................................................8-1
8.2 Composite Analyses ..................................................................................8-6
8.3 Uranium Speciation Analysis of Overall Composite................................8-8
8.4 Petrographic Analyses ..............................................................................8-9
8.5 Initial Leaching Tests..............................................................................8-11
8.6 Confirmation Leaching Tests .................................................................8-12
8.7 Pregnant Solution Analyses ....................................................................8-14
8.8 Ion Exchange Tests .................................................................................8-15
8.9 Settling Tests ...........................................................................................8-16
8.10 Filtration Tests ........................................................................................8-18
9.0 PRELIMINARY DESIGN CRITERIA ............................................................9-1
10.0 PROCESS PLANT PERSONNEL..................................................................10-1
10.1 Summary .................................................................................................10-1
10.2 Mill Operations Personnel ......................................................................10-1
10.3 Mill Maintenance Personnel ...................................................................10-2
11.0 SUPPORT AND GENERAL ADMINISTRATION PERSONNEL ..............11-1
11.1 Summary .................................................................................................11-1
11.2 Support Departments and Administration Personnel ...........................11-1
12.0 ESTIMATED PROCESS PLANT AND BUILDINGS CAPITAL COSTS - CLASS IV ESTIMATE ...................................................................................12-1
12.1 Summary .................................................................................................12-1
12.2 Basis of Estimate .....................................................................................12-1
13.0 CONSUMABLES, PROCESS AND BUILDING ELECTRICAL AND MAINTENANCE CONSUMABLES..............................................................13-1
13.1 Summary .................................................................................................13-1
13.2 Basis of Estimate .....................................................................................13-1
14.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................14-1
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1-4
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Matoush Process Flowsheets
Appendix B: Matoush Plant Simplified Layout
Appendix C: Matoush Mass Balance
Appendix D: Estimated Matoush Process Plant and Buildings Capital Cost Details - Class IV Estimate
Appendix E: Consumables, Process and Maintenance Consumables Operating Costs
Appendix F: Matoush Personnel Charts
FLOWHEET DESCRIPTION 1-1
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
1.0 FLOWSHEET DESCRIPTION
This section has been prepared as a description of the uranium recovery circuits in the Matoush process plant. The operation and control of each unit operation associated with the Matoush process plant are detailed in this process description. These include crushing, grinding, leaching, resin in pulp and resin elution, product precipitation, calcining and packaging, tailings neutralization, effluent treatment, reagent preparation, water supply and utilities.
This process description has been prepared for inclusion in the scoping study. Changes to unit operations and control strategies will occur in conjunction with metallurgical design developments. Consequently, this process description will require revisions from time to time to reflect these changes.
A simplified flowsheet for the Matoush process plant is depicted in Process Flowsheet No. 490-F-100. Summarized below are the production basis for the Matoush process plant and a general description of the unit operations in the milling circuit.
1.1 Production Basis
The process plant is designed to process 193,594 tonnes/a at a feed grade of 0.48% U3O8 and produce 907,185 kg (2,000,000 lbs) U3O8 per year of high quality uranium concentrate. The process plant is designed to operate at 95% availability for 350 days per year, or equivalently, 24 hours per scheduled day for 333 operating days per year.
The slurry circuits (grinding, leaching, resin in pulp and tailings neutralization) circuits are sized for a design feed rate of 24.2 metric tonnes per hour (MTPH) and the downstream solution circuits (resin elution, impurity precipitation, uranium precipitation and calcining and packaging) are sized to produce an average 114 kilograms per hour (kg/h) U3O8.
Overall uranium recoveries are expected to be approximately 97.6%.
1.2 Overview
Crushing is used to reduce the size of run-of-mine ore prior to grinding. The major equipment in crushing consists of a jaw crusher. The crusher has been sized so as to operate for 12 hours/day.
The grinding circuit reduces the size of the process plant feed from the K80
of 85 mm exiting the crusher to a K80 of 150 µm, appropriate for leaching. The major equipment in grinding consists of a SAG mill and a ball mill.
FLOWHEET DESCRIPTION 1-2
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
The leaching circuit is used to extract uranium present in the ore (cyclone overflow). Leaching is accomplished through the addition of sulphuric acid and oxygen. The major equipment in leaching consists of the neutral thickener and six leach tanks.
The resin in pulp circuit is composed of the resin in pulp and the resin elution processes.
The resin in pulp preferentially extracts dissolved uranium from the pregnant leach solution by absorbing it into a designed resin. The major equipment in the resin in pulp is the eight tanks of the Kemix carousel, a vendor package.
The resin elution circuit removes the dissolved uranium from the resin, allowing the resin to be recirculated to the resin in pulp circuit. The uranium is stripped from the resin with a sulphuric acid solution. The major equipment in the resin elution circuit is the three resin elution columns.
The impurity precipitation circuit removes excess sulphuric acid and metals co-absorbed on the resin from solution. The precipitated impurities are separated from the uranium bearing solution. The major equipment in the impurity precipitation circuit are six impurity precipitation tanks and the gypsum belt filter.
The uranium precipitation circuit precipitates uranium from solution. The resulting product is thickened to a minimum density of 35% solids (w/w). Uranium is precipitated through the addition of hydrogen peroxide and thepH controlled through the addition of magnesium hydroxide. The major equipment in uranium precipitation are three uranium precipitation tanks and the uranium thickener.
The product calcining circuit cleans the uranium product, dries it and converts it to a high specific gravity product preferred by refineries. The major equipment in the product calcining circuit are the centrifuge, the calciner and three scrubbers. Final product is packaged in standard 205 L drums for shipment to the uranium refinery.
The tailings neutralization circuit treats uranium production process waste flows and precipitate from the water treatment plant. Lime addition increases the pH of the combined streams to pH 10 and the thickened tailings is pumped to the tailings management facility, or to the backfill plant. The major equipment in the tailings neutralization circuit are two tailings neutralization tanks and the tailings thickener.
FLOWHEET DESCRIPTION 1-3
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
The effluent treatment circuit removes dissolved impurities from effluent prior to its release or recycle. The major equipment in the effluent treatment circuit are reverse osmosis, the primary and secondary effluent treatment circuits, each consisting of two effluent treatment tanks and a clarifier, three effluent sand filters and three monitoring ponds.
1.3 Personnel
The process plant was assumed to operate 24 hours/day, 7 days/week with operators working 12 hour shifts. Two crews were assumed, one on site while the second was off site.
A total of 66 individuals are envisioned to operate (Mill Operations) and maintain (Mill Maintenance) the process plant.
An additional 40 individuals are envisioned to provide support services and administer the site.
Departments not included in the general administration personnel estimate were:
• Mining,
• Mine Maintenance,
• Site Services, and
• Housekeeping and catering.
FLOWHEET DESCRIPTION 1-4
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
1.4 Consumables
Table 1, below, summarizes consumables used in the process plant circuits:
Table 1 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
Summary Of Consumable Usage Consumables Used in Process Plant Circuit
Barium Chloride Impurity Precipitation Tailings Effluent Treatment
Ferric Sulphate Impurity Precipitation Tailings Effluent Treatment
Flocculant
Neutral Thickener Uranium thickener Tailings Thickener Effluent Treatment Clarifiers
Hydrogen Peroxide Uranium Precipitation Lime Neutralization Magnesium Hydroxide Uranium Precipitation Oxygen Leaching Resin Resin in pulp Steel Balls SAG Mill, Ball and Lime Mill
Sulphuric Acid Leaching Resin elution Effluent Treatment
Yellowcake Drums Packaging
1.5 Utilities
Water supply to the process plant consists of fresh water, process water and mine water. Reverse osmosis permeate is the main source of supply for fresh water, which is used wherever pure water is required. Process and mine water are used wherever pure water is not required.
Steam is used to heat the leach slurry to 50ºC.
Process and instrument air are supplied to the process plant. Two process air compressors supply process air; a bleed stream of process air is dried and de-oiled for use as instrument air.
A safety shower system is installed in the process plant. The system consists of a head tank containing warmed potable water and at least one safety shower/eye wash combination in each process circuit.
SUMMARY OF METALLURGICAL TESTWORK 2-1
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
2.0 SUMMARY OF METALLURGICAL TESTWORK
Testwork on Matoush test composites made up from assay rejects was initiated at SGS Lakefield Research Limited (Lakefield) in Lakefield, Ontario in 2007 under the direction of Melis Engineering Ltd. (Melis) as part of development work on Strateco Resources Inc. (Strateco)’s Matoush Uranium Project located in the Otish Mountains of northern Quebec. This preliminary test program encompassed composite analyses, leach scoping tests, uranium recovery and upgrading, settling/filtration tests, effluent treatment and preparation of tailings to provide preliminary environmental data. In addition, quarter core samples were used for comminution (grinding) testwork.
Metallurgical test composites prepared for testing from assay rejects include sub-composites representing four diamond drill holes (DDH 2006-11, DDH 2006-30, DDH 2007-03 and DDH 2007-06) as well as a blend of all four sub-composites to provide an overall composite for initial testing. Key analyses of these composites are listed in Table 2 below:
Table 2 Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Uranium Project
Matoush Test Composites – Summary of Analysis
Analyte Unit Composite 2006-11
Composite 2006-30
Composite 2007-03
Composite 2007-06
Overall Composite
U3O8 % 0.34 0.98 1.61 0.30 0.79 Al2O3 % 5.88 5.31 5.34 6.91 5.92 CaO % 0.45 0.62 1.79 0.67 0.85 Fe2O3 % 2.01 0.72 1.17 0.64 1.13 MgO % 2.22 0.52 0.56 0.47 0.86 P2O5 % 0.37 0.43 1.84 0.53 0.72 SiO2 % 82.3 87.0 80.4 86.3 84.5 V2O5 % 0.10 0.07 0.21 0.12 0.11 As % <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 Ba % 0.069 0.046 0.27 0.056 0.097 Co % 0.0047 0.0013 0.0061 0.0013 0.0029 Cu % 0.0031 0.0027 0.0110 0.0014 0.0039 Mo % 0.027 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 0.004 Ni % 0.012 0.0026 0.0090 0.0034 0.0061 Pb % 0.097 0.180 0.270 0.0510 0.140 Se % 0.011 <0.005 0.011 <0.005 <0.005 Sr % 0.0074 0.0063 0.021 0.0056 0.0087 Y % 0.0009 0.0008 0.0022 0.0008 0.0011 Zn % 0.0025 0.0030 0.0023 <0.001 0.0018
The elemental analyses of the composites show that the Matoush composites
SUMMARY OF METALLURGICAL TESTWORK 2-2
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
prepared for testing were low in deleterious elements such as arsenic, molybdenum and base metals. Selenium was above the detection limit in two of the composites, which implies that the amount of selenium reporting to waste effluents will need to be taken into consideration in effluent treatment testwork.
A comparison of the uranium assays, taken from a sample cut of the prepared sub-composites, to the drill indicated uranium grade (the grade of the sub-composites calculated on a weighted basis from the individual drill hole intersection analyses) is presented in Table 3 below for comparison.
Table 3 Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Uranium Project
Matoush Test Composites – Summary of Analysis
Analyte Unit Composite 2006-11
Composite 2006-30
Composite 2007-03
Composite 2007-06
Overall Composite
U3O8 - Assay % 0.34 0.98 1.61 0.30 0.79 U3O8 - Calculated % 0.41 1.08 1.77 0.33 0.87 % Difference 17 9 9 9 9
From a comparison of these results the assay head grade of the prepared sub-composites appears to be 9 % lower than the grade calculated from the drill core assays, ignoring Composite 2006-11 which appears anomalous relative to the other assay comparisons. Further metallurgical calculated head grades will become available for comparison as testwork is completed.
Mineralogical examination of core samples revealed that the uranium mineralization in the Matoush deposit consists mainly of uraninite (UO2) and carnotite-weeksite K2(UO2)2V2O8·3(H2O) and K2(UO2)2(Si2O5)3·4(H2O). Gangue minerals include calcite, sericite-muscovite, chromite, apatite and tourmaline.
The uranium isotope ratio of the Matoush Overall Composite was measured to confirm that the uranium isotope ratio was close to the naturally occurring ratio of 0.71% U235/U (w/w). Within the limited accuracy of the gamma spectrometry analysis, the measured isotope ratio was approximately 0.52% U235/U (w/w), with a range of 0.37% U235/U (w/w) to 0.69% U235/U (w/w), close to the expected naturally occurring ratio.
Comminution (grinding) tests showed that the Matoush mineralization is of medium hardness. The grindability data were used to develop a preliminary grinding circuit design study using CEET2® technology. The goal of this preliminary study was to develop a suitable SAG and ball mill with pebble crusher (SABC) circuit capable of milling 28.8 t/h (636 t/d at 92% availability) for year 1 to 3, and would allow for expansion in year 4, to increase throughput capacity up
SUMMARY OF METALLURGICAL TESTWORK 2-3
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
to 48.0 t/h (1,061 t/d at 92% availability) to a final P80 of 100 µm.
For year 1-3, the selected SABC circuit design capable of treating 28.8 t/h (636 t/d at 92% availability) to an average P80 of 150 µm comprises:
• One SAG mill of 13’ diameter by 6’ EGL drawing 296 kW at the shell, followed by
• One ball mill of 9’ diameter by 16’ EGL drawing 310 kW at the shell.
• One 3’ diameter pebble crusher is required at all times.
This circuit uses50 mm grate and 10 mm vibrating screen apertures making a transfer size T80 of 2.4 mm and average circulating load of 16% to the pebble crusher.
Subsequent to this study anticipated mill feed grades and production requirements changed, which reduced actual tonnage requirements to 24.2 t/h for the complete operating period with no further expansion required. The grinding circuit described above, with a capacity of 28.8 t/h, was kept as is for the purposes of this scoping study.
Settling tests completed on leach feed prepared from an overall Matoush composite yielded a thickener unit area of 0.08 to 0.10 m2/t/day.
Leach tests on an Overall Composite prepared from assay rejects confirmed that high uranium extractions (approximately 98%) can, on average, be achieved from the Matoush mineralization under medium free acid concentrations (30 g H2SO4/L) using oxygen as oxidant. The leach test results confirm that a low pressure oxygen sulphuric acid leach is the leach option of choice for the Matoush mineralization, achieving very high uranium extractions of 98 % or better. All four variability sub-composites yielded excellent extractions showing that uniform uranium extractions can be obtained from the Matoush deposit based on the mineralization tested.
Individual leach tests on four separate drill hole sub-composites yielded 98% uranium extractions on three of the four composites and a 95% uranium extraction on the higher grade composite; hence generally matching the uranium extraction achieved on the Overall Composite. The lower uranium extraction obtained on the higher grade composite can likely be increased by increasing the free acid in the leach to a value greater than 30 g H2SO4/L. Acid consumptions were variable ranging from 97.5 to 172.5 kg H2SO4/t and averaging 124 kg H2SO4/t; compared to the approximately 100 kg H2SO4/t consumption observed in the Overall Composite test.
SUMMARY OF METALLURGICAL TESTWORK 2-4
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
The pregnant leach solution produced in some of the acid leach scoping tests was submitted to an ICP package analysis to give an indication of the elemental make-up of leach solution reporting to downstream uranium recovery. The resulting pregnant leach solution is quite low in deleterious elements, particularly arsenic, molybdenum, selenium and base metals, which will minimize the potential impact on waste treatment requirements. It is also very low in elements which would normally report to the final yellowcake uranium product, in particular molybdenum and vanadium. The relatively high phosphorus content originates from the apatite content in the mineralization.
Ion exchange tests showed that Purolite A660 resin outperformed Dowex 21K resin in terms of loading efficiency with complete uranium adsorption achieved in three stages, yielding a loaded resin containing 60 g U3O8/L. A 90% elution efficiency was achieved using 125 g H2SO4/L sulphuric acid solution at 45 ºC.
Yellowcake precipitation, tailings neutralization, effluent treatment testwork, tailings environmental tests and further resin absorption/elution tests are underway or planned at Lakefield.
.
SUMMARY OF PLANT OPERATIONS Page 3-1
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
3.0 SUMMARY OF PLANT OPERATIONS
3.1 CRUSHING
3.1.1 Summary Crushing reduces the size of the run-of-mine ore to a size appropriate for feed to grinding. Crushing is sized to operate 12 hours per scheduled operating day, a feed rate of 48 tonnes/h.
3.1.2 Crushing A process flowsheet showing the Crushing circuit is attached in Appendix A. This flowsheet is:
• 490-F-101: Crushing Flowsheet. Run of mine ore, at approximately 5% moisture is stored in a 5,000 tonne live weight stockpile on the ore pad, which is covered with an A-Frame for protection from the elements. Three apron feeders under the ore pad discharge onto the mill feed conveyor, which feeds the jaw crusher. The jaw crusher discharges directly into the ore feed bin.
The ore feed bin, with a live volume of 280 m3, is designed to provide surge capacity between Crushing and Grinding.
The crushing dust scrubber collects ore dust as a slurry, which is then pumped to the cyclone feed pumpbox in Grinding.
3.2 GRINDING
3.2.1 Summary Grinding reduces the size of the feed to allow leaching of uranium to take place in a reasonable length of time. Grinding is sized for a feed rate of 24.2 tonnes/h, and to operate 24 hours per scheduled operating day.
3.2.2 Grinding A process flowsheet showing the Grinding circuit is attached in Appendix A. This flowsheet is:
• 490-F-102: Grinding Flowsheet. The Grinding circuit is sized for a design feed rate of 24.2 tonnes/h. Ore is metered from the ore feed bin via the ore feed bin apron feeders and discharged onto the grinding feed conveyor. The grinding feed conveyor discharges into the SAG (Semi-Autogenous Grinding) mill.
SUMMARY OF PLANT OPERATIONS Page 3-2
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
The SAG mill uses a large diameter and a small charge of steel balls to reduce the size of the ore feed. Ground ore with a density of 68% to 72% solids (w/w) is discharged from the SAG mill through grates onto the SAG mill discharge screen. Screen undersize is fed to the ball mill; screen oversize is fed to the pebble crusher.
The ball mill uses a higher ball charge of smaller balls to grind the ore finer than can be accomplished in the SAG Mill. The ball mill slurry, varying in density from 70% to 72% solids (w/w), discharges into the cyclone feedpumpbox and is pumped to the grinding cyclones.
The slurry in the ball mill discharge pumpbox is pumped to one of two cyclones for separating fine particles from coarse particles. The heavier coarse particles reporting to the cyclone underflow are returned to the ball mill for further grinding. The lighter fine particles rise up inside the cyclone vortex finder to be collected as cyclone overflow with a k80 of 150 µm.
The cyclone overflow is passed over a scalping screen to remove particles larger than the screen opening size of 425 micrometers (35 mesh). Along with cyclone underflow these oversize pieces are returned to the ball mill for further grinding. Cyclone overflow, at a density of 33% solids (w/w), is pumped to the neutral thickener.
The design of the Grinding circuit was based upon a preliminary assessment of grinding characteristics from tests on available Matoush composites. Testing of additional composites from other areas of the deposit will be required in future.
3.3 LEACHING
3.3.1 Summary The Leaching circuit is a slurry circuit. Leaching dissolves the uranium, and many other metals and ions, in a sulphuric acid solution.
3.3.2 Leaching A process flowsheet showing the Leaching circuit is attached in Appendix A. This flowsheet is:
• 490-F-103: Neutral Thickening and Leaching Flowsheet. The Leaching circuit is composed of the neutral thickener and six leach tanks. The neutral thickener increases the density of the leach feed slurry, increasing the residence time in leaching. Water separated from the leach feed slurry is recycled to ore sorting and grinding.
SUMMARY OF PLANT OPERATIONS Page 3-3
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
Leaching is the process of dissolving the uranium in the ore in a sulphuric acid solution. It is accomplished through the addition of sulphuric acid and oxygen to a final concentration of 30 g h2so4/l and an oxidation/reduction potential of 475 mV to 500 mV.
To quicken the leaching process, steam is added to heat the leach slurry to 50 ºC.
3.4 RESIN IN PULP
3.4.1 Summary The Resin In Pulp (RIP) circuit is a slurry circuit. The resin in pulp circuit adsorbs the uranium in beads of plastic resin specifically designed chemically to preferentially absorb uranium.
3.4.2 Resin In Pulp A process flowsheet showing the Resin In Pulp circuit is attached in Appendix A. This flowsheet is:
• 490-F-104: Resin Extraction Flowsheet. The Resin In Pulp circuit arrangement incorporates eight tanks, each incorporating a mixer and pumpcell. All tanks are placed at the same elevation which facilitates the carousel mode of operation.
Each tank contains a discrete batch of resin, each batch spending a specified time in the circuit before being drained and transferred to the resin elution circuit.
Loaded resin is transferred from Tank No. 1 to a resin elution column. After the transfer, eluted resin is transferred to the empty RIP tank, which is then placed on line as the final in the series, and all others advance in rank. The eluted resin is most efficient at absorbing the low concentration of uranium remaining in the leach discharge slurry, which has been contacted with resin in each of the other RIP tanks.
The resin screen separates loaded resin from leach discharge slurry, and the safety screen prevents resin from being pumped to tailings neutralization should a pumpcell screen develop a hole.
SUMMARY OF PLANT OPERATIONS Page 3-4
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
3.5 RESIN ELUTION
3.5.1 Summary Uranium liquor, consisting of tetravalent uranyl sulphate ([UO2(SO4)3]
4-) in a sulphuric acid solution, is created in the Resin Elution circuit.
3.5.2 Resin Elution A process flowsheet showing the Resin Elution circuit is attached in Appendix A. This flowsheet is:
• 490-F-105: Resin Elution Flowsheet. The Resin Elution circuit consists of three resin elution columns, three eluate tanks, two heat exchangers and a pneumatic conveyor system. Loaded resin is cleaned and transported from the Resin In Pulp circuit into one of three resin elution columns. During the resin elution cycle, two of the three resin elution columns will contain resin.
Lean eluate, a partially loaded eluate solution, is used for the first resin elution cycle on the loaded resin. This cycle partially elutes the resin and fully loads the eluate, now called concentrated eluate and stored in the concentrated eluate tank.
Fresh eluate, a 100 to 150 g H2SO4/L acid solution, is prepared and used to elute the partially eluted resin. The partially loaded eluate, now called lean eluate, is stored in the lean eluate tank and the resin in the second column, now fully eluted, will be transferred back the resin in pulp circuit when a tank becomes available at the start of the next resin elution cycle.
Heat exchangers are used to ensure that the temperature of the resin elution solutions remains between 45ºc and 50ºc to speed the resin elution process.
3.6 IMPURITY PRECIPITATION
3.6.1 Summary Uranium liquor, consisting of tetravalent uranyl sulphate ([UO2(SO4)3]
4-) in a sulphuric acid solution, is purified in the Impurity Precipitation circuit.
3.6.2 Impurity Precipitation The Impurity Precipitation circuit is made up of six impurity precipitation tanks, the gypsum belt filter, the pregnant solution filters and their respective supporting tanks, pumpboxes and pumps. The process flowsheets showing
SUMMARY OF PLANT OPERATIONS Page 3-5
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
the impurity precipitation circuit are attached in Appendix A. These flowsheets are:
• 490-F-106: Impurity Precipitation Flowsheet, and
• 490-F-107: Gypsum Filtration Flowsheet. The six impurity precipitation tanks are used to precipitate impurities from the concentrated eluate. Although the Resin In Pulp circuit rejects most of the impurities dissolved during leaching, minor quantities of iron, arsenic, molybdenum and silica may report to the Concentrated Eluate with the uranium. If allowed to pass through to the Uranium Precipitation circuit they would precipitate to some degree with the uranium.
If necessary, ferric sulphate is added to the front end impurity precipitation tanks to precipitate arsenic and molybdenum as ferric arsenate and molybdate. Lime solution is added to the tanks to precipitate the excess sulphate in the Concentrated Eluate as gypsum.
Discharge from the impurity precipitation tanks contains a significant quantity of gypsum (CaSO4
.2H2O). This is separated from the aqueous stream by the Gypsum Belt Filter. The filtrate is clarified in the Pregnant Solution Sand Filters and is pumped to the Uranium Precipitation circuit. The washed filter cake is pumped to the Resin In Pulp circuit feed launder so that any entrained uranium can be recycled.
3.7 URANIUM PRECIPITATION
3.7.1 Summary Uranium liquor, consisting of tetravalent uranyl sulphate ([UO2(SO4)3]
4-) in a sulphuric acid solution, is precipitated in the Uranium Precipitation circuit.
3.7.2 Uranium Precipitation The Uranium Precipitation circuit is made up of the uranium precipitation heat exchangers, three uranium precipitation tanks, the uranium thickener, the barren strip tank and their respective supporting pumpboxes and pumps. The process flowsheets showing the Uranium Precipitation circuit are attached in Appendix A. These flowsheets are:
• 490-F-108: Uranium Precipitation Flowsheet, and
• 490-F-109: Uranium thickener Flowsheet.
SUMMARY OF PLANT OPERATIONS Page 3-6
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
The uranium precipitation feed heat exchangers, one in operation and one spare, control the temperature of the feed solution to 25ºC which allows a dense precipitate to form in the uranium precipitation tanks.
The three uranium precipitation tanks are used to precipitate uranium as uranium peroxide (UO4•xH2O). Uranium is precipitated with hydrogen peroxide to ensure molybdenum and silica remain dissolved; magnesium hydroxide slurry is used to maintain the pH as magnesium sulphate, unlike calcium sulphate (gypsum), is soluble. The combination of hydrogen peroxide precipitation and magnesium hydroxide pH control results in a very pure precipitate.
The precipitated uranium slurry is thickened in the uranium thickener which also serves as surge storage between the Uranium Precipitation and Product Calcining circuits.
The barren solution tank stores barren solution and allows any entrained uranium precipitate in the overflow of the uranium thickener time to settle to the coned bottom of the tank. Occasionally, the barren solution tank transfer pump is used to transfer the settled precipitate to the uranium thickener.
3.8 CALCINING AND PACKAGING
3.9 Summary
This section deals with the calcining and packaging of the uranium precipitate in steel drums for shipment to a refinery where calcined yellowcake (U3O8) is converted to uranium trioxide (UO3).
The process of drying uranium at a temperature of approximately 870°C in a multiple hearth furnace is called calcining. The uranium calciner consists of a multiple hearth furnace heated with a series of burners using diesel as fuel. The uranium centrifuge discharge consisting of thickened uranium precipitate at 50% to 67% solids (w/w) is fed to the top hearth. It becomes dry as it travels from the top hearth to the bottom hearth. This calcined yellowcake containing approximately 99% U3O8 (w/w) and 0.2% moisture (w/w) is discharged from the bottom hearth to the lump disintegrator to break any lumps formed in its passage through the calciner.
The calcined lump-free yellowcake is stored in the uranium bin. As required, yellowcake is drawn from the yellowcake bin and packaged in 205 L steel drums. The filled drums are shipped by truck to a uranium refinery.
SUMMARY OF PLANT OPERATIONS Page 3-7
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
3.10 Calcining and Packaging
The Calcining and Packaging circuit is made up of the Uranium Wash Tank, the Uranium Centrifuge, the Uranium Calciner, the Uranium Lump Disintegrator, the Bucket Conveyor, the Uranium Bin, the three scrubbers and their respective supporting pumpboxes and pumps. The process flowsheets showing the Calcining and Packaging circuit are attached in Appendix A. These flowsheets are:
• 490-F-110: Uranium Centrifuge and Calciner Flowsheet, and
• 490-F-111: Uranium Packaging and Scrubbers Flowsheet. Thickened uranium slurry from the Uranium Thickener is pumped to the Uranium Wash Tank which evens out the feed density and flowrate, allowing more stable operation of the Uranium Centrifuge. The Uranium Centrifuge dewaters the feed to the Uranium Calciner which removes dissolved impurities such as magnesium sulphate, reduces the fuel consumption and helps protect the refractory in the Uranium Calciner.Uranium slurry discharges the Uranium Centrifuge directly into the Uranium Calciner.
The Uranium Calciner will be a vendor package. For the purposes of this study, a direct fired multiple hearth vertical calciner was assumed. The Uranium Calciner both dries and drives off the hydration water from the uranium peroxide (UO4
.xH2O), producing a mixed uranium containing mainly uranium tetraoxide (UO4) and yellowcake (U3O8). This uranium is denser than the uranium peroxide feeding the calciner, allowing uranium drums to be filled to the maximum weight.
The Uranium Lump Disintegrator is used to break up lumps exiting the Uranium Calciner by feeding them into a rotating trommel screen sealed at the end. Lumps larger than the screen holes remain in the screen and break each other up autogenously.
Uranium is transferred from the Uranium Calciner to the Uranium Lump Disintegrator Trommel by gravity and from the Uranium Lump Disintegrator Trommel to the Uranium Bin by a Bucket Conveyor. The Uranium Bin acts as surge capacity between the Uranium Calciner and the Packaging Circuit.
Uranium is packaged in 205 L drums. Empty drums are placed on a motorized roller conveyor which moves them into a partially enclosed room with a plexiglass window underneath the Uranium Bin which is kept under
SUMMARY OF PLANT OPERATIONS Page 3-8
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
slight negative pressure by the packaging scrubber. The rotary valve at the bottom of the Uranium Bin is operated by an operator standing outside the room and the drum filled to either the maximum weight of 400 kg or until the drum is full. The full drum is moved out of the room by the roller conveyor and an empty drum moved in for filling. Once out of the room, an operator places a lid on the full drum and tightens the sealing ring. The roller conveyor moves the lidded drum through a washing station, after which the drum is moved by a forklift to a scale where the weight is recorded and marked on the drum.
3.11 Dust Control
Uranium calcining and packaging have been designed to hold uranium dust production to a minimum. At times, due to equipment malfunction, fugitive uranium dust will escape into the area.
Three scrubbers are proposed for the Uranium Calcining circuit: the Uranium Calciner Scrubber, the Uranium Calciner Room Scrubber and the Uranium Packaging Scrubber. These units remove uranium dust from the air stream exiting the Uranium Calciner, the room containing the Uranium Calciner, and the Uranium drum packaging unit operations, respectively. The Uranium Calciner and Uranium Calciner Room scrubbers run at all times, the Uranium Packaging Scrubber runs when uranium packaging is taking place.
To conserve fresh water, barren solution will be used in the scrubbers where applicable.
SUMMARY OF PLANT OPERATIONS Page 3-9
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
3.12 TAILINGS NEUTRALIZATION
3.12.1 Summary Tailings Neutralization refers to those activities connected to the long-term chemical stabilization of tailings.
3.12.2 Tailings Neutralization The process flowsheet showing Tailings Neutralization is attached in Appendix A. This flowsheet is:
• 490-F-112: Tailings Neutralization Flowsheet. The major equipment in tailings neutralization consists of two tailings neutralization tanks and a tailings thickener. The process is to raise the pH of the streams which will be sent to the tailings management facility to pH 10.0, and, with the addition of barium chloride and ferric sulphate, to precipitate radium and arsenic.
Thickened in the tailings thickener to reduce the volume of slurry, the thickener underflow is pumped to the tailings management facility.
Tailings can also be pumped to the paste backfill plant.
3.13 EFFLUENT TREATMENT
3.13.1 Summary Effluent Treatment refers to those activities connected to the cleaning of effluent water prior to re-use or release.
3.13.2 Effluent Treatment The process flowsheet showing Effluent Treatment is attached in Appendix A. This flowsheet is:
• 490-F-113: Effluent Treatment Flowsheet. The Effluent Treatment circuit consists of two stages of treatment operated in series: primary effluent treatment and secondary effluent treatment. Each consists of two effluent treatment tanks and one clarifier. Following the secondary effluent treatment stage are three effluent sand filters, an effluent discharge tank and three monitoring ponds.
Primary and secondary effluent treatment remove metallic ions that are not precipitated by the increase in pH in tailings neutralization, and treat reverse osmosis plant reject. Primarily, ions precipitated consist of radium 226, molybdenum, arsenic and selenium.
SUMMARY OF PLANT OPERATIONS Page 3-10
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
With the assumptions of the existing water balance, on average, no water will exit the site. The effluent sand filters provide backup to the reverse osmosis plant for times of year when water flowrates may not be average.
The monitoring ponds are the last point of control for water discharged from site. A pond is filled, and a water sample composited from the filling water is assayed. Should the assays indicate that the water meets discharge limits the pond is discharged to the watershed. Should the water not meet discharge limits, the pond is pumped to the tailings management facility.
3.14 REVERSE OSMOSIS
3.14.1 Summary Reverse Osmosis refers to those activities connected to the cleaning of effluent water prior to re-use or release.
3.14.2 Reverse Osmosis The process flowsheet showing Reverse Osmosis is attached in Appendix A. This flowsheet is:
• 490-F-114: Reverse Osmosis Flowsheet
• The Reverse Osmosis Plant will be a package plant and so is not detailed.
The purpose of the Reverse Osmosis (RO) Plant is to produce clean water from tailings thickener overflow and excess tailings management facility supernatant. The only water exiting the site is RO permeate, or, if necessary, secondary clarifier overflow after a final polishing step in the effluent sand filters.
The reject from the Reverse Osmosis Plant, containing contaminants, is sent to the Effluent Treatment circuit for treatment.
3.15 Tailings Management Facility
The process flowsheet showing the Tailings Management Facility is attached in Appendix A. This flowsheet is:
• 490-F-114: Reverse Osmosis Flowsheet The Tailings Management Facility has two important functions: the storage of tailings in a geochemically inert manner, and as surge capacity for water.
The Tailings Management Facility is envisioned to be a sub-aqueous facility, in which the tailings are discharged underwater so that there is a
SUMMARY OF PLANT OPERATIONS Page 3-11
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
greatly reduced chance of oxidation of the tailings (enhancing geochemical stability) and of wind dispersal of tailings outside the Tailings Management Facility area.
3.16 REAGENTS AND UTILITIES
3.16.1 Summary Reagents are chemicals and materials which are purchased off site, or produced on site from materials purchased off site. Oxygen from the oxygen plant is included as a reagent, the off-site material used in its production being electricity. Steel balls for grinding ore and lime are reagents but do not have process flowsheets. Reagents include ferric sulphate, hydrogen peroxide, oxygen, magnesia, barium chloride, lime, flocculants, sulphuric acid and steel balls.
Utilities are supplies of water, compressed air or steam utilized in the milling process. Utilities are RO Permeate, Process Water, Process Air, Instrument Air and water for the Safety Shower system.
3.16.2 Ferric Sulphate The process flowsheet showing ferric sulphate (Fe2SO4)3)is attached in Appendix A. This flowsheet is:
• 490-F-115: Ferric Sulphate and Hydrogen Peroxide Flowsheet. The ferric sulphate unloading, mixing, and distribution system contains a Concentrated Ferric Sulphate Tank to store the ferric sulphate unloaded directly from a transport truck and Ferric Sulphate Distribution Pumps to pump the ferric sulphate to the Impurity Precipitation, Tailings Neutralization and Effluent Treatment circuits.
3.16.3 Hydrogen Peroxide The process flowsheet showing hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) is attached in Appendix A. This flowsheet is:
• 490-F-115: Ferric Sulphate and Hydrogen Peroxide Flowsheet. The hydrogen peroxide unloading, dilution, and addition system will be, for safety reasons, a vendor designed system. Spontaneous dissolution of hydrogen peroxide is a danger wherever it is stored; the hydrogen peroxide vendor is best qualified to design storage and addition systems and ensure they are properly passivated. Hydrogen peroxide vendors require that unloading and addition systems pass their safety standards prior to
SUMMARY OF PLANT OPERATIONS Page 3-12
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
delivering hydrogen peroxide, and require one of their personnel be on site for the first delivery.
The hydrogen peroxide system shown is based on an estimate prepared by Degussa Canada Inc. It contains a Hydrogen Peroxide Storage Tank, in which the 70% hydrogen peroxide delivered by truck is diluted to 50% for storage. Hydrogen peroxide is transferred from the Hydrogen Peroxide Storage Tank to the Hydrogen Peroxide Day Tank and from there to the Hydrogen Peroxide Dosing Tank which feeds two metering pumps delivering hydrogen peroxide to the two Uranium Precipitation Tanks.
3.16.4 Oxygen Plant The process flowsheet showing the Oxygen Plant is attached in Appendix A. This flowsheet is:
• 490-F-116: Oxygen Plant and Caustic Soda Flowsheet. Oxygen (O2) is used in leaching.
The oxygen plant will be owned and operated under contract, the oxygen produced in the plant purchased by the operator.
The Oxygen Plant will be a VPSA (Vapour Pressure Swing Adsorption) package plant and so is not detailed. Typical VPSA systems are either single or double bed, non-cryogenic systems. They include a rotary-lobe feed air blower, vacuum blower (for double bed systems), one or two adsorbent vessels, an oxygen surge tank, switching valves and computer controls.
In the single-bed system, the blower draws in air, compresses it and sends it to the adsorbent vessel to remove impurities, leaving 90 to 94 percent pure oxygen as the product. The adsorbent is then regenerated as the blower removes gas by reducing the pressure inside the vessel. The waste gas (nitrogen, water and carbon dioxide) is then discharged into the air. Since oxygen is not produced during regeneration, the system includes a low-pressure surge tank to allow for continuous oxygen supply. The double bed system uses a similar adsorption process cycle that relies on swings in pressure -- from above one atmosphere to below atmospheric pressure (vacuum) -- to cycle each bed sequentially from adsorption to desorption. One bed is always adsorbing impurities to separate oxygen from air, while the other bed regenerates. Thus, the beds alternately produce oxygen into a surge tank which ensures that product is available continuously at a consistent pressure and purity.
SUMMARY OF PLANT OPERATIONS Page 3-13
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
3.16.5 Caustic Soda The process flowsheet showing caustic soda (NaOH) is attached in Appendix A. This flowsheet is:
• 490-F-116: Oxygen Plant and Caustic Soda Flowsheet. Caustic soda is used to regenerate resin poisoned with silica.
3.16.6 Magnesia The process flowsheet showing magnesia is attached in Appendix A. This flowsheet is:
• 490-F-117: Magnesia and Grinding Balls Flowsheet. Magnesium oxide, MgO, is converted to magnesium hydroxide, Mg(OH)2 in the Magnesia mix tank. The term Magnesia is commonly used to refer to both magnesium oxide and magnesium hydroxide.
The magnesia system consists of a Magnesia Silo, feeding by screw to a Magnesia Mix Tank, which is pumped to a Magnesia Distribution Tank. Because the magnesia solution is used in the Uranium Precipitation circuit, permeate from the Reverse Osmosis Plant was specified for use as dilution water.
3.16.7 Grinding Balls The process flowsheet showing grinding balls is attached in Appendix A. This flowsheet is:
• 490-F-117: Magnesia and Grinding Balls Flowsheet. Grinding balls are used in the SAG mill, the ball mill and the lime mill.
3.16.8 Barium Chloride The process flowsheet showing barium chloride (BaCl2
.2H2O) is attached in Appendix A. This flowsheet is:
• 490-F-118: Barium Chloride and Lime Flowsheet. The barium chloride system consists of a Barium Chloride Mix Tank, a Barium Chloride Distribution Tank, one Barium Chloride Transfer Pump and two barium Chloride Distribution Pumps. Because the barium chloride solution is used in Effluent Treatment, permeate from the Reverse Osmosis Plant was specified for use as dilution water.
3.16.9 Lime The process flowsheet showing lime (CaO) is attached in Appendix A. This flowsheet is:
SUMMARY OF PLANT OPERATIONS Page 3-14
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
• 490-F-118: Barium Chloride and Lime Flowsheet. The lime slaking circuit is designed to supply 4 tonnes/h of equivalent CaO. It consists of a Lime Silo, Lime Mix Screw, a Lime Tower Mill, Lime Cyclone, Lime Storage Tank and associated pumpboxes and pumps.
The lime slaking circuit is run intermittently to maintain a sufficient supply of slaked lime in the Lime Storage Tank. The slaked lime is supplied to Impurity Precipitation, the Tailings Neutralization circuit and to Effluent Treatment.
Pebble lime is fed from a Lime Silo with a Lime Mix Screw to the Lime Tower Mill. The Lime Tower Mill is fed with pebble lime controlled by the speed of the screw conveyor.
Grinding (slaking) of lime is carried out in the Lime Mill. Ground lime, with a density 15% to 20% solids (w/w), is discharged from the Lime Mill and is stored in the Lime Storage Tank, equipped with an agitator
3.16.10 Flocculants The process flowsheet showing flocculants is attached in Appendix A. This flowsheet is:
• 490-F-127: Flocculants and Sulphuric Acid Flowsheet. Flocculants are used in the Neutral Thickener, Tailings Thickener, Uranium thickener and Effluent Clarifiers to speed the settling of solids and increase the underflow density. Up to three different types of flocculant may be used, depending upon the settling characteristics of the solids in each thickener or clarifier. Anionic polyacrylamide flocculant is used in the effluent treatment clarifiers, non-ionic polyacrylamide flocculant or flocculants are used in the Neutral Thickener, Tailings Thickener and Uranium thickener.
Each flocculant is prepared using a separate, skid-mounted mix unit.
3.16.11 Sulphuric Acid The process flowsheet showing sulphuric acid (H2SO4) is attached in Appendix A. This flowsheet is:
• 490-F-119: Flocculants and Sulphuric Acid Flowsheet. Sulphuric acid is used in Leaching, Resin Elution and Effluent Treatment
Sulphuric acid will be purchased as 94% H2SO4 w/w solution and stored in tanks on site. A maximum 14 day supply will be stored on site.
SUMMARY OF PLANT OPERATIONS Page 3-15
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
3.16.12 Water Distribution The process flowsheet showing water distribution is attached in Appendix A. This flowsheet is:
• 490-F-120: Fresh and Process Water Distribution Flowsheet. Two types of water are used in the process plant: Fresh and Process Water. Process Water is water containing various concentrations of impurities and is used where the quality of the required water is not important to the process. Fresh water is very pure water and is used where clean water is of great importance: in the impurity and uranium precipitation circuits, and for dilution of hydrogen peroxide.
Fresh Water is made up of permeate from the Reverse Osmosis plant, with make-up water being fresh water. Process Water is made up of Secondary Clarifier overflow and Mine Water, with make-up water being Fresh Water.
The fire water loop is supplied from the Fresh Water Tank, which is therefore larger than would be required were process flows alone taken from this tank.
3.16.13 Process and Instrument Air The process flowsheet showing process and instrument air is attached in Appendix A. This flowsheet is:
• 490-F-121: Air and Steam Distribution Flowsheet. Process air is the air used in the process or for maintenance. Process air, at 345 kPa pressure, is used as delivered from the Process Air Compressors. Process air contains entrained water and oil from the Process Air Compressors and is used where these are of no consequence.
Instrument air is process air that has been dried and de-oiled for use in powering process control instruments. As a rule, the presence of oil or water in instrument air shortens the life of such instruments.
3.16.14 Steam The process flowsheet showing steam is attached in Appendix A. This flowsheet is:
• 490-F-121: Air and Steam Distribution Flowsheet. Steam is used in leaching, and for heating various and miscellaneous process equipment.
SUMMARY OF PLANT OPERATIONS Page 3-16
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
3.16.15 Safety Shower System The process flowsheet showing the safety shower system is attached in Appendix A. This flowsheet is:
• 490-F-122: Safety Shower System Flowsheet. The safety shower system delivers clean, warmed water to the safety and eye showers in the process plant. The size and flowrate of components of this system are specified by code.
SIMPLIFIED PLANT LAYOUT Page 4-1
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
4.0 SIMPLIFIED PLANT LAYOUT
The simplified plant general arrangement is attached in Appendix B. This general arrangement is:
• 490-L-100: Matoush Plant Simplified Layout
The Matoush Plant is composed of three buildings:
• the process plant building,
• the oxygen plant, and
• the crusher building,
The process plant has been laid out with the following principles:
• that grinding be kept at the far end of the plant area from the laboratory and administration,
• that calcining and packaging be isolated at the far end of the plant area from the laboratory and administration, and
• that the crusher be isolated from the main process building to reduce dust.
The total area covered by the process plant building has been estimated at 7,156 m2, the crusher building area at 100 m2 and the Oxygen Plant area at 126 m2.
Including outside tanks and the tailings thickener, and assuming a 7 m wide paved area surrounding the buildings, tanks and thickener, the total area of the mill apron was estimated to be 13,100 m2.
HEAT RECOVERY Page 5-1
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
5.0 HEAT RECOVERY
The recovery of waste heat from process and other streams offers the potential to reduce operating cost. The streams which have been identified as offering potential for this are:
• The RIP discharge slurry may be used to pre-heat the leach feed slurry,
• Waste heat from power generation or the steam boilers may be used to pre-heat ventilation air, and
• The calciner discharge air may be used to pre-heat ventilation air.
A glycol heat exchanger system would be required to isolate the air streams. A direct contact heat exchanger would be sufficient for the slurry.
SUMMARY OF METALLURGICAL ASSUMPTIONS Page 6-1
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
6.0 SUMMARY OF METALLURGICAL ASSUMPTIONS
6.1 Production Rate
As defined by Strateco Resources Inc., the production rate assumed for the Matoush uranium project was 2,000,000 lbs U3O8/a.
6.2 Operating Days
The Matoush process plant was assumed to have a scheduled 350 days of operation/a, with an operating time of 95% of those days. The net operating days per annum is thus 333. This is detailed in Table 4, below.
Table 4 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
Scheduled Operating Time Extraction or Loss Unit Value Comment
Scheduled Operating Days Days/a 350 Melis
Operating Time % 95 Melis Net Operating Days Days/a 333 Calculated
6.3 Head Grade
As defined by Strateco Resources Inc., the grade for the first three years of operation was 0.50% U3O8, following which the grade will decrease to 0.48% U3O8. The mass balance was calculated assuming the 0.48% U3O8 feed grade.
6.4 Recovery
The average net recovery, as defined by testwork and calculated in the mass balance, was 97.6%. The average net recovery is detailed in Table 5 below.
Table 5 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
Uranium Recovery Extraction or Loss Unit Value Comment
Uranium Extraction % 98.0 Testwork
RIP Loss (Residue Loss) % 0.3 Calculated from Kemix Typical Data
SUMMARY OF METALLURGICAL ASSUMPTIONS Page 6-2
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
Table 5 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
Uranium Recovery Extraction or Loss Unit Value Comment
Loss in Gypsum Solids % 0.1 Calculated
Average Net Recovery % 97.6 Calculated
6.5 Feed Rate
The production rate, operating days, feed grade and recovery together define a feed rate of 193,594 tonnes/a, 581 tonnes/day or 24.2 tonnes/h.
The relationship between mill feed grade and mill feed tonnage, for an annual production rate of 2,000,000 lbs U3O8, is shown below in Figure 1.
Figure 1 Feed Grade vs. Tonnes/d for 2,000,000 lbs U3O8/a
6.6 Concentrate Grade
Based on the performance of the hydrogen peroxide precipitation process at other operating uranium mills, the concentrate grade is expected to be ≥99% U3O8.
y = 278.8x-1.0045
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1,000
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20
Mill Feed Grade, % U3O8
Mill
Fee
d, T
onn
es/d
SUMMARY OF METALLURGICAL ASSUMPTIONS Page 6-3
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
6.7 Concentrate Purity
Based on the performance of the hydrogen peroxide precipitation process at other operating uranium mills, the concentrate purity is expected to meet the “Limit Without Penalty” guidelines listed in Table 6 below.
Table 6 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
Uranium Ore Concentrate Impurities And Maximum Concentration Limits (From ASTM C967-02A)
Analyte Unit Limit Without Penalty
Limit Without Reject
As 100 x %/%U 0.05 0.10
B 100 x %/%U 0.005 0.10
Ca 100 x %/%U 0.05 1.0
CO3 100 x %/%U 0.20 0.50
F 100 x %/%U 0.01 0.10
Halogens (exclusive of F) 100 x %/%U 0.05 0.10 Fe 100 x %/%U 0.15 1.00
Mg 100 x %/%U 0.02 0.50
H2O 100 x %/%U 2.0 5.0
Mo 100 x %/%U 0.10 0.30
P 100 x %/%U 0.10 0.70 K 100 x %/%U 0.20 3.0
Si (as SiO3) 100 x %/%U 0.50 2.5
Na 100 x %/%U 0.50 7.5 S 100 x %/%U 1.0 4.0
Th 100 x %/%U 1.0 2.5
Ti 100 x %/%U 0.01 0.05 V 100 x %/%U 0.06 0.30
Zr 100 x %/%U 0.01 0.10 234U µg/g U 56 62
6.8 Discharge Water Quality
All water discharged from the Matoush site will be treated to meet the Maximum Monthly Arithmetic Mean Concentration limits typical for specified analytes as listed in Table 7 below. [(Government of Saskatchewan) Mineral Industry Environmental Protection regulations and the (Government of Canada) Metal Mining Effluent Regulations].
SUMMARY OF METALLURGICAL ASSUMPTIONS Page 6-4
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
Table 7 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
Monthly Arithmetic Mean Concentration Discharge Limits
Analyte Units Maximum Monthly Arithmetic Mean
Concentration Discharge Limits
pH units 6.0 – 9.5 TSS mg/L 15 As mg/L 0.5 Cu mg/L 0.3
Mo mg/L 0.5 Ni mg/L 0.5 Pb mg/L 0.2 Se mg/L (1)
U mg/L 2.5
Zn mg/L 0.5 Pb210 Bq/L 0.92 Ra226 Bq/L 0.37 Th230 Bq/L 1.85
Note: 1. No limit currently specified.
SUMMARY OF REAGENT USAGE ASSUMPTIONS Page 7-1
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
7.0 SUMMARY OF CONSUMABLES USAGE ASSUMPTIONS
The reagent usage assumptions used to calculate reagent and consumables consumptions in the mass balance, pending further testwork, are listed in Table 8, below. The mass balance is attached in Appendix C.
Table 8 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
Summary of Reagent and Consumables Usage Assumptions Criteria Unit Value Notes
Barium Chloride
Tailings Neutralization g BaCl2.2H2O/m3 35 Melis
Secondary Effluent Treatment g BaCl2.2H2O/m3 35 Melis
Ferric Sulphate
Impurity Precipitation g Fe/m3 25 Melis
Tailings Neutralization g Fe/m3 40 Melis
Primary Effluent Treatment g Fe/m3 50 Melis
Secondary Effluent Treatment g Fe/m3 50 Melis
Flocculant, Non-ionic Polyacrylamide Neutral Thickener g/t ore 60 Melis Uranium Thickener g/t 150 Melis
Tailings Neutralization g/t 60 Typical
Flocculant, Anionic Polyacrylamide Primary Effluent Treatment mg/L 7 Melis Secondary Effluent Treatment mg/L 7 Melis
Hydrogen Peroxide
Dosage (kg 70% Soln/t U3O8) kg/t U3O8 280 Melis
Lime Impurity Precipitation Final Circuit pH Units 3.2 Melis
Tailings Neutralization kg CaO/t ore 40 Typical
Primary Effluent Treatment g/m3 0 Melis
Secondary Effluent Treatment g/m3 11 Melis
Magnesia
Magnesia Dosage kg MgO/t U3O8 150 Melis
Oxygen O2 Requirement tonnes O2/d 30 Estimated
Resin
SUMMARY OF REAGENT USAGE ASSUMPTIONS Page 7-2
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
Table 8 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
Summary of Reagent and Consumables Usage Assumptions Criteria Unit Value Notes
Resin Loading g U3O8/L 55 Melis/Testwork
Proportion of Resin in Loading Tank % (v/v) 20.0 Kemix Typical
Resin Loss m3/ktonne ore 0.30 Purolite
Steel Grinding Balls SAG Mill Grinding Ball Consumption kg/t 0.75 Typical Ball Mill Grinding Ball Consumption kg/t 0.75 Typical
Sulphuric Acid Leaching kg 100% H2SO4/t ore 104 Testwork
Acid Elution Volume BV 3.5 Melis file data
Elution H2SO4 Concentration g/L 100 Melis file data
Secondary Effluent Treatment g H2SO4/L 0.07 Melis
METALLURGICAL TESTWORK Page 8-1
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
8.0 METALLURGICAL TESTWORK
Testwork on Matoush samples was initiated at Lakefield in Lakefield, Ontario under the direction of Melis as part of development work on Strateco’s Matoush Uranium Project. This preliminary test program encompassed composite analyses, leach scoping tests, uranium recovery and upgrading, settling/filtration tests, effluent treatment and preparation of tailings to provide preliminary environmental data. In addition, quarter core samples were used for comminution (grinding) testwork.
8.1 Composite Preparation
The selection of samples from the Matoush deposit was reviewed with Jonathan Lafontaine of Strateco during and subsequent to a site visit by Lawrence Melis of Melis on June 7 and 8, 2007. Four drill holes were selected by Strateco as representing the Matoush mineralization identified as of June 2007. Test composites were to be made up on a weighted basis according to drill hole intersections using coarse assay rejects stored at the Saskatchewan Research Council (SRC) in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. The samples for the metallurgical composites were selected with a range of uranium grades which were thought typical of the mineralization, providing variability of high and low grades.
This provided the following composites for testing:
• Composite 2006-11 – representing a blend of the intersections 300.5 m - 317.0 m, 327.9 m - 328.4 m, 328.8 m - 329.5 m, 330.2 m- 330.5 m, and 332.5 m- 332.9 m.
• Composite 2006-30 - representing a blend of the intersections 250.0 m – 273.0 m and 278.0 m- 280.0 m.
• Composite 2007-03 - representing a blend of the intersections 291.0 m – 308.5 m.
• Composite 2007-06 - representing a blend of the intersections 315.0 m – 338.0 m.
• Overall Composite – a blend of the four drill hole sub-composites to be used in the initial testing.
Some of the assay rejects samples received at Lakefield were wet and had to be dried prior to compositing. This compromised the integrity of the samples being used in this preliminary test program. Hence, further confirmation leach tests on samples prepared from drill core for comminution testing (see below) were
METALLURGICAL TESTWORK Page 8-2
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
provided.
The samples and drill hole intersections comprising Composite 2006-11, Composite 2006-30, Composite 2007-03 and Composite 2007-06 are shown in Table 9 to Table 12, below.
Table 9 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
Make-up of Composite 2006-11Sample Number
From (m)
To (m)
Length (m)
Total Weight (kg)
Weight to Composite (kg)
U3O8
(%)
295206 300.5 301.4 0.9 1.76 0.734 0.014
295207 301.4 302.0 0.6 1.30 0.489 0.384
295208 302.0 302.6 0.6 1.38 0.489 0.822
295209 302.6 303.0 0.4 1.06 0.326 0.002
295210 303.0 304.0 1.0 2.00 0.815 0.020
295211 304.0 304.7 0.7 1.48 0.571 0.135
295212 304.7 305.2 0.5 1.16 0.408 0.018
295213 305.2 305.9 0.7 0.70 0.571 0.003
295214 305.9 306.2 0.3 0.70 0.245 0.146
295216 306.2 306.5 0.3 0.66 0.245 0.595
295217 306.5 306.8 0.3 0.78 0.245 1.62
295218 306.8 307.2 0.4 0.66 0.326 2.20
295219 307.2 307.6 0.4 1.34 0.326 1.35
295220 307.6 307.9 0.3 0.64 0.245 3.69
295221 307.9 308.2 0.3 0.50 0.245 0.865
295215 308.2 309.0 0.8 0.82 0.652 0.325
295224 309.0 310.0 1.0 0.92 0.815 0.006
295225 310.0 310.7 0.7 0.62 0.571 0.311
295226 310.7 311.1 0.4 0.62 0.326 1.54
295227 311.1 311.6 0.5 1.34 0.408 2.17
295228 311.6 312.0 0.4 0.52 0.326 1.36
295229 312.0 312.5 0.5 0.96 0.408 0.577 295230 312.5 313.0 0.5 1.34 0.408 0.050 295231 313.0 314.0 1.0 2.52 0.815 0.059 295232 314.0 315.0 1.0 2.16 0.815 0.002 295233 315.0 316.0 1.0 2.36 0.815 0.002 295234 316.0 317.0 1.0 2.34 0.815 0.007 295235 327.9 328.4 0.5 1.02 0.408 0.019 295236 328.8 329.5 0.7 1.16 0.571 0.025 295238 330.2 330.5 0.3 0.62 0.245 0.041 295239 332.5 332.9 0.4 0.82 0.326 0.028
Weighted Average – Composite 2006-11 15.0 0.41
METALLURGICAL TESTWORK Page 8-3
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
Table 10 Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Uranium Project
Make-up of Composite 2006-30Sample Number
From (m)
To (m)
Length (m)
Total Weight (kg)
Weight to Composite (kg)
U3O8
(%) 295467 250.0 251.0 1.0 1.06 0.800 0.0005 295468 251.0 252.0 1.0 0.94 0.800 0.0002 295469 252.0 253.3 1.3 1.94 1.040 0.0009 295470 253.3 253.7 0.4 1.66 0.320 0.0033 295471 253.7 254.7 1.0 1.82 0.800 0.149 295472 254.7 255.1 0.4 0.88 0.320 0.079 295473 255.1 255.4 0.3 0.60 0.240 1.00 295475 255.4 256.0 0.6 1.16 0.480 0.969 295476 256.0 256.7 0.7 1.58 0.560 2.97 295477 256.7 257.3 0.6 0.54 0.480 4.05 295478 257.3 257.8 0.5 1.28 0.400 0.431 295479 257.8 258.3 0.5 0.74 0.400 1.41 298005 258.3 258.6 0.3 0.88 0.240 0.400 295481 258.6 259.0 0.4 0.96 0.320 1.48 295482 259.0 259.3 0.3 0.68 0.240 0.542 295483 259.3 259.7 0.4 0.70 0.320 3.60 295484 259.7 260.1 0.4 0.98 0.320 1.43 295485 260.1 261.1 1.0 2.32 0.800 0.191 295486 261.1 261.7 0.6 0.14 0.140 0.586 295487 261.7 262.0 0.3 0.56 0.240 11.2 295488 262.0 262.5 0.5 0.94 0.400 0.918 295490 262.5 263.0 0.5 0.92 0.400 1.00 295491 263.0 263.4 0.4 0.80 0.320 8.90 295492 263.4 263.8 0.4 0.78 0.320 1.09 295493 263.8 264.2 0.4 0.48 0.320 2.83 295494 264.2 264.5 0.3 0.72 0.240 16.6 295495 264.5 265.0 0.5 1.30 0.400 2.14 295496 265.0 265.5 0.5 0.90 0.400 0.468 295497 265.5 266.0 0.5 0.98 0.400 0.174 295498 266.0 266.5 0.5 1.14 0.400 0.184 295499 266.5 267.0 0.5 1.12 0.400 0.264 298001 267.0 267.5 0.5 0.90 0.400 0.446 298002 267.5 268.0 0.5 1.02 0.400 0.084 298003 268.0 268.5 0.5 1.12 0.400 0.435 298004 268.5 269.0 0.5 0.96 0.400 0.214 298007 269.0 270.0 1.0 2.20 0.800 0.053 298008 270.0 271.0 1.0 2.36 0.800 0.045 298009 271.0 272.0 1.0 2.46 0.800 0.010 298010 272.0 273.0 1.0 2.44 0.800 0.003 298011 278.0 279.0 1.0 1.94 0.800 0.005 298012 279.0 280.0 1.0 2.22 0.800 0.010
Weighted Average – Composite 2006-30 20.0 1.08
METALLURGICAL TESTWORK Page 8-4
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
Table 11 Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Uranium Project
Make-up of Composite 2007-03Sample Number
From (m)
To (m)
Length (m)
Total Weight (kg)
Weight to Composite (kg)
U3O8
(%)
298325 291.0 291.5 0.5 1.20 0.286 0.015
298326 291.5 292.5 1.0 2.16 0.571 2.111 298327 292.5 293.0 0.5 1.24 0.286 1.958
298329 293.0 293.3 0.3 0.70 0.171 0.094 298330 293.3 294.0 0.7 1.02 0.400 0.955
298331 294.0 295.0 1.0 2.32 0.571 1.651 298332 295.0 296.0 1.0 2.30 0.571 2.3
298333 296.0 297.0 1.0 2.04 0.571 2.064 298335 297.0 298.0 1.0 1.88 0.571 1.392
298336 298.0 299.0 1.0 2.02 0.571 2.972 298337 299.0 299.4 0.4 0.82 0.229 3.833 298338 299.4 299.9 0.5 1.18 0.286 0.248
298339 299.9 300.1 0.2 0.44 0.097 1.946 298340 300.1 300.7 0.6 0.86 0.360 0.028
298341 300.7 301.0 0.3 0.14 0.140 0.519 298342 301.0 303.0 2.0 1.36 1.143 5.684
298343 303.0 303.9 0.9 0.46 0.460 2.476 298345 303.9 304.3 0.4 0.72 0.200 0.955
298346 304.3 305.0 0.8 1.26 0.429 0.088 298348 305.0 305.8 0.8 1.20 0.457 0.066
298349 305.8 306.5 0.7 2.04 0.400 0.073 298350 306.5 306.9 0.4 0.76 0.200 1.285 298351 306.9 307.6 0.7 1.62 0.400 0.159 298352 307.6 308.5 1.0 2.28 0.543 0.026
Weighted Average – Composite 2007-03 9.91 1.77
METALLURGICAL TESTWORK Page 8-5
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
Table 12 Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Uranium Project
Make-up of Composite 2007-06Sample Number
From (m)
To (m)
Length (m)
Total Weight (kg)
Weight to Composite (kg)
U3O8
(%)
298378 315.0 316.0 1.0 2.20 0.783 0.002 298379 316.0 317.0 1.0 1.96 0.783 0.007
298380 317.0 317.9 0.9 2.12 0.665 0.002 298381 317.9 318.4 0.5 1.08 0.391 0.110
298382 318.4 319.1 0.7 1.80 0.548 0.032 298383 319.1 319.9 0.8 1.58 0.626 0.155
298384 319.9 320.0 0.1 0.16 0.078 0.783 298385 320.0 320.2 0.2 0.26 0.157 0.149
298387 320.2 321.0 0.9 1.52 0.665 1.28 298388 321.0 321.6 0.6 1.38 0.446 0.916 298389 321.6 322.1 0.5 1.02 0.376 0.130
298390 322.1 322.8 0.8 1.62 0.587 1.38 298391 322.8 323.4 0.6 1.50 0.470 0.030
298392 323.4 324.0 0.6 1.50 0.470 0.091 298394 324.0 324.2 0.2 0.22 0.117 0.744
298395 324.2 324.8 0.7 1.68 0.540 0.162 298396 324.8 325.4 0.5 1.16 0.399 0.096
298397 325.4 325.8 0.4 0.40 0.313 2.47 298398 325.8 326.4 0.7 0.86 0.509 0.520
298399 326.4 326.7 0.3 0.30 0.235 6.24 298400 326.7 327.4 0.7 1.40 0.548 0.089 298401 327.4 328.1 0.7 1.14 0.548 0.070
298402 328.1 329.0 0.9 1.36 0.704 0.314 298403 329.0 329.8 0.8 1.76 0.650 0.063 298405 329.8 330.7 0.8 1.00 0.650 0.044 298406 330.7 331.5 0.8 0.96 0.657 0.057 298407 331.5 333.0 1.5 1.00 1.000 0.220 298408 333.0 334.0 1.0 1.94 0.783 0.098 298409 334.0 335.0 1.0 1.98 0.783 0.001 298410 335.0 336.0 1.0 2.30 0.783 0.001 298411 336.0 337.0 1.0 2.30 0.783 0.002 298412 337.0 338.0 1.0 2.20 0.783 0.002
Weighted Average – Composite 2007-06 17.83 0.33
METALLURGICAL TESTWORK Page 8-6
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
The Overall Composite was subsequently prepared on a weighted basis (according to drill hole intersection) as a blend of the four individual drill hole sub-composites as listed in Table 13 below.
Table 13 Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Uranium Project
Make-up of Overall Composite
Composite No. Length
(m) Weight to
Composite (kg) U3O8
(%) 2006-11 18.4 7.9 0.41 2006-30 25.0 10.7 1.08 2007-03 17.5 7.5 1.77 2007-06 23.0 9.9 0.33
Weighted Average – Overall Composite 0.87
8.2 Composite Analyses
The four individual drill hole sub-composites and the Overall Composite were sampled as part of the riffling of test charges and submitted for analysis. The head assays are listed in Table 14 and Table 15 below, Table 14 providing the whole rock analysis and Table 15 providing the elemental analyses.
Table 14 Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Uranium Project Matoush Test Composites - Whole Rock Analysis, %
Analyte Composite 2006-11
Composite 2006-30
Composite 2007-03
Composite 2007-06
Overall Composite
U3O8 0.34 0.98 1.61 0.30 0.79 Al2O3 5.88 5.31 5.34 6.91 5.92 CaO 0.45 0.62 1.79 0.67 0.85 Cr2O3 0.30 0.55 0.96 0.21 0.47 Fe2O3 2.01 0.72 1.17 0.64 1.13 K2O 2.62 2.02 1.91 2.55 2.26 MgO 2.22 0.52 0.56 0.47 0.86 MnO <0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.02 Na2O 0.35 0.39 0.22 0.52 0.40 P2O5 0.37 0.43 1.84 0.53 0.72 SiO2 82.3 87.0 80.4 86.3 84.5 TiO2 0.97 0.06 1.00 0.25 0.51 V2O5 0.10 0.07 0.21 0.12 0.11 LOI 1.60 1.24 2.09 1.26 1.39
METALLURGICAL TESTWORK Page 8-7
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
Table 15 Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Uranium Project Matoush Test Composites – Elemental Analysis, %
Analyte Composite 2006-11
Composite 2006-30
Composite 2007-03
Composite 2007-06
Overall Composite
Ag <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 As <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 Ba 0.069 0.046 0.27 0.056 0.097 Be 0.00009 0.00016 0.0003 0.00009 0.00015 Bi 0.0059 <0.003 0.0080 <0.003 <0.003 Cd <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 Co 0.0047 0.0013 0.0061 0.0013 0.0029 Cu 0.0031 0.0027 0.0110 0.0014 0.0039 Li 0.0008 <0.0005 <0.004 <0.004 <0.0005
Mo 0.027 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 0.004 Ni 0.012 0.0026 0.0090 0.0034 0.0061 Pb 0.097 0.180 0.270 0.0510 0.140 Sb <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Se 0.011 <0.005 0.011 <0.005 <0.005 Sn <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 Sr 0.0074 0.0063 0.021 0.0056 0.0087 Tl <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 Y 0.0009 0.0008 0.0022 0.0008 0.0011 Zn 0.0025 0.0030 0.0023 <0.001 0.0018
The elemental analyses of the composites show that the Matoush composites prepared for testing are low in deleterious elements such as arsenic, molybdenum and base metals. Selenium is above the detection limit in two of the composites, which implies that the amount reporting to waste effluents will need to be taken into consideration in effluent treatment testwork.
METALLURGICAL TESTWORK Page 8-8
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
8.3 Uranium Speciation Analysis of Overall Composite
The uranium isotope ratio of the Overall Composite was measured to confirm that the uranium isotope ratio was close to the naturally occurring ratio of 0.71% U235/U (w/w). The measured values, performed by Becquerel Laboratories Inc. of Mississauga Ontario using gamma-ray spectrometry are listed in Table 16 below:
Table 16 Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Uranium Project
Matoush Overall Composite – Uranium Speciation AnalysisIsotope ppm U-238 7,600 ± 400 U-235 40 ± 10
Within the limited accuracy of the gamma spectrometry analysis the measured isotope ratio is approximately 0.52% U235/U (w/w), with a range of 0.37% U235/U (w/w) to 0.69% U235/U (w/w), close to the expected ratio of 0.71% U235/U (w/w). If warranted a more precise measurement could be obtained by delayed neutron counting (DNC) for U235 and neutron activation analysis (NAA) for U238.
METALLURGICAL TESTWORK Page 8-9
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
8.4 Petrographic Analyses
During the June 7 and 8, 2007 site visit by Lawrence Melis, a series of samples, 18 in total representing high and low grade mineralization as well as country rock, were selected for petrographic analyses. These samples, suitably prepared as polished thin sections (PTS) by the University of Saskatchewan Geology Department, were forwarded to Terra Mineralogical Services (Giovanni Di Prisco) in Peterborough, Ontario, along with three other samples subsequently selected by Jonathan Lafontaine of Strateco from DDH MT-07-54 to represent host rock lithology. The PTS sample list is presented in Table 17 below.
Table 17 Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Uranium Project
Selection of Samples for Polished Thin Section ExaminationDDH No. Intersection (m) Type
06-02 290.9 Mineralization06-04 302.3 Mineralization06-04 307.5 Mineralization06-10 315.7 Mineralization06-10 308.0 Mineralization06-10 327.0 Mineralization06-18 272.0 Mineralization06-30 257.0 Mineralization06-30 264.4 Mineralization07-09 938.0 Granitoid Rock07-09 941.0 Granitoid Rock07-09 945.0 Granitoid Rock07-09 977.7 Granitoid Rock07-09 987.0 Granitoid Rock07-22 769.7 Granitoid Rock07-22 771.5 Granitoid Rock07-35 295.5 Mineralization07-48 213.5 Mineralization
MT-07-54 223.5 Host Rock-CBF MT-07-54 230.0 Host Rock-ACF MT-07-54 196.7 Host Rock-Saccharoid
Mineralogical information derived from these samples, excerpted from Terra’s report, is summarized below.
The two main uranium-bearing minerals identified in the Matoush mineralization are uraninite (UO2) and carnotite-weeksite K2(UO2)2V2O8·3(H2O) and K2(UO2)2(Si2O5)3·4(H2O). Very minor amounts of uranophane
METALLURGICAL TESTWORK Page 8-10
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
[CaH2(SiO4)2(UO2)·5(H2O)] were thought to be also present.
Uranium correlates very well with chromium, vanadium, phosphorus, lead, and boron. Chromium is predominantly hosted in chromite (Fe2+Cr2O4) and in the latest growth zones of tourmaline [NaAl6M3 (Si2O6)3(BO3)3 (OH,F)4 where M: Fe, Mn, Mg, Li, Al]. Tourmaline deposition correlates well with uranium mineral abundance, therefore chromium could represent the most useful pathfinder for primary uranium mineralization as uraninite. Vanadium remobilization during late-stage alteration of uraninite resulted in the growth of a carnotite-weeksite solid solution, which contains vanadium. This mineral association suggests that vanadium could be the most useful pathfinder for secondary uranium deposition as carnotite. Phosphorus is hosted in apatite [Ca5(PO4)3(OH,F,Cl)] and is generally intergrown with uraninite, therefore, the abundance of apatite should also correlate to uranium abundance. Finally, lead, contained as a by-product in uraninite, could indicate the close proximity of uraninite depositions.
Three types of uraninite deposition were identified. Uraninite types I and II, as well as carnotite, present as a broad range of grain sizes (2 mm to 60 mm), and often complex textural intergrowths with gangue minerals, or sandstone matrix. Therefore, these two uraninite types and carnotite would require relatively fine grinding (K80 of 30 µm to 40 µm) in order to achieve good mineral liberation, or at least become accessible to leaching solutions. In contrast, the third type of uraninite (type III) is commonly coarse grained, correlates well with high-grade samples, and mainly forms simple intergrowth textures that would liberate well, or would be exposed to leaching solution with a coarser grind target (K80 of 70 µm to 100 µm). The mineralized samples commonly contain calcite (CaCO3) (from a few percent up to 20%) and very fine-grained sericite-muscovite (a few percent up to 30%). The occurrence of calcite in a leach circuit could impact on reagent costs (calcite being an acid consumer), whereas fine-grained micas could effect solid/ liquid separation.
METALLURGICAL TESTWORK Page 8-11
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
8.5 Initial Leaching Tests
Ten leach tests were completed on the overall Matoush composite, a blend of all four drill hole sub-composites assaying 0.79% U3O8, to provide initial leach conditions for the Matoush mineralization. The conditions used in these tests are summarized in Table 18 below.
Table 18 Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Uranium Project
Matoush Overall Composite - Summary of Leach Test ConditionsTest Conditions Reagent Additions
Test No. Temp ºC
Average FA g H2SO4/L
Avg. ORP mV
(Ag/AgCl)
Grind K80
µm H2SO4
kg/t NaClO3
kg/t O2
mL/min H2O2
kg/t Fe3+
g/L
MU-1 50.9 13.8 451 ~100 57.5 1.0 - - ~1 ** MU-1R 50.8 13.7 483 ~100 52.8 0.9 - 2.5 MU-2 50.6 45.8 478 ~100 138.1 0.9 - 3.0 MU-4(1) 54.9 16.0 (12 h) 470 ~100 53.7 - 2.6 (5-12 PSI) - 1.3 MU-5 50.8 13.3 484 ~75 57.9 1.2 - 3.1 MU-4R(2) 52 30 456 100 76.8 - 5 - 2 MU-6(3) 53 - 92 100 - - - 54.5 - MU-7 57 26 471 100 94.5 0.9 - - - MU-7R(4) 50 23 500 100 92.4 0.8 - - - MU-8 54 26 460 75 94.2 0.8 - - - MU-9 52 42 501 100 140.3 - 5 - 2 MU-10 50 15 446 100 64.4 50 -
Notes: 1. Free acid not maintained in last 12 hours of leach, difficulty with O2 sparging. 2. Repeat of Test MU-4 where difficulties were experienced with oxygen sparging in test. 3. Carbonate Leach at pH 8.9 using 101.5 kg Na2CO3/t, 40.6 kg NaHCO3/t and 109 kg H2O2 (50%)/t for emf control.
4. Repeat of Test No. MU-7
METALLURGICAL TESTWORK Page 8-12
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
Test results are summarized in Table 19 below.
Table 19 Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Uranium Project
Matoush Overall Composite - Summary of Leach Test Results % U3O8 % U3O8 Extraction Test No.
Feed Residue Weight Loss, % Final Preg Sol’n
g U3O8/L 8 hours 12 hours 24 hours MU-1 0.74 0.10 2.0 3.95 80.2 84.2 86.8 MU-1R 0.73 0.096 1.0 3.81 81.2 83.9 87.1 MU-2 0.76 0.013 3.0 4.38 97.5 98.0 98.4 MU-4(1) 0.74 0.17 4.0 3.40 77.8 77.8 -MU-5 0.76 0.11 4.0 4.06 82.2 83.5 84.9 MU-4R(2) 1.53(5) 0.021 5.0 3.93 97.7 98.1 98.5 MU-6(3) 0.97 0.28 7.0 3.77 61.8 66.9 71.1 MU-7 1.01 0.035 1.0 4.84 94.1 95.8 96.5 MU-7R(4) 0.91 0.025 3.0 4.42 95.0 96.0 97.3 MU-8 1.03 0.038 - 4.95 90.3 94.5 96.3 MU-9 0.90 0.017 4.0 4.06 96.7 97.2 98.2 MU-10 0.78 0.078 5.0 3.47 86.4 90.4 90.4
Notes: 1. Free acid not maintained in last 12 hours of leach, difficulty with O2 sparging, only 12 hour leach result reported.
2. Repeat of Test MU-4 where difficulties were experienced with oxygen sparging in test. 3. Carbonate Leach at pH 8.9 using 101.5 kg Na2CO3/t, 40.6 kg NaHCO3/t and 109 kg H2O2 (50%)/t
for emf control. 4. Repeat of Test No. MU-7. 5. Anomalous value.
8.6 Confirmation Leaching Tests
Repeat testing of three of the four variability composites was completed to test the metallurgical leaching response using only low pressure oxygen in place of oxygen and sodium chlorate. In addition a 12 kg bulk leach of the overall composite was completed to prepare pregnant leach solution and leach residue for downstream uranium recovery tests and waste treatment tests. Hydrogen peroxide was used as the oxidant in this test in order to be able to complete it under atmospheric conditions (due to the amount of material leached) instead of low pressure oxygen.
METALLURGICAL TESTWORK Page 8-13
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
Test conditions are summarized in Table 20 and results are tabulated in Table 21 below.
Table 20 Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Uranium Project
Matoush Individual Composites - Summary of Additional Leach Test ConditionsTest Conditions Reagent Additions
Composite Test No. Temp ºC
Avg. FA g H2SO4/L
Avg. ORP mV
Grind K80
µmH2SO4
kg/tH2O2
kg/t O2 PSI Fe3+
g/L2006-11 MU-11R 56 43 466 87 124.1 - 5 - 2006-30 MU-12R 55 33 436 99 102.3 - 5 - 2007-03 MU-13R 51 31 460 99 91.2 - 5 - 2007-06 MU-14 54 30 474 91 97.5 - 5 - Overall MU-15 59 28 481 100 103.5 3.39 - -
Table 21 Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Uranium Project
Matoush Individual Composites - Summary of Additional Leach Test Results % U3O8 Final Preg Sol’n % U3O8 Extraction
Composite Test No. Feed Residue
Weight Loss % g U3O8/ L g Fe3+/ L 6 hours 12 hours 24 hours
2006-11 MU-11R 0.39 0.007 4 1.78 0.86 97.9 98.2 97.9 2006-30 MU-12R 1.19 0.014 6 5.51 0.89 97.1 98.3 98.6 2007-03 MU-13R 0.34 0.004 5 1.65 1.26 97.2 97.9 98.6 2007-06 MU-14 0.33 0.005 2 1.53 1.16 97.5 97.9 98.2 Overall MU-15 0.85 0.015 0.5 3.60 1.12 94.8 97.9 97.9
.
The above results confirm that a low pressure (5 PSI) oxygen sulphuric acid leach is the leach option of choice for the Matoush mineralization, achieving a uranium extraction of 98 % or better. All four variability sub-composites yielded excellent extractions showing that uniform extractions can be obtained from the Matoush deposit based on the mineralization tested. The optimized Matoush leach conditions can be summarized as follows:
• A mesh-of-grind K80 of 150 µm,
• An ORP (oxidation-reduction potential) of approximately 475 mV controlled by the addition of oxygen under low (5 PSI) pressure,
• A target free acid concentration of 30 g H2SO4/L representing an acid consumption of 104 kg H2SO4/t, and
• A 12 hours leach residence time.
METALLURGICAL TESTWORK Page 8-14
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
8.7 Pregnant Solution Analyses
The pregnant leach solution produced in some of the acid leach scoping tests was submitted to an ICP package analysis to give an indication of the elemental make-up of leach solution reporting to downstream uranium recovery. The results are summarized in Table 22 below. Two results are for the Overall Composite and two results are for Composites 2006-30 and 2007-3.
Table 22 Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Uranium Project
Matoush Leach Tests – Pregnant Leach Solution Analyses, mg/L
Analyte Overall
Composite Test MU-7
Overall Composite Test MU-8
Composite 2006-30
Test MU-12
Composite 2007-03
Test MU-13 Ag < 3 < 3 < 10 < 15 Al 1100 1100 740 1200 As 7 5 7 < 6 Ba < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.08 0.32 Be 0.4 0.36 < 0.4 0.68 Bi < 4 < 4 < 4 < 2 Ca 790 800 920 1100 Cd < 0.09 < 0.09 < 0.09 < 0.09 Co 4.3 4.3 3.1 8 Cr 280 280 220 470 Cu < 15 < 15 5 16 Fe 2700 3000 2000 2500 K 400 390 270 280 Li < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2
Mg 310 290 120 130 Mn 24 23 22 28 Mo 1.6 1.3 2.1 1.6 Na 180 140 110 120 Ni 10 10 7 13 P 1600 1700 940 3300
Pb 11 11 12 12 Sb < 2 < 2 < 2 < 3 Se < 3 < 3 < 3 < 3 Sn < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 Sr 3 2.6 1.4 5.1 Ti 21 17 15 40 Tl < 3 < 3 < 3 < 3 U 4100 4200 4550 7100 V 43 37 19 65 W < 2 < 2 < 2 < 2 Y 4.9 4.6 3.1 8.5 Zn 3 3 < 5 < 2
METALLURGICAL TESTWORK Page 8-15
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
The resulting pregnant leach solution is quite low in deleterious elements, particularly arsenic, molybdenum, selenium and base metals, which will minimize the potential impact on waste treatment requirements. It is also very low in elements which would normally report to the final yellowcake uranium product, in particular molybdenum and vanadium. The relatively high phosphorus content originates from the apatite content in the mineralization. The somewhat high sodium content is due to the addition of sodium chlorate as oxidant for the leach; in practice the oxidant will be oxygen hence the salt content of the leach liquor will be low.
8.8 Ion Exchange Tests
Pregnant solution produced in the bulk leach test, Test MU-15 (which achieved a 98% uranium extraction and produced a pregnant leach solution assaying 3.60 g U3O8/L and 1.12 g Fe3+/L) was collected and use for ion exchange uranium recovery tests. Two resins were tested, Dowex 21K resin and Purolite A660 resin, both strong base ion exchange resins with a quaternary amine function group. The pregnant solution was contacted sequentially in five stages with resin, the barren solution from each stage sequentially contacted with fresh resin. Results achieved are summarized in Table 23 below.
Table 23 Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Uranium Project
Resin Adsorption Results Barren Solution Uranium Concentration, g U3O8/L Resin Loading, g/L % Loading Efficiency Resin Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 5 U3O8 Fe SiO2 3 Stages 4 Stages 5 Stages
21K 2818 2170 1203 670 246 83.1 1.7 0.20 77.7 88.7 96.4 A660 2005 388 40 2 <1 60.1 0.38 0.79 99.3 100 100
The Purolite A660 resin outperformed the Dowex 21K resin in terms of loading efficiency with complete adsorption achieved in three stages, yielding a loaded resin containing 60 g U3O8/L.
A single test was completed where the A660 loaded resin was eluted with 125 g H2SO4/L sulphuric acid solution at 45 ºC. A 90% elution efficiency was achieved using 14 bed volumes. Further testwork, which will include continuous tests in addition to batch tests, will be required in future to optimize elution conditions.
METALLURGICAL TESTWORK Page 8-16
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
8.9 Settling Tests
Settling tests were completed on leach feed and leach discharge from Test MU-15, a bulk test completed on an overall Matoush composite, to provide design data for reference purposes.
Leach Feed
Results on leach feed, neutral pulp after grinding to a K80 of 100 µm, are summarized in Table 24 below.
Table 24 Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Uranium Project
Summary of Static Settling Test Results on Test MU-15 Leach Feed Thickener Unit Area
(m2/t/day)(1) Feed
% Solids (w/w)
M10 Flocculant
(g/t)
Underflow Density %Solids
(w/w) Underflow Hydraulic 15 10 65 0.11 0.03 20 10 63 0.12 0.06 25 10 61 0.13 0.09 25 15 65 0.13 0.04 25 20 65 0.09 0.04 25 30 63 0.06 0.02 25 60 61 0.05 0.01
Note: 1. No safety factor applied
The above data show that neutral pulp settling is solids controlled [higher unit area versus the hydraulic (overflow) unit area], the higher flocculant dosage reduces thickener area requirements, and a lower feed pulp density (normally achieved with self-diluting feed wells) reduces unit area requirements and assists in achieving maximum underflow densities.
METALLURGICAL TESTWORK Page 8-17
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
Leach Discharge
Thickener data for leach discharge, summarized in Table 25 below, was developed in the event a conventional counter-current-decantation/solvent extraction circuit is considered for the project in future (the present design concept uses resin-in-pulp to minimize capital costs and avoid the need to transport and store organic reagents).
Table 25 Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Uranium Project
Summary of Static Settling Test Results on Test MU-15 Leach Discharge Thickener Unit Area
(m2/t/day)(1) Feed
% Solids (w/w)
M10 Flocculant
(g/t)
Underflow Density %Solids
(w/w) Underflow Hydraulic 10 50 55 0.10 0.014 15 40 59 0.12 0.024 15 50 57 0.08 0.012 15 60 55 0.04 0.006 15 80 55 0.06 0.005 20 50 59 0.08 0.017
Note: 1. No safety factor applied
The above data show that leach acid pulp settling is solids controlled [higher unit area versus the hydraulic (overflow) unit area], the higher flocculant dosage reduces thickener area requirements with 60 g/t being the optimum amount, and a 15% solids (w/w) feed pulp density appearing to be the optimum.
METALLURGICAL TESTWORK Page 8-18
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
8.10 Filtration Tests
For reference purposes in the event leach discharge filtration is considered for the project, vacuum filtration tests were completed on the leach slurry from Test MU-15 at 30 % solids (w/w) density. Results are summarized in Table 26 below.
Table 26 Strateco Resources Inc. – Matoush Uranium Project
Summary of Vacuum Filtration Test Results on Test MU-15 Leach Discharge Vacuum Filter Cycle Cake
Thickness (mm)
Cake Moisture (% H2O)
Form Time (min)
Dry Time (min)
Output (dry)(1)
(kg/m2/h)
Belt Filter 5 21.0 0.19 2.18 165 5 22.5 0.19 0.14 1191 5 24.0 0.19 0.01 1979
15 21.0 1.68 6.55 142 15 22.5 1.68 0.42 557 15 24.0 1.68 0.03 685
Disc or Drum Filter 5 22.1 0.19 0.31 628 9 21.7 0.60 1.01 349
13 21.5 1.26 2.10 242 17 21.4 2.16 3.59 185 21 21.3 3.29 5.48 150 25 21.2 4.66 7.77 126
Note: 1. No safety factor applied
PRELIMINARY DESIGN CRITERIA Page 9-1
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
9.0 PRELIMINARY DESIGN CRITERIA
A glossary of terms used in the preliminary design criteria is presented below in Table 27.
Table 27 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
Glossary of Terms Used in Preliminary Design Criteria Term Description
% Percent
% (v/v) Volume percent % (w/w) Weight percent
% solids (w/w) Weight percent solids
% U3O8 Uranium, as Yellowcake /a per year (annum)
/day per day /h per hour
/L per litre /min per minute
µm microns, 10-6 metres
bar 100 kPa
BTU/lb British thermal unit, 251 Calories BV Bed Volume of resin
Dry t/m3 Unit of tailings density, excluding water ea. each
g grams
g/mole atomic weight h Hours
Kg kilograms kPa kilopascals
kW kilowatts
kWh kilowatt hours lbs pounds
m metres m2 square meters
m3 cubic metres mV (Ag/AgCl) millivolts, using the silver/silver chloride electrode as a zero point
Nm3 Normal cubic metres, ie, of air at standard temperature and pressure
ºC degree Celcius t tonnes
PRELIMINARY DESIGN CRITERIA Page 9-2
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
The preliminary design criteria used to calculate the mass balance, which will require updating as further testwork is completed, are listed in Table 28, below. The mass balance is attached in Appendix C.
Table 28 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
Preliminary Design CriteriaCriteria Unit Value Comment General
Mill Feed Tonnage t/a 193,735 Strateco
Scheduled Operating Days days/a 350 Melis
Operating Time % 95 Melis
Net Operating Days days/a 333 Calculated
Mill Feed Tonnage t/h 24.2 Calculated
Mill Feed Tonnage t/d 582 Calculated
Average Feed Grade % U3O8 0.48 Strateco
Pounds Fed U3O8/a (millions) lbs U3O8/a 2,050,138 Calculated
Pounds Produced U3O8/a (millions) lbs U3O8/a 2,000,000 Strateco
Instantaneous Design lbs U3O8/a 2,192,192 Calculated
Instantaneous Calciner Discharge kg U3O8/h 114 Calculated
Tank Freeboard m 0.5 Melis
Mine Water Inflow m3/h 50 Estimated
Average Surface Drainage m3/h 0 Estimated
Ore Moisture % H2O (w/w) 5.0 Estimated
Specific Gravity of Ore t/m3 2.75 Matoush
Uranium Distribution
Uranium Extraction % 98.0 Testwork
RIP Loss (Residue Loss) % 0.3 Calculated, Kemex Data
Loss in Gypsum Solids % 0.1 Calculated
Average Net Recovery % 97.6 Calculated
Crushing
Design Operating Time h/d 12.0 Typical
Primary (SAG Mill) Grinding
SAG Mill Power Index - Range min. 27.9 - 91.4 Testwork
SAG Mill Power Index - Average min. 55.1 Testwork
SAG Mill Power Index - 75th Percentile
min. 65.7 Testwork
SAG Mill Power Index - 90th Percentile
min. 83.3 Testwork
Percent Solids in Mill % (w/w) 65 Typical
Percent Screen Undersize % (w/w) 85 Estimated
PRELIMINARY DESIGN CRITERIA Page 9-3
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
Table 28 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
Preliminary Design CriteriaCriteria Unit Value Comment Percent Solids in Screen Oversize % (w/w) 75 Estimated
SAG Mill Feed K80 µm 130,000 Typical
SAG Mill Transfer Size µm 2,400 Testwork
SAG Mill Size mm 3,962 mm ø x 2,286 Testwork
SAG Mill Power Draw (Shell) kW 296 Testwork
SAG Mill Ball Charge % (v/v) 10 Typical
Grinding Ball Size mm 100 Typical
Grinding Ball Consumption kg/t 0.50 Typical
Design Temperature ºC 5 - 30 Melis
Pebble Crusher
Load to Pebble Crusher % (w/w) 15 Estimated
Pebble Crusher Size mm 914 Melis
Close Side Setting mm 200 Melis
Pebble Crusher Power Draw kW 75 Melis
Secondary (Ball Mill) Grinding
Ball Mill Work Index - Range kWh/t 14.6 - 16.3 Testwork
Ball Mill Work Index - Average kWh/t 15 Testwork
Ball Mill Work Index - 75th Percentile kWh/t 16 Testwork
Ball Mill Work Index - 90th Percentile kWh/t 16.0 Testwork
Percent Solids in Mill % (w/w) 65 Typical
Percent Recirculating Load % (w/w) 300 Typical
Ball Mill Feed K80 µm 2,400 Typical
Ball Mill Discharge K80 µm 150 Typical
Ball Mill Size mm 2,743 mm ø x 4,879 Testwork
Ball Mill Power Draw (Shell) kW 310 Calculated
Grinding Ball Size mm 51 Typical
Grinding Ball Consumption kg/t 0.50 Typical
Ball Mill Discharge Pumpbox Retention Time
min 10 Typical
Ball Mill Discharge Pumpbox Volume m3 21.6 Calculated
Design Temperature ºC 10 - 30 Melis
Classification Cyclones
Number ea. 2 Melis
Cyclone size mm 660 Estimated
Cyclone Feed Density % (w/w) 50 Typical
Cyclone Overflow Density % (w/w) 33 Typical
Cyclone Underflow Density % (w/w) 57 Calculated
Design Temperature ºC 10 - 30 Melis
PRELIMINARY DESIGN CRITERIA Page 9-4
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
Table 28 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
Preliminary Design CriteriaCriteria Unit Value Comment
Neutral Thickening
Number ea. 1 Melis
Thickener Type - High Rate Melis
Design Feed Density % solids (w/w) 15 Melis
Design Unit Area m2/t/d 0.08 Estimated
Thickener Diameter mm 7,925 Calculated
Overflow Clarity g/m3 200 Melis
Underflow Density % solids (w/w) 50 Melis
Flocculant Dosage g/t ore 60 Melis
Neutral Thickener Overflow Tank Retention Time
min 10 Typical
Neutral Thickener Overflow Tank Volume
m3 4 Calculated
Design Temperature ºC 10 - 30 Melis
Leaching
Nominal Feed Tonnage tonnes/h 24.2 Calculated
Temperature ºC 50 Melis
Uranium Extraction % 98.0 Testwork
Leach Residue Grade % U3O8 0.010 Testwork
Weight Loss % 5.0 Melis
Oxidant type O2 Melis
O2 Requirement tonnes O2/d 30 Estimated
Discharge Oxidation/Reduction Potential (ORP)
mV (Ag/AgCl) 475 Estimated
Acid type H2SO4 Melis
Design Acid Consumption kg 100% H2SO4/t
ore 104 Testwork
Discharge Free Acid g H2SO4/L 30.0 Testwork
Retention Time (Total) h 12 Testwork
Number of Leach Tanks ea. 6 Melis
Nominal Leach Discharge Density % solids (w/w) 44.2 Calculated
Leach Tank Volume m3 70 Calculated
U3O8 in Leach Solution g/L 4.30 Calculated
Leach Discharge Pumpbox Retention Time
min 5 Typical
Leach Discharge Pumpbox Volume m3 2.82 Calculated
Design Temperature ºC 50 Melis
Resin In Pulp (RIP): Resin
PRELIMINARY DESIGN CRITERIA Page 9-5
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
Table 28 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
Preliminary Design CriteriaCriteria Unit Value Comment Resin Type - Purolite A660 Melis
Resin Specific Gravity t/m3 1.2 Typical
Resin Loading g U3O8/L 55 Melis/Testwork
Eluted Resin g U3O8/L 2 Melis
Adsorption Efficiency % 99.7 Calculated
Proportion of Resin in Loading Tank % (v/v) 20.0 Kemix Typical
Resin Volume in Tank m3 20.0 Calculated
Resin Inventory m3 220 Calculated
Resin Loss m3/ktonne ore 0.30 Purolite
Resin in Pulp (RIP): Resin Loading
Feed Flow Rate m3/h 42 Calculated
Feed Concentration g/L 4.30 Calculated
RIP Tank Retention Time h 2 Calculated
RIP Tank Volume m3 100 Kemix
Number of Tanks ea. 8 Kemix
Pulp Discharge Concentration g U3O8/L 0.009 Kemix Typical
Residue Pumpbox Retention Time min 5.0 Typical
Residue Pumpbox Volume m3 3.5 Calculated
Loaded Resin Transfer Flowrate m3/h 146 Kemix Typical
Loaded Resin Pumpbox Retention Time
min 5.0 Typical
Loaded Resin Pumpbox Volume m3 12.2 Calculated
Wash Water to Screens m3/h 10.0 Typical
Resin Screen Oversize Density % (w/w) 80.0 Typical
Design Temperature ºC 50 Melis
Resin in Pulp (RIP): Resin Elution
Cycle Time H 8.8 Calculated
Elution Cycles per Day ea. 3 Calculated
Number of Columns - 3 Assumed
Resin Bed Volume m3 20.0 Calculated
Resin Return Density % (w/w) 80 Melis file data
Acid Elution Volume BV 5.0 Melis file data
Acid Elution Tank Size m3 100 Calculated
Elution Column Dead Space % BV 50 Typical
Elution Column Volume m3 30 Calculated
Elution H2SO4 Concentration g/L 150 Melis file data
PRELIMINARY DESIGN CRITERIA Page 9-6
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
Table 28 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
Preliminary Design CriteriaCriteria Unit Value Comment Elution Flow Rate BV/h 1.5 Melis file data
Concentrated Eluate U3O8 Concentration
g/L 15.0 Melis file data
Concentrated Eluate H2SO4 Concentration
g/L 127 Calculated
Elution Temperature ºC 45 - 50 Melis
Resin Holding Tank Size BV 1.25 Typical
Resin Holding Tank Volume m3 25 Calculated
Resin Transfer Tank Retention Time min 5 Typical
Resin Transfer Tank Volume m3 2.4 Calculated
Impurity Precipitation
Feed Flowrate m3/h 8.1 Calculated
Ferric Sulphate Addition Dosage g/m3 25 Melis
Aeration m3/h/m2 20 Melis
Final Circuit pH Units 3.2 Melis
Final Circuit SO4 g/L 0.030 Calculated
SG of CaSO4.2H2O kg/L 2.32 Reference
Percent U3O8 in Gypsum Solids % 0.01 Melis
Percent Lime to Tank No. 1 % 50 Melis
Percent Lime to Tank No. 2 % 25 Melis
Percent Lime to Tank No. 3 % 15 Melis
Retention Time (Total) h 10.0 Melis
Number of Impurity Precipitation Tanks
ea. 6 Melis
Impurity Precipitation Tank Size m3 19.6 Calculated
Impurity Precipitation Discharge Pumpbox Retention Time
min 5 Melis
Impurity Precipitation Discharge Pumpbox Volume
m3 1.0 Melis
Design Temperature ºC 35 - 75 Melis
Gypsum Belt Filter
Number ea. 1 Melis
Gypsum Filter Feed Tank Retention Time
h 4 Melis
Gypsum Filter Feed Tank Volume m3 50 Melis
Barren Solution Wash Flow m3/h 4.87 Melis
Filtrate Clarity g/m3 1,000 Melis
Belt Filter Discharge Density % 40 Melis
PRELIMINARY DESIGN CRITERIA Page 9-7
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
Table 28 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
Preliminary Design CriteriaCriteria Unit Value Comment Repulped Gypsum Density % 25 Melis
Percent U3O8 in Washed Filter Cake % 0.05 Melis
Filter Design Factor Units 1.1 Melis
Filter Design Feed Rate t/h 1.8 Calculated
Filter Unit Area kg/h/m2 200 Melis
Filter Belt Area m2 8.9 Calculated
Gypsum Filter Repulp Tank Retention Time
h 1 Melis
Gypsum Filter Repulp Tank Volume m3 5.6 Melis
Design Temperature ºC 40 - 50 Melis
Pregnant Solution Sand Filters
Sand Filter Feed Flow m3/h 14.2 Calculated
Number of Sand Filters ea. 3 Melis
Unit Area Feed Flow m/h 34.7 Calculated
Diameter of Sand Filters m 0.610 Calculated
Unit Area Backwash Flow m/h 36.7 Calculated
Total Backwash Flow m3/h 10.7 Calculated
Unit Area Air Scour Flow m/h 20.4 Calculated
Total Area Air Scour Flow Nm3/h 6.0 Calculated
Backwash Length/Cycle min 30 Melis
Backwash Cycles/Day (3 filters) ea. 3 once/day/filter
Discharge Clarity g/m3 20 Melis
Pregnant Solution Tank Flow m3/h 13.5 Melis
Pregnant Solution Tank Retention Time h 6 Melis
Pregnant Solution Tank Volume m3 81.1 Melis
Design Temperature ºC 20 - 35 Melis
Uranium Precipitation
Design Feed Flow Rate m3/h 13.5 Calculated
Design Feed Grade g U3O8/L 8.5 Calculated
Number of Uranium Precipitation Tanks
ea. 3 Estimated
Retention Time (Total) h 6.0 Melis
Cooling Water to heat Exchangers m3/h 2.5 Estimated
Uranium Precipitation Tank Volume m3 40.6 Calculated
Barren Solution Concentration g U3O8/L 0.01 Melis
PRELIMINARY DESIGN CRITERIA Page 9-8
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
Table 28 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
Preliminary Design CriteriaCriteria Unit Value Comment Final Circuit pH Units 4.2 Melis
Final Circuit SO4 g/L 0.003 Calculated
Percent U3O8 in Uranium Precipitate % 79 Calculated
U Precipitation Discharge Pumpbox Retention Time
min 10 Melis
U Precipitation Discharge Pumpbox Volume
m3 2.3 Melis
Design Temperature ºC 18 - 20 Melis
Uranium Thickener
Number of Thickeners ea. 1 Melis
Uranium Thickener Flocculant Dosage g/t 150 Melis
Overflow Clarity g/m3 200 Melis
Underflow Density % 35 Melis
Feed Rate t/h 0.15 Calculated
Unit Area m2/t/d 3.0 Melis
Thickener Diameter mm 3,962 Calculated
Uranium Thickener Overflow Tank Retention Time
min 5 Melis
Uranium Thickener Overflow Tank Volume
m3 3.5 Calculated
Design Temperature ºC 20 - 25 Melis
Barren Solution
Discharge Clarity g/m3 20 Melis
Barren Solution to Scrubbers % 80 Melis
Barren Solution Tank Retention Time h 4 Melis
Barren Solution Tank Volume m3 166.4 Melis
Design Temperature ºC 20 - 25 Melis
Uranium Centrifuge
Operating/Standby ea. 1/1 Melis
Uranium Wash Tank Retention Time h 4 Melis
Uranium Wash Tank Volume m3 2.4 Melis
Number of Centrifuges ea. 1 Melis
Wash Water m3/h 0.3 Melis
Centrate Clarity g/m3 1,000 Melis
Discharge Density % 50 Melis
Centrifuge Design Factor Units 1.5 Melis
Centrifuge Design Feed t/h 0.21 Calculated
Uranium Centrifuge Wash Water min 15 Melis
PRELIMINARY DESIGN CRITERIA Page 9-9
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
Table 28 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
Preliminary Design CriteriaCriteria Unit Value Comment
Pumpbox Retention Time
Uranium Centrifuge Wash Water Pumpbox Volume
m3 0.1 Melis
Design Temperature ºC 20 - 25 Melis
Uranium Calciner and Scrubbers
Calciner Design Factor Units 1.5 See Centrifuge
Calciner Design Feed t/h 0.21 See Centrifuge
Percent U3O8 in Calciner Discharge % 100 Melis
Bulk Density of Calcined Uranium t/m3 2.2 Melis
Percent Uranium to Scrubbers % 0.1 Melis
Calciner Scrubber Water m3/h/scrubber 11.4 Melis
Calciner Room and Packaging Scrubbers Water m3/h/scrubber 8.1 Melis
Uranium Centrifuge Wash Water Pumpbox Retention Time
min 5 Melis
Uranium Centrifuge Wash Water Pumpbox Volume
m3 2.3 Melis
Design Temperature ºC 840 Melis
Uranium Bin
Uranium Bin Retention Time days 30 Melis
Uranium Bin Volume m3 37 Calculated
Design Temperature ºC 25 - 400 Melis
Calcined Uranium
No. of Drums/Shipping Container ea. 35 Melis
Average Calcined Uranium in Standard Drum
kg 400 Melis
No. of Standard Drums/d of Calcined Uranium
drums/d 6.9 Calculated
No. of Standard Drums/a of Calcined Uranium
drums/a 2,270 Calculated
No. of Times Each Drum is Recycled ea. 4 Typical
No. of New Drums/a drums/a 568 Calculated
No. of 20' Shipping Containers/a of Calcined Uranium
ea. 65 Calculated
No. of Standard Drums/a of Dried Uranium
ea. 3,950 Calculated
No. of 20' Shipping Containers/a of Dried Uranium ea. 113 Calculated
Design Temperature ºC 5 - 35 Melis
Tailings Neutralization
Nominal Feed Flow m3/h 108 Calculated
Number of Neutralization Tanks ea. 2 Melis
PRELIMINARY DESIGN CRITERIA Page 9-10
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
Table 28 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
Preliminary Design CriteriaCriteria Unit Value Comment Tank No. 1 pH Units 4 Melis
Tank No. 2 pH Units 10 Melis
Aeration m3/h/m2 20 Melis
Lime Addition to Tailings kg CaO/t ore 40 Typical
Weight Gain in Tailings t tailings/t ore 1.2 Testwork
Specific Gravity of Tailings Units 2.4 Typical
Total Retention Time h 2 Melis
Neutralization Tank Volume m3 108 Calculated
Design BaCl2.2H2O Addition g/m3 35 Melis
Design Ferric Sulphate Addition g Fe/m3 40 Melis
Tailings Thickener Feed t/h 108 Calculated
Tailings Thickener Flocculant Addition g/t 60 Typical
Overflow Clarity g/m3 500 Melis
Tailings Thickener Underflow Density % (w/w) 55 Target
Unit Area m2/t/d 0.30 Estimated
Thickener Diameter mm 16,459 Estimated
Tailings Thickener Overflow Tank Retention Time
min 10 Melis
Tailings Thickener Overflow Tank Volume
m3 12.0 Calculated
Consolidated Tailings Weight Dry t/m3 0.9 Typical
Tailings Consolidation Density % solids (w/w) 59 Calculated
Design Temperature ºC 10 - 25 Melis
Effluent Treatment
Feed to Effluent Treatment m3/h 11 Melis
Effluent Treatment Stages ea. 2 Melis
First Stage pH Units 3.5 Testwork
Second Stage pH Units 7.5 Testwork
Tank Retention Time (Total Stage) h 1.5 Melis
Reaction Tanks per Stage ea. 2 Melis
Reaction Tank Volume m3 8.5 Melis
Acid Dosage, Primary g H2SO4/L 0.07 Melis
Acid Dosage, Secondary g H2SO4/L 0.00 Melis
Ferric Sulphate Dosage, Primary g Fe/m3 50 Melis
Ferric Sulphate Dosage, Secondary g Fe/m3 50 Melis
Design BaCl2
.2H2O Addition, Secondary
g/m3 35 Melis
PRELIMINARY DESIGN CRITERIA Page 9-11
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
Table 28 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
Preliminary Design CriteriaCriteria Unit Value Comment
Lime Dosage, Primary g/m3 0 Melis
Lime Dosage, Secondary g/m3 11 Melis
Clarifiers per Stage ea. 1 Melis
Clarifier Overflow Tank Retention Time
min 10 Melis
Clarifier Overflow Tank Volume m3 1.9 Calculated
Flocculant Dosage mg/L 7 Melis
Clarifier Overflow Clarity g/m3 50 Typical
Clarifier Underflow Density % (w/w) 18 Typical
Effluent Sand Filters
Number of Sand Filters ea. 3 Melis
Unit Area Feed Flow m/h 8.0 Calculated
Diameter of Sand Filters m 0.000 Calculated
Unit Area Backwash Flow m/h 36.7 Calculated
Total Backwash Flow m3/h 0.0 Calculated
Unit Area Air Scour Flow m/h 20.4 Calculated
Total Area Air Scour Flow Nm3/h 0.0 Calculated
Backwash Length/Cycle min 30 Melis
Backwash Cycles/Day (3 filters) ea. 3 once/day/filter
Discharge Clarity g/m3 10 Melis
Nominal Feed Clarity g/m3 18 Melis
Average Backwash Recycle % #DIV/0! Calculated
Effluent Discharge Tank Retention Time
cycles 6 Melis
Effluent Discharge Tank Volume m3 0.0 Calculated
Reverse Osmosis
Feed to Reverse Osmosis m3/h 75 Calculated
Reverse Osmosis Permeate % of Feed 85 Typical
Monitoring Ponds
Monitoring Pond Discharge Flowrate m3/h 110 Calculated
Monitoring Pond Retention Time, each h 24 Melis
Monitoring Pond Active Volume, each m3 620 Calculated
Design Temperature ºC -40 - 35 Melis
Ferric Sulphate
45% Concentrate Strength kg Fe/m3 120 Reference
SG at 45% kg/L 1.528 Reference
PRELIMINARY DESIGN CRITERIA Page 9-12
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
Table 28 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
Preliminary Design CriteriaCriteria Unit Value Comment pH of 45% Solution unit 1.5 Reference
Ferric Sulphate Tank Retention Time Truckloads 1.5 Melis
Ferric Sulphate Truckload Volume L 13,000 20 tonnes
Ferric Sulphate Tank Volume m3 19.5 Calculated
Design Temperature ºC 10 - 25 Melis
Hydrogen Peroxide
Type of System Package Storage and Distribution System Melis
Dosage (kg 70% Soln/t U3O8) kg/t U3O8 280 Melis
Concentration at Addition Point % 50 Melis
SG of 70% kg/L 1.288 Reference
pH of 70% Units 0.50 Reference (DuPont)
SG of 50% kg/L 1.195 Reference
pH of 50% Units 1.80 Reference (DuPont)
Concentration at 70% kg H2O2/m3 902 Reference
Concentration at 50% kg H2O2/m3 597.5 Reference
Percent Addition to Tank No. 1 % 100 Melis
Design Temperature ºC 10 - 25 Melis
Materials of Construction type Passivated SS Melis
Magnesium Hydroxide
Dosage kg/t U3O8 150 Melis
Concentration % 10 Melis
pH of 10% solution Units 10.5 Reference
SG of Mg(OH)2 kg/L 2.36 Reference
Mg(OH)2/SO4 (w/w) - 0.61 Reference
Overconcentration required ratio 1 Melis
Mg(OH)2/H2O2 (w/w) - 3.43 Reference
H2O/H2O2 (w/w) - 1.59 Reference
SG of MgSO4 SAG 2.66 Reference
MgSO4/Mg(OH)2 ratio 1.24 Reference
MgO/Mg(OH)2 ratio 0.69 Reference
Loop Pump Discharge m3/h 15.0 Melis
Magnesia Distribution Tank Retention Time
days 7.0 Melis
Magnesia Distribution Tank Volume m3 25.6 Calculated
Magnesia Mix Tank Retention Time days 5.0 Melis
Magnesia Mix Tank Volume m3 18.3 Calculated
PRELIMINARY DESIGN CRITERIA Page 9-13
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
Table 28 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
Preliminary Design CriteriaCriteria Unit Value Comment Magnesia Loose Bulk Density SAG 1.00 Estimated
Magnesia Silo Volume m3 40.0 Calculated
Design Temperature ºC 10 - 25 Melis
Barium Chloride
BaCl2.2H2O Mix Concentration kg/m3 120 Melis
SG at Mix Concentration kg/L 1.09 Calculated
Barium Chloride Mix Tank Volume m3 18.3 As Magnesia Tank
Barium Chloride Distribution Tank Volume
m3 25.6 As Magnesia Tank
Design Temperature ºC 10 - 25 Melis
Lime
Mix Concentration % CaO 15 Melis
SG of CaO kg/L 3.315 Reference
Mix Concentration kg/m3 168 Calculated
Number of Lime Silos ea 1 Melis
Lime Silo Retention Time days 14
Lime Silo Volume m3 299 Calculated
Lime Mill Discharge Pumpbox Retention Time
min 5 Melis
Lime Mill Discharge Pumpbox Volume
m3 3.7 Calculated
Lime Storage Tank Retention Time h 16.0 Melis
Lime Storage Tank Volume m3 93 Calculated
Lime Loop Feed m3/h 10 Estimated
Design Temperature ºC 15 - 60 Melis
Flocculant
Mix Concentration for Neutral and Tailings Thickeners
% 0.2 Melis
Mix Concentration for Uranium Thickener and ET
% 0.05 Melis
pH of Mixed Flocculant Units 5.0 Reference
Typical Specific Gravity kg/L 1.2 Typical
Design Temperature ºC 10 - 25 Melis
Sulphuric Acid
Concentrated Acid Strength % 94.0 Reference
Concentrated Acid Concentration g H2SO4/L 1,700 Reference
Water in 94% Acid g H2O/L 128 Reference
Density of 94% H2SO4 kg/L 1.8276 Reference
PRELIMINARY DESIGN CRITERIA Page 9-14
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
Table 28 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
Preliminary Design CriteriaCriteria Unit Value Comment
Density of 100% H2SO4 kg/L 1.841 Reference
Acid Consumption t 100%/d 108 Calculated
Sulphuric Acid Storage Capacity days 14 Strateco
No. of Storage Tanks ea. 2 Melis
Volume of each Storage Tank m3 440 Calculated
Water Distribution
Total RO Permeate Available m3/h 64 Calculated
Total Fresh Water Requirement m3/h 0.0 Calculated
Total Process Water Flowrate m3/h 24.6 Calculated
Total Seal Water Flowrate m3/h 8.0 Calculated
Fresh Water Tank Retention Time h 2 Typical
Fresh Water Tank Volume m3 77 Calculated
Seal Water Flowrate m3/h 8 Estimated
Seal Water Tank Retention Time h 2 Typical
Seal Water Tank Volume m3 16 Calculated
Process Water Flowrate m3/h 25 Calculated
Process Water Tank Retention Time h 2 Typical
Process Water Tank Volume m3 49 Calculated
Design Temperature ºC 2 - 20 Melis
Steam Distribution
Distributed Steam Pressure kPa 700 Typical
Leach Temperature in, Minimum ºC 25 Melis
Estimated Maximum Steam Requirement for Leaching
tonnes/h 0.8 Calculated
PROCESS PLANT PERSONNEL Page 10-1
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
10.0 PROCESS PLANT PERSONNEL
10.1 Summary
A total of 74 individuals are envisioned to operate the process plant and staff mill maintenance.
The basis of the estimate was:
• Excepting senior staff, there will be two crews, one on site and one off site at any given time,
• Standard schedule will be 12 hours/day including lunch and break time,
• Operating personnel will be divided into two equal sized shifts per crew to allow 24 hour operation,
• Mill Maintenance will be divided into two unequal sized shifts per crew to allow 24 hour operation,
10.2 Mill Operations Personnel
The number and positions of personnel required to operate the process plant (Mill Operations) are detailed in the chart attached in Appendix D as:
• OC-001: Mill Operations Organizational Chart (1 of 2)
• OC-002: Mill Operations Organizational Chart (2 of 2) A total of 45 individuals, organized into two crews and two shifts per crew, plus supervision, are envisioned. A breakdown of these personnel is given below in Table 29.
Table 29 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
Mill Operations and Laboratory PersonnelDescription NumberMill Operators 4 x 8.5 = 34Mill Foremen 4 x 1 = 4Mill Trainer 2 x 1 = 2Mill General Foremen 2 x 1 = 2Metallurgists 2 x 1 = 2Laboratory Supervisor 2 x 1 = 2Laboratory Staff 2 x 3 = 6Mill Superintendent 1TOTAL 53
PROCESS PLANT PERSONNEL Page 10-2
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
10.3 Mill Maintenance Personnel
The number and positions of personnel required to maintain the process plant (Mill Maintenance) are detailed in the chart attached in Appendix B as:
• OC-003: Mill Maintenance Organizational Chart A total of 21 individuals, organized into two crews plus supervision, are envisioned. A breakdown of these personnel is given below in Table 30.
Table 30 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
Mill Maintenance PersonnelDescription NumberElectricians 2 x 2 = 4Instrument Technologists 2 x 1 = 2Millwrights 2 x 4 = 8Mill Maintenance Foremen 2 x 1 = 2Data Entry Clerks 2 x 1 = 2Mill Maintenance General Foremen 1Mill Maintenance Planner 1Maintenance Superintendent 1TOTAL 21
CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE FOR PROCESS Page 11-1
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
11.0 SUPPORT AND GENERAL ADMINISTRATION PERSONNEL
11.1 Summary
A total of 32 individuals are envisioned to provide support services and administer the site.
11.2 Support Departments and Administration Personnel
The number and positions of personnel required to provide support services and administer the site are detailed in the chart attached in Appendix D as:
• OC-003: Support and Administration Organizational Chart A total of 32 individuals, organized into two crews plus supervision, are envisioned. Support Departments include the laboratory, warehouse, radiation, health and safety, environmental, human resources, process plant office and supervision. A breakdown of these personnel is given below in Table 31.
Table 31 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
Support and Administration PersonnelDescription NumberSite Services Supervisor 2 x 1 = 2Site Services Staff 2 x 2 = 4Warehouse Supervisor 2 x 1 = 2Warehouse Staff 2 x 2 = 4Environmental Technicians 2 x 2 = 4Radiation, Health and Safety Staff 2 x 2 = 4Environment, Radiation, Health and Safety Supervisor 1Human Resources Staff 2 x 2 = 4Human Resources Supervisor 1Site Secretary and Flight Clerk 2 x 2 = 4Environment, Radiation, Health and Safety Superintendent 1Mine Manager 1TOTAL 32
CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE FOR PROCESS Page 11-2
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
The basis of the estimate was:
• Standard schedule will be 12 hours/day including lunch and break time,
• All remaining departments will normally work a single shift per day. Departments not included in the support and general administration personnel estimate were:
• Mining,
• Mine Maintenance, and
• Housekeeping and catering.
CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE FOR PROCESS Page 12-1
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
12.0 ESTIMATED PROCESS PLANT AND BUILDINGS CAPITAL COSTS - CLASS IV ESTIMATE
12.1 Summary
The Matoush Scoping Study capital cost estimate is summarized in Table 32 below.
Table 32 Strateco Resources Inc.
Matoush Uranium Project Scoping Study Summary of Class IV Capital Cost Estimate
Cost Area Labour (Hours) 496,200
Labour Cost 49,618,700Material Cost 57,445,370Buildings Cost 39,203,310Reagents, First Fills 2,618,940Total Direct Cost 148,886,320Contractor Overhead and Profit 6,700,000Engineering, Procurement, and Management 18,610,000Total Direct and Indirect Costs 174,196,320Contingency (25%) 43,550,000Capital Spares, 1% of Equipment Cost 1,150,000Total Estimated Capital Costs 218,896,320
Say, 220,000,000Estimated Weight, tonnes 25,910Estimated Operating and Building Power, kW 2,053
The capital cost estimate details are attached in Appendix E.
12.2 Basis of Estimate
Included in the capital cost estimate were:
• the process plant and laboratory building,
• the crusher building,
• process equipment located in the mill building,
• the laboratory, and
• reagent first fills.
CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE FOR PROCESS Page 12-2
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
The capital cost estimate does not include:
• infrastructure costs such as fuel for construction, road maintenance,
• decommissioning (deconstruction and remediation) costs.
The battery limits for the capital cost estimates were as follows:
• receipt of ore at the crusher,
• receipt of reagents at the minesite,
• discharge of tailings to the Tailings Management Facility,
• discharge of treated effluent, and
• uranium packaging.
The capital costs were completed on an order-of-magnitude basis to the level of detail typical for a Class IV estimate (-15% to -30%/+20% to +50%). The estimate was completed in second quarter 2008 Canadian dollars.
Equipment requirements and approximate sizing were defined by the design criteria and process flowsheets, based on metallurgical data available as of the date of this report.
The cost estimate was prepared with separate sheets for each unit operation associated with each process, plus separate sheets for utilities and the process buildings. Each sheet lists the major pieces of equipment or material in that area. The installed cost of each piece of equipment or material was then estimated with the installation labour, unit cost and cost of field materials being included in the total installed mechanical cost. Line items in the capital cost estimates were costed based on budget quotes or on Melis file data.
For each unit area, the costs of process piping, electrical, instrumentation and freight to site were estimated as a percentage of total installed mechanical cost. The sum of these costs and the total installed mechanical cost were the total direct costs for that unit operation.
Indirect costs included contractor overhead and profit and engineering, procurement and management. Each was estimated as a percentage of the total direct costs for that option. Contractor overhead and profit was estimated at 4.5% of total direct costs, engineering, procurement, construction and management (EPCM) was estimated at 12.5% of direct costs. EPCM includes allowance for
CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE FOR PROCESS Page 12-3
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
commissioning.
The labour rate of $100/h was provided by Strateco Resources Inc. The labour rate does not include indirect costs.
Process equipment was sized based on the design criteria attached in Appendix B and shown on the process flowsheets attached in Appendix A. A 0.5 m freeboard was included for all tanks and pumpboxes.
Freight to site was estimated at $4,000 per 35 tonne truckload. The number of truckloads required was also estimated.
The US dollar conversion rate used was $0.95 Cdn/$ US.
OPERATING COST ESTIMATE FOR PROCESS Page 13-1
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
13.0 CONSUMABLES, PROCESS AND BUILDING ELECTRICAL AND MAINTENANCE CONSUMABLES
13.1 Summary
The Matoush Scoping Study mill operating cost estimate, excluding operating personnel costs is summarized in Table 33 below.
Table 33 Strateco Resources Inc.
Matoush Uranium Project Scoping Study Summary of Mill Operating Cost Estimate - DRAFT
Operating Cost Class $ (Cdn)/a $ (Cdn)/t $ (Cdn)/lb U3O8
Total Consumables 18,553 95.76 9.28
Electrical Power 3,780 19.51 1.89
Maintenance Consumables 1,150 5.94 0.58
Sub-Total 23,483 121.21 11.74
Contingency (15%) 3,522 18.18 1.76
Total 27,005 139.39 13.50
13.2 Basis of Estimate
Included in this operating cost estimate were:
• Mill reagents,
• Mill and laboratory consumables,
• Mill building electrical power, and
• Maintenance consumables.
Personnel cost is not included in the operating cost.
REFERENCES Page 14-1
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
14.0 REFERENCES
1. Melis Letter Status Report No. 1 - For the Period to November 20, 2007.
2. Melis Status Report No. 2 - For the Period November 20, 2007 to January 10, 2008.
3. Melis Status Report No. 3 - For the Period January 11 to April 2, 2008.
4. Melis Status Report No. 4 - For the Period April 3 to April 15, 2008.
5. Melis Status Report No. 5 - For the Period April 16 to June 9, 2008.
6. Melis Status Report No. 6 - For the Period June 10 to August 29, 2008.
7. SGS Lakefield Research Limited - Ore Characterization And Preliminary Grinding Circuit Design Using CEET2® Technology Based On Samples From The Matoush Deposit, April 16, 2008.
8. Terra Mineralogical Services - Mineralogical Characterization of Drill Core Samples From The Matoush Property Northern Quebec, December 3rd, 2007.
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
APPENDIX A
MATOUSH PROCESS FLOWSHEETS
TITLE
AREA
DWG. No.
LOC.
DESIGN AUTH. APPROVAL:
DESIGN LEAD APPROVAL:
CHECKED:
DRAWN:
DESIGNED:
DATESCALE (A1):
BRUCE C. FIELDER, P.ENG. 07/08/08
MATOUSH URANIUM PROJECT
ABCD
DATE DESCRIPTION26/05/0825/08/0815/09/0810/17/08 SCOPING STUDY RELEASE
DRAFT SCOPING STUDY RELEASESCOPING STUDY RELEASESCOPING STUDY SECOND RELEASE
BYBCF
BCF/KCA
BCFBCF
REVI
SION
S
NO.DATE DESCRIPTION BY DES. LEAD APP..REVI
SION
S
NO.DWG. NO. DESCRIPTIONREFE
RENC
E
FROM MINE
PROCESS MILL
SCOPING STUDY SUMMARY FLOWSHEET
490-F-100
MELIS E GI EERI G LTD.
PROCESS WATER
URANIUM
TREATED EFFLUENT DISCHARGESULPHURIC ACID,
OXYGEN
LIMEFERRIC SULPHATE
FLOCCULANT
HYDROGEN PEROXIDEMAGNESIUM HYDROXIDE
LIME LIME
GRINDING
LEACHING
IMPURITY PRECIPITATION
URANIUM PRECIPITATION
CALCINING
SAG MILL
BALL MILL
CYCLONES
LEACH TANKS
GYPSUM BELT FILTER
IMPURITY PRECIPITATION TANKS
URANIUM PRECIPITATION TANKS
URANIUM THICKENER
URANIUM CENTRIFUGE
URANIUM CALCINER
BARIUM CHLORIDEFERRIC SULPHATE
TAILINGS NEUTRALIZATION
TAILINGS MANAGEMENT FACILITY
REVERSE OSMOSIS
TO PROCESS
FRESH WATER
BARIUM CHLORIDEFERRIC SULPHATELIME, FLOCCULANT
BARREN SOLUTION
SAND FILTERS
SURFACE DRAINAGE
EFFLUENT TREATMENT
SULPHURIC ACID
URANIUM BIN
NEUTRAL THICKENER
FLOCCULANT
TAILINGS THICKENER
TAILINGS TANKS
MONITORING PONDS (3)
REJECTPERMEATE
MINE WATER
TO PROCESS
FRESH WATER TANK
PROCESS WATER TANK
MAIN PROCESS FLOWPROCESS FLOWINTERMITTENT / ALTERNATE FLOW
KEY
RESIN IN PULP CIRCUIT
DILUTION WATER
FRESH ELUATE TANK
RIP TANKS
ELUTION COLUMNS
RESIN SCREEN
LEAN ELUATE TANK
EFFLUENT SAND FILTERS
COARSE ORE BIN
c/w GRIZZLYAND APRON
FEEDER
FINE ORE BIN
FINE ORE BIN APRON FEEDERS
(2)
CRUSHER
CRUSHING
PEBBLE CRUSHER
TITLE
AREA
DWG. No.
LOC.
DESIGN AUTH. APPROVAL:
DESIGN LEAD APPROVAL:
CHECKED:
DRAWN:
DESIGNED:
DATESCALE (A1):
BRUCE C. FIELDER, P.ENG. 07/08/08
MATOUSH URANIUM PROJECT
ABCD
DATE DESCRIPTION07/08/0825/08/0815/09/0810/17/08 SCOPING STUDY RELEASE
DRAFT SCOPING STUDY RELEASESCOPING STUDY RELEASESCOPING STUDY SECOND RELEASE
BY
BCF/KCA
BCFBCFBCF
REVI
SION
S
NO.DATE DESCRIPTION BY DES. LEAD APP..REVI
SION
S
NO.DWG. NO. DESCRIPTIONREFE
RENC
E
MELIS E GI EERI G LTD.
FEED FROM MINE
CRUSHER APRON FEEDER
CRUSHING
CRUSHING FLOWSHEET
490-F-101
490-F-120
PROCESS WATER
MAIN PROCESS FLOWPROCESS FLOWINTERMITTENT / ALTERNATE FLOW
KEY
1
CRUSHING OVERHEAD CRANE
490-F-102
FINE ORE BIN
FINE ORE BIN APRON FEEDERS
(2)
TO GRINDING FEED CONVEYOR
2
JAW CRUSHER
CRUSHING AREA SUMP PUMP
490-F-102
TO BALL MILL CIRCUIT NO. 1 CYCLONE FEED PUMPBOX
490-F-122
CRUSHER AREA SAFETY SHOWER
FROM SAFETY SHOWER HEAD TANK
CRUSHING DUST SCRUBBER
HOSE STATIONS
490-F-102
TO CYCLONE FEED PUMPBOX
TO ATMOSPHERE
COARSE ORE BIN
c/w GRIZZLY
CRUSHER DISCHARGE CONVEYOR
TITLE
AREA
DWG. No.
LOC.
DESIGN AUTH. APPROVAL:
DESIGN LEAD APPROVAL:
CHECKED:
DRAWN:
DESIGNED:
DATESCALE (A1):
BRUCE C. FIELDER, P.ENG. 07/08/08
MATOUSH URANIUM PROJECT
ABCD
DATE DESCRIPTION07/08/0825/08/0815/09/0810/17/08 SCOPING STUDY RELEASE
DRAFT SCOPING STUDY RELEASESCOPING STUDY RELEASESCOPING STUDY SECOND RELEASE
BY
BCF/KCA
BCFBCFBCF
REVI
SION
S
NO.DATE DESCRIPTION BY DES. LEAD APP..REVI
SION
S
NO.DWG. NO. DESCRIPTIONREFE
RENC
E
MELIS E GI EERI G LTD.
NEUTRAL THICKENER OVERFLOW
SAG MILL
BALL MILL
490-F-103
490-F-103
TO NEUTRAL THICKENER
HOSE STATIONS
GRINDING AREA SUMP PUMP
GRINDING
GRINDING FLOWSHEET
490-F-102
490-F-120
PROCESS WATER
4 5 12
8
11
FROM ORE FEED BIN
490-F-101
490-F-101
FROM CRUSHING AREA SUMP PUMP
GRINDING FEED CONVEYOR
490-F-109
FROM BARREN SOLUTION TANK
51
GRINDING AND RESIN TANK AREA
OVERHEAD CRANE
490-F-122
GRINDING AREA SAFETY SHOWERS (2)
FROM SAFETY SHOWER HEAD TANK
SAG MILLFEED CHUTE
13
2
15
16
PEBBLE CRUSHER
PEBBLE CONVEYOR
SCALPING SCREEN
SAG MILL DISCHARGE
SCREEN
CYCLONE FEED PUMPBOX
CYCLONE FEED
PUMPS
CYCLONES
6
10
BALL BUCKET
WEIGHTOMETER
7
3
490-F-117
GRINDING BALLS
490-F-101
FROM CRUSHING DUST SCRUBBER
BELT MAGNET
PROCESS VENTILATION
(TYP.)
MAIN PROCESS FLOWPROCESS FLOWINTERMITTENT / ALTERNATE FLOW
KEY
FROM SCALPING SCREEN
SULPHURIC ACID
LEACH DISCHARGE PUMPS
490-F-102
490-F-119
LEACH DISCHARGE PUMPBOX
490-F-104
TO RIP FEED DISTRIBUTION LAUNDER
LEACH TANKS (6)c/w AGITATORS
HOSE STATIONS490-F-120PROCESS WATER
LEACH AREA SUMP PUMP
TITLE
AREA
DWG. No.
LOC.
DESIGN AUTH. APPROVAL:
DESIGN LEAD APPROVAL:
CHECKED:
DRAWN:
DESIGNED:
DATESCALE (A1):
BRUCE C. FIELDER, P.ENG. 07/08/08
MATOUSH URANIUM PROJECT
ABCD
DATE DESCRIPTION07/08/0825/08/0815/09/0810/17/08 SCOPING STUDY RELEASE
DRAFT SCOPING STUDY RELEASESCOPING STUDY RELEASESCOPING STUDY SECOND RELEASE
BY
BCF/KCA
BCFBCFBCF
REVI
SION
S
NO.DATE DESCRIPTION BY DES. LEAD APP..REVI
SION
S
NO.DWG. NO. DESCRIPTIONREFE
RENC
E
MELIS E GI EERI G LTD.
LEACHING
NEUTRAL THICKENING AND LEACHING FLOWSHEET
490-F-103
OXYGEN490-F-116
NEUTRAL THICKENER
MECHANISM
NEUTRAL THICKENER UNDERFLOW PUMPS
NEUTRAL THICKENER OVERFLOW PUMPS
NEUTRAL THICKENER OVERFLOW TANK
FLOCCULANT
490-F-119
490-F-102
11
13
14
17
490-F-121
TO GRINDING490-F-122LEACHING AREA
SAFETY SHOWERS (2)
FROM SAFETY SHOWER HEAD TANK
STEAM145
113
120
PROCESS VENTILATION
(TYP.)MAIN PROCESS FLOWPROCESS FLOWINTERMITTENT / ALTERNATE FLOW
KEY
TITLE
R
DWG. No.
LOC.
DESIGN AUTH. APPROVAL:
DESIGN LEAD APPROVAL:
CHECKED:
DRAWN:
DESIGNED:
DATESCALE (A1):
BRUCE C. FIELDER, P.ENG. 07/08/08
MATOUSH URANIUM PROJECT
ABCD
DATE DESCRIPTION07/08/0825/08/0815/09/0810/17/08 SCOPING STUDY RELEASE
DRAFT SCOPING STUDY RELEASESCOPING STUDY RELEASESCOPING STUDY SECOND RELEASE
BY
BCF/KCA
BCFBCFBCF
REVI
SION
S
NO.DATE DESCRIPTION BY DES. LEAD APP..REVI
SION
S
NO.DWG. NO. DESCRIPTIONREFE
RENC
E
MELIS E GI EERI G LTD. RESIN EXTRACTION FLOWSHEET
490-F-104
MAIN PROCESS FLOWPROCESS FLOWINTERMITTENT / ALTERNATE FLOW
KEYFROM LEACH DISCHARGE PUMPBOX
490-F-103 17
490-F-120PROCESS WATER
490-F-112
TO TAILINGS NEUTRALIZATION
20
490-F-105
RESIN TO ELUTION
RESIDUE PUMPBOX
RESIDUE PUMPS
LOADED RESIN PUMPS
SAFETY SCREEN
RESIN SCREEN
RIP TANKS (8)c/w PUMPCELLS (8)
(VENDOR PACKAGE)
490-F-105RESIN FROM RESIN TRANSFER TANK
RIP FEED DISTRIBUTION LAUNDER
RESIN IN PULP CIRCUIT
23
19
22
19
30
490-F-107
GYPSUM SOLIDS
RIP AREA SUMP PUMP
HOSE STATIONS
40
31
136
24
490-F-122
RIP AREA SAFETY SHOWERS (2)
FROM SAFETY SHOWER HEAD TANK
(MANUAL RECYCLE)
PROCESS VENTILATION
(TYP.)
TITLE
AREA
DWG. No.
LOC.
DESIGN AUTH. APPROVAL:
DESIGN LEAD APPROVAL:
CHECKED:
DRAWN:
DESIGNED:
DATESCALE (A1):
BRUCE C. FIELDER, P.ENG. 07/08/08
MATOUSH URANIUM PROJECT
ABCD
DATE DESCRIPTION07/08/0825/08/0815/09/0810/17/08 SCOPING STUDY RELEASE
DRAFT SCOPING STUDY RELEASESCOPING STUDY RELEASESCOPING STUDY SECOND RELEASE
BY
BCF/KCA
BCFBCFBCF
REVI
SION
S
NO.DATE DESCRIPTION BY DES. LEAD APP..REVI
SION
S
NO.DWG. NO. DESCRIPTIONREFE
RENC
E
MELIS E GI EERI G LTD.
RESIN IN PULP CIRCUIT
RESIN ELUTION FLOWSHEET
490-F-105
MAIN PROCESS FLOWPROCESS FLOWINTERMITTENT / ALTERNATE FLOW
KEY
FRESH ELUATE TANKw AGITATOR
FRESH ELUATE PUMPS 490-F-104
490-F-119
CONCENTRATED SULPHURIC ACID
490-F-120
FRESH WATER
490-F-104
RESIN FROM RESIN SCREEN
ELUTED RESIN HOLDING TANK ROTARY VALVE
23
31
ELUTION AREA SUMP PUMP
ELUTION COLUMNS
(3)
HOSE STATIONS
LEAN ELUATE TANK
LEAN ELUATE PUMPS
490-F-106
TO IMPURITY PRECIPITATION TANK NO. 1
CONCENTRATED ELUATE TANK
CONCENTRATED ELUATE PUMPS
29
28
490-F-121
PROCESS AIR
TO RIP TANKS
ELUTED RESIN TRANSFER TANK
27
STEAM
CONDENSATE RETURN
FRESH ELUATE HEAT
EXCHANGER
LEAN ELUATE HEAT EXCHANGER
24
26
25
30
490-F-122
RESIN ELUTION AREA SAFETY
SHOWER
FROM SAFETY SHOWER HEAD TANK
121
125CAUSTIC
TANKc/w
AGITATOR
CAUSTIC PUMP
490-F-116
CAUSTIC SODA
490-F-121
490-F-121
PROCESS VENTILATION
(TYP.)
TITLE
AREA
DWG. No.
LOC.
DESIGN AUTH. APPROVAL:
DESIGN LEAD APPROVAL:
CHECKED:
DRAWN:
DESIGNED:
DATESCALE (A1):
BRUCE C. FIELDER, P.ENG. 07/08/08
MATOUSH URANIUM PROJECT
ABCD
DATE DESCRIPTION07/08/0825/08/0815/09/0810/17/08 SCOPING STUDY RELEASE
DRAFT SCOPING STUDY RELEASESCOPING STUDY RELEASESCOPING STUDY SECOND RELEASE
BY
BCF/KCA
BCFBCFBCF
REVI
SION
S
NO.DATE DESCRIPTION BY DES. LEAD APP..REVI
SION
S
NO.DWG. NO. DESCRIPTIONREFE
RENC
E
MELIS E GI EERI G LTD.
FROM CONCENTRATED ELUATE TANK
490-F-105
490-F-120
FRESH WATER
490-F-115
FERRIC SULPHATE FEED
490-F-118LIME LOOP FEED
490-F-118LIME LOOP RETURN
490-F-121
PROCESS AIR
MAIN PROCESS FLOWPROCESS FLOWINTERMITTENT / ALTERNATE FLOW
KEY
IMPURITY PRECIPITATION AREA SUMP PUMP
IMPURITY PRECIPITATION TANKS (6)
c/w AGITATORS
IMPURITY PRECIPITATION DISCHARGE PUMPBOX
IMPURITY PRECIPITATION DISCHARGE PUMPS
IMPURITY PRECIPITATION
IMPURITY PRECIPITATION FLOWSHEET
490-F-106
HOSE STATIONS
91
32 33 34 35
36
29
490-F-107FROM GYPSUM FILTER AREA SUMP PUMP
GYPSUM FILTER FEED TANK AGITATOR
GYPSUM FILTER FEED PUMPS
490-F-107
TO GYPSUM BELT FILTER
490-F-107
PREGNANT SOLUTION FILTER BACKWASH
4241 37
490-F-122
IMPURITY PRECIPITATION AREA SAFETY SHOWER
FROM SAFETY SHOWER HEAD TANK
106
PROCESS VENTILATION
(TYP.)
TITLE
AREA
DWG. No.
LOC.
DESIGN AUTH. APPROVAL:
DESIGN LEAD APPROVAL:
CHECKED:
DRAWN:
DESIGNED:
DATESCALE (A1):
BRUCE C. FIELDER, P.ENG. 07/08/08
MATOUSH URANIUM PROJECT
ABCD
DATE DESCRIPTION07/08/0825/08/0815/09/0810/17/08 SCOPING STUDY RELEASE
DRAFT SCOPING STUDY RELEASESCOPING STUDY RELEASESCOPING STUDY SECOND RELEASE
BY
BCF/KCA
BCFBCFBCF
REVI
SION
S
NO.DATE DESCRIPTION BY DES. LEAD APP..REVI
SION
S
NO.DWG. NO. DESCRIPTIONREFE
RENC
E
MELIS E GI EERI G LTD.
490-F-104
GYPSUM SOLIDS TO RIP FEED DISTRIBUTION LAUNDER490-F-120
PROCESS WATERHOSE STATIONS
490-F-108
PREGNANT SOLUTION TO URANIUM PRECIPITATION TANK NO. 1
490-F-106
TO GYPSUM FILTER FEED TANK
MAIN PROCESS FLOWPROCESS FLOWINTERMITTENT / ALTERNATE FLOW
KEY
GYPSUM FILTER AREA SUMP PUMP
GYPSUM BELT FILTER VACUUM PUMP
490-F-107
GYPSUM PRECIPITATION
GYPSUM FILTRATIONFLOWSHEET
GYPSUM FILTER REPULP TANK
AGITATOR
GYPSUM FILTERREPULP PUMPS
GYPSUM BELT FILTER VACUUM RECEIVERS AND FILTRATE PUMPS
VENDOR PACKAGE: GYPSUM BELT FILTER
BARREN SOLUTION
490-F-109
GYPSUM BELT FILTER
50
39
490-F-106
FROM GYPSUM FILTER FEED TANK
PREGNANT SOLUTION TANK
PREGNANT SOLUTION SAND
FILTER BACKWASH PUMP
PREGNANT SOLUTION PUMPS
43
490-F-106
TO GYPSUM FILTER FEED TANK
PREGNANT SOLUTION SAND
FILTERS (3)
490-F-121PROCESS AIR
38
4241
37
490-F-122GYPSUM FILTER AREA
SAFETY SHOWER
FROM SAFETY SHOWER HEAD TANK
137
40
PROCESS VENTILATION
(TYP.)
TITLE
AREA
DWG. No.
LOC.
DESIGN AUTH. APPROVAL:
DESIGN LEAD APPROVAL:
CHECKED:
DRAWN:
DESIGNED:
DATESCALE (A1):
BRUCE C. FIELDER, P.ENG. 07/08/08
MATOUSH URANIUM PROJECT
ABCD
DATE DESCRIPTION07/08/0825/08/0815/09/0810/17/08 SCOPING STUDY RELEASE
DRAFT SCOPING STUDY RELEASESCOPING STUDY RELEASESCOPING STUDY SECOND RELEASE
BY
BCF/KCA
BCFBCFBCF
REVI
SION
S
NO.DATE DESCRIPTION BY DES. LEAD APP..REVI
SION
S
NO.DWG. NO. DESCRIPTIONREFE
RENC
E
MELIS E GI EERI G LTD.
490-F-107
PREGNANT SOLUTION
490-F-115
HYDROGEN PEROXIDE
490-F-117
MAGNESIA LOOP FEED
490-F-121
PROCESS AIR
MAIN PROCESS FLOWPROCESS FLOWINTERMITTENT / ALTERNATE FLOW
KEY
URANIUM PRECIPITATION
DISCHARGE PUMPBOX
URANIUM PRECIPITATION
DISCHARGE PUMPS
URANIUM PRECIPITATION AREA SUMP PUMP
490-F-109TO URANIUM THICKENER
490-F-108
URANIUM PRECIPITATION
URANIUM PRECIPITATIONFLOWSHEET
490-F-117
MAGNESIA LOOP RETURN
490-F-109
TO URANIUM THICKENER
URANIUM PRECIPITATION TANKS (3)
c/w AGITATORS
490-F-115
HYDROGEN PEROXIDE
HOSE STATIONS
490-F-120
FRESH WATER
(VENT) (VENT)
490-F-120
WATER RETURN
URANIUM PRECIPITATION
FEED HEAT EXCHANGERS
43
URANIUM THICKENER UNDERFLOW
490-F-109
126
126
44
490-F-122URANIUM PRECIPITATION AREA SAFETY SHOWER
FROM SAFETY SHOWER HEAD TANK
(VENT)
94
9598
10099
PROCESS VENTILATION
(TYP.)
TITLE
AREA
DWG. No.
LOC.
DESIGN AUTH. APPROVAL:
DESIGN LEAD APPROVAL:
CHECKED:
DRAWN:
DESIGNED:
DATESCALE (A1):
BRUCE C. FIELDER, P.ENG. 07/08/08
MATOUSH URANIUM PROJECT
ABCD
DATE DESCRIPTION07/08/0825/08/0815/09/0810/17/08 SCOPING STUDY RELEASE
DRAFT SCOPING STUDY RELEASESCOPING STUDY RELEASESCOPING STUDY SECOND RELEASE
BY
BCF/KCA
BCFBCFBCF
REVI
SION
S
NO.DATE DESCRIPTION BY DES. LEAD APP..REVI
SION
S
NO.DWG. NO. DESCRIPTIONREFE
RENC
E
MELIS E GI EERI G LTD.
FROM URANIUM PACKAGING AREA SUMP PUMP
490-F-110
URANIUM CENTRIFUGE CENTRATE
URANIUM THICKENERAND MECHANISM
URANIUM THICKENER UNDERFLOW PUMPS
URANIUM THICKENER AREA SUMP PUMP
490-F-108
490-F-108
URANIUM PRECIPITATION DISCHARGE
FROM URANIUM PRECIPITATION AREA SUMP PUMP
490-F-111
490-F-120RO PERMEATE
HOSE STATIONS
490-F-110
TO URANIUM WASH TANK
MAIN PROCESS FLOWPROCESS FLOWINTERMITTENT / ALTERNATE FLOW
KEY
490-F-109
URANIUM THICKENER FLOWSHEET
URANIUM PRECIPITATION
TO BALL MILL DISCHARGE PUMPBOX
BARREN SOLUTION TANK
490-F-102
TO SCRUBBERS
490-F-111
490-F-111
URANIUM SCRUBBER WATER
FROM CALCINING AREA SUMP PUMP
490-F-110
490-F-108
RECYCLE TO URANIUM PRECIPITATION
FLOCCULANT
490-F-119
44
53
56
45
46
47
48
51
49
BARREN SOLUTION PUMPS
TO GYPSUM BELT FILTER
490-F-10750
490-F-122URANIUM THICKENER
AREA SAFETY SHOWER
FROM SAFETY SHOWER HEAD TANK
BARREN SOLUTION TANK TRANSFER
PUMP
52
115
PROCESS VENTILATION
(TYP.)
TITLE
AREA
DWG. No.
LOC.
DESIGN AUTH. APPROVAL:
DESIGN LEAD APPROVAL:
CHECKED:
DRAWN:
DESIGNED:
DATESCALE (A1):
BRUCE C. FIELDER, P.ENG. 07/08/08
MATOUSH URANIUM PROJECT
ABCD
DATE DESCRIPTION07/08/0825/08/0815/09/0810/17/08 SCOPING STUDY RELEASE
DRAFT SCOPING STUDY RELEASESCOPING STUDY RELEASESCOPING STUDY SECOND RELEASE
BY
BCF/KCA
BCFBCFBCF
REVI
SION
S
NO.DATE DESCRIPTION BY DES. LEAD APP..REVI
SION
S
NO.DWG. NO. DESCRIPTIONREFE
RENC
E
MELIS E GI EERI G LTD.
490-F-110
URANIUM CALCINING
URANIUM CENTRIFUGE AND CALCINER FLOWSHEET
FRESH WATER
HOSE STATIONS
URANIUM THICKENER UNDERFLOW
VENDOR PACKAGE: URANIUM CALCINER
URANIUM WASH TANK
c/w AGITATOR
CENTRIFUGE FEED PUMPS
490-F-120
490-F-109
TO URANIUM THICKENER
TO URANIUM CALCINER SCRUBBER
TO URANIUM CALCINING ROOM SCRUBBER
URANIUM CENTRIFUGE
URANIUM CENTRATE PUMPBOX
URANIUM CENTRATE PUMPS
TO URANIUM THICKENER
490-F-109
490-F-111
490-F-111
490-F-109
NO. 6 BUNKER OIL
TO PACKAGING
490-F-111
MAIN PROCESS FLOWPROCESS FLOWINTERMITTENT / ALTERNATE FLOW
KEY
47
54
53
55
CALCINING AREA SUMP PUMP
BUCKET CONVEYOR
URANIUM CALCINER
URANIUM LUMP DISINTEGRATOR
490-F-122CALCINING AREA SAFETY SHOWER
FROM SAFETY SHOWER HEAD TANK
127
URANIUM BIN c/w ROTARY VALVEand BIN VIBRATOR
55
PROCESS VENTILATION
(TYP.)
TITLE
AREA
DWG. No.
LOC.
DESIGN AUTH. APPROVAL:
DESIGN LEAD APPROVAL:
CHECKED:
DRAWN:
DESIGNED:
DATESCALE (A1):
BRUCE C. FIELDER, P.ENG. 07/08/08
MATOUSH URANIUM PROJECT
ABCD
DATE DESCRIPTION07/08/0825/08/0815/09/0810/17/08 SCOPING STUDY RELEASE
DRAFT SCOPING STUDY RELEASESCOPING STUDY RELEASESCOPING STUDY SECOND RELEASE
BY
BCF/KCA
BCFBCFBCF
REVI
SION
S
NO.DATE DESCRIPTION BY DES. LEAD APP..REVI
SION
S
NO.DWG. NO. DESCRIPTIONREFE
RENC
E
MELIS E GI EERI G LTD.
CALCINED URANIUM
490-F-110
FROM URANIUM CALCINER ROOM
490-F-110
FROM URANIUM CALCINER
490-F-120
490-F-109
TO URANIUM THICKENER
MAIN PROCESS FLOWPROCESS FLOWINTERMITTENT / ALTERNATE FLOW
KEY
URANIUM PACKAGING AREA SUMP PUMP
URANIUM CALCINER SCRUBBER
URANIUM CALCINER ROOM SCRUBBER
490-F-111
URANIUM CALCINING
URANIUM PACKAGING AND SCRUBBERS FLOWSHEET
URANIUM PACKAGING SCRUBBER
FRESH WATER
URANIUM SCRUBBER WATER PUMPS
490-F-109
TO URANIUM THICKENER
URANIUM SCRUBBER WATER PUMPBOX
490-F-109
BARREN SOLUTION
TO ATMOSPHERE TO ATMOSPHERE TO ATMOSPHERE
49
55
56
128
490-F-110
TO DRUM STORAGE AND SHIPPING
MOTORIZED ROLLER CONVEYOR
DRUM FILLING STATION
DRUM LIDDING STATION
DRUM WASHING STATION
DRUM SCALE
PRODUCT PACKAGING SYSTEM
55
LIME LOOP490-F-118
490-F-114
TO TAILINGS MANAGEMENT FACILITY
490-F-104
FROM RESIDUE PUMPS
TAILINGS NEUTRALIZATION TANKS (2)
c/w AGITATORS
HOSE STATIONS490-F-120PROCESS WATER
TAILINGS NEUTRALIZATION AREA SUMP PUMP
TAILINGS FEED LAUNDER
TAILINGS THICKENER UNDERFLOW PUMPS
TAILINGS THICKENER OVERFLOW PUMPSTAILINGS
THICKENER c/w MECHANISM
TAILINGS THICKENER OVERFLOW TANK
490-F-114TO REVERSE OSMOSIS
FLOCCULANT
490-F-119
TITLE
AREA
DWG. No.
LOC.
DESIGN AUTH. APPROVAL:
DESIGN LEAD APPROVAL:
CHECKED:
DRAWN:
DESIGNED:
DATESCALE (A1):
BRUCE C. FIELDER, P.ENG. 07/08/08
MATOUSH URANIUM PROJECT
ABCD
DATE DESCRIPTION07/08/0825/08/0815/09/0810/17/08 SCOPING STUDY RELEASE
DRAFT SCOPING STUDY RELEASESCOPING STUDY RELEASESCOPING STUDY SECOND RELEASE
BY
BCF/KCA
BCFBCFBCF
REVI
SION
S
NO.DATE DESCRIPTION BY DES. LEAD APP..REVI
SION
S
NO.DWG. NO. DESCRIPTIONREFE
RENC
E
MELIS E GI EERI G LTD.
TAILINGS NEUTRALIZATION
TAILINGS NEUTRALIZATION FLOWSHEET
490-F-112
MAIN PROCESS FLOWPROCESS FLOWINTERMITTENT / ALTERNATE FLOW
KEY
FERRIC SULPHATE490-F-115
BARIUM CHLORIDE490-F-118
490-F-120
TO PROCESS WATER TANK
20
91
114
57
58
59
490-F-115
FROM H202 SUMP PUMP
STEAM490-F-121
490-F-113
EFFLUENT TREATMENT CLARIFIER UNDERFLOW
MINE WATER
490-F-122
TAILINGS NEUTRALIZATION AREA
SAFETY SHOWERS
FROM SAFETY SHOWER HEAD TANK
490-F-113
LIME LOOP TO EFFLUENT TREATMENT
81
108
AIR BLOWER
107
143
102
TO PASTE BACKFILL PLANT
TAILINGS LINE BLOWOUT TANK
PROCESS AIR490-F-121 490-F-114
TO TAILINGS MANAGEMENT FACILITY
490-F-114
PROCESS VENTILATION
(TYP.)
TREATED EFFLUENT DISCHARGE
FERRIC SULPHATE490-F-115
BARIUM CHLORIDE490-F-118
LIME LOOP FROM TAILINGS NEUTRALIZATION490-F-112
FLOCCULANT490-F-119
PERMEATE DISCHARGE
490-F-114
EFFLUENT SAND FILTERS (3)
EFFLUENT DISCHARGE
TANK
EFFLUENT SAND FILTER BACKWASH
PUMPMONITORING PONDS (3)c/w DISCHARGE PUMPS
EFFLUENT TREATMENT AREA
SUMP PUMP
TITLE
AREA
DWG. No.
LOC.
DESIGN AUTH. APPROVAL:
DESIGN LEAD APPROVAL:
CHECKED:
DRAWN:
DESIGNED:
DATESCALE (A1):
BRUCE C. FIELDER, P.ENG. 07/08/08
MATOUSH URANIUM PROJECT
ABCD
DATE DESCRIPTION07/08/0825/08/0815/09/0810/17/08 SCOPING STUDY RELEASE
DRAFT SCOPING STUDY RELEASESCOPING STUDY RELEASESCOPING STUDY SECOND RELEASE
BY
BCF/KCA
BCFBCFBCF
REVI
SION
S
NO.DATE DESCRIPTION BY DES. LEAD APP..REVI
SION
S
NO.DWG. NO. DESCRIPTIONREFE
RENC
E
MELIS E GI EERI G LTD.
EFFLUENT TREATMENT
EFFLUENT TREATMENT FLOWSHEET
490-F-113
MAIN PROCESS FLOWPROCESS FLOWINTERMITTENT / ALTERNATE FLOW
KEY
REVERSE OSMOSIS REJECT490-F-114
PRIMARY EFFLUENT TREATMENT TANKS (2)
c/w AGITATORS
PRIMARY CLARIFIER
c/w MECHANISM
PRIMARY CLARIFIER UNDERFLOW PUMPS
PRIMARY CLARIFIER OVERFLOW TANK
PRIMARY CLARIFIER OVERFLOW PUMPS
SECONDARY EFFLUENT TREATMENT TANKS (2)
c/w AGITATORS
SECONDARY CLARIFIER
c/w MECHANISM
SECONDARY CLARIFIER UNDERFLOW PUMPS
SECONDARY CLARIFIER OVERFLOW
TANK
SECONDARY CLARIFIER OVERFLOW PUMPS
490-F-112TO TAILINGS THICKENER
71 78
70
6875
6976
72
73
490-F-119SULPHURIC ACID
67 74
64
490-F-121PROCESS AIR
122
116
490-F-122
EFFLUENT TREATMENT AREA SAFETY SHOWER
500-SE-003
FROM SAFETY SHOWER HEAD TANK
490-F-126
LIME LOOP RETURN
77
8180
85 86
8889
85
490-F-114
RECYCLE TO TAILINGS MANAGEMENT FACILITY
POND FILL SAMPLE STATION POND
DISCHARGE SAMPLE STATION
92
490-F-11479
490-F-12082
83
TO PROCESS WATER TANK
TO REVERSE OSMOSIS
87
66
103
PROCESS VENTILATION
(TYP.)
FROM TAILINGS THICKENER UNDERFLOW PUMPS
490-F-112
TAILINGS MANAGEMENT FACILITY
REVERSE OSMOSIS PLANT,c/w PRETREATMENT
SURFACE DRAINAGE
FROM TAILINGS THICKENER OVERFLOW PUMPS490-F-112
REJECT
PERMEATE490-F-120
TO FRESH WATER TANKRECLAIM BARGE
w PUMPS (2)
TITLE
AREA
DWG. No.
LOC.
DESIGN AUTH. APPROVAL:
DESIGN LEAD APPROVAL:
CHECKED:
DRAWN:
DESIGNED:
DATESCALE (A1):
BRUCE C. FIELDER, P.ENG. 07/08/08
MATOUSH URANIUM PROJECT
ABCD
DATE DESCRIPTION07/08/0825/08/0815/09/0810/17/08 SCOPING STUDY RELEASE
DRAFT SCOPING STUDY RELEASESCOPING STUDY RELEASESCOPING STUDY SECOND RELEASE
BY
BCF/KCA
BCFBCFBCF
REVI
SION
S
NO.DATE DESCRIPTION BY DES. LEAD APP..REVI
SION
S
NO.DWG. NO. DESCRIPTIONREFE
RENC
E
MELIS E GI EERI G LTD.
TAILINGS MANAGEMENT
REVERSE OSMOSIS FLOWSHEET
490-F-114
MAIN PROCESS FLOWPROCESS FLOWINTERMITTENT / ALTERNATE FLOW
KEY
TO EFFLUENT TREATMENT
490-F-113
TO EFFLUENT DISCHARGE TANK
490-F-113
59
61
58
60
64
62
66
63
FROM SECONDARY CLARIFIER OVERFLOW PUMPS490-F-113 83
65
FROM TAILINGS THICKENER UNDERFLOW PUMPS
490-F-112
SITE RUNOFF
MINE WATER
TO TAILINGS FEED LAUNDER
490-F-112MINE WATER POND c/w OIL/WATER
SEPARATOR MINE WATER PUMP
PROCESS VENTILATION
(TYP.)
TITLE
AREA
DWG. No.
LOC.
DESIGN AUTH. APPROVAL:
DESIGN LEAD APPROVAL:
CHECKED:
DRAWN:
DESIGNED:
DATESCALE (A1):
BRUCE C. FIELDER, P.ENG. 07/08/08
MATOUSH URANIUM PROJECT
ABCD
DATE DESCRIPTION07/08/0825/08/0815/09/0810/17/08 SCOPING STUDY RELEASE
DRAFT SCOPING STUDY RELEASESCOPING STUDY RELEASESCOPING STUDY SECOND RELEASE
BY
BCF/KCA
BCFBCFBCF
REVI
SION
S
NO.DATE DESCRIPTION BY DES. LEAD APP..REVI
SION
S
NO.DWG. NO. DESCRIPTIONREFE
RENC
E
MELIS E GI EERI G LTD.
TO IMPURITY PRECIPITATION
MAIN PROCESS FLOWPROCESS FLOWINTERMITTENT / ALTERNATE FLOW
KEY
HYDROGEN PEROXIDE
490-F-115
REAGENTS
FERRIC SULPHATE AND HYDROGEN PEROXIDE
FLOWSHEET
490-F-10690
70% H2O2 FROM TRUCK
490-F-120490-F-108
TO URANIUM PRECIPITATION TANK NO. 1
490-F-112
TO TAILINGS NEUTRALIZATION
HYDROGEN PEROXIDE AREA SUMP PUMP
HYDROGEN PEROXIDE DOSING TANK
HYDROGEN PEROXIDE
TRANSFER PUMPS
50% HYDROGEN PEROXIDE STORAGE TANK
FRESH WATER
VENDOR PACKAGE: HYDROGEN PEROXIDE
UNLOADING AND STORAGE490-F-108
TO URANIUM PRECIPITATION TANK NO. 2
HYDROGEN PEROXIDE METERING PUMPS
/242
CONCENTRATED FERRIC SULPHATE FROM TRUCK
490-F-120
PROCESS WATER
490-F-112
TO EFFLUENT TREATMENT
FERRIC SULPHATE
FERRIC SULPHATE TANK
FERRIC SULPHATE DISTRIBUTION PUMPS
FERRIC SULPHATE AREA SUMP PUMP
490-F-121STEAM
HOSE STATIONS
TO TAILINGS FEED LAUNDER
490-F-11392
9193
96
97
129
490-F-122 FERRIC SULPHATE AREA SAFETY SHOWER
FROM SAFETY SHOWER HEAD TANK
490-F-122
HYDROGEN PEROXIDE AREA SAFETY SHOWERFROM SAFETY SHOWER
HEAD TANK
94
95
TITLE
AREA
DWG. No.
LOC.
DESIGN AUTH. APPROVAL:
DESIGN LEAD APPROVAL:
CHECKED:
DRAWN:
DESIGNED:
DATESCALE (A1):
BRUCE C. FIELDER, P.ENG. 07/08/08
MATOUSH URANIUM PROJECT
ABCD
DATE DESCRIPTION07/08/0825/08/0815/09/0810/17/08 SCOPING STUDY RELEASE
DRAFT SCOPING STUDY RELEASESCOPING STUDY RELEASESCOPING STUDY SECOND RELEASE
BY
BCF/KCA
BCFBCFBCF
REVI
SION
S
NO.DATE DESCRIPTION BY DES. LEAD APP..REVI
SION
S
NO.DWG. NO. DESCRIPTIONREFE
RENC
E
MELIS E GI EERI G LTD.
MAIN PROCESS FLOWPROCESS FLOWINTERMITTENT / ALTERNATE FLOW
KEY
490-F-116
REAGENTS
OXYGEN PLANT AND CAUSTIC SODA FLOWSHEET
OXYGEN PLANT(2 X 20 TONNES/DAY)
PACKAGE PLANT OWNED AND OPERATED BY AIR LIQUIDE490-F-103
TO LEACHING
CAUSTIC DRUM
490-105TO CAUSTIC TANK
CAUSTIC SODA
OXYGEN PLANT
TITLE
AREA
DWG. No.
LOC.
DESIGN AUTH. APPROVAL:
DESIGN LEAD APPROVAL:
CHECKED:
DRAWN:
DESIGNED:
DATESCALE (A1):
BRUCE C. FIELDER, P.ENG. 07/08/08
MATOUSH URANIUM PROJECT
ABCD
DATE DESCRIPTION07/08/0825/08/0815/09/0810/17/08 SCOPING STUDY RELEASE
DRAFT SCOPING STUDY RELEASESCOPING STUDY RELEASESCOPING STUDY SECOND RELEASE
BY
BCF/KCA
BCFBCFBCF
REVI
SION
S
NO.DATE DESCRIPTION BY DES. LEAD APP..REVI
SION
S
NO.DWG. NO. DESCRIPTIONREFE
RENC
E
MELIS E GI EERI G LTD.
MAIN PROCESS FLOWPROCESS FLOWINTERMITTENT / ALTERNATE FLOW
KEY
490-F-117
REAGENTS
MAGNESIA AND GRINDING BALLS FLOWSHEET
MAGNESIA SILO
MAGNESIA MIX SCREW
MAGNESIA SILO BIN VENT
MAGNESIA SILO BIN ACTIVATOR
MAGNESIA MIX TANKc/w AGITATOR
MAGNESIA TRANSFER
PUMP
MAGNESIA DISTRIBUTION TANKc/w AGITATOR
MAGNESIA DISTRIBUTION PUMPS
490-F-108
490-F-120
FRESH WATER
MAGNESIA LOOP TO URANIUM PRECIPITATION
490-F-108
MAGNESIA LOOP FROM URANIUM PRECIPITATION
MAGNESIA AREA SUMP PUMP
130
VENDOR PACKAGE: MAGNESIA UNLOADING, STORAGE AND MIXING
GRINDING BALLS
100 mm GRINDING BALL
STORAGE
75 mm GRINDING BALL STORAGE
25 mm GRINDING BALL STORAGE
490-105
TO SAG AND BALL MILLS
490-126TO LIME MILL
MAGNESIA
101
100
HOSE STATIONS
490-F-120
PROCESS WATER
490-F-112
LIME
LIME STORAGE TANK AGITATOR
LIME LOOP FEED PUMPS
LIME AREA SUMP PUMPLIME SILO
LIME MIX SCREW
LIME SILO BAGHOUSE
LIME SILO BIN ACTIVATOR
LIME TOWER MILL
LIME MILL DISCHARGE PUMPBOX
LIME MILL DISCHARGE PUMPS
LIME BLOWER
490-F-106IMPURITY PRECIPITATION LIME LOOP RETURN
490-F-106
IMPURITY PRECIPITATION LIME LOOP FEED
TITLE
AREA
DWG. No.
LOC.
DESIGN AUTH. APPROVAL:
DESIGN LEAD APPROVAL:
CHECKED:
DRAWN:
DESIGNED:
DATESCALE (A1):
BRUCE C. FIELDER, P.ENG. 07/08/08
MATOUSH URANIUM PROJECT
ABCD
DATE DESCRIPTION07/08/0825/08/0815/09/0810/17/08 SCOPING STUDY RELEASE
DRAFT SCOPING STUDY RELEASESCOPING STUDY RELEASESCOPING STUDY SECOND RELEASE
BY
BCF/KCA
BCFBCFBCF
REVI
SION
S
NO.DATE DESCRIPTION BY DES. LEAD APP..REVI
SION
S
NO.DWG. NO. DESCRIPTIONREFE
RENC
E
MELIS E GI EERI G LTD.
490-F-118
REAGENTS
BARIUM CHLORIDE AND LIME FLOWSHEET
MAIN PROCESS FLOWPROCESS FLOWINTERMITTENT / ALTERNATE FLOW
KEYHOSE STATIONS
SOLID BARIUM CHLORIDE
490-F-120
FRESH WATER
490-F-113
TO EFFLUENT TREATMENT
BARIUM CHLORIDE
BARIUM CHLORIDE MIX TANK AGITATOR
BARIUM CHLORIDE TRANSFER PUMP
BARIUM CHLORIDE DISTRIBUTION TANK BARIUM CHLORIDE
DISTRIBUTION PUMPS
BARIUM CHLORIDE AREA SUMP PUMP
TO TAILINGS FEED LAUNDER
490-F-112
131
138
112
490-F-122
BARIUM CHLORIDE AREA SAFETY SHOWER
FROM SAFETY SHOWER HEAD TANK
490-F-122LIME AREA
SAFETY SHOWER
FROM SAFETY SHOWER HEAD TANK
490-F-113
TAILINGS NEUTRALIZATION AND EFFLUENT TREATMENT LIME LOOP RETURN
TAILINGS NEUTRALIZATION AND EFFLUENT TREATMENT LIME LOOP FEED
111
VENDOR PACKAGE: LIME UNLOADING, STORAGE AND
MIXING
490-F-117
GRINDING BALLS
104
107
106
107
102
103
TITLE
AREA
DWG. No.
LOC.
DESIGN AUTH. APPROVAL:
DESIGN LEAD APPROVAL:
CHECKED:
DRAWN:
DESIGNED:
DATESCALE (A1):
BRUCE C. FIELDER, P.ENG. 07/08/08
MATOUSH URANIUM PROJECT
ABCD
DATE DESCRIPTION07/08/0825/08/0815/09/0810/17/08 SCOPING STUDY RELEASE
DRAFT SCOPING STUDY RELEASESCOPING STUDY RELEASESCOPING STUDY SECOND RELEASE
BY
BCF/KCA
BCFBCFBCF
REVI
SION
S
NO.DATE DESCRIPTION BY DES. LEAD APP..REVI
SION
S
NO.DWG. NO. DESCRIPTIONREFE
RENC
E
MELIS E GI EERI G LTD.
490-F-103
SULPHURIC ACID TO LEACHING
SULPHURIC ACID
490-F-119
REAGENTS
FLOCCULANTS AND SULPHURIC ACID FLOWSHEET
490-F-105
SULPHURIC ACID TO FRESH ELATE TANK
MAIN PROCESS FLOWPROCESS FLOWINTERMITTENT / ALTERNATE FLOW
KEY
NEUTRAL/TAILINGS THICKENER FLOCCULANT
490-F-120
PROCESS WATER
490-F-113
TO EFFLUENT CLARIFIERS
FLOCCULANT
HOSE STATIONS
URANIUM THICKENER FLOCCULANT
EFFLUENT CLARIFIER FLOCCULANT
490-F-109TO URANIUM THICKENER
TAILINGS THICKENER FLOCCULANT MIX PACKAGE
(PUMPS NOT INCLUDED)
URANIUM THICKENER FLOCCULANT MIX PACKAGE
(PUMPS NOT INCLUDED) EFFLUENT CLARIFIER FLOCCULANT MIX PACKAGE
(PUMPS NOT INCLUDED)
NOTE: ONE OR MORE FLOCCULANT MIX
PACKAGES MAY BE COMBINED AFTER
FLOCCULANT SELECTION490-F-112
TO TAILINGS THICKENER
490-F-103TO NEUTRAL THICKENER
116
118
119
490-F-113
SULPHURIC ACID TO ET
122123
490-F-120FRESH WATER
132
13
SULPHURIC ACID DISTRIBUTION PUMPS
115
114
113
117
121
120SULPHURIC ACID STORAGE TANKS
(2)
TITLE
AREA
DWG. No.
LOC.
DESIGN AUTH. APPROVAL:
DESIGN LEAD APPROVAL:
CHECKED:
DRAWN:
DESIGNED:
DATESCALE (A1):
BRUCE C. FIELDER, P.ENG. 07/08/08
MATOUSH URANIUM PROJECT
ABCD
DATE DESCRIPTION07/08/0825/08/0815/09/0810/17/08 SCOPING STUDY RELEASE
DRAFT SCOPING STUDY RELEASESCOPING STUDY RELEASESCOPING STUDY SECOND RELEASE
BY
BCF/KCA
BCFBCFBCF
REVI
SION
S
NO.DATE DESCRIPTION BY DES. LEAD APP..REVI
SION
S
NO.DWG. NO. DESCRIPTIONREFE
RENC
E
MELIS E GI EERI G LTD.
490-F-114RO PERMEATE
490-F-120
UTILITIES
FRESH AND PROCESS WATER DISTRIBUTION FLOWSHEET
MAIN PROCESS FLOWPROCESS FLOWINTERMITTENT / ALTERNATE FLOW
KEY
FRESH WATER
FRESH WATER TANK
PROCESS WATER TANK
JOCKEY PUMP
DIESEL FIRE PUMP
ELECTRIC FIRE PUMPS
FRESH WATER DISTRIBUTION
PUMPS135
134
PROCESS WATER PUMPS
140
490-F-110TO URANIUM WASH TANK
490-F-111TO SCRUBBERS
490-F-115
TO MAGNESIA MIX TANK490-F-117
TO BARIUM CHLORIDE MIX TANK
490-F-102TO GRINDING
490-F-107
TO GYPSUM FILTER REPULP TANK
490-F-118TO LIME MILL
490-F-119
138
130
131
490-F-108COOLING WATER RETURN
490-F-108
TO URANIUM PRECIPITATION FEED HEAT EXCHANGERS
490-F-112TAILING THICKENER OVERFLOW
490-F-118
TO STEAM GENERATION
126
126
SEAL WATER TANK
SEAL WATER PUMPS
TO SEAL WATER DISTRIBUTION
133
TO FIRE LOOP
490-F-113
SECONDARY CLARIFIER OVERFLOW
FIRE LOOP RETURN
TO 50% HYDROGEN PEROXIDE STORAGE TANK
129
490-F-106TO IMPURITY PRECIPITATION
490-F-109TO URANIUM THICKENER UNDERFLOW PUMPS
490-F-104
TO RIP CIRCUIT490-F-112TO TAILINGS HOSE STATIONS
490-F-115TO FERRIC SULPHATE HOSE STATIONS
490-F-119TO FLOCCULANT MIXING
490-F-121
TO FLOCCULANT MIXING
132
139
490-F-105TO FRESH ELUATE TANK124
136
125
127
128
137
141MINE WATER
490-F-112TO CRUSHING HOSE STATIONS
TO SPRINKLER SYSTEM
65
142
FROM LAKE
PROCESS VENTILATION
(TYP.)
TITLE
AREA
DWG. No.
LOC.
DESIGN AUTH. APPROVAL:
DESIGN LEAD APPROVAL:
CHECKED:
DRAWN:
DESIGNED:
DATESCALE (A1):
BRUCE C. FIELDER, P.ENG. 07/08/08
MATOUSH URANIUM PROJECT
ABCD
DATE DESCRIPTION07/08/0825/08/0815/09/0810/17/08 SCOPING STUDY RELEASE
DRAFT SCOPING STUDY RELEASESCOPING STUDY RELEASESCOPING STUDY SECOND RELEASE
BY
BCF/KCA
BCFBCFBCF
REVI
SION
S
NO.DATE DESCRIPTION BY DES. LEAD APP..REVI
SION
S
NO.DWG. NO. DESCRIPTIONREFE
RENC
E
MELIS E GI EERI G LTD.
PROCESS AND INSTRUMENT AIR
STEAM BOILER
TO STEAM DISTRIBUTION
490-F-120FRESH WATER
STEAM BOILER
490-F-121
UTILITIES
AIR AND STEAM DISTRIBUTION FLOWSHEET
MAIN PROCESS FLOWPROCESS FLOWINTERMITTENT / ALTERNATE FLOW
KEY
490-F-103
TO LEACHING
490-F-106TO GYPSUM FILTER FEED TANK
490-F-112TO FERRIC SULPHATE UNLOADING
DIESEL OR FUEL OIL
TO HEAT RECOVERYOR ATMOSPHERE
145
STEAM BOILER PACKAGE
ALL
TO PROCESS AIR DISTRIBUTION
PROCESS AIR COMPRESSORS (2) PROCESS AIR
RECEIVER
ALL
TO INSTRUMENT AIR DISTRIBUTION
INSTRUMENT AIR RECEIVER
AIR DRYER/DE-OILER
490-F-105TO RESIN ELUTION
490-F-105CONDENSATE RETURN
CONDENSATE RETURN
ALL
TITLE
AREA
DWG. No.
LOC.
DESIGN AUTH. APPROVAL:
DESIGN LEAD APPROVAL:
CHECKED:
DRAWN:
DESIGNED:
DATESCALE (A1):
BRUCE C. FIELDER, P.ENG.
MATOUSH URANIUM PROJECT
ABCD
DATE DESCRIPTION07/08/0825/08/0815/09/0810/17/08 SCOPING STUDY RELEASE
DRAFT SCOPING STUDY RELEASESCOPING STUDY RELEASESCOPING STUDY SECOND RELEASE
BY
BCF/KCA
BCFBCFBCF
REVI
SION
S
NO.DATE DESCRIPTION BY DES. LEAD APP..REVI
SION
S
NO.DWG. NO. DESCRIPTIONREFE
RENC
E
MELIS E GI EERI G LTD.
490-F-122
UTILITIES
SAFETY SHOWER SYSTEM FLOWSHEET
MAIN PROCESS FLOWPROCESS FLOWINTERMITTENT / ALTERNATE FLOW
KEY
SAFETY SHOWER PUMPS
SAFETY SHOWER SURGE TANK
POTABLE WATER SYSTEM
FRESH WATERPOTABLE WATER DISTRIBUTION
SAFETY SHOWER HEAD TANK
WATER HEATER
SAFETY SHOWER LOOP RETURN
SAFETY SHOWER LOOP FEED
SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEM
POTABLE WATER DISTRIBUTION
GREY AND BLACK WATER
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
APPENDIX B
MATOUSH SIMPLIFIED PLANT LAYOUT
84m.
84m
.
\
GRINDING CIRCUIT
LEACHING CIRCUIT
TAILINGS NEUTRALIZATION
CIRCUIT
IMPURITY PRECIPITATION AND GYPSUM FILTRATION CIRCUIT
SULPHURIC ACID STORAGE TANKS
RIP CIRCUIT
CALCINING CIRCUIT
URANIUM DRUM STORAGE
REAGENT PREPARATION AND STORAGE
URANIUM PRECIPITATION
CIRCUITFRESH AND PROCESS
WATER
REVERSE OSMOSIS
EFFLUENT TREATMENT
COMPUTER ROOM, MCC ROOM MILL DRY, MILL MECHANICAL SHOP
AND LABORATORY
OXYGEN PLANT
CRUSHING CIRCUIT
TITLE
AREA
DWG. No.
LOC.
DESIGN AUTH. APPROVAL:
DESIGN LEAD APPROVAL:
CHECKED:
DRAWN:
DESIGNED:
DATESCALE (A1):
BRUCE C. FIELDER, P.ENG. 15/08/09
MATOUSH URANIUM PROJECT
AB
DATE DESCRIPTION15/09/0817/10/08
SCOPING STUDY RELEASESCOPING STUDY RELEASE
BYBCFBCF
REVI
SION
S
NO.DATE DESCRIPTION BY DES. LEAD APP..REVI
SION
S
NO.DWG. NO. DESCRIPTIONREFE
RENC
E
MELIS E GI EERI G LTD.
PROCESS PLANT
MATOUSH PLANT SIMPLIFIED LAYOUT
490-L-100
EDGE OF PAVED MILL TERRACE
IMPURITY PRECIPITATION
CIRCUIT
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
APPENDIX C
MATOUSH MASS BALANCE
Melis Engineering Ltd.Project No. 490October 29, 2008
STRATECO RESOURCES INC. - MATOUSH URANIUM PROJECTMASS BALANCE
Stream Stream Slurry Solids Solution Solvent Sulphuric Acid Total pHNo. % (w/w) SG t/h m3/h t/h % U3O8 kg U3O8/h SG t/h m3/h g U3O8/L kg U3O8/h m3/h g H2SO4/L kg H2SO4/h kg U3O8/h
Crushing1 Feed to Crusher 95.0 2.75 51.0 18.6 48.5 0.480 233 1.00 2.55 2.55 0.000 0.000 2.55 0.000 0.000 233 7.0
SAG Mill Grinding2 From Ore Concentrate Bin 95.0 2.75 25.5 9.3 24.2 0.480 116 1.00 1.28 1.28 0.000 0.000 1.28 0.000 0.000 116 7.07 Pebble Crusher Discharge 75.0 1.91 4.85 2.5 3.64 0.480 17.4 1.00 1.21 1.21 0.000 0.000 1.21 0.000 0.000 17.4 7.03 SAG Mill Feed Conveyor Discharge 91.8 2.41 30.4 11.8 27.9 0.480 134 1.00 2.49 2.49 0.000 0.000 2.49 0.000 0.000 134 7.0
15 Thickener Overflow to SAG Mill 0.020 1.00 12.5 13.3 0.003 0.480 0.012 1.00 12.5 12.5 0.000 0.000 12.5 0.000 0.000 0.012 7.04 SAG Mill Discharge 65.0 1.71 42.9 25.2 27.9 0.480 134 1.00 15.0 15.0 0.000 0.000 15.0 0.000 0.000 134 7.05 SAG Mill Discharge Screen Undersize 63.7 1.68 38.0 22.6 24.2 0.480 116 1.00 13.8 13.8 0.000 0.000 13.8 0.000 0.000 116 7.06 SAG Mill Discharge Screen Oversize 75.0 1.91 4.85 2.5 3.64 0.480 17.4 1.00 1.21 1.21 0.000 0.000 1.21 0.000 0.000 17.4 7.0
Pebble Crushing7 Pebble Crusher Discharge 75.0 1.91 4.85 2.5 3.64 0.480 17.4 1.00 1.21 1.21 0.000 0.000 1.21 0.000 0.000 17.4 7.0
Ball Mil Grinding5 SAG Mill Discharge Screen Undersize 63.7 1.68 38.0 22.6 24.2 0.480 116 1.00 13.8 13.8 0.000 0.000 13.8 0.000 0.000 116 7.0
12 Cyclone Underflow 57.4 1.58 169 107 97.0 0.480 465 1.00 72.0 72.0 0.000 0.000 72.0 0.000 0.000 465 7.08 Ball Mill Discharge 58.6 1.59 207 130 121 0.480 582 1.00 85.8 85.8 0.000 0.000 85.8 0.000 0.000 582 7.0
Ball Mill Discharge Pumpbox and Grinding Cyclones8 Ball Mill Discharge 58.6 1.59 207 130 121 0.480 582 1.00 85.8 85.8 0.000 0.000 85.8 0.000 0.000 582 7.0
16 Thickener Overflow to Ball Mill Discharge Pumpbox 0.020 1.00 13.2 13 0.003 0.480 0.013 1.00 13.2 13.2 0.000 0.000 13.2 0.000 0.000 0.013 7.051 Barren Solution Recycle to Ball Mill Discharge Pumpbox 0.002 1.00 15.9 16.0 0.002 79.000 0.25 1.00 15.9 15.9 0.007 0.103 15.8 0.002 0.082 0.36 4.49 Process Water to Ball Mil Discharge Box 1.00 6.3 6.3 1.00 6.3 6.3
10 Grinding Cyclone Feed 50.0 1.47 242 165 121 0.480 582 1.00 121 121 0.000 0.000 121 0.000 0.000 582 7.011 Grinding Cyclone Overflow 33.0 1.27 73.5 58 24.2 0.480 116 1.00 49.2 49.2 0.000 0.000 49.2 0.000 0.000 116 7.012 Grinding Cyclone Underflow 57.4 1.58 169 107 97.0 0.480 465 1.00 72.0 72.0 0.000 0.000 72.0 0.000 0.000 465 7.0
Neutral Thickener11 Grinding Cyclone Overflow 33.0 1.27 73.5 58 24.2 0.480 116 1.00 49.2 49.2 0.000 0.000 49.2 0.000 0.000 116 7.0113 Flocculant Addition to Neutral Thickener 1.00 0.73 0.73 0.000 0.000 0.73 0.000 0.000 0.000 5.013 Thickener Overflow 0.020 1.00 25.7 25.7 0.005 0.480 0.025 1.00 25.7 25.7 0.000 0.000 25.7 0.000 0.000 0.025 7.014 Thickener Underflow 50.0 1.47 48.5 33.1 24.2 0.480 116 1.00 24.2 24.2 0.000 0.000 24.2 0.000 0.000 116 7.015 Thickener Overflow to SAG Mill 0.020 1.00 12.5 12.5 0.003 0.480 0.012 1.00 12.5 12.5 0.000 0.000 12.5 0.000 0.000 0.012 7.016 Thickener Overflow to Ball Mill Discharge Pumpbox 0.020 1.00 13.2 13.2 0.003 0.480 0.013 1.00 13.2 13.2 0.000 0.000 13.2 0.000 0.000 0.013 7.0
Leaching14 Thickener Underflow 50.0 1.47 48.5 33.1 24.2 0.481 117 1.00 24.2 24.2 0.000 0.000 24.2 0.000 0.000 117 7.0120 93\% Sulphuric Acid Addition to Leaching 1.83 2.92 1.60 0.000 0.000 0.20 1,700 2,715 0.000 -145 Steam Addition to Leaching 0.00 0.75 204.4 0.0037 0.75 204 0.7517 Leach Discharge 44.2 1.49 52.2 33.8 23.0 0.010 2.31 1.10 29.1 26.6 4.30 114 25.2 30.0 798 117 0.2
Resin Process: Resin Loading17 Leach Discharge 44.2 1.49 52.2 33.8 23.0 0.010 2.31 1.10 29.1 26.6 4.30 114 25.2 30.0 798 117 0.240 Gypsum Solids to RIP 25.0 1.17 6.50 5.58 1.63 0.050 0.81 1.00 4.88 4.87 1.34 6.53 4.87 0.002 0.010 7.35 4.430 Average Resin Exiting Elution 80.0 1.15 3.42 2.96 2.74 0.167 4.56 1.00 0.68 0.68 0.68 4.5618 Feed to RIP 44.1 1.47 62.1 42 27.4 0.028 7.69 1.07 38.3 35.8 3.37 121 34.4 25.4 798 129 0.319 Average Wash Water to Safety Screen 1.00 1.00 3.65 3.65 3.6520 Residue to Tailings Neutralization 44.1 1.48 62.1 42 27.4 0.010 2.75 1.08 42.0 38.8 0.009 0.35 38.1 20.2 798 3.10 0.421 Transfer to Resin Screen 44.1 1.48 214 146 94.4 1.08 145 134 131 20.2 2,702 0.000 0.422 Average Wash Water to Resin Screen 1.00 1.00 3.65 3.65 3.6523 Average Resin To Elution 80.0 2.59 3.42 3.00 2.74 4.58 125 1.00 0.68 0.68 0.68 125 7.024 Instantaneous Resin To Elution 80.0 2.59 33.3 29.2 26.6 4.58 1,221 1.00 6.66 6.66 6.66 1,221 7.0
Resin Process: Resin Elution121 Average 93% Sulphuric Acid to Fresh Eluate Tank 1.83 1.84 1.01 0.000 0.000 0.128 1,700 171025 Instantaneous 93% Sulphuric Acid to Fresh Eluate Tank 1.83 4.84 2.65 0.000 0.000 0.34 1,700 4,500125 Average Fresh Water to Fresh Eluate Tank 1.00 6.98 6.98 6.9826 Instantaneous Fresh Water to Fresh Eluate Tank 1.00 28.1 28.1 28.127 Fresh Eluate Solution (Batch) 1.10 32.9 30.0 1.10 32.9 30.0 0.000 0.000 28.4 150 4,500 0.000 -0.5
Page 1 of 5
Melis Engineering Ltd.Project No. 490October 29, 2008
STRATECO RESOURCES INC. - MATOUSH URANIUM PROJECTMASS BALANCE
Stream Stream Slurry Solids Solution Solvent Sulphuric Acid Total pHNo. % (w/w) SG t/h m3/h t/h % U3O8 kg U3O8/h SG t/h m3/h g U3O8/L kg U3O8/h m3/h g H2SO4/L kg H2SO4/h kg U3O8/h
28 Lean Eluate Solution (Batch) 1.10 32.9 30.0 1.10 32.9 30.0 5.00 150 28.4 142.2 4,267 150 -0.529 Concentrated Eluate Solution 1.09 8.82 8.1 1.09 8.82 8.06 15.0 121 7.68 126.7 1,021 121 -0.430 Average Resin Exiting Elution 80.0 1.15 3.42 2.96 2.74 0.17 4.56 1.00 0.68 0.68 0.68 4.56 7.031 Instantaneous Resin Exiting Elution 80.0 2.59 33.7 29.2 27.0 0.17 44.9 1.00 6.74 6.74 6.74 44.9 7.0
Impurity Precipitation29 Concentrated Eluate Solution 1.09 8.82 8.06 1.09 8.82 8.06 15.1 121 7.68 126.7 1,021 121 -0.490 Ferric Sulphate Addition 0.003 0.002 1.53 0.003 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.002 29.7 0.050 0.000 1.532 Lime Addition to Tank No. 1 15.0 1.12 1.94 1.74 0.29 1.12 1.94 1.74 0.000 0.000 1.65 0.000 0.000 0.000 13.233 Lime Addition to Tank No. 2 15.0 1.12 0.97 0.87 0.146 1.12 0.97 0.87 0.000 0.000 0.83 0.000 0.000 0.000 13.234 Lime Addition to Tank No. 3 15.0 1.12 0.58 0.52 0.087 1.12 0.58 0.52 0.000 0.000 0.50 0.000 0.000 0.000 13.235 Lime Addition to Tank No. 4 15.0 1.12 0.39 0.35 0.058 1.12 0.39 0.35 0.000 0.000 0.33 0.000 0.000 0.000 13.236 Impurity Precipitation Discharge 12.79 1.08 12.7 11.8 1.63 0.010 0.163 1.00 11.09 11.05 11.0 121 10.97 0.030 0.33 121 3.2
Gypsum Filter Feed Tank36 Impurity Precipitation Discharge 12.79 1.08 12.7 11.8 1.63 0.010 0.134 1.00 11.09 11.05 11.0 121 10.97 0.030 0.33 121 3.242 Average Pregnant Solution Filter Backwash 2.08 1.02 0.67 0.67 0.014 0.010 0.001 1.00 0.66 0.67 8.5 5.67 0.67 0.025 0.017 5.67 3.337 Gypsum Belt Filter Feed 12.25 1.07 13.4 12.5 1.64 0.008 0.14 1.00 11.7 11.7 10.8 127 11.6 0.030 0.35 127 3.2
Gypsum Belt Filter37 Gypsum Belt Filter Feed 12.25 1.07 13.4 12.5 1.64 0.008 0.136 1.00 11.7 11.7 10.8 127 11.6 0.030 0.35 127 3.250 Barren Solution to Gypsum Belt Filter 0.002 1.00 4.88 4.87 0.000 79.0 0.077 1.00 4.88 4.87 0.007 0.032 4.87 0.002 0.010 0.109 4.438 Belt Filter Filtrate 0.10 1.00 14.2 14.2 0.014 0.010 0.001 1.00 14.2 14.2 8.5 120 14.1 0.025 0.35 120 3.339 Belt Filter Cake 40.0 1.29 4.06 3.14 1.63 0.050 0.81 1.00 2.44 2.44 2.68 6.53 2.43 0.004 0.010 7.35 4.1137 Process Water for Gypsum Cake Repulp 1.00 1.00 2.44 2.44 0.000 0.000 2.44 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.040 Gypsum Solids to RIP 25.0 1.17 6.50 5.58 1.63 0.050 0.81 1.00 4.88 4.87 1.34 6.53 4.87 0.002 0.010 7.35 4.4
Pregnant Solution Sand Filters38 Belt Filter Filtrate 0.10 1.00 14.2 14.2 0.014 0.010 0.001 1.00 14.2 14.2 8.5 120 14.1 0.025 0.35 120 3.341 Instantaneous Pregnant Solution Filter Backwash 0.002 1.00 10.7 10.7 0.000 0.010 0.000 1.00 10.7 10.7 8.5 91 10.6 0.025 0.27 91 3.342 Average Pregnant Solution Filter Backwash 2.08 1.02 0.67 0.67 0.014 0.010 0.001 1.00 0.66 0.67 8.5 5.7 0.67 0.025 0.02 5.67 3.343 Pregnant Solution Tank Discharge 0.002 1.00 13.5 13.5 0.000 0.010 0.000 1.00 13.5 13.5 8.5 114 13.4 0.025 0.33 114 3.3
Uranium Precipitation43 Pregnant Solution Tank Discharge 0.002 1.00 13.5 13.5 0.000 0.010 0.000 1.00 13.5 13.5 8.5 114 13.4 0.025 0.33 114 3.394 50% H2O2 Addition To Tank No. 1 1.20 1.20 0.045 0.037 0.000 0.000 0.022 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.898 Mg(OH)2 Addition To Tank No. 1 1.06 1.06 0.16 0.15 0.000 0.000 0.15 0.000 0.000 0.000 10.595 50% H2O2 Addition To Tank No. 2 1.20 1.20 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.899 Mg(OH)2 Addition To Tank No. 2 1.06 1.06 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 10.544 Uranium Precipitation Discharge 1.05 1.01 13.7 13.6 0.14 78.9 114 1.00 13.6 13.6 0.010 0.14 13.6 0.003 0.041 114 4.2
Uranium Thickener44 Uranium Precipitation Discharge 1.05 1.01 13.7 13.6 0.14 79.0 114 1.00 13.6 13.6 0.010 0.136 13.6 0.003 0.041 114 4.253 Uranium Centrifuge Centrate 0.10 1.00 0.46 0.46 0.000 79.0 0.36 1.00 0.46 0.46 0.003 0.001 0.46 0.001 0.000 0.36 4.756 Scrubber Water To Uranium Thickener 0.002 1.00 27.8 27.8 0.000 94.8 0.44 1.00 27.8 27.7 0.005 0.14 27.6 0.001 0.041 0.58 4.552 Average Transfer to Uranium Thickener 35.0 1.44 0.017 0.01 0.006 79.0 5.92 1.00 0.011 0.011 0.007 0.000 0.011 0.002 0.000 5.92 4.4115 Flocculant Addition to Uranium Thickener 1.00 1.00 0.044 0.044 0.000 0.000 0.044 0.000 0.000 0.000 5.045 Uranium Thickener Feed 0.36 1.00 42.0 41.9 0.15 79.0 121 1.00 41.9 41.8 0.007 0.27 41.7 0.002 0.082 121 4.446 Uranium Thickener Overflow 0.020 1.00 41.6 41.6 0.008 79.0 6.58 1.00 41.6 41.5 0.007 0.27 41.4 0.002 0.082 6.85 4.447 Uranium Thickener Underflow 35.0 1.44 0.41 0.25 0.14 79.0 114 1.00 0.27 0.27 0.007 0.002 0.27 0.002 0.001 114 4.4
Barren Solution48 Barren Solution Tank Discharge 0.002 1.00 41.6 41.6 0.008 79.0 0.66 1.00 41.6 41.5 0.007 0.27 41.4 0.002 0.082 0.93 4.449 Barren Solution to Scrubbers 0.002 1.00 20.8 20.8 0.000 79.0 0.33 1.00 20.8 20.8 0.007 0.14 20.8 0.002 0.041 0.46 4.450 Barren Solution to Gypsum Belt Filter 0.002 1.00 4.88 4.87 0.000 79.0 0.077 1.00 4.88 4.87 0.007 0.032 4.87 0.002 0.010 0.109 4.4
51 Barren Solution Recycle to Ball Mill Discharge Pumpbox 0.002 1.00 15.9 16.0 0.002 79.0 0.25 1.00 15.9 15.9 0.007 0.103 15.8 0.002 0.082 0.36 4.4
52 Average Transfer to Uranium Thickener 35.0 1.44 0.017 0.012 0.006 79.0 5.92 1.00 0.011 0.011 0.007 0.000 0.011 0.002 0.000 5.92 4.4
Uranium Wash Tank and Centrifuge
Page 2 of 5
Melis Engineering Ltd.Project No. 490October 29, 2008
STRATECO RESOURCES INC. - MATOUSH URANIUM PROJECTMASS BALANCE
Stream Stream Slurry Solids Solution Solvent Sulphuric Acid Total pHNo. % (w/w) SG t/h m3/h t/h % U3O8 kg U3O8/h SG t/h m3/h g U3O8/L kg U3O8/h m3/h g H2SO4/L kg H2SO4/h kg U3O8/h
47 Uranium Thickener Underflow 35.0 1.44 0.41 0.25 0.14 79.0 114 1.00 0.27 0.27 0.007 0.002 0.27 0.002 0.001 114 4.4127 Fresh Water to Uranium Wash Tank 1.00 0.33 0.33 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.000 0.000 0.33 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.053 Uranium Centrifuge Centrate 0.10 1.00 0.46 0.46 0.000 79.0 0.36 1.00 0.46 0.46 0.003 0.001 0.46 0.001 0.000 0.36 4.754 Uranium Centrifuge Discharge 50.0 1.78 0.29 0.16 0.14 79.0 114 1.00 0.14 0.14 0.003 0.000 0.14 0.001 0.000 114 4.7
Uranium Calciner and Scrubbers55 Uranium Calciner Discharge 100 0.11 0.11 100 114 11449 Barren Solution to Scrubbers 0.002 1.00 20.8 20.76 0.000 79.0 0.33 1.00 20.8 20.8 0.007 0.14 20.8 0.002 0.041 0.46 4.4128 Fresh Water to Scrubbers 1.00 6.84 6.84 1.00 6.84 6.84 0.000 0.000 6.84 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.056 Scrubber Water To Uranium Thickener 0.002 1.00 27.8 27.77 0.000 94.8 0.44 1.00 27.8 27.7 0.005 0.14 27.6 0.001 0.041 0.58 4.5
Tailings Neutralization20 Residue to Tailings Neutralization 44.1 1.48 62.1 42 27.4 0.010 2.75 1.08 42.0 38.8 0.009 0.35 38.1 20.2 798 3.10 0.4143 Mine Water to Tailings Neutralization 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.081 Combined ET Clarifier Underflows 18.0 1.12 0.31 0.3 0.056 0.011 0.006 1.00 0.26 0.26 0.000 0.000 0.26 0.013 0.003 0.006 3.6108 Lime to Tailings 15.0 1.12 2.48 2.22 0.97 1.12 2.48 2.22 0.000 0.000 2.11 0.000 0.000 0.000 13.291 Ferric Sulphate to Tailings 0.020 0.013 1.53 0.020 0.013 0.000 0.000 0.018 29.7 0.38 0.000 1.5102 Barium Chloride to Tailings 0.012 0.011 1.09 0.012 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.057 Tailings Thickener Feed 23.5 1.31 124 95 29.1 0.011 3.11 1.00 94.8 94.8 0.000 0.000 94.8 0.000 0.000 3.11 10.0
Tailings Thickener57 Tailings Thickener Feed 23.5 1.31 124 95 29.1 0.011 3.11 1.00 94.8 94.8 0.000 0.000 94.8 0.000 0.000 3.11 10.0114 Flocculant to Tailings Thickener 1.00 1.00 0.87 0.87 0.000 0.000 0.87 0.000 0.000 0.000 5.058 Tailings Thickener Overflow 0.050 1.00 71.9 71.9 0.036 0.011 0.004 1.00 71.9 71.9 0.000 0.000 71.9 0.000 0.000 0.004 10.059 Tailings Thickener Underflow 55.0 1.47 52.8 35.9 29.1 0.011 3.10 1.00 23.8 23.8 0.000 0.000 23.8 0.000 0.000 3.10 10.0
Tailings Management Facility59 Tailings Thickener Underflow 55.0 1.47 52.8 36 29.1 0.011 3.10 1.00 23.8 23.8 0.000 0.000 23.8 0.000 0.000 3.10 10.060 Surface Drainage to TMF 0.0 0.0 1.00 0.0 0.0 0.000 0.000 0.0 0.000 0.000 0.00 7.061 Supernatant to Reverse Osmosis 0.010 1.00 3.6 3.6 0.000 0.011 0.0000 1.00 3.6 3.6 0.000 0.000 3.6 0.000 0.000 0.00 10.062 Consolidated Tailings 59.0 1.53 49.2 32 29.1 0.011 3.10 1.00 20.2 20.2 0.000 0.000 20.2 0.000 0.000 3.10 10.0
Reverse Osmosis61 Supernatant to Reverse Osmosis 0.010 1.00 3.6 3.6 0.000 0.011 0.0000 1.00 3.6 3.6 0.000 0.000 3.6 0.000 0.000 0.000 10.058 Tailings Thickener Overflow 0.050 1.00 71.9 71.9 0.036 0.011 0.004 1.00 71.9 71.9 0.000 0.000 71.9 0.000 0.000 0.004 10.083 Secondary Clarifier Overflow To Reverse Osmosis 0.005 1.00 0.000 0.0 0.000 0.011 0.000 1.00 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.563 RO Permeate 64.1 64.1 1.00 64.1 64.1 0.000 0.000 64 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.064 RO Reject 0.32 1.00 11.4 11.3 0.036 0.011 0.004 1.00 11.3 11.3 0.000 0.000 11.3 0.000 0.000 0.004 10.065 RO Permeate To Fresh Water Tank 1.00 38.3 38.3 1.00 38.3 38.3 0.000 0.000 38.34 0.000 0.000 0.004 7.066 Excess RO Permeate Discharge 1.00 25.8 25.8 1.00 25.8 25.8 0.000 0.000 25.8 0.000 0.000 0.004 7.0
Effluent Treatment, Primary Treatment64 RO Reject 0.32 1.00 11.4 11.3 0.036 0.011 0.004 1.00 11.3 11.3 0.000 0.000 11.3 0.000 0.000 0.004 10.067 93% Sulphuric Acid Addition to Primary ET 0.001 0.000 1.83 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1,700 0.79 0.000 -68 Ferric Sulphate Addition to Primary ET 0.002 0.001 1.53 0.002 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.002 29.7 0.039 0.000 1.569 Barium Chloride Addition to Primary ET 0.004 0.003 1.09 0.004 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.070 Lime Addition to Primary ET 15.0 1.12 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.12 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 13.271 Flocculant to Primary ET 1.00 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.000 0.000 0.16 0.000 0.000 0.000 5.072 Primary Clarifier Overflow 0.005 1.00 11.2 11.2 0.001 0.011 0.000 1.00 11.2 11.2 0.000 0.000 11.2 0.014 0.16 0.000 3.573 Primary Clarifier Underflow 18.0 1.12 0.29 0.26 0.052 0.011 0.006 1.00 0.24 0.24 0.000 0.000 0.24 0.014 0.003 0.006 3.5
Effluent Treatment, Secondary Treatment72 Primary Clarifier Overflow 0.005 1.00 11.2 11.2 0.0006 0.011 0.000 1.00 11.2 11.2 0.0000 0.0000 11.2 0.014 0.157 0.000 3.586 Average Backwash Discharge 0.147 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0.000 0.000 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.574 93% Sulphuric Acid Addition to Secondary ET 0.000 0.000 1.83 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.0000 0.000 1,700 0.000 0.000 -75 Ferric Sulphate Addition to Secondary ET 0.002 0.000 1.53 0.002 0.000 0.0000 0.0000 0.002 29.7 0.000 0.000 1.576 Barium Chloride Addition to Secondary ET 0.004 0.003 1.09 0.004 0.003 0.0000 0.0000 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.077 Lime Addition to Secondary ET 15.0 1.12 0.12 0.11 0.005 1.12 0.12 0.11 0.0000 0.0000 0.10 0.000 0.000 0.000 13.278 Flocculant to Secondary ET 1.00 0.16 0.16 0.0000 0.0000 0.16 0.000 0.000 0.000 5.079 Secondary Clarifier Overflow 0.005 1.00 11.5 11.5 0.001 0.011 0.0001 1.00 11.5 11.5 0.0000 0.0000 11.5 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.580 Secondary Clarifier Underflow 18.0 1.12 0.021 0.019 0.004 0.011 0.000 1.00 0.017 0.017 0.0000 0.0000 0.017 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.5
Page 3 of 5
Melis Engineering Ltd.Project No. 490October 29, 2008
STRATECO RESOURCES INC. - MATOUSH URANIUM PROJECTMASS BALANCE
Stream Stream Slurry Solids Solution Solvent Sulphuric Acid Total pHNo. % (w/w) SG t/h m3/h t/h % U3O8 kg U3O8/h SG t/h m3/h g U3O8/L kg U3O8/h m3/h g H2SO4/L kg H2SO4/h kg U3O8/h
81 Combined ET Clarifier Underflows 18.0 1.12 0.31 0.28 0.056 0.011 0.006 1.00 0.26 0.26 0.0000 0.0000 0.26 0.013 0.003 0.006 3.682 Secondary Clarifier Overflow To Process Water Tank 0.005 1.00 11.5 11.5 0.001 0.011 0.000 1.00 11.5 11.5 0.0000 0.0000 11.5 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.583 Secondary Clarifier Overflow To Reverse Osmosis 0.005 1.00 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.000 1.00 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.584 Secondary Clarifier Overflow Discharge 0.005 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.011 0.000 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.5
Effluent Sand Filters84 Secondary Clarifier Overflow Discharge 0.005 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.011 0.000 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.585 Instantaneous Backwash Flow 1.00 0.0 0.0 0.000 0.000 0.0 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.586 Average Backwash Discharge 0.147 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.587 Average Sand Filter Discharge 0.001 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.5
Monitoring Ponds87 Average Sand Filter Discharge 0.001 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.566 Excess RO Permeate Discharge 0.000 1.00 25.8 25.8 1.00 25.8 25.8 0.000 0.000 25.8 0.000 0.000 0.004 7.088 Feed to Monitoring Ponds 0.000 1.00 25.8 25.8 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.00 25.8 25.8 0.000 0.000 25.8 0.000 0.000 0.004 7.589 Discharge From Monitoring Ponds 0.000 1.00 110 110 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.00 110 110 0.000 0.000 110 0.000 0.000 0.004 7.5
Ferric Sulphate90 Ferric Sulphate to Impurity Precipitation 1.53 0.003 0.002 0.002 1.591 Ferric Sulphate to Tailings 1.53 0.020 0.0129 0.018 1.592 Ferric Sulphate Addition to ET 1.53 0.004 0.001 0.004 1.593 Total Ferric Sulphate Addition 1.53 0.026 0.016 0.024 1.5
Hydrogen Peroxide94 50% H2O2 Addition To Tank No. 1 1.20 1.20 0.045 0.037 0.022 1.895 50% H2O2 Addition To Tank No. 2 1.20 1.20 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.896 Total 50% Hydrogen Peroxide Consumption 1.20 1.20 0.045 0.037 0.022 1.897 Equivalent 70% H2O2 1.29 1.29 0.032 0.025 0.010 0.5129 Fresh Water to H2O2 Dilution 1.00 0.013 0.013 0.013 7.0
Magnesium Hydroxide98 Mg(OH)2 Addition To Tank No. 1 1.06 1.06 0.16 0.15 0.15 10.599 Mg(OH)2 Addition To Tank No. 2 1.06 1.06 0.000 0.000 0.000 10.5100 Mg(OH)2 Loop Feed 1.06 1.06 15.9 15.0 0.15130 Fresh Water to MgO Mixing 1.00 1.00 0.15 0.15101 Equivalent Solid MgO 2.36 0.012
Barium Chloride102 Barium Chloride to Tailings 0.012 0.011 1.09 0.012 0.011 0.011 7.0103 Barium Chloride Addition to ET 0.004 0.003 1.09 0.004 0.003 0.003 7.0104 Total Barium Chloride Addition 0.016 0.015 1.09 0.016 0.015 0.014131 Fresh Water to Barium Chloride Mixing 1.00 1.00 0.015 0.015 0.015105 Equivalent Solid Barium Chloride Addition 0.002
Lime Consumption106 Impurity Precipitation Lime Loop Feed 15.0 1.12 11.2 10.0 1.68 1.12 11.2 10.0 9.49 13.2107 Tailings and Effluent Treatment Lime Loop Feed 15.0 1.12 11.2 10.0 1.68 1.12 11.2 10.0 9.49 13.2108 Lime to Tailings 15.0 1.12 2.48 2.22 0.97 1.12 2.48 2.22 2.11 13.2109 Lime Addition to Primary ET 15.0 1.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.12 0.000 0.000 0.00 13.2110 Lime Addition to Secondary ET 15.0 1.12 0.12 0.11 0.005 1.12 0.12 0.11 0.10111 Total Lime Consumption 15.0 1.12 6.49 5.81 1.56 1.12 6.49 5.81 5.52 13.2138 Process Water to Lime Slaking 1.00 1.00 6.97 6.97 6.97 13.2112 Solid Lime Addition 0.89 1.56 0.00
Flocculant113 Flocculant Addition to Neutral Thickener 1.00 1.00 0.73 0.73 0.73 5.0114 Flocculant to Tailings Thickener 1.00 1.60 1.00 0.87 0.87 0.87 5.0115 Flocculant Addition to Uranium Thickener 1.00 1.00 0.044 0.044 0.044 5.0116 Flocculant to ET 1.00 1.00 0.32 0.32 0.32 5.0117 Solid Flocculant to Neutral/Tailings Thickener Floc Mixer 1.20 0.0008
Page 4 of 5
Melis Engineering Ltd.Project No. 490October 29, 2008
STRATECO RESOURCES INC. - MATOUSH URANIUM PROJECTMASS BALANCE
Stream Stream Slurry Solids Solution Solvent Sulphuric Acid Total pHNo. % (w/w) SG t/h m3/h t/h % U3O8 kg U3O8/h SG t/h m3/h g U3O8/L kg U3O8/h m3/h g H2SO4/L kg H2SO4/h kg U3O8/h
118 Solid Flocculant to Uranium Thickener Floc Mixer 1.20 0.00002119 Solid Flocculant to Effluent Treatment Floc Mixer 1.20 0.00016139 Process Water to Flocculant Mixing 1.00 1.60 1.60 1.60132 Fresh Water to Flocculant Mixing 1.00 0.36 0.36 0.36
93% Sulphuric Acid120 93\% Sulphuric Acid Addition to Leaching 1.83 2.92 1.60 0.20 1,700 2,715 -121 Average 93% Sulphuric Acid to Fresh Eluate Tank 1.83 1.84 1.01 0.128 1,700 1,710 -122 93% Sulphuric Acid Addition to ET 1.83 0.001 0.000 0.000 1,700 0.79 -123 Total Acid Consumption 1.83 4.76 2.60 0.33 1,700 4,426 -
Fresh Water Tank124 Fresh Water to Fresh Water Tank 1.00 0.00 0.0065 RO Permeate To Fresh Water Tank 1.00 38.3 38.3 7.0125 Average Fresh Water to Fresh Eluate Tank 1.00 6.98 6.98126 Fresh Water to Precip Heat Exchangers 1.00 2.50 2.50 7.0127 Fresh Water to Uranium Wash Tank 1.00 0.33 0.33 7.0128 Fresh Water to Scrubbers 1.00 6.84 6.84 7.0129 Fresh Water to H2O2 Dilution 1.00 0.013 0.013 7.0130 Fresh Water to MgO Mixing 1.00 0.15 0.15 7.0131 Fresh Water to Barium Chloride Mixing 1.00 0.015 0.015 7.0132 Fresh Water to Flocculant Mixing 1.00 0.36 0.36 7.0133 Fresh Water to Seal Water Tank 1.00 8.00 8.00 7.0134 Fresh Water to Process Water Tank 1.00 13.14 13.14 7.0135 Total Fresh Water Flowrate 1.00 38.3 38.3 7.0
Process Water9 Process Water to Ball Mil Discharge Box 1.00 6.31 6.31
136 Average Process Water to RIP 1.00 7.31 7.31137 Process Water for Gypsum Cake Repulp 1.00 2.44 2.44 7.0138 Process Water to Lime Slaking 1.00 6.97 6.97 7.0139 Process Water to Flocculant Mixing 1.00 1.60 1.60 7.0140 Total Process Water Flowrate 1.00 24.6 24.6 7.0134 Fresh Water to Process Water Tank 1.00 13.14 13.14 7.0141 Mine Water to Process Water Tank 1.00 0.00 0.00 7.0142 Secondary Clarifier Overflow To Process Water Tank 0.005 1.00 11.5 11.5 0.001 0.011 0.000 1.00 11.5 11.5 0.000 0.000 11.5 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.5
Mine Water141 Mine Water to Process Water Tank 1.00 0.00 0.00143 Mine Water to Tailings Neutralization 1.00 50.0 50.0144 Total Mine Water 1.00 50.0 50.0
Steam Generation145 Estimated Max. Steam Requirement for Leaching 0.0037 0.75 204
Page 5 of 5
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
APPENDIX D ESTIMATED MATOUSH PROCESS PLANT AND BUILDINGS
CAPITAL COST DETAILS - CLASS IV ESTIMATE
Melis Engineering Ltd.Project No. 490October 29, 2008
STRATECO RESOURCES INC. MATOUSH URANIUM PROJECT SCOPING STUDY
ESTIMATED PROCESS PLANT AND BUILDINGS CAPITAL COST DETAILS - PRELIMINARY CLASS IV ESTIMATE
PAGE AREA LABOUR LABOUR MATERIAL/BUILDING TOTAL COST(HOURS) COST ($CDN) COST ($CDN) ($CDN)
DIRECT COSTS
1 Ore Storage and Crushing 20,630 2,063,000 2,532,850 4,595,850 2 SAG Mill Grinding 46,830 4,683,000 8,328,580 13,011,580 3 Ball Mill Grinding 45,250 4,525,000 3,347,790 7,872,790 4 Neutral Thickening and Leaching 28,330 2,833,000 4,177,090 7,010,090 5 Resin Loading Circuit 36,000 3,601,000 9,610,700 13,211,700 6 Resin Elution 15,690 1,569,000 2,554,120 4,123,120 7 Impurity Precipitation 13,050 1,305,000 1,285,970 2,590,970 8 Gypsum Filter 13,070 1,307,000 1,749,960 3,056,960 9 Uranium Precipitation 7,510 751,000 770,660 1,521,660
10 Uranium Thickener 6,420 642,000 566,840 1,208,840 11 Uranium Calcining 17,210 1,721,000 2,773,520 4,494,520 12 Uranium Packaging and Scrubbing 11,650 1,165,000 1,041,670 2,206,670 13 Tailings Neutralization 25,106 2,510,600 2,908,340 5,418,940 14 Reverse Osmosis 26,500 2,650,000 3,891,420 6,541,420 15 Effluent Treatment 34,940 3,494,000 3,714,100 7,208,100 16 Reagents: Ferric Sulphate and Hydrogen Peroxide 7,690 769,000 834,080 1,603,080 17 Reagents: Oxygen and Magnesia 4,390 439,000 612,380 1,051,380 18 Reagents: Barium Chloride 2,770 277,000 221,570 498,570 19 Reagents: Lime 15,170 1,517,000 2,956,370 4,473,370 20 Reagents: Flocculant Mixing and Sulphuric Acid 5,500 550,000 1,068,400 1,618,400 21 Fresh and Process Water 17,940 1,794,000 1,853,300 3,647,300 22 Low and High Pressure, And Instrument Air 5,190 519,000 645,660 1,164,660 23 Process Plant, Crusher and Oxygen Plant Buildings 88,110 8,810,900 39,203,310 48,014,210 24 Reagents, First Fills 1,232 123,200 2,618,940 2,742,140
SUB-TOTAL DIRECT COSTS 496,200 49,618,700 99,267,620 148,886,320
INDIRECT COSTS
CONTRACTOR OVERHEAD AND PROFIT 6,700,000 ENGINEERING, PROCUREMENT AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 18,610,000
TOTAL DIRECT AND INDIRECT COSTS 174,196,320
CONTINGENCY (25%) 43,550,000
CAPITAL SPARES, 2% OF PROCESS EQUIPMENT COST 1,150,000
TOTAL ESTIMATED CAPITAL COSTS 218,896,320
Say, 220,000,000
Melis Engineering Ltd.Project No. 490October 29, 2008
STRATECO RESOURCES INC. MATOUSH URANIUM PROJECT SCOPING STUDY
ESTIMATED PROCESS PLANT AND BUILDINGS CAPITAL COST DETAILS - PRELIMINARY CLASS IV ESTIMATEBY COST CENTRE
PAGE AREA INSTALLEDMECHANICAL PROCESS PIPING ELECTRICAL INSTRUMENTATION FREIGHT TOTAL COSTCOST ($CDN) COST ($CDN) COST ($CDN) COST ($CDN) COST ($CDN) ($CDN)
DIRECT COSTS
1 Ore Storage and Crushing 2,342,280 467,000 875,000 879,000 32,570 4,595,850 2 SAG Mill Grinding 6,321,300 1,899,000 2,367,000 2,375,000 49,280 13,011,580 3 Ball Mill Grinding 3,830,300 1,150,000 1,436,000 1,438,000 18,490 7,872,790 4 Neutral Thickening and Leaching 3,678,300 1,101,000 832,000 1,380,000 18,790 7,010,090 5 Resin Loading Circuit 8,501,500 1,280,000 1,705,000 1,700,000 25,200 13,211,700 6 Resin Elution 2,240,100 669,000 507,000 700,000 7,020 4,123,120 7 Impurity Precipitation 1,254,800 381,000 472,000 475,000 8,170 2,590,970 8 Gypsum Filter 1,483,200 448,000 560,000 558,000 7,760 3,056,960 9 Uranium Precipitation 767,500 232,000 234,000 284,000 4,160 1,521,660 10 Uranium Thickener 636,100 186,000 144,000 239,000 3,740 1,208,840 11 Uranium Calcining 2,270,300 851,000 510,000 856,000 7,220 4,494,520 12 Uranium Packaging and Scrubbing 1,157,900 349,000 257,000 437,000 5,770 2,206,670 13 Tailings Neutralization 2,915,660 732,000 655,000 1,097,000 19,280 5,418,940 14 Reverse Osmosis 4,185,000 631,000 837,000 879,000 9,420 6,541,420 15 Effluent Treatment 3,505,000 1,316,000 1,053,000 1,317,000 17,100 7,208,100 16 Reagents: Ferric Sulphate and Hydrogen Peroxide 844,590 251,000 186,000 318,000 3,490 1,603,080 17 Reagents: Oxygen and Magnesia 762,100 80,000 74,000 117,000 18,280 1,051,380 18 Reagents: Barium Chloride 288,900 35,000 69,000 104,000 1,670 498,570 19 Reagents: Lime 2,348,900 702,000 528,000 880,000 14,470 4,473,370 20 Reagents: Flocculant Mixing and Sulphuric Acid 1,328,400 67,000 70,000 136,000 17,000 1,618,400 21 Fresh and Process Water 1,545,100 1,164,000 346,000 580,000 12,200 3,647,300 22 Low and High Pressure, And Instrument Air 496,600 369,000 110,000 183,000 6,060 1,164,660 23 Process Plant, Crusher and Oxygen Plant Buildings 45,679,350 - - - 2,334,860 48,014,210 24 Reagents, First Fills 2,422,140 - - - 320,000 2,742,140
SUB-TOTAL 100,805,320 14,360,000 13,827,000 16,932,000 2,962,000 148,886,320
INDIRECT COSTS
CONTRACTOR OVERHEAD AND PROFIT 6,700,000 ENGINEERING, PROCUREMENT AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 18,610,000
TOTAL DIRECT AND INDIRECT COSTS 174,196,320
CONTINGENCY (25%) 43,550,000
CAPITAL SPARES, 2% OF PROCESS EQUIPMENT COST 1,150,000
TOTAL ESTIMATED CAPITAL COSTS 218,896,320
Say, 220,000,000
Melis Engineering Ltd.Project No. 490October 29, 2008
STRATECO RESOURCES INC. STRATECO RESOURCES INC. MATOUSH URANIUM PROJECT SCOPING STUDY MATOUSH URANIUM PROJECT SCOPING STUDY
SUMMARY OF FREIGHT ESTIMATE: WEIGHT AND LOADS SUMMARY OF DIRECT ELECTRICAL POWER ESTIMATE
INSTALLED PEAK AVERAGEWEIGHT LOADS POWER LOAD OPERATING
AREA TONNES EA. PAGE AREA kW kW kW
1 Ore Storage and Crushing 285 8.1 1 Ore Storage and Crushing 127 76 762 SAG Mill Grinding 431 12.3 2 SAG Mill Grinding 566 339 3343 Ball Mill Grinding 162 4.6 3 Ball Mill Grinding 496 298 2614 Neutral Thickening and Leaching 164 4.7 4 Neutral Thickening and Leaching 342 205 1825 Resin Loading Circuit 220 6.3 5 Resin Loading Circuit 28 17 136 Resin Elution 61 1.8 6 Resin Elution 26 16 197 Impurity Precipitation 71 2.0 7 Impurity Precipitation 21 13 98 Gypsum Filter 68 1.9 8 Gypsum Filter 126 76 729 Uranium Precipitation 36 1.0 9 Uranium Precipitation 11 7 410 Uranium Thickener 33 0.9 10 Uranium Thickener 13 8 411 Uranium Calcining 63 1.8 11 Uranium Calcining 11 6 512 Uranium Packaging and Scrubbing 51 1.4 12 Uranium Packaging and Scrubbing 11 7 413 Tailings Neutralization 169 4.8 13 Tailings Neutralization 92 55 3514 Reverse Osmosis 82 2.4 14 Reverse Osmosis 197 118 11615 Effluent Treatment 150 4.3 15 Effluent Treatment 43 26 2816 Reagents: Ferric Sulphate and Hydrogen Peroxide 31 0.9 16 Reagents: Ferric Sulphate and Hydrogen Peroxide 9 5 517 Reagents: Oxygen and Magnesia 160 4.6 17 Reagents: Oxygen and Magnesia 904 542 54118 Reagents: Barium Chloride 15 0.4 18 Reagents: Barium Chloride 12 7 519 Reagents: Lime 127 3.6 19 Reagents: Lime 85 51 2520 Reagents: Flocculant Mixing and Sulphuric Acid 149 4.3 20 Reagents: Flocculant Mixing and Sulphuric Acid 11 7 321 Fresh and Process Water 107 3.0 21 Fresh and Process Water 493 296 2922 Low and High Pressure, And Instrument Air 53 1.5 22 Low and High Pressure, And Instrument Air 104 62 3223 Process Plant, Crusher and Oxygen Plant Buildings 20,430 584 23 Process Plant, Crusher and Oxygen Plant Buildings 250 250 25024 Reagents, First Fills 2,792 80 24 Reagents, First Fills - - -
Total 25,910 750 TOTAL DIRECT POWER 3,978 2,487 2,053
kWh/t 84.8kWh/lb U3O8 8.2
Melis Engineering Ltd. Page 1Project No. 490 STRATECO RESOURCES INC. October 29, 2008 MATOUSH URANIUM PROJECT SCOPING STUDY
ESTIMATED PROCESS PLANT AND BUILDINGS CAPITAL COST DETAILS - PRELIMINARY CLASS IV ESTIMATE
AREA: ORE STORAGE AND CRUSHING
REFERENCE: FLOWSHEET NO. 490-F-101LABOUR EQUIPMENT/MATERIAL FIELD MATERIALS
SIZE POWER MATERIAL WEIGHT HOURS RATE TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL TOTAL ITEM DESCRIPTION /CAPACITY kW TONNE UNIT QTY PER UNIT ($CDN/HR) $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN
1 Coarse Ore Bin 20 t - Concrete 84 m3 32 20 100 64,000 1,300 41,600 70 2,240 107,840
2 Crusher Apron Feeder 914 x 4,877 5.6 MS 4.8 ea 1 680 100 68,000 110,000 110,000 5,500 5,500 183,500
3 Jaw Crusher, FOB Montreal 508 x 914 75.0 MS 12.7 ea 1 680 100 68,000 210,000 210,000 10,500 10,500 288,500
4 Crusher Discharge Conveyor 762 x 30,000 25.0 MS 35 ea 1 410 100 41,000 490,000 490,000 24,500 24,500 555,500
5 Fine Ore Bin 620 t - Concrete 363 m3 142 20 100 284,000 1,300 184,600 70 9,940 478,540
6 Fine Ore Bin Apron Feeders 914 x 4,877 5.6 MS 4.8 ea 2 680 100 136,000 110,000 220,000 5,500 11,000 367,000
7 Crusher Dust Scrubber 6,000 m3/h 20.0 MS 4.0 ea 1 1,350 100 135,000 90,000 90,000 4,500 4,500 229,500
8 Crusher Area Overhead Crane 10T 10.0 MS 25.0 ea 1 410 100 41,000 50,000 50,000 2,500 2,500 93,500
9 Crusher Area Sump Pump 85 x 65 ( 25 m3/h) 5.6 TPN 0.4 ea 1 220 100 22,000 10,300 10,300 600 600 32,900
10 Crusher Area Safety Shower 114 L/min - MS 0.0 ea 1 40 100 4,000 1,400 1,400 100 100 5,500
SUB-TOTAL INSTALLED MECHANICAL 152 240 - - 8,630 100 863,000 - 1,407,900 - 71,380 2,342,280
PROCESS PIPING 19 lot 1 2,800 100 280,000 187,000 187,000 - INCL 467,000
ELECTRICAL 20 lot 1 4,800 100 480,000 395,000 395,000 - INCL 875,000
INSTRUMENTATION 6 lot 1 4,400 100 440,000 439,000 439,000 - INCL 879,000
FREIGHT TO SITE 285 Loads 8.1 - 0 NIL 4,000 32,570 - NIL 32,570
TOTAL DIRECT COSTS 285 20,630 2,063,000 2,461,470 71,380 4,595,850
Melis Engineering Ltd. Page 2Project No. 490 STRATECO RESOURCES INC. October 29, 2008 MATOUSH URANIUM PROJECT SCOPING STUDY
ESTIMATED PROCESS PLANT AND BUILDINGS CAPITAL COST DETAILS - PRELIMINARY CLASS IV ESTIMATE
AREA: SAG MILL GRINDING
REFERENCE: FLOWSHEET NO. 490-F-102LABOUR EQUIPMENT/MATERIAL FIELD MATERIALS
SIZE POWER MATERIAL WEIGHT HOURS RATE TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL TOTAL ITEM DESCRIPTION /CAPACITY kW TONNE UNIT QTY PER UNIT ($CDN/HR) $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN
1 Grinding Feed Conveyor 762 x 15,000 15.0 MS 30 ea 1 270 100 27,000 140,000 140,000 7,000 7,000 174,000
2 Weightometer - 0.2 MS 0.3 ea 1 410 100 41,000 250,000 250,000 12,500 12,500 303,500
3 SAG Mill, c/w Liners, inching drive 3,962 ø x 2,286 373.0 MS 195.1 ea 1 8,100 100 810,000 4,020,000 4,020,000 201,000 201,000 5,031,000
4 Pebble Screen 1,219 x 3,048 5.6 MS 2.0 ea 1 270 100 27,000 24,000 24,000 1,200 1,200 52,200
5 Pebble Conveyor 762 x 30,000 5.6 MS 20.0 ea 1 300 100 30,000 170,000 170,000 8,500 8,500 208,500
6 Pebble Conveyor Belt Magnet 762 6.6 MS 2.7 ea 1 50 100 5,000 37,000 37,000 1,900 1,900 43,900
7 Pebble Cone Crusher 965 ø 150.0 MS 11.3 ea 1 680 100 68,000 325,000 325,000 16,200 16,200 409,200
8 Grinding Area Overhead Crane 10 T 10.0 MS 25.0 ea 1 410 100 41,000 50,000 50,000 2,500 2,500 93,500
9 Grinding Area Safety Shower 114 L/min - MS 0.0 ea 1 40 100 4,000 1,400 1,400 100 100 5,500
SUB-TOTAL INSTALLED MECHANICAL 566.0 286 - - 10,530 100 1,053,000 - 5,017,400 - 250,900 6,321,300
PROCESS PIPING 76 lot 1 11,400 100 1,140,000 759,000 759,000 - INCL 1,899,000
ELECTRICAL 53 lot 1 13,000 100 1,300,000 1,067,000 1,067,000 - INCL 2,367,000
INSTRUMENTATION 16 lot 1 11,900 100 1,190,000 1,185,000 1,185,000 - INCL 2,375,000
FREIGHT TO SITE 431 Loads 12.3 - 0 NIL 4,000 49,280 - NIL 49,280
TOTAL DIRECT COSTS 431 46,830 4,683,000 8,077,680 250,900 13,011,580
Melis Engineering Ltd. Page 3Project No. 490 STRATECO RESOURCES INC. October 29, 2008 MATOUSH URANIUM PROJECT SCOPING STUDY
ESTIMATED PROCESS PLANT AND BUILDINGS CAPITAL COST DETAILS - PRELIMINARY CLASS IV ESTIMATE
AREA: BALL MILL GRINDING
REFERENCE: FLOWSHEET NO. 490-F-102LABOUR EQUIPMENT/MATERIAL FIELD MATERIALS
SIZE POWER MATERIAL MASS HOURS RATE TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL TOTAL ITEM DESCRIPTION /CAPACITY kW TONNE UNIT QTY PER UNIT ($CDN/HR) $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN
1Ball Mill, c/w Liners and Inching Drive (Used)
2,743 ø x 4,879 373 MS 53.4 ea 1 6,750 100 2,196,000 1,100,000 1,100,000 55,000 55,000 3,351,000
2 Cyclone Feed Pump Box 2,700 x 2.700 x 3,500 H (23 m3) - MS/RL 10.2 ea. 1 220 100 22,000 102,000 102,000 5,100 5,100 129,100
3 Cyclone Feed Pump 156 x 104 56.0 CD4M 1.4 ea 2 220 100 44,000 70,500 141,000 3,600 7,200 192,200
4 Cyclones 660 ø - SRL 2.0 ea 2 50 100 10,000 25,000 50,000 1,300 2,600 62,600
5 Scalping Screen 1,219 x 3.048 5.6 MS 2.0 ea 1 270 100 27,000 24,000 24,000 1,200 1,200 52,200
6 Ball Bucket 0.5 m3 MS 1.0 ea 1 40 100 4,000 6,000 6,000 300 300 10,300
7 Grinding Area Sump Pump 85 x 65 ( 25 m3/h) 5.6 TPN 0.4 ea 1 220 100 22,000 10,300 10,300 600 600 32,900
SUB-TOTAL INSTALLED MECHANICAL 496.195 73.8 - - 23,250 100 2,325,000 - 1,433,300 - 72,000 3,830,300
PROCESS PIPING - 46.0 lot 1 6,900 100 690,000 460,000 460,000 - INCL 1,150,000
ELECTRICAL - 32.0 lot 1 7,900 100 790,000 646,000 646,000 - INCL 1,436,000
INSTRUMENTATION - 10.0 lot 1 7,200 100 720,000 718,000 718,000 - INCL 1,438,000
FREIGHT TO SITE - 162 Loads 4.6 - 0 NIL 4,000 18,490 - NIL 18,490
TOTAL DIRECT COSTS 161.8 45,250 4,525,000 3,275,790 72,000 7,872,790
Melis Engineering Ltd. Page 4Project No. 490 STRATECO RESOURCES INC. October 29, 2008 MATOUSH URANIUM PROJECT SCOPING STUDY
ESTIMATED PROCESS PLANT AND BUILDINGS CAPITAL COST DETAILS - PRELIMINARY CLASS IV ESTIMATE
AREA: NEUTRAL THICKENING AND LEACHING
REFERENCE: FLOWSHEET NO. 490-F-103LABOUR EQUIPMENT/MATERIAL FIELD MATERIALS
SIZE POWER MATERIAL WEIGHT HOURS RATE TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL TOTAL ITEM DESCRIPTION /CAPACITY kW TONNE UNIT QTY PER UNIT ($CDN/HR) $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN
1 Neutral Thickener Tank 8,000 ø - LMS 9.3 ea 1 540 100 54,000 103,000 103,000 5,200 5,200 162,200
2 Neutral Thickener Mechanism 8,000 ø 2.2 LMS 4.8 ea 1 680 100 68,000 123,000 123,000 6,200 6,200 197,200
3 Neutral Thickener U/F Pumps 104 x 76 (73 m3/h) 11.2 CI 0.3 ea 2 220 100 44,000 26,000 52,000 1,300 2,600 98,600
4 Neutral Thickener O/F Tank 1,400 ø x 6,000 (7 m3) - LMS 2.9 ea 1 270 100 27,000 39,000 39,000 2,000 2,000 68,000
5 Neutral Thickener O/F Pumps 104 x 76 (73 m3/h) 6.6 CI 0.3 ea 2 220 100 44,000 24,000 48,000 1,200 2,400 94,400
6 Leach Tanks 8,000 ø x 9,600 (80 m3) - LMS 10.5 ea 6 810 100 486,000 265,000 1,590,000 13,300 79,800 2,155,800
7 Leach Tank Agitators 77Q60 44.8 LMS 1.0 ea 6 340 100 204,000 78,000 468,000 3,900 23,400 695,400
8 Leach Discharge Pumpbox 1,6100 x1,600 x 2,400 (5 m3) - LMS 4.0 ea 1 220 100 22,000 40,000 40,000 2,000 2,000 64,000
9 Leach Discharge Pump 85 x 65 ( 34 m3/h) 14.9 LMS 0.3 ea 2 220 100 44,000 26,000 52,000 1,300 2,600 98,600
10 Leach Area Sump Pump 85 x 65 ( 25 m3/h) 5.6 TPN 0.4 ea 1 220 100 22,000 10,500 10,500 600 600 33,100
11 Leach Area Safety Shower 114 L/min MS 0.0 ea 2 40 100 8,000 1,400 2,800 100 200 11,000
SUB-TOTAL INSTALLED MECHANICAL - 341.8 92 - - 10,230 100 1,023,000 - 2,528,300 - 127,000 3,678,300
PROCESS PIPING - 44 lot 1 6,600 100 660,000 441,000 441,000 - INCL 1,101,000
ELECTRICAL - 19 lot 1 4,600 100 460,000 372,000 372,000 - INCL 832,000
INSTRUMENTATION - 9 lot 1 6,900 100 690,000 690,000 690,000 - INCL 1,380,000
FREIGHT TO SITE - 164 Loads 4.7 - NIL NIL 4,000 18,790 - NIL 18,790
TOTAL DIRECT COSTS 164 28,330 2,833,000 4,050,090 127,000 7,010,090
Melis Engineering Ltd. Page 5Project No. 490 STRATECO RESOURCES INC. October 29, 2008 MATOUSH URANIUM PROJECT SCOPING STUDY
ESTIMATED PROCESS PLANT AND BUILDINGS CAPITAL COST DETAILS - PRELIMINARY CLASS IV ESTIMATE
AREA: RESIN LOADING CIRCUIT
REFERENCE: FLOWSHEET NO. 490-F-104LABOUR EQUIPMENT/MATERIAL FIELD MATERIALS
SIZE POWER MATERIAL WEIGHT HOURS RATE TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL TOTAL ITEM DESCRIPTION /CAPACITY kW TONNE UNIT QTY PER UNIT ($CDN/HR) $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN
1 Carousel Package 40 m3/h 22 SS/RL 120 ea 1 9,450 100 945,000 7,000,000 7,000,000 350,000 350,000 8,295,000
2 Residue Pumpbox 1,6100 x1,600 x 2,400 (5 m3) - LMS 2.0 ea 1 220 100 22,000 40,000 40,000 2,000 2,000 64,000
3 Residue Pumps 85 x 65 ( 34 m3/h) 14.9 LMS 0.3 ea 2 220 100 44,000 26,000 52,000 1,300 2,600 98,600
4 RIP Area Sump Pump 85 x 65 ( 25 m3/h) 5.6 TPN 0.4 ea 1 220 100 22,000 10,300 10,300 600 600 32,900
5 RIP Area Safety Shower 114 L/min MS 0.0 ea 2 40 100 8,000 1,400 2,800 100 200 11,000
SUB-TOTAL INSTALLED MECHANICAL - 27.6 120 - - 10,400 100 1,041,000 - 7,105,100 - 355,400 8,501,500
PROCESS PIPING - 51 lot 1 7,700 100 770,000 510,000 510,000 - INCL 1,280,000
ELECTRICAL - 38 lot 1 9,400 100 940,000 765,000 765,000 - INCL 1,705,000
INSTRUMENTATION - 11 lot 1 8,500 100 850,000 850,000 850,000 - INCL 1,700,000
FREIGHT TO SITE - 220 Loads 6.3 - 0 NIL 4,000 25,200 - NIL 25,200
TOTAL DIRECT COSTS 220 36,000 3,601,000 9,255,300 355,400 13,211,700
Melis Engineering Ltd. Page 6Project No. 490 STRATECO RESOURCES INC. October 29, 2008 MATOUSH URANIUM PROJECT SCOPING STUDY
ESTIMATED PROCESS PLANT AND BUILDINGS CAPITAL COST DETAILS - PRELIMINARY CLASS IV ESTIMATE
AREA: RESIN ELUTION
REFERENCE: FLOWSHEET NO. 490-F-105LABOUR EQUIPMENT/MATERIAL FIELD MATERIALS
SIZE POWER MATERIAL WEIGHT HOURS RATE TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL TOTAL ITEM DESCRIPTION /CAPACITY kW TONNE UNIT QTY PER UNIT ($CDN/HR) $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN
1 Elution Columns Skid Mounted 3 columns, 3,050 ø x 4,120 (27 m3) 1.0 LMS 1.0 ea 1 1,490 100 149,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 65,000 65,000 1,514,000
2 Fresh Eluate Tank 3,580 x 6,200 (62 m3) - Plastic 1.6 ea 1 340 100 34,000 11,000 11,000 600 600 45,600
3 Fresh Eluate Tank Agitator 17Q10 7.5 SS 0.5 ea 1 270 100 27,000 12,300 12,300 700 700 40,000
4 Fresh Eluate Pumps 76 x 38, 16 m3/h 1.1 SS 0.1 ea 2 220 100 44,000 12,300 24,600 700 1,400 70,000
5 Fresh Eluate Heat Exchanger 16 m3/h - SS 1.0 ea 1 270 100 27,000 20,000 20,000 1,000 1,000 48,000
6 Lean EluateTank 3,580 x 6,200 (62 m3) - Plastic 1.6 ea 1 340 100 34,000 11,000 11,000 600 600 45,600
7 Lean Eluate Pumps 76 x 38, 16 m3/h 1.1 SS 0.1 ea 2 220 100 44,000 12,300 24,600 700 1,400 70,000
8 Lean Eluate Heat Exchanger 16 m3/h - SS 4.1 ea 1 270 100 27,000 20,000 20,000 1,000 1,000 48,000
9 Concentrated EluateTank 3,580 x 6,200 (62 m3) - Plastic 1.6 ea 1 340 100 34,000 11,000 11,000 600 600 45,600
10 Concentrated Eluate Pumps 76 x 38, 16 m3/h 1.1 SS 0.1 ea 2 220 100 44,000 12,300 24,600 700 1,400 70,000
11 Eluted Resing Holding Tank 2,438 ø x 5,791 (24.7 m3) - Plastic 1.6 ea 1 410 100 41,000 40,000 40,000 2,000 2,000 83,000
12 Eluted Resin Transfer Tank 2.4 m3/h - LMS 1.0 ea 1 220 100 22,000 6,000 6,000 300 300 28,300
13 Caustic Tank 3,580 x 6,200 (62 m3) - Plastic 1.6 ea 1 340 100 34,000 11,000 11,000 600 600 45,600
14 Caustic Tank Agitator 17Q10 7.5 SS 0.5 ea 1 - 100 - 12,300 12,300 700 700 13,000
15 Caustic Pump 76 x 38, 16 m3/h 1.1 SS 0.1 ea 1 220 100 22,000 12,300 12,300 700 700 35,000
16 Elution Area Sump Pump 65 x 40 ( 12 m3/h) 2.2 TPN 0.4 ea 1 220 100 22,000 10,300 10,300 600 600 32,900
17 Elution Area Safety Shower 114 L/min - MS 0.0 ea 1 40 100 4,000 1,400 1,400 100 100 5,500
SUB-TOTAL INSTALLED MECHANIC - 25.9 17.4 - - 6,090 100 609,000 - 1,552,400 - 78,700 2,240,100
PROCESS PIPING - 27 lot 1 4,000 100 400,000 269,000 269,000 - INCL 669,000
ELECTRICAL - 11 lot 1 2,800 100 280,000 227,000 227,000 - INCL 507,000
INSTRUMENTATION - 6 lot 1 2,800 100 280,000 420,000 420,000 - INCL 700,000
FREIGHT TO SITE - 61 Loads 1.8 2,800 0 NIL 4,000 7,020 - NIL 7,020
TOTAL DIRECT COSTS 61 15,690 1,569,000 2,475,420 78,700 4,123,120
Melis Engineering Ltd. Page 7Project No. 490 STRATECO RESOURCES INC. October 29, 2008 MATOUSH URANIUM PROJECT SCOPING STUDY
ESTIMATED PROCESS PLANT AND BUILDINGS CAPITAL COST DETAILS - PRELIMINARY CLASS IV ESTIMATE
AREA: IMPURITY PRECIPITATION
REFERENCE: FLOWSHEET NO. 490-F-106LABOUR EQUIPMENT/MATERIAL FIELD MATERIALS
SIZE POWER MATERIAL WEIGHT HOURS RATE TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL TOTAL ITEM DESCRIPTION /CAPACITY kW TONNE UNIT QTY PER UNIT ($CDN/HR) $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN
1 Impurity Precipitation Tank 3,500 ø x 4,200 (16.6m3) - LMS 3.6 ea 6 340 100 204,000 55,100 330,600 2,800 16,800 551,400
2 Impurity Precipitation Tank Agitator 14Q2 1.5 SS 0.1 ea 6 270 100 162,000 9,000 54,000 500 3,000 219,000
3 Impurity Precipitation Discharge Pumpbox 1,000 ø x 2,000 (1.1 m3) - LMS 2.1 ea 1 340 100 34,000 22,200 22,200 1,200 1,200 57,400
4 Impurity Precipitation Discharge Pumps 63 x 63, 9.9 m3/h 0.8 DI 0.3 ea 2 220 100 44,000 10,500 21,000 600 1,200 66,200
5 Gypsum Filter Feed Tank 5,740 ø x 6,890 (42m3) LMS 16.6 ea 1 340 100 34,000 171,000 171,000 8,600 8,600 213,600
6 Gypsum Filter Feed Tank Agitator 16Q5 3.7 LMS 0.2 ea 1 270 100 27,000 12,000 12,000 600 600 39,600
7 Gypsum Filter Feed Pumps 63 x 63, 10.6 m3/h 2.2 DI 0.3 ea 2 220 100 44,000 12,000 24,000 600 1,200 69,200
8 Impurity Precipitation Area Sump Pump 65 x 40 ( 12 m3/h) 2.2 TPN 0.4 ea 1 220 100 22,000 10,300 10,300 600 600 32,900
9 Impurity Precipitation Area Safety Shower 114 L/min MS 0.0 ea 1 40 100 4,000 1,400 1,400 100 100 5,500
SUB-TOTAL INSTALLED MECHANICAL - 19.42 42 - - 5,750 100 575,000 - 646,500 - 33,300 1,254,800
PROCESS PIPING - 15 lot 1 2,300 100 230,000 151,000 151,000 - INCL 381,000
ELECTRICAL - 11 lot 1 2,600 100 260,000 212,000 212,000 - INCL 472,000
INSTRUMENTATION - 3 lot 1 2,400 100 240,000 235,000 235,000 - INCL 475,000
FREIGHT TO SITE - 71 Loads 2.0 - 0 NIL 4,000 8,170 - NIL 8,170
TOTAL DIRECT COSTS 71 13,050 1,305,000 1,252,670 33,300 2,590,970
Melis Engineering Ltd. Page 8Project No. 490 STRATECO RESOURCES INC. October 29, 2008 MATOUSH URANIUM PROJECT SCOPING STUDY
ESTIMATED PROCESS PLANT AND BUILDINGS CAPITAL COST DETAILS - PRELIMINARY CLASS IV ESTIMATE
AREA: GYPSUM FILTER
REFERENCE: FLOWSHEET NO. 490-F-107LABOUR EQUIPMENT/MATERIAL FIELD MATERIALS
SIZE HP POWER MATERIAL WEIGHT HOURS RATE TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL TOTAL ITEM DESCRIPTION /CAPACITY kW TONNE UNIT QTY PER UNIT ($CDN/HR) $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN
1Gypsum Belt Filters cw Vacuum Pump and Filtrate Pump 5 m2 57.8 SS 5.7 ea 1 1,350 100 135,000 475,000 475,000 23,800 23,800 633,800
2 Gypsum Filter Repulp Tank 2,438 ø x 2,743 (3.3 m3) - LMS 1.4 ea 1 340 100 34,000 21,100 21,100 1,100 1,100 56,200
3 Gypsum Filter Repulp Tank Agitator 14Q2 1.5 LMS 0.2 ea 1 270 100 27,000 7,000 7,000 400 400 34,400
4 Gypsum Filter Repulp Pumps 63 x 63, 10.6 m3/h 2.2 DI 4.1 ea 2 220 100 44,000 11,700 23,400 600 1,200 68,600
5 Pregnant Solution Sand Filters, 3 Skid Mounted 610 mm ø 57.8 LMS 5.7 ea 1 810 100 81,000 250,000 250,000 12,500 12,500 343,500
6 Pregnant Solution Sand Filter Backwash Pump 63 x 63, 13.1 m3/h 1.1 DI 0.3 ea 1 220 100 22,000 11,700 11,700 600 600 34,300
7 Pregnant Solution Tank 4,300 ø x 5,340 (68 m3) 10 10.4 ea 1 340 100 34,000 140,000 140,000 7,000 7,000 181,000
8 Pregnant Solution Pumps 63 x 63, 13.1 m3/h 0.8 DI 0.3 ea 2 220 100 44,000 23,300 46,600 1,200 2,400 93,000
9 Gypsum Filter Area Sump Pump 65 x 40 ( 12 m3/h) 2.2 TPN 0.4 ea 1 220 100 22,000 10,300 10,300 600 600 32,900
10 Gypsum Filter Area Safety Shower 114 L/min MS 0.0 ea 1 40 100 4,000 1,400 1,400 100 100 5,500
SUB-TOTAL INSTALLED MECHANICAL - 126 33 - - 4,470 100 447,000 - 986,500 - 49,700 1,483,200
PROCESS PIPING - 18 lot 1 2,700 100 270,000 178,000 178,000 - - 448,000
ELECTRICAL - 13 lot 1 3,100 100 310,000 250,000 250,000 - - 560,000
INSTRUMENTATION - 4 lot 1 2,800 100 280,000 278,000 278,000 - - 558,000
FREIGHT TO SITE - 68 Loads 1.9 0 - 4,000 7,760 - - 7,760
TOTAL DIRECT COSTS 68 13,070 1,307,000 1,700,260 49,700 3,056,960
Melis Engineering Ltd. Page 9Project No. 490 STRATECO RESOURCES INC. October 29, 2008 MATOUSH URANIUM PROJECT SCOPING STUDY
ESTIMATED PROCESS PLANT AND BUILDINGS CAPITAL COST DETAILS - PRELIMINARY CLASS IV ESTIMATE
AREA: URANIUM PRECIPITATION
REFERENCE: FLOWSHEET NO. 490-F-108LABOUR EQUIPMENT/MATERIAL FIELD MATERIALS
SIZE POWER MATERIAL WEIGHT HOURS RATE TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL TOTAL ITEM DESCRIPTION /CAPACITY kW TONNE UNIT QTY PER UNIT ($CDN/HR) $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN
1Uranium Precipitation Feed Heat Exchanger
Plate and Frame - SS 0.3 ea 2 270 100 54,000 20,000 40,000 1,000 2,000 96,000
2 Uranium Precipitation Tanks 3,500 ø x 4,200 (32.8 m3) - LMS 5.3 ea 3 340 100 102,000 82,000 246,000 4,100 12,300 360,300
3 Uranium Precipitation Tank Agitators 17Q30 1.5 LMS 0.5 ea 3 270 100 81,000 15,000 45,000 800 2,400 128,400
4Uranium Precipitation Discharge Pumpbox 1,219 x 1,219 x 1,524 high (0.8 m3) - LMS 1.5 ea 1 340 100 34,000 16,500 16,500 900 900 51,400
5Uranium Precipitation Discharge Pumps 63 x 63, 11.0 m3/h 2.2 DI 0.3 ea 2 220 100 44,000 23,300 46,600 1,200 2,400 93,000
6Uranium Precipitation Area Sump Pump 65 x 40 ( 12 m3/h) 2.2 TPN 0.4 ea 1 220 100 22,000 10,300 10,300 600 600 32,900
7Uranium Precipitation Area Safety Shower
114 L/min MS 0.0 ea 1 40 100 4,000 1,400 1,400 100 100 5,500
SUB-TOTAL INSTALLED MECHANICAL - 11.2 20.4 - - 3,410 100 341,000 - 405,800 - 20,700 767,500
PROCESS PIPING - 9 lot 1 1,400 100 140,000 92,000 92,000 - INCL 232,000
ELECTRICAL - 5 lot 1 1,300 100 130,000 104,000 104,000 - INCL 234,000
INSTRUMENTATION - 2 lot 1 1,400 100 140,000 144,000 144,000 - INCL 284,000
FREIGHT TO SITE - 36 Loads 1.0 0 NIL 4,000 4,160 - NIL 4,160
TOTAL DIRECT COSTS 36 7,510 751,000 749,960 20,700 1,521,660
Melis Engineering Ltd. Page 10Project No. 490 STRATECO RESOURCES INC. October 29, 2008 MATOUSH URANIUM PROJECT SCOPING STUDY
ESTIMATED PROCESS PLANT AND BUILDINGS CAPITAL COST DETAILS - PRELIMINARY CLASS IV ESTIMATE
AREA: URANIUM THICKENER
REFERENCE: FLOWSHEET NO. 490-F-109LABOUR EQUIPMENT/MATERIAL FIELD MATERIALS
SIZE POWER MATERIAL WEIGHT HOURS RATE TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL TOTAL ITEM DESCRIPTION /CAPACITY kW TONNE UNIT QTY PER UNIT ($CDN/HR) $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN
1 Uranium Thickener Tank 4,000 ø - LMS 3.0 ea 1 540 100 54,000 88,000 88,000 4,400 4,400 146,400
2 Uranium Thickener Mechanism 4,000 ø 3.7 LMS 1.7 ea 1 1,080 100 108,000 77,000 77,000 3,900 3,900 188,900
3 Uranium Thickener Underflow Pump 25 x 18, 0.5 m3/h 0.7 CD4M 0.1 ea 2 220 100 44,000 6,000 12,000 300 600 56,600
4 Barren Solution Tank 5,700 ø x 6,840 (156 m3) - LMS 13.5 ea 1 340 100 34,000 42,000 42,000 2,100 2,100 78,100
5 Barren Solution Tank Transfer Pump 63 x 63, 15.0 m3/h 2.2 DI 0.3 ea 1 220 100 22,000 11,700 11,700 600 600 34,300
6 Barren Solution Pumps 76 x 76, 40 m3/h 1.5 DI 0.3 ea 2 220 100 44,000 23,500 47,000 1,200 2,400 93,400
7 Uranium Thickener Area Sump Pump 65 x 40 ( 12 m3/h) 2.2 TPN 0.4 ea 1 220 100 22,000 10,300 10,300 600 600 32,900
8 Uranium Thickener Area Safety Shower 114 L/min MS 0.0 ea 1 40 100 4,000 1,400 1,400 100 100 5,500
SUB-TOTAL INSTALLED MECHANICAL - 12.6 19.7 - - 3,320 100 332,000 - 289,400 - 14,700 636,100
PROCESS PIPING - 8 lot 1 1,100 100 110,000 76,000 76,000 - INCL 186,000
ELECTRICAL - 3 lot 1 800 100 80,000 64,000 64,000 - INCL 144,000
INSTRUMENTATION - 2 lot 1 1,200 100 120,000 119,000 119,000 - INCL 239,000
FREIGHT TO SITE - 33 Loads 0.9 - 0 NIL 4,000 3,740 - NIL 3,740
TOTAL DIRECT COSTS 33 6,420 642,000 552,140 14,700 1,208,840
Melis Engineering Ltd. Page 11Project No. 490 STRATECO RESOURCES INC. October 29, 2008 MATOUSH URANIUM PROJECT SCOPING STUDY
ESTIMATED PROCESS PLANT AND BUILDINGS CAPITAL COST DETAILS - PRELIMINARY CLASS IV ESTIMATE
AREA:URANIUM CALCINING
REFERENCE: FLOWSHEET NO. 490-F-110LABOUR EQUIPMENT/MATERIAL FIELD MATERIALS
SIZE POWER MATERIAL WEIGHT HOURS RATE TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL TOTAL ITEM DESCRIPTION /CAPACITY kW TONNE UNIT QTY PER UNIT ($CDN/HR) $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN
1 Uranium Wash Tank 1,600 ø x 1,900 (2.6 m3) - LMS 1.2 ea 1 140 100 14,000 18,800 18,800 1,000 1,000 33,800
2 Uranium Wash Tank Agitator X6Q500 0.5 ea 1 140 100 14,000 2,000 2,000 100 100 16,100
3 Uranium Centrifuge Feed Pumps 25 x 18, 0.5 m3/h 0.7 CD4M 0.1 ea 2 220 100 44,000 6,000 12,000 300 600 56,600
4Uranium Centrifuge c/w Chutes, Diverter Flush Valves
170 kg U3O8/h 3.7 SS316 0.5 ea 1 270 100 27,000 108,000 108,000 5,200 5,200 140,200
5 Uranium Centrate Pumpbox 900 x 900 x 1,900 high (0.8 m3) - MS/RL 0.4 ea 1 340 100 34,000 5,500 5,500 300 300 39,800
6 Uranium Centrate Pumps 25 x 18, 0.5 m3/h 0.7 CD4M 0.1 ea 2 220 100 44,000 6,000 12,000 300 600 56,600
7 Uranium Calciner 170 kg/h 0.7 - 5.4 ea 1 2,030 100 203,000 1,400,000 1,400,000 70,000 70,000 1,673,000
8 Uranium Lump Disintegrator Tromm 170 kg U3O8/h 0.7 9.5 MS 1.7 ea 1 410 100 41,000 90,000 90,000 4,500 4,500 135,500
9 Uranium Transfer Bucket Elevator 3.7 MS 1.0 ea 1 540 100 54,000 25,000 25,000 1,300 1,300 80,300
10 Calcining Area Sump Pump 65 x 40 ( 12 m3/h) 2.2 TPN 0.4 ea 1 220 100 22,000 10,300 10,300 600 600 32,900
11 Calcining Area Safety Shower 114 L/min MS 0.0 ea 1 40 100 4,000 1,400 1,400 100 100 5,500
SUB-TOTAL INSTALLED MECHANICAL - 13 11.1 - - 5,010 100 501,000 - 1,685,000 - 84,300 2,270,300
PROCESS PIPING - 34 lot 1 5,100 100 510,000 341,000 341,000 - INCL 851,000
ELECTRICAL - 12 lot 1 2,800 100 280,000 230,000 230,000 - INCL 510,000
INSTRUMENTATION - 6 lot 1 4,300 100 430,000 426,000 426,000 - INCL 856,000
FREIGHT TO SITE - 63 Loads 1.8 - 0 NIL 4,000 7,220 - INCL 7,220
TOTAL DIRECT COSTS 63 17,210 1,721,000 2,689,220 84,300 4,494,520
Melis Engineering Ltd. Page 12Project No. 490 STRATECO RESOURCES INC. October 29, 2008 MATOUSH URANIUM PROJECT SCOPING STUDY
ESTIMATED PROCESS PLANT AND BUILDINGS CAPITAL COST DETAILS - PRELIMINARY CLASS IV ESTIMATE
AREA: URANIUM PACKAGING AND SCRUBBING
REFERENCE: FLOWSHEET NO. 490-F-111LABOUR EQUIPMENT/MATERIAL FIELD MATERIALS
SIZE POWER MATERIAL WEIGHT HOURS RATE TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL TOTAL ITEM DESCRIPTION /CAPACITY kW TONNE UNIT QTY PER UNIT ($CDN/HR) $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN
1 Uranium Bin c/w Rotary Valve and Bin Vi 2,500 ø x 9,000 (40 m3 ) - MS 9.2 ea 1 1,080 100 108,000 67,200 67,200 3,400 3,400 178,600
2 Uranium Packaging Line 20 Drums per day 1.9 MS 4.0 ea 1 1,620 100 162,000 200,000 200,000 10,000 10,000 372,000
3 Uranium Calciner Scrubber Package 0.8 SS 4.0 ea 1 810 100 81,000 100,000 100,000 5,000 5,000 186,000
4 Uranium Calciner Room Scrubber - 0.8 MS 4.0 ea 1 810 100 81,000 75,000 75,000 3,800 3,800 159,800
5 Uranium Packaging Scrubber Package - 0.8 MS 4.0 ea 1 810 100 81,000 50,000 50,000 2,500 2,500 133,500
6 Uranium Scrubber Water Pumpbox 1.3 m x 1.3 m x 1.9 m high (2.3 m3) - LMS 1.7 ea 1 340 100 34,000 12,300 12,300 700 700 47,000
7 Uranium Scrubber Water Pumps 76 x 51 (24 m3) 2.2 SS 0.1 ea 2 220 100 44,000 10,426 20,900 600 1,200 66,100
8 Uranium Packaging Area Sump Pump 65 x 40 ( 12 m3/h) 2.2 TPN 0.4 ea 1 40 100 4,000 10,284 10,300 600 600 14,900
SUB-TOTAL INSTALLED MECHANICAL - 27.5 28 - - 5950 100 595,000 - 535,700 - 27,200 1,157,900
PROCESS PIPING - 14 lot 1 2100 100 210,000 139,000 139,000 - INCL 349,000
ELECTRICAL - 6 lot 1 1400 100 140,000 117,000 117,000 - INCL 257,000
INSTRUMENTATION - 3 lot 1 2200 100 220,000 217,000 217,000 - INCL 437,000
FREIGHT TO SITE 51 Loads 1.4 0 0 NIL 4,000 5,770 - NIL 5,770
TOTAL DIRECT COSTS 51 11,650 1,165,000 1,014,470 27,200 2,206,670
Melis Engineering Ltd. Page 13Project No. 490 STRATECO RESOURCES INC. October 29, 2008 MATOUSH URANIUM PROJECT SCOPING STUDY
ESTIMATED PROCESS PLANT AND BUILDINGS CAPITAL COST DETAILS - PRELIMINARY CLASS IV ESTIMATE
AREA: TAILINGS NEUTRALIZATION
REFERENCE: FLOWSHEET NO. 490-F-112LABOUR EQUIPMENT/MATERIAL FIELD MATERIALS
SIZE POWER MATERIAL WEIGHT HOURS RATE TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL TOTAL ITEM DESCRIPTION /CAPACITY kW TONNE UNIT QTY PER UNIT ($CDN/HR) $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN
1 Tailings Feed Launder 6,000 x 1,000 x 400 - LMS 1.1 ea 1 270 100 27,000 14,200 14,200 800 800 42,000
2 Tailings Neutralization Tank 4,900 ø x 5,880 - LMS 14.0 ea 2 540 100 108,000 190,000 380,000 9,500 19,000 507,000
3 Tailings Neutralization Tank Agitator 74Q15 11.2 LMS 0.5 ea 2 270 100 54,000 33,500 67,000 1,700 3,400 124,400
4 Tailings Neutralization Tank Blower - 2.2 NR 0.3 ea 1 220 100 22,000 10,000 10,000 500 500 32,500
5 Tailings Thickener Tank 16,459 ø MS 54 ea 1 810 100 81,000 510,000 510,000 25,500 25,500 616,500
6 Tailings Thickener Mechanism 16,459 ø 3.7 MS 30 ea 1 1,350 100 135,000 280,000 280,000 14,000 14,000 429,000
7 Tailings Thickener Overflow Tank 1,000 ø x 6,000 (5 m3/h) MS 2.2 ea 1 340 100 34,000 33,800 33,800 1,700 1,700 69,500
8 Tailings Thickener Overflow Pumps 93 m3/h 2.2 NR 0.3 ea 2 220 100 44,000 28,800 57,600 1,500 3,000 104,600
9 Tailings Thickener Underflow Pumps 61 m3/h 29.8 NR 0.3 ea 2 220 100 44,000 28,800 57,600 1,500 3,000 104,600
10 Tailings Line Blowout Tank 2,000 mm ø 57.8 LMS 5.7 ea 1 680 100 68,000 80,000 80,000 4,000 4,000 152,000
11Tailings Line Containment Excavation
4 km - - - m3 1,500 0.40 100 60,000 4.0 6,000 0.20 300 66,300
12 Tailings Lines 75 mm ø x 4 Km 57.8 LMS 5.7 m 4,000 1.0 100 400,000 25 100,000 2.0 8,000 508,000
13Tailings Line to Backfill Plant Containment Excavation
500 m - - - m3 190 0.40 100 7,600 4.0 760 0.20 - 8,360
14 Tailings Line to Backfill Plant 75 mm ø x 500 m 57.8 LMS 5.7 m 500 1.0 100 50,000 25 12,500 100 50,000 112,500
15 Neutralization Area Sump Pump 65 x 40 ( 12 m3/h) 2.2 TPN 0.4 ea 1 220 100 22,000 10,300 10,300 600 600 32,900
16 Neutralization Area Safety Shower 114 L/min - MS 0.0 ea 1 40 100 4,000 1,400 1,400 100 100 5,500
SUB-TOTAL INSTALLED MECHANICAL - 92.4 118 - - 11,606 100 1,160,600 - 1,621,160 - 133,900 2,915,660
PROCESS PIPING - 29 lot 1 4400 100 440,000 292,000 292,000 - INCL 732,000
ELECTRICAL - 15 lot 1 3600 100 360,000 295,000 295,000 - INCL 655,000
INSTRUMENTATION - 7 lot 1 5500 100 550,000 547,000 547,000 - INCL 1,097,000
FREIGHT TO SITE - 169 Loads 4.8 - 0 NIL 4,000 19,280 - INCL 19,280
TOTAL DIRECT COSTS 169 25,106 2,510,600 2,774,440 133,900 5,418,940
Melis Engineering Ltd. Page 14Project No. 490 STRATECO RESOURCES INC. October 29, 2008 MATOUSH URANIUM PROJECT SCOPING STUDY
ESTIMATED PROCESS PLANT AND BUILDINGS CAPITAL COST DETAILS - PRELIMINARY CLASS IV ESTIMATE
AREA: EFFLUENT TREATMENT
REFERENCE: FLOWSHEET NO.490-F-113LABOUR EQUIPMENT/MATERIAL FIELD MATERIALS
SIZE POWER MATERIAL WEIGHT HOURS RATE TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL TOTAL ITEM DESCRIPTION /CAPACITY kW TONNE UNIT QTY PER UNIT ($CDN/HR) $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN
1 Primary Effluent Treatment Tanks 2,100 ø x 2,520 mm - LMS 2.0 ea 2 340 100 68,000 31,000 62,000 1,600 3,200 133,200
2 Primary Effluent Treatment Tank Agitator 14Q3 2.2 LMS 0.5 ea 2 270 100 54,000 5,000 10,000 300 600 64,600
3 Primary Clarifier, Plate Type - 1.9 MS 15.0 ea 1 680 100 68,000 150,000 150,000 7,500 7,500 225,500
4 Primary Clarifier Overflow Tank 1,700 ø x 2,040 (4.3 m3) - MS 1.4 ea 1 270 100 27,000 9,900 9,900 500 500 37,400
5 Primary Clarifier Overflow Pump 76 x 51 (25 m3/h) 1.1 SS 0.1 ea 2 220 100 44,000 10,300 20,600 600 1,200 65,800
6 Primary Clarifier Underflow Pump 38 x 25 (2.1 m3/h) 1.1 SS 0.2 ea 2 220 100 44,000 10,800 21,600 600 1,200 66,800
7 Secondary Effluent Treatment Tanks 2,100 ø x 2,520 LMS 2.0 ea 2 340 100 68,000 31,200 62,400 1,600 3,200 133,600
8 Secondary Effluent Treatment Tank Agitator 14Q3 2.2 LMS 0.1 ea 2 270 100 54,000 5,000 10,000 300 600 64,600
9 Secondary Clarifier, Plate Type - 1.9 LMS 15.0 ea 1 680 100 68,000 150,000 150,000 7,500 7,500 225,500
10 Secondary Clarifier Overflow Tank 1,700 ø x 2,040 (4.3 m3) - MS 1.4 ea 1 270 100 27,000 9,900 9,900 500 500 37,400
11 Secondary Clarifier Overflow Pump 76 x 38 (16 m3/h) 1.5 SS 0.1 ea 2 220 100 44,000 10,000 20,000 500 1,000 65,000
12 Secondary Clarifier Underflow Pump 38 x 25 (4.3 m3/h) 1.5 SS 0.1 ea 2 220 100 44,000 10,800 21,600 600 1,200 66,800
13 Effluent Sand Filters, 3, Skid Mounted - - MS 3.1 ea 1 680 100 68,000 175,000 175,000 8,800 8,800 251,800
14 Effluent Discharge Tank 6,401 ø x 6,706 (200 m3) MS 11.7 ea 1 410 100 41,000 85,300 85,300 4,300 4,300 130,600
15 Effluent Sand Filter Backwash Pump 76 x 38 (16 m3/h) 0.8 SS 0.1 ea 2 220 100 44,000 4,700 9,400 300 600 54,000
16 Monitoring Ponds 1,030 m3 Plastic 1.2 ea 3 2,030 100 609,000 350,000 1,050,000 17,500 52,500 1,711,500
17 Monitoring Pond Discharge Pumps 180 m3/h 5.6 LMS 0.5 ea 3 220 100 66,000 21,000 63,000 1,100 3,300 132,300
18 Effluent Treatment Area Sump Pump 52 ( 12 m3/h) 1.5 A744 0.2 ea 1 220 100 22,000 10,500 10,500 600 600 33,100
19 Effluent Treatment Area Safety Shower 114 L/min MS 0.0 ea 1 40 100 4,000 1,400 1,400 100 100 5,500
SUB-TOTAL INSTALLED MECHANICAL - 43.0 63.6 - - 14,640 100 1,464,000 - 1,942,600 - 98,400 3,505,000
PROCESS PIPING - 53 lot 1 7,900 100 790,000 526,000 526,000 - INCL 1,316,000
ELECTRICAL - 24 lot 1 5,800 100 580,000 473,000 473,000 - INCL 1,053,000
INSTRUMENTATION - 9 lot 1 6,600 100 660,000 657,000 657,000 - INCL 1,317,000
FREIGHT TO SITE - 150 Loads 4.3 - 0 NIL 4,000 17,100 - INCL 17,100
TOTAL DIRECT COSTS 150 34,940 3,494,000 3,615,700 98,400 7,208,100
Melis Engineering Ltd. Page 15Project No. 490 STRATECO RESOURCES INC. October 29, 2008 MATOUSH URANIUM PROJECT SCOPING STUDY
ESTIMATED PROCESS PLANT AND BUILDINGS CAPITAL COST DETAILS - PRELIMINARY CLASS IV ESTIMATE
AREA: REVERSE OSMOSIS
REFERENCE: FLOWSHEET NO. 490-F-114LABOUR EQUIPMENT/MATERIAL FIELD MATERIALS
SIZE POWER MATERIAL WEIGHT HOURS RATE TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL TOTAL ITEM DESCRIPTION /CAPACITY kW TONNE UNIT QTY PER UNIT ($CDN/HR) $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN
1 Reclaim Barge pumps 152 ( 72 m3/h) 3.7 LMS 0.7 ea 2 220 100 44,000 19,565 39,100 1,000 2,000 85,100
2 Reclaim Barge 1.0 ea 1 540 100 54,000 10,000 10,000 500 500 64,500
3 Reverse Osmosis Package Plant 160 m3/h 190.0 MS/RL 30 ea 1 13,500 100 1,350,000 2,700,000 2,700,000 135,000 135,000 4,185,000
4 Mine Water Pond (Existing)
5 Mine Water Pump (Existing)
SUB-TOTAL INSTALLED MECHANICAL - 190.0 32 - - 13,500 100 1,350,000 - 2,700,000 - 135,000 4,185,000
PROCESS PIPING - 25 lot 1 3,800 100 380,000 251,000 251,000 - INCL 631,000
ELECTRICAL - 19 lot 1 4,600 100 460,000 377,000 377,000 - INCL 837,000
INSTRUMENTATION - 6 lot 1 4,600 100 460,000 419,000 419,000 - INCL 879,000
FREIGHT TO SITE - 82 Loads 2.4 - 0 NIL 4,000 9,420 - INCL 9,420
TOTAL DIRECT COSTS 82 26,500 2,650,000 3,756,420 135,000 6,541,420
Melis Engineering Ltd. Page 16Project No. 490 STRATECO RESOURCES INC. October 29, 2008 MATOUSH URANIUM PROJECT SCOPING STUDY
ESTIMATED PROCESS PLANT AND BUILDINGS CAPITAL COST DETAILS - PRELIMINARY CLASS IV ESTIMATE
AREA: REAGENTS: FERRIC SULPHATE AND HYDROGEN PEROXIDE
REFERENCE: FLOWSHEET NO. 490-F-115LABOUR EQUIPMENT/MATERIAL FIELD MATERIALS
SIZE POWER MATERIAL WEIGHT HOURS RATE TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL TOTAL ITEM DESCRIPTION /CAPACITY kW TONNE UNIT QTY PER UNIT ($CDN/HR) $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN
1 Concentrated Ferric Sulphate Tank 3,900 ø x 4,680 (47.7 m3) - LMS 6.5 ea 1 340 100 34,000 100,000 100,000 5,000 5,000 139,000
2 Ferric Sulphate Distribution Pumps Metering 0.1 Metering 0.2 ea 2 140 100 28,000 3,000 6,000 200 400 34,400
3 Ferric Sulphate Area Sump Pump 52 ( 12 m3/h) 1.5 A744 0.2 ea 1 220 100 22,000 22,100 22,100 1,200 1,200 45,300
4 Ferric Sulphate Area Safety Shower 114 L/min MS 0.0 ea 1 40 100 4,000 1,390 1,390 100 100 5,490
5 Hydrogen Peroxide Package 36.5 m3 (Vendor Supplied) 0.1 Passivated SS 6.5 ea 1 2,030 100 203,000 300,000 300,000 15,000 15,000 518,000
6 Hydrogen Peroxide Metering Pump Metering 1.9 SS 0.2 ea 3 140 100 42,000 3,000 9,000 200 600 51,600
7 Hydrogen Peroxide Area Sump Pump 52 ( 12 m3/h) 1.5 A744 0.2 ea 1 220 100 22,000 22,100 22,100 1,200 1,200 45,300
8 Hydrogen Peroxide Area Safety Showe 114 L/min MS 0.0 ea 1 40 100 4,000 1,400 1,400 100 100 5,500
SUB-TOTAL INSTALLED MECHANICAL - 5.1 15 - - 3,590 100 359,000 - 461,990 - 23,600 844,590
PROCESS PIPING - 10 lot 1 1,500 100 150,000 101,000 101,000 - INCL 251,000
ELECTRICAL - 4 lot 1 1,000 100 100,000 86,000 86,000 - INCL 186,000
INSTRUMENTATION 2 lot 1 1,600 100 160,000 158,000 158,000 - INCL 318,000
FREIGHT TO SITE 31 Loads 0.9 - 0 NIL 4,000 3,490 - NIL 3,490
TOTAL DIRECT COSTS 31 7,690 769,000 810,480 23,600 1,603,080
Melis Engineering Ltd. Page 17Project No. 490 STRATECO RESOURCES INC. October 29, 2008 MATOUSH URANIUM PROJECT SCOPING STUDY
ESTIMATED PROCESS PLANT AND BUILDINGS CAPITAL COST DETAILS - PRELIMINARY CLASS IV ESTIMATE
AREA: REAGENTS: OXYGEN AND MAGNESIA
REFERENCE: FLOWSHEET NO's 490-F-116/117LABOUR EQUIPMENT/MATERIAL FIELD MATERIALS
SIZE POWER MATERIAL WEIGHT HOURS RATE TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL TOTAL ITEM DESCRIPTION /CAPACITY kW TONNE UNIT QTY PER UNIT ($CDN/HR) $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN
1Oxygen Plant, Owned and Operated by Air Liquide
20 tpd (14,000 x 9,000) 440 Misc. 60.0 ea 2 - - - - - - - -
1 Magnesia Silo and Mixing Package 14 MS 29.0 ea 1 1,620 100 162,000 385,000 385,000 19,300 19,300 566,300
2 Magnesia Distribution Tank 3,200 ø x 3,840 (25.5 m3) - LMS 4.2 ea 1 340 100 34,000 30,700 30,700 1,600 1,600 66,300
3 Magnesia Distribution Agitator 16Q10 7.5 LMS 0.3 ea 1 270 100 27,000 8,000 8,000 400 400 35,400
4 Magnesia Distribution Pump 76 x 38 (17.3 m3/h) 0.8 SS 0.1 ea 2 220 100 44,000 10,500 21,000 600 1,200 66,200
5 Magnesia Area Sump Pump 52 ( 12 m3/h) 1.1 A395 0.2 ea 1 220 100 22,000 5,600 5,600 300 300 27,900
SUB-TOTAL INSTALLED MECHANICAL - 904.1 154.0 - - 2,890 100 289,000 - 450,300 - 22,800 762,100
PROCESS PIPING - 3 lot 1 500 100 50,000 30,000 30,000 - INCL 80,000
ELECTRICAL - 2 lot 1 400 100 40,000 34,000 34,000 - INCL 74,000
INSTRUMENTATION - 1 lot 1 600 100 60,000 57,000 57,000 - INCL 117,000
FREIGHT TO SITE - 160 Loads 4.6 - 0 NIL 4,000 18,280 - NIL 18,280
TOTAL DIRECT COSTS 160 4,390 439,000 589,580 22,800 1,051,380
Melis Engineering Ltd. Page 18Project No. 490 STRATECO RESOURCES INC. October 29, 2008 MATOUSH URANIUM PROJECT SCOPING STUDY
ESTIMATED PROCESS PLANT AND BUILDINGS CAPITAL COST DETAILS - PRELIMINARY CLASS IV ESTIMATE
AREA: REAGENTS: BARIUM CHLORIDE
REFERENCE: FLOWSHEET NO. 490-F-118LABOUR EQUIPMENT/MATERIAL FIELD MATERIALS
SIZE POWER MATERIAL WEIGHT HOURS RATE TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL TOTAL ITEM DESCRIPTION /CAPACITY kW TONNE UNIT QTY PER UNIT ($CDN/HR) $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN
1 Barium Chloride Mix Tank 2,900 ø x 3,480 (18.2 m3) - MS 3.7 ea 1 340 100 34,000 27,000 27,000 1,400 1,400 62,400
2 Barium Chloride Mix Tank Agitator 15Q7.5 5.6 MS 0.2 ea 1 270 100 27,000 6,000 6,000 300 300 33,300
3 Barium Chloride Transfer Pump 76 x 38, 18 m3/h 1.1 SS 0.1 ea 1 220 100 22,000 4,700 4,700 300 300 27,000
4 Barium Chloride Distribution Tank 3,200 ø x 3,840 (25.5 m3) - MS 4.0 ea 1 340 100 34,000 29,100 29,100 1,500 1,500 64,600
5 Barium Chloride Distribution Pump 76 x 38, 20 m3/h 2.2 SS 0.1 ea 2 220 100 44,000 11,500 23,000 600 1,200 68,200
6 Barium Chloride Area Sump Pump 52 ( 12 m3/h) 1.1 A395 0.2 ea 1 220 100 22,000 5,600 5,600 300 300 27,900
7 Barium Chloride Area Safety Shower 114 L/min MS 0.0 ea 1 40 100 4,000 1,400 1,400 100 100 5,500
SUB-TOTAL INSTALLED MECHANICAL - 12.28 8.6 - - 1,870 100 187,000 - 96,800 - 5,100 288,900
PROCESS PIPING - 4 lot 1 500 100 - 35,000 35,000 - INCL 35,000
ELECTRICAL - 1 lot 1 400 100 40,000 29,000 29,000 - INCL 69,000
INSTRUMENTATION - 1 lot 1 500 100 50,000 54,000 54,000 - INCL 104,000
FREIGHT TO SITE - 15 Loads 0.4 - 0 NIL 4,000 1,670 - NIL 1,670
- TOTAL DIRECT COSTS 14.6 2,770 277,000 216,470 5,100 498,570
Melis Engineering Ltd. Page 19Project No. 490 STRATECO RESOURCES INC. October 29, 2008 MATOUSH URANIUM PROJECT SCOPING STUDY
ESTIMATED PROCESS PLANT AND BUILDINGS CAPITAL COST DETAILS - PRELIMINARY CLASS IV ESTIMATE
AREA: REAGENTS: LIME
REFERENCE: FLOWSHEET NO. 490-F-118LABOUR EQUIPMENT/MATERIAL FIELD MATERIALS
SIZE POWER MATERIAL WEIGHT HOURS RATE TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL TOTAL ITEM DESCRIPTION /CAPACITY kW TONNE UNIT QTY PER UNIT ($CDN/HR) $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN
1 Lime Package 5 tph 76.0 MS 80 ea 1 2,970 100 297,000 1,850,000 1,850,000 92,500 92,500 2,239,500
2 Lime Loop Pumps 76 x 38, (20 m3/h) 3.7 MS 0.2 ea 2 220 100 44,000 13,000 26,000 700 1,400 71,400
3 Lime Area Sump Pump 52 ( 12 m3/h) 1.5 A395 0.2 ea 1 220 100 22,000 10,000 10,000 500 500 32,500
4 Lime Area Safety Shower 114 L/min MS 0.0 ea 1 40 100 4,000 1,400 1,400 100 100 5,500
SUB-TOTAL INSTALLED MECHANICAL - 81.2 81 - - 3,670 100 367,000 - 1,887,400 - 94,500 2,348,900
PROCESS PIPING - 28 lot 1 4,200 100 420,000 282,000 282,000 - INCL 702,000
ELECTRICAL - 12 lot 1 2,900 100 290,000 238,000 238,000 - INCL 528,000
INSTRUMENTATION - 6 lot 1 4,400 100 440,000 440,000 440,000 - INCL 880,000
FREIGHT TO SITE - 127 Loads 3.6 - 0 NIL 4,000 14,470 - NIL 14,470
TOTAL DIRECT COSTS 127 15,170 1,517,000 2,861,870 94,500 4,473,370
Melis Engineering Ltd. Page 20Project No. 490 STRATECO RESOURCES INC. October 29, 2008 MATOUSH URANIUM PROJECT SCOPING STUDY
ESTIMATED PROCESS PLANT AND BUILDINGS CAPITAL COST DETAILS - PRELIMINARY CLASS IV ESTIMATE
AREA: REAGENTS: FLOCCULANT MIXING AND SULPHURIC ACID
REFERENCE: FLOWSHEET NO 490-F-119LABOUR EQUIPMENT/MATERIAL FIELD MATERIALS
SIZE POWER MATERIAL WEIGHT HOURS RATE TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL TOTAL ITEM DESCRIPTION /CAPACITY kW TONNE UNIT QTY PER UNIT ($CDN/HR) $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN
1 Flocculant Mix System c/w Pumps - 1.5 (Package) 0.5 ea 3 270 100 81,000 76,000 228,000 3,800 11,400 320,400
2 Flocculant Metering Pumps 9,754 ø x 10,363 (737 m3) 0.3 plastic 0.0 ea 7 140 100 98,000 3,000 21,000 200 1,400 120,400
3 Acid Storage Tanks14 Days, 8,230 ø x 8,839
(444 m3)- MS 33 ea 2 600 100 120,000 240,000 480,000 12,000 24,000 624,000
4 Acid Storage Containment 110% of Storage Tank - Concrete 225 m3 90 5 100 45,000 1,300 117,000 70 6,300 168,300
4 Acid Distribution Pumps 38 x 25 (1.0 m3/h) 2.2 SS 0.1 ea 2 220 100 44,000 16,500 33,000 900 1,800 78,800
5 Sulphuric Acid Plant Safety Shower - MS 0.0 ea 3 40 100 12,000 1,400 4,200 100 300 16,500
SUB-TOTAL INSTALLED MECHANICAL - 11 143 - - 4,000 100 400,000 - 883,200 - 45,200 1,328,400 (Excludes Aggregate)
PROCESS PIPING - 3 lot 1 400 100 40,000 27,000 27,000 - INCL 67,000
ELECTRICAL - 2 lot 1 400 100 40,000 30,000 30,000 - INCL 70,000
INSTRUMENTATION - 1 lot 1 700 100 70,000 66,000 66,000 - INCL 136,000
FREIGHT TO SITE - 149 Loads 4.3 - 0 NIL 4,000 17,000 - NIL 17,000
TOTAL DIRECT COSTS 149 5,500 550,000 1,023,200 45,200 1,618,400
Melis Engineering Ltd. Page 21Project No. 490 STRATECO RESOURCES INC. October 29, 2008 MATOUSH URANIUM PROJECT SCOPING STUDY
ESTIMATED PROCESS PLANT AND BUILDINGS CAPITAL COST DETAILS - PRELIMINARY CLASS IV ESTIMATE
AREA: FRESH AND PROCESS WATER
REFERENCE: FLOWSHEET NO. 490-F-120/122LABOUR EQUIPMENT/MATERIAL FIELD MATERIALS
SIZE POWER MATERIAL WEIGHT HOURS RATE TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL TOTAL ITEM DESCRIPTION /CAPACITY kW TONNE UNIT QTY PER UNIT ($CDN/HR) $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN
1 Fresh Water Tank 4,572 ø x 5,182 (76.9 m3) - MS 10.6 ea 1 410 100 41,000 76,000 76,000 3,800 3,800 120,800
2 Fresh Water Distribution Pumps 27 m3/h 0.8 DI 0.2 ea 2 220 100 44,000 20,000 40,000 1,000 2,000 86,000
3 Jockey Pump 76 x 38 3.7 MS 0.1 ea 1 - 100 - - - - - -
4 Fire Pump 127 x 127 187.5 MS 0.0 ea 2 - 100 - - - - - -
5 Diesel Fire Pump 127 x 127 1.5 MS 0.0 ea 1 - 100 - - - - - -
6 Fire Loop Circulation Pump - 1.0 - 0.0 ea 1 - 100 - - - - - -
7 Items 3-5 on 9,144 x 10,728 Skid - - - 15.9 ea 1 410 100 41,000 315,000 315,000 15,800 15,800 371,800
8 Seal Water Tank 2,700 ø x 3,240 (16 m3) - MS 2.9 ea 1 340 100 34,000 20,700 20,700 1,100 1,100 55,800
9 Seal Water Pumps 76 x 38, 9.6 m3/h 3.7 DI 0.1 ea 2 220 100 44,000 9,400 18,800 500 1,000 63,800
10 Process Water Tank 3,962 ø x 4,572 (50.2 m3) - MS 8.0 ea 1 410 100 41,000 58,000 58,000 2,900 2,900 101,900
11 Process Water Pumps 16 m3/h 5.6 DI 0.2 ea 2 220 100 44,000 10,300 20,600 600 1,200 65,800
12 Safety Shower Surge Tank 2,438 x 2,437 x 3,048 (15 m3) 5.6 MS 3.5 ea 2 340 100 68,000 25,300 50,600 1,300 2,600 121,200
13 Safety Shower Head Pumps 76 x 38, 9.6 m3/h 3.7 DI 0.1 ea 2 220 100 44,000 9,400 18,800 500 1,000 63,800
14 Saftey Shower Water Heaters 30.0 MS 0.5 ea 2 220 100 44,000 1,000 2,000 100 200 46,200
15 Safety Shower Head Tank 3,000 ø x 3,60 (6 m3) 0.0 N/A 2.2 ea 1 340 100 34,000 15,700 15,700 800 800 50,500
16 Potable Water System 15 m3/d 16.8 DI 0.1 ea 1 1,350 100 135,000 250,000 250,000 12,500 12,500 397,500
SUB-TOTAL INSTALLED MECHANICA - 493 48.7 - - 6,140 100 614,000 - 886,200 - 44,900 1,545,100
PROCESS PIPING - 46 lot 1 7,000 100 700,000 464,000 464,000 - INCL 1,164,000
ELECTRICAL - 8 lot 1 1,900 100 190,000 156,000 156,000 - INCL 346,000
INSTRUMENTATION - 4 lot 1 2,900 100 290,000 290,000 290,000 - INCL 580,000
FREIGHT TO SITE - 107 Loads 3.0 - 0 NIL 4,000 12,200 - INCL 12,200
TOTAL DIRECT COSTS 107 17,940 1,794,000 1,808,400 44,900 3,647,300
Melis Engineering Ltd. Page 22Project No. 490 STRATECO RESOURCES INC. October 29, 2008 MATOUSH URANIUM PROJECT SCOPING STUDY
ESTIMATED PROCESS PLANT AND BUILDINGS CAPITAL COST DETAILS - PRELIMINARY CLASS IV ESTIMATE
AREA: LOW AND HIGH PRESSURE, AND INSTRUMENT AIR
REFERENCE: FLOWSHEET NO. 490-F-121LABOUR EQUIPMENT/MATERIAL FIELD MATERIALS
SIZE POWER MATERIAL WEIGHT HOURS RATE TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL TOTAL ITEM DESCRIPTION /CAPACITY kW TONNE UNIT QTY PER UNIT ($CDN/HR) $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN
1 High Pressure Air Compressor 706 Nm3/h, 760 kPa 50.0 N/A - ea 2 - 100 - - - - - -
2 High Pressure Air Receiver 915 ø x 2,440 - MS - ea 1 - 100 - - - - - -
3 Instrument Air Dryer and Oil Filter Cartridge type 2.0 N/A - ea 1 - 100 - - - - - -
4 Instrument Air Receiver 915 ø x 2,440 - MS - ea 1 - 100 - - - - - -
5 Items 1-4 on 3,000 x 9,000 mm skid 14 ea 1 810 100 81,000 261,000 261,000 13,100 13,100 355,100
6 Boiler 1.7 tph (860 HP) 1.5 MS 20 ea 1 680 100 68,000 70,000 70,000 3,500 3,500 141,500
SUB-TOTAL INSTALLED MECHANICAL - 104 34 - - 1,490 100 149,000 - 331,000 - 16,600 496,600
PROCESS PIPING - 15 lot 1 2,200 100 220,000 149,000 149,000 - INCL 369,000
ELECTRICAL - 3 lot 1 600 100 60,000 50,000 50,000 - INCL 110,000
INSTRUMENTATION - 1 lot 1 900 100 90,000 93,000 93,000 - INCL 183,000
FREIGHT TO SITE - 53 Loads 1.5 - 0 NIL 4,000 6,060 - INCL 6,060
TOTAL DIRECT COSTS 53 5,190 519,000 629,060 16,600 1,164,660
Melis Engineering Ltd. Page 23Project No. 490 STRATECO RESOURCES INC. October 29, 2008 MATOUSH URANIUM PROJECT SCOPING STUDY
ESTIMATED PROCESS PLANT AND BUILDINGS CAPITAL COST DETAILS - PRELIMINARY CLASS IV ESTIMATE
AREA: PROCESS PLANT, CRUSHER AND OXYGEN PLANT BUILDINGS
REFERENCE: 490-L-100LABOUR EQUIPMENT/MATERIAL FIELD MATERIALS
SIZE POWER MATERIAL WEIGHT HOURS RATE TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL TOTAL ITEM DESCRIPTION /CAPACITY kW TONNE UNIT QTY PER UNIT ($CDN/HR) $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN
1 Excavation - - - - m3 27,800 0.40 100 1,112,000 4.0 111,200 0.20 5,600 1,228,800
2 Clay Cover - - Clay 8,050 m3 4,600 0.40 100 184,000 30 138,000 10 46,000 368,000
3 Two Seepage Barriers - - Plastic 100 m2 17,200 0.50 100 860,000 20 344,000 10 172,000 1,376,000
4 Concrete Floors and Walls - - Concrete 6,000 m3 2,400 5 100 1,200,000 1,300 3,120,000 70 168,000 4,488,000
5 Concrete Piers and Bases - - Concrete 5,250 m3 2,100 5 100 1,050,000 1,300 2,730,000 70 147,000 3,927,000
6 Roads - - Asphalt 6,105 m2 5,550 0.5 100 277,500 25 138,750 10 55,500 471,750
7Building Steel, Shell, Walls and Cranes 7,156 m2 - Steel 7,160 m2 7,160 0.40 100 286,400 2,500 17,900,000 200 1,432,000 19,618,400
8 Platforms, Stairs etc. - - Steel 750 t 750 30 100 2,250,000 7,700 5,775,000 400 300,000 8,325,000
9Process Plant Non-Process Electrical
- 240 - 80 m2 9,520 1.0 100 952,000 160 1,523,200 10 95,200 2,570,400
10 Crusher Building Concrete 10 m x 10 m - Concrete 125 m3 50 5 100 25,000 1,300 65,000 100 5,000 95,000
11 Crusher Building 100 m2 - Steel 100 m2 100 0.40 100 4,000 2,500 250,000 200 20,000 274,000
12Crusher Building Non-Process Electrical
- 10 - 0.8 m2 100 1.0 100 10,000 160 16,000 10 1,000 27,000
13 Distributed Control System - - - 10 ea. 1 5,000 100 500,000 700,000 700,000 35,000 35,000 1,235,000
14 Laboratory - - - 20 ea. 1 1,000 100 100,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 75,000 75,000 1,675,000
SUB-TOTAL INSTALLED MECHANICAL 250 20,430 100 8,810,900 - 34,311,150 - 2,557,300 45,679,350 (Excludes Aggregate)
PROCESS PIPING - - INCL - INCL - INCL -
ELECTRICAL - - INCL - INCL - INCL -
INSTRUMENTATION - - INCL - INCL - INCL -
FREIGHT TO SITE Loads (excludes aggregate) 583.7 - NIL NIL 4,000 2,334,860 - NIL 2,334,860
- TOTAL DIRECT COSTS 20,430 88,110 8,810,900 36,646,010 2,557,300 48,014,210
Melis Engineering Ltd. Page 24Project No. 490 STRATECO RESOURCES INC. October 29, 2008 MATOUSH URANIUM PROJECT SCOPING STUDY
ESTIMATED PROCESS PLANT AND BUILDINGS CAPITAL COST DETAILS - PRELIMINARY CLASS IV ESTIMATE
AREA: REAGENTS, FIRST FILLS
LABOUR EQUIPMENT/MATERIAL FIELD MATERIALSSIZE POWER MATERIAL WEIGHT HOURS RATE TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL UNIT COST TOTAL TOTAL
ITEM DESCRIPTION /CAPACITY kW TONNE UNIT QTY PER UNIT ($CDN/HR) $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN $ CDN
1 Barium Chloride - - 20 t 20 1.0 100 2,000 1,000 20,000 - - 22,000
2 Caustic Soda (NaOH) - - 20 t 20 1.0 100 2,000 600 12,000 - - 14,000
3 Flocculant, Anionic Polyacrylamide - - 2 t 2 1.0 100 200 5,250 10,500 - - 10,700
4 Flocculant, Non-ionic Polyacrylamide - - 2 t 2 1.0 100 200 5,250 10,500 - - 10,700
5 Hydrogen Peroxide - - 24 t 24 1.0 100 2,400 1,060 25,440 - - 27,840
6 Lime (98% CaO) - - 400 t 400 0.2 100 8,000 193 77,200 - - 85,200
7 Magnesia (MgO) - - 20 t 20 0.2 100 400 510 10,200 - - 10,600
8 Product Drums - - 350 ea. 350 0.2 100 7,000 50 17,500 - - 24,500
9 Resin for RIP - - 264 m3 240 1.0 100 24,000 6,500 1,560,000 - - 1,584,000
10 Steel Grinding Balls (Grinding) - - 70 t 70 5.0 100 35,000 1,000 70,000 - - 105,000
9 Steel Grinding Balls (Lime Slaking) - - 20 t 20 5.0 100 10,000 1,000 20,000 - - 30,000
7 Sulphuric Acid - - 1,600 t 1,600 0.2 100 32,000 291 465,600 - - 497,600
SUB-TOTAL INSTALLED MECHANICAL - - 2,792 - - 1,232 100 123,200 - 2,298,940 - - 2,422,140
PROCESS PIPING - - - - - - - - - - - -
ELECTRICAL - - - - - - - - - - - -
INSTRUMENTATION - - - - - - - - - - - -
FREIGHT TO SITE - 2,792 Loads 80 - - - 4,000 320,000 - - 320,000
TOTAL DIRECT COSTS 2,792 1,232 123,200 2,618,940 - 2,742,140
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
APPENDIX E CONSUMABLES, PROCESS AND MAINTENANCE
CONSUMABLES OPERATING COSTS
Melis Engineering Ltd.Project No. 490October 29, 2008
TABLE 1STRATECO RESOURCES INC. - MATOUSH URANIUM PROJECT
CONSUMABLES LIST
Consumable Unit Consumption CommentsBarium Chloride tonnes/a 15 CalculatedCaustic Soda (NaOH) tonnes/a 25 EstimatedCrusher Wear Parts tonnes/a 19 0.1 kg/tonneDiesel (Yellowcake Calcining) L/a 407,000 0.4 kg/kg U3O8
Diesel (Steam Generation) L/a 675,000 Heating Leaching to 50ºCDiesel (Power Generation) L/a 3,780,000 $0.31/kWhFerric Sulphate (45%) tonnes/a 220 CalculatedFlocculant, Anionic Polyacrylamide tonnes/a 1 CalculatedFlocculant, Non-ionic Polyacrylamide tonnes/a 7 CalculatedGrinding Mill Liners ea. 2 Annual AllowanceHydrogen Peroxide (70%) tonnes/a 256 CalculatedLaboratory Supplies ea. - EstimatedLime (98% CaO) tonnes/a 12,400 CalculatedMagnesia (MgO) tonnes/a 94 CalculatedOxygen tonnes/a 10,000 EstimatedProduct Drums ea./a 568 Assumes Each is Recycled 4 TimesRIP Resin m3/a 58 0.30 m3/ktonne oreSteel Grinding Balls (Grinding) tonnes/a 194 1.0 kg/tonneSteel Grinding Balls (Lime Slaking) tonnes/a 6 0.5 kg/tonneSulphuric Acid (94% H2SO4 w/w) tonnes/a 38,000 114 tonnes of 94% H2SO4/dayNote: 1. Electrical power consumption does not include the oxygen plant; this power is included in the oxygen cost.
TABLE 2STRATECO RESOURCES INC. - MATOUSH URANIUM PROJECT
CONSUMABLES, PROCESS AND BUILDING ELECTRICAL AND MAINTENANCE CONSUMABLESOPERATING COST COST SUMMARY
Consumable Unit $/Unit $Cdn/a (1,000's) $ Cdn/t $Cdn/lb U3O8
Barium Chloride tonnes 1,000 15 0.08 0.01Caustic Soda (NaOH) tonnes 600 15 0.08 0.01Crusher Wear Parts tonnes 1,000 19 0.10 0.01Diesel (Yellowcake Calcining) Litres 1.00 407 2.10 0.20Diesel (Steam Generation) Litres 1.00 675 3.48 0.34Ferric Sulphate (45%) tonnes 700 154 0.79 0.08Flocculant, Anionic Polyacrylamide tonnes 5,250 6.6 0.03 0.003Flocculant, Non-ionic Polyacrylamide tonnes 5,250 34 0.18 0.02Grinding Mill Liners ea. 250,000 500 2.58 0.25Hydrogen Peroxide (70%) tonnes 1,060 271 1.40 0.14Laboratory Supplies ea. - 250 1.29 0.13Lime (98% CaO) tonnes 193 2,393 12.35 1.20Magnesia (MgO) tonnes 510 48 0.25 0.02
Oxygen(1) tonnes 210 2,100 10.84 1.05
Product Drums ea. 50 28 0.15 0.01RIP Resin m3 6,500 378 1.95 0.19
Steel Grinding Balls (Grinding) tonnes 1,000 194 1.00 0.10Steel Grinding Balls (Lime Slaking) tonnes 1,000 6 0.03 0.003
Sulphuric Acid (2) tonnes 291 11,058 57.08 5.53
Total Consumables - - 18,553 95.76 9.28
Diesel (Power Generation)(3) Litres 1.00 3,780 19.51 1.89
Maintenance Consumables unit (4) 1,150 5.94 0.58Sub-Total - - 23,483 121.21 11.74Contingency (15%) - - 3,522 18.18 1.76Total - - 27,005 139.39 13.50
Note: 1. Oxygen cost from Air Liquide, and includes the cost of electrical power. 2. Estimated 2012 sulphuric acid cost includes $250/tonne base cost, $15/tonne transfer cost and $3.25/km (return trip included) x 300 km, assuming 38 tonnes/load. 3. Electrical power cost does not include the oxygen plant, power to run the oxygen plant is included in the oxygen cost. 4. Annual maintenance consumables cost estimated at 2% of process equipment cost.
Melis Engineering Ltd Project No. 490 Strateco Resources Inc. - Matoush Uranium Deposit
October 29, 2008
APPENDIX F MATOUSH PERSONNEL CHARTS
TITLE
AREA
DWG. No.
LOC.
DESIGN AUTH. APPROVAL:
DESIGN LEAD APPROVAL:
CHECKED:
DRAWN:
DESIGNED:
DATESCALE (A1):
BRUCE C. FIELDER, P.ENG. 22/08/08
MATOUSH URANIUM PROJECT
AB
DATE DESCRIPTION22/08/0815/09/08
SCOPING STUDY RELEASESCOPING STUDY SECOND RELEASE
BYBCFBCF
REVI
SION
S
NO.DATE DESCRIPTION BY DES. LEAD APP..REVI
SION
S
NO.DWG. NO. DESCRIPTIONREFE
RENC
E
MATOUSH MILL
MILL OPERATIONS PERSONNEL CHART (1/2)
PC-001
MELIS E GI EERI G LTD.
MINE MANAGER
MILL SUPERINTENDENT
MILL GENERAL FOREMAN
MILL FOREMAN MILL FOREMAN
MILL OPERATORSLEAD HANDCONTROL ROOM OPERATORGRINDING OPERATORLEACHING AND RIP OPERATORPRECIPITATION AND CALCINER OPERATORTAILINGS NEUTRALIZATION ANDEFFLUENT TREATMENT OPERATORBOILER ROOM OPERATOR/SPARESPARE/TRAINEE OPERATORSPARE/TRAINEE OPERATOR
MILL OPERATORSLEAD HANDCONTROL ROOM OPERATORGRINDING OPERATORLEACHING AND RIP OPERATORPRECIPITATION AND CALCINER OPERATORTAILINGS NEUTRALIZATION ANDEFFLUENT TREATMENT OPERATORBOILER ROOM OPERATOR/SPARESPARE/TRAINEE OPERATOR
MILL GENERAL FOREMAN
MILL FOREMAN MILL FOREMAN
MILL OPERATORSLEAD HANDCONTROL ROOM OPERATORGRINDING OPERATORLEACHING AND RIP OPERATORPRECIPITATION AND CALCINER OPERATORTAILINGS NEUTRALIZATION ANDEFFLUENT TREATMENT OPERATORBOILER ROOM OPERATOR/SPARESPARE/TRAINEE OPERATORSPARE/TRAINEE OPERATOR
MILL OPERATORSLEAD HANDCONTROL ROOM OPERATORGRINDING OPERATORLEACHING AND RIP OPERATORPRECIPITATION AND CALCINER OPERATORTAILINGS NEUTRALIZATION ANDEFFLUENT TREATMENT OPERATORBOILER ROOM OPERATOR/SPARESPARE/TRAINEE OPERATOR
TOTAL MILL OPERATIONS (NOT INCLUDING LABORATORY)
MILL OPERATORS: 4 x 8.5 = 34MILL FOREMEN: 4 x 1 = 4MILL TRAINER: 2 x 1 = 2MILL GENERAL FOREMEN: 2 x 1 = 2METALLURGISTS: 2MILL SUPERINTENDENT: 1TOTAL 45
METALLURGIST
CREW 2CREW 1
METALLURGIST
SHIFT 1A SHIFT 2ASHIFT 1B SHIFT 2B
MILL TRAINER MILL TRAINER
TITLE
AREA
DWG. No.
LOC.
DESIGN AUTH. APPROVAL:
DESIGN LEAD APPROVAL:
CHECKED:
DRAWN:
DESIGNED:
DATESCALE (A1):
BRUCE C. FIELDER, P.ENG. 22/08/08
MATOUSH URANIUM PROJECT
AB
DATE DESCRIPTION22/08/0815/09/08
SCOPING STUDY RELEASESCOPING STUDY SECOND RELEASE
BYBCFBCF
REVI
SION
S
NO.DATE DESCRIPTION BY DES. LEAD APP..REVI
SION
S
NO.DWG. NO. DESCRIPTIONREFE
RENC
E
MATOUSH MILL
MILL OPERATIONS PERSONNEL CHART (2/2)
PC-002
MELIS E GI EERI G LTD.
MINE MANAGER
MILL SUPERINTENDENT
TOTAL LABORATORY (INCLUDED IN MILL OPERATIONS)
LABORATORY SUPERVISOR: 2 x 1 = 2LABORATORY STAFF: 2 x 3 = 6TOTAL 8
LABORATORY SUPERVISOR
LABORATORY TECHNICIANS (3)
LABORATORY SUPERVISOR
LABORATORY TECHNICIANS (3)
CREW 1 CREW 2
TITLE
AREA
DWG. No.
LOC.
DESIGN AUTH. APPROVAL:
DESIGN LEAD APPROVAL:
CHECKED:
DRAWN:
DESIGNED:
DATESCALE (A1):
BRUCE C. FIELDER, P.ENG. 22/08/08
MATOUSH URANIUM PROJECT
AB
DATE DESCRIPTION22/08/0815/09/08
SCOPING STUDY RELEASESCOPING STUDY SECOND RELEASE
BYBCFBCF
REVI
SION
S
NO.DATE DESCRIPTION BY DES. LEAD APP..REVI
SION
S
NO.DWG. NO. DESCRIPTIONREFE
RENC
E
CREW 1
MATOUSH MILL
MILL MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL CHART
PC-003
MELIS E GI EERI G LTD.
MINE MANAGER
MAINTENANCE SUPERINTENDENT
MILL MAINTENANCE GENERAL FOREMAN
MILL MAINTENANCE FOREMAN
MAINTENANCE CREWELECTRICIANELECTRICIANINSTRUMENTATION TECHNOLOGISTINSTRUMENTATION TECHNOLOGISTMILLWRIGHT/WELDERMILLWRIGHTMILLWRIGHT
TOTAL MILL MAINTENANCE
ELECTRICIANS: 2 x 2 = 4INSTRUMENT TECHNOLOGISTS: 2 x 2 = 4MILLWRIGHTS: 2 x 3 = 6MILL MAINTENANCE FOREMEN: 2 x 1 = 2DATA ENTRY CLERKS: 2 x 1 = 2MILL MAINTENANCE GENERAL FOREMAN: 1MILL MAINTENANCE PLANNER 1MAINTENANCE SUPERINTENDENT: 1TOTAL 21
MILL MAINTENANCE FOREMAN
MAINTENANCE CREWELECTRICIANELECTRICIANINSTRUMENTATION TECHNOLOGISTINSTRUMENTATION TECHNOLOGISTMILLWRIGHT/WELDERMILLWRIGHTMILLWRIGHT
MILL MAINTENANCE PLANNER
MINE MAINTENANCE
CREW 2
DATA ENTRY CLERK
DATA ENTRY CLERK
TITLE
AREA
DWG. No.
LOC.
DESIGN AUTH. APPROVAL:
DESIGN LEAD APPROVAL:
CHECKED:
DRAWN:
DESIGNED:
DATESCALE (A1):
BRUCE C. FIELDER, P.ENG. 22/08/08
MATOUSH URANIUM PROJECT
AB
DATE DESCRIPTION22/08/0815/09/08
SCOPING STUDY RELEASESCOPING STUDY SECOND RELEASE
BYBCFBCF
REVI
SION
S
NO.DATE DESCRIPTION BY DES. LEAD APP..REVI
SION
S
NO.DWG. NO. DESCRIPTIONREFE
RENC
E
MATOUSH MILL
GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATION PERSONNEL
CHART
PC-004
MELIS E GI EERI G LTD.
MINE MANAGER
TOTAL GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATION
SITE SERVICES SUPERVISOR: 2 x 1 = 2SITE SERVICES STAFF: 2 x 2 = 4WAREHOUSE SUPERVISOR: 2 x 1 = 2WAREHOUSE STAFF: 2 x 2 = 4ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNICIANS: 2 x 2 = 4RADIATION, HEALTH & SAFETY STAFF: 2 X 2 = 4HES&R SUPERVISOR: 1 x 1 = 1HUMAN RESOURCES STAFF: 2 x 2 = 4SITE SECRETARY AND FLIGHT CLERK: 2 x 2 = 4HUMAN RESOURCES SUPERVISOR: 1 x 1 = 1HES&R SUPERINTENDENT: 1MINE MANAGER 1TOTAL 32
SITE SERVICES SUPERVISOR
SITE SERVICES STAFF (2)
WAREHOUSE SUPERVISOR
WAREHOUSE AND TOOL CRIB STAFF
(2)
SITE ADMINISTRATION
SUPERVISOR
HEALTH, ENVIRONMENT AND SAFETYSUPERVISOR
ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNICIANS (2)
RADIATION, HEALTH AND
SAFETY STAFF (2)
HUMAN RESOURCES STAFF
(2)
SITE SECRETARY AND FLIGHT CLERK
(2)
SITE SERVICES SUPERVISOR
SITE SERVICES STAFF (2)
WAREHOUSE SUPERVISOR
WAREHOUSE AND TOOL CRIB STAFF
(2)
ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNICIANS (2)
RADIATION, HEALTH AND
SAFETY STAFF (2)
HUMAN RESOURCES SUPERVISOR
HUMAN RESOURCES STAFF
(2)
SITE SECRETARY AND FLIGHT CLERK
(2)
CREW 1 CREW 2