EX-99.1
2
ex991.htm
TECHNICAL REPORT FOR THE CHRISTIE LAKE URANIUM PROJECT, SASKATCHEWAN, CANADA DATED JUNE 7, 2022
ex991
Exhibit
99.1
Technical
Report
for the Christie Lake
Uranium Project, Saskatchewan, Canada
Report
Prepared for
UEX
Corporation
& JCU
(Canada) Exploration Company Limited
50% owned by UEX
Corporation
50% owned by Denison
Mines Corporation
Report
Prepared by
SRK Consulting (Canada)
Inc.
Glen Cole, PGeo (APEGS#
26003, APGO#1416)
Principal Consultant
(Resource Geology)
Effective date: December 31,
2021
Signature date: June 7,
2022
Technical Report
for the Christie Lake Uranium
Project,
Saskatchewan,
Canada
UEX Corporation and JCU (Canada) Exploration
Company Limited
Unit 200, 3530 Millar
Avenue
Saskatoon,
Saskatchewan, Canada
S7P 0B6
E-mail:
uex@uex-corporation.com
Website:
www.uex-corporation.com
Tel: +1
306-979-3849
Fax: +1
604-669-1240
SRK Consulting (Canada)
Inc.
Suite 1500, 155
University Avenue
Toronto, Ontario,
Canada
M5H 3B7
E-mail:
toronto@srk.com
Website:
www.srk.com
Tel: +1 416 601
1445
SRK Project Number
CAPR001752
Effective date:
December 31, 2021
Signature date: June 7,
2022
Qualified
Person
[“original
signed”]
Glen Cole, PGeo (APEGS#
26003, APGO#1416)
Principal Consultant
(Resource Geology)
Cover: Yalowega
Exploration Camp Site on Christie Lake
IMPORTANT NOTICE
This report was
prepared as a National Instrument 43-101 Standards of Disclosure for Mineral
Projects Technical Report for UEX Corporation (UEX) by SRK
Consulting (Canada) Inc. (SRK). The quality of information,
conclusions, and estimates contained herein are consistent with the
quality of effort involved in SRK’s services. The
information, conclusions, and estimates contained herein are based
on: i) information available at the time of preparation, ii) data
supplied by outside sources, and iii) the assumptions, conditions,
and qualifications set forth in this report. This report is
intended for use by UEX subject to the terms and conditions of its
contract with SRK and relevant securities legislation. The contract
permits UEX to file this report as a Technical Report with Canadian
securities regulatory authorities pursuant to National Instrument
43-101. Except for the purposes legislated under provincial
securities law, any other uses of this report by any third party is
at that party’s sole risk. The user of this document should
ensure that this is the most recent Technical Report for the
property as it is not valid if a new Technical Report has been
issued.
This document, as a
collective work of content and the coordination, arrangement and
any enhancement of said content, is protected by copyright vested
in SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc. (SRK).
Outside the purposes
legislated under provincial securities laws and stipulated in
SRK’s client contract, this document shall not be reproduced
in full or in any edited, abridged or otherwise amended form unless
expressly agreed in writing by SRK.
Executive
Summary
Introduction
The Christie Lake
Project is a uranium exploration project located in Saskatchewan,
Canada. It is located approximately 640 kilometres north of
Saskatoon. UEX currently holds a 65.5492% direct interest in the
Christie Lake Project which the Company is in joint venture with
JCU (Canada) Exploration Company, Limited (JCU), who has a
34.4508.5 interest. JCU is 50% owned by UEX and 50% by Denison
Mines Corp. (Denison).
This technical report
documents the Mineral Resource Statement prepared by SRK Consulting
(Canada) Inc. SRK for the Christie Lake Uranium Project,
Saskatchewan, Canada. It was prepared following the standards of
the Canadian Securities Administrators’ National Instrument
43-101(NI 43-101) and Form 43-101F1.
Property Description and
Ownership
The Christie Lake
Project encompasses the majority of Yalowega Lake of northern
Saskatchewan, and is located approximately 640 kilometres north of
Saskatoon, 110 kilometres west of Wollaston Lake and 270 kilometres
northeast of the community of Pinehouse. The project measures
approximately 7,922 hectares comprising of six contiguous areas to
which UEX shares title with JCU through a joint venture agreement.
UEX is the current project operator and holds a 65.5492 percent
direct interest in the Christie Lake Project with the remaining
34.4508 percent held by JCU. UEX through its 50% ownership of JCU
holds a further 17.2254% interest in The Christie Lake
Project.
The Christie Lake
Project, with uranium deposits along the Yalowega Trend, is an
undeveloped mineral resource definition-stage exploration project.
The exploration work completed thus far has been limited primarily
to drilling and geophysical surveys. Mineral dispositions for the
project were staked between 1985 and 1990.
The Christie Lake
Project is accessible by a series of paved and gravel roads leading
from Prince Albert to The McArthur River Mine, where a
20-kilometre-long access trail continues northeast to the Yalowega
Lake Camp. The project is located within the Athabasca sedimentary
basin region, coincident with the Athabasca Plain ecoregion and
Boreal Shield Ecozone. The topography of the area is relatively
flat characterized by undulating glacial moraine, outwash,
drumlins, and lacustrine plains.
The Christie Lake
Project originally consisted of three claims, CBS-6163, CBS-7610
and CBS-8027, staked between 1985 and 1986 by PNC. Three additional
claims, S-101720, S-101721, and S-101722, were staked and added to
the project in 1990. The Christie Lake Project was owned and
operated by PNC from 1985 to 2000 and the six claims were actively
explored until 1997. In November 2000, JCU acquired 100 percent
ownership of the Christie Lake Project. Active exploration,
however, did not resume until January 2016 when JCU entered into an
option agreement with UEX. In August 2021 UEX and Denison each
acquired a 50% interest in JCU (Canada) Exploration Company Ltd.
and UEX and Denison now indirectly own 50% of JCU’s 34.4508%
interest in the property.
Geology and Mineralization
The Christie Lake
Project is located in the south-eastern Athabasca Basin, underlain
by late Paleoproterozoic Manitou Falls Group sandstone,
conglomerate and mudstone. The shallowly dipping sandstones of the
Athabasca Basin lies unconformably upon Archean granitic gneiss and
early Paleoproterozoic metasedimentary gneiss rocks of the
Wollaston Domain. The project lies within the western part of the
Wollaston Domain, which is part of the Cree Lake Mobile Zone of the
Trans-Hudson Orogen. Unconsolidated Quaternary glacial and
periglacial deposits, consisting of ground moraine, esker, drumlin,
outwash, aeolian and lacustrine sediments, effectively mask most of
the bedrock in the area and can form a cover up to 90 metres
thick.
The Paul Bay, Ken Pen,
and Ōrora uranium mineralized zones are located in the
northeastern part of the property, in mineral disposition CBS-8027.
The northwest part of the project area is cut by the Yalowega Trend
Fault, interpreted as an extension of the P2 Fault that hosts the
uranium deposits at the McArthur River Mine.
In the eastern part of
the basin, where the Christie Lake Project is located, the
Athabasca Group is represented by the Manitou Falls Formation and
is an approximately 400-metre-thick sequence of quartz arenite
sandstone with minor conglomerate beds and trace mudstone
beds.
The Wollaston Domain is
a northeast-trending fold thrust belt composed of remobilized
Archean basement and overlying Paleoproterozoic supracrustal
sequences of the Wollaston Supergroup. At Christie Lake the hanging
wall lithologies of the Wollaston Domain are mostly semi-pelite
paleosome with intervals of pegmatite textured neosome. The
footwall lithologies are more quartz-rich composed mainly of
psammite and quartzo-feldspathic gneiss. The base of the hanging
wall is characterized by an interval of graphitic pelite, often
faulted, that is spatially related to uranium
mineralization.
The Paul Bay Zone is an
80-metre-long mineralized body that plunges for at least 200 metres
to the southwest from the unconformity and follows the dip of the
faulted Lower Wollaston Domain graphitic metasedimentary rocks
characterized by an interval of graphitic pelite. The Ken Pen Zone
is approximately 260 metres to the northeast from the Paul Bay
Zone, striking in a northeast direction concordant with the
Yalowega Trend Fault. Ken Pen plunges about 80 m into the basement
from the unconformity with a plunge that is similar to Paul Bay.
The Ōrora Zone is located approximately 360 m northeast
of the Ken Pen Zone. Ōrora uranium mineralization manifests
dominantly at the unconformity, approximately 420 metres below
surface and can extend up to 40 metres into the basement rocks
along the Yalowega Fault.
The mineralized zones
along the Yalowega Trend are associated with intense fracturing and
brecciation and have a bleached argillic alteration halo extending
up to 35 metres above the mineralization. The best uranium
mineralization is associated with breccias in the lower part of the
Yalowega Trend Fault Zone. Alteration haloes associated with the
mineralized zones at Christie Lake are typical of Athabasca Basin
uranium deposits and are dominated by silicification, hematization,
precipitation of drusy quartz and illitization with massive quartz
dissolution and intense fracturing. In the basement rocks the
alteration typically consists of hydrothermal illitization,
chloritization and the development of dravite, which is
superimposed upon and commonly obliterates the paleo-weathering
profile. The alteration styles at the Christie Lake Project are
found as haloes around the mineralized zones.
Exploration Status
After staking of the
claims, the initial exploration work at the Christie Lake Project
was ground geophysical surveys. Gravity and time domain
electromagnetic (TDEM) surveys with fixed loop and stepwise moving
loop configurations were initiated in 1986 and completed in 1987.
Airborne frequency domain (HEM) and TDEM coupled with magnetic data
surveys were completed in 1992.
Lake sediment sampling
was completed in 1987 and followed-up by a soil sampling program in
1988. Between 1987 and 1997 eight ground TDEM surveys of various
configurations were completed over the Christie Lake Project. The
most effective survey was the 1994 fixed loop TDEM survey that
focused on the Yalowega Trend.
JCU did not perform any
exploration activity in the period 2000 to 2016.
UEX has conducted
48,641 m of core drilling in 104 drill holes along the Yalowega
Trend between Paul Bay and the northern property boundary between
2016 and 2021.
The exploration
potential of the Yalowega Trend is largely related to the
unconformity subcrop of graphitic metasedimentary rocks that have
been faulted by syn- and post-Athabasca sandstone deformation
events and can be inferred by conductors from various
configurations of electromagnetic surveys. The Yalowega Trend is
largely untested beyond the area between the Paul Bay and
Ōrora zones.
Data Verification
In the opinion of the
Qualified Person (“QP”), the sampling preparation,
security, and analytical procedures used by UEX are consistent with
generally accepted industry best practices and are, therefore,
adequate for an exploration project.
In accordance with NI
43-101 reporting standards, the qualified person Mr. Glen Cole,
P.Geo. (APEGS#26003, APGO#1416) visited the Christie Lake Project
between September 19 and 20, 2018 during drilling operations,
accompanied by Mr. Chris Hamel, P.Geo. (APEGS# 12985) and other UEX
personnel.
The purpose of the site
visit was to review the generation of the exploration database and
validation procedures, review exploration procedures, define
geological modelling procedures, examine drill core, interview
project personnel, and to collect relevant information for the
preparation of a mineral resource model and the compilation of a
technical report.
The QP was given full
access to relevant data and conducted interviews with UEX personnel
to obtain information on the past exploration work, to understand
procedures used to collect, record, store and analyze historical
and current exploration data.
Overall, the QP
considers analytical results from core sampling conducted at the
Christie Lake Project as globally sufficiently reliable for the
purpose of resource estimation. The data examined by the QP do not
present obvious evidence of significant analytical
bias.
Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve
Estimates
The construction of the
mineral resource was undertaken by independent SRK staff under the
supervision of qualified person Mr. Glen Cole, P.Geo. (APEGS#
26003, APGO#1416) who also conducted the site visit.
UEX staff including Mr.
Chris Hamel, P.Geo. (APEGS#12985) provided technical input
throughout the geological and mineralized domain modeling process
which was reviewed by the QP. The mineral resource estimation
process was reviewed by Mr. Cliff Revering, P.Geo. (APEGS#
9764).
By virtue of his
education, membership to a recognized professional association, and
relevant work experience, Mr. Cole is an independent qualified
person as this term is defined by National Instrument
43-101.
The mineralization zone
boundaries were developed using a combined set of criteria
including lithology, alteration and mineralization logging,
presence of clay and assay grade. Overall, the marginal threshold
value of 0.01 percent U3O8 was used for
contouring, however, the intervals with U3O8 grade between 0.01
and 0.05 percent were included only if additional logged evidence
of uranium mineralization exist.
Most of the analytical
samples were collected at 0.5-metre intervals. A modal composite
length of approximately 0.5 metres was applied to all the data,
generating composites as close to 0.5-metres as possible, while
creating residual intervals of up to 0.25 metres in length (drill
hole assays). In all cases, composite files were derived from raw
values within the modelled resource domains.
Given the high
correlation between U3O8 grades and specific
gravity, block specific gravity values were calculated from
estimated uranium grades using the following quadratic regression
formula:
,
where SG is the
estimated specific gravity and U3O8 is the assayed or
estimated uranium grade.
Polygonal declustering
bounded by the domain solids was applied to capped composite grades
to produce representative uranium statistics. Spatial statistics
was performed on capped composite grades of all domains and
deposits combined. Due to the difficulty to obtain workable
experimental variograms for individual domains, all data for
variography was combined and experimental variograms were
calculated on normal-scores transformed composite grades, which
were back-transformed to original units for the fitting of the
variogram model.
The block model was
rotated to coincide with the overall strike of the three deposits
and consists of 5 by 10 by 2.5 metres parent cells with 0.5 by 0.5
by 0.5 subcells. Grade estimation was undertaken by ordinary
kriging (OK) constrained by uranium mineralization wireframes. In
all cases the boundaries defined by the mineralization wireframes
were treated as hard.
Grade estimation was
undertaken in four passes using dynamic anisotropic search
ellipsoids for all passes excepting the first one. The local angles
required for dynamic anisotropy were obtained from the wireframe
facets and interpolated into the model. The last two passes were
designed to fill the gaps and to complete the estimation of all the
blocks within the domains. Thus, the search ranges for the third
and fourth passes correspond to twice and trice the full variogram
ranges, respectively.
The estimated block
model was validated visually and statistically using cross
sections, swath-plots and change of support analysis.
The Mineral Resource Statement for
the Christie Lake Project is presented in Table i. Considering the
early stage of the Christie Lake Project, the general widely spaced
drill pattern and the overall uncertainty in the spatial
distribution of grades, the QP considers all the reported mineral
resources to be classified as Inferred Mineral Resources. The QP
considers a cut-off grade of 0.2 percent of U3O 8 to be reasonable in
terms of sustaining underground production and processing costs.
This cut-off grade estimate is based on price and recovery
assumptions of $US50/lb and 97% respectively. The QP also notes
that the reported Mineral Resource is relatively insensitive to the
cut-off grade applied. The effective date of the Mineral Resource
Statement for the Christie Lake Project is December 31,
2021.
Table i: Mineral Resource Statement*, Christie
Lake Project, Saskatchewan, Canada,
SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc., December 31,
2021
Deposit
Tonnage
Grade
Contained Metal
(000s)
(% U3O8)
(Mlb U3O8)
Inferred Mineral Resources
Paul Bay
338
1.81
13.49
Ken Pen
149
1.05
3.44
Ōrora
102
1.53
3.41
Total
588
1.57
20.35
* Mineral resources are
not mineral reserves and have not demonstrated economic viability.
All figures have been rounded to reflect the relative accuracy of
the estimates. Reported at a cut-off grade of 0.2% U3O8.
Conclusion and
Recommendations
Exploration drilling on
the Christie Lake Project has focused on the Paul Bay, Ken Pen and
Ōrora zones to test the continuity of uranium mineralization
at and near the unconformity within the project. SMDC, PNC and UEX
and previous operators completed a total of 200 core drill holes
(96,160 metres) between 1988 to 2021. Exploration programs to date
have revealed a variety of uranium mineralization styles at the
three main zones that includes a combination of basement- and
unconformity-hosted mineralization.
The QP witnessed the
extent of the exploration work and can confirm that UEX’s
activities are conducted using field procedures that meet generally
accepted industry best practices. The QP is of the opinion that the
exploration data are sufficiently reliable to interpret the
boundaries of the uranium mineralization and support the evaluation
and classification of mineral resources in accordance with
generally accepted CIM Estimation of Mineral Resource and Mineral
Reserve Best Practices and CIM Definition Standards for Mineral
Resources and Mineral Reserves.
The block model was
classified using a combination of tools, including confidence in
the geological interpretation, search radii, minimum number of
drill holes and composites, variography, and estimation pass. In
collaboration with UEX, the QP selected a block size of 5 by 10 by
2.5 metres for all mineralized zones. Sub-cells were assigned the
same grade as the parent cell. The block model is rotated on the
Z-axis to honour the orientation of the overall strike of the three
deposits.
In all cases, grade
estimation used an ordinary kriging estimation algorithm and four
estimation passes informed by capped composites. Validation checks
confirm that the block estimates are a reasonable representation of
the informing data considering the current level of geological and
geostatistical understanding of the project.
No processing or
metallurgical data is currently available for Project lithologies
or the uranium mineralization. Considering this uncertainty, the
current level of drilling and the uncertainty in grade continuity,
the QP considers all block estimates within the mineralized zones
to be classified as Inferred.
The geological setting,
character of the uranium mineralization delineated, and exploration
results to date are of sufficient merit to justify additional
exploration expenditure to potentially expand the uranium
mineralization footprint on the Christie Lake
property.
The QP supports
UEX’s primary exploration objectives for the Christie Lake
property, which are:
Expand the existing
zones of uranium mineralization along the Yalowega
Trend.
Identify and/or
test:
Additional areas of
uranium mineralization along the Yalowega Trend.
The remainder of the P2
structural corridor to the southwest of the three main
zones.
The southern conductive
corridor(s).
The Christie Lake
Project hosts multiple significant uranium deposits along the
Yalowega Trend. The trend remains under-explored and is considered
highly prospective for the discovery of additional lenses and zones
of uranium mineralization.
The QP supports the
proposed UEX two-phase exploration program for the Christie Lake
Project which is focussed on identifying additional uranium
mineralization and expanding the current uranium mineralization
footprint on the property. The first phase of the exploration
program has a budget of C$6,000,000 and is expected to commence in
the winter of 2022. The second phase will comprise an initial
evaluation of the southern conductive corridor and will be
contingent of the first phase and has a budget of approximately
C$2,000,000.
The proposed
exploration program should be pro-actively managed, with new
information rapidly integrated into the uranium mineralization
interpretation. Additional infill exploration drilling should also
be considered in order to increase the mineral resources category
from Inferred to Indicated in the high-grade areas of Paul Bay and
Ōrora zones. Drill programs should be flexible enough to be
modified to integrate new information and interpretations which
could have a positive impact on the uranium mineral
resource.
Table of Contents
IMPORTANT NOTICE
ii
Executive Summary
iii
Introduction
iii
Property Description and Ownership
iii
Geology and Mineralization
iv
Exploration Status
v
Data Verification
v
Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve
Estimates
vi
Conclusion and Recommendations
vii
Table of Contents
ix
List of Tables
xii
List of Figures
xiii
1. Introduction and Terms of
Reference
15
1.1. Scope of Work
15
1.2. Work Program
16
1.3. Basis of Technical
Report
16
1.4. Qualifications of the SRK
Team
16
1.5. Site Visit
16
1.6. Acknowledgement
17
1.7. Declaration
17
2. Reliance on Other
Experts
18
3. Property Description and
Location
19
3.1. Mineral
Tenure
19
3.2. Underlying
Agreements
22
3.3. Permits and
Authorization
22
3.4. Environmental
Considerations
23
3.5. Mining Rights in
Saskatchewan
23
4. Accessibility, Climate,
Local Resources, Infrastructure, and Physiography
24
4.1. Accessibility
24
4.2. Local Resources and
Infrastructure
24
4.3. Climate
26
4.4. Physiography
26
5. History
27
5.1. Property
Ownership
27
1. Exploration and Development
History
27
5.1.1. PNC (1985 –
2000)
27
5.1.2. JCU (2000 –
2016)
42
2. Historical Mineral Resource
Estimates
42
3. Historical
Production
42
6. Geological Setting and
Mineralization
43
6.1. Regional
Geology
43
6.2. Property
Geology
43
6.2.1. Athabasca Group
46
6.2.2. Wollaston Group
46
6.2.3. Structural
Geology
46
6.3. Mineralization
47
6.4. Alteration
50
7. Deposit Types
51
8. Exploration
53
8.1. UEX (2016 –
2021)
53
8.1.1. DC Resistivity and EM Surveys
(2019-2020)
53
8.2. TDEM Surveys
(2020)
58
8.3. Exploration
Targets
61
9. Drilling
62
9.1. Drilling by UEX (2016
– 2021)
63
9.2. Drilling
Procedures
66
9.2.1. Historical Operators
(Pre-1997)
66
9.2.2. UEX (2016 –
2021)
66
9.3. Surveying
69
9.4. Core Recovery
69
9.5. SRK Comments
69
10. Sample Preparation,
Analyses, and Security
70
10.1. PNC (1985 –
2000)
70
10.2. JCU (2000 –
2016)
70
10.3. UEX (2016 –
2021)
70
10.4. Specific Gravity
Data
71
10.5. Quality Assurance and
Quality Control Programs
72
10.5.1. PNC (1985 –
2000)
72
10.5.2. JCU (2000 –
2016)
72
10.5.3. UEX (2016 –
2021)
72
10.6. Security
73
10.7. SRK Comments
73
11. Data
Verification
74
11.1. Verifications by
UEX
74
11.1.1. Data Collection and
Verification
74
11.2. Verifications by
SRK
75
11.2.1. Site Visit
75
11.2.2. Database
Verifications
75
11.2.3. Verifications of Analytical
Quality Control Data
76
11.2.4. SRK Comments
77
12. Mineral Processing and
Metallurgical Testing
79
13. Mineral Resource
Estimates
80
13.1. Introduction
80
13.2. Resource Estimation
Procedures
80
13.3. Resource
Database
81
13.4. Geological
Modelling
82
13.5. Statistical Analysis and
Compositing
82
13.6. Evaluation of
Outliers
84
13.7. Specific
Gravity
85
13.8. Statistical Analysis and
Variography
85
13.9. Block Model and Grade
Estimation
87
13.10. Model
Validation
88
13.11. Mineral Resource
Classification
89
13.12. Mineral Resource
Statement
89
13.13. Grade Sensitivity
Analysis
92
13.14. Recommendations
92
14. Adjacent
Properties
93
14.1. The McArthur River Mine
(Cameco)
93
15. Other Relevant Data and
Information
96
16. Interpretation and
Conclusions
97
17. Recommendations
99
17.1. Phase 1
99
17.2. Phase 2
100
17.3. Metallurgical Test
Work
100
17.4. Comment
101
18. References
102
APPENDIX A
105
APPENDIX B
114
List of Tables
Table i: Mineral
Resource Statement*, Christie Lake Project, Saskatchewan, Canada,
SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc., December 31, 2021
vii
Table 1: Mineral Tenure
Information for the Christie Lake Uranium Project 19
Table 2: Best
Management Practices and Required Permits 22
Table 3: Sediment
Sampling Results for the Christie Lake Project (1987)
28
Table 4: Summary of
Exploration Work Completed by PNC on the Christie Lake Uranium
Project (1986-1997) 29
Table 5: Summary of
Ground TDEM Surveys – 1986 to 1997 29
Table 6: Summary of
Drilling on the Christie Lake Uranium Project 39
Table 7: Notable Core
Intersections on the Christie Lake Uranium Project (PNC 1989-1997)
41
Table 8: Christie Lake
Project Historical Mineral Resource Estimate, PNC, 1997
42
Table 9: Summary of
Drilling Conducted on the Christie Lake Uranium Project (1988-2021)
63
Table 10: Summary of
Preparation and Assay Methodologies 71
Table 11: Summary of
Control Samples used by UEX and SRC on the Christie Lake Project
(2016-2021) 73
Table 12: Summary of
Analytical Quality Control Data Produced by UEX on the Christie
Lake Uranium Project 77
Table 13: Summary Basic
Statistics for Composite and Capped Composite Data for Christie
Lake Domains 84
Table 14: Variogram
Model Parameters for U3O8 87
Table 15: Block Model
Parameters 87
Table 16: Estimation
Search Parameters 88
Table 17: Christie Lake
Project Cut-off Grade Assumptions 91
Table 18: Mineral
Resource Statement*, Christie Lake Project, Saskatchewan, Canada,
SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc., December 31, 2021 91
Table 19: Grade –
Tonnage Sensitivities to Cut-off Grades 92
Table 20: Phase 1
Exploration Budget for 2022 100
Table 21: Phase 2
Exploration Program and Budget 100
List of Figures
Figure 1: Location of the Christie Lake Uranium
Project in Saskatchewan, Canada
20
Figure 2: Land Tenure Map of the Christie Lake
Uranium Project
21
Figure 3: Infrastructure and Typical Landscape
in the Christie Lake Project Area
25
Figure 4: Line-cutting and Grids on the Christie
Lake Uranium Project by PNC (1986-1997)
30
Figure 5: TDEM Surveys and Grid on the Christie
Lake Uranium Project by PNC (1994)
32
Figure 6: TDEM Survey and Grid on the Christie
Lake Uranium Project by PNC (1997)
33
Figure 7: Compilation of 1986-1997 TDEM
Conductors on the Christie Lake Uranium Project Conducted by
PNC
34
Figure 8: Channel EM2, GEOTEM Survey on the
Christie Lake Uranium Project by PNC (1982)
36
Figure 9: Vertical Magnetic Gradient, DIGHEM
Survey on the Christie Lake Uranium Project by PNC
(1992)
37
Figure 10: 7200 Hertz Apparent Resistivity,
DIGHEM Survey on the Christie Lake Uranium Project by PNC
(1992)
38
Figure 11: Map Showing the Distribution of
Drilling on the Christie Lake Uranium Project
40
Figure 12: Regional Geology Setting of the
Christie Lake Uranium Project
44
Figure 13: Local Geology Setting of the Christie
Lake Uranium Project
45
Figure 14: Uranium Mineralization in NQ Core at
the Christie Lake Uranium Project
48
Figure 15: Unconformity Related Deposit
Models
51
Figure 16: 2019 DC Resistivity
Coverage
54
Figure 17: Christie North Resistivity
Interpretation – Sandstone
56
Figure 18: Christie North Resistivity
Interpretation - Basement
56
Figure 19: Christie South Resistivity
Interpretation – Sandstone
57
Figure 20: Christie South Resistivity
Interpretation – Basement
57
Figure 21: 2020 TDEM Coverage with
Loops
59
Figure 22: Anomaly Locations Plotted by
Conductor Number
60
Figure 23: Summary of Drilling Conducted on the
Christie Lake Uranium Project (1988-2021)
62
Figure 24: Plan Map of Drilling on the Paul Bay,
Ken Pen and Ōrora Zones, Christie Lake Uranium
Project
65
Figure 25: Team Drilling Limited Drill Rig
During the 2018 Summer Drilling Program
66
Figure 26: Time Series Plots for Blank Material
and Certified Reference Material Samples Assayed by SRC Laboratory
in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada, Between 2016 and
2018.
76
Figure 27: Estimation Domains
83
Figure 28: Length Frequency Distribution of the
Samples Within the Mineralization Domains
84
Figure 29: U3O8 vs. Specific Gravity Regression
Curve and Equation
85
Figure 30: Cumulative Probability Plots for
Declustered Composite Data
86
Figure 31: Normal Scores (NS) and
Back-transformed (Y-Z) Experimental Variograms and Fitted Variogram
Model for U3O8 Grades
Figure 33: Quantile-Quantile Plot of the Change
of Support Corrected Composite and Estimated U3O8 Grades for Paul
Bay 1 Domain
89
Figure 34: Illustrative Resource Model Sections
Across the Ken Pen (Top) and Paul Bay (Bottom) Mineral Resource
Domains, Showing U3O8 Grade Continuity Above Reporting Cut-off
Grade (0.2 % U3O8)
90
Figure 34: Plan Showing the Location of the
McArthur River Uranium Mine in Relation to the Christie Lake
Project and Other Reference Deposits
94
Introduction and
Terms of Reference
The Christie Lake
Project is a uranium exploration project located in Saskatchewan,
Canada. UEX currently holds a 65.5492% direct interest in the
Christie Lake Project which the Company is in joint venture with
JCU (Canada) Exploration Company, Limited (JCU), who has a
34.4508.5 interest. JCU is 50% owned by UEX and 50% by Denison
Mines Corp. (Denison).
UEX is a Canadian
uranium exploration and development company. UEX is currently
advancing its Canadian uranium deposits at Christie Lake, Horseshoe
- Raven, and Shea Creek. Through it’s wholly owned subsidiary
CoEX Metals Corporation (CoEX) it is evaluating and advancing the
West Bear Cobalt-Nickel Deposit on the West Bear
Property.
An initial technical
report primarily summarizing the exploration activities undertaken
on the Christie Lake Project was prepared and publicly filed for
UEX on March 28, 2017 (Perkins et al, 2017). In July 2018, UEX
commissioned SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc. (SRK) to visit the
Christie Lake property and prepare a geological and mineral
resource model for the Christie Lake Project. In February 2022 UEX
commissioned SRK to review and update the mineral resource estimate
and issue a Technical Report, with an effective date of December
31, 2021.
This technical report
documents the Mineral Resource Statement prepared by the QP for the
Christie Lake Project, Saskatchewan, Canada. It was prepared
following the standards of the Canadian Securities
Administrators’ National Instrument 43-101(NI 43-101) and
Form 43-101F1. The Mineral Resource Statement reported herein was
prepared in conformity with generally accepted Canadian Institute
of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (CIM) Exploration Best Practices Guidelines
and CIM Estimation of Mineral
Resources and Mineral Reserves Best Practice
Guidelines.
1.1.
Scope of Work
The scope of work, as
defined in letters of engagement executed on July 24, 2018 and on
February 22, 2022 between UEX and SRK includes the
construction of a mineral resource model for the uranium
mineralization delineated by drilling on the Christie Lake Project,
and the preparation of an independent technical report in
compliance with NI 43-101 and Form 43-101F1 guidelines. This work
typically involves the assessment of the following aspects of the
project:
●
Topography, landscape, access
●
Regional and local geology
●
Exploration history
●
Audit of exploration work carried out on the
project
●
Geological modelling
●
Mineral resource estimation and
validation
●
Preparation of a Mineral Resource
Statement
●
Recommendations for additional work
1.2.
Work Program
The Mineral Resource
Statement reported herein was generated by SRK personnel from
audited data received from UEX. The exploration database was
compiled and maintained by UEX and was audited by the Qualified
Person (QP). The geological / mineral resource domain model was
created by the QP using three-dimensional geological wireframes
provided by UEX as guidance. The outlines for the uranium
mineralization were constructed by the QP. In the opinion of the
QP, the updated geological model is a reasonable representation of
the distribution of the mineralization at the current level of
sampling. The geostatistical analysis, variography and grade models
were completed by the QP during the months of September to December
2018. The original Mineral Resource Statement reported herein was
presented to UEX in a memorandum report on December 13, 2018
and disclosed publicly in a news release dated December 19,
2018.
The Mineral Resource
Statement reported herein was prepared in conformity with the
generally accepted CIM Exploration
Best Practices Guidelines and CIM Estimation of Mineral Resource and Mineral
Reserves Best Practices Guidelines. This technical report
was prepared following the standards of the NI 43-101 and Form
43-101F1.
This technical report
was assembled by the author in Toronto during March
2022.
1.3.
Basis of Technical Report
This report is based on
information collected by the QP during a site visit performed
between September 19 and 20, 2018 and on additional information
provided by UEX throughout the course of the QP’s
investigations. The author has no reason to doubt the reliability
of the information provided by UEX. Other information was obtained
from the public domain. This technical report is based on the
following sources of information:
●
Discussions with UEX personnel.
●
Inspection of the Christie Lake Project area,
including drill core.
●
Review of exploration data collected by
UEX.
●
Additional information from public domain
sources.
●
Report contributions provided by
UEX.
1.4.
Qualifications of the SRK Team
The mineral resource
evaluation work of this technical report was completed by Dr.
Aleksandr Mitrofanov, PGeo (APGO#2824) and Dr. David Machuca, PEng
(PEO#100508889) from SRK under the supervision of Mr. Glen Cole,
PGeo (APEGS#26003, APGO#1416), a Principal Consultant and Practice
Leader with SRK who the QP responsible for this technical report
is. Mr. Cliff Revering, PGeo (APEGS#9764) from SRK peer reviewed
the mineral resource model. By virtue of their education,
membership to a recognized professional association and relevant
work experience, Mr. Cole is an independent Qualified Person as
this term is defined by NI 43-101.
1.5.
Site Visit
In accordance with NI
43-101 guidelines, Mr. Cole visited the Christie Lake Project on
September 19 to 20, 2018 during the active drilling program,
accompanied Mr. Christopher Hamel and other UEX
personnel.
The purpose of the site
visit was to review the digitalization of the exploration database
and validation procedures, review exploration procedures, define
geological modelling procedures, examine drill core, interview
project personnel, and collect all relevant information for the
preparation of the geological and mineral resource models and the
compilation of the technical report.
The site visit was
primarily aimed at investigating the geological controls on the
distribution of the uranium mineralization to facilitate the
construction of three-dimensional domains populated with uranium
values. The QP was given full access to relevant data and conducted
interviews with UEX personnel to obtain information on the past
exploration work, to understand procedures used to collect, record,
store and analyze historical and current exploration
data.
1.6.
Acknowledgement
The author would like
to acknowledge the logistical support provided by UEX personnel
including Mr. Christopher Hamel (Vice President, Exploration)
during the site visit.
1.7.
Declaration
The QP’s opinion
contained herein and effective December 31, 2021 is based on
information collected by the QP throughout the course of the
QP’s investigations. The information in turn reflects various
technical and economic conditions at the time of writing this
report. Given the nature of the mining business, these conditions
can change significantly over relatively short periods of time.
Consequently, actual results may be significantly more or less
favourable. The QP considers the Mineral Resource Statement
supported by the SRK (2021) technical report to be current as no
additional data has been added within the area of the mineral
resource and the effective cut-off grade is suitable. Additionally,
the subsequent drilling external to the area of the mineral
resource is considered by the QP to be too widely spaced to warrant
confident wireframing to support mineral resource
estimation.
This report may include
technical information that requires subsequent calculations to
derive subtotals, totals, and weighted averages. Such calculations
inherently involve a degree of rounding and consequently introduce
a margin of error. Where these occur, the QP does not consider them
to be material.
Glen Cole is not an
insider, associate, or an affiliate of UEX and no employee of SRK
nor any affiliate has acted as advisor to UEX, its subsidiaries or
its affiliates in connection with this project. The results of the
technical review by SRK are not dependent on any prior agreements
concerning the conclusions to be reached, nor are there any
undisclosed understandings concerning any future business
dealings.
Reliance on Other
Experts
The qualified person is
partially relying upon the Opinion of Title dated September 7, 2021
by Robertson Stromberg LLP, titled “UEX Corporation - Review
of Certain Mineral Dispositions” wherein section IV Item 3 it
is stated that they are of the opinion that UEX is direct holder of
65.5492% interest on the Christie Lake claims. UEX and Denison each
own 50% of the JCU, who has a 34.4508% interest in the property.
The authors are in part relying upon this report as assurance of
the claim title equity, the equity stated in the report is
consistent with the records indicated by UEX. This reliance applies
to Section 5.1.
The QP also
independently verified the land title and tenure information as
summarized in Section 3 of this report by reviewing the details
thereof on the Mineral Administration Registry System of
Saskatchewan (MARS) website.
Property
Description and Location
The Christie Lake
Project encompasses the majority of Yalowega Lake of northern
Saskatchewan, and is located approximately 640 kilometres north of
Saskatoon, 110 kilometres west of the community of Wollaston Lake,
270 kilometres northeast of the community of Pinehouse, and 340
kilometres north of the town of La Ronge. The project is located
within the corridor of high-grade uranium deposits in the eastern
Athabasca basin and is approximately 10 kilometres northeast of
McArthur River Mine and 30 kilometres southwest of Cigar Lake. The
Key Lake uranium mill is approximately 80 kilometres to the
southwest of the project. The centre of the project is located at
approximately 104.515 degrees longitude west and 57.484 degrees
latitude north (Figure 1).
3.1.
Mineral Tenure
The Christie Lake
Project measures approximately 7,922 hectares comprising of six
contiguous areas to which UEX shares title with JCU through a joint
venture agreement. UEX is the current project operator and holds a
65.5492 percent interest in the Christie Lake Project with the
remaining 34.4508 percent held
by JCU. JCU is 50% owned by UEX and 50% by Denison Mines Corp. The
annual assessment work required is C$25.00 per hectare. Total
annual assessment expenditure requirements for Christie Lake are
C$198,050. The uranium mineralized Paul Bay, Ken Pen, and
Ōrora zones are located on disposition CBS 8027 (Figure
2).
Under Saskatchewan law,
claims are staked through an online registry. The map-designated
coordinates of the claims are the legal limits of said claims, the
physical limits can be verified by consulting the
Government’s Mineral Administration Registry Saskatchewan
(“MARS”) website.
A summary of the tenure
information, as extracted from the MARS website, is presented in
Table 1 . All claims are 100 percent owned by JCU / UEX and are in
good standing with expiry dates varying between October 7, 2043 and
June 3, 2044.
Table 1: Mineral Tenure
Information for the Christie Lake Uranium Project
Disposition
Number
Record
Date
Area
(Ha)
Annual Assessment
(C$/Ha)
Total Annual
Assessment
(C$)
Work Due / Lapse
Date
CBS-6163
10/7/1985
1,263
25
$31,575
10/7/2043
CBS-7610
10/7/1985
1,732
25
$43,300
10/7/2043
CBS-8027*
15/1/1986
2,291
25
$57,275
14/4/2044
S-101720
7/12/1990
83
25
$2,075
6/3/2044
S-101721
7/12/1990
404
25
$10,100
6/3/2044
S-101722
7/12/1990
2,149
25
$53,725
6/3/2044
Total
7,992
$198,050
* Location of the Paul
Bay, Ken Pen and Ōrora Uranium Mineralized Zones
Figure 1: Location of
the Christie Lake Uranium Project in Saskatchewan,
Canada
Figure 2: Land Tenure
Map of the Christie Lake Uranium Project
3.2.
Underlying Agreements
In 2016, UEX and JCU
entered into an option agreement by which UEX was to earn up to 70
percent interest in the Christie Lake Project over the next four
years. This option agreement was terminated in November 2018 upon
UEX reaching 60 percent equity in the project and the two companies
entered into a joint venture agreement. UEX currently holds 82.775%
combined direct and indirect interest in the Christie Lake Project
which the Company is in joint venture with JCU. UEX is the current
project operator and holds a 65.5492 percent direct interest in the
Christie Lake Project with the remaining 34.4508 percent held by
JCU. Both UEX and Denison, each through their 50% ownership of JCU
holds a 17.2254% indirect interest in the Christie Lake Project.
There are with no additional royalties, back-in rights, or
encumbrances on the project or potential uranium production, other
than the standard royalties due to the Government of
Saskatchewan.
3.3.
Permits and Authorization
Mineral exploration on
land administered by the Ministry of Environment requires that
surface disturbance permits be obtained prior to exploration
activities. The Saskatchewan Mineral Exploration and Government
Advisory Committee (SMEGAC) have developed the Mineral Exploration
Guidelines for Saskatchewan to mitigate environmental impacts from
industry activity and facilitate governmental approval for such
activities. Applications to conduct exploration work need only to
address the relevant topics of those listed in the guidelines. The
types of activities are listed under the guide’s best
management practises (BMP) are tabulated in Table 2.
Table 2: Best
Management Practices and Required Permits
Best Management Practises
Permits Required and
Obtained
Staking
-
Grassroots Exploration
-
Forest Clearing
Forest Production
Permit 15PA269
Forest Production
Permit 17PA069
Temporary Work Camps
Temporary Work Camp
15PA269
Temporary Work Camp
16PA281
Temporary Work Camp
17PA069
Hazardous Wastes and Goods
-
Fire Prevention and Control
-
Access
Forest Production
Permit 15PA269
Forest Production
Permit 17PA069
Water Crossings
Aquatic Habitat
Protection Permit 15PA269
Aquatic Habitat
Protection Permit 17PA069
Exploration Trenching
-
Drilling on Land
Forest Production
Permit 15PA269
Forest Production
Permit 17PA069
Drilling on Ice
Aquatic Habitat
Protection Permit 15PA269
Aquatic Habitat
Protection Permit 17PA069
Core Storage
Ministry of Economy legislation states that core
is to be left on-site. Since this requirement is indicated in
provincial legislation, mineral companies can leave core boxes with
core on-site indefinitely without any additional
permit/approval.
Restoration
-
First Nations and Métis Community
Engagement
Letters to stakeholders
submitted
Water Usage
Temporary Water Rights
Licence to use Surface Water E8/10914 & E8/10915
Temporary Water Rights
Licence to use Surface Water E8/10925 & E8/10926
There are no known
environmental issues or liabilities potentially affecting the
Christie Lake Project and all the proper permits required to
conduct exploration activities on the property for all exploration
campaigns have been obtained.
3.4.
Environmental Considerations
The Christie Lake
Project, with uranium deposits along the Yalowega Trend, is an
undeveloped mineral resource definition-stage exploration project.
The exploration work completed thus far has been limited primarily
to drilling and geophysical surveys.
As far as the author
can determine, the environmental liabilities related to the
Christie Lake Project, if any, are negligible.
3.5.
Mining Rights in Saskatchewan
In Saskatchewan,
mineral resources are owned by the Crown and managed by the
Saskatchewan Ministry of the Economy using the Crown Minerals Act
and the Mineral Tenure Registry Regulations, 2012. Staking for
mineral dispositions in Saskatchewan is conducted through the
online staking system, MARS. Mineral dispositions for the Christie
Lake Project were staked between 1985 and 1990, prior to the
implementation of MARS. Accordingly, ground staking methods were
employed by PNC Exploration (Canada) Co. Ltd. (PNC) to secure these
dispositions. These dispositions give the stakeholders the right to
explore the lands within the disposition area for economic mineral
deposits.
Accessibility,
Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure, and
Physiography
4.1.
Accessibility
The Christie Lake
Project is accessible by a series of paved and gravel roads leading
from Prince Albert to the McArthur River Mine, where a
20-kilometre-long access trail continues northeast to the Yalowega
Lake Camp.
Highway 2 is paved road
leading 187 kilometres north from Prince Albert where it connects
to Highway 165. This well-maintained gravel road extends west for
112 kilometres to a junction with public access Highway 914 which
leads 268 kilometres to the Key Lake mill facility. A 78-kilometre
private access haul road maintained by Cameco Corporation connects
Key Lake to the McArthur River Mine area where the Christie Lake
access trail begins.
Charter flights can be
arranged to land at the McArthur River airport year-round.
Alternative transportation to the camp site includes utilizing a
float- or ski-equipped aircraft or helicopter from Points North
Landing to Yalowega Lake.
4.2.
Local Resources and Infrastructure
All infrastructure
currently on the Christie Lake Project is non-permanent (Figure 3).
The Government of Saskatchewan requires a surface lease be issued
for all permanent structures. There is access to fresh water close
to the project and the hydroelectric grid is located on the project
within approximately 4 kilometres of mineralized
zones.
La Ronge, approximately
300 kilometres south of the project, is accessible by road and is
the main source for fuel, materials and medical services.
Additional resources not available in La Ronge may be sourced from
the cities of Prince Albert and Saskatoon. An airfield owned by the
Points North Group of Companies is located 66 kilometres northeast
of the Christie Lake Camp and offers freighting services for
exploration and mining activities in the eastern part of the
Athabasca Basin. They also offer shipment of products and services
to Prince Albert and Saskatoon.
Figure 3: Infrastructure and Typical Landscape
in the Christie Lake Project Area
A: Access trail to the
Yalowega Camp site
B: Aerial view of camp
site infrastructure
C: View of the
non-permanent infrastructure at the Yalowega Camp site
D: Typical landscape in
the Project area
4.3.
Climate
The Christie Lake
Project is located within the Athabasca sedimentary basin region,
coincident with the Athabasca Plain Ecoregion and Boreal Shield
Ecozone. The climate is characterized by short and cool summers
with a maximum temperature of 30 degrees Celsius, and cold and long
winters with a temperature low of negative 40 degrees Celsius.
During the summer solstice the period of daylight lasts nearly 18.5
hours. The winter season can start in late October and continue
until May.
Precipitation varies
during the year reaching an average of 40 centimetres annually and
is characterized by snowfall in the winter months and moderate
rainfall in the summer months. Maximum precipitation occurs during
the summer months of July to September.
Exploration activities
can be carried out year-round, however access is limited to the
project during the months of May to October due to the abundance of
lakes, muskeg and wet conditions that occur during the spring
thaw.
4.4.
Physiography
The Athabasca
sedimentary basin region is characterized by variable uplands and
low-lying terrain with many lakes and wetlands where peatlands and
bogs are common (Figure 3). Vegetation is typical of the Boreal
Forest, including areas dominated by black spruce forests and
feather mosses. Within the forests, Jack pines commonly occur on
thin-soiled uplands and tamaracks on poorly drained
lowlands.
The Athabasca Plain
Ecoregion has developed on sedimentary rocks of the Athabasca
Group. Bedrock rarely outcrops and is generally overlain by
hummocky deposits of glacial till, glaciolacustrine, and
glaciofluvial sediments. The topography of the area is relatively
flat characterized by undulating glacial moraine, outwash, drumlins
and lacustrine plains. The elevation range of the Athabasca Plain
is from 485 to 640 metres. Drumlins, eskers, and meltwater channels
have a typical local relief of 30 to 60 metres and contribute to
the rolling expression of the terrain dominated by sandy glacial
sediment.
Over forty species of
mammals are found in the ecozone and dominantly include the
caribou, moose, black bear, grey wolf, fox, lynx, beaver, otter,
snowshoe hare, marten, mink and shrew. The bird species common to
the ecozone include the raven, grey jay, spruce grouse, chickadee,
woodpecker, bald eagle, osprey, and ptarmigan. Fish species common
to the area include the lake trout, whitefish, northern pike,
walleye, longnose sucker, white sucker, burbot, and arctic
grayling.
History
5.1.
Property Ownership
The Christie Lake
Project originally consisted of three claims, CBS-6163, CBS-7610
and CBS-8027, staked between 1985 and 1986 by PNC. Three additional
claims, S-101720, S-101721, and S-101722, were staked and added to
the project in 1990. The project was owned and operated by PNC from
1985 to 2000 and the six claims were actively explored until 1997.
Exploration activities were dormant from 1997 to 2016.
In November 2000, JCU
acquired 100 percent ownership of the Christie Lake Project. Active
exploration did not resume until January 2016 when JCU entered into
an option agreement with UEX. The agreement allowed UEX to earn up
to 70 percent of the Christie Lake Project over a four year earn-in
period. This option agreement was terminated in November 2018 and
the two companies entered into a joint venture agreement by which
UEX currently holds 82.775% combined direct and indirect interest
in the Christie Lake Project which the Company is in joint venture
with JCU. UEX is the current project operator and holds a 65.5492
percent direct interest in the Christie Lake Project with the
remaining 34.4508 percent held by JCU (owned 50% by UEX and 50% by
Denison Mines Corp.). Both UEX and Denison through their 50%
ownership of JCU each holds a further 17.2254% indirect interest in
the Christie Lake Project.
5.2.
Exploration and Development History
Exploration activity on
the Christie Lake Project between 1986 and 1997 focused on defining
uranium mineralization involving airborne and ground geophysical
surveys, lake sediment and geochemical sampling, and diamond
drilling.
The geophysical surveys
conducted included GEOTEM, DIGHEM, Horizontal Loop Electromagnetic
(HLEM), Very Low Frequency (VLF), gravity, Electromagnetic-37
(EM-37) fixed/sounding/stepwise loop and downhole Pulse
Electromagnetic (PEM).
Lake and soil sediment
sampling in 1987 were consistent with conductive trends revealed by
the geophysical surveys and returned up to 2.9 parts per million
(ppm) uranium in Yalowega Lake.
Between 1988 and 1995,
PNC completed 47,040 metres of core drilling in 95 drill holes. PNC
made two significant discoveries as project operator. The Paul Bay
Zone was discovered in 1989 when drill hole CB-04 intersected 10.59
percent U3O8 over 8 metres, and
in 1993 the Ken Pen Zone was discovered when drill hole CB-032
intersected 1.62 percent U3O8 over 43.0
metres.
No significant
exploration or development occurred after 1997 until 2016 when UEX
resumed exploration activities.
5.2.1.
PNC (1985 – 2000)
Exploration work
competed by PNC on the Christie Lake Uranium Project comprised of
ground and airborne geophysical surveys, core drilling, and soil
and sediment sampling.
Initial exploration
work comprised of ground geophysical surveys following the staking
of Christie Lake Area B. Gravity and time domain electromagnetic
(TDEM) surveys with fixed loop and stepwise moving loop
configurations were initiated in 1986 with and completed in
1987.
Fixed loop TDEM with
varying survey configurations comprised the primary ground
geophysical method. Targeting the EM anomalies defined by the fixed
loop survey, three drill holes were drilled in 1988. Over the
subsequent nine years another 92 drill holes were drilled,
supplemented by geochemical sampling programs (Table 3) and
geophysical surveys (summarized in Table 4 and Table 5). Several
attempts were made to use moving loop methods and electromagnetic
soundings to refine the location of conductive responses in the
subsurface. Other small or test surveys using very low frequency
(VLF) and horizontal loop electromagnetic (HLEM) methods were also
attempted, but not widely applied on the project due to the depth
to the target.
Airborne frequency
domain (HEM) and TDEM coupled with magnetic data surveys were
completed in 1992. Lake sediment sampling was completed in 1987 and
followed-up by a soil sampling program in 1988. Almost all the
ground TDEM surveys at Christie Lake were performed with EM-37 or
PROTEM equipment, manufactured by Geonics Limited of Toronto,
Ontario. Grid preparation (Figure 4) activities are summarized in
Table 4, including the details of other laboratory test work of
drill hole samples.
Table 3: Sediment Sampling Results for the
Christie Lake Project (1987)
Element
Max (ppm)
Target
Association
Comments
Uranium
2.9
Northern Conductive
Zone
Correlates with zinc,
copper, and nickel with highest values spatially related to
conductivity response in northwestern part of grid
Lead
28
Northern Conductive
Zone
Highest values in
northwest corner of grid
Zinc
143
Northern Conductive
Zone
Highest values in
northwest corner of grid
Copper
14
Northern Conductive
Zone
Highest values in
northwest corner of grid
Nickel
12
Southern
Target
Highest values in
south, other high values are clustered in the northern part of the
grid
Table 4: Summary of Exploration Work Completed
by PNC on the Christie Lake Uranium Project
(1986-1997)
Type of
Work
Year
Total
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
Airborne Geophysics
(km)
EM/Magnetic
(GEOTEM)
452.3
452.3
HEM
(DIGHEM)
553.0
553.0
Ground
Geophysics
HLEM
5.0
5.0
VLF
4.0
4.0
Gravity
40.0
40.0
EM-37 Fixed
Loop
98.3
9.4
27.2
153.8
49.8
126.2
102.0
566.7
EM-37 Sounding / Moving
Loop
8.0
3.6
11.6
1.0
24.2
EM-37 Stepwise Moving
Loop
97.0
97.0
Downhole PEM
(holes)
2
2
Geochemical Surveys
(samples)
Soil
297
297
Lake
Sediment
63
63
Core
Samples
155
447
888
593
725
730
509
306
4,353
Diamond
Drilling
Number of
Holes
3
6
14
15
20
19
13
5
95
Meterage
1,503.3
3,166.9
6,666.0
6,651.0
9,407.0
10,022.0
6,825.0
2,796.0
47,037.2
Other Lab Work
(samples)
XRD
9
39
23
6
24
28
129
Petrography
10
36
14
27
46
2
2
137
U-Pb
Dating
1
1
Specific
Gravity
371
113
200
684
Grid
Preparation
Line
cutting
77.8
22.0
31.0
88.3
28.6
94.2
68.4
51.2
461.5
Refurbishment
16.0
51.0
10.0
38.8
44.2
31.8
61.4
253.2
Table 5: Summary of Ground TDEM Surveys –
1986 to 1997
Year
Contractor
Equipment and
Methodology
Loop Size
(m)
Number of
Loops
Centre of Loop
Soundings
Station Interval
(m)
Number of
Components
Length of
Profiles
Names or
Number of
Conductors
Conductor
Attributes
1986
MPH
EM-37 Fixed
Loop
400x800
11
10
100
2
75.0
B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B6,
+2
14 km strike length
moderate to strong anomalies
1987
MPH
EM-37 Fixed
Loop
400x800
3
3
100
2
13.3
B1, B2, +1
5.8 km total strike
length moderate to strong anomalies
400x400
6
6
100
2
6.0
0
No
anomalies
EM-37 Moving
Loop
400x400
37
37
50
1
8.0
1
2.3 km strike length
moderate to strong anomalies
1988
Quantec
EM-37 Fixed
Loop
800x800
2
0
50
2
9.4
B3, B4
4.6 km total strike
length weak anomalies
EM-37 Moving
Loop
400x400
17
17
50
2
3.6
B5
Broad, shallow zone
indicated
1989
Geoterrex
EM-37 Fixed
Loop
400x800
4
0
50
2
27.2
B1, B2, AZ-1,
AZ-2
7.4 km total strike
length weak to moderate anomalies
800x1600
4
0
50
2
EM-37 Stepwise Moving
Loop
400x400
7
7
50
1
11.6
0
Experimental survey
only weak anomalies detected
1991
Geoterrex
EM-37 Fixed
Loop
400x800
16
0
50
2
153.8
B1, B2-1, B2-2, B2-3,
S, M1, M2, M3
6.9 km total strike
length moderate to weak anomalies
700x1400
4
0
50
2
1992
Quantec
EM-37 Fixed
Loop
400x800
5
0
50
2
49.8
Paul Bay, Ken
Pen
2.5 km total strike
length moderate anomalies
1994
Geoterrex
EM-37 Fixed
Loop
800x1600
9
0
50
3
126.2
CB94-A, CB94-B,
CB-94-C
8.2 km total strike
length moderate anomalies
EM-37 Moving
Loop
50x50
40
40
25
1
1.0
0
1996
Geoterrex
EM-37 Stepwise Moving
Loop
800x800
24
24
50
3
97.0
CB94-A, CB94-B,
+4
Reconnaissance only
moderate anomalies
1997
Geoterrex
EM-37 Fixed
Loop
800x1600
13
0
50
3
102.0
CB97-D, CB97-E,
+6
17.3 km total strike
length moderate to weak anomalies
Figure 4: Line-cutting and Grids on the
Christie Lake Uranium Project by PNC
(1986-1997)
Source: Shields,
1999
PNC Ground Geophysics (1986 –
1997)
The most effective EM
survey for the Yalowega Trend was the 1994 fixed loop TDEM survey
along the northwestern part of the property (Figure 5). The
objective of the survey was to delineate possible
northeast-striking conductors that were inferred from previous
surveys along the Yalowega Trend (Iida et al., 2000a). Geoterrex
performed 126.2 kilometres of measurements using a Geonics EM-37
system with 9 loops measuring 800 by 1,600 metres (Table 5). Three
fairly coherent but weak conductors were detected. Conductors
CB94-A and CB94-B strike in a northeast direction for more than 2
kilometres each. Conductor CB94-C appeared to strike in a northeast
direction for about 3 kilometres and is associated with the general
trend of the mineralization. Discrepancies in anomaly locations
between opposing loops in the 1994 survey were
minimal.
Prior to 1994, fixed
and moving loop surveys were performed at orientations not optimal
to correctly resolve the conductivity associated with the Yalowega
Trend. A complete description of all surveys conducted between 1986
and 2000 is available in the 2016 technical report on the Christie
Lake Project (Perkins et al, 2017).
The conductors in the
southeastern part of the project were defined during the 1997 fixed
loop TDEM survey (Figure 6). The main objective was to define the
strike extent of the anomalies detected in the central and southern
parts of the property during the 1996 stepwise moving loop TDEM
survey (Tsuruta and Shields, 2000). Another objective was to extend
conductor CB94-C detected in 1994 to the southwest of the Paul Bay
Zone (Iida et al., 2000a). Geoterrex performed 102.0 kilometres of
measurements using 13 loops measuring 800 by 1,600 metres (Table
5). Two Protem-37D (digital) systems with 3-D receiver coils and a
Geonics EM-37, 2.5-kilowatt transmitter were used for the survey.
Only weak anomalies defined a vague trend that may have extended
conductor CB94-C. However, two new conductor axes were defined in
the south-central part of the property.
Conductor CB97-D was
detected on all lines from 28+00N to 64+00N and was estimated to be
at least 4.0 kilometres long. This appeared to confirm and
delineate the conductors detected with the stepwise moving loop
lines 32+00N and 52+00N surveyed in 1996. Conductor CB97-D appeared
to be open to the northeast. An extension to the southwest may have
been detected by loops 97K and 97L. Conductor CB97-E was detected
with loop 97M and was estimated to be about 1.2 kilometres long.
Several other smaller and weaker trends were also detected, many of
which appear to confirm other 1996 anomalies.
Between 1987 and 1997
eight ground TDEM surveys of various configurations were completed
over the Christie Lake Project. A compilation of all the conductors
interpreted from every survey is presented in Figure 7. Although
potentially complex, this swarm of conductive responses is useful
as it delineates the prospective conductive corridors on the
project and suggests the that the southerly northeast-southwest
trend is also worthy of an assessment for uranium
mineralization.
Figure 5: TDEM Surveys and Grid on the Christie
Lake Uranium Project by PNC (1994)
Source: Shields,
1999
Figure 6: TDEM Survey and Grid on the Christie
Lake Uranium Project by PNC (1997)
Source: Shields,
1999
Figure 7: Compilation of 1986-1997 TDEM
Conductors on the Christie Lake Uranium Project Conducted by
PNC
Source: Shields,
1999
PNC Airborne Geophysics
(1992)
Airborne GEOTEM TDEM
and total magnetic field surveys at Christie Lake Area B were flown
in 1992 by Geoterrex Ltd. of Ottawa, Ontario for a total of 452
kilometres (Shields, 1999). Line spacing was either 200 or 400
metres, covering the whole property. The surveys were performed to
delineate conductors and structures and to map alteration and
lithology.
The poor decays
represented by the GEOTEM TDEM channels were influenced by
conductive overburden. This resulted in the failure of attempts to
generate channel ratio or time constant maps. The instrumentation
was thought to be approaching its maximum depth of investigation in
this area. However, some useful information appeared to be present
in the early channels. Several conductors were indicated by the
early channel, EM2 data (Figure 8). The conductors were believed to
be graphite in the basement. However, other sources such as
shallower and possibly related structure and/or alteration in the
sandstone also seemed possible.
Areas of high vertical
magnetic gradient in the northwest and southeast parts of the
property were interpreted to represent granitic basement rock.
Areas of low vertical magnetic gradient were interpreted to
represent metasedimentary basement rock. However, an inverse
correlation between the radar altimeter and total magnetic field
data indicated the possibility of magnetically susceptible
overburden in this area. Therefore, even a moderate vertical
magnetic gradient was thought to represent metasedimentary basement
rock.
A total of 553
kilometres of airborne frequency domain electromagnetic (FDEM),
very low frequency electromagnetic (VLF EM) and total magnetic
field surveys were flown in 1992 at Christie Lake by DIGHEM of
Toronto, Ontario (Shields, 1999). The DIGHEM survey consisted of
100-metre spaced lines that covered the western two thirds of the
property (Figure 9 and Figure 10). The airborne surveys were
performed to delineate structures and to map alteration and
lithology.
Conductive overburden
was indicated in many places by the DIGHEM 7200 hertz apparent
resistivity data. This pattern was consistent with the on-time
channel EM20 data collected with the GEOTEM survey. Similarly, only
clay-rich lake sediments and overburden appeared to be outlined.
The DIGHEM resistivity data revealed more detail than the GEOTEM on
time data, possibly due to the closer line spacing and the higher
frequency employed. However, neither of these data sets appeared
able to delineate discrete basement conductors or structures in the
sandstone.
The VLF EM total field
data had anomalies that generally appeared to correlate with lakes,
but some in the western and northwestern parts of the property also
correlated with ground TDEM conductors. The calculated skin depth
of the VLF method, given a ground resistivity of approximately
1,000 ohm-metres, was also only about 100 metres. If somewhat
shallow, VLF anomalies correlated with presumably very deep
basement conductors, then a probable association with structure and
alteration in the intervening sandstone was speculated. As with the
other EM data, a review of previous drill hole data was suggested
to confirm this association before a more detailed interpretation
of the VLF data took place.
Figure 8: Channel EM2, GEOTEM Survey on the
Christie Lake Uranium Project by PNC (1982)
Source: Shields
1999
Figure 9: Vertical Magnetic Gradient, DIGHEM
Survey on the Christie Lake Uranium Project by PNC
(1992)
Source: Shields,
1999
Figure 10: 7200 Hertz Apparent Resistivity,
DIGHEM Survey on the Christie Lake Uranium Project by PNC
(1992)
Source: Shields,
1999
Sediment Sampling (1987)
A total of 67 organic
rich lake sediment samples were taken from claims CBS 6163, CBS
7610, and CBS 8027 during March 1987. Samples were collected with a
Hornbrook sampler through holes drilled in the ice with a motorized
ice auger. Sample density ranged from one sample over 0.3 square
kilometres throughout the three claim blocks to one sample over
0.02 square kilometres for a detailed survey in a lake lying over
the northern conductive zone. The total of 67 samples includes
4 split duplicate samples.
Analysis of lake
sediment samples indicated anomalism in the northwest corner of the
sample grid at the northern tip of Yalowega Lake, generally
associated with a northeast-southwest conductive
trend.
Soil Sampling (1988)
As a follow-up to the
sediment sampling in the winter of 1987, a small soil sampling
program was undertaken in the northern part of the B1 and B2
conductor are on claims CBS 6163, CBS 7610, and CBS 8027. A total
of 297 samples were taken at 100-metre stations on lines spaced 200
to 800 metres apart. All samples were analyzed for copper, lead,
zinc, nickel and uranium. Assay results up to 2.9 ppm uranium were
obtained but the program was generally unsuccessful in delineating
any trends consistent with the lake sediment anomalies and
conductive trends identified earlier that year.
Core Drilling (Pre-1997)
Historical drilling
completed by PNC in the area of the Christie Lake property is
tabulated inTable 6.
A total of 96 drill
holes totalling 47,519 metres were drilled, 95 by PNC and one by
the Saskatchewan Mining Development Corporation (SMDC), a
provincial crown corporation and predecessor company to Cameco
Corporation, between 1988 and 1997. Of these, 75 holes were drilled
to test the mineralization-associated with the CB94-C conductor.
The hole collared by SMDC (MAC-189) targeted the southern conductor
to evaluate the prospective nature of this trend.
Table 6: Summary
of Drilling on the Christie Lake Uranium
Project
Zone
SMDC/PNC
PNC
UEX
Total
1988
1989
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
2016
2017
2018
Paul Bay
No.
-
4
13
4
-
1
1
3
20
6
-
metres
-
2,154
6,160
1,555
-
503
611
1,752
10,769
2,445
-
Ken Pen
No.
-
-
-
9
2
1
1
1
12
3
-
metres
-
-
-
4,156
1,046
506
521
552
3,674
1,284
-
Ōrora
No.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
29
1
metres
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
9,022
507
Regional Targets
No.
4
2
1
2
18
17
11
1
-
-
10
metres
1,983
1,013
506
940
8,365
9,012
5,693
492
-
-
5,365
Total
No.
4
6
14
15
20
19
13
5
32
38
11
177
metres
1,983
3,167
6,666
6,651
9,411
10,020
6,825
2,796
14,443
12,751
5,872
80,585
No. = Number of drill
holes
Figure 11: Map Showing the Distribution of
Drilling on the Christie Lake Uranium Project
The discovery hole for
uranium mineralization on the Christie Lake Project was at the Paul
Bay Zone in 1989 when drill hole CB-04 intersected 9.38 percent
U3O8 over 8.0 metres at
488.0 metres, approximately 70 metres below the unconformity in
graphite enriched metasedimentary rocks. Drilling resumed in 1992
and identified a 1.8-kilometre-long north-easterly trend with
anomalous uranium coincident with the CB94-C conductor, now known
as the Yalowega Trend. Mineralization was identified along this
trend within two mineralized zones separated by 260 metres, the
Paul Bay and Ken Pen zones. The depth of the unconformity
intersected in these holes along the Yalowega Trend is
approximately 420 metres.
Significant
basement-hosted uranium mineralization was also intersected along
strike and northeast of the Ken Pen Zone in the Shoreline, Otter
Creek, and East End Lake areas. These holes are indicated in Table
7.
Table 7: Notable Core Intersections on the
Christie Lake Uranium Project (PNC 1989-1997)
Drill hole
ID
Zone
Mineralization
Type
From*
To*
Length*
U3O8%
Higher Grade
Intervals Within Lower Grade Intersections
From*
To*
Length*
U3O8%
CB-004
Paul Bay
Basement
488.00
496.00
8.00
9.38
CB-007
Paul Bay
Basement
466.00
467.50
1.50
1.46
CB-010
Paul Bay
Basement
541.40
560.30
18.90
2.50
544.20
553.40
9.20
4.40
551.20
553.40
2.20
8.70
CB-015
Paul Bay
Basement
548.40
560.40
12.00
0.25
555.90
556.70
0.80
1.90
CB-017
Paul Bay
Basement
520.20
520.80
0.60
4.10
538.10
547.50
9.40
1.80
539.30
545.80
6.50
2.50
540.80
541.30
0.50
24.60
CB-018
Paul Bay
Basement
526.00
542.00
16.00
0.24
566.10
571.80
5.70
0.70
569.30
570.20
0.90
2.30
571.30
571.80
0.50
1.60
CB-019
Paul Bay
Basement
471.50
480.40
8.90
0.20
CB-020
Paul Bay
Basement
423.90
430.90
7.00
1.40
428.50
428.80
0.30
14.00
442.50
444.50
2.00
4.82
CB-024
Ken Pen
Basement
444.50
448.00
3.50
0.19
476.00
482.00
6.00
0.29
489.00
491.00
20.00
0.76
CB-028
Paul Bay
Basement
520.00
535.50
15.50
0.95
528.50
534.50
60.00
2.27
532.50
533.00
0.50
23.70
CB-032
Ken Pen
Unconformity
436.50
440.00
3.50
1.41
Ken Pen
Basement
445.00
446.50
1.50
7.81
470.50
479.50
9.00
4.41
472.50
478.00
5.50
7.08
CB-038
Shoreline
Basement
439.50
441.50
2.00
0.78
CB-048
Basement
465.00
466.00
1.00
0.25
CB-049
Basement
428.60
431.50
2.90
1.05
428.90
429.30
0.40
5.88
CB-050
Otter
Creek
Unconformity
413.00
422.00
9.00
0.25
420.20
420.30
0.10
10.08
Otter
Creek
Basement
432.50
445.00
12.50
0.96
438.40
445.00
6.60
1.70
440.50
441.75
1.25
5.94
CB-060
Otter
Creek
Basement
422.75
423.75
1.00
0.51
428.00
428.75
0.75
2.07
CB-067
East End
Basement
456.50
457.00
0.50
0.39
CB-078
Otter
Creek
Basement
474.60
476.00
1.40
0.22
CB-081
Otter
Creek
Basement
480.00
480.75
0.75
0.56
482.0
484.00
2.00
0.31
CB-086
Paul Bay
Basement
545.80
555.00
1.80
2.87
553.20
555.00
1.80
2.87
CB-088
Paul Bay
Basement
550.30
551.70
1.40
0.40
* Metres
Several drill holes in the Northwest Area on
conductors CB94-A and CB94-B have encountered uranium
mineralization and have not been adequately followed-up. The best
hole in the area is CB-048 that grades 0.25 percent U3O8, 2.05 percent
cobalt, and 2.32 percent nickel over 1.5 metres in faulted
graphitic pelite. In hole CB-068, anomalous radioactivity of 0.02
percent U3O8 over 1.6 metres was
intersected above the unconformity at 455.3 metres, and 0.07
percent U3O8 over 0.5 metres in
graphitic basement rocks at 529.2 metres. Due to core loss, these
values could not be confirmed with chemical assays. The graphitic
units were not encountered in several holes to explain the targeted
conductors. Notable uranium intersections in core from 1989 to 1997
are summarized in Table 7.
No diamond drilling was
completed on the Christie Lake Project between 1997 and
2016.
5.2.2.
JCU (2000 – 2016)
JCU did not perform any
exploration activity in the period 2000 to 2016.
5.3.
Historical Mineral Resource
Estimates
Historical mineral
resource estimates presented in this section are superseded by the
mineral resource estimate discussed herein. The information
presented in this section is relevant to provide historical context
but should not be relied upon.
The only prior mineral
resource estimate complete on the Christie Lake property is dated
September 12, 1997. This estimate did not use mineral resource
classifications consistent with NI 43-101. This historical mineral
resource estimate considered the Paul Bay and Ken Pen deposits,
based on 23 drill holes and was originally documented in an
internal PNC report titled Christie Lake Project, Geological
Resource Estimate completed by the Resource Analysis Group, PNC
Tono Geoscience Center (Resource Analysis Group, 1997), and was
referenced in the UEX Corporation Christie Lake Project Technical
Report NI 43-101, dated March 28, 2017. UEX did not consider or
treat the historic estimate as an accurate representation of the
mineral resources or mineral reserves of the Christie Lake
deposits.
As shown in Table 8,
the historical mineral resource estimates were reported at a
cut-off grade of 0.30 percent U3O8, did not include the
Ōrora deposit, and presented much higher grades and lower
tonnages than that reporting in this technical report for the Paul
Bay and Ken Pen deposits.
Table 8: Christie Lake Project Historical
Mineral Resource Estimate, PNC, 1997
Deposit
Cut-Off
Grade
Tonnage
Grade
Contained
Metal
(% U3O8)
(000s)
(% U3O8)
(Mlb U3O8)
Paul Bay
0.30
231.30
3.06
15.60
Ken Pen
0.30
62.96
3.80
5.27
Total
0.30
294.25
3.22
20.87
5.4.
Historical Production
There has not been any
historical uranium production from the Christie Lake
Project.
Geological
Setting and Mineralization
6.1.
Regional Geology
The Christie Lake Project is located in the
south-eastern Athabasca Basin (Figure 12), underlain by late Paleoproterozoic Manitou
Falls Group sandstone, conglomerate and mudstone. The Athabasca
Basin is a broad elliptically-shaped intra-cratonic basin that is
approximately 425 kilometres-long in an east-west direction and 225
kilometres-long in the north-south direction.
Unconsolidated
Quaternary glacial and periglacial deposits, consisting of ground
moraine, esker, drumlin, outwash, aeolian and lacustrine sediments,
effectively mask most of the bedrock in the area and can form a
cover up to 90 metres thick.
The shallowly dipping
sandstones of the Athabasca Basin lies unconformably upon Archean
granitic gneiss and early Paleoproterozoic metasedimentary gneiss
rocks of the Wollaston Domain. The Wollaston Domain is a
north-northeast-trending succession of tight to isoclinal folded
early Paleoproterozoic metasedimentary rocks of the Wollaston
Supergroup along the eastern margin of the Hearne Province. The
project lies within the western part of the Wollaston Domain, which
is part of the Cree Lake Mobile Zone of the Trans-Hudson
Orogen.
The Wollaston Domain
lies unconformably above the Archean gneisses of the Peter Lake
Domain in the northeast part of the Province, and farther south the
Wollaston is bounded on the east by the Needle Falls Shear Zone, a
dextral, late Paleoproterozoic fault system that marks the boundary
between the Wollaston Domain and the Wathaman Batholith. The
Wollaston Domain is bounded to the west by the Mudjatik Domain,
marked by the transitional change to open dome and basin folding
where peneplained domes of Archean gneiss are separated by keels of
metasedimentary and metavolcanic rocks. The western boundary of the
Mudjatik Domain is the Cable Bay Shear Zone and the rocks of the
Virgin River Domain to the west. Hudsonian or earlier and
post-Athabasca tectonic events have resulted in structural
disruptions in the Athabasca Group and Wollaston Group
stratigraphy.
6.2.
Property Geology
The Paul Bay, Ken Pen
and Ōrora Deposits are located in the northeastern part of the
property in mineral disposition CBS-8027. The local geological
setting of the property is shown in Figure 13.
The Paleoproterozoic
Manitou Falls Formation underlying the Christie Lake Project in
turn unconformably overlie Paleoproterozoic metasedimentary gneiss
and Archean granitic gneiss of the Hearne Province. The project
lies within the western part of the Wollaston Domain, which is part
of the Cree Lake Mobile Zone of the Trans-Hudson
Orogen.
The northwest part of
the project area is cut by the Yalowega Trend Fault, interpreted as
an extension of the P2 Fault that hosts the uranium deposits at the
McArthur River Mine (Figure 12). This fault is rooted in the
basement rocks and extends up into the sandstone. Extensive,
unconsolidated Quaternary glacial and periglacial deposits,
consisting of ground moraine, esker, outwash, aeolian and
lacustrine sediments, effectively mask most of the bedrock in the
area and can form a cover up to 90 metres thick.
Figure 12: Regional Geology Setting of the
Christie Lake Uranium Project
Figure 13: Local Geology Setting of the
Christie Lake Uranium Project
6.2.1.
Athabasca Group
In the eastern part of
the basin, where the Christie Lake Project is located, the
Athabasca Group is represented by the Manitou Falls Formation and
is an approximately 400-metre-thick sequence of quartz arenite
sandstone with minor conglomerate beds and trace mudstone beds. In
the region this formation can be divided into four major units, as
described by Bernier et al. (2001):
●
MFa is the basal unit comprised of interbedded
conglomerate and sandstone characterized by localized red mudstone
layers and massive laminated sandstones.
●
MFb is conglomerate-rich dominated by thick
conglomerate beds with pebbly sandstone interbeds.
●
MFc is a relatively thin medium- to
coarse-grained sandstone with sparse interclasts.
●
MFd is mostly fine- to coarse-grained sandstone
with white mudstone and siltstone interclasts.
The Athabasca Group
unconformably overlies the Paleoproterozoic metasedimentary gneiss
and Archean granite gneiss of the Wollaston Domain. The depth of
the unconformity between the basement rocks (metasedimentary
assemblage or Archean granite) and overlying Athabasca Group is
approximately 400 to 445 metres below surface, or between 65 to 110
metres above sea level.
6.2.2.
Wollaston Group
The Wollaston Domain is
a northeast-trending fold thrust belt composed of remobilized
Archean basement and overlying Paleoproterozoic supracrustal
sequences of the Wollaston Supergroup. The Wollaston Supergroup
metasedimentary rocks are located along the Yalowega Trend within
the Christie Lake Project area and are subdivided into an
“Upper Unit” and “Lower Unit”.
The Upper Unit is
mostly semi-pelite paleosome with intervals of pegmatite textured
neosome. The Lower Unit is more quartz-rich composed mainly of
psammite and quartzo-feldspathic gneiss. The base of the Upper Unit
is characterized by an interval of graphitic pelite, often faulted,
that is spatially related to uranium mineralization. This graphitic
pelite overlies a quartzite horizon of up to 38 metres-thick,
marking the top of the Lower Unit.
6.2.3.
Structural Geology
Post-Athabasca
reactivated fault zones within the project area have a northeast-,
north-, and northwest trend. These events commonly exploit
Hudsonian or earlier structures and are accompanied by hydrothermal
alteration and associated uranium mineralization in both the
Athabasca sandstone and basement rocks. Primary targets for uranium
mineralization are faulted graphitic zones in the metasedimentary
basement that have been subjected to post-Athabasca reactivation,
as well as in structurally disrupted sandstone and along the
unconformity. Structural reactivation allowed for channeling of
significant volumes of oxidized uraniferous fluids through a
reduced environment, especially along, and proximal to packages of
graphitic pelitic rocks. This allowed for the deposition of uranium
at an oxidization-reduction front.
6.3.
Mineralization
Uranium mineralization
in the Athabasca Basin is generally of Helikian age.
Geochronological studies have determined that most deposits were
formed in a time interval between 1,330 and 1,380 million years
(Ma) (Cumming and Krstic, 1992), and as early as 1,590 Ma at the
Millennium Deposit (Cloutier et al, 2009) and 1,521 Ma at the
McArthur River Mine (Cameco Corporation, 2012) with ages of
remobilization near 1,350 Ma. Uranium deposits generally occur at
the unconformity between the lowermost Athabasca Group and the
underlying crystalline basement rocks and are commonly localized to
the intersection of faults and the unconformity, or at a
paleotopographic basement ridge.
Uranium mineralization
discovered at the Christie Lake Project to date occurs in three
zones; the Paul Bay Zone, Ken Pen Zone and Ōrora Zone. These
zones have a north-easterly trend that is coincident with the
geophysically defined CB94-C conductor. The top of the mineralized
zones is approximately 420 metres below surface. Uranium
mineralization at the Paul Bay, Ken Pen and Ōrora zones are
fault or fracture-controlled to disseminated and is monomineralic
(Figure 14).
Paul Bay Zone
The Paul Bay Zone is an
80-metre-long mineralized body that plunges for at least 200 metres
to the southwest from the unconformity and follows the dip of the
faulted Lower Wollaston Domain graphitic metasedimentary rocks.
Interpreted cross-sections across the Paul Bay Zone are provided in
Appendix A. The mineralization is concordant with the basement
foliation striking 030 degrees with a dip of 46 degrees and plunges
in a south-to-southeast direction with a rake of 110 to 120
degrees. The true thicknesses of the mineralized intervals range
from 5 to 11 metres.
Mineralization at Paul
Bay is hosted within faulted pelitic gneiss that forms the base of
the hanging wall sequence of the Wollaston Group metasedimentary
rocks. This fault zone is typically up to 40 metres thick, within
or below a graphitic pelitic gneiss. The hanging wall sequence is a
mix of non-graphitic and graphitic pelite and semi-pelite
paleosome, and discontinuous intervals of pegmatite and granite
textured neosome with a generally granitic composition. The
footwall sequence of rocks at Paul Bay are quartz-rich to
quartz-flooded semi-pelite to psammite gneiss and
pegmatite-textured neosome. Quartzite, where present, is always
below the mineralization.
The mineralized zone is
characterized by intense fracturing and brecciation and has a
bleached argillic alteration halo extending up to 35 metres above
the mineralization. The best mineralization discovered to-date at
Paul Bay, is in hole CB-004 with 9.61 percent U3O8 over 8.5 metres.
Holes CB-092 averaged 8.07 percent U3O8 over 11.3 metres and
CB-093 averaged 8.65 percent U3O8 over 9.4
metres.
The high-grade lens
occurs within a wide lower-grade halo as a semi-massive to massive
uraninite hydrothermal breccia replacing the host semi-pelitic to
pelitic gneiss. The mineralization does not extend into the
quartz-rich footwall rocks and the associated alteration grades
weaker with depth.
Figure 14: Uranium Mineralization in NQ Core at
the Christie Lake Uranium Project
A: High grade massive
uranium mineralization (drill hole CB-109)
B: Uranium
mineralization occurring as tiny stockwork veins in a clay matrix
(drill hole CB-111A)
C:
Uraninite/pitchblende clast in an argillized clay matrix (drill
hole CB-109)
Ken Pen Zone
The Ken Pen Zone is
approximately 260 metres to the northeast from the Paul Bay Zone,
striking in a northeast direction concordant with the Yalowega
Trend Fault. Interpreted cross-sections of the Ken Pen Zone are
provided in Appendix A. Ken Pen has a shorter down-dip extension
compared to the 200-metre plunge length of the Paul Bay
Zone.
The lithologies at Ken
Pen are similar to those at Paul Bay. The basement is a
semi-pelitic to pelitic gneiss and pegmatite textured anatexite
which overlies faulted graphitic pelite and semi-pelite gneiss
above the quartz-rich lithologies with intervals of psammite and
quartzite. The main fault zone is characterized by breccias, fault
gouge, and fracturing focused within and below the graphitic
units.
The main fault zone is
breccia, gouge, and fracturing that are focused within and below
the graphitic units. At the Ken Pen Zone, the fault is widely
distributed, and the faulted graphitic rocks are above the base of
the fault and where the best basement-hosted uranium mineralization
is found, spatially separated from the graphitic rocks. The fault
divides the hanging wall semi-pelitic gneisses from the more
quartz-rich footwall lithologies.
Uranium mineralization
is associated with the unconformity in the southern part of Ken Pen
and more basement-hosted in the north. The unconformity lens and
basement mineralization lens diverge along strike to the northeast
from CB-100A. The plunge of the basement mineralization is parallel
to the foliation and controlled by the Yalowega Fault. The rake of
the uranium mineralization on the fault is 110 to 120 degrees,
which is the same orientation at the Paul Bay Zone. Bleaching and
argillic alteration form a halo around the associated uranium
mineralization. Hydrothermal hematite alteration is associated with
unconformity mineralization and less so with the basement-hosted
mineralization. Uranium mineralization associated with the breccia
in the lower part of the fault sequence can occur up to
40 metres below the graphitic unit.
Ōrora Zone
The Ōrora Zone is
located approximately 360 metres northeast of the Ken Pen Zone.
Ōrora uranium mineralization is unconformity-related and
occurs approximately 420 metres below surface and can extend up to
40 metres into the basement rocks along the Yalowega Fault.
Interpreted cross-sections of Ōrora are provided in Appendix
A.
The lithologies at
Ōrora are the same as at Paul Bay and Ken Pen; pelite and
semi-pelite with pegmatite-textured neosome in the hanging wall of
the graphitic pelite. The rocks in the immediate footwall of the
graphitic pelite are generally pelitic with minor bands of
amphibolite and calc-pelite. Narrow intersections up to a few
metres wide of quartzite occur below the basement hosted
mineralization.
The main control on
uranium mineralization at Ōrora is the unconformity subcrop of
the lower boundary of the Yalowega Trend Fault and is coincident
with or below the graphitic pelite. Uranium mineralization is
associated with intense argillic alteration of the lower sandstone
and basement rocks. High-grade uranium mineralization within
Ōrora is controlled by north-south fabrics developed within
the fault. The high-grade core of Ōrora is developed along
approximately 75 metres of strike between grid lines L68+00N and
L67+25N. The Yalowega Trend Fault is approximately 12 to 36 metres
wide at Ōrora and movement along the fault is commonly
distributed over multiple slip planes.
The best uranium
mineralization at Ōrora is associated with breccias in the
lower part of the Yalowega Trend Fault Zone. Intense argillization
and bleaching that overprints paleo-weathering forms a halo about
Ōrora. Uranium mineralization at the unconformity in the
basement is commonly found as fracture coatings, replacement of
breccia matrix and clasts, replacement along foliation planes
outboard of fractures, gouges and breccias, and disseminations
within strongly clay altered basement rocks. Secondary hematite
commonly stains the clay minerals a deep orangish-red.
6.4.
Alteration
Alteration haloes
associated with mineralized zones at Christie Lake are typical of
Athabasca Basin uranium deposits and are dominated by
silicification, hematization, precipitation of drusy quartz and
illitization with massive quartz dissolution and intense
fracturing. In the basement rocks the alteration typically consists
of hydrothermal illitization, chloritization and the development of
dravite, which are superimposed upon and commonly obliterates the
paleoweathering profile.
In sandstone, the
alteration is dominated by silicification which occurs as drusy
quartz most commonly observed distal from the mineralized zones and
controlling faults. Argillization in the form of illite and
chlorite occurs closer to uranium mineralization and can be strong
enough to obscure the host rock protolith. Strong hematization is
often coincident with uranium mineralization and occurs as blebby
replacement of minerals in strongly clay altered rocks. Quartz
dissolution is found throughout mineralized intervals and can be
intense immediately above uranium mineralization in fractured
sandstone. Sandstone just above the unconformity is generally
structurally disrupted, clay enriched (kaolinite, illite, and
sudoite) and locally uranium anomalous. The elements lead, nickel,
cobalt, vanadium, molybdenum, bismuth and gold are anomalous within
mineralized areas, particularly with the Ken Pen Zone and
Ōrora Zone, which have unconformity associated uranium
mineralization. In the basement, hydrothermal alteration can
include strong hematization, limonitization, chloritization,
illitization, and dravite which can obscure the textures and
mineralogy of the protolith.
Deposit
Types
Uranium mineralization
at the Christie Lake Project are representative of both
unconformity-type and basement-hosted deposits. Uranium
mineralization in the Athabasca Basin is generally of Helikian age.
Geochronological studies have determined that most deposits were
formed in a time interval between 1,330 and 1,380 Ma (Cumming and
Krstic, 1992), and as early as 1,590 Ma at the Millennium Deposit
(Cloutier et al, 2009) and 1,521 Ma at the McArthur River Mine
(Cameco Corporation, 2012) that have ages of remobilization near
1,350 Ma.
Athabasca Basin uranium
deposits generally occur at the unconformity between the lowermost
Athabasca Group and the underlying crystalline Aphebian Wollaston
Group metasedimentary basement rocks. Mineralization is commonly
localized to the intersection of major faults and the unconformity,
or at a paleotopographic basement ridge (Figure 15).
Alteration haloes
surrounding the deposits are typically dominated by silicification,
hematization, precipitation of drusy quartz and argillization
(illitization and chloritization), as well as massive quartz
dissolution and intense fracturing. In the basement, hydrothermal
alteration consists of illitization, chloritization and the
development of dravite, which is superimposed upon and commonly
obliterates the previous retrograde and regolithic
alterations.
Uranium mineralization
is formed as uraninite/pitchblende, often as semi-massive to
massive replacement and/or with hydrothermal/chemical breccias
within the matrix (Figure 14). Uranium mineralization is often
associated with and proximal to brittle graphitic fault structures,
which provide a pathway for uranium-bearing fluids. Within the
basin, uranium mineralization can be located above, at, and below
the unconformity.
Figure 15: Unconformity Related Deposit
Models
Source: Jefferson et
al., 2007
Two main end-members of
unconformity-related deposits are both structurally controlled. The
following two end-members depend on the location of oxidized
basinal fluids and reduced basement fluids mixing (Jefferson et
al., 2007; Figure 15):
1.
Polymetallic, Egress style mineralization:
Typically hosted by sandstone, in which fluid mixing has occurred
at or above the unconformity. Often this style of mineralization is
coincident with mineralization that is perched above the
unconformity along steeply dipping faults, which can display a
paleotopographic ridge of basement rock. Egress style
mineralization is often polymetallic, and the uranium is associated
with a number of accessory elements that include nickel, cobalt,
copper, molybdenum, zinc, lead and arsenic.
2.
Monometallic, Ingress style mineralization:
Typically, basement hosted (but can be seen within sandstone), in
which fluid mixing occurred below the unconformity. This type of
mineralization is often controlled by reverse faulting.
Monometallic mineralization is defined by nearly exclusive uranium
precipitation.
The Paul Bay, Ken Pen
and Ōrora zones have characteristics indicative of
unconformity and basement-hosted deposits. All three locations of
mineralization (at, above and below the unconformity) are observed
at the Christie Lake Project.
Exploration
In the mid-1980 under
PNC’s operatorship, the Christie Lake Project was comprised
of three geographically separate project areas within the
southeastern Athabasca termed areas A, B, and C. Area B was staked
in 1985 and 1986 comprised of three claims; CBS 6163, CBS 7610, and
CBS 8027 that covered the area of the current day Christie Lake
Project. With the discovery of Paul Bay at Yalowega Lake in 1989,
three additional claims were added (S-101720, S-101721, and
S-101722), completing the current mineral claims that comprise the
Christie Lake Project.
A summary of
exploration activity conducted by UEX on the Christie Lake Project
is presented in this section of this technical report. Historical
exploration work conducted prior to 2016 is described in Section 5,
and a more detailed discussion on exploration activity on the
Christie Lake property is documented in the previous
exploration-focussed technical report (UEX, 2017).
8.1.
UEX (2016 – 2021)
Exploration work
conducted by UEX has included Direct Current (DC) Resistivity,
Fixed Loop EM and Time Domain Electromagnetic (TDEM) geophysical
surveys. Drilling conducted on the Project is described in detail
in Section 9.
8.1.1.
DC Resistivity and EM Surveys
(2019-2020)
In 2019, UEX completed
a (DC) Resistivity survey over the majority of known conductive
trends within the Christie Lake Uranium Project to help identify
potential alteration and graphitic pelite at the
unconformity.
UEX completed a Fixed
Loop EM survey in 2020 over the A and B conductors and the northern
portion of C conductor to refine the interpreted conductor in those
areas.
The exploration
potential of the Yalowega Trend is largely related to the
unconformity subcrop of graphitic metasedimentary rocks that have
been faulted by syn- and post-Athabasca sandstone deformation
events. A proxy for this type of rock at the unconformity is the
conductors that are inferred from various configurations of
electromagnetic surveys. The P2 conductive trend north of the
McArthur River Mine appears to extend onto the Christie Lake claims
is largely untested beyond the area between the Paul Bay and
Ōrora zones. This fertile trend is the most prospective on the
property and is the focus of future exploration work. Other
northeast-southwest conductive trends within the project area have
not been tested by drilling.
Discovery Geophysics
International Inc. conducted geophysical DC Resistivity during
March 6 to July 17, 2019 (Figure 16). The survey consisted of 127.1
line-kilometres and was conducted using the DIAS32 Distributed
Array Resistivity/IP System. The objectives of the resistivity
survey were to map potential structures and alteration specifically
focused for basement mineralization potential.
Figure 16: 2019 DC Resistivity
Coverage
The resistivity survey
was successful in mapping the lower sandstone and basement
resistivity as well as indicating some crosscutting structures. In
the Athabasca Basin with competent sandstone cover, mineralization
is typically accompanied by a conductor and an alteration halo
observed as a resistivity low in the lower sandstone. Alteration
“chimneys” with associated basement resistivity lows
were picked based on the lower sandstone resistivity bench and
vetted by observation of the sections.
Along with the
sections, only the relevant lower sandstone and basement
resistivity benches were extracted from the inversion for display.
The lower sandstone bench is from 50 to 100 m above the
unconformity and the basement bench is from 100 to 150 m below the
unconformity.
Other evidence for
stronger alteration are the zones of stronger basement resistivity
anomalies as along EM conductors. The deeper basement resistivity
is enhanced when in contact with an upper low resistivity
alteration feature.
Christie North
The unconformity ranges
in depth from 390 to 490 metres in the Christie North grid area. A
number of poorly to well-developed resistivity lows
(“chimneys”) are observed in the lower sandstone
resistivity bench in the Christie North area (Figure 17 and Figure
18).
The known ore zones
display strong, generally well developed “chimneys”.
There appear to be NS structures at approximately the SW edge (Paul
Bay) and NE edge (Ōrora). These structures are also apparent
in the recent EM interpretation. To the immediate east the chimneys
are offset or change trends to follow the Paul Bay mineralized
trend, but do not appear to continue west of line
5600.
To the west of the
Ōrora mineralization, the ‘chimney’ trend is
offset to the north in the vicinity of lines 6,600 &
6,800.
There are a number of
weak outlier chimneys west of the mineralization from lines 5,400
to line 4,400.
There is a moderate to
well-developed chimney along EM conductor “B”. the
trend is from line 3,000 to 4,200, showing an offset in the
vicinity of line 3,400. There is a weak mostly poorly developed
“chimney” along EM conductor “A” from line
2,000 to line 3,400, with strong chimney developed directly on line
3,200.
Christie South
The unconformity ranges
in depth from 400 to 500m in the Christie South grid area. A number
of poorly to well-developed resistivity lows
(“chimneys”) are observed in the lower sandstone
resistivity bench in the Christie South area (Figure 19 and Figure
20).
Three sub-parallel
chimney features are observed from line 0 to 1,200. The EM multiple
conductors are not especially well resolved in this area by the
Fixed Loop survey. The area may also be structurally
disrupted.
The chimney along the
main conductor 97-D (line 1,600 to line 4000) is poor to moderately
developed and is shows the best character on lines 2,800 &
3,200.
To the east of line
4,000, the chimney is not well developed, although there are a
couple of outliers on line 4,800 and 5,600. Both these areas seem
to be associated with cross structures.
Figure 17: Christie North Resistivity
Interpretation – Sandstone
Figure 18: Christie North Resistivity
Interpretation - Basement
Figure 19: Christie South Resistivity
Interpretation – Sandstone
Figure 20: Christie South Resistivity
Interpretation – Basement
8.2.
TDEM Surveys (2020)
Additional ground
geophysical TDEM surveys were completed in 2020 over the A and B
trends and northern portion of the C trend conductors.
Géophysique TMC completed the work between February 27 and
March 30, 2020, involving five loops of 700 metres x 700 metres
each. The program consisted of 33 lines of approximately 1,200
metres each (with one line read twice when changing loop) for a
total of approximately 54.6 line-kilometres (Figure
21).
The objectives of the
TDEM survey were to map conductors and other potential
electromagnetic structures specifically focused on potential
basement mineralization.
Figure 21: 2020 TDEM Coverage with
Loops
Anomalies were numbered
identically if they had the relatively same geophysical signature
(i.e. strength, location, etc.). This naming convention was applied
to indicate which conductors might be related to each other and
simplify anomaly locations (Figure 22).
Figure 22: Anomaly Locations Plotted by
Conductor Number
The 2020 TDEM survey
was successful in identifying previously undetected anomalies as
well as confirming the locations of historical conductors. Future
TDEM programs should consider the following when completing
programs in the future:
1.
As previously known, the conductors in the
Athabasca Basin are very weak when compared to other commodities
where TDEM surveys have proven to be a very successful exploration
tool (ex. VMS). Due to lack of conductivity, the latest time
channels are within the noise threshold of the sensors. Future
programs should consider other sensors (such as SQUID systems) to
determine if these systems with a higher signal to noise ratio can
increase conductor location confidence and accuracy.
2.
Smaller, more well-designed loops were more
effective in locating the secondary conductors which were
previously unknown. Future surveys should consider smaller more
dedicated loops than previous large loop surveys to assess for
these types of conductors.
3.
The interpreted conductors have a variety of
wavelengths as interpreted from the profiles. As longer wavelength
anomalies will be from deeper seated responses, interpretation of
these conductors should take wavelength and potential depth of the
anomalous response into account.
8.3.
Exploration Targets
The exploration
potential of the Yalowega Trend is largely related to the
unconformity subcrop of graphitic metasedimentary rocks that have
been faulted by syn- and post-Athabasca sandstone deformation
events. A proxy for this type of rock at the unconformity is the
conductors that are inferred from various configurations of
electromagnetic surveys. The P2 conductive trend north of the
McArthur River Mine appears to extend onto the Christie Lake claims
is largely untested beyond the area between the Paul Bay and
Ōrora zones. This fertile trend is the most prospective on the
property and is the focus of future exploration work. Other
northeast-southwest conductive trends within the project area have
not been tested by drilling.
Drilling
Core drilling on the
Christie Lake Project has been the principal method of exploration
and delineation of uranium mineralization after initial geophysical
surveys. One drillhole (479 metres) was drilled by SMDC in 1988
near the southern conductor trend. Between 1988 and 1997, PNC
conducted multiple historical drilling campaigns totalling 95 drill
holes (47,040 metres). PNC suspended exploration on the Christie
Lake Project in 1997.
UEX resumed exploration
drilling on the Christie Lake Project in 2016, which involved the
completion of 104 drill holes (48,641 metres) between 2016 and
2021.
In total, 200 drill
holes (96,160 metres) have been drilled on the Christie Lake
Project. A tabulation of drilling by period and company up to
December 2021 is given in Table 9 and shown in Figure
23.
A full summary of
characteristics for all drilling on the Christie Lake Project since
1988 is presented in Appendix B.
Figure 23: Summary of Drilling Conducted on the
Christie Lake Uranium Project (1988-2021)
Table 9: Summary of Drilling Conducted on the
Christie Lake Uranium Project (1988-2021)
Operator
Period
Count
Length
(m)
SMDC
1988
1
479
PNC
1986-1997
95
47,040
Subtotal
Historical
96
47,519
UEX
2016
32
14,443
2017
38
16,074
2018
11
5,872
2019
14
8,234
2020
4
2,186
2021
5
1,834
Subtotal
UEX
104
48,641
Total
200
96,160
9.1.
Drilling by UEX (2016 – 2021)
Diamond drilling
performed by UEX from 2016 to 2021 comprises 48,641 metres in 104
drill holes and off-cut drill holes, of which 63 were completed to
the unconformity. Many of the drill holes not completed to the UC
were abandoned due to excess deviation of the hole’s azimuth
or dip.
Drilling in 2016
targeted the Paul Bay and Ken Pen zones to confirm continuity of
the high-grade mineralization in advance of a mineral resource
estimate and explore the potential to expand the uranium resources
of the two deposits.
Drilling in 2017
targeted the Shoreline and Otter Creek segments of the Yalowega
Trend to the north of the Ken Pen Zone. The 2017 winter drill
program was focused on following up on the high-grade intersection
of CB-102 at Paul Bay, to test the down-dip extension of and the
unconformity between Paul Bay and Ken Pen, and to explore the
Yalowega Trend to the northeast of Ken Pen.
Drill hole CB-109
graded 11.5 percent U3O8 over 17.7 metres and
was the discovery hole for Ōrora. Subsequent drilling in 2017
yielded more high-grade intersections and defined Ōrora along
strike for approximately 230 metres and a width of up to 35 metres.
The summer 2017 program focused on further delineating and extend
the footprint of the newly discovered Ōrora Zone.
The winter 2018 program
was six drillholes to target the Yalowega Trend Fault at the north
end of Ōrora and along East End Lake. One hole was drilled to
test for the northern extension of Ōrora on L68+25N (CB-129),
targeting the unconformity subcrop of the Yalowega Fault up-dip
from CB-111A. CB-129 intersected uranium mineralization that grades
0.19 percent U3O8 over 1.0 metres just
below the unconformity and is coincident with the base of the
Yalowega Trend Fault.
The summer 2018 drill
program consisted of five drill holes focused on the Shoreline area
between Ken Pen and Ōrora (360 metres strike-length) to test
the prospective nature of the Yalowega Trend fault at the
unconformity. Previous tests had encountered the fault in the
basement with anomalous uranium intersections along the trend.
Anomalous uranium mineralization was encountered in all drill holes
with the best uranium grades occurring in CB-132 with 0.37 percent
U3O8 over 11.2 metres at
the unconformity.
Fourteen drillholes
(8,234 metres) were completed in 2019 to test targets on the
B-Trend and C-Tend Conductors. The B-Trend drilling was comprised
of eight holes extending 1,600 metres along the target area between
L31+00N and L47+00N. The best results included CB-141, which
encountered uranium mineralization of 1.17 percent U3O8 over 1.9 metres
(radiometric equivalents used due to poor core recovery of
mineralization). Since subsequent follow-up drilling to the north
and south of CB-141 did not encounter uranium mineralization,
mineralization may be associated with discordant structure related
to the 1991 conductor that is mapped in the vicinity of this drill
hole. Six drill holes targeted the C-Trend conductor along strike
of the deposit areas north and south of the deposits. The best
results from this drilling were from drillholes CB-142, CB-143, and
CB-145, which encountered broad intervals of elevated sandstone
geochemistry associated with structure and alteration in the
sandstone, including CB-145 that encountered a weighted average of
8.7 ppm Uranium (partial digestion) over the basal 123 metres of
sandstone.
Four drillholes (2,186
metres) were completed in 2020 to evaluate the Ōrora North DC
resistivity anomaly. This program confirmed the structure
previously identified in 2019 with Drill holes CB-142, CB-143, and
CB-145 as an east-west structure that was oblique to the strike of
the Yalowega Trend C conductor. This structure was further tested
with drill hole CB-152 where it intersected the northern extension
of the Yalowega Fault north of the Ōrora Deposit. This test
resulted in anomalous alteration, but no radioactivity. Further
north on the Yalowega Trend two drill holes tested the 2020
conductor where it is coincident with a DC Resistivity anomaly and
encountered anomalous clay alteration and sandstone uranium
geochemistry coincident with a steeply south dipping east-west
structure.
UEX completed a summer
drill program in 2021 which comprised three drillholes (1,586
metres) including two pilot holes and one offcut. The primary
objective of the pilot holes was to follow up the results of the
2020 drill program at Ōrora North to structurally investigate
the control of anomalous uranium and alteration in the sandstone.
Drillhole CB-124-1 was drill as an off-cut to drillhole CB-124,
which encountered up to 181 ppm uranium in the basement, indicating
potential mineralization in the basement trending north of
Ōrora.
A summary of drilling
completed at Ken Pen, Paul Bay and Ōrora are displayed in
Figure 24.
Figure 24: Plan Map of Drilling on the Paul
Bay, Ken Pen and Ōrora Zones, Christie Lake Uranium
Project
9.2.
Drilling Procedures
9.2.1.
Historical Operators (Pre-1997)
No information exists
regarding the drilling procedures, or the sampling methods and
approaches employed by PNC on the Christie Lake Project. The core
handling procedures at the drill site would have most likely
followed industry standards for that time.
The casing was left in
select drill holes upon completion. The recovered core from the
surface drilling was placed into standard 1.5 metre-long, three-row
NQ wooden core boxes. Wooden blocks were used to identify
individual drill runs onto which the hole depth (in metres) is
recorded. Drill core was stored at PNC’s Christie Lake Camp
where basement metasediment intersections were stored in core racks
and intersections of the overlying Athabasca Group sandstone were
stored in cross-stacked piles.
In the summer of 2000,
all mineralized intersections and select complete metasedimentary
intersections were transferred to AREVA’s McLean Lake Mine
site for secure long-term storage of radioactive core. In the
spring of 2016, UEX personnel verified that a forest fire in 2008
destroyed the core racks and boxes containing the remaining
unconformity and metasediment core at PNC’s Christie Lake
Camp. The majority of the cross-piled Athabasca Group sandstone was
unaffected and remains intact.
No drilling was
completed on the Christie Lake Project during the period of 1998 to
2015.
9.2.2.
UEX (2016 – 2021)
Drilling was carried
out by Team Drilling Limited of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan utilizing a
single TD 1500 hydraulic rig and ancillary equipment. A drill rig
from the 2018 summer drill campaign is illustrated in Figure
25.
Figure 25: Team Drilling Limited Drill Rig
During the 2018 Summer Drilling Program
At the beginning of all
holes that started from surface, the process involved reaming and
securing HW casing into bedrock through the overburden with an HW
casing shoe. Drilling through the upper Athabasca sandstone was
carried out to an average of 200 metres using HQ rods
(65-millimetre diameter) and a 4.0 metre core barrel. Once into the
basement rock, drilling proceeded to the end of the hole with NQ
rods (48-millimetre core diameter) and a 4.2-metre core barrel.
Once completed, casing was left in the holes. From the summer 2017
program and beyond, all holes were cased with NW sized casing and
drilled from top to bottom with NQ rods.
Standard steel wedges
are also used to create an off-cut hole from any depth of an
existing hole. This allows for closely spaced intersections of
mineralized zones without having to drill multiple holes. To
maintain control of the active drill hole deviation while drilling,
drillers utilized standard steel and Clappison-style wedges. This
involved placing an angled piece of steel inside the drill hole to
deflect the drill bit in a certain direction specified by the
geologist. Afterwards the steel was either left in the drill hole
(standard wedge) or removed (Clappison wedge) and normal drilling
resumed. From the winter 2017 program onward, a directional mud
motor was used for added precision during directional
drilling.
Recovered core was
placed directly into standard 1.5 metre-long, three-row NQ wooden
core boxes or standard 1.5 metre-long two-row HQ wooden core boxes.
Wooden blocks were used to identify individual drill runs onto
which hole the depth (in metres) is recorded. Core was delivered by
Team Drilling personnel at the end of every shift and brought to a
core handling facility at UEX’s Christie Lake
Camp.
Drill core was logged
by UEX personnel for geotechnical and geological information.
Before the core is split for assay, it is photographed, measured
for structures, surveyed with a scintillometer, and marked for
sampling. Sample selection is guided by the observed geology,
radiometric logs, and readings from a hand-held scintillometer.
Information was input directly into Datamine’s DHLogger
logging software and stored in the Datamine Fusion drill hole
database software system.
All mineralized and
non-mineralized holes within the Paul Bay Zone are cemented from
approximately 25 metres below the mineralized zone to approximately
25 metres above the zone. All mineralized and non-mineralized holes
within the Ken Pen and Ōrora zones are cemented for the entire
basement column to approximately 25 metres above the
unconformity.
Hand-Held Scintillometer
A hand-held
scintillometer measures gamma radiation which is emitted during the
natural radioactive decay of uranium and variations in the natural
radioactivity originating from changes in concentrations of the
trace element thorium as well as changes in concentration of the
major rock forming element potassium. The natural gamma measurement
is made when a detector emits a pulse of light when struck by a
gamma ray. This pulse of light is amplified by a photomultiplier
tube, which outputs a current pulse which is accumulated and
reported as “counts per second”. Count rates are
displayed on a scale on the instrument and recorded manually by the
technician logging the core. The hand-held scintillometer provides
quantitative data only and cannot be used to calculate uranium
grades; however, it does allow the geologist to identify the
presence of uranium mineralization in the core and to select
intervals for geochemical and assay sampling.
Scintillometer readings
are taken along the entire length of core recovered as part of the
logging process and are averaged for consistent intervals. Zones of
uranium mineralization were considered when readings were
significantly above the background reading (approximately 500
counts per second depending on the scintillometer being used). In
mineralized zones the readings are recorded
over 10-centimetre
intervals and tied to the run interval blocks. The scintillometer
profile is then plotted on strip logs to compare and adjust the
depth of the downhole gamma logs. Core trays are marked with
aluminum tags as well as felt marker indicating the sample interval
and number.
Radiometric Logging
Down-hole radiometric
logging was completed systematically on every drill hole using a
Mount Sopris HLP-2375 shielded gamma tool. The tool measures
natural gamma radiation using one sodium iodide (NaI) crystal. The
tool contains shielding around the crystal to allow more accurate
discrimination of mid-range uranium grades.
Uranium mineralized
intersections occurring within drill holes were logged a second
time using an Alpha Nuclear High Flux (HF) gamma tool. This tool
utilizes a pair of ZP-1320 Geiger Mueller tubes and is not as
sensitive as a sodium iodide crystal allowing better discrimination
of high uranium grade values.
The radiometric tools
measure gamma radiation which is emitted during the natural
radioactive decay of uranium and variations in the natural
radioactivity originating from changes in concentrations of the
trace element thorium as well as changes in concentration of the
major rock forming element potassium.
Potassium decays into
two stable isotopes (argon and calcium) which are no longer
radioactive and emits gamma rays with energies of 1.46 million
electron-volts. Uranium and thorium, however, decay into daughter
products which are unstable (i.e., radioactive). The decay of
uranium forms a series of 13 radioactive elements in nature which
finally decay to a stable isotope of lead. The decay of thorium
forms a similar series of radioelements. As each radioelement in
the series decays, it is accompanied by emissions of alpha or beta
particles or gamma rays. The gamma rays have specific energies
associated with the decaying radionuclide. The most prominent of
the gamma rays in the uranium series originate from decay of
bismuth 214 (214Bi), and in the thorium series from decay of
thallium 208 (208Tl).
The natural gamma
measurement is made when a detector emits a pulse of light when
struck by a gamma ray. This pulse of light is amplified by a
photomultiplier tube, which outputs a current pulse which is
accumulated and reported as counts per second. The gamma probe is
lowered to the bottom of a drill hole and data are recorded at
10-centimetre intervals as the tool travels to the bottom and then
is pulled back up to the surface. The current pulse is carried up a
conductive cable and processed by a logging system computer that
stores the raw gamma count-per-second data.
Downhole total gamma
data are subjected to a complex set of mathematical equations,
considering the specific parameters of the probe used, speed of
logging, size of drill hole, drilling fluids, and presence or
absence of any type of drill hole casing. The result is an indirect
measurement of uranium content within the sphere of measurement of
the gamma detector. A UEX in-house developed spreadsheet, using
mathematical equations for high grade uranium developed and used
with the permission of Cameco Corporation, converts the measured
counts per second of the gamma rays into 10-centimetre increments
of percent U3O8
equivalent.
The conversion
coefficients for conversion of probe counts per second to percent
U3O8 equivalent uranium
grades are based on calibrations conducted at the Saskatchewan
Research Council (SRC) uranium calibration pits. Dead-time
corrections and potassium-factors are calculated using mathematical
relationships comparing cps to known uranium grades.
SRC Laboratory downhole
probe calibration facilities are located in Saskatoon,
Saskatchewan. The calibration facilities test pits consist of four
variably mineralized holes, each approximately four metres thick.
The gamma probes are calibrated a minimum of two times per year,
usually before and after both the winter and summer field
seasons.
9.3.
Surveying
The proposed collar
locations of drill holes are spotted relative to known reference
points in the field and surveyed by differential GPS system using
the NAD83 UTM zone 13N reference datum. The drill holes have a
concise naming convention with the prefix “CB” denoting
“Christie Lake Area B” followed by the number of the
drill hole. In general, most of the drilling was completed on
northwest-southeast oriented profiles spaced approximately 25
metres apart.
The trajectory of all
drill holes was documented using a Reflex multi-shot instrument at
30-metre intervals down the hole with an initial test taken 6
metres below the casing and a final measurement at the bottom of
the hole. The Reflex multi-shot was used in single shot mode to
record azimuth and dip at specified intervals.
9.4.
Core Recovery
At Christie Lake the
mineralized zones are moderately to strongly altered and disrupted
by fault breccias. In places, the core can be broken and blocky,
however, core recovery is generally good with an overall average of
95 percent. Local intervals of up to 5 metres with less than 80
percent recovery have been encountered due to washouts during the
drilling process. Where 80 percent or less of a composited interval
is recovered during drilling (greater than 20 percent core loss),
or where no geochemical sampling has occurred across a mineralized
interval, uranium assay grades have been supplemented by
radiometric probe data for compositing.
9.5.
SRK Comments
In the opinion of the
QP, the drilling, core logging and sampling procedures used by UEX
are consistent with generally accepted industry best practices and
are, therefore, adequate for an exploration project. The QP
concludes that the samples are representative of the source
materials and there is no evidence that a sampling bias was
introduced by the applied drilling and sampling
process.
Sample Preparation,
Analyses, and Security
All exploration samples
collected by UEX were submitted to Saskatchewan Research Council
(SRC) Geoanalytical Laboratory in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. SRC is
accredited to ISO 17025:2005 by the Standards Council of Canada,
laboratory number 537, including the determination of U3O8 weight percent in
solid samples by ICP-OES.
Umpire samples were
analyzed at SRC’s Delayed Neutron Activation Laboratory, a
separate facility located at SRC’s Analytical Laboratory in
Saskatoon.
SRC is an independent,
commercial geochemical laboratory that operates independently from
UEX.
10.1.
PNC (1985 – 2000)
Sediment samples taken
by PNC in 1987 weighed approximately 0.5 to 1.0 kilograms, were
placed in prenumbered Kraft paper sample bags and dried in a tent
for approximately 7 days. Samples were then examined for grain
size, organic content and colour (coded according to Geological
Society of America rock colour chart). Samples were sent to Chemex
Labs, located in North Vancouver, British Columbia and analysed
for; uranium by neutron activation, lead, zinc, copper, nickel, and
loss on ignition.
Core samples were
submitted to SRC in Saskatoon. No further information exists about
sample preparation procedures, analytical techniques, and sample
security employed by PNC for core samples.
10.2.
JCU (2000 – 2016)
No documented samples
were collected or submitted for analysis by JCU between 2000 and
2016.
10.3.
UEX (2016 – 2021)
Exploration samples
collected between 2016 and 2021 were submitted to SRC in Saskatoon
by ground transport. Samples submitted for geochemical and
U3O8 analyses are shipped
by ground transport by UEX personnel using Transport of Dangerous
Goods (TDG) protocols by qualified personnel. On arrival at the
laboratory, samples are assigned an SRC group number and are
entered into the Laboratory Information Management System
(LIMS).
All samples received
are first sorted by matrix composition (sandstone or
basement/mineralized) as indicated on the original sample bags to
prevent cross contamination between samples. Next, they are sorted
by level of radioactivity using a Radioactivity Detector System
(RDS). The samples are classified into one of the following
groups:
●
“Red Line” (minimal radioactivity)
< 500 counts per second
●
“1 Dot” 500 – 1,999 counts per
second
●
“2 Dots” 2,000 – 2,999 counts
per second
●
“3 Dots” 3,000 – 3,999 counts
per second
●
“4 Dots” 4,000 – 4,999 counts
per second
●
“UR” (unreadable) > 5,000 counts
per second
Samples are sorted by
ascending sample number order and transferred to matrix designated
drying ovens. Once dry, “Red Line” and “1
Dot” samples are transferred for further processing at the
main SRC laboratory. Samples considered radioactive (“2
Dots” or higher) are sent to a secure radioactive bunker to
await transport by TDG trained personnel to the radioactive
facility at SRC for further sample preparation.
All samples are
prepared using the same protocol. Crushing is performed utilizing a
jaw crusher to over 60 percent passing 2 millimetres. Samples are
then split using a riffle splitter to achieve approximately
200-gram subsamples. The excess reject material is stored in its
original bag and archived in a plastic pail with identification of
the appropriate group number on the exterior.
Grinding of the samples
is performed for two minutes to over 90 percent passing 106 microns
and confirmed by wet sieving. The material is dried and transferred
to a labelled plastic snap-top vial. Once sample pulps are
generated, they are returned to the main laboratory to be
chemically processed prior to analysis.
Radioactive pulps are
returned to a secure radioactive bunker before being transferred to
a secure radioactive facility for storage.
All equipment is
cleaned between analyses with compressed air. The pots are cleaned
with silica sand and compressed air. In the radioactive facility
the pots are cleaned with water.
All prepared pulps are
analyzed by the ICP-OES package offered by SRC and includes 46
analytes through total digestion and 16 analytes through partial
digestion. Nine of these analytes are analyzed by both partial and
total digestions and include silver, cobalt, copper, molybdenum,
nickel, lead, uranium, vanadium and zinc. When the ICP1 partial
digestion value for uranium is greater than 1,000 ppm, the sample
pulp is re-assayed for U3O8 using SRC’s
weight percent analysis method. The analytical methods are
summarized in Table 10.
Table 10: Summary of Preparation and Assay
Methodologies
Element
Method Code
Detection Limit
Digest
Instrumentation
46 elements
ICP1 (Total Digestion)
Varies, see Table 11
HF + HNO3 + HClO4 hot digest plus
HNO3
leach
ICP-OES
16 elements
ICP1 (Partial Digestion
Varies, see Table 11
HNO3 + HCl in hot water
bath
ICP-OES
U3O8
ICP4
0.001%
Aqua Regia (3:1 HCl: HNO3)
ICP-OES
10.4.
Specific Gravity Data
All samples submitted
to SRC for geochemical analysis are also analyzed for density using
the pycnometer method (SRC Method – Density 1). The
methodology is summarized from the SRC Density 1 method reference
document as follows:
“Cleaned, dried and pre-weighed flasks
were topped up to volume with deionized water and placed under
vacuum then weighed. An aliquot of prepared sample is weighed and
transferred to one of the pre-weighed volumetric flasks and then
the flask was topped up with water and placed under vacuum until
all the air was
evacuated. The flasks
were made up to volume and reweighed. All weights were entered into
one database and the rock density calculated. The temperature of
the water was recorded at the time of all measurements and included
in the calculations. One in 40 samples is analyzed in duplicate and
must fall within specified limits.”
10.5.
Quality Assurance and Quality Control
Programs
Quality control
measures are typically set in place to ensure the reliability and
trustworthiness of the exploration data. These measures include
written field procedures and independent verifications of aspects
such as drilling, surveying, sampling and assaying, data
management, and database integrity. Appropriate documentation of
quality control measures and regular analysis of quality control
data are important as a safeguard for project data and form the
basis for the quality assurance program implemented during
exploration.
Analytical control
measures typically involve internal and external laboratory control
measures implemented to monitor the precision and accuracy of the
sampling, preparation, and assaying process. They are also
important to prevent sample mix-up and to monitor the voluntary or
inadvertent contamination of samples.
Assaying protocols
typically involve regularly duplicating and replicating assays and
inserting quality control samples to monitor the reliability of
assaying results throughout the sampling and assaying process.
Check assaying is normally performed as an additional test of the
reliability of assaying results. It generally involves re-assaying
a set number of sample rejects and pulps at a secondary umpire
laboratory.
10.5.1.
PNC (1985 – 2000)
PNC did not adopt an
analytical quality assurance and quality control program for
exploration core sampling. Although the results are not readily
available, PNC instituted split duplicate sampling of the sediment
sampling program in 1987. Of the total 67 sediment samples taken,
approximately 6 percent were duplicate samples. All samples
were submitted to ALS.
10.5.2.
JCU (2000 – 2016)
JCU did not collect
exploration samples and therefore did not require the
implementation of an analytical quality assurance and quality
control program.
10.5.3.
UEX (2016 – 2021)
UEX implemented an
analytical quality assurance and quality control program for core
samples involving the use of blanks and certified reference
material samples. UEX also relies on pulp duplicate testing carried
out as part of the internal laboratory quality control program
routinely maintained by SRC to monitor analytical results on an
ongoing basis.
Due to their
radioactive nature, insertion of commercial certified reference
material (over a range of U3O8 grades) sourced from
SRC is performed by at the laboratory instead of the field.
Certified reference materials are added to the sample groups by SRC
personnel, using standards appropriate for each. SRC has used a
total of 7 reference material types between 2016 and 2018,
summarized in Table 11. Blank material is inserted in the field and
sourced from quartzite with lower U3O8 than the sample
material, however above the detection limit. The specifications of
the control samples used
by UEX and SRC are
summarized in Table 11. The insertion rate of standard reference
materials was approximately one in 40 samples. Field blank samples
are inserted at a rate of one in 20 samples.
Table 11: Summary of Control Samples used by
UEX and SRC on the Christie Lake Project
(2016-2021)
Standard
Expected
SD*
Inserts
ID
Value
Low Grade U3O8 (0-1)
BL-4A &
UEX01
0.147
0.0020
201
BL-2A &
UEX02A
0.204
0.0040
53
UEX02
0.534
0.0030
3
Total
257
Medium Grade
U3O8 (1-5%)
UEX03
1.200
0.0050
4
SCU02 &
UEX03A
1.580
0.0325
48
Total
52
High Grade
U3O8
(>5%)
SCU03
5.460
0.1100
1
BL-5
8.360
0.0350
12
Total
13
* Standard
Deviation
10.6.
Security
The drilling, sampling
and logging are done under the supervision of experienced technical
personnel. Logged and sampled drill core from the 2016-2018 drill
programs is stored in a core yard at the Christie Lake camp
operated in accordance with Saskatchewan government
requirements.
10.7.
SRK Comments
In the opinion of the
QP, the sampling preparation, analytical and security procedures
used by UEX are consistent with generally accepted industry best
practices and are, therefore, adequate for an exploration project.
Sample handling and preparation procedures followed by previous
operators are not readily available and difficult to assess.
However, after analysis of exploration data, the Qualified Person
considers that historical data to be adequate to inform geology and
mineral resource models. The QP does however recommend that in
addition to pycnometry that specific gravity check determinations
also be undertaken by the conventional water immersion method to
evaluate the sensitivity to potential sample porosity and
alteration. Drilling sampling data collected by PNC during
1988-1997 constitutes approximately 33 percent of all exploration
data available for the Christie Lake Project.
Data
Verification
11.1.
Verifications by UEX
As part of the
acquisition process of the Christie Lake Project, UEX conducted a
detailed review of all drilling and sampling data for historical
work on the property. The review involved the re-logging of
available mineralized drill core at the Christie Lake Camp and
McLean Lake Mine site including a comparison and clarification of
data within the Microsoft Access drilling database.
Historical sampling was
unable to be verified as the pulps and rejects collected by PNC are
no longer available for analysis. Existing historical core
intervals are not sufficient to allow a re-sampling of mineralized
intervals.
Tri-Cities Surveys was
contracted in 2000 to survey the location of all known collars of
historical drill holes on the property. Drill holes which no longer
had collars or were drilled on ice pads during the winter were
unable to be surveyed.
In 2016 UEX implemented
an umpire check assay program where a selection of pulp samples was
submitted to SRC’s Delayed Neutron Counting (DNC) laboratory,
a separate facility located at SRC Analytical Laboratories in
Saskatoon, to compare the reproducibility of uranium values using
two different methods, by two separate laboratories. SRC’s
DNC laboratory is not independent of SRC Geoanalytical Laboratory.
The DNC laboratory method is specific to uranium and no other
elements are analyzed by this technique. The DNC system detects
neutrons emitted by the fission of U-235 in the sample, and the
instrument response is compared to the response from known
reference materials to determine the concentration of uranium in
the sample. In order for the analysis to work, the uranium must be
in its natural isotopic ratio. Enriched or depleted, uranium can
not be analyzed by DNC.
11.1.1.
Data Collection and Verification
For the verification of
drilling data, UEX relies partly on verification processes built
into Datamine’s DHLogger software used for logging core and
storage of data. Possible data errors such as logging interval
overlaps, end-of-hole values greater than the drill hole length,
missing information etc., are detected automatically and send error
messages within the program.
Duplication and back-up
of all data on a central server located in UEX’s Saskatoon
office. All modifications to the database are tracked, including an
audit trail showing what changes were made and by
whom.
All historical drilling
data has been transferred to this central database structure. All
new geological, geotechnical, and scintillometer data collected by
UEX since assuming operatorship of the project in 2016 has been
collected in the DHLogger system.
UEX collects three
independent data sets to track and correlate uranium
mineralization, which include scintillometer readings from the
drill core, down-hole gamma logging, and assay sampling. These
three data sets are then correlated to confirm and verify the
location and integrity of mineralized intervals within each drill
hole.
11.2.
Verifications by SRK
11.2.1.
Site Visit
In accordance with NI
43-101 reporting standards, Mr. Glen Cole visited the Christie Lake
Project from September 19 to 20, 2018 during active drilling,
accompanied by Mr. Christopher Hamel and other UEX exploration
personnel.
The purpose of the site
visit was to review the procedures used to generate and validate
the exploration database, review exploration procedures, define
geological modelling procedures, examine drill core, interview
project personnel, and collect all relevant information for the
preparation of a mineral resource model and the compilation of a
technical report.
The author was given
full access to relevant data and conducted interviews with UEX
personnel to obtain information on the past exploration work, to
understand procedures used to collect, record, store and analyze
historical and current exploration data.
All aspects that could
materially impact the integrity of the exploration database (like
core logging, sampling, and database management) were reviewed with
UEX staff. The QP was given full access to all relevant project
data. The QP was able to interview exploration staff to ascertain
exploration procedures and protocols.
The QP examined core
from several drill holes and found that the logging information
accurately reflects actual core. The lithology contacts checked by
the QP generally correlate with information reported in the core
logs.
The QP was able to
review the drill hole data from drilling completed following the
September 2018 site visit. The QP was able to independently model
the drilling completed since the site visit, and verifies that
there is no material change to the previously modeled mineral
resource in the area of the Paul Bay, Ken Pen, and Ōrora
Deposits.
11.2.2.
Database Verifications
The QP conducted a
series of routine verifications to ensure the reliability of the
electronic data provided by UEX. These verifications included spot
checking the digital data against original assay certificate. The
QP audited approximately 5 percent of data generated by UEX and
considers the database to be well maintained, with no major errors
encountered. The QP reviewed data from UEX’s 2016 to 2018
exploration activities and also more recently the data generated up
to December 31, 2021 with company representatives and is satisfied
that no additional drilling or sampling was undertaken within the
current resource area.
Wide spaced drilling
activity undertaken subsequent to the site visit was external to
the mineral resource area and does not warrant additional
wireframing to constrain potential mineral resource
additions.
11.2.3.
Verifications of Analytical Quality Control
Data
The QP analyzed the
results of the analytical quality control data produced by UEX from
2016 to 2018 drilling programs. All data were provided to the QP in
Microsoft Excel spreadsheets accompanied by original Adobe PDF lab
certificates. UEX aggregated the assay results of the external
analytical control samples for further analysis by the QP. Control
samples (blanks and certified reference materials) were summarized
on time series plots to highlight their performance. Paired data
(preparation and lab internal pulp duplicate assays) were analyzed
using bias charts, quantile-quantile, and relative precision plots.
A selection of the charted data is presented in Figure
26.
Figure 26: Time Series Plots for Blank Material
and Certified Reference Material Samples Assayed by SRC Laboratory
in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada, Between 2016 and
2018.
The type of analytical
quality control data collected, and their associated performances
are discussed below and summarized in Table 12.
Table 12: Summary of Analytical Quality Control
Data Produced by UEX on the Christie Lake Uranium
Project
Total
(%)
Value*
SD**
Comment
Sample
Count
3,372
Blanks
75
2.22%
QC samples
322
9.55%
BL-4A &
UEX01
201
0.147
0.002
CANMET
BL-2A &
UEX02A
53
0.502
0.004
CANMET
UEX02
3
0.534
0.003
CANMET
UEX03
4
1.2
0.005
CANMET
SCU02 &
UEX03A
48
1.58
0.0325
SRC
SCU03
1
5.46
0.11
SRC
BL-5
12
8.36
0.035
CANMET
Pulp
Replicates
140
4.15%
Field
Duplicates
81
2.40%
Total QC
Samples
618
18.33%
* Wt% U3O8
** Standard
deviation
In general, analyses of
blank samples consistently yielded uranium grades near or below the
detection limit of the primary laboratory. The performance of blank
samples between 2016 and 2018 is adequate, with no sample
contamination detected.
UEX used a total of 7
certified standard reference material types with a variable range
of expected uranium values (Table 11). Overall, the performance of
these materials is acceptable with only one failure
documented.
Approximately 4 percent
of samples analyzed by SRC were chosen randomly by laboratory staff
for repeat analysis. Rank half absolute relative difference (HARD)
plots suggested that 97.9 percent of the duplicate check assays
conducted on pulps, had HARD below 10 percent, suggesting good
analytical precision at the laboratory.
Reproducibility of core
assays from field duplicate material was satisfactory with a
correlation coefficient of 0.98. HARD plots suggested that 40.7
percent of the field duplicate check assays conducted had HARD
below 10 percent, suggesting poor reproducibility between samples,
however, this is not unexpected for field duplicates. A minor
positive bias was detected for field duplicate pairs with original
sample assays grading over 1 percent U3O8. Given that the
available dataset for this type of analytical quality control for
core samples was small with 89 sample pairs available for analysis
between 2016 to 2018, and only 8 paired samples grading over 1
percent U3O8, this is not
considered to be significant.
11.2.4.
SRK Comments
In the review of
potential risk introduced by historical data, the QP identified a
lack of quality control programs documented by previous operators.
The sampling data collected by UEX (approximately 1,853 core
samples) outweighs historical sampling data collected by PNC (901
core samples), reducing the risk introduced by the use of
historical data with uncertain quality.
Although the QP
identified a minor positive bias for field duplicate pairs grading
over 1 percent U3O8, this is not
considered to be significant due to the small sample size and
inherent variability expected for field duplicate samples. UEX is
encouraged to monitor these results and continue applying best
sampling practices.
Check assaying is
normally performed as an additional test of the reliability of
assaying results and generally involves re-assaying a set number of
sample rejects and pulps at a secondary umpire laboratory on a
regular basis. The QP encourages continued diligence in monitoring
quality control analysis by adopting a routine of regular umpire
assay checks, preferably with a laboratory independent from SRC as
part of the ongoing quality control program.
Overall, the QP
considers analytical results from core sampling conducted at the
Christie Lake Project as globally sufficiently reliable for the
purpose of resource estimation. The data examined by the QP do not
present obvious evidence of significant analytical
bias.
Mineral
Processing and Metallurgical
Testing
No mineral processing
or metallurgical testing analyses have been carried out to date on
the Christie Lake Project.
Mineral
Resource Estimates
13.1.
Introduction
This section describes
the methodology and summarizes the key assumptions considered to
prepare the geology and mineral resource model. In the opinion of
qualified person for the mineral resource, the mineral resource
evaluation reported herein is a reasonable representation of the
global uranium mineral resources of the Paul Bay, Ken Pen and
Ōrora zones of the Christie Lake Project at the current level
of sampling. The mineral resources presented herein are reported in
accordance with Canadian Securities Administrators’ National
Instrument 43-101 (2011) and have been estimated in conformity with
generally accepted CIM Estimation of Mineral Resources and Mineral
Reserves Best Practice Guidelines (November 2019). The QP ensured
that the mineral resource database, the geological interpretation
and the various adopted mineral resource estimation tasks conform
to best practice guidelines. The process followed to ensure this is
documented in this section. There is no certainty that all or any
part of the mineral resource will be converted into mineral
reserve.
In July 2018, UEX
initially commissioned SRK to prepare the mineral resource model
for the Christie Lake deposit. This section summarizes the data,
methodology, and parameters considered by the QP to prepare the
mineral resource estimation for the Christie Lake
deposit.
UEX staff provided
technical input throughout the geological and mineralized domain
modeling process which were reviewed and audited by the QP for use
in this mineral resource estimation. Dr. Mitrofanov, PGeo
(APGO#2824) reviewed the data and constructed the low- and
high-grade wireframes. Grade estimation and associated sensitivity
analyses, validation checks and mineral resource classification
were performed by Dr. Machuca, PEng (PEO#100508889). Both Dr.
Mitrofanov and Dr. Machuca worked under the supervision of Mr. Glen
Cole (APEGS#26003, APGO#1416) the qualified person, who also
conducted the site visit. The mineral resource estimation was peer
reviewed by Mr. Cliff Revering, PGeo (APEGS#9764).
By virtue of his
education, membership to a recognized professional association, and
relevant work experience, Mr. Cole qualifies as an independent
Qualified Person as this term is defined by National Instrument
43-101.
The effective date of
the Mineral Resource Statement for the Christie Lake Project is
December 31, 2021.
13.2.
Resource Estimation Procedures
The mineral resources
reported herein were estimated using a geostatistical block
modelling approach informed from core drill hole data constrained
within mineralization wireframes. The mineral resource evaluation
methodology adopted for Christie Lake deposit involved the
following procedures:
●
Database compilation and
verification.
●
Construction of solids to be applied as mineral
resource domains.
●
Data conditioning (compositing and capping) for
geostatistical analysis and variography.
●
Block modelling and grade
interpolation.
●
Resource classification and
validation.
●
Assessment of “reasonable prospects for
eventual economic extraction” and selection of appropriate
cut-off grades and
●
Preparation of the Mineral Resource
Statement.
The following sections
summarize the methodology and assumptions made by the QP to
construct the mineral resource model.
13.3.
Resource Database
UEX provided the
mineral resource database as MS Excel and CSV files. The database
used to evaluate the mineral resources of the Paul Bay, Ken Pen and
Ōrora zones includes 171 core drill holes (78,585 metres)
comprised primarily of samples from core drill holes drilled from
surface. The database contains 2,754 intervals (1,253 metres)
assayed for triuranium octoxide (U3O8 or just
“uranium” in this section), the mineralized domains
contain 1,808 assay intervals.
The database also
contains the following additional information used in the resource
modelling process:
●
Lithology logging including 4,260 intervals
(80,743 metres).
●
Alteration logging:
Bleaching including 985
intervals (20,876 metres).
Clay including 4,583
intervals (17,435 metres).
Hydrothermal including
107 intervals (1,261 metres).
●
Mineralization including 373 intervals (564
metres).
●
Density measurements including 1,979 (877
metres).
●
Structural data including major structures (130
intervals), minor structures (1,818 intervals) and oriented core
measurements (2,715 intervals).
The QP imported the
drilling data into Datamine Studio and Leapfrog software and
performed the following validation steps:
●
Checked minimum and maximum values for each
value field and confirmed and edited values outside of expected
ranges.
●
Checked for gaps, overlaps, and out of sequence
intervals for both assay and lithology tables.
In accordance with
National Instrument 43-101 guidelines, Mr. Glen Cole from SRK
visited the Christie Lake Project during the period September
19-20, 2018, accompanied by Mr. Chris Hamel and other UEX technical
exploration staff. The QP is satisfied that the exploration work
carried out by UEX is conducted in a manner consistent with
industry best practices and, therefore, the exploration data and
the drilling database are sufficiently reliable to support a
mineral resource evaluation.
The QP was provided
with a 50k survey DEM topography surface. Although the topography
surface resolution is relatively low, the modeling and estimation
of the mineralized zones are unaffected due to their respective
depth. UEX also provided a 3-dimensional preliminary model of the
interpreted unconformity surface and internal mineralized zonal
wireframes for reference. The drilling completed at Christie Lake
up to December 31, 2021 has been reviewed by the QP. It is the
QP’s opinion that the drilling subsequent to the site visit
in September 2018 is not material to the resource estimated in
2019. The QP was able to model and subsequently verify that the
drilling following the September 2018 site visit primarily targeted
mineralization external to the area defined by the 2019 mineral
resource and was too widely spaced to allow additional mineral
resource modeling.
13.4.
Geological Modelling
Uranium mineralization
discovered at the Christie Lake Project to date occurs in three
zones; the Paul Bay Zone, Ken Pen Zone, and Ōrora Zone. These
zones have a north-easterly trend and are located approximately 420
metres below surface. The mineralization within Ken Pen and
Ōrora zones occur along the unconformity boundary and extend
deeper along the northeast fault zones forming a
“mushroom” shape. The Paul Bay mineralization is
basement hosted and was modelled as three parallel zones moderately
dipping to the southeast. The continuity of the three deposits was
confirmed during wireframing where mineralization on each section
was modeled and connected within 3D modelling software to the
wireframe on the next section. All mineralization within the
wireframe satisfied the thresholds described below.
The mineralization zone
boundaries were developed using a combined set of criteria
including lithology, alteration and mineralization logging,
presence of clay and assay grade. Overall, the marginal threshold
value of 0.01 percent U3O8 was used for
contouring; however, the intervals with U3O8 grade between 0.01
and 0.05 percent were included only if additional logged evidence
of uranium mineralization were in place. The additional high-grade
domain developed for Ōrora zone was undertaken using logged
uranium mineralization in combination with core
photos.
The mineralization
domains were constructed by the QP in a strong collaboration with
UEX geologists. Several iterations of edits and reviews were
completed before the estimation domains were finalized. An overview
of the domains is presented in Figure 27.
13.5.
Statistical Analysis and
Compositing
The assay data within
the mineralization domains was extracted and analyzed to determine
an appropriate composite length (Figure 28). Most of the analytical
samples were collected at 0.5-metre intervals. A modal composite
length of approximately 0.5 metres was applied to all the data,
generating composites as close to 0.5-metres as possible, while
creating residual intervals of up to 0.25 metres in length (drill
hole assays). In all cases, composite files were derived from raw
values within the modelled resource domains.
Figure 27: Estimation
Domains
Top left: Ken
Pen
Top right: Paul
Bay
Bottom:
Ōrora
The High-Grade domain
in Ōrora is coloured red.
Figure 28: Length Frequency Distribution of the
Samples Within the Mineralization Domains
13.6.
Evaluation of Outliers
The impact of outliers
was examined on composite data using log probability plots and
cumulative statistics. Upon review, the QP is of the opinion that
capping is required to restrict the influence of outliers. The
suggested capping values are as follows:
●
Ken Pen – 10 percent U3O8.
●
Paul Bay – 30 percent U3O8.
●
Ōrora High-Grade – 33 percent
U3O8.
●
Ōrora Low-Grade – 3 percent
U3O8.
The summary statistics
for the defined mineral resource domains is tabulated in Table
13.
Table 13: Summary Basic Statistics for
Composite and Capped Composite Data for Christie Lake
Domains
Uncapped Data
Capped Data
Capping Stats
Domain
Domain Code
Number
Mean (%)
Std. Dev.
Max. (%)
CoV*
Mean (%)
Std. Dev.
Max. (%)
CoV*
Reduction in the Mean
Percent Capped
Paul Bay
200
834
1.44
5.92
70
4.11
1.22
3.99
30
3.27
-15%
1%
Ken Pen
100
256
0.88
2.56
18.87
2.91
0.77
1.92
10
2.49
-13%
2%
Ōrora High Grade
301
51
16.65
15.94
73.8
0.96
14.54
11.16
33
0.77
-13%
12%
Ōrora Low Grade
302
498
0.27
0.73
8.38
2.7
0.24
0.49
3
2.04
-11%
1%
* CoV=Coefficient of
Variation
13.7.
Specific Gravity
There is a strong
quadratic relationship between U3O8 grades and Specific
Values as observed in the scatterplot presented in Figure 29,
especially for uranium grades above 10 percent. Given the high
correlation between U3O8 grades and specific
gravity, block specific gravity values were calculated from
estimated uranium grades using the following quadratic regression
formula:
,
where SG is the estimated specific gravity
and U3O8 is the
assayed or estimated uranium grade.
Figure 29: U3O8
vs. Specific Gravity Regression Curve and
Equation
13.8.
Statistical Analysis and
Variography
Polygonal declustering
bounded by the domain solids was applied to capped composite grades
to produce representative uranium statistics. Figure 30 presents
the corresponding probability plots and statistics for the Paul Bay
and Ken Pen deposits and for the statistically very different
High-grade and Low-grade domains of Ōrora.
Figure 30: Cumulative Probability Plots for
Declustered Composite Data
Spatially continuity
analysis was performed on capped composite grades of all domains
and deposits combined. The directions of major continuity examined
roughly corresponds to the average dip, dip direction and
perpendicular direction for all domains in the three deposits. The
decision to combine all data for the variography responds to the
difficulty to obtain workable experimental variograms for
individual domains. Because the high variability of uranium grades,
the experimental variograms were calculated on normal-scores
transformed composite grades, which were back-transformed to
original units for the fitting of the variogram model. Figure 31
shows the normal scores and back-transformed experimental
variograms, as well as the fitted variogram model, along the three
major directions of spatial continuity and along the down-hole
direction. Table 14 presents the fitted variogram model
parameters.
Figure 31: Normal Scores (NS) and
Back-transformed (Y-Z) Experimental Variograms and Fitted Variogram
Model for U3O8
Grades
Table 14:
Variogram Model Parameters for U3O8
Domain
Structure
Sill
Contribution
Ranges1
Rotation
Angles1
X (m)
Y (m)
Z (m)
Z
X
Y
All
C0
Nugget
0.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
C1
Exp
0.78
9
12
2.4
125
33
0
C2
Sph
0.12
20
30
15
125
33
0
1 Ranges and
rotations expressed in Datamine's Z-X-Y rotation
convention
13.9.
Block Model and Grade Estimation
The block model was
rotated to coincide with the overall strike of the three deposits
and consists of 5 by 10 by 2.5 metres parent cells with 0.5 by
0.5 by 0.5 subcells. Table 15 summarizes the block model
definition. The block model subcells were coded using the domains
wireframes.
Grade estimation was
undertaken by ordinary kriging (OK) constrained by uranium
mineralization wireframes. In all cases the boundaries defined by
the mineralization wireframes were treated as hard.
Table 15: Block Model
Parameters
Axis
Block Size
(metres)
Origin*
Number of
Cells
Rotation
Angle
Parent
Sub cell
X
5
1
507,420
60
0
Y
10
1
6,411,550
105
0
Z
2.5
0.5
-95
76
35
* NAD83, Zone 13N
Grade estimation was
undertaken in four passes using dynamic anisotropic search
ellipsoids for all passes excepting the first one. The local angles
required for dynamic anisotropy were obtained from the wireframe
facets and interpolated into the model. The first two passes were
designed to honour the data locally and to constrain the spread of
high grades. For these first passes the capping thresholds
presented in Table 13 were used and the search ellipsoids sizes
correspond to the size of individual blocks, for the first pass, to
the full variogram model range, for the second. The last two passes
were designed to fill the gaps and to complete the estimation of
all the blocks within the domains. Thus, the search ranges for the
third and fourth passes correspond to twice and trice the full
variogram ranges, respectively. Also, to minimize the spreading of
high grades, the grade capping thresholds used in the last two
passes were stricter than in the first two passes for all domains
except for the Ōrora domains. Table 16 summarizes the search
parameters used for the estimation of uranium grades in the
Christie Lake Project.
Table 16: Estimation Search
Parameters
Pass
Search
Distances
Composites
Dynamic
Anisotropy
Capping Thresholds
U3O8 (%)
X
(m)
Y (m)
Z
(m)
Min
Max
Max per
Hole
Paul Bay
Ken Pen
Ōrora
High
Grade
Ōrora
Low Grade
1
5
2.5
1.25
1
5
-
No
30
10
33
3
2
20
30
7.50
6
12
5
Yes
30
10
33
3
3
40
60
15.00
6
16
5
Yes
8
5
33
3
4
60
90
22.50
1
20
5
Yes
8
5
33
3
13.10.
Model Validation
The estimated block
model was validated visually and statistically using cross
sections, swath-plots and change of support analysis. Figure 32
shows a longitudinal swathplot comparing the average estimated
grades against the declustered composite grades within 20-metre
bands. The block model grades follow the informing data grades but
show less variability, as expected.
A change of support
analysis using the Discrete Gaussian model (DGM) was completed to
assess the suitability of the estimation parameters to estimate the
block distribution of uranium grades. The quantile-quantile plot in
Figure 33 shows that the distribution of block estimated grades
match closely the distribution of the composite grades corrected by
the change of support model. This analysis was performed for the
Paul Bay 1 domain, which by itself contributes 55 percent of the
total Christie Lake mineral resources.
Figure 33: Quantile-Quantile Plot of the Change
of Support Corrected Composite and Estimated U3O8
Grades for Paul Bay 1 Domain
13.11.
Mineral Resource Classification
Considering the early
stage of the Christie Lake Project, the general widely spaced drill
pattern and the overall uncertainty in the spatial distribution of
grades, the QP considers all the reported mineral resources to be
classified as Inferred.
13.12.
Mineral Resource Statement
The original mineral
resource estimate which was completed in July 2018 is still
considered current. The QP has therefore also ensured that the
mineral resources for the Christie Lake Project reported in this
technical report have been estimated in conformity with the
generally accepted CIM Estimation
of Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserves Best Practices
Guidelines (November 2019), which were released subsequent
to the filing of the original technical report. The mineral
resources are also classified in accordance with the CIM
Definition Standards for Mineral
Resources and Mineral Reserves (May 2014).
Considering the early
stage of the Christie Lake Project, the general widely spaced drill
pattern and the overall uncertainty in the spatial distribution of
grades, the QP considers all the reported mineral resources to be
classified as Inferred mineral resources Based on publicly released
mining study results for comparable projects in this area, the QP
assumed that a longhole open stoping mining method associated with
an approximately 330 tonnes / day underground operation could be
developed to reasonably extract this mineral resource.
The QP was able to
demonstrate ‘the reasonable prospects for eventual economic
extraction’ by visually confirming adequate spatial
continuity of mineralization above a 0.2% U3O8 cut-off grade
suitable for longhole open stoping mining shapes. Much of the
mineralized material included in the Mineral Resource Statement
occurs as continuous mineralization above the cut-off grade
(illustrated in Figure 34). Small, isolated occurrences of
discontinuous mineralization above cut-off grade are excluded from
the Mineral Resource Statement.
Figure 34:
Illustrative Resource Model Sections Across the Ken Pen (Top) and
Paul Bay (Bottom) Mineral Resource Domains, Showing U3O8
Grade Continuity Above Reporting Cut-off Grade (0.2 % U3O8)
Note: Vertical Sections
Orientated at Azimuth 125 degrees
The QP determined cut
-off grade using the following parameters estimated for a mining
project at Christie Lake. A 0.2% U3O8 cut-off grade is
estimated based on the assumptions in Table 17, which include an
uranium price of US$50/lb, exchange rate of US$0.72/C$, processing
recovery of 97%, and total site operating cost of C$311/t (C$110/t
from mining, C$16/t for surface transportation to the Key Lake toll
mill, C$80/t for processing, and C$105/t for G&A).The QP also
notes that the reported Mineral Resource is relatively insensitive
to the cut-off grade applied. Costs of milling at the Key Lake Mill
are considered reasonable as this is the closest mill available for
potential toll milling.
Table 17: Christie Lake Project Cut-off Grade
Assumptions
Item
Unit
Value
Mining
Cost
C$/t
110
Surface Transportation
Cost
C$/t
16
Processing
Cost
C$/t
80
G&A
Cost
C$/t
105
Total Cost
C$/t
311
Processing
Recovery
%
97
Uranium
Price
US$/lb
50
Exchange
Rate
US$/C$
0.72
Uranium
price
C$/lb
69.4
Conversion
Factor
lb/%
22.046
U3O8 Price
C$/%
1531
COG (U3O8)
%
0.2
The Mineral Resource
Statement for the Christie Lake Project is presented in Table 18.
Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and have not
demonstrated economic viability. There is no certainty that all or
any part of the mineral resources will be converted into mineral
reserves. The QP is unaware of any environmental, permitting,
legal, title, taxation, socio-economic, marketing, political, or
other relevant issues that may materially affect the mineral
resources. The Mineral Resource Statement was prepared by Mr. Glen
Cole, P.Geo., an independent Qualified Person, as this term is
defined in National Instrument 43-101. The effective date of the
Mineral Resource Statement for the Christie Lake Project is
December 31, 2021.
Table 18: Mineral Resource Statement*, Christie
Lake Project, Saskatchewan, Canada,
SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc., December 31, 2021
Deposit
Tonnage
Grade
Contained
Metal
(000s)
(% U3O8)
(Mlb U3O8)
Inferred Mineral
Resources
Paul Bay
338
1.81
13.49
Ken Pen
149
1.05
3.44
Ōrora
102
1.53
3.41
Total
588
1.57
20.35
* Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and
have not demonstrated economic viability. All figures have been
rounded to reflect the relative accuracy of the estimates. Reported
at a cut-off grade of 0.2% U3O8.
13.13.
Grade Sensitivity Analysis
Table 19 illustrates
the sensitivity of the tonnes and grade to the cut-off grade in the
SRK Mineral Resource model for the Christie Lake
deposit.
Table 19: Grade – Tonnage Sensitivities
to Cut-off Grades
Cut-off Grade
Quantity
Grade
Contained Metal
(% U3O8)
(000s Tonnes)
(% U3O8)
(Mlb U3O8)
0.10
770
1.23
20.95
0.20
588
1.57
20.35
0.30
474
1.89
19.73
0.40
398
2.18
19.15
0.50
348
2.43
18.66
0.60
319
2.61
18.30
0.70
290
2.80
17.90
0.80
261
3.03
17.42
0.90
237
3.25
16.97
1.00
221
3.42
16.62
13.14.
Recommendations
The QP originally
constructed the mineral resource model in November 2018 with
audited geological information from UEX. Uranium mineralization
domains are based on the current on-site geological understanding
of the uranium mineralization distribution which incorporates
lithological, alteration and grade criteria. The QP considers the
data density to be of adequate quality and quantity for mineral
resource estimation.
The QP proposes that
the following enhancements be considered for future geological and
mineral resource modelling processes:
●
Additional exploration drilling to verify the
extension of the existing zones as well as the discovery of new
mineralized zones.
●
Additional infill exploration drilling in order
to increase the resources category to Indicated in the high-grade
areas of the Paul Bay and Ōrora zones.
Adjacent
Properties
The McArthur River
Mine, operated by Cameco Corporation, is adjacent to the Christie
Lake Property (Figure 34). The section below on the McArthur River
Mine is referenced from Cameco Corporation’s 2012 McArthur
River technical report, titled “McArthur River Operation,
Northern Saskatchewan, Canada” Effective Date August 31,
2012, Dated November 2, 2012, available on the Sedar
website.
14.1.
The McArthur River Mine (Cameco)
Cameco Corporation is
the operator for the McArthur River Uranium Mine and wider McArthur
River Project as a joint venture between Cameco Corporation (70
percent) and Orano Canada Inc. (30 percent). The McArthur River
Project surrounds the north, east and southern perimeter of the
claims of the Christie Lake Project. The McArthur River property is
comprised one mining lease totalling 1,380 hectares and 21 mineral
claims totalling 83,438 hectares. The McArthur River Mine 15
kilometres southwest of the Paul Bay, Ken Pen and Ōrora zones.
The Yalowega Trend on Christie Lake represents the only section of
the P2 Fault, the controlling structure at McArthur River, which is
or has ever been explored by a publicly listed uranium exploration
company other than Cameco.
The QP of this
technical report has not been able to verify the published
information on the McArthur River Mine the information regarding
the McArthur River Uranium Mine is not necessarily indicative of
the mineralization on the Christie Lake Property that is the
subject of this technical report. The uranium mineralization at
Cameco’s McArthur River deposit, generally occurs at between
500 metres and 640 metres below surface, is structurally controlled
by the northeast-southwest trending (045 degrees azimuth) P2
reverse fault which dips 40 to 65 degrees to the southeast. In the
deposit area, the fault has thrust a sequence of Paleoproterozoic
graphitic metasedimentary rocks into the overlying late
Paleoproterozic (Helikian) Athabasca Group sediments. The vertical
displacement of the thrust fault exceeds 80 metres at the northeast
end of the deposit and decreases to 60 metres at the
southwest.
The sub-Athabasca
basement is two distinct metasedimentary sequences: a hanging wall
pelitic sequence of cordierite and graphite-bearing pelitic and
psammopelitic gneiss with minor meta-arkose and calc-silicate
gneisses, and a lower sequence that is generally quartzite and
silicified meta-arkose.
Two uranium-rich
whole-rock samples were dated by the uranium/lead method and
provided upper intercept discordia ages of 1,348 Ma, within a
margin of error of 16 Ma and 1,521 Ma (2012, Cameco Corporation),
within a margin of error of 8 Ma. The older is interpreted as the
age of the primary uranium mineralization and the younger as the
age of a remobilization event.
The northeast trending
P2 thrust fault is the dominant structural feature of the McArthur
River deposit. Thrust faulting generally occurs along several
graphite-rich fault planes within the upper 20 metres of the Middle
Block basement rocks. These faults parallel the basement foliation
and rarely exceed one metre in width. Structural disruption is more
severe in the overlying brittle and flat lying
Figure 35: Plan Showing the Location of the
McArthur River Uranium Mine in Relation to the Christie Lake
Project and Other Reference Deposits
sandstone evidenced by
broad zones of fracturing and brecciation. Zone 4 mineralization is
typical for most of the deposit, occurring in the vicinity of the
main graphitic fault zone, at or near the contact between the
up-thrust basement rocks and the Athabasca sandstone.
The 1994 TDEM survey by
PNC indicates that the prospective Yalowega Fault Trend within the
Paul Bay, Ken Pen Ōrora zones, is along strike of McArthur
River, and continues off property to the northeast onto the
McArthur River property once again.
It is noted that Cameco
Corporation resumed geophysical surveys and diamond drilling to the
northeast on the Yalowega Trend in 2017 and 2018. Cameco suspended
production from the McArthur River Mine in late 2017 due to low
uranium prices. The McArthur River and Key Lake operations produced
11.1 million pounds of uranium in the first 9 months of 2017
(Cameco, 2018).
Other Relevant
Data and Information
There is no other
relevant data available about the Christie Lake
Project.
Interpretation
and Conclusions
Exploration drilling on
the Christie Lake Project has focused on the Paul Bay, Ken Pen and
Ōrora zones to test the continuity of uranium mineralization
at and near the unconformity within the project. UEX and previous
operators completed a total of 200 core drill holes (96,160 metres)
between 1988 to 2021. The program revealed a variety of uranium
mineralization styles at the three main zones that includes a
combination of basement- and unconformity-hosted
mineralization.
The author witnessed
the extent of the exploration work and can confirm that UEX’s
activities are conducted using field procedures that meet generally
accepted industry best practices. The QP is of the opinion that the
exploration data are sufficiently reliable to interpret the
boundaries of the uranium mineralization and support the evaluation
and classification of mineral resources in accordance with
generally accepted CIM Estimation
of Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve Best Practices and
CIM Definition Standards for
Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves.
Uranium mineralization
at the Ken Pen and Ōrora zones occur along the unconformity
boundary and extend downwards along the northeast fault zones. The
Paul Bay uranium mineralization is hosted within the basement rocks
as three parallel zones that dip moderately towards the southeast.
Given a strong quadratic relationship between U3O8 grades and density,
block density values were calculated from estimated uranium grades
using a quadratic regression formula. A model composite length of
0.5 metres was applied to all of the data, honouring the
mineralization envelope boundaries generating composites as close
to 0.5-metres as possible, while creating residual intervals of up
to 0.25 metres in length.
The mineralization
zones boundaries were developed using a combined set of criteria
including lithology, alteration and mineralization logging,
presence of clay and assay grade. Overall, the marginal threshold
value of 0.01 percent U3O8 was used for
contouring, however, the intervals with U3O8 grade between 0.01
and 0.05 percent were included only if additional logged evidence
of uranium mineralization were in place. The additional high-grade
domain developed for Ōrora zone was generated using logged
uranium mineralization in combination with core
photos.
The mineralization
domains were constructed by the QP with information provided by UEX
geologists. Several iterations of edits and reviews were completed
before the estimation domains were finalized.
The block model was
classified using a combination of tools, including confidence in
the geological interpretation, search radii, minimum number of
drill holes and composites, variography, and estimation pass. In
collaboration with UEX, the QP selected a block size of 5 by 10 by
2.5 metres for all mineralized zones. Sub-cells were assigned the
same grade as the parent cell. The block model is rotated on the
Z-axis to honour the orientation of the overall strike of the three
deposits.
In all cases, grade
estimation used an ordinary kriging estimation algorithm and four
passes informed by capped composites. Validation checks confirm
that the block estimates are a reasonable representation of the
informing data considering the current level of geological and
geostatistical understanding of the project.
No processing or
metallurgical data is currently available for project lithologies
or the uranium mineralization. Considering this uncertainty and the
current level of drilling, the QP considers all block estimates
within the mineralized zones to classified as
Inferred.
Recommendations
The geological setting,
character of the uranium mineralization delineated, and exploration
results to date are of sufficient merit to justify additional
exploration expenditure to potentially expand the uranium
mineralization footprint on the Christie Lake Project. Likewise
exploration investment on regional exploration targets is also
needed to advance other areas of the property outside of the
Yalowega Trend.
The QP supports
UEX’s primary exploration objectives for the Christie Lake
Project, which are to
expand the existing
zones of uranium mineralization along the Yalowega Trend with the
aim of
identifying and/or
testing:
●
Additional areas of uranium mineralization along
the Yalowega Trend.
●
The remainder of the P2 structural corridor to
the southwest of the three main zones.
●
The southern conductive
corridor(s).
The QP supports the
proposed UEX two-phase exploration program for the Christie Lake
Project which is focussed on identifying additional uranium
mineralization and expanding the current uranium mineralization
footprint on the property
17.1.
Phase 1
Phase 1 exploration is
scheduled to begin in the winter of 2022 and is budgeted at
approximately C$6.0 million (Table 20) worth of activity along the
Yalowega Trend. This activity is to be diamond drilling to evaluate
two broad concepts; 1) drilling targeted to expand the existing
resources in the area along 1,400 m of strike length from Paul Bay
to Ōrora, and 2) drilling to continue the prospectivity
evaluation of the of area along the A and B Conductor trends in the
area between the McArthur River Uranium mine and the deposits along
the Yalowega Corridor between Paul Bay and Ōrora.
The approximate
division of the proposed Phase 1 program is 10 drill holes to
target along the A and B Conductor corridor to evaluate the A-Trend
conductor and the resistivity low identified by the 2019
resistivity survey that is between the A and B Trend conductors.
The targeting of the resistivity low will be assisted using the
data from the 2020 Fixed Loop TDEM survey. A further 25 drill holes
that will be a mix of pilot holes and off-cuts will test for
additional basement-hosted uranium mineralization along the
mineralized trend between Paul Bay and Ōrora. The Phase 1
program is recommended to occur in 2022, through the winter and
summer field work seasons.
Table 20: Phase 1 Exploration Budget for
2022
Direct
Costs
Phase I Budget
(C$)
Personnel
$550,000
Field Equipment
Costs
$150,000
Analysis
$100,000
Travel and
Transport
$50,000
Miscellaneous
$14,545
Total Direct
Costs
$864,545
Contractor
Costs
Geophysical
Surveys
$20,000
Diamond
Drilling
$4,100,000
Camp
Costs
$450,000
Other
Contractor
$20,000
Total Contractor
Costs
$4,590,000
Total Project
Costs
$5,454,545
Administration Fee
(10%)
$545,455
Total Joint Venture
Costs
$6,000,000
Partner's
Share
UEX Corporation
(60%)
$3,932,991
JCU Canada
Exploration Company (40%)
$2,067,069
Total Partner
Share
$6,000,000
17.2.
Phase 2
Phase 2 represents the
initial evaluation of the southern conductive corridor which is to
be initiated following the evaluation of the Yalowega Trend
Corridor and represents and estimated exploration spend of
$2,000,000 (Table 21). The activity recommended to explore
effectively along this trend is ground TDEM to pinpoint the
conductor location along the resistivity low trend identified in
the 2019 DC Resistivity Survey. Once the conductors are relocated
with a common survey, the evaluation of that trend with diamond
drilling can commence.
Table 21: Phase 2 Exploration Program and
Budget
Area
Holes
Avg Length
(m)
Total
Metres
Cost/m
(C$)
Cost
(C$)
Total
(C$)
Geophysics
Lines
Length
Total km
Unit Cost
Cost
Total
South
Conductors
17
3
51
$2,750
$140,000
Line-cutting
17
3
51
$1,175
$60,000
Grassroots
Drilling
South
Conductor
10
600
6,000
$300
$1,800,000
Total
$2,000,000
Total Phase 2 -
Christie Lake Exploration Budget
$2,000,000
17.3.
Metallurgical Test Work
In addition to the
two-phase exploration program outlined above, future work should
involve implementing a metallurgical test work program. This could
be executed at a time when UEX conducts a drilling program aimed at
increasing the mineral resources category from Inferred to
Indicated in the high-grade areas of Paul Bay and Ōrora
Zones.
17.4.
Comment
The proposed
exploration program should be pro-actively managed, with new
information rapidly integrated into the uranium mineralization
interpretation. Drill programs should be flexible enough to be
modified to integrate new information and interpretations which
could have a positive impact on the uranium mineral
resource.
References
Annesley, I., Madore,
C., and Portella, P., 2005. Geology and thermotectonic evolution of
the western margin of the Trans-Hudson Orogen: evidence from the
eastern sub-Athabasca basement, Saskatchewan. Canadian Journal of
Earth Sciences, Vol. 42, pp. 573-597.
Bernier, S., Jefferson,
C.W., Drever, G.L., 2001. Stratigraphy of the Manitou Falls
Formation in the Vicinity of the McArthur River Uranium Deposit,
Athabasca basin, Saskatchewan: Preliminary Observations, Summary of
Investigations 2001, Vol 2, Saskatchewan Geological Survey, Sask.
Energy Mines, pp. 291-296.
Cameco Corporation,
2012, McArthur River Operation, Northern Saskatchewan, Canada,
Prepared for Cameco Corporation, filed on SEDAR/available at
www.sedar.com (November 2, 2012)
Cameco Corporation,
2018, Cameco Reports Second Quarter Results, Northern Saskatchewan,
News Release, 6 p. (July 25, 2018)
Canadian Institute of
Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (CIM), 2014: CIM Definition
Standards for Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves, adopted by
CIM Council on May 10, 2014.
Cloutier, J., Kyser,
K., Olivo, G., Alexandre P., Halaburda, J., 2009, The Millennium
Uranium Deposit, Athabasca Basin, Saskatchewan, Canada: An Atypical
Basement-Hosted Unconformity-Related Uranium Deposit. Economic
Geology, Vol. pp. 815-840.
Cumming, G.L., and
Krstic, D., 1992, The age of unconformity-related uranium
mineralization in the Athabasca Basin, northern Saskatchewan,
Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences Vol 29, pp.
1623-1639.
Denison, 2016,
Preliminary Economic Assessment (PEA) for the Wheeler River Uranium
Project, Saskatchewan, Canada, dated April 8, 2016.
Iida, Y. and Shigeta,
T., 1992, Christie Lake Project, Saskatchewan, 1991 & 1992
Winter Exploration Program, Area B (Claim Grouping No. 45003), PNC
Exploration (Canada) Co. Ltd.
Iida, Y., Ikeda, K.,
Ito, H., and Shigeta, T., 1993, Christie Lake Project, Area B
(Claim Grouping No. 45003), Saskatchewan, 1993 Winter Exploration
Program, PNC Exploration (Canada) Co. Ltd.
Iida, Y., Ikeda, K.,
Ito, H., Tsuruta, T., Shigeta, T., and Shields, G., 2000a, Christie
Lake Project, 1994 Winter Exploration Program, Area B, Claims CBS
6163, CBS 8027, & S-101720 (Claim Grouping No. 45003),
Saskatchewan, PNC Exploration (Canada) Co. Ltd.
Iida, Y., Ikeda, K.,
Ito, H., Goto, J., and Tsuruta, T., 2000b, Christie Lake Project,
1995 Winter Exploration Program, Area B, (Claim Grouping No.
45003), Saskatchewan, PNC Exploration (Canada) Co.
Ltd.
IsoEnergy, 2018,
Corporate Presentation October 2018, Saskatchewan, IsoEnergy Ltd.,
42 p.
Jefferson, C., Thomas,
D.J., Gandhi, S.S., Ramaekers, P., Delaney, G., Brisbin, D., Cutts,
C., Portella, P., and Olson, R.A., 2007. Unconformity associated
uranium deposits of the Athabasca Basin, Saskatchewan and Alberta.
Geological Survey of Canada, Bulletin 588, pp. 23-67.
Jefferson, C.W.,
Thomas, D.J., Gandhi, S.S., Ramaekers, P., Delaney, G., Brisbin,
D., Cutts, C., Quirt, D., Portella, P., and Olson, R.A., 2007,
Unconformity-Associated Uranium Deposits of the Athabasca Basin,
Saskatchewan and Alberta, in Goodfellow, W.D., ed., Mineral
Deposits of Canada: A Synthesis of Major Deposit-Types, District
Metallogeny, the Evolution of Geological Provinces, and Exploration
Methods: Geological Association of Canada, Mineral Deposits
Division, Special Publication No. 5, pp. 273-305.
McGill, B. 1988, 1988
Exploration Report, Claim Block CBS 7630, McArthur River Project,
Saskatchewan, Saskatchewan Mining Development
Corporation.
McGill University,
Boreal Shield Ecozone, Canadian Biodiversity web site,
www.canadianbiodiversity.mcgill.ca/english/ecozones/borealshield/borealshield.htm
McMahan, P., Hasegawa,
K., Gledhill, P., Jones, D., Morrison, K., 1987, 1986/1987 Uranium
Exploration Program, Christie Lake Project, Saskatchewan, PNC
Exploration (Canada) Co. Ltd.
McMahan, P. and
Hasegawa, K., 1988, 1988 Uranium Exploration Program, Christie Lake
Project, Saskatchewan, PNC Exploration (Canada) Co.
Ltd.
McMahan, P. and
Hasegawa, K., 1989, Christie Lake Project, Saskatchewan, 1989
Uranium Exploration Program, Area B, PNC Exploration (Canada) Co.
Ltd.
MLT Aikens, 2018, UEX
Corporation - Review of Certain Mineral Dispositions, prepared for
UEX Corporation (October 10, 2018)
Normore, N., Perkins,
C.T., Hamel, C., 2017. 2017 Annual Report on the Christie Lake
Project, Saskatchewan. UEX Corporation, internal company report,
103 p.
Perkins, C.T, Normore,
N, and Hamel C., 2017, Technical Report on the Christie Lake
Project, Saskatchewan, Canada. Prepared for UEX Corporation, filed
on SEDAR/available at www.sedar.com (March 28, 2017)
Padbury, G.A., Acton,
Donald F., and Stushnoff, Colette T., 1998, Ecoregions of
Saskatchewan, University of Regina. Canadian Plains Research
Center, Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan Environment and Resource
Management.
Resource
Analysis/Evaluation Group, PNC Tono Geoscience Center, Japan, 1997,
Geological Resource Estimation, Christie Lake Project,
Saskatchewan, Prepared for PNC Exploration (Canada) Co.
Ltd.
Richard, Y., Close Lake
Project 2013 Geophysical Report, Areva Resources Canada
Inc.
Shields, G., 1999,
Christie Lake Project, Saskatchewan, 1986-1997 Geophysical
Compilation, Area B (Claim Grouping No. 45003), unpublished report
by PNC Exploration (Canada) Co. Ltd.
SKAN Consulting, 2001,
Summary Status Report, Christie Lake Project, Saskatchewan,
Internal JCU Report.
Tsuruta, T., Goto, J.,
and Shields, G., 2000, Christie Lake Project, 1997 Winter
Exploration Program, Area B, (Claim Grouping No. 45003),
Saskatchewan, PNC Exploration (Canada) Co. Ltd.
APPENDIX A
Interpreted Geological Cross Sections for
Mineralization Domains
Plan Map Showing Cross Section Locations for
the Paul Bay, Ken Pen and Ōrora Zones
Paul Bay Zone Section
L58+80N
Paul Bay Zone Section
L59+00N
Paul Bay Zone Section
L59+20N
Ken Pen Zone Section 62+00N
Ōrora Zone Section
67+50N
Ōrora Zone Section
67+75N
Ōrora Zone Section
68+00N
APPENDIX B
Summary of Drilling Characteristics on the
Christie Lake Property
Summary Characteristics of Drilling (PNC)
(1/2)
Drill hole
ID
Azimuth
Dip
Length
Easting*
Northing*
Elevation
(metre)
(metre)
(metre)
(metre)
CB88-001
221
-88
497.7
505,483.7
6,410,316.2
505.5
CB88-002
188
-88
534.5
505,424.4
6,410,936.5
534.3
CB88-003
228
-89
471.5
506,450.6
6,410,564.9
501.0
CB89-004
0
-90
553.5
507,573.0
6,411,541.0
501.6
CB89-005
53
-89
480.7
506,793.5
6,411,357.6
503.8
CB89-006
108
-88
532.5
504,675.1
6,410,269.0
500.0
CB89-007
0
-90
547.5
507,570.2
6,411,571.4
501.6
CB89-008
328
-89
517.2
507,567.5
6,411,600.6
501.6
CB89-009
0
-90
535.5
507,674.6
6,411,573.8
501.7
CB92-010
172
-73
596.0
507,607.4
6,411,721.7
511.7
CB92-011
170
-78
551.0
507,607.4
6,411,722.5
511.7
CB92-012
158
-72
68.0
507,517.5
6,411,594.8
501.6
CB92-012A
147
-76
559.0
507,517.6
6,411,594.2
500.4
CB92-013
155
-83
491.0
507,518.6
6,411,595.7
501.6
CB92-014
158
-79
574.0
507,606.5
6,411,725.9
511.7
CB92-015
155
-75
596.0
507,606.1
6,411,729.5
511.7
CB92-015A
148
-74
41.0
507,607.0
6,411,725.9
511.7
CB92-016
309
-89
506.0
507,697.0
6,412,037.5
502.0
CB92-017
119
-79
572.0
507,529.2
6,411,592.6
501.6
CB92-018
141
-78
617.0
507,567.6
6,411,593.3
501.6
CB92-019
115
-83
500.0
507,517.1
6,411,601.3
501.6
CB92-020
147
-87
497.0
507,561.8
6,411,682.8
509.4
CB92-021
148
-84
498.0
507,588.4
6,411,706.3
510.9
CB93-022
0
-90
482.0
507,699.3
6,411,953.9
502.0
CB93-022A
15
-88
23.0
507,701.5
6,411,957.1
502.0
CB93-023
102
-89
479.0
507,612.2
6,411,724.9
511.8
CB93-023A
15
-88
32.0
507,612.2
6,411,724.9
511.8
CB93-024
31
-89
560.0
507,717.1
6,411,860.3
512.8
CB93-025
319
-89
485.0
507,646.8
6,411,779.7
509.6
CB93-026
316
-89
476.0
507,445.7
6,411,341.4
501.0
CB93-027
241
-89
485.0
507,521.3
6,411,548.1
501.6
CB93-028
18
-89
559.4
507,588.4
6,411,499.7
501.3
CB93-029
0
-90
464.0
507,841.6
6,412,143.2
502.0
CB93-030
0
-90
547.0
507,753.9
6,411,862.1
514.5
CB93-031
278
-89
550.0
507,729.6
6,411,808.3
512.1
CB93-032
25
-89
521.0
507,693.8
6,411,832.1
512.9
CB93-033
205
-89
503.0
507,667.6
6,411,781.2
511.4
CB93-034
0
-90
485.0
507,645.0
6,411,751.5
511.5
CB94-035
222
-89
543.0
507,849.9
6,411,983.8
512.5
CB94-036
160
-89
503.3
507,725.9
6,411,891.0
511.8
CB94-037
221
-89
482.0
507,929.5
6,412,148.2
502.0
CB94-038
153
-84
512.0
507,846.3
6,412,089.8
502.0
CB94-039
165
-84
196.0
507,928.0
6,412,157.6
502.0
CB94-040
97
-82
530.0
507,845.5
6,412,100.1
502.0
CB94-041
70
-89
491.0
508,064.1
6,412,275.8
502.1
CB94-042
119
-86
128.0
504,405.6
6,409,974.9
500.0
CB94-043
60
-89
542.0
508,356.6
6,412,563.4
504.0
CB94-044
160
-87
497.0
504,424.0
6,409,871.2
511.7
CB94-045
35
-89
607.0
507,998.6
6,412,200.5
502.0
CB94-046
214
-89
238.0
505,179.7
6,410,888.8
541.6
CB94-046A
259
-88
570.0
505,179.7
6,410,888.8
541.6
Summary Characteristics of Drilling (PNC)
(2/2)
Drill hole
ID
Azimuth
Dip
Length
Easting*
Northing*
Elevation
(metre)
(metre)
(metre)
(metre)
CB94-047
143
-87
542.0
508,056.6
6,412,405.2
499.7
CB94-048
335
-89
533.0
505,764.3
6,410,635.8
532.5
CB94-049
0
-90
494.0
507,962.3
6,412,228.6
502.0
CB94-050
4
-89
501.0
508,030.1
6,412,318.8
502.0
CB94-051
332
-85
490.0
508,113.0
6,412,350.7
499.8
CB94-052
6
-86
545.0
505,910.3
6,410,765.7
543.8
CB94-053
39
-89
467.0
507,249.2
6,411,167.2
501.0
CB95-054
338
-89
659.0
508,500.6
6,412,982.3
506.0
CB95-055
63
-88
593.0
506,028.0
6,410,924.6
549.4
CB95-056
297
-84
497.0
508,113.4
6,412,330.3
499.8
CB95-057
299
-88
131.3
506,128.5
6,411,105.0
538.5
CB95-057A
197
-88
581.0
506,120.7
6,411,110.0
538.1
CB95-058
164
-84
614.0
508,517.2
6,412,913.3
504.0
CB95-059
281
-84
638.0
506,088.0
6,411,164.1
541.3
CB95-060
335
-89
470.0
508,151.2
6,412,473.1
504.0
CB95-061
198
-89
597.5
506,136.9
6,411,365.9
555.8
CB95-062
327
-89
500.0
508,270.2
6,412,644.6
504.0
CB95-063
288
-86
541.0
506,336.2
6,411,448.3
522.3
CB95-064
316
-83
488.0
508,384.9
6,412,804.1
504.0
CB95-065
317
-87
559.0
505,870.3
6,411,069.7
546.0
CB95-066
179
-89
515.0
507,965.3
6,412,174.6
502.0
CB95-067
114
-89
500.0
508,367.5
6,412,818.4
504.0
CB95-068
218
-84
568.0
506,099.2
6,411,159.9
539.9
CB95-069
158
-87
503.0
507,599.8
6,411,716.0
511.4
CB95-070
261
-88
560.0
505,759.8
6,410,903.5
538.0
CB95-071
34
-85
505.5
507,767.3
6,411,923.4
511.8
CB96-072
176
-89
521.0
507,690.8
6,411,806.3
513.0
CB96-073
0
-90
509.6
508,442.9
6,412,887.9
504.0
CB96-074
279
-89
482.6
508,188.8
6,412,573.5
504.0
CB96-075
0
-90
482.0
508,000.9
6,412,279.8
502.0
CB96-076
103
-89
536.0
507,371.9
6,411,056.9
522.8
CB96-077
134
-85
611.0
507,579.7
6,411,466.4
501.0
CB96-078
159
-89
500.0
507,951.3
6,412,185.3
502.0
CB96-079
110
-89
551.0
508,431.7
6,412,829.8
504.0
CB96-080
334
-89
528.0
505,797.2
6,410,597.6
531.9
CB96-081
0
-90
533.0
508,214.8
6,412,548.5
504.0
CB96-082
277
-89
545.0
505,982.0
6,410,969.4
548.0
CB96-083
157
-89
527.0
507,297.2
6,410,840.0
519.7
CB96-084
71
-86
500.0
506,628.3
6,411,464.2
511.6
CB97-085
0
-90
552.0
507,740.7
6,411,833.3
513.1
CB97-086
58
-89
588.0
507,635.5
6,411,527.0
501.6
CB97-087
141
-88
612.0
507,671.6
6,411,558.4
501.6
CB97-088
115
-86
552.0
507,590.5
6,411,487.8
501.6
CB97-089
352
-88
492.0
507,236.4
6,410,636.9
508.4
MAC-189
0
-90
479.0
509,451.0
6,407,659.0
499.0
Total
47,520.7
* UTM NAD83 Zone13
North
Summary Characteristics of Drilling (UEX)
(1/2)
Drill hole
ID
Azimuth
Dip
Length
Easting*
Northing*
Elevation
(metre)
(metre)
(metre)
(metre)
CB-090
350
-78
380.0
507,604.4
6,411,451.1
500.5
CB-090A
350
-78
616.0
507,604.4
6,411,451.1
500.5
CB-091
341
-76
60.0
507,644.0
6,411,305.0
540.0
CB-091A
338
-76
267.0
507,645.0
6,411,305.4
539.2
CB-091B
338
-76
708.0
507,645.0
6,411,305.4
539.3
CB-092
315
-80
597.0
507,639.7
6,411,489.8
500.3
CB-092-1
315
-80
560.4
507,639.7
6,411,489.8
500.3
CB-092-2
315
-80
570.0
507,639.7
6,411,489.8
500.3
CB-093
330
-77
567.0
507,640.1
6,411,490.2
500.6
CB-094
315
-78
726.0
507,698.7
6,411,357.3
540.5
CB-094-1
315
-78
717.0
507,698.7
6,411,357.3
540.5
CB-095
315
-78
60.0
507,706.2
6,411,380.1
539.8
CB-095A
315
-78
735.0
507,706.1
6,411,380.2
539.5
CB-096
315
-82
603.0
507,604.6
6,411,452.2
500.5
CB-096-1
315
-82
615.0
507,604.6
6,411,452.2
500.5
CB-097
312
-84
600.0
507,682.0
6,411,530.2
500.6
CB-098
310
-72
578.4
507,681.8
6,411,530.3
500.5
CB-099
311
-73
609.0
507,663.8
6,411,509.3
501.4
CB-100
312
-77
45.0
507,750.2
6,411,772.7
500.3
CB-100A
308
-77
530.0
507,750.2
6,411,772.7
500.3
CB-100A-1
308
-77
270.0
507,750.2
6,411,772.7
500.3
CB-101
311
-83
600.0
507,664.2
6,411,509.7
501.0
CB-102
276
-85
600.0
507,663.9
6,411,509.2
501.6
CB-103
312
-75
87.0
507,757.4
6,411,777.7
500.4
CB-103A
312
-75
516.0
507,757.4
6,411,777.7
500.4
CB-104
311
-81
540.0
507,758.3
6,411,828.6
512.5
CB-105
300
-85
552.0
507,731.3
6,411,763.8
500.6
CB-106
297
-82
33.0
507,757.1
6,411,828.8
512.5
CB-106A
297
-82
21.0
507,757.1
6,411,828.8
512.5
CB-106B
296
-82
529.2
507,757.1
6,411,828.8
512.5
CB-107
307
-80
21.0
507,731.7
6,411,764.3
500.6
CB-107A
307
-80
529.5
507,731.7
6,411,764.3
500.6
CB-107A-1
307
-80
498.0
507,731.7
6,411,764.3
500.6
CB-108
316
-74
55.3
507,703.1
6,411,368.2
540.5
CB-108A
316
-73
651.0
507,703.1
6,411,368.2
540.5
CB-108A-1
316
-73
651.0
507,703.1
6,411,368.2
540.5
CB-109
307
-66
561.0
508,160.7
6,412,196.5
517.3
CB-109-1
307
-66
555.0
508,160.7
6,412,196.5
517.3
CB-110
307
-67.5
36.0
508,168.8
6,412,222.7
516.9
CB-110A
307
-67.5
549.0
508,168.8
6,412,222.7
516.9
CB-110A-1
307
-67.5
555.0
508,168.8
6,412,222.7
516.9
CB-111
307
-68
33.0
508,171.7
6,412,220.5
517.1
CB-111A
307
-68
543.0
508,171.7
6,412,220.5
517.1
CB-112
323
-79
549.0
507,638.4
6,411,487.8
500.6
CB-112-1
323
-79
538.0
507,638.4
6,411,487.8
500.6
CB-113
307
-81
540.0
507,638.4
6,411,487.8
500.6
CB-114
307
-68
32.0
508,148.3
6,412,184.9
517.9
CB-114A
308
-68.5
32.0
508,148.3
6,412,184.9
517.9
CB-114B
310
-68.5
32.0
508,148.3
6,412,184.9
517.9
CB-114C
308
-68.5
548.0
508,148.3
6,412,184.9
517.9
CB-114C-1
308
-68.5
542.0
508,148.3
6,412,184.9
517.9
Summary Characteristics of Drilling (UEX)
(2/2)
Drill hole ID
Azimuth
Dip
Length
Easting*
Northing*
Elevation
(metre)
(metre)
(metre)
(metre)
CB-115
310
-80
486
507,702.4
6,411,746.9
500.5
CB-116
310
-66.5
33
508,132.7
6,412,168.2
518
CB-116A
310
-66.5
540
508,132.7
6,412,168.2
518
CB-116A-1
310
-66.5
531
508,132.7
6,412,168.2
518
CB-116A-2
310
-66.5
537
508,132.7
6,412,168.2
518
CB-117
310
-78
516
507,730.0
6,411,723.0
500
CB-118
306
-67
534
508,114.2
6,412,143.2
517.8
CB-118-1
306
-67
558
508,114.2
6,412,143.2
517.8
CB-118-2
306
-67
532.3
508,114.2
6,412,143.2
517.8
CB-119
308
-69
39
508,186.8
6,412,237.4
516.8
CB-119A
305
-67
30
508,186.8
6,412,237.4
516.8
CB-119B
305
-67
565
508,186.8
6,412,237.4
516.8
CB-120
304
-70
549
508,096.3
6,412,118.9
519.6
CB-120-1
304
-70
525
508,096.3
6,412,118.9
519.6
CB-121
304
-70
531
508,057.0
6,412,088.7
519.6
CB-122
305
-63.5
561
508,076.7
6,412,104.5
519.3
CB-122-1
305
-63.5
372
508,076.7
6,412,104.5
519.3
CB-122-2
305
-63.5
540
508,076.7
6,412,104.3
519.3
CB-123
305
-73
594
508,141.0
6,412,177.1
517.8
CB-124
303
-63
597
508,339.4
6,412,363.4
516.7
CB-124-1
303
-63
566
508,339.4
6,412,363.4
516.7
CB-125
308
-75
525.4
508,287.3
6,412,552.7
500.2
CB-126
308
-76
531
508,393.5
6,412,668.3
500.2
CB-127
302
-78
540
508,502.5
6,412,841.5
500.2
CB-128
304
-78
534
508,589.0
6,412,896.6
500.2
CB-129
306
-77.5
506.8
508,124.3
6,412,302.6
501.8
CB-130
304
-69
525
508,024.7
6,412,051.5
519.8
CB-131
300
-70
542
507,967.4
6,411,967.0
514.7
CB-132
300
-75
522
507,899.0
6,411,928.0
515.3
CB-133
300
-80
520.4
507,804.3
6,411,877.4
514.1
CB-134
301
-80
528
507,841.7
6,411,911.7
516.1
CB-135
300
-70
549
505,869.0
6,41,0538.4
525.1
CB-136
303
-69.5
516
507,380.6
6,410,747.5
508.2
CB-137
300
-69
538.6
505,579.1
6,410,206.1
508.1
CB-138
310
-79
555
507,380.7
6,410,747.4
508.1
CB-139
305
-71
666
506,126.1
6,410,833.5
549.5
CB-140
309
-70
636
507,687.3
6,411,168.1
542.3
CB-141
308
-71
663
506,194.3
6,411,049.6
552.5
CB-142
307
-71
573
508,054.0
6,412,463.0
499.6
CB-143
308
-81
540
508,070.1
6,412,437.8
499.9
CB-144
308
-70
645
506,278.6
6,411,103.3
552.3
CB-145
318
-84
531
508,079.4
6,412,419.0
499.5
CB-146
307
-68
630
506,166.2
6,410,939.1
552.1
CB-147
310
-66
579
505,393.6
6,409,717.9
534.0
CB-148
303
-76
612
506,166.4
6,410,938.8
552.4
CB-149
311
-71.5
527
507,994.9
6,412,500.1
500.2
CB-150
305
-72
545
508,758.1
6,413,157.8
506.6
CB-151
305
-78
542
508,771.7
6,413,147.8
507.5
CB-152
328
-68
572
508,248.6
6,412,299.2
515.4
CB-153
302
-81
176
508,776.7
6,413,142.7
507.5
CB-153A
293
-79
542
508,803.5
6,413,147.7
506.6
CB-154
302
-79
2
508,731.3
6,413,033.9
506.6
CB-154A
302
74
548
508,732.9
6,413,032.8
506.5
Total
48,641
* UTM NAD83 Zone13
North
CERTIFICATE Of Qualified
person
To Accompany the report
entitled: Technical Report for the Christie Lake Uranium Project,
Saskatchewan, Canada with an effective date of December 31, 2021
and a signature date of
June 7,
2022.
I, Glen Cole, do hereby
certify that:
1)
I am a Principal Consultant (Resource Geology)
with the firm of SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc. (SRK) with an office
at Suite 1500, 155 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario,
Canada;
2)
I am a graduate of the University of Cape Town in
South Africa with a BSc (Hons) in Geology in 1983; I obtained a MSc
(Geology) from the University of Johannesburg in South Africa in
1995 and a MEng in Mineral Economics from the University of the
Witwatersrand in South Africa in 1999. I have practiced my
profession continuously since 1986. Between 1986 and 2005, I worked
at several exploration projects, underground and open pit mining
operations in Africa and held various senior positions, with the
responsibility for estimation of Mineral Resources and Mineral
Reserves for development projects and operating mines. Since 1986,
I have worked on various styles of uranium deposits in South
Africa, Niger, Wyoming (USA) and within the Athabasca Basin in
Canada;
3)
I am a professional Geoscientist registered with
the Association of Professional Engineers & Geoscientists of
Saskatchewan (APEGS# 26003) and with the Association of
Professional Geoscientists of Ontario
(APGO#1416);
4)
I have personally inspected the subject project
during September 18 to September 21, 2018;
5)
I have read the definition of Qualified Person
set out in National Instrument 43-101 and certify that by virtue of
my education, affiliation to a professional association, and past
relevant work experience, I fulfill the requirements to be a
Qualified Person for the purposes of National Instrument 43-101 and
this technical report has been prepared in compliance with National
Instrument 43-101 and Form 43-101F1;
6)
I, as a Qualified Person, I am independent of the
issuer as defined in Section 1.5 of National Instrument
43-101;
7)
I am the author of this report and am responsible
for all the sections of this report, and accept professional
responsibility for this technical report;
8)
I have read National Instrument 43-101 and
confirm that this technical report has been prepared in compliance
therewith;
9)
SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc. was retained by UEX
Corporation to prepare a technical audit of the Christie Lake
Uranium Project. In conducting our audit, a gap analysis of project
technical data was completed using CIM Estimation of Mineral Resources and Mineral
Reserves Best Practice Guidelines and Canadian Securities
Administrators National Instrument 43-101 guidelines. The preceding
report is based on a site visit, a review of project files and
discussions with UEX Corporation personnel;
10)
I have not received, nor do I expect to receive,
any interest, directly or indirectly, in the Christie Lake Project
or securities of UEX Corporation; and
11)
That, as of the date of this certificate, to the
best of my knowledge, information and belief, this technical report
contains all scientific and technical information that is required
to be disclosed to make the technical report not
misleading.