Husab Project Namibia Tech RPT

Husab Project, Namibia
National Instrument 43-101 Technical Report

Husab Uranium Project - May 2011 Project Update
Prepared by Coffey Mining Pty Ltd on behalf of:
Extract Resources Limited

Effective Date: 20th May 2011
Qualified Person: Neil Inwood - BSc (Geol.), PGradDip (Geol), MSc, MAusIMM
Steve Le Brun MAusIMM
Steve Craig – AusIMM
Ross Cheyne - M AusIMM
Mike Valenta - M SAIMM
Hugh Browner - F SAIMM
Steve Amos - F SAIMM
MINEWPER00713AE
Coffey Mining Pty Ltd
DOCUMENT INFORMATION
MSc, MAusIMM
Author(s): Coffey Mining Pty Ltd Neil Inwood Principle Consultant
M AusIMM
Steve Le Brun Principle Consultant
M AusIMM
ORElogy Steve Craig Managing Director
M AusIMM
Ross Cheyne Director
M SAIMM
Metallicon Mike Valenta Managing Director
F SAIMM
AMEC Minproc Hugh Browner Engineering Manager
F SAIMM
Steve Amos Technical Manager
Location: Husab Uranium Project, Namibia
Date: May 2011
Project Number: MINEWPER00713AE
Version / Status: Final
F:\MINE\Projects\Extract Resources\MINEWPER00713AE(continuation of 713AD)_Rossing South Res Modelling &

Path & File Name:
Ongoing Tech Serv\Report\CMWPr_713AE_Extract_43-101_20May2011_SEDAR.docx
Print Date: Friday, 20 May 2011
Copies: Extract Resources Limited (2)

Coffey Mining – Perth (1)
Document Change Control
Version Description (section(s) amended) Author(s) Date
Document Review and Sign Off
[signed]
Principal Consultant Resources
Neil Inwood
Husab Uranium Project, Namibia – MINEWPER00713AE

43-101 Technical Report – 20th May 2011
Table of Contents
1 Summary.............................................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Property .................................................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Location .................................................................................................................................................. 1
1.3 Ownership .............................................................................................................................................. 1
1.4 Geology, Mineralisation and Resources................................................................................................ 1
1.5 Exploration Concept............................................................................................................................... 2
1.6 Reserve Estimate and Mining ................................................................................................................ 4
1.7 Metallurgical ........................................................................................................................................... 5
1.8 Definitive Feasibility Study (DFS) .......................................................................................................... 8
1.9 Exploration Status .................................................................................................................................. 9
1.10 Conclusions and Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 9
2 Introduction and Terms of Reference ............................................................................................. 11

2.1 Scope of the Report ............................................................................................................................. 11
2.2 Principal Sources of Information and Scope of Inspection ................................................................. 11
2.3 Participants, Qualifications and Experience ........................................................................................ 12
2.4 Independence ...................................................................................................................................... 13
2.5 Abbreviations ....................................................................................................................................... 13
3 Reliance on Other Experts ............................................................................................................... 15
4 Property Description and Location ................................................................................................. 18

4.1 Background Information on Namibia ................................................................................................... 18
4.1.1 Demographics and Geographic Setting ........................................................................18
4.1.2 History and Political Status ...........................................................................................19
4.1.3 Infrastructure ................................................................................................................19
4.1.4 Industry.........................................................................................................................19
4.1.5 Mining ...........................................................................................................................20
4.2 Mineral Tenure ..................................................................................................................................... 20
4.2.1 Non-Exclusive Prospecting Licenses (NEPL) ...............................................................20
4.2.2 Reconnaissance Licenses (RL) ....................................................................................21
4.2.3 Exclusive Prospecting License (EPL) ...........................................................................21
4.2.4 Mineral Deposit Retention Licenses (MDRL) ................................................................21
4.2.5 Mining Licenses ............................................................................................................21
4.3 Project Locations and Land Area ........................................................................................................ 21
4.4 Agreements and Encumbrances ......................................................................................................... 25
4.4.1 Environmental Liabilities and Permits ...........................................................................25
5 Accessibility, Climate, Physiography, Local Resources and Infrastructure ............................... 27

5.1 Access .................................................................................................................................................. 27
5.2 Climate ................................................................................................................................................. 27
5.2.1 Topography, Elevation and Vegetation.........................................................................27
5.2.2 Local Resources and Infrastructure ..............................................................................28
5.3 Future Mining Operations .................................................................................................................... 29
6 History................................................................................................................................................ 30
6.1 Ownership History................................................................................................................................ 30

6.2 Exploration History ............................................................................................................................... 30

6.3 Resource History ................................................................................................................................. 31
6.3.1 Production History ........................................................................................................32
7 Geological Setting ............................................................................................................................ 33

7.1 Regional and Local Setting .................................................................................................................. 33
7.2 Project Geology.................................................................................................................................... 36
7.2.1 Husab Project ...............................................................................................................36
8 Deposit Types ................................................................................................................................... 38
9 Mineralisation .................................................................................................................................... 39
9.1 Primary Uranium Mineralisation........................................................................................................... 39
9.2 Secondary Uranium Mineralisation...................................................................................................... 40
10 Exploration ........................................................................................................................................ 41
10.1 Husab Uranium Project, Zones 1 to 4 ................................................................................................. 41
11 Drilling ................................................................................................................................................ 46
11.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 46
11.2 Diamond Core Drilling .......................................................................................................................... 46
11.3 RC Drilling ............................................................................................................................................ 47
11.4 Drilling Orientation................................................................................................................................ 48
11.5 Drilling Results ..................................................................................................................................... 48
11.6 Drilling Quality – Drillhole Database Verification ................................................................................. 49
12 Sampling Method and Approach ..................................................................................................... 50

12.1 Diamond Core Sampling...................................................................................................................... 50
12.2 RC Sampling and Logging ................................................................................................................... 51
12.2.1 Resource Drilling ..........................................................................................................51
12.2.2 Exploration Drilling........................................................................................................52
12.2.3 QAQC Sampling ...........................................................................................................52
12.3 Sampling Quality .................................................................................................................................. 52
13 Sample Preparation, Analyses and Security .................................................................................. 53

13.1 Sample Security ................................................................................................................................... 53
13.2 Analytical Laboratories......................................................................................................................... 53
13.3 Sample Preparation and Analytical Procedure ................................................................................... 53
13.4 Bulk Density Determinations................................................................................................................ 55
13.5 Radiometric Downhole Assaying ......................................................................................................... 56
13.6 Adequacy of Procedures ..................................................................................................................... 56
14 Data Verification ................................................................................................................................ 57

14.1 Standards and Blanks .......................................................................................................................... 57
14.1.1 Extract Submitted Standards and Blanks .....................................................................57
14.1.2 Laboratory Blanks and Standards ................................................................................59
14.2 Duplicates ............................................................................................................................................ 60
14.3 Data Quality Summary ......................................................................................................................... 61
15 Adjacent Properties .......................................................................................................................... 62

15.1 Rössing Uranium Mine ........................................................................................................................ 63
15.2 Etango Deposit.................................................................................................................................... 63
15.3 Langer Heinrich Deposit ...................................................................................................................... 63

16 Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing ............................................................................... 64

16.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 64
16.2 Metallurgical Batch Testwork ............................................................................................................... 65
16.2.1 Sample Selection and Composite Formation ...............................................................66
16.2.2 Head Assays ................................................................................................................66
16.2.3 Mineralogy ....................................................................................................................66
16.2.4 Comminution ................................................................................................................67
16.2.5 Dilute Leach Testwork ..................................................................................................67
16.2.6 Agitated Leach Testwork ..............................................................................................68
16.2.7 Flotation........................................................................................................................70
16.2.8 Heap Leach Amenability...............................................................................................70
16.2.9 Ion Exchange ...............................................................................................................70
16.2.10 Solvent Extraction.........................................................................................................71
16.2.11 Precipitation ..................................................................................................................72
16.2.12 Radiometric Ore Sorting ...............................................................................................72
16.2.13 Other Testwork .............................................................................................................73
16.3 Conclusions from Batch Laboratory Testwork..................................................................................... 74
16.4 Metallurgical Pilot Plant Testwork ........................................................................................................ 75
16.4.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................75
16.4.2 Ore Preparation ............................................................................................................75
16.4.3 Batch Dry Milling...........................................................................................................76
16.4.4 Re-pulp .........................................................................................................................76
16.4.5 Leaching .......................................................................................................................76
16.4.6 Dilution and Screening .................................................................................................77
16.4.7 Fines Thickening ..........................................................................................................77
16.4.8 Underflow Re-leach ......................................................................................................77
16.4.9 Filtration of Leach-End Residue ...................................................................................77
16.4.10 Continuous Ion Exchange ............................................................................................78
16.4.12 Recovery and Refinery .................................................................................................81
16.4.13 Vendors ........................................................................................................................82
16.4.14 F.L. Smidth – Filtration .................................................................................................82
16.4.15 F.L. Smidth – Thickening Testwork ..............................................................................83
16.4.16 Larox ............................................................................................................................86
16.4.17 Delkor ...........................................................................................................................87
16.4.18 RPA Filtres Philippe......................................................................................................89
16.5 Comminution Pilot Plant Testwork....................................................................................................... 90
16.5.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................90
16.5.2 Sample Preparation ......................................................................................................91
16.5.3 Summary of Results .....................................................................................................91
16.5.4 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................92
16.6 Development of Flowsheet Based on Testwork .................................................................................. 92
16.7 Key Technical Features ....................................................................................................................... 94
16.8 Process Plant ....................................................................................................................................... 94
16.8.1 Crushing .......................................................................................................................94
16.8.2 Milling ...........................................................................................................................94
16.8.3 Leach............................................................................................................................94
16.8.4 Solid-l Liquid Separation...............................................................................................96

16.8.5 Ion Exchange ...............................................................................................................96

16.8.7 Precipitation ..................................................................................................................96
16.8.8 Tailings .........................................................................................................................96
17 Mineral Resource Estimates ............................................................................................................ 97

17.1 Zone 1 Resource Estimate .................................................................................................................. 97
17.1.1 Resource Database and Validation ..............................................................................97
17.1.2 Geological Interpretation and Modelling .......................................................................98
17.1.3 Radiometric Data ........................................................................................................101
17.1.4 Statistical Analysis of Composites and Top Cuts........................................................101
17.1.5 Bulk Density Data .......................................................................................................103
17.1.6 Variography ................................................................................................................104
17.1.7 Block Model ................................................................................................................107
17.1.8 Grade Estimation ........................................................................................................107
17.1.9 Resource Reporting and Classification.......................................................................111
17.2 Zones 2 to 4 Resource Estimates ..................................................................................................... 112
17.2.1 Resource Database and Validation ............................................................................112
17.2.2 Geological Interpretation and Modelling .....................................................................113
17.2.3 Statistical Analysis of Composites and Top Cuts........................................................119
17.2.4 Block Model ................................................................................................................125
17.2.5 Grade Estimation ........................................................................................................126
17.2.6 Comments and Recommendations ............................................................................134
18 Mineral Reserve Estimates and Mining Methods ......................................................................... 135

18.1 Mining operations ............................................................................................................................... 135
18.1.1 Mining Methodology ...................................................................................................135
18.2 Open Pit Optimisation ........................................................................................................................ 136
18.2.1 Resource Model .........................................................................................................137
18.2.2 Density .......................................................................................................................137
18.2.3 Ore Loss and Dilution .................................................................................................138
18.2.4 Bench Height Selection ..............................................................................................139
18.2.5 Geotechnical Parameters ...........................................................................................140
18.2.6 Mining Costs ...............................................................................................................142
18.2.7 Processing Costs, Mill Throughput and Timing ..........................................................144
18.2.8 Processing Recovery and Recovery Ramp-Up ..........................................................145
18.2.9 Price, Selling Cost and Royalties................................................................................145
18.2.10 Capital Expenditure and Discount Rate ......................................................................146
18.2.11 Whittle Optimisation Process ......................................................................................147
18.2.12 Whittle Optimisation Results and Shell Selection .......................................................148
18.2.13 Sensitivity ...................................................................................................................150
18.2.14 Ore Tonnage Sensitivity .............................................................................................152
18.2.15 NPV Sensitivity on Best Case Shell............................................................................153
18.2.16 Shell Geometry and the Effect of Inferred Mineralisation ...........................................154
18.3 Pit Designs ......................................................................................................................................... 159
18.3.1 Mineable Ore Reserve Estimates ...............................................................................162
18.3.2 Mining Fleet ................................................................................................................162
18.3.3 Compliance with Whittle .............................................................................................163
18.4 Reconciliation to Final DFS Parameters............................................................................................ 164

19 Energy, Water and Process Materials ........................................................................................... 167

19.1 Water Supply...................................................................................................................................... 167
19.2 Power Supply ..................................................................................................................................... 168
19.3 Project Supply Chain And Logistics................................................................................................... 169
20 Infrastructure ................................................................................................................................... 171

20.1 Access Roads .................................................................................................................................... 171
20.2 Port Facilities...................................................................................................................................... 171
20.3 Housing .............................................................................................................................................. 172
20.4 Personnel Transport .......................................................................................................................... 172
21 Environmental Studies, Permitting and Social or Community Impact ...................................... 174

21.1 Location .............................................................................................................................................. 174
21.2 Legislation Governing Uranium Mining In Namibia ........................................................................... 174
21.3 The Impact Assessment Process ...................................................................................................... 175
21.4 An Overview of The Project Area ...................................................................................................... 176
21.5 Major Issues of Concern That Were Identified and Recommended Mitigation Measures ............... 177
21.6 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 178
22 Market Studies and Contracts ....................................................................................................... 179

22.1 Demand for Uranium.......................................................................................................................... 179
22.2 Marketing of Uranium......................................................................................................................... 179
22.3 Taxation.............................................................................................................................................. 180
23 Capital and Operating Costs.......................................................................................................... 181

23.1 Cost Estimates ................................................................................................................................... 181
23.1.1 Capital Cost Estimate .................................................................................................181
23.1.2 Operating Cost Estimate ............................................................................................182
24 Economic Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 183

24.1 Taxation.............................................................................................................................................. 183
24.2 Economic Analysis – Results............................................................................................................. 183
24.3 Economic Analysis - Sensitivity ......................................................................................................... 184
24.4 Mine Life Extension............................................................................................................................ 186
25 Interpretation and Conclusions ..................................................................................................... 187
26 Recommendations .......................................................................................................................... 189
27 References ....................................................................................................................................... 191
28 Date and Signature Page ................................................................................................................ 195

List of Tables
Table 1.4_1 – Husab Uranium Project Zones 1 to 4, August 6 2010 Resource Estimate 2 March, 2011 DFS Reserves 3
Table 1.6_1 – Husab Uranium Project Zone 1 and Zone 2 March, 2011 DFS Reserves 4
Table 1.6_2 – Husab Uranium Project Zones 1 and 2 Ultimate Design Open Pit Dimensions 4
Table 2.5_1 – List of Abbreviations 14
Table 4.2.5_1 – Namibian Mineral Exploration and Mining Rights 22
Table 4.3_1 –Tenement Schedule 24
Table 6.3_1 – Husab Uranium Project, Namibia - August 2008 Resource Estimates 31
Table 6.3_2 – Superseded August 2010 Zone 1 and Zone 2 Resource Estimates 32
Table 10.1_1 – Husab Uranium Project Zone 1 and Zone 2- Significant Drilling Intersections 44
Table 10.1_2 – Husab Uranium Project - Zone 2- Significant Drilling Intersections 45
Table 13.3_1 – Summary of Assaying by Laboratory for Au, Ag, Cu, Ni, U, Zn and SG 55
Table 14.2_1 – Summary of Uranium Precision Data 60
Table 16.2.11_1 – Uranium Product Analysis 73
Table 16.4.14_1 – Husab Vacuum Filtration Results 83
Table 16.4.16_1 – Thickening Testwork Summary 84
Table 16.4.16_2 – Thickening Testwork Summary 85
Table 16.4.17_1 – Soluble Recoveries - Factor 1 Displacement Wash 88
Table 16.4.17_2 – Soluble Recoveries - 2 Stage Counter-Current Wash 89
Table 17.1.4_1 – Statistics and Top Cuts Applied to the Various Mineralised Units Zones 103
Table 17.1.5_1 – Density Readings taken from Drill Core at Husab Uranium Project 104
Table 17.1.6_1 – Grouped Zone Variography – Husab Uranium Project Zone 1 104
Table 17.1.7_1 – Block Model Parameters – Husab Uranium Project Zone 1 107
Table 17.1.8_1 – Sample Search Parameters for OK Estimate – Husab Uranium Project Zone 1 108
Table 17.1.8_2 – Comparison of Model Grades and Informing Composite U3O8 Grades for Mineralised Units 109
Table 17.1.8_3 – Density Values Applied to the Various Rocktypes within the Resource Model 111
Table 17.1.9_1 – Confidence Levels of Key Categorisation Criteria 112
Table 17.1.9_2 – Husab Uranium Project Zone 1 – August 6 2010 Resource Estimate 112
Table 17.2.1_1 – Husab Uranium Project (Zone 2 - 4), Number, Metres Drilled and Type of Hole 113
Table 17.2.3_1 – Statistics and Top Cuts Applied to the Various Mineralised Zones – Zones 2 to 4 120
Table 17.2.3_2 – Bulk Density Values Assigned by Supplied Lithological Wireframes 121
Table 17.2.3_3 – Variogram Parameters for the Mineralised Zone 2 122
Table 17.2.3_4 –Variogram Parameters for the Mineralised Zones 3 and 4 123
Table 17.2.4_1 – Block Model Parameters, Zones 2 and 4 125
Table 17.2.4_2 – Block Model Variables, Zones 2 and 4 125
Table 17.2.5_1 – Sample Search Parameters, Ordinary Kriging - Husab Uranium Project (Zone 2) 130
Table 17.2.5_2 – Sample Search Parameters, Ordinary Kriging – Husab Uranium Project (Zones 3 and 4) 131
Table 17.2.5_3 – Confidence Levels of Key Categorisation Criteria – Zones 2 to 4 132
Table 17.2.5_4 – Husab Uranium Project - Zones 2 to 4 Resource Estimate 133
Table 17.2.5_5 – Husab Uranium Project - August 6 2010 Resource Estimate, All Zones 133
Table 18.2.2_1 – Material Density 138

Table 18.2.3_1 – Global Ore Loss and Dilution by Zone 139

Table 18.2.5_1 – Geotechnical Slope Design Parameters 141
Table 18.2.2_2 – Ramp Width Calculation 141
Table 18.2.5_3 – Overall Slope Calculations 141
Table 18.2.6_1 – Global Average Unit Mining Costs (US$/t) 143
Table 18.2.7_1 – Process Throughput and Costs 144
Table 18.2.8_1 – Process Losses 145
Table 18.2.8_2 – Process Recovery Ramp-Up 145
Table 18.2.10_1 – Capital Costs (US$ M) 147
Table 18.2.12_1 – Summary of Selected Shell 36 150
Table 18.2.13_1 – Sensitivity Ranking for a 15% Variation in Key Parameter 152
Table 18.2.13_2 – Sensitivity Summary 152
Table 18.2.13_3 – Economic Cutoff Grade 153
Table 18.3.1_1 – Husab Probable Ore Reserve by Stage Designs 162
Table 18.3.3_1 – Correlation between Pit Designs and Original Optimal Shell 36 163
Table 18.3.3_2 – Correlation between Pit Designs and Revised Optimal Shell 36 164
Table 18.4_1 – Variation in Key Parameters Optimisation to Final DFS 166
Table 19.3_1 – Reagent Supply Quantities 170
Table 23.1.1_1 – Estimated Capital Cost 181
Table 23.1.2_1 – Estimated Operating Costs 182
Table 24.2_1 – Forecast Cashflows (Reserves only) 185
Table 24.2_2 – Project NPV (Reserves only) 186
Table 24.3_1 – Valuation Sensitivity 186
Table 27_1 – Estimated Budget for Recommendations for 2011/2012 190

List of Figures
Figure 1.6_1 – Husab Uranium Project Mine Site Layout 5

Figure 4.1.1_1 – Geography of Namibia 18
Figure 4.3_1 – Project Location Map 23
Figure 5.2.1_1 –Desert Plains in the Rossing South Project Area 28
Figure 7.1_1 – Damara Orogenic Belt : Regional Geological Setting 33
Figure 7.1_2 – Stratigraphic Column of the Damara Orogen 35
Figure 7.2.1_1 – Husab Project: Geological Setting 36
Figure 7.2.1_2 – Husab Uranium Project Zone 1 Geological Cross Section (7506000N) 37
Figure 7.2.1_3 – Husab Project: Tenement Outline over First Vertical Derivative of Magnetics 37
Figure 9.1_1 – Beta-Uranophane Mineralisation in Hole RDD002 39
Figure 10.1_1 – Husab Uranium Project: Significant Drilling Intercepts 43
Figure 10.1_2 – Husab Uranium Project Mineralisation from Hole RDD002 45
Figure 11.2_1 – Husab Uranium Project Core – Hole RD002 46
Figure 11.3_1 – RC Drilling at Husab Uranium Project 48
Figure 12.3.1_1 – Husab Uranium Project RC Drilling 51
Figure 13.3_1 – Flow Diagram - Sample Preparation at the Genalysis Preparation Facility in Johannesburg, South Africa 54
Figure 14.1.1_1 – Extract Submitted Standards and Blanks 58
Figure 14.1.2_1 – Laboratory Submitted Standards and Blanks 59
Figure 15_1 – Location of Uranium Deposits on Properties Adjacent to the Extract Tenement Holdings 62
Figure 16.8_1 – DFS Flowsheet 95
Figure 17.1.2_1 – Husab Uranium Project Zone 1 - Mineralised Zones and Drill Type 99
Figure 17.1.2_2 – Husab Uranium Project Zone 1, Sectional Interpretation (7,506,800mN) 100
Figure 17.1.4_2 – Histogram Plot from Mineralised Zones 2 to 4 102
Figure 17.1.6_1– Grouped Domains – Husab Uranium Project Zone 1 105
Figure 17.1.6_2– Modelled Variography – Husab Uranium Project, Zone 1 106
Figure 17.1.8_1 – Example Northing Validation Plots – Husab Uranium Project Zone 1 110
Figure 17.1.9_1 – Oblique View of the Classified Zone 1 Resource Model and Drillholes 111
Figure 17.2.2_1 – Husab Uranium Project, Zones 1 – 4 - Drillhole Location Plan 114
Figure 17.2.2_2 – Husab Uranium Project Zone 2 Mineralised Zones and Drill Type 115
Figure 17.2.2_3 – Husab Uranium Project Zones 3 and 4 - Mineralised Zones and Drill Type 116
Figure 17.2.2_4 – Husab Uranium Project Zone 2 - Sectional Interpretation (7,503,600mN) 117
Figure 17.2.5_5 – Husab Uranium Project Zone 3 - Sectional Interpretation (7,501,600mN) 118
Figure 17.2.3_1 – Cross-Section of Final Block Model at 7503500mN 121
Figure 17.2.3_2 – Correlogram for Husab Uranium Project Zone 2 Combined Lodes 124
Figure 17.2.5_1 – Comparative Plots of Informing Composites and Block Model Grade –Zone 2 127
Figure 17.2.5_2 – Comparative Plots of Informing Composites and Block Model Grade – Zone 3 128
Figure 17.2.5_3 – Comparative Plots of Informing Composites and Block Model Grade – Zone 4 129
Figure 18.1.1_1 – Trolley-Assist Layout 135
Figure 18.2.3_1 – Ore Loss Dilution Geometry (Orebody Dip ≥ 10°) 139
Figure 18.2.5_1 – Whittle Slope Areas 142

Figure 18.2.7_1 – Process Throughput Ramp-Up 144

Figure 18.2.12_1 – Base Optimisation Results for 15Mtpa Throughput Rates 149
Figure 18.2.13_1 – % Variation from Base Case - Ore Tonnes 151
Figure 18.2.13_2 – % Variation from Base Case - Best Case Discounted Cashflow 151
Figure 18.2.13_3 – Grade Tonnage Curve for Resource 154
Figure 18.2.16_1 – Zone 1 Cross-Section 7507000 N 155
Figure 18.3_1 – Zone 1 Stage Layouts 160
Figure 18.3_2 – Zone 1 Stage Layouts 160
Figure 18.3_3 – Mine Site Layout 161
Figure 19.1_1 – Water Supply to Husab Mine 167
Figure 19.2_1 – Modified 220kV Supply 169
Figure 20.1_1 – Alternative Routes Considered 172
List of Appendices
Appendix 1 – QAQC Report

Appendix 2 – Certificates of Qualified Persons

1 SUMMARY
In April 2011, Coffey Mining Pty Ltd (Coffey Mining) was commissioned by Extract Resources
Ltd. (ASX:EXT, TSX:EXT) (Extract) to prepare an updated Independent Technical Report (ITR)
on the uranium Resources and Reserves and the associated mining studies of the Husab
Uranium Project (previously referred to as Rössing South - Zone 1 and 2 Prospects) in Namibia,
Southern Africa.
Coffey Mining had previously prepared the ITR on Extract’s Husab Uranium Project in 2009
that estimated an Indicated mineral resource of 21Mt at 527ppm U3O8 and an Inferred
Resource of 126Mt at 436ppm U3O8, at Zone 1; and at Zone 2 an Inferred Resource of 102Mt
at 543ppm U3O8. All resources are reported above a 100ppm U3O8 lower cutoff.
1.1 Property
Extract Resources Ltd controls a portfolio of uranium properties in western Namibia through its
wholly owned Namibian subsidiaries Extract Resources Namibia (Pty) Ltd (Extract Namibia) and
Swakop Uranium (Pty) Ltd. The Husab Uranium Project (formerly known as Rössing South) is
located within the broader Husab Project area, which covers an area of approximately 637km².
1.2 Location
The Husab Project area comprises two granted Exclusive Prospecting Licenses (EPL 3138
and 3439) and is located in the Namib Desert, approximately 50km east of Swakopmund in
central western Namibia.
The Zone 1 and 2 Prospects are the northern-most region of the Husab Uranium Project
which is located in the northern portion of EPL 3138. The Husab Uranium Project is
approximately 8km south of the Rössing Uranium Mine. The Husab Uranium Project forms
part of the broader Husab Project area.
1.3 Ownership
The Husab Project EPL 3138 and EPL 3439 are owned by Swakop Uranium (Pty) Ltd. The
tenement schedule is included as Table 4.4_1.
1.4 Geology, Mineralisation and Resources
The Husab Project (EPLs 3138 and 3439) is situated within the central Damara Orogenic Belt
(DOB). The area is dominated by a series of north-northeast to northeast trending regional-
scale antiforms and synforms, which make up the main structural architecture of the entire
Central Zone of the Damara. These meta-sedimentary folds or dome-like structures of the
DOB are cored by gneissic and metasedimentary rocks of the Abbabis Formation. The
basement rocks are covered to the northeast and south by stranded cover sequences of flat-
lying calcrete and alluvial deposits, which are associated with a broad northeast trending
valley marginal to the Khan River. Regional magnetic data indicate that the regional structural
history is complex.
Husab Uranium Project, Namibia – MINEWPER00713AE Page: 1

The Husab Project area contains primary uranium mineralisation hosted in uraniferous
leucocratic granites (alaskites) within the highly prospective Central Zone of the Damara
Orogeny. The mineralised alaskites occur mainly within the Rössing Formation but locally
also intrude the Khan and Chuos Formations.
In addition to primary alaskite-hosted uranium mineralisation, the tenement holding also hosts
occurrences of secondary uranium vanadate (carnotite).
Regional magnetic data show that the mineralised rock units can be traced beneath cover.
Drilling completed at the Husab Uranium Project has confirmed the existence of high grade
uranium mineralisation beneath these cover sequences for bedrock occurrences and for
secondary calcrete uranium mineralisation within the cover rocks.
In August 2008, Coffey Mining completed resource estimates for alaskite hosted uranium
mineralisation at the Garnet Valley, New Camp and Ida Central prospects. The resources
included a combined Indicated Mineral Resource of 0.6Mt at 246ppm U3O8 and Inferred
Mineral Resource of 52.7Mt at 213ppm U3O8 above a 100ppm U3O8 lower cutoff. These
deposits are part of the Ida Dome project area.
In July 2009, Extract completed an updated resource estimate (now superseded) for Zone 1
of the Husab Uranium Project with an Indicated Resource of 21Mt at 527ppm U3O8 and an
Inferred Resource of 126Mt at 436ppm U3O8, above a 100ppm U3O8 lower cutoff. Also at this
time, Coffey Mining completed a maiden resource estimate for Zone 2 with an Inferred Mineral
Resource of 102Mt at 543ppm U3O8, above a 100ppm U3O8 lower cutoff.
The August 2010 resource update represents a significant increase in Indicated Mineral
Resource material for Zones 1 and 2, and includes maiden resource estimates for Zones 3
and 4. The updated Resource estimates are tabulated below in Table 1.4_1. The preferred
cutoff grade for reporting is 100ppm U3O8.
The Definitive Feasibility Study (DFS) has been conducted on the basis of the August 2010
resource model, but has focussed only on the more advanced Zone 1 and Zone 2 deposits
where Indicated Resources have been defined. Exploration activities remain ongoing and a
further resource update for Zones 1, 2, 3 and 4 and a maiden resource for Zone 5 is
scheduled for release in Q2, 2011.
1.5 Exploration Concept
Extract is targeting primary, alaskite-hosted uranium mineralisation at the Husab Project.

Mineral Resource definition drilling is currently underway at the Husab Uranium Project
Zone 1 and Zone 2. Extensive exploration potential remains throughout the Husab Project
with the main area of immediate interest the 9km trend between the northern end of Ida Dome
and the southern end of Husab Uranium Project Zone 2.

Table 1.4_1
Husab Uranium Project Zones 1 to 4
August 6 2010 Resource Estimate
Reported at various cutoffs, Preferred cutoff : 100ppm U3O8
Ordinary Kriged Estimate based upon 3m cut U3O8 Composites
Parent Cell Dimensions of 25m NS by 25mEW by 15mRL
Lower Cutoff Tonnage Grade Contained U3O8 Contained U3O8

(ppm U3O8) (Mt) (ppm U3O8) (MKg) (MLb)
Zone 1
100 122.2 450 55.0 120.1
200 104.5 490 51.2 113.9
Indicated
300 78.0 580 45.3 99.3
400 56.2 670 37.6 82.6
100 41.3 420 17.4 37.8
200 34.2 470 16.1 35.2
Inferred
300 24.7 550 13.6 29.9
400 17.0 640 10.9 24.1
Zone 2
100 118.8 520 61.8 136.9
200 110.0 550 60.5 133.7
Indicated
300 87.7 630 55.3 121.2
400 66.3 720 47.8 104.8
100 26.8 520 13.9 30.5
200 24.5 550 13.5 29.7
Inferred
300 19.3 630 12.1 26.8
400 14.1 740 10.4 22.9
Zone 3
100 43.0 250 10.7 24.0
200 24.3 330 8.0 17.5
Inferred
300 11.8 410 4.9 10.7
400 4.3 530 2.3 5.0
Zone 4
100 14.4 570 8.2 17.9
200 13.0 610 7.9 17.5
Inferred
300 11.4 660 7.5 16.6
400 9.0 740 6.7 14.7
All Zones
100 241.0 480 117 257.0
200 214.5 520 112 247.6
Indicated
300 165.7 610 101 220.6
400 122.5 700 85 187.4
100 125.5 400 50 110.3
200 96.1 470 45 99.9
Inferred
300 67.2 570 38 84.0
400 44.4 680 30 66.7

1.6 Reserve Estimate and Mining
The mineable reserves, based on pre-defined pit optimisation parameters, are summarised in
Table 1.6_1.
Table 1.6_1
Husab Uranium Project
Husab Uranium Project Zone 1 and Zone 2 March, 2011 DFS Reserves
Cutoff Grade Ore Grade* U3O8

Probable Reserves
(ppm) (Mt) (ppm) (M lbs)
Zone 1 148 97.1 477 102.2
Zone 2 138 107.8 515 122.5
Total 205.0 497 224.8
*Mineral Reserve tonnage and grade estimates include allowance for mining dilution and ore loss.
The DFS envisages conventional truck and shovel mining from two open pits focussing on
mineralisation in Zones 1 and 2. Following initial pre-stripping, ore will be hauled to a primary
crusher, positioned on surface to the west and between the two open pits. Waste rock removed
from the pits will be hauled to a Mine Residue Facility (MRF) located to the east of the open pits
which serves as a co-disposal facility for the process plant tailings. As appropriate during
operation and at mine closure, the MRF will be capped with a layer of waste rock. The site
layout is shown in Figure 1.6_1.
Based on the maiden Mineral Reserve estimate the mine life (including pre-strip) is 16 years.
Extract expects to define additional Mineral Reserves to extend the mine life substantially
beyond the current mine plan.
Both pits have been designed based on the outputs from the open pit optimisation simulation
software Whittle FOUR-X. The current design pit dimensions are shown in Table 1.6_2.
Table 1.6_2
Husab Uranium Project Zones 1 and 2 Ultimate Design Open Pit Dimensions
Length N-S Width E-W Depth

Zone
(km) (km) (m)
1 2.4 0.7 412
2 1.9 1.2 330
The primary loading fleet comprises three large electric-powered rope shovels to mine the
bulk waste on 15m benches whilst a fleet of smaller diesel hydraulic shovels address all ore
loading requirements on 7.5m benches in order to minimise ore loss and dilution. The smaller
shovels are able to manage both a 7.5m and 15m bench height. In-pit blending will minimise
the extent of re-handling of ore from stockpile to crusher to cater for short-term grade
variations over life of mine.

Figure 1.6_1
Husab Uranium Project Mine Site Layout
Large electric-powered drill rigs service the large electric loading units whilst the smaller and
more manoeuvrable diesel rigs would similarly service the smaller diesel-powered loading units.
Ore and waste are transported by a fleet of 39 diesel electric drive haul trucks in the
+300 tonne class. Trolley-assisted hauling has been included in the base case, and will be
implemented on most up-ramp sections of the open pits and ramps accessing the MRF.
The remainder of the mining production fleet consists of support equipment that includes
graders, track and wheel dozers, front-end loaders, rock breakers and utility excavators.
Specific mining activities are planned to be outsourced. These include the repair and
maintenance of the mobile mining fleet, blasting operations, tyre and haul road management
as well as drilling operations relating to grade control and resource definition.
Following initial pre-stripping of 85Mt overburden, the mine plan envisages production at a
rate of 15Mt ore per year, at an average strip ratio of 7.0:1.
1.7 Metallurgical
The metallurgical testwork commenced with laboratory scale batch testwork conducted at a
scoping level in July 2008 and continued through to a hydrometallurgical and comminution
pilot plant testwork phase that commenced in April 2010 and concluded in November 2010.

The following laboratory scale batch testwork was conducted on selected drill cores that were
deemed to be representative of the ore body:
Head assays
Mineralogy
Comminution
Dilute leach testwork
Agitated leach testwork
Flotation
Heap leach amenability
Radiometric ore sorting
Ion exchange
Solvent extraction using ammonium hydroxide strip
Ammonium diuranate precipitation.
Comments on the outcomes of the laboratory-scale testwork programme include the following:
SAG mill amenability tests indicate the samples are in the softest quartile of all samples
tested.
High uranium recoveries with >60% of the drillhole composite leach recoveries >90%.
The leach acid consumptions are generally below 25kg/t with excursions above this due
to high Ca and Mg ore or high Fe releasing ore, which contributes to oxidation of
excessive ferrous to ferric and a resultant increase in pyrolusite and acid consumptions.
Reducing the leach temperature from 35ºC to 40ºC to 25 ºC to 30ºC impacts on the leach
kinetics but has minimal impact on the final leach recovery.
IX testwork shows good selectivity of uranium from other impurities with low levels of
contaminants feeding downstream processing.
High quality precipitate produced from either H2O2 precipitation or Ammonium Diuranate
(ADU).
Heap leach amenability testing produced moderate recoveries of 64% to 68% at crush
sizes of -6.3mm and -12.5mm.
Radiometric ore sorting and dense media separation (DMS) or heavy media separation
(HMS) were determined to be ineffective in upgrading the ore.
Pre-concentration by flotation showed some promise, but the testwork data was not
reproducible.

The following aspects of the selected process were tested at pilot plant scale:
Leaching
Dilution and screening
Fines thickening
Thickener underflow re-leach
Pressure filtration of leach residue
Continuous ion exchange
Solvent extraction using sodium carbonate strip
Sodium diuranate precipitation
Uranyl peroxide precipitation
During the hydrometallurgical pilot plant phase, selected equipment vendors were invited to
conduct equipment specific tests to develop design data.
Comminution pilot plant testwork was also conducted to confirm the selection of single stage
semi-autogenous (SAG) milling as the preferred milling option.
The flowsheet used in the DFS is primarily derived from the flowsheet used in the
hydrometallurgical pilot plant, the comminution pilot plant and the findings from a PLS option.
There are three main differences to that flowsheet that are incorporated into the DFS flowsheet:
The inclusion of a comminution circuit
The replacement of the leach discharge screen and fines thickener with a coarse filtration
and fines CCD wash circuit; and
The replacement of the SX carbonate strip process with the strong acid strip process.
Key technical features of the DFS flowsheet are:
Mineral Sizer (product top size 250mm) for primary crushing of the run-of-mine (ROM)
ore followed by semi-autogenous (SAG) milling to produce a P80 of 780µm;
Atmospheric leach process with 14 hour residence time. Importing of sulphuric acid and
pyrolusite as lixiviant and oxidant respectively;
Solid / liquid separation using belt filtration with option of counter current decantation for
excessive fines. Leach residue deposited as filter cake for minimising water requirement;
Continuous ion-exchange using the NIMCIX technology and conventional solvent

extraction (SX) uranium upgrading and refining process; and
Production of uranyl peroxide by precipitation with hydrogen peroxide following a strong

acid strip process.

1.8 Definitive Feasibility Study (DFS)
Extract has defined a base case mine plan and process plant design, including plans for
delivery of the infrastructure necessary to support the project. The DFS has demonstrated the
technical and economic viability of developing Husab, the world’s fifth-largest uranium-only
deposit.
The DFS is based on:
Indicated Minerals Resources defined at Zones 1 and 2, based on the August 2010
resource model;
Open pit mining by truck and shovel from two separate pits to maintain a sustained rate
of 15Mt pa over the life of mine with an average strip ratio of 7:1 (waste:ore);
A waste and plant tailings storage facility (the mine residue facility);
Ore crushing and overland conveying to a new processing facility employing milling,
leaching, ion exchange, solvent extraction and precipitation plant and equipment to
produce approximately 15 million lbs pa of U3O8 equivalent; and
Provision of temporary and permanent power and water supplies, access roads,
temporary and permanent buildings and structures necessary to support the Project.
Capital costs for the Project are estimated at US$1,480 million, including initial mine fleet,
process plant and supporting infrastructure. Inclusive of pre-strip and other pre-production
operating costs of US$179 million, the Project Cost is estimated at US$1,659 million. This
estimate excludes allowance for finished goods inventory in transit and held at conversion
facilities, debtor payment terms, creditor payment terms, escalation, and financing costs
(including fees and interest during construction).
Production costs are estimated at US$28.5/lb, excluding royalties, marketing and transport and
cost escalation. Operating costs including royalties, marketing and transport are estimated at
US$32.0/lb.
The accuracy provision for the DFS is ± 10%. Figures are expressed in US$ in real terms
assuming a base date of 1 January 2011 unless otherwise stated.
Extract has engaged with potential customers to assess demand for production from the
Husab Uranium Project, and has identified several possible strategic contracting
opportunities. Extract is confident that it will become an attractive supplier to end-users, as a
result of the Husab Uranium Project’s ability to offer geographic diversification and long term
security of supply.

1.9 Exploration Status
The region of the Husab Uranium Project (Zones 1 and 2) Prospects represent an advanced
exploration project with Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resources being defined at Zone 1 and
at Zone 2; and Inferred Resources defined for Zones 3 and 4.
1.10 Conclusions and Recommendations
The August 2010 resource estimate (Table 1.4_1) represents a significant increase in
Indicated Mineral Resources relative to the previous July 2009 Resources for Zones 1 and 2,
and now incorporates maiden resource estimates for Zones 3 and 4.
Potential remains to expand the Mineral Resource inventory at the Husab Uranium Project
through extension of known deposits such as Zones 1, 2, 3 and 4 and definition of resources
at prospects such as Zone 5, Middle Dome and Salem.
Coffey Mining has reviewed the drilling, sampling, assaying and field procedures used by
Extract and consider them to be of high quality.
Extract has defined a base case mine plan and process plant design, including plans for delivery
of the infrastructure necessary to support the project. The DFS has demonstrated the technical
and economic viability of developing Husab into one of the largest uranium mines in the world,
and supports a maiden reserve estimate for Zones 1 and 2 of the Husab Uranium Project.
The DFS defines a base case mine plan and process plant design, including plans for delivery
of the infrastructure necessary to support the project. Several opportunities to add further
value have been identified, including the proposed update of the resource model, mine plan
optimization, and processing enhancements. Extract Resources has commenced a Mine
Optimisation and Resource Extension Programme (MORE) to investigate these opportunities.
A resource update is planned for Q2, 2011 incorporating drilling completed until the end of
January, 2011. The main focus has been infill drilling of Zone 1 and Zone 2 to define
Measured Mineral Resources and increase the quantum of Indicated Mineral Resources, both
by upgrading the classification of Inferred Mineral Resources within the current mine plan
(and therefore not included within the reserve estimate) and by definition of additional
resources.
Extract Resources also intends to continue its exploration programme in Zones 3, 4 and 5,
Middle Dome, Salem, Ida Dome, and Pizzaro areas, which are not included in the DFS.
Definition of additional reserves would be expected to add additional value and mine life to the
project.

Several potential process enhancements are being investigated and include the following:
Finer grind process: Potential to result in reduced leach residue grade which would result
in increased recovery and simplified solid liquid separation circuit.
Elevated temperature acid leach: Potential to result in reduced leach residue grade which
would result in increased recovery.
Direct IX or SX to replace Eluex: Potential to lower plant capital expenditure.
On-site acid production: Procurement of sulphuric acid represents a significant

component of the project’s operating cost. The possible upside from on-site production
of acid, including the potential to generate electricity and provide heat for an elevated
temperature leach process, is being assessed.
Work on these value adding areas is planned to continue and to feature, as appropriate, in the
final mine plan to be initiated during the project development phase.

2 INTRODUCTION AND TERMS OF REFERENCE
2.1 Scope of the Report
Coffey Mining has been commissioned by Extract to prepare a National Instrument 43-101
(NI43-101) compliant Technical Report to update the resource estimation studies undertaken
at Zone 1 to 4 of the Husab Uranium Project, based on the August, 2010 resource update.
These prospects are located within Extract’s Husab Project area in central western Namibia
within EPL 3138.
The requirement to prepare this Technical Report was the result of the first time definition of
Mineral Reserves at the Husab Uranium Project. These Mineral Reserves were announced
th
contained in a market release, issued by Extract on 5 April 2011, regarding the Husab
Uranium Project DFS.
Only the Husab Uranium Project Zones 1 to 4 will be discussed in this report. Coffey Mining has
previously prepared a Technical Report in August 2008 (Inwood, 2008) for the Garnet Valley,
New Camp and Ida Dome prospects which are also located within the Husab Project area.
This report is to comply with disclosure and reporting requirements set forth in National
Instrument 43-101, Companion Policy 43-101CP, and Form 43-101F1.
The report complies with Canadian National Instrument 43-101 for the ‘Standards of
Disclosure for Mineral Projects’ of December 2005 (the Instrument) and the resource and
reserve classifications adopted by CIM Council in November 2004. The report is also
consistent with the ‘Australasian Code for Reporting of Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves’
of December 2004 (the Code) as prepared by the Joint Ore Reserves Committee of the
Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Australian Institute of Geoscientists and
Minerals Council of Australia (JORC).
All monetary amounts expressed in this report are in United States of America dollars (US$)
unless otherwise stated.
2.2 Principal Sources of Information and Scope of Inspection
In addition to site visits undertaken to the Husab Uranium Project in 2007, 2008 and 2010 by
the primary author, this report has relied extensively on information provided by Extract and
extensive discussions with Extract technical personnel. The principal sources of information
used to compile this report comprise supplied digital data and some published information
relevant to the Project area and the region in general. A listing of the principal sources of
information is included in the references section, Section 27 of this report and in Section 3.
Coffey Mining and the other authors have made all reasonable enquiries to establish the
completeness and authenticity of the information provided and identified, and a final draft of
this report was provided to Extract along with a written request to identify any material errors
or omissions prior to lodgement.

2.3 Participants, Qualifications and Experience
Coffey Mining was responsible for the preparation of all portions of this report apart from
Sections 5.3, 16, 18, 19, 20, 23 and 24 and the associated text in the summary, conclusions
and discussion. As per Section 3, Coffey Mining has relied upon the expert advice of others
for Sections 21 and 22.
Coffey Mining is an integrated Australian-based consulting firm, which has been providing
services and advice to the international mineral industry and financial institutions since 1987.
In September 2006, Coffey International Limited acquired RSG Global. Coffey International
Limited is a highly respected Australian-based international consulting firm specialising in the
areas of geotechnical engineering, hydrogeology, hydrology, tailings disposal, environmental
science and social and physical infrastructure.
The primary author of this report is Mr Neil Inwood, who is a professional geologist with 17 years
experience in exploration and mining geology. Mr Inwood is a Principle Resource Consultant
with Coffey Mining and a Member of the Australasian Institute of Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy (AUSIMM) and has the appropriate relevant qualifications, experience and
independence to generally be considered as a “Qualified Person” as defined in Canadian
National Instrument 43-101. Mr Inwood visited the Husab Projects in August 2007, August 2008
and August 2010.
Mr Steve Le Brun is a professional geologist with 25 years experience in exploration and mining
geology, prepared Section 17.2 and associated text in the summary, conclusions and
discussion. Mr Le Brun is a Principle Resource Geologist with Coffey Mining and a Member of
the Australasian Institute of Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (AUSIMM) and has the
appropriate relevant qualifications, experience and independence to generally be considered as
a “Qualified Person” as defined in Canadian National Instrument 43-101. Mr Corley has not
visited the Husab Project site.
Mr Mike Valenta is a professional engineer as registered on the International register as defined

by the Washington Accord with 20 years experience in metallurgical aspects of mining projects,
prepared Section 16 and associated text in the summary, conclusions and discussion.
Mr Valenta is The Managing Director of Metallicon Process Consulting and a Member of the
South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (SAIMM), past president of the Metallurgical
Mine Manager’s Association (MMMA) and has the appropriate relevant qualifications,
experience and independence to generally be considered as a “Qualified Person” as defined in
Canadian National Instrument 43-101. Mr Valenta has not visited the Husab Project site.
Mr Ross Cheyne is a professional mining engineer with 20 years experience in open pit
mining, prepared Section 18 and the portions of Section 23 that relate to Mining costs, and
associated text in the summary, conclusions and discussion. Mr Cheyne is a Director and
Principal Consultant with ORElogy and a Member of the AusIMM and has the appropriate
relevant qualifications, experience and independence to generally be considered as a
“Qualified Person” as defined in Canadian National Instrument 43-101. Mr Cheyne has not
visited the Husab Project site. As per Section 3, Mr Craig has relied upon the expert advice of
others for Section 24.

Mr Steve Craig is a professional mining engineer with 24 years experience in mine planning,
consulting and study management, prepared Section 18 and the parts of Section 23 that relate
to Mining costs, and associated text in the summary, conclusions and discussion. Mr Craig is
the Managing Director of ORElogy and is a Member of the AusIMM and has the appropriate
relevant qualifications, experience and independence to generally be considered as a “Qualified
Person” as defined in Canadian National Instrument 43-101. Mr Craig has visited the Husab
Project site in June 2009 and in May 2010. As per Section 3, Mr Craig has relied upon the
expert advice of others for Section 24.
Mr Hugh Browner is a professional engineer, with 11 years experience in operations and

25 years in design and has, reviewed Sections 5.3, 19 and 20 and associated text in the
summary, conclusions and discussion. Mr Browner is the Engineering Manager of AMEC
Minproc South Africa and is a Fellow of the Southern African Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy, and has the relevant experience to be generally considered as a “Qualified
Person” as defined in the Canadian National Instrument 43-101. Mr Browner has not visited
the Husab Project.
Mr Steve Amos is a Metallurgist, with 21 years experience in process engineering, design,

management, commissioning and R&D, reviewed Section 23 relating to the processing costs
only and associated text in the summary, conclusions and discussion. Mr Amos is Technical
Manager of AMEC Minproc and is a Fellow of South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy,
and has the relevant experience to be generally considered as a “Qualified Person” as defined
in the Canadian National Instrument 43-101. Mr Amos has not visited the Husab Project.
Certificates for the Competent Persons are located in Appendix 2.
2.4 Independence
The Authors of this report do not have or have had previously any material interest in Extract
Resources Limited or related entities or interests. Our relationship with Extract is solely one
of professional association between client and independent consultant. This report is
prepared in return for fees based upon agreed commercial rates and the payment of these
fees is in no way contingent on the results of this report.
2.5 Abbreviations
A listing of abbreviations used in this report is provided in Table 2.5_1 below.

Table 2.5_1
List of Abbreviations
$ United States of America dollars hr hours P80 80% of sample passing

“ inches HRD half relative difference Pa. Pascal
µm microns IBC Intermediate Bulk Container Pd palladium
3D three dimensional ICP-AES inductivity coupled plasma atomic emission spectroscopy PGE Platinum Group Elements
-75µm 75 microns ICP-MS inductivity coupled plasma mass spectroscopy PLS Pregnant Liquor Solution
AAS atomic absorption spectrometry IRR Internal Rate of Return ppb parts per billion
AC Alternating Current ISO International Standards Organisation ppm parts per million
ADU ammonium diuranate IX Ion Exchange ppt. precipitate
Ag Silver JORC Joint Ore Reserves Committee PQ size of diamond drill rod/bit/core
ANSTO Australian Nuclear Science & Technology Organisation K Potassium psi pounds per square inch
ASX Australian Stock Exchange kg kilogram PVC poly vinyl chloride
AusIMM Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy kg.d.s/m²hr kilogram droge stof (dry weight) per square metre per hour Q2 second quarter
BBMWI Bond Ball Mill Work Index kg/h kilogrammes per hour QC quality control
bcm bank cubic metres kg/t kilogram per tonne QEMSCAN Quantitative Evaluation of Minerals by Scanning Electron Microscopy
BRMWI Bond Rod Mill Work Index km kilometres QQ quantile-quantile
C Carbon km² square kilometres RAB Rotary Air Blast
Ca Calcium ktonnes thousand tonnes Rb Rubidium
CC correlation coefficient kV kilovolt RC reverse circulation
CCD Counter Current Decantation kW kilowatts RL (Z) reduced level
CIX Continuous Ion Exchange kWhr/t kilowatt hours per tonne ROM run of mine
cm centimetre L litre RQD rock quality designation
Co cobalt l/hr/m² litres per hour per square metre SABC SAG Mill + Ball Mill + Crushing
COG Cutoff Grade LAS Log Ascii Standard SAG Semi autogenous grinding
CRM certified reference material or certified standard lb pounds SAIEA South African Institute of Environmental
Cu copper LOM Life of Mine SD standard deviation
CV coefficient of variation M Million SDU sodium diuranate
DDH diamond drillhole M Mole/molar SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment
DFS Definintive Feasibility Study m³/t cubic metres per tonne SEMP Strategic Environmental Management Plan
DGPS Differential Global Positioning System Ma thousand years SG Specific gravity
DMS Dense Media Separation MET Ministry of Environment and Tourism Si silica
DOB Damara Orogenic Belt Mg Magnesium SMU selective mining unit
DTM digital terrain model mg/L milligrammes per litre Sr Strontium
E (X) easting ml millilitre SX Solvent Extraction
ECS Engineering Cost Study Mlb Million pounds t tonnes
EDC Erongo Desalination Company mm millimetres t/h tonnes per hour
EDM electronic distance measuring Mm³/a Million cubic metres per year t/hr tonnes per hour
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment MME Ministry of Mining and Energy t/m³ tonnes per cubic metre
EMP Environmental Management Plan Mn Manganese Ta Tantalum
EPCM Engineering Procurement Construction Management MRF Mine Residue Facility Th Thorium
EPL Exclusive Prospecting Licence Mt Million Tonnes tpa tonnes per annum
eU3O8 equivalent U3O8 Mtpa million tonnes per annum TSX Toronto Stock Exchange
ft. foot mV milli volt U Uranium
g gram N (Y) northing U3O8 tri uranium octoxide
G&A General and Administration N$ Namibian Dollars UCS Unconfined Compressive Strength
g/L grammes per litre NaOH sodium hydroxide UF6 Uranium Hexafluoride
g/m³ grams per cubic metre Nb Niobium UNDP United Nations Development Program
g/t grams per tonne of gold Ni nickel UO4 Uranium tetroxide
GDP Gross Domestic Product NNNP Namib-Naukluft National Park UTM Universal Transverse Mercator
GPR Ground Penetrating Radar NPV net present value v/v volume concentration
GRS Gamma Ray Spectrometer NQ size of diamond drill rod/bit/core VBF Vacuum Belt Filters
GWe Gigawatt electrical NQ2 size of diamond drill rod/bit/core w/w mass fraction
H2O2 hydrogen peroxide ºC degrees centigrade w:o waste to ore ratio
H2SO4 sulphuric acid OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer WAGE West African Gold Exploration
HARD half the absolute relative difference OGR Old German Railway WGS84_33s World Geodetic System 1984 - zone 33 south
HDPE high density poly ethylene OK Ordinary Kriging wrt with respect to
HPGR High Pressure Grinding rolls ORP Oxidation Reduction Potential XRF X-Ray fluorescence
HQ size of diamond drill rod/bit/core P80 80% passing

3 RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS
The authors of this report are not qualified to comment on each of the issues detailed below
and accordingly have relied upon the representations and judgements of the following parties
for each of these areas of the report:
Husab Project
Document 1– EPL 3138 Transfer approval letter:
Report identity: Republic of Namibia Ministry of Mines & Energy letter RE:
Application for the Transfer of EPL 3138 from West Africa Gold Exploration (Pty) Ltd
to TLP Investments Seventy One (Pty) Ltd, 09 February 2007.
Maker of report: Republic of Namibia Ministry of Mines & Energy, A. Iilende Acting
Mining Commissioner.
Reliance: Signed letter from Ministry of Mines & Energy, scanned copy of original.
Document 2 – EPL 3138 Renewal of Exclusive Prospecting Licence letter:
Report identity: Republic of Namibia Ministry of Mines and Energy letter RE: Notice
to applicant of preparedness to grant application for the renewal of exclusive
prospecting licence 3138 to TLP Investments Seventy One (Pty) Ltd. Approval
granted to renew License 3138, 1 June 2007. Includes stamped endorsement.
Maker of report: Republic of Namibia Ministry of Mines and Energy, A. Iilende Acting
Reliance: Signed letter from Ministry of Mines and Energy, scanned copy of original.
Document 3 – EPL 3138 Licence Grant/Renewal:
Report identity: Republic of Namibia Ministry of Mines & Energy EPL 3138 Licence,
Dated 5 April 2004, License Stamp (dated 07 October 2004), Transfer Stamp (dated
21 February 2007), and Renewal Stamp (dated 20 April 2011 Extending the liscence
until 19 April 2013.
Maker of report: Republic of Namibia Ministry of Mines & Energy, Minister of Mines
and Energy.
Reliance: Signed letter from Ministry of Mines & Energy, scanned copy of original
stamped document.
Document 4 – EP L3149. Notice to Grant Exclusive Prospecting Licence letter:
Report identity: Republic of Namibia Ministry of Mines and Energy letter RE: Notice
to applicant of preparedness to grant application for an exclusive prospecting licence
3439 to Extract Resources Namibia (Pty) Ltd. Dated 30 October 2006. Includes
stamped endorsements.
Maker of report: Republic of Namibia Ministry of Mines and Energy, A. Iilende Acting
Reliance: Signed letter from Ministry of Mines and Energy, scanned copy of original.

Document 5 – EPL 3149 Transfer Approval letter:

Report identity: Republic of Namibia Ministry of Mines & Energy letter
RE: Application for the Transfer of EPL 3439 from Extract Resources (Namibia)
(Pty) Ltd to TLP Investments Seventy One (Pty) Ltd, 20 February 2007. Includes
stamped endorsement.
Maker of report: Republic of Namibia Ministry of Mines & Energy, A. Iilende Acting
Reliance: Signed letter from Ministry of Mines & Energy, scanned copy of original.
Document 6 – EPL 3439 Licence Grant/Renewal:

Report identity: Republic of Namibia Ministry of Mines & Energy EPL 3439 Licence
Grant (dated 30 October 2006), Transfer Stamp (dated 21 February 2007) and
Renewal Endorsement stamp, (30 April 2008) and Renewal Stamp (dated 30 April
2007).
Maker of report: Republic of Namibia Ministry of Mines & Energy, Commissioner.
Reliance: Commissioner signed stamp from Ministry of Mines & Energy, scanned
copy of original.
Document 7 – EPL 3138 Environmental Clearance Letter:
Report identity: Republic of Namibia, Ministry of Environment and Tourism letter
RE: Environmental Clearance for the Environmental Assessment and Management
Plan for the West Africa Gold Exploration Project – License 3138. Dated 29 April
2005. Includes stamped endorsement.
Maker of report: Republic of Namibia Ministry of Environment and Tourism,

Permanent Secretary.
Reliance: Permanent Secretary signed stamp from Ministry of Environment and

Tourism, scanned copy of original.
Document 8 – EPL 3439 Environmental clearance Letter

Report identity: Republic of Namibia, Ministry of Environment and Tourism letter
RE: Environmental Clearance for the Environmental Impact Assessment of the
Proposed Diamond Drilling for West Africa Gold Corporation Ltd, within the Namib
Naukluft Park (EPL 3439). Dated 26 February 2007. Includes stamped endorsement.
Maker of report: Republic of Namibia Ministry of Environment and Tourism,

Permanent Secretary.
Reliance: Permanent Secretary signed stamp from Ministry of Environment and

Tourism, scanned copy of original.

Document 9 – Announcement of Agreed restructure

Report identity: ASX Release. Agreed Restructure – Extract Resources Limited and
Kalahari Minerals plc. Dated 5 September 2008.
Maker of report: Rance Dorrington. Extract Company Secretary.
Reliance: Downloaded copy of original.
Document 10 – Legal Opinion on the status of EPL 3138.
Letter from Theunissen, Louw and Vennote Partners
Attorneys, Conveyancers, Notaries
Emailed letter confirming the ownership and status of EPL 3138
These files all have legal, title, tenure, land acquisition and compensation, and permitting
implications.
Portions of this report (specifically Chapters 21, 22 and 24), were prepared under the
supervision of technical experts who may not currently qualify as Qualified Persons for the
purposes of the NI43-101; although it is likely that this would not be the case under the
revised Code due to take effect in July. The authors are not qualified to comment on these
areas and have included these chapters using the ‘Reliance of other Experts’ provision of
Item 5 of the Ni-43101 Form F1 (Rules and Policies). The source-authors for these Sections
are outline in Section 2.2. The Specific documents referred to include:
Stobart, B. 2011 – Environment and Permitting. Document detailing the Environmental

Studies, Permitting and social or community impact requirements for a mining of the
Husab Project.
Davies, S. 2011 – Market Studies and Contracts. Document detailing the marketing and
taxation for a mining of the Husab Project.
Bevan, J. 2011 – Economic Analysis. Document detailing the economic analysis for a
mining of the Husab Project.

4 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION
4.1 Background Information on Namibia
4.1.1 Demographics and Geographic Setting

Namibia is an independent republic with a total surface area of 825,418km², situated north of
South Africa, west of Botswana and south of Angola. It is bordered to the west by the Atlantic
Ocean (Figure 4.1.1_1). Namibia forms part of the Southern African Region.
Figure 4.1.1_1
Geography of Namibia
Windhoek, with a population of 230,000, is the capital of Namibia and is located in the
Khomas Region in the centre of the country. The largest harbour is located at Walvis Bay, on
the central west coast, south of Swakopmund. The country is mostly arid or semi-arid,
comprising a high inland plateau bordered by the Namib Desert along the coast and the
Kalahari Desert to the east. The Namibian coastline is swept by the cold Benguela current.
Namibia has a population of approximately 2 million people. The population comprises

approximately 87.5% indigenous people, 6% of European descent and 6.5% of mixed origin.
About 50% of the population belong to the Ovambo tribe and 9% to the Kavango tribe. Other
ethnic groups include the Herero (7%), Damara (7%), Nama (5%), Caprivian (4%), Bushmen
(3%), Baster (2%) and Tswana (0.5%).

The official language is English, however Afrikaans is the commonly spoken language of most
of the population. Indigenous languages include Oshivambo, Herero and Nama. According
to World Bank standards, 84% of the population are literate.
4.1.2 History and Political Status

South Africa occupied the German colony of South West Africa during World War I and
administered it as a mandate until after World War II when it annexed the territory. In 1966,
the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO) launched a war of independence for
the area that was subsequently named Namibia, but it was not until 1988 that South Africa
agreed to end its administration in accordance with a UN peace plan for the entire region.
Namibia gained independence from the South African mandate on 21 March 1990 following
multi-party elections and the establishment of a constitution. President Sam Nujoma served
for the first three terms and was succeeded by President Hifikepunye Pohamba in March
2005 following a peaceful election.
4.1.3 Infrastructure
Namibia is serviced by a network of sealed highways connecting Windhoek in the central
plateau region of Namibia with the coast at Walvis Bay, and with Botswana, Angola and South
Africa. Generally unsealed but well-maintained access roads provide regional access
throughout Namibia. Power is available via local extensions to an extensive regional
electricity grid originating in South Africa. A railway line extends from the port of Walvis Bay
to Tsumeb, where a copper smelter is in operation.
Water for the Husab Uranium Project is expected to be sourced from a yet to be built coastal
desalination plant.
Areas within the Namib-Naukluft National Park, which includes the Husab Project, are granted
for exploration, subject to appropriate environmental commitments.
4.1.4 Industry
The economy is heavily dependent on the extraction and processing of minerals for export.
Mining accounts for approximately 20% of GDP. Namibia also has an important traditional
subsistence agricultural sector.
In 2010, the estimated GDP (purchasing power parity) was US$14.64 billion and the per
capita income was US$6,900 with a real growth rate of 4.1%. Mining of zinc, copper, and
silver and increased fish production led growth in 2003-05. However, more recently, poor fish
catches, a dramatic fall in diamond prices and higher costs of producing metals has undercut
growth.
A high per capita GDP relative to the region hides the great inequality of income distribution.
The UNDP’s 2005 Human Development Report indicated that 55.8% of the Namibian
population live on $2 per day.

Namibia is estimated to have earned US$1.28 billion from the export of diamonds, copper,
gold, zinc, lead, uranium, cattle, and processed fish and karakul skins during 2010.
The Namibian economy is closely linked to South Africa, with the Namibian dollar pegged to
the South African Rand.
Rich alluvial diamond deposits make Namibia a primary source for gem-quality diamonds.
Namibia is the fourth-largest exporter of non-fuel minerals in Africa, the world's fourth-largest
producer of uranium, and a producer of copper, lead, zinc, tin, silver, gold and tungsten. The
mining sector employs only about 3% of the workforce, while about half of the population
depends on subsistence agriculture for its livelihood.
Namibia normally imports about 50% of its cereal requirements. In drought years, food
shortages are a major problem in rural areas.
Privatisation of several enterprises has been undertaken to stimulate long-term foreign

investment.
4.1.5 Mining
Artisanal workers exploited copper mineralisation within Namibia prior to re-discovery during
the 1800s following the exploration and development of the Southern African region. In
Namibia (formerly German South West Africa), this exploration was completed largely by
German interests. Modern mining began during 1840 when the Matchless Mine, southwest of
Windhoek, was developed by the Walwich Bay Copper Mining Company.
Major operating metalliferous mines are present at Rössing (uranium), Skorpion (zinc),
Navachab (gold). The Kombat Mine (copper-lead-zinc) closed in 2008.
4.2 Mineral Tenure
In Namibia, all mineral rights are vested in the State. The Minerals (Prospecting and Mining)
Act of 1992 regulates the mining industry in the country. The Act has been designed to
facilitate and encourage the private sector to evaluate and develop mineral resources. The
Mining Rights and Mineral Resources Division in the Directorate of Mining is usually the first
contact for investors, as it handles all applications for and allocation of mineral rights in
Namibia.
Several types of mining and prospecting licenses exist, as outlined briefly below.
4.2.1 Non-Exclusive Prospecting Licenses (NEPL)

Valid for 12 months, these licenses permit prospecting non-exclusively in any open ground not
restricted by other mineral rights. Prospectors must furnish the Mining Commissioner with
details on all samples removed from the NEPL area.

4.2.2 Reconnaissance Licenses (RL)

These licenses allow regional remote sensing techniques, and are valid for 6 months
(renewable under special circumstances) and can be made exclusive in some instances. A
geological evaluation and work plan needs to be submitted to the Mining Commissioner.
4.2.3 Exclusive Prospecting License (EPL)

Individual EPLs can cover areas not exceeding 1,000km² and are valid for three years, with
two renewals of two years each. Two or more EPLs can be issued for more than one mineral
in the same area. A geological evaluation and work plan (including estimated expenditure
commitments) is a pre-requisite prior to issuing of the licenses.
4.2.4 Mineral Deposit Retention Licenses (MDRL)

These allow successful prospectors to retain rights to mineral deposits that are uneconomic to
exploit immediately. MDRLs are valid up to five years and can be renewed subject to limited
work and expenditure obligations.
4.2.5 Mining Licenses

Mining Licenses (ML) can be awarded to Namibian citizens and companies registered in
Namibia. They are valid for the life of mine, or an initial 25 years, renewable for successive
periods of up to 15 years. Applicants must have the financial and technical resources to mine
effectively and safely.
With the exception of NEPLs and RLs, prior to licenses being issued, all applicants are
required to complete an environmental contract with the Department of Environment and
Tourism. Where relevant, environmental impact assessments must be made with respect to
air pollution, dust generation, water supply, drainage/waste water disposal, land disturbance
and protection of fauna and flora. An overview of Namibian mineral exploration and mining
rights is provided in Table 4.2.5_1.
4.3 Project Locations and Land Area
The Husab Uranium Project Zones 1 to 4 is located within EPL 3138 which is itself situated
within the broader Husab Project area. The Husab Project area consist of EPL 3138 and
EPL 3439, which are located in central west Namibia and cover an area of approximately
637km² within the Namib Desert (Figure 4.3_1).
The project has dimensions of approximately 20km east-west by 35km north-south, and is
bounded by the Swakop River in the south and the Khan River to the west. The Husab
project area is characterised by low ridges of rock and wide expanses of sand and colluvial
cover, interspersed with calcrete pans and traversed by deeply incised river valleys.

Table 4.2.5_1
Namibian Mineral Exploration and Mining Rights
Namibia Mineral Exploration and Mining Rights

Mining Act : Minerals (Prospecting and Mining) Act, 1992
State Ownership of Minerals : Yes
Negotiated Agreement : No
Mining Title / License Types

Reconnaissance Tenements : Exclusive Reconnaissance License
Exploration Tenements : Exclusive Prospecting License
Non-exclusive Prospecting License
Mining Tenements : Mining License
Retention Tenements : Mineral Deposit Retention License
Special Purpose Tenements : -
Small Scale Mining Tenements : Mining Claim
Reconnaissance Tenement
Name : Exclusive Reconnaissance License
Purpose : Permits regional prospecting by aerial or surface ground means or other
remote sensing techniques
Maximum Area : Two 1" x 1" graticules
Duration : 6 months
Renewals : 1 x 6 months (in special cases)
Area Reduction : No
Procedure : Application to Ministry of Mines and Energy
Granted by : Ministry of Mines and Energy
Prospecting Tenement
Name : Exclusive Prospecting License
Purpose : Confers exclusive prospecting rights for specified mineral(s)
Maximum Area : 1000km²
Duration : 3 years
Renewals : 2 x 2 years
Area Reduction : Yes. Relinquish at least 25% on first renewal and at least an additional
50% on second renewal. Can apply to Ministry of Mines and Energy for
relaxation on these requirements.
Mining Tenement
Name : Mining License
Purpose : Confers the exclusive rights to extract specific minerals
Maximum Area : Depending on deposit size
Duration : 25 years or the life of mine, whichever is shorter
Renewals : Multiple 15 year extensions to the end of mine life

Figure 4.3_1
Project Location Map
The projects are wholly-owned by Swakop Uranium (Pty) Ltd, a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Extract Resources Limited. Table 4.3_1 shows the tenement schedule for EPL 3138 and
EPL 3439, both of which are renewable on a bi-annual basis.
All the location references are based on the UTM WGS84 Zone 33 South map projection. In
the Ida Dome area, a virtual grid has been established for the purposes of drillhole planning,
and the bearing correction is 30 degrees (local grid north = 030 degrees from true north). The
origin for the grid transformation is shown below:
UTM 503,110E 7,486,520N Local 20,000E 50,000N
The property boundaries were surveyed by a Differential Geographical Positioning System

(DGPS).

Table 4.3_1
Tenement Schedule
Minimum
Tenement Tenement Application Renewed Renewed Area Annual Rent
Holder Expenditure
Type No. Date From To km² (N$)
(N$)
EPL 3138 01.04.2011 20.04.2011 19.04.2013 Swakop Uranium (Pty) Ltd ^ 416 8,000 540,000
EPL 3439 03.11.2009 03.11.2009 02.11.2011 Swakop Uranium (Pty) Ltd ^ 221 4,000 1,500,000
^ A wholly owned subsidiary of Extract Resources Pty Ltd

4.4 Agreements and Encumbrances
A third party, Meercat Minerals Pty Ltd, retains a royalty of 1.75% of gross production revenue
from base metal and precious metals revenue over EPL 3138 only.
4.4.1 Environmental Liabilities and Permits

The Husab Project area falls entirely within the Namib-Naukluft National Park. The
environmental aspects of exploration are governed by the Ministry of Environment and
Tourism. Coffey Mining understands that the ministry allows exploration and mining
(as demonstrated by production commencing at the Langer Heinrich Mine in late 2006) within
such areas, and is unaware of any current regulations that may significantly restrict access to
this area for exploration.
Swakop Uranium lodged an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Environmental

Management Plan (EMP) for a future mining operation at Husab with the Ministry of
Environment and Tourism in November, 2010. Environmental approval for the mine and plant
was received from Namibia’s Ministry of Environment and Tourism in January 2011. A further
application will be made in respect of linear infrastructure required to support the plant. A
Mining Licence application was lodged with the Ministry of Mines and Energy in December,
2010. The Mining Licence application area covers the main extent of granite hosted uranium
mineralisation, at the northern end of Exclusive Prospecting Licence 3138.
A thorough overview of environmental liabilities and permits is shown in Section 21,

Environmental Studies, Permitting and Social or Community Impact.
Permitting required to carry out the current exploration and feasibility study activities at the
Husab Project has been sought and granted by the relevant Namibian Government
departments:
Site Borehole water abstraction permits.
Exclusive Prospecting Licenses (EPL3138 & 3439).
Exploration Environmental Management Plan.
Accessory Works permits to operate camps in the NNNP.
Park permits for all employees and contract staff employed on the Husab Project.
Permits to allow for blasting and removal of a bulk test sample.
Exploration Radiation Management Plan.
Additional permits will be required prior to, and during, development of the proposed Husab
Mine. Some have been applied for or granted, however at this stage, most have not. These
permits include:

th
Mining License (applied for 13 Dec 2010).
Mining License Environmental Impact Assessment and Management Plan (approved

th
25 Jan 2011).
Power Agreements (under negotiation).
Site water use permits.
Continuous Operation permit.
Application to exceed overtime.
Storage of explosives permit.
Transport of explosives permit.
Blasting vehicle license.
Necessary accessory works.
Construction period EMS.
Construction period EMP.
Access road junction with main road.
Telecoms Namibia service.
Radio frequency license.
Supply route of explosives from South Africa to Husab.
Magazine forklift.
Construction and Mining Radiation Management Plans.
Plant relocation/removal permits.
Archaeological site destruction permits.
Linear Infrastructure EIA and EMP (roads/pipes/powerlines).
Power usage.
Construction and operations – expatriate work visas.
Negotiate surface use with adjacent EPL holders.

5 ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, PHYSIOGRAPHY, LOCAL RESOURCES AND

INFRASTRUCTURE
5.1 Access
The main access to the project area is gained by travelling approximately 40km east from
Swakopmund or Walvis Bay along unsealed regional access roads and then 10km north
along the Welwitschia Flats road. A second method of access is via an unsealed track from
the northeast that joins with the main Windhoek-Swakopmund highway. Access within the
project area is via unsealed roads established by previous explorers.
5.2 Climate
The project area is characterised by an arid temperate desert climatic regime, characterised
by low sporadic rainfall averaging around 10mm per year, although high rainfall events
(over 20mm) occur periodically. The project areas lie within the outer range of the Atlantic
coastal fog zone. Temperatures average over 25 degrees Celsius in the summer months,
and can peak at over 40 degrees. Winter temperatures are somewhat milder, with cool
mornings and daily maxima around 20 degrees. Winds are generally from the south and
west, but occasional strong north-easterly winds from the interior bring hot dusty conditions.
The climate has little or no effect on the length of the operating season, and exploration
activities can be carried out all year.
5.2.1 Topography, Elevation and Vegetation

The area of the Husab Uranium Project is typified by flat desert plains with sparse bushy
vegetation (Figure 5.2.1_1). The plains are characterised by surface sand and grit with
overburden cover of up to up to 60m. To the west of the Project, the desert sand cover dies
out abruptly along a north-east trend to expose rugged gully terrane.
More broadly, the Husab Mountains in the east of EPL 3138 are typical of the rugged chain of
hills representing Swakop Group lithologies extending from Witpoortberg in the south, through
Husaberg, to Marmor Pforte and Chuosberg to the north. These ranges of steep hills define
the eastern edge of an extensive inter-montane plain lying between the Khan River and the
mountains. The plain shows little relief apart from occasional hills, and is poorly vegetated in
the Namib Park, although reasonably well-grassed over farmland to the north. The plain
shows a typical desert (Figure 5.2.1_1) deflation surface composed of calcretised surface
sand and grits with minor sub-crop.
Within a broad swathe on both sides of the Khan and Swakop rivers, water erosion has
formed a typical badlands environment showing elements of extreme topography cut by deep
river valleys.

Figure 5.2.1_1
Desert Plains in the Husab Uranium Project Area
Vegetation is sparse, comprising generally scattered low shrubs and herbage on the plains,
and more abundant plant growth within the seasonal drainage channels. Trees, such as the
Camel Thorn, are restricted to the larger drainages. Exotic trees and shrubs, including some
invasive species, are present in the Swakop Gorge, where they have been introduced by
previous inhabitants or derived from seed dispersal down the river. Overall the topography
varies in height between 200m and 710m.
5.2.2 Local Resources and Infrastructure

The project areas lie adjacent to well maintained gravel roads that service the National Park,
and are close to the main Swakopmund-Windhoek
Swakopmund highway. High-voltage
voltage power supply lines
cross the tenement areas. Land in the area is dominantly used for game farming and national
parks.
Water for industrial and pastoral activities is provided via subterranean resources, major
watercourses and numerous sub-artesian
su artesian bores. Water for drilling purposes is currently drawn
from water bores.
Swakopmund is the closest major centre, comprising excellent support services such as
transport, earthmoving, construction, commercial and banking. Namibia’s main port city,
cit
Walvis Bay, is located 30km south of Swakopmund.
Non technical exploration personnel are currently sourced out of Windhoek and Swakopmund,
with management personnel currently sourced mainly from Australia. Specialist contractors
also originate from South
Sou Africa and Australia, whereas junior technical staff are mainly
Windhoek based.

5.3 Future Mining Operations
The electrical power utility provider in Namibia, NamPower, commands sufficient generated
and/or imported energy sources to provide both the temporary and permanent power needs
for the Husab mine. Capital, to be supplied by Swakop Uranium, is however required to fund
the extensions to the transmission network that runs parallel to the B2 highway between
Windhoek and Swakopmund. The solutions for both temporary and permanent power supply
have been developed around this arterial supply route and fits well with the timeline of the
Husab mine’s development and production schedule. Discussions with NamPower have
taken place and are ongoing.
Existing fresh water resources in the area do not have adequate capacity to supply the
projected regional demand and desalination of seawater is considered to be the only viable
solution for permanent water supply. During development, water will be supplied through a
temporary water supply pipeline to be constructed from the NamWater reservoir near the
Rössing Mine. During operation, water is expected to be sourced from the proposed
desalination plant at Mile 6, to be constructed and operated by third parties.
The company is a member of the Erongo Mining Water Users Group (EMWUG) which is
working with the National Desalination Task Force (NDTF) to investigate and implement a
strategy to deliver water to the project in line with the envisaged development timetable. After
recommendations were tabled to the Namibian Cabinet in February 2011, a Public-Private-
Partnership (PPP) has been approved for the structuring of a new desalination plant.
However, to date there is no commitment from any party to build a desalination plant, and the
company continues to assess potential temporary or fall back solutions in line with the
project’s development timetable.
It is envisaged that the majority of workers employed at the Husab Mine will come from, and
be resident in, the nearby towns of Arandis (pop. 4,500), Swakopmund (pop. 25,500) and
Walvis Bay (pop. 60,000).
The proposed site layout plan, situated entirely within EPL3138, for the Husab Mine
(Figure 1.6_1) shows the open pit mines together with the process plant and combined
tailings/waste rock landform.

6 HISTORY
6.1 Ownership History
The ownership history of the Husab Project (EPLs 3138 and 3439) is discussed in Section 6.2.
6.2 Exploration History
Prospecting for uranium mineralisation within the area captured by EPL 3138 took place
following the discovery of large resources of low grade granite (alaskite) hosted mineralisation
at Rössing. Elsewhere, further discoveries were made of primary uranium mineralisation at
Valencia, Goanikontes and the Ida Dome. Only Rössing was developed as a mine, and the
other occurrences became victims of the severe downturn in the uranium market in the early
1980s. This downturn lasted until around 2004 when the world uranium market began to
revive.
Exploration activities by Kalahari Gold and Copper Pty Ltd during the period 1996-2002,
included the collation and assessment of previous exploration data, and the acquisition and
interpretation of detailed aeromagnetic and satellite imagery. Considerable multi-element
partial leach soil geochemistry was carried out over the Husab area, and also the Von Stryk
and Von Stryk South magnetite-barite skarns (to the south of EPL 3138), although no
significant anomalous areas were generated from this work.
Exploration on the current EPLs commenced with the granting of EPL3138 to West Africa
Gold Exploration (Pty) Ltd (WAGE) – a subsidiary of Kalahari Minerals plc – in April 2004.
EPL3439 was granted to Extract’s wholly-owned Namibian subsidiary Swakop Uranium (Pty)
Ltd.(SUPL) in November 2006. The Husab joint venture on EPL3138 between WAGE and
Extract was signed in May 2005 and approved by the Mines Minister in October 2005. By
December 2006 the Husab joint venture was terminated and EPL3138 transferred to SUPL
and Kalahari Minerals plc became a major shareholder of Extract.
In 2006, Extract undertook a geological and structural review of the Husab project area and
formulated a targeting plan for deposits located under surface cover. Extract used magnetic
data to target the contact positions of the Khan Formation with follow up drilling through the
cover sequence to sample the underlying bedrock. In 2007, a traverse of three angled RC
drillholes targeted mineralisation beneath a low-level RAB anomaly. The RC drilling
intersected significant uraniferous pegmatitic alaskites, with follow up drilling defining the
Husab Uranium Project Zone 1 and Zone 2 prospects (Spivey and Penkethman, 2009).

6.3 Resource History
The previous resources for Husab Uranium Project Zones 1 and 2 are discussed in Inwood
(2009). Inwood (2008) discusses the estimated resources for the Garnet Valley, New Camp
and Ida Central prospects which are located within the broader Husab Project Area. These
estimates were carried out by Coffey Mining in August 2008 and are summarised below in
Table 6.3_1.
Table 6.3_1
Husab Uranium Project, Namibia
August 2008 Resource Estimate
Reported at Various Cutoffs using a Bulk Density of 2.65t/m³
Ordinary Kriged Estimate based upon 3m (Garnet Valley and Ida Central) or
2m (New Camp) cut U3O8 Composites
Tonnes Above Cutoff U3O8 Contained U3O8

Lower Cut
(Mt) (ppm) (M lb)
Garnet Valley
(Blocks 40m NS by 20m EW by 10m RL)
100 0.6 246 0.31
Indicated
200 0.5 259 0.26
100 43.5 224 21.39
Inferred
200 25.6 263 14.77
New Camp
(Blocks 40m by 20m by 10m RL - Block Model Rotated about 0600)
100 4.0 156 1.4
Inferred
200 0.4 234 0.2
Ida Central
(Blocks 40m N by 10m E by 20m RL)
100 5.2 170 1.96
Inferred
200 1.1 238 0.6
All Deposits
100 0.6 246 0.31
Indicated
200 0.5 259 0.26
100 52.7 213 24.8
Inferred
200 27 261 15.6
Inwood (2009) discusses the estimated maiden resource for Husab Uranium Project Zone 2
and an updated resource estimate for Zone 1. The Zone 1 updated resource estimate was
undertaken by Extract in July 2009 and the Zone 2 maiden resource estimate was undertaken
by Coffey Mining in August 2009. These resources are summarised in Table 6.3_2.

Table 6.3_2
Husab Uranium Project, Namibia
Zone 1 and Zone 2 Resource Estimates - Superseded August 2010
Reported at Various Cutoffs using a Bulk Density based on lithology
Ordinary Kriged Estimates based upon 3m cut U3O8 Composites
Tonnes Above Cutoff U3O8 Contained U3O8

Lower Cut
(Mt) (ppm) (M lb)
Zone 1
100 20.7 527 24.0
200 19.7 546 23.7
Inferred 300 16.2 608 21.7
400 12.5 684 18.8
500 8.8 782 15.2
Zone 2
100 102 543 122
200 96 565 120
Inferred 300 82 620 112
400 68 676 101
500 51 749 85
6.3.1 Production History

No historic uranium production has been recorded on any of the current project tenements.

7 GEOLOGICAL SETTING
7.1 Regional and Local Setting
The regional geological setting of Namibia is dominated by the Damara Orogenic Belt, a major
northeast trending belt of Mesoproterozoic to earliest Palaeozoic rocks that formed within a
major intracontinental rift basin (Figure 7.1_1). The rift was deformed by closure of the basin
during the late Neoproterozoic and early Palaeozoic. The Husab Project is located in the central
(Swakop) zone of the Damara Orogen. Mineralisation is associated with structural and
intrusion-associated settings formed during the major thrust deformation that closed the orogen.
Figure 7.1_1
Damara Orogenic Belt : Regional Geological Setting

The Central Zone is generally thought of as a palaeo-arch, where Damara and pre-Damara
rocks are complexly intermixed in a dome and basin topology following the collision of the
Congo and Kalahari Cratons. The Central Zone is bounded by two north-east trending
structures known as the Omaruru Lineament on the northern margin, and the Okahandja
Lineament to the south (Spivey and Penkethman, 2009).
The regional setting features a northeast trending anticlinal hinge zone, with extensive inliers
of Palaeoproterozoic rocks of the Abbabis Metamorphic Complex commonly present as
elongated dome-like features surrounded by younger folded Damara Sequence lithologies.
The Abbabis Metamorphic Complex lithologies typically underwent medium to high grade
metamorphism, typically amphibolite to granulite facies, with the succession dominantly
comprising metasediment, paragneiss, orthogneiss and ortho-amphibolite, all of which are
extensively invaded by pegmatites.
The Damara Orogenic Belt is a major Pan African age mobile belt of sedimentary and
volcanic rocks that extends from the Namibian coast northeast into Botswana and Zambia.
The orogen was initiated via rifting between the Kaapvaal and Congo Cratons between
1,000Ma and 900Ma, and closed at approximately 500Ma during a period of major thrust
faulting and granitoid intrusion. Structures developed during initial rifting have continued to
influence the tectonic development of the Namibian region up until the Jurassic period, when
the African and South American continents rifted apart to produce the South Atlantic Ocean.
The DOB is broadly divided into three successions (Figure 7.1_2), as follows:
The Nosib Group comprising metamorphosed sandstone, quartzite and minor

conglomerate, and representing sediments deposited due to erosion from uplifted
basement during the initial rifting of the orogen. The Nosib is further sub-divided into
Etusis Formation quartzites, arenites and arkoses, and the Khan Formation, consisting
mainly of calc-silicate rocks with lesser clastic components.
The lower Swakop Group, which overlies the Nosib, comprises an alternating succession of
dolomite, marble, schist and schistose diamictite. The succession includes, from lower to
upper stratigraphic levels, the Rössing Formation (mainly carbonates, wackes, quartzites
and mica-schists), the Chuos Formation (mica schists, calc-silicates and carbonates), and
the Arandis and Karibib Formations (mica-schists, calc-silicate rocks and marbles). The
lower Swakop Group is interpreted to include the thermal sag phase of rifting, which
coincides with regional sag of the crust due to cooling of the underlying mantle.
The Kuiseb Formation, which comprises the upper part of the Swakop Group, is
developed predominantly within the southern portion of the Damara Orogen. The Kuiseb
Formation (mainly Flysch-type sediments) is represented by a thick succession of
metamorphosed sedimentary rocks, generally comprising biotite schist with subordinate
calcsilicate rocks and carbonaceous schist. A unit of metamorphosed mafic volcanic
rocks, referred to as the Matchless Amphibolite Member, shows compositions consistent
with those observed in mid-ocean ridge basalts.

Figure 7.1_2
Stratigraphic Column of the Damara Orogen
Group Subgroup Formation Max Thickness Lithology
Pelitic and semi-pelitic schist and gneiss,
migmatite, calc-silicate rock, quartzite.
Kuiseb >3000
Thinkas member: Pelitic and semi-pelitic schist,
calc-silicate rock, marble, para-amphibolite.
Khomas Marble, calc-silicate rock, pelitic and semi-pelitic
Karibib 1000 schist and gneiss, biotite amphibolite schist,
quartz schist, migmatite.
Swakop Diamictite, calc-silicate rock, pebbly schist,
Chuos 700
quartzite, ferruginous quartzite, migmatite.
Discordance
Marble, pelitic schist and gneiss, biotite-
Ugab Rössing 200 hornblende schist, migmatite, calc-silicate
rock, quartzite, metaconglomerate.
Discordance
Migmatite, banded and mottled quartzo-
feldspathic clinopyroxene-amphibolite gneiss,
Khan 1100 hornblende-biotite schist, biotite schist and gneiss,
migmatite, pyroxene-garnet gneiss, amphibolite,
Nosib quartzite, metaconglomerate.
Quartzite, metaconglomerate, pelitic and semi-
pelitic schist and gneiss, migmatite, quartzo-
Etusis 3000
feldspathic clinopyroxene-amphibolite gneiss,
calc-silicate rock, metaphyolite.
Major Unconformity
Gneissic granite, augen gneiss, quartzo-feldspathic
Abbabis Complex gneiss, pelitic schist and gneiss, migmatite,
quartzite, marble, calc-silicate rock, amphibolite.
Note: taken from Schneider and Seeger (1993) and modified after Jacobs et Al, 1986
All the above rock types have been intruded by a wide variety of syn-tectonic and post-
tectonic intrusive rocks, including the Goas Diorite Suite, which includes a series of small
disconnected plutons in the area south of Karibib. Other late to post-tectonic intrusives
include the Salem type granites, commonly represented by grey biotite granites to
granodiorites locally intruding Damara rocks. The so-called “red” granites, which are a
heterogeneous group of intrusives composed of foliated and massive varieties, often
occurring as small bodies intruding the Swakop Group marbles and schists. Other, mainly
post-tectonic intrusive types include the leucogranites and alaskites, some of which are
uraniferous. They typically appear below and around the lowest Damara marbles, and are
characterised by vein to dyke-like or anastomosing forms, although massive or plug-like
occurrences are known. A body of grey granite at 7492300mN 505000mE has itself been
intruded by a uranium bearing alaskite, and the Rössing Mine exploits low grade uranium
mineralisation within one such intrusive system.
The Damara Orogen was closed by a major south-directed thrust deformation, resulting in a
pervasive north-northwest to northwest dipping foliation. Thrusts are interpreted to have
transported portions of the sequence up to 200km to the south over basement rocks.
Rocks of the DOB are covered by the Kalahari Sands in northeast Namibia, but are
continuous through Botswana into Zambia, where the orogen is represented by the Muva
Group and Katanga Group of the Lufilian Arc.

7.2 Project Geology
7.2.1 Husab Project

The Husab Project is dominated by a series of north-northeast to northeast trending regional-
scale antiforms and synforms, which make up the main structural architecture of the entire
Central Zone of the Damara. These meta-sedimentary folds or dome-like structures of the
DOB are cored by gneissic and metasedimentary rocks of the Abbabis Formation
(Figure 7.2.1_1). Figure 7.2.1_2 shows a geological cross section along northing 7506000 –
the Husab Uranium Project discovery line. The basement rocks are covered to the northeast
and south by stranded cover sequences of flat-lying calcrete and alluvial deposits, which are
associated with a broad northeast trending valley marginal to the Khan River.
Figure 7.2.1_1
Husab Project : Geological Setting
The basement gneisses outcrop as a series of semi-ovoid features within the Central Zone of
the Damara, in general forming somewhat poorly exposed extensions to the basement rocks
exposed in the Swakop River Gorge on either side of the Ida Dome, and in the Khan River
Valley, immediately south of the Khan Copper Mine, to the junction of the Khan and Swakop
Rivers. Flanking Damara Sequence sediments show a complex pattern of folding and
faulting, and the whole sequence is extensively invaded by syn- and post-tectonic granitoids
and pegmatite swarms. Cross-cutting Mesozoic dolerite dykes are also evident locally.

Figure 7.2.1_2
Husab Uranium Project Zone 1 Geological Cross Section (7506000N)
Basement domes to the east and west of the Husab project area, the latter along the Khan
River, are predominantly comprised of metasedimentary rocks; however, basement
associated with the cores of the Ida and Husab mine domes are gneissic. Regional magnetic
data indicate that the regional structural history is complex (Figure 7.2.1_3).
Figure 7.2.1_3
Husab Project : Tenement Outline over 1st vertical derivative of magnetics

8 DEPOSIT TYPES
The Husab Uranium Project uranium mineralisation is associated with intrusive alaskite rocks
and is informally referred to as a Rössing Type uranium occurrence.
The best known example of alaskite hosted primary mineralisation and typical of intra-
intrusive type mineralisation is the Rössing SJ deposit.
Exploration at the Husab Uranium Project has focused on identification of favourable

stratigraphic units, particularly the Rössing and Khan Formations, that may host uranium
mineralisation. Initial exploration targeting is based on surface mapping and interpretation of
aeromagnetic imagery, which is followed up by relatively shallow, broad-spaced
reconnaissance drilling and sampling.
The Rössing Mine is located close to the town of Arandis, 65 kilometres inland from
Swakopmund, in the Namib Desert. Rössing is the world’s largest open-pit uranium mine,
which started operations in 1976. The deposit comprises an extensive low-grade
(300ppm U3O8) alaskite-hosted deposit. Uranium occurs mostly as uraninite (55%) and beta-
uranophane (40%) in the form of interstitial grains and crystal inclusions in minerals; betafite
makes up for the remaining 5%. Secondary uranium minerals predominate in the weathering
profile. Average ore grades at Rössing commonly vary between 300ppm and 400ppm U3O8.

9 MINERALISATION
9.1 Primary Uranium Mineralisation
The EPLs 3138 and 3439 contain occurrences of uraniferous granites

granites (alaskites) within the
highly prospective Central Zone of the Damara Orogeny.
According to Spivey and Penkethman (2009), alaskite mineralisation is associated with

“a zone of abnormally high heat flow which has produced leucogranite melts from pre-Damara
pre
basement, and preferentially enriched uranium over thorium with respect to source rocks.
Magmas appear to be mainly passively emplaced as sheeted bodies and, more infrequently,
as stocks. They occur in an area of high metamorphic grade, characterized by high
temperature- low pressure metamorphism.”
Mineralisation is thought to be related to dilatational zones which have occurred due to

regional deformation, with preferential emplacement of alaskites around the first occurrence of
carbonates within the sequence.
se The change from terrigenous to carbonate sedimentary
setting may have acted to change local redox conditions, and/or to trap and focus mineralised
fluids beneath marble caps (Spivey and Penkethman (2009)).
(2009)
At the Husab Uranium Project,

Project mineralised alaskite occur proximal to the contact between the
Khan Formation and calc-silicates
calc of the Rössing Formation. The majority of the uraniferous
alaskites are located within the Rössing Formation. The host Rössing Formation can vary
from 50m to over 200m wide and mineralised intercepts can vary from a few metres to over
100m wide. The average width of mineralised horizons is approximately 20m. The
mineralisation at Zones 1 to 4 is a near-continuous
continuous mineralised area extending across
approximately 8km strike
ke length and up to 2km
2 across strike. Individual mineralised units can
be traced for several hundred metres along strike and down dip. Metallurgical testwork
indicates that uraninite is the main uranium mineral. Elevated uranium grades (for example
9,585ppm U3O8) associated with beta-Uranophane,
beta Uranophane, an oxidation product of uraninite, have
been identified in drillhole RDD002 (Figure 9.1_1).
Figure 9.1_1
Beta Uranophane Mineralisation in Hole RDD002 (near 183m)
Beta-Uranophane

The mineralisation is further described in Sections 11 and 17.
9.2 Secondary Uranium Mineralisation
In addition to primary alaskite hosted uranium mineralisation, the tenement holding hosts
occurrences of secondary uranium vanadate (carnotite), similar to that comprising
mineralisation at the Langer Heinrich development project. The best examples of secondary
uranium mineralisation are found at the Husab Uranium Project, north of the Husab fluorite
mine. A single line of drilling completed on this target zone has intersected calcrete hosted
uranium mineralisation in a flat lying paleochannel.
An occurrence of calcrete uranium mineralisation is also reported in the Welwitschia Flats

area exposed in erosion channels, and could be classified as a potential calcrete type deposit.

10 EXPLORATION
This section will concentrate on the exploration work undertaken by Extract at the Husab
Uranium Project area. Inwood (2008) discusses the exploration work performed in the
broader Husab Project area in detail. Unless otherwise stated, all the current exploration
activities within the project area is carried out by Extract.
Drilling is undertaken by contractors under the supervision of Extract personnel.
10.1 Husab Uranium Project, Zones 1 to 4
Extract announced a new uranium discovery at the Husab Uranium Project in February 2008.
Following further resource definition drilling and exploration (which remain ongoing) a study of
the feasibility of developing the project was concluded in March 2011. The Husab Uranium
Project is located under Namib Desert sand cover with the northern licence boundary shared
with the world-class Rössing uranium province.
The Husab Uranium Project target is interpreted as being an extension of the same
stratigraphy that hosts the Rössing Mine, located 5km to the north and striking 15km onto the
Husab Project. Airborne magnetic data clearly indicates the Rössing stratigraphy folds
around and trends into EPL 3138. Southern strike extensions of the same stratigraphy that
host the Rössing deposits trend under desert sands, which partly explains why there has been
no previous exploration in the Husab Uranium Project area.
The initial drilling at the Husab Uranium Project commenced in April 2007 and was aimed at
identifying the Khan and Rössing Formation contact - an unconformity surface that has been
preferentially intruded by the leucogranites (alaskites) containing primary uranium
mineralisation at the Rössing Mine to the north and at Ida Dome to the south. To test this
exploration model, four 1.6km spaced lines, with vertical drillholes on 80m centres, were
completed over the north east trending magnetic lows interpreted to represent the extensions
of the Rössing stratigraphy.
The exploration model was verified in the field in late 2007 when three holes on line
7,506,000mN, intersected anomalous uranium mineralisation associated with zones of smoky
quartz in altered leucogranite, beneath approximately 40m of overburden and leached
saprolite. All three holes recorded uranium values of at least 100ppm U3O8. Follow up angled
RC drilling in late 2007 intersected wide zones of alaskite with significant zones of uranium
mineralisation.
Chemical assay results in early 2008 confirmed the new alaskite hosted uranium discovery.
Discovery intersections included: 100m at 265ppm U3O8 and 40m at 240ppm U3O8 with both
holes ending in mineralisation. Follow up drilling, down dip of the discovery holes, has
intersected wide zones of high grade uranium mineralisation with results including 149m at
474ppm U3O8.

When the drillhole database was handed over to Coffey Mining for the current Husab Uranium
Project resource model (August 2010) a total of 117 lines of exploration and resource
definition drilling had been completed over 9.4km of the 15km target zone. The majority of
these holes are RC with some NQ and HQ core holes. Drillhole line spacing ranges from
1,600 to 25m, with holes on 25 to 100m centres. From this drilling, four zones have been
defined (Zones 1 to 4). Zone 1 has been defined over 2,500 metre of strike (7504900 to
7507400mN), Zone 2 over 2,500 metres of strike (7502400 to 7504900mN), Zone 3 over
2,000m of strike (7500400 to 7502400mN) and Zone 4 over 1,200m of strike (7490400 to
750600mN). All Zones are locally open at depth. Zone 1 is open along strike to the north and
there is significant potential to discover further mineralisation to the south of Zones 3 and 4.
The August 2010 resource estimate was based on approximately 400,000 metres drilled at
the Husab Uranium Project, defining four significant zones of uranium mineralisation, with a
cumulative strike length of approximately 9.4 kilometres.
Resource definition drilling over Zone 1 on a nominal 100m by 100m spacing was completed
in December 2008 and provided the data used in the maiden Inferred Mineral Resource
estimate in January 2009. An updated resource estimate was completed in July 2009 which
included, among other additional drilling, some 50m by 50m spaced holes. This closer-
spaced drilling enabled some Indicated resources to be defined at Zone 1. Drilling at Zone 1
since July 2009 has concentrated primarily on further infill drilling to increase the level of
confidence in the resource estimate. In the August 2010 resource update, over 75% of the
Zone 1 resource was classified in the Indicated category.
Resource definition drilling over Zone 2, on a nominal 100m by 100m spacing, was completed
in June 2009 and provided data used in the maiden Inferred Mineral Resource estimate in
July 2009. After July 2009, additional infill drilling and extensional drilling continued at Zone 2.
Drilling is now on 50m sections with 50 to 100m spacing between drillholes. In the August
2010 resource update, over 80% of the Zone 2 resource was classified in the Indicated
category.
The August 2010 resource update for the Husab Uranium Project contained maiden estimates for
Zones 3 and 4. Drill spacing is on sections 200m apart, with 100m spacing between drillholes.
Details of the Zone 1 to 4 drilling and statistics are discussed in Section 17. Mineralisation
remains open along strike to the south and at depth. Figure 10.1_1 displays the location of
significant drilling results at the Husab Uranium Project.
Numerous significant zones of uranium mineralisation have been intersected at Zones 1 to 4,

with chemical assay results summarised in Tables 10.1_1 and 10.1_2. The true thickness of
the uranium mineralised zones ranges from 60% to 100% of the downhole thickness.
The higher grade zones are generally contained within zones of leucogranite with abundant
smoky quartz and coarse grained biotite booklets (Figure 10.1_2). Some mineralisation has
also been observed in the calc-silicates and schists within and adjacent to the mineralised
granites.

Figure 10.1_1
Husab Uranium Project: Significant Drilling Intercepts

Table 10.1_1
Husab Uranium Project Zone 1 and Zone 2
Significant Drilling Intersections
Northing Easting Azimuth Dip From To Width Grade

Hole ID
(WGS84 33S) (WGS84 33S) (deg) (deg) (m) (m) (m) (g/t U3O8)
RDD145 7505150 506350 270 -60 371 444 73 2243
RDD193 7505250 505970 90 -60 253 336 83 968
RDD193 7505250 505970 90 -60 261 328 67 1182
RDD034 7505300 506400 270 -60 352 475 123 737
RDD009 7505500 506050 270 -60 228 294 66 1846
RDD030 7505500 506150 270 -60 84 194 110 736
RRC103 7505700 506000 270 -60 102 207 105 1198
RRC811 7505750 505900 90 -60 75 145 70 1112
RRC595 7505750 506000 270 -60 101 247 146 639
RRC114 7505800 506300 270 -60 66 124 58 1372
RRC114 7505800 506300 270 -60 66 124 58 1372
RRC181 7505800 506400 270 -60 100 258 158 660
RRC750 7505850 505875 90 -60 148 222 74 1042
RRC160 7506600 506650 270 -60 74 175 101 974
RDD037 7506600 506950 270 -60 410 522 112 799
RRC286 7506750 506900 270 -60 193 236 43 2197
RRC042 7506800 506680 270 -60 86 181 95 780
RSRC001 7506800 506690 0 -90 184 272 88 4491
RRC289 7506800 506800 270 -60 234 301 67 2469
RDD218 7507150 507150 270 -60 328 374 46 1700
RRC382 7503000 505700 270 -60 128 203 75 1445
RDD084 7503050 505350 270 -60 128 175 47 2741
RRC374 7503100 505800 270 -60 161 264 103 821
RRC528 7503150 505750 270 -60 136 227 91 854
RRC576 7503250 505750 270 -60 146 211 65 1125
RRC489 7503300 505550 270 -60 135 185 50 1618
RRC297 7503400 505600 270 -60 122 219 97 970
RDD022 7503600 505960 270 -60 112 270 158 552
RDD022 7503600 505960 270 -60 144 226 82 942
RRC610 7503600 506090 270 -60 208 359 151 540
RRC584 7503650 505950 270 -60 107 289 182 402
RRC266 7503700 505500 270 -60 249 270 21 3920
RDD046 7503700 506200 270 -60 297 391 94 896
RDD046 7503700 506200 270 -60 297 351 54 1450
RRC692 7503750 505950 270 -60 179 334 155 760
RDD005 7503800 505900 270 -60 232 305 73 1060
RDD005 7503800 505900 270 -60 247 305 58 1302
RDD102 7503900 505900 270 -65 237 366 129 1415
RRC304 7503900 505900 270 -60 260 342 82 1092
RDD072 7504000 506020 270 -60 351 361 10 9373

Table 10.1_2
Husab Uranium Project Zone 3 & Zone 4
Significant Drilling Intersections
Northing Easting Azimuth Dip From To Width Grade

Hole ID
(WGS84 33S) (WGS84 33S) (deg) (deg) (m) (m) (m) (g/t U3O8)
RRC481 7500000 504600 270 -60 169 174 5 1766
RRC482 7500000 504700 270 -60 210 224 14 737
RRC486 7500000 505500 270 -60 265 317 52 207
RRC429 7500800 505100 270 -60 128 140 12 678
RRC430 7500800 505200 270 -60 189 238 49 172
RRC413 7501200 505300 270 -60 207 239 32 323
RRC413 7501200 505300 270 -60 264 292 28 528
RRC414 7501200 505400 270 -60 294 376 82 600
RRC425 7501600 505600 270 -60 284 360 76 145
RRC731 7502200 505450 270 -60 131 157 26 318
RRC774 7499600 503600 0 -90 184 201 17 396
RRC776 7499600 503800 0 -90 88 131 43 468
RRC776 7499600 503800 0 -90 241 250 9 2114
RRC788 7500000 503860 0 -90 167 194 27 733
R3RC0001 7500000 504000 270 -60 157 212 55 1474
RRC789 7500000 504060 0 -90 119 181 62 134
R3RC0002 7500000 504100 270 -60 104 157 53 1616
RRC771 7500200 503800 0 -90 185 195 10 1665
RRC690 7500200 503900 0 -90 160 174 14 642
RRC688 7500200 504000 0 -90 158 181 23 811
Figure 10.1_2
Husab Uranium Project Mineralisation from Hole RDD005
(Note: High grade mineralisation is associated with dark smoky quartz and biotite)

11 DRILLING
11.1 Introduction
Data collection methods applied by Extract have been reviewed in the field by Coffey Mining
and, as such, have been directly assessed. The following sections are a summary of the
Extract/WAGE drilling and collection approach.
a
11.2 Diamond Core Drilling
The diamond drilling completed at Husab Uranium Project was undertaken by Major Drilling
with a skid-mounted
mounted Sulvan and Longyear 44 and 2 track-mounted
mounted LF90s. The number of
rigs on site at any one time varied between one and ten.
Between January 2008 and July 2009, 209 NQ size diamond drillholes were completed for a
total of 84,736m.
m. The deepest hole to date is 703m.
m. Drilling was completed in run lengths of up
to 3 metres. Figure 11.2_1 show an example of remaining ¼ core from hole RDD002.
Figure 11.2_1
Husab Uranium Project Core – Hole RDD002
Showing the Contact of an Uraniferous Pegmatitic Alaskite with Biotite Schist

The drilling companies’ performances are generally satisfactory, with acceptable daily
productivity rates, acceptable sample recovery and safety standards being achieved.
Care is taken by the site geologists to align the drill-rigs appropriately prior to commencing
each hole. The rig alignment (i.e. the azimuth and dip) is also re-confirmed using a compass
prior to commencement of drilling.
All holes have been downhole surveyed by a single-shot survey tool (either a Sperry Sun or
Eastman instrument) or a Reflex-eze Multishot survey tool. The single shot surveying is
currently completed by the drilling contractors at the completion of the hole. Namibian based
geophysical contractor, Terratec Geoservices, also completed downhole deviation surveys on
the majority of holes drilled with data collected on one centimetre increments. To avoid
excessive data collection, Extract choose to use one reading every 5 m which is considered
sufficient for accurately plotting a drillhole trace.
Core orientation of all holes with a dip between -45º and -75º has been undertaken since 2007
using either the ACE Reflex orientation tool or a downhole spear. Some holes still remain
only partially orientated, due to the rotation of core ends during drilling and discontinuities in
the core.
Geotechnical logging has routinely been completed at all target areas, with recoveries and
RQDs recorded by a crew of field technicians under the supervision of staff geologists.
Where holes could be reliably orientated, alpha and beta measurements have been taken on
significant discontinuities such as geological contacts, veins, joints and faults. Twelve holes,
six at Zone 1 and six at Zone 2, were drilled in 2009 with the primary aim of collecting
geotechnical information. The holes were drilled by Major Drilling, with logging and data
collection being supervised by Namibian company GeoLogic Solutions Ltd. Additional work,
including external audit of work already completed and interpretation of downhole televiewer
data was completed by Golder Associates, operating out of their Johannesburg office.
A review of the core by Coffey Mining showed high core recovery for the holes drilled at the
Husab Uranium Project. Core recovery from the drilling database averages approximately 99%.
11.3 RC Drilling
Between April 2007 and June 2010, approximately 1,419 reverse circulation (RC) drillholes
were completed at the Husab Uranium Project for 312,570m, with the deepest hole being
415m. The RC drilling has been completed by Major Drilling, Ferro Drill, Metzger Drilling,
Wallis Drilling and RC Drilling Services Namibia. At the end of June 2010, RC drilling at the
Husab Uranium Project was being carried out by 7 drill rigs.
The drilling companies performances are generally satisfactory, with acceptable daily
productivity rates, acceptable sample recovery and safety standards being achieved.
Care is taken by the site geologists to align the drill-rigs appropriately prior to commencing
each hole. The rig alignment (i.e. the azimuth and dip) is also re-confirmed using a compass
prior to commencement of drilling.

Figure 11.3_1
RC Drilling at Husab Uranium Project
All holes are downhole surveyed by Namibian based geophysical contractor Terratec
Geoservices using the GRS tool with downhole deviation surveys collected on one centimetre
increments. To avoid excessive data collection Extract choose to use one reading every
5 metres which is more than sufficient for accurately plotting a drillhole trace.
11.4 Drilling Orientation
Most of the drilling is undertaken normal to the plane of the principal mineralised orientation
(where practical). The dominant drill direction at the Husab Uranium Project has been -60º
towards 270º (true azimuth – Projection: UTM WGS 84 Zone one 33 South). As a result, the bulk
of the drillhole intersections will reflect the true thickness of mineralisation.
Coffey Mining considers the drilling directions are appropriate.
11.5 Drilling Results
A summary of the more significant drilling results returned

ret from the Husab Uranium Project is
provided in Tables 10.1_1 and 10.1_2 of this report. These results are derived from diamond
drillholes and RC drilling. The drilling results for the resource areas are more specifically
discussed in Section 17.3.

11.6 Drilling Quality – Drillhole Database Verification
Extract have internal systems and procedures for checking their main database and the loading
of data. Extract utilises the services of an expert contractor to supervise the data loading and
upkeep of the resource database. Internal validation checks are also completed by Extract
personnel operating from Extract’s head office in South Perth.
Coffey Mining considers the use of a robust commercial data management system, such as
DataShed, and the ongoing checking of such a database to be of high industry standard.
During the resource estimation process for the Husab Uranium Project, Coffey Mining
checked the top 500 assays from the prospect against the original laboratory assay files. No
material errors were identified during this check. Coffey Mining considers that the Extract
database is of high quality and suitable for use in the resource estimation.

12 SAMPLING METHOD AND APPROACH
12.1 Diamond Core Sampling
The portions of holes to be sampled are selected at the discretion of the geologist completing
the logging. In general all zones of alaskite and internal schist are sampled. Hand
spectrometer surveys on all drill core is also used to help identify zones of anomalous
uranium mineralisation for sampling. The drill core is logged in detail, intervals for sampling
selected and an appropriate sampling form completed. The core is then cut evenly down the
middle using a diamond saw. The two halves of each piece of core are placed back in the
core tray in the original position.
The drill core is sampled in 1m intervals by trained and supervised technicians. Each metre is
sampled by taking the left-hand half of each piece of core for that metre and placing it into an
appropriately labelled sample bag, leaving the remaining half core in the tray for reference
purposes.
Calico sample bags with draw-strings are used for core sampling, identified by sample tickets.
One half of each ticket (identical halves), which has a printed sequence of six digit sample
numbers, is placed into the calico sampling bag. The technician completing the sampling
annotates the hole number and the sample interval on the remaining portion of the sample
ticket. As part of the quality control protocols, the technician verifies that the metre interval
marked on the core matches the metre interval written on the sample ticket, and also matches
the metre interval on the sample form. The technician also verifies that the corresponding
sample number on the sample form for that interval matches the sample number on the ticket
and also matches the sample number written on the sample bag.
Sample intervals are generally one metre in length, although sample intervals can be reduced
to 25cm or multiples thereof within suspected mineralised zones. Once the entire metre, or
fraction thereof, has been sampled and placed in the calico bag along with the sample ticket,
the bag is tied firmly.
Samples for each hole are placed into large polyweave bags, with approximately 12-20 samples
per bag. The bags were then numbered and labelled with the enclosed sample numbers and
then taped closed.
In batches of approximately 1,000 samples, the polyweave bags are loaded onto a truck and
sent with a dispatch sheet to the Genalysis Laboratory Services Pty. Ltd. (Genalysis)
preparation laboratory in Johannesburg, South Africa.

12.2 RC Sampling and Logging
12.2.1 Resource Drilling

For the resource definition drilling, 1m samples are taken. The RC samples are collected
from the cyclone into a large plastic bag. The sample is then split using a three tiered splitter
(with approximately 38mm wide riffles) to obtain a ⅛ split (approximately 5kg). The samples
are poured evenly across the full width of the riffles (Figure 12.3.1_1).
Figure 12.3.1_1
Husab Uranium Project RC Drilling
The 5kg split is then re-split using the lower tier of the riffle to obtain an approximately 2kg to
2.5kg sample which is then sent to the laboratory for analysis (laboratory sample). The
remaining sample is kept as a reference sample. A handheld spectrometer is used to obtain
an empirical eU3O8 assay from each sample after splitting.
The sample bags are labelled in permanent marker pen. Extract uses a system of pre-
numbered sample books with removable tags to ensure that the correct sample numbering is
undertaken. The removable tag bearing the sample ID is placed inside each plastic laboratory
sample bag and then secured with a cable tie. The stub left behind in the sample book is
filled out with the hole and interval details for the sample, ensuring that there is a permanent
record kept.

Sampling consistency, accuracy of the drillhole metre intervals and sample ID information is
monitored by the RC site supervisor and the rig geologist on a regular basis throughout the
drilling of a hole. The mass of each sub-sample for submission to the laboratory is checked
using a set of kitchen scales. The sampling observed by Coffey Mining was of a high
recovery.
Prior to August 2008, sample recovery was visually checked by the supervising geologist but
not routinely recorded. Visual estimates of the sample bags on site indicate a consistent high
recovery. Since August 2008, Extract has commenced weighing of the sample bags for
recovery estimates and recorded these results.
12.2.2 Exploration Drilling

For exploration RC or RAB drilling and where significant mineralisation is not expected to be
found (e.g. alluvial cover), 5m composite samples are taken. These samples are taken using
a spear. Each metre sample is homogenised, by holding the bag shut and kneading or
massaging the bag and the spear is inserted through the full depth of the bulk sample.
12.2.3 QAQC Sampling

Check samples in the form of standards, field duplicates and blank samples are inserted into
the sampling stream with their sample IDs forming part of the general sample sequence.
Standards are currently inserted at a rate of 3 in every 100 samples such that sample
numbers ending in “00”, “30” and “70” are standards. Field duplicates are taken at a rate of
3 in every 100 samples such that sample numbers ending in “36”, “66” or “96” are duplicates
of intervals ending in “35”, “65” and “95”. Blank samples are inserted at a rate of 3 in every
100 samples such that sample numbers ending in “10”, “40” or “80” are blanks.
12.3 Sampling Quality
Coffey Mining has reviewed Extracts sampling procedures and observed the drilling and
sampling practices in the field and found that overall they were of a high standard. All
technicians appear well trained and are effectively supervised by Extract staff.

13 SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES AND SECURITY
13.1 Sample Security
Drill samples are produced at the drill sites under the direct supervision of Extract personnel.
All sampling is carried out by Extract’s field staff, under the supervision of Extract’s geological
staff. All drilling samples are kept under supervision of Extract staff at their exploration camp
until dispatch. Samples are currently transported via Windhoek, to the Genalysis preparation
laboratory in Johannesburg. Due to the remoteness of the exploration camp and the
supervision by Extract personnel, Coffey Mining considers that there is little opportunity for
sample tampering by an outside agent.
13.2 Analytical Laboratories
Genalysis has been used as the principal analytical laboratory. The sample preparation is
completed in Johannesburg, South Africa, and the analytical laboratory in Perth, Australia,
assay the pulps.
The National Association of Testing Authorities Australia (NATA) has accredited Genalysis
Laboratory Services Pty Ltd, following demonstration of its technical competence, to operate
in accordance with ISO/IEC 17025 (1999) which includes the management requirements of
ISO 9002:1994. This facility is accredited in the field of Chemical Testing for the tests,
calibrations and measurements shown in the Scope of Accreditation issued by NATA.
Set Point Laboratories has been accredited to operate in accordance with ISO/IEC 17025 by
the South African National Accreditation System (SANAS), which is responsible for the
accreditation of laboratories (testing and calibration).
13.3 Sample Preparation and Analytical Procedure
The primary sample preparation and analysis is completed at the Genalysis preparation
laboratory in Johannesburg, South Africa, and the Genalysis analytical facility in Perth, Australia.
Coffey Mining has reviewed the Johannesburg facility and considers it to be well organised and
operated. The sample preparation includes crushing and pulverizing, and a Flowsheet showing
the complete preparation undergone by every sample is shown Figure 13.3_1.
The primary sample pulps are sent to Genalysis in Perth for analysis for U. Other elements
that have been assayed on occasions in the past are Au, Ag, Cu, Ni, Zn, Nb, Ta, Th, C, and
S. Specific gravity determinations (pycnometry) are carried out on sample pulps at a rate of
one sample in 10. Some umpire pulp duplicates from very early drilling at the Husab Project
have been analysed by Set Point in South Africa for uranium only by pressed pellet XRF.
Umpire samples from the Husab Uranium Project have been submitted to Ultratrace, Perth.
The umpire samples were analysed for U only, using a peroxide fusion followed by ICP-MS.
The majority of the U assaying has been completed using inductively coupled plasma mass
spectroscopy (ICP-MS) while inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectroscopy
(ICP-AES) methods with appropriate collectors, for example 30g fire assay for gold and nickel
sulphide collection for PGEs have also been applied.

Figure 13.3_1
Flow Diagram of Sample Preparation at the Genalysis Sample Preparation Facility
in Johannesburg, South Africa
Between September 2008 and February 2009, Extract included pressed pellet XRF. The
change was initiated primarily to get an increase in the sample turn around time and to reduce
the backlog of samples currently awaiting analyses at the lab. The pressed pellets is produced
at the Perth laboratory and analysed for U, Th, Sr and Rb. U is reported to a detection limit of
5ppm.
A brief summary of the analytical methods used by Genalysis is provided below:
Au (detection limit=1ppb) by aqua regia digest, analysed by inductively coupled plasma

(ICP) mass spectrometry (B/MS), and repeats analysed by graphite furnace atomic
absorption spectrometry (B/ETA) with a detection limit of 1ppb.
Ag (0.01ppm) and U (0.01ppm) by ICP-MS following an aqua regia digest (B/MS).
Cu (1ppm), Ni (1ppm) and Zn (1ppm) by flame atomic absorption spectrometry following

an aqua regia digest (B/AAS).
Cu (0.01%) by modified (for higher precision) multi-acid digest including hydrofluoric,

nitric, perchloric and hydrochloric acids, and analysed by flame atomic absorption
spectrometry (AX/AAS).
Cu by flame atomic absorption spectrometry following a four acid digest (AT/AAS).

Uranium by ICP-MS following a four acid digest (AT/MS).
Uranium by ICP-MS following a sodium peroxide fusion (DX/MS).
Uranium by XRF (Pressed Pellet).
SG by pycnometry. The pycnometer measures the volume of powdered and porous

materials as well as solid objects. From this the density of the material can be
calculated. Precision is enhanced by using as large a sample as possible.
Table 13.3_1 summarises the analytical techniques used for the Husab core.
Table 13.3_1
Summary of Assaying by Laboratory for Au, Ag, Cu, Ni, U, Zn and SG
Laboratory Analytical Detection Total

Element Comment
Code Method Limits Samples
Genalysis B/MS 1ppb 0
Au
Genalysis B/ETA 1ppb 0
Ag Genalysis B/MS 0.01ppm 288
Genalysis B/AAS 1ppm 0
Cu Genalysis AX/AAS 0.01% 0
Genalysis AT/AAS 1ppm 288 Standard Method used
Ni Genalysis B/AAS 1ppm 288
Genalysis B/MS 0.01ppm 0
Genalysis AT/MS 0.01ppm 362,460 Standard Method used
U
Genalysis DX/MS 0.1ppm 0
Genalysis XRF 5ppm 54,567
Set Point XRF 7ppm 0 Pressed Pellet
Zn Genalysis B/AAS 1ppm 288
SG Genalysis /GPYCN 0.01g/cm³ 42,692 Gas Displacement pycnometer
13.4 Bulk Density Determinations
Extract currently uses the water immersion method for determining density of core billets. The
bulk density measurements are discussed in Sections 17.1.5 (Zone 1) and 17.2.3 (Zone 2).
Specific gravity (SG) readings are also taken, determined by pycnometry at Genalysis. In
practice, these readings can be expected to be 3% to 10% higher than the relevant bulk
density in solid competent rock (e.g. a granitoid) as pycnometer determinations do not take
into account porosity in the rocks or minerals.
A review of the site density data in 2010 indicated that sample recording and procedural
errors were resulting in some spurious high and low density data being recorded. The site
density procedures have recently been reviewed and revised recording practices have been
suggested to mitigate future recording errors.

13.5 Radiometric Downhole Assaying
Radiometric assays are collected from a Gamma Ray Spectrometer 42 (GRS) tool operated
by Terratec Geophysical Services Namibia (TGS). The GRS tool uses a 250 to 500 channel
Na(TI) scintillator with a crystal of 25mm diameter and 500mm length. The dead time of the
detector is 4µs. Readings are provided in an electronic format in a .LAS file.
The .LAS file contains information such as Hole ID, location (latitude and longitude), date,
count per second data( total, K, U and Th channels), eU3O8 (calculated from the total count
channel), U3O8 (calculated from the U data), and ThO2 (calculated from the Th channel).
Based upon the recommendation of TGS, the eU3O8 values (derived from the total count data)
were used in the estimation studies. The U3O8 data (source from the U channel) was not
used as it was considered to be too noisy due to the relatively lower sample count.
13.6 Adequacy of Procedures
The analytical methods and laboratories adopted are considered appropriate. The sampling
methods, chain of custody procedures, sample preparation procedures and analytical
techniques are all considered appropriate and are compatible with accepted industry
standards.
In light of the recent disequilibrium study by Extract (Culpan, 2008), it is suggested that a
water correction factor be considered to any future radiometric results.

14 DATA VERIFICATION
As the primary focus to the Husab Uranium Project is uranium exploration, the assessment of
the quality control data will focus solely on the uranium data. Coffey Mining has previously
analysed the QAQC data for the Garnet Valley, Ida Dome and New Camp prospects (Inwood,
2008) and found the data to be of good quality.
The following discussion is based upon QAQC report compiled by Extract in July 2010
(Wilson, 2010); however all opinions are from Coffey Mining. The results of the analysis are
in line with the QAQC audit of Extract’s assay data undertaken by Coffey Mining in August
2008 (Inwood, 2008) and in the December 2008 review of QAQC data. The following review
th th
deals with the QAQC data collected from between 15 July 2009 and 7 July 2010. Coffey
Mining has reviewed the underlying data used to create the report and considers the results to
be reliable. Summary plots from the QAQC report are reproduced in Appendix 1.
14.1 Standards and Blanks
14.1.1 Extract Submitted Standards and Blanks

For the RC drilling, Extract is currently inserting blank and standard samples at the rate of
3 blanks and 3 standards per 100 samples. Additionally, field duplicates are inserted at a rate of
1:33. The Extract standards have been sourced from African Mineral Standards (AMIS), a
reputable laboratory.“Sample numbers ending in “00”, “30” and “70” were allocated to standards.
Sample numbers ending in “36”, “66” and “76” were allocated to duplicates of the previous
samples. Sample numbers ending in “10”, “40” and “80” were allocated to blanks. In addition
extra blanks, up to a maximum of 5 per hole, were targeted on high grade intervals as indicated
by a hand-held spectrometer. These were placed 2 samples after the high grade sample
because the laboratory uses two mills and processes alternate samples through each. "
Summary control plots from these standards are in Appendix 1.
Some of the Husab Uranium Project data analysed exhibited instances of probable sample
misnumbering; these outliers were excluded from the analysis. Wilson (2010) reported the
standards using combined ICP and XRF data against the expected value of the standards
when measured by ICP.
The results of the standards analyses are shown in Figure 14.1.1_1 and indicate overall good
accuracy and precision for all of the standards. The results of standards AMIS0046, 154 and
156 exhibits positive bias of between 6.1% to 7.7%, however this bias is not seen in other
standards of similar value and there is a low sample count for Standards AMIS0154 and
AMIS0156.
The 5,206 blanks generally report well, with some contamination (up to 71ppm U3O8, but
typically less than 15ppm U3O8) evident for intervals reportedly near high-grade mineralisation.

Figure 14.1.1_1
Extract Submitted Standards and Blanks
(Wilson, 2010)

14.1.2 Laboratory Blanks and Standards

A total of 6 standards inserted by Genalysis were identified in the database. Summary control
plots from these standards are in Appendix 1.
The results of the standards analysis are shown in Figure 14.1.2_1. Overall, the results
indicate acceptable accuracy and precision for the bulk of the standards present, with a 6.5%
bias indicated for the very low grade sample ORESA-45P (E.V. 2.4ppm U).
Figure 14.1.2_1
Laboratory Submitted Standards and Blanks
(Wilson, 2010)
The results of the laboratory control blanks exhibit low contamination.

14.2 Duplicates
Extract submitted field duplicate samples at the rate of 3 duplicate per 100 samples for the
RC drilling. Up to November 2009, field duplicates were taken as a split of the first split that
was taken for the laboratory sample (coded as RC_SPLIT). Post November 2009, the
method was changed so that the entire reject sample was re-split (coded as RC_DUP). A
total of 2,267 RC_SPLIT and 2,389 RC_DUP data pairs were available for analysis.
The duplicates data was filtered for samples above 10ppm U for the Genalysis data. This was
done to limit the undue relative effect that small grade differences will have on low grade
samples. Summary plots of the duplicates data are located in Appendix 1.
Scatter plots of both field duplicate datasets shows a good correlation (Appendix 1) for both
scatter and Quantile-Quantile (QQ) plots. Precision plots and statistics of the duplicate data
indicate very high precision with 95% of the data within a 20% Rank Half Absolute Relative
Difference (HARD, also referred to as Mean Absolute Paired Difference – MAPD). The RC
field duplicates exhibit good precision, with between 82% and 84% of the samples returning
within a 10% Rank HARD precision level. Likewise the laboratory pulp repeats exhibit very
high precision levels with 97% of the data within a 10% Rank HARD precision level.
A total of 2,946 internal laboratory pulp duplicates were also analysed. A total of 97% of the
data fell within a 10% rank HARD. Summary statistics for the duplicates data is shown in
Table 14.2_1.
Table 14.2_1
Summary of Uranium Precision Data
Number of % Within RANK HARD Limits Comparative Means (ppm)

Sample Type
Data Pairs (10%/20%) (Original Lab./Duplicate Lab.)
RC Field Duplicates – Old
2,267 84/95 78/80
Method – RC_SPLIT
RC Field Duplicates – New
2,389 82/95 68/68
Method – RC_DUP
Umpire Pulp Duplicates 910 88/97 708/734
Laboratory Pulp Repeats1 2,946 97/99 77/77
1
Genalysis Perth
A total of 910 pulps from Genalysis were sent to Ultra Trace for umpire analysis purposes
using ICP-MS after a peroxide fusion digest. The 910 samples represented approximately
10% of the +75ppm U3O8 samples collected during the study period. The Ultra Trace analysis
reported 3.5% higher mean grade than the Genalysis analysis, with the effect being most
evident for samples between 700ppm U3O8 and 1,300ppm U3O8. A total of 88% of the
samples reported above a 10% rank HARD limit.

14.3 Data Quality Summary
The analysis of the standard and duplicate data indicates industry acceptable levels of
precision and accuracy. The Umpire pulp duplicated data reports well, indicating good
repeatability between laboratories. Similar quality trends are seen as for previous results
analysed by Coffey Mining.
Although the screen size testwork indicates that the pulverisation is producing less than the
ideal 85% of the sample passing a 75 micron sieve, the high precision levels demonstrated by
the pulp and field duplicates do not indicate that this is negatively impacting with the assaying
process.
The Extract assaying is considered to meet industry acceptable levels of quality and is
suitable for resource estimation studies.

15 ADJACENT PROPERTIES
The highly prospective Central Zone of the Damara Orogeny contains the Rössing uranium
mine (which has produced approximately 260 million pounds of uranium since the start of
operations in 1976), the Langer Heinrich uranium mine (owned by Paladin Energy), the Valencia
deposit (owned by a subsidiary of Forsys Metals Corporation) and the Etango Project –
(formerly referred to as Goanikontes, owned by Bannerman Resources Limited) (Figure 15_1).
Figure 15_1
Location of Uranium Deposits on Properties Adjacent to the Extract Tenement Holdings
All of the information pertaining to the adjacent properties is disclosed publicly by the owner or
operator of the adjacent properties through their websites. The qualified persons and authors
of this report have not been able to verify all of the information with respect to the adjacent
properties contained in this report. The information on the adjacent properties is not
necessarily indicative of the mineralisation at the Husab Uranium Project that is the subject of
this report.

15.1 Rössing Uranium Mine
The Rössing Mine, operated by a subsidiary of Rio Tinto, is located approximately

6 kilometres from the northern boundary of the Husab Project. The uranium bearing
stratigraphy is interpreted to trend into the project areas under superficial cover (Husab
Uranium Project). The bulk of the economic mineralisation associated with the Rössing
deposit is hosted by alaskite on the northern limb of the “mine” synclinorium. The alaskite is
preferentially emplaced into the pyroxene-hornblende gneiss and biotite-amphibole schist
units of the Khan Formation in the northern ore zone, and into biotite-amphibole schist/lower
marble/lower biotite-cordierite gneiss of the Rössing Formation in the central ore zone.
The alaskite is widely distributed beyond the limits of the open pit, but is not uniformly
uraniferous. Portions are entirely barren or only slightly mineralised and only a few restricted
sections are sufficiently mineralised to support exploitation. Alaskite hosts all primary and
most of the secondary uranium minerals.
15.2 Etango Deposit
The Etango Uranium project is owned by Bannerman Resources Ltd (Bannerman) and
contains Measured, Indicated and Inferred uranium resources hosted within alaskites. The
deposit is located 6.5 kilometres west of the Husab Project on the western margin of the
Palmenhorst Dome. The eastern extension of the Palmenhorst Dome trends into the region
of Extract’s Hildendorf Prospect.
In October 2010, Bannerman publicly released resources for Etango consisting of a Measured
Resource of 62.7Mt at 205ppm U3O8, an Indicated Mineral Resource of 273.5Mt at 200ppm U3O8
and an Inferred Mineral Resource of 164.6Mt at 176ppm U3O8 above a 100ppm U3O8 lower
cutoff.
15.3 Langer Heinrich Deposit
The region also hosts a number of secondary uranium occurrences, the best documented of
which is the Langer Heinrich calcrete-hosted uranium deposit, which is owned by Paladin
Energy Ltd (Paladin), located approximately 30km southeast of Husab. Paladin commenced
mining on the deposit in December 2006.
Calcrete cemented sediments of Tertiary age are widely distributed throughout the region and
represent viable exploration targets, including in areas of alluvial cover where radiometric
geophysical surveying is not effective.
In October 2010, Paladin publicly released resources for Langer Heinrich consisting of a
Measured Resources of 46.7Mt at 0.053% U3O8, an Indicated Mineral Resource of 77.6Mt at
0.055% U3O8 and an Inferred Mineral Resource of 18.5Mt at 0.06% U3O8 above a 250ppm U3O8
lower cutoff.

16 MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING
16.1 Introduction
The metallurgical testwork commenced with laboratory scale batch testwork conducted at a
scoping level in July 2008 and continued through to a hydrometallurgical and comminution
pilot plant testwork phase that commenced in April 2010 and concluded in November 2010.
The ore body exists in two defined areas, namely Zone 1 and Zone 2. The two zones differ in
terms of grade and mineralogy and have largely been tested separately. The current mining
plan is to commence production on Zone 1 ore in years’ one and two, with Zone 2 being
introduced in year three. The feed to the process plant will be a blend of Zone 1 and 2 ore
which will vary in proportion depending on the mining plan.
The following laboratory scale batch testwork was conducted on selected drill cores that were
deemed to be representative of the ore body, albeit with emphasis on samples representing
the early years of production.
Head assays
Mineralogy
Comminution
Dilute leach testwork
Agitated leach testwork
Flotation
Heap leach amenability
Radiometric ore sorting
Ion exchange
Solvent extraction using ammonium hydroxide strip
Ammonium diuranate precipitation
The following aspects of the selected process were tested at pilot plant scale:
Leaching
Dilution and screening
Fines thickening
Thickener underflow re-leach
Pressure filtration of leach residue
Continuous ion exchange

Solvent extraction using sodium carbonate strip
Sodium diuranate precipitation
Uranyl peroxide precipitation
During the hydrometallurgical pilot plant phase, selected equipment vendors were invited to
conduct equipment specific tests to develop design data.
FL Smidth – filtration and thickening
Larox – filtration
Delkor – filtration
RPA Filtres Phillipe – filtration
Mixtec – agitation
Huntsman – coagulation
Flottweg – centrifuge
Comminution pilot plant testwork was conducted to confirm the selection of single stage semi-
autogenous (SAG) milling as the preferred milling option due to simplicity and the ability to
satisfy the minimum fines generation requirements of down-stream processes. Three circuits
were selected based on comminution modelling and were configured to produce a milled
product of P80<780µm:
Single stage SAG milling and a secondary pebble crushing stage.
Primary SAG milling, secondary ball milling and a secondary pebble crushing stage.
Primary SAG milling, secondary rod milling and a secondary pebble crushing stage.
16.2 Metallurgical Batch Testwork
This section summarises testwork completed in Sydney and in Perth on diamond drillholes
representing various grades and rock lithologies across the length, width and depth of the
Husab Zone 1 and Zone 2 deposits of the Husab Uranium Project located in Namibia. This
testwork programme commenced in March 2009. The sample preparation and comminution
testwork of this programme was completed at SGS Oretest. The majority of Zone 1 leaches
were completed at ANSTO and Zone 2 leaches at SGS Oretest. This report also summarises
the scoping level metallurgical testwork results completed on composites prepared from a
single diamond drillhole, RDD002, from Zone 1. The testwork was completed at Ammtec in
Perth between July and October 2008.

16.2.1 Sample Selection and Composite Formation

Drillholes were selected based on their location, uranium grades and rock lithology to provide
sufficient coverage of all parameters. There was also an emphasis on samples representing
the first few years of production. The majority of composites represent the major rock type in
the Zones 1 and 2 resource of uraniferous leucogranite (Alaskite and Pegmatite), representing
70% of the ore tonnes. The RDD002 composites tested in the Ammtec scoping programme
represent one Zone 1 diamond drillhole whereas the Feasibility Study programme includes
13 drillholes from Zone 1 producing 44 Drillhole Composites and 15 drillholes from Zone 2
producing 62 Drillhole Composites. Drillhole Composites have been selected based on rock
lithology categories as determined by field logging of the drill core. The rock lithology
categories selected are alaskite (>80% alaskite or pegmatite), biotite schist (>50% biotite
schist), calc silicate (>50% calc silicate), gneiss (>50% gneiss) and mixture (includes all other
rock lithology distributions not matching the categories).
16.2.2 Head Assays

One of the issues encountered during the composite formation process was that over 60% of
the Zone 1 Drillhole Composites selected from cross sections had higher assay grades than
expected. This results in a large proportion of the composites with grades higher than the
estimated Zone 1 global resource grade of 442ppm U3O8.The assay grades of Ca, K, Mg and Si
can be used to confirm the rock lithology with calcsilicate containing higher distributions of Ca, K
and Mg replacing Si whereas alaskite is lower in Ca, K, Mg and higher in Si. All rock lithologies
contain a range of sulphur head grades, determined to be mostly sulphide sulphur, ranging from
0 to 3,0% and has proved to have a significant impact on the leach reagent consumptions. The
weighted average sulphur grades for Zone 1 composites tested is 0.44% and Zone 2 0.38%.
16.2.3 Mineralogy
Uraninite is the predominant uranium mineral present with the major occurrence as discrete
uraninite grains with minor occurrences on margins, rims, veins and inclusions. Varying
amounts of coffinite were identified with trace to minor brannerite and trace thorite identified
(Townend, 2008-2010). No refractory uranium mineralisation (such as betafite) was identified in
the samples at ANSTO Minerals (Prince & Kelly, 2009) and only traces of betafite were
identified in two of the seven samples analysed by the QEMSCAN (quantitative evaluation of
minerals by scanning electron microscopy) work at the University of Witwatersrand in
Johannesburg, South Africa (Freemantle, 2009 & 2010). Mineralogy of leach Test L1RS -38µm
feed and residue of the Alaskite composite (Prince & Kelly, June 2009) concluded that the
uraninite, coffinite and thorite had leached and the brannerite showed signs of chemical attack
but had not leached at the conditions of the test. Follow up work determined that the brannerite,
which accounts for approximately 2% of the total uranium in the sample could be leached at
higher acidity and temperature. Analysis of leach residues (Prince & Kelly, August and
November 2009) confirmed the majority of uranium present in the form of brannerite with
inclusions of uraninite in gangue accounting for a high distribution of the remaining losses. The
three ore type composites are all comprised of the major rock forming minerals microcline,
albite, quartz, mica (muscovite and/or biotite/phlogopite) with some chlorite (as clinochlore) with
the distribution varying for each ore type. Minor phases observed were a Ca-Mg-Al-Fe-silicate
(ferroandiopside), pyrite, sphene, apatite and ilmenite.

Zircon is also evident in the calc-silicate and biotite schist composites. Since project initiation
the focus of the mineralogical studies has shifted from the identification of uranium mineral
phases and their mineralogical distribution and associations in the ore, to a need to understand
differences in the distribution, composition and abundance of the gangue minerals present, and
how these differences may be impacting upon the leach chemistry and reagent consumptions
and the physical characteristics of the leached slurry.
16.2.4 Comminution
Extensive comminution testwork has been completed on drillhole composites and pilot plant
feed composites (Hill, 2010) with the outcome that:
Two thirds of the samples are classified as having a medium-strong unconfined

compressive strength (UCS) and does not impact on the selection of the type of crusher;
The average crushing work index (CWI )of ~7 kWh/t is relatively low and does not impact
on the selection of the type of crusher;
tested using this method (>8,000 in total). The average A x b is 65-78 and the
Dwi 3.6-4.2kWh/m³;
The abrasion index results are above average at 0.34-0.36 and it would be expected that
a significant amount of abrasion wear on crushing and grinding wear components and
grinding media will occur through the comminution circuit, however the impact on wear
on crushing and grinding components can be reduced during the process plant design
stage;
The bond rod mill work index (BRMWI) is moderate, averaging 12.4 to 13.4 kWh/t;
The BRMWI and the bond ball mill work index (BBMWI) results show an increasing work
index for finer grinds below about 400µm but the work index is similar for grind sizes
above 400µm;
The comminution characteristics are related to grain size with lower values produced from the
coarse grained pegmatite samples compared to the alaskite samples. The biotite schist is harder
than both uraniferous leucogranites.
16.2.5 Dilute Leach Testwork

Dilute leaches were completed on pulverised samples at very low densities and were aimed at
determining the maximum extraction under expected plant conditions and also the maximum
extraction under more severe, but still realistic conditions. The recoveries at the expected
plant conditions were 96.5% for the alaskite composite, 94.5% for the biotite schist composite
and 98.5% for the calcium silicate composite and the recoveries increase by between 0.4%
and 1.7% at the more severe conditions.

16.2.6 Agitated Leach Testwork

Encouraging results have been produced from the agitated leach testwork programme. The
composites appear to be relatively insensitive to grind size between grind sizes of P80 355 to
710µm, with finer grinds yielding approximately marginal increases in recoveries. Variations
in pH and/or free acid, Oxidation Reduction Potential (ORP) and ferric concentration similar
uranium results, which is indicative of a robust ore where fluctuations in process plant
parameters are not expected to impact on plant recoveries. The test conditions impact more
on reagent consumptions than uranium recovery.
The optimum parameters selected from the ANSTO testwork programme on the alaskite
composite for variability testing of the drillhole composites were:
P80 710µm;
pH 1.5;
500mV ORP with pyrolusite;
1.0g/L ferric addition;
40ºC;
55% solids.
Subsequent testing at SGS Oretest refined the conditions to:
4-5g/L free acid instead of pH control;
2.0g/L ferric concentration instead of ORP control.
A minimum of 0.5g/L ferric is required at the commencement of the leach to produce rapid
leach kinetics, however the recirculation of process solutions back to the leach will provide a
source of iron and iron addition to the leach may not be required. The use of a synthetic
process solution for leaching appears to reduce the acid consumption by about 10%. The
comparative tests of 55% and 70% w/w solids leach densities produced the same results
albeit with reduced agitation speeds at 70% solids to minimise abrasion of the solids. Forty
four Zone 1 drillhole composites and sixty one Zone 2 drillhole composites have been leached
in the variability programme. It was noted during the ANSTO variability programme (Prince &
Kelly, Nov. 2009) that there is a strong correlation between sulphur head grade and total iron
in solution. It was apparent that this iron was present as ferrous and due to the leach control
mechanism at ANSTO of maintaining an ORP the majority of the ferrous is oxidised to ferric,
which consumes pyrolusite, thus there is a strong correlation between sulphur head grade
and pyrolusite consumption. ANSTO have established from testing of the Groote Eylandt
pyrolusite that 2kg/t of acid is consumed for every 1kg/t of pyrolusite consumed. As a
consequence there is a correlation between sulphur head grade and acid consumption.

Modification of the control at SGS Oretest to maintaining a ferric concentration instead of

maintaining an ORP impacted positively on pyrolusite consumption and subsequently acid
consumption. The sulphur grade association led to formation of sub categories under each
lithology category. Sulphur grades were split at 0.16% with values equal to or less than this
categorised as low sulphur and grades >0.16% categorised as high sulphur. The acid
consumption is greater for all high sulphur categories (compared to low sulphur) except for
Rössing Formation calcsilicate where the acid consumption is driven more by calcium and
magnesium content. The increased dissolution of iron for the higher sulphur head grade
samples was not directly due to the sulphides but indirectly related due to an association of iron
dissolution from minerals associated with these sulphides. It appears that for Zones 1 and 2,
leach performance is driven by a residue grade which remains relatively constant with varying
head grades. The recommended residue grades to be used in the mining and financial models
are:
55ppm U3O8 for Zone 1;
44ppm U3O8 for Zone 2.
Leach recoveries can then be calculated from these residue grades and head grades.
The acid consumption comparison of batch leach tests and continuous leach tests (pilot plant)
concluded that no factors could be consistently applied to the variability leach tests to scale
batch tests to continuous tests. However water type comparisons concluded that acid
consumption when leaching in re-circulated process solution is about 10% less than leaching
in Tap Water (either Sydney or Perth) thus a factor can be applied to the average acid
consumption:
Zone 1 and 2 low sulphur Rössing Formation alaskite 14.6kg/t acid consumption;
Zone 1 high sulphur Rössing Formation alaskite 18.7kg/t acid consumption;
Zone 2 high sulphur Rössing Formation alaskite 27.5kg/t acid consumption;
Zone 1 low sulphur Rössing Formation Rössing 21.8kg/t acid consumption;
Zone 2 low sulphur Rössing Formation Rössing 18.2kg/t acid consumption;
Zone 1 high sulphur Rössing Formation Rössing 29.9kg/t acid consumption;
Zone 2 high sulphur Rössing Formation Rössing 22.0kg/t acid consumption;
Zone 2 low sulphur Chuos Formation Chuos 16.1kg/t acid consumption;
Zone 2 high sulphur Chuos Formation Chuos 21.8kg/t acid consumption.

The acid consumption of the Rössing Formation calcsilicate is a function of Ca + Mg grade

and is not influenced by sulphur content. Without Ca + Mg resource data the acid
consumption for this category has been determined by calculating the weighted average acid
consumption of the 7 x drillhole composites (Zone 1 and 2 combined) of 46.0kg/t and
application of the water type factor reduces this to 41.4kg/t. This consumption can be applied
to all calcsilicate from both zones irrespective of sulphur grade.
16.2.7 Flotation
Flotation regimes at pH 2.5 and natural pH have produced high recoveries with lower flotation
tail grades than leach residue grades on a single composite, however the flotation programme
was plagued with poor repeatability. The option of flotation maybe negatively impacted by the
requirement to grind finer than for leaching, higher unit costs for flotation reagents compared
to acid.
16.2.8 Heap Leach Amenability

Heap leach amenability testing in the form of bottle rolls have recovered between 53 and 81%
of the uranium at crush sizes of -12.5mm on a number of drillhole composites ranging in rock
lithology and grade. The recovery is crush size dependant with the size fraction recoveries
decreasing significantly above about 4.75mm. Column leach testwork completed for over
100 days on a resource grade drillhole composite, RDD018A, recovered 68% and 64% at
crush sizes of -6.3 and -12.5mm respectively. This results in column residue grades of
138 and 157ppm U3O8 respectively and compares to 35ppm from a P80 500µm agitated leach.
Heap leach amenability recoveries are not high enough to continue testing and no further
heap leach amenability testing will be completed.
16.2.9 Ion Exchange

A commercial strong base gel type I resin, Amberjet 4400Cl, widely used in the industry for
the uranium recovery from sulphate solutions, was used for the testwork.
The main findings were as follows:
High equilibrium loadings were achieved on the resin (77g/L U3O8 [wet settled resin] wsr)
under standard loading conditions (pH 1.5 and 40°C) and a feed concentration of
1.4g/L U3O8 in the PLS. The equilibrium loading for a projected PLS tenor of ~400mg/L
U3O8 in the PLS is also high at 65gg/L U3O8wsr);
Loading rates were as expected for this type of resin;
The impurity load on the fully loaded resin was low, notably with respect to Fe. The Fe/U
ratio on the loaded resin was 0.18% and this was improved with 0.05 M H2SO4 scrubbing
(3BV) prior to elution;
The concentration of Si on the loaded resin from a single column load cycle was
measured at ~3g/L. With repeated cycles of loading and elution, the impact of increased
Si concentration needs to be monitored in continuous trials to determine whether periodic
caustic regeneration is required;

Vanadium was effectively rejected by the resin;
The elution rate with 1M sulphuric acid was suitable and <10BV were required for column
elution to achieve <1g/L wsr U3O8 in the eluted resin;
The eluate produced was relatively clean, but due to the sulphate content (90g/L) it
required sulphate removal by gypsum precipitation prior to direct precipitation of uranium
with hydrogen peroxide;
Uranium precipitation with H2O2 resulted in nearly quantitative metal recovery, with
1.6mg/L uranium left in barren;
The uranyl peroxide produced experimentally was of sufficient quality to meet the less
stringent converter specifications. In this precipitation testwork, the lime used was not of
sufficient high quality and caused contamination of the uranium product, notably with
respect to Fe. With improved lime quality, it would be expected that a uranyl peroxide
precipitate could be produced that would be of sufficient quality to meet all converter
specifications.
16.2.10 Solvent Extraction

Some challenges were experienced with the stability of the composite leach solution. It was
found that on standing, the filtered solution became turbid, possibly due to bacterial or algae
growth or the formation of the insoluble Si compounds.
The laboratory batch solvent extraction testwork was performed using a mixture of 5 vol.%
Alamine 336 and 2 vol.% Isodecanol in Shellsol 2046. This solvent composition is widely
used in industrial processes for the concentration and purification of uranium.
The main findings were as follows:
Uranium loading was very favourable with a maximum equilibrium loading of up to 5.7g/L
achieved in the batch tests;
The physical characteristic of the loaded solvent in the batch tests were not found to be
favourable, with emulsion formation observed at >3g/L uranium loading;
The impurity load on the solvent was very low and it was demonstrated in batch tests that
a scrub circuit would be of limited benefit;
Stripping of solvent with ammonium sulphate/ammonia was tested and found to be very
favourable;
A batch bulk strip followed by precipitation of ammonium diuranate with ammonia

addition produced an ADU product meeting the most stringent converter specifications.

Overall, the ion exchange testwork was very encouraging with high equilibrium loadings,
reasonable uranium selectivity, suitable loading and elution kinetics and the possibility to
control the product purity with respect to iron with the introduction of a scrubbing step. In a
plant situation, the actual loading is expected to be considerably lower than the equilibrium
loading. In addition, the resin loading will also be lower than tested here due to lower
projected uranium concentrations in the PLS. The batch data generated in this testwork can
be used to model potential IX processes, either fixed bed, semi-continuous or fully continuous.
The predictions will then need to be experimentally confirmed. From the batch laboratory
testwork, it was recommended that an IX process be considered as the relatively low
concentrations of uranium in the PLS (350mg/L) combined with the issues associated with
PLS stability and filtration difficulties make it an ideal candidate for IX technology. This
preferred process configuration was tested continuously in a pilot plant in association with a
leaching circuit to provide representative leach liquors. Chemically, a solvent extraction
process would perform well, with the production of ADU expected to be well within converter
specifications. However, taking into account the observed issues associated with PLS
stability and solvent emulsification, the relatively low projected concentrations of uranium in
the PLS and the aggressive development timetable, it is not recommended that a direct
solvent extraction process be considered as a baseline option. From the batch work, it was
noted that continuous testing for solvent extraction would be imperative, in order to determine
whether these operational issues can be overcome for consideration in an eluex (IX/SX)
circuit configuration.
16.2.11 Precipitation
The IX eluate was used for precipitation with H2O2 and the SX strip solution was used for ADU
precipitation. Analysis of the IX eluate specifically with respect to iron indicated that there had
been contamination of the uranium product introduced via the lime used for gypsum
precipitation. When the estimated contribution of the impurities derived from lime is deducted
from the total amount of contaminants, the estimated purity of the final uranium product,
shown in Table 16.2.11_1, is well within the specification range.
16.2.12 Radiometric Ore Sorting

Analysis of the radiometric ore sorting testwork completed by UltraSort determined that the
radiometric sorting process is inefficient below about 250ppm U3O8.

Table 16.2.11_1
Uranium Product Analysis
Estimated
IX SX Cameco Converdyn Comurhex
Element Composition
(%) (%) (% wrt U) (% wrt U) (% wrt U)
of IX Ppt.* (%)
Al 0.10 0.002 0.05 0.10
Ag <0.003 <0.003 0.010
As <0.003 <0.003 0.010 0.010 1.00
Ba <0.03 <0.003 0.010
Ca 0.37 <0.03 3.00 0.050 1.00
Cd <0.003 <0.003 0.010
Cr <0.003 <0.003 0,010
Fe 0.25 0.001 0.01 1.00 0.15
K 0.03 0.05 0.20
Mg <0.03 0.02 3.00 0.020
Mn 0.004 0.004
Mo <0.003 <0.003 0.10 0.10 0.050
Na 0.28 0.006 0.03 0.50 1.00
Na + K 0.31 0.007 0.07 1.00
PO4 0.34 0.11 0.08 0.20 0.10 1.00
Pb <0.003 <0.003 0.010
S 0.22 1.00
SO4 0.66 1.31 1.00 3.00
Se <0.003 <0.003 0.010
Si 0.13 0.01 0.05 0.50
SiO2 0.28 0.02 0.10 0.50 0.50
Th <0.003 <0.003 0.50 0.10
Ti 0.02 0.0008 <0.003 0.50 0.10
U 79 71 75
V2O5 <0.01 <0.005 0.30
Zr <0.003 0.013 0.10 0.01 0.20
* Excludes contamination from lime addition
16.2.13 Other Testwork

Float/sink heavy liquid separation testwork completed on three size fractions from a P80 1mm
grind at varying SG’s produced an improved separation with increased liberation, but the light
fractions contained significant uranium values and heavy or dense media separation is not
likely to be effective in upgrading the Zones 1 and 2 ore. There was some evidence of silica
polymerisation in the IX/SX testwork and the vendor filtration testwork which was supported
by microfiltration tests. Following these outcomes and poor phase separation in the Pilot
Plant SX circuit trials with Polysil coagulants concluded that 60-80mg/l of RM1250 was
required to minimise crud formation in the SX circuit. The RM1250 was added to the CIX
eluant prior to feeding into the SX Extract circuit.
Pyrolusite activity tests were completed on six pyrolusite sources with the best results from:
UF74 – sourced from Morocco and the current source of pyrolusite used at Rössing;
The manganese grades of the samples vary and there is a correlation between Mn:Fe ratio
and available MnO2 but for UF74, due to its very low iron content and high Mn:Fe ratio.

The preferred product from this testing was UF74 and this was used during the Pilot Plant
programme and has been recommended as the preferred supply to site. A sample of Assmang
Hematite was tested to determine the dissolution of iron for addition to the leach circuit. The test
confirmed that Assmang Hematite was a possible source of ferric for the leach circuit, although
the Pilot Plant programme concluded that the leach circuit was self sufficient in iron. In the early
stages of acid leach testing and process flowsheet development there was an expectation that
neutralisation of some acid maybe required. Surface samples of “limestone” sourced from in
and around the Husab Uranium Project were collected for testwork. Activity tests determined
that 1.26t of limestone was required to neutralise 1.0t of acid at P80 75µm grind size. The
process flowsheet does not include neutralisation but if neutralisation is required at any stage of
the Project life the near mine samples could be used for this process.
16.3 Conclusions from Batch Laboratory Testwork
Comments on the outcomes of the study testwork programme include the following:
tested.
High uranium recoveries with >60% of the drillhole composite leach recoveries >90%.
The leach acid consumptions are generally below 25kg/t with excursions above this due
to high Ca and Mg ore or high Fe releasing ore, which contributes to oxidation of
excessive ferrous to ferric and a resultant increase in pyrolusite and acid consumptions.
The ore is relatively insensitive to grind size with incremental increases in uranium
recovery at finer grind sizes.
Reducing the leach temperature from 35ºC to 40ºC to 25ºC to 30ºC impacts on the leach
kinetics but has minimal impact on the final leach recovery.
IX testwork shows good selectivity of uranium from other impurities with low levels of
contaminants feeding downstream processing.
High quality precipitate produced from either H2O2 precipitation or ADU.
Heap leach amenability testing produced moderate recoveries of 64% to 68% at crush
sizes of -6.3mm and -12.5mm.
Radiometric ore sorting and dense media separation (DMS) or heavy media separation
(HMS) were determined to be ineffective in upgrading the ore.
Pre-concentration by flotation showed some promise, but the testwork data was not
reproducible.

16.4 Metallurgical Pilot Plant Testwork
The pilot plant metallurgical testwork programme consisted of two campaigns, namely a
confirmatory comminution at Mintek in South Africa (Mokwena et al, 2010) and hydrometallurgical
confirmatory batch testwork campaign with the main pilot plant campaign at SGS in Perth
(Jayasekera et al, 2010) consisting of three separate pilot plant runs totalling approximately 800
hours of operation.
16.4.1 Introduction
In the pilot plant tests, run one was a five-day reliability run while runs two and three (14 days
each) processed ore representative of the early mine production years. Throughout the run,
various samples were provided for selected vendor testwork. Off-line metallurgical testwork
was performed by SGS, F.L. Smidth Minerals, Larox Pty Ltd, Huntsman, Turnbery RPA / Filtres
Philippe and Flottweg.
Husab PQ drill core (85mm core diameter) samples were prepared to -5mm (top size) using a
jaw crusher, high pressure grinding rolls and cone crusher prior to commencement of run 1.
The sample was later re-crushed using a cone crusher to -2mm (top size) to better target the
leach feed size distribution. Run three of the continuous hydrometallurgical piloting campaign
conducted at SGS included the following stages:
Re-pulping;
Leaching;
Dilution and screening;
Fines thickening;
Thickener underflow re-leach (latter part of the run);
Filtration;
Continuous ion exchange (CIX), including a regeneration stage;
SX;
Recovery and refinery - SDU precipitation, sulphation, peroxide precipitation.
16.4.2 Ore Preparation

PQ core samples (ca. 9.6 tonnes) from the Husab deposit were received at SGS Lakefield
Oretest Pty Ltd (Malaga, WA) during February, 2010. All core samples were weighed, logged
and split into composites. Ore was separated into composite samples based on the mining
plan, spatial location, lithology and down hole spectrometer readings. Sufficient
representative material from selected composites comprising core samples and samples
crushed to a nominal top size of -35mm, was set aside for physical parameter testing
(comminution testwork). All remaining material from these composites was stage-crushed to
-16mm top size.

The remaining core was separated into assay composites and non-assay composites. Assay
and non-assay composites were stage-crushed to a -16mm top size. The assay composites
were rotary blended and a 1kg sub-sample was pulverized and assayed. Based on spatial
location, lithology, down hole spectrometer readings and composite uranium assays,
composite samples were grouped into yearly composite samples (reliability run, Zone 1 –
year 1, Zone 1 – year 2, Zone 1 – year 3 and Zone 2). All yearly composites were then
individually crushed through laboratory high pressure grinding rolls (HPGR). The HPGR
product was screened at 5mm with the oversize being stage-crushed (laboratory jaw and
cone crusher) to -5mm top size. Each yearly feed type was individually blended and split into
20kg bags. Prior to run three, all Zone 1 – year 2 and Zone 1 – year 3 material were crushed
to a -2mm top size and split into 10kg charges to accommodate the batch dry milling process.
16.4.3 Batch Dry Milling

Each composite sample was crushed at -2mm top size and batch dry milled in 10kg charges
for 20 minutes in a ball mill to provide feed for the leach and subsequent pilot plant testing.
16.4.4 Re-pulp
Dry ore (10kg/h) and CIX barren solution were mixed in a 6.5L agitated tank to achieve
71% (w/w) solids. The re-pulp discharge was an overflow arrangement that fed the leach circuit.
The Re-pulp circuit operated for 334 hours during run three with >99% availability.
16.4.5 Leaching
The leach circuit consisted of six tanks arranged in a cascade allowing gravity flow between
tanks via an overflow launder fitted with a pneumatic vibrator to aide slurry flow. The leach
tanks were fitted with water jackets to control the slurry temperature in the range 35°C to
40°C. Dilution of the slurry was achieved with SX raffinate (added to tank 2) and de-ionised
water (to tank 3). Target leach discharge slurry density was 69% (w/w) solids. The leach
tanks were fitted with down comers prior to the start of run three. Initially, concentrated (98%)
sulphuric acid was dosed to tank 1 (single dosing point) at a target flow rate equal to 21kg/t to
23kg/t of feed ore, in order to improve extraction due to the higher free acid concentration.
Sulphuric acid addition was controlled to target a free acid (sulphuric acid) concentration of
5.5g/L. On 15 May 2010, deionised water addition to tank 3 was replaced with 41g/L
sulphuric acid which was added at the same rate to target an acid addition of 1kg/t to tank 5.
On 16 May 2010, acid addition to the leach was modified. Acid was added to tanks 1 and 3 to
target 5g/L free acid in tanks 2 and 4. The target (tank 6) discharge free acid was 2g/L to
3g/L free acid. The lower free acid concentration was designed to minimise the dissolution
of undesirable ions such as iron. Finely ground (P80 -75µm) UF74 pyrolusite was manually
added every 15 minutes with 77% to 80% of the dose being added to tank 1 and 20% to 23%
to tank 3. Pyrolusite was dosed at a rate of 2kg/t to 3kg/t to target a ferric to ferrous ratio
3+ 2+
(Fe :Fe ) of 1.5 to 1.8.

Provision was made to add ferric sulphate (Ferriclear) solution to tanks 2 and 3 using
individual dosing pumps. However as in run 2, this was not required during run three.
Agitation was provided by a double, rubber coated, 4-bladed axial flow turbine impellers. The
impellers were removed at the termination of run 3 and there was noticeable wear on the
leading edge of all impellers. The volume of each leach tank was approximately 17 L and the
circuit retention time was approximately 12 hours. A tracer tests was undertaken in the leach
circuit during run three. Leached slurry was discharged to duty and standby surge tanks (one
filling and one emptying) each located on a weigh scale which fed the dilution and screening
circuit. The Leach circuit operated for 334 hours during run 3 with >99% availability.
16.4.6 Dilution and Screening

Leach discharge was pumped to a dilution tank (2,7 L) where it was diluted with CIX barren,
filtration liquors and thickener overflow solution. CIX barren flow to the dilution tank ceased
on 13 May 2010, in order to increase the uranium tenor in the thickener overflow (CIX feed).
The dilution tank discharge was pumped to a vibrating 106µm Kason screen where the stream
was split into coarse and fine fractions simulating a commercial cyclone operation. Screen
oversize was collected on an hourly basis and fed to the batch filtration circuit. Screen
undersize fines were fed to the fines thickening circuit.
16.4.7 Fines Thickening

Screen undersize slurry was pumped from the surge tank to the fines thickener pre-mix tank
where it was diluted with thickener overflow to <5% w/w solids. Magnafloc 351 flocculant
(hydrated in deionised water to 2.5g/L and then diluted in CIX barren to obtain 0.5g/L) was
added in-line as the slurry was pumped from the pre-mix tank to the thickener feed well.
Target flocculant addition for the entire circuit was 50g/t of pilot plant feed. The thickener
overflow was fed to a settling tank which was subsequently fed to the CIX circuit. The
underflow slurry was batch transferred hourly to the filtration circuit. De-ionised water was
added to the thickener pre-mix tank at a rate of 120mL/h to simulate loss from evaporation.
The screening and thickening circuits operated for 326 hours for an availability of >97%.
16.4.8 Underflow Re-leach

The re-leach circuit was operated from 18 May 2010 until the end of run three. A bleed
stream of the thickener underflow, roughly one third of the total flow, and CIX barren (1:1 w/w
ratio) was fed to a 17L agitated leach tank. The re-leach was operated at 40 °C. Pyrolusite
was added to target an ORP of 500mV. The product slurry overflowed into a bucket which
was fed to the filter in hourly batches.
16.4.9 Filtration of Leach-End Residue

The fines thickener underflow and screen oversize were combined and diluted to
approximately 60% with CIX before gentle blending and flash flocculation. At the end of run
three, the re-leach product was also fed to the filter. The combined slurry was fed to two
LaroxPF01 filters. Filter operation was adapted to simulate belt filter efficiencies which are to
be used in the commercial plant.

Three separate washing stages were undertaken during run three. Equal volumes of CIX
barren liquor was used for washes 1 and 2 and Perth tap water was used for wash 3. Wash 3
volume (Perth tap water) was reduced during the run by ~75% to aid the bleeding of
undesirable salts in the filter cake moisture. The formate and all washates were combined
and fed to the screen as dilution to target a screen undersize density. Moist filter cakes were
weighed, sampled and stored.
16.4.10 Continuous Ion Exchange

Pregnant leach solution (PLS) from the fines thickener overflow was pumped to a surge tank
mounted on scales ahead of the CIX adsorption circuit. CIX barren (cell 11 discharge) was
recycled to the re-pulp, screening and filtration stages. The adsorption circuit consisted of
11 stages and the resin moved counter current to the PLS in nitrogen agitated cells, setup in a
cascading train. The volume of each cell was ~11.5 L. Humidified nitrogen was sparged at
2 to 3 L/min to each cell. The solution overflowed from one cell to the other whilst resin was
retained in the cell using a 425µm screen placed in the opening of the overflow. The elution
circuit consisted of 8 stages of counter current elution with solvent extraction raffinate. The
volume of each cell in the stripping circuit was ~1.5L. The resin employed was the used resin
left at the end of run 2 and had reduced in volume from 300mL per stage to approximately
280mL per stage. There were a total of 20 resin batches in the CIX circuit (adsorption and
elution). Both circuits were operated at ambient temperature.
There was one additional standby cell placed adjacent to the adsorption train. The loaded
resin (topmost cell in the adsorption train) was separated from the solution by passing through
a 350µm screen and then transferred to the last cell in the elution circuit. Likewise, the fully
eluted resin (topmost cell in the elution train) was recovered and placed in the stand-by cell in
the extraction circuit. They were then moved up to the next position in the train. The indexing
procedure involved some back mixing when the contents of the top most cell in the adsorption
and elution trains were drained back into their respective feed tanks while recovering resin.
Back mixing required the CIX adsorption and elution feed rate to be increased proportionally.
Indexing of resin was typically performed at 1½ to 4 hourly intervals, depending on the
uranium flux and resin loading.
Concentrated eluate from the CIX elution circuit was collected in a surge tank mounted on
scales. This was then transferred in batches to the SX PLS tank on scales to be fed into the
SX circuit. Sulphuric acid concentration in SX raffinate was adjusted to 100g/L, prior to being
fed in batches to the CIX eluant feed tank. Towards the end of the run, sulphuric acid (H2SO4)
concentration was increased to 130g/L. Scrub product solution was batch transferred to the
CIX elution stage and fed to elution cell 2, due to the residual uranium tenor. At times during
run 3, scrub product was not fed to the elution stage due to high uranium concentrations in the
product solution. In these instances scrub product was recycled to the SX PLS tank.

All resins were regenerated between 13 and 15 April 2010. The regeneration process
entailed removing the eluted resin after it had been removed (indexed) from the S1 position.
The resin was then washed in de-ionised water and placed sequentially in 20g/L sodium
hydroxide (NaOH), 60g/LNaOH, 20g/LNaOH, de-ionised water and 2g/L H2SO4, respectively,
for 15 minutes each. Once the regeneration process was complete the resin was placed into
the standby position in the CIX extraction circuit and put back into operation once the next
index was performed. It took roughly 2½ days to complete the regeneration process on all
resins. Each resin was only regenerated once during run three.
The CIX circuit operated for a total of 326 hours with >97% availability during run three.

The solvent extraction circuit included four extraction stages, three scrubbing stages and
three stripping stages.
All mixer-settlers and after-settlers were constructed from clear PVC with welded joints, rather
than glued. All cells were of the same dimension; mixers were 50mm wide, 50mm long and
40mm deep (100mL live volume) whilst settlers were 50mm wide, 160mm long and 50mm
deep (400mL live volume). After-settlers comprised a mixer box and three compartments with
baffled weir arrangements. The settlers housed a heat exchanger to maintain the circuit
temperature of ~40°C.
In the mixer boxes organic and aqueous were mixed using slotted disc impellors 30mm in
diameter. Each disc contained 4 slots, 4mm wide and 5mm deep, cut across its diameter.
The agitators were operated between 1100 to 1300 rpm.
All circuits were operated in a counter-current mode, with aqueous and organic from the
previous stages being introduced to the mixer under a slotted disc impellor. The impellor
operated as a pump mixer, drawing the organic and aqueous into the mixer and the resulting
mixture then overflowed a weir into the settler where the phases were disengaged. The organic
and aqueous overflowed the settler via individual weirs and advanced to the next stage.
In all mixers, O:A ratios were maintained close to 1:1 with internal recycling of the aqueous
from the settlers to compensate for varying advance O:A ratios. The aqueous(PLS) and
organic (barren organic) flow rates were measured hourly and adjusted as necessary to
achieve the required advance O:A ratio. Initially, all mixers were run with organic continuous
phase continuity but towards the end of the run, E1, S3 and SC3 operated aqueous
continuous whilst E4 and S1 ran organic continuous.
The extractant used was 6%(v/v) Alamine 336 (supplied by Cognis) together with 3%(v/v)
isodecanol as a phase modifier in the diluent Shellsol 2325.

The CIX eluate (SX feed) was pumped to a header tank, to supply a constant head pressure
to the pump suction, and then on to the extraction circuit E1. Two types of Huntsman
coagulants (Polysil RMB 2050 and RMB 1250) were dosed to the CIX eluate tank at varying
concentrations throughout run 3 in an attempt to control stable emulsion or crud formation in
the extraction circuit. The raffinate (E4 aqueous) reported to an after-settler and passed
through an activated carbon column to remove any entrained organic, prior to returning to CIX
stripping circuit as the eluant. A bleed of the raffinate was also returned to the leach circuit.
The packed carbon columns were 30mm in diameter and 400mm in length.
The loaded organic from extraction (E1 organic) reported to an after-settler to lower aqueous
entrainment. The circuit incorporated three scrub stages for impurity removal. The scrub
circuit configuration was altered a number of times during run 3. In the initial set up, the
loaded organic (E1 organic) was contacted with water acidified with H2SO4 to pH 2.0 in the
first scrub stage (SC1) and the product was collected separately. The aqueous scrub feed to
the scrub stage 2 (SC2) was SDU barren solution from the refinery adjusted to pH 3.0 in a
pre-mix tank. The aqueous product from SC2 allowed back to the pre-mix tank, essentially
setting up a re-cycle of aqueous flow between the SC2 and the pre-mix tank at a flow rate
equal to organic flow (i.e. O:A 1:1). Scrub 3 aqueous feed was also from the pre-mix tank at a
flow rate equal to the SDU barren solution (pH adjusted) feed to the pre-mix tank. Scrub 3
aqueous product (SC3) was collected and mixed with SC1 product as the scrub product to be
re-cycled to CIX strip circuit. Due to elevated uranium concentrations in the scrub product this
scrub product was recycled back to the SX PLS tank. In another version of this configuration,
SC1 aqueous product was collected in the pre-mix tank and the flow rates of SDU barren
solution and SC3 feed solution were adjusted to compensate for additional flow into the pre-
mix tank.
Above configuration was altered again on 18 May 2010. The aqueous feed to the SC1 was
changed from pH 2.0 water to uranium oxide (UO4) barren washes 1 to 4 from the refinery.
The aqueous scrub feed to the SC3 was UO4 primary barren solution. The aqueous product
from SC3 flowed counter currently to SC2 and the SC2 aqueous product was collected. The
aqueous product from SC1 was collected separately and combined with SC2 aqueous
product. This was combined with SX raffinate (E4 aqueous) and acidified to obtain 130g/L
free acid and fed to CIX strip 1.
The scrubbed organic (SC3 organic) reported to an after-settler before entering the strip
circuit. Stripping was conducted with two solutions; a 1.5 M sodium carbonate solution was
fed to the S3 stage while pH adjusted SDU barren solution (pH between 10.1 and 11.0,
adjusted with concentrated H2SO4) was fed to the S1 stage. S3 aqueous product flowed
counter currently to S1. The strip product (S1 aqueous), was collected and transferred to the
refinery as the SDU feed solution.
At the commencement of run 3, the SX circuit was filled (all the mixers and settlers) with
solutions (aqueous and organic) removed from the circuit at the completion of run 2. The
organic extractant (Alamine 336) concentration of 10%(v/v) used in run 2 was diluted with
Shellsol 2325 to achieve an extractant (Alamine 336) concentration of 6%(v/v) prior to the
commencement of run 3.

The SX circuit operated for 320 h from 8-21May 2010 with a >95% availability.
16.4.12 Recovery and Refinery
The recovery and refinery stages were semi-batch operations which were operated daily (day
shift only).
Sodium Diuranate (SDU) Precipitation

SDU (Na2U2O7-7H2O) was precipitated from the solvent extraction strip product at 35°C in a
10L flat-bottomed agitated vessel. A 400% (1:4) seed recycle was employed to promote
precipitate growth. Strip product solution and a calculated amount of 250g/L NaOH were
dosed to the SDU seed material over a period of 2 hours. The product slurry was then allowed
to agitate for 4 hours. Slurry pH, ORP and temperature were monitored throughout the
batch tests. A portion of the SDU product slurry was placed in a 1L cylinder and a settling test
was performed. The SDU slurry was allowed to settle overnight and the supernatant
decanted. The thickened slurry from the settling test was recombined with the settled slurry in
the reactor vessel. A 20% portion of the settled SDU slurry, with 80% remaining as seed, was
then put through a 5stage de-ionised wash water cycle to prepare the solids for the sulphation
stage. The SDU barren solution was divided, with 80% being acidified to a pH between 10.1
to 11.0 and advanced to SX strip (S1 mixer) while 20% was fed to the solvent extraction scrub
pre-mix tank.
Sulphation
The washed SDU solids in wash 5 solution were agitated in a 2 L flat-bottom flask agitated by
a magnetic stirrer and equipped with a nitrogen sparge and 2 dreschel bottles acting as
carbon dioxide scrubbers. The slurry was maintained at 60°C and acidified to approximately
pH 1,5 with 98% w/w sulphuric acid. An appropriate amount of deionised water was added to
the system to target 50g/L uranium in the product solution. The system was sparged with
nitrogen as a carrier gas for four hours to transport evolved carbon dioxide through the
2 scrubber vessels which contained 200g/L sodium hydroxide. The resulting solution
containing uranyl sulphate was then advanced to the peroxide precipitation stage. The
product solution was filtered prior to the peroxide precipitation stage.
Peroxide Precipitation
Subsequent to the sulphation stage, the slurry temperature was decreased to 38°C.
Hydrogen peroxide at 30% (w/w) and 200g/L sodium hydroxide were added alternately to
maintain a target pH of 1.5. Upon reaching the hydrogen peroxide end point, sodium
hydroxide addition continued until a pH of 3.0 to 4.0 (batch dependent) was reached.
The sample was then allowed to agitate at temperature for three hours. The solids were
collected by centrifuge before being washed twice via re-pulping and either filtering or
centrifuging. A portion of the solids were dried and sent for assay with the remainder being
collected and stored in deionised water.

16.4.13 Vendors
All vendor testwork was performed on-site at SGS during run three. F.L. Smidth Minerals,
Larox Pty Ltd, Mixtec, Huntsman, Turnbery RPA / Filtres Philippe and Flottweg performed
thickening, filtration and centrifuge testwork on Zone 1 – year 2 and Zone 1 – year 3 material
produced during run three. SGS performed rheological testwork and particle sizing, as per
the project proposal, on selected streams.
F.L. Smidth Minerals performed thickening testwork on pilot plant feed material (pre-
leach thickening). Thickening tests were also conducted on SDU product and fines
thickener feed slurries (-106µm screened leach discharge). Filtration testwork was
performed on combined screen oversize and fines thickener underflow slurries. The
tests were performed at SGS from 13-21 May 2010.
Larox performed filtration testwork on leach discharge slurry and combined screen
oversize and fines thickener underflow slurries from 11 to 21 May 2010.
Mixtec performed agitation tests on Zone 2 material (repulped filter cakes from run 2) from
6 to 8 May 2010. Testwork was also performed on Zone 1 - year 2 material (re-pulped filter
cakes 137-163) at the completion of run three.
Huntsman evaluated the use of Polysil coagulants in the SX extraction stage on crud
formation, phase disengagement and silica concentrations in the aqueous streams.
Various pilot plant streams were monitored to determine soluble and colloidal silica
concentrations.
Turnbery RPA / Filtres Philippe performed filtration testwork on leach discharge slurry and
combined screen oversize and fines thickener underflow slurries from 12-17 May 2010.
Flottweg performed centrifuge testwork on peroxide precipitation product (UO4) and SX

stable emulsions and crud from 18-21 May 2010.
SGS performed rheological testwork and particle sizing on various pilot plant streams
(Zone 1 – year 2 and Zone 1 – year 3 material) throughout Run three.
16.4.14 F.L. Smidth – Filtration

F.L. Smidth Minerals (FLSM) conducted sedimentation and vacuum filtration testing on a
sample generated by the pilot plant operated at SGS Laboratory in Perth, Australia. Testing
was conducted on site at SGS in April and May 2010 to determine operating parameters for a
commercial horizontal belt filter.
SGS provided the feed sample for the leach discharge stream. The majority of the testwork
was done on samples by replicating the sending of leach discharge through a hydrocyclone.
The fine slurry and the coarse slurry were re-blended at various ratios, mixing techniques,
flocculant dosages, and percent solids to determine the optimal operating characteristics.
Samples of the leach discharge prior to separation into fine and coarse particles were also
tested in order to compare filtration rates for a system without hydrocyclones to a system with
hydrocyclones.

The Husab vacuum filtration results are shown in Table 16.4.14_1 below.
Table 16.4.14_1
Husab Vacuum Filtration Results
Zone 1
Uranium Feed Zone 2
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Coarse to Fines Ratio (dry weight basis) 75/25 75/25 70/30 70/30
Feed Solids Concentration (wt%) 60% 65% 65% 65%
Flocculant 920SH 920SH 920SH 920SH
Floc Dosage (grams per ton of dry fines) 200 200 250 250
Floc Dosage (grams per ton of dry solids) 50 50 75 75
Sizing Basis (kg/hr-m²) 2200 3000 3700 2500
It was concluded that the F.L. Smidth bench-scale filtration equipment successfully dewatered
the Husab uranium leach discharge sample in Perth, Australia in April and May 2010. The
objectives of the bench-scale testing were:
Determine impact of coarse to fines ratio on filtration rates
Determine impact of flocculant dosage on filtration rates
Determine impact of slurry percent solids on filtration rates
16.4.15 F.L. Smidth – Thickening Testwork

F.L. Smidth Minerals (FLS) conducted thickening work to establish the thickener underflow
density that could be achieved on a laboratory scale, and to size and design the optimal
thickening system.
Various thickening technologies were tested so as to offer the best cost competitive solution
with optimal results.
Four different ore types were tested for leach feed and leach stages. SDU and UO4 samples
were also tested.
Two types of FLS technology were evaluated:
Hi-Rate Thickening
Hi-Density Thickening
Four different ore types were tested for both pre-leach and post-leach. The various slurries
and dilution liquors were obtained from SGS personnel and they were taken to be
representative of the material to feed the thickeners. The settling flux and settling tests were
performed using 500mL and 4000mLcylinders respectively.
Flocculant screening was done using three non-ionic flocculants. Floerger SNF FA 920 SH
(non-ionic) proved to be the best flocculant for Husab samples in terms of settling rates, bed
compaction and overflow clarity.

The summary of results obtained from the testwork is shown in Table 16.4.16_1 and
Table 16.4.16_2.
Table 16.4.16_1
Thickening Testwork Summary
Hi-Rate Thickeners
Leach Feed (-106µm)
Ore ID Zone 1
Zone 2
Solids SG 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7
Liquor SG 1.076 1.076 1.076 1.076
Optimum Solids wt% 10 10 10 6
Flocculant Dosage g/t 40 60 60 60
Initial Settling Rate m/hr 19.6 22 15 23.7
Settling Flux (t/m²h) 0.267 0.235 0.255 0.310
O/F Clarity g/m³ 1330 1195 4820 1045
Underflow Solids wt% 64 64 62 60
Yield Stress (Pa) 25 20 20 25
Leach Discharge (-106µm)
Ore ID Zone 1
Zone 2
Solids SG 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7
Liquor SG 1.086 1.086 1.086 1.089
Initial Settling Rate m/hr 35 18 19 18
O/F Clarity g/m³ 1840 2075 5180 1990
Hi-Density Thickeners
Leach Feed (-106µm)
Ore ID Zone 1
Zone 2
Solids SG 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7
Liquor SG 1.076 1.076 1.076 1.076
Initial Settling Rate m/hr 19.6 22 15 23.7
O/F Clarity g/m³ 1330 1195 4820 1045
Leach Discharge (-106µm)
Ore ID Zone 1
Zone 2
Solids SG 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7
Liquor SG 1.086 1.086 1.086 1.089
Initial Settling Rate m/hr 35 18 19 18
O/F Clarity g/m³ 1840 2075 5180 1990

Table 16.4.16_2
Thickening Testwork Summary
Ore ID SDU UO4 Zone 1 Repulp

Solids SG 3.95 4.35 2.7
Liqour SG 1.17 1.039 1.09
Solids wt% As is As is 4
Flocculant Dosage g/t None None 100
Initial Settling Rate m/hr 0.19 0.02 15.6
Settling Flux (t/m²h) N/A N/A 0.176
O/F Clarity g/m³ 4195 N/A 3180
Underflow Solids wt% 62 (As received) 54 (As received) 56
Yield Stress (Pa) 80 30 80
The unit areas were calculated on the thickener having an equivalent mud bed of 1m for
Hi-Rate and 3m for Hi-Density thickeners, and are inclusive of a 20% scale up factor.
The underflow solids wt% of SDU and UO4 shown in Table 16.4.16_2 were received ‘as is’
from SGS personnel and the samples were tested for rheology by FLS.
The following conclusions and recommendations were made:
Sample Characterisation:
Solids specific gravity (SG) for Zone 1 and Zone 2 samples of 2,7t/m³ and was used
for all calculations
All leach discharge samples tested were sampled from the pilot plant -106µm screen
undersize slurry and were taken to be representative
Leach feed samples were wet-screened at -106µm
All samples tested were sent to SGS laboratories for laser sizing (fine particle size
distribution).
Feed Dilution:
The optimal settling flux was found to be in the range of 6% to 10% feed well solids
concentration for the leach feed samples and 3% to 4% feed well solids concentration for
leach discharge samples
Flocculant Dosage:
Floeger SNF FA 920 SH flocculant (non-ionic) was selected as the best flocculant
for the Husab samples, in terms of settling flux and overflow clarity, and was used
for all thickening testwork
The optimal flocculant dosage ranged from 40g/t to 60g/t for leach feed samples and
120g/t to 140g/t for leach discharge samples

Settling Rates:
Initial settling rates of 15m/hr to 23,7m/hr were achieved on leach feed samples
Initial settling rates of 18m/hr to 35m/hr were achieved on leach discharge samples
Overflow Clarity:
Good overflow clarities as visually compared to process barren liquor were achieved
across the tests
Overflow samples for different tests were analysed by SGS
Underflow Solids Concentration:
Leach feed: underflow solids concentrations of 60 wt% to 64 wt% were achieved

from the 4 L batch tests after two hours residence time
Leach discharge: underflow solids concentrations of 45% to 52% were achieved

from the 4 L batch tests after two hours residence time
Thickener selection and operating window:
The thickening rates selected are based on the 4 litre settling tests results.
16.4.16 Larox
Larox conducted filtration tests on the four different feed materials being run through the pilot
plant to determine:
Flocculant selection
Cake thickness
Maximum filtration capacity
Moisture content of the cake
cake handling
cake washing efficiency.
The filtration tests on the Husab uranium samples showed that the material can be
successfully dewatered and washed using Larox filtration technologies.
The Husab uranium pilot plant was run over 2 campaigns each of 2 weeks (runs 2&3).
Each campaign had 2 different batches of feed material.
For run 2 they were Zone 2 (T41–46) and Zone 1 - Year 1 (T47-51);
For run 3 they were Zone 1 – Year 2 (T52-62) and Zone 1 - Year 3 (T63-66);
A similar series of tests were conducted for each of the 4 feed types.
All of the results are based on the samples as tested.

Zone 2
The recombined products filtered well after washing, resulting in a filtration rate of about
577kg d.s./m²hr with a moisture content of around 17%, the resultant filter cake was 18mm
and came off the cloth well. The flocculant dose (M351) was around 107g/t.
The barren wash ratio was 0.18m³/t, with a combined wash ratio of 0.45m³/t.
The barren wash efficiency at this ratio was 56%, with a total wash ratio of 93%.
Zone 1 – Year 1
1934kg d.s./m²hr with a moisture content of around 20.8%, the resultant filter cake was 39mm
The barren wash efficiency at this ratio was 76.1%, with a total wash ratio of 91.7%.
Zone 1 – Year 2
Zone 1 – Year 3
Note: Flocculant doses are only for flocculant added to the filter, and they do not include any
flocculant added previously to the thickener.
16.4.17 Delkor
Delkor conducted laboratory scale Buchner funnel testwork was conducted at SGS labs in
Perth during March and April 2010. Samples tested were taken from the Husab pilot
operation at SGS. Tests were run on both unclassified leach residue and leach residue which
had been classified into a coarse and fine fraction and recombined for filtration.

It was found that the samples generally filtered rapidly when conditioned with flocculant as
would be expected from the relatively coarse grind.
Flocculation
For all samples, filtration without the addition of flocculant was slow. The addition of flocculant
produced a homogenous mixture of coarse and fines throughout the filter cake and resulted in
rapid cake formation and cake washing rates. Delkor’s tests focussed on the use of Guar to
flocculate the slurry based on historical data from acid leach uranium belt filter, costs per ton
of ore treated and good cake washing characteristics;
Guar powder was hydrated to a strength of 3g/L, with optimum dosages on most samples
varying between 170 and 220g/t. Consistently there was a ± 50g/t (25%) range of optimum
dosage; above which, filtration rates declined;
Filtration Rates
Some variation in filtration rate was observed between the different samples. This correlated
with the % of fines in the sample and had to be compensated by higher Guar dosage. Cake
formation rates are between 7t/m²h and 8t/m²h.
Cake Washing Results

The filter cakes were washed with measured quantities of synthetic barren solution immediately
after cake formation. The washed cakes were sampled, re-pulped with acidified water and
analysed for uranium and Lithium in solution. The wash efficiencies were very close to
theoretical models and consistent with wash results on similar acid leach uranium ores.
A factor 1 displacement wash (liquor content of cake before wash) produced an 80% removal
of the original liquor. These results were consistent for both uranium and lithium analysis and
for all samples of leach residue tested. Based on a one wash system, the soluble recoveries
shown in Table 16.4.17_1 can be achieved.
Table 16.4.17_1
Soluble Recoveries - Factor 1 Displacement Wash
Wash Ratio (m³/ton) Displacements Soluble Recovery

0,33 1,0 80%
0,5 1,5 97,1%
0,83 2,5 99,1%
The single stage wash results were used to model a 2 stage counter-current case where the last
st
wash (barren solution) is recycled to the 1 wash of the belt filter. Based on a 2 stage counter-
current wash system, the soluble recoveries shown in Table 16.4.17_2 can be achieved.
Wash rates varied significantly between the various samples from 1,9 to below 1,0m³/m²h in
tests where the fines content was highest.

Table 16.4.17_2
Soluble Recoveries - 2 Stage Counter-Current Wash
Wash Ratio (m³/ton) Displacements Soluble Recovery

0,37 1,15 97,4%
0,58 1,8 99%
Cake Drying Results

Residual cake moisture on most samples averaged 19% to 21% (w/w). In all cases the cake
was competent and discharged easily from the filter cloth. There was no free moisture
evident and the cake should be amenable to conveying over long distances.
Filter Sizing Calculation

Final filter sizing will depend on, amongst other factors, the wash ratio and wash
configuration. Using a single wash of 1,5 displacements and based on the best test sample
results achieved will result in:
Form Zone =23mm cake in 15 seconds
Wash Zone =1,5 IBV’s in 40 seconds
Drying Zone =15 seconds
Total Cycle Time =70 seconds
23mm Cake SG =33kg/m²
Sizing Flux =1700kg/m²h
16.4.18 RPA Filtres Philippe
Filtres Philippe performed filtration, washing and dewatering tests on leached uranium slurry
of varying coarse and fines ratios, using a 50cm² Philippe vacuum funnel and a 3.2m³/h
membrane vacuum pump.
The process conditions expected were set at:
Coarse / fines ratio =variable
Nominal output =2000t/h
Concentration =65 to70% solid
Density =1,6 SG
Temperature =18°C (room temperature)
Process temperature =40°C
Washing =Barren and tap water

The objective is to produce:
Cake moisture as low as possible
U3O8 wash recovery >99%
The following recommendations were made:
Filter cloth recommended is either calendared, 85 micron double layered weave or a

6185 PES monofilament in either polypropylene or polyester. These clothes are
expected to last for 6-7 months.
The filtrate quality is expected to be less than 1g/L of solids.
The two preferred flocculants are SNF FA 920 SH and SNF FA 912 BPM, to be prepared
at 5g/L, matured for 4 hours and dosed at a maximum rate of 180g/t solids. The flocculant
is to be diluted to between 0.125 and 0.25g/L and injected either in multiple in line points or
using a series of flocculator tanks to control the contact time.
Belt speed to be set at 33m/min.
A cake thickness of 25mm is to be used for leach slurry. A thickness of between 25mm
and 30mm is to be used for the blended fines and coarse material.
A wash ratio of 0.5m³ to 1.2m³/ton dry solid has been used, but no specific number is
given.
A cake moisture between 17 and 20% is achievable after 15 to 20 s of drying time.
An average filterability of between 1600 and 1700kg/h/m² is achievable.
16.5 Comminution Pilot Plant Testwork
16.5.1 Introduction
Mintek conducted three semi-autogenous (SAG) pilot milling tests as part of the study to
determine which circuit will be best suited for the optimal processing of the material (Mokwena
et al, 2010). The circuit to be designed will be required to produce a leach feed material with
a grind of 80% passing 780 microns. Previous leach tests indicated that the U3O8 extraction in
excess of 90% can be achieved at this grind.
The amount of fines in the milling circuit product, as indicated by the mass percentage of
-106 micron material, should not exceed 30% as this would present downstream materials
handling problems.
The pilot plant tests conducted on the material included:
SAG mill in closed circuit with a pebble crusher and rod mill (SRC circuit).
SAG mill in closed circuit with a pebble crusher (SSSAG circuit).
SAG mill in closed circuit with a pebble crusher followed by a ball mill (SABC circuit).

Bench scale comminution tests were also conducted to characterise the ore and support the
pilot plant data generated. The tests conducted included SAG mill comminution (SMC), bond
ball mill and rod mill grindability, bond crushability, uni-axial compressive strength (UCS),
bond abrasion, grind mill and the JKTech abrasion test for self-breakage tests.
16.5.2 Sample Preparation
Approximately 140t of ore was delivered to Mintek for the intended testwork program. The P80
of the sample as received was 212mm since the ore delivered contains 25t of material coarser
than 212mm. The coarse material (+212mm) were broken with an excavator to 100% passing
212mm and the resulting P80 of the ore was 150mm. Sample preparation was conducted on
the ore to prepare a feed for the three piloting tests and a sub sample was taken to conduct
comminution bench scale testwork in order to characterise the Husab uranium ore and
support data generated during pilot tests.
The Husab uranium ore delivered to Mintek appeared to consist of two distinctive ore types.
The difference between the two ore types was identified in texture and hardness and was
classified as sample 1 and sample 2 or rock type 1 and rock type 2. Bench scale
comminution testwork was conducted on both samples separately to determine if there is a
significant difference in hardness between the two rock types. A visual observation of the bulk
ore received indicates that 80% of the material received constitutes rock type 1 and 20% of
rock type 2.
16.5.3 Summary of Results
The bond ball work index (BBWI) tests were conducted on a composite sample at 300µm and
850µm closing screens. The test results showed that the work index was slightly sensitive to
the choice of the limiting screen size used. The BBWI tests results showed that the
composite sample could be classified as being medium hard with the work indices of
13.50kWh/t and 12.78kWh/t tested at 300µm and 850µm respectively.
The bond rod work index (BRWI) conducted at a limiting screen of 1.18mm indicated that the
Husab composite sample could be classified as being medium hard with the work index of
13.06kWh/, which is consistent with the BBWI data.
The average bond crushability work indices for sample 1 and sample 2 were 8.6kWh/t and
8.8kW/t (a 2% difference), respectively indicating that the samples could be classified as
being very soft.
The average bond abrasion index values implied that both rock types are characterised by
medium abrasion tendency with average values of 0.3285 for sample 1 and 0.2788 for
sample 2.

An average of UCS results for sample 1 and sample 2 were found to be 131.7MPa and
149.2MPa respectively indicating the material is categorised in the medium hardness class of
UCS values. Although UCS values cannot be used directly for mill or crusher circuit design,
when coupled with a database, they can sometimes serve as a diagnostic tool in identifying
anomalous breakage behaviour.
Raw SMC data were sent to JKTech in Australia for analysis. The test was conducted on
both samples using two different size classes namely -31.5+26.5mm and -22.4+19mm.
The product of the JKTech impact breakage parameters A and b was used to indicate the
relative hardness (resistance to impact breakage) of the two samples. Sample 2 displayed
more resistance to breakage at the coarser size with anAxb parameter of 56 while sample 1
was relatively less resistant to impact breakage with aAx b parameter of 94.
The JKTech abrasion test results showed that sample 2 is slightly more resistant to abrasion
breakage than sample 1 with a ta value of 0.43 and 0.58 respectively.
The single stage SAG mill in closed circuit with pebble crusher was tested first. The SSSAG
pilot plant campaign revealed that the amount of energy that will be required by the SAG mill
to produce the desired grind would be 5.11kWh/t. This was achieved with a SAG mill running
at 30% full with a ball charge of 15%. The total circulating load was only 93%. The material
did not produce a significant amount of pebbles; only 12% (relative to the fresh feed) of
pebbles were generated implying that the material is relatively soft.
16.5.4 Conclusion
From the three pilot plant testwork conducted, the single stage SAG mill with pebble crusher
offers the best perspective due to:
the simplicity of the circuit;
the reduced quantity of equipment; and
the possibility of further expansion if required (conversion to SABC).
The SSSAG circuit results indicates that 5.11 kWh/t of energy would be required by the SAG
mill to obtain the desired grind (P80 of 780 microns) with the correct proportion of fines
(percentage passing -106µm) of 25% and a re-circulating load ratio of only 93%. The SRC
circuit generates less proportion of fines (percentage passing -106µm) 20% in comparison to
25% for the SSSAG.
16.6 Development of Flowsheet Based on Testwork
The flowsheet used in the definitive feasibility study (DFS) is primarily derived from the
flowsheet used in the hydrometallurgical pilot plant as described in Section 16.4 above, the
Mintek comminution pilot plant and the findings from a PLS option study recommending the
adoption of the strong acid strip process. There are three main differences to that flowsheet
that are incorporated into the DFS flowsheet:

The inclusion of a mineral sizer in the comminution circuit.
The replacement of the leach discharge screen and fines thickener with a coarse filtration
and fines CCD wash circuit
The replacement of the SX carbonate strip process with the strong acid strip process.
The comminution circuit consists of a crusher with stockpile and two trains of closed circuit
single stage SAG mill and pebble crusher. (SSSAG circuit). This circuit has been tested and
compared with other configurations and is the circuit recommended by the comminution pilot
plant testwork report described in Section 16.4 above. The choice of the SSSAG circuit is
driven by the simplicity of the circuit, the reduced quantity of equipment and therefore the
relative ease of further expansion or addition of more equipment if required, while still
maintaining the required quality of grind product as required for leaching and subsequent
process unit operations.
The solid/liquid separation and wash in the hydrometallurgical pilot plant was simulated using
a screen to separate fine from coarse material, then thickening the fines and separating the
PLS. The thickened fines material was flocculated, mixed with the screened coarse material,
flocculated again and filtered. The filter cake was washed and washate was sent to the PLS.
This configuration was not a consideration for a full scale plant, but simply a means of
separating the PLS for downstream pilot plant testwork. The solids served as feed to vendor
filtration and settling testwork. Filter tests have shown that considerable risk exists if either
insufficient fines (incomplete washing and uranium losses), or excessive fines (severely
reduced filtration rates) are present in the feed to the filters. This information has resulted in a
conservative approach to the filtration plant design.
In order to create a feed material suitable for filtration, a fines fraction is separated by cyclone
such that the amount of fines in the cyclone underflow is suitable for the filtration
requirements. The excess fines are then treated separately in a CCD wash circuit, filtered by
disc filtration and the relatively dry cake from both the belt filter plant and disk filter plant is
conveyed to the tailings storage facility. In this configuration the need for minimising water
losses to tailings (cost and environmental pressures), minimising uranium losses to tails while
maintaining the filter feed quality in an operable regime are achieved.
The carbonate strip circuit was shown to be very expensive in terms of capital and operating
cost. The proven strong acid strip process was adopted for the DFS due to its simplicity of
design and operation and the significantly reduced operating costs. The process entails
stripping the loaded organic with a strong acid strip solution. The excess sulphate contained
in the loaded strip liquor which would otherwise inhibit the peroxide precipitation, is removed
by precipitating gypsum using a high quality slaked lime. The gypsum precipitation process
replaces the previous intermediate SDU precipitation and re-dissolution process. The final
product remains uranyl peroxide.

16.7 Key Technical Features
Mineral sizer (product top size 250mm) for primary crushing of the run-of-mine (ROM)
ore followed by semi-autogenous (SAG) milling to produce a P80 of 780µm;
Atmospheric leach process with 14 hour residence time. Importing of sulphuric acid and
pyrolusite as lixiviant and oxidant respectively;
Solid / liquid separation using belt filtration with option of counter current decantation for
excessive fines. Leach residue deposited as filter cake for minimising water requirement;
Continuous ion-exchange using the NIMCIX technology and conventional solvent

extraction (SX) uranium upgrading and refining process;
Production of uranyl peroxide by precipitation with hydrogen peroxide following a strong

acid strip process.
16.8 Process Plant
The DFS flowsheet is shown in Figure 16.8_1. The process is best described by separating
the process plant into areas.
16.8.1 Crushing
The ROM ore is received in a ROM bin which feeds via an apron feeder on to a mineral sizer.
The crusher ore is transported to the coarse ore stockpile which has a twenty four hour live
capacity. The coarse ore is drawn from the coarse ore stockpile onto two mill feed conveyors
using two apron feeders per conveyor. Steel balls are added onto the mill feed conveyors.
16.8.2 Milling
The mill feed conveyors feed two semi-autogenous (SAG) mills. The milled slurry discharges
from the mills over a screen. The oversize from the screen is returned to the mill via a pebble
crusher. The undersize of the mill discharge screens advance to the fines screens. The
coarser oversize fraction returns to the SAG mills for further milling. The finer underflow
fraction advances to the leach circuit.
16.8.3 Leach
The milled slurry passes through a cyclone circuit to separate the coarse and fine fractions.
The fine overflow fraction is thickened in a leach feed thickener. The thickened underflow
slurry is recombined with the coarse cyclone underflow to achieve a slurry that is at an optimal
relative density. The slurry then feeds into the leach circuit consisting of two trains of six
leach reactors. Pyrolusite is added to the leach reactors as an oxidant to enable leaching and
sulphuric acid, delivered to site, is added to maintain the uranium in solution. The leached
slurry advances to the solid liquid separation circuit.

Figure 16.8_1
DFS Flowsheet

16.8.4 Solid-l Liquid Separation

The leached slurry passes through a cyclone circuit to separate the slurry into coarse and fine
fractions. The coarse fraction advances to the vacuum belt filters (VBFs) where the filtrate is
collected and recycled back to the fines treatment circuit. The fines fraction advances to the
five stage counter current decantation (CCD) circuit. The recycled filtrate from the VBF is
used as wash water in the CCD circuit. The liquid from the CCD circuit, now termed the
pregnant leach solution (PLS), is clarified to remove suspended solids before advancing to the
ion exchange circuit.
16.8.5 Ion Exchange

The PLS passes through eight parallel NIMCIX adsorption columns. The uranium is adsorbed
onto the ion exchange resin, largely excluding contaminants. The loaded resin is transferred
to elution columns where the resin is contacted with diluted sulphuric acid to extract the
uranium from the resin. The eluate, which is now a much smaller volume than the PLS and
contains a greater concentration of uranium, advances to the solvent extraction circuit for
further concentration and purification. The eluate advances through an eluate filter to the
solvent extraction plant.

The eluate is contacted with organic in a four stage counter current extraction mixer settler
circuit. Extraction raffinate is recycled back to the IX eluate tank, with a bleed stream going to
leach. The loaded organic from the extraction circuit is scrubbed in a two stage counter
current scrub mixer settler circuit using recycled uranyl peroxide barren liquor, supplemented
with demineralised water and sodium hydroxide. The scrubbed organic is stripped in a five
stage counter current strip mixer settler circuit using dilute sulphuric acid as a strip liquor. The
loaded strip liquor advances to the precipitation circuit.
16.8.7 Precipitation
The loaded strip liquor is reacted with slaked lime in a four stage gypsum precipitation circuit.
The gypsum slurry is thickened in a thickener. The thickener underflow advances to the
gypsum belt filter where the slurry is washed, dewatered, repulped and returned to the leach
circuit. A reseed stream from the thickener underflow reports back to the gypsum precipitation
reactors. The thickener overflow advances to the uranyl peroxide circuit, which consists of four
reactors in series. Peroxide is added to the reactors to cause the uranyl peroxide to precipitate
out. Sodium hydroxide is added to the reactors to control the pH of the solution.
The uranyl peroxide slurry reports to a thickener. A reseed stream from the thickener underflow
returns to the reactors. The remaining thickener underflow is washed and dewatered in a two
stage centrifuge circuit. The dewatered uranyl peroxide is then dried and packaged, ready for
shipping.
16.8.8 Tailings
Plant tailings are conveyed to the mine residue facility and disposed of alongside waste rock
from the mine.

17 MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES
The August 2010 resource update was based upon work conducted by Neal Culpan of
Extract, who completed 3D models of the geology and mineralisation of the Husab Uranium
Project deposit. The supplied interpretations were then checked and verified by Coffey Mining
and used in the estimation process with only generally minor changes made.
Two separate models were initially created for the Husab Uranium Project Mineralisation;
Zone 1 was modelled using Surpac software; and Zones 2 to 4 were modelled using
Datamine software. Subsequent to the completion of each model, the resulting block models
were then combined into a single global Datamine block model for reporting and study
purposes.
The Qualified Persons responsible for the resource estimate are Steve Le Brun, who is an
Principal Resource Geologist with the consultancy Coffey Mining Pty Ltd. and Neil Inwood,
who is a Principal Resource Geologist with the consultancy Coffey Mining. The details of the
resource estimates undertaken are summarised in the following sections.
17.1 Zone 1 Resource Estimate
17.1.1 Resource Database and Validation
Database
The drillhole database in the vicinity of Zone 1 contains a total of 487 resource holes drilled by
Extract between 2007 and 2010 (Figure 17.1.1_1). Early regional exploration holes were
excluded from the database. The majority of the drillholes were drilled angled at 60° towards
west (WGS84_33S grid). The database contains 95 diamond holes for 37,350m and 392 RC
holes for 111,230m.
Both radiometric (128) and chemical (118,713) U3O8 assays were available in the database.
Assay results from several drillholes were still pending at the time of the estimate and are
intended to be incorporated in the next update. Approximately 25,855 individual samples from
2003 individual mineralised intersections were used directly in the resource estimate.
The drillholes in the database have DGPS collar pick up surveys accurate to ±10cm relative to
the survey base station. All but a few holes in the database have been surveyed for downhole
deviation. The unsurveyed holes are a mixture of holes that were blocked and couldn’t be
surveyed, and holes that had only recently been drilled.

Validation
Prior to loading data into the database the following checks are carried out by Extract:
Hole depths for the geology log, survey log and assay intervals don’t exceed the hole depth.
Dates are in the correct format and factually correct.
That set limits e.g. northing, easting, assay values etc. are not exceeded.
That sample IDs retuned from the laboratory match the IDs in the drill log from the field.
Deviation data is checked for “believability” and data spikes due to magnetic influence
are removed.
That valid codes e.g. lithology, geotechnical log etc have been used.
Sampling intervals are checked for gaps and overlaps.
The following additional checks were also undertaken prior to estimation:
Downhole survey trends.
Overlapping intervals.
Missing intervals.
Checks of the top 1,000 assay intervals to the original laboratory files.
3D analysis of collar positions and downhole survey traces.
No significant validation errors were detected in the database and the database was considered
appropriate for the use in the resource estimation.
17.1.2 Geological Interpretation and Modelling

The geological sequence at Zone 1 is a south-plunging antiform with gneisses of the Khan
Formation overlain by a mixture of metasediments and altered calc-silicate lithologies of the
Rössing Formation which is overlain by biotite schists and gneisses of the Chuos Formation.
Alaskite bodies have generally intruded sub-parallel to foliation. This is observed both in core
and in outcrop at the northern end of Zone 1. Separate DTM models for the main lithological
units were generated by Extract for use in coding of the block model and for allocating density.
Modelling of the Zone 1 mineralisation consisted of an initial geological model of the broad
lithological units (Khan, Rössing, Chuos). An alaskite model was then created using the
underlying geological framework as a guide. Finally, a nominal +75ppm mineralisation wireframe
was constructed that used these geological models to help guide the orientation of the
mineralized outlines (Figures 17.1.1_1 and 17.1.2_1).
The downhole thickness of mineralised intervals ranged from 3 to 145m, with an average
thickness of 23m. A total of 42 mineralised zones (grouped into 39 domains) were created that
had strike extents ranging from 125m to 1100m. Due to the geometries of the mineralisation,
the true thickness of the mineralisation ranges from 80% to 100% of the downhole thickness.

Figure 17.1.1_1
Husab Uranium Project Zone 1 - Mineralised Zones and Drill Type
(Red – Diamond, Blue – RC)

Figure 17.1.2_1
Husab Uranium Project, Zone 1 Sectional Interpretation (7,506,800mN)

Alaskite Bodies
Due to the complexity of the alaskite lithologies exhibited in the drilling sections, it was decided to
use an Indicator based probability model to generate an alaskite model. The alaskite indicator
model was generated utilising Vulcan mining software and then imported into the Surpac Block
model. For the purposes of the resource model, blocks having probabilities of >50% were coded
as alaskite in the waste regions, and blocks having probabilities of >30% were coded as alaskite
within the modelled mineralisation. This coding regime resulted in the proportions of
mineralisation being coded to the main lithological units (e.g. Khan, Chuos, Alaskite, calc-silicate,
etc) within the block mode being similar to that observed in the drillhole database.
Surface Cover and Weathering Profile

Alluvium covers most of the Husab Uranium Project. The depth of this alluvial cover tends to
deepen to the south and towards the east. The thickness of alluvial cover at the south end of
Zone 1 is up to 75m. The alluvium is comprised of an upper layer, typically about 20m thick,
of loose sand and gravel underlain by carbonate cemented gravel/conglomerate. A model
was created for the base of alluvial cover.
17.1.3 Radiometric Data

Factored downhole spectrometer eU3O8 data from hole RDD130 was used in the resource as
assay results were pending. The raw eU3O8 data was factored for the purposes of the estimate
using the regression defined by Culpan (2008), being: Fact_eU3O8 = [eu3o8_raw]*0.73-45.
17.1.4 Statistical Analysis of Composites and Top Cuts

The data captured within the mineralisation wireframes was composited to a regular 3m
downhole composite length, residual intervals of less than 1.5m were discarded.
Table 17.1.4_1 summarises the composite statistics for the various zones within the deposit.
A statistical analysis was carried out on the composited data for each unit to determine
appropriate top cuts to apply to the data. The approach taken included:
Review of the 3D grade distribution;
Review of the histogram and probability plots with significant breaks in populations used
to identify possible outliers;
Ranking of the individual composites and investigating the affect of the higher grades
upon the standard deviation and the mean of the data population.
The resulting top cuts applied (Table 17.1.4_1) resulted in a decrease of the naïve mean for
the individual mineralised zones of between 1% and 23%, typically from the cutting of up to
9 composites. The mineralised zones which exhibited the largest changes in mean grade
(e.g. Zones 2 and 34) were characterised by a strong positive distribution with a relatively few
number of high grade composites (e.g. 3 composites >2,000ppm U3O8 for Zone 2) supplying
up to 13% of the contained relative metal for the individual zones. Figure 17.1.4_2 shows
type examples of the graphs that were examined from each mineralised zone to assess the
top cutting of outlier assays.

Figure 17.1.4_2
Histogram Plot from Mineralised Zones 2 to 4

Table 17.1.4_1
Husab Uranium Project Zone 1
Summary Statistics and Top Cuts Applied to the Various Mineralised Zones
Top Cut % #
Lode Number Min. Max. Mean Median Data Variance C.V.
Cut Mean Decrease Cut
1 160 14 2,649 308 149 407 165,796 1.32 2000 304 1 1
2 807 3 24,086 637 176 1,834 3,364,701 2.88 4400 503 21 20
3 775 2 11,330 426 173 783 612,718 1.84 3500 402 5 9
4 369 3 13,915 547 213 1,168 1,363,919 2.14 3,500 475 13 8
5 358 3 6,304 406 177 657 431,808 1.62 3,000 391 4 5
6 258 6 20,335 622 202 1,558 2,428,602 2.51 4,000 527 15 4
7 198 5 4,903 625 196 948 899,322 1.52 3,500 602 4 5
8 291 10 3,143 252 137 355 126,128 1.41 2,000 246 3 3
9 69 20 883 192 161 136 18,448 0.71 192
10 14 12 768 251 180 250 62,645 1.00 251
11 37 5 709 214 174 165 27,064 0.77 214
12 41 14 1,940 312 142 434 188,298 1.39 312
13 104 24 5,804 408 170 812 659,865 1.99 2,500 351 14 3
14 367 9 4,901 433 202 602 361,806 1.39 3,000 424 2 5
15 455 3 5,320 427 190 618 382,397 1.45 3,000 418 2 5
16 547 3 5,534 461 236 651 423,965 1.41 3,000 448 3 8
17 187 6 4,754 555 304 738 545,079 1.33 3,000 534 4 5
18 122 7 2,779 446 236 522 272,137 1.17 446
19 159 4 1,900 398 276 366 133,941 0.92 398
20 73 6 1,228 307 203 286 81,892 0.93 307
21 59 8 601 169 109 153 23,547 0.91 169
22 141 6 4,192 360 125 734 539,153 2.04 2,500 320 11 5
23 29 23 573 186 104 166 27,393 0.89 186
24 73 10 3,942 384 91 754 568,365 1.97 2,500 355 7 3
25 95 5 4,438 433 162 741 548,604 1.71 2,500 393 9 2
26 188 2 3,167 386 171 542 294,218 1.40 2,500 383 1 1
27 148 5 3,679 347 132 546 298,292 1.57 2,500 332 4 2
28 400 2 4,564 567 314 715 511,845 1.26 3,500 561 1 2
29 92 16 3,520 321 144 528 278,261 1.64 2,500 310 3 1
30 190 4 11,405 784 363 1,324 1,752,125 1.69 4,000 712 9 4
31 39 8 2,232 320 167 455 206,782 1.42 320
32 127 4 3,898 454 293 559 312,481 1.23 2,500 443 2
33 97 25 1,941 354 165 403 162,099 1.14 354
34 40 10 8,453 692 142 1,489 2,216,335 2.15 3,000 533 23 2
35 288 4 8,902 836 426 1,143 1,305,498 1.37 4,500 798 5 5
36 28 58 3,798 621 173 924 853,024 1.49 621
37 168 4 3,389 343 143 502 251,719 1.46 2,000 331 4 3
38 43 5 571 156 113 131 17,223 0.84 156
39 86 8 1,628 217 103 294 86,637 1.36 217
17.1.5 Bulk Density Data

Density readings taken from water immersion of whole core have been taken for 90 diamond
holes drilled in the Husab Uranium Project area. After removal of obvious outlier data (i.e. values
<1.5t/m³ and >3.5t/m³), 3,338 reading were grouped by lithology type and an average bulk
density readings were determined. Table 17.1.5_1 summarises the density readings.
The site density procedures have recently been reviewed and revised recording practices
have been suggested to mitigate future recording errors.

Table 17.1.5_1
Density Readings taken from Drill Core at Husab Uranium Project
(Filtered by >1.5tm³ and <3.5tm³)
Biotite Calc- Min

Item Gneiss Alaskite Sediments Marble Cover
Schist Silicates Zones
Count 966 379 1,192 281 410 28 82 866
Minimum 1.55 1.61 1.58 2.07 1.53 2.63 1.85 1.62
Maximum 3.5 3.48 3.48 3.46 3.45 3.24 2.61 3.47
Mean 2.73 2.73 2.69 2.76 2.78 2.86 2.18 2.70
Median 2.71 2.72 2.65 2.7 2.77 2.81 2.67
Standard Deviation 0.23 0.23 0.21 0.2 0.31 0.19 0.19
Variance 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.1 0.04 0.04
Coefficient of Variation 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.11 0.07 0.07
17.1.6 Variography
In this document, the term ‘variogram’ is used as a generic word to designate the function
characterising the variability of variables versus the distance between two samples. Isatis
geostatistical software was used throughout. Both traditional semi-variograms and
correlograms were used to analyse the spatial variability of the U3O8 3m composites for the
mineralised zones. Downhole variography was calculated and considered when determining
the nugget for each of the zones. Variography was undertaken on individual zones and upon
grouped zones to determine the optimal variograms for use in the Ordinary Kriging estimation
process. The domains used for the variography are shown in Figure 17.1.6_1 and the
resulting variograms are shown in Figure 17.1.6_2.
After assessing the variography of individual mineralised zones, then of grouped zones; it was
decided to use the variography derived from 5 major zone groupings for the subsequent OK
estimate. The resulting variography generally showed reasonably structured variography in the
major directions, but poorly structured variography in the semi major directions; often with
similar total ranges to the major directions. As no robust anisotropy could be determined in the
plane of mineralisation, and after reviewing the omnidirectional variograms for the zones, it was
decide to use similar ranges in the major and semi-major directions. The resulting variography
is shown in Table 17.1.6_1. For the estimate, the variography was orientated according to the
main geometry of the modelled mineralised zone and are shown in Table 17.1.6_1.
Table 17.1.6_1
Grouped Zone Variography – Husab Uranium Project Zone 1
(Relative variances shown)
Major Semi-Major Minor Major Semi-Major Minor

Zone Grouping Nugget C1 C2
Range Range Range Range Range Range
Main Zone 25% 60% 28 28 15 15% 130 130 70
North 25% 50% 30 30 8 25% 120 120 45
South Major & East 25% 47% 30 30 8 28% 88 88 20
West 25% 60% 55 55 25 15% 210 220 84
South Minor 25% 50% 20 20 10 25% 94 94 45

Figure 17.1.6_1
Grouped Domains – Husab Uranium Project Zone 1

Figure 17.1.6_2
Modelled Variography – Husab Uranium Project Zone 1
(Variogram Directions, Clockwise from Top Left - Major, Semi-Major, Minor)
Main North
West (Major and Semi-Major Directions) South Main South Minor (Omnidirectional)

17.1.7 Block Model

A block model was created in the national grid (WGS84_33S) using Surpac mining software.
The model extents, block sizes and attributes are summarized in Table 17.1.7_1 below.
Table 17.1.7_1
Block Model Parameters – Husab Uranium Project Zone 1
Type Y X Z
Minimum Coordinates 7504500 505500 0
Maximum Coordinates 7507500 507500 600
User Block Size 25 25 15
Minimum Block Size 6.25 6.25 3.75
Rotation 0.000 0.000 0.000
Attribute Name Type Decimals Background Description
avdis Real 12 -99 Average distance to samples
category Integer - 0 Classification (1=meas; 2=ind; 3=inf, 4=unclass)
density Real 2 2.75 Insitu Dry Bulk Density
zone Integer - 0 Numerical zone number (1-39), air = 0, waste = 99
kvkrigvar Real 3 -99 Kriging variance
lithgeol Character - Rock types- Rössing, alaskite, Chuos etc.
Lith_ind real 3 0 Indicator for alaskite
nsamps_okcut Integer - -99 Number of samples
estflag_okcut Integer - 0 Estimation flag (1,2,3)
u3o8_cut Real 2 -99 Cut uranium grade
unitsor IntegerReal 2 0 Slope of regression
The following DTMs and 3DMs used in the construction of the model:
10m_july10_model_topo1.dtm - Topography DTM;
zn1_min_naijuly8.dtm - U3O8 Mineralisation wireframe;
chuos_Rössing_khan_faults100719.dtm - definition of the Chuos, Rössing and Khan

Formation lithologies;
karibib-chuos1007.dtm - definition of the Karibib Formation lithologies;
bob1007.dtm - Base of overburden 3D model defining the base of the cemented

conglomerate and sand lithologies;
gneiss090603_zn1.dtm - Gneiss 3D model;
calsil_zn1-4_1007.dtm - Cals-silicate unit;
karibib-chuos1007.dtm - Definition of the Karibib and Chuos Formation lithologies;
greygran1007.dtm - eastern granite.
17.1.8 Grade Estimation
Ordinary Kriging (OK) Estimate

U3O8 grade was estimated into the block model using OK after top cuts had been applied to
the original 3m composite data. Neighbourhood analysis was used to optimise the search
distance and number of informing samples for the first pass.

Table 17.1.8_1 summarises the estimation parameters for each of the modelled zones.
Table 17.1.8_1
Husab Uranium Project - Zone 1
Sample Search Parameters for OK Estimate
Search/Variography Orientation
Domain Zones
Major (°) Semi-Major (°) Minor (°)
1,3 00210 60120 30300
North 2 00220 60130 30310
4 00210 50120 40300
5, 10, 22 00210 60120 30300
6,7,9 00210 50120 40300
East
8, 11, 38 00180 50090 40270
23 00190 40100 50280
31 ,32, 33 00200 60110 30290
35 00200 50110 40290
South Minor
34, 36 00210 60120 30300
37 00180 80090 10270
South Major 19, 20, 21 00210 60120 30300
12, 15, 17, 18 00210 60120 30300
Main 13, 16 00200 60110 30290
14 00200 50110 40290
24 00190 40100 50280
25 00210 50120 40300
West
26, 27, 30, 37 00180 80090 10270
28, 39 00180 50090 40270
Search Parameters
Major Axis Semi-Major Axis Minor Axis Min Max.
Pass Max/hole
(m) (m) (m) Samples Samples
1 80 80 26.7 14 24 6
2 160 160 534 14 24 6
3 240 240 80 6 12 6
Validation
A variety of validation checks were done on the data prior to estimation to ensure that
composite values and locations matched the original data in the database. After estimation
was complete, validation checks on the block model included:
Checks that the majority of blocks had filled with grade.
Correct assignment of density, classification, unit, domain and lithology information.
Volume comparison between the mineralisation wireframe and the mineralized units in
the block model.
Comparison of average informing composite grade and average block model grade (see
Table 17.1.8_2 below).
Comparison plots of average informing composite grade and average block model grade
by mineralized unit (Figure 17.1.8_1).
Visual inspection of estimated blocks against the informing composites and original
drillhole data.

Table 17.1.8_2
Comparison of Model Grades and Informing Composite U3O8 Grades for Mineralised Units
Zone Block Grade Naïve Grade Declustered Grade B.M. / Naïve Mean B.M. / Declustered Mean
1 294 308 319 5% 8%
2 437 503 438 15% 0%
3 382 412 390 8% 2%
4 465 492 442 6% -5%
5 392 401 381 2% -3%
6 513 533 549 4% 7%
7 591 621 663 5% 12%
8 235 252 262 7% 11%
9 185 192 203 4% 10%
10 286 251 281 -12% -2%
11 210 214 201 2% -5%
12 392 312 315 -20% -20%
13 310 395 355 27% 14%
14 391 432 420 10% 7%
15 481 425 442 -12% -8%
16 448 457 471 2% 5%
17 573 553 527 -4% -8%
18 419 446 428 6% 2%
19 436 398 402 -9% -8%
20 319 307 301 -4% -6%
21 167 169 168 1% 0%
22 311 360 383 16% 23%
23 171 186 207 9% 21%
24 474 384 346 -19% -27%
25 367 433 357 18% -3%
26 417 386 368 -7% -12%
27 381 347 371 -9% -3%
28 653 566 553 -13% -15%
29 322 321 318 0% -1%
30 660 719 711 9% 8%
31 371 320 298 -14% -20%
32 436 454 463 4% 6%
33 369 354 346 -4% -6%
34 561 591 630 5% 12%
35 804 796 756 -1% -6%
36 546 621 608 14% 11%
37 299 343 327 15% 9%
38 163 156 171 -4% 5%
39 212 217 219 2% 3%
Overall, there was a good comparison between the informing composite data input into the
model and the resulting block grades. Several zones were identified with block grades which
deviated significantly from the sample mean (e.g. Zone 12). These occurrences were typically
found to be due to the influence of higher grade composites in the smaller zones which had
only a few numbers of samples (e.g. 41 samples for Zone 12 and 73 for Zone 24). Areas of
significant variance within the block model were also dealt with in the block model by limiting
the amount of Inferred classification.
Density
The densities used in the resource model (Table 17.1.8_3) were based on the analysis reported
on in Section 17.1.5, with some minor adjustments to take into account potential errors in the
density data.

Figure 17.1.8_1
Example Northing Validation Plots – Husab Uranium Project Zone 1

Table 17.1.8_3
Husab Uranium Project - Zone 1
Density Values Applied to the Various Rock-Types within the Resource Model
Lithology Density t/m³

Rössing Fm* 2.75
Chuos 2.75
Karibib 2.73
Khan 2.73
Calc-silicates 2.78
Alaskite 2.65
Cover** 2.18
Unknown/uncoded geology 2.70
* Rössing Formation is a combination of sediments, biotite schist and gneiss lithologies
** Based upon combined sand and cover materials
17.1.9 Resource Reporting and Classification

The resource estimate for Husab Uranium Project Zone 1 update has been classified in
accordance with the criteria laid out in the JORC Code (2004) and NI43-101. Indicated and
Inferred Mineral Resources were defined based on data quality, data density and geological
and/or grade continuity after detailed consideration of the JORC and CNI43-101 guidelines.
The classification of the Zone 1 resource was based on the confidence levels placed in the key
criteria listed in Table 17.1.9_1 below. Figure 17.1.9_1 illustrates the classification applied to
the resource model.
Figure 17.1.9_1
Oblique View of the Classified Zone 1 Resource Model and Drillholes

Table 17.1.9_1
Confidence Levels of Key Categorisation Criteria
Item Discussion Confidence

Drilling Techniques RC/Diamond – standard industry approach. High
Logging Standard nomenclature applied and apparent high quality. High
Drill Sample Recovery Recorded as good. High
Sub-sampling Techniques Industry standard for both RC and diamond. High
and Sample Preparation
Quality of Assay Data Good internal and external QAQC check data for majority of the chemical High
assays.
Verification of Sampling QAQC analysis is within industry acceptable standards High
and Assaying
Location of Sampling Drillhole collars surveyed by DGPS and majority of drillholes have been High
Points surveyed downhole for deviation
Data Density and Ranging from 50m x 50m to 100m x 100m. Low to High
Distribution
Audits or Reviews Site drilling and sampling procedures reviewed by Coffey Mining. High
Database Integrity No material errors identified High
Geological Interpretation Further infill drilling may change the mineralisation shapes and the geological Moderate
interpretation.
Estimation and Estimates based on statistical and geostatistical analysis. Moderate
Modelling Techniques
Cutoff Grades Range of cutoff grades reported. High
Mining Factors or No ore loss or dilution factored in. The effect of emulating SMU (change of N/A
Assumptions support) has not been investigated.
The resource estimate for the Husab Uranium Project Zone 1 is reported below at a range of
cutoff grades.
Table 17.1.9_2
Husab Uranium Project Zone 1 - August 6 2010 Resource Estimate
Ordinary Kriged Estimate based upon 3m cut U3O8 Composites
Parent Cell Dimensions of 25m NS by 25m EW by 15m RL

Indicated
100 122.2 450 55.0 120.1
200 104.5 490 51.2 113.9
300 78.0 580 45.3 99.3
400 56.2 670 37.6 82.6
Inferred
100 41.3 420 17.4 37.8
200 34.2 470 16.1 35.2
300 24.7 550 13.6 29.9
400 17.0 640 10.9 24.1
Note: Figures have been rounded.
17.2 Zones 2 to 4 Resource Estimates
17.2.1 Resource Database and Validation

The database contains a combination of chemical assaying (138,518 samples – 91%), factored
radiometric data (12,981 1m composites – 9%). Approximately 16,976 individual samples were
used directly in the resource estimate, of which 185 were radiometric assays.

Table 17.2.1_1 summarises the number, metres drilled and type of hole.
Table 17.2.1_1
Husab Uranium Project (Zone 2 - 4)
Number, Metres Drilled and Type of Hole
Zone Hole Type No. Holes Metres Drilled

RC 400 121,329
2
DDH 88 36,250
RC 48 16,460
3
DDH -- --
RC 57 17,267
4
DDH 3 1,060
The drillholes were typically drilled due west (WG84/33S grid) with a dip of -60°.
Validation checks of the database included:
A detailed analysis was undertaken comparing the radiometric data for matching intervals
against the chemical assays.
During the course of the 3D modelling of the resource, the database was checked for any
gross survey and position errors. The resulting database was considered to be robust
and appropriate for use in resource estimation.
As part of the validation process, Coffey Mining conducted checks on the top 1,000
chemical assays for the Husab Uranium Project (all zones). Checks of these assays in
the supplied database against laboratory certificates files indicate no significant data
related issues with the database.
17.2.2 Geological Interpretation and Modelling

To establish appropriate grade continuity, the mineralisation model for the Husab Uranium
Project deposit was based upon a nominal 75ppm U3O8 mineralisation halo. The mineralisation
constraints were generated based upon sectional interpretation and three dimensional analyses
of the available drilling data. The main lithological contacts (e.g. alaskite and sediments) were
considered at the time of modelling and used to guide modelling of mineralisation shapes.
Unless a strong geological model could be established, mineralised zones which did not have
more than two drillhole intersections on two consecutive sections were not estimated.
The Husab Uranium Project - Zone 2 region (Figures 17.2.2_1 to 17.2.2_5) was modelled as
29 distinct zones (3m to 82m thickness, averaging 19m) with a NE trend. Individual zones
were modelled to extend for up to 1,200m along strike and between 100m to 600m down-dip.
Due to the geometries of the mineralisation, the true thickness of the mineralisation ranges
from 80% to 100% of the downhole thickness. The Husab Uranium Project – Zones 3 and 4
regions (Figures 17.2.2_1 and 17.2.2_3) were modelled as eight distinct zones (3m to 79m
thickness, averaging 16m) with a NE trend. Individual zones were modelled to extend for up
to 1,300m along strike and between 100m to 400m down-dip. Due to the geometries of the
mineralisation, the true thickness of the mineralisation ranges from 80% to 100% of the
downhole thickness.

Figure 17.2.2_1
Husab Uranium Project (Zones 1 - 4) Drillhole Location Plan

Figure 17.2.2_2
Husab Uranium Project Zone 2 Mineralised Zones and Drill Type
(Red – Diamond Drillholes, Blue – RC)

Figure 17.2.2_3
Husab Uranium Project Zones 3 and 4 - Mineralised Zones and Drill Type

Figure 17.2.2_4
Husab Uranium Project Zone 2 - Sectional Interpretation (7,503,600mN)

Figure 17.2.2_5
Husab Uranium Project Zone 3 - Sectional Interpretation (7,501,600mN)

Figures 17.2.2_4 and 17.2.2_5 show example sectional interpretations from Zones 2 and 3
respectively.
Alaskite Model
A probablistic alaskite model was coded to the Zones 2 to 4 portions of the block model in the
same fashion as discussed in Section 17.1.2.
Sulphide Model
A sulphide model was coded to all the Zones in the block mode using the nearest neighbour
method, with samples that had logged sulphides coded as 1 and all other samples coded as 0.
This model was not classified and was used solely to aid in identifying potential areas of
sulphidic material.
Surface Cover and Weathering Profile

The area of the resource is covered by up to 100m of mainly sandy superficial cover
(Figure 17.2.2_4). Extract supplied a 3D model of the surface cover (Sand and conglomerate
overburden) and main lithological units based upon the lithological logging of the RC and
diamond drillholes. The model was reviewed by Coffey Mining and was used to code
overburden into the resource block model.
Radiometric Data
Downhole radiometric data was used for portions of 29 drillholes. The raw eU3O8 data was
factored as outlined in Section 17.1.1.
17.2.3 Statistical Analysis of Composites and Top Cuts

The data captured within the mineralisation wireframes was composited to a regular 3m
downhole composite length, with residual intervals of less than 1.5m retained. Table 17.2.3_1
summarises the composite statistics for the various zones within the deposit.
A statistical analysis was carried out on the composited data for each unit to determine
appropriate top cuts to apply to the data. The approach taken included:
Review of the 3D grade distribution;
Review of the histogram and probability plots with significant breaks in populations used
to identify possible outliers;
Ranking of the individual composites and investigating the affect of the higher grades
upon the standard deviation and the mean of the data population.

Table 17.2.3_1
Husab Uranium Project Zones 2 to 4
Summary Statistics and Top Cuts Applied to the Various Mineralised Zones
Top Cut % #
Lode Number Min. Max. Mean Median Std. Dev. Variance C.V.
Cut Mean Decrease Cut
201 29 10 1,305 287 134 369 136,333 1.29 6,000 287 0.0
202 22 80 2,232 251 116 452 204,437 1.8 6,000 251 0.0
203 240 10 9,695 598 190 1,026 1,052,497 1.72 6,000 583 2.6 1
204 270 6 7,395 440 150 872 760,976 1.98 6,000 435 1.2 1
205 131 8 2,246 333 149 465 215,860 1.4 6,000 333 0.0
206 207 8 32,865 500 168 2,325 5,407,907 4.65 6,000 370 25.9 1
207 46 13 1,708 332 149 374 139,539 1.13 6,000 332 0.0
208 24 5 752 281 175 246 60,395 0.88 6,000 281 0.0
209 26 27 3,328 598 395 725 525,875 1.21 6,000 598 0.0
210 477 5 6,367 624 346 816 665,706 1.31 6,000 623 0.2 3
211 568 5 3,928 479 246 621 385,298 1.3 6,000 479 0.0
212 1058 5 15,010 593 242 1,056 1,115,393 1.78 6,000 572 3.6 5
213 140 5 2,888 369 133 518 267,857 1.4 6,000 369 0.0
214 363 5 7,187 536 246 832 691,448 1.55 6,000 533 0.6 1
215 27 24 2,102 288 121 437 191,016 1.52 6,000 288 0.0
216 860 5 14,874 732 264 1,328 1,762,612 1.81 6,000 695 5.0 9
217 116 5 4,204 528 260 665 441,887 1.26 6,000 528 0.0
218 82 7 3,025 456 231 598 357,326 1.31 6,000 456 0.0
219 76 5 4,041 698 306 896 803,259 1.29 6,000 698 0.0
220 155 5 1,900 258 173 309 95,737 1.2 6,000 258 0.0
221 51 6 2,030 315 157 479 229,552 1.52 6,000 315 0.0
222 79 5 1,192 237 132 258 66,412 1.09 6,000 237 0.0
223 15 23 1,058 256 188 265 70,204 1.03 6,000 256 0.0
225 38 5 2,853 416 190 597 355,884 1.44 6,000 416 0.0
226 78 11 4,747 635 190 1,013 1,025,640 1.6 6,000 635 0.0
227 213 5 7,671 527 222 947 895,869 1.8 6,000 519 1.5 1
229 162 5 8,996 434 191 843 710,458 1.94 6,000 416 4.3 1
351 21 26 1,052 316 189 283 80,234 0.9 2,000 316 0.0
352 14 45 425 183 121 126 15,788 0.69 2,000 183 0.0
353 203 7 3,048 242 124 410 167,743 1.69 2,000 230 5.2 3
354 27 39 368 148 126 89 7,987 0.61 2,000 148 0.0
355 108 14 1,040 241 150 221 49,031 0.92 2,000 241 0.0
356 10 20 1,548 328 156 457 209,132 1.4 2,000 328 0.0
357 28 10 3,663 541 182 874 764,278 1.62 2,000 454 16.1 3
440 185 5 6,074 637 260 1,018 1,037,279 1.6 4,000 602 5.4 5
The resulting top cuts applied (Table 17.2.3_1) resulted in a decrease of the naïve mean from
1% to 26%, typically from the cutting of up to 9 composites. The mineralised zones which
exhibited the largest changes in mean grade (e.g. zones 206 and 357) were characterised by
a strong positive distribution with a relatively few number of high grade composites
(e.g. 1 composite >6,000ppm U3O8 for Zone 206) supplying up to 26% of the contained
relative metal for the individual zones. Figure 17.1.1_3 show type examples of the graphs
that were examined from each mineralised zone to assess the top cutting of outlier assays.
Bulk Density Data

Bulk density was applied based upon lithological domains (see Section 17.1.1) and is shown
in Table 17.2.3_2.
Mineralised domains were assigned the bulk density of the underlying host lithology.
Figure 17.2.3_1 shows a cross-section of the final model and the lithological coding used to
assign bulk densities.

Table 17.2.3_2
Husab Uranium Project (Zone 2)
Bulk Density Values Assigned by Supplied Lithological Wireframes
Assigned “GEOL” Field

Lithology
Bulk Density (in Final Model)
Sand / Overburden 2.18t/m³ OVB
Karibib Formation 2.73t/m³ KARB
Chuos Formation 2.75t/m³ CHUS
Rössing Formation 2.75t/m³ ROSG
Calc-Silicates 2.78t/m³ CALC
Khan Formation 2.73t/m³ KHAN
Alaskite 2.65t/m³ ALSK
Granite/Gneiss 2.65t/m³ GRN
Figure 17.2.3_1
Cross-Section of the Zone 2 Block Model at 7,503,500mN
Showing the Lithological Coding Used for Bulk Density Assignment
Variography
In most cases, individual lenses contained too few composites to generate meaningful individual
correlograms. Due to limited data distribution in the down-dip orientation, semi-major
correlograms were poor; therefore, it was decided to apply the parameters from the major axis
in the semi-major orientation. The variography of the combined mineralised lenses (201 to 229)
from ZONE 2 were used as the basis for the estimation for all three zones with the data from
each of the mineralised zones as inputs for the OK estimation for each of the mineralised zone.
The major and semi-major axes of the variogram and search axes were orientated to be parallel
to the main trend of the individual modelled mineralisation domains.
Table 17.2.3_3 summarises the resulting variogram model parameters from Zone 2 and
Table 17.2.3_4 summarises the resulting variogram model parameters from Zones 3 and 4.
Figure 17.2.3_2 shows example variography from Zone 2.

Table 17.2.3_3
Husab Uranium Project (Zone 2)
Variogram Parameters for Mineralised Zone 2
Orientation Range 1 (m) Range 2 (m) Range 3 (m)

Major Semi-Major Minor C0 C1 C2 C3
Zone Semi- Semi- Semi-
(%) (%) Major Minor (%) Major Minor (%) Major Minor
Dip Azi Dip Azi Dip Azi Major Major Major
(o ) (o ) (o ) (o ) (o ) (o )
201 20 45 0 135 70 45 0.25 0.6 50 50 20 0.15 90 75 60 -- -- -- --
202 35 60 0 150 55 60 0.25 0.6 50 50 20 0.15 90 75 60 -- -- -- --
203 25 70 0 160 65 70 0.25 0.6 50 50 20 0.15 90 75 60 -- -- -- --
204 25 70 0 160 65 70 0.25 0.6 50 50 20 0.15 90 75 60 -- -- -- --
205 25 80 0 170 65 80 0.25 0.6 50 50 20 0.15 90 75 60 -- -- -- --
206 25 60 0 150 65 60 0.25 0.6 50 50 20 0.15 90 75 60 -- -- -- --
207 30 90 0 180 60 90 0.25 0.6 50 50 20 0.15 90 75 60 -- -- -- --
208 25 90 0 180 65 90 0.25 0.6 50 50 20 0.15 90 75 60 -- -- -- --
209 30 70 0 160 60 70 0.25 0.6 50 50 20 0.15 90 75 60 -- -- -- --
210 40 80 0 170 50 80 0.25 0.6 50 50 20 0.15 90 75 60 -- -- -- --
211 25 90 0 180 65 90 0.25 0.6 50 50 20 0.15 90 75 60 -- -- -- --
212 25 95 0 185 65 95 0.25 0.6 50 50 20 0.15 90 75 60 -- -- -- --
213 25 90 0 180 65 90 0.25 0.6 50 50 20 0.15 90 75 60 -- -- -- --
214 10 35 0 125 80 35 0.25 0.6 50 50 20 0.15 90 75 60 -- -- -- --
215 25 90 0 180 65 90 0.25 0.6 50 50 20 0.15 90 75 60 -- -- -- --
216 20 45 0 135 70 45 0.25 0.6 50 50 20 0.15 90 75 60 -- -- -- --
217 30 65 0 155 60 65 0.25 0.6 50 50 20 0.15 90 75 60 -- -- -- --
218 35 75 0 165 55 75 0.25 0.6 50 50 20 0.15 90 75 60 -- -- -- --
219 25 60 0 150 65 60 0.25 0.6 50 50 20 0.15 90 75 60 -- -- -- --
220 35 80 0 170 55 80 0.25 0.6 50 50 20 0.15 90 75 60 -- -- -- --
221 30 90 0 180 60 90 0.25 0.6 50 50 20 0.15 90 75 60 -- -- -- --
222 30 65 0 155 60 65 0.25 0.6 50 50 20 0.15 90 75 60 -- -- -- --
223 10 340 0 430 80 340 0.25 0.6 50 50 20 0.15 90 75 60 -- -- -- --
225 20 265 0 355 70 265 0.25 0.6 50 50 20 0.15 90 75 60 -- -- -- --
226 25 260 0 350 65 260 0.25 0.6 50 50 20 0.15 90 75 60 -- -- -- --
227 30 305 0 395 60 305 0.25 0.6 50 50 20 0.15 90 75 60 -- -- -- --
229 20 315 0 405 70 315 0.25 0.6 50 50 20 0.15 90 75 60 -- -- -- --

Table 17.2.3_4
Husab Uranium Project (Zone 3 and 4)
Variogram Parameters for Mineralised Zones 3 and 4
Orientation Range 1 (m) Range 2 (m) Range 3 (m)

Major Semi-Major Minor C0 C1 C2 C3
Zone Semi- Semi- Semi-
(%) (%) Major Minor (%) Major Minor (%) Major Minor
Dip Azi Dip Azi Dip Azi Major Major Major
(o ) (o ) (o ) (o ) (o ) (o )
351 20 120 0 210 70 120 0.25 0.6 200 100 5 0.15 250 175 30 -- -- -- --
352 25 95 0 185 65 95 0.25 0.6 200 100 5 0.15 250 175 30 -- -- -- --
353 25 85 0 175 65 85 0.25 0.6 200 100 5 0.15 250 175 30 -- -- -- --
354 50 105 0 195 40 105 0.25 0.6 200 100 5 0.15 250 175 30 -- -- -- --
355 30 105 0 195 60 105 0.25 0.6 200 100 5 0.15 250 175 30 -- -- -- --
356 30 105 0 195 60 105 0.25 0.6 200 100 5 0.15 250 175 30 -- -- -- --
357 30 75 0 165 60 75 0.25 0.6 200 100 5 0.15 250 175 30 -- -- -- --
440 15 250 0 340 75 250 0.25 0.6 200 100 5 0.15 250 175 30 -- -- -- --

Figure 17.2.3_2
Correlogram for Husab Uranium Project Zone 2 Combined Lodes
upper left (Major) 0º015º, upper right (Semi-Major) 15º105º,

lower left (Minor) -75º105º

17.2.4 Block Model

A block model was created in the National grid (UTM WGS84 33south) using Datamine mining
software with a parent cell size of 25m (Easting) by 25m (Northing) by 15m (RL) which was sub-
blocked down to 3.125m (Easting) by 3.125m (Northing) by 1.875m (RL). No rotation was
applied to the block model. The block model parameters are summarised below in
Table 17.2.4_1. The variables coded into the block model are shown below in Table 17.2.4_2.
Table 17.2.4_1
Husab Uranium Project (Zones 2 - 4)
Block Model Parameters
Easting (X) Northing (Y) RL (Z)

Min. Coordinates 7,499,500 503,500 0
Extent 7,508,000 508,000 600
Block size (m) 25 25 15
Sub Block size (m) 3.125 3.125 1.875
Rotation 0° 0° 0°
Total Blocks – Mineralisation
Total Blocks – Final Model 8,043,689
Table 17.2.4_2
Husab Uranium Project (Zone 2 - 4)
Block Model Variables
Attribute Name Type Decimals Background Description

RESCAT Integer - 4 Classification (1=meas; 2=ind; 3=inf, 4=unclass)
RCLASS Character - UNC Classification (MEAS; IND; INF, UNC)
DENSITY Real 2 2.65 Estimated Density from top-cut composites
Weathering Code 1=soil/alluvium,
2=Laterite,
3=oxidised,
4=partially oxidised,
GROUND Integer - 6 5=Transitional,
6=fresh,
99=dumps,
199=open pit,
0=air
OXIDN Character - PMRY Weathering (OXID, TRN1, TRN2, PMRY, DUMP, AIR)
4 domains: Zone 1- Sub-Zones 1-39 & 666;
Zone 2 – Sub-zones 1-29;
ZONE Integer - 0
Zone 3 – Sub-Zones 351-357; and
Zone 4 – Sub-zones 440
Rock types (CHUS, OVB, KARB, ROSG, KHAN, CALC,
GEOL Character - ROCK
ALSK, GRN)
Is Mined Flag: 0=not mined,
1=mined open pit,
MINED Integer - 0 2=mined UG Development,
3=mined UG stopes,
4=dumps
U3O8c Real - 5 Estimated Uranium from top-cut composites
Sulphide Presence Flag;
SULPHIDE Integer - 0
1= yes, 0 = no using 0.5 SU_PROPN
SU_PROPN Real - 0 Estimated Sulphide presence

17.2.5 Grade Estimation
OK Estimate
U3O8 grade was estimated into to the block model using OK for top-cut U3O8 related variables.
Sample neighbourhood testing was adopted from the Zone 1 data.
As the Extract drilling had been completed on a regular grid pattern, drillhole data clustering
was not significant and similar sample selection criteria were used for the mineralised zones.
A staged sample search strategy for Zones 2, 3, and 4 was used based upon neighbourhood
testing and is summarised in Tables 17.2.5_1 and 17.2.5_2.
The variogram parameters used for the estimation were based upon the variography
discussed in Section 17.2.3 and are summarised in Table 17.2.5_1. Domain control was used
for the OK estimate using whole block discretisation of 5(X) by 5 (Y) by 3(Z). Any sub-blocks
within the 3D limit of each whole block were assigned the whole block OK estimate.
Validation
Validation routines were undertaken in a similar manner to those of Zone 1 (Section 17.1.8).
Comparison of average informing composite grade and average block model grade, by easting,
northing and elevation, for Zones 2, 3 and 4, are shown in Figures 17.2.5_1 to 17.2.5_3.
Overall, there was a good comparison between the informing composite data input into the
model and the resulting block grades. Areas of significant variance within the block model
were also dealt with in the block model by limiting the amount of Inferred classification.
Density
The bulk density values used for the resource model were based upon the data previously
analysed in this Section (see Table 17.2.3_2). All mineralised material inherited the bulk
density from the host lithology.

Figure 17.2.5_1
Comparative Plots of Informing Composites and Block Model Grade
Husab Uranium Project – Zone 2

Figure 17.2.5_2

Figure 17.2.5_3

Table 17.2.5_1
Sample Search Parameters – Ordinary Kriging
Pass No. Major Semi-Major Minor Search Radii Number of Composites

Datset Used
(Sub-ZONE) Dip Azim Dip Azim Dip Azim Minimum
1 2 3 Major Semi- Major Minor Maximum
(o) (o) (o) (o) (o) (o) (run 1 / 2 / 3)
201 89.6% 10.4% 0.0% 20 45 0 135 70 45 120 120 40 14 / 8 / 4 24
202 45.6% 54.4% 0.0% 35 60 0 150 55 60 120 120 40 14 / 8 / 4 24
203 91.8% 8.2% 0.0% 25 70 0 160 65 70 120 120 40 14 / 8 / 4 24
204 97.2% 2.8% 0.0% 25 70 0 160 65 70 120 120 40 14 / 8 / 4 24
205 77.6% 22.4% 0.0% 25 80 0 170 65 80 120 120 40 14 / 8 / 4 24
206 97.3% 2.7% 0.0% 25 60 0 150 65 60 120 120 40 14 / 8 / 4 24
207 78.9% 21.1% 0.0% 30 90 0 180 60 90 120 120 40 14 / 8 / 4 24
208 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 25 90 0 180 65 90 120 120 40 14 / 8 / 4 24
209 51.2% 45.7% 3.0% 30 70 0 160 60 70 120 120 40 14 / 8 / 4 24
210 92.4% 7.6% 0.0% 40 80 0 170 50 80 120 120 40 14 / 8 / 4 24
211 96.4% 3.6% 0.0% 25 90 0 180 65 90 120 120 40 14 / 8 / 4 24
212 94.3% 5.7% 0.0% 25 95 0 185 65 95 120 120 40 14 / 8 / 4 24
213 80.2% 19.8% 0.0% 25 90 0 180 65 90 120 120 40 14 / 8 / 4 24
214 86.2% 13.8% 0.0% 10 35 0 125 80 35 120 120 40 14 / 8 / 4 24
215 37.8% 62.2% 0.0% 25 90 0 180 65 90 120 120 40 14 / 8 / 4 24
216 96.3% 3.7% 0.0% 20 45 0 135 70 45 120 120 40 14 / 8 / 4 24
217 77.3% 22.7% 0.0% 30 65 0 155 60 65 120 120 40 14 / 8 / 4 24
218 71.2% 28.8% 0.0% 35 75 0 165 55 75 120 120 40 14 / 8 / 4 24
219 0.9% 94.9% 4.2% 25 60 0 150 65 60 120 120 40 14 / 8 / 4 24
220 98.5% 1.5% 0.0% 35 80 0 170 55 80 120 120 40 14 / 8 / 4 24
221 68.7% 31.3% 0.0% 30 90 0 180 60 90 120 120 40 14 / 8 / 4 24
222 69.2% 30.8% 0.0% 30 65 0 155 60 65 120 120 40 14 / 8 / 4 24
223 60.0% 40.0% 0.0% 10 340 0 430 80 340 120 120 40 14 / 8 / 4 24
225 54.7% 45.3% 0.0% 20 265 0 355 70 265 120 120 40 14 / 8 / 4 24
226 63.2% 36.8% 0.0% 25 260 0 350 65 260 120 120 40 14 / 8 / 4 24
227 92.5% 7.5% 0.0% 30 305 0 395 60 305 120 120 40 14 / 8 / 4 24
229 89.6% 10.4% 0.0% 20 315 0 405 70 315 120 120 40 14 / 8 / 4 24

Table 17.2.5_2
Husab Uranium Project – Zones 3 & 4
Sample Search Parameters – Ordinary Kriging
Pass No. Major Semi-Major Minor Search Radii Number of Composites

Datset Used
(Sub-ZONE) Dip Azim Dip Azim Dip Azim Minimum
1 2 3 Major Semi- Major Minor Maximum
(o) (o) (o) (o) (o) (o) (run 1 / 2 / 3)
351 0.0% 92.7% 7.3% 20 120 0 210 70 120 120 120 40 14 / 8 / 4 24
352 0.0% 89.6% 10.4% 25 95 0 185 65 95 120 120 40 14 / 8 / 4 24
353 7.5% 90.3% 2.2% 25 85 0 175 65 85 120 120 40 14 / 8 / 4 24
354 0.0% 93.8% 6.2% 50 105 0 195 40 105 120 120 40 14 / 8 / 4 24
355 1.1% 95.8% 3.1% 30 105 0 195 60 105 120 120 40 14 / 8 / 4 24
356 0.0% 86.2% 13.8% 30 105 0 195 60 105 120 120 40 14 / 8 / 4 24
357 82.9% 17.1% 0.0% 30 75 0 165 60 75 120 120 40 14 / 8 / 4 24
440 20.9% 75.9% 3.3% 15 250 0 340 75 250 120 120 40 14 / 8 / 4 24

Resource Reporting and Classification

The resource estimate for the Husab Uranium Project deposit – Zones 2 to 4 - has been
categorised in accordance with the criteria laid out in the NI43-101 and the JORC Code
(2004). Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resources were defined during the validation of the
grade estimates, with detailed consideration of the CNI43-101 categorisation guidelines.
The classification of the Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resources was based on the confidence
level of the key criteria that were considered during resource classification as presented in
Table 17.2.5_3
Table 17.2.5_3
Husab Uranium Project (Zones 2 to 4)
Confidence Levels of Key Categorisation Criteria
Items Discussion Confidence

Drilling Techniques RC/Diamond - industry standard approach. High
Logging Standard nomenclature applied with recording and apparent high quality. High
Drill Sample Recovery Recorded as good High
Sub-sampling Techniques Industry standard for both RC and diamond drilling High
and Sample Preparation
Quality of Assay Data Good internal laboratory and external quality control data available for the majority Moderate to
of the chemical assaying. Factored radiometric data is considered to be globally High
equivalent to chemical assaying, but can show local differences.
Verification of Sampling QAQC analysis is within industry acceptable standards. High
and Assaying
Location of Sampling Most drillhole collars surveyed by DGPS surveyed and most drillholes have been High
Points downhole surveyed.
Data Density and Nominal 50m by 50m to 100m by 200m drillhole collar spacing. Moderate to
Distribution High
Audits or Reviews Coffey Mining has reviewed the site drilling and sampling procedures. High
Database Integrity No material errors identified. High
Geological Interpretation Infill drilling is likely to change the mineralisation shapes and understanding of Low to
structural and grade continuity Moderate
Estimation and Modelling Estimates based on detailed statistical and geostatistical analysis. Moderate
Techniques
Cutoff Grades Range of cutoff grades reported. High
Mining Factors or Whole block estimates for all mineralised regions completed. The effect of N/A
Assumptions emulating smaller mining blocks has not been investigated.
Blocks were classified as Indicated Mineral Resources based upon regions which had well
established geological continuity and a nominal data spacing of 50m by 50m to 50m by 100m.
Blocks not classified as Indicated Mineral Resources and which had a reasonable geological
continuity and a data spacing of 100m by 100m to 100m by 200m were classified as Inferred
Mineral Resources.
No mining has been undertaken at Husab Uranium Project to date.
The resource estimate for Zones 2 to 4 of the Husab Uranium Project, reported above
selected cutoffs to a depth of 500m, is summarised below. The preferred cutoff for reporting
the resources is 100ppm U3O8.

Table 17.2.5_4
Husab Uranium Project – Zones 2 to 4
August 6 2010 Resource Estimate by Zone
Ordinary Kriged Estimate based upon 3m Top-cut U3O8 Composites
Parent Cell Dimensions of 25mNS by 25mEW by 15mRL

Zone 2
100 118.8 520 61.8 136.9
200 110.0 550 60.5 133.7
Indicated
300 87.7 630 55.3 121.2
400 66.3 720 47.8 104.8
100 26.8 520 13.9 30.5
200 24.5 550 13.5 29.7
Inferred
300 19.3 630 12.1 26.8
400 14.1 740 10.4 22.9
Zone 3
100 43.0 250 10.7 24.0
200 24.3 330 8.0 17.5
Inferred
300 11.8 410 4.9 10.7
400 4.3 530 2.3 5.0
Zone 4
100 14.4 570 8.2 17.9
200 13.0 610 7.9 17.5
Inferred
300 11.4 660 7.5 16.6
400 9.0 740 6.7 14.7
Table 17.2.5_5
Husab Uranium Project - August 6 2010 Resource Estimate - All Zones
Ordinary Kriged Estimate based upon 3m Top-cut U3O8 Composites
Parent Cell Dimensions of 25mNS by 25mEW by 15mRL
Lower Cutoff Tonnage Grade Contained U3O8 Contained U3O

Indicated
100 241.0 480 117 257.0
200 214.5 520 112 247.6
300 165.7 610 101 220.6
400 122.5 700 85 187.4
Inferred
100 125.5 400 50 110.3
200 96.1 470 45 99.9
300 67.2 570 38 84.0
400 44.4 680 30 66.7
Coffey Mining is unaware of any mining, metallurgical, infrastructure or other relevant factors
which may materially affect the resources for Zones 1 to 4. The availability of suitable water
and power supplies may be key factors in any future mining studies.

17.2.6 Comments and Recommendations

The Husab Uranium Project area contains significant uranium mineralisation associated with
uraniferous leucocratic granites (alaskites) within the highly prospective Central Zone of the
Damara Orogeny. The mineralised alaskites tend to occur along or proximal to the
unconformity contact between the Khan Formation and Rössing Formation.
The August 2010 resource (Table 1.4_1; and Tables 17.1.9_2 and 17.2.5_4) represents a
significant increase in Indicated Mineral Resources relative to the previous July 2009 Resources
for Zones 1 and 2, and incorporates maiden resources for Zones 3 and 4.
Further bulk density information is required in the mineralised portions of the deposit and of
the overburden. Further infill and extensional drilling is required to raise the level of
confidence of the Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resources.
Due to the increasingly complex relationship of mineralisation and alaskite lithologies, it is

recommended that in future an MIK approach be considered to generate a recoverable SMU
model.

18 MINERAL
INERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES AND MINING METHODS
18.1 Mining operations
18.1.1 Mining Methodology

The Husab Project will be developed as two large open pits centred around the Zone 1 and
Zone 2 orebodies. The mining process will follow a conventional open pit approach entailing
planning, drilling, blasting, loading and hauling from the open pits. Ore will be transported
either directly to the primary crusher or placed in stockpiles for later crusher feed as required.
Waste material will either be deposited with
with the Mine Residue Facility (MRF) or utilised for site
earthworks if it is of a suitable quality. The mine will operate 361 days per annum (allowing
for 2 public holidays and 2 lost days for weather delays) on a 24 hour basis with 3 rotating
shifts of 8 hours each.
Due to the lower cost of power relative to fuel price it has been determined that considerable
benefit can be generated by adopting a trolley-assist
trolley assist mine haulage system. Trolley-assist
Trolley is a
truck based haulage system whereby diesel-electric
diesel trucks
ucks are provided with AC electrical
power directly from an overhead line in the same manner as a city tram. An indicative layout
is shown in Figure 18.1.1_1.
Figure 18.1.1_1
Trolley Assist Layout
The benefits of trolley-assist

assist include increased truck speed up ramp and therefore improved
fleet productivity and decreased fuel consumption due to the trucks being effectively idle when
“on trolley”. With the increased productivity is a decrease in the required fleet size and
therefore associated capital expenditure. However, there are additional costs associated with
the trolley infrastructure and required truck modifications. There is a minimal amount of
additional stripping needed as a result of a w
wider
ider ramp to allow for the trolley infrastructure
and straightening of the pit ramps to aid the truck operators to maintain the pantograph of the
truck in effective contact with the overhead trolley line.

Initial assessment of the trolley assist-system indicated that a considerable saving in cost was
achievable over the life of the operation. A final sensitivity analysis, carried out using the DFS
cost model, generated a Life of Mine (LOM) operating cost saving of ~9% or $0.17/tonne.
The LOM capital costs increased by ~7% due to the significant trolley infrastructure required,
resulting in a total cost saving of ~6% or $230M over LOM. This equates to a saving of 5% in
Net Present Cost over LOM.
The benefit of trolley-assist increases with higher fuel prices. As such trolley-assist provides a
degree of risk mitigation against adverse fluctuations in this fundamental cost parameter.
Conversely, trolley-assist is sensitive to changes in power price. Sensitivity analysis indicates
that a ~150% increase in power cost would be required for the trolley-assist cost of mining to
converge on the conventional haulage cost. Conversely fuel cost would need to decrease by
~80% to equate to the base case trolley-assist cost. It is highly unlikely that fuel prices will
decrease to this level. Power prices may increase, but it is reasonable to assume fuel will
also increase, maintaining the relative benefit of trolley-assist.
A MRF has been developed to cater for storage of both mine waste rock and process plant
tailings. This disposal / storage option is essentially a facility whereby tailings are transported
onto the dumping area by truck along with the mine waste and inter-mingled at the dump face.
18.2 Open Pit Optimisation
The objective of open pit optimisation is the determination of a generalised open pit shape
(shell) that provides the highest value for a deposit. It is from analysis of all the shells
generated in the optimisation process that a single shape can be selected as the guide for a
practical ultimate pit design.
The final pit design defines the Ore Reserve and subsequently LOM schedules and
associated cashflows can be developed. Hence, the pit optimisation process is the critical
first step in the development of any open cut mineral extraction project as it not only assesses
mining and processing parameters, but other global project variables such as marketing and
financial assumptions.
In addition to defining the ultimate size of the open pit, the pit optimisation process also
provides an indication of potential areas for interim mining stages. These intermediate mining
stages allow the pit to be developed in a practical and incremental manner, while at the same
time targeting high grade ore.
The pit optimisation process used the latest available information to ensure it makes use
of all accumulated knowledge at the time. The parameters include and are not limited to:
The JORC classified Resource completed by Coffey Mining Pty in August 2010 (ASX
release 10 August, 2010). This will be referred to as the Resource Model.
Updated geotechnical parameters supplied by Golder Associates in mid 2010.
Updated mining operating and capital costs, mining parameters and bench height
recommendations derived from earlier studies carried out during 2010.

Updated process recovery, project capital costs, processing costs, selling costs, mining
and processing production rates inclusive of respective ramp-ups provided by AMEC
rd
during 3 quarter 2010.
18.2.1 Resource Model

The starting point for any optimisation is the resource model. The model utilised for the DFS
was generated by Coffey Mining in July 2010 utilising the latest drilling information available.
It was provided in Datamine format as one large model combining the four areas of uranium
mineralisation currently classified as Mineral Resources, “Zones 1, 2, 3 and 4”. However, for
the purposes of the DFS only Zones 1 and 2 were considered.
The Mineral Resource model was then imported into MineSight, the mine planning software
utilised by ORElogy. The sub-blocked resource model was regularised as part of this
importation process. However, the detail provided by the sub-blocks has been maintained
through the use of “block percent” parameters that preserve the block proportions for the sub-
blocks and their associated materials and resource classes.
The result of the importation into MineSight was reconciled back to the original Datamine
resource model.
It is important to select a block size that takes into account the machinery size required to
achieve productivity targets and their respective selective mining capabilities. Equipment size
was considered in the bench height analysis (refer to Section 18.2.4), resulting in a minimum
bench height of 7.5m for selective mining. As the block model has to reflect the smallest
bench height to be used, a regular block size (x, y, z) of 12.5m x 12.5m x 7.5m was adopted
within the MineSight model.
18.2.2 Density
All the blocks within the model that contained grade also had a modelled density. However,
some further refinement of the waste densities was carried out as part of building the
MineSight mining model.
The original Mineral Resource model was flagged with two material codes identifying calcrete
(i.e. barren overburden material) from fresh rock. These two material types were then utilised
to flag the global densities of the deposit.
A third material type was then flagged in the MineSight model. This material was referred to
as “free-dig” material, denoting weathered overburden material that could be freely excavated
with a shovel without the need for drilling and blasting. It was assumed free-dig constituted
the first 20m from topography as recommended by an independent blasting consultant, and
was coded into the model accordingly. The densities assigned to the material types described
above are detailed in Table 18.2.2_1 below.

Table 18.2.2_1
Material Density
Material t/m³
Free-dig 1.80
Calcrete 2.20
Fresh 2.65
18.2.3 Ore Loss and Dilution

For the purposes of pit optimisation and the subsequent reporting of mineable reserves an
allowance must be made for ore loss and dilution. It was determined that the most
appropriate approach was to apply the parameters on a block by block basis within the
resource model. The resulting regularised mining model has ore percentages and ore grades
that have ore loss and dilution incorporated.
The process used to determine ore loss and dilution is as follows:
The dip of the ore body was estimated for every block throughout the model using the
three dimensional ore body outlines developed for resource estimation.
A custom software script performed the following calculations:
If the ore percentage in the block was less than 5%, it was assumed the ore could
not be practically isolated and mined and therefore ore loss was set to 100% (i.e. the
block ore percent is set to 0, effectively reclassifying the block as waste).
If the ore percent was greater than 95%, the block was considered within the ore
body and could be mined without ore loss or dilution.
For the ore percentages lying between these two bounds, block specific dilution and ore
loss were calculated on the basis of the geometry of the orebody boundary and the
geometry of the advancing mining face within that block. This assumed that the majority
of mining would take place across the strike of the orebody and with the dip (i.e. the
orebody dip azimuth and mining face azimuth are in the same direction) as shown in
Figure 18.2.3_1.
For orebody dips of less than 10° the dilution and oreloss from the above approach becomes
prohibitive. In this case it is assumed a combination of variable depth drill and blast with
selective dozing will result in effectively a dilution skin of ~1m (i.e. ~13% of bench height).
The resulting ore loss and dilution estimates were coded within the block model, and a
revised ore percentage and grade were calculated.
As the dilution and ore loss vary from block to block the values for any given optimisation shell
or pit design will vary depending on the blocks within the shell or design. As an indication, the
global ore loss and dilution for the entire resource are provided in Table 18.2.3_1.

Figure 18.2.3_1
Ore Loss Dilution Geometry (Orebody Dip ≥ 10°)
Table 18.2.3_1
Global Ore Loss and Dilution by Zone
Zone Ore Loss (%) Dilution (%)

1 3.5 3.8
2 4.9 7.1
Average 4.2 5.4
18.2.4 Bench Height Selection

A bench height study was undertaken to determine the most appropriate bench height for the
project. The selection process balanced the benefits of an increased bench height against the
impact of ore losses and dilution.
Higher benches have the following operational benefits:
A lower bench turnover rate - Bench turnover measures of the number of benches that
are commenced and completed during a given year. Mining of a bench involves a
number of separate activities (for example: drop cutting, drilling, blasting, grade control,
ore mark-out, load and haul, working area maintenance, final wall pre-split and battering).
Larger equipment size – A higher bench height means that larger equipment can be
utilised. Larger equipment provides the benefits of:
Higher productivity (t/h) and therefore lower unit operating cost (US$/t)
Reduced fleet size simplifying the operation and leading to a reduction in:
Overall personnel
Road maintenance equipment
Operational safety incidents.
Productivity also generally increases due to less congestion.
These benefits will ensure the required material movement of 15Mt/a mill feed is maintained.

However, increased bench height also results in less ore selectivity along the ore and waste
boundary. This results in:
Higher ore loss where ore is lost to waste; and
Higher mining dilution where ore is diluted with waste, which has the effect of increasing
ore tonnes but lowering mill feed grade.
The bench height study assessed the trade-off between these various parameters by applying
the ore loss and dilution values calculated for various bench heights within WHITTLE and
assessing the relative variations in ore inventory and Net Present Value. As a result of this
study a maximum bench height of 7.5m has been selected in those areas where selective
mining is required to minimise ore loss and dilution. In broad continuous areas of either ore or
waste, a 15m bench height is planned.
18.2.5 Geotechnical Parameters

Golder Associates SA completed a detailed geotechnical analysis of the Swakop Uranium
Husab Project. A brief synopsis of their findings is provided below:
Three major geotechnical domains were identified, being free-dig, calcrete and fresh rock.
Kinematic analysis was undertaken where three modes of failure were examined for each
of the sectors, and a slope configuration calculated based upon the selected bench height.
Inter-ramp stability was also assessed using probabilistic techniques.
In general, the geotechnical investigations demonstrated that the rock mass conditions are
good and will allow for fairly steep pit slopes. On the smaller bench scale, there is potential to
develop wedge or planar failures in areas due to the intersection of joints and batters.
However, the calculated factors of safety have highlighted that these should not present a
significant risk. The risk associated with these types of failures can by mitigated by
maintaining good blasting practices and batter slopes.
With the exception of the free-dig domain, three different slope profiles were developed based
on the level of probability of failure, and hence risk. These profiles were termed Conservative,
Intermediate and Aggressive. The Intermediate parameters have been selected for
optimisation and design purposes and they are outlined in Table 18.2.5_1.
To calculate the overall slopes for application in the pit optimisations software (Whittle 4X),
allowances were made for the following:
Ramp width inclusive of trolley-assist infrastructure where applicable
Approximate depth of pit
Number of ramps
Number of catch benches in fresh rock (refer to Table 18.2.5_1).
Table 18.2.5_2 details the calculation of total ramp width (i.e. crest to toe).

Table 18.2.5_1
Geotechnical Slope Design Parameters
Domain Detail Units Value

Bench Height (m) 15
Batter Angle (deg) 45
Free-Dig
Berm Width (m) 6.5
Inter-ramp angle (deg) 35
Bench Height (m) 15
Batter Angle (m) 70
Calcrete
Berm Width (m) 12
Overall slope inclusive of Catch Berms (deg) 41
Bench Height (m) 30
Batter Angle (deg) 80
Berm Width (m) 15
Fresh Inter-ramp Angle (deg) 56
Catch berm width (m) 25
Number of benches between catch berms (#) 3
Overall slope inclusive of catch berm (deg) 54.5
Table 18.2.5_2
Ramp Width Calculation
Truck Width Number of Trolley-Assist

Ramp Type Total
(m) Truck Widths Infrastructure (m)
Trolley 8.5 4 4 38
Non-Trolley 8.5 4 0 34
1-Way 8.5 2 0 17
The calculation of the overall slopes for Whittle is detailed in Table 18.2.5_3 below. As the
free-dig and calcrete depths are relatively small, no allowance was made for ramps in this
material as any ramp would only impact over a limited length of wall. The depth of material
types and ramp layouts were based on previously developed pit designs.
Table 18.2.5_3
Overall Slope Calculations
Inter- Number of Ramps Number of

Slope Wall Overall Wall
Material Ramp Catch
Area Trolley Non-Trolley 1-Way Height Slope
Angle Berms
1 35 - - - - 20 35
2 35 - - - - 20 35
Free Dig
3 35 - - - - 20 35
4 35 - - - - 20 35
1 41 - - - - 30 41
2 41 - - - - 30 41
Calcrete
3 41 - - - - 40 41
4 41 - - - - 50 41
1 56 2 - - 1 320 45
2 56 2 - - 1 320 45
Fresh
3 56 1 2 1 2 400 43
4 56 2 - - 2 300 42

Figure 18.2.5_1 shows the location of the slope areas referred to in Table 18.2.5_3 above. The
areas were defined utilising the pit designs shown in Figure 18.2.5_1, which were the most
recent design versions available at the time the optimisation work commenced. The designs
provided the best approximation of a practical final ramp layout as the shape and size of the pits
were not expected to change fundamentally. Zone 1 pit has three slope areas due to its
relatively complex geometry and ramp layout. Zone 2 pit is a single slope area as its shape is
relatively simple and effectively has one ramp along each wall down to a very flat pit base.
Figure 18.2.5_1
Whittle Slope Areas
Slope Area 1
Slope
Area 2
Slope Area 3
Slope Area 4
18.2.6 Mining Costs

Mining costs for the purpose of optimisation were based on a prior mining study leading to the
DFS (Pre-DFS Report – July 2010). The study was based on a conventional hydraulic shovel
and rigid dump truck mining methodology, but with the addition of trolley-assist haulage on
main in-pit and dump ramps. Costs were developed from first principles and incorporated
equipment, personnel and consumables costs for all aspects of the mining operation. The
costs were generated by pit stage, bench level and material type. These costs were then
applied to a LOM schedule that included construction of an associated waste dump. By this
means, the waste haulage cost from any given bench could be more accurately estimated by
accounting for the advance of the waste dump over time.
From this array of costs a weighted average mining cost for ore and for waste, by zone and by
bench, was generated. These costs were then approximated by either a linear or polynomial
function. A script was generated to calculate a mining cost for every block in the model. This
model was then exported to Whittle.

The Whittle optimisation algorithm works on the basis that all material, as a minimum
requirement, will be mined to the surface and deposited on the waste dump. Therefore this
“waste mining cost” is applied as the mining cost to all material. Whittle then determines
whether a block of material should be processed on the basis of the block generating more
revenue than any additional costs incurred. The additional costs can be:
Processing Cost – The cost of sending the block through the plant
Selling Cost – This may be any combination of:
A processing related cost, depending on the type of extraction process being used
A cost attracted by the product such as shipping or marketing
A royalty and /or tax on the final product
Incremental Ore Mining Cost – The cost difference between mining materials as waste to
the waste dump versus ore to the crusher. This cost may consist of:
Grade control costs
Fixed administrative and overhead costs
Stockpile re-handle costs
The cost differential of a longer or shorter haul. This differential may be positive or
negative depending on the location of the different destinations.
The waste mining cost is applied as the Base Mining Cost across all blocks. The additional
Incremental Ore Mining Cost is included with the Processing Cost so as to only be applied to
the ore.
A summary of the global weighted costs, as used in the optimisation, is provided in

Table 18.2.6_1 below. Note that final economic evaluation of the project has been performed
based on updated cost estimates, as described in the feasibility study.
Table 18.2.6_1
Global Average Unit Mining Costs (US$/t)
Waste
Zone Ore Total
Free-Dig Calcrete Fresh at 7.5m Fresh at 15m Average
Zone 1 $ 2.81 $ 0.82 $ 1.07 $1.91 $ 1.50 $ 1.44 $ 1.62
Zone 2 $ 2.83 $ 0.75 $ 1.02 $1.90 $ 1.46 $ 1.33 $ 1.52
Total $ 2.82 $ 0.79 $ 1.03 $ 1.91 $ 1.48 $ 1.39 $ 1.57

18.2.7 Processing Costs, Mill Throughput and Timing

Mill throughput is provided in terms of a percentage of the plant design capacity of 15Mt/a as
shown in Figure 18.2.7_1.
Figure 18.2.7_1
Process Throughput Ramp-Up
Based on the curve and a plant nameplate capacity of 15Mtpa, annual throughputs were
calculated and used in this optimisation.
The ramp-up in plant throughput produces an associated variation in processing cost. This is
because the plant operating costs consist of a component that varies with throughput tonnes
and a fixed component. When the plant is operating at its low initial throughput, the annual fixed
costs are spread over a lower annual tonnage, thereby generating a higher unit cost. As the mill
throughput rate increases, the unit cost for the fixed component decreases accordingly.
The process costs and throughput rates as utilised in Whittle optimisation are provided in
Table 18.2.7_1. Note that economic evaluation of the project has been performed based on
updated cost estimates, as described in the feasibility study.
Table 18.2.7_1
Process Throughput and Costs
Mill Throughput Processing Cost

Year
(Mt/a) (US$ / ROM tonne)
Year 1 9.5 US$ 10.71
Year 2 14.6 US$ 9.96
Year 3 15.0 US$ 9.92

18.2.8 Processing Recovery and Recovery Ramp-Up

A significant amount of metallurgical testwork had been undertaken to estimate the process
plant performance.
The uranium recovery was quantified on the basis of an average tailings grade by zone. In
addition there was also a fixed loss through the process plant. These are detailed in
Table 18.2.8_1.
Table 18.2.8_1
Process Losses
Zone Grade (ppm)

Zone 1 55
Tailings Residual Grade
Zone 2 44
Zone 1
Plant Loss 9
Zone 2
Utilising a fixed residual grade as the basis for recovery means that recovery is not a fixed
percentage of the head grade, but in fact varies with the head grade, consequently the
recovered grade has been calculated on a block by block basis in the model, resulting in a
final grade that accounts for mining ore loss, mining dilution and process losses. This is the
uranium grade utilised in the optimisation process.
However, there is also a ramp-up profile associated with the process recovery over the initial
three years of operation. Therefore, Whittle utilised the diluted and recovered grade in the
block model as detailed above and applied the process recovery ramp-up to 100% as detailed
in Table 18.2.8_2.
Table 18.2.8_2
Process Recovery Ramp-Up
Year Effective Process Recovery (%)

Year 1 70%
Year 2 90%
Year 3 100%
18.2.9 Price, Selling Cost and Royalties
The following parameters were used:
A base price of US$65.00/lb of recovered U3O8 is used.
A selling cost of US$2.50/lb that accounts for transportation and marketing costs.
A Namibian government royalty of 3%.
Consequently the net price for the purposes of open pit optimisation is US$60.55/lb.

18.2.10 Capital Expenditure and Discount Rate
The capital expenditure requirements for the project are a combination of mining equipment,
process plant and supporting infrastructure. It includes, but is not limited to, the following
components:
Process plant and infrastructure including process and administration buildings.
Tailings facility (disposal pad and stormwater management).
Production, ancillary and support mining equipment.
Mining workshops, associated storage, support and administration facilities.
Process maintenance and administration facilities.
Power and water reticulation.
Access to site (road and railway).
EPCM and owner costs.
Process plant and associated infrastructure costs were provided by AMEC Minproc in August
2010. The costs of the mining complex were also generated by AMEC Minproc as part of a
previous study carried out early in 2010. The costs associated with the mining equipment
were generated by ORElogy. This was on the basis of budgetary costs received by OEM’s
rd
during the 3 quarter 2010 and included all production, support and ancillary equipment.
The scheduling of capital within WHITTLE is detailed in Table 18.2.10_1 below and was
based on:
Processing plant and infrastructure – A plant start date of January 2014, with the
capital spread over the previous two years on a 3/8 and 5/8 split respectively.
Mining equipment and infrastructure – The most up-to-date mining schedule and
associated capital cost schedule developed in Q2 2010. It was based on a July 2012
start date for mining (i.e. 18 months of pre-strip prior to plant commissioning). The
capital for mining infrastructure is applied in 2012 (i.e. Year 1).
The capital cost estimate presented here is used for the purposes of open pit optimisation. An
updated capital cost estimate, as used in economic evaluation of the project for the purposes
of the feasibility study, is shown in Section 23.

Table 18.2.10_1
Capital Costs (US$ M)
Mining Equipment and Process Plant and

Year
Mining Complex Infrastructure
2012 US$188.50 US$357.40
2013 US$90.30 US$595.70
2014 US$22.30
2015 US$10.20
2016 US$9.70
2017 US$27.70
2018 US$7.50
2019 US$58.50
2020 US$8.10
2021 US$17.90
2022 US$39.00
2023 US$122.80
2024 US$7.60
2025 US$14.40
2026 US$0.30
2027 US$0.00
Total US$625.70 US$953.20
For all optimisations carried out for this study a discount rate of 10% was applied.
18.2.11 Whittle Optimisation Process

The process that Whittle undertakes is to vary the base input price both up and down to
produce a series of shells. Each shell produced generates the maximum cashflow for the
input parameters and its associated factored price. The lower factored price will produce
smaller shells, the higher price larger shells resulting in a set on “nested” shells with the lower
valued shell lying inside the higher valued shells. These nested shells are useful for a number
of reasons:
The smaller shells give a guide to where initial mining should occur as the smaller shells
will drive towards the areas of highest value in the ore body.
The larger shells provide an indication of how much additional mineralisation may
become economic, or alternatively what current ore may become unviable should
parameters change in the future.
Allows Whittle to develop a schedule for mining the deposit over time and therefore a
discounted cashflow to be generated.

Along with the undiscounted cashflow of each shell, Whittle generates the following two
standard discounted cashflows:
Worst case discounted cashflow assumes that, for any given shell, extraction is undertaken
sequentially from the top to bottom of the shell level by level. This means overburden is
removed in advance and there are no interim shells or stages to access higher value ore
earlier. This is clearly not a preferred pit extraction scenario from a value perspective.
Best case discounted cashflow assumes that for any given shell, extraction is undertaken
sequentially from the smallest shell generated by the optimisation out to the largest shell
selected. This provides the best value for that largest shell. However, this approach is
constrained by practical considerations such as:
The distance between successive shells potentially being too narrow to mine.
The shells being too tight and small to allow for practical mining.
These two discounted cashflows provide the extremities of the possible value that a shell is
able to generate. A shell is selected as the basis for subsequent pit designs that is cognisant
of a number of potentially conflicting practical and strategic objectives such as:
The capability to generate a practical schedule in line with Whittle outputs.
Acceptable utilisation of the resource.
Mine life.
18.2.12 Whittle Optimisation Results and Shell Selection
Optimisations were carried out on the basis of a process throughput rate of 15 Mtpa utilising
Indicated Mineral Resources pertaining to Zone 1 and Zone 2. Additional analysis was
undertaken on the impact of including Inferred Mineral Resources pertaining to Zone 1 and 2,
and also to all four zones within the Mineral Resource model. Note that these assessments
that contain Inferred Mineral Resources are preliminary in nature. They are considered too
speculative geologically to have the economic considerations applied to them that would
enable them to be categorised as Mineral Reserves. There is no certainty that this
preliminary assessment would be realised.
However, the optimisations incorporating Indicated material only were used as the basis for
selecting the Base Case shell on which subsequent pit designs and ore reserves were
calculated.
Figure 18.2.12_1 displays the ore tonnes, waste tonnes and best case discounted cashflow
for the Base Case optimisation. It is from this optimisation, derived upon the Indicated Mineral
Resource only, that a suitable shell for the final pit design is selected. This is in line with both
JORC Code and NI43-101 guidelines for generating ore reserves.
The waste tonnes increase constantly with increasing shell size. Project value is relatively
flat, with less than 1% variation in best case discounted cashflow from Shell 25 to Shell 36.

Figure 18.2.12_1
Base Optimisation Results for 15Mtpa Throughput Rates
Ore Tonnes, Waste Tonnes and Best Case Discounted Cash Flow vs. WHITTLE Shell
DFS Diluted Indicated Model - Base Case
1 800 $2 100
$2 000
Maximum Best Case Discounted $1 900
Cash Flow = $1990,4M Ore $1 800
1 600
Tonnes = 202,7Mt
$1 700
$1 600
Maximum Best Case Discounted Cash Flow M$

$1 500
1 400
$1 400
$1 300
$1 200
1 200
$1 100
$1 000
$900
1 000 $800
Mtonnes
$700
$600
800 $500
$400
$300
$200
600
$100
Tonnes Ore
$0
Total Tonnes -$100
400
-$200
Best Case Discounted Cash Flow
-$300
Worst Case Shell -$400
200 -$500
Average Case Shell
-$600
-$700
0 -$800
1
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
41
43
45
Whittle Shell Number
It has been determined that the maximum best case discounted cashflow shell will be used as
the basis for pit design for this study. Selection of the best case shell is acceptable on the
following basis:
Figure 18.2.12_1 indicates there is little variation in cashflow as the shells approach the
maximum best case. This indicates there is reduced risk to project value with a selected
higher shell while simultaneously maximising the resource and associated mine life.
The sensitivity results indicate that the optimisation reaches an economic limit for much
of the current Indicated resource. Any small beneficial variation in parameters will result
in a very small incremental increase in shell size.
Previous optimisation and scheduling studies have indicated that generating a practical
design and schedule results in cashflows that approaches the Best Case Whittle results.
This is a result of:
The relatively robust nature of the deposit
The fact that Whittle is mining both zones at the same time when applying the Worst
Case scheduling approaches as it treats them as one large pit. Consequently the
Worst Case schedule generates significant upfront waste mining by mining Zone 2
in advance of what is required. A practical mining schedule can take advantage of
the strip ratio benefits of the Zone 1 pit against the higher grade of the Zone 2 pit to
improve project value.

Therefore the shell selected as the basis for design and production scheduling is shell 36
derived from the Indicated Mineral Resource Only (Base Case) optimisation. A summary of
Shell 36 is provided in Table 18.2.12_1 below.
Table 18.2.12_1
Summary of Selected Shell 36
Material Whittle Cashflows

Mill
Worst Life
Ore Waste Total Rec. U3O8 Undisc. Best Case Strip
Case
Ratio
U3O8
kTonnes kTonnes Tonnes Mlb US$M Total
(ppm)
202,674 500 1,383,322 1,585,996 192.1 US$5,350 US$1,208 US$1,990 6.83 13.9
It should be emphasised that the cashflow results generated by the optimisation work are only
used for a comparative evaluation of various options and to assess the sensitivity of the
project to variations in key parameters.
18.2.13 Sensitivity
A sensitivity analysis was carried out on the Base Case scenario. The objective of the
sensitivity analysis is to assess the effect on the Base Case optimisation to changes in the
key parameters denoted below.
Mining Cost (± 15%)
Processing / G&A Cost (± 15%)
Commodity Price (± 15%)
Process Recovery (± 10%)
Capital (± 15%)
Discount Rate (± 20%)
Wall Slopes (± 15%)
Inclusion of Inferred material.
Figure 18.2.13_1 indicates the percentage variation from the Base Case in terms of the ore
tonnes contained within the Best Case optimal shell.
Figure 18.2.13_2 indicates the percentage variation from the Base Case in terms of the
discounted cashflow for the Best Case optimal shell.

Figure 18.2.13_1
% Variation from Base Case - Ore Tonnes
Figure 18.2.13_1
% Variation from Base Case - Best Case Discounted Cashflow

The following Table 18.2.13_1 provides a guide to the ranking of sensitivities.
Table 18.2.13_1
Sensitivity Ranking for a 15% Variation in Key Parameter
% Variation
Description
Ore Tonnes Best Case NPV
Insensitive <1% <3%
Slightly Sensitive 1% -5% 3% -10%
Sensitive 5% -10% 10% -25%
Highly Sensitive ≥10% ≥25%
The ore tonne variation indicates changes to the size and shape of the pit shell, and is
therefore a reflection of the robustness of the ore body at a fundamental level. As variations
in NPV are generally higher than ore tonnes, a greater variation in NPV is accepted before the
project is considered “sensitive” and this is reflected in the rankings above.
On the basis of these rankings, Table 18.2.13_2 summarises the relative sensitivities of the
optimisation. The sensitivities shown are for the Indicated ore only option as this optimisation
is what the subsequent pit designs are based upon.
Table 18.2.13_2
Sensitivity Summary
Parameter Ore Tonnes NPV

Mining Cost Slightly Sensitive Sensitive
Processing / G&A Cost Slightly Sensitive Slightly Sensitive
Process Recovery Slightly Sensitive Highly Sensitive
Price Slightly Sensitive Highly Sensitive
Capital Insensitive Slightly Sensitive
Discount Rate Insensitive Sensitive
Wall Slope Slightly Sensitive Slightly Sensitive
18.2.14 Ore Tonnage Sensitivity

The sensitivity of ore tonnes ranges from insensitive to slightly sensitive against the defined
parameters. A 15% variation in key parameters does not generate an ore tonnage variation
greater than 5%. This demonstrates the comparative robustness of the shell, and therefore
any associated pit design, to variations in these key project parameters. Consequently the
mine life will not be sensitive to any reasonable changes in the project fundamentals.
The primary cause for this lack of sensitivity is the fact that there is very little marginal material
within the deposit.

The shells are reaching a natural economic limit in regard to costs. Any variations in cost result
in a minimal impact on ore tonnes and overall size of pit. Similarly, if walls are steepened this
does not release significantly more ore. The optimisation simply drives slightly deeper to gain
better grade and uses the resulting reduced strip ratio to generate a higher value.
A global average economic cutoff grade of 140ppm has been calculated on the basis detailed
in Table 18.2.13_3 below. This is expressed in terms of the model grade inclusive of ore loss
and dilution (i.e. plant head grade).
Table 18.2.13_3
Economic Cutoff Grade
Value
Item Unit
Zone 1 Zone 2
Processing Cost US$/t US$9.92
Incremental Ore Cost US$/t US$0.90
Total Cost of Ore US$/t US$10.82
Price US$/lb. US$65.00
Royalty % 3%
Selling Cost US$/lb. US$2.50
Net Price US$/ppm 0.133
Residual Grade ppm 55.0 44.0
Plant Losses ppm 9.0 9.0
Total Losses ppm 64.0 53.0
145 134
Cutoff Grade (COG) ppm
140
Figure 18.2.13_3 is a conventional grade-tonnage curve for the Zone 1 / Zone 2 resource. If
this figure is assessed on the basis of Table 18.2.13_3 above, it indicates that:
Only ~4% of the ore body lies beneath the economic cutoff grade
As an indication of the more marginal ore lying closer to the economic cutoff grade, only
~10% of the deposit lies between 140ppm and 200ppm.
This highlights that there is a limited amount of “marginal” ore and even less sub-
economic mineralisation. Hence the optimisation tends to generate a fairly consistent
shell that converts approximately 85% of the resource to an ore inventory within a shell,
regardless of variations to the input parameters.
18.2.15 NPV Sensitivity on Best Case Shell

The project is highly sensitive to changes in uranium price and recovery, as these directly
affect the bottom line. For a variation of 15% in either price or recovery, the project NPV
varies by some 40%.
The variable recovery generated by a fixed tails residue grade results in lower grade ore being
more adversely affected (on a proportional basis), than higher grade ore. Therefore head
grade is also a key project parameter in the production scheduling process.

Figure 18.2.13_3
Grade Tonnage Curve for Resource
18.2.16 Shell Geometry and the Effect of Inferred Mineralisation

Inclusion of Zone 1 and Zone 2 Inferred mineralisation adds considerably to the ore tonnes
(approximately 24%). However, the strip ratio only increases by 2%, indicating that a
considerable proportion of the Inferred material already lies within the optimal shell on the
“Indicated Only” optimisation.
The inclusion of Inferred mineralisation in Zone 1 and Zone 2 pits increases NPV by 13%. This
is despite an ore inventory increase of ~24%. This is because the additional ore generated
extends the mine life beyond 15 years and as such is more heavily discounted. In addition the
ore is subject to a higher incremental strip. Note that these assessments that contain Inferred
Mineral Resources are preliminary in nature. They are considered too speculative geologically
to have the economic considerations applied to them that would enable them to be categorised
as Mineral Reserves. There is no certainty that this preliminary assessment would be realised.
To provide a graphical depiction between the Indicated Only and Indicated + Inferred
optimisations, the following figures (Figure 18.2.16_1 to Figure 18.2.16_7) provide a range of
cross-sections through the Zone 1 and Zone 2 shells.

Figure 18.2.16_1
Zone 1 Cross-Section 7507000 N
Figure 18.2.16_2
Zone 1 Cross-Section 7506500

Figure 18.2.16_3
Figure 18.2.16_4

Figure 18.2.16_5
Figure 18.2.16_6

Figure 18.2.16_7
The above figures illustrate that the additional mineralisation captured by the Indicated and
Inferred Mineral Resource shell includes:
Inferred mineralisation already within the Indicated Only optimal shell. Conversion of this
material into Indicated classification would immediately increases the Shell 36 ore
inventory without any increase in shell size. This additional material amounts to
approximately 16.4Mt at 440ppm U3O8, or an additional 8% of ore. This is effectively
transferring material previously classified as waste into ore which results in the strip ratio
of Shell 36 decreasing by approximately 9%.
Inferred mineralisation outside of the Indicated Only shell. This equates to approximately
19.8Mt at 444ppm U3O8. This material is spread across the two zones at depth, with an
easily identifiable portion to the north of Zone 1.
Indicated mineralisation outside of the Indicated Only shell. This mineralisation is

determined to be sub-economic for the Indicated only optimisation, but when included
with the Inferred mineralisation is then captured by the Best Case shell. Consequently
this mineralisation is of lower grade, being approximately 13.0Mt at 363ppm U3O8.
These results clearly indicate the potential to increase the Whittle shell size, and therefore the
associated reserve, by conversion of current Inferred resource to an Indicated category. This
would increase the life of the mine in excess of 3 years, generating a total life (excluding pre-
strip) of some 17 years.

18.3 Pit Designs
The Whittle output identifies those areas that the optimisation process considers to be high
value, which may be as a result of:
Maximising grade to the mill in the early years and / or
Deferring waste stripping as far as possible into the future.
The highest value areas initially developed by Whittle are on the north-western corner of Zone
1 pit (low strip) and the central section of Zone 2 pit (high grade). Therefore starter pits have
been designed in these two areas and their impact on project economics assessed through
comparative scheduling and life of mine (LOM) cashflow.
Interim and final pit designs need to ensure that the design parameters specified in
Table 18.2.5_1and Table 18.2.5_2 are adhered to. In addition the mining access must be
coherent and acceptable minimum mining widths be maintained. The following design
considerations were followed:
The open pits are designed for the implementation of trolley-assist. This requires that
ramps are kept as straight as possible for as long as possible, with an inside radius of
curvature no less than 200m.
Dual access is established along the final limits of both pits though not in all associated
stages. This is primarily to allow for emergency access from the pit in the event of wall
failure, but also serves to reduce hauling distances from the respective pits to crusher,
stockpiles or the waste rock dump.
The north western corner of Zone 1 has been trimmed back in order to remain inside the
current lease boundary. The stand-off is approximately 15m, sufficient for a safety bund
and light vehicle access.
The layouts of the Zone 1 and Zone 2 stages are shown in Figure 18.3_1 and Figure 18.3_2
respectively.
There is minimal waste stripping required at the northern end of Zone 1 pit. The depth to the
top of fresh rock is on average 30m of free dig and calcrete materials. There is no ore within
the sand and conglomerate layers.
A significant amount of waste stripping is required for the entire Zone 2 pit. On average 50m
to 60m of free dig and calcrete materials are required to be removed to access the ore body.
Similarly to Zone 1 pit, there is no ore within the free dig and calcrete layers.
Stage 3

Figure 18.3_1
Zone 1 Stage Layouts
Stage 2
Stage 1
Stage 3
Stage 4
Figure 18.3_1
Zone 2 Stage Layouts
Stage 3
Stage 4
Stage 1
Stage 2

Figure 18.3_3 below displays the final mine site layout including ultimate pits, MRF, stockpiles
and ROM Pad.
Figure 18.3_3
Mine Site Layout

18.3.1 Mineable Ore Reserve Estimates

This reserve has been generated in accordance with the guidelines developed by the Joint
Ore Reserve Committee (JORC 2004). They have subsequently been reconciled to the
standards prescribed by NI 43-101.
This provides the minimum standards for reserve reporting. The resource estimate includes
indicated and inferred mineralisation. Only indicated mineralisation has been incorporated in
the conversion from a resource to an ore reserve.
The Probable Mineral Reserves are based on Indicated Mineral Resources only and as such
are available to be converted to Probable status.
The Probable Mineral Reserve estimate is presented in Table 18.3.1_1 and defines the final
probable ore reserve for the project at 205.0Mt of ore at a diluted grade of 497ppm that results
in 224.8Mlb of U308 at a strip ratio of 7.3:1.
Table 18.3.1_1
Husab Probable Ore Reserve by Stage Designs
Ore1 Waste Total Grade2 U3O8

Zone Stage Strip Ratio
(Mt) (Mt) (Mt) (ppm) (Mlb)
1 8.1 38.5 46.5 4.8 416 7.4
2 24.8 123.6 148.4 5.0 446 24.4
1 3 33.3 248.6 281.9 7.5 447 32.8
4 30.9 309.5 340.4 10.0 552 37.6
Total 97.1 720.1 817.2 7.4 477 102.2
1 11.8 90.3 102.1 7.7 715 18.6
2 45.7 250.5 296.2 5.5 438 44.1
2 3 43.4 342.5 385.9 7.9 546 52.2
4 7.0 96.1 103.1 13.8 495 7.6
Total 107.8 779.5 887.3 7.2 515 122.5
Grand Total 205.0 1,499.6 1,704.5 7.3 497 224.8
1.
Based on a variable economic cutoff grade calculated block by block inclusive of variable process plant recovery.
2
. Diluted head grade presented to mill.
18.3.2 Mining Fleet

The primary loading fleet comprises three large electric-powered rope shovels to mine the
bulk waste on 15m benches whilst a fleet of smaller diesel hydraulic shovels address all ore
loading requirements on 7.5m benches in order to minimise ore loss and dilution. The smaller
shovels are able to manage both a 7.5m and 15m bench height. In–pit blending will minimise
the extent of re-handling of ore from stockpile to crusher to cater for short-term grade
variations over life of mine.
Large electric-powered drill rigs service the large electric loading units whilst the smaller and
more manoeuvrable diesel rigs would similarly service the smaller diesel-powered loading
units.

Ore and waste are transported by a fleet of 39 diesel electric drive haul trucks in the
+300 tonne class. Trolley-assisted hauling has been included in the base case, and will be
implemented on most up-ramp sections of the open pits and ramps accessing the MRF.
The remainder of the mining production fleet consists of support equipment that includes
graders, track and wheel dozers, front-end loaders, rock breakers and utility excavators.
Specific mining activities are planned to be outsourced. These include the repair and
maintenance of the mobile mining fleet, blasting operations, tyre and haul road management
as well as drilling operations relating to grade control and resource definition.
18.3.3 Compliance with Whittle

The pit designs developed upon the selected Whittle Shell 36 generally show a close
correlation. The eastern pit limit of Zone 1 pit has been straightened to allow for the trolley
ramp and the southern pit limit of Zone 2 pit has also been simplified due to the complex ramp
layout required to maintain access. These modifications have increased the waste tonnes by
8.7% with an associate increase in ore tonnes by 0.8% that results in a net increase in strip
ratio from 6.7 to 7.3. This is summarised by pit in Table 18.3.3_1.
Table 18.3.3_1
Correlation between Pit Designs and Original Optimal Shell 36
Material
Ore
Description Zone Waste Total Strip
U3O8 Cont. U3O8 (Mt) (Mt) Ratio
(Mt)
(ppm) (Mlb)
WHITTLE Base 1 95.3 482 101.3 647.4 742.7 6.8
Case Shell 36 1 2 109.2 517 124.4 732.5 841.7 6.7
Pit Optimisation Total 204.5 501 225.7 1,379.90 1,584.40 6.7
1 97.1 477 102.2 720.1 817.2 7.4
Mine Design
2 107.8 515 122.5 779.5 887.3 7.2
Pit Design Total 205.0 497 224.8 1,499.6 1,704.5 7.3
% Variation from Shell 0.2% -0.8% -0.4% 8.7% 7.6% 8.4%
1. Note MineSight was utilised to report the separate Whittle inventories from Zone 1 and Zone 2. There are minor reporting
differences between MineSight and Whittle systems (<1%)
The generation of pit slope parameters for optimisation is somewhat iterative, as a number of
assumptions need to be made in advance in regard to pit geometry and ramp layouts. The
resulting design maybe considerably different in this respect if the pit geometry changes
significantly or a revised access layout is adopted. Therefore to obtain a more definitive
comparison between the final pit design and an optimal shell developed on the same basis,
an additional optimisation run was completed with wall slopes based on the final design
slopes. These results are outlined in Table 18.3.3_2 below and as expected show a closer
reconciliation between the optimal shell generated and the final designs, with no significant
differential on ore tonnage and grade.

Table 18.3.3_2
Correlation between Pit Designs and Revised Optimal Shell 36
Material
Ore
Description Zone Waste Total Strip
U3O8 Cont. U3O8 (Mt) (Mt) Ratio
(Mt)
(ppm) (Mlb)
WHITTLE Base 1 95.3 482 101.3 666.6 761.9 7.0
Case Shell 36 1 2 108.8 517 124 782.1 890.9 7.2
Pit Optimisation Total 204.1 501 225.3 1,448.70 1,652.80 7.1
1 97.1 477 102.2 720.1 817.2 7.4
Mine Design
2 107.8 515 122.5 779.5 887.3 7.2
Pit Design Total 205.0 497 224.8 1,499.6 1,704.5 7.3
% Variation from Shell 0.4% -0.8% -0.2% 3.5% 3.1% 3.1%
1. Note MineSight was utilised to report the separate Whittle inventories from Zone 1 and Zone 2. There are minor reporting
differences between MineSight and Whittle systems (<1%)
18.4 Reconciliation to Final DFS Parameters
Subsequent to the development of the pit design and associated reserves detailed above, a
comprehensive open pit scheduling programme was undertaken to assess a number of different
mine development strategies.
Scheduling was undertaken utilising evORElution, a highly sophisticated block by block

scheduling tool developed in-house by ORElogy. This tool is characterised by its use of generic
algorithms to generate a range of feasible schedules over a number of generations. Only the
best schedules are selected as the basis for the subsequent generations, allowing the process
to propagate towards an optimal or best fit solution to achieve the desired objectives.
evORElution develops schedules based on the following:
A set of user defined objectives such as material movement, value maximisation, etc.
On a block-by-block as opposed to a bench-by-bench scheduling approach. Consequently

the software does not need to utilise bench averaging. Instead the true grades and true
strip ratios are reported in any reporting period.
Produces a variety of solutions from a single simulation run. The solutions generated by
evORElution are all valid but vary based on different trade-offs between various objectives.
This gives the user:
A choice of solutions to examine.
A degree of sensitivity of each of the trade-offs.
An indication of potential paths for improvements in further scheduling efforts.
Any schedule generated by evORElution adheres to a number of imposed rules. Some of these
rules are implied as, for example, a block can’t be mined if the block above is still in place.
Other rules are user-imposed such as minimum mining width, frequency of excavator moves
etc.

The scheduling study evaluated over 50 schedules, each taking a differing approach to the
goal of providing the highest project net present value within acceptable practical constraints.
Increasing value is generally achieved by either bringing forward revenue or deferring costs.
The schedules utilised combinations of the following strategies:
Deferring waste movement to reduce up-front mining costs.
Targeting areas of high grade to increase up-front revenue.
Apply an elevated cutoff grade (COG) to ensure maximum grade through the plant at any
given time. Material between the elevated COG and the economic COG (refer to
Table 18.2.13_3) is stockpiled and feed to the mill at the end of the mine life.
However, a further practical constraint that was applied as part of the scheduling process was
the implementation of a mill head grade limit of 600ppm. The results of the scheduling
exercise indicated that:
Utilising a “high strip/high grade” approach, which effectively focused all mining within
Zone 2 initially, consistently generated the lowest project value.
The value of an elevated COG strategy increased very little above 250ppm, as the
benefit was negated by the application of the 600ppm mill through put limitation.
The schedule finally selected as the DFS Base Case was referred to as the Zone 2 Balanced
Hybrid option. “Z2 Balanced” referred to the pit release and material movement strategy. It
indicated a balanced approach to LOM material movement and strip ratio with an emphasis
on Zone 2 as an ore source wherever possible. “Hybrid” referred to the cutoff grade strategy,
which consisted of a 250ppm elevated COG for all of Zone 1 and Stage 2 of Zone 2.
Once the Base Case had been selected a set of 3D surfaces were exported from evORElution
for each of the schedule periods. These surfaces are reminiscent of a Whittle shell, and
indicate the exact location of the mining face at the end of every period. From these shells
detailed quarterly and annual mining face position plans were generated in 3D utilising the
stage designs as the final guide. This was in order to confirm the practicality of the
evORElution schedule, which in turn validated the interim and final pit designs developed.
The final DFS costs and operating parameters were all considerably reviewed and refined
subsequent to the optimisation and design work being completed. Therefore it is valuable to
reconcile the final parameters developed against those used in the optimisation process to
determine if there is any significant divergence that may fundamentally alter the validity of the
reserve. Table 18.4_1 details the variation in key parameters from the original optimisation to
the final DFS value. The parameters detailed are the same as those assessed in the
optimisation sensitivity analysis (refer to Section 18.2.13). This sensitivity analysis indicated
that the WHITTLE shell is insensitive to variations in capital.

Table 18.4_1
Variation in Key Parameters Optimisation to Final DFS
% Var. from Effect of

Parameter Unit Optimisation DFS
Optimisation Shell Size
Mining Cost $/ total tonne $1.58 $1.66 5% -
Processing / G&A Cost $ / ore tonne $9.96 $14.07 41% -
Net Commodity Price1 $ / lb $60.55 $61.55 2% +
Wall Slopes % N/A2 N/A2 3%2 +
1.
including transport costs, marketing costs, royalties etc.
2.
wall slope changes vary by area and rock horizon and therefore cannot be expressed as a single variation. The 3% average
variation is an estimate only and indicates a general steepening of the slopes.
An optimisation run was completed with the final DFS parameters applied. This resulted in a
reduction of the ore inventory of the Best Case shell of ~5% to 192.5Mt.
However, it should be emphasised that considerable work is currently being undertaken as

part of the company initiated Mine Optimisation and Resource Extension program (MORE) to
investigate opportunities to continue to add additional project value. These initiatives include:
Measured Resources and increase the quantum of Indicated Mineral Resources, both by
upgrading the classification of Inferred Mineral Resources within the current mine plan
(and therefore not included within the reserve estimate) and by definition of additional
resources.

component of the Project’s operating cost. The possible upside from on-site production
Work on these value adding areas is planned to continue through the project development
phase and, when appropriate, feature in an updated ore reserve and associated mine plan.

19 ENERGY, WATER AND PROCESS MATERIALS
19.1 Water Supply
The supply of water to the Husab mine has been identified as a very crucial aspect for both
construction and permanent operations. Existing fresh water resources in the area do not
have adequate capacity to supply the projected regional demand and desalination of seawater
is considered to be the only viable solution for permanent water supply.
Water demand is expected to be 1.2Mm³ p.a. during the development phase and 6.5Mm³ p.a.
at steady state. During development, water will be supplied through a temporary water supply
pipeline to be constructed from the NamWater reservoir near the Rössing Mine. During
operation, water is expected to be sourced from the proposed desalination plant at Mile 6, to
be constructed and operated by third parties.
The company is a member of the Erongo Mining Water Users Group (EMWUG) which is working
with the National Desalination Task Force (NDTF) to investigate and implement a strategy to
deliver water to the project in line with the envisaged development timetable. After
recommendations were tabled to the Namibian Cabinet in February 2011, a Public-Private-
Partnership (PPP) has been approved for the structuring of a new desalination plant. However, to
date there is no commitment from any party to build a desalination plant, and the company
continues to assess potential temporary or fall back solutions in line with the project’s
development timetable.
Figure 19.1_1
Water Supply to Husab Mine
Pipeline Legends:
Permanent Supply for

Existing Pipelines Temporary
Construction

19.2 Power Supply
The electrical power utility provider in Namibia, NamPower, commands sufficient generated
and/or imported energy sources to provide both the temporary and permanent power needs
for the Husab mine. Capital, to be supplied by Swakop Uranium, is however required to fund
the extensions to the transmission network that runs parallel to the B2 highway between
Windhoek and Swakopmund. Referred to as the “western corridor” this transmission network
extension requires inter alia a dual 220kV transmission line branch, and a new 220kV
NamPower sub-station at the Husab mine to enable the mine to be included in the 220kV
supply ring. The solutions for both temporary and permanent power supply have been
developed around this arterial supply route and fits well with the timeline of the Husab mine’s
development and production schedule, as follows:
Temporary power will be supplied through a 220/66kV temporary switchyard situated

near the Arandis airport and transmitted across the Khan valley to the sub-station at
Husab mine. Temporary power will be transmitted at 66kV for the bulk of the period
leading up to availability of permanent power.
Permanent power will be supplied at 220kV from a new NamPower Main Transmission
Substation situated on the west side of the Khan river. Permanent power is scheduled to
be available immediately prior to process plant product commissioning.
At the Husab 220/66/11kV customer supplied sub-station permanent power made

available from NamPower at 220kV will step down to 66kV and 11kV and be reticulated
at 66kV in an overhead line ring main around the mining pits where skid mounted,
66/33kV and 33/6.6kV step down transformers will be used to supply electrical power to
the haul truck trolley assist and the mining fleet of electrically powered shovels and drills.
An 11kV sub-station will distribute electrical power to plant, admin, crushing and mining
complexes.
The electrical power supply configuration, cost and timeline have been agreed with
NamPower during the DFS phase. Implementation of the NamPower temporary and
permanent supply schemes is awaiting project approval.
Discussions with NamPower have taken place and are ongoing.
Figure 19.2_1 shows the proposed modified transmission network for the 220kV supply to
Husab mine.

Figure 19.2_1
Modified 220kV Supply
19.3 Project Supply Chain And Logistics
Process reagents are expected to be sourced from around the world The bulk of the logistic
movements, including distribution of end product, are expected to be routed through the Port
of Walvis Bay. Regional supplies, particularly from South Africa are expected to be directed
through Windhoek on road carted consignments.

Reagents suppled to the process plant of the Husab mine are listed in Table 19.3_1.
Table 19.3_1
Reagent Supply Quantities
Commodity Units Annual Consumption Delivery to Site

Grinding Media t 6,000 Pallets in container
Sulphuric Acid t 396,930 Road tanker
Lime t 14,080 Road tanker
Pyrolusite t 43,846 Bulk Bags in container
Flocculant t 2,318 Bulk Bags in container
Coagulant t 214 1m³ IBC
U IX Resin m³ 353 Bulk Bags in container
Extractant t 5.61 Drum (on pallet in container)
Diluent t 405 Road tanker
Modifier m³ 5.45 Drum (on pallet in container)
Sodium Carbonate t 3,126 Bulk tanker
Sodium Hydroxide t 18,250 Bulk tanker
Hydrogen Peroxide t 1,380 25.5t Isotainer
Drums each 28,432 Truck
Pallets each 7,108 Truck
Water treatment Chemicals t 41.4 Pallets in container
For the purposes of the DFS, the supply chain and logistics for reagents is assumed to be the
responsibility of the Vendors concerned. Quoted prices represent a delivered to site figure.
The bulk of logistics movements to site are made up of:
Sulphuric acid supply to site – 1200 tons per day
Fuel - over 100,000 litres per day
Personnel movements - reported in Section 20.4 of this report.
The majority of the reagents can be supplied to site in 20 ft containers which will be handled
and carted with standard equipment using ridge stackers and flat bed trucks. This is aligned
with the storage philosophy on site where the hard stand area provides stacking and storage
space for containers.

20 INFRASTRUCTURE
20.1 Access Roads
A preferred access route was determined on the basis of the following criteria:
Distance to travel – setting an objective of having the shortest possible routes between
Swakopmund and Arandis to Husab
Cost of private road – setting the objective of making maximum use of existing public
roads in order to limit the cost of a private road
Environmental – being sensitive to parameters that influence the environmental rating of

the selection e.g. footprint through sensitive area; entry point into NNNP; minimising dust,
and vehicle emissions.
A number of trade-off studies were carried out in order to select a preferred access route to
Husab. One such study compared the cost of transporting goods to the mine site by rail with
the cost of transport by road. The marginally lower operating costs of rail transport, compared
with road transport, were shown to be insufficient to outweigh the capital investment required.
Consequently the project has focussed on construction of a black top asphalt road to site.
The planned access road runs from an existing railway siding on the B2 highway, across the
Khan valley to join the Old German Railway (OGR) route where it crosses the Khan River.
The new private road leaves the river bed at Paddaklip, and follows the same OGR route up
the southern traverse to the proposed gatehouse of Husab mine, which is located at the old
Welwitsch station site. The new private access road is approximately 22km long and
represents a total travelling distance of 65km between Swakopmund and Husab mine. This
will be the shortest travel distance from Swakopmund of all existing uranium mine operations
in the Erongo region and can be used as an incentive when recruiting permanent staff.
Figure 20.1_1 shows the alternative access routes considered.
20.2 Port Facilities
The supply of reagents from international suppliers for the operational phase will be
predominantly by ship to Walvis Bay harbour, and then by road to the Husab site . Reagent
suppliers will remain responsible for the supply of reagents to the mine site, and will thus
make use of their existing storage facilities.
The reagent supplies will be supplied in 20ft containers to standardise the logistical movement
and material handling facilities as much as possible. However, reagents such as sulphuric
acid, caustic lye, sodium carbonate, lime and diluents will be delivered by bulk road tanker.
Pyrolusite from Morocco will be bulk bagged at source and shipped by bulk carrier to the port
of Walvis Bay. The pyrolusite will be transported to site by flat-bed truck. Smaller quantities
of reagents will be supplied containerised bulk bags, drums or IBCs. Hydrogen peroxide will
be supplied in 25.5t isotainers

Figure 20.1_1
Alternative Routes Considered
Option No. Route Name Existing Infrastructure en route

1 OGR Existing tar road (B2) from Swakop to Goanikontes junction
2 OGR (Alt) Existing tar road (B2) from Swakop to new junction
3 Aurecon (West) Existing tar road (B2) from Swakop to Goanikontes junction
4 Aurecon (East) Existing tar road (B2) from Swakop to Goanikontes junction
5 Khan Mine Existing tar road (B2) from Swakop to Rössing airstrip junction
Existing tar road (B2) from Swakop to Valencia junction. Section of new
6 Valencia
gravel road to Valencia mine(base quality?)
Existing main gravel road (C28) from Swakop to Welwitchia plains junction
7 Welwitchia (incl. 17km of secondary tar section). Existing park gravel road from C28
junction to point close to large Welwitchia
20.3 Housing
Swakop Uranium will adopt a policy of encouraging private ownership of housing by its
employees.
The urban and township development potential of Swakopmund has been investigated as part
of the DFS. An early survey of this situation confirmed the assumptions on which the housing
policy was developed.
20.4 Personnel Transport
The operational phase of Swakop Uranium’s Husab mine will embrace a policy of transporting
employees to work. An estimated 1200 employees and contractors will be engaged in
operations and will require transport from Swakopmund, Walvis Bay and Arandis to the Husab
mine.

Bus routes in the towns will be established for pick-up and drop-off of employees. It is
envisaged that the majority of shift workers will be resident in Arandis, while the majority of
daytime workers will reside in Swakopmund and Walvis Bay.
Employee logistic movements are expected to require a fleet of 10 35 seat buses each
travelling approximately 700km/day on asphalt roads, with a further two buses available on
stand by.
It is envisaged that the mine and processing plant will operate 24 hours a day, employing
three shifts of eight hours each. In addition a daytime shift will be worked on a five day week
basis starting at 08H00, and finishing at 16H00.

21 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, PERMITTING AND SOCIAL OR

COMMUNITY IMPACT
21.1 Location
The Husab Project lies some 60km east of the coastal town of Swakopmund, approximately
5km south of the Rössing Uranium Mine in the north of the Namib Naukluft National Park
(NNNP) and in an area of high and unique bio-diversity. Apart from mining, tourism is an
important industry for the area. The NNNP, the harsh and stark beauty of the Swakop and Khan
Rivers, the Big Welwitschia and Welwitschia fields feature on the tourist itinerary. The Husab
Project is situated southwest of the Khan River and immediately north of the Welwitschia fields.
The closest towns to the site are Arandis 18km to the north and Swakopmund to the west.
21.2 Legislation Governing Uranium Mining In Namibia
The Republic of Namibia has five tiers of law and a number of policies relevant to Uranium
mining. Key policies currently in force include The Minerals Policy of Namibia (2002),
Namibia’s Environmental Assessment Policy for Sustainable Development and Environmental
Conservation (1995) and the Atomic Energy and Radiation Protection Act (2005).
The applicable laws and policies for the Husab Project are provided below.
Namibia’s Environmental Assessment Sustainable Development and Environmental

Conservation Policy of 1995 requires that all listed policies, programmes and projects be
subject to an EIA;
Environmental Management Act, No 7 of 2007. The regulations are still to be promulgated

to give this Act effect. Until this occurs, all environmental impact assessments are guided
by Namibia's Environmental Assessment Policy for Sustainable Development and
Environmental Conservation of 1995;
The Environmental Investment Fund of Namibia (not yet enforced) makes provision for
fines for environmental offenders;
The Minerals (Prospecting & Mining) Act, No 33 of 1992 regulates reconnaissance,

prospecting and mining of minerals;
The Water Act, No. 54 of 1956, inherited from South Africa, provides for the control,
conservation and use of water; being surface water, sea water and ground water;
Forest Act, No 12 of 2001 makes provision for the protection of various species of plants;
Nature Conservation Ordinance, No 4 of 1975 establishes a guiding framework for habitat

and species conservation, including wildlife management and utilisation in National Parks;
Hazardous Substances Ordinance 14 of 1974. This ordinance provides for the safe
handling, storage and disposal of hazardous substances;
The National Heritage Act, No 27 of 2004 provides for the protection and conservation of
places and objects of heritage significance and the registration of such places and objects;

Atomic Energy and Radiation Protection Act (5 of 2005) provides the mechanism for
obtaining authorization related to activities involving possible exposure to ionizing radiation;
Namib Naukluft National Park management and tourism development plan;
The Namibia Water Corporation Act, 12 of 1997 enables the supply of bulk water so long
as the required quantity and quality of water is available;
Policy for Prospecting and Mining in Protected Areas and National Monuments, 1999,
aims to promote sustainable development by guiding prospecting and mining in protected
areas and national monuments.
Swakop Uranium has worked within the relevant laws and legislations and the relevant
applications for permits have been, and will be, applied for as need arises.
For the Husab Mine and its infrastructure development, future legislation developments that
may be important are:
The regulations for the Environmental Management Act may require provision of, and
guarantees for, funds for the closure and rehabilitation of the mine and infrastructure;
In addition, environmental officers of the Ministry of Environment and Tourism (MET) will
have the right to inspect a site and issues fines if they deem the project to be non-
compliant in an area;
Parks and Wildlife Management Bill (in prep) which aims to provide a legal framework for
maintenance of ecosystems, essential ecological processes and the biological diversity
of Namibia. The Bill allows MET and Ministry Mines and Energy (MME) to agree to
withdraw certain areas within parks from mining. Apart from these “no go” areas, mining
within parks would only be permitted with written authorization from the Minister of MET;
The NNNP management and tourism development plan states that no development
should result in the decline of more than 10% in the population of a species of special
interest.
Two other requirements under which the Husab Project will have to operate are the Namib
Naukluft National Park rules and the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) for the
central Namib uranium rush and its subsequent Strategic Environmental Management Plan
(SEMP) developed to limit the cumulative impact of the anticipated development of several
uranium mines and associated industries.
21.3 The Impact Assessment Process
Metago Environmental Engineers (Pty) Ltd (Metago) was the independent firm of consultants
appointed by Swakop Uranium to undertake the EIA and related processes for both the Husab
Mine EIA and the associated Linear Infrastructure EIA. Several local independent scientists
and specialists were also sub-contracted by Metago to undertake specific studies for the EIA
assessments.

The final EIAs and the EMP were reviewed by an independent body, the Southern African
Institute of Environmental Assessors (SAIEA), prior to their submission to the MET.
Full consultation took place throughout the EIA process. Government, the regional authorities,
and local industries as well as the public have been consulted, and given opportunities to
provide input to the project.
The EIAs and EMP have been prepared to meet the requirements of the Equator Principles.
The EIA and EMP for the Husab Project, processing plant, and mine residue facility were
submitted in November 2010 to the MET. The Environmental Clearance Certificate was
received on 25 January 2011.
The EIA for the Linear Infrastructure (roads, power, communications and water) will be
submitted to the authorities in early June 2011 together with the updated EMP. It is anticipated
that the Environmental Clearance Certificate will be secured before the end of July 2011.
Swakop Uranium has to implement and manage the identified commitments and procedures
contained in the EMP document.
21.4 An Overview of The Project Area
The area in which the Husab Mine and its related infrastructure are to be developed is a
virtually pristine Namibian ecosystem that is mostly untouched by any anthropogenic
developments except for the old German railway, and some tourism and exploration activities
within the NNNP, and tourism, power and water lines, quarrying and mining to the north of the
Khan River.
The greater project area is important for the central Namib biodiversity because it is situated
in a triangular area boarded by two significant rivers (the Khan River to the northwest and the
Swakop River to the south) that only flow periodically as a result of the development of dams
upstream. The rivers form a linear oasis that cross declining fog and increasing rain isohyets
as one progresses upstream. It is believed that these rivers and associated valleys allow
water and nutrients to reach into the desert from the wetter hinterland and for fog to reach
further into the desert from the coast than would be expected.
Given that water and nutrients are key ecological drivers in the desert, this is an important and
unique aspect that has resulted in the varied habitats, floral and faunal life in the area. The
scarcity of water, an annual average rainfall of less than 50mm per annum, and evaporation
rate of over 3,000mm per annum, the prevailing coastal winds and hot desiccating winter
“berg” winds, and relatively warm daytime temperatures has resulted in specially adapted
fauna and flora resulting in many endemics with specific roles in the eco-system. The
contrasting habitats associated with the plains, the river valleys and the transitional zones in-
between provides a range for many taxa of conservation importance some of which are
endangered, data deficient, vulnerable, near threatened and/or protected.

21.5 Major Issues of Concern That Were Identified and Recommended Mitigation
Measures
The findings of the Husab Mine and Linear Infrastructure Impact assessments have
highlighted several areas of concern regarding the biodiversity and socio-economics of the
project area. These are outlined below, together with the recommended mitigation measures
that could ameliorate the negative impact:
Ridges and rocky outcrops, particularly limestone outcrops, harbour a number of plant
endemics such as protected Lithops sp and Aloe sp. Infrastructure will avoid these areas
as far as is possible and affected plants will be rescued;
The soils and desert pavement are sensitive and disturbance thereof can lead to rapid
erosion by wind and consequent loss of vegetation, nutrients and the seed bank. The
area of disturbance will be kept as small as is possible and rehabilitation will take place
following disturbance;
The prediction from the air dispersion modelling is that particulate matter less than ten
micron in size (PM10) is a material concern. In this regard, the incremental impacts are
generally of low significance, but because the existing baseline PM10 concentrations for
the region already exceed the evaluation criteria used, the cumulative impacts have a
high significance at the closest third party receptor points (Arandis, Rössing Uranium
Mine and the big Welwitschia tourist site) in both the unmitigated and mitigated scenario.
The Husab Sand Lizard, Pedioplanis husabensis, is thought to be in the centre of its
restricted range in the Husab area. Studies have been conducted on its local range and
habitat, and further scientific work is to be done to determine its red data status;
One of the largest fields of the iconic and protected Welwitschia mirabilis occur on
EPL3138. New deposits are being discovered under these fields. A working group of
scientists of various disciplines has been formed to undertake specific work on the plants
to determine their recruitment, longevity and population dynamics;
As the project progresses, it is becoming apparent that near surface water flows may be
a significant contributory factor providing water to the Welwitschias. The open pits and
mine residue facility may impact the hydrology of this system. Investigations in this
regard are being developed and implemented;
The ephemeral channels that flow predominantly south-westwards across the site bring
fresh water to the Welwitschia field and harbour a number of the larger plants found in
the area. Infrastructure is being kept off them as far as is possible, and the near surface
flow in the channels is being investigated;
There are several springs in the tributaries to the Khan River. Springs can be small
ecosystems in themselves and are an important water source for the large animals in the
region (Oryx, Zebra, Kudu etc);

The movement of large animals and birds between water sources and grazing areas will
be hampered or impeded by the construction of the mine and its related infrastructure,
and by the power, water and road routes through narrow valleys;
The Hartmann’s Mountain Zebra is classified as vulnerable and may be impacted upon as
a result of large and linear infrastructure blocking pathways to springs and the Khan River.
The Husab Project will assist with studies to determine the impact and recommended
mitigation measures;
Several protected Acacia eriolobas (Camel thorn) will be affected by the permanent
access road to site. Permits for their destruction will be obtained;
River crossings through both the Kahn and Swakop River may impede the free movement
of animals along the rivers, and the power line will be a hazard to birds. Mitigation
measures will be implemented;
The impacts on the tourism are not as great as originally anticipated although the noise
levels in the area will increase, lighting will be visible from great distances and there will
be increased traffic along major routes. The sense of “wilderness” will be lost from
certain areas. Alternate tourism spots will need to be identified and other sites upgraded,
in conjunction with the NNNP;
The embankments of an old narrow gauge German rail line run across a part of the
Husab Mine site and are protected. Remnants of the embankment will be affected by the
permanent access road and the mine. The site of the Welwitschia station at the top of
valley leading from the Khan River has virtually disappeared, but it has been suggested
that it be resurrected as a tourism site;
Negative social impacts of the proposed Husab Mine include, amongst others, increased
pressure on local amenities such as schools, medical facilities and the potential increase
in the spread of pandemic diseases. The project will, as part of responsible corporate
citizenship, contribute to the relevant areas needing support.
The Husab Mine will bring a number of economic benefits to the Erongo region and to
Namibia in general. Suffice to say that an estimated 8% of the national GDP can be
generated by this one mine alone.
21.6 Conclusion
In summary, there are a number of predicted negative impacts of the Husab Mine and related
infrastructure on the bio-physical and socio-economic environments. However, the financial
benefits of the mine to the local, regional and Namibian economy will be great. There will be
people who oppose the project on the grounds of potential negative environmental and social
impacts, while others would support the project on the grounds of potential positive economic
impacts. Swakop Uranium must meet the commitments contained in the environmental
management plans to reduce the overall impact on the environment.

22 MARKET STUDIES AND CONTRACTS
22.1 Demand for Uranium
The principal use of uranium is as a fuel for nuclear reactors. In 2009, total installed nuclear
capacity was 373 GWe and demand for uranium was estimated to be around 174Mlbs U3O8.
Installed capacity is forecast to increase significantly as a result of new build programmes

around the world, as several developing economies seek to increase the share of nuclear
power in their energy balance to the levels of more developed countries.The main drivers of
nuclear power are the increase in global energy demand, reduced tolerance for greenhouse
gas emissions and improvements in nuclear power technology and economics. Prior to the
,
incident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear station in Japan on March 11 2011, nuclear
capacity in the upper scenario was forecast to more than double by 2030 (WNA, 2009).
Variable costs, including fuel, represent a relatively small part of the overall cost of generation
from nuclear power, and nuclear power stations tend to provide baseload generation with little
variation in power output. Consequently, demand for uranium is relatively inelastic and is
expected to keep pace with the expansion in nuclear capacity. Prior to the incident at
Fukushima, reactor requirements were forecast to increase to 277Mlbs per year in 2020 and
364Mlbs per year by 2030.
Immediately after the Fukushima incident several countries, including China, called for a
review of safety standards of existing and planned nuclear plants which could have an impact
on the future development of nuclear programmes.
22.2 Marketing of Uranium
Mining companies generally produce and sell uranium as uranium oxide (either U3O8 or UO4),
which is typically delivered to a conversion facility for conversion to uranium hexafluoride
(UF6) prior to enrichment to increase the proportion of fissile U235 before fabrication for use as
nuclear fuel.
Most uranium oxide is traded through bilateral agreements between suppliers (principally
mining companies) and users (principally nuclear power generators). There is no terminal
market for uranium oxide; spot and term prices are published by a small number of
independent companies based on information gained from market participants. The spot
market price is the most widely quoted, although in recent years spot market transactions
have accounted for only approximately 20% of the total market. Conversion, enrichment and
fabrication services are typically purchased separately by the end user.
The uranium oxide market is expected to tighten in the medium term owing to the growth in
global nuclear capacity, the decline in production from existing mines, the reduction in
available secondary supplies and delays to the development of new supply as a result of a
more difficult financing environment.

Analysts’ medium to long term forecasts for uranium oxide prices range between $70 and
$85/lb. Extract has for evaluation purposes assumed a flat real price of $65/lb U3O8 for the
life of mine.
Extract has engaged with potential customers to assess demand for production from the
Husab Uranium Project, and has identified several possible strategic contracting
opportunities. Extract is confident that it will become an attractive supplier to end-users, as a
result of the Husab Uranium Project’s ability to offer geographic diversification and long term
security of supply. As at the date of this report, the Project had not entered into any
commitments for the sale of uranium.
22.3 Taxation
An overview of the fiscal system in Namibia, outlining the principal taxes and duties expected
to be payable by the project, is provided below. Taxation of the parent company, and/or
individual investors is not considered in this overview.
The rate of corporate income tax payable by mining companies is 37.5%, payable on taxable
profits. Capital allowances on machinery, equipment and vehicles, may be taken on a straight
line basis over three years. Exploration and development costs may be deducted in the year
that mining commences.
A royalty of 3.0% of gross sales is expected to be applicable.
Value Added tax (VAT) may be chargeable on sales and paid on purchases within Namibia.
Where applicable, the VAT rate is 15%, although certain items are zero rated for VAT. It is
expected that uranium produced by the Husab Uranium Project will be exported, and will
therefore not be subject to VAT within Namibia. Namibia is a member of the Southern Africa
Customs Union (SACU) and the Southern African Development Community (SADC). No
duties are levied on intra SACU trade. Customs duties paid according to the Common
Customs Tariff of SACU on imports outside SACU. Import VAT is payable on importation of
goods into Namibia at various rates dependent on the item and its source. No VAT is
chargeable on services imported. VAT paid is expected to be claimed back from the
Namibian VAT authorities as input tax through monthly VAT returns.
Withholding taxes are payable on some payments to institutions in certain jurisdictions.

Dividend payments are subject to a withholding tax of 10%, with lower rates applied to
payments to certain treaty countries. No withholding tax is payable on interest payments
made to companies overseas. Withholding taxes on services may be payable.

23 CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS
23.1 Cost Estimates
The capital and operating cost estimates are presented in US dollars assuming an exchange
rate of US$1 = ZAR7.5. Estimates are presented in real terms with a base date of January
2011 and are considered to have an accuracy of ±10%.
23.1.1 Capital Cost Estimate

Based on the currently envisaged mine fleet, base case process design and the currently
planned strategy for infrastructure provision, capital costs are estimated to be approximately
US$1,480 million (see Table 23.1.1_1).
Table 23.1.1_1
Estimated Capital Cost
Item US$ Million

Initial Mine Fleet & Infrastructure 407
Processing plant 529
Waste & Tailings Facility 71
Infrastructure & Temporary facilities 210
Indirect costs (EPCM, Owners costs, other) 158
Contingency 105
1,480
Initial mine fleet and infrastructure costs include the initial mine and ancillary fleet and
equipment, initial infrastructure for trolley assist, mining complex and on-site roads and provision
of initial spares. Processing plant costs include the cost of construction of the processing plant
and on-site infrastructure. Infrastructure costs include the Project’s expected contribution
towards the cost of a shared water pipeline, and the full cost of a smaller dedicated pipeline to
site from this shared pipeline. It is anticipated that the costs of construction of a new
desalination facility will be borne by a third party. Infrastructure costs include allowance for
provision of temporary and permanent electrical supply. Temporary facilities include the cost of
a construction camp to be built in close proximity to the Husab site.
Inclusive of pre-strip and other capital and operating costs totalling US$179 million incurred
prior to commissioning and during ramp-up, the project cost is estimated at US$1,659 million.
The Project Cost excludes allowance for finished goods inventory in transit and held at
conversion facilities, debtor payment terms, creditor payment terms, escalation, and financing
costs (including fees and interest during construction).
Over the project life, ongoing capital expenditure, including sustaining capital and progressive
installation of the trolley assist infrastructure, is estimated to total approximately US$415 million.
End-of-life environmental rehabilitation costs estimated at $32 million are assumed to be largely
offset by equipment salvage value of $31 million.

23.1.2 Operating Cost Estimate

The steady state cost of production is estimated at US$28.5/lb, excluding royalties, marketing
and transport, and excluding cost escalation (see Table 23.1.2). Operating costs including
royalties, marketing and transport are estimated at US$32.0/lb.
Table 23.1.2_1
Estimated Operating Costs
Capital US$ / lb
Mining 13.9
Processing(1) 13.4
G&A 1.2
Cost of Production 28.5
Royalty 2.0
Transport & Marketing 1.5
Operating Cost 32.0
Notes (1) a) The process plant operating costs are estimated at US$12.40/lb U3O8 equivalent. An additional cost of
US$1.00 has been added to include the operating cost of the mine residue facility (MRF).
b) The manpower costs only include process plant operating personnel. All other labour categories are
included in the general and administrative (G & A) costs.
c) Waste disposal is included in the G & A costs.
d) Fuel costs used were the prevailing prices at the time the estimate was produced.
e) Cost for mill liners, crusher liner, filter cloth, lubricants, etc. were included with the vendor quotes for the
individual packages and these costs have been capitalised for the first two years of operation.
f) Reagent consumables including water – the operating cost model takes in account these costs on a year by
year basis.

24 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
24.1 Taxation
An overview of the fiscal system in Namibia, outlining the principal taxes and duties expected
to be payable by the project, is provided below. Taxation of the parent company, and/or
individual investors is not considered in this overview.
The rate of corporate income tax payable by mining companies is 37.5%, payable on taxable
profits. Capital allowances on machinery, equipment and vehicles, may be taken on a straight
line basis over three years. Exploration and development costs may be deducted in the year
that mining commences.
A royalty of 3.0% of revenue is expected to be applicable.
Value Added tax (VAT) may be chargeable on sales and paid on purchases within Namibia.
Where applicable, the VAT rate is 15%, although certain items are zero rated for VAT. It is
expected that uranium produced by the Husab Uranium Project will be exported, and will
therefore not be subject to VAT within Namibia. Namibia is a member of the Southern Africa
Customs Union (SACU) and the Southern African Development Community (SADC). No
duties are levied on intra SACU trade. Customs duties are paid according to the Common
Customs Tariff of SACU on imports outside SACU. Import VAT is payable on importation of
goods into Namibia at various rates dependent on the item and its source. No VAT is
chargeable on services imported. VAT paid is expected to be claimed back from the
Namibian VAT authorities as input tax through monthly VAT returns.
Withholding taxes are payable on some payments to institutions in certain jurisdictions.

Dividend payments are subject to a withholding tax of 10%, with lower rates applied to
payments to certain treaty countries. No withholding tax is payable on interest payments
made to companies overseas. Withholding taxes on services may be payable.
24.2 Economic Analysis – Results
Based on the Probable Mineral Reserves defined to date, the project is forecast to process
205Mt ore and to produce 198Mlbs U3O8 equivalent over the 16 year life of mine (from start of
mining to end of processing).
A cashflow forecast is shown in Table 24.2_1, assuming a uranium price of US$65/lb. The
Project annual cashflow model indicates a cash outflow of US$1,628 million prior to the start
of commissioning. Additional cash outflow is expected in the initial months of the first year of
operation, giving rise to an estimated total project cost of US$1,659 million. The net present
value of forecast post tax cashflows, discounted at 8% per year, is $822 million based on
existing reserves.

The payback period, assuming a uranium price of US$65/lb, is estimated to be 6.8 years from
project start, or 4.1 years from commissioning. The value of the project, as calculated using a
discounted future cashflow analysis based on proven and probable reserves defined to date,
is shown in Table 24.2_2 below for various market price and discount rate assumptions.
Estimates exclude allowance for finished goods inventory in transit and held at conversion
24.3 Economic Analysis - Sensitivity
The sensitivity of the valuation to certain parameters, based on existing reserves, is shown in
Table 24.3_1 below.
Extract Resources has commenced a programme to investigate opportunities to add significant

additional value through the MORE programme. Opportunities to extend the economic life of
the project through definition of additional reserves are described below. In addition, several
potential process enhancements are being investigated:

final mine plan to be initiated during the project development phase.

Table 24.2_1
Forecast Cashflows (Reserves only)
.
Total / Year
Unit
Average -3 -2 -1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Total Mined Mt 1,705 - 9.0 78.8 93.1 123.4 140.6 158.4 168.1 162.0 141.3 126.4 129.7 128.2 133.5 74.7 25.1 12.2 -
Waste Mined Mt 1,500 - 9.0 75.9 82.5 107.3 123.1 138.5 147.9 144.8 124.2 109.1 115.7 113.1 118.3 63.2 18.7 8.4 -
Ore Mined Mt 205 - - 3.0 10.6 16.1 17.5 19.9 20.2 17.2 17.1 17.3 14.0 15.2 15.2 11.6 6.4 3.8 -
Grade Mined ppm 497 - - 324 564 549 422 433 439 482 452 462 568 590 462 567 677 660 -
Net Stockpile Movement Mt - - 3.0 0.6 1.5 2.6 4.9 5.2 2.2 2.1 2.3 (1.0) 0.2 0.2 (3.4) (8.6) (11.2) (0.4)
Ore Processed Mt 205 - - - 10.0 14.6 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 0.4
Grade Processed ppm 497 - - - 559 578 503 505 508 530 485 473 550 556 506 521 404 316 187
Recovery % 88.0% - - - 84.9% 89.8% 87.7% 89.1% 88.4% 88.9% 87.8% 88.1% 90.0% 89.9% 88.3% 88.2% 85.0% 81.0% 79.9%
Uranium Production Mlbs U3O8 equiv 198 - - - 10.5 16.7 14.6 14.9 14.9 15.6 14.1 13.8 16.4 16.5 14.8 15.2 11.4 8.5 0.1
Uranium Price $/lb 65.0 65.0 65.0 65.0 65.0 65.0 65.0 65.0 65.0 65.0 65.0 65.0 65.0 65.0 65.0 65.0 65.0 65.0
Revenue $m 12,852 - - - 668 1,084 947 966 966 1,013 916 895 1,065 1,075 961 987 738 551 21
- Royalty $m (386) - - - (20) (33) (28) (29) (29) (30) (27) (27) (32) (32) (29) (30) (22) (17) (1)
- Transport & Marketing $m (304) - - - (16) (26) (22) (23) (23) (24) (22) (21) (25) (25) (23) (23) (17) (13) (1)
Net Revenue $m 12,162 - - - 632 1,026 896 915 914 959 867 847 1,008 1,017 909 934 698 521 20
- Mine Operating Costs $m (2,711) - - - (132) (198) (214) (225) (245) (235) (238) (212) (230) (224) (228) (164) (83) (73) (9)
- Plant Operating Costs $m (2,654) - - - (133) (185) (193) (197) (194) (196) (195) (192) (197) (199) (195) (195) (191) (187) (5)
- G&A Operating Costs $m (215) - - - (16) (15) (15) (15) (15) (15) (15) (15) (15) (15) (15) (15) (15) (15) (5)
Total Operating Costs $m (5,579) - - - (280) (398) (422) (437) (454) (446) (448) (419) (442) (438) (438) (374) (289) (276) (19)
EBITDA $m 6,583 - - - 352 628 474 478 460 512 419 429 565 579 471 560 409 245 1
Tax Payments $m (1,721) - - - - - - (46) (161) (182) (147) (149) (203) (210) (174) (207) (151) (91) (0)
Initial Capex $m (1,480) (155) (637) (689) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Capitalised Pre-Production Open $m (148) (3) (32) (113) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sustaining / Enhancement Capex $m (429) - - - (107) (96) (41) (29) (26) (30) (23) (41) (9) (10) (5) (8) (2) (0) (0)
Cashflow $m 2,804 (157) (669) (802) 244 533 433 403 274 300 248 238 353 360 292 344 255 154 1

Table 24.2_2
Project NPV (Reserves only)
Discount Rate (post-tax, real)

NPV (US$m)
6% 8% 10%
60 800 522 302
65 1,153 822 560
U3O8 Price (US$/lb)
70 1,502 1,119 814
75 1,850 1,414 1,067
Table 24.3_1
Valuation Sensitivity
Change In
Parameter Sensitivity Project Cost Op. Cost NPV Payback Period
($m) ($/lb) (8%) (years)
+ $5 / lb (1.4) +0.2 +297 (0.7)
Uranium Price
- $5 / lb +3.8 (0.1) (300) +0.8
+ 10ppm (0.7) (0.6) +82 (0.1)
Grade
- 10ppm +0.7 +0.6 (82) +0.2
+ 10% +20.1 +2.9 (189) +0.5
Operating Cost
- 10% (18.4) (2.9) +188 (0.3)
24.4 Mine Life Extension
Extract Resources believes that there is significant potential to extend the current 16 year life
of the mine through definition of additional reserves.
A resource update is planned for Q2, 2011 incorporating drilling completed until the end
of January, 2011. The main focus has been infill drilling of Zone 1 and Zone 2 to define
Measured Mineral Resources and increase the quantum of Indicated Mineral Resources,
both by upgrading the classification of Inferred Mineral Resources within the current mine
plan (and therefore not included within the reserve estimate) and by definition of
additional resources.
Since the August, 2010 resource update Extract has completed an additional
375 resource definition drillholes at Zones 1 and 2 which have added 118,392 metres of
drilling to the resource database. The programme is continuing with up to 6 rigs on site
targeting a further 100,000 metres drilling over the next 12 months.
Additionally, open pit optimisation of the updated resource is expected to result in

definition of additional reserves and a lower strip ratio, following detailed geotechnical
review which indicated potential for an increase in slope angles.
Extract Resources intends to continue its exploration programme in Zones 3, 4 and 5,

Middle Dome, Salem, Ida Dome, and Pizzaro areas, which are not included in the DFS.

25 INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS
The Husab Uranium Project area contains one of the largest uranium deposits in the world
with significant uranium mineralisation associated with uraniferous leucocratic granites
(alaskites) within the highly prospective Central Zone of the Damara Orogeny. The
mineralised alaskites tend to occur along or proximal to the unconformity contact between the
Khan Formation and Rössing Formation.
The August 2010 resource (Table 1.4_1; and 17.1.9_2 & 17.2.5_4) represents a significant
increase in Indicated Mineral Resources relative to the previous July 2009 Mineral Resources
for Zones 1 and 2, and now incorporates maiden resources for Zones 3 and 4.
Potential remains to expand the Mineral Resource inventory at the Husab Uranium Project
through extension of known deposits such as Zones 1, 2, 3 and 4 and definition of resources
at prospects such as Zone 5, Middle Dome and Salem.
Further bulk density information is required in the mineralised portions of the deposit and of
the overburden. Additional infill and extensional drilling is required to raise the level of
confidence of the Indicated and Inferred Resources.
Extract has defined a base case mine plan and process plant design, including plans for
delivery of the infrastructure necessary to support the project. The DFS has demonstrated the
technical and economic viability of developing Husab into one of the largest uranium mines in
the world.
The DFS is based on:
Indicated Mineral Resources defined at Zones 1 and 2;
Open pit mining by truck and shovel from two separate pits to maintain a sustained rate
of 15Mt pa over the life of mine with an average strip ratio of 7:1 (waste:ore);
A waste and plant tailings storage facility (the mine residue facility);
Ore crushing and overland conveying to a new processing facility employing milling,
leaching, ion exchange, solvent extraction and precipitation plant and equipment to
produce approximately 15 million lbs pa of U3O8 equivalent; and
Provision of temporary and permanent power and water supplies, access roads,
temporary and permanent buildings and structures necessary to support the Project.

Capital costs for the Project are estimated at US$1,480 million, including initial mine fleet,
process plant and supporting infrastructure. Inclusive of pre-strip and other pre-production
operating costs of US$179 million, the Project Cost is estimated at US$1,659 million. This
estimate excludes allowance for finished goods inventory in transit and held at conversion
Production costs are estimated at US$28.5/lb, excluding royalties, marketing and transport and
cost escalation. Operating costs including royalties, marketing and transport are estimated at
US$32.0/lb.

26 RECOMMENDATIONS
The DFS defines a base case mine plan and process plant design, including plans for delivery
of the infrastructure necessary to support the project. Several opportunities to add further
value have been identified, including the proposed update of the resource model, mine plan
optimization, and processing enhancements. Extract Resources has commenced a MORE
programme to investigate these opportunities.
Measured Mineral Resources and increase the quantum of Indicated Mineral Resources, both
by upgrading the classification of Inferred Mineral Resources within the current mine plan (and
therefore not included within the reserve estimate) and by definition of additional resources.
Since the August, 2010 resource update Extract has completed an additional 375 resource
definition drillholes at Zones 1 and 2 which have added 118,392 metres of drilling to the
resource database. The programme is continuing with up to 6 rigs on site targeting
completion of approximately 100,000 metres of drilling over the next 12 months.
Closer spaced drilling of the Husab deposit has revealed an increasingly complex relationship
of mineralisation and alaskite lithologies. It is recommended that in future a probabilistic,
Multiple Indicator Kriging (MIK) resource model be considered, to generate a recoverable
SMU model over Zones 1 and 2.
Additionally, open pit optimisation of the updated resource (Q2, 2011) is expected to result in
definition of additional reserves and a lower strip ratio, following detailed geotechnical review
which indicated potential for an increase in slope angles.
Once the Q2, 2011 Mineral Resource update has been completed Extract should continue
with further infill drilling at Zones 1 and 2 with the aim of defining additional Measured
Resources. The expectation would be to complete another resource update (H1 2012) for
Zones 1 and 2 to take through to the commencement of mining. The 2012 updated resource
should be subject to detailed optimisation and mine planning such that an updated mine plan
and Mineral Reserve is expected to be completed during the second half of 2012.
Extract also intends to continue its exploration programme in Zones 3, 4 and 5, Middle Dome,
Salem, Ida Dome, and Pizzaro areas, which are not included in the DFS. Definition of
additional reserves would be expected to add additional value and mine life to the project.

Several potential process enhancements are being investigated and include the following:

final mine plan to be initiated during the project development phase. Table 27_1 summarises
an estimated budget for the above recommendations.
Table 27_1
Estimated Budget for Recommendations for 2011/2012
Item/Activity Cost (US$)

Resource Estimation and Mining Studies $1.5M
Additional Resource Drilling – Zones 1 & 2 $10.0M
Additional - Husab Uranium Project exploration $5.0M
Engineering/Pre-development $17.0M
Total $33.5M

27 REFERENCES
Anglo American Prospecting Services Namibia (Pty) Limited. 1982. Prospecting Grant
M46/3/444 Husab, South West Africa/Namibia. Annual Prospecting Report for the year
ended 31st December 1981.
Anglo American Prospecting Services (Pty) Ltd - Swakop Exploration (Pty) Limited. 1980.
Husab Uranium Venture. Prospecting Grant M46/3/444 South West Africa/Namibia.
Annual Prospecting Report for the year ended 31st December 1979.
Bevam, J. 2011. Report on Taxation and Economic Analysis for the Husab Uranium Project.
Internal Company Report. Extract Resources.
Bothe, H.W., 1980. Prospecting Grant M46/3/487 Welwitschia Uranium Joint Venture.
Renewal Report August 1980. Anglo American Prospecting Company, 4pp.
Culpan, N., 2008. Comparison of downhole gamma spectrometer logging with chemical
assays. Internal Company Memorandum, Extract Resource Limited. 5 December 2008.
Culpan, N., 2009. Rössing South Densities. Internal Company Memorandum. 5 January 2009.
Courtellier, G.R., 1975. Report on geological, geochemical and geophysical investigations on

Prospecting Grant known as “Eintracht” M46/3/606. Aquitaine SWA unpublished
report, 8pp.
Davies, S. 2011. Report on uranium Markets and Contracts. Internal Company Report.
Extract Resources.
Dorrington, R. 2008. Agreed Restructure – Extract Resources Limited and Kalahari Minerals
plc. ASX Media Release. Dated 5 September 2008. Obtained from
http://www.asx.com.au/asx/research/CompanyInfoSearchResults.jsp?searchBy=asxCo
de&allinfo=on&asxCode=EXT#headlines
Freemantle, G. June 2009. Preliminary Report to Extract Resources (Swakop Uranium) of

mineralogical results from QEMSCAN analyses of selected surface and core samples
of the Rössing South Deposits. Unpublished Technical Report.
Freemantle, G. September 2010. Petrographic, geochemical and mineralogical assessments

of Rössing South alaskitic and metasedimentary rocks from NQ core samples.
Unpublished Technical Report.
Freyer, EE, Badenhorst, FP and Krupp, KP. 1991. Renewal Report, Grant 1771, North
Namib-Naukluft Park. Anglo American Prospecting Services unpublished report.
Hill, MH. October 2010. Rössing South Metallurgical Testwork Report – Final. Unpublished
Technical Report.
Inwood, N. 2009, National Instrument 43-101 Technical Report, Rössing South – January
2009 Resource Update. Unpublished technical report
Inwood, N. 2009, National Instrument 43-101 Technical Report, Rössing South – January
2009 Resource Update. Unpublished technical report.

Jayasekera, S., Turner, J., van der Meulen, D. October 2010. Rössing South Uranium
Project Integrated Pilot Plant Testwork Final Report. SGS Lakefield Oretest.
Unpublished Technical Report.
Lambert,I., McKay, A., and Miezitis, Y. 1996 Australia's uranium resources: trends, global
comparisons and new developments, Bureau of Resource Sciences, Canberra, with
their later paper: Australia's Uranium Resources and Production in a World Context,
ANA Conference October 2001.
Lobo-Guerrero, A., Granitoid-related iron-oxide-copper-gold Mineralisation, greater Lufilian

Arc, Zambia and Namibia. In, Muhling, R., Goldfarb, N., Vielreicher, F., Bierlein, F.,
Stumpfl, E., Groves, D.I., Kenworthy, S. (Eds) Extended Abstracts, SEG 2004,
Predictive Mineral Discovery Under Cover.
Mokwena, A., Sadiki, M., Kalala, J.T. November 2010. Pilot Semiautogenous Milling Testwork
on Rössing South run of mine sample. Mintek. Unpublished Technical Report.
Morel, V., 2007. Husab JV and Uis Uranium Projects, Central Western Namibia. Technical
Report by RSG Global Consulting for Extract Resources Limited.
Ministry of Mines and Energy Namibia. Legislation on minerals (Prospecting and Mining) Act.
1992 (Art No 33 of 1992).
Mitiri, J. June 2009. UltraSort testwork report. Unpublished technical report.
Penkethman, A. & Spivey, M. 2008. Information Document – Namibia Uranium Project. May
2008.
Prince, K.E. and Kelly, I.J. May 2009. Technical Memorandum: AM/TM2009_14_05, Rössing
South Ore Mineralogy. Unpublished Technical Report. ANSTO Minerals.
Prince, K.E. and Kelly, I.J. June 2009. Technical Memorandum: AM/TM2009_12_06,
Rössing South Mineralogy <38µm alaskite ore and leach residue. Unpublished
Technical Report. ANSTO Minerals.
Prince, K.E. and Kelly, I.J. August 2009. Technical Memorandum: AM/TM2009_20_08,
Rössing South + 53µm and – 53µm Fractions. Unpublished Technical Report. ANSTO
Minerals.
Prince, K.E. and Kelly, I.J. November 2009. Technical Memorandum: AM/TM2009_23_11,
Mineralogy of select Extract <10µm leach residues. Unpublished Technical Report.
ANSTO Minerals.
Prince, K.E. and Kelly, I.J. November 2009. Technical Memorandum: AM/TM2009_12_11,
Rössing South ore variability study. Unpublished Technical Report. ANSTO Minerals.
Rössing Uranium Ltd, 1982. Interim Report on Exclusive Prospecting Grant M46/3/1229-
Farms Hatsamas and Coas, Windhoek District. Unpublished company report, 14pp.
Speiser, A. 2005. Environmental Assessment and Management Plan (Phase 1 and 2) for
West Africa Gold Exploration (Namibia) Pty Ltd – Exploration Activities on EPL 3138.

Spivey, M. 2006. Information Document – Namibia Uranium Project. December 2006.
Spivey, M. 2006. West Africa Gold Exploration (Namibia) (Pty) Ltd. Report on Exploration
EPL3138 “Husab” for the period ending 19.04.2007. Volume 1, Text and Plans. Report
No. TR3138(1) Submitted to the Ministry of Mines and Energy, December 2006.
Spivey, M and Penkethman, A. 2009. Discovery of the granite (alaskite) hosted Rössing
South uranium deposit in Namibia; an exploration perspective. Conference
Presentation Abstract, Roundup 2009.
Stobart, B. 2011. Environmental Studies, Permitting and Social or Community Impact.

Internal Company Report. Metago Environmental Engineers.
Swakop Exploration (Pty) Limited. 1974. Prospecting Grant M46/3/444 over area known as
Husab Area, Registration “G” South West Africa. Annual Prospecting Report for 1973.
Husab Area, Registration “G” South West Africa. Annual Prospectus Report for 1974.
Husab Area, Registration “G” South West Africa. Annual Prospectus Report for 1975.
Swakop Exploration (Pty) Limited. 1978. Husab Uranium Joint Venture. Prospecting Grant
M46/3/444 South West Africa. Annual Prospecting Report for 1977.
M46/3/444 South West Africa. Annual Prospecting Report for 1978.
M46/3/444 South West Africa/Namibia. Annual Prospecting Report for the year ended
31st December 1980.
Schneider, GIC and Seeger, KG 1993. The mineral resources of Namibia. Geological
Survey of Namibia, Ministry of Mines and Energy, Republic of Namibia.
Townend, R. August 2008. Our reference 22352. SEM examination of three crushed rock
samples, after screening at 106 microns, for uranium minerals. Unpublished technical
report.
Townend, R. November 2009. Our reference 22600. Preparation of one polished thin
section of one drill core and examination (optical/SEM) for uranium minerals.
Concentration of heavy minerals from part crushed drill core in TBE liquid and XRD
identification (RDD 23 362m). Unpublished technical report.
Townend, R. November 2009. Our reference 22611. SEM examination of polished sections
of four Feed and four Leach residue samples for uranium minerals. Unpublished
technical report.
Townend, R. June 2010. Our reference 22737. SEM/BSE/EDS examination of 10 uranium

ore tails with reference to uranium minerals. Unpublished technical report.
The CIA World Fact Book, website www.cia.gov. 2010.

Wilson, P., 2008. Rössing South Assay Quality Control Report, December 2009. Internal
Company Report. Extract Resources Limited. December 2008.
World Nuclear Association, 2009. The Global Nuclear Fuel Market, Supply and Demand
2009-2030.
www.bannermanresources.com. 2011.
www.paladinresources.com. 2011.
www.Rössing.com 2010.

28 DATE AND SIGNATURE PAGE
The “Qualified Persons” (within the meaning of NI 43-101) for the purposes of this report are
shown below. The effective date of this report is 20 May 2011.
[Signed]
Neil Inwood MSc, MAusIMM
Principal Resource Geologist
Coffey Mining Pty Ltd.
Signed on the 20 May 2011
[Signed]
Steve Le Brun M AusIMM
Principle Consultant
Coffey Mining Pty Ltd.
[Signed]
Steve Craig AusIMM
Managing Director
ORElogy
[Signed]
Ross Cheyne M AusIMM
Director
ORElogy
[Signed]
Mike Valenta M SAIMM
Managing Director
Metallicon
[Signed]
Hugh Browner F SAIMM
Engineering Manager
AMEC Minproc
[Signed]
Steve Amos F SAIMM
Technical Manager
AMEC Minproc

Appendix 1
QAQC Report
Rössing South
Assay Quality Control Report
July 2010
P. D. Wilson
Rössing South Assay QC Report July 2010
1. Introduction
1.1. Data Reviewed
The quality control data reviewed in this report comprises all field and laboratory QC results
for the Rössing South project received in the period 15/7/2009 to 7/7/2010.For QC results in
the period prior to 15/7/2009 refer to “Rossing South December 2008 Assay QC Report” and
“Rossing South July 2009 Assay QC Report” by the same author. The report includes data from
the Zone 1 and Zone 2 prospects. All primary analytical work was carried out by Genalysis
Laboratory Services Pty Ltd. Sample preparation was undertaken at their facility in
Johannesburg and the pulps were analysed in Perth. A single analytical method was used by
Genalysis: AT/MS (four-acid digest in Teflon tube, ICP-MS finish).
Ultra Trace Geoanalytical Laboratories was selected as an umpire laboratory using Ultra Trace
code ICP304 (peroxide fusion, ICP-MS finish).
Table 1.1 compares the numbers of each QC control type inserted by Extract Resources with
the total number of sample results received during the period of this report.
Table 1.1 Summary of QC Sampling
QC Control Count %
Standards 4870 2.5
Blanks 5206 2.7
Duplicates 4656 2.4
Umpire Repeats 910 0.5
Total QC 15642 8
All samples 196084 100
1.2. Field Procedures
Reverse Circulation
Quality control samples in the form of certified reference standards, field duplicates and blank
samples were inserted into the sample stream as part of the normal sample sequence. Most
recently the three QC sample types were inserted in the ratio of 1:33, giving an overall ratio of
close to 1:10.
Sample numbers ending in “00”, “30” and “70” were allocated to standards. Sample numbers
ending in “36”, “66” and “76” were allocated to duplicates of the previous samples. Sample
numbers ending in “10”, “40” and “80” were allocated to blanks. In addition extra blanks, up
to a maximum of 5 per hole, were targeted on high grade intervals as indicated by a hand-held
spectrometer. These were placed 2 samples after the high grade sample because the
laboratory uses two mills and processes alternate samples through each. Contamination from
a high grade sample should be apparent in the next sample through the mill, which would be
the second sample after the high grade one.
20 July 2009 1
Diamond Drilling
QC procedures for diamond drilling were similar to RC with the exceptions that no field
duplicates were inserted and standards were inserted in the ratio of 1:40, giving an overall
ratio of 1:36.
1.3. Charting
The plots used in this report were produced using QAQCReporter version 1.10.3. Standard
control charts plot an “Instance” number along the X-axis. On charts of this type each result is
separated by an equal distance on the X-axis and the instance number represents the order of
results sorted by Report Date, Batch No and SampleID . While there is no guarantee that the
laboratory has processed all samples in batch and sample number order on a given day, the
X-axis is an approximation of the order of processing through the laboratory.
2. Field Standards and Blanks
Extract Resources used 14 African Mineral Standards (AMIS) of various uranium concentrations in
the Rössing South drilling program. The standards used and their expected values by ICP analysis
are listed in Table 2.1. The minimum and maximum expected values are two standard deviations
from the mean, established by round-robin analysis among multiple laboratories. Certificates
detailing the certification procedure are available from http://www.amis.co.za/
Table 2.1. AMIS standards used by Extract Resources
U ppm by ICP
Standard
Expected Min Max
AMIS0046 93 84.5 101.5
AMIS0054 1410 1314 1506
AMIS0076 1502 1336 1668
AMIS0085 263 242 284
AMIS0086 127 117.5 136.5
AMIS0090 890 831 949
AMIS0097 527 497 557
AMIS0098 819 723 915
AMIS0100 1474 1398 1550
AMIS0113 456 411 501
AMIS0131 294 268 320
AMIS0133* 3323 3157 3489
AMIS0154 682 621 743
AMIS0156 195 161 229
* The expected value for AMIS0133 has been determined by XRF only
The results for the standards analysis are shown in Table 2.2. Individual control charts are
included in Appendix 1. Outliers, many of which when investigated, are the result of
misidentification of standards in the field submissions have been excluded from the summary
statistics in Table 2.2 and the plots in Appendix 1.
20 July 2009 2
Table 2.2. Statistics for Standards Submitted by Extract Resources, analysed by ICP
Genalysis Perth
Standard
AMIS0046 AMIS0054 AMIS0076 AMIS0085 AMIS0086 AMIS0090 AMIS0097
Expected Value (EV)
93 1410 1502 263 127 890 527
U/U3O8??ppm
Expected Min 84.5 1314 1336 242 117.5 831 497
Expected Max 101.5 1506 1668 284 136.5 949 557
Count 384 237 145 497 477 48 506
Minimum 83.9 1287.1 1388.2 204.7 96.4 801.0 460.8
Maximum 122.6 1545.3 1641.6 305.4 146.0 951.3 592.7
Mean 99.1 1426.5 1528.8 264.3 129.6 888.9 527.5
Std Deviation 3.083 44.639 45.736 9.863 4.997 29.851 18.702
% in Tolerance 75.5 95.4 100 95.4 90.4 91.7 89.5
% Bias 6.6 1.2 1.8 0.5 2.1 -0.1 0.1
Genalysis Perth
Standard
AMIS0098 AMIS0100 AMIS0113 AMIS0131 AMIS0133 AMIS0154 AMIS0156
Expected Value (EV) 819 1474 456 294 3323 682 195
Expected Min 723 1398 411 268 3157 621 161
Expected Max 915 1550 501 320 3489 743 229
Count 644 408 358 501 609 24 32
Minimum 739.6 1278.0 396.2 262.6 2905.3 686.2 183.7
Maximum 916.2 1647.8 520.9 367.3 3692.2 747.3 239.1
Mean 836.4 1471.3 446.6 296.3 3230.3 723.4 210.1
Std Deviation 26.199 44.969 16.712 9.548 119.561 14.879 8.084
% in Tolerance 99.8 91.4 98 97.2 72.1 83.3 96.9
% Bias 2.1 -0.2 -2.1 0.8 -2.8 6.1 7.7
The mean values for each standard show a bias from the expected value ranging from -2.8% to
+7.7%.
• The bias on AMIS0156 at 7.7% is at the high end but is based on 32 values.
• AMIS0154 is similar and shows a bias of 6.1% based on only 24 values.
• AMIS0046 shows a high positive bias of 6.6% from a count of 384 values. Because the
expected value of 93 ppm is at the low end of the grade range this represents a departure
from the expected value of 6 ppm.
• The remaining standards all report bias within +/- 3%.
20 July 2009 3
Blanks
Table 2.4 lists the statistics for blanks inserted by Extract Resources. Some variability is evident
in the control chart for field blanks. Where these have been investigated they invariably are
associated with high grade sections of the drill holes that contain them, suggesting that the
cause is low level contamination between samples. Performance of the blanks was queried
with the lab in May 2009, prior to the period covered by this report. Performance
subsequently improved and has continued to improve following these investigations.
More than 99% of blanks reported within acceptable limits.
Table 2.4. Statistics for Extract Resources Field Blanks
Field Blanks ICP

Expected Value (EV) 2.5
Expected Min 0
Expected Max 10
Count 5206
Outliers 2
Minimum BDL
Maximum 71
Mean 2.08
Std Deviation 11.7
% in Tolerance 99
3. Laboratory Standards and Blanks
Genalysis inserted a range of 6 standards and 2 blanks into the sample stream to monitor
internal QC and provided Extract with the expected values and upper and lower limits for
these standards. Genalysis used some of the same AMIS standards as Extract and these have
been separately identified in the database by the use of a “_LAB” suffix in the standard ID. The
expected minimum and maximum values listed in Table 3.1 are those provided by Genalysis
and are not the same as the tolerances given in the certificates for the AMIS standards.
The statistics for each of the lab’s internal standards are listed in Table 3.1 and individual
control charts are included in Appendix 2. As expected, the internal QC of the laboratory is
very good with nearly all results within the limits accepted by the lab, and few outliers. Bias is
slightly positive across the range of ore grade standards. OREAS 45P shows the highest bias of
6.5 percent, but this standard is effectively a blank and can be disregarded.
20 July 2009 4
Table 3.1. Statistics for Standards Inserted by Genalysis

(Note “_LAB” extension removed from AMIS standard IDs to save space in this table)
Genalysis Perth
Standard
CUP-1 DH-1a OREAS 45P UTS-1 AMIS0004 AMIS0086
Expected Value (EV) 1280 2600 2.4 49 88 127
Expected Min 1088 2200 2.04 41.65 74.8 117.5
Expected Max 1472 3000 2.76 56.35 101.2 136.5
Count 1349 1324 1319 1289 1325 367
Minimum 1154 2268 0.02 33.8 63.5 110.9
Maximum 1499.7 2875.5 29.6 104 103.2 143.7
Mean 1299.8 2571.7 2.5 49.3 88.6 128.8
Std Deviation 43.28 90.7 1.1 7.4 3.585 4.629
% in Tolerance 99 100 84 79 99 95
% Bias 1.42 -1.09 6.522 0.516 0.715 1.4
The statistics for acid and control blanks are also very good. Table 3.2 gives a summary of the
statistics.
Table 3.2. Blanks Inserted by Genalysis
Standard Acid Blank Control Blank

Expected Value (EV) 0 0
Expected Min -0.5 -0.5
Expected Max 0.5 0.5
Count 720 2323
Minimum 0 0
Maximum 5 1.1
Mean 0.03 0.04
Std Deviation 0.176 0.069
% in Tolerance 99.9 99.9
20 July 2009 5
4. Duplicates
4.1. Field Duplicates
Extract Resources inserted field duplicates in a ratio of 3 per 100 samples in their RC drilling
program. In November 2009, part way through the period of this report, the method by which
duplicates were collected was modified on the recommendation of Neil Inwood of Coffey
Mining. The two methods are coded as RC_SPLIT (old method) and RC_DUP (new method). In
the original procedure the duplicate was collected as a split of the subsample that was to be
dispatched to the lab and so was a duplicate of the lab sample only. In the new procedure the
entire sampling process is replicated in order to produce the duplicate.
A total of 2267 pairs of results were produced by the old method and 2389 by the new. The
results for the two methods are plotted separately.
Scatter plots show good precision for the data set with most results falling within the 20%
precision limit. A number of the outliers shown are strongly suspected to be the result of
recording errors in the field where standards and blanks have been placed in positions where
duplicates should have been collected and which have been recorded as duplicates.
Figure 4.1.1 is a scatter plot showing the full range of grade values. Figure 4.1.2 and 4.1.3
show more detail of the data in the grade range 0 – 1200 ppm U and 0 – 500 ppm U
respectively.
20 July 2009 6
Figure 4.1.1a Scatter Plot Field Duplicates by Old Method - All data
Figure 4.1.1b Scatter Plot Field Duplicates by New Method - All data
20 July 2009 7
Figure 4.1.2a Scatter Plot Field Duplicates by Old Method - 0 to 1200 ppm
Figure 4.1.2b Scatter Plot Field Duplicates by New Method - 0 to 1200 ppm
20 July 2009 8
Figure 4.1.3a Scatter Plot Field Duplicates by Old Method - 0 to 500 ppm
Figure 4.1.3b Scatter Plot Field Duplicates by New Method - 0 to 500 ppm
20 July 2009 9
Quantile-Quantile plots of the same data show a small positive bias in the range 300 – 900 ppm for
results produced by the old procedure, but in the plots for the new procedure this bias is absent or
slightly negative. However, this appears to be a result of low numbers of duplicate pairs in this
range and the presence of a few outliers shifting the means, rather than any discernible difference
caused by the change in sampling method.
Figure 4.1.3a Quantile-Quantile Plot Field Duplicates by Old Method - All data
Figure 4.1.3b Quantile-Quantile Plot Field Duplicates by New Method - All data
20 July 2009 10
Figure 4.1.4a Quantile-Quantile Plot Field Duplicates by Old Method - 0 to 1200 ppm U
Figure 4.1.4b Quantile-Quantile Plot Field Duplicates by New Method - 0 to 1200 ppm U
20 July 2009 11
Figure 4.1.5a Quantile-Quantile Plot Field Duplicates by Old Method - 0 to 500 ppm U
Figure 4.1.5b Quantile-Quantile Plot Field Duplicates by New Method - 0 to 500 ppm U
20 July 2009 12
A measure of the precision of duplicate pairs is the Mean Absolute Paired Difference
(%MAPD). This value is often referred to as %HARD (Half Absolute Relative Difference) or
%RPHD (Relative Paired Half Difference).
For a duplicate pair A and B %MAPD is defined as:
%MAPD = Absolute of [(A-B)/Average(A:B)*100*0.5]
Figure 4.1.5 is a plot of %MAPD against percentile rank for field duplicates. Grades below
10 ppm U have been excluded from the plot because of the high relative differences exhibited
by duplicate pairs of very low grades. The data were plotted for three grade ranges: all data,
0 – 1000 ppm U and 0 – 500 ppm U. In each case 95% of the data fell within the 20% precision
limits for field duplicates, regardless of the method. Only the plot showing all data is included
here.
Figure 4.1.5a %MAPD Plot Field duplicates by Old Method
Figure 4.1.5b %MAPD Plot Field duplicates by New Method
20 July 2009 13
4.2. Lab Pulp Checks
Genalysis performed a total of 2946 pulp checks as part of their internal QC and the results
show very good precision. A tighter precision limit of 10% is used for pulp checks because they
are not subject to the same variability as field duplicates through the sampling and
preparation process. The %MAPD plot (Figure 4.2.5) shows that 97% of the checks fall within
this limit. Note that, as for the field duplicates, only results for grades greater than 10 ppm
have been included in the plot.
Figure 4.2.1 Scatter Plot Lab Pulp Checks- All data
Figure 4.2.2 Scatter Plot Lab Pulp Checks- 0 to 1200 ppm
20 July 2009 14
Figure 4.2.2 Scatter Plot Lab Pulp Checks- 0 to 500 ppm
Figure 4.2.3 Quantile-Quantile Plot Lab Pulp Checks- All data
Figure 4.2.4 Quantile-Quantile Plot Lab Pulp Checks- 0 to 1200 ppm
20 July 2009 15
Figure 4.2.5 Quantile-Quantile Plot Lab Pulp Checks- 0 to 1200 ppm
Figure 4.2.5 %MAPD Plot Lab Pulp Checks
20 July 2009 16
5. Umpire Laboratory Results
A total of 910 pulps recovered from Genalysis were sent to Ultra Trace for re-analysis. Samples
were manually selected from the Zone 1 and Zone 2 prospects at Rössing South. The number
of samples represented approximately 10% of the +75ppm U3O8 samples analysed in the
period 15/7/09 to 7/7/10. Samples were selected to cover the depth, strike and cross-strike
extents of the Zone 1 and 2 mineralisation and the selection of samples was drawn from each
of the section lines across the prospect in groups of roughly 10 consecutive samples.
Ultra Trace used an hydroxide fusion digest followed by ICP-MS and the original analyses by
Genalysis were done with a 4-acid digest ICP-MS.
A comparison of the umpire repeat results for drill samples is shown by the series of plots
below. As with previous umpire results, reported in “Rossing South August 2009 Umpire
Results” and “Rossing South July 2009 Assay QC Report” by the same author, the Ultratrace
fusion method has a higher yield of U compared to the 4-acid digest used at Genalysis. It is
particularly evident between 700 and 1300 ppm U. On average the umpire results are 3.75%
higher than the original results. The %MAPD plot shows that 88% of the data falls within the
10% precision limits for laboratory duplicates.
Figure 5.2 Scatter Plot Umpire Repeats, All Data
20 July 2009 17
Figure 5.3 Scatter Plot Umpire Repeats, 0 – 5000 ppm U
Figure 5.3 Scatter Plot Umpire Repeats, 0 – 1500 ppm U
20 July 2009 18
Figure 5.4 Q-Q Plot Umpire Repeats, All Data
Figure 5.5 Q-Q Plot Umpire Repeats, 0 – 5000 ppm U
20 July 2009 19
Figure 5.6 Q-Q Plot Umpire Repeats, 0 – 1500 ppm U
Figure 5.7 %MAPD Plot Umpire Repeats, 10 – 20000 ppm U
20 July 2009 20
6. Data Quality Summary
The review of the data from field and laboratory quality control samples shows that:
• The majority of the certified standards inserted by Extract Resources reported within 3%
of the expected values for these standards no consistent positive or negative bias was
demonstrated
• 95% of field duplicates inserted by Extract Resource report within the expected 20%
tolerance limits
• Blanks inserted by Extract Resources show some contamination from high-grade material,
but performance of these blanks improved over the period of the report
• Umpire laboratory repeats are consistent and show a small bias of about 3.75%, which
may be attributable to the 4 acid digest being used at Genalysis leaving some uranium
behind in insoluble phases e.g. Zircon.
• Laboratory QC data show very high levels of internal accuracy and precision
Peter Wilson
Database Manager
Extract Resources
21 July 2010
20 July 2009 21
Appendix 1.
Control Charts for Extract Resources Standards and Blanks
20 July 2009 22
AMIS0046
Standard AMIS0046
Expected Value (EV) 93
Expected Min 84.5
Expected Max 101.5
Count 384
Minimum 79.8
Maximum 98.2
Mean 99.1
Std Deviation 3.083
% in Tolerance 75.5
% Bias 6.6
20 July 2009 23
AMIS0054
Standard AMIS0054
Expected Min 1314
Expected Max 1506
Count 237
Minimum 837.0
Maximum 932.5
Mean 1426.5
Std Deviation 44.639
% in Tolerance 95.4
% Bias 1.2
20 July 2009 24
AMIS0076
Standard AMIS0076
Expected Min 1336
Expected Max 1668
Count 145
Minimum 79.0
Maximum 102.0
Mean 1528.8
% in Tolerance 100
% Bias 1.8
20 July 2009 25
AMIS0085
Standard AMIS0085
Expected Min 242
Expected Max 284
Count 497
Minimum 271.0
Maximum 272.0
Mean 264.3
Std Deviation 9.863
% in Tolerance 95.4
% Bias 0.5
20 July 2009 26
AMIS0086
Standard AMIS0086
Expected Min 117.5
Expected Max 136.5
Count 477
Minimum 115.3
Maximum 139.8
Mean 129.6
Std Deviation 4.997
% in Tolerance 90.4
% Bias 2.1
20 July 2009 27
AMIS0090
Standard AMIS0090
Expected Min 831
Expected Max 949
Count 48
Minimum 276.0
Maximum 276.0
Mean 888.9
% in Tolerance 91.7
% Bias -0.1
20 July 2009 28
AMIS0097
Standard AMIS0097
Expected Min 497
Expected Max 557
Count 506
Minimum 818.0
Maximum 938.0
Mean 527.5
% in Tolerance 89.5
% Bias 0.1
20 July 2009 29
AMIS0098
Standard AMIS0098
Expected Min 723
Expected Max 915
Count 644
Minimum 1182.8
Maximum 1414.5
Mean 836.4
% in Tolerance 99.8
% Bias 2.1
20 July 2009 30
AMIS0100
Standard AMIS0100
Expected Min 1398
Expected Max 1550
Count 408
Minimum 2376.1
Maximum 2758.8
Mean 1471.3
% in Tolerance 91.4
% Bias -0.2
20 July 2009 31
AMIS0113
Standard AMIS0113
Expected Min 411
Expected Max 501
Count 358
Minimum 2.0
Maximum 7.8
Mean 446.6
% in Tolerance 98
% Bias -2.1
20 July 2009 32
AMIS0131
Standard AMIS0131
Expected Min 268
Expected Max 320
Count 501
Minimum 13.0
Maximum 26.0
Mean 296.3
Std Deviation 9.548
% in Tolerance 97.2
% Bias 0.8
20 July 2009 33
AMIS0133
Standard AMIS0133
Expected Min 3157
Expected Max 3489
Count 609
Minimum 21.0
Maximum 61.0
Mean 3230.3
% in Tolerance 72.1
% Bias -2.8
20 July 2009 34
AMIS0154
Standard AMIS0154
Expected Min 621
Expected Max 743
Count 24
Minimum 70.0
Maximum 101.0
Mean 723.4
% in Tolerance 83.3
% Bias 6.1
20 July 2009 35
AMIS0156
Standard AMIS0156
Expected Min 161
Expected Max 229
Count 32
Minimum 98.8
Maximum 122.2
Mean 210.1
Std Deviation 8.084
% in Tolerance 96.9
% Bias 7.7
20 July 2009 36
Field Blank
Field Blanks ICP

Expected Min 0
Expected Max 10
Count 5206
Outliers 2
Minimum BDL
Maximum 71
Mean 2.08
Std Deviation 11.7
% in Tolerance 99
20 July 2009 37
Appendix 2.
Control Charts for Genalysis Standards and Blanks
20 July 2009 38
AMIS0004
Standard AMIS0004
Expected Min 74.8
Expected Max 101.2
Count 1325
Minimum 63.5
Maximum 103.2
Mean 88.6
Std Deviation 3.585
% in Tolerance 99
% Bias 0.715
20 July 2009 39
AMIS0086
Standard AMIS0086
Expected Min 117.5
Expected Max 136.5
Count 367
Minimum 110.9
Maximum 143.7
Mean 128.8
Std Deviation 4.629
% in Tolerance 95
% Bias 1.4
20 July 2009 40
CUP-1
Standard CUP-1
Expected Min 1088
Expected Max 1472
Count 209
Minimum 1182.8
Maximum 1414.5
Mean 1282.9
Std Deviation 38.25
% in Tolerance 100
% Bias 0.23
20 July 2009 41
DH-1a
Standard DH-1a
Expected Min 2200
Expected Max 3000
Count 1324
Minimum 2268
Maximum 2875.5
Mean 2571.7
Std Deviation 90.7
% in Tolerance 100
% Bias -1.09
20 July 2009 42
OREAS 45P
Standard OREAS 45P

Expected Min 2.04
Expected Max 2.76
Count 1319
Minimum 0.02
Maximum 29.6
Mean 2.5
Std Deviation 1.1
% in Tolerance 84
% Bias 6.522
20 July 2009 43
UTS-1
Standard UTS-1
Expected Min 41.65
Expected Max 56.35
Count 1289
Minimum 33.8
Maximum 104
Mean 49.3
Std Deviation 7.4
% in Tolerance 79
% Bias 0.516
20 July 2009 44
GENALYSIS BLANKS
Standard Acid Blank Control Blank

Expected Value (EV) 0 0
Expected Min -0.5 -0.5
Expected Max 0.5 0.5
Count 720 2323
Minimum 0 0
Maximum 5 1.1
Mean 0.03 0.04
Std Deviation 0.176 0.069
% in Tolerance 99.9 99.9
20 July 2009 45
Appendix 2
Certificates of Qualified Persons
Coffey Mining Pty. Ltd.
Certificate of Qualified Person
As an author of the report entitled “National Instrument 43-101 Technical Report Husab Uranium
Project - May 2011 Project Update” (the “Report”) dated May 20, 2011, prepared on behalf Extract
Resources Limited (the “Company”), do hereby certify that:
1. My name is Neil Andrew Inwood and I am a Principal Consultant - Resources with the firm of
Coffey Mining Pty. Ltd. of 1162 Hay Street, West Perth, WA, 6005, Australia.
2. I am a practising geologist and a member of the AusIMM (210871).
3. I am a graduate of Curtin University of Technology in Western Australia with a BSc in Geology in

1993 and a PGradDip in Hydro-Geology in 1994. In 2007 I graduated from the University of
Western Australia with an MSc in Geology and from Edith Cowan University with a Post
Graduate Certificate in Geostatistics.
4. I have practiced my profession continuously since 1994.
5. I am a “qualified person” as that term is defined in National Instrument 43-101 (Standards of

Disclosure for Mineral Projects) (the “Instrument”).
6. I visited the Husab property and surrounding areas on several occasions in 2008, 2009 and
2010. I have performed consulting services and reviewed files and data supplied by Extract
resources from 2008 to May 2011.
7. I contributed to and am responsible for all sections of this report apart from Sections 5.3, 16, 18,
19, 20, 23, and 24 and the associated text in the summary, conclusions and recommendations.
8. As of the date of this certificate, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the study
contains all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the Study
not misleading.
9. I am independent of Extract Resources pursuant to section 1.4 of the Instrument.
10. I have read the National Instrument and Form 43-101F1 (the “Form”) and the Report has been
prepared in compliance with the Instrument and the Form.
11. I do not have nor do I expect to receive a direct or indirect interest in the Husab Project property
of Extrac Resources, and I do not beneficially own, directly or indirectly, any securities of Extract
Resources or any associate or affiliate of such company.
12. As of the date of this certificate, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the Report
contains all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the
Report not misleading.
Dated at Perth, Western Australia, on 20 May 2011.
[Signed]
Neil Inwood BSc (Geology)
Principal Consultant - Resources MSc (Geology)
Post Grad Cert Geostatistics
Appendix 2 – Certificates of Qualified Persons page: 1

Coffey Mining Pty. Ltd.
Certificate of Qualified Person
As an author of the report entitled “National Instrument 43-101 Technical Report Husab Uranium
Project - May 2011 Project Update” (the “Report”) dated May 20, 2011, prepared on behalf Extract
Resources Limited (the “Company”), do hereby certify that:
1. My name is Steven Le Brun and I am a Principal Consultant - Resources with the firm of Coffey
Mining Pty. Ltd. of 1162 Hay Street, West Perth, WA, 6005, Australia.
2. I am a practising geologist and a member of the AusIMM (202832) and of MICA
3. I am a graduate of Leeds University in the United Kingdom with a BSc (hons) in Geological
Sciences in 1984. In 1987 I graduated from the University of Leicester, United Kingdom with an
MSc in Mineral Exploration and Mining Geology.
4. I have practiced my profession continuously since 1987.
5. I am a “qualified person” as that term is defined in National Instrument 43-101 (Standards of

Disclosure for Mineral Projects) (the “Instrument”).
6. I have not visited the Husab property.
7. I contributed to and am responsible for portions of Section 17 and the associated text in the
summary, conclusions and recommendations.
8. As of the date of this certificate, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the study
Study not misleading.
9. I am independent of Extract Resources pursuant to section 1.4 of the Instrument.
10. I have read the National Instrument and Form 43-101F1 (the “Form”) and the Report has been
prepared in compliance with the Instrument and the Form.
11. I do not have nor do I expect to receive a direct or indirect interest in the Husab Project property
of Extrac Resources, and I do not beneficially own, directly or indirectly, any securities of
Extract Resources or any associate or affiliate of such company.
Dated at Perth, Western Australia, on 20 May 2011.
[Signed]
Steve Le Brun BSc (Hons) (Geology Sciences)
MSc (Mineral Exploration and Mining Geology)
Principal Consultant - Resources

[signed]

[signed]

[signed]

[signed]

CERTIFICATE OF QUALIFIED PERSON
I, Stephen Amos, as a reviewer of the report entitled “National Instrument 43-101 Technical Report
Husab Uranium Project – May 2011 Project Update” (the “Report”) dated May, 2011, prepared on
behalf Extract Resources Limited (the “Company”), do hereby certify that:
1. My My name is Stephen Amos and I am employed by AMEC Minproc in the capacity of Technical
Manager. The office AMEC Minproc is located at Highbury House, Hampton Office Park,
20 Georgian Crescent, Bryanston, South Africa;
2. I am a graduate of the University of the Witwatersrand with a BSc Honours degree in Applied
Chemistry and an MSc in Metallurgy. I am a Metallurgist, with 21 years experience in process
engineering, design, management, commissioning and R&D. I am a Fellow of South African
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (SAIMM), a professional society as defined by NI 43-101. I have
practiced my profession as a metallurgist continually since 1990, about 21 years. I have worked for
Anglo Platinum (1990 - 2005) and AMEC Minproc (previously GRD Minproc) (2006 to present);
3. I have read the definition of "qualified person" set out in National Instrument 43-101 Standards of
Disclosure for Mineral Projects (“NI 43-101”) and certify that by reason of my education, affiliation
with a professional association as defined in NI 43-101, and past relevant work experience, I fulfill
the requirements of a "qualified person" for the purposes of NI 43-101;
4. I have not inspected the Husab property;
5. I have reviewed section 23 relating to the processing costs of the Report;
6. I am independent from the Company as described in section 1.4 of NI 43-101;
7. AMEC Minproc has prepared the Definitive Feasibility Study for the Husab project. I have been
involved in the management of the process engineering design of the plant;
8. I have read the NI 43-101 and the Report has been prepared in compliance with NI 43-101; and
Dated this 20th day of May, 2011
[signed]
Stephen Amos, FSAIMM
Technical Manager
AMEC Minproc

Husab Project Namibia Tech RPT

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Husab Project Namibia Tech RPT

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Husab Project Namibia Tech RPT

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Husab Project, Namibia

National Instrument 43-101 Technical Report

Extract Resources Limited

Location: Husab Uranium Project, Namibia

Date: May 2011

Project Number: MINEWPER00713AE

Version / Status: Final

F:\MINE\Projects\Extract Resources\MINEWPER00713AE(continuation of 713AD)_Rossing South Res Modelling &

Print Date: Friday, 20 May 2011

Copies: Extract Resources Limited (2)

Document Change Control

Version Description (section(s) amended) Author(s) Date

Document Review and Sign Off

Husab Uranium Project, Namibia – MINEWPER00713AE

2 Introduction and Terms of Reference ............................................................................................. 11

3 Reliance on Other Experts ............................................................................................................... 15

4 Property Description and Location ................................................................................................. 18

5 Accessibility, Climate, Physiography, Local Resources and Infrastructure ............................... 27

Husab Uranium Project, Namibia – MINEWPER00713AE

6.2 Exploration History ............................................................................................................................... 30

7 Geological Setting ............................................................................................................................ 33

8 Deposit Types ................................................................................................................................... 38

12 Sampling Method and Approach ..................................................................................................... 50

13 Sample Preparation, Analyses and Security .................................................................................. 53

14 Data Verification ................................................................................................................................ 57

15 Adjacent Properties .......................................................................................................................... 62

Husab Uranium Project, Namibia – MINEWPER00713AE

16 Mineral Processing and Metallurgical Testing ............................................................................... 64

Husab Uranium Project, Namibia – MINEWPER00713AE

16.8.5 Ion Exchange ...............................................................................................................96

17 Mineral Resource Estimates ............................................................................................................ 97

18 Mineral Reserve Estimates and Mining Methods ......................................................................... 135

Husab Uranium Project, Namibia – MINEWPER00713AE

19 Energy, Water and Process Materials ........................................................................................... 167

20 Infrastructure ................................................................................................................................... 171

21 Environmental Studies, Permitting and Social or Community Impact ...................................... 174

22 Market Studies and Contracts ....................................................................................................... 179

23 Capital and Operating Costs.......................................................................................................... 181

24 Economic Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 183

25 Interpretation and Conclusions ..................................................................................................... 187

26 Recommendations .......................................................................................................................... 189

27 References ....................................................................................................................................... 191

28 Date and Signature Page ................................................................................................................ 195

Husab Uranium Project, Namibia – MINEWPER00713AE

Husab Uranium Project, Namibia – MINEWPER00713AE

Table 18.2.3_1 – Global Ore Loss and Dilution by Zone 139

Husab Uranium Project, Namibia – MINEWPER00713AE

Figure 1.6_1 – Husab Uranium Project Mine Site Layout 5

Husab Uranium Project, Namibia – MINEWPER00713AE

Figure 18.2.7_1 – Process Throughput Ramp-Up 144

Appendix 1 – QAQC Report

Husab Uranium Project, Namibia – MINEWPER00713AE

1.4 Geology, Mineralisation and Resources

Husab Uranium Project, Namibia – MINEWPER00713AE Page: 1

1.5 Exploration Concept

Extract is targeting primary, alaskite-hosted uranium mineralisation at the Husab Project.

Husab Uranium Project, Namibia – MINEWPER00713AE Page: 2

Lower Cutoff Tonnage Grade Contained U3O8 Contained U3O8

Husab Uranium Project, Namibia – MINEWPER00713AE Page: 3