Loading…

Flash Player 9 (or above) is needed to view presentations.
We have detected that you do not have it on your computer. To install it, go here.

Like this presentation? Why not share!

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Horseshoeand raven deposits_rhysetal2010

on

  • 1,990 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,990
Views on SlideShare
291
Embed Views
1,699

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

2 Embeds 1,699

http://www.uex-corporation.com 1698
http://translate.googleusercontent.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Horseshoeand raven deposits_rhysetal2010 Presentation Transcript

  • 1. Horseshoe and Raven deposits A new look at basement hostedA new look at basement-hosted mineralization in the Horseshoe and Raven deposits, eastern Athabasca BasinRaven deposits, eastern Athabasca Basin David Rhys, Sierd Eriks and Leo Horn UEX C tiUEX Corporation Saskatchewan Geological Survey Open House, Nov. 29, 2010
  • 2. Horseshoe and Raven deposits Forward-Looking Statements This presentation contains “forward-looking statements” that are based on UEX’s current expectations, estimates, forecasts and projections. These forward-looking statements include statements regarding UEX’s resource estimates, outlook for our future operations, plans and timing for the commencement or advancement of exploration activities on our properties, and other expectations, intention and plans that are not historical fact. The words “estimates”, “projects”, “expects”, “intends”, “believes”, “plans”, or their negatives or other comparable words and phrases are intended to identify forward-looking statements.other comparable words and phrases are intended to identify forward looking statements. Such forward-looking statements are based on certain factors and assumptions and are subject to risks, uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from future results expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from UEX’s expectations i l d t i ti l ti t i t t ti f d ill lt d l dditi l d illiinclude uncertainties relating to interpretation of drill results and geology, additional drilling results, continuity and grade of deposits, public acceptance of uranium as an energy source, fluctuations in uranium prices and currency exchange rates, changes in environmental and other laws affecting uranium exploration and mining, and other risks and uncertainties disclosed in UEX’s Annual Information Form and other filings with the securities commissiong on SEDAR. Many of these factors are beyond the control of UEX. Consequently, all forward- looking statements made in this presentation are qualified by this cautionary statement and there can be no assurance that actual results or developments anticipated by UEX will be realized. For the reasons set forth above, investors should not place undue reliance on such forward looking statements Except as required by applicable law UEX disclaims anyforward-looking statements. Except as required by applicable law, UEX disclaims any intention or obligation to update or revise forward-looking information, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.
  • 3. Horseshoe and Raven depositsHidden Bay setting  Horseshoe and Raven are located on UEX’s 100% owned Hidden Bay project on the eastern margin of the Athabasca Basin
  • 4. Horseshoe and Raven deposits Hidden Bay projecty p j  57,000 hectare property in eastern Athabasca uranium district (area has >360 illi lb d ti Tent-Seal million lbs production + resources, excludes Cigar Lake) Shamus Telephone Rabbit Lake Vixen Horseshoe and Raven  Contains Horseshoe, Raven and West Bear deposits Rabbit Lake fault Wolf  Deposits located only 4 km south of Cameco’s Rabbit Lake mill facility Dwyer Rhino West Bear in an area of excellent infrastructure Dwyer
  • 5. Horseshoe and Raven deposits Horseshoe-Raven history  Two deposits approx. 1 km apart discovered through follow-up of a radioactive boulder train in the early 1970’s by Gulf Minerals  Gulf drilled 202 widely spaced (50 to 100 m apart) drill holes between 1972 and 1978 to define historical, non-compliant resources of 23 million lbs U O grading at 0 16% in bothresources of 23 million lbs U3O8 grading at 0.16% in both deposits 1 3 S-9 R A S HS-45 HS-1 HS-43 HS-13 HS-4 HS R A V E N S Y N C LIN E 4.11m @ 0 88% U O 1.5m @ 0.25% U O3 8 Cross section through Horseshoe deposit prior to drilling by UEX: grade continuity perceived to be 1.2m @ 0 meters 100 16 0 3 80.88% U O 0.22% U O3 8 grade continuity perceived to be discontinuous, but drill holes very widely spaced 83 16.0m @ 0.8% U O Horseshoe zone Section 148+00S View Northeast
  • 6. Horseshoe and Raven deposits UEX drilling, 2005-2009  Potential to upgrade and further explore the deposits beyond the Gulf  Between 2005 and 2009 UEX completed 663 drill holes (198 000 m of resources was recognized. Between 2005 and 2009, UEX completed 663 drill holes (198,000 m of drilling) at Horseshoe and Raven to establish resources at 15 to 30 m hole spacing. Historical drill holes could not be used due to QA/QC concerns.  Drilling established continuity of mineralization expanded the deposit Drilling established continuity of mineralization, expanded the deposit footprints into areas not historically drilled, and identified areas of higher grade mineralization within the deposits.
  • 7. Horseshoe and Raven deposits Resources based on drilling to July 23, 2009 July 2009 43-101 complaint resources for the Horseshoe and Raven deposits estimated by K. Palmer, P. Geo. of Golder Associates, at a cutoff grade of 0 05% U O :cutoff grade of 0.05% U3O8 : Deposit Tonnes U3O8 % U3O8 (pounds) Horseshoe 5,119,700 0.203 22,895,000Indicated Raven 5,173,900 0.107 12,149,000 Totals 10,293,600 0.170 35,044,000 Indicated Resources Deposit Tonnes U3O8 % U3O8 (pounds) Horseshoe 287,000 0.166 1,049,000 Raven 822 200 0 092 1 666 000 Inferred R Raven 822,200 0.092 1,666,000 Totals 1,109,200 0.111 2,715,000 Resources In addition to these deposits, Hidden Bay also contains the West Bear deposit. At ap y p cutoff grade of 0.05% U3O8, West Bear is host to 79,914 tonnes grading 0.908 % U3O8 (1.57 million pounds U3O8) in near surface (<30m) resources (2009 N.I. 43-101 complaint resources)
  • 8. Horseshoe and Raven deposits Central Hidden Bay property – Geological setting Geological setting - property straddles the gradational contact between the Paleoproterozoic Mudjatik Domain to the NW (granitic gneiss domes + psammitic to pelitic gneiss), and the Wollaston Domain to the southeastg ), Horseshoe Raven
  • 9. Horseshoe and Raven deposits Geological setting - Deposits lie outside of Athabasca Basin: sandstone eroded here - Competent metamorphic hostCompetent metamorphic host rocks Local geological setting of the Horseshoe and Raven deposits
  • 10. Horseshoe and Raven depositsHost lithologies Calc-arkosic to calc-silicate gneiss: Quartzite: >85% quartz, with K-Ca c a os c o ca c s ca e g e ss plagioclase-K-feldspar-pyroxene-biotite- amphibole – above mineralization Qua e 85% qua , feldspar, biotite, 20-70 m thick – hosts upper parts of mineralization Arkosic quartzite: 40-65% quartz, 20-55% Lower biotite-quartz-feldspar, pelitic andArkosic quartzite: 40 65% quartz, 20 55% feldspars; massive to banded (relict beds), 20 to 150 m thick – main host to mineralization q p p calc-silicate gneiss: mixed assemblage of biotite and calc-silicate bearing ortho- and paragneiss – below mineralization
  • 11. Horseshoe and Raven depositsStructural setting Folded lower biotite-quartz- feldspar gneiss beside Ravenfeldspar gneiss beside Raven camp, view down, top to NE. Shows style of open D2 (F2) foldingg  Two phases of syn-metamorphic Hudsonian deformation at amphiboliteTwo phases of syn metamorphic Hudsonian deformation at amphibolite grade. Two metamorphic pulses between 1830 - 1795 Ma (Annesley et al.)  D1 = Early penetrative S1 foliation/gneissosity is dominant foliation. Regionally associated with tight to isoclinal foldsRegionally associated with tight to isoclinal folds.  D2 = Open F2 folds with second, steeply dipping spaced to penetrative NE trending foliation. Form dominant NE trending folds and principal geometry of lithologies in local area (e g Raven Syncline) with horizontal to northeastof lithologies in local area (e.g. Raven Syncline) with horizontal to northeast plunging fold axes. Non-cylindrical fold axes regionally.  Later crenulations and minor folds in later, retrograde lower strain events
  • 12. Horseshoe and Raven deposits Geological setting Hematite breccias and intense clay alteration + silicification Local geological setting of the Horseshoe and Raven deposits  Post-metamorphic and in part post-Athabasca brittle faulting regionally in NE trending reverse faults (e g Rabbit Lake Collins Bay faults) and in along Dragon Lake fault: fluid conduit for mineralization? NE trending reverse faults (e.g. Rabbit Lake, Collins Bay faults), and in north-trending Tabbernor sinistral faults such as the Dragon Lake fault  Dragon Lake fault lies on east side of deposit – surrounded by intense alteration which joins the eastern parts of the Horseshoe alteration zone:alteration which joins the eastern parts of the Horseshoe alteration zone: may have been an important fluid conduit for mineralization  ?Pre-mineral NE trending, SE dipping fault zone along mineralized zones
  • 13. Horseshoe and Raven deposits Uranium mineralization  Deposits are entirely basement hosted and d l d t d th fdeveloped to depths of 450 m below the current surface. L ll d Locally preserved paleoweathering suggests current surface was close to the now Local geological setting of the Horseshoe and Raven deposits  Deposits are developed over a 2.3 km strike length along and southeast of the Raven syncline Mineralization occurs over a strike of 800 m at was close to the now eroded unconformity. the Raven syncline. Mineralization occurs over a strike of 800 m at Horseshoe and 900 m at Raven, with a 600 m poorly mineralized gap between the deposits  Mineralization occurs in areas of hematite alteration within and Mineralization occurs in areas of hematite alteration within, and surrounding southeast dipping clay-chlorite alteration zones that may be localized along pre-mineral faults
  • 14. Horseshoe and Raven deposits Exploration techniques H h Horseshoe Horseshoe Raven Raven Gravity data DC resistivity, 175 m modeled depth, Horseshoe Raven area Gravity dataHorseshoe-Raven area Warm colours = resistivity highs Geophysical exploration: Gravity and Resistivity f Deposits initially discovered partially as a result of a gravity survey by Gulf Minerals, on basis of gravity low over Rabbit Lake deposit, in follow up of radioactive boulder train G i d DC R i i i l id if f l l i Gravity and DC Resistivity lows identify areas of clay alteration associated with uranium mineralization. Mineralization is often on the margins of the most intense lows, beside areas of most intense alteration
  • 15. Horseshoe and Raven deposits Exploration techniques Resistivity section, 4700N Pelitic gneiss Lithologies H S-027 H S-039 H S-042 H U -018 H U -019 H U -020 H U -021 H U -022 H U -024 H U -040 H U -044 H U -047 H U -054 H U -058 H U -062 H U -064 H U -065 H U -069 Pelitic gneiss Metaquartzite Arkosic quartzite Calc-arkose Hematite Moderate clay Alteration 300 RL 400 RL 50 m 100 150 50 m 10 0 150 200 50 m 100 150 200 50 m 100 150 50 m 100 150 50 m 100 150 100 150 50 m 100 150 50 m 100 150 50 m 100 150 50 m 100 150 50 m 100 150 50 m 100 150 100 150 50 m 100 150 50 m 100 150 50 m 100 150 50 m 100 150 CARK QZIT Hematite-pitchblende- uranophane-clay Mineralization UEX drill holes Drill holes Historic Gulf drill holes 0.395 % 11.56m Grade U O3 8 Core length (m) 200 RL HS-013 S-045 350 m 200 250 300 200 250 300 200 250 300 200 250 300 200 250 300 200200 250 300 200 250 300 200 250 300 200 250 300 200 250 300 200 250 300 200 250 300 200 250 300 200 250 300 0.21 % 28.95m 0.09 % 15.2m 0.15 % 10.4m 0 12 % 0.30 % 5.65m 0.17 % 13.7m 0.18 % 8.5m 0.14 % 14.9m 0.20 % ARKQ B zon A3 zone A2 zone A zone B zone west Horseshoe Deposit Section 4700N Looking Northeast 0 Meters 50 100 0 RL 100 RL 0E 0E 0E 0E 0E H S 350 350 350 400 350 350 350 350 350 400 450 350 400 350 400 450 0.23 % 15.0m 0.12 % 13.9m 0.10 % 15.4m 0.61% 17.65m 11.0m C zone zone east Looking Northeast 470 480 490 500 510  Resistivity inversion successfully modeled alteration, and patterns are locally independent of lithologylocally independent of lithology  Resistivity also showed significant down dip potential of mineralization beyond the limits of Gulf drilling
  • 16. Horseshoe and Raven depositsUranium mineralization Mineralization and alteration cutand alteration cut obliquely across the folded metamorphic sequence and preferentially occur in arkosic quartzitequartzite
  • 17. Horseshoe and Raven deposits Horseshoe mineralization style Pitchblende main U mineral, occurring in common mineralization styles:  “Nodular” and veinlet, blebby pitchblende in red-brown hematite-clay lt ti M b b d d d t f li ti ith h ll dialteration. May be banded, and may cut across foliation with shallow dips  Disseminated pitchblende in competent arkosic quartzite with hematite- illite and/or green chlorite alteration (most of eastern Horseshoe deposit) Paragenetically late U-silicates (boltwoodite, uranophane, and locally coffinite) overprint pitchblende, overgrowing or crosscutting as veinlets “Nodular” style Disseminated style
  • 18. Horseshoe and Raven deposits Horseshoe mineralogy  Dominant pitchblende texture is “woven intergrowth” – intergrown with hematite, chlorite and clays (i.e. synchronous)  Massive clots and fractures in quartz also common in both nodular and disseminated styles  Mineralization has low As (<100 ppm), Mo (<20 ppm), Se (<2 ppm), Co (<100 ppm), Ni (<100 ppm), V (<150 ppm) in >0.2% U3O8 samples = “clean” mineralization no deleterious elements typical of basementclean mineralization, no deleterious elements, typical of basement unconformity-type uranium signature such as Eagle Point  Metallurgically simple –composite test samples by Melis Engineering Ltd. on three HQ diameter metallurgical drill holes from both deposits showon three HQ diameter metallurgical drill holes from both deposits show 98% uranium leach extraction under relatively mild atmospheric conditions.
  • 19. Horseshoe and Raven deposits HU-16 high grade intercept =12.35 m @ 4.53% U3O8 2.29 % 0.95 % 22.17 % 8.14 % Nodular pitchblende rimmed by boltwoodite Pitchblende in hematite-clay Late yellow boltwoodite- uranophane
  • 20. Horseshoe and Raven deposits Nodular/veinlet style, Horseshoe A zone 2.29 % Mineralization comprising hematite- pitchblende bands which cross cutp gneissosity at high angle: shallow dipping morphology to zones. Examples from HU-28 (191 8-193 4 m =Examples from HU-28 (191.8-193.4 m = 2.55% U3O8 over 1.6 m)
  • 21. Horseshoe and Raven deposits Horseshoe disseminated mineralization textures, B east zone, Hole HU-063: Interval shown is 348-357 m typical of broad low gradeHole HU-063: Interval shown is 348-357 m, typical of broad low grade interval of 60.90 m grading 0.18 % U3O8 from 322.40-383.3 m. Note competent nature of host rocks in zone.
  • 22. Horseshoe and Raven depositsHorseshoe Section 4640N
  • 23. Horseshoe and Raven deposits Horseshoe Section 4724N4724N - Zones may be l li d dlocalized around a pre-mineral fault zone - Shallow dipping mineralized zones may be extensional d f d iand formed in response to late reverse faulting
  • 24. Horseshoe and Raven deposits Mineralogy calculated from multielement geochem. Alteration-geochem zoning (S. Halley, 2008)  Normative mineralogical assemblages Chlorite 2250nm show illite core with surrounding chlorite- dominant fringe  Terraspec patterns show Mg-rich hl i i i li i d l i Chlorite 2250nm wavelength ranges = Mg-rich chlorites proximal to mineralization, 4640N. chlorites in mineralization and alteration; raw Mg-geochemistry shows same pattern cutting lithologic sequence
  • 25. Horseshoe and Raven depositsHorseshoe wireframe models Horseshoe wireframe  Mineralization plunges to east-northeast  Eastern margin of o ses oe e a e view NNE with drill holes shown g orebody is parallel and adjacent to the Dragon Lake Fault. Alteration in the orebody is contiguous with intense alteration that t d t 600extends to >600 m depth along the fault. Horseshoe wireframe view SSE from above
  • 26. Horseshoe and Raven deposits R Raven wireframe Raven View southwest from Horseshoe models Horseshoe from Horseshoe towards Raven with drill hole traces Raven view ENE Raven view NNE  Horizontal zone: no plunge. Basal planar (L) zone (in red) dips southeast, with shallower dipping zones above reaching to 60 m from surface
  • 27. Horseshoe and Raven depositsRaven mineralization Mineralization discordant to foliation in drill hole RU-118 from interval at RU-026 mineralization, 118-124 m. Concordant mineralization style in in drill hole RU 118, from interval at 118.2 m grading 0.63% (in interval = 19.8 m @0.517% U3O8) interval of 2.98% U3O8 / 5.2 m) RU-095 mineralization, 148-149 m From RU-002 , 106.5 m, 0.4 m at 2.13% U3O8 148 149 m. From interval 0.38% U3O8 over 37.3 m
  • 28. Horseshoe and Raven depositsRaven section 5445E5445E  Like Horseshoe, mineralizationmineralization surrounds a clay alteration zone  Lithologies thinner: 150 RL 200 RL 250 RL 300 RL 350 RL 400 RL 450 RL 50m 100 15 0 20 0 50m 100 150 200 236.2m 50m 50m 100 150 200 250 294.7m 50m 100 150 192.9m 50m 100 150 2 00 218.8m 5 0m 100 150 200 250 30 0 313m 50 m 100 150 200 239m 100 150 200212m 1 0 0 150 200 250 300 50m 100 150 185 .1m L B-040LB-041 LB-0 66 LB-069 L B-072 RU-001 RU-002 RU-003RU-004 RU-006 RU-008  Lithologies thinner: mineralization extends to shallower depthss a o e dept s than Horseshoe into calc-arkose  Upper, thick parts ofpp , p orebody within 100 m of surface may be amenable to open pit mining.
  • 29. Horseshoe and Raven depositsRaven section 5630E 150 RL 200 RL 250 RL 300 RL 350 RL 400 RL 450 RL 50m 100 15 0 20 0 50m 100 150 200 236.2m 50m 50m 100 150 200 250 294.7m 50m 100 150 192.9m 50m 100 150 2 00 218.8m 5 0m 100 150 200 250 30 0 313m 50 m 100 150 200 239m 100 150 200212m 1 0 0 150 200 250 300 50m 100 150 185 .1m L B-040LB-041 LB-0 66 LB-069 L B-072 RU-001 RU-002 RU-003RU-004 RU-006 RU-008  Mineralization locally exploits lithologies and lithologic contacts above a steep SE dipping basal zone and alteration
  • 30. Horseshoe and Raven deposits Conclusions  UEX successfully upgraded and expanded resources in the Horseshoe and Raven deposits, increasing the deposit footprint and establishing continuity of mineralizationand establishing continuity of mineralization  The deposits are remarkable for their great extent into basement rocks, but with no association with graphitic faults. Geophysical t t i lt ti t hit Si il iti t Ki ik?target is alteration – not graphite. Similarities to Kiggavik?  Basement – basin fluid mixing and redox reaction along Dragon Lake and pre-mineralization hosting fault zones, and reaction withp g reduced wallrocks may have contributed to mineralization formation  “Basement” signature geochemistry of mineralization: favorable metallurgy without deleterious elements similar mineralogy tometallurgy without deleterious elements, similar mineralogy to Eagle Point  Occurrence of mineralization in competent hematite alteration within basement wallrocks allows good geotechnical conditions forwithin basement wallrocks allows good geotechnical conditions for open pit and ramp access underground mining (i.e. no ground freezing)
  • 31. Horseshoe and Raven deposits Advancing the Horseshoe and Raven depositsg p  In anticipation of feasibility, initial metallurgical, geotechnical andp y g g environmental baseline studies have been undertaken  High proportion of resources already in indicated category  Scoping study underway examining mining methods and options Scoping study underway, examining mining methods and options for both deposits, including possible future use of any open pit developed at Raven or Horseshoe as a regional tailings facility for other deposits in the areaother deposits in the area  Area of excellent existing mining and milling infrastructure: Potential for toll milling at Rabbit or McClean Lake is being assessed.  Additional targets in local area will be tested in 2011 which could expand local resource basee pa d oca esou ce base