Fission Uranium Corp T.FCU

RE:Mining Under a Lake is a NO BRAINER to SOMEONE with BRAINS

[sudzie191]

Now Stanley I understand every word, but................

We might need a Mining Under the Lake for Dummies primer?

All of the water that is currently in Paterson Lake likely came from the heavens, ie clouds. Last I checked there is no uranium up there, as it has the highest density of any element, and we have heard of no uranium showers.

Now there are thriving businesses of flying Americans and others into these lakes which are known for their fresh water fishing. And of course the Indians have been drinking the water from Paterson Lake since man was invented. We have no documented incidence of those Indians perishing from the lake waters.

So this is the same pure water that is going to seep in under the dyke be collected in perimeter trenches never seeing a uranium atom.

Now true there will be some blasting in the mining process, but since this deposit is in the host rock, its not exactly like being in a desert sandstorm, lol. The last I checked, lumps of 2-10% host rock broken up with a blasting front isn't exactly dust.

Point being here, we sort of have to keep this simple so that everyone might get a sense of the lack of a problem.

THe CNCS you refer too, will most likely consider this open pit the safest to mine. Driving a big Mac haulage truck out in the open air, listening to country music via sateliute radio making big buxs. Man what could be better.

stanley wrote: Lurk & Learns:

It is clearly evident that the Dog River bashers continue to use FCU R780E ore body as a detractor. i.e. to advance the arguement for their DEEP deposit. Lets check some FACTS.

My point being are they , "Making Mountain out of a Molehill"? or just BASHING?

Lurk and Learns must make their own conclusions as to why bashers continues to perpetuate mistruths wrt the proposed triple R open pit (TROP).

First we must ask ourselves if this would be the world's first TMA, OP or UG mine impacting a body of water? Google Denison No 1 to No 2 Shaft X-Section.

How the CNSC Regulates

How the CNSC Regulates Uranium Mines in CANADA

Regardless, current applications to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission(CNSC) is based on and operating and closure plan where all potential risks and hazards are mitigated. The technical data is typically prepared by engineering firms with CURRENT technical expertise.

Recall, "For the ore processed at the Key Lake mill, the mill tailings, or wastes, are placed into the TMA, the former Deilmann pit of the Key Lake mine, which has been converted into a tailings management facility. The facility uses the “pervious surround” method, which has been successfully used at Rabbit Lake since 1985.."

FACT - The bottom line is, lake water will flow around the dyke. In a controlled seepage scenario, any water flowing into the pit will be pumped along with any dissolved uranium to the mill.

The facts are:

1. ONLY the opinion of a professional engineer matters to the CNSC when an approval for construction of a SPECIFIC mine is under consideration. An opinion; especially when the same person is associated with an entity competing for the same/meager exploration dollars may suggest unprofessional conduct (aka conduct unbecoming of a professional) and at the very least a bias not in keeping with their oath and the spirit of the CIMM NI43-101.

Meaning investors should only consider the qualifications of someone making comments if his\her credentials are associated with CIMM 43-101 documents listed on SEDAR. Thus unless the CNSC has received a dissenting opinion from the person being held out as an expert when the project is under review; lurk and learns should only trust the opinions of those TRUE experts whose names on signature pages are associated with SEDAR and or published CCPE level documents.

Thus based on all bashers (and pumpers alike) should know that they are subject to review by the professional practice review board in his\her province of registration. But I digress.

2. The impact on a lake ecosystem c\would involve calculating:
            a. The area\volume of water displaced by OP mining (in-pit volume)
            b. The area\volume of water impacted (lake and down stream)
            c. Then calculating a percentage of potential impact. (to TEN decimal places)

In summary, we have x bln cu.m in (a) above divided by y bln cu. m in (b) above multiplied by 100 to convert to % in (c) above.
            d. As previously mentioned, in a seepage scenario and up to and including a full breach being mindful of the OP depth versus the lake datum, under steady state (aka name plate) operation, water flow would first leak into the OP to the spillway level.

In which case this water which will include the benefits/fruits of bio chemical leaching would be pumped to the mill for treatment and/or used as process make-up water thus reducing the enviro footprint.

Any additional water c\would be sent to the TMA and any approved depressions Meaning, any environmental impact would be the result of deluge of historic proportions e.g. 25-50-100 year event. Then in a deluge scenario the volume of water impacted WILL be insignificant.

So someone (and other sheep) is taking a potential scenario and using their designation to elevate the OP impact (without citing any current mitigation options) to way beyond its true significance as mine development evolves many years from now.

This smacks of fear mongering. Will they also tell you that any TMA to be operated by the play (aka Dog River) that they are promoting or any other Uranium operation for that matter, will also be subject to the same high standard?
First there would be baseline studies (see recent NR where this is discussed) this would include background U valued in soil and water (and water columns).

Starting with sampling stations before and after the OP and plans for primary and standby in-pit pumping and contingencies in the unlikely event of pump failure. In addition there could be a requirement for a secondary system in the event of having to pump in a pit flood scenario. Up to and including barge based submersibles or dredge technology.
Thus:
            e. The above calculation and assumptions are what the regulators w\could use.
            f. Check the PUBLISHED documents on SEDAR for Diavik and Medowbank. What does    dental implants and the proposed OP have in common?
            g. Scenarios for a 25, 50 and 100 year deluge (+ spring snowmelt) might also be             considered.
            h. Typically this proposal is prepared by third party independent professionals .

Meaning anyone with any real "skin in the game" will do their own DD up to an including getting independent professional opinions and approval in principle from the CNSC b4 investing over $82 mln for $0.85/share with and additional/incremental payout under an off-take agreement.

FWIK? When will CF finish their overhang? What is the source of this overhang? Is it related to Aussie/Rio Tinto, Cameco, Arreva, CGN, Teck, Vale, Glencore or others positioning to take a position only to be beaten to the altar by CGN. Was it the deal or the off take that became too onerous to the CF (in the capacity of conduit/mule) client?

Keywords: Acid mine drainage, Acidithiobacillus ferrooxidans, biogeochemical mineral dissolution, bioleaching, passive approaches to prepare for decommissioning, Elliot Lake, encapsulation, extraction iv flasks, ferrous-sulphide minerals, geochemical dynamics, inhibition, leaching columns, mineralogical dynamics, radionuclide, radium, rare earth elements, uranium, thorium"

https://zone.biblio.laurentian.ca/dspace/handle/10219/2244

DYODD - GLAP

Cheers
Stanley