Join today and have your say! It’s FREE!

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Please Try Again
{{ error }}
By providing my email, I consent to receiving investment related electronic messages from Stockhouse.

or

Sign In

Please Try Again
{{ error }}
Password Hint : {{passwordHint}}
Forgot Password?

or

Please Try Again {{ error }}

Send my password

SUCCESS
An email was sent with password retrieval instructions. Please go to the link in the email message to retrieve your password.

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Quote  |  Bullboard  |  News  |  Opinion  |  Profile  |  Peers  |  Filings  |  Financials  |  Options  |  Price History  |  Ratios  |  Ownership  |  Insiders  |  Valuation

Fission Uranium Corp T.FCU

Alternate Symbol(s):  FCUUF

Fission Uranium Corp. is a Canada-based uranium company and the owner/developer of the high-grade, near-surface Triple R uranium deposit. The Company is the 100% owner of the Patterson Lake South uranium property. Its Patterson Lake South (PLS) project, which hosts the Triple R deposit, a large, high-grade and near-surface uranium deposit that occurs within a 3.18 kilometers (km) mineralized trend along the Patterson Lake Conductive Corridor. The property comprises over 17 contiguous claims totaling 31,039 hectares and is located geographically in the south-west margin of Saskatchewan’s Athabasca Basin. Additionally, the Company has the West Cluff property comprising three claims totaling approximately 11,148-hectares and the La Rocque property comprising two claims totaling over 959 hectares in the western Athabasca Basin region of northern Saskatchewan. The La Rocque property is prospective for high-grade uranium and is located five km south of Cameco’s La Rocque Uranium Zone.


TSX:FCU - Post by User

Bullboard Posts
Comment by teeveeon Nov 22, 2016 9:55am
119 Views
Post# 25494639

RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Had to laugh... even Dundee was caught off guard by NXE NR

RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Had to laugh... even Dundee was caught off guard by NXE NRwireframe,
I suggest you look into the cost, time and risks associated with building a slurry wall around PLS, either under the lake, or under the southern zones, both underlain by 50-100 meters of porous, glaciofluvial sands and gravels, charged with groundwater. Furthermore, given ground water charged fractured bedrock in the top 50 meters and the cost of mitigating and treating radiogenic water from a pit, not only is an open pit not a viable mining scenario, but a lot of FCu's indicated and inferred resource is sterilized in that it can't be mined from underground as the cost of mitigating water inflows would  render it un economic. Whether or not FCU's resources are ecnomic is far from certain, and in my opinion, is not economic, even at the $65/lb price used in FCU's PEA. 

wireframe22 wrote:

Hey sell_high,

In regards to your feelings and opinions for individuals being nuts or not on whether they beleive RPA's advisory on requirements for the inputs of their model developments for the future NI 43-101 are being followed, some discussions in regards to what can actually be done with indicated and inferred defined ore bodies might be more constructive.

Just because you know something is there with either the confidence of indicated dilineation or inferred dilineation does not mean it is economically recoverable! A lot of what has been aired on this board over the previous years has been in regards to the depths that the Arrow deposit is spread over and the discontinous discrete shear nature of the deposit as well. As I have mentioned in previous posts, the Arrow deposit faces unique mine development challenges due to the requirements of a shaft (expensive and time consuming to develop compared to a decline ramp access) and the unique nature of mining Uranium and its requirements from an HSSE & SE standpoint that it posess in regards to worker exposure means that developing the mine access works through the ore body itself is not available and that additional time developing your mine access points through waste to develop blast and extraction levels is required as opposed to just developing the access through the ore body itself  means  further delaying the first actual production of recoverable ore.

I beleive that the amount of development required to succesfully mine ALL of the Arrow deposits multiple shears requires the outlay of considerable capital which is why, as i mentioned before, I beleive that SOME of the Arrow deposit will be economical to mine, where as some of the deposit might becoming effectively "stranded" regardless of whether or not it falls in the Inferred or Indecated bucket.

This is probobaly why the Nexgen team has been relatively comfortable with the wide drilling spacings. With the amount of info they know now, the argument for the establishment of a mining operations maybe made possible with the thoughts of commiting to future drilling (and cheaper!) from the already established mine developement access below ground to further dilineate the resources later as an option for the eventual operator.



Bullboard Posts