quakes99 wrote: You know... the hardest job for an investor reading the opinions posted on a stock forum is separating the facts from the fiction... the truths from the suppositions of promoters. That's why nations around the world adopted standards for disclosure that require independent 3rd-party reporting accountable to Qualified Persons, in Canada the
National Insturument 43-101 Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects. The history of those standards is well worth investigating, and I encourage you to take this short video course provided by Sprott Global's senior geologist. It explains the impetus for the development of NI 43-101 that arose from promotion that misled investors given there were no regulations to control what companies and promoters could and could not say. Well worth watching, imho. ORE DEPOSITS 101 - 11 Mineral Reserves, Resources and Estimation
The bottom line is that only independently-produced NI 43-101 compliant Technical Reports should be used by investors to base their investment decisions. Promotional articles, videos, postings on Stockhouse and CEO.CA, and even reports done by analysts are NOT NI 43-101 compliant. Companies are required by securities regulators to follow the NI 43-101 rules, but others aren't... so they can make all kinds of assumptions and statements that may not be factual at all... and facts are what every investor needs when investing their hard earned cash.
In the case of the statements made about Arrow by promoters and analysts, investors must keep in mind that at present there is only an NI 43-101 Resource Estimate for Arrow. No independent mining consultant has yet drawn up a mine plan, estimated the Capital and Operating Expenses involved, performed an Economic Analysis, carried out a Risk Assessment or Sensitivity Analysis, estimated the Environmental and Permitting timelines... nada. Anyone making claims about construction or operating costs, profits, risks, environmental issues, etc., has NO BASIS on which to make such claims. Keep that in mind.
On the other hand, the authors of the NexGen NI 43-101 Resource Estimate, RPA, have in fact carried out a series of studies on Fission's Triple R project that have been published in an NI 43-101 Preliminary Economic Assessment, released in September 2015. That report was done by a team of consultants in the global mining industry, independent from Fission. It has been filed on SEDAR and can/should be read by any potential investors:
Fission NI 43-101 Preliminary Economic Assessment - SEDAR - 15 Sept 2015
If you read that document then you will discover that pretty much ALL of the negative innuendo posted on this board about Triple R is FALSE. RPA did the work, just as they are currently doing for Arrow, and in their conclusions they found that the proposed development of PLS has a Lower Risk than comparable mine development projects. They do not identify any "show-stopping" issues but in fact say that there are fewer issues to deal with than some would have you believe. That's one reason why the Mining Journal chose PLS as the #1 undeveloped uranium mining project in the world last year.
What RPA does identify are "costs" associated with the various elements of development, and provide a set of tables covering all those. A lot has changed in the 16 months since that report was done, including the discovery of a large land-based high-grade zone at R840W for one, and the expansion of resources by 50% or more... but the economic impact/verification of that is yet to come in an updated report later this year. Take nothing for granted until you read an independent NI 43-101 compliant report.
Further, if you do some investigations you would find that the Chief of the Clearwater River Dene First Nation, Teddy Clark, sits on Fission's Advisory Board... and Fission employs a significant number of First Nation workers at PLS. Fission has been conducting the community engagement work outlined by RPA in that PEA report, already out consulting and discussing the project in communities in Northern Saskatchewan. You can look through the latest community presentation on the Fission website:
https://fissionuranium.com/about/community_support/
Further investigation might take you to the ThinkSask government website that is promoting PLS as one of their poster projects in support of investment in Saskatchewan. On top of that, Premier Brad Wall was in Beijing this fall to meet with officials from China General Nuclear, Fission's strategic partner, on moving the PLS project forward. All the signs are that the Government of Saskatchewan is strongly in favour of the economic benefits provided by a new mill and mines in the Patterson Lake Uranium District, which includes PLS, Arrow, Shea Creek, etc.
https://www.thinksask.ca/news/discoveries-draw-attention-to-saskatchewans-uranium-industry
It would also be wise for you to do some research on the history of Uranium mining in Saskatchewan. If you did that you'd find that every Uranium mill in Saskatchewan was built beside an Open Pit mine project... Key Lake, Rabbit Lake, McClean Lake, Cluff Lake. The economics of Open Pit mines are such that the higher production and cash flow rates provide for the fastest cost-recovery on intial capital outlay. Lakes were no deterrent whatsoever. The most profitable mine in history was at Key Lake, discovered 40 years ago, and it was under Key Lake. The vast majority of U mines are near or under lakes, and all must deal with groundwater issues which are a fact of life in the Athabasca Basin. (Rio Tinto paid over $10/lb for the Uranium assets at Roughrider, under South McMahon Lake.)
For those who are making comparisons of Arrow with McArthur River or Cigar Lake mines, you should read a really interesting paper written by B.W. Jamieson of Cameco. It takes the reader on a walk through the exploratory drilling at McArthur River and the underground delineation drilling that they undertook to fully define that resource, and the mining program that followed. Due to the depth of the mineralization, similar to Arrow, it was virtually impossible to determine the true quantity and grade from surface drilling, so they spent 2 years getting a permit to sink a shaft so that the full potential at McArthur River could be determined. Nothing is ever straightforward when you are working at significant depths > 500m underground.
I'll put an excerpt here but you really need to read the paper to see the diagrams of the shafts and subsurface drilling bays that were used to drill out in fan-shaped patterns in order to intersect the ore body sufficiently to determine its overall size, shape, and average grade from over 500m underground.. You can pick up a copy of the paper at the link below:
https://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/33/032/33032922.pdf
Here's an excerpt: In 1988 the ore body was discovered following eight years of systematic exploration in the area. Improvements to large-loop time-domain electromagnetic methods allowed the definition of graphite conductors in the basement fault structure which controls the location of the ore. Drilling confirmed this structure and discovered sub-economic mineralization five kilometres to the southwest of the McArthur River ore body. The recognition of favourable alteration patterns in drill holes helped guide the exploration drilling to the ore body.
Several years of core drilling from surface followed and resulted in the outlining of high-grade mineralization over 1.7 kilometres of strike length. By 1991, 60 holes were completed of which 37 holes intersected uranium mineralization at a depth of 500 to 600 metres. Based on this information a resource of 260 million pounds at an average grade of 5% U3O8 was estimated. Seventy per cent of the estimated resource was based on only seven drill holes, and 18% was based on a single hole which graded 43% U3O8 over 25 metres [1]. Following completion of the surface drilling it was decided to undertake an underground exploration programme which would provide the detailed information about the shape of the individual ore bodies.
The project was referred to the Joint Federal-Provincial Panel on Uranium Mining Developments in Northern Saskatchewan, in February, 1991. Scoping meetings were held in nine northern and three southern communities in early 1992 to get public input into the guidelines for the environmental impact statement (EIS). The guidelines were issued later that year, after a public review of the draft. Environmental studies had already been started to develop the information necessaiy for the EIS. An EIS for underground development was developed and the Panel conducted hearings on this subject at five northern and two southern communities in December, 1992. After a favourable report from the Panel and licensing by both the federal Atomic Energy Control Board (AECB)1 and the Province of Saskatchewan, shaft sinking commenced in the spring of 1993 [2].
Under that excavation license, horizontal development on the 530 metre level was undertaken to permit diamond drilling along a 300 metre strike length of the mineralized zone. This definition drilling increased the reserves and resources to 416 000 000 pounds U3O8 at an average grade of 15% [3]. A second EIS to proceed to underground production was submitted in late 1995, and the public hearings were conducted in the fall of 1996. A favourable Panel report was issued in February, 1997. Both provincial and federal government approvals were received in May, 1997.
In August 1997 all licenses and permits had been received by both federal and provincial agencies to allow the two years construction of the project to proceed. The main license issued being the 'License to Construct' by the AECB. Construction was completed within the feasibility cost estimate and on schedule. Operating licenses were received in October, 1999 for McArthur River, and in November, 1999 for Key Lake to receive and process the high grade McArthur River ore. Production commenced, as scheduled, in early December, 1999 following the commissioning of process equipment with waste rock and low grade ore.
3. UNDERGROUND EXPLORATION PROGRAMME
In July of 1994 underground development commenced to allow the detailed diamond drilling of the ore zones identified by surface drilling. This program was aimed at determining the shape, grade and continuity of the central part of the ore body, on a strike length of 300 metres.
Once essential services were established for power, and the collection and pumping of mine water, development was extended to within 3 5 metres of the ore zone. Development then progressed southwards and parallel to the strike of the ore zone for approximately 300 metres. A total of 998 metres of development was completed by June 1996.
Diamond drill bays were created every 30 metres along strike. Diamond drilling commenced once development had adequately advanced, and holes were drilled on sections and fanned above and below the mineralized areas. Infill drilling was conducted, as encouraging results and time permitted, to define the ore zones every 10 metres along strike.
During the 1995/1996 underground drilling programme 115 holes were completed. The drilling of these holes provided both the ore geometry and grade as well as geotechnical and hydrogeological information necessary to select mining methods and design material handling systems [4].
As the high-grade ore was encountered, extremely high levels of radon (up to 8.869 billion2 Bq/m3) were found associated with the ground water. The higher levels of radon were usually associated with low water flows, however the water pressures were normally hydrostatic at a pressure of 51 Bars. Things to note, of course, are that in order to sink the shaft to conduct the underground surveys they had to do an Environmental Impact Study and get buy-in and engagement/approval from local communities and government. That alone took over 2 years before shaft sinking could commence prior to the underground drill program.
Bottom line... for both PLS and Arrow there will be environmental assessment and community/government engagement and approval processes that will require funds and expertise to complete in the coming years. And that's on top of the time required to undertake and complete the necessary Pre-Feasibility and Feasibility Studies needed before a project can be sent to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission for approval.
Investors will find out later this year, we hope, as to the Economic Costs and overall Asset Value determined by RPA for Arrow in a Preliminary Economic Assessment or Pre-Feasibility Study. Issues such as underground delineation/geotechnical drilling are sure to be discussed, along with permitting and environmental issues. Make no assumptions at this early stage, epecially when Arrow is still 100% Inferred in the SEDAR-published RE.
Nothing is going to happen overnight... and the simpler and more straightforward the project, the faster the process will go. Both Fission and NexGen will require the construction of a new Mill on the west side of the basin... so i expect there will be an opportunity to share in the cost of those studies needed to build a mill, site selection, and the seeking and granting of approval from government. (Possible mill sites were studied last summer at PLS.) It's in the interest of both parties, as well as UEX/Areva with their Shea Creek 96M lbs just up the road. Areva already has a working mill at McClean Lake, and the required technical experience, so they would certainly have much to contribute in that whole process. Expect to see some partnering on that, and CGN's funding will certainly help pave the way.
Both projects have tremendous potential for investors in the uranium space. Like wireframe, I believe that all these deposits will be mined as part of a new Patterson Lake Corridor Uranium Mining District. Each has their own strengths and weaknesses, but together they generate the synergy required to get a new mill and mines built. Each has a part to play in the bigger long term picture, imho. How you choose to invest in that future is completely up to you.
Good luck with your due diligence and investments!