wireframe22 wrote: Hey Rover,
First things first, I think you missed my sardonic undertones when describing teevee as a source of “inspiration”
Take some time to read over the previous posts I have linked to in the initial post by hitting “view thread” and you will see that time after time he has come back to poke at the “water issue”. Each time I have dis agreed with him and have provided information on how I came to this conclusion.
Teevee has been a source of a chunk of my posts here. He is not however my buddy.
Dev’s comment around water issues at depth are unfounded in my opinion. He is using the example of Cigar Lake which is a sandstone hosted deposit that requires extensive freezing. Arrow is hosted in competent basement rock.
The Eagle point reference is a little bit of history and a risk in regards to when a mine is re-opening a previously closed area.
"
On Dec. 17, 2015, Cameco announced that underground mining activities have been restricted at the Rabbit Lake operation in northern Saskatchewan.
After reopening an inactive area of the Eagle Point mine, a fall of rock was discovered in a tunnel.
No groundwater inflow to the mine has been observed in the affected area. As a precautionary measure, 40 non-essential personnel were removed from the mine and activities were restricted to ensure the safety of mine workers while the condition of the affected area is assessed. There were no injuries and no effect on the environment. Production mining at Eagle Point has been temporarily suspended while the assessment is completed. The Rabbit Lake mill continues to operate as usual.
“
Rockfall halts operation of Eagle Point uranium mine at Rabbit Lake site Every mine has water issues you guys; you can’t pretend like they don’t. The thing is, they can be addressed and mitigated given economical evaluations showing positive feasibility to do so. I strongly believe that the Triple R + 840/600W and 1600E zone & Arrow will show positive feasibility despite their respective hydrogeological challenges.