Fission Uranium Corp T.FCU

FCU Continuity

[GovernanceQP]

When looking at these uranium projects you need to take into consideration a number of factors - it's never just about one deposit metric for example.

A poster here seemed to want to make a comparison betweem Fission's Triple R mineralisation continuity and IsoEnergy's mineralisation continuity but my guess is that this poster does not make any consideration for the IsoEnergy style of deposit and their proposed and/or considered mining methods that they are applying.

There are two uranium companies that exist today that may do very well on the back of current and new mining technology that is being developed - Denison and IsoEnergy.

Denison and IsoEnergy are looking at mining their deposits via ISR and mineralisation continuity is less relevant in comparison to what Fission is currently proposing with their Triple R deposit.

Also when it comes to ISR mining the higher the grade the higher the recovery rates - you can only imagine the sort of numbers that Denison and IsoEnergy maybe able to achieve. It really would make every other ISR project in the world including the little mentioned current world best (by a long way) in class ISR project Beverley Four Mile in South Australia look a little lame.

Not all uranium deposits are created equal.

[GovernanceQP]

I forgot to metion - without even making a comparison I have concerns with respect to what FCU may end up with with respect to their continuity after their rather smallish delineation drill program is completed. What I saw on the now not available Corebox software and playing around with the cut-off grades did not look all that promising to me. FCU may end up with a reduced global resource

[GovernanceQP]

I actually enjoy re-reading my own posts.