EMD Uranium (Nuclear Minerals) Committee

EMD Uranium (Nuclear Minerals) Committee Annual Report - 2011

Michael D. Campbell, P.G., P.H., Chair

Vice-Chairs:

Robert Odell, P.G., (Vice-Chair: Industry), Consultant, Casper, WY (Vice-Chair Report: page 19)

Steven N. Sibray, P.G., (Vice-Chair: University), U. of Nebraska, Lincoln, NB (Vice-Chair Report: page 36)

Robert W. Gregory, P.G., (Vice-Chair: Government), WY State Geol. Survey, Laramie, WY (Vice-Chair Report: page 38)

Michael Jacobs, P.G., (Vice-Chair: Representative of DEG) Dan Tearpock, P.G., (Vice-Chair: Representative of DPA)

Advisory Committee:

Henry M. Wise, P.G., Eagle-SWS, La Porte, TX Bruce Handley, P.G., Environmental & Mining Consultant, Houston, TX James Conca, Ph.D., P.G., Director, Carlsbad Research Center, New Mexico State U., Carlsbad, NM Fares M Howari, Ph.D., University of Texas of the Permian Basin, Odessa, TX Hal Moore, Moore Petroleum Corporation, Norman, OK Douglas C. Peters, P.G., Consultant, Golden, CO Arthur R. Renfro, P.G., Senior Geological Consultant, Cheyenne, WY Karl S. Osvald, P.G., Senior Geologist, U.S. BLM, Casper WY Jerry Spetseris, P.G., Consultant, Austin, TX

Observing Committee: http://emd.aapg.org/members_only/uranium/index.cfmlbobservers

Introduction

This Annual Report for 2011 serves to update the 2010 Mid-Year Report of the Uranium (Nuclear Minerals) Committee. The U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA) provides updates regarding uranium activities in the U.S. This information provides the basis for the first section of our report. The UN‗s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the World Nuclear Institute (WNI) have provided much of the data and information for our report on international activities.

By far the major use of uranium is to produce electricity - the U.S. produces almost 20 percent of its electricity via nuclear power. You should be aware that one pound of yellowcake (U3O8 - the

Note: Michael A Wiley, Ph.D., P.G. provided substantial input to this report. Dr. Wiley serves as the Councilor of the Gulf Coast Section of the EMD and is Chief Geologist for the Consulting Operation, Canyon Lake, Texas. Error! Bookmark not defined. final product of the uranium milling process) has the energy equivalence of 35 barrels of oil. One 7-gram uranium fuel pellet has an energy-to-electricity equivalent of 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas, or 1,780 pounds of coal.

Today, there are some 441 nuclear power reactors operating in 30 countries and nuclear energy provides approximately 15% of the world's electricity. These 441 reactors, with combined capacity of over 376 Gigawatts (One GWe equals one billion watts or one thousand megawatts), require approximately 69,000 tonnes of uranium oxide (U3O8), otherwise known as yellowcake, end product of current uranium recovery operations.

According to the World Nuclear Association (WNA)(32), with some 60 reactors being built around the world today, another 150 or more planned to come online during the next 10 years, and over 200 further back in the pipeline, the global nuclear industry is clearly going forward strongly. Countries with established programs are seeking to replace old reactors as well as expand capacity, and an additional 25 countries are either considering or have already decided to make nuclear energy part of their power generation capacity. However, most (over 80%) of the expansion in this century is likely to be in countries already using nuclear power.

In 2008, uranium recovery operations supplied 51,600 tonnes of uranium oxide concentrate containing 43,853 tU, which means mining supplied roughly 75% of nuclear utility power requirements. The remaining supply deficit used to be made up from stockpiled uranium held by nuclear power utilities, but their stockpiles are nearing depletion. Production is now primarily supplemented by ex-military material - the ―Megatons to Megawatts‖ program which ends in 2013 - the Russians have stated that the agreement will not be renewed.

The approximately 104 nuclear power plants operating in the U.S. today consume about 50 million pounds of uranium fuel per year but the U.S.'s current annual production is only about 4 million pounds per year, as indicated in previous versions of this report (Mid-Year Report). As is the current situation with oil, the U.S. is highly reliant on foreign sources for its uranium Even though Canada and Australia are politically stable, market forces may restrict supplies. Numerous alternative sources will need to be developed throughout the world wherever such resources are made available to the World market. New exploration in various parts of the world is resulting in new discoveries and future fuel requirements appear to be available at reasonable costs, and which will be discussed later in this report.

There is also a new development in the size of nuclear reactors in the range of 25MW to 100 MW. A number of groups are designing small, modular reactors that can be trucked in to supply electricity for a population 25,000 to 50,000 in emergency circumstances or for use in remote areas, on the Earth and off-World. The current status of the development of these small reactors is summarized by WNA(33).

According to the latest available data from DOE, between 2004 and 2008 (latest data available), total domestic energy use decreased 0.09% as measured in quadrillion BTU. In 2008, total nuclear-generated electricity accounted for 8.47% of the total domestic electric energy use, an increase of 2.49% from 2004 (1). . New data on electricity use will be released by EIA in August, 2011.

Page 2

U.S. Uranium Production

Domestic uranium production (see Table 1) increased from 2003 to 2007 and decreased until mid-2010 when production again began to rise.

Table 1 Yellowcake Production (in pounds of U3O8) Calendar 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Year See note See note Quarter 1st 400,000 600,000 709,600 931,065 1,162,737 810,189 880,036 876,064 2nd 600,000 400,000 630,053 894,268 1,119,536 1,073,315 982,760 1,055,102 3rd 400,000 588,738 663,068 1,083,808 1,075,460 980,933 956,657 1,150,725 4th 600,000 600,000 686,456 1,196,485 1,175,845 1,037,946 888,905 1,153,104 Year 2,000,000 2,282,406 2,689,178 4,105,626 4,533,576 3,902,383 3,708,358 4,235,015 Total Change % -14.6 14.1 17.8 52.6 10.4 -13.47 -4.97 14.0 Note: All of 2003 and all but third quarter 2004 production was rounded to the nearest 100,000 pounds to avoid disclosure of individual company data.

The 4.5 million pounds produced in 2007 is the most since 4.6 million pounds were produced in 1999. In 2007, production increased 10.4% from 2006. Through the second quarter of 2010, production has increased 3.67% from the previous year, but by the end of 2010, production had risen 14% from the previous year.

U.S. Uranium Production as of 4th Quarter - 2010

Based on the current U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Report (34), U.S. production of uranium was 1,153,104 pounds U3O8, up 0.2 percent from the previous quarter and up 30 percent from the fourth quarter 2009. During the 4th quarter 2010:

U.S. uranium concentrate was produced at five U.S. uranium concentrate processing facilities.

U.S. Uranium Mill in Production:

White Mesa Mill

U.S. Uranium In-Situ-Recovery Plants in Production:

Alta Mesa Project (Tx) Crow Butte Operation (Wy) Smith Ranch-Highland Operation (Wy) La Palangana (Tx)

Starting in the fourth quarter 2010, La Palangana produced uranium that was supplied to the Hobson In-Situ Recovery (ISR) Plant. Hobson and La Palangana are part of the same project (2).

The U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA) has expanded its coverage of uranium and nuclear power reporting to the general public (35).

Page 3

Final 2010 Production Total

U.S. uranium production totaled 4,235,015 pounds U3O8 in 2010 (Figure 1). This amount is 14 (6) percent higher than the 3,708,358 pounds produced in 2009. .

Uranium Prices

(3 and Table 2 shows U3O8 production and the price per pound realized for the period 2002 – 2009 11). EIA data on current prices will not be available until May, 2011. Spot prices are available in Figure 2.

Table 2

Delivery Year 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 U.S. Origin U3O8 6.2 10.2 12.3 11.0 10.8 4.0 7.7 7.1 (million pounds) Weighted average price $10.89 $10.81 $11.87 $15.11 $17.85 $28.89 $59.55 $48.92 Foreign Origin U3O8 45.5 46.4 51.8 54.7 55.7 47.0 45.6 42.8 (million pounds) Weighted average price $10.29 $10.81 $12.76 $14.21 $18.75 $33.05 $43.47 $45.35 Spot contracts U3O8 8.6 8.2 9.2 6.9 6.3 6.6 8.7 8.1 (million pounds) Weighted average price $9.29 $10.10 $14.77 $20.04 $39.48 $88.25 $66.95 $46.45

For total delivery, prices had remained fairly steady with only a modest up-tick though 2005. The spot price surged 35.7% between 2004 and 2005. From 2005 to 2006, spot prices nearly doubled (97%). Between 2006 and 2007, spot prices more than doubled and some prices exceeded $100 per pound U3O8. This has sparked a large reinvestment in Texas uranium mining and elsewhere. However, spot prices declined in 2008 and 2009 but since July, 2010, the spot prices are showing a sharp rise (see Figure 2), which will likely spur new production (3) and (11). However, as evident in the figure, the recent nuclear plant incidents in Japan has sent shock waves throughout the nuclear power industry and sent the spot price for yellowcake on a free fall until stabilizing and rebounding somewhat by the date of this report. The consensuses of those involved suggest that the low price will likely again begin to rise as world demand continues to press yellowcake prices upward over the next 6 months and beyond.

Page 4

Figure 2 UxC March 23, 2011 (11)

U.S. Nuclear Power Plant Plans

More than 18 months ago, 20 companies had at least 26 reactors in some stage of planning or license application. According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, these would cost $6 to $8 billion each. As many as eight reactors are planned to come on line by 2016 and thereafter allowing for certain delays.

Owners and operators of U.S. civilian nuclear power reactors purchased uranium for 2009 deliveries from 29 sellers, down from the 33 sellers in 2008. Owners and operators of U.S. civilian nuclear power reactors purchased uranium of several material types. Uranium concentrate was 69 percent of the deliveries in 2009; natural UF6 and enriched uranium were 31 percent. During 2009, 17 percent of the uranium was purchased under spot contracts at a weighted-average price of $46.45 per pound. The remaining 83 percent was purchased under long-term contracts at a weighted-average price of $45.74 per pound. Spot contracts are a one- time delivery (usually) of the entire contract to occur within one year of contract execution (signed date). Long-term contracts include those with one or more deliveries to occur after a year following the contract execution (signed date) and as such may reflect some agreements of short and medium terms as well as longer term(5).

U.S. Uranium Market

Owners and operators of U.S. civilian nuclear power reactors purchased a total of 50 million pounds U3O8e (equivalent) of deliveries from U.S. suppliers and foreign suppliers during 2009, at a weighted-average price of $45.86 per pound U3O8e. The 2009 total of 50 million pounds U3O8e decreased 7 percent compared with the 2008 total of 53 million pounds U3O8e. Fourteen percent of the U3O8e delivered in 2009 was U.S.-origin uranium at a weighted-average price of $48.92 per pound.

Foreign-origin uranium accounted for the remaining 86 percent of deliveries at a weighted- average price of $45.35 per pound. Australian-origin and Canadian-origin uranium together accounted for 40 percent of the 50 million pounds. Uranium originating in Kazakhstan, Russia and Uzbekistan accounted for 29 percent and the remaining 17 percent originated from Brazil, Czech Republic, Namibia, Niger, and South Africa.

Page 5

U.S. Uranium Reserves/Resources

The EIA has updated its estimates of domestic uranium reserves for year-end 2008. This represents the first revision of the estimates since 2004. The update is based on analysis of company annual reports, any additional information reported by companies at conferences and in news releases, personal contacts, and expert judgment.

EIA indicated that at the end of 2008, U.S. uranium reserves totaled 1,227 million pounds of U3O8 at a maximum forward cost of up to $100 per pound U3O8. At up to $50 per pound U3O8, estimated reserves were 539 million pounds of U3O8. Based on average 1999-2008 consumption levels (uranium in fuel assemblies loaded into nuclear reactors), uranium reserves available at up to $100 per pound of U3O8 represented approximately 23 years worth of demand, while uranium reserves at up to $50 per pound of U3O8 represented about 10 years worth of demand. Domestic U.S. uranium production, however, supplies only about 10 percent, on average, of U.S. requirements for nuclear fuel, so the effective years' supply of domestic uranium reserves is actually much higher, under current market conditions.

In 2008, Wyoming led the U.S. in total uranium reserves, in both the $50 and $100 per pound U3O8 categories, with New Mexico second, and Texas a close third.. Taken together, the first two states constituted about two-thirds of the estimated reserves in the U.S. available at up to $100 per pound U3O8, and three-quarters of the reserves available at less than $50 per pound U3O8. By mining method, uranium reserves in underground mines constituted just under half of the available product at up to $100 per pound U3O8. At up to $50 per pound U3O8, however, uranium available through ISR was about 40 percent of total reserves, somewhat higher than uranium in underground mines in that cost category. ISR is the dominant mining method for U.S. production today and is likely to increase in the future. For additional current information, see EIA reports (12).

Uranium: Emphasis on Supply

Availability of U.S. Uranium Resources

MIT updated its 2003(13) report in 2009(14) to include a consideration on how long the uranium resource base would be sufficient to support large-scale deployment of nuclear power without reprocessing and/or breeding. Present data suggests the required resource base will be available at an affordable cost for a very long time. Estimates of both known and undiscovered uranium resources at various recovery costs are given in the NEA/IAEA ―Red Book‖(15). For example, according to the latest edition of the Red Book, known resources recoverable at costs at less than $80/kgU) and less than $130/kgU are approximately 3 and 4 million tonnes of uranium, respectively. However, the amount of known resources depends on the intensity of the exploration effort, mining costs, and the price of uranium. Thus, any predictions of the future availability of uranium that are based on current mining costs, prices and geological knowledge are likely to be extremely conservative.

For example, the MIT update indicated that a doubling of the uranium price from its current value of about $30/kgU could be expected to create about a ten-fold increase in known resources recoverable at costs less than $80/kgU, i.e., from about 3 to 30 million tonnes (to 78 billion

Page 6 lbU3O8). By comparison, a fleet of 1,500 1,000 MWe reactors operating for 50 years requires about 15 million tonnes of uranium (or 40 billion lbU3O8), which amounts to 300,000 tU/yr (or 800 million lbs U3O8/yr) using conventional assumptions about burn-up and enrichment.

Moreover, there are good reasons to conclude that even as demand increases, the price of uranium will remain relatively low: the history of all extractive metal industries, e.g., copper, indicates that increasing demand stimulates the development of new mining technology that greatly decreases the cost of recovering additional ore. Finally, since the cost of uranium represents only a small fraction of the busbar cost of nuclear electricity, even large increases in the former — as may be required to recover the very large quantities of uranium contained at low concentrations in both terrestrial deposits (3.5 ppm U) and seawater (3 ppb U) - may not substantially increase the latter as reported by Japanese research. They concluded that resource utilization is not a pressing reason for proceeding to reprocessing and breeding for many years to come although reprocessing remains to be considered seriously to insure that resources are available for at least the next 50 years.

The approximately 104 nuclear power plants operating in the U.S. today consume about 50 million pounds of uranium fuel per year but the U.S.'s current annual production is only about 4 million pounds per year. As is the current situation with oil, the U.S. is currently reliant on friendly foreign sources for its uranium but this is not likely to remain so for long.

Wyoming Uranium

Wyoming is particularly important to U.S. uranium production because it has a large number roll-front uranium deposits in its sandstones and the largest known uranium reserves of any U.S. state. There is no doubt expressed by many recognized authorities that the state will be a key player in supplying the fuel to the nuclear power plants in the U.S. in order to become independent of foreign supplies.

Marion Loomis, Executive Director, of the Wyoming Mining Association, has indicated that because Wyoming is a pro-mining state, has prolific numbers of roll-front uranium deposits, and because of the rising spot uranium price in a resurgent uranium bull market, Wyoming will likely become the U.S. center for ISR mining. To this must be added New Mexico, Arizona, Texas, and in frontier areas elsewhere in the U.S. because some professionals have concluded that the latter states also have significant potential for additional deposits, albeit deeper than those found to date.

Wyoming ISR uranium mines were the only ones that were able to continue operating economically in the U.S. during the 1980's and 1990's when the downturn in uranium prices occurred. Whether that was a management decision or a comment on the economic advantage of the particular operations is up to debate. The debate may well swing to the latter since there may have been no lingering capital costs involved, leaving only direct operational costs.

Solution Mining

In situ recovery (ISR) - also known as in situ leaching (ISL) - involves recovering uranium in solution from the subsurface by dissolving the ore and pumping the pregnant solution to the surface where uranium and other products can be recovered. There is little surface disturbance

Page 7 and no tailings or waste rock are generated. ISR comprised 36% of global uranium production in 2009 (16).

In the U.S., legislation required that the water quality in the affected aquifer be restored after ISR mining. This suggests that the ground water must be usable for the same purposes as it was before mining began. However, considering that the ground water within the zones of mineralization never has been usable because it has been naturally contaminated for millions of years since the formation of the roll-front deposit, only the environment within the zones are returned to their original unoxidized condition by removing excess oxygen and returning the various constituents to at or below their baseline concentrations. This process forces the uranium (and other metals) that were in solution for production purposes to become essentially insoluble once again. Nevertheless, the ground water within the aquifer hosting the uranium mineralization will always remain naturally contaminated and therefore unusable (9).

Permitting

In Wyoming, there are two major permits/licenses, plus others, required for the commencement of In-Situ Recovery (ISR) uranium recovery operations:

The federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)(17) Source Material License The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ(18)) Permit to Mine

These two items allow for the construction of an ISR uranium operation and ultimately the commencement of uranium production. For the NRC, the Source Material License is comprised of two parts: 1) A technical review that results in a Safety Evaluation Report (SER), and 2) An environmental review which produces an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

The EIS usually consists of two parts: the Generic EIS, and the Supplemental EIS.

In order to receive the WDEQ Permit to Mine, a technical review of the project must be approved and an Aquifer Exemption must be granted (to remove the areas of the aquifers containing the mineralization from potential use because of their natural contamination). The generalized flow-sheet in Figure 3 illustrates the permitting steps.

In addition to the two major permit/licenses there are two important permits that are required from the WDEQ:

Deep Disposal Well Permit An Air Quality Permit

For the Deep Disposal Well permit and the Aquifer Exemption permit, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is also involved. The EPA reviews the applications for the Deep Disposal Wells and Aquifer Exemption and gives their approval of the permits, but the issuing authority is the WDEQ since they have primacy with the EPA for Wyoming.

Page 8

Figure 3

The Air Quality permit is required along with the Permit to Mine to begin construction of the ISR uranium facility. The Deep Disposal Well permit is not needed for construction, but is necessary for the commencement of operations for the ISR uranium facility to dispose of liquid wastes.

Current Production in Wyoming

Commercial ISR operations in the Powder River Basin have been ongoing since 1987. Cameco Resources Inc.'s Smith Ranch-Highland in situ mine in Converse County and Uranium One‘s Willow Creek operations are currently the only active uranium production facilities in the state. The Smith Ranch-Highland is the largest ISR facility in the country producing approximately 1.8 million pounds of uranium in 2009. Cameco plans to increase its Smith Ranch-Highland operations and undertake new operations in the Gas Hills (central Wyoming) and near Pumpkin Butte in Campbell County.

Uranium One's Christensen Ranch ISR facility in the Powder River Basin (the Powder River Basin has some of the highest grade uranium deposits in the State that are amenable to ISR operations methods resumed in late 2010. It is expected to yield about 1 million pounds of yellowcake over a period of three years.

Recently, the NRC issued an operating license for Uranium One's Moore Ranch uranium mine. It is the first new uranium mine license issued in the USA since 1998. Production of uranium bearing resins from Moore Ranch is expected to begin in 2012.

Permitting Activities

There has never been a uranium ISR operation application rejected in Wyoming. Uranerz has submitted federal and state mining applications to build and operate the Nichols Ranch ISR Uranium Project - a central processing facility at the Nichols Ranch property and a satellite facility at the Hank property.

Page 9

The central processing facility is being licensed for a capacity of 2 million pounds per year of uranium (as U3O8). This facility will process uranium-bearing solutions from well fields of the Nichols Ranch property, as well as uranium-loaded resin transported from the Hank satellite facility, plus uranium-loaded resin from any additional satellite deposits that may be developed on the company's other Powder River Basin properties. This centralized design enhances the economics of Uranerz‘s potential additional satellite projects by maximizing production capacity while minimizing further capital expenditures on processing facilities.

The NRC recently issued an operating license for Uranium One‘s Moore Ranch ISR project. Given the proximity of Uranerz's Nichols Ranch Project/Hank properties to Moore Ranch and similar timing of both company‘s applications, the final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for Uranerz's Nichols Ranch Project is expected to be completed very soon. A finalized SEIS for Uranerz's Moore Ranch Project from the NRC would lead to an issuance of a source materials license that would allow Uranerz to receive, possess, use, transfer and deliver radioactive materials.

Ur Energy, Inc. has received a draft NRC License and a permit to mine from the Wyoming DEQ for its Lost Creek Project in northeastern Sweetwater County, Wyoming. The company hopes to begin construction at the site by summer, 2011. Assuming no unforeseen delays, first yellowcake production is planned for 2012. Ur-Energy hopes to be producing up to one million pounds U3O8 per year once operations are in full swing.

World Uranium Resources

As nuclear power has re-emerged over the past few years in the U.S. and elsewhere(32), concerns have been raised by pundits that the known uranium resources might be insufficient when judged in terms of current production and current rate of use. But this is the Limits-to-Growth fallacy, a major myth recycled from the 1970s, which does not take into account of the very limited nature of the knowledge we have at any time of the uranium resources that are actually present in the Earth's crust. Our knowledge of geology is such that we can be confident that identified resources of metal minerals are a small fraction of what is available, at various level of cost (see WNA, (2009(19)). Much of what follows is taken from recent summaries of conditions as considered by the ―uranium press‖ (20, 21 & 22).

Uranium is ubiquitous on the Earth. It is a metal approximately as common as tin or zinc, and it is a constituent of most rocks and even of the sea. Economic concentrations of it are not uncommon, but significant tonnages sufficient to make a mine are not. Typical averages in concentrations are given below:

Very high-grade ore (e.g. Canada): 20% U 200,000 ppm U High-grade ore (e.g. N. Australia): 2% U 20,000 ppm U Low-grade ore (Roll Fronts): 0.1% U 1,000 ppm U Very low-grade ore (Roll Fronts): 0.01% U 100 ppm U Granite 4-5 ppm U Sedimentary rock 2 ppm U Earth's continental crust 2.8 ppm U Seawater 3 ppb U

Page 10

An economically viable uranium deposit depends on:

a) the support of local, state and federal regulatory agencies in the permitting stage,

b) the concentration of uranium,

c) the recoverable reserves of uranium,

d) the geographical location of the deposit,

e) the cost of yellowcake production, and

f) the market price at the time of production or sale of yellowcake.

At present, neither the oceans nor granites are considered economic resources, but they conceivably could become so if prices were sufficient and the costs of production were favorable. At ten times the current uranium price (i.e., $500/lb U3O8), seawater might become a potential source of vast amounts of uranium. Uranium resources are also dependent on the intensity and effectiveness of past exploration efforts, which are basically statements about what is known rather than what may be present, and on the political climate of the host country.

Changes in costs or prices, or further exploration, may alter measured resource figures markedly. Thus, any predictions of the future availability of any mineral, including uranium, which are based on current cost to produce, market price, and current geological knowledge, are likely to be extremely conservative. To date, this has been proven to be the case with uranium.

Uranium Availability

With the above qualifications, uranium resource estimates were made by the IAEA in 2009, 2007, and by the World Nuclear Institute (WNI) in 1999(23). Figure 4 shows the countries with the known major uranium resources in order of total resources, plus an estimate for 2011. It should be noted that from 1999 to 2009, the estimate of the world uranium resources increased by 84%. Of course, the actual resources didn‘t increase, just that which has become available based on our knowledge of what has been discovered over the past 10 years. In an attempt to keep track of the rapid expansion in world exploration for uranium and other nuclear minerals, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) also estimates U.S. and World uranium (10) resources , in metric units, which can be converted to pounds(lbs) U3O8 in the following conversion application (24).

Fifteen countries show increasing estimates of uranium resources over the past 10 years. The common producers (i.e., Australia, Kazakhstan, Canada, Russia, South Africa, and Namibia) showing increasing resources but many other countries are also beginning to report significant uranium resources. Various countries in Africa, South America (including Brazil, Guyana, Uruguay, etc.) and central Asia and China will also likely show major increases over the next 10 years. Figure 4 illustrates the changing resource estimates and suggests that with increasing exploration, more discoveries will result.

Page 11

Current World uranium consumption (in conversion to yellowcake) is about 68,000 tU/yr. Thus, the world's present measured resources of uranium (5.4 Million tonnes – see Figure 4 - 2009 Estimate) in the cost category slightly above present spot prices and used only in conventional reactors, are enough to last for about 80 years. This represents a higher level of assured resources than is normally estimated for most strategic commodities. Further, exploration and higher prices will, on the basis of present geological knowledge, certainly yield additional resources as current resources are consumed.

Figure 4 (IAEA-UDEPO Data, 2009)

Note: Reasonably Assured Resources plus Inferred Resources, to US$130/kg U, 1/1/09, from OECD NEA & IAEA, Uranium 2009 Resources, Production and Demand ("Red Book") and earlier estimates by IAEA (2009, 2007) and WNI (1999).

As indicated above, exploration targets are now known in many parts the World. IAEA data on the location and type of uranium mineralization are summarized in Figure 5. This illustrates that the most common types of mineralization are found in sandstone and in veins, and which produce the largest ore bodies. These have been the most predominant types explored over the past 75 years, but other types, with potential for producing substantial reserves, are beginning to be explored in other areas gone unexplored in past uranium exploration cycles.

Page 12

Figure 5

The geographical locations of the ore bodies are of major importance. Now that new discoveries are being explored in Africa and South America, new production may come from these regions sooner than previously expected. No longer will Canada and Australia be the sole source of uranium at a low price, but continuity of delivery comes into play which may complicate the supply to the new and old nuclear power plants of the World.

The geographical distribution of current and past exploration in the World has been summarized in the Figure 6 according to regions and countries. The number of known deposits is indicated for each country and associated regions. These data are further documented in a table based on IAEA-UDEPO, 2009 research that includes the deposit names and locations where uranium has been discovered to date(25).

Page 13

Figure 6

(IAEA-UDEPO Data, 2009)

Note: The data for the above figures were substantially derived from 2003 WNA Symposium paper by Colin MacDonald, Uranium: Sustainable Resource or Limit to Growth? - supplemented by his 2005 WNA Symposium paper (26) and including a model "Economic adjustments in the supply of a 'non-renewable' resource" from Ian Hore-Lacy.

The activities in these countries are discussed later in this report.

Page 14

Uranium Exploration Cycles

The initial uranium exploration cycle was military-driven, over 1945 to 1958. The second cycle was about 1974 to 1983, driven by civil nuclear power and in the context of a perception that uranium might be scarce. There was relatively little uranium exploration between 1985 and 2003, so the significant increase in exploration effort since then could conceivably double the known economic resources despite adjustments due to increasing costs. In the two years 2007 to 2009, the world‘s known uranium resources tabulated above increased by 17%.

World uranium exploration expenditure in 2006 was $705 million, in 2007 $1,328 million, and in 2008 $1,641 million, an increase of almost 25%. In the third uranium exploration cycle from 2003 to the end of 2009, about $5.75 billion was spent on uranium exploration and deposit delineation on over 600 projects. In this period, over 400 new junior companies were formed or changed their orientation to raise over $2 billion for uranium exploration. About 60% of this was spent on previously-known deposits. All this was in response to to the anticipated increase in the uranium price in the market, which recently has turned markedly upwards until the Japan nuclear incidents occurred. This matter was discussed on page 4 (See Figure 2).

The price of uranium, and almost any other mineral commodity, also directly determines the amount of known resources that are economically recoverable. On the basis of analogies with other metal minerals, a doubling of price from present levels could be expected to create about a tenfold increase in measured economic resources, over time, due both to increased exploration and the reclassification of resources regarding what is economically recoverable. The World Nuclear Association (WNA) monitors these activities. Figure 6 illustrates the resource base currently known for the two market-price levels.

By adding a price increase of $130/kgU to all conventional resources considered in Figure 6, another 5.5 million tonnes (beyond the 5.4 Mt of known economic resources, which would provide 160 years of yellowcake supply (and its equivalent fuel) at today's rate of consumption. This omits unconventional resources such as phosphate/phosphorite deposits (22 Mt U recoverable as by-product) and seawater (up to 4,000 Mt), but which would, as indicated earlier, likely be uneconomic in the foreseeable future under current prices

About 20% of U.S. uranium came from central Florida's phosphate deposits to the mid 1990s, as a by-product, but it then became uneconomic as the price fell. With higher uranium prices today the resource is being examined again, as is another lower-grade one in Morocco. Plans for Florida extend only to 400 tU/yr at this stage (27).

Coal ash is another easily-accessible though minor uranium resource in many parts of the world. In central Yunnan province in China, the coal uranium content varies up to 315 ppm and averages about 65 ppm. The ash averages about 210 ppm U (0.021%U) - above the cut-off level for some uranium mines. The Xiaolongtang power station ash heap contains over 1000 tU, with annual contributions of approximately 190 tU. Recovery of this product by acid leaching is about 70%.

Page 15

Figure 6

http://www-nfcis.iaea.org/Default.asp

Indirect Utilization of Fuel Supply

Widespread use of beryllium and thorium combined with the uranium has been found to significantly increase fuel burn life and reduce reactor-load requirements. The primary interest in developing the breeder reaction is because the ―fast breeder‖ reactor design could increase the utilization of uranium 50-fold or more. This type of reactor can be started up on plutonium derived from conventional reactors and operated in closed circuit with its reprocessing plant. Such a reactor, supplied with natural or depleted uranium for its "fertile blanket", can be operated so that each tonne of ore yields 60 times more energy than in a conventional reactor (28).

Reactor Fuel Requirements

The world‘s power reactors, with combined capacity of some 375 GWe, require about 68,000 tonnes of uranium from mines or elsewhere each year. While this capacity is being increased each year, with higher capacity factors and reactor power levels (larger plant designs), the uranium-fuel requirement is also increasing, but not necessarily at the same rate. Therefore, the factors of increasing fuel demand are offset by a trend for higher rate of burn-up of fuel and related matters, so demand is steady. Over the years 1980 to 2008, the electricity generated by nuclear power increased 3.6-fold while uranium used increased by a factor of only 2.5. Reducing the tails assay in enrichment reduces the amount of natural uranium required for a given amount of fuel. Reprocessing of used fuel from conventional light water reactors also utilizes present resources more efficiently, by a factor of about 1.3 overall.

Today's reactor fuel requirements are met from primary supply (direct mine output - 78% in 2009) and secondary sources: commercial stockpiles, nuclear weapons stockpiles, recycled plutonium and uranium from reprocessing used fuel, and some from re-enrichment of depleted uranium tails (left over from original enrichment). These various secondary sources make uranium unique among energy minerals.

Page 16

Nuclear Weapons as a Source of Fuel

An important source of nuclear fuel is the world's nuclear weapons stockpiles. Since 1987 the United States and countries of the former USSR have signed a series of disarmament treaties to reduce the nuclear arsenals of the signatory countries by approximately 80 percent.

The weapons contained a great deal of uranium enriched to over 90 percent U235 (i.e. up to 25 times the proportion in reactor fuel). Some weapons have plutonium239, which can be used in mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel for civil reactors. From 2000, the dilution of 30 tonnes of military high-enriched uranium has been displacing about 10,600 tonnes of uranium oxide per year from mines, which represents about 15% of the world's reactor requirements. Details of the utilization of military stockpiles are described in some detail in the coverage by WNA(29).

Other Secondary Sources of Uranium

The most obvious source is civil stockpiles held by utilities and governments. The amount held is difficult to quantify, due to commercial confidentiality. As of January 2009, some 129,000 tU of total inventory was estimated for utilities, 10,000 tU for producers and 15,000 tU for fuel-cycle participants, making a total of 154,000 tU (see the above WNA Market Report). These reserves are expected not to be drawn down, but to increase steadily to provide a stockpile for energy security and continuity for utilities and governments.

Recycled uranium and plutonium is another source, and currently saves 1500-2000 tU per year of primary supply, depending on whether just the plutonium or also the uranium is considered. In fact, plutonium is quickly recycled as MOX fuel, whereas the reprocessed uranium (RepU) is mostly stockpiled. For additional information on the processing of used nuclear fuel for recycle paper, see the WNA (30).

Re-enrichment of depleted uranium (DU, enrichment tails) is another secondary source. There is about 1.5 million tonnes of depleted uranium available, from both military and civil enrichment activity since the 1940s, most at tails assay of 0.25 - 0.35% U235. Non-nuclear uses of DU are very minor relative to annual increase of over 35,000 tU per year. This leaves most DU available for mixing with recycled plutonium on MOX fuel or as a future fuel resource for fast neutron reactors. However, some that has relatively high assay can be fed through under-utilized enrichment plants to produce natural uranium equivalent, or even enriched uranium ready for fuel fabrication. Russian enrichment plants have treated 10-15,000 tonnes per year of DU assaying over 0.3% U235, stripping it down to 0.1% and producing a few thousand tonnes per year of natural uranium equivalent. This Russian program treating Western tails has now finished, but a new U.S. program is expected to start when surplus capacity is available, treating about 140,000 tonnes of old DU assaying 0.4% U235.

Thorium as a Nuclear Fuel

Today, uranium is the only fuel supplied for nuclear reactors. However, thorium can also be utilized as a fuel for the Canadian CANDU reactors or in reactors specially designed for this purpose. Neutron efficient reactors, such as CANDU, are capable of operating on a thorium fuel cycle, once they are started using a fissile material such as U235 or Pu239. Then the thorium (Th232) atom captures a neutron in the reactor to become fissile uranium (U233), which continues

Page 17 the reaction. Some advanced reactor designs are likely to be able to make use of thorium on a substantial scale.

The thorium fuel cycle has some attractive features, though it is not yet in commercial use. IAEI reports that thorium is about three times as abundant in the earth's crust as uranium. The 2009 IAEA-NEA "Red Book" lists 3.6 million tonnes of known and estimated resources as reported, but points out that this excludes data from much of the world, and estimates about 6 million tonnes overall(28).

Environmental Considerations

Nuclear power's life-cycle emissions range from 2 to 59 gram-equivalents of carbon dioxide per kilowatt-hour. Only hydropower's range ranked lower at 2 to 48 grams of carbon dioxide- equivalents per kilowatt-hour. Wind comes in at 7 to 124 grams and solar at 13 to 731 grams. Emissions from natural gas fired plants ranged from 389 to 511 grams. Coal produces 790 to 1,182 grams of carbon dioxide equivalents per kilowatt hour. The IAEA (2001(31)) produced a report on this subject.

Groups opposing uranium exploration and development (and nuclear power in general) focus on the potential impact to local ground water supplies. Campbell and Wise (2009(36) and 2010(9)) continue to deal with such issues.

Other societal issues also linger, aside from nuclear waste storage, the solution of which is political in nature, not technical. Experience over five decades has shown the fear of a nuclear catastrophe to be exaggerated, and the local impact of a severe accident or terrorist attack is likely to be small - the Three Mile Island accident in 1979 being a good example of a minor incident, although the media played a major role in setting the U.S. nuclear industry back by decades by creating undue fear about nuclear facilities. The Chernobyl disaster in the 1980‘s occurred from conditions that were never present in the U.S. and the area has recovered sooner than expected(38). Nevertheless, one of the reasons that construction costs are high is that current regulations and liability requirements have been tightened over the past 15 years in the U.S.(37).

Future Off-World Sources of Nuclear and Strategic Minerals

In 2009, anomalous uranium, thorium and samarium were indicated by the SELENE spacecraft in certain areas of the Moon(39) Also in 2009, the Uranium (Nuclear Minerals) Committee of the AAPG Energy Minerals Division published its report on the role of nuclear power in space, which encouraged industry to begin the planning for serious exploration and development of energy and strategic minerals over the next 20 years(40). The AAPG is publishing a comprehensive review of this subject as a Special Paper or Memoir with a working title of: The History and Path Forward of the Human Species into the Future, including updates to the above papers (39 and 40) and some 10 additional papers on related topics. The publication should be available by the end of 2011 or early 2012.

Page 18

Vice-Chair Reports:

I. Uranium-Related Industry Activity

By Robert Odell, P.G. (Vice-Chair: Industry), Consultant, Casper, Wy.

URANIUM EXPLORATION & RESOURCES AMERICA - NORTH AMERICA

The February 2011 tally of 93 uranium drills was up 13 drills from the 80 North American uranium drills in January. The United States had 69 drills plus 24 in Canada.

In the United States, Wyoming had 45 rigs working, 34 of them on development and 11 on exploration. CAMECO had 19 development drills, plus 9 exploration, for a total of 28. URANIUM ONE reported 15. BAYSWATER again had 2 drills at Reno Creek.

In Texas, 22 rigs were operating. MESTENA continued with 9 on development, and 6 on exploration. URANIUM ENERGY had 2 exploration drills active, and 4 on production. URANIUM RESOURCES continued with one rig on reclamation drilling at last report.

Nebraska saw 2 drills on exploration for CAMECO. There was no drilling reported for Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, South Dakota or Utah.

See Table 3 for the North American tabulation by area and operator, excluding Mexico.

Table 3 – Uranium Exploration Activity

COMPANY/ PROJECT US, 69 Prod Prod FEBRUARY 2011 Recl Expl Dev CANADA 24 Rigs Lbs Total reported 93 DENISON / ARIZONA ONE 0 YES ARIZONA 0 ENERGY FUELS / South of Canyon 0 MESA UR / MOONSHINE SPRINGS 0 QUATERRA RES / ARIZ STRIP 0 URANIUM ONE 0 VANE MINERALS 0

COLORADO 0 DENISON / Pandore 0 ENERGY FUELS 0 POWERTECH / WELD COUNTY 0

NEBRASKA 2 CAMECO/ CROW BUTTE RESOURCES 2 YES NEUTRON ENERGY / AMBROSIA NEW MEXICO 0 URANIUM RESOURCES 0 URAN, Ltd/ Armijo, Grants Ridge 0 STRATHMORE/RocaHonda HOMESTAKE CAMECO/ SMITH RANCH, PRB- 9 WYOMING 45 HIGHLAND 19 d 19 YES BAYSWATER/ Reno Creek, PRB 2 STAKEHOLDER ENERGY 0 STRATHMORE / GAS HILLS 0 TITAN/ SHEEP MOUNTAIN, June activity start up, Sheep Mtn 0 URANIUM ONE (EMC) / PRB BASIN 0 15 URANERZ / PRB: East of Pumpkin Buttes 0 Ur ENERGY / GREAT DIVIDE BASIN- Lost Creek 0

Page 19

SO DAKOTA 0 POWERTECH/ DEWEY BURDOCK 0

URANIUM ENERGY 2x, Salvo; 4P @ PALANGANA 2 0 4 YES TEXAS 22 URANIUM RESOURCES 1 0 MESTENA 6 9 YES

DENISON/ Beaver Mine, 0 UTAH 0 ENERGY FUELS 0 TITAN/ GREEN RIVER SOUTH 0 VANE MINERALS NR

VIRGINIA 0 VA URANIUM/ COLES HILL 0

US SUBTOTAL DRILLS - 69 1 21 34 13 Prod Prod Recl Expl Dev CANADA COMPANY PROJECT AREA Rigs Lbs

Exploration AREVA / East Athab Basin 4 Drilling AZIMUT EXPLOR / Ungava Bay 0 CAMECO / Athabasca Basin 10 CANALASKA/ CREE EXT. 0

CROSSHAIR EXPL/ C-Zone / LABRADOR 0 DENISON/ Wheeler River.(2), 1 Moore L. 3 FORUM / Key Lake Rd 0 HATHOR/ Russel Lake 2 JNR / Way Lake, Athab. B. 0

PITCHSTONE / Gumboot, Johnston Lake 0 PUREPOINT 1 RIO TINTO Red Willow Lake 1 STRATECO RES/ Matousch-QUEBEC 0 UEX (3 Shea) . 3

CANADA SUBTOTAL DRILLS = 24 REPORTED 24

TOTAL NORTH AMERICAN DRILLS = 93 1 45 34 13

TRADETECH'S NUCLER MARKET REVIEW Exchange Value was quoted at $69.50, down from $72.25 a pound U3O8 last month. The Mid-Term Price was $73.50, down from $75.00 and Long-Term $70.00, remaining level.

UX CONSULTING spot prices per pound yellowcake prices February 28th was $69.75, down from the January 31, 2011 quote of $73.00 a pound Their Long-Term price quote remained at $73.00.

DOE's Grand Junction office is using $69.75 a pound for the spot market, and $73.00 Long Term U3O8. Their vanadium price is $7.15 a pound, according to [email protected] report of March 3, 2011.

MANAGEMENT INTEREST

PLATTS 7th Annual Nuclear Energy Conference reports included remarks from Jimmy Wang of CGNPC on the massive Chinese uranium build up, with a total nuclear installed capacity to exceed 70 GWe by 2020. That country faces challenges of training engineers and operators with an emphasis on safety. The bottom line: New reactors: One for the U.S, 64 for the rest of the

Page 20 world. Pete Lyons, Acting Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy, USDOE presented a very strong FY 2012 budget of $852.5 million for the Office of Nuclear Energy, 52% for research and deployment. Reactor lives may be extended to 80 years! Ray Rothrock of VEN-ROCK remarked:

"Regulatory agencies are unfocused and need to be "fundamentally altered" to focus on oversight and promoting nuclear energy.‖

WESTINGHOUSE has introduced a 200 megawatt small nuclear modular reactor design that can be shipped by rail and reassembled on remote sites.

AREVA's Idaho enrichment facility at Eagle Rock has awarded the contract to URS CORP for procurement, construction and management services, in a February 14, 2011 announcement through the World Nuclear News. The centrifuge technology, licensed from URENCO, is similar to the new GEORGES BESSE II facility at Tricastin, France.

Nuclear Energy Institute SR VP, Government Affairs Alex Flint was encouraged, January 25th when Obama called for a clean energy policy to include nuclear. Flint indicated nuclear energy provides 70% of U.S. carbon-free electricity (Nuclear Market Review, 1/28/11).

The USA's largest utility, worth $14 billion, has been created with the merger of DUKE ENERGY and PROGRESS ENERGY with a combined value of $65 billion to generate 16% of the new firm's generating capacity of 57,200 MWe from 12 nuclear plants.

NORTHWEST MINING ASS'N has requested calls to your congressmen to defeat a massive omnibus public lands bill promoted by Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader. Call the Senate switchboard at 1-202-224-3121. The bill would further lock up access to minerals and the jobs available through recovery of our natural resources to diminish the national debt.

URANIUM ONE has acquired SCOTT MELBYE as Executive VP of Marketing, effective in May.

REVIEW OF URANIUM AND MINERAL RESOURCES ACTIVITY

United States Operator Activity

* AMERICAN ENERGY FIELDS February 22, 2011 was reported in the UX Weekly of February 28, 2011 to have acquired 61 unpatented lode mining claims on BLM ground in the Arizona Breccia Pipe District, through an option to purchase agreement with an undisclosed seller. No exploration plans have been released.

* BAYSWATER continued drilling in the Wright/Reno area of Powder River Basin in February, 2011 according to John Gomez of the Vancouver office. The firm had two uranium rigs in November, 2010 to install up to 44 base-line monitor wells for ISR mining and the plant at RENO CREEK. Approval of its drilling notification permit has been received from WDEQ. Stratigraphic drilling commenced in September to check mineralization to the Badger/Baker Coal zone. January 18, 2011 the firm reported 25 of the 44 monitor wells have been completed. Resources (NI 43-101) have been quoted at 15.6 million pounds.

Page 21

* BLACK RANGE MINERALS, current owner of the TAYLOR RANCH 60 million pound Colorado uranium property, February 21, 2011 announced intent to purchase 100% of the 30 million pound HANSEN deposit from STB MINERALS LLC, which is adjacent to TAYLOR.

* CAMECO's February drilling reported by Chief Geologist Bob Blackstone totaled 9 drills, with 3 exploration rigs at North Butte and 6 exploration drills at the SMITH RANCH/HIGHLAND mine, all in Powder River Basin, plus 2 exploration drills in Nebraska. The HIGHLAND PRB site reported by Tom Nicholson had 19 development rigs at the mine site, which produced 1.83 million pounds last year, 500,000 of it in the 4th quarter of 2009. Total 2009 world production of 20.8 million pounds for the firm was reported last March (UX Weekly). Blackstone earlier disclosed the firm plans to double production by 2018.

There were no drills reported operating in February, 2011 in central Wyoming's Gas Hills.

At the firm's Nebraska CROW BUTTE project, two drills were working on exploration, reported above by Blackstone. Mine-site offices in Chadron can be reached at 308/665-2215 for Mike Brost or Wade Beins, Geologists.

* CROSSHAIR EXPLORATION & MINING reported through the Gold Newsletter plans to spend $5 million in Wyoming following acquisition of the JUNIPER RIDGE uranium property from STRATHMORE. The firm also holds Shirley Basin BOOTHEEL interests.

In Labrador, Mark Morabito, CEO (604/681-8030) December 16, 2010 reported assays for vanadium of previous uranium core recovered at the C-Zone of their Central Mineral Belt Project disclosed 11.9 million pounds V2O5, increasing that firms mineral resource by 500%, in addition to uranium values.

* DENISON MINES' Terry Wetz reported no drilling in the US in February, but there are plans to start up later in 2011 here and in Mongolia. Production in 2010 totaled 1.4 million pounds from its BEAVER, PANDORA and ARIZONA 1 mines and its 17% share of McCLEAN LAKE production in Canada. Uranium sales totaled 1.8 million pounds (695 tU) in 2010. Last October development drills were busy in the BEAVER area of Utah and earlier at the PANDORA/LA SAL mine with one drill underground facilitated mining advances at ARIZONA ONE. In Mongolia, four drilling projects were completed in 2010 for the interim. Spring 2011 will see additional drilling in Mongolia and the US.

In Arizona the ARIZONA ONE mine is operating. June 17, 2010, the firm reported the US District Court denied a motion by adversarial environmental groups to shut down the ARIZONA I mine after a BLM hearing June 11th failed to convince the Court of potential environmental impacts. The previous mining plan has NOT been proved to be invalid. The ARIZONA ONE breccia uranium deposit mine plans anticipate an operating cost of $30.50 a pound for the underground mine: www.denisonmines.com

* ENERGY FUELS RESOURCE CORP early in February announced in Nuclear Market Review the acquisition of the Emery County, Utah HOLLIE CLAIMS from TITAN URANIUM, for just over one million shares of ENERGY FUELS stock. Indicated Resources there have been quoted at 983,300 pounds U3O8. Also acquired is the CALLIHAM mining lease in San Juan County, Utah.

January 6, 2011 the firm received approval from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environmental Quality for the 500 ton per day PINON/CANYON RIDGE mill at Paradox Valley in Colorado, 12 miles west of Naturita, Montrose County, and is evaluating the conditions written into the Radioactive Materials License. No drill rigs were working for EFR in January in the Colorado/Utah region.

Page 22

The Whirlwind Mine (near Gateway, Colorado) continues on standby and could be reactivated on short notice. Work is progressing on rehabilitation of some of the surface facilities at the Energy Queen Mine (near La Sal, Utah). Both are fully permitted.

The firm earlier acquired another DOE lease in Colorado, the SR-12. The San Miguel County lease holds 641 acres, contiguous with other leases of COLORADO PLATEAU PARTNERS. The firm continues in a holding pattern with its Utah and Colorado properties but in September and October, 2010 was drilling in Arizona at it's BRECCIA PIPE target in Mohave County, located out of the restricted park area, south of Colorado City, Arizona. The drill is now shut down.

Earlier EFRC and JV partner ROYAL RESOURCES Ltd, as ARIZONA STRIP PARTNERS acquired two breccia pipe properties in Coconino County, AZ from NEUTRON ENERGY, Inc. The two properties are known as the CYCLONE TARGET and the HORSEY TARGET. NEUTRON retains a 2% net smelter royalty. The Whirlwind and Energy Queen mines in Colorado remain on stand-by.

* FIRE RIVER GOLD, in restoring Alaska's NIXON FORK mine in the Tintina Gold Belt, calculates a three month pay-back once it resumes production within 2011, commencing with the hiring of Mining Operations Richard Goodwin by Harry Barr, President and CEO. The firm reported cores with values of 0.73 opt gold over 10 feet and another 24 feet of 12 g/t. A 28,000 meter drill program was under way as of January 12, 2011.

* HOMESTAKE worked a four-month reclamation drilling program in New Mexico last summer, according to George Hoffman of the Casper office ([email protected]). One rig continued drilling into November, with start-up plans for two drills possibly in April, 2011.

LARAMIDE RESOURCES at the LA SAL, San Juan County Utah property has exercised its option for $500,000 from HOMESTAKE MINING. The 2.7 million pound uranium property will require another $750,000 payment upon production, finally, according to the September 13, 2010 UX Weekly.

* MESA URANIUM CORP February 2, 2011 released news its J-V partner, PASSPORT POTASH has commenced a 50-line-mile seismic survey in Holbrook Basin, Arizona for geologic structure and potash reserves. August 25, 2010, the firm reported in southwest Utah the firm intends to acquire PINE VALLEY POTASH's estimated 82 million tons potash ore (35% alunite) according to Foster Wilson, President and CEO. July 14, 2010, they announced a non-binding Letter of Intent Option Agreement with PASSPORT POTASH for MESA's 1,950 acres of exploration leases near Holbrook, Arizona from the Arizona State Land Department. MESA concentrates on lithium, uranium and potash properties in the U.S.

* MESTENA URANIUM LLC last reported 9 drills on production and 6 doing exploration. MESTENA has four production areas with TCEO, with an additional application currently under review by the agency. Peter Luthiger was named Vice President of MESTENA URANIUM LLC in November, 2010.

NEUTRON ENERGY had no drilling, waiting on permits and financing to drill on projects 1.5 miles west of Mt. Taylor. The firm is purchasing PRIMARY CORP's 50% interest in the Grants Uranium JV of Ambrosia Lake uranium project by paying either C$3.5 million in cash or giving PC some 3.5 million shares of NEUTRON, making NEUTRON 100% owner of the Ambrosia project. Ted Wilton offices in Nevada near Elko at 775/340-1517.

Page 23

* PENINSULA ENERGY INC has signed a long-term (7-year) agreement to sell 3.0 million pounds U3O8 per year from the firm's LANCE properties in Wyoming, commencing in 2012. No purchaser was mentioned in the February 7, 2011, UX Weekly. February 4, 2011, the firm released through World Nuclear News a 31% increase in total resources at the Lance uranium project in Powder River Basin. An application to the Wyoming DEQ was made January 13, 2011, for an ISL facility at Ross. See addendum.

* POWERTECH URANIUM President Dick Clements January 28, 2011, had no drilling to report in Colorado or South Dakota for the immediate future, but the firm is busy on permits. Indicated resources at its Weld County CENTENNIAL PROJECT total 10.4 million pounds with another 2.3 million pounds inferred.

The firm has of record a positive South Dakota DEWEY-BURDOCK economic assessment. SRK Consulting indicates a $55.4 million pre-tax, net-present-value there and earlier increased inferred uranium DEWEY-BURDOCK resources by 42% to 10.8 million pounds at 0.182% eU3O8, with property acquisitions. In August the firm reported a pre-tax, net present value of US $51.77 million in Nuclear Market Review. www.powertechuranium.com

* QUATERRA RESOURCES' Tom Patton reported no drilling activity for uranium in northern Arizona due to the BLM moratorium on the north side of Grand Canyon. Their properties total 18 square miles there. Earlier scout reports indicated breccia pipe drilling on Hole A-20-1 intercepted 34.5 feet of 0.37% eU3O8.

The Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service earlier pressured Secretary of the Interior Salazar to withdraw almost a million acres of federal lands in the Grand Canyon area from mineral entry, or any new staking, unless actual ore discoveries can be proved, per claim. The firm is active in copper in the Yerrington, Nevada area and has 2011 plans for two drills in Mexico for gold and silver in March. QUATERRA also holds ground in southern Utah in Shootaring Canyon, and in Wyoming's Shirley Basin uranium area.

Patrick Hillard, Tom Patton and Judy Pratt can be reached at 604/681-9059. Some 200 VTEM anomalies had been targeted for geologic study. See www.quaterraresources.com

STAKEHOLDER ENERGY, LLC of Casper, Wyoming reported no drilling in Powder River Basin. May 5, 2010 the firm announced plans for a uranium exploration and production project located in Converse County, Wyoming. The firm has blocked-up more than 75,000 acres of federal and fee minerals in nine contiguous townships. Earlier Mark Doelger, with Barlow & Haun, Inc., the managing partner of Stakeholder reported the current field mapping program to study the Ft Union and Wasatch outcrops will direct a drilling program.

* STRATHMORE MINERALS at CHURCH ROCK in McKinley County, New Mexico has contracted with BEHRE-DOLBEAR for a preliminary economic assessment in phases that will evaluate both in-situ and conventional underground mining methods for the 11.8 million pound Measured and Indicated Resource deposit.

Tom Oxner of Riverton reported three rigs drilling in the Gas Hills of Wyoming last November for characterization of overburden. Area log libraries have been acquired from CAMECO to better understand the geology of the GEORGE-VER and LOCO LEE deposits adjacent to the 40 million pound-producer LUCKY MC.

The firm is advancing two core uranium projects, Wyoming's GAS HILLS and in New Mexico the ROCA HONDA project. October 13, 2010, the firm released A "Description of Proposed Action" report by STRATHMORE's environmental consultant, MANGI ENVIRONMENTAL.

Page 24

* TITAN URANIUM January One announced the naming of Chris Healey as President and CEO. Healey was formerly manager of CAMECO US operations in Casper and is a past president of the Geological Society of Canada.

A PRE-FEASIBILITY NI 43-101 study at SHEEP MOUNTAIN, WYOMING shows the deposit contains 14.2 million pounds U3O8. The firm is busy on permit work. The firm earlier completed a 4-drill, 62 hole program to define the limits of the planned CONGO open-pit mine south of Jeffrey City. Last summer's drilling of 62 holes disclosed, in the drilling 175 feet north of the CONGO PIT, nine feet of 0.30% U3O8, which correlates to a previous ore hole containing 9 feet of 0.640%, suggesting continuity of ore horizons.

* URAN Ltd at the ARMIJO PROJECT had no rigs operating but is anticipating drilling permits in New Mexico on the JV with URANIUM ENERGY CORP. The ARMIJO area shallow Todilto fm uranium mineralization, located 70 miles west of Albuquerque, is to be tested with a total of 10,800 feet of drilling. URAN can earn a 65% interest in the project over a five-year option period. The Todilto limestone GRANTS RIDGE uranium project is in the southeastern Ambrosia Lake district.

* URANERZ ENERGY, March 2, 2011, released reports the firm now has $47 million in the firm's treasury for production and exploration expenses, from exercised warrants. The firm has a commercial Permit To Mine under Materials License Number SUA01597 for NICHOLS RANCH ISR. The 5.5 million pound deposit in Powder River Basin will serve as the platform to develop other PRB reserves through permit amendments. The 3/2/2011 release indicated URANERZ has staked an additional 20 federal mining claims and has over 30 prospective projects within the Powder River Basin.

There was no drilling to report for February, following the two drills operating in Powder River Basin into early December, with plans to recommence drilling in March.

Earlier URANERZ acquired exploration data from EXCALIBUR INDUSTRIES and sub MOUNTAIN WEST MINES. The data covers 340 square miles of the PUMPKIN BUTTES uranium district.

* URANIUM ENERGY CORP in New Mexico anticipates a mid-March receipt of permits to initiate a JV drilling program for 130 holes on Mesa Montanasa with URAN. The two-month project is scheduled for late May, 2011, if possible.

In Texas the first new ISR uranium mine in the USA in five years, PALANGANA added a rig for a total of 4 production drills in February. Two exploration drills continued at the SALVO project.

January 5, 2011, the firm released new appointments to expand top management in view of initiation of uranium production. Pat Obara has been promoted to Vice President- Administration from Chief Financial Officer. Chartered Accountant and CPA David Kong is now Chairman of the Audit Committee, replacing Director Mark Katsumata who is now Chief Financial Officer. Bill Underdown at last report had 11 production-site people and 9 mill persons busy for UEC personnel there in South Texas.

Drilling wise, UEC in December had three production drills and two exploration drills operating in South Texas after commencing drilling November 10, 2010, to evaluate the newly acquired SALVO uranium property in Bee County, Texas. The project is located 10 miles southwest of Beeville, Texas, and about 50 miles from the firm's HOBSON MILL. SEE www.sedar.com.

Page 25

SALVO will be the fourth satellite for the HOBSON plant as drilling verifies reserves. December 20,2010 reports of Phase One drilling there disclosed values of 9.5 feet of 0.669% cU3O8. The enlarged 4,054 acre lease area covers multiple "stacked" sands of the Goliad formation, with 1,500 acres, drilled earlier by MOBIL, NUFUELS and URANIUM RESOURCES, in the 1980's.

* URANIUM ONE reported 15 development drills operating in February at the Christensen Ranch project. There were no exploration drills in the Great Divide Basin this month. On January 14, 2011, the firm released news of last year's production increase to 7.4 million pounds for 2010. In December the firm received authorization to restart CHRISTIANSEN RANCH/ IRIGARY ISR operations for production up to 2.5 million pounds per year, which commenced January 7th, 2011.

Chris Sattler has been appointed Executive VP for Corporate Development as its new CEO effective February 1, 2011, succeeding Jean Nortier, who has returned to South Africa.

The US NRC has found no impacts at the MOORE RANCH Project in PRB that would preclude licensing of the ISR there in Campbell County, Wyoming. October 1, 2010, the NRC issued an operating license for MOORE RANCH, the first one they have issued since 1998.

URANIUM RESOURCES (URI) in the January 7, 2011, Nuclear Market Review released news of a November 2010 agreement with CAMECO RESOURCES for a three-year exploration plan on 53,500 acres in Kennedy County, Texas. URI CEO Don Ewigleben indicated earlier water well sampling in the area points to potential for ISR production at the green-field sites.

In New Mexico the firm completed a 10-hole drilling program in last Fall at Ambrosia Lake, on Section 13 to evaluate ISR recovery there. Three holes totaling 2600 feet plus 170 feet of core were recovered for ISR production amenability.

* UR-ENERGY Inc. completed drilling for the winter last November, with four rigs. As of January, 2011, the firm had the draft of the Source and Byproduct Materials license in Sweetwater County, Wyoming for a brief review. June 1, 2010 the firm received permits for LOST CREEK of five injection wells, (Class One non-hazardous, for the life of the mine), plus permits for two waste- water retention ponds in Great Divide Basin, Wyoming. There were no drills operating in February, 2011.

* USGS Geologist JIM OTTEN in the Denver office is retiring, effective January 31, 2011. He will retain status as Emeritus Scientist, volunteering several hours every week to the deprivation of a busy retirement schedule. Susan M. Hall is replacing him as Uranium Geologist, and recipient of the Rocky Mountain Uranium/Minerals Scout.

VANE MINERALS last October 29, 2010 updated NI 43-101 resources for the WATE breccia pipe in northern Arizona, a JV with URANIUM ONE. SRK Consulting updating of the Inferred Resource now totals 886,000lbs U3O8, with an average grade of 0.76% eU3O8.

EarlierVANE revealed the purchase of the COYOTE BASIN project from URANIUM ONE AMERICAS, in Moffat and Rio Blanco Counties, Colorado, where high grade uranium occurs in lignite. Potential is listed at 50 million pounds contained U3O8, according to Steve Nan Nort, CEO. Delineation drilling will follow favorable met tests. The firm has 72 breccia pipe properties outside the Grand Canyon National Park, 10 of which have been drilled. One pipe intercepted 1.78% eU3O8. VANE'S Kris Hefton earlier indicated 15 of 26 holes cut mineralization, one hole (08-14) cutting 9.5 feet of 0.36% eU3O8.

Page 26

* VIRGINIA URANIUM's Walt Coles indicated March 1, 2011 that drilling with two rigs will commence this summer. The NRC study will take till 2013 for completion. With a 30% interest in the Virginia hard rock outcropping deposit, the firm has a "first right of refusal" on future financings. October 18th the firm announced an NI 43-101 compliant PEA (Prelim Economic Assessment) for COLES HILL by LYNTEK and BRS estimates a 35 year life of open pit and UG mine (by sub- level open- stopping and bulk mining) for an Internal Rate of Return of 36.3%. The Net Present Value of the project is US$404 million, reported in UX Weekly. See also Canada.

The NI 43-101 compliant technical report for the COLES HILL uranium property in Pittsylvania County, Virginia, completed June, 2008, upgraded reserves to 23.1 million pounds at 0.225%, or 71.9 million pounds at a cut-off of 0.07% U3O8!

* WHITE CANYON URANIUM Ltd of Perth and operator of the Utah DANEROS MINE was reported in the February 28, 2011, Nuclear Market Review to have milled 204,450 pounds of uranium through a milling agreement with DENISON MINES. DENISON will proceed with a takeover bid for WHITE CANYON, which in November, 2010 released drilling indications of expanded reserves at the Lark Royal claim, located close to the DENISON mill in Blanding. Drill intersection of eight feet of 0.21% will encourage underground expansion at the site, following more drilling. Nuclear Market Review in August reported an initial resource estimate of 700,000 pounds Indicated and 455,000 pounds U3O8 for DANEROS, the first new conventional uranium mine permitted in Utah in 30 years.

DANEROS is in the Red Canyon area near Blanding and 100 kilometers from Denison's WHITE MESA mill. Development of the twin declines began July, 2009 in preparation for mining anticipated to produce 500,000 pounds per year by the room and pillar method. The firm paid $600,000 cash to acquire 93 mineral tenements in the White Canyon district of Utah from URANIUM ONE, increasing their holdings to 14,000 acres to include the HIDEOUT and CHARLIE 3 (0.26% ore) mines.

FOREIGN OPERATOR ACTIVITY

* AREVA RESOURCES CANADA reported four drills active in eastern Athabasca Basin in February, 2011. The firm will delay until 2013 the manufacture of nuclear plant components scheduled at the NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORP Newport News shipyard in Virginia, due to slow United States approval of new nuclear plants. AREVA has already invested $25 million in the project. Exploration wise, at last report the firm earlier had two drills at SHEA CREEK.

ARMZ (Russia) will buy the Tanzanian uranium assets (all issued shares) of MANTRA RESOURCES Ltd for A$1.16 billion (US $1.15 billion) for eventual ownership, with shareholder approval by URANIUM ONE to expand U-One's resources by 68%. The Mkoju River project in Tanzania has estimated resources of 101.4 million pounds U3O8.

* AZIMUT EXPLORATION and DYNASTY GOLD, in the James Bay area of Quebec will conduct a four-year $3.2 million exploration program in 2011 at the OPINACA D property. Soil geochemistry indicates consistent arsenic, antimony and gold anomalies ( up to 7.3 g/t Au.) The work plan was announced December 21, 2010 by Jean-Marc Lulin, President and CEO, from 450/646-3015. See: http://www.info.azimuth-exploration.com

December 20, 2010, AZIMUT reported major progress at the REX and REX SOUTH properties at the Nunavik, northern Quebec. AZIMUT PROPERTIES total 9,021 claims.

Page 27

BAYSWATER URANIUM November 30, 2010, from offices in Vancouver (604/687-2153) released news of a Purchase Agreement with OTIS GOLD CO whereby OTIS acquires 100% of the KILGORE GOLD project, a five-square mile volcanic-hosted epithermal gold system in the northern margin of the eastern Snake River Plain caldera, with estimates of 218,000 ounces of drill-indicated gold (7.043 MM tons @ 0.031 opt Au. See: www.bayswateruranium.com

* CAMECO's Scott McHardy, Drilling Oversight Geologist reported March 3, 2011, the February, 2011 drilling involved 10 drills in Athabasca Basin: one drill each at DAWN LAKE, RABBIT LAKE, CREE ZIMMER, MOON LAKE, and two drills each at READ LAKE, SOUTHWEST ATHABASCA BASIN and McARTHUR RIVER exploration projects . Earlier , February 7, 2011, the firm announced through UX Weekly, the appointment of TIM GITZEL as CEO and President, replacing Jerry Grandey who has retired. January 25 the firm advanced Charles Roy, P.Eng., P. Geo., to Director, Exploration Agreements for CAMECO. Scott McHardy has assumed his duties of drilling oversight.

* CANALASKA URANIUM Ltd. plans five drilling projects the first half of 2011 in Athabasca Basin, on the north and southeast trends. Initial drilling in February planned one reverse circulation drill at FOND DU LAK WEST on a three week program there.

On December 20, 2010, the firm reported receipt of $4.68 million from KOREAN CONSORTIUM (HANWHA, KEPCO, KORES and SK ENERGY) for their Earn-In (50%) Commitment at CREE LAKE. Exploration will involve a $3.58 million, 7,650 meter, 18-hole winter drill program on 3 targets: Zones I, C and D. The firm offices in downtown Vancouver, Suite 1020, 625 Howe St (BC V6C 2T6), Phone: 604/688-3211.

* CROSSHAIR EXPLORATION & MINING February releases report their Labrador uranium resources in the "C Zone" there in the Central Mineral Belt include 30.92 million pounds of V2O5 Indicated.

* DENISON MINES CORP March 2, 2011, reported 3 drills active in Canada with temperatures of 30 degrees C below! Two drills were operating at WHEELER RIVER and one at MOORE LAKE. 2010 production from U.S. mines and its 22.5% share of the Canadian MCCLEAN LAKE operation was 1.4 million pounds uranium. Drilling for January, 2011 involved four drills: two at WHEELER, one at MOORE LAKE, and one at HUTCHINSON LAKE, all in Athabasca Basin. The firm plans to spend $6.0 million at WHEELER RIVER alone, and $7.4 million in Mongolia, this year.

November 9, 2010 the firm announced initial mineral resources of their 60% owned WHEELER RIVER project at 35,638,000 Indicated pounds U3O8. Average grade was 17.99% at the PHOENIX ZONE A, and ZONE B, with 3,811,000 pounds averages 7.27%. Earlier the firm extended WHEELER RIVER mineralization intersecting up to 32.80% ore, and on the eastern part of the PHOENIX (R zone) previous discovery up to 5 meters of 55% pitchblende. Two holes penetrated the unconformity in this area between McArthur River and Key Lake. Mineralization is semi-massive pitchblende and uraninite.

FORUM URANIUM CORP earlier reported a ten-hole exploration program at the ATHABASCA BASIN KEY LAKE ROAD Project encountered encouraging geology and three mineralization intercepts in a fault zone with favorable sheared graphitic politic gneiss. FORUM and HATHOR EXPLORATION earlier planned to drill and do a geophysical survey at the HENDAY LAKE project for 18 holes and 4,500 meters of exploration. That Athabasca Basin area project is on trend with AREVA's MIDWEST project and HATHOR'S ROUGHRIDER zone.

Page 28

* HATHOR EXPLORATION February 24, 2011, announced a 15,000 meter drilling program with three drills at the ROUGHRIDER PROJECT in Athabasca Basin, where assay results indicate Hole MWNE-11-667 intersected significant mineralization (37.5 meters of 1.57% U3O8) at a depth of 327.5 meters.

November 30, 2010, the firm upgraded mineral resource estimates to 17.2 million pounds, Indicated, at a grade of 1.98% U3O8, with Inferred Resources not totaling 28 million pounds U3O8. The best hole drilled to date at the ROUGHRIDER EAST deposit in Athabasca Basin intersected 63.5 meters of 7.75% U3O8. Three drills were active, one on a barge to delineate reserves.

* JNR RESOURCES's Dave Billard reported the firm plans to have one rig operating at WAY LAKE in March. Last October they reported central Newfoundland TOP SAILS JV surface work continued through the Fall with ALTIUS RESOURCES at the uranium, rare earths and copper project near Buchans. The firm then reported no drilling but field work is progressing.

Athabasca Basin CRACKINGSTONE project airborne gravity gradient survey work this Fall concentrated on an earlier survey on the Crackingstone Peninsula on the north rim of Athabasca Basin noted 122 uranium anomalies. Drilling at WAY LAKE was completed in March, according to Dave Billard, VP. June 21, 2010 reports indicated 2,773 meters (14 holes) were drilled, one of which intersected 5 meters up to 0.254% grade U3O8. The five kilometer-long EM conductor is composed of graphitic politic gneisses and uraniferous granite pegmatites. JNR reported in the September 3 Nuclear Market Review the closing of a private placement of C$400,095 (US$378,537) for exploration in Saskatchewan and Newfoundland. JNR issued about 2.3 million units at $0.17 Canadian.

* PACIFIC NORTHWEST CAPITAL has acquired 100% interest in ANGLO PLATINUM's Ontario discovery 60 kilometers from Sudbury. Measured and Indicated Resources total 733,000 ounces palladium; 245,100 ounces platinum and 43,600 ounces gold, using a 1.0 g/t cut off (Pt/Pd), according to a release dated 1-31-11 by Harry Barr, President and CEO at 1-800-667-1870.

* PALADIN ENERGY Ltd , February 1, 2011, completed its acquisition of AURORA ENERGY RESOURCES 6 uranium deposits in the Central Labrador Mineral Belt, with resources of 136.8 million pounds U3O8, all for 52,097,937 PALADIN shares to AURORA's parent, FRONTEER, according to an article in the February 7, 2011 UX Weekly.

PITCHSTONE EXPLORATION LTD in Athabasca Basin completed six diamond core holes totaling 4,786 feet, at the GUMBOOT 20 kilometers northwest of CIGAR LAKE last September, 2010. The alteration zone is coincident with a five kilometer long graphitic horizon. Summer, 2010 drilling of 1,600 meters was performed for the GUMBOOT project.

Earlier drilling there disclosed five holes showed thick zones of mineralized alteration in the conductive zone. GB-07 in the basal sandstone intercepted 4.2 meters of 0.11% U3O8, including a tenth of a meter of 2.06%. At JOHNSTON LAKE one 710 meter drill hole was drilled with intense alteration of the sandstone above the unconformity. (www.pitchstone.net). PITCHSTONE TSX Venture Exchange, PXP, Steven J. Blower, P.Geo., President and CEO, 604/630-5563.

* PUREPOINT URANIUM, January 11, 2011, signed with CAMECO for ongoing exploration at SMART LAKE in Athabasca Basin, according to a January 17, 2011 release in Ux Weekly. Purepoint may acquire a 35% interest in the project by spending C$1.9 million on exploration by 2013. The firm earlier completed a 20 hole, 3290 metre drilling program in the Osprey Zone at

Page 29

RED WILLOW project in Athabasca Basin. Assay work is in progress. To date Purepoint has defined 50 targets on its eight 100%-owned Athabasca Basin projects and has earned-in (20%) on two Cameco/UEX joint ventures. VP Scott Frostad, PGeo indicates the firm has eight Athabasca Basin projects and is still evolving models for exploration.

* RED ROCK ENERGY at Saskatchewan's URANIUM CITY has discovered a new zone of mineralization 600 meters east of the Red Rock 46 Zone with inferred mineralization of 523,00 pounds. Grade averages 0.065%. Further drilling is planned.

* RIO TINTO scout reports indicate February drilling will be on-going at RED WILLOW LAKE in Athabasca Basin.

STRATECO has defined mineral resources on part of the MATOUSH PROJECT in Quebec, where one hole with 30.6 metres ran 0.99% U3O8, and 4.5 metres of that interval ran 5.98%. The firm plans to double a 60,000 meters drilling program there to 120,000 meters and drilling has commenced with a drilling budget of US$8.1 million. Earlier the firm had doubled indicated mineral resource estimates to 7.46 million pounds at Quebec's Otish Mountains, in a NI 43-101 re-estimation of reserves by Scott Wilson Roscoe Postle Assoc.

* UEX 49%/AREVA(51%), February 24, 2011, announced commencement of the Western Athabasca drilling plan of a $9.51 million exploration and development program with AREVA drilling on the SHEA CREEK, DOUGLAS RIVER, and MIRROR RIVER JV projects.

SHEA CREEK drilling started up mid-February with three drills. A ground geophysics program has commenced on the KIANNA, ANNE and COLETTE deposits..

GOLD fire assays in 2010, from CLUFF LAKE drilling noted 20.79 g/t gold over 2.4 meters in hole SHE-087, and 14.02 g/t in SHE 115-3. Other holes were almost as good. Historically gold values have been known from earlier drilling at CLUFF.

Regulatory Issues – February, 2011

Courtesy of Oscar Paulson

1. Deferral of Active Regulation of Ground-Water Protection at In Situ Leach Uranium Extraction Facilities/ New Regulatory Section for Uranium Recovery

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) released a Regulatory Issues Summary (RIS entitled NRC REGULATORY ISSUE SUMMARY 2009-05 URANIUM RECOVERY POLICY REGARDING: (1) THE PROCESS FOR SCHEDULING LICENSING REVIEWS OF APPLICATIONS FOR NEW URANIUM RECOVERY FACILITIES AND (2) THE RESTORATION OF GROUNDWATER AT LICENSED URANIUM IN SITU RECOVERY FACILITIES dated April 29, 2009. In it they stated, ―As indicated above, the staff is now working with the EPA to resolve groundwater protection issues at ISR facilities and to revise Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 40 accordingly. The NRC expects that a draft of the proposed revisions to Appendix A will be published for public comment in 2010.‖ The industry should not expect any proposed rulemaking on this issue until 2011. This Regulatory Issues Summary (RIS) states:

Page 30

―Accordingly, the requirements in Criterion 5B of Appendix A apply to restoration of groundwater at uranium ISR facilities.‖

Around May 21, 2010, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced it was reviewing and may revise 40 CFR Part 192. This regulation contains specific language regarding Alternate Concentration Limits (ACLs) which undoubtedly is being considered for potential revision. Changes to 40 CFR Part 192 would impact 10 CFR Part 40 Appendix A Criterion 5B. Thus it appears that the EPA‘s review and potential revision of 40 CFR Part 192 may further delay work on deferral of active regulation of ground water protection at in-situ leach uranium extraction facilities. Commission staff has stated that they plan to proceed with the revision of NUREG- 1569 - Standard Review Plan for In Situ Leach Uranium Extraction License Applications before the rulemaking is complete indicating that any rulemaking is not imminent. This issue was not discussed in any depth at the NRC URANIUM RECOVERY LICENSING WORKSHOP on January 11 to 12, 2011 at the Teatro Hotel in Denver, Colorado.

2. Health Physics Issues

In correspondence to a uranium recovery license applicant, Commission staff questioned a number of accepted health physics practices at currently licensed uranium recovery facilities. The accepted health-physics practices include:

a. counting breathing zone sample filters,

b. applying the natural uranium Derived-Air Concentration (DAC) to the filter activity for worker-dose calculations, and

c. using the accepted (Regulatory Guide 1.86) release standard for Natural Uranium, Uranium235, 238, and associated decay products of 5,000 dpm/100cm2 average, 15,000 dpm/100cm2 maximum and 1,000 dpm/100cm2 removable alpha contamination at uranium recovery facilities.

Commission staff proposed using the more stringent Radium226 release standard of 100 dpm/100 cm2 average, 300 dpm/100 cm2 maximum and 20 dpm/100 cm2 removable alpha contamination for some areas within licensed uranium recovery facilities. Not only will this impact license applicants, but it will impact existing licensees.

The Wyoming Mining Association (WMA) submitted comments on these issues. No response from the Commission staff has been received. A reminder letter has been sent to the Commission staff. These issues were discussed at the Uranium Recovery Licensing Workshop in Denver, Colorado on November 17 to 18, 2009. The Commission staff believes that a Regulatory Issues Summary (RIS) may be issued revising Regulatory Guide 8.30 - Health Physics Surveys in Uranium Recovery Facilities to address these issues.

These issues were also discussed by Steve Brown of SENES in a presentation on May 27, 2010 at the National; Mining Association (NMA)/Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Uranium Recovery Workshop. He stated that changes were unnecessary.

A paper entitled ―Solubility of Radionuclides in Simulated Lung Fluid‖ was presented by Gioulchen Tairova at the URANIUM2010 conference in Saskatoon, Canada on Wednesday,

Page 31

August 18, 2010. This paper may be useful in addressing some of the Nuclear Regulatory NRC‘s concerns regarding internal dose from inhaled uranium.

These issues were discussed at the NRC public meeting in Denver, Colorado on Tuesday, January 11 to Wednesday, January 12, 2011 at the Teatro Hotel in Denver, Colorado.

Additional issues were raised including:

Calculation of dose from radon and its decay products to the nearest resident/member of the general public. Beta contamination on personnel Meteorological data collection 40.65 Report preparation

A technical meeting to discuss and resolve these issues is tentatively planned for late March 2011 involving three (3) technical representatives from industry (the industry group being led by Doug Chambers of SENES) and NRC staff. Please contact Katie Sweeney of the National Mining Association (NMA) at [email protected] for additional information.

3. Calculation of Dose to the Nearest Resident/Member of the General Public from Radon and its Decay Products from Licensed Uranium Recovery Facilities

NRC uranium recovery staff is planning to prepare a guidance document detailing acceptable methodologies to calculate dose to the nearest resident/member of the general public from radon and its decay products released from licensed uranium recovery facilities. Duane Schmidt will probably prepare the document. This guidance would in part address the preamble to the revised 10 CFR 20 (Federal Register Volume 56, Number 98 - Tuesday, May 21, 1991 - Rules and Regulations - page 23375) which states:

―The Commission is aware that some categories of licensees, such as uranium mills and in situ uranium mining facilities, may experience difficulties in determining compliance with the values in appendix B to Part 20.1001 – 20.2401, Table 2, for certain radionuclides, such as radon222. Provision has been made for licensees to use air and water concentration limits for protection of members of the general public that are different from those in Appendix B to Part 20.1001 – 20.2401, table 2, if the licensee can demonstrate that the physiochemical properties of the effluent justify such modification and the revised value is approved by the NRC. For example, uranium mill licensees could, under this provision, adjust the table 2 value for radon (with daughters) to take into account the actual degree of equilibrium present in the environment.‖

4. Response to Comments on Regulatory Issues Summary (RIS) 2009-05 URANIUM RECOVERY POLICY REGARDING: (1) THE PROCESS FOR SCHEDULING LICENSING REVIEWS OF APPLICATIONS FOR NEW URANIUM RECOVERY FACILITIES AND (2) THE RESTORATION OF GROUNDWATER AT LICENSED URANIUM IN SITU RECOVERY FACILITIES

Page 32

The NMA and the Wyoming Mining Association (WMA) submitted comments on this document to the Commission on or about June 2009. No response from the Commission has been received. A NMA conference call to discuss this issue was held on Thursday, December 3, 2009. The WMA has sent a reminder letter to Commission staff regarding these comments.

The regulation (10 CFR Part 40 Appendix A Criterion 5B) referenced in this document may ultimately be revised if the underlying Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulation (40 CFR part 192) is revised. 40 CFR part 192 is currently under review by the Agency and potentially may be revised.

This Regulatory Issues Summary (RIS) is impacting the use of the Standard Review Plan for In Situ Leach Uranium Extraction License Applications. NRC Staff has stated that, despite any indications otherwise, applicants should follow NUREG-1569 Standard Review Plan for In Situ Leach Uranium Extraction License Applications exactly as published, presumably with the exception of guidance regarding 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 5(B)(5) incorporated in the Regulatory Issues Summary (RIS). Little was said about this issue at the NRC URANIUM RECOVERY LICENSING WORKSHOP on January 11 to 12, 2011 at the Teatro Hotel in Denver, Colorado.

5. University of New Mexico (UNM) Study on Navajo Uranium Exposure

In an August 25, 2010 press release, the University of New Mexico (UNM) announced:

―The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), a division of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, has announced its cooperative agreement with the UNM Health Sciences Center for a $1 million a year, three-year study on pregnancy outcomes and child development in relation to uranium exposure among Navajo mothers and infants living on the Navajo Nation.‖

The release also states:

―The UNM Research team will include collaborators from the Southwest Research and Information Center as well as several Navajo community researchers. ―

Involvement of the Southwest Research and Information Center does not bode well for the uranium recovery industry. It is interesting to note that the study participants do not include Dr. Charles (Chuck) Wiggins, Director and Principal Investigator for the New Mexico Tumor Registry at the University of New Mexico‘s Cancer Research and Treatment Center and one of the most knowledgeable experts in this country, along with Dr. John Boice at Vanderbilt University and Dr. Nancy Standler of Valley View Medical Center.

This study was to have commenced on September 1, 2010. No additional information has been forthcoming. At the very least, study protocols should have been released.

6. Preparation of NUREG document entitled “Standard Review Plan for Conventional Mill and Heap Leach Uranium Extraction License Applications.”

Page 33

The NRC has decided to revise some existing Regulatory Guides and NUREGS as well as write new ones. The Commission has contracted with the Southwest Research Institute to prepare a NUREG entitled Standard Review Plan for Conventional Mill and Heap Leach Uranium Extraction License Applications. They are seeking input and data from industry. Two of the four current conventional uranium mill licensees are Association members. A conference call on this issue hosted by the NMA involving all of the four conventional mill licensees as well as two companies planning conventional mills was held on Friday, March 26, 2010.

If you have questions, please contact:

Jim Durham Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses San Antonio, TX 78238 Telephone: (210) 522-6934 E-mail: [email protected]

7. Legacy Uranium Mines (LUMs)

Robert Durasky of the EPA‘s Region VIII staff gave a PowerPoint presentation on February 1, 2011 to members of Region VIII staff regarding radon risks from legacy uranium mines (LUNs). The uranium recovery industry is very concerned about the tone and content of this presentation. The Central Rocky Mountain Chapter of the Health Physics Society (CRMCHPS) is planning to respond to this presentation.

8. Environmental Protection Agency Review and Potential Revision of Health and Environmental Standards for Uranium and Thorium Milling Facilities The EPA will be reviewing and potentially revising its regulations for uranium and thorium milling to bring them up-to- date. For additional information, see: http://www.epa.gov/radiation/docs/tenorm/40cfr192-063009-announcement.pdf

On May 21, 2010, the EPA announced two public meetings (one in Casper, Wyoming on Monday, May 24, 2010 and the second in Denver, Colorado on Wednesday, May 26, 2010) to gather public input on a review and potential revision of 40 CFR Part 192.

The Agency has established a discussion blog regarding the revision of 40 CFR Part 192. It may be found at: http://blog.epa.gov/milltailingblog/

This regulation covers inactive uranium processing sites and includes control of residual radioactive material and remediation of land and buildings. It addresses the management of byproduct materials including uranium processing and thorium processing wastes. It covers specific areas including byproduct materials and uranium processing. It addresses construction of impoundments and incorporates the double liner requirement in 40 CFR Part 264.92, effluent limitations in 40 CFR Part 440 and radiation protection standards in 40 CFR Part 190. It addresses reclamation including remediation of buildings, supplemental standards, alternate concentration limits (ACLs), radon releases following radon barrier emplacement and soil remediation standards (5/15 rule).

Page 34

On Tuesday, July 27, 2010, Tony Nesky of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sent an e-mail to various stakeholders requesting input on their blog at: http://blog.epa.gov/milltailingblog/

If you have questions please contact Tony Nesky at: [email protected]

In the Federal Register Volume 75, Number 226 dated Wednesday, November 24, 2010, the EPA issued a notice entitled Science Advisory Board Staff Office; Request for Nominations of Experts for Review of EPA‘s Draft Technical Report Pertaining to Uranium and Thorium In-Situ Leach Recovery and Post-Closure Stability Monitoring. This notice requests nominations for technical experts to review and provide advice on the planned draft scientific and technical report on Health and Environmental Protection Standards for Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings (40 CFR part 192). The deadline for nominations was December 15, 2010. The NMA submitted a list of nominees on behalf of the uranium recovery industry. Please contact Katie Sweeney of the National Mining Association (NMA) at [email protected] if you require a copy of the list.

9. Environmental Protection Agency – 40 CFR Part 61 Subpart W/Impoundments

Radon data collection at the request of the Agency by several licensees was completed on September 30, 2009.

The EPA, in spite of industry input to the contrary, continues to state that fluid retention ponds at in-situ uranium recovery facilities will fall under 40 CFR Part 61 Subpart W. This statement was made again by Reid Rosnick of the EPA at a public meeting on September 15, 2010 in Tuba City, Arizona. He also stated at this meeting that he expected a draft rule to be released at the end of 2011.

At a meeting with representatives of the uranium recovery industry on October 29, 2009 in Washington, D.C. he stated that 40 CFR Part 61 Subpart W as it is written, gives the EPA jurisdiction over fluid retention ponds containing 11(e).2 byproduct material fluids. He reiterated that the Agency must review and approve any plans for construction new tailings impoundments, fluid retention ponds and heap leach pads prior to commencement of work. In this latest discussion, heap leach pads were included in addition to fluid retention ponds. He also stated that fluid retention ponds would count against the two (2) operating forty (40) acre impoundment limit in 40 CFR Part 61 Subpart W.

Additional information may be found at: http://www.epa.gov/radiation/neshaps/subpartw/rulemaking-activity.html

The Agency persisted at the May 26 to 27, 2010 NMA/ NRC Uranium Recovery Workshop in claiming that fluid retention impoundments are to be regulated under 40 CFR Part 61 Subpart W like conventional mill tailings impoundments.

Page 35

The sixth conference call was held on Wednesday, January 5, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. Mountain Time. Reid Rosnick stated that the contractor (S. Cohen and Associates) has completed a risk assessment of radon emissions from sites and that it is undergoing internal Agency review.

In March or April 2011, it will be peer reviewed. It has not been determined as to whether the peer review board will either:

be appointed by Agency staff; be the same peer review group that will be used to evaluate the 40 CFR Part 192 technical report, or be a new group selected from nominees following a request for nominees placed in the Federal Register.

Data used in the study was discussed as well as whether the data used is valid. Concerns were raised regarding the fact that the data was not made available for review prior to preparation of the report. Reid Rosnick also discussed the uranium mining study being performed in Virginia stating that it provided information that may be useful in the 40 CFR Part 61 Subpart W review since some of it addressed impoundments in a high rainfall area. He was reminded that there were four conventional uranium mills in South Texas which is also a high rainfall/hurricane prone area and that real data from those sites should be used. The next conference call will be in April 2011.

The above report is Mr. Odell‘s first report to the EMD Uranium (Nuclear Minerals) Committee as the new Vice-Chair, Industry. His report is based on The Odell Rocky Mountain Uranium/Minerals Scout Report for February, 2011, which is available year round by subscription at: http://www.rdodell.vcn.com/, left margin. Earlier versions are available for review.

Disclaimer: Every effort is made to insure the contained scouting information above is reliable by contacting responsible representatives within the industry. Verification of all the details within these reports is impossible, and no warranties, express or implied should be assumed by the reader.

II. Uranium-Related University Research Activity

By Steven N. Sibray, P.G., (Vice-Chair: University), University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE

Uranium related research activities at the major United States universities were limited in scope in 2010. Funding sources were primarily from private sources, usually uranium mining companies. The Society of Economic Geologists provided four student grants related to uranium ore deposits, which are listed at the end of this report. The U.S. Geological Survey also provided a limited amount of funding.

Two faculty members of the Colorado School of Mines had active research projects related to uranium ore deposits. Dr. Thomas Monecke and a PhD graduate student (Julie Leibold) were investigating the mineralogy and geochemistry of the Three Crows roll front uranium deposit in Nebraska. Dr. Monecke was also conducting research on the mineralogy and geochemistry of the Lost Creek roll front deposit in Wyoming. Funding for the Three Crows study was provided by Cameco while the Lost Creek study was funded by UR Energy and the U.S. Geological

Page 36

Survey. Dr. Murray Hitzman and Sophie Hancock (PhD graduate student) were studying the hydrogeology of the Lost Creek deposit and were funded by UR Energy. Sophie Hancock presented a talk, ―In Situ Recovery: Hydrologic Aspects of Producing a Deposit with a Fault System‖, at the Rocky Mountain section meeting of AAPG at Durango, Colorado. Dr. Samuel Romberger of the Colorado School of Mines also presented a one day short course, ―Geology and Geochemistry of Uranium Deposits‖ at the Rocky Mountain section meeting of AAPG. Two faculty members (Linda Figueroa and Jim Ranville) of the Colorado School of Mines are also involved in studying microbially mediated removal of radionuclides.

At the University of Wyoming, Dr. Kevin Chamberlain and Ken Sims, are studying the potential applications of isotope geochemistry to ISR mining of uranium. Their study is funded by Cameco. Dr. Peter Stahl and graduate student Lisa Cox are studying in-situ methods of remediating radium contaminated soils. Funding is provided by the State of Wyoming and the Wyoming Mining Association.

Dr. Virginia Mclemore at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology presented a talk at the Rocky Mountain section of AAPG at Durango, Colorado on the Grants Mineral Belt. Dr. Mclemore‘s paper, ―The Grants Uranium District, New Mexico: Update on Source, Deposition, and Exploration‖ is being published in the Mountain Geologist in 2011. New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology will be hosting a conference, ―The Uranium Fuel Conference‖ at Hobbs, New Mexico April 27-28, 20011.

At the University of Nebraska, the author of this report, Steven Sibray, presented a talk on the ―Revised White River Group Stratigraphy and Uranium Mineralization in the Nebraska Panhandle‖ at the Rocky Mountain section of AAPG at Durango, Colorado. Steven Sibray‘s paper, ―White River Group Paleosols as Source Rocks for Uranium Mineralization in Nebraska is being published in the Mountain Geologist in 2011. During the last thirty years, there has been a great deal of change in the way that geologists look at sedimentary rocks. Sequence stratigraphy and paleopedology (study of fossil soils) have given geologists new tools that can help interpret the paleohydrogeology of clastic sequences that contain sandstone uranium deposits. Detailed studies of the Tertiary White River Group, the Jurassic Morrison Formation, and the Triassic Chinle Formation have been conducted by academic geologists interested in reconstructing past climates and environments.

With renewed interest in uranium as a fuel, there is the potential for developing a better understanding of the genesis of the sandstone uranium deposits. It is the author‘s opinion that by analyzing Th/U ratios in volcaniclastic sequences, it may be possible to identify potential source rocks for uranium in frontier exploration areas. Additional research in understanding the relationship of potential source rocks, sequence stratigraphy, and paleohydrogeology of volcaniclastic sequences should result in better understanding of how sandstone uranium form which should aid in identifying potential exploration targets in frontier areas.

In late 2010, Steven Sibray, University of Nebraska, Bruce D. Smith, U.S. Geological Survey; Jared D. Abraham, U.S. Geological Survey and James C. Cannia, U.S. Geological Survey realized that the airborne electromagnetic [AEM] surveys that they were conducting to characterize the aquifers in the Nebraska Panhandle could be used to image areas where deep confined aquifers within White River Group sediments might contain economic deposits of uranium. The resolution of the White River Group paleochannels is constrained by the thick electrically conductive materials of the overlying sediments and the limitations of the systems

Page 37 being used to characterize the shallow unconfined aquifers. However, fixed wing AEM systems can effectively map down to 500 meters and would allow mapping of the White River Group paleochannels with good resolution over most of the Nebraska Panhandle. Bruce Smith will provide a review of the potential applications of airborne electromagnetic surveys in the exploration for the major types of uranium deposits in the U2011 meeting in Casper. Steven Sibary will review the results from the AEM surveys conducted in Nebraska at the same meeting.

Students receiving research grants related to uranium from Society of Economic Geologists in 2010:

Elizabeth Bloch, $2,000, University of Texas at Austin, USA, Ph.D.; Nature and origin of the Be-U-REE-rich fluorspar deposits associated with the Round Top laccolith, Trans-Pecos, Texas, USA.

Alina V. Kuptsova, $1,500, St. Petersburg State University, Russia, PhD.; Geochemistry and alteration of sandstone and basement rocks of the East-AnBasin with high potential for unconformity-type uranium deposits.

Alex Moyes $2,500, University of Utah, USA, M.S.; Porosity and Permeability characterization of Gas Hills uranium roll front deposit with application to Hydraulic Fracturing.

Jim Renaud, $2,500, University of Western Ontario, Canada, Ph.D.; Mineralogical zoning of the U3O8 Corp. basement-hosted Archeng uranium deposit, Roraima Basin, British Guyana, South America.

III. Uranium-Related Government Research Activity

By Robert W. Gregory, P.G., (Vice-Chair: Government), Wyoming State Geological Survey, Laramie, WY

Uranium related research activity for 2010 included a number of projects at the US Geological Survey along with some cooperative projects with the EPA A few projects were also in progress at the state level in addition to their ongoing duties and investigations.

The USGS is focusing on projects related to ISR operations in New Mexico (Grants Mineral Belt), South Texas and Wyoming‘s Powder River Basin. Dr. Tanya Gallegos is studying various aspects of the leaching process in an effort to better understand chemical reactions taking place between lixiviant and host rock as part of their ―Uranium Life Cycle‖ studies. Core samples are characterized and tested in a laboratory setting to determine what processes might lead to more selective mobilization of uranium while leaving undesirable elements in the solid state. Dr. Raymond Johnson specializes in hydrogeology and, in cooperation with the EPA, is modeling reactions taking place during the formation of uranium ore deposits. Additionally, he is studying the behavior of plumes of contamination to help maintain the integrity of an aquifer. Dr. Johnson‘s study area is Powertech Uranium Corp.‘s Dewey Burdock site in southwestern South Dakota. Dr. Susan Hall is a specialist in water quality and recently completed a study on groundwater restoration at ISR mines in South Texas. The aim of her work is to examine legacy

Page 38 projects, investigate the chemistry of groundwater over extended periods of time, and move toward improving restoration techniques.

The Wyoming State Geological Survey in Laramie currently has no active research projects underway but plans are in place to seek funding from the University of Wyoming‘s School of Energy Resources. The SER has received significant funding from the Wyoming Legislature for the purpose of developing a research program for uranium that:

―shall focus on optimizing the economic recovery of the resource through ground water restoration, research on waste water management and the development of a seminar to educate the public and the industry about uranium and uranium extraction.‖

Several research topics are sought including exploration and ore-body delineation, ore body characterization and uranium recovery, water management, treatment and disposal, restoration, and regulation. The RFP is open to academia, private industry, state government agencies, and private individuals. Project proposals are graded and competitive and will be accepted until May 6, 2011.

The WSGS recently completed a uranium map for the state of Wyoming and is nearing completion of two additional publications on uranium geology. The Uranium Map of Wyoming (R.W. Gregory, R.W. Jones, and K.D. Cottingham, 2010) shows mine and occurrence locations, future mining projects, ore-bearing formations, brief descriptions of modes of occurrence, and various additional information. The WSGS also will soon publish an information circular for general audiences and a mineral report on the roll-front geology of the Shirley Basin Mine area, central Wyoming. Through the USGS‘s STATEMAP program, the author has sought and received funding to geologically map areas with known uranium deposits and production, either past, current or future. Current STATEMAP projects of this type are the Bairoil and Shirley Basin 1:100,000 scale quadrangles. WSGS staff is also investigating known occurrences and potential new deposits of Rare Earth Elements by re-analyzing historic samples from areas with reported anomalies, as well as new target areas based on existing models of known deposits and occurrences.

At the Texas Bureau of Economic Geology (TBEG), Nicot, et al. (2009) recently completed a very comprehensive study of the South Texas Uranium Province which covers the geology and geography of that important uranium-producing district. Coverage includes stratigraphy, hydrostratigraphy, geological structure, and geochemistry of uranium-bearing rock formations as well as topography, precipitation, and soil distribution.

At the New Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources, Dr. Virginia McLemore engages in ongoing investigations of uranium concentrations in ore bodies and soils using X-ray fluorometry among her other studies and endeavors.

The Arizona Geological Survey is a cooperating agency with the US Bureau of Land Management in developing a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) outlining four alternatives to administering one-million acres of primarily federal land around the Grand Canyon. These lands are under review because they contain numerous breccia pipe uranium deposits, and many environmental and Native American groups have expressed opposition to new mining of these small, deep, and high grade deposits.

Page 39

Most of the other State operate similarly to the WSGS by monitoring the overall state of the industry with respect to exploration, and development and provide assistance and information to private industry, academia, other government entities, and the public at large.

References

1. Anon., 2010, ―U.S. Energy Consumption by Energy Source‖, U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), August, Accessed by Internet, March 8, 2011, http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/trends/table1.html

2. Anon., 2011, ―Domestic Uranium Production Report – Quarterly‖, U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), February, Accessed by Internet, March 8, 2011, http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/dupr/qupd.html

3. Anon., 2010, ―Uranium Purchased by Owners and Operators of U.S. Civilian Nuclear Power Reactors‖, U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), August, Accessed by Internet, March 8, 2011, http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/umar/summarytable1.html

4. Anon., 2004, ―U.S. Uranium Reserves Estimates by State‖, U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), June, Accessed by Internet, March 8, 2011, http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/reserves/uresst.html

5. Anon., 2010, ―Uranium Marketing Annual Report‖, U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), August, Accessed by Internet, March 8, 2011, http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/umar/umar.html

6. Anon., 2011, ―U.S. Uranium In-Situ-Leach Plants by Owner, Capacity, and Operating Status‖, U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), February, Accessed by Internet, March 8, 2011, http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/dupr/qupd_tbl4.html 7. Anon., 2010, ―U.S. Uranium Drilling by Number of Holes‖, U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), July, Accessed by Internet, March 8, 2011, http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/dupr/udrillingfig1.html

8. Anon., 2010, ―U.S. Uranium in Footage‖, U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), July, Accessed by Internet, March 8, 2011, http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/dupr/udrillingfig2.html

9. Campbell, M. D. and H. M. Wise, 2010, ―Uranium Recovery Realities in the U.S., - A Review‖, Houston Geological Society, Environmental and Engineering Dinner Meeting, May 18, Accessed by Internet, March 8, 2011, http://www.mdcampbell.com/HGSUraniumRecoveryRealitiesV1.9.pdf

10. Anon., 2011, ―INFCIS – Integrated Nuclear Fuel Cycle Information Systems‖, International Atomic Energy Agency, Accessed by Internet, March 8, 2011, http://www-nfcis.iaea.org/Default.asp

11. Anon., 2011, ―UxC Nuclear Fuel Price Indicators (Delayed)‖, The Ux Consulting Company, Accessed by Internet, March 8, 2011, http://uxc.com/review/uxc_Prices.aspx

12. Anon., 2010, ―Domestic Uranium Production Report‖, U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), July, Accessed by Internet, March 8, 2011, http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/dupr/dupr.html

Page 40

13. Anon., 2003, ―The Future of Nuclear Power – An Interdisciplinary MIT Study‖, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Accessed by Internet, March 8, 2011, http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/

14. Anon., 2009, ―Update of the MIT 2003 Future of Nuclear Power – An Interdisciplinary MIT Study‖, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Accessed by Internet, March 8, 2011, http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/pdf/nuclearpower-update2009.pdf

15. Anon., 2011, ―INFCIS – Integrated Nuclear Fuel Cycle Information Systems‖, International Atomic Energy Agency, Accessed by Internet, March 8, 2011, http://www-nfcis.iaea.org/iNFCISMain.asp?RightP=Navigation

16. Anon., 2010, ―In Situ Leach (ISL) Mining of Uranium‖, World Nuclear Association, March, Accessed by Internet, March 8, 2011, http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf27.html

17. Anon., 2011, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Accessed by Internet, March 8, 2011, http://www.nrc.gov/

18. Anon., 2011, Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Accessed by Internet, March 8, 2011, http://deq.state.wy.us/

19. Anon., 2010, ―Supply of Uranium‖, World Nuclear Association, December, Accessed by Internet, March 8, 2011, http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf75.htmllbAppendix

20. Brown, D., 2010, ―Uranium: World Class Deposit‖, Uranium Investing News, 8 June, Accessed by Internet, March 8, 2011, http://uraniuminvestingnews.com/3872/uranium-world-class- deposit.html

21. Anon., 2011, Uranium Investing News, Accessed by Internet, March 8, 2011, http://www.uraniuminvestingnews.com/

22. Pinkasovitch, A., 2010, ―Nuclear Energy of the Future‖, Investopedia, 30 July, http://stocks.investopedia.com/stock-analysis/2010/Nuclear-Energy-Of-The-Future-CCJ-MGA.TO-FIU.TO-U.TO- NLR0730.aspx

23. Anon., 2011, World Nuclear Association, Accessed by Internet, March 8, 2011, http://www.world-nuclear.org/

24. Anon., 2010, ―Unit Converter‖, WISE Uranium Project, November, Accessed by Internet, March 8, 2011, http://www.wise-uranium.org/cunit.html

25. Campbell, M. D., 2010, ―World Uranium Occurrences: Country, Name, Type, and Status – 2009‖, American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Energy Minerals Division, Accessed by Internet, March 8, 2011, http://www.ela-iet.com/EMD/WorldUranium2009.pdf

26. MacDonald, C., 2003, ―Uranium: Sustainable Resource or Limit to Growth?‖, World Nuclear Association Annual Symposium, 3-5 September, London, Accessed by Internet, March 8, 2011, http://www.world-nuclear.org/sym/2003/pdf/macdonald.pdf

Page 41

27. Anon., 2010, ―Uranium from Phosphates‖, World Nuclear Association, August, Accessed by Internet, March 8, 2011, http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/phosphates_inf124.html

28. Anon., 2010, ―Thorium‖, World Nuclear Association, July, Accessed by Internet, March 8, 2011, http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.html

29. Anon., 2011, ―Military Warheads as a Source of Nuclear Fuel‖, World Nuclear Association, January, Accessed by Internet, March 8, 2011, http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf13.html

30. Anon., 2011, ―Processing of Used Nuclear Fuel‖, World Nuclear Association, January, Accessed by Internet, March 8, 2011, http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf69.html

31. Hagen, R. E., J. R. Moens, and Zdenek D. N., 2001, ―Impact of U.S. Nuclear Generation on Greenhouse Gas Emissions‖, U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), November 6-9, 2001, Accessed by Internet, March 8, 2011, http://www.ela-iet.com/EMD/HagenetalEIAGreenhouseGas2001.pdf

32. Anon., 2010, ―The Nuclear Renaissance‖, World Nuclear Association, December, Accessed by Internet, March 8, 2011, http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf104.html

33. Anon., 2011, ―Small Nuclear Reactors‖, World Nuclear Association, March, Accessed by Internet, March 8, 2011, http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf33.html

34. Anon., 2011, ―Domestic Uranium Production- Quarterly‖, U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), February, Accessed by Internet, March 8, 2011, http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/dupr/qupd.html

35. Anon., 2009, ―What is the status of the U.S. nuclear industry?‖, U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), December, Accessed by Internet, March 8, 2011, http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energy_in_brief/nuclear_industry.cfm?src=email

36. Campbell, M. D., et al., 2010, ―Confronting Media & Other Bias Against Nuclear Power, Uranium Exploration & Mining, and Associated Environmental Issues‖, I2M Associates LLC, 1 April, Accessed by Internet, March 8, 2011, http://mdcampbell.com/CAReviewszz/I2MAReviews.htm

37. Anon., November 2010, ―Liability for Nuclear Damage‖, World Nuclear Association, Accessed by Internet, March 8, 2011, http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf67.html

38. Anon., 2005, ―Chernobyl – True Scale of the Accident‖, International Atomic Energy Agency, Accessed by Internet, March 8, 2011, Accessed by Internet, March 8, 2011, http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Multimedia/Videos/CNNChernobylReport/index.html

39. Campbell, M. D. and W. A. Ambrose, 2010, ―Moon Uranium Has Intriguing Implications‖, AAPG Explorer, July, Accessed by Internet, March 8, 2011, http://www.aapg.org/explorer/2010/07jul/moon0710.cfm

40. Campbell, M. D. et al., 2009, ―The Role of Nuclear Power in Space Exploration and the Associated Environmental Issues: An Overview‖, A Report by the Uranium Committee of the Energy Minerals Division, AAPG, 2 June, Accessed by Internet, March 8, 2011,

Page 42

http://www.aapg.org/committees/astrogeology/EMDCampbell060909925AM.pdf

Special Archive Links: http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull232/23204882123.pdf http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-preview.axd?code=m4pj5l7456m57313&size=largest http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull311/31105681619.pdf

Research on China (Here)

Research on India (Here)

Early Research on U.S. (Here) More Recent Research (Here)

Page 43