View
1
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
31 Ord Street, West Perth WA 6005,
GPO Box 2809, West Perth WA 6872 Phone: +61 (0) 8 9420 9333 Fax: +61 (0) 8 9321 2477
Peninsula Minerals Limited - ABN: 67 062 409 303
18 September 2008 Companies Announcement Off ice Via Electronic Lodgement
PENINSULA MINERALS LIMITED PRESENTATION
Please find attached an updated version of the Peninsula Minerals Limited presentation on the Lance Projects in Wyoming, U.S.A and the Karoo Projects in South Africa.
The presentation can also be found on the Company’s website:
www.peninsulaminerals.com.au
Yours Sincerely
Jonathan Whyte Company Secretary For further information, please contact our office on (08)9420 9333 during normal business hours.
Peninsula MineralsDeveloping Uranium Projects on
Three ContinentsThree Continents
Lance Project – Wyoming USAWyoming
U j y gU
Western AustraliaU
South AfricaU/Mo
USouth Australia
U
DisclaimerThis presentation is provided on the basis that the Company nor its representatives make any warranty (express or implied) as tothe accuracy, reliability, relevance or completeness of the material contained in the Presentation and nothing contained in thePresentation is, or may be relied upon as, a promise, representation or warranty, whether as to the past or the future. TheCompany hereby excludes all warranties that can be excluded by law. The Presentation contains material which is predictive innature and may be affected by inaccurate assumptions or by known and unknown risks and uncertainties, and may differ materiallyfrom results ultimately achieved.The Presentation contains “forward‐looking statements”. All statements other than those of historical facts included in thePresentation are forward‐looking statements including estimates of resources. However, forward‐looking statements are subject torisks, uncertainties and other factors, which could cause actual results to differ materially from future results expressed, projectedor implied by such forward‐looking statements. Such risks include, but are not limited to, gold and other metals price volatility,currency fluctuations increased production costs and variances in ore grade or recovery rates from those assumed in mining planscurrency fluctuations, increased production costs and variances in ore grade or recovery rates from those assumed in mining plans,as well as political and operational risks and governmental regulation and judicial outcomes. The Company does not undertake anyobligation to release publicly any revisions to any “forward‐looking statement” to reflect events or circumstances after the date ofthe Presentation, or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events, except as may be required under applicable securities laws.All persons should consider seeking appropriate professional advice in reviewing the Presentation and all other information withrespect to the Company and evaluating the business, financial performance and operations of the Company. Neither the provisionespect to t e Co pa y a d e a uat g t e bus ess, a c a pe o a ce a d ope at o s o t e Co pa y. e t e t e p o s oof the Presentation nor any information contained in the Presentation or subsequently communicated to any person in connectionwith the Presentation is, or should be taken as, constituting the giving of investment advice to any person.The information in this presentation that relates to Exploration Results and Exploration Potential is based on information compiledby Mr Jim Guilinger. Mr Guilinger is President of consultancy World Industrial Minerals and is a Competent Person under thedefinition of the 2004 JORC Code. The Exploration Potential described above is conceptual in nature, and there is insufficientinformation to establish whether further exploration will result in the determination of a Mineral Resource. Mr Guilinger consentsto the publication of this information in the form and context in which it appears.The Presentation does not relate to any securities which will be registered under the United States Securities Act of 1933 nor anysecurities which may be offered or sold in the United States or to a U.S. person unless registered under the United States SecuritiesAct of 1933 or in a transaction exempt from registration.
C it l St tCapital Structure ASX Code PEN
Existing shares 961 million
Options 218 million
Market Cap A$25 million
C h A$4 6 illiCash A$4.6 million
Daily turnover 3 14 millionDaily turnover 3‐14 million
ManagementManagementCharacterised by Leadership and Uranium Expertisey p p
Directors and ManagementExecutive Chairman Gus Simpson Strong leadership, corporate and project management skills
T h i l Di t D Al M lTechnical Director Dr. Alan Marlow PhD in economic geology and uranium specialist (ex Gencor)
Chief Operating Officer Andrew FordHighly experienced exploration geologist and project manager (ex Barrick Gold)
Non Executive Director Malcolm James Strong corporate and project financing experience (ex Anaconda)
Non Executive Director Warwick Grigor Experienced Mining Analyst and corporate director (ex County Nat West)
Company Secretary Jonathan WhyteChartered Accountant and experienced company secretary (ex Barclays Capital plc)
Project Manager Wyoming Jim GuilingerHighly experienced Uranium geologist (ex Texaco)
Engineering Professional Doug ChristophersonExperienced Mining engineer with expertise in mine feasibility studies and mine design
Chief Geologist Wyoming Bob GuilingerHighly experienced Uranium geologist (ex Union Carbide)
Mine Permitting Professional Lee Patrick GochnourVery experienced at permitting new operations and environmental management
Project Manager Karoo Peter Danchin Experienced uranium explorer and project manager (ex Union Carbide)p p p j g ( )
Operations Manager South Africa Douglas Goodall Highly experienced African Explorer
Comparative ValuationComparative ValuationResearchResearchResearch report1 rated Peninsula as having high quality projectshigh quality projects and as being under valuedAt US$50/lb
At US $90/lb
Reasons: USA miningUSA mining environment misunderstoodNeed for land acquisition secrecy resulted in a lack of project information
1Source: Far East Capital Uranium Sector Analysis 21 April 2008.
Global Energy RequirementsGlobal Energy RequirementsThe world is well on the way toconsuming as much energy in thenext 25 years as it has consumedthroughout modern history
Current reliance on coal to provide majority of base load power generation to continue
Increasing pressure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions whilst reducing reliance on imported energy sourcessources
US President recently referred to nuclear power as " . . . the best solution to make sure we have economic growth and atsure we have economic growth and at the same time make sure we are being good stewards of the environment."
World Uranium Demand to Grow RapidlyWorld Uranium Demand to Grow Rapidly
N l P i thNuclear Power is the complimentary base load power source to coal
Uranium demand will increase from 170 million lb
bper annum to between 536 and 661 million lb per annum by 2050 (equivalent to 15 Olympic Dam sized mines)*mines)
Current reactor status439 operational33 under construction94 planned
d222 proposed
* Source: International Energy Agency “Desired energy Mix Scenarios for 2050” June 6 2008
Projects Summaryj yProject Area Historic Exploration
Lance projects ‐Wyoming USA
12,905 acres (52 km2) Data from 5,036 rotary and percussion holes for 912,000m.Wyoming USA 912,000m.
13 historic resources over 23 miles (37km) of strike consisting of vertically stacked roll front uranium i li ti PEN t l titl 7 f thmineralisation; PEN controls title over 7 of these.
40,000 lb U3O8 per year Pilot Plant built in 1978 and ran for 10 months.
Decision to proceed with full scale production plant abandoned due to Three Mile Island Incident.
Karoo Projects: Tenure covers 1,980km2 Over 1,300 rotary and percussion holes drilled historically jEastern, Western and Northern Cape Province, South Africa
(764 sq miles) from 6 Projects known as Sites 5, 22, 29,37,45,49
at four of the Sites.New high level radiometric anomalies identified at all six sites. Follow up on‐ground work confirms Uranium presence.
Historic resources identified at 3 Sites.
U and Mo mineralisation identified at all Sites.
South Australian and Western Australian Projects
12 Projects covering 864km2 (334 sq miles)
Early exploration in quality uranium provinces.
Lance Project DescriptionLance Project DescriptionThe Lance projects areThe Lance projects are situated in NE Wyoming, 31 miles (50 km) NE of Gillette in the Powder Ri B iRiver BasinThe PRB has 2 operating ISR minesTh PRB h 5 ISRThe PRB has 5 ISR projects in restoration or permittingWyoming has anotherWyoming has another 10 Uranium projects in various stages of developmentWyoming has numerous active exploration projects
Wyoming Mining Environmenty g gUS annual consumption of 50 million lb U3O8 per/year
92% of US uranium demand is met by imports
Federal Government desires increased self reliance
In 1980 the USA was the worlds leading uranium producer
Wyoming is currently the USA’s leading uranium producerWyoming is currently the USA s leading uranium producer
Uranium production has been continuous since 1951
All current production is from In‐Situ Recovery (ISR)p y ( )
Wyoming production is predicted to grow from 3 million lb in 2007 to 17 million lb in 2015
W i DEQ i f i l ll f d d d ll i dWyoming DEQ is professional, well funded and well practiced
Wyoming has significant revenue from coal, oil, and uranium productionp
30m thick coal seam Rio Tinto-seam, Rio TintoPeabody Antelope Mine, Gillette Wyoming
Lance Project Historyj yUranium mineralisation first identified by Mr Al Stoick in late 1960’sIn 1970 Mr Stoick initiated a JV between Bethlehem Steel, Nuclear Dynamics and later Pacific Power and Hydro (NuBeth JV)and later Pacific Power and Hydro (NuBeth JV).Between 1970‐1979 5,036 holes for more than 3.5 million ft (912,000m) were drilled h d ll d f d f l d ffThis drilling defined significant uranium mineralisation in 13 different locations over a strike length of 23 miles (37km)In 1978 a ISR pilot plant was constructed and operated for a period of sixmonthsThe Pilot Plant was designed to produce 40,000lb U3O8 /year utilising a benign leachate of sodium bicarbonate
Looking NE towards Devils Tower, Lance Project
Lance Projects HistoryAfter 6 months of successful operation a proposal to commence full scaleproduction was prepared for presentation to the JV members however on the28 March 1979 the Three Mile Island incident occurred28 March 1979 the Three Mile Island incident occurred
The pilot plant was shut down shortly after this and thoroughly rehabilitated
All environmental bonds were reimbursed by 1984
The project lay dormant until 2005 when Mr Stoick brought the project data toparties associated with Peninsula Minerals
Peninsula identified the potential of the project and recognised that the task ofPeninsula identified the potential of the project and recognised that the task of acquiring additional title was achievable
Mr Stoick is employed by Peninsula continuing a 40+ year involvement with the project
Rehabilitated NuBeth storage ponds
Site Infrastructure
The region is serviced by well maintained sealed roads and theproject is traversed by well maintained unsealed roadsproject is traversed by well maintained unsealed roads
Activities in the project area include minimal stock raising, low leveloil and gas productionoil and gas production
Topography is gently undulating hills covered by grasses andsagebrushsagebrush
Oil production wells, Lance Project
Lance GeologyMineral Title
Lance Projects Area with PEN
currently held is outlined in blue a ce ojec s ea
holdings covers 23 miles (37km) N‐S, 5 miles (8km) E‐W
Main hosts to U mineralisation
in blue, and being acquired
Main hosts to U mineralisation are the Lance Formation and Fox Hills Sandstone N
outlined in black
22 Roll fronts which are linear but sinuous in nature over combined strike length of 127
37 km
Geological Legend gmiles (207 km)Fort Union Fm
Alluvium
Lance FmFox Hills FmPierre ShaleGreenhorn FmBelle Fourche Shale
Geological Legend
Minor U Mineralisation
Major U hostMajor U host
Skull Creek ShaleNewcastle Fm
Belle Fourche ShaleMowry Fm
6km (3.8 miles)
Historic Explorationtitle
being acquired
Total of 5,036 holes for 912,000m drilled by NuBeth JV in 1970’s
acquired outlined in black
9 0 s
N
Geological Legend
Fort Union FmAlluvium
Lance FmFox Hills FmPierre ShaleGreenhorn FmBelle Fourche Shale
Geological Legend
Minor U Mineralisation
Major U hostMajor U host
Skull Creek ShaleNewcastle Fm
Belle Fourche ShaleMowry Fm
6km (3.8 miles)
Emerson Historic l iLucas
Houx Cl k
Explorationtitle being acquired Widespread Uranium
mineralisation hosted in multiple roll fronts
Houx Clark
RossKendrick
acquired outlined in black
identified over 13 project areasCareyBrookes
Ch tt tN
Geological Legend
Chatterton
RichardsOsborne
Fort Union FmAlluvium
Lance FmFox Hills FmPierre ShaleGreenhorn FmBelle Fourche Shale
Geological Legend
Minor U Mineralisation
Major U hostMajor U host
BarberSkull Creek ShaleNewcastle Fm
Belle Fourche ShaleMowry Fm
Warren6km (3.8 miles)
Emerson Historic l iLucas
Houx Cl k
Explorationtitle being acquired Over 22 mineralised sand units
identifiedUp to 8 mineralised sands are
Houx Clark
RossKendrick
acquired outlined in black
ppresent in any one project areaMineralisation depth between 360 ‐500ft (120‐160m)
CareyBrookes
Ch tt tN
( )Water table at between 35‐100ft (10‐35m) ideal for in‐situ recoveryGeological Legend
Chatterton
RichardsOsborne
recoveryFort Union FmAlluvium
Lance FmFox Hills FmPierre ShaleGreenhorn FmBelle Fourche Shale
Geological Legend
Minor U Mineralisation
Major U hostMajor U host
BarberSkull Creek ShaleNewcastle Fm
Belle Fourche ShaleMowry Fm
Warren6km (3.8 miles)
Historic Av 5ft @ 0.04%eU3O8
MineralisationAv 8ft @ 0.10%eU3O8
Av 4ft @ 0 12%eU OAv 15ft @All projects contain grades above realistic cut‐off thresholds of 0.02% U3O8 for an ISR operation
Av 4ft @ 0.12%eU3O8Av 15ft @ 0.04%eU3O8
Av 13ft @ 0.05%eU3O8Av 3.5ft @ 0 11%eU O 3 8
Average thickness 5‐15 ft ideal for ISR
N
0.11%eU3O8 Av 6ft @ 0.11%eU3O8Av 7ft @ 0.06% Av 5ft @ 0 04%eU O
Geological Legend
ISR0.06% eU3O8
Av 5ft @ 0.04%eU3O8
Av 7ft @ 0.09%eU3O8
Av 8ft @Fort Union FmAlluvium
Lance FmFox Hills FmPierre ShaleGreenhorn FmBelle Fourche Shale
Geological Legend
Minor U Mineralisation
Major U hostMajor U host
Av 8ft @ 0.07%eU3O8
Av 5ft @
Skull Creek ShaleNewcastle Fm
Belle Fourche ShaleMowry Fm
Av 5ft @ 0.11%eU3O8
Av 10ft @ 0.07%eU3O8
6km (3.8 miles)
Historic best 13ft @ 0.24%eU3O8
best 15ft @ 0 22%eU Obest 53ft @Mineralisation
Grades over 0.10% eU3O8are widespreadP i l f hi h d
best 15ft @ 0.22%eU3O8best 53ft @ 0.03%eU3O8
best 13ft @ 0.28%eU3O8
Potential for higher gradezones existsAverage thickness 5‐15 ft;N
best 11ft @ 0.09%eU3O8best 7ft @ 0.07%
Geological Legend
ideal for ISR0.07% eU3O8
best 12ft @ 0.16%eU3O8
best 4ft @Fort Union FmAlluvium
Lance FmFox Hills FmPierre ShaleGreenhorn FmBelle Fourche Shale
Geological Legend
Minor U Mineralisation
Major U hostMajor U host
best 4ft @ 0.23%eU3O8
best 8ft @
Skull Creek ShaleNewcastle Fm
Belle Fourche ShaleMowry Fm
best 8ft @ 0.25%eU3O8
best 11ft @ 0.28%eU3O8
6km (3.8 miles)
Exploration xplorationPotentialtitle
being acquired
Global Exploration Target Size within and between all project
acquired outlined in black
p jareas is 39‐60 million short tons @ 0.05‐0.07% eU3O8 for 50‐76 million lbs U3O8
1N
Geological Legend
Historic testing supports In‐Situ Recovery process
Fort Union FmAlluvium
Lance FmFox Hills FmPierre ShaleGreenhorn FmBelle Fourche Shale
Geological Legend
Minor U Mineralisation
Major U hostMajor U host
Skull Creek ShaleNewcastle Fm
Belle Fourche ShaleMowry Fm
6km (3.8 miles)
In‐Situ Recovery (Leaching)In Situ Recovery (Leaching)ISR is the extraction of Uranium from sandstone aquifers by thecycling of oxygen enriched water through the aquifer which hostsU3O8 deposits on the redox frontsThese deposits occur from the precipitation of U3O8 out of solutionp p p 3 8when uranium enriched ground water moving through thesandstone encounters a oxygen reduced (redox front) section of theaquiferAssuming the sandstone aquifer meets the pre‐conditions for thisstyle of mineral extraction this is a relatively simple, low costoperationThe mining operation can be low cost as there is no blasting, earthmoving and milling component to the processTypically 36% of the worlds Uranium production is from ISR(L)Typically 36% of the worlds Uranium production is from ISR(L)operations
ISR Geologygy
U3O8 mineralisation occurs at the interface between oxidized and reduced zones
Source: Wyoming Mining Association
Classic roll front geology in a sandstone aquiferIn situ recovery is relatively simple if key characteristics are present in the depositthe depositContainment PermeabilityWater TableLeachabilityDepth
Ross Project Historic hydrological and metallurgical testing demonstrate:
Containment – show impermeable shale beds are present above and below theContainment show impermeable shale beds are present above and below the main uraniferous sandstonesPermeability ‐ good horizontal (2‐4 darcy’s) and vertical permeability (1‐3 darcy’s)
and porosity (35%); low clay content (5%)Water Table – water table between 10‐30m, main ore 120‐160m (head of water
determines the volume of oxygen in solution)Leachability ‐ uranium that can be leached from cores in laboratory tests (89‐95%
recovery)Depth – all main aquifers are below the water at economically pumpable depths
In‐Field Tests Showed:
Successful push‐pull test indicates good recharge and movement of groundwaterSuccessful in‐situ leaching of uranium from the sandstone formation Successful restoration of the groundwater in the area mined.
Development ModelDevelopment Model
To delineate 15m lb U3O8 of Indicated Resource at twoproject locationsproject locations
To build a 1 5m lb per year U O production facility and anTo build a 1.5m lb per year U3O8 production facility and anIn‐ Situ Recovery operation at a centralised locationwithin the Lance Projects with production within 1 year ofwithin the Lance Projects with production within 1 year ofpermitting
Continue to add additional resources through explorationwithin our own project areaswithin our own project areas
Development ModelDevelopment ModelInitial Production Centre's
Exploration target size at Ross for feasibility decision is 6.4‐9.5 illi h @ 0 05 0 07%
Production Centre 1RossExploration target size million short tons @ 0.05‐0.07%
eU3O8 for 8‐12 million lb U3O81
N
Exploration target size8-12 million lb U3O8
Geological Legend
Barber exploration target size for feasibility decision is 2.6‐3.9 million short tons @ 0.07‐0.09%
Fort Union FmAlluvium
Lance FmFox Hills FmPierre ShaleGreenhorn FmBelle Fourche Shale
Geological Legend
Minor U Mineralisation
Major U hostMajor U host
eU3O8 for 4‐6 million lb U3O81
15 million lb at 1.5 million lbProduction Centre 2
Skull Creek ShaleNewcastle Fm
Belle Fourche ShaleMowry Fm
15 million lb at 1.5 million lb U3O8 per annum is 10 years production, to be replaced by ongoing exploration
Production Centre 2BarberExploration target size 4-6 million lb U3O8
g g p
6km (3.8 miles)
Development Modele e op e odeProposed Treatment and Metallurgical Process
Proposed process facility is an ISR resin strip plant central to the well fields producing approx 1 5 millionfields producing approx 1.5 million lb U3O8 per year
Expected grade across the prospects is 0.05‐0.09% U3O8
Estimated recoveries 70%
Anticipated capital cost US$40Anticipated capital cost US$40 million plus US$8 million per year annual well‐field capital
Estimated operating costs US$15/lbEstimated operating costs US$15/lb U3O8 *
Total costs US$28/lb U3O8
*averaged ISR cash cost RBC Capital
Development ModelPreliminary Scoping StudyPreliminary Scoping Study*
US$ per lb US$ /year
Revenue $65 $98 millionCapital expenditure $1.3 $2.0 millionFinancing cost 10% $2 7 $4 millionFinancing cost 10% $2.7 $4 millionOperating cost $15 $23 millionRoyalty 6% $4 $6 million
Assumptions
Annual well field capital $5.3 $8 million
Total Costs $28.30 $43.0 millionDepreciation $12 0 million
Grade 0.06
$65/lb U3O8
30% tax
10% d i ti
Depreciation $12.0 millionGross margin $55.0 millionTax 30% $13 million
10% depreciation
1.5mm lb per yr.
$40 million Capex
$15 Opex/lb
Net $42 million
NPV $260 million
* Figures are indicative only to illustrate project potential based on published costs for similar ISR operations in the US in recent years. Figures assume continued growth in landholdings over life of project and exploration success at a similar rate to historic exploration.
$ p /
Recovered resource42 million lb U3O8
IRR 70%
2008‐2009 Work Program2008 2009 Work ProgramWork Type Timingyp g
Confirm veracity of historic data January ‐March 2008
Prepare internal resource estimate fromhistoric Information for scoping purposes
February –April 2008
Continue Land Acquisition program January – December 2008Continue Land Acquisition program January December 2008
Commence environmental permitting and baseline studies
May 2008 ‐ 2010
Drill – Twin historic holes, Extend mineralisation
September 2008
Prepare JORC compliant Resource November 2009Prepare JORC compliant Resource November 2009
Drill – resource extension May – December 2009
Wh I I P i l Mi l ?Why Invest In Peninsula Minerals?
World class uranium projects in USA and South AfricaUndervalued relative to peersFirst class management teamHigh level of uranium expertiseWell funded treasuryWell funded treasuryDevelopment initiated at the Lance projectsExtensive new radiometric uranium anomalies and historicExtensive new radiometric uranium anomalies and historic mineralisation in South AfricaProspective tenements in Australia in known uranium provincesHi h t ti l t d f k i li ti d kHigh potential to expand areas of known mineralisation and make new discoveries
Projects Location
K i i iKaroo uranium province is within the Permo‐Triassic Karoo Basin
U and Mo mineralisation has been identified in the sandstones of the Beaufort GroupBeaufort Group
S th Af i St U iSouth Africa – Strong Uranium Exploration History
Uranium first discovered in 1970 by Union Carbide
p y
y
Significant exploration during the 1970’s and 1980’s identified several U ore bodies within the Karoo Basin
Exploration and development abandoned when U price collapsed inwhen U price collapsed in 1980’s (to less than $20 per lb U3O8)
South Africa Mining Environment
County with a very long mining history
Well defined system for environmental permitting and developmentWell defined system for environmental permitting and developmentapproval
Mining is the most important export earner for South Africa
South Africa has an active uranium mining industry
All uranium produced is sold to the SA Government who manage theon‐sale giving a guaranteed market for producerso sa e g g a gua a teed a et o p oduce s
Foreign companies must have Black Economic Empowermentpartner; Peninsula’s BEE partner is Mmakau Mining which holds 26%of the Project CEO Bridgette Radebe (Chairperson SAMDA)of the Project. CEO Bridgette Radebe (Chairperson SAMDA)
The Karoo is one of the main areas of focus for uranium exploration inRSA
I f t tBeaufort West, lying on the sealed highway between Cape Town
InfrastructureBeaufort West, lying on the sealed highway between Cape Townand Johannesburg is approximately central to all the sites and is aservice centre for the region
The region is serviced by well maintained sealed and unsealedroads
Topography is a mixture of flat to gently undulating plateau (Sites 5,29, 37, 45) with some major escarpments (Site 22, 45, 49 ) over thesix projects covering 1,980km2
Site 37 looking west
GeologyU (as uraninite and coffinite) and Mo (molybdenite) arehosted within multi‐sequence sandstone units; U
i it t h idi d d t iprecipitates where oxidized groundwater comes incontact with reduced water from shale units or organicmaterial within the sandstone
Tabular to ribbon style mineralised bodies deposited,usually 1‐3m thick and shallowly dipping
I l h i i li i f d fIn plan the uranium mineralisation forms pods ofapproximately 600m in length, 200m in width and 1 to 3min thickness
K P j t P t E l tiKaroo Projects Past ExplorationUranium exploration commenced in 1969, with major companies Union Carbide, Esso and JCI
f ll di i i il 1982successfully discovering uranium resources up until 1982
Peninsula’s Sites 22, 29 and 45 contain three of these historic U/Mo resources
As part of the RSA government’s desire to locate strategic minerals, the SACG flew a 1km spacedradiometric survey in 1976. Numerous U anomalies were identified, many of these were outsideof areas being explored by mining companiesof areas being explored by mining companies
To identify strategic Mo mineralisation, in the 1980’s the SACG completed a rock chip samplingprogram throughout the Karoo uranium provinceprogram throughout the Karoo uranium province
Tasman Pacific Minerals Limited used the results of this survey highlighting U and Momineralisation to locate the 6 Projectsmineralisation to locate the 6 Projects
Grades of over 1% U3O8 and 0.4% Mo were not uncommon in the SAGC sampling
In January 2007 Peninsula acquired 100% of Tasman Pacific
I 1979 1981 JCI
Site 22 U and Mo Mineralisation
FARM 404 P1
1120
114
118
0 1 200
1280 1300
13 20
13 40
13 60
13 8 0
1400
142 014401 46 0148015 0 0
13 6013 80
13 40
In 1979‐1981 JCI drilled 718 percussion holes d i t t d U
FARM 404 RE
1080
20
1160
1220
1240
1260
and intersected U and Mo mineralisation A hi i
FARM 236
MATJES KLOOF 235
11 00
Legend0
A historic resource was producedThe main
1020
100
0
0
100
500
1000
2000
5000 Z i t d t il
mineralised trend extends for greater than 2 km and other
f
GROOT TAFEL BERGFONTEIN 237 P3
SLINGERSFONTEIN 232 P41060104
0
0 750 1,500375
MetresArea 22 Percussion Drilling
Uranium Results
5000
>5000 Zoom into detailof Mo sampling
areas of mineralisation were identified
lSite 22 Mo Mineralisation
Mo is associated with U mineralisation, but 1120
11401180
1200
1220
,is often slightly above and offset
Intersections
1100
1160
Intersections >1000ppm Mo are common
1080
LegendMolybdenum Gradesppm
0
50
100
500
1000
1060
0 250 500125Area 22 Percussion Drilling
1000
2000
>2000
MetresArea 22 Percussion Drilling
Molybdenum Results
K C t E l tiKaroo Current ExplorationDetailed low level radiometric survey flown over all six project areas in Januaryand February 2008
New radiometric uranium anomalies have been identified at all six projectNew radiometric uranium anomalies have been identified at all six projectareas
Potential to extend existing historic uranium resources has been identified at aminimum of two sites
Field inspections have commenced at all six project areas
Highly anomalous results (up to 0.6% eU3O8) from Site 29, the first projectarea that has been tested
Drill testing of the best targets planned for Mid 2009
Site 29 Radiometric Anomalies – Ground l d
On ground testing
Validationg g
validates aerial anomaliesStrongly anomalous g yreadings at four sites on margins of syncline in centre of projectHistoric resource within syncline proves mineralised nature of
d t (2 8k 2)sandstone (2.8km2)Very small portion of prospective ground t t d b d illitested by drillingThree other high priority targets verified
Site 22 Radiometric AnomaliesNew Radiometric survey detects historic
i h
Site 22 Radiometric AnomaliesExisting GT-7 resource area (blue) with relatively subtle
Strong new uranium anomalies in areas with no resource area with
moderate anomalyexploration target size t Sit 22 i lti l
with relatively subtle radiometric signature
anomalies in areas with no historic drilling
at Site 22 is multiple bodies of 0.7‐1.5 million tonnes @ 0.13‐0 15% U O for 2‐3mlb0.15% U3O8 for 2‐3mlb U3O8
1
Many new, stronger anomalies identified inanomalies identified in areas with no previous Uranium anomalismNew anomalies mayNew anomalies may reflect additional Uranium mineralisation
2008 Karoo Work programp gWork Type Timing
Fly detailed (100m line spacing by 20m flight height) radiometric and magnetic survey
Complete
Review radiometric anomalies and prioritise for field testing
Complete
Commence ground follow‐up of July–August 2008Commence ground follow up of radiometric anomalies identified in new survey
July August 2008
Modify Prospecting rights to allow for drill September 2008–March 2009 y p g gtesting of targets
p
Drill – Test best radiometric anomalies (6,000m RC, 500m DD)
May–July 2009
Prepare JORC compliant Resources at best prospect
November 2009
Wh I I P i l Mi l ?Why Invest In Peninsula Minerals?
World class uranium projects in USA and South AfricaUndervalued relative to peersFirst class management teamHigh level of Uranium expertiseWell funded treasuryWell funded treasuryDevelopment initiated at the Lance ProjectsExtensive new radiometric uranium anomalies and historicExtensive new radiometric uranium anomalies and historic mineralisation in South AfricaProspective tenements in Australia in known uranium provincesHi h t ti l t d f k i li ti d kHigh potential to expand areas of known mineralisation and make new discoveries
Notes1Please note that the potential quantity and grade of the Exploration Targets in this presentation are conceptual in nature, that there has beeninsufficient exploration to define a Mineral Resource and that it is uncertain if further exploration will result in the determination of a MineralResource.
Disequilibrium Explanatory Statement: eU3O8 refers to the equivalent U3O8 grade. This is estimated from gross‐gamma down hole measurementscorrected for water and drilling mud in each hole. These results are provisional upon the application of calibration correction factors which aredetermined from geochemical analysis. Geochemical analysis may show higher or lower amounts of actual U3O8, the difference being referred to asdisequilibrium. All eU3O8 results above are affected by issues pertaining to possible disequilibrium and uranium mobility which should be taken intoq 3 8 y p g p q yaccount when interpreting those pending confirmatory chemical analyses.
Recommended