ann out, page-24

Wrong.

The method for collection is totally different.

Here is a picture of the jet bore hole.

The only similarity is using water to break the host rock.

The collection method if TOTALLY different & drillin gfrom under the ore body not form above.

The water does not collect in the hole that has been vacated to allow it to seep away under pressure through any faults in the rocks.....maybe jet bore hole will be the answer, but is more labour intensive as workers are needed under ground to drive the equipment etc

This also took Cameco over a decade in testing , modifying & retesting before it was put in place.

Using that as a bench mark, can BLR wait that long to develop?

Watch this animation from Cameco & you will see how different it is & why it would be a better method, albeit more labour intensive & costly. Slurry is not left to pool as it is controlled.

http://www.cameco.com/mining/cigar_lake/jet_boring_animation/


Would this work at Hansen. Probably not, as I am sure they would have investigated by the management team before deciding a new technology was needed. Deposit is probably too deep & not of a high enough grade to make process cost effective.

I believe the greenies are concerned about borehole not being able to contain the slurry as the host rock is broken down, ie underground cavern filling, fissures redirecting ect.

Will it mean more drilling to get a better picture by mapping underground or will if mean some sort of containment? At what point will the hole or stope start self mining? I don't know.

Who uses borehole to mine Uranium at this point in time?

Don't answer Cameco please.