Ann: Extension of Etango PFS Following Recent Fav, page-26

re: Ann: Extension of Etango PFS Following Re... Sackblabbeth

I have posted more on this on the newer thread. BMN have discarded the studies for radiometric sorting (sorry about the typo). They might consider this later, but too much work is required to have it as the basis for final ore grade in the Feasibility Studies.

In relation the Heap Leach vs ATL, its not just about the recovery. Yes ATL is slightly more, but the real upside of going with ATL is the bulk tonnage aspect, the great volume of concentrate that can be put through at a much greater speed, resulting in higher production of u3o8. Whereas with heap leach, while it offers cheaper CAPEX & OPEX, you are limited by the size of the pad, and the 28 day leach cycle.

Heap leach will yield a maximum of 6mlbs per annum
With ATL they targeted 8.8mlbs ... then you can STILL add a smaller heap leach pad for the lower grade ore.

They pay back on the extra 2.8mlbs speaks for itself. It easily offsets the extra CAPEX & OPEX, and still allows for a stage 2 heap leach project to increase production further.

With Heap leach only, you limit your opportuniites to enlarge production, as the pads have a very big footprint ... you can only go so big!

If they end up with a 6mlb per annum heap leach project, Banners will still have a ripper mine. But the ATL will be the optimum way to go if these studies are positive. Having the ability to increase economic u3o8 production by 50% per annum (over HL) will make it much easier to produce a ripper BFS to convince the bankers to stump up $500