Ann: Mineral Resource Estimate Increased Threefold at Makuutu, page-124

Hi SF2TH,

Apologies in advance for digging out this old post of yours, but I think it best illustrates my questions directed to your good self as the resident IXR/ Makuutu technical wonk!

I've been reviewing the IXR 17th August presso (I hadn't previously read it as it landed in the middle of reporting season) and I came across the table on page 10 which states that the total Makuutu resource grades are 650ppm TREO and 440ppm TREO no (ex?) CeO2, which implies that the CeO2 makes up some 32% of the TREO assemblage. This figure does not correlate with the stated Makuutu TREO basket CeO2 content of 13.5%.

Investigating this issue I went back to the quoted source of the table, the revised mineral resource estimate of March 3^rd tables 4 & 5, which you have included in your post#:51474095 above. On reviewing these tables they clearly state that the CeO2 @ 210ppm is 34% of the TREO resource estimate, so do you know the basis of the 13.5% CeO2 claimed?

The other issue highlighted in table 5 is the U3O5 and ThO2 content of the ore at 10ppm & 30ppm respectively. While these figures may seem relatively low in isolation, combined they do amount to 6% of the TREO and 9% of the TREO-CeO2 . My concern is that as the Makuutu ore is processed by heap leaching with salt & H2SO4, these radionuclides will also be concentrated at a similar level to the REO’s, resulting in the production of 90 grams of radionuclides for every kg of REOs ex. CeO2 produced. After all, leaching of uranium ores with sulfuric acid is common practice.

I cannot find any reference in IXR’s public releases as to a plan to handle the issue of possible radionuclide contamination, are you aware of any plans or is there some extenuating reason that mean that we should not be concerned?