difference between the truth and whole truth, page-32

The P&P testing on the 4 core samples mentioned in DT’s post are not the only tests conducted. They merely supplement previous data collected in the 1970’s leading up to the establishment of the pilot plant (data which is probably now further supplemented by the recent database purchase). I encourage all who are interested to read the announcement dated 8 Sep 2008 as it contains a wealth of information on the historic testing done back then to ascertain the geological qualities necessary for ISR. Here are some highlights from that report (all referring to tests conducted in the ‘70s – some were “live” tests i.e. not in a lab but on the ground)

“Tests on select cores in the Ross Project area were conducted in 1976 and 1977. The permeability of the sandstones tested, commonly between 1,000 and 2,000 millidarcy’s (and up to 3,944 millidarcy’s) meets or exceeds that of nearby ISR Projects being developed (where permeability’s over 700 millidarcy’s are considered good) and is very suitable for ISR mining methods.”

“The push-pull test successfully demonstrated that the aquifer in the area was contained, water quality was good, and uranium was soluble under oxidizing conditions and could be readily absorbed onto ion exchange resin. These results were seen as very encouraging and the installation of a more advanced pilot plant test facility commenced soon after.”

“Additionally, the tests showed that within the 1,700-foot cone of depression developed during the pumping period there were no hydrological boundaries encountered indicating that the B aquifer is relatively consistent for a radius of 1,300 feet (396m) or more. For ISR mining purposes this means that injected lixivants can be recovered over at least a 1,300-foot (396m) radius without disruption or loss of uranium loaded solutions.”

“Testing as part of the baseline monitoring program conducted during the 5 spot test revealed a good quality of water, with the principal salts present being sodium bicarbonate and sodium sulphate, common in groundwater in this area and are not deleterious to an ISR operation.“

The second last quoted section above is one that might be particularly significant (re the 396m radius) in that – from what I can understand – it shows that the sandstone characteristics are constant over large distances. This is something I wondered about today before I even read this report; when you see exposed cross sections of sandstone you can see the bands running across long distances, highlighting each layer of sand as it was laid down millions of year ago. What I’m getting at is that the number of samples may be small (4 in this year’s test conducted by PEN as mentioned by DT) but we don’t know over what distance these 4 samples were taken. It’s quite possible that 4 samples might cover 1KM or more – it wouldn’t make sense to take samples over a short area.

So with this in mind I checked to see if I could figure out the relative distances between the 4 samples mentioned in DT’s post. From the announcement dated 21 July 09 the samples are shown as RMRD0001 – RMRD0004. I then found these on the map included in Friday’s announcement (16 Oct 09), which by the way is the most accurate map of the project area we have even had. If you look at the map you can see that RMRD0002 & 0003 are at the northern end of the project area (with some distance between them) and RMRD0001 & 0004 are at the southern end of the area (with some distance between them also). I cannot tell the exact distance between the two pairs, if someone can figure that out and let us know it would be appreciated,. But it’s clear that the samples cover a significant distance and that is what is important rather than the number of samples. So it would seem that the excellent P&P characteristics are not unique to a small area but are representative of a large area of the project. As I mentioned earlier the company no doubt has other samples from other areas of the project from the 70s and from the new database.