Hi all WME holders.I just wanted to share with you some of my...

Hi all WME holders.

I just wanted to share with you some of my analysis on WME which I have been doing since Oct 06.
Just wanted the forum members (IE: Fingermark, C4 etc) to ask you what your views on a few of my views/queries –


Comparison of Trench Sample data vs Drill Holes 30/05/2007
I was very pleased with this report given that they released hole drilling reports for Zone 3 area. I was actually expecting Zone 1 drilling results and look forward to them when they are released. I was speaking to management and they said that hopefully; Zones 1 & 2 will be out soon.

Anyways; what I’ve done is compare the 11/01/2007 Figure 2 Trench mapping (Trench sample) and overlayed it with the 30/05/2007 Figure 2 Drill Holes (30/05/2007 Drill holes) and found some really interesting points.

1. A2T5/A2T4: its suffice to say that if one was to overlay the announcement Figure 2 of the (30/05/2007 Drill holes) versus Figure 2 (Trench sample) you’ll see that we really have only showed a small, albeit important picture of WME. The 12 Drill holes sit on Figure 2 (Trench sample) A2T5 which has 20m@192ppm U308, max 5m @305ppm. I reckon that the drill holes have confirmed good solid grades for that particular trench – what do you all think of this? Is there an upside to this with which you can see?
2. Following on from the 12 drill holes, it looks like on Zone 2 Trench Sampling Program was covered in this announcement. It looks like Zone 1 (Trench sample) had the higher concentrate of U308 with Trench A1T2 – 105m@352ppm U308 (incl 60m@514m), max 5m@1005ppm and 35m@151ppm, max 5m@262ppm. I’m hoping to see the drill results for this as stated above, does anyone have any further views on this trench? Is there upside? I’m assuming so because if you look at A1T10 – 5m@295m U308 & 10m@194ppm – there has to be some drill holes to confirm this.
3. Zone 4 – Figure 2 (30/05/2007 Drill Holes) – I think this is the pick of the bunch – Zone 4 once overlayed onto Figure 3 (Trench sample) shows A4T4 – 5m@309ppm, A4T3 3m@1483ppm and A4T2 80m@241ppm, max 590ppm and 30m @145ppm max 281ppm & 5m@868ppm. Looks to me that this small ground could have a high concentrate sized U308. I remember reading up on Cameco’s Cigar lake find in that the main U308 orebody was the size of a normal football field. Zone 4/Anomaly 4 excites me and I hope they release the reports soon – I think this area is a massive U308 zone – but that’s comparing the trench sample – what do you all think?

Announcement 21/05/2007 – Geophysical and Satellite Data Analysis
The current (30/05/2007 Drill holes) result supports and enhances the 21/05/2007 announcement and also shows that there is massive upside given that if you look at Figure 1 – Target 1 is directly west of the 12 drill holes. Now Target 1 is fresh, and has been described by WME as “…early part of the paleodrainage system and is considered as having high potential for containing uranium”. Does anyone have further insights to this area? It looks like Goldfields may have missed this area as it was outside their original tenement coverage. This is WME’s upside to the pre JORC 18m lbs @200ppm estimate that Goldfields produced.

That’s all I have for now – just wanted to get people’s informed thoughts onto this. Please feel free to discuss – I’m backing Leon R and his team.

Kind Regards
D