ann out, page-30

Have you compared the resources?

There would only be 1 or 2 deposits better than cigar lake in the would & sadly Hansen is not one of them.

The reason CL lends itself so amicably to the method chosen is the deposit. It is an exceptionally well defined & within a tight zone, the depth in this case is largely irrelevant as the primary tunnel is only to get under the deposit. The actual bore hole drilling is in a much smaller range than what will be done at Hansen (say 30 to 50m), some extending to 70m.

Deposits at CL are contained within a zone 1950m long, & 20 to 100m wide & up to 16m thick. The ppm as you know is exceptional(200,000ppm).

With such a dense defined resource it lends itself to this type of mining.

Hansen is 4,572m 853m wide & up to 61m. As you can see a lot more drilling (jet or bore hole ;0 ) will be required to remove a significantly larger volume of ore body before being ablated, with each shaft needing to be in the 180m vicinity

It's not a bigger resource, its just diluted though a much larger volume of dirt/sandstone.

This is why Hansen need ablation to work in conjunction with borehole as the material has no where near the ppm of cigar lake to make it economically viable to transport the ore for processing.

What I'm getting at for the Hansen v CL is Hansen will have to move say 50 times the volume of ore body compared to CL, before we even consider the ppm

Re the depth... my bad...even though I typed M, I was thinking 'feet' for CL. That's what happens when you rush I suppose.

Whats your take on the YES/No vote


Well done Blues deserved the win. ;(