First, let me correct a misstatement I made in an earlier post. The SMC mines were put on standby in 2009 by Denison, not Energy Fuels. Energy Fuels acquired the mines from Denison in 2012.
According to Energy Fuels' 2013 Annual Information Form, no NI 43-101 technical report had been prepared for any of the mines. After WUC acquired the SMC mines, the company commissioned an NI 43-101 technical report, which was issued on July 7, 2015. The report is not a preliminary economic assessment (PEA) but does purport to comply with NI 43-101 and the related Form 43-101F1.
An NI 43-101 technical report must contain certain information about a property, and "advanced" properties require additional disclosures. The SMC is described as an "advanced stage property" in the 2015 technical report.
One of the required items for advanced properties is a discussion of the proposed mining methods, including such details as hydrological parameters, production rates, expected mine life, required machinery, etc.
WUC's technical report ignores this requirement, stating only that "mining methods have not been addressed". The report does not include the words "ablation" or "underground borehole mining".
Typically, after preparing a NI-43-101 technical report, a company takes the next step which is preparing a PEA (in accordance with NI 43-101). A PEA generally includes an economic analysis, including forecasted production rates, capital costs, operating costs, and projected cash flows.
The fact that WUC apparently entered into a supply contract without first releasing an economic analysis and without providing a detailed description of proposed mining methods should be a cause for concern, in my opinion. And describing the SMC as an advanced stage property would seem to go against NI 43-101's requirement that "advanced property" means a property "that has mineral resources the potential economic viability of which is supported by a preliminary economic assessment, a pre-feasibility study or a feasibility study."
Expand
