- Located approximately 10 km south of Arlit, and Areva’s mining subsidiaries of Cominak and Somair, in north central Niger.
- Deposits hosted within sandstones of the Tim Mersoi Basin.
- Approved Mad 1 Mine Permit (January 2016), and ESIA (July 2015)
- Infrastructure includes road access, labour, ground water, and available grid power.
- Integrated Development Plan (PFS) updated August 2015.
- Mineral Resource (November 2017) of 111 Mlbs U3O8 contained in the Measured and Indicated, and 28 Mlbs U3O8 contained in the Inferred category.
- Probable mineral reserves are 60.54 Mlb U3O8.
- Uranium recovery forecast at 93.7%.
- Annual production forecast at 2.69 Mlb U3O8 for 21 years
- Cash Operating Cost forecast at US$24.49 /lb U3O8.
- Start-up Capital Expenditure of US$359 million.
- NPV post all taxes and royalties, and for 100% of the Madaouela Project at US$70/lb U3O8 and 8% discount rate of US$340 million.
- Further recovery and cost optimization to be focus of future studies.
Madaouela
Project Description
The Madaouela Uranium Project is situated southeast of the mining towns of Arlit and Akokan, and the Marianne-Marilyn deposit is located approximately 9km from Arlit. The proximity of the town of Arlit and Akokan are an asset for Madaouela permits. The towns have over 160,000 people supporting local mining operations with airports, drilling companies, electricity, potable water and a hospital. Arlit is connected to the Southern part of Niger via the so-called "uranium-highway" through Agadez and Tahoua to Niamey, the Niger capital further south. A power line connects the town to the Sonichar coal-fired power station located North of Agadez. Access by plane is possible through an airstrip in Arlit and also Agadez.
Deposit Type
Sandstone-hosted uranium deposits occur in permeable medium-coarse grained sandstone, usually deposited in continental fluvial or marginal marine sedimentary environments. The source of uranium is usually igneous or volcanic rocks either in close proximity to or inter-bedded with the sandstone units. The uranium mineralization typically precipitates from oxidizing fluids, under reducing conditions caused by a variety of reducing agents. The reducing agent for Madaouela is most likely in-situ organic material (lignite) or hydrocarbons transported along major fault. The main primary uranium minerals are uraninite and coffinite with minor secondary uranium minerals being noted in exposed (weathered) mineralization.
The Marianne-Marilyn deposit is a nearly flat tabular body of mineralization that spans approximately 5km by 2km across in plan, and the deposit thickness varies from 0.2 to over 2m (average thickness of about 1m). The mineralization occurs at depths from about 30m on the east-end of Marilyn, to approximately 60m in depth in the middle of the Marianne-Marilyn deposit, up to 120m in depths on the west extensions of Marianne. The MSNE deposit is approximately 4 km south of Marianne-Marilyn with Maryvonne deposit in between. The geology of these deposits is very similar to Marianne-Marilyn. Ore depth ranges from 100 m to 160 m across the deposits. Miriam deposit was discovered in 2011 and is located in the Southern portion of Madaouela I tenement. The ore is 20 to 30 m in thickness at Miriam and at a depth of 60 to 80 m.
Total Reserves and Resources
Summary of the classified mineral resources in accordance with CIM guidelines for Madaouela Project (cut-off: 0.4 kg/t eU) as of March 2nd, 2016
Classification | Tonnes (Mt) | Grade (kg/t U3O8) | eU3O8 (t) | eU3O8 (Mlb) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Marianne/Marilyn | ||||
Measured | 2.14 | 1.79 | 3,835 | 8.45 |
Indicated | 14.72 | 1.43 | 21,000 | 46.30 |
Inferred | 5.04 | 1.17 | 5,908 | 13.02 |
Miriam | ||||
Measured | 9.62 | 1.08 | 10,397 | 22.92 |
Indicated | 2.68 | 0.79 | 2,112 | 4.66 |
Inferred | 0.58 | 1.33 | 773 | 1.70 |
MSNE | ||||
Indicated | 5.05 | 1.61 | 8,111 | 17.88 |
Inferred | 0.10 | 1.34 | 131 | 0.29 |
Maryvonne | ||||
Indicated | 1.23 | 1.79 | 2,195 | 4.84 |
Inferred | 0.42 | 1.66 | 703 | 1.55 |
MSCE | ||||
Inferred | 0.72 | 1.81 | 1,308 | 2.88 |
MSEE | ||||
Inferred | 1.45 | 1.64 | 2,373 | 5.23 |
La Banane | ||||
Indicated | 1.57 | 1.64 | 2,589 | 5.71 |
Inferred | 1.15 | 1.18 | 1,358 | 2.99 |
TOTAL MEASURED | 11.76 | 1.21 | 14,232 | 31.37 |
TOTAL INDICATED | 25.25 | 1.43 | 36,007 | 79.39 |
TOTAL INFERRED | 9.46 | 1.33 | 12,556 | 27.66 |
- Mineral Resources have not been constrained by pit shells, however, almost all of the mineralisation occurs within 125 m of surface with uranium grades which are, in general, considered to have reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction by open pit mining.
- The cut-off grade used for reporting the Mineral Resource is 100 ppm U3O8, which is applied directly to block model cells.
- No U3O8 ppm cut-off is applied to block model cells for reporting the Mineral Resource. However, the outer limits block model was constrained within a 100 ppm U3O8 wireframe used for geological modelling.
The company’s mineral resources as at March 2, 2016 are classified in accordance with the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum’s “CIM Definition Standards - For Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves” in accordance with the requirements of National Instrument 43-101 “Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects" (the Instrument). Mineral reserve and mineral resource estimates reflect the company's reasonable expectation that all necessary permits and approvals will be obtained and maintained. (1kg/t eU3O8=0.1% eU3O8). The “e” symbol denotes that resource estimation is based on spectrometer data obtained in the field and confirmed by a smaller number of samples by laboratory chemical analysis.
Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have to demonstrate economic viability. Mineral resources are subject to infill drilling, permitting, mine planning, mining dilution and recovery losses, among other things, to be converted into mineral reserves. Due to the uncertainty associated with inferred mineral resources, it cannot be assumed that all or any part of an inferred mineral resource will ever be upgraded to indicated or measured mineral resources, including as a result of continued exploration.
The Mineral Resource Statement was prepared by John Arthur, FGS, CGeol (CP) and Peter Gleeson FAusIMM (CP) of SRK Consulting (UK) Ltd, both are Qualified Persons as defined by the CIM Code.
Mining Operations
The Marilyn/Marianne deposits are shallow with depths below surface from 30m in the NE to 120m in the SW, while the MSNE/Maryvonne deposits are approximate 160m in depth. The deposits are generally flat lying (0-15° slope) with thicknesses varying from 1-3m. Tabular deposits such as these generally lend themselves to room and pillar type mining methods. The mineralized material will be mined using low profile mining equipment capable achieving mining heights of 1.8 m.
The mineralized material is transported by LHD to the conveyor feeder that is located at the entrance to the panel, where initial crushing will occur. The crushed material is to be transported by conveyor to a coarse ore stockpile situated before the process plant. A panel mining fleet will consist of a single boom face drill, a ground support jumbo with fully automated rockbolt installation and a 3m3 bucket capacity LHD.
While the Miriam deposit is approximately 60 m to 80 m deep, but has a greater thickness up to 30m with local grades over 1% U308 thus containing the highest grade*thickness (GT) in four main seams (11, 21, 31 and 41) that coalesce locally in a redox front system. The mining of Miriam is planned to be by open pit operations in line with that under taken at Areva's Sominak mine.
Metallurgy
The current Pre-feasibility Study (2015) assumes that mined ore is transferred to the run of mine ("ROM") stockpile. Feed preparation consists of primary crushing with the ore then routed to radiometric ore sorter ("ROS") where by the radiometric selection ore is pre-concentrated to provide a higher grade material. Following the ROS stage the ore is secondary crushed and mixed with water to produce a slurry for the Ablation stage, where two slurry streams are impacted together to form a high impact energy zone that separates fine heavier uranium minerals from the host rock. The combination of ROS and Ablation results in a 810tpd of feed for feed to the leaching circuit, with approximately 97% of the uranium that was contained in the initial 4020 tpd mined feed.
The two stage leaching circuit consists of primary and secondary agitated leach tanks in recirculation. In the first stage solution from the second stage belt filters is recirculated to leach the fresh feed after which the slurry is thickened with the thickener overflow routed to the uranium recovery circuit as pregnant leach solution ("PLS"). The thickener underflow is routed to the second stage leach, which uses fresh acid to further leach the milled solids. After the second stage the slurry is filtered and the filtered solids residue is washed with fresh solution and discarded to the tailings disposal system.
Leach tanks are agitated and aerated to allow the milled ore to react with sulfuric acid allowing dissolution of the contained uranium. The solution from leach (thickener overflow) is routed to uranium recovery. Uranium recovery from the neutralised PLS takes place through Solvent Extraction (“SX”).
SX is undertaken using a new process to recover both molybdenum and uranium from acidic solutions using CYANEX® 600 extractant. The overall circuit configuration would consist of two extraction steps, one stripping step for iron, two stripping steps for molybdenum, an ammonia washing step and two uranium stripping steps.
Madaouela Probable Mineral Reserves as at May 20, 2015
Deposit | Cut-Off | RoM | Uranium Metal | Uranium Oxide | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Grade eU (kg/t) |
Tonnes (Mt) |
Grade eU3O8 (kg/t) |
eU3O8(t) | Grade eU3O8 (kg/t) |
Contained eU3O8 (t) |
|
Marianne-Marylin (M&M)* | ||||||
Probable | 0.48 | 14.1 | 0.79 | 11,164 | 0.93 | 13,165 |
MSNE-Maryvonne* | ||||||
Probable | 0.48 | 7.8 | 0.76 | 5,938 | 0.89 | 7,002 |
Total Underground (Probable) | ||||||
0.48 | 21.9 | 0.78 | 17,102 | 0.92 | 20,167 | |
Miriam Open Pit** | ||||||
Probable | 0.4 | 7.5 | 0.82 | 6,192 | 0.97 | 7,302 |
- * Underground Mineral Reserves for Marianne-Marilyn and MSNE-Maryvonne are reported at a cut-off grade of 0.48 kg/t eU. Cut-off grades are based on a price of USD 70 /lb of U3O8 (USD 154 /kg U3O8) and uranium recoveries of 83.0 %, without considering revenues from other metals. Note Mineral Reserves include both Measured and Indicated Resources.
- **Open Pit Mineral Reserves are reported within the MAD I licence and within a designed pit shell at a cut-off grade of 0.4 kg/t eU. Cut-off grades are based on a price of USD 70 /lb of U3O8 (USD 154 /kg U3O8) and uranium recoveries of 83%, without considering revenues from other metals. Mining modifying factors are 2% ore loss and 5% dilution at 0 kg/t grade. Note Mineral Reserves include both Measured and Indicated Resources.
Capital And Operating Costs
The tables below summarises the capital and operating costs for the Madaouela Uranium Project.
The project development plan envisions an average annual production rate of 2.69M lb. U3O8 yellowcake over a 21 year mine life, with a 93.7 % ultimate recovery of uranium. In addition, the plan assumes an average recovery of approximately 592 tonnes of molybdenum dioxide (MoO2) per annum at a sales price of US$11.00 per lb., which revenue is used to offset processing costs.
The base case project economics, at a long-term uranium price of US$70 per lb. U3O8, indicate an after-tax net present value (NPV8%) of US$339M with an internal rate of return (IRR) of 23.5%, and total life-of-mine (LoM) net free cash of US$1.1B. Initial capital costs are estimated at US$359M, LoM capital costs at US$676M, and cash operating costs of US$24.49 per lb. U3O8; excluding royalties and including by-product credits. It is noted that Mo has not been included in the mineral resource model and is therefore not considered to be at the same level of confidence as the stated uranium grades.
Capital Expenditure
Table 21 1: Capital expenditure including contingency
Parameter | Units | Total amount |
---|---|---|
Project Capital | ||
Capitalised operating costs (incl year 1) | (USDm) | 66.1 |
Mining | (USDm) | 29.7 |
Processing | (USDm) | 234.1 |
Tailings | (USDm) | 3.1 |
Infrastructure | (USDm) | 20.4 |
Water Management | (USDm) | 5.2 |
Total Project Capital | (USDm) | 358.5 |
Operating Costs
Life of mine operating costs have been presented in Table 21 2. By-product credits for the molybdenum are not included in Table 21 2.
Table 21 2: LoM operating costs
Operating Cost Item | Unit Cost (USD/t ore) |
---|---|
Mining | 27.61 |
Processing1 | 23.57 |
Tailings | 0.74 |
Site Infrastructure | 0.54 |
Water management | 0.50 |
G&A | 3.56 |
Distribution cost | 0.22 |
Closure Cost | 0.51 |
Subtotal operating costs | 57.25 |
The project development plan envisions an average annual production rate of 2.69M lb. U3O8 yellowcake over a 21 year mine life, with a 93.7 % ultimate recovery of uranium. In addition, the plan assumes an average recovery of approximately 592 tonnes of molybdenum dioxide (MoO2) per annum at a sales price of US$11.00 per lb., which revenue is used to offset processing costs.
The base case project economics, at a long-term uranium price of US$70 per lb. U3O8, indicate an after-tax net present value (NPV8%) of US$339M with an internal rate of return (IRR) of 23.5%, and total life-of-mine (LoM) net free cash of US$1.1B. Initial capital costs are estimated at US$359M, LoM capital costs at US$676M, and cash operating costs of US$24.49 per lb. U3O8; excluding royalties and including by-product credits. It is noted that Mo has not been included in the mineral resource model and is therefore not considered to be at the same level of confidence as the stated uranium grades.