UEX reports N.I. 43-101 compliant mineral resource for Horseshoe Deposit containing 18.693 million pounds of U(3)O(8) in the indicated category, and 1.426 million pounds U(3)O(8) inferred at a 0.05% cut-off, with positive metallurgical results



    Trading Symbol: UEX-TSX

    VANCOUVER, Sept. 29 /CNW/ - UEX Corporation ("UEX") is pleased to
announce that it has received a National Instrument 43-101 ("N.I. 43-101")
compliant mineral resource estimate report from Golder Associates Ltd.
("Golder") of Saskatoon, SK, for UEX's Horseshoe Uranium Deposit. The
Horseshoe Deposit ("Horseshoe") is located within UEX's 100%-owned Hidden Bay
Project in the eastern Athabasca Basin uranium district of northern
Saskatchewan, Canada. The September 2008 mineral resource estimate contains
3.578 million tonnes grading 0.237% U(3)O(8) in the indicated category
containing 18.693 million pounds of U(3)O(8), and 0.311 million tonnes grading
0.208% U(3)O(8) in the inferred category containing 1.426 million pounds of
U(3)O8 at a cut-off of 0.05% U(3)O(8). Supporting technical reports will be
filed on Sedar within 45 days of this news release.
    The N.I. 43-101 compliant mineral resource represents a substantial
increase in quantity of contained uranium, grade, and resource confidence
level over the non-compliant historical mineral resources of 13.6 million
pounds of U(3)O(8) at grades of 0.17% which were calculated in the 1970's by
Gulf Resources Canada Ltd. ("Gulf"), a previous operator of the project. The
improvements represent expansion of the total known area of the deposit well
beyond the deposit limits interpreted by Gulf, establishment of greater
continuity of mineralization between the widely-spaced historical Gulf drill
holes, and identification of areas of higher grade mineralization within the
deposit which were not tested by the historical drilling.
    In addition to the resource calculation, UEX has recently received an
interim report on ongoing metallurgical testwork at the Horseshoe and the
adjacent Raven Deposits. The work, being supervised by Melis Engineering Ltd.
of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, incorporates initial results of the Phase II
metallurgical testing which was performed on three HQ diameter metallurgical
drill holes: two from Horseshoe and one from Raven. These tests indicate that
uranium in both deposits is easily leached under relatively mild atmospheric
leach conditions, producing leach extractions of 98%, and lacking any
significant concentrations of deleterious elements.
    "With its large size and potential to get larger, excellent metallurgy,
close proximity to infrastructure and favourable ground conditions, Horseshoe
is developing into a very attractive mining target, which we intend to advance
rapidly towards feasibility," said Stephen Sorensen, President and CEO of UEX.
    With approximately 93% of the Horseshoe mineral resource already in the
indicated category, feasibility-level mining and economic assessment work can
commence in parallel with upgrading the portions of the Horseshoe mineral
resource that are currently in the inferred category to indicated through
further infill drilling. In addition to the Horseshoe resource, UEX
anticipates completing an N.I. 43-101 compliant mineral resource on the Raven
Deposit in November.
    "Because the total contained quantity of U(3)O(8) in the current
Horseshoe resource on its own is close to the combined historical
non-compliant resource at Raven and Horseshoe of 22.82 million pounds, we
believe we are well advanced in reaching our objective of identifying 30
million pounds of U(3)O(8) in indicated status at our three Hidden Bay
deposits in 2009," said Sorensen.
    UEX is considering a few production options which include a toll milling
arrangement with one of the operators of the two active uranium mills in the
region, namely Cameco's Rabbit Lake mill less than 5 kilometres to the
northeast, and AREVA Resources Canada Inc.'s ("AREVA") McClean Lake facilities
located 12 kilometres to the northwest, or potentially constructing a
stand-alone facility which could process ore from all of UEX's Hidden Bay
deposits. In all scenarios, given the deposits' location in impermeable
basement rocks, any open pits created by mining either deposit will be
evaluated as tailings disposal facilities for UEX's deposits, and for other
operators in the area.

    Mineral Resource Calculation Details

    The current Horseshoe mineral resource estimate was prepared by K.
Palmer, P. Geo., of Golder Associates of Burnaby, BC. The mineral resource
calculation utilized 272 diamond drill holes (86,100 metres from holes HU-001
to HU-256, and HO-01 to HO-16) drilled between 2005 and 2008, which test the
deposit at 7.5 to 30 metre drill centers. The mineral resource estimate was
calculated using a minimum cut-off grade of 0.05% U(3)O(8) utilizing a
geostatistical block-model technique with ordinary kriging methods and the
DATAMINE Studio 3 software package.
    Details of the mineral resources at different cut-off levels are provided
in Tables 1 and 2 below. Note that approximately 92.9% of the resource is in
the indicated category at a 0.05% U(3)O(8) cut-off. At a cut-off of 0.20%,
most of the contained U(3)O8 in the deposit is within areas averaging 0.433%
U(3)O(8).

    
                                   Table 1
           September 2008 Indicated Mineral Resources at Horseshoe
                 Tonnes and Grade at Various U(3)O(8) Cut-offs
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    Cutoff       Tonnes      Dry Density   U(3)O(8) (%)    U(3)O(8) (lbs)
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    0.05       3,577,700         2.48          0.237         18,693,000
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    0.10       2,725,300         2.48          0.287         17,255,000
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    0.15       1,944,100         2.48          0.353         15,116,000
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    0.20       1,343,000         2.48          0.433         12,817,000
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    0.25         945,500         2.48          0.521         10,866,000
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    0.30         693,000         2.48          0.612          9,347,000
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    0.35         525,400         2.48          0.704          8,154,000
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    0.40         400,200         2.48          0.807          7,120,000
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------


                                   Table 2
           September 2008 Inferred Mineral Resources at Horseshoe
                Tonnes and Grade at Various U(3)O(8) Cut-offs
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    Cutoff       Tonnes      Dry Density    U(3)O(8) (%)   U(3)O(8) (lbs)
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    0.05         311,200         2.37          0.208          1,426,000
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    0.10         248,600         2.37          0.239          1,310,000
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    0.15         180,600         2.43          0.282          1,124,000
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    0.20         132,400         2.45          0.320            935,000
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    0.25          83,900         2.47          0.376            695,000
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    0.30          53,100         2.47          0.439            514,000
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    0.35          33,000         2.47          0.512            372,000
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    0.40          19,300         2.49          0.607            258,000
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    

    Metallurgical Testing

    Representative samples derived from composited drill core assay rejects
from the Horseshoe deposit, and from three HQ diameter metallurgical holes
from both the Horseshoe and Raven deposits have now undergone preliminary
testing for leach and effluent treatment conditions, and grindability analysis
under the direction of Melis Engineering Ltd. at SGS Lakefield Research
Limited in Lakefield, Ontario.

    
    Metallurgical testing for the Horseshoe and Raven deposits comprised two
    phases:

    (i)  initial Phase I testing in 2007 of four composites blended from
         assay reject samples derived from definition drill holes in the
         Horseshoe deposit, and representing different grade ranges from the
         A and B West zones, and

    (ii) Phase II comminution testwork, uranium leaching testwork, and
         environmental data generation from three diamond drill holes drilled
         at HQ (63.5 mm) diameter for metallurgical purposes, including two
         in the Horseshoe deposit, and one in the Raven deposit during late
         2007 and 2008, and still ongoing.
    

    Drill holes for the Phase II testwork were chosen in portions of the
deposits to test areas both of representative uranium grade and mineralization
style. Hole HU-156 was selected to test higher grade portions of the Horseshoe
A zone in the nodular mineralization style, while hole HU-157 tested
disseminated mineralization style in the Horseshoe BE zone. Hole RU-130 was
drilled in western-central portions of the Raven deposit, and crossed typical
areas of mineralization in two of the principal lithologic host lithologies
within that deposit, intersecting 0.14% U(3)O(8) over 10.9 metres. Composited
intervals (greater than)0.05% U(3)O(8) which occur in the drill holes that
were subject to metallurgical testing are summarized in Table 3. A total of
five composites representing high and low grade populations from holes HU-156
and HU-157 and mineralization from hole RU-130 were prepared.

    
                                   Table 3
    Composited drill hole intersections from which Phase II metallurgical
       samples were derived, composited to a minimum of 0.05% U(3)O(8).

     The data is composited from ICP geochemical analysis of splits from
      0.5 m metallurgical samples which were analyzed by SRC Analytical
      Laboratories. Metallurgical samples also include some intervening
              intervals below the 0.05% cutoff for compositing.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Metallurgical  Deposit    Zone    Drill   From   To (m)  Length   Grade
     Composites                        hole    (m)             (m) %U(3)O(8)
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    AH, AL       Horseshoe   A zone  HU-156  168.8   187.0    18.2    1.01
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    BEH, BEL     Horseshoe  BE zone  HU-157  285.5   320.4    34.9    0.13
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    RU-130           Raven     Main  RU-130  109.0   119.0    10.9    0.14
                                             136.7   137.0     0.5    1.29
                                             144.6   149.0     4.4    0.16
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Blended composites prepared for testing are listed in Table 4 below,
    along with key elemental analyses.

                                   Table 4
               Summary of Horseshoe and Raven composite assays
     All elements were analyzed at SGS Lakefield Research Ltd. by Total
    Digestion (HF/HNO(3)/HClO(4) + HNO(3)) ICP except for As and Se which
         were analyzed by Aqua Regia Digestion (3:1 HCl:HNO(3)) ICP

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Assay, %
                -------------------------------------------------------------
    Composite    U(3)O(8)    As        Fe        Ni        Mo         Se
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
        A         0.414    0.0048     1.61     0.0045    0.0014  (less than)
                                                                    0.0001
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
        B         0.297    0.0083     3.85     0.0060    0.0008  (less than)
                                                                    0.0001
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
      HU16         4.07    0.0785     3.36     0.0175    0.0012  (less than)
                                                                    0.0001
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Main         0.33    0.0063     2.66     0.0054    0.0015  (less than)
                                                                    0.0001
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
       AH          2.18     0.014     4.20     0.0042    0.0025  (less than)
                                                                    0.0030
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
       AL          0.38    0.0052     1.29     0.0036    0.0018  (less than)
                                                                    0.0030
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
       BEH         0.31    0.0055     1.39     0.0042    0.0024  (less than)
                                                                    0.0030
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
       BEL        0.054 (less than)   0.73     0.0034    0.0016  (less than)
                           0.0040                                   0.0030
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
      RU-130       0.21 (less than)   1.72     0.0084    0.0025  (less than)
                           0.0060                                   0.0030
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    

    The elemental analyses of the composites show that Horseshoe is
relatively low in deleterious elements such a arsenic, molybdenum, selenium
and base metals; hence the Horseshoe zone should present minimal processing
and environmental difficulties.
    Leaching tests on composites from both testing phases indicate that the
uranium in the Horseshoe and Raven zones is easily leached under relatively
mild atmospheric leach conditions. On average, leach extractions of 98% can be
achieved with a grind K80 of approximately 100 (micro)m, 12 hour leach
retention time, free acid level of 10 g H(2)SO(4)/L representing acid
additions of approximately 50 kg H(2)SO(4)/t, and a 475 mV redox/potential
controlled with NaClO(3) at addition rates of 0.5 to 1 kg NaClO(3)/t. These
excellent extraction levels are comparable to other metallurgically simple
basement-hosted deposits in the region, including the nearby Eagle Point
deposit.
    Horseshoe mineralization comprises pitchblende and other uranium oxides
and silicates without potentially deleterious nickel-arsenide minerals which
may affect extraction and pose tailings disposal problems. Initial effluent
treatment testwork indicates that regulatory discharge limits will be
achievable. Tailings aging tests of waste raffinate and leach residue suggest
that while molybdenum and residual uranium levels in the tailings supernatant
increase upon aging, excess tailings water would be re-used and/or treated in
the mill process and waste treatment circuits under normal operating
conditions to potentially mitigate these effects. These results suggest that
methods of treatment of waste and effluent generated by the processing of this
mineralization would be comparable to those in use at operating mines in the
area.
    Nine composites were submitted for Bond ball mill work index (BWI) and
SPI(R) determinations. The Raven-Horseshoe composites were categorized as
medium in hardness from the perspective of SAG milling and moderately hard for
ball mill grinding.

    Advancing the Horseshoe and Raven Deposits

    Exploration of the deposit areas continues with exploration drilling
currently underway with plans to test additional historically-known areas of
mineralization contained in the historical Gulf resource but outside the
current resource area.
    In progressing toward a feasibility study on the Horseshoe and Raven
Deposits, environmental baseline studies were commenced by Golder in 2006, and
Golder continues to collect biological, hydrogeological and other
environmental data. During the 2007 and 2008 drilling programs, geotechnical
studies of the area of the deposits also commenced, assessing rock properties
and hydrogeology of the area of both the Horseshoe and Raven deposits. Further
baseline and geotechnical studies are scheduled for 2009 following the input
of more detailed information on the project design generated from the ongoing
feasibility study. Any additional infill holes required to upgrade the
Horseshoe and future Raven mineral resources to indicated status are planned
for late 2008 and early 2009, pending recommendations derived from the mineral
resource work. Based on these work plans, UEX plans to begin the feasibility
study for the combined Horseshoe and Raven deposits in early 2009.
    The feasibility study is being led by Golder to examine the most
efficient methods and procedures for extracting the defined uranium resource,
including the most appropriate road access and support infrastructure, mining
methods and operating plans. As the feasibility study progresses, Golder will
supervise the tendering of contracts for all aspects of a potential mining
operation, and will perform cash flow analyses and projections in order to
determine net present values and internal rates of return for Horseshoe at
various uranium price levels.
    The information in this document has been compiled and reviewed by D.
Rhys, P. Geo., and the metallurgical component by B. Fielder, P.Eng., who are
qualified persons as defined by N.I. 43-101.

    About the Horseshoe and Raven Deposits

    Mineralization at Horseshoe comprises shallow dipping zones of
hematization with disseminated and veinlet pitchblende-boltwoodite-uranophane
that are hosted by folded arkosic quartzite gneiss. Mineralization defined to
date occurs in four dominant zones A1, A2, BW, BE, and multiple smaller zones
which define two different styles comprised of: a) disseminated
pitchblende-chlorite-hematite, and b) narrower, higher grade nodular and
veinlet pitchblende in hematite-clay alteration. Within the resource area
reported above, mineralization has been defined to date continuously over a
strike length of approximately 600 m and a dip length of up to 300 m,
occurring at depths of 100-420 m below surface. To view maps and cross
sections of Raven and Horseshoe, please access UEX's website at
www.uex-corporation.com under "Projects -Hidden Bay".
    Horseshoe and the adjacent Raven Deposit are located less than 5
kilometres south of Cameco Corporation's Rabbit Lake operations, and 12
kilometres southeast of AREVA's McClean Lake operations. Both deposits are
hosted by competent basement rocks that could be amenable to both open-pit and
conventional underground ramp access mining methods, pending a positive
feasibility study. Using widely spaced drill holes in 1980, Gulf estimated a
total resource at Raven and Horseshoe of 6.7 million tonnes at an average
grade of 0.16% U(3)O(8), representing approximately 22.82 million contained
pounds of U(3)O(8) (13.2 million pounds grading 0.17% U(3)O(8) at Horseshoe,
and 9.62 million pounds grading 0.14% U(3)O8 at Raven). These historical
resource estimates were not calculated using current Canadian Institute of
Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum standards. As a result, they are not
compliant with N.I. 43-101, and should not be relied upon.

    About UEX

    UEX is a Canadian uranium exploration and development company actively
involved in 19 uranium projects, including seven that are 100% owned and
operated by UEX, one joint venture with AREVA that is operated by UEX, ten
joint-ventured with AREVA and one under option from Japan-Canada Uranium
Company, Limited, which are operated by AREVA. The 19 projects, totaling
385,452 hectares (952,450 acres), are located in the eastern, western and
northern perimeters of the Athabasca Basin, the world's richest uranium belt,
which accounts for approximately 23% of the global primary uranium production.
UEX is currently developing several uranium deposits in the Athabasca Basin
which include the Kianna, Anne and Colette Deposits at its Shea Creek Uranium
Project, a joint venture with AREVA in the western Athabasca Basin, and the
West Bear, Raven and Horseshoe Deposits located at its 100% owned Hidden Bay
Project in the eastern Athabasca Basin. UEX's exploration and development
budgets for 2008 are estimated at approximately $40 million, of which UEX will
be responsible for approximately $30 million.

    
           ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF UEX CORPORATION

                             Stephen H. Sorensen,
                             President & C.E.O.
    

    Forward-Looking Statements

    This news release contains "forward-looking statements" that are based on
UEX's current expectations, estimates, forecasts and projections. These
forward-looking statements include statements regarding UEX's outlook for our
future operations, plans and timing for the commencement or advancement of
exploration activities on our properties, and other expectations, intention
and plans that are not historical fact. The words "estimates", "projects",
"expects", "intends", "believes", "plans", or their negatives or other
comparable words and phrases are intended to identify forward-looking
statements. Such forward-looking statements are subject to risks,
uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual results to differ
materially from future results expressed or implied by such forward-looking
statements. Many of these factors are beyond the control of UEX. Consequently,
all forward-looking statements made in this news release are qualified by this
cautionary statement and there can be no assurance that actual results or
developments anticipated by UEX will be realized. For the reasons set forth
above, investors should not place undue reliance on such forward-looking
statements. UEX disclaims any intention or obligation to update or revise
forward-looking information, whether as a result of new information, future
events or otherwise.

    %SEDAR: 00017609E




For further information:

For further information: UEX CORPORATION, SUITE 1007 - 808 NELSON
STREET, VANCOUVER, B.C., CANADA, V6Z 2H2, PH: (604) 669-2349, FAX (604)
669-1240, Website: www.uex-corporation.com, email: uex@intergate.ca

Organization Profile

UEX Corporation

More on this organization


Custom Packages

Browse our custom packages or build your own to meet your unique communications needs.

Start today.

CNW Membership

Fill out a CNW membership form or contact us at 1 (877) 269-7890

Learn about CNW services

Request more information about CNW products and services or call us at 1 (877) 269-7890