Resource estimate for Anderson Uranium Property completed, preliminary
feasibility study resource estimate recommended


VANCOUVER, May 6 /CNW/ - Global Uranium Corporation (the "Company" or "Global") (GU: TSX-Venture Exchange) is pleased to announce that the Technical Report on the Anderson Uranium Property in Arizona, USA, dated April 30, 2010 has been received.

The Anderson property (the Anderson Property) is located in a remote area near the town of Wickenburg, Yavapai County, in west-central Arizona, USA. The Anderson Property claim block comprises 280 contiguous, unpatented, lode mining claims and 9 placer claims (5,785 acres total) held by Concentric Energy Corporation (Concentric Energy), a Nevada corporation with offices at 3550 Sabin Brown Road, Wickenburg, Nevada, USA, and operated by Anderson Mining Company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Concentric Energy. On April 15, 2010, Global Uranium Corporation (Global Uranium), a Canadian corporation, entered into an Option and Joint Venture Agreement with Concentric Energy, where Global Uranium has acquired the right to incrementally earn up to a 70% interest in the Anderson Property.

This Technical Report was prepared by Leo J. Gilbride, P.E., Michael P. Hardy, Ph.D., P.E., and Douglas F. Hambley, Ph.D., P.E. of Agapito Associates, Inc. (AAI), which was retained by Concentric Energy to study the Anderson Property and prepare a technical report in accordance with National Instrument 43-101-Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (NI 43-101). Leo J. Gilbride, Michael P. Hardy, and Douglas F. Hambley are each a "qualified person" for the purposes of this Technical Report, as that term is defined in NI 43-101. This Technical Report was originally completed in 2008 and updated in April 2010. The authors believe that no significant changes occurred during this time, other than the change in ownership structure due to the agreement with Global Uranium.

The central portion of the Anderson Property is of primary interest and is defined by 1,393 vertical exploration drill holes, including 1,320 downhole gamma surveys and a total of 5,596 chemical assays, completed by Minerals Exploration Company of Union 76 Minerals (MinEx), a subsidiary of Unocal Corporation (Unocal), and Urangesellschaft U.S.A., Inc. (Urangesellschaft) in the 1970s. Work was carried out on two adjoining properties, MinEx to the north and Urangesellschaft to the south, over an area that generally overlaps the current claim holdings of the Anderson Property covering approximately 9 square miles. Both operators were prominent in the mining industry in the 1970s and were regarded as bona fide and competent exploration companies. The exploration records and geologic interpretation produced by the companies are believed to be factual and authentic in the authors' opinion. The Measured plus Indicated Mineral Resource estimate stated in this report is based exclusively on the historical exploration data produced by MinEx. The validity of the MinEx radiometric exploration data was confirmed in 2006 based on the findings of a due diligence exploration program conducted by Concentric Energy. The program included successfully re-logging (natural gamma) three open historical holes and twin-drilling and logging 24 additional historical holes. Inferred Resources are estimated for both the MinEx and Urangesellschaft areas.

A series of total in-place resource estimates were completed, starting in February 2006 and continuing as recently as April 2007, to assist Concentric Energy in evaluating the potential for delineating a Mineral Resource estimate compliant with the disclosure requirements in NI 43-101 at the Anderson Property. The resource estimates were developed by compiling half-foot drill-hole intervals that met a defined radiometric-equivalent uranium cutoff grade. The grade for each interval was determined with the aid of the GAMLOG computer program used to convert natural gamma radiation counts to an equivalent radiometric grade of uranium oxide (U(3)O(8)) (expressed as a percentage by mass), with adjustments for disequilibrium. The composite grade and composite thickness were determined for each exploration drill hole and input to a computer block model to estimate the grade and quantity of potential uranium mineralization. The inverse distance-squared method was applied to block modeling.

The Mineral Resource estimate is based exclusively on radiometric data and, therefore, grades are expressed as percent eU(3)O(8) or "%eU(3)O(8)" where "e" signifies as an equivalent percentage of uranium by weight. Chemical assay data were not included directly in the calculation of tons or grade, but were used to corroborate radiometric data and compute disequilibrium factors that were used in the estimate. Unless otherwise indicated, references to "tons" are to short tons (which is equivalent to 2,000 lbs) and references to "$" or dollar amounts are to United States dollars.

The Mineral Resource estimate included in this Technical Report is in accordance with the Canadian Institute of Metallurgy, Mining and Petroleum Definition Standards (CIM Definition Standards). Measured and Indicated Resources are estimated based on verification of the exploration data from the former MinEx portion of the Anderson Property (see Figure 1-1).

Figure 1-1. MinEx and Urangesellschaft Areas within the Anderson Mine Property Block Included in Mineral Resource Estimate

    To see Figure 1-1, please go to:

Inferred Resources are estimated for all the Anderson Property including areas previously explored by MinEx and Urangesellschaft. It is anticipated that confirmation drilling of the former Urangesellschaft property would be successful in upgrading some portion of the Inferred Resource to the Measured and Indicated categories.

The Mineral Resource estimate for the Anderson property at a eU(3)O(8) cutoff grade of 0.02% and a cutoff thickness of 0.5 ft. is shown in Table 1.1

    Table 1.1    Measured and Indicated Uranium Mineral Resource-In-Place
                 Cumulative Mineralization
                      Mineral-  Mineral-   Mineral-
                        ized     ized        ized        Average   Pounds
      Resource          Area   Thickness     Tons       Grade (%  eU(3)O(8)
    Classification    (acres)     (ft)     (million)   eU(3)O(8)) (million)
    CUTOFF: 0.02% eU(3)O(8) and 0.5 ft Thick
    Measured             156       11.5         3.8       0.059       4.5
    Indicated            231       12.4         6.1       0.054       6.6

    Combined Meas.
     + Ind.              387       12.0         9.9       0.056      11.1
    Inferred             261         10         5.6       0.051       5.7

Mineral Resource estimates for the Anderson Property, at a range of cut-off grades are summarized in Table 1-2. These range from 1.6 to 4.5 million pounds of measured eU(3)O(8), 2.3 to 6.6 million pounds of indicated eU(3)O(8) and 5.9 to 23.4 million pounds of inferred (MinEx and Urangesellschaft) eU(3)O(8). These estimates include total in-place, composite mineralization accumulated in all radiometric beds with a cutoff thickness of 0.5 feet (ft). Figure 1-2 illustrates the relationship between pounds of in-place uranium and resource cutoff grade.

The Measured Mineral Resource accounts for mineralization located laterally within 50 ft of a drill hole reporting radiometric data. The Indicated Mineral Resource applies to mineralization located laterally between 50 ft and 100 ft of a radiometric hole and the Inferred Mineral Resource applies to mineralization located laterally between 100 ft and 200 ft of a radiometric hole. Such radii are considered consistent with mainstream industry practice and are supported by the site-specific geologic variability indicated by the exploration data. Tonnage factors for host rock are known to vary from as low as 15 cubic feet per ton (cu-ft/ton) to as much as 30 cu-ft/ton, representing up to a -25% to +50% potential variation in pounds of mineralization at a given location from that computed with the mean dry tonnage factor of 20.46 cu-ft/ton used in the current Mineral Resource estimate Reasonable prospects exist for economic extraction of the deposit. The primary risks affecting economic recovery are the potential for ore dilution during mining and low metallurgical processing efficiency.

       Table 1-2. Mineral Resource-In-Place Cumulative Mineralization(+)
                     Mineral-    Average      Mineral-    Average   In-place
       Resource        ized      Mineral-      ized      Grade (%    Pounds
    Classification   Area(++)      ized       Tons*   eU(3)O(8)) eU(3)O(8)
                      (acres)  Thickness(++) (million)             (million)
    CUTOFF: 0.01% eU(3)O(8) and 0.5 ft Thick
      Measured           157       24.0         8.0       0.037       5.9
      Indicated          233       26.7        13.2       0.034       9.0
      Combined           390       25.6        21.2       0.035      14.9
      Inferred           270       22.2        12.7       0.031       7.8
    CUTOFF: 0.02% eU(3)O(8) and 0.5 ft Thick
      Measured           156       11.5         3.8       0.059       4.5
      Indicated          231       12.4         6.1       0.054       6.6
      Combined           387       12.0         9.9       0.056      11.1
      Inferred           261       10.0         5.6       0.051       5.7
    CUTOFF: 0.03% eU(3)O(8) and 0.5 ft Thick
      Measured           156        7.1         2.4       0.077       3.6
      Indicated          231        7.4         3.7       0.072       5.3
      Combined           387        7.3         6.0       0.074       8.9
      Inferred           259        5.9         3.2       0.068       4.4
    CUTOFF: 0.04% eU(3)O(8) and 0.5 ft Thick
      Measured           156        4.9         1.6       0.094       3.1
      Indicated          230        5.1         2.5       0.089       4.4
      Combined           386        5.0         4.1       0.091       7.5
      Inferred           257        4.0         2.2       0.084       3.7
    CUTOFF: 0.05% eU(3)O(8) and 0.5 ft Thick
      Measured           155        3.6         1.2       0.109       2.6
      Indicated          228        3.7         1.8       0.104       3.7
      Combined           383        3.7         3.0       0.106       6.3
      Inferred           253        2.9         1.6       0.098       3.1
    CUTOFF: 0.08% eU(3)O(8) and 0.5 ft Thick
      Measured           151        1.9         0.6       0.154       1.9
      Indicated          216        2.0         0.9       0.147       2.7
      Combined           367        1.9         1.5       0.150       4.5
      Inferred           227        1.6         0.8       0.142       2.2
    CUTOFF: 0.10% eU(3)O(8) and 0.5 ft Thick
      Measured           148        1.4         0.4       0.182       1.6
      Indicated          209        1.5         0.7       0.176       2.3
      Combined           357        1.5         1.1       0.178       3.9
      Inferred           211        1.2         0.6       0.172       1.9

      Table 1-1. Mineral Resource-In-Place Cumulative Mineralization(+)
                      Mineral-   Average      Mineral-  Average    In-place
       Resource         ized     Mineral-      ized     Grade (%    Pounds
    Classification    Area(++)    ized        Tons*  eU(3)O(8)) eU(3)O(8)
                      (acres)  Thickness(++) (million)            (million)
    CUTOFF: 0.15% eU(3)O(8) and 0.5 ft Thick
      Measured           143        0.8         0.2       0.252       1.2
      Indicated          192        0.8         0.3       0.244       1.6
      Combined           335        0.8         0.6       0.247       2.8
      Inferred           180        0.7         0.3       0.239       1.3


    1)  The effective date of the Mineral Resource estimate is July 20, 2007.
    2)  Mineral Resources were estimated using a two-dimensional block model.
        Block thicknesses and grades were interpolated from the drill-hole
        composite data utilizing the inverse distance-squared method.
    3)  The Mineral Resource estimate is based on radiometric data from MinEx
        drill holes validated by Concentric Energy.
    4)  The Mineralized Area and the Average Mineralized Thickness refer to
        the respective dimensions of the resource that encompass
        mineralization that meets the indicated cutoff grade.
    5)  The Mineralized tons are based on a host rock average dry tonnage
        factor of 20.46 cu-ft/ton.
    6)  The Average Grade is expressed as an equivalent percentage of uranium
        by weight.
    7)  The Mineral Resource estimates have not been modified to account for
        considerations related to mining method such as minimum mining
    8)  Mineral Resources have been estimated by applying cut-off grades
        ranging from 0.01% U(3)O(8) to 0.15% U(3)O(8) at a minimum
        mineralized thickness of 0.5 ft to Mineral Resource estimation
    9)  The geological model employed for the Anderson Property was developed
        by dividing the claim area into 50-ft-wide by 50-ft-long blocks
        aligned north-south and east-west. Blocks along the property boundary
        were subdivided/split to better conform to the boundary shape. The
        model consisted of a single layer of blocks and, thus, can be
        considered equivalent to a gridded seam model. Block heights varied
        according to the estimated thickness of mineralization.
    10) Mineral Resources are defined based on their distance from
        radiometric drill holes. Measured Mineral Resources are located
        within 50 ft of radiometric drill holes. Indicated Mineral Resources
        are located between 50 ft to 100 ft of radiometric drill holes.
        Inferred Mineral Resources are located between 100 ft to 200 ft of
        radiometric drill holes.
    11) No environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation, socio-
        political, marketing or other issues are expected to materially
        affect the above estimate of Mineral Resources.
    12) Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not have
        demonstrated economic viability.
    13) Inferred Mineral Resources have a great amount of uncertainty as to
        their existence and as to whether they can be mined legally or
        economically. It cannot be assumed that all or any part of Inferred
        Mineral Resources will ever be upgraded to a higher category.

         Figure 1-2. Mineralized Resource Grade-Uranium Pounds Curves

    To see Figure 1-2, please go to:

Metallurgical studies conducted by Hazen and commissioned by MinEx and Urangesellschaft determined that processing costs could vary over a wide range relative to mining costs depending upon mill grade, mineralogy, and reagent costs. MinEx ultimately concluded that open-pit mining was economically feasible at 1970s commodity prices, even with what were determined to be worst-case processing costs. Similarly, Urangesellschaft demonstrated an overall uranium solubilization of 79% with acid heap leaching after 45 days of leaching, indicating that relatively low-cost heap leach processing was a viable option where lower, rather than higher, recovery rates could be tolerated. Detailed metallurgical testing is required as a key component in the project's pre-feasibility/feasibility evaluation.

The Anderson Property is also being explored as a potential Mineral Resource for vanadium, which is associated with uranium mineralization. Insufficient exploration has occurred to define a vanadium Measured and Indicated Mineral Resource. An Inferred Vanadium Resource has been estimated based on the ratio of vanadium to uranium of 1.05 as evident in 453 assayed samples from 14 cored holes and 850 samples from the confirmation drilling performed in 2006.

When the data from the assays of the 2.5-ft lengths of the 2006 confirmation holes are included, the average V:U ratio for the 34 holes (14 MinEx holes and 20 2006 confirmation holes) ranges between 0.7 and 5.4. The log-normal mean of these ratios is 1.05. No cutoff grade was used to determine these ratios. A review of the V:U ratios for the individual sample assays from both the MinEx drilling program and the 2006 confirmation holes suggests that the vanadium generally correlates with uranium, these two metals are both present in the two principal uranium minerals tyuyamunite (Ca(UO(2))(2)(VO(4))(2)-5-8H(2)O) and carnotite (K(2)(UO(2))(2)(VO(4))(2)-3H(2)O).

    Table 2.1 Inferred Vanadium Mineral Resource-In-Place Cumulative
                      Mineral-   Mineral-    Mineral-
                       ized        ized        ized      Average   Pounds
        Resource      Area(++) Thickness(++)  Tons*   Grade (%  eV(2)O(5)
     Classification   (acres)      (ft)     (million)  eV(2)O(5)) (million)
    CUTOFF: 0.02% eU(3)O(8) and 0.5 ft Thick
    Inferred MinEx       636       11.4        15.4       0.057      17.5
     Urangesellschaft    499       18.2        19.4       0.048      18.6

    Total (Minex + UG
     areas)             1137       14.4        34.8       0.052      36.1
    (+)  Defined by unvalidated Urangesellschaft radiometric holes.
    (++) Refers to resource meeting cutoff.
    *  Mineralized tons based on host rock average dry tonnage factor
         20.46 cu-ft/ton.

Results indicate that vanadium correlates relatively well with chemical uranium, and that vanadium likely occurs in sufficient quantity to be of value. Exploratory information is currently insufficient to classify any part of the vanadium mineralization as either a Measured or Indicated Resource; however, the vanadium could be classified as an Inferred Resource. Table 2.1 shows that, at a U(3)O(8) cutoff grade of 0.02% eU(3)O(8) and a cutoff thickness of 0.5 ft, the Inferred Vanadium Resource estimate for the combined MinEx and Urangesellschaft areas, that up to 36.1 million pounds of V(2)O(5) are potentially associated with the uranium mineralization based on an average V:U ratio of 1.05 calculated from chemical assays located throughout the deposit. This comprises mineralization located within 400 ft of a drill hole. Additional drilling, assaying, and geologic studies are required to achieve the level of confidence commensurate with the Measured or Indicated resource classifications.

This Technical Report recommends further evaluation of the Mineral Resources on the Anderson Property, to be conducted in two phases:

    Phase I-NI 43-101 Concept-Specific Mineral Resource Estimate

    Estimated Cost: $980,000 to $2,700,000

        Phase I tasks are identified for advancing the current Mineral
        Resource estimate of total in-place mineralization to a concept-
        specific Mineral Resource estimate where the resource cutoff is
        certain. Phase I focuses on (a) defining the Mineral Resource in
        terms of individual radiometric beds so that alternative mining
        methods can be considered, and (b) establishing specific cutoffs so
        that the Mineral Resource can be refined to include only the specific
        beds that have reasonable potential for recovery by the most probable
        mining method(s). Specific tasks include:

        1. Geologic Model-A comprehensive geologic model is required that (a)
           cross-correlates radiometric beds between drill holes and improves
           the definition of the individual radiometric beds, and (b) defines
           the geometry of lithologic units across the Anderson Property.
           Estimated cost: $50,000 to $250,000.

        2. Geostatistical Drilling-Additional holes should be drilled and
           gamma surveyed for analysis of the spatial variability of the
           deposit. A line of holes stepping out on 10-ft centers to a
           distance of 100 ft, and 20-ft centers thereafter to 200 ft is
           recommended. A minimum of two lines drilled central to the
           resource are recommended, one parallel and one perpendicular to
           the dominant northwest-southeast fault orientation (30 rotary
           holes total). Estimated cost: $500,000 to $1,000,000.

        3. Geostatistical Modeling-The Mineral Resource estimate should be
           re-calculated on a bed-by-bed basis using a kriging model with the
           bed-specific variogram models. The radii used for the Measured and
           Indicated Mineral Resource classifications should be re-visited
           and revised, if justified, based upon degree of spatial variance
           determined by variography. Estimated cost: $50,000 to $150,000.

        4. Metallurgical Processing-A preliminary investigation of possible
           metallurgical processes should be completed to a level sufficient
           to (a) identify the most probable method(s) for processing the
           Mineral Resource and (b) establish first-pass processing costs.
           Any probable metallurgical constraints should be included as
           additional cutoffs in the Mineral Resource estimate. Estimated
           cost: $200,000 to $750,000.

        5. Concept Mine Plan-A preliminary investigation of possible mining
           methods should be completed to a level sufficient to (a) identify
           the most probable method(s) for mining the Mineral Resource and
           (b) establish first-pass mining costs and grade cutoffs. Estimated
           cost: $100,000 to $300,000.

        6. Market Prices-Investigate market prices for uranium to be used for
           establishing Mineral Resource estimate cutoffs. Estimated cost:
           $30,000 to $100,000.

        7. Revised Mineral Resource Estimate-Recalculate the Mineral Resource
           Estimate based on the cutoff parameters established for the mining
           concept. Estimated cost: $50,000 to $150,000.

    Phase II-NI 43-101 Mineral Resource Estimate for Pre-Feasibility Study

    Estimated Cost: $20,000 to $1,050,000

        The later phase includes additional drilling that may be justified to
        expand the Mineral Resource estimate or upgrade the resource
        classification. The results of any additional drilling should be
        incorporated into a revised Mineral Resource estimate.

        1. Additional Drilling-Based on the results of the Phase I work,
           additional exploration drilling may be justified to (a) expand the
           size of the Mineral Resource estimate or (b) upgrade the
           classification. Estimated cost: Up to $1,000,000.

        2. Isotopic Analysis-Analyze (235)U and (234)U isotopes for the
           resource. Deviations from the normal 234U value (about 55
           micrograms (234)U per gram total U) may affect marketability and,
           thus, the value of potential Mineral Reserves. Estimated cost:
           $20,000 to $50,000.


Agapito Associates, Inc. (AAI) provides consulting services in geo-engineering, mining engineering, and related disciplines. Founded in 1978 to meet the needs of the mineral and energy industries, the firm operates out of offices in Grand Junction, Colorado, Golden (Denver), Colorado and Lombard (Chicago), Illinois. Members of the staff include mining, civil and geological engineers, physicists, geologists, numerical analysts, computer specialists, instrumentation specialists, plus administration and technical support personnel. AAI has provided consulting and engineering services to mining companies producing base metals, precious metals, coal, potash, trona, limestone, oil shale and salt, and to defense and nuclear waste isolation, and rock slope design have been performed in 35 of the United States and in Argentina, Australia, Honduras, Venezuela, Norway, Canada, Mexico, Sardinia, Thailand, Turkey, India, Korea, Morocco, Jordan, Russia and China.

George W. Heard, BSc, MBA, PEng, President of Global Uranium Corporation, a qualified person in accordance with National Instrument 43-101 Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects, prepared this news release.


Global Uranium Corporation is a uranium exploration and development company focusing on properties located in the south-western United States with special emphasis on Arizona and Nevada. The Company's strategy is to maximize shareholder value through successful exploration and development of its properties.

Neither the TSX Venture Exchange nor its Regulation Services Provider (as that term is defined in the policies of the TSX Venture Exchange) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release.


For further information: For further information: Neil Linder, CEO, Director, Phone: (760) 610-9297 or (604) 644-2992

Organization Profile


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