Myriad Uranium Corp press release
Myriad Transformed as Data Trove Reveals Significant Historical Uranium Resources at Copper Mountain
CSE - Canadian National Stock Exchange · Uranium · Vanadium · Gold · Canada
Highlights:
Newly found and reviewed historical data report historical uranium resources between 15.7 million pounds and 30.1 million pounds eU308 at Copper Mountain (with different reports focusing on different areas and applying different estimation criteria).
Rocky Mountain Energy Corporation ("RMEC" - a subsidiary of Union Pacific) estimated the resource _potential_of 2 of the 5 deposits at Copper Mountain could be as high as 63.8 million pounds eU3O8.
The ground considered in these historical estimates is largely within the current claim boundaries of the "Copper Mountain Project", in which Myriad holds an earnable 75% interest.
RMEC had constructed a leach pad and was poised to begin mining at Copper Mountain, within the Copper Mountain Project claim area, only to be interrupted by a rapid decline in uranium prices in 1980 following the Three Mile Island incident.
Historical reports indicate that while known resources at Copper Mountain, once verified, could provide the basis for production, there also appears to be world class potential in "brownfield" exploration opportunities based on modern techniques and understanding.
The historical reports also indicate that Copper Mountain contains a core of high-grade material which has not been calculated to date, and that further understanding of the geometry and continuity of the high-grade portions of the deposits could lead to a significant increase in average grade.
Historical reports confirm amenability of Copper Mountain material to heap leach and are cautiously optimistic regarding potential for in situ recovery methods.
The above information still needs to be verified, but we are confident that the historical work undertaken is relevant based on the amount and quality of the work done.
Vancouver, British Columbia--(Newsfile Corp. - October 31, 2023) - MYRIAD URANIUM CORP.(CSE: M) (OTCQB: MYRUF) (FSE: C3Q)("Myriad" or the "Company") is pleased to report on historical resource estimates contained in a trove of recently-purchased data relating to the Copper Mountain Uranium Project in Wyoming, USA. This should be considered an interim report because the data review is ongoing. Myriad holds an option to earn up to 75% of the project from Rush Rare Metals Corp. ("Rush"). Currently, the project (the "Copper Mountain Project") comprises 110 mineral claims aggregating 1,911 acres (Figure 1).
The Copper Mountain area contains several known uranium deposits and past-producing uranium mines, including the Arrowhead mine which produced 500,000 lbs U3O8in the 1950s and 60s. During the period 1969 to 1980, Rocky Mountain Energy Corp. ("RMEC") spent approximately US$74 million (2023 dollars) exploring and developing Copper Mountain, drilling up to 2,000 boreholes and developing a mine plan and constructing a leach pad for the Canning Deposit. Low uranium prices following 1979's Three Mile Island incident intervened and RMEC ceased operations there.
[](https://images.newsfilecorp.com/files/6301/185779_727d8d50347c4be3_002full.jpg)
Figure 1. Copper Mountain deposits, historical mines, and boreholes
To view an enhanced version of Figure 1, please visit: https://images.newsfilecorp.com/files/6301/185779_727d8d50347c4be3_002full.jpg
All of this activity generated a vast amount of paper-based data, reportedly contained in hundreds of boxes, the existence and location of which is largely unknown. For that reason, the recently purchased data and its resource estimates were not available to the author of Rush's March 2023 Technical Report respecting the Copper Mountain Project. In fact, the phase 1 recommendation in the Technical Report was to obtain historic data, if possible, otherwise a maiden drill program would be required.
_"We got lucky,"_commented Myriad's CEO, Thomas Lamb. "And kudos to Rush's CEO Pete Smith. This first trove, acquired in part due to a chance encounter, and acquired much sooner than anyone expected, contains several high-quality management summaries and technical reports spanning Copper Mountain's history. We believe the resource estimates they contain vault us into an entirely different category. While the known resources at Copper Mountain, once verified, could provide the basis for production, there also appears to be world class potential in "brownfield" exploration opportunities based on modern techniques and understanding. Also ISR amenability, if confirmed, would be a game-changer. Memoranda in the purchased data-and the views of our own ISR experts-are cautiously optimistic. These possibilities will be explored in the future. As you can see, there is a great deal to come. To use a baseball metaphor, the bases are loaded with nobody out."
The resource estimates in the purchased data vary widely depending on the combination of deposits considered, the method of estimation, cut-off grades applied and several other factors. The stated range of resources is 15.7 Mlbs eU3O8 to 30.1 Mlbs eU3O8, but RMEC believed that additional sources could bring this total as high as 63.8 Mlbs (RMEC, 1978). Some of the estimates relate only to Canning, for example, which has generally been the focus of most exploration attention at Copper Mountain. Other estimates include most or all of the known deposits at Copper Mountain, the majority of which are within the Copper Mountain Project. Another point of concern is whether a "delayed fission neutron" (or "DFN") factor should be applied to correct grades.
A review by Neutron Energy in 2008 attempted to summarize all the resource estimates to that date and provided an apt summary of the positive prospects for Copper Mountain while also effectively noting the caution that must be applied:
"There are a multitude of ore or resource calculations. Resources have been calculated by using polygons, sections, plan maps, grade thickness and geostatistics. Some calculations are widely optimistic while others are quite pessimistic. A few can be considered pie-in-the-sky guesses. For some calculations, the reserves are based on gross gamma probe data. Others use probe data corrected with DFN analysis. Geostatistical calculations were done by consultants that were considered the top of the field. The resource studies have been exhaustive and comprehensive, but unfortunately not conclusive... It has been stated over and over again that there is a substantial resource of uranium in the Canning-Fuller zone. With only a cursive examination of the sections and drill hole data, it is obvious that higher grade zones exist at both Canning and Fuller. Some of the grades are very impressive. The high-grade core at Canning has received attention. What cannot be determined with existing data is the degree of continuity of the higher-grade material."
A report by Liller (1991), a geologist who was reviewing a vast Copper Mountain dataset of 250 boxes at the time, made the following comment regarding the high-grade reserve potential at Copper Mountain. It may be useful to keep it in mind as the reader reviews the resource estimates that follow:
"The Copper Mountain Uranium Project contains a core of high-grade reserves which has not been calculated to date. The emphasis of the RMEC work was the identification of a very large bulk tonnage uranium deposit to which economies of scale could be applied. As such they were successful in identifying the Canning deposit and its satellites. Little attention was paid to the structural controls of the orebody or the geometry of the high-grade portions of the deposits. It was not until the Fluor reserve study in 1980 that the basic geometry of the Canning deposit, the most densely drilled of all areas, was even realized. In 1981 RMEC undertook a study on the high-grade material along structures in two separate subareas and demonstrated the continuity of high-grade ore within discrete structural zones. High grade mineralization is also hosted in vein-like bodies of syenite containing specular hematite and in portions of the Tertiary section. No detailed modeling of the geometry and projection of the syenite bodies or Tertiary hosted ore was attempted… Further understanding of the geometry and continuity of the high-grade portions of the orebodies will lead to a better understanding of the reserves and significant increase in average grade."
While Myriad has determined that the historical estimates which follow are relevant to the Copper Mountain Project area and are reasonably reliable given the authors and circumstances of their preparation, and are suitable for public disclosure, readers are cautioned to not place undue reliance on these historical estimates as an indicator of current mineral resources or mineral reserves at the project area. A qualified person (as defined under NI 43-101) has not done sufficient work to classify any of the historical estimates as current mineral resources or mineral reserves, and Myriad is not treating the historical estimates as a current mineral resource or mineral reserve. Also, while the Copper Mountain Project area contains all or most of each deposit referred to, some of the resources referred to sit outside the current Copper Mountain Project area. Furthermore, the estimates are decades old and based on drilling data for which the logs are, as of yet, predominantly unavailable. The resource estimates, therefore, should not be unduly relied upon.
HISTORICAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES
What follows are discussions on different references to resource estimates reported for projects within the Copper Mountain district. These estimates are historic in nature, are not NI 43-101 compliant and should not be relied upon.
Rocky Mountain Energy Corp. (1978)
The earliest historical resource estimate is from Rocky Mountain Energy's 1978 3rdQuarter Report.
RMEC estimated a total of 21.1 Mlbs eU3O8in the Canning Pit area alone. The entire Canning and Fuller Zones were estimated to contain between 39.7 - 63.8 Mlbs of eU308at 0.02% and 0.01% cut-off respectively, using the polygonal slice method. This relates to only 2 of the 5 deposits that RMEC was aware of at Copper Mountain (Canning and Fuller). The following table is reproduced from the report.
| Description | Tons (millions) | Pounds (millions) | Grade (% eU3O8) | | At .01% eU3O8Cut-off: 1977 Canning Pit 1978 Canning Pit
TOTALS | 17.6 18.3 35.9 | 10.2 10.9 21.1 | 0.029 0.030 0.030 | | At .01% eU3O8Cut-off: 1978 Canning Zone 1978 Fuller Zone
TOTALS | 99.8 39.5 139.3 | 42.8 21.0 63.8 | 0.021 0.027 0.023 | | At .015% eU3O8Cut-off: Canning Fuller
TOTALS | 50.9 24.4 75.3 | 30.5 17.2 47.7 | 0.030 0.035 0.032 | | At .020% eU3O8Cut-off: Canning Fuller
TOTALS | 34.8 17.1 51.9 | 25.0 14.7 39.7 | 0.036 0.043 0.038 |
RMEC based the estimates in the report on extensive drilling, stating that "Drilling during the third quarter dramatically increased the total indicated resources. At a 0.01% eU308cut-off, there appears to be a minimum of at least 64 million pounds of contained U308." The term "Indicated" in this context presumably refers generally to estimated resources, rather than the official resource category of "Indicated Resources" that we use today.
The exact number of boreholes to the date of the estimate is not indicated but can be derived to be in the order of 1,800. By 1980 the number of boreholes drilled at Copper Mountain was in the order 1,850, and another report in the purchased data states that approximately 50 boreholes were drilled in 1979. By 1980, according to numerous sources, approximately 900,000 feet of drilling had been conducted at Copper Mountain across approximately 1,850 boreholes.
The RMEC report states that the Canning zone (located near the centre of the Myriad/Rush Copper Mountain Project area) was largely defined on 200-foot centers. Drilling of the test pit area at the west end of the Canning zone to 100-foot centres was nearly completed as at the date of the report.
The report's estimate does not use categories other than "Mineral Resource" and "Mineral Reserve". The report states: "Three sets of reserves were developed. Reserves were calculated for the Canning pit, the resources for the entire Canning zone were developed, and finally the resources for Fuller area were calculated. Drilling since the inception of the current program have greatly added to the reserves."
Regarding reliability, the report also stated that plans called for, inter alia, economic analysis and sensitivity studies, mining studies through column analysis and similar programs, reserve calculation and chemical to probe correction factors, and pit optimization, and concludes "that there is now enough data to make studies of this nature meaningful."
Inherent imitations of the estimates include that the nature of the mineralisation (fracture hosted) makes estimation from drill data less reliable than other deposit types (e.g, those that are thick and uniform). From Myriad's viewpoint, limitations include that the Company has not been able to verify the data itself and that the estimate may be optimistic relative to subsequent work which applied a "delayed fission neutron" factor to calculate grades. DFN is controversial, in that the approach is viewed by some experts as too conservative, but it was nevertheless applied in future resource calculations relating to Copper Mountain.
Fluor Metals and Mining, Inc. (1980)
A resource estimate by Fluor Metals and Mining, Inc., commissioned by RMEC and published in 1980, is described in detail in a number of subsequent technical documents and is often relied upon as a robust "conservative case" estimate. Myriad has not yet located a copy of the Fluor report, but reference to it by almost all subsequent experts reporting on Copper Mountain warrants its inclusion here. The details and extracts presented are from a Neutron Uranium, Inc. Technical Report prepared by G.S. Carter of Broad Oak Associates dated August 20, 2008.
Fluor's goals were stated as: correction for "disequilibrium"; construction of a three-dimensional dowel-rod model; geostatistical structural analysis; determination of global grade-tonnage curves; creation of a computerized block model: and development of a bulk sampling program. Fluor investigated various resource estimation techniques including polygonal methods, cross-sectional methods, ordinary kriging, and a method using conditional lognormal probability distributions, which was the chosen method.
The Fluor estimate was reported as a "geostatistical ore reserve analysis" for the "Canning area" which includes some of the surrounding uranium deposits. It also included reserve and mineable reserve estimates for the "Canning deposit", as distinct from the "Canning area". In addition, the Fluor report refers to "proven and global reserves". Only "Mineral Resource" and "Mineral Reserve" are defined at sections 1.2 and 1.3 of NI 43-101. "Mineable", "Proven", and "Global" reserves, all used by Fluor, are not.
Fluor used a conditional lognormal probability distributions method to calculate its estimates and applied a delayed fission neutron (DFN) adjustment which reduced the grades. The application of DFN was the subject of considerable discussion, since other factors were thought to compensate in the other direction. Since Fluor's probe adjustments are in one direction only, their 1980 estimates are the most conservative in the purchased data.
Fluor also included a milling option in its estimates. The economic criteria used by Fluor were as follows (1980 US dollars):
| Mining cost (ore and waste): | $1.47/per short ton | | Milling cost: | $15.02/per short ton | | Mining recovery: | 97% | | Milling recovery: | 91% |
Fluor estimated the following resources for the "Canning Area" using DFN assay data to define tons and grades at a cut-off of 0.01% U3O8:
| Deposit | Million Short Tons | Contained U3O8(Mlbs) | | Canning | 25.98 | 8.79 | | Fuller | 4.71 | 1.54 | | Mine | 3.68 | 1.41 | | Allard | 3.81 | 3.81 | | Hesitation | 4.06 | 1.3 | | TOTALS | 42.24 | 14.64 |
Limitations of the estimates discussed above include that the nature of the mineralisation at Copper Mountain (fracture hosted) makes estimation from drill data less reliable than other deposit types (e.g, those that are thick and uniform) and that the "delayed fission neutron" factor used to calculate grades is somewhat controversial, in that the approach is viewed by some experts as too conservative. G.S. Carter, the author of the Neutron Energy, Inc. report, was not able to verify the data utilized to prepare the Fluor Report, as the raw drill hole data was not accessible to him. However, various progress reports prepared by RMEC staff and selected radiometric logs published in a US Department of Energy report (Sayala and others. 1982) were available to Mr. Carter for review. From Myriad's viewpoint, limitations include that the Company has not yet been able to verify the data either.
Fluor stated "Proven" and "Global" reserves for the "Canning Deposit" as follows:
"Proven reserves" at 0.010% cut-off contained 6.22 mm Ibs U308 "Proven reserves" at 0.015% cut-off contained 4.77 mm lbs U308 "Proven reserves" at 0.020% cut-off contained 3.69 mm Ibs U308 "Proven reserves" at 0.025% cut-off contained 2.89 mm Ibs U308
"Global reserves" at 0.010% cut-off contained 10.49 mm lbs U308 "Global reserves" at 0.015% cut-off contained 7.74 mm lbs U308 "Global reserves" at 0.020% cut-off contained 5.84 mm lbs U308 "Global reserves" at 0.025% cut-off contained 4.51 mm lbs U308
Fluor also estimated mineable reserves for the "Canning deposit", which used a conventional milling option with resin-in-pulp/solvent extraction rather than other options that were considered, including heap leaching and vat leaching. Maximum case mineable reserves (assuming $60/lb uranium) were estimated for the Canning deposit at up to 4.096 Mlbs U308 at 0.010% cut-off, and 2.432 Mlbs at 0.025% cut-off. Reserves were considered non-mineable at $40/lb using a 0.01% cut-off.
| "MINEABLE" RESERVES FOR THE "CANNING DEPOSIT" AT 0.010% CUT-OFF, 1980 | | | | Price | Million Short Tons | Contained U308(Mlbs) | | $40 /lb | Non-mineable | N/A | | $45 /lb | 0.966 | 0.565 | | $50 /lb | 5.351 | 2.638 | | $55 /lb | 7.113 | 3.386 | | $60 /lb | 8.958 | 4.096 |
| "MINEABLE" RESERVES FOR THE "CANNING DEPOSIT" AT 0.020% CUT-OFF | | | | Price | Million Short Tons | Contained U308(Mlbs) | | $40 /lb | 0.495 | 0.439 | | $45 /lb | 2.329 | 1.774 | | $50 /lb | 2.865 | 2.126 | | $55 /lb | 3.242 | 2.381 | | $60 /lb | 3.321 | 2.432 |
Liller Report (1991)
Anaconda Resources Inc.'s Summary Report of the Copper Mountain Uranium Project, by Gregory K. Liller, dated April, 1991, contains a detailed summary of exploration and development at Copper Mountain up to that date, and also a resource estimate which is based on all of the historical work by RMEC and also the Fluor report discussed above. It appears he had access to the entire RMEC data set and the original Fluor report. Mr. Liller does use the term "contained drill proven resources". A detailed breakdown of drilling conducted to support the resource estimate is provided by Mr. Liller and reproduced below.
Mr. Liller expressly confirms certain facts that Myriad had understood from other documents in the recently purchased data, the principal one being the amenability of Copper Mountain material to heap leach. Liller writes that "heap leach amenability has already been established by RMEC and numerous third parties". and "…an order of magnitude study that includes preliminary flowsheet design, equipment lists and capital requirement costs should be prepared."
He also states that: _"The heap leach mining option appears to be economically viable at this time [April 1991, when uranium prices were roughly US$11/lb]. This conclusion is based upon data contained in the Fluor reserve study and the metallurgical studies conducted by CSMRI. In order to advance the project in this direction the following steps should be undertaken: [1] A bulk sample should be obtained from the Canning deposit. This will enable metallurgical and process design parameters to be firmly established. [2] An order of magnitude study needs to be performed in order to establish the economic parameters._