National Instrument 43-101 Technical Report Update of … Instrument 43-101 Technical Report . ......

Professionals in resources, mining, processing, construction and the environment www.cam-llc.com

12600 W. Colfax Ave., Suite A-140 Lakewood, Colorado 80215 Telephone: (303) 716-1617 Fax: (303) 716-3386

National Instrument 43-101 Technical Report

Update of Gas Hills Uranium Project

Fremont and Natrona Counties, Wyoming, USA

Prepared for:

Strathmore Minerals Corp.

620 Dickson Avenue, Suite 700

Kelowna, B.C. V1Y 9Y2, Canada

Effective date: 20 November 2012

Report date: 22 March 2013

127117

Prepared by:

Chlumsky, Armbrust & Meyer, LLC

Richard L. Nielsen, Ph.D., CPG

Thomas C. Pool, P.E.

Robert L. Sandefur, P.E.

Matthew P. Reilly, P.E.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No.

CAM 127117 i Strathmore Gas Hills Uranium Project Update 22 March 2013

Section 1.0 SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Introduction and Summary of Recent Work ............................................... 1 1.2 Property Description and Location, History of Exploration and Development ................................................... 1 1.3 Geology and Uranium Mineralization ........................................................ 2 1.4 Exploration and Drilling by Strathmore ...................................................... 3 1.5 Sample Preparation, Analyses, Security, and Protocols ............................. 5 1.5.1 Historical Analyses ....................................................................... 5 1.5.2 Strathmore Data ............................................................................ 5 1.6 Data Verification ......................................................................................... 5 1.7 Metallurgical Studies .................................................................................. 6 1.8 Mineral Resource Estimation ...................................................................... 6 1.9 Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................... 9 2.0 INTRODUCTION AND TERMS OF REFERENCE .............................................. 11 2.1 Purpose of Report and Terms of Reference ................................................ 11 2.2 Sources of Information ............................................................................... 11 3.0 RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS ...................................................................... 13 4.0 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION ................................................... 14 4.1 Location ...................................................................................................... 14 4.2 Mining Claims ............................................................................................ 14 4.3 State of Wyoming Mineral Lease ............................................................... 16 4.4 Private Mineral Lease ................................................................................. 17 4.5 Legal Surveys.............................................................................................. 18 4.6 Environmental Permits ................................................................................ 19 4.6.1 Mineralized Areas, Surface Disturbance, Environmental Liability ........................................................................................ 19 4.6.2 Exploration Permits ...................................................................... 19 4.6.3 Exploration Drilling Plan of Operations (BLM) .......................... 20 4.6.4 Mine Site Permitting ..................................................................... 20 4.6.5 Mill Site Permitting ...................................................................... 21 4.6.6 Summary of Property Situation .................................................... 22 5.0 ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND PHYSIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................... 23 5.1 Topography, Elevation, Physiography ........................................................ 23 5.2 Climate, Vegetation and Wildlife ............................................................... 23 5.3 Infrastructure ............................................................................................... 23 6.0 HISTORY ...................................................................................................... 26 6.1 Historical Mineral Tonnage and Grade Estimates on Strathmore’s Gas Hills Project ......................................................................................... 26 6.1.1 Day Loma (Western Nuclear/Phelps Dodge/Energy Fuels) Historical Mineral Estimates ........................................................ 30 6.1.2 George –Ver (Federal-American Partners’ and Pathfinder) Historical Mineral Estimates ........................................................ 31 6.1.3 Loco-Lee (Federal American Partners’) Historical Mineral Estimates ........................................................ 32 6.1.4 Bullrush (Federal American Partners’) Historical Mineral Estimates ........................................................ 32 6.1.5 Jeep (Federal American Partners’) Historical Mineral Estimates 33


CAM 127117 ii Strathmore Gas Hills Uranium Project Update 22 March 2013

Section 6.1.6 Rock Hill (Adobe-Vipont) Historical Mineral Estimates ............. 33 6.1.7 Allegretti Historical Mineral Estimates ........................................ 34 6.2 Summary ..................................................................................................... 34 7.0 GEOLOGIC SETTING AND MINERALIZATION ............................................... 36 7.1 Regional Geology ....................................................................................... 36 7.2 Regional Sedimentary Package ................................................................... 36 7.3 Geologic Setting of the Gas Hills Uranium District ................................... 37 7.3.1 Description of Stratigraphic Units of the Gas Hills ...................... 38 7.4 Geologic Setting of Mineralization in the Gas Hills Uranium District ....... 40 7.5 Uranium Mineralization .............................................................................. 44 7.6 Summary of Geology and Mineralization ................................................... 50 8.0 DEPOSIT TYPES .................................................................................................... 51 9.0 EXPLORATION ...................................................................................................... 52 9.1 Exploration Methodology ........................................................................... 52 9.2 Bullrush Exploration ................................................................................... 55 9.3 Day Loma Exploration ................................................................................ 57 9.4 George-Ver Exploration .............................................................................. 59 9.5 Loco-Lee Exploration ................................................................................. 60 9.6 Rock Hill Exploration ................................................................................. 61 9.7 Jeep Exploration.......................................................................................... 61 9.8 Tablestakes Exploration .............................................................................. 62 9.9 Remaining Potential Mineral Targets, Main Gas Hills Properties .............. 62 9.9.1 Bullrush Target ............................................................................. 64 9.9.2 Day Loma Southeast and Northeast Targets ................................ 66 9.9.3 George-Ver Antelope Target ........................................................ 68 9.9.4 Loco-Lee Target ........................................................................... 68 9.9.5 Tablestakes Target ........................................................................ 70 9.9.6 Jeep South Target ......................................................................... 70 9.9.7 Summary of Potential Targets in the Main Gas Hills District ...... 70 9.10 Beaver Rim Exploration Areas ................................................................... 71 10.0 DRILLING ...................................................................................................... 74 10.1 Bullrush Project Area Drilling Summary .................................................... 77 10.2 Day Loma Project Area Drilling Summary ................................................ 81 10.3 George-Ver Project Area Drilling Summary .............................................. 86 10.5 Rock Hill Project Area Drilling Summary .................................................. 94 10.6 Tablestakes Project Area Drilling Summary............................................... 99 10.7 Beaver Rim Exploration Area Drilling Summary ....................................... 102 11.0 SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES, SECURITY AND PROTOCOLS ....... 109 11.1 Historical Analyses ..................................................................................... 109 11.2 Strathmore Analyses ................................................................................... 110 11.3 Security ...................................................................................................... 112 11.4 Summary ..................................................................................................... 112 12.0 DATA VERIFICATION.......................................................................................... 113 12.1 Gamma log Interpretation and General Validation ..................................... 114 12.1.1 Logging Cross-Checks ................................................................. 114 12.1.2 Validity of PFN Logging .............................................................. 115 12.1.3 Chemical Assay - Quality Assurance/Quality Control ................. 118 12.1.4 Gamma log Interpretation and General Validation Conclusions .. 119


CAM 127117 iii Strathmore Gas Hills Uranium Project Update 22 March 2013

Section 12.2 Bullrush Project Area – Data Verification .................................................. 120 12.3 Day Loma Project Area –Data Verification ................................................ 122 12.3.1 Day Loma Historical Chemical Assay Data ................................. 124 12.4 George-Ver Project Area – Data Verification ............................................. 126 12.5 Loco-Lee Project Area – Data Verification ................................................ 128 12.6 Rock Hill Project Area – Data Verification ................................................ 131 12.6.3 Rock Hill Historical Chemical Assay Data .................................. 133 12.7 Tablestakes, Jeep, and Beaver Rim Areas – Data Verification ................... 137 12.8 Data Verification Conclusion ..................................................................... 138 13.0 MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING ........................ 139 14.0 MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES ................................................................... 141 14.1 Determination of Uranium Content ............................................................ 142 14.2 Databases .................................................................................................... 142 14.3 Geometry of Models ................................................................................... 143 14.4 Data Review ................................................................................................ 144 14.5 Exploratory Data Analysis, Statistics and Geostatistics ............................. 145 14.6 Resource Estimation ................................................................................... 148 14.6.1 Grade Thickness Contours ............................................................ 148 14.6.2 Bullrush Resource Estimate .......................................................... 150 14.6.3 Day Loma Resource Estimates ..................................................... 151 14.6.4 George-Ver Resource Estimation ................................................. 152 14.6.5 Loco-Lee Resource Estimates ...................................................... 153 14.6.6 Rock Hill Resource Estimates ...................................................... 154 14.7 Resource Tabulation ................................................................................... 157 14.8 Potential Based on Historical Data ............................................................. 159 14.9 Recommendations ....................................................................................... 159 15.0 MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES ...................................................................... 161 16.0 MINING METHODS .............................................................................................. 161 17.0 RECOVERY METHODS ........................................................................................ 161 18.0 PROJECT INFRASTRUCTURE ............................................................................ 161 19.0 MARKET STUDIES AND CONTRACTS ............................................................. 161 20.0 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, PERMITTING & SOCIAL OR COMMUNITY IMPACT ........................................................................................ 161 21.0 CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS .................................................................. 161 22.0 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS........................................................................................ 161 23.0 ADJACENT PROPERTIES .................................................................................... 162 24.0 OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION ............................................ 163 25.0 INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS ......................................................... 164 26.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................... 166 26.1 Drilling database ......................................................................................... 166 26.2 Exploration Methodology and Modeling .................................................... 166 26.3 Further Exploration ..................................................................................... 167 27.0 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................... 170 28.0 DATE AND SIGNATURE PAGE .......................................................................... 173 28.1 Certificate of Author Richard L. Nielsen .................................................... 173 28.2 Certificate of Author Thomas C. Pool ........................................................ 174 28.3 Certificate of Author Robert L. Sandefur ................................................... 175 28.4 Certificate of Author Matthew P. Reilly ..................................................... 173


CAM 127117 iv Strathmore Gas Hills Uranium Project Update 22 March 2013

Table 1-1 Gas Hills Indicated Mineral Resource Estimates – 22 March 2013 ........................ 8 1-2 Gas Hills Inferred Mineral Resource Estimates – 22 March 2013 .......................... 8 4-1 List of Strathmore’s Gas Hills Project Lode Mining Claims ................................... 14 4-2 Drilling Permits ...................................................................................................... 20 6-1 Historical Mineral Resource Estimates on the Gas Hills Uranium Project .............. 27 9-1 Main Gas Hills Area, U3O8 Estimates in Potential in Exploration Targets ............ 71 10-1 Summary of Strathmore Drilling at Gas Hills.......................................................... 75 10-2 Bullrush Project Area – F.A.P. Exploration Target Drillhole Intercept Data .......... 77 10-3 Bullrush Project Area – West 29 Exploration Target Drillhole Intercept Data ....... 79 10-4 Day Loma Project Area – N.E. Exploration Target Drillhole Intercept Data .......... 81 10-5 Day Loma Project Area – S.E. Extension Exploration Target Intercept Data ......... 84 10-6 George-Ver Project Area – North Exploration Target Drillhole Intercept Data ...... 88 10-7 George-Ver Project Area – West Exploration Target Drillhole Intercept Data ....... 89 10-8 George-Ver Project Area – South Exploration Target Drillhole Intercept Data ...... 89 10-9 Loco-Lee Project Area – Exploration Target Typical Drillhole Intercept Data ...... 92 10-10 Rock Hill Project Area – Rock Hill Exploration Target Drillhole Intercept Data ... 97 10-11 Tablestakes Project Area – Exploration Target and Mill Site Intercept Data .......... 99 10-12 West Diamond and South Black Mountain Exploration Areas Intercept Data ........ 106 11-1 Calibration Data – Strathmore PFN Tool #1031 ...................................................... 110 11-2 Calibration Data – Strathmore Gamma Probe #4392 .............................................. 110 11-3 Calibration Data – Strathmore Gamma Probe #4396 .............................................. 111 11-4 Calibration Data – Strathmore Gamma Probe #4370 .............................................. 111 11-5 Calibration Data – Strathmore Gamma Probe #4371 .............................................. 111 12-1 Gamma log Comparison – Strathmore versus GAA ................................................ 115 12-2 PFN Comparison – Strathmore versus GAA ........................................................... 115 12-3 PFN versus Chemical Comparison (0.025 %U3O8 Cut-Off) .................................. 116 12-4 Descriptive Statistics for PFN : Chemical GxT Comparison ................................... 117 12-5 Bullrush PFN vs Gamma Grade-Thickness Comparison ......................................... 120 12-6 Descriptive Statistics for Bullrush PFN versus Gamma Ratio ................................. 121 12-7 Day Loma PFN versus Gamma Grade-Thickness Comparison ............................... 122 12-8 Descriptive Statistics for Day Loma PFN versus Gamma Ratio ............................. 123 12-9 Data Comparison – Day Loma Historical Core Holes ............................................. 125 12-10 George-Ver PFN versus Gamma Grade-Thickness Comparison ............................. 126 12-11 Descriptive Statistics for George-Ver PFN versus Gamma Ratio ........................... 127 12-12 Loco-Lee PFN versus Gamma Grade-Thickness Comparison ................................ 129 12-13 Descriptive Statistics for Loco Lee PFN versus Gamma Ratio ............................... 130 12-14 Rock Hill PFN versus Gamma Grade-Thickness Comparison ................................ 132 12-15 Descriptive Statistics for Rock Hill PFN versus Gamma Ratio ............................... 132 12-16 Historic Rock Hill (Red Horse) Chemical versus Gamma Grade-Thickness .......... 136 12-17 Summary of Data Verification Results and Recommendations by Area ................. 138 14-1 Bullrush Drilling Statistics from Database .............................................................. 142 14-2 Day Loma Drilling Statistics from Database ........................................................... 143 14-3 George Ver Drilling Statistics from Database ......................................................... 143 14-4 Loco Lee Drilling Statistics from Database ............................................................. 143 14-5 Rock Hill Drilling Statistics from Database ............................................................ 143 14-6 Strathmore Gas Hills - Bullrush - Model Geometric Parameters............................. 144 14-7 Strathmore Gas Hills – Day Loma - Model Geometric Parameters ......................... 144 14-8 Strathmore Gas Hills – George Ver - Model Geometric Parameters ....................... 144


CAM 127117 v Strathmore Gas Hills Uranium Project Update 22 March 2013

Table 14-9 Strathmore Gas Hills – Loco Lee - Model Geometric Parameters .......................... 144 14-10 Strathmore Gas Hills – Rock Hill - Model Geometric Parameters .......................... 144 14-11 Gas Hills Indicated Mineral Resource Estimates – 22 March 2013 ........................ 155 14-12 Gas Hills Inferred Mineral Resource Estimates – 22 March 2013 .......................... 155 26-1 Work Program for April to December, 2013 ........................................................... 165 Figure 4-1 State of Wyoming: Gas Hills Uranium Project Location Map ............................... 16 4-2 Gas Hills Project Location Map, Version 1 ............................................................. 17 4-3 Gas Hills Project Location Map, Version 2 (Properties, Claims and Leases) ......... 18 5-1 Infrastructure Map of the Gas Hills Uranium District ............................................. 25 6-1 Map of Strathmore’s Gas Hills Uranium Project and Historical Mineral Estimates 29 7-1 Wyoming State Structures & Tectonic Features (Strathmore 2012) ........................ 40 7-2 Geologic Map of the Gas Hills Uranium District Area ............................................ 42 7-3 Representative Stratigraphic Column: North of Beaver Rim................................... 43 7-4 Typical C-shaped Uranium Roll-Front System Diagram ......................................... 45 7-5 Roll Front Exposed in Reclamation Channel, George-Ver Deposit ........................ 45 7-6 View of High-Grade Mineralization in Exposed Roll Front .................................... 47 7-7 Photograph of Oxidized Mineralization West of Bullrush-Tablestakes Property .... 48 7-8 Depiction of Multiple Stacked, En Echelon Uranium Deposits............................... 49 7-9 Gas Hills Uranium District: Map View of Connected Roll-Front Trends ............... 50 9-1 Location of Strathmore Exploration Targets............................................................ 54 9-2 Map of Bullrush West 29 Potential Exploration Target .......................................... 56 9-3 Map of Day Loma NE and SE Extensions, Potential Mineral Targets .................... 58 9-4 Map of the George-Ver Target Area Showing Historical Drilling at Antelope ....... 60 9-5 Location of Remaining Mineral Exploration Targets .............................................. 63 9-6 Location of Bullrush Mineral Exploration Targets .................................................. 65 9-7 Location of Day Loma SE and NE Mineral Exploration Targets ............................ 67 9-8 Location of Loco-Lee Mineral Exploration Targets ................................................ 69 9-9 Map of Drill Sites atop Beaver Rim ......................................................................... 73 10-1 Bullrush Project Area – Drillhole Location Map ..................................................... 78 10-2 Bullrush Project Area – Cross Section A-A’ ........................................................... 80 10-3 Bullrush Project Area – Cross Section B-B’ ............................................................ 80 10-4 Day Loma Project Area – Drillhole Location Map .................................................. 82 10-5 Day Loma Project Area – Cross Section A-A’ ........................................................ 83 10-6 Day Loma Project Area – Cross Section D-D’ ........................................................ 83 10-7 Day Loma Project Area – Cross Section E-E’ ......................................................... 84 10-8 Day Loma Project Area – Cross Section B-B’......................................................... 85 10-9 Day Loma Project Area – Cross Section C-C’......................................................... 86 10-10 George-Ver Project Area – Drillhole Location Map ................................................ 87 10-11 George-Ver Project Area – Cross Section B-B’ ...................................................... 88 10-12 George-Ver Project Area – Cross Section A-A’ ...................................................... 90 10-13 Loco-Lee Project Area – Drillhole Location Map ................................................... 91 10-14 Loco-Lee Project Area – Cross Section A-A’ .......................................................... 93 10-15 Loco-Lee Project Area – Cross Section B-B’ .......................................................... 93 10-16 Loco-Lee Project Area – Cross Section C-C’ .......................................................... 94


CAM 127117 vi Strathmore Gas Hills Uranium Project Update 22 March 2013

Figure 10-17 Rock Hill Project Area – Drillhole Location Map ................................................... 96 10-18 Rock Hill Project Area – Cross Section A-A’ ......................................................... 98 10-19 Rock Hill Project Area – Red Horse Cross Section B-B’ ........................................ 98 10-20 Tablestakes Project Area – Drillhole Location Map ................................................ 100 10-21 Tablestakes Project Area – Cross Section A-A’ ...................................................... 101 10-22 Tablestakes Project Area – Cross Section B-B’ ....................................................... 101 10-23 Tablestakes Project Area – Cross Section C-C’ ....................................................... 102 10-24 Beaver Rim Exploration Area – West Diamond Drillhole Location Map ............... 104 10-25 Beaver Rim Exploration Area – South Black Mountain Drillhole Location Map ... 105 10-26 Beaver Rim Exploration Area – West Diamond Cross Section A-A’ ..................... 107 10-27 Beaver Rim Exploration Area – West Diamond Cross Section B-B’ ...................... 107 10-28 Beaver Rim Exploration Area – South Black Mountain Cross Section A-A’ ......... 108 10-29 Beaver Rim Exploration Area – South Black Mountain Cross Section B-B’ .......... 108 12-1 PFN versus Chemical Assay Scatter Diagram ......................................................... 118 12-2 Chemical Assay Cross-Check Analysis ................................................................... 119 12-3 Bullrush PFN versus Gamma GxT Comparison ...................................................... 121 12-4 Day Loma PFN versus Gamma GxT Comparison ................................................... 124 12-5 George-Ver PFN versus Gamma GxT Comparison ................................................. 128 12-6 Loco-Lee PFN versus Gamma GxT Comparison .................................................... 131 12-7 Rock Hill PFN versus Gamma GxT Comparison .................................................... 133 12-8 Rock Hill Chemical versus Gamma Scatter Diagram .............................................. 134 12-9 Rock Hill Chemical versus Closed Can Scatter Diagram ........................................ 135 12-10 Comparison of Chemical, Closed Can, and Gamma Log Data ................................ 135 12-11 Rock Hill (Red Horse) Chemical versus Gamma Scatter Diagram ......................... 137 14-1 Bullrush TGT+0.10 Log Cumulative Frequency ..................................................... 146 14-2 Bullrush TGT+0.10 Omnidirectional Log Variogram ............................................. 146 14-3 Day Loma TGT+0.10 Log Cumulative Frequency .................................................. 146 14-4 Day Loma TGT+0.10 Omnidirectional Log Variogram .......................................... 146 14-5 George -Ver TGT+0.10 Log Cumulative Frequency ............................................... 147 14-6 George-Ver TGT+0.10 Omnidirectional Log Variogram ........................................ 147 14-7 Loco-Lee TGT+0.10 Log Cumulative Freq ............................................................. 147 14-8 Loco-Lee TGT+0.10 Omnidirectional Log Variogram ........................................... 147 14-9 Rock Hill TGT+0.10 Log Cumulative Frequency ................................................... 148 14-10 Rock Hill TGT+0.10 Omnidirectional Log Variogram ........................................... 148 14-11 Bullrush Grade Thickness Resource Model Plan View ........................................... 150 14-12 Day Loma Grade Thickness Resource Model Plan View ........................................ 151 14-13 George-Ver Grade Thickness Resource Model Plan View ...................................... 152 14-14 Loco-Lee Grade Thickness Resource Model Plan View ......................................... 153 14-15 Rock Hill Grade Thickness Resource Model Plan View ......................................... 154

CAM 127117 1 Strathmore Gas Hills Uranium Project Update 22 March 2013

1.0 SUMMARY 1.1 Introduction and Summary of Recent Work Chlumsky, Armbrust & Meyer LLC (herein “CAM”) was retained by Strathmore Minerals Corp. (herein “Strathmore”) to prepare an independent Technical Report Update on their Gas Hills uranium project in Wyoming, USA. This report conforms to Canadian National Instrument 43-101 Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects, as required by the Canadian Securities Administration for publicly traded companies. Qualified Persons from CAM visited the Strathmore office and facilities in Riverton, Wyoming and the project in the Field on January 24-26, 2012, August 7-8, 2012, and November 7-9, 2012. The last date for drilling/sampling/logging data used in preparation of this report was November 19, 2012, which is regarded as the effective date of this report. Results were received by CAM over a three-month period starting in August 2011. This Technical Report summarizes the pre-1990 historical exploration and production on Strathmore’s Gas Hills property, and Strathmore’s drilling from 2007 to November 2012. It replaces a Technical Report prepared by CAM and filed on SEDAR in August 2012. The present report mainly focuses on five project areas that had previous production and are believed to contain potentially economic uranium mineralization. These are the Bullrush, Day Loma, George-Ver, Loco-Lee, and Rock Hill properties. Despite the significant historical drilling, including thousands of drill holes and numerous historical estimates by previous operators for these five properties, and Strathmore’s possession of two data libraries, these data have not been verified in sufficient detail to provide comprehensive NI 43-101 compliant statements of mineral resources. Strathmore has initiated and nearly completed an $8 million confirmation and exploration drilling program as part of its efforts to provide sufficient verifiable data and information to support the preparation of current resource estimates for those areas cited by this report. Historical uranium production in the Gas Hills was about 100 million pounds, mainly from open-pit mining. Uranium mineralization is contained in roll-front deposits hosted by arkosic sandstone beds of the Wind River formation of early Tertiary age. The deposits are distinctly stratabound, and occur from the surface to depths of 1,200 feet. 1.2 Property Description and Location, History of Exploration and Development The Gas Hills Uranium Project, located in Fremont and Natrona Counties, Wyoming, totals about 36,000 acres and consists of 1,711 unpatented lode mining claims, one State of Wyoming mineral lease, and one private mineral lease. The properties are in central Wyoming within Townships 31-33 North, Ranges 89-


91 West, 6th Principal Meridian. CAM has reviewed legal agreements and documents filed with federal and state government agencies as required by law. CAM has confirmed that Strathmore has fulfilled all legal requirements and holds the lands current to August 31, 2013. Between 1953 and 1988 many companies explored, developed, and produced uranium, in the Gas Hills Uranium District, on lands in the Main Gas Hills area, now controlled by Strathmore. Three uranium mills operated in the district. Cumulative production totaled about 100 million pounds of uranium, mainly from open-pit mining, but also from underground and “in-situ” recovery. The main period of production was in the 1960’s and 1970’s, gradually halting in the 1980’s in the wake of the Three Mile Island nuclear plant accident in 1979. Currently, Cameco Corporation is pursuing permitting for an in-situ recovery operation on lands adjacent to Strathmore’s Gas Hills Project, with production planned to begin in 2014. 1.3 Geology and Uranium Mineralization The host for uranium mineralization in the Gas Hills District is the Eocene Wind River Formation, a continental fluvial sedimentary sequence consisting of arkosic sandstones with lesser amounts of siltstone, carbonaceous mudstone, and tuffaceous sandstone. The uranium deposits are roll-front type, crescent-shaped in vertical cross section, and with a linear sinuous pattern in plan view. Reduced uranium minerals, uraninite and a little coffinite are concentrated in the sandstone matrix in the crescent roll. A concave contact separates the roll from adjacent bleached and oxidized host rock barren of uranium. This contact is the “roll-front”. Upper and lower boundaries of mineralization generally are beds of impermeable mudstone. Individual rolls can be a few feet to tens of feet thick. In plan, rolls can be traced for several thousand feet. Roll-type uranium deposits are formed where oxidized and soluble uranium is carried down a permeable sandstone bed to a point where it meets reducing conditions. Uranium is reduced and deposited as uraninite and coffinite along the roll-front. Strathmore’s Gas Hills property is considered by CAM to have a very good exploration potential, above and beyond the NI 43-101 compliant resources discussed below. Application of current and historical exploration information, and known geological controls on mineralization, suggest that additional U3O8 could be present in already-identified trends, in addition to areas where sparse drill information is available, such as the exploration area south of Beaver Rim, where geological conditions are highly encouraging. The potential quantity and grade in these targets is conceptual in nature; exploration activity has not been sufficient to define a mineral resource and it is uncertain if further exploration will result in the targets being delineated as a mineral resource under NI 43-101. The exploration


targets stated in the Report are not being reported as part of any Mineral Resource or Mineral Reserve. The targets either contain known mineralization as determined by historical exploration activities or lie adjacent to known uranium mineralization. Characteristics of each target such as grade, length of mineralized trend, width or thickness can only be projected from nearby areas containing well defined mineralized bodies. These are exploration targets and merit further drilling. 1.4 Exploration and Drilling by Strathmore Strathmore’s drilling activities have focused primarily on the Bullrush, Day Loma, George-Ver, Loco-Lee, Tablestakes, and Rock Hill Project Areas within the Main Gas Hills, and to lesser extent on exploration targets south of Beaver Rim above the Main Gas Hills area. All of the main Gas Hills properties have a significant historical resource and at least several hundred historical holes in each property. Beginning in 2007 and continuing to the present, Strathmore’s exploration for uranium in the Gas Hills has involved confirmation drilling of previously-explored areas, along with some step-out drilling in other areas. Additional drilling to assist with definition of the water table, preliminary metallurgical tests, and design of a heap-leach pad and recovery plant, has also been initiated. Exploration and confirmation drilling, permitting activities, engineering, and metallurgical work are ongoing as part of a US $8 million program formally announced on June 26, 2012. This program is nearly complete as of the November 19, 2012 cut-off date for review and analysis of data contained in this report. New data obtained from the final stage of the program will be incorporated in future updated reports. Strathmore has been using a Prompt-Fission-Neutron logging tool, gamma-ray probing tools, and select chemical assays from core drilling, for the measurement of uranium in the Gas Hills. Equivalent uranium values, expressed as eU3O8 are obtained from down-hole gamma-ray probes, assuming that uranium and its daughter products are in radiogenic equilibrium. The probes are standardized and calibrated using test pits operated by U.S. Department of Energy, located in Casper, Wyoming and Grand Junction, Colorado. Many drill holes completed prior to November 19 2012 have been logged using a Prompt-Fission-Neutron (PFN) logging tool which gives a direct measurement of uranium content. Prompt Fission Neutron analysis assesses the quantity of uranium present surrounding a drill hole directly, by measuring those neutrons resulting from fission of the 235U isotope. This eliminates the uncertainties due to measuring the gamma radiation resulting from decay of uranium daughter products, which may be subjected to selective remobilization due to the varying chemical properties of each daughter element. PFN also samples a larger sample than the typical 3” diameter core that is obtained for chemical analysis. It is anticipated that, through regular ongoing use of PFN with its associated calibration checks and continuing checks against existing or historical core holes, a background of validity can be achieved which will reduce the number and frequency of future chemical-assay checks although chemical assay


checks should continue as recommended by the Canadian Institute of Mining ("CIM") Estimation of Minerals Resources and Mineral Reserves Best Practice Guidelines. The majority of the additional drill holes completed subsequent to the data cutoff date of November 19, 2012 for the previous report were rotary-drilled, with some reverse-circulation holes and cored sections. Detailed results of Strathmore’s drilling are presented in Section 10 of this report. A brief summary of Strathmore drilling for each of the five Project Areas located in the Main Gas Hills, and the Beaver Rim Exploration Area drilling, is presented below. All drilling conducted subsequent to the previous report was completed in 2012. Conformation and exploration drilling continues as of the date of this report. Bull Rush Strathmore completed 60 rotary and 3 core drill holes during 2012 in the Bullrush Project Area for total combined footage of 17,420 feet. Day Loma Strathmore completed 25 rotary drill holes and 2 core holes during 2012 in the Day Loma Project Area for a total footage of 11,750 feet. George-Ver Strathmore completed 43 rotary and 5 core drill holes during 2012 in the Geroge-Ver Project Area for a total combined footage of 15,530 feet. Loco-Lee Strathmore completed 51 rotary and 7 core drill holes during 2012 in the Loco-Lee Project Area for a total combined footage of 9,185 feet. Rock Hill Strathmore completed 41 rotary and 4 core drill holes during 2012 in the Rock Hill Project Area for a total combined footage of 10,800 feet. Tablestakes Strathmore completed 23 rotary drill holes during 2012 in the Tablestakes Project Area for a total footage of 7,320 feet. Beaver Rim Exploration Area Strathmore completed 34 rotary drill holes during 2012 in the Beaver Rim Exploration Area for a total footage of 37,915 feet.


1.5 Sample Preparation, Analyses, Security, and Protocols 1.5.1 Historical Analyses The bulk of the drilling on the property was undertaken prior to 1980, and is considered “historical” under NI 43-101. Sedimentary roll uranium deposits were historically sampled by measuring the quantity of radiation emitted along the length of a drill hole, and converting these measurements into equivalent grade and thickness of uranium mineralization. Standard logs consist of recordings of gamma, self-potential, and resistivity. Equivalent U3O8 content was calculated from gamma logs using industry-standard methods developed by the Atomic Energy Commission, now the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE.) Some check analyses were done by fluorimetric chemical analyses and closed-can radiometric analyses. Any differences between the two analyses would indicate a radiogenic disequilibrium situation where gamma logs did not provide an accurate analysis of the quantity of uranium present. Chemical analyses for uranium were historically done at ISO-certified laboratories. 1.5.2 Strathmore Data Between 2007 and November 11 2011, Strathmore, logged all its holes with gamma-ray probes. A few core holes were drilled to supplement the gamma data, and to provide material for metallurgical testing. Recently, Strathmore has implemented PFN logging, and select core assaying, in addition to gamma logging. PFN analysis assesses the quantity of uranium present surrounding a drill hole directly by measuring neutrons fissioned from the 235U isotope, thus aiding in determining any disequilibrium which may be present. 1.6 Data Verification Validation of the drill hole database is a key element in preparation of this NI 43-101 report. The drill hole database for the Strathmore’s Gas Hills project consists of thousands of historical drill holes with gamma logs, mostly from the 1970s, but also with some from as early as the 1950s. It is recognized that gamma logs are indirect measurements of the amount of uranium present and must be validated. Typically, this process consists of comparing equivalent uranium determined from gamma log interpretations with chemical analyses of rock core recovered from core holes. This process is subject to some degree of uncertainty because the gamma logs and the chemical assays are obtained from different samples: core from the drill hole itself and gamma readings from the material surrounding the hole. CAM found the historical data to be consistent with the methods used by mining companies in the 1960s-1980s. Not all drill logs are present, sometimes just the results posted on maps. While Strathmore was successful in acquiring two data libraries in 2010, it is believed that additional historical data exists, which would be useful for Strathmore to pursue and acquire.


CAM undertook a rigorous statistical comparison of Strathmore’s drilling results with those of historical operators, as shown in Section 12 of this report. The comparison also included comparison of historical chemical assays of historical drill core with gamma logs of the cored intervals, and comparison of Strathmore’s gamma and PFN logging of the dual-probed intervals. As a result of these studies, CAM concluded that the historical drilling at Bullrush, Day Loma, George-Ver, Loco-Lee, and Rock Hill, augmented by recent Strathmore drilling, are suitable for use in mineral resource estimation. There was not sufficient comparative data from Tablestakes, Jeep, or the Beaver Rim Exploration Area to allow estimation of compliant resources in these three areas. 1.7 Metallurgical Studies Strathmore’s concept is to mine uranium-bearing material by open-pit methods, heap-leach the mined material, and recover uranium by ion exchange. Strathmore contracted Lyntek Inc. of Denver, Colorado, to conduct preliminary metallurgical tests by bottle-roll and column-leach which have been carried out to assess uranium recoveries. Eight composite samples were prepared from RC drill cuttings obtained from drilling at Bullrush-Tablestakes, Day Loma, George-Ver, Loco-Lee and Rock Hill properties. These were submitted to InterMountain Labs in Sheridan, Wyoming and to Lyntek for metallurgical test work. Results of preliminary bottle-roll tests indicate average recoveries of 89.2% and low overall reagent consumption. However, it should be noted that the analytical methods for determining the uranium in the leach residue were determined to be inadequate due to improper digestion techniques, such that the actual uranium content in the head samples could have been reported as lower than actual values, which would have artificially increased the uranium recovery estimates. Unfortunately, the residues were no longer available for additional sample analysis. Therefore, the recovery calculations are suspect and can only be considered as indicative. Later bottle-roll analysis, performed by Litz and Associates, of Golden Colorado, reported recoveries of 82%-94%. Initial data from Strathmore’s in-house Summer 2012 Column-Leach Test report an overall recovery of 91%. 1.8 Mineral Resource Estimation The six project areas reviewed by CAM for the estimation of resources were Bullrush, Day Loma, Loco-Lee, George-Ver, Rock Hill, and Tablestakes. All of these properties have a significant historical resource and at least several hundred historical holes in each property. All six areas have additional Strathmore analyses by PFN, which provides a direct measure of uranium, as opposed to gamma logs which are an indirect measure of uranium through radiation from uranium daughter products.


Five of the six areas from above, Bullrush, Day Loma, George-Ver, Loco-Lee, and Rock Hill, have sufficient consistent PFN and gamma log data adequately distributed over the property to allow estimation of an inferred or indicated resource. Key assumptions in the resource estimate are as follows:

1. CAM reviewed gamma ray, PFN, closed can and chemical assay data for all five properties. For Day Loma and George-Ver CAM found that PFN, closed can and chemical assay data supported the assumption that the gamma ray eU3O8 could be used for calculation of indicated and inferred resources. For Bullrush, Rock Hill, and Loco-Lee the data are suitable for estimation of an inferred resource but believes that additional chemical, closed can and associated PFN and gamma ray data are required for the estimation of indicated and measured resources.

2. CAM reviewed the geometry in three dimensions of mineral intercepts above the grade of 0.035 and a minimum thickness of 1 foot. A content of 0.035% eU3O8 corresponds to a contained uranium value of $35 per ton at a $50 uranium price. A foot is about the minimum thickness that can be selectively mined by open pit methods. This review indicated that likely open pit minable mineralization is confined by elevations or depths. These elevations or depths were used to define limits for a potentially open pit minable resource.

3. Day Loma and George-Ver were historically mined by open pits and by underground workings. The areas of historic mining were excluded from resource tabulation based on the plan footprint of historic mining. Depending on backslope and vertical extent of underground workings, this may be conservative.

4. Grade thickness and thickness contour maps were constructed using all the data and a zero nugget linear variogram. This gives a smooth contour map which honors the data. The contour maps were consistent with usual roll front deposit geometry but all contour maps showed the connectivity associated with potentially minable mineral deposits.

5. Limits of mineralization in plan for each of the five areas were provided by Strathmore. CAM reviewed these and found them to be reasonable so resource reporting was additionally constrained to within these areas.

6. Based on the variogram ranges of a minimum about 200 feet and review of grade thickness contour maps CAM classified resources as inferred if values were interpolated up to 400 ft and extrapolated to 200 feet and were not indicated. Resources were classified as indicated if values were interpolated up to 282 ft and extrapolated to 141 ft. Note that indicated must also have an acceptable equilibrium factor.

7. A specific volume of 16.9 cubic feet per ton is suitable for the estimation of tonnage and contained pounds. This is based on current measurements. Although additional specific volume information should be obtained, CAM believes this value is suitable for estimation of an inferred and indicated resource.


Indicated Mineral Resources are summarized in Table 1-1.

Table 1-1 Gas Hills Indicated Mineral Resource Estimates – 22 March 2013

Area Cutoffs

Tons (1,000,000s)

Contained Lbs (eU3O8)

(1,000,000s)

Average Thickness

(ft) Grade

(eU3O8%) Grade *

Thickness Grade

(eU3O8%) Thickness

(ft) Day Loma 1.0 0.035 0.035 1.4 4.0 0.14 4.4

George-Ver 1.0 0.035 0.035 0.9 1.4 0.08 4.1

Total 1.0 0.035 0.035 2.3 5.4 0.13 4.3

Note: Tons and contained pounds are reported to the nearest 100,000. Average grade and average thickness are reported to two and one decimal places respectively. This does not imply this degree of accuracy; the usual accuracy of an inferred resource estimate is less than one significant digit. Total pounds, tons, and average grade and grade thickness may not reconcile with totals and averages calculated from table values due to rounding. Cutoffs for grade and thickness are applied to each mineralized intercept used in the resource estimate. Cutoff for grade thickness is applied to the contour map. One foot is about the minimum open pit minable thickness and 0.035 eU3O8% is 0.7 lbs/ton which at $50/lb U3O8 is $35/ton material, this is reasonable for an indicated resource. It should be noted that mineral resources, which are not mineral reserves, do not have demonstrated economic viability.

Inferred Mineral Resources are summarized in Table 1-2.

Table 1-2 Gas Hills Inferred Mineral Resource Estimates – 22 March 2013

Area Cutoffs

Tons (1,000,000s)


(1,000,000s)

Average Thickness

(ft) Grade

(eU3O8%) Grade *

Thickness Grade

(eU3O8% ) Thickness

(ft) Bull Rush 1.0 0.035 0.035 0.9 0.9 0.05 5.7

Day Loma 1.0 0.035 0.035 0.6 1.2 0.10 3.2

George-Ver 1.0 0.035 0.035 0.4 0.5 0.07 3.2

Loco-Lee 1.0 0.035 0.035 1.0 1.2 0.06 3.2

Rock Hill 1.0 0.035 0.035 1.1 1.7 0.08 8.3

Total 1.0 0.035 0.035 3.9 5.5 0.07 5.1

Note: Tons and contained pounds are reported to the nearest 100,000. Average grade and average thickness are reported to two and one decimal places respectively. This does not imply this degree of accuracy; the usual accuracy of an inferred resource estimate is less than one significant digit. Total pounds, tons, and average grade and grade thickness may not reconcile with totals and averages calculated from table values due to rounding. Cutoffs for grade and thickness are applied to each mineralized intercept used in the resource estimate. Cutoff for grade thickness is applied to the contour map. One foot is about the minimum open pit minable thickness and 0.035 eU3O8% is 0.7 lbs/ton which at $50/lb U3O8 is $35/ton material, this is reasonable for an inferred resource. It should be noted that mineral resources, which are not mineral reserves, do not have demonstrated economic viability.


Resources are reported at cutoffs of 1 foot of 0.035 %eU3O8. This cutoff is reasonable and will be revised as actual economics become available. CAM believes that additional successful confirmation drilling, probing and sampling with direct measure of uranium will allow these inferred and indicated resources to be upgraded to a measured and indicated resource estimate. The Tablestakes and Jeep project areas and Beaver Rim exploration area do not have sufficient data to allow measured, indicated and inferred resources to be calculated at this time. CAM believes that additional drilling, probing, and sampling, with direct measure of uranium, will allow estimation of potential resources in these areas. For the areas covered by historical data, CAM does not expect significant changes from the historical resource numbers, but this expectation must be confirmed by additional data. 1.9 Conclusions and Recommendations CAM recommends the following actions, as detailed in Section 26.

1. Resample historical holes, or drill twin holes, to obtain additional data. Continue to try to obtain additional historical data and validate all historic data. Attempt to define the surface representing the lowest open pit mining and the elevation of underground mining operations. CAM excluded from resources all the area within the plan footprint of historic mining which may be conservative.

2. Review existing PFN data to develop standard procedures for comparing PFN readings with other methods.

3. Strathmore should continue a program whereby a certain proportion of holes (initially 10%) are logged by certified independent parties, with duplicate logging (independent + Strathmore) of some holes, say 5%, in areas expected to be advanced beyond the inferred resource category.

4. A program of determining tonnage factors should be undertaken, by systematic measurements of about 100 core or fresh highwall samples. This program should be supervised and carried out by Strathmore personnel, to avoid the problems which normally arise when such work is farmed out to an outside commercial laboratory.

5. Review the potential for modeling individual roll fronts as separate units, even though this is contrary to historic practice in the Gas Hills because of the complexity and imbrication of the mineral stringers.

6. Completions of the previously recommended Work Program, costing about $US 7.7 million, is recommended for the remainder of 2012 and into 2013. The major remaining components of the Work Program are continuing exploration and confirmation drilling ($2.3 million) and


metallurgical tests ($0.171 million) involving over 162,000 feet of drilling and gamma and PFN logging. The Work Program drilling is for several purposes:

a. to elevate the resource status from inferred to indicated and measured and increase indicated as warranted;

b. to explore the trends and potential mineral targets discussed in Section 9 of this report, which may contain extensions of recognized mineralization; and

c. to obtaining geologic information and indications of mineralization that will justify follow-up close-spaced exploration drilling through reconnaissance exploration drilling south of Beaver Rim divide.

7. The other portions of the Work Program are intended to advance the design and permitting of the process facilities for eventual production and will likely extend thru 2013.


2.0 INTRODUCTION AND TERMS OF REFERENCE 2.1 Purpose of Report and Terms of Reference Strathmore Resources (US) Ltd., a Nevada Corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of Strathmore Minerals Corp. TSX: STM engaged Chlumsky, Armbrust & Meyer LLC to prepare a technical report update for the Gas Hills Uranium Project, Fremont and Natrona Counties Wyoming, in compliance with the requirements of the Canadian National Instrument 43-101. Strathmore has a corporate address at 950-1130 West Pender Street, Vancouver B.C. Canada V6E 4A4, and a Wyoming field office at 2420 Watt Court, Riverton, WY, 82501 USA, telephone 1-800-647-3303. This present report is considered an update and revision of a previous NI43-101 Technical Report, Gas Hills Uranium Project, Fremont and Natrona Counties, Wyoming, USA prepared for Strathmore by Chlumsky, Armbrust and Meyer, July 31, 2012 (Nielsen, Pool & Sandefur, 2012.) The effective date of the report is November 19, 2012 and corresponds to the cut off date for accepting drilling/sampling/logging data used in preparation of this report. Data was received by CAM over a three-month period starting in August 2012, and ending on November 19, 2012. The Gas Hills project is an exploration project which has advanced to the establishment of NI 43-101-compliant uranium resources as defined in this report. Strathmore controls about 36,000 acres of unpatented mining claims, a Wyoming State mineral lease, and fee land that covers the project area of uranium mineralization. The purpose of this report is to disclose a CAM-generated resource estimate in conformance with NI 43-101. Uranium resource estimation and report authorship was undertaken by the following CAM Qualified Persons: Richard Nielsen, Ph.D. (geologist); Thomas Pool, P.E. (mining engineer); Robert Sandefur, P.E. (geostatistician); and Matthew Reilly, P.E. (mining engineer). Sections 2 through 10, 13, and 20 were authored by Dr. Nielsen. Sections 11 and 12 were authored by Mr. Pool. Section 14 was prepared by Mr. Sandefur. Mr. Reilly provided engineering review and final editing of the overall report. 2.2 Sources of Information Portions of the Strathmore property have been explored and mined by numerous operators since the early 1950’s, and a large historical database exists, in addition to data generated by Strathmore since 2007. CAM reviewed project data provided by Strathmore, conducted site visits to confirm the data and mineralization, and reviewed the project site access and layout. Other information for various key technical aspects of this report were obtained from a report by Snow (2011, see Section 27, References). CAM also examined the available geologic and mining reports, and company files and records of


Adobe/Vipont, American Nuclear Corp, Federal-American Partners, Energy Fuels, Utah Intl/Pathfinder/AREVA, Union Carbide, Western Nuclear, Cameco, and Strathmore, pertaining to the Gas Hills Project that are in the possession of Strathmore. Messrs. Sandefur, Pool and Nielsen conducted a field visit to the Gas Hills property on January 25, 2012, and visited with Strathmore’s geological and engineering team in their Riverton office from January 24 and January 26, 2012. In addition, Dr. Nielsen spent April 24-25, 2012, in the Riverton office and in the field. During this field visit Dr. Nielsen observed and reviewed exploration drilling procedures at the Loco-Lee project area. He observed two operating rotary drill rigs and bore holes being logged for uranium using two logging trucks; one with a gamma ray probe and the other using a PFN probe. He also visited other exploration target areas (Jeep, Day Loma, Bullrush, George-Ver and Rock Hill.) Dr. Nielsen also visited the property on August 7 and 8 2012 and visited site of drilling activities at the Beaver Rim target area, reviewed drilling and observed logging and sampling of diamond drill core recently obtained from various locations on the property. Using a GPS receiver, Dr. Nielsen verified locations of several claim corners, and historical drill hole collars. Mr. Reilly conducted a field visit to the Gas Hills property on November 7, 2012 and met with Strathmore’s geologist and engineering team at their Riverton office on November 8 and 9, 2012. During the field visit Mr. Reilly observed on-going exploration drilling activity in the Rock Hill and Day Loma areas, gamma and PFN logging activity, drill site reclamation activity, and exploration drilling activity by Cameco on Beaver Rim adjacent to Strathmore exploration targets on Beaver Rim. Mr. Reilly visited all of the site locations that are currently being evaluated for resource evaluation as described in this report, the proposed exploration target areas on Beaver Rim, several of the abandoned historical open pits and abandoned mobile equipment maintenance facilities, and the reclaimed mill sites and facilities near Rock Hill and Tablestakes. Using a GPS receiver collar coordinates of several recent drill holes were confirmed. In addition to the field visit, Mr. Reilly also reviewed Strathmore’s Wyoming DEQ Mine Permit Application and discussed various aspects of surface and mineral ownership, mine plans, and infrastructure development, contained in the permit application. Recent metallurgical reports and density testing procedures and results were also reviewed and discussed. The authors have reviewed the historical and recent drilling records, gamma log and grade percent interpretations, map postings, and the historical tonnage estimates used to generate the mineral resource estimates presented in Section 14 (Mineral Resource Estimates) of this Technical Report. In CAM’s opinion, the project data is present in sufficient detail, is credible and verifiable, and is an accurate representation of the uranium deposits that comprise the Gas Hills project.


3.0 RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS This report has been prepared by CAM for Strathmore Minerals Corp. The information, conclusions, opinions, and estimates contained herein are based on: information available to CAM and used in this report is all based on information generated prior to November 19, 2012; assumptions, conditions, and qualifications as set forth in this report; and data, reports, and other information supplied by Strathmore and other third-party sources. Strathmore has provided CAM with copies of legal agreements, and official filings with Federal, State and County agencies. These documents concern mining claims, purchase and lease agreements, and permit applications, and show evidence as having been filed with official public entities such as State and County official records.


4.0 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION 4.1 Location The Gas Hills is located in central Wyoming (Figure 4-1), lying along the southern edge of the Wind River basin and near the northern edge of the Granite Mountains. Strathmore’s Gas Hills Uranium Project consists of 1,711 unpatented lode mining claims (35,350 acres), one State of Wyoming mineral lease (320 acres), and one private mineral lease (80 acres), totaling approximately 35,800 acres, located in Townships 31-33 North and Ranges 89-91 West, Wyoming 6th Principal Meridian. 4.2 Mining Claims The 1,711 unpatented lode mining claims (Table 4-1, Figures 4-2, 4-3) are located predominantly on public lands administered by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM); 94 of the claims were located on split-estate lands wherein the surface is privately owned but the federal government retained the mineral rights. 28 new unpatented lode mining claims were staked by Strathmore since the previous NI 43-101 report and were added to Table 4-1 below. A copy of the receipts for recordation of the claims from the Fremont and Natrona County Clerks offices and the BLM were examined. A copy of a receipt from the BLM, stamped #2712559 and dated August 16, 2012 for the payment of the Annual Mining Claim Maintenance Fee, together with a list of the applicable 1,683 claims, is in possession of CAM. CAM possesses copies of notarized and recorded Affidavit of Annual Mining Claim Maintenance Fee Payment for Natrona and Fremont Counties for the assessment year beginning September 1, 2012, dated October 16, 2012 on behalf of Strathmore Resources (US) Ltd. for the Gas Hills claims. These affidavits were recorded in the official records of Natrona and Fremont Counties, Wyoming as required by law. Strathmore has paid all required fees and filings that will hold the claims to August 31, 2013.

Table 4-1 List of Strathmore’s Gas Hills Project Lode Mining Claims

Claims Location Comments

Allegretti 1-5, 7-19: T32N, R89W, Secs. 4, 5 Acquired by Elmhurst Financial Group agreement

Allegretti 19-22: T32N, R89W, Sec.5.

Border 3, 4, 6-11: T33N, R89W, Secs. 15, 22 Acquired by Elmhurst Financial Group agreement

Cassie No. 1-17, 17A, 18-20 (STM), 21-25:

T33N, R90W, Secs. 27, 28, 33-35

CSR 1-156: T32N, R89W, Secs. 5-8, 17-19; T32N, R90W, Secs. 12, 13, 14, 23, 24

DL 1-189: T32N, R90W, Secs. 18-21, 28, 29; T32N, R91W; Secs. 1, 2, 11-14, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26

DSD 1-59, 61, 63-93, 95, 97, 99, T32N, R90W, Secs. 14, 15, 21-


Table 4-1 List of Strathmore’s Gas Hills Project Lode Mining Claims

Claims Location Comments 101, 103-138 23, 27, 28, 33-35

ECC 1-4: T33N, R89W, Sec. 11

EDSD 1-80: T32N, R89W, Secs. 19, 20, 29, 30; T32N, R90W, Secs. 23-26

GV 1-58: T33N, R90W, Secs. 21, 22, 26-28, 34, 35

HOPE 1-17, 24-29, 46-48, 50, 52, 54, 56, 58, 60, 62, 64-139: ;

T32N, R90W, Secs. 4-6, 9, 10, 16, 17; T33N, R90W, Secs. 32, 33

HOPE 1-4: T32N, R91W, Sec. 1 Acquired by Elmhurst Financial Group agreement

JIM 1-9: T32N, R90W, Sec. 23, 26

MKS 1-109: T33N, R89W, Secs. 13, 14, 23-26

MR #1-10, MR 11-29: T33N, R90W, Secs. 32, 33

NEW EH #1-12: T33N, R90W, Sec. 30 Acquired by Elmhurst Financial Group agreement

NEW EH #13-16: T33N, R90W, Secs. 19, 30

New Rock Hill NRH 1-22, 28-31, 37; NRH 32-36, 38-40 (Amend); NRH 41-63:

T33N, R89W, Secs. 4, 5, 8-10, 17

Acquired by Elmhurst Financial Group agreement

PD#1-10: T33N, R90W, Sec. 33 See note above

RD#6-20, 30-56: T32N, R90W, Secs. 4, 5 See note above

RM#1-12: T33N, R90W, Secs. 31, 33, 34 See note above

SC 1-152, 155-208: T32N, R91W, Secs. 28, 32-34; T31N, R91W, Secs. 3-5, 8-10

SHC 1-167: T33N, R89W, Secs. 26, 27, 34-36; T32N, R89W, Secs. 2-5, 8-11, 17

SHERLOCK 1-9: T32N, R91W, Sec. 19 Acquired by Elmhurst Financial Group agreement

SUNSET 1-8: T32N, R90W, Sec. 6

SWEET 1-73: T32N, R90W, Secs. 28, 29, 32-35

WDSD 1-73: T32N, R90W, Secs. 16, 17, 19-21, 29, 31, 32

Wind River No. 2-9, 24-33, 42-51; Wind River #10-23, #61-65 (STM);

T33N, R90W, Secs. 34, 35; T32N, R90W, Secs. 4, 5

WSR 1-24, 29-56: T33N, R90W, Secs. 20, 21, 29, 32

Strathmore entered into an agreement with Elmhurst Financial Group Inc., October 31, 2007, to purchase 155 unpatented lode mining claims located in the Rock Hill part of the Gas Hills project. CAM has a copy of the Quit Claim Deed transferring ownership to Strathmore that was recorded with the Fremont and Natrona County recorders. A net production royalty of 5% was assigned to Elmhurst on 155 claims. Eight claims were staked at Rock Hill and one claim at South Black Mountain by Strathmore on behalf of Elmhurst; Elmhurst was assigned the 5% royalty on these newly staked claims. Another nine claims were also staked at the Rock Hill property; Elmhurst was assigned a 5% royalty on only the southern 720 feet of the claims. On all the other claims in the Gas Hills Uranium Project, there are no royalties or other


hindrances; Strathmore owns a 100% interest in 1,538 lode mining claims. The claims with an attached 5% royalty are depicted as yellow on Figure 4-3 below.

Figure 4-1

State of Wyoming: Gas Hills Uranium Project Location Map 4.3 State of Wyoming Mineral Lease Strathmore acquired the State of Wyoming Mineral Lease (#0-42121) on April 2 2007; the lease covers 320 acres of the NE¼, N½NW¼, and E½SE¼, Sec. 36, T33N, R90W. The terms of the lease are in effect for a period of 10 years, expiring April 1, 2017. Lease payments of US$2.00 per acre are required, with renewal thereof and after commercial discovery. The State Lease 0-42121 is depicted in orange on Figure 4-3 below. CAM has a copy of the lease agreement. Effective February 2012, the Wyoming Board of Land Commissioners has fixed the royalty rate for new state-lands uranium leases at 4% of the gross selling price of U3O8. The rate on renewals of existing state leases will be on a case by case basis, but are likely to be at 4% at current economics. Any lease that has already been signed at the rate of 5% will continue, including Strathmore’s lease; however, this lease form allows for additional deductions. State of Wyoming royalties apply only to leased state lands.


4.4 Private Mineral Lease On July 28 2010, Strathmore entered into a mineral lease agreement with James D. Sherlock, Mary Freezer and Donna Robeson as Trustees for South Pass Land and Livestock Company for two parcels of land; 40 acres at the Jeep Project (SE¼SE¼, Sec. 32, T32N, R91W) and 40 acres at the Day Loma Project (SW¼SW¼, Sec. 19, T32N, R90W) termed the Sherlock lease. The mineral lease is good for an initial 10-year period with indefinite renewal for 10-year periods with additional lease payments. The mineral owner was granted a 5% net production royalty. The Sherlock lease is depicted as dark blue on Figure 4-3 below. The mineral lease holder does not hold title to the two land parcels’ surface estates. On June 21 2011, Strathmore entered into a Surface Use and Access Agreement with the land owner, Philip Sheep Company, of the 40-acre Day Loma parcel. The Agreement includes additional lands at Loco-Lee and Rock Hill where Strathmore controls the mineral rights but not the surface estates. CAM has obtained copies of the two mentioned agreements.

Figure 4-2

Gas Hills Project Location Map, Version 1


4.5 Legal Surveys During previous mining during the 1970’s, extensive surveys for patenting of mining claims were performed throughout the Gas Hills District, including for hundreds of claims that were formerly located on lands now controlled by Strathmore. However, because of a moratorium on patenting federal mining claims, the past Mineral Surveys cannot be used for any future patenting of the lands that the surveys covered.

Figure 4-3

Gas Hills Project Location Map, Version 2 (Properties, Claims and Leases)


4.6 Environmental Permits 4.6.1 Mineralized Areas, Surface Disturbance, Environmental Liability The majority of uranium deposits targeted for eventual production by Strathmore lie at depths from surface to 450 feet in the main part of the Gas Hills district. Depths to mineralization reach 1,200 feet below the prospective Beaver Rim to the south. Significant previous drilling and mine production has occurred on and adjacent to Strathmore’s claims in the Gas Hills. These surface disturbances consist of drill roads, drill sites, haul roads, spoil dumps, and reclaimed, mined-out open-pits. On Strathmore’s claims, where examined by CAM, drill pits have been backfilled and leveled, the sites reclaimed, and drill holes plugged and abandoned as required by state law. All physical work performed by Strathmore is covered by bonds filed with the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ) and the US Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Where work programs have been completed, Strathmore has received reduction (revegetation remaining) or complete release of bonding. No Notices of Violation have been received by Strathmore in the Gas Hills. Several legacy reclamation programs are ongoing in the Gas Hills, including on lands controlled by Strathmore. These programs are carried out by the WDEQ and its Abandoned Mine Lands Division (AML) with cooperation of the BLM. In addition, several former mill tailings sites on adjacent lands have been or will be reclaimed and transferred to the US Department of Energy (DOE) for long term care and maintenance. All of this reclamation activity is performed at the sole cost of the state and federal government agencies. State of Wyoming mining regulations will require Strathmore to reclaim any new mining activities but excludes Strathmore from any environmental liability associated with historical mining on Strathmore’s controlled lands. Strathmore consults with the BLM and WDEQ AML on their planned reclamation activities that may impact Strathmore’s future mining endeavors. 4.6.2 Exploration Permits Prior to any exploration or drilling activities in the Gas Hills, Strathmore is required to apply for drilling permits with the WDEQ Land Quality Division (WDEQ-LQD) and the BLM. Prior to issuance of any permit, a reclamation bond is posted. In Wyoming, plugging requirements exist for all drill holes. Forms describing the method of plugging and other required information must be submitted to the State Engineer’s Office and the WDEQ-LQD within 365 days of encountering water in a drill hole. Surface reclamation (contouring, reseeding) is required. Strathmore applied for and has received five drilling permits covering parts of six of their properties in the main Gas Hills; Bullrush, Jeep, George-Ver, Day Loma, Loco-Lee, Rock Hill, and Tablestakes (the proposed heap-leach and plant site area). In addition, Strathmore applied for and has received three drilling permits covering parts of three of their properties in the prospective Beaver Rim area to the south.


Strathmore has completed necessary plugging and regulatory reporting for abandonment of some or all holes drilled prior to 2010 on the properties; the 2010-12 drill holes that required abandonment were sealed and plugged properly and surface reclamation was scheduled for completion during autumn 2012. Table 4-2 shows details of drill permits received by Strathmore to date.

Table 4-2 Drilling Permits

Property Drill Notice # Date Issued Bonding ($) Activity

Jeep DN #355 April 13, 2007 59,000 Released

George-Ver DN #369 October 15, 2007 42,400 Active

Bullrush/Tablestakes DN #403 September 24, 2010 63,700 Active

Day Loma/Loco-Lee DN #404 September 24, 2010 83,800 Active

Rock Hill DN #402 September 24, 2010 42,900 Active

South Black Mountain DN #411 November 8, 2011 150,700 Active

East Diamond DN #418 August 20, 2012 199,700 Active

West Diamond DN #417 August 20, 2012 199,500 Active

4.6.3 Exploration Drilling Plan of Operations (BLM) Strathmore submitted a Lower Gas Hills Exploration Drilling Plan of Operations (PoO) to the US BLM Wyoming Lander Field Office on August 10, 2012. Following a BLM review and Strathmore’s response to comments the PoO was deemed materially complete and posted for public comment. Subsequent to the 30 day public comment period Strathmore received BLM approval of the PoO on February 11, 2013. The BLM approval of the Strathmore Lower Gas Hills Exploration Drilling Plan of Operations will allow exploration drilling over an area of 3,075 acres in the Lower Gas Hills, as defined in the PoO. Prior to approval of the PoO, the area available for exploration drilling was limited to 5 acres of disturbance per permit area at any given time for a total of 25 acres. Approval of the PoO will allow for a significantly increased exploration drilling activity on the Strathmore properties. 4.6.4 Mine Site Permitting Strathmore submitted a Permit to Mine application with the state of Wyoming, Department of Environmental Quality, Land Quality Division (WY DEQ-LQD) on October 31, 2012. The Permit to Mine application is currently under a 60 day initial completeness review. Strathmore will respond to comments and requests for additional information from DEQ review, and a final Permit to Mine application will be submitted to the DEQ and BLM. Submittal of the Permit to Mine application to the


BLM will then trigger the requirement for an Environmental Impact Statement to be completed by a third party contractor of BLM choosing, under the guidance of the BLM, and funded by Strathmore. Conditions and activities described in the Permit to Mine will be regulated by the Wyoming DEQ-LQD under a cooperative agreement with the BLM and other federal regulators. Mining activities allowed under the Permit to Mine are defined in a mine and reclamation plan, which must be approved by the WDEQ-LQD. The mine plan is updated annually through a required annual report. The amount of unreclaimed disturbance reported in each annual update establishes the reclamation bond amount. Calculation of the bond amount is based on the assumption that a third-party contractor will be required in the event of a mining company default of the performance bond. CAM understands that all baseline information required for the mine permit application has been obtained and is in the process of compilation. This includes information on overburden, hydrology, soil, vegetation, wildlife, cultural resources, etc. that will be assessed and evaluated in accordance with WY DEQ Guideline No. 6. These baseline conditions were submitted as specific sections in the mine permit application. State and federal agencies that will provide permits for the mine include: US Bureau of Land Management, US Environmental Protection Agency, US Mine Safety and Health Administration, US Fish and Wildlife Services, Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Air, Land and Water Quality Divisions, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, and Wyoming State Engineer’s Office. 4.6.5 Mill Site Permitting For Strathmore’s proposed Gas Hills Heap Leach Recovery Facility, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (US NRC) has the responsibility to issue a source material license to “receive title to, receive, possess, use, transfer, or deliver any source material after removal from its place of deposit in nature” (CFR 40.1 and 40.3). Source nuclear material is defined as uranium and/or thorium in any form, or ores containing 0.05% or more by weight uranium and/or thorium. The US NRC is required to implement National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations. This procedure will require an approved Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prior to any production activities. The site will be bonded under the US Department of Energy’s (DOE) Long-Term Maintenance and Surveillance Fee ($250,000 in 1978 dollars) that is adjusted per the Consumer Price Index. Eventually, the reclaimed mill and tailings sites will be transferred to the US DOE for perpetual security and monitoring, including a portion of the fee to cover the costs of this long term care and maintenance. CAM understands that data and information required to obtain the necessary permits is in the process of being assembled.


4.6.6 Summary of Property Situation CAM is of the opinion that Strathmore’s mineral-rights and permitting status are in proper order for continued exploration efforts and subsequent project development.


5.0 ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND PHYSIOGRAPHY

5.1 Topography, Elevation, Physiography The Gas Hills uranium district is near the geographic center of Wyoming. It is partly in Fremont County and partly in Natrona County, midway between the cities of Casper and Riverton (Figures 4-1 and 4-2). Altitude ranges from about 6,000 feet along Muskrat Creek in the northwestern part of the district to a little over 8,000 feet in the eastern and southeastern parts. A steep north-facing escarpment from 400 to 500 feet high above the surrounding lands, called the Beaver Divide, extends from the southwestern part of the district to the east-central and southeastern parts. The areas north and south of Beaver Divide are gently rolling semi-arid sagebrush-covered desert. 5.2 Climate, Vegetation and Wildlife Climate in the Gas Hills is continental semi-arid, with annual precipitation of 8-12 inches, mostly falling in the form of late autumnal to early spring snows. The summer months are usually hot, dry and clear except for infrequent rains. Because of the dry climate, almost all streams in the area are ephemeral, flowing only during storm events or spring snow melt. Winters are cold and summers are hot. Year-around open-pit mining operations were successfully carried out previously in the Gas Hills district, in spite of low winter temperatures. Strathmore contracted with Permits West Inc. of Santa Fe, New Mexico (2012) to gather data on vegetation and wildlife as required for drilling permits. Studies found most common native vegetation is sage brush and to lesser extent, rabbit brush. No threatened or endangered plants were found on the properties. Mule deer and pronghorn antelope are common, as are nesting raptors. Small rodents and rabbits are common. The Greater Sage Grouse, present in the general area of the project, has been considered for listing as a threatened or endangered species. Successful and ongoing mitigation efforts by the State of Wyoming have significantly decreased the probability of regulatory listing of the sage grouse. 5.3 Infrastructure Extensive production in Wyoming of minerals (coal, trona, uranium) and oil/gas has provided a highly skilled labor force in the region. Population centers within two hours of the Gas Hills project include Casper, Riverton, Lander and Rawlins, where equipment and supplies may be obtained. Paved roads from these towns and cities extend to the edge of the Gas Hills project area. Access and haul roads within the project are graded gravel and are maintained by the State, County and mining companies operating in


the area. Functioning power lines, natural gas lines, telephone and fiber optic cable are present on and near the Strathmore property (Figure 5-1). Several wells producing water for domestic and industrial use are on or close to Strathmore’s mineral properties. It is CAM’s opinion that property controlled by Strathmore is more than adequate to provide area for potential tailing storage, waste disposal, heap leach pads, potential processing sites, and any other required facilities.


Figure 5-1

Infrastructure Map of the Gas Hills Uranium District (Drafted by Strathmore in 2010 from Gas Hills Master Title Plats from the US BLM’s Wyoming website)


6.0 HISTORY The Gas Hills Uranium District is one of the major uranium mining and production regions in the USA. Total production was approximately 100 million pounds of uranium in the Gas Hills from the mid 1950’s to late 1980’s. Following the initial discovery of uranium in the district in 1953, a staking rush ensued, and thousands of mining claims were staked within a few months (Snow, 1978), and exploration exposed numerous near-surface oxidized deposits. Shipments of ore were sent to Edgemont, South Dakota, or to Vitro’s mill in Salt Lake City, Utah. By 1959, there were five uranium mills working in the region: Lucky Mc., Split rock, Susquehanna, Federal-American Partners, and Globe, Inc. Following the Three Mile Island nuclear accident in Pennsylvania in 1979, the spot price of uranium dropped drastically, and the Wyoming uranium mills were put on standby and eventually dismantled. The last mill production occurred in 1988 at Lucky Mc. Extensive mill site and mine reclamation occurred from the late 1980’s through to the present time. 6.1 Historical Mineral Tonnage and Grade Estimates on Strathmore’s Gas Hills Project The following sub-sections present past production information that is available, and historical tonnage and grade figures that have been reported on what are now Strathmore’s properties (Figure 6-1). These data are from mining companies that were active in the area prior to the implementation of the NI 43-101 requirements. A Qualified Person has not done sufficient work to classify the historical estimates mentioned in this section as current mineral resources or mineral reserves. Strathmore is not treating these historical estimates as current mineral resources or mineral reserves. Additional exploration work needs to be completed in order to determine whether the historical resources can be classified as current mineral resources, and thus, the historical figures should not be relied upon. More than 100,000 exploration and development holes were drilled in the Gas Hills from the mid 1950’s to 1979. Since 1990 only a few hundred holes have been drilled, nearly all by Strathmore and Cameco. Strathmore recently acquired historical data for several of their Gas Hills properties including Day Loma, George-Ver, Loco-Lee and Rock Hill. The various mining companies that explored for and developed uranium deposits in the Gas Hills during the 1950’s-1980’s used various estimation methods and terms for their estimates. Essentially all companies determined uranium values in drill holes with a gamma-ray probe. Tonnages were determined by various methods: some were done by polygons constructed around mineralized drill holes, other estimates were termed “statistical” where various circles of influence were constructed around


mineralized drill holes and then statistically summed. Companies routinely used 16 cubic feet per ton for the tonnage factor. A full discussion of the historical estimates is provided in the following sections. The summary table of historical tonnage and grade estimates is presented in Table 6-1. The historic estimates should not be relied upon, but CAM believes that the historic tonnages and grades are relevant and reliable enough to justify further exploration.

Table 6-1 Historical Mineral Resource Estimates on the Gas Hills Uranium Project

Property Tons Grade % Pounds

Amazon 285,000 0.06 366,000

Andria 740,000 0.06 950,000

Badlands 163,000 0.07 216,000

Bullrush 1,737,000 0.07 2,307,000

Day Loma 1,001,000 0.16 3,317,000

Frazier-Lamac 697,000 0.11 1,522,000

George-Ver 1,031,000 0.07 1,493,000

Jeep 297,000 0.08 463,000

Loco-Lee 3,369,000 0.07 4,644,000

Rock Hill 900,000 0.05 900,000

Sunset 1,395,000 0.06 1,813,000

The historical resource estimates for Bullrush, Day Loma, George-Ver, Loco-Lee, and Rock Hill have been superseded by new mineral resource estimates presented in Section 14 of this report.

The historic estimates were completed prior to Strathmore’s acquisition of these properties and were done by reputable mining companies using accepted engineering practice at the time. Although the exact details of the historic estimates are not available they appear to have been done using the polygonal method for grade and grade thickness to calculate tons and pounds. The polygonal tonnage and grade estimate is appropriate for uranium because the selected mining unit (SMU) used in open pit mining is approximately the same volume as that sampled by the downhole gamma ray probe. The primary issue with the historic estimates is that not all of the data is of a quality suitable for a NI 43-101 compliant disclosure, and in some cases the audit trail for the data is at least partially missing. CAM believes that additional work including confirmation drilling, geophysical logging, sampling and chemical assay verification, and other technical support work as deemed necessary, is required in order to verify the historical estimates as a current mineral resource, and that this work is warranted. Strathmore intends to complete further evaluation in due course, and while CAM believes that additional drilling and improved procedures will result in these historical estimates being upgraded to NI 43-101 compliant mineral resource estimates, it is not certain if further work as recommended by CAM will result in the historical


resource estimates being upgraded to NI 43-101 compliant mineral resource estimates for any or all of these properties. CAM notes that the historical estimates for Bullrush, Day Loma, George-Ver, Loco-Lee, and Rock Hill listed in Table 6-1 have been superseded by mineral resource estimates listed in Section 14 (Mineral Resource Estimates) of this report. In addition, these five properties all have “target areas”, that have potential for identifying additional uranium resources. These “target areas” are summarized in Section 9 (Exploration). The following sections discuss the Day Loma, George-Ver, Loco-Lee, Jeep and Rock Hill properties (Figure 6-1). These properties contain known mineralized areas with abundant historical drilling, and where Strathmore has carried out supportive confirmation drilling. CAM believes that recent Strathmore exploration drilling in historical resource areas during 2011 and 2012 has confirmed the presence of uranium mineralization in these areas. Additional details of the exploration and drilling activities in historic resource areas are discussed in Sections 9 and 10 respectively. CAM estimated resources, defined by this recent drilling, are summarized in Section 14. The potential for additional uranium mineralization present in areas of historical resources is discussed in Section 9 of this report. The estimates discussed in Sections 6.1.1 through 6.1.7 were completed prior to the implementation of the National Instrument 43-101. Given the extensive mineral production in the Gas Hills and the fact that the estimates were done by reputable mining companies, in addition to the quality of their historical work completed, CAM believes these historical resource estimates to be relevant and reliable. However, a qualified person has not completed sufficient work to verify and classify these historical resource estimates as current mineral resources, and Strathmore is not treating the historical estimate as a current mineral resource. Additional work including confirmation drilling, sampling and chemical assay verification, and other technical support work as deemed necessary, is required in order to verify the historical estimate as a current mineral resource.


Figure 6-1

Map of Strathmore’s Gas Hills Uranium Project and Historical Mineral Estimates


6.1.1 Day Loma (Western Nuclear/Phelps Dodge/Energy Fuels) Historical Mineral Estimates Day Loma uranium mineralization was discovered in the 1950’s and was later owned by Western Nuclear Inc., later acquired by Phelps Dodge. Mining by open pit and underground continued to 1977 and resulted in total production of 498,381 tons with a grade of 0.248%, yielding 3,284,593 pounds of U3O8 (Energy Fuels Report 1979). Energy Fuels entered into an agreement with Western Nuclear to purchase the Day Loma property in 1978 and generated estimates for the remaining, un-mined uranium deposits at Day Loma (457,000 tons grading 0.21% eU3O8, for 1,941,000 pounds). Following their decision to purchase Day Loma from Western Nuclear in 1978, Energy Fuels initiated an aggressive drilling program (more than 400 holes) to delineate additional tonnages. In April 1979, Pathfinder Mines completed 200 holes at Day Loma, confirming the mineralization and Energy Fuels’ tonnage estimates, and extended deposits into untested territory. In June 1979, Energy Fuels reevaluated the Day Loma estimates following a drilling program, using the higher uranium prices at the time, and their preferred mining method--open-pit, for areas that Western Nuclear previously calculated tonnages and grades utilizing underground mining cutoffs. Based on the same method employed in 1978, Energy Fuels increased the historical estimate at Day Loma by 70%, from 1,941,000 pounds to 3,317,000 pounds (1,001,000 tons grading 0.16% eU3O8). Two tonnage classes, “proven” and “probable”, were combined for a total estimate, which was made by:

“Proven” tonnages were calculated for the area within a 25-foot radius circle about the drill hole above the minimum cutoffs (2 feet @ 0.03% eU3O8). When drill holes were closer than 50 feet, the areas were calculated using radii of ½ the distance to the nearest drill hole.

“Probable” tonnages were then calculated by extending a straight line tangent to each of the contiguous circular zones of influence and computing the total square footage by planimeter. The average thickness and grade % were based on the averages for those “proven” holes within the area of the “probable” tonnages. A total tonnage was calculated for the “probable” area, and then the “proven” tonnage subtracted to arrive at the “probable” estimate.

Density Factor: To change estimate of volume to tonnage an historical district average of 16 cubic feet per ton was used.

The “proven” and “probable” tonnage categories assigned to the historical estimates given above are not comparable to mineral reserves categories and do not have demonstrated economic viability.


Energy Fuels then engaged an outside consultant, David S. Robertson & Associates Inc. (1979) to prepare an independent assessment of the mineralization at Day Loma. That group, which included current author Thomas C. Pool (P.E.), estimated the deposit contains 1,172,943 tons with a grade of 0.154 % eU3O8, or 3.6 million pounds U3O8, with an average thickness of 6.3 feet. The tonnage and grade estimate is historical and should not be relied upon as a NI-43-101 compliant resource. See complete statement regarding historical resources located at the end of Section 6.0. 6.1.2 George –Ver (Federal-American Partners’ and Pathfinder) Historical Mineral Estimates Three mining companies, Gas Hills Uranium, Federal Resources, and Radorock Uranium, formed a partnership and constructed the central Gas Hills uranium mill. Later Gas Hills Uranium changed its name to American Nuclear Corporation (ANC) and Federal Resources acquired Radorock; the subsequent mining group was called Federal-American Partners (FAP). FAP signed an agreement with the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) in the early 1970’s to develop uranium ores in the Gas Hills, by open-pit and underground methods. In the early 1980’s, TVA acquired all of the mining interests of FAP/ANC and subsequently sold them to Power Resources Inc. (later Cameco Corporation) in 1991. Cameco maintained many of the claims until the early 2000’s, when they dropped their rights to mineralization too shallow for in-situ recovery (i.e. Loco-Lee, Bullrush), those claims too near previously mined open-pits (Andria, George-Ver, Day Loma, Sunset), and those at greater depths (Beaver Rim properties). Historical estimates were reported by American Nuclear Corporation (ANC) in 1985. Historical estimates at George-Ver were 1,031,000 tons at a grade of 0.07 % eU3O8 containing 1,493,000 pounds. Utilizing the statistical method, also known as area of equal influence (AOI), ANC’s geologists generated blocks using perpendicular bisectors half the distance between adjacent drill holes. Minimum cutoffs of 2 feet and 0.035% eU3O8 were used. Three classes were estimated: ANC’s “indicated” based on drill holes spaced less than 70 feet apart, “inferred” based on drill holes spaced less than 100 feet apart, and “potential” based on drill holes spaced less than 200 feet apart. ANC then added each of the tonnages together and reported a “total” tonnage. It should be noted that the historical terminology used by ANC did not use NI 43-101 compliant terminology, and the historical tonnages at George-Ver should not be relied upon as compliant resources. The historic Frazier-Lamac claims were located adjacent to the George-Ver deposit. They were drilled and partially mined by Western Nuclear, and later sold to Pathfinder. Eventually the claims were dropped and subsequently the area they covered became part of the George-Ver claim block of Strathmore (Figure 6-1).


Pathfinder in 1996 reported the deposit contains 697,000 tons of mineralized material at a grade of 0.11 % U3O8 containing 1.52 million lbs. The tonnage and grade estimate at Frazier-Lamac is historical and should not be relied upon. See complete statement regarding historical resources located at the end of Section 6.0. 6.1.3 Loco-Lee (Federal American Partners’) Historical Mineral Estimates The Loco-Lee deposit lies adjacent to the Day Loma property (Figure 6-1) and was part of the Federal-American Partners property, the history of which is discussed in the previous section. Loco-Lee was sold to Power Resources (later Cameco Corporation). Cameco dropped the mineral rights to Loco-Lee and these were later acquired through claim-staking by Strathmore. Past production figures for Loco-Lee are not available. American Nuclear, the previous owner in partnership with FAP, reportedly drilled 1,508 holes that provided information for the historical tonnage and grade estimates. Although, not complete, Strathmore was able to acquire information on 652 holes from Cameco. FAP designed a Loco-Lee pit in preparation for mining, and it is evident from shape and extent of the proposed pit that many of the missing holes contain significant uranium mineralization. The historical tonnage estimate reported by American Nuclear Corporation in 1985 at Loco-Lee is 3,369,000 tons at a grade of 0.07% eU3O8, containing 4,644,000 pounds. Minimum cutoffs of 2 feet and 0.035% eU3O8 were used. This estimate is for historical information only and is not to be relied upon. See complete statement regarding historical resources located at the end of Section 6.0. 6.1.4 Bullrush (Federal American Partners’) Historical Mineral Estimates Bullrush consists of several separate uranium deposits about one to two miles west of George-Ver at the northwestern extreme of Strathmore’s claimed area (Figure 6-1). They are located on property that once was part of Federal American Partners’ (FAP; see Section 6.1.1), Western Nuclear’s (acquired later by FAP), and Union Carbide’s historical land positions. There has been significant historical production from the property, predominantly by open-pit methods and to a lesser extent by underground mining. The FAP portion was sold to Power Resources (later Cameco Corp) in 1991. Cameco dropped the mineral rights to Bullrush and these were later acquired through claim-staking by Strathmore. FAP had previously acquired the Western Nuclear mineral rights in the 1960s. Production records are very limited; however, by 1961 Western Nuclear mined 105,300 tons grading 0.196% for 412,000 pounds of uranium from four shallow open-pit mines (Dec. 5, 1961 memo from Behre-Dolbear to Western Nuclear). Later, FAP mined additional deposits on their portion (Bullrush,


Sagebrush, Tablestakes) of the current property; final production numbers are unknown. On the west side of the Bullrush Property, Union Carbide developed uranium deposits by open-pit mining. Their “George” pits were excavated in the early 1980s to a depth of ~200-250 feet; final production numbers are unknown. In 1985, ANC, in partnership with FAP, reported (American Nuclear Corporation, 1985) remaining historical resources on their portion of the current Bullrush Property (based on ~1,350 drill holes) including tonnage of 1,737,000 tons at a grade of 0.07% eU3O8 for a total of 2,307,000 pounds of contained uranium. A minimum cutoff of 2 feet and 0.035% eU3O8 was used. This estimate is for historical information only and is not to be relied upon. See complete statement regarding historical resources located at the end of Section 6.0. 6.1.5 Jeep (Federal American Partners’) Historical Mineral Estimates Jeep is a relatively small uranium deposit located about three miles southwest of Day Loma (Figure 6-1.) It is located on property that once was part of Federal American Partners land position (see Section 6.1.1). There has been no historical uranium production from this property. The ANC and FAP partnership (American Nuclear Corporation, 1985) determined a tonnage of 297,000 tons at a grade of 0.08% eU3O8 for a total of 463,000 pounds of contained uranium. A minimum cutoff of 2 feet and 0,035% eU3O8 was used. This estimate is for historical information only and is not to be relied upon. See complete statement regarding historical resources located at the end of Section 6.0. 6.1.6 Rock Hill (Adobe-Vipont) Historical Mineral Estimates The Rock Hill deposits located in the northeast part of the Gas Hills project area lie north of Cameco’s planned in-situ mining area. The deposits were discovered in the 1950’s as surface outcrop radiometric anomalies. In the 1960’s Vipoint Mining Company’s drilling defined several near surface uranium deposits. Adobe Oil and Gas Company in 1975 entered into an agreement with Vipont to develop an open pit mine. During 1977-1981, Adobe Oil and Gas Company drilled about 500 development holes in addition to 50 core holes to delineate two deposits (Rock Hill and Red Horse) adjacent to several mined by Union Carbide and Utah Intl/Pathfinder. Total past production from the Rock Hill property is unknown. As part of their mine planning and development of the Rock Hill property, Adobe estimated in-place recoverable tonnages based on a plan to bulk mine the Rock Hill deposit. Adobe, estimated a tonnage of 900,000 tons grading 0.05% eU3O8 for approximately 900,000 pounds uranium. An estimate of the Red Horse deposit was not available. This estimate is for historical information only and is not to be


relied upon. See complete statement regarding historical resources located at the end of Section 6.0. The area of mineralization was drilled on a very close-spacing, 25-50 feet apart, which readily defined the geologic characteristics. CAM believes, from study of drill data, that gamma-ray readings have been impacted by disequilibrium, as discussed in Section 12 (Data Verification) of this report. 6.1.7 Allegretti Historical Mineral Estimates Strathmore’s property includes much of the Beaver Rim area, which is located to the south of the target areas previously discussed herein. CAM estimates that approximately 500 to 750 holes were drilled above Beaver Rim prior to 1980. Cameco is currently drilling on their side of the Beaver Rim property line in an area known as the Allegretti uranium trend (Figure 9-6). The Allegretti claim group was previously owned by Adobe Oil & Gas Corporation in 1976 (Dames & Moore, 1976.) Uranium mineralization in the Wind River formation was located by drilling in six horizons, each containing roll type uranium mineralization. Two separate areas about 5,000 feet apart were explored by historical drilling. Twenty exploration holes were drilled in the north area, some of which were located on Strathmore property. Of the twenty holes, 18 encountered evidence of mineralization on four levels with grades from 0.07 to 0.116 % eU3O8. The depth of mineralization is about 1,200 feet and an estimate of about 440,000 pounds of U3O8 is believed to be present. The south area, located fully on Strathmore Property, was drilled with about 30 exploration holes which encountered mineralization at grades from 0.102 to 0.27 % eU3O8 at depths of about 1,200 feet. The encountered mineralization is estimated to contain about 313,000 pounds of U3O8 with an average grade of 0.19 % (Dames and Moore, 1976). Strathmore is not treating these historical estimates as current mineral resources or mineral reserves. See complete statement regarding historical resources located at the end of Section 6.0. 6.2 Summary Deposits containing the uranium mineralization reported in the above Sections 6.1.1 through 6.1.7 were candidates for development in the 1980’s, prior to closure of mining activities, due to declining uranium prices, in the wake of the Three-Mile Island nuclear reactor disaster in Pennsylvania in 1979. Strathmore controls other known uranium deposits in the Gas Hills but does not have the requisite data to confirm their areal extents, depths, thickness, grade and estimated mineral resources.


Techniques for estimating resources were developed by the operating companies in the Gas Hills district with input and approval of the U.S. Atomic Energy Agency. Further, the estimates provided basis for effective commercial exploitation of numerous deposits. CAM believes that recent Strathmore exploration drilling in historical resource areas during 2011 and 2012 has confirmed the presence of uranium mineralization in these areas. Additional details of the exploration and drilling activities in historic resource areas are discussed in Sections 9 and 10 respectively. CAM estimated resources, defined by this recent drilling, are summarized in Section 14. The potential for additional uranium mineralization present in areas of historical resources is discussed in Section 9 of this report. The above reported historical estimates were completed prior to implementation of the NI 43-101 requirements. A Qualified Person has not done sufficient work to classify the historical estimates mentioned in this section as current mineral resources or mineral reserves. Strathmore is not treating these historical estimates as current mineral resources or mineral reserves. Additional exploration work needs to be completed in order to classify the historical estimates as current mineral resources, and thus, the historical figures should not be relied upon.


7.0 GEOLOGIC SETTING AND MINERALIZATION 7.1 Regional Geology The Gas Hills Uranium District, located in central Wyoming, is about 100 square miles in area and is located within the Wind River Basin that is bounded on the north by the Owl Creek Mountains, on the west by the Wind River Mountains, and on the south by the Granite Mountains, part of the Sweetwater uplift (Figure 7-1). These mountain ranges consist of Precambrian crystalline basement rocks overlain by unmetamorphosed, mainly marine, Paleozoic and Mesozoic sedimentary rocks (Figure 7-2). Mountain ranges around the Wind River basin were uplifted during the late Cretaceous to early Tertiary Laramide orogeny. Erosion from these basement-cored uplifts deposited terrestrial clastic sediments of the Eocene Wind River formation unconformably upon tilted and deformed Paleozoic-Mesozoic rocks. Arkosic sandstones and conglomerates are common in the Eocene Wind River formation and suggest that alluvial fan deposits helped fill the basin. The coarse clastic rocks are up to 1,800 feet thick in the Gas Hills area and pinch out against Paleozoic/Mesozoic rocks south of the Gas Hills. The Eocene Wind River formation is covered with generally conformable layers of tuffaceous sedimentary rocks derived from volcanoes active in the region during Oligocene-Miocene times. Regional uplift occurred in Pliocene times and the present cycle of erosion. Sometime during late Tertiary time the Granite Mountain block dropped down along east-west faults that lie between the mountains and the Gas Hills. This resulted in a southward regional tilt of the Wind River sediments of two to six degrees in the Gas Hills. 7.2 Regional Sedimentary Package The Cenozoic basin-fill deposits of the Wind River Basin are chiefly flood-plain and stream channel materials, with generally greater amounts of lacustrine and pyroclastic sediments toward the top of the sequence. The Eocene formations generally consist of lenticular, poorly sorted sediments, whereas the younger Tertiary formations are commonly better sorted and less lenticular in nature. The majority of the volcanic debris was derived from the Yellowstone-Absaroka volcanic field in northwestern Wyoming and to a much lesser extent from the Rattlesnake Hills volcanic field immediately east of the Gas Hills (Van Houten, 1964). The sedimentary deposits dip gently a few degrees to the south, having been tilted by Late Tertiary collapse of the Granite Mountains and formation of the Split Rock syncline. The Cenozoic basin-fill deposits exposed in the Gas Hills are, from oldest to youngest, the Wind River Formation, Wagon Bed Formation, White River Formation, and the Split Rock Formation. The arkosic sandstones of the Wind River Formation are the host rocks for all economic important quantities of uranium mineralization in the Gas Hills. They were deposited during the period following uplift of the


ranges surrounding the Wind River Basin and are composed of debris eroded from these highland areas. Deposited in alluvial fans, stream channels, lakes, flood plains, and swamps, the Wind River Formation varies in thickness from a few feet at the basin margins to several thousand feet thick in the central part of the basin to the north of the Gas Hills. Depositional processes were influenced by the Eocene climate, which was mostly humid, warm-temperate to sub-tropical in nature (Seeland, 1978). The younger basin-fill sediments (Wagon Bed, White River, Split Rock) are increasingly finer-grained than those arkosic sands of the Wind River Formation, in addition to having substantially more volcanic detritus. 7.3 Geologic Setting of the Gas Hills Uranium District Much of the following information is abstracted from work by the U.S Geological Survey (Armstrong, 1970). Very little has been published on geology of the district since the collapse of the nuclear industry in 1979, following the Three Mile Island incident. In the Gas Hills district, lower Tertiary rocks unconformably overlie folded and faulted Mesozoic and older rocks (Figure 7-2). The Wind River Formation, 400 to 800 feet thick, is conformably overlain by tuffaceous sandstones of the Eocene Wagon Bed Formation, which is 300 to 700 feet thick (Figure 7-4 ). Soister (1968, p.9) in studying a larger area, divided the Wind River Formation into three units: (1) the lower fine-grained member, (2) the Puddle Springs arkose member, and (3) the upper fine-grained transition member (Figure 7-3). The Puddle Springs arkose member of the Wind River Formation is the host rock for the uranium deposits. It consists of poorly consolidated arkosic sandstone and conglomerate with thin discontinuous interbeds of mudstone. The Puddle Springs arkose was deposited rapidly by northward-flowing braided streams to form coalescing piedmont alluvial fans (Soister, 1968.) Mudstone interbeds are probably overbank deposits on floodplains. The provenance was the Granite Mountains a short distance to the south. The full thickness of the Wind River is present from just north of the base of Beaver Divide southward for a few miles. North of the contact between Wind River and post-Wind River rocks, erosion has cut across strata at a low angle and the formation progressively thins to a feather edge at its northern margin, where basal beds lie unconformably on older rocks.


7.3.1 Description of Stratigraphic Units of the Gas Hills The following lithologic descriptions were modified from Van Houten (1964), Soister (1968), Anderson (1969) and Love (1970). Geologic map of the Gas Hills is shown in Figure 7-2 and a stratigraphic column of the formations encountered is shown on 7-3. Following is a general description of units Indicated with letter symbols in Figure 7-2. Tsr: Split Rock Formation (Miocene) has a basal conglomerate 10-15 feet thick with cobbles up to 15 inches diameter. Massive tuffaceous sandstone with thin interbeds of sandy limestone, and lenses of pebble conglomerate overlies the basal conglomerate. The formation is about 150 feet thick in the Gas Hills area as exposed atop Beaver Rim, but is not exposed to the north of the Rim. Twr: White River Formation (Oligocene) is a bentonitic and tuffaceous yellowish-gray to grayish-orange mudstone with lenses of arkosic sandstone, conglomerate and beds of vitric tuff. This unit contains basal arkosic sandstone (Big Sand Draw Sandstone), with lenses of pebbly conglomerate. The basal unit is overlain by conglomerate (Beaver Divide Conglomerate) in the west part of the Wind River Basin. The formation is ~100 feet thick in the Gas Hills area as exposed along the Beaver Rim, with little to none of the formation exposed north of the Rim. Tw: Wagon Bed Formation (Late Eocene) in the Gas Hills is divided into five informal sub-units. The basal unit 1 is a 10-20 feet thick mudstone. This is overlain by Unit 2 which is composed primarily of sandstone and bentonitic mudstone. Unit 3 is an altered biotite vitric tuff with locally interbedded volcanic sandstones and siltstones. Unit 4 contains volcanic claystone, siltstone and sandstone, and the upper portion contains silicified mudstone and tuff. The uppermost unit 5 is composed of volcanic mudstone, arkosic sandstone, and conglomerate. The formation is ~100-150 feet thick in the Gas Hills area, lies conformably atop the Wind River Formation and is exposed mostly along the Beaver Rim escarpment. Twdr: Wind River Formation (Early Eocene) in the Gas Hills has been divided (Soister, 1968) into three informal members (upper transition zone, middle zone, lower zone). In general, the formation is a yellowish-gray variegated mudstone, sandstone, and conglomerate lenses. Sandstone generally is arkosic to sub-arkosic, and contains local tuffaceous beds in the upper part. The formation is 500-600 feet thick in the Gas Hills area and lies unconformably atop the older, folded and faulted Mesozoic deposits. The following details the three sub-units of Soister (1968):

Upper Transition Zone is 50-100 feet thick and consists of an interbedded mudstones and coarse arkosic sandstone.


Puddle Springs Arkose Member (Middle Zone) is the host for the uranium mineralization, and is 20 to 300 feet thick, depending upon location and the underlying paleotopography. Two types of sandstones are present in the Puddle Springs Arkose member. The first, a yellowish-orange to yellowish-gray arkose, was primarily derived from pre-Cambrian gneissic and granitoid rocks. It contains limonite and calcium carbonate cement but little clay matrix. The second type of sandstone is derived from pre-Cambrian schists, contains little carbonate cement, much micaceous clay and is interbedded with mudstone containing chlorite. About 90% of the sediments were derived from the pre-Cambrian granitic source rocks.

Lower Zone is composed primarily of grayish-green siltstone, gray fine- to very fine-grained quartz

sandstone, and grayish-green claystone. Basal conglomerate and carbonaceous beds are also present. The lower zone is 0-130 feet thick in the southern Wind River Basin, and its occurrence and thickness are related to the variably eroded surface on which this unit was deposited. The sediments of the lower zone are characteristic of the eroded Mesozoic and Paleozoic source rocks.

Pre-Cenozoic Strata (PreCen) in the Gas Hills are from Cambrian to Cretaceous in age. Paleozoic sediments, averaging 2,000 feet thick, include rocks of Cambrian, Mississippian, Pennsylvanian and Permian ages; they consist mostly of sandstone, limestone and dolomite. Mesozoic sediments, averaging 10,000 feet thick, include rocks of Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous ages and consist mostly of shale and some sandstone. All of the pre-Cenozoic rocks were extensively deformed during Early Eocene faulting, uplift, and basin development associated with the Laramide Orogeny. The pre-Cenozoic deposits are exposed in erosional windows throughout the Gas Hills District.


Figure 7-1

Wyoming State Structures & Tectonic Features (Strathmore 2012) 7.4 Geologic Setting of Mineralization in the Gas Hills Uranium District In the Gas Hills district, lower Tertiary rocks unconformably overlie folded and faulted Mesozoic and older rocks (Figure 7-2). The Eocene Wind River Formation, 400 to 800 feet thick in the Gas Hills, is conformably overlain by tuffaceous sandstones of the Eocene Wagon Bed Formation, which is 300 to 700 feet thick (Figure 7-3). Southward beneath Beaver Rim the Wind River thins to a feather edge by onlap over older rocks. The Wind River Formation dips 1 to 5 degrees southeast. The dip, the higher altitude of the surface south of Beaver Divide, and local faulting all combine to place the base of the Wind River much deeper below the surface south of Beaver Divide than north of it.


The Gas Hills uranium deposits are present in an arkosic sandstone facies (i.e. Puddle Springs member of the Wind River formation.) Knowledge of the distribution of this member is of great importance in the search for uranium deposits, as permeability seems to determine whether a rock is a favorable or unfavorable host. Fine-grained, only slightly permeable rocks are unfavorable hosts. Highly porous conglomerates, on the other hand, appear to be too permeable to be a good host rock. Mineralized trends are developed in the arkosic facies. The Bullrush, Day Loma and Loco-Lee deposits are hosted in the Puddle Springs member in the west Gas Hills trend. The George-Ver deposit is located in the Puddle Springs member in the Central trend; and the Rock Hill deposit is located in the Puddle Springs member in the eastern Gas Hills trend. Drilling in the west Gas Hills indicates that the favorable arkosic sandstone host passes westward into unfavorable silty facies. A local sandstone facies has been found within the silty facies, and a small area containing uranium (Jeep deposit) has been found in the sandy facies. Thus the favorable host for mineralization in the above mentioned deposits (Figure 7-3) seems to be bounded on the north by an erosional pinchout; on the east by a change of facies to an unfavorable silty sandstone host; on the south by a subsurface onlap pinchout; and on the west by change of facies to an unfavorable silty sandstone host.


Figure 7-2

Geologic Map of the Gas Hills Uranium District Area of Strathmore mining claims indicated by black outline


Figure 7-3

Representative Stratigraphic Column: North of Beaver Rim


7.5 Uranium Mineralization Uranium mineralization in the Gas Hills is present in bodies usually referred to as “rolls.” In vertical cross section they are irregularly crescent shaped (Figure 7-4, 7-5). Rolls are the result of oxidized and soluble uranium being transported by ground water to a location within a permeable sandstone host where a reaction within a reducing environment occurs and insoluble reduced uranium minerals are deposited. The contact between oxidized and reduced conditions is the “roll front”. In the body of the crescent, individual rolls range from a few inches to many feet in vertical thickness. Average thickness of a well mineralized roll is 10 to 15 feet; many rolls thicker than 20 feet have been mined. The upper and lower horns of the crescent thin away from the body of the crescent. In the Gas Hills the lower horn normally is greatly extended and thins gradually, whereas the upper horn is short and thins abruptly. On the concave side of a crescent-shaped mineralized body, relatively light gray colored altered host rock is present. The contact is a slightly irregular narrow zone, and the change from uranium-bearing to bleached or altered rock normally takes place within a distance of three inches or less (Figure 7-5). On the convex side of a crescent shape mineralized body, relatively dark greenish-gray unbleached (unaltered) rock is present. The contact between uranium-bearing and unbleached or unaltered rock is an extremely irregular interfingering, mostly gradational feature but the contact between individual fingers of mineralized rock and unbleached host may be moderately sharp. The fingers of mineralized rock point in the direction of unbleached rock; this direction can be thought of as the direction in which the roll is facing. Upper-limb mineralization dies out away from the body of the crescent in an abrupt manner somewhat similar to that of the contact between uranium-bearing and bleached rock on the concave side of the crescent. In contrast, lower limb mineralization normally terminates gradually in the way that ore terminates on the convex side of a roll.


Figure 7-4

Typical C-shaped Uranium Roll-Front System Diagram drawn by Mark Travis (Strathmore Geologist)

Figure 7-5

Roll Front Exposed in Reclamation Channel, George-Ver Deposit (View to the east. Photo by David Miller, Strathmore, 1996)

Oxidized Ground Reduced Ground

Direction of Groundwater Flow


The photo shown in Figure 7-5 illustrates classic Wyoming-type uranium roll-front exposed during construction of a reclamation channel on the George-Ver Property (Figure 6-1). The depth to this ore deposit is about 30 feet; this deposit remains un-mined. The crescent-shaped contact between bleached rock and uranium mineralization is commonly referred to as a “front”. In mapping a front, the point of maximum advance of the altered rock is plotted (Figure 7-9). In plan view, the trace of a front is extremely sinuous. A front, because of its extreme sinuosity, can face in almost any direction. Rolls ordinarily are stacked en echelon (Figure 7-8), forming multiple mineralized bodies. A series of stacked rolls can be thought of a frontal system. The number of rolls and vertical separation between them can be large or small, and as a result, mineralization may occur through a large stratigraphic interval. In the Central Gas Hills, ore has been found in a stratigraphic interval almost 300 feet thick. Most rolls are stacked so that each successively higher roll is displaced in the direction of convexity (Figure 7-8)—the volume of bleached rock narrows with depth. Each roll in a stack has its own front and each front in plan view has its own sinuosity. The different fronts occur in the same general area, but the detailed sinuosity of one roll is independent of the sinuosity of other rolls. Rolls and lower-limb mineralized bodies normally are underlain by a mudstone layer. In many places a mudstone layer also overlies the roll (Figure 7-8). The upper limbs of some mineralized bodies end in sandstone and the next higher roll rests on a mudstone layer that is separated from the lower roll by un-mineralized sandstone. Un-oxidized mineralization is dark and usually, the darker the ore the higher the grade (Figure 7-6). The uranium minerals are very fine grained uraninite and a little coffinite. The only non-silicate gangue minerals present in significant amounts are fine-grained pyrite and marcasite, and they are intimately mixed with uranium minerals. These minerals coat detrital sand grains and fill interstices of the host rock. Oxidized mineralization is present near surface and was mined when production in the district first started (Figure 7-7). Most production came from un-oxidized mineralization and essentially all present mineralization of potential economic interest is contained in un-oxidized mineralization. Uranium is not distributed uniformly throughout the roll, rather, it is normally concentrated in the body of the crescent close to the concave side (Figure 7-5). High-grade mineralization locally contains several percent U3O8 per ton. The grade progressively decreases away from the high-grade zone. In the direction of bleached rock the grade decreases abruptly and there is a sharp break between mineralization and waste. In the direction of unbleached rock, grade decreases gradually. The high- grade zone in the body of the crescent and the area immediately adjacent to it contains most of the total uranium in the body.


Most of the uranium produced from the Gas Hills has come from this location in rolls, and therefore most future production can logically be expected to come from similar positions in other rolls.

Figure 7-6

View of High-Grade Mineralization in Exposed Roll Front Figure 7-6 is a photo by Strathmore, circa 1996. View of dark black uranium mineralization in “nose” of classic Wyoming-type uranium roll-front exposed during construction of a reclamation channel on the George-Ver Property. This deposit remains un-mined. The view is to the south.


Figure 7-7 Photograph of Oxidized Mineralization West of Bullrush-Tablestakes Property

(Photo by Strathmore, July 2008)

The photo shown in Figure 7-7 shows the highly oxidized, near surface roll-front deposit with extensive limonite (light brown) and hematite (red) staining from alteration of iron-rich minerals. The trace of a small roll-front is shown in red. A ~6 inch GPS unit is in the center of picture for scale. Oxidized mineralization lies to the left of red line on photo.


Figure 7-8

Depiction of Multiple Stacked, En Echelon Uranium Deposits (Source: Energy Fuels’ 1979 Mineral Resource and Geology Report, Day Loma Project)

Uranium was discovered in the Gas Hills near the center of the district at the north end of what later became known as the Central Gas Hills. As exploration continued, uranium was found at widely scattered localities and after a while it became evident that uranium occurrences were concentrated in three separate areas: a western area, a central area, and an eastern area. As work continued these areas became known as the west ore trend, central ore trend, and east ore trend (Figure 7-9). Each trend was considered to be a separate entity until about 1963, when it was realized that the different ore trends might be parts of a single complex geologic feature (Armstrong, 1970). Now it seems certain that the West and Central Gas Hills are parts of a single feature—a frontal system—and it is very likely that the East Gas Hills is another part of the same feature. Strathmore’s claim block covers much of the complex frontal system (Figure 9-1).


Figure 7-9

Gas Hills Uranium District: Map View of Connected Roll-Front Trends (Source: Energy Fuels, 1979)

7.6 Summary of Geology and Mineralization CAM is satisfied that the controls and geometry of the geology and mineralization are well-understood, and are fully sufficient for the preparations of models for mineral resource estimation.


8.0 DEPOSIT TYPES Uranium deposits in the Gas Hills are classic Wyoming-type roll-front deposits. Roll-front type uranium deposits (also called roll-type by the U.S. Geological Survey) are irregular in shape, roughly tabular and elongated, and range from thin pods a few feet in width and length, to bodies several hundred or thousands of feet in length. Many features of these deposits are described in the preceding section of this report. Roll-front uranium mineralization is also discussed in detail in the following reports: Anderson (1969), Adler (1964), Armstrong (1970), Granger and Warren (1974, 1978), King et al. (1965), King and Austin (1966), Shawe (1965), and Shawe and Granger (1965), to name a few. The Gas Hills district is second in U.S. uranium production, about 100 million pounds, only to the Grants district of northwest New Mexico. Significant amounts of the Grants uranium production came from roll-front deposits as well. Crescent-shaped uranium deposits of the Shirley basin uranium district, Wyoming are very similar to the Gas Hills deposits (Harshman, 1972). Roll-front uranium deposits also have been found in the Powder River basin, Wyoming (Davis, 1972), and also are the host for significant uranium production in southern Texas (Eargle and others, 1975), at Crowe Butte, Nebraska, Kazakhstan, and in Russia (Germanov, 1960). Typically, Wyoming roll-front uranium deposits occur in clusters (Finch, 1996) and a cluster of deposits generally contains from 500 to 20,000 tons of U3O8 at grades from 0.04 to 0.23 percent U3O8.


9.0 EXPLORATION 9.1 Exploration Methodology CAM believes that the very large land position of claims held by Strathmore covering most of the known Gas Hills mineralization trends places it in a favorable position to generate targets for significant tonnages of uranium mineralization. Exploration for roll-front uranium deposits requires drilling for discovery, development and definition of economic deposits. Initial drilling is wide spaced to gather geologic information, including presence of alteration bleaching, traces of mineralization and stratigraphic information. The latter along with the gamma signature from the logging probe, is used to guide location of subsequent drill holes. This is standard procedures in exploration for roll-front uranium deposits, and is used by Strathmore. Uranium values in exploration holes have been based on down-hole gamma-ray log probes. Strathmore has its own logging equipment and each hole is probed immediately following drilling of the hole. Equivalent uranium values, expressed as eU3O8, are obtained from the gamma logs, assuming that uranium and its daughter products are in radiogenic equilibrium. The probes are standardized and calibrated using test pits operated by the U.S. Department of Energy, located in Casper, Wyoming and Grand Junction, Colorado. Starting in 2011 and continuing through the 2012 program of drilling, Strathmore also employed a Company-owned Prompt-Fission-Neutron (PFN) probe together with a gamma-ray probe. The PFN probe, when properly calibrated, measures uranium content directly. PFN analysis assesses the quantity of uranium present surrounding a drill hole directly, by measuring those neutrons resulting from fission of the 235U isotope. This eliminates the uncertainties inherent in measuring gamma-ray intensities resulting from decay of uranium daughter products, which may be subjected to selective remobilization due to the varying chemical properties of each daughter element. Even so, it is still necessary to validate PFN results by comparison to chemical assay data from drill core or cuttings. It is anticipated that, through regular ongoing use of PFN with its associated calibration checks and continuing checks against existing or historical core holes, a background of validity can be achieved which will reduce the number and frequency of future chemical-assay checks. Strathmore also employs core drilling through mineralized units. Properties or targets drilled with core holes by Strathmore from 2007 to 2012 are indicated in Table 10-1. Six core holes were drilled at the George-Ver property in October 2010. These cores were used for base line studies required for permitting; no systematic program of chemical assays for uranium was implemented for these holes.


Starting in May 2012 Strathmore carried out a systematic program of core drilling through mineralized units with the specific objective of obtaining chemical assays for uranium. The resulting core was sent to accredited commercial labs for uranium assay; Intermountain Lab in Sheridan, Wyoming (accredited by the U.S. EPA, USNRC, and several states) and Hazen Research Inc. in Golden, Colorado (accredited by U.S. EPA and by NELAP -National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program). Drill holes with core assays are listed and discussed in Section 10 (Drilling) of this report describing drilling activities for each property. Beginning in May 2012, Strathmore has used an outside contractor (GAA Wireline Inc.) to log holes, and to verify the Strathmore PFN and Gamma logging readings. Comparison of results from gamma readings, PFN readings, and chemical assays can be used to assess the extent of radiogenic equilibrium or disequilibrium in the contained mineralization. See Section 12 (Data Verification) for a discussion on disequilibrium. Strathmore, in 2012, carried out confirmation drilling within the Lower Gas Hills on the Day Loma, George-Ver, Loco-Lee, Rock Hill and Bullrush properties, and also drilled exploration target areas located above Beaver Rim within their large claim block as shown on Figure 9-1. Details of this drilling are summarized in Section 10 (Drilling) of this report. This recent drilling indirectly supports historical information on uranium mineralization (depth, thickness and grade). If fully supported, historical drill information can be used to generate mineral resource estimates as discussed in Section 14 (Mineral Resource Estimates) of this report. Strathmore also undertook some drilling along trends beyond historically-defined mineralization, with the aim of enlarging the known mineralized areas. Neither Strathmore nor CAM has access to many of the details of past exploration carried out in the 1950’s through 1970’s, but many of the summary reports describing past activities in the Gas Hills district, now in possession of Strathmore, were examined by CAM. CAM believes these past exploration activities, mostly directed by well-known companies, were done in a manner consistent with industry best practices at the time, and that the information in these reports is reasonably accurate and reliable. Exploration activities carried out by Strathmore in each of the active project areas on Strathmore claims is briefly summarized in Sections 9.2 through 9.9. Drilling and logging procedures used by Strathmore are consistent with best practices, and land status monuments and records are verifiable and in good order. Strathmore’s drilling is discussed in more detail in Section 10. Analyses of data accuracy and reliability are further discussed in Section 11 (Sample Preparation, Analyses and Security) and Section 12 (Data Verification).


Figure 9-1

Location of Strathmore Exploration Targets


9.2 Bullrush Exploration The general location of the Bullrush West-29 exploration target is shown in Figure 9-1. This target is an area of about 3,500 feet north-south, by 1,300 feet east-west as shown in Figure 9-2. Union Carbide drilled and partly developed an historic deposit located along the west side of Bullrush West-29, and completed plans for open pit mining in the 1980’s. Immediately west of the West-29 target, Union Carbide mined the George pits to depths of approximately 200 feet in the late 1970’s. Production results from the George pits are unavailable. Strathmore drilled nine holes in the Bullrush West 29 target in 2011 and results of this exploration drilling are reported in the previous 43-101 report (Nielsen, Pool & Sandefur, 2012). Federal American Partners (FAP) drilled an area of mineralization immediately adjacent to the southeast corner of the West 29 target. FAP designed a pit for mining in 1982 (Figure 9-4.) Strathmore drilled 58 rotary holes and three core holes in the Bullrush target in 2012. Eleven rotary holes and one core hole were drilled in the FAP proposed pit area. Forty-seven rotary holes and two core holes were drilled in the West 29 target. Results of the 2012 drilling are summarized in Section 10, and drill hole locations are shown in Figure 10-1. Based on the Strathmore drilling, CAM generated a compliant inferred mineral resource for the Bullrush West-29 deposit (see Section 14). Additional potential exists on Bullrush as discussed below in Section 9.9.1.


Figure 9-2

Map of Bullrush West 29 Potential Exploration Target


9.3 Day Loma Exploration Uranium mineralization at Day Loma trends southeast for 2,000 feet from the east open pit to the most distant area of systematic block drilling (Figure 9-3). Strathmore drilled 39 confirmation holes, and installed 2 monitor wells, in 2010-11 and results of this drilling are reported in a previous NI43-101 report (Nielsen, Pool & Sandefur 2012.) Further drilling of 25 confirmation holes occurred in 2012 as indicated in Figure 9-3 and Figure 10-4; the results of this recent drilling are discussed in Section 10. Strathmore drilled a monitor well (DLS-MW-1) to a depth of 600 feet in 2010 approximately 1,500 feet east of the last known historical drilling at Day Loma (Figures 9-1, 9-3 and 9-7). This monitor well intersected a mineralized layer 15 feet thick grading 0.032% eU3O8 at a depth of 484 to 499 feet. Although not high grade, this level of mineralization and the gamma signature of the drill log suggests that the roll-front system continues into this area from the known Day Loma historic deposit. Strathmore carried out a program of exploration drilling to test for uranium mineralization roughly equidistant between the mineralized monitor well mentioned above and the last known area of historical drilling. Seventeen holes were drilled along two northeast-trending lines, each 800 to 1000 feet long, about 200 feet apart. Historical drilling was done in an area about 2000 to 3000 feet north-northeast of the open pit mine (Figures 9-1 and 10-4.) Strathmore drilled 20 confirmation holes in this area, informally called the Day Loma Northeast Area. Results of this recent drilling are discussed in Section 10. Based on the Strathmore confirmation drilling CAM generated both indicated and inferred Mineral Resources for the Day Loma project. Additional potential exists on the Day Loma project as discussed below in Section 9.9.2.


Figure 9-3 Map of Day Loma NE and SE Extensions, Potential Mineral Targets


9.4 George-Ver Exploration Extensive historical drilling was done on the greater George-Ver property as located in Figure 9-1 and Figure 9-4. However, Strathmore has been unable to locate the complete historical database, and did purchase the former George and Ver claims Federal American Partners database from Cameco in 2010. From 2007 to 2011, Strathmore drilled 22 exploration and confirmation holes (including 6 cored holes) in the George-Ver target located adjacent to the northwest edge of the former Lucky Mc open-pit mine (Figures 9-4 and 10-10). Three monitor wells were installed to gather necessary data for inclusion in a Mine Permit application. Results of this 2007-2011 drilling were reported in the previous NI 43-101 report (Nielsen, Pool and Sandefur, 2012.) Strathmore continued drilling at George-Ver and completed 43 rotary holes in 2012. Additionally, five cored holes were completed for chemical assay purposes. Drilling was concentrated in three areas in this most recent campaign. About 12 rotary holes and seven core holes were drilled in the area immediately west and northwest of the old Lucky Mc open-pit mine. About 24 rotary holes were drilled in an area of very little known historical drilling just west of the open pit Lucky Mc mine. Two east-west lines of holes were spaced about 200 feet apart, with holes space about 200 feet apart along each line. About 17 rotary holes were drilled just south of the old open-pit mine in an area of moderate to extensive historical drilling. The majority of the 2012 additional drilling was conducted in the George-Ver Deposit area outlined in red as shown in Figure 9-4. Results of the 2012 drilling data are discussed in further detail in Section 10, and drill hole locations are shown in Figure 10-10. CAM generated indicated and inferred Mineral Resources for a portion of the George-Ver project area (see Section 14) covered by the historic ANC/FAP database. Additional historical estimates for a portion of the George-Ver property known as Frazier-Lamac (see Section 6.1.2 & Table 6-1) requires additional confirmation drilling to verify the resource. Additional exploration potential exists on the property as discussed below in Section 9.9.3.


Figure 9-4

Map of the George-Ver Target Area Showing Historical Drilling at Antelope Trend (Source of Base Map: 1977 Mining Intelligence Map of the Gas Hills)

9.5 Loco-Lee Exploration Strathmore drilled 17 exploration and confirmation holes at Loco-Lee in 2010 and 2011. Results of the 2010 and 2011 drilling are discussed in the previous NI 43-101 report (Nielsen, Pool and Sandefur, 2012). During 2012 Strathmore drilled 51 rotary holes and seven core holes at Loco-Lee. About 38 of the rotary holes and six core holes were drilled in an area of extensive past historical drilling. These confirmation holes were drilled along nine east-west lines spaced 100 feet apart, and holes were, for the most part, spaced 100 feet along each line. About 13 holes were drilled as exploration holes located to the north and west of the area of dense drilling. Location of the 2012 exploration drill holes is shown in Figure 10-13, and results of all 2012 drilling are discussed in Section 10 of this report. Based on the Strathmore


drilling, CAM generated a compliant inferred resource for a portion of the Loco-Lee property (see Section 14). Additional potential exists on Loco-Lee as discussed in Section 9.9.4.. 9.6 Rock Hill Exploration The Rock Hill historic deposit is located in the northeast part of the Gas Hills project area, north of Cameco’s planned in-situ mining area as shown in Figure 9-1. The Rock Hill property contains an area of historic open pit mining. In this present report the area north of the mined area is informally called the Red Horse target area. The area south of the historic open pit mine and north of the claim boundary is regarded as the Rock Hill deposit. Drilling by Vipoint Mining Company in the 1960’s and by Adobe Oil & Gas Company, 1977 to 1981, reportedly defined a near surface resource (see Section 6.1.5 of this present report). Strathmore conducted a program of confirmation drilling and completed 12 rotary holes in April 2011. Data from the 2011 drill holes is summarized and discussed in a previous NI 43-101 report (Nielsen, Pool and Sandefur, 2012) In 2012 Strathmore drilled 37 rotary holes, four core holes for chemical assays, and installed three monitor wells. Results of the 2012 drilling are summarized in Section 10, and drill hole locations are shown in Figure 10-17. Based on the additional drilling by Strathmore in 2012, CAM generated a revised inferred mineral resource for the Rock Hill deposit (Section 14). The Red Horse target area is located on the Rock Hill property, just north of the mined out open pit. Strathmore drilled four rotary holes at Red Horse to confirm results of historical core drilling by Adobe Oil and Gas Company, 1977 to 1981. CAM believes from study of drill data that the mineralization in the area has been seriously modified by disequilibrium as discussed in Section 12 (Data Verification) of this report. As a result, additional drilling, PFN logging, and coring will be required to verify historical drilling. 9.7 Jeep Exploration Jeep is a relatively small deposit located about three miles southwest of Day Loma, as shown in Figure 9-1. Jeep was once part of Federal American Partners (AFP) land position. FAP estimated an historical resource of 297,000 tons at a grade of 0.08% eU3O8 for a total of 463,000 pounds of contained uranium at Jeep. Strathmore, in 2007, drilled 40 holes to confirm and better define the mineralization. These holes extended the Jeep deposit to the south in an area 1,000 feet by 300 feet into previously untested area. No


exploration drilling was done in 2011 and 2012. Additional potential exists at the Jeep property as discussed under Section 9.9.6. 9.8 Tablestakes Exploration The Tablestakes Project Area is new for this report and is located southeast of Strathmore’s proposed Gas Hills Uranium Recovery Facility as shown in Figure 9-1. Part of this mineral target, an area historically termed Amazon by Federal American Partners, has a historical estimate (ANC, 1985) of 285,000 tons grading 0.06% for a total of 366,000 pounds of uranium as described in Section 6 (History) and shown in Table 6-1. The Strathmore exploration target is the eastern extension of the pits historically mined by Union Carbide in the early 1980s. In 2012 Strathmore drilled 19 holes in the Tablestakes target area. Results of the drilling are presented in Section 10, and location of the holes is shown in Figure 10-20. Due to the limited number and greater spacing (up to 400 feet apart) of the 2012 drilling, no mineral resource estimates were generated for this report. However, results of the drilling, including 14.5 feet of 0.079% PFNU3O8 at a depth of 229.5 feet in hole TSS-07, tends to support the historically defined resource and the area appears favorable for discovery of additional uranium mineralization, as discussed in Section 9.9.5. 9.9 Remaining Potential Mineral Targets, Main Gas Hills Properties “Target areas” that have potential for discovery of additional uranium mineralization are briefly described in this section of the report, and are located on Figure 9-5. Each of these mineral target areas are believed to contain uranium mineralization. Usually mineralization was cut by exploration drill holes, or mineralization may be projected from known occurrences into the target areas. Features and characteristics such as grade, length of mineralized trend, width and thickness of mineralization are inferred from geologic features and from nearby areas containing well defined mineralized bodies. All the estimates are based on a tonnage factor of 16 cubic feet per short ton, as used by historical operators in the district. The potential mineral resource estimates by CAM presented below are pursuant to NI 43-101 Standards for Disclosure for Mineral Project guidelines, Section 2.3 (2), which states that “subject to the provisions thereof an issuer may disclose the potential quantity and grade, expressed as ranges, of a target for further exploration.”


Figure 9-5

Location of Remaining Mineral Exploration Targets


It is important to stress that these target areas for mineralization are conceptual and the mineral potential estimates are not based upon NI 43-101 guidelines for reporting mineral resources. Exploration activities in each target area are not sufficient to define a NI 43-101 mineral resource and there is not geologic or exploration data to ensure that further exploration activities will result in a defined resource in each target area. The estimate potential mineralization discussed for each target is merely a guide for further exploration. 9.9.1 Bullrush Target At Bullrush, Strathmore completed necessary core assaying and PFN/gamma logging across the area of the Bullrush West-29 target and a small portion of the area covered by the historical FAP drilling and 1982 pit designs (Figure 9-6), providing CAM the confidence to generate a compliant inferred resource (see Section 14). However, since Strathmore explored only a fraction of the area covered by the historical FAP drilling and historical Bullrush mineral resource (Section 6.1.4) the remainder of the property has potential for additional mineralization that with additional test drilling may be elevated to a compliant resource. The areas of potential mineralization are shown on Figure 9-7, and consist of the portions of the historically designed pits not drilled and the areas between. With an overall trend length of 3,000 to 3,600 feet, a width of 150 feet and a thickness of 12 feet, a potential tonnage associated with this area of Bullrush ranges from 0.34 to 0.40 mm tons. With the range in grade of 1.6 to 3.4 lbs U3O8 the potential mineralization ranges from 0.5 to 1.4 mm lbs U3O8, likely accessible by open-pit methods.


Figure 9-6

Location of Bullrush Mineral Exploration Targets


9.9.2 Day Loma Southeast and Northeast Targets The potential mineral target is the east-southeast projection of known mineralization at the Day Loma property. Some exploration drilling was completed in this target area in 2012 and results are discussed in Section 10 of the present report. At Day Loma, extensive drilling indicates mineral grades ranging from 0.12 to 0.24% eU3O8. CAM’s estimate of the potential range of mineral grade at the Day Loma SE target uses 0.10% on the low end and 0.20% U3O8 on the high end. The estimated range of mineralization width is 300 to 750 feet, which is the range of width of mineralization in the un-mined mineralization at Day Loma. The length of remaining mineralization not included in the new mineral resource estimate is approximately 1,300 feet. The range of thickness is estimated at 2 to 13 feet, the range indicated in the Day Loma deposit. Average thickness of mineralization is estimated at 4 to 7.5 feet in the target area. CAM believes a reasonable estimate of remaining resource potential for the Day Loma SE Trend lies between 0.2 and 1.8 million pounds of contained U3O8, based upon information projected from historic drilling for a distance of approximately 1,300 feet remaining to explore in the target area. Most of this potential should likely be at depths where it can be mined from open pits. Additional potential exists on the remainder of the Day Loma property, especially to the north in the Northeast target area For the Day Loma NE mineral target, using a trend length of 1,000 feet, a width of 300 to 600 feet, and thickness of 4 to 8 feet, a range of potential tonnage is 75-300 k tons U3O8. With a range in grade of 2 to 4 lbs U3O8, the range of potential mineralization is from 0.2 to 1.1 mm lbs U3O8, and should be accessible by open-pit mining.


Figure 9-7

Location of Day Loma SE and NE Mineral Exploration Targets


9.9.3 George-Ver Antelope Target An exploration area with potential mineralization is called the George-Ver Antelope target which lies west and southwest of the main George-Ver deposits and the previously mined Lucky Mc open pits (Figures 9-4, 9-5 and 10-10). No substantial data is available for this target. However, based on the nearby known mineralization and previous fence drilling in the area (Figure 9-4) an exploration target potential is estimated. With an overall trend length of 6,800 feet, width of 150 feet and thickness of 12 feet, the potential tonnage associated with the Antelope target is about 0.85 million tons; a low-end estimate. A high-end estimate is obtained by using a trend length of 13,000 feet, width of 200 feet and thickness of 12 feet, for an estimated tonnage of 2.00 mm tons (16 cubic feet per ton). The range in grade of potential mineralization is 1.4 to 1.8 lbs U3O8 per ton. Thus the range of potential mineralization is between 1.1 and 3.5 mm lbs U3O8, and should be accessible by open pit mining or in-situ methods. 9.9.4 Loco-Lee Target At Loco-Lee, Strathmore completed necessary core assaying and PFN/gamma logging across the area covered by the historical FAP database purchased from Cameco in 2010, providing CAM the confidence to generate a compliant inferred resource (see Section 14). However, since Strathmore only acquired approximately half of the historical drilling completed on the property by FAP, only a portion of the Loco-Lee was given a mineral resource. The remainder of the property has potential for additional mineralization that with additional test drilling may be elevated to a compliant resource. The areas of potential mineralization are shown on Figure 9-8, and consist of the area east of the FAP designed pit where historical drilling occurred but the gamma logs are unavailable, and to the north between the dense drilling and an area further north previously explored and partially mined by Pathfinder Mines in the 1970s called the north and south Rex pits. For the northern exploration target, an overall trend length of 2,400 feet, width of 400 feet and thickness of 10 feet, the potential tonnage associated with this target is about 0.6 mm tons. Using a range in grade of potential mineralization of 1.4 to 3.0 lbs U3O8 per ton, the range of potential mineralization is between 0.8 and 1.8 mm lbs U3O8, and should be readily accessible by open-pit mining


Figure 9-8

Location of Loco-Lee Mineral Exploration Targets


9.9.5 Tablestakes Target Strathmore’s 2012 drilling in the Tablestakes area covered part of the historic Amazon resource and area of close-spaced drilling by Federal American Partners (ANC, 1985) and extended east beyond the former Amazon claim group. The potential target (Figure 9-5), within this untested area to the east, is 1,000 feet in length, 300 to 600 feet wide, and 10 to 15 feet thick, with estimated grade of 0.08 to 0.15 % U3O8

yielding a range of potential mineralization from 0.3 to 1.7 million pounds of U3O8. Cam believes a reasonable estimate of range of possible mineralization at the Tablestakes mineral target is from 0.3 to 1.7 million pounds of U3O8. 9.9.6 Jeep South Target This target lies immediately south, and on-trend from the Jeep deposit (Figure 9-5). It is a north-south elongate area about 1.8 miles long and about 0.7 miles wide; mineralization in the defined Jeep deposit appears open and may extend into this north-south area. Maximum possible trend length is estimated at 9,500 feet; a more conservative estimate of trend length is 4,500 feet. The width of mineralization is estimated at 150 to 200 feet, which is the average width of the Jeep rolls from Strathmore’s and ANC’s drill data. A mineralized thickness of 5.6 feet is based on average thickness of rolls in the Jeep deposit. The range of average grade is 0.05 to 0.08 % eU3O8 based upon the historical results of ANC’s drill data. A conservative trend length of 4,500 feet, width of 150 feet and thickness of 5.6 feet would give an estimated 0.2 million pounds of U3O8. An upper estimate of potential mineral body size is based upon a length of 9,500 feet, a width of 200 feet, and thickness of 5.6 feet, providing a body of about 670,000 tons, with a grade of 0.08 % or 1.5 lbs U3O8 per ton containing an estimated 1.1 million pounds. CAM believes a reasonable estimate of range of possible mineralization at the Jeep South Extension mineral target is from 0.2 to 1.1 million pounds of U3O8.

9.9.7 Summary of Potential Targets in the Main Gas Hills District (North of Beaver Rim) The historical estimates made by various parties prior to 1990 are discussed in Section 6 of this report. The potential mineral estimates by CAM presented below are pursuant to NI 43-101 Standards for Disclosure for Mineral Project guidelines, Section 2.3 (2), which states that “subject to the provisions thereof, an issuer may disclose the potential quantity and grade, expressed as ranges, of a target of further exploration”. The potential quantities and grades are conceptual in nature and do not meet the NI 43-101 classifications of “measured”, “indicated” or “inferred” mineral resources. There has been insufficient exploration to define NI 43-101-compliant mineral resources in the areas of proposed


mineral targets and it is uncertain if further exploration will result in the targets being delineated as mineral resources. Table 9-1 below summarizes CAM’s estimate of exploration potential for the six mineral targets discussed above that are being considered for future exploration drilling by Strathmore in the main Gas Hills district. The grades used to estimate U3O8 content of the targets are conservative but are consistent with average grades of nearby areas of drilled mineralization and also is consistent with exploration drilling results from Strathmore’s exploration activities and historical data.

Table 9-1 Main Gas Hills Area, U3O8 Estimates in Potential in Exploration Targets

Deposit (Millions of Pounds)

Low Average High Average

Bullrush 0.5 1.4

Day Loma, NE Trend 0.2 1.1

Day Loma, SE Trend 0.2 1.8

George-Ver, Antelope 1.1 3.5

Loco-Lee 0.8 1.8

Tablestakes 0.3 1.7

Jeep, South Extension 0.2 1.1

Total Potential 3.3 12.4

Note: Potential is given to 0.1 million pounds for presentation purposes but does not imply this degree of accuracy.

9.10 Beaver Rim Exploration Areas Additional exploration targets lie south of the Beaver Rim divide as shown in Figure 9-1. These areas have favorable geology for discovery of uranium mineralization, but have been relatively little explored, and include the West Diamond, East Diamond, South Black Mountain and North Black Mountain mineral targets. Regional geologic studies (Armstrong, 1970) strongly suggest that the favorable arkose member, favorable host for uranium mineralization, underlies most of these areas. Further, Armstrong (1970) also recognized that the uranium roll deposits of the Gas Hills are all part of a large roll-front system, and located along a sinuous trend that snakes up through the Gas Hills. Bleached or oxidized arkose is located south of the mineral trend and reduced or unbleached host rocks lie to the north. A reasonable probability exists that the trend of roll-front mineralization passes through the mineral targets cited above and located on Strathmore property. King (1982) compiled information that suggests potential mineralization in the arkose host rocks lies at depth of 550 to 1200 feet below the surface. The West Diamond and East Diamond targets cover several square miles, south of the central part of the Gas Hills district (Figure 9-1 and 9-9), and south of the Beaver Rim divide. Regional compilation of


uranium mineralization data (Armstrong, 1970) suggests that the oxidation-reduction boundary of roll-front should be present on these targets and thus, they are valid targets for additional exploration drilling. Compilation of exploration drilling done by American Nuclear and other previous owners indicates that significant exploration drilling was done in these targets (1977 Mining Intelligence Map.) About 112 historic exploration holes were drilled in the West Diamond target and about 176 historic holes were drilled in the East Diamond Target (Figure 9-9.) The holes were drilled along east-west and north-south lines. Lines were about 1500 feet apart and holes were drilled 200 to 400 feet apart along the lines. No information is available on results of this exploration drilling. Strathmore carried out a program of exploration drilling on these targets in the summer and autumn of 2012. Twelve rotary holes were drilled in the West Diamond target, and three rotary holes were drilled in the East Diamond target area. Results of this drilling are summarized in Section 10 and drill hole locations are shown in Figure 10-24 and 10-25. The South Black Mountain area lies west of Black Mountain and south of Beaver Rim Divide. The target is comprised of parallel elongate targets separated by an area of around 100 feet (Figure 9-1.) Each elongate target trends northwest-southeast and each is about one mile wide and two to three miles long. Armstrong’s (1970) geologic compilation suggests that most of these mineral target areas are underlain by bleached and oxidized arkose of the Wind River Formation, and thus would be unfavorable for the presence of uranium mineralization. A possible exception is the east leg of the mineral target. Just to the northwest onto adjacent property not controlled by Strathmore, Cameco is actively drilling on close spaced grid patterns and is believed to be developing a uranium deposit that appears to lie close to the property boundary (See red stars on Figure 9-9). Strathmore’s property includes an area south of Cameco’s drilling where closely-spaced historical drilling occurred: the Allegretti uranium trend (Figure 9-9). The Allegretti claim group was owned by Adobe Oil & Gas Corporation in 1976 (Dames & Moore, 1976). Uranium mineralization in the Wind River Formation was located by drilling in six horizons, each containing roll type uranium mineralization. Two separate areas about 5,000 feet apart were explored by this historical drilling, with favorable results reported above (see Section 6.1.6 of this report). Twenty exploration holes were drilled in the west area, of which 18 encountered evidence of mineralization in four horizons, with grades from 0.07 to 0.116 % U3O8. The depth of mineralization is about 1,200 feet. The east area was drilled with about 30 exploration holes and encountered mineralization with grades of 0.102 to 0.27 % eU3O8 at depths of about 1,200 feet. Strathmore drilled the South Black Mountain target area in the summer of 2012. Twenty-four rotary holes were drilled. Drilling conditions were challenging and only 19 holes were completed to target


depth. No exploration drilling was done at the North Black Mountain target in 2012. Results of the drilling south of the Beaver Rim divide are summarized in Section 10.

Figure 9-9

Map of Drill Sites atop Beaver Rim Source of Base Map: Mining Intelligence Map of the Gas Hills District (prepared by IntraSearch, Denver CO)

Red star shows the locations of Cameco’s recent drilling atop Beaver Rim.


10.0 DRILLING Strathmore’s drilling has been successful in better-defining mineralized areas, and in defining NI 43-101 compliant mineral resources, as discussed in the following sections. CAM visited Strathmore’s active drilling sites in the main lower Gas Hills district and in the Beaver Rim area on April 24, 2012, August 7, 2012, and November 7 – 9, 2012 and verified the drilling procedures described below. Strathmore’s practice is to drill holes using 4¾ to 5¼-inch diameter bits by conventional rotary drill rigs using air, foam or circulating drilling mud. The cuttings are collected over 5 foot intervals and laid out on the ground in rows of 20 samples (100 feet) by the driller. The site geologist examines cuttings in the field to determine rock type and geochemical alteration. The geologist also determines when the drill hole is terminated. Logging trucks are at the drill site and the holes are logged with a gamma probe and a probe containing a gamma detector and a PFN probe. In May 2011, Strathmore started drilling in the Gas Hills, specifically on the Day Loma, George-Ver, Loco-Lee, Bullrush, and Rock Hill properties, using a reverse-circulation (RC) drill rig. A total of 41 RC holes were drilled and logged with gamma and PFN tools during the summer 2011. RC samples were collected for mine and mill permitting requirements. This method allows bulk samples to be collected from surface to total depth (varies from 100-450 feet). The retrieved mineralized samples are substantial in size and can be used for mill amenability and column leach testing to determine the ideal leachant (acid versus alkaline) and mill scenario (heap leach versus conventional milling). Holes drilled for environmental monitoring of water are designated with a number followed by MW and are included in the numbering sequence that includes all holes. All holes, including MW holes were logged by gamma probes, and at times, by the PFN probe. All MW holes are included in Table 10-1. Late in 2011 and throughout the 2012 drilling campaign Strathmore searched for historic drill holes in the principal target areas in the field. When found, these holes were reamed or re-drilled and logged with gamma ray probe and with the PFN tool. Locations of the holes were established with GPS surveying. These recovered historic holes are identified by WO in the respective hole number. Beginning in May 2012, prior to the effective date of this report, Strathmore has used an outside contractor (GAA Wireline Inc.) to log holes, and to verify the Strathmore gamma and PFN readings. Upon completion of the drilling, holes are logged, from the bottom upward, with a gamma-ray, self-potential, and resistivity probe using their company-owned logging trucks. The PFN probe is used in select mineralized intervals to determine actual uranium concentrations not affected by disequilibrium as are the gamma probes (see Sections 11 and 12 for a discussion concerning disequilibrium). Deviation, or


hole drift, is recorded automatically by the gamma probes. Deviations are typically less than 1-3

degrees, and as dip of the beds in the Gas Hills is very gentle (2-4 degrees) the mineralized intercepts reported in this report represent essentially true thickness. Overburden/interburden samples are characterized as part of the mine permitting requirements. Strathmore logged each of the holes drilled in 2011 and 2012 using a standard gamma-ray probe and at times the PFN tool; resistivity, self-potential, and drift of the drill hole were also determined. The PFN tool and results of the PFN logging are discussed in Sections 11 and 12. Strathmore also employs core drilling through mineralized units. The resulting core is sent to accredited commercial labs for uranium assay; Intermountain Lab in Sheridan, Wyoming and Hazen Research, Inc. in Golden, Colorado. Core assay results are also discussed in Section 12. Strathmore’s drill results are reported as grade percent ≥ 0.010% eU3O8 or PFNU3O8 depending which logging probe was used; the standard gamma probe or the PFN (neutron) probe, respectively. Cross-sections for each target area as shown in subsequent sections show grades as determined by gamma or PFN logs. The red line on each section encloses areas that are believed to have grades greater than 0.01%. A comparison of the grade % from the standard gamma tool (% eU3O8) versus those from the PFN (% PFNU3O8) is provided in the drill hole summary tables for the respective areas in subsequent sections for the 2011 and 2012 drill holes, with a separate column showing the disequilibrium factor, if any. The disequilibrium factor (DEF) is determined by dividing the PFN % results by the gamma % results. A DEF of < 1.0 is in negative equilibrium, and DEF > 1.0 is in positive equilibrium, and a DEF of 1.0 means the mineralized zone is in equilibrium. Strathmore's drilling in each area is summarized in Table 10-1. This table excludes abandoned holes and those holes for which uranium results had not been received by CAM as of the effective date of this report, November 19, 2012.

Table 10-1 Summary of Strathmore Drilling at Gas Hills

Area Year Type No. Holes* Footage

Bullrush

2011 Rotary 2 545

Rev Circ 9 1,540

2012 Rotary 60 16,600 Core 3 820

Subtotal 74 19,505

Day Loma

2010 Rotary 9 4,685

2011 Rotary 28 13,560

Rev Circ 3 1,145

2012 Rotary 25 10,835 Core 2 915


Table 10-1 Summary of Strathmore Drilling at Gas Hills

Area Year Type No. Holes* Footage Subtotal 67 31,140

George-Ver

2007 Rotary 3 990

2008 Rotary 5 1,820

Core 2 800

2010 Rotary 5 1,705

Core 4 1,040

2011 Rev Circ 6 1,340

2012 Rotary 43 14,450

Core 5 1,080

Subtotal 73 23,225 Jeep 2007 Rotary 39 13,110

Loco-Lee

2010 Rotary 1 180

Core 3 505

2011 Rotary 3 670

Rev Circ 11 2,100

2012 Rotary 51 8,110 Core 7 1,075

Subtotal 76 12,640

Rock Hill / Red Horse

2011 Rev Circ 12 1,715

2012 Rotary 41 9,650

Core 4 1,150

Subtotal 57 12,515 Tablestakes 2012 Rotary 19 6,160

Mill Site

2010 Rotary 3 875

2012 Rotary 4 1,160 Subtotal 7 2,035

East Diamond 2012 Rotary 3 3,045

West Diamond 2012 Rotary 12 12,170 S. Blk Mtn 2012 Rotary 19 22,700

All Project Areas Total 444 157,330

* Number does not include abandoned holes.


10.1 Bullrush Project Area Drilling Summary Strathmore drilled 60 rotary holes and three core holes in the Bullrush area in 2012 as shown in Figure 10-1. All holes were logged with a gamma ray probe and a PFN tool. Eleven confirmation rotary holes and one core hole were drilled in the area of the historic pit designed by Federal American Partners (FAP). Table 10-2 shows a sample of drill hole assays obtained from these holes. Strathmore drilled 49 rotary exploration holes and two core holes in the Bullrush West-29 target area (see Section 9.5). These holes were drilled in a grid pattern, with lines spaced 200 feet apart and holes located at intervals of 200 feet along the lines. Table 10-3 shows a sample of drill hole assays obtained from the rotary holes. Cross section A-A’ (Figure 10-2) is a north-south section through the center of the West-29 target and illustrates the distribution of uranium mineralization inferred from the gamma logs. Cross section B-B’ (Figure 10-3) is a northwest-southeast section through the West-29 target and ending in the FAP pit area.

Table 10-2 Bullrush Project Area – F.A.P. Exploration Target

Typical Drillhole Intercept Data

Hole ID Easting (feet)

Northing (feet)

Collar (feet)

Depth (feet)

Thickness (feet)

PFN (grade%)

Gamma (grade %)

Eq. Factor (PFN/Gamma)

BRS-59 2,263,100 841,101 6,494.0 46.5 24.5 0.019 0.015 1.23

229.0 11.5 0.015 0.009 1.74 BRS-60 2,263,301 841,101 6,495.0 36.5 29.5 0.017 0.011 1.59

248.5 7.0 0.014 0.011 1.33

BRS-63 2,263,201 840,899 6,496.0 238.0 29.5 0.018 0.015 1.22 BRS-66 2,263,399 840,701 6,490.0 49.0 6.0 0.012 0.015 0.85

62.0 23.0 0.011 0.008 1.45

190.5 5.0 0.029 0.023 1.28

248.0 20.0 0.016 0.017 0.98

BRS-67 2,262,998 840,523 6,498.0 36.0 27.0 0.014 0.012 1.15

72.5 34.5 0.023 0.018 1.31 BRS-68 2,263,200 840,495 6,498.4 26.5 20.0 0.009 0.016 0.55

82.5 5.5 0.016 0.018 0.88

98.0 11.5 0.039 0.008 4.57 BRS-69 2,263,106 840,314 6,504.0 16.5 48.0 0.021 0.009 2.25

84.5 32.0 0.014 0.009 1.59

BRS-70 C 2,263,200 840,505 6,497.0 19.5 29.0 0.023 0.044 0.52

80.0 30.5 0.040 0.010 4.06

247.5 32.5 0.009 0.007 1.31


Figure 10-1

Bullrush Project Area – Drillhole Location Map


Table 10-3 Bullrush Project Area – West 29 Exploration Target



Northing (feet)

Collar (feet)

Depth (feet)

Thickness (feet)

PFN (grade %)

Gamma (grade %)


BRS-19 2,263,002 841,401 6,493.5 46.5 9.5 0.027 231.0 12.5 0.024

BRS-20 2,262,600 841,397 6,477.3 33.0 6.5 0.043 0.022 2.00 BRS-25 2,261,999 841,201 6,445.0 64.0 2.0 0.011

127.5 1.5 0.012

139.5 3.0 0.024

189.0 1.0 0.013 194.0 4.5 0.015

204.0 1.0 0.011 BRS-34 2,262,801 841,401 6,486.9 19.5 2.0 0.012

31.0 2.5 0.011

40.0 5.5 0.017

206.5 1.0 0.012 219.0 1.5 0.013

229.5 1.5 0.010

232.0 1.0 0.012 BRS-40 2,262,199 841,211 6,460.1 190.5 13.0 0.016 BRS-41 2,262,354 841,354 6,460.0 182.0 21.0 0.051 BRS-42 2,262,203 841,385 6,455.2 25.0 3.5 0.023

124.5 2.0 0.017

184.0 5.5 0.016 BRS-52 2,262,296 841,303 6,465.0 18.5 4.5 0.014

32.0 6.0 0.020

133.5 1.5 0.011

194.0 11.5 0.048 0.080 0.60

BRS-54 2,262,499 841,325 6,469.1 32.0 1.5 0.011 0.006 1.94

37.0 3.0 0.037 0.018 2.04

130.5 13.0 0.044 0.030 1.48


Figure 10-2

Bullrush Project Area – Cross Section A-A’

Figure 10-3

Bullrush Project Area – Cross Section B-B’


10.2 Day Loma Project Area Drilling Summary In October 2010, Strathmore initiated drilling on the Day Loma Property. Nine holes were drilled; seven confirmation holes and two monitor wells. The seven holes were drilled to confirm mineralization at the Property and to extend the southeast trend into untested areas. The two monitor wells were drilled for baseline water quality data collection and analysis as required for mine permit submittal, and were all logged for uranium. Results of this drilling are discussed in the previous NI 43-101 report (Nielsen, Pool and Sandefur, 2012.) Two areas within the Day Loma area are considered to have potential for commercial uranium mineralization. One area lies immediately east and south of the old open pit mine, called the Day Loma Southeast Extension target (see Section 9.2). Thirty-eight holes were drilled in this area, including one core hole in 2012, as shown in Figure 10-4. The second exploration target area drilled was the Northeast target and 25 holes were drilled in this area, including one core hole in 2012, as shown in Figure 10-4. Other holes were drilled across the greater property to confirm the minieralization indicated by the historical database. The following Table 10-4 summarizes Strathmore’s 2012 Day Loma drilling results in the Northeast target area; the holes were logged with the standard gamma probe and with the PFN tool that directly measures uranium content. These drill sites are posted on Figure 10-4. Figures 10-5, 10-6, and 10-7 depict Cross Sections A-A’, D-D’ and E-E’ respectively and indicate inferred distribution of uranium mineralization through the Northeast target area.

Table 10-4 Day Loma Project Area – N.E. Exploration Target



Northing (feet)

Collar (feet)

Depth (feet)

Thickness (feet)

PFN (grade %)

Gamma (grade %)


DLS-10 2,260,925 816,575 6,680.8 381.5 13.0 0.308 0.239 1.29

DLS-31 2,261,121 816,920 6,660.4 349.0 5.5 0.011 0.005 2.17

357.0 9.5 0.055 0.052 1.07 DLS-32 2,260,783 816,341 6,682.0 257.0 8.5 0.014 0.005 2.99

393.5 11.0 0.024 0.017 1.45

DLS-34 2,260,955 816,316 6,686.7 400.5 5.5 0.049 0.049 1.00 DLS-39 2,260,950 816,752 6,663.7 356.5 3.5 0.061 0.101 0.61

DLS-41 2,260,803 817,201 6,647.3 331.0 9.5 0.150 DLS-42 2,260,603 817,203 6,641.4 319.5 15.0 0.044 0.062 0.71 DLS-47 2,260,604 817,597 6,665.1 201.0 8.5 0.027 0.014 1.87

318.5 11.5 0.028 0.039 0.73

DLS-49 2,260,600 817,390 6,657.5 329.5 17.5 0.016 0.018 0.89


Figure 10-4

Day Loma Project Area – Drillhole Location Map


Figure 10-5

Day Loma Project Area – Cross Section A-A’

Figure 10-6

Day Loma Project Area – Cross Section D-D’


Figure 10-7

Day Loma Project Area – Cross Section E-E’ Ten holes located in the Day Loma pit South East Extension were drilled in 2012 and are shown in Figure 10-4. Summary data from this area of drilling is presented in Table 10-5, and Cross Sections B-B’ and C-C’ showing inferred distribution of mineralization are shown in Figures 10-8 and 10-9.

Table 10-5 Day Loma Project Area – S.E. Extension Exploration Target



Northing (feet)

Collar (feet)

Depth (feet)

Thickness (feet)

PFN (grade %)

Gamma (grade %)


DLS-12 2,261,845 813,131 6,728.0 417.0 14.0 0.011 0.011 1.01

440.5 11.0 0.052 0.032 1.64

DLS-15 2,261,637 812,921 6,716.0 420.0 9.5 0.013

440.5 8.5 0.012

454.5 8.5 0.013 DLS-17 2,261,970 813,280 6,734.2 419.0 24.5 0.018 0.012 1.58

481.5 5.0 0.025 0.028 0.89 DLS-18 2,261,486 812,790 6,703.5 316.0 7.5 0.019 0.014 1.37

439.0 12.0 0.016 0.008 1.94

457.5 17.0 0.017 0.014 1.25 DLS-25 2,261,990 812,978 6,726.5 424.0 38.5 0.018 0.012 1.53

484.5 11.0 0.025 0.027 0.92

DLS-26 2,262,046 813,336 6,742.4 436.5 2.0 0.013


Table 10-5 Day Loma Project Area – S.E. Extension Exploration Target



Northing (feet)

Collar (feet)

Depth (feet)

Thickness (feet)

PFN (grade %)

Gamma (grade %)


444.5 3.0 0.011 449.0 2.0 0.015

DLS-27 2,261,410 812,611 6,694.0 323.5 4.0 0.015

449.5 2.0 0.016 452.5 2.0 0.016

464.0 2.0 0.013

473.0 3.0 0.037

Figure 10-8

Day Loma Project Area – Cross Section B-B’


Figure 10-9

Day Loma Project Area – Cross Section C-C’ 10.3 George-Ver Project Area Drilling Summary Drilling at the George-Ver property in 2011 and 2012 was concentrated in three areas located north, west, and South of the historic Lucky Mc open pit as shown in Figure 10-10. Twelve rotary holes and seven core holes were drilled in the area located north and northwest of the old Lucky Mc open pit. The holes were logged with both gamma probe and PFN tools. Table 10-6 summarize the drilling data from this area and section B—B’ (Figure 10-11) illustrates distribution of mineralization inferred from the drill hole data. Twenty-four rotary holes were drilled west of the old open pit and 17 rotary holes were drilled south of the old Lucky Mc open pit as shown in Figure 10-10. All rotary holes were logged with gamma-ray and PFN probes. Tables 10-7 and 10-8 summarize drill hole data from the west and south areas; cross section A-A’ illustrates the distribution of uranium mineralization inferred from the drill hole data in the west and south areas (Figure 10-12).


Figure 10-10

George-Ver Project Area – Drillhole Location Map


Table 10-6 George-Ver Project Area – North Exploration Target



Northing (feet)

Collar (feet)

Depth (feet)

Thickness (feet)

PFN (grade %)

Gamma (grade %)


GVS-18 C 2,277,463 843,384 6,512.0 58.0 4.0 0.012 210.5 14.5 0.037

231.0 2.0 0.012 GVS-19 C 2,277,710 843,362 6,514.8 196.5 7.5 0.025

206.0 13.5 0.023 GVS-22 2,278,274 843,481 6,514.0 22.5 3.5 0.010 0.006 1.66

85.5 1.5 0.014 0.007 2.00

107.0 3.5 0.013 0.009 1.44

130.5 14.0 0.012 0.011 1.06

175.5 25.0 0.264 0.256 1.03

GVS-23 2,277,777 843,051 6,501.1 99.5 2.0 0.010 0.004 2.35

144.5 2.0 0.014 0.012 1.20

151.0 1.0 0.021 0.003 6.83

194.0 25.0 0.024 0.027 0.90

GVS-26 C 2,277,709 843,084 6,499.6 188.0 33.0 0.036 0.030 1.21 GVS-44 C 2,278,227 843,451 6,514.1 174.0 32.5 0.079 0.051 1.57

GVS-47 C 2,277,839 843,355 6,517.4 199.0 26.0 0.211 0.163 1.29

GVS-48 C 2,277,302 843,193 6,501.5 110.0 6.0 0.009 0.009 0.99

Figure 10-11

George-Ver Project Area – Cross Section B-B’


Table 10-7

George-Ver Project Area – West Exploration Target Typical Drillhole Intercept Data


Northing (feet)

Collar (feet)

Depth (feet)

Thickness (feet)

PFN (grade %)

Gamma (grade %)


GVS-35 2,276,409 841,799 6,485.0 238.0 3.0 0.012 243.0 1.5 0.014

247.0 2.0 0.019 GVS-36 2,276,607 841,799 6,484.7 130.5 1.0 0.013 0.021 0.63

GVS-37 2,276,805 841,792 6,485.9 133.5 2.5 0.017 0.023 0.74

227.5 20.0 0.015 0.013 1.17 GVS-38 2,277,002 841,801 6,483.8 132.5 1.0 0.019 0.027 0.70

232.0 2.0 0.050 0.048 1.04

243.5 2.0 0.010 0.011 0.89 GVS-39 2,277,196 841,790 6,487.6 236.0 4.0 0.042 0.043 0.99

242.5 1.5 0.015 0.013 1.15

GVS-40 2,277,403 841,809 6,486.9 113.5 5.5 0.010 0.008 1.32

243.0 4.0 0.020 0.027 0.72

252.0 5.0 0.012 0.006 1.89

264.0 2.5 0.011 0.003 4.00 GVS-41 2,277,603 841,805 6,487.8 246.5 2.5 0.028 0.033 0.87

251.0 1.0 0.012 0.005 2.40

GVS-42 2,277,798 841,798 6,489.2 243.5 9.0 0.024 0.029 0.81

Table 10-8 George-Ver Project Area – South Exploration Target



Northing (feet)

Collar (feet)

Depth (feet)

Thickness (feet)

PFN (grade %)

Gamma (grade %)


GVS-55 2,278,660 840,982 6,556.1 56.5 1.5 0.016

108.5 1.0 0.010 295.5 15.0 0.066

318.0 1.5 0.012 GVS-56 2,278,901 841,007 6,560.0 74.5 7.5 0.016 0.006 2.69

101.5 5.5 0.051 0.008 6.39

282.5 26.0 0.037 0.036 1.01

312.0 6.0 0.011 0.008 1.41

GVS-60 2,279,000 840,839 6,561.5 106.0 2.5 0.051 0.014 3.62

287.0 21.5 0.026 0.024 1.06

313.0 2.0 0.015 0.014 1.02

GVS-61 2,278,896 840,811 6,572.6 48.0 3.0 0.020

76.0 4.5 0.019

117.5 3.0 0.012 308.5 14.5 0.043

331.0 2.0 0.015 GVS-63 2,278,503 840,834 6,554.5 290.5 15.5 0.023 0.027 0.84


Figure 10-12

George-Ver Project Area – Cross Section A-A’ 10.4 Loco-Lee Project Area Drilling Summary Sixty-five rotary holes and seven core holes were drilled at Loco-Lee in 2011 and 2012 as shown in Figure 10-13. Thirty-eight rotary holes and six core holes were drilled to confirm mineralization in the known area of extensive historic drilling located to the northeast of the old open pits. These holes were drilled on a grid with lines spaced 100 feet apart and holes located 100 feet apart along the lines. In addition, thirteen exploration rotary holes also were drilled in a potential mineral target area north and west of the known mineralized area with extensive historic drilling. Table 10-9 summarizes the drill hole data from the area of grid drilling. Figure 10-14 shows Cross Section A-A’, oriented northwest-southeast, and indicates distribution of uranium mineralization inferred from the drill hole data. Cross Section B-B’ is an east-west section (Figure 10-14) and shows distribution of mineralization inferred from the drill data. Cross Section C-C’ is also oriented northwest-southeast (Figure 10-15), also showing distribution of mineralization inferred from the drilling data.


Figure 10-13

Loco-Lee Project Area – Drillhole Location Map


Table 10-9 Loco-Lee Project Area – Exploration Target



Northing (feet)

Collar (feet)

Depth (feet)

Thickness (feet)

PFN (grade %)

Gamma (grade %)


LLS-26 2,253,601 820,604 6,524.1 11.5 12.5 0.012 53.0 25.0 0.048

81.0 6.0 0.012

95.0 2.5 0.014 LLS-28 2,253,501 820,599 6,532.7 46.5 3.0 0.009 0.049 0.19

63.0 25.5 0.046 0.199 0.23 LLS-34 2,253,600 821,001 6,528.7 9.0 13.0 0.030

56.5 6.5 0.028

74.0 13.5 0.034 LLS-37 2,253,506 820,801 6,533.1 74.0 11.0 0.016

95.0 1.5 0.011

99.5 7.0 0.013 LLS-42 2,253,100 820,800 6,571.0 10.0 4.0 0.020

51.0 5.0 0.016

95.5 44.5 0.016 LLS-43 2,253,204 820,801 6,564.5 47.5 6.5 0.014

77.0 31.5 0.024

114.5 13.5 0.014

130.0 2.0 0.014 LLS-45 2,253,182 821,007 6,576.7 7.0 20.0 0.043

20.5 8.0 0.076 0.079 0.96

105.0 5.0 0.016 113.0 7.5 0.015

128.0 3.5 0.012 LLS-46 2,253,300 820,900 6,560.1 4.5 6.0 0.013

90.0 32.0 0.019 LLS-51 C 2,253,550 820,900 6,530.7 67.5 32.5 0.101 0.086 1.16 LLS-53 C 2,253,525 820,900 6,525.0 63.0 38.0 0.100 0.105 0.95

LLS-74 C 2,252,715 821,264 6,548.7 62.0 3.5 0.010 0.035 0.29

76.0 33.0 0.022 0.089 0.25


Figure 10-14

Loco-Lee Project Area – Cross Section A-A’

Figure 10-15

Loco-Lee Project Area – Cross Section B-B’


Figure 10-16

Loco-Lee Project Area – Cross Section C-C’ 10.5 Rock Hill Project Area Drilling Summary Strathmore started drilling the Rock Hill Property in April, 2011. Twelve holes were drilled by reverse-circulation across the Rock Hill deposit to confirm existing historical drilling, retrieval of samples for overburden characterization (mine permit requirement), and for recovery of mineralized samples for mill amenability and column leach tests. The holes are located very close to the claim boundary against adjacent land controlled by others as shown in Figure 10-17. Strathmore probed each of the twelve 2011 holes, using their standard gamma and PFN logging tools. Drill results from these 2011 holes are discussed in a previous NI 43-101 report (Nielsen, Pool and Sandefur, 2012.) Strathmore drilled 26 more confirmation rotary holes and four core holes in 2012 at the Rock Hill deposit; each of the holes was logged by gamma and PFN probes. Table 10-10 provides typical drill hole data from a sampling of holes drilled in 2011 and 2012; Figure 10-18 is an east-west cross section A-A’ through the drilled area illustrating distribution of uranium mineralization as inferred from the drill hole data. An additional 8 confirmation rotary holes were drilled to the southwest of the Rock Hill mineralization in an area previously mined by Utah International and planned for mining by Union Carbide. Strathmore


does not have any supporting historical data in this area. The recent drilling confirmed the presence of uranium mineralization. Additional drilling is warranted in this area to determine if a potential mineral target exits. The Red Horse area of uranium mineralization lies immediately north of the old mined out open pit on the Rock Hill property (Figure 10-17.) Strathmore drilled four rotary holes in 2012 to confirm results of historical core drilling by Adobe Oil & Gas Company in 1977 to 1981. The Strathmore holes were logged by gamma and PFN probing tools. CAM believes the resulting data (Table 10-10: holes RHS-25, -26) shows evidence that uranium mineralization in the Red Horse area has been seriously compromised by disequilibrium as discussed in Section 12 (Data Verification) of this report. Figure 10-19 is an east-west cross section B-B’ through the Red Horse drilled area illustrating distribution of uranium mineralization from the drill hole data.


Figure 10-17

Rock Hill Project Area – Drillhole Location Map


Table 10-10 Rock Hill Project Area – Rock Hill Exploration Target



Northing (feet)

Collar (feet)

Depth (feet)

Thickness (feet)

PFN (grade %)

Gamma (grade %)


RHS-13 C 2,299,542 855,258 6,866.9 20.0 24.5 0.020 0.012 1.57

6,866.9 47.0 5.0 0.011 0.003 3.42

6,866.9 70.0 34.0 0.042 0.016 2.71 RHS-16 C 2,300,086 855,214 6,897.5 22.0 10.0 0.012 0.014 0.86

6,897.5 45.5 2.0 0.038 0.082 0.47

6,897.5 69.5 11.5 0.016 0.013 1.26

6,897.5 93.5 49.5 0.029 0.038 0.76

RHS-18 2,297,200 853,750 6,738.0 34.5 9.0 0.011 0.007 1.57

6,738.0 51.5 7.0 0.012 0.007 1.71

6,738.0 64.5 2.5 0.010 0.010 1.00

RHS-19 2,296,955 853,927 6,729.0 30.0 3.5 0.026 0.024 1.08

6,729.0 46.0 3.5 0.018 0.006 3.00

6,729.0 81.0 1.0 0.012 0.004 3.00

RHS-20 2,297,700 854,250 6,771.0 14.0 11.5 0.020 0.00

6,771.0 144.0 1.5 0.012 0.00 RHS-23 2,296,920 854,500 6,740.0 117.0 1.5 0.012 0.005 2.40

6,740.0 120.0 10.0 0.037 0.005 6.85

RHS-25 2,299,900 857,400 6,814.0 74.5 3.5 0.016 0.014 1.14

6,814.0 121.5 1.0 0.011 0.008 1.38

6,814.0 129.5 23.0 0.023 0.008 2.88

RHS-26 2,299,500 857,200 6,790.0 62.0 2.5 0.011 0.029 0.38

6,790.0 70.0 71.5 0.020 0.010 2.00

RHS-32 2,299,800 855,900 6,837.0 88.5 1.0 0.012 0.010 1.26

6,837.0 104.5 1.0 0.013 0.011 1.18 RHS-33 2,300,600 856,000 6,858.0 4.0 5.0 0.016

6,858.0 29.5 2.5 0.011

6,858.0 143.0 1.5 0.012 RHS-35 2,300,900 856,000 6,863.0 18.0 1.0 0.010 0.005 2.00

6,863.0 40.5 1.0 0.010 0.005 2.00

6,863.0 47.5 1.0 0.010 0.005 2.00

6,863.0 55.5 1.0 0.010 0.004 2.50

RHS-37 2,301,000 856,400 6,866.0 80.0 5.0 0.014 0.010 1.40

6,866.0 107.5 1.5 0.022 0.019 1.16

6,866.0 117.0 2.0 0.013 0.011 1.18

6,866.0 132.0 4.5 0.023 0.007 3.54

RHS-38 2,300,400 856,400 6,827.0 10.0 7.0 0.012 0.011 1.09

6,827.0 25.5 2.0 0.014 0.006 2.33

6,827.0 60.0 17.0 0.015 0.018 0.83

RHS-41 2,299,001 855,404 6,839.6 84.5 16.0 0.020 0.016 1.24

6,839.6 129.5 2.0 0.012 0.010 1.12


Figure 10-18

Rock Hill Project Area – Cross Section A-A’

Figure 10-19

Rock Hill Project Area – Red Horse Cross Section B-B’


10.6 Tablestakes Project Area Drilling Summary The Tablestakes Project Area is located southeast of Strathmore’s proposed Gas Hills uranium recovery facility. Part of the target, an area called Amazon by Federal American Partners, has an historical resource estimate of 285,000 tons grading 0.06 % eU3O8 for a total of 366,000 pounds of uranium (see Section 6-History and Table 6-1.) Strathmore drilled 13 holes in this Amazon target area in 2012 as shown in Figure 10-20. Holes are widely spaced and drilled on grid lines spaced 400 feet apart, and holes located 400 feet apart on the grid lines. Six additional holes were drilled to the west, in an area of pit highwalls not mined previously by Union Carbide and Federal American Partners. All holes were logged with gamma and PFN logging probes. Table 10-11 lists representative drillhole probe data from these holes. Sections A-A’ (Figure 10-21), B-B’ (Figure 10-22), and C-C’ (Figure 10-23) show distribution and potential grade of uranium mineralization inferred from logging data. Note that an intercept of 14.5 feet of 0.079 % PFNU3O8 at a depth of 229.5 feet was obtained in drillhole TSS-07.

Table 10-11 Tablestakes Project Area – Exploration Target and Mill Site



Northing (feet)

Collar (feet)

Depth (feet)

Thickness (feet)

PFN (grade %)

Gamma (grade %)


TSS-01 2,266,225 834,600 6,632.0 115.0 11.0 0.014 0.011 1.30

218.0 5.0 0.024 0.016 1.48

229.0 4.0 0.028 0.021 1.37

237.5 5.0 0.024 0.002 12.05

TSS-03 2,266,600 834,600 6,618.0 134.5 12.0 0.062 0.044 1.42

198.5 9.0 0.021 0.014 1.49

217.5 8.0 0.011 0.006 1.79

TSS-05 2,267,000 834,600 6,642.0 230.0 1.0 0.012 0.007 1.85

235.5 6.5 0.014 0.010 1.45

247.0 8.0 0.060 0.051 1.17

TSS-07 2,267,015 834,210 6,646.0 229.5 14.5 0.079 0.059 1.34

245.5 2.5 0.016 0.014 1.15

254.5 2.0 0.022 0.020 1.10

TSS-08 2,267,408 834,207 6,646.0 240.5 10.5 0.091 0.083 1.10

TSS-15 2,264,625 834,000 6,711.0 134.0 7.0 0.018 0.017 1.06

276.5 2.0 0.016 0.014 1.14

TSS-16 2,264,200 834,003 6,719.0 125.5 1.0 0.015 0.003 5.00

129.5 5.0 0.014 0.015 0.93

144.0 16.5 0.013 0.012 1.08

175.5 8.0 0.013 0.011 1.18 TSS-17 2,264,226 834,399 6,678.0 111.0 3.0 0.021 0.018 1.17

130.0 11.5 0.016 0.016 1.00

151.0 2.0 0.013 0.008 1.63


Figure 10-20

Tablestakes Project Area – Drillhole Location Map


Figure 10-21

Tablestakes Project Area – Cross Section A-A’

Figure 10-22

Tablestakes Project Area – Cross Section B-B’


Figure 10-23

Tablestakes Project Area – Cross Section C-C’ 10.7 Beaver Rim Exploration Area Drilling Summary Strathmore carried out exploration drilling at several targets south of the Bearver Rim Divide during the summer and autumn of 2012. Location, geologic favorability and previous historic drill testing, which justified exploration in the area, is discussed in Section 9.10 of this present report. Strathmore drilled 12 rotary exploration holes in the West Diamond target as show in Figure 10-24 and three rotary exploration holes in the East Diamond area. Nineteen rotary exploration holes were drilled in the South Black Mountain target area as shown in Figure 10-25. All holes were logged with the gamma probe and several with the PFN tool. No core holes were drilled south of Beaver Rim. Table 10-12 shows drill data from some of the mineralized holes in the West Diamond and South Black Mountain targets. Uranium mineralization was encountered in the east part of the West Diamond target. Cross sections A-A’ (Figure 10-26) and B-B’ (Figure 10-27) are an east-west and north-south section respectfully though the east part of the target and show distribution of uranium mineralization inferred from the logging data.


Cross section A-A’ (Figure 10-28) is a north-south trending section through the South Black Mountain drill holes and Cross section B-B’ (Figure 10-29) is an east-west section through the south part of the drilled area. These sections show distribution of uranium mineralization inferred from the logging data. Additional drilling is warranted on these three exploration targets to define potential mineral resources.


Figure 10-24

Beaver Rim Exploration Area – West Diamond Drillhole Location Map


Figure 10-25

Beaver Rim Exploration Area – South Black Mountain Drillhole Location Map


Table 10-12 West Diamond and South Black Mountain Exploration Areas



Northing (feet)

Collar (feet)

Depth (feet)

Thickness (feet)

PFN (grade %)

Gamma (grade %)


WDS-03 2,278,803 815,401 7,027.0 755.5 3.5 0.024

765.0 5.0 0.017 773.5 8.0 0.014

784.5 3.0 0.020

806.0 6.5 0.022 WDS-06 2,283,200 817,000 7,142.0 892.0 2.0 0.022

905.0 3.0 0.027 WDS-08 2,283,201 817,403 7,145.0 889.0 1.0 0.012

906.0 3.0 0.016

920.0 8.0 0.020 WDS-09 2,279,641 818,606 7,198.0 1,022.5 4.5 0.057 WDS-10 2,283,575 817,640 7,187.0 822.5 4.5 0.015

834.5 3.0 0.029

860.5 1.5 0.012 905.5 3.0 0.013

911.5 4.5 0.046

933.0 3.0 0.016 944.0 8.5 0.015

SBS-13 2,302,207 829,540 7,287.0 927.0 7.0 0.023

952.0 5.0 0.032 984.5 5.5 0.052

1,018.0 8.5 0.028

1,106.5 8.5 0.030 SBS-14 2,302,120 830,835 7,295.0 983.5 3.5 0.059 0.038 1.55

1,032.0 2.5 0.025 0.014 1.84

1,040.5 10.0 0.096 0.066 1.45

1,052.0 1.0 0.013 0.010 1.30

SBS-18 2,300,956 831,811 7,285.0 884.5 4.5 0.014

893.0 4.5 0.020 907.0 3.0 0.042

928.0 1.5 0.013

958.0 4.0 0.015 1,125.0 1.5 0.011

SBS-21 2,302,056 831,140 7,297.0 920.0 5.0 0.014 0.012 1.17

968.0 4.5 0.027 0.021 1.29

975.0 2.0 0.012 0.005 2.40

1,021.0 2.0 0.015 0.006 2.50

1,028.0 2.5 0.012 0.052 0.23

1,046.5 11.0 0.009 0.006 1.50

1,073.5 8.5 0.068 0.045 1.51


Figure 10-26

Beaver Rim Exploration Area – West Diamond Cross Section A-A’

Figure 10-27

Beaver Rim Exploration Area – West Diamond Cross Section B-B’


Figure 10-28

Beaver Rim Exploration Area – South Black Mountain Cross Section A-A’

Figure 10-29

Beaver Rim Exploration Area – South Black Mountain Cross Section B-B’


11.0 SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES, SECURITY AND PROTOCOLS Sedimentary uranium deposits are most efficiently sampled by measuring the quantity of radiation emitted along the length of a drill hole and converting those measurements into equivalent grade and thickness of uranium mineralization. Such measurements are typically obtained through the process of down-hole logging with various instruments, supplemented by chemical assays. 11.1 Historical Analyses Much of the historical (pre-NI-43-101) logging in the Gas Hills was done by the mining and exploration companies themselves, using their own equipment. Much of the logging was also carried out by Century Geophysical, Scinti-Log, or Geoscience Associates. All three companies were well-known, well respected, and are considered to have operated well within industry standards of the time. Standard electric logs consisted of recordings of gamma, self-potential, and resistivity. Self-potential and resistivity data are useful in defining bedding boundaries and for correlation of sandstone units and mineralized zones between drill holes. Historically, equivalent U3O8 content was calculated from gamma logs using industry-standard methods developed by the Atomic Energy Commission (now the DOE: Department of Energy), using either manual or computer methods. The manual method is as follows. For zones greater than 2 feet thick, first pick an upper and lower boundary of mineralization by choosing points approximately one-half height from background to peak of gamma anomaly. Then determine counts per second (cps) for each half-foot interval between the points, convert cps to GT (grade times thickness) using the appropriate dead-time, k-factor and water factor for the specific logging unit utilized, and divide GT by thickness to obtain grade - %eU3O8. Alternatively, the AEC developed a computer-based “gamma log” program which is similar but which automated much of the process. In addition, Century Geophysical developed its own computerized interpretation method, the results of which were output in combination with the electric logging results upon completion of each logging process. These gamma log interpretations provided the basic building blocks from which quantities of mineralized material could be calculated. CAM accepts that these interpretations were industry standard at the time (1950’s through 1970’s). Core holes were drilled to supplement the gamma data, to provide information for determination of disequilibrium, and to provide material for metallurgical testing. Drill core was typically sampled in half-foot or one-foot intervals and sent to various laboratories for uranium analysis. These analyses typically


included: fluorimetric chemical analysis, and closed-can radiometric analysis. Any major differences between the two analyses could be indicative of a disequilibrium situation, in which gamma logs do not provide a reasonably accurate analysis of the quantity of uranium present. Core assays were typically completed by either Chemical and Geological Laboratories of Casper, Wyoming or Skyline Laboratories of Wheat Ridge, Colorado. Both laboratories were well-known, well respected, and are considered to have operated well within the standards of the industry at the time. 11.2 Strathmore Analyses Since 2007, Strathmore has implemented a program of confirmation drilling utilizing standard gamma logging, and since 2011, both Prompt Fission Neutron (PFN) and gamma logging. This program serves as an indirect check on the historical drilling results in that it confirms the presence of uranium mineralization as well as the general character of the mineralization. In 2012, Strathmore implemented core drilling at the Bullrush, George-Ver, Loco-Lee and Rock Hill properties for chemical assay determinations to compare the results to the gamma and PFN logging. The Strathmore PFN and gamma probes from which this data is derived have been frequently calibrated at the Casper and Grand Junction DOE test pits and have shown, with a few exceptions, very little drift between calibrations as set forth in Table 11-1 through Table 11-5.

Table 11-1 Calibration Data – Strathmore PFN Tool #1031

Date Offset Slope R2

29 – November - 2011 0.002 3.753 0.9996

14 – September - 2011 0.002 3.751 0.9996

27 – July - 2011 0.002 3.786 0.9976

20 – May - 2011 0.002 3.655 0.9997

27 – March - 2011 0.002 3.759 0.9998

Table 11-2 Calibration Data – Strathmore Gamma Probe #4392

Date Dead Time (ms) K-Factor

29 – November - 2011 3.365 0.569 x 10-5

14 – September 2011 3.245 0.619 x 10-5

27 – June - 2011 3.266 0.620 x 10-5

22 – March - 2011 3.340 0.579 x 10-5

13 – September - 2010 3.366 0.618 x 10-5

22 – June - 2010 3.365 0.611 x 10-5

5 – May - 2008 3.342 0.619 x 10-5




28 – November 2007 3.264 0.598 x 10-6

3 – October 2007 3.417 0.594 x 10-5



29 – November - 2011 2.556 0.530 x 10-5

13 – September 2011 1.964 0.617 x 10-5

27 – June - 2011 2.385 0.630 x 10-5

22 – March - 2011 1.922 0.521 x 10-5

15 – September - 2010 1.964 0.617 x 10-5

22 – June – 2010 2.731 0.625 x 10-5

5 – May – 2008 2.535 0.600 x 10-5

28 – November 2007 1.781 0.534 x 10-6



29 – November – 2011 3.815 0.529 x 10-5

14 – September 2011 3.202 0.526 x 10-5

23 – August – 2011 2.353 0.631 x 10-5

27 – June – 2011 2.304 0.525 x 10-5

22 – June – 2010 2.524 0.510 x 10-5

18 – July – 2008 2.551 0.537 x 10-5

3 – October – 2007 3.156 0.543 x 10-6



29 – November – 2011 3.965 0.512 x 10-5

14 – September 2011 3.309 0.532 x 10-5

27 – June – 2011 2.522 0.518 x 10-5

22 – March – 2011 4.039 0.522 x 10-5

22 – June – 2010 3.257 0.506 x 10-5

18 – July – 2008 2.551 0.537 x 10-5

3 – October – 2007 3.453 0.539 x 10-6


11.3 Security The historical sampling, logging, and gamma-probing were subject to the normal industrial security controls typical of the 1950’s to 1970’s. Strathmore’s recent security practices involved: awareness of chain-of-custody issues, limited access to logging tools through locked storage as approved by USNRC, and continuing calibration of logging tools to assure that no tampering has occurred. All drill hole physical samples are in locked storage until sent out for laboratory testing. Beginning in May 2012, Strathmore has utilized third-party independent PFN and gamma logging provided by GAA Wireline Inc of Casper, Wyoming. GAA operated their own logging equipment and at times, provided loggers who operated Strathmore’s company-owned PFN logging truck. GAA provided calibration documentation of test pit runs, which were also reviewed by CAM. 11.4 Summary CAM is satisfied that those uranium analyses used for resources estimation (as described in Sections 12 and 14) are adequate for the estimation of compliant indicated and inferred mineral resources. Strathmore is taking steps to improve the pedigree of data for the remaining areas. These steps include further confirmation drilling, a continuing program of independent contractor logging of some holes, and core drilling for chemical assays.


12.0 DATA VERIFICATION Validation of the drill hole database is a key element in preparation of this NI 43-101 report. The drill hole database for Strathmore’s Gas Hills project consists of thousands of historical drill holes with gamma logs, mostly from the 1970s, but also with some from as early as the 1950s. It is recognized that gamma logs are indirect measurements of the amount of uranium present and that these indirect measurements must be validated. Typically, this validation process consists of comparing equivalent uranium determined from gamma log interpretations with chemical analyses of rock core recovered from core holes. Even this process is subject to some degree of uncertainty because the gamma logs and the chemical assays are obtained from different samples: core from the drill hole itself and gamma readings from the material surrounding the hole. However, this process has served the industry well for over 50 years and is still widely used today. Technology has advanced since the 1970s and another form of drill hole analysis is available today: Prompt Fission Neutron (PFN). PFN analysis assesses the quantity of uranium present surrounding a drill hole directly by measuring neutrons fissioned from the 235U isotope. It is still necessary to validate the results by comparison to core hole chemical assay data, but perhaps not to the degree necessary for gamma logs. Indeed, it is anticipated that, through regular ongoing use of PFN with its associated calibration checks and continuing checks against existing or historical core holes, a background of validity can be achieved which will reduce the number and frequency of future checks. Strathmore’s historical gamma log database consists mainly of Century, Scinti-Log and Geoscience gamma logs. Each of these companies was quite active and respected for its technology during the 1970s uranium boom. Systematic bias is unlikely, but in specific situations, operators and equipment can cause discrepancies that must be identified and rectified. The principal cause of discrepancies in gamma logging is “disequilibrium”. CIM Best Practice for Uranium sets forth the following discussion on disequilibrium. “Disequilibrium: An imbalance between the uranium content and the radioactivity emitted by a given volume of mineralized rock. This imbalance is caused by either differential mobilization of the more soluble uranium from the deposition site, relative to its daughter isotopes, or by a lack of time for the accumulation of the daughter isotopes to reach a state of equilibrium after the uranium has been deposited. Generally when the decay series is in equilibrium the gamma plus beta radiation is proportional to the amount of uranium present.


Disequilibrium is particularly prevalent in sandstone-hosted uranium deposits within a dynamic hydrologic regime, where mobilization of the uranium out of the deposition site results in an overestimation of the uranium content, based on radiometric measurements. Conversely, in a geologically young environment, a deficiency of daughters relative to uranium will cause an underestimation of uranium content based on radiometric methods. The degree of Disequilibrium may vary from place to place within a deposit. Equivalent Assay: Determination of uranium content by radiometric methods. The validity of Equivalent Assays must be demonstrated with chemical assay determinations. Where employed, equivalent uranium determinations should be reported and appropriately illustrated in the database (e.g. eU3O8).” Information by which a gamma-log database might be validated is available in three forms:

1. Verification of gamma log interpretations; 2. Comparison of historical gamma log and chemical assay data for core holes, and 3. Comparison of recent PFN and gamma log data from a confirmation drilling program.

12.1 Gamma log Interpretation and General Validation Gamma log interpretations comprise the vast majority of data which might be used to calculate resources for Strathmore’s Gas Hills properties. It is necessary to validate this data in both general and specific ways in order to provide a reasonable basis for resource calculation. Property specific validation is addressed by individual property in succeeding sections of this report. General validation consists of broader assessments including: accuracy of gamma log interpretations, cross checks on both gamma and PFN logging, quality control of chemical assays, and validity of PFN as a partial replacement for core drilling and chemical assays. As set forth in CAM’s NI 43-101 report of Strathmore’s Gas Hill properties dated 22 March 2013, CAM reviewed gamma log interpretations provided for the various Strathmore properties and concluded that those interpretations are reasonable and appropriate. 12.1.1 Logging Cross-Checks Additional confidence in logging and interpretation is possible when results are available from different sources. Strathmore contracted with GAA Wireline Inc (Casper, Wyoming), an independent contractor, to provide a series of logging cross-checks for both gamma and PFN. These cross-checks are summarized in Table 12-1 and Table 12-2. As can be readily seen in Tables 12-1 and 12-2, Strathmore and GAA logging results are quite comparable in both cases, with total GxT for gamma and PFN differing by only 7% and 6%, respectively.


This is a positive indication of appropriate logging procedures by Strathmore and the validity of the results. Strathmore also provided cross-checks of gamma readings between old and new logging trucks, and cross checks between Strathmore and GAA trucks using GAA operators. The net result is that recent/current logging results form a reliable basis for resource calculation.

Table 12-1 Gamma log Comparison – Strathmore versus GAA

Strathmore GAA Drill Hole T (ft) G (% eU3O8) GxT (ft-%) T (ft) G (% eU3O8) GxT (ft-%) BRS 60 1.0 0.031 0.031 1.0 0.025 0.025 BRS 63 4.5 0.031 0.140 4.5 0.032 0.144

DLS 47 5.0 0.050 0.248 5.0 0.048 0.242

GVS 34 3.5 0.042 0.147 4.0 0.044 0.176 GVS 38 3.0 0.042 0.126 3.5 0.047 0.163

GVS 39 2.0 0.070 0.140 2.5 0.072 0.180

VER 124 17.0 0.048 0.818 17.5 0.049 0.862 RHS 13C 8.0 0.053 0.420 7.5 0.056 0.418

Totals 44.0 0.047 2.070 45.5 0.049 2.209

Table 12-2 PFN Comparison – Strathmore versus GAA

Strathmore GAA Drill Hole T (ft) G (% U3O8) GxT (ft-%) T (ft) G (% U3O8) GxT (ft-%)

BRS 60 3.0 0.034 0.103 3.0 0.037 0.112 BRS 63 4.0 0.053 0.213 4.5 0.054 0.241

DLS 47 6.5 0.075 0.490 6.0 0.077 0.463

GVS 34 2.5 0.039 0.098 2.5 0.037 0.093 GVS 38 1.5 0.061 0.092 2.5 0.045 0.114

GVS 39 2.0 0.073 0.146 2.0 0.065 0.130

VER 124 8.5 0.100 0.854 9.0 0.090 0.807 RHS 13C 5.5 0.032 0.176 3.0 0.029 0.088

Totals 33.5 0.065 2.171 32.5 0.063 2.046

12.1.2 Validity of PFN Logging PFN logging is a relatively new development in the assessment of sub-surface uranium concentrations. Its primary purpose is to reduce or eliminate the costly and time-consuming process of core drilling and chemical assays in uranium-bearing formations where disequilibrium is present. As such, it is necessary to build up some degree of confidence in PFN results. This can be accomplished by comparing PFN


results with chemical assay results for a series of core holes. As confidence in PFN results increases, the number of core holes can be reduced. It must be recognized that PFN and chemical data represent significantly different and separate sample volumes: a sphere some 3-feet in diameter for PFN; and a 2 & 3/4-inch cylinder for core. Of course, the removed core is not a part of the PFN sample volume. In addition, core loss may or may not be recognized over relatively short intervals. The following table sets forth a series of data collected by Strathmore in 2012 comparing PFN and chemical results for 17 core holes with 23 individual zones.

Table 12-3 PFN versus Chemical Comparison (0.025 %U3O8 Cut-Off)

Drill Hole PFN Chemical

Thickness (feet)

Grade (% U3O8)

GxT (ft-% U3O8)

Thickness (feet)

Grade (% U3O8)

GxT (ft-% U3O8)

Bullrush BRS 57C 9.0 0.064 0.577 7.5 0.085 0.635

BRS 58C 3.0 0.076 0.229 2.0 0.146 0.292 BRS 70C 5.5 0.235 1.295 5.5 0.270 1.483

George-Ver GVS 26C 3.0 0.091 0.272 2.0 0.153 0.306

1.5 0.054 0.081 0.5 0.077 0.039

GVS 44C 1.0 0.031 0.031 1.5 0.033 0.050 GVS 46C 10.0 0.071 0.707 9.0 0.079 0.712

GVS 47C 8.5 0.620 5.266 7.5 0.758 5.686

GVS 48C 5.0 0.110 0.550 3.5 0.120 0.419 Loco-Lee LLS-52C 8.0 0.167 1.339 6.5 0.249 1.616

LLS-53C 20.5 0.165 3.385 18.0 0.179 3.222 LLS-59C 16.5 0.076 1.249 15.0 0.129 1.929

LLS-65C 2.0 0.085 0.171 1.5 0.203 0.305

3.0 0.032 0.097 4.0 0.052 0.208 LLS-73C 1.5 0.048 0.073 1.5 0.054 0.080

6.0 0.076 0.458 3.5 0.121 0.422

LLS-74C 9.0 0.092 0.832 8.5 0.117 0.996 Rock Hill RHS-13C 2.5 0.034 0.086 2.0 0.036 0.072

1.0 0.031 0.031 1.5 0.042 0.063

6.5 0.117 0.764 6.5 0.294 1.911

RHS-14C 2.0 0.067 0.133 2.5 0.119 0.298

3.5 0.189 0.662 4.0 0.210 0.841

RHS-15C 4.5 0.037 0.168 7.0 0.077 0.539 Totals 133.0 0.139 18.450 121.0 0.183 22.124


Table 12-3 shows an overall bias in GxT of about 20% toward the chemical. It is notable, however, that the RHS series accounts for the majority of this difference and that, as shown subsequently, in the Rock Hill section, inconsistent data seems to be a hallmark of this particular property. Aside from the RHS series, the GxT difference is only 10%, also toward the chemical. Summary statistics for the ratio of PFN GxT to Chemical GxT are listed in Table 12-4.

Table 12-4 Descriptive Statistics for

PFN : Chemical GxT Comparison Statistical Parameter Value

Mean 0.843798

Standard Error 0.07887 Median 0.835034

Mode #N/A

Standard Deviation 0.378249 Sample Variance 0.143072

Kurtosis 4.654691

Skewness 1.59312 Range 1.792063

Minimum 0.311833

Maximum 2.103896 Sum 19.40736

Count 23

Confidence Level (95.0%) 0.163567

We note that the 95% confidence interval for the mean ratio ranges from about 1.0 to about 0.7 or about +/- 20%. A scatter diagram of GxTs for the respective intervals is shown in Figure 12-1. A least squares regression analysis of the respective GxTs show a correlation coefficient (R2) of 95%, indicative of very good correlation. On an overall basis, PFN data compares reasonably well with chemical data and is certainly a more reliable indicator of uranium mineralization than gamma logging. CAM accepts PFN as a reasonable substitute for more costly core hole drilling and chemical assaying, but cautions that an ongoing, albeit reduced, program of core hole drilling and chemical assaying is still required under CIM “Best Practice for Uranium” guidelines in order to build up complete confidence in the PFN process.


Figure 12-1

PFN versus Chemical Assay Scatter Diagram 12.1.3 Chemical Assay - Quality Assurance/Quality Control Historically, chemical assays of drill hole core have been the “gold standard” by which uranium mineralization has been assessed. Drawbacks include: small sample size, lost core and potential laboratory error. While little can be done to mitigate the first two items, laboratory error can be detected and minimized by both internal checks such as standards, blanks and replicate analyses, and external checks by another independent laboratory. Both types of checks are available for recent Strathmore core drilling. A series of 37 laboratory cross-checks between Hazen and IML are available for Strathmore core as illustrated in Figure 12-2. The least squares regression correlation coefficient (R2) for this set of data is 96%, indicative of a very good correspondence. This correspondence provides a high degree of confidence in the chemical assay data base. Additional assurance is provided by internal QA/QC examples of which are set forth as follows:

Hazen Research, Inc. Assay Series Number: J536/12 Batch Control Standard: 0.064% U3O8 Control Standard Results: 0.062 & 0.067 Blank Results: <0.001 & <0.001

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0

Che

mic

al (f

t-% U

3O8)

PFN (ft-% U3O8)


Replicate Analyses: 0.007 vs 0.006 & 0.149 vs 0.154 Assay Series Number: H423/12 Batch Control Standard: 0.064% U3O8 Control Standard Results: 0.068 & 0.070 Blank Results <0.001 & <0.001 Replicate Analyses: 0.091 vs 0.094, 0.042 vs 0.044, 0.007 vs 0.007 &

0.043 vs 0.047

Figure 12-2

Chemical Assay Cross-Check Analysis Both internal and external checks on chemical assays are well within industry standards and CAM accepts this program and its results as providing reasonable assurance of chemical assay accuracy. 12.1.4 Gamma log Interpretation and General Validation Conclusions Strathmore has entered into a significant program of data validation for its recent drilling efforts. All of this data is well correlated and the cross-check process is designed to detect any meaningful bias. As such, this program provides a high level of assurance of the accuracy of data generated by those efforts. In turn, this new data provides a strong foundation from which to judge, assess, and evaluate historical data for property specific purposes.

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40

IML

(%U

3O8)

Hazen (% U3O)


12.2 Bullrush Project Area – Data Verification Recent drilling by Strathmore has added significantly to the Bullrush database. There are now some 31 drill holes and two cross-check logs which have PFN and gamma data available for comparison. This comparison, based on a cut-off grade of 0.025% U3O8 and eU3O8, is shown in the Table 12-5.

Table 12-5 Bullrush PFN vs Gamma Grade-Thickness Comparison

Drill Hole # PFN (ft-% U3O8)

Gamma (ft-% eU3O8)

Ratio PFN:Gamma

BRS-04 0.221 0.080 2.8

BRS-06 0.630 0.157 4.0 BRS-07 0.058 0.044 1.3

BRS-08 3.139 2.353 1.3

BRS-09 1.086 0.591 1.8 BRS-14 0.450 0.241 1.9

BRS-20 0.229 0.071 3.2

BRS-29 0.076 0.049 1.6 BRS-36 0.187 0.159 1.2

BRS-38 0.280 0.282 1.0

BRS-48 0.247 0.115 2.1 BRS-49 1.569 1.228 1.3

BRS-50 0.032 0.013 2.4

BRS-51 1.375 0.687 2.0 BRS-52 0.431 0.828 0.5

BRS-53 0.032 0.000 -

BRS-54 0.609 0.349 1.7 BRS-57C 0.981 0.503 2.0

BRS-58C 0.265 0.262 1.0

BRS-59 0.215 0.190 1.1 BRS-60 0.103 0.025 4.1

BRS-62 0.045 0.106 0.4

BRS-63 0.268 0.144 1.9 BRS-65 0.969 0.658 1.5

BRS-69 0.518 0.074 7.0

BRS-70C 1.399 1.080 1.3 GAA-BRS-60 0.112 0.031 3.7

GAA-BRS-61 0.376 0.111 3.4

GAA-BRS-63 0.213 0.141 1.5 GAA-BRS-64 0.058 0.085 0.7

GAA-BRS-66 0.350 0.249 1.4

GAA-BRS-67 0.588 0.412 1.4 GAA-BRS-68 0.390 0.164 2.4

Total 17.494 11.474 1.5


Descriptive statistics for the Bullrush ratio of PFN versus Gamma comparison are set forth in Table 12-6.


Bullrush PFN versus Gamma Ratio Statistical Parameter Value

Mean 2.031


Mode #N/A


Kurtosis 5.591


Minimum 0.427

Maximum 7.041 Sum 64.979

Count 32

Confidence Level(95.0%) 0.477

Based on these statistics, the 95% confidence interval for the mean ratio of PFN to gamma is about 2.5 to 1.5, or plus/minus about 20%. A graphic GxT comparison for each drill hole is shown in Figure 12-3.

Figure 12-3

Bullrush PFN versus Gamma GxT Comparison

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

Gam

ma

PFN


A regression analysis of the respective PFN and gamma GxT data for the recent Bullrush drill holes indicates a correlation coefficient (R2) of 90%, a good correlation. Based on the above analyses, CAM believes that historical gamma data is likely to understate the quantity of mineralization present in the Bullrush Project Area, and that an upward adjustment is appropriate. Given an overall PFN:gamma ratio of about 1.5, and minimum 95% confidence interval for the mean of about 1.5, CAM believes that it is appropriate to adjust historical gamma grades upward by 50% in order to calculate an in-place resource. This is a rather large adjustment which is based on a relatively small data set (32 holes) and the potential inaccuracies inherent in this process dictate that the resource so calculated should be classed as “Inferred”. Whenever available, PFN and chemical assay drillhole data should be used in the resource calculation. 12.3 Day Loma Project Area –Data Verification Drill holes at the Day Loma property with both PFN and gamma data now number 39. The following table sets forth comparative grade-thickness data for each of those drill holes. This data is based on a grade cut-off of 0.025% U3O8 and eU3O8. Descriptive statistics for the ratio of PFN vs Gamma are set forth in the following table.

Table 12-7 Day Loma PFN versus Gamma Grade-Thickness Comparison


Gamma (ft-% e U3O8) Ratio

DLS-8 1.824 4.038 0.5

DLS-9 3.668 4.287 0.9 DLS-10 7.882 6.126 1.3

DLS-11 1.176 0.687 1.7

DLS-12 0.879 0.497 1.8 DLS-13 0.279 0.175 1.6

DLS-14 3.193 2.356 1.4

DLS-17 0.499 0.321 1.6 DLS-18 0.189 0.120 1.6

DLS-20 0.441 0.260 1.7

DLS-21 2.666 2.702 1.0 DLS-23 0.922 0.429 2.1

DLS-24 0.076 0.027 2.8

DLS-25 0.501 0.422 1.2 DLS-29 2.222 1.862 1.2

DLS-30 1.194 1.134 1.1

DLS-31 0.919 0.884 1.0 DLS-32 0.328 0.255 1.3

DLS-34 0.446 0.495 0.9

DLS-35 1.023 1.538 0.7


Table 12-7 Day Loma PFN versus Gamma Grade-Thickness Comparison


Gamma (ft-% e U3O8) Ratio

DLS-36 1.318 1.805 0.7 DLS-37 3.444 3.657 0.9

DLS-39 0.451 0.922 0.5

DLS-40 0.202 0.417 0.5 DLS-42 1.083 1.796 0.6

DLS-43 0.166 0.247 0.7

DLS-44 0.056 0.056 1.0 DLS-46 1.652 1.172 1.4

DLS-47 0.981 0.599 1.6

DLS-48 0.075 0.110 0.7 DLS-50 0.713 0.543 1.3

DLS-51 0.059 0.055 1.1

DLS-52 0.000 0.103 0.0 DLS-308-442 2.470 1.957 1.3

DLS-D13-135 2.559 1.865 1.4

GAA-DLS-49 0.170 0.201 0.8 DLS-LO5-23 3.681 3.864 1.0

DLS-WO-D13-123GAA 1.171 0.740 1.6

DLS-WO-D13-94GAA 1.606 0.753 2.1 Total 52.184 49.477 1.1

Descriptive statistics for the ratio of PFN versus Gamma are set forth in Table 12-8.


Day Loma PFN versus Gamma Ratio Statistical Parameter Value

Mean 1.187

Standard Error 0.087

Median 1.187 Mode #N/A

Standard Deviation 0.541

Sample Variance 0.293 Kurtosis 1.144

Skewness 0.570

Range 2.815 Minimum 0.0

Maximum 2.815

Sum 46.309 Count 39

Confidence Level (95.0%) 0.175


Based on these statistics, the 95% confidence interval for the mean ratio of PFN to gamma is about 1.4 to about 1.0, or plus/minus about 20%. A regression analysis of the respective PFN and gamma GxT data for the recent Day Loma drill holes indicates a correlation coefficient (R2) of 85%, a good correlation with one significant outlier. A graphic GxT comparison for each Day Loma drillhole is set forth in Figure 12-4.

Figure 12-4

Day Loma PFN versus Gamma GxT Comparison 12.3.1 Day Loma Historical Chemical Assay Data The following table (Table 12-9) and charts summarize the direct comparison of historical gamma log and chemical data for three core holes in the Day Loma deposit. The gamma log data was obtained by current CAM interpretation of the historical gamma logs. Chemical assay data for the Day Loma core holes was prepared by Chemical and Geological Laboratories of Casper Wyoming. This laboratory was utilized by most uranium industry participants in the 1970s and maintained a strong reputation for reliability. The laboratory notes on its Analytical Reports that: “data was obtained from routine analysis in which each sample was tested once for U3O8 concentration. The anticipated average deviation for a given series of at least 20 samples is +- 10% of the value reported……”

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 2 4 6 8 10

Gam

ma

PFN


Table 12-9 Data Comparison – Day Loma Historical Core Holes

Core Hole

Chemical* Gamma log **

Depth Thickness Grade GxT Depth Thickness Grade GxT

(feet) (feet) (%U3O8) (ft-%) (feet) (feet) (%eU3O8) (ft-%)

LO8-172-C 226.5 1.0 0.451 0.451 225.0 5.5 0.115 0.630

303.0 3.0 0.298 0.894 301.5 5.5 0.125 0.685

DC26-C1 232.0 14.0 0.162 2.272 232.5 11.5 0.148 1.706

LO5-28C 392.0 1.0 0.046 0.046 390.5 4.0 0.071 0.284

398.0 2.0 0.371 0.742 396.5 5.5 0.119 0.657

Total 21.0 0.210 4.405 32.0 0.124 3.962

While there are some substantial differences in individual grade and thickness, the GxT products compare reasonably well and the total GxT values differ only by 11% in favor of chemical results. Thus, the total pounds U3O8 indicated by each set would be quite close and those by gamma log, slightly conservative. The following charts illustrate the correlation of chemical and gamma log data used in this review.

Each of the three charts provides a good example of reasonable correlation between chemical assays and gamma logs. This correlation indicates that the Strathmore gamma log database should provide a useful basis for the estimation of uranium resources at the Day Loma deposit. Based on the above analyses, CAM believes that historical gamma data is likely to provide a reasonable indication of the quantity of mineralization present and that no adjustment is warranted. Calculation of an in-place resource can proceed on the basis of the original gamma data as supplemented by more recent PFN and chemical data. Relatively good correlations between PFN, chemical assays and gamma provide a reasonable basis for calculation of an “Indicated” resource provided that the drill hole spacing is also adequate for such a classification.


12.4 George-Ver Project Area – Data Verification Drill holes at the George-Ver property with both PFN and gamma data now number 43. The following Table 12-10 sets forth comparative grade-thickness data for each of those drill holes. This data is based on a grade cut-off of 0.025% U3O8 and eU3O8.

Table 12-10 George-Ver PFN versus Gamma Grade-Thickness Comparison


Gamma (ft-% eU3O8)

Ratio PFN:Gamma

GVS-20 0.183 0.373 0.49

GVS-21 2.222 1.16 1.92 GVS-22 12.898 12.581 1.03

GVS-23 0.74 0.775 0.95

GVS-24 3.094 5.003 0.62 GVS-26C-GAA 2.102 1.773 1.19

GVS-26C 1.952 1.502 1.30

GVS-27-GAA 0.026 0.155 0.17 GVS-29-GAA 0.402 0.383 1.05

GVS-30 0.177 0.202 0.88

GVS-33-GAA 0.106 0.162 0.65 GVS-34-GAA 0.183 0.355 0.52

GVS-34 0.197 0.292 0.67

GVS-37-GAA 0.101 0.14 0.72 GVS-38-GAA 0.222 0.324 0.69

GVS-38 0.183 0.252 0.73

GVS-39-GAA 0.26 0.359 0.72 GVS-39 0.293 0.28 1.05

GVS-40 0.086 0.17 0.51

GVS-41-GAA 0.111 0.125 0.89 GVS-42 0.289 0.402 0.72

GVS-43 0.326 0.508 0.64

GVS-44C 4.68 2.849 1.64 GVS-46C 1.452 0.28 5.19

GVS-47C 10.677 8.283 1.29

GVS-48C 1.099 1.262 0.87 GVS-49 0.937 0.698 1.34

GVS-50 1.595 1.232 1.29

GVS-51 0.241 0.332 0.73 GVS-54 1.284 1.226 1.05

GVS-56 1.986 1.545 1.29

GVS-58 0.119 0.253 0.47 GVS-59 0.381 0.331 1.15

GVS-60 0.956 0.632 1.51

GVS-63 0.284 0.511 0.56


Table 12-10 George-Ver PFN versus Gamma Grade-Thickness Comparison


Gamma (ft-% eU3O8)

Ratio PFN:Gamma

GVS-64 0.287 0.284 1.01

GVS-65 0.93 0.549 1.69

GVS-66 0.456 0.615 0.74 GVS-67 0.87 0.906 0.96

GVS-68 0.337 0.315 1.07

GVS-69 0.157 0.129 1.22 GVS-WO-VER-124-GAA 1.617 1.646 0.98

GVS-WO-VER-124 1.759 1.721 1.02 Total 58.257 52.875 1.10

Descriptive statistics for the ratio of PFN versus Gamma are set forth in Table 12-11.


George-Ver PFN versus Gamma Ratio Statistical Parameters Value

Mean 1.050169

Standard Error 0.112824

Median 0.960265 Mode #N/A

Standard Deviation 0.739838

Sample Variance 0.547361 Kurtosis 23.7887

Skewness 4.317346

Range 5.017972 Minimum 0.167742

Maximum 5.185714

Sum 45.15725 Count 43


Based on these statistics, the 95% confidence interval for the mean ratio of PFN to gamma is about 1.3 to about 0.8, or plus/minus about 20%. A graphic GxT comparison for each drill hole is set forth in Figure 12-5.


Figure 12-5

George-Ver PFN versus Gamma GxT Comparison A regression analysis of the respective PFN and gamma GxT data for the recent George-Ver drillholes indicates a correlation coefficient (R2) of 95%, a very good correlation. Based on the above analyses, CAM believes that historical gamma data is likely to provide a reasonable indication of the quantity of mineralization present and that no adjustment is warranted for the George-Ver Project Area. Calculation of an in-place resource can proceed on the basis of the original gamma data as supplemented by more recent PFN and chemical data. Very good correlations between PFN, chemical assays, and gamma provide a reasonable basis for calculation of an “Indicated” resource provided that the drill hole spacing is also adequate for such a classification. 12.5 Loco-Lee Project Area – Data Verification Drill holes at the Loco-Lee property with both PFN and gamma data now number 43. The following Table 12-12 sets forth comparative grade-thickness data for each of those drill holes. This data is based on a grade cut-off of 0.025% U3O8 and eU3O8.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Gam

ma

PFN


Table 12-12 Loco-Lee PFN versus Gamma Grade-Thickness Comparison


Gamma (ft-% eU3O8) Ratio

LLS-05 0.658 2.772 0.2 LLS-06 0.692 0.571 1.2 LLS-07 0.531 0.361 1.5 LLS-08 0.566 0.209 2.7 LLS-09 0.643 0.131 4.9 LLS-10 0.471 0.645 0.7 LLS-11 1.529 3.534 0.4 LLS-12 0.758 0.369 2.1 LLS-13 0.737 0.341 2.2 LLS-14 0.333 0.178 1.9 LLS-15 0.789 0.902 0.9 LLS-16 0.116 0.087 1.3 LLS-17 0.161 0.128 1.3 LLS-18 0.496 0.595 0.8 LLS-20 0.778 1.524 0.5 LLS-28 0.950 5.674 0.2 LLS-30 0.146 1.015 0.1 LLS-31 0.142 0.134 1.1 LLS-33 0.238 0.574 0.4 LLS-35 4.060 1.701 2.4 LLS-38 3.262 2.173 1.5 LLS-40 0.666 0.931 0.7 LLS-41 0.895 0.496 1.8 LLS-45 0.553 0.587 0.9 LLS-51 3.117 2.711 1.1

LLS-52C 1.994 1.914 1.0 LLS-53C 3.598 3.826 0.9 LLS-54 0.355 0.338 1.0 LLS-57 0.014 0.365 0.0 LLS-58 0.028 0.150 0.2

LLS-59C 1.350 1.284 1.1 LLS-60 0.300 0.236 1.3 LLS-62 0.040 0.000 - LLS-63 0.796 1.084 0.7

LLS-65C 0.445 1.822 0.2 LLS-66 0.043 0.014 3.2 LLS-67 0.056 0.049 1.2 LLS-68 0.326 0.259 1.3 LLS-69 0.000 0.064 0.0 LLS-71 0.457 0.134 3.4

LLS-71 Redrill 0.424 0.127 3.3 LLS-73 0.994 0.796 1.2

LLS-74C 0.452 2.875 0.2 Total 34.947 43.671 0.8

Descriptive statistics for the ratio of PFN vs Gamma are set forth in Table 12-13.


Table 12-13

Descriptive Statistics for Loco Lee PFN versus Gamma Ratio

Statistical Parameter Value Mean 1.3045


Mode #N/A


Kurtosis 5.5364


Minimum 0.1433

Maximum 4.9046 Sum 33.9163

Count 26


Based on these statistics, the 95% confidence interval for the mean ratio of PFN to gamma is about 1.7 to about 0.9, or plus/minus about 30%. A graphic GxT comparison for each drill hole is set forth in Figure 12-6.


Figure 12-6

Loco-Lee PFN versus Gamma GxT Comparison A regression analysis of the respective PFN and gamma GxT data for the recent Loco Lee drill holes indicates a correlation coefficient (R2) of 20%, a very poor correlation. Based on the above analyses, CAM believes that historical gamma data is likely to provide only a broad indication of the quantity of mineralization present. Given a very poor correlation, an overall PFN:gamma ratio of about 0.8 and minimum 95% confidence interval for the mean of about 0.9, CAM believes that it is appropriate to adjust historical gamma grades downward by 15% in order calculate an in-place resource for the Loco-Lee Project Area. Inaccuracies inherent in this process dictate that the resource so calculated should be classed as no better than “Inferred”. Whenever available, PFN and chemical drillhole data should be used in the resource calculation. 12.6 Rock Hill Project Area – Data Verification Recent drill holes at the Rock Hill property with both PFN and gamma log data now number 18. Table 12-14 sets forth comparative grade-thickness data for each of those drill holes. This data is based on a grade cut-off of 0.025% U3O8 and eU3O8.

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Gam

ma

PFN


Table 12-14 Rock Hill PFN versus Gamma Grade-Thickness Comparison


Gammalog (ft-% eU3O8) Ratio

RHS-13C-GAA 1.359 0.471 2.9

RHS-14C-GAA 1.284 0.206 6.2

RHS-15C-GAA 0.168 0.266 0.6 RHS-16C-GAA 1.177 2.445 0.5

RHS-29-GAA 0.085 0.000 -

RHS-31-GAA 1.058 0.245 4.3 RHS-41-GAA 0.192 0.000 -

RHS-01 0.608 0.280 2.2

RHS-06 1.443 1.530 0.9 RHS-05 0.434 0.360 1.2

RHS-03 1.053 1.188 0.9

RHS-07 0.329 0.306 1.1 RHS-08 0.523 0.209 2.5

RHS-09 0.279 0.026 10.7

RHS-10 0.765 0.545 1.4 RHS-11 0.751 0.832 0.9

RHS-12 1.915 1.191 1.6

RHS-13C 1.452 0.457 3.2 Total 14.870 10.554 1.4

Descriptive statistics for the ratio of PFN versus Gamma log are set forth in Table 12-15.


Rock Hill PFN versus Gamma Ratio Statistical Parameter Value

Mean 2.5735


Mode #N/A


Kurtosis 5.5421


Minimum 0.4812

Maximum 10.7308 Sum 41.1767

Count 16



Based on these statistics, the 95% confidence interval for the mean ratio of PFN to gammalog is about 4.0 to about 1.2, or plus/minus about 55%, a very wide range. A graphic GxT comparison for each drill hole is set forth in Figure 12-7.

Figure 12-7

Rock Hill PFN versus Gamma GxT Comparison A regression analysis of the respective PFN and gamma GxT data for the recent Rock Hill drill holes indicates a correlation coefficient (R2) of 33%, a poor correlation. 12.6.3 Rock Hill Historical Chemical Assay Data Table 12-6 of the previous Gas Hills NI43-101 report sets forth a series of historical chemical assay and gamma log interpretation data for Rock Hill which provides a basis for judging the validity and/or accuracy of gamma log data. The ratios of chemical versus gamma log for that data set show a 95% confidence interval for the mean ratio of chemical to gamma of 2.1 to 1.3, or plus/minus about 30%. The correlation coefficient (R2) is 85% and overall ratio of chemical assay to gamma log is 1.35. These parameters seem to indicate a reasonable correlation between chemical assay and gamma log data. A scatter diagram of this data shows discernible trend in Figure 12-8, but note that the scales are logarithmic and, thus, the dispersion of values is significant.

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

Gam

ma

PFN


Figure 12-8

Rock Hill Chemical versus Gamma Scatter Diagram Historic Rock Hill Chemical Assay Data Set 1

This same set of chemical assays (Data Set 1) also included closed can gamma equivalent data for which the respective statistical parameters show far less correlation; i.e., a correlation coefficient (R2) of 39%. The mean ratio of chemical grade to closed can grade for those samples with a chemical grade of 0.025% U3O8 or higher is 1.91. The 95% confidence interval is 2.10 to 1.72. Figure 12-9 shows a scatter diagram for closed can equivalent versus chemical assay for Data Set 1.

0.01

0.10

1.00

10.00

0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00

Gam

ma

(ft-%

eU3O

8)

Chemical (ft-%U3O8)


Figure 12-9

Rock Hill Chemical versus Closed Can Scatter Diagram Historic Rock Hill Chemical Assay Data Set 1

Figure 12-10 compares downhole chemical, closed can and gamma log data for core hole R-938C.

Figure 12-10

Comparison of Chemical, Closed Can, and Gamma Log Data Historic Rock Hill Core Hole R-938C

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

0.01 0.1 1

Clo

sed

Can

(%eU

3O8)

Chemical (%U3O8)

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

38.0 40.5 43.0 45.5 77.0 79.5 82.0 84.5

%eU

3O8

& %

U3O

8

Depth (feet)

Chemical Closed Can Gamma Log


In summary, for the Rock Hill deposit at the lower 95% confidence interval: PFN GxT exceeds gammalog GxT by a factor of 1.2; chemical GxT values exceed gammalog GxT values by a factor of 1.3; and chemical assay grade exceeds closed can grade by a factor of 1.7. Given the rather wide spread of available information, CAM believes that it is appropriate to adjust historical gamma grades upward by 20% in order calculate an in-place resource for the Rock Hill Project Area. Inaccuracies inherent in this process dictate that the resource so calculated should be classed as no better than “Inferred”. Whenever available, PFN and chemical drill hole data should be used in the resource calculation. Historical chemical assay data for the Rock Hill property (the Red Horse deposit north of the open pit) recently became available to Strathmore. This data as set forth in Table 12-16 shows a very different picture of chemical versus gamma log relationship to the main Rock Hill deposit with a compliant mineral resource.

Table 12-16 Historic Rock Hill (Red Horse) Chemical versus Gamma Grade-Thickness Comparison

Data Set 2

Chemical Assay Gamma log

Drill Hole # T (feet) G (% U3O8)

GxT (ft-%U3O8) T (feet) G

(%eU3O8) GxT (ft-

%eU3O8) Ratio C/R

RH6-276C 13.5 0.061 0.823 14.0 0.104 1.451 0.57

RH6-275C 4.5 0.044 0.199 4.0 0.041 0.163 1.22

RH6-274C 3.0 0.033 0.010 17.0 0.036 0.619 0.02 RH6-273C 8.0 0.058 0.463 21.0 0.091 1.701 0.27

RH6-272C 3.5 0.056 0.195 3.5 0.040 0.139 1.40

RH6-271C 2.0 0.027 0.057 6.5 0.062 0.401 0.14 RH6-270C 1.5 0.086 0.129 21.5 0.066 1.429 0.09

RH6-269C 12.0 0.047 0.563 5.0 0.053 0.266 2.12

RH6-259C 0.5 0.026 0.013 9.0 0.043 0.384 0.03 RH6-257C 6.5 0.056 0.362 18.5 0.038 0.709 0.51

RH6-256C 4.0 0.029 0.117 4.0 0.028 0.112 1.05

RH6-255C 15.5 0.057 0.883 18.5 0.091 1.691 0.52 RH3-144C 1.0 0.046 0.046 15.1 0.056 0.845 0.05

RH3-136C 6.3 0.038 0.301 14.8 0.038 0.605 0.50

RH3-53C 2.5 0.049 0.122 11.2 0.039 0.434 0.28 RH3-45C 1.5 0.040 0.060 3.5 0.265 0.927 0.06

Total 85.8 0.051 4.342 187.1 0.063 11.875 0.37

For this data set, the 95% confidence interval for the mean ratio of chemical assay to gamma log is about 0.9 to about 0.25, or plus/minus about 60%. The correlation coefficient is 31%. Figure 12-11 scatter diagram for Data Set 2 illustrates a very high degree of variance.


Figure 12-11

Rock Hill (Red Horse) Chemical versus Gamma Scatter Diagram Historic Rock Hill Chemical Assay Data Set 2

In summary, the historical data is conflicting and is also in conflict with recent data. These conflicts suggest that at least portions of the Rock Hill property are in rather severe disequilibrium and that available gamma log data does not provide a sound foundation for calculating a resource. It may be possible to calculate some type of resource using only PFN and chemical data provided that drill hole spacing is adequate. For the main Rock Hill deposit, inaccuracies inherent in this process dictate that the resource so calculated should be classed as no better than “Inferred”. Whenever available, PFN and chemical drillhole data should be used in the resource calculation. 12.7 Tablestakes, Jeep, and Beaver Rim Areas – Data Verification At the time of this report writing there is only limited PFN data and no chemical data available for the Tablestakes and Jeep Project Areas, and the Beaver Rim Exploration Target Areas. Strathmore has performed PFN logging on 8 drill holes in the Tablestakes Project Area, and on 3 drill holes in the South Black Mountain Exploration Target Area on Beaver Rim. As such, data verification analysis was not performed for these areas.

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Gam

ma

(ft-%

eU3O

8)

Chemical (ft-% U3O8)


12.8 Data Verification Conclusion Strathmore has completed a major series data validation/confirmation exercise in order to determine the reliability of historical gamma log data and its usefulness as a foundation for resource calculation. Data from the Bullrush, Day Loma, George-Ver, Loco-Lee, and Rock Hill Project Areas was reviewed in detail by CAM. The results of this review are summarized in Table 12-17.

Table 12-17 Summary of Data Verification Results and Recommendations by Area

Bull Rush Day Loma George-Ver Loco-Lee Rock Hill Mean Ratio (GxT ) PFN : Gamma 2.0 1.2 1.05 1.3 2.6

95% Confidence Interval for Ratio (GxT) PFN : Gamma 2.5 to 1.5 1.4 to 1.0 1.3 to 0.8 1.7 to 0.9 4.0 to 1.2

Correlation Coefficient (R2) for Ratio (GxT) PFN : Gamma 90% 73% 95% 20% 33%

Recommended Disequilibrium Adjustment Factor +50% None None -15% +20%

Recommended Maximum Resource Category Inferred Indicated Indicated Inferred Inferred

Note: Maximum Resource Category recommendation is only valid if adequate drilling density exists.


13.0 MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING Strathmore is evaluating the Gas Hills Uranium project for conventional open pit mining near the former open-pit mines in the lower Gas Hills, and for underground and/or in-situ recovery from potential targets in the Beaver Rim area (South Gas Hills). In May 2011, Strathmore commissioned Lyntek Inc. of Lakewood, Colorado, an experienced firm in uranium engineering and processing research, to carry out preliminary metallurgical studies and investigate Strathmore’s proposed Gas Hills uranium heap leach recovery plans. Strathmore collected bulk composited samples from 41 reverse circulation drill holes from the 2010-2011 drilling. The holes chosen for compositing were from the Bullrush, Day Loma, George-Ver, Loco-Lee, and Rock Hill project areas. Eight composites were prepared and were analyzed for uranium content at InterMountain Labs of Sheridan, Wyoming, an independent state-accredited laboratory with US NRC certification. The samples were then submitted to Lyntek and eight bottle roll tests were done on the composited samples from the above named properties. Lyntek provided preliminary results of the tests on January 25, 2012. Average grade of all eight samples is 0.113% uranium (U). Average recovery is 89.2% U. The analytical methods for determining the uranium in the leach residue were determined to be inadequate due to improper digestion techniques, such that the actual uranium content in the head samples could have been reported as lower than actual values, which would have artificially increased the uranium recovery estimates, so much so, that several of the tests showed a recovery in excess of 100%. Therefore, the recovery calculations are suspect, and can only be considered as indicative. However, four subsequent agitation leach tests, performed on January 9, 2013 by Litz & Associates, of Golden Colorado, achieved recoveries of 82%-94%. Reagent consumption varied widely, particularly acid consumption from a high of 230 lbs./ton H2SO4 from one George-Ver sample to 30 lbs/ton H2SO4 on samples from other deposits. These preliminary tests indicate that U is recoverable by leaching. Lyntek considers the overall reagent consumptions are low (15-30 lbs./ton) but actual recovery is uncertain, with an average of 55 lbs./ton due to the high acid consumption of the single George-Ver sample. Lyntek is continuing with column leach tests. Engineering design and reagent consumption estimates will be based upon pending results of the column leach tests. In addition to the bottle roll test, two bulk composite samples from the several properties were prepared for column leach tests. One sample, a non-plastic silty sand, was considered high grade at 0.114 % U, and a second sample, a moderately plastic clayey sand, was considered low grade at 0.017 % U. Leach time for the column tests was about 20 days. Leach solutions were very much over-acidified (50 gms/l


for 2 days; 100 gms/l after that) resulting in very low pH, high SO4 effluent. Tests to determine relative ion exchange characteristics compared to solvent extraction characteristics to remove U from the effluent solutions were not conclusive, since these tests were performed at unrealistically high acid consumption, which would preclude proper evaluation of beneficiation methods. Strathmore has completed work in its Summer 2012 Column Leach Test, which consisted of a 20 foot column, 8 inches in diameter, filled with approximately 560 lbs of mineralized material from the Bullrush project area. This material had a grade of 0.137% U. Initital test data show a recovery of 91.12%. A comprehensive report prepared by Lyntek Inc. is forthcoming.


14.0 MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES Resource estimation usually involves the steps of data validation, compositing, statistical and geostatistical analysis, assignment of grades to all points within the area of interest, resource classification and resource tabulation. CAM selectively used data generated by previous operators on the basis of CAM’s review of the data and comparison to the data provided by Strathmore and accepted by CAM, to support statements and opinions presented in this Technical Report. CAM's analysis of the previous data is discussed at considerable length in Sections 6, 10, 11, 12, and 14 of this report. The data used by CAM was developed by reputable mining companies using practices current at the time; however, in some cases there is not a sufficient audit trail for all of these data to justify classification to a higher level than inferred mineral resources. Key assumptions in the resource estimate are as follows:

1. CAM reviewed gamma ray, PFN, closed can and chemical assay data for all five properties. For Day Loma and George-Ver CAM found that PFN, closed can and chemical assay data supported the assumption that the gamma ray eU3O8 could be used for calculation of indicated and inferred resources. For Bullrush, Rock Hill and Loco Lee the data are suitable for estimation of an inferred resource but believes that additional chemical, closed can and associated PFN and gamma ray data are required for the estimation of indicated and measured resources.

2. CAM reviewed the geometry in three dimensions of mineral intercepts above the grade of 0.035 and a minimum thickness of 1 foot. A content of 0.035% eU3O8 corresponds to a contained uranium value of $35 per ton at a $50 uranium price. A foot is about the minimum thickness that can be selectively mined by open pit methods. This review indicated that likely open pit minable mineralization is confined by elevations or depths. These elevations or depths were used to define limits for a potentially open pit minable resource.

3. Day Loma and George-Ver were historically mined by open pits and by underground workings. The areas of historic mining were excluded from resource tabulation based on the plan footprint of historic mining. Depending on backslope and vertical extent of underground workings, this may be conservative.

4. Grade thickness and thickness contour maps were constructed using all the data and a zero nugget linear variogram. This gives a smooth contour map which honors the data. The contour maps were consistent with usual roll front deposit geometry but all contour maps showed the connectivity associated with potentially minable mineral deposits.


5. Limits of mineralization in plan for each of the 5 areas were provided by Strathmore. CAM reviewed these and found them to be reasonable so resource reporting was additionally constrained to within these areas.

6. Based on a the variogram ranges of a minimum about 200 feet and review of grade thickness contour maps CAM classified resources as inferred if values were interpolated up to 400 ft and extrapolated to 200 feet and were not indicated. Resources were classified as indicated if values were interpolated up to 282 ft and extrapolated to 141 ft. Note that indicated must also have an acceptable equilibrium factor.

7. A specific volume of 16.9 cubic feet per ton is suitable for the estimation of tonnage and contained pounds. This is based on current measurements. Although additional specific volume information should be obtained, CAM believes this value is suitable for estimation of an inferred and indicated resource.

14.1 Determination of Uranium Content Resource estimation in “roll front” uranium is additionally complicated by the fact that actual chemical assay data is usually not available for most of the drill holes. Instead, the amount of parent uranium in the ground is indirectly calculated from the gamma-ray intensity from the daughter products of radioactive decay of uranium. Because of the geochemical mobility of uranium, the radioactive daughter elements which register in the gamma-ray count may not accurately reflect the amount of uranium actually present; therefore, analyses comparing actual (chemically-determined) uranium content to gamma-ray data are required. The ratio of uranium actually present to that calculated from the gamma-ray count is a measure of the radiogenic equilibrium of the system. At equilibrium, the chemically-analyzed uranium matches that observed in gamma-ray count. 14.2 Databases Databases used were provided to CAM as a series of spreadsheets. Basic statistics on these databases are given in the Tables 14-1 through 14-5.

Table 14-1 Bullrush Drilling Statistics from Database

Number of Holes 74

Number of holes with non-collar downhole surveys 0

Number miinineralized Intervals (eU3O8) 152

Length of Mineralized Intervals (eU3O8) 671.6


Table 14-2 Day Loma Drilling Statistics from Database

Number of Holes 1,996

Number of Holes with Non-Collar Downhole Surveys 0

Number of Mineralized Intervals (eU3O8) 2,415

Length of Mineralized Intervals (eU3O8) 9,603.4

Table 14-3 George Ver Drilling Statistics from Database

Number of Holes 928

Number of holes with Non-Collar Downhole Surveys 0

Number of Mineralized Intervals (eU3O8) 194


Table 14-4 Loco Lee Drilling Statistics from Database

Number of Holes 818

Number of holes with Non-Collar Downhole Surveys 0



Table 14-5 Rock Hill Drilling Statistics from Database

Number of Holes 653

Number of Holes with Non-Collar Downhole Surveys 0



It will be noted that there are no downhole surveys in the historic database and new drilling was assumed vertical as confirmed by actual downhole surveys. This reflects the historic practice of drilling vertically with few if any downhole surveys. Current Strathmore drilling followed the historic practice of drilling vertically but holes were downhole surveyed. 14.3 Geometry of Models The extent of each grid model was approximately 400 feet beyond any drill holes used in the estimate. Geometric parameters of the 3-d models used are given in Tables 14-6 thru 14-10.


Table 14-6 Strathmore Gas Hills - Bullrush - Model Geometric Parameters

Origin (Feet) Number of Block Size (Feet) Northing Easting

Elevation

840,000.00 2,261,600.00

5,600.00

Rows Columns Benches

520 560 200

Row Column Bench

5.00 5.00 5.00

Table 14-7 Strathmore Gas Hills – Day Loma - Model Geometric Parameters


Elevation

812,200.00 2,255,000.00

5,800.00


1680 1160 200

Row Column Bench

5.00 5.00 5.00

Table 14-8 Strathmore Gas Hills – George Ver - Model Geometric Parameters


Elevation

812,200.00 2,255,100.00

5,900.00


1280 1200 200

Row Column Bench

5.00 5.00 5.00

Table 14-9 Strathmore Gas Hills – Loco Lee - Model Geometric Parameters

Origin (Feet) Number of Block Size (Feet)

Northing Easting

Elevation

816,400.00 2,248,400.00

5,700.00


1520 1440 200

Row Column Bench

5.00 5.00 5.00

Table 14-10 Strathmore Gas Hills – Rock Hill - Model Geometric Parameters


Elevation

854,600.00 2,297,800.00

6,000.00


280 800 200

Row Column Bench

5.00 5.00 5.00

14.4 Data Review Based on past experience with roll fronts, CAM investigated the connectivity of the mineralized stringers by constructing five three-dimensional models on 5 foot benches using 5 foot bench composites based on the presence of intercepts thicker than 1 foot and greater than 0.035 %eU3O8 assuming the stringers are horizontal. (Stringers do have slightly different and variable dips of course, but most are approximately horizontal.) These five models were visually reviewed on-screen by row and column and this confirmed


the hypothesis that mineralization occurred in more or less flat lying and more importantly connected stringers. This methodology is unchanged from the prior 43-101 where it is discussed on greater detail. 14.5 Exploratory Data Analysis, Statistics and Geostatistics CAM reviewed the three-dimensional characteristics of the data as well is a cumulative frequency plots of top of ore and depth. In some cases intercepts which did not fit three dimensionally or statistically with the general trend of the data were excluded from the resource estimate. Specific elevation or depth exclusions are detailed below the individual figures. CAM reviewed statistics and geostatistics of total grade thickness and total thickness by hole for each of the five areas using cumulative frequency plots and omnidirectional 2-D variograms derived from logs. Cummulative frequency plots and omnidirectional 2-D variograms for total grade thickness are shown in Figures 14-1 through 14-10. The cumulative frequency plots usually showed a classic lognormal distribution with a low-end tail corresponding to zero grade holes. There were sometimes slight outliers at the high-end but these were in general below the trend of the cumulative frequency line and since holes near the nose of the roll tend to be higher grade thickness capping was not applied. The variograms were in general typical of roll front uranium and were automatically fitted using the variance of all the data which resulted in some cases with variograms not entirely visually consistent with the data. In almost all cases the range of the variograms was about 200 feet.


Figure 14-1 Bullrush TGT+0.10

Log Cumulative Frequency

Figure 14-2 Bullrush TGT+0.10

Omnidirectional Log Variogram

Figure 14-3 Day Loma TGT+0.10


Figure 14-4 Day Loma TGT+0.10


Intercepts used in the day Loma resource estimate were constrained to lie between elevations of 6,190 and 6,570 feet.


Figure 14-5 George -Ver TGT+0.10


Figure 14-6 George-Ver TGT+0.10


Figure 14-7 Loco-Lee TGT+0.10

Log Cumulative Freq

Figure 14-8 Loco-Lee TGT+0.10


Only intercepts above the minimum elevation of 6,330 feet were used in the Loco Lee resource estimate.


Figure 14-9 Rock Hill TGT+0.10


Figure 14-10 Rock Hill TGT+0.10


Only intercepts less than 160 feet deep were used in the Rock Hill resource estimate. 14.6 Resource Estimation 14.6.1 Grade Thickness Contours Using grade thickness contours to calculate resources is accepted engineering practice for roll front uranium deposits (e.g. NI 43-101 resource report on Sheep Mountain for Titan Uranium, March 2011). If a contouring algorithm which honors the data is used, the results in terms of totals are often not dissimilar to the widely-used Nearest-Neighbor method. However, there is no single contouring package which seems to be preferred in uranium. CAM examined several different contouring algorithms available in the public domain and commercially. CAM finally settled on estimation using all the data with a zero nugget linear variogram. The underlying mathematics of this estimation technique is the same as kriging but the zero nugget linear variogram assures that the input data is honored. This is a linear estimator and may be mathematically shown to give exactly the same total resource as if the roll fronts were split into individual rolls or by flitches or benches and estimated using the same contouring algorithm for each unit. This statement, while mathematically correct, requires careful attention to how individual intercepts are split between individual rolls or by flinches or benches and how cutoffs are applied. Although grade-thickness and thickness maps are very useful as an aid in visualizing the plan geometry of the roll fronts, a smooth contour map which honors the data may present the following issues:


1. It is possible to have values on the contour map that are greater than the maximum or less than the minimum. Typically values greater than the maximum are not unreasonable but however in some cases values on the contour map will be less than zero.

2. If one vertically combines contour maps for several different zones the resulting map may not be the same as if one vertically combined the data and then re-contoured the totals. This is not a problem with linear estimators such as contouring all the data with a zero nugget linear variogram (used for the resource estimate), inverse distance and nearest neighbor.

3. The behavior of values in front of the nose of the roll is significantly different than values behind the nose.

4. A smooth contour map that honors the data is inconsistent with the geostatistics of roll front uranium which normally has a fairly high nugget. Part of this problem is a hit-or-miss nature when drilling near the nose of the roll. This inconsistency is also due to the fact that roll front uranium data is not covariance stationary (a fundamental geostatistical assumption: i.e. one averages things separated by a distance in certain directions and then assume these averages apply to everything in the dataset.) This was also alluded to in item 3.

5. Manual contouring is very time-consuming with the amount of data associated with roll front uranium deposits and has a risk of bias.

Additional details and explanation of the resource estimation methodology for Day Loma and Rock Hill is given in the prior report which is incorporated by reference. Contour maps of TGT for the 5 areas along with comments are given in the next 5 sections.


14.6.2 Bullrush Resource Estimate Grade thickness contours for inferred resources at Bullrush are shown in Figure 14-11. It appears that additional drilling should be done around the periphery of the interpreted mineralized zone. Depending on the results of this drilling, the mineralized zone should be revised.

Figure 14-11

Bullrush Grade Thickness Resource Model Plan View


14.6.3 Day Loma Resource Estimates Grade thickness contours for indicated and inferred resources at Day Loma are shown in Figure 14-12. It appears that additional drilling in the east central area might increase the amount of indicated and inferred material. Additional drilling is needed along the Southwest edge of the apparent roll front to more precisely define its location.

Figure 14-12

Day Loma Grade Thickness Resource Model Plan View


14.6.4 George-Ver Resource Estimation Grade thickness contours for indicated and inferred resources at George-Ver are shown in Figure 14-13. Note that there are three separate areas of inferred resources. Before the 200 foot extrapolation constraint was applied to this contour map the map showed connectivity of mineralized material. Additional drilling here may potentially increase the size of the mineral resource, and connect these three areas.

Figure 14-13

George-Ver Grade Thickness Resource Model Plan View


14.6.5 Loco-Lee Resource Estimates Grade thickness contours for inferred material at Loco-Lee are shown in Figure 14-14. As with George-Ver there are four areas of not connected mineralization which were connected before the 200 foot extrapolation constraint on inferred was applied. It appears that additional drilling in this area may have the potential of increasing the amount ofinferred material.

Figure 14-14

Loco-Lee Grade Thickness Resource Model Plan View


14.6.6 Rock Hill Resource Estimates Grade thickness contours for inferred resources at Rock Hill are shown in Figure 14-15. Additional drilling north of the more densely drilled area is needed to better define the resource at Rock Hill.

Figure 14-15

Rock Hill Grade Thickness Resource Model Plan View


14.7 Resource Tabulation Indicated Mineral Resources are summarized in Table 14-11.

Table 14-11 Gas Hills Indicated Mineral Resource Estimates – 22 March 2013

Area Cutoffs

Tons (1,000,000s)


(1,000,000s)

Average Thickness

(ft) Grade

(eU3O8%) Grade *

Thickness Grade

(eU3O8%) Thickness

(ft) Day Loma 1.0 0.035 0.035 1.4 4.0 0.14 4.4

George-Ver 1.0 0.035 0.035 0.9 1.4 0.08 4.1

Total 1.0 0.035 0.035 2.3 5.4 0.13 4.3

Note: Tons and contained pounds are reported to the nearest 100,000. Average grade and average thickness are reported to two and

one decimal places respectively. This does not imply this degree of accuracy; the usual accuracy of an inferred resource estimate is less than one significant digit.

Total pounds, tons, and average grade and grade thickness may not reconcile with totals and averages calculated from table values due to rounding.

Cutoffs for grade and thickness are applied to each mineralized intercept used in the resource estimate. Cutoff for grade thickness is applied to the contour map.

One foot is about the minimum open pit minable thickness and 0.035 eU3O8% is 0.7 lbs/ton which at $50/lb U3O8 is $35/ton material, this is reasonable for an indicated resource.

It should be noted that mineral resources, which are not mineral reserves, do not have demonstrated economic viability.

Inferred Mineral Resources are summarized in Table 14-12.

Table 14-12 Gas Hills Inferred Mineral Resource Estimates – 22 March 2013

Area Cutoffs

Tons (1,000,000s)


(1,000,000s)

Average Thickness

(ft) Grade

(eU3O8%) Grade *

Thickness Grade

(eU3O8% ) Thickness

(ft) Bull Rush 1.0 0.035 0.035 0.9 0.9 0.05 5.7

Day Loma 1.0 0.035 0.035 0.6 1.2 0.10 3.2

George-Ver 1.0 0.035 0.035 0.4 0.5 0.07 3.2

Loco-Lee 1.0 0.035 0.035 1.0 1.2 0.06 3.2

Rock Hill 1.0 0.035 0.035 1.1 1.7 0.08 8.3

Total 1.0 0.035 0.035 3.9 5.5 0.07 5.1

Note: Tons and contained pounds are reported to the nearest 100,000. Average grade and average thickness are reported to two and

one decimal places respectively. This does not imply this degree of accuracy; the usual accuracy of an inferred resource estimate is less than one significant digit.

Total pounds, tons, and average grade and grade thickness may not reconcile with totals and averages calculated from table values due to rounding.

Cutoffs for grade and thickness are applied to each mineralized intercept used in the resource estimate. Cutoff for grade thickness is applied to the contour map.

One foot is about the minimum open pit minable thickness and 0.035 eU3O8% is 0.7 lbs/ton which at $50/lb U3O8 is $35/ton material, this is reasonable for an inferred resource.

It should be noted that mineral resources, which are not mineral reserves, do not have demonstrated economic viability.


CAM believes that additional drilling, carried out in line with current CIM standards, can result in the conversion of most of the above inferred resources to measured and/or indicated. CAM is not aware of any known environmental, permitting, and legal, title, taxation, socio-economic, marketing, political, or other relevant factors by which the mineral resource estimates could be materially affected, other than the usual and well-known uncertainties of uranium price, input costs, and permitting delays. 14.8 Potential Based on Historical Data Section 6 (History) of this Technical Report catalogs the tonnage and grade estimates made by previous operators. CAM believes that additional exploration work in the discussed areas could potentially result in the discovery of mineralization which could eventually become classed as mineral resources. It should be noted that the estimates of exploration potential in Section 9 of this report are additional to the historical estimates, and additional to the compliant disclosures herein of mineral resources. 14.9 Recommendations Many of these recommendations involve items which CAM believes are required to bring historical data up to current NI 43-101 standards, including required documentation and chain of custody of the data. Although almost all the data was obtained from reputable mining companies and was apparently compiled according to accepted engineering practice at the time, current verification of this data is not possible. For example, the minimum for a drill hole to satisfy current practice there would have to be a traceable record of the collar location, downhole probing procedure, the gamma log from the probe (with data on probe calibration), and the factors used to calculate uranium from the area under the gamma log. Strathmore has the original or copies of nearly every log in the Day Loma and Rock Hill areas. Nearly every log has the required k-factors, deadtimes, and calibration information required to reproduce any historical calculations. High quality historical maps show the coordinates of the holes for each of these areas. Both areas also had retrievable core information for equilibrium comments. The quality of the historical information was acceptable to CAM to provide inferred resources for the two areas, in addition to indicated resources at Day Loma. Additionally Strathmore has now drilled in both areas with similar results for confirmation. The George Ver, Bullrush, and Loco Lee areas have less information, sometimes they do not have the drill log and the data has been acquired from the historical drill maps. No historical core information has been obtained. Twin drilling, washing out old holes, PFN logging and coring was completed in all three


areas to bring the mineralization present up to NI 43-101 compliant standards. Inferred resources were calculated in all three areas, in addition to indicated resources at George-Ver. CAM recommends the following:

1. Continue to resample historical holes, or drill twin holes, to obtain additional data compatible with current CIM standards, particularly as it relates to uranium/daughter equilibrium. These resamples and redrills/twins should concentrate on holes with missing elevations and should be uniformly distributed over the historical data, perhaps with a tendency to focus on economic-grade intercepts. Once it is validated that historical barren holes do not have potentially-economic mineralization, the focus should shift to better-grade holes and barren holes next to mineralization. CAM suggests that this work be initially done on nominal 400-foot centers.

2. Continue to try to obtain additional historical data and validate all historic data (see item 1). In some cases this data may be lost or may be unavailable due to inter-company issues. Notes on this should be included in future documents.

3. Assure all of the data particularly historic data which are carried into spreadsheets have consistent column names and include NAD 83 coordinates.

4. Review historic disturbance of surface topography relative to dates of drilling. Disturbances include mining, backfill, waste dumps, and reclamation and CAM suggests that a surface map showing these four states of surface topography be developed. Make an effort to define the surface representing the lowest open pit mining and the elevation of underground mining operations. CAM excluded all material within known pit crests and within the plan area of known underground operations from the resource tabulation which may be conservative.

5. Undertake further drilling to expand and upgrade the compliant mineral resources.


15.0 MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES At present there are no mineral reserves estimated. 16.0 MINING METHODS Section 16 is not applicable to Strathmore’s Gas Hills project, which is still at the Exploration Stage. 17.0 RECOVERY METHODS Section 17 is not applicable to Strathmore’s Gas Hills project, which is still at the Exploration Stage. 18.0 PROJECT INFRASTRUCTURE Section 18 is not applicable to Strathmore’s Gas Hills project, which is still at the Exploration Stage. 19.0 MARKET STUDIES AND CONTRACTS Section 19 is not applicable to Strathmore’s Gas Hills project, which is still at the Exploration Stage. 20.0 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, PERMITTING & SOCIAL OR COMMUNITY IMPACT Section 20 is not applicable to Strathmore’s Gas Hills project, which is still at the Exploration Stage. 21.0 CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS Section 21 is not applicable to Strathmore’s Gas Hills project, which is still at the Exploration Stage. 22.0 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS Section 22 is not applicable to Strathmore’s Gas Hills project, which is still at the Exploration Stage.


23.0 ADJACENT PROPERTIES Strathmore’s properties are in general surrounded by mineral properties held by others, including Cameco. However, all of the samples used to evaluate the Strathmore properties are from within the Strathmore properties, and all of the mineral resources and mineral potential described herein lie entirely within the Strathmore properties. Cameco has been observed to be conducting exploration drilling on their claims in the Gas Hills District and is actively permitting an in-situ recovery operation in the Gas Hills to extract uranium. Cameco has a Permit to Mine for the WDEQ-LQD (Permit #687) and a Source Materials License (SUA-1548) from the US NRC. The US BLM recently completed a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (November 2012). Production is slated to begin in 2014 (Wyoming Business Report, Feb. 22, 2011). The Cameco properties abut Strathmore’s on Cameco’s western, eastern and southern extents. On Cameco’s website they report Mineral Reserves and Resources of:

Classification Tonnes Grade % eU3O8 Pounds Probable Reserve 999,200 0.11 2,400,000

Measured Resource 1,964,200 0.08 3,400,000 Indicated Resource 6,857,900 0.12 18,800,000 Inferred Resource 861,500 0.07 1,300,000

Source: http://www.cameco.com/exploration/reserves/ (reported as of December 31, 2012)

Cautionary Statement It should be noted that the extent of mineral reserves and resources on Cameco’s Gas Hill properties may not be indicative of the mineralization that is present or to be potentially discovered on Strathmore’s adjacent properties. The authors of this report have no access to Cameco’s proprietary data and thus, cannot confirm their mineral reserves and resources.

http://www.cameco.com/exploration/reserves/


24.0 OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION The authors are not aware of any material fact or change with respect to the subjects of this report which is not reflected in this report, the exclusion of which would make this report misleading.


25.0 INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS The six project areas reviewed by CAM for the estimation of resources include: Bullrush; Day Loma, George-Ver; Loco-Lee; Rock Hill and Tablestakes. All of these properties have significant historical resources and each has at least several hundred historical holes. All of the properties have additional analyses by PFN which provides a direct measure of uranium as opposed to gamma logs which are an indirect measure of uranium through radiation from uranium daughter products. In two of the areas, Day Loma and George-Ver, sufficient and consistent PFN and gamma log data was spatially distributed over the property to allow estimation of an indicated resource. In five areas, Bullrush, Day Loma, George-Ver, Loco-Lee, and Rock Hill, sufficient and consistent PFN and gamma log data was spatially distributed over the property to allow estimation of an inferred resource. The Tablestakes and Jeep project areas and Beaver Rim exploration area do not have sufficient data to allow measured, indicated and inferred resources to be calculated at this time. CAM believes that additional drilling, probing and sampling with direct measure of uranium will allow the mineralization to be defined as measured and indicated resources. There is probably additional historical data which would be useful for Strathmore to pursue. For the area covered by additional historical data (Andria, Amazon, Badlands, Frazier-Lamac, Sunset), CAM does not expect significant changes from the historical resource numbers to mineral resources as currently defined, but this expectation must be confirmed by additional data. In addition to the properties reviewed above that have abundant historical drill data, Strathmore’s property also contains several exploration targets that merit further exploration. Each target either contains known uranium mineralization as determined by historical exploration activities, or is adjacent to known uranium mineralization. The characteristics of each target such as grade, length of mineralized trend, width or thickness can only be projected from nearby areas containing well-defined mineralized bodies. These are exploration targets and merit further drilling. CAM believes that these exploration targets could contain 3 to 12 million pounds of contained U3O8 that could potentially be economically recovered. Additional exploration drilling is recommended for these targets. The reader is cautioned that potential quantity and grade is conceptual in nature; exploration activity has not been sufficient to define a mineral resource and it is uncertain that further exploration will result in the targets being delineated as a mineral resource. The bases on which the disclosed potential quantities and grades have been determined are set forth in the discussion of each area in Section 9.9 of this report. A large area on Strathmore’s claim block with significant discovery potential lies to the south of Beaver Rim Divide. Regional geologic studies and limited exploration drilling, both historic and by Strathmore, indicate that area is underlain by the arkose host rock favorable for uranium mineralization. Geologic


features also suggest uranium roll fronts may be present. Roll-uranium mineralization was discovered in the Allegreti trend area, but otherwise the collapse of the nuclear industry in 1979 prevented the follow-up closely-spaced drilling that would be required to define a deposit. CAM concludes that the area south of Beaver Rim Divide has geologic features favorable for roll-type uranium mineralization. CAMECO is reportedly in possession of results from historical drilling in this area, but at the date of this report, Strathmore has not had access to that data. More exploration drilling clearly is justified in this area.


26.0 RECOMMENDATIONS Many of these recommendations involve items which CAM believes are required to bring historical data up to current NI 43-101 standards, including required documentation and chain of custody of the data. Although almost all the data was obtained from reputable mining companies and was apparently compiled according to accepted engineering practice at the time, current verification of this data is not possible. For example, the minimum for a drill hole to satisfy current practice there would have to be a traceable record of the collar location, downhole probing procedure, the gamma log from the probe (with data on probe calibration), and the factors used to calculate uranium from the area under the gamma log. 26.1 Drilling database CAM recommends the following actions, as detailed in Section 14.10, above:

1. Continue to resample historical holes, or drill twin holes, to obtain additional data compatible with current CIM standards, particularly as it relates to uranium/daughter equilibrium. These resamples and redrills/twins should concentrate on holes with missing elevations and should be uniformly distributed over the historical data, perhaps with a tendency to focus on economic-grade intercepts. Once it is validated that historical barren holes do not have potentially-economic mineralization, the focus should shift to better-grade holes and barren holes next to mineralization. CAM suggests that this work be initially done on nominal 400-foot centers.

2. Continue to try to obtain additional historical data and validate all historic data (see item 1). In some cases this data may be lost or may be unavailable due to inter-company issues. Notes on this should be included in future documents.

3. Assure all of the data particularly historic data which are carried into spreadsheets have consistent column names and include NAD 83 coordinates.

4. Review historic disturbance of surface topography relative to dates of drilling. Disturbances include mining, backfill, waste dumps, and reclaimation and CAM suggests that a surface map showing these four states of surface topography be developed. Make an effort to define the surface representing the lowest open pit mining and the elevation of underground mining operations. CAM excluded all material within known pit crests and within the plan area of known underground operations from the resource tabulation which may be conservative.

26.2 Exploration Methodology and Modeling

1. Strathmore should continue the program whereby a certain proportion of the Strathmore-logged holes (initially at least 10%) are subjected to duplicate logging by certified independent parties. The proportion of duplicate-logged holes might be revised after review of initial results.


2. A program of determining tonnage factors should be undertaken, by systematic measurements of about 100 core samples which are sealed in cellophane prior to immersion. This program should be supervised and carried out by Strathmore personnel, to avoid the problems which normally arise when such work is farmed out to an outside commercial laboratory.

3. Undertake further drilling to expand and upgrade the compliant mineral resources. 4. Review the potential for modeling individual roll fronts as separate units, even though this is

contrary to historic practice in the Gas Hills because of the complexity and imbrication of the mineral stringers.

5. Completions of the previously recommended Work Program, costing about $US 7.7 million, is recommended for the remainder of 2012 and into 2013. The major remaining components of the Work Program are continuing exploration and confirmation drilling ($2.3 million) and metallurgical tests ($0.171 million) involving over 162,000 feet of drilling and gamma and PFN logging. The Work Program drilling is for several purposes:

a. to elevate the resource status from inferred to indicated and measured and increase indicated as warranted;

b. to explore the trends and potential mineral targets discussed in Section 9 of this report, which may contain extensions of recognized mineralization; and

c. to obtaining geologic information and indications of mineralization that will justify follow-up close-spaced exploration drilling through reconnaissance exploration drilling south of Beaver Rim divide.

6. The other portions of the Work Program are intended to advance the design and permitting of the process facilities for eventual production and will likely extend thru 2013.

26.3 Further Exploration Exploration drilling, undertaken to generate resource estimates compliant with NI 43-101 disclosure requirements, should continue on the five known deposit areas in the Main Gas Hills district. This drilling is for several purposes:

to elevate the resource status in the five areas from inferred and indicted to indicated and measured as warranted;

to classify as NI 43-101-compliant resources those portions of the project areas which have historical tonnages, or insufficient drilling; and

to explore the trends discussed in Section 9 of this report, which may contain extensions of recognized mineralization.

In addition, reconnaissance exploration drilling south of Beaver Rim divide should focus on obtaining geologic information and indications of mineralization that will justify follow-up close-spaced drilling.


A suggested completion of the budgeted work plan presented in the previous report for continued exploration at Gas Hills is shown on Table 26-1. It is expected that the exploration could be completed by year-end 2013. The drill holes should be rather uniformly distributed over the area of mineralization to be confirmed, although the precise locations will be based on reviews of geology and logistics.

Table 26-1 Work Program for April to December, 2013

Area Component Basis US $ (rounded)

Day Loma NE, SE / Loco-Lee Targets

Rotary drilling 40 holes @ 400 ft/hole @$16.71/ft 268,000

PFN Hole logging 40 holes @ $500/hole 20,000

Geologic support 40 holes @ $550/hole 22,000

Site preparation 40 sites @ $160/site 6,400

Reclamation 40 holes @ $300/site 12,000

Sub-Total – Day Loma / Loco-Lee Targets 328,400

George-Ver: Frazier-Lamac Historical and Antelope Targets

Rotary drilling 50 holes @ 250 ft/hole @$8.85/ft 110,000





Sub-Total – George-Ver Targets 186,000

Tablestakes and Amazon, Sunset and Badlands Historical Targets

Rotary Drilling 50 holes @ 250 ft/hole @ $6.30/ft 79,000


Geologic support 50 hole @ $550/hole 28,000



Sub-Total – Tablestakes Targets 155,000

Andria Historical Target

Rotary Drilling 20 holes @ 200 ft/hole @ $12.43/ft 50,000





Sub-Total – Andria Target 80,200

SUBTOTAL - Drilling and Exploration Activities (Completion of Phase 1 Activities carried out from April to June, 2013) 749,600

Drilling Permits * Drilling Plan of Operations Beaver Rim Plan of Operation (POO) 30,000

Bonding Drilling and other All Gas Hills areas – Additional Bonding 50,000

Environmental Studies Wildlife, Archaeology Clear Lower Gas Hills POO 75,000

Other Permitting All areas 350,000

Metallurgy Metallurgical testing ( Bottle roll and Column leach testing) Additional Testing 200,000

Engineering Entire Project 840,000

NRC License Baseline data Arch, soils, wildlife, hydrology 250,000

NRC regulatory Regulatory fees 450,000


Table 26-1 Work Program for April to December, 2013

Area Component Basis US $ (rounded)

Land Holding Costs Total Land Holding Costs BLM, Lease, RTC 254,000

Riverton Office Project Office, Drilling Admin. 7 months @ $10,000/month 90,000

Geology and Resources All areas 175,000

Management Fees All activities 300,000

SUBTOTAL – Mine and Mill Site Permitting Activities (Carried out from April to December, 2013) 3,064,000

GRAND TOTAL 3,813,600

CAM has reviewed the budget provided in Table 26-1, and find the amounts allocated to drilling and other exploration activities to be adequate for testing of the described mineral targets. Since CAM has not undertaken any engineering or economic studies of potential production scenarios, CAM cannot comment on the amounts budgeted for design or other non-exploration items.


27.0 REFERENCES Adler, H.H., 1964, The Conceptual Uranium Ore Roll and Its Significance in Uranium Exploration: Econ. Geology, v. 59, p. 46-53 American Nuclear Corporation, 1985, Gas Hills Mineral Inventory Report as of January 1, 1984, 422p., 2 plates (claim location map), February 5, 1985. Anderson, D.C., 1969, Uranium deposits of the Gas Hills: in Parker, R.B. ed., Contributions to Geology, Wyoming Uranium Issue, Univ. Wyoming, Laramie, v. 8, no. 2, plate 1, p.. 93-103. Anonymous, 1979, Gas Hills Uranium District, Day Loma/ROX claims, Exploration Progress Report, June 1979, 33p. Armstrong, F.C., 1970, Geologic factors controlling uranium resources in the Gas Hills district, Wyoming: Wyoming Geol. Assoc. 22nd Annual Field Conf. Guidebook, p. 31-44. Dames & Moore, 1976, Evaluation of four uranium claim groups in Wyoming for Adobe Oil & Gas Corporation: unpublished report, 39p plus appendices, Denver, CO David S. Robinson & Associates, Inc., 1979, Estimate of uranium reserves, Day Loma and Rox claims for Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc., Sept 11, 1979, 13p, 3 maps. Davis, J.F., 1969, Uranium deposits of the Powder River Basin, Wyoming uranium issue, Contr. Geology, v. 8, no. 2, pt. 1, p. 131-141. Eargle, D.H., Dickinson, K.A. and Davis, B.O., 1975, South Texas uranium deposits: American Assoc. Petrol. Geol. Bull., v. 59, no. 5, p. 766-779. Energy Fuels, Inc., 1978, Geology and ore reserve calculations of the Gas Hills properties, Wyoming: 50p., 10 plates, June 2, 1978. Energy Fuels, Inc., 1979, Gas Hills Uranium District, Day Loma/ROX claims, Exploration Progress Report, 100p., 15 plates (drill hole and resource estimate maps), June 1979. Finch, W.I., 1996, Uranium provinces of North America—their definition, distribution, and models: U.S. Geol. Survey Bull. 2141, 13p.


Germanov, A.N., 1960, Main genetic features of some infiltration type hydrothermal uranium deposits: Ak. Nauk. SSSR Izv.. Ser. Geol. no. 8, p. 60-71. Granger, H.C. and Warren, C.G., 1974, Zoning in the altered tongue associated with roll-type uranium deposits: Internat. Atomic Energy Agency, Symposium uranium ore deposits, Athens, May 6-10, 1974. Granger, H.C. and Warren, C.G., 1978, Some speculations on the genetic geochemistry and hydrology of roll-type uranium deposits: Wyoming Geol. Assoc. Guidebook, p. 341-361. Greer, Mavis and Greer, John, 2007, An intensive cultural resource survey of the Strathmore Resources (US), Ltd., George-Ver, Le Mac properties, Gas Hills district, uranium mine planning block, Fremont County, Wyoming: Greer Services, Casper, Wyoming, Report 6908. Harshman, E.N., 1962, Alteration as a guide to uranium ore, Shirley Basin, Wyoming, U.S.G.S. Prof. Paper 450-D, Article 122, p. D8-D10. King, J.W., Noble, E.A., Russell, R.T. and Austin, S.R., 1965, Preliminary report on the geology and uranium deposits of the Gas Hills area, Fremont and Natrona counties, Wyoming: U.S. Atomic Energy Comm., Grand Junction Office Resource Potential Division, 62p. King, J.W. and Austin S.R, Some characteristics of roll-type uranium deposits at Gas Hills, Wyoming: Mining Engineering, no. 5, p.73-80. Mining Intelligence Map of the Gas Hills District, 1977, published by IntraSearch Inc. Denver, CO Mullin Mining Group, 1977, Rock Hill Mine Plan Report: Engineering and Feasibility Study, internal company document, October 1977. Permits West Inc., 2012, George/Ver mine, Strathmore Resources (US) Ltd., Appendix D-9, Wildlife, Santa Fe, New Mexico. Shawe, D.R., 1956, Significance of roll ore bodies in genesis of uranium-vanadium deposits on the Colorado plateau: U.S.G.S. Prof. Paper 300, p.239-241. Shawe, D.R. and Granger, H.C., 1965, Uranium ore rolls—an analysis: Econ. Geol., v.60, p.240-250. Snow, C.D., 1971, Sedimentary tectonics of the Wind River formation, Gas Hills uranium district, Wyoming: 23rd Annual Field Conference, Wyoming Geol. Assoc. Guidebook, p.81-83.


Snow, C.D., 1978, Gas Hills uranium district, Wyoming—A review of history and production: 30th Annual Conf., Wyoming Geol. Assoc. Guidebook p.329-333. Snow, C.D., 2007, Technical report on the Jeep uranium property, Fremont County Wyoming: dated June 3, 2007, filed on SEDAR 23 July 2007. 33 pages in .pdf format. Snow, C.D., 2011, Technical Report on the Gas Hills uranium project, Fremont and Natrona Counties, Wyoming: prepared for Strathmore Minerals, dated July 20, 2011, filed on SEDAR on July 21, 2011. 137 pages. The report was prepared along NI 43-101 guidelines and filed on SEDAR, but did not comply with current CIM standards, according to a Strathmore news release dated August 19, 2011. Snow, C.D., Oct 12, 2011, Report on the Gas Hills uranium project, Fremont and Natrona Counties, Wyoming: internal Strathmore report, includes list of unpublished company documents, 175p.


28.0 DATE AND SIGNATURE PAGE 28.1 Certificate of Author Richard L. Nielsen I, Richard L. Nielsen, of 13741 Braun Drive, Golden, CO 80401, hereby certify that: (a) I am a Consulting Geologist, affiliated with Chlumsky, Armbrust and Meyer LLC at 12600 W.

Colfax Avenue, Suite A-140, Lakewood, Colorado 80215, USA. (b) This Certificate applies to the report (the “Technical Report”) entitled “National Instrument 43-101

Technical Report Update of Gas Hills Uranium Project, Fremont and Natrona Counties, Wyoming, USA” with an effective date of 20 November 2012.

(c) I am Certified Professional Geologist number CPG-11459 of the American Institute of Professional Geologists. I graduated from the California Institute of Technology with a B.S. and M.S. degree in Geology. I earned a PhD. degree in Geology from the University of California, Berkeley. I have practiced my profession as an exploration geologist continuously since 1964. From 1964 to present, I have worked on mining exploration projects in over 20 countries, including manager of uranium exploration for ARCO/Anaconda Minerals Inc.

(d) I have read the definition of “qualified person” set out in National Instrument 43-101, and certify that by reason of my education, affiliation with a professional association, and past relevant work experience, I fulfill the requirements to be a “qualified person” for the purposes of NI 43-101.

(e) My most recent personal inspections of the subject property and associated information in the Riverton office of Strathmore were on January 24-25, 2012 and April 24-26, 2012.

(f) I am responsible for the preparation of Sections 1 through 10, and 15 to 27 of the Technical Report. (g) As defined in Section 1.5 of National Instrument 43-101, I am independent of Strathmore. (h) I have read National Instrument 43-101 and Form 43-101F1, and certify that the parts of the

Technical Report that I am responsible for, have been prepared in compliance with National Instrument 43-101 and Form 43-101F1.

(i) At the effective date of this technical report, to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, the technical report, or part that I am responsible for, contains all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the technical report not misleading.

Dated 22 March 2013 Original signed version on file in CAM office Signed “Richard L. Nielsen” Ph.D., CPG


28.2 Certificate of Author Thomas C. Pool I, Thomas C. Pool, 2024 Goldenvue Drive, Golden, CO 80401, hereby certify that: (a) I am a Consulting Mining Engineer, affiliated with Chlumsky, Armbrust and Meyer LLC at 12600

W. Colfax Avenue, Suite A-140, Lakewood, Colorado 80215, USA. (b) This Certificate applies to the report (the “Technical Report”) entitled “National Instrument 43-101


(c) I am Registered Professional Engineer Number 12108 in the state of Colorado, USA, and a member of the Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration (SME). I graduated from the Colorado School of Mines with a Professional (EM) degree in Mining Engineering in 1967. I have practiced my profession as a mining engineer continuously since 1968. From 1975 to present, I have worked primarily in the uranium industry with an emphasis on the economics of production and evaluation of individual deposits.


(e) My most recent personal inspection of the subject property and associated information in the Riverton office of Strathmore was on January 24-25, 2012.

(f) I am responsible for the preparation of Sections 11 and 12 of the Technical Report. (g) As defined in Section 1.5 of National Instrument 43-101, I am independent of Strathmore. (h) I have read National Instrument 43-101 and Form 43-101F1, and certify that the parts of the



Dated 22 March 2013 Original signed and sealed version on file in CAM office Signed “Thomas C. Pool” P.E.


28.3 Certificate of Author Robert L. Sandefur I, Robert L. Sandefur, of 1139 South Monaco Parkway, Denver, CO 80224, hereby certify that: (a) I am a Principal Geostatistician, affiliated with Chlumsky, Armbrust and Meyer LLC at 12600 W.

Colfax Avenue, Suite A-140, Lakewood, Colorado 80215, USA. (b) This Certificate applies to the report (the “Technical Report”) entitled “National Instrument 43-101


(c) I am Certified Professional Engineer Number 11370 in the state of Colorado, USA, and a member of the Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration (SME). I graduated from the Colorado School of Mines with a Professional (BS) degree in engineering physics (geophysics minor) in 1966 and subsequently obtained a Master’s of Science degree in physics from the Colorado School of Mines in 1973. I have practiced my profession as a geostatistical resource analyst continuously since 1969. From 1969 to present, I have worked on mining projects in over 20 countries, have statistically analyzed more than 800 mineral deposits, and have personally visited more than 70 operating metal mines.


(e) My most recent personal inspection of the subject property and associated information in the Riverton office of Strathmore was on January 24-25, 2012.

(f) I am responsible for the preparation of Section 14, “Mineral Resources Estimates” of the Technical Report and those portions of other sections of the Technical Report that disclose mineral resources.

(g) As defined in Section 1.5 of National Instrument 43-101, I am independent of Strathmore. (h) I have read National Instrument 43-101 and Form 43-101F1, and certify that the parts of the



Dated 22 March 2013 Original signed and sealed version on file in CAM office Signed “Robert L. Sandefur” P.E.


28.4 Certificate of Author Matthew P. Reilly I, Matthew P. Reilly P.O. Box 3517 Estes Park, Colorado 80517 USA

hereby attest that:

a) I am a consulting mining engineer affiliated with Chlumsky, Armbrust and Meyer LLC at 12600 W. Colfax Avenue, Suite A-140, Lakewood, Colorado 80215, USA.

b) I am Professional Engineer in Mining in the state of Nevada, registration number 11646. a) I graduated from Colorado School of Mines in 1987 with a B.S. degree in Mining Engineering. b) I have practiced my profession as a mining engineer continuously since 1987. c) I have read the definition of “qualified person” set out in National Instrument 43-101 and certify

that by reason of my education, affiliation with a professional association and past relevant work experience, I fulfill the requirements to be a qualified person for the purposes of NI 43-101.

d) I am responsible for engineering review and final editing of the overall report entitled “National Instrument 43-101 Technical Report Update of Gas Hills Uranium Project, Fremont and Natrona Counties, Wyoming, USA” with an effective date of 22 March 2013, and for which the effective date is 20 November, 2012

e) I visited the Gas Hills property on November 7, 8, and 9, 2012. f) As defined in Canadian National Instrument 43-101, I am independent of the issuer, Strathmore

Resources (US), Ltd. g) I have read National Instrument 43-101 and Form 43-101F1, and the report has been prepared in

compliance with that Instrument and Form. h) I am not aware of any material fact or change with respect to the subjects of this report which is

not reflected in this report, the exclusion of which would make this report misleading. i) I hereby notify the Securities Commissions of all provinces of Canada of my consent to the filing

of this Technical Report with stock exchanges and other regulatory authorities in Canada, and any publication by them, including electronic publication in the public company files on their website accessible by the public, of the Technical Report.

Dated this 22 day of March, 2013 Original signed and sealed version on file in CAM office Signed “Matthew P. Reilly” P.E.

National Instrument 43-101 Technical Report Update of … Instrument 43-101 Technical Report . ......

Documents

Transcript of National Instrument 43-101 Technical Report Update of … Instrument 43-101 Technical Report . ......