Rodinia Completes NI 43-101 Report on Workman Creek Project
May 10, 2006
Vancouver, British Columbia…The Board of Directors of Rodinia Minerals Inc. (the “Company”) is pleased to announce that J. H. Montgomery, Ph.D., P. Eng. has completed a National Instrument 43-101 (“NI 43-101”) compliant technical report on the Workman Creek Uranium Project located in Gila County, Arizona (the “Report”). As previously announced, the Company holds the option to acquire a 100% interest in the project, subject to underlying royalties.
With the completion of the Report, the TSX Venture Exchange has accepted the Workman Creek Uranium Project as a Tier 1 Property and the Company is now proceeding with an application to graduate to Tier 1 on the Exchange.
Included in the Report is an estimate of an inferred resource of 2.353 million tons at an average grade of 0.086% U3O8, or 4.047 million pounds of U3O8, using a 0.05% U3O8 cutoff. This estimate was prepared by G.H. Giroux, P. Eng. based on historical data acquired from Wyoming Mineral Corporation, a subsidiary of Westinghouse, who owned the Project in the 1970’s and on whose behalf, Dravo Engineers and Contractors carried out major work. To arrive at this estimate, Mr. Giroux analyzed a total of 427 drill hole coordinates, 430 down hole surveys and 10,710 U3O8 determinations within the limits of the Workman South deposits. Values of 0.001% U3O8 were inserted in place of missing data to produce a total of 13,563 values. A total of 6 values were capped at 0.94% U3O8. In place of a geologic model, a 0.1% U3O8 indicator shell was used to constrain the estimate. Uniform down hole 5 ft composites were produced to honour the boundaries of the indicator shell. A bulk density of 12.14 cu.ft./ton was used to convert volume to tonnage. A model consisting of 50ft x 50ft x 10ft blocks was superimposed over the indicator solids and blocks were estimated by ordinary kriging.
In discussing this inferred resource estimate, which Dr. Montgomery notes is NI 43-101 compliant, the Report states:
“A pre-Feasibility study was completed in 1980 by Dravo Engineers and Contractors to determine the feasibility of mining the deposits. They termed it a "Feasibility Study" and reserves, mining, metallurgy, pit design and costs were studied. In today's terms, it would probably be called "a Pre-Feasibility Study”. Their geostatistical estimate of reserves in a preliminary mining plan encompassing both open pit and underground mining was 4.408 million tons with an average grade of 0.111 % U3O8. They proposed a conventional acid leach, solvent extraction and ammonia precipitation process. They did not proceed to the mining stage probably because of changes in economies…
This estimate was made prior to the implementation of National Instrument #43-101 and is not compliant with those regulations. ‘None of the historical estimates of tonnage and grade of the Workman Creek uranium deposits comply with National Instrument #43-101. The estimates are relevant only for their historical interest and as an indication of uranium mineralization of interest in place. These categories do not comply with CIM definitions, or use CIM terminology’.”
In discussing the historical estimates and the Report’s estimated inferred resource, Mr. Giroux notes:
“Uncertainties involving assays, missing data and bulk density preclude classifying any material at Workman Creek as measured or indicated. All blocks are classified as inferred at this time.
The methodology used by Dravo Engineers in 1980 …was a two-dimensional approach, kriging thickness and U3O8 accumulation (grade x thickness) with a search area of 200 ft in the north and 395 ft in the south. This approach produced a result of 4.4 million tons averaging 0.11% U3O8 (9.8 million pounds of U3O8). The methodology used in the current study is based on a three dimensional approach using roughly similar while smaller search ellipses tied to variography. The results at a 0.05% U3O8 cutoff show 2.4 million tons averaging 0.086 % U3O8 (4 million pounds of U3O8). With fairly similar approaches being taken the large differences in grades and contained metal can best be explained by missing data or lack of proper geologic constraint within the mineralized zones for the current study. The gap in time and possible loss of data between the two estimates make it very difficult to resolve the differences. The data base used for this estimate has no geologic constraint on mineralization and missing data has been replaced by 0.001% U3O8 values. Perhaps with a better understanding of geologic control on mineralization the constraints on estimation (3D solid model) could be tighter to the mineralized zones reducing the dilution that has undoubtedly been brought into the current estimate. To this end an extensive drill program that would collect both geologic data and both probe and geochemical assays would allow for a more accurate interpretation of the mineralization that would lead to a more precise and confident resource estimation.”
The Report recommends a program of confirmation and extension drilling to be followed by a scoping study, all at an estimated cost of US$1 million.
Don Morrison, President of the Company, stated: “Although the inferred resource estimate is lower than was estimated in 1980, we are encouraged by both the fact that Westinghouse appears to have been close to a decision to develop the project at that time, and also by Mr. Giroux’s explanation of the disparity. We are confident that additional drilling will assist in addressing the points raised in Mr. Giroux’s explanation.”
National Instrument 43-101 Disclosure
Both Dr. Montgomery and Mr. Giroux are Members of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of the Province of British Columbia and each is an Independent Qualified Person as defined by NI 43-101. They have verified the data disclosed, including the sampling, analytical and test data underlying the information and opinions contained in the Report. The effective date of the estimate of the inferred resource is May 4, 2006. Readers are cautioned that mineral resources which are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. Readers are also cautioned that, to the extent the Report may constitute a preliminary assessment in accordance with NI 43-101, such assessment is preliminary in nature, it includes inferred mineral resources that are considered too speculative geologically to have the economic considerations applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as mineral reserves, and there is no certainty that the preliminary assessment will be realized. Information on the key assumptions, parameters and methods used to estimate the inferred resource, as well as a discussion of the extent to which relevant issues materially affect the inferred resource estimate, and the qualifications and assumptions made by the qualified persons, may be reviewed in the Report, which will be filed on SEDAR and may be viewed at: www.sedar.com.
ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD
(sgd.) “Donald Morrison”, President
For further information, please contact Don Mosher, Director
Tel: (604) 685-6465
Fax: (604) 685-9744
The TSX Venture Exchange does not accept responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release. In addition, this release is not for distribution to U.S. newswire services or for dissemination in the United States.
Information Regarding Forward-Looking Statements: Except for historical information contained herein, the statements in this Press Release are forward-looking statements that are made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions in the Private Securities Legislation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties, which may cause Rodinia actual results in future periods to differ materially from forecasted results. Three risks and uncertainties include, among other things: volatility of nature resource prices; product demand ; market completion and risks inherent in Rodinia’s operations.