Dear John
I am not a Reefton employee nor a consultant acting on Reefton's behalf. To
ascertain whether Reefton has made a discovery of a commercially viable
uranium deposit, I suggest that you contact Reefton directly to obtain,
inter alia: geological plans & cross-sections, a drill hole plan, summary of
drill hole assays, a JORC-compliant resource statement & reserve statement
and a Competent Persons Report.
I am not a uranium specialist/expert nor have I ever claimed to be. My Ph.D.
thesis was on gold, tungsten & tin mineralisation to the east of Hakskeen.
You can obtain a copy of my thesis (which has nothing to do with uranium),
which was published as Memoir #16 of the Geological Survey of Namibia, from
the Survey in Windhoek.
Sincerely
Nick Steven
Dear John,
I am afraid that I have been mis-attributed in this article. The reporter
phoned me, but I did not have any direct information regarding the Hakskeen
deposit.
He told me that the radiometric anomaly was reportedly related to thorium. I
then told him that if that was the case, then the anomaly could not be
related to carnotite in calcrete/gypcrete as carnotite does not contain
thorium. I then explained to him the nature of thorium anomalies - that
section is correctly attributed to me.
I told him that I visit the Rossing area (not Hakskeen area) on an annual
basis to show my students the difference between real and false uranium
anomalies.
All the references attributed to me regarding the nature of the Hakskeen
deposit and aerial anomalies are incorrect as I had no knowledge of the
geology of the area.
I therefore cannot help you in this regard and suggest that you contact Dr
Steven.
Regards
John Moore
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
EMBATTLED uranium explorer Reefton Mining has asked for a retraction from a Namibian newspaper that published a report casting serious doubt on the potential for uranium at the company's Erongo project in Namibia.
In a story recently published in the Namibian national newspaper, Professor John Moore of the Rhodes University Geology Department was quoted as saying he would be very surprised if Hakskeen, within Erongo, contained "real and viable" quantities of uranium.
However Reefton chief executive officer Simon Gilbert told MiningNews.net he had contacted Professor Moore regarding the story and was advised by Moore that he was quoted out of context. Gilbert said Moore had emailed this statement regarding quotes attributed to him in the story.
"I am afraid I have been miss-attributed in this article," Moore has told Gilbert.
"The reporter phoned me but I did not have any direct information regarding the Hakskeen deposit. He told me that the radiometric anomaly was reportedly related to thorium. I then told him that if that was the case then the anomaly could not be related to carnotite, as carnotite does not contain thorium.
"I then explained to him the nature of thorium anomalies and that section is correctly attributed to me. I told him that I visit the Rossing area (not Hakskeen area) on an annual basis, to show my students the difference between real and false anomalies.
All the references attributed to me regarding the nature of the Hakskeen deposit and area anomalies are incorrect, I have no knowledge of the geology of the area. I referred the reporter to Professor Jacobs and Dr Nick Stevens. It is possible he has confused statements coming from Dr Nick Stevens as coming from me."
Dr Nick Stevens, a Cape Town-based geologist who wrote his doctorate on the geology of the Hakskeen region, was also quoted in the story as saying he was very sceptical about Reefton's announcement of a new uranium discovery on March 18.
Stevens claimed the geology of the granite-based deposit is distinctly different to other known uranium deposits in the region including the ASX-listed Paladin Resource's Langer Heinrich deposit.
"It is what we call monozite, a rare earth phosphate normally associated with heavy beach sands but one that also can give off a radioactive signal," Stevens said.
Gilbert said Reefton were also awaiting a response from Dr Stevens regarding his comments to the newspaper.
"We are waiting on a response from Stevens as well which will hopefully come through today and then I would think the company would be in a position to form a response to that.
"We actually want the paper to write, essentially a retraction article because they have mislead the public in a big way. You could potentially say that article has stripped 20% off the value of the company because since that has come out we have dropped from 10c down to 8c," Gilbert said.
Meantime the company is still awaiting resolution regarding the renewal applications for exploration licences at Erongo.
Shares in Reefton today were up almost 4% this morning to 8.1c.
Dear John,
I am afraid that I have been mis-attributed in this article. The reporter
phoned me, but I did not have any direct information regarding the Hakskeen
deposit.
He told me that the radiometric anomaly was reportedly related to thorium. I
then told him that if that was the case, then the anomaly could not be
related to carnotite in calcrete/gypcrete as carnotite does not contain
thorium. I then explained to him the nature of thorium anomalies - that
section is correctly attributed to me.
I told him that I visit the Rossing area (not Hakskeen area) on an annual
basis to show my students the difference between real and false uranium
anomalies.
All the references attributed to me regarding the nature of the Hakskeen
deposit and aerial anomalies are incorrect as I had no knowledge of the
geology of the area.
I therefore cannot help you in this regard and suggest that you contact Dr
Steven.
Regards
John Moore
Dear John
I am not a Reefton employee nor a consultant acting on Reefton's behalf. To
ascertain whether Reefton has made a discovery of a commercially viable
uranium deposit, I suggest that you contact Reefton directly to obtain,
inter alia: geological plans & cross-sections, a drill hole plan, summary of
drill hole assays, a JORC-compliant resource statement & reserve statement
and a Competent Persons Report.
I am not a uranium specialist/expert nor have I ever claimed to be. My Ph.D.
thesis was on gold, tungsten & tin mineralisation to the east of Hakskeen.
You can obtain a copy of my thesis (which has nothing to do with uranium),
which was published as Memoir #16 of the Geological Survey of Namibia, from
the Survey in Windhoek.
Sincerely
Nick Steven
el_ninj0 said:Renewed interest in this stock today and yesterday. Any ideas as to why?, i havn't seen any news or announcements on this stock.
tarnor said:uk rtm shares will be on the asx soon which will mean even more dumping. crazy to buy now
New Delhi, Aug 25 05: India today unveiled before the international community its revolutionary design of a Thorium Breeder Reactor (ATBR) that can produce 600 MW of electricity for two years "with no refuelling and practically no control manoeuvres."
Designed by scientists of Mumbai-based Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC), ATBR is claimed to be far more economical and safer than any power reactor in the world. Most significantly for India, ATBR does not require natural or enriched uranium, which the country is finding difficult to import.
It uses thorium -- which India has in plenty -- and only requires plutonium as "seed" to ignite the reactor core initially.
Eventually, ATBR can be running entirely with thorium and fissile uranium-233 bred inside the reactor (or obtained externally by converting fertile thorium into fissile Uranium-233 by neutron bombardment).
BARC scientists V Jagannathan and Usha Pal revealed the ATBR design in their paper presented today at the week-long "International conference on emerging nuclear energy systems" in Brussels.
The design has been in the making for over seven years. According to the scientists, the ATBR, while annually consuming 880 kg of plutonium for energy production from "seed" rods, converts 1,100 kg of thorium into fissionable uranium-233. "This differential gain in fissile formation makes ATBR a kind of thorium breeder," they said. (Agencies)
Published: Thursday, August 25, 2005
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?