DEEP YELLOW LIMITED — Capital/Financing Update 2013

Apr 3, 2013

==> picture [276 x 56] intentionally omitted <==

ASX Announcement

ASX: DYL

4 April 2013

Column Testwork Demonstrates Heap Leach Potential at the Omahola Project

KEY POINTS

• Metallurgical testwork has demonstrated the potential for a heap leach operation at Deep Yellow’s flagship Omahola Project.

• Utilising heap leach processing would potentially reduce project capital costs, allow an accelerated development schedule and a reduction in cut-off grade with a corresponding increase in recoverable uranium.

• At a 150 ppm U3O8 cut-off grade the Omahola Project resource is 139.7 Mt at an average grade of 269 ppm for 82.9 Mlbs U3O8 compared to 48.7 Mt at 420 ppm for 45.1 Mlbs U3O8 at a 250 ppm cut-off.

• Provides additional optionality around project development given the existing high grade areas of the resource.

• The column leach test was conducted on a composite of samples collected from seven diamond drill holes located across the Ongolo and MS7 alaskite deposits.

• Uranium recovery from the column leach process was approximately 80% after 7 days with low overall sulphuric acid consumption of 12.4 kg/t.

• For comparison, uranium extraction from glass beaker and bottle roll agitation techniques was on average 90% with sulphuric acid consumption of 59.5 kg/t.

Deep Yellow Limited (DYL) is pleased to announce the completion of initial metallurgical testwork that has demonstrated the potential for a heap leach operation at its flagship Omahola Project.

The column leach test, conducted at Gecko Laboratories in Swakopmund, Namibia, was on a composite of samples collected from seven diamond drill holes located across the Ongolo and MS7 alaskite deposits. The results of the leach test were compared against conventional laboratory bottle roll and beaker agitation leach tests which are used to determine theoretical maximum uranium extraction.

Heap leach processing has the potential to reduce cut-off grade, with a corresponding increase in overall uranium extraction whilst reducing project capital and accelerating the likely development schedule at Omahola.

DYL’s Managing Director Greg Cochran said “We are pleased with this initial result which has demonstrated that heap leach is a realistic option for Omahola. We acknowledge that there is still much work to do, however this gives us the confidence to plan a trade-off study to compare the options to see which process route delivers the best economic outcome. It is noteworthy to see the substantial increase in the resource base using a lower cut-off grade, which provides us with additional optionality around project development given the existing high grade areas of the resource.”

ENDS

Level 1, 329 Hay Street, Subiaco, WA 6008 / PO Box 1770, Subiaco, WA 6904 Tel : 61 8 9286 6999 / Fax : 61 8 9286 6969 / ABN 97 006 391 948 Email: info@deepyellow.com.au / Website: www.deepyellow.com.au

Omahola: Successful Column Test

==> picture [34 x 37] intentionally omitted <==

Testwork Summary

DYL’s wholly owned Namibian operating subsidiary, Reptile Uranium Namibia (RUN) commissioned Gecko Laboratories in Swakopmund, Namibia to perform the testwork which was conducted on a composite of drill core samples collected from both the Ongolo and the MS7 alaskite deposits (see Figures 1,2 and 3). Initially, conventional laboratory bottle roll and beaker agitation leach tests were carried out to determine the maximum uranium extraction achievable. After these tests were completed the column leach test was conducted for comparative purposes.

• The aggressive leach conditions used in the glass beaker and bottle roll techniques gave an average extraction of 89.7% (range of 87.1% to 93.2%) and an average acid consumption of 59.5 kg H2SO4/t (range of 51.2 to 63.2 kg/t). The high acid consumption is to be expected since the samples were milled to 100% passing 75 µm.

• The column leach process resulted in a recovery of 80.3% after 7 days and 80.6% after rinsing. The flux after 7 days was 0.34 m[3] /t which after rinsing with pH2 water increased to 0.71 m[3] /t. The amount of solution required for the 0.3% increase in recovery is not considered worthwhile.

• The acid consumption was determined to be 189.2 g H2SO4 during agglomeration and 105.2 g H2SO4 during column leaching resulting in an overall acid consumption of 12.4 kg H2SO4/t.

• Agglomeration with water was done in 1% increments to a maximum of 8%. Acid was added until 3% moisture level was reached. This resulted in very wet agglomerate and during the curing step after the column was loaded approximately 2% solution drained out. It was recommended to set the maximum moisture level at 6% should further tests be conducted.

• After completion of the column test, the observed slump was 30 mm (4.5%), which is considered to be low.

• The leach effluent liquor from the column was clear and no suspended solids were observed making it ideal for the solvent extraction process as no crud formation was evident.

• Assuming the results are confirmed with further testwork this means that a heap leach approach may be feasible for the Omahola Project allowing a reduction in cut-off grade (and therefore average grade of the resource) resulting in a significant increase in contained and ultimately recoverable uranium.

• As can be seen from the table below, a reduction in cut-off grade of the Omahola Project resource can have a significant impact on the tonnage and uranium content of the project.

Cut-off (ppm U3O8)	Tonnes (M)	U3O8 (ppm)	U3O8 (t)	U3O8 (Mlb)
100	298	191	56,825	125
150	140	269	37,610	83
200	76	346	27,166	60
250	49	420	20,462	45

Table compiled from JORC Mineral Resource estimates as given in Appendix 2. Figures are rounded.

A trade-off study is being planned to compare heap leach against tank leach at Omahola to see which delivers the best economic outcome. There are numerous scenarios that need to be taken into account and it is hoped that there is an opportunity to capture some of the resource upside associated with a

Page 2

13-17

Omahola: Successful Column Test

==> picture [34 x 37] intentionally omitted <==

heap leach processing option by using a lower cut-off grade whilst still accessing the existing high grade areas of the resource.

==> picture [406 x 319] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 1: Locality Map Showing Omahola Project Resource Outlines

==> picture [426 x 299] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 2: Location of DC holes at Ongolo used to create the composite for the column test

Page 3

13-17

Omahola: Successful Column Test

==> picture [34 x 37] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [442 x 314] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 3: Location of DC holes at MS7 used to create the composite for the column test

For further information regarding this announcement, contact:

Greg Cochran Managing Director

Phone: +61 8 9286 6999 Email: info@deepyellow.com.au

For further information on the Company and its projects - visit the website at www.deepyellow.com.au

About Deep Yellow Limited

Deep Yellow Limited is an ASX-listed, Namibian-focussed advanced stage uranium exploration company. It also has a listing on the Namibian Stock Exchange.

Deep Yellow’s operations in Namibia are conducted by its 100% owned subsidiary Reptile Uranium Namibia (Pty) Ltd (RUN). Its flagship is the Omahola Project where testwork and concurrent reconnaissance and resource drill-outs are underway on the high grade Ongolo Alaskite – MS7 trend. It is also evaluating a stand-alone project for its Tubas Sand uranium deposit utilising physical beneficiation techniques it successfully tested in 2011.

In Australia the Company owns the Napperby Uranium Project and numerous exploration tenements in the Northern Territory and in the Mount Isa District in Queensland.

Page 4

13-17

Omahola: Successful Column Test

==> picture [34 x 37] intentionally omitted <==

Appendix 1 – Column Test Report

DYL’s wholly owned Namibian operating subsidiary, Reptile Uranium Namibia (RUN) commissioned Gecko Laboratories in Swakopmund, Namibia to perform the testwork which was conducted on a composite of drill core samples collected from both the Ongolo and the MS7 alaskite deposits (see Figures 1, 2 and 3). Initially, conventional laboratory bottle roll and beaker agitation leach tests were carried out to determine the maximum uranium extraction achievable. After these tests were completed the column leach test was conducted for comparative purposes.

Sample Preparation

The individual samples, comprising a total mass of 25 kg, were placed in a concrete mixer and homogenised by mixing for 10 minutes. The entire composite sample was then split using a 10 way rotary splitter to provide 20 samples of approximately 1.2 kg each. One sample was removed and again split into a further 10 fractions of approximately 120 g each, to be used for:

• Particle size distribution

• Head sample analysis

• Bottle roll leach test

• Beaker agitation leach test

The sub-samples for head analysis, bottle roll and beaker agitated leach tests were milled to -75 µm and the estimated head grade was calculated to be 280 U3O8 (ppm).

Bottle Roll and Glass Beaker Agitation Leach Tests

The purpose of the bottle roll and the glass beaker agitation leaches was to determine the maximum extraction obtainable from the two techniques for the ore in question. The sample was therefore milled to 100% -75 µm to ensure the uranium mineral liberation was complete.

The leach process was designed to be very aggressive and ensured maximum exposure of the ore to the leach solution. Uranium extraction under these conditions varied from 87.1% to 93.2% with an average of 89.7%, whilst acid consumption varied from 51.2 to 62.2 kg/t with an average of 59.5 kg/t.

Column Leach Test

The column consisted of a plastic pipe 710mm long and 147mm internal diameter (Figure 1). The bottom end was covered with a plastic perforated drainage fitting and sealed to contain the ore once filled. A funnel and suitable 10 litre receptacle was placed underneath the column. A 5 litre feed container was placed ± 500mm above the column. A medical artery dripper was installed to regulate the feed to the column (Photograph 1).

A 50mm inert silica rock drainage layer was placed at the bottom of the column to prevent blockage during the percolation stage.

Page 5

13-17

Omahola: Successful Column Test

==> picture [34 x 37] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [216 x 163] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [196 x 163] intentionally omitted <==

Photograph 1 Figure 1: Column Dimensions

Agglomeration

Agglomeration was performed on a 4m x 4m plastic sheet on the floor. The material was placed in the centre and 1% by mass water was sprayed on the ore. The sheet was lifted diagonally from corner to corner to wet the ore thoroughly. This process was repeated 5 times. The process was repeated until 3% water was added. The equivalent of 8 kg/t of concentrated sulphuric acid were sprayed onto the wet ore and the mixing process was repeated. Additional water was added to the now acidified ore at a rate of 1% until the total moisture content was 8%. At this stage the mixture appeared to be slightly too wet and it was decided to stop further water addition. The agglomerated ore was transferred to the column. (See Photographs 2, 3 and 4.)

==> picture [147 x 144] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [154 x 144] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [142 x 145] intentionally omitted <==

Photograph 2 Photograph 3 Photograph 4

The column was left for 24 hours to cure and the excess moisture that drained out during this period amounted to 413g. The effective retained moisture was recalculated at 6.25%.

The drained solution was analysed and contained 915 ppm U3O8. This solution is considered to be part of the leached solution in the calculations.

Irrigation

Irrigation was performed using closed circuit configuration. Two feed stock solutions of 4 litres each were prepared (A & B). The irrigation was started using stock solution A. The irrigation rate was set at approximately 8 l/m[2] /h. When the final analysis was done the actual irrigation rate was calculated as 5.84 l/m[2] /h (see Table 1).

Page 6

13-17

Omahola: Successful Column Test

==> picture [34 x 37] intentionally omitted <==

After the first day, the leach effluent was removed for analysis and uranium removal by solvent extraction. On day two, stock solution B was introduced as feed solution.

The uranium free solution from day one was added to the remainder of stock solution A and was then used as feed solution on day three. This process was repeated for the remainder of the test programme.

This procedure ensured that the total solution volume to the column was 8 litres, the feed solution was always void of uranium but the leached salts kept increasing.

After completion of the column leach test, the final leach solution was analysed for total dissolved solids (TDS). The amount of solids was found to be 41.5 g/l. The individual components were not analysed.

Results

Daily effluent solutions were collected and analysed for uranium in solution and an extraction profile generated. The results obtained appear in Table 1 below with and in Graph 1 as well. The maximum recovery achieved after 7 days was 80.6%.

Column Area(m2)	Column Area(m2)	0.016979	Dry Mass to column kg	Dry Mass to column kg	23.65
			Head Grade(ppm)		280
			U3O8 in Ore(g)		6.622
Day	Irrigated Vol(ml)	Calculated irrigation rate (l/m2/hr)	U3O8 (ppm)	U3O8 extracted (g)	U3O8 extracted (%)	U3O8 extracted (cum %)
0	419.2	Drain down	915	0.383568	5.792329	5.79
1	2230.3	5.47	956	2.1321668	32.19823	37.99
2	2345.8	5.76	458	1.0743764	16.22435	54.21
3	1967.4	4.83	548	1.0781352	16.28111	70.50
4	2345.9	5.76	108	0.2533572	3.825992	74.32
5	2050.9	5.03	107	0.2194463	3.313898	77.64
6	1862	4.57	51.5	0.095893	1.448097	79.08
7	3857.2	9.47	21.2	0.08177264	1.234863	80.32
8 rinse	8689.7		1.95	0.01694492	0.255888	80.57
Average irrigation rate		5.84

Table 1: Uranium Recovery Data

Page 7

13-17

Omahola: Successful Column Test

==> picture [34 x 37] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [454 x 297] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

U3O8 extracted (cum %)
80
7
6
5
4
60
3
40
2
20
1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Days
Ext %
----- End of picture text -----

Graph 1: Uranium Recovery Curve

Tails

After 8 days the column was dismantled and the residue was split into four samples as shown in Photograph 5 below. The four subsections were equalised by mass and individually analysed for uranium. The results were as follows:

Top section (on the right of the photograph) U3O8: 58 ppm Section 2 U3O8: 53 ppm Section 3 U3O8: 54 ppm Bottom end (on the left of the photograph) U3O8: 56 ppm Average (weighted)U3O8: 55 ppm Head SampleU3O8: 280 ppm Recovery Based on Solid Analysis: 80.35 %

==> picture [168 x 153] intentionally omitted <==

Photograph 5

Page 8

13-17

Omahola: Successful Column Test

==> picture [34 x 37] intentionally omitted <==

Uranium Recovery

During the closed circuit irrigation process used, the uranium was removed from the leach effluent solution before it was re-circulated to the column. The solution (A) collected after day 1 was stripped from uranium on day 2 before it was presented to the column on day 3. During day 2, solution (B) was used for irrigation. The whole process was therefore an iterative one in which solutions A and B were used alternatively.

The uranium removal was done by using a conventional solvent extraction technique. The photographs below (6 - 10) demonstrate the process from leach liquor to final product (U3O8).

==> picture [184 x 145] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [194 x 145] intentionally omitted <==

Photograph 6 – Leach Liquor

Photograph 7 – Solvent Extraction

==> picture [192 x 143] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [187 x 142] intentionally omitted <==

Photograph 8 – ADU Precipitation Photograph 9 – ADU

==> picture [192 x 142] intentionally omitted <==

Photograph 10 – U3O8

Page 9

13-17

Omahola: Successful Column Test

==> picture [34 x 37] intentionally omitted <==

Appendix 2:

Table 1: Omahola Project Resource Summary – February 2013

Deposit Category Cut-off (ppm U3O8) Tonnes (M) U3O8 (ppm) U3O8 (t) U3O8 (Mlb)	Deposit Category Cut-off (ppm U3O8) Tonnes (M) U3O8 (ppm) U3O8 (t) U3O8 (Mlb)
REPTILE URANIUM NAMIBIA (NAMIBIA) - Omahola Project
INCA♦ Indicated 250 INCA♦ Inferred 250 Ongolo # Measured 250 Ongolo # Indicated 250 Ongolo # Inferred 250 MS7 # Measured 250 MS7 # Indicated 250 MS7 # Inferred 250	7.0 470 3,300 7.2 5.4 520 2,800 6.2 7.7 395 3,040 6.7 9.5 372 3,540 7.8 12.4 387 4,810 10.6 4.4 441 1,955 4.3 1.0 433 433 1.0 1.3 449 584 1.3
Omahola Project Total	48.7 420 20,462 45.1
Resource Categories Measured Resources Indicated Resources Inferred Resources	12.1 441 4,955 11.0 17.5 416 7,273 16.0 19.1 429 8,194 18.1
Omahola Project Total	48.7 420 20,462 45.1

Notes: Figures have been rounded and totals may reflect small rounding errors. XRF chemical analysis unless annotated otherwise.

♦ eU3O8 - equivalent uranium grade as determined by downhole gamma logging. # Combined XRF Fusion Chemical Assays and eU3O8 values. The Ongolo Resource includes both the Ongolo deposit and the Ongolo South Resource.

Table 2: Omahola Project Resource Summary By Cut-Off Grade

Cut-off (ppm U3O8)	Tonnes (M)	U3O8 (ppm)	U3O8 (t)	U3O8 (Mlb)
100	298	191	56,825	125
150	140	269	37,610	83
200	76	346	27,166	60
250	49	420	20,462	45

The information in this table was compiled by Mr Martin Kavanagh from JORC Mineral Resource estimates provided to DYL by its independent consultants. Mr Kavanagh is a Fellow of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgyand an Executive Director of Deep Yellow Limited, and has sufficient experience which is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity which he is undertaking, to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the 2004 Edition of the ‘Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves’. Mr Kavanagh consents to the inclusion in the table of information in the form and context in which it appears. The information used to compile this table is given in detail in Tables 3,4 and 5 of this Appendix. Note: Figures rounded.

Page 10

13-17

Omahola: Successful Column Test

==> picture [34 x 37] intentionally omitted <==

Table 3 - INCA Mineral Resource Summary

January 20, 2012 Resource Update

Reported at various cut-offs using bulk density coded by zone (averaging 2.89 t/m[3] ) Multiple Indicator Kriged estimate based upon 3m cut eU3O8 composites. Reported emulating a selective mining unit of 10m x 5m x 3m Parent Block dimensions of 25m NS by 25m EW by 10m RL

Preferred Reporting Cut-off – 250ppm

Table 3 - INCA Mineral Resource Summary	Table 3 - INCA Mineral Resource Summary	Table 3 - INCA Mineral Resource Summary	Table 3 - INCA Mineral Resource Summary	Table 3 - INCA Mineral Resource Summary
January 20, 2012 Resource Update Reported at various cut-offs using bulk density coded by zone (averaging 2.89 t/m3) Multiple Indicator Kriged estimate based upon 3m cut eU3O8composites. Reported emulating a selective mining unit of 10m x 5m x 3m Parent Block dimensions of 25m NS by 25m EW by 10m RL Preferred Reporting Cut-off – 250ppm
Lower Cut	Tonnes Above Cut-off(Mt)	U3O8 (ppm)	Contained U3O8 (M kg)	Contained U3O8 (M lb)
Indicated
100	21.4	260	5.6	12.3
150	14.7	320	4.8	10.5
200	10.0	390	3.9	8.7
250	7.0	470	3.3	7.2
300	5.2	540	2.8	6.1
350	3.9	610	2.4	5.2
400	3.0	680	2.0	4.5
Inferred
100	15.2	290	4.4	9.7
150	10.8	360	3.9	8.5
200	7.5	440	3.3	7.2
250	5.4	520	2.8	6.2
300	4.0	600	2.4	5.4
350	3.2	680	2.2	4.8
400	2.6	750	1.9	4.3
Combined Indicated and Inferred
100	36.6	270	10.0	22.0
150	25.6	340	8.6	19.0
200	17.5	410	7.2	15.9
250	12.3	490	6.1	13.4
300	9.2	570	5.2	11.5
350	7.1	640	4.5	10.0
400	5.6	710	4.0	8.8
Note: Figures have been rounded.

Page 11

13-17

Omahola: Successful Column Test

==> picture [34 x 37] intentionally omitted <==

Table 4: MS7 Mineral Resources Estimate -– Grade Tonnage Relationships – 16 November 2012

	Cut-off (U3O8 ppm)	Tonnage (Mt)	Dry Bulk Density **(t/m3) **	U3O8 Grade (ppm)	U3O8 Metal (Mlbs)
Classification
Measured	75	25.88	2.65	183	10.43
	100	18.63	2.65	220	9.05
	150	10.55	2.65	296	6.87
	200	6.58	2.65	370	5.36
	250	4.43	2.65	441	**4.31 **
	300	3.15	2.65	508	3.53
	325	2.70	2.65	541	3.22
	Cut-off (U3O8 ppm)	Tonnage (Mt)	Dry Bulk Density **(t/m3) **	U3O8 Grade (ppm)	U3O8 Metal (Mlbs)
Classification
Indicated	75	12.52	2.65	142	3.91
	100	7.15	2.65	184	2.90
	150	3.02	2.65	271	1.80
	200	1.63	2.65	355	1.27
	250	**1.02 **	2.65	433	**0.97 **
	300	0.70	2.65	507	0.78
	325	0.59	2.65	542	0.70
	Cut-off (U3O8 ppm)	Tonnage (Mt)	Dry Bulk Density **(t/m3) **	U3O8 Grade (ppm)	U3O8 Metal (Mlbs)
Classification
Measured + Indicated	75	38.40	2.65	170	14.34
	100	25.78	2.65	210	11.95
	150	13.57	2.65	290	8.67
	200	8.21	2.65	367	6.63
	250	5.45	2.65	440	5.28
	300	3.85	2.65	508	4.31
	325	3.29	2.65	541	3.92
	Cut-off (U3O8 ppm)	Tonnage (Mt)	Dry Bulk Density **(t/m3) **	U3O8 Grade (ppm)	U3O8 Metal (Mlbs)
Classification
Inferred	75	14.63	2.65	148	4.77
	100	8.71	2.65	190	3.65
	150	3.86	2.65	277	2.36
	200	2.11	2.65	364	1.70
	250	**1.32 **	2.65	449	**1.31 **
	300	0.91	2.65	529	1.06
	325	0.77	2.65	566	0.96
	Cut-off (U3O8 ppm)	Tonnage (Mt)	Dry Bulk Density **(t/m3) **	U3O8 Grade (ppm)	U3O8 Metal (Mlbs)
Classification
Measured + Indicated + Inferred Total	75	53.03	2.65	164	19.11
	100	34.49	2.65	205	15.60
	150	17.43	2.65	287	11.03
	200	10.32	2.65	366	8.33
	250	6.77	2.65	442	6.59
	300	4.76	2.65	512	5.37
	325	4.06	2.65	546	4.88

Page 12

13-17

Omahola: Successful Column Test

==> picture [34 x 37] intentionally omitted <==

Table 5 : Ongolo Mineral Resources Estimate -– Grade Tonnage Relationships – 30 January 2013

	Cut-off	Tonnage	Dry Bulk Density	U3O8 Grade	**U3O8 Metal **
Classification
	(U3O8 ppm)	(Mt)	(t/m~~3~~)	(ppm)	(Mlbs)
Measured	75	72.8	2.65	152	24.5
	100	47.7	2.65	187	19.7
	150	23.1	2.65	257	13.1
	200	12.7	2.65	327	9.1
	250	7.7	2.65	395	6.7
	300	4.9	2.65	461	5.0
	325	4.0	2.65	494	4.4
	Cut-off	Tonnage	Dry Bulk Density	U3O8 Grade	**U3O8 Metal **
Classification
	(U3O8 ppm)	(Mt)	(t/m~~3~~)	(ppm)	(Mlbs)
Indicated	75	153.5	2.65	132	44.6
	100	85.4	2.65	168	31.7
	150	34.5	2.65	239	18.1
	200	17.1	2.65	306	11.6
	250	9.5	2.65	372	7.8
	300	5.6	2.65	439	5.4
	325	4.4	2.65	472	4.6
	Cut-off	Tonnage	Dry Bulk Density	U3O8 Grade	**U3O8 Metal **
Classification
	(U3O8 ppm)	(Mt)	(t/m~~3~~)	(ppm)	(Mlbs)
Measured + Indicated	75	226.4	2.65	138	69.0
	100	133.1	2.65	175	51.3
	150	57.6	2.65	246	31.2
	200	29.8	2.65	315	20.7
	250	17.2	2.65	382	14.5
	300	10.6	2.65	449	10.5
	325	8.4	2.65	483	9.0
	Cut-off	Tonnage	Dry Bulk Density	U3O8 Grade	**U3O8 Metal **
Classification
	(U3O8 ppm)	(Mt)	(t/m~~3~~)	(ppm)	(Mlbs)
Inferred	75	174.7	2.65	134	51.6
	100	94.0	2.65	175	36.3
	150	39.2	2.65	251	21.7
	200	20.9	2.65	321	14.7
	250	12.4	2.65	387	10.6
	300	7.8	2.65	453	7.8
	325	6.3	2.65	486	6.8
	Cut-off	Tonnage	Dry Bulk Density	U3O8 Grade	**U3O8 Metal **
Classification
	(U3O8 ppm)	(Mt)	(t/m~~3~~)	(ppm)	(Mlbs)
Measured + Indicated + Inferred Total	75	401.0	2.65	136	120.6
	100	227.2	2.65	175	87.6
	150	96.7	2.65	248	52.9
	200	50.7	2.65	317	35.4
	250	29.6	2.65	384	25.1
	300	18.4	2.65	451	18.3
	325	14.8	2.65	484	15.7

Page 13

13-17

Omahola: Successful Column Test

==> picture [34 x 37] intentionally omitted <==

Compliance Statements:

The information in this Report that relates to the Ongolo and MS7 Mineral Resources is based on information compiled by Malcolm Titley of CSA Global UK Ltd. Malcolm Titley takes overall responsibility for the Report. He is a Member of the Australasian Institute of Geoscientists (‘AIG’) and the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (‘AusIMM’) and has sufficient experience, which is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration, and to the activity he is undertaking, to qualify as a Competent Person in terms of the ‘Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves’ (JORC Code 2004 Edition). Malcolm Titley consents to the inclusion of such information in this Report in the form and context in which it appears.

The information in this report that relates to the INCA Mineral Resources is based on work completed by Mr Neil Inwood. Mr Inwood is a Fellow of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. Mr Inwood has sufficient experience which is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity which he is undertaking to qualify as a Competent Persons as defined in the 2004 Edition of the ‘Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves’. Mr Inwood consents to the inclusion in the report of the matters based on his information in the form and context in which it appears. Mr Inwood was previously a full-time employee of Coffey Mining (Perth).

The information in this report that relates to Exploration Results, is based on information compiled by Dr Leon Pretorius and Mr Martin Kavanagh, both Fellows of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. Dr Pretorius was previously Managing Director of Reptile Uranium Namibia (Pty) Ltd and Mr Kavanagh an Executive Director of Deep Yellow Limited, have sufficient experience which is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity which he is undertaking, to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the 2004 Edition of the ‘Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves’. Dr Pretorius and Mr Kavanagh consent to the inclusion in the report of the matters based on their information in the form and context in which it appears.

The information in this report that relates to the metallurgical testwork was managed by Mr Johannes van Heerden, Manager of the Gecko Laboratories in Swakopmund, Namibia. Mr van Heerden has extensive experience in laboratory management and specifically in uranium and alsakite processing and consents to the inclusion in the report of the matters based on the information in the form and context in which it appears.

Where eU3O8 values are reported it relates to values attained from radiometrically logging boreholes with Auslog equipment using an A675 slimline gamma ray tool. DYL’s probes are calibrated at the Pelindaba Calibration facility in South Africa or at the Adelaide Calibration facility in South Australia.

Page 14

13-17