1. Horseshoe and Raven deposits
A new look at basement hostedA new look at basement-hosted
mineralization in the Horseshoe and
Raven deposits, eastern Athabasca BasinRaven deposits, eastern Athabasca Basin
David Rhys, Sierd Eriks and Leo Horn
UEX C tiUEX Corporation
Saskatchewan Geological Survey Open House, Nov. 29, 2010

2. Horseshoe and Raven deposits
Forward-Looking Statements
This presentation contains “forward-looking statements” that are based on UEX’s current
expectations, estimates, forecasts and projections. These forward-looking statements
include statements regarding UEX’s resource estimates, outlook for our future operations,
plans and timing for the commencement or advancement of exploration activities on our
properties, and other expectations, intention and plans that are not historical fact. The
words “estimates”, “projects”, “expects”, “intends”, “believes”, “plans”, or their negatives or
other comparable words and phrases are intended to identify forward-looking statements.other comparable words and phrases are intended to identify forward looking statements.
Such forward-looking statements are based on certain factors and assumptions and are
subject to risks, uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual results to differ
materially from future results expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements.
Important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from UEX’s expectations
i l d t i ti l ti t i t t ti f d ill lt d l dditi l d illiinclude uncertainties relating to interpretation of drill results and geology, additional drilling
results, continuity and grade of deposits, public acceptance of uranium as an energy source,
fluctuations in uranium prices and currency exchange rates, changes in environmental and
other laws affecting uranium exploration and mining, and other risks and uncertainties
disclosed in UEX’s Annual Information Form and other filings with the securities commissiong
on SEDAR. Many of these factors are beyond the control of UEX. Consequently, all forward-
looking statements made in this presentation are qualified by this cautionary statement and
there can be no assurance that actual results or developments anticipated by UEX will be
realized. For the reasons set forth above, investors should not place undue reliance on such
forward looking statements Except as required by applicable law UEX disclaims anyforward-looking statements. Except as required by applicable law, UEX disclaims any
intention or obligation to update or revise forward-looking information, whether as a result
of new information, future events or otherwise.

3. Horseshoe and Raven depositsHidden Bay setting
 Horseshoe and Raven are located on UEX’s 100% owned Hidden
Bay project on the eastern margin of the Athabasca Basin

4. Horseshoe and Raven deposits
Hidden Bay projecty p j
 57,000 hectare
property in eastern
Athabasca uranium
district (area has >360
illi lb d ti
Tent-Seal
million lbs production +
resources, excludes
Cigar Lake)
Shamus
Telephone
Rabbit Lake
Vixen
Horseshoe
and Raven
 Contains Horseshoe,
Raven and West Bear
deposits
Rabbit Lake
fault
Wolf
 Deposits located only
4 km south of Cameco’s
Rabbit Lake mill facility
Dwyer
Rhino
West Bear
in an area of excellent
infrastructure
Dwyer

5. Horseshoe and Raven deposits
Horseshoe-Raven history
 Two deposits approx. 1 km apart discovered through follow-up of
a radioactive boulder train in the early 1970’s by Gulf Minerals
 Gulf drilled 202 widely spaced (50 to 100 m apart) drill holes
between 1972 and 1978 to define historical, non-compliant
resources of 23 million lbs U O grading at 0 16% in bothresources of 23 million lbs U3O8 grading at 0.16% in both
deposits
1
3
S-9
R
A
S
HS-45
HS-1
HS-43
HS-13
HS-4
HS
R
A
V
E
N
S
Y
N
C
LIN
E
4.11m @
0 88% U O
1.5m @
0.25% U O3 8
Cross section through Horseshoe
deposit prior to drilling by UEX:
grade continuity perceived to be
1.2m @
0
meters
100
16 0
3 80.88% U O
0.22% U O3 8
grade continuity perceived to be
discontinuous, but drill holes very
widely spaced
83
16.0m
@ 0.8% U O Horseshoe zone
Section 148+00S
View Northeast

6. Horseshoe and Raven deposits
UEX drilling,
2005-2009
 Potential to
upgrade and
further explore
the deposits
beyond the Gulf
 Between 2005 and 2009 UEX completed 663 drill holes (198 000 m of
resources was
recognized.
Between 2005 and 2009, UEX completed 663 drill holes (198,000 m of
drilling) at Horseshoe and Raven to establish resources at 15 to 30 m hole
spacing. Historical drill holes could not be used due to QA/QC concerns.
 Drilling established continuity of mineralization expanded the deposit Drilling established continuity of mineralization, expanded the deposit
footprints into areas not historically drilled, and identified areas of higher
grade mineralization within the deposits.

7. Horseshoe and Raven deposits
Resources based on drilling to July 23, 2009
July 2009 43-101 complaint resources for the Horseshoe and Raven
deposits estimated by K. Palmer, P. Geo. of Golder Associates, at a
cutoff grade of 0 05% U O :cutoff grade of 0.05% U3O8 :
Deposit Tonnes U3O8 % U3O8 (pounds)
Horseshoe 5,119,700 0.203 22,895,000Indicated
Raven 5,173,900 0.107 12,149,000
Totals 10,293,600 0.170 35,044,000
Indicated
Resources
Deposit Tonnes U3O8 % U3O8 (pounds)
Horseshoe 287,000 0.166 1,049,000
Raven 822 200 0 092 1 666 000
Inferred
R Raven 822,200 0.092 1,666,000
Totals 1,109,200 0.111 2,715,000
Resources
In addition to these deposits, Hidden Bay also contains the West Bear deposit. At ap y p
cutoff grade of 0.05% U3O8, West Bear is host to 79,914 tonnes grading 0.908 % U3O8
(1.57 million pounds U3O8) in near surface (<30m) resources (2009 N.I. 43-101
complaint resources)

8. Horseshoe and Raven deposits
Central Hidden Bay property – Geological setting
Geological setting
- property straddles the gradational contact between
the Paleoproterozoic Mudjatik Domain to the NW
(granitic gneiss domes + psammitic to pelitic
gneiss), and the Wollaston Domain to the southeastg ),
Horseshoe
Raven

9. Horseshoe and Raven deposits
Geological setting
- Deposits lie outside of
Athabasca Basin: sandstone
eroded here
- Competent metamorphic hostCompetent metamorphic host
rocks
Local geological setting of the
Horseshoe and Raven deposits

10. Horseshoe and Raven depositsHost lithologies
Calc-arkosic to calc-silicate gneiss: Quartzite: >85% quartz, with K-Ca c a os c o ca c s ca e g e ss
plagioclase-K-feldspar-pyroxene-biotite-
amphibole – above mineralization
Qua e 85% qua ,
feldspar, biotite, 20-70 m thick –
hosts upper parts of mineralization
Arkosic quartzite: 40-65% quartz, 20-55% Lower biotite-quartz-feldspar, pelitic andArkosic quartzite: 40 65% quartz, 20 55%
feldspars; massive to banded (relict beds),
20 to 150 m thick – main host to
mineralization
q p p
calc-silicate gneiss: mixed assemblage
of biotite and calc-silicate bearing ortho-
and paragneiss – below mineralization

11. Horseshoe and Raven depositsStructural setting
Folded lower biotite-quartz-
feldspar gneiss beside Ravenfeldspar gneiss beside Raven
camp, view down, top to NE.
Shows style of open D2 (F2)
foldingg
 Two phases of syn-metamorphic Hudsonian deformation at amphiboliteTwo phases of syn metamorphic Hudsonian deformation at amphibolite
grade. Two metamorphic pulses between 1830 - 1795 Ma (Annesley et al.)
 D1 = Early penetrative S1 foliation/gneissosity is dominant foliation.
Regionally associated with tight to isoclinal foldsRegionally associated with tight to isoclinal folds.
 D2 = Open F2 folds with second, steeply dipping spaced to penetrative NE
trending foliation. Form dominant NE trending folds and principal geometry
of lithologies in local area (e g Raven Syncline) with horizontal to northeastof lithologies in local area (e.g. Raven Syncline) with horizontal to northeast
plunging fold axes. Non-cylindrical fold axes regionally.
 Later crenulations and minor folds in later, retrograde lower strain events

12. Horseshoe and Raven deposits
Geological setting
Hematite breccias and intense
clay alteration + silicification
Local geological setting of the
Horseshoe and Raven deposits
 Post-metamorphic and in part post-Athabasca brittle faulting regionally in
NE trending reverse faults (e g Rabbit Lake Collins Bay faults) and in
along Dragon Lake fault: fluid
conduit for mineralization?
NE trending reverse faults (e.g. Rabbit Lake, Collins Bay faults), and in
north-trending Tabbernor sinistral faults such as the Dragon Lake fault
 Dragon Lake fault lies on east side of deposit – surrounded by intense
alteration which joins the eastern parts of the Horseshoe alteration zone:alteration which joins the eastern parts of the Horseshoe alteration zone:
may have been an important fluid conduit for mineralization
 ?Pre-mineral NE trending, SE dipping fault zone along mineralized zones

13. Horseshoe and Raven deposits
Uranium
mineralization
 Deposits are entirely
basement hosted and
d l d t d th fdeveloped to depths of
450 m below the current
surface.
L ll d Locally preserved
paleoweathering
suggests current surface
was close to the now Local geological setting of the
Horseshoe and Raven deposits
 Deposits are developed over a 2.3 km strike length along and southeast of
the Raven syncline Mineralization occurs over a strike of 800 m at
was close to the now
eroded unconformity.
the Raven syncline. Mineralization occurs over a strike of 800 m at
Horseshoe and 900 m at Raven, with a 600 m poorly mineralized gap
between the deposits
 Mineralization occurs in areas of hematite alteration within and Mineralization occurs in areas of hematite alteration within, and
surrounding southeast dipping clay-chlorite alteration zones that may be
localized along pre-mineral faults

14. Horseshoe and Raven deposits
Exploration techniques
H h
Horseshoe
Horseshoe
Raven
Raven
Gravity data
DC resistivity, 175 m
modeled depth,
Horseshoe Raven area Gravity dataHorseshoe-Raven area
Warm colours = resistivity highs
Geophysical exploration: Gravity and Resistivity
f Deposits initially discovered partially as a result of a gravity survey by
Gulf Minerals, on basis of gravity low over Rabbit Lake deposit, in follow
up of radioactive boulder train
G i d DC R i i i l id if f l l i Gravity and DC Resistivity lows identify areas of clay alteration
associated with uranium mineralization. Mineralization is often on the
margins of the most intense lows, beside areas of most intense alteration

15. Horseshoe and Raven deposits
Exploration techniques
Resistivity section, 4700N
Pelitic gneiss
Lithologies
H
S-027
H
S-039
H
S-042
H
U
-018
H
U
-019
H
U
-020
H
U
-021
H
U
-022
H
U
-024
H
U
-040
H
U
-044
H
U
-047
H
U
-054
H
U
-058
H
U
-062
H
U
-064
H
U
-065
H
U
-069
Pelitic gneiss
Metaquartzite
Arkosic quartzite
Calc-arkose
Hematite
Moderate clay
Alteration
300 RL
400 RL
50 m
100
150
50 m
10
0
150
200
50 m
100
150
200
50 m
100
150
50 m
100
150
50 m
100
150
100
150
50 m
100
150
50 m
100
150
50 m
100
150
50 m
100
150
50 m
100
150
50 m
100
150
100
150
50 m
100
150
50 m
100
150
50 m
100
150
50 m
100
150
CARK
QZIT
Hematite-pitchblende-
uranophane-clay
Mineralization
UEX drill holes
Drill holes
Historic Gulf drill holes
0.395 %
11.56m
Grade U O3 8
Core length (m)
200 RL
HS-013
S-045
350
m
200
250
300
200
250
300
200
250
300
200
250
300
200
250
300
200200
250
300
200
250
300
200
250
300
200
250
300
200
250
300
200
250
300
200
250
300
200
250
300
200
250
300
0.21 %
28.95m
0.09 %
15.2m
0.15 %
10.4m
0 12 %
0.30 %
5.65m
0.17 %
13.7m
0.18 %
8.5m
0.14 %
14.9m
0.20 %
ARKQ
B zon
A3 zone
A2 zone
A zone
B zone west
Horseshoe Deposit
Section 4700N
Looking Northeast
0
Meters
50 100
0 RL
100 RL
0E
0E
0E
0E
0E
H
S
350
350
350
400
350 350 350
350
350
400
450
350
400
350
400
450
0.23 %
15.0m
0.12 %
13.9m 0.10 %
15.4m
0.61%
17.65m
11.0m
C zone
zone east
Looking Northeast
470
480
490
500
510
 Resistivity inversion successfully modeled alteration, and patterns are
locally independent of lithologylocally independent of lithology
 Resistivity also showed significant down dip potential of mineralization
beyond the limits of Gulf drilling

16. Horseshoe and Raven depositsUranium mineralization
Mineralization
and alteration cutand alteration cut
obliquely across
the folded
metamorphic
sequence and
preferentially
occur in arkosic
quartzitequartzite

17. Horseshoe and Raven deposits
Horseshoe mineralization style
Pitchblende main U mineral, occurring in common mineralization styles:
 “Nodular” and veinlet, blebby pitchblende in red-brown hematite-clay
lt ti M b b d d d t f li ti ith h ll dialteration. May be banded, and may cut across foliation with shallow dips
 Disseminated pitchblende in competent arkosic quartzite with hematite-
illite and/or green chlorite alteration (most of eastern Horseshoe deposit)
Paragenetically late U-silicates (boltwoodite, uranophane, and locally
coffinite) overprint pitchblende, overgrowing or crosscutting as veinlets
“Nodular” style Disseminated style

18. Horseshoe and Raven deposits
Horseshoe mineralogy
 Dominant pitchblende texture is
“woven intergrowth” – intergrown
with hematite, chlorite and clays
(i.e. synchronous)
 Massive clots and fractures in
quartz also common in both
nodular and disseminated styles
 Mineralization has low As (<100 ppm), Mo (<20 ppm), Se (<2 ppm), Co
(<100 ppm), Ni (<100 ppm), V (<150 ppm) in >0.2% U3O8 samples =
“clean” mineralization no deleterious elements typical of basementclean mineralization, no deleterious elements, typical of basement
unconformity-type uranium signature such as Eagle Point
 Metallurgically simple –composite test samples by Melis Engineering Ltd.
on three HQ diameter metallurgical drill holes from both deposits showon three HQ diameter metallurgical drill holes from both deposits show
98% uranium leach extraction under relatively mild atmospheric conditions.

19. Horseshoe and Raven deposits
HU-16 high grade intercept =12.35 m @ 4.53% U3O8
2.29 % 0.95 %
22.17 %
8.14 %
Nodular pitchblende
rimmed by boltwoodite
Pitchblende in
hematite-clay
Late yellow boltwoodite-
uranophane

20. Horseshoe and Raven deposits
Nodular/veinlet style, Horseshoe A zone
2.29 %
Mineralization comprising hematite-
pitchblende bands which cross cutp
gneissosity at high angle: shallow dipping
morphology to zones.
Examples from HU-28 (191 8-193 4 m =Examples from HU-28 (191.8-193.4 m =
2.55% U3O8 over 1.6 m)

21. Horseshoe and Raven deposits
Horseshoe disseminated
mineralization textures, B east zone,
Hole HU-063: Interval shown is 348-357 m typical of broad low gradeHole HU-063: Interval shown is 348-357 m, typical of broad low grade
interval of 60.90 m grading 0.18 % U3O8 from 322.40-383.3 m. Note
competent nature of host rocks in zone.

22. Horseshoe and Raven depositsHorseshoe Section 4640N

23. Horseshoe and Raven deposits
Horseshoe
Section
4724N4724N
- Zones may be
l li d dlocalized around a
pre-mineral fault
zone
- Shallow dipping
mineralized zones
may be extensional
d f d iand formed in
response to late
reverse faulting

24. Horseshoe and Raven deposits
Mineralogy calculated
from multielement
geochem.
Alteration-geochem zoning
(S. Halley, 2008)
 Normative mineralogical assemblages
Chlorite 2250nm
show illite core with surrounding chlorite-
dominant fringe
 Terraspec patterns show Mg-rich
hl i i i li i d l i Chlorite 2250nm
wavelength ranges =
Mg-rich chlorites
proximal to
mineralization, 4640N.
chlorites in mineralization and alteration;
raw Mg-geochemistry shows same
pattern cutting lithologic sequence

25. Horseshoe and Raven depositsHorseshoe
wireframe
models
Horseshoe wireframe
 Mineralization plunges
to east-northeast
 Eastern margin of o ses oe e a e
view NNE with drill
holes shown
g
orebody is parallel and
adjacent to the Dragon
Lake Fault. Alteration
in the orebody is
contiguous with
intense alteration that
t d t 600extends to >600 m
depth along the fault.
Horseshoe wireframe
view SSE from above

26. Horseshoe and Raven deposits
R
Raven
wireframe
Raven
View southwest
from Horseshoe
models Horseshoe from Horseshoe
towards Raven with
drill hole traces
Raven
view ENE
Raven
view NNE
 Horizontal zone: no plunge. Basal planar (L) zone (in red) dips southeast,
with shallower dipping zones above reaching to 60 m from surface

27. Horseshoe and Raven depositsRaven mineralization
Mineralization discordant to foliation
in drill hole RU-118 from interval at
RU-026 mineralization, 118-124 m.
Concordant mineralization style in
in drill hole RU 118, from interval at
118.2 m grading 0.63% (in interval =
19.8 m @0.517% U3O8)
interval of 2.98% U3O8 / 5.2 m)
RU-095
mineralization,
148-149 m From
RU-002 , 106.5 m, 0.4 m at 2.13% U3O8
148 149 m. From
interval 0.38%
U3O8 over 37.3 m

28. Horseshoe and Raven depositsRaven
section
5445E5445E
 Like Horseshoe,
mineralizationmineralization
surrounds a clay
alteration zone
 Lithologies thinner:
150 RL
200 RL
250 RL
300 RL
350 RL
400 RL
450 RL
50m
100
15
0
20
0
50m
100
150
200
236.2m
50m
50m
100
150
200
250
294.7m
50m
100
150
192.9m
50m
100
150
2 00
218.8m
5 0m
100
150
200
250
30 0
313m
50 m
100
150
200
239m
100
150
200212m
1
0 0
150
200
250
300
50m
100
150
185 .1m
L
B-040LB-041
LB-0
66
LB-069
L
B-072
RU-001
RU-002
RU-003RU-004
RU-006
RU-008
 Lithologies thinner:
mineralization
extends to
shallower depthss a o e dept s
than Horseshoe into
calc-arkose
 Upper, thick parts ofpp , p
orebody within 100
m of surface may
be amenable to
open pit mining.

29. Horseshoe and Raven depositsRaven section 5630E
150 RL
200 RL
250 RL
300 RL
350 RL
400 RL
450 RL
50m
100
15 0
20 0
50m
100
150
200
236.2m
50m
50m
100
150
200
250
294.7m
50m
100
150
192.9m
50m
100
150
2 00
218.8m
5 0m
100
150
200
250
30 0
313m
50 m
100
150
200
239m
100
150
200212m
1
0 0
150
200
250
300
50m
100
150
185 .1m
L
B-040LB-041
LB-0
66
LB-069
L
B-072
RU-001
RU-002
RU-003RU-004
RU-006
RU-008
 Mineralization locally exploits lithologies and lithologic contacts
above a steep SE dipping basal zone and alteration

30. Horseshoe and Raven deposits
Conclusions
 UEX successfully upgraded and expanded resources in the
Horseshoe and Raven deposits, increasing the deposit footprint
and establishing continuity of mineralizationand establishing continuity of mineralization
 The deposits are remarkable for their great extent into basement
rocks, but with no association with graphitic faults. Geophysical
t t i lt ti t hit Si il iti t Ki ik?target is alteration – not graphite. Similarities to Kiggavik?
 Basement – basin fluid mixing and redox reaction along Dragon
Lake and pre-mineralization hosting fault zones, and reaction withp g
reduced wallrocks may have contributed to mineralization formation
 “Basement” signature geochemistry of mineralization: favorable
metallurgy without deleterious elements similar mineralogy tometallurgy without deleterious elements, similar mineralogy to
Eagle Point
 Occurrence of mineralization in competent hematite alteration
within basement wallrocks allows good geotechnical conditions forwithin basement wallrocks allows good geotechnical conditions for
open pit and ramp access underground mining (i.e. no ground
freezing)

31. Horseshoe and Raven deposits
Advancing the Horseshoe and Raven depositsg p
 In anticipation of feasibility, initial metallurgical, geotechnical andp y g g
environmental baseline studies have been undertaken
 High proportion of resources already in indicated category
 Scoping study underway examining mining methods and options Scoping study underway, examining mining methods and options
for both deposits, including possible future use of any open pit
developed at Raven or Horseshoe as a regional tailings facility for
other deposits in the areaother deposits in the area
 Area of excellent existing mining and milling infrastructure:
Potential for toll milling at Rabbit or McClean Lake is being
assessed.
 Additional targets in local area will be tested in 2011 which could
expand local resource basee pa d oca esou ce base