Annual Report (foreign Private Issuer) (40-f)
March 12 2015 - 1:07PM
Edgar (US Regulatory)
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C.
20549
FORM 40-F
(Check One)
[ ] |
Registration statement pursuant to Section 12
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 |
|
|
[X] |
Annual report pursuant to Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
|
For the fiscal year ended: December 31, 2014 |
Commission file number: 001-33414
|
DENISON MINES CORP.
(Exact name of
registrant as specified in its charter)
Ontario, Canada
(Province or other jurisdiction of
incorporation or organization)
1090
(Primary standard industrial classification code
number)
98-0622284
(I.R.S. employer identification number)
Atrium on Bay, 595 Bay Street, Suite 402, Toronto, Ontario
M5G 2C2; Phone number: 416-979-1991
(Address and telephone number of
registrants principal executive offices)
CT Corporation System
111
Eighth Avenue
13th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Phone
number: 212-894-8800
(Name, address and telephone number of agent for service in the
United States)
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
Not applicable.
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:
Common Stock without par value.
Securities for which there is a reporting obligation pursuant
to Section 15(d) of the Act: Not applicable.
For annual reports, indicate by check mark the information
filed with this form:
|
[X] |
Annual Information Form |
[X] |
Audited Annual Financial Statements
|
Indicate the number of outstanding shares of each of the
issuers classes of capital or common stock as of the close of the period
covered by the annual report: 505,868,894 Common Shares
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant by filing the
information contained in this form is also thereby furnishing the information to
the Commission pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the Exchange Act). If Yes is marked, indicate the file number assigned
to the registrant in connection with such rule.
Yes [ ] No [X]
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant: (1) has filed
all reports required to be filed by Section 13(d) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act
during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant
has been required to file such reports); and (2) has been subject to such filing
requirements in the past 90 days.
Yes [X] No [ ]
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted
electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive
Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation
S-T (232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such
shorter period that the Registrant was required to submit and post such files).
Not applicable
Yes [ ] No [ ]
2
DOCUMENTS FILED PURSUANT TO GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
In accordance with General Instruction B.(3) of Form 40-F,
Denison Mines Corp. (the Company or the Registrant) hereby
incorporates by reference Exhibits 99.1 through 99.3 as set forth in the Exhibit
Index attached hereto.
In accordance with General Instruction D.(9) of Form 40-F, the
Company has filed written consents of certain experts named in the foregoing
Exhibits as Exhibits 99.4 through 99.23, as set forth in the Exhibit Index
attached hereto.
FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS
Certain of the information contained in this Annual Report on
Form 40-F, including the documents incorporated herein by reference, may contain
forward-looking information. Forward-looking information and statements may
include, among others, statements regarding the future plans, costs, objectives
or performance of the Company, or the assumptions underlying any of the
foregoing. In this Annual Report on Form 40-F, words such as may, would,
could, will, likely, believe, expect, anticipate, intend, plan,
estimate and similar words and the negative form thereof are used to identify
forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements should not be read as
guarantees of future performance or results, and will not necessarily be
accurate indications of whether, or the times at or by which, such future
performance will be achieved. Forward-looking statements and information are
based on information available at the time and/or managements good-faith belief
with respect to future events and are subject to known or unknown risks,
uncertainties and other unpredictable factors, many of which are beyond the
Companys control. These risks, uncertainties and assumptions include, but are
not limited to, those described under the section Risk Factors in the
Companys Annual Information Form for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014
(the AIF), which is filed as Exhibit 99.3 to this Annual Report on Form
40-F, and could cause actual events or results to differ materially from those
projected in any forward-looking statements.
The Companys forward-looking statements contained in the
exhibits incorporated by reference into this Annual Report on Form 40-F are made
as of the respective dates set forth in such exhibits. In preparing this Annual
Report on Form 40-F, the Company has not updated such forward-looking statements
to reflect any subsequent information, events or circumstances or otherwise, or
any change in managements beliefs, expectations or opinions that may have
occurred prior to the date hereof, nor does the Company assume any obligation to
update such forward-looking statements in the future, except as required by
applicable laws.
RESOURCE AND RESERVE ESTIMATES
The terms mineral reserve, proven mineral reserve and
probable mineral reserve are Canadian mining terms as defined in accordance
with National Instrument 43-101 Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects
(NI 43-101), which references the guidelines set out in the Canadian
Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (the CIM) Standards on
Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves, adopted by the CIM council, as may be
amended from time to time by the CIM. These definitions differ from the
definitions in Industry Guide 7 (Industry Guide 7) under the United
States Securities Act of 1933, as amended. Under Industry Guide 7,
mineralization may not be classified as a reserve unless the determination has
been made that the mineralization could be economically and legally produced or
extracted at the time of the reserve determination.
In addition, the terms mineral resource, measured mineral
resource, indicated mineral resource and inferred mineral resource are
defined in and required to be disclosed by NI 43-101; however, these terms are
not defined terms under Industry Guide 7 and normally are not permitted to be
used in reports and registration statements filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the SEC or the Commission). Investors are
cautioned not to assume that any part or all of mineral deposits in these
categories will ever be converted into reserves. Inferred mineral resources
have a great amount of uncertainty as to their existence, and great uncertainty
as to their economic and legal feasibility. It cannot be assumed that all or any
part of an inferred mineral resource will ever be upgraded to a higher category.
Under Canadian rules, estimates of inferred mineral resources may not form the
basis of feasibility or pre-feasibility studies, except in rare cases.
Accordingly, information contained in this Annual Report on
Form 40-F and the documents incorporated by reference herein containing
descriptions of the Companys mineral deposits may not be comparable to similar
information made public by U.S. companies subject to the reporting and
disclosure requirements under the United States federal securities laws and the
rules and regulations thereunder.
3
CURRENCY
Unless otherwise indicated, all dollar amounts in this Annual
Report on Form 40-F are in United States dollars. The exchange rate of Canadian
dollars into United States dollars, on December 31, 2014, based upon the noon
buying rate payable in Canadian dollars as certified for customs purposes by the
Bank of Canada, was U.S. $1.00 = CDN$1.1601.
TAX MATTERS
Purchasing, holding, or disposing of securities of the
Registrant may have tax consequences under the laws of the United States and
Canada that are not described in this Annual Report on Form 40-F.
DISCLOSURE CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES
A. Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures
The Company maintains disclosure controls and procedures to
ensure that information required to be disclosed in the Companys filings under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), is
recorded, processed, summarized and reported in accordance with the requirements
specified in the rules and forms of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
SEC or the Commission). The Company carried out an evaluation,
under the supervision and with the participation of its management, including
the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, of the effectiveness of
the design and operation of the Companys disclosure controls and procedures
(as defined in the Exchange Act Rule 13a-15(e)) as of the end of the period
covered by this report. Based upon that evaluation, the Chief Executive Officer
and Chief Financial Officer concluded that the Companys disclosure controls and
procedures as of December 31, 2014, are effective to ensure that information
required to be disclosed by the Registrant in reports it files or submits under
the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time
periods specified in the SECs rules and forms and is accumulated and
communicated to the Registrants management, including its Chief Executive
Officer and Chief Financial Officer, as appropriate to allow timely decisions
regarding required disclosure.
The Companys disclosure controls and procedures are designed
to provide reasonable assurance of achieving their objectives and, as indicated
in the preceding paragraph, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer believe that the Companys disclosure controls and procedures are
effective at that reasonable assurance level, although the Chief Executive
Officer and Chief Financial Officer do not expect that the disclosure controls
and procedures or internal control over financial reporting will prevent or
detect all errors and all fraud. A control system, no matter how well conceived
or operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the
objectives of the control system are met. The Company will continue to
periodically review its disclosure controls and procedures and internal control
over financial reporting and may make such modifications from time to time as it
considers necessary.
B. Managements Annual Report on Internal Control Over
Financial Reporting
The Companys management is responsible for establishing and
maintaining an adequate system of internal control over financial reporting. Internal
control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable
assurance regarding the reliability of the Companys financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with
International Financial Reporting Standards. Management conducted an assessment
of the Companys internal control over financial reporting based on the
framework established by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission on Internal Control Integrated Framework
(2013). Based on this
assessment, management concluded that, as of December 31, 2014, the Companys
internal control over financial reporting is effective.
4
C. Report of the Independent Auditor, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
The effectiveness of the Registrants internal control over
financial reporting as of December 31, 2014 has been audited by
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an independent auditor, as
stated in their report included with the Registrants Audited Financial
Statements, which are an exhibit to this Annual Report on Form 40-F.
D. Changes in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
There was no change in the Companys internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the twelve month period covered by this
Annual Report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the Companys internal control over financial reporting.
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
The Company is listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange (the
TSX) and is required to describe its practices and policies with regard
to corporate governance with specific reference to the corporate governance
guidelines of the Canadian Securities Administrators on an annual basis by way
of a corporate governance statement contained in the Companys Annual
Information Form or Information Circular. The Company is also listed on the NYSE
MKT LLC (the NYSE MKT) and additionally complies as necessary with the
rules and guidelines of the NYSE MKT as well as the SEC. The Company reviews its
governance practices on an ongoing basis to ensure it is in compliance with the
applicable laws, rules and guidelines both in Canada and in the United States.
The Companys Board of Directors (the Board) is
responsible for the Companys corporate governance policies and has separately
designated a standing Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee. The Board
has determined that the members of the Corporate Governance and Nominating
Committee are independent, based on the criteria for independence and
unrelatedness prescribed by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Section 10A(m)(3),
and the NYSE MKT.
Corporate governance relates to the activities of the Board,
the members of which are elected by and are accountable to the shareholders, and
takes into account the role of the senior officers who are appointed by the
Board and who are charged with the day to day administration of the Company. The
Board is committed to sound corporate governance practices that are both in the
interest of its shareholders and contribute to effective and efficient decision
making.
BENEFIT PLAN BLACKOUT PERIODS
Not applicable.
AUDIT COMMITTEE FINANCIAL EXPERT
The Companys Board of Directors has determined that all three
members of its Audit Committee (Ms. Catherine Stefan, Mr. Brian D. Edgar and Mr.
William A. Rand) are audit committee financial experts, within the meaning of
paragraph 8(b) of General Instruction B of Form 40-F, and are also independent
within the meaning of United States and Canadian securities regulations and
applicable stock exchange requirements. A description of the education and
experience of these persons is set forth in the table below:
|
Education & experience relevant to
|
Member Name |
performance of audit committee
duties |
Catherine J.G. Stefan, |
|
Chartered Professional Accountant (Ontario) |
Chair of the Audit |
|
B.Comm |
Committee |
|
Held position of Chief Operating Officer of
O&Y Properties Inc., |
|
|
President of Stefan & Associates and
Executive Vice-President of Bramalea Group, Chair, Tax Committee of the
Canadian Institute of Public Real Estate Companies (CIPREC). |
|
|
|
5
Brian D. Edgar |
|
Law degree, with extensive corporate finance
experience |
|
|
Held positions of Chairman since 2011 and
President and Chief Executive Officer of a public company from 2005 to
2011. |
|
|
Has served on audit committees of a number of
public companies |
|
|
|
William A. Rand |
|
B.Comm (Accounting) |
|
|
Two law degrees, with extensive corporate
finance experience |
|
|
Has served on audit committees of a number of
public companies |
Through such education and experience, each of these three
members has experience overseeing and assessing the performance of companies and
public accountants with respect to the preparation, auditing and evaluation of
financial statements, and has: (1) an understanding of generally accepted
accounting principles and financial statements; (2) the ability to assess the
general application of such principles in connection with the accounting for
estimates, accruals and reserves; (3) experience preparing, auditing, analyzing
or evaluating financial statements that present a breadth and level of
complexity of accounting issues that are generally comparable to the breadth and
complexity of issues that can reasonably be expected to be raised by the
Companys financial statements; (4) an understanding of internal control over
financial reporting; and (5) an understanding of audit committee functions.
The SEC has provided that the designation of an audit committee
financial expert does not make him or her an expert for any purpose, impose on
him or her any duties, obligations or liability that are greater than the
duties, obligations or liability imposed on him or her as a member of the Audit
Committee and the Board of Directors in the absence of such designation, or
affect the duties, obligations or liability of any other member of the Audit
Committee or Board of Directors.
CODE OF ETHICS
The Company has adopted a code of ethics that applies to the
Companys directors, officers and employees, including the Chief Executive
Officer, Chief Financial Officer, principal accounting officer or controller,
persons performing similar functions and other officers, directors and employees
of the Company. A current copy of the amended code of ethics is on the Companys
website at http://www.denisonmines.com. In the fiscal year ended December 31,
2014, the Company has not made any amendment to a provision of its code of
ethics that applies to any of its Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial
Officer, principal accounting officer or controller or persons performing
similar functions that relates to one or more of the items set forth in
paragraph (9)(b) of General Instruction B to Form 40-F. In the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2014, the Company has not granted a waiver (including an implicit
waiver) from a provision of its code of ethics to any of its Chief Executive
Officer, Chief Financial Officer, principal accounting officer or controller or
persons performing similar functions that relates to one or more of the items
set forth in paragraph (9)(b) of General Instruction B to Form 40-F.
PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT FEES AND SERVICES
The following table discloses the fees billed to the Company by
its external auditor during the last two financial years ended December 31, 2014
and 2013. Services were billed and paid in Canadian dollars and have been
translated into U.S. dollars using an average CAD$/US$ annual exchange rate of
$1.1045 for 2014 and $1.0298 for 2013.
Periods
Ending |
Audit Fees(1) |
Audit Related
Fees (2) |
Tax Fees (3) |
All Other Fees(4) |
December 31, 2013 |
$295,401
|
$121,134
|
$0
|
$123,373
|
December 31, 2014 |
$309,371
|
$136,411
|
$0
|
$9,507
|
Notes:
(1) |
The aggregate fees billed for audit services of the
Companys consolidated financial statements. |
(2) |
The aggregate fees billed for assurance and related
services that are reasonably related to the performance of the audit or
review of the Companys financial statements and are not disclosed in the
Audit Fees column. Fees relate to reviews of interim consolidated
financial statements and specified audit procedures not included as part
of the audit of the consolidated financial statements. |
(3) |
The aggregate fees billed for tax compliance, tax advice,
and tax planning services, such as transfer pricing and tax return
preparation. |
(4) |
The aggregate fees billed for professional services other
than those listed in the other three columns. For 2014, All Other Fees
relates to the Companys acquisition of International Enexco Limited. For
2013, All Other Fees relates to the Companys acquisitions of JNR
Resources Inc., Fission Energy Corp. and Rockgate Capital
Corp. |
6
The Companys audit committee mandate and charter provides that
the audit committee shall (i) approve, prior to the auditors audit, the
auditors audit plan (including, without limitation, staffing), the scope of the
auditors review and all related fees, and (ii) pre-approve any non-audit
services (including, without limitation, fees therefor) provided to the Company
or its subsidiaries by the auditor or any auditor of any such subsidiary and
shall consider whether these services are compatible with the auditors
independence, including, without limitation, the nature and scope of the
specific non-audit services to be performed and whether the audit process would
require the auditor to review any advice rendered by the auditor in connection
with the provision of non-audit services.
The following sets forth the percentage of services described
above that were approved by the audit committee pursuant to paragraph
(c)(7)(i)(C) of Rule 2-01 of Regulation S-X:
|
2013 |
2014 |
Audit Related Fees: |
100% |
100% |
Tax Fees: |
100% |
100% |
All Other Fees: |
100% |
100% |
OFF-BALANCE SHEET ARRANGEMENTS
The Companys off-balance sheet arrangements at December 31,
2014 are as follows:
In connection with the Companys sale of its U.S. Mining
Division to Energy Fuels Inc (EFR) on June 29, 2012, the Company
remained a guarantor under a sales contract assigned to EFR. The sales contract
requires deliveries of 200,000 pounds of U3O8 per year from 2013 to 2017 at a
selling price of 95% of the long-term U3O8 price at the time of delivery. Should
EFR not be able to deliver for any reason other than force majeure as defined
under the contract, the Company may be liable to the customer for incremental
costs incurred to replace the contracted quantities if the unit price of the
replacement quantity is greater than the contracted unit price selling amount.
EFR has agreed to indemnify the Company for any future liabilities it may incur
related to this guarantee.
The Company has agreed to indemnify EFR in connection with
ongoing litigation between Denison Mines (USA) Corp (DUSA) (a company
acquired by EFR as part of the sale of the U.S. Mining Division) and a
contractor in respect of a construction project at the White Mesa mill. This
matter was heard before an arbitrator in November, 2013 and a decision in favour
of DUSA was granted in January 2014. The Company does not expect to recover a
material amount of damages related to this issue.
TABULAR DISCLOSURE OF CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS
At December 31, 2014, the Company had a reclamation liability
of $17,659,000, consisting of $11,234,000 for Elliot Lake obligations,
$6,406,000 for the McClean Lake and Midwest joint ventures obligations and
$19,000 for other obligations. The Company maintains a trust fund equal to
the estimated reclamation spending for the succeeding six calendar years, less
interest expected to accrue on the funds, in respect of its liability for Elliot
Lake. At December 31, 2014, the balance in the trust fund was $2,068,000.
In addition, the Companys contractual obligations at December
31, 2014 are as follows:
7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
After |
|
(in thousands) |
|
Total |
|
|
1 Year |
|
|
2-3
Years |
|
|
4-5
Years |
|
|
5
Years |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Debt Obligations |
$ |
39 |
|
|
30 |
|
|
9 |
|
|
- |
|
|
- |
|
Operating lease |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and other
obligations |
$ |
473 |
|
|
269 |
|
|
186 |
|
|
18 |
|
|
- |
|
IDENTIFICATION OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE
The Company has a separately-designated standing audit
committee established in accordance with Section 3(a)(58)(A) of the Exchange
Act. The committee members are Ms. Catherine J. G. Stefan and Messrs. Brian D.
Edgar and William A. Rand. For further information on these members, see
discussion above under Audit Committee Financial Experts.
INTERACTIVE DATA FILE
An interactive data file is not yet required to be filed since
the Company prepares its financial statements in accordance with International
Financial Reporting Standards.
NYSE MKT CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
The Companys common shares are listed on the NYSE MKT. Section
110 of the NYSE MKT Company Guide permits the NYSE MKT to consider the laws,
customs and practices of foreign issuers in relaxing certain NYSE MKT listing
criteria, and to grant exemptions from the NYSE MKT listing criteria based on
these considerations. An issuer seeking relief under these provisions is
required to provide written certification from independent local counsel that
the non-complying practice is not prohibited by home country law. A description
of the significant ways in which the Companys governance practices differ from
those followed by domestic companies pursuant to the NYSE MKT standards is as
follows:
Board Composition: The NYSE MKT requires that a listed
company have a Board of Directors consisting of at least a majority of members
who satisfy applicable independence standards under Section 803 of the NYSE MKT
Company Guide (the NSYE MKT Independence Standard). The Companys Board
is currently composed of eight members, five of whom qualify as independent
under the NYSE MKT Company Guide and who meet
the NSYE MKT Independence Standard, namely Ms. Stefan and Messrs. Craig, Dengler, Edgar
and Rand. Denisons remaining three directors do not satisfy the NYSE MKT
Independence Standard, being Messrs. Hochstein, Lundin and Park.
Shareholder Meeting Quorum Requirement: The NYSE MKT
minimum quorum requirement for a shareholder meeting is one-third of the shares
issued and outstanding and entitled to vote for a meeting of a listed companys
shareholders. The TSX does not specify a quorum requirement for a meeting of a
listed companys shareholders. The Companys current required quorum at any
meeting of shareholders as set forth in the Companys by-laws is two persons
present, each being a shareholder entitled to vote at the meeting or a duly
appointed proxyholder for an absent shareholder so entitled, holding or
representing in aggregate not less than 10% of the shares of the Company
entitled to be voted at the meeting. The Companys current quorum requirement is
not prohibited by, and does not constitute a breach of, the Business
Corporations Act (Ontario) (the OBCA), applicable Canadian
securities laws or the rules and policies of the TSX.
Proxy Solicitation Requirement: The NYSE MKT requires
the solicitation of proxies and delivery of proxy statements for all shareholder
meetings of a listed company, and requires that these proxies be solicited
pursuant to a proxy statement that conforms to the proxy rules of the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company is a foreign private issuer as
defined in Rule 3b-4 under the Exchange Act, and the equity securities of the
Company are accordingly exempt from the proxy rules set forth in Sections 14(a),
14(b), 14(c) and 14(f) of the Exchange Act. The Company solicits proxies in
accordance with the OBCA, applicable Canadian securities laws and the rules and
policies of the TSX.
8
Shareholder Approval Requirements: The NYSE MKT requires
a listed company to obtain the approval of its shareholders for certain types of
securities issuances. One is the sale of common shares (or securities
convertible into common shares) at a discount to officers or directors. The TSX
rules require shareholder approval for the issuance of shares to insiders in
private placements where insiders are being issued more than 10% of the
presently issued and outstanding shares. The NYSE MKT also requires shareholder
approval of private placements that may result in the issuance of common shares
(or securities convertible into common shares) equal to 20% or more of presently
outstanding shares for less than the greater of book or market value of the
shares. There is no such requirement under Ontario law. The TSX rules require
shareholder approval for private placements that materially affect control, or
where more than 25% of presently issued and outstanding shares will be issued at
a discount to market. The Company will seek a waiver from the NYSE MKT
shareholder approval requirement should a dilutive securities issuance trigger
such NYSE MKT shareholder approval requirement in circumstances where such
securities issuance does not trigger a shareholder approval requirement under
the rules of the TSX.
The foregoing are consistent with the laws, customs and
practices in Canada.
In addition, the Company may from time-to-time seek relief from the NYSE MKT corporate governance requirements on specific transactions under Section 110
of the NYSE MKT Company Guide by providing written certification from
independent local counsel that the non-complying practice is not prohibited by
its home country law, in which case, the Company shall make the disclosure of such
transactions available on its website at www.denisonmines.com. Information
contained on, or accessible through, our website is not part of this Annual
Report.
The Registrant has elected not to adopt Section 805(c) of the
NYSE MKT Company Guide applicable to charters and independence of Compensation
Committees of U.S. domestic issuers. As a foreign private issuer, the Registrant
is not required to comply with these rules.
MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURE
Not applicable.
UNDERTAKING AND CONSENT TO SERVICE OF PROCESS
A. Undertaking
The Company undertakes to make available, in person or by
telephone, representatives to respond to inquiries made by the Commission staff,
and to furnish promptly, when requested to do so by the Commission staff,
information relating to: the securities registered pursuant to Form 40-F; the
securities in relation to which the obligation to file an Annual Report on Form
40-F arises; or transactions in said securities.
B. Consent to Service of Process
The Company has previously filed with the SEC a Form F-X in
connection with its common stock. Any change to the name or address of the
Companys agent for service shall be communicated promptly to the SEC by
amendment to the Form F-X referencing the file number of the Company.
9
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of the Exchange Act, the Company
certifies that it meets all of the requirements for filing on Form 40-F and has
duly caused this Annual Report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned,
thereto duly authorized.
Registrant: DENISON MINES CORP.
By: /s/ Ron F.
Hochstein
Title: Chief Executive
Officer
Date: March 12,
2015
10
EXHIBIT INDEX
99.1 |
Annual Information Form for the
Year Ended December 31, 2014 |
99.2 |
Managements Discussion and Analysis of Results of
Operations and Financial Condition for the Year ended December 31, 2014
(Exhibit 99.3 of the Registrants Form 6-K furnished to the Commission on
March 6, 2015) |
99.3 |
Consolidated Audited Financial Statements for the Years
Ended December 31, 2014 and 2013 (Exhibit 99.2 of the Registrants Form 6-K
furnished to the Commission on March 6, 2015) together with the
Independent Auditors Report thereon |
99.4 |
Consent of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
|
99.5 |
Officers Certifications
Required by Rule 13a-14(a) or Rule 15d-14(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 |
99.6 |
Officers Certifications Required by Rule
13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of
the United States Code |
99.7 |
Consent of Roscoe Postle
Associates Inc. |
99.8 |
Consent of Leo R. Hwozdyk,
P.Eng.
|
99.9 |
Consent of Thomas C. Pool, P.E.
|
99.10 |
Consent of Richard E. Routledge, M.Sc., P.Geo.
|
99.11 |
Consent of James W. Hendry,
P.Eng.
|
99.12 |
Consent of Luke Evans, M.Sc., P.Eng.
|
99.13 |
Consent of Hrayr Agnerian,
M.Sc. (Applied), P. Geo. |
99.14 |
Consent of William E. Roscoe, Ph.D., P.Eng.
|
99.15 |
Consent of Geostat Systems
International Inc. |
99.16 |
Consent of Michel Dagbert, P.Eng.
|
99.17 |
Consent of GeoVector Management
Inc. |
99.18 |
Consent of Allan Armitage, Ph.D., P.Geol.
|
99.19 |
Consent of Alan Sexton, M.Sc.,
P.Geol. |
99.20 |
Consent of CSA Global (UK) Ltd.
|
99.21 |
Consent of Malcolm Titley,
B.Sc. (Geology and Chemistry), MAusIMM, MAIG |
11
Exhibit 99.1
Denison Mines Corp.
2014 Annual Information Form
March 5,
2015
|
ABOUT THIS ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM |
|
This annual information form (AIF) is dated
March 5, 2015. Unless stated otherwise, all of the information in this AIF
is stated as at December 31, 2014. |
|
This AIF has been prepared in accordance with Canadian
securities laws and contains information regarding Denisons history,
business, mineral reserves and resources, the regulatory environment
in which Denison does business, the risks that Denison faces and other
important information for Shareholders. |
|
This AIF incorporates by reference: |
|
Denisons management discussion and analysis (MD&A)
for the year ended December 31, 2014, which is available under the
Companys profile on SEDAR (www.sedar.com) and on EDGAR
(www.sec.gov/edgar.shtml) as an exhibit to the Companys Form 40-F.
|
|
Denisons audited consolidated financial statements for
the year ended December 31, 2014, which are available on SEDAR and EDGAR
as an exhibit to the Companys Form 40-F. |
|
|
Financial Information |
Unless otherwise specified, all dollar amounts referred
to in this AIF are stated in United Stated dollars. References to CAD$
mean Canadian dollars. |
Financial information is presented in accordance with
International Financial Reporting Standards as issued by the International
Accounting Standards Board.
Caution about Forward-Looking Information
This AIF and the documents incorporated by reference include
forward-looking information within the meaning of the United States Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and similar Canadian legislation,
concerning the business, operations and financial performance and condition of
Denison.
The use of words and phrases like "anticipate", "continue",
"estimate", "expect", "may", "will", "project", "should", "believe", plan and
similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking information.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
1 |
Forward-looking information involves known and unknown risks,
uncertainties and other factors that may cause actual results or events to
differ materially from those anticipated in such forward-looking statements.
Denison believes that the expectations reflected in this forward-looking
information are reasonable, but no assurance can be given that these
expectations will prove to be correct. Forward-looking information should not be
unduly relied upon. This information speaks only as of the date of this AIF, and
Denison will not necessarily update this information, unless required to do so
by securities laws.
Examples of Forward-Looking Information
This AIF
contains forward-looking information in a number of places, such as in
statements pertaining to:
|
|
Denisons estimates of its mineral reserves and
mineral resources |
|
|
Denisons expectations regarding the toll
milling of Cigar Lake ores |
|
|
Denison's capital expenditure program,
exploration and development expenditures and reclamation costs |
|
|
Denisons expectations of market prices and
costs |
|
|
the supply and demand for uranium
(U3O8) |
|
|
possible impacts of litigation and regulatory
actions on Denison |
|
|
Denisons exploration and development plans and
objectives |
|
|
future royalty and tax payments and rates
|
|
|
Denisons expectations regarding raising
capital |
|
|
Denison's expectations regarding additions to
its mineral reserves and resources through acquisitions and exploration
|
|
|
the receipt of regulatory approvals, permits
and licences under governmental regulatory regimes |
Material Risks
Denison's actual results could differ
materially from those anticipated. Management has identified the following risk
factors which could have a material impact on the Company or the trading price
of its Shares:
|
|
the speculative nature of exploration and
development projects |
|
|
failure to realize benefits from transactions
|
|
|
Denisons inability to expand and replace its
mineral reserves and resources |
|
|
the imprecision of mineral reserve and resource
estimates |
|
|
the impact of uranium price volatility on the
valuation of Denisons mineral reserves and resources and the market price
of its shares |
|
|
public acceptance of nuclear energy and
competition from other energy sources |
|
|
volatility in the market price of the Companys
shares |
|
|
the risk of dilution from future equity
financings |
|
|
reliance on other operators |
|
|
uncertainty surrounding Denisons operations in
foreign jurisdictions |
|
|
property title risk |
|
|
competition for properties |
|
|
global financial conditions |
|
|
the ability of Denison to meet its obligations
to its creditors and the uncertainty of funding |
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
2 |
|
|
uncertainty as to reclamation and
decommissioning liabilities |
|
|
technical innovation rendering Denisons
products and services obsolete |
|
|
liabilities inherent in mining operations and
the adequacy of insurance coverage |
|
|
delays in obtaining permits and licences for
development properties |
|
|
difficulty complying with changing government
regulations and policy, including without limitation, compliance with
environment, health and safety regulations |
|
|
potential claims of Canadas First Nations
people |
|
|
dependence on key personnel |
|
|
potential conflicts of interest for the
Companys directors who are engaged in similar businesses |
|
|
limitations of disclosure and internal controls
|
|
|
the potential influence of Denisons largest
Shareholder, Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO).
|
The risk factors listed above are discussed in more detail
later in this AIF.
A Note for US Investors Regarding Estimates of
Measured,
Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resources
This AIF uses the terms measured, indicated and inferred
mineral resources. United States investors are advised that while such terms are
recognized and required by Canadian regulations, the United States Securities
and Exchange Commission does not recognize them. Inferred mineral resources
have a great amount of uncertainty as to their existence, and as to their
economic and legal feasibility. It cannot be assumed that all or any part of an
inferred mineral resource will ever be upgraded to a higher category. Under
Canadian rules, estimates of inferred mineral resources may not form the basis
of feasibility or other economic studies.United States investors are
cautioned not to assume that all or any part of measured or indicated mineral
resources will ever be converted into mineral reserves. United States investors
are also cautioned not to assume that all or any part of an inferred mineral
resource exists, or is economically or legally mineable.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
3 |
About Denison
Denison is engaged in uranium exploration and
development. The registered and head office of Denison is located at Suite
402, 595 Bay Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5G 2C2, Canada. Denisons website
address is www.denisonmines.com. |
|
In this AIF, Denison or the Company means
Denison Mines Corp., Shareholders means holders of Denisons common
shares and Shares means Denisons common shares. |
|
|
At the end of 2014, Denison had a total of 88 active
employees which were divided among the Companys business as follows:
|
|
60 (9 hourly) in Canada |
|
5 in Mongolia |
|
13 in Mali |
|
10 (5 hourly) in Zambia. |
None of the Companys employees are unionized.
Denison is a reporting issuer in all of the Canadian provinces.
The Shares are listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) under the
symbol DML and on the NYSE MKT under the symbol DNN. Computershare Investor
Services Inc. acts as the registrar and transfer agent for the Shares. The
address for Computershare Investor Services Inc. is 100 University Avenue, 9th
Floor, Toronto, ON, M5J 2Y1, Canada, and the telephone number is
1-800-564-6253.
The Shares are registered under the United States Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Denison files periodic reports with
the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Formation of Denison
Denison was formed by
articles of amalgamation as International Uranium Corporation (IUC),
effective May 9, 1997 pursuant to the Business Corporations Act (Ontario)
(the OBCA). On December 1, 2006, IUC combined its business and
operations with Denison Mines Inc. (DMI), by way of arrangement under
the OBCA (the IUC Arrangement). Pursuant to the IUC Arrangement, all of
the issued and outstanding shares of DMI were acquired in exchange for IUCs
shares. Effective December 1, 2006, IUCs articles were amended to change its
name to Denison Mines Corp.
Prior to July 2012, Denison was engaged in the exploration,
development, mining, and milling of uranium and vanadium, with projects in the
United States, Canada, Zambia and Mongolia. At the time, Denison's principal
assets included 100% ownership of the White Mesa Mill in Utah and 22.5%
ownership of the McClean Lake uranium mill in Saskatchewan.
On June 29, 2012, Denison sold its shares in certain
subsidiaries, which owned all of the Company's mining assets and operations
located in the United States ("U.S. Mining Division"). The sale was
carried out by way of a plan of arrangement between Denison and Energy Fuels
Inc. ("EFR"). After completing the various steps in the plan of
arrangement, Denison shareholders retained their interest in Denison and
received 1.106 common shares of EFR for each Share held in Denison.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
4 |
By completing the transaction with EFR, Denison transformed its
business to focus on its uranium exploration and development projects in
Saskatchewan, Zambia and Mongolia. In 2013, through its acquisitions of JNR
Resources Inc. (JNR), Fission Energy Corp. (Fission) and
Rockgate Capital Corp. (Rockgate) and in 2014 through its acquisition
of International Enexco Limited (IEC), Denison has increased its
project portfolio in Canada, primarily in the Athabasca Basin, and expanded its
position in Africa by acquiring interests in uranium exploration properties in
Namibia and Mali.
Denison also continues to be engaged in mine decommissioning
and environmental services through its Denison Environmental Services
(DES) division.
Denison also participates in a toll-milling arrangement through
the McClean Lake joint venture (MLJV) whereby ore is processed for the
Cigar Lake Joint Venture (CLJV) at the McClean Lake mill.
Denisons wholly owned subsidiary, DMI, is also the manager of
Uranium Participation Corporation (UPC), a publicly traded company
listed on the TSX under the symbol U, which invests in uranium oxide in
concentrates and uranium hexafluoride.
|
Denisons Key Assets Today: |
|
|
|
|
|
A
22.50% interest in the McClean Lake uranium processing facility and
uranium deposits in northern Saskatchewan. |
|
|
|
|
|
A
25.17% interest in the Midwest uranium project, including the Midwest and
the Midwest A deposits in northern Saskatchewan. |
|
|
|
|
|
A 60%
interest in the Wheeler River project which includes the Phoenix deposit
and the newly discovered Gryphon zone. |
|
|
|
|
|
An extensive portfolio of exploration and development
property interests in the Athabasca Basin including: Moore Lake (100%),
Waterbury Lake (60%), Hatchet Lake (58.06%), Crawford/Bachman Lake (100%),
Bell Lake (100%) and Mann Lake (30%). |
|
|
|
|
Beyond Canada, Denison owns the Mutanga uranium project
in southern Zambia, the Falea uranium, silver and copper project in Mali,
and interests in mineral exploration properties in Namibia and Mongolia.
|
Denisons Structure
Denison conducts its business
through a number of subsidiaries. The following is a diagram depicting the
corporate structure of Denison and its active subsidiaries as at December 31,
2014, including the name, jurisdiction of incorporation and proportion of
ownership interest in each.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
5 |
Denison also owns a number of inactive subsidiaries which have
no liabilities or assets and do not engage in any business activities.
Some of the Companys Canadian uranium exploration properties
are held directly by the Company or indirectly through DMI, which is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company. DMI holds a 22.5% interest in the
McClean Lake project and a 25.17% interest in the Midwest project, both of which
are operated by Denisons joint venture partner, AREVA Resources Canada Inc.
(ARC), a subsidiary of the AREVA Group. DMI also holds a 60% interest
in, and is the operator of the Wheeler River project, host of the Phoenix
deposit and the Gryphon zone, as well as interests in other exploration
properties in the Athabasca Basin. Denisons 60% interest in the Waterbury Lake
project is held indirectly through its wholly owned subsidiary, Denison
Waterbury Corp.
In 2014, Denison carried out an internal reorganization of its
interests to consolidate its African holdings under its single wholly-owned Canadian subsidiary, Rockgate. Denisons Mutanga project in Zambia is held through Denison
Mines Zambia Ltd, which is wholly owned by Denison Mines (Bermuda) I Ltd., a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Rockgate. Denisons interest in the Falea project in
Mali and the Dome project in Namibia are also held indirectly through Rockgate
and its subsidiaries.
The Companys interest in the Gurvan Saihan Joint Venture
(GSJV) in Mongolia is held through Denison Mines (Mongolia) Ltd, which
is wholly owned by Denison Mines (Bermuda) I Ltd., a wholly-owned subsidiary of
the Company.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
6 |
Developments over the Last Three Years
2012...
An application for judicial review of the
decision to renew the McClean Lake Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
(CNSC) licence initially made in 2009 by the Athabasca Regional
Government (ARG) was finally resolved. The ARG challenged the legality
of the renewed licence primarily on the basis of issues related to the Federal
and Provincial governments duty to consult with aboriginal people. The Canadian
Federal Court dismissed the application in 2010; however ARG filed a notice of
appeal. In 2011, the Federal Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed ARGs appeal.
ARG did not appeal this decision, ending the matter in 2012.
In March, the Company acquired an additional 15% interest in
the GSJV in Mongolia. The interest was previously held by a Russian party,
Geologorazvedka, and was obtained for cash consideration and a release of the
partner's share of the unfunded joint venture obligations. The Company now holds
an 85% interest in the GSJV and has been in discussions with the Mongolian
Government regarding its ownership interest in the GSJV.
In June, Denison and EFR completed a transaction whereby EFR
acquired all of the shares of certain Denison subsidiaries which held its U.S.
Mining Division in exchange for the issuance of 425,440,872 common shares of EFR
to Shareholders (the EFR Arrangement). For each Share held,
Shareholders received 1.106 shares of EFR while still retaining their interest
in Denison.
In conjunction with the EFR Arrangement, Denison amended and
extended its existing credit agreement with the Bank of Nova Scotia (the
Credit Facility) to provide Denison with a revolving term loan for up
to $15,000,000 until June 2013. To secure the facility, Denison provided a
guarantee and pledge of all of the shares of DMI.
In August, the Canadian Federal Minister of the Environment
approved the Midwest Project Environmental Assessment, paving way for mining of
Midwest ores by conventional open pit mining methods.
The CNSC authorized the amendment of the operating licence for
the McClean Lake mill, in which Denison holds a 22.50% interest, permitting an
increase in the annual production from 8.0 million pounds U3O8 to 13.0 million
pounds U3O8, and receipt and processing of ore slurry from the McArthur River
Mine.
In October, Denison closed a private placement (the 2012
Offering) of 4,145,000 Shares, at a price of CAD$1.69 each, issued on a
flow-through basis under the Income Tax Act (Canada). The 2012 Offering
raised aggregate gross proceeds for the Company of CAD$7,005,050.
By the end of 2012, Denison completed another significant
exploration program in the Athabasca Basin, including over 28,000 metres of
drilling at Wheeler River. Reporting strong intersections at the Phoenix uranium
deposit, Denison commenced preparation of updated mineral resource estimates for
the property. The Company also reported a total of 18,160 metres of drilling on
the Mutanga Project in Zambia during the year. Drilling in 2012 in Mongolia
totaled 29,600 metres, divided equally between the Urt Tsav and Ulzit licence
areas.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
7 |
2013
In January, updated estimates of mineral
resources for the Phoenix deposit as at December 31, 2012 were received from
Roscoe Postle Associates Inc. (RPA Inc.), which was retained to
independently review and audit the mineral resources in accordance with the
requirements of NI 43-101. For the Phoenix deposit, indicated mineral resources
were estimated at 52.3 million pounds U3O8 (the Companys share, 31.4 million
pounds U3O8) from 152,400 tonnes at an average grade of 15.6% U3O8 and inferred
mineral resources were estimated at 7.6 million pounds U3O8 (the Companys
share, 4.6 million pounds U3O8) from 11,600 tonnes at an average grade of 29.8%
U3O8 based on a cut-off of 0.8% U3O8.
On January 31, Denison completed the acquisition of JNR by
acquiring all of the common shares of JNR in exchange for 0.073 of a Share of
Denison per common share of JNR (the JNR Acquisition). As a result, an
aggregate of 7,975,479 Shares were issued in exchange for all JNR common shares
held by JNR shareholders. With the closing of the JNR Acquisition, Denison was
able to consolidate its partial ownership of several properties with JNR's
interests to become the 100% owner of five mineral exploration properties in the
Athabasca Basin (including the high priority properties of Moore Lake and Bell
Lake), and also acquired interests in six other properties located in the
Athabasca Basin, one property located in Saskatchewan outside of the Athabasca
Basin, and two properties in Newfoundland.
In April, Denison completed the acquisition of Fission by way
of plan of arrangement (the Fission Arrangement), which included
Fissions 60% interest in the Waterbury Lake uranium project, its interests in
all other properties in the eastern part of the Athabasca Basin, Quebec and
Nunavut, as well as its interests in two joint ventures in Namibia. Pursuant to
the Fission Arrangement, for each common share of Fission held, Fission
shareholders received 0.355 of a Share, a nominal cash payment of CAD$0.0001 and
one common share of a newly incorporated exploration company, Fission Uranium
Corp (FCU). As a result, an aggregate of 53,053,284 Shares were issued
in exchange for all Fission common shares held by Fission shareholders.
Unexercised Fission options were exchanged for options to acquire Shares of
Denison (the Fission Replacement Options). With completion of the
Fission Arrangement, the holders of Fission warrants were entitled to receive,
upon the exercise of their warrants (the Fission Warrants), the number
of Shares of Denison and FCU which the warrant holders would have been entitled
to receive as a result of the Arrangement, if immediately prior to the effective
date, the warrant holders had exercised their warrants.
In May, Denison completed a private placement offering (the
2013 Offering) of 11,500,000 Shares, at a price of CAD$1.30 each,
issued on a flow-through basis under the Income Tax Act (Canada). The
2013 Offering raised aggregate gross proceeds for the Company of CAD$14,950,000.
In June, the Company extended the maturity date of its
$15,000,000 Credit Facility to January 2014.
In September, estimates of mineral resources for the J Zone
deposit at the Waterbury Lake project were received from GeoVector Management
Inc. (GeoVector) which was retained to independently estimate the
mineral resources in accordance with the requirements of NI 43-101. The mineral
resource at the J Zone is estimated to be 291,000 tonnes grading 2.00% U3O8
containing 12,810,000 pounds of U3O8 (the Companys share, 7,686,000 pounds).
All of the mineral resource is classified as indicated and is reported above a
cutoff grade of 0.1% U3O8. In September, Denison also filed a new technical
report for the Mutanga project in Zambia following a request by the Ontario
Securities Commission. See Mineral Properties Mutanga.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
8 |
Also in September, the Company commenced a takeover bid to
acquire all of the outstanding shares of Rockgate in exchange for Shares of
Denison (the Rockgate Offer). Pursuant to the Rockgate Offer, Rockgate
shareholders received 0.192 of a Share for each Rockgate share tendered. The
Rockgate Offer expired on December 6, 2013, with Denison having acquired
approximately 89.7% of the outstanding Rockgate shares. Immediately after the
expiry of the offer, Denison announced that it would acquire the remaining
Rockgate shares by plan of arrangement (the Rockgate Arrangement) at
the start of 2014. By December 31, 2013, an aggregate of 20,131,665 Shares were
issued in exchange for Rockgate shares tendered under the Rockgate Offer.
In December, Denison signed an option agreement for the Jasper
Lake property with Strateco Resources Inc. (Strateco). Under the
option, Denison granted Strateco the option to earn up to a 60% interest in the
Jasper Lake property, which is the amalgamation of four Denison properties
formerly known as Jasper Lake, Minor Bay, Ahenakew Lake and North Wedge, in the
eastern Athabasca Basin of Saskatchewan. This option was subsequently assigned
to SeqUr Exploration Inc. (SeqUr) in 2014.
By the end of 2013, Denison proved to be one of the most active
exploration companies in the Athabasca Basin. The Company completed 54,840
metres of diamond drilling, plus large programs of geophysical surveying and
line cutting on 14 properties in the Athabasca Basin. Denison reported several
high grade intersections at the Phoenix deposit on the Wheeler River property
including drill hole WR-525 which intersected 43.8% U3O8 over 12.0 metres for a
grade times thickness product (GT) of 525.6 %m, the highest GT
of any hole drilled to date on the Wheeler River property. Additionally, low
grade mineralization was intersected in a new area of interest on the Wheeler
River property, the 489 Zone.
2014
In January, Denison acquired the remaining
10.3% of the outstanding shares of Rockgate by way of the Rockgate Arrangement,
making Rockgate a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company. Through the
acquisition of Rockgate, Denison added $15.3 million in cash and investments,
and bolstered the Companys African portfolio of assets by adding the 100% owned
Falea project located in Mali to the Companys portfolio of assets, in addition
to Rockgates 100% interests in other properties in Mali and Niger. Pursuant to
the Rockgate Offer and the Rockgate Arrangement, an aggregate total of
22,444,287 Shares were issued to Rockgate shareholders.
Also in January, Mr. Eun Ho Cheong, KEPCOs representative on
Denisons Board, resigned and was replaced by Mr. Tae Hwan Kim.
At the end of January, the Company amended and extended the
terms of its Credit Facility to January 31, 2015.
When the Company acquired the Dome project in Namibia through
the Fission Arrangement, it became a party to an earn-in agreement with Rio
Tinto Mining and Exploration Limited (Rio) pursuant to which Rio could have
earned a majority interest in the project over time. In March 2014, Rio
terminated its option to earn an interest in the project after having spent
approximately $1.5 million in exploration expenditures by the end of 2013.
Denison assumed operatorship at that time. Expenditures incurred by Rio also had
the effect of diluting another party with an interest in the Dome project to
10%. Denison now has a 90% interest in the project.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
9 |
Also in March, Denison announced the discovery of a new zone of
mineralization at Wheeler River, named the Gryphon zone. The discovery resulted
from an intersection of high grade, basement hosted uranium mineralization
returning 15.3% U3O8 over 4.0 metres in an area three kilometres northwest of
the Phoenix deposit. Shortly after its initial discovery, Denison announced a
second intersection of high grade, basement hosted uranium mineralization
returning 21.2% U3O8 over 4.5 metres. The Gryphon zone would become the focus of
further drilling for the balance of the year.
In June, Denison completed the acquisition of IEC, which
included IEC's uranium exploration assets in the eastern part of the Athabasca
Basin in Saskatchewan, consisting of a 30% interest in the Mann Lake property
and a 20% interest in Denison's Bachman Lake property. The acquisition of IEC
was completed by way of plan of arrangement (the "IEC Arrangement"). As a
result of the IEC Arrangement, Denison acquired all of the issued and
outstanding IEC shares that it did not already own, while certain non-Canadian
assets were spun out to a former subsidiary of IEC ("IEC Spinco"). Under
the IEC Arrangement, each IEC share was exchanged for 0.26 of a Denison Share,
one common share of IEC Spinco, and one-half of a IEC Spinco warrant to acquire
an additional IEC Spinco share at a price of $5.00 for six months. The expiry of
outstanding IEC stock options was extended to 90 days from closing and
outstanding warrants were automatically exchanged for warrants of Denison and
IEC Spinco.
Also in June, an updated mineral resource estimate for the
Phoenix deposit at the Wheeler River project was received from RPA Inc. which
was retained to independently estimate the mineral resources in accordance with
the requirements of NI 43-101. The total indicated mineral resource estimate
increased from 52,300,000 pounds of U3O8 to 70,200,000 pounds of U3O8 (the
Companys share, 42,100,000 pounds) based on 166,400 tonnes of mineralization at
an average grade of 19.13% U3O8. The total inferred mineral resource is now
estimated to be 1,100,000 pounds of U3O8 (the Companys share, 700,000 pounds)
based on 8,600 tonnes of mineralization with an average grade of 5.80% U3O8. See
Mineral Properties Phoenix.
In August, Denison completed a private placement offering (the
2014 Offering) of 9,257,500 Shares, at a price of CAD$1.62 each, issued
on a flow-through basis under the Income Tax Act (Canada). The 2014
Offering raised aggregate gross proceeds for the Company of CAD$ 14,997,000,
which will fund its Canadian exploration programs through to the end of 2015.
Construction and commissioning activities continued at the
McClean Lake mill through the summer. In September, the McClean Lake mill was
officially restarted and leaching of McClean Lake ore slurry commenced. Ore from
the CLJV was introduced into the mill circuit towards the end of September,
leading to the production of the first packaged uranium from CLJV ore in October.
Production for 2014 amounted to approximately 344,000 pounds U3O8 for the CLJV
and approximately 112,000 pounds U3O8 (Denisons share, 25,000 pounds U3O8) for
the MLJV. The Companys share of toll milling revenues from processing Cigar Lake
ore at the McClean Lake mill during the fourth quarter of 2014 totaled $111,000.
See Denisons Operations McClean Lake Cigar Lake Toll Milling.
In November, Peter Longo joined Denison as Vice President,
Project Development with responsibility for advancing the Wheeler River project
to the next phase of development and working closely with ARC on the McClean,
Midwest and SABRE projects.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
10 |
During 2014, Denison continued to be one of the most active
exploration companies in the Athabasca Basin. The Company completed 52,300
metres of diamond drilling on properties that it operates and participated in an
additional 15,500 metres on joint ventures operated by others. A large amount of
geophysical surveying was also completed to ensure a continuous pipeline of
drilling targets is maintained.
Events this Year
In January, David Cates, formerly
Vice President Finance & Tax and Chief Financial Officer, was appointed
President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company. The appointment increased
the scope of the operational management responsibilities included in Mr. Cates'
portfolio of responsibilities. Ron Hochstein continued as Chief Executive
Officer.
Also in January, Mr. Tae Hwan Kim, KEPCOs representative on
Denisons Board, resigned and was replaced by Mr. Joo Soo Park.
At the end of January, the Company extended its Credit Facility
to January 2016, increased the maximum credit provided under the facility to
CAD$24,000,000 and amended certain other provisions.
In February 2015, SeqUr notified the Company that it intends to
terminate its option to earn an interest in the Jasper Lake property.
The Uranium Industry
As a result of the Fukushima Daichii nuclear incident that
occurred in March 2011, nuclear reactor programs around the world were impacted
in varying degrees including the shutdown of all 54 reactors in Japan, the
planned phase out of nuclear power in Germany and the pause in nuclear plant
construction in China to reassess plant and safety system designs. The nuclear
industry is beginning to show signs of recovery however with the planned restart
of a limited number of reactors in Japan expected in 2015, the resumption of the
Chinese nuclear program, and the announcement of new build programs in the
United Kingdom and Saudi Arabia. Nuclear power is one of the few options
available to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions while providing or displacing other
forms of base load power generation.
Uranium prices over the past year fell to levels not seen since
2005. Uranium producers responded to some degree to the downturn in uranium
price with the shutdown, or scaling back, of production at numerous operations;
but production was still greater than demand, as suppliers continued to produce
and sell into higher-priced long term contracts.
Although uranium production is currently greater than demand,
the long term growth projections for the nuclear industry combined with the
depletion of uranium resources in operation today, means that new production
sources must be brought on stream, and higher uranium prices are necessary to
justify the construction of these facilities.
Uranium Demand
The World Nuclear Association reports
that there are 437 nuclear reactors operable in 30 countries as of January 1,
2015. These reactors can generate 377.7 gigawatts of electricity and supply
approximately 11% of the world's electrical requirements. At the present time,
70 nuclear reactors are under construction in 14 countries with the principal
drivers of this expansion being China (27 reactors under construction), Russia
(9), India (6), South Korea (5) and the United States (5), which together have a
total of 52 reactors under construction. Based on the most recent statistics
from the World Nuclear Association, there are a total of 253 reactors that are
either under construction, or planned around the world.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
11 |
According to the International Energy Agencys World Energy
Outlook 2014 global nuclear power capacity is projected to increase by over
60%, from 377.7 gigawatts to over 620 gigawatts in 2040. Of the growth in
nuclear generation, China accounts for 45% while India, Korea and Russia
collectively make up a further 30%. Ux Consulting Company, LLC (UxCo),
in its Uranium Market Outlook Q4 2014 (the Q4 Outlook), estimated
that, by 2030 uranium demand will grow to 266.0 million pounds U3O8 from 167.5
million pounds of U3O8 in 2014.
Primary Uranium Supply
Due to the falling uranium
price in 2014, uranium production declined year over year from 154.3 million
pounds U3O8 in 2013 to 146.0 million pounds in 2014, which is a reversal of the
increasing production trend seen over the past several years. For the period of
2004 to 2014, annual uranium production has increased from about 100.0 million
pounds U3O8 to 146.0 million lbs in 2014. The primary source of the increase has
been Kazakhstan, where production has increased from 9.7 million pounds in 2004
to 59.3 million pounds in 2014.
UxCo has estimated in its Q4 Outlook that existing mine
production plus new planned and potential mine production will increase primary
uranium supply from 146.0 million pounds U3O8 in 2014 to 187.9 million pounds
U3O8 in 2025. Kazahstan is expected to continue to be one of the principal
drivers for the increase in primary mine production and is projected to increase
production by about 8% between 2014 and 2025. Two major production centres are
projected to be Cigar Lake in Canada, which began production in 2014, and Husab
in Namibia, which is being built by a Chinese utility as a source of captive
supply and is projected to start production in 2016. For other projects to move
forward to meet the production forecasts, uranium prices will need to increase
appreciably to support their higher cost production profiles and the significant
capital expenditures that will be required.
Secondary Uranium Supply
Primary mine production
supplies approximately 85% of current demand. The balance of demand is supplied
from secondary sources such as commercial inventories, reprocessing of spent
fuel, sales by uranium enrichers and inventories held by governments, in
particular the U.S. Department of Energy.
Excess commercial inventories, which were once one of the major
sources of secondary supplies during the period from the early 1970s to the
early 2000s, have largely been consumed; however, as a result of the shutdown of
the German nuclear program and the continued shut down of the Japanese nuclear
fleet, commercial inventories could become more of a factor. A larger source of
secondary supplies continues to be government inventories, particularly in the
U.S. and Russia. The disposition of these inventories may have a market impact
over the next 10 to 20 years, although, the rate and timing of this material
entering the market is uncertain.
Reprocessing of spent fuel is another source of secondary
supply but is expected to satisfy only 3% to 4% of demand. Expansion of this
secondary source would require major investments in facilities which could only
be supported by a significant increase in long-term uranium prices.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
12 |
UxCo expects that secondary sources of supply will fall from
2014 levels of 44.7 million pounds per year to 27.9 million pounds U3O8 per year
by 2025.
Uranium Prices
Nuclear utilities purchase uranium
primarily through long-term contracts. These contracts usually provide for
deliveries to begin two to four years after they are signed and provide for
delivery from four to ten years thereafter. In awarding medium- and long-term
contracts electric utilities consider, the producers uranium reserves, record
of performance and production cost profile, in addition to the commercial terms
offered. Prices are established by a number of methods, including base prices
adjusted by inflation indices, reference prices (generally spot price
indicators, but also long-term reference prices) and annual price negotiations.
Contracts may also contain annual volume flexibility, floor prices, ceiling
prices and other negotiated provisions. Under these contracts, the actual price
mechanisms are usually confidential.
Long-term demand is affected in a large part by utilities
uncovered requirements. Uncovered demand is projected to increase significantly
over the period of 2016 to 2018. UxCo estimates that uncovered demand in 2015 is
only 6.7 million pounds U3O8, but is expected to increase to 17.6 million pounds
U3O8 in 2016 and up to 49.4 million pounds in 2018, which should result in
increased contract activity in 2015 and into 2016.
The long-term price is published on a monthly basis and began
the year at $50.00 per pound U3O8. It declined to $44.00 per pound U3O8 at the
end of July 2014 and then rose to $49.00 per pound U3O8 at the end of the year.
Long term contracting volumes were up compared to 2013, but were still much
lower than those seen over the past ten years.
Electric utilities procure their remaining uranium requirements
through spot and near-term purchases from uranium producers, traders and other
suppliers. Historically, spot prices are more volatile than long-term prices.
The spot price began the year at $34.50 per pound U3O8. It rose to $35.50 per
pound U3O8 during the beginning of the year and then declined to $28.25 per
pound U3O8 by May 2014. The last time the uranium price was at these levels was
April, 2005. The spot price started to climb again later in the summer months
and ended 2014 at $35.50 per pound U3O8. The spot price continued to rise
steadily during the first two months of 2015 and was last quoted at $39.25 per
pound U3O8 on March 2, 2015.
Competition
The uranium industry is small compared to
other commodity industries, in particular other energy commodity industries.
Uranium demand is international in scope but supply is characterized by a
relatively small number of companies operating in only a few countries.
Production by four producers accounted for approximately 64% of the estimated
world production in 2014. In total nine producers represent 87.6% of the worlds
production. The industry is also geographically concentrated with about 73% of
the worlds production coming from only four countries: Kazakhstan, Canada,
Australia and Niger. Kazakhstan is the largest producer, with production of
approximately 41% of the total primary production in 2014.
Marketing Uranium
Denison has historically sold its
uranium under a combination of long-term contracts and spot market sales. The
long-term contracts had a variety of pricing mechanisms, including fixed prices,
base prices adjusted by inflation indices and/or spot price or long-term
contract reference prices. Time of delivery during a year under long-term
contracts is at the discretion of the customer, so the Companys delivery
obligations would vary markedly from quarter to quarter. Spot sales are priced
at or near published industry spot prices.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
13 |
In June 2012, Denison sold its principle uranium production
source, the U.S. Mining Division. For the first six months of 2012,
approximately 77% of Denisons total sales volume was sold under long-term
contracts, with the remainder sold in the spot market. The long-term contracts
were also sold with the U.S. Mining Division and as a result, the Company
currently has no long-term contracts in place.
Denisons Operations
McClean Lake
McClean Lake is comprised of several
uranium deposits and a state of the art mill located on the eastern edge of the
Athabasca Basin in northern Saskatchewan, approximately 750 kilometres north of
Saskatoon. McClean Lake is owned by Denison (22.5%) and its joint venture
partners, ARC (70.0%) and OURD Canada Co., Ltd. (OURD) (7.5%) . ARC is
the operator/manager of the facility. Denison, ARC and OURD also jointly own the
nearby Midwest project, although ownership percentages are slightly different.
See Mineral Properties Midwest. It is planned that the Midwest ore will be
milled at the McClean Lake mill.
Development of the McClean Lake project began in March 1995.
Construction and commissioning were completed in 1997. The JEB deposit was mined
out and the ore stockpiled. The JEB pit was then converted in 1999 into the JEB
Tailings Management Facility (TMF). The McClean Lake mill began
production of uranium concentrates in 1999, processing ore from the JEB deposit.
The first ore was fed to the mill on June 22, 1999 and commercial production was
achieved on November 1, 1999. The mill operated until the end of June 2010
producing approximately 49.9 million pounds U3O8 when it was placed on stand-by
due to a lack of ore.
In 2014 the McClean Lake mill re-commenced operations with the
delivery of ore shipments from the Cigar Lake Mine, owned by the CLJV and
operated by Cameco Corporation (Cameco).
McClean Lake Mill
The McClean Lake mill is specially
designed and constructed to process high grade uranium ores in a
safe and environmentally responsible manner. The mill uses sulphuric acid and
hydrogen peroxide leaching and a solvent extraction recovery process to extract
and recover the uranium product from the ore. In addition to the mill facility,
other infrastructure on the site includes a sulphuric acid plant, a ferric
sulphate plant, an oxygen plant, an electricity transmission line tied into the
provincial power grid, a 14 megawatt back-up diesel power plant, warehouses,
shops, offices and living accommodations for site personnel. Mill facilities are
currently being expanded from a capacity of 13.0 million pounds U3O8 per year to
approximately 24.0 million pounds per year to enable processing of 100% of ore
production from the Cigar Lake mine. Construction of the expansion is expected
to be completed by the end of 2015 and is being fully funded by the CLJV.
In 2014 the McClean Lake mill re-commenced operations and
processed over 456,800 pounds of U3O8 with a 97.5% recovery rate. Re-start of the
mill proceeded smoothly with no significant production problems. Mill feed
consisted of a blend of Cigar Lake ores and stockpiled Sue B and SABRE ores. As
Cigar Lake production ramps up, it will displace McClean Lake ores allowing for
more consistent mill feed and eliminating operational challenges associated with
ore blending.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
14 |
Mining
McClean Lake consists of nine known ore
deposits, five of which have been mined out with some of the ore still
stockpiled on the surface.
The first ore body, JEB, was mined from 1997 to 1999 and the
ore was stockpiled. Mining of the Sue C ore body was completed in February 2002,
and all of the ore was stockpiled on the surface. Mining was then suspended
until the third quarter of 2005 when mining began on the Sue A, Sue E and Sue B
deposits. Mining was completed at Sue A in the first quarter of 2006, at Sue E
in the first quarter of 2008 and at Sue B at the end of 2008. Exploration
activities for expansion of the known deposits and identification of new
deposits are ongoing. See Mineral Exploration McClean Lake.
Low-grade special waste from the mining of the JEB, Sue C, Sue
A, Sue E and Sue B deposits has been disposed of in the mined-out Sue C pit. In
the future Cigar Lake special waste will also be disposed of in the Sue C pit.
By agreement between the CLJV and the MLVJ, costs to upgrade the Sue Water Treatment Plant and costs to
dewater the Sue C pit for Cigar Lake special waste will be shared 50/50 between
the CLJV and the MLJV.
Operations
The table below shows the operating
statistics for McClean Lake over the last five years.
|
|
2014 |
|
|
2013 |
|
|
2012 |
|
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
Ore Milled (thousand tonnes) |
|
8.4 |
|
|
- |
|
|
- |
|
|
- |
|
|
97 |
|
Average Grade (% U3O8) |
|
2.85 |
|
|
- |
|
|
- |
|
|
- |
|
|
0.80 |
|
MLJV Production (thousand pounds
U3O8) |
|
112.4 |
|
|
- |
|
|
- |
|
|
- |
|
|
1,731 |
|
Denisons share MLJV Production (thousand pounds
U3O8) |
|
25.3 |
|
|
- |
|
|
- |
|
|
- |
|
|
389 |
|
Toll Mill Production (thousand pounds U3O8) |
|
344.4 |
|
|
- |
|
|
- |
|
|
- |
|
|
- |
|
During the first six months of 2010, the mill processed
stockpiled ore from the Sue E, Sue B, Sue A and McClean North deposits. The mill
stopped processing new ore feed at the end of June of 2010 and the final circuit
clean out was completed in October 2010. The mill was put on care and
maintenance through the remainder of 2010 and remained on care and maintenance
until resumption of operations in September 2014. The mill began processing a
blend Sue B and ore from the SABRE program and then began to blend in Cigar
Lake ores. The mill shut down in late December for a maintenance shutdown over
the Christmas period.
Approximately 90,700 tonnes of Sue B and SABRE (see Operations
- Surface Access Borehole Resource Extraction Mining Program) ore at an average
grade of 0.38% U3O8 remain on the stockpile.
For information pertaining to taxes and royalties, see
Government Regulation Canadian Royalties and Government Regulation
Canadian Income and Other Taxes.
Tailings Disposal
The disposal of mill tailings in
an environmentally acceptable manner has led to advances in the design and
construction of new tailings management facilities. In the state-of-the-art TMF, tailings are deposited subaqueously in a paste form from a
barge. This procedure minimizes tailings segregation, eliminates concerns of
freezing and dust generation, and controls radiation and radon emissions from
the pond. This facility has been designed to receive tailings from processing
high-grade Midwest and Cigar Lake ores in addition to tailings from the McClean
Lake deposits.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
15 |
In 2013, the TMF Optimization project was completed, which
provides additional tailings capacity by increasing
the efficiency of the currently licensed tailings space. This project entailed
sloping of the TMF walls and placement of a bentonite liner and provides several
years of tailings capacity based on current projected throughputs. A second
project called the TMF Expansion is currently underway and when completed will
provide an additional 25 years of tailings capacity. This project entails
expanding the TMF above the currently licensed elevation and will require the
submittal of an amendment to the operating licence. The environmental,
engineering and licensing work are underway.
Property
All of the surface facilities and the mine
sites are located on lands owned by the Province of Saskatchewan. The right to
use and occupy the lands was granted in a surface lease agreement with the
Province of Saskatchewan. The original surface lease agreement of 1991 was
replaced by a new agreement in 2002. This new surface lease is valid for a
period of 33 years. Obligations under the surface lease agreement primarily
relate to annual reporting regarding the status of the environment, land
development and progress made on northern employment and business development.
The McClean Lake surface lease covers an area of approximately 3,677 hectares.
Mill Licence
The McClean Lake site is operated under
various permits, licences, leases and claims granted and renewed from time to
time, all of which are currently in good standing. On July 25, 2005, the CNSC
issued Mine Operating Licence, UMOL MINEMILL McCLEAN.02/2009 (the Mine
Operating Licence) for a four-year term which expired on May 30, 2009. In
September, 2008 ARC submitted the renewal application for a ten year licence to
operate the McClean Lake mill. On June 30, 2009, the CNSC renewed the Mine
Operating Licence for a period of eight years. In addition to renewal of all
previously licensed activities, the new licence authorizes mining of the McClean
North deposits using hydraulic borehole mining methods (SABRE) and included the
care and maintenance activities at the Midwest site. Consequently the CNSC
revoked the previous Midwest Uranium Site Preparation Licence. See Denisons
Operations - Midwest Project Development and Operations - Surface Access
Borehole Resource Extraction Mining Program.
Environmental
The McClean Lake mill re-commenced
operation in 2014. During the year there were three reportable spills, all of
which were minor in nature and were successfully remediated with no impact to
the environment.
Cigar Lake Toll Milling
In 2002, Denison and its
partners entered into an agreement with the CLJV to process Cigar Lake ore at
the McClean Lake mill. Pursuant to that agreement, all Cigar Lake ore was to be
leached at the McClean Lake mill with the pregnant aqueous solution being
divided between the McClean Lake and Rabbit Lake facilities for processing into
uranium concentrates. In order to process this Cigar Lake ore, an expansion of
the McClean Lake mill was required. The expansion and modifications of the
McClean Lake mill to raise its capacity to 13.0 million pounds U3O8 were
completed in 2008 and all costs were paid for by the CLJV.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
16 |
As a result of delays in the startup of Cigar Lake and the
exhaustion of permitted ore deposits at McClean Lake, the McClean Lake mill was
placed on stand-by at the end of June of 2010. Under the Cigar Lake toll milling
agreement, the CLJV funded virtually all of the McClean Lake stand-by costs. The
relative proportion of the stand-by costs paid by each party was calculated on
the basis of the percentage of mineral reserves between the McClean Lake and
Cigar Lake joint ventures.
In 2011, the CLJV and the MLJV agreed to amend the toll milling
agreement. Under the new milling arrangement, the McClean Lake operation is
expected to process and package 100% of the uranium produced from the Cigar Lake
mine. To accommodate the annual production of 18.0 million pounds U3O8 from the
CLJV, the mill is being expanded to an annual capacity of 24.0 million pounds
from the current licensed capacity of 13.0 million pounds. All costs for the
expansion of the McClean Lake mill and a portion of the TMF Optimization and TMF
Expansion (See Denisons Operations - McClean Lake - Tailings Disposal) are
paid for by the CLJV.
Surface Access Borehole Resource Extraction (SABRE) Mining
Program
The SABRE (previously known as the Mining Equipment Development)
program is developing a viable alternate mining method combining surface
drilling and borehole mining technology. The system is projected to have low
capital costs and a number of benefits including safety, ease of licensing and a
small environmental footprint.
Hydraulic borehole mining is a technique used to extract
materials through a small access borehole, typically less than one-half of a
metre in diameter, resulting in a very small disturbance to the surface. A
mining tool containing a high-pressure water jet nozzle is lowered through the
access borehole in the overburden and sandstone to the mineralized horizon. The
high-pressure water jet is used to cut or erode the mineral-bearing ore and
create a slurry, enlarging the hole to three to four metres in diameter. The
slurry is sent to surface using a slurry pump or an air lift system. On the
surface, through a series of vibrating screens and settling ponds, the water is
separated from the cuttings and returned back to the hole. Each mined out cavity
is backfilled after completion with a cemented mixture in the mineralized
horizon, and with unmineralized drill cuttings in the remainder of the hole
through the overlying sandstone and glacial overburden layers.
In 2012, a two hole test program was completed on the McClean
North deposit. Between 2007 and 2012, approximately 2,400 tonnes of ore was recovered
through various SABRE test mining programs, a portion of which was fed to the
mill in 2014. As of the end of 2014, there is approximately 534 tonnes of
SABRE ore yet to be processed at an average grade of 4.78% U3O8.
In 2013, further evaluation of the 2012 program results and the
initial planning for the next phases of the SABRE program were carried out,
including the preliminary evaluation of the application of SABRE for mining the
Midwest and Caribou deposits. After the completion of several significant
milestones in 2012 and 2013, a decision was made in late 2013 to suspend the
SABRE program in 2014 in response to the low uranium price environment. In 2015
SABRE activities will focus on upgrading down-hole sonar capabilities with the
objective of improving surveying of cavity dimensions and mining
performance.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
17 |
McClean Lake Underground Project
An internal study
evaluating the feasibility of mining of the McClean North, Caribou and Sue D
deposits via conventional underground methods was completed in 2012.
The McClean North Deposits, discovered in the 1980s, consist
of a series of mineralized pods located approximately 165 metres below surface.
These deposits were included in the 1991 McClean Lake feasibility study and are
part of the approved 1991 McClean Lake Environmental Assessment. The Sue D
deposit, discovered in the 1990s, is located approximately 90 metres below
surface and the Caribou deposit, discovered in the 2000s, is located
approximately 110 metres below surface. For further descriptions of the McClean
North, Sue D and Caribou deposits see Mineral Deposits McClean Lake.
Access to the deposits will be via a ramp from the existing SUE
B open pit. This access approach allows development to proceed through stable
ground conditions which positively affects costs, schedule and environmental
impacts. Underhand cut and fill mining method using pastefill as backfill is
planned to be employed to maximize recovery of the high value ore under poor
ground conditions. Water management is a critical aspect of the design which led
to the incorporation of a freeze wall surrounding the McClean North and Caribou
deposits. Production mining will be completed via mechanical excavation (i.e.
roadheader) due to the ore grades and the corresponding risk of high radiation
exposures in McClean North and Caribou deposits, whereas a traditional drill and
blast method will be used for Sue D. An average production rate of 270 tonnes
per day is expected.
Mining recovery of 95% and a mining dilution factor of 20% have
been assumed. The summary of the projected mine production by deposit is shown
in the following table.
Summary of Mine Production by Deposit
|
Ore Production |
Grade |
Minable Metal(1) |
Deposit |
(Tonnes) |
(%U3O8) |
(M lbs.
U3O8) |
Sue D |
97,519 |
0.99 |
2.14 |
McClean North |
204,326 |
2.26 |
10.19 |
Caribou |
34,696 |
2.05 |
1.57 |
Total |
336,541 |
1.87 |
13.90 |
Notes:
(1) Minable metal is presented on a 100%
basis.
Mine ventilation will be provided by four vent raises from
surface excavated using blind boring or raiseboring methods. Mine dewatering
systems will be designed for 170% of anticipated inflows. A second independent
system of the same capacity is planned to be on stand-by and will have a design
capacity of 270% of the potential estimated uncontrolled water inflows. All mine
water will report to the Sue Water Treatment Plant. The nearby Sue C open pit
provides emergency water storage.
Ore will be transported to the existing JEB Mill where no
modifications are required to process the ore. Mill recoveries are predicted to
be in the 97% range. Tailings and waste will be disposed of in the existing TMF.
Construction of additional infrastructure is minimal due to the use of existing
facilities.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
18 |
The McClean North, Sue D and Caribou deposits are anticipated
to produce approximately 13.5 million pounds U3O8 over a five year mine life
following a three year development and construction period.
The 2012 internal study estimated the capital cost of the project at CAD$267.3
million and the mine, mill, site support, transport and other operating costs
at CAD$24.01 per pound U3O8.
A production decision has been deferred due to the low uranium
price environment.
Midwest
The Midwest project, owned 25.17% by
Denison, 69.16% by ARC and 5.67% by OURD, is host to two significant uranium
deposits: the Midwest deposit, discovered in 1978; and the Midwest A deposit,
which was discovered in 2004/2005.
Midwest is located approximately 15 kilometres from the McClean
Lake mill where the Midwest ore would be processed. See McClean Lake.
Deposits
The Midwest deposit (see Mineral
Properties Midwest) will be the first to be mined. Various studies since its
discovery in 1978 have examined the feasibility of mining by open pit,
underground and SABRE methods. Mining by open pit has been selected as the
currently preferred method.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
19 |
Following the significant increase in the price of uranium
starting in 2003, exploration resumed in an area about 3 kilometres northeast of
the Midwest deposit. This work led to the discovery of the Midwest A deposit as
well as a number of other significant mineralized zones. See Mineral
Exploration Midwest.
Development
In December 2005, the project
description for the development of the Midwest deposit was submitted to the
CNSC, the Environmental Assessment Branch of Saskatchewan Environment and the
Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. This project description contemplated
the Midwest deposit being mined by open pit and a further expansion of the
McClean Lake mill.
The development of this deposit will involve draining the Mink
Arm of the South McMahon Lake to construct an open pit mine. Other deposits and
extensions located to the north, south and in the basement could be developed
once the pit nears completion. Ore from this deposit would be trucked over a
dedicated haul road to the McClean Lake mill.
In November 2007, the Midwest joint venture partners made a
formal production decision to proceed with development of the Midwest deposit.
The capital cost, including surface facilities, the water treatment plant, the
haul road and the related mill expansion, was estimated at approximately CAD$435
million. Expenditures were estimated to be as follows: CAD$75 million for the
water treatment plant, CAD$115 million for de-watering wells, CAD$100 million
for infrastructure, CAD$35 million for mobile equipment and maintenance
facilities, CAD$100 million for modification to the mill and CAD$10 million for
miscellaneous capital expenses.
In November 2008, the Midwest joint venture partners announced
that the development of the Midwest project would be delayed for an indefinite
period. The delay was the result of the global economic climate, delays and
uncertainties associated with the regulatory approval process, increasing
capital and operating costs and the depressed state of the uranium market. Based
on an update of the capital cost estimates completed in 2008, the capital cost
increased approximately 50% from the previous estimate of CAD$435 million. Efforts to optimize the project will continue, and the status of the project is expected to be reviewed every six months.
In September 2011, the final version of the Midwest Project
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was submitted to provincial and
federal governments. The Comprehensive Study Report was drafted by the CNSC and
circulated for federal, provincial and aboriginal review. In September 2012, the
Midwest EIS was approved.
The project has remained on care and maintenance throughout
2013 and 2014 and will remain on care and maintenance in 2015.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
20 |
Mineral Properties
Steve Blower, P.Geo., the
Companys Vice President Exploration, who is a Qualified Person in accordance
with the requirements of NI 43-101, is responsible for the mineral resource
estimates for the Companys properties in Canada, Zambia, Mali and Namibia and
all disclosure of scientific or technical information concerning mineral
projects in those countries in this AIF.
Terry Wetz, P.E., the Executive Director of the GSJV, who is a
Qualified Person in accordance with the requirements of NI 43-101, is
responsible for the mineral resource estimates for the Companys properties in
Mongolia and all disclosure of scientific or technical information concerning
mineral projects in that country in this AIF.
Summary of Mineral Reserves and Mineral Resources
The following tables show the Company's estimate of mineral reserves and
mineral resources as of December 31, 2014. NI 43-101 requires mining companies
to disclose mineral reserve and resource estimates using the subcategories of
proven mineral reserves, probable mineral reserves, measured mineral resources,
indicated mineral resources and inferred mineral resources. Denison reports
mineral reserves and mineral resources separately.
Proven Mineral Reserve Estimates
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Company |
|
|
|
100% Basis |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Share |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pounds of |
|
|
Pounds of |
|
|
|
Tonnes |
|
|
Grade |
|
|
U3O8 |
|
|
U3O8 |
|
Project/Deposit |
|
(,000) |
|
|
%
U3O8 |
|
|
(,000) |
|
|
(,000) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
McClean - Ore Stockpile |
|
90.7 |
|
|
0.38 |
|
|
761 |
|
|
171 |
|
Measured Mineral Resource Estimates(1)(2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Company |
|
|
|
100% Basis |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Share |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pounds of |
|
|
Pounds of |
|
|
|
Tonnes |
|
|
Grade |
|
|
U3O8 |
|
|
U3O8 |
|
Project/Deposit |
|
(,000) |
|
|
%
U3O8 |
|
|
(,000) |
|
|
(,000) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mutanga - Mutanga |
|
1,880.0 |
|
|
0.048 |
|
|
2,000 |
|
|
2,000 |
|
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
21 |
Indicated Mineral Resource Estimates(1)(2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Company |
|
|
|
100% Basis |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Share |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pounds of |
|
|
Pounds of |
|
|
|
Tonnes |
|
|
Grade |
|
|
U3O8 |
|
|
U3O8 |
|
Project/Deposit |
|
(,000) |
|
|
%
U3O8 |
|
|
(,000) |
|
|
(,000) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
McClean - Caribou |
|
39.5 |
|
|
3.13 |
|
|
2,700 |
|
|
600 |
|
McClean - Sue D |
|
122.8 |
|
|
1.05 |
|
|
2,800 |
|
|
600 |
|
McClean - McClean North |
|
206.9 |
|
|
2.75 |
|
|
12,500 |
|
|
2,800 |
|
Midwest - Midwest(3) |
|
354.0 |
|
|
5.50 |
|
|
42,900 |
|
|
10,800 |
|
Midwest - Midwest A |
|
464.0 |
|
|
0.57 |
|
|
5,800 |
|
|
1,500 |
|
Wheeler - Phoenix |
|
166.4 |
|
|
19.13 |
|
|
70,200 |
|
|
42,100 |
|
Waterbury J Zone |
|
291.0 |
|
|
2.00 |
|
|
12,800 |
|
|
7,700 |
|
Mongolia - Hairhan |
|
12,261.0 |
|
|
0.07 |
|
|
19,800 |
|
|
16,800 |
|
Mutanga - Mutanga |
|
8,400.0 |
|
|
0.031 |
|
|
5,800 |
|
|
5,800 |
|
Total Indicated Mineral Resources |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
88,700 |
|
Inferred Mineral Resource Estimates(1)(4)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Company |
|
|
|
100% Basis |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Share |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pounds of |
|
|
Pounds of |
|
|
|
Tonnes |
|
|
Grade |
|
|
U3O8 |
|
|
U3O8 |
|
Project/Deposit |
|
(,000) |
|
|
%
U3O8 |
|
|
(,000) |
|
|
(,000) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
McClean - Sue E (5) |
|
483.4 |
|
|
0.69 |
|
|
7,300 |
|
|
1,600 |
|
McClean - Sue D |
|
24.2 |
|
|
0.39 |
|
|
200 |
|
|
0 |
|
McClean - McClean North |
|
3.3 |
|
|
0.79 |
|
|
100 |
|
|
0 |
|
Midwest - Midwest |
|
25.0 |
|
|
0.80 |
|
|
400 |
|
|
100 |
|
Midwest - Midwest A |
|
9.2 |
|
|
21.23 |
|
|
4,300 |
|
|
1,100 |
|
Wheeler - Phoenix |
|
9.0 |
|
|
5.8 |
|
|
1,100 |
|
|
700 |
|
Mongolia - Hairhan |
|
5,536.0 |
|
|
0.05 |
|
|
5,800 |
|
|
4,900 |
|
Mutanga - Mutanga |
|
7,200.0 |
|
|
0.021 |
|
|
3,300 |
|
|
3,300 |
|
Mutanga - Dibwe |
|
17,000.0 |
|
|
0.023 |
|
|
9,000 |
|
|
9,000 |
|
Mutanga Dibwe East |
|
39,800.0 |
|
|
0.032 |
|
|
28,200 |
|
|
28,200 |
|
Mutanga - Mutanga Ext |
|
500.0 |
|
|
0.034 |
|
|
400 |
|
|
400 |
|
Mutanga - Mutanga East |
|
200.0 |
|
|
0.032 |
|
|
100 |
|
|
100 |
|
Mutanga - Mutanga West |
|
500.0 |
|
|
0.034 |
|
|
400 |
|
|
400 |
|
Total Inferred Mineral Resources |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
49,800 |
|
Notes: |
(1) |
Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and
do not have demonstrated economic viability. No mineral reserves have as
yet been defined. |
(2) |
The measured and indicated mineral resources
were estimated at various cut-off grades. They are:
|
|
|
McClean Lake: |
0.10% |
U3O8 |
|
|
Caribou: |
0.35% |
U3O8 |
|
|
Midwest: |
0.30% |
U3O8 |
|
|
Midwest A: |
0.05% |
eU (0.059% eU3O8) |
|
|
Phoenix: |
0.80% |
U3O8 |
|
|
J Zone: |
0.10% |
U3O8 |
|
|
Mongolia: |
0.02% |
U (0.024% U3O8), minimum
thickness of 2.0m |
|
|
Mutanga: |
0.01% |
U3O8
|
(3) |
The Company's share of the indicated mineral resources at
Midwest also contains 4.35% nickel (8.55 million pounds) and 0.34% cobalt
(0.68 million pounds). |
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
22 |
(4) |
The inferred mineral resources were estimated at various
cut-off grades. They are: |
|
|
McClean Lake: |
0.10% |
U3O8 |
|
|
Midwest: |
0.30% |
U3O8 |
|
|
Midwest A: |
0.05% |
eU (0.059% eU3O8) |
|
|
Phoenix: |
0.80% |
U3O8 |
|
|
Mongolia: |
0.02% |
U (0.024% U3O8), minimum
thickness of 2.0m |
|
|
Mutanga: |
0.01% |
U3O8 |
|
|
Dibwe, Dibwe East: |
0.01% |
U3O8 |
|
|
Mutanga Extension |
|
|
|
|
East and West: |
0.02% |
U3O8
|
(5) |
The operator conducted confirmatory drilling on a portion
of these mineral resources outside the designed pit and late in 2006
submitted a preliminary analysis detailing an inferred mineral resource of
2 million pounds on a 100% basis in this area, as compared to the 7.3
million pounds that Scott Wilson Roscoe Postle Associates Inc. (Scott
Wilson RPA) has estimated. Scott Wilson RPA has not re-estimated the
mineral resource using the new drill information. |
The mineral reserve and mineral resource information shown
above is as reported in the various technical reports prepared in accordance
with NI 43-101 and discussed in greater detail in this section of the AIF,
except summary information above on Denisons mineral reserve estimates was
prepared from the year-end stockpile survey reported by ARC, the operator of the
McClean Lake joint venture.
The tables below detail the changes to the
Companys mineral reserve and mineral resource estimates from the
financial year ended
December 31, 2013 to December 31, 2014.
Change to Denisons Share of Proven Mineral Reserves
(in thousands of pounds U3O8)
|
|
2014 |
|
|
|
Additions |
|
Reserves |
December 31, 2013 |
(Deletions) |
December 31, 2014 |
|
|
|
|
McClean Ore Stockpile |
197 |
(26.0) |
171 |
Change to Denisons Share of Mineral Resources(1)(2)
(in thousands of pounds
U3O8)
|
|
2014 |
|
|
December 31, |
Additions |
December 31, |
Resources |
2013 |
(Deletions)(3) |
2014 |
|
|
|
|
Wheeler - Phoenix |
|
|
|
Indicated |
31,000 |
11,100 |
42,100 |
Inferred |
4,600 |
(3,900) |
700 |
Notes: |
(1) |
Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and
do not have demonstrated economic viability. No mineral reserves have as
yet been defined. |
(2) |
Inferred mineral resources have a greater amount of
uncertainty as to their existence and as to whether they can be mined
economically. It cannot be assumed that all or part of the inferred
mineral resources will ever be upgraded to a higher classification.
|
(3) |
Additions or deletions of mineral resources
include reassessment of geological data and new or updated technical
reports. |
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
23 |
McClean Lake
Property Description and
Location
The McClean Lake project is owned by Denison (22.5%) and its
joint venture partners, ARC (70.0%) and OURD (7.5%) . ARC is the
operator/manager of the project. Denison, ARC and OURD also jointly own the
nearby Midwest project. Mineralization mined at Midwest is planned to be milled
at McClean Lake.
The McClean Lake facility is located approximately 26
kilometres west of the Rabbit Lake mine and approximately 750 kilometres north
of Saskatoon.
The mineral property consists of four mineral leases covering
an area of 1,088 hectares and 13 mineral claims covering an area of 3,111
hectares. The right to mine the McClean Lake deposits was acquired under these
mineral leases, as renewed from time to time. Mineral leases are for terms of 10
years with the right to renew for successive 10-year periods provided that the
leaseholders are not in default pursuant to the terms of the lease. The terms of
the four mineral leases must be renewed between November 2015 and August 2016. A
mineral claim grants the holder the right to explore for minerals within the
claim lands and the right to apply for a mineral lease. Title to the mineral
claims is secure until at least 2023. It is expected that the leases will be
renewed in the normal course, as required, to enable all the McClean Lake
deposits to be fully exploited.
For additional information on mineral leases, mineral claims
and surface leases. See Government Regulation Land Tenure.
The uranium produced from the McClean Lake deposits is subject
to a uranium mining royalty in Saskatchewan in accordance with Part III of The
Crown Mineral Royalty Regulations. See "Government Regulation - Canadian
Royalties. In addition, a royalty of 2% of the spot market price on all U3O8
produced from the Sue E deposit is payable to the previous owner of a portion of
the deposit.
Accessibility, Climate, Infrastructure and Physiography
Access to the McClean Lake site is by both road and air. Goods are
transported to the site by truck over an allweather road connecting with the
provincial highway system. Air transportation is provided through the Points
North airstrip about 25 kilometres from the project site.
The nearest permanent community is Wollaston Post, about 50
kilometres from the property. Workers commute to and from the site by aircraft
landing at Points North then by bus to the site. While at the site, workers
reside in permanent camp facilities. Personnel are recruited from the northern
communities and major population centres, such as Saskatoon, and normally work
one week on and one week off.
Site activities are carried out all year, despite the cold
weather during the winter months. Mean daily temperatures range from 25°C in
January to +15°C in July. The average length of the frostfree period is about
90 days.
Water for industrial activities is obtained from one of the
many lakes that surround the area. Electric power is obtained from the
provincial grid with standby power available as required.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
24 |
All tailings from the McClean Lake processing facility are
deposited in the TMF. In addition, the TMF has been designed to receive tailings
from the processing of the highgrade Midwest and Cigar Lake ores.
The terrain at McClean Lake is typical of the Athabasca Basin
area with glacial drift features following northeastsouthwest trends to produce
sand and gravel ridges. These ridges are surrounded by lowlying ground which is
often water logged and dominated by muskeg. Small ponds and lakes cover over 25%
of the area. Jack pine and spruce, rarely more than 10 metres high, are the
predominant trees. Surface elevations range from 400 to 500 metres above sea
level.
History
Canadian Occidental Petroleum Limited
("Canadian Oxy") began exploring for uranium in northern Saskatchewan in
1974 in the area between the Rabbit Lake deposit and the Midwest Lake area where
uraniferous boulder trains had been found previously. In April 1977, Canadian
Oxy entered into a joint venture agreement with Inco Limited. During a diamond
drilling program in 1977, one of the 47 drilled holes encountered encouraging
uranium mineralization. During the next two years, extensive exploration work,
including airborne geophysics, electromagnetic surveys and diamond drilling were
conducted.
Mineralization was discovered at McClean Lake (the McClean
North deposit) in January 1979 and follow up drilling later that year confirmed
the existence of significant unconformity type uranium mineralization.
Subsequent exploration resulted in the discovery in 1980 of the McClean South
zone and the JEB deposit in 1982. The Sue deposits were discovered between 1988
and 1991, and the Caribou deposit in 2002.
In 1993, the owners of the Midwest and McClean Lake projects
agreed to combine the two projects and develop them as a complementary
development. Ownership interests in the respective joint ventures were
interchanged, resulting in the Company acquiring a 22.5% interest in McClean
Lake.
Geological Setting
The McClean Lake uranium deposits
lie near the eastern margin of the Athabasca Basin in the Churchill Structural
Province of the Canadian Shield. The bedrock geology of the area consists of
Precambrian gneisses unconformably overlain by flat lying, unmetamorphosed
sandstones and conglomerates of the Athabasca Group. The Precambrian basement
complex is composed of an overlying Aphebian aged supracrustal metasedimentary
unit infolded into the older Archean gneisses. The younger Helikian aged,
Athabasca sandstone was deposited onto this basement complex. The basement
surface is marked by a paleoweathered zone with lateritic characteristics
referred to as regolith.
Exploration
Uranium mineralization at McClean North
was discovered in January 1979 following extensive airborne electromagnetic
surveying and drilling in the McClean Lake area. Further drilling led to the
discovery of the McClean South trend in 1980. In the late 1980s, further
airborne and ground geophysics, percussion and reconnaissance diamond drilling
and delineation diamond drilling were carried out on the McClean North deposits.
Following the discovery of the Sue A deposit in 1988, diamond
drilling was continued along the Sue trend leading to the discovery of the Sue E
deposit in late 1991; however, it did not undergo development drilling until
2001. Sue D was explored by diamond drilling from the surface from 1989 to 1992
with additional fill-in holes drilled between 1994 and 2001.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
25 |
The Caribou deposit was discovered during a winter drilling
program in 2002.
Mineralization
Excluding the JEB deposit, which was
mined out several years ago and which is now used as the TMF, the McClean Lake
mineral resources are located along two "trends" of mineralization, the
Sue trend and the McClean trend. The Caribou pod is a singular deposit at this
time.
The mineralized zones in the McClean trend occur as
sausageshaped pods straddling the unconformity between the Athabasca sandstones
and the crystalline basement. The high grade part of the mineralized pods
undulates from 13 metres above to 13 metres below the unconformity contact which
is, on average, at a depth of 160 metres below the surface in this area. The
host rocks for the mineralization are altered sandstones and Aphebian basement
rocks usually altered to clayrich rocks. There are 11 discrete pods, arranged
along two separate but parallel trends (termed the North and South zones)
separated by approximately 500 metres. Generally, mineralization in the basement
is at the eastern extremity of the combined zone. Uranium mineralization is
hosted in hematite altered clayrich zones in which illite forms massive layers.
Uranium occurs as finegrained coffinite, as veinlets and nodules of pitchblende
and as massive masses of pitchblende/uraninite. Highly variable but generally
small amounts of nickel arsenides are associated with the uranium.
The deposits of the Sue trend line up along the western flank
of the Collins Bay dome. These deposits trend north-south along or near a
steeply east-dipping unit of graphitic gneiss within a 4.2 kilometre long
basement conductor. Mining has been completed at Sue A, Sue B, Sue C and Sue E.
The Sue D deposit lies north of Sue E and south of the Sue C pit along the Sue
trend. Uranium mineralization is hosted by faulted/fractured brecciated and
altered graphitic paragneiss.
Caribou is an unconformity related deposit similar to such
deposits as Collins Bay and Midwest. The Caribou mineralization occurs at 110
metres below surface and consists primarily of uranium oxides (uraninite and
pitchblende) with a suite of nickel-cobalt arsenides in a clay-altered matrix
within the sandstones and fault breccias in the basement. The mineralization is
concentrated along the sub-Athabasca unconformity.
Drilling
As of April 30, 1990, 416 diamond drill
holes totaling 81,800 metres had been drilled into the McClean North and McClean
South zones.
Sue D was explored by diamond drilling from surface from 1989
to 2001 with 70 holes totaling 13,395 metres drilled.
At Sue E, a total of 135 diamond drill holes have been cored
for a total of 23,757 metres. Drill spacing was at 10 metre centres on 12.5
metre lines on all of the above properties. Open pit mining was completed in
2008; however there are mineral resources south of the existing pit wall that
could be extracted by underground mining methods.
The Caribou deposit was explored in 2002 with the drilling of
44 diamond drill holes for a total of 7,022 metres. Holes were drilled on 12.5
-metre sections at a spacing of 5 metres.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
26 |
Sampling and Analysis
The following description
applies to all exploration on the McClean Lake property.
Following the completion of a drill hole, the hole is
radiometrically logged using a downhole slim-line gamma probe. The gamma-log
results provide an immediate equivalent uranium value (eU3O8%) for the hole,
which, except in high grade zones, is reasonably accurate. The gamma-log
results, however, have not been used for the purposes of estimating mineral
reserves.
Sample intervals are generally 500 millimetres long, except
where higher or lower grade mineralization boundaries fall within the interval.
In that case, two 250 millimetre samples are collected. Flank samples of 1.0
metre are always collected where mineralization is located. A background
geochemistry sample is collected every 10 metres down the hole.
All sampled core is split in half, one half retained and the
other sent to an independent laboratory. Lost core is not an issue at the
McClean project as core recovery has been good. Control samples are routinely
assayed with each batch of core samples analyzed.
The mineralization in the various McClean deposits is highly
variable in both mineralogy and uranium content. The principal minerals
identified in the deposits are pitchblende, uraninite and niccolite. As a result
of the highly variable uranium content, a variable density formula was developed
for the McClean deposits. This formula was modified over the years to account
for the fact that it originally tended to underestimate U3O8 content where the
U3O8 values were associated with high values of nickel and arsenic.
Security of Samples
No opinion can be given
regarding security of samples in the mid to late 1970s and the late 1980s other
than to indicate that subsequent geological work and all metallurgical and
geotechnical work have confirmed the results. All procedures reviewed follow
generally accepted industry practice. A good demonstration of the reliability is
that JEB and the Sue deposits (A, B, C, and E) have been mined out and more
uranium has been recovered into stockpiles than had been estimated from surface
drilling.
Mineral Reserve and Mineral Resource Estimates
Estimation procedures have evolved over the years. At the time of the
feasibility study in 1990, polygonal methods were used for the JEB, the Sue A,
the Sue B, the Sue C deposits and for the McClean zones. Prior to the start of
mining at the JEB deposit, the mineral reserves were reevaluated using
computerized methods whereby block models were constructed and geostatistical
methods were implemented. Much more recently, these figures have been further
fine tuned using Whittle pit optimization software. Appropriate tests and audits
of the databases on all the McClean deposits have been carried out by qualified
Denison personnel. In the case of JEB, Sue C and Sue B, the amount of U3O8
recovered into stockpiles was higher than that estimated from surface drilling.
The Company received a technical report from Scott Wilson RPA.,
now RPA Inc., dated November 21, 2005, as revised February 16, 2006, on
its mineral reserves and mineral resources at certain of the deposits at McClean
Lake in which it has an interest entitled Technical Report on the Denison Mines
Inc. Uranium Properties, Saskatchewan, Canada (the McClean Technical
Report), a copy of which is available on the Companys profile on the SEDAR
website at www.sedar.com. Richard E. Routledge, M.Sc., P. Geo. and James
W. Hendry, P. Eng., are the independent Qualified Persons for the McClean
Technical Report for the purposes of the requirements of NI 43-101. The mineral
resource estimates for Caribou, as reported in the McClean Technical Report, are
as shown in Mineral Properties Summary of Mineral Reserves and
Resources.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
27 |
In preparing the McClean Technical Report, Scott Wilson RPA
reviewed previous estimates of mineral reserves and mineral resources at the
applicable properties, and examined and analyzed data supporting the previous
estimates, as well as other available data regarding the properties, including
extensive information from ARC.
For the Sue E deposit, Scott Wilson RPA constructed a block
model using indicator kriging to both map out and geologically constrain
mineralized areas. A block that had at least one nearby composite within 10
metres of its centre, and that had composites from at least two different drill
holes in its search neighbourhood was classified as part of the indicated
mineral resource. The indicated mineral resource was evaluated by Scott Wilson
RPA using Whittle economic evaluation software showing that the Sue E pit
economics were robust and mineral reserves were estimated. Mining was completed
at the Sue E pit during 2008 recovering about 91% of the probable mineral
reserves estimated by Scott Wilson RPA. Scott Wilson RPA classified
approximately 7.3 million of the pounds outside the current pit as inferred
mineral resources. Confirmatory drilling in 2006 by the operator has indicated
that this may be reduced to 2.0 million pounds. Scott Wilson RPA has not
re-estimated the mineral resources based on this drilling. Denison anticipates
that underground mining methods could be used to extract this material.
The mineral resource estimate for the Caribou deposit is based
on a block model for which grade was interpolated using ordinary kriging. Since
there were no plans for the mining of this deposit at the date of the McClean
Technical Report, the economic potential was not evaluated and mineral reserves
were not estimated.
The Company received a technical report from Scott Wilson RPA
dated March 31, 2006 on its mineral resources at the Sue D deposit entitled
Technical Report on the Sue D Uranium Deposit Mineral Resource Estimate,
Saskatchewan, Canada (the Sue D Report), a copy of which is available
on the Companys profile on the SEDAR website at www.sedar.com. Richard
E. Routledge, M.Sc., P. Geo. and James W. Hendry, P. Eng., are the independent
Qualified Persons for the Sue D Report for the purposes of the requirements of
NI 43-101. Scott Wilson RPA carried out an independent mineral resource estimate
for Sue D by conventional 3-D computer block modeling. A minimum vertical mining
width of two metres was employed with a 0.1% U3O8 cut-off.
Due to the significant increase in the price of uranium from
2004 to 2006, Denison requested Scott Wilson RPA to re-evaluate the uranium
resources in the McClean North trend that are amenable to other methods of
mining. The original McClean Technical Report had only evaluated mineral
resources and mineral reserves of the high grade portions under the assumption
that they would be mined using a blind shaft mining method. The Company received
a technical report from Scott Wilson RPA dated January 31, 2007, on the mineral
reserves and resources at the McClean North uranium project entitled "Technical
Report on the McClean North Uranium Deposit Mineral Resource Estimate,
Saskatchewan, Canada" (the "McClean North Technical Report"), a copy of
which is available on the Companys profile on the SEDAR website at
www.sedar.com. Richard E. Routledge, M.Sc., P. Geo. is the independent
Qualified Person for the McClean North Technical Report for the purposes of the
requirements of NI 43-101.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
28 |
The re-evaluation of McClean North was carried out by
conventional 3-D computer block modeling. Wire frames were constructed for each
of pods 1, 2 and 5. The estimate included internal dilution, but not external
dilution, and was carried out at a 0.1% U3O8 cut-off. This mineral resource
estimate is based entirely on diamond drill information. Block cell dimensions
were selected at 8 metre model grid east west x 5 metre model grid north south
and a 2 metre bench height or approximately 180 tonnes/block. Scott Wilson RPA
constructed a mineral resource wireframe based on kriging, and constructed a
special waste wireframe, that generally surrounds the mineral resource
wireframe, using similar kriging parameters but with larger search distances.
Subsequent to this report, the Company reviewed the block model and estimation
procedures and revised slightly the mineral resource estimate for the McClean
North deposit.
Midwest
Property Description and Location
The Midwest and Midwest A uranium deposits at the Midwest project are two of
several high-grade deposits at or near the contact between the basement complex
and the sandstone in the Athabasca Basin in northern Saskatchewan. Midwest is
owned by Denison (25.17%) and its joint venture partners, ARC (69.16%) and OURD
(5.67%) . ARC is the operator/manager. Denison, ARC and OURD are also the joint
venture partners in the McClean Lake joint venture and the owners of the McClean
Lake mill where the Midwest ore is planned to be milled.
The Midwest project is located near South McMahon Lake
approximately 15 kilometres from the McClean Lake mill. The site is
approximately 750 kilometres north of Saskatoon.
Since the completion of the underground test mine at the
Midwest deposit in 1988 and 1989, the site has been under an environmental
monitoring and site security surveillance program. At present, there is an
inactive water treatment plant, two water storage ponds and a core storage area
on the site and a dam in the Mink Arm of South McMahon Lake. All of the
facilities used in the test mine program and all of the existing surface
facilities are located on lands owned by the Province of Saskatchewan. The right
to use and occupy the lands was granted in a surface lease agreement with the
Province of Saskatchewan. The original surface lease agreement of 1988 was
replaced by a new agreement in 2002. This new surface lease is valid for a
period of 33 years. Obligations under the surface lease agreement primarily
relate to annual reporting regarding the status of the environment, the land
development and progress made on northern employment and business development.
The Midwest surface lease covers an area of approximately 646 hectares.
The mineral property consists of three contiguous mineral
leases covering an area of 1,426 hectares. The right to mine the Midwest deposit
was acquired under these mineral leases, as renewed from time to time. The
mineral leases are for terms of 10 years with the right to renew for successive
subsequent 10 year periods, provided that the leaseholders are not in default
pursuant to the terms of the lease. The term of one of the mineral leases
expires in December 2023 and the other two expire in December 2018. The
Company expects that the leases will be renewed in the normal course, as
required, to enable the Midwest deposit to be fully exploited.
For additional information on mineral leases and surface
leases, see Government Regulation Land Tenure.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
29 |
The uranium produced from the two Midwest deposits is subject
to a uranium mining royalty in Saskatchewan in accordance with Part III of The
Crown Mineral Royalty Regulations. See "Government Regulation - Canadian
Royalties. In addition, a portion of Denison's interest in the Midwest project
(i.e. 5.5% of the project reducing to 3.44% after payout) is subject to a
slidingscale, gross overriding royalty ranging from 2% to 4% payable to two
previous owners of a portion of the Midwest project.
Accessibility, Climate, Infrastructure and Physiography
Access to the Midwest project is by both road and air. Goods
are transported to the site by truck over an allweather road that connects to
the provincial highway system. Air transportation is provided through the Points
North airstrip approximately 4 kilometres from the project site. The nearest
permanent community is Wollaston Post, about 70 kilometres from the property on
the other side of Wollaston Lake.
Site activities are carried out all year despite the cold
weather during the winter months. Mean daily temperatures range from 25°C in
January to +15°C in July. The average length of the frostfree period is about
90 days.
Water for industrial activities is obtained from one of the
many lakes that surround the area. Electric power can be accessed from the
provincial grid through nearby Points North.
No tailings storage areas are expected to be required at
Midwest since it is planned that all Midwest ore will be transported to the
McClean Lake mill for processing, with all resulting tailings being disposed of
in McClean Lakes licensed TMF.
Surface facilities and infrastructure at the Midwest project
will consist of a water treatment plant and other facilities necessary to
support the mining operation and the ore shipment activities. Ample area for
these facilities is available on the existing surface lease.
The terrain at Midwest is typical of the Athabasca Basin area
with glacial drift features following northeast-southwest trends to produce sand
and gravel ridges. These ridges are surrounded by low lying ground which is
often water logged and dominated by muskeg. Over 25% of the area is covered by
small ponds and lakes. Jack pine and spruce, rarely more than 10 metres high,
are the predominant trees. Surface elevations range from 400 to 500 metres above
sea level.
History
Initial exploration work in the vicinity of
the two Midwest deposits began in 1966. Canada Wide Mines Ltd., a subsidiary of
Esso Resources Canada Ltd., was operator of the project from 1968 to 1982. From
1968 to 1975, exploration was carried out on an exploration permit which
included the area covered by the current mineral leases. Most of the work was
concentrated on the area near South McMahon Lake where uranium mineralized
boulders were found. In 1974, the exploration permit was changed to mineral
leases.
During the winter season of 1977, one of the holes drilled
through the unconformity encountered mineralization. In January 1978, the
Midwest deposit was intersected by the first drill holes. During 1978 through
1980, a further 439 holes were drilled (for a total of about 650) to delineate
the deposit and to explore the surrounding area of the mineral leases.
In 1987, Denison acquired a 45% interest in the Midwest project
and became the operator. An underground test mine program was completed in 1989
which confirmed the results of the surface drilling program and identified a
high-grade mineral reserve containing 35.7 million pounds of U3O8 at an average
diluted grade of 4.5% U3O8, mineable by underground methods.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
30 |
In 1993, the respective owners of McClean Lake and Midwest
combined their interests to make one complementary project with one mill at
McClean Lake. In order to accomplish this, a portion of Denison's interest in
Midwest was exchanged for an interest in McClean Lake. This transaction,
together with several related ownership changes, resulted in Denison's ownership
interest in Midwest being reduced to 19.5% and Minatco, ARCs predecessor in
title, becoming the operator.
In 1999, Denison increased its interest in Midwest by 5.50%
through the exercise of first refusal rights. With the uncertainty of the timing
and costs of the Midwest development and the desire to eliminate the obligation
to pay advance and future royalties on production from Midwest, Denison
decreased its interest in Midwest from 25% to 19.96% effective March 31, 2001.
ARC, the operator/manager of Midwest, also reduced its interest from 70.5% to
54.84% for the same reason.
At the end of 2004, in order to take advantage of rapidly
increasing uranium prices, Denison again increased its interest at Midwest,
along with its joint venture partners, by buying the 20.70% interest in Midwest
then held by Redstone Resources Inc. This purchase permitted Denison to acquire
a further 5.21% interest in Midwest, bringing its interest to 25.17% . ARCs
interest increased to 69.16% and OURDs interest increased to 5.67%.
Exploration activities resumed in 2004 some three kilometres to
the northeast of the Midwest deposit to test ground around a historic hole MW338
that had returned an isolated intercept of 3.8 metres at 6.9% U3O8. Continuing
exploration identified the Midwest A deposit and several other mineralized
areas, including the Josie Zone, lying between the Midwest and the Midwest A
deposits.
Geological Setting
The Midwest uranium deposits lie
near the eastern margin of the Athabasca Basin in the Churchill Structural
Province of the Canadian Shield. The bedrock geology of the area consists of
Precambrian gneisses unconformably overlain by flat lying, unmetamorphosed
sandstones and conglomerates of the Athabasca Group. The Precambrian basement
rocks are Aphebianaged, are termed the Wollaston Group, and are essentially
graphitic pelitic metasediments. These pelitic metasediments form a steeply
dipping syncline which trends northeast. The basement surface is marked by a
paleoweathered zone with lateritic characteristics referred to as regolith.
Exploration
Initial work on the property was a
regional airborne geophysical survey, which located conductors below the
sandstone cover. Ground prospecting identified a radioactive boulder field, and
subsequent drill testing of the conductors located the mineralization in 1978.
After Denison acquired a 45% interest in the project and became
the operator in 1987, an underground exploration test mine program was initiated
at the Midwest deposit. From the fall of 1988 through April 1989, a 3.7 metre
diameter shaft was sunk to a depth of 185 metres on the west shore of the Mink
Arm of South McMahon Lake. From a depth of 170 metres, a crosscut was driven a
total of 180 metres east. At the end of the crosscut, a blind-hole boring rig
was installed to test the unconformity and related mineralization. Blindhole
boring of two 1.2 metre diameter holes through the mineralization was then
carried out.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
31 |
The two known uranium occurrences in the area (Midwest deposit
and Midwest A deposit) lie along a long resistivity low corresponding to a
conductor associated with the graphite-bearing gneissic units of the basement.
The other exploration tool of choice is rock geochemistry and clay mineralogy in
drill hole core samples, mostly to define alteration haloes in the overlying
Athabasca sandstone.
Mineralization
The Midwest deposit is
sausageshaped, 215 metres long with two main pods of highgrade mineralization
separated by a 50 metre long section of low grade disseminated mineralization,
at a depth of approximately 200 metres below surface. The average width is 80
metres with a maximum of 128 metres. Thickness of the zone averages 10 metres
with a maximum of 30 metres. Overall, the deposit is high grade at 5.50% U3O8.
Nickel and arsenic average grades are high, at 4.35% and 5.3% respectively.
The Midwest deposit is representative of typical unconformity
style mineralization, whereby 99.5% of the resources are located at the basement
sandstone contact either in the basal conglomerate or in the upper basement
unit.
Locally, mineralized lenses occur along steep faults above and
below the main unconformity mineralization. These are termed "perched" and "deep
basement mineralization" respectively.
The Midwest A deposit is located at a depth of between 175 and
210 metres below the surface. It consists of several sub-parallel high-grade
mineralized zones. These zones are surrounded by low-grade remobilized and
clay-rich mineralization. The mineralized zones also exhibit structurally
controlled roots that extend as much as 70 metres beneath the unconformity.
Drilling
Over 650 drill holes have tested the
Midwest property prior to 2004, of which 100 surface (and wedged extensions) and
three underground holes have been used for resource estimations. Eighty of these
are NQ diamond drill holes from the surface, 20 are PQ holes drilled for
metallurgical test work, and three are confirmation holes drilled from the
underground crosscut. All of the surface holes were geologically and
geotechnically logged and sampled by previous owners, while the underground
holes were logged and sampled by Denison.
Of the 103 holes used for estimation of the Midwest resources,
22 did not have downhole survey information and therefore were assumed to be
vertical. A statistical analysis carried out in 1982 indicated that at the 285
metre level, these supposedly vertical holes could have deviated by as much as
12 metres with an average of roughly five metres. Sensitivity studies have been
carried out and indicate that, if the block boundaries remain fixed, the
uncertainty in hole location for these 22 holes causes a fluctuation of 8% in
tonnes, 5% in metal content and 3% in grade.
The mineral resource estimate for Midwest A is based on 85 core
holes drilled between 2005 and 2007, as well as 29 vertical core holes drilled
in 1979 and 1980, and in 1989. Additional drilling has been carried out since
the date of the mineral resource estimate.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
32 |
Sampling and Analysis
Due to the nature of the
mineralization, lost core is a significant issue. Lost core ranges between 0%
and 50%, with an average core loss of 33% for the drill holes included in the
mineral resource estimate for the Midwest deposit. The original owners initiated
a convention which is conservative and has withstood many audit procedures over
the years. The value assigned to lost core is the lowest assay of recovered
material from one of three samples. These samples are: (1) the sample within
which the lost core occurs; (2) the sample immediately above the one containing
the lost core; and, (3) the sample immediately below the one containing the lost
core.
Core recovery from the 2005 to 2007 Midwest A drilling was
substantially improved in relation to earlier drilling, with 86% overall core
recovery. The sections of poor core recovery occur with more frequency in the
sandstone just above the unconformity.
Geochemical rock samples from the 2005 to 2007 drilling were
shipped to and analysed by Saskatchewan Research Council Geoanalytical
Laboratories (SRC) in Saskatoon. Quality control procedures in place at
SRC include a systemic insertion of blanks, duplicates and standards.
Radiometric data are converted into % eU in a standard manner.
Security of Samples
No opinion can be given
regarding security of samples by the previous owners in the mid to late 1970s,
other than to indicate that subsequent geological work, and all metallurgical
and geotechnical work, including the sinking of a shaft and a test mining
program in the late 1980s, have given no cause to doubt the veracity of the
samples from which the mineral resource estimations are based. The best
confirmation that proper security of samples was maintained is the previously
mentioned report on the assay data, where the assay data base was checked at two
external labs and found to contain an average variation of only 4% for values
greater than 0.5% U3O8.
No special security measures have been used for the core
samples from drilling since 2005. Samples were transported to the core shack and
logging facility in sealed, standard, wooden core boxes, where they were
photographed, logged, radiometrically scanned and, in some cases, split or
chipped. Bagged samples were shipped to SRC in plastic pails or metallic
containers.
Mineral Reserve and Mineral Resource Estimates
From
June 1978 to October 1980, there were a total of 13 discrete "reserve
estimation" reports published on the Midwest deposit by the previous owners.
The Company retained Scott Wilson RPA to independently review
and audit its previously reported mineral reserves and resources in accordance
with the requirements of NI 43-101. The Company received a technical report from
Scott Wilson RPA dated June 1, 2005, revised on February 14, 2006, on its
mineral reserves and resources at the Midwest uranium project entitled
"Technical Report on the Midwest Uranium Deposit Mineral Resource and Mineral
Reserve Estimates, Saskatchewan, Canada" (the "Midwest Technical
Report"), a copy of which is available on the Companys profile on the SEDAR
website at www.sedar.com. Richard E. Routledge, M.Sc., P. Geo., James W.
Hendry, P. Eng. and Luke Evans, M.Sc., P. Eng. are the independent Qualified
Persons for the Midwest Technical Report for the purposes of the requirements of
NI 43-101.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
33 |
In preparing the Midwest Technical Report, Scott Wilson RPA
reviewed previous estimates of mineral reserves and mineral resources, and
examined and analyzed data supporting the previous estimates, as well as other
available data regarding the properties, including extensive information from
ARC. For the purpose of the economic analysis for determining open pit mineral
reserves for the deposit, Scott Wilson RPA used a 0.3% U3O8 mining cut-off,
mining costs based on previous actual operating experience at Sue C, historical
milling costs at the JEB mill and a uranium price of $23.20 per pound of U3O8.
Scott Wilson RPA constructed a block model based on a total of 265 surface drill
holes. Scott Wilson RPA adopted the ARC unconformity and sandstone
mineralization interpretation with some minor modifications. The total mineral
reserve in the Scott Wilson RPA estimate is approximately 24% greater than the
previously reported estimates due to the addition of the South Extension Zone
and increased U3O8 grade estimates due to the application of a density weighted
methodology. This block model was then used as the basis for evaluation of open
pit economics using an industry standard Whittle software analysis program. As a
result of increased costs and other economic factors, the Midwest mineral
reserves were reclassified to mineral resources in 2008 pending a decision to
proceed with the development of the Midwest deposit.
Midwest Mineral Resources (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Company |
|
|
|
|
|
|
100% Basis |
|
|
|
|
|
Share |
|
Category |
|
Tonnes |
|
|
Grade |
|
|
Pounds of
U3O8 |
|
|
Pounds of
U3O8 |
|
|
|
(,000) |
|
|
(%
U3O8) |
|
|
(,000) |
|
|
(,000) |
|
Indicated |
|
354.0 |
|
|
5.50 |
|
|
42,900 |
|
|
10,800 |
|
Inferred |
|
25.0 |
|
|
0.80 |
|
|
400 |
|
|
100 |
|
Notes: |
(1) |
The Midwest Technical Report estimated probable mineral
reserves but they were reclassified by the Company to indicated mineral
resources in 2008 as a result of the decision not to proceed with the
development of the project at that time. |
(2) |
The cut-off grade for the Midwest indicated
mineral resources is 0.30% U3O8. |
(3) |
The indicated mineral resources also contain
4.35% nickel (Company share of 8.6 million pounds) and 0.34% cobalt
(Company share of 0.7 million pounds). |
(4) |
Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and
do not have demonstrated economic viability. No mineral reserves have as
yet been defined. |
(5) |
Inferred mineral resources have a greater amount of
uncertainty as to their existence and as to whether they can be mined
economically. It cannot be assumed that all or part of the inferred
mineral resources will ever be upgraded to a higher classification.
|
Geostat was retained to complete an independent technical
review of the Midwest A uranium deposit. Geostats review was carried out and a
report was prepared in compliance with the standards of NI 43-101. The Company
received Geostats report on the mineral resources of the Midwest A deposit,
dated January 31, 2008, entitled Technical Report on the Midwest A Uranium
Deposit of Saskatchewan, Canada (the Midwest A Technical Report), a
copy of which is available on the Companys profile on the SEDAR website at
www.sedar.com. Michel Dagbert, P. Eng is the independent Qualified Person
for the Midwest A Technical Report for the purposes of the requirements of NI
43-101.
In preparing the Midwest A Technical Report, Geostat delineated
mineralized envelopes on drill section planes at 25 metre intervals, mostly
based on equivalent uranium grades and a cut-off of 0.05% eU. As a general rule,
the mineralized shapes look simple on both extremities of the zone while they
seem to have a more complex geometry in the centre part of the zone. In that
centre part, a small high-grade pod is defined within the outline of the
mineralized zone itself around a few intercepts of significant length and
consistently showing high grades, generally above 10% eU.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
34 |
Once mineralized solids and the location and cut-off grades of
composites within those solids were defined, the next step was to fill the
solids with small blocks on a regular grid and interpolate the grade of each
block from the grades of composites close to the blocks. Blocks of the current
mineral resource model are 10 x 10 x 3 metres and they are oriented along the
strike of the deposit. The procedure used calculates the proportion of each
mineralized solid in each mineral resource block on the regular grid.
Altogether, 1,461 mineral resource blocks have some mineralized material with
proportions ranging from 0.6% to 100%, and an average of 47.6% .
Volumes of mineralized material of each solid, obtained by
adding block fractions, are reasonably close to the mineralized solid volumes.
For the low-grade solids, the interpolation of the uranium grade of the block
fraction in a given solid is done with ordinary kriging following search
conditions as defined by variography routines. With the above conditions, the
grade of all low-grade fractions in the 1,461 blocks can be interpolated. For
the high-grade solid (only 73 blocks with some fraction of that material from
0.2% to 49.2%), no local block grade interpolation was attempted. An 18% U fixed
value (reasonably close to the average composite grade of 18.6% U) has been
assigned to all block fractions. This approach corresponds to kriging with a
pure nugget effect variogram.
The mineral resource block model leads to mineral resource
estimates provided that volumes are converted into tonnages. Since at this time,
there are no density measurements from Midwest A core samples, densities used
are based on the density model defined for the nearby Midwest deposit. In this
model, fixed densities (from 2.24 to 2.34 tonnes per cubic metre) are assigned
to material in given uranium grade categories (from 0 to 6% U), and a fixed
density of 2.8 tonnes per cubic metre is used for the high-grade material.
Geostat classified the Midwest A mineral resources as follows:
Midwest A Mineral Resources(1)(2)(3)(4)
|
|
100% Basis |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Company |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Share |
|
Category |
|
Tonnes |
|
|
Grade |
|
|
Pounds of
U3O8 |
|
|
Pounds of
U3O8 |
|
|
|
(,000) |
|
|
(%
U3O8) |
|
|
(,000) |
|
|
(,000) |
|
Indicated |
|
464.0 |
|
|
0.57 |
|
|
5,800 |
|
|
1,500 |
|
Inferred |
|
9.2 |
|
|
21.23 |
|
|
4,300 |
|
|
1,100 |
|
Notes: |
(1) |
The mineral resource estimates comply with the
requirements of NI 43-101 and the classifications comply with CIM
definition standards. |
(2) |
The cut-off grade is 0.05% eU. |
(3) |
Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not
have demonstrated economic viability. No mineral reserves have as yet been
defined. |
(4) |
Inferred mineral resources have a greater amount of
uncertainty as to their existence and as to whether they can be mined
economically. It cannot be assumed that all or part of the inferred
mineral resources will ever be upgraded to a higher classification.
|
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
35 |
Other Midwest Information
For taxes and royalties,
see Government Regulation Canadian Royalties and Government Regulation
Canadian Income and Other Taxes.
Wheeler River Property
Property Description and Location
Denison has a 60%
interest in the Wheeler River Joint Venture consisting of 19 unsurveyed mineral
claims totaling 11,720 hectares in northern Saskatchewan. Denison has been the
operator since November 10, 2004. The other partners are Cameco (30%) and JCU
(Canada) Exploration Company, Limited ("JCU") (10%). There are no back-in
rights or royalties applicable to this property. There is an annual requirement
of CAD$0.3 million either in work or cash to maintain title to the mineral claims.
Based on previous work submitted and approved by the Province of Saskatchewan,
title is secure until 2035.
The Phoenix deposit lies within the Wheeler River property
located along the eastern edge of the Athabasca Basin in northern Saskatchewan
and is located approximately 35 km north-northeast of the Key Lake mill and 35
km southwest of the McArthur River uranium mine.
The map below shows the Wheeler River property and the location
of the Phoenix deposit.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
36 |
Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and
Physiography
Access to the Phoenix deposit is by road or air from
Saskatoon. The Phoenix deposit is well located with respect to all-weather roads
and the provincial power grid. Vehicle access to the property is by the
provincial highway system to the Key Lake mill then by the ore haul road between
the Key Lake and McArthur River operations to the eastern part of the property.
An older access road, the Fox Lake Road, between Key Lake and McArthur River,
provides access to most of the northwestern side of the property. Gravel and
sand roads and drill trails provide access by either four-wheel-drive or
all-terrain-vehicle to the rest of the property.
The climate is typical of the continental sub-arctic region of
northern Saskatchewan, with temperatures ranging from +32°C in summer to -45°C
in winter. Winters are long and cold, with mean monthly temperatures below
freezing for seven months of the year. Winter snow pack averages 70 cm to 90 cm.
Freezing of surrounding lakes, in most years, begins in November and breakup
occurs around the middle of May. The average frost-free period is approximately
90 days. Field-operations are possible year round with the exception of
limitations imposed by lakes and swamps and the periods of break-up and
freeze-up.
Average annual total precipitation for the region is
approximately 450 mm, of which 70% falls as rain, with more than half occurring
from June to September. Snow may occur in all months but rarely falls in July or
August. The prevailing wind direction is from the west with a mean speed of 12
km/hr.
La Ronge, roughly 170 km south of the project, is the nearest
commercial/urban centre where most exploration supplies and services can be
obtained. The operating Key Lake mill complex is approximately 35 km southwest
of the property. Personnel working on the project commute from a number of
designated communities by air.
Field operations are currently conducted from Denison's Wheeler
River camp, three kilometres due southwest of the Phoenix deposit. The camp
provides accommodations for up to 35 exploration personnel. Fuel and
miscellaneous supplies are stored in existing warehouse and tank facilities at
the camp. The site generates its own power. Abundant water is available from the
numerous lakes and rivers in the area.
The property is characterized by a relatively flat till plain
with elevations ranging from 477 metres to 490 metres above sea level.
Throughout the area, there is a distinctive north-easterly trend to landforms
resulting from the passage of glacial ice from the northeast to the southwest.
The topography and vegetation at the Phoenix deposit are typical of the taiga
forested land common to the Athabasca Basin area of northern Saskatchewan. The
area is covered with between 30 metres to 50 metres of overburden. The terrain
is gently rolling and characterized by forested sand and dunes. Vegetation is
dominated by black spruce and jack pine, with occasional small stands of white
birches occurring in more productive and well-drained areas. Productive lichen
growth is common to this boreal landscape mostly associated with mature
coniferous stands and bogs.
History
The Wheeler River property was staked on
July 6, 1977, due to its proximity to the Key Lake uranium discoveries, and was
vended into an agreement on December 28, 1978 between AGIP Canada Ltd., E&B
Explorations Ltd. and Saskatchewan Mining Development Corporation, with each
holding a one-third interest. On July 31, 1984, each party divested a 13.3%
interest and allowed Denison Mines Limited, a predecessor company to Denison, to
earn in to a 40% interest.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
37 |
In late 2004, Denison entered into an agreement to earn a
further 20% interest by expending CAD$7,000,000 within six years. At that time,
Denison became the project operator. In 2007, when the earn-in obligations were
completed, the participating interests were: Denison, 60%; Cameco, 30%; and JCU,
10%.
The former operator, Cameco, had identified a major geological
unit termed the "quartzite ridge" and had noted extensive dravite (boron)
alteration in the overlying sandstones. Cameco discovered several uranium
mineralized intercepts that occurred in a variety of geological settings
throughout the property.
During the initial years of its option, Denison targeted the
west area, or footwall side of the quartzite ridge. In 2007, Denison completed a
major DC resistivity survey to the north of an earlier Cameco 2003 resistivity
survey. Interpretation of the 2007 resistivity survey lead to the recommendation
for drilling three holes to test two separate resistivity lows, both interpreted
to represent "alteration chimneys" within the Athabasca sandstone.
In the summer of 2008, as a direct result of the 2007 DC
resistivity survey along the hanging wall of the quartzite ridge, two drill
holes were located 600 metres apart along the same low resistivity trend. This
drilling intersected a zone of characteristic sandstone alteration and uranium
mineralization linked to unconformity-associated uranium deposits. All drill
holes during the summer of 2008 intersected either uranium mineralization or
very strong alteration close to mineralization.
Subsequent drill programs conducted during 2009 and 2010
established significant milestones in the advancement of the project in terms of
demonstrating continuity and extending the mineralized zone for a strike length
of greater than 900 metres. An initial mineral resource estimate was completed
at the end of 2010. Aggressive drill programs in 2011 and 2012 successfully
added additional mineral resources. In 2013, drilling was completed at the
Phoenix deposit, but a large portion of the 2013 Wheeler River drilling program
was also allocated to exploration of several other target areas on the
property.
Some additional infill drilling was completed at the Phoenix
deposit in early 2014, and this work was successful in extending some high grade
mineralization into areas previously modeled as low grade. These results,
combined with results from 2013 were the catalyst for an updated mineral
resource estimate for the Phoenix deposit in June, 2014.
Geological Setting
The Phoenix deposit is an
unconformity-type uranium deposit lying along the eastern flank of the Athabasca
Basin where undeformed, late Paleoproterozoic to Mesoproterozoic sandstones,
conglomerates, and mudstones of the Athabasca Group unconformably overlie early
Paleoproterozoic and Archean crystalline basement rocks. The local geology of
the Phoenix deposit is consistent with the regional geology.
Uranium mineralization at the Phoenix deposit is of the
unconformity-type, associated with the sub-Athabasca unconformity. These are
generally interpreted to result from interaction of hydrothermal fluids at the
intersection of local and regional faults with the unconformity. Two styles of
mineralization have been traced over a strike length of 900+ metres along the
Phoenix deposit. These are:
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
38 |
|
a) |
Unconformity-hosted uranium mineralization: This is the
most widespread and dominant style of mineralization identified to date
and the basis for the mineral resource estimate. Mineralization forms as a
sub-horizontal elongate lens that is developed in the lowermost Athabasca
sandstone from 390 metre to 420 metre depths immediately above the
sub-Athabasca unconformity, or straddling the unconformity and extending
downward for several metres into the underlying basement Proterozoic
Wollaston Group metasedimentary rocks. In some instances, the main
mineralized zone is comprised of one to three (1-3 metre) thin, stacked
zones. Uranium mineralization is spatially (and likely genetically)
related to a northeast-southwest trending (55º azimuth) fault that dips
55º to the southeast. The structure has been named the WS fault. |
|
|
|
|
|
Mineralization is monomineralic uranium as
uraninite/pitchblende and may have some relationship to the extensions of
the WS fault and its various hanging wall splays; hence, movement on these
faults is interpreted to have continued after deposition of the lower
members of the Manitou Fall Formation of the Athabasca Group. The WS fault
and its hanging wall splays may have been the main conduit for the
mineralizing fluids. Values of all accompanying metals are low,
particularly in comparison with several other Athabasca Basin
sandstone-hosted deposits, which can have very high nickel, cobalt, and
arsenic grades. |
|
|
|
|
|
Mineralization is associated with extensive clay
alteration and varying degrees of silicification and desilicification
which affects densities of the lower sandstone. The principal clay
minerals are illite, chlorite, kaolinite, and dravite, with alteration
focused along structures propagating upward from the WS fault and
associated splays, and probably does not exceed 100 metres width across
strike, making this a relatively narrow target. The basement in the
northeast part of the Phoenix deposit is much more extensively bleached
and clay altered than that to the southwest. |
|
|
|
|
b) |
Basement-hosted mineralization: This is the second type
of mineralization, occurring along several portions of the Phoenix
deposit. Basement hosted mineralization is developed as steeply dipping,
discontinuous, thin (1-3 metre thick), parallel to sub- parallel zones
along fractures associated with the WS fault for up to 20 metres below the
sub-Athabasca unconformity, and vertically below the unconformity-hosted
mineralization. |
Exploration, Drilling, Sampling and Analysis
Since
the discovery of Key Lake in 1975-1976, the Key Lake exploration model has
emphasized the occurrence of uranium mineralization proximal to the
sub-Athabasca unconformity at locations where graphitic pelite units in the
basement meet the basal Athabasca sandstone.The graphitic pelite units are
commonly intensely sheared in contrast to the physically more competent rock
types that include non-graphitic pelite, semi-pelite, psammite, meta-arkose, or
granite gneiss. Airborne and ground electromagnetic systems are commonly used to
map conductive graphitic pelite units versus the relatively resistive and
non-conductive quartz-feldspathic rock types.
However, since the discovery of the McArthur River deposit in
1988, the McArthur River exploration model has emphasized a different
association of uranium mineralization and rock type. At McArthur River, one of
the most significant rock types in the basement succession is a massive,
homogenous, and competent quartzite. Mechanically, particularly compared to the
adjacent layered members of the basement stratigraphy, the quartzite is
extremely strong, and thus exerts an important control both in basement and
post-Athabasca sandstone structural evolution. Both the footwall and hanging
wall contacts of the quartzite unit, particularly if these contacts involve
highly incompetent rocks such as graphitic pelite, become sites of major thrust,
reverse, and strike-slip faults. Although these faults are loci for
mineralization; the poor conductivity, low magnetic susceptibilities and
specific gravity (density) values associated with the quartzite, as well as
other quartz-feldspathic rocks, limits the effectiveness of airborne and ground
geophysical methods in mapping these basement units. This is particularly so
when they are covered by hundreds of metres of sandstone. Alteration haloes are
typically larger than the deposit footprints, and are characterized by changes
in mineralogy and major and trace elements. Therefore, lithogeochemistry of
drill core samples is also an important exploration method.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
39 |
During the period 1978 through 2006, the operator of the joint
venture conducted several small regional campaigns of drill testing geophysical
anomalies (electromagnetic conductors) located by airborne and ground
geophysical surveys over the general Phoenix deposit area. During 2009, three
drill programs were carried out, each of which established significant
milestones in the advancement of the project. During the winter program, the
first indications of significant mineralization came from Hole WR-258, which
returned 11.2% U3O8 over 5.5 metres from a depth of 397 metres. The summer drill
program continued to test the discovery, with hole WR-273 returning a value of
62.6% U3O8 over 6.0 metres at a depth of 405 metres. Mineralization was
monomineralic pitchblende with very low concentrations of accessory minerals.
Most of the mineralization occurs as a horizontal sheet at the sub-Athabasca
unconformity where it meets a graphitic pelite unit in the basement. A further
drill program in the fall of 2009 established continuity in this high-grade
mineralized zone and extended the mineralized zone as a possibly continuous unit
for a strike length of greater than one kilometre.
Denison geologists collect a suite of samples from each drill
hole for determining the content and distribution of trace elements, uranium,
and clay minerals (alteration). Denison obtains assays for all the cored
sections through mineralized intervals. All samples for assay or geochemical
species determination are sent to SRC in Saskatoon.
Several types of samples are collected routinely from drill
core at Phoenix. These include:
|
systematic composite geochemical samples of
both Athabasca sandstone and metamorphic basement rocks to characterize
clay alteration and geochemical zoning associated with mineralization;
|
|
|
|
selective grab samples and split-core intervals
for geochemical quantification of geologically-interesting material and
mineralized material, respectively; |
|
|
|
samples collected for determination of specific
gravity; and |
|
|
|
non-geochemical samples for determination of
mineralogy to assess alteration patterns, lithology types and
mineralization characteristics. |
Selective samples form a quantitative assessment of
mineralization grade and associated elemental abundances, while the systematic
and mineralogical samples are collected mainly for exploration purposes to
determine patterns applicable to mineral exploration. These sampling types and
approaches are typical for uranium exploration and definition drilling programs
in the Athabasca Basin.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
40 |
For additional information on the protocols used by Denison and
its consultants in the drilling, sampling and analysis of the Phoenix deposit,
see Mineral Exploration - Quality Assurance and Quality Control Procedures and
Protocols Athabasca Basin.
Mineralization
The Phoenix deposit is located at a
depth of approximately 400 metres below the surface. Mineralization is
monomineralic uranium as uraninite/pitchblende. Values of all accompanying
metals are low, particularly in comparison with other Athabasca uranium
deposits, which can have very high values of nickel, cobalt and arsenic.
Mineralization and alteration has been traced over a strike
length of approximately 900 metres. Since the discovery hole WR-249 was drilled
in 2008, two zones (Zones A and B) of high-grade mineralization have been
delineated along with two other zones of less well developed mineralization
(Zones C and D) which are also less explored.
Hydrothermal alteration around Phoenix is similar to other
Athabasca Basin deposits. The sandstones are altered for as much as 200 metres
above the unconformity, and exhibit varying degrees of silicification and
desilicification (which causes many technical drilling problems), as well as
dravitization, chloritization, and illitization. In addition, hydrothermal
hematite and druzy quartz are present in the sandstone and often in the basement
rocks. Alteration is focused along structures, propagating upward from the WS
fault and associated splays, and probably does not exceed 100 metres width
across strike, making this a relatively narrow target. The basement in the
northeast part of the Phoenix deposit is much more extensively bleached and clay
altered than that to the southwest.
Security of Samples
Drill core samples are collected
and processed at Denisons Wheeler River camp facility located on the property,
which is off limits to outsiders. Samples are logged, split, bagged and stored
in pails by Denison staff at the core preparation facility. Because the
mineralized drill cores are classified as hazardous materials and are regulated
under requirements governing the transport of dangerous goods, Denison staff
have been trained in the proper handling and transport of the cores and deliver
them from the core facility directly to the SRC facilities without outside
contact.
SRC considers customer confidentiality and security of utmost
importance and takes appropriate steps to protect the integrity of sample
processing at all stages from sample storage and handling to transmission of
results. All electronic information is password protected and backed up on a
daily basis. Electronic results are transmitted with additional security
features. Access to SRCs laboratories is restricted by an electronic security
system. The facilities at the main lab are regularly patrolled by security
guards 24 hours a day.
After the analyses are completed, analytical data are securely
sent using electronic transmission of the results, by SRC to Denison. The
electronic results are secured using WINZIP encryption and password protection.
These results are provided as a series of Adobe PDF files containing the
official analytical results and a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet file containing
only the analytical results.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
41 |
Mineral Resource Estimate
Denison completed an updated mineral resource estimate for the
Phoenix deposit in June, 2014. Denison retained RPA, Inc. to independently
review and audit the estimate and prepare a technical report in accordance with
the requirements of NI 43-101 on the project. The Company subsequently received
the report entitled Technical Report on a Mineral Resource Update for the
Phoenix Uranium Deposit dated June 17, 2014 (the Phoenix Report). A
copy of this report is available on the Companys profile on the SEDAR website
at www.sedar.com. William E. Roscoe, Ph.D, P. Eng., is the independent Qualified
Person for the Phoenix Report for the purposes of the requirements of NI
43-101.
The updated Phoenix mineral resource estimate is as follows:
Phoenix Mineral Resources (1)(2)(3)(5)
|
Tonnes |
Grade |
lbsU3 O8
(,000) |
lbs U3 O8
(,000) |
Category |
(100% Basis) |
(% U3 O8 ) |
(100% Basis) |
Companys Share(4) |
|
|
|
|
|
Indicated |
166,000 |
19.13 |
70,200 |
42,100 |
Inferred |
9,000 |
5.8 |
1,100 |
700 |
Notes: |
(1) |
Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and
do not have demonstrated economic viability. No mineral reserves have as
yet been defined. |
(2) |
Cut-off grade 0.8% U3O8.
|
(3) |
Mineral resources are estimated with no
allowance for mining dilution, mining recovery or process recovery. |
(4) |
Denisons share is 60% of total mineral
resources. |
(5) |
Inferred mineral resources have a greater amount of
uncertainty as to their existence and as to whether they can be mined
economically. It cannot be assumed that all or part of the inferred
mineral resources will ever be upgraded to a higher classification.
|
This mineral resource estimate was carried out on a mix of
chemical and radiometric probe data. Although there is a correlation between
data, the probe grades tended to be lower than chemical grades and are only used
when the drill hole had less than 80% core recovery. Less than 20% of the grade
data used in the mineral resource estimate was radiometric probe data.
Waterbury Lake
Property Description and Location
The Waterbury Lake
property is located in northern Saskatchewan and is jointly owned by Denison (60
%) and Korea Waterbury Uranium Limited Partnership (KWULP) (40 %), a
consortium of investors in which KEPCO is included. The Limited Partnership
between Denison and KWULP is referred to as the Waterbury Lake Uranium Limited
Partnership (WLULP). Denison acquired its 60% interest in the WLULP
through the Fission Arrangement in 2013.
Waterbury Lake is a 40,256 hectare collection of 13 irregularly
shaped contiguous claims and one separate claim in the eastern Athabasca Basin
of northern Saskatchewan, Canada. The property is located approximately 12 km
north of Points North Landing and 700 km northeast of Saskatoon,
Saskatchewan.
There are no known environmental liabilities associated with
Waterbury Lake, and there are no other significant factors and risks that may
affect access, title, or the right or ability to perform work on the property.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
42 |
All the necessary permits for surface exploration on the
property are in place and current. Activities on the project property to date
have been limited to resource delineation and gathering of environmental
baseline data. The environmental liabilities associated with these activities
are consistent with low impact exploration activities. The mitigation measures
associated with these impacts are accounted for within the current surface
exploration permits and authorizations.
Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and
Physiography
The Waterbury Lake project can be accessed year round by
taking Saskatchewan provincial Highway 102 to Southend from La Ronge, then
Highway 905 to Points North, which is a privately owned service centre with an
airstrip and accommodations available. The nearest community is Wollaston Lake,
57 km directly south east of Points North. During summer drilling campaigns the
core camp is most commonly accessed by helicopter based out of Points North. An
all season secondary road exists from Highway 905 to the Midwest deposit dam
from which a motor boat can be used to access the camp during the summer months.
During the winter months the core camp can be easily reached by 4x4 truck using
a secondary road that runs north east along Fission claim S-107367 to an ice
road which crosses McMahon Lake.
Waterbury Lake lies in a sub-arctic climate region. Winters are
generally extremely cold and dry with temperatures regularly dropping below -30°
C. The cold temperatures allow for a sufficient ice thickness to support a drill
rig generally from mid-January to mid-April. Temperatures in the summer can vary
widely with yearly maxima of around 30° C often recorded in late July.
The project area is characterized by gently rolling relief
covered by thinly wooded boreal forest. Numerous lakes and ponds generally show
a north-easterly elongation imparted by the last glaciation. Broad zones of
muskeg are present at low elevations around many of the local lakes. McMahon
Lake is one of the largest lakes in the immediate project area and it overlies
the J Zone deposit as well as the Midwest and Roughrider deposits. Vegetation is
predominantly thinly distributed black spruce, alder and jack pine with lesser
birch, while ground cover comprises mostly reindeer lichen and Labrador tea.
History
Strathmore Minerals Corp.
(Strathmore) acquired a 100% interest in the 13 mineral claims located
in Saskatchewan in 2004. During 2007, Strathmore spun out all of their Canadian
assets, including Waterburys 13 mineral claims into a new company, being
Fission. In 2008, an earn-in agreement was signed with the KWULP, whereby
Fission granted KWULP the exclusive rights to earn up to a 50% interest in the
Waterbury Lake property by funding CAD$14 million of expenditures on or before
January 30, 2011. Additionally, Fission retained an overriding royalty interest
in the property of 2% of net smelter returns. On April 29, 2010, KWULP had fully
funded its CAD$14 million of expenditures and consequently earned a 50% interest
in the property.
The earn-in agreement required that on completion of the
earn-in period, the joint venture parties agree to form a jointly control
limited partnership to hold the property and on August 16, 2010 the WLULP
agreement was signed, superseding the original earn-in agreement. WLULP was
officially formed December 30, 2010. Fission had 12 months from the completion
of the earn-in agreement during which time it could acquire an additional 10%
interest in WLULP for CAD$6 million. On April 12, 2011, Fission exercised its
back-in option by paying KWULP CAD$6 million, bringing its interest up to
60%.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
43 |
The WLULP agreement required that Fission and its partners
spend a total of CAD$30 million for exploration and evaluation costs over the
next three years, according to their interest in WLULP. The winter 2013 program
completed the budgeted three year exploration program. Fission was appointed
operator for WLULP.
Exploration
Uranium exploration has been undertaken
on the Waterbury Lake property for over 40 years. Numerous and varied programs
have been carried out on different portions of the property, including diamond
drill campaigns, airborne and ground geophysics, boulder sampling and
prospecting.
Airborne radiometric, magnetic and electromagnetic (EM) surveys
as well as a hydrogeochemical survey were conducted on Waterbury Lake as early
as 1969. Cogema acquired properties in the Waterbury and Henday Lake areas
during the late 1980s and carried out an extensive exploration program involving
geological mapping, sampling, drilling and geophysical surveys. The latter
included airborne EM and magnetic surveys, and ground VLF-EM and gravity
surveys.
Following-up on work done by Cogema up until the early 1990s,
Cameco acquired properties in the Waterbury and McMahon Lakes area and initially
completed geological mapping and sampling programs. This was followed by more
geophysical surveys including ground time domain electromagnetic (TDEM),
magnetic, gravity and induced polarization (IP) over select targets and drilling
throughout the decade.
In 2004, Strathmore acquired the Waterbury Lake property
through the staking of 13 mineral claims. During the spring of 2005, an airborne
high power time domain electromagnetic (MEGATEM II) survey was completed over
the entire property. A total of 1,749 line kilometres were flown. Other work
during 2005 included a heli-borne EM survey flown in the spring and a small
boulder sampling program in the fall.
Strathmore continued work on the property during 2006 with a
ground EM geophysical survey and completing eight drill holes totaling 2,865
metres. In addition, an IP-resistivity survey was competed. This was followed by
more ground geophysical surveys in early 2007.
In June 2007 all of Strathmores Canadian and Peruvian uranium
assets, including the Waterbury Lake Property, were spun out of Strathmore and
into Fission. Late in 2007 Fission funded the drilling of eight diamond drill
holes totaling 2,222 metres.
In early 2008, five drill holes totaling 1,303 metres were
completed and a 594 line-kilometre VTEM airborne magnetic and EM survey was
flown. Following this work, soil sampling, ground and airborne geophysical
surveys and a 19-hole drill program (7,996 m) were completed between May and
August.
In 2009, two drill programs were carried out totalling 10,082
metres in 29 holes.
Two diamond drill programs were completed on the property
during 2010. The first was carried out between mid-January and end of March,
2010. During this period 35 diamond drill holes were completed for a total
accumulated length (including restarts) of 11,250.0 metres. Several geophysical
surveys were also completed during the first three months of the year.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
44 |
A second diamond drill program was conducted between mid-July
to early September. During this period, 16 holes were completed for a total
accumulated length (including restarts) of 5,172.0 metres. Airborne radiometric
anomalies delineated from the previous summer were checked in the field during
August and early September, and a bathymetry survey of the Discovery
Bay/Talisker area was carried out in early October.
A winter 2011 drilling program was carried out between early
January and mid-April, 2011. Three diamond drill rigs completed a total of 82
holes for a total accumulated length (including restarts) of 26,300 metres.
Between January and June 2011, several geophysical surveys were
conducted on the Waterbury and Murphy Lake Properties. These included 26.4
kilometres of time domain EM survey at Discovery Bay Extension, 25.6 kilometres
of time domain EM at Oban and Oban North grids, and 64 kilometres of IP
Resistivity and 32.15 kilometres of time domain EM surveys at Murphy-Glen grid.
Two drill programs were completed on the Property in 2012
totalling approximately 39,526 m of core, including 75 holes on the J Zone. The
winter 2012 drill program began on January 8 and ended on April 6. A total of 86
holes (32,770 m) were drilled during the program including 49 holes in and
around the J Zone. Twenty-six drill holes totaling 8,316 metres were completed
in the J Zone area in a summer 2012 drill program.
A total of 68 drill holes and 11 restarts were completed
comprising 21,013 meters. All of the winter 2013 drilling was completed in the
immediate area of the J Zone deposit to extend the boundaries of the
mineralization and infill gaps in the drill pattern.
Following the Fission Arrangement, a summer program of
DC-resistivity geophysics (50.4 line kilometres) and diamond drilling (2,350
metres in six drill holes) was also completed in 2013. Work was concentrated on
the Aran area and the north rim of the Waterbury Dome. This work was followed by
37.2 line kilometres of DC-resistivity geophysics and 3,100 metres of diamond
drilling in nine drill holes in 2014. The primary focus of the drilling in 2014
was the Discovery Bay corridor to the west of the J Zone, and the Oban target
area.
Geological Setting
The Waterbury property is located
in the eastern portion of the Proterozoic Athabasca Basin. The Athabasca
sediments unconformably overlie older crystalline basement complexes and in the
project area specifically, the highly prospective Mudjatik Wollaston
Transition Zone (MWTZ). The MWTZ marks a gradational contact between
bands of Paleoproterozoic metasediments and Archean granitic gneisses of the
Mudjatik domain to the west and variably graphitic Paleoproterozoic
metasediments and Archean granitic gneisses of the Wollaston domain to the east.
The MWTZ currently hosts all producing uranium deposits in the Athabasca Basin
including McArthur River and Cigar Lake.
The Athabasca basin in the project area is comprised of several
hundred meters of Manitou Falls Formation fluvial, quartz rich conglomeratic
sandstone. Basement rocks in the area are dominated by Archean orthogneisses,
occurring as large domes, and steeply dipping, locally graphitic,
Paleoproterozoic metasedimentary paragneisses to granofels. Directly below the
Athabasca/basement unconformity is a zone of paleoregolith which commonly
extends for many meters into the basement. The paleoweathered zone typically
grades with depth from pervasive hematization into pervasive chloritization and
finally into fresh rock. The unconformity surface is relatively flat on a large
scale but in the Discovery Bay area local reverse faulting down drops the
unconformity to the south-east.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
45 |
The Athabasca Basin sedimentary rocks which overlie the
Waterbury Lake project area typically range in thickness from 195 to 300 m. The
upper portion of the sedimentary package is comprised of the Manitou Falls
Collins (MFc) Formation pebbly quartz arenite which grades into Manitou Falls
Bird (MFb) Formation pebble bedded quartz arenite at approximately 80m depth. An
easily recognizable 5 to 7 m marker conglomerate exists in the MFb sandstone,
and a basal conglomerate unit is almost always present directly above the
unconformity. In the deposit area, the underlying basement geology is
interpreted to be a steeply north-northwest dipping, east-west trending corridor
of variably graphitic Wollaston Group metasedimentary gneisses, bounded to the
north and south by thick zones of predominantly granitic Archean orthogneiss.
The Archean orthogneisses apparently define two large dome structures identified
as the north and south side orthogneiss domes. The stratigraphy of the
metasedimentary corridor is dominantly comprised of: weakly graphitic
cordierite-almandine pelitic gneiss, informally termed the typical J Zone
pelitic gneiss; graphite-sulphide rich pelitic gneiss; cordierite-almandine
augen gneiss; and thin lenses of garnetite which appear to be more abundant
along the southern edge of the corridor. A thick unit of strongly graphitic
cataclasite exists within the graphite-sulphide pelitic gneiss.
Mineralization
The J Zone uranium deposit was discovered during the winter
2010 drill program at Waterbury Lake. The second drill hole of the campaign,
WAT10-063A, was an angled hole drilled from a peninsula extending into McMahon
Lake. It intersected 10.5 m of uranium mineralization grading 1.91% U3O8
including 1.0 m grading 13.87% U3O8 as well as an additional four meters grading
at 0.16% U3O8.
The J Zone deposit is currently defined by 268 drill holes
intersecting uranium mineralization over a combined east-west strike length of
up to 700 m and a maximum north-south lateral width of 70 m. The deposit trends
roughly east-west (80°) in line with the metasedimentary corridor and
cataclastic graphitic fault zone.
Mineralization thickness varies widely throughout the J Zone
and can range from tens of cm to over 19.5 m in vertical thickness. In cross
section J Zone mineralization is roughly lens shaped with a relatively thick
central zone that corresponds with the interpreted location of the cataclasite
and rapidly tapers out to the north and south. Locally, a particularly
high-grade (upwards of 40% U3O8) but often thin lens of mineralization is
present along the southern boundary of the metasedimentary corridor. Ten meter
step out drill holes to the south from these high-grade holes have failed to
intersect any mineralization, demonstrating the extremely discreet nature of
mineralization.
Uranium mineralization is generally found within several metres
of the unconformity at depth ranges of 195 to 230 m below surface. It variably
occurs entirely hosted within the Athabasca sediments, entirely within the
metasedimentary gneisses or straddling the boundary between them. A
semi-continuous, thin zone of uranium mineralization has been intersected in
occasional southern J Zone drill holes well below the main mineralized zone,
separated by several meters of barren metasedimentary gneiss. This mineralized
zone is informally termed the south-side lens and can host grades up to 3.70%
U3O8.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
46 |
The J Zone deposit is generally flat lying (located roughly 200
m below the surface of McMahon Lake) and therefore whenever possible holes have
been drilled vertically in order to intersect the ore lenses perpendicularly,
thereby giving an approximate true thickness.
Mineral Resource Estimates
The Company retained
GeoVector Management Inc. (GeoVector) to independently review and audit
mineral resource estimates in accordance with the requirements of NI 43-101. The
Company received a technical report from GeoVector dated September 6, 2013 on
its mineral resources at Waterbury Lake entitled Mineral Resource Estimate On
The J Zone Uranium Deposit, Waterbury Lake Property (the "J Zone Technical
Report"), a copy of which is available on the Companys profile on the SEDAR
website at www.sedar.com. Allan Armitage, Ph.D., P.Geol., and Alan Sexton,
M.Sc., P.Geol.,are the independent Qualified Persons for the J Zone Technical
Report for the purposes of the requirements of NI 43-101.
J Zone Mineral Resources (1)(2)(3)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Company |
|
|
|
100% Basis |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Share(4)
|
|
|
|
Tonnes |
|
|
Grade |
|
|
Pounds of
U3O8 |
|
|
Pounds of
U3O8 |
|
Category |
|
(,000)
|
|
|
(%
U3O8) |
|
|
(,000)
|
|
|
(,000)
|
|
Indicated |
|
291.0 |
|
|
2.00 |
|
|
12,800 |
|
|
7,700 |
|
Notes: |
(1) |
The mineral resource estimates comply with the
requirements of NI 43-101 and the classifications comply with CIM
definition standards. |
(2) |
The cut-off grade is 0.1%
U3O8. |
(3) |
Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and
do not have demonstrated economic viability. No mineral reserves have as
yet been defined. |
(4) |
Denisons share is 60% of total mineral
resources. |
For the 2013 mineral resource estimate, a 3D wireframe model
was constructed based generally on a cut-off grade of 0.03 to 0.05 % U3O8 which
involved visually interpreting mineralized zones from cross sections using
histograms of U3O8. 3D rings of mineralized intersections were created on each
cross section and these were tied together to create a continuous wireframe
solid model in Gemcom GEMS 6.5 software. The modeling exercise provided broad
controls on the size and shape of the mineralized volume.
Based on a statistical analysis of the composite database, no
capping was applied on the composite populations to limit high values for
uranium. A histogram of the data indicates a log normal distribution of the
metals with very few outliers within the database. Analysis of the spatial
location of outlier samples and the sample values proximal to them led GeoVector
to believe that the high values were legitimate parts of the population and that
the impact of including these high composite values uncut would be negligible to
the overall resource estimate.
Using waxed core and dry bulk density determinations a formula
was derived relating bulk density to grade and was used to assign a density
value to each assay. Bulk density values were used to weight grades during the
resource estimation process and to convert volume to tonnage.
Uranium grade times density (GxD) values and density (D) values
were interpolated into the block model using an inverse distance squared (ID2)
algorithm. Block grade was derived from the interpolated GxD value divided by
the interpolated D value for each block. Block tonnage was based on volume times
the interpolated D value.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
47 |
Two passes were used to interpolate all of the blocks in the
wireframe, but 99% of the blocks were filled by the first pass. The size of the
search ellipse, in the X, Y, and Z direction, used to interpolate grade into the
resource blocks is based on 3D semi-variography analysis (completed in GEMS) of
mineralized points within the resource model. For the first pass, the search
ellipse was set at 25 x 15 x 15 metres in the X, Y, Z direction respectively.
The Principal azimuth is oriented at 075º, the Principal dip is oriented at 0°
and the Intermediate azimuth is oriented at 0°. For the second pass, the search
ellipse was set at 50 x 30 x 30 metres in the X, Y, Z direction respectively.
The Principal azimuth is oriented at 075º, the Principal dip is oriented at 0°
and the Intermediate azimuth is oriented at 0°.
The mineral resources for the J Zone were classified as
indicated based on drill hole spacing and continuity of mineralization. The
block model was validated by visual and statistical comparisons of composite
grades and block grades.
Mongolia: Gurvan Saihan Joint Venture
On March 13, 2007, Denison filed on the SEDAR website at
www.sedar.com an independent technical report entitled Technical Report on the
Uranium Exploration Properties in Mongolia prepared by Scott Wilson RPA in
accordance with the requirements of NI 43-101 with respect to its uranium
properties in Mongolia (the 2007 Mongolia Report). Thomas C. Pool, P.E.
and Neil N. Gow, P. Geo. are the independent Qualified Persons for the 2007
Mongolia Report for the purposes of the requirements of NI 43-101.
On March 28, 2011, Denison filed on the SEDAR website an
independent technical report entitled Technical Report on the Hairhan Uranium
Property in Mongolia prepared by RPA Inc. in accordance with the requirements
of NI 43-101 with respect to updated mineral resources estimated for the Hairhan
project (the 2011 Mongolia Report). Hrayr Agnerian, M.Sc. (Applied), P.
Geo. and William E. Roscoe, Ph.D., P.Eng. are the independent Qualified Persons
for the 2011 Mongolia Report for the purposes of the requirements of NI 43-101.
Collectively, the 2007 Mongolia Report and 2011 Mongolia Report are referred to
herein as the Mongolia Technical Reports.
Property Description and Location
Denison has been
active in Mongolia for more than 20 years, and initial exploration commenced
prior to the promulgation of the law on mineral resources in Mongolia in 1997
(Mineral Law of Mongolia). The following details the mineral resources
estimated in the Mongolia Technical Reports. The other properties which Denison
holds are covered in further detail in the section Mineral Exploration
Mongolia.
The GSJV holds four exploration licences that were obtained
under an agreement with the Government of Mongolia (the Mineral
Agreement) prior to the introduction of the Mineral Law of Mongolia. The
GSJV licences have an area of 167,260 hectares and are located in the South Gobi
region of Mongolia. This area is characterized as desert steppe and supports
nomadic herdsmen.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
48 |
Properties Obtained Prior to 1997
The GSJV was
formed in 1994 by Energy Fuels Nuclear ("EFN"), the Government of Mongolia, and
Geologorazvedka, a Russian entity. EFN held a 70% interest in the GSJV, and the
Mongolian and Russian participants each held a 15% interest. Denison acquired
the assets of EFN, including its interest in the GSJV, in 1997 and is the
Managing Director of the GSJV.
The initial properties obtained by the GSJV were granted under
a Mineral Agreement with the Government of Mongolia. The Mineral Agreement
grants properties exclusively to the GSJV and establishes the fiscal and
operating policies under which the GSJV operates. Under the GSJV Founding
Agreement:
- |
The Government of Mongolia entered into the Mineral
Agreement, granting the GSJV exclusive rights and permits to five areas
(one area later released) without obligations for further licensing fees.
This includes the obligation of the Government of Mongolia to provide all
necessary authorizations, permits and licences needed by the joint venture
to conduct business. |
|
|
- |
The Russian participant contributed all of the
exploration data, records, and information it possessed for the five
areas. |
|
|
- |
Denison was obligated to provide 100% of venture funding
until the predetermined total had been reached (initially it was $4
million that then changed to $5.1 million). |
Subsequent to the formation of the GSJV, Mongolia enacted the
Mineral Law of Mongolia. The Mineral Law of Mongolia contains some conditions
and provisions that were not consistent with the Mineral Agreement. However, the
Mineral Agreement has been recognized as an International Agreement under the
Mineral Law of Mongolia, and any inconsistencies between the Mineral Law of
Mongolia and the Mineral Agreement have, thus far, been resolved in favour of
the provisions of the Mineral Agreement.
In July 2009, the Great State Khural (the Parliament of
Mongolia) enacted the Nuclear Energy Law of Mongolia (the Nuclear Energy
Law). The Nuclear Energy Law granted authority to the Mongolian Nuclear
Energy Agency (the NEA), a new regulatory authority for all uranium and
nuclear matters in Mongolia, and created a framework for all aspects of uranium
resource development in Mongolia. The Company continued its activities in
Mongolia under the authority granted to the NEA. Late in 2014, the Government of
Mongolia reorganized, and the NEA was eliminated. Licencing authority was
transferred to the Mineral Resources Authority, and the Ministry of Mining now
has responsibility for review and acceptance of materials submitted by licence
holders seeking to convert exploration licences to mining licences. The final
review and approval panel for licensing matters is the Nuclear Energy
Commission, which was preserved after the NEA was dissolved. Various other
regulatory functions that were under the NEA have been delegated to other previously
existing agencies.
A new Mongolian state-owned uranium company, MonAtom LLC
(MonAtom), was created by the Nuclear Energy Law and has been
designated as the Mongolian Governments participating entity in all uranium
projects in Mongolia, and is thus the Mongolian partner in the GSJV.
There are a number of provisions under the Nuclear Energy Law
that could have significant adverse effects on the GSJV, including
restrictions on the ability of a licensee to transfer its licences or interests
in its uranium properties, and the ability of the Government of Mongolia to
acquire a 34% to 51% interest in each property at no cost to the Mongolian
Government, depending on the amount of historic exploration on the property that
was funded by the Government of Mongolia. This share interest would continue to
be held by MonAtom. The Company and MonAtom started restructuring the GSJV in
March 2012 to meet the requirements of the Nuclear Energy Law. In preparation
for this restructuring, the Company acquired the Russian participants interest
in the GSJV for nominal cash consideration and release of the Russian
participants share of unfunded joint venture obligations. The Company now holds
an 85% interest in the GSJV.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
49 |
The GSJV and the Ministry of Mineral Resources and Energy (now
the Ministry of Mining) completed the process of extending the terms of the
GSJVs licences in accordance with the Mineral Law of Mongolia and the terms of
the Mineral Agreement. The four original GSJV exploration licences remained
valid under normal licence provisions until January 2012. Applications for
mining licences, including requisite technical reports and data, were submitted
to NEA in November and December 2011. In December 2012, the GSJV entered into a
Pre-Mining Agreement with NEA, in accordance with provisions of the Nuclear
Energy Law and the Mineral Law of Mongolia. This Agreement provides for a period
of up to three years following expiration of the term of exploration licences to
assess the technical viability of mining on each project and to collect such
additional data as may be required to support decisions to initiate commercial
development. The GSJV licences continued to be held as exploration licences
through 2014 and into 2015. Various agencies of the government of Mongolia
continue review of GSJV submittals required to obtain mining licences.
Issuance of uranium mining licences is under the authority of
the Nuclear Energy Law; however the timing of mining licence issuance is
uncertain.
Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and
Physiography
Mongolia is a large, landlocked country with an area of
about 1,566,000 square kilometres. The capital is Ulaanbaatar, which is located
in the north central part of the country. Ulaanbaatar is the site of the only
international airport in the country. The Trans-Mongolian Railway connects to
the Trans-Siberian Railway in the north and the China rail system to the south.
Much of the country is open and vehicle access is possible to most of the areas.
Distances are large and roads are often poor or non-existent; however, road
infrastructure is improving.
The climate in Mongolia is extreme continental. Temperatures
are extreme in the winter (down to -50º C) and the summer (up to 40º C). In
Ulaanbaatar, July is the warmest and wettest month, with an average temperature
of 17º C and an average rainfall of 76 mm, while January is the coldest and
driest month, with an average temperature of -25º C and no precipitation.
Rainfall and temperature throughout Mongolia are variable depending on
elevation.
Historical Exploration
Following approval of the
formation of the GSJV in January 1994, work began immediately on a field program
in the summer of 1994. The focus of the GSJV exploration was for deposits
amenable to in-situ recovery (ISR) production methods. The 1994 work
consisted of limited delineation drilling at Haraat to expand known resources
and to increase confidence in the resources. A small ISR field test was run in
1994 to determine the ISR favourability of the Haraat type mineralization.
In 1996, the GSJV began a major escalation of exploration work.
A total of 30,210 metres were drilled, and 6,000 kilometres of gamma
spectrometric surveys were run. The largest discovery encountered by the GSJV to
that point in time was made at Hairhan. The discovery hole intersected a
14-metre thick mineral zone grading 0.144% U.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
50 |
A major part of the 1996 program was the acquisition, assembly,
and operation of an ISR pilot plant at Haraat. This plant was a fully integrated
facility, capable of producing a final product, although drying and packaging
equipment were not included. The testing in 1996 included both a test on
mineralization above the water table, as well as a test below the water table,
the latter being the normal operating regime for an ISR project. These tests
confirmed that hydraulic control can be maintained and that uranium
solubilization and mobilization can be controlled.
In May 1997, the Company acquired the assets of EFN including
its interest in the GSJV. Work in 1997 expanded beyond the level of 1996, with
efforts concentrated on drilling to define mineral resources and to test new
exploration targets on the GSJV lands. The bulk of the 1997 drilling was in the
Hairhan and Choir Depressions, with a modest amount of initial reconnaissance
drilling conducted in the Ulziit Depression. The Ulziit drilling followed gamma
spectrometric surveys to identify favourable locales. No ISR testing was
conducted in 1997.
Work in 1998 was once again directed toward the objectives of
exploration reconnaissance, resource delineation, and ISR testing, with over
50,000 metres of drilling, and the first stage ISR testing at the Hairhan
deposit. The Hairhan Depression received the bulk of the exploration drilling
effort in 1998. The mineralization depth ranges from 10 metres to 200 metres,
with the average depth in the 60-metre to 80-metre range. The Hairhan 1998 test
confirmed the leachability of the mineralization at Hairhan.
With the decline of the uranium price, no drilling was
conducted during 1999; however, an extensive regional geologic reconnaissance
program was conducted. In 2000, the GSJV Managing Director placed the GSJV
program on standby status.
During 2004 and 2005, the GSJV resumed work and applied for
additional exploration licences in six areas. In the Gurvan Saihan depression,
previously identified uranium occurrences, as well as additional target areas
within the depression, were tested with 159 holes totalling 12,533 meters.
Results indicated that uranium mineralization was encountered in a variety of
settings, which indicated that additional exploration drilling was warranted.
During 2006, the Company completed in excess of 54,000 metres
of drilling, all on new targets which were identified through previous GSJV and
Company reconnaissance programs. Based on the generally discouraging results of
this drilling, the Company released a number of exploration licences.
Drilling in 2007 exceeded 56,000 metres and concentrated
primarily on the Hairhan and Haraat projects to extend and define mineralized
trends. Mineralization in the northern portion of the Hairhan deposit was
encountered at depths not previously tested.
Activity increased in 2008 and over 72,000 metres were drilled,
with the Hairhan and Ulziit projects receiving the majority of the attention.
Hairhan drilling concentrated on infill drilling and developing mineral trends
in zones below past drilled depths. At Ulziit, large regional programs were
carried out to refine targets for detailed follow up drilling.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
51 |
Drilling in 2009 was approximately 13,900 metres for
fulfillment of annual work requirements for exploration licences and for initial
testing of new mineral trends identified in the Choir Depression and at Ulziit.
Drilling in 2010, totaling slightly over 6,500 metres, was
limited in scope to focus on essential priorities and to meet annual exploration
work requirements. In the Choir Depression approximately 2,000 metres of
wide-spaced drilling was directed toward further extension of the new
mineralized trend developing along the east margin of the licence area. At
Ulziit about 3,500 metres were drilled to test three specific targets, and
favorable geology and uranium mineralization were confirmed at one of the three
targets. A small volume of drilling was completed on the Gurvan Saihan licence
to support finalization of resource estimation in accordance with Mongolian
registration standards. From 2011 to 2013, exploration drilling continued. For
descriptions of these programs, see Mineral Exploration Mongolia.
Geological Setting
The geology of Mongolia is
dominated by the Altaid orogen an orogenic collage of subduction and accretion
terranes that extend from the Ural Mountains to the Korean Peninsula (Yakubchuk
et al., 2001, Dejidmaa and Badarch, 1999). This orogen formed between the
Neoproterozoic and the Carboniferous. The Altaid rocks of Mongolia lie between
the North China Craton and the Siberian Craton.
The Altaid rocks of Mongolia are a mélange of Neoproterozoic
basement areas separated by various island arc segments and accretionary wedges.
These various sedimentary and volcanic terranes have been intruded by mafic and
felsic plutons ranging in age from Cambrian to Mesozoic. Cretaceous and younger
basins unconformably overlie the Altaid rocks.
Late Mesozoic extensional basins are a prominent geological and
topographic feature of central east Asia. The basins are interpreted as having
formed in an intracontinental, back-arc tectonic setting in response to
extensional faulting. These basins, likely fault bounded grabens and half
grabens, were filled by eroded sediment during the Jurassic and Cretaceous
periods.
Mineralization
The GSJV licences cover a number of
the internal basins, or depressions, located in central Mongolia. All of these
depressions appear to have similar geological features.
Depression fill is composed of non-lithified sediments with a
total thickness of approximately 1,500 metres. The Lower Cretaceous sediments of
the Dzuunbayan Formation are divided into two facies, with the first typically
variegated and the second normally grey. The variegated section is comprised of
conglomerate, sandstone, and siltstone, and occurs mainly on the margins of the
depression. The second facies is comprised of lacustrine sediments, typically
clays and argillaceous sandstone, with interbeds of brown coal and disseminated
iron sulphides. Mineralization is typically found in sandy and silty units of
the Dzuunbayan Formation and is intimately associated with organic enriched
sediments. Mineralized bodies occur at the interfaces of oxidized and reduced
sediments as well as within completely reduced zones. Mineralization is
localized in roll fronts, as strata-bound layers, and as lenses and pods.
Mineralization ranges from less than one metre thickness to thicknesses
exceeding 20 metres.
Drilling
During the period between 1994 and 1999, a
total of 147,058 metres were drilled. The drilling was carried out by
Geologorazvedka working as a drilling contractor to the GSJV in the period from
1994 to 1998. In the period from 1994 to 1996, down hole logging was carried out
by Geologorazvedka. In the period 1996 to 1998, down hole logging was carried
out in-house. Some of the early drilling was logged using Russian equipment, but
Mount Sopris equipment was in place relatively early in the program.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
52 |
Exploration drilling resumed on GSJV properties in 2005,
following the temporary cessation of programs in 2000. Drilling during the
period of 2005 to 2010 totalled 247,934 metres, which includes exploration,
resource definition, hydrogeological, environmental, and ISR test drilling.
Since 2005, down hole logging was carried out by a Mongolian contractor using
Mount Sopris equipment.
Sampling Method and Approach
A percentage of the
rotary drill holes completed were cored. The purpose of this coring was to
provide samples for testing to allow determination of specific gravity and
disequilibrium factors for the deposits. Coring also allows analysis of various
elements and a check of the reliability of the electric logging equipment.
Samples were selected on the basis of down-hole radiometric
surveys, the presence of alteration in the cores, and handheld spectrometry
results. Cores were split by hand. Samples ranged in length from 0.2 metres to
0.9 metres, but the bulk of the samples were either 0.2 metres or 0.3 metres.
Samples were transported to the camp near Haraat for sample preparation.
Sample Preparation, Analyses and Security
Core
samples were crushed in the GSJV camp to -200, +300 mesh size and transported to
the Central Analytical Laboratory (CAL) of Sosnovgeology, a state
geological enterprise in Irkutsk, Russia. CAL is registered by the Russian
Federation and is certified to standard N 41083-95. Analyses performed by CAL
were carried out at a level suitable for the estimation of mineral resources.
Reports translated from Russian indicate that the laboratory maintained internal
quality control programs.
Data Verification
Uranium data acquisition for the
Hairhan ISR project was focused primarily on gamma logging of rotary non-core
drill holes with a small percentage of rotary core holes and accompanying
chemical assays of core as a means of validating the gamma logging process. This
is a standard means of data verification for such projects.
Other data verification exercises completed by RPA Inc.
included: (i) location of drill hole collars in the field; and (ii) manual
checking of the algorithm for converting down hole gamma readings to uranium
grades.
Mineral Resource Estimates
For the mineral resource
estimate, RPA Inc. accepted and used the drill hole database compiled by Denison
for its 2010 estimate. Denison carried out a detailed correlation of
approximately 520 drill holes within the Hairhan deposit. Correlation of the
geophysical logs was accomplished using commonly accepted subsurface exploration
methods with a primary emphasis on identifying sands, interbedded shales, and
lignites and assigning them formation marker designations.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
53 |
The raw borehole natural gamma data (counts per second or CPS)
were processed using the Denison in-house GAMLOG program (based on Scotts AEC
Algorithm), with output generated on 10 cm intervals in percent U. For each
mineralized zone and for each drill hole, thickness (
TH) and grade x
thickness (
GT) were calculated using the following parameters:
Cut-off Grade |
0.02%U |
Minimum Thickness (TH) |
2 metre |
Grade X Thickness (GT) |
0.04 |
Waste Thickness |
2 metres |
The values for the density and disequilibrium factor are based
on calculations completed by Geologorazvedka. Density is 1.65 tonnes per cubic
metre and the disequilibrium factor is 1.0.
RPA Inc. reviewed the correlations of sandstone units hosting
the uranium mineralization and found them to be reasonable. The Denison database
was used to plot plans for each mineralized zone showing the GT and TH values
for each drill hole that penetrated the zone, with a minimum GT value of 0.05
metre %. The GT value and the TH values were contoured by hand on separate plans
and the contours were digitized into AutoCAD.
Each lens within each mineralized zone was classified by the
number of drill holes and spacing of the holes, to reflect confidence in the
lens mineral resource estimate. In general, drill hole spacing is in the order
of 100 metres. In some areas where good mineralization was encountered, drill
hole spacing was closed up, and in a few locations, clusters of several holes
were drilled at a spacing of tens of metres.
Indicated mineral resource lenses were generally defined by a
minimum of three drill holes. Some lenses had up to twenty or more drill holes.
In general, the indicated mineral resource lenses were contourable and were
estimated by the contour method described above.
Inferred mineral resource lenses were mostly defined by a
single drill hole or by two drill holes clustered closely together. In a few
cases, inferred mineral resource lenses were defined by two drill holes on the
order of 100 metres apart.
In 2011, RPA Inc. estimated mineral resources for the Hairhan
property as summarized in the table below based on exploration drilling
conducted up to 2008. The cut-off is 0.04 metre% GT over a minimum of two
metres. The average thickness of the indicated mineral resources is 3.7 metres
and of the inferred mineral resources is 3.0 metres.
Hairhan Mineral Resource Estimates (1)(2)(3)(4)(6)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Company |
|
|
|
100% Basis |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Share(5) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pounds |
|
|
Pounds of |
|
|
|
Tonnes |
|
|
Grade |
|
|
|
|
|
U3O8 |
|
|
U3O8 |
|
Category |
|
(,000) |
|
|
% U |
|
|
Tonnes U |
|
|
(,000) |
|
|
(,000) |
|
Indicated |
|
12,261 |
|
|
0.062 |
|
|
7,612 |
|
|
19,800 |
|
|
16,800 |
|
Inferred |
|
5,536 |
|
|
0.040 |
|
|
2,236 |
|
|
5,800 |
|
|
4,900 |
|
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
54 |
Notes: |
(1) |
The mineral resource estimates comply with the
requirements of NI 43-101 and the classifications comply with CIM
definition standards. Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do
not have demonstrated economic viability. No mineral reserves have as yet
been defined. |
(2) |
The cut-off grade is 0.02%U. |
(3) |
Minimum thickness of 2 metres. |
(4) |
Density is 1.65 tonnes per cubic metre. |
(5) |
Based on 85% interest in the GSJV.
|
(6) |
Inferred mineral resources have a greater amount of
uncertainty as to their existence and as to whether they can be mined
economically. It cannot be assumed that all or part of the inferred
mineral resources will ever be upgraded to a higher
classification. |
There are no 43-101 compliant mineral reserves or resources
estimated for any of the other Denison Mongolia properties at this time. See
Mineral Exploration Mongolia for a discussion of recent exploration
activities.
Mutanga Project, Zambia
Denison acquired 100% of the Mutanga Project (Mutanga)
in 2007 through the acquisition of OmegaCorp. Mutanga is comprised of the
Mutanga, Dibwe and Dibwe East deposits plus a number of exploration areas.
On March 20, 2009, the Company filed on SEDAR an independent
technical report entitled NI 43-101 Technical Report Mutanga Uranium Project,
Zambia (the Mutanga and Dibwe Report) prepared by CSA Global in
accordance with the requirements of NI 43-101 with respect to the Companys
deposits in Mutanga. Malcolm Titley, B.Sc. (Geology and Chemistry), MAusIMM,
MAIG, is the independent Qualified Person for the Mutanga and Dibwe Report for
the purposes of the requirements of NI 43-101.
On March 28, 2012, Denison filed on SEDAR a technical report
entitled The Dibwe East Project, Southern Province, Republic of Zambia
prepared by the Company and audited by RPA Inc. in accordance with the
requirements of NI 43-101 with respect to mineral resources estimated for the
Dibwe East project (the Dibwe East Report). William E. Roscoe, Ph.D, P.
Eng. is the independent Qualified Person for the Dibwe East Report for the
purposes of the requirements of NI 43-101.
Subsequently, in response to a request by the Ontario
Securities Commission, the Company filed on SEDAR a new technical report for the
project dated September 12, 2013 and entitled Mineral Resource Estimates for
the Mutanga Uranium Project (the Combined Mutanga Report). This report
supports the mineral resource estimates for all of the deposits at Mutanga and
replaces the Mutanga and Dibwe Report and the Dibwe East Report. Malcolm
Titley, B.Sc. (Geology and Chemistry), MAusIMM, MAIG, is the independent
Qualified Person for the Combined Mutanga Report for the purposes of the
requirements of NI 43-101.
Property Description and Location
Mutanga is located
in a sparsely populated region in southern Zambia, in the Siavonga District of
the Southern Province, approximately 200 kilometres south of the nations
capital, Lusaka.
Mutanga is comprised of two mining licences (13880-HQ-LML and
13881-HQ-LML) encompassing 457.3 square kilometres. The mining licences are held
by Denison Mines Zambia Limited, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Denison and have a
term of 25 years to April 2035.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
55 |
Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and
Physiography
Mutanga is located approximately 200 kilometres south of
Lusaka. The main road from Lusaka to Siavonga (the nearest town to the project
site) is in fairly good condition. The mine site itself is located east of the
main road and is accessed via 39 kilometres of poorly maintained gravel road,
for which a four-wheel drive vehicle is required.
The Mutanga site lies to the south of the Zambezi escarpment
and is situated in the Zambezi valley at an altitude of 600 metres above sea
level. The climate is warm to hot with dry warm winters and hot summers during
which the seasonal rainfall occurs. The average annual rainfall is approximately
720 mm and occurs from November to March.
The population is very sparse and limited to small family
settlements. No service facilities or accommodations are available in the area.
Electric power is available from the national grid approximately 60 kilometres
from the project. Ground water sources are available.
Historical Exploration
Uranium was first identified
in the area in 1957 after a ground survey located five radiometrically anomalous
areas in the vicinity of Bungua Hill, west of Siavonga. Further exploration in
1958 and 1959 then found low-grade uranium mineralization that could be followed
for over 800 metres of strike extent. Confirmation of this uranium
mineralization was further defined in two campaigns after regional airborne
magnetic and radiometric surveys had been flown over the area in 1974. The
Geological Survey of Zambia (GSZ) conducted a ground investigation
(1973 to 1977) and a second campaign was conducted by the Italian oil company
AGIP S.p.A. (AGIP) between 1974 and 1984.
GSZ and AGIP completed fairly extensive field programs on
several areas and carried out resource estimations on prospects within the
current licence area. The Mutanga and Dibwe deposits were investigated by AGIP
during the late 1970s and early 1980s. Considerable exploration was undertaken
including extensive resource drilling. AGIP estimated a combined resource for
Mutanga and Dibwe containing more than 20 million pounds of U3O8.
The third exploration episode, from 2004 to present, began with
the granting of a prospecting licence over AGIPs main historic uranium
prospects to Okorusu Fluorspar Pty Ltd in 2004. This was transferred in 2005 to
OmegaCorp, who drilled eleven drill holes (649 metres) at the Mutanga prospect
in 2006 to confirm the resource identified by AGIP.
Geological Setting
The Mutanga uranium deposits are
located within the Zambezi Rift Valley which is characterized by large
fault-bounded valleys filled with Permian, Triassic and possibly Cretaceous
sediments of the Karoo Supergroup. The Lower Karoo Group comprises a basal
conglomerate, tillite and sandstone overlain unconformably by conglomerate,
coal, sandstone and carbonaceous siltstones and mudstones (the Gwembe
Formation), and fine-grained lacustrine sediments of the Madumabisa Formation.
The Upper Karoo sediments unconformably overlay the Lower Karoo and comprise a
series of arenaceous continental sediments overlain by mudstones capped by
basalt.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
56 |
Mineralization
The uranium mineralization identified
to date is restricted to the Escarpment Grit Formation of the Karoo Supergroup.
Within the tenement area, the Karoo sediments are in a northeast trending rift
valley. They dip shallowly to the southeast and are displaced by a series of
normal faults, which, in general, trend parallel to the axis of the valley. The
Madumabisa Mudstones form an impermeable unit and are thought to have prevented
uranium mineralization from moving further down through the stratigraphy.
Mineralization is associated with mudstones, siltstones, mud
clasts, and iron-rich areas (goethite). It occurs as disseminations in pore
spaces, and along joints and other fractures.
It is probable that the uranium was eroded from the surrounding
gneissic and plutonic basement rocks during weathering and deposition of the
immature grits and sandstones. The uranium was transported together with this
material in a presumably arid environment. Uranium was precipitated during
reducing conditions in certain favourable units. Later fluctuations in the
groundwater table caused remobilization of this material; uranium was again
dissolved and then re-deposited in reducing, often clay-rich areas.
Drilling
RC and diamond drilling are the principal
methods of exploration and mineralization delineation after initial geophysical
surveys. Drilling is generally conducted during the dry season but can be
conducted year round.
Mutanga and Dibwe
The first drilling on the Mutanga
project subsequent to Denisons acquisition of OmegaCorp commenced on October
17, 2007 at the Dibwe deposit. The initial focus of the drilling campaign was to
collect bulk sample material from the Dibwe prospect for metallurgical testing.
This program continued until the onset of the rainy season in the first week of
December 2007.
All rigs were relocated to the Mutanga deposit for the 2007/08
rainy season. The objective of the program was infill drilling to support an NI
43-101 estimate. Drill hole spacing was 50 x 50 metres. After the end of the
rainy season in April 2008, the rigs returned to Dibwe (Central) for a 50 x 100
metre infill program. A total of 45,598 metres of development drilling was
completed by July 2008, and the rig fleet transferred to exploration drilling. A
total of 27,341 metres of exploration drilling on twelve previously untested
prospects was completed in 2008. Two of the most promising of these new
prospects were Zones 1 and 2 within the Dibwe East area.
Dibwe East
The mineral resource estimate was based
on 237 drill holes totaling 21,729 meters drilled in 2011. Drill holes were
spaced 100 meters to 200 meters apart along profiles spaced 200 meters apart.
Additional drilling was completed in 2012 that has not been incorporated into
the Dibwe East mineral resource estimate.
Security of Samples
Mutanga and Dibwe
RC and diamond drilling samples
were shipped to Genalysis in Johannesburg for preparation. Once prepared, the
assay pulps were forwarded by Genalysis to its Perth assay laboratory where the
samples were held in secure, quarantined storage.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
57 |
Dibwe East
RC and diamond drilling samples were
shipped to ALS Minerals in Johannesburg for preparation and assay. ALS considers
customer confidentiality and security of utmost importance and takes appropriate
steps to protect the integrity of sample processing at all stages from sample
storage and handling to transmission of results. All electronic information is
password protected and backed up on a daily basis. Electronic results are
transmitted with additional security features. Access to ALS Mineral
laboratories premises is restricted by an electronic security system. The
facilities at the main lab are regularly patrolled by security guards 24 hours a
day.
Data Verification: Processes for Determining Uranium Content
by Gamma Logging
Mutanga and Dibwe
The primary method of collecting
information is through extensive drilling (both RC and diamond drill coring) and
the use of down hole geophysical probes. The down hole geophysical probes
measure natural gamma radiation in counts per second (cps), from which an
indirect estimate of uranium content can be made.
The basis of the indirect uranium grade calculation (referred
to as "eU3O8" for "equivalent U3O8") is the sensitivity of the sodium iodide
crystal used in each individual probe. Each probe's sensitivity is measured
against a known set of standard "test pits," with various known grades of
uranium mineralization, located at the U.S. Department of Energys Grand
Junction, Colorado office. The ratio of cps to known uranium grade is referred
to as the probe "K-Factor," and this value is determined for every gamma probe
when it is first manufactured and is also periodically checked throughout the
operating life of each probe. In addition, certain boreholes at the Mutanga
property are cased and the probes are periodically checked for any instrument
drift. Application of the K-Factor, along with other probe correction factors,
allows for immediate grade estimation in the field as each drill hole is logged.
Dibwe East
The drill hole chemical assay data were
compared with assay data received directly from ALS Minerals. Some of the RC
holes were re-logged by geophysical probe to confirm the original readings. The
drill hole survey locations were visually checked. Core logging information was
verified against core photographs. Other information in the database was
verified.
Check assays at the secondary laboratory were plotted against
the primary assay results and appear to be approximately 15% higher than the
original laboratory assays. Analyses of reference standards compared well with
standard values. Field duplicates gave some scatter but correlated reasonably
well with original sample assays. Other than a few outliers, field blanks showed
very little variation and assay values were typically less than 4ppm.
Comparison of the U3O8 grades with chemical assays from core
holes determined a disequilibrium factor of -33% which was applied to all
radiometric assay values in the database.
Core Sampling, Processing and Assaying
Core and RC
chip samples were collected for a number of purposes in addition to purely
geological reasons: verification of lithology as determined from geophysical
logging and examination of drill cuttings of RC; determination of uranium
content as a general check of gamma probing to determine if gamma measurement
and chemical uranium content are close to balance (this is referred to as
"radiometric disequilibrium"); whole rock analysis; and specific geochemistry
for uranium species and other minerals of interest. Core diameter is typically
76 mm. For intervals selected for laboratory analyses, one half of the core was
normally used and the other half retained. The minimum length of core submitted
was usually 0.2 metres and the maximum length per sample was 0.4 metres. Sample
intervals were selected by geologists in the field based on lithology,
oxidation/reduction and uranium grade (from gamma logging and from hand-held
gamma counters).
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
58 |
Drill hole logging was conducted by trained and dedicated
personnel devoted solely to this task. The tools and a complete set of spares
were manufactured by Mount Sopris Instrument Company in Golden, Colorado and
were shipped to Zambia in 2007, ahead of the drilling season. Denison retained
the services of a senior geophysical consultant to oversee training,
implementation and quality control protocols with the Zambian logging personnel.
All tools were checked and calibrated before being shipped to Zambia and a
variety of system checks and standards were also established for routine
checking and calibration of tools. In addition, Denison cased a mineralized hole
at one of its centrally located development areas and this cased hole was logged
periodically to ensure exact repeatability of the gamma probes.
Drill hole logging data was stored on digital media in the
logging truck at the exploration sites. The digital data are periodically
brought in from the field locations to the Lusaka office. The raw and converted
logging data was copied and then sent via e-mail to Denisons Saskatoon office,
where all data was checked and reviewed.
Samples of drill core were chosen on the basis of radiometric
data collected during core logging. This radiometric data was obtained by using
a hand-held scintillometer and on the basis of subsequent down hole probing. The
hand-held scintillometer provides quantitative data only and cannot be used to
calculate uranium grades; however, it did allow the geologist to identify
uranium mineralization in the core and select intervals for geochemical
sampling.
Additional samples were collected above and below the horizons
of interest in order to "close-off" sample intervals. Sample widths were
selected according to radiometric values and lithologic breaks or changes. All
reasonable efforts were made to ensure that splitting of the core was
representative and that no significant sampling biases occurred. Once the sample
intervals were identified, an exclusive sample number was assigned to each
interval and recorded by the on-site geologist.
After the geological logging of the core and sample selection,
all of the selected sample intervals of drill core were split longitudinally at
the drill site. One half of the core was placed in a new sample bag along with a
sample tag corresponding to the sample number. The other half of the core was
re-assembled in the core box and stored for future reference. As standard
procedure, field duplicates are included in assay suites sent to the laboratory
and reference samples are used to verify laboratory controls and analytical
repeatability.
Mutanga and Dibwe
Samples were analyzed at Genalysis
in Perth. Samples were transported in a dedicated truck from Zambia to
Johannesburg, where Genalysis operates a dedicated sample preparation facility.
The sample was crushed, pulped and homogenized and a sample pulp air freighted
to the lab in Perth, Australia.
The Genalysis laboratory has been in operation since 1975 and
is fully certified and accredited by Australian standards. Genalysis is an
accredited NATA (National Association of Testing Authorities, Australia)
laboratory (Number 3244). Genalysis has been approved by AQIS (Australian
Quarantine and Inspection Service) for the receipt and treatment of samples from
interstate and overseas. Genalysis is an Associate Member of the Association of
Mining and Exploration Companies Inc. and a Member of the Standards Association
of Australia.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
59 |
Dibwe East
Samples were analyzed at ALS Minerals in
Johannesburg. Samples were transported by airfreight or truck to ALSs facility
in Johannesburg, where ALS performs sample preparation on all samples submitted.
Mineral Resource Estimates
In preparing the Combined
Mutanga Report, U3O8 grades were estimated into a block model for each deposit,
constructed to honour the interpreted mineralized zones and the surface
topography. Blocks within each model were divided into relevant domains using
three dimensional wireframe models and were constrained by the surface
topography. Adequate waste was built into the block models to ensure that they
were suitable for open pit optimisation and mine planning. To speed up
processing time, waste blocks were filtered out of each block model prior to
grade interpolation and then re-merged into the block file after grades were
assigned to each model.
Ordinary kriging was used to estimate U3O8 based on the
modelled variogram parameters. Inverse distance squared estimation was completed
as a comparison with the kriged estimate.
The grade interpolation strategy for both deposits involved
setting up search parameters in a search ellipse for each domain, which was then
aligned to the geometry of each domain. A series of grade interpolation runs
were then completed, at progressively larger search distances until all blocks
received an interpolated grade. Constraints were applied to the number of grade
values and holes used in the interpolations in order to improve the reliability
of the estimates.
Upon completion of grade estimation for both deposits, a series
of block model validations were completed to test the robustness of each
estimate.
Mineralized zones at Dibwe East were interpreted and correlated
using the geophysical logs into A, B and C Horizons which extend to a depth of
approximately 110 metres below surface.Grade contours at 0.02% eU3O8 for each
horizon were used in combination with top and bottom surfaces to construct
mineralization wireframes. Statistical analysis indicated that erratic
high-grade values should be top-cut to 0.3% ppm eU3O8. Top-cut assays were
composited into 1 metre lengths within the mineralized wireframes and used to
interpolate grades into 20 metres by 20 metres by 2 metres blocks using an
inverse distance squared algorithm. Two passes were used with different search
radii. A bulk density of 2.1 tonnes per cubic metre was used as per previous
resource estimates for the Mutanga Project.
The block model was validated by means of:
|
Comparison of domain wireframe volumes with
block volumes. |
|
Visual comparison of composite grades with
block grades. |
|
Comparison of block grades with composite
grades used to interpolate grades. |
|
Comparison with estimation by the contour
method. |
The Mineral resource is reported within a preliminary Whittle
pit shell. The Mineral resources are all classified as inferred because of the
relatively wide drill hole spacing (approximately 100 metres by 200 metres) and
uncertainties in the eU3O8 grade values, in particular disequilibrium factors.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
60 |
Mutanga Mineral Resource Estimates(1)(2)(3)(4)
|
|
Tonnes |
Grade |
U3O8 |
Deposit |
Classification |
(000s) |
(%U3O8) |
(000 lbs.) |
Dibwe East(5) |
Inferred |
39,800 |
0.032 |
28,200 |
Mutanga (5) |
Measured |
1,880 |
0.048 |
2,000 |
|
Indicated |
8,400 |
0.031 |
5,800 |
|
Inferred |
7,200 |
0.021 |
3,300 |
Dibwe(5) |
Inferred |
17,000 |
0.023 |
9,000 |
Mutanga Ext.(6) |
Inferred |
500 |
0.034 |
400 |
Mutanga East(6) |
Inferred |
200 |
0.032 |
100 |
Mutanga West(6) |
Inferred |
500 |
0.034 |
400 |
|
Tonnes |
Grade |
U3O8 |
Classification |
(000s) |
(%U3O8) |
(000 lbs.) |
Measured |
1,880 |
0.048 |
2,000 |
Indicated |
8,400 |
0.031 |
5,800 |
subtotal M&I |
10,280 |
0.034 |
7,800 |
Inferred |
65,200 |
0.028 |
41,400 |
|
Notes: |
|
|
(1) |
The Mutanga, Mutanga Ext, Mutanga East, Mutanga West and
Dibwe mineral resource estimates have been prepared in accordance with the
requirements of NI 43-101 and the classifications comply with CIM
definition standards. |
(2) |
Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not
have demonstrated economic viability. No mineral reserves have as yet been
defined. |
(3) |
Mineral resources are estimated with no allowance for
mining dilution, mining recovery or process recovery. |
(4) |
Inferred mineral resources have a greater amount of
uncertainty as to their existence and as to whether they can be mined
economically. It cannot be assumed that all or part of the inferred
mineral resources will ever be upgraded to a higher
classification. |
(5) |
Reported above a cutoff grade of 0.01%
U3O8 |
(6) |
Reported above a cutoff grade of 0.02%
U3O8 |
Recent drilling at Mutanga has validated the previous
historical drilling data and provided increased confidence in the U3O8 grade,
geological interpretation and tonnage factors resulting in a significant portion
of Mutanga being classified as indicated mineral resources. The remainder of the
mineral resource has been assigned to the inferred mineral resource category,
due to the limited understanding of geological continuity, low drilling density
and the uncertainty surrounding the historical data.
Historical Estimates
On several of Denisons mineral properties, estimates of
mineral reserves or mineral resources have not been prepared in accordance with
NI 43-101; however, historical mineral resource estimates exist for the
projects, as discussed below. The Company is not treating the following
historical estimates as current mineral resources or reserves.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
61 |
In Canada, on the McClean Joint Venture, the McClean South
trend is located parallel to and approximately 500 metres south of the McClean
North trend (see Mineral Properties McClean Lake). There are two presently
known mineralized pods which were drilled by Canadian Oxy during 1979-1980: the
Southwest Pod and the Southeast Pod. The original owner of the property,
Canadian Oxy, prepared estimates of tonnages, grades and contained uranium for
these deposits as of 1980, which have not been verified by Denison. The results
of these estimates are set out below.
McClean South Historical Estimates(1)(2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Companys |
|
|
|
Tons |
|
|
Grade |
|
|
Pounds of
U3O8 |
|
|
Share |
|
|
|
(,000) |
|
|
(%
U3O8) |
|
|
(,000) |
|
|
Pounds
U3O8 ) |
|
Deposit |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(,000) |
|
Southwest Pod |
|
47.6 |
|
|
2.10 |
|
|
2,000 |
|
|
500 |
|
Southeast Pod |
|
126.7 |
|
|
0.73 |
|
|
1,900 |
|
|
400 |
|
Notes: |
(1) |
The historical estimates do not comply with the
requirement of NI 43-101. CIM definitions are not used. |
(2) |
The historical estimates cannot be verified and
the estimates are not necessarily indicative of the mineralization on the
property. |
This trend will require future evaluation to upgrade this
historical estimate as a current mineral resource estimate.
On the Haraat deposit in Mongolia, Geologorazvedka prepared an
estimate of the mineral resources in 1998. The methodology used for the
historical mineral resource estimation at Haraat is standard in the former
Soviet Union. It used Russian gamma logs from the 1988 and 1994 drilling and
American gamma logs for the 1996 drilling, which were all converted to a common
database and corrected for disequilibrium using the results of 1,950 core sample
chemical analysis. A correction was also applied for moisture content for
mineralization below the water table.
The methodology for the Haraat mineral resource estimate is
considered reliable to the level of classification specified. As reported in the
2007 Mongolia Report, Scott Wilson RPA considers that the mineral resources, as
shown in the following table, in the Haraat area are equivalent to inferred
mineral resources and, because they are potentially economic, are relevant.
Haraat Historical Estimate(1)(2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Companys |
|
|
|
|
|
|
100% Basis |
|
|
|
|
|
Share(4) |
|
Category |
|
Tonnes |
|
|
Grade(3) |
|
|
Pounds U3O8 |
|
|
Pounds U3O8 |
|
|
|
(,000) |
|
|
(% U) |
|
|
(,000) |
|
|
(,000) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inferred Mineral Resources |
|
10,600 |
|
|
0.023 |
|
|
6,400 |
|
|
5,400 |
|
Notes: |
(1) |
The mineral resource estimate does not comply
with the requirements of NI 43-101. In the opinion of Scott Wilson RPA,
the classification complies with CIM definition standards. |
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
62 |
|
|
(2) |
The historical estimates cannot be verified and
the estimates are not necessarily indicative of the mineralization on the
property. |
(3) |
The cut-off grade is 0.01% eU
(0.012%U3O8). |
(4) |
Based on 85% interest in the GSJV.
|
Part of the Haraat deposit is above the water table and part is
below. The mineral resources below the water table are presently considered
potentially exploitable by ISR methods. Mineralization above the water table
requires further work to confirm its possible economic potential and is not
included in the historical resource estimate.
In June 2007, the Company received a technical report entitled
Technical Report on the Elliot Lake Property, Elliot Lake District, Ontario
from Scott Wilson RPA (the Elliot Lake Report), a copy of which is
available on SEDAR. Scott Wilson RPA compiled the historic mineral resources for
the Elliot Lake deposits and reported in accordance with the requirements of NI
43-101. The mineral resource estimate is based on historical mine records at the
time of the shutdown of the mines in 1992. No subsequent work has been carried
out since that time.
Elliot Lake Historical Estimates(1)(2)(3)(4)
|
100% Basis |
|
Company Share |
Category |
Tons |
Grade |
Pounds of
U3O8 |
|
(,000) |
(pounds/ton) |
(,000) |
|
|
|
|
Developed |
89,200 |
1.29 |
115,000 |
Undeveloped |
80,500 |
1.13 |
90,000 |
|
|
|
205,000 |
Notes: |
(1) |
The mineral resource estimate does not comply
with the requirements of NI 43-101. CIM definitions are not used. |
(2) |
The cut-off grade is 0.8 pound/ton
U3O8. |
(3) |
A minimum mining width of 6 feet was used and
no mining recovery factors were applied. |
(4) |
The historical estimates cannot be verified and
the estimates are not necessarily indicative of the mineralization on the
property. |
In the opinion of Scott Wilson RPA, although the historical
estimate cannot be verified, the estimate is considered to be reasonable based
on the estimation methods at the time. The current historical resource, without
access to the drilling information, cannot be classified directly under the CIM
classification standards incorporated under NI 43-101. The mineral resource
estimates were originally classified for the purposes of the Elliot Lake Report
as developed and undeveloped. Developed mineral resources are those resources
that have been developed for mining and represent total mineralization remaining
after partial extraction during the previous mining operations. Undeveloped
mineral resources are located in blocks beyond existing development workings
where no mining has taken place.
Denison completed the acquisition of Rockgate in January 2014
and, as a result, added the 100% owned Falea uranium project in Mali to its
portfolio of assets in Africa. Prior to Denisons acquisition of Rockgate,
Rockgate received mineral resource estimates in 2012 prepared by Minxcon (Pty)
Ltd for the Falea deposit which have not been verified by Denison. No subsequent
work has been carried out since that time. The results of these estimates are
set out below.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
63 |
Falea Historical Estimates(1)(2)(3)
|
|
100% Basis = Companys Share |
|
|
Category |
Tonnes |
Grade |
Pounds |
Grade |
Pounds |
Grade |
Ounces |
|
(,000) |
(%
U3O8) |
U3O8 |
(% Cu) |
Cu |
(g/t Ag) |
Ag |
|
|
|
(,000) |
|
(,000) |
|
(,000) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Measured |
1,390 |
0.140 |
4,300 |
0.197 |
6,000 |
79 |
3,500 |
Indicated |
14,280 |
0.079 |
25,300 |
0.217 |
68,200 |
53 |
24,400 |
subtotal M&I |
15,670 |
0.084 |
29,600 |
0.215 |
74,200 |
55 |
27,900 |
Inferred |
15,350 |
0.044 |
15,700 |
0.240 |
81,200 |
18 |
8,900 |
Notes: |
(1) |
The mineral resource estimate does not comply
with the requirements of NI 43-101. |
(2) |
The cut-off grade is 0.03 %
U3O8. |
(3) |
The historical estimate cannot be verified and
the estimate is not necessarily indicative of the mineralization on the
property. |
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
64 |
Mineral Exploration
Saskatchewan
In the Athabasca Basin,
Denison currently has interests in 41 exploration projects, which are located
primarily on the eastern side of the Basin. During 2014, 52,260 metres were
drilled on 10 projects which Denison operates A further 5,645 metres were
drilled by ARC on the McClean and Wolly properties and 9,838 metres were drilled
by Cameco on the Mann Lake property. The highlight from the 2014 drilling
results is the discovery of the Gryphon zone at the 60% owned Wheeler River
project, plus the extension of high grade mineralization at the Phoenix A
deposit also at Wheeler River. Results from Denisons highest priority
properties from the 2014 program are discussed below.
Wheeler River
Denison holds a 60% interest in the
Wheeler River project consisting of 19 mineral claims totalling 11,720 hectares.
The other parties are Cameco with a 30% interest and JCU holding the remaining
10%. Denison is the operator. Wheeler River is favourably located along strike
from the McArthur River mine and is underlain by many of the same geological
features. A prime target during the 2005 to 2008 period has been the quartzite
ridge, where significant but uneconomic mineralization has been intersected at a
depth of 300 metres, at two different locations along the footwall of the ridge
separated by 600 metres.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
65 |
A total of 27,263 metres was drilled in 58 holes at Wheeler
River in 2012. Most of the drill holes (51) targeted mineralization at the
Phoenix deposit. The other seven tested regional targets. Most of the drilling
at Phoenix was definition drilling. Highlights include WR-435 (25.80% eU3O8 over
4.9 metres) and WR-437 (27.00% e U3O8 over 3.7 metres), both of which were
drilled on a bulge in the deposit that is interpreted as a structural
intersection.
Also, additional mineralization along strike to the northeast
was observed in drill hole WR-447 which intersected 0.62% U3O8 over 6.8 metres.
Other drill holes to the northeast have intersected significant alteration and
structural disruption along trend, highlighting the open nature of the
mineralized corridor in this direction.
In 2013, an aggressive exploration program at Wheeler River
(25,650 metres in 50 drill holes) included some additional drilling at Phoenix,
but focused more on exploration of other target areas that had been
underexplored since the discovery of the Phoenix deposits. Highlights from this
work include the discovery of a new area of mineralization at the 489 zone (i.e:
0.42% U3O8 over 3.0 metres in WR-518), and the extension of high grade
mineralization at Phoenix (i.e: 43.8% U3O8 over 12.0 metres in WR-525).
Some additional infill drilling was completed at the Phoenix
deposit in early 2014, This work was successful in extending high grade
mineralization into some areas previously modelled as low grade. These results,
combined with the results from 2013 prompted Denison to complete an updated
mineral resource estimate for the Phoenix deposit in June, 2014.
Exploration efforts in 2014 were focused on the K trend along
the western edge of the property. This resulted in the discovery of the Gryphon
zone of high grade basement hosted uranium mineralization within the K North
area, approximately three kilometres northwest of the Phoenix deposit. Drill
hole WR-556 was the discovery hole, intersecting 15.3% U3O8 over 4.0 metres
approximately 180 metres beneath the sub-Athabasca unconformity. Subsequent
drilling on a coarse 50 metre x 50 metre grid defined a substantial zone of
uranium mineralization that consists of several parallel, stacked lenses of
varying thickness that are concordant with the moderate east dipping
stratigraphy and foliation, and plunge moderately to the northeast. At the end
of 2014 the zone measured approximately 350 metres in the along plunge dimension
and 60 metres across the plunge and is open in both the up-plunge and
down-plunge directions. No mineral resources have been estimated for the zone to
date.
McClean Lake
The McClean Lake project includes the
deposits of the Sue Trend, and the JEB, Caribou and McClean Lake sandstone
hosted deposits. The "Sue Trend" represents an arcuate graphitic gneiss which
flanks various granitic domes, and one of these domes is associated with
virtually all of the mineralization at the property. Depths to basement are
relatively shallow, rarely exceeding 175 metres, which is well within the range
of open pit mining methods. The Sue trend is host to five deposits, including
Sue A, Sue C, Sue E and Sue B, all of which have been mined. The McClean group
of deposits represents the fifth largest property in the Athabasca Basin in
terms of production and identified mineral resources and has produced almost 50
million pounds U3O8 since inception. In the Companys view, significant
exploration potential still remains.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
66 |
Work in 2012 involved a continuation of the brown-field
drilling program focused on discovering or expanding additional uranium
resources proximal to existing deposits. A total of 4,300 meters of drilling was
completed in 16 drill holes in the vicinity of Candy Lake at the McClean North
deposit area. There were no results of significance from this drilling.
An additional 18 drill holes totalling 4,110 metres were
completed at McClean Lake in 2013. Most of the drill holes were located in the
JEB south area within three kilometers of the McClean mill and several
intersected strong alteration zones associated with graphitic basement
structures. This work was followed by additional drilling (2,515 metres) in 2014
in the JEB south, Vulture and Bena grid areas. No significant mineralization was
intersected.
Midwest
No exploration activity has been carried out
at the Midwest project since 2012.
Wolly
The Wolly uranium exploration project is a large and well
located property which surrounds the McClean Lake uranium operations and
comprises approximately 23,700 hectares, making it double the size of the
Wheeler River project. Current ownership of the Wolly project is ARC at 62.9%
and operator, Denison at 22.5% and JCU at 14.6% .
Wolly was first explored in the mid-1970s by its prior owners,
due to its proximity to the Rabbit Lake discoveries. Because of the relatively
shallow depths to the unconformity, which do not exceed 200 metres, drill
testing there is less expensive than many other properties in the area. Wolly
was originally included in the McClean Lake project area until the decision was
made to place McClean into production, at which time McClean was separated from
Wolly.
A drilling program consisting of 15 drill holes totaling 2,340
metres was completed in 2013. Most of the holes targeted electromagnetic
conductors at the Snake Lake grid area. No significant mineralization was
intersected.
In 2014, an additional program of diamond drilling consisting
of 3,130 metres in 17 drill holes was completed in the Lasoy, Burnt Island and
JEB south target areas. No significant mineralization was intersected, although
structured graphitic basement and significant alteration in both the sandstone
and basement were intersected in the JEB south area.
Bachman Lake Project
On Denisons wholly-owned
Bachman Lake project, early work concentrated on the two known conductor systems
ML-1 and ML-2, while large parts of the property have only seen regional work.
Denison believes that there is good potential for the discovery of unconformity
type uranium mineralization on this property. As the project was in good
standing, no work was carried out from 2010 to 2012.
In 2013, the Company completed 2,170 metres of drilling in
three drill holes under the terms of an agreement with IEC. IEC was granted a
one-time right to earn a 20% interest in the property by funding the 2013
drilling. No significant mineralization was intersected in the drilling, but
several features worthy of follow up including graphitic structures and
sandstone alteration were observed. The 2013 drilling was followed by a two
hole, 1,194 metre program in 2014 as part of a combined Bachman Lake - Crawford
Lake helicopter supported drilling program. The highlight of the program was the
intersection of a large volume of sandstone alteration above faulted graphitic
gneisses in drill hole BH-14-07 that may be an extension of the alteration zone,
also intersected in 2014, along the CR-5 conductor on the adjacent Crawford Lake
claim.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
67 |
Bell Lake
The Bell Lake project became wholly owned
by Denison following the JNR Acquisition and is located in the Athabasca Basin
some 50 to 75 kilometres northwest of the Rabbit Lake mine. The project consists
of nine claims totalling 26,550 hectares. Historic drill holes on the property
indicate that the conductive horizons may be attributed to graphite and
sulphides in the basement lithologies.
In 2012, the Company completed a winter geophysical survey and
completed 2,100 metres of drilling in six drill holes. No significant
mineralization was intersected in the program, however thick sequences of
faulted graphitic basement rocks were observed.
An aggressive program of geophysical surveying including
DC-resistivity and electromagnetic surveys were completed in 2013 to help refine
targets for drilling in 2014. Eleven drill holes totalling 6,180 metres were
completed in 2014 in both the Bell North and Bell South areas. No significant
mineralization was intersected. Future exploration efforts will continue to
systematically evaluate untested conductors on the property, portions of which
will be prioritized with geophysical surveying.
Crawford Lake Project
Crawford Lake is 100% owned by
the Company. A small program of diamond drilling consisting of 780 metres in one
drill hole was completed during the summer of 2013 in conjunction with the work
at the contiguous Bachman Lake project.
Exploration efforts at Crawford Lake were ramped up in 2014
beginning with a program of electromagnetic geophysical surveying that
identified the new CR-5 conductor. This was followed by a five hole, 2,995 metre
drilling program that was concentrated on the new conductor. Several drill holes
encountered large volumes of sandstone alteration (desilicification, clay and
bleaching) above structurally disrupted graphitic gneisses, most of which were
intersected deep in the basement. Further drilling is required to evaluate this
large alteration zone.
Hatchet Lake Project
Denison holds a 58.06% interest in the Hatchet Lake property
with Anthem Resources Inc. (Anthem) holding the remaining
41.94%. Denison is the operator. The property currently consists of 11 claims, totalling 33,930 hectares, which were acquired in 2004 and 2005. The area has
been previously explored over the last 40 years by a number of prior owners
including Urangesellschaft Canada Ltd., Saskatchewan Mining Development
Corporation, Cogema Resources Inc. (now ARC), Numac Oil and Gas Ltd., Gulf
Minerals Canada Ltd., Asamera Minerals Corp., Eldorado Resources Ltd., Cameco,
JNR and the Company. Previous work has outlined several areas of interest in the
Wollaston meta-sediments which surround broad Archean granite domes on the
property.
In the Richardson-Crooked Lake area, geophysical surveys and
about 150 drill holes have been completed over the 10 kilometre trend since
1976. This work outlined NW-SE trending conductors, anomalous radioactivity (up
to 5,500 cps) at the unconformity, indicative alteration including bleaching,
hematization and quartz dissolution concentrated near the unconformity, sheared
graphite in the basement pelites and anomalous base metal values in basement
fault zones and the basal sandstone. On the southeast part of the property,
fairly comprehensive work has been completed in the Tuning Fork Lake area. In
this area there is evidence of a NE oriented structure with unconformity offset.
Hole Q20-1 intersected 0.1% U over 0.5 metres within basement lithologies in the
hanging wall of the fault.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
68 |
A winter drilling program consisting of 2,370 meters in 13
drill holes was completed in the Richardson Lake area of Hatchet Lake in 2013.
The highlight of the program was the discovery of a new zone of uranium
mineralization on the Crooked Lake grid. The best drill result was 0.20% U3O8
over 1.9 metres in drill hole RL-13-16.
In 2014, additional drilling (2,030 metres in 10 drill holes)
was completed in the Richardson Lake area, primarily to follow up the 2013
results in RL-13-16. The program was not successful in extending the
mineralization and that part of the Richardson Lake area has been down-graded in
terms of prospectivity. To the south, drill hole RL-14-27 intersected an
interesting zone of Pb-Zn-Ag mineralization that may be sedimentary-exhalative
in origin. The zone contains 3.7% Pb, 0.3% Zn and 21 g/t Ag over 8.6 metres.
Johnston Lake
The Johnston Lake project is located
approximately 40 km west of Points North and is accessible by float or ski
plane. A winter drill road from the Cigar Lake mine site makes the area
accessible by four-wheel drive in the winter months. The property consists of
seven claims totalling 24,598 hectares. The property is underlain by Athabasca
Group sandstones, which in turn overly Mudjatik Domain metamorphic rocks. The
depth to the unconformity varies between 580 and 650 metres in the project area.
In 2009, Pitchstone Exploration Ltd. signed an option agreement
with Denison to earn up to a 75% interest in the Johnston Lake project by
spending CAD$1.0 million by February 28, 2012 to earn an initial 49%, and then
spending an additional CAD$1.0 million by February 28, 2014 to earn a further
26% interest. In March 2011, Pitchstone informed the Company that it had met the
requirements for the initial earn-in. Pitchstone was acquired by Fission in 2012
and Fission was acquired by Denison in 2013. As a result Denison now owns 100%
of this property.
Over the period of 2009 and 2010, Pitchstone carried out a
re-logging program and drilled a total of three holes on the property. Two of
the three holes intersected weakly elevated uranium pathfinder elements and
favourable basement lithologies. In 2011, they conducted a further three hole
drill program. Weak uranium mineralization was intersected in two of the three
drill holes.
No work was completed on this project in 2012. Three drill
holes totalling 2,080 metres were completed at Johnston Lake in 2013 along with
a DC-resistivity geophysical survey. This was followed by additional
DC-resistivity surveying in 2014.
Moore Lake
The Moore Lake property became wholly owned
by Denison following the JNR Acquisition and comprises 12 contiguous claims
totaling 35,705 hectares. The property is located in the southeastern portion of
the Athabasca Basin in the La Ronge Mining District of Saskatchewan. The Moore
Lake property is subject to a 2.5% net smelter return royalty. The target on the
Moore Lake property is an Athabasca unconformity type deposit.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
69 |
Early exploration on the Moore Lake project has been at the
Maverick zone, although uranium mineralization has been intersected in several
other locations on the project. The primary exploration target area on the
project is the 2.5 km long Maverick mineralized trend where pods of high grade
unconformity-type mineralization have been outlined. Basement and sandstone
hosted mineralization have also been intersected on the Avalon, Venice,
Rarotonga, and Nutana Grid areas. Mineralized intercepts have been recovered
along nearly 800 metres of strike, and the mineralized system has been traced by
wide-spaced drilling for over three kilometres. Based on the program of 13 holes
drilled in 2008, it was determined that the Maverick Zone was too small to be
economically significant. Since then, work has consisted of several campaigns of
resistivity geophysical surveying to identify targets along a reappearance of
the Maverick stratigraphy.
A 2012 drill program was planned to follow up on the 2011
results, but due to poor winter conditions resulting in a lack of ice, the eight
hole program was postponed. The work was eventually completed in 2013 with a
program of DC-resistivity geophysical surveying and 5,110 metres of drilling in
12 drill holes all of which were drilled in the Maverick extension Esker
grid areas. No significant mineralization was intersected.
In 2014, Denison completed additional DC-resistivity surveying
plus a 4,100 metre (10 hole) drilling program. Targets were DC-resistivity
anomalies along untested portions of electromagnetic conductors away from the
Maverick extension Esker grid areas, particularly in the Puka-Puka grid area.
No significant mineralization was intersected, although several intervals of
graphitic gneiss were observed.
Murphy Lake Project
Dension holds a 58.94% interest
in the Murphy Lake project, with Anthem holdings the remaining 41.94%. Denison
is the operator.
In 2012, an airborne VTEM survey was planned to better define
the conductors identified in 2011, but the work was delayed due to adverse
winter conditions and was actually completed in the spring of 2013. The survey
was successful in extending the conductors. The only work completed in 2014 was a
DC-resistivity geophysical survey on the main portion of the Murphy Lake
property. Both the 2013 VTEM survey results and the 2014
DC-resistivity results require follow-up exploration.
Park Creek
Denison is the operator of the Park Creek
uranium exploration project and has a 49% interest. Cameco holds the remaining
interest and has entered into an agreement with Denison whereby Denison can earn
an additional 26% interest by incurring expenditures of CAD$3,350,000 before the
end of 2017.
The current project lands were staked by Cameco in 1992. These
lands were previously explored as part of the Umpherville Lake Project by
Noranda in the 1970s and until the mid-1980s, and then by Rio Algom Ltd. until
the early 1990s. Most of Camecos exploration activities, which followed this
period until 2004, were focused on the Bird Lake thrust fault which traverses
the central portion of the property on the Esker grid. Based on exploration to
date, boulder sampling on the project indicates a broad illite anomaly and an
area of weak uranium and lead enrichment on the Esker grid.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
70 |
Denison has carried out geophysical surveys and several drill
programs. Drilling along the Bird Lake Fault on the Esker grid has located areas
of strong alteration and anomalous geochemistry in the vicinity of the
intersection of north-south faults with the Bird Lake fault.
No work was carried out on this project from 2011 to 2013. In
2014 a six hole, 1,910 metre program of diamond drilling was completed at Park
Creek. No significant alteration or mineralization was observed in the core from
any of the drill holes.
Russell Lake
Russell Lake is a joint venture between
the Company (37.82%), Cameco (57.18%) and W. Boyko (5%). Denison is the
operator. A program of diamond drilling was completed in 2013 consisting of two
drill holes totalling 1,010 metres. The drill holes targeted an electromagnetic
conductor, but no significant alteration or mineralization was observed. No work
was completed in 2014.
South Dufferin
The South Dufferin project is 100%
owned by Denison and is an amalgamation of the South Dufferin and Snowbird
properties, the latter having been acquired through the JNR Acquisition. South
Dufferin is located just off the southern margin of the Athabasca Basin along
the southern extension of the Virgin River Shear Zone which hosts known uranium
mineralization at Camecos Centennial deposit approximately 20 25 km along
trend to the north. Exploration potential exists for basement-hosted uranium
mineralization associated with the Dufferin Lake fault (which has an apparent
offset of 200m+) and parallel faults within the Virgin Lake Shear zone. Airborne
EM and gravity have outlined several zones of interest within the property.
Exploration has been active in the general Dufferin Lake area
since as early as 1959. Work completed has ranged from reconnaissance
geochemistry to geophysics and diamond drilling, primarily on base metal
targets.
In 2011, JNR Resources Inc. completed nine diamond drill holes
totaling 1,190 meters in dispositions S-107818 and the northern edge of
S-111427. Four of the nine holes intersected elevated uranium with locally
anomalous concentrations of base metals and boron. Significant clay alteration
was intersected in one of the drill holes (SB-11-02) over a 100 m down-hole
length.
No work was completed in 2012, but following the JNR
Acquisition Denison completed a summer drilling program in 2013 consisting of 11
shallow drill holes totalling 1,270 metres.
Several iron sulphide bearing intervals were intersected that
appear to explain most of the conductor targets. No significant uranium
mineralization was intersected. No work was completed in 2014.
Waterbury Lake
Waterbury Lake is a 40,256 hectare
collection of 13 irregularly shaped contiguous claims and one separate claim in
the eastern Athabasca Basin of northern Saskatchewan, Canada. The property is
located approximately 12 km north of Points North Landing, contiguous with
Denisons Midwest property. Waterbury Lake was acquired through the acquisition
of Fission in 2013.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
71 |
Uranium exploration has been undertaken on the property for
over 40 years. Numerous and varied programs have been carried out on different
portions of the property, including diamond drill campaigns, airborne and ground
geophysics, boulder sampling and prospecting since 1969.
After the discovery of the J Zone uranium deposit at the
beginning of the 2010 winter program, drilling on the Waterbury Lake property
focused primarily on delineating mineralization and establishing possible
extensions along strike. Additional drill holes targeted new geophysical and
geochemical targets in the Highland and Talisker areas which returned
indications of additional mineralized zones. During the winter and summer 2010
drill programs a total of 60 drill holes were completed yielding 16,422m of
core.
Fission completed a large amount of additional drilling on the
Property in 2012 and 2013, almost all of which was step-out and infill drilling
on the J Zone.
Denison completed a modest program of geophysics and 2,350 metres of diamond drilling in six drill holes at the Aran target area and the
north edge of the Waterbury dome during the summer of 2013. This work was
followed in 2014 by 37.2 line kilometres of DC-resistivity geophysics in the
Discovery Bay corridor and 3,100 metres of diamond drilling in nine drill holes.
The primary focus of the drilling was the Discovery Bay corridor to the west of
the J Zone, and the Oban target area. Drilling was successful in expanding the
weak mineralization at Oban, with the best result being 0.09% U3O8 over 3.5
metres in drill hole WAT14-407. Along with the weak uranium mineralization,
Denison is encouraged by the volume and intensity of basement and sandstone
alteration in the Oban area, the presence of graphitic structures in the
basement and the paucity of prior drilling. This area will be a focus of future
exploration programs.
Other Denison Projects
Denison also has several
other projects located in the Athabasca Basin including:
|
Brown Lake (100% Denison) |
|
Candle (43.81% Denison, 31.19% Uranium One, 25.0% JCU) |
|
Darby (58.42% Denison, 41.58% Uranium One) |
|
Ford Lake (100% Denison) |
|
Jasper Lake (100% Denison) |
|
Lynx (58.42% Denison, 41.58% Uranium One) |
|
Marten (50% Denison, 50% JOGMEC) |
|
Moon Lake (58.42% Denison, 41.58% Uranium One) |
|
Packrat (100% Denson) |
|
Perpete Lake (100% Denson) |
|
Stevenson River (100% Denson) |
|
Torwalt Lake (100% Denson) |
|
Turkey Lake (100% Denson) |
|
Waterfound North (58.42% Denison, 41.58% Uranium
One) |
|
Wolverine (50% Denison, 50% JOGMEC) |
Mongolia
In 2012, drilling totaling 29,700 metres was
completed in two licence areas. At the Ulziit site, drilling totaled 14,900
meters to fulfill two objectives. First, drilling spacing was reduced in a known
mineralized area in order to support resource estimation in accordance with
Mongolian standards (required to convert to mining licences). Second, drilling
was completed to test southerly extension of the mineralized area that was
initially delineated in 2011. The second objective was also met, and the
mineralized trend at Ulziit now approaches 4 km in length and remains open in
three directions. On the Urt Tsav licence, 14,800 metres of drilling were
completed to assess the resource potential of this project. The 2012 drilling
continued to yield low grade results, and as a consequence, the licence was
released.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
72 |
The mineral resource estimates prepared internally for the
Ulziit and the Gurvan Saihan projects were accepted and approved by the Mineral
Resource Committee of Mongolia in 2012. The internal GSJV resource estimates for
the Hairhan, Haraat, Ulziit, and Gurvan Saihan projects are all now finalized
and in good standing with the relevant Mongolian agencies. The formal
registration of resources in the State Registry is a required component to
convert exploration licences to mining licences in Mongolia.
In 2013 and 2014, GSJV work focused on support of ongoing work to
finalize restructuring of the GSJV and to obtain mining licences. No exploration
or development drilling were conducted for the GSJV in 2013 and 2014.
Mutanga
A total of 18,160 metres of drilling was
completed in 78 RC and 59 diamond drill holes during 2012. Several areas were
targeted, including: Dibwe North, Mutanga East, and the Dibwe-Mutanga corridor.
Deep drill holes were also completed at Dibwe and Mutanga to test for
mineralization below those deposits. New mineralization was intersected at
Mutanga East and Dibwe East Zone 4.
Work in 2013 included soil geochemical surveying, geological
mapping, radon surveying and airborne geophysics (VTEM). No drilling was
completed in 2013. The exploration programs successfully highlighted two new
areas containing coincident airborne radiometric, soil uranium and radon
anomalies. These will require drilling follow-up. Exploration in 2014 consisted
of a program of soil geochemical surveying, radon surveying and excavator
trenching of 2013 soil and radon anomalies. Elevated radioactivity was
encountered in several trenches and these zones represent good drilling targets.
Falea
Denison acquired the Falea project in Mali through the
acquisition of Rockgate. Falea is located approximately 250 kilometres west of
Bamako, near the Senegal and Guinea borders.
Uranium, copper and silver mineralization at Falea was first
discovered by Cogema in the 1970s at the Central zone. Cogema eventually
abandoned the project in the 1980s and it was acquired by Delta Mali (now a
Rockgate subsidiary) in February 2007. Drilling began in the Central zone and
progressed northward, resulting in the discovery of the North zone in late
2007.
Most of the mineralization at Falea occurs in the flat lying
Kania sandstone, flanked by argillaceous units above and below. The Kania
sandstone is located near the bottom of the Neoproterozoic to Carboniferous
Taoudeni basin, which sits unconformably on top of highly disturbed older
Proterozoic Birrimian metasediments and metavolcanics.
A diamond drilling program consisting of 5,900 metres in 19
holes was completed by Rockgate in 2013. Exploration in 2014 consisted of a
program of soil geochemistry and radon surveying plus geological mapping.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
73 |
Quality Assurance and Quality Control Procedures and
Protocols
The following section details the Quality Assurance and Quality
Control (QA/QC) procedures and protocols for all exploration programs
operated by Denison.
Athabasca Basin
Selected control points on historic
and newly cut grids are located by differential Global Positional System
(GPS). Diamond drill holes are usually laid out in the field using
local grid coordinates as the main reference. Upon completion they are surveyed
with a differential GPS. The GPS allows very accurate definition of the surface
elevation control, which is critical in locating any unconformity offsets.
Denison also collects down hole spatial data which allows determination of the
true position of the entire drill hole, as the azimuth and dip down the hole
often varies from that at the collar of the hole.
Denison collects several types of down hole geochemical data
during drilling operations, as follows:
|
Regular geochemical samples of core are taken for
multi-element geochemical analysis to determine background levels of 53
elements. Elevated concentrations of certain elements can then aid in
economic evaluation of the drill hole. These samples are collected
systematically down the drill hole at intervals in the 5.0 to 10.0 metre
range. Three to five selected samples of less than 5 centimetres are
composited to make up this sample. |
|
|
|
Regular samples are taken for clay analysis by
spectrometer (PIMA). The speciation of clays determined by this method
helps to characterize proximity to mineralized alteration zones at the
unconformity. Less than 10 centimetres of sample is collected for this
analysis. |
|
|
|
Following completion of drilling, the hole is flushed
with water for an hour to remove any material from the bottom of the hole,
and then a radiometric probe is lowered through the rods to within 10
metres of the bottom. Readings are taken both on the way down and on the
way up. Probe results are presented as grade equivalent
eU3O8. The downhole probes are calibrated originally
by the manufacturer at test pits with known mineralization in the United
States. These probes are also regularly tested in the test pits at a
government-owned facility in Saskatoon. In addition, Denison further
calibrates the probes with a correlation curve of probe grades versus
corresponding high-grade assays on split core as received from the
laboratory. At the Wheeler River project, different probes are used
depending on the observed grade of mineralization at the unconformity as
the standard probes generally become saturated at grades above 20%
U3O8. |
|
|
|
Assay data is collected where the geologist suspects, on
the basis of alteration, geology, scintillometer and probe results, that
the grade of a sample could be greater than 0.01%
U3O8. Sample lengths are usually 0.5 metres. Flank
samples are taken above and below the suspected mineralized interval to
geochemically constrain this mineralization. These samples are split
longitudinally with a mechanical splitter, and half of the core is
returned to the core box as a permanent record. Samples are placed in
individual plastic bags along with a sample tag. The bag is sealed and a
corresponding tag is stapled to the core box where the core was removed.
Samples are shipped to the analytical lab in five gallon pails.
|
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
74 |
Once the diamond drill core is geologically logged but before sampling, the core
is photographed and the core boxes are labelled with aluminium tags. After
sampling, all core is stored in specially constructed core racks out of doors in
the event the core needs to be re-logged or re-sampled in the future.
The geochemical lab routinely inserts standard reference
materials and blanks into batches of the Companys samples as an internal check
on accuracy and contamination. The Company regularly submits a variety of
duplicate samples in the sample stream as a check on the precision of the
analytical lab. Due to the inherent problems of storing and transporting
reference standards containing uranium mineralization, no external standard
reference materials are submitted in the sample stream. Down hole radiometric
probe results also provide data that is useful for assessing the accuracy of the
laboratory results.
All analyses are conducted by SRC, a Standards Council of
Canada (CCRMP) certified analytical laboratory in Saskatoon. SRC has specialized
in the field of uranium research and analysis for over 30 years and is a CNSC
licenced laboratory for the analysis of uranium samples.
The sample preparation and analytical protocols are as follows:
|
Drill core samples are received by the analytical
laboratory from Denison in sealed five- gallon plastic or metal pails.
Each sample is contained in a sealed plastic bag with a sample tag. A
packing slip is enclosed that contains instructions and a sample number
list. Samples are verified against the packing slip. Any extra samples or
missing samples are noted and Denison is informed. |
|
|
|
Samples are sorted by the analytical laboratory according
to location (sandstone or basement origin) and level of radioactivity, and
are dried and processed as follows: |
|
|
|
- Samples are processed from lowest to highest
radioactivity. |
|
- Crushed to 60% -2 millimetres. Approximately
200 grams of crush is riffled out then ground in a chrome steel grinding
mill to 90% -106 microns. |
|
- Replicates are chosen at random and another
200 grams of crush is riffled and ground. |
|
The pulp is digested in aqua regia leach and diluted. The
solutions are then analyzed by ICP for % U3O8.
|
|
|
|
Certified U3O8 standards are
analyzed with samples with corresponding uranium levels. The detection
limit is 0.002 wt% U3O8. Accuracy at various
concentrations of U3O8 are listed below:
|
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
75 |
|
|
|
Sample # |
%U3O8 |
Typical Accuracy |
BL-1 |
0.026 |
±0.004 |
BL-4a |
0.147 |
±0.004 |
BL-2a |
0.502 |
±0.008 |
BL-3 |
1.21 |
±0.02 |
BL-5 |
8.36 |
±0.10 |
RS2-11 |
48.0 |
±0.7 |
Check assays are done on selected pulps by DNC (Delayed Neutron
Counting) at SRC. All radioactive samples are monitored and recorded as per CNSC
licence 01784-1-09.0.
Mongolia
All uranium exploration technical
information is obtained, verified and compiled under a formal QA/QC program in
Mongolia. The following details the protocols used by all Denison staff and
consultants.
Site geologists lay out drill holes, generally on regular grids
depending on the stage of exploration and amounts of existing and planned
drilling in each campaign. Following drilling, all hole locations are surveyed,
using differential GPS, by a certified surveying company registered in Mongolia.
In accordance with Mongolian requirements, site topography maps are also
prepared at 1:5,000 scale for active sites.
Processes for Determining Uranium Content by Gamma Logging
Exploration for uranium deposits in Mongolia typically involves
identification and testing of permeable sandstones within reduced sedimentary
sequences. The primary method of collecting formation is through extensive
drilling and the use of down hole geophysical probes. The down hole geophysical
probes measure natural gamma radiation, from which an indirect estimate of
uranium content can be made, and probes also measure electrical properties of
rock, from which lithology information can be derived.
The radiometric (gamma) probe measures gamma radiation which is
emitted during the natural radioactive decay of uranium. The gamma radiation is
detected by a sodium iodide crystal, which when struck by a gamma ray emits a
pulse of light. This pulse of light is amplified by a photomultiplier tube,
which outputs a current pulse. The gamma probe is lowered to the bottom of a
drill hole and data is recorded as the tool is withdrawn up the hole. The
current pulse is carried up a conductive cable and processed by a logging system
computer which stores the raw gamma cps data.
If the gamma radiation emitted by the daughter products of
uranium is in balance with the actual uranium content of the measured interval,
then uranium grade can be calculated solely from the gamma intensity
measurement. Down hole cps data is subjected to a complex set of mathematical
equations, taking into account the specific parameters of the probe used, speed
of logging, size of bore hole, drilling fluids and presence or absence of and
type of drill hole casing. The result is an indirect measurement of uranium
content within the sphere of measurement of the gamma detector.
The basis of the indirect uranium grade calculation (referred
to as "eU3O8" for "equivalent U3O8") is the sensitivity of the sodium iodide
crystal used in each individual probe. Each probe's sensitivity is measured
against a known set of standard "test pits," with various known grades of
uranium mineralization, located at the U.S. DOEs Grand Junction, Colorado
office. The ratio of cps to known uranium grade is referred to as the probe
"K-Factor," and this value is determined for every gamma probe when it is first
manufactured and is also periodically checked throughout the operating life of
each probe. Application of the K-Factor, along with other probe correction
factors, allows for immediate grade estimation in the field as each drill hole
is logged.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
76 |
Core Sampling, Processing, and Assaying
Approximately 10% of holes drilled are cored, and core recovery
typically exceeds 75%. Core diameter is normally 63.5 mm (HQ) or 85 mm (PQ).
Core is scanned by a handheld scintillometer at 0.5m intervals through the
entire core and at 0.1 metre intervals in mineralized sections to ensure precise
segregation. Based on scintillometer scanning and comparison with down hole
gamma logging results, individual mineralized zones are specified for sampling.
The core is photographed following marking of depth and sampling intervals.
Typically core is only taken over select intervals of interest as identified
from logging of drill holes. This reduces the amount of core through barren
zones or horizons of no interest and greatly reduces overall exploration costs.
Core sampling and analyses are conducted for the following
purposes:
|
To verify lithology as interpreted from
geophysical logging and examination of drill cuttings; |
|
To determine uranium concentration as a general
check of gamma probing to verify if gamma results and chemical uranium
content are close to balance; |
|
To determine the ratio of radium and uranium to
assess the state of radiometric disequilibrium; |
|
For whole rock analysis; |
|
To test metallurgical properties; |
|
To conduct additional specialized tests on the
proprieties of mineral bearing rock. |
For zones selected for laboratory analyses, one half of the
core will normally be used. The minimum length of core submitted is usually 0.2
metres and the maximum length per sample is 1.0 metres. Core samples are
prepared at Activation Laboratories Ltd.s facilities in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia.
After crushing, samples are ground to -200 mesh. Samples pulps are split into
250 to 300 gram portions for laboratory analyses. Analytical work is generally
conducted at Activation Laboratories facilities in Canada.
In addition to coring selected holes or horizons, drill
cuttings samples are caught and segregated at every two metres for all rotary
mud drill holes. Cuttings samples can provide material for determination of host
rock composition; for comparison of lithology as interpreted from electric logs;
and for observation of oxidation-reduction zones and interfaces, which is an
essential criteria for interpreting sediment hosted uranium deposits such as
occur in Mongolia.
Site geologists are responsible for all data collection in the
field and for posting data onto specific forms and entering data into data
bases.
Quality Assurance and Quality Control Measures
Drill
hole logging is conducted by an independent Mongolian contractor. The contractor
developed its logging capabilities specifically to meet Denisons logging
requirements in Mongolia. The tools, and a complete set of spares, were
manufactured by Mount Sopris Instrument Company in Golden, Colorado and were
shipped to Mongolia in 2005 ahead of the drilling season. Denison has retained
the services of a senior geophysical consultant to oversee training,
implementation, and quality control protocols with the Mongolian logging
contractor. All tools were checked and calibrated before being shipped to
Mongolia, and a variety of system checks and standards are also established for
routine checking and calibration of tools. In addition, Denison cased
mineralized holes at centrally located exploration areas, and these cased holes
can be logged periodically to ensure exact repeatability of the gamma probes.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
77 |
Drill hole logging data is stored on digital media in the
logging truck at the exploration sites. The digital data are periodically
brought in from the field locations to the Ulaanbaatar office. The raw and
converted logging data are copied and then sent via e-mail to Denison, where all
data is checked and reviewed.
Samples of drill core are chosen on the basis of radiometric
data collected during core logging. This radiometric data is obtained by using a
hand held scintillometer. The general concept behind the scintillometer is
similar to the gamma probe except the radiometric pulses are displayed on a
scale and the respective count rates are recorded manually by the geologist
logging the core. The hand-held scintillometer provides quantitative data only
and cannot be used to calculate uranium grades. However, it does allow the
geologist to identify uranium mineralization in the core and to select intervals
for geochemical sampling.
Additional samples are collected above and below the horizons
of interest in order to "close-off" sample intervals. Sample widths are selected
according to radiometric values and lithologic geochemical breaks or changes.
All reasonable efforts are made to ensure that splitting of the core is
representative and that no significant sampling biases occur. Once the sample
intervals are identified, an exclusive sample number is assigned to each
interval and recorded by the on-site geologist.
After the geological logging of the core and sample selection,
all of the selected sample intervals of drill core are split longitudinally at
the drill site. One half of the core is placed in a new sample bag along with a
sample tag corresponding to the sample number. The other half of the core is
re-assembled in the core box and stored for future reference. Samples are
transported to Ulaanbaatar under the supervision of the project geologists and
delivered to either the Central Analytical Laboratory or Activation Laboratories
Ltd. for preparation. As standard procedure, field duplicates are included in
assay suites sent to the laboratories and reference samples are used to verify
laboratory controls and analytical repeatability.
Duplicate samples (10-30% of total) are sent to an external
laboratory for uranium assays. The specialized laboratory for radioactive
elements at the Sosnovgeology state exploration enterprise in Irkutsk, Russia is
used as the reference laboratory for external QC.
Zambia
All uranium exploration technical information is obtained,
verified and compiled under a formal QA/QC program in Zambia. The following
details the protocols used by all Denison staff and consultants.
Processes for Determining Uranium Content by Gamma
Logging
Exploration for uranium deposits in Zambia typically involves
identification and testing of sandstones within sedimentary sequences. The
primary method of collecting information is through extensive drilling (both
Reverse Circulation and Diamond Drill coring) and the use of down hole
geophysical probes. The down hole geophysical probes measure natural gamma
radiation, from which an indirect estimate of uranium content can be made.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
78 |
The radiometric (gamma) probe measures gamma radiation which is
emitted during the natural radioactive decay of uranium.
The gamma radiation is detected by a sodium iodide crystal,
which when struck by a gamma ray emits a pulse of light. This pulse of light is
amplified by a photomultiplier tube, which outputs a current pulse.
The gamma probe is lowered to the bottom of a drill hole and
data is recorded as the tool is withdrawn up the hole. The current pulse is
carried up a conductive cable and processed by a logging system computer which
stores the raw gamma cps data.
If the gamma radiation emitted by the daughter products of
uranium is in balance with the actual uranium content of the measured interval,
then uranium grade can be calculated solely from the gamma intensity
measurement. Down hole cps data is subjected to a complex set of mathematical
equations, taking into account the specific parameters of the probe used, speed
of logging, size of bore hole, drilling fluids and presence or absence of and
type of drill hole casing. The result is an indirect measurement of uranium
content within the sphere of measurement of the gamma detector.
The basis of the indirect uranium grade calculation (referred
to as "eU3O8" for "equivalent U3O8") is the sensitivity of the sodium iodide
crystal used in each individual probe. Each probe's sensitivity is measured
against a known set of standard "test pits," with various known grades of
uranium mineralization, located at the U.S. DOEs Grand Junction, Colorado
office. The ratio of cps to known uranium grade is referred to as the probe
"K-Factor," and this value is determined for every gamma probe when it is first
manufactured and is also periodically checked throughout the operating life of
each probe. In addition, certain boreholes at the Mutanga property are cased and
the probes are periodically checked for any instrument drift. Application of the
K-Factor, along with other probe correction factors, allows for immediate grade
estimation in the field as each drill hole is logged.
Core Sampling, Processing, and Assaying
In addition
to purely geological purposes, drill core and reverse circulation chip samples
are collected for the following reasons:
|
|
verification of lithology as determined from
geophysical logging and examination of drill cuttings; |
|
|
determination of uranium content as a general check of
gamma probing to determine if gamma measurement and chemical uranium
content are close to balance; |
|
|
whole rock analysis; and
|
|
|
specific geochemistry for uranium species and
other minerals of interest. |
Core diameter is typically 61.1 millimetres. For intervals
selected for laboratory analysis, one half of the core will normally be used and
the other half retained as a permanent record. The length of core submitted is
usually 0.5 metres and the maximum length per sample is one metre. Sample
intervals are selected by geologists in the field based on lithology,
mineralization and uranium grade (from gamma logging and from hand-held
scintillometers).
Samples are analyzed at the ALS Minerals Laboratory in
Johannesburg, South Africa. Samples are transported in a dedicated truck from
Zambia to Johannesburg, South Africa where ALS Minerals operates a dedicated
sample preparation facility. The sample is crushed, pulped and homogenized and a
sample pulp representing 5.0% of the sample is sent to a secondary laboratory,
Setpoint Laboratory (Africa Mineral Standard Group), which is fully certified
and accredited for XRF Pressed Disc Analysis by South African standards. The
Setpoint Laboratory Group is an ISO7025 accredited laboratory.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
79 |
Quality Assurance and Quality Control Measures
Drill
hole logging is conducted by trained and dedicated personnel devoted solely to
this task. The tools, and a complete set of spares, were manufactured by Mount
Sopris Instrument Company in Golden, Colorado and were shipped to Zambia in
2007. Denison has retained the services of a senior geophysical consultant to
oversee training, implementation, and quality control protocols with the Zambian
logging personnel. All tools were checked and calibrated before being shipped to
Zambia, and a variety of system checks and standards have also been established
for routine checking and calibration of tools. In addition, a mineralized hole
at the Mutanga Project was cased specifically to be logged periodically to
ensure exact repeatability of the gamma probes.
Drill hole logging data is stored on digital media in the
logging truck at the exploration sites. The raw and converted logging data are
periodically copied electronically to the Companys Lusaka, Toronto and
Saskatoon offices, where all data is checked and reviewed.
Samples of drill core or reverse circulation drill chips are
chosen on the basis of radiometric data collected during core logging. This
radiometric data is obtained by using a hand-held scintillometer (RS 125 Super
Gamma Ray Scintollometer), and on the basis of down hole probing results. The
general concept behind the scintillometer is similar to the gamma probe except
the radiometric pulses are displayed on a scale and the respective count rates
are recorded manually by the technician logging the core or chips. The hand-held
scintillometer provides quantitative data only and cannot be used to calculate
uranium grades; however, it does allow the geologist to identify uranium
mineralization in the core and to select intervals for geochemical sampling.
Additional samples are collected above and below the horizons
of interest in order to "close-off" sample intervals. Sample widths are selected
according to radiometric values and lithologic breaks or changes. All reasonable
efforts are made to ensure that splitting of the core or bulk chip samples are
representative and that no significant sampling biases occur. Once the sample
intervals are identified, an exclusive sample number is assigned to each
interval and recorded by the on-site geologist.
After the geological logging of the core or chips and the
selection of representative samples, all of the remaining drill hole material is
stored at site for future reference. Drill core is stored in metal trays, and
reverse circulation drill chips are stored in numbered and tagged plastic bags.
All samples, irrespective of type, are kept in buildings constructed for the
purpose.
As standard procedure, field duplicates of reverse circulation
drill chips are included in assay suites sent to the laboratory. Standard
reference materials and blanks are used to monitor analytical accuracy and
contamination.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
80 |
Manager of UPC
DMI is the manager of UPC. UPC is
a public company with the primary investment objective of achieving an
appreciation in the value of its uranium holdings. The Company does not,
directly or indirectly, have an ownership interest in UPC. As manager, DMI
provides the corporations officers and manages the activities of UPC including
purchasing uranium for and on behalf of UPC as directed by the UPC board,
arranging for its storage and attending to regulatory reporting for UPC.
For its management services, DMI receives the following fees
from UPC: a) a commission of 1.5% of the gross value of any purchases or sales of U3O8 and
UF6 completed at the request of the Board of Directors of UPC; b) a minimum annual management
fee of CAD$400,000 (plus reasonable out-of-pocket expenses) plus an additional
fee of 0.3% per annum based upon UPCs net asset value greater than CAD$100.0
million and c) an annual fee up to a maximum of CAD$200,000, at the discretion
of the Board of Directors of UPC, for on-going maintenance or work associated
with an initiative. The management services agreement has a three-year term and
may be terminated by either party upon the provision of 120 days written notice.
During 2014, DMI earned an aggregate of $2.18 million in
management and commission fees as manager of UPC.
Denison Environmental Services
DES was formed in 1997 to provide mine decommissioning and mine
care and maintenance services to industry and government, as well as to manage
Denisons post mine closure environmental obligations on its Elliot Lake
landholdings. Over the last few years the focus of DES has changed from mine
decommissioning to post-closure mine care and maintenance services and currently
93% of DESs business comes from these post-closure mine care and maintenance
services. DES is headquartered in Elliot Lake, Ontario.
The primary activities of DES in 2014 were: providing the
ongoing monitoring of Denisons two closed Elliot Lake mine sites; environmental
monitoring, effluent treatment and maintenance services for Rio Algom Ltd.s
five closed Elliot Lake mines; the care and maintenance of the Mt. Nansen Mine
in the Yukon; the care and maintenance of the closed Vale Shebandowan Mine and
Whistle Mine in northern Ontario; and the care and maintenance of a closed base
metal mine at Les Mines Selbaie in Quebec.
In 2014, DES also carried out work on several other smaller
contracts.
Environmental, Health and Safety Matters
The Company has adopted an Environmental, Health and Safety
Policy (the EHS Policy) that affirms Denisons commitment to
environmentally responsible management and compliance with occupational health
and safety laws. Under the EHS Policy, the Company has committed to run its
operations in compliance with applicable legislation, in a manner that minimizes
the impact on our ecosystem. The EHS Policy mandates the use of regular
monitoring programs to identify risks to the environment, to the public and to
Denisons employees and to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements. The
EHS Policy also sets out Denisons requirement to train its employees regarding
environmental and health and safety compliance and best practices and to provide
adequate resources in this regard. Finally, the EHS Policy requires regular
reporting to the Board regarding the Companys compliance and the results of the
Companys monitoring.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
81 |
Canada
McClean Lake
At McClean Lake,
construction activities for the mill expansion were ongoing throughout the year
and operations restarted in September 2014 processing both Cigar Lake and
McClean Lake ores. In 2014 there were three lost time accidents resulting in a
Lost Time Incident Rate of 0.4 and a Severity of 4.3. There were three
reportable spills, all of which were minor in nature and successfully
remediated. There was one release of sulphur dioxide in December which exceeded
the one hour action level exceedance. All radiological monitoring was conducted
in accordance with the routine schedule. The facility has maintained its
internationally recognized ISO 14001:2004 and OHSAS 18001certification.
The McClean operation and the Midwest project are combined
under a single Operating Licence issued by the CNSC. The combined Preliminary
Closure Plan was prepared by ARC and approved by the authorities in 2009, estimating the total decommissioning and reclamation costs to be
CAD$43.1 million. Financial assurances are in place for this entire amount, with
Denisons share being CAD$9.7 million. The Preliminary Closure Plan was updated
by ARC in 2014 and is under review by the authorities. The updated plan
estimates the total decommissioning and reclamation costs to be CAD$99.8
million. Denisons share will be CAD$22.5 million.
Elliot Lake
Denison's uranium mine at Elliot Lake,
Ontario, which started operations in 1957, was permanently closed upon
completion of deliveries of U3O8 to Ontario Hydro in May 1992.During its 35
years of continuous operation, the facility produced 147 million pounds of U3O8
in concentrates from the milling of 70 million tons of ore.
By 1998, all significant capital reclamation activities at
Denison's two closed Elliot Lake mines had been completed and, for the most
part, decommissioning has progressed to the long-term monitoring phase.
During 2014, the treatment plants operated as planned and all
environmental targets were met. Monitoring and other remediation related
expenses were CAD$0.7 million for the year. Monitoring costs for 2015 are budgeted
to be CAD$0.8 million. All expenditures are funded from the Reclamation Trust
described below under Reclamation. It is estimated that sufficient funds are
in the Reclamation Trust to meet all monitoring costs through 2020.
All activities and monitoring results are reviewed regularly by
the CNSC and the Elliot Lake Joint Regulatory Group, which consists of federal
and provincial regulators.
Pursuant to a Reclamation Funding Agreement, effective June 30,
1994, with the Governments of Canada and Ontario, Denison has established a
Reclamation Trust from which all spending on its Elliot Lake reclamation
activities is funded. When the Reclamation Trust was first established in 1994,
Denison was required to deposit 90% of its cash receipts after deducting
permitted expenses, as defined in such agreement, into the Reclamation Trust. In
1997, the Governments of Canada and Ontario agreed to suspend the 90% funding
requirement provided Denison maintained four years of cash requirements in the
Reclamation Trust. Early in 1999, the Governments of Canada and Ontario agreed
to further amend the Reclamation Funding Agreement, effective when Denison
received an amended site decommissioning licence, which was obtained on April
22, 1999. Pursuant to that amendment, Denison is required to maintain sufficient
funds in the Reclamation Trust to meet six years of cash requirements.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
82 |
The CNSC has proposed the modification of the licences for Elliot Lake to a single Waste Disposal Licence for both facilities (see Government Regulation - Canadian Uranium Industry). Under the proposed Waste Disposal Licence,
the reclamation funding arrangement may be modified, but at this point in time
the Company believes that it will be able to maintain the current funding
agreement.
Denison Environmental Services
DES has maintained
its internationally recognized ISO 9001:2008 certification which is a
certification for Quality Management Systems. In 2014, DES had no lost time
accidents.
Exploration
The Denison exploration office in
Saskatchewan had no lost time accidents or medical aids in 2014. All required
permits were obtained, and the exploration sites were remediated as required.
Mongolia
There were neither medical aids, nor lost
time accidents during 2014.
Africa
There were neither medical aids, nor lost
time accidents during 2014 at the Companys projects in Mali, Namibia or Zambia.
In addition there were no environmental exceedances.
Government Regulation
Canadian Uranium Industry
The federal government
recognizes that the uranium industry has special importance in relation to the
national interest and therefore regulates the mining, extraction, use and export
of uranium under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act (NSCA). The
NSCA is administered by the CNSC which issues licences pursuant to the
regulations under the NSCA. All of the McClean Lake and Midwest uranium
operations are governed primarily by such licences and are subject to all
applicable federal statutes and regulations and to all laws of general
application in Saskatchewan, except to the extent that such laws conflict with
the terms and conditions of the licences or applicable federal laws.
The export of uranium is regulated by the Canadian federal
government which establishes nuclear energy policy. Denisons uranium exports
are required to have export licences and export permits granted by the CNSC and
the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade respectively.
Environmental matters related to the McClean Lake uranium
facility and the Midwest project are regulated by the CNSC and Saskatchewan
Environment. A number of other ministries and departments of the federal and
Saskatchewan governments also regulate certain aspects of the operation. Prior
to proceeding with development of the McClean Lake uranium facility and Midwest
project, the proponents were required to submit Environmental Impact Statements
for review. After completion of that review and receipt of recommendations, the
federal and Saskatchewan governments issued the appropriate authorizations,
subject to the normal licensing process, for the McClean Lake uranium facility
in 1995 and for Midwest in 1998.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
83 |
Decommissioning activities at Elliot Lake are currently carried
out under two decommissioning licences issued by the CNSC, one for the Stanrock
tailings area and one for the Denison mine site and tailings areas.
Decommissioning of the facilities pursuant to the terms of the decommissioning
licences has been completed. The CNSC has initiated the actions to combine the
Stanrock and Denison sites under one Waste Facility Operating Licence. There are
no significant differences between the different forms of licences. After a
lengthy period of care, maintenance and monitoring, Denison may apply to the
CNSC for permission to abandon the sites.
Land Tenure
Canada
The right to explore
for minerals is acquired in Saskatchewan under a mineral claim from the province
of Saskatchewan (a Mineral Claim). The initial term of a Mineral Claim
is two years, renewable for successive oneyear periods, provided the Mineral
Claim is in good standing. To maintain a Mineral Claim in good standing,
generally, the holder of a Mineral Claim must expend a prescribed amount on
exploration. Excess expenditures can be applied to satisfy expenditure
requirements for future claim years. Except for exploration purposes, a Mineral
Claim does not grant the holder the right to mine minerals. A holder of a
Mineral Claim in good standing has the right to convert a Mineral Claim into a
Mineral Lease. Surface exploration work on a Mineral Claim requires additional
governmental approvals.
The right to mine minerals in Saskatchewan is acquired under a
mineral lease from the province (a Mineral Lease). A Mineral Lease is
for a term of 10 years, with a right to renew for successive 10-year terms in
the absence of default by the lessee. The lessee is required to spend certain
amounts for work during each year of a Mineral Lease. A Mineral Lease cannot be
terminated except in the event of default and for certain environmental
concerns, as prescribed in The Crown Minerals Act (Saskatchewan).
However, Mining Leases may be amended unilaterally by the lessor by amendment to
The Crown Minerals Act (Saskatchewan) or The Mineral Disposition
Regulations, 1986 (Saskatchewan).
The surface facilities and mine workings are located on lands
owned by the Province of Saskatchewan. The right to use and occupy lands is
acquired under a surface lease (a Surface Lease) from the Province of
Saskatchewan. A Surface Lease is for a period of time, up to a maximum of 33
years, as is necessary to allow the lessee to operate its mine and plant and
thereafter to carry out the reclamation of the lands involved. Surface Leases
are also used by the Province of Saskatchewan as a mechanism to achieve certain
environmental protection, radiation protection and socio-economic objectives and
contain certain undertakings in this regard.
Canadian Royalties
The Province of Saskatchewan
imposes royalties on the sale of uranium extracted from ore bodies in the
province in accordance with Part III of The Crown Mineral Royalty Regulations
(the Regulations) pursuant to The Crown Minerals Act (the
Act). Significant revisions to the uranium royalty regime in
Saskatchewan became effective in 2013. The new royalty system is effective
retroactive to January 1, 2013 and has three components:
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
84 |
|
|
|
|
(i) |
Basic Royalty: Computed as 5% of gross revenues derived
from uranium extracted from ore bodies in the province; |
|
|
|
|
(ii) |
Saskatchewan Resource Credit: Reduction in the basic
royalty equal to 0.75% of gross revenues derived from uranium extracted
from ore bodies in the province; and |
|
|
|
|
(iii) |
Profit Royalty: Computed as 10% to 15% of net profits
derived from the mining and processing of uranium extracted from ore
bodies in the province. |
Under the new system, each owner or joint venture participant
in a uranium mine is a royalty payer. Individual interests are consolidated on a
corporate basis for the computation and reporting of royalties due to the
province.
Royalty payments are due to the province on or before the last
day of the month following the month in which the royalty payer sold, or
consumed, the uranium for the purposes of the basic royalty, and quarterly
installments are required based on estimates of net profits in respect of the
profit royalty.
Gross revenue, for the Basic Royalty, is determined in
accordance with the Regulations and allows for reductions based on specified
allowances. Net profit, for the Profit Royalty, is calculated based on the
recognition of the full dollar value of a royalty payers exploration, capital,
production, decommissioning and reclamation costs, in most cases, incurred after
January 1, 2013. Net profits will be taxed under the profit royalty at a rate of
10% for net profits up to and including CAD$22.00 per kilogram (CAD$10 per
pound) of uranium sold, and at 15% for net profits in excess of CAD$22.00 per
kilogram The CAD$22.00 threshold is applicable for 2013 (the base year) and is
indexed in subsequent years for inflation.
Canadian Income and Other Taxes
Denison and its
Canadian subsidiaries are subject to federal and provincial income taxes. In
2014, taxable income was subject to federal taxes at a rate of 15%, and
provincial taxes in Saskatchewan, Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia and the
Yukon Territory at rates varying between 10% and 15%. Taxable income for each
entity is allocated between provinces and territories based on a two point
average of the proportion of salaries and revenues attributable to each province
or territory. Denison expects that it will not be liable for Canadian income
taxes on a current tax basis for the financial year ended 2014. As a resource
corporation in Saskatchewan, Denison is also subject to a resource surcharge
equal to 3% of the value of resource sales from production in Saskatchewan, if
any, during the year.
In recent years, Denison has issued shares eligible for
treatment as flow through shares, as defined in subsection 66(15) of the
Income Tax Act (Canada). As a result, a significant portion of Denison's
Canadian Exploration Expenditures have been renounced to shareholders and are
not available to Denison as a tax deduction in the current year or future years.
Other International Taxes
Denisons operations in
Mali, Mongolia, and Namibia are also subject to income taxes in their respective
jurisdictions. Due to the stage of the projects in these foreign jurisdictions,
Denison has not been liable to pay income taxes in past years, and does not
expect to be liable to pay income taxes while these projects are in the
exploration and / or development stages.
In Zambia, Denisons operations are categorized as Mining
operations and in past years would have been subject to a production royalty
under the countrys Mines and Mineral Development Act (Mines
Act) as well a tax on profit under the Income Tax Act (Tax
Act). In late 2014, the Zambian government enacted changes to both the
Mines Act and Tax Act (the Amendments) whereby operations involved in
the mining of any material other than industrial minerals (e.g. gravel and
limestone) would be subject to only a production royalty under the Mines Act and
would no longer be taxed on profits under the Tax Act. The Amendments also
increase the rate of the production royalty applicable to non-industrial
minerals from 6% to 8% in the case of underground mining and to 20% in the case
of open pit mining. As uranium is not considered an industrial mineral, Denison
expects that the new regime introduced by the Amendments will apply to the
Companys operations in Zambia.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
85 |
Audit / Review by Taxing Authorities
From time to
time, Denison is subject to audit / review by various taxing authorities in the
above noted jurisdictions. In certain jurisdictions, periodic reviews are
carried out by taxing authorities in the ordinary course of business. Denison
cooperates with all requests received from taxing authorities, and is not
currently engaged in a material dispute with any of the applicable taxing
authorities.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
86 |
Risk Factors
There are a number of factors that could negatively affect
Denisons business and the value of the Shares, including the factors listed
below. The following information pertains to the outlook and conditions
currently known to Denison that could have a material impact on the financial
condition of Denison. Other factors may arise in the future that are currently
not foreseen by management of Denison that may present additional risks in the
future. Current and prospective security holders of Denison should carefully
consider these risk factors.
Nature of Exploration and Development
Exploration
for and development of mineral properties is speculative, and involves
significant uncertainties and financial risks that even a combination of careful
evaluation, experience and knowledge may not eliminate. While the discovery of
an ore body may result in substantial rewards, few properties which are explored
are commercially mineable or ultimately developed into producing mines. Major
expenses may be required to establish mineral reserves by drilling, constructing
mining and processing facilities at a site, developing metallurgical processes
and extracting uranium from ore. It is impossible to ensure that the current
exploration and development programs of Denison will result in profitable
commercial mining operations.
Denisons current and future uranium production is dependent in
part on the successful development of new ore bodies and/or expansion of
existing mining operations. The economic feasibility of development projects is
based upon many factors, including, among others: the accuracy of mineral
reserve and resource estimates; metallurgical recoveries; capital and operating
costs of such projects; government regulations relating to prices, taxes,
royalties, infrastructure, land tenure, land use, importing and exporting, and
environmental protection; and uranium prices, which are historically cyclical.
Development projects are also subject to the successful completion of
engineering studies, issuance of necessary governmental permits and availability
of adequate financing.
Development projects have no operating history upon which to
base estimates of future cash flow. Denisons estimates of mineral reserves and
resources and cash operating costs are, to a large extent, based upon detailed
geological and engineering analysis. Denison also conducts feasibility studies
which derive estimates of capital and operating costs based upon many factors,
including, among others: anticipated tonnage and grades of ore to be mined and
processed; the configuration of the ore body; ground and mining conditions;
expected recovery rates of the uranium from the ore; and alternate mining
methods.
It is possible that actual costs and economic returns of
current and new mining operations may differ materially from Denisons best
estimates. It is not unusual in the mining industry for new mining operations to
experience unexpected problems during the start-up phase, take much longer than
originally anticipated to bring into a producing phase, and to require more
capital than anticipated.
Benefits Not Realized From Transactions
Denison has
completed a number of transactions over the last several years, including
without limitation the Rockgate Offer and Arrangement, the IEC Arrangement, the
Fission Arrangement, the JNR Acquisition and the EFR Arrangement. Despite
Denisons belief that these transactions, and others which may be completed in
the future, will be in Denisons best interest and benefit the Company and
Denisons shareholders, Denison may not realize the anticipated benefits of such
transactions or realize the full value of the consideration paid to complete the
transactions. This could result in significant accounting impairments or
write-downs of the carrying values of mineral properties, and could adversely
impact the Company and the price of its Shares.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
87 |
Inability to Expand and Replace Mineral Reserves and
Resources
Denisons mineral reserves and resources at its McClean Lake,
Midwest, Wheeler River, Waterbury Lake, GSJV and Mutanga projects are Denisons
future sources of uranium concentrates. Unless other mineral reserves or
resources are discovered, Denisons sources of future production for uranium
concentrates will decrease over time when its current mineral reserves and
resources are depleted. There can be no assurance that Denisons future
exploration, development and acquisition efforts will be successful in
replenishing its mineral reserves and resources. In addition, while Denison
believes that many of its properties will eventually be put into production,
there can be no assurance that they will be or that they will be able to replace
production.
Imprecision of Mineral Reserve and Resource Estimates
Mineral reserve and resource figures are estimates, and no
assurances can be given that the estimated levels of uranium will be produced or
that Denison will receive the prices assumed in determining its mineral reserves
and resources. Such estimates are expressions of judgment based on knowledge,
mining experience, analysis of drilling results and industry practices. Valid
estimates made at a given time may significantly change when new information
becomes available. While Denison believes that the mineral reserve and
resource estimates included are well established and reflect managements
best estimates, by their nature, mineral reserve and resource estimates
are imprecise and depend, to a certain extent, upon statistical inferences which
may ultimately prove unreliable. Furthermore, market price fluctuations, as well
as increased capital or production costs or reduced recovery rates, may render
mineral reserves and resources containing lower grades of mineralization
uneconomic and may ultimately result in a restatement of mineral reserves and
resources. The evaluation of mineral reserves or resources is always
influenced by economic and technological factors, which may change over time.
Volatility and Sensitivity to Market Prices
The long
and short term market prices of U3O8 affect the value of Denisons mineral
resources and the market price of the Shares. Historically, these prices have
fluctuated and have been and will continue to be affected by numerous factors
beyond Denisons control. Such factors include, among others: demand for nuclear
power, political and economic conditions in uranium producing and consuming
countries, public and political response to a nuclear incident, reprocessing of
used reactor fuel and the re-enrichment of depleted uranium tails, sales of
excess civilian and military inventories (including from the dismantling of
nuclear weapons) by governments and industry participants, uranium supply,
including the supply from other secondary sources and production levels and
costs of production.
Public Acceptance of Nuclear Energy and Competition from
Other Energy Sources
Growth of the uranium and nuclear power industry
will depend upon continued and increased acceptance of nuclear technology as a
means of generating electricity. Because of unique political, technological and
environmental factors that affect the nuclear industry, including the risk of a
nuclear incident, the industry is subject to public opinion risks that could
have an adverse impact on the demand for nuclear power and increase the
regulation of the nuclear power industry. Nuclear energy competes with other
sources of energy, including oil, natural gas, coal and hydro-electricity. These
other energy sources are to some extent interchangeable with nuclear energy,
particularly over the longer term. Sustained lower prices of oil, natural gas,
coal and hydroelectricity may result in lower demand for uranium concentrates.
Technical advancements in renewable and other alternate forms of energy, such as
wind and solar power, could make these forms of energy more commercially viable
and put additional pressure on the demand for uranium concentrates.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
88 |
Market Price of Shares
Securities of mining
companies have experienced substantial volatility in the past, often based on
factors unrelated to the financial performance or prospects of the companies
involved. These factors include macroeconomic conditions in North America and
globally, and market perceptions of the attractiveness of particular industries.
The price of Denison's securities is also likely to be significantly affected by
short-term changes in commodity prices, other mineral prices, currency exchange
fluctuation, or changes in its financial condition or results of operations as
reflected in its periodic earnings reports. Other factors unrelated to the
performance of Denison that may have an effect on the price of the securities of
Denison include the following: the extent of analytical coverage available to
investors concerning the business of Denison; lessening in trading volume and
general market interest in Denison's securities; the size of Denison's public
float and its inclusion in market indices may limit the ability of some
institutions to invest in Denison's securities; and a substantial decline in the
price of the securities of Denison that persists for a significant period of
time could cause Denison's securities to be delisted from an exchange. If an
active market for the securities of Denison does not continue, the liquidity of
an investor's investment may be limited and the price of the securities of the
Company may decline such that investors may lose their entire investment in the
Company. As a result of any of these factors, the market price of the securities
of Denison at any given point in time may not accurately reflect the long-term
value of Denison. Securities class-action litigation often has been brought
against companies following periods of volatility in the market price of their
securities. Denison may in the future be the target of similar litigation.
Securities litigation could result in substantial costs and damages and divert
management's attention and resources.
Dilution from Further Equity Financing
If Denison
raises additional funding by issuing additional equity securities, such
financing may substantially dilute the interests of Shareholders and reduce the
value of their investment.
Reliance on Other Operators
At some of its
properties, Denison is not the operator and therefore is not in control of all
of the activities and operations at the site. As a result, Denison is and will
be, to a certain extent, dependent on the operators for the nature and timing of
activities related to these properties and may be unable to direct or control
such activities.
As an example, ARC is the operator and majority owner of the
McClean Lake and Midwest properties in Saskatchewan, Canada, The McClean Lake
mill employs unionized workers who work under collective agreements. ARC, as the
operator, is responsible for all dealings with unionized employees. ARC may not
be successful in its attempts to renegotiate the collective agreements, which
may impact mill and mining operations. Any lengthy work stoppages may have a
material adverse impact on the Companys future cash flows, earnings, results of
operations and financial condition.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
89 |
Ore from the CLJV is currently being processed by the MLJV at
the McClean Lake mill pursuant to a toll milling agreement, which is expected to
generate revenue for the Company for several years. Any delays or stoppages in
the delivery of ores by the operator of the CLJV or in processing of the ore by the
operator of the MLJV may have an adverse impact on the Companys expected cash
flows or earnings.
Operations in Foreign Jurisdictions
The Company owns
uranium properties directly and through joint venture interests and is
undertaking uranium exploration and development programs in Zambia, Mali,
Namibia, and Mongolia. As with any foreign operation, these international
properties and interests are subject to certain risks, such as the possibility
of adverse political and economic developments, foreign currency controls and
fluctuations, as well as risks of war and civil disturbances. Other events may
limit or disrupt activities on these properties, restrict the movement of funds,
result in a deprivation of contract rights or the taking of property or an
interest therein by nationalization or expropriation without fair compensation,
increases in taxation or the placing of limits on repatriations of earnings. No
assurance can be given that current policies of Zambia, Mali, Namibia and
Mongolia or the political situations within these countries will not change so
as to adversely affect the value or continued viability of the Companys
interest in these assets.
In addition, the Company may become involved in a dispute with
respect to one of its foreign operations and may become subject to the exclusive
jurisdiction of a foreign court or may find that it is not successful in
subjecting foreign persons to the jurisdiction of the courts in Canada. The
Company may also be precluded from enforcing its rights with respect to a
government entity because of the doctrine of sovereign immunity.
Property Title Risk
The Company has investigated its
rights to explore and exploit all of its material properties and, to the best of
its knowledge, those rights are in good standing. However, no assurance can be
given that such rights will not be revoked, or significantly altered, to its
detriment. There can also be no assurance that the Companys rights will not be
challenged or impugned by third parties, including the local governments, and in
Canada, by First Nations and Métis.
There is also a risk that Denison's title to, or interest in,
its properties may be subject to defects or challenges. This may be true
particularly in countries where there may be less developed legal systems or
where ownership interests may become subject to political interference or
changes in laws. If such defects cover a material portion of Denison's property,
they could materially and adversely affect Denison's results of operations and
financial condition, its reported mineral reserves and resources or its
long-term business prospects.
Competition for Properties
Significant competition
exists for the limited supply of mineral lands available for acquisition. Many
participants in the mining business include large, established companies with
long operating histories. The Company may be at a disadvantage in acquiring new
properties as many mining companies have greater financial resources and more
technical staff. Accordingly, there can be no assurance that the Company will be
able to compete successfully to acquire new properties or that any such acquired
assets would yield reserves or result in commercial mining operations.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
90 |
Global Financial Conditions
Global financial
conditions have been subject to increased volatility and numerous financial
institutions have either gone into bankruptcy or have had to be rescued by
governmental authorities. Access to financing has been negatively impacted by
both sub-prime mortgages and the liquidity crisis affecting the asset-backed
commercial paper market and the effect of these events on Canadian and global
credit markets. These factors may impact the ability of Denison to obtain equity
or debt financing in the future and, if obtained, on terms favourable to
Denison. These increased levels of volatility and market turmoil could adversely
impact Denison's operations and the trading price of the Shares.
Ability to Maintain Obligations under Credit Facility and
Other Debt
Denison is required to satisfy certain financial
covenants in order to maintain its good standing under the Credit Facility.
Denison may from time to time enter into other arrangements to borrow money in
order to fund its operations and expansion plans, and such arrangements may
include covenants that have similar obligations or that restrict its business in
some way. Events may occur in the future, including events out of Denison's
control that would cause Denison to fail to satisfy its obligations under the
Credit Facility or other debt instruments. In such circumstances, the amounts
drawn under Denison's debt agreements may become due and payable before the
agreed maturity date, and Denison may not have the financial resources to repay
such amounts when due. The Credit Facility is secured by DMI's main properties
by a pledge of the shares of DMI. If Denison were to default on its obligations
under the Credit Facility or other secured debt instruments in the future, the
lender(s) under such debt instruments could enforce their security and seize
significant portions of Denison's assets.
Capital Intensive Industry; Uncertainty of Funding
The exploration and development of mineral properties and the ongoing
operation of mines requires a substantial amount of capital and may depend on
Denisons ability to obtain financing through joint ventures, debt financing,
equity financing or other means. General market conditions, volatile uranium
markets, a claim against the Company, a significant disruption to the Companys
business or operations or other factors may make it difficult to secure
financing necessary for the expansion of mining activities or to take advantage
of opportunities for acquisitions. There is no assurance that the Company will
be successful in obtaining required financing as and when needed on acceptable
terms.
Decommissioning and Reclamation
As owner of the
Elliot Lake decommissioned sites and part owner of the McClean Lake mill,
McClean Lake mines, the Midwest uranium project and certain exploration
properties, and for so long as the Company remains an owner thereof, the Company
is obligated to eventually reclaim or participate in the reclamation of such
properties. Most, but not all, of the Companys reclamation obligations are
bonded, and cash and other assets of the Company have been reserved to secure
this obligation. Although the Companys financial statements record a liability
for the asset retirement obligation, and the bonding requirements are generally
periodically reviewed by applicable regulatory authorities, there can be no
assurance or guarantee that the ultimate cost of such reclamation obligations
will not exceed the estimated liability contained on the Companys financial
statements.
As Denisons properties approach or go into decommissioning,
regulatory review of the Companys decommissioning plans may result in
additional decommissioning requirements, associated costs and the requirement to
provide additional financial assurances. It is not possible to predict what
level of decommissioning and reclamation (and financial assurances relating
thereto) may be required from Denison in the future by regulatory authorities.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
91 |
Technical Innovation and Obsolescence
Requirements
for Denisons products and services may be affected by technological changes in
nuclear reactors, enrichment and used uranium fuel reprocessing. These
technological changes could reduce the demand for uranium or reduce the value of
Denisons environmental services to potential customers. In addition, Denisons
competitors may adopt technological advancements that give them an advantage
over Denison.
Mining and Insurance
Denisons business is capital
intensive and subject to a number of risks and hazards, including environmental
pollution, accidents or spills, industrial and transportation accidents, labour
disputes, changes in the regulatory environment, natural phenomena (such as
inclement weather conditions earthquakes, pit wall failures and cave-ins) and
encountering unusual or unexpected geological conditions. Many of the foregoing
risks and hazards could result in damage to, or destruction of, Denisons
mineral properties or processing facilities, personal injury or death,
environmental damage, delays in or interruption of or cessation of production
from Denisons mines or processing facilities or in its exploration or
development activities, delay in or inability to receive regulatory approvals to
transport its uranium concentrates, or costs, monetary losses and potential
legal liability and adverse governmental action. In addition, due to the
radioactive nature of the materials handled in uranium mining and processing,
additional costs and risks are incurred by Denison on a regular and ongoing
basis. Although Denison maintains insurance to cover some of these risks and
hazards in amounts it believes to be reasonable, such insurance may not provide
adequate coverage in the event of certain circumstances. No assurance can be
given that such insurance will continue to be available or it will be available
at economically feasible premiums or that it will provide sufficient coverage
for losses related to these or other risks and hazards.
Denison may be subject to liability or sustain loss for certain
risks and hazards against which it cannot insure or which it may reasonably
elect not to insure because of the cost. This lack of insurance coverage could
result in material economic harm to Denison.
Dependence on Issuance of Licence Amendments and Renewals
ARC maintains the regulatory licences in order to operate the mill
at McClean Lake, all of which are subject to renewal from time to time and are
required in order for the mill to operate in compliance with applicable laws
and regulations. In addition, depending on ARC's or the Companys business requirements,
it may be necessary or desirable to seek amendments to one or more of its licences from time to time. While
ARC and the Company have been successful in renewing
its licences on a timely basis in the past and in obtaining such amendments as
have been necessary or desirable, there can be no assurance that such licence
renewals and amendments will be issued by applicable regulatory authorities on a
timely basis or at all in the future.
Governmental Regulation and Policy Risks
Uranium
mining and milling operations and exploration activities, as well as the
transportation and handling of the products produced, are subject to extensive
regulation by state, provincial and federal governments. Such regulations relate
to production, development, exploration, exports, imports, taxes and royalties,
labour standards, occupational health, waste disposal, protection and
remediation of the environment, mine decommissioning and reclamation, mine
safety, toxic substances, transportation safety and emergency response, and
other matters. Compliance with such laws and regulations has increased the costs
of exploring, drilling, developing, constructing, operating and closing
Denisons mines and processing facilities. It is possible that, in the future,
the costs, delays and other effects associated with such laws and regulations
may impact Denisons decision with respect to exploration and development
properties, whether to proceed with exploration or development, or that such
laws and regulations may result in Denison incurring significant costs to
remediate or decommission properties that do not comply with applicable
environmental standards at such time. Denison expends significant financial and
managerial resources to comply with such laws and regulations. Denison
anticipates it will have to continue to do so as the historic trend toward
stricter government regulation may continue. Because legal requirements are
frequently changing and subject to interpretation, Denison is unable to predict
the ultimate cost of compliance with these requirements or their effect on
operations. Furthermore, future changes in governments, regulations and
policies, such as those affecting Denisons mining operations and uranium
transport could materially and adversely affect Denisons results of operations
and financial condition in a particular period or its long-term business
prospects.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
92 |
Failure to comply with applicable laws, regulations and
permitting requirements may result in enforcement actions. These actions may
result in orders issued by regulatory or judicial authorities causing operations
to cease or be curtailed, and may include corrective measures requiring capital
expenditures, installation of additional equipment or remedial actions.
Companies engaged in uranium exploration operations may be required to
compensate others who suffer loss or damage by reason of such activities and may
have civil or criminal fines or penalties imposed for violations of applicable
laws or regulations.
Worldwide demand for uranium is directly tied to the demand for
electricity produced by the nuclear power industry, which is also subject to
extensive government regulation and policies. The development of mines and
related facilities is contingent upon governmental approvals that are complex
and time consuming to obtain and which, depending upon the location of the
project, involve multiple governmental agencies. The duration and success of
such approvals are subject to many variables outside Denisons control. Any
significant delays in obtaining or renewing such permits or licences in the
future could have a material adverse effect on Denison. In addition, the
international marketing of uranium is subject to governmental policies and
certain trade restrictions. Changes in these policies and restrictions may
adversely impact Denisons business.
Aboriginal Title and Consultation Issues
First
Nations and Métis title claims as well as related consultation issues may
impact Denisons ability and that of its joint venture partners to pursue
exploration, development and mining at its Saskatchewan properties. Pursuant to
historical treaties, First Nations bands in Northern Saskatchewan ceded title to
most traditional lands but continue to assert title to the minerals within the
lands. Managing relations with the local native bands is a matter of paramount
importance to Denison. There may be no assurance however that title claims as
well as related consultation issues will not arise on or with respect to the
Companys properties.
Environmental, Health and Safety Risks
Denison has
expended significant financial and managerial resources to comply with
environmental protection laws, regulations and permitting requirements in each
jurisdiction where it operates, and anticipates that it will be required to
continue to do so in the future as the historical trend toward stricter
environmental regulation may continue. The uranium industry is subject to, not
only the worker health, safety and environmental risks associated with all
mining businesses, including potential liabilities to third parties for
environmental damage, but also to additional risks uniquely associated with
uranium mining and processing. The possibility of more stringent regulations
exists in the areas of worker health and safety, the disposition of wastes, the
decommissioning and reclamation of mining and processing sites, and other
environmental matters each of which could have a material adverse effect on the
costs or the viability of a particular project.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
93 |
Although the Company believes its operations are in compliance,
in all material respects, with all relevant permits, licences and regulations
involving worker health and safety as well as the environment, there can be no
assurance regarding continued compliance or ability of the Company to meet
stricter environmental regulation, which may also require the expenditure of
significant additional financial and managerial resources.
Mining companies are often targets of actions by
non-governmental organizations and environmental groups in the countries in
which they operate. Such organizations and groups may take actions in the future
to disrupt Denison's operations. They may also apply pressure to local, regional
and national government officials to take actions which are adverse to Denison's
operations. Such actions could have an adverse effect on Denison's ability to
produce and sell its products, and on its financial position and results.
Dependence on Key Personnel and Qualified and Experienced
Employees
Denisons success depends on the efforts and abilities of
certain senior officers and key employees. Certain of Denisons employees have
significant experience in the uranium industry, and the number of individuals
with significant experience in this industry is small. While Denison does not
foresee any reason why such officers and key employees will not remain with
Denison, if for any reason they do not, Denison could be adversely affected.
Denison has not purchased key man life insurance for any of these individuals.
Denisons success also depends on the availability of qualified and experienced
employees to work in Denisons operations and Denisons ability to attract and
retain such employees.
Conflicts of Interest
Some of the directors of
Denison are also directors of other companies that are similarly engaged in the
business of acquiring, exploring and developing natural resource properties.
Such associations may give rise to conflicts of interest from time to time. In
particular, one of the consequences will be that corporate opportunities
presented to a director of Denison may be offered to another company or
companies with which the director is associated, and may not be presented or
made available to Denison. The directors of Denison are required by law to act
honestly and in good faith with a view to the best interests of Denison, to
disclose any interest which they may have in any project or opportunity of
Denison, and to abstain from voting on such matter. Conflicts of interest that
arise will be subject to and governed by the procedures prescribed in the
Companys Code of Ethics and by the OBCA.
Disclosure and Internal Controls
Internal controls
over financial reporting are procedures designed to provide reasonable assurance
that transactions are properly authorized, assets are safeguarded against
unauthorized or improper use, and transactions are properly recorded and
reported. Disclosure controls and procedures are designed to ensure that
information required to be disclosed by a company in reports filed with
securities regulatory agencies is recorded, processed, summarized and reported
on a timely basis and is accumulated and communicated to companys management,
including its chief executive officer and chief financial officer, as
appropriate, to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure. A control
system, no matter how well designed and operated, can provide only reasonable,
not absolute, assurance with respect to the reliability of reporting, including
financial reporting and financial statement preparation.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
94 |
Potential Influence of KEPCO
As at the date hereof,
KEPCO holds indirectly a large shareholding in Denison and is contractually
entitled to Board representation. Provided KEPCO holds over 5% of the Shares, it
is entitled to nominate one director for election to the Board at any
shareholder meeting.
KEPCOs shareholding level gives it significant influence on
decisions to be made by shareholders of Denison, and its right to nominate a
director may give KEPCO influence on decisions made by Denison's Board. Although
KEPCO's director nominee will be subject to duties under the OBCA to act in the
best interests of Denison as a whole, KEPCO's director nominee is likely to be
an employee of KEPCO and he or she may give special attention to KEPCO's
interests as an indirect Shareholder. The interests of KEPCO as an indirect
Shareholder may not always be consistent with the interests of other
Shareholders.
The KEPCO SRA also includes provisions that will provide KEPCO
with a right of first offer for certain asset sales and the right to be
approached to participate in certain potential acquisitions. The right of first
offer and participation right of KEPCO may negatively affect Denison's ability
or willingness to entertain certain business opportunities, or the
attractiveness of Denison as a potential party for certain business
transactions. KEPCO's large shareholding block may also make Denison less
attractive to third parties considering an acquisition of Denison if those third
parties are not able to negotiate terms with KEPCO to support such an
acquisition.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
95 |
Denisons Securities
The Shares
The Company is entitled to issue an
unlimited number of Shares. As of December 31, 2014, Denison had an aggregate of
505,868,894 Shares issued and outstanding. As at the date hereof, Denison had an
aggregate of 506,438,669 Shares issued and outstanding.
Shareholders are entitled to receive notice of, and to one vote
per share at, every meeting of Shareholders, to receive such dividends as the
Board declares and to share equally in the assets of Denison remaining upon the
liquidation, dissolution or winding up of Denison after the creditors of Denison
have been satisfied.
Shareholders are entitled to receive dividends if, as and when
declared by the Board of Directors. The directors have adopted a policy of
dedicating cash flow to reinvestment in the business of the Company.
Accordingly, no dividends have been declared to date. Further, the Company is
restricted from paying dividends under its Credit Facility.
In 2014, the Company issued the following Shares, excluding
warrant and stock option exercises:
|
|
2,312,622 Shares as part of the Rockgate
Arrangement; |
|
|
10,733,829 Shares as part of the IEC
Arrangement; |
|
|
9,257,500 Shares at CAD$1.62 per Share on a
private placement basis in connection with the 2014 Offering;
|
Fission Replacement Options and Fission Warrants
As
at December 31, 2014, an aggregate 1,160,134
Fission Replacement Options were outstanding and, during the financial year
ended December 31, 2014, an aggregate of 517,849 Shares were issued on account of the
exercise of Fission Replacement Options.
Upon closing of the Fission Arrangement, Denison
assumed the Fission Warrants entitling the holders to an aggregate of 1,500,854
Shares upon exercise for an effective price of CAD$0.84 per share.
During the financial year ended December 31, 2014, an aggregate
of 536,060 Shares were issued on account of the exercise of Fission warrants. At
December 31, 2014, Fission Warrants exercisable into 562,675 Shares remained
outstanding. All of the outstanding Fission Warrants were exercised prior
to their expiry on January 21, 2015, resulting in the issuance of 562,675 Shares
in 2015.
IEC Options and
Warrants
Upon the closing of the IEC Arrangement,
outstanding warrants and stock options of IEC were exchanged for options
(IEC Replacement Options) and warrants (IEC Replacement
Warrants) to acquire Shares, as adjusted by the exchange ratio. The IEC
Replacement Options expired 90 days after the IEC Arrangement closing date,
while the IEC Replacement Warrants retained the expiry dates of the originally
issued IEC warrants.
By December 31, 2014, no IEC Replacement Options were
outstanding and, during the financial year ended December 31, 2014, an aggregate
of 425,100 Shares were issued on account of the exercise of IEC Replacement
Options.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
96 |
Upon the closing of the IEC Arrangement, three series of IEC
Replacement Warrants were issued:
- An aggregate of 143,000 IEC Replacement Warrants with an effective price of
CAD$2.31 per Share, which expired on November 29, 2014. None of this series of
IEC Replacement Warrants was exercised prior to expiry.
- An aggregate of 329,061 IEC Replacement Warrants with an effective price of
CAD$1.54 per Share and expiring on June 5, 2015. None of this series of IEC
Replacement Warrants was exercised prior to December 31, 2014.
- An aggregate of 188,066 IEC Replacement Warrants with an effective price of
CAD$1.54 per Share and expiring on August 20, 2015. None of this series of IEC
Replacement Warrants was exercised prior to December 31, 2014.
Price Range and Trading Volume of Shares
The Shares
trade on the TSX under the symbol DML and on the NYSE MKT under the symbol
DNN. The following table sets forth, for the periods indicated, the reported
intra-day high and low sales prices and aggregate volume of trading of the
Shares on the TSX and NYSE MKT.
|
High (CAD$) |
Low
(CAD$) |
Volume |
High (US$) |
Low
(US$) |
Volume |
Month |
TSX |
TSX |
TSX |
NYSE MKT |
NYSE
MKT |
NYSE MKT |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
January |
1.60 |
1.23 |
51,368,883 |
1.46 |
1.16 |
31,230,217 |
February |
1.89 |
1.36 |
54,142,537 |
1.70 |
1.22 |
33,869,899 |
March |
1.95 |
1.60 |
53,383,945 |
1.76 |
1.44 |
32,861,444 |
April |
1.79 |
1.41 |
32,112,746 |
1.63 |
1.28 |
17,967,794 |
May |
1.51 |
1.25 |
32,400,244 |
1.38 |
1.14 |
19,111,879 |
June |
1.40 |
1.26 |
22,617,013 |
1.30 |
1.16 |
8,775,541 |
July |
1.53 |
1.30 |
34,963,203 |
1.41 |
1.20 |
20,498,373 |
August |
1.49 |
1.35 |
24,661,930 |
1.37 |
1.23 |
12,535,772 |
September |
1.48 |
1.27 |
22,423,336 |
1.36 |
1.13 |
13,200,907 |
October |
1.28 |
1.03 |
28,167,149 |
1.14 |
0.90 |
16,282,184 |
November |
1.39 |
1.02 |
38,442,759 |
1.23 |
0.90 |
16,854,211 |
December |
1.19 |
1.07 |
25,433,179 |
1.02 |
0.92 |
11,933,808 |
Source: Bloomberg Finance
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
97 |
Denisons Management
Denisons Directors
The following table sets out the
names and the provinces and countries of residence of each of the directors of
Denison as of the date hereof, their respective positions and offices held with
Denison and their principal occupations during the five preceding years. The
following table also identifies the members of each committee of the Board of
Directors.
Name and Province and |
|
Principal Occupation and Employment
for |
|
|
Country of
Residence |
|
Past Five Years |
|
Director Since(1) |
|
|
|
|
|
JOHN H. CRAIG (3) Ontario, Canada |
|
Lead Director of the Board of the Company; Lawyer,
Partner, Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP, a business and litigation law
firm based in Ontario. |
|
1997 |
|
|
|
|
|
W. ROBERT DENGLER(2, 4, 5) Ontario, Canada |
|
Corporate Director since 2006; prior: Vice-Chairman and
Director of Dynatec Corporation in 2005; President and Chief Executive
Officer of Dynatec Corporation. |
|
2006 |
|
|
|
|
|
BRIAN D. EDGAR(3, 6, 7) British Columbia, Canada |
|
Chairman of Silver Bull Resources, Inc., a mineral
exploration company listed on both NYSE MKT and the TSX, since 2011, and
President and Chief Executive Officer of Dome Ventures Corporation, a
subsidiary of Silver Bull Resources Inc., since 2005. |
|
2005 |
|
|
|
|
|
RON F. HOCHSTEIN(2) British Columbia, Canada |
|
Chief Executive Officer of the Company since
January, 2015; director of the Company since 2000; prior: President and Chief
Executive Officer of the Company since 2009. |
|
2000 |
|
|
|
|
|
LUKAS H. LUNDIN Vaud, Switzerland |
|
Chairman of the Board of the Company; Mining Executive.
|
|
1997 |
|
|
|
|
|
JOO SOO PARK Naju-si, Korea |
|
General Manager of Overseas Resources Development Dept,
KEPCO, an international electric power company headquartered in Korea
since 2012; prior: Senior Manager of Korea Electric Power Research
Institute at KEPCO, since 2007. |
|
2015 |
|
|
|
|
|
WILLIAM A. RAND(4, 6) British Columbia, Canada |
|
Director of Rand Edgar Investment Corp., a private
investment company based in British Columbia. |
|
1997 |
|
|
|
|
|
CATHERINE J. G. STEFAN(3, 6, 8) Ontario, Canada |
|
President, Stefan & Associates, a consulting firm
based in Ontario, since 2009; prior: Managing Partner, Tivona Capital
Corporation, a private investment firm, from 1999-2008. |
|
2006 |
|
|
Notes: |
|
(1) |
The term of office of each of the directors of
Denison will expire at the Annual Meeting of the Shareholders to be held
on May 7, 2015. |
(2) |
Member, Environment, Health and Safety
Committee |
(3) |
Member, Corporate Governance and Nominating
Committee |
(4) |
Member, Compensation Committee |
(5) |
Chair, Compensation Committee and Environment
Health and Safety Committee |
(6) |
Member, Audit Committee |
(7) |
Chair, Corporate Governance and Nominating
Committee |
(8) |
Chair, Audit Committee |
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
98 |
Denisons Executive Officers
The following table
sets out the names and the provinces or states and countries of residence of
each of the executive officers of Denison as of the date hereof, their
respective positions and offices held with Denison and their principal
occupations during the five preceding years. Mr. Hochstein, the Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, is discussed under Directors above.
Name and Province and |
|
|
Country of Residence |
|
Position with Denison and Employment for
Past Five Years |
|
|
|
STEVE BLOWER British Columbia, Canada |
|
Vice President, Exploration since September since 2012;
prior: President, C.E.O. and a director of Pitchstone Exploration Ltd., a
mineral exploration company from 2006 2012. |
|
|
|
DAVID CATES Ontario, Canada |
|
President and Chief Financial Officer since 2015; Vice
President Finance, Tax and Chief Financial Officer since 2013; prior:
Director, Taxation from 2008-2012. |
|
|
|
SHEILA COLMAN British Columbia, Canada |
|
General Counsel and Corporate Secretary since 2009;
|
|
|
|
PETER LONGO Saskatchewan, Canada |
|
Vice President, Project Development since 2014; prior:
Vice-President, Operations, Claude Resources Inc., a gold mining company
from 2011- 2014; prior Project Manager, AREVA Resources Inc. from
2007-2011. |
|
|
|
MICHAEL SCHOONDERWOERD Ontario, Canada |
|
Vice-President Controller since 2013; prior, Corporate
Controller, 2004 2012. |
The directors and executive officers of Denison, as a group,
beneficially own, or control or direct, directly or indirectly, 2,718,396 Shares
or less than one percent of the Shares as of the date of this AIF. No single
director or officer beneficially owns or controls or directs, directly or
indirectly, one percent or more of the Shares as of the date of this AIF. The
information as to Shares beneficially owned or directed by the directors and
officers, not being within the knowledge of the Company, has been furnished by
each such individual.
Cease Trade Orders, Bankruptcies, Penalties or
Sanctions
Other than as referred to below, no director or officer of the
Company:
(a) |
is, as at the date of this AIF, or has, within the
previous ten year period, been a director or executive officer of a
company (including Denison) that: |
|
|
|
|
(i) |
was subject to a cease trade or similar order or an order
that denied the relevant company access to any exemption under securities
legislation that was in effect for a period of more than 30 consecutive
days that was issued (A) while that person was acting in such capacity or
(B) after that person ceased to act in such capacity but which resulted
from an event that accrued while that person was acting in that capacity;
or |
|
|
|
|
(ii) |
became bankrupt, made a proposal under any legislation
relating to bankruptcy or insolvency or was subject to or instituted any
proceedings, arrangement or compromise with creditors or had a receiver,
receiver manager or trustee appointed to hold its assets (A) while that
person was acting in such capacity or (B) within a year of that person
ceasing to act in such capacity, or |
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
99 |
|
|
|
(b) |
has, within the previous ten year period, become
bankrupt, made a proposal under any legislation relating to bankruptcy or
insolvency, or become subject to or instituted any proceedings,
arrangement or compromise with creditors, or had a receiver, receiver
manager or trustee appointed to hold such persons assets; or |
|
|
|
(c) |
is, or has been, subject to any penalties or sanctions
(i) imposed by a court relating to securities legislation or by a
securities regulatory authority or has entered into a settlement agreement
with a securities regulatory authority, or (ii) imposed by a court or
regulatory body that would likely be considered important to a reasonable
security holder in making an investment decision. |
William Rand and Brian Edgar were directors of New West Energy
Services Inc. (New West) (TSX-V) when, on September 5, 2006, a cease
trade order was issued by the British Columbia Securities Commission against
that company for its failure to file financial statements within the prescribed
time. The default was rectified and the order was rescinded on November 9, 2006.
Bill Rand is still a director of New West, while Brian Edgar resigned in August
2009.
John Craig, Ron Hochstein and Lukas Lundin were all directors of Sirocco Mining
Inc. (Sirocco). John Craig and Lukas Lundin resigned on November 8, 2013 and January 31, 2014,
respectively, at which times Sirocco was financially solvent.
Pursuant to a plan
of arrangement completed on January 31, 2014, Canadian Lithium Corp. acquired
Sirocco. The final step in the plan of arrangement transaction was the
amalgamation of Canadian Lithium Corp. and Sirocco to form RB Energy Inc
(RBI). On October 13, 2014, RBI announced that, among other things,
the Board of Directors of RBI had approved a filing on October 14, 2014, for an
Initial Order to commence proceedings under the Companies' Creditors
Arrangement Act (the "CCAA"). On October 15, 2014, RBI further
announced that the Quebec Superior Court had issued an Amended and Restated
Initial Order in respect of RBI and certain of its subsidiaries under the CCAA.
RBI is now under the protection of the Court. KPMG LLP has been appointed
monitor under the Court Order. The TSX de-listed RBIs common shares effective
at the close of business on November 24, 2014 for failure to meet the continued
listing requirements of the TSX. Since that time, RBIs common shares have been
suspended from trading.
Although neither John Craig nor Lukas Lundin was ever a
director, officer or insider of RBI, each was a director of Sirrocco within the
12 month period prior to RBI filing under the CCAA. Ron Hochstein was a director
of RBI from the time of the plan of arrangment with Canadian Lithium Corp. to October 3, 2014.
Conflicts of Interest
Some of Denisons directors
are also directors and officers of other natural resource companies and,
consequently, there exists the possibility for such directors and officers to be
in a position of conflict relating to any future transactions or relationships
between the Company or common third parties. However, the Company is unaware of
any such pending or existing conflicts between these parties. Any decision made
by any of such directors and officers involving the Company are made in
accordance with their duties and obligations to deal fairly and in good faith
with the Company and such other companies and their obligations to act in the
best interests of Denisons shareholders. In addition, each of the directors of
the Company discloses and refrains from voting on any matter in which such
director may have a conflict of interest.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
100 |
None of the present directors or senior officers of the
Company, and no associate or affiliate of any of them, has any material interest
in any transaction of the Company or in any proposed transaction which has
materially affected or will materially affect the Company except as described
herein.
|
|
|
Investor relations, administrative service fees and other expenses of $60,000
were incurred during the financial year ended December 31, 2014 with Namdo
Management Services Ltd. a company of which Ron Hochstein is President.
These services were incurred in the normal course of operating a public
company. |
|
|
|
Legal fees of
$276,000 were incurred during the financial year ended
December 31, 2014 with Cassels Brock & Blackwell, LLP, a law firm of which
John Craig is a partner. |
|
|
|
During the financial year ended December 31, 2014, executive services of
$106,000 were provided to Lundin Gold Inc., a company which Ron Hochstein
and Lukas Lundin were both directors and officers during the year. |
|
|
|
One of Denisons directors, Mr. Park, is employed by
KEPCO. Through its corporate holdings, KEPCO is a significant shareholder
of the Company, with approximately 11.5% of the outstanding Shares as of
the date hereof. Concurrent with its investment in the Company in 2009,
KEPCO entered into a strategic relationship agreement (the KEPCO
SRA) with Denison, which may present a conflict of interest for
Mr. Park. The KEPCO SRA provides KEPCO with a right of first offer for
certain asset sales and the right to be approached to participate in
certain potential acquisitions being considered by Denison. While the
Company is not aware of a pending or existing conflict of interest with
Mr. Park as of the date hereof, the interests of KEPCO as shareholder of
Denison and KEPCOs business relationships with Denison may place Mr. Park
in a position of conflict as a director of the Company in the future.
|
Interest of Management and Others in Material Transactions
Other than as disclosed in this AIF, no director or executive officer of
Denison, no person or company that beneficially owns, controls or directs,
indirectly or directly, more than 10% of the Shares, and no associate or
affiliate of any of them, has or has had, within the three most recently
completed financial years or during the current financial year, any material
interest, direct or indirect, in any transaction which materially affects or is
reasonably expected to materially affect Denison.
Standing Committees of the Board
The Audit
Committee
The audit committee of the Companys Board of Directors is
principally responsible for:
|
recommending to the Companys Board of Directors the
external auditor to be nominated for election by the Companys
shareholders at each annual general meeting and negotiating the
compensation of such external auditor; |
|
overseeing the work of the external auditor; |
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
101 |
|
|
|
reviewing the Companys annual and interim financial
statements, its MD&A in respect thereof and press releases regarding
earnings before they are reviewed and approved by the Board of Directors
and publicly disseminated by the Company; and |
|
reviewing the Companys financial reporting procedures
for the Companys public disclosure of financial information extracted or
derived from its financial statements. |
The Companys Board of Directors has adopted an audit committee
mandate/terms of reference (the Mandate) which sets out the Audit
Committees mandate, organization, powers and responsibilities. The complete
Mandate is attached as Schedule A to this AIF.
Below are the details of each Audit Committee member, including
his or her name, whether she or he is independent and financially literate as
such terms are defined under National Instrument 52-110 - Audit Committees
of the Canadian Securities Administrators (NI 52-110) and
his or her education and experience as it relates to the performance of his or
her duties as an Audit Committee member. All three audit committee members have
financial expertise within the meaning of the U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, as amended, and are financially literate under NI 52-110. The
qualifications and independence of each member is discussed.
|
|
Financially |
|
Education & Experience Relevant to |
Director |
Independent(1) |
Literate(2) |
|
Performance of Audit
Committee Duties |
|
|
|
|
|
Catherine J.G. Stefan, |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Chartered Professional
Accountant (Chartered Accountant) |
Chair of the Audit |
|
|
|
B.Comm |
Committee |
|
|
|
Held position of Chief Operating Officer, O&Y
Properties Inc., President of Stefan & Associates and Executive
Vice-President of Bramalea Group, Chair, Tax Committee of the Canadian
Institute of Public Real Estate Companies (CIPREC). |
|
|
|
|
|
Brian D. Edgar |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Law degree, with extensive corporate finance experience
|
|
|
|
|
Held positions of Chairman since 2011 and President and
Chief Executive Officer of a public company from 2005 to 2011. |
|
|
|
|
Has served on audit committees of a number of public
companies |
|
|
|
|
|
William A. Rand |
Yes |
Yes |
|
B.Comm (Accounting) |
|
|
|
|
Two law degrees, with extensive corporate finance
experience |
|
|
|
|
Has served on audit committees of a number of public
companies |
|
|
Notes: |
|
(1) |
Independent within the meaning of NI 52-110.
|
(2) |
To be considered financially literate, a member of the
Committee must have the ability to read and understand a set of financial
statements that present a breadth and level of complexity of accounting
issues that are generally comparable to the breadth and complexity of the
issues that can reasonably be expected to be raised by the Companys
financial statements. |
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
102 |
Since the commencement of the Companys most recently completed
financial year, there has not been a recommendation of the Audit Committee to
nominate or compensate an internal auditor which was not adopted by the
Companys Board of Directors.
The Audit Committee has adopted specific policies and
procedures for the engagement of non-audit services as described in Section D of
the Mandate.
The following table discloses the fees billed to the Company by
its external auditor, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, during the last two fiscal
years. Services were billed and paid in Canadian dollars and have been
translated into U.S. dollars using an average annual exchange rate of: $1.1045
for 2014 and $1.0298 for 2013.
Financial Year |
|
Audit-Related |
|
|
Ending |
Audit Fees(1) |
Fees (2) |
Tax Fees (3) |
All Other Fees(4) |
December 31, 2013
|
$295,401 |
$121,134 |
Nil |
$123,373 |
December 31, 2014 |
$309,371 |
$136,411 |
Nil |
$9,507 |
|
Notes: |
(1) |
The aggregate fees billed for audit services of
the Companys consolidated financial statements. |
(2) |
The aggregate fees billed for assurance and related
services that are reasonably related to the performance of the audit or
review of the Companys financial statements and are not disclosed in the
Audit Fees column. Fees relate to reviews of interim consolidated
financial statements and specified audit procedures not included as part
of the audit of the consolidated financial statements. |
(3) |
The aggregate fees billed for tax compliance, tax advice,
and tax planning services, such as transfer pricing and tax return
preparation. |
(4) |
The aggregate fees billed for professional services other
than those listed in the other three columns. For 2014, All Other Fees
relates to the Companys acquisition of IEC. For 2013, All Other Fees
relates to the Companys acquisitions of JNR, Fission and
Rockgate. |
Other Board Committees
The Board currently has three
other standing committees in addition to the Audit Committee, namely the
Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee, the Compensation Committee and
the Environment, Health and Safety Committee. Each standing committee of the
Board operates according to its mandate, which is approved by the Board and sets
out the committees duties and responsibilities. A discussion of each committee
and its composition can be found in the most recent management information
circular prepared in connection with the Companys Shareholder meeting.
Corporate Governance
As a Canadian reporting issuer
with its Shares listed on the TSX, Denison has in place a system of corporate
governance practices which is responsive to applicable Canadian requirements,
including National Policy 58-201 Corporate Governance Guidelines of the
Canadian Securities Administrators (the Guidelines). Denison's
corporate governance practices meet or exceed the Guidelines and all other
applicable Canadian requirements. Reference is made to the Corporate Governance
Practices section of the Circular, which contains a description of the Companys
system of corporate governance practices with reference to the Guidelines.
Denison is classified as a foreign private issuer under U.S.
securities law and its Shares are listed on NYSE MKT. Pursuant to the rules of
the NYSE MKT, a foreign private issuer is permitted to follow home country
practice except with respect to certain rules, with which Denison complies.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
103 |
Legal and Regulatory Proceedings
Except as described below, the Company is not currently a party
to, nor was it a party to during the last financial year, and none of the
Companys property is or was the subject of, any material legal proceedings, and
the Company knows of no such legal proceedings that are contemplated. However,
from time to time, the Company may become party to routine litigation incidental
to its business.
EFR Indemnity
In connection with the EFR
Arrangement, the Company agreed to indemnify EFR in connection with ongoing
litigation between Denison Mines (USA) Corp. ("DUSA"), which was acquired
by EFR in June 2012, and a contractor who was engaged by DUSA in respect of an
earthworks project for one of the tailings cells at DUSA's White Mesa mill. A
dispute arose between the parties when the contractor ceased work on the
project, and DUSA engaged an alternate contractor to complete the project on
time. The original contractor sued DUSA for damages on account of alleged breach
of contract and reimbursement of costs due to complications and delays allegedly
beyond its control at the project. DUSA counter-claimed for damages flowing from
breach of contract and indemnity and reimbursement for monies paid by DUSA to
satisfy the original contractor's unpaid obligations to subcontractors and for
project completion costs. This matter was heard before an arbitrator in November, 2013
and a decision in favour of DUSA was granted in January 2014.
DES Employment Dispute
DES terminated an employee
for cause at one of the sites for which DES had been contracted to provide care
and maintenance services. The dismissed employee challenged his dismissal
through the Quebec Labour Commission. This matter was settled at the start of
2015.
Fission Director Dispute
In 2013, FCU commenced an
action against a former director and his affiliates (collectively
Dahrouge) alleging, among other things breach of fiduciary duties,
misappropriation of corporate opportunities and a constructive trust over
mineral claims staked by Dahrouge. Later in 2013, Dahrouge commenced a
Counterclaim against Denison and Fission and others, alleging among other
things, improper assignments of claims, improper interference with Dahrouges
contractual relations and improper interference with Dahrouges directors and
officers insurance (both actions being the Underlying Action). In 2014,
Fission and a company newly formed by FCU, Fission 3.0 Corp., were added as
plaintiffs to the action.
Late in 2014, Fission and Denison were third parties to a Third
Party Notice issued by Lloyds underwriters (the Coverage Action).
Early in 2015, the Underlying Action and the Coverage Action were both settled.
Pursuant to the Fission Arrangement, FCU is obligated to indemnify Denison and
Fission for any costs and liability they incurred in connection with this
matter. See Material Contracts.
Material Contracts
Reference is made to the material contracts which have been
filed by Denison with the Canadian securities regulatory authorities on the
SEDAR website at www.sedar.com.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
104 |
Below are the particulars of each contract, other than those
entered into in the ordinary course of business, that is material to Denison and
that was entered into between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2014 or was
entered into before those dates but is still in effect:
1. |
The Reclamation Funding Agreement made as of the 21st day
of December 1995 among DML, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada (the
Government of Canada) and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the
Province of Ontario (the Government of Ontario) as amended by the
Amending Agreement made as of the 11th day of April 1997 among Denison
Mines Limited (now DMI), the Government of Canada and the Government of
Ontario and as further amended by the Amending Agreement made as of the
25th day of February 1999 among Denison Mines Limited, the Government of
Canada and the Government of Ontario and further amended by an Assignment
and Novation Agreement made as of the 29th day of December, 2003 among
Denison Energy, the Company, the Government of Canada and the Government
of Ontario. |
|
|
|
According to the Reclamation Funding Agreement, the
Company is required to maintain funds in an Environmental Trust sufficient
for the succeeding six years of the estimated reclamation and on-going
care and monitoring expenditures for the Companys closed Elliot Lake
mining facility. |
|
|
2. |
The KEPCO SRA made as of June 15, 2009 among the Company,
KEPCO and KEPCO Canada Uranium Investment Limited Partnership. |
|
|
|
The KEPCO SRA provides for a long-term collaborative
business relationship between the parties. Under the KEPCO SRA, KEPCO is
entitled to Board representation based on its shareholder percentage in
the Company. Initially, Denison was required to nominate for election to
its Board at any shareholder meeting at which directors are to be elected,
two persons designated by KEPCO as long as KEPCO held at least 15% of the
outstanding Shares. However, now that KEPCOs interest has dropped below
15%, Denison is only required to nominate one person, provided KEPCOs
shareholding percentage stays above 5%. |
|
|
|
The KEPCO SRA also provides that if Denison intends to
sell an interest in certain of its substantial assets, it will first
notify KEPCO of each such proposed sale and provide KEPCO with a 30-day
right of first offer to allow KEPCO to purchase the interest in the asset
that Denison proposes to sell. The KEPCO SRA provides that Denison will
allow KEPCO to participate in potential purchases of certain assets,
including a mill facility, a producing mine or a mineral resource for
which a production feasibility study has been completed, which Denison
plans to pursue with a co-investor. KEPCO's ability to purchase will not
be available where Denison and KEPCO cannot agree on terms within a
reasonable time or where their involvement would adversely affect
Denison's ability to pursue an investment opportunity. The right of first
offer and co-investment rights are subject to pre-existing contractual
commitments and do not apply to certain pre-existing transactions. KEPCO
is also entitled to subscribe for additional Shares in order to maintain
or increase its shareholding percentage in Denison to thresholds which are
relevant to its rights under the KEPCO SRA and KEPCO Offtake Agreement, in
circumstances where Denison completes a public offering or broadly
distributed private placement to raise proceeds of greater than CAD$10
million. |
|
|
|
Denison is entitled to terminate the KEPCO SRA if KEPCOs
shareholding percentage in Denison drops below 5% and stays below 5% for
60 days following delivery of a notice to that effect by Denison to
KEPCO. |
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
105 |
|
|
3. |
The EFR Arrangement Agreement dated May 23, 2012 between
EFR and Denison. |
|
|
|
Denison entered into the EFR Arrangement Agreement with
EFR on May 23, 2012. Pursuant to the EFR Arrangement Agreement, EFR
purchased the U.S. Mining Division by acquiring all of the shares and debt
of certain subsidiaries. As a result of the transaction, Denison
Shareholders received 1.106 common shares of EFR for each Share held,
while still maintaining their positions in Denison. |
|
|
|
Pursuant to the EFR Arrangement Agreement, Denison agreed
to indemnify EFR against any future liabilities it may incur in connection
with ongoing litigation between Denison Mines (USA) Corp. (a company
acquired by EFR as part of the sale of the U.S. Mining Division) and a
contractor in respect of a construction project at the White Mesa Mill.
See Legal and Regulatory Proceedings. |
|
|
|
In addition, in connection with the assignment of sales
contracts as required by the EFR Arrangement Agreement, the Company
remains a guarantor under a sales contract included in the sale of the
U.S. Mining Division to EFR. The sales contract requires deliveries of
200,000 pounds of U3O8 per year from 2013 to 2017 at
a selling price of 95% of the long-term U3O8 price
at the time of delivery. Should EFR not be able to deliver for any reason
other than force majeure as defined under the contract, the Company may
be liable to the customer for incremental costs incurred to replace the
contracted quantities if the unit price of the replacement quantity is
greater than the contracted unit price selling amount. EFR has agreed to
indemnify the Company for any future liabilities it may incur related to
this guarantee. |
|
|
4. |
The Fission Arrangement Agreement dated March 7, 2013
between Denison and Fission. |
|
|
|
Denison entered into the Fission Arrangement Agreement on
March 7, 2013. Pursuant to the Fission Arrangement Agreement, the
shareholders of Fission exchanged each common share of Fission held for
(a) a new common share of Fission (New Fission Share) and (b) one
common share in the capital of Fission Uranium Corp. Subsequent to the
exchange, each shareholder of a New Fission Share received 0.355 of one
Share and CAD$0.0001 for each New Fission Share held. As a result, Denison
acquired all of the issued and outstanding common shares of Fission.
Unexercised options to purchase Fission shares were exchanged for the
Fission Replacement Options. |
|
|
|
Pursuant to the Fission Arrangement Agreement, Fission
Uranium has agreed to indemnify the Company against any liabilities it may
incur in connection with ongoing litigation between Fission Uranium,
Fission and the Company and a former director of Fission in respect of a
dispute over mineral claims staked by the director and his affiliates and
a counter claim in respect of insider trading allegations and access to
insurance. See Legal and Regulatory Proceedings. |
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
106 |
Names and Interests of Experts
The Companys independent auditor is PricewaterhouseCoopers
LLP, Chartered Professional Accountants, Licensed Public Accountants, who have issued an
independent auditors report dated March 5, 2015 in respect of Denisons
consolidated financial statements as at December 31, 2014 and 2013 and for each
of the years ended 2014 and 2013 and the Companys internal control over
financial reporting as at December 31, 2014. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP has
advised that it is independent with respect to the Company within the meaning of
the Rules of Professional Conduct of the Chartered Professional
Accountants of Ontario and Public Company Accounting Oversight Board Rule 3520
Auditor Independence.
Steve Blower, P. Geo, Denisons Vice President Exploration, who
is a "qualified person" within the meaning of this term in NI 43-101, has
prepared sections of this AIF that are of a scientific or technical nature
pertaining to the Companys mineral projects in Canada, Mali, Namibia and
Zambia, and has verified the data disclosed therein. To the knowledge of
Denison, Steve Blower is the registered or beneficial owner, directly or
indirectly, of less than one percent of the outstanding Shares.
Terry V. Wetz, P.E., the Executive Director of the GSJV, who is
a qualified person within the meaning of this term in NI 43-101, has prepared
sections of this AIF that are of a scientific or technical nature pertaining to
the Companys mineral projects in Mongolia, and has verified the data disclosed
therein. To the knowledge of Denison, Terry V. Wetz is the registered or
beneficial owner, directly or indirectly, of less than one percent of the
outstanding Shares.
RPA Inc., which was retained to independently review and audit
the mineral reserves and mineral resources in accordance with the requirements
of NI 43-101, prepared the following technical reports:
|
|
Elliot Lake Report dated June 29, 2007 by
Lawrence B. Cochrane, Ph.D., P.Eng. and Leo R. Hwozdyk, P.Eng. |
|
|
The 2007 Mongolia Report dated February 27,
2007 by Thomas C. Pool, P.E. and Neil N. Gow, P.Geo. |
|
|
McClean Technical Report dated November 21,
2005 as amended on February 16, 2006 by Richard E. Routledge, M.Sc.,
P.Geo. and James W. Hendry, P.Eng. |
|
|
McClean North Technical Report January 31, 2007
by Richard E. Routledge, M.Sc., P.Geo. |
|
|
Sue D Report dated March 31, 2006 by Richard E
Routledge, M.Sc., P.Geo. and James W. Hendry, P.Eng. |
|
|
Midwest Technical Report dated June 1, 2005, as
amended on February 14, 2006 by Richard E. Routledge, M.Sc., P.Geo., James
W. Hendry, P.Eng. and Luke Evans, M.Sc., P.Eng. |
|
|
The 2011 Mongolia Report dated March 23 , 2011
by Hrayr Agnerian, M.Sc. (Applied), P. Geo. and William E. Roscoe, Ph.D.,
P.Eng. |
|
|
The Phoenix Report dated June 17, 2014 by
William E. Roscoe, Ph.D, P.Eng. |
The Midwest A Technical Report dated January 31, 2008 was
prepared by Michel Dagbert, P.Eng. of Geostat, which was retained to
independently review and audit the mineral reserves in accordance with the
requirements of NI 43-101.
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
107 |
The J Zone Technical Report dated September 6, 2013 was
prepared by Allan Armitage, Ph.D., P.Geol., and Alan Sexton, M.Sc., P.Geol. of
GeoVector, which was retained to independently review and audit mineral resource
estimates in accordance with the requirements of NI 43-101.
The Combined Mutanga Report dated September 12, 2013 was
prepared by Malcolm Titley, B.Sc. (Geology and Chemistry), MAusIMM, MAIG, of CSA
Global, which was retained to independently review and audit the mineral
resources in accordance with the requirements of NI 43-101.
All of the authors of the technical reports noted above are
independent of Denison. To the knowledge of Denison as of the date hereof, the
partners, employees and consultants of each of RPA Inc. (formerly Scott Wilson
RPA), Geostat and CSA Global who participated in the preparation of the
aforementioned reports, or who were in a position to influence the outcome of
such reports and each of RPA Inc., Geostat and CSA Global are the registered or
beneficial owner, directly or indirectly, of less than one percent of the
outstanding Shares.
Additional Information
Additional information regarding the Company is available on
the SEDAR website at www.sedar.com. Further information concerning the
Company, including directors' and officers' remuneration and indebtedness,
principal holders of the Company's securities, options to purchase securities
and interests of insiders in material transactions, where applicable, is
contained in the Circular for the Annual General Meeting of Shareholders to be
held on May 7, 2015. Additional financial information is provided in the
Company's audited consolidated financial statements and MD&A for the
financial year ended December 31, 2014.
A copy of this AIF, as well as the Circular and such other
information and documentation that the Company makes available via SEDAR, can be
found at www.sedar.com. In addition, certain of this information is distributed
to shareholders in connection with Denisons Annual General Meeting of
Shareholders. The Company will provide any of the foregoing documents subject to
its rights to require people who are not security holders of the Company to pay
a reasonable charge. Copies of these documents may be obtained by writing to:
Denison Mines Corp.
Atrium on Bay
Suite 402
595 Bay Street
Toronto, Ontario
M5G 2C2
Telephone: (416) 979-1991
Facsimile: (416) 979-5893
Email: info@denisonmines.com
2014 ANNUAL
INFORMATION FORM |
108 |
SCHEDULE A
Approved by the Board of Directors on March 5, 2015
Audit Committee Mandate and Charter
A. |
Composition of the
Committee |
(1) The Board shall appoint
annually from among its members at the first meeting of the Board following the
annual meeting of the shareholders a committee to be known as the Audit
Committee (the Committee) to be composed of three (3) directors or such other
number not less than three (3) as the Board may from time to time determine.
(2) Any member of the Committee
may be removed or replaced at any time by the Board. Any member of the Committee
ceasing to be a director or ceasing to qualify under A(3) below shall cease to
be a member of the Committee. Subject to the foregoing, each member of the
Committee shall hold office as such until the next annual appointment of members
to the Committee after his or her election. Any vacancy occurring in the
Committee shall be filled at the next meeting of the Board.
(3) Each member of the Committee
shall:
(a) be a
member of the Board;
(b) not
be an officer or employee of the Company or any of its affiliates;
(c) be an
unrelated director as defined in the Toronto Stock Exchange (the TSX)
Corporate Governance Guidelines (TSX Guidelines) as the same may be amended
from time to time;
(d)
satisfy the independence requirements applicable to members of audit committees
under each of Multilateral Instrument 52-110 Audit Committees of the Canadian
Securities Administrators (M1 52-110), Rule 10A-3(b)(1)(ii) of the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission, and any other applicable laws and
regulations, as the same may be amended from time to time (with the TSX
Guidelines, Applicable Laws); and
(e)
satisfy the financial literacy requirements prescribed by Applicable Laws.
(4) A majority of the Committee
shall constitute a quorum.
(5) The Committee shall elect
annually a chairperson from among its members.
(1) The Committees purpose is to
assist the Board in its supervision of the management of the business and
affairs of the Company through oversight of:
(a) the
integrity of the Companys financial statements, Managements Discussion and
Analysis (MD&A) and other financial reporting;
(b) the
integrity of the Companys internal control and management information systems;
(c) the
Companys compliance with all applicable laws, rules, regulations, policies and
other requirements of governments, regulatory agencies and stock exchanges
relating to accounting matters and financial disclosure;
(d) the
auditors qualifications and activities;
(e)
communication among the auditor, management and the Board; and
(f) such
other matters as are determined by the Board from time to time.
(1) The Committee shall have
direct channels of communication with the Companys auditor to discuss and
review specific issues as appropriate.
(2) The Committee, or any member
of the Committee with the approval of the Committee, may retain at the expense
of the Company such independent legal, accounting (other than the auditor) or
other advisors on such terms as the Committee may consider appropriate and shall
not be required to obtain the approval of the Board in order to retain or
compensate any such advisors.
(3) The Committee shall have
unrestricted access to Company personnel and documents and shall be provided
with all necessary funding and other resources to carry out its
responsibilities.
D. |
Committee Responsibilities |
(1) The responsibilities of the
Committee shall be to:
(a) with
respect to financial accounting matters:
|
(i) |
review with management and the external auditors the
annual consolidated financial statements, MD&A and press release
announcing annual financial results of operations before making
recommendations to the Board relating to approval of such
documents; |
|
|
|
|
(ii) |
review with management and the external auditors interim
financial statements, MD&A and press release announcing interim
financial results of operations before making recommendations to the Board
relating to approval of such documents; |
|
|
|
|
(iii) |
review and discuss with management and the external
auditors all public disclosure documents containing audited or unaudited
financial information including: any Prospectus; the Annual Report;
interim unaudited reports; and any material change report pertaining to
the Companys financial matters. The Committee will review the consistency
of the foregoing documents with facts, estimates or judgments contained in
the audited or unaudited financial statements; |
|
|
|
|
(iv) |
satisfy itself that adequate procedures are in place for
the review of the Companys disclosure of financial information extracted
or derived from the Companys financial statements, other than the
Companys financial statements, MD&A and earnings press releases, and
shall periodically assess the adequacy of those procedures; |
|
|
|
|
(v) |
prior to the completion of the annual audit, and at any
other time deemed advisable by the Committee, review and discuss with
management and the auditor the quality of the Companys accounting
policies and financial statement presentation, including, without
limitation, the following: |
1. all
critical accounting policies and practices to be used, including, without
limitation, the reasons why certain estimates or policies are or are not
considered critical and how current and anticipated future events may impact
those determinations as well as an assessment of any proposed modifications by
the auditors that were not made;
2 . all
alternative accounting treatments for policies and practices that have been
discussed by management and the auditors; and
3. other
material written communications between the auditor and management, including,
without limitation, any management letter, schedule of unadjusted differences,
the management representation letter, report on internal controls, as well as
the engagement letter and the independence letter;
|
(vi) |
review annually the accounting principles and practices
followed by the Company and any changes in the same as they
occur; |
|
|
|
|
(vii) |
review new accounting principles of the Chartered
Professional Accountants of Canada and the International Accounting
Standards Board which would have a significant impact on the Companys
financial reporting as reported to the Committee by management; |
|
|
|
|
(viii) |
review the status of material contingent liabilities as
reported to the Committee by management; |
|
|
|
|
(ix) |
review potentially significant tax problems as reported
to the Committee by management; and |
|
|
|
|
(x) |
review any errors or omissions in the current or prior
years financial statements which appear material as reported to the
Committee by management; |
(b) with
respect to the external auditors:
|
(i) |
be directly responsible for recommending the appointment
of the auditor, the auditors compensation, retention and termination and
for oversight of the work of the auditor (including, without limitation,
resolution of disagreements between management and the auditor regarding
financial reporting) for the purpose of preparing or issuing an audit
report or performing other audit, review or services for the
Company; |
|
|
|
|
(ii) |
approve, prior to the auditors audit, the auditors
audit plan (including, without limitation, staffing), the scope of the
auditors review and all related fees; |
|
|
|
|
(iii) |
satisfy itself as to the independence of the auditor. The
Committee shall pre-approve any non-audit services (including, without
limitation, fees therefor) provided to the Company or its subsidiaries by
the auditor or any auditor of any such subsidiary and shall consider
whether these services are compatible with the auditors independence,
including, without limitation, the nature and scope of the specific
non-audit services to be performed and whether the audit process would
require the auditor to review any advice rendered by the auditor in
connection with the provision of non-audit services. The Committee shall
not allow the auditor to render any non-audit services to the Company or
its subsidiaries that are prohibited by Applicable Law; |
|
|
|
|
(iv) |
review and approve the Companys policies concerning the
hiring of employees and former employees of the Companys auditor or
former auditor. |
(c) with
respect to internal controls:
|
(i) |
oversee managements design, testing and implementation
of the Companys internal controls and management information systems and
review the adequacy and effectiveness thereof. |
(d) with
respect to concerns and complaints:
|
(i) |
establish procedures for: |
1. the
receipt, retention and treatment of complaints received by the Company regarding
accounting, internal accounting controls or auditing matters; and
2. the
confidential, anonymous submission by employees of the Company of concern
regarding questionable accounting or auditing matters.
(e) with
respect to ethics:
|
(i) |
The Committee shall be responsible for oversight and
enforcement of the Code of Ethics for the Chief Executive Officer, Senior
Financial Officers and Other Officers of the Company, subject to the
supervision of the Board. |
(f) with
respect to general audit matters:
|
(i) |
inquire of management and the external auditors as to any
activities that may or may not appear to be illegal or
unethical; |
|
|
|
|
(ii) |
review with management, the operations analyst and the
external auditors any frauds reported to the Audit Committee; |
|
|
|
|
(iii) |
review with the external auditors the adequacy of
staffing for accounting and financial responsibilities; and |
|
|
|
|
(iv) |
report and make recommendations to the Board as the
Committee considers appropriate. |
(2) In addition, the Board may
refer to the Committee such matters and questions relating to the Company as the
Board may from time to time see fit;
(3) Any member of the Committee
may require the auditors to attend any or every meeting of the Committee.
(1) The times of and the places
where meetings of the Audit Committee shall be held and the calling of and
procedure at such meetings shall be determined from time to time by the
Committee, provided however that the Committee shall meet at least quarterly,
and the Committee shall maintain minutes or other records of its meetings and
activities. Notice of every such meeting to be given in writing not less than
five (5) days prior to the date fixed for the meeting, and shall be given to the
auditors of the Company, that the auditors shall be entitled to attend and be
heard thereat. Meetings shall be convened whenever requested by the auditors,
the operations analyst or any member of the Audit Committee in accordance with
the Ontario Business Corporations Act.
(2) As part of each meeting of
the Committee at which it recommends that the Board approve the financial
statements of the Company, and at such other times as the Committee deems
appropriate, the Committee shall meet separately with the auditor to discuss and
review specific issues as appropriate.
F. |
Evaluation of Charter and
Mandate |
(1) On at least an annual basis,
the Committee shall review and assess the adequacy of this Charter and Mandate
and recommend any proposed changes to the Board of Directors.
(2) All prior resolutions of the
Board relating to the constitution and responsibilities of the Audit Committee
are hereby repealed.
SCHEDULE B
Glossary of Technical Terms
Note: The terms related to Mineral resources and mineral
reserves presented herein are as defined in CIM DEFINITION STANDARDS on Mineral
Resources and Mineral Reserves prepared by the CIM Standing Committee on
Reserve Definitions, adapted by CIM Council, December 11, 2005.
eU3O8
This term refers to
equivalent U3O8 grade derived from gamma logging of drill holes.
Historical Estimate
A historical estimate means an
estimate of the quantity, grade or metal or mineral content of a deposit that an
issuer has not verified as a current mineral resource or mineral reserve, and
which was prepare before the issuer acquiring, or entering into an agreement to
acquire an interest in the property that contains the deposit.
Indicated Mineral Resource
An indicated mineral
resource is that part of a mineral resource for which quantity, grade or
quality, densities, shape and physical characteristics, can be estimated with a
level of confidence sufficient to allow the appropriate application of technical
and economic parameters, to support mine planning and evaluation of the economic
viability of the deposit. The estimate is based on detailed and reliable
exploration and testing information gathered through appropriate techniques from
locations such as outcrops, trenches, pits, workings and drill holes that are
spaced closely enough for geological and grade continuity to be reasonably
assumed.
Inferred Mineral Resource
An inferred mineral
resource is that part of a mineral resource for which quantity and grade or
quality can be estimated on the basis of geological evidence and limited
sampling and reasonably assumed, but not verified, geological and grade
continuity. The estimate is based on limited information and sampling gathered
through appropriate techniques from locations such as outcrops, trenches, pits,
workings and drill holes
Measured Mineral Resource
A measured mineral
resource is that part of a mineral resource for which quantity, grade or
quality, densities, shape, and physical characteristics are so well established
that they can be estimated with confidence sufficient to allow the appropriate
application of technical and economic parameters, to support production planning
and evaluation of the economic viability of the deposit. The estimate is based
on detailed and reliable exploration, sampling and testing information gathered
through appropriate techniques from locations such as outcrops, trenches, pits,
workings and drill holes that are spaced closely enough to confirm both
geological and grade continuity.
Mineral Reserve
A mineral reserve is the
economically mineable part of a measured or indicated mineral resource
demonstrated by at least a Preliminary Feasibility Study. This Study must
include adequate information on mining, processing, metallurgical, economic and
other relevant factors that demonstrate, at the time of reporting, that economic
extraction can be justified. A mineral reserve includes diluting materials and
allowances for losses that may occur when the material is mined.
Mineral Resource
A mineral resource is a
concentration or occurrence of diamonds, natural solid inorganic material, or
natural solid fossilized organic material including base and precious metals,
coal, and industrial materials in or on the Earths crust in such form and
quantity and of such a grade or quality that it has reasonable prospects for
economic extraction. The location, quantity, grade, geological characteristics
and continuity of a mineral resource are known, estimated or interpreted from
specific geological evidence and knowledge.
Probable Mineral Reserve
A probable mineral reserve
is the economically mineable part of an indicated, and in some circumstances, a
measured mineral resource demonstrated by at least a Preliminary Feasibility
Study. This Study must include adequate information on mining, processing,
metallurgical, economic, and other relevant factors that demonstrate, at the
time of reporting, that economic extraction can be justified.
Proven Mineral Reserve
A proven mineral reserve is
the economically mineable part of a measured mineral resource demonstrated by at
least a Preliminary Feasibility Study. This Study must include adequate
information on mining, processing, metallurgical, economic, and other relevant
factors that demonstrate, at the time of reporting, that economic extraction is
justified.
Qualified Person
A Qualified Person means an
individual who is an engineer or geoscientist with at least five years of
experience in mineral exploration, mine development or operation or mineral
project assessment, or any combination of these; has experience relevant to the
subject matter of the mineral project and the technical report and is a member
or licensee in good standing of a professional association of geoscientists
and/or engineers meeting the criteria set out in NI 43-101.
Exhibit 99.2
DENISON MINES CORP. |
Managements Discussion and Analysis |
Year Ended December 31, 2014 |
(Expressed in U.S.
Dollars, unless otherwise noted) |
INTRODUCTION
This Managements Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) of
Denison Mines Corp. and its subsidiary companies and joint arrangements
(collectively, Denison or the Company) provides a detailed analysis of the
Companys business and compares its financial results with those of the previous
year. This MD&A is dated as of March 5, 2015 and should be read in
conjunction with the Companys audited consolidated financial statements and
related notes for the year ended December 31, 2014. The audited consolidated
financial statements are prepared in accordance with International Financial
Reporting Standards (IFRS) as issued by the International Accounting Standards
Board (IASB). All dollar amounts are expressed in U.S. dollars, unless
otherwise noted.
Other continuous disclosure documents, including the Companys
press releases, quarterly and annual reports, Annual Information Form and Form
40-F are available through its filings with the securities regulatory
authorities in Canada at www.sedar.com and the United States at
www.sec.gov/edgar.shtml.
CAUTIONARY STATEMENT REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING
STATEMENTS
Certain information contained in this MD&A constitutes
forward-looking information", within the meaning of the United States Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and similar Canadian legislation
concerning the business, operations and financial performance and condition of
Denison.
Generally, these forward-looking statements can be identified
by the use of forward-looking terminology such as "plans", "expects" or "does
not expect", "is expected", "budget", "scheduled", "estimates", forecasts",
"intends", "anticipates" or "does not anticipate", or "believes", or variations
of such words and phrases or state that certain actions, events or results
"may", "could", "would", "might" or "will be taken", "occur", "be achieved" or
has the potential to.
Forward looking statements are based on the opinions and
estimates of management as of the date such statements are made, and they are
subject to known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may
cause the actual results, level of activity, performance or achievements of
Denison to be materially different from those expressed or implied by such
forward-looking statements. Denison believes that the expectations reflected in
this forward-looking information are reasonable but no assurance can be given
that these expectations will prove to be correct and such forward-looking
information included in this MD&A should not be unduly relied upon. This
information speaks only as of the date of this MD&A. In particular, this
MD&A may contain forward-looking information pertaining to the following:
the likelihood of completing and benefits to be derived from corporate
transactions; the estimates of Denison's mineral reserves and mineral resources;
expectations regarding the toll milling of Cigar Lake ores; capital expenditure
programs, estimated exploration and development expenditures and reclamation
costs; expectations of market prices and costs; supply and demand for uranium
(U3O8); possible impacts of litigation and regulatory
actions on Denison; exploration, development and expansion plans and objectives; expectations
regarding adding to its mineral reserves and resources through acquisitions and
exploration; and receipt of regulatory approvals, permits and licences under
governmental regulatory regimes.
There can be no assurance that such statements will prove to be
accurate, as Denison's actual results and future events could differ materially
from those anticipated in this forward-looking information as a result of the
factors discussed in more detail later in this MD&A under the heading "Risk
Factors".
Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on
forward-looking statements. These factors are not, and should not be construed
as being exhaustive. Statements relating to "mineral reserves" or "mineral
resources" are deemed to be forward-looking information, as they involve the
implied assessment, based on certain estimates and assumptions that the mineral
reserves and mineral resources described can be profitably produced in the
future. The forward-looking information contained in this MD&A is expressly
qualified by this cautionary statement. Denison does not undertake any
obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking information after
the date of this MD&A to conform such information to actual results or to
changes in Denison's expectations except as otherwise required by applicable
legislation.
Cautionary Note to United States Investors Concerning
Estimates of Measured, Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resources:
This
MD&A may use the terms measured, indicated and inferred mineral
resources. United States investors are advised that while such terms are
recognized and required by Canadian regulations, the United States Securities
and Exchange Commission does not recognize them. Inferred mineral resources
have a great amount of uncertainty as to their existence, and as to their
economic and legal feasibility. It cannot be assumed that all or any part of an
inferred mineral resource will ever be upgraded to a higher category. Under
Canadian rules, estimates of inferred mineral resources may not form the basis
of feasibility or other economic studies. United States investors are
cautioned not to assume that all or any part of measured or indicated mineral
resources will ever be converted into mineral reserves. United States investors
are also cautioned not to assume that all or any part of an inferred mineral
resource exists, or is economically or legally mineable.
- 1 -
DENISON MINES CORP. |
Managements Discussion and Analysis |
Year Ended December 31, 2014 |
(Expressed in U.S.
Dollars, unless otherwise noted) |
2014 HIGHLIGHTS
|
Discovery of a new area of high-grade uranium
mineralization on the Wheeler River Property Located three
kilometres northwest of the Phoenix Deposit, on the Companys 60% owned
Wheeler River property, the Gryphon Zone was discovered in early 2014 with
drill hole WR-556 intersecting high grade basement hosted uranium
mineralization returning 15.3% U3O8 over 4.0
metres. Drill hole WR-560 followed up on the discovery, intersecting 21.2%
U3O8 over 4.5 metres. The discovery was the focus of
further follow up during a summer drilling program consisting of 20 drill
holes and a total of 14,937 metres at Wheeler River. Highlights from the
summer drilling program include: drill hole WR-569A intersecting a wide
zone of alteration and mineralization with several high grade intervals,
including 13.2% U3O8 over 3.5 metres; drill
hole WR-573D1 intersecting 22.2% U3O8 over 2.5
metres; and drill hole WR-574 intersecting 14.6% U3O8
over 2.0 metres. |
|
|
|
Expansion of the Phoenix uranium deposit In June
2014, the Company updated its mineral resource estimate in accordance with
National Instrument 43-101 (NI 43-101), for the high grade Phoenix
uranium deposit on the Wheeler River property. After reporting several
high grade intersections during the winter exploration program, including
drill hole WR-548 that returned an assay of 36.8%
U3O8 over 6.5 metres, and the completion of an
updated resource estimate, the Company increased the quantity of indicated
pounds U3O8 by 34% over the previous mineral
resource estimate completed in 2012. The updated resource estimate
includes an indicated mineral resource of 70.2 million pounds
U3O8 (Denisons share, 42.1 million pounds
U3O8) based on 166,400 tonnes at an average grade
of 19.1% U3O8, and an inferred mineral resource of
1.1 million pounds U3O8 (Denisons share, 0.6
million pounds) based on 8,600 tonnes with an average grade of 5.8%
U3O8. In 2014, the Company also carried out a
metallurgical test program on samples from the Phoenix deposit. The
results were positive and indicated high rates of uranium recovery with
low acid consumption. |
|
|
|
Acquisition of 30% interest in the Mann Lake
exploration property In June 2014, the Company acquired all of the
issued and outstanding common shares of International Enexco Limited
(IEC) by way of a plan of arrangement, and as a result, acquired IECs
uranium exploration assets consisting of a 30% interest in the Mann Lake
property, located 25 kilometres southwest of the McArthur River mine, and
a 20% interest in Denisons Bachman Lake property. Exploration activity at
Mann Lake during early 2015 has produced the best result to date on the
property with drill hole MN-066-01 intersecting 9.8% eU3O8 over 3.5
metres. Partners in the Mann Lake project include Cameco Corp. (Cameco)
(52.5%) as the operator and AREVA Resources Canada Inc. (AREVA) (17.5%). |
|
|
|
Obtained financing for 2015 Canadian exploration
activities In August 2014, the Company completed a CAD$15.0 million
($13.7 million) bought deal private placement for the issuance of
9,257,500 flow-through common shares at a price of CAD$1.62 per share. The
proceeds are planned to fund Canadian exploration activities through to
the end of 2015. |
|
|
|
Toll milling of first ore from Cigar Lake at the
McClean Lake uranium mill During the year, modifications to the
leach circuit were completed and construction continued as part of the
expansion of the McClean Lake mill to an annual capacity of 24 million
pounds U3O8. In September 2014, the McClean Lake
mill officially restarted and began leaching McClean Lake ore slurry using
the newly commissioned modified leach circuit. Ore from the Cigar Lake
joint venture (CLJV) was introduced into the mill circuit later in
September, leading to the production of the first packaged uranium from
the CLJV in October. Production for 2014 amounted to approximately 344,000
pounds U3O8 for the CLJV and approximately 112,000
pounds U3O8 (Denisons share, 25,000 pounds U3O8)
for the McClean Lake joint venture (MLJV). |
|
|
|
Completed the acquisition of Rockgate Capital Corp.
(Rockgate) In January 2014, pursuant to a plan of arrangement, the
Company acquired the remaining 10.28% non-controlling interest in Rockgate
that it had not previously acquired under its takeover bid in 2013. Under
the plan of arrangement, the Company acquired the outstanding shares of
Rockgate that were not already owned by Denison in exchange for 0.192 of a
Denison common share for each Rockgate common share, resulting in the
issuance of an additional 2.3 million shares of Denison. The takeover of
Rockgate added $15.3 million in cash and investments, and bolstered the
Companys African portfolio of assets by adding the 100% owned Falea
uranium project in Mali. |
- 2 -
DENISON MINES CORP. |
Managements Discussion and Analysis |
Year Ended December 31, 2014 |
(Expressed in U.S.
Dollars, unless otherwise noted) |
ABOUT DENISON
Denison was formed under the laws of Ontario and is a reporting
issuer in all Canadian provinces. Denisons common shares are listed on the
Toronto Stock Exchange (the TSX) under the symbol DML and on the NYSE MKT
under the symbol DNN.
Denison is a uranium exploration and development company with
interests in exploration and development projects in Canada, Zambia, Mali,
Namibia and Mongolia. Including its 60% owned Wheeler project, which hosts the
high grade Phoenix uranium deposit, Denisons exploration project portfolio
consists of numerous projects covering over 467,000 hectares in the
eastern Athabasca Basin region of Saskatchewan. Denisons interests in
Saskatchewan also include a 22.5% ownership interest in the McClean Lake joint
venture, which includes several uranium deposits and the McClean Lake uranium
mill, which is currently processing ore from the Cigar Lake mine under a toll
milling agreement, plus a 25.17% interest in the Midwest deposit and a 60%
interest in the J Zone deposit on the Waterbury Lake property. Both the Midwest
and J Zone deposits are located within 20 kilometres of the McClean Lake mill.
Internationally, Denison owns 100% of the conventional heap leach Mutanga
project in Zambia, 100% of the uranium/copper/silver Falea project in Mali, a
90% interest in the Dome project in Namibia, and an 85% interest in the in-situ
recovery projects held by the Gurvan Saihan joint venture (GSJV) in Mongolia.
Denison is engaged in mine decommissioning and environmental
services through its Denison Environmental Services (DES) division, which
manages Denisons Elliot Lake reclamation projects and provides post-closure
mine and maintenance services to a variety of customers.
Denison is also the manager of Uranium Participation
Corporation (UPC), a publicly traded company listed on the TSX under the
symbol U, which invests in uranium oxide and uranium hexafluoride.
STRATEGY
Denison has built one of the strongest portfolios of strategic
uranium deposits and properties, including an interest in a uranium milling
facility, in the eastern Athabasca Basin. Denison plans to aggressively explore
its most prospective properties to expand existing resources and delineate new
uranium resources. The Company intends to increase shareholder value through
successful exploration programs and corporate development activities to position
the Company as a top-tier Athabasca Basin focused uranium industry investment.
URANIUM INDUSTRY INFORMATION
As a result of the Fukushima Daichii nuclear incident that
occurred in March 2011, nuclear reactor programs around the world were impacted
in varying degrees including the shutdown of all 54 reactors in Japan, the
planned phase out of nuclear power in Germany and the pause in nuclear plant
construction in China to reassess the plant and safety system designs. The
nuclear industry is beginning to show signs of recovery, with the planned
restart of a limited number of reactors in Japan expected in 2015, the
resumption of the Chinese nuclear program, and the announcement of new build
programs in the United Kingdom and Saudi Arabia. Nuclear power is one of the few
options available at scale to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions, while providing
or displacing other forms of base load power generation.
Uranium prices over the past year fell to levels not seen since
2005. Uranium producers responded to some degree to the downturn in uranium
price with the shutdown, or scaling back of production at numerous operations;
but production was still greater than demand, as suppliers continued to produce
and sell into higher-priced long term contracts.
Although uranium production is currently greater than demand,
the long term growth projections for the nuclear industry combined with the
depletion of uranium resources in operation today, means that new production
sources must be brought on stream, and higher uranium prices are necessary to
justify the construction of these facilities.
Uranium Demand
The World Nuclear Association reports that there are 437
nuclear reactors operable in 30 countries as of January 1, 2015. These reactors
can generate 377.7 gigawatts of electricity and supply approximately 11% of the
world's electrical requirements. At the present time, 70 nuclear reactors are
under construction in 14 countries with the principal drivers of this expansion being China (27 reactors
under construction), Russia (9), India (6), South Korea (5) and the United
States (5), which together have a total of 52 reactors under construction. Based
on the most recent statistics from the World Nuclear Association, there are a
total of 253 reactors that are either under construction, or planned around the
world.
- 3 -
DENISON MINES CORP. |
Managements Discussion and Analysis |
Year Ended December 31, 2014 |
(Expressed in U.S.
Dollars, unless otherwise noted) |
According to the International Energy Agencys World Energy
Outlook 2014 global nuclear power capacity is projected to increase by over
60%, from 377.7 gigawatts to over 620 gigawatts in 2040. Of the growth in
nuclear generation, China accounts for 45%, while India, Korea and Russia
collectively make up a further 30%. Ux Consulting Company, LLC (UxCo), in its
Uranium Market Outlook Q4 2014 (the Q4 Outlook), estimated that, by 2030
uranium demand will grow to 266.0 million pounds U3O8 from 167.5 million pounds
U3O8 in 2014.
Primary Uranium Supply
Due to the falling uranium price in 2014, uranium production
declined year over year from 154.3 million pounds U3O8 in 2013 to 146.0 million
pounds U3O8 in 2014, which is a reversal of the increasing production trend seen
over the past several years. From 2004 to 2014, annual uranium production
increased from about 100.0 million pounds U3O8 to
146.0 million pounds U3O8. The primary source of the
increase has been Kazakhstan, where production has increased from 9.7 million
pounds U3O8 in 2004 to 59.3 million pounds U3O8 in 2014.
UxCo has estimated in its Q4 Outlook that existing mine
production plus new planned and potential mine production will increase primary
uranium supply from 146.0 million pounds U3O8 in
2014 to 187.9 million pounds U3O8 in 2025. Kazahstan
is expected to continue as one of the principal drivers for the increase in
primary mine production and is projected to increase production by about 8%
between 2014 and 2025. Two major production centres are projected to be Cigar
Lake in Canada, which began production in 2014, and Husab in Namibia, which is
being built by a Chinese utility as a source of captive supply and is projected
to start production in 2016. For other projects to move forward to meet the
production forecasts, uranium prices will need to increase appreciably to
support the higher cost production profile of these projects and the significant
capital expenditures that will be required.
Secondary Uranium Supply
Primary mine production supplies approximately 85% of current
demand. The balance of demand is supplied from secondary sources such as
commercial inventories, reprocessing of spent fuel, enricher uranium sales and
inventories held by governments, in particular the U.S. Department of Energy.
Excess commercial inventories, which were once one of the major
sources of secondary supplies during the period from the early 1970s to the
early 2000s, have largely been consumed; however, as a result of the shutdown of
the German nuclear program and the continued shut down of the Japanese nuclear
fleet, commercial inventories could become more of a factor. A larger source of
secondary supplies continues to be government inventories, particularly in the
U.S. and Russia. The disposition of these inventories may have a market impact
over the next 10 to 20 years, although the rate and timing of this material
entering the market is uncertain.
Reprocessing of spent fuel is another source of secondary
supply but is expected to satisfy only 3% to 4% of demand. Expansion of this
secondary source would require major investments in facilities which could only
be supported by a significant increase in long-term uranium prices.
UxCo expects that secondary sources of supply will fall from
2014 levels of 44.7 million pounds U3O8 per year to
27.9 million pounds U3O8 per year by 2025.
Uranium Prices
Nuclear utilities purchase uranium primarily through long-term
contracts. These contracts usually provide for deliveries to begin two to four
years after they are signed and provide for delivery from four to ten years
thereafter. In awarding medium and long-term contracts, electric utilities
consider the producers uranium reserves, record of performance and production
cost profile, in addition to the commercial terms offered. Prices are
established by a number of methods, including base prices adjusted by inflation
indices, reference prices (generally spot price indicators, but also long-term
reference prices) and annual price negotiations. Contracts may also contain
annual volume flexibility, floor prices, ceiling prices and other negotiated
provisions. Under these contracts, the actual price mechanisms are usually
confidential.
- 4 -
DENISON MINES CORP. |
Managements Discussion and Analysis |
Year Ended December 31, 2014 |
(Expressed in U.S.
Dollars, unless otherwise noted) |
Long-term demand is affected in a large part by utilities
uncovered requirements. Uncovered demand is projected to increase significantly
over the period of 2016 to 2018. UxCo estimates that uncovered demand in 2015
will only be 6.7 million pounds U3O8, but will increase to 17.6 million pounds
U3O8 in 2016 and up to 49.4 million pounds U3O8 in 2018, which should result in
increased contract activity in 2015 and into 2016.
The long-term price is published on a monthly basis and began
the year at $50.00 per pound U3O8. It declined to $44.00 per pound U3O8 at the
end of July 2014 and then rose to $49.00 per pound U3O8 at the end of the year.
Long term contracting volumes were up compared to 2013, but were still much
lower than those seen over the past ten years.
Electric utilities procure their remaining uranium requirements
through spot and near-term purchases from uranium producers, traders and other
suppliers. Historically, spot prices are more volatile than long-term prices.
The spot price began the year at $34.50 per pound U3O8. It rose to $35.50 per
pound U3O8 during the beginning of the year and then declined to $28.25 per
pound U3O8 by May 2014. The last time the uranium price was at these levels was
April 2005. The spot price started to climb again later in the summer months and
ended 2014 at $35.50 per pound U3O8. The spot price continued to rise steadily
during the first two months of 2015 and was last quoted at $39.25 per pound U3O8 on March 2, 2015.
Competition
The uranium industry is small compared to other commodity
industries, in particular other energy commodity industries. Uranium demand is
international in scope, but supply is characterized by a relatively small number
of companies operating in only a few countries. Production by four producers
accounted for approximately 64% of the estimated world production in 2014. In
total, nine producers represent 87.6% of the worlds production. The industry is
also geographically concentrated with about 73% of the worlds production coming
from only four countries, namely Kazakhstan, Canada, Australia and Niger.
Kazakhstan is the largest producer, with production of approximately 41% of the
total primary production in 2014.
SELECTED ANNUAL FINANCIAL INFORMATION
|
|
As at
|
|
|
As at
|
|
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
(in thousands) |
|
2014
|
|
|
2013
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Financial Position: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
$ |
18,640 |
|
$ |
21,786 |
|
Short term investments |
|
4,381 |
|
|
10,040 |
|
Long term investments |
|
954 |
|
|
5,901 |
|
Cash, equivalents and investments |
$ |
23,975 |
|
$ |
37,727 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Working capital |
$ |
22,542 |
|
$ |
29,391 |
|
Property, plant and equipment |
$ |
270,388 |
|
$ |
281,010 |
|
Total assets |
$ |
311,330 |
|
$ |
330,969 |
|
Total long-term liabilities |
$ |
42,291 |
|
$ |
41,283 |
|
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
(in thousands,
except for per share amounts) |
|
2014
|
|
|
2013
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Results of Operations: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues |
$ |
9,619 |
|
$ |
10,407 |
|
Net income (loss) |
$ |
(31,703 |
) |
$ |
(83,835 |
) |
Basic and diluted earnings (loss) per share |
$ |
(0.06 |
) |
$ |
(0.19 |
) |
- 5 -
DENISON MINES CORP. |
Managements Discussion and Analysis |
Year Ended December 31, 2014 |
(Expressed in U.S.
Dollars, unless otherwise noted) |
|
|
2014
|
|
|
2014
|
|
|
2014
|
|
|
2014
|
|
(in thousands,
except for per share amounts) |
|
Q4
|
|
|
Q3
|
|
|
Q2
|
|
|
Q1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Results of Operations: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues |
$ |
2,736 |
|
$ |
2,351 |
|
$ |
2,358 |
|
$ |
2,174 |
|
Net income (loss) |
$ |
(4,652 |
) |
$ |
(2,820 |
) |
$ |
(11,564 |
) |
$ |
(12,667 |
) |
Basic and diluted earnings (loss) per share |
$ |
(0.01 |
) |
$ |
(0.01 |
) |
$ |
(0.02 |
) |
$ |
(0.03 |
) |
|
|
2013
|
|
|
2013
|
|
|
2013
|
|
|
2013
|
|
(in thousands,
except for per share amounts) |
|
Q4
|
|
|
Q3
|
|
|
Q2
|
|
|
Q1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Results of Operations: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenues |
$ |
2,413 |
|
$ |
2,801 |
|
$ |
2,902 |
|
$ |
2,291 |
|
Net income (loss) |
$ |
(30,459 |
) |
$ |
(45,477 |
) |
$ |
(2,430 |
) |
$ |
(5,469 |
) |
Basic and diluted earnings (loss) per share |
$ |
(0.06 |
) |
$ |
(0.10 |
) |
$ |
(0.01 |
) |
$ |
(0.01 |
) |
RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Revenues
Canada
The Companys share of toll milling revenues from processing
Cigar Lake ore at the McClean Lake mill during the fourth quarter of 2014
totaled $111,000. The first drums of CLJV uranium were packaged in early October
2014. There was no production in 2013.
Services and Other
Revenue from DES in 2014 was $7,327,000, compared to $8,763,000
in 2013. The decrease in revenue in 2014 was due to a reduction in activity on
certain care and maintenance projects, and an unfavourable fluctuation in
foreign exchange rates applicable on the translation of Canadian dollar
revenues.
Revenue from the Companys management contract with UPC was
$2,181,000 in 2014, compared to $1,644,000 in 2013. Revenue increased during
2014 mainly due to commissions earned during the year on UPCs purchases of
uranium, partly offset by an unfavourable fluctuation in foreign exchange rates
applicable on the translation of Canadian dollar revenues.
Operating Expenses
Canada
Mining, Milling and Other Development Costs
McClean Lake is comprised of several uranium deposits and a
conventional mill and is located on the eastern edge of the Athabasca Basin in
northern Saskatchewan, approximately 750 kilometres north of Saskatoon. The
McClean Lake uranium mill is one of the worlds largest uranium processing
facilities. Expansion activities and modifications at the McClean Lake mill
continued throughout 2014 with the CLJV continuing to pay nearly all of the
expenses under the terms of a toll milling agreement. Construction and
commissioning of the Hydrogen Mitigation modifications were completed during the
third quarter of 2014. In September 2014, the McClean Lake mill was officially
restarted with leaching of McClean Lake ore using the newly commissioned
modified leach circuit. The first shipment of high grade ore from Cigar Lake was
received at the McClean Lake mill in the first quarter of 2014, followed by a
temporary suspension of ore shipments by the CLJV to allow for additional
freezing to occur in certain areas of the Cigar Lake mine. Ore deliveries to the
mill resumed during the first week of September and high grade ore was
introduced into the mill circuit towards the end of September.
The first drums of CLJV uranium were packaged in early October.
A total of approximately 344,000 pounds U3O8 was
produced for the CLJV and approximately 112,000 pounds
U3O8 was produced for the MLJV. Denisons share of
uranium production from MLJV ore was approximately 25,000 pounds
U3O8, at a production cost of CAD$19.71 per pound U3O8, and is planned to be
available for sale in 2015. Production costs include stockpile depletion, the
costs of milling and depreciation of mill capital assets.
- 6 -
DENISON MINES CORP. |
Managements Discussion and Analysis |
Year Ended December 31, 2014 |
(Expressed in U.S.
Dollars, unless otherwise noted) |
Operating costs in Canada were mainly related to development
and standby activities at the MLJV, with Denisons share of costs during the
year amounting to $541,000, compared to $958,000 in 2013. Operating costs
decreased in 2014 primarily due to reductions in expenditures on the Surface
Access Borehole Resource Extraction (SABRE) program, which is not part of the
stand-by costs paid by the CLJV.
Reclamation Liability Adjustments
The estimates of future reclamation liabilities for asset
decommissioning and site restoration are updated on a periodic basis. The
adjustment recorded within operating expenses in the fourth quarter of 2014 was
$2,086,000, as compared to a recovery of $1,645,000 in the fourth quarter of
2013. The adjustment relates primarily to the impact of changing discount rates
on the reclamation liability at Elliot Lake. Refer to Contractual Obligations
and Contingencies Section for further detail.
Africa
Operating expenses in Africa during 2014 and fourth quarter of
2013 were primarily related to costs incurred on the Falea project in Mali.
Engineering studies, a metallurgical test work program and environmental
programs, originally initiated by Rockgate, continued during the fourth quarter
of 2013 and were completed in the first half of 2014. The Companys expenditures
in Mali during 2014 and 2013 totaled $1,287,000 and $431,000, respectively.
Services and Other
Operating expenses in 2014 include costs relating to DES
totaling $6,917,000, compared to $8,077,000 in 2013. Costs related to DES
decreased in 2014 mainly due to a reduction in activity at certain care and
maintenance sites, and a favourable fluctuation in foreign exchange rates
applicable on the translation of Canadian dollar expenses.
Mineral Property Exploration
Denison is engaged in uranium exploration and/or development in
Canada, Zambia, Mali, Namibia and Mongolia. While the Company has material
interests in uranium projects in Asia and Africa, the Company is focused
primarily on the eastern Athabasca Basin, in Saskatchewan, Canada, with numerous
projects covering over 467,000 hectares. Global exploration expenditures were
$14,795,000 in 2014, with 91% of exploration expenditures being incurred in
Canada during the year, compared to global exploration expenditures of
$13,682,000 in 2013. The increase in global exploration expenditures in 2014 is
due to an increase in exploration activity in Canada.
- 7 -
DENISON MINES CORP. |
Managements Discussion and Analysis |
Year Ended December 31, 2014 |
(Expressed in U.S.
Dollars, unless otherwise noted) |
Canada
The Companys land position in the eastern Athabasca Basin, as
of December 31, 2014, is illustrated below:
- 8 -
DENISON MINES CORP. |
Managements Discussion and Analysis |
Year Ended December 31, 2014 |
(Expressed in U.S.
Dollars, unless otherwise noted) |
Denisons share of exploration spending on its Canadian
properties was $13,488,000 during 2014, as compared to $12,019,000 in 2013. The
following exploration activities were completed during the year ended December
31, 2014.
Canadian Exploration Activities
Property |
Denisons ownership |
Drilling in metres |
Other activities |
Wheeler River
|
60%
|
29,591 (47 holes)
|
Geophysical surveys, mineral
resource estimate, metallurgical studies |
Bachman Lake |
100% |
1,194 (2 holes) |
- |
Bell Lake |
100% |
6,180 (11 holes) |
Geophysical surveys |
Black Bear |
100% |
450 (2 holes) |
- |
Candle Lake |
43.81%(1) |
- |
Geophysical surveys |
Crawford Lake |
100% |
2,995 (5 holes) |
Geophysical surveys |
Hatchet Lake |
58.06%(1) |
2,030 (10 holes) |
- |
Johnston Lake |
100% |
- |
Geophysical surveys |
Lynx Lake |
58.42%(1) |
710 (1 hole) |
- |
Mann Lake |
30% |
9,838 (13 holes)(2) |
- |
Marten |
50% |
- |
Geophysical surveys |
McClean Lake |
22.5% |
2,515 (9 holes) |
- |
Murphy Lake |
58.94%(1) |
- |
Geophysical surveys |
Moore Lake |
100% |
4,100 (10 holes) |
Geophysical surveys |
Park Creek |
49% |
1,910 (6 holes) |
Geophysical surveys |
Waterbury Lake |
60% |
3,100 (9 holes) |
Geophysical surveys |
Wolverine |
50% |
- |
Geophysical surveys |
Wolly |
22.5% |
3,130 (17 holes) |
-
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
67,743 (142 holes) |
|
(1) |
The Companys ownership in these projects is as at
December 31, 2014. Certain partners in these projects may not fund the
2015 programs and as a result, Denisons interest may increase. |
|
|
(2) |
Exploration activities were carried out prior to
Denisons acquisition of IEC on June 6, 2014. |
- 9 -
DENISON MINES CORP. |
Managements Discussion and Analysis |
Year Ended December 31, 2014 |
(Expressed in U.S.
Dollars, unless otherwise noted) |
Wheeler River
The Wheeler River property lies between the McArthur River Mine
and the Key Lake mill complex in the Athabasca Basin in northern Saskatchewan,
in close proximity to existing mining and milling infrastructure. Denison is the
operator and holds a 60% interest in the project. Cameco holds a 30% interest
and JCU (Canada) Exploration Company, Limited (JCU) holds the remaining 10%
interest. Denisons share of exploration costs at Wheeler River amounted to
$4,543,000 during 2014, compared to $3,981,000 in 2013.
Gryphon Zone
The Gryphon zone, located approximately three kilometres
northwest of the Phoenix deposit, was discovered as a result of drilling
activity targeting the K-North trend on the Wheeler River property as part of
the 2014 winter exploration program. The discovery drill hole, WR-556,
intersected 15.3% U3O8 over 4.0 metres, and was followed up by drill hole
WR-560, intersecting 21.2% U3O8 over 4.5 metres.
The 2014 summer drilling program at Wheeler River focused on
further follow up at Gryphon. A total of 14,937 metres was completed in 20 drill
holes during the summer 2014 drill program. Highlights from the summer program
included drill holes WR-569A, WR-573D1 and WR-574. As the drill holes are angled
steeply to the northwest and the mineralization is interpreted to dip moderately
to the southeast, the true thickness is expected to be approximately 75% of the
intersection length.
Gryphon Zone - 2014 Drilling Highlights
|
|
Chemical Assay |
|
Hole Number |
From (m) |
To (m) |
Length (m) |
U3O8
(%) |
WR-556 |
697.5 |
701.5 |
4.0 |
15.3 |
WR-560 |
759.0 |
763.5 |
4.5 |
21.2 |
WR-569A |
680.0 |
683.5 |
3.5 |
13.2 |
and |
693.0 |
694.0 |
1.0 |
12.4 |
WR-573D1 |
768.0 |
770.5 |
2.5 |
22.2 |
WR-574 |
696.5 |
698.5 |
2.0 |
14.6 |
Drill hole WR-569A is located 40 metres along strike southwest
and 40 metres up dip of drill hole WR-556, and intersected a wide zone of
alteration and mineralization with several high grade intervals. Drill hole
WR-573D1, the highest grade intersection to date at Gryphon, is particularly
significant as it extended the zone of mineralization in the down plunge
direction.
The Gryphon discovery is believed to consist of multiple
stacked lenses with variable thicknesses that plunge to the northeast. It is
considered a highly prospective uranium discovery and has the potential to
significantly increase the resource base at Wheeler River. Mineralization at
Gryphon is hosted in basement gneisses and occurs from 100 to 250 metres below
the sub-Athabasca unconformity. The zone is 350 metres long (along the plunge)
by 60 metres wide (across the plunge) at the end of 2014, and remains open in
both plunge directions.
- 10 -
DENISON MINES CORP. |
Managements Discussion and Analysis |
Year Ended December 31, 2014 |
(Expressed in U.S.
Dollars, unless otherwise noted) |
The figure below shows the location of the Gryphon zone drill
holes to date, on an inclined longitudinal section.
Phoenix Deposit
During the winter exploration program, a total of 11 drill
holes were completed at Zone A of the Phoenix deposit, which focused on
expanding the zone of higher grade mineralization. The program was successful
and was highlighted by drill hole WR-548 intersecting 36.83% U3O8 over 6.5
metres. Since all the drill holes were vertical and the mineralization is
approximately horizontal, the intersection lengths are generally equal to the
true thickness. Selected drilling highlights are shown in the table and figure
below.
Phoenix Deposit Zone A - 2014 Drilling Highlights
|
|
Chemical Assay |
|
Hole Number |
From (m) |
To (m) |
Length (m) |
U3O8 (%)
|
WR-539 |
400.0 |
405.0 |
5.0 |
13.12 |
WR-545 |
401.7 |
405.2 |
3.5 |
24.47 |
WR-548 |
406.8 |
413.3 |
6.5 |
36.83 |
WR-550 |
406.2 |
410.2 |
4.0 |
29.32 |
WR-555 |
404.5 |
407.5 |
3.0 |
15.99 |
- 11 -
DENISON MINES CORP. |
Managements Discussion and Analysis |
Year Ended December 31, 2014 |
(Expressed in U.S.
Dollars, unless otherwise noted) |
An updated mineral resource estimate was completed in June
2014, in accordance with the requirements of NI 43-101. Since the previous
mineral resource estimate in 2012, the Company completed 25 drill holes at
Phoenix to convert inferred mineral resources to indicated, and to extend higher
grade portions of the deposit. The Company reported an indicated mineral
resource estimate for the Phoenix deposit of 70.2 million pounds U3O8,
representing a 34% increase in indicated pounds U3O8 over the last estimate
completed in 2012. Additionally, the total inferred mineral resource is now
estimated to contain 1.1 million pounds U3O8. The following table summarizes the
mineral resource estimate by classification.
2014 Phoenix Mineral Resource Estimate Summary
(1)
Category |
Tonnes |
Grade (%
U3O8) |
Million lbs
U3O8
(100% Basis) |
Million lbs
U3O8
(Denisons Share) |
Indicated |
166,400 |
19.13 |
70.2 |
42.1 |
Inferred |
8,600 |
5.80
|
1.1
|
0.6
|
(1) |
Denisons Technical Report on a Mineral Resource
Estimate Update for the Phoenix Uranium Deposit, Wheeler River Project,
Eastern Athabasca Basin, Northern Saskatchewan, Canada dated June 17,
2014, in accordance with the requirements of NI 43-101, was prepared by
William E. Roscoe, Ph.D. P. Eng. of Roscoe Postle Associates Inc., who is
an independent Qualified Person as defined by NI 43-101 and is
responsible for the mineral resource estimate. |
In 2014, the Company also carried out a metallurgical test
program on samples from the Phoenix deposit. The results were positive and
indicated high rates of uranium recovery with low acid consumption.
Mineralization at Phoenix occurs 400 metres below surface and shares many
similarities with other unconformity related Athabasca uranium deposits.
Mineralization varies from disseminated to massive, with several very high grade
drill hole intersections including WR-525, which averaged 43.8% U3O8 over an
interpreted true thickness of 12.0 metres.
- 12 -
DENISON MINES CORP. |
Managements Discussion and Analysis |
Year Ended December 31, 2014 |
(Expressed in U.S.
Dollars, unless otherwise noted) |
Other Properties
In 2014, the Company managed or participated in 17 other
exploration programs in the Athabasca Basin (14 operated by Denison), including
12 drilling programs (9 operated by Denison). Developments at the Companys high
priority projects are discussed below.
Bachman Lake and Crawford Lake Exploration costs
during 2014 totaled $1,613,000 at both properties, compared to $377,000 during
2013. A total of 4,189 metres of drilling was completed in seven holes at both
properties. Targets were a combination of new geophysical targets and follow-ups
from previous drilling results that had intersected significant alteration
zones. Although no significant mineralization was intersected, the drilling was
successful in extending a large zone of sandstone and basement alteration,
roughly along trend to the south of Camecos Millennium deposit. Crawford Lake
and Bachman Lake are located just west of Wheeler River in the southeast
Athabasca Basin.
Bell Lake Exploration costs of $1,365,000 were
incurred during 2014, compared to $529,000 in 2013. 11 drill holes were
completed during the winter program. Weak uranium mineralization was intersected
in several holes, with the best down-hole probe results from drill hole
BL-14-22, which intersected 0.028% eU3O8 over 2.5 metres from 517.1 to 519.6
metres at the sub-Athabasca unconformity, including 0.065% eU3O8 over 0.6 metres
in a massive clay and hematite altered zone. Follow up drilling is planned for
2015 (2,600 metres, 4 drill holes). Bell Lake is located along the Athabasca
seasonal road, 37 kilometres northwest of the McClean Lake mill.
Hatchet Lake During 2014, exploration costs amounted
to $662,000, compared to $425,000 during 2013. A 2,030 metre, 10 hole diamond
drilling program was completed. A broad zone of weak uranium mineralization was
observed near the unconformity in drill hole RL-14-19, which intersected 0.025%
U3O8 over 8.5 metres from 124.2 to 132.7 metres. Additionally, significant base
metal mineralization comprised of 3.3% Pb, 0.27% Zn and 19.6 g/t Ag over 9.6
metres was intersected in drill hole RL-14-27 from 148.0 to 163.4 metres.
Additional drilling is planned for 2015 (2,000 metres, 8 drill holes). Hatchet
Lake is located 16 kilometres north of the McClean Lake mill and is a joint
venture with Anthem Resources Inc. (41.94% interest).
Mann Lake After the acquisition of IEC in June 2014,
Denisons share of exploration costs at Mann Lake during 2014 were $19,000. The
2014 drilling program operated by Cameco was largely carried out before
Denisons acquisition of IEC and was highlighted by drill hole MN-060, which
intersected high grade uranium mineralization consisting of 2.94% U3O8 over 4.8
metres at the sub-Athabasca unconformity. This was followed by drill hole
MN-065, which intersected 4.8% U3O8 over 1.0 metres. As the drill holes are
oriented steeply and the mineralization is approximately horizontal, the true
thickness is expected to be at least 80% of the intersection lengths. Mann Lake
is located 25 kilometres southwest of the McArthur River mine and is on trend
between the Wheeler River project and Camecos Read Lake project in the eastern
Athabasca Basin, and is a joint venture with Cameco (52.5% interest) and AREVA
(17.5% interest).
Moore Lake Exploration costs totaled
$1,267,000 during 2014, compared to $1,455,000 in 2013. A 4,100 metre, 10 hole
diamond drilling program was completed with no significant mineralization
intersected. A program of geophysics (electromagnetic and DC-resistivity
surveying) was also completed during the winter to aid in the selection of drill
targets for the 2015 drill program. Moore Lake is located 11 kilometres
southeast of Wheeler River.
Waterbury Lake Exploration costs in 2014 amounted to
$704,000, compared to $848,000 during 2013. Exploration drilling was completed
along the western strike extension of the Discovery Bay corridor, west of the J
Zone uranium deposit and also at the Oban target area, three kilometres north of
the J Zone deposit. Weak uranium mineralization was intersected in one drill
hole in the Discovery Bay corridor and in two drill holes at the Oban target
area. The best down-hole probe result was WAT14-406A at Oban, which intersected
0.09% eU3O8 over 3.0 metres from 250 to 253 metres at the sub-Athabasca
unconformity. The mineralization is associated with graphitic fault zones and
strong hydrothermal alteration. Denison is encouraged by these results as the
zone is open along strike in both directions. Waterbury Lake is located 10
kilometres west of the McClean Lake mill.
Wolly At the Wolly project operated by
AREVA, a total of 3,130 metres of exploration drilling was completed in 17 drill
holes. Denisons share of exploration costs in 2014 totaled $204,000, compared
to $159,000 in 2013. The most notable results included significant alteration
and structure in both the sandstone and basement at the JEB South target area,
approximately 2 kilometres from the McClean Lake mill. Wolly is a joint venture
with AREVA (62.90% interest) and JCU (14.60% interest).
- 13 -
DENISON MINES CORP. |
Managements Discussion and Analysis |
Year Ended December 31, 2014 |
(Expressed in U.S.
Dollars, unless otherwise noted) |
Africa
After completing the acquisition of Rockgate in early 2014, the
Company carried out an internal reorganization of its interests to consolidate
its African holdings under a single wholly owned Canadian subsidiary. The
reorganization simplifies the Company's intercompany relationships in
preparation for a spin-out or disposal transaction of the African portfolio,
which will be pursued when market conditions permit.
Zambia
The Mutanga Project area consists of 2 contiguous claims
totaling 47,115 hectares, which is situated in the Southern Province of Zambia,
approximately 200 kilometres south of Lusaka immediately north of Lake Kariba.
Mutanga is comprised of the Mutanga, Dibwe and Dibwe East deposits plus a number
of exploration areas. Uranium occurs in sandstones of the Escarpment Grit
formation, part of the Upper Karoo Group.
Exploration expenditures of $559,000 during 2014 related to
geological mapping, geochemical sampling and excavator trenching programs. The
Company plans to continue such activities through 2015, with a focus on
generating additional exploration targets. During 2013, exploration expenditures
totaled $1,066,000, in which soil geochemical surveying, radon sampling
programs, and a 1,900 kilometre line-helicopter-borne electromagnetic
geophysical survey were completed.
Mali
Falea is a uranium, silver and copper deposit located in Mali
within the Falea -- North Guinea -- Senegal Neoproterozoic Basin, overlying
older Birimian metasedimentary and metavolcanic rocks. The project is located
approximately 250 kilometres west of Bamako, near the Senegal and Guinea
borders.
Exploration expenditures of $269,000 were incurred in 2014,
with activity being limited to a modest field program consisting of geological
mapping and surficial geochemistry orientation surveys. These programs were
completed during the second quarter of the year. During the fourth quarter of
2013, minimal exploration expenditures of $39,000 were spent on Falea after
acquiring the property from Rockgate. In early 2015, the Company submitted an
application for a new exploration license to the authorities in Mali, to allow
exploration activity to continue at Falea.
Namibia
The Dome project is located in the Erongo Region of Namibia, in
the countrys uranium producing district, with excellent infrastructure nearby.
The property hosts discoveries of both bedrock uranium mineralization in
leucogranite and surficial uranium mineralization in calcrete. Uranium in
leucogranite is currently mined in the region at the Rössing mine and uranium in
calcrete is currently mined at Langer Heinrich.
In March 2014, Rio Tinto Mining and Exploration Limited (Rio)
terminated its option to earn an interest in the Dome project under the
provisions of an earn-in agreement between the parties. Rio discontinued
activities at the site at the end of February 2014. The Company assumed
operatorship of the project and continues to evaluate options for moving
forward.
Mongolia
The GSJV was created in 1994 to explore and develop
sediment-hosted uranium deposits, with focus on deposits that can be exploited
by in situ recovery, in the south Gobi region of Mongolia. The property holds a
total of 167,260 hectares in four licenses. The Company currently has an 85%
interest in the GSJV, with Mon-Atom LLC holding the remaining 15% interest.
Exploration expenditures on the GSJV properties totaled
$394,000 in 2014, compared to $550,000 in 2013. Expenditures during the year
primarily relate to annual license payments required to maintain the GSJV
properties in good standing, while the Company continues to explore strategic
alternatives regarding its ownership interest in the GSJV. In 2013, the Company
focused on completing field programs and studies necessary to convert the
Companys exploration licences to mining licences.
- 14 -
DENISON MINES CORP. |
Managements Discussion and Analysis |
Year Ended December 31, 2014 |
(Expressed in U.S.
Dollars, unless otherwise noted) |
General and Administrative
General and administrative expenses totaled $7,590,000 in 2014,
compared with $8,167,000 in 2013. These costs are mainly comprised of head
office wages and benefits, office costs in multiple regions, audit and
regulatory costs, legal fees, investor relations expenses and all other costs
related to operating a public company with listings in Canada and the United
States. General and administrative expenses decreased in 2014 mainly due to
lower legal fees, public compliance costs and office expenses, slightly offset
by an increase in insurance premiums and special projects costs.
Impairment Mineral Properties
In 2014, the Company recognized mineral property impairment
charges of $1,745,000, including impairment charges of $1,658,000 associated
with the Companys release of its Black Lake land holdings in Canada during the
first quarter, and $87,000 associated with the Companys surrender of its Telwa
Gada land holdings in Niger during the fourth quarter.
In 2013, the Company recognized mineral property impairment
charges of $47,099,000. The Company reduced the carrying value of the Mutanga
project in Zambia to its estimated recoverable amount by recognizing impairments
charges of $35,655,000 and $10,510,000 in the third and fourth quarters,
respectively. The Company also recognized an impairment charge of $934,000,
during the fourth quarter of 2013, in respect of the Companys decision to
release its Riou Lake land holdings in Canada.
Other Income and Expenses
The Company recognized other expenses of $7,558,000 during
2014, compared to $529,000 during 2013. The increase in other expenses is
primarily due to an increase in foreign exchange losses due to unfavourable
fluctuations in foreign exchange rates, partially offset by the gain on sale of
land holdings related to the Way Lake and Yurchison Lake properties of $202,000,
and a payment received of $229,000 from Strateco Resources Inc. in accordance
with the option agreement that entitles the optionee to earn up to a 60%
interest in Denisons Jasper Lake property (the Jasper Option Agreement).
During the year, the Jasper Option Agreement was assigned to SeqUr Exploration
Inc. (SeqUr). In February 2015, SeqUr notified the Company that it intends to
terminate its option to earn an interest in the Jasper Lake property.
Income Tax Recovery and Expense
Income tax recovery in 2014 totaled $2,299,000, compared to an
income tax expense of $15,422,000 in 2013. The income tax recovery in 2014 is
based on the reversal of various deferred tax liabilities during the year as the
Companys tax basis in Canada increases relative to the Companys carrying value
for accounting purposes.
In 2013, the income tax expense was driven by a one-time
non-cash deferred income tax expense of $18,410,000 resulting from the
substantive enactment of changes to the Crown Mineral Royalty Regulations (the
Regulations) in Saskatchewan. The changes in the Regulations resulted in a new
uranium mining royalty system, in which a component of the system constitutes an
income-based tax and is within the scope of IAS 12. The tax basis available to
the Company under this system is significantly less than the carrying value
associated with the assets that will be subject to the royalty in future years,
resulting in a significant deferred tax liability and the charge to deferred tax
expense recorded by the Company in 2013.
LIQUIDITY AND CAPITAL RESOURCES
Cash and cash equivalents were $18,640,000 at December 31, 2014
compared with $21,786,000 at December 31, 2013. The decrease of $3,146,000 was
primarily due to net cash used in operations of $23,500,000 and a net foreign
exchange loss of $2,001,000 on the translation of currency balances at period
end, offset in part by net cash provided by investing and financing activities
of $8,212,000 and $14,143,000, respectively.
Net cash used in operating activities of $23,500,000 during
2014 is comprised of a net loss for the period adjusted for non-cash items and
changes in working capital items. Significant changes in working capital items
during the period include an increase of $5,310,000 in trade and other
receivables, offset by an increase of $2,102,000 in accounts payable and accrued
liabilities. The increase in trade and other receivables and the increase in
accounts payable and accrued liabilities are mainly due to the increase in
activity in the MLJV related to operations at the McClean Lake mill.
- 15 -
DENISON MINES CORP. |
Managements Discussion and Analysis |
Year Ended December 31, 2014 |
(Expressed in U.S.
Dollars, unless otherwise noted) |
Net cash provided by investing activities of $8,212,000
consists primarily of cash provided by the maturity of investments in debt
instruments accounting for $9,529,000, partly offset by $859,000 in cash spent
on property, plant and equipment.
Net cash provided by financing activities of $14,143,000
consists primarily of net proceeds received on the issuance of 9,257,500 common
shares on a flow-through basis, pursuant to a private placement at a price of
CAD$1.62 per share. As at December 31, 2014, the Company estimates it has spent
CAD$1.2 million of its obligation under the flow-through share financing on
eligible Canadian exploration expenses and the remaining balance of CAD$13.8
million is expected to be incurred by December 31, 2015. Other financing
activities included the issuance of common shares on the exercise of stock
options and warrants for $946,000 and $405,000, respectively.
Cash, equivalents and investments declined by $7,834,000 during
the fourth quarter of 2014. The decrease in the quarter was amplified by a
reduction of $4,909,000 in the Companys share of cash held in the MLJV as part
of regular working capital movements, and a reduction of $764,000 due to
unfavourable movement in exchange rates on instruments denominated in foreign
currencies. As the large majority of the Companys future expenditures are
expected to be incurred in Canadian dollars, the foreign exchange movement is
not expected to have a material impact on the Companys financial position.
On January 31, 2014, the Company entered into a revolving term
credit facility (the 2014 Credit Facility) with the Bank of Nova Scotia for
CAD$15,000,000. The use of the 2014 Credit Facility was restricted to the
issuance of non-financial letters of credit and contained a covenant to maintain
a certain level of tangible net worth, which must be greater than or equal to
$150,000,000. As at December 31, 2014, the Company was in compliance with the
covenants of the 2014 Credit Facility, and CAD$9,698,000 of the 2014 Credit
Facility was being used as collateral for certain letters of credit. Letters of
credit issued under the 2014 Credit Facility were subject to a fee of 2.0% per
annum and the balance is subject to a standby fee of 0.75% .
On January 30, 2015, the Company entered into an amended
agreement (the 2015 Credit Facility) with the Bank of Nova Scotia to amend the
terms of the 2014 Credit Facility and extend the maturity date to January 31,
2016. See SUBSEQUENT EVENTS section for further detail.
As security for both the 2014 Credit Facility and 2015 Credit
Facility, the Company provided an unlimited full recourse guarantee and a pledge
of all of the shares of Denison Mines Inc. (DMI). DMI has provided a
first-priority security interest in all present and future personal property and
an assignment of its rights and interests under all material agreements relative
to the McClean Lake and Midwest projects.
Contractual Obligations and Contingencies
The Company has the following contractual obligations at
December 31, 2014:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
After
|
|
(in
thousands) |
|
Total |
|
|
1
Year |
|
|
2-3
Years |
|
|
4-5
Years |
|
|
5
Years |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Debt Obligations |
$ |
39 |
|
$ |
30 |
|
$ |
9 |
|
$ |
|
|
$ |
|
|
Operating Lease and Other Obligations |
$ |
473 |
|
$ |
269 |
|
$ |
186 |
|
$ |
18 |
|
$ |
|
|
Reclamation Liability
The Company periodically reviews the anticipated costs of
decommissioning and reclaiming its mill and mine sites as part of its
environmental planning process. The mill and mine reclamation estimates at
December 31, 2014 are $17,659,000 which are expected to be sufficient to cover
the projected future costs for reclamation of the mill and mine operations.
However, there can be no assurance that the ultimate cost of such reclamation
obligations will not exceed the estimated liability contained in the Companys
financial statements.
Elliot Lake The Elliot Lake uranium mine was closed in
1992 and capital works to decommission the site were completed in 1997. The
remaining provision is for the estimated cost of monitoring the Tailings
Management Areas at the Company and Stanrock sites and for treatment of water
discharged from these areas. The Company conducts its activities at both sites pursuant to licenses issued by the
Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. In the fourth quarter of 2014, an adjustment
of $2,104,000 was made to the reclamation liability to reflect the Companys
best estimate of the present value of the total future reclamation cost that
will be required in the future. Spending on restoration activities at the Elliot
Lake sites are funded from monies in the Elliot Lake reclamation trust fund. At
December 31, 2014, the amount of restricted cash and investments relating to the
Elliot Lake Reclamation Trust fund was $2,068,000.
- 16 -
DENISON MINES CORP. |
Managements Discussion and Analysis |
Year Ended December 31, 2014 |
(Expressed in U.S.
Dollars, unless otherwise noted) |
McClean Lake and Midwest The McClean Lake and Midwest
operations are subject to environmental regulations as set out by the
Saskatchewan government and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. Cost
estimates of future decommissioning and reclamation activities are prepared
every 5 years and filed with the applicable regulatory authorities for approval.
An updated plan was submitted in November 2014 and is under review by the
applicable regulatory authorities. As a result, an adjustment of $3,498,000 was
made, in the fourth quarter of 2014, to the reclamation liability to reflect the
Companys best estimate of the present value of its total future reclamation
cost that will be required in the future. Reclamation costs are expected to be
incurred between 2033 and 2058.
Under the Mineral Industry Environmental Protection Regulations
(1996), the Company is required to provide its pro-rata share of financial
assurances to the Province. As at December 31, 2014, the Company has in place
irrevocable standby letters of credit, from a chartered bank, in favour of
Saskatchewans Ministry of Environment, totaling CAD$9,698,000 which relate to a
previously filed reclamation plan. Under the preliminary plan submitted in
November 2014, the Company expects to increase its pro-rata share of financial
assurances to the Province to approximately CAD$22,446,000.
Under the terms of a Potentially Reactive Waste Rock Disposal
Agreement (PRWR Agreement) between the MLJV and the CLJV, the MLJV agreed to
deposit certain waste rock material from the Cigar Lake mine in its mined-out
Sue C pit. In return, the CLJV has agreed to reimburse the MLJV for additional
site restoration costs that may reasonably occur as a result. In 2014, triggered
by the delivery of the first Cigar Lake ore to the McClean Lake mill, the CLJV
made payments totaling CAD$4,332,000 to the MLJV under the terms of the PRWR
Agreement. Denison received $883,000 (CAD$974,700), its proportionate share of
this total amount, and recorded the receipt as an addition to its reclamation
liability.
Other
In June 2012, the Company completed a transaction with Energy
Fuels Inc. (EFR) whereby it sold its subsidiaries holding all of its mining
assets and operations located in the United States. In connection with the EFR
Transaction, Denison remained a guarantor under a sales contract assigned to
EFR. The sales contract requires deliveries of 200,000 pounds of U3O8 per year
from 2013 to 2017 at a selling price of 95% of the long-term U3O8 price at the
time of delivery. Should EFR not be able to deliver for any reason other than
force majeure as defined under the contract, the Company may be liable to the
customer for incremental costs incurred to replace the contracted quantities if
the unit price of the replacement quantity is greater than the contracted unit
price selling amount. EFR has agreed to indemnify the Company for any future
liabilities it may incur related to this guarantee.
TRANSACTIONS WITH RELATED PARTIES
Uranium Participation Corporation
The Company is a party to a management services agreement with
UPC. Under the terms of the agreement, the Company receives the following fees
from UPC: a) a commission of 1.5% of the gross value of any purchases or sales
of uranium completed at the request of the Board of Directors of UPC; b) a
minimum annual management fee of CAD$400,000 (plus reasonable out-of-pocket
expenses) plus an additional fee of 0.3% per annum based upon UPCs net asset
value in excess of CAD$100,000,000; and c) a fee, at the discretion of the Board
of Directors of UPC, for on-going monitoring or work associated with a
transaction or arrangement (other than a financing, or the purchase or sale of
uranium).
The management services agreement was entered into on April 1,
2013 and has a three-year term. The agreement may be terminated by either party
upon the provision of 120 days written notice.
- 17 -
DENISON MINES CORP. |
Managements Discussion and Analysis |
Year Ended December 31, 2014 |
(Expressed in U.S.
Dollars, unless otherwise noted) |
Management fees were incurred with UPC for the periods noted:
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
(in thousands) |
|
2014
|
|
|
2013
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenue: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Management fees |
$ |
1,628 |
|
$ |
1,644 |
|
Commission fees |
|
553
|
|
|
- |
|
|
$ |
2,181 |
|
$ |
1,644 |
|
At December 31, 2014, accounts receivable includes $123,000
(December 31, 2013: $148,000) due from UPC with respect to the fees and
transactions discussed above.
Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO)
In June 2009, Denison completed definitive agreements with
KEPCO including a long-term offtake agreement (which has been assigned to EFR as
part of the sale of the U.S. Mining Division transaction completed in June 2012)
and a strategic relationship agreement. Pursuant to the strategic relationship
agreement, KEPCO is entitled to subscribe for additional common shares in
Denisons future share offerings. The strategic relationship agreement also
provides KEPCO with a right of first opportunity if Denison intends to sell any
of its substantial assets, a right to participate in certain purchases of
substantial assets which Denison proposes to acquire and a right to nominate one
director to Denisons Board, so long as its share interest in Denison is above
5.0% .
As at December 31, 2014, KEPCO holds 58,284,000 shares of
Denison representing a share interest of approximately 11.5% .
As at December 31, 2014, Denison also holds a 60% interest in
Waterbury Lake Uranium Corporation (WLUC) and Waterbury Lake Uranium Limited
Partnership (WLULP) entities whose key asset is the Waterbury Lake property.
The other remaining 40% interest in these entities is held by a consortium of
investors (KWULP) of which KEPCO is the primary holder. When a spending
program is approved by the participants, each participant is required to fund
these entities based upon its respective ownership interest. Spending program
approval requires 75% of the voting interest.
In January 2014, Denison agreed to allow KWULP to defer its
funding obligations to WLUC and WLULP until September 30, 2015 in exchange for
allowing Denison to carry out spending programs without obtaining the approval
of 75% of the voting interest. As at December 31, 2014, KWULP has a funding
obligation to WLUC and WLULP of CAD$802,000. Denison has recorded its
proportionate share of this amount of $415,000 (CAD$481,000) as a component of
trade and other receivables.
Other
All services and transactions made with the following related
parties were made on terms equivalent to those that prevail with arms length
transactions:
|
Investor relations, administrative service fees and other
expenses of $60,000 (2013: $188,000) were incurred with Namdo Management
Services Ltd, which shares a common officer with Denison. These services
were incurred in the normal course of operating a public company. At
December 31, 2014, an amount of $nil (December 31, 2013: $nil) was due to
this company. |
|
|
|
Legal fees of $276,000 (2013: $1,634,000) were incurred
with Cassels Brock & Blackwell, LLP, a law firm of which a member of
Denisons Board of Directors is a partner. These services and associated
costs were mainly related to the acquisition of IEC and the Companys
internal reorganization of its interests to consolidate its African
holdings. At December 31, 2014, an amount of $1,000 (December 31, 2013:
$82,000) was due to the law firm. |
|
|
|
Executive services of $106,000 were provided to Lundin
Gold Inc., which shares common directors and common officers with Denison.
These services were mainly related to management consulting services over
general and corporate matters. At December 31, 2014, an amount of $44,000
was due to Denison. There were no similar services provided during 2013 to
this company. |
- 18 -
DENISON MINES CORP. |
Managements Discussion and Analysis |
Year Ended December 31, 2014 |
(Expressed in U.S.
Dollars, unless otherwise noted) |
Compensation of Key Management Personnel
Key management personnel are those persons having authority and
responsibility for planning, directing and controlling the activities of the
Company, directly or indirectly. Key management personnel include the Companys
executive officers, vice-presidents and members of its Board of Directors.
The following compensation was awarded to key management
personnel:
|
|
December
31, |
|
|
December
31, |
|
(in thousands) |
|
2014 |
|
|
2013 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Salaries and short-term employee benefits
|
$ |
1,633 |
|
$ |
1,630 |
|
Share-based compensation |
|
516 |
|
|
577 |
|
Termination benefits |
|
158 |
|
|
- |
|
Key management
personnel compensation |
$ |
2,307 |
|
$ |
2,207 |
|
FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS
|
|
Financial |
|
|
Fair
|
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
Instrument |
|
|
Value |
|
|
2014 |
|
|
2013 |
|
(in thousands) |
|
Category (1) |
|
|
Hierarchy |
|
|
Fair
Value |
|
|
Fair
Value |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Financial Assets: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and equivalents
|
|
Category D |
|
|
|
|
$ |
18,640 |
|
$ |
21,786 |
|
Trade and other receivables |
|
Category D |
|
|
|
|
|
9,411 |
|
|
4,148 |
|
Investments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity instruments
|
|
Category A |
|
|
Level 1 |
|
|
916 |
|
|
1,106 |
|
Equity instruments |
|
Category A |
|
|
Level 2 |
|
|
16 |
|
|
- |
|
Equity instruments
|
|
Category B |
|
|
Level 1 |
|
|
22 |
|
|
17 |
|
Debt instruments |
|
Category A |
|
|
Level 1 |
|
|
4,381 |
|
|
14,818 |
|
Restricted cash and equivalents |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Elliot Lake
reclamation trust fund |
|
Category C |
|
|
|
|
|
2,068 |
|
|
2,299 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
35,454 |
|
$ |
44,174 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Financial Liabilities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Account payable and
accrued liabilities |
|
Category E |
|
|
|
|
|
10,050 |
|
|
7,992 |
|
Debt obligations |
|
Category E |
|
|
|
|
|
39
|
|
|
97
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
10,089 |
|
$ |
8,089 |
|
(1) |
Financial instrument designations are as follows:
Category A=Financial assets and liabilities at fair value through profit
and loss; Category B=Available for sale investments; Category C=Held to
maturity investments; Category D=Loans and receivables; and Category
E=Financial liabilities at amortized cost. |
The Company is exposed to credit risk and liquidity risk in
relation to its financial instruments. Its credit risk in relation to its cash
and equivalents, debt instruments and restricted cash and equivalents is limited
by dealing with credit worthy financial institutions. The Companys trade and
other receivables balance relates to a small number of customers who are credit
worthy and with whom the Company has established a relationship through its past
dealings.
Liquidity risk, in which the Company may encounter difficulties
in meeting obligations associated with its financial liabilities as they become
due, is managed through the Companys planning and budgeting process which
determines the funds required to support the Companys normal operating
requirements on an ongoing basis. The Company ensures that there is sufficient
committed capital to meet its short-term business requirements, taking into
account its anticipated cash flows from operations, its holdings of cash and
equivalents and debt instruments and its access to credit facilities, if
required.
- 19 -
DENISON MINES CORP. |
Managements Discussion and Analysis |
Year Ended December 31, 2014 |
(Expressed in U.S.
Dollars, unless otherwise noted) |
The Company's investments that are designated as financial
assets at fair value through profit or loss have resulted in other expenses of
$59,000 during 2014, compared to $1,328,000 during 2013.
The Companys investments designated as available for sale have
resulted in unrealized gains recognized in accumulated other comprehensive
income of $7,000 for 2014, compared to $286,000 for 2013. Impairments on these
investments were recorded in other expenses of $22,000 during 2014, compared to
$39,000 during 2013.
OFF-BALANCE SHEET ARRANGEMENTS
The Company does not have any off-balance sheet arrangements.
SUBSEQUENT EVENTS
Amendment to Credit Facility
On January 30, 2015, the Company entered into an agreement with
the Bank of Nova Scotia to amend the terms of the 2014 Credit Facility and
extend the maturity date to January 31, 2016. Under the 2015 Credit Facility,
the Company has access to credit of up to CAD$24,000,000. Use of the facility
remains restricted to non-financial letters of credit in support of reclamation
obligations.
The 2015 Credit Facility contains a covenant to maintain a
level of tangible net worth greater than or equal to the sum of $150,000,000 and
a covenant to maintain a minimum balance of cash and equivalents of
CAD$5,000,000 on deposit with the Bank of Nova Scotia. As security for the
amended facility, DMC has provided an unlimited full recourse guarantee and a
pledge of all of the shares of DMI. DMI has provided a first-priority security
interest in all present and future personal property and an assignment of its
rights and interests under all material agreements relative to the McClean Lake
and Midwest projects.
The amended facility is subject to letter of credit and standby
fees of 2.40% and 0.75% respectively.
Management Changes
In January 2015, David Cates was appointed as President and
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, while Ron Hochstein continued to serve
as Chief Executive Officer. Mr. Kim, who was KEPCOs representative on the Board
of Directors, resigned in January and was subsequently replaced by Mr. Joo Soo
Park.
OUTSTANDING SHARE DATA
At March 5, 2015, there were 506,438,669 common shares issued
and outstanding, stock options exercisable for 6,095,849 Denison common shares,
and warrants exercisable for 517,127 Denison common shares for a total of
513,051,645 common shares on a fully-diluted basis.
- 20 -
DENISON MINES CORP. |
Managements Discussion and Analysis |
Year Ended December 31, 2014 |
(Expressed in U.S.
Dollars, unless otherwise noted) |
OUTLOOK FOR 2015
During 2015, Denison and its joint venture partners are
planning to drill approximately 70,000 metres on the Company's properties in the
Athabasca Basin. The Company will focus on expanding the Gryphon Zone discovery
on the Company's flagship 60% owned Wheeler River property and exploring other
high priority properties with the potential for additional new discoveries. The
Company expects to benefit from a stream of cash flow generated from its
interest in the McClean Lake mill by the processing of Cigar Lake ore.
DENISONS 2015 BUDGET (1) |
|
|
|
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
|
|
Canada (2) |
|
|
|
Mineral Sales & Toll Milling Revenue |
$ |
3,410 |
|
Mineral Property Exploration |
|
(14,210 |
) |
Development & Operations |
|
(1,770 |
) |
|
|
(12,570 |
) |
Africa |
|
|
|
Zambia & Mali |
|
(2,340 |
) |
|
|
(2,340 |
) |
Asia |
|
|
|
Mongolia |
|
(725 |
) |
|
|
(725 |
) |
Other Activities
(2) |
|
|
|
UPC Management |
|
1,850 |
|
DES Environmental Services |
|
170 |
|
Corporate General
& Administration |
|
(4,570 |
) |
|
|
(2,550 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Total |
$ |
(18,185 |
) |
|
(1) |
Only material operations are shown. |
|
(2) |
Budget figures have been converted using a US$ to CAD$
exchange rate of 1.12. |
Canada
Mineral Property Exploration
Denison will manage or participate in a total of 19 exploration
programs (including 14 drilling programs), of which Wheeler River will continue
to be the primary focus. The total budget for these programs is CAD$23.1 million
of which Denison's share is CAD$15.8 million. The 2015 exploration program is
funded by the Companys flow-through share offering completed in August 2014,
which raised CAD$15.0 million.
Wheeler River
In 2015, the Wheeler River exploration program includes diamond
drilling, ground geophysics and line cutting at a total cost of CAD$10.0 million
(Denison's share, CAD$6.0 million). A 37,000 metre, 62 drill hole winter and
summer program is planned at Gryphon, Phoenix North and other target areas of
interest. The winter drilling program will focus on the Gryphon discovery with
approximately 22 drill holes planned. Ground geophysics in 2015 will consist
primarily of line cutting and DC-resistivity surveying that will extend coverage
to the south end of the property.
The initial drill holes of the 2015 winter program are designed
to test for extensions of mineralization in both the up-plunge and down-plunge
directions. The highlight of the program, to date, is drill hole WR-584B, which
extended the zone of mineralization 50 metres up plunge, with an intersection of
9.0% eU3O8 over 4.6 metres. Two other drill holes targeting the down-plunge
extension of the mineralized zone were also completed, extending the Gryphon
zone approximately 50 metres down-plunge.
- 21 -
DENISON MINES CORP. |
Managements Discussion and Analysis |
Year Ended December 31, 2014 |
(Expressed in U.S.
Dollars, unless otherwise noted) |
The following diagram displays Denisons targets in 2015 for
Wheeler River:
Other Properties
Crawford Lake A 4,600 metre, 8 drill hole winter and
summer program is planned for 2015 to follow up on the results of drilling in
2014, which intersected significant sandstone and basement alteration zones on
the CR-2 and CR-5 conductors. Geophysics during the winter season will consist
of two ground DCIP resistivity surveys.
Mann Lake An 8,000 metre, 11 to 14 drill hole program
for 2015 is designed to explore extensions of uranium mineralization intersected
during 2014. Exploration activity at Mann Lake, during early 2015, produced the
best result to date on the property with drill hole MN-066-01 intersecting 9.8%
eU3O8 over 3.5 metres.
Moore Lake A 4,000 metre, 8 drill hole program is
planned for 2015.
Waterbury Lake Resistivity surveying and diamond
drilling will focus on the Discovery Bay and Oban areas. Resistivity surveying
will include 50 kilometres of line cutting and drilling will consist of a 3,300
metre, 10 drill hole program to follow up on the results of the resistivity
surveys completed in 2014 and 2015.
- 22 -
DENISON MINES CORP. |
Managements Discussion and Analysis |
Year Ended December 31, 2014 |
(Expressed in U.S.
Dollars, unless otherwise noted) |
Mineral Sales, Toll Milling Revenue, Development &
Operations
At McClean Lake, the expansion of the mill from 13 to 24
million pounds annual U3O8 production capacity is anticipated to be completed by
the end of 2015 and remains fully funded by the CLJV. The 2015 production plan
calls for between six million and eight million pounds U3O8 to be packaged
during the year. Production is expected to be primarily from Cigar Lake ore,
with supplemental ore from the McClean Lake joint venture stockpiles. Denisons
share of operating and capital expenditures at McClean Lake in 2015 is estimated
at CAD$500,000. Denisons expenditures are expected to be offset by toll milling
fees and revenue from the sale of approximately 26,000 pounds U3O8, recovered
from McClean Lake ores. Denisons total revenue from operations is projected to
be CAD$3.8 million.
Given the current forecasts for the price of uranium, the SABRE
program will be kept on care and maintenance and the McClean North and Midwest
projects will remain on stand-by in 2015. Total expenditures on SABRE are
planned to be CAD$900,000 (Denisons share, CAD$203,000), and total expenditures
on McClean North and Midwest are planned to be CAD$375,000 (Denisons share,
CAD$94,000).
Reclamation expenditures at Elliot Lake are projected to be
CAD$819,000.
Africa
The Company has budgeted spending approximately $2.3 million
during 2015 to maintain its projects in good standing, while the Company waits
for market conditions that will permit a spin-out or disposal of its African
portfolio. On its wholly owned Mutanga project in Zambia, activities will focus
on generating additional exploration targets through soil and radon sampling,
excavator trenching and geological mapping. In Mali, activities will focus on an
expansion of previous airborne geophysical surveying and renewing the
exploration license for the Falea project.
Asia
In Mongolia, the Company continues its efforts to pursue
strategic alternatives for its 85% interest in the GSJV. Further guidance
regarding the Companys interest in the GSJV will be provided in the first half
of 2015. The budget for Mongolia is estimated to be $725,000 for 2015.
Other Activities
Management fees generated from Denisons management services
agreement with UPC are budgeted to net CAD$2.1 million in 2015.
At DES, revenue from operations is budgeted at CAD$7.4 million
and operating and capital expenses are forecast to be CAD$7.2 million.
Corporate general and administration expenses are forecast to
be CAD$4.9 million in 2015 and include all head office wages and benefits,
office costs, audit and regulatory costs, legal fees, investor relations
expenses and all other costs related to operating a public company with listings
in Canada and the United States.
CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES
The Company carried out an evaluation, under the supervision
and with the participation of its management, including the Chief Executive
Officer and the President and Chief Financial Officer, of the effectiveness of
the design and operation of the Companys disclosure controls and procedures
(as defined in the Exchange Act Rule 13a-15(e)) as of the end of the period
covered by this report. Based upon that evaluation, the Chief Executive Officer
and the President and Chief Financial Officer concluded that the Companys
disclosure controls and procedures are effective as of December 31, 2014.
The Companys management is responsible for establishing and
maintaining an adequate system of internal control over financial reporting.
Management conducted an evaluation of the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting based on the Internal Control Integrated Framework,
2013 issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway
Commission. Based on this evaluation, management concluded that the Companys
internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31,
2014.
- 23 -
DENISON MINES CORP. |
Managements Discussion and Analysis |
Year Ended December 31, 2014 |
(Expressed in U.S.
Dollars, unless otherwise noted) |
There has not been any change in the Companys internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during 2014 year that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Companys internal
control over financial reporting.
CRITICAL ACCOUNTING ESTIMATES AND JUDGEMENTS
The preparation of consolidated financial statements in
accordance with IFRS requires the use of certain critical accounting estimates
and judgements that affect the amounts reported. It also requires management to
exercise judgement in applying the Companys accounting policies. These
judgements and estimates are based on managements best knowledge of the
relevant facts and circumstances taking into account previous experience.
Although the Company regularly reviews the estimates and judgements made that
affect these financial statements, actual results may be materially different.
Significant estimates and judgements made by management relate
to:
(a)
Determination of a Mineral Property being Sufficiently Advanced
The Company follows a policy of capitalizing non-exploration
related expenditures on properties it considers to be sufficiently advanced.
Once a mineral property is determined to be sufficiently advanced, that
determination is irrevocable and the capitalization policy continues to apply
over the life of the property. In determining whether or not a mineral property
is sufficiently advanced, management considers a number of factors including,
but not limited to: current uranium market conditions, the quality of resources
identified, access to the resource and the suitability of the resources to
current mining methods, ease of permitting, confidence in the jurisdiction in
which the resource is located and milling complexity.
Many of these factors are subject to risks and uncertainties
that can support a sufficiently advanced determination as at one point in time
but not support it at another. The final determination requires significant
judgment on the part of the Companys management and directly impacts the
carrying value of the Companys mineral properties.
(b)
Valuation of Mineral Properties
The Company undertakes a review of the carrying values of
mineral properties and related expenditures whenever events or changes in
circumstances indicate that their carrying values may exceed their estimated
recoverable amounts determined by reference to estimated future operating
results, discounted net cash flows and current market valuations of similar
properties. An impairment loss is recognized when the carrying value of those
assets is not recoverable. In undertaking this review, management of the Company
is required to make significant estimates of, amongst other things: reserve and
resource amounts, future production and sale volumes, forecast commodity prices,
future operating, capital and reclamation costs to the end of the mines life
and current market valuations from observable market data which may not be
directly comparable. These estimates are subject to various risks and
uncertainties, which may ultimately have an effect on the expected
recoverability of the carrying values of the mineral properties and related
expenditures. Changes in these estimates could have a material impact on the
carrying value of the mineral property amounts.
(c)
Deferred Tax Assets and Liabilities
Deferred tax assets and liabilities are recognized for the
future tax consequences attributable to differences between the financial
statement carrying amounts of existing assets and liabilities and their
respective tax bases. The Company computes deferred tax assets and liabilities
in respect of taxes that are based on taxable profit. Taxable profit is
understood to be a net, rather than gross, taxable amount that gives effect to
both revenues and expenses. Taxable profit will often differ from accounting
profit and management may need to exercise judgment to determine whether some
taxes are income taxes (subject to deferred tax accounting) or operating
expenses.
Deferred tax assets and liabilities are measured using enacted
or substantially enacted tax rates expected to apply when the differences are
expected to be recovered or settled. The determination of the ability of the
Company to utilize tax loss carry forwards to offset deferred tax liabilities
requires management to exercise judgment and make certain assumptions about the
future performance of the Company. Management is required to assess whether it
is probable that the Company will benefit from these prior losses and other
deferred tax assets. Changes in economic conditions, commodity prices and other
factors could result in revisions to the estimates of the benefits to be
realized or the timing of utilizing the losses.
- 24 -
DENISON MINES CORP. |
Managements Discussion and Analysis |
Year Ended December 31, 2014 |
(Expressed in U.S.
Dollars, unless otherwise noted) |
(d)
Reclamation Obligations
Asset retirement obligations are recorded as a liability when
the asset is initially constructed. Denison has accrued its best estimate of the
ongoing reclamation liability in connection with the decommissioned Elliot Lake
mine site and is currently accruing its best estimate of its share of the cost
to decommission its other mining and milling properties in accordance with
existing laws, contracts and other policies. The estimate of future costs
involves a number of estimates relating to timing, type of costs, mine closure
plans, and review of potential methods and technical advancements. Furthermore,
due to uncertainties concerning environmental remediation, the ultimate cost of
the Companys decommissioning liability could differ from amounts provided. The
estimate of the Companys obligation is subject to change due to amendments to
applicable laws and regulations and as new information concerning the Companys
operations becomes available. The Company is not able to determine the impact on
its financial position, if any, of environmental laws and regulations that may
be enacted in the future.
NEW ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS
The Company has adopted the following new and revised
accounting standards, along with any consequential amendments, effective January
1, 2014. These changes were made in accordance with the applicable transitional
provisions.
International Accounting Standard 36, Impairment of Assets
(IAS 36)
IAS 36 was amended in May 2013 to make small changes to the
disclosures required by IAS 36 when an impairment loss is recognized or
reversed. The amendments require the disclosure of the recoverable amount of an
asset or cash generating unit (CGU) at the time an impairment loss has been
recognized or reversed and detailed disclosure of how the associated fair value
less costs of disposal has been determined.
The amendments are effective for accounting periods beginning
on or after January 1, 2014 with earlier adoption permitted. The Company has
adopted the amended disclosure requirements of IAS 36 effective January 1, 2014.
Accounting Standards Issued But Not Yet Applied
The Company has not yet adopted the following new accounting
pronouncements which are effective for fiscal periods of the Company beginning
on or after January 1, 2015:
International Financial Reporting Standard 9, Financial
Instruments (IFRS 9)
IFRS 9 was issued in October 2010 by the IASB to replace IAS
39, Financial Instruments Recognition and Measurement. The replacement
standard has the following significant components: it establishes two primary
measurement categories for financial assets amortized cost and fair value; it
establishes criteria for the classification of financial assets within the
measurement category based on business model and cash flow characteristics; and
it eliminates existing held to maturity, available-for-sale, and loans and
receivable categories.
In November 2013, the IASB issued an amendment to IFRS 9 which
includes a new hedge model that aligns accounting more closely with risk
management and enhances disclosure about hedge accounting and risk management.
Additionally, as the impairment guidance and certain limited amendments to the
classification and measurement requirements of IFRS 9 are not yet complete, the
previously mandated effective date of IFRS 9 of January 1, 2015 has been
removed. Entities may apply IFRS 9 before the IASB completes the amendments but
are not required to do so.
The Company has not evaluated the impact of adopting this
standard.
- 25 -
DENISON MINES CORP. |
Managements Discussion and Analysis |
Year Ended December 31, 2014 |
(Expressed in U.S.
Dollars, unless otherwise noted) |
International Financial Reporting Standard 15, Revenue from
Contracts with Customers (IFRS 15)
IFRS 15 deals with revenue recognition and establishes
principles for reporting useful information to users of financial statements
about the nature, amount, timing and uncertainty of revenue and cash flows
arising from an entitys contracts with customers. Revenue is recognized when a
customer obtains control of a good or service. The standard replaces IAS 18
Revenue and IAS 11Construction Contracts and related interpretations. The
standard is effective for annual periods beginning on or after January 1, 2017
and earlier application is permitted.
The Company has not evaluated the impact of adopting this
standard.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY
The Company is committed to the operation of its facilities
that puts the safety of its workers, its contractors, its community, the
environment and the principles of sustainable development above all else. The
Company is committed to the following principles:
|
It will build and operate its facilities in compliance
with all applicable laws and regulations of the jurisdictions in which it
operates; |
|
It will adopt and adhere to standards that are protective
of both human health and the environment at all of its facilities;
|
|
It will establish goals and objectives that would
encourage the ongoing development of a sound program of sustainability in
the communities that it operates in; and |
|
It will keep radiation, health and safety hazards and
environmental risks as low as reasonably achievable.
|
RISK FACTORS
There are a number of factors that could negatively affect
Denisons business and the value of Denisons common shares, including the
factors listed below. The following information pertains to the outlook and
conditions currently known to Denison that could have a material impact on the
financial condition of Denison. Other factors may arise in the future that are
currently not foreseen by management of Denison that may present additional
risks in the future. Current and prospective security holders of Denison should
carefully consider these risk factors.
Nature of Exploration and Development
Exploration for and development of mineral properties is
speculative, and involves significant uncertainties and financial risks that
even a combination of careful evaluation, experience and knowledge may not
eliminate. While the discovery of an ore body may result in substantial rewards,
few properties which are explored are commercially mineable or ultimately
developed into producing mines. Major expenses may be required to establish
mineral reserves by drilling, constructing mining and processing facilities at a
site, developing metallurgical processes and extracting uranium from ore. It is
impossible to ensure that the current exploration and development programs of
Denison will result in profitable commercial mining operations.
Denisons current and future uranium production is dependent in
part on the successful development of new ore bodies and/or expansion of
existing mining operations. The economic feasibility of development projects is
based upon many factors, including, among others: the accuracy of mineral
reserve and resource estimates; metallurgical recoveries; capital and operating
costs of such projects; government regulations relating to prices, taxes,
royalties, infrastructure, land tenure, land use, importing and exporting, and
environmental protection; and uranium prices, which are historically cyclical.
Development projects are also subject to the successful completion of
engineering studies, issuance of necessary governmental permits and availability
of adequate financing.
Development projects have no operating history upon which to
base estimates of future cash flow. Denisons estimates of mineral reserves and
resources and cash operating costs are, to a large extent, based upon detailed
geological and engineering analysis. Denison also conducts feasibility studies
which derive estimates of capital and operating costs based upon many factors,
including, among others: anticipated tonnage and grades of ore to be mined and
processed; the configuration of the ore body; ground and mining conditions;
expected recovery rates of the uranium from the ore; and alternate mining
methods.
- 26 -
DENISON MINES CORP. |
Managements Discussion and Analysis |
Year Ended December 31, 2014 |
(Expressed in U.S.
Dollars, unless otherwise noted) |
It is possible that actual costs and economic returns of
current and new mining operations may differ materially from Denisons best
estimates. It is not unusual in the mining industry for new mining operations to
experience unexpected problems during the start-up phase, take much longer than
originally anticipated to bring into a producing phase, and to require more
capital than anticipated.
Benefits Not Realized From Transactions
Denison has completed a number of transactions over the last
several years, including without limitation the acquisition of IEC, the Rockgate
takeover bid, the acquisition of Fission Energy Corp., the acquisition of JNR
Resources Inc. and the sale of the its mining assets and operations located in
the United States to Energy Fuels Inc. Despite Denisons belief that these
transactions, and others which may be completed in the future, will be in
Denisons best interest and benefit the Company and Denisons shareholders,
Denison may not realize the anticipated benefits of such transactions or realize
the full value of the consideration paid to complete the transactions. This
could result in significant accounting impairments or write-downs of the
carrying values of mineral properties and could adversely impact the Company and
the price of its common shares.
Inability to Expand and Replace Mineral Reserves and
Resources
Denisons mineral reserves and resources at its McClean Lake,
Midwest, Wheeler River, Waterbury Lake, GSJV and Mutanga projects are Denisons
future sources of uranium concentrates. Unless other mineral reserves or
resources are discovered, Denisons sources of future production for uranium
concentrates will decrease over time when its current mineral reserves and
resources are depleted. There can be no assurance that Denisons future
exploration, development and acquisition efforts will be successful in
replenishing its mineral reserves and resources. In addition, while Denison
believes that many of its properties will eventually be put into production,
there can be no assurance that they will be or that they will be able to replace
production.
Imprecision of Mineral Reserve and Resource Estimates
Mineral reserve and resource figures are estimates, and
no assurances can be given that the estimated levels of uranium will be produced
or that Denison will receive the prices assumed in determining its mineral
reserves and resources. Such estimates are expressions of judgment based on
knowledge, mining experience, analysis of drilling results and industry
practices. Valid estimates made at a given time may significantly change when
new information becomes available. While Denison believes that the mineral
reserve and resource estimates included are well established and reflect
managements best estimates, by their nature, mineral reserve and resource
estimates are imprecise and depend, to a certain extent, upon statistical
inferences which may ultimately prove unreliable. Furthermore, market price
fluctuations, as well as increased capital or production costs or reduced
recovery rates, may render mineral reserves and resources containing lower
grades of mineralization uneconomic and may ultimately result in a restatement
of mineral reserves and resources. The evaluation of mineral reserves or
resources is always influenced by economic and technological factors,
which may change over time.
Volatility and Sensitivity to Market Prices
The long and short term market prices of U3O8
affect the value of Denisons mineral resources and the market price of
Denisons common shares. Historically, these prices have fluctuated and have
been and will continue to be affected by numerous factors beyond Denisons
control.
Such factors include, among others: demand for nuclear power,
political and economic conditions in uranium producing and consuming countries,
public and political response to a nuclear incident, reprocessing of used
reactor fuel and the re-enrichment of depleted uranium tails, sales of excess
civilian and military inventories (including from the dismantling of nuclear
weapons) by governments and industry participants, uranium supply, including the
supply from other secondary sources and production levels and costs of
production.
Public Acceptance of Nuclear Energy and Competition from
Other Energy Sources
Growth of the uranium and nuclear power industry will depend
upon continued and increased acceptance of nuclear technology as a means of
generating electricity. Because of unique political, technological and
environmental factors that affect the nuclear industry, including the risk of a
nuclear incident, the industry is subject to public opinion risks that could
have an adverse impact on the demand for nuclear power and increase the
regulation of the nuclear power industry. Nuclear energy competes with other
sources of energy, including oil, natural gas, coal and hydro-electricity. These
other energy sources are to some extent interchangeable with nuclear energy,
particularly over the longer term. Sustained lower prices of oil, natural gas, coal and
hydroelectricity may result in lower demand for uranium concentrates. Technical
advancements in renewable and other alternate forms of energy, such as wind and
solar power, could make these forms of energy more commercially viable and put
additional pressure on the demand for uranium concentrates.
- 27 -
DENISON MINES CORP. |
Managements Discussion and Analysis |
Year Ended December 31, 2014 |
(Expressed in U.S.
Dollars, unless otherwise noted) |
Market Price of Shares
Securities of mining companies have experienced substantial
volatility in the past, often based on factors unrelated to the financial
performance or prospects of the companies involved. These factors include
macroeconomic conditions in North America and globally, and market perceptions
of the attractiveness of particular industries. The price of Denison's
securities is also likely to be significantly affected by short-term changes in
commodity prices, other mineral prices, currency exchange fluctuation, or
changes in its financial condition or results of operations as reflected in its
periodic earnings reports. Other factors unrelated to the performance of Denison
that may have an effect on the price of the securities of Denison include the
following: the extent of analytical coverage available to investors concerning
the business of Denison; lessening in trading volume and general market interest
in Denison's securities; the size of Denison's public float and its inclusion in
market indices may limit the ability of some institutions to invest in Denison's
securities; and a substantial decline in the price of the securities of Denison
that persists for a significant period of time could cause Denison's securities
to be delisted from an exchange. If an active market for the securities of
Denison does not continue, the liquidity of an investor's investment may be
limited and the price of the securities of the Company may decline, such that
investors may lose their entire investment in the Company. As a result of any of
these factors, the market price of the securities of Denison at any given point
in time may not accurately reflect the long-term value of Denison. Securities
class-action litigation often has been brought against companies following
periods of volatility in the market price of their securities. Denison may in
the future be the target of similar litigation. Securities litigation could
result in substantial costs and damages and divert management's attention and
resources.
Dilution from Further Equity Financing
If Denison raises additional funding by issuing additional
equity securities, such financing may substantially dilute the interests of
shareholders of Denison and reduce the value of their investment.
Reliance on Other Operators
At some of its properties, Denison is not the operator and
therefore is not in control of all of the activities and operations at the site.
As a result, Denison is and will be, to a certain extent, dependent on the
operators for the nature and timing of activities related to these properties
and may be unable to direct or control such activities.
As an example, AREVA is the operator and majority owner of the
McClean Lake and Midwest properties in Saskatchewan, Canada. The McClean Lake
mill employs unionized workers who work under collective agreements. AREVA, as
the operator, is responsible for all dealings with unionized employees. AREVA
may not be successful in its attempts to renegotiate the collective agreements,
which may impact mill and mining operations. Any lengthy work stoppages may have
a material adverse impact on the Companys future cash flows, earnings, results
of operations and financial condition.
Ore from the CLJV is currently being processed by the MLJV at
the McClean Lake mill pursuant to a toll milling agreement, which is expected to
generate revenue for the Company for several years. Any delays or stoppages in
the delivery of ores by the operator of the CLJV or in processing by the
operator of the MLJV may have an adverse impact on the Companys expected cash
flows, earnings or profit from toll milling.
Operations in Foreign Jurisdictions
The Company owns uranium properties directly and through joint
venture interests and is undertaking uranium exploration and development
programs in Zambia, Mali, Namibia and Mongolia. As with any foreign operation,
these international properties and interests are subject to certain risks, such
as the possibility of adverse political and economic developments, foreign
currency controls and fluctuations, as well as risks of war and civil
disturbances. Other events may limit or disrupt activities on these properties,
restrict the movement of funds, result in a deprivation of contract rights or
the taking of property or an interest therein by nationalization or
expropriation without fair compensation, increases in taxation or the placing of
limits on repatriations of earnings. No assurance can be given that current
policies of Zambia, Mali, Namibia and Mongolia, or the political situations
within these countries will not change so as to adversely affect the value or
continued viability of the Companys interest in these assets.
- 28 -
DENISON MINES CORP. |
Managements Discussion and Analysis |
Year Ended December 31, 2014 |
(Expressed in U.S.
Dollars, unless otherwise noted) |
In addition, the Company may become involved in a dispute with
respect to one of its foreign operations and may become subject to the exclusive
jurisdiction of a foreign court or may find that it is not successful in
subjecting foreign persons to the jurisdiction of the courts in Canada. The
Company may also be precluded from enforcing its rights with respect to a
government entity because of the doctrine of sovereign immunity.
Property Title Risk
The Company has investigated its rights to explore and exploit
all of its material properties and, to the best of its knowledge, those rights
are in good standing. However, no assurance can be given that such rights will
not be revoked, or significantly altered, to its detriment. There can also be no
assurance that the Companys rights will not be challenged or impugned by third
parties, including the local governments, and in Canada, by First Nations and
Métis.
There is also a risk that Denison's title to, or interest in,
its properties may be subject to defects or challenges. This may be true
particularly in countries where there may be less developed legal systems or
where ownership interests may become subject to political interference or
changes in laws. If such defects cover a material portion of Denison's property,
they could materially and adversely affect Denison's results of operations and
financial condition, its reported mineral reserves and resources or its long
term business prospects.
Competition for Properties
Significant competition exists for the limited supply of
mineral lands available for acquisition. Many participants in the mining
business include large, established companies with long operating histories. The
Company may be at a disadvantage in acquiring new properties as many mining
companies have greater financial resources and more technical staff.
Accordingly, there can be no assurance that the Company will be able to compete
successfully to acquire new properties or that any such acquired assets would
yield reserves or result in commercial mining operations.
Global Financial Conditions
Global financial conditions have been subject to increased
volatility and numerous financial institutions have either gone into bankruptcy
or have had to be rescued by governmental authorities. Access to public
financing has been negatively impacted by both sub-prime mortgages and the
liquidity crisis affecting the asset-backed commercial paper market and the
effect of these events on Canadian and global credit markets. These factors may
impact the ability of Denison to obtain equity or debt financing in the future
and, if obtained, on terms favourable to Denison. These increased levels of
volatility and market turmoil could adversely impact Denison's operations and
the trading price of the common shares.
Ability to Maintain Obligations under Credit Facility and
Other Debt
Denison is required to satisfy certain financial covenants in
order to maintain its good standing under the 2015 Credit Facility. Denison may
from time to time enter into other arrangements to borrow money in order to fund
its operations and expansion plans, and such arrangements may include covenants
that have similar obligations or that restrict its business in some way. Events
may occur in the future, including events out of Denison's control that would
cause Denison to fail to satisfy its obligations under the 2015 Credit Facility
or other debt instruments. In such circumstances, the amounts drawn under
Denison's debt agreements may become due and payable before the agreed maturity
date, and Denison may not have the financial resources to repay such amounts
when due. The 2015 Credit Facility is secured by DMI's main properties by a
pledge of the shares of DMI. If Denison were to default on its obligations under
the 2015 Credit Facility or other secured debt instruments in the future, the
lender(s) under such debt instruments could enforce their security and seize
significant portions of Denison's assets.
Capital Intensive Industry; Uncertainty of Funding
The exploration and development of mineral properties and the
ongoing operation of mines requires a substantial amount of capital and may
depend on Denisons ability to obtain financing through joint ventures, debt
financing, equity financing or other means. General market conditions, volatile
uranium markets, a claim against the Company, a significant disruption to the
Companys business or operations or other factors may make it difficult to
secure financing necessary for the expansion of mining activities or to take
advantage of opportunities for acquisitions. There is no assurance that the
Company will be successful in obtaining required financing as and when needed on
acceptable terms.
- 29 -
DENISON MINES CORP. |
Managements Discussion and Analysis |
Year Ended December 31, 2014 |
(Expressed in U.S.
Dollars, unless otherwise noted) |
Decommissioning and Reclamation
As owner of the Elliot Lake decommissioned sites and part owner
of the McClean Lake mill, McClean Lake mines, the Midwest uranium project and
certain exploration properties, and for so long as the Company remains an owner
thereof, the Company is obligated to eventually reclaim or participate in the
reclamation of such properties. Most, but not all, of the Companys reclamation
obligations are bonded, and cash and other assets of the Company have been
reserved to secure this obligation. Although the Companys financial statements
record a liability for the asset retirement obligation, and the bonding
requirements are generally periodically reviewed by applicable regulatory
authorities, there can be no assurance or guarantee that the ultimate cost of
such reclamation obligations will not exceed the estimated liability contained
on the Companys financial statements.
As Denisons properties approach or go into decommissioning,
regulatory review of the Companys decommissioning plans may result in
additional decommissioning requirements, associated costs and the requirement to
provide additional financial assurances. It is not possible to predict what
level of decommissioning and reclamation (and financial assurances relating
thereto) may be required in the future from Denison by regulatory authorities.
Technical Innovation and Obsolescence
Requirements for Denisons products and services may be
affected by technological changes in nuclear reactors, enrichment and used
uranium fuel reprocessing. These technological changes could reduce the demand
for uranium or reduce the value of Denisons environmental services to potential
customers. In addition, Denisons competitors may adopt technological
advancements that give them an advantage over Denison.
Mining and Insurance
Denisons business is capital intensive and subject to a number
of risks and hazards, including environmental pollution, accidents or spills,
industrial and transportation accidents, labour disputes, changes in the
regulatory environment, natural phenomena (such as inclement weather conditions
earthquakes, pit wall failures and cave-ins) and encountering unusual or
unexpected geological conditions. Many of the foregoing risks and hazards could
result in damage to, or destruction of, Denisons mineral properties or
processing facilities, personal injury or death, environmental damage, delays in
or interruption of or cessation of production from Denisons mines or processing
facilities or in its exploration or development activities, delay in or
inability to receive regulatory approvals to transport its uranium concentrates,
or costs, monetary losses and potential legal liability and adverse governmental
action. In addition, due to the radioactive nature of the materials handled in
uranium mining and processing, additional costs and risks are incurred by
Denison on a regular and ongoing basis.
Although Denison maintains insurance to cover some of these
risks and hazards in amounts it believes to be reasonable, such insurance may
not provide adequate coverage in the event of certain circumstances. No
assurance can be given that such insurance will continue to be available or it
will be available at economically feasible premiums or that it will provide
sufficient coverage for losses related to these or other risks and hazards.
Denison may be subject to liability or sustain loss for certain
risks and hazards against which it cannot insure or which it may reasonably
elect not to insure because of the cost. This lack of insurance coverage could
result in material economic harm to Denison.
Dependence on Issuance of Licence Amendments and Renewals
The Company maintains regulatory licences in order to operate
its mill at McClean Lake, all of which are subject to renewal from time to time
and are required in order for the Company to operate in compliance with
applicable laws and regulations. In addition, depending on the Companys
business requirements, it may be necessary or desirable to seek amendments to
one or more of its licences from time to time. While the Company has been
successful in renewing its licences on a timely basis in the past and in
obtaining such amendments as have been necessary or desirable, there can be no
assurance that such licence renewals and amendments will be issued by applicable
regulatory authorities on a timely basis or at all in the future.
- 30 -
DENISON MINES CORP. |
Managements Discussion and Analysis |
Year Ended December 31, 2014 |
(Expressed in U.S.
Dollars, unless otherwise noted) |
Governmental Regulation and Policy Risks
Uranium mining and milling operations and exploration
activities, as well as the transportation and handling of the products produced
are subject to extensive regulation by state, provincial and federal
governments. Such regulations relate to production, development, exploration,
exports, imports, taxes and royalties, labour standards, occupational health,
waste disposal, protection and remediation of the environment, mine
decommissioning and reclamation, mine safety, toxic substances, transportation
safety and emergency response, and other matters. Compliance with such laws and
regulations has increased the costs of exploring, drilling, developing,
constructing, operating and closing Denisons mines and processing facilities.
It is possible that, in the future, the costs, delays and other effects
associated with such laws and regulations may impact Denisons decision with
respect to exploration and development properties, whether to proceed with
exploration or development, or that such laws and regulations may result in
Denison incurring significant costs to remediate or decommission properties that
do not comply with applicable environmental standards at such time. Denison
expends significant financial and managerial resources to comply with such laws
and regulations. Denison anticipates it will have to continue to do so as the
historic trend toward stricter government regulation may continue. Because legal
requirements are frequently changing and subject to interpretation, Denison is
unable to predict the ultimate cost of compliance with these requirements or
their effect on operations. Furthermore, future changes in governments,
regulations and policies, such as those affecting Denisons mining operations
and uranium transport could materially and adversely affect Denisons results of
operations and financial condition in a particular period or its long term
business prospects.
Failure to comply with applicable laws, regulations and
permitting requirements may result in enforcement actions. These actions may
result in orders issued by regulatory or judicial authorities causing operations
to cease or be curtailed, and may include corrective measures requiring capital
expenditures, installation of additional equipment or remedial actions.
Companies engaged in uranium exploration operations may be required to
compensate others who suffer loss or damage by reason of such activities and may
have civil or criminal fines or penalties imposed for violations of applicable
laws or regulations.
Worldwide demand for uranium is directly tied to the demand for
electricity produced by the nuclear power industry, which is also subject to
extensive government regulation and policies. The development of mines and
related facilities is contingent upon governmental approvals that are complex
and time consuming to obtain and which, depending upon the location of the
project, involve multiple governmental agencies. The duration and success of
such approvals are subject to many variables outside Denisons control. Any
significant delays in obtaining or renewing such permits or licences in the
future could have a material adverse effect on Denison. In addition, the
international marketing of uranium is subject to governmental policies and
certain trade restrictions. Changes in these policies and restrictions may
adversely impact Denisons business.
Aboriginal Title and Consultation Issues
First Nations and Métis title claims as well as related
consultation issues may impact Denisons ability and that of its joint venture
partners to pursue exploration, development and mining at its Saskatchewan
properties. Pursuant to historical treaties, First Nations bands in Northern
Saskatchewan ceded title to most traditional lands but continue to assert title
to the minerals within the lands. Managing relations with the local native bands
is a matter of paramount importance to Denison. There may be no assurance
however that title claims as well as related consultation issues will not arise
on or with respect to the Companys properties.
Environmental, Health and Safety Risks
Denison has expended significant financial and managerial
resources to comply with environmental protection laws, regulations and
permitting requirements in each jurisdiction where it operates, and anticipates
that it will be required to continue to do so in the future as the historical
trend toward stricter environmental regulation may continue. The uranium
industry is subject to, not only the worker health, safety and environmental
risks associated with all mining businesses, including potential liabilities to
third parties for environmental damage, but also to additional risks uniquely
associated with uranium mining and processing. The possibility of more stringent
regulations exists in the areas of worker health and safety, the disposition of
wastes, the decommissioning and reclamation of mining and processing sites, and
other environmental matters each of which could have a material adverse effect
on the costs or the viability of a particular project.
Denisons facilities operate under various operating and
environmental permits, licences and approvals that contain conditions that must
be met, and Denisons right to continue operating its facilities is, in a number
of instances, dependent upon compliance with such conditions. Failure to meet
any such condition could have a material adverse effect on Denisons financial
condition or results of operations.
- 31 -
DENISON MINES CORP. |
Managements Discussion and Analysis |
Year Ended December 31, 2014 |
(Expressed in U.S.
Dollars, unless otherwise noted) |
Although the Company believes its operations are in compliance,
in all material respects, with all relevant permits, licences and regulations
involving worker health and safety as well as the environment, there can be no
assurance regarding continued compliance or ability of the Company to meet
stricter environmental regulation, which may also require the expenditure of
significant additional financial and managerial resources.
Mining companies are often targets of actions by
non-governmental organizations and environmental groups in the countries in
which they operate. Such organizations and groups may take actions in the future
to disrupt Denison's operations. They may also apply pressure to local, regional
and national government officials to take actions which are adverse to Denison's
operations. Such actions could have an adverse effect on Denison's ability to
produce and sell its products, and on its financial position and results.
Dependence on Key Personnel and Qualified and Experienced
Employees
Denisons success depends on the efforts and abilities of
certain senior officers and key employees. Certain of Denisons employees have
significant experience in the uranium industry, and the number of individuals
with significant experience in this industry is small. While Denison does not
foresee any reason why such officers and key employees will not remain with
Denison, if for any reason they do not, Denison could be adversely affected.
Denison has not purchased key man life insurance for any of these
individuals.
Denisons success also depends on the availability of qualified
and experienced employees to work in Denisons operations and Denisons ability
to attract and retain such employees.
Conflicts of Interest
Some of the directors of Denison are also directors of other
companies that are similarly engaged in the business of acquiring, exploring and
developing natural resource properties. Such associations may give rise to
conflicts of interest from time to time. In particular, one of the consequences
will be that corporate opportunities presented to a director of Denison may be
offered to another company or companies with which the director is associated,
and may not be presented or made available to Denison. The directors of Denison
are required by law to act honestly and in good faith with a view to the best
interests of Denison, to disclose any interest which they may have in any
project or opportunity of Denison, and to abstain from voting on such matter.
Conflicts of interest that arise will be subject to and governed by the
procedures prescribed in the Companys Code of Ethics and by the OBCA.
Disclosure and Internal Controls
Internal controls over financial reporting are procedures
designed to provide reasonable assurance that transactions are properly
authorized, assets are safeguarded against unauthorized or improper use, and
transactions are properly recorded and reported. Disclosure controls and
procedures are designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed by a
company in reports filed with securities regulatory agencies is recorded,
processed, summarized and reported on a timely basis and is accumulated and
communicated to companys management, including its chief executive officer and
chief financial officer, as appropriate, to allow timely decisions regarding
required disclosure. A control system, no matter how well designed and operated,
can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance with respect to the
reliability of reporting, including financial reporting and financial statement
preparation.
Potential Influence of KEPCO
As at the date hereof, KEPCO holds indirectly a large
shareholding in Denison and is contractually entitled to Board representation.
Provided KEPCO holds over 5% of Denison's common shares, it is entitled to
nominate one director for election to the Board at any shareholder meeting.
KEPCOs shareholding level gives it significant influence on
decisions to be made by shareholders of Denison, and its right to nominate a
director may give KEPCO influence on decisions made by Denison's Board. Although
KEPCO's director nominee will be subject to duties under the OBCA to act in the
best interests of Denison as a whole, KEPCO's director nominee is likely to be
an employee of KEPCO and he or she may give special attention to KEPCO's
interests as an indirect shareholder. The interests of KEPCO as an indirect
shareholder of Denison may not always be consistent with the interests of
Denison's other shareholders.
- 32 -
DENISON MINES CORP. |
Managements Discussion and Analysis |
Year Ended December 31, 2014 |
(Expressed in U.S.
Dollars, unless otherwise noted) |
The KEPCO strategic relationship agreement also includes
provisions that will provide KEPCO with a right of first offer for certain asset
sales and the right to be approached to participate in certain potential
acquisitions. The right of first offer and participation right of KEPCO may
negatively affect Denison's ability or willingness to entertain certain business
opportunities, or the attractiveness of Denison as a potential party for certain
business transactions. KEPCO's large shareholding block may also make Denison
less attractive to third parties considering an acquisition of Denison if those
third parties are not able to negotiate terms with KEPCO to support such an
acquisition.
QUALIFIED PERSON
The disclosure of scientific and technical information
regarding Denisons properties in the MD&A was prepared by or reviewed by
Steve Blower, P. Geo., the Companys Vice President, Exploration, and Terry
Wetz, P.E., the Executive Director of the GSJV, who are Qualified Persons in
accordance with the requirements of NI 43-101. For a description of the quality
assurance program and quality control measures applied by Denison, please see
Denisons 2013 Annual Information Form dated March 14, 2014 available at
www.sedar.com, and its Form 40-F available at www.sec.gov/edgar.shtml.
- 33 -
Exhibit 99.3
DENISON MINES CORP.
Financial Statements
for the years ended
December 31,
2014 and 2013
Responsibility for Financial Statements
The Companys management is responsible for the integrity and
fairness of presentation of these consolidated financial statements. The
consolidated financial statements have been prepared by management, in
accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards as issued by the
International Accounting Standards Board, for review by the Audit Committee and
approval by the Board of Directors.
The preparation of financial statements requires the selection
of appropriate accounting policies in accordance with International Financial
Reporting Standards and the use of estimates and judgements by management to
present fairly and consistently the consolidated financial position of the
Company. Estimates are necessary when transactions affecting the current period
cannot be finalized with certainty until future information becomes available.
In making certain material estimates, the Companys management has relied on the
judgement of independent specialists.
The Companys management has developed and maintains a system
of internal accounting controls to ensure, on a reasonable and cost-effective
basis, that the financial information is timely reported and is accurate and
reliable in all material respects and that the Companys assets are
appropriately accounted for and adequately safeguarded.
The consolidated financial statements have been audited by
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, our independent auditor. Its report outlines the
scope of its examination and expresses its opinions on the consolidated
financial statements and internal control over financial reporting.
Original signed by Ron F. Hochstein |
Original signed by David D. Cates
|
|
|
Ron F. Hochstein |
David D. Cates |
Chief Executive Officer |
President and Chief Financial Officer |
March 5, 2015 |
|
Managements Report on Internal Control over
Financial Reporting
The Companys management is responsible for establishing and
maintaining an adequate system of internal control over financial reporting.
Management conducted an evaluation of the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting based on the Internal Control Integrated Framework,
2013 issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway
Commission. Based on this evaluation, management concluded that the Companys
internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31,
2014.
The effectiveness of the Companys internal control over
financial reporting as at December 31, 2014 has been audited by
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, our independent auditor, as stated in its report
which appears herein.
Changes to Internal Control over Financial
Reporting
There has not been any change in the Companys internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during 2014 that has materially affected,
or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Companys internal control
over financial reporting.
ii
March 5, 2015
Independent Auditors Report
To the Shareholders of
Denison Mines Corp.
We have completed integrated audits of Denison Mines Corp. and
its subsidiaries current year and prior year consolidated financial statements
and their internal control over financial reporting as at December 31, 2014. Our
opinions, based on our audits are presented below.
Report on the consolidated financial statements
We
have audited the accompanying consolidated financial statements of Denison Mines
Corp. and its subsidiaries, which comprise the consolidated statements of
financial position as at December 31, 2014 and 2013 and the consolidated
statements of income (loss) and comprehensive income (loss), changes in equity
and cash flow for the years then ended, and the related notes, which comprise a
summary of significant accounting policies and other explanatory information.
Managements responsibility for the consolidated financial
statements
Management is responsible for the preparation and fair
presentation of these consolidated financial statements in accordance with
International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) as issued by the
International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) and for such internal control as
management determines is necessary to enable the preparation of consolidated
financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to
fraud or error.
Auditors responsibility
Our responsibility is to
express an opinion on these consolidated financial statements based on our
audits. We conducted our audits in accordance with Canadian generally accepted
auditing standards and the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight
Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the
audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the consolidated financial
statements are free from material misstatement. Canadian generally accepted
auditing standards also require that we comply with ethical requirements.
An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit
evidence, on a test basis, about the amounts and disclosures in the consolidated
financial statements. The procedures selected depend on the auditors judgment,
including the assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the
consolidated financial statements, whether due to fraud or error. In making
those risk assessments, the auditor considers internal control relevant to the
Companys preparation and fair presentation of the consolidated financial
statements in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the
circumstances. An audit also includes evaluating the appropriateness of
accounting principles and policies used and the reasonableness of accounting
estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of
the consolidated financial statements.
We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained in our
audits is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit opinion on
the consolidated financial statements.
Opinion
In our opinion, the consolidated financial
statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of
Denison Mines Corp. and its subsidiaries as at December 31, 2014 and 2013 and
their financial performance and their cash flows for the years then ended in
accordance with IFRS as issued by the IASB.
Report on internal control over financial reporting
We have also audited Denison Mines Corp. and its subsidiaries internal
control over financial reporting as at December 31, 2014, based on criteria
established in Internal Control - Integrated Framework (2013), issued by the
Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO).
Managements responsibility for internal control over
financial reporting
Management is responsible for maintaining effective
internal control over financial reporting and for its assessment of the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting included in the
accompanying Managements Report on Internal control over Financial Reporting.
Auditors responsibility
Our responsibility is to
express an opinion on the Companys internal control over financial reporting
based on our audit. We conducted our audit of internal control over financial
reporting in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting
Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and
perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether effective
internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material
respects.
An audit of internal control over financial reporting includes
obtaining an understanding of internal control over financial reporting,
assessing the risk that a material weakness exists, testing and evaluating the
design and operating effectiveness of internal control, based on the assessed
risk, and performing such other procedures as we consider necessary in the
circumstances.
We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our
audit opinion on the Companys internal control over financial reporting.
Definition of internal control over financial reporting
A Companys internal control over financial reporting is a process
designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial
reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in
accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. A Companys internal
control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that:
(i) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately
and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the
Company; (ii) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as
necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of
the Company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management
and directors of the Company; and (iii) provide reasonable assurance regarding
prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition
of the Companys assets that could have a material effect on the financial
statements.
Inherent limitations
Because of its inherent
limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect
misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future
periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of
changes in conditions or that the degree of compliance with the policies or
procedures may deteriorate.
Opinion
In our opinion, Denison Mines Corp. and its
subsidiaries maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control
over financial reporting as at December 31, 2014, based on criteria established
in Internal Control - Integrated Framework (2013) issued by COSO.
(Signed) PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Chartered Professional Accountants, Licensed Public
Accountants
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
DENISON MINES CORP. |
Consolidated Statements of Financial Position |
(Expressed in
thousands of U.S. dollars except for share amounts) |
|
|
At December 31 |
|
|
At December 31 |
|
|
|
2014
|
|
|
2013
|
|
ASSETS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents (note 6) |
$ |
18,640 |
|
$ |
21,786 |
|
Investments (note 9) |
|
4,381 |
|
|
10,040 |
|
Trade and other receivables (note 7) |
|
9,411 |
|
|
4,148 |
|
Inventories (note 8) |
|
2,240 |
|
|
2,123 |
|
Prepaid expenses
and other |
|
850
|
|
|
749
|
|
|
|
35,522 |
|
|
38,846 |
|
Non-Current |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inventories ore in stockpiles (note 8)
|
|
1,760 |
|
|
1,661 |
|
Investments (note 9) |
|
954 |
|
|
5,901 |
|
Restricted cash and investments (note 10)
|
|
2,068 |
|
|
2,299 |
|
Property, plant and equipment (note 11) |
|
270,388 |
|
|
281,010 |
|
Intangibles (note 12) |
|
638 |
|
|
1,252 |
|
Total assets |
$ |
311,330 |
|
$ |
330,969 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable and accrued liabilities |
$ |
10,050 |
|
$ |
7,992 |
|
Current portion of long-term liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post-employment benefits
(note 13) |
|
259 |
|
|
376 |
|
Reclamation obligations (note 14) |
|
706 |
|
|
699 |
|
Debt obligations (note
15) |
|
30 |
|
|
55 |
|
Other liabilities (note
16) |
|
1,935 |
|
|
333 |
|
|
|
12,980 |
|
|
9,455 |
|
Non-Current |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post-employment benefits (note 13) |
|
2,662 |
|
|
2,945 |
|
Reclamation obligations (note 14) |
|
16,953 |
|
|
11,509 |
|
Debt obligations (note 15) |
|
9 |
|
|
42 |
|
Other liabilities (note 16) |
|
841 |
|
|
940 |
|
Deferred income
tax liability (note 17) |
|
21,826 |
|
|
25,847 |
|
Total liabilities |
|
55,271 |
|
|
50,738 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EQUITY |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Share capital (note 18) |
|
1,120,758 |
|
|
1,092,144 |
|
Share purchase warrants (note 19) |
|
376 |
|
|
616 |
|
Contributed surplus (note 20) |
|
53,321 |
|
|
52,943 |
|
Deficit |
|
(892,537 |
) |
|
(860,834 |
) |
Accumulated other
comprehensive income (loss) (note 21) |
|
(25,859 |
) |
|
(7,729 |
) |
Total equity |
|
256,059 |
|
|
277,140 |
|
Non-controlling
interest (note 5) |
|
- |
|
|
3,091
|
|
Total liabilities and equity |
$ |
311,330 |
|
$ |
330,969 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Issued and outstanding common shares (note 18) |
|
505,868,894 |
|
|
482,003,444 |
|
Commitments and contingencies (note 26) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subsequent events (note 28) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of the consolidated
financial statements
On behalf of the Board of Directors:
(Signed) Ron F. Hochstein |
(Signed) Catherine J.G. Stefan |
Director |
Director |
- 1 -
DENISON MINES CORP. |
Consolidated Statements of Income (Loss) and Comprehensive
Income (Loss) |
(Expressed in
thousands of U.S. dollars except for share and per share amounts)
|
|
|
Year
Ended |
|
|
|
December 31 |
|
|
December 31 |
|
|
|
2014 |
|
|
2013 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
REVENUES (note 23) |
$ |
9,619 |
|
$ |
10,407 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXPENSES |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating expenses (note 22, 23) |
|
(11,651 |
) |
|
(8,811 |
) |
Mineral property exploration (note 23) |
|
(14,795 |
) |
|
(13,682 |
) |
General and administrative (note 23) |
|
(7,590 |
) |
|
(8,167 |
) |
Impairment of mineral properties (note 11) |
|
(1,745 |
) |
|
(47,099 |
) |
Other income
(expense) (note 22) |
|
(7,558 |
) |
|
(529 |
) |
|
|
(43,339 |
) |
|
(78,288 |
) |
Income (loss) before finance charges |
|
(33,720 |
) |
|
(67,881 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Finance income
(expense) (note 22) |
|
(282 |
) |
|
(532 |
) |
Income (loss) before taxes |
|
(34,002 |
) |
|
(68,413 |
) |
Income tax recovery (expense) (note 17): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current |
|
(5 |
) |
|
51 |
|
Deferred |
|
2,304 |
|
|
(15,473 |
) |
Net income (loss) for the period |
$ |
(31,703 |
) |
$ |
(83,835 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Items that may be reclassified to income
(loss): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized gain (loss) on investments-net of
tax |
|
7 |
|
|
286 |
|
Foreign currency translation change |
|
(18,137 |
) |
|
(18,942 |
) |
Comprehensive
income (loss) for the period |
$ |
(49,833 |
) |
$ |
(102,491 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) per share: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic and diluted |
$ |
(0.06 |
) |
$ |
(0.19 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted-average number of shares
outstanding (in thousands): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic
and diluted |
|
494,510 |
|
|
440,895 |
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of the consolidated
financial statements
- 2 -
DENISON MINES CORP. |
Consolidated Statements of Changes in Equity |
(Expressed in
thousands of U.S. dollars) |
|
|
Year
Ended |
|
|
|
December 31 |
|
|
December 31 |
|
|
|
2014 |
|
|
2013 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Share capital |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balancebeginning of period |
$ |
1,092,144 |
|
$ |
979,124 |
|
Share issues-net of issue costs |
|
12,845 |
|
|
13,627 |
|
Flow-through share premium |
|
(2,030 |
) |
|
(332 |
) |
Shares issued on acquisition of JNR Resources (note 5) |
|
- |
|
|
10,956 |
|
Shares issued on acquisition of Fission
Energy Corp (note 5) |
|
- |
|
|
66,259 |
|
Shares issued on acquisition of Rockgate Capital Corp (note
5) |
|
3,034 |
|
|
21,760 |
|
Shares issued on acquisition of
International Enexco Limited (note 5) |
|
11,979 |
|
|
- |
|
Shares issued to settle payable and accrued liability
obligations (note 18) |
|
610 |
|
|
- |
|
Share options exercised-cash |
|
946 |
|
|
111 |
|
Share options exercised-non cash |
|
525 |
|
|
98 |
|
Share purchase warrants exercised-cash |
|
405 |
|
|
330 |
|
Share purchase
warrants exercisednon-cash |
|
300 |
|
|
211 |
|
Balanceend of period |
|
1,120,758 |
|
|
1,092,144 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Share purchase warrants |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balancebeginning of period |
|
616 |
|
|
- |
|
Warrants issued on acquisition of JNR
Resources (note 5) |
|
- |
|
|
17 |
|
Warrants assumed on acquisition of Fission Energy Corp
(note 5) |
|
- |
|
|
827 |
|
Warrants issued on acquisition of
International Enexco Limited (note 5) |
|
61 |
|
|
- |
|
Warrants exercised |
|
(300 |
) |
|
(211 |
) |
Warrants expired |
|
(1 |
) |
|
(17 |
) |
Balanceend of
period |
|
376 |
|
|
616 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contributed surplus |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balancebeginning of period |
|
52,943 |
|
|
50,671 |
|
Stock-based compensation expense |
|
800 |
|
|
903 |
|
Share options issued on acquisition of JNR
Resources (note 5) |
|
- |
|
|
131 |
|
Share options issued on acquisition of Fission Energy Corp
(note 5) |
|
- |
|
|
1,321 |
|
Share options issued on acquisition of
International Enexco Limited (note 5) |
|
102 |
|
|
- |
|
Share options exercised-non-cash |
|
(525 |
) |
|
(98 |
) |
Warrants expired |
|
1 |
|
|
17 |
|
Warrants
expiredtax effect |
|
- |
|
|
(2 |
) |
Balanceend of period |
|
53,321 |
|
|
52,943 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deficit |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balancebeginning of period |
|
(860,834 |
) |
|
(776,999 |
) |
Net loss |
|
(31,703 |
) |
|
(83,835 |
) |
Balance-end of
period |
|
(892,537 |
) |
|
(860,834 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated other comprehensive income |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balancebeginning of period |
|
(7,729 |
) |
|
10,927 |
|
Unrealized gain (loss) on investments |
|
7 |
|
|
286 |
|
Foreign currency translation |
|
(18,137 |
) |
|
(18,119 |
) |
Foreign currency
translation realized in net income |
|
- |
|
|
(823 |
) |
Balanceend of period |
|
(25,859 |
) |
|
(7,729 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Equity |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balancebeginning
of period |
$ |
277,140 |
|
$ |
263,723 |
|
Balanceend of period |
$ |
256,059 |
|
$ |
277,140 |
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of the consolidated
financial statements
- 3 -
DENISON MINES CORP. |
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flow |
(Expressed in
thousands of U.S. dollars) |
|
|
Year
Ended |
|
|
|
December 31 |
|
|
December 31 |
|
CASH PROVIDED
BY (USED IN): |
|
2014 |
|
|
2013 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OPERATING ACTIVITIES |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) for the period |
$ |
(31,703 |
) |
$ |
(83,835 |
) |
Items not affecting cash: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depletion, depreciation, amortization and accretion |
|
2,095 |
|
|
2,296 |
|
Impairment mineral properties (note
5) |
|
1,745 |
|
|
47,099 |
|
Impairment investments |
|
22 |
|
|
39 |
|
Stock-based compensation |
|
800 |
|
|
903 |
|
Losses (gains) on reclamation obligation revisions |
|
2,086 |
|
|
(1,645 |
) |
Losses (gains) on asset disposals |
|
(449 |
) |
|
12 |
|
Losses (gains) on investments and restricted
investments |
|
59 |
|
|
1,298 |
|
Deferred income tax expense
(recovery) |
|
(2,304 |
) |
|
15,473 |
|
Foreign exchange |
|
7,983 |
|
|
(17 |
) |
Change in non-cash working capital items (note 22) |
|
(3,834 |
) |
|
(2,766 |
) |
Net cash provided
by (used in) operating activities |
|
(23,500 |
) |
|
(21,143 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INVESTING ACTIVITIES |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acquisition of assets, net of cash and cash
equivalents acquired: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
JNR Resources (note 5) |
|
- |
|
|
(715 |
) |
Fission Energy Corp (note 5) |
|
- |
|
|
(4,058 |
) |
Rockgate Capital Corp (note 5) |
|
(57 |
) |
|
(989 |
) |
International Enexco Limited
(note 5) |
|
(141 |
) |
|
- |
|
Decrease (increase) in notes receivable |
|
- |
|
|
298 |
|
Sale of investments |
|
9,529 |
|
|
- |
|
Purchase of investments |
|
(569 |
) |
|
- |
|
Expenditures on property, plant and
equipment |
|
(859 |
) |
|
(2,262 |
) |
Proceeds on sale of property, plant and equipment |
|
265 |
|
|
58 |
|
Decrease (increase) in restricted cash and investments |
|
44 |
|
|
(210 |
) |
Net cash provided
by (used in) investing activities |
|
8,212 |
|
|
(7,878 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FINANCING ACTIVITIES |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase (decrease) in debt obligations |
|
(53 |
) |
|
(121 |
) |
Issuance of common shares for: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
New share issues-net of issue costs
(note 18) |
|
12,845 |
|
|
13,627 |
|
Share options exercised (note 18) |
|
946 |
|
|
111 |
|
Share purchase warrants exercised (note 18) |
|
405 |
|
|
330 |
|
Net cash provided
by (used in) financing activities |
|
14,143 |
|
|
13,947 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents |
|
(1,145 |
) |
|
(15,074 |
) |
Foreign exchange effect on cash and cash
equivalents |
|
(2,001 |
) |
|
(1,328 |
) |
Cash and cash
equivalents, beginning of period |
|
21,786 |
|
|
38,188 |
|
Cash and cash equivalents, end of period |
$ |
18,640 |
|
$ |
21,786 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supplemental cash flow disclosure: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest paid |
$ |
2 |
|
$ |
3 |
|
Income taxes paid (recovered) |
|
- |
|
|
(51 |
) |
The accompanying notes are an integral part of the consolidated
financial statements
- 4 -
DENISON MINES CORP. |
Notes to the consolidated financial statements for the
years ended December 31, 2014 and 2013 |
(Expressed in U.S. dollars except for shares and per share
amounts) |
|
1. |
NATURE OF OPERATIONS |
|
|
|
|
Denison Mines Corp. and its subsidiary companies and
joint arrangements (collectively, the Company) are engaged in uranium
mining and related activities, including acquisition, exploration and
development of uranium properties, extraction, processing and selling of
uranium. |
|
|
|
|
The Company has a 22.5% interest in the McClean Lake
Joint Venture (MLJV) (which includes the McClean Lake mill) and a 25.17%
interest in the Midwest Joint Venture (MWJV), both of which are located
in the Athabasca Basin of Saskatchewan, Canada. The McClean Lake mill
provides toll milling services to the Cigar Lake Joint Venture (CLJV)
under the terms of a toll milling agreement between the parties. In
addition, the Company has varying ownership interests in a number of
development and exploration projects located in Canada, Mali, Namibia,
Zambia and Mongolia. |
|
|
|
|
The Company provides mine decommissioning and
decommissioned site monitoring services to third parties through its
environmental services division and is also the manager of Uranium
Participation Corporation (UPC), a publicly-listed investment holding
company formed to invest substantially all of its assets in uranium oxide
concentrates (U3O8) and uranium hexafluoride (UF6). The Company has no
ownership interest in UPC but receives fees for management services and
commissions from the purchase and sale of U3O8 and UF6 by UPC. |
|
|
|
|
Denison Mines Corp. (DMC) is incorporated under the
Business Corporations Act (Ontario) and domiciled in Canada. The address
of its registered head office is 595 Bay Street, Suite 402, Toronto,
Ontario, Canada, M5G 2C2. |
|
|
|
|
References to 2014 and 2013 refer to the year ended
December 31, 2014 and the year ended December 31, 2013
respectively. |
|
|
|
2. |
BASIS OF PRESENTATION |
|
|
|
|
The consolidated financial statements have been prepared
in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) as
issued by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). |
|
|
|
|
The Companys presentation currency is U.S
dollars. |
|
|
|
|
These financial statements were approved by the board of
directors for issue on March 5, 2015. |
|
|
|
3. |
ACCOUNTING POLICIES AND RESTATEMENT OF COMPARATIVE
NUMBERS |
|
|
|
|
Significant Accounting Policies |
|
|
|
|
The significant accounting policies used in the
preparation of these consolidated financial statements are described
below: |
|
|
|
|
(a) |
Consolidation |
|
|
|
|
|
The financial statements of the Company include the
accounts of DMC and its subsidiaries. Subsidiaries are all entities
(including structured entities) over which the group has control. The
group controls an entity where the group is exposed to, or has rights to,
variable returns from its involvement with the entity and has the ability
to affect those returns through its power to direct the activities of the
entity. Subsidiaries are fully consolidated from the date on which control
is transferred to the group and are deconsolidated from the date that
control ceases. Intercompany transactions, balances and unrealized gains
and losses from intercompany transactions are eliminated. |
|
|
|
|
|
Non-controlling interests represent equity interests in
subsidiaries owned by outside parties. The share of net assets of
subsidiaries attributable to non-controlling interests is presented as a
component of equity. Their share of net income and comprehensive income is
recognized directly in equity. Changes in the parent companys ownership interest in subsidiaries that
do not result in a loss of control are accounted for as equity
transactions. |
- 5 -
|
|
The financial statements of the Company also include
various interests in development and exploration projects which are held
through option or contractual agreements. These have been classified as
joint ownership interests under IFRS. These joint ownership interests have
been accounted for using the undivided interest method. |
|
|
|
|
(b) |
Foreign currency
translation |
|
(i) |
Functional and presentation currency |
|
|
|
|
|
Items included in the financial statements of each entity
in the DMC group are measured using the currency of the primary economic
environment in which the entity operates (the functional currency).
Primary and secondary indicators are used to determine the functional
currency (primary indicators have priority over secondary indicators).
Primary indicators include the currency that mainly influences sales
prices and the currency that mainly influences labour, material and other
costs. Secondary indicators include the currency in which funds from
financing activities are generated and the currency in which receipts from
operating activities are usually retained. For our entities located in
Canada, Mongolia, Mali, Namibia, Niger and Zambia, the local currency has
been determined to be the functional currency. |
|
|
|
|
|
The consolidated financial statements are presented in
U.S. dollars, unless otherwise stated. |
|
|
|
|
|
The financial statements of entities that have a
functional currency different from the presentation currency of DMC
(foreign operations) are translated into U.S. dollars as follows: assets
and liabilities at the closing rate at the date of the statement of
financial position, and income and expenses at the average rate of the
period (as this is considered a reasonable approximation to actual rates).
All resulting changes are recognized in other comprehensive income as
cumulative foreign currency translation adjustments. |
|
|
|
|
|
When an entity disposes of its entire interest in a
foreign operation, or loses control, joint control, or significant
influence over a foreign operation, the foreign currency gains or losses
accumulated in other comprehensive income related to the foreign operation
are recognized in profit or loss. If an entity disposes of part of an
interest in another entity which remains a subsidiary, a proportionate
amount of foreign currency gains or losses accumulated in other
comprehensive income related to the subsidiary is reallocated between
controlling and non-controlling interests. |
|
|
|
|
(ii) |
Transactions and balances |
|
|
|
|
|
Foreign currency transactions are translated into an
entitys functional currency using the exchange rates prevailing at the
dates of the transactions. Foreign exchange gains and losses resulting
from the settlement of foreign currency transactions and from the
translation at year-end exchange rates of monetary assets and liabilities
denominated in currencies other than an operations functional currency
are recognized in the statement of income. |
|
(c) |
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents include cash on hand, deposits
held with banks, and other short-term highly liquid investments with
original maturities of three months or less which are subject to an
insignificant risk of changes in value. |
|
|
|
|
|
(d) |
Financial instruments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Financial assets and financial liabilities are recognized
when the Company becomes a party to the contractual provisions of the
financial instrument. Financial assets are derecognized when the rights to
receive cash flows from the assets have expired or have been transferred
and the Company has transferred substantially all risks and rewards of
ownership. Financial liabilities are derecognized when the obligations
specified in the contract is discharged, cancelled or expires. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
At initial recognition, the Company classifies its
financial instruments in the following categories: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(i) |
Financial assets and liabilities at fair value through
profit or loss (FVPL) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A financial asset or liability is classified in this
category if acquired principally for the purpose of selling or
repurchasing in the short-term. Financial instruments in this category are
recognized initially and subsequently at fair value. Transaction costs are
expensed in the consolidated statement of income. Gains and losses arising
from changes in fair value are presented in the consolidated statement of
income in the period in which they arise. |
- 6 -
|
(ii) |
Available-for-sale investments |
|
|
|
|
|
Available-for-sale investments are recognized initially
at fair value plus transaction costs and are subsequently carried at fair
value. Gains or losses arising from re-measurement are recognized in other
comprehensive income. When an available-for-sale investment is sold or
impaired, the accumulated gains or losses are moved from accumulated other
comprehensive income to the statement of income. |
|
|
|
|
(iii) |
Held-to-maturity investments |
|
|
|
|
|
Held-to-maturity investments are non-derivative financial
assets with fixed or determinable payments and fixed maturities that are
intended to be held to maturity. Held-to-maturity investments are
initially recognized at fair value plus transaction costs and subsequently
measured at amortized cost using the effective interest method less a
provision for impairment. |
|
|
|
|
(iv) |
Loans and receivables |
|
|
|
|
|
Loans and receivables are non-derivative financial assets
with fixed or determinable payments that are not quoted in an active
market. Loans and receivables are initially recognized at the amount
expected to be received, less a discount (when material) to reduce the
loans and receivables to fair value. Subsequently, loans and receivables
are measured at amortized cost using the effective interest method less a
provision for impairment. |
|
|
|
|
(v) |
Financial liabilities at amortized cost |
|
|
|
|
|
Financial liabilities are initially recognized at the
amount required to be paid, less a discount (when material) to reduce the
financial liabilities to fair value. Subsequently, financial liabilities
are measured at amortized cost using the effective interest
method. |
The Company has designated its
financial assets and liabilities as follows:
|
(i) |
Cash and cash equivalents and Trade and other
receivables are classified as loans and receivables and are measured at
amortized cost using the effective interest rate method. Interest income
is recorded in net income through finance income (expense), as
applicable; |
|
(ii) |
A portion of Investments are classified as FVPL and any
period change in fair value is recorded in net income through other income
(expense). The remaining amount is classified as available-for-sale and
any period change in fair value is recorded in other comprehensive income.
When the investments value becomes impaired, the loss is recognized in
net income through other income (expense) in the period of
impairment; |
|
(iii) |
Restricted cash and investments is classified as
held-to-maturity investments; and |
|
(iv) |
Accounts payable and accrued liabilities and Debt
obligations are classified as other financial liabilities and are
measured at amortized cost using the effective interest rate method.
Interest expense is recorded in net income through finance income
(expense), as applicable. |
|
(e) |
Impairment of financial assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
At each reporting date, the Company assesses whether
there is objective evidence that a financial asset (other than a financial
asset classified as fair value through profit and loss) is impaired.
Objective evidence of an impairment loss includes: i) significant
financial difficulty of the debtor; ii) delinquencies in interest or
principal payments; iii) increased probability that the borrower will
enter bankruptcy or other financial reorganization; and (iv) in the case
of equity investments, a significant or prolonged decline in the fair
value of the security below its cost. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
If such evidence exists, the Company recognizes an
impairment loss, as follows: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(i) |
Financial assets carried at amortized cost: The loss is
the difference between the amortized cost of the loan or receivable and
the present value of the estimated future cash flows, discounted using the
instruments original effective interest rate. The carrying amount of the
asset is reduced by this amount either directly or indirectly through the
use of an allowance account. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(ii) |
Available-for-sale financial assets: The impairment loss
is the difference between the original cost of the asset and its fair
value at the measurement date, less any impairment losses previously
recognized in the statement of income. This
amount represents the cumulative loss in accumulated other comprehensive income
that is reclassified to net income. |
- 7 -
|
|
|
|
(f) |
Inventories |
|
|
|
|
|
Expenditures, including depreciation, depletion and
amortization of production assets, incurred in the mining and processing
activities that will result in the future concentrate production are
deferred and accumulated as ore in stockpiles and in-process and
concentrate inventories. These amounts are carried at the lower of average
costs or net realizable value (NRV). NRV is the difference between the
estimated future concentrate price (net of selling costs) and estimated
costs to complete production into a saleable form. |
|
|
|
|
|
Stockpiles are comprised of coarse ore that has been
extracted from the mine and is available for further processing. Mining
production costs are added to the stockpile as incurred and removed from
the stockpile based upon the average cost per tonne of ore produced from
mines considered to be in commercial production. The current portion of
ore in stockpiles represents the amount expected to be processed in the
next twelve months. |
|
|
|
|
|
In-process and concentrate inventories include the cost
of the ore removed from the stockpile, a pro-rata share of the
amortization of the associated mineral property, as well as production
costs incurred to process the ore into a saleable product. Processing
costs typically include labor, chemical reagents and directly attributable
mill overhead expenditures. Items are valued at weighted average
cost. |
|
|
|
|
|
Materials and other supplies held for use in the
production of inventories are carried at average cost and are not written
down below that cost if the finished products in which they will be
incorporated are expected to be sold at or above cost. However, when a
decline in the price of concentrates indicates that the cost of the
finished products exceeds net realizable value, the materials are written
down to net realizable value. In such circumstances, the replacement cost
of the materials may be the best available measure of their net realizable
value. |
|
|
|
|
(g) |
Property, plant and equipment |
|
|
|
|
|
Property, plant and equipment are recorded at acquisition
or production cost and carried net of depreciation and impairments. Cost
includes expenditures incurred by the Company that are directly
attributable to the acquisition of the asset. Subsequent costs are
included in the assets carrying amount or recognized as a separate asset,
as appropriate, only when it is probable that future economic benefits
associated with the item will flow to the Company and the cost can be
measured reliably. The carrying amount of a replaced asset is derecognized
when replaced. Repairs and maintenance costs are charged to the statement
of income during the period in which they are incurred. |
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation is calculated on a straight line or unit of
production basis as appropriate. Where a straight line methodology is
used, the assets are depreciated to their estimated residual value over an
estimated useful life which ranges from three to twenty years depending
upon the asset type. Where a unit of production methodology is used, the
assets are depreciated to their estimated residual value over the useful
life defined by managements best estimate of recoverable reserves and
resources in the current mine plan. When assets are retired or sold, the
resulting gains or losses are reflected in current earnings as a component
of other income or expense. The Company allocates the amount initially
recognized in respect of an item of property, plant and equipment to its
significant parts and depreciates separately each such part. Residual
values, method of depreciation and useful lives of the assets are reviewed
at least annually and adjusted if appropriate. |
|
|
|
|
|
Where straight-line depreciation is utilized, the range
of useful lives for various asset classes is generally as
follows: |
Buildings |
15 - 20 years; |
Production machinery and equipment |
5 - 7 years; |
Other |
3 - 5 years;
|
|
(h) |
Mineral property acquisition, exploration and
development costs |
|
|
|
|
|
Costs relating to the acquisition of acquired mineral
rights and acquired exploration rights are capitalized. |
|
|
|
|
|
Exploration and evaluation expenditures are expensed as
incurred on mineral properties not sufficiently advanced. At the point in
time that a mineral property is considered to be sufficiently advanced, it
is classified as a development mineral property and all further
expenditures for the current year and subsequent years are capitalized as
incurred. These costs will include costs of maintaining the site until
commercial production, costs to initially delineate the ore body, costs
for shaft sinking and access, lateral development, drift development and infrastructure
development. Such costs represent the net expenditures incurred and
capitalized as at the balance sheet date and do not necessarily reflect
present or future values. |
- 8 -
|
|
Once a development mineral property goes into commercial
production, the property is classified as Producing and the accumulated
costs are amortized over the estimated recoverable resources in the
current mine plan using a unit of production basis. Commercial production
occurs when a property is substantially complete and ready for its
intended use. |
|
|
|
|
|
(i) |
Identifiable Intangible assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Companys identifiable intangible assets are stated
at cost less accumulated amortization. These assets are capitalized and
amortized on a straight-line basis in the statement of income over the
period of their expected useful lives. The useful lives of the assets are
reviewed at least annually and adjusted if appropriate. |
|
|
|
|
|
(j) |
Impairment of non-financial assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property, plant and equipment and intangible assets are
tested for impairment when events or changes in circumstances indicate
that the carrying amount may not be recoverable. For the purpose of
measuring recoverable amounts, assets are grouped at the lowest levels for
which there are separately identifiable cash inflows or CGUs. The
recoverable amount is the higher of an assets fair value less costs of
disposal and value in use (being the present value of the expected future
cash flows of the relevant asset or CGU, as determined by management). An
impairment loss is recognized for the amount by which the CGUs carrying
amount exceeds its recoverable amount. |
|
|
|
|
|
(k) |
Employee benefits |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(i) |
Post-employment benefit obligations |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Company assumed the obligation of a predecessor
company to provide life insurance, supplemental health care and dental
benefits, excluding pensions, to its former Canadian employees who retired
from active service prior to 1997. The estimated cost of providing these
benefits is actuarially determined using the projected benefits method and
is recorded on the balance sheet at its estimated present value. The
interest cost on this unfunded liability is being accreted over the
remaining lives of this retiree group. Experience gains and losses are
being deferred as a component of accumulated other comprehensive income
and are adjusted, as required, on the obligations re- measurement
date. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(ii) |
Stock-based compensation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Company uses a fair value-based method of accounting
for stock options to employees and to non-employees. The fair value is
determined using the Black-Scholes option pricing model on the date of the
grant. The cost is recognized on a graded method basis, adjusted for
expected forfeitures, over the applicable vesting period as an increase in
stock-based compensation expense and the contributed surplus account. When
such stock options are exercised, the proceeds received by the Company,
together with the respective amount from contributed surplus, are credited
to share capital. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(iii) |
Termination benefits |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Company recognizes termination benefits when it is
demonstrably committed to either terminating the employment of current
employees according to a detailed formal plan without possibility of
withdrawal, or providing benefits as a result of an offer made to
encourage voluntary termination. Benefits falling due more than twelve
months after the end of the reporting period are discounted to their
present value. |
|
(l) |
Reclamation provisions |
|
|
|
|
|
Reclamation provisions, any legal and constructive
obligation related to the retirement of tangible long-lived assets, are
recognized when such obligations are incurred, if a reasonable estimate of
the value can be determined. These obligations are measured initially at
the present value of expected cash flows using a pre-tax discount rate
reflecting risks specific to the liability and the resulting costs are
capitalized and added to the carrying value of the related assets. In
subsequent periods, the liability is adjusted for the accretion of the
discount and the expense is recorded in the income statement. Changes in
the amount or timing of the underlying future cash flows or changes in the
discount rate are immediately recognized as an increase or decrease in the
carrying amounts of the related asset and liability. These costs are
amortized to the results of operations over the life of the asset.
Reductions in the amount of the liability are first applied against
the amount of the net reclamation asset on the books with any
excess value being recorded in the statement of operations. |
- 9 -
|
|
The Companys activities are subject to numerous
governmental laws and regulations. Estimates of future reclamation
liabilities for asset decommissioning and site restoration are recognized
in the period when such liabilities are incurred. These estimates are
updated on a periodic basis and are subject to changing laws, regulatory
requirements, changing technology and other factors which will be
recognized when appropriate. Liabilities related to site restoration
include long-term treatment and monitoring costs and incorporate total
expected costs net of recoveries. Expenditures incurred to dismantle
facilities, restore and monitor closed resource properties are charged
against the related reclamation and remediation liability. |
|
|
|
|
(m) |
Provisions |
|
|
|
|
|
Provisions for restructuring costs and legal claims,
where applicable, are recognized in liabilities when the Company has a
present legal or constructive obligation as a result of past events, it is
probable that an outflow of resources will be required to settle the
obligation, and the amount can be reliably estimated. Provisions are
measured at managements best estimate of the expenditure required to
settle the obligation at the end of the reporting period, and are
discounted to present value where the effect is material. The Company
performs evaluations to identify onerous contracts and, where applicable,
records provisions for such contracts. |
|
|
|
|
(n) |
Current and Deferred Income tax |
|
|
|
|
|
Income taxes are accounted for using the liability method
of accounting for deferred income taxes. Under this method, the tax
currently payable is based on taxable income for the period. Taxable
income differs from income as reported in the consolidated statement of
income (loss) because it excludes items of income or expense that are
taxable or deductible in other periods and it further excludes items that
are never taxable or deductible. The Companys liability for current tax
is calculated using tax rates that have been enacted or substantively
enacted by the balance sheet date. |
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred income tax assets and liabilities are recognized
based on temporary differences between the financial statement carrying
values of the existing assets and liabilities and their respective income
tax bases used in the computation of taxable income. Deferred tax
liabilities are generally recognized for all taxable temporary differences
and deferred tax assets are recognized to the extent that it is probable
that taxable income will be available against which deductible temporary
differences can be utilized. Such assets and liabilities are not
recognized if the temporary difference arises from goodwill or from the
initial recognition (other than in a business combination) of other assets
and liabilities in a transaction that affects neither the taxable income
nor the accounting income. Deferred tax liabilities are recognized for
taxable temporary differences arising on investments in subsidiaries and
investments, and interests in joint ventures, except where the Company is
able to control the reversal of the temporary differences and it is
probable that the temporary differences will not reverse in the
foreseeable future. Deferred tax assets are recognized to the extent that
taxable income will be available against which the deductible temporary
differences can be utilized. The carrying amount of deferred tax assets is
reviewed at each balance sheet date and reduced to the extent that it is
no longer probable that sufficient taxable earnings will be available to
allow all or part of the asset to be recovered. |
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred tax is calculated at the tax rates that are
expected to apply in the period when the liability is settled or the asset
realized, based on tax rates and tax laws that have been enacted or
substantively enacted by the balance sheet date. Deferred tax is charged
or credited to income, except when it relates to items charged or credited
directly to equity, in which case the deferred tax is also recorded within
equity. |
|
|
|
|
|
Income tax assets and liabilities are offset when there
is a legally enforceable right to offset the assets and liabilities and
when they relate to income taxes levied by the same tax authority on
either the same taxable entity or different taxable entities where there
is an intention to settle the balance on a net basis. |
|
|
|
|
(o) |
Flow-Through Common Shares |
|
|
|
|
|
The Companys Canadian exploration activities have been
financed in part through the issuance of flow- through common shares
whereby the tax benefits of the eligible exploration expenditures incurred
under this arrangement are renounced to the subscribers. The proceeds from
issuing flow-through shares are allocated between the offering of shares
and the sale of tax benefits. The allocation is based on the difference
(premium) between the quoted price of the Companys existing shares and
the amount the investor pays for the actual flow-through shares. A
liability is recognized for the premium, and is extinguished when the tax
effect of the temporary differences, resulting from the renunciation, is
recorded with the difference between the liability and the value of the
tax assets renounced being recorded as a deferred tax expense. The tax
effect of the renunciation is recorded at the time the Company makes
the renunciation which may differ from the effective date
of renunciation. If the flow-through shares are not issued at a premium, a
liability is not established, and on renunciation the full value of the
tax assets renounced is recorded as a deferred tax expense. |
- 10 -
|
(p) |
Revenue recognition |
|
|
|
|
|
Revenue from the sale of mineral concentrates is
recognized when it is probable that the economic benefits will flow to the
Company. This is generally the case once delivery has occurred, the sales
price and costs incurred with respect to the transaction can be measured
reliably and collectability is reasonably assured. For uranium, revenue is
typically recognized when delivery is evidenced by book transfer at the
applicable uranium storage facility. |
|
|
|
|
|
Revenue from toll milling services is recognized as
material is processed in accordance with the specifics of the applicable
toll milling agreement. Revenue and unbilled accounts receivable are
recorded as related costs are incurred using billing formulas included in
the applicable toll milling agreement. |
|
|
|
|
|
Revenue on environmental service contracts is recognized
using the percentage of completion method, whereby sales, earnings and
unbilled accounts receivable are recorded as related costs are incurred.
Earnings rates are adjusted periodically as a result of revisions to
projected contract revenues and estimated costs of completion. Losses, if
any, are recognized fully when first anticipated. Revenues from
engineering services are recognized as the services are provided in
accordance with customer agreements. |
|
|
|
|
|
Management fees from UPC are recognized as management
services are provided under the contract on a monthly basis. Commission
revenue earned on acquisition or sale of U3O8 and UF6 on behalf of UPC (or
other parties where Denison acts as an agent) is recognized on the date
when title passes. |
|
|
|
|
(q) |
Earnings (loss) per share |
|
|
|
|
|
Basic earnings per share (EPS) is calculated by
dividing the net income (loss) for the period attributable to equity
owners of DMC by the weighted average number of common shares outstanding
during the period. |
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted EPS is calculated by adjusting the weighted
average number of common shares outstanding for dilutive instruments. The
number of shares included with respect to options, warrants and similar
instruments is computed using the treasury stock
method. |
Accounting Standards Adopted
The Company has adopted the following
new and revised accounting standards, along with any consequential amendments,
effective January 1, 2014. These changes were made in accordance with the
applicable transitional provisions.
International Accounting
Standard 36, Impairment of Assets (IAS 36)
IAS 36 was amended in May 2013 to make
small changes to the disclosures required by IAS 36 when an impairment loss is
recognized or reversed. The amendments require the disclosure of the recoverable
amount of an asset or cash generating unit (CGU) at the time an impairment
loss has been recognized or reversed and detailed disclosure of how the
associated fair value less costs of disposal has been determined.
The amendments are effective for
accounting periods beginning on or after January 1, 2014 with earlier adoption
permitted. The Company has adopted the amended disclosure requirements of IAS 36
effective January 1, 2014.
Accounting Standards Issued But Not
Yet Applied
The Company has not yet adopted the
following new accounting pronouncements which are effective for fiscal periods
of the Company beginning on or after January 1, 2015:
International Financial
Reporting Standard 9, Financial Instruments (IFRS 9)
IFRS 9 was issued in October 2010 by
the IASB to replace IAS 39, Financial Instruments Recognition and Measurement.
The replacement standard has the following significant components: it
establishes two primary measurement categories for financial assets amortized
cost and fair value; it establishes criteria for the classification of financial
assets within the measurement category based on business model and cash flow
characteristics; and it eliminates existing held to maturity,
available-for-sale, and loans and receivable categories.
- 11 -
In November 2013, the IASB issued an
amendment to IFRS 9 which includes a new hedge model that aligns accounting more
closely with risk management and enhances disclosure about hedge accounting and
risk management. Additionally, as the impairment guidance and certain limited
amendments to the classification and measurement requirements of IFRS 9 are not
yet complete, the previously mandated effective date of IFRS 9 of January 1,
2015 has been removed. Entities may apply IFRS 9 before the IASB completes the
amendments but are not required to do so.
The Company has not evaluated the
impact of adopting this standard.
International Financial
Reporting Standard 15, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (IFRS
15)
IFRS 15 deals with revenue recognition
and establishes principles for reporting useful information to users of
financial statements about the nature, amount, timing and uncertainty of revenue
and cash flows arising from an entitys contracts with customers. Revenue is
recognized when a customer obtains control of a good or service. The standard
replaces IAS 18 Revenue and IAS 11Construction Contracts and related
interpretations. The standard is effective for annual periods beginning on or
after January 1, 2017 and earlier application is permitted.
The Company has not evaluated the
impact of adopting this standard.
|
Comparative Numbers |
|
|
|
|
Certain classifications of the comparative figures have
been changed to conform to those used in the current period. |
|
|
|
4. |
CRITICAL ACCOUNTING ESTIMATES AND
JUDGEMENTS |
|
|
|
|
The preparation of consolidated financial statements in
accordance with IFRS requires the use of certain critical accounting
estimates and judgements that affect the amounts reported. It also
requires management to exercise judgement in applying the Companys
accounting policies. These judgements and estimates are based on
managements best knowledge of the relevant facts and circumstances taking
into account previous experience. Although the Company regularly reviews
the estimates and judgements made that affect these financial statements,
actual results may be materially different. |
|
|
|
|
Significant estimates and judgements made by management
relate to: |
|
|
|
|
(a) |
Determination of a Mineral Property being Sufficiently
Advanced |
|
|
|
|
|
The Company follows a policy of capitalizing
non-exploration related expenditures on properties it considers to be
sufficiently advanced. Once a mineral property is determined to be
sufficiently advanced, that determination is irrevocable and the
capitalization policy continues to apply over the life of the property. In
determining whether or not a mineral property is sufficiently advanced,
management considers a number of factors including, but not limited to:
current uranium market conditions, the quality of resources identified,
access to the resource and the suitability of the resources to current
mining methods, ease of permitting, confidence in the jurisdiction in
which the resource is located and milling complexity. |
|
|
|
|
|
Many of these factors are subject to risks and
uncertainties that can support a sufficiently advanced determination as
at one point in time but not support it at another. The final
determination requires significant judgment on the part of the Companys
management and directly impacts the carrying value of the Companys
mineral properties. |
|
|
|
|
(b) |
Valuation of Mineral Properties |
|
|
|
|
|
The Company undertakes a review of the carrying values of
mineral properties and related expenditures whenever events or changes in
circumstances indicate that their carrying values may exceed their
estimated recoverable amounts determined by reference to estimated future
operating results, discounted net cash flows and current market valuations
of similar properties. An impairment loss is recognized when the carrying
value of those assets is not recoverable. In undertaking this review,
management of the Company is required to make significant estimates of,
amongst other things: reserve and resource amounts, future production and
sale volumes, forecast commodity prices, future operating, capital and
reclamation costs to the end of the mines life and current market
valuations from observable market data which may not be directly
comparable. These estimates are subject to various risks and
uncertainties, which may ultimately have an effect on the expected
recoverability of the carrying values of the mineral properties and
related expenditures. Changes in these estimates could have a
material impact on the carrying value of the mineral property
amounts. |
- 12 -
|
(c) |
Deferred Tax Assets and Liabilities |
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred tax assets and liabilities are recognized for
the future tax consequences attributable to differences between the
financial statement carrying amounts of existing assets and liabilities
and their respective tax bases. The Company computes deferred tax assets
and liabilities in respect of taxes that are based on taxable profit.
Taxable profit is understood to be a net, rather than gross, taxable
amount that gives effect to both revenues and expenses. Taxable profit
will often differ from accounting profit and management may need to
exercise judgment to determine whether some taxes are income taxes
(subject to deferred tax accounting) or operating expenses. |
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred tax assets and liabilities are measured using
enacted or substantially enacted tax rates expected to apply when the
differences are expected to be recovered or settled. The determination of
the ability of the Company to utilize tax loss carry forwards to offset
deferred tax liabilities requires management to exercise judgment and make
certain assumptions about the future performance of the Company.
Management is required to assess whether it is probable that the Company
will benefit from these prior losses and other deferred tax assets.
Changes in economic conditions, commodity prices and other factors could
result in revisions to the estimates of the benefits to be realized or the
timing of utilizing the losses. |
|
|
|
|
(d) |
Reclamation Obligations |
|
|
|
|
|
Asset retirement obligations are recorded as a liability
when the asset is initially constructed. Denison has accrued its best
estimate of the ongoing reclamation liability in connection with the
decommissioned Elliot Lake mine site and is currently accruing its best
estimate of its share of the cost to decommission its other mining and
milling properties in accordance with existing laws, contracts and other
policies. The estimate of future costs involves a number of estimates
relating to timing, type of costs, mine closure plans, and review of
potential methods and technical advancements. Furthermore, due to
uncertainties concerning environmental remediation, the ultimate cost of
the Companys decommissioning liability could differ from amounts
provided. The estimate of the Companys obligation is subject to change
due to amendments to applicable laws and regulations and as new
information concerning the Companys operations becomes available. The
Company is not able to determine the impact on its financial position, if
any, of environmental laws and regulations that may be enacted in the
future. |
5. |
ACQUISITIONS AND DIVESTITURES |
|
|
|
Acquisition of International Enexco
Limited |
|
|
|
On June 6, 2014, Denison completed a plan of arrangement
(the IEC Arrangement) to acquire all of the outstanding shares, options
and warrants of International Enexco Limited (IEC). IECs principal
uranium assets include a 30% interest in the Mann Lake exploration project
and a 20% interest in the Bachman Lake Joint Venture, both located in
Saskatchewan, Canada. Prior to completing the IEC Arrangment, IEC also
owned a subsidiary holding an indirect interest in IECs Contact Copper
project and its other US properties (Spinco). |
|
|
|
Pursuant to the IEC Arrangement, the former shareholders
of IEC ultimately exchanged each IEC common share held for 0.26 of a
Denison common share (the Exchange Ratio). Outstanding warrants and
options of IEC were exchanged for options and warrants of Denison adjusted
by the Exchange Ratio. The Denison options received on exchange expired 90
days after the IEC Arrangement completion date while the Denison warrants
received on exchange retained the expiry dates of the originally issued
IEC warrants. |
|
|
|
As part of the IEC Arrangement, IECs shareholders also
received a pro rata distribution of Spinco shares on a one-for-one basis
and one-half of a warrant to acquire an additional Spinco share,
exercisable for 6 months, at a price of CAD$5.00 for each whole share to
be acquired. Each holder of IEC options and warrants also received
replacement options and warrants, as the case may be, from Spinco with the
same terms and conditions as the IEC options and warrants being
replaced. |
|
|
|
For accounting purposes, IEC is not considered a business
under IFRS 3 Business Combinations as at the time of the acquisition it
is not capable of generating outputs that can provide a return to Denison.
As a result, the IEC Arrangement has been accounted for as an asset
acquisition with share based consideration. Transaction costs incurred by
Denison related to the IEC Arrangement have been capitalized as part of
the consideration amount. Denison is including the results of IEC as part
of its Canadian mining segment for reporting
purposes. |
- 13 -
The following table summarizes the fair
value of the IEC assets acquired and the liabilities assumed at the acquisition
date of June 6, 2014:
|
|
|
IEC |
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
Fair
Value |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
$ |
206 |
|
|
Trade and other receivables |
|
421 |
|
|
Prepaid expenses and other |
|
15 |
|
|
Property, plant and equipment |
|
|
|
|
Mineral properties - Canada |
|
14,120 |
|
|
Total assets |
|
14,762 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable and accrued liabilities |
|
1,319 |
|
|
Reclamation obligations |
|
20 |
|
|
Net assets |
$ |
13,423 |
|
The total consideration relating to the
IEC Arrangement is summarized below:
|
(in thousands except for share amounts) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value of 10,229,035 common shares
issued by Denison |
$ |
11,979 |
|
|
Fair value of 660,127 common share purchase warrants issued
by Denison |
|
61 |
|
|
Fair value of 902,200 common share options
issued by Denison |
|
102 |
|
|
Fair value of IEC shares held by Denison prior to
acquisition |
|
934 |
|
|
Costs incurred by the Company pursuant to
arrangement: |
|
|
|
|
Transaction costs |
|
347
|
|
|
Fair value of total consideration |
$ |
13,423 |
|
The fair value of the common shares was
determined using Denisons closing share price on June 6, 2014 of CAD$1.28
converted to USD$ using the June 6, 2014 foreign exchange rate of 0.9149.
The fair value of the common share
purchase warrants issued by Denison to replace those of IEC totaled $61,000 or
$0.0924 per warrant. The fair value was determined using the Black-Scholes
option pricing model with the following assumptions: risk-free interest rate of
1.06%, expected stock price volatility between 38.56% and 48.62%, expected life
between 0.50 years and 1.25 years and expected dividend yield of nil%.
The fair value of the common share
options issued by Denison to replace those of IEC totaled $102,000 or $0.1131
per option. The fair value was determined using the Black-Scholes option pricing
model with the following assumptions: risk-free interest rate of 1.06%, expected
stock price volatility of 34.85%, expected life of 0.25 years and expected
dividend yield of nil%. As at June 6, 2014, all of the options issued to replace
the IEC options were fully-vested.
Acquisition of Rockgate Capital Corp
In September 2013, Denison formally
commenced a takeover bid to acquire all of the outstanding shares of Rockgate
Capital Corp. (Rockgate). Rockgates key mining asset is its Falea
uranium-copper-silver project located in Mali.
Under the terms of the takeover bid,
Rockgate shareholders received 0.192 of a common share of Denison for each
Rockgate share held. As at December 6, 2013, Denison had acquired 104,852,532
shares of Rockgate, equivalent to an initial 89.72% ownership amount and valued
the remaining 12,014,561 shares of Rockgate (or 10.28%) owned by non-controlling
interests at $3,091,000. On January 17, 2014, pursuant to a plan of arrangement
with the same terms as the takeover bid, Denison acquired the remaining 10.28%
non-controlling interest of Rockgate it had not previously acquired under its
takeover bid in 2013.
For accounting purposes, Rockgate is
not considered a business under IFRS 3 Business Combinations as at the time of
the acquisition it is not capable of generating outputs that can provide a
return to Denison. As a result, the Rockgate transaction has been accounted for
as an asset acquisition with share based consideration. Transaction costs
incurred by Denison related to the Rockgate transaction have been capitalized as
part of the consideration amount. Denison is including the results of Rockgate
as part of its African mining segment for reporting purposes.
- 14 -
For accounting purposes, Denison has
used a cut-off date of November 30, 2013 to fair value the acquisition. The
following table summarizes the fair value of the Rockgate assets acquired and
the liabilities assumed as at November 30, 2013. The fair values have been
adjusted to reflect the acquisition of the non-controlling interest noted above
as if it had occurred on November 30, 2013:
|
|
|
Rockgate |
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
Fair
Value |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
$ |
512 |
|
|
Trade and other receivables |
|
173 |
|
|
Prepaid expenses and other |
|
54 |
|
|
Investments-debt instruments |
|
14,810 |
|
|
Investments-equity instruments |
|
11 |
|
|
Property, plant and equipment |
|
|
|
|
Plant
and equipment |
|
523 |
|
|
Mineral properties Mali |
|
11,996 |
|
|
Mineral properties - Niger |
|
94 |
|
|
Total assets |
|
28,173 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Account payable
and accrued liabilities |
|
1,821
|
|
|
Net assets |
$ |
26,352 |
|
The total consideration relating to the
acquisition of Rockgate is summarized below:
|
(in thousands except for share amounts) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value of 20,131,665 common shares
issued by Denison under takeover bid |
$ |
21,760 |
|
|
Fair value of 2,312,622 common shares issued by Denison
under plan of arrangement |
|
3,034 |
|
|
Costs incurred by the Company pursuant to
the acquisition: |
|
|
|
|
Takeover bid transaction costs
|
|
1,501 |
|
|
Plan of arrangement transaction
costs |
|
57 |
|
|
Fair value of
total consideration |
$ |
26,352 |
|
The fair value of the common shares
issued by Denison under the takeover bid totaled $21,760,000. The fair value of
the common shares was determined using Denisons closing share price on the
dates shares were issued pursuant to the takeover bid converted to USD on the
applicable days closing rate. Under the bid, shares were issued between
November 19, 2013 and December 6, 2013 and the fair value has been determined
using closing share prices ranging from CAD$1.13 to CAD$1.20 per share and
foreign exchange rates ranging from 0.9384 to 0.9550.
The fair value of the common shares
issued by Denison under the plan of arrangement to acquire the non-controlling
interest totaled $3,034,000. The fair value of the common shares was determined
using Denisons closing share price on January 17, 2014 of CAD$1.44 converted to
USD$ using the January 17, 2014 foreign exchange rate of 0.9111.
Acquisition of Fission Energy Corp
On April 26, 2013, Denison completed an
arrangement agreement (the Fission Arrangement) to acquire Fission Energy
Corp. (Fission) whose assets included its 60% interest in the Waterbury Lake
uranium project, its interests in all other properties in the eastern part of
the Athabasca Basin, Quebec and Nunavut, as well as its interests in two joint
ventures in Namibia (collectively, the Assets).
Under the terms of the Fission
Arrangement, Fission shareholders received 0.355 of a common share of Denison, a
nominal cash payment of CAD$0.0001 and one common share of a newly-formed
publicly traded company, Fission Uranium Corp., for each Fission share held. All
of the outstanding options of Fission were exchanged for options to purchase
common shares of Denison with a number and exercise price determined by
reference to the 0.355 exchange ratio and a volume adjusted market value factor.
Share purchase warrants in Fission (Fission Warrant) that were outstanding on
completion of the Fission Arrangement survived the transaction and may still be
exercised in accordance with their terms, so that the holder of a Fission
Warrant will receive the number of Denison shares, shares of Fission Uranium
Corp and nominal cash consideration which the warrant holder would have received
had the Fission Warrants been exercised immediately prior to the Fission
Arrangement. The proceeds from the Fission Warrant exercise will be split
between Denison and Fission Uranium Corp. and each company will be responsible
for issuing its respective shares on the exercise of a Fission Warrant. Cash
consideration was also advanced to Fission prior to closing (the Fission Loan)
and included an amount of CAD$2,437,000 in
respect of the expenditures incurred and paid by Fission between January 16,
2013 and April 25, 2013 on properties that were ultimately acquired by Denison.
- 15 -
For accounting purposes, Fission is not
considered a business under IFRS 3 Business Combinations as at the time of the
acquisition it is not capable of generating outputs that can provide a return to
Denison. As a result, the Fission Arrangement has been accounted for as an asset
acquisition with share based consideration. Transaction costs incurred by
Denison related to the Fission Arrangement have been capitalized as part of the
consideration amount. Denison is including the results of Fission as part of its
Canadian and African mining segments for reporting purposes.
The following table summarizes the fair
value of the Fission assets acquired and the liabilities assumed at the
acquisition date of April 26, 2013:
|
|
|
Fission
|
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
Fair
Value |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
$ |
930 |
|
|
Trade and other receivables |
|
82 |
|
|
Property, plant and equipment |
|
|
|
|
Mineral properties Canada |
|
66,945 |
|
|
Mineral properties - Namibia
|
|
5,949 |
|
|
Total assets |
|
73,906 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Account payable
and accrued liabilities |
|
511
|
|
|
Net assets |
$ |
73,395 |
|
The total consideration relating to the
Fission Arrangement is summarized below:
|
(in thousands except for share amounts) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value of 53,053,284 common shares
issued by Denison |
$ |
66,259 |
|
|
Fair value of 1,500,854 common share purchase warrants
assumed by Denison |
|
827 |
|
|
Fair value of 1,985,035 common share
options issued by Denison |
|
1,321 |
|
|
Costs incurred by the Company pursuant to arrangement: |
|
|
|
|
Fission Loan |
|
3,321 |
|
|
Transaction costs |
|
1,667
|
|
|
Fair value of total consideration |
$ |
73,395 |
|
The fair value of the common shares was
determined using Denisons closing share price on April 26, 2013 of CAD$1.27
converted to USD$ using the April 26, 2013 foreign exchange rate of 0.9834.
The fair value of the common share
purchase warrants assumed by Denison totaled $827,000 or $0.55 per warrant, on
average. The fair value was determined using the Black-Scholes option pricing
model with the following assumptions: risk-free interest rate of 0.98%, expected
stock price volatility between 40.23% and 56.06%, expected life between 0.60
years and 1.70 years and expected dividend yield of nil%.
The fair value of the common share
options issued by Denison to replace those of Fission totaled $1,321,000 or
$0.67 per option, on average. The fair value was determined using the
Black-Scholes option pricing model with the following assumptions: risk-free
interest rate between 0.98% and 1.12%, expected stock price volatility between
39.87% and 84.93%, expected life between 0.20 years and 4.70 years and expected
dividend yield of nil%. As at April 26, 2013, all of the options issued by
Denison to replace the Fission options are fully-vested.
Acquisition of JNR Resources Inc.
On January 31, 2013, Denison completed
a plan of arrangement (the JNR Arrangement) to acquire all of the outstanding
common shares of JNR Resources Inc. (JNR). Pursuant to the JNR Arrangement,
the former shareholders of JNR received, for each JNR common share held, 0.073
of a Denison common share (the Exchange Ratio). No fractional shares were
issued. All of the outstanding options and common share purchase warrants of JNR
were exchanged for options and warrants to purchase common shares of Denison
with a number and exercise price determined by reference to the Exchange Ratio.
For accounting purposes, JNR Resources
is not considered a business under IFRS 3 Business Combinations as at the time
of the acquisition it is not capable of generating outputs that can provide a
return to Denison. As a result, the JNR Arrangement has been accounted for as an
asset acquisition with share based consideration.
- 16 -
Transaction costs incurred by Denison
related to the JNR Arrangement have been capitalized as part of the
consideration amount. Denison is including the results of JNR as part of its
Canadian mining segment for reporting purposes.
The following table summarizes the fair
value of the JNR assets acquired and the liabilities assumed at the acquisition
date of January 31, 2013:
|
|
|
JNR |
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
Fair
Value |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
$ |
39 |
|
|
Trade and other receivables |
|
50 |
|
|
Prepaid expenses and other |
|
7 |
|
|
Investments |
|
22 |
|
|
Property, plant and equipment |
|
|
|
|
Plant and equipment
|
|
62 |
|
|
Mineral properties - Canada |
|
13,012 |
|
|
Total assets |
|
13,192 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Account payable
and accrued liabilities |
|
767
|
|
|
Net assets |
$ |
12,425 |
|
The total consideration relating to the
JNR Arrangement is summarized below:
|
(in thousands except for share amounts) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value of 7,975,479 common shares
issued by Denison |
$ |
10,956 |
|
|
Fair value of 272,290 common share purchase warrants issued
by Denison |
|
17 |
|
|
Fair value of 579,255 common share options
issued by Denison |
|
131 |
|
|
Fair value of JNR shares held by Denison prior to
acquisition |
|
567 |
|
|
Costs incurred by the Company pursuant to
arrangement: |
|
|
|
|
JNR loan |
|
351 |
|
|
Transaction costs |
|
403 |
|
|
Fair value of
total consideration |
$ |
12,425 |
|
|
The fair value of the common shares was determined using
Denisons closing share price on January 31, 2013 of CAD$1.37 converted to
USD$ using the January 31, 2013 foreign exchange rate of 1.0027. |
|
|
|
The fair value of the common share purchase warrants
issued by Denison to replace those of JNR totaled $17,000 or $0.0615 per
warrant. The fair value was determined using the Black-Scholes option
pricing model with the following assumptions: risk-free interest rate of
1.16%, expected stock price volatility of 47.58%, expected life of 0.75
years and expected dividend yield of nil%. |
|
|
|
The fair value of the common share options issued by
Denison to replace those of JNR totaled $131,000 or $0.2262 per option.
The fair value was determined using the Black-Scholes option pricing model
with the following assumptions: risk-free interest rate between 1.16% and
1.42%, expected stock price volatility between 58.00% and 62.15%, expected
life between 0.04 years and 3.70 years and expected dividend yield of
nil%. As at January 31, 2013, all of the options issued to replace the JNR
options are fully-vested. |
|
|
6. |
CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS |
|
|
|
The cash and cash equivalent balance consists
of: |
|
|
|
At
December 31 |
|
|
At
December 31 |
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
2014
|
|
|
2013
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash |
$ |
2,265 |
|
$ |
2,259 |
|
|
Cash in MLJV and MWJV |
|
885 |
|
|
3,057 |
|
|
Cash equivalents |
|
15,490 |
|
|
16,470 |
|
|
|
$ |
18,640 |
|
$ |
21,786 |
|
- 17 -
7. |
TRADE AND OTHER RECEIVABLES |
|
|
|
The trade and other receivables balance consists
of: |
|
|
|
At
December 31 |
|
|
At
December 31 |
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
2014
|
|
|
2013
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trade receivables other |
$ |
2,138 |
|
$ |
1,966 |
|
|
Receivables in MLJV and MWJV |
|
7,127 |
|
|
1,794 |
|
|
Sales tax receivables |
|
131 |
|
|
378 |
|
|
Sundry receivables
|
|
15
|
|
|
10
|
|
|
|
$ |
9,411 |
|
$ |
4,148 |
|
8. |
INVENTORIES |
|
|
|
The inventories balance consists
of: |
|
|
|
At
December 31 |
|
|
At
December 31 |
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
2014
|
|
|
2013
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Uranium concentrates and work-in-progress
|
$ |
433 |
|
$ |
4 |
|
|
Inventory of ore in stockpiles |
|
1,834 |
|
|
2,058 |
|
|
Mine and mill supplies |
|
1,733 |
|
|
1,722 |
|
|
|
$ |
4,000 |
|
$ |
3,784 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inventories - by duration: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current |
$ |
2,240 |
|
$ |
2,123 |
|
|
Long-term ore in stockpiles |
|
1,760
|
|
|
1,661
|
|
|
|
$ |
4,000 |
|
$ |
3,784 |
|
|
Long-term ore in stockpile inventory represents an
estimate of the amount of ore on the stockpile in excess of the next
twelve months of planned mill production. |
|
|
9. |
INVESTMENTS |
|
|
|
The investments balance consists
of: |
|
|
|
At
December 31 |
|
|
At
December 31 |
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
2014
|
|
|
2013
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investments: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity instruments-fair value
through profit and loss |
$ |
932 |
|
$ |
1,106 |
|
|
Equity instruments-available for sale |
|
22 |
|
|
17 |
|
|
Debt instruments-fair value through profit
and loss |
|
4,381 |
|
|
14,818 |
|
|
|
$ |
5,335 |
|
$ |
15,941 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investments by duration |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current |
$ |
4,381 |
|
$ |
10,040 |
|
|
Long-term |
|
954
|
|
|
5,901
|
|
|
|
$ |
5,335 |
|
$ |
15,941 |
|
At December 31, 2014, investments
include equity instruments in publicly-traded companies with a fair value of
$954,000 (December 31, 2013: $1,123,000).
At December 31, 2014, investments
include debt instruments with a fair value of $4,381,000 (December 31, 2013:
$14,818,000). The debt instruments at December 31, 2014 consist of guaranteed
investment certificates with rates of interest ranging between 1.85% to 1.90%
and maturity dates occurring in February 2015.
- 18 -
|
Investment Purchases, Impairments and Other
Movements |
|
|
|
During 2014, the Company purchased additional equity
instruments at a cost of $569,000. In addition, $9,529,000 of debt
instruments matured and the proceeds were transferred to cash and
equivalents. |
|
|
|
During 2014 and 2013, the Company recorded impairment
charges on equity instruments of $22,000 and $39,000, respectively. The
resulting loss has been included in other income (expense) in the
consolidated statements of income (loss) (see note 22). |
|
|
|
During 2014, an amount of $934,000 was transferred out of
fair value through profit and loss equity instruments as part of the IEC
acquisition (see note 5). During 2013, an amount of $567,000 was
transferred out of available for sale equity instruments as part of the
JNR acquisition (see note 5). These transfers represented the fair value
of the equity instruments held by the Company on the date of acquisition
of IEC and JNR. |
|
|
10. |
RESTRICTED CASH AND INVESTMENTS |
|
|
|
The Company has certain restricted cash and investments
deposited to collateralize its reclamation obligations. The restricted
cash and investments balance consists of: |
|
|
|
At
December 31 |
|
|
At
December 31 |
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
2014
|
|
|
2013
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash |
$ |
42 |
|
$ |
26 |
|
|
Cash equivalents |
|
104 |
|
|
221 |
|
|
Investments |
|
1,922 |
|
|
2,052 |
|
|
|
$ |
2,068 |
|
$ |
2,299 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Restricted cash and investments by item: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Elliot Lake reclamation trust fund |
$ |
2,068 |
|
$ |
2,299 |
|
|
|
$ |
2,068 |
|
$ |
2,299 |
|
Elliot Lake Reclamation Trust Fund
The Company has the obligation to
maintain its decommissioned Elliot Lake uranium mine pursuant to a Reclamation
Funding Agreement effective December 21, 1995 (Agreement) with the Governments
of Canada and Ontario. The Agreement, as further amended in February 1999,
requires the Company to maintain funds in the Reclamation Trust Fund equal to
estimated reclamation spending for the succeeding six calendar years, less
interest expected to accrue on the funds during the period. Withdrawals from
this Reclamation Trust Fund can only be made with the approval of the
Governments of Canada and Ontario to fund Elliot Lake monitoring and site
restoration costs.
In 2014, the Company deposited an
additional $545,000 (CAD$603,000) into the Elliot Lake Reclamation Trust Fund
and withdrew $617,000 (CAD$680,000). In 2013, the Company deposited an
additional $1,029,000 (CAD$1,047,000) into the Elliot Lake Reclamation Trust
Fund and withdrew $846,000 (CAD$873,000).
- 19 -
11. |
PROPERTY, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT |
|
|
|
The property, plant and equipment balance consists
of: |
|
|
|
At
December 31 |
|
|
At
December 31 |
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
2014
|
|
|
2013
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Plant and equipment: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost |
$ |
82,980 |
|
$ |
86,805 |
|
|
Construction-in-progress |
|
6,960 |
|
|
7,516 |
|
|
Accumulated depreciation |
|
(12,205 |
) |
|
(12,627 |
) |
|
Net book value |
$ |
77,735 |
|
$ |
81,694 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mineral properties: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost |
$ |
192,851 |
|
$ |
199,532 |
|
|
Accumulated amortization |
|
(198 |
) |
|
(216 |
) |
|
Net book value |
$ |
192,653 |
|
$ |
199,316 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net book value |
$ |
270,388 |
|
$ |
281,010 |
|
The plant and equipment continuity
summary is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortization / |
|
|
Net |
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
Cost
|
|
|
Depreciation |
|
|
Book
Value |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Plant and equipment: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance January 1, 2013 |
$ |
99,347 |
|
$ |
(12,143 |
) |
$ |
87,204 |
|
|
Additions |
|
1,192 |
|
|
- |
|
|
1,192 |
|
|
Amortization |
|
- |
|
|
(36 |
) |
|
(36 |
) |
|
Asset acquisitions (note 5) |
|
1,536 |
|
|
(950 |
) |
|
586 |
|
|
Depreciation |
|
- |
|
|
(796 |
) |
|
(796 |
) |
|
Disposals |
|
(475 |
) |
|
405 |
|
|
(70 |
) |
|
Reclamation adjustment |
|
(833 |
) |
|
77 |
|
|
(756 |
) |
|
Foreign exchange |
|
(6,446 |
) |
|
816
|
|
|
(5,630 |
) |
|
Balance December 31, 2013 |
$ |
94,321 |
|
$ |
(12,627 |
) |
$ |
81,694 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additions |
|
240 |
|
|
- |
|
|
240 |
|
|
Amortization |
|
- |
|
|
(15 |
) |
|
(15 |
) |
|
Depreciation |
|
- |
|
|
(817 |
) |
|
(817 |
) |
|
Disposals |
|
(67 |
) |
|
67 |
|
|
- |
|
|
Reclamation adjustment (note
14) |
|
3,502 |
|
|
14 |
|
|
3,516 |
|
|
Foreign exchange |
|
(8,056 |
) |
|
1,173
|
|
|
(6,883 |
) |
|
Balance December 31, 2014 |
$ |
89,940 |
|
$ |
(12,205 |
) |
$ |
77,735 |
|
- 20 -
The mineral property continuity summary
is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated |
|
|
Net |
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
Cost
|
|
|
Amortization |
|
|
Book
Value |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mineral properties: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance January 1, 2013 |
$ |
160,915 |
|
$ |
(231 |
) |
$ |
160,684 |
|
|
Additions |
|
1,203 |
|
|
- |
|
|
1,203 |
|
|
Asset acquisitions (note 5) |
|
97,996 |
|
|
- |
|
|
97,996 |
|
|
Impairment (note 11) |
|
(47,099 |
) |
|
- |
|
|
(47,099 |
) |
|
Foreign exchange |
|
(13,483 |
) |
|
15
|
|
|
(13,468 |
) |
|
Balance December 31, 2013 |
$ |
199,532 |
|
$ |
(216 |
) |
$ |
199,316 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additions |
|
729 |
|
|
- |
|
|
729 |
|
|
Asset acquisitions (note 5) |
|
14,120 |
|
|
- |
|
|
14,120 |
|
|
Impairment (note 11) |
|
(1,745 |
) |
|
- |
|
|
(1,745 |
) |
|
Foreign exchange |
|
(19,785 |
) |
|
18
|
|
|
(19,767 |
) |
|
Balance December 31, 2014 |
$ |
192,851 |
|
$ |
(198 |
) |
$ |
192,653 |
|
Plant and Equipment - Mining
The Company has a 22.5% interest in the
McClean Lake mill located in the Athabasca Basin of Saskatchewan, Canada. A toll
milling agreement has been signed with the participants in the CLJV that
provides for the processing of the future output of the Cigar Lake mine at the
McClean Lake mill, for which the owners of the McClean Lake mill receive a toll
milling fee and other benefits. In determining the amortization rate for the
McClean Lake mill, the amount to be amortized has been adjusted to reflect
Denisons expected share of mill feed from future toll milling. In March 2014,
the first ore from the Cigar Lake mine was received at the mill. In September
2014, after being on stand-by since August 2010, milling activities were
restarted at the McClean Lake mill and uranium packaging began in October 2014.
Plant and Equipment - Services and
Other
The environmental services division of
the Company provides mine decommissioning and decommissioned site monitoring
services for third parties.
Mineral Properties
The Company has various interests in
development and exploration projects located in Canada, Mali, Namibia, Zambia
and Mongolia which are held directly or through option or various contractual
agreements.
Canada Mining Segment
The Companys mineral property
interests in Canada with significant carrying values and their locations are:
|
a) |
McClean Lake (Saskatchewan) the Company has a 22.5%
interest in the project (includes the Sue D, Sue E, Caribou, McClean North
and McClean South deposits); |
|
b) |
Midwest (Saskatchewan) the Company has a 25.17%
interest in the project (includes the Midwest and Midwest A
deposits); |
|
c) |
Wheeler River (Saskatchewan) the Company has a 60%
interest in the project (includes the Phoenix deposit); |
|
d) |
Waterbury Lake (Saskatchewan) the Company has a 60%
interest in the project (includes the J Zone deposit) and also has a 2.0%
net smelter return royalty on the portion of the project it does not
own; |
|
e) |
Mann Lake (Saskatchewan) the Company has a 30% interest
in the project; and |
|
f) |
Wolly (Saskatchewan) the Company has a 22.5% interest
in the project. |
In January 2013, Denison completed the
acquisition of JNR and acquired mineral property interests in Canada with a fair
value of $13,022,000 (see note 5). As a result of the JNR Arrangement, Denison
increased its interest in five projects it was already participating in to 100%
(which includes Moore Lake) and it acquired interests in nine additional
properties.
- 21 -
In April 2013, Denison completed the
acquisition of Fission and acquired mineral property interests in Canada,
including the J Zone deposit, with a fair value of $66,945,000 (see note 5). As
a result of the Fission Arrangement, Denison increased its interest in one
project (Johnston Lake) that it was already participating in to 100% and it
acquired interests in 27 additional properties.
In December 2013, Denison signed an
option agreement with Strateco Resources Inc. (Strateco) whereby Denison
granted Strateco the option to earn up to a 60% interest in Denisons Jasper
Lake property in two stages (the Jasper Option). During the year, the Jasper
Option was assigned to SeqUr Exploration Inc. (SeqUr). In February 2015, SeqUr
notified the Company that it intends to terminate its option to earn an interest
in the Jasper Lake property.
In December 2013, Denison received
CAD$100,000 of cash from Strateco towards the first stage of the Jasper Option
which has been reflected in other income (expense).
In December 2013, Denison recognized an
impairment charge of $934,000 to reflect the abandonment of its Riou Lake
property. Riou Lake was acquired as part of the Fission acquisition in April
2013.
In March 2014, Denison released its
land holdings related to the Black Lake property acquired as part of the
acquisition of JNR in January 2013. The Company has recognized an impairment
charge of $1,658,000 in its results to reflect the abandonment of this property.
In June 2014, Denison completed the
sale of its land holdings related to the Way Lake and Yurchison properties, also
acquired as part of the acquisition of JNR, for cash and share consideration
valued at $202,000. The sale resulted in a gain of $202,000 which has been
included in other income (expense) in the consolidated statements of operations.
In June 2014, Denison received a cash
payment of CAD$250,000 from Strateco towards the first stage of the Jasper
Option which has been reflected in other income (expense).
In June 2014, Denison completed the
acquisition of IEC and acquired mineral property interests in Canada with a fair
value of $14,120,000 (see note 5). As a result of the IEC Arrangement, Denison
acquired a 30% interest in the Mann Lake project and increased its interest in
the Bachman Lake project from 80% to 100%.
Africa Mining
Segment-Mali
In November 2013, Denison acquired
control of Rockgate and acquired mineral property interests in five projects in
Mali with a fair value of $11,996,000 (see note 5). The most significant of
these projects is the Falea project to which all of the fair value has been
allocated.
Africa Mining
Segment-Namibia
In April 2013, Denison completed the
acquisition of Fission and acquired mineral property interests in two projects
in Namibia with a fair value of $5,949,000 (see note 5). The most significant of
these projects is the Dome project to which all of the fair value has been
allocated. During 2013, the Company released its interest in one of the projects
so that only the Dome project remains at December 31, 2013.
When the Company acquired the Dome
project, it became a party to an earn-in agreement with Rio Tinto Mining and
Exploration Limited (Rio) that was entered into prior to the Companys
acquisition of Fission. Under the earn-in agreement, Rio was able to earn: a)
49% of Denisons interest in the project by incurring exploration expenditures
of $5,000,000 by September 2016 (the First Stage Earn-In); b) an additional
15% of Denisons interest in the project by spending an additional $5,000,000
within two years of completing the First Stage Earn-In (the Second Stage
Earn-In); and c) an additional 11% of Denisons interest in the project by
funding a bankable feasibility study within five years of completing the Second
Stage Earn-In. As at December 31, 2013, Rio spent approximately $1,561,000
towards the First Stage Earn-In.
In March 2014, Rio terminated its
option to earn an interest in the Dome project. Rio discontinued activities at
the project site in February 2014 and Denison has assumed operatorship of the
project. Expenditures incurred by Rio on Denisons account also had the effect
of diluting a third party with an interest in the Dome project, Manica Minerals,
below 20%. As a result of the dilution, Manica opted to accept a 10% carried
interest in the project and Denison now has a 90% interest in the project.
Africa Mining
Segment-Niger
In November 2013, Denison acquired
control of Rockgate and acquired a mineral property interest in the Telwa Gada
project in Niger with a fair value of $94,000 (see note 5).
- 22 -
|
In November 2014, Denison released its land holdings
related to the Telwa Gada property and recognized an impairment charge of
$87,000 in its results to reflect the abandonment of this
property. |
|
|
|
At December 2014, the Company no longer has any mineral
property interests in Niger. |
|
|
|
Africa Mining Segment-Zambia |
|
|
|
The Company has a 100% interest in the Mutanga project
(includes the Mutanga, Dibwe and Dibwe East deposits) located in
Zambia. |
|
|
|
In 2013, in light of the implied valuations associated
with recent market transactions involving companies with uranium projects
in Africa and in conjunction with regular reviews of exploration and
development plans for its projects, the Company completed an impairment
test on its Mutanga project. |
|
|
|
The Company used a fair value less costs of disposal
analysis to determine the recoverable amount of the project as at December
31, 2013. In determining the recoverable amount, the Company used a
valuation technique that relied on market transactions adjusted for
differences in deposit grade, resource size and resource quality to make
them more comparable to the Companys Mutanga project. The application of
the valuation technique requires managements judgment when considering
qualitative and quantitative factors specific to the Mutanga
project. |
|
|
|
Since the Mutanga projects recoverable amount was
determined to be lower than its carrying amount, the Company has
recognized an impairment loss of $46,165,000 in 2013 to adjust the
projects carrying amount to its recoverable amount of ZMW 167,055,000
(equivalent to $30,000,000 as at December 31, 2013). |
|
|
|
Asia Mining Segment-Mongolia |
|
|
|
The Company currently has an 85% interest in and is the
managing partner of the Gurvan Saihan Joint Venture (GSJV) in Mongolia
(includes the Hairhan and Haraat deposits). The other party to the GSJV is
the Mongolian government with a 15% interest. The results of the GSJV have
been 100% consolidated in these financial statements since the Company
exercises control and its partner in the GSJV has a carried interest at
this time. |
|
|
|
Under the Nuclear Energy Law of Mongolia, the Mongolian
participant in the GSJV is entitled to hold a 34% to 51% interest in the
GSJV, depending on the amount of historic exploration that was funded by
the government of Mongolia, to be acquired at no cost to the Mongolian
participant. This interest will be held by Mon-Atom LLC, the Mongolian
state owned uranium company. |
|
|
|
A restructuring of the GSJV will be required to comply
with the Nuclear Energy Law and is expected to result in the Company
having its interest reduced to 66%. The Company and Mon-Atom continue to
be engaged in discussions in respect of the Companys ownership of the
GSJV. The Company is also exploring strategic alternatives for its
interest in the GSJV. |
|
|
12. |
INTANGIBLES |
|
|
|
The intangibles balance consists
of: |
|
|
|
At
December 31 |
|
|
At
December 31 |
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
2014
|
|
|
2013
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost |
$ |
6,379 |
|
$ |
6,957 |
|
|
Accumulated
amortization |
|
(5,741 |
) |
|
(5,705 |
) |
|
Net book value |
$ |
638 |
|
$ |
1,252 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net book value-by item: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UPC
management services agreement |
$ |
638 |
|
$ |
1,252 |
|
|
Net book value |
$ |
638 |
|
$ |
1,252 |
|
- 23 -
The intangibles continuity summary is
as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated |
|
|
Net |
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
Cost
|
|
|
Amortization |
|
|
Book
Value |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance January 1, 2013 |
$ |
7,438 |
|
$ |
(5,430 |
) |
$ |
2,008 |
|
|
Amortization |
|
- |
|
|
(648 |
) |
|
(648 |
) |
|
Foreign exchange |
|
(481 |
) |
|
373 |
|
|
(108 |
) |
|
Balance December
31, 2013 |
$ |
6,957 |
|
$ |
(5,705 |
) |
$ |
1,252 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortization |
|
- |
|
|
(536 |
) |
|
(536 |
) |
|
Foreign exchange |
|
(578 |
) |
|
500 |
|
|
(78 |
) |
|
Balance December
31, 2014 |
$ |
6,379 |
|
$ |
(5,741 |
) |
$ |
638 |
|
|
UPC Management Services Agreement |
|
|
|
The intangible from the UPC management services agreement
is associated with the acquisition of Denison Mines Inc (DMI) in 2006.
The contract is being amortized over its estimated useful life (see note
24). |
|
|
13. |
POST-EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS |
|
|
|
The Company provides post employment benefits for former
Canadian employees who retired on immediate pension prior to 1997. The
post employment benefits provided include life insurance and medical and
dental benefits as set out in the applicable group policies but does not
include pensions. No post employment benefits are provided to employees
outside the employee group referenced above. The post employment benefit
plan is not funded. |
|
|
|
The effective date of the most recent actuarial valuation
of the accrued benefit obligation is December 31, 2011. The amount accrued
is based on estimates provided by the plan administrator which are based
on past experience, limits on coverage as set out in the applicable group
policies and assumptions about future cost trends. The significant
assumptions used in the valuation are listed
below: |
|
|
Discount rate of 3.65%; |
|
|
Medical cost trend rates at 7.00% per annum initially,
grading down to 4.50% per annum over 20 years and remaining at 4.50% per
annum thereafter; and |
|
|
Dental cost trend rates at 4.00% per annum for the first
ten years, 3.50% per annum for the following ten years and 3.0% per annum
thereafter; |
The post-employment benefits balance
consists of:
|
|
|
At
December 31 |
|
|
At
December 31 |
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
2014
|
|
|
2013
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accrued benefit obligation |
$ |
2,921 |
|
$ |
3,321 |
|
|
|
$ |
2,921 |
|
$ |
3,321 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post-employment benefits liability-by duration: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current |
$ |
259 |
|
$ |
376 |
|
|
Non-current |
|
2,662
|
|
|
2,945
|
|
|
|
$ |
2,921 |
|
$ |
3,321 |
|
- 24 -
The post-employment benefits continuity
summary is as follows:
|
(in thousands) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance - January 1, 2013 |
$ |
3,664 |
|
|
Benefits paid |
|
(235 |
) |
|
Interest cost |
|
125 |
|
|
Foreign exchange
|
|
(233 |
) |
|
Balance - December 31, 2013 |
$ |
3,321 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benefits paid |
|
(244 |
) |
|
Interest cost |
|
114 |
|
|
Foreign exchange |
|
(270 |
) |
|
Balance - December
31, 2014 |
$ |
2,921 |
|
14. |
RECLAMATION OBLIGATIONS |
|
|
|
The reclamation obligations balance consists
of: |
|
|
|
At
December 31 |
|
|
At
December 31 |
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
2014
|
|
|
2013
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reclamation liability - by location: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Elliot Lake |
$ |
11,234 |
|
$ |
10,008 |
|
|
McClean and Midwest Joint Ventures |
|
6,406 |
|
|
2,200 |
|
|
Other |
|
19 |
|
|
- |
|
|
|
$ |
17,659 |
|
$ |
12,208 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reclamation and remediation liability - by duration: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current |
$ |
706 |
|
$ |
699 |
|
|
Non-current |
|
16,953 |
|
|
11,509 |
|
|
|
$ |
17,659 |
|
$ |
12,208 |
|
The reclamation obligations continuity
summary is as follows:
|
(in thousands) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance - January 1, 2013 |
$ |
15,664 |
|
|
Accretion |
|
796 |
|
|
Expenditures incurred |
|
(877 |
) |
|
Liability adjustments-income statement |
|
(1,645 |
) |
|
Liability adjustments-balance sheet |
|
(755 |
) |
|
Foreign exchange
|
|
(975 |
) |
|
Balance - December 31, 2013 |
$ |
12,208 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accretion |
|
720 |
|
|
Asset acquisition (note 5) |
|
20 |
|
|
Expenditures incurred |
|
(593 |
) |
|
Future expenditures reimbursed by CLJV |
|
883 |
|
|
Liability adjustments-income statement |
|
2,086 |
|
|
Liability adjustments-balance sheet |
|
3,516 |
|
|
Foreign exchange |
|
(1,181 |
) |
|
Balance - December
31, 2014 |
$ |
17,659 |
|
Site Restoration: Elliot Lake
The Elliot Lake uranium mine was closed
in 1992 and capital works to decommission this site were completed in 1997. The
remaining provision is for the estimated cost of monitoring the Tailings
Management Areas at the Company and Stanrock sites and for treatment of water
discharged from these areas. The Company conducts its activities at both sites
pursuant to licenses issued by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. The above
accrual represents the Companys best estimate of the present value of the total
future reclamation cost based on assumptions as to levels of treatment, which will be
required in the future, discounted at 5.22% (2013: 6.13%). As at December
31, 2014, the undiscounted amount of estimated future reclamation costs is
$24,818,000 (CAD$28,791,000) (December 31, 2013: $26,217,000
(CAD$27,885,000)). Revisions to the reclamation liability for Elliot Lake
are recognized in the income statement as there is no net reclamation
asset associated with this site.
- 25 -
|
Spending on restoration activities at the Elliot Lake
site is funded from monies in the Elliot Lake Reclamation Trust fund (see
note 10). |
|
|
|
Site Restoration: McClean Lake Joint Venture and
Midwest Joint Venture |
|
|
|
The McClean Lake and Midwest operations are subject to
environmental regulations as set out by the Saskatchewan government and
the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. Cost estimates of the estimated
future decommissioning and reclamation activities are prepared
periodically and filed with the applicable regulatory authorities for
approval. The above accrual represents the Companys best estimate of the
present value of the future reclamation cost contemplated in these cost
estimates discounted at 5.22% (2013: 6.13%). As at December 31, 2014, the
undiscounted amount of estimated future reclamation costs is $17,529,000
(CAD$20,335,000) (December 31, 2013: $9,062,000 (CAD$9,639,000)).
Reclamation costs are expected to be incurred between 2033 and
2058. |
|
|
|
Under the Mineral Industry Environmental Protection
Regulations (1996), the Company is required to provide its pro-rata share
of financial assurances to the Province. As at December 31, 2014, the
Company has in place irrevocable standby letters of credit, from a
chartered bank, in favour of Saskatchewan Environment, totalling
CAD$9,698,000 which relate to a previously filed reclamation plan. Under
the preliminary updated plan submitted in November 2014 which is currently
under review by the applicable regulatory authorities, the Company expects
to increase its pro-rata share of financial assurances to the Province by
CAD$12,748,000 to approximately CAD$22,446,000. |
|
|
|
Under the terms of a Potentially Reactive Waste Rock
Disposal Agreement (PRWR Agreement) between the MLJV and the CLJV, the
MLJV agreed to deposit certain waste rock material from the Cigar Lake
mine in its mined-out Sue C pit. In return, the CLJV has agreed to
reimburse the MLJV for additional site restoration costs that may
reasonably occur as a result. |
|
|
|
In 2014, triggered by the delivery of the first Cigar
Lake mine ore to the McClean Lake mill in March 2014, the CLJV made
payments totalling CAD$4,332,000 to the MLJV under the terms of the PRWR
Agreement. Denison has recorded its proportionate share of this total
amount of $883,000 (CAD$974,700) as a component of its Reclamation
obligations. |
|
|
15. |
DEBT OBLIGATIONS |
|
|
|
The debt obligations balance consists
of: |
|
|
|
At
December 31 |
|
|
At
December 31 |
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
2014
|
|
|
2013
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Notes payable and other financing |
$ |
39 |
|
$ |
97 |
|
|
|
$ |
39 |
|
$ |
97 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Debt obligations, by duration: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current |
$ |
30 |
|
$ |
55 |
|
|
Non-current |
|
9 |
|
|
42
|
|
|
|
$ |
39 |
|
$ |
97 |
|
- 26 -
Letters of Credit Facility
In 2014, the Company had a facility in
place with the Bank of Nova Scotia for credit of up to CAD$15,000,000 with a 1
year term and a maturity date of January 31, 2015 (the 2014 facility). Use of
the 2014 facility was restricted to non-financial letters of credit in support
of reclamation obligations.
The 2014 facility contained a covenant
to maintain a level of tangible net worth greater than or equal to the sum of
$150,000,000. As security for the 2014 facility, DMC has provided an unlimited
full recourse guarantee and a pledge of all of the shares of DMI. DMI has
provided a first-priority security interest in all present and future personal
property and an assignment of its rights and interests under all material
agreements relative to the McClean Lake and Midwest projects. The 2014 facility
is subject to letter of credit and standby fees of 2.00% and 0.75%
respectively.
At December 31, 2014, the Company has
no outstanding borrowings under the 2014 facility (December 31, 2013 - $nil). At
December 31, 2014, the Company is in compliance with its 2014 facility covenants
and CAD$9,698,000 of the 2014 facility is being utilized as collateral for
certain letters of credit (December 31, 2013 - CAD$9,698,000). During 2014 and
2013, the Company incurred letter of credit and standby fees of $221,000 and
$339,000, respectively.
On January 30, 2015, the Company
entered into an amended agreement (the 2015 facility) with the Bank of Nova
Scotia to amend the terms of the 2014 facility and extend the maturity date to
January 31, 2016 (see note 28).
Scheduled Debt Obligation Maturities
The table below represents scheduled
maturities of the Companys debt obligations over the next 2 years after which
its debt obligations will be paid in full:
|
(in thousands) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2015 |
$ |
30 |
|
|
2016 |
|
9 |
|
|
|
$ |
39 |
|
16. |
OTHER LIABILITIES |
|
|
|
The other liabilities balance consists
of: |
|
|
|
At
December 31 |
|
|
At
December 31 |
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
2014
|
|
|
2013
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unamortized fair value of toll milling
contracts |
$ |
861 |
|
$ |
940 |
|
|
Flow-through share premium obligation |
|
1,915 |
|
|
324 |
|
|
Other |
|
- |
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
$ |
2,776 |
|
$ |
1,273 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other long-term liabilities - by duration: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current |
$ |
1,935 |
|
$ |
333 |
|
|
Non-current |
|
841
|
|
|
940
|
|
|
|
$ |
2,776 |
|
$ |
1,273 |
|
Unamortized fair values of toll milling
contracts are amortized to revenue on a pro-rata basis over the estimated volume
of the applicable contract. Flow-through share premium obligations are
extinguished when the tax benefits of the related exploration expenditures are
renounced to subscribers and the tax impact is recorded in the Companys
deferred tax provision.
- 27 -
17. |
INCOME TAXES |
|
|
|
The income tax recovery (expense) balance from continuing
operations consists of: |
|
(in thousands) |
|
2014 |
|
|
2013 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current income tax: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Based on taxable income for the period |
$ |
- |
|
$ |
- |
|
|
Prior period (under) over provision |
|
(5 |
) |
|
51 |
|
|
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
51
|
|
|
Deferred income tax: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Origination/reversal of temporary differences
|
|
(972 |
) |
|
960 |
|
|
Tax benefit-previously
unrecognized tax assets |
|
3,588 |
|
|
1,729 |
|
|
Change in tax rates / legislation |
|
- |
|
|
(18,410 |
) |
|
Prior year (under) over provision |
|
(312 |
) |
|
248 |
|
|
|
|
2,304
|
|
|
(15,473 |
) |
|
Income tax recovery (expense) |
$ |
2,299 |
|
$ |
(15,422 |
) |
The Company operates in multiple
industries and jurisdictions, and the related income is subject to varying rates
of taxation. The combined Canadian tax rate reflects the federal and provincial
tax rates in effect in Ontario, Canada for each applicable year. A
reconciliation of the combined Canadian tax rate to the Companys effective rate
of income tax is as follows:
|
(in thousands) |
|
2014 |
|
|
2013 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) before taxes |
$ |
(34,002 |
) |
$ |
(68,413 |
) |
|
Combined Canadian
tax rate |
|
26.50% |
|
|
26.50% |
|
|
Income tax recovery (expense) at combined
rate |
|
9,010 |
|
|
18,129 |
|
|
Difference in foreign tax rates |
|
(513 |
) |
|
2,912 |
|
|
Non-deductible amounts |
|
(3,323 |
) |
|
(15,810 |
) |
|
Non-taxable amounts |
|
2,451 |
|
|
1,538 |
|
|
Previously unrecognized future tax assets
(1) |
|
3,588 |
|
|
1,729 |
|
|
Renunciation of tax attributes-flow through shares |
|
(1,071 |
) |
|
(1,101 |
) |
|
Change in deferred tax assets not
recognized |
|
(1,711 |
) |
|
(9,334 |
) |
|
Change in tax rates / legislation (2) |
|
- |
|
|
(18,410 |
) |
|
Prior year (under) over provision |
|
(317 |
) |
|
299 |
|
|
Other |
|
(5,815 |
) |
|
4,626
|
|
|
Income tax recovery (expense) |
$ |
2,299 |
|
$ |
(15,422 |
) |
|
(1) |
The Company has recognized certain previously
unrecognized Canadian tax assets in 2014 and 2013 as a result of the
renunciation of certain tax benefits to subscribers pursuant to its May
2013 CAD$14,950,000 and October 2012 CAD$7,005,000 flow-through share
offerings; and |
|
(2) |
In December 2013, a new uranium mining royalty system
became substantively enacted in the province of Saskatchewan, Canada. The
Company has concluded that a component of the new royalty system
constitutes an income-based tax and is within the scope of IAS 12. The tax
basis available to the Company under the new system is significantly less
than the carrying value associated with the assets that will be subject to
the royalty in future years. Accordingly, a deferred tax liability has
been recorded by way of a corresponding charge to deferred tax expense in
Q4-2013. |
- 28 -
The deferred income tax assets
(liabilities) balance reported on the balance sheet is comprised of the
temporary differences as presented below:
|
|
|
At
December 31 |
|
|
At
December 31 |
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
2014 |
|
|
2013 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred income tax assets: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property, plant and equipment, net |
$ |
1,865 |
|
$ |
636 |
|
|
Post-employment benefits |
|
767 |
|
|
887 |
|
|
Reclamation and remediation obligations |
|
5,102 |
|
|
3,392 |
|
|
Other long-term liabilities
|
|
226 |
|
|
249 |
|
|
Tax loss carry forwards |
|
8,875 |
|
|
8,061 |
|
|
Other |
|
5,295 |
|
|
5,531 |
|
|
Deferred income tax assets-gross |
|
22,130 |
|
|
18,756 |
|
|
Set-off against deferred income tax liabilities |
|
(22,130 |
) |
|
(18,756 |
) |
|
Deferred income
tax assets-per balance sheet |
$ |
- |
|
$ |
- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred income tax liabilities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inventory |
$ |
(620 |
) |
$ |
(696 |
) |
|
Property, plant and equipment, net |
|
(40,591 |
) |
|
(42,237 |
) |
|
Intangibles |
|
(167 |
) |
|
(331 |
) |
|
Other
|
|
(2,578 |
) |
|
(1,339 |
) |
|
Deferred income tax liabilities-gross |
|
(43,956 |
) |
|
(44,603 |
) |
|
Set-off of
deferred income tax assets |
|
22,130 |
|
|
18,756 |
|
|
Deferred income tax liabilities-per balance sheet |
$ |
(21,826 |
) |
$ |
(25,847 |
) |
The deferred income tax liability
continuity summary is as follows:
|
(in thousands) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance - January 1, 2013 |
$ |
(9,443 |
) |
|
Recognized in income (loss) |
|
(15,473 |
) |
|
Recognized in other liabilities
(flow-through shares) |
|
(1,727 |
) |
|
Recognized in equity (warrant expiries) |
|
(2 |
) |
|
Other, including foreign exchange gain (loss) |
|
798 |
|
|
Balance - December
31, 2013 |
$ |
(25,847 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recognized in income (loss) |
|
2,304 |
|
|
Recognized in other liabilities
(flow-through shares) |
|
(313 |
) |
|
Other, including
foreign exchange gain (loss) |
|
2,030
|
|
|
Balance - December 31, 2014 |
$ |
(21,826 |
) |
Management believes that it is not
probable that sufficient taxable profit will be available in future years to
allow the benefit of the following deferred tax assets to be utilized:
|
|
|
At
December 31 |
|
|
At
December 31 |
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
2014 |
|
|
2013 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred income tax assets not recognized |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investments |
$ |
64 |
|
$ |
118 |
|
|
Property, plant and equipment |
|
18,317 |
|
|
26,750 |
|
|
Tax losses capital
|
|
26,895 |
|
|
29,141 |
|
|
Tax losses operating |
|
22,650 |
|
|
27,903 |
|
|
Tax credits |
|
983 |
|
|
1,131 |
|
|
Other deductible temporary differences |
|
2,922
|
|
|
2,852
|
|
|
Deferred income tax assets not recognized |
$ |
71,831 |
|
$ |
87,895 |
|
- 29 -
A geographic split of the Companys tax
losses and tax credits not recognized and the associated expiry dates of those
losses and credits is as follows:
|
|
Expiry |
|
At
December 31 |
|
|
At
December 31 |
|
|
(in thousands) |
Date |
|
2014 |
|
|
2013 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tax losses - gross |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Canada |
2025-2034 |
$ |
115,088 |
|
$ |
116,113 |
|
|
Mongolia |
2018-2022 |
|
4,296 |
|
|
4,547 |
|
|
Zambia (1) |
|
|
- |
|
|
12,284 |
|
|
Other |
Unlimited |
|
12 |
|
|
378 |
|
|
Tax losses - gross |
|
|
119,396 |
|
|
133,322 |
|
|
Tax benefit at tax rate of 25% - 37.5% |
|
|
31,525 |
|
|
35,964 |
|
|
Set-off against
deferred tax liabilities |
|
|
(8,875 |
) |
|
(8,061 |
) |
|
Total tax loss assets not recognized |
|
$ |
22,650 |
|
$ |
27,903 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tax credits |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Canada |
2025-2034 |
|
983
|
|
|
1,131
|
|
|
Total tax credit assets not recognized |
|
$ |
983 |
|
$ |
1,131 |
|
|
(1) |
In December 2014, the Zambian government passed into law
amendments to the Income Tax and Mine and Minerals Development Act which
have the effect of eliminating corporate tax on profits from certain
mining activities effective January 1, 2015. For the Company, the
amendments reduce the corporate tax rate to 0% but increase the mineral
royalty rate from 6% for all mining methods to 8% for underground mining
and 20% for open pit mining. As a result of these amendments, the Company
is no longer subject to income tax in Zambia and any tax attributes
accumulated prior to December 31, 2014 have effectively expired or been
reduced to nil.; |
18. |
SHARE CAPITAL |
|
|
|
Denison is authorized to issue an unlimited number of
common shares without par value. A continuity summary of the issued and
outstanding common shares and the associated dollar amounts is presented
below: |
|
|
|
Number
of |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common |
|
|
|
|
|
(in thousands
except share amounts) |
|
Shares |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at January 1, 2013 |
|
388,805,915 |
|
$ |
979,124 |
|
|
Issued for cash: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New issue
gross proceeds |
|
11,500,000 |
|
|
14,382 |
|
|
New issue gross issue
costs |
|
- |
|
|
(755 |
) |
|
Share
options exercised |
|
134,972 |
|
|
111 |
|
|
Share purchase warrants
exercised |
|
402,129 |
|
|
330 |
|
|
Acquisition of JNR (note 5) |
|
7,975,479 |
|
|
10,956 |
|
|
Acquisition of Fission (note 5) |
|
53,053,284 |
|
|
66,259 |
|
|
Acquisition of Rockgate (note 5) |
|
20,131,665 |
|
|
21,760 |
|
|
Share options exercised-fair value adjustment |
|
- |
|
|
98 |
|
|
Share purchase warrants
exercised-fair value adjustment |
|
- |
|
|
211 |
|
|
Flow-through
share premium liability |
|
- |
|
|
(332 |
)
|
|
|
|
93,197,529 |
|
|
113,020 |
|
|
Balance at
December 31, 2013 |
|
482,003,444 |
|
$ |
1,092,144 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Issued for cash: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New issue
gross proceeds |
|
9,257,500 |
|
|
13,704 |
|
|
New issue gross issue
costs |
|
- |
|
|
(859 |
) |
|
Share
options exercised |
|
1,025,449 |
|
|
946 |
|
|
Share purchase warrants
exercised |
|
536,050 |
|
|
405 |
|
|
Acquisition of Rockgate (note 5) |
|
2,312,622 |
|
|
3,034 |
|
|
Acquisition of IEC (note 5) |
|
10,229,035 |
|
|
11,979 |
|
|
Settlement of liabilities associated
with IEC Arrangement |
|
504,794 |
|
|
610 |
|
|
Share options exercised-fair value adjustment |
|
- |
|
|
525 |
|
|
Share purchase warrants
exercised-fair value adjustment |
|
- |
|
|
300 |
|
|
Flow-through
share premium liability |
|
- |
|
|
(2,030 |
)
|
|
|
|
23,865,450 |
|
|
28,614 |
|
|
Balance at
December 31, 2014 |
|
505,868,894 |
|
$ |
1,120,758 |
|
- 30 -
New Issues
In May 2013, the Company completed a
private placement of 11,500,000 flow-through common shares at a price of
CAD$1.30 per share for gross proceeds of $14,382,000 (CAD$14,950,000). The
related flow-through share premium liability was included as a component of
other liabilities on the balance sheet at December 31, 2013 and was extinguished
during 2014.
In August 2014, the Company completed a
private placement of 9,257,500 flow-through common shares at a price of CAD$1.62
per share for gross proceeds of $13,704,000 (CAD$14,997,000). The income tax
benefits of this issue will be renounced to subscribers with an effective date
of December 31, 2014. The related flow-through share premium liability is
included as a component of other liabilities at December 31, 2014.
Acquisition Related Issues
In January 2013, the Company issued
7,975,479 shares at a value of $10,956,000 (CAD$10,926,000) as part of the
acquisition of JNR (see note 5).
In April 2013, the Company issued
53,053,284 shares at a value of $66,259,000 (CAD$67,378,000) as part of the
acquisition of Fission (see note 5).
In November and early December 2013,
the Company issued 20,131,665 shares at a value of $21,760,000 (CAD$22,800,000)
as part of the acquisition of a controlling interest in Rockgate. In January
2014, the Company issued 2,312,622 shares at a value of $3,034,000
(CAD$3,330,000) to acquire the remaining non-controlling interest in Rockgate
(see note 5).
In June 2014, the Company issued
10,229,035 shares at a value of $11,979,000 (CAD$13,093,000) as part of the
acquisition of IEC (see note 5).
Flow-Through Share Issues
The Company finances a portion of its
exploration programs through the use of flow-through share issuances. Canadian
income tax deductions relating to these expenditures are claimable by the
investors and not by the Company.
As at December 31, 2014, the Company
estimates that it has satisfied its obligation to spend CAD$14,950,000 on
eligible exploration expenditures as a result of the issuance of flow through
shares in May 2013. The Company renounced the income tax benefits of this issue
to its subscribers in February 2014. In conjunction with the renunciation, the
flow-through share premium liability has been reversed and recognized as part of
the deferred tax recovery (see note 17).
As at December 31, 2014, the Company
estimates that it has incurred CAD$1,222,000 of its obligation to spend
CAD$14,997,000 on eligible exploration expenditures as a result of the issuance
of flow through shares in August 2014. The Company renounced the income tax
benefits of this issue to its subscribers in February 2015.
- 31 -
19. |
SHARE PURCHASE WARRANTS |
|
|
|
A continuity summary of the issued and outstanding share
purchase warrants in terms of common shares of the Company and the
associated dollar amounts is presented below: |
|
|
|
Weighted |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average |
|
|
Number of |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercise |
|
|
Common |
|
|
Fair |
|
|
|
|
Price Per |
|
|
Shares |
|
|
Value |
|
|
(in thousands
except share amounts) |
|
Share (CAD$) |
|
|
Issuable |
|
|
Amount |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance outstanding at January 1, 2013 |
$ |
- |
|
|
- |
|
$ |
- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Warrants issued on acquisition of JNR (note
5) |
|
2.05 |
|
|
272,290 |
|
|
17 |
|
|
Warrants assumed on acquisition of Fission (note 5) |
|
0.84 |
|
|
1,500,854 |
|
|
827 |
|
|
Warrants exercised |
|
0.85 |
|
|
(402,129 |
) |
|
(211 |
) |
|
Warrants expired
|
|
2.05
|
|
|
(272,290 |
) |
|
(17 |
) |
|
Balance outstanding at December 31, 2013 |
$ |
0.84 |
|
|
1,098,725 |
|
$ |
616 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Warrants issued on acquisition of IEC (note
5) |
|
1.71 |
|
|
660,127 |
|
|
61 |
|
|
Warrants exercised |
|
0.84 |
|
|
(536,050 |
) |
|
(300 |
) |
|
Warrants expired |
|
2.31 |
|
|
(143,000 |
) |
|
(1 |
) |
|
Balance
outstanding at December 31, 2014 |
$ |
1.17 |
|
|
1,079,802 |
|
$ |
376 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance of common shares issuable by warrant series: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fission January
2013 series (1) |
$ |
0.84 |
|
|
562,675 |
|
$ |
316 |
|
|
IEC December 2013 series
(2) |
|
1.54 |
|
|
329,061 |
|
|
36 |
|
|
IEC February 2014 series
(3) |
|
1.54 |
|
|
188,066 |
|
|
24 |
|
|
Balance
outstanding at December 31, 2014 |
$ |
1.17 |
|
|
1,079,802 |
|
$ |
376 |
|
|
(1) |
The Fission January 2013 series has an effective exercise
price of CAD$0.84 per issuable share and expires on January 21,
2015. |
|
(2) |
The IEC December 2013 series has an effective exercise
price of CAD$1.54 per issuable share and expires on June 5,
2015. |
|
(3) |
The IEC February 2014 series has an effective exercise
price of CAD$1.54 per issuable share and expires on August 20,
2015. |
20. |
STOCK OPTIONS |
|
|
|
The Companys stock-based compensation plan (the Plan)
provides for the granting of stock options up to 10% of the issued and
outstanding common shares at the time of grant, subject to a maximum of
39,670,000 common shares. As at December 31, 2014, an aggregate of
12,160,800 options have been granted (less cancellations) since the Plans
inception in 1997. |
|
|
|
Under the Plan, all stock options are granted at the
discretion of the Companys board of directors, including any vesting
provisions if applicable. The term of any stock option granted may not
exceed ten years and the exercise price may not be lower than the closing
price of the Companys shares on the last trading day immediately
preceding the date of grant. In general, stock options granted under the
Plan have five year terms and vesting periods up to thirty
months. |
- 32 -
A continuity summary of the stock
options of the Company granted under the Plan is presented below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercise |
|
|
|
|
Number of |
|
|
Price per |
|
|
|
|
Common |
|
|
Share |
|
|
|
|
Shares |
|
|
(CAD$) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stock options outstanding - beginning of
period |
|
8,431,138 |
|
$ |
1.91 |
|
|
Issued on acquisition of IEC (note 5) |
|
902,200 |
|
|
1.48 |
|
|
Granted |
|
1,311,000 |
|
|
1.81 |
|
|
Exercised (1) |
|
(1,025,449 |
) |
|
1.00 |
|
|
Forfeitures |
|
(327,239 |
) |
|
2.93 |
|
|
Expiries |
|
(3,112,076 |
) |
|
2.16
|
|
|
Stock options outstanding - end of period |
|
6,179,574 |
|
$ |
1.80 |
|
|
Stock options
exercisable - end of period |
|
4,370,074 |
|
$ |
1.86 |
|
|
(1) |
The weighted average share price at the date of exercise
was CAD$1.51. |
A summary of the Companys stock
options outstanding at December 31, 2014 is presented below:
|
|
|
Weighted |
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted- |
|
|
|
|
Average |
|
|
|
|
|
Average |
|
|
|
|
Remaining |
|
|
|
|
|
Exercise |
|
|
Range of Exercise |
|
Contractual |
|
|
Number of |
|
|
Price per |
|
|
Prices per Share |
|
Life |
|
|
Common |
|
|
Share |
|
|
(CAD$) |
|
(Years) |
|
|
Shares |
|
|
(CAD$) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stock options outstanding |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ 0.38 to $ 2.49 |
|
2.73 |
|
|
5,074,433 |
|
$ |
1.40 |
|
|
$ 2.50 to $ 4.99 |
|
1.08 |
|
|
853,181 |
|
|
3.23 |
|
|
$ 5.00 to $ 5.67
|
|
1.38
|
|
|
251,960 |
|
|
5.02
|
|
|
Stock options outstanding - end of period |
|
2.45 |
|
|
6,179,574 |
|
$ |
1.80 |
|
Options outstanding at December 31,
2014 expire between February 2015 and May 2019.
The fair value of each option granted
is estimated on the date of grant using the Black-Scholes option pricing model.
The following table outlines the range of assumptions used in the model to
determine the fair value of options granted (excluding those granted pursuant to
the JNR, Fission and IEC acquisitions refer to note 5):
|
|
2014 |
2013 |
|
|
|
|
|
Risk-free interest rate |
1.42% - 1.47% |
1.29% |
|
Expected stock price volatility |
55.21% - 55.56% |
60.2% |
|
Expected life |
3.7 years |
3.6 years |
|
Estimated forfeiture rate |
3.50% - 3.70% |
4.6% |
|
Expected dividend yield |
|
|
|
Fair
value per share under options granted |
CAD$0.54 CAD$0.74 |
CAD$0.58 |
The fair values of stock options with
vesting provisions are amortized on a graded method basis as stock-based
compensation expense over the applicable vesting periods. Included in the
statement of income (loss) is stock-based compensation of $800,000 for 2014 and
$903,000 for 2013. At December 31, 2014, the Company had an additional $338,000
in stock-based compensation expense to be recognized periodically to May 2016.
- 33 -
21. |
ACCUMULATED OTHER COMPREHENSIVE INCOME |
|
|
|
The accumulated other comprehensive income balance
consists of: |
|
|
|
At
December 31 |
|
|
At
December 31 |
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
2014
|
|
|
2013
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cumulative foreign currency translation |
$ |
(26,017 |
) |
$ |
(7,880 |
) |
|
Unamortized experience gain post employment liability |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross |
|
206 |
|
|
206 |
|
|
Tax effect |
|
(56 |
) |
|
(56 |
) |
|
Unrealized gains (losses) on investments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross
|
|
8 |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
$ |
(25,859 |
) |
$ |
(7,729 |
) |
22. |
SUPPLEMENTAL FINANCIAL INFORMATION |
|
|
|
The components of operating expenses are as
follows: |
|
|
|
Year Ended |
|
|
|
|
December 31 |
|
|
December 31 |
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
2014 |
|
|
2013 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of goods and services sold: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Overheads: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mining, other development expense |
$ |
(2,587 |
) |
$ |
(2,739 |
) |
|
Milling,
conversion expense |
|
(466 |
) |
|
(72 |
) |
|
Mill feed cost: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-Stockpile depletion |
|
(61 |
) |
|
- |
|
|
Less absorption: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-Stockpiles, mineral properties |
|
736 |
|
|
1,203 |
|
|
-Concentrates |
|
440 |
|
|
- |
|
|
Cost
of services |
|
(7,612 |
) |
|
(8,812 |
) |
|
Cost of goods and services sold |
|
(9,550 |
) |
|
(10,420 |
) |
|
Reclamation asset amortization |
|
(15 |
) |
|
(36 |
) |
|
Reclamation liability adjustments (note 14) |
|
(2,086 |
) |
|
1,645 |
|
|
Operating expenses |
$ |
(11,651 |
) |
$ |
(8,811 |
) |
The components of other income
(expense) are as follows:
|
|
|
Year Ended |
|
|
|
|
December 31 |
|
|
December 31 |
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
2014 |
|
|
2013 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gains (losses) on: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Foreign exchange |
$ |
(7,983 |
) |
$ |
17 |
|
|
Disposal of property, plant
and equipment |
|
449 |
|
|
(12 |
) |
|
Investment impairments |
|
(22 |
) |
|
(39 |
) |
|
Investment disposals / fair
value through profit (loss) |
|
(59 |
) |
|
(1,328 |
) |
|
Other |
|
57 |
|
|
833 |
|
|
Other income (expense) |
$ |
(7,558 |
) |
$ |
(529 |
) |
- 34 -
The components of finance income
(expense) are as follows:
|
|
|
Year Ended |
|
|
|
|
December 31 |
|
|
December 31 |
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
2014 |
|
|
2013 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest income |
$ |
554 |
|
$ |
392 |
|
|
Interest expense |
|
(2 |
) |
|
(3 |
) |
|
Accretion expense-reclamation obligations |
|
(720 |
) |
|
(796 |
) |
|
Accretion
expense-post-employment benefits |
|
(114 |
) |
|
(125 |
) |
|
Finance income (expense) |
$ |
(282 |
) |
$ |
(532 |
) |
A summary of depreciation expense
recognized in the statement of income (loss) is as follows:
|
|
|
Year Ended |
|
|
|
|
December 31 |
|
|
December 31 |
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
2014 |
|
|
2013 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating expenses: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mining, other development expense |
$ |
(303 |
) |
$ |
(283 |
) |
|
Milling, conversion expense |
|
(79 |
) |
|
(11 |
) |
|
Cost of services |
|
(244 |
) |
|
(259 |
) |
|
Mineral property exploration |
|
(125 |
) |
|
(174 |
) |
|
General and
administrative |
|
(66 |
) |
|
(69 |
) |
|
Depreciation expense - gross |
$ |
(817 |
) |
$ |
(796 |
) |
A summary of employee benefits expense
recognized in the statement of income (loss) is as follows:
|
|
|
Year Ended |
|
|
|
|
December 31 |
|
|
December 31 |
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
2014 |
|
|
2013 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Salaries and short-term employee benefits |
$ |
(8,289 |
) |
$ |
(9,272 |
) |
|
Share-based compensation |
|
(800 |
) |
|
(903 |
) |
|
Termination benefits |
|
(360 |
) |
|
(474 |
) |
|
Employee benefits
expense |
$ |
(9,449 |
) |
$ |
(10,649 |
) |
The change in non-cash working capital
items in the consolidated statements of cash flows is as follows:
|
|
|
Year Ended |
|
|
|
|
December 31 |
|
|
December 31 |
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
2014 |
|
|
2013 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change in non-cash working capital items: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trade and other receivables |
$ |
(5,310 |
) |
$ |
(1,720 |
) |
|
Inventories |
|
(520 |
) |
|
(187 |
) |
|
Prepaid expenses and other assets |
|
(152 |
) |
|
(78 |
) |
|
Accounts payable and accrued liabilities |
|
2,102 |
|
|
331 |
|
|
Post-employment benefits |
|
(244 |
) |
|
(235 |
) |
|
Reclamation
obligations |
|
290 |
|
|
(877 |
) |
|
Change in non-cash working capital items |
$ |
(3,834 |
) |
$ |
(2,766 |
) |
- 35 -
23. |
SEGMENTED INFORMATION |
|
|
|
Business Segments |
|
|
|
The Company operates in two primary segments the Mining
segment and the Services and Other segment. The Mining segment, which has
been further subdivided into geographic regions, includes activities
related to exploration, evaluation and development, mining, milling
(including toll milling) and the sale of mineral concentrates. The
Services and Other segment includes the results of the Companys
environmental services business, management fees and commission income
earned from UPC and other customers and general corporate expenses not
allocated to the other segments. |
|
|
|
For the year ended December 31, 2014, reportable segment
results were as follows: |
|
|
|
Canada |
|
|
Asia |
|
|
Africa |
|
|
Services |
|
|
|
|
|
(in
thousands) |
|
Mining |
|
|
Mining |
|
|
Mining |
|
|
and
Other |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Statement of
Operations: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues |
|
111
|
|
|
- |
|
|
- |
|
|
9,508
|
|
|
9,619
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expenses: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating expenses |
|
(2,649 |
) |
|
- |
|
|
(1,390 |
) |
|
(7,612 |
) |
|
(11,651 |
) |
|
Mineral property exploration |
|
(13,488 |
) |
|
(394 |
) |
|
(913 |
) |
|
- |
|
|
(14,795 |
) |
|
General and administrative
|
|
(10 |
) |
|
(858 |
) |
|
(1,152 |
) |
|
(5,570 |
) |
|
(7,590 |
) |
|
Impairment-mineral properties (note 11) |
|
(1,658 |
) |
|
- |
|
|
(87 |
) |
|
- |
|
|
(1,745 |
) |
|
|
|
(17,805 |
) |
|
(1,252 |
) |
|
(3,542 |
) |
|
(13,182 |
) |
|
(35,781 |
) |
|
Segment income (loss) |
|
(17,694 |
) |
|
(1,252 |
) |
|
(3,542 |
) |
|
(3,674 |
) |
|
(26,162 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues supplemental: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Environmental services |
|
- |
|
|
- |
|
|
- |
|
|
7,327 |
|
|
7,327 |
|
|
Management fees and commissions |
|
- |
|
|
- |
|
|
- |
|
|
2,181 |
|
|
2,181 |
|
|
Toll milling services |
|
111 |
|
|
- |
|
|
- |
|
|
- |
|
|
111 |
|
|
|
|
111
|
|
|
- |
|
|
- |
|
|
9,508
|
|
|
9,619
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital additions: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property, plant and equipment |
|
207 |
|
|
105 |
|
|
557 |
|
|
100 |
|
|
969 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-lived assets: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Plant and equipment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost |
|
83,613 |
|
|
340 |
|
|
2,288 |
|
|
3,699 |
|
|
89,940 |
|
|
Accumulated depreciation |
|
(8,326 |
) |
|
(231 |
) |
|
(1,738 |
) |
|
(1,910 |
) |
|
(12,205 |
) |
|
Mineral properties |
|
144,409 |
|
|
6,305 |
|
|
41,939 |
|
|
- |
|
|
192,653 |
|
|
Intangibles |
|
- |
|
|
- |
|
|
- |
|
|
638
|
|
|
638
|
|
|
|
|
219,696 |
|
|
6,414 |
|
|
42,489 |
|
|
2,427 |
|
|
271,026 |
|
- 36 -
For the year ended December 31, 2013,
reportable segment results were as follows:
|
|
|
Canada
|
|
|
Asia
|
|
|
Africa
|
|
|
Services |
|
|
|
|
|
(in
thousands) |
|
Mining |
|
|
Mining |
|
|
Mining |
|
|
and
Other |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Statement of Operations: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues |
|
- |
|
|
- |
|
|
- |
|
|
10,407 |
|
|
10,407 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expenses: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating expenses |
|
649 |
|
|
- |
|
|
(648 |
) |
|
(8,812 |
) |
|
(8,811 |
) |
|
Mineral property exploration
|
|
(12,019 |
) |
|
(550 |
) |
|
(1,113 |
) |
|
- |
|
|
(13,682 |
) |
|
General and administrative |
|
(5 |
) |
|
(788 |
) |
|
(1,022 |
) |
|
(6,352 |
) |
|
(8,167 |
) |
|
Impairment-mineral properties (note 11) |
|
(934 |
) |
|
- |
|
|
(46,165 |
) |
|
- |
|
|
(47,099 |
) |
|
|
|
(12,309 |
) |
|
(1,338 |
) |
|
(48,948 |
) |
|
(15,164 |
) |
|
(77,759 |
) |
|
Segment income (loss) |
|
(12,309 |
) |
|
(1,338 |
) |
|
(48,948 |
) |
|
(4,757 |
) |
|
(67,352 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues
supplemental: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Environmental services |
|
- |
|
|
- |
|
|
- |
|
|
8,763 |
|
|
8,763 |
|
|
Management fees and commissions |
|
- |
|
|
- |
|
|
- |
|
|
1,644 |
|
|
1,644 |
|
|
|
|
- |
|
|
- |
|
|
- |
|
|
10,407 |
|
|
10,407 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital additions: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property, plant and equipment |
|
1,188 |
|
|
114 |
|
|
1,010 |
|
|
83 |
|
|
2,395 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-lived assets: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Plant and equipment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost |
|
87,328 |
|
|
396 |
|
|
2,613 |
|
|
3,984 |
|
|
94,321 |
|
|
Accumulated depreciation |
|
(8,792 |
) |
|
(253 |
) |
|
(1,726 |
) |
|
(1,856 |
) |
|
(12,627 |
) |
|
Mineral properties |
|
144,649 |
|
|
7,229 |
|
|
47,438 |
|
|
- |
|
|
199,316 |
|
|
Intangibles |
|
- |
|
|
- |
|
|
- |
|
|
1,252 |
|
|
1,252 |
|
|
|
|
223,185 |
|
|
7,372 |
|
|
48,325 |
|
|
3,380 |
|
|
282,262 |
|
Revenue Concentration
The Companys business from continuing
operations is such that, at any given time, it sells its environmental and other
services to a relatively small number of customers. During 2014, three customers
from the services and other segment accounted for approximately 86% of total
revenues consisting of 53%, 23% and 10% individually. During 2013, four
customers from the services and other segment accounted for approximately 87% of
total revenues consisting of 50%, 16%, 11% and 10% individually.
- 37 -
24. |
RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS |
|
|
|
Uranium Participation Corporation |
|
|
|
The Company is a party to a management services agreement
with UPC. The most recent agreement was entered into on April 1, 2013 and
it has a three year term that may be terminated by either party upon the
provision of 120 days written notice. Under the terms of the agreement,
the Company receives the following fees from UPC: a) a commission of 1.5%
of the gross value of any purchases or sales of uranium completed at the
request of the Board of Directors of UPC; b) a minimum annual management
fee of CAD$400,000 (plus reasonable out-of-pocket expenses) plus an
additional fee of 0.3% per annum based upon UPCs net asset value in
excess of CAD$100,000,000; and c) a fee, at the discretion of the Board,
for on-going monitoring or work associated with a transaction or
arrangement (other than a financing, or the purchase or sale of
uranium). |
|
|
|
The following transactions were incurred with UPC for the
periods noted: |
|
|
|
Year Ended |
|
|
|
|
December 31 |
|
|
December 31 |
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
2014 |
|
|
2013 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenue: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Management fees |
$ |
1,628 |
|
$ |
1,644 |
|
|
Commission fees |
|
553 |
|
|
- |
|
|
|
$ |
2,181 |
|
$ |
1,644 |
|
At December 31, 2014, accounts
receivable includes $123,000 (December 31, 2013: $148,000) due from UPC with
respect to the fees and transactions indicated above.
Korea Electric Power Corporation
(KEPCO)
In June 2009, Denison completed
definitive agreements with KEPCO including a long-term offtake agreement (which
has been assigned to Energy Fuels Inc. (EFR) as part of the U.S. Mining
Division transaction completed in June 2012) and a strategic relationship
agreement. Pursuant to the strategic relationship agreement, KEPCO is entitled
to subscribe for additional common shares in Denisons future share offerings.
The strategic relationship agreement also provides KEPCO with a right of first
opportunity if Denison intends to sell any of its substantial assets, a right to
participate in certain purchases of substantial assets which Denison proposes to
acquire and a right to nominate one director to Denisons board so long as its
share interest in Denison is above 5.0% .
As at December 31, 2014, KEPCO holds
58,284,000 shares of Denison representing a share interest of approximately
11.5% .
Denison also holds a 60% interest in
the Waterbury Lake Uranium Corporation (WLUC) and Waterbury Lake Uranium
Limited Partnership (WLULP) entities whose key asset is the Waterbury Lake
property. The other 40% interest in these entities is held by a consortium of
investors (KWULP) of which KEPCO is the primary holder (see note 27). When a
spending program is approved by the participants, each participant is required
to fund these entities based upon its respective ownership interest. Spending
program approval requires 75% of the voting interest.
In January 2014, Denison agreed to
allow KWULP to defer its funding obligations to WLUC and WLULP until September
30, 2015 in exchange for allowing Denison to carry out spending programs without
obtaining the approval of 75% of the voting interest. As at December 31, 2014,
KWULP has a funding obligation to WLUC and WLULP of CAD$802,000. Denison has
recorded its proportionate share of this amount of $415,000 (CAD$481,000) as a
component of trade and other receivables.
Other
During 2014, the Company incurred
investor relations, administrative service fees and other expenses of $60,000
(2013: $188,000) with Namdo Management Services Ltd, which shares a common
officer with Denison. These services were incurred in the normal course of
operating a public company. At December 31, 2014, an amount of $nil (December
31, 2013: $nil) was due to this company.
During 2014, the Company incurred legal
fees of $276,000 (2013: $1,634,000) with Cassels Brock & Blackwell, LLP, a
law firm of which a member of Denisons Board of Directors is a partner. These
services and associated costs were mainly related to various acquisition and
internal re-organization activities done by the Company. At December 31, 2014,
an amount of $1,000 (December 31, 2013: $82,000) is due to this legal firm.
- 38 -
During 2014, the Company provided
executive services of $106,000 (2013: $nil) to Lundin Gold Inc., which shares
common directors and officers with Denison. At December 31, 2014, an amount of
$44,000 (December 31, 2013: $nil) is due from this company.
Compensation of Key Management
Personnel
Key management personnel are those
persons having authority and responsibility for planning, directing and
controlling the activities of the Company, directly or indirectly. Key
management personnel includes the Companys executive officers, vice-presidents
and members of its Board of Directors.
The following compensation was awarded
to key management personnel:
|
|
|
Year Ended |
|
|
|
|
December 31 |
|
|
December 31 |
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
2014 |
|
|
2013 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Salaries and short-term employee benefits |
$ |
1,633 |
|
$ |
1,630 |
|
|
Share-based compensation |
|
516 |
|
|
577 |
|
|
Termination benefits |
|
158 |
|
|
- |
|
|
Key management
personnel compensation |
$ |
2,307 |
|
$ |
2,207 |
|
25. |
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT AND FINANCIAL RISK |
|
|
|
Capital Management |
|
|
|
The Companys capital includes cash, cash equivalents,
investments in debt instruments and debt obligations. The Companys
primary objective with respect to its capital management is to ensure that
it has sufficient capital to maintain its ongoing operations, to provide
returns for shareholders and benefits for other stakeholders and to pursue
growth opportunities. |
|
|
|
Planning, annual budgeting and controls over major
investment decisions are the primary tools used to manage the Companys
capital. The Companys cash is managed centrally and disbursed to the
various regions via a system of cash call requests which are reviewed by
the key decision makers. Under the Companys delegation of authority
guidelines, significant debt obligations require the approval of both the
CEO and the CFO before they are entered into. |
|
|
|
The Company manages its capital by review of the
following measure: |
|
|
|
At
December 31 |
|
|
At
December 31 |
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
2014
|
|
|
2013
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
$ |
18,640 |
|
$ |
21,786 |
|
|
Investments in debt instruments (see note 9)
|
|
4,381 |
|
|
14,818 |
|
|
Debt obligations - current |
|
(30 |
) |
|
(55 |
) |
|
Debt
obligations long term |
|
(9 |
) |
|
(42 |
) |
|
Net cash |
|
22,982 |
|
|
36,507 |
|
Financial Risk
The Company examines the various
financial risks to which it is exposed and assesses the impact and likelihood of
those risks. These risks may include credit risk, liquidity risk, currency risk,
interest rate risk and price risk.
(a)
Credit Risk
Credit risk is the risk of loss due to
a counterpartys inability to meet its obligations under a financial instrument
that will result in a financial loss to the Company. The Company believes that
the carrying amount of its cash and cash equivalents, trade and other
receivables, investments in debt instruments and restricted cash and investments
represents its maximum credit exposure.
- 39 -
The maximum exposure to credit risk at
the reporting dates is as follows:
|
|
|
At
December 31 |
|
|
At
December 31 |
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
2014
|
|
|
2013
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
$ |
18,640 |
|
$ |
21,786 |
|
|
Trade and other receivables |
|
9,411 |
|
|
4,148 |
|
|
Investments in debt
instruments |
|
4,381 |
|
|
14,818 |
|
|
Restricted cash and investments |
|
2,068
|
|
|
2,299
|
|
|
|
$ |
34,500 |
|
$ |
43,051 |
|
The Company limits cash and cash
equivalents, investment in debt instruments and restricted cash and investment
risk by dealing with credit worthy financial institutions. The Companys trade
and other receivables balance relates to a small number of customers who are
credit worthy and with whom the Company has established a relationship with
through its past dealings.
(b)
Liquidity Risk
Liquidity risk is the risk that the
Company will encounter difficulties in meeting obligations associated with its
financial liabilities as they become due. The Company has in place a planning
and budgeting process to help determine the funds required to support the
Companys normal operating requirements on an ongoing basis. The Company ensures
that there is sufficient committed capital to meet its short-term business
requirements, taking into account its anticipated cash flows from operations,
its holdings of cash and cash equivalents and its access to credit and capital
markets, if required.
The maturities of the Companys
financial liabilities are as follows:
|
|
|
Within
1 |
|
|
1 to 5
|
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
Year
|
|
|
Years |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable and accrued
liabilities |
$ |
10,050 |
|
$ |
- |
|
|
Debt
obligations (Note 15) |
|
30
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
$ |
10,080 |
|
$ |
9 |
|
(c)
Currency Risk
Foreign exchange risk is the risk that
the fair value of future cash flows of a financial instrument will fluctuate
because of changes in foreign exchange rates. The Company operates
internationally and is exposed to foreign exchange risk arising from various
currency exposures as its subsidiaries incur operating and capital costs
denominated in local currencies. Foreign exchange risk also arises from assets
and liabilities that are denominated in a currency that is not the functional
currency for the relevant subsidiary company.
Currently, the Company does not have
any foreign exchange hedge programs in place and manages its operational foreign
exchange requirements through spot purchases in the foreign exchange markets.
The impact of the U.S dollar strengthening (by approximately 10%) at December
31, 2014 against the Companys foreign currencies, with all other variables held
constant, is as follows:
|
|
|
Dec.312014 |
|
|
Sensitivity |
|
|
Change
in |
|
|
|
|
Foreign Ex- |
|
|
Foreign Ex- |
|
|
net income |
|
|
(in thousands
except foreign exchange rates) |
|
Change Rate |
|
|
Change Rate |
|
|
(loss) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Currency risk |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Canadian dollar (CAD) |
|
1.1601 |
|
|
1.2761 |
|
$ |
14,526 |
|
|
Mongolian tugrog (MNT) |
|
1,881.11 |
|
|
2,069.23 |
|
|
(3,891 |
) |
|
West Africa French Franc
(CFA) |
|
539.67 |
|
|
593.63 |
|
|
(6,365 |
) |
|
Zambian kwacha (ZMW) |
|
6.4297 |
|
|
7.0727 |
|
|
(4,698 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
(428 |
) |
(d)
Interest Rate Risk
Interest rate risk is the risk that the
fair value or future cash flows of a financial instrument will fluctuate because
of changes in market interest rates. The Company is exposed to interest rate
risk on its liabilities through its outstanding borrowings and on its assets
through its investments in debt instruments. The Company monitors its exposure
to interest rates and has not entered into any derivative contracts to manage
this risk.
- 40 -
(e)
Price Risk
The Company is exposed to equity price
risk as a result of holding equity investments in other exploration and mining
companies. The Company does not actively trade these investments. The
sensitivity analysis below has been determined based on the exposure to equity
price risk at December 31, 2014:
|
|
|
Change
in |
|
|
Change
in |
|
|
|
|
net income |
|
|
Comprehensive |
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
(loss) |
|
|
income (loss) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity price risk |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10% increase in
equity prices |
$ |
93 |
|
$ |
95 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair Value of Financial Instruments
IFRS requires disclosures about the
inputs to fair value measurements, including their classification within a
hierarchy that prioritizes the inputs to fair value measurement. The three
levels of the fair value hierarchy are:
|
|
Level 1 Unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for
identical assets or liabilities; |
|
|
Level 2 Inputs other than quoted prices that are
observable for the asset or liability either directly or indirectly; and
|
|
|
Level 3 Inputs that are not based on observable market
data. |
The fair value of financial instruments
which trade in active markets (such as equity instruments) is based on quoted
market prices at the balance sheet date. The quoted marked price used to value
financial assets held by the Company is the current closing price.
Except as otherwise disclosed, the fair
values of cash and cash equivalents, trade and other receivables, accounts
payable and accrued liabilities, restricted cash and cash equivalents and debt
obligations approximate their carrying values as a result of the short-term
nature of the instruments, or the variable interest rate associated with the
instruments, or the fixed interest rate of the instruments being similar to
market rates.
The following table illustrates the
classification of the Companys financial assets within the fair value hierarchy
as at December 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013:
|
|
|
Financial |
|
|
Fair
|
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
|
Instrument |
|
|
Value |
|
|
2014 |
|
|
2013 |
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
Category(1) |
|
|
Hierarchy |
|
|
Fair
Value |
|
|
Fair
Value |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Financial Assets: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and equivalents |
|
Category D |
|
|
|
|
$ |
18,640 |
|
$ |
21,786 |
|
|
Trade and other receivables |
|
Category D |
|
|
|
|
|
9,411 |
|
|
4,148 |
|
|
Investments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity instruments
|
|
Category A |
|
|
Level 1 |
|
|
916 |
|
|
1,106 |
|
|
Equity instruments |
|
Category A |
|
|
Level 2 |
|
|
16 |
|
|
- |
|
|
Equity instruments
|
|
Category B |
|
|
Level 1 |
|
|
22 |
|
|
17 |
|
|
Debt instruments |
|
Category A |
|
|
Level 1 |
|
|
4,381 |
|
|
14,818 |
|
|
Restricted cash and equivalents |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Elliot Lake
reclamation trust fund |
|
Category C |
|
|
|
|
|
2,068 |
|
|
2,299 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
35,454 |
|
$ |
44,174 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Financial Liabilities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Account payable and accrued
liabilities |
|
Category E |
|
|
|
|
|
10,050 |
|
|
7,992 |
|
|
Debt
obligations |
|
Category E |
|
|
|
|
|
39
|
|
|
97
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
10,089 |
|
$ |
8,089 |
|
|
(1) |
Financial instrument designations are as follows:
Category A=Financial assets and liabilities at fair value through profit
and loss; Category B=Available for sale investments; Category C=Held to
maturity investments; Category D=Loans and receivables; and Category
E=Financial liabilities at amortized cost. |
- 41 -
26. |
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES |
|
|
|
General Legal Matters |
|
|
|
The Company is involved, from time to time, in various
legal actions and claims in the ordinary course of business. In the
opinion of management, the aggregate amount of any potential liability is
not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Companys financial
position or results. |
|
|
|
Third Party Indemnities |
|
|
|
The Company remains a guarantor under a sales contract
included in the sale of the U.S. Mining Division to Energy Fuels Inc.
(EFR) in June 2012. The sales contract requires deliveries of 200,000
pounds of U3O8 per year from 2013 to 2017 at a selling price of 95% of the
long-term U3O8 price at the time of delivery. Should EFR not be able to
deliver for any reason other than force majeure as defined under the
contract, the Company may be liable to the customer for incremental costs
incurred to replace the contracted quantities if the unit price of the
replacement quantity is greater than the contracted unit price selling
amount. EFR has agreed to indemnify the Company for any future liabilities
it may incur related to this guarantee. |
|
|
|
The Company has agreed to indemnify EFR against any
future liabilities it may incur in connection with ongoing litigation
between Denison Mines (USA) Corp (DUSA) (a company acquired by EFR as
part of the sale of the U.S. Mining Division) and a contractor in respect
of a construction project at the White Mesa mill. In the event that the
matter is decided in DUSAs favour, the Company is entitled to any
proceeds that are received or recovered by EFR pursuant to its indemnity.
Both parties agreed to resolve the dispute via binding arbitration and
arbitration hearings for this matter were held in November 2013. In
January 2014 an arbitration order was issued in DUSAs and Denisons
favour. The contractor subsequently filed a motion to vacate the
arbitration award. Denison filed a response in opposition and, in July
2014, the court denied the motion to vacate the arbitration award. The
Company does not expect to recover a material amount of damages related to
this issue. |
|
|
|
Performance Bonds and Letters of Credit |
|
|
|
In conjunction with various contracts, reclamation and
other performance obligations, the Company may be required to issue
performance bonds and letters of credit as security to creditors to
guarantee the Companys performance. Any potential payments which might
become due under these items would be related to the Companys
non-performance under the applicable contract. As at December 31, 2014,
the Company had outstanding letters of credit of $9,329,000 of which
$9,329,000 (CAD$9,898,000) is collateralized by a reduction in the amount
available under the Companys 2014 credit facility (see note
15). |
|
|
|
Others |
|
|
|
The Company has committed to payments under various
operating leases and other commitments. Excluding spending amounts which
may be required to maintain the Companys mineral properties in good
standing, the future minimum payments are as
follows: |
|
(in thousands) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2015 |
$ |
269 |
|
|
2016 |
|
144 |
|
|
2017 |
|
42 |
|
|
2018 |
|
11 |
|
|
2019 and thereafter |
|
7 |
|
|
|
$ |
473 |
|
- 42 -
27. |
INTEREST IN OTHER ENTITIES |
|
|
|
The significant entities and contractual interests in
which Denison has a non-100% voting / participating interest at December
31, 2014 are listed below. |
|
|
Place |
|
Denison |
Denison |
|
|
|
Of |
Entity |
Voting |
Participating |
Accounting |
|
|
Business |
Type
(1) |
Interest (2) |
Interest (3) |
Method (4) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-100% Owned
Entities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Waterbury Lake Uranium Corp
|
Canada |
JO-1 |
60.00% |
60.00% |
Proportionate
Share |
|
Waterbury Lake Uranium LP |
Canada |
JO-1 |
60.00% |
60.00% |
Proportionate Share |
|
Pitchstone Namibia (Pty) Ltd
|
Namibia |
SUB |
90.00% |
100.00% |
Consolidation
|
|
Gurvan Saihan Joint Venture |
Mongolia |
SUB |
85.00% |
100.00% |
Consolidation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-100% Owned Contractual
Arrangements |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
McClean Joint Venture Agreement |
Canada |
JO-2 |
22.50% |
22.50% |
Proportionate Share |
|
Midwest Joint Venture
Agreement |
Canada |
JO-2 |
25.17% |
25.17% |
Proportionate
Share |
|
Wheeler River |
Canada |
JO-2 |
60.00% |
60.00% |
Proportionate Share |
|
Mann Lake |
Canada |
JO-2 |
30.00% |
30.00% |
Proportionate
Share |
|
Wolly |
Canada |
JO-2 |
22.50% |
22.50% |
Proportionate Share |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
The Entity Type classifications are as follows:
SUB=Subsidiary; JO-1=Joint Operations having joint control as defined by
IFRS 11; and JO- 2=Joint Operations not having joint control and beyond
the scope of IFRS 11; |
|
(2) |
Voting Interest represents Denisons percentage voting
interest in the entity or contractual arrangement; |
|
(3) |
Participating interest represents Denisons percentage
funding contribution to the particular arrangement. This percentage can
differ from equity interest in instances where other parties to the
arrangement have carried interests in the arrangement; and |
|
(4) |
Proportionate share is where Denison accounts for its
share of assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses of the arrangement in
relation to its participating interest. |
|
Pitchstone Namibia (Pty) Ltd (Pitchstone Namibia) was
acquired by Denison as part of the Fission arrangement (see note 5).
Pitchstone Namibias key asset is the Dome project. Denisons
participating interest is larger than its voting interest at this time due
to its partners carried interest. Denison is currently funding 100% of
the activities of this entity. |
|
|
|
The Gurvan Saihan Joint Venture holds Denisons mineral
property assets in Mongolia. Denisons participating interest is larger
than its voting interest at this time due to its partners carried
interest (see note 11). Denison is currently funding 100% of the
activities of this entity. |
|
|
28. |
SUBSEQUENT EVENTS |
|
|
|
Bank of Nova Scotia Credit Facility
Renewal |
|
|
|
On January 30, 2015, the Company entered into an
agreement with the Bank of Nova Scotia to amend the terms of the 2014
facility and extend the maturity date to January 31, 2016 (see note 15).
Under the 2015 facility, the Company has access to credit up to
CAD$24,000,000. Use of the 2015 facility remains restricted to non-
financial letters of credit in support of reclamation obligations (see
note 14). |
|
|
|
The 2015 facility contains a covenant to maintain a level
of tangible net worth greater than or equal to the sum of $150,000,000 and
a covenant to maintain a minimum balance of cash and equivalents of
CAD$5,000,000 on deposit with the Bank of Nova Scotia. As security for the
amended facility, DMC has provided an unlimited full recourse guarantee
and a pledge of all of the shares of DMI. DMI has provided a
first-priority security interest in all present and future personal
property and an assignment of its rights and interests under all material
agreements relative to the McClean Lake and Midwest projects. |
|
|
|
The 2015 facility is subject to letter of credit and
standby fees of 2.40% and 0.75% respectively. |
- 43 -
March 12, 2015
Consent of independent auditor
We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended 31 December 2014 of Denison Mines Corp. of our report dated March 5, 2015, relating to the consolidated financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in the Exhibit incorporated by reference in this Annual Report.
We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Forms S-8 (No. 333-48174, No. 333-148915 and No. 333-190121) of our report dated March 5, 2015 referred to above.
(Signed) PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Chartered Professional Accountants, Licensed Public Accountants
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
PwC Tower, 18 York Street, Suite 2600, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5J 0B2
T: +1 416 863 1133, F: +1 416 365 8215, www.pwc.com/ca
PwC refers to PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an Ontario limited liability
partnership,
Exhibit 99.5
CERTIFICATION
REQUIRED BY RULE 13a-14(a) OR RULE
15d-14(a)
I, Ron F. Hochstein, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 40-F of Denison
Mines Corp.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The issuers other certifying officer(s) and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures
(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control
over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and
15d-15(f)) for the issuer and have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls
and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed
under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others
within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is
being prepared;
(b) Designed such internal control over
financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to
be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the
reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements
for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles.
(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the
issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,
as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
(d) Disclosed in this report any change
in the issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during
the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the issuers internal control over
financial reporting; and
5. The issuers other certifying officer and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the issuers auditors and the audit committee of the issuers
board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
(a) All significant deficiencies and
material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over
financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the issuers
ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
(b) Any fraud, whether or not material,
that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the
issuers internal control over financial reporting.
Date: March 12, 2015
By: /s/ Ron
F.
Hochstein
|
|
|
|
Name:Ron F.
Hochstein |
|
|
|
Title: Chief Executive
Officer
|
|
CERTIFICATION
REQUIRED BY RULE 13a-14(a) OR RULE
15d-14(a)
I, David D. Cates, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 40-F of Denison
Mines Corp.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The issuers other certifying officer(s) and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures
(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control
over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and
15d-15(f)) for the issuer and have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls
and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed
under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others
within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is
being prepared;
(b) Designed such internal control over
financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to
be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the
reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements
for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles.
(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the
issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,
as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
(d) Disclosed in this report any change
in the issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during
the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the issuers internal control over
financial reporting; and
5. The issuers other certifying officer and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the issuers auditors and the audit committee of the issuers
board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
(a) All significant deficiencies and
material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over
financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the issuers
ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
(b) Any fraud, whether or not material,
that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the
issuers internal control over financial reporting.
Date: March 12, 2015
By: /s/ David D. Cates
|
|
|
|
Name: David D.
Cates |
|
|
|
Title: President and Chief Financial
Officer
|
|
Exhibit 99.6
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
In connection with the Annual Report of Denison Mines Corp.
(the Company) on Form 40-F for the period ended December 31, 2014, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
each of the undersigned certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, and SEC Rule
13a-14(b), that to the best of my knowledge:
1. The Report fully complies with
the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934; and
2. The information contained in
the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.
Date: March 12, 2015
By: /s/ David D.
Cates
|
By: /s/ Ron F.
Hochstein
|
|
|
Name: David D.
Cates
|
Name: Ron F.
Hochstein
|
|
|
Title: President & Chief Financial
Officer
|
Title: Chief Executive
Officer
|
Exhibit 99.7
CONSENT OF ENGINEER
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The undersigned company hereby consents to (1) the references
to the undersigned companys name included or incorporated by reference in the
Annual Report on Form 40-F of Denison Mines Corp. in connection with (a) the
report entitled Technical Report on the Elliot Lake Property, Elliot Lake
District, Ontario, Canada dated June 29, 2007, (b) the report entitled
Technical Report on the Uranium Exploration Properties in Mongolia dated
February 27, 2007, (c) the report entitled Technical Report on the Denison
Mines Inc. Uranium Properties, Saskatchewan, Canada dated November 21, 2005, as
amended on February 16, 2006, (d) the report entitled Technical Report on the
Mineral Resource Estimate for the McClean North Uranium Deposits, Saskatchewan
dated January 31, 2007, (e) the report entitled Technical Report on the Sue D
Uranium Deposit Mineral Resource Estimate, Saskatchewan, Canada dated March 31,
2006, (f) the report entitled Technical Report on the Midwest Uranium Deposit
Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve Estimates, Saskatchewan, Canada dated June
1, 2005, as amended on February 14, 2006, (g) the report entitled Technical
Report on the Hairhan Uranium Exploration Property in Mongolia dated March 23,
2011; and (h) the report entitled the Technical Report on a Mineral Resource
Estimate Update for the Phoenix Uranium Deposits, Wheeler River Project, Eastern
Athabasca Basin, Northern Saskatchewan, Canada dated June 17, 2014 and (2) all
other references to the undersigned company included or incorporated by
reference in the Annual Report on Form 40-F of Denison Mines Corp.
Dated: March 12, 2015
ROSCOE POSTLE ASSOCIATES INC.
By: /s/ Deborah. A. McCombe
Name: Deborah. A. McCombe,
P. Geo.
Title: President and CEO
Exhibit 99.8
CONSENT OF ENGINEER
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The undersigned hereby consents to (1) the references to the
undersigneds name included or incorporated by reference in the Annual Report on
Form 40-F of Denison Mines Corp. in connection with the report entitled
Technical Report on the Elliot Lake Property, Elliot Lake District, Ontario,
Canada dated June 29, 2007 and (2) all other references to the undersigned
included or incorporated by reference in the Annual Report on Form 40-F of
Denison Mines Corp.
Dated: March 12, 2015
/s/ Leo R. Hwozdyk
Leo R. Hwozdyk, P.Eng.
Roscoe Postle Associates Inc.
Exhibit 99.9
CONSENT OF ENGINEER
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The undersigned hereby consents to (1) the references to the
undersigneds name included or incorporated by reference in the Annual Report on
Form 40-F of Denison Mines Corp. in connection with the report entitled
Technical Report on the Uranium Exploration Properties in Mongolia dated
February 27, 2007 and (2) all other references to the undersigned included or
incorporated by reference in the Annual Report on Form 40-F of Denison Mines
Corp.
Dated: March 12, 2015
/s/ Thomas C. Pool
Thomas C. Pool, P.E.
Roscoe Postle Associates Inc.
Exhibit 99.10
CONSENT OF ENGINEER
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The undersigned hereby consents to (1) the references to the
undersigneds name included or incorporated by reference in the Annual Report on
Form 40-F of Denison Mines Corp. in connection with (a) the report entitled
Technical Report on the Denison Mines Inc. Uranium Properties, Saskatchewan,
Canada dated November 21, 2005, as amended on February 16, 2006, (b) the report
entitled Technical Report on the Mineral Resource Estimate for the McClean
North Uranium Deposits, Saskatchewan dated January 31, 2007, (c) the report
entitled Technical Report on the Sue D Uranium Deposit Mineral Resource
Estimate, Saskatchewan, Canada dated March 31, 2006, (d) the report entitled
Technical Report on the Midwest Uranium Deposit Mineral Resource and Mineral
Reserve Estimates, Saskatchewan, Canada dated June 1, 2005, as amended on
February 14, 2006, and (2) all other references to the undersigned included or
incorporated by reference in the Annual Report on Form 40-F of Denison Mines
Corp.
Dated: March 12, 2015
/s/ Richard E. Routledge
Richard E. Routledge, M.Sc., P.Geo.
Roscoe Postle Associates Inc.
Exhibit 99.11
CONSENT OF ENGINEER
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The undersigned hereby consents to (1) the references to the
undersigneds name included or incorporated by reference in the Annual Report on
Form 40-F of Denison Mines Corp. in connection with (a) the report entitled
Technical Report on the Denison Mines Inc. Uranium Properties, Saskatchewan,
Canada dated November 21, 2005, as amended on February 16, 2006, (b) the report
entitled Technical Report on the Sue D Uranium Deposit Mineral Resource
Estimate, Saskatchewan, Canada dated March 31, 2006, (c) the report entitled
Technical Report on the Midwest Uranium Deposit Mineral Resource and Mineral
Reserve Estimates, Saskatchewan, Canada dated June 1, 2005, as amended on
February 14, 2006, and (2) all other references to the undersigned included or
incorporated by in the Annual Report on Form 40-F of Denison Mines Corp.
Dated: March 12, 2015
/s/ James W. Hendry
James W. Hendry, P.Eng.
Roscoe Postle Associates Inc.
Exhibit 99.12
CONSENT OF ENGINEER
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The undersigned hereby consents to (1) the references to the
undersigneds name included or incorporated by reference in the Annual Report on
Form 40-F of Denison Mines Corp. in connection with the report entitled
Technical Report on the Midwest Uranium Deposit Mineral Resource and Mineral
Reserve Estimates, Saskatchewan, Canada dated June 1, 2005, as amended on
February 14, 2006, and (2) all other references to the undersigned included or
incorporated by reference in the Annual Report on Form 40-F of Denison Mines
Corp.
Dated: March 12, 2015
/s/ Luke Evans
Luke Evans, M.Sc., P.Eng.
Roscoe Postle Associates Inc.
Exhibit 99.13
CONSENT OF EXPERT
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The undersigned hereby consents to (1) the references to the
undersigneds name included or incorporated by reference in the Annual Report on
Form 40-F of Denison Mines Corp. in connection with the report entitled
Technical Report on the Hairhan Uranium Exploration Property in Mongolia dated
March 23, 2011, and (2) all other references to the undersigned included or
incorporated by reference in the Annual Report on Form 40-F of Denison Mines
Corp.
Dated: March 12, 2015
/s/ Hrayr Agnerian
Hrayr Agnerian, M.Sc.
(Applied), P.Geo.
Roscoe Postle Associates Inc.
Exhibit 99.14
CONSENT OF ENGINEER
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The undersigned hereby consents to (1) the references to the
undersigneds name included or incorporated by reference in the Annual Report on
Form 40-F of Denison Mines Corp. in connection with (a) the report entitled
Technical Report on the Hairhan Uranium Exploration Property in Mongolia dated
March 23, 2011 and (b) the report entitled the Technical Report on a Mineral
Resource Estimate Update for the Phoenix Uranium Deposits, Wheeler River
Project, Eastern Athabasca Basin, Northern Saskatchewan, Canada dated June 17,
2014, and (2) all other references to the undersigned included or incorporated
by reference in the Annual Report on Form 40-F of Denison Mines Corp.
Dated: March 12, 2015
/s/ William E. Roscoe
William E. Roscoe, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Roscoe Postle Associates Inc.
Exhibit 99.15
CONSENT OF EXPERT
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The undersigned company hereby consents to (1) the references
to the undersigned companys name included or incorporated by reference in the
registration statement in the Annual Report on Form 40-F of Denison Mines Corp.
in connection with the report entitled Technical Report on the Midwest A
Uranium Deposit of Saskatchewan, Canada dated January 31, 2008 and (2) all
other references to the undersigned company included or incorporated by
reference in the registration statement in the Annual Report on Form 40-F of
Denison Mines Corp.
Dated: March 12, 2015
SGS Canada Inc.
(formerly Geostat Systems International
Inc.)
By: /s/ Guy Desharnais
Name: Guy Desharnais, Ph.D., P.Geo
Title: Technical Manager of
Geological Services
Exhibit 99.16
CONSENT OF ENGINEER
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The undersigned hereby consents to (1) the references to the
undersigneds name included or incorporated by reference in the Annual Report on
Form 40-F of Denison Mines Corp. in connection with the report entitled
Technical Report on the Midwest A Uranium Deposit of Saskatchewan, Canada
dated January 31, 2008, and (2) all other references to the undersigned included
or incorporated by reference in the registration statement in the Annual Report
on Form 40-F of Denison Mines Corp.
Dated: March 12, 2015
/s/ Michel
Dagbert
Michel Dagbert (Retired)
SGS Canada Inc. (formerly Geostat Systems
International Inc.)
Exhibit 99.17
CONSENT OF ENGINEER
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The undersigned company hereby consents to (1) the references
to the undersigned companys name included or incorporated by reference in the
Annual Report on Form 40-F of Denison Mines Corp. in connection with the report
entitled Mineral Resource Estimate On The J Zone Uranium Deposit, Waterbury
Lake Property dated September 6, 2013 and (2) all other references to the
undersigned company included or incorporated by reference in the registration
statement in the Annual Report on Form 40-F of Denison Mines Corp.
Dated: March 12, 2015
GEOVECTOR MANAGEMENT INC.
By: /s/ Alan Sexton
Name: Alan Sexton
Title: Vice-President, Project Management
Exhibit 99.18
CONSENT OF GEOLOGIST
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The undersigned hereby consents to (1) the references to the
undersigned companys name included or incorporated by reference in the Annual
Report on Form 40-F of Denison Mines Corp. in connection with the report
entitled Mineral Resource Estimate On The J Zone Uranium Deposit, Waterbury
Lake Property dated September 6, 2013 and (2) all other references to the
undersigned company included or incorporated by reference in the registration
statement in the Annual Report on Form 40-F of Denison Mines Corp.
Dated: March 12, 2015
/s/ Allan Armitage
Allan Armitage, Ph.D.,
P.Geol.
Exhibit 99.19
CONSENT OF ENGINEER
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The undersigned hereby consents to (1) the references to the
undersigned companys name included or incorporated by reference in the Annual
Report on Form 40-F of Denison Mines Corp. in connection with the report
entitled Mineral Resource Estimate On The J Zone Uranium Deposit, Waterbury
Lake Property dated September 6, 2013 and (2) all other references to the
undersigned company included or incorporated by reference in the registration
statement in the Annual Report on Form 40-F of Denison Mines Corp.
Dated: March 12, 2015
/s/ Alan Sexton
Alan Sexton, M.Sc.,
P.Geol.
Exhibit 99.20
CONSENT OF GEOLOGIST
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The undersigned company hereby consents to (1) the references
to the undersigned companys name included or incorporated by reference in the
Annual Report on Form 40-F of Denison Mines Corp. in connection with the report
entitled NI 43-101 Technical Report Mineral Resource Estimate for the Mutanga
Uranium Project, Zambia, Africa dated September 12, 2013 and (2) all other
references to the undersigned company included or incorporated by reference in
the registration statement in the Annual Report on Form 40-F of Denison Mines
Corp.
Dated: March 12, 2015
CSA GLOBAL (UK) LTD.
By: /s/ Galen
White
Name: Galen White BSc(Hons), FAusIMM, FGS
Title: Managing
Director/Principal Consultant
Exhibit 99.21
CONSENT OF GEOLOGIST
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The undersigned hereby consents to (1) the references to the
undersigned companys name included or incorporated by reference in the Annual
Report on Form 40-F of Denison Mines Corp. in connection with the report
entitled NI 43-101 Technical Report Mineral Resource Estimate for the Mutanga
Uranium Project, Zambia, Africa dated September 12, 2013 and (2) all other
references to the undersigned company included or incorporated by reference in
the registration statement in the Annual Report on Form 40-F of Denison Mines
Corp.
Dated: March 12, 2015
/s/ Malcolm
Titley
Malcolm Titley, B.Sc., MAusIMM, MAIG
CSA Global (UK) Ltd.
Denison Mines (AMEX:DNN)
Historical Stock Chart
From Mar 2024 to Apr 2024
Denison Mines (AMEX:DNN)
Historical Stock Chart
From Apr 2023 to Apr 2024