OrbitonOpen research workspace →
Myriad Uranium Corp logo

Myriad Uranium Corp

CSE:MLive AI agent

Myriad Uranium Corp.

Investor website: https://myriaduranium.com/

About

Myriad Uranium Corp. is a mineral exploration company focused on uranium projects in the United States, particularly in Wyoming, Arizona, and New Mexico. The company is committed to strengthening domestic energy security and has a significant potential for uranium production, with over 100 million pounds identified in its Copper Mountain project. Myriad aims to meet the increasing U.S. demand for uranium and has a strong technical team with experience in the industry.

Verified company data

Cash position
Not Available
Shares outstanding
105,215,748
Fully diluted shares
161,129,800
Mineral resource
The estimates completed by Fluor Mining and Metals Inc. (Fluor), May 20, 1980 are cited in several reports post-dating the estimate, including the most recent reference in a NI 43-101 Technical Report by Carter, G.S. (August 20, 2008) titled “Technical Report on the Uranium Resources at The Copper Mountain Project, Fremont County, Wyoming, U.S.A., on behalf of Neutron Energy Inc.” issued by Broad Oak Associates. The estimates for the Gem deposit and past-producing Arrowhead uranium mine deposits were completed by Rocky Mountain Energy Corp. in 1977 and cited in report titled “Copper Mountain Exploration Project Report by Southard, G.G., Morton, D.K., Gordon. J.H. and Schledewitz, D.C., RMEC (December 1979). The historical estimates are based on data and reports prepared by previous operators. This included data from over 900,000 feet of hammer tool and core drilling. The descriptions of core drilling and core handling procedures, sample preparation and analysis, and procedures for statistical correlation of various assay methods are all presented in the reports and are considered appropriate. Based on the amount and quality of historic work completed, the information is considered relevant and reliable. This view is supported by earlier reviewers of the data and methodology, including David S. Robertson & Associates Inc. (1978) and Golder Associates (1979), who concluded that the core and sample handling techniques from the field through the sample preparation facility were in “accordance with good engineering practice”. However, the resultant gamma logs and core assays that supported the estimations and associated technical work were not available to the Qualified Person, therefore a complete and thorough review of the data has not been possible. Earlier estimates by Rocky Mountain Energy Corp. (1977) used the polygonal estimation method based on ten-foot composite thicknesses and 0.010% U 0 cut-off using gamma probe grades with a tonnage factor 12 cubic ft/ton. During an estimate update (most recent), Fluor (1980) investigated various resource estimation techniques, including polygonal methods, cross-sectional methods, ordinary kriging, and a method using conditional lognormal probability distributions, which was the chosen method. The key difference between the earlier RMEC estimates and those of Fluor was the use of core-equivalent Delayed Fission Neutron (DFN) grades using a correction formula derived from comparison between probe grades and DFN grades, that were accepted by RMEC as the most accurate determination of grade at the time. At the time of reporting, RMEC and Fluor used the U.S. Bureau of Mines resource categories, which were classified as follows: Measured Resources – projected one-half the distance toward the nearest control (i.e. another drill hole) or a maximum of 15 metres (50 feet), whichever occurred first. If correlateable mineral was not in the adjacent control or no adjacent control existed, a maximum of 7.5 metres (25 feet) of projection was allowed (a variance of 1.5 to 3.0 metres (5 to 10 feet) between controls above the maximum was excepted in a few cases). Indicated Resources – any mineral intercept at or above the cut-offs stated was considered to be at least of Indicated categorization. Isolated holes (i.e. those positioned greater than 30 metres (100 feet) from adjacent holes) were allowed a maximum projection of 7.5 metres (25 feet) to the center of the side of a square (a maximum area of influence = 25 ft. x 25 ft. or 625 square feet.). Between drill control, where correlations were feasible, but limits exceeded those for Measured categorization, Indicated Resources were extended and projected one-half of the remaining distance or 7.5 metres (25 feet) beyond Measured if correlation to adjacent control was not feasible. Inferred Resources – mineralization projected beyond the Measured and Indicated resource limits in areas bounded by surrounding drill control were categorized as Inferred. Grades and thicknesses of these areas were determined by averaging the intercepts from surrounding control. Inferred resources were projected to distances ranging from 7.5 to 365 metres (25 to 1200 feet). These categories, or the application thereof, are not necessarily compatible with current definitions. The “most likely mineable reserves” estimated by RMEC at the time would be categorized as Indicated and Inferred resources, in accordance with definitions of the CIM Definition Standards for Mineral Resources & Mineral Reserves (2014). The portions of the “reserves” (approximately 20 to 60%) that were drilled on 15 to 30 metre (50 to 100 foot) centres, and normally would be classified as Measured resources, are equated to Indicated resources, because of the nature of the mineralization, uncertainty regarding the grades and the lack of established economic viability of the deposits at the time. The remaining portions of the “reserves” drilled on 30 to 60 metre (100 to 200 foot) centers, are classified as Inferred resources. An attempt to separate the indicated from the inferred resources was not possible from the available information. Also, while the Copper Mountain Project area contains all or most of each deposit referred to, some of the resources referred to may be located outside the current Copper Mountain Project area. There are no more recent estimates reported. In order to verify the historical resources and potentially re-state them as current resources, a program of digitization of data is required (to the extent possible), followed by re-logging and/or re-drilling to generate new data that is comparable with the original data that can be used to establish the correlation and continuity of geology and grades between boreholes with sufficient confidence to estimate mineral resources. A qualified person has not done sufficient work to classify the historical estimate as current mineral resources or mineral reserves; and Myriad Uranium is not treating the historical estimate as current mineral resources or mineral reserves.
Projects
["Uranium in Copper Mountain, Wyoming, USA","Red Basin Uranium Project, New Mexico, USA","Breccia Pipe Project, Arizona, USA"]
Leadership
Thomas Lamb (CEO, Board Member, Technical Committee), George van der Walt (Senior Geologist / Qualified Person, Technical Committee), Nelson Lamb (CFO), Simon Clarke (Board Member, Chairman), Fred Bonner (Board Member / Technical Committee, Leader in environmental stewardship and socially responsible exploration. He is a P. Geo. (QP), a Fellow of Geoscientists Canada and a Fellow of the Society of Economic Geologists. He holds a BSc in Geology and Masters Degrees in Applied Science and Urban and Rural Planning.), Tom Lee (Board Member, Cofounder and President of Canid Capital, a prominent capital markets consulting firm based in Toronto. He has been involved in over $1B in transactions and holds several designations including CSC and CPH.), Marvin Singer (Board Member), Ron Halas (Technical Committee), Jim Davis (Technical Committee), Eduards Smirnovs (Advisor), Eric Miller (Strategic Advisor)

Verified data last updated:

Recent filings

Investor FAQ