URANIUM POTENTIAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT OF THE SAN RAFAEL AND PAGANZO GONDWANIAN BASINS (ARGENTINA)

Transcription

1 IAEA Technical Meeting on: Uranium Deposits Formed in the Gondwana Supercontinent: The Importance of the Gondwana, Karoo, Paraná and Similar Sedimentary Basins URANIUM POTENTIAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT OF THE SAN RAFAEL AND PAGANZO GONDWANIAN BASINS (ARGENTINA) Carina BELLO, Luis LÓPEZ, Pablo FERREYRA, Ricardo BLASÓN June 2015 IAEA Headquarters Vienna, Austria Presented by Luis López

2 BASICS ON URANIUM FAVORABILITY An economic mineral deposit can be formed in certain areas The geological processes occurring in the area, are conditional to determine the probability of their occurrence The geological characteristics are indicative of these processes and can be determined by different methods Source: Subhash, 2013, 2014

3 METHODS OF ASSESSMENT QUALITATIVE APPROACH Delineate areas permissive for a deposit Estimate and assign probabilities: - Non-numerical (high, moderate, low) - Ordinal (numbers expressing ranking) - Cardinal (numbers expressing quantities); can be computed by probability equations Source: Subhash Jaireth, 2013, 2014

4 METHODS OF ASSESSMENT QUALITATIVE APPROACH GIS methods are used Methods are not quantitative but the method of visualization is quantitative Produce favorability or prospectivity maps by estimating probabilities Source: Subhash Jaireth, 2013, 2014

5 METHODS OF ASSESSMENT QUANTITATIVE APPROACH Delineate areas permissive for a deposit Estimate number of deposits Estimate tonnage of metals at different probabilities Methods: NURE; 3-part USGS; Deposit density; etc Source: Subhash Jaireth, 2013, 2014

6 METHODS OF ASSESSMENT QUANTITATIVE APPROACH Estimation of mineral resources for the possible genetic models in function of the geologic characteristics of the regional environment Transforming geologic approaches of deposits in economic parameters Source: Subhash Jaireth, 2013, 2014

7 QUALITATIVE APPROACH Vs. QUANTITATIVE APPROACH Which method and why? Depends on the purpose/aim/objective For regional-scale exploration targeting qualitative (GIS-based) For local-scale brown-fields exploration qualitative (GIS-based) Competing land-use decisions quantitative qualitative For mineral endowment and inventory quantitative Source: Subhash Jaireth, 2013, 2014 Prospectivity Map Favorability Map Mineral Potencial Map Current case study

8 GEOLOGIC UNITS OF URANIUM INTEREST The country was divided into 61 units of investigation (1,450,000 km2) based on geotectonic context and petrological, mineralogical and geochemical characteristics To assess the uranium favorability and the estimation of potential resources quantitative methods are being applied 18 units of investigation out of 61 are related to the Gondwana system But, only the Paganzo and San Rafael basins have known uranium deposits

9 STUDY AREAS Paganzo Basin PAGANZO BASIN SAN RAFAEL BASIN San Rafael Basin

10 PAGANZO BASIN (NEOPALEOZOIC ) PAGANZO BASIN Extensive back-arc basin,with marine influence Sedimentary rocks are arranged in several isolated sub basins, laying discordantly on the crystalline basement Dominantly fluvial lacustrine Sandstone type uranium deposit (roll front, tabular) Source: Belluco et al, 1999; Bello, 2014

11 SAN RAFAEL BASIN SAN RAFAEL BASIN (NEOPALOEZOIC - TRIASSIC) Back arc basin attached to the Gondwana magmatic arc Filled by marine and contiental sediments during the late Carboniferous Then by volcanic and sedimentary rocks during the Permian Sequence finishes up with continental sediments, rhyolitic ignimbrites and basalts, that correspond to the synrifting phase of Lower Middle Triasic age Uranium mineralization corresponds to the volcanic - related type (synsedimentary), hosted by eolian sandstones with abundant pyroclastic material Source: Kleiman, Japas, 2009; Kleiman, 2012

12 URANIUM RESOURCES ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY Recommended by the IAEA and taken from the U.S. National Uranium Resource Evaluation (NURE) Quantitative systematic methodology developed on basis of the concepts introduced by Finch and Mc Cammon (1998) Pursuing the aim of estimating Uranium Geological Resources (Endowment) and Uranium Potential Uranium Resources (Economic Endowment) in favorable areas

13 URANIUM FAVORABILITY STUDY PHASE I PHASE II CONSTRUCTION OF THE GEOLOGICAL DATABASE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CONTROL AREA ESTIMATION OF URANIUM GEOLOGICAL AND POTENCIAL RESOURCES FAVORABLE UNIT Election of the expected genetic model, selection of the favorable areas. Then, PHASE II UNFAVORABLE UNIT It is discarded UNCERTAIN FAVORABILITY Studies to be conducted to assigned it to any of the above possibilities

14 GEOLOGICAL DATABASE: URANIUM FAVORABILITY STUDY PHASE I Geological precursor processes Host rock formation Host rock preparation Uranium sources Uranium transportation Primary uranium mineral deposition Uranium redistribution Preservation conditions A map of the host rock outcrops and their projection in depth (up to 500 m), indicating the underlying and overlying rocks in a general way and incorporating the following information: - Location of uranium deposits, showings and anomalies - Airborne radiometrics, geochemistry, petrology, alteration, and so on

15 URANIUM FAVORABILITY STUDY PHASE I After complexion of phase I: Geological database elaborated Qualification of the Unit performed Favorable areas within the Unit defined Probable genetic model of uranium deposit formulated

16 URANIUM FAVORABILITY STUDY PHASE I Favorable Areas (FA) PAGANZO BASIN FA1 FA2 FA3 FA4 FA5 Guandacol-Jachal Malanzán-Chepes Angulo-Quebrada de León Paganzo Cerro Cumichangos

17 SAN RAFAEL BASIN URANIUM FAVORABILITY STUDY PHASE I Favorable Areas (FA) FA1 FA2 FA3 FA4 FA5 FA6 FA7 FA8 FA9 FA10 FA11 FA12 Agua de las Liebres-Carrizalito Las Peñas Mina Santa Elena-Pto. López Agua del Toro-Pantanito Las Vertientes-La Hedionda Pampa del Diamante Puesto Cochicó-El Nihuil Valle Grande-Los Leones Sub-cuenca del Nihuil Agua del Infierno Caldera del Potrerito Cerro Rodeo

18 URANIUM FAVORABILITY STUDY PHASE I Favorable Areas (FA) The resources established in the favorable areas, are Undiscovered Resources, which are those that are expected to exist in some areas, according to the indirect evidence or geologic extrapolations, that could be discovered by prospecting and exploration techniques in use, and whose deposits potentially existent, could be exploited with economic benefit, current technology and at defined costs

19 URANIUM FAVORABILITY STUDY PHASE II Development of the Control Area (CA) A control area is geographically defined Specific for each genetic pattern of prospective deposit and their geologic context Ideally, it should be develop in the same Unit of Investigation In its defect, it can be develop on the available databases of the main deposits of the same genetic model of other areas of similar geology or on references of the literature at world level Its main purpose is to sustain the estimate of the Endowment (at a cut-off of 0.01 % U) and Economic Endowment (at an economic cut-off)

20 URANIUM FAVORABILITY STUDY PHASE II Control Area (CA) PAGANZO BASIN CA : Los Colorados Genetic U model: sandstone (roll front)

21 URANIUM FAVORABILITY STUDY PHASE II Control Area (CA) SAN RAFAEL BASIN CA : Sierra Pintada Genetic U model: volcanic-related (synsedimentary)

22 ORE (t) U (t) % R t(m) / t(f) % Xm U PHASE II DEVELOPMENT OF THE CA Tonnage / Grade Model Modelo tonelaje-tenor: AC Los Colorados - LR - Yac tipo Gass Hill - Wyoming - EEUU PAGANZO BASIN - DATA FROM GASS HILL (WYOMING, USA) UIFGU 12 t(f) = -883,46x ,4x ,5x ,9x ,9x ,84x + 88,768 U = f (CUT-OFF) ORE = f (CUT-OFF) Xm U = -0,2736x 2 + 1,5978x + 0,274 AVG GRADE = f (CUT-OFF) t(m) = -5E-07x 6 + 2E-06x ,08x 4-718,63x ,8x 2-620,46x + 152,4 0,00 0,10 0,20 0,30 0,40 0,50 0,60 0,70 0,80 0,90 1,00 1,10 1,20 1,30 1,40 1,50 tcf U CUT-OFF ( U) t(m)2 % t(f)2 % Xm2 Obtaining of the equations that relate t ore, t U and average grade with cut-off Recovery of t U at a given cut-off 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 0,500 0,000 AVG GRADE ( U)

23 ORE (t) U (t) % R t(m) / t(f) % Xm U PHASE II DEVELOPMENT OF THE CA Tonnage / Grade Model 100,00 90,00 80,00 70,00 60,00 50,00 40,00 30,00 20,00 Modelo tonelaje-tenor: AC Dr.Baulíes - Los Reyunos UIFGU 23 - Bloque de San Rafael SAN RAFAEL BASIN - DATA FROM SIERRA PINTADA DEPOSIT (ARGENTINA) t(f) % = 5,338x 6-42,487x ,74x 4-135,15x ,481x 2-20,341x + 102,22 U = f (CUT-OFF) ORE = f (CUT-OFF) 10,00 t(m) % = 1,2129x 6-7,7873x ,611x 4 + 0,3842x 3 + 6,9059x 2-89,344x + 109,09 0,00 y = -0,0635x 3 + 0,2143x 2 + 0,5975x + 0,7794 AVG GRADE = f (CUT-OFF) 0,000 0,250 0,500 0,750 1,000 1,250 1,500 1,750 2,000 2,250 2,500 2,750 t(m) % tcf t(f) U % Xm CUT-OFF ( U) Obtaining of the equations that relate t ore, t U and average grade with cut-off Recovery of t U at a given cut-off 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 0,500 0,000 AVG GRADE ( U)

24 PHASE II DEVELOPMENT OF THE CA Tonnage / Grade Model PAGANZO BASIN - CONTROL AREA: LOS COLORADOS Composed by 2 U deposits and 3 U showings Parameters are recalculated for a Cut-off = % U Tabla Nº 2 b tcf U 0,100 Nº Yacimientos en el AC t(m) Xm U t(f) U tcf U A El Salto , ,100 B Los Colorados , ,100 C Cueva del Chacho , ,100 D Cueva del Chacho , ,100 E Cueva del Chacho , ,100 Total , , t % U

25 PHASE II DEVELOPMENT OF THE CA Tonnage / Grade Model PAGANZO BASIN - CONTROL AREA: LOS COLORADOS Parameters are also recalculated for an Economic Cut-off = % U Tabla N 2 Yacimientos en el AC 5 Nº Yac. NN t(m) Xm U t(f) U tcf U A El Salto , ,254 B Los Colorados , ,254 C Cueva del Chacho , ,254 D Cueva del Chacho , ,254 E Cueva del Chacho , ,254 Total , , t % U Resources distributed in deposits of sizes 20, ,000 t ore

26 PHASE II DEVELOPMENT OF THE CA Tonnage / Grade Model SAN RAFAEL BASIN - CONTROL AREA: SIERRA PINTADA Composed by 12 U deposits Parameters are recalculated for a Cut-off = % Yacimientos del Area de Control 12 tcf U 0,100 Nº Yac. NN t(m) Xm U t(f) U tcf U A Tigre I , ,100 B La Terraza , ,100 C Terraza Norte , ,100 D Media Luna I-II , ,100 E Tigre III , ,100 F Medfia Luna III-IV , ,100 G La Caverna , ,100 H Los Reyunos , ,100 I Gauchos I-II , ,100 J Los Chañares , ,100 K La Pintada , ,100 L Sondeo XCIII , ,100 Total , ,100 26,788 t % U

27 PHASE II DEVELOPMENT OF THE CA Tonnage / Grade Model SAN RAFAEL BASIN CONTROL AREA: SIERRA PINTADA Parameters are also recalculated for an Economic Cut-off = % U Depósitos del AC. 12 tcf 0,500 Nº Yac. NN t(m) Xm U t(f) U tcf U A Tigre I , ,500 B La Terraza , ,500 C Terraza Norte , ,500 D Media Luna I-II , ,500 E Tigre III , ,500 F Medfia Luna III-IV , ,500 G La Caverna , ,500 H Los Reyunos , ,500 I Gauchos I-II , ,500 J Los Chañares , ,500 K La Pintada , ,500 L Sondeo XCIII , ,500 Total , ,500 14,940 t % U Resources distributed in deposits of sizes 10,000 5,000,000 t ore

28 PHASE II DEVELOPMENT OF THE CA Calibration of the Control Area The calibration of the Control Area means the application of the McCammon step to step method and DSF (Deposit Size Frequency) - Tendowg using the deposits inside the Control Area to estimate: Probability of occurrence of total amount of U Probability of occurrence of number of deposits by size class Density of deposits in the Control Area Cost of kg U / USD

29 PHASE II DEVELOPMENT OF THE CA Calibration of the Control Area MC CAMMON STEP TO STEP METHOD Based on the combined probability of occurrence of the number of deposits P (N) and the ore tonnages P (Ot) by size class and grade intervals, for a given geological context and mineralization model, in a particular geographic area The objective is to determine the size classes and grade ranges (Xm) that will be used to estimate the Geological Resources and the Potential Uranium Resources in the favorable areas

30 PHASE II DEVELOPMENT OF THE CA Calibration of the Control Area - MC CAMMON PAGANZO BASIN Cut-off = 0.01 % U P (N) by size class, e.g. P (3) = 60 % for 15,000-75,000 t ore class tcf ( ) = 0,100 RECURSOS GEOLOGICOS Nº de Depósitos Valor medio Probab. % Mínimo Máximo (elementos) Clases e tamaño , , , , , ,000 RG Toneladas minn tcf = 0,100 P (Ot) by grade intervals, e.g. P (375,000-1,875,000 t) = % U RG tcf ( ) = 0,100 Clases de tenor. Ley media (Xm) en U Clases de tamaño - T Reservas en t(m) - R 0,100 0,400 0,400 1,000 1,000 1, ,000 0,000 0, ,000 0,247 0, ,000 0,253 0, ,000 0,500 0, ,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 1,000 0,000

31 PHASE II DEVELOPMENT OF THE CA Calibration of the Control Area - MC CAMMON PAGANZO BASIN Cut-off = % U P (N) by size class, e.g. P (3) = 60 % for 15,000-75,000 t ore class PUR tcf U 0,254 POTENCIAL URANIUM RESOURCES Nº de Depósitos Valor medio Probab. % Clases tamaño Mínimo Máximo (elementos) P(f) % T(m) "in situ" por T , , , , , P (Ot) by grade intervals, e.g. P (75, ,000 t) = % U RUP tcf(e)u 0,254 Clases de tenor. Ley media (Xm) en U Clases de tamaño - T Recursos /depósito en t(m) - R 0,600 1,200 1,200 1,800 1,800 2, ,000 0,000 0, ,247 0,000 0, ,753 0,000 0, ,000 0,000 0, ,000 0,000 0,000

32 PHASE II DEVELOPMENT OF THE CA Calibration of the Control Area - MC CAMMON SAN RAFAEL BASIN Cut-off = 0.01 % U P (N) by size class, e.g. P (4) = 33.3 % for 90, ,000 t ore class tcf ( ) = 0,100 RECURSOS GEOLOGICOS Nº de Depósitos Valor medio Probab. % Mínimo Máximo (elementos) Clases tamaño , , , , , ,000 RG - Toneladas finas a tcf = 0,100 P (Ot) by grade intervals, e.g. P ( M t) = % U RG tcf ( ) = 0,100 Clases de tenor. Ley media (Xm) en U Clases de tamaño - T Reservas en t(m) - R 0,400 0,750 0,750 0,860 0,860 1, ,000 0,004 0, ,000 0,039 0, ,142 0,000 0, ,000 0,000 0, ,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 1,000 0,000

33 PHASE II DEVELOPMENT OF THE CA Calibration of the Control Area - MC CAMMON SAN RAFAEL BASIN Cut-off = % U P (N) by size class, e.g. P (4) = 33.3 % for 62, ,500 t ore class RUP tcf U 0,500 POTENCIAL URANIUM RESOURSES Nº de Depósitos Valor medio P(N) % Clases tamaño Mínimo Máximo (elementos) T(m) "in situ" por T , , , , , ,000 RUP - Ton. finas a tcf = 0,500 P (Ot) by grade intervals, e.g. P ( Mt) = % U RUP tcf U 0,500 Clases de tamaño - T Clases de tenor. Ley media (Xm) en U Recursos /depósito en t(m) - R 0,500 1,000 1,000 1,500 1,500 2, ,000 0,004 0, ,000 0,039 0, ,142 0,000 0, ,000 0,816 0, ,000 0,000 0,000

34 PHASE II DEVELOPMENT OF THE CA Calibration of the Control Area DSF (Deposit Size Frequency) - TENDOWG METHOD Based on the density of deposits by size class and the factor "F (Favorability) F is a weighting factor for the estimation of U Resources F depends on "L (Likeness), the similarity of a geological criteria between favorable area and the Control Area of the Investigation Unit, and P (Probability), the probability of finding a site depending on the degree of knowledge of geological criteria Both L and P are subjectively established

35 PHASE II DEVELOPMENT OF THE CA Calibration of the Control Area - DSF - TENDOWG U A k n i 1 ( nic / CA) TicGi LP U = GR o UPR expressed in t U A = is a favourable area in km2 or the similar unit is expressed the CA k = is the number of deposit size classes (T) nic/ac = is the spacial density ( number of deposit/unit area) n = number of deposit T ic = Size class CA =CA area in km2 (or any other unit) Ti = Average value of T Gi = Tenor of T in% or U or U3O8 L = Factor of correspondence between CA and geological criteria each AAFF P = Probability of finding at least one site with 10 tu depending on the degree of knowledge

36 PHASE II DEVELOPMENT OF THE CA Calibration of the Control Area - DSF TENDOWG PAGANZO BASIN Datos de entrada R AC Los Colorados - tcf 0,100 U - RG - Nota: se toman las mismas clases de tamaño, y Xm del método McCammon pp. A 0,0,770 F 0.1,0.177,0.691 T , ,0, , , , , , , , , , , ,0,0 G ,0.0825, U R INPUT Datos de salida UNCONDITIONAL ENDOWMENT : E(PO) = MEAN : E+01 CO.VAR'N: E+00 SKEWNESS: E+00 KURTOSIS: E PEARSON PERCENTILES FOR ENDOWMENT TONS PROBABILITY TONS PROBABILITY U3O8 COND UNCOND U3O8 COND UNCOND.20295E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E OUTPUT Application of the method DSF to estimate of GR using the same Size Classes and the same defined Grade Intervals for de McCammon method, using those Deposits Densities

37 PHASE II DEVELOPMENT OF THE CA Calibration of the Control Area - DSF TENDOWG SAN RAFAEL BASIN Datos de entrada INPUT R AC Dr.Baulies-Los Reyunos (yac)- 0,100 Nota: se toman las mismas clases de tamaño, y Xm del método McCammon pp. En U3O8 A 0,0,131 F 0.5,0.708,1 T , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , G ,0.0949, U S Datos de salida OUTPUT PEARSON PERCENTILES FOR ENDOWMENT En U 3 O 8 TONS PROBABILITY TONS PROBABILITY U3O8 COND UNCOND U3O8 COND UNCOND.75406E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E Application of the method DSF to estimate of GR using the same Size Classes and the same defined Grade Intervals for de McCammon method, using those Deposits Densities

38 PHASE II DEVELOPMENT OF THE CA Calibration of the Control Area PAGANZO BASIN Cut-off %U GR (tu) McC GR (tu) Tendowg P 95 IR (tu) Cut-off %U UPR (tu) McC UPR (tu) Tendowg P 95 IR (tu) Adjustment observed between identified resources and the estimates by the two methods of the deposits included in the Los Colorados control, provides the basis of certainty necessary to extrapolate the geological, technical and economic model to estimate the GR and UPR in the different areas of favorability the Paganzo Basin

39 PHASE II DEVELOPMENT OF THE CA Calibration of the Control Area SAN RAFAEL BASIN Cut-off %U GR (tu) McC GR (tu) Tendowg P 95 IR (tu) Cut-off %U UPR (tu) McC UPR (tu) Tendowg P 95 IR (tu) Adjustment observed between identified resources and the estimates by the two methods of the deposits included in the Sierra Pintada control area, provides the basis of certainty necessary to extrapolate the geological, technical and economic model to estimate the GR and UPR in the different areas of favorability the San Rafael Basin

40 PHASE II ESTIMATION OF GEOLOGICAL RESOURCES PAGANZO BASIN GEOLOGICAL RESOURCES Favorable Areas Cut-off U % km2 Low tu Mid tu Up tu FA1-Guandacol - Jachal 13, FA2-Malanzán - Chepes 12, FA3-Angulos - Quebrada El León 6, FA4-Paganzo 18, FA5-Cerros Cuminchangos 16, FFAA PAGANZO BASIN 68,247 1,038 2,178 27,887

41 PHASE II ESTIMATION OF POTENTIAL RESOURCES PAGANZO BASIN Favorable Areas Cut-off U% 0,0254 Prob.dep. Nº Nombres Sup km2 L P F Low tu Mid tu Up tu P(N) FA1 Guandacol - Jachal 13, % FA2 Malanzán - Chepes 12, % FA3 Angulos Quebrada León 6, % FA4 Paganzo 18, % FA5 Cerros Cuminchangos 16, % Area km2 TOTAL FFAA 68, ,740 21, % Area km2 TOTAL DDAA 81,753 AVERAGES Area km2 TOTAL 150,00 1, 740 tu The Most Reliable Value

42 PHASE II ESTIMATION OF POTENTIAL RESOURCES PAGANZO BASIN Cost USD/ kg U depends on the size classes in tons of ore and average grades obtained from the applied methodologies DECREASE OF PRODUCTION COSTS Grade Classes % U - Avg Grade % U - USD/kg U Size Classes - T T Tons of Ore

43 PHASE II ESTIMATION OF GEOLOGIC RESOURCES SAN RAFAEL BASIN GEOLOGIC RESOURCES Favorable Areas Cut-off U % km 2 Lower (tu) Middle (tu) Upper (tu) FA1-Carrizalito-Agua de las Liebres FA2-Las Peñas FA3-Mina Santa Elena-Pto.López FA4-Agua del Toro-Pantanito FA5-Las Vertientes-La Hedionda FA6-Pampa del Diamante FA7-Puesto Cochicó-El Nihuil FA8-Valle Grande-Los Leones FA9-Subcc.del Nihuil FA10-Agua del Infierno FA11-Caldera del Potrerito FA12-Cerro Rodeo Area of the San Rafael Basin 7176 FFAA ,010 7,204 80,393 UUAA 4437

44 PHASE II ESTIMATION OF POTENTIAL RESOURCES SAN RAFAEL BASIN Favorable Areas Favorability Cut-off U % Prob.dep.. Nº Nombre km 2 P L F Inf t(f) Med t (f) Sup t (f) P (N) FA1 Carrizalito-Agua Liiebres % FA2 Las Peñas % FA3 Mina Sta.Elena-Pto.López % FA4 Agua del Toro-Pantanito % FA5 Las Vertientes-La Hedionda % FA6 Pampa del Diamante % FA7 Puesto Cochicó-El Nihuil % FA8 Valle Grande-Los Leones % FA9 Subcc.del Nihuil % FA10 Agua del Infierno % FA11 Caldera del Potrerito % FA12 Cerro Rodeo % km 2 TOTAL FFAA 2, ,367 3,020 61, % km 2 CA 131 AVERAGES km 2 TOTAL UUAA 4,306 km 2 TOTAL SAN RAFAEL BASIN 7,176 3,020 tu The Most Reliable Value

45 PHASE II ESTIMATION OF POTENTIAL RESOURCES SAN RAFAEL BASIN Cost USD/ kg U depends on the size classes in tons of ore and average grades obtained from the applied methodologies DECREASE OF PRODUCTION COSTS Grade Classes % U AVG Grades % U USD/kg U Size Classes in tons of ore ,

46 FINAL CONSIDERATIONS BASIN PAGANZO SAN RAFAEL ENDOWMENT - tu Control Area ,830 Favorable Areas 2,178 7,204 Total 2,636 24,034 ECONOMIC ENDOWMENT - tu Control Area ,980 Favorable Areas 1,740 3,020 Total 2,085 18,000 GONDWANA BASINS ENDOWMENT ~ 27,000 tu ECONOMIC ENDOWMENT ~ 20,000 tu

47 FINAL CONSIDERATIONS The reason so that a country must know its Uranium Resources, independently of those immediate requirements, it is based on the necessity of: To develop the infrastructure of the knowledge and information of the uranium potential of the national territory, providing the base so that the State settles down, through the organisms head, the strategic limits for the rational use of the Natural Energetic Not Renewable Resources To sustain the decision of the government organisms, in relation to the opportunity of human resources, technical and economic availability for their prospecting-exploration and subsequent exploitation, in accordance with the adopted strategy Source: McCammon, 1997; McCammon, Finch, Pierson, Bridges, 1988; Blason, 2000; López, 2005

48 IAEA Technical Meeting on: Uranium Deposits Formed in the Gondwana Supercontinent: The Importance of the Gondwana, Karoo, Paraná and Similar Sedimentary Basins URANIUM POTENTIAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT OF THE SAN RAFAEL AND PAGANZO GONDWANIAN BASINS (ARGENTINA) Presented by Luis López Carina BELLO, Luis LÓPEZ, Pablo FERREYRA, Ricardo BLASÓN June 2015 IAEA Headquarters Vienna, Austria THANK YOU!