18 Se p te m b e r 2008 C o m p a nie s Anno unc e m e nt O ffic e - - PDF document

31 Ord Street, West Perth WA 6005, GPO Box 2809, West Perth WA 6872 Phone: +61 (0) 8 9420 9333 Fax: +61 (0) 8 9321 2477 Peninsula Minerals Limited - ABN: 67 062 409 303

18 Se p te m b e r 2008

C o m p a nie s Anno unc e m e nt O ffic e Via Ele c tro nic Lo d g e me nt

PENINSUL A MINERAL S L IMIT ED PRESENT AT IO N

Ple a se find a tta c he d a n up d a te d ve rsio n o f the Pe ninsula Mine ra ls Limite d p re se nta tio n o n the La nc e Pro je c ts in Wyo ming , U.S.A a nd the Ka ro o Pro je c ts in So uth Afric a . T he p re se nta tio n c a n a lso b e fo und o n the C o mp a ny’ s we b site : www.p e ninsula mine ra ls.c o m.a u Yo urs Sinc e re ly

Jo na tha n Whyte C o m p a ny Se c re ta ry

F

• r furthe r info rmatio n, ple ase c o ntac t o ur o ffic e o n (08)9420 9333 during no rmal busine ss

ho urs.

Peninsula Minerals Developing Uranium Projects on Three Continents Three Continents

Lance Project – Wyoming USA

Wyoming U

j y g

U

Western Australia U

South Africa U/Mo

U South Australia U

Disclaimer

This presentation is provided on the basis that the Company nor its representatives make any warranty (express or implied) as to the accuracy, reliability, relevance or completeness of the material contained in the Presentation and nothing contained in the Presentation is, or may be relied upon as, a promise, representation or warranty, whether as to the past or the future. The Company hereby excludes all warranties that can be excluded by law. The Presentation contains material which is predictive in nature and may be affected by inaccurate assumptions or by known and unknown risks and uncertainties, and may differ materially from results ultimately achieved. The Presentation contains “forward‐looking statements”. All statements other than those of historical facts included in the Presentation are forward‐looking statements including estimates of resources. However, forward‐looking statements are subject to risks, uncertainties and other factors, which could cause actual results to differ materially from future results expressed, projected

• r implied by such forward‐looking statements. Such risks include, but are not limited to, gold and other metals price volatility,

currency fluctuations increased production costs and variances in ore grade or recovery rates from those assumed in mining plans currency fluctuations, increased production costs and variances in ore grade or recovery rates from those assumed in mining plans, as well as political and operational risks and governmental regulation and judicial outcomes. The Company does not undertake any

• bligation to release publicly any revisions to any “forward‐looking statement” to reflect events or circumstances after the date of

the Presentation, or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events, except as may be required under applicable securities laws. All persons should consider seeking appropriate professional advice in reviewing the Presentation and all other information with respect to the Company and evaluating the business, financial performance and operations of the Company. Neither the provision espect to t e Co pa y a d e a uat g t e bus ess, a c a pe o a ce a d ope at o s o t e Co pa y. e t e t e p o s o

• f the Presentation nor any information contained in the Presentation or subsequently communicated to any person in connection

with the Presentation is, or should be taken as, constituting the giving of investment advice to any person. The information in this presentation that relates to Exploration Results and Exploration Potential is based on information compiled by Mr Jim Guilinger. Mr Guilinger is President of consultancy World Industrial Minerals and is a Competent Person under the definition of the 2004 JORC Code. The Exploration Potential described above is conceptual in nature, and there is insufficient information to establish whether further exploration will result in the determination of a Mineral Resource. Mr Guilinger consents to the publication of this information in the form and context in which it appears. The Presentation does not relate to any securities which will be registered under the United States Securities Act of 1933 nor any securities which may be offered or sold in the United States or to a U.S. person unless registered under the United States Securities Act of 1933 or in a transaction exempt from registration.

C it l St t Capital Structure

ASX Code PEN

Existing shares

961 million

Options

218 million

Market Cap

A$25 million C h A$4 6 illi

Cash

A$4.6 million

Daily turnover

3 14 million

Daily turnover

3‐14 million

Management Management

Characterised by Leadership and Uranium Expertise y p p

Directors and Management

• Executive Chairman Gus Simpson

Strong leadership, corporate and project management skills

T h i l Di t D Al M l

• Technical Director Dr. Alan Marlow

PhD in economic geology and uranium specialist (ex Gencor)

• Chief Operating Officer Andrew Ford

Highly experienced exploration geologist and project manager (ex Barrick Gold)

• Non Executive Director Malcolm James

Strong corporate and project financing experience (ex Anaconda)

• Non Executive Director Warwick Grigor

Experienced Mining Analyst and corporate director (ex County Nat West)

• Company Secretary Jonathan Whyte

Chartered Accountant and experienced company secretary (ex Barclays Capital plc)

• Project Manager Wyoming Jim Guilinger

Highly experienced Uranium geologist (ex Texaco)

• Engineering Professional Doug Christopherson

Experienced Mining engineer with expertise in mine feasibility studies and mine design

• Chief Geologist Wyoming Bob Guilinger

Highly experienced Uranium geologist (ex Union Carbide)

• Mine Permitting Professional Lee Patrick Gochnour

Very experienced at permitting new operations and environmental management

• Project Manager Karoo Peter Danchin

Experienced uranium explorer and project manager (ex Union Carbide) p p p j g ( )

• Operations Manager South Africa Douglas Goodall

Highly experienced African Explorer

Comparative Valuation Comparative Valuation

Research Research

Research report1 rated

Peninsula as having high quality projects high quality projects and as being under valued

At US$50/lb At US $90/lb

Reasons:

USA mining USA mining

environment misunderstood

Need for land

acquisition secrecy resulted in a lack of project information

1Source: Far East Capital Uranium Sector Analysis 21 April 2008.

Global Energy Requirements Global Energy Requirements

The world is well on the way to consuming as much energy in the next 25 years as it has consumed throughout modern history

• Current reliance on coal to provide

majority of base load power generation to continue

• Increasing pressure to reduce

greenhouse gas emissions whilst reducing reliance on imported energy sources sources

• US President recently referred to nuclear

power as " . . . the best solution to make sure we have economic growth and at sure we have economic growth and at the same time make sure we are being good stewards of the environment."

World Uranium Demand to Grow Rapidly World Uranium Demand to Grow Rapidly

N l P i th

Nuclear Power is the

complimentary base load power source to coal

Uranium demand will

increase from 170 million lb b per annum to between 536 and 661 million lb per annum by 2050 (equivalent to 15 Olympic Dam sized

mines)* mines)

Current reactor status

439 operational 33 under construction 94 planned d 222 proposed

* Source: International Energy Agency “Desired energy Mix Scenarios for 2050” June 6 2008

Projects Summary j y

Project Area Historic Exploration Lance projects ‐ Wyoming USA

12,905 acres (52 km2) Data from 5,036 rotary and percussion holes for 912,000m.

Wyoming USA

912,000m. 13 historic resources over 23 miles (37km) of strike consisting of vertically stacked roll front uranium i li ti PEN t l titl 7 f th mineralisation; PEN controls title over 7 of these. 40,000 lb U3O8 per year Pilot Plant built in 1978 and ran for 10 months. Decision to proceed with full scale production plant abandoned due to Three Mile Island Incident.

Karoo Projects:

Tenure covers 1,980km2 Over 1,300 rotary and percussion holes drilled historically

j Eastern, Western and Northern Cape Province, South Africa

(764 sq miles) from 6 Projects known as Sites 5, 22, 29,37,45,49 at four of the Sites. New high level radiometric anomalies identified at all six sites. Follow up on‐ground work confirms Uranium presence. Historic resources identified at 3 Sites. U and Mo mineralisation identified at all Sites.

South Australian and Western Australian Projects

12 Projects covering 864km2 (334 sq miles) Early exploration in quality uranium provinces.

Lance Project Description Lance Project Description

The Lance projects are

The Lance projects are situated in NE Wyoming, 31 miles (50 km) NE of Gillette in the Powder Ri B i River Basin

The PRB has 2 operating

ISR mines

Th PRB h

5 ISR

The PRB has 5 ISR

projects in restoration or permitting

Wyoming has another Wyoming has another

10 Uranium projects in various stages of development

Wyoming has numerous

active exploration projects

Wyoming Mining Environment y g g

US annual consumption of 50 million lb U3O8 per/year 92% of US uranium demand is met by imports Federal Government desires increased self reliance In 1980 the USA was the worlds leading uranium producer Wyoming is currently the USA’s leading uranium producer Wyoming is currently the USA s leading uranium producer Uranium production has been continuous since 1951 All current production is from In‐Situ Recovery (ISR)

p y ( )

Wyoming production is predicted to grow from 3 million lb in 2007 to

17 million lb in 2015 W i DEQ i f i l ll f d d d ll i d

Wyoming DEQ is professional, well funded and well practiced Wyoming has significant revenue from coal, oil, and uranium

production p

30m thick coal seam Rio Tinto- seam, Rio Tinto Peabody Antelope Mine, Gillette Wyoming

Lance Project History j y

Uranium mineralisation first identified by Mr Al Stoick in late 1960’s In 1970 Mr Stoick initiated a JV between Bethlehem Steel, Nuclear Dynamics

and later Pacific Power and Hydro (NuBeth JV) and later Pacific Power and Hydro (NuBeth JV).

Between 1970‐1979 5,036 holes for more than 3.5 million ft (912,000m)

were drilled h d ll d f d f l d ff

This drilling defined significant uranium mineralisation in 13 different

locations over a strike length of 23 miles (37km)

In 1978 a ISR pilot plant was constructed and operated for a period of six

months

The Pilot Plant was designed to produce 40,000lb U3O8 /year utilising a

benign leachate of sodium bicarbonate

Looking NE towards Devils Tower, Lance Project

Lance Projects History

After 6 months of successful operation a proposal to commence full scale

production was prepared for presentation to the JV members however on the 28 March 1979 the Three Mile Island incident occurred 28 March 1979 the Three Mile Island incident occurred

The pilot plant was shut down shortly after this and thoroughly rehabilitated All environmental bonds were reimbursed by 1984 The project lay dormant until 2005 when Mr Stoick brought the project data to

parties associated with Peninsula Minerals

Peninsula identified the potential of the project and recognised that the task of Peninsula identified the potential of the project and recognised that the task of

acquiring additional title was achievable

Mr Stoick is employed by Peninsula continuing a 40+ year involvement with the

project

Rehabilitated NuBeth storage ponds

Site Infrastructure

The region is serviced by well maintained sealed roads and the

project is traversed by well maintained unsealed roads project is traversed by well maintained unsealed roads

Activities in the project area include minimal stock raising, low level

• il and gas production
• il and gas production

Topography is gently undulating hills covered by grasses and

sagebrush sagebrush

Oil production wells, Lance Project

Lance Geology

Mineral Title

Lance Projects Area with PEN

currently held is

• utlined

in blue

a ce

• jec s

ea holdings covers 23 miles (37km) N‐S, 5 miles (8km) E‐W

Main hosts to U mineralisation

in blue, and being acquired

Main hosts to U mineralisation

are the Lance Formation and Fox Hills Sandstone

N

• utlined

in black

22 Roll fronts which are linear

but sinuous in nature over combined strike length of 127

37 km

Geological Legend

g miles (207 km)

Fort Union Fm Alluvium Lance Fm Fox Hills Fm Pierre Shale Greenhorn Fm Belle Fourche Shale

Geological Legend

Major U host Major U host

Skull Creek Shale Newcastle Fm Belle Fourche Shale Mowry Fm

6km (3.8 miles)

Historic Exploration

title being acquired

Total of 5,036 holes for

912,000m drilled by NuBeth JV in 1970’s

acquired

• utlined

in black

9 0 s

N

Geological Legend

Fort Union Fm Alluvium Lance Fm Fox Hills Fm Pierre Shale Greenhorn Fm Belle Fourche Shale

Geological Legend

Major U host Major U host

Skull Creek Shale Newcastle Fm Belle Fourche Shale Mowry Fm

6km (3.8 miles)

Emerson

Historic l i

Lucas Houx Cl k

Exploration

title being acquired

Widespread Uranium

mineralisation hosted in multiple roll fronts

Houx Clark Ross Kendrick

acquired

• utlined

in black

identified over 13 project areas

Carey Brookes Ch tt t N

Geological Legend

Chatterton Richards Osborne

Fort Union Fm Alluvium Lance Fm Fox Hills Fm Pierre Shale Greenhorn Fm Belle Fourche Shale

Geological Legend

Major U host Major U host

Barber

Skull Creek Shale Newcastle Fm Belle Fourche Shale Mowry Fm

Warren

6km (3.8 miles)

Emerson

Historic l i

Lucas Houx Cl k

Exploration

title being acquired

Over 22 mineralised sand units

identified

Up to 8 mineralised sands are

Houx Clark Ross Kendrick

acquired

• utlined

in black

p present in any one project area

Mineralisation depth between

360 ‐500ft (120‐160m)

Carey Brookes Ch tt t N

( )

Water table at between 35‐

100ft (10‐35m) ideal for in‐situ recovery

Geological Legend

Chatterton Richards Osborne

recovery

Fort Union Fm Alluvium Lance Fm Fox Hills Fm Pierre Shale Greenhorn Fm Belle Fourche Shale

Geological Legend

Major U host Major U host

Barber

Skull Creek Shale Newcastle Fm Belle Fourche Shale Mowry Fm

Warren

6km (3.8 miles)

Historic

Av 5ft @ 0.04%eU3O8

Mineralisation

Av 8ft @ 0.10%eU3O8 Av 4ft @ 0 12%eU O Av 15ft @

All projects contain grades above

realistic cut‐off thresholds of 0.02% U3O8 for an ISR operation

Av 4ft @ 0.12%eU3O8 Av 15ft @ 0.04%eU3O8 Av 13ft @ 0.05%eU3O8 Av 3.5ft @ 0 11%eU O

3 8

Average thickness 5‐15 ft ideal for

ISR

N

0.11%eU3O8 Av 6ft @ 0.11%eU3O8 Av 7ft @ 0.06% Av 5ft @ 0 04%eU O

Geological Legend

ISR

0.06% eU3O8 Av 5ft @ 0.04%eU3O8 Av 7ft @ 0.09%eU3O8 Av 8ft @

Fort Union Fm Alluvium Lance Fm Fox Hills Fm Pierre Shale Greenhorn Fm Belle Fourche Shale

Geological Legend

Major U host Major U host

Av 8ft @ 0.07%eU3O8 Av 5ft @

Skull Creek Shale Newcastle Fm Belle Fourche Shale Mowry Fm

Av 5ft @ 0.11%eU3O8 Av 10ft @ 0.07%eU3O8

6km (3.8 miles)

Historic

best 13ft @ 0.24%eU3O8 best 15ft @ 0 22%eU O best 53ft @

Mineralisation

Grades over 0.10% eU3O8

are widespread P i l f hi h d

best 15ft @ 0.22%eU3O8 best 53ft @ 0.03%eU3O8 best 13ft @ 0.28%eU3O8

Potential for higher grade

zones exists

Average thickness 5‐15 ft;

N

best 11ft @ 0.09%eU3O8 best 7ft @ 0.07%

Geological Legend

ideal for ISR

0.07% eU3O8 best 12ft @ 0.16%eU3O8 best 4ft @

Fort Union Fm Alluvium Lance Fm Fox Hills Fm Pierre Shale Greenhorn Fm Belle Fourche Shale

Geological Legend

Major U host Major U host

best 4ft @ 0.23%eU3O8 best 8ft @

Skull Creek Shale Newcastle Fm Belle Fourche Shale Mowry Fm

best 8ft @ 0.25%eU3O8 best 11ft @ 0.28%eU3O8

6km (3.8 miles)

Exploration xploration Potential

title being acquired

Global Exploration Target Size

within and between all project

acquired

• utlined

in black

p j areas is 39‐60 million short tons @ 0.05‐0.07% eU3O8 for 50‐76 million lbs U3O8

1

N

Geological Legend

Historic testing supports In‐Situ

Recovery process

Fort Union Fm Alluvium Lance Fm Fox Hills Fm Pierre Shale Greenhorn Fm Belle Fourche Shale

Geological Legend

Major U host Major U host

Skull Creek Shale Newcastle Fm Belle Fourche Shale Mowry Fm

6km (3.8 miles)

In‐Situ Recovery (Leaching) In Situ Recovery (Leaching)

ISR is the extraction of Uranium from sandstone aquifers by the

cycling of oxygen enriched water through the aquifer which hosts U3O8 deposits on the redox fronts

These deposits occur from the precipitation of U3O8 out of solution

p p p

3 8

when uranium enriched ground water moving through the sandstone encounters a oxygen reduced (redox front) section of the aquifer

Assuming the sandstone aquifer meets the pre‐conditions for this

style of mineral extraction this is a relatively simple, low cost

• peration

The mining operation can be low cost as there is no blasting, earth

moving and milling component to the process

Typically 36% of the worlds Uranium production is from ISR(L)

Typically 36% of the worlds Uranium production is from ISR(L)

• perations

ISR Geology gy

U3O8 mineralisation occurs at the interface between oxidized and reduced zones Source: Wyoming Mining Association

Classic roll front geology in a sandstone aquifer In situ recovery is relatively simple if key characteristics are present in the deposit the deposit

Containment Permeability Water Table Leachability Depth

Ross Project

Historic hydrological and metallurgical testing demonstrate:

Containment – show impermeable shale beds are present above and below the

Containment show impermeable shale beds are present above and below the main uraniferous sandstones

Permeability ‐ good horizontal (2‐4 darcy’s) and vertical permeability (1‐3 darcy’s)

and porosity (35%); low clay content (5%)

Water Table – water table between 10‐30m, main ore 120‐160m (head of water

determines the volume of oxygen in solution)

Leachability ‐ uranium that can be leached from cores in laboratory tests (89‐95%

recovery)

Depth – all main aquifers are below the water at economically pumpable depths

In‐Field Tests Showed:

Successful push‐pull test indicates good recharge and movement of groundwater Successful in‐situ leaching of uranium from the sandstone formation Successful restoration of the groundwater in the area mined.

Development Model Development Model

To delineate 15m lb U3O8 of Indicated Resource at two

project locations project locations

To build a 1 5m lb per year U O production facility and an To build a 1.5m lb per year U3O8 production facility and an

In‐ Situ Recovery operation at a centralised location within the Lance Projects with production within 1 year of within the Lance Projects with production within 1 year of permitting

Continue to add additional resources through exploration

within our own project areas within our own project areas

Development Model Development Model

Initial Production Centre's

Exploration target size at Ross

for feasibility decision is 6.4‐9.5 illi h @ 0 05 0 07%

Production Centre 1 Ross Exploration target size

million short tons @ 0.05‐0.07% eU3O8 for 8‐12 million lb U3O8

1

N

Exploration target size 8-12 million lb U3O8

Geological Legend

Barber exploration target size for

feasibility decision is 2.6‐3.9 million short tons @ 0.07‐0.09%

Fort Union Fm Alluvium Lance Fm Fox Hills Fm Pierre Shale Greenhorn Fm Belle Fourche Shale

Geological Legend

Major U host Major U host

eU3O8 for 4‐6 million lb U3O8

1

15 million lb at 1.5 million lb

Production Centre 2

Skull Creek Shale Newcastle Fm Belle Fourche Shale Mowry Fm

15 million lb at 1.5 million lb U3O8 per annum is 10 years production, to be replaced by

• ngoing exploration

Production Centre 2 Barber Exploration target size 4-6 million lb U3O8

g g p

6km (3.8 miles)

Development Model e e op e

• de

Proposed Treatment and Metallurgical Process

Proposed process facility is an ISR

resin strip plant central to the well fields producing approx 1 5 million fields producing approx 1.5 million lb U3O8 per year

Expected grade across the

prospects is 0.05‐0.09% U3O8

Estimated recoveries 70% Anticipated capital cost US$40

Anticipated capital cost US$40 million plus US$8 million per year annual well‐field capital

Estimated operating costs US$15/lb Estimated operating costs US$15/lb

U3O8 *

Total costs US$28/lb U3O8

*averaged ISR cash cost RBC Capital

Development Model

Preliminary Scoping Study Preliminary Scoping Study*

US$ per lb US$ /year Revenue $65 $98 million Capital expenditure $1.3 $2.0 million Financing cost 10% $2 7 $4 million Financing cost 10% $2.7 $4 million Operating cost $15 $23 million Royalty 6% $4 $6 million

Assumptions

Annual well field capital $5.3 $8 million

Total Costs

$28.30 $43.0 million Depreciation $12 0 million

Grade 0.06 $65/lb U3O8 30% tax 10% d i ti

Depreciation $12.0 million Gross margin $55.0 million Tax 30% $13 million

10% depreciation 1.5mm lb per yr. $40 million Capex $15 Opex/lb

Net

$42 million

NPV

$260 million

* Figures are indicative only to illustrate project potential based on published costs for similar ISR operations in the US in recent

• years. Figures assume continued growth in landholdings over life of project and exploration success at a similar rate to historic

exploration.

$ p / Recovered resource 42 million lb U3O8

IRR

70%

2008‐2009 Work Program 2008 2009 Work Program

Work Type Timing yp g

Confirm veracity of historic data January ‐ March 2008 Prepare internal resource estimate from historic Information for scoping purposes February –April 2008 Continue Land Acquisition program January – December 2008 Continue Land Acquisition program January December 2008 Commence environmental permitting and baseline studies May 2008 ‐ 2010 Drill – Twin historic holes, Extend mineralisation September 2008 Prepare JORC compliant Resource November 2009 Prepare JORC compliant Resource November 2009 Drill – resource extension May – December 2009

Wh I I P i l Mi l ? Why Invest In Peninsula Minerals?

World class uranium projects in USA and South Africa Undervalued relative to peers First class management team High level of uranium expertise Well funded treasury Well funded treasury Development initiated at the Lance projects Extensive new radiometric uranium anomalies and historic

Extensive new radiometric uranium anomalies and historic mineralisation in South Africa

Prospective tenements in Australia in known uranium provinces

Hi h t ti l t d f k i li ti d k

High potential to expand areas of known mineralisation and make

new discoveries

Projects Location

K

i i i

Karoo uranium province is

within the Permo‐Triassic Karoo Basin

U and Mo mineralisation

has been identified in the sandstones of the Beaufort Group Beaufort Group

S th Af i St U i South Africa – Strong Uranium Exploration History

Uranium first discovered

in 1970 by Union Carbide

p y

y

Significant exploration

during the 1970’s and 1980’s identified several U ore bodies within the Karoo Basin

Exploration and

development abandoned when U price collapsed in when U price collapsed in 1980’s (to less than $20 per lb U3O8)

South Africa Mining Environment

County with a very long mining history Well defined system for environmental permitting and development

Well defined system for environmental permitting and development approval

Mining is the most important export earner for South Africa South Africa has an active uranium mining industry All uranium produced is sold to the SA Government who manage the

• n‐sale giving a guaranteed market for producers
• sa e g

g a gua a teed a et o p oduce s

Foreign

companies must have Black Economic Empowerment partner; Peninsula’s BEE partner is Mmakau Mining which holds 26%

• f the Project CEO Bridgette Radebe (Chairperson SAMDA)
• f the Project. CEO Bridgette Radebe (Chairperson SAMDA)

The Karoo is one of the main areas of focus for uranium exploration in

RSA

I f t t

Beaufort West, lying on the sealed highway between Cape Town

Infrastructure

Beaufort West, lying on the sealed highway between Cape Town and Johannesburg is approximately central to all the sites and is a service centre for the region

The region is serviced by well maintained sealed and unsealed

roads

Topography is a mixture of flat to gently undulating plateau (Sites 5,

29, 37, 45) with some major escarpments (Site 22, 45, 49 ) over the six projects covering 1,980km2

Site 37 looking west

Geology

U (as uraninite and coffinite) and Mo (molybdenite) are

hosted within multi‐sequence sandstone units; U i it t h idi d d t i precipitates where

• xidized

groundwater comes in contact with reduced water from shale units or organic material within the sandstone

Tabular to ribbon style mineralised bodies deposited,

usually 1‐3m thick and shallowly dipping I l h i i li i f d f

In plan the uranium mineralisation forms pods of

approximately 600m in length, 200m in width and 1 to 3m in thickness

K P j t P t E l ti Karoo Projects Past Exploration

• Uranium exploration commenced in 1969, with major companies Union Carbide, Esso and JCI

f ll di i i il 1982 successfully discovering uranium resources up until 1982

• Peninsula’s Sites 22, 29 and 45 contain three of these historic U/Mo resources
• As part of the RSA government’s desire to locate strategic minerals, the SACG flew a 1km spaced

radiometric survey in 1976. Numerous U anomalies were identified, many of these were outside

• f areas being explored by mining companies
• f areas being explored by mining companies
• To identify strategic Mo mineralisation, in the 1980’s the SACG completed a rock chip sampling

program throughout the Karoo uranium province program throughout the Karoo uranium province

• Tasman Pacific Minerals Limited used the results of this survey highlighting U and Mo

mineralisation to locate the 6 Projects mineralisation to locate the 6 Projects

• Grades of over 1% U3O8 and 0.4% Mo were not uncommon in the SAGC sampling
• In January 2007 Peninsula acquired 100% of Tasman Pacific

I 1979 1981 JCI

Site 22 U and Mo Mineralisation

FARM 404 P1 1 1 2 1 1 4 1 1 8 1 2 12 8 1 3 13 2 1 3 4 1 3 6 1 3 8 1 4 00 1 4 2 1 4 4 1 4 6 1 4 8 1 5 1 3 6 1 3 8 1 3 4

In 1979‐1981 JCI

drilled 718 percussion holes d i t t d U

FARM 404 RE 1 8 2 1 1 6 1220 1 2 4 1 2 6

and intersected U and Mo mineralisation A hi i

FARM 236 MATJES KLOOF 235 1 1

Legend

A historic resource

was produced

The main

1 2 1

100 500 1000 2000 5000

Z i t d t il

mineralised trend extends for greater than 2 km and other f

GROOT TAFEL BERGFONTEIN 237 P3 SLINGERSFONTEIN 232 P4 1 6 1 040

750 1,500 375

Metres

Area 22 Percussion Drilling Uranium Results

5000 >5000

Zoom into detail

• f Mo sampling

areas of mineralisation were identified

l Site 22 Mo Mineralisation

Mo is associated

with U mineralisation, but

1120 1140 1180 1200 1220

, is often slightly above and offset

Intersections

1100 1 1 6

Intersections

>1000ppm Mo are common

1080

Legend

Molybdenum Grades

ppm

50 100 500 1000

1 6

250 500 125

Area 22 Percussion Drilling

1000 2000 >2000

Metres

Area 22 Percussion Drilling Molybdenum Results

K C t E l ti Karoo Current Exploration

Detailed low level radiometric survey flown over all six project areas in January

and February 2008

New radiometric uranium anomalies have been identified at all six project New radiometric uranium anomalies have been identified at all six project

areas

Potential to extend existing historic uranium resources has been identified at a

minimum of two sites

Field inspections have commenced at all six project areas Highly anomalous results (up to 0.6% eU3O8) from Site 29, the first project

area that has been tested

Drill testing of the best targets planned for Mid 2009

Site 29 Radiometric Anomalies – Ground l d

On ground testing

Validation

g g validates aerial anomalies

Strongly anomalous

g y readings at four sites

• n margins of syncline

in centre of project

Historic resource within

syncline proves mineralised nature of d t (2 8k

2)

sandstone (2.8km2)

Very small portion of

prospective ground t t d b d illi tested by drilling

Three other high

priority targets verified

Site 22 Radiometric Anomalies

New Radiometric

survey detects historic i h

Site 22 Radiometric Anomalies

Existing GT-7 resource area (blue) with relatively subtle Strong new uranium anomalies in areas with no

resource area with moderate anomaly

exploration target size

t Sit 22 i lti l

with relatively subtle radiometric signature anomalies in areas with no historic drilling

at Site 22 is multiple bodies of 0.7‐1.5 million tonnes @ 0.13‐ 0 15% U O for 2‐3mlb 0.15% U3O8 for 2‐3mlb U3O8

1

Many new, stronger

anomalies identified in anomalies identified in areas with no previous Uranium anomalism

New anomalies may

New anomalies may reflect additional Uranium mineralisation

2008 Karoo Work program p g

Work Type Timing

Fly detailed (100m line spacing by 20m flight height) radiometric and magnetic survey Complete Review radiometric anomalies and prioritise for field testing Complete Commence ground follow‐up of July–August 2008 Commence ground follow up of radiometric anomalies identified in new survey July August 2008 Modify Prospecting rights to allow for drill September 2008–March 2009 y p g g testing of targets p Drill – Test best radiometric anomalies (6,000m RC, 500m DD) May–July 2009 Prepare JORC compliant Resources at best prospect November 2009

Wh I I P i l Mi l ? Why Invest In Peninsula Minerals?

World class uranium projects in USA and South Africa Undervalued relative to peers First class management team High level of Uranium expertise Well funded treasury Well funded treasury Development initiated at the Lance Projects Extensive new radiometric uranium anomalies and historic

Extensive new radiometric uranium anomalies and historic mineralisation in South Africa

Prospective tenements in Australia in known uranium provinces

Hi h t ti l t d f k i li ti d k

High potential to expand areas of known mineralisation and make

new discoveries

Notes

1Please note that the potential quantity and grade of the Exploration Targets in this presentation are conceptual in nature, that there has been

insufficient exploration to define a Mineral Resource and that it is uncertain if further exploration will result in the determination of a Mineral Resource. Disequilibrium Explanatory Statement: eU3O8 refers to the equivalent U3O8 grade. This is estimated from gross‐gamma down hole measurements corrected for water and drilling mud in each hole. These results are provisional upon the application of calibration correction factors which are determined from geochemical analysis. Geochemical analysis may show higher or lower amounts of actual U3O8, the difference being referred to as

• disequilibrium. All eU3O8 results above are affected by issues pertaining to possible disequilibrium and uranium mobility which should be taken into

q

3 8

y p g p q y account when interpreting those pending confirmatory chemical analyses.