Forte Energy NL
LSE : FTE

January 28, 2015 03:09 ET

JORC Resource Statement for Slovakia

                                                                                             Forte Energy NL
                                                                                             ACN 009 087 852
                                                                                                            
                                                                                            ASX /AIM Release
                                                                                             28 January 2015
JORC Resource Statement for Slovakia

Forte  Energy  NL  ("Forte"  or "the Company") (ASX/AIM: FTE) is pleased to announce  a  resource  upgrade  and
compilation of an initial JORC compliant resource statement for the Company's Slovak assets:

    -       JORC compliant resource estimate completed for Slovak Projects
    
    -       Company's total JORC compliant resources increase by 70% (31.6 million pounds) to 76.5 million pounds
        U3O8
    
    -       Slovak Resource estimate increase of approx 6 million pounds U3O8
        
        
    -       Metallurgical report being finalized by Areva
        
        
    -       Review highlights potential to develop both Slovak deposits simultaneously

Forte  has  completed its review of the uranium resource estimates at the Kuriskova and Novoveska Huta  uranium
deposits  in  Slovakia.  Forte is earning into a 50% interest in these deposits with its joint venture  partner
European  Uranium  Resources  Ltd (TSX-V: EUU) ("European Uranium"). The review  was  undertaken  primarily  to
provide a JORC compliant resource estimate, which as an Australian company, is the code which Forte must report
according  to.   To  date,  resource estimates for the Slovak deposits had been  prepared  in  accordance  with
Canadian  National  Instrument  43-101, as this was the code applicable to  European  Uranium  Resources  as  a
Canadian company.

The resulting JORC compliant resource estimates represent a significant addition (about 5.6 million pounds)  to
the total contained uranium oxide in these deposits.



                            KURISKOVA - 100% Gross JORC Compliant Mineral Resource
                                                       
MINERAL RESOURCE SUMMARY AT @ 0.03 U% CUT OFF, KURISKOVA DEPOSIT
  U%      Tonnes       % U3O8       U3O8 lbs      Metal U     Metal U3O8     Mo Tonnes     % Mo      Mo lbs
                                                 (Tonnes)      (Tonnes)
                                                                                                        
                                                  Indicated
0.445    2,475,849      0.525      28,637,284     11,015        12,990       2,448,087    0.062     3,322,512
                                                                                                        
     Inferred                                                                                           
0.130    4,010,815      0.153      13,545,690      5,210        6,144        3,779,214    0.024     2,036,120
                                                                                                        
                                             Indicated + Inferred
0.250    6,486,664      0.295      42,182,974     16,226        19,134       6,227,301    0.039     5,358,632
* To convert %U to %U3O8, a conversion factor of 1.17924 was used.

As noted, Forte holds a 50% interest in this deposit, subject to meeting expenditure commitments.

                                                       
                                                       
                          NOVOVESKA HUTA - 100% Gross JORC Compliant Mineral Resource
                                                       
MINERAL RESOURCE SUMMARY AT @ 0.03 U% CUT OFF, NOVOVESKA HUTA DEPOSIT
 U %       Tonnes        % U3O8      U3O8 lbs       Metal U      Metal U3O8      Mo Tonnes      % Mo      Mo lbs
                                                   (Tonnes)       (Tonnes)
                                                                                                             
                                                     Measured
0.055     2,973,287      0.065       4,254,594       1,637          1,930                                         
                                                                                                                  
                                                     Indicated
0.053     2,774,792      0.063       3,842,852       1,478          1,743                                         
                                                                                                                  
                                                     Inferred
0.102     4,902,082      0.121      13,043,317       5,017          5,916       10,423,317     0.016     3,770,800
                                                                                                             
                                          Measured + Indicated + Inferred
0.076    10,650,161      0.090      21,140,763       8,132          9,589       10,423,317     0.016     3,770,800
* To convert %U to %U3O8, a conversion factor of 1.17924 was used.

All at 0.03% U cut off; molybdenum included only when within blocks above U% cut off.

As noted, Forte holds a 50% interest in this deposit, subject to meeting expenditure commitments.

Forte  and  its  consultants have reviewed the Canadian NI 43-101 compliant resource estimates  that  had  been
published  by European Uranium: for Kuriskova as part of a prefeasibility study completed in January  2012  (by
Tetra Tech Inc.) and for Novoveska Huta as a resource estimate completed in October 2011.  Both of these NI 43-
101 resource estimates were completed by Tetra Tech Inc.

Forte  concluded that the methodology employed in these earlier resource estimates was valid.   However,  Forte
has  used  the model wireframe boundaries to better reflect geologic and geochemical boundaries and cutoffs  in
preparing  the JORC compliant resource estimate.  This resulted in the additional resources that were  excluded
in  the  prior  estimates.  Forte has also evaluated the results of three metallurgical test  holes  that  were
drilled  at  Kuriskova  after  the  last resource estimate was completed  and  incorporated  these  results  as
appropriate.

Forte  Managing  Director  Mark Reilly commented, "We are pleased that our review and  publication  of  a  JORC
compliant resource estimate for our Slovak uranium projects has led to such an increase in the Company's  total
contained  uranium resources in Slovakia and West Africa.  Kuriskova and Novoveska Huta both  have  exploration
targets  adjacent  to  the  identified resources that have not yet been drilled  and  therefore  both  projects
continue to have significant exploration upside.

The  dramatic  increase  in contained uranium at Novoveska Huta opens the possibility of  considering  possible
project synergies that would allow both deposits to be developed in conjunction.  This possibility will be  the
subject  of  ongoing study and evaluation.  Also ongoing is the evaluation of potential rare earth  credits  at
both deposits, particularly Kuriskova."

During 2012, Areva was commissioned to complete a metallurgical study on samples from metallurgical drill holes
at  Kuriskova in order to assess whether the process flowsheet in the prefeasibility study could be  optimized.
The final results of this study are expected shortly.

As previously advised, management is finalising a corporate and strategic update announcement which is expected
to be released shortly.

Summary of Material Information - Kuriskova

In  accordance with the 2012 JORC reporting guidelines, the following is a summary of material information used
to  estimate the Mineral Resource for Kuriskova. A more detailed description of the information is included  in
the attached Appendix 2.

Geology and geological interpretation:

The  Kuriskova  deposit is located in Permian rocks at the unconformable contact between metasedimentary  rocks
and overlying metavolcanics.

The  genesis of the Kuriskova uranium deposit is not completely understood; however, it is suggested  that  the
deposit is the result of secondary uranium derived from anomalously enriched volcanic/ volcanoclastic rocks. It
is  postulated that high heat flow through thinned crust, saline brine production, and thrusting and fracturing
provided a permeability pathway into the meta-volcanic units, which permitted hydrothermal fluid flow. The high
phosphorous  content and suitable oxidation potential of the meta-volcanic rocks may have been  the  deposition
control  for  fracture-controlled uranium mineralization. The Kuriskova uranium  deposit  is,  therefore,  best
described as an epigenetically remobilized stratiform to stockwork type uranium deposit, although it  may  have
had precursor sedimentary, volcanic and/or hypogene origins.

The main zone of uranium mineralization is associated with andesitic tuff/tuffite units at the base of the main
andesite  unit.  Mineralization  occupies  zones along the geologic contact  between  the  overlying  competent
andesitic  metavolcanic unit and the underlying metasediments. The tuffs are phosphorous rich  and  it  appears
that  phosphorous  has preferentially caused deposition of the uranium minerals, resulting in  localized  high-
grade zones of 1-5%U. Uranium mineralization is also hosted directly on the andesite/sediment contact, which is
generally lower grade (0.1-0.5%U). Uranium mineralization hosted within hanging wall andesites is characterized
by  discrete  lenses  associated with thin quartz-carbonate veins and stockworks. Uranium grades  within  these
zones are variable. The overall dimensions of the main deposit established to date are approximately 750 by 550
metres,  and  about 2.5 metres in average thickness, though in some areas the thickness is more than  10m.  The
Main  zone  mineralization dips to the southwest at 45 to 70 degrees. Uraninite is the  most  dominant  uranium
mineral, with lesser amounts of coffinite accompanied by abundant fine-grained molybdenite (MoS2).

Data  are considered appropriate for this stage of project and stated resource categories. The mineral resource
estimate  has been tested and confirmed by a variety of grade estimation and weighting methodologies  including
inverse  to  distance( at various powers) and kriging. The interpretation of mineralization limits is based  on
geology  and  on  natural  break  / sharp change in U grade which appear to represent  geologic  boundaries  of
mineralization.  Structural features such as faults have been modelled and accounted for in grade  and  tonnage
estimation and mineralization continuity with geological domains divided into sub-domains by faults.

Sampling and sub-sampling techniques:

Samples  included  in the mineral resource estimate comprise half drill core samples from recent  holes  (2005-
2011)  and  eU  (equivalent  uranium) values from gamma logging of historical holes  (before  1990).Geochemical
analysis  of half drill core samples is based on geological logging and sampling. The eU values from historical
holes are based on downhole gamma logging.

Sample  selection  for  geochemical analysis was based on geological logging with  sample  breaks  at  geologic
boundaries.  The details of data verification work carried out were documented an audit trail. Verification  of
eU  data  included  closed  can analyses for equilibrium analysis and selected recent  drill  holes  were  left
open/cased for future re-probing with downhole tools.

Industry standard core drilling was used for sampling. In general, the entire sample was crushed to minimum 75%
passing  2  mm.  A  250g split after crushing was created for every 20th sample and stored to  check  splitting
adequacy.   Another  250 gram split was pulverized to minimum 85% passing 75 microns.  A 25  gram  split  after
pulverization was preserved as a duplicate and a 25 gram split was used for analysis.

Drill  holes  were  geologically  logged to provide rock descriptions, rock code  and  structural  information.
Geotechnical logging procedure varied with different drilling campaigns. For recent drilling, core was sawed or
split.   Half  core  samples were used for sample preparation and analysis and half the  core  was  kept.   For
historical  holes, downhole eU% data were used for the mineral resource estimation. Quality control  procedures
adopted for sub-sampling and preparation included grind checks after crushing using two stacked screen 2mm  and
6mm  and  grind  checks  after pulverization to 150 and 106 micrometers.  A 250gram split  after  crushing  was
created  for every 20th sample and used to check if there were any questions about splitting in the lab.  Field
blanks were inserted into the sample stream to check for contamination.

Drilling techniques:

The  project was drilled using core (diamond) drilling techniques. The mineralized zones were intersected  with
PQ, HQ or NQ size core.  One drill hole provided oriented core.

Drill  holes  were  geologically  logged to provide rock description, rock  code  and  structural  information.
Geotechnical logging procedure varied with different drilling campaigns.

Classification:

Search parameters are the key factors used for resource confidence classification at Kuriskova. The ellipsoidal
search  volume  (SVOL)  is  initially  50m, 50m, and 25m, reflecting the  assumed  preferential  directions  of
continuity along strike and downdip, with a two-to-one anisotropy. The first axis with a 50m search is oriented
down dip. The second orthogonal axis, also with a 50m search, is oriented along strike. For all the zones other
then  Zone  2  and  3,  only model block positions within the wireframed domains were estimated  and  only  the
relevant  domain  composites were used. The wireframe boundaries are exact as drill  holes  were  "snapped  to"
during  their  creation and there is no extrapolation beyond these boundaries. Zones 2  and  3  were  estimated
without  hard  boundary wireframes using domain blocks created within a tight search ellipse.  The  ellipsoidal
search  volume  (SVOL)  for these two zones is 20m, 15m, and 2m, with no second and third  search.  The  search
ranges  were  defined  based  on results of variogram and jackknifing validation of variogram  parameters.  The
Competent  Person  supplemented  numerical and statistically derived resource classifications  with  geological
interpretation to avoid a "spotty" representation.

Appropriate  account  has  been  taken  of  all relevant factors (i.e.  relative  confidence  in  tonnage/grade
estimations, reliability of input data, confidence in continuity of geology and metal values, quality, quantity
and distribution of the data).  Accordingly part of the resource has been classified as inferred.

Sample analysis method:

Before 1990 (Historical Holes): Detailed data verification and validation of gamma data was carried out. Closed
can  analysis  confirmed  that there are no disequilibrium issues at Kuriskova. Before  using  gamma  logs  for
historical holes, a correlation of gamma and chemical assays was done.  26 historical holes which could not  be
verified with original data were not used in the mineral resource estimate.

2005-2006,  European Uranium Resources drilling program: Standard QC procedures applied at ALS Vancouver.   All
the  samples  were re-assayed in 2007 by SGS as check assay with good correlation. 2007 -2008:  Rigorous  QA/QC
program  under European Uranium Resources control, well documented procedure describing sample steps, chain  of
custody,  QA/QC  procedure and reporting procedures. Sample prep and analysis were  by  the  Primary  lab  (SGS
Lakefield).  QC samples were inserted and samples were renumbered before analysis by the secondary (check) lab.

2009-2011:  Sample Prep lab: EL lab, Spisska Nova Ves, Slovakia, with QC samples inserted by  European  Uranium
Resources.  Primary  assaying  was done by ALS Chemex, Spain.  Check assays were performed  at  the  Geological
Survey  laboratory,  Spisska  Nova  Ves. During 2010 primary assaying was changed  to  the  laboratory  of  the
Geological Survey in Spisska Nova Ves. A dedicated geologist tracked the samples, consolidated and reported all
the assay results received for each batch and documented any QC action taken.

Gamma  (eU)  percent  values are derived from instruments (downhole probes) that measure orders  of  magnitudes
larger volumes of material than that measured by XRF or ICP for the samples taken from half core. The Competent
Person reviewed procedures for gamma logging in detail.

All  data  were compiled into proper and standard electronic database format.  Graphical drill hole  logs  with
histograms of U from chemical analyses and eU from gamma logging were generated and available for review by the
Competent Person.

Estimation methodology:

A  top  cut  has  been  applied  at  6.95% U for the Main Zone North (a  population  break  is  interpreted  at
approximately  6.95  %U).  There has been no top cutting for molybdenum. Grades in excess  of  this  value  are
considered anomalous, or "outliers" to the distribution. For all the zones other than Zone 2 and 3, only  model
block positions within the wireframed domains were estimated and only the relevant domain composites were used.

There  are  43-101 reports available from this property, prepared on behalf of European Uranium Resources  Ltd.
They have been considered and relied upon in the preparation of this resource estimate.

The  mineral  resource estimate includes molybdenum (Mo) as a potential by-product.  Mo has only been  included
where it occurs within U blocks above the U cutoff grade.

A  parent  block size of 10 m in X direction, 10 m in Y direction and 2m in Z direction was created considering
drilling  density, geological domain and subdomains dimensions. There are no selective mining units modeled  in
this resource estimate.



Interpretation  of mineralized zones was carried out by conventional two dimensional structural interpretations
and  outlining  of  mineralization.  Mineralization outlines were interpreted section-by-section  incorporating
geological information and assay data from drill holes. The string outlines were snapped at drillhole  contacts
while digitizing to preserve the accuracy of calculation of volume of mineralization.

Top cut / capping was done on assays from Main Zone north to avoid undue influence of outlier grade samples  on
grade  estimates.  The decision to cap at 6.95 % U is based on a log probability plot. Block model  validations
were  done to check for global and local accuracy of grade estimate. As the estimation method objective  is  to
estimate  the  grade distribution, the grade populations between block model and composites were  compared  and
found to be within reasonable limits using log histograms of block model and composites.

Cut-off grades:

The  0.03% U cutoff is based on a natural (geologic) cutoff in assays and appears reasonable based on estimated
underground mining and alkaline leach processing costs and expected future commodity prices.

Mining and metallurgical methods and parameters:

No  mineral reserves have been calculated as part of this resource estimate. Waste units internal to  the  Main
Zone  North  wireframe,  with  a drill hole intercept thickness greater than 1 metre,  were  considered  to  be
separable  mineable units of waste and were modeled with internal waste wireframes. Most of the waste thickness
is greater than 2m.

Three  composite samples were sent by European Uranium Resources to Hazen Research Inc. (Hazen) for  use  in  a
metallurgical  test program. Carbonate leach procedures including pressure oxidation (POX)  were  developed  to
extract  the  uranium and molybdenum constituents. Results from POX tests performed on two composites  indicate
that 93% to 94% of the uranium and 90% to 93% of the molybdenum could be extracted.  A preliminary process flow
sheet  was  ultimately derived from the test work results wherein a carbonate leach POX circuit is operated  to
extract  the  uranium and molybdenum from the metal bearing mineralization. In this circuit a bleed  stream  of
pregnant liquor is advanced to the uranium recovery circuit from which uranium is extracted as sodium diuranate
via  acidification and treatment with hydrogen peroxide; the yellow cake product containing 67% to 68% uranium.
The residual leach solution, which is barren in uranium yet carrying the leached molybdenum, would be processed
to  extract  the molybdenum by direct precipitation of MoS3 using sodium hydrosulfide. Further process  studies
are anticipated as the Kuriskova Uranium Project advances toward a feasibility study.

Summary of Material Information - Novoveska Huta

In  accordance with the 2012 JORC reporting guidelines, the following is a summary of material information used
to  estimate  the  Mineral  Resource for Novoveska Huta.  A more detailed description  of  the  information  is
included in the attached Appendix 3.

Geology and geological interpretation:

Uranium-molybdenum mineralization at Novoveska Huta is hosted in Permian metavolcanic rocks that form part of a
2,000  -  2,500  meter thick volcano-sedimentary sequence.  Secondary remobilization of uranium  mineralization
during  subsequent  orogenic events is not as visible here as in the Kuriskova deposit.  The principal  uranium
mineral at Novoveská Huta is uraninite.

The  Petrova Hora Formation hosts the stratiform bodies of uranium-molybdenum mineralization at Novoveska Huta.
The Novoveská Huta Volcanic Complex, a unit of the Petrova Hora formation, comprises intermediate metavolcanics
and  their  breccias  (thickness 300-350 meters). Uranium mineralization is concentrated in  areas  of  intense
pyritization.   Mineralization  is concordant with bedding and in general occurs in  mixed  volcano-terrigenous
sediments.  Metavolcanics,  previously rocks of dacite-andesite composition, are strongly  altered.   They  are
massive in mineralized zones and usually exhibit schistosity with varying degrees of silicification.

Data  are  considered  appropriate for this stage of project and stated resource categories.  Ordinary  kriging
method with dynamic anisotropy was used to estimate blocks within the domain wireframes. The dynamic anisotropy
option allows the anisotropy rotation angles for defining the search volume to be defined individually for each
cell in the model. The interpretation of mineralization limits is based on geology and on natural break / sharp
changes  in  U  grade. Structural features such as faults have been modelled and accounted  for  in  grade  and
tonnage  estimations and in evaluation of mineralization continuity. The fault structures are primary  controls
for modeling mineralized geology domains. The structures identified in geological cross sections were linked to
create wireframe planes. Based on the positions of these planes, cross-sectional domain outlines were linked by
wireframing in Datamine Studio3® to create a three dimensional mineralized geological domain model.

Sampling and sub-sampling techniques:

Samples  included  in the mineral resource estimate comprise half drill core samples from recent  holes  (2006-
2011)  and  eU (equivalent uranium) values from downhole gamma logging of historical surface holes, underground
core  drilling, underground up holes without core, underground down holes with core, and radiometric  channels.
Historic  data  refers to sampling before 1990. Geochemical analyses of half drill core samples  are  based  on
geological  logging  and  sampling.  The  eU values from historic surface  holes,  underground  core  drilling,
underground  up  holes without core, underground down holes with core, and radiometric channels  are  based  on
gamma logging and measurements.

Sample selection of recent holes for geochemical analysis was based on geological logging with sample breaks at
geologic  boundaries.  The details of data verification work carried out were documented  to  create  an  audit
trail. Verification included closed can analysis for equilibrium analysis to validate the gamma logging values.

Industry  standard  core  drilling was used for sampling of recent holes. Details  in  the  form  of  a  sample
flowsheet  have  been  provided to the Competent Person together with preparation and  analytical  reports.  In
general,  the entire sample amount was crushed to minimum 75% passing 2 mm.  After crushing, a 250  gram  split
was  created  for  every  20th sample to check splitting adequacy.  Another 250 gram split  was  pulverized  to
minimum 85% passing 75 microns. A 25 gram split after pulverization was preserved as a duplicate and a 25  gram
split was used for analysis.

Recent  drilling produced core samples which were sawed or split and half core samples were shipped for  sample
preparation and analyses. For historical surface holes, underground core drilling, underground up holes without
core,  underground  down  holes  with core, radiometric channels eU% data was  used  in  the  mineral  resource
estimation.

Quality  control  procedure adopted for all sub-sampling and preparation included grind checks  after  crushing
using  two stacked screen 2mm and 6mm and grind checks after pulverization to 150 and 106 micrometers.  A  250g
split  after  crushing was created for every 20th sample and used to check if there were  any  questions  about
splitting  in  the  lab.  Field  blanks were inserted into the sample stream to check  for  contamination.  The
Competent  Person considers sample sizes to be appropriate. Industry standard sample preparation  methodologies
by accredited labs were used.

Drilling techniques:

In recent drilling the project has been drilled using core (diamond) drilling techniques. The mineralized zones
were  intersected  by  HQ  (6.4 cm diameter) or NQ (4.8 cm diameter) core. None of  the  drill  holes  provided
oriented  core. During historic drilling, due to non wire line method with single tube-drilling, core  recovery
was poor, and so chemical assays were used only for cross checking gamma measurements.

Drill core recoveries were recorded following standard logging practice by recording drill hole run length  and
recovered  length. Recovery in percentage was subsequently calculated and used in the 3D Datamine  holes  file.
The  historical  drilling had poor recovery and so no systematic core sampling was possible, although  detailed
downhole gamma logging was done during this time. High core recovery of over 90% from all mineralized intervals
was  achieved  from  all  recent holes. A relationship between sample recovery  and  grade  was  not  found  by
statistical evaluation of data. There is no observation of sample bias due to loss of material.

Drill  holes  were  geologically  logged to provide rock description, rock  code  and  structural  information.
Geotechnical logging was also done.

Classification:

Resources  were  classified primarily on the basis of sample density. Block 2 in the  center  is  comprised  of
closed  space channel samples, underground drill holes, and surface holes. The area around these samples,  with
20-30  meter sample spacing was classified as measured. Block 1 contains historic surface drilling at  30-50  m
spacing  and  it  was  considered  reasonable to classify this as indicated resource.   Block  3  predominately
includes  recent  holes  at  100-120 metre average spacing with historic holes in between  and  this  block  is
classified as inferred resource. The 3D wireframe was created for Measured and Indicated blocks based on sample
density.  Blocks  within these wireframe were coded as class=1 for measured and class  =2  for  indicated.  The
blocks outside these wireframes were coded as class=3 for inferred blocks.

Sample analysis method:

Before 1990 (Historical historical surface holes, underground core drilling, underground up holes without core,
underground  down  holes with core, radiometric channels): Detailed data verification and validation  of  gamma
data was carried out. Closed can analysis confirmed that there are no disequilibrium issues at Novoveska Huta.

2006,  European Uranium Resources drilling program: Standard QC procedures applied at ALS Vancouver.   All  the
samples were re-assayed in 2007 by SGS as check assay with good correlation. 2007 -2008: Rigorous QA/QC program
under  European Uranium Resources control, well documented procedure describing sample steps, chain of custody,
QA/QC  procedure  and reporting procedures. Sample preparation and analysis were done by the Primary  lab  (SGS
Lakefield).  QC samples were inserted and samples were renumbered before analysis by secondary (check) lab.

2009-2011:  Sample Prep lab: EL lab, Spisska Nova Ves, Slovakia (QC samples were inserted by  European  Uranium
Resources,  Primary  Assaying  at  ALS Chemex, Spain.  Check assays were performed  at  the  Geological  Survey
laboratory,  Spisska  Nova Ves. During 2010 primary assaying was changed to the laboratory  of  the  Geological
Survey in Spisska Nova Ves. A dedicated geologist tracked the samples, consolidated and reported all the  assay
results received for each batch and documented any QC action taken.

Gamma  (eU) percent values from drill holes are derived from instruments (downhole probes) that measure  orders
of  magnitudes  larger volumes of material than that measured by XRF or Competent Person for the samples  taken
from half core. The Competent Person reviewed procedures for gamma logging in detail

Twin holes have been drilled at this project. 7 twin holes were drilled to verify historical drill holes and  2
twin holes were drilled to verify data from the historic shaft. All data were compiled into proper and standard
electronic database format.  Graphical drillhole logs with histograms of U from chemical analyses and  eU  from
gamma logging were generated and available for the Competent Person.

Estimation methodology:

Datamine  software was used for the mineral resource estimation. To reduce the effects of mixing  of  different
sample types, the deposit has been divided into 3 blocks, named from west to east: Block 1, Block 2, and  Block
3.  Block  1  includes  historic  surface drill holes. Block 2 has predominantly underground  channel  samples,
underground  up  and  down holes, and surface historic and recent holes. Block 3 includes predominantly  recent
surface  drilling with a few historic holes. Geologic data was analyzed to identify structures and establish  a
grade  domain,  enhanced  geologic  model,  and  grade model. Different  statistical  analyses  such  as  basic
statistical comparisons, distribution comparisons using box plot and variability analysis were done to  justify
data partitioning. No top cut was used.

A  Canadian  National  Instrument  43-101 resource estimate was prepared for this  project  by  an  independent
consultant  for  European  Uranium  Resources Ltd.  This report has  been  reviewed  and  relied  upon  in  the
preparation of this resource estimate.

The  mineral  resource estimate includes molybdenum (Mo) as a potential by-product.  Mo has only been  included
where it occurs within U blocks above the U cutoff grade.

A  parent  block size of 20 m in X direction, 10 m in Y direction and 5m in Z direction was created considering
drilling  density, geological domain and subdomains dimensions. The minimum block size of 2.5 m in  strike  and
dip  direction and variable block height based on the wireframe thickness in vertical Z direction is considered
for  sub  cells. Since the mineralization orientation is in the east west direction, the block  model  was  not
required to rotate. Blocks are aligned in mineralized orientation.

Two-dimensional  structural  interpretation and outlining of mineralization were done  section  by  section  by
incorporating  geological, structural and assay information from drill holes for each  geological  domain.  The
fault  structures  were  modeled  first as primary controls for modeling the mineralized  geology  domain.  The
structures  identified  in  geological cross sections were linked to create  wireframe  planes.  Based  on  the
positions  of these planes, cross-sectional domain outlines were linked by wireframing in Datamine Studio3®  to
create  a  three  dimensional  mineralized geological domain model. These were verified  and  validated  before
creating  the 3D block model. Verifications included face and edge overlap checks, surface intersection  checks
and  visual cross section inspection by slicing. In general, the wireframe model is based on a sharp change  in
assay  value  (0.03 % U) within the geologic unit. From an inspection of the cumulative frequency  distribution
diagram,  an  inflection  at  0.03  % U is interpreted as a population break for  the  mineralized  versus  non
mineralized  populations. The wireframes were used as "hard" boundaries. % U values within a  domain  wireframe
were used only to estimate grade in that domain. These domains were used to constrain the grade estimation  and
they  constitute  the primary control for grade estimation. Based on a log probability plot, it  was  concluded
that no grade top cut or capping was required or justified.

The Novoveska Huta block model was validated through a visual comparison between the estimated block grades and
the  grades of the composites. These were examined in some detail on screen and the distribution of  grades  in
the  model  appears  to  honor  the distribution of composited values given the  controlling  anisotropies  and
wireframe  domain  derived  from  geological interpretations. The local  variation  of  grades  appears  to  be
relatively  well  preserved.  The  comparison  of domain composite  and  model  block  average  is  reasonable.
Jackknifing validation was done to validate the search parameters, estimation and variogram parameters.

Cut-off grades:

The  0.03% U cutoff is based on a natural (geologic) cutoff in assays and appears reasonable based on estimated
underground mining and alkaline leach processing costs and expected future commodity prices.

Mining and metallurgical methods and parameters:

No mineral reserves have been calculated in this resource estimate.

The  Novoveská Huta deposit has been the subject of several technical reviews over the past half century  since
its  discovery  in  the  1950's    The  metallurgical processes tested and  proposed  at  different  times  are
essentially  identical  to  the carbonate leach process developed to date for the Kuriskova  deposit  with  the
addition of a pressure caustic leach to extract molybdenum in advance of the carbonate leach circuit.







For further information contact:

Mark Reilly, Managing Director
Forte Energy NL                          Tel: +61 (0) 8 9322 4071

Oliver Morse / Trinity McIntyre
RFC Ambrian Ltd                          Tel: +61 (0) 8 9480 2500
(AIM Nominated Adviser to the Company)



Forte Energy NL

Suite 3, Level 3,
1292 Hay Street
West Perth WA 6005
Ph: +61 (0)8 9322 4071
Fax: +61 (0)8 9322 4073
Email: info@forteenergy.com.au
Web: www.forteenergy.com.au


Note:
The  information  in  this report that relates to the reporting of Mineral Resources is  based  on  information
compiled or reviewed by Ing. Boris Bartalsky, PhD. who is a Member of the Australasian Institute of Mining  and
Metallurgy  (AusIMM) and the Society of Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration (SME). Mr Bartalsky is the  Director
of  Ludovika  Energy,  and  country  manager for the Slovakian Joint  Venture.  Mr.  Bartalsky  has  sufficient
experience which is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and to  the
activity  which  he  is  undertaking to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the  2012  Edition  of  the
'Australasian  Code  for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves'.  Mr.  Bartalsky
consents  to  the inclusion in this report of the matters based on his information in the form and  context  in
which it appears.



To view Appendix 1 - Slovakia Project Diagrams, please open the following link in a new window:
http://media3.marketwire.com/docs/989495-A1.pdf

To view Appendix 2 - JORC 2012 Table I- Check list and comments. KURISKOVA, please open the following link in a
new window: http://media3.marketwire.com/docs/989495-A2.pdf

Appendix 3 - JORC 2012 Table I- Check list and comments. NOVOVESKA HUTA, please open the following link in a
new window: http://media3.marketwire.com/docs/989495-A3.pdf

Contact Information

  • Forte Energy NL