The Discovery of the Phoenix: New High-Grade, Athabasca Basin Unconformity Uranium Deposits Saskatchewan, Canada

The Discovery of the Phoenix: New High-Grade, Athabasca Basin Unconformity Uranium Deposits Saskatchewan, Canada

FORWARD LOOKING STATEMENT Some disclosure included in this presentation respecting production, capital spending, development schedules, expenses, markets, deposit size and milling arrangements represent forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements generally can be identified by the use of forward-looking terminology such as "may", "will", "expect", "intent", "estimate", "anticipate", "believe" or "continue" or the negative thereof or variations thereon or similar terminology. Such statements are based on assumptions and estimates related to future market conditions. These statements involve risks and uncertainties relating to, among other things, changes in commodity prices, unanticipated reserve and resource grades, results of exploration activities, timeliness of government approvals, economic risk, actual performance of plant, equipment and processes relative to specifications and expectations and unanticipated environmental impacts on operations. While management reviews the reasonableness of its assumptions and estimates, unusual and unanticipated events may occur which render them inaccurate. Under such circumstances, future performance may differ materially from those expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements.

The Phoenix Deposits Lie within the Wheeler River Joint Venture Property Staked in1977 The Joint Venture Partners are: Denison Mines Corp. 60% and operator Cameco Corp. 30% JCU (Canada) Exploration 10% Company Limited Denison gratefully acknowledges the continuing assistance and support from the JV partners in exploring the Wheeler River Property

Location of the Phoenix Deposits

The Key Lake Model Highly Schematic Section Focus on EM Methods To Locate Graphite Observation: uranium physically associated with graphitic pelite Relative to surrounding rocks graphite is conductive Hence, locate graphite lying below Athabasca Sandstone by Airborne / Ground EM Drill test EM conductors to (hopefully) locate uranium mineralization Very successful track record

Airborne Magnetics and Ground EM Conductors

Schematic Basement Geology (as of October 2009)

Key Lake Model Successes

Key Lake Model Successes O Zone M Zone K Zone

The McArthur River Model Highly Schematic Section NB McArthur discovered using Key Lake Model Denison becomes operator in late 2004. Could a McArthur River model be applicable to Wheeler River? McArthur Unique. Physical association of uranium with hanging-wall quartzite Presence of highly elevated values of dravite (boron) in the alteration above mineralization

Distribution of Quartzite and Dravite Data current as of Dec. 31, 2009

McArthur Model Successes

McArthur Model Successes WR-204 / WR-214

Evolving Exploration Models- Re-evaluation in 2006 1977-2004 Key Lake Model Despite 152 line km of conductors-wheeler River had not responded. 2005-2006 McArthur Model Essentially prospecting with a drill in known dravitic halos-we had to develop a more focussed programme. Fall 2006 we decided to specifically target alteration chimneys in addition to continued testing of the footwall quartzite.

Alteration Chimneys, K and M Zones 450m 350m

Having Established Alteration Chimneys Exist Can We Find Them Geophysically? Wheeler River J.V. Property 2003 Resistivity Survey

2003 Resistivity Survey Technology: pole-pole IP resistivity Inversion Interpretation: LOKI smoothed Inversion slice at -310m depth

2003 Grid Inverse Model Resistivity Section Line 0

2007 Resistivity Survey: to locate Quartzite and Athabasca Alteration Chimneys Test response of resistivity over known chimneys, at K and M Zones, and look for similar signatures. Underexplored REa Zone Structural complexity Locate quartzite Graphitic corridor cross structures 50% of holes lost in sandstone

Exploration Indicators in the REa Zone

Phoenix Area, Resistivity Survey Final Interpretation (May 2008) Technology: Titan 24 Inversion Interpretation: LOKE smoothed Inversion slice at -400m depth

2007 Resistivity Survey, Target A Inversion Cross Section, Line 43+00 N

Summer 2008 Drill Targets 2.3m @ 0.77 % U3O8 Zone C 1.4m @1.72 % U3O8 Zone A 3 Geophysical Targets A and B - 600 meters along strike of each other C - separate target Both A and B intersected mineralization at the Unconformity (approx. 400m depth) WR-249 Zone A WR-251 Zone C

Section, L 3700 N Graphitic Pelite Identified 4 Key Features: Proximity of mineralization to quartzite A basement stratigraphy consisting of four lithologies: - pelite - graphitic pelite - garnetiferous pelite - quartzite Garnetiferous Pelite The WS Shear 055 strike/55 SE dip to both basement structure and stratigraphy

Winter 2009 Drill Targets WR-256 testing resistivity chimney Mineralization not intersected. Presumed to have overshot based on structure and alteration seen in the sandstone. Previous parameters applied and section reinterpreted. WR-258 drilled as follow up

Section, L 4000 N Sandstone structure identified in WR-256 and followed up with WR-258 using previously defined parameters Sample Length - 15cm Grade - 59.6% U3O8 over 0.5m Location - WR-258, 399.0-399.5m WR-258 intersected 5.5 m @11.82 % U 3 O 8 WR-258 ZONE B Majority of intersections to date discovered by systematic drilling along strike using the four parameters.

2010 Currently Defined Zones

L 4450 N Cross Section - High Grade Mineralization WR-273: 62.6% U 3 O 8 / 6.0m Highest grade mineralization lies directly above the graphitic pelite Located on the hanging wall of the WS Shear and bounded to the east by the WS Hanging Wall Shear Closer proximity to quartzite than lower grade intersections

L 4300 N Selected Holes Schematic Cross Section: Visual Alteration Alteration begins at approx. 200m above the Unconformity. Includes varying amounts of silicification and desilicification. Intensity of alteration increases downhole towards the Unconformity. (increased pyrite, silcification etc.) Large pyrite nodules. Mineralization has high grade core and lower grade peripherys

L 4300N Selected Holes Schematic Cross Section: Visual Alteration Alteration begins at approx. 200m above the Unconformity. Includes varying amounts of silicification and desilicification. Intensity of alteration increases downhole towards the Unconformity. (increased pyrite, silcification etc.) Large pyrite nodules. Mineralization has high grade core and lower grade periphery.

L 4300 N Selected Holes Schematic Cross Section: Visual Alteration Alteration begins at approx. 200m WR-249: 1.4m @ 1.72 % U above the Unconformity. 3 O 8 Includes varying amounts of silicification and desilicification. WR-267: 3.5m @ 19.96 % U Intensity of alteration 3 O 8 increases downhole towards the Unconformity. (increased pyrite, silcification etc.) Large pyrite nodules. WR-306: 7.5m @ 33.22 % U 3 O 8 Mineralization has high grade core and lower grade peripherys

L 4300 N Selected Holes Cross Section - Clay Alteration

L 4300 N Selected Holes Schematic Cross Section: Uranium Values Anomalous Uranium (>0.8ppm U (partial), being the 90th percentile of all Phoenix sandstone samples) reaches up to 100m above the unconformity However, in the D Zone, in the NE portion of the deposit, anomalous uranium reaches up to 150m above the unconformity

Phoenix Deposits (as of August 30, 2010) 4 Zones (A, B, C, D) 105 holes drilled to date > 1km strike length Open to north-east and south-west Extreme NE and SW extensions strongly altered

NI 43-101 Results Resource for the Phoenix Deposits (Zones C and D are not included) Zone Zone A Zone B Category Indicated Inferred Tonnes 89,900 23,800 Lbs U 3 O 8 35,638,000 3,811,000 Grade (% U 3 O 8 ) 17.99 7.27

2011 Plan and Beyond Priority Areas Basement resistivity domains with high amplitude sandstone anomalies. 3D inversion @ the unconformity C$10M Approved budget (Drilling/Geophysics/ Environmental) Targets along strike/trend of current Phoenix Deposits Untested Horizon ~5km Present Drilling Extends ~1km Several priority targets based on resistivity/em Several targets produced from extensive re-logging program

Summary Continuously explored since 1978 Depths to unconformity from 170 to 600 metres Very large project with multiple mineralized horizons made for very difficult zone prioritization Relatively late in exploration history, the JV based exploration on models other than the Key Lake model. This was ultimately successful and directly led to the Phoenix discovery. At the end of the day, however..the Key Lake model is still valid!

Lessons Learned Pick the right area and be flexible in your models Try new technology And stay with the new technology Take ownership of the property

Drill or die!

Thank You!