1. 1

2. 2 Forward Looking Statements This presentation contains certain forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements include but are not limited to those with respect to the availability of electrical power, the planned addition of owner-operated power generation, price of uranium and gold, price of electrical power and sulphuric acid, the estimation of mineral resources and reserves, the realization of mineral reserve estimates, the timing and amount of estimated future production, costs of production, capital expenditures, costs and timing of development of new deposits, success of exploration activities, permitting time lines, currency fluctuations, requirements for additional capital, availability of financing on acceptable terms, government regulation of mining operations, environmental risks, unanticipated reclamation expenses, title disputes or claims and limitations on insurance coverage and the timing and possible outcome of pending litigation. In certain cases, forward-looking statements can be identified by the use of words such as “goal”, “objective”, “plans”, “expects” or “does not expect”, “is expected”, “projected”, “assumed”, “budget”, “scheduled”, “estimates”, “forecasts”, “intends”, “anticipates”, or “does not anticipate”, or “believes” or variations of such words and phrases, or state that certain actions, events or results “may”, “could”, “would”, “might” or “will” be taken, occur or be achieved. Forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors which may cause the actual results, performance or achievements of First Uranium to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievement expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements. Such risks and uncertainties include, among others, the actual results of current exploration activities, conclusions of economic evaluations, changes in project parameters as plans continue to be refined, availability of equipment, materials and fuel, possible variations in grade and ore densities or recovery rates, failure of plant, equipment or processes to operate as anticipated, accidents, labour disputes or other risks of the mining industry, delays in obtaining government approvals or financing or in completion of development or construction activities, risks relating to the integration of acquisitions, to international operations, to prices of uranium and gold, to price of electrical power and sulphuric acid. Although First Uranium has attempted to identify important factors that could cause actual actions, events or results to differ materially from those described in forward-looking statements, there may be other factors that cause actions, events or results not to be as anticipated, estimated or intended. It is important to note, that: (i) unless otherwise indicated, forward-looking statements indicate the Company’s expectations as of the date of this presentation; (ii) actual results may differ materially from the Company’s expectations if known and unknown risks or uncertainties affect its business, or if estimates or assumptions prove inaccurate; (iii) the Company cannot guarantee that any forward-looking statement will materialize and, accordingly, readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements; and (iv) the Company disclaims any intention and assumes no obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statement even if new information becomes available, as a result of future events or for any other reason.

3. 3 Cautionary Note In making the forward-looking statements in this news release, First Uranium has made several material assumptions, including but not limited to, the assumption that: (i) consistent supply of sufficient power will be available to develop and operate the projects as planned; (ii) approvals to transfer or grant, as the case may be, mining rights will be obtained; (iii) metal prices, exchange rates and discount rates applied in the preliminary economic assessments are achieved; (iv) mineral resource estimates are accurate; (v) the technology used to develop and operate its two projects has, for the most part, been proven and will work effectively; (vi) that labour and materials will be sufficiently plentiful as to not impede the projects or add significantly to the estimated cash costs of operations; (vii) that Black Economic Empowerment (“BEE”) investors will maintain their interest in the Company and their investment in the Company’s common shares to a sufficient level to continue to support the Company’s compliance with 2014 BEE requirements; and (viii) that the innovative work on stabilizing the main shaft at the Ezulwini Mine will be successful in maintaining a safe and uninterrupted working environment until 2024. All technical disclosure in this presentation relating to Mine Waste Solutions tailings recovery project (“MWS” and formerly named the Buffelsfontein tailings recovery project) has been prepared in accordance Canadian National Instrument 43-101 (“NI 43-101”) by Daan van Heerden, BSc., M. Comm., Charles Muller, B.Sc., Pr.Sci.Nat., and Johan Odendaal, B.Sc., M.Sc. Pr.Sci.Nat. all of Minxcon Pty Ltd., Trevor Pearton, B.Sc. Eng PhD, FGSA and Mike Valenta, Pr Eng, B.Sc., of Metallicon Process Consulting (Pty) Ltd. each of whom is a “qualified person” and is independent of the Company. Technical information related to MWS is extracted from a technical report entitled “Technical Report – Pre-Feasibility of the Buffelsfontein Tailings Recovery Project, located in Stilfontein, North West Province, Republic of South Africa” submitted on November 1, 2007, revised on March 31, 2008 and prepared in accordance with NI 43-101 by Messrs. Van Heerden, Muller and Odendaal. All technical disclosure in this presentation relating to the Ezulwini Mine has been prepared in accordance with NI 43-101 by R. Dennis Bergen, P. Eng. and Wayne Valliant, P. Geo of Scott Wilson Roscoe Postle Associates Inc., each of whom is a “qualified person” under NI 43-101 and is independent of the Company. Technical information in this presentation relating to the Ezulwini Mine is extracted from a technical report entitled “Technical Report – Preliminary Assessment of the Ezulwini Project, Gauteng Province, Republic of South Africa” (the “Ezulwini Report”) originally submitted on November 8, 2006, revised on December 5, 2006, January 31, 2007, May 9, 2007 and June 5, 2008 prepared in accordance with NI 43-101 by Messrs. Bergen and Valliant. The economic analysis contained in this presentation in respect of the Ezulwini Mine is based, in part, on inferred resources, and is preliminary in nature. Inferred resources are considered too geologically speculative to have mining and economic considerations applied to them and to be categorized as mineral reserves. There is no certainty that the reserves development, production and economic forecast on which the preliminary assessment contained in the Ezulwini Report is based, will be realized. In making the forward-looking statements in this news release, First Uranium has made several material assumptions, including but not limited to, the assumption that: (i) consistent supply of sufficient power will be available to develop and operate the projects as planned; (ii) approvals to transfer or grant, as the case may be, mining rights will be obtained; (iii) metal prices, exchange rates and discount rates applied in the preliminary economic assessments are achieved; (iv) mineral resource estimates are accurate; (v) the technology used to develop and operate its two projects has, for the most part, been proven and will work effectively; (vi) that labour and materials will be sufficiently plentiful as to not impede the projects or add significantly to the estimated cash costs of operations; (vii) that Black Economic Empowerment (“BEE”) investors will maintain their interest in the Company and their investment in the Company’s common shares to a sufficient level to continue to support the Company’s compliance with 2014 BEE requirements; and (viii) that the innovative work on stabilizing the main shaft at the Ezulwini Mine will be successful in maintaining a safe and uninterrupted working environment until 2024. All technical disclosure in this presentation relating to Mine Waste Solutions tailings recovery project (“MWS” and formerly named the Buffelsfontein tailings recovery project) has been prepared in accordance Canadian National Instrument 43-101 (“NI 43-101”) by Daan van Heerden, BSc., M. Comm., Charles Muller, B.Sc., Pr.Sci.Nat., and Johan Odendaal, B.Sc., M.Sc. Pr.Sci.Nat. all of Minxcon Pty Ltd., Trevor Pearton, B.Sc. Eng PhD, FGSA and Mike Valenta, Pr Eng, B.Sc., of Metallicon Process Consulting (Pty) Ltd. each of whom is a “qualified person” and is independent of the Company. Technical information related to MWS is extracted from a technical report entitled “Technical Report – Pre-Feasibility of the Buffelsfontein Tailings Recovery Project, located in Stilfontein, North West Province, Republic of South Africa” submitted on November 1, 2007, revised on March 31, 2008 and prepared in accordance with NI 43-101 by Messrs. Van Heerden, Muller and Odendaal. All technical disclosure in this presentation relating to the Ezulwini Mine has been prepared in accordance with NI 43-101 by R. Dennis Bergen, P. Eng. and Wayne Valliant, P. Geo of Scott Wilson Roscoe Postle Associates Inc., each of whom is a “qualified person” under NI 43-101 and is independent of the Company. Technical information in this presentation relating to the Ezulwini Mine is extracted from a technical report entitled “Technical Report – Preliminary Assessment of the Ezulwini Project, Gauteng Province, Republic of South Africa” (the “Ezulwini Report”) originally submitted on November 8, 2006, revised on December 5, 2006, January 31, 2007, May 9, 2007 and June 5, 2008 prepared in accordance with NI 43-101 by Messrs. Bergen and Valliant. The economic analysis contained in this presentation in respect of the Ezulwini Mine is based, in part, on inferred resources, and is preliminary in nature. Inferred resources are considered too geologically speculative to have mining and economic considerations applied to them and to be categorized as mineral reserves. There is no certainty that the reserves development, production and economic forecast on which the preliminary assessment contained in the Ezulwini Report is based, will be realized.

4. 4 12 Overview of First Uranium Emerging South African metals company with long-life uranium and gold assets Ezulwini Mine Mine Waste Solutions (MWS) Listed on TSX (FIU) and JSE (FUM) ProjectType ofResourceGradeContained NameOperation (1) Category (2) TonnesGoldU3O8U3O8 U3O8U3O8 Mtg/t%(M oz)(M lbs) Ezulwini Mine U/GP&P----- M&I9.956.1n/a1.946.77 Inferred201.455.0n/a32.15218.3 MWSTRP&P325.40.280.00762.9154.77 M&I335.10.270.00752.9555.77 Inferred21.20.280.01000.194.64 ExchangeTSX SymbolFIU Share PriceC$4.29 Shares Outstanding (fully-diluted)131.1 MM Market Capitalization 1 C$562 MM MWS Ezulwini Mine (1)As at April 23, 2008 (1)Underground (U/G) and Tailings Recovery (TR) (2)Measured & Indicated (M&I) reported inclusive of Proven & Probable (P&P) Company Overview Market Statistics (1) Project Locations Resource Summary (1)As at close on September 5, 2008 12

5. 5 Ezulwini Mine Gold and uranium plants as at (July 2008) Ore stockpile

6. 6 Mine Waste Solutions Construction of the second gold plant module and first two uranium plant modules, with the operating gold plant in the background – July 2008

7. 7 Hydraulic mining of the Buffelsfontein tailings to feed the MWS gold plant Mine Waste Solutions

8. 8 Why Invest in First Uranium? 1. Low-cost operator 2. Near-term producer 3. Focused on risk management

9. 9 1. Low-Cost Operator Dual commodity mix by mining uranium and gold together at both projects, the Company expects to become a very low-cost uranium mine operator Brownfield underground mine the Ezulwini Mine began in the 1960’s and left a legacy of existing infrastructure and a well developed underground mine Low-cost tailings recovery project hydraulic mining of materials on surface allows for low-cost mining Management experience management has a long history of mining these types of deposits in this mining jurisdiction, and, in the case of the Ezulwini Mine, direct experience with this site under previous owners Dual commodity mix by mining uranium and gold together at both projects, the Company expects to become a very low-cost uranium mine operator Brownfield underground mine the Ezulwini Mine began in the 1960’s and left a legacy of existing infrastructure and a well developed underground mine Low-cost tailings recovery project hydraulic mining of materials on surface allows for low-cost mining Management experience management has a long history of mining these types of deposits in this mining jurisdiction, and, in the case of the Ezulwini Mine, direct experience with this site under previous owners

10. 10 $ 33 Ezulwini Mine $ 376 Gold (per oz.) U 3 O 8 (per lb.) Mine Waste Solutions Life of Mine Total Co-Product Cash Costs $ 22$ 347

11. 11 Very Competitive Cash Cost Structure Ezulwini Mine Mine Waste Solutions 1)Source: Ezulwini Technical Report Summary Cash Flow Model, 20 Apr 08, assuming total mill feed of 35.7 Mt, total capex of $220 mm, total operating costs of $2.6 bn, and total revenue of $4.7 bn 2)Analysis assumes gold prices of $890 in 2009, $907 in 2010, $874 in 2011, $797 in 2012, and $711 long-term, uranium prices of $96 in 2009, $92 in 2010, $79 in 2011, $75 in 2012, and $50 long- term, and R/US$ exchange rates of 7.27 in 2009, 7.36 in 2010, 7.50 in 2011, 7.45 in 2012, and 7.57 long-term 3)The above analysis is based, in part, on inferred resources, and is preliminary in nature. Inferred resources are considered too geologically speculative to have mining and economic considerations applied to them and to be categorized as Mineral Reserves. There is no certainty that the reserves development, production, and economic forecasts upon which this preliminary assessment is based, will be realized. 1)Source: MWS Technical Report Summary Cash Flow Model, 20 Apr 08, assuming total mill feed of 323.9 Mt, total capex of $241 mm, total operating costs of $186 mm, and total revenue of $2.6 bn 2)Analysis assumes gold prices of $890 in 2009, $907 in 2010, $874 in 2011, $797 in 2012, and $711 long-term, uranium prices of $96 in 2009, $92 in 2010, $79 in 2011, $75 in 2012, and $50 long- term, and R/US$ exchange rates of 7.27 in 2009, 7.36 in 2010, 7.50 in 2011, 7.45 in 2012, and 7.57 long-term 35% Margin 74% Margin

12. 12 2. Near-Term Producer Gold began to account for gold production at MWS with the acquisition of a gold plant in June 2007 began to produce gold at the new plant at the Ezulwini Mine in July 2008 Uranium the uranium plant at the Ezulwini Mine is scheduled for ADU recovery in October 2008 the first two modules of the uranium plant at MWS are on plan for ADU recovery in early 2009 Gold began to account for gold production at MWS with the acquisition of a gold plant in June 2007 began to produce gold at the new plant at the Ezulwini Mine in July 2008 Uranium the uranium plant at the Ezulwini Mine is scheduled for ADU recovery in October 2008 the first two modules of the uranium plant at MWS are on plan for ADU recovery in early 2009

13. 13 Gold Production Schedule Gold Production (000 ozs) For the fiscal year ended March 31

14. 14 Uranium Production Schedule Uranium Production (000 lbs) For the fiscal year ended March 31

15. 15 Project NPVs NAV Build-Up $ 667 Ezulwini Mine (1,2) 413 102 $ 1,062 Add: Cash Balance as at June 30, 2008 Total NAV (1)Source: Ezulwini Technical Report Summary Cash Flow Model, 20 Apr 08, assuming a nominal discount rate of 8% (2)This economic analysis is based, in part, on inferred resources, and is preliminary in nature. Inferred resources are considered too geologically speculative to have mining and economic considerations applied to them and to be categorized as Mineral Reserves. There is no certainty that the reserves development, production and economic forecasts on which this preliminary assessment is based, will be realized. (3)Source: Mine Waste Solutions Technical Report Summary Cash Flow Model, 20 Apr 08, assuming a real discount rate of 8% (4)Source: Press release dated 21 Apr 08, assuming a real discount rate of 8% Project NPV $ 1,108 US$ Millions Mine Waste Solutions (3) New Price Assumptions 28 Acid Plant Operations (4) - 148 Less: Convertible Debentures

16. 16 3. Focused on Risk Management Technical approach using proven technology essentially building the plants that operated at these sites before Geopolitical diversification business development team studying opportunities in N.America Management experience several members of management and the Board have 30 or more years of mining experience, so understand the value of building low-cost operations Shaft rehabilitation Power generation (see following slides) Acid plant Technical approach using proven technology essentially building the plants that operated at these sites before Geopolitical diversification business development team studying opportunities in N.America Management experience several members of management and the Board have 30 or more years of mining experience, so understand the value of building low-cost operations Shaft rehabilitation Power generation (see following slides) Acid plant

17. 17 Risk Management ─ Shaft Rehabilitation at the Ezulwini Mine, ground movement problems were historically encountered by the previous operators who had on occasion curtailed shaft hoisting operations to do maintenance to eliminate the ground control problems, FIU has: installed a hanging steel tower to permit unrestricted shaft operation in the future has a mine plan that includes excavating a de-stress cut through the extent of the 500-metre diameter shaft pillar reinforced an annulus around the shaft to prevent further rock movement from interfering with the shaft operation at the Ezulwini Mine, ground movement problems were historically encountered by the previous operators who had on occasion curtailed shaft hoisting operations to do maintenance to eliminate the ground control problems, FIU has: installed a hanging steel tower to permit unrestricted shaft operation in the future has a mine plan that includes excavating a de-stress cut through the extent of the 500-metre diameter shaft pillar reinforced an annulus around the shaft to prevent further rock movement from interfering with the shaft operation

18. 18 Risk Management ─ Power Generation Requirement for 24MW of self-generated power 14MW able to be met by existing capacity at site 10MW requirement to be drawn from new generator system 10MW requirement reflects peak period operation and generators will not need to run continuously to fill the gap Requirement for 24MW of self-generated power 14MW able to be met by existing capacity at site 10MW requirement to be drawn from new generator system 10MW requirement reflects peak period operation and generators will not need to run continuously to fill the gap Ezulwini Mine Power Gap Analysis 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 Dec-07Feb-08Apr-08Jun-08Aug-08Oct-08Dec-08Feb-09Apr-09Jun-09Aug-09Oct-09Dec-09Feb-10Apr-10Jun-10Aug-10Oct-10 Dec-10 Feb-11 Eskom Available AssumedRequiredGenerated Demand (kVA) Eskom Commitment as of June 9, 2008

19. 19 Risk Management ─ Power Generation Requirement for 14MW of self-generated power 14MW requirement reflects peak period operation and generators will not need to run continuously to fill the gap have placed order for a power plant (12 2.5MW units for 30MW) for $20 million to be commissioned in December 2008 Requirement for 14MW of self-generated power 14MW requirement reflects peak period operation and generators will not need to run continuously to fill the gap have placed order for a power plant (12 2.5MW units for 30MW) for $20 million to be commissioned in December 2008 Mine Waste Solutions Power Gap Analysis 10,000 0 Dec-07 Feb-08 Apr-08Jun-08 Aug-08 Oct-08Dec-08 Feb-09 Apr-09Jun-09 Aug-09 Oct-09Dec-09 Feb-10 Apr-10Jun-10 Aug-10 Oct-10 Dec-10 Feb-11 Eskom Available AssumedRequiredGenerated 5,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 Demand (kVA)

20. 20 Risk Management ─ Sulphur Pricing Sulphuric acid demand forecasted to exceed supply in South Africa Market dynamics have led to sharp increases in acid price Even at elevated prices, acid may not be available Sulphuric acid demand forecasted to exceed supply in South Africa Market dynamics have led to sharp increases in acid price Even at elevated prices, acid may not be available Notes: 1. ‘fob’ means “free on board” and indicates that the quoted price includes the cost of loading the goods into transport vessels at the specified location 2. ‘cfr’ means “cost and freight” and indicates that the cost of the goods and freight charges are included in the quoted price; while the buyer arranges for and pays insurance 3. As South Africa is a net importer of sulphur, local suppliers practice import parity pricing with industry recognized benchmark prices as shown Sulphur Spot Price (Historical to Date)

21. 21 Risk Management ─ Sulphuric Acid Plant Construction of 600tpd acid plant allows FIU to: Secure supply of low-cost sulphuric acid upon expected completion of plant in January 2010 Benefit from feed-stock availability in the pyrite within tailings dams Improve the economics at both Ezulwini and MWS Generate incremental revenue through the sale of excess acid production into the spot market Construction of 600tpd acid plant allows FIU to: Secure supply of low-cost sulphuric acid upon expected completion of plant in January 2010 Benefit from feed-stock availability in the pyrite within tailings dams Improve the economics at both Ezulwini and MWS Generate incremental revenue through the sale of excess acid production into the spot market Life of mine acid consumption1.9 Mt Total capital$124 mm Operating cost of acid plant per tonne of acid produced$14/t PV of acid costs at IPO ($60/t) (1) $59 mm Long-term acid price assumptionsLowHigh PV of acid costs using forward acid price assumptions (2) $138 mm$205 mm PV of acid costs assuming addition of acid plant operations (2,3) $33 mm($20) mm Secured low-cost sulphuric acid supply 1)Present value assuming a discount rate of 8.0% 2)Low acid price assumptions reflect prices of $350/t in 2009, $265/t in 2010, $170/t from 2011-14, and $95/t thereafter; high acid price assumptions reflect prices of $350/t in 2009, $265/t in 2010, and $200/t thereafter 3)Acid plant operations assume acid costing of $14/t for the life of mine, incremental capital costs of $124 million, and incremental revenue from the sale of acid produced from excess capacity to third parties at prices outlined in footnote (1) above

22. 22 First Uranium Growth Agenda Organic Growth at Current Project Sites Regional Consolidation Exploration adjacent to the Ezulwini Mine Investigating a North American growth strategy

23. Southern African Supply and Demand 23 Eskom Demand Namibia – Langer Heinrich (Paladin Energy) Namibia – Rössing (Rio Tinto) South Africa – Dominion (Uranium One) South Africa – Vaal River (Anglo Ashanti) Malawi – Kayelekera (Paladin Energy) Namibia – Rössing additions (Rio Tinto) South Africa – Ezulwini Mine (First Uranium) South Africa – Mine Waste Solutions (First Uranium) Namibia – Trekkopje (UraMin)

24. 24 First Uranium Corporation CONTACT INFORMATION Bob Tait Vice President, Investor Relations 155 University Avenue, Suite 1240 Toronto, Ontario M5H 3B7 eMailbob@firsturanium.com Office+(416) 342-5639 Fax +(416) 342-5632 Mobile+(416) 558-3858 5 Press Avenue, Selby Johannesburg, 2025 P.O.Box 82291 Southdale, 2135 South Africa +27 11 830-0390 CONTACT INFORMATION Bob Tait Vice President, Investor Relations 155 University Avenue, Suite 1240 Toronto, Ontario M5H 3B7 eMailbob@firsturanium.com Office+(416) 342-5639 Fax +(416) 342-5632 Mobile+(416) 558-3858 5 Press Avenue, Selby Johannesburg, 2025 P.O.Box 82291 Southdale, 2135 South Africa +27 11 830-0390 CORPORATE WEBSITE www.firsturanium.com TORONTO STOCK EXCHANGE Common share symbol: FIU Convertible Debentures: FIU.DB JOHANNESBURG STOCK EXCHANGE Common share symbol: FUM CORPORATE WEBSITE www.firsturanium.com TORONTO STOCK EXCHANGE Common share symbol: FIU Convertible Debentures: FIU.DB JOHANNESBURG STOCK EXCHANGE Common share symbol: FUM

25. 25 Metal Price Assumptions (in US dollars) Gold Price Assumptions ($/ounce) The December 2007 and April 2008 real term commodity price assumptions are based on the consensus of the nominal forecasts by the investment research analysts at 13 North American-based brokerage firms, adjusted downward by the US inflation rate for the period covering the construction of the Project.

26. 26 Metal Price Assumptions (in US dollars) Uranium Price Assumptions ($/pound) The December 2007 and April 2008 real term commodity price assumptions are based on the consensus of the nominal forecasts by the investment research analysts at 13 North American-based brokerage firms, adjusted downward by the US inflation rate for the period covering the construction of the Project.

27. 27 Exchange Rate Assumptions South African Rand per US Dollar The April 2008 exchange rate assumption is based on the consensus of the nominal forecasts by the investment research analysts at 13 North American-based brokerage firms.

28. 28 Sulphuric Acid Price Assumptions Sulphuric Acid Price (US$/tonne)

29. 29 Ezulwini Mine Resources Tonnes (t 000s) Gold Grade (g/t) U 3 0 8 Grade (%) Cont. Gold (oz 000s) Cont.U 3 0 8 (lb 000s) (1) CIM definitions were followed for mineral resources. (2) Mineral resources in the Upper Elsburg shaft pillar are estimated at a 4.0 g/t cutoff grade. (3) Mineral resources are estimated using an average long-term gold price of US$500 per ounce, and a US$/R exchange rate of 7.40. UE Shaft Pillar Middle Elsburg UE Shaft Pillar Middle Elsburg Measured + Indicated Reef 6,130 3,820 6,130 3,820 Total 6.6 5.2 6.6 5.2 - 0.080 - 0.080 1,298 641 1,298 641 - 6,768 - 6,768 9,950 6.1 n/a 1,939 6,768 UE Shaft Pillar Middle Elsburg Channel Middle Elsburg UE Shaft Pillar Middle Elsburg Channel Middle Elsburg Inferred Reef 64,550 4,810 132,100 64,550 4,810 132,100 Total 5.8 2.3 4.7 5.8 2.3 4.7 - 0.075 - 0.075 12,055 351 19,742 12,055 351 19,742 - 218,319 - 218,319 201,460 5.0 n/a 32,148 218,319 (4) A minimum mining width of 1.53 m was used. (5) Rows and columns may not add exactly due to rounding. (6) Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. 20% = 18 Year Mine Life April 2007

30. 30 Indicated Notes: (1) Mineral resources are quoted as in-situ mineral resources. (2) No cutoff grades were applied. (3) Rows and columns may not add exactly due to rounding. (4) Mineral resources are quoted as inclusive of mineral reserves. Resources which are not reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. (5) MWS 4 Dam is split into two domains, namely Domain 1, which is the uppermost section of the dam, and Domain 2, the lowermost portion of the dam. The tailings dam has been evaluated in two separate sections as they show distinct differences in grade. 235.7 0.26 1,984 0.007 37.44 16 Year Mine Life Tonnes (millions) Grade (g/t) Mine Waste Solutions - Mineral Resources Total Inferred 21.2 0.28 189 0.010 4.64 Measured 99.4 0.30 965 0.008 18.33 Total M&I 335.1 0.27 2,949 0.008 55.77 March 31 2008 Gold Content (‘000 oz) Uranium Grade (%) Content (M lb)

31. 31 Probable Notes: (1) Mineral reserves are quoted as fully diluted delivered to mill estimates. (2) Based on assumptions of a gold price of $711 per ounce, a uranium price of $49 per pound and ZAR/$ exchange rate of 7.57, which are long-term forecast figures. (3) A reserve cutoff grade of 0.28 grams per tonne gold equivalent was used. Uranium grades were converted to gold equivalent using a conversion factor of 1 gram per tonne, which equals 0.503 kilograms per tonne on an extracted metal basis. (4) Rows and columns may not add exactly due to rounding. (5) The average LOM gold recovery applied was 68% and 34% for uranium. (6) Only Domain 2 of the MWS 4 Dam has been converted to a Mineral Reserve as the gold grade in Domain 1 is below cut-off. 226.0 0.27 1,941 0.007 36.44 16 Year Mine Life Tonnes (millions) Grade (g/t) Mine Waste Solutions - Mineral Reserves Proven 99.4 0.30 965 0.008 18.33 Total Proven & Probable 325.4 0.28 2,907 0.008 54.77 March 31, 2008 Gold Content (‘000 oz) Uranium Grade (%) Content (M lb)