UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, DC 20549

FORM 6-K

Report of Foreign Private Issuer
Pursuant to Rule 13a-16 or 15d-16 Under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

For the month of March, 2007

Cameco Corporation

(Commission file No. 1-14228)

2121-11th Street West
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada S7M 1J3
(Address of Principal Executive Offices)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual reports under cover Form 20-F or Form 40-F.

Form 20-F o      Form 40-F þ

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant by furnishing the information contained in this Form is also thereby furnishing the information to the Commission pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Yes o      No þ

If “Yes” is marked, indicate below the file number assigned to the registrant in connection with Rule 12g3-2(b):

 

 

Exhibit Index

Exhibit No.		Description		Page No.
1.		Cigar Lake Project, Northern Saskatchewan Technical Report dated March 30, 2007

SIGNATURE

     Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

Cigar Lake Project

Northern Saskatchewan, Canada

National Instrument 43-101

Technical Report

Effective Date, March 30, 2007

Prepared by:
Cameco Corporation

Alain G. Mainville, P.Geo.
Barry W. Schmitke, P.Eng.
Douglas G. McIlveen, P.Geo.
Charles R. Edwards, P.Eng.

		CAMECO CORPORATION CIGAR LAKE PROJECT, NORTHERN SASKATCHEWAN, CANADA NI 43-101 TECHNICAL REPORT

Table of Contents

1 SUMMARY			1
1.1 Property Tenure			1
1.2 Location and Site Description			2
1.3 Geology and Mineralization			2
1.4 Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves			3
1.5 Exploration of Cigar Lake Deposit			6
1.6 Exploration of Waterbury Lake Property			6
1.7 Mining			7
1.8 Processing			9
1.9 Environmental Assessment and Licensing			10
1.10 Status of Development Prior to the Water Inflow Incidents			12
1.11 Water Inflow Incidents and Remediation			12
1.12 Current Status of Development			13
1.13 Production Plan			14
1.14 Economic Analysis			16
1.15 Project Risks			17
1.16 Conclusions and Recommendations			18
2 INTRODUCTION			21
2.1 Introduction and Purpose			21
2.2 Scope of Work			21
2.3 Report Basis			22
3 RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS			23
4 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION			24
4.1 Location			24
4.2 Mineral Tenure			26
4.3 Surface Tenure			28
4.4 Mine and Infrastructure			30
4.5 Royalties			32
4.6 Known Environmental Liabilities			32
4.7 Permitting			32
5 ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND PHYSIOGRAPHY			33
5.1 Access			33
5.2 Climate			34
5.3 Physiography			35
5.4 Local Resources			35
5.5 Infrastructure			36
6 HISTORY			38
6.1 Ownership			38
6.2 Exploration and Development History			39
6.3 Historical Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve Estimates			41
6.3.1 Historical Estimates: 1984 - 1999			41
6.3.2 Historical Estimates: 2000-2005			45
6.4 Historical Production — Test Mining			47

March 30, 2007		Table of Contents i

		CAMECO CORPORATION CIGAR LAKE PROJECT, NORTHERN SASKATCHEWAN, CANADA NI 43-101 TECHNICAL REPORT

7 GEOLOGICAL SETTING			48
7.1 Regional Geology			48
7.2 Local Geology			48
7.3 Property Geology			51
8 DEPOSIT TYPES			53
9 MINERALIZATION			54
10 EXPLORATION			56
10.1 Asamera 1976 – 1979			56
10.2 AREVA 1980 – Present			57
11 DRILLING			61
11.1 Surface Drilling			61
11.2 Underground Drilling			65
11.3 Comparison of Exploration and Underground Freeze Hole Drill Results			67
12 SAMPLING METHOD AND APPROACH			69
12.1 Sample Density and Sampling Methods			69
12.2 Core Recovery			70
12.3 Sample Quality and Representativeness			71
12.4 Sample Composites With Values and Estimated True Widths			71
13 SAMPLE PREPARATION, ANALYSES AND SECURITY			73
13.1 Sample Preparation by Company Employees			73
13.2 Sample Preparation			73
13.3 Assaying			73
13.4 Radiometric Surveying and Assaying			75
13.5 Density Determinations			76
13.6 Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC)			76
13.7 Sample Security			77
13.8 Adequacy of Sample Preparation, Assaying, QA/QC, and Security			78
14 DATA VERIFICATION			79
15 ADJACENT PROPERTIES			80
16 MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING			81
16.1 Overview			81
16.2 Processing at Cigar Lake			83
16.2.1 Metallurgical Testwork			83
16.2.2 Cigar Lake Flowsheet			83
16.3 Processing at McClean Lake			84
16.3.1 Metallurgical Testwork			84
16.3.2 McClean Lake JEB Flowsheet Modifications			85
16.4 Processing at Rabbit Lake			86
16.4.1 Metallurgical Testwork			87
16.4.2 Rabbit Lake Flowsheet Modifications			87
17 MINERAL RESOURCE AND MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES			88
17.1 Definitions			88
17.2 Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves			90
17.2.1 Cut-off Grade			90
17.2.2 Geological Modelling			91
17.2.3 Block Modelling			93
17.2.4 Resource Estimates and Classification			97

March 30, 2007		Table of Contents ii

		CAMECO CORPORATION CIGAR LAKE PROJECT, NORTHERN SASKATCHEWAN, CANADA NI 43-101 TECHNICAL REPORT

17.2.5 Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve Estimates			98
17.3 Discussion on Factors Potentially Affecting Materiality of Resources and Reserves			101
18 ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR TECHNICAL REPORTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROPERTIES AND PRODUCTION PROPERTIES			103
18.1 Mining			103
18.1.1 Geotechnical Characteristics of the Deposit			103
18.1.2 Hydrogeology			106
18.1.3 Test Mining Activities			107
18.1.4 Mine Operations			111
18.1.5 Jet Boring Mining Method			114
18.1.6 Production Criteria and Assumptions			116
18.1.7 Excavation and Ground Support			117
18.1.8 Freezing			118
18.1.9 Mine Access and Development			119
18.1.10 Ventilation			121
18.1.11 Mining Equipment			121
18.1.12 Production Schedule			122
18.2 Recoverability			125
18.3 Markets			125
18.3.1 Worldwide Uranium Supply and Demand			125
18.3.2 Uranium Markets and Prices			127
18.4 Contracts			129
18.4.1 Construction Period			129
18.4.2 Operating Period			130
18.4.3 Toll Milling Contracts			130
18.4.4 Uranium Sales Contracts			133
18.5 Environmental Considerations			135
18.5.1 Regulatory Framework			135
18.5.2 Environmental Assessment			135
18.5.3 Licences and Permits			137
18.5.4 Water Treatment and Effluent Discharge			138
18.5.5 Ore Processing and Tailings			139
18.5.6 Waste Rock			139
18.5.7 Reclamation / Remediation			140
18.6 Taxes and Royalties			140
18.6.1 Taxes			140
18.6.2 Royalties			141
18.7 Capital and Operating Cost Estimates			143
18.7.1 Project Construction Status			143
18.7.2 Capital and Remediation Costs			146
18.7.3 Operating Cost Estimates			150
18.7.4 Economic Analysis			153
18.7.5 Payback			156
18.7.6 Mine Life			156
19 OTHER RELEVANT DATA AND INFORMATION			157
19.1 Cigar Lake Water Inflow Incidents Investigations			157
19.1.1 April 5, 2006 Water Inflow Incident			157
19.1.2 October 23, 2006 Water Inflow Incident			157
19.2 Mine Inflow Staged Remediation Plan			157
19.3 Staged Remediation and Completion Plan for No. 2 Shaft			161

March 30, 2007		Table of Contents iii

		CAMECO CORPORATION CIGAR LAKE PROJECT, NORTHERN SASKATCHEWAN, CANADA NI 43-101 TECHNICAL REPORT

19.4 Project Risks			162
20 INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS			164
21 RECOMMENDATIONS			167
22 REFERENCES			169
23 DATE AND SIGNATURE PAGE			172
Tables
Table 1-1: Summary of Mineral Resources – March 16, 2007			4
Table 1-2: Summary of Mineral Reserves – March 16, 2007			5
Table 6-1: Historical Resource Estimate – SERU, November 1984			42
Table 6-2: Historical Resource Estimate – Cogema, January 1985			42
Table 6-3: Historical Resource Estimate – Cogema, September 1986			43
Table 6-4: Historical Phase 1 Reserve Estimate – Cogema, December 1993			44
Table 6-5: Historical Phase 2 Resource Estimate – CLMC and Idemitsu, December 1993			44
Table 6-6: Historical Reserves – as of December 31, 1998			45
Table 6-7: Historical Reserves – as of December 31, 1999			45
Table 6-8: Mineral Reserves as of December 31, 2005			46
Table 6-9: Historical Production – Test Mining			47
Table 10-1: Asamera Summary of Exploration, Waterbury Lake Lands			56
Table 10-2: AREVA, Summary of Exploration, Waterbury Lake Lands			60
Table 11-1: Summary of Holes Drilled within ML-5521			61
Table 17-1: Cut-off Grade Parameters			91
Table 17-2: Sensitivities to Cut-off Grade			97
Table 17-3: Summary of Mineral Resources – March 16, 2007			100
Table 17-4: Summary of Mineral Reserves – March 16, 2007			101
Table 18-1: Rock Geotechnical Classification			104
Table 18-2: Underground Mining Equipment			122
Table 18-3: Cigar Lake Production Schedule Summary			124
Table 18-4: Expected Average Uranium Sales Prices			134
Table 18-5 Expected Royalties to be Incurred by Cameco for Cigar Lake			143
Table 18-6: Summary of Remaining Capital and Remediation Costs by Year			147
Table 18-7: Summary of Capital and Remediation Costs by Cost Area			149
Table 18-8: Cigar Lake Project Operating Cost Forecast by Year			152
Table 18-9:Cigar Lake Project Economic Analysis – Cameco’s Share			154
Figures
Figure 1-1: Mine Production (tonnes ore)			15
Figure 1-2: Mill Production (lbs U3O8)			15
Figure 4-1: Cigar Lake Mineral Property, Project Location			25
Figure 4-2: Mineral Lease and Claims Map			27
Figure 4-3: Map of Mine Facilities and Surface Lease			29
Figure 4-4: Site Plan Showing Existing and Planned Surface Facilities			31
Figure 5-1: Cigar Lake Site – Regional Location and Roads			34

March 30, 2007		Table of Contents iv

		CAMECO CORPORATION CIGAR LAKE PROJECT, NORTHERN SASKATCHEWAN, CANADA NI 43-101 TECHNICAL REPORT

Figure 7-1: Cigar Lake Deposit – Geological Basement Setting			50
Figure 7-2: Cigar Lake Deposit – Schematic Cross Section			52
Figure 10-1: Exploration Drillholes and Grids			59
Figure 11-1: Cigar Lake Deposit – Surface Drill Hole Locations Phase 2			64
Figure 11-2: Cigar Lake Deposit – Underground and Surface Drill Hole Locations – Phase 1			66
Figure 11-3: Extent of Mineralization as Defined by Surface and Underground Drilling, Section 10749E			68
Figure 12-1:Histogram of Composite Grades			72
Figure 16-1: Cigar Lake Ore Processing Activities – Block Flow Sheet			82
Figure 17-1: Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve Estimate – March, 2007			92
Figure 17-2: Phase 1 Mineral Reserves and Mineral Resources – March 2007			95
Figure 17-3: Phase 2 Mineral Resources – March 2007			96
Figure 18-1: Schematic Geotechnical Model of the Deposit			105
Figure 18-2: Jet Boring Test 2000			110
Figure 18-3: Three Dimensional General Mine Layout			113
Figure 18-4: Three Dimensional of Mining Method			116
Figure 18-5: Mill Production (lbs U3O8) Figure 18-6: Mine Production (tonnes ore)			124
Figure 18-7: Uranium Price History			129
Figure 18-8: Cigar Lake Project Sensitivity Analysis			155
Figure 19-1: Cigar Lake Remediation Plan – Phase 1			159
Appendices
APPENDIX 1 – SURFACE DRILL HOLES

March 30, 2007		Table of Contents v

		CAMECO CORPORATION CIGAR LAKE PROJECT, NORTHERN SASKATCHEWAN, CANADA NI 43-101 TECHNICAL REPORT

Units of Measure and abbreviations

a		Annum (year)
%		Percent
°		Degrees
°C		Degrees Celsius
cm		Centimetres
d		Day
g		Grams
g/cm3		Grams per cubic centimetre
g/m3		Grams per cubic metre
h		Hour(s)
ha		Hectares (10,000 square metres)
HP		Horsepower
Hwy		Highway
IRR		Internal rate of return
K		Thousand
kg		Kilograms
km		Kilometres
km/h		Kilometres per hour
km2		Square kilometres
kV		Kilovolts
kW		Kilowatts
l		Litre
Lbs		Pounds
M		Million
Mt		Million tonnes
m		Metres
m2/t/d		Square metres per tonne per day (thickening)
m3		Cubic metres
m3/h		Cubic metres per hour
m%U		metres times per cent uranium
m%U3O8		metres times per cent uranium oxide
masl		Metres above sea level (elevation)
mm		Millimetres
MPa		Megapascal
Mt/a		Million dry tonnes per year
MW		Megawatts
N		Newton
NPV		Net present value
Pa		Pascal (Newtons per square metre)
ppm		Parts per million
p80		80% passing (particle size nomenclature)
st		Short tons
SX		Solvent extraction
t		Tonnes (metric)
t/h		Tonnes per hour
t/d		Tonnes per day
t/a		Tonnes per year
U		Uranium
%U		Percent uranium (%U x 1.179 = % U3O8)
U3O8		Uranium oxide (yellowcake)
%U3O8		Percent uranium oxide (% U3O8 x 0.848 = %U)
Cdn$		Canadian Dollars
Cdn$M		Million Canadian Dollars

March 30, 2007		Table of Contents vi

		CAMECO CORPORATION CIGAR LAKE PROJECT, NORTHERN SASKATCHEWAN, CANADA NI 43-101 TECHNICAL REPORT

US$		US dollars
US$M		Million US dollars
$/t		Canadian dollars per tonne
US$/lb		US dollars per pound
US$/t		US dollars per tonne
W/W%		per cent solids by weight
>		Greater than
<		Less than

March 30, 2007		Table of Contents vii

		CAMECO CORPORATION CIGAR LAKE PROJECT, NORTHERN SASKATCHEWAN, CANADA NI 43-101 TECHNICAL REPORT

1		SUMMARY
		Cigar Lake is the world’s second largest known high-grade uranium deposit and is located in Northern Saskatchewan. Cigar Lake is owned by joint venture partners Cameco Corporation (“Cameco”) (50.025%), AREVA Resources Canada Inc. (“AREVA”) (37.1%), Idemitsu Canada Resources Ltd. (“Idemitsu”) (7.875%) and TEPCO Resources Inc. (“TEPCO”) (5.0%). Cameco is the operator and has been since January 2002. In December 2004, the Cigar Lake Joint Venture (“CLJV”) decided to proceed with development of the Cigar Lake mine and received a construction licence from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (“CNSC”) that same month. Construction of the project began on January 1, 2005 and is expected to be complete in 2010, with commissioning of the mine facilities in ore and commercial production targeted for 2010. These activities are subject to regulatory approval. The mine and facilities have been designed to produce at a rate of 18 million pounds U3O8 per year when the project reaches full operation.
		This technical report has been prepared for Cameco by, or under the supervision of, internal qualified persons in support of disclosure of new scientific and technical information that is material to the Cigar Lake project as contained in Cameco’s Annual Information Form for 2006, Cameco’s Management Discussion and Analysis filed with securities regulators on March 19, 2007, and a press release by Cameco on March 18, 2007. This new material scientific and technical information includes an updated capital cost estimate and a production forecast that are considered necessary because of the October 23, 2006 water inflow at Cigar Lake.
1.1		Property Tenure
		The mineral property consists of one mineral lease, totalling 308 ha, and 25 mineral claims totalling 92,740 ha. The mineral lease and mineral claims are contiguous. The Cigar Lake deposit is located in the area subject to mineral lease ML 5521. The right to mine this uranium deposit was acquired under this mineral lease. The current mineral lease expires December 1, 2011 with the right to renew for successive 10-year terms absent a default by Cameco.
		The surface facilities and mine shafts for the Cigar Lake project are located on lands owned by the province of Saskatchewan. Cameco acquired the right to use and occupy the lands under a surface lease agreement with the province. The most recent surface lease was signed in May 2004 and is valid for 33 years. The lease is renewable if necessary until full property decommissioning has been achieved. The Cigar Lake surface lease covers a total of 959 ha.

March 30, 2007		Page 1 of 173

		CAMECO CORPORATION CIGAR LAKE PROJECT, NORTHERN SASKATCHEWAN, CANADA NI 43-101 TECHNICAL REPORT

1.2		Location and Site Description
		The Cigar Lake minesite is located near Waterbury Lake, approximately 660 km north of Saskatoon. Access to the property is by an all weather road and by air. All supplies to the site and shipment of product are transported by truck year round. Site activities are carried out throughout the year.
		The topography and the environment are typical of the taiga forested lands common to the Athabasca basin area of northern Saskatchewan. The area is covered with 30 to 50 m of overburden. The surface facilities are at an elevation of approximately 490 masl.
		The site is connected to the provincial electricity grid with standby generators installed in case of grid power interruption.
		Personnel are recruited from the northern communities and throughout Saskatchewan and other provinces. The development and construction work is tendered to a number of contractors.
1.3		Geology and Mineralization
		The Cigar Lake deposit is located 40 km inside the margin of the eastern part of the Athabasca basin. It is an unconformity related uranium deposit and occurs at the unconformity contact between rock of the Athabasca group and underlying lower Proterozoic Wollaston Group metasedimentary rocks, an analogous setting to the Key Lake, McClean Lake, and Collins Bay deposits. It shares many geological similarities with these deposits, including general structural setting, mineralogy, geochemistry, host rock association and the age of the mineralization.
		The Cigar Lake deposit is distinguished from other similar deposits by its size, its high grade, and the degree of associated hydrothermal clay alteration. The geological setting at Cigar Lake is similar to that at the McArthur River mine in that the sandstone overlying the basement rocks of the deposit contains significant water at high hydrostatic pressure.
		The deposit is flat lying, approximately 1950 m long, 20 to 100 m wide, and ranges up to 16 m thick, with an average thickness of about 6 m. It occurs at depths ranging between 410 and 450 m below the surface.
		Three distinct styles of mineralization occur within the Cigar Lake deposit: high grade mineralization at the unconformity (“unconformity” mineralization) which includes the ore; fracture controlled, vein-like mineralization higher up in the

March 30, 2007		Page 2 of 173

		CAMECO CORPORATION CIGAR LAKE PROJECT, NORTHERN SASKATCHEWAN, CANADA NI 43-101 TECHNICAL REPORT

		sandstone (“perched” mineralization); and fracture controlled, vein-like mineralization in the basement rock mass.
		The body of high grade mineralization located at the unconformity contains the bulk of the total uranium metal in the deposit and currently represents the economically viable style of mineralization, considering the available mining methods and ground conditions. It is characterized by the occurrence of massive clays and high-grade uranium concentrations.
		The high-grade, unconformity mineralization consists primarily of three dominant rock and mineral facies occurring in varying proportions. These are quartz, clay (primarily chlorite with lesser illite) and metallic minerals (oxides, arsenides, sulphides). In the two higher grade eastern lenses, the ore consists of approximately 50% clay matrix, 20% quartz and 30% metallic minerals, visually estimated by volume. In this area, the unconformity mineralization is overlain by a very weakly mineralized contiguous clay cap one to five metres thick. In the lower grade western lens, the proportion changes to approximately 20% clay, 60% quartz and 20% metallic minerals.
1.4		Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves
		The known mineralization at Cigar Lake has been divided into two areas; the eastern area, Phase 1 and the western area, Phase 2. Delineation drilling of the deposit was concentrated on Phase 1, which contains the Indicated Mineral Resources and Proven Mineral Reserves for the Cigar Lake project. Phase 2 has had less drilling and all resources in this area are in the Inferred Mineral Resource category. The known mineralization in Phase 1 is thicker and higher grade than that in Phase 2.
		The Phase 1 Mineral Resource and Reserve estimates are based on 150 drillholes from surface, of which 93 intersected the orebody, at a nominal drillhole grid spacing of 50 m east-west by 20 m north-south. The Phase 2 Mineral Resource estimate is based on 53 drillholes, of which 19 intersected the mineralization, from surface at a nominal drillhole grid spacing of 200 m east-west by 20 m north-south.
		A summary of the Mineral Resources in the Cigar Lake deposit with an effective date of March 16, 2007 is shown in Table 1-1. Alain G. Mainville, P.Geo., of Cameco, is the qualified person within the meaning of National Instrument 43-101 Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (“NI 43-101”) for the purpose of the Mineral Resource and Reserve estimates.

March 30, 2007		Page 3 of 173

		CAMECO CORPORATION CIGAR LAKE PROJECT, NORTHERN SASKATCHEWAN, CANADA NI 43-101 TECHNICAL REPORT

Table 1-1: Summary of Mineral Resources – March 16, 2007

						Total								Total				Cameco’s Share
						Tonnes				Grade				Lbs U3O8				Lbs U3O8
Category		Area				(x 1000)				%U3O8				(millions)				(millions)
Phase 1
Measured		Phase 1					—				—				—				—
Indicated		Phase 1					61				4.9				6.6				3.3
Total		Phase 1					61				4.9				6.6				3.3
Phase 2
Inferred		Phase 2					317				16.9				118.2				59.1

A summary of the Mineral Reserves with an effective date of March 16, 2007 is shown in Table 1-2.

March 30, 2007		Page 4 of 173

		CAMECO CORPORATION CIGAR LAKE PROJECT, NORTHERN SASKATCHEWAN, CANADA NI 43-101 TECHNICAL REPORT

Table 1-2: Summary of Mineral Reserves – March 16, 2007

Total

Total

Cameco’s Share

Tonnes

Grade

Lbs U3O8

Lbs U3O8

Category

Area

(x 1000)

%U3O8

(millions)

(millions)

Proven

Phase 1

497

20.7

226.3

113.2

Probable

Phase 1

—

—

—

—

Total

Cigar Lake

497

20.7

226.3

113.2

The current mining project has been designed to extract the Mineral Reserves in Phase 1. Compared to previous Mineral Resources and Reserves disclosed by Cameco, as of December 31, 2005, the Proven Mineral Reserves remain unchanged at 226.3 million pounds and the Probable Mineral Reserves have been reclassified as Indicated Resources due to a change in the cut-off grade. The Inferred Resources in Phase 2 also remains unchanged. Mineral Resources in Phase 2 are in the Inferred category and have been evaluated from a preliminary perspective only and further drilling and mining studies are needed before these Mineral Resources can be fully evaluated. Inferred Mineral Resources have a great amount of uncertainty as to their existence and as to whether they can be mined legally or economically. It cannot be assumed that all or any part of the Inferred Mineral Resources will ever be upgraded to a higher category.

March 30, 2007		Page 5 of 173

		CAMECO CORPORATION CIGAR LAKE PROJECT, NORTHERN SASKATCHEWAN, CANADA NI 43-101 TECHNICAL REPORT

1.5		Exploration of Cigar Lake Deposit
		The Cigar Lake uranium deposit was discovered in 1981 on mineral lease ML-5521 by drillhole number 15 of a regional programme of diamond drill testing of geophysical anomalies (electromagnetic conductors) located by airborne and ground geophysical surveys. The deposit was subsequently delineated by a major surface drilling program during the period 1982 to 1986, followed by several small campaigns of drilling for geotechnical and infill holes to 1998 when the last surface hole was drilled. In total, 92,022 m of diamond drilling was completed in 227 surface holes. Of the 227 surface drill holes and wedged intersections drilled, 112 have been drilled within the geologically interpreted deposit limits and intersected minimum mineralized intervals with grade times thickness (GT) value greater than 3.0 m%U3O8 (2.5 m%U), equivalent to 2.5 m at 1.2% U3O8.
		In addition to the surface holes, diamond drilling has been done from underground access locations primarily to ascertain rock mass characteristics in advance of development and mining, both in ore and waste rock. In the period from 1989 to 2006, 132 underground diamond drill holes totalling 11,108 m were drilled. Only seven of these underground holes have intersected the orebody.
		A total of 347 freeze and temperature monitoring holes have been drilled to the end of 2006 during the construction phase, of which approximately 150 have been gamma surveyed. The freeze holes are drilled by percussion methods so no core is available for assays and uranium content is estimated by probing the holes with radiometrics. Cameco plans to reconfirm the current conversion factors for estimating uranium grade from the radiometrics by drilling several core holes and using them for calibration purposes.
1.6		Exploration of Waterbury Lake Property
		Mineral lease ML-5521, which covers the Cigar Lake deposit, is surrounded by 25 mineral claims. AREVA is responsible for all exploration activity on these 25 surrounding claims under the CLJV agreements. (For the purposes of this Section 1.6, these mineral claims are called the Waterbury Lake property).
		The Waterbury Lake property was initially acquired by Asamera Oil Corporation Ltd. (“Asamera”) with the first three claim blocks staked in 1975, a fourth in 1976 and a permit created in 1977. Asamera conducted various field investigations from 1976 to 1980 including completion of three diamond drillholes in 1978 and one in 1979. None of these drillholes intersected the deposit.

March 30, 2007		Page 6 of 173

		CAMECO CORPORATION CIGAR LAKE PROJECT, NORTHERN SASKATCHEWAN, CANADA NI 43-101 TECHNICAL REPORT

		In 1980, S.E.R.U. Nucléaire Canada Limitée (“SERU”) took over as operator of the Waterbury Lake property. During the years 1980 to 1986, SERU (a predecessor company of AREVA) completed various airborne and ground geophysical programs, lake sediment and water sampling programs and substantial diamond drilling.
		During 1981, fourteen exploration holes were drilled by SERU on the Waterbury Lake property, followed by the Cigar Lake deposit discovery hole. Subsequent to that discovery, the majority of exploration activities over the next few years were concentrated on ML-5521, which hosts the Cigar Lake deposit, with only moderate activity on the Waterbury Lake property. All exploration activities ceased after the 1986 field season for a period of 12 years, until exploration work on the Waterbury Lake property recommenced in 1999.
		The 1999 work program started with a period of data compilation and review of all work conducted to date, following which additional exploration was started focussing upon developing further understanding of the Cigar trend, and developing knowledge of the large, unexplored parts of the project. Since the inception of exploration activities to the end of the 2006 drilling program, a total of 76 exploration diamond drillholes (totalling 35,285 m) and an additional 38 shallow drillholes (totalling 2,140 m) have been completed on the Waterbury Lake property.
		During the 2006 exploration program, a drillhole located 700 m east of the Cigar Lake orebody had an intercept with a radiometric grade of 21% U3O8 over a vertical thickness of 7.7 m. An AREVA exploration program planned for 2007 will follow up on this intersection.
1.7		Mining
		The mining of the Cigar Lake deposit faces many challenges including control of groundwater, weak rock formations, and radiation protection. Based on these challenges it was identified that a non-entry mining method would be required to mine the deposit.
		The jet boring mining method was selected for the mining of the Cigar Lake deposit after many years of exploration and test mining activities following the discovery of the deposit in 1981. The method consists of cutting approximately 4.5 m diameter cavities with a high pressure water jet in previously frozen ore. It was developed and adapted specifically for this deposit and one of its primary features is its non-entry approach, whereby personnel are not exposed to the orebody as all mining will be conducted from headings located in basement rock below it. Through the application of non-entry mining methods, the containment of the ore cuttings within cuttings collection systems, and the application of

March 30, 2007		Page 7 of 173

		CAMECO CORPORATION CIGAR LAKE PROJECT, NORTHERN SASKATCHEWAN, CANADA NI 43-101 TECHNICAL REPORT

		ground freezing, the levels of radiation exposure to workers were acceptable and below regulatory limits. Experience with non-entry mining of high grade uranium ore at Cameco’s McArthur River mine has demonstrated the effectiveness of this mining approach to manage radiation exposures.
		Underground in-situ mining tests of the jet boring system in 1992 proved the potential of the method and provided the basis for the design and construction of a prototype jet boring system. A further series of in-situ mining tests were then conducted in 1999 and 2000 and demonstrated that the mining system would work on a production basis. Overall, the test mining programs were considered successful with the initial objectives achieved. An estimated total of 768 t of mineralized material grading on average 17.4% U3O8 was mined during the various mining tests.
		In conjunction with the testing of the mining method was the selection and in-situ testing of the mine development system (“MDS”), consisting of a 5.1 m diameter full-face tunnel boring machine and the installation of a pre-cast concrete tunnel lining for ground support. The special feature of the MDS is that it provides continuous temporary ground support during excavation and almost immediate installation of permanent ground support after excavation. This feature is critical for development in areas of poor ground conditions where there is minimal stand-up time.
		Key to the success of the mining of the deposit is first freezing the ground to be mined, which will result in several enhancements to the mining conditions. These are: (1) minimize the risk of water inflows into the mine from the water bearing rock above the unconformity, (2) reduction of the radiation resulting from radon dissolved in the water, and (3) increase the stability of the rocks being mined.
		The main access to the mine is via the 4.9 m diameter circular, concrete lined No. 1 Shaft which extends to a depth of 500 m and provides direct access to the 420 m and 480 m levels. (The level number is the approximate depth of that level below surface in metres). A second shaft, No. 2 Shaft, located 90 m south of No. 1 Shaft, is a 6.1 m diameter circular, concrete lined shaft which has been sunk to a depth of 392 m with an ultimate planned depth of 500 m. It will connect to the 480 m level. No. 1 Shaft will be used as the main access and services shaft, and as a route for delivery of fresh ventilation underground. No. 2 Shaft will be divided into two compartments by a central airtight partition; one compartment will serve as the main path for exhaust air from the mine; and the second will be used to downcast additional fresh ventilation air as well as house the cage to be used for secondary egress. The primary ventilation system has been designed to supply a volume of up to 250 m3/s of fresh air to the mine.

March 30, 2007		Page 8 of 173

		CAMECO CORPORATION CIGAR LAKE PROJECT, NORTHERN SASKATCHEWAN, CANADA NI 43-101 TECHNICAL REPORT

		All lateral development required to mine the deposit has been placed in the basement rocks below the orebody. Mining will be conducted from two levels: the 465 m production level, the roof of which is located a minimum of 10 m below the deposit; and the 480 m freezing level located 15 m lower.
		The freezing strategy is to “bulk” freeze the ore zone and 465 m production level and access drifts prior to the commencement of mining in a given area. The first step in freezing is to drill vertical freeze holes from the 480 m freeze level up through the orebody. Calcium chloride brine at minus 300 C is delivered underground through pipes installed in No. 1 Shaft from a surface refrigeration plant. This brine is received by heat exchangers underground which then feed brine to freeze pipes installed in the freeze holes. This system freezes the deposit and underlying basement rock at between minus 100 C and 200 C in one to three years.
		Following the October 2006 inflow through an unfrozen section of the 465 m level, the mine plan has been expanded to include the freezing of those sections of the 465 m level development that had previously been excluded from the freeze plan. This freezing will take place prior to the recommencement of development on the 465 m level.
		Jet boring mining will consist of cutting the ore with a high pressure water jet using the Jet Boring System (“JBS”). The JBS mining units will cut cavities of approximately 4.5 m diameter in the previously frozen ore from each set-up, producing approximately 235 t of ore for a typical 6 m ore thickness. All mining with the JBS will be done from the 465 m production level, located in the basement rock below the ore zone. Following mining, each cavity will be backfilled with concrete backfill.
		The required mine production of 80 to 140 t/d of ore can be produced from a single JBS mining unit. The mine equipment fleet will be comprised of three JBS units: one in production, one being moved or set-up, and the third undergoing maintenance. Ore mined by the JBS will mix with the cuttings water to form a coarse slurry which will be pumped through pipes directly from the JBS to the run-of-mine ore receiving facility, from which it will be subsequently recovered and fed into the underground crushing and grinding circuit. Following crushing and grinding underground, the ground ore slurry will be pumped to surface by a slurry pump through a pipeline to be installed in No. 2 Shaft.
1.8		Processing
		Cigar Lake ore will be processed at three locations. Size reduction will be conducted at Cigar Lake, leaching will occur at McClean Lake and final yellowcake production will be split between McClean Lake and Rabbit Lake for a

March 30, 2007		Page 9 of 173

		CAMECO CORPORATION CIGAR LAKE PROJECT, NORTHERN SASKATCHEWAN, CANADA NI 43-101 TECHNICAL REPORT

		total estimated annual production rate of 18 million pounds U3O8 when the mine is in full operation. The McClean Lake JEB mill is owned by the McClean Lake Joint Venture (“MLJV”) and operated by AREVA. Cameco owns the Rabbit Lake mill.
		The first stage of processing will take place underground at Cigar Lake. The ore slurry produced by the jet boring mining system will be pumped to the underground crushing and grinding facility. The resulting finely ground, high density ore slurry will be pumped to surface storage tanks, thickened and loaded into truck mounted containers, similar to those currently being used at McArthur River mine.
		The containers of ore slurry will be trucked to AREVA’s McClean Lake operations, 70 km to the northeast for processing. Initially all the Cigar Lake ore will be processed at the McClean Lake JEB mill. As Cigar Lake production ramps up to full capacity, just over half of final uranium processing will be completed at Cameco’s Rabbit Lake mill facility. Both the McClean Lake JEB and Rabbit Lake mills require modifications to process the Cigar Lake ore.
		The McClean Lake JEB mill modifications to process Cigar Lake ore slurry are largely complete. The remaining modifications are scheduled for completion in 2007, with the exception of the uranium solution off-loading facility which is expected to be complete in 2010.
		The Rabbit Lake mill modifications are undergoing detailed design with the primary clarifier targeted for completion in 2008, the membrane plant targeted for completion in 2009 and the uranium solution receiving station targeted for completion in 2011. The required transportation infrastructure includes a bridge targeted for completion in 2010 and the required road scheduled for completion by 2011.
		The CLJV has entered into toll milling agreements for the processing of the Cigar Lake uranium at the McClean Lake JEB and Rabbit Lake mills.
1.9		Environmental Assessment and Licensing
		The Cigar Lake project has regulatory obligations to both the federal and provincial governments. Being a nuclear facility, primary regulatory authority resides with the federal government and its agency, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (“CNSC”). The main regulatory agencies that issue permits / approvals and inspect the Cigar Lake project are: the CNSC (federal), Fisheries and Oceans Canada (federal), Environment Canada (federal), Transport Canada (federal), Saskatchewan Labour (provincial), and Saskatchewan Environment (provincial).

March 30, 2007		Page 10 of 173

		CAMECO CORPORATION CIGAR LAKE PROJECT, NORTHERN SASKATCHEWAN, CANADA NI 43-101 TECHNICAL REPORT

		One of the initial steps in the regulatory process was to assess the project under the federal and provincial environmental assessment (EA) processes.
		In 1995, the Cigar Lake Project, Environmental Impact Statement, 1995 (the “1995 EIS”) was submitted to the Joint Federal-Provincial review panel on Uranium Mining Developments in Northern Saskatchewan (the “Panel”). In 1997, the Panel recommended that pending identification of a suitable waste rock disposal location, the project should proceed. The Canadian and Saskatchewan governments both accepted the Panel’s recommendation and in 1998 both government bodies approved the project in principle.
		In February 2004, Cameco submitted an environmental assessment study report (the “2004 EASR”) for the Cigar Lake mine portion of the project. The 2004 EASR did not assess the transportation of the ore to the McClean Lake JEB and Rabbit Lake mills, milling of the ore or tailings management. The 2004 EASR was accepted by the CNSC as meeting the requirements of CEAA and that the licensing/permitting processes for the Cigar Lake Project could proceed.
		In 2004, Cameco applied for a licence to construct the Cigar Lake mine site in two parts:

(1) construction of the No. 2 Shaft surface complex and the freeze plant; and

(2) construction of all other mining and support facilities at the Cigar Lake mine site.

		In August 2004, the CNSC approved the construction of the No. 2 Shaft surface complex and the freeze plant. The CNSC issued the construction licence for the Cigar Lake Project in December 2004. This licence is valid for the period of December 20, 2004 through December 31, 2007. Due to the October 2006 water inflow event, the construction activities will not be completed by the expiry date of the licence. Therefore, in 2007 Cameco will be applying for amendments to the construction licence to extend its term and potentially address emergency water treatment and other new actions or contingences resulting from the October 2006 water inflow event. Cameco believes that an amendment to the licence to extend the term will be obtained prior to the end of 2007.
		Concurrent with mine construction, an operating licence application will be prepared for submission to the CNSC.
		Each of the five phases of the remediation of the rock fall and water inflows at Cigar Lake requires regulatory approval. Regulatory approval has been obtained for Phase 1, other than for the installation of the pumps in the dewatering drillholes.

March 30, 2007		Page 11 of 173

		CAMECO CORPORATION CIGAR LAKE PROJECT, NORTHERN SASKATCHEWAN, CANADA NI 43-101 TECHNICAL REPORT

1.10		Status of Development Prior to the Water Inflow Incidents
		As part of a test mining phase, No. 1 Shaft was sunk and some underground development completed between 1988 and 1991. Testing of the boxhole boring and jet boring mining methods was completed in 1991-1992. Following further development, the jet boring method was more extensively tested in 2000.
		Full construction of the Cigar Lake project began in January 2005 and as of October 2006, the capital construction project at the Cigar Lake site was approximately 60% complete, excluding remediation activities.
1.11		Water Inflow Incidents and Remediation
		On April 5, 2006 a water inflow occurred at the base of No. 2 Shaft, through a failed valve assembly on a grouting standpipe, which led to the flooding of the shaft and cessation of activities in the shaft. As the shaft was not complete and not connected through to the main mine workings the flooding was limited to No. 2 Shaft. A remediation plan has been developed to freeze the ground in the aquifer affecting the shaft, dewater the shaft and then recommence shaft sinking. Freezing activities are currently planned to be conducted from underground and will resume once the main mine has been dewatered and secured. Once the shaft has been dewatered, the source of the shaft inflow and other potential inflow sources will be secured by grouting any of the open test holes at shaft bottom. A hydrostatic concrete liner will be installed in the shaft through the aquifer during sinking.
		On October 23, 2006 the underground mine at Cigar Lake was flooded following a water inflow, which caused a termination of underground activities. Cameco, subject to the CLJV’s approval, is proceeding with a phased plan to restore the underground workings at Cigar Lake. This plan consists of five phases. Each phase requires regulatory approval. Cameco has received approval from regulatory authorities for Phase one, other than for the installation of the pumps in the dewatering drill holes. The activities associated with each of the proposed remediation phases and the scheduled completion dates are generally described as follows:
		Phase 1 – Surface Remediation – involves drilling holes down to the source of the inflow and to a nearby tunnel where reinforcement may be needed, pumping concrete through the drill holes, sealing off the inflow with grout and drilling dewatering holes. This Phase is expected to be complete in the second or third quarter of 2007
		Phase 2 – Dewatering, Verifying Plug Integrity and Freezing Infrastructure – involves dewatering the underground mine openings, verifying the water inflow

March 30, 2007		Page 12 of 173

		CAMECO CORPORATION CIGAR LAKE PROJECT, NORTHERN SASKATCHEWAN, CANADA NI 43-101 TECHNICAL REPORT

		has been sufficiently sealed, and initiating the installation of surface freezing infrastructure — expected to be complete by the end of the third quarter 2007, other than the drilling of the freeze drill holes and the freezing of the ground which will continue through to Phase 5.
		Phase 3 – Secure the Mine – involves completing any additional remedial work identified in phase two such as determining if additional reinforcement is required in higher risk areas — expected to be complete by the end of 2007.
		Phase 4 – Underground Rehabilitation Program – completing underground rehabilitation that includes securing areas to prevent a ground fall or water inflow, re-establishing mine ventilation, installing pumping capacity and re-establishing the ore freezing program - expected to be complete by the summer of 2008.
		Phase 5 – Resumption of Construction Activities, Pre-Inflow – resuming construction activities in the mine in order to meet the scheduled mine completion target of 2010.
		While these phases are under way, the area around the flooded second shaft will be frozen after the installation of underground freeze pipes from a nearby tunnel. This is anticipated to be completed by the summer of 2008. Shaft sinking will continue with completion scheduled for 2010.
		Occurring concurrently with the foregoing remediation activities is a detailed independent investigation into the root causes of the water inflow incident. It is Cameco’s expectation that the recommendations from the investigation will be incorporated into the future underground activities to minimize the risk of further inflows to the mine.
		In the event that the concrete plug being placed in Phase 1 is not successful in securing the inflow area, then ground freezing, already incorporated into the remediation plan, will be utilized to secure the inflow area. If this proves to be the case, there could be a schedule delay to the start of mine production.
1.12		Current Status of Development
		During the underground remediation program, work will continue on the remaining planned surface facilities including the administration/services building, the installation of the mine ventilation fans, and a mine water pipeline containment system, as well as facilities required as a result of the remediation, such as additional dewatering pipelines and brine lines for ground freezing.
		Construction of the expansion of MLJV’s McClean Lake JEB mill, required to process the Cigar Lake ore, is expected to be complete in 2007. Modifications to

March 30, 2007		Page 13 of 173

		CAMECO CORPORATION CIGAR LAKE PROJECT, NORTHERN SASKATCHEWAN, CANADA NI 43-101 TECHNICAL REPORT

		Cameco’s Rabbit Lake mill required to complete processing of Cameco’s portion of the ore have not yet started. Detailed design for the required facilities at Rabbit Lake is underway.
1.13		Production Plan
		The mining plan for Cigar Lake has been designed to extract all of the current Mineral Reserves. The mine life based on current Mineral Reserves will be 14.8 years with an estimated full production rate of 18 million pounds of U3O8 per year recovered from the mills. Cigar Lake will produce less than the full annual production rate of 18 million pounds of U3O8 in the early and late years resulting in an average annual production rate of 15.1 million pounds over the current Mineral Reserve life.
		Subject to regulatory approvals and successful remediation of the flooded underground mine and No. 2 Shaft in a timely fashion, Cameco forecasts that commissioning activities in ore will commence in 2010 followed by a ramp-up period of two years before reaching the full production rate in 2012.
		The following is a general summary of the Cigar Lake production schedule guidelines and parameters:

	•		Total mill production of 222.9 million pounds U3O8
	•		Total mine production of 497 thousand t of ore
	•		Average mill feed grade of 20.7 %U3O8
	•		Production is scheduled to start in 2010
	•		Mining rate is variable to achieve a constant production level of U3O8. The average mine production is 100 t/d, but varies annually from 80 to 140 t/d depending on the grade of ore being mined.
	•		Two year ramp-up to a production rate of 18 million pounds U3O8 per year. (recovered after milling)
	•		Mine operating life of 14.8 years

The Cigar Lake project production schedule is shown in Figure 1-1 and Figure 1-2.

March 30, 2007		Page 14 of 173

		CAMECO CORPORATION CIGAR LAKE PROJECT, NORTHERN SASKATCHEWAN, CANADA NI 43-101 TECHNICAL REPORT

Figure 1-1: Mine Production (tonnes ore)

Figure 1-2: Mill Production (lbs U₃O₈)

Notes:			(1	)		Mill production lbs U3O8 based on overall milling recovery of 98.5%
			(2	)		Quarter 4 of 2011 is expected to be the first quarter in which 2.5 million pounds of concentrate is exceeded. Reallocation of concentrate between McClean and Rabbit Lake is scheduled to begin in 2012
			(3	)		Assuming appropriate regulatory approvals are received in the required time frame

March 30, 2007		Page 15 of 173

		CAMECO CORPORATION CIGAR LAKE PROJECT, NORTHERN SASKATCHEWAN, CANADA NI 43-101 TECHNICAL REPORT

1.14		Economic Analysis
		The economic analysis is based on Cameco’s share (50.025%) of the Phase I Mineral Reserves for the Cigar Lake project. The financial projections do not contain any estimates relating to the potential mining and milling of Phase I or Phase II Mineral Resources. Phase 1 Mineral Resources are categorized as Indicated Mineral Resources and the Phase 2 Mineral Resources are categorized as Inferred Mineral Resources and have been evaluated from a preliminary perspective only. Inferred Mineral Resources have a great amount of uncertainty as to their existence and as to whether they can be mined legally or economically. It cannot be assumed that all or any part of Inferred Mineral Resources will ever be upgraded to a higher category. Only Mineral Reserves have demonstrated economic viability. Accordingly, expenditures required to bring any of the Phase I Indicated Mineral Resources or Phase 2 Inferred Mineral Resources into production or to identify additional Mineral Reserves and Mineral Resources, have not been included.
		The remaining capital cost, as of January 1, 2007, to complete the Cigar Lake project is estimated to be $542 million, including $475 million to complete the underground development and surface construction at Cigar Lake, $63 million to complete the mill modifications at Rabbit Lake and $4 million to complete the mill modifications at McClean Lake. Including the $468 million spent by the CLJV on construction and mill modifications prior to December 31, 2006, the aggregate capital cost for the Cigar Lake project is now estimated to be approximately $1.0 billion, a 125% increase from the initial budget of $450 million approved in December 2004. These cost estimates do not include costs associated with the remediation activities to address the water inflow incidents.
		Cameco’s share of the remaining capital cost to complete the Cigar Lake project is estimated to be $274 million, including its share of construction costs and costs to modify the McClean Lake JEB mill and Rabbit Lake mill. Including the $234 million spent by Cameco on construction costs and mill modification costs prior to December 31, 2006, Cameco’s share of the aggregate capital cost is now estimated to be $508 million.
		In addition to the capital costs for construction and mill modifications, the projected remaining remediation cost to complete the five-phase remediation plan at Cigar Lake, to address the water inflow incidents, is estimated to be $82 million. Including the $10 million spent by the CLJV in 2006, the aggregate remediation cost is estimated to be $92 million. Cameco estimates its share of remaining remediation costs to be $41 million. Including the $5 million spent and expensed by Cameco in 2006, Cameco’s share of the aggregate remediation cost is estimated to be $46 million.

March 30, 2007		Page 16 of 173

		CAMECO CORPORATION CIGAR LAKE PROJECT, NORTHERN SASKATCHEWAN, CANADA NI 43-101 TECHNICAL REPORT

		The Cigar Lake economic analysis also includes projected sustaining capital expenditures of $69 million at the Cigar Lake and Rabbit Lake sites that the CLJV will be required to fund throughout the operating life of the Cigar Lake mine.
		Average operating costs over the mine life, excluding royalties, are estimated to be Cdn$14.40/lb U3O8 over the life of the Cigar Lake project.
		The resulting economic analysis estimates a net present value (“NPV”), using a 10% discount rate, as at January 1, 2007, of $887 million for Cameco’s share of mining the Phase I Mineral Reserves. The pre-tax internal rate of return, also calculated as of January 1, 2007, is estimated to be 38%.
1.15		Project Risks
		Cigar Lake is a challenging deposit to develop and mine. These challenges include control of groundwater, weak ground formations, and radiation protection. The sandstone overlying the basement rocks contains significant water at hydrostatic pressure. Freezing the ground is expected to result in several enhancements to the ground conditions, including: (1) minimizing the risk of water inflows from saturated rock above the unconformity; (2) reducing radiation exposure from radon dissolved in the ground water; and (3) increasing rock stability. However, freezing will only reduce, not eliminate, these challenges. There is also the possibility of a water inflow during the drilling of holes to freeze the ground. Therefore, the risk of water inflows at Cigar Lake remains. The consequences of another water inflow will depend upon the magnitude, location and timing of any such event, but could include a significant delay in Cigar Lake’s remediation, development or production, a material increase in costs, a loss of Mineral Reserves or require Cameco to give notice to many of its customers that it is declaring an interruption in planned uranium supply. Such consequences could have a material adverse impact on Cameco. Water inflows are generally not insurable.
		Cigar Lake’s remediation and production schedules are based upon certain assumptions regarding the condition of the underground infrastructure at the mine. The condition of this underground infrastructure, however, will not be known until the mine is dewatered. If the underground infrastructure has been impaired, this could adversely impact the schedules and cost estimates.
		The outcome of each phase of remediation will impact the schedule of each subsequent phase of remediation and the planned commencement of production in 2010. For example, if the concrete plug is not successful in securing the inflow area, then ground freezing, already incorporated in the remediation plan, will be

March 30, 2007		Page 17 of 173

		CAMECO CORPORATION CIGAR LAKE PROJECT, NORTHERN SASKATCHEWAN, CANADA NI 43-101 TECHNICAL REPORT

		utilized to secure the inflow area. If this situation occurs, there could be a delay in the remediation schedule and the commencement of production.
		Remediation and production schedules will be impacted by regulatory approvals. Regulatory approval has not yet been received to install the pumps in the drill holes for dewatering the mine during the first phase of the remediation plan. This approval is required to move forward with the planned dewatering strategy. Working with the regulatory authorities to receive approvals for additional corrective actions which may result from current inflow investigations may impact the remediation and production schedules.
1.16		Conclusions and Recommendations
		The Cigar Lake project outlined in this report represents significant economic sources of feed material for the McClean Lake and Rabbit Lake mills and will support an operating mine life of 14.8 years, expecting to produce an estimated 222.9 million pounds of U3O8. At Cameco’s forecast average uranium price over this 14.8 year period, it is estimated that Cameco will receive substantial positive net cash flows from its share of Cigar Lake production.
		Many aspects of the Cigar Lake project are based on the designs that have been proven and are being successfully used at the McArthur River mine. One of the challenges of mining the Cigar Lake deposit is radiation control due to its high grade. Cameco has been producing ore with similar high grades from the McArthur River mine since 2000 and the experience from McArthur has been used extensively in the design of the Cigar Lake project. These designs include remote mining for radiation protection, freezing for control of radon gas and water inflows, underground grinding of the ore and hydraulic hoisting to surface. The incorporation of these designs and practices proven at the McArthur River mine significantly reduces the risk in numerous areas of the Cigar Lake project.
		The economic analysis demonstrates that the project remains robust in various scenarios, which assumes higher costs, lower revenues, or lower ore grades. Further analysis shows that in the event production is further delayed, or the anticipated full production rate of 18 million pounds of U3O8 is not achieved, the project remains robust.
		The Cigar Lake project shows relatively low sensitivity to changes in its operating or capital cost projections. The relative sensitivity to changes in price and ore grade realized is significantly higher due in part to the relatively high-grade nature of the deposit, and the price estimates being used, which are a reflection of the current U3O8 market environment.

March 30, 2007		Page 18 of 173

		CAMECO CORPORATION CIGAR LAKE PROJECT, NORTHERN SASKATCHEWAN, CANADA NI 43-101 TECHNICAL REPORT

		The difference in the sensitivity between price and operating cost is made clear by the fact the economic analysis assumes an average realized price of Cdn$45.95/lb U3O8, while the average operating cost is Cdn$14.40/lb U3O8.
		Based on the confidence in the mining plan, a detailed remediation plan, and a positive economic analysis, Cameco plans to proceed through inflow remediation and construction to production, as described in this technical report of the Cigar Lake project.
		The revised mine plan and remediation program are anticipated to maintain the Cigar Lake project within the original project objectives of achieving a positive economic project with a planned full annual production rate of 18 million pounds of U3O8 and a total life-of-mine production of 222.9 million pounds of U3O8. Cigar Lake will produce less than the full annual production rate of 18 million pounds of U3O8 in the early and late years resulting in an average annual production rate of 15.1 million pounds of U3O8 over the Mineral Reserve life of 14.8 years.
		There are risks to achieving the planned operation by 2010. The main risk is a delay to the scheduled start of production (see discussion in Section 19).
		There is risk that the Cigar lake project ramp-up to an annual production rate of 18 million pounds U3O8 may take longer than the two years as planned. This scenario has been tested in the financial model and has demonstrated that the Cigar Lake project economics are still robust.
		The remediation and production schedules are based upon certain assumptions regarding the condition of underground development and infrastructure. The condition of this underground development and infrastructure, however, will not be known until the mine is dewatered. If the underground infrastructure has been impaired, this could adversely impact schedules and cost estimates. The outcome of each phase may impact the schedule of each subsequent phase of remediation and the planned commencement of production in 2010.
		In response to the two 2006 water inflow incidents, the mine plan has been optimized to include ground freezing of the entire 465 m production level prior to mining, incorporating not only the portion of the 465 m level below the orebody, but also all the 465 m level access drifts beyond the extents of the orebody. In addition, Cameco plans to implement enhanced procedural controls and technical risk assessments for mine development.
		Cameco plans to implement the major recommendations from the independent underground inflow incident investigation reports when they are finalized. These recommendations, when implemented, are expected to minimize the risk of any future inflows.

March 30, 2007		Page 19 of 173

		CAMECO CORPORATION CIGAR LAKE PROJECT, NORTHERN SASKATCHEWAN, CANADA NI 43-101 TECHNICAL REPORT

		Cameco plans to complete a 3-Dimensional resource block model for the deposit that will incorporate all the database information including not only the surface holes but also underground holes and test mining data. It also plans to optimize the resource estimation process by refining the variograms from the freeze hole data and by using software with additional capabilities for sample searches. Cameco will also consider additional criteria to formalize the resource classification process.
		Cameco plans to adjust the current definition of the mineralized intervals for the purpose of Mineral Resources estimation in order to remove allowances for dilution above and below the mineralized contacts. Mineral Resources would thereafter be reported without including an allowance for dilution.
		Cameco plans to include a diamond drilling program in its long range plan with the goal of upgrading the classification of the Inferred Mineral Resources in Phase 2. This information may then be used to develop scoping and feasibility studies for this phase of the Cigar Lake project. Inferred Mineral Resources have a great amount of uncertainty as to their existence and as to whether they can be mined legally or economically. It cannot be assumed that all or any part of the Inferred Mineral Resources at Cigar Lake will ever be upgraded to a higher category.
		The authors of this technical report concur with, and recommend that Cameco proceed with, the foregoing plans.

March 30, 2007		Page 20 of 173

		CAMECO CORPORATION CIGAR LAKE PROJECT, NORTHERN SASKATCHEWAN, CANADA NI 43-101 TECHNICAL REPORT

2		INTRODUCTION
2.1		Introduction and Purpose
		This report prepared for Cameco, by or under the supervision of internal qualified persons, is in support of disclosure of new material scientific and technical information on Cigar Lake contained in Cameco’s Annual Information Form for 2006, Cameco’s Management Discussion and Analysis dated March 16, 2007 and filed with securities regulators on March 19, 2007 and a press release by Cameco on March 18, 2007. This new material information includes a new capital cost estimate, updated Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve estimates, and a production forecast that are necessary because of the October 23, 2006 water inflow at Cigar Lake. The report has been prepared to comply with NI 43-101 under the supervision of the following:

	•		Alain G. Mainville, P. Geo, Director, Mineral Resources Management, Cameco Corporation;
	•		Barry W. Schmitke, P. Eng, General Manager, Cigar Lake Project, Cameco Corporation;
	•		Douglas G. McIlveen, P. Geo, Chief Geologist, Cigar Lake Project, Cameco Corporation; and
	•		Charles R. Edwards, P. Eng., Director, Engineering and Projects, Cameco Corporation.

		The individuals noted above are qualified persons responsible for the content of this report. All four qualified persons have visited the Cigar Lake site. Mr. Schmitke and Mr. Edwards have also visited the Rabbit Lake and McClean Lake JEB mills, where Cigar Lake ore is expected to be processed. The date and duration of each qualified person’s most recent inspection of the Cigar Lake site are included in their respective Certificate of Qualified Persons filed with this report.
		As of the effective date of this technical report, the remediation of the flooded Cigar Lake mine had commenced.
2.2		Scope of Work
		This technical report considers the following:

	•		Regional and local geology, deposit type and mineralization
	•		Exploration and drilling

March 30, 2007		Page 21 of 173

		CAMECO CORPORATION CIGAR LAKE PROJECT, NORTHERN SASKATCHEWAN, CANADA NI 43-101 TECHNICAL REPORT

	•		Sample collection, preparation, security and analysis
	•		Quality assurance and quality control procedures
	•		Data entry, verification, management, security and storage
	•		Metallurgical recovery, plant design and process upgrades
	•		Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve estimation
	•		Mine operations
	•		Remediation of the flooded underground mine
	•		Land tenure and permitting
	•		Mine forecast production and operating and capital cost estimates
	•		Markets and contracts
	•		Taxes and royalties
	•		Financial models
	•		Payback period and mine life

2.3		Report Basis
		This report has been prepared with available internal Cameco data and information and data and information prepared for the CLJV. Technical and certain financial information for processing Cigar Lake ore at the McClean Lake JEB mill was provided to Cameco by AREVA.
		The principal technical documents and files relating to the Cigar Lake deposit that were used in preparation of this report are listed in Section 22.

March 30, 2007		Page 22 of 173

		CAMECO CORPORATION CIGAR LAKE PROJECT, NORTHERN SASKATCHEWAN, CANADA NI 43-101 TECHNICAL REPORT

3		RELIANCE ON OTHER EXPERTS
		The authors have relied, and believe they have a reasonable basis to rely, upon the following individuals who have contributed the environmental, legal, marketing and taxation information stated in this report, as noted below:
		Jean Alonso, P. Eng, Superintendent, Environmental Compliance, Cameco Corporation, Sections 4.6 (a description of known environmental liabilities) and 18.5 (a description of environmental considerations)
		Glen White, P. Eng, Superintendent, Environmental Assessment, Cameco Corporation, Sections 4.6 (a description of known environmental liabilities) and 18.5 (a description of environmental considerations).
		Larry Korchinski, LLB, Director, Legal Affairs, Securities Compliance, Cameco Corporation, Sections 4.2 (a description of mineral tenure), 6.1(a description of joint venture agreements and interests), and 18.4.3 (a description of toll milling contracts).
		David Doerksen, CMA, Director, Marketing Planning and Administration, Cameco Corporation, Section 18.3 (a description of uranium markets) and 18.4.4 (a description of uranium sales contracts).
		Randy Belosowsky, CA, Assistant Treasurer, Cameco Corporation, Section 18.6 (a description of taxes and royalties).

March 30, 2007		Page 23 of 173

		CAMECO CORPORATION CIGAR LAKE PROJECT, NORTHERN SASKATCHEWAN, CANADA NI 43-101 TECHNICAL REPORT

4		PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION
4.1		Location
		The Cigar Lake minesite is located approximately 660 km north of Saskatoon, at latitude 580 04’ 14” north and longitude 1040 32’ 18’’ west, and about 40 km inside the eastern margin of the Athabasca Basin Region in northern Saskatchewan. See Figure 4-1.
		The Cigar Lake minesite is in close proximity to two uranium milling operations, McClean Lake is 69 km northeast by road and Rabbit Lake is 87 km east by road. The McArthur Rive mine is 46 km southwest by air from the Cigar Lake site.

March 30, 2007		Page 24 of 173

		CAMECO CORPORATION CIGAR LAKE PROJECT, NORTHERN SASKATCHEWAN, CANADA NI 43-101 TECHNICAL REPORT

Figure 4-1: Cigar Lake Mineral Property, Project Location

MAP OF SASKATCHEWAN

Source: Cameco

March 30, 2007		Page 25 of 173

		CAMECO CORPORATION CIGAR LAKE PROJECT, NORTHERN SASKATCHEWAN, CANADA NI 43-101 TECHNICAL REPORT

4.2		Mineral Tenure
		The mineral property consists of one mineral lease (“ML-5521”) totalling 308 ha, and 25 mineral claims (No. S-106540 to 106564 inclusive), totalling 92,740 ha. The mineral lease and claims are contiguous.
		The Cigar Lake deposit is located in the area subject to ML-5521. The right to mine this uranium deposit was acquired by Cameco under this mineral lease, as renewed, effective December 1, 2001 from the province of Saskatchewan. This mineral lease is granted by the province of Saskatchewan under The Crown Minerals Act (Saskatchewan). Under the Mineral Disposition Regulations, 1986 (Saskatchewan), issued under this act, the term of ML-5521 is for 10 years, with a right to renew for successive 10 year terms absent a default by Cameco. ML-5521, like all Crown leases, cannot be terminated by the provincial government except in the event of default and for certain environmental concerns prescribed in The Crown Minerals Act (Saskatchewan).
		The twenty-five mineral claims were also granted by the province of Saskatchewan under The Crown Minerals Act (Saskatchewan). These mineral claims grant the right to explore for minerals. A holder of a mineral claim in good standing has the right to convert the mineral claim into a mineral lease. Surface exploration work of a mineral claim requires additional government approval. The mineral lease and claims are delineated on the ground by staking posts. The Mineral Disposition Regulations, 1986, (Saskatchewan) recognize the staked boundaries as the legal boundaries. A legal survey of the mineral claims has not been done.
		There is an annual requirement of $2.3M either in work or cash to retain title to ML-5521 and the 25 mineral claims. However, title is secured until 2022, by virtue of previous work submitted and approved by the Saskatchewan Government.
		Under the Cigar Lake Joint Venture Agreement and related agreements, made effective January 1, 2002, the mineral lease and 25 mineral claims noted above were divided into the Cigar Lake lands, consisting of ML-5521 and claim S-106558, and the Waterbury Lake lands, consisting of the remaining 24 claims. AREVA is the operator of the Waterbury Lake lands and is also contract exploration operator of the Cigar Lake lands with respect to claim S-106558. Cameco is the mine operator for the Cigar Lake lands with respect to ML-5521.
		Figure 4-2 shows the Cigar Lake mineral lease and mineral claims as currently registered with the Saskatchewan Government.

March 30, 2007		Page 26 of 173

		CAMECO CORPORATION CIGAR LAKE PROJECT, NORTHERN SASKATCHEWAN, CANADA NI 43-101 TECHNICAL REPORT

Figure 4-2: Mineral Lease and Claims Map

March 30, 2007		Page 27 of 173

		CAMECO CORPORATION CIGAR LAKE PROJECT, NORTHERN SASKATCHEWAN, CANADA NI 43-101 TECHNICAL REPORT

4.3		Surface Tenure
		The Cigar Lake surface facilities and mine shafts are located on lands owned by the province of Saskatchewan. The right to use and occupy these lands for the purpose of developing the Cigar Lake deposit is based upon a surface lease agreement with the province of Saskatchewan. The most recent surface lease was signed in May 2004 and is valid for 33 years until May 27, 2037. The province of Saskatchewan uses surface leases as a mechanism to achieve certain environmental protection and socio-economic objectives. As a result, the Cigar Lake surface lease contains certain undertakings from the CLJV in that regard, including annual reporting on the status of the environment, land development and progress made on northern employment and business development.
		The Cigar Lake surface lease covers an area of 959 ha of Crown land. It covers a portion of ML-5521 along with claims S-106555 to 106560, inclusive, and S-106562.
		The Cigar Lake airstrip is under a separate surface lease covering a total of 17.2 ha. These leases were signed with the province of Saskatchewan in May 1987 and will expire in May 2007. There is also a surface lease for roadways which extends along the road from the airstrip to the Whitford River bridge for a total of 24.2 ha.
		These surface leases are renewable as required until final property decommissioning is achieved and approved by the provincial government.
		Figure 4-3 shows the Cigar Lake general site arrangement with the outline of the surface leases.
		In 2006, annual lease rent and taxes for the Cigar Lake surface lease were $627K and for the airstrip and roadways surface leases were $20K.
		R. G. Morrison, S.L.S., of Tri-City Surveys of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, carried out the Cigar Lake surface lease surface survey in 1988.

March 30, 2007		Page 28 of 173

Figure 4-3: Map of Mine Facilities and Surface Lease

Source — Cameco

March 30, 2007		Page 29 of 173

		CAMECO CORPORATION CIGAR LAKE PROJECT, NORTHERN SASKATCHEWAN, CANADA NI 43-101 TECHNICAL REPORT

4.4		Mine and Infrastructure
		All current Mineral Reserves and Mineral Resources are contained within mineral lease ML-5521. Underground workings are confined to a small portion of the area of the mineral lease where initial test mining was concentrated.
		Waste rock piles from the excavation of the two shafts and all underground development are confined to a small footprint within the surface lease. Waste rock management is further discussed in Section 5.5 and Section 18.5.6.
		A total of 53 t of high grade mineralization in bulk bags from the test mining is stored on the surface storage pad.
		No tailings will be stored at the Cigar Lake site since all ore mined will be transported to AREVA’s McClean Lake JEB mill and the Rabbit Lake mill for processing. Tailings management at the McClean Lake and Rabbit Lake sites is discussed in Section 18.5.5.
		A lake called Cigar Lake overlies part of the Phase 2 Inferred Mineral Resources.
		A discussion of the buildings and infrastructure facilities at the Cigar Lake site is included in Section 5.5.
		A site plan of the existing and planned surface facilities is shown in Figure 4-4.

March 30, 2007		Page 30 of 173

Figure 4-4: Site Plan Showing Existing and Planned Surface Facilities

Source — Cameco

March 30, 2007		Page 31 of 173

		CAMECO CORPORATION CIGAR LAKE PROJECT, NORTHERN SASKATCHEWAN, CANADA NI 43-101 TECHNICAL REPORT

4.5		Royalties
		For a discussion of royalties, see Section 18.6.2.
4.6		Known Environmental Liabilities
		For a discussion of known environmental liabilities, see Section 18.5.
4.7		Permitting
		For a discussion of permitting, see Section 18.5.3.

March 30, 2007		Page 32 of 173

		CAMECO CORPORATION CIGAR LAKE PROJECT, NORTHERN SASKATCHEWAN, CANADA NI 43-101 TECHNICAL REPORT

5		ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND PHYSIOGRAPHY
5.1		Access
		The property is accessible by road and air. Goods are transported by truck and can be shipped from anywhere in North America through the company transit warehouse in Saskatoon. Trucks travel north from Saskatoon, on a paved provincial road through Prince Albert and La Ronge and further north along the gravel surfaced Provincial Road 905, and finally to the minesite via a 52 km long, two lane gravel road. The latter section was upgraded by Cameco, during the summer of 2006 and is accessible to the public from the intersection with Provincial Road 905 to the access gate at the Whitford River bridge, situated approximately 10 km from the minesite. Figure 5-1 shows the regional location of the Cigar Lake site and local roads.
		An unpaved airstrip is located east of the minesite within the airstrip surface lease, allowing flights to the Cigar Lake property.

March 30, 2007		Page 33 of 173

		CAMECO CORPORATION CIGAR LAKE PROJECT, NORTHERN SASKATCHEWAN, CANADA NI 43-101 TECHNICAL REPORT

Figure 5-1: Cigar Lake Site — Regional Location and Roads

		Source — Cameco 5.2 Climate
		The climate is typical of the continental sub-arctic region of northern Saskatchewan. Summers are short and rather cool, even though daily temperatures can reach above 300 C on occasion. Mean daily maximum temperatures of the warmest months are around 200 C and only three months on average have mean daily temperature of 100 C or more. The winters are cold and dry with mean daily temperature for the coldest month below minus 200 C. Winter daily temperatures can reach below minus 400 C on occasion.

March 30, 2007		Page 34 of 173

		CAMECO CORPORATION CIGAR LAKE PROJECT, NORTHERN SASKATCHEWAN, CANADA NI 43-101 TECHNICAL REPORT

		Freezing of surrounding lakes, in most years, begins in November and breakup occurs around the middle of May. The average frost-free period is approximately 90 days.
		Average annual total precipitation for the region is approximately 450 mm, of which 70% falls as rain, more than half occurring from June to September. Snow may occur in all months but rarely falls in July or August. The prevailing annual wind direction is from the west with a mean speed of 12 km/h.
		Site operations are carried out year-round. Fresh air, necessary to ventilate the underground mine headings, is heated during winter months using propane-fired burners.
5.3		Physiography
		The topography and vegetation at the Cigar Lake property are typical of the taiga forested land so common to the Athabasca basin area of northern Saskatchewan. The area is covered with between 30 to 50 m of overburden. The terrain is gently rolling and characterized by forested sand and dunes. Vegetation is dominated by black spruce and jack pine. Occasional small stands of white birches may occur in more productive and well-drained areas. Lowlands are generally well drained, but also can contain some muskeg and poorly drained bog areas with vegetation varying from wet open non-treed vistas to variable density stands of primarily black spruces as well as tamaracks depending on moisture and soil conditions. Productive lichen growth is common to this boreal landscape mostly associated with mature coniferous stands and treed bogs.
		The minesite elevation is approximately 490 masl, Waterbury Lake is approximately 455 masl and Cigar Lake which, in part, overlays the deposit, is approximately 464 masl.
5.4		Local Resources
		The closest inhabited site is Points North Landing, 56 km northeast by road from the Cigar Lake minesite, close to where the site access road connects to Provincial Road 905. The community of Wollaston Lake is approximately 80 air km east of the Cigar Lake site. The Cigar Lake site is in close proximity to two other uranium/milling operations: AREVA’s McClean Lake operation is approximately 69 km northeast by road and Cameco’s Rabbit Lake operation is approximately 87 km east by road.
		Employees commute from a number of designated communities by air. Most company employees are on a week-in and week-off schedule. Contractor employees are generally on a longer work schedule.

March 30, 2007		Page 35 of 173

		CAMECO CORPORATION CIGAR LAKE PROJECT, NORTHERN SASKATCHEWAN, CANADA NI 43-101 TECHNICAL REPORT

		Athabasca Basin community residents fly from various pick-up points in smaller airplanes to the minesite. Southern resident employees fly to site from Saskatoon with stop-over pick-up points in Prince Albert and La Ronge. The number of weekly flights varies with the size of the workforce.
		Personnel are recruited on a preferential basis: initially from the communities of northern Saskatchewan, followed by the province of Saskatchewan, and then outside the province.
		Site activities such as development and construction work are tendered to major contractors that have the ability to hire qualified personnel from the major mining regions across Saskatchewan and Canada.
		The Cigar Lake site is linked by road and by air to the rest of the province of Saskatchewan facilitating easy access to any population centre for purchasing of goods at competitive prices. Saskatoon is a major population centre some 660 km south of the Cigar Lake deposit with highway and air links to the rest of North America.
5.5		Infrastructure
		The Cigar Lake site is already a developed mineral property with sufficient surface rights to meet future mining operation needs for the current Mineral Reserves as well as site facilities and infrastructure. Site facilities at the end of construction will include a 1600 m long gravel airstrip, 150 person permanent residence and recreation complex, 200 person construction camp, administration building, water treatment plant, freeze plant, concrete batch plant, No. 1 and No. 2 Shaft headframes and hoisthouses, site roads, powerhouse, electrical substations, ore loadout building, and miscellaneous infrastructure.
		The Cigar Lake minesite has access to sufficient water from Waterbury Lake nearby for all planned industrial and residential activities. The site is connected to the provincial electricity grid with a 138-kV overhead power line. There are standby generators in case of power outages.
		All ore mined will be transported to the McClean Lake JEB mill for processing to uranium solution, of which AREVA’s share is further processed into yellowcake at the McClean Lake JEB mill, and Cameco’s share is transported to the Rabbit Lake mill for processing into yellowcake. Processing facilities at the McClean Lake site are discussed in Section 16.3 and at the Rabbit Lake site in Section 16.4. Tailings management facilities at the McClean Lake and Rabbit Lake sites are discussed in Section 18.5.5.

March 30, 2007		Page 36 of 173

		CAMECO CORPORATION CIGAR LAKE PROJECT, NORTHERN SASKATCHEWAN, CANADA NI 43-101 TECHNICAL REPORT

Waste rock piles from the excavation of the two shafts and all underground development are confined to a small footprint within the surface lease. The waste piles have been segregated into three separate areas; clean waste, mineralized waste (>0.03% U3O8) and potentially acid generating waste. The latter two stockpiles are contained on lined pads; however, no mineralized waste has been identified in development to date. Waste rock management is further discussed in Section 18.5.6.

March 30, 2007		Page 37 of 173

		CAMECO CORPORATION CIGAR LAKE PROJECT, NORTHERN SASKATCHEWAN, CANADA NI 43-101 TECHNICAL REPORT

6		HISTORY
6.1		Ownership
		There have been numerous changes in ownership of participating interests in the joint venture that governs Cigar Lake.
		The original joint venture was established in 1976 between Canadian Kelvin Resources Ltd. and Asamera to explore the Keefe Lake area. Asamera was the operator of the joint venture. In 1977, Saskatchewan Mining Development Corporation (“SMDC”) acquired a 50% interest in the joint venture.
		Around 1979, the Keefe Lake joint venture proceeded to divide the Keefe Lake area into three separate project areas of Dawn Lake, McArthur River and Waterbury Lake (which includes a portion of the lands now known as Cigar Lake).
		In 1980, a joint venture agreement was entered into to govern exploration of the Waterbury Lake area and at that time SERU, the predecessor company to Cogema Canada Ltd. (“Cogema”), became the operator of the joint venture.
		Effective January 1, 1985, the Waterbury Lake Joint Venture Agreement was terminated and replaced by a new joint venture agreement. Under the agreement, the joint venture divided the Waterbury Lake area into the Waterbury Lake lands and the Cigar Lake lands. Cogema was appointed operator of the Waterbury Lake lands and Cigar Lake Mining Corporation was appointed the operator of the Cigar Lake lands. The participating interests in the joint venture at the time were SMDC (50.75%), Cogema (32.625%), Idemitsu (12.875%) and Corona Grande Exploration Corporation (3.75%).
		In 1988, Eldorado Resources Limited and SMDC merged to form Cameco.
		Effective January 1, 2002, the Cigar Lake reorganization took place and the joint venture owners, Cameco (50.025%), AREVA (37.1%), Idemitsu (7.875%), and TEPCO (5%) entered into a new joint venture agreement to give effect to the reorganization and to govern further exploration, development and production from the Waterbury Lake lands and the Cigar Lake lands. This new joint venture was called the Cigar Lake Joint Venture (“CLJV”). AREVA was appointed the Waterbury Lake lands operator (which includes claims No. S-106540 to 106557 and 106559 to 106564).
		As part of the 2002 Cigar Lake reorganization, the CLJV entered into the Mine Operating Agreement with Cameco to engage Cameco as mine operator to

March 30, 2007		Page 38 of 173

		CAMECO CORPORATION CIGAR LAKE PROJECT, NORTHERN SASKATCHEWAN, CANADA NI 43-101 TECHNICAL REPORT

		operate the Cigar Lake mine property (which property includes ML — 5521, the Cigar Lake surface lease and the mine).
		As a part of the 2002 Cigar Lake reorganization, the CLJV entered into the 2001 Contract Exploration Agreement to engage AREVA as contract exploration operator to operate the Cigar Lake Exploration property (Claim No. 106558).
6.2		Exploration and Development History
		Between 1976 and 1979, Asamera, as operator of the Keefe Lake Joint venture, conducted various exploration work on the mineral property. This activity included lake sediment and water geochemistry, airborne magnetic and Input (Questor) surveys, airborne radiometric and VLF (Geoterrex) surveys, gravimetric (Kenting) and seismic surveys.
		After the division of the Keefe Lake area into three separate projects, Cogema Canada Ltd., as operator of the Waterbury joint venture project, revisited all field survey results and conducted a series of complementary exploration work on lake bottom sediment geochemistry and airborne high resolution magnetic (Geoterrex) surveys. Regional geology photo-interpretation as well as outcrop and overburden mapping and sampling activities were systematically conducted across the mineral property. Ground geophysical surveys allowed depth and conductivity evaluation of geological formations using electromagnetic frequency (Geoprobe EMR-16) and time (Crone DEEPEM) methods. During 1980, this detailed DEEPEM work activity was intensified, targeting several Waterbury Lake zones with conductor structures previously identified. These electromagnetic conductors were systematically drilled during the winter months of 1980-81. On May 9, 1981, the drilling crew brought to surface high-grade mineralized core from hole WQS2-015, which was the last one planned for the winter program.
		Definition drilling programs were conducted throughout the 1980’s. Currently, the deposit and its surroundings have been defined by some 248 drill holes and more than 100,000 m of core drilling from surface.
		A test mine proposal to assess conditions and to field test new mining methods was approved on October 21, 1987. Test mining, including the sinking of No. 1 Shaft to a depth of 500 m and lateral development on 420, 465 and 480 m levels, was performed between that approval time and December 1992.
		In September 1992, Government Environmental Review Panel guidelines were issued for the Cigar Lake project by the Joint Federal-Provincial Panel on Uranium Mining Developments in Northern Saskatchewan. Later the same year, consulting firms were hired to perform engineering studies and, at the same time,

March 30, 2007		Page 39 of 173

		CAMECO CORPORATION CIGAR LAKE PROJECT, NORTHERN SASKATCHEWAN, CANADA NI 43-101 TECHNICAL REPORT

		extensive and comprehensive metallurgical and environmental testing programs were launched.
		In 1993, mine site activities were placed on a care and maintenance basis and initial engineering studies for development and operation of the property based on the jet boring mining method were started. These and other engineering studies were completed between 1993 and 1996. Several additions and improvements to site infrastructures were also performed.
		In 1997, detailed engineering studies were undertaken for the purpose of developing a feasibility study of the mining project. In addition, testing of a specially designed tunnel boring machine with high strength concrete liner installation capacity or mine development system was conducted. In conjunction with this work, significant mine development was also carried out.
		Environmental review commenced in January 1996 and was completed at the end of 1997. Early in 1998, the federal/provincial joint Environment Review Panel issued recommendations to the federal and provincial governments and the CLJV that the project proceed to the next stage of licensing. In April 1998, both governments responded favourably to the joint Environment Review Panel recommendations.
		During 1999, the specially designed jetting tools for the jet boring machine were successfully tested within a three-metre thick layer of simulated ore.
		In 2000, activities at the minesite were focused on the testing of several tools and systems forming the basis of the future mining method. The jet boring system was successfully tested in waste and frozen ore. In addition, the following tests were conducted successfully:

	•		Ore recovery from an underground slurry storage sump using a dredging clam bucket system, and
	•		Mining cavity and casing hole surveying system.

		Further discussion of the test mining activities is provided in Section 18.1.3.
		Early in December of 2000, the minesite was again placed on a care and maintenance basis.
		A feasibility study was completed in May 2001, targeting peak annual production of 18 million pounds U3O8 during Phase 1 of the Cigar Lake project. Construction of the project began in January 2005 and the Cigar Lake project has been in the construction phase since that time. The current status of the

March 30, 2007		Page 40 of 173

		CAMECO CORPORATION CIGAR LAKE PROJECT, NORTHERN SASKATCHEWAN, CANADA NI 43-101 TECHNICAL REPORT

		development and construction of the Cigar Lake project is discussed in Section 18.7.1.
6.3		Historical Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve Estimates
		Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve estimates of the Cigar Lake deposit are based on surface drilling which provides the grade and thickness information about the mineralization. As the knowledge level increased with additional surface and underground drilling programs, and geotechnical and hydrological studies were made available, various mining methods were studied and estimates were adapted to reflect those mining methods.
		Since 1984, several estimates of the Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves of both uranium and other metals have been made. These estimates were restricted to unconformity mineralization within various parts of the deposit using different estimation methodologies and applying different values for several different parameters. Estimates reported from 1984 to 1999 have been summarized in the following section. The historical Mineral Resources and Reserves estimates from the 2001 feasibility study are disclosed in Section 6.3.2 “Historical Estimates 2000-2005”.
6.3.1		Historical Estimates: 1984 — 1999
		Cigar Lake historical Mineral Resources and Reserves, described in this Section 6.3.1, were estimated and disclosed prior to the adoption of NI 43-101 and should be considered as historical. They were not estimated and classified in compliance with NI 43-101. Their classifications as “geological resources” or “mineable reserves” do not conform to the current “CIM Definitions Standards for Mineral Resources and Reserves” since the categories used at the time are not acceptable today. In today’s terminology they would likely be equivalent to “Mineral Resources” or “Mineral Reserves” but still lacking proper resource and reserve sub-classification. The qualified person for this section, Alain G. Mainville, has not completed the necessary work to verify the historical estimates, their classifications and assumptions. As such, these historical estimates should not be relied upon. They may not be equivalent to current classification definitions.
		In 1984 and 1985, polygonal and geostatistical resource estimates, applied in different areas of the deposit, for “geological resources of uranium”, were done using a cut-off grade of 0.12% U3O8 (0.10%U).
		The polygonal estimate was done by SERU in November 1984 and covered the area of the deposit east of 10300E. The calculation included a total of 59 mineralized intercepts. The reported results are shown in Table 6-1.

March 30, 2007		Page 41 of 173

		CAMECO CORPORATION CIGAR LAKE PROJECT, NORTHERN SASKATCHEWAN, CANADA NI 43-101 TECHNICAL REPORT

Table 6-1: Historical Resource Estimate – SERU, November 1984

Tonnes

Grade

Lbs U3O8

Year

Area

(x 1000)

%U3O8

(millions)

1984

East of 10300E

766

14.5

244.5

Cogema completed a geostatistical resource estimate in January 1985 covering the east and the west zones. The east zone was based on 58 mineralized intercepts and the west zone was based on 20 mineralized intercepts. The reported results are shown in Table 6-2.

Table 6-2: Historical Resource Estimate – Cogema, January 1985

						Tonnes				Grade				Lbs U3O8
Year		Area				(x 1000)				%U3O8				(millions)
1985		East Zone					922				14.4				293.1
1985		West Zone					1,030				4.8				108.1

In September 1986, a polygonal estimate of resources of several metals, including uranium was performed in the eastern part of the deposit, using a minimum grade x thickness value of 3.0 m%U₃O₈ (2.5 m%U). This area was selected as having the highest grade and uranium content and extended from 10425E to 11075E and included 61 mineralized intercepts. The estimate was done by Cogema with reported results as shown in Table 6-3.

March 30, 2007		Page 42 of 173

		CAMECO CORPORATION CIGAR LAKE PROJECT, NORTHERN SASKATCHEWAN, CANADA NI 43-101 TECHNICAL REPORT

Table 6-3: Historical Resource Estimate – Cogema, September 1986

Tonnes

Grade

Lbs U3O8

Year

Area

(x 1000)

%U3O8

(millions)

1986

East of 10425E

609

19.2

257.8

In December 1993, a “mineable reserve” estimate for uranium in part of the eastern area of the deposit between 10737E and 11025E was completed using geostatistical methods. This area was defined as “Phase 1” of development and exploitation at the time. This “Phase 1” area is not identical to that used for the current Mineral Resource and Reserve estimate used elsewhere in this technical report. The estimate was based on the jet boring mining method and the mine layout as then proposed. Various mining parameters and factors were applied including the following:

	•		Minimum grade cut-off on drill hole composites.
	•		Minimum mining thickness applied to drill hole intersections.
	•		Minimum contained metal in the composites.
	•		External and internal dilution.
	•		Mining and milling recovery.
	•		An estimation block size of 20 m x 24 m.
	•		A cut-off grade on estimation blocks of 1.2 % U3O8 (1.0 %U).

Cogema completed this Phase 1 “mineable reserve” estimate based on 61 mineralized intercepts with reported results as shown in Table 6-4.

March 30, 2007		Page 43 of 173

		CAMECO CORPORATION CIGAR LAKE PROJECT, NORTHERN SASKATCHEWAN, CANADA NI 43-101 TECHNICAL REPORT

Table 6-4: Historical Phase 1 Reserve Estimate – Cogema, December 1993

Tonnes

Grade

Lbs U3O8

Year

Area

(x 1000)

%U3O8

(millions)

1993

East of 10737E

339

25.6

191.4

In December 1993, a polygonal estimate of resources of the western part of the deposit called “Phase 2” was also completed based on 43 mineralized intercepts and using an estimation block size of 20 x 40 m and similar mining constraints. This mineralized “Phase 2” area is not identical to the one referred to elsewhere in this technical report. CLMC and Idemitsu estimated this “geological resource” with reported results as shown in Table 6-5.

Table 6-5: Historical Phase 2 Resource Estimate – CLMC and Idemitsu, December 1993

Tonnes

Grade

Lbs U3O8

Year

Area

(x 1000)

%U3O8

(millions)

1993

West of 10737E

891

9.1

178.2

These 1993 reserves and resources were used as the base of the 1995 Feasibility Study. This Feasibility Study defined “mineable reserves” by applying a mining recovery factor of 95%.

The reserve figures from the 1995 Feasibility Study were retained by Cameco for reserve publication from December 1995 to December 1998. The reported results are shown in Table 6-6.

March 30, 2007		Page 44 of 173

		CAMECO CORPORATION CIGAR LAKE PROJECT, NORTHERN SASKATCHEWAN, CANADA NI 43-101 TECHNICAL REPORT

Table 6-6: Historical Reserves – as of December 31, 1998

						Tonnes				Grade				Total Lbs U3O8
Category		Area				(x 1000)				%U3O8				(millions)
		Phase 1 Main Pod					324				25.6				182.8
		Phase 2 West Ext					852				9.1				170.5
Total							1,176				13.6				353.3

During 1999, the feasibility study was updated by CLMC. Phases 1A and 2A covered the area between 10400E and 11035E and Phase 2B was west of 10400E. The Phase 1A & 2A area was defined by 93 mineralized intercepts and the Phase 2B area was defined by 19 mineralized intercepts. The Reserves published by Cameco at the end of 1999 are presented on Table 6-7.

Table 6-7: Historical Reserves – as of December 31, 1999

Tonnes

Grade

Total Lbs U3O8

Category

Area

(x 1000)

%U3O8

(millions)

Proven

Phases 1A & 2A

345

22.5

171.28

Probable

Phases 1A & 2A

236

11.3

58.8.5

Possible

Phase 2B

317

16.9

118.3

6.3.2		Historical Estimates: 2000-2005
		In May 2000, a resource estimate of the unconformity mineralization was performed for a different part of the eastern area of the deposit, vis-à-vis the 1993 estimate. It was done using geostatistical methods with an estimation block size of 15 m (east-west) x 6 m (north-south) and applying similar mining parameters and values as done in 1993. As well, an estimate of resources in the western part of the deposit was done, using geostatistical methods with an estimation block size of 40 m (east-west) x 10 m (north-south). The resource estimate served to evaluate the possibility of increasing the size of Phase 1 by

March 30, 2007		Page 45 of 173

		CAMECO CORPORATION CIGAR LAKE PROJECT, NORTHERN SASKATCHEWAN, CANADA NI 43-101 TECHNICAL REPORT

		combining Phases 1A and 2A, compared to earlier feasibility studies, for purposes of the 2001 Feasibility Study. An “ore reserve task force” or working group consisting of technical representatives of Cameco, Cogema and CLMC was involved in this process.
		Alain G. Mainville, the qualified person for this section of this technical report, has verified the mineral resource and reserve estimates reported in the 2001 Feasibility Study, along with their classifications and assumptions. The resource model, from which Mineral Reserves were defined, was prepared in a professional and competent manner and is considered relevant and reliable. Therefore, the key assumptions and parameters used to estimate the May 2000 resource model are presented in Section 17 “Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve Estimates”. The Mineral Reserve estimate from the 2001 Feasibility Study is no longer reliable as a result of recent changes to operating costs and uranium prices.
		The Cigar Lake Mineral Reserves were defined in the 2001 Feasibility Study by applying factors for recovery and dilution to the Indicated and Measured Mineral Resources. They were retained by Cameco for reserve publication from year-ends 2001 to 2005 and are shown in Table 6-8.
		Table 6-8: Mineral Reserves as of December 31, 2005

Total

Total

Cameco Share

Tonnes

Grade

Lbs U3O8

Lbs U3O8

Category

Area

(x 1000)

%U3O8

(millions)

(millions)

Proven

Phase 1

497

20.7

226.3

113.2

Probable

Phase 1

54

4.4

5.2

2.6

Total

Cigar Lake

551

19.1

231.5

115.8