Annual report for EL 24838 and EL 25296, for the period 6 April 2007 to 5 April 2008, Quartz Hill Project

Abstract

EL 24838 was acquired by Cazaly Iron Pty Ltd in April 2006. Along with other assets it became the subject of a listing on the Australian Stock Exchange in a new public company, Newera Uranium Ltd. The listing occurred in June 2006. Newera has become the manager of exploration under a vending agreement with Cazaly Iron. Newera recruited geological staff in September 2006 and the companies' work on the leases commenced at that point. EL 25296 was pegged by Cazaly shortly before the listing and was included in the JV agreement with E24838 due to its proximity (adjacent on three sides). Combined reporting status was granted in early May 2007. Other leases in the immediate vicinity of these leases were applied for in Newera's own name at the end of the last reporting period, with ELs 26048 and 26046 granted on 26th of November, 2007 and EL 25674 granted on the 24th of August 2007. These tenements are now also a part of the Quartz Hill Project, but will not be discussed in detail within this report. Exploration activities on the tenements within the reporting period consisted of acquisition and analysis of open file data by CSA Australia, public domain geophysical data, topographic map data, and satellite imagery. Reconnaissance mapping programs were carried out in the 2006-2007 reporting period involved location and sampling of previous prospect areas and reconnaissance surveying of outcrop with a hand-held scintillometer, however some of the results were unable to be presented in that reporting period and are therefore presented here. In August of 2007 a VTEM - Time Domain Electromagnetic Survey was carried out over targets generated by analysis of previously flown aeromagnetics. The use of VTEM was designed to test the target areas for potential sulphide base metal bodies that persisted to depths of up to 500m. Flight lines were completed over two specific mag high target areas within EL 24838. Preliminary analysis of the VTEM data produced a number of 1st and 2nd order anomalies. Subsequent detailed analysis of the VTEM data by Southern Geoscience Consultants concluded that most if not all of the defined VTEM anomalies did not appear to persist at depth.