##### 



EXHIBIT 1





Cameco Corporation

Annual Information Form

March 19, 2004





---



##### 



(CAMECO LOGO) Cameco Corporation ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM For the Year Ended December 31, 2003 Dated
March 19, 2004




---



##### 



Cameco Corporation
Annual Information Form
Table of Contents 
 REPORTING CURRENCY AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION
    
    
    1NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS
    
    
    1INCORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
    
    
    1GENERAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE BUSINESS
    
    
    2THREE-YEAR HIGHLIGHTS
    
    
    32004 EXPECTED MATERIAL DEVELOPMENTS IN THE BUSINESS
    
    
    4THE NUCLEAR BUSINESS
    
    
    5OVERVIEW
    
    
    5URANIUM CONCENTRATES BUSINESS
    
    
    5Market Background
    
    
    5Marketing
    
    
    8Mining Properties
    
    
    8McArthur River
    
    
    9Rabbit Lake
    
    
    15Crow Butte
    
    
    15Smith Ranch - Highland
    
    
    15Development Projects
    
    
    16Cigar Lake
    
    
    16Inkai
    
    
    19Exploration
    
    
    20Reserves and Resources
    
    
    21URANIUM FUEL CONVERSION SERVICES
    
    
    26Market Background
    
    
    26Marketing of Conversion Services
    
    
    26Research and Development
    
    
    28Environmental
    
    
    28Legal Proceedings
    
    
    28Environmental Matters
    
    
    28Cameco Initiatives
    
    
    29Canada
    
    
    29US Environmental Regulation
    
    
    31GOVERNMENT REGULATION
    
    
    31Canadian Uranium Industry Regulation
    
    
    31US Uranium Industry Regulation
    
    
    34Land Tenure
    
    
    35Canadian Royalties and Certain Taxes
    
    
    36Canadian Income Taxes
    
    
    36US Taxes
    
    
    37EMPLOYEES
    
    
    37RISK FACTORS
    
    
    37BRUCE POWER LP  NUCLEAR ELECTRICAL GENERATION
    
    
    39Overview
    
    
    39The Generating Facilities
    
    
    41Bruce A Restart
    
    
    42Ontario Deregulation
    
    
    42Cameco Fuel Management
    
    
    43OPG Services to Bruce Power
    
    
    44Nuclear Waste Management and Decommissioning
    
    
    44Regulatory Affairs
    
    
    45Nuclear Generation  Risk Factors
    
    
    45THE GOLD BUSINESS
    
    
    48OVERVIEW
    
    
    48KUMTOR - GOLD PRODUCING PROPERTY
    
    
    50BOROO - GOLD DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY
    
    
    55RESERVES AND RESOURCES
    
    
    56LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
    
    
    57REGULATORY COMPLIANCE
    
    
    57EMPLOYEES
    
    
    57RISK FACTORS
    
    
    58COMMON RISK FACTORS  URANIUM AND GOLD
    
    
    59SELECTED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL AND OPERATING INFORMATION
    
    
    622003 CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
    
    
    62MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
    
    
    62MARKET FOR SECURITIES
    
    
    62DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS
    
    
    63ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
    
    
    65
 
 2003 Cameco Annual Information Form ii




---



##### 



REPORTING CURRENCY AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION All amounts in this Annual Information Form are expressed in Canadian dollars,
unless otherwise indicated. References to $(US) are to United States (US)
dollars. Financial information is presented in accordance with Canadian generally
accepted accounting principles. Differences between generally accepted
accounting principles in Canada and the United States, as applicable to Cameco
Corporation, are explained in the Consolidated Financial Statements of the
Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003 and attached as Appendix
A. 
 NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS Certain statements in this Annual Information Form and the information
incorporated herein are forward-looking statements. Discussions containing
forward-looking statements may be found in the material set forth in the
General Development of Business, The Nuclear Business, The Gold Business,
Common Risk Factors-Uranium and Gold and Managements Discussion and
Analysis sections. In addition, when used in this Annual Information Form,
the words believes, intends, anticipates, expects, estimates and words
of similar import may indicate forward-looking statements. Statements which
are not historical facts are forward-looking statements that involve risks,
uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual results to differ
materially from those expressed or implied by forward-looking statements.
Factors that could cause such differences, without limiting the generality of
the following, include: volatility and sensitivity to market prices for
uranium, conversion services, electricity in Ontario and gold; the impact of
the change in volume of uranium and conversion services sold, electricity
generated and gold produced; competition; the impact of change in foreign
currency exchange rates and interest rates; imprecision in reserve estimates;
environmental and safety risks including increased regulatory burdens and long
term hazardous waste disposal; unexpected geological or hydrological
conditions; adverse mining conditions; political risks arising from operating
in certain developing countries; a possible deterioration in political support
for nuclear energy; changes in government regulations and policies, including
trade laws and policies; demand for nuclear power; replacement of production
and failure to obtain necessary permits and approvals from government
authorities; legislative and regulatory initiatives regarding deregulation,
regulation, re-regulation or restructuring of the electric utility industry in
Ontario; Ontario electricity rate regulations; weather and other natural
phenomena; ability to maintain and improve positive labour relations; operating
performance of the facilities; success of planned development projects; and
other development and operating risks. Although Cameco Corporation believes the
assumptions inherent in forward-looking statements are reasonable, undue
reliance should not be placed on these statements, which only apply as of the
date of this Annual Information Form. Cameco Corporation disclaims any
intention or obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements,
whether as a result of new information, future developments or otherwise,
except as otherwise required by applicable law. 
 INCORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES Incorporation Cameco Corporation (Cameco or the Company) was incorporated under the
Canada Business Corporations Act(CBCA) on June 19, 1987 to combine the
uranium mining and milling operations of Saskatchewan Mining Development
Corporation (SMDC) with the uranium mining, refining and conversion
operations of Eldorado Nuclear Limited (ENL), since renamed Canada Eldor
Inc. (CEI) (the Reorganization). The Reorganization of SMDC and ENL was
accomplished by the Eldorado Nuclear Limited Reorganization and Divestiture Act
(Canada) (the ENL Reorganization Act) and The Saskatchewan Mining Development
Corporation Reorganization Act(Saskatchewan). Pursuant to this legislation,
in October 1988 CEI and SMDC transferred substantially all of their assets to
Cameco in exchange for Cameco assuming substantially all of their current and
certain other liabilities and issuing common shares, one Class B Share and
promissory notes of the Company. On June 18, 2001, legislation to amend the ENL Reorganization Act was passed by
the federal government. The legislative amendment allowed Cameco to proceed
with an amendment to Camecos articles to increase the individual non-resident
share ownership from 5% to 15% and to increase the limit on aggregate
non-resident ownership voting rights from 20% to 25%. This amendment was
approved by special resolution of Camecos shareholders at the 2002 annual
shareholders meeting. 2003 Cameco Annual Information Form 1




---



##### 



At its formation, Camecos share capital was owned 61.5% and 38.5%,
respectively, by the province of Saskatchewan and the Government of Canada. The
Company became a publicly traded company in Canada after the initial public
offering of its common shares in 1991. The province of Saskatchewan and the
Government of Canada have sold all of their common shares in Cameco. The
province of Saskatchewan retains one Class B share in Cameco. The province of Saskatchewan, as the holder of the Class B share (the
Class B Share), is entitled to receive notice of and to attend all meetings
of shareholders including meetings of any class or series thereof but does not
have the right to vote at any such meeting other than a meeting of the holder
of the Class B Share as a class. The holder of the Class B Share does not have
the right to vote separately as a class except on any proposal to (i) amend
Part I of Schedule B of Camecos articles, (ii) amalgamate that would effect an
amendment to Part I of Schedule B of Camecos articles, or (iii) amend the
articles so as to alter the rights attached to the Class B Share. Part I of
Schedule B of Camecos articles currently provides that (A) the registered
office and head office operations of Cameco must be located in the province of
Saskatchewan, (B) all of the executive officers (vice-chairman of the board,
chief executive officer, chief operating officer, chief financial officer and
president) of the Company, except for the chairman of the board, and
substantially all of the senior officers (vice presidents) of the Company must
be ordinarily resident in the province of Saskatchewan, and (C) all annual
meetings of shareholders of the Company must be held at a place in the province
of Saskatchewan. On May 8, 2003, at the 2003 annual and special shareholders meeting,
shareholders approved two amendments to Camecos articles. The first was to
permit the board to appoint one or more directors between meetings of
shareholders as permitted by the CBCA, subject to certain limitations, the
second was to remove the requirement that the chairman of the board must be
ordinarily resident in the province of Saskatchewan. Camecos
head office and principal place of business is located at 2121 
11th Street West, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada, S7M 1J3, telephone (306)
956-6200. Subsidiaries Cameco owns a one-half interest in UEM Inc. (UEM), a Canadian company. The Company owns a one-third interest in Kumtor Gold Company (KGC), a Kyrgyz
company, through its wholly owned Canadian subsidiary Cameco Gold Inc. Cameco owns a 31.6% limited partnership interest in Bruce Power Limited
Partnership (Bruce Power), an Ontario limited partnership, through its wholly
owned Canadian subsidiaries Cameco Bruce Holdings Inc. and Cameco Bruce
Holdings II Inc. No other subsidiaries are individually or collectively material. 
 GENERAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE BUSINESS Cameco is the worlds largest uranium producer. The Companys competitive
position is based upon its large, high-grade reserves and low-cost operations,
significant market position and access to other supplies of uranium. Cameco is
also one of the four commercial converters of uranium concentrates
(U3O8) to UF6
(uranium hexafluoride) in the western world and the principal supplier of
services to convert uranium concentrates to UO2 (uranium
dioxide). Cameco, through subsidiaries, has a 31.6% limited partnership
interest in Bruce Power, which operates North Americas largest nuclear
electricity generating facility. Bruce Power has six nuclear reactors at the
facility in service. While Cameco continues its principal focus on the nuclear
business, it is also in the gold business. A Cameco subsidiary has a one-third
interest in and operates the large Kumtor gold mine in the Kyrgyz Republic in
Central Asia. A Cameco majority-owned subsidiary is developing the Boroo gold
mine in Mongolia. The Company continues to explore for uranium and gold in a
number of countries. 2003 Cameco Annual Information Form 2




---



##### 



Three-Year Highlights Major developments in Camecos business in each of the fiscal years ended
December 31, 2001 to December 31, 2003 were as follows: 2001 Highlights from 2001 included:  
    
    In April, Bruce Power decided to proceed with the restart of two Bruce A nuclear reactors whose operation was
previously suspended by Ontario Hydro (predecessor to Ontario Power Generation (OPG)), subject to regulatory
approval.
    
    In May, Bruce Power became the operator of the Bruce A and Bruce B nuclear power plants, having received
operating licenses from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) and finalized and closed its long-term
lease with OPG of these nuclear power plants and related facilities. At that time a Cameco subsidiary acquired
a 15% interest in Bruce Power and Cameco became the exclusive supplier of non-enriched nuclear fuel to the
Bruce nuclear plants.
    
    In June, the joint venture owners approved the Cigar Lake feasibility study.
    
    In November, an amendment to the Russian highly enriched uranium commercial agreement (HEU Commercial
Agreement) was signed. By year-end, a Cameco subsidiary had exercised options to purchase 63 million pounds
U3O8 under the amended HEU Commercial Agreement.
    
    In December, the government of Saskatchewan announced a new uranium royalty regime, which took effect January
1, 2002. 2002 Highlights from 2002 included:  
    
    In February, the province of Saskatchewan sold its remaining common shares (10%) of Cameco.
    
    In March, a Cameco subsidiary acquired a 52% interest in AGR Limited (AGR), which interest increased to 56%
in December. AGR, through subsidiaries, has a 95% interest in the Boroo gold mine in Mongolia.
    
    In June, a Cameco subsidiary purchased the Smith Ranch uranium in situ leach mine located in Wyoming, nearby
the subsidiarys Highland mine, making Cameco, through subsidiaries, the sole primary producer of uranium in
the United States.
    
    In July, Cameco signed a memorandum of agreement as an initial step toward entering into a partnership to
construct a $1.1 billion (US) enrichment facility in the United States, however, in March 2003 Cameco announced
that it would not enter the partnership.
    
    In July, a pit wall failure occurred at the Kumtor mine, reducing 2002 gold production from a forecast 700,000
ounces to 528,550 ounces (Camecos share is one-third).
    
    In December, Cameco announced an increase in its annual common share dividend from $0.50 to $0.60 per share.
The dividend increase took effect for shareholders of record at the end of the first quarter 2003.
    
    In December, Cameco signed an agreement, along with others, to collectively purchase 79.82% of Bruce Power from
British Energy plc (BE). 2003 Highlights from 2003 included:  
    
    In February 2003, the purchase of 79.8% of Bruce Power from BE by Cameco, along with others, closed and
Camecos limited partnership interest in Bruce Power, held through subsidiaries, increased from 15% to 31.6%.
    
    In February 2003, through its subsidiary Cameco Gold Inc. (CGI), Cameco reached an agreement in principle with
the Kyrgyzaltyn JSC to restructure the ownership of the Kumtor gold mine located in the Kyrgyz Republic.
Discussions with the Kyrgyz government were centred on their equity participation in the consolidation of
Camecos gold assets into a new entity that would be publicly listed. 2003 Cameco Annual Information Form 3




---



##### 




    
    Production at Camecos McArthur River mine was temporarily suspended on April 6, 2003, as increased water
inflow from an area of collapsed rock in a new development area began to flood portions of the mine. Remedial
work to return the mine to a safe operating condition was carried out during the second quarter of 2003 and was
sufficiently advanced in early July 2003 for mine production to resume. The McArthur River mine produced 15.2
million pounds U3O8 in 2003 (Camecos share was 10.6 million pounds). In
total, Camecos production from all operations reached 18.5 million pounds
U3O8 in 2003 (excluding nominal test mining uranium production from
Inkai) compared to its original target of 20.9 million pounds U3O8.
While mining at the McArthur River mine was suspended, the Company met all sales commitments with existing
inventory and its other supply sources.
    
    In 2003, the federal government enacted amendments to the Income Tax Act(Canada) (ITA) that reduced the
corporate tax rate on income from resource activities from the present level of 28% to 21%, over a five-year
period commencing in 2003. Under Canadian accounting rules, the cumulative effect of a change in income tax
legislation on future income tax assets and liabilities is included in a companys financial statements in the
period of substantial enactment. Accordingly, Cameco reduced its balance sheet provision for future income
taxes and recognized a one-time, non-cash income tax adjustment of $86.2 million in the second quarter.
    
    In October 2003, the remediation work on the Kumtor pit wall, which collapsed in July 2002, was completed. For
the second half of 2003, the average mill feed grade rose to about 5.6 g/t. Production at Kumtor during 2003
was 677,552 ounces at an average feed grade of 4.5 g/t (Camecos share was 225,851 ounces).
    
    In September 2003, Cameco completed an offering of 5% Convertible Subordinated Debentures due October 1, 2013
for aggregate gross proceeds of $230 million. The Debentures trade on the Toronto Stock Exchange under the
symbol CCO.DB and can be converted at the option of the holders into Cameco common shares at any time on or
prior to maturity based on a conversion price of $65.00 per share (subject to adjustment in certain
circumstances).
    
    In connection with Bruce Powers plans to restart two of the four laid-up units of the Bruce A station, Unit
4 was connected to the Ontario electricity grid in October 2003. Unit 4 was declared in commercial production
as of November 1, 2003. 
 2004 Expected Material Developments in the Business The following are the significant trends, events and commitments known to
Cameco that could have a material impact in 2004 on Camecos business,
financial condition or results of operations:  
    
    In January 2004, Cameco announced that Joint Stock Company Kyrgyzaltyn
(Kyrgyzaltyn JSC), agreed to transfer all of KGC, the owner of the
Kumtor gold mine in the Kyrgyz Republic, to a new jointly owned
Canadian company called Centerra Gold Inc. (Centerra). In
conjunction with its acquisition of KGC and Camecos other gold
assets, Centerra intends to undertake an initial public offering in
Canada and listing of its shares on the Toronto Stock Exchange.
Cameco expects to hold a majority interest in Centerra immediately
following the initial public offering. Closing of the acquisition is
targeted for the second quarter of 2004 and is subject to satisfaction
of a number of conditions.
    
    Unit 3, the second of the two units of the Bruce A station to be
restarted, was reconnected to the power grid in January 2004. With
the restart of the two Bruce A nuclear power units, Bruce Powers
net generating capacity increased from 3,160 megawatts to 4,660
megawatts.
    
    In March 2004, Cameco announced that one of its wholly owned US
subsidiaries signed an agreement to purchase a 25.2% interest in
assets comprising the South Texas Project (STP) from a wholly owned
subsidiary of American Electric Power (AEP) for $333 million (US).
Included in the purchase price is $54 million (US) for fuel and
non-fuel inventory. STP consists of two 1,250 megawatts nuclear units
located in Texas. The net generating capacity from the 25.2% interest
in STP is 630 megawatts. Each owner takes in kind and markets its
pro-rata share of electricity generated by STP. The balance of STP is
held by Texas Genco (30.8%), the City Public Service Board of San
Antonio (28%) and the City of Austin (16%). The interest being
purchased by Cameco is subject to a right of first refusal in favour
of these owners. The agreement is subject to regulatory approval and
other closing conditions, and the final purchase price is subject to
closing adjustments. The transaction is expected to close in the
second half of 2004. 2003 Cameco Annual Information Form 4




---



##### 



THE NUCLEAR BUSINESS 
 Overview The only significant commercial use for uranium is to fuel nuclear power plants
for the generation of electricity. In recent years, nuclear plants generated
approximately 16% of the worlds electricity. According to the World Nuclear
Association, nuclear plant electric generating capacity is expected to grow
modestly between now and the year 2013, primarily as a result of new reactor
construction outside the US and improved reactor operation. The rate of growth
is expected to be somewhat below that of the total market for electricity. The major stages in the production of nuclear fuel are uranium exploration,
mining and milling, refining and conversion, enrichment and fuel fabrication.
Once a uranium deposit is discovered and reserves delineated, uranium ore is
mined and upgraded at a mill to produce uranium concentrates. Mining companies
that do not operate conversion service facilities usually sell uranium
concentrates to electrical generating companies (utilities) around the world
on the basis of the U3O8 contained in the
uranium concentrates. Utilities then contract with converters, enrichers and
fuel fabricators to produce the required reactor fuel. Camecos involvement in the nuclear business consists principally of (a)
exploring for, developing, mining and milling uranium ore to produce uranium
concentrates; (b) supplying uranium refining and conversion services to produce
UO2 and UF6; (c) selling produced and
acquired uranium to utilities; and (d) its subsidiaries collectively being a
31.6% limited partner in Bruce Power, which operates North Americas largest
nuclear electricity generating facility. 
 Uranium Concentrates Business 
 Market Background Demand The demand for U3O8 is directly linked to
the level of electricity generated by nuclear power plants. Western world
annual uranium fuel consumption has increased from approximately 56 million
pounds U3O8 in 1980 to about 155 million
pounds in 2003. Cameco estimates that annual uranium fuel consumption in the
western world will reach 172 million pounds in 2013, reflecting an annual
growth rate of 1.0% per year over the period. Demand could be increased
slightly by the current trend toward improving plant operating performance or
reduced by the premature closing of some nuclear power plants. Demand in the
former Soviet Union, Eastern Europe and China was about 25 million pounds in
2003 and is expected to increase to about 33 million pounds in 2013. Supply The international uranium supply industry is highly competitive. Uranium
supply sources include primary mine production and secondary sources such as
excess inventories, uranium made available from the decommissioning of nuclear
weapons, re-enriched depleted uranium tails, and used reactor fuel that has
been reprocessed. Russia supplies most of the requirements of the former
Soviet Union and Eastern Europe from inventories, reprocessing of used reactor
fuel, and primary mine production. Primary Production The uranium production industry is international in scope with a small number
of companies operating in relatively few countries. In 2002 (the latest year
for which figures are available), approximately 80% of the estimated world
production of 94 million pounds U3O8 was
provided by eight producers: Cameco, Cogema, Energy Resources of Australia
Ltd., Rossing Uranium Limited and WMC Resources Ltd. in the western world, and
Kazatomprom in Kazakhstan, NAVOI Mining Metallurgical Kombinat in Uzbekistan
and Priargunsky Industrial Mining and Chemical Enterprise in Russia.
Approximately 92% of estimated world production was sourced from nine countries
(in order of production, from greatest to least): Canada, Australia, Niger,
Russia, Kazakhstan, Namibia, Uzbekistan, the US and South Africa.   Note: Western world includes Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil,
Canada, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, India, Japan, Mexico,
Namibia, Netherlands, Niger, Pakistan, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, South
Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, United Kingdom and
United States. 2003 Cameco Annual Information Form 5




---



##### 



The Canadian uranium industry has, in recent years, been the leading supplier
with production of approximately 30 million pounds
U3O8 in 2002, or about 32% of world
production. Production from Cameco operated mines in Canada and the US in 2003
was approximately 23 million pounds. Camecos share of this production was
approximately 18.5 million pounds. Subject to the constraints described below, all primary production is available
to meet the demand of the nuclear power industry in the western world. Secondary Sources Each year since 1985, western world uranium production has been less than
western world utility uranium consumption. The resulting shortfall has been
covered by a number of secondary sources. Excess inventories held by
utilities, producers, other fuel cycle participants and governments (including
Russian government inventories) have been and continue to be a significant
source of supply. Utilities in Europe also use reprocessed uranium and
plutonium derived from used reactor fuel as a source of supply. In addition,
in recent years, another source of supply has been the use of excess Russian
enrichment capacity to re-enrich depleted uranium tails held by European
enrichers. Cameco estimates these two recycling sources will meet about 6% of
western world demand to 2013. Finally, uranium derived from the dismantling of
Russian nuclear weapons has become a significant source of supply and could
meet about 13% of western world demand to 2013. A limited amount of uranium
from the US weapons program has been introduced into the market but this is not
expected to become a significant supply source. Uranium from Nuclear Disarmament In February 1993, the United States and Russia signed an agreement (the
Russian HEU Agreement) to manage the sale of highly enriched uranium (HEU).
Under this agreement, over a term of 20 years, 500 tonnes of HEU, derived from
dismantling nuclear weapons, are to be diluted in Russia and delivered to the
United States as low enriched uranium (Disarmament LEU), suitable for use in
nuclear power plants. Disarmament LEU scheduled for delivery during the 20-year
period represents approximately 400 million pounds of natural uranium as
U3O8 (Disarmament Uranium). The USEC Privatization Act, which became law in 1996, regulates the
introduction of Disarmament Uranium into the US market. Under the USEC
Privatization Act, Disarmament Uranium delivered after 1996 may be sold into
the US market beginning in 1998 subject to an annual quota. The quota for 2003
was 12 million pounds U3O8, and will
increase by 2 million pounds per year to 2005, and thereafter by 1 million
pounds per year to a maximum of 20 million pounds per year beyond 2008. This
material may also be used in the US for matched sales with newly mined US
origin U3O8 under the Russian suspension
agreement. Disarmament Uranium delivered in 1995 and 1996, totaling 14 million pounds
U3O8 equivalent, was purchased by
Department of Energy (DOE). Under the USEC Privatization Act, 5 million pounds
U3O8 equivalent was subsequently
repurchased by Russia for matched sales into the US market. The remaining 9
million pounds U3O8 equivalent of this
material was to be sold by DOE prior to the end of 2003 in quantities not
exceeding 3 million pounds per year. As of the end of 2003, DOE had not sold
any of this material. In 1999, DOE purchased 28 million pounds
U3O8 equivalent contained in the
Disarmament LEU delivered by Russia in 1997 and 1998. DOE purchased this
material pursuant to the bilateral agreement related to the HEU Commercial
Agreement. This material, along with an additional 30 million pounds of DOE
inventory, is included in a US stockpile to be withheld from the market until
March 2009. In 2003 and each year thereafter, Russia plans to deliver LEU from 30 tonnes of
HEU, about 24 million pounds U3O8
equivalent, until the Disarmament LEU derived from the entire 500 tonnes
included under the Russian HEU Agreement has been delivered to the United
States. To the end of 2003, about 159 million pounds
U3O8 equivalent had been delivered. HEU Commercial Agreement On March 24 1999, Cameco Europe S.A., a wholly owned subsidiary of Cameco,
along with Compagnie Generale des Matieres Nucleaires, RWE Nukem Inc. of the
United States and its affiliate RWE Nuklear GmbH of Germany (collectively the
Companies), signed an agreement, subsequently amended, the (HEU Commercial
Agreement) with AO Techsnabexport (Tenex), the commercial arm of the Russian
Ministry for Atomic Energy. Under the 2003 Cameco Annual Information Form 6




---



##### 



HEU Commercial Agreement, the Companies were granted options to purchase a
majority of the Disarmament Uranium. On November 16, 2001, Tenex and the Companies signed an amendment to the HEU
Commercial Agreement. Under the terms of the amendment, the Companies committed
to exercise their options to purchase a quantity of uranium (about 124 million
pounds U3O8) equal to their share of the
annual quota under the USEC Privatization Act for the period 2002 to 2013.
Cameco Europe S.A.s share is 53 million pounds. Tenex retained about 82
million pounds to sell under its share of the quota. The Companies have
exclusive options to purchase the balance of the Disarmament Uranium.
Subsequently in 2001, Cameco Europe S.A. exercised options for an additional 10
million pounds. In late 2002, Cameco Europe Ltd., a Swiss company, assumed the
obligations and rights of Cameco Europe S.A., a Luxembourg company, under HEU
Commercial Agreement, as amended. In 2003, Cameco Europe Ltd. exercised
options for an additional eight million pounds. A series of related agreements between the US and Russian governments
(collectively, the Bilateral Agreement), which are integral to the HEU
Commercial Agreement, require Tenex to return to Russia the Disarmament Uranium
not purchased by the parties to the HEU Commercial Agreement or sold by Tenex,
and allows Russia to use about 7 million pounds
U3O8 equivalent annually for blending
down HEU to Disarmament LEU. Pursuant to Bilateral Agreement, the balance of
the returned uranium is to be placed in a monitored stockpile. In the event
the monitored stockpile exceeds 58 million pounds
U3O8 equivalent, Russia is permitted to
sell the excess into supply contracts in place on March 24, 1999, mainly with
utilities in Eastern Europe. Tenex has been selling its share of the US Quota through a contract with Globe
Nuclear Services and Supply GNSS, Limited (GNSS). In November, 2003 Tenex
terminated its contract with GNSS effective January 2004, stating that the
terms of the contract with GNSS are contrary to the interests of the Russian
Federation. Tenex has indicated an intention to meet all of the GNSS delivery
commitments, reportedly amounting to about 31 million pounds
U3O8 equivalent over the next 5 years.
It is expected that most of the remainder of Disarmament Uranium will be
returned to Russia to facilitate blending HEU under the HEU Commercial
Agreement. On February 12, 2004, Tenex and the Companies agreed in principle to further
amend the HEU Commercial Agreement. This agreement in principle provides,
amongst other things, that the HEU Commercial Agreement be amended to allow
Tenex to return additional Disarmament Uranium to Russia to secure the supply
of natural uranium required to facilitate the blend down of HEU to Disarmament
LEU, and to give Tenex a priority right to remove Disarmament Uranium from the
monitored stockpile for such blending purposes. These amendments will reduce
the remaining quantity of Disarmament Uranium that the Companies could have
elected to purchase over the remaining term of the HEU Commercial Agreement. Trade Restraints and Policies The US government and the European Union (EU) have limited the access of
Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) suppliers to their respective
markets. In the US, an ad hoc committee of uranium producers and other
companies filed an anti-dumping suit against the former Soviet Union in 1991.
The resulting settlement was effected in suspension agreements signed in
October 1992 by the US Department of Commerce with Russia, Uzbekistan,
Kazakhstan and Kyrgyz Republic. The suspension agreements with Uzbekistan,
Kazakhstan and Kyrgyz Republic have since terminated. In 2000, the US International Trade Commission ruled that the suspension
agreement with Russia would remain in force until March 2004. The Russian
suspension agreement allows approximately 4 million pounds of Russian
U3O8 per year to be imported into the US,
but only to the extent it is matched in sales with an equal volume of new US
production. The Euratom Supply Agency in Europe, which must approve all uranium-related
contracts entered into by members of the EU, has an informal policy limiting
the use of Russian uranium to about 20% of annual individual utility
requirements. The US and EU restrictions have no effect on the sales of Russian uranium to
other countries. About one-quarter of western world uranium requirements arise
from utilities in countries unaffected by the US and EU restrictions. In 2003,
approximately 23% of Camecos sales volume was to countries not subject to US
or EU restrictions. Utilities in some of these countries adopt policies which
effectively limit the amount of Russian uranium they will purchase. Such
policies often relate to security of supply concerns or their countrys
bilateral relations with Russia. 2003 Cameco Annual Information Form 7




---



##### 



Prices Utilities secure a substantial percentage of their uranium requirements by
entering into medium and long-term contracts with uranium producers. These
contracts usually provide for deliveries to begin one to three years after
signing and continue for several years thereafter. In awarding medium and
long-term contracts, Cameco believes utilities consider the commercial terms
offered, including price, as well as the producers record of performance and
uranium reserves. Prices are established by a number of methods including base prices
adjusted by inflation indices, reference prices (generally spot price
indicators but also long term reference prices) and annual price negotiations.
Many contracts also contain floor prices, ceiling prices and other negotiated
provisions which affect the price ultimately paid. For example, the ceiling
prices will limit the upside potential of price movement, while conversely the
floor price establishes a minimum price that will ultimately be paid. Prices
under uranium supply contracts are usually confidential. Utilities also acquire uranium through spot and near-term purchases from
producers and traders. Spot market purchases are those which call for delivery
within one year. Traders generally source their uranium from organizations
holding excess inventory including utilities, producers and governments.
Demand in the spot market in 2003 increased from 20 million pounds
U3O8 in 2002 to about 22 million pounds
U3O8. As reported by TradeTech, the spot market price for
U3O8 increased by approximately 41% in
2003 ending the year at $14.40 (US) per pound compared to $10.20 (US) per pound
at the end of 2002. In addition, due to trade restrictions and policies, a
two-tier market previously existed such that there has been a discount for
uranium of Russian origin. The two prices have largely converged and there is
no longer a published price that specifically applies to Russian origin
uranium. 
 Marketing Cameco markets uranium to utilities in direct competition with supplies
available from various sources worldwide. Camecos marketing strategy is to
commit its uranium production under medium-term (three to five years) and
long-term (greater than five years) contracts with a diversified mix of pricing
mechanisms. Uranium concentrates sold under medium-and-long term contracts may
be governed by one of a variety of price determination mechanisms. For
concentrates delivered by Cameco in 2003, the following pricing mechanisms
applied: negotiated (6%), firm-price (29%) and market-related (65%). Sales contracts typically contain some quantity flexibility that enables the
purchaser to reduce or increase the amount of uranium to be delivered from year
to year within a specified range. In general, utilities purchase from multiple
suppliers in order to diversify their sources. Cameco sells uranium
concentrates to utilities in Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Finland, France,
Germany, Japan, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, United Kingdom, and the US. In 2003, approximately 39% of Camecos
U3O8 sales were to five customers. For
the period 2004 forward, Cameco has commitments in excess of 100 million pounds
U3O8 under 66 medium-term and long-term
contracts with about 40 customers worldwide. Camecos five largest customers
account for approximately 50% of these commitments. Over this period, 60% of
Camecos committed sales volume is to purchasers in the Americas (US, Canada
and Latin America), 17% in the Far East and 23% in Europe. Cameco generally does not sell into the spot uranium market. Cameco, however,
has taken advantage of low spot and long-term market prices to purchase uranium
under spot and long-term contracts. Cameco intends to deliver this purchased
material into certain long-term contracts and may make additional purchases of
this type in the future. At December 31, 2003, Cameco had firm commitments to
purchase approximately 88 million pounds
U3O8 over the 2004-2013 period, of which
64 million pounds is the result of Cameco Europe S.A.s exercise of certain
options under the HEU Commercial Agreement. 
 Mining Properties The Companys uranium production is from two sources in Saskatchewan and two
sources in the US. The Saskatchewan sources are the Rabbit Lake mine and mill
and the combined McArthur River mine  Key Lake mill. The US sources are Crow
Butte and Smith Ranch-Highland in situ leach (ISL) operations. Cameco has two
material uranium properties, McArthur River, which is being mined, and Cigar
Lake, which is being developed. 2003 Cameco Annual Information Form 8




---



##### 



The Key Lake mill processes McArthur River ore and stockpiled ore from the
depleted Key Lake mine. Mining at Key Lake ended in 1997. At Rabbit Lake,
mining ceased in April 1999 and milling ceased in May 2001 and both activities
resumed in 2002. The following table shows Camecos share of uranium production for the past
three years from its uranium properties (all in pounds
U3O8): 2001
    
    2002
    
    2003(1)McArthur River(2)
    
    
    12,048,000
    
    
    
    12,905,000
    
    
    
    10,579,000Rabbit Lake
    
    
    4,563,000
    
    
    
    1,143,000
    
    
    
    5,928,000Smith
Ranch-Highland (3)
    
    
    695,000
    
    
    
    887,000
    
    
    
    1,201,000Crow Butte
    
    
    815,000
    
    
    
    768,000
    
    
    
    823,000Key Lake
    
    
    648,000
    
    
    
    190,000
    
    
    
    Total
    
    
    18,769,000
    
    
    
    15,893,000
    
    
    
    18,531,000
 Notes:  (1)
    
    This does not include nominal test mining uranium production from Inkai.  (2)
    
    Milled at Key Lake.  (3)
    
    A Cameco subsidiary acquired Smith Ranch in June 2002. Smith
Ranch-Highland 2002 production figure includes the subsidiarys share of
Smith Ranch production after closing of the acquisition. Smith
Ranch-Highland 2001 production figures do not include Smith Ranch
production. 
 McArthur River McArthur River is an underground uranium mine, in which Cameco has a direct and
indirect interest of 69.805%. It contains the worlds largest known high-grade
uranium deposit. McArthur River is owned by joint venture partners Cameco
(55.844%), Cogema (16.234%) and UEM (27.922%), a company equally owned by
Cameco and Cogema. Cameco is the operator. At December 31, 2003, the
Companys share of proven and probable reserves were 559,000 tonnes of ore
containing 304.7 million pounds U3O8 with
an average grade of 24.7% U3O8 and its
share of measured and indicated resources are 409,600 tonnes of material
containing 85.7 million pounds with an average grade of 9.5%
U3O8. At an assumed annual production rate of 18 million pounds, Cameco estimates
that McArthur River will have a mine life of at least 25 years and a payback
period of capital invested of approximately 4 years after 2003. Property Description and Environment This property is located near Toby Lake in northern Saskatchewan, approximately
620 kilometres north of Saskatoon. The McArthur River mine site is compact,
occupying approximately an area of one kilometre in the north/south direction
and half a kilometre in the east/west direction. The site consists of an
underground mine, one full service shaft and two ventilation shafts along with
numerous surface facilities, including inert waste rock stockpiles, a large
capacity mine water treatment plant, a pump house, ponds, standby diesel
generators as well as maintenance and warehousing facilities. Other major
facilities include the orebody freezing plant, the administration/shop complex,
the ore slurry handling and truck load-out facility. The surface facilities and mine shafts for the McArthur River operation 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 of Saskatchewan. The most recent surface lease agreement was signed in
April 1999 and is valid for 33 years. Obligations attached to the surface lease
relate primarily to annual reporting regarding the status of the environment,
land development and progress on northern employment and business development.
The lease is renewable if necessary until full property decommissioning has
been achieved. The McArthur River surface lease presently covers about 651
hectares. The mineral property consists of 21 mineral claims and one mineral lease
totaling 84,818 hectares. The McArthur River uranium deposit is located in the area subject to mineral
lease ML5516. Under this mineral lease Cameco acquired the right to mine this
deposit. The current mineral lease expires in March 2004 with the right to
renew for successive subsequent 10 year terms absent a default by Cameco. An
application to renew the current mineral lease has been submitted. 2003 Cameco Annual Information Form 9




---



##### 



Surrounding the McArthur River uranium deposit are 21 mineral claims. A mineral
claim grants the holder the right to explore for minerals within the claim
lands and the right to apply for a mineral lease. Title to the 21 mineral
claims is secured until 2017. All resources and reserves on the property are part of the McArthur River
orebody. For additional information on mineral leases, mineral claims and surface
leases, see Land Tenure-Saskatchewan Operations. Uranium produced from this property is subject to Saskatchewan royalties as
described in Government Regulation-Canadian Royalties and Certain Taxes.
Also UEM, with respect to its participating interest in the McArthur River
joint venture, is required to pay 5% of net profits, up to a maximum of $1.9
million, to a third party. The property is subject to decommissioning liabilities. In accordance with
regulatory requirements, Cameco has filed with the provincial government a
conceptual decommissioning and reclamation plan and has provided a $6.0 million
letter of credit as security for decommissioning the property. Two permits must be maintained to operate the mine. Cameco holds a Uranium
Mine Facility Operating Licence from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
(CNSC) and an Approval to Operate Pollutant Control Facilities from
Saskatchewan Environment (SE). Both permits are current. The Uranium Mine
Operating License from the CNSC, which was to expire on February 28, 2004, has
been extended for eight months in order to accommodate the work needed to
support licence renewal later in 2004. The Approval to Operate Pollutant
Control Facilities from SE expires on October 31, 2004. Cameco expects
regulators will renew these permits. Site accessibility, infrastructure and physiography The means of access to the property is by an all-weather road and by air.
Supplies are transported by truck and can easily be shipped from anywhere in
North America through Camecos transit warehouse in Saskatoon. McArthur River
ore is transported to the Key Lake mill for processing some 80 kilometres to
the southwest along a gravel highway. Site operations are carried out all year
despite cold winter conditions. The fresh air necessary to ventilate the
underground workings is heated during the winter months using propane-fired
burners. There is easy access to and sufficient water from nearby Toby Lake to
satisfy all industrial and residential water requirements. To minimize fresh
water use, most industrial water demands are met by recycling water. The site
is connected to the provincial power grid. There are standby generators in
case of grid power interruption. Personnel are recruited from the northern area
communities and major Saskatchewan population centers such as Saskatoon.
Underground development work is tendered to a mining contractor. Cameco
personnel conduct all production functions. McArthur River is a developed producing property, with surface right holdings
that cover all of its mining operation needs as well as requirements for
residences, access to water, airport, site roads and other necessary buildings
and infrastructures. No tailings management facilities are required as McArthur
River ore is milled at the Key Lake mill. The topography and the environment is typical of the taiga that is common
to the Athabasca basin area of northern Saskatchewan. The surface facilities
are approximately 550 metres above sea level. History There have been numerous changes in ownership of participating interests in the
joint venture that governs the McArthur River property. The joint venture was
formed in 1976 and the joint venture partners at that time were Canadian Kelvin
Resources, Asamera Oil Corporation Ltd., and SMDC, a predecessor company to
Cameco. Recently, the two most significant changes in ownership have been:  
    
    In 1998, Cameco bought all of the shares of Uranerz Exploration and
Mining Ltd. (and changed Uranerzs name to UEM), thereby increasing
its direct and indirect participating interest in the McArthur River
joint venture to 83.766%.  
    
    In 1999, Cogema acquired one-half of the shares of UEM, thereby
reducing Camecos direct and indirect participating interest in the
McArthur River joint venture to 69.805%. Cogemas direct and indirect
participating interest in the McArthur River joint venture is 30.195%. 2003 Cameco Annual Information Form 10




---



##### 



Cameco, through its predecessor company SMDC, became operator of the McArthur
River project in 1980. Surface exploration programs, ranging from small line
cutting crews to large helicopter supported drilling and prospecting camps,
were active from 1980 through to 1992. Surface drilling programs delineated an
ore zone over 1,700 metres in length, occurring at depths ranging between 530
to 640 metres below surface. Significant mineralizations of potentially
economic uranium grades were first discovered as a result of surface drilling
in the 1988 and 1989 exploration seasons. In 1992, an underground exploration program was proposed to gain more accurate
information regarding the discovery in order to complete an assessment of the
means and feasibility of ore extraction. Upon review by the joint
Federal/Provincial Panel, and upon receiving the Panels positive
recommendation, exploration camp construction began in February 1993 and
underground exploration proceeded with shaft sinking, level development and
definition underground drilling until 1997. The environment impact statement for the full McArthur River development was
submitted to the joint Federal/Provincial Panel in 1995. Public hearings took
place and were completed in 1996. A positive recommendation was made by the
panel in early 1997. Subsequently, approvals were received from the
governments of Canada and Saskatchewan for the project to proceed to licensing
for construction. The Atomic Energy Control Board (AECB) issued construction
licences for McArthur River in August 1997 and May 1998. In October 1999, Cameco received an operating licence from federal authorities
and operating approval from provincial authorities. Mine Development Construction and development of the McArthur River mine was completed on
schedule and mining commenced in December 1999. During the mine startup, also
known as mine commissioning, the operation of processing and mining equipment
was evaluated and modified as required. Upon completion of mine commissioning,
commercial production was achieved on November 1, 2000. At present, the site includes three shafts. The first shaft is used to move
workers, material and waste rock. The second shaft is used for mine exhaust
air ventilation and as an emergency exit. The third shaft was completed in
November 2000 and is equipped as a third means of egress. This shaft is also
used for fresh air ventilation. Geology and Mineralization The McArthur River deposit is located in the southeastern portion of the
Athabasca Basin, within the southwest part of the Churchill structural province
of the Canadian Shield. The crystalline basement rocks underlying the deposit
are members of the Aphebian aged Wollaston Domain, metasedimentary sequence.
These rocks are overlain by flat lying, unmetamorphosed sandstones and
conglomerates of the Helikian Athabasca Group. These sediments are over 500
metres thick in the deposit area. The mineralization is situated alongside a northeast trending graphitic fault,
close to the unconformity between the basement rock and the overlying Athabasca
sandstone. Exploration, Drilling and Estimates The original McArthur River resource estimates were derived from surface
diamond drilling. The drill hole data consists of assay results from 42 drill
holes compiled with all relevant geological and technical data. The very high
grade encountered in these drill holes justified the development of an
underground exploration project. From 1994 to present, several drilling campaigns from underground levels at 530
metres and 640 metres depth were completed. Diamond drilling was followed by
systematic radiometric probing of the holes using a high flux probe adapted to
the very high radioactivity encountered. Drill holes intersected mineralized
zones on a grid spacing of 10 × 10 metres or less. Radiometric probing was at
0.10 metre spacing in the radioactive zones. Where core recovery allows it,
sampling and assaying of the cores as well as density measurements are
performed to confirm correlations. To date, assays have produced results
slightly (8-10%) above the calculated ore grades that were derived from the
radiometric probing data. 2003 Cameco Annual Information Form 11




---



##### 



The data from more than 500 underground exploration holes drilled to the end of
2003 have been interpreted and estimates of reserves have been made in four
mineralized zones. In addition to this drilling, more than 150 freeze holes and
raisebore pilot holes have provided data confirming the interpretation. Cameco has developed and implemented procedures for quality control, data
verification and security of sampling that it believes will assure the
integrity of information resulting from drilling activities at McArthur River. Mine Operations Production at Camecos McArthur River mine was temporarily suspended on April
6, 2003, as increased water inflow from an area of collapsed rock in a new
development area, located just above the 530-metre level, began to flood
portions of the mine. Remedial work to return the mine to safe operating
condition was carried out during the second quarter of 2003 and was
sufficiently advanced in early July, 2003 for mine production to resume. At McArthur River, the approach to sealing off the water inflow continues to be
cautious and thorough in grouting, freezing and testing the area of the
collapse. From a high of about 1,000 cubic metres per hour (m3/hr), the total
mine inflow has been reduced to approximately 500 m3/hr at the end of 2003. It
is expected that normal water inflow into the mine will stabilize at about 300
m3/hr once this work is completed, now expected in the second quarter of 2004.
Prior to the flooding incident, normal water inflow was about 225 m3/hr. In addition, permanent water treatment capacity has been expanded to about 750
m3/hr at the end of 2003, up from 450 m3/hr. During the water inflow incident,
additional temporary capacity was put in place to treat the water flows. For
2004, plans are in place to increase the permanent and contingency water
treatment capacity to about 1,500 m3/hr. The McArthur River mine produced 15.2 million pounds
U3O8 in 2003 (Camecos share is 10.6
million). During the period July 2003 to December 2003 the McArthur River
mines production was equivalent to an annual production rate of about 21.8
million pounds U3O8. The sandstones which overlay the basement rocks contain significant water,
which is at hydrostatic pressure. Water flow into the mine area is prevented
primarily by ground freezing. Ore extraction is performed by the raise boring
method with broken ore falling into a line-of-sight remote controlled loader.
The loader transports the ore to one of two grizzlies. One grizzly routes ore
to one of two ore storage bins while the other grizzly reports directly to the
grinding circuit. This circuit grinds the ore to a size that is acceptable for
the Key Lake leaching circuit. From the grinding circuit, ore is thickened in
two underground thickeners that operate in parallel. Thickened ore is pumped
680 metres up to four surface ore slurry holding tanks. Ore is drawn out of
the four surface ore slurry holding tanks into a mixing tank. More water is
removed in another thickener. Ore slurry is then pumped into containers on a
transport truck for shipment to the Key Lake mill over an 80 kilometre
all-weather road. Once a raise has bored through the ore zone, it is backfilled
with concrete. The next raise is then bored at a suitable distance away to
allow cure time for the concrete fill. After all the rows of raises are
complete in a chamber, equipment is removed from the area and the chamber is
backfilled with concrete. A new chamber is excavated to allow for the next
area to be mined and the cycle is repeated. The mining method for some portions of the ore body will not be the raise
boring method, with the alternate mining method or methods not yet confirmed. Milling The McArthur River joint venture has entered into a toll milling agreement with
the Key Lake joint venture to process all the ore from the McArthur River mine.
The terms of the agreement include a provision for processing at cost plus a
fixed toll milling fee. The Key Lake joint venture is operated by Cameco and
is owned by Cameco (66 2/3%) and UEM (33 1/3%). UEM is owned equally by Cameco
and Cogema. At the Key Lake mill, McArthur River ore is blended with low grade mineralized
waste rock down to approximately 4% U3O8.
The uranium is then dissolved in a single stage leaching circuit. Uranium
solution is then separated from the remaining ore solids in a counter current
decantation circuit. The uranium solution is purified in a solvent extraction
circuit. The purified uranium is precipitated out of solution by the addition
of ammonia. The ammonium diuranate is thickened and centrifuged before being
transferred to a calciner. The calciner dries and calcines the uranium oxide
concentrate before it is packed into 200 litre drums. The final product is
about 99 % U3O8. 2003 Cameco Annual Information Form 12




---



##### 



Two permits must be maintained to operate the mill. Cameco holds a Uranium
Mill Operating Licence from the CNSC and an Approval to Operate Pollutant Control Facilities from SE. Both permits are current. The Uranium Mill Operating
License from the CNSC, which was to expire on February 28, 2004, has been
extended for eight months in order to accommodate the work needed to support
licence renewal later in 2004. The Approval to Operate Pollutant Control
Facilities from SE expires on November 30, 2004. Cameco expects regulators
will renew these permits. The Key Lake property is subject to decommissioning liabilities. In accordance
with regulatory requirements, Cameco has filed with the provincial government a
conceptual decommissioning and reclamation plan and has provided a $38 million
letter of credit as security for decommissioning the property. There are two tailings management facilities at the Key Lake site. One is an
above-ground impoundment with tailings stored within compacted till
embankments. This facility was constructed in 1983, has not received tailings
since 1998 and is now almost full. Cameco is reviewing several decommissioning
options regarding this facility. The other tailings management facility (TMF) is the Deilmann pit. The
east-end of the Deilmann pit was mined out in April 1995 and then converted to
a TMF that has been in operation since the beginning of 1996. The west-end of
the Deilmann pit was mined out in 1997 and then converted to a TMF. The
Deilmann TMF uses a staged subaerial/subaqueous tailings deposition mode with
an initial pervious sand envelope constructed around the perimeter of the pit.
The sand envelope allows excess water to drain to a drainage blanket underlying
the tailings at the bottom of the pit and then to dewatering pumps in a raise
well connected by a drift to the drainage blanket. At the end of 1998,
approval was received from the CNSC and Saskatchewan Environment Resource
Management to cease construction of the sand envelope and convert the mode of
tailings deposition from subaerial to subaqueous. This is in accordance with
the environmental impact statement prepared and approved for the tailings
facility. Conversion started immediately. Flooding commenced in June 1999.
Based upon current reserve estimates, the Deilmann TMF has adequate capacity to
hold the tailings from milling all of the McArthur River ore. There are five large rock stockpiles at the Key Lake site. Three of the
stockpiles contain non-mineralized waste rock and two contain low grade
mineralized waste rock. The latter is currently used to lower the grade of
McArthur River ore to approximately 4%
U3O8 before entering the milling circuit,
both to process the low grade material and control radiation exposures in the
mill. Remaining waste rock stockpiles will require decommissioning upon site
closure. Safety and Radiation Control At McArthur River, a key source of radiation exposure during mining results
from radon gas that emanates from ore and groundwater. Radon exposure is
minimized by effective use of ventilation. Water inflows are collected
underground and pumped to the surface for treatment before being released to
the environment. Exposure to radiation from the high-grade ore is minimized by
containment, shielding and remote handling of the ore during the processing and
handling stages. The radiation levels that workers at McArthur River and Key Lake receive are
closely monitored. This includes the use of both personal and area monitoring
to measure and control exposures. Under the CNSCs Nuclear Safety and Control Act, radiation exposure limits
incorporate a formula that combine the doses of gamma radiation, radon and dust
intake which an individual receives in a year. Since mine start up and milling
of McArthur River ore at Key Lake, radiation exposure levels have been well
below applicable standards. McArthur River Resource and Reserve Estimates The mineral reserve and resource estimates for McArthur River are found at
Uranium Concentrates Business-Reserves and Resources. The key assumptions,
parameters and methods used in making these estimates are:  1.
    
    Key Assumptions  (a)
    
    the reserves reported are in situ reserves without provision
for dilution or mining recovery for the following reasons: 2003 Cameco Annual Information Form 13




---



##### 



(i)
    
    the grade of ore zones is so high that some waste
or subgrade material that is produced by mining must be
blended with ore in order to control radiation exposure, in
accordance with the terms of the CNSC operating licence;(ii)
    
    mining recovery is expected to be almost total in
this high-grade ore by means of current and planned mining
methods; and(iii)
    
    mining recoveries since early 2000 to the end of
2003 have exceeded expectations.  (b)
    
    Uranium prices remaining above their historic lows.  2.
    
    Key Parameters  (a)
    
    grades were obtained from radiometric probing of underground
drill holes and converted to percentage
U3O8 on the basis of a
correlation between radiometric counts and assay values;(b)
    
    densities were determined from regression formulas based on
374 density measurements of drill core and chemical assay grades;(c)
    
    limits and continuity of the mineralization are structurally
controlled; and(d)
    
    reserves at McArthur River are based on estimated quantities
of mineralized material recoverable by established mining methods.  3.
    
    Key Methods  (a)
    
    three-dimensional wireframe models were created from
digitized mineralization boundaries interpreted on 10 metre spacing
vertical cross-sections and planviews. Estimates of the grade and
density of blocks of 1 metre x 5 metre x 1 metre were obtained from
ordinary kriging; and(b)
    
    reserves are defined as the economically mineable part of the
indicated and measured resources. Only reserves have demonstrated
economic viability. The amount of reported resources does not
include amounts identified as reserves. Although Cameco believes that McArthur River reserve and resource estimates
will not be materially affected by external factors, such as metallurgical,
safety and environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation and political
issues, there can be no assurance that they will not be. There are numerous
uncertainties inherent in estimating mineral reserves and resources. The
accuracy of any reserve and resource estimation is the function of the quality
of available data and of engineering and geological interpretation and
judgment. Results from drillings, testing and production, as well as a material
change in the uranium price, subsequent to the date of the estimate, may
justify revision of such estimates. In January 2003 Cameco initiated a formal review of the mining plan and
proposed mining methods and a review of the reserves classification at McArthur
River as a result of uncertainty associated with the productivity of the
jetboring and boxhole boring mining methods at McArthur River and not as a
result of the water inflow event. The jetboring and boxhole boring mining
methods may be utilized for parts of the ore body where the raise boring method
may be inappropriate. The completion of the review reflecting this uncertainty
resulted in the reclassification of 51.8 million lbs
U3O8 of proven reserves to probable
reserves at McArthur River. Other McArthur River Information For information pertaining to:  (a)
    
    markets and contracts for sale of uranium produced from McArthur River,
see Uranium Concentrates Business-Marketing; and(b)
    
    taxes and royalties on McArthur River uranium production, see Government
Regulation-Canadian Royalties and Certain Taxes and Government
Regulation-Canadian Income Taxes. There are some exploration or development activities planned for the McArthur
River operation in 2004 but these are not considered to be material. 2003 Cameco Annual Information Form 14




---



##### 



Rabbit Lake Rabbit Lake is a uranium mining and milling complex that has been in operation
since 1975 and is wholly owned by Cameco. The Eagle Point mine, located on the
Rabbit Lake lease, was reopened in 2002, ending a care and maintenance period
of three years. Following resumption of Eagle Point ore production, the Rabbit
Lake mill also resumed operation in 2002, ending a one-year care and
maintenance period. Based upon the current mine plan, Rabbit Lake reserves are
forecast to be depleted in early 2006. The mineral reserve and resource
estimates for Rabbit Lake are found at Uranium Concentrates Business-Reserves
and Resources. Cameco is conducting exploration from surface and underground to determine
if there is sufficient reserves to extend the Eagle Point mine life. Pending
the results of this exploration it is possible that the mine life will be
extended. There are two permits that must be maintained to conduct mining and milling
activities at Rabbit Lake. Cameco holds a Uranium Mine Operating Licence
from the CNSC and an Approval to Operate Pollutant Control Facilities from
SE. Both permits are current and will expire on October 31, 2008. The property is subject to decommissioning liabilities. In accordance with
regulatory requirements, Cameco has filed with the provincial government a
conceptual decommissioning and reclamation plan and has provided a $36 million
letter of credit as security for decommissioning the property. Subject to regulatory approval and mutually satisfactory business arrangements
among the Cigar Lake owners, it is expected that the Rabbit Lake mill will
process approximately one-half of the Cigar Lake uranium for a period of some 9
years. Deliveries of Cigar Lake uranium to the Rabbit Lake mill may commence
in 2009. An environmental impact statement for the processing of uranium from
the Cigar Lake mine at Rabbit Lake is expected to be filed with regulators by
mid-2005. 
 Crow Butte Crow Butte, which has been in production since 1991, is an ISL uranium
operation located near Crawford, Nebraska, USA. Cameco holds a 100% interest
in Crow Butte through its wholly owned subsidiary, Crow Butte Resources Inc.
The mineral reserve and resource estimates for Crow Butte are found at Uranium
Concentrates Business-Reserves and Resources. Crow Butte is subject to decommissioning liabilities. In accordance with
regulatory requirements, the operator of the property has provided a $14.9
million (US) letter of credit to the State of Nebraska as security for
decommissioning the property. 
 Smith Ranch - Highland Smith
Ranch - Highland is an ISL uranium operation located near the towns of
Glenrock and Douglas, Wyoming, USA. It is owned 100% by Cameco through its
wholly owned subsidiary, Power Resources, Inc. (PRI). In July 2002, PRI purchased the Smith Ranch ISL uranium operation. It is
located in Wyoming, adjacent to PRIs Highland operation. As part of the
purchase, PRI assumed decommissioning liabilities, estimated at $9.2 million
(US), associated with Smith Ranch and purchased about $6 million (US) in
uranium inventory. Cameco guaranteed PRIs assumption of these decommissioning
liabilities. In connection with the acquisition, PRI secured forward sales
contracts of more than 900,000 pounds of Smith Ranch production at prices
substantially above the long-term market indicators at that time. The Smith Ranch mill processes all Smith Ranch and Highland ISL mined uranium.
As a result, the Highland mill is being maintained on a care and maintenance
basis. Smith
Ranch - Highland is subject to decommissioning liabilities. In accordance
with regulatory requirements, PRI has provided letters of credit totaling $37.2
million (US) to the State of Wyoming as security for decommissioning these
properties. The
mineral reserve and resource estimates for Smith Ranch - Highland are found
at Uranium Concentrates Business-Reserves and Resources. 2003 Cameco Annual Information Form 15




---



##### 



Development Projects Cameco
has one material uranium development project - Cigar Lake in
Saskatchewan. Cameco expects production to begin at Cigar Lake no earlier than
2007. Cameco also has a uranium development project in Kazakhstan called
Inkai. Inkai received all necessary government approvals to build and operate a
test ISL mine. Construction of the test mine began in November 2000 and
testing commenced in early 2002 and continues. Continued development and start up of production at these two projects is
subject to market conditions and to the timely receipt of all necessary
approvals, permits and licences. 
 Cigar Lake Cigar Lake is the worlds second largest known high-grade uranium deposit.
Cigar Lake is owned by joint venture partners Cameco (50.025%), Cogema (37.1%),
Idemitsu Uranium Exploration Canada Ltd. (7.875%) and TEPCO Resources Inc.
(5.0%). Cameco is the operator. At December 31, 2003, Camecos share of proven
and probable reserves were 276,000 tonnes of ore containing 115.8 million
pounds U3O8 with an average grade of 19%
U3O8 and inferred resources of 159,000
tonnes of material containing 59.1 million pounds with an average grade of
16.9% U3O8. From the commencement of production and at an assumed annual production of 18
million pounds, Cameco estimates the first phase of Cigar Lake will have a mine
life of approximately 13 years and a payback period of capital invested of
approximately 7 years. Property Description and Environment The Cigar Lake minesite is located near Waterbury Lake, approximately 660
kilometres north of Saskatoon. The Cigar Lake minesite was developed for the
activities of test mining. At present, the site consists of an underground
development, complete with two main levels and a 500-metre mine shaft and head
frame, water treatment ponds, standby generators, freeze plant, office, shop,
warehouse, construction residences and support installations. The surface facilities and mine shaft 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 of
Saskatchewan. The surface lease was signed in 1987 and is valid for 33 years.
Obligations attached to the surface lease agreement primarily relate to annual
reporting regarding the status of the environment, the land development and
progress made on northern employment and business development. The lease is
renewable if necessary until full property decommissioning has been achieved.
The Cigar Lake surface lease covers a total of 974 hectares. The mineral property consists of one mineral lease, totaling 308 hectares, and
25 mineral claims, totaling 92,740 hectares. The mineral lease and mineral
claims are contiguous. The Cigar Lake deposit is located in the area subject to
mineral lease ML5521. The right to mine this uranium deposit was acquired under
this mineral lease, as renewed, effective December 1, 2001. The mineral lease
is for a term of 10 years with the right to renew for successive subsequent 10
year terms absent a default by Cameco. Surrounding the Cigar Lake deposit are 25 mineral claims. A mineral claim
grants the holder the right to explore for minerals within the claim lands and
the right to apply for a mineral lease. Title to the mineral claims is secured
until 2023. All reserves and resources on the property are part of the Cigar Lake orebody. For additional information on mineral leases, mineral claims and surface
leases, see Land Tenure-Saskatchewan Operations. Uranium produced from this property will be subject to Saskatchewan royalties
as described in Government Regulation-Canadian Royalties and Certain Taxes. The property is subject to decommissioning liabilities. In accordance with
regulatory requirements Cameco, as project operator has filed with the
regulatory agencies a conceptual decommissioning and reclamation plan for the
test mining infrastructure and surface disturbance. Financial assurances have
been provided by each of the owners for a total amount of $4.2 million to cover
their respective portion of the decommissioning work. 2003 Cameco Annual Information Form 16




---



##### 



The Cigar Lake site has been operated under various permits, licences and
leases granted for the purpose of the test mine, all of which are currently in
good standing. The Uranium Mine Site Preparation License from the CNSC will
expire on July 31, 2004, but it will likely be extended to coincide with the
anticipated issuance of the construction license. The current Approval to
Operate Pollutant Control Facilities from SE will expire May 31, 2004.
Cameco expects regulators will renew these permits. Cameco applied for a
construction licence in 2002. Cameco expects to receive the licence in late
2004, subject to confirmation by the regulators of their licensing
process. Site accessibility, infrastructure and physiography Access to the property is by road and by air. Supplies are transported by
truck on an all-weather road and can be easily shipped from anywhere in North
America through Camecos transit warehouse in Saskatoon. Site activities are
carried out all year despite the cold weather during the winter months. The
fresh air is heated with propane-fired burners before being introduced
underground when the air temperature is below freezing. The water for the
industrial activities and the camp come from nearby Waterbury Lake. The site is
connected to the provincial electricity grid. There are standby generators in
case of grid power failures. Personnel are recruited from the northern
communities and major population centers such as Saskatoon. The underground
work is tendered to a mining contractor. The surface lease grants sufficient rights, subject to regulatory approvals,
for mining operations and the lands subject to the surface lease are sufficient
for personal accommodation, access to water, airport, site roads and other
necessary buildings and infrastructure. Cameco expects that tailings
management facilities will not be required at Cigar Lake, as ore will not be
milled at Cigar Lake. The topography and the environment is typical of the taiga forested lands
common to the Athabasca basin area of northern Saskatchewan. The area is
covered with thick overburden. The site is approximately 490 metres above sea
level. History The first uranium mineralization discovery at Cigar Lake was in May 1981.
Since that time, the deposit has been defined by approximately 200 holes and
92,000 metres of core drilling from surface. Cigar Lake Mining Corporation
(CLMC) has been operator of the project since 1985. Effective January 1,
2002, Cameco replaced CLMC as operator. In 1993, a preliminary feasibility study was delivered to the joint venture
partners. An environment impact statement was filed with the relevant
regulatory agencies in 1995. Technical challenges involving groundwater, rock
properties and radiation protection were evaluated and addressed during the
test mining phase. Public hearings on the project environment impact statement were concluded in
1997 and the joint federal-provincial panel recommended to the governments of
Canada and Saskatchewan that the project be allowed to proceed, subject to
resolution, on terms acceptable to regulatory authorities, of issues with
respect to a tailings management facility and waste rock disposal. In April
1998, both levels of government accepted the joint panel recommendations and
authorized the project to proceed to the regulatory licensing stage. In early 2003, the CNSC informed Cameco that a new screening level
environmental assessment would need to be carried out prior to the issuance of
construction and operating licences. Terms of the environmental assessment were
approved by the CNSC mid-year, and by February 2004 the supporting
environmental assessment study documentation had been filed. Acceptance of the
new environmental assessment is anticipated in mid-2004, allowing the project
to proceed to construction licensing. Geology and Mineralization The Cigar Lake deposit is located approximately 40 kilometres inside the margin
of the eastern part of the Athabasca Basin. It 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,
the McClean Lake and Collins Bay deposits. It shares many 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 very high grade, and the high degree of associated 2003 Cameco Annual Information Form 17




---



##### 



hydrothermal clay alteration. The deposit is flat lying, approximately 1950
metres long, 20 to 100 metres wide, and ranges up to 16 metres thick. It
occurs at depths ranging between 410 to 450 metres below the surface. Exploration and Estimates The exploration of the Cigar Lake deposit was performed by Cogema. A data bank
was created from all assay measurement of the various elements. Algorithms
were established for the density determination based on the nature of the
mineralization and of the surrounding ground. Cogema produced for CLMC various reserve and resource estimates. These
estimates were reviewed in 2000 by a task force from Cogema, CLMC and Cameco.
New test reserve and resource estimates were completed both by Cogema and
Cameco and the results were compared. A new definition of the reserves based on the latest technical tests and
economics has been implemented. The new definition is based on a minimum
uranium content and a minimum grade for each estimated block. Cameco believes that Cogema developed and implemented acceptable procedures for
quality control, data verification and security of information resulting from
exploration drilling activities at Cigar Lake. Test Mining A test mining program was approved in late 1987. Shaft sinking began in 1988,
reaching a final depth of 501 metres in early 1990. Horizontal development was
advanced on two levels and test mining in frozen ground, using box hole boring
and high pressure water jet boring, was successfully carried out in 1991 and
1992. During 1998, CLMC successfully tested a mechanical mine development system
suitable to local underground conditions and at year-end commissioned a freeze
hole drilling system. Also, throughout 1998, CLMC produced a number of
engineering studies that examined project development and milling options. In 1999 and 2000, further jet boring tests were completed with improved
systems. Information acquired from these tests were used to update the
feasibility study, which was later approved by the joint venture partners in
June 2001. Subject to regulatory approval, the jet boring mining method will consist of
four metre diameter holes bored with a high pressure water jet in the
previously frozen high grade orebody. The ore will be ground and slurried
underground, pumped to surface and loaded into specialized containers. All the
ore slurry will be shipped to Cogemas McClean Lake mill for processing.
Approximately one-half of the resulting pregnant acqueous solution will then be
processed at the McClean Lake mill with the other half being transported to the
Rabbit Lake mill for further processing. See Rabbit Lake. Cigar Lake Resource and Reserve Estimates The mineral reserve and resource estimates for Cigar Lake are found at Uranium
Concentrates Business-Reserves and Resources. The key assumptions, parameters
and methods used in making these estimates are:  1.
    
    Key Assumptions  (a)
    
    the reserves reported include allowances for dilution and
mining recovery;(b)
    
    no such allowances are applied to mineral resources;(c)
    
    the minimum grade for proven reserves is 5.9%
U3O8 and for probable reserves
is 1.2% U3O8; and(d)
    
    uranium prices remaining above their historic lows.  2.
    
    Key Parameters  (a)
    
    grades (percentage
U3O8) were obtained from
assaying of drill core and checked against radiometric results. In
areas of lost core or poor recovery, reliance was placed on
radiometric grade determined from the gamma probing; 2003 Cameco Annual Information Form 18




---



##### 



(b)
    
    where density was not directly measured for each sample, a
correlation between uranium grade and density was applied; and(c)
    
    reserves at Cigar Lake are based on estimated quantities of
mineralized material recoverable by established mining methods.  3.
    
    Key Methods  (a)
    
    the geological interpretation of the orebody outline was done
on planviews, a two-dimension horizontal block model delineates the
deposit with block of size 15 metres x 6 metres;(b)
    
    ordinary kriging served to estimate the grade, thickness and
density of the blocks; and(c)
    
    reserves are defined as the economically mineable part of the
indicated and measured resources. Only reserves have demonstrated
economic viability. The amount of reported resources does not
include amounts identified as reserves. Although Cameco believes Cigar Lake reserve and resource estimates are unlikely
to be materially affected by external factors, such as metallurgical, safety
and environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation and political issues,
there can be no assurance that they will not be. There are numerous
uncertainties inherent in estimating mineral reserves and resources. The
accuracy of any reserve and resource estimation is the function of the quality
of available data and of engineering and geological interpretation and
judgment. Results from drillings, testing and production, as well as a material
change in the uranium price, subsequent to the date of the estimate, may
justify revision of such estimates. Other Cigar Lake Information For information pertaining to:  (a)
    
    markets and contracts for sale of uranium produced from Cigar Lake, see
Uranium Concentrates Business-Marketing; and  (b)
    
    taxes and royalties on Cigar Lake uranium production, see Government
Regulation-Canadian Royalties and Certain Taxes and Government
Regulation-Canadian Income Taxes. Material development activities are currently planned for the Cigar Lake
project. In June 2001, the joint venture partners approved the feasibility
study and the detailed engineering design was initiated and is continuing. A
preliminary estimate of the project development costs is $350 million on a 100%
basis. Subject to regulatory approvals and market trends, production at the
Cigar Lake mine could begin no earlier than 2007. The construction license is now expected in late 2004. In advance of this,
activities requiring considerable advanced planning are expected to continue.
Procurement is planned for several long-lead time items including the second
hoist and head frame complex, the freezing system, freeze hole drilling and the
electrical distribution system. 
 Inkai Inkai is an ISL project located in the Republic of Kazakhstan and consists of
three contiguous license blocks (leases). The project is owned and operated by
Joint Venture Inkai, which is owned by Cameco (60%) and Kazatomprom (40%). The
latter is a company owned by the Republic of Kazakhstan. Camecos share of
proven and probable reserves is 51.8 million tonnes at an average grade of
0.05% U3O8 for 54.9 million pounds.
Camecos share of measured and indicated resources is 2.2 million tonnes at
0.04% U3O8 for 1.7 million pounds
U3O8 and of inferred resources is 152.4
million tonnes at 0.05% U3O8 for 160.8
million pounds. In April 1999, Inkai received from the government of Kazakhstan a mining
(extraction) licence for Block No. 1 and an exploration licence for Blocks No.
2 & 3. The associated subsoil use contract, covering both licences, was signed
by the government and Joint Venture Inkai in July 2000. Subsequent to signing
of the contract, Joint Venture Inkai
obtained the permits and authorizations needed to start construction of the
test mine at Block No. 2. Construction of the test mine facilities was
substantially completed in December 2001. Test mining operations commenced in
April, 2002 following the federal governments formal inspection and acceptance
of the newly constructed facilities and continued throughout 2003. A
Feasibility Study has now been completed on the planned construction and
operation of a commercial facility at Block 1. During 2004, an Environmental
Assessment and Design Plan for construction 2003 Cameco Annual Information Form 19




---



##### 



of the commercial facility will be
prepared and submitted to Kazakh authorities for approval in accordance with
the requirements of local law. An environmental impact assessment regarding Block 1 of the planned commercial
mine is expected to be completed in 2004. The Inkai ISL project is subject to decommissioning liabilities. Subsequent to
commencement of commercial production, Joint Venture Inkai is required to
establish a separate bank account and make contributions to the account as
security for decommissioning the property. Contributions to such bank account
are capped at $500,000 (US). Cameco has agreed to provide funding to Joint Venture Inkai of up to $40
million (US) for project development. To December 31, 2003, Cameco, through
subsidiaries, had advanced $19.5 million (US) ($25.1 million (Cdn)). 
 Exploration Cameco carries out mineral exploration for new uranium resources on substantial
landholdings, principally located in two areas: the Athabasca basin of northern
Saskatchewan and the Arnhem Land region in Northern Territory, Australia. The
subdivision of lands (properties in which Cameco holds interests greater than
10%) and uranium exploration expenditures is as follows: Area
    
    hectares at Dec. 31 2003
    
    2003 actual expenditures
(000s)Saskatchewan
    
    
    615,000
    
    
    
    7,200Northwest Territories
    
    
    31,000
    
    
    
    100Australia
    
    
    2,055,000
    
    
    
    4,400Other
    
    
    21,000
    
    
    
    1,500Totals
    
    
    2,722,000
    
    
    
    13,200
 The majority of Camecos exploration lands are explored as joint ventures with
other mining companies, with Cogema the most common joint venture partner. At
year-end 2003, Cameco operated approximately three-quarters of its exploration
projects, including joint ventures. The majority of Camecos exploration
projects are early to middle stage, on which indications of economic grades or
quantities of uranium have not yet been identified. Cameco periodically acquires new exploration land holdings in both Canada and
Australia, where the Company perceives the discovery potential to be worth the
cost of acquiring and holding the land. At the same time, the Company may
decide to reduce its interest in certain projects through farm-out agreements
or other arrangements. Cameco owned a 29% interest in UEX Corporation at December 31, 2003, a junior
exploration company formed in 2002 from a combination of exploration assets
previously held by Cameco and Pioneer Metals Corporation, and has certain
rights related to financing, milling, and marketing future uranium deposits
produced by UEX. Since many areas of the world are known to host numerous types of uranium
mineralization, Cameco actively investigates the uranium exploration potential
of areas other than those described above. No major projects are currently
being undertaken in areas outside Canada and Australia. 2003 Cameco Annual Information Form 20




---



##### 



Reserves and Resources Reserve and resource estimates for Camecos uranium properties as presented in
this Annual Information Form were prepared by or under the supervision of the
following qualified persons: Qualified Persons
    
    PropertiesAlain Gaston Mainville, Geologist
and Professional Geoscientist, who
is Manager, Mining Resources and
Methods at Cameco
    
    McArthur River, Rabbit Lake, Key
Lake and Dawn LakeRaymond Jean-François Chauvet,
Geological Engineer and Professional
Geoscientist, who was Director,
Mining Resources and Methods at
Cameco.
    
    Cigar Lake and InkaiSteve Lunsford, Registered
Professional Geologist Wyoming, who
is Senior Project Geologist at Power
Resources, Inc.
    
    Crow Butte, Gas Hills, Highland,
North Butte/Brown Ranch, NorthWest
Unit, Peach, Reynolds Ranch, Ruby
Ranch, Ruth, Shirley Basin and Smith
Ranch.
 Camecos reserve and resource estimates are obtained from internally generated
data or audited reports. Uranium Reserves(1) The following table shows the estimated uranium reserves as at December 31,
2003 on a property basis and Camecos share. The amount of reported resources
does not include amounts identified as reserves. PROVEN
    
    PROBABLE
    
    TOTAL RESERVES(100% basis)
    
    (100% basis)
    
    (100% basis)
    
    Content
CamecosGrade%
    
    Content
    
    
    
    
    
    Grade
    
    Content
    
    
    
    
    
    Grade
    
    Content
    
    Share
    
    MiningTonnes
    
    U3O8
    
    (lbs U3O8)
    
    Tonnes
    
    %U3O8
    
    (U3O8)
    
    Tonnes
    
    %U3O8
    
    (lbs U3O8)
    
    (lbs U3O8)
    
    Method(2)(tonnes and lbs in thousands)PROPERTYCigar Lake
    
    
    497.0
    
    
    
    20.67
    
    
    
    226,331.0
    
    
    
    54.0
    
    
    
    4.41
    
    
    
    5,248.0
    
    
    
    551.0
    
    
    
    19.07
    
    
    
    231,579.0
    
    
    
    115,847.0
    
    
    UGCrow Butte
    
    
    876.0
    
    
    
    0.23
    
    
    
    4,528.5
    
    
    
    338.0
    
    
    
    0.27
    
    
    
    1,998.5
    
    
    
    1,214.0
    
    
    
    0.24
    
    
    
    6,527.0
    
    
    
    6,527.0
    
    
    ISLGas Hills
    
    
    1,677.0
    
    
    
    0.17
    
    
    
    6,361.0
    
    
    
    1,000.0
    
    
    
    0.18
    
    
    
    4,010.0
    
    
    
    2,677.0
    
    
    
    0.18
    
    
    
    10,371.0
    
    
    
    10,371.0
    
    
    ISLHighland
    
    
    1,060.0
    
    
    
    0.12
    
    
    
    2,831.0
    
    
    
    1,628.0
    
    
    
    0.14
    
    
    
    5,143.0
    
    
    
    2,688.0
    
    
    
    0.13
    
    
    
    7,974.0
    
    
    
    7,974.0
    
    
    ISLInkai
    
    
    22,700.0
    
    
    
    0.06
    
    
    
    28,281.0
    
    
    
    63,700.0
    
    
    
    0.05
    
    
    
    63,216.0
    
    
    
    86,400.0
    
    
    
    0.05
    
    
    
    91,497.0
    
    
    
    54,898.0
    
    
    ISLKey Lake
    
    
    61.9
    
    
    
    0.52
    
    
    
    708.0
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    61.9
    
    
    
    0.52
    
    
    
    708.0
    
    
    
    590.0
    
    
    OPMcArthur River
    
    
    596.8
    
    
    
    26.63
    
    
    
    350,208.0
    
    
    
    204.5
    
    
    
    19.14
    
    
    
    86,271.0
    
    
    
    801.3
    
    
    
    24.71
    
    
    
    436,479.0
    
    
    
    304,684.0
    
    
    UGNorth Butte
/Brown Ranch
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    2,666.0
    
    
    
    0.13
    
    
    
    7,452.0
    
    
    
    2,666.0
    
    
    
    0.13
    
    
    
    7,452.0
    
    
    
    7,452.0
    
    
    ISLPeach
    
    
    609.0
    
    
    
    0.18
    
    
    
    2,424.0
    
    
    
    418.0
    
    
    
    0.22
    
    
    
    2,060.0
    
    
    
    1,027.0
    
    
    
    0.20
    
    
    
    4,484.0
    
    
    
    4,484.0
    
    
    ISLRabbit Lake
    
    
    440.0
    
    
    
    1.29
    
    
    
    12,490.0
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    440.0
    
    
    
    1.29
    
    
    
    12,490.0
    
    
    
    12,490.0
    
    
    UGRuby Ranch
    
    
    1,426.0
    
    
    
    0.09
    
    
    
    2,896.0
    
    
    
    1,013.0
    
    
    
    0.06
    
    
    
    1,424.0
    
    
    
    2,439.0
    
    
    
    0.08
    
    
    
    4,320.0
    
    
    
    4,320.0
    
    
    ISLRuth
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    519.0
    
    
    
    0.11
    
    
    
    1,249.0
    
    
    
    519.0
    
    
    
    0.11
    
    
    
    1,249.0
    
    
    
    1,249.0
    
    
    ISLSmith Ranch
    
    
    2,944.0
    
    
    
    0.09
    
    
    
    5,842.0
    
    
    
    6,789.0
    
    
    
    0.09
    
    
    
    13,601.0
    
    
    
    9,733.0
    
    
    
    0.09
    
    
    
    19,443.0
    
    
    
    19,443.0
    
    
    ISLTotal
    
    
    32,887.4
    
    
    
    0.89
    
    
    
    642,900.5
    
    
    
    78,329.5
    
    
    
    0.11
    
    
    
    191,672.5
    
    
    
    111,216.9
    
    
    
    0.34
    
    
    
    834,573.0
    
    
    
    550,329.0
 Notes:  (1)
    
    Canadian Securities Administrators National Instrument 43-101 requires mining companies to disclose reserves and resources using the subcategories of proven reserves, probable reserves, measured resources, indicated resources and
inferred resources.
Cameco reports reserves and resources separately.  (2)
    
    Mining Method: OP  Open Pit; UG  Underground; ISL  In situ leaching. 2003 Cameco Annual Information Form 21




---



##### 



Uranium Resources(1) The following table shows the estimated uranium resources as at December 31,
2003 on a property basis and Camecos share. The amount of reported resources
does not include amounts identified as reserves. MEASURED
    
    INDICATED
    
    MEASURED AND INDICATED(100% basis)
    
    (100% basis)
    
    (100% basis)
    
    ContentCamecosGrade%
    
    Content
    
    
    
    
    
    Grade
    
    Content
    
    
    
    
    
    Grade
    
    Content
    
    Share
    
    MiningTonnes
    
    U3O8
    
    (lbs U3O8)
    
    Tonnes
    
    %U3O8
    
    (U3O8)
    
    Tonnes
    
    %U3O8
    
    (lbs U3O8)
    
    (lbs U3O8)
    
    Method(2)(tonnes and lbs in thousands)PROPERTYCigar Lake
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    UGCrow Butte
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    1,184.0
    
    
    
    0.26
    
    
    
    6,849.0
    
    
    
    1,184.0
    
    
    
    0.26
    
    
    
    6,849.0
    
    
    
    6,849.0
    
    
    ISLDawn Lake
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    347.0
    
    
    
    1.69
    
    
    
    12,940.0
    
    
    
    347.0
    
    

    
    1.69
    
    
    
    12,940.0
    
    
    
    7,436.0
    
    
    OP&UGGas Hills
    
    
    1,846.0
    
    
    
    0.09
    
    
    
    3,665.0
    
    
    
    1,183.0
    
    
    
    0.09
    
    
    
    2,364.0
    
    
    
    3,029.0
    
    
    
    0.09
    
    
    
    6,029.0
    
    
    
    6,029.0
    
    
    ISLHighland
    
    
    1,149.0
    
    
    
    0.09
    
    
    
    2,212.0
    
    
    
    1,239.0
    
    
    
    0.12
    
    
    
    3,148.0
    
    
    
    2,388.0
    
    
    
    0.10
    
    
    
    5,360.0
    
    
    
    5,360.0
    
    
    ISLInkai
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    3,600.0
    
    
    
    0.04
    
    
    
    2,900.0
    
    
    
    3,600.0
    
    
    
    0.04
    
    
    
    2,900.0
    
    
    
    1,740.0
    
    
    ISLMcArthur River
    
    
    43.5
    
    
    
    10.28
    
    
    
    9,854.0
    
    
    
    543.3
    
    
    
    9.43
    
    
    
    112,902.0
    
    
    
    586.8
    
    
    
    9.49
    
    
    
    122,756.0
    
    
    
    85,690.0
    
    
    UGNorth
Butte/Brown
Ranch
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    2,681.0
    
    
    
    0.12
    
    
    
    6,829.0
    
    
    
    2,681.0
    
    
    
    0.12
    
    
    
    6,829.0
    
    
    
    6,829.0

    
    
    ISLNorthwest Unit
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    1,859.0
    
    
    
    0.06
    
    
    
    2,361.0
    
    
    
    1,859.0
    
    
    
    0.06
    
    
    
    2,361.0
    
    
    
    2,361.0
    
    
    ISLPeach
    
    
    444.0
    
    
    
    0.10
    
    
    
    997.0
    
    
    
    148.0
    
    
    
    0.17
    
    
    
    547.0
    
    
    
    592.0
    
    
    
    0.12
    
    
    
    1,544.0
    
    
    
    1,544.0
    
    
    ISLRabbit Lake
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    310.0
    
    
    
    0.58
    
    
    
    3,958.0
    
    
    
    310.0
    
    
    
    0.58
    
    
    
    3,958.0
    
    
    
    3,958.0
    
    
    UGReynolds Ranch
    
    
    1,311.0
    
    
    
    0.09
    
    
    
    2,654.0
    
    
    
    4,597.0
    
    
    
    0.08
    
    
    
    7,791.0
    
    
    
    5,908.0
    
    
    
    0.08
    
    
    
    10,445.0
    
    
    
    10,445.0
    
    
    ISLRuby Ranch
    
    
    483.0
    
    
    
    0.08
    
    
    
    862.0
    
    
    
    389.0
    
    
    
    0.07
    
    
    
    581.0
    
    
    
    872.0
    
    
    
    0.08
    
    
    
    1,443.0
    
    
    
    1,443.0
    
    
    ISLRuth
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    481.0
    
    
    
    0.07
    
    
    
    761.0
    
    
    
    481.0
    
    
    
    0.07
    
    
    
    761.0
    
    
    
    761.0
    
    
    ISLShirley Basin
    
    
    89.0
    
    
    
    0.15
    
    
    
    304.0
    
    
    
    1,637.0
    
    
    
    0.11
    
    
    
    4,085.0
    
    
    
    1,726.0
    
    
    
    0.12
    
    
    
    4,389.0
    
    
    
    4,389.0
    
    
    ISLSmith Ranch
    
    
    559.0
    
    
    
    0.10
    
    
    
    1,264.0
    
    
    
    69.0
    
    
    
    0.09
    
    
    
    133.0
    
    
    
    628.0
    
    
    
    0.10
    
    
    
    1,397.0
    
    
    
    1,397.0
    
    
    ISLTotal
    
    
    5,924.5
    
    
    
    0.17
    
    
    
    21,812.0
    
    
    
    20,267,300
    
    
    
    0.38
    
    
    
    168,149.0
    
    
    
    26,191.8
    
    
    
    0.33
    
    
    
    189,961.0
    
    
    
    146,231.0
 Notes:  (1)
    
    Canadian Securities Administrators National Instrument 43-101 requires mining companies to disclose reserves and resources using the
subcategories of proven reserves, probable reserves, measured resources, indicated resources and inferred
resources. Cameco reports reserves and resources separately.  (2)
    
    Mining Method: OP  Open Pit; UG  Underground; ISL  In situ leaching. 2003 Cameco Annual Information Form 22




---



##### 



Uranium Inferred Resources(1) The following table shows the estimated uranium inferred resources as at
December 31, 2003 on a property basis and Camecos share. The amount of
reported resources does not include amounts identified as reserves. INFERRED RESOURCES
(100% basis) ContentCamecosGrade%
    
    Content
    
    Share
    
    MiningTonnes
    
    U3O8
    
    (lbs U3O8)
    
    (lbs U3O8)
    
    Method(2)PROPERTYCigar Lake
    
    
    317.0
    
    
    
    16.92
    
    
    
    118,151.0
    
    
    
    59,105.0
    
    
    UGCrow Butte
    
    
    1,824.0
    
    
    
    0.20
    
    
    
    8,042.0
    
    
    
    8,042.0
    
    
    ISLDawn Lake
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    OP&UGGas Hills
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    ISLHighland
    
    
    588.0
    
    
    
    0.15
    
    
    
    1,977.0
    
    
    
    1,977.0
    
    
    ISLInkai
    
    
    253,918.0
    
    
    
    0.05
    
    
    
    267,989.0
    
    
    
    160,793.0
    
    
    ISLMcArthur River
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    UGNorth Butte/Brown
Ranch
    
    
    686.0
    
    
    
    0.09
    
    
    
    1,367.0
    
    
    
    1,367.0
    
    
    ISLNorthwest Unit
    
    
    997.0
    
    
    
    0.05
    
    
    
    1,093.0
    
    
    
    1,093.0
    
    
    ISLPeach
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    ISLRabbit Lake
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    UGReynolds Ranch
    
    
    5,575.0
    
    
    
    0.06
    
    
    
    7,442.0
    
    
    
    7,442.0
    
    
    ISLRuby Ranch
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    ISLRuth
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    ISLShirley Basin
    
    
    490.0
    
    
    
    0.10
    
    
    
    1,132.0
    
    
    
    1,132.0
    
    
    ISLSmith Ranch
    
    
    2,358.0
    
    
    
    0.08
    
    
    
    4,295.0
    
    
    
    4,295.0
    
    
    ISLTotal:
    
    
    266,753.0
    
    
    
    0.07
    
    
    
    411,488.0
    
    
    
    245,246.0
 Notes: (1) Canadian Securities Administrators National Instrument 43-101 requires mining companies to disclose reserves and resources using the
subcategories of proven reserves, probable reserves, measured resources, indicated resources and inferred resources. Cameco reports
reserves and resources separately. (2) Mining Method: OP  Open Pit; UG  Underground; ISL  In situ leaching. 2003 Cameco Annual Information Form 23




---



##### 



Uranium Reserve Reconciliation The following reconciliation of Camecos share of uranium reserves reflects the
changes in reserves during 2003. The 2003 additions and deletions result from
additional information provided by mining and milling, analysis of drilling
results, and reclassification. Reconciliation of Camecos Share of Uranium Reserves
(in thousands of pounds U3O8) 2003December 31 2002
    
    Throughput (1)
    
    2003 Addition (Deletion)
    
    December 31, 2003Reserves  ProvenCigar Lake
    
    
    113,222
    
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    113,222Crow Butte
    
    
    5,345
    
    
    
    (817
    )
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    4,528Gas Hills
    
    
    8,318
    
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    (1,957
    )
    
    
    (2
    )
    
    
    6,361Highland
    
    
    2,970
    
    
    
    (266
    )
    
    
    127
    
    
    
    (2
    )
    
    
    2,831Inkai
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    19,969
    
    
    
    (2
    )
    
    
    16,969Key Lake
    
    
    590
    
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    590McArthur River
    
    
    310,331
    
    
    
    (10,516
    )
    
    
    (55,353
    )
    
    
    (2
    )(3)
    
    
    244,462Peach
    
    
    3,170
    
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    (746
    )
    
    
    (2
    )
    
    
    2,424Rabbit Lake
    
    
    17,580
    
    
    
    (5,845
    )
    
    
    755
    
    
    
    (2
    )
    
    
    12,490Ruby Ranch
    
    
    2,896
    
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    2,896Smith Ranch
    
    
    6,681
    
    
    
    (949
    )
    
    
    110
    
    
    
    (2
    )
    
    
    5,842Total Proven
Reserves
    
    
    471,103
    
    
    
    (18,393
    )
    
    
    (40,095
    )
    
    
    
    
    
    
    412,615Reserves - ProbableCigar Lake
    
    
    2,625
    
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    2,625Crow Butte
    
    
    1,771
    
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    227
    
    
    
    (2
    )
    
    
    1,998Gas Hills
    
    
    5,244
    
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    (1,234
    )
    
    
    (2
    )
    
    
    4,010Highland
    
    
    5,059
    
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    84
    
    
    
    (2
    )
    
    
    5,143Inkai
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    37,930
    
    
    
    (2
    )
    
    
    37,930McArthur River
    
    
    8,442
    
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    51,780
    
    
    
    (2
    )(3)
    
    
    60,222North
Butte/Brown Ranch
    
    
    9,659
    
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    (2,207
    )
    
    
    (2
    )
    
    
    7,452Peach
    
    
    3,792
    
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    (1,732
    )
    
    
    (2
    )
    
    
    2,060Ruby Ranch
    
    
    1,424
    
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    1,424Ruth
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    1,249
    
    
    
    (2
    )
    
    
    1,249Smith Ranch
    
    
    13,711
    
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    (110
    )
    
    
    (2
    )
    
    
    13,601Total Probable
Reserves
    
    
    51,727
    
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    85,987
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    137,714Total Reserves
    
    
    522,830
    
    
    
    (18,393
    )
    
    
    45,892
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    550,329
 Notes:  (1)
    
    Corresponds to millfeed. The discrepancy between the 2003 millfeed and Camecos share of 2003 pounds U3O8
produced is due to mill recovery, mill inventory and the processing of low grade material.  (2)
    
    Changes in reserves or resources, as applicable, include reassessment of geological data, results of information provided by mining and
milling, and subsequent re-classification of reserves or resources, as applicable.  (3)
    
    In January 2003 Cameco initiated a formal review of the mining plan and proposed mining methods and a review of the reserves
classification at McArthur River as a result of uncertainty associated with the productivity of the jetboring and boxhole boring mining
methods at McArthur River and not as a result of the water inflow event. The jetboring and boxhole boring mining methods may be utilized
for parts of the ore body where the raise boring method may be inappropriate. The completion of the review reflecting this uncertainty
resulted in the reclassification of 51.8 million lbs U3O8 of proven reserves to probable reserves at
McArthur River. 2003 Cameco Annual Information Form 24




---



##### 



Uranium Resources Reconciliation The following reconciliation of Camecos share of uranium resources reflects
the changes in resources during 2003. The 2003 additions and deletions result
from additional information provided by mining and milling, analysis of
drilling results, and reclassification. Reconciliation of Camecos Share of Uranium Resources
(in thousands of pounds U3O8) 2003December 31 2002
    
    Throughput (1)
    
    2003 Addition (Deletion)
    
    December 31, 2003Resources  MeasuredGas Hills
    
    
    3,665
    
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    3,665Highland
    
    
    2,212
    
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    2,212Inkai
    
    
    8,245
    
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    (8,245
    )
    
    
    (2
    )
    
    
    0McArthur River
    
    
    1,114
    
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    5,765
    
    
    
    (2
    )
    
    
    6,879Peach
    
    
    997
    
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    997Reynolds Ranch
    
    
    2,654
    
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    2,654Ruby Ranch
    
    
    862
    
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    862Shirley Basin
    
    
    304
    
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    304Smith Ranch
    
    
    1,264
    
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    1,264Total Measured Resources
    
    
    21,317
    
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    (2,480
    )
    
    
    
    
    
    
    18,837Resources  IndicatedCrow Butte
    
    
    8,550
    
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    (1,651
    )
    
    
    (2
    )
    
    
    6,849Dawn Lake
    
    
    7,436
    
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    7,436Gas Hills
    
    
    2,364
    
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    2,364Highland
    
    
    2,972
    
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    176
    
    
    
    (2
    )
    
    
    3,148Inkai
    
    
    48,866
    
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    (47,126
    )
    
    
    (2
    )
    
    
    1,740McArthur River
    
    
    76,691
    
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    2,120
    
    
    
    (2
    )
    
    
    78,811North Butte/Brown
    
    
    5,611
    
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    1,218
    
    
    
    (2
    )
    
    
    6,829Northwest Unit
    
    
    2,361
    
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    2,361Peach
    
    
    1,623
    
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    (1,076
    )
    
    
    (2
    )
    
    
    547Rabbit Lake
    
    
    1,998
    
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    1,960
    
    
    
    (2
    )
    
    
    3,958Reynolds Ranch
    
    
    7,791
    
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    7,791Ruby Ranch
    
    
    581
    
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    581Ruth
    
    
    2,065
    
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    (1,304
    )
    
    
    (2
    )
    
    
    761Shirley Basin
    
    
    4,085
    
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    4,085Smith Ranch
    
    
    133
    
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    133Total Indicated Resources
    
    
    173,077
    
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    (45,683
    )
    
    
    
    
    
    
    127,394Total Measured &
Indicated
    
    
    194,394
    
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    (48,163
    )
    
    
    
    
    
    
    146,231Resources  InferredCigar Lake
    
    
    59,105
    
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    59,105Crow Butte
    
    
    7,333
    
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    709
    
    
    
    (2
    )
    
    
    8,042Highland
    
    
    1,977
    
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    1,977Inkai
    
    
    170,520
    
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    (9,727
    )
    
    
    (2
    )
    
    
    160,793North
Butte/Brown Ranch
    
    
    1,367
    
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    1,367Northwest Unit
    
    
    1,093
    
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    1,093Reynolds Ranch
    
    
    7,442
    
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    7,442Shirley Basin
    
    
    1,132
    
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    1,132Smith Ranch
    
    
    4,295
    
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    4,295Total Inferred Resources
    
    
    254,264
    
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    (9,018
    )
    
    
    
    
    
    
    245,246
 Notes:  (1)
    
    Corresponds to millfeed. The discrepancy between the 2003 millfeed and Camecos share of 2003 lbs U3O8
produced is due to mill recovery, mill inventory and the processing of low grade material.  (2)
    
    Changes in reserves or resources, as applicable, include reassessment of geological data, results of information provided by mining and
milling, and subsequent re-classification of reserves or resources, as applicable. 2003 Cameco Annual Information Form 25




---



##### 



Uranium Fuel Conversion Services 
 Market Background Demand The demand for UF6 conversion services is directly linked to
the level of electricity generated by light water moderated nuclear power
plants. The demand for UO2 conversion services is linked to
the level of electricity generated by heavy water moderated nuclear power
plants such as CANDU reactors. Western world demand for
UF6 and natural UO2 conversion services
in 2003 was estimated to be approximately 58,200 tonnes of uranium. It is
estimated that this demand will increase to approximately 65,700 tonnes of
uranium by 2013. Demand in the former Soviet Union, Eastern Europe and China in
2003 was about 9,400 tonnes of uranium and is expected to increase to about
12,400 tonnes of uranium by 2013. Most utility companies operating nuclear reactors purchase their uranium
requirements in the form of concentrates directly from mining and milling
operators. The uranium contained in the concentrates is refined and converted
to fuel grade natural UO2, or to UF6 for
enrichment. The enriched UF6 is then converted to enriched
UO2. The natural UO2 and enriched
UO2 is fabricatedinto fuel bundles for
eventual use in nuclear reactors. Supply The western world UF6 conversion industry consists of Cameco
and three other commercial producers with an annual conversion capacity of
about 45,000 tonnes of uranium. Camecos annual UF6
conversion capacity constitutes approximately 28% of the western world
capacity. Cameco is the only commercial supplier of conversion for natural
UO2 customers in the western world. Russia supplies most of
the requirements of the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe in the form of
low enriched uranium. On February 9, 2001, British Nuclear Fuels Limited (BNFL), with annual
conversion capacity of about 6,000 tonnes, announced that it will halt
production of UF6 in 2006. With the announcement, BNFL
ceased the marketing of UF6 conversion services and sold its
uncommitted UF6 production to Cameco. In addition, supplies of UF6 are available from secondary
sources including excess western inventories, Russian inventory sales in the
form of low enriched uranium, Russian re-enriched depleted tails in the form of
UF6 and Russian and US uranium derived from dismantling
nuclear weapons. These sources are discussed in more detail in the Uranium
Concentrates Business section. Prices Cameco competes on the basis of price, location and service with two other
full-scale commercial suppliers of conversion services in the western world and
with the secondary supplies mentioned above. Similar to their procurement of uranium requirements, utilities secure a
substantial percentage of their conversion service requirement by entering into
medium and long-term contracts with primary conversion service providers.
Prices are established by a number of methods, including base prices adjusted
by inflation indices, reference prices (generally spot price indicators) and
annual price negotiations. Contracts can also contain floor prices, ceiling
prices and other negotiated provisions which affect the price ultimately paid.
For UF6 conversion deliveries by Cameco in 2003, the following pricing
mechanisms applied: negotiated (5%), firm-price (66%) and marketrelated (29%). 
 Marketing of Conversion Services UF6 Camecos marketing strategy for UF6 conversion services is
similar to that for uranium concentrates. Cameco sells its services directly to utilities located in many different
geographic regions of the world primarily through medium- and long-term
contracts. For the period 2004 forward, Cameco has UF6 conversion
services commitments in excess of 50,000 tonnes uranium under 63 long-term
contracts. Camecos five largest customers account for approximately 39% of
these
commitments. Over this period, 36% of Camecos committed
UF6 conversion services volume is to purchasers in the
Americas, 32% in the Far East and 32% in Europe. 2003 Cameco Annual Information Form 26




---



##### 



UO2 Cameco is the only commercial supplier of ceramic grade UO2
for CANDU heavy water moderated nuclear reactors operated in Canada by Bruce
Power, OPG, New Brunswick Power Corporation and Hydro Quebec. Cameco also
exports UO2 to South Korea for its CANDU reactors and to
Japan for use as blanket fuel in boiling water reactors. Volumes of Canadian UO2 sales may increase slightly later in
the decade if three shut-in reactors operated by OPG are put back into service. Operations Cameco owns and operates Canadas only uranium refinery and conversion
facilities. Cameco has a uranium refining facility within close proximity to
Lake Huron and approximately eight kilometres west of Blind River, Ontario
(approximately 600 kilometres northwest of Toronto, Ontario). Blind River, has
a population of about 4,000. Cameco also has two conversion plants within the
Municipality of Port Hope, Ontario, approximately 100 kilometres east of
Toronto. The Municipality of Port Hope, with a population of about 15,000, is
located on the shore of Lake Ontario. The Blind River facility, commissioned in 1983, has an annual licensed capacity
of 18,000 tonnes of uranium. It includes a uranium refinery, a large storage
area for uranium concentrates, and weighing and sampling facilities. The Blind
River facility refines the concentrates delivered by suppliers from throughout
the world into nuclear grade UO3, nearly all of which is
shipped to Port Hope for conversion into either UF6 or
UO2. A small quantity of UO3 is supplied
to others for blending with enriched uranium to produce suitable reactor fuel. The Port Hope conversion plants produce natural UO2 and
natural UF6. The UO2 plant is licensed
for 2,800 tonnes of uranium per year and produces ceramic
UO2 used as fuel in Canadian and other CANDU heavy water
nuclear reactors, as well as blanket fuel for light water nuclear reactors.
The UF6 plant, licensed for 12,500 tonnes of uranium per
year, converts UO3 to UF6 using hydrogen,
hydrogen fluoride and fluorine in a series of process steps. The
UF6 is then shipped to enrichment plants in the United
States, Europe and Japan for further processing to low enriched
UF6 prior to conversion to enriched UO2,
which is used as reactor fuel for light water nuclear reactors. In January 2003, Cameco applied to the CNSC for regulatory approval to begin
the commercial production at Port Hope of slightly enriched uranium dioxide
powder (SEU), the primary uranium component of a new type of fuel that is
proposed for use in some CANDU reactors. Initially the SEU will be produced for
use in the Bruce B units as part of a power uprate project which is expected
to add about 400 megawatts to the capacity of the units. (See Bruce Power 
The Generating Facilities.) SEU is also expected to be the basis of the fuel
used by the next (advanced) generation of CANDU reactors (ACR reactor) designed
by Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. Camecos Port Hope facility processed enriched
uranium between 1966 and 1987. This activity was discontinued when there was no
longer a commercial demand for the enriched products provided by the Port
Hope facility. CNSC approval would allow installation and operation at Port Hope of equipment
for blending natural UO2 powder and low-enriched
UO2 powder to produce SEU. The low-enriched
UO2 powder would be acquired from any of the several
suppliers around the world. This approval would not lead to an increase in the
total volume of UO2 produced, as the SEU would essentially
replace some of the natural UO2 currently produced. In January 2004, the CNSC approved the Environmental Assessment Guidelines
(Scope of Project and Assessment) that will be used to direct a screening
environmental assessment (SEA) of the SEU project at Port Hope. This screening
report will include results of technical studies and public consultations to be
completed by Cameco, and will be presented to the CNSC at a public hearing
expected in 2004. In 2004, important project milestones include completing and submitting the
SEA, completing the engineering design and preparing the Port Hope site for the
construction of the SEU blending facility. The necessary regulatory approval
to allow the production of about 550 kg. of SEU powder for the manufacturing of
about 26 demonstration
fuel bundles that are to be placed in the Bruce B reactors some time in 2004
has been obtained for the Port Hope facility. Also, all the necessary
facilities and procedures to make this limited quantity of SEU are in place. Commercial production of SEU will use sufficient volume of low enriched
UO2 powder such that criticality could potentially be
achieved. Due to extensive safeguards that will be put in place, which will be
subject to regulatory approval, to prevent this from happening, it is extremely
unlikely that a criticality will occur. Criticality is a nuclear fission
reaction. The products of criticality are heat and radiation. If a criticality
did occur at Port Hope, it is 2003 Cameco Annual Information Form 27




---



##### 



expected there would be little or no impact on
the health and safety of the public as the SEU production area will be designed
and engineered to contain the incident. Low enriched fuel is used to power more
than 400 nuclear reactors around the world. Camecos refining and conversion facilities are subject to decommissioning
liabilities. In accordance with regulatory requirements, Cameco has provided
$48.4 million in letters of credit as security for decommissioning these
facilities. 
 Research and Development The activities of all operations are supported by Camecos technology
development group which is actively engaged in supporting new business
initiatives as well as developing new processes to maintain and enhance
Camecos position as a competitive and leading producer of uranium
concentrates, refining and conversion services. For 2003, expenditures related
to these activities were approximately $1.7 million. 
 Environmental For environmental protection, the Blind River refinery operates a monitoring
lagoon system for liquid effluents in order to ensure adherence to regulatory
standards. Gaseous emissions are filtered, scrubbed and monitored for uranium
particulate and certain other deleterious substances. Cooling water is used in
a closed loop system with very limited discharge to the environment. Extensive
chemical recovery steps are also used to reduce environmental release. In Port
Hope, provisions for environmental protection include scrubbing and filtration
systems for gaseous emissions and evaporator systems for liquid process
effluents. Resulting condensates released to the environment are monitored to
ensure compliance with regulatory standards. Extensive chemical recovery steps
are also used to reduce environmental release and reduce waste accumulation. In 1998, Cameco reached an agreement with International Uranium Corporation of
Denver, Colorado for the processing of certain uranium-bearing by-products from
Blind River and Port Hope at the White Mesa mill in Blanding, Utah. The
agreement received regulatory approval in both Canada and US. Shipments to
Utah for recycling of all of the by-product inventory was completed in 2000,
including by-products accumulated by a predecessor company prior to 1988 that
was stored at Blind River and Port Hope. Shipments of newly produced
by-products has continued. While this program has addressed the accumulated
inventory of by-products and is addressing current recycling requirements for
these by-products, other outlets are being considered. In 2001, a mill scale
pilot test program of recycling these by-products at Camecos Key Lake mill was
completed. This test was conducted to develop the information that would be
necessary to support an application for regulatory approval to recycle
by-products at the Key Lake mill. In 2002, Cameco submitted a proposal to
federal and provincial regulatory authorities for approval to recycle these
by-products at the Key Lake mill. Provincial regulatory approval was received
on February 21, 2003. Federal regulatory approval is still pending, but
currently anticipated in 2004. Both Blind River and Port Hope facilities were re-licensed by the CNSC for a
five-year period commencing on February 28, 2002. 
 Legal Proceedings A complaint was filed in federal court in Denver, Colorado, USA on November 28,
2000 by Mr. Oren Benton claiming damages in excess of $200 million from the
Company with respect to his claims of breach of contract and tortious
interference with contractual relations and business expectations. Camecos
motion to dismiss Mr. Bentons claims was granted and Mr. Bentons claims were
dismissed in 2002. Mr. Benton has appealed this decision. The appeal was heard
on November 20, 2003 and judgement was reserved. Cameco believes, after
consultation with legal counsel, this action is completely without merit. 
 Environmental Matters Camecos operations are subject to numerous laws and regulations regarding
environmental matters and the management of hazardous wastes and materials.
Changes in environmental laws and regulations or more stringent application of
existing standards could cause additional expense, capital expenditures,
restrictions or delays in the exploration, development, operation or
decommissioning of the Companys properties. Cameco estimates total future decommissioning and reclamation costs for its
operating assets to be $234 million. In connection with future decommissioning
and reclamation costs, Cameco has provided financial assurances of 2003 Cameco Annual Information Form 28




---



##### 



approximately $199 million in the form of letters of credit to satisfy current
regulatory requirements. See Note 7 to the Consolidated Financial Statements of
the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003. 
 Cameco Initiatives Camecos environmental and safety efforts are both corporate and site-based.
Corporate and site-based environmental and safety departments have been created
to manage and coordinate the Companys environmental assessment and regulatory
compliance and reporting functions. Cameco conducts regular environmental and
safety audits of its sites. Annual expenditures of over $16 million have been
dedicated to environmental monitoring, protection, assessment and health and
safety programs. Like other large industrial organizations, Cameco utilizes chemicals in its
operations that could be hazardous to health and the environment if handled
incorrectly. Employees are trained in the proper use of hazardous substances
and in emergency response techniques. Cameco has had a formal environmental and safety policy in place since 1991. In
1999, Cameco revised this environmental policy in support of an initiative to
generate a new environmental management system at its operating sites. This
system reinforces the Companys commitment to ongoing management of
environmental risks and is structured to be compatible with the requirements of
the relevant international standard, referred to as ISO 14001. In 2000, the
Port Hope operation became the first Cameco managed site to become certified
under the new standard. In 2002, the Blind River, Key Lake and McArthur River
operations were also ISO 14001 certified. In May 2001, Cameco received a request from the CNSC to develop a corporate
quality assurance program in support of re-licensing its Canadian operations.
Cameco elected to embark on developing a broader quality management system.
This system is to include operational activities at its Canadian operating
licensed sites as well as corporate oversight and audit responsibilities for
these sites. A plan and implementation schedule for this new management system
was filed with the CNSC and accepted in early 2002. A draft corporate quality
management system manual, covering Canadian uranium operations, has been filed
with the CNSC, in accordance with the accepted implementation schedule. This
schedule calls for site implementation to be completed in 2004. The Company has an environmental and safety committee of the board of
directors, which regularly reviews environmental and safety aspects of the
Companys operations. To promote better communication with communities in
northern Saskatchewan on environmental and other matters, the Company organized
the Northern Community Liaison Committee in 1990 and the Athabasca Working
Group in 1993 (with CLMC and Cogema). The Company also co-operates with the
northern community environmental quality committees organized more recently by
the province of Saskatchewan. Cameco also conducts regular environment-focused
community liaison activities at its fuel services sites in Ontario. 
 Canada Environmental matters related to Camecos operations in Canada are the subject
of ongoing public scrutiny and regulatory review by the CNSC, Environment
Canada, the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans, SE and the Ontario
Ministry of the Environment (MOE). Decommissioning and Reclamation Once reserves of a particular deposit in Canada have been exhausted or after
processing activities have been permanently suspended, Cameco and its partners
are required by law to decommission operating sites, including waste rock and
tailings management facilities, and reclaim those areas affected by their
activities, to the satisfaction of provincial and federal regulatory
authorities. Cameco annually accrues amounts for future reclamation costs
based on the estimated life of the facility, units of production and estimates
of future decommissioning and
reclamation costs. Camecos estimation of these future costs is based upon the
application of reclamation techniques which are believed to be capable of
generating reasonable environmental and radiological performance. The annual
accrual and total provision is regularly reviewed by the Company, as well as
for license renewal applications as required by regulatory agencies. If
required, the future accrual rate is then adjusted. The regulatory agencies
accept the decommissioning plans in concept, not upon detailed performance
forecasts, which have not yet been generated. As Cameco properties approach or
go into decommissioning, further regulatory review of the decommissioning plans
may result in additional decommissioning requirements, associated costs and the
requirement to provide additional financial assurances. As of December 31,
2003, Cameco had accrued a total accounting provision of 2003 Cameco Annual Information Form 29




---



##### 



approximately $141
million related to nuclear activities. See Note 7 to the Consolidated
Financial Statements of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2003. Both the CNSC and SE have regulations requiring financial assurances for
decommissioning and reclamation of minesites. Financial assurances in the form
of letters of credit were first supplied for Rabbit Lake and McArthur River in
1996 and for Key Lake in 1997. Letters of credit for the Port Hope and Blind
River facilities were supplied in early 2002 for the first time, in conjunction
with general CNSC site relicensing. Pursuant to the Reorganization of SMDC and ENL (now Canada Eldor Inc.), Cameco
assumed the ownership and primary responsibility for the management of wastes
existing at the time of the Reorganization (Historical Waste) at the Port
Hope Conversion Facility, the Blind River Refinery, the Port Granby Waste Site
and the Welcome Waste Site (Historical Facilities), all located in Ontario.
The Company assumed liability for the first $2 million of all costs in respect
of any claim arising out of or related to the Historical Waste and all
decommissioning and reclamation costs at the Historical Facilities and 23/98ths
of the next $98 million of such costs. Canada Eldor Inc. retained liability
for the balance of the costs up to $100 million and for all the costs in excess
of $100 million, effectively capping Camecos liability at $25 million. On October 6, 2000, the government of Canada and certain Port Hope area
communities announced the signing of a Principles of Understanding,
establishing the framework for development of a legal agreement for the clean
up, storage and long-term management of certain of the Historical Wastes. On
June 19, 2001, the government of Canada announced that the legal agreement had
been signed and that it would invest about $260 million over 10 years to carry
out the work. In July 2002, the government of Canada released the scope
document for the environmental assessment of the project to manage low level
radioactive waste for the long term in the Port Hope area. The project remains
in the environmental assessment process. Regulatory Compliance Potentially significant regulatory issues relate to the establishment of new
criteria for levels of uranium in ambient air in the vicinity of the Companys
Ontario operations and new criteria for heavy metals in effluent from Camecos
Saskatchewan mine and mill sites, establishment of new enhanced environmental
monitoring programs in the vicinity of all Canadian operations and decisions
arising from the current evaluation of radionuclide releases (including
uranium) from nuclear facilities being carried out under the Canadian
Environmental Protection Act. Changes to these regulations may require
additional response by Cameco in the near term in order to remain in compliance
with the relevant regulations and regulatory guidelines. These new regulatory initiatives and future initiatives have and likely will
continue to generate additional environmental studies in the vicinity of these
operations. This is particularly evident in the area of pre-licensing
environmental assessment. It is unclear if these additional studies will
ultimately translate into further regulatory requirements on the Company. Cameco continues to face challenges from the burden of increasing regulatory
demands and costs from the CNSC, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and
other federal and provincial regulators. In addition to the issues noted
above, the lead regulator, the CNSC, has increased its fees charged to the
nuclear industry. The CNSC is increasing the regulatory burden as a result of
the implementation of the new Nuclear Safety and Control Act (NSCA) and in its
interpretation of responsibilities under the NSCA, the Canadian Environmental
Assessment Act and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. For instance,
Cameco has been directed to implement a formal quality assurance program to
manage its Canadian nuclear operations and the scope of assessment needed for
regulatory approval of changes to licence conditions has expanded. Lower tier
operational changes are increasingly subject to regulatory review which may
include delays due to longer regulatory approval processes. These increasing
requirements are expected to result in gradually increasing administration
costs and some additional capital expenditures for compliance. As well, the
complex regulatory approval process reduces Camecos flexibility to make
operational changes in a timely fashion. In recent years, when auditing Cameco, the CNSC has put a priority on auditing
specific environmental and safety related programs. These have included such
aspects as radiation protection programs, environmental monitoring, fire
protection, operational quality assurance, organization and management
evaluation, transportation systems, geotechnical monitoring and ventilation
systems. These program-specific audits and regular site inspections by
regulatory project officers have generated, and are intended to continue to
generate, actions to improve environmental and safety performance and ensure
that these risks remain well managed. Resulting program modifications are
typically procedural and do not incur large capital costs. 2003 Cameco Annual Information Form 30




---



##### 



In 2001, Cameco successfully renewed its CNSC operating licences for Rabbit
Lake, Key Lake and McArthur River for two-year terms. Cameco also received a
licence to become the operator of the Cigar Lake project. In 2002, the Port
Hope and Blind River CNSC operating licenses were renewed for five-year terms,
and in 2003, the Rabbit Lake licence was renewed for five years.In 2004,
Cameco will seek re-licensing of the Key Lake and McArthur River operations, as
well as a construction license for the Cigar Lake project. Cameco is also
seeking approval to increase the production rate at the McArthur River/Key Lake
operation. 
 US Environmental Regulation Cameco subsidiaries ISL operations in the US are subject to numerous federal,
state and local regulations governing, among other things, air emissions, water
discharges, hazardous materials handling and disposal and site reclamation. In
2000, at the Highland operation, PRI self reported to the Wyoming Department of
Environmental Quality (WDEQ) injection well casing leaks, resulting in
releases into unauthorized zones. As a result of PRIs report, the Wyoming
agency issued a notice of violation (NOV). PRI took the position that there
was minimal environmental impact, given the quality of the released water and
the geotechnical characteristics of the release zones. Nevertheless, the issue
required additional investigation as a potential future decommissioning issue,
and necessitated procedural and physical modifications in well construction to
better assure injection well integrity. The well casing leaks are not expected
to materially increase site decommissioning costs. There was no fine
associated with the NOV, largely because of the self-reporting of the issue and
its low potential for environmental impact. Arising from the NOV was an
Administrative Order on Consent, which specified a compliance schedule and a
revision of the regulatory permit to address the casing leak issue. The Order
on Consent essentially forms a contract for resolving the issues arising out of
the NOV. Changes in well construction have reduced the frequency of well
casing leaks. The changes have been implemented at PRIs combined Smith Ranch
Highland operation. After mining has been completed, an ISL wellfield must be restored in
accordance with regulatory requirements. Generally this involves restoring the
groundwater to its pre-mining use using reverse osmosis (ultra filtration
technology) and restoration. Restoration of Crow Butte wellfields is regulated
by the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (NDEQ) and the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) and restoration of Smith Ranch-Highland
wellfields is regulated by the WDEQ and NRC. Crow Butte has three wellfields under restoration. In 2000 Crow Butte
Resources Inc., after the NDEQ confirmed that wellfield 1 was restored to its
regulatory standards, requested the NRC accept that wellfield 1 was restored to
its regulatory standards. The NRC approved the restoration on February 12,
2003. Smith Ranch-Highland has three wellfields under restoration. In 1999 PRI
requested the WDEQ accept that one wellfield was restored to its regulatory
standards. The WDEQ approved the restoration of the A wellfield, subject to
some long term monitoring requirements in November 2003. The NRC has indicated
that it is willing to enter into discussions with the WDEQ and the United
States Environmental Protection Agency over wellfield jurisdiction.
Discussions continue with regulators to establish clear jurisdiction and
criteria for wellfield restoration. Despite encouraging signs to the contrary,
the delays by regulators to accept restoration of the remaining wellfields is a
significant issue for Cameco subsidiaries US ISL operations, since it remains
uncertain when, and at what cost, its US subsidiaries ISL operations will be
able to complete restoration of mined out ISL wellfields to the satisfaction of
regulators. 
 Government Regulation Camecos business is subject to various levels of extensive governmental
controls and regulations which are amended from time to time. The Company is
unable to predict what additional legislation or amendments may be proposed
that might affect its business or when any proposals, if enacted, might become
effective. Outlined below are some of the more significant government controls and
regulations which materially affect the Companys uranium business. 
 Canadian Uranium Industry Regulation The Canadian federal government has recognized that the uranium industry has
special importance in relation to the national interest and therefore regulates
the industry through regulations and policy announcements. The regulations and
policy announcements apply to any uranium property or plant in Canada which the
CNSC may determine to be, or to have the capability of, producing or processing
uranium for nuclear fuel application. The regulations require that the
property or plant be owned legally and beneficially by a company incorporated
in Canada. 2003 Cameco Annual Information Form 31




---



##### 



Mine Ownership Restriction The latest expression of Canadian government policy on non-resident ownership
of uranium mining properties is contained in a letter dated December 23, 1987
from the Minister of State (Forestry and Mines) to the Canadian uranium
industry. The basic limit for non-resident ownership of uranium properties at
the stage of first production is 49%. Resident ownership levels of less than
51% will be permitted if the property is in fact Canadian-controlled.
Exceptions to the policy may be granted subject to Cabinet approval and will be
provided only in cases where it is demonstrated that Canadian partners cannot
be found. Cameco Ownership Restriction As part of the Canadian government regulation of the Canadian uranium mining
industry, the ENL Reorganization Act imposes constraints on the issue, transfer
and ownership, including joint ownership, of Cameco shares so as to prevent
both residents and non-residents of Canada from owning or controlling more than
a specified percentage of shares. The following is a summary of the
constraints currently contained in Camecos articles:  (a)
    
    No resident alone or together with associates, may hold, beneficially own
or control, directly or indirectly, other than by way of security only, shares
to which are attached more than 25% of the votes that may
ordinarily be cast to elect directors of Cameco.(b)
    
    No non-resident of Canada, alone or together with associates, may hold,
beneficially own or control, directly or indirectly, other than by way of
security only, shares to which are attached more than 15% of the votes
that may ordinarily be cast to elect directors of Cameco.(c)
    
    The votes attaching to shares held, beneficially owned or controlled,
directly or indirectly by all non-residents together, and cast at any
meeting of shareholders, will be counted or prorated so as to limit the
counting of those votes to not more than 25% of the total number of votes
cast by shareholders at that meeting.(d)
    
    To give effect to such constraints, Camecos articles contain provisions
for the enforcement of the restrictions relating to ownership and voting
by residents of Canada and non-residents of Canada described above,
including provisions for suspension of voting rights, forfeiture of
dividends, prohibitions against the issue and transfer of shares and
suspension of all remaining shareholders rights. The provisions of the ENL Reorganization Act allow the board to require the
holders or other subscribers for shares and certain other persons to furnish
declarations as to residence, ownership of shares and certain other matters
relative to the enforcement of the restrictions. Cameco is precluded from
issuing or registering a transfer of any shares where contravention of the
resident or non-resident ownership restrictions would result. Cameco requires
that, prior to each transfer of shares, other than a transfer to a depository,
the transferee give a declaration providing information relating to compliance
with these ownership restrictions. Camecos board is entitled to determine whether contraventions of the ENL
Reorganization Act or the articles have occurred. Camecos board may make such
determination whether or not it, or Camecos transfer agent and registrar, has
received such declarations, if the board has reason to believe that
contravention of the ownership restrictions has occurred. If Camecos board determines that shares are held by a shareholder in
contravention of the ownership restrictions, Cameco has the power to suspend
all rights of the shareholder in respect of all shares held, other than the
right to transfer them, not earlier than 30 days after first sending notice to
the shareholder, unless the shares so held have been disposed of by the
shareholder and Cameco has been so advised. Canadian Nuclear Safety and Control Act In Canada, control of the mining, extraction, use and export of uranium was
formerly governed by the Atomic Energy Control Act(the AECA), a federal
statute. The AECA was administered by the AECB. On March 20, 1997, the Nuclear
Safety and Control Act(the NSCA) received royal assent. In the following
years, related regulations and key regulatory guidelines were prepared and
finalized. On May 31, 2000, the new act and regulations came into force
replacing the AECA. The NSCA expands the jurisdiction of the CNSC, which has
replaced the AECB, notably expanding its role in environmental regulation. 2003 Cameco Annual Information Form 32




---



##### 



The NSCA authorizes the CNSC to make regulations governing all aspects of the
development and application of nuclear energy, including uranium mining,
milling, conversion and transportation. The most significant powers given to
the CNSC are in the licensing area. The NSCA grants the CNSC licensing
authority for all nuclear activities in Canada, including the issuance of new
licences to new operators, the renewal of existing licences, and amendments to
existing licences. A person may only possess or dispose of nuclear substances
and construct, operate and decommission its nuclear facilities in accordance
with the terms of a CNSC licence. The licence specifies conditions that
licensees must satisfy in order to maintain the right to operate nuclear
facilities. A fundamental principle in nuclear regulation is that the licensee bears the
responsibility for safety, with the CNSC setting safety objectives and auditing
licensees performance against the objectives. The regulations made under NSCA
include provisions dealing with facilities licence requirements, radiation
protection, physical security for all nuclear facilities and the transport of
radioactive materials. The CNSC has also issued guidance documents to assist
licensees in complying with regulatory requirements such as decommissioning,
emergency planning, and optimization of radiation protection measures. The NSCA is the product of a recent update of regulatory requirements by the
Federal government in relation to the effective regulation of nuclear energy in
Canada. The NSCA grants to the CNSC the power to act as a court of record, the
right to require financial guarantees for nuclear waste management and
decommissioning as a condition of granting a licence, order-making powers which
are more flexible than those allowed under the predecessor legislation, the
AECA, and the right to impose higher monetary penalties than was allowed under
such predecessor legislation. The NSCA also grants the CNSC power to require
nuclear power plant operator re-certification and to set requirements for
nuclear facility security measures. The NSCA also provides for increased
emphasis on environmental matters, including a requirement that licensing
applicants make adequate provision for the protection of the environment.
Additional regulatory priority is evident in the areas of quality assurance and
human factor engineering and assessment. All of the Canadian operations of the Company are governed primarily by
licences granted by the CNSC and are subject to all applicable federal statutes
and regulations and to all laws of general application in the province where
the operation is located, except to the extent that such laws conflict with the
terms and conditions of the licence or applicable federal laws. Failure to
comply with licence conditions or applicable statutes and regulations may
result in orders being issued which may cause operations to cease or be
curtailed or may require installation of additional equipment, other remedial
action or the incurring of additional capital or other expenditures to remain
compliant. The Company may also be subject to prosecution if it fails to
comply with such applicable statutes and regulations. Environmental regulation
of the uranium mining industry in Saskatchewan and the uranium processing
industry in Ontario are also regulated under both provincial and other federal
legislation. Progress continued to be made to better harmonize provincial and
federal regulatory regimes in Saskatchewan. In February 2003, the federal and
provincial governments signed an agreement that is expected to lead to greater
administrative efficiency in regulation of the Saskatchewan uranium industry
over the next few years. In 2003, the CNSC implemented new cost recovery regulations. A fee for service
arrangement is now in force, based on a fully absorbed rate of $200 per hour.
This change is expected to significantly increase licencing costs. Based on
current estimates for the CNSCs 2004/05 fiscal year, an increase of about 66%
or $ 1.1M is anticipated relative to the last year of fixed fees (FY 2002/3)
for the operating Canadian uranium sites (Key Lake, McArthur River, Rabbit
Lake, Port Hope and Blind River). New projects must follow the NSCA procedures. Certain properties are deemed to
have complied by transition rules from AECA to NSCA. In September 2002, a
court held that Cogemas McClean uranium mill in Saskatchewan was not properly
licensed under these transition rules. The decision is being appealed. Due to
this decision, the licensing process that Cameco is subject to may be longer
and more complex. Uranium Export Regulation The export of uranium is regulated by the Canadian federal government which
establishes nuclear energy policy. Camecos uranium exports are required to
have export licences and export permits granted by the CNSC and the Department
of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, respectively, and such licences and
permits are obtained by Cameco for all such exports. 2003 Cameco Annual Information Form 33




---



##### 



US Uranium Industry Regulation Uranium recovery in the US is primarily regulated by the NRC pursuant to the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. Its primary function is to ensure the
protection of employees, the public and the environment from radioactive
materials and it also regulates most aspects of the uranium recovery process.
The NRC regulations pertaining to uranium recovery facilities are codified in
Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR). The NRC issues
Domestic Source Material Licenses pursuant to 10 CFR Part 40. The review of a license application is governed by the National Environmental
Policy Act(NEPA) which is implemented through 10 CFR Part 51. Although the
NRC voted to support new regulations for uranium recovery operations, which
would apply to the Companys US ISL operations, in 2002 the NRC withdrew their
support for these regulations. The NRC has approved an alternative process whereby a state government can
regulate groundwater issues through a memorandum of understanding entered into
with the NRC. When implemented, this will apply to all groundwater issues,
including restoration, and eliminating one area of regulatory duplication
pertaining to ISL well fields. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
and certain states have formally indicated that they too are in favour of the
proposed process. The NRC is expected to decide later in 2004 whether to
proceed with this change in the regulatory process. The uranium recovery industry in Wyoming is also regulated by the WDEQ, Land
Quality Division (LQD) pursuant to the Wyoming Environmental Quality Act
(WEQA) and the LQD Non-Coal Rules and Regulations arising from the WEQA.
Pursuant to WEQA, the WDEQ issues a permit to mine which is administered by the
LQD. In addition, the state administers a number of EPA programs under the
Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, some of which are incorporated into the
LQD Non-Coal Rules and Regulations (for example the Underground Injection
Control regulations under the Clean Water Act). Currently wellfield
decommissioning is required to the background water standard in Wyoming. In
November 2003, the Wyoming Environmental Quality Council approved the wellfield
groundwater restoration for Highland wellfield A subject to some long-term
monitoring conditions. Similarly, the uranium recovery industry in Nebraska is regulated by the NRC
and the NDEQ pursuant to the Nebraska Environmental Protection Act. Pursuant
to this act and the regulations made thereunder, the NDEQ issues a permit to
mine. In Nebraska wellfield groundwater restoration is required to the class of
use water standard. The NDEQ and NRC have approved the restoration of wellfield
1 at Crow Butte. In all cases, failure to comply with NRC license and/or state permit-to-mine
conditions, or a failure to comply with other applicable rules and regulations,
can bring enforcement action. For the state, this starts with non-cited
violations for minor, easily correctable violations (generally through
conference and conciliation), through notices of violation (NOVs) which
can include: fines; supplemental environmental projects; remedial action,
additional monitoring and permit changes; and, ultimately, could include orders
to cease operations. NRC enforcement policy describes a progression of
enforcement starting with an NOV and working through a pre-enforcement
conference, fines, imprisonment and the barring of workers or contractors from
working in the nuclear industry. Under state and federal law, criminal charges
are possible if violations are deemed to be the result of criminal intent or
action. Following a determination by the federal Mine Safety and Health Administration
(MSHA) that it had no jurisdiction over the Smith Ranch-Highland operation,
safety at the operation is regulated by the Wyoming State Mine Inspectors
Office. In January 2003, MSHA advised that it would no longer regulate Crow
Buttes operations. Unless this decision is changed, safety at Crow Butte will
be regulated under Nebraskas Occupational Health and Safety Act. Other agencies are involved in the regulation of the uranium recovery industry,
either directly or indirectly, including the EPA, the Department of
Transportation, the Bureau of Land Management, Department of Energy, the
Department of Defense, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the US Fish and
Wildlife Service. The export of uranium from the US and the movement of nuclear materials within
the US are also regulated by the NRC. NRC 741 form reporting is the primary
mechanism for tracking physical movements of US or any other origin uranium to
foreign and domestic buyers. US government export policies are established and
enforced through bilateral agreements for nuclear co-operation and trade with
specific countries (or political blocs such as the EU), with the general goal
of supporting the peaceful uses of nuclear energy while upholding specific US
foreign policy 2003 Cameco Annual Information Form 34




---



##### 



and non-proliferation
objectives. While specific sales contracts are not reviewed or approved,
export licenses for shipment of uranium outside the US are granted by the NRC. 
 Land Tenure Saskatchewan Operations Most of the Companys uranium reserves and resources are located in
Saskatchewan. The right to mine minerals is acquired by the Company as a
lessee under a mineral lease from the province of Saskatchewan (a Crown
Lease). A Crown Lease is for a term of 10 years, with a right to renew for
successive 10 year terms in the absence of default by the lessee. The lessee
is required to expend certain amounts for work during each year of a Crown
Lease. A Crown Lease cannot be terminated except in the event of default and
for certain environmental concerns as prescribed in The Crown Minerals Act
(Saskatchewan). However, Crown Leases may be amended unilaterally by the
lessor by an amendment to The Crown Minerals Act(Saskatchewan) or The Mineral
Disposition Regulations, 1986(Saskatchewan). The right to explore for minerals is acquired by the Company in Saskatchewan
under a mineral claim from the province of Saskatchewan (a Mineral Claim).
The term of a Mineral Claim is two years, with the right to renew for
successive one year periods. To maintain a Mineral Claim in good standing,
generally, the holder of a Mineral Claim must expend a prescribed amount on
exploration. Excess expenditures can be applied to satisfy expenditure
requirements for future claim years. Except for exploration purposes, a Mineral
Claim does not grant the holder the right to mine minerals. A holder of a
Mineral Claim in good standing has the right to convert a Mineral Claim into a
Mineral Lease. Surface exploration work of a Mineral Claim requires additional
governmental approvals. The surface facilities and mine shafts are located on lands owned by the
province of Saskatchewan. The right to use and occupy the lands is acquired
under a surface lease (a Surface Lease) from the province of Saskatchewan. A
Surface Lease is for a period of time, up to a maximum of 33 years, as is
necessary to allow the lessee to operate its mine and plant and thereafter to
carry out the reclamation of the lands involved. Surface Leases are also used
by the province of Saskatchewan as a mechanism to achieve certain environmental
protection, radiation protection and socioeconomic objectives and as a result
contain certain undertakings in this regard. The Companys uranium mining and exploration properties in Saskatchewan are
located on traditional lands of first nations. Pursuant to historical treaties
first nation bands ceded title to most traditional lands in northern
Saskatchewan in exchange for treaty lands but generally retained their right to
hunt, fish and trap on these traditional lands. Cameco understands that the
federal and Saskatchewan government have a duty to consult first nations before
they take actions that will affect the ability of first nations people to
exercise these rights. A 2002 decision of the British Columbia Court of
Appeal, involving the Haida First Nation and lands not ceded to the government
of British Columbia pursuant to a treaty, imposed a duty on a resource company
to consult the Haida First Nation with respect to the transfer and renewal of a
timber harvesting licence granted by the province, since the resource company
knew or ought to have known that the government failed to consult with the
Haida First Nation. This decision is presently under appeal to the Supreme
Court of Canada. In February 2004, Cameco received correspondence from the English River First
Nation asserting a right to be consulted with respect to the use of its
traditional lands, which encompass the McArthur River mine, Key Lake mill and
certain exploration areas. While not having a legal duty to consult, Cameco
has a practice of engaging in extensive dialogue with first nations and other
stakeholders in northern Saskatchewan and believes it has good relations.
Cameco also employs a significant number of first nations people at its
operations and has substantial business relationships with first nations in
northern Saskatchewan and provides other social and educational support to
first nations in northern Saskatchewan. Cameco intends to discuss this matter
with the English River First Nation. US Operations The Companys uranium reserves and resources in the US are held by subsidiaries
and are located in Wyoming and Nebraska. The right to mine or develop minerals
is acquired either by
leases from the fee simple owners (private parties) or mining claims located on
property owned by the US Federal Government. In addition, the Companys
subsidiaries acquire surface leases which allow wellfield installation and
operation to permit the mining of the uranium reserves by ISL operations. 2003 Cameco Annual Information Form 35




---



##### 



Canadian Royalties and Certain Taxes Cameco pays royalties to the province of Saskatchewan on the sale of uranium
extracted from ore bodies within the province under the terms of Part III of
the Crown Mineral Royalty Schedule, 1986 (Saskatchewan) (the Schedule), as
amended. Royalties include both a basic royalty and a tiered royalty. The
basic royalty is equal to 5% of gross sales of uranium and is reduced by the
Saskatchewan resource credit equal to 1% of the gross sales of uranium. The tiered royalty is an additional levy on the gross sales of uranium which
applies only when the sales price of uranium exceeds levels prescribed by the
Schedule. Uranium sales subject to the tiered royalty are first reduced by
capital allowances as permitted by the Schedule for new mine or mill
construction and certain mill expansion. When these capital allowances are
reduced to zero, tiered royalties become payable. Both the prices and the
capital allowances as defined in the Schedule are adjusted annually to reflect
changes in the Canadian gross domestic product. The tiered royalty is calculated on the positive difference between the sales
price per pound of U3O8 and the prescribed prices according to the following: Canadian DollarRoyalty Rate
    
    Sales Price in Excess of:6
    %
    
    $
    14.69plus
    
    
    4
    %
    
    $
    22.03plus
    
    
    5
    %
    
    $
    29.38
 The above prices are applicable to 2003 and are in Canadian dollars. For example, if the sales price realized by Cameco was $25 per pound in
Canadian dollars, tiered royalties would be calculated as follows (assuming all
capital allowances have been reduced to zero): [6% x ($25.00  $14.69) x pounds sold] + [4% x ($25.00  $22.03) x pounds sold] Cameco did not pay tiered royalties in 2003. Cameco does not expect to pay
tiered royalties in 2004 due to the availability of capital allowances. Cameco is subject to capital taxes on paid-up capital (as defined for capital
tax purposes in the relevant provincial legislation) in respect of its
operations in Saskatchewan and in Ontario. In Saskatchewan, it pays at a rate
of 0.6% on paid-up capital in excess of $10 million (note that this exemption
amount can be as high as $15 million, depending on the percentage of salaries
and wages paid in Saskatchewan). In addition, a resource corporation in
Saskatchewan pays a corporate resource surcharge of 3.6% of the value of
resource sales. This surcharge is only payable to the extent that it exceeds
the regular capital tax. In Ontario, the Company pays a tax of 0.3% on paid-up
capital allocated to Ontario. 
 Canadian Income Taxes Cameco, certain wholly owned subsidiaries, and UEM are subject to federal and
provincial income tax in Canada. Current income tax expense for 2003 was $7.0
million. In 2003, the federal government enacted amendments to the ITA that provides for
a reduction in the corporate tax rate on income from resource activities from
the present level of 28% to 21%, over a five-year period commencing in 2003.
Under Canadian accounting rules, the cumulative effect of a change in income
tax legislation on future income tax assets and liabilities is included in a
companys financial statements in the period of substantial enactment.
Accordingly, Cameco reduced its balance sheet provision for future income taxes
and recognized a one-time, non-cash income tax adjustment of $86.2 million in
the second quarter. In December 2003, the Ontario government passed amendments which increased the
general corporate tax rate from 11% to 14% effective January 1, 2004. In
addition, previously scheduled tax rate decreases for 2004 to 2006 were
repealed. Under Canadian accounting rules, the cumulative effect of a change
in income tax legislation on future income tax assets and liabilities is
included in a companys financial statements in the period of substantial
enactment. Accordingly, Cameco increased its balance sheet provision for
future income taxes and recognized a one-time, non-cash income tax adjustment
of $4.9 million in the fourth quarter. 2003 Cameco Annual Information Form 36




---



##### 



For income tax purposes, 10% of royalties are deductible in 2003 increasing to
100% in 2007. However, Cameco is eligible for the resource allowance (except
at Bruce Power) which is a deduction from income for tax purposes. The
resource allowance is equal to 25% of adjusted resource profits, as defined in
the ITA. The resource allowance is 90% deductible in 2003, decreasing
thereafter until it is eliminated in 2007. Bruce Power is eligible for the
manufacturing tax credit and processing tax credit. Cameco, certain wholly owned subsidiaries and UEM are also subject to federal
large corporations tax, which is levied on a corporations taxable capital
employed in Canada. This tax is calculated at a rate of 0.225% on taxable
capital in excess of $10 million. Total large corporations tax paid in 2003
was $5.0 million. 
 US Taxes The Company, through its US subsidiaries, pays a severance tax to the state of
Nebraska in respect of uranium produced at the Crow Butte mine and pays an ad
valorem tax to the county and a severance tax to the state of Wyoming in
respect of the Smith Ranch-Highland operation. Total severance and ad valorem
taxes paid in 2003 were $628,000(US). The Company, also through its US subsidiaries, is subject to US federal and
state income tax. The income of Camecos US subsidiaries is currently not
subject to US regular income tax due to certain income tax deductions that are
available. The Companys US subsidiaries may also be subject to Alternative
Minimum Tax (AMT) at a rate of 20%. AMT paid in prior years may be carried
forward indefinitely to be applied as a credit against future regular income
taxes. 
 Employees At December 31, 2003, Cameco had 1,538 employees. Of the total, 567 employees
are represented by three separate locals of the United Steelworkers of America
trade union with collective agreements for each of the two bargaining units at
the Port Hope conversion facility (expiring June 30, 2004) and one for the
bargaining unit employees at the McArthur River and Key Lake operations. In
December 2003 Cameco signed a new collective agreement for bargaining unit
employees at the McArthur River and Key Lake operations which expires December
31, 2005. 
 Risk Factors The following information pertains to the outlook and conditions currently
known to the Company which could have a material impact on the financial
condition of the Company. This information, by its nature, is not all
inclusive. It is not a guarantee that other factors will not affect the
Company in the future. This discussion should be read in conjunction with
material in other sections of this Annual Information Form, including
Managements Discussion and Analysis (Appendix B). There are also additional
risk factors identified under Common Risk Factors  Uranium and Gold. As the
context requires, the reference to Company or Cameco also includes Camecos
direct and indirect subsidiaries. 
 Volatility and Sensitivity
to Prices and Costs Because the majority of the Companys revenues are derived from the sale of
uranium and uranium products, the Companys net earnings and operating cash
flow are closely related and sensitive to fluctuations in the long and short
term market price of U3O8 and for uranium conversion services. Historically,
these prices have fluctuated and have been and will continue to be affected by
numerous factors beyond the Companys control. Such factors include, among
others: demand for nuclear power; political and economic conditions in uranium
producing and consuming countries, such as Canada, the US and Russia and other
republics of the CIS; reprocessing of used reactor fuel and the re-enrichment
of depleted uranium tails; sales of excess civilian and military inventories
(including from the dismantling of nuclear weapons) by governments and industry
participants; and production levels and costs of production in countries such
as Russia and other republics of the CIS, Africa and Australia. 2003 Cameco Annual Information Form 37




---



##### 



The fluctuation of the prices of uranium and UF6 conversion services is
illustrated by the following tables, which set forth, for the periods
indicated, the highs and lows of the spot price for non-CIS origin U3O8 and the
UF6 conversion services: Spot Uranium Prices (1)(US $/lb of U3O8)1994
    
    1995
    
    1996
    
    1997
    
    1998
    
    1999
    
    2000
    
    2001
    
    2002
    
    2003SpotHigh
    
    
    9.60
    
    
    
    12.20
    
    
    
    16.50
    
    
    
    14.30
    
    
    
    11.80
    
    
    
    10.90
    
    
    
    9.40
    
    
    
    9.50
    
    
    
    10.20
    

    
    
    14.40Low
    
    
    9.05
    
    
    
    9.65
    
    
    
    13.00
    
    
    
    10.20
    
    
    
    8.75
    
    
    
    9.60
    
    
    
    7.10
    
    
    
    7.20
    
    
    
    9.70
    
    
    
    10.10
  (1)
    
    Source: The Nuexco Exchange Value, formerly published by Nuexco. Since
January 1995, it has been published by TradeTech. Since late 1992 the
spot prices reflect the spot price for all uranium other than of CIS
origin. Range of Nuexco UF6 Conversion Values (1) For Spot and Near-Term Transactions (US$/kg U)1994
    
    1995
    
    1996
    
    1997
    
    1998
    
    1999
    
    2000
    
    2001
    
    2002
    
    2003SpotHigh
    
    
    5.40
    
    
    
    5.85
    
    
    
    6.15
    
    
    
    6.10
    
    
    
    5.10
    
    
    
    3.85
    
    
    
    3.25
    
    
    
    5.25
    
    
    
    5.25
    
    
    
    6.50Low
    
    
    5.35
    
    
    
    5.50
    
    
    
    5.85
    
    
    
    5.10
    
    
    
    3.50
    
    
    
    2.55
    
    
    
    2.35
    
    
    
    3.65
    
    
    
    5.05
    
    
    
    4.90
  (1)
    
    Source: The Nuexco Conversion Value, formerly published monthly by
Nuexco. Since January 1995, it has been published by TradeTech. The
conversion value over this period of time is for the provision of
conversion services delivered in North America. Although the Company employs various pricing mechanisms within its sales
contracts to manage its exposure to price fluctuations, there can be no
assurance that such a program will be successful. Competition from Other Energy Sources and Public Acceptance of Nuclear
Energy Nuclear energy competes with other sources of energy, including oil, natural
gas, coal and hydro-electricity. These other energy sources are to some extent
interchangeable with nuclear energy, particularly over the longer term.
Sustained lower prices of oil, natural gas, coal and hydro-electricity may
result in lower demand for uranium concentrates and uranium conversion
services. Furthermore, growth of the uranium and nuclear power industry will
depend upon continued and increased acceptance of nuclear technology as a means
of generating electricity. Because of unique political, technological and
environmental factors that affect the nuclear industry, the industry is subject
to public opinion risks which could have an adverse impact on the demand for
nuclear power and increase the regulation of the nuclear power industry. Uranium Industry Competition and International Trade Restrictions The international uranium industry, including the supply of uranium
concentrates and the provision of uranium conversion services, is highly
competitive. The Company markets uranium to utilities in direct competition
with supplies available from a relatively small number of western world uranium
mining and enrichment companies, from certain republics of the CIS and the
Peoples Republic of China, from excess inventories, including inventories made
available from decommissioning of nuclear weapons, from reprocessed uranium and
plutonium from used reactor fuel, and from the use of excess Russian enrichment
capacity to re-enrich depleted uranium tails held by European enrichers in the
form of UF6. The supply of uranium from Russia is, to some extent, impeded by
a number of international trade agreements and policies. These agreements and
any similar future agreements, governmental policies or trade restrictions are
beyond the control of Cameco and may affect the supply of uranium available in
the US and Europe, which are the largest markets for uranium in the world. With respect to UF6 conversion, the Company competes on the basis of price,
location and service with two other full scale commercial suppliers in the
western world and with additional supplies available from excess inventories,
including inventories made available from decommissioning of nuclear weapons,
and the use of excess Russian enrichment capacity to re-enrich depleted uranium
tails held by European enrichers in the form of UF6. 2003 Cameco Annual Information Form 38




---



##### 



Deregulation of the Electrical Utility Industry The Companys future prospects are tied directly to the electrical utility
industry worldwide. Deregulation of the utility industry, particularly in the
US and Europe, is expected to impact the market for nuclear and other fuels for
years to come, and may result in the premature shutdown of nuclear reactors.
Experience to date with deregulation indicates that utilities are improving the
performance of their reactors, achieving record capacity factors. There can be
no assurance that this trend will continue. Replacement of Reserves The McArthur River and Rabbit Lake mines are currently the Companys principal
sources of uranium concentrates. Unless the Cigar Lake deposit is placed into
production or other reserves are discovered or extensions to existing orebodies
are found, the Companys sources of mined uranium concentrates will decrease
over time as reserves at these two mines are depleted. The Rabbit Lake mine is
expected to be depleted in early 2006. Although in the past the Company (or its
predecessors) has successfully replenished its reserves through ongoing
exploration, development and acquisition programs, there can be no assurance
that Camecos future exploration, development and acquisition efforts will be
successful. In addition, while Cameco believes that the Cigar Lake deposit
will be put into production, there can be no assurance that it will be. Due to the unique nature of the deposits at McArthur River and Cigar Lake,
technical challenges exist involving groundwater, rock properties, radiation
protection and ore-handling and transport. Failure to resolve technical
challenges at McArthur River or Cigar Lake may have a material adverse effect
on the Company. Decommissioning and Reclamation Environmental regulators are increasingly requiring financial assurances to
assure that the cost of decommissioning and reclaiming sites are borne by the
parties involved, and not by government. Cameco has filed decommissioning plans
for certain of its properties with regulators. These regulators have accepted
the decommissioning plans in concept, not upon a detailed performance forecast,
which has not yet been generated. As Cameco properties approach or go into
decommissioning, further regulatory review of the decommissioning plans may
result in additional decommissioning requirements, associated costs and the
requirement to provide additional financial assurances. It is not possible to
predict what level of decommissioning and reclamation (and financial assurances
relating thereto) may be required in the future by regulators. Dependence on Limited Number of Customers The Companys principal business relates to the production and sale of uranium
concentrates and the provision of uranium conversion services. The Company
relies heavily on a small number of customers to purchase a significant portion
of its production of uranium concentrates and its uranium conversion services.
For instance, for the period 2004 through 2006, Camecos five largest customers
are anticipated to account for approximately 42% of the Companys contracted
supply of U3O8. For the period 2004 through 2006, Camecos five largest UF6
conversion customers are anticipated to account for approximately 36% of the
Companys contracted supply of UF6 conversion services. Cameco is currently the
only commercial supplier of UO2 for use in Canadian CANDU heavy water reactors
with sales to its largest customer, OPG, accounting for approximately 40% of
the Companys UO2 sales in 2003. The loss of any of the Companys largest
customers or curtailment of purchases by such customers could have a material
adverse effect on the Companys financial condition and results of operations. Technical Obsolescence Requirements for the Companys products and services may be affected by
technological changes in nuclear reactors, enrichment and used fuel processing. 
 Bruce Power LP  Nuclear Electrical Generation 
 Overview Business Bruce Powers business is the generation and sale of electricity into the
Ontario wholesale market. Bruce Power generates electricity using the four
Bruce B and two Bruce A nuclear powered units. The Bruce B nuclear units
and the two restarted Bruce A units have capacity to supply about 20% of
Ontarios electricity needs. Bruce Power has about 3,300 employees. 2003 Cameco Annual Information Form 39




---



##### 



2001 Acquisition On May 12, 2001, Cameco, through its wholly owned subsidiary, Cameco Bruce
Holdings Inc., acquired a 15% limited partnership interest in Bruce Power, an
Ontario limited partnership, and directly acquired a 15% interest in Bruce
Power Inc., the general partner of Bruce Power. On the same date, Bruce Power
signed and closed agreements with OPG and certain of its subsidiaries to lease
and operate the Bruce A and B nuclear powered units and related facilities
located in southwestern Ontario. To obtain its interest in Bruce Power, Cameco committed to invest up to $100
million in Bruce Power and to provide up to approximately $102 million in
financial assurances on behalf of Bruce Power. As of December 31, 2002, Cameco
had invested approximately $93 million in Bruce Power and had provided about
$84 million in financial assurances. In addition, Cameco purchased finished
nuclear fuel from OPG for approximately $74 million for resale to Bruce Power,
which resale has been completed. Concurrent with Camecos acquisition, The Power Workers Union acquired a 2.0%
interest in Bruce Power and The Society of Energy Professionals acquired a 0.6%
interest in Bruce Power. They are the two main unions representing workers at
Bruce Power. BE indirectly held the balance, being an 82.4% interest in Bruce
Power. 2003 Acquisition In early September of 2002, after announcing a weakened financial position, BE
received financial support from the British government. As a condition of the
agreement to provide its financial support, the British government required and
received guarantees from certain BE subsidiaries and related companies,
including Bruce Power. BEs weakened financial position resulted in its
agreement, in late 2002, to sell 79.8% of Bruce Power to a consortium of
Cameco, TransCanada PipeLines Limited (TransCanada), and BPC Generation
Infrastructure Trust (BPC), a trust established by Ontario Municipal
Employees Retirement System. The Power Workers Union and The Society of Energy
Professionals agreed to acquire BEs remaining 2.6% interest in Bruce Power. On February 14, 2003 the agreement closed, with a Cameco wholly owned
subsidiary, Cameco Bruce Holdings II Inc., acquiring a 16.6% interest in Bruce
Power, bringing Camecos total indirect interest in Bruce Power to 31.6%.
Cameco concurrently increased its interest in Bruce Power Inc. from 15% to
33.3%. Cameco acquired these interests from an affiliate of BE and paid
approximately $204 million. Concurrently, TransCanada, through a subsidiary, and BPC each acquired a 31.6%
interest in Bruce Power and a 33 1/3% interest in Bruce Power Inc. from the
same BE affiliate. The Power Workers Union and The Society of Energy
Professionals increased their collective interest in Bruce Power from 2.6% to
5.2% as part of the same transaction. As part of the closing of this transaction, a Cameco subsidiary, a TransCanada
subsidiary and BPC each advanced $75 million to Bruce Power. Bruce Power used
these funds to pay $225 million in deferred rent that it owed to OPG (see
Overview-Bruce Power-OPG Lease). The Bruce Power limited partnership agreement and certain other related
documents were amended to give effect to the new ownership of Bruce Power
following closing. Under these new arrangements, among other things, Cameco
will continue as Bruce Powers fuel manager (see Cameco Fuel Management). As part of the acquisition of BEs interest in Bruce Power, the consortium
acquired a BE affiliates 50% interest in Huron Wind L.P. (Cameco subsidiarys
share is 1/3 of the 50% interest). Located adjacent to the Bruce site, the
nine-megawatt Huron Wind L.P. wind farm officially opened on November 29, 2002.
OPG owns the other 50% of Huron Wind L.P. Upon closing, Bruce Powers guarantees in support of the financial support to
BE provided by the British government were released. The acquisition and its share of the OPG deferred rent payments were funded by
Cameco with existing cash reserves and short-term debt. Camecos total commitment for financial assurances given on behalf of Bruce
Power is estimated to be $191 million at December 31, 2003. These financial
assurances include financial assurances given to the CNSC in support of Bruce
Powers operating licence, guarantees in favour of OPG under the lease between
Bruce Power and OPG for the Bruce site, and guarantees in support of Bruce
Powers power purchase agreements with customers. This last 2003 Cameco Annual Information Form 40




---



##### 



commitment is subject to adjustment as the actual amounts of financial
assurances in support of power purchase agreements will fluctuate in response
to wholesale electricity market changes. Bruce Power-OPG Lease In May 2001, Bruce Power signed and closed agreements to lease and operate the
Bruce A and B nuclear powered units and related facilities in southwestern
Ontario with OPG and certain of its subsidiaries. The initial lease period
expires in 2018. Bruce Power has the right to extend the lease and certain
related agreements for up to an additional 25 years. The lease was amended in
January 2002, and again in 2003 as part of the 2003 Acquisition described
above. Bruce Power paid OPG an initial rental payment of about $552 million, comprised
of about $327 million in cash and a $225 million note receivable as deferred
rent. As part of the 2003 Acquisition, a Cameco subsidiary, a TransCanada
subsidiary and BPC each advanced $75 million to Bruce Power. Bruce Power used
these funds to pay the $225 million OPG note receivable. Bruce Power is the tenant under a lease with OPG on the Bruce nuclear power
facility. The initial term of the lease expires in 2018 with an option on the
part of Bruce Power to extend the lease by up to 25 years. The Bruce nuclear
power facility continues to be managed and operated by the management and staff
of Bruce Power. Spent fuel and decommissioning liabilities remain the
responsibility of OPG and, as determined at the inception of the lease, are
covered by the existing lease payments. The lease agreement with OPG provides
for limited adjustments to the base rent every five years during the initial
term of the lease. These limited adjustments are based on a maximum of 50% of
the discounted value of the expected increase to the decommissioning costs for
the Bruce Power facility, determined using predetermined principles and
assumptions. For each year in the period 2004 to 2008, the aggregate of these
rents, subject to limited exceptions, cannot be less than $190 million. In
2003, the aggregate of these rent payments was approximately $177 million.
There are no similar adjustments to the existing lease payments with respect to
spent fuel liabilities. Commencing in 2006, Bruce Power also has the right to
terminate the lease if the continuing operation of the facility is no longer
economically viable, subject to a lease termination fee, certain ongoing
operational requirements during handover and certain shut-down conditions prior
to handover. Cameco has severally guaranteed Bruce Powers performance of
these obligations. OPG is responsible for nuclear waste and decommissioning liabilities at the
Bruce site. OPG is responsible for the plant decommissioning after the
reactors have been defuelled and the heavy water drained (see Nuclear Waste
Management and Decommissioning). 
 The
Generating Facilities The Bruce nuclear generating stations are located approximately 250 kilometres
northwest of Toronto on Lake Huron. The Bruce nuclear generating stations
consist of eight CANDU reactors. The four Bruce B reactors, with a combined
net generating capacity of 3,160 megawatts, were commissioned between 1984 and
1987. The four Bruce A reactors, with a combined generating capacity of 3,087
megawatts, were commissioned between 1977 and 1979 and removed from service by
OPG between 1995 and 1998. Bruce Power has returned two of the Bruce A
reactors to service, with a combined net generating capacity of 1,500
megawatts. Bruce Power is currently undertaking a review of the feasibility of
returning the other two Bruce A reactors to service. The four Bruce B
reactors and two Bruce A reactors give Bruce Power a net generating capacity
of 4,660 megawatts. An average capacity factor of 80% is forecast for the
Bruce A and B stations during 2004 compared to 85% in 2003, which reflects
planned maintenance outages on the Bruce A and B reactors during the year,
and a planned outage of all four Bruce B units in the fall of 2004, to do an
inspection of the vacuum building. This latter planned outage requires all
four units to be shut down simultaneously for approximately one month. This
inspection is required by applicable regulatory requirements once every ten
years. The estimated operating life of a nuclear generating station ends when
substantial capital expenditures are required to replace life-limiting
components, such as steam generators and fuel channel pressure tubes, and such
capital expenditures are not economically justified. Bruce Power estimates that
the operating life of the four Bruce B nuclear units will end about mid-2018
(based upon 201,000 effective fuel power hours for fuel channels) and the
operating life of the two Bruce A units will end about 2009 for Unit 3 and
2017 for Unit 4 (assuming steam generator replacement for Unit 4 in 2007). An
investment by Bruce Power to replace steam generators, fuel channel pressure
tubes and other life-limiting components at the end of their useful life will
depend, among other things, on prevailing economic, financial and market
conditions. If replacement of life-limiting components is not justified, 2003 Cameco Annual Information Form 41




---



##### 



Cameco expects that Bruce Power will continue to operate these units until
their shutdown is dictated by safety or economic considerations. In 2003, Bruce Powers capital expenditure program, excluding the Bruce A
restart program, was about $159 million. In 2004, Bruce Powers capital
expenditure program for the two A and four B reactors is expected to total
about $280 million, plus an additional $120 million for sustaining capital and
site service support areas. The capital expenditure program consists of: Bruce B turbines/power uprate
    
    $160 millionBruce A unit 4 steam generators (progress payment)
    
    $  25 millionInfrastructure projects
    
    $  95 million
 Bruce Power capital expenditures are expected to average about $200 million for
each of 2005 and 2006. This excludes sustaining capital and expenditures for
site service support areas, which are expected to average about $120 million
per year. As part of its Bruce B power uprate project, Bruce Power plans to refuel the
Bruce B units with modified fuel containing SEU beginning in 2007. The Bruce
B units are currently operating at 90% of maximum power based upon an
operating limitation imposed by the CNSC. This limitation was placed on the
reactors when studies revealed that emergency shutdown systems may not provide
sufficient safety margins for certain low probability accidents. The derating
to 90% of full power ensures that the necessary safety margin is maintained.
The use of the modified fuel is intended to improve the safety margins of the
reactors and allow them to operate at their design capacity and with the
necessary safety margin. Approval is required from the CNSC to operate the
Bruce B units with the modified fuel. (see Uranium Fuel Conversion
Services and Cameco Fuel Management). 
 Bruce
A Restart One of Bruce Powers key initiatives was the restart of two of the four laid-up
units of the Bruce A station (Units 3 and 4). The first Bruce A unit (Unit
4) was connected to the Ontario electricity grid in October, 2003, and declared
in commercial production as of November 1st, 2003, with the second (Unit 3)
connected to the grid in January, 2004, but not yet declared in commercial
production. These two Bruce A units have a combined net generating capacity
of about 1,500 megawatts. The project costs to restart Units 3 and 4 of the
Bruce A station are estimated at $724 million, with about $351 million
incurred in 2003 and $25 million in early 2004. These costs are materially
above the first forecast costs due to increased scope arising as a result of
security concerns and regulatory requirements. There was also some
unanticipated work required to assure safe startup and operation. All relicensing hearings and approvals have been completed with the CNSC for
the restart of Units 3 and 4. Units 3 and 4 are now under CNSC operational
oversight. 
 Ontario
Deregulation The electricity market in the province of Ontario opened (Market Opening) to
full competition on May 1, 2002. In order to create a competitive market after
Market Opening, the Ontario government approved a framework, known as the
market power mitigation framework, to ensure an orderly and gradual
transition to an industry structure in which OPGs share of generating capacity
available to the Ontario market is substantially reduced. OPGs decontrol targets are specified in terms of Tier 1 and Tier 2 capacity.
Tier 1 capacity is defined as all nuclear and hydroelectric generation in
Ontario. Tier 2 capacity is defined as that portion of Ontarios generation
capacity, including fossil generation, inter-tie capacity and demand-side
bidding, that is not part of Tier 1 capacity. Within 42 months after May 1,
2002, OPG is required to reduce its share of in-service Tier 2 generating
capacity through transfer of effective control of a minimum of 4,000 megawatts
of in-service Tier 2 capacity. At OPGs discretion, it may substitute the
transfer of effective control of up to 1,000 megawatts of hydroelectric power
in place of an equivalent amount of Tier 2 capacity. Within 10 years after May
1, 2002, OPG must reduce its effective control of total Tier 1 and Tier 2
capacity to 35% or less of the supply options in the Ontario market. Forty-two
months following May 1, 2002, the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) will review and
publicly report on OPGs success in attaining its decontrol target respecting
Tier 2 capacity, as well as its plans for meeting its 10 year decontrol target.
In keeping with its decontrol obligations, in May 2001 OPG leased the Bruce
nuclear generating stations to Bruce Power. In the Ontario market, generators, wholesalers and suppliers, both inside and
outside Ontario, compete to sell electricity into the real time energy market
or spot market administered by an agency established by the Ontario 2003 Cameco Annual Information Form 42




---



##### 



government called the Independent Electricity Market Operator (IMO). Both
wholesale market participants and retail customers have access to the
electricity supplier of their choice. Bruce Power earns revenue through
medium- and long-term contracts and spot market sales. Bruce Power uses risk
management activities, such as hedging in order to mitigate Bruce Powers
exposure to volatile electricity prices. In November 2002, the Government of Ontario introduced Bill 210 Electricity
Pricing, Conservation and Supply Act, 2002,reversing, in part, its decision to
deregulate the electricity market.The Bill became law on December 9, 2002.
The new legislation and related regulations include the following key features:  
    
    Effective December 1, 2002 (but retroactive to Market Opening) and at
least until April 30, 2006, the price of electricity paid by low
volume consumers (consumers using less than 150,000 kWh annually,
although this was subsequently increased to 250,000 kWh, as described
below) and other designated consumers is fixed at 4.3¢/kWh;  
    
    The rates of transmission and distribution and the fees for the
operation of the IMO are capped at current levels.  
    
    IMO market uplift charges to distributors and low volume and
designated consumers are capped at 0.62¢/kWh.  
    
    The Minister of Energy has been given increased power including the
ability to review market rules made by the IMO to ensure that the new
rules do not unduly and adversely affect the interests of consumers,
with respect to prices or the reliability or quality of electricity
service. This Minister has also been given power to control rates
approved by the OEB and to require certain orders to be amended.  
    
    Tax incentives are provided to promote conservation, use of alternate
fuels and support for clean energy production through a variety of
mechanisms. On March 21, 2003, the Province announced a business protection plan for large
electricity consumers in Ontario. Under this plan, consumers using up to
250,000 kWh per year were included in the fixed price rate of 4.3¢/kWh
retroactive to May 1, 2002. Except for certain designated customers, all
consumers using above 250,000 kWh per year remained in the competitive
wholesale and retail markets and receive rebates under the terms of the
existing market power mitigation agreement arrangements for the 12 months
ending April 30, 2003. Effective May 1, 2003, rebates to these customers were
fixed at 50% of the amount by which the average spot price in the
IMO-administered market exceeds 3.8¢/kWh, with rebates paid on a quarterly
basis. On November 25, 2003, the newly elected Liberal Ontario Provincial Government
introduced Bill 4, the Ontario Energy Board Amendment Act, 2003, which will
remove the 4.3¢/kWh price freeze. As of April 1, 2004, an interim pricing plan
is expected to be implemented. The first 750 kWh (kilowatt hours) will be
priced at 4.7¢/kWh and monthly consumption above that level will be priced at
5.5¢/kWh. The Ontario government stated that the interim pricing structure
will remain in place until the independent regulator, the Ontario Energy Board,
develops a clear and transparent mechanism for setting prices, to be
implemented as soon as possible, but not later than May 1, 2005. The interim
pricing structure does not distinguish between commercial and residential
users; it only distinguishes between consumption patterns. The new Ontario Provincial Government policy is to halt the decontrol of the
OPG assets. Energy policy and the decontrol of OPG are under review by the
Ontario government. There is uncertainty as to what actions will be taken. These regulatory changes have not had a direct impact on the price to date in
the wholesale electricity market into which Bruce Power sells its output.
However, the volume of medium- and long-term transactions in the wholesale
electricity market has dramatically decreased and the regulatory changes have
increased uncertainty for generators like Bruce Power. 
 Cameco
Fuel Management Cameco has overall responsibility to procure nuclear fuel for Bruce Power. This
includes the supply by Cameco of all uranium concentrates and UO2 conversion
services required for the Bruce nuclear generating stations, making Bruce Power
a significant customer for Camecos core products. The six Bruce units are
expected to use at least 1.5 million pounds of U3O8 and 600 tonnes of natural
UO2 conversion services each year. 2003 Cameco Annual Information Form 43




---



##### 



In late 2001, on behalf of Bruce Power, Cameco negotiated a fuel manufacturing
services agreement with Zircatec Precision Industries Inc. (ZPI) covering all
of Bruce Powers fuel manufacturing requirements through the initial lease
period. Under the arrangement, ZPI will manufacture UO2 provided by Cameco
into finished nuclear fuel bundles for Bruce Power. Bruce Power is also pursuing the use of SEU as part of its power uprate project
for the four Bruce B units. Cameco is working with Bruce Power, ZPI and
others in the development of SEU. Cameco expects Bruce Powers use of SEU will
increase the volume of U3O8 sold to Bruce Power and will not significantly
reduce natural UO2 conversion services sold to Bruce Power (see Uranium Fuel
Conversion Services). Cameco has initiated a project at its Port Hope
facilities to modify and add to the facilities to manufacture SEU power for the
Bruce Power fuel. An environmental assessment is currently being prepared in
accordance with regulatory requirements. 
 OPG
Services to Bruce Power As part of the OPG-Bruce Power transaction, OPG agreed to provide certain
services to Bruce Power. Some of these services are required in order for Bruce
Power to comply with terms of its CNSC operating licences. The material
short-term OPG services include: nuclear operating support services and steam
generator and fuel channel inspection and maintenance services. These services
may be terminated upon 12 months prior notice by either Bruce Power or OPG.
The material long-term OPG services include services relating to the supply,
delivery and processing of heavy water for use in the Bruce nuclear units, low
level and intermediate waste storage and disposal services, and collection and
storage of used fuel bundles generated from the operation of the Bruce nuclear
units as further described in Nuclear Waste Management and Decommissioning. 
 Nuclear
Waste Management and Decommissioning As they operate, the Bruce nuclear units generate:  
    
    used nuclear fuel bundles (high-level radioactive waste);  
    
    other material that has come in close contact with reactors but is less radioactive than used nuclear
fuel bundles, such as ion exchange resins and other structural material and reactor equipment,
including pressure tubes (intermediate-level radioactive waste); and  
    
    material used in connection with station operation that is not highly radioactive (low-level
radioactive waste). Used nuclear fuel bundles from the Bruce reactors are temporarily stored in
water-filled pools (wet bays) at the Bruce nuclear stations for a cooling off
period of at least ten years during which their radioactivity substantially
decreases. OPG has constructed a dry storage facility at its radioactive waste
operations site that is located on a part of the Bruce site not leased to Bruce
Power. After the cooling off period, used nuclear fuel bundles will be
transferred to above ground concrete canisters at OPGs dry storage facility.
In-station modifications to the Bruce B wet bays to support the loading of
used nuclear fuel bundles into dry storage containers were completed by Bruce
Power in 2002. When originally constructed, the wet bays at Bruce A and B
had sufficient capacity to store used nuclear fuel bundles for up to 15 to 20
years of operation. The Bruce B wet bays are at or near full capacity, but
in 2003, OPG started transferring the used fuel bundles to its dry storage
facility. Bruce Power pays OPG a fee for OPG to assume title to the used nuclear fuel
bundles discharged from the Bruce reactors during the lease period. OPG
retains title to all used fuel bundles stored in the wet bays before May 11,
2001. No later than April 2003, OPG was required to commence collection of used
nuclear fuel bundles stored in the wet bays for transport to and storage at its
dry storage facility at the Bruce site. These shipments have now commenced.
While the used nuclear fuel bundles are contained in wet bays, Bruce Power is
responsible for their management. During the term of the lease, OPG has also agreed to take title to, store and
dispose of all of Bruce Powers low and intermediate-level radioactive waste at
OPGs radioactive waste management facility at the Bruce site. OPG retains
title to all low and intermediate-level radioactive waste generated before May
11, 2001. Under the lease agreement, OPG, as the owner of the Bruce nuclear plants, is
responsible for decommissioning of the eight Bruce nuclear units and for
funding and meeting other requirements relating thereto that the CNSC may
require of Bruce Power as licensed operator of the Bruce nuclear plants. OPG
is also responsible to manage radioactive waste associated with decommissioning
of the Bruce nuclear plants. 2003 Cameco Annual Information Form 44




---



##### 



There is no facility in Canada for the permanent disposal of used nuclear fuel.
Bill C-27, the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act, implementing the federal governments
nuclear fuel waste management strategy, received Royal Assent on June 13, 2002.
Under this legislation, owners of used nuclear fuel in Canada established an
organization, as a separate legal entity, with a mandate to manage and
co-ordinate the full range of activities relating to the long-term management
of used nuclear fuel. The organization is to report regularly to the federal
government and to make recommendations on long-term management of used nuclear
fuel. The legislation also required the owners of used nuclear fuel, including
OPG, to establish a trust fund with a Canadian financial institution and make
specified deposits. As OPG is the owner of the used nuclear fuel bundles
discharged from the Bruce units, it, not Bruce Power, is subject to the
financial contribution requirements of this legislation. 
 Regulatory Affairs The federal government under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act(Canada)
regulates Bruce Powers nuclear operations. (see Government
Regulation-Canadian Uranium Industry Regulation). In addition, Bruce Power is
subject to the Nuclear Liability Act(NLA). All of the construction, equipment, safety systems and operating limits for the
Bruce nuclear generation stations are subject to regulation by the CNSC under
the Canadian Nuclear Safety and Control Act. Bruce Power is required to
regularly report to the CNSC, which monitors the safety performance of the
Bruce nuclear generating stations. On May 9, 2001, Bruce Power received a
licence to operate the Bruce B nuclear units and a license to operate the
Bruce A nuclear units, which licences took effect on May 11, 2001. On September 24, 2003, a CNSC hearing was held to consider the renewal of the
power reactor operating licenses for the Bruce A and B reactors. The
hearing was adjourned to February 5, 2004 to give further consideration to the
form and amount of financial assurances to be given to the CNSC by Bruce Power
and its owners. Currently, Bruce Power has an interim license to operate the
A and B reactors until March 2004. The NLA requires operators of nuclear generating facilities to purchase nuclear
liability insurance from the Nuclear Liability Association of Canada in amounts
specified in the NLA. Currently, the NLA requires the operator of nuclear
stations to maintain, for each of its nuclear stations, insurance up to a limit
of $75 million for liability imposed under the NLA. Under Part I of the NLA, an
operator is strictly liable for any damage to property of, or personal injury
to, the public arising from a nuclear incident (as defined in the NLA), other
than damage resulting from sabotage or acts of war. If in the opinion of the
Governor in Council, an operators liability could exceed $75 million in
respect of a nuclear incident, or it would be in the public interest to do so,
the Governor in Council would proclaim Part II of the NLA in effect. Under Part
II of the NLA, an operators liability would effectively be limited to the
amount of such insurance and the Governor in Council may authorize funds to be
paid by the federal government for claims in excess of that amount. The NLA is
currently under review and this review could require an increase in insurance
coverage that Bruce Power must obtain. 
 Nuclear Generation  Risk Factors The following information, known to the Company, pertaining to the outlook and
conditions applicable to Bruce Power, could have a material impact on its
contribution to Camecos financial results. This information, by its nature, is
not all-inclusive. It is not a guarantee that other factors will not affect
Bruce Power and, as a consequence, Cameco. This discussion should be read in
conjunction with material in other sections of this Annual Information Form,
including Managements Discussion and Analysis. (Appendix B) Restructuring of Ontarios Electricity Industry The government of Ontario retains the overall power to regulate and further
restructure Ontarios electricity industry. Ontarios electricity market
opened to competition May 1, 2002 with the introduction of competition in both
the wholesale and retail markets in Ontario. However, the Ontario government in
November 2002, March 2003 and November 2003, as described in Ontario
Deregulation, announced regulatory changes reversing, in part, its decision to
deregulate the electricity market. The regulatory authorities responsible for
the structuring, development and operation of the new Ontario electricity
market, the IMO and OEB, and many of the incumbent participants in the Ontario
market, including Bruce Power, have little or no operating experience in a
competitive electricity marketplace. Accordingly, it is possible that further
changes in the structure of electricity industry may be necessitated based on
the experience of regulatory authorities and market participants in the new
competitive environment. These changes may be accomplished either through
fundamental changes by the government of Ontario to the structure of the
Ontario electricity industry, or through changes made by the IMO to the market
rules. 2003 Cameco Annual Information Form 45




---



##### 



In addition, it is difficult to predict the effect of these changing market and
regulatory conditions on Bruce Powers business, results of operations,
financial position or prospects. In certain jurisdictions where the energy marketplace has been opened to
competition, factors such as energy price volatility and episodes of supply
shortages have prompted a re-examination of the market framework by
governments, regulatory authorities and consumer groups. An example is the
November 2002 announcement by the Ontario government of the price cap of 4.3
cents per kilowatt-hour for certain participants in the retail electricity
market and the subsequent announcement in November 2003 to change this price
cap to 4.7 cents per kilowatt-hour and 5.5 cents per kilowatt-hour, depending
on consumption. Political, regulatory and consumer responses to the
competitive wholesale and retail electricity markets in Ontario and the
possible development of a trend toward re-regulation in the North American
electricity industry, could have a material adverse effect on Bruce Powers
business, results of operations, financial position or prospects. Government
Regulation Bruce Powers operations are subject to extensive government regulation that
may change from time to time. Matters that are subject to regulation include
nuclear operations (including regulation pursuant to Nuclear Safety and Control
Act(Canada), the NLA and the Emergency Plans Act(Ontario)), nuclear waste
management and decommissioning and environmental matters including air
emissions. Operations that are not currently regulated may become subject to
regulation. Because legal requirements are frequently changed and are subject
to interpretation, Bruce Power is unable to predict the ultimate cost of
compliance with these requirements or their effect on operations. Some of
Bruce Powers operations are regulated by government agencies that exercise
discretionary powers conferred by statute. Because the scope of such authority
is uncertain and may be inconsistently applied, Bruce Power is unable to
predict the ultimate cost of compliance with these requirements or their effect
on operations. Due to, among other things, inadequate safety margins, the CNSC
has the power to limit the output from or order the shutdown of one or more of
the Bruce A and B units and to impose additional onerous licence conditions
on Bruce Power. Nuclear Operations Bruce Power is subject to extensive federal regulation with respect to its
nuclear operations. Bruce Powers failure to comply with such regulation could
have a material adverse effect on Bruce Power. Risks of substantial liability, as well as the potential for significant
increased costs of operations, arise from the management and operation of
nuclear generating stations, including, among other things, from structural
problems, increasing security requirements to cover factors such as physical
security threats, equipment malfunctions, and the storage, handling and
disposal of radioactive materials. Bruce Power has implemented risk management
strategies, but there can be no assurance that such risks can be minimized or
eliminated. An accident at a nuclear installation anywhere in the world or
other reasons could cause the CNSC to limit the operation or licensing of the
Bruce nuclear generation stations. OPG undertook a testing and inspection program to ascertain the physical
condition of its nuclear generating stations. Under the OPG-Bruce Power lease
arrangement, Bruce Power has continued that program for the Bruce nuclear
generating stations by contracting with OPG for the supply of steam generation,
fuel channel and other inspection services. As a result of this program, OPG
identified equipment life cycle issues, such as steam generator tube corrosion,
feeder pipe wall thinning and pressure tube/calandria tube contact. Cameco
understands these conditions were anticipated in the design but that experience
has shown that the rate of degradation is higher than anticipated. In addition,
no nuclear generating station utilizing CANDU technology has yet completed a
full life cycle. There can be no assurance that Bruce Power will not have to
incur significant capital expenditures for repairs or replacements in addition
to those currently contemplated. To address these issues, Bruce Power may need
to increase preventative maintenance programs and allow for more outage time (a
period when a nuclear reactor is not operating) than currently planned. Such
additional repairs, replacements and longer outage times could have a material
adverse effect on Bruce Power. The occurrence of any of these events could adversely effect Bruce Powers
expected contribution to Camecos financial results. 2003 Cameco Annual Information Form 46




---



##### 



Reliance Upon Single Contractors Bruce Power is dependent upon OPG for certain nuclear support services, Cameco
for U3O8 supply and UO2 conversion services, and ZPI for fuel manufacturing
services. Reliance by Bruce Power on a single contractor for each of these
services is a supply security risk. Failure of any of these suppliers to
provide services of adequate quality or in a timely manner, or, in the case of
OPG, to agree to extend the term of short-term material service agreements,
could have a material adverse effect on Bruce Power and, as a result, Bruce
Powers expected contribution to Camecos financial results. Nuclear Waste Management and Decommissioning Bruce Power is subject to extensive federal regulation with respect to nuclear
waste management. Failure to comply with such regulation could lead to
prosecution and could subject Bruce Power to fines and other penalties,
including the revocation of operating licences for its nuclear generation
facilities. Any release of radioactive material beyond prescribed limits from
property leased or occupied by Bruce Power could lead to governmental orders
requiring investigation, control and/or remediation of such release and could
also lead to claims from third parties for harm caused by such release. Bruce
Power incurs substantial costs for nuclear waste management and changes in
federal regulation could result in additional costs that could have a material
adverse effect on Bruce Power. The wet bays at Bruce A and B have limited capacity to store used nuclear
fuel. As required by contract with Bruce Power, OPG has commenced the
collection of used fuel bundles stored in the wet bays for transport to and
storage at OPGs dry storage facility at the Bruce site. OPG has title to all
used nuclear fuel bundles in the wet bays. Failure of OPG to continue to
provide collection services of adequate quality or in a timely manner or
problems associated with the instation modifications to the Bruce B wet bays
to support the loading of used nuclear fuel bundles into dry storage
containers, could have a material adverse effect on Bruce Power. The occurrence of any of these events could adversely effect Bruce Powers
expected contribution to Camecos financial results. Competition Since Market Opening and the subsequent regulation of the retail electricity
market, wholesale prices have been volatile. Increased competition from the
restart of other wholesale generation at the Pickering nuclear station and from
new construction may result in lower wholesale electricity prices. Cameco
believes Bruce Powers ability to compete depends upon many factors within and
outside its control. There can be no assurance that Bruce Power will be able to
compete successfully or that competitive pressure will not have a material
adverse effect on Bruce Power and, as result, Bruce Powers expected
contribution to Camecos financial results. Reliance Upon Transmission Systems Bruce Powers ability to sell electricity depends on the capacity and
reliability of the Ontario electricity transmission system operated by Hydro
One under the direction of the IMO and regulated by the OEB and the other North
American electricity transmission systems that are connected to the Ontario
electricity transmission system. Accordingly, the success of Bruce Powers
business is dependent upon the functioning of interconnected electrical
transmission systems in North America, Hydro Ones operating performance and
financial stability, as well as the provincial regulation of Ontarios
electricity transmission system. The lack of adequate and reliable electricity
transmission capacity would have a material adverse effect on Bruce Power and,
as a result, Bruce Powers expected contribution to Camecos financial results. Effects of Weather By the nature of its business, Bruce Powers earnings are sensitive to weather
variations from time to time. Variations in winter weather affect the demand
for electrical heating requirements. Variations in summer weather affect the
demand for electrical cooling requirements. Credit Risk Credit risk is the risk of non-performance by contractual counterparties with
respect to payment for services provided. A significant portion of Bruce
Powers revenues are derived from sales through the IMO-administered spot
market. Participants in the IMO spot market must meet IMO-mandated standards
for creditworthiness with the result that Bruce Powers risk for these sales
should be effectively managed. To the extent that the credit support 2003 Cameco Annual Information Form 47




---



##### 



provided by purchasers of power to the IMO is inadequate, all market
participants are responsible for any shortfall in proportion to their market
activity. A significant portion of Bruce Powers revenues are derived from the sale of
electricity under medium-term and long-term power purchase agreements. As a
result, Bruce Power is exposed to credit risk. The purchasers and Bruce Power
under such agreements must meet certain standards for creditworthiness and, in
certain circumstances, must supply financial assurances as security for
non-performance. The requirement of purchasers to provide financial assurances
should result in Bruce Powers credit risk for these sales being effectively
managed. To the extent that financial assurances provided by such purchasers
is inadequate, Bruce Power is subject to credit risk, the occurrence of which
could have a material adverse impact on Bruce Powers expected contribution to
Camecos financial results. Bruce Power is likewise obligated, in certain
circumstances, to provide financial assurances to such purchasers. Depending on
the circumstances, this may burden the credit capacity of Bruce Power and
Cameco. Cameco has committed to provide a certain amount of financial
assurances to Bruce Power. (see Overview - 2003 Acquisition). Spot Market Electricity Prices A significant portion of Bruce Powers revenue is tied, either directly or
indirectly, to the spot market price for electricity in Ontario. The price of
wholesale electricity may vary depending on, among other variables: the
availability of generation and transmission systems, economic growth, economic
slowdown, seasonal and weather-based variations in electricity demand, the
plans and activities of other market participants, the evolution of newly
deregulated electricity markets, regulatory decisions in Ontario and
neighbouring jurisdictions (including deregulation), the exchange rate for the
Canadian dollar and wholesale market trading rules, mechanisms for maintaining
adequate generation reserves and the level of competition. Although Bruce Power
engages in risk management activities, including trading of electricity and
related contracts, to mitigate these risks, there can be no assurance that
these activities will be successful. Electricity prices have proven to be
extremely volatile at certain times in certain markets. 
 THE GOLD BUSINESS 
 Overview Camecos gold business consists of mining operations and exploration, which is
managed by Cameco Gold Inc. (CGI). CGI, with its head office in Toronto,
Ontario, was established in 1996 as a wholly owned subsidiary of Cameco. Camecos gold producing property is the Kumtor mine in the Kyrgyz Republic. CGI
subsidiaries have a one-third (1/3) interest in and operate the Kumtor mine.
In October 2003, remediation work was complete and mining of higher-grade ore
resumed following the pit wall failure in July 2002. The Kumtor mine produced
677,552 ounces, compared to forecast production of 673,357 ounces. Camecos principal gold development property is the Boroo mine in Mongolia.
Boroo Gold Company LLC (BGC), a 54% CGI indirect owned subsidiary, has
developed the Boroo mine. In 2002, CGI indirectly acquired its interest in BGC
when it acquired majority control of AGR. The construction of the mine and
mill at Boroo was completed on October 31, 2003 and commercial production is
expected in the first quarter of 2004, once the commissioning process is
complete. All necessary government approvals have been obtained. The capital
cost of the project is $75 million (US) including capitalized costs during the
pre-production phase. The sustaining capital expenditure budget for 2004 is
$7.5 million (US). Production in 2004 is forecast at 210,000 ounces and annual
production thereafter is expected to be about 175,000 ounces. In February 2003, Cameco and Kyrgyzaltyn JSC agreed in principle to restructure
the Kumtor mine ownership. The proposed restructuring envisioned that a Cameco
subsidiary would hold all of the common shares of KGC, the owner of the Kumtor
mine. The restructuring is contingent upon a number of factors including
further negotiations leading to final agreements acceptable to Cameco and
Kyrgyzaltyn JSC, approvals by third party institutions and a fairness opinion
requested by Kyrgyzaltyn JSC. Notwithstanding the earlier agreements, in January 2004 Cameco announced that
Kyrgyzaltyn JSC agreed to transfer all of KGC, the owner of Kumtor gold mine in
the Kyrgyz Republic, to a new jointly owned Canadian company called Centerra.
In conjunction with its acquisition of KGC and Camecos other gold assets,
Centerra 2003 Cameco Annual Information Form 48




---



##### 



intends to undertake an initial public offering in Canada. Cameco expects to
hold a majority interest in Centerra immediately following the initial public
offering. Cameco subsidiaries will initially hold 67% of Centerra after transferring its
one-third interest in KGC together with its other gold-related assets.
Kyrgyzaltyn JSC, whose shares are held 100% by the Kyrgyz government, will
initially hold 33% of Centerra after transferring its two-thirds interest in
KGC. Kyrgyzaltyn JSC has the option to acquire an additional 2% of Centerra from
Cameco at a value based on the initial ownership allocation, which may not
reflect Centerras full market value. This option can be exercised for 30 days
after Centerra is listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange. If this option is
exercised, Camecos investment will decline to 65% on an undiluted basis. Initially, Centerras assets will include the following:  
    
    100% of KGC, which owns Kumtor gold mine located in Kyrgyz
Republic. KGC will relinquish its rights to develop the underground
potential if it has not notified the government of its intention to
proceed with development two years prior to the end of open pit
mining, which is currently scheduled to be completed around 2008;  
    
    100% of Kumtor Operating Company which operates the Kumtor
mine;  
    
    56% of AGR which owns 95% of the Boroo gold mine that is
expected to begin commercial production in the first quarter of 2004
located in Mongolia;  
    
    62% interest in the REN joint venture, an advanced
exploration project located in Nevada, US; and  
    
    73% interest in the exploration licences for the Gatsuurt
exploration property located about 35 kilometers from Boroo in
Mongolia. In addition, about $130 million (US) in loans previously advanced by Cameco
subsidiaries to the Kumtor and Boroo gold mines will be contributed by Cameco
in exchange for equity in Centerra. In 2004, production at the Kumtor mine is expected to produce about 610,000
ounces of gold at an average cash cost of approximately $220 (US) per ounce.
This unit cash cost includes exploration costs and a management fee. Due to
the restructuring of the gold business under Centerra, beginning in 2004 the
cash unit operating costs will be adjusted to exclude exploration costs and the
management fee. In 2004, production at the Boroo mine is expected to be about
210,000 ounces at an average cash cost of approximately $170 (US) per ounce,
excluding exploration costs. There is no management fee associated with the
Boroo mine. Centerras share of production will be 100% from the Kumtor mine and about 54%
from the Boroo mine. In order to establish Centerra, Cameco and the Kyrgyz government have entered
into a series of agreements. The Kyrgyz government has authorized this
transaction to proceed by issuing a government decree. Closing is targeted for
the second quarter of 2004 and is subject to satisfaction of a number of
conditions including:  
    
    consent from a number of third parties, including certain financial institutions;  
    
    Centerra entering into a underwriting agreement for an IPO of Centerra; and  
    
    the conditional listing of Centerra shares on the Toronto Stock Exchange. Cameco has negotiated a new agreement with the Kyrgyz government to ensure that
a stable investment regime will be maintained in Kyrgyz Republic for Centerra.
The new agreement will take effect on closing. Centerra will have a 10-year
tax stabilization period, during which the application of Kyrgyz tax
legislation is not to increase the tax burden on the Kumtor operation. The tax
indemnity currently enjoyed by Cameco will not be transferred to Centerra. Cameco subsidiaries will vote their Centerra shares to support one Kyrgyzaltyn
JSC representative provided that Kyrgyzaltyn JSC maintains at least that number
of Centerra common shares representing 5.0% of the outstanding common shares of
Centerra at the time of closing. For a period of five years following the date
of closing of the Kumtor restructuring, for so long as Kyrgyzaltyn JSC is
controlled by the government of the Kyrgyz Republic, 2003 Cameco Annual Information Form 49




---



##### 



Kyrgyzaltyn JSC has agreed to maintain legal and beneficial ownership of at
least that number of Centerra common shares representing 5.0% of the
outstanding common shares of Centerra at the time of closing. Camecos existing guarantees in support of the gold hedging activities at both
mines and KGCs senior debt continue while Centerra establishes itself. At
December 31, 2003, KGCs senior debt balance was $17 million (US). On that
same date, Cameco had provided credit support for KGC and Boroo gold hedges of
approximately 480,000 ounces. The mark-to-market exposure under these hedges
was about $46 million (US). With an agreement to create Centerra, an offer is planned to be made to AGR
minority shareholders to exchange their AGR shares for Centerra shares. The price of gold maintained its strength in 2003. As of December 31, 2003,
approximately 12% of Camecos production from existing gold reserves is hedged,
including about 30% of 2004 estimated production. The estimated production is
hedged at an expected price of $326 (US) per ounce. Cameco intends to reduce
its hedge position. As of December 31, 2003, KGC had in place forward and sales options on 278,300
ounces and AGR had in place forward sales on 200,000 ounces. Camecos share of
these hedge arrangements was 292,800 ounces. During 2003, KGC actively
decreased its hedging activity to take advantage of higher spot market prices.
As of December 31, 2003, approximately 26% of KGCs 2004 estimated gold
production is hedged at an expected price of approximately $337 (US) per ounce.
Cameco will participate in price movements to the extent that its share of
production is unhedged. For example, if the price of gold declines
significantly, Cameco, through its indirect one-third share of ownership of
KGC, is exposed to a decline in earnings and a potential loss in its gold
business. Increasing gold prices have the effect of increasing the credit support
required under hedge agreement obligations. Cameco has agreed to provide credit
support to gold hedge agreement counterparties to mitigate the potential of
default. At December 31, 2003, Camecos maximum financial exposure under these
support arrangements was $57 million (US). Camecos net mark-to-market loss
after deducting other partners interest on these hedge positions amounted to
$20 million (US) at December 31, 2003, based upon a spot gold price of $416
(US). CGI also explores for gold. During 2003, exploration was carried out in the
western US, Mongolia and Kyrgyz Republic. In 2004, CGI expects to focus its
gold exploration activities in Nevada, Mongolia and Central Asia. 
 Kumtor
- Gold Producing Property The Kumtor gold deposit is located in the Kyrgyz Republic. In 1992, Cameco and
the Government of the Kyrgyz Republic entered into an agreement to evaluate and
develop the Kumtor gold deposit. Cameco, through its wholly owned subsidiaries
CGI and Kumtor Mountain Company (KMC), holds a 33 1/3% interest in the
operation through its interest in the Kyrgyz joint venture company, KGC.
Cameco acquired its interest from the Kyrgyz Republic which, through
Kyrgyzaltyn JSC (formerly the State Concern Kyrgyzaltyn), holds the other 66
2/3% interest in KGC. Kumtor Operating Company (KOC), a wholly owned
subsidiary of CGI, acts as operator of the joint venture for which it receives
a management fee. The mineral reserve and resource estimates for Kumtor are
found at The Gold Business-Reserves and Resources. Based upon December 31, 2003 reserve estimates for Kumtor (100% basis), Cameco
expects that the Kumtor deposit will be depleted no earlier than 2008. In
2002, Cameco received payback of its capital invested. Property Description and Environment KGC has a mining licence over an area of approximately 800 hectares of land
centered on the Kumtor deposit. In addition, the joint venture has secured a
mining lease over an area of approximately 10,000 hectares in the vicinity of
the Kumtor deposit. This is referred to as the Mining Lease Territory and
provides the joint venture with sufficient surface area for the plant, tailings
disposal area and all other facilities supporting the mining operation, ore
processing and waste rock disposal. The term of KGCs mineral and surface
rights for the Kumtor deposit extend beyond 2008, the year when mining is
expected to be completed. KGC has all necessary material permits to conduct
mining and milling operations at Kumtor. All mineral resources and reserves are
part of the Kumtor gold deposit that has been mined by open pit since 1997. KGC has committed to operate the Kumtor mine in accordance with Canadian,
Saskatchewan and applicable Kyrgyz laws and regulations and the Environment
Action Plan (EMAP) for the mine as well as sound international mining
practices. 2003 Cameco Annual Information Form 50




---



##### 



KGC estimates its future decommissioning and reclamation costs for the Kumtor
mine to be $20.4 million (US) in current dollars. These estimates were last
reviewed by KGC technical personnel in 1999 and are intended to be updated in
2004. In 1998, a reclamation trust fund (the fund) was established to cover
the future costs of reclamation, net of expected salvage value which was
estimated, in 1999, at $14.9 million (US). In order to fund the remaining $5.5
million (US), contributions are made to the fund over the life of the mine on a
unit of production method. At December 31, 2003, the balance in the fund was
$3.7 million (US), with the remaining $1.8 million (US) to be contributed over
the life of the mine. The site consists of an open pit mine situated at approximately 4,000 metres
above sea level along the northwestern slopes of the Akshirak Ridge in the
interior of the Tien-Shan Mountains. The mine includes waste and ore stockpile
areas as well as an area to dispose of the ice stripped from the top of the
deposit. There is a crusher and a mill. Other major facilities include a
fresh water system, a camp/residence for the employees on site, a warehouse,
shops, offices, a batch plant, several standby diesel generators, and a tailing
management facility (TMF). An airstrip is 6 kilometres northwest of the open
pit. The TMF is located in the Kumtor river valley. Tails are deposited in this
facility via a seven-kilometre pipeline from the mill. In 2001, an additional
pipeline was added, twinning the existing one. The tailings dam was designed
and constructed to address the permafrost conditions at the minesite. Stored
behind the tailings dam are 18.9 million cubic metres of tailings sands and
process water. A series of diversion ditches prevent runoff and natural
watercourses from entering the tailings basin. The toe of the tailing dam is
built on permafrost and a 500 metre section of the 2 kilometre dam has shown
movement along an ice rich silt layer. This layer was removed in early 2003
and a shear key was constructed. The analysis carried out by an independent
consultant showed that the shear key would eventually stop the movement of the
dam. The analysis carried out by the Kyrgyz Institute of Rock Mechanics
indicated that the shear key would bring the dam into compliance with Kyrgyz
regulations regarding seismic loading. The TMF and the effluent treatment plant (ETP) were commissioned in 1999,
with government approval for the ETP obtained in June and for the TMF in
December 1999. The treatment plant has been effectively controlling the amount
of free water accumulated in the tailings pond. Addition of a second tailings
line between the mill and tailings pond has reduced the frequency of minor
tailings line releases into secondary containment by providing better line
maintenance planning and reduced mill downtime during tailings line maintenance
and repair. Site accessibility, infrastructure and physiography The site is located near the headwaters of the Kumtor River. It is accessible
by an all-weather road constructed in the Ara-Bel-Su valley. Employees are
bussed to the mine site from Bishkek and the Issyk-Kul region. Supplies are
transported by rail up to Balykchy at the west end of Issyk-Kul Lake and then
trucked to the minesite. The industrial and potable fresh water is pumped from
Petrov Lake, approximately five kilometres northeast of the mill site. The
glacial lake has sufficient water available year around to supply all the
anticipated need of the operations. The site is connected to the power grid of
the Kyrgyz Republic. Most employees are native to Kyrgyz Republic. The terrain is alpine glaciated with broad flat valleys and moraine mounds
along the valley walls. The climate is continental in a zone of permafrost and
active glaciers. Vegetation is predominant on the valley floors and sparse on
the elevated benches and mountain slopes. Despite cold winter conditions,
Kumtor is a 365 day-per-year operation. History and Financing Although the Kumtor area has a history of intermittent exploration dating to
the late 1920s, the actual discovery of the deposit was made in the summer of
1978 in the course of a general survey. Intensive exploration, adit sampling,
drilling and geological interpretation work took place between 1979 and 1989.
In 1992, Cameco and the government of the Kyrgyz Republic entered into an
agreement to evaluate and develop the deposit. KOC retained Kilborn Western
Inc., presently SNC Lavalin, to prepare a feasibility study which was submitted
in November 1993. Construction and development began in 1994 and was completed in early 1997 at a
cost of approximately $450 million (US). Commercial production commenced on
May 1, 1997 and more than 502,000 ounces were produced during that year. As an equity investment, Cameco provided the first $45 million (US) of
development costs for the project. Additionally, Cameco provided a $107 million
(US) subordinated loan to KGC, $61 million (US) of which was outstanding at
December 31, 2003. 2003 Cameco Annual Information Form 51




---



##### 



A consortium of financial institutions advanced $285 million (US) in senior and
subordinated loans to the project (the third party loans). The third party
loans consisted of a senior debt component of $265 million (US) and a third
party subordinated debt component of $20 million (US). As of December 31, 2003,
payments of $248 million (US) on the senior debt had been made and $17 million
(US) of senior debt (US) and $20 million (US) of subordinated third party debt
was outstanding. In April 2002, KGCs senior loan was restructured and resulted in the extension
of the term of repayment to June 1, 2006 and the replacement of non-commercial
lenders as senior lenders. In November 2002, the senior lenders agreed to defer
December 2002 and June 2003 semi-annual principal payments until the period
December 2004 to June 2006. An offshore debt reserve account and the shares of
KGC secure the senior debt. Pursuant to the revised lending agreements, a
principal payment of $60 million (US) was made in December 2003. The third party loans are a direct obligation of KGC. However, under the terms
of the financing agreements, Cameco has agreed to guarantee the payment of all
amounts of principal and interest that become due in respect of the senior
debt. Cameco has purchased political risk insurance that entitles it to seek
full reimbursement from the insurers if Cameco is required to pay on the
guarantee due to a political risk event in the Kyrgyz Republic. Cameco has also
purchased political risk insurance that covers 90% of the carrying value of its
subordinated loan to KGC and 90% of the carrying value of its equity
contribution to the project. Geology and Mineralization Two major fault zones delineate the local structural setting of the Kumtor
area. The first structure is the Nikolaev Lineament which marks the boundary
between the rocks affected by the Caledonian orogen to the west and by the
Hercynian orogen. The Kumtor Fault zone, which is parallel to and east of the
lineament with a traced strike length of more than 50 kilometres and variable
widths up to 400 metres, is the second major structural setting. The Kumtor deposit is in the zone of sheared, brecciated and hydrothermally
altered Precambrian metasediments just south and sub parallel to the Kumtor
Fault zone. The southeast dipping zone of alteration and mineralization has a
strike length of 1,250 metres, near surface widths up to 400 metres and depths
up to 1,000 metres. Exploration, Sampling and Analysis The exploration work, performed by predecessors of KGC, resulted in the
collection of 69,775 samples of which 37,075 were channel samples. The
trenches provided 7,250 samples and adits one, two and four provided 14,300,
10,665 and 4,860 samples respectively. The drill core samples totaled 32,700.
A total of 22,100 channel samples and 16,900 core samples were used in the
evaluation of the reserves by the Soviets. The results of the investigative work were compiled in a geological report
titled Results of Detailed Exploration of the Kumtor Gold Deposit issued in
1989. This report included the evaluation of the reserves. It was prepared by
the Ministry of Geology of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) and
approved by the General Director of Kyrgyz Geology and the Deputy General
Director, Chief Geologist of Kyrgyz Geology in his capacity as head of the
Uchkoshkon Geological Expedition. Late in 1992, Kilborn Western Inc. was commissioned to prepare a feasibility
study to evaluate and develop the Kumtor deposit. An integral part of the
evaluation process was data validation comprising assaying of the original
sample rejects, recalculation of the reserves and resources, underground
geological and geotechnical remapping and resampling of parts of the higher
mineralization grade zones and process testwork of original and fresh
metallurgical samples. The recalculation of the reserves and the resources
were carried out by Geostat Systems International based on geostatistical
methods employing three-dimensional block modelling and kriging to the 3,668
metres elevation in the deposit. In 1998-2001, additional drilling was carried out by KOC in the planned open
pit area as well as at depth to evaluate certain areas of the orebody. Some
121 holes were drilled, assayed with additional check sampling and incorporated
into the original data bank. Camecos mining resources department and KOC personnel conducted a
reinterpretation of the orebody and a new reserve model was created, providing
the base for a new life-of-mine plan. This reserve model is regularly compared
to the actual mine production. After seven years of mining, the number of
mined ounces is consistent with expectations based upon the new model. 2003 Cameco Annual Information Form 52




---



##### 



In 2002-2003, additional drilling was carried out by KOC in the planned open
pit area to further evaluate the orebody. Drilling was also performed in the
Southwest Zone and Sarytor exploration areas. In the present open pit area 60
holes were drilled totaling 16,468 metres, assayed with additional check
sampling and incorporated into the original databank. A new reserve/resource
model, taking into account the additional drilling and mining results, is
currently in preparation. In the satellite Southwest Zone and Sarytor
exploration areas, a total of 80 holes were drilled, totaling 13,189 metres,
assayed with additional check sampling and incorporated into the original
exploration databank. KOC has developed and implemented procedures for quality control, data
verification and sampling which it believes will assure the integrity of
information resulting from its drilling activities at Kumtor. Mining Total mine production in 2003 was 27.5 million bench cubic metres, a 39.6%
increase over the previous year. Ore was delivered to the mill at an average
rate of 15,428 tonnes per day. The average strip ratio was 12.8, requiring an
average mining rate of 212,900 tonnes per day. The mill feed grade in 2003 was
approximately 4.54 grams per tonne, 22.2% higher than the 3.71 grams per tonne
delivered to the mill in 2002. (see 2002 Pit Wall Failure"). The Kumtor deposit is developed using conventional open pit mining methods.
Initially, part of the orebody was overlaid by a glacial icecap 10-30 metres
thick. This icecap was removed during the first three years of operation. Now
mining is focused on ore extraction and removal of the surrounding waste rock.
Operations began at the 4,300 metre elevation in 1996. Presently, mining is
conducted between the 4,100 and 3,950 metre elevations. Mining benches are 8 metres in height with 3 to 4 benches under development at
any given time. Drilling is performed by six rotary-percussion blasthole drill
rigs. Holes are drilled on a nominal 5.5 metre x 5.5 metre pattern. 400-500
holes are shot daily using bulk ANFO and emulsion explosives. Six hydraulic shovels and four front-end loaders load a fleet of thirty-one
haul trucks. The location of the ore and waste rock is determined by assaying
drillhole cuttings. Boundaries between material-types are surveyed in and
digging is supervised by KGC engineering staff to ensure that ore and waste
rock are separated correctly. All mine equipment is monitored by a
computer-controlled dispatch system. Milling The Kumtor mill consists of a nominal 15,500 tonne per day conventional plant,
using pyrite flotation and carbon in-leach (CIL) in the process where both the
reground pyrite concentrate and the flotation tails are leached in separate
circuits. The grinding circuit consists of a semiautogenous mill, a pebble
crusher, a ball mill and a regrind mill. High rate thickeners reclaim as much
water as possible from the flotation concentrate, flotation tails feed,
reground flotation concentrate CIL feed and final tails. In 2003, gold
recoveries increased to 82.63% from 78.13% in 2002 due to the processing of
less refractory ore. In 2003, 677,552 ounces of gold were poured compared to 528,550 ounces in 2002.
Gold production is expected to decrease to about 610,000 ounces in 2004.
Approximately 4,386,771 ounces of gold have been poured from startup in 1997
until December 31, 2003. All economic ore is forecast to be milled by 2008. The cash cost per ounce in 2003 was approximately $199 (US) calculated in
accordance with the standards of The Gold Institute. The cash cost per ounce
in 2002 was $216 (US). 2002 Pit Wall Failure On July 8, 2002, a pit wall failure occurred at the Kumtor mine, resulting in
the temporary suspension of operations. Mine production resumed on July 15,
2002 in an area away from the pit wall failure. A Kyrgyz national employee of
KOC died as a result of a rockslide. The rockslide involved approximately 7.5
million tonnes of rock. Camecos 2002 net earnings were reduced by
approximately $27 million as a result of the pit wall failure. No allowance
was made in 2003 for possible proceeds from insurance. Technical experts were assembled to assess pit wall stability in the rockslide
area as well as options for accessing this ore zone. The information gathered
was used to analyze and assess the revised pit wall slope configurations and
develop a revised mining plan. The revised mining plan provides for greater
stability and better access to high-grade ore. A geo-technical drilling
program was designed and initiated to provide further information on the July
2002, 2003 Cameco Annual Information Form 53




---



##### 



rockslide. This information was also used to finalize the design of the pit
slopes for the revised mining plan. In addition, revisions were made to the
monitoring system and equipment to provide a good degree of real time warning
should there be further movement. However, the technical experts were unable
to come to a conclusive determination as to the reasons for the pit wall
failure. The pit wall failure resulted in a significant revision to the mining plan,
including the postponement of mining higher-grade ore. KGC has been milling
lower grade ore and achieving lower recovery rates as a consequence. As a
result, gold production at Kumtor in 2002 was 528,550 ounces. Prior to the pit
wall failure, Kumtor was forecast to produce 700,000 ounces. For the second
half of 2003, the average mill feed grade rose to about 5.6 g/t. Production at
Kumtor during 2003 was 677,552 ounces at an average feed grade of 4.5 g/t. Kumtor Resource and Reserve Estimates The mineral reserve and resource estimates for Kumtor are found at The Gold
Business-Reserves and Resources. The key assumptions, parameters and methods
used in making these estimates are:  1.
    
    Key Assumptions  
    
    the reserves reported include allowances for dilution and
mining recovery.  2.
    
    Key Parameters  
    
    gold values were obtained from assaying of surface trenches
and underground working samples as well as from drill hole cores;  
    
    cutting of high grade samples was established at 60 grams
gold per tonne;  
    
    density was measured on 200 samples and ranged from 2.51 to
3.23 tonnes per cubic metre. An average density of 2.85 tonnes per
cubic metre is used for waste and mineralized rocks;  
    
    design of current ultimate pit is based on $300 (US) per ounce of gold;  
    
    reserves at Kumtor are not only based on grades but also on the volume and location; and  
    
    reserves within the current ultimate pit design were
calculated with a cutoff grade based on a gold price of $350 (US)
per ounce.  3.
    
    Key Methods  
    
    the geological interpretation of the orebody outlines was
done on vertical sections 40 metres apart and on planviews at 24
metre spacing;  
    
    a three-dimensional block model delineates the reserves and
resources;  
    
    estimates of the grade of blocks 10 metres x 10 metres x 8
metres were obtained by ordinary kriging; and  
    
    reserves are defined as the economically mineable part of the
indicated and measured resources. Only reserves have demonstrated
economic viability. The amount of reported resources does not
include amounts identified as reserves. Although Cameco believes Kumtor reserve and resource estimates are unlikely to
be materially affected by external factors, such as metallurgical, safety and
environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation and political issues, there
can be no assurance that they will not be. There are numerous uncertainties
inherent in estimating mineral reserves and resources. The accuracy of any
reserve and resource estimation is the function of the quality of available
data and of engineering and geological interpretation and judgment. Results
from drillings, testing and production, as well as a material change in the
gold price, subsequent to the date of the estimate, may justify revisions of
such estimates. Other Kumtor Information All gold produced by the Kumtor mine is purchased by Kyrgyzaltyn JSC, the owner
of 66 2/3% of KGC, for reprocessing at its refinery in the Kyrgyz Republic. KGC
uses derivative financial instruments to mitigate the price risk on a portion
of future gold production. See Gold Business-Risk
Factors-Volatility and
Sensitivity to Prices. The Kyrgyz tax regime applicable to the Kumtor operation is governed by an
agreement between Cameco, Kyrgyzaltyn JSC and the Kyrgyz government. 2003 Cameco Annual Information Form 54




---



##### 



There are currently no material development activities planned for the Kumtor
operation. 
 Boroo - Gold Development Property BGC, about a 54% CGI indirect owned subsidiary, has developed the Boroo mine in
Mongolia. The Boroo mine achieved commercial production effective March 1,
2004, with expected production of about 210,000 ounces in 2004. On March 5, 2002, CGI acquired a 52% interest in AGR, a British Virgin Islands
company, for $12 million (US) cash and issuance of a $4.8 million (US)
promissory note. AGR indirectly owns 95% of BGC, a Mongolian entity. A
Mongolian entity indirectly owns the remaining 5% of BGC. BGC has the rights to
the Boroo gold deposit located in Mongolia. Subsequent to the acquisition, CGI increased its interest in AGR to 56% by
financing $3 million (US) of further exploration on Boroo and Gatsuurt. The
promissory note was satisfied by CGI transferring to AGR 61% of a subsidiary
that owns 100% of Cameco Gold Mongolia LLC, which has rights to the Gatsuurt
exploration property in Mongolia. The Boroo open pit mine and mill construction was completed on October 31, 2003
and achieved commercial production effective March 1, 2004. The project budget
to reach commercial production remains at $75 million (US), an increase of $35
million (US) from the original estimate of $40 million (US). About half the
increase relates to change in the operating plan from a contractor-supplied and
operated mine equipment and shop facilities fleet to one in which BGC purchases
the fleet and carries out maintenance. The remainder of the capital cost
increase is due to improvements in the processing facilities. About 97% of the
capital budget was spent to the end of December 2003. A CGI subsidiary is
funding the construction of the Boroo open pit mine and mill through a loan
which bears interest at LIBOR plus 4% and reduces to LIBOR plus 3.5% after
commercial production is declared. The 2004 BGC budget includes sustaining capital of $7.5 million (US). At December 31, 2003, AGRs hedge position was 200,000 ounces, which is
expected to yield an average price of approximately $315 (US) per ounce. CGI estimates that the future decommissioning and reclamation costs for the
Boroo mine to be approximately $3 million (US) in current dollars. Periodic
contributions to an escrow account are planned to cover this future liability. A stability agreement has been entered into with Mongolian government. It
expires in 2013. Among other things, the stability agreement provides for:  
    
    Mongolian tax laws in effect in 1998 when the agreement was signed will govern, unless laws more favorable take effect;  
    
    a three-year income tax exemption from the commencement of production, a 20% income tax rate for the following three years
and a 40% income tax rate thereafter; the income tax law has been revised effective January 1, 2004 whereby the rate
following the initial 3 year tax free period will now be 15% for the following three years and 30% thereafter;  
    
    gold may be freely exported, without the application of value added tax or export charges;  
    
    the payment of a 2.5% net smelter royalty to the Mongolian government;  
    
    any value added tax obligations may be offset against any income tax (both personal and corporate) withholding tax and the
royalty payable;  
    
    all proceeds resulting from gold sales may be deposited in an offshore account, provided sufficient funds are deposited in

a commercial bank in Mongolia to cover fiscal obligations to the Mongolian government; and  
    
    the Mongolian government may not expropriate BGC assets. BGC signed a dore gold refining contract with Johnson Mathey plc (JM) dated as
of December 1, 2003. Under that contract, BGC agrees to deliver to JM, for
processing at its facility in the United Kingdom, 100% of the production from
the Boroo mine. The contract expires on December 31, 2005. BGC made its first
delivery under the contract in January 2004. AGR intends to pursue political risk insurance for its investment in Boroo. 2003 Cameco Annual Information Form 55




---



##### 



Reserves and Resources (1) Reserve and resource estimates for Camecos gold properties as presented in
this Annual Information Form were prepared by or under the supervision of the
following qualified persons: Qualified Persons
    
    PropertiesAlain Gaston Mainville, Geologist and Professional
Geoscientist, who is Manager, Mining Resources and Methods at
Cameco
    
    KumtorRob Chapman, Geologist and Professional Geoscientist, who is
Vice-President, Exploration at Cameco Gold Inc.
    
    Boroo
 Camecos reserve and resource estimates are obtained from internally generated
data or audit reports. Camecos gold reserves and resources are located in the
Kyrgyz Republic and Mongolia. The following table shows the estimated gold reserves and resources as at
December 31, 2003 on a property basis and Camecos share. The amount of
reported resources does not include those amounts identified as reserves. PROVEN
    
    PROBABLE
    
    TOTAL RESERVES(100% interest)
    
    (100% interest)
    
    (100% interest)Content
    
    CamecosGrade
    
    Content
    
    
    
    
    
    Grade
    
    Content
    
    
    
    
    
    Grade
    
    Ounces
    
    Share
    
    MiningTonnes
    
    g/t Au
    
    Ounces Au
    
    Tonnes
    
    g/t Au
    
    Ounces Au
    
    Tonnes
    
    g/t Au
    
    Au
    
    Ounces Au
    
    Method(2)(tonnes and ounces in thousands)PROPERTYKumtor Gold
    
    
    18,539.0
    
    
    
    3.41
    
    
    
    2,032.0
    
    
    
    6,765.0
    
    
    
    3.50
    
    
    
    761.0
    
    
    
    25,304.0
    
    
    
    3.43
    
    
    
    2,793.0
    
    
    
    931.0
    
    
    OPBoroo
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    10,175.0
    
    
    
    3.52
    
    
    
    1,153.0
    
    
    
    10,175.0
    
    
    
    3.52
    
    
    
    1,153.0
    
    
    
    617.0
    
    
    OPTotal
    
    
    18,539.0
    
    
    
    3.41
    
    
    
    2,032.0
    
    
    
    16,940.0
    
    
    
    3.51
    
    
    
    1,914.0
    
    
    
    35,479.0
    
    
    
    3.46
    
    
    
    3,946.0
    
    
    
    1,548.0
 MEASURED ANDMEASURED
    
    INDICATED
    
    INDICATED RESOURCES(100% interest)
    
    (100% interest)
    
    (100% interest)Content
    
    CamecosGrade
    
    Content
    
    
    
    
    
    Grade
    
    Content
    
    
    
    
    
    Grade
    
    Ounces
    
    Share
    
    MiningTonnes
    
    g/t Au
    
    Ounces Au
    
    Tonnes
    
    g/t Au
    
    Ounces Au
    
    Tonnes
    
    g/t Au
    
    Au
    
    Ounces Au
    
    Method(2)(tonnes and ounces in thousands)PROPERTYKumtor Gold
    
    
    5,394.0
    
    
    
    3.59
    
    
    
    622.0
    
    
    
    6,829.0
    
    
    
    4.75
    
    
    
    1,043.0
    
    
    
    12,223.0
    
    
    
    4.24
    
    
    
    1,665.0
    
    
    
    555.0
    
    
    OPBoroo
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    3,387.0
    
    
    
    2.09
    
    
    
    228.0
    
    
    
    3,387.0
    
    
    
    2.09
    
    
    
    228.0
    
    
    
    122.0
    
    
    OPTotal
    
    
    5,394.0
    
    
    
    3.59
    
    
    
    622.0
    
    
    
    10,216.0
    
    
    
    3.87
    
    
    
    1,271.0
    
    
    
    15,610.0
    
    
    
    3.77
    
    
    
    1,893.0
    
    
    
    677.0
 INFERRED RESOURCES(100% interest)Content
    
    CamecosGrade
    
    Ounces
    
    Share
    
    MiningTonnes
    
    g/t Au
    
    Au
    
    Ounces Au
    
    Method(2)(tonnes and ounces in thousands)PROPERTYKumtor Gold
    
    
    5,773.0
    
    
    
    3.90
    
    
    
    723.0
    
    
    
    241.0
    
    
    OP& UGBoroo
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    OPTotal
    
    
    5,773.0
    
    
    
    3.90
    
    
    
    723.0
    
    
    
    241.0
 Notes:  (1)
    
    Cameco reports reserves and resources separately.  (2)
    
    Mining Method: OP  Open Pit; UG  Underground. 2003 Cameco Annual Information Form 56




---



##### 



Gold
Reserve and Resource Reconciliation The following reconciliation of Camecos share of gold reserves and resources
reflects the changes in gold reserves and resources during 2003. The 2003
additions and deletions at Kumtor and Boroo result from mining and milling and
additional information provided by mining experience, drilling results analysis
and reclassifications. Reconciliation of Camecos Share of Gold Reserves and Resources
(in thousands of ounces Au) December 31 2002
    
    2003 Throughput (1)
    
    2003 Addition (Deletion)
    
    
    
    
    
    December 31, 2003Reserves
 ProvenKumtor Gold
    
    
    1,127.0
    
    
    
    (270.0
    )
    
    
    (180.0
    )
    
    
    (2
    )
    
    
    677.0Total Proven Reserves
    
    
    1,127.0
    
    
    
    (270.0
    )
    
    
    (180.0
    )
    
    
    
    
    
    
    677.0Reserves -  ProbableBoroo
    
    
    606.0
    
    
    
    (6.0
    )
    
    
    17.0
    
    
    
    (2
    )
    
    
    617.0Kumtor Gold
    
    
    24.0
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    23.0
    
    
    
    (2
    )
    
    
    254.0Total Proven Reserves
    
    
    630.0
    
    
    
    (6.0
    )
    
    
    247.0
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    871.0Total Reserves
    
    
    1,757.0
    
    
    
    (276.0
    )
    
    
    67.0
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    1,548.0Resources  MeasuredKumtor Gold
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    207.0
    
    
    
    (2
    )
    
    
    207.0Total Measured Resources
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    207.0
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    207.0Resources - IndicatedBoroo
    
    
    236.0
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    (114.0
    )
    
    
    (2
    )
    
    
    122.0Kumtor Gold
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    348.0
    
    
    
    (2
    )
    
    
    348.0Total Indicated Resources
    
    
    236.0
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    234.0
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    470.0Total Measured and
Indicated Resources
    
    
    236.0
    
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    441.0
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    677.0Resources - InferredBoroo
    
    
    326.0
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    (326.0
    )
    
    
    (2
    )
    
    
    0Kumtor Gold
    
    
    606.0
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    (365.0
    )
    
    
    (2
    )
    
    
    241.0Total Inferred Resources
    
    
    932.0
    
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    (691.0
    )
    
    
    
    
    
    
    241.0
 Notes:  (1)
    
    Corresponds to millfeed. The discrepancy between the 2003 millfeed and Camecos share of 2003 ounces produced is
due to mill recovery and the processing of low grade material.  (2)
    
    Change in reserves or resources, as applicable, include reassessment of geological data, results of information
provided by mining and milling, and subsequent re-classification of reserves or resources, as applicable. 
 Legal Proceedings An action was commenced during 1997 in a Canadian court by certain dependants
of nine persons against the Company, CGI, KOC and certain other parties seeking
damages, in the amount of $20,700,000 including punitive damages, plus interest
and costs in connection with the death of the said nine persons in a helicopter
accident in Kyrgyz Republic on October 4, 1995. This action is being defended
by the insurers of the Company. 
 Regulatory Compliance Pursuant to the financing agreements related to the Kumtor gold project, the
project participants agreed that all construction, development and, once in
operation, production activities related to the project must be conducted in
accordance with Canadian, Saskatchewan, and applicable Kyrgyz laws and
regulations and the accepted Environmental Management Action Plan for the
project as well as sound international mining practices. Modifications to the
original, pre-operational Environmental Management Action Plan have been
approved by appropriate external parties. The Boroo Gold Project has been built to meet Australian, Mongolian and World
Bank environmental standards in respect to construction and development and
once in operation will be managed to comply with Mongolian and World Bank
environmental standards. In respect to construction, the Boroo Plant and
Facilities have been reviewed and accepted by the Republic of Mongolia and an
Act of Final Acceptance by the State Acceptance committee has been issued to
provide BGC with the right to start exploration of the deposit. The 2004
Environmental Protection Plan, Environmental Management Plan and Mining Plan
have been approved by the appropriate Mongolian authorities. 
 Employees KOC had approximately 92 expatriate and 1,504 national employees at December
31, 2003. 2003 Cameco Annual Information Form 57




---



##### 



BGC has approximately 36 expatriate and 324 national employees at December 31,
2003. 
 Risk Factors The following information pertains to the outlook and conditions currently
known to the Company which could have a material impact on the financial
condition of the Company. This information, by its nature, is not all
inclusive. It is not a guarantee that other factors will not affect the
Company in the future. This discussion should be read in conjunction with
material in other sections of this Annual Information Form, including
Managements Discussion and Analysis (Appendix B). As the context requires
for the following information, the reference to Company or Cameco also includes
Camecos direct and indirect subsidiaries. 
 Volatility
and Sensitivity to Gold Prices The Companys share of revenue from its gold business is largely dependent on
the world market price of gold. The gold price is subject to volatile price
movements over time and is affected by numerous factors beyond the Companys
control. Such factors include, among others: global supply and demand;
central bank lending, sales and purchases; expectations for the future rate of
inflation; the level of interest rates; the strength of, and confidence in, the
US dollar; market speculative activities; and global or regional political and
economic events. Fluctuation in gold prices is illustrated by the following table which sets
forth for the periods indicated the average closing gold prices in United
States dollars per ounce. Average London PM Fix(US$)1994
    
    1995
    
    1996
    
    1997
    
    1998
    
    1999
    
    2000
    
    2001
    
    2002
    
    2003US$ Average
    
    
    384
    
    
    
    384
    
    
    
    388
    
    
    
    331
    
    
    
    294
    
    
    
    279
    
    
    
    279
    
    
    
    271
    
    
    
    310
    
    
    
    363
 On March 1, 2004 the closing price of gold on the London market (PM Fix) was
$400 (US) per ounce. If the market price for gold falls and remains below variable production costs
of a Cameco subsidiarys mining operations for a sustained period, losses may
be sustained and, under certain circumstances, there may be a curtailment or
suspension of some or all of mining activities. The Company would also have to
assess the economic impact of any sustained lower gold prices on recoverability
and, therefore, the cut off grade and level of its gold reserves and resources.
The Company would have to assess the impact of such an environment on any
outstanding guarantees related to its gold activities. AGR and KGC hedge the price risk for future gold sales. AGR and KGC use
derivative financial instruments such as forward sales contracts and collars
(matched puts and calls) to mitigate the price risk on a portion of future gold
production. AGR and KGC uses these instruments for hedging purposes and do not
hold or issue derivative financial instruments for trading purposes. The mix
of instruments and the amounts change from time to time with changes in
pricing, market conditions and hedging strategies. Cameco has agreed to provide credit support to KGCs and AGRs counterparties,
subject to stipulated per ounce limits, in order to mitigate the potential of
default by these companies. At year-end 2003, based upon the number of ounces
hedged and the stipulated per ounce limits, Cameco had a maximum financial
exposure under its support arrangements of $57 million (US). Camecos net
mark-to-market loss after deducting other partners interests on these hedge
positions amounted to $20 million (US) at December 31, 2003, based upon a spot
gold price of $416 (US). As the gold price rises, Cameco may need to increase the
stipulated per ounce limits. For a summary of the Companys share of future
gold sale and delivery commitments, see Note 25 to the Consolidated Financial
Statements of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003. The extent of future gold price hedging by AGR and KGC will depend upon its
assessment of gold market factors and other conditions. Although AGR and KGC
utilize hedging programs to mitigate the price risk on a portion of future gold
production, there can be no assurance that such programs will be successful. 
 Replacement
of Reserves In 2003, the Kumtor mine was the Companys sole source of gold production,
albeit indirectly through its indirect 1/3 equity ownership of KGC. The Boroo
mine achieved commercial production effective March 1, 2004. Unless other
reserves are discovered or extension to the existing orebodies are found, the
Companys total gold reserves will decrease as reserves at Kumtor and Boroo are
depleted. 2003 Cameco Annual Information Form 58




---



##### 



Decommissioning
and Reclamation KGCs decommissioning and reclamation plan for the Kumtor mine was last updated
in 1999. KGC estimates future decommissioning and reclamation costs to be
approximately $20 million (US). To cover this future liability, a reclamation
trust fund was established in 1998 to which contributions are made annually.
BGCs decommissioning and reclamation plan for the Boroo mine estimates future
decommissioning and reclamation costs to be approximately $3 million (US).
Periodic contributions to an escrow account are planned to cover this future
liability. It is not possible to predict what level of decommissioning and
reclamation (and financial assurances relating thereto) may be required in the
future by regulators. 
 COMMON RISK FACTORS  URANIUM AND GOLD In addition to the risk factors referred to under Nuclear Business-Risk
Factors and Gold Business-Risk Factors, there are certain risks which are
generally applicable to both the uranium and gold mining industries, as
outlined in the following. The risks discussed here are not all inclusive. No
guarantee is provided that other factors will not affect the Company in the
future. This discussion should be read in conjunction with material in other
sections of this Annual Information Form, including Managements Discussion and
Analysis (Appendix B). As the context requires for the following information,
reference to the Company or Cameco also includes Camecos direct and indirect
subsidiaries. Imprecision of Reserve and Resource Estimates Reserve and resource figures included for uranium and gold are estimates and no
assurances can be given that the indicated levels of uranium and gold will be
produced or that Cameco will receive the gold price and uranium price assumed
in determining its reserves. Such estimates are expressions of judgment based
on knowledge, mining experience, analysis of drilling results and industry
practices. Valid estimates made at a given time may significantly change when
new information becomes available. While the Company believes that the reserve
and resource estimates included are well established and reflects managements
best estimates, by their nature reserve and resource estimates are imprecise
and depend, to a certain extent, upon statistical inferences which may
ultimately prove unreliable. Furthermore, market price fluctuations in uranium
and gold, as well as increased capital or production costs or reduced recovery
rates, may render ore reserves containing lower grades of mineralization
uneconomic and may ultimately result in a restatement of reserves. The extent
to which resources may ultimately be reclassified as proven or probable
reserves is dependent upon the demonstration of their profitable recovery. The
evaluation of reserves or resources is always influenced by economic and
technological factors, which may change over time. Resources figures included herein have not been adjusted in consideration of
these risks and, therefore, no assurances can be given that any resource
estimate will ultimately be reclassified as proven or probable reserves. Production Estimates Cameco prepares estimates of future production for particular operations. No
assurance can be given that production estimates will be achieved. Failure to
achieve production estimates could have an adverse impact on Camecos future
cash flows, earnings, results of operations and financial condition. These
production estimates are based on, among other things, the following factors:
the accuracy of reserve estimates; the accuracy of assumptions regarding ground
conditions and physical characteristics of ores, such as hardness and presence
or absence of particular metallurgical characteristics; and the accuracy of
estimated rates and costs of mining and processing. Camecos actual production may vary from estimates for a variety of reasons,
including, among others: actual ore mined varying from estimates of grade,
tonnage, dilution and metallurgical and other characteristics; short-term
operating factors relating to the ore reserves, such as the need for sequential
development of orebodies and the processing of new or different ore grades;
risk and hazards associated with mining; natural phenomena, such as inclement
weather conditions, underground floods, earthquakes, pit wall failures and
cave-ins; and unexpected labour shortages or strikes. Mining, Refining and Conversion Risks and Insurance Camecos business is capital intensive and subject to a number of risks and
hazards, including environmental pollution, accidents or spills, industrial and
transportation accidents, labour disputes, blockades, changes in the regulatory
environment, natural phenomena (such as inclement weather conditions
earthquakes, pit wall failures, 2003 Cameco Annual Information Form 59




---



##### 



cave-ins, adverse mining conditions and underground flooding) and encountering
unusual or unexpected geological conditions. The Company also contracts for the
transport of its uranium and uranium products to refining, conversion and
enrichment facilities in North America and Europe, which exposes the Company to
transportation risks. Many of the foregoing risks and hazards could result in
damage to, or destruction of, the Companys mineral properties or refining or
conversion facilities, personal injury or death, environmental damage, delays
in or interruption of or cessation of production from the Companys mines or
refining or conversion facilities or in its exploration or development
activities, delay in or inability to receive regulatory approvals to transport
its uranium and uranium products, or costs, monetary losses and potential legal
liability and adverse governmental action. In addition, due to the radioactive
nature of the materials handled in uranium mining, refining, conversion and
transport, additional costs and risks are incurred by the Company on a regular
and ongoing basis. Although the Company maintains insurance to cover some of these risks and
hazards in amounts it believes to be reasonable, such insurance may not provide
adequate coverage in the event of certain circumstances. No assurance can be
given that such insurance will continue to be available or it will be available
at economically feasible premiums or that it will provide sufficient coverage
for losses related to these or other risks and hazards. The Company may be subject to liability or sustain loss for certain risks and
hazards against which it cannot insure or which it may elect not to insure
because of the cost. This lack of insurance coverage could result in material
economic harm to Cameco. Nature of Exploration and Development Exploration for and development of mineral properties involve significant
financial risks which even a combination of careful evaluation, experience and
knowledge may not eliminate. While the discovery of an ore body may result in
substantial rewards, few properties which are explored are ultimately developed
into producing mines. Major expenses may be required to establish reserves by
drilling, constructing mining and processing facilities at a site, developing
metallurgical processes and extracting uranium and gold from ore. It is
impossible to ensure that the current exploration and development programs of
the Company will result in profitable commercial mining operations or
replacement of current production at existing mining operations with new
reserves. Camecos ability to sustain or increase its present levels of uranium and gold
production is dependent in part on the successful development of new orebodies
and/or expansion of existing mining operations. The economic feasibility of
development projects is based upon many factors, including, among others: the
accuracy of reserve estimates; metallurgical recoveries; capital and operating
costs of such projects; government regulations relating to prices, taxes,
royalties, land tenure, land use, importing and exporting, and environmental
protection; and uranium and gold prices, which are highly cyclical. Development
projects are also subject to the successful completion of feasibility studies,
issuance of necessary governmental permits and availability of adequate
financing. Development projects have no operating history upon which to base estimates of
future cash flow. Camecos estimates of proven and probable reserves and cash
operating costs are, to a large extent, based upon detailed geological and
engineering analysis. Cameco also conducts feasibility studies which derive
estimates of capital and operating costs based upon many factors, including,
among others: anticipated tonnage and grades of ore to be mined and processed;
the configuration of the orebody; ground and mining conditions; expected
recovery rates of the gold and uranium from the ore; and anticipated
environmental and regulatory compliance costs. It is possible that actual costs and economic returns of current and new mining
operations may differ materially from Camecos best estimates. It is not
unusual in the mining industry for new mining operations to experience
unexpected problems during the start-up phase and to require more capital than
anticipated. Governmental Regulation and Policy Risks Mining and refining operations and exploration activities, particularly uranium
mining, refining, conversion and transport in Canada and the United States, are
subject to extensive laws and regulations. Such regulations relate to
production, development, exploration, exports, imports, taxes and royalties,
labour standards, occupational health, waste disposal, protection and
remediation of the environment, mines decommissioning and reclamation, mine
safety, toxic substances, transportation safety and emergency response, and
other matters. Compliance with such laws and regulations has increased the
costs of exploring, drilling, developing, constructing, operating and closing
the Companys mines and refining and other facilities. It is possible that, in
the future, the costs, delays and other effects associated with such laws and
regulations may impact the Companys decision as to whether to operate existing
mines, ore refining and other facilities or, with respect to exploration and
development properties, whether 2003 Cameco Annual Information Form 60




---



##### 



to proceed with exploration or development. The Company expends significant
financial and managerial resources to comply with such laws and regulations.
Cameco anticipates it will have to continue to do so as the historic trend
toward stricter government regulation will likely continue. Because legal
requirements are frequently changing and subject to interpretation, Cameco is
unable to predict the ultimate cost of compliance with these requirements or
their effect on operations. Furthermore, future changes in governments,
regulations and policies, such as those affecting the Companys mining
operations, uranium refining and conversion operations, and uranium transport,
could materially and adversely affect the Companys results of operations and
financial condition in a particular period or its long term business prospects. Worldwide demand for uranium is directly tied to the demand for electricity
produced by the nuclear power industry, which is also subject to extensive
government regulation and policies. The development of mines and related
facilities is contingent upon governmental approvals, licences and permits
which are complex and time consuming to obtain and which, depending upon the
location of the project, involve multiple governmental agencies. The receipt,
duration and renewal of such approvals, licences and permits are subject to
many variables outside the Companys control, including potential legal
challenges from various stakeholders such as environmental groups,
non-government organizations or first nations claiming certain rights with
respect to traditional lands. Any significant delays in obtaining or renewing
such approvals, licences or permits could have a material adverse effect on the
Company. Environmental Risks The Company has expended significant financial and managerial resources to
comply with environmental protection laws, regulations and permitting
requirements, and anticipates that it will be required to continue to do so in
the future as the historical trend toward stricter environmental regulation
will likely continue. The uranium industry is subject to not only the worker
health, safety and environmental risks associated with all mining businesses,
including potential liabilities to third parties for environmental damage, but
also to additional risks uniquely associated with uranium mining and
processing. The possibility of more stringent regulations exists in the areas
of worker health and safety, the disposition of wastes, the decommissioning and
reclamation of mining, milling, refining and conversion sites, and other
environmental matters each of which could have a material adverse effect on the
costs or the viability of a particular project. The Companys domestic and foreign facilities operate under various operating
and environmental permits, licences and approvals that contain conditions that
must be met and the Companys right to continue operating its facilities is, in
a number of instances, dependent upon compliance with such conditions. Failure
to meet any such condition could have a material adverse affect on the
Companys financial condition or results of operations. Counterparty/Credit Risk AGR and KGC engage in transactions to mitigate the price risk on a portion of
future gold production (see Gold Business-Risk Factors-Volatility and
Sensitivity to Gold Prices) and Cameco enters into transactions to reduce the
impact of fluctuations in currency exchange rates. These transactions expose
the Company to the risk of default by the counterparties to such contracts.
The Company manages this risk of default, or credit risk, by dealing only with
financial institutions that meet its credit rating standards and by limiting
exposures with individual counterparties. In addition, Camecos sales of uranium product and conversion services expose
the Company to the risk of non-payment. The Company manages this risk by
monitoring the credit worthiness of its customers and seeking pre-payment or
other forms of payment security from customers with an unacceptable level of
credit risk. As of December 31, 2003, 3% of Cameco forecast revenue under
contract, for the period 2004 to 2006, is with customers whose creditworthiness
does not meet Camecos standards for unsecured payment terms. Although the Company seeks to manage its credit risk exposure, there can be no
assurance that the Company will be successful. Currency Fluctuations The Companys earnings and operating cash flow may also be affected by changes
in the US/Canadian dollar exchange rate since most of its revenues are
denominated in US dollars and many of its costs are denominated in Canadian
dollars. Although the Company utilizes a hedging program to manage its
exchange rate exposure, there can be no assurance that such a program will be
successful. 2003 Cameco Annual Information Form 61




---



##### 



Political Risk See the Companys Managements Discussion and Analysis attached as Appendix
B. 
 SELECTED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL AND OPERATING INFORMATION The selected consolidated financial and operating information presented below
should be read in conjunction with Managements Discussion and Analysis and the
Companys Consolidated Financial Statements for the year ended December 31,
2003, notes thereto and other financial information included elsewhere in this
Annual Information Form. Year Ended December 31, 2002
    
    2001(in millions except per common share amounts)
    
    2003
    
    (restated)
    
    (restated)Total Revenue
    
    $
    826.95
    
    
    $
    748.33
    
    
    $
    700.84Earnings from operations
    
    $
    88.25
    
    
    $
    84.37
    
    
    $
    94.90Net earnings (loss)
    
    $
    204.69
    
    
    $
    43.52
    
    
    $
    56.09- per common share (basic)
    
    $
    3.65
    
    
    $
    0.78
    
    
    $
    1.01Cash provided by operations
    
    $
    245.89
    
    
    $
    250.84
    
    
    $
    116.25Total Assets
    
    $
    3,359.41
    
    
    $
    2,967.82
    
    
    $
    2,968.70Long term debt not maturing within one year
    
    $
    238.71
    
    
    $
    218.30
    
    
    $
    327.77Cash dividends declared per common share
    
    $
    0.60
    
    
    $
    0.50
    
    
    $
    0.50
 
 2003 CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS The Companys 2003 Consolidated Financial Statements are attached as Appendix
A. 
 MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS The Companys Managements Discussion and Analysis is attached as Appendix B. 
 MARKET FOR SECURITIES The Companys common shares are listed and traded on The Toronto Stock Exchange
(CCO) and the New York Stock Exchange (CCJ). Also listed and traded on The Toronto Stock Exchange are the Companys 5%
Convertible Subordinated Debentures due October 1, 2013 (CCO.DB). Also listed and traded on the New York Stock Exchange are the Companys 8.75%
Preferred Securities (CCJPR), a series of junior subordinated debentures which
are due in 2047. The registrar and transfer agent for the Company common shares and 5%
Convertible Subordinated Debentures is CIBC Mellon Trust Company through its
offices at 320 Bay Street, P.O. Box 1, Toronto, Ontario M5H 4A6. 2003 Cameco Annual Information Form 62




---



##### 



DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS DirectorsName, Office held inCorporation and Municipality ofResidence
    
    Principal Occupation or Employment
    
    Director Since (1)JOHN S. AUSTON (2, 6)
West Vancouver, British Columbia
    
    Geologist; Corporate Director,
2000 to present; prior:President,
Director and Chief
Executive Officer, Ashton Mining
of Canada Inc. 1996-2000.
    
    
    1999JOE F. COLVIN(2, 4, 6)
Kiawah Island, South Carolina U.S.A.
    
    President and Chief Executive
Officer, Nuclear Energy Institute
1996 to present; prior: Executive
Vice-President and Chief
Operating Officer, Nuclear Energy
Institute Inc. 1994 to 1996.
    
    
    1999HARRY D. COOK (4)
La Ronge, Saskatchewan
    
    Chief, Lac La Ronge Indian Band,
1987 to present; President,
Kitsaski Management Limited
Partnership, Prince Albert Grand
Council Executive Board Member,
Federation of Saskatchewan Indian
Nations Taxation Commission Board
Member and Indian Government
Commission member.
    
    
    1992JAMES R. CURTISS(4, 5)
Brookeville, Maryland, U.S.A.
    
    Lawyer, Partner, Winston &
Strawn, 1993 to present; prior: Commissioner US Nuclear
Regulatory Commission 1988-1993.
    
    
    1994GEORGE S. DEMBROSKI(2, 5, 6)
Toronto, Ontario
    
    Corporate Director, 1998 to present; prior: Vice-Chairman and
Director, RBC Dominion Securities
Limited (investment dealer)
1981-1998.
    
    
    1996GERALD W. GRANDEY (2)
President and Chief Executive Officer 
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
    
    Assumed current position 2003;
prior: President 2000-2002;
Executive Vice-President
1997-2000.
    
    
    2000NANCY E. HOPKINS (2, 3)
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
    
    Lawyer, Partner, McDougall
Gauley, 1984 to present.
Effective January 2001 Gauley &
Company merged with McDougall
Ready to form McDougall Gauley.
    
    
    1992OYVIND HUSHOVD(3,4,5)
Toronto, Ontario
    
    Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer of Gabriel Resources
Ltd., May 2003 to present; prior: President and Chief Executive
Officer of Falconbridge Ltd. 1996
to 2002.
    
    
    2003J.W. GEORGE IVANY (3, 5, 6)
Kelowna, British Columbia
    
    Corporate Director, 1999 to
present; prior: President and
Vice-Chancellor, University of
Saskatchewan 1989-1999.
    
    
    1999A. NEIL McMILLAN(2, 3, 4)
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
    
    President, Claude Resources Inc.
1996 to present.
    
    
    2001
 2003 Cameco Annual
Information Form 63




---



##### 



DirectorsName, Office held inCorporation and Municipality ofResidence
    
    Principal Occupation or Employment
    
    Director Since (1)ROBERT W. PETERSON (3, 4, 5)
Regina, Saskatchewan
    
    President and Chief Operating
Officer Denro Holdings Ltd. 1994
to present.
    
    
    1994VICTOR J. ZALESCHUK(2, 3, 5, 6,
7)
Calgary, Alberta
    
    Corporate Director, November 2001
to present; prior: President and
Chief Executive Officer, Nexen
Inc. (formerly Canadian
Occidental Petroleum Ltd.) from
June 1, 1997 to June 1, 2001.
    
    
    2001
  (1)
    
    Each director will hold office until the next annual meeting unless such
directors office is earlier vacated in accordance with the corporate law
requirements applicable to the Company from time to time.(2)
    
    Member of the strategic planning committee.(3)
    
    Member of the audit committee.(4)
    
    Member of the environmental safety, health and environment committee.(5)
    
    Member of the human resources and compensation committee.(6)
    
    Member of the nominating, corporate governance and risk committee.(7)
    
    Appointed audit committee financial expert. OfficersName, Office held in
    
    Principal Occupation or EmploymentCorporation and Municipality of Residence
    
    for Past Five YearsVICTOR
J. ZALESCHUK
Chair
Calgary, Alberta
    
    Corporate Director, November 2001
to present; prior: President and
Chief Executive Officer, Nexen Inc.
(formerly Canadian Occidental
Petroleum Ltd.) from June 1997 to
June 2001.GERALD W. GRANDEY 
President and Chief Executive Officer
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
    
    Assumed current position 2003;
prior: President, 2000-2002;
Executive Vice-President 1997-2000.TERRY ROGERS
Senior Vice-President and Chief Operating Officer
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
    
    Assumed current position February 2003; prior: President Kumtor
Operating Company, Kyrgyz Republic
1999 - 2003.GEORGE B. ASSIE
Senior Vice-President, Marketing and Business Development
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
    
    Assumed current position January
2003; prior: President Cameco Inc.,
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 1999 -
2002.DAVID M. PETROFF
Senior Vice-President, Finance and Administration
and Chief Financial Officer
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
    
    Assumed current position April 1997.RITA M. MIRWALD 
Senior Vice-President, Human Resources and
Corporate Relations
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
    
    Assumed current position April 1997.GARY M.S. CHAD
Senior Vice-President, Law,
Regulatory Affairs and Corporate Secretary
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
    
    Assumed current position January
2000; prior: Senior General Counsel
and Secretary 1990-1999.
 The directors and officers of Cameco as a group, beneficially own, directly or
indirectly, less than 1% of the issued and outstanding common shares of Cameco. 2003 Cameco Annual Information Form 64




---



##### 



ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The Company will provide to any person, upon request to the Secretary of the
Company:  1.
    
    When the securities of the Company are in the course of a distribution
pursuant to a short form prospectus or a preliminary short form prospectus
has been filed in respect of a distribution of its securities,  (a)
    
    one copy of the Annual Information Form of the Company,
together with one copy of any document, or the pertinent pages of
any document, incorporated by reference in the Annual Information
Form;(b)

    
    one copy of the comparative financial statements of the
Company for its most recently completed financial year together with
the accompanying report of the auditor and one copy of any interim
financial statement of the Company subsequent to the financial
statements for its most recently completed financial year;(c)
    
    one copy of the management proxy circular of the Company in
respect of its most recent annual meeting of shareholders; and(d)
    
    one copy of any other documents that are incorporated by
reference into the preliminary short form prospectus or the short
form prospectus and are not required to be provided under (a) to (c)
above; or  2.
    
    Any other time, one copy of any document referred to in (1)(a), (b) and
(c) above, provided the Company may require the payment of a reasonable
charge if the request is made by a person who is not a security holder of
the Company. Additional information, including directors and officers remuneration and
indebtedness to the Company, principal holders of the Companys securities and
options to purchase securities is contained in the Management Proxy Circular
dated April 13, 2004 and additional information is provided in the Companys
Consolidated Financial Statement for the fiscal year-ended December 31, 2003.
Copies of the Management Proxy Circular are available upon request from the
Secretary of the Company at 2121-11th Street West, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, S7M
1J3, telephone: (306) 956-6200. 2003 Cameco Annual Information Form 65




---



##### 



Appendix A CAMECO CORPORATION 2003 CONSOLIDATED AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 2003 Cameco Annual Information Form




---



##### 



Appendix B 2003 MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS 2003 Cameco Annual Information Form