EXHIBIT 99.1




---



##### 



Cameco Corporation
 2010 Annual information form




---



##### 



Contents
 Important information about this document
    
    
    1About Cameco
    
    
    3Operations and development projects
    
    
    13Uranium
    
    
    13Fuel services
    
    
    59Electricity
    
    
    62Mineral reserves and resources
    
    
    67Sustainable development
    
    
    76The regulatory environment
    
    
    86Risks that can affect our business
    
    
    92Legal proceedings
    
    
    111Investor information
    
    
    112Governance
    
    
    117Appendix A
    
    
    122




---



##### 



Important information about this document
   
    
    our managements discussion and analysis (MD&A) for the year ended December 31, 2010 (2010
MD&A), which is available on SEDAR (sedar.com) and on EDGAR (sec.gov) as an exhibit to our
Form 40-F
 
    
    our audited consolidated financial statements for the year ended
December 31, 2010 (2010 financial statements) which is also available on SEDAR and on EDGAR as an
exhibit to our Form 40-F.
  we, us, our, the company Cameco
 Reporting currency and financial information
   Caution about forward-looking information
   
    
    It typically includes words and phrases about the future, such as believe, estimate,
anticipate, expect, plan, intend, predict, goal, target, project, potentialand strategy(see
examples on page 2).
 
    
    It is based on a number of material assumptions, including those we have listed below,
which may prove to be incorrect.
 
    
    Actual results and events may be significantly different from what we currently expect,
because of the risks associated with our business. We list a number of these material risks
below. We recommend you also review other parts of this document, including Risks that can
affect our businessstarting on page 92, and our 2010 MD&A, which include a discussion of
other material risks that could cause actual results to differ from current expectations.
  Annual information form




---



##### 



Examples of forward-looking information in this AIF
 
    
    our expectations about
future worldwide uranium supply and demand
 
    
    production at our uranium operations in 2011 and our target for doubling annual uranium
production to 40 million pounds by 2018
 
    
    our ability to maintain expected annual production at McArthur River and Key Lake
 
    
    our mid-2013 target for initial production from Cigar Lake, the expected benefits from our
surface freeze strategy and our 2011 Cigar Lake plans
 
    
    our expectation that Inkai will receive all the necessary approvals and permits to meet its
2011 and future annual production targets
 
    
    forecasts relating to mining, development and other activities at our uranium operations
 
    
    future production at our fuel services operations
 
    
    the likely terms and volumes to be covered by long-term delivery contracts that we enter
into in 2011 and future years
 
    
    future royalty and tax payments and rates
 
    
    our mineral reserve and resource estimates
 Material risks
 
    
    actual sales volumes or realized prices for any of our
products or services are lower than we expect for any reason, including changes in market
prices or loss of market share to a competitor
 
    
    we are adversely affected by changes in foreign currency exchange rates, interest rates or
tax rates
 
    
    production costs are higher than planned, or necessary supplies are not available, or not
available on commercially reasonable terms
 
    
    our estimates of production, purchases, costs, decommissioning or reclamation expenses, or
our tax expense estimates, prove to be inaccurate
 
    
    we are unable to enforce our legal rights under our existing agreements, permits or
licences, or are subject to litigation or arbitration that has an adverse outcome
 
    
    there are defects in, or challenges to, title to our properties
 
    
    our mineral reserve and resource estimates are inaccurate, or we face unexpected or
challenging geological, hydrological or mining conditions
 
    
    we are affected by environmental, safety and regulatory risks, including increased
regulatory burdens or delays
 
    
    we cannot obtain or maintain necessary permits or approvals from government authorities
 
    
    we are affected by political risks in a developing country where we operate
 
    
    we are affected by terrorism, sabotage, blockades, accident or a deterioration in political
support for, or demand for, nuclear energy
 
    
    there are changes to government regulations or policies, including tax and trade laws and
policies
 
    
    our uranium and conversion suppliers fail to fulfill delivery commitments
 
    
    delay or lack of success in remediating and developing Cigar Lake
 
    
    we are affected by natural phenomena, including inclement weather, fire, flood and
earthquakes
 
    
    our operations are disrupted due to problems with our own or our customers facilities, the
unavailability of reagents, equipment, operating parts and supplies critical to production,
lack of tailings capacity, labour shortages, labour relations issues, strikes or lockouts,
underground floods, cave-ins, tailings dam failures, or other development and operating risks
 Material assumptions
 
    
    sales and purchase volumes and prices for uranium, fuel services and electricity
 
    
    expected production costs
 
    
    expected spot prices and realized prices for uranium
 
    
    tax rates, foreign currency exchange rates and interest rates
 
    
    decommissioning and reclamation expenses
 
    
    our mineral reserve and resource estimates
 
    
    geological, hydrological and other conditions at our mines
 
    
    our Cigar Lake remediation and development plans succeed
 
    
    our ability to continue to supply our products and services in the expected quantities and
at the expected times
 
    
    our ability to comply with current and future environmental, safety and other regulatory
requirements, and to obtain and maintain required regulatory approvals
 
    
    our operations are not significantly disrupted as a result of political instability,
nationalization, terrorism, sabotage, blockades, natural disasters, governmental or political
actions, litigation or arbitration proceedings, the unavailability of reagents, equipment,
operating parts and supplies critical to production, labour shortages, labour relations
issues, strikes or lockouts, underground floods, cave-ins, tailings dam failures, lack of
tailings capacity, or other development or operating risks
 Cameco Corporation




---



##### 



About Cameco
  Vision and strategy
   Cameco Corporation  th
   2010 Revenue by segment
($ millions)
 
 2010 Gross profit by segment
($ millions)
 
 Annual information form




---



##### 



Uranium
  Product
 
    
    uranium concentrates
(U3O8)
 Mineral reserves and resources
  
    
    approximately 475 million pounds proven and
probable
  
    
    approximately 140 million pounds measured and
indicated
    
    approximately 355 million pounds inferred
  
    
    focused on four continents
 Operating properties
 
    
    McArthur River and Key Lake, Saskatchewan
    
    Rabbit Lake, Saskatchewan
    
    Smith Ranch-Highland, Wyoming
    
    Crow Butte, Nebraska
    
    Inkai, Kazakhstan
 Development project
 
    
    Cigar Lake, Saskatchewan
 Projects under evaluation
 
    
    Inkai blocks 1 and 2 production increase,
Kazakhstan
    
    Inkai block 3, Kazakhstan
    
    McArthur River extension, Saskatchewan
    
    Kintyre, Australia
    
    Millennium, Saskatchewan
 Fuel services
  Products
 
    
    uranium trioxide (UO3)
    
    uranium hexafluoride (UF6)
(control about 35% of western world capacity)
    
    uranium dioxide (UO2)
(the worlds only commercial producer of
natural UO2)
    
    fuel bundles, reactor components and
monitoring equipment used by Candu reactors
 Operations
 
    
    Blind River refinery, Ontario
(refines U3O8 to UO3)
    
    Port Hope conversion facility, Ontario
(converts UO3 to UF6 or UO2)
    
    Cameco Fuel Manufacturing Inc. (CFM), Ontario
(manufactures fuel bundles and reactor components)
    
    a toll conversion agreement with
Springfields Fuels Ltd. (SFL), Lancashire, United Kingdom
(UK) (to convert UO3 to UF6)  expires
in 2016
  Electricity
  Capacity
 
    
    3,260 megawatts (MW) (100% basis)
(about 15% of Ontarios electricity)We also have agreements to manage the procurement
of fuel and fuel services for BPLP, including:
    
    uranium concentrates
    
    conversion services
    
    fuel fabrication services
 Cameco Corporation




---



##### 



The nuclear fuel cycle
 
 Our operations and investments span the nuclear fuel cycle, from exploration to electricity
generation.
    
    MiningThere are three ways to mine uranium, depending on the depth of the orebody and the deposits
geological characteristics:
 
    
    Open pit miningis used if the ore is near the surface. The ore is usually mined using
drilling and blasting.
    
    Underground miningis used if the ore is too deep to make open pit mining economical.
Tunnels and shafts provide access to the ore.
    
    In situ recovery (ISR)does not require large scale excavation. Instead, holes are drilled into
the ore and a solution is used to dissolve the uranium. The solution is pumped to the surface
where the uranium is recovered.
 
    
    MillingOre from open pit and underground mines is processed to extract the uranium and package it as a
powder typically referred to as uranium concentrate(U3O8) or yellowcake. The
leftover processed rock and other solid waste (tailings) is placed in an engineered tailings
facility.
    
    RefiningRefining removes the impurities from the uranium concentrate and changes its chemical form to
uranium trioxide(UO3).
    
    ConversionFor light water reactors, the UO3 is converted to uranium hexafluoride(UF6)
gas to prepare it for the next stage of processing. For heavy water reactors like the Candu
reactor, the UO3 is converted into powdered uranium dioxide(UO2).
    
    EnrichmentUranium is made up of two main isotopes: U-238 and U-235. Only U-235 atoms, which make up 0.7% of
natural uranium, are involved in the nuclear reaction (fission).The enrichment process increases the concentration of U-235 to between 3% and 5% by separating
U-235 atoms from the U-238. Enriched UF6 gas is then converted to powdered
UO2.
    
    Fuel manufacturingNatural or enriched UO2 is pressed into pellets, which are baked at a high temperature.
These are packed into zircaloy or stainless steel tubes, sealed and then assembled into fuel
bundles.
    
    GenerationNuclear reactors are used to generate electricity.
U-235 atoms in the reactor fuel fission, creating heat that generates steam to drive turbines. The
fuel bundles in the reactor need to be replaced as the U-235 atoms are depleted, typically after one or two years depending upon the reactor type. The
used  or spent fuel is stored or reprocessed.Spent fuel managementThe majority of spent fuel is safely stored at the reactor site. A small amount of spent fuel is
reprocessed. The reprocessed fuel is used in some European and Japanese reactors.
 Annual information form




---



##### 



Major developments
 2008
 June
 
    
    We acquire a 24% interest in GLE, a uranium enrichment
development company, by providing $124 million (US) in
cash and issuing a $73 million (US) promissory note.
General Electric owns 51% and Hitachi Ltd owns the
remaining 25% of GLE.
    
    We and our partners agree to a new pricing structure with
Tenex under the Russian HEU commercial agreement from
2011 to 2013. The Russian and US governments subsequently
approve the new pricing structure. Our share of the
material affected is seven million pounds.
 August
 
    
    There is a new water inflow on the 420 metre level of the
Cigar Lake development project, and we suspend dewatering. Earlier in the year the area of the October 2006 water
inflow is sealed.
    
    We (70%) and Mitsubishi Development Pty Ltd (30%) acquire
the Kintyre uranium exploration project in Western
Australia, from Rio Tinto, for $495.0 million (US) (our
share is $346.5 million (US)).
 September
 
    
    We restart the Port Hope UF6 plant
after a year-long rehabilitation
program.
 October
 
    
    We issue 21,205,585 common shares in connection with the
redemption of our 5% $230 million
unsecured convertible debentures.
 November
 
    
    We suspend operation of the
Port Hope UF6 plant because of
a contract dispute with our only
supplier of hydrofluoric acid.
 2009
 February
 
    
    Our $470 million bank credit facility is
increased to $500 million. We cancel
the facility in the third quarter.
 
    
    We add a $100 million bank credit facility. It expires in February 2012.
 March
 
    
    We issue 26,666,400 common
shares for net proceeds of
$441 million.
 April
 
    
    We enter into an Agreement on New
Termswith Kyrgyzaltyn JSC
(Kyrgyzaltyn) and the Government of
the Kyrgyz Republic that resolves all
outstanding issues regarding the
Kumtor Gold mine.
 June
 
    
    We resume production of UF6 at
Port Hope.
 September
 
    
    We issue $500 million of 5.67%
unsecured debentures due in 2019.
 October
 
    
    We seal the water inflow at the 420
metre level of Cigar Lake, and
resume dewatering.
 December
 
    
    We dispose of our entire interest
in Centerra Gold Inc. (Centerra) in
two steps:
 
    
    sell 88,618,472 common shares of
Centerra through a public offering
for net proceeds of $871 million
    
    transfer another 25,300,000
common shares of Centerra to
Kyrgyzaltyn, under the April 2009
Agreement on New Terms
 
    
    Inkai commissions its main
processing plant and starts
commissioning its first satellite plant.
 2010
 February
 
    
    Inkai files a notice of potential commercial discovery at block 3. It has approval in
principle to assess commercial viability until July 2015.
 
    
    We finished dewatering the Cigar Lake mine. By year end, we had resumed underground
development in the south end of the mine.
 June
 
    
    Inkai receives approval in principle to increase annual production from blocks 1 and 2 to 3.9
million pounds (100% basis).
 
    
    We agree to supply 23 million pounds of uranium concentrate to a Chinese utility under a
long-term agreement to 2020.
 November
 
    
    We agree to supply 29 million
pounds of uranium concentrate to
another Chinese utility under a
long-term agreement to 2025.
 Cameco Corporation




---



##### 



How Cameco was formed
 Canada Business Corporations Act
  
    
    Saskatchewan Mining Development Corporation (uranium mining and milling operations)
 
    
    Eldorado Nuclear Limited (uranium mining, refining and conversion operations) (now Canada
Eldor Inc.)
 Eldorado Nuclear Limited Reorganization and Divestiture Act The
Saskatchewan Mining Development Corporation Reorganization Act
  2002
    
        increased the maximum share ownership for individual non-residents to 15% from 5%    increased the limit on voting rights of non-residents to 25% from 20%2003
    
        allowed the board to appoint new directors between shareholder meetings as
permitted by the Canada Business Corporations Act, subject to certain limitations    eliminated the requirement for the chairman of the board to be ordinarily resident
in the province of Saskatchewan
  
    
    Cameco Europe Ltd. (Cameco Europe), a Swiss company we have 100% ownership of through
subsidiaries
 
    
    Our wholly owned subsidiaries Cameco Bruce Holdings Inc., a Canadian company, and Cameco
Bruce Holdings II Inc., an Ontario company, which collectively own a 31.6% limited partnership
interest in BPLP, an Ontario limited partnership
 
    
    Joint Venture Inkai Limited Liability Partnership (Inkai), a limited liability partnership
in Kazakhstan, which we own a 60% interest in.
  For more information
   Annual information form




---



##### 



Our markets
 World U3O8 supply and demand
 2011-2020
 
 Demand
 3 8
 3 8 3 8
 3 8
 6
 2
 6 2 6 2
 Western world
 Supply
 primary production sources secondary supply sources
  
    
    66% of global uranium supply to come from existing primary production sources
    
    16% will come from existing secondary supply sources
 Cameco Corporation




---



##### 




    
    the remaining 18% will come from new sources of supply.
 Primary production
  3 8
 
    
    92% of the estimated world production came from eight countries: Kazakhstan (33%), Canada
(18%), Australia (11%), Namibia (8%), Niger (8%), Russia (7%), Uzbekistan (4%) and the US (3%)
 
    
    70% of the estimated world production was marketed by five producers. We accounted for
about 16% of that production (22.8 million pounds).
 Secondary sources
   
    
    Uranium from dismantled Russian nuclear weapons is the largest current source of secondary
supply. Deliveries from this source should end in 2013, when the Russian HEU commercial
agreement expires.
 
    
    The US government makes some of its inventories available to the market, although in much
smaller quantities.
 
    
    Utilities, mostly in Europe and some in Japan and Russia, use reprocessed uranium and
plutonium from used reactor fuel.
 
    
    Re-enriched depleted uranium tails are also generated using excess enrichment capacity.
 Uranium from nuclear disarmament
 . 3 8
 3 8
 Russian HEU commercial agreement
  Trade restraints and policies
 USEC Privatization Act
  3 8
 Annual information form




---



##### 



Uranium from US inventories
 3 8
 Excess Uranium Inventory Management Plan, 3 8 3 8
 3 8
 Conversion services
 6 2
 Marketing
 2 6 2
   3 8
  Our sales commitments
 3 8
 3 8
 Cameco Corporation




---



##### 



Our purchase commitments
  Our contracting strategy
       Volumes and pricing
 3 8 3 8 3 8
 3 8
 3 8
 Fuel services
   Annual information form




---



##### 



6 6 6
 Electricity business
      2
   Cameco Corporation




---



##### 



Operations and development projects
 
 UraniumOperating propertiesMcArthur River/Key Lake
    
    
    14Rabbit Lake
    
    
    26Smith Ranch-Highland
    
    
    28Crow Butte
    
    
    29Inkai
    
    
    30Development projectCigar Lake
    
    
    42Projects under evaluationInkai blocks 1 and 2 production increase (see Inkai, above)
    
    
    30Inkai block 3 (see Inkai, above)
    
    
    30McArthur River extension (see McArthur River above)
    
    
    14Kintyre
    
    
    56Millennium
    
    
    57Exploration
    
    
    58
 Fuel servicesRefiningBlind River refinery
    
    
    59Conversion and fuel manufacturingPort Hope conversion services
    
    
    60Cameco Fuel Manufacturing Inc.
    
    
    60Springfields Fuels Ltd.
    
    
    60
 ElectricityBruce Power Limited Partnership
    
    
    62
 Uranium production
  Camecos share(million lbs U3O8)
    
    2008
    
    2009
    
    2010McArthur River/Key Lake
    
    
    11.6
    
    
    
    13.3
    
    
    
    13.9Rabbit Lake
    
    
    3.6
    
    
    
    3.8
    
    
    
    3.8Smith Ranch-Highland
    
    
    1.2
    
    
    
    1.8
    
    
    
    1.8Crow Butte
    
    
    0.6
    
    
    
    0.8
    
    
    
    0.7Inkai
    
    
    0.3
    
    
    
    1.1
    
    
    
    2.6Total
    
    
    17.3
    
    
    
    20.8
    
    
    
    22.8
 Annual information form




---



##### 



Uranium  operating properties
 
 McArthur River/Key Lake
    Location
    
    Saskatchewan, CanadaOwnership
    
    69.805% - McArthur River83.33% - Key LakeEnd product
    
    U3O8ISO certification
    
    ISO 14001 certifiedDeposit type
    
    undergroundEstimated mineral reserves
    
    234.2 million pounds (proven and probable)(our share)
    
    average grade U3O8  15.24%1Estimated mineral resources
    
    11.8 million pounds (measured and indicated)(our share)
    
    average grade U3O8  7.09%104.8 million pounds (inferred)average grade U3O8  13.46%Mining methods
    
    currently: raiseboring
under development: boxhole boringLicensed capacity
    
    mine and mill: 18.7 million pounds per year(can be exceeded  see Productionbelow)Total production 2000 to 2010
    
    191.1 million pounds (McArthur River/Key Lake) (100% basis)1983 to 2002
    
    209.8 million pounds (Key Lake) (100% basis)2010 production
    
    13.9 million pounds (our share)2011 forecast production
    
    13.1 million pounds (our share)Estimated mine life
    
    24 years (based on current reserves)Estimated decommissioning cost
    
    $36.1 million - McArthur River$120.7 million - Key Lake
 
 1
    
    For more information on the average grade, please see Recent activity, below. Business structure
  
    
    Cameco  69.805%
    
    Areva  30.195%
  
    
    Cameco  831/3%
    
    Areva  162/3%
 Cameco Corporation




---



##### 



History
 1976
    
        Canadian Kelvin Resources Ltd. and Asamera Oil Corporation Ltd. form an exploration joint venture, which includes the lands that the
McArthur River mine is situated on1977
    
        Saskatchewan Mining Development Corporation (SMDC), one of our predecessor companies, acquires a 50% interest1980
    
        McArthur River joint venture is formed    SMDC becomes the operator    Active surface exploration begins    Between 1980 and 1988 SMDC reduces its interest to 43.991%1988
    
        Eldorado Resources Limited merges with SMDC to form Cameco    We become operator    Deposit discovered by surface drilling1988 - 1992
    
        Surface drilling reveals significant mineralization of potentially economic uranium grades, in a 1,700 metre zone at between 530 to
640 metres1992
    
        We increase our interest to 53.991%1993
    
        Underground exploration program receives government approval  program consists of shaft sinking (completed in 1994) and
underground development and drilling1995
    
        We increase our interest to 55.844%1997-1998
    
        Federal authorities issue construction licences for McArthur River after reviewing the environmental impact statement, holding
public hearings, and receiving approvals from the governments of Canada and Saskatchewan1998
    
        We acquire all of the shares of Uranerz Exploration and Mining Ltd. (UEM), increasing our interest to 83.766%    We sell half of the shares of UEM to Areva, reducing our interest to 69.805%, and increasing Arevas to 30.195%1999
    
        Federal authorities issue the operating licence and provincial authorities give operating approval, and mining begins in December2003
    
        Production is temporarily suspended in April because of a water inflow    Mining resumes in July2009
    
        UEM distributes equally to its shareholders:    its 27.922% interest in the McArthur River joint venture, giving us a 69.805% direct interest, and Areva a 30.195% direct interest    its
331/3% interest in the Key Lake joint venture, giving us an 831/3%
direct interest, and Areva a 162/3% direct interest.
 Technical report
 McArthur River Operation,
Northern Saskatchewan, Canada, qualified persons qualified person
 qualified persons
  Sustainable development
  Annual information form




---



##### 



About the McArthur River property
 Location
  Accessibility
   Leases
 Surface lease
   Mineral lease
  Mineral claims
  Climate
  Setting
  Geology
  
    
    a hanging wall pelitic sequence of cordierite and graphite bearing pelitic and
psammopelitic gneiss with minor meta-arkose and calc-silicate gneisses
 
    
    a sequence consisting of quartzite and silicified meta-arkose and rare pelitic gneisses.
  Mineralization
  Cameco Corporation




---



##### 



About the McArthur River mine
   Annual information form




---



##### 



Permits
  
    
    Uranium Mine Facility Operating Licence renewed in 2008 and expires on October 31, 2013
(from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC))
 
    
    Approval to Operate Pollutant Control Facilities renewed in 2009 and expires on October
31, 2014
(from the Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment)
 
    
    Permit to Operate Waterworks renewed in 2009 and expires on October 31, 2011
(from the Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment)
 Infrastructure
  
    
    an underground mine with three
shafts:
one to move workers, material and waste
rock and for fresh air ventilation, one
for mine exhaust air ventilation, and one
for fresh air ventilation and an
emergency exit
    
    waste rock stockpiles
    
    a minewater treatment plant and ponds
    
    a freshwater pump house
    
    a powerhouse
    
    electrical substations
    
    standby electrical generators
    
    maintenance and warehousing
facilities
    
    freeze plant
    
    a concrete batch plant
    
    an administration building
    
    an employee residence
    
    an ore loadout building.
 Water, power and heat
   Employees
  Mining method
  Ground freezing
   Raisebore mining
  
    
    drilling a series of overlapping holes through the ore zone from a raisebore chamber in
waste rock above the ore
 
    
    collecting the broken ore at the bottom of the raises using line-of-sight remote-controlled
scoop trams, and transporting it to a grinding circuit
 Cameco Corporation




---



##### 




    
    filling each raisebore hole with concrete once it is complete
 
    
    removing the equipment and filling the entire chamber with concrete when all the rows of
raises in a chamber are complete
 
    
    starting the process again with the next raisebore chamber.
   Boxhole boring
    Initial processing
  
    
    the underground circuit grinds the ore and mixes it with water to form a slurry
 
    
    the slurry is pumped 680 metres to the surface and stored in one of four ore slurry holding
tanks
 
    
    it is blended and thickened, removing excess water
 
    
    the final slurry, which ranges in grade from 15 to 30% uranium, is pumped into transport
truck containers and shipped to Key Lake mill on an 80 kilometre all-weather road.
  Tailings
  Waste
  
    
    clean rock (includes mine development waste, crushed waste, and various piles for concrete
aggregate and backfill)
 
    
    mineralized waste (>0.03% U3O8)  stored on engineered lined
pads
 
    
    waste with acid-generating potential  stored on engineered lined pads.
 Water inflows
   Annual information form




---



##### 



Pumping capacity and treatment limits
  Production
 
    
    Forecast:18.7 million pounds of U3O8 per year until 2018 (our share
will be 13.1 million pounds). After that, it declines until 2034.
 
    
    2010:19.9 million pounds of U3O8 was produced by milling McArthur
River ore at Key Lake (our share was 13.9 million pounds). Average mill metallurgical recovery was 98.5%.
 3 8
 Recent activity
   
    
    for our proven reserves: in 2010 the average grade is 17.29%, up from 15.72% in 2009
 
    
    for our probable reserves: in 2010 the average grade is 13.49%, down from 26.33% in 2009.
  Mineral reserves and resources
  
    
    Zone 2, panel 5  We expect to develop a third raisebore chamber.
 
    
    Zone 4  We will begin work to install the freezewall required to bring the upper mining
area of zone 4 into production.
  Key Lake mill
 Location
  Permits
  
    
    Uranium Mine Facility Operating Licence renewed in 2008 and expires on October 31, 2013
(from the CNSC)
 
    
    Approval to Operate Pollutant Control Facilities renewed in 2009 and expires on November
30, 2014 (from the Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment)
 Cameco Corporation




---



##### 




    
    Permit to Operate Waterworks renewed in 2009 and expires on November 30, 2014
(from the Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment)
 3 8
  Supply
   
    
    processing is at cost, plus a toll milling fee
 
    
    the Key Lake joint venture owners are responsible for decommissioning the Key Lake mill and
for certain capital costs, including the costs of any tailings management associated with
milling Arevas share of McArthur River ore.
 History
 
    
    the fees and expenses related to Arevas pro-rata share of ore produced just before the UEM
distribution (16.234%  the first ore stream) have not changed. Areva is not responsible for
any capital or decommissioning costs related to the first ore stream.
 
    
    the fees and expenses related to Arevas pro-rata share of ore produced as a result of the
UEM distribution (an additional 13.961%  the second ore stream) have not changed. Arevas
responsibility for capital and decommissioning costs related to the second ore stream are,
however, as a Key Lake joint venture owner under the original agreement.
 
    
    Arevas termination rights are the same except for one condition: the second ore stream
must be milled at the Key Lake mill for the entire life of the McArthur River project,
regardless of Arevas termination rights.
  Process
  
    
    blend McArthur River ore with low grade mineralized material to lower the grade
 
    
    dissolve the uranium using a leaching circuit
 
    
    clarify the uranium in solution using a counter current decantation circuit
 
    
    concentrate it using a solvent extraction circuit
 
    
    precipitate it with ammonia
 
    
    thicken, dewater and dry it
 
    
    package it as 98% U3O8(yellowcake).
 Waste rock
  
    
    three contain non-mineralized waste rock. These will be decommissioned when the site is
closed.
 
    
    two contain low-grade mineralized material. These are used to lower the grade of the
McArthur River ore before it enters the milling circuit.
 Annual information form




---



##### 



Treatment of effluent
  Tailings capacity
  
    
    an above-ground impoundment facility, where tailings are stored within compacted till
embankments. We have not deposited tailings here since 1996, and are looking at several
options for decommissioning this facility.
 
    
    the Deilmann pit, which was mined out in the 1990s. Tailings from processing McArthur River
ore are deposited in the Deilmann tailings management facility (TMF).
    
    
    complete the detailed design for the stabilization of the Deilmann TMF pitwalls
 
    
    start to relocate the infrastructure necessary to allow us to flatten the slope of the
pitwalls
 
    
    advance work on the environmental assessment for the Key Lake extension project.
  Mill revitalization
  
    
    operational upgrades upgrading circuits with new technology to simplify operations,
increasing annual production capacity and improving environmental performance. As part of this
plan, we are replacing the acid, steam and oxygen plants. We received regulatory approval to
proceed with these projects and work is well underway. We plan to have the replacement plants
commissioned by the end of 2011.
 
    
    treatment of effluent  completed
 
    
    increase in tailings capacity  see Tailings capacity, above.
  Decommissioning and financial assurances
 preliminary decommissioning plan preliminary decommissioning cost estimates
 preliminary
decommissioning cost estimates
 Cameco Corporation




---



##### 



Exploration, drilling and estimates
  Surface drilling
    Underground drilling
    Recent activity
 McArthur River extension
   McArthur River extension
 Sampling and analysis
 Surface samples
 
    
    GPS or mine site surveying instruments are used in the field to verify the location of
surface drillholes.
 
    
    Holes are generally drilled every 12 to 25 metres, on sections that are 50 to 200 metres
apart. Drilled depths average 670 metres.
 2010 Annual information form      23




---



##### 




    
    Vertical holes generally intersect mineralization at angles of 25 to 45 degrees, resulting
in true widths being 40 to 70% of the drilled width. Angled holes usually intercept it
perpendicularly, giving true width.
 
    
    All holes are radiometrically probed.
 
    
    A geologist examines the surface drillhole core in the field, determines its overall
characteristics, including mineralization, logs the information, and takes samples that have
noteworthy alteration, structures and radiometric anomalies.
 
    
    Basement sampling procedures depend on the length of the interval sampled, and attempts are
made to avoid having samples cross lithological boundaries.
 
    
    All core with radioactivity greater than a set threshold is split and sampled for assay.
 
    
    We measure the uranium grade by assaying core. Core recovery is generally considered
excellent with some local exceptions. The quality and representativeness of the surface
drillhole samples is adequate for estimating mineral resources and mine planning, but we often
validate surface drillhole results against underground drilling results in the same vicinity.
 Underground samples
 
    
    Holes are drilled in stations 30 metres apart. Each station is drilled with three fans of
holes, covering 10 metres across the deposit.
 
    
    Uranium grade is calculated from the adjusted radiometric probe readings. Radiometric
probing is at 0.1 metre spacing in radioactive zones and 0.5 metre spacing in unmineralized
zones. The drillhole fans give the gamma probes representative access across the entire
deposit.
 
    
    For a small portion of the assay data we obtain, which we use to estimate mineral
resources, we assay core to determine the U3O8 content past the probe
limit of a hole, or to provide correlation samples to compare against a probed interval. In
these cases, we log the core, photograph it, and then sample it for uranium analysis. We
sample the entire interval instead of splitting the core. This provides very high-quality
samples in these areas.
 
    
    Core recovery in these areas can be excellent to poor.
 
    
    The quality and representativeness of the underground drillhole samples is adequate for
estimating mineral resources and mine planning.
 Analysis
     hole number, date and name   sample number   from and to intervals and
length   recovered length   range of radioactivity   weight   core diameter   rock type, alteration, and mineralization.
   
    
    verify the sample information
 
    
    sort the samples by radioactivity
 
    
    dry, crush and grind them in secure facilities or in the main laboratory, if they have
minimal radioactivity
 
    
    dilute the samples and carry out a chemical analysis
 
    
    prepare and analyse a quality control sample with each batch
 
    
    analyse one of every 40 samples in duplicate.
 Quality control
  24     Cameco Corporation




---



##### 




    
    enter surveyed drillhole collar coordinates and hole deviations in the database, display
them in plan views and sections and visually compare them to their planned location
 
    
    visually validate core logging information on plan views and sections, and verify it
against photographs of the core or the core itself
 
    
    compare downhole radiometric probing results with core radioactivity and drilling depth
measurements
 
    
    validate uranium grade based on radiometric probing with sample assay results, when
available
 
    
    compare the information in the database against the original data, including paper logs,
deviation survey films, assay certificates and original probing data files.
   
    
    checking the calibration of probes before using them
 
    
    visually monitoring the radiometric measurements
 
    
    periodically duplicating probe runs.
  Sample security
   Accuracy
  Mineral reserve and resource estimates
  2010 Annual information form      25




---



##### 



Uranium  operating properties
 
 Rabbit Lake
  Location
    
    Saskatchewan, CanadaOwnership
    
    100%End product
    
    U3O8ISO certification
    
    ISO 14001 certifiedDeposit type
    
    undergroundEstimated mineral reserves
    
    25.5 million pounds (proven and probable)average grade U3O8 0.76%Estimated mineral resources
    
    4.0 million pounds (indicated)average grade U3O8 0.52%10.2 million pounds (inferred)average grade U3O8 1.26%Mining method
    
    vertical blast-hole stopingLicensed capacity
    
    mill: maximum 16.9 million pounds per year; currently 11 millionTotal production 1975 to 2010
    
    182.5 million pounds2010 production
    
    3.8 million pounds2011 forecast production
    
    3.6 million poundsEstimated mine life
    
    2017 (based on current reserves)Estimated decommissioning cost
    
    $105.2 million
 Business structure
  Permits
  
    
    Uranium Mine Operating Licencefrom the CNSC
    
    Approval to Operate Pollutant Control Facilitiesfrom the Saskatchewan Ministry of the Environment
    
    Permit to Operate Waterworksfrom the Saskatchewan Ministry of the Environment.
  Production
 3 8
 Exploration
  26     Cameco Corporation




---



##### 



Tailings
  Site reclamation
  Mill renewal
  
    
    2006  reduced mill effluent concentrations of uranium
 
    
    2008  replaced the mill-distributed control system and improved the mills secondary
containment
 
    
    2009  reduced mill effluent concentrations of molybdenum and selenium
 
    
    2010  replaced the converter and heat recovery equipment in the acid plant
 
    
    2011  replacing the three acid plant towers in the acid plant, and ongoing upgrades to
mill processing equipment and tanks
 
    
    mid-2015  target for completing mill modifications to process Cigar Lake solution
 Toll milling of Cigar Lake solution
 Rabbit Lake toll milling agreement
 2010 Annual information form      27




---



##### 



Uranium  operating properties
 
 Smith Ranch-Highland
   Location
    
    Wyoming, USOwnership
    
    100%End product
    
    U3O8ISO certification
    
    ISO 14001 certifiedEstimated mineral reserves
    
    8.0 million pounds (proven and probable)average grade U3O8 0.09%Estimated mineral resources
    
    22.5 million pounds (measured and indicated)average grade U3O8 0.06%6.6 million pounds (inferred)average grade U3O8 0.05%Mining method
    
    in situ recovery (ISR)Licensed capacity
    
    mine: 2 million pounds per yearmill: 4 million pounds per year including Highland millTotal production 2002 to 2010
    
    13.6 million pounds2010 production
    
    1.8 million pounds2011 forecast production
    
    1.8 million poundsEstimated decommissioning cost
    
    $111. 5 million (US)
 Business structure
   28     Cameco Corporation




---



##### 



Uranium  operating properties
 
 Crow Butte
  Location
    
    Nebraska, USOwnership
    
    100%End product
    
    U3O8ISO certification
    
    ISO 14001 certifiedEstimated mineral reserves
    
    3.1 million pounds (proven and probable)Average grade U3O8 0.12%Estimated mineral resources
    
    11.2 million pounds (measured and indicated)average grade U3O8 0.21%5.6 million pounds (inferred)average grade U3O8 0.11%Mining method
    
    in situ recovery (ISR)Licensed capacity
    
    1 million pounds per year(mine and mill)Total production 2002 to 2010
    
    6.8 million pounds2010 production
    
    0.7 million pounds2011 forecast production
    
    0.7 million poundsEstimated decommissioning cost
    
    $35.2 million (US)
 Business structure
   2010 Annual information form      29




---



##### 



Uranium  operating properties
 
 Inkai
   Location
    
    central KazakhstanOwnership
    
    60%End product
    
    U3O8ISO certification
    
    BSI OHSAS 18001ISO 14001 certifiedEstimated mineral reserves
    
    72.9 million pounds (proven and probable)(our share)
    
    average grade U3O8 0.07%Estimated mineral resources
    
    18.3 million pounds (measured and indicated)(our share)
    
    average grade U3O8 0.08%153.0 million pounds (inferred)average grade U3O8  0.05%Mining method
    
    in situ recovery (ISR)Licensed capacity
    
    approved in principle: 3.9 million pounds per year(mine and mill)
    
    (our share 2.3 million pounds per year)application: expect to submit for 5.2 million pounds per year(our share 3.1 million pounds per year)2010 production
    
    2.6 million pounds (our share)2011 forecast production
    
    2.7 million pounds (our share)Estimated mine life
    
    20 years (based on current reserves)Estimated decommissioning cost
    
    $7 million (US)
 Business structure
  
    
    Cameco  60%
    
    JSC NAC KazAtomProm (Kazatomprom)  40%(a Kazakhstan Joint Stock Company owned by the Republic of Kazakhstan)
 30     Cameco Corporation




---



##### 



History
 1976-78
    
       Deposit is discovered   Exploration drilling continues until 19961979
    
       Regional and local hydrogeology studies begin   Borehole tests characterize the four aquifers within the Inkai deposit
(Uvanas, Zhalpak, Inkuduk and Mynkuduk)1988
    
       Pilot test in the northeast area of block 1 begins, lasts 495 days and recovers 92,900
pounds of uranium1993
    
       First Kazakhstan estimates of uranium reserves for block 11996
    
       First Kazakhstan estimates of uranium reserves for block 2   Kazakhstan regulators registers Inkai, a joint venture among us, Uranerzbergbau-GmbH and
KATEP1997-1998
    
       Kazatomprom is established   KATEP transfers all of its interest in the Inkai joint venture to Kazatomprom1998
    
       We acquire all of Uranerzbergbau-GmbHs interest in the Inkai joint venture, increasing our
interest to 66 2/3%   We agree to transfer a 6 2/3% interest to Kazatomprom, reducing our holdings to a 60%
interest1999
    

   Inkai receives a mining licence for block 1 and an exploration licence for blocks 2 and 3
from the government of Kazakhstan2000
    

   Inkai and the government of Kazakhstan sign a subsoil use contract (called the resource use
contract), which covers the licences issued in 1999 (see above)2002
    
       Test mining operations at block 2 begins2005
    
       Construction of ISR commercial processing facility at block 1 begins2006
    
       Complete test mine expansion at block 22007
    
       Sign Amendment No.1 to the resource use contract, extending the exploration period at
blocks 2 and 32008
    

   Commission front half of the main processing plant in the fourth quarter, and begin
processing solution from block 12009
    

   Sign Amendment No.2 to the resource use contract, which approves the mining licence at
block 2, extends the exploration licence for block 3 to July 13, 2010, and requires Inkai to adopt
the new tax code and meet the Kazakhstan content thresholds for human resources, goods, works and
services   Commission the main processing plant, and started commissioning the first satellite plant2010
    
       Receive regulatory approval for commissioning of the main processing plant   File a notice of potential commercial discovery at block 3   Receive approval in principle for the extension of the block 3 exploration licence for a
five-year appraisal period that expires July 2015, and an increase in annual production from
blocks 1 and 2 to 3.9 million pounds (100% basis)
 Technical report
 Inkai Operation, South Kazakhstan Oblast, Republic of Kazakhstan,
  Sustainable development
  2010 Annual information form      31




---



##### 



qualified persons
 About the Inkai property
 Location
  Accessibility
  Licences
 resource use contract
 Setting
   Geology
     32     Cameco Corporation




---



##### 



Mineralization
     Block 3 potential commercial discovery
     About the Inkai operation
  Licences
  
    
    Licence Series AY 1370D, April 20, 1999, expires in 2024
 For uranium extraction in block 1 (16.6 square kilometres)
 
    
    Licence Series AY 1371D, April 20, 1999
 For exploration and uranium extraction in block 2 (230 square kilometres) (expires in 2030) and
for exploration in block 3 (240 square kilometres) (expires in 2015 (based upon June 2010 Kazakh
regulatory approval in principle))
 Other material licences
 
    
    Licence for performance of works connected with stages of life cycle of objects of use of
atomic energy
 (issued January 18, 2010 by the Kazakhstan Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources (MEMR))
 
    
    Licence for operation of mining production and mineral raw material processing
 (issued December 23, 2009 by the MEMR)
 
    
    Licence for transportation of radioactive substances within the territory of the Republic
of Kazakhstan
 (issued November 18, 2008 by the MEMR)
 
    
    Licence for dealing with radioactive substances
 (issued August 29, 2008 by the MEMR)
 2010 Annual information form      33




---



##### 



Infrastructure
 Block 1
    
    Block 2
    
    Block 3   main processing plant, which
includes a product recovery drying
and packaging facility
    

  
satellite processing plant that produces uranium loaded ion exchange resin
    
    We are planning a test leach facility.   administrative office, shops,
garage, laboratory, emergency
response building, low-level
radioactive waste and domestic
landfills, engineering and
construction offices
    

   office, small shops, and a
food services facility

We are planning an additional satellite processing plant.   a camp for 400 employees   catering and leisure
facilities
 Water, power and heat
  Employees
  Mining method
  
    
    leach the uranium in-situ with sulphuric acid-based lixiviate solution
 
    
    recover it from solution with ion exchange resin (takes place at both main and satellite
processing plants)
 
    
    precipitate it with hydrogen peroxide
 
    
    thicken, dewater, and dry it
 
    
    package it as U3O8 (yellowcake) in drums.
   ProductionTotal mill production
    
    Based on current mineral reserves, we expect the mine to produce a total of
103.3 million pounds U3O8(recovered by the mill).Average annual mill 
production
    
    The mill has the capacity to produce 5.2 million pounds
U3O8 per year (100% basis). Regulatory approval is
required to carry out production at this annual rate. See Production
increases for 2010, 2011 and 2012.There are enough mineral reserves to carry out production at this rate
through the current term of each of Inkais mineral licences.
 34     Cameco Corporation




---



##### 



Production increases for 2010, 2011 and 2012
   
    
    obtain final approval to produce at an annual rate of 3.9 million pounds (our share 2.3
million pounds)
 
    
    obtain the necessary permits and approvals to produce at an annual rate of 5.2 million
pounds (our share 3.1 million pounds)
 
    
    ramp up production to an annual rate of 5.2 million pounds this year.
   Memorandum of understanding
   
    
    targets future annual capacity of 10.4 million pounds (our share is 5.7 million pounds).
While the existing project ownership would not change, our share of the additional capacity
above 5.2 million pounds would be 50%.
 
    
    contemplates studying the feasibility of building a uranium conversion facility, as well as
other potential collaborations in uranium conversion.
  Sales
  Funding
  
    
    $314 million (US) of principal outstanding on the loan
 
    
    a nominal amount of accrued interest and financing fees on the loan. In 2010, Inkai paid
$49 million (US) in accrued interest and financing fees.
   Costs and payback
  
    
    capital costs remaining were estimated to be $359.2 million (US). This includes $208.6
million (US) for wellfield development. We expect wellfield development costs to decline
gradually over the last five years of production.
 
    
    payback was forecast in 2012, on an undiscounted, after-tax basis, including all 2009 and
prior costs.
 Annual information form




---



##### 



Resource use contract
    
    
    extends the exploration period for block 3 to July 13, 2010
 
    
    approves mining at block 2
 
    
    combines blocks 1 and 2 for mining and reporting purposes
 
    
    requires Inkai to adopt the new tax code that took effect January 1, 2009
 
    
    requires Inkai to adopt current Kazakh legal and policy requirements for subsoil users to
procure goods, works and services under certain prescribed procedures and foster greater local
content
 
    
    prescribes Kazakh employment: over the life of the resource use contract, 100% of the
workers, at least 70% of engineering and construction staff and at least 60% of the management
staff must be Kazakh.
  
    
    increase annual production from blocks 1 and 2 to 3.9 million pounds
 
    
    amend the block 3 licence for a five-year appraisal period to carry out delineation
drilling, mineral resource estimation, construction and operation of a test leach facility,
and to complete a feasibility study.
  Work programs
 ee Project documentation .
  Environment
   Insurance
  Decommissioning
   Cameco Corporation




---



##### 



Kazakhstan government and legislation
 Subsoil law
 Subsoil Use Law subsoil law Law on the Subsoil and Subsoil Use old law
    relevant government authority
  Stabilization clause
 . ,
 , commercial
    Transfer of subsoil rights and pre-emptive rights
   Annual information form




---



##### 



Dispute resolution
   Contract termination
  ,
 .
 Local content
  Project documentation
  
    
    develop new project documentation to be approved by July 7, 2011
 
    
    develop a new work program in accordance with the project documentation to be approved by
January 7, 2012.
  Strategic deposits
 On Determination of the List of Subsoil (Deposit) Areas
having Strategic Importance
  Currency control regulations
  Cameco Corporation




---



##### 




    
    require foreign currency holders to deposit a certain portion of their foreign currency interest
free with a resident Kazakhstan bank or the National Bank of Kazakhstan
 
    
    require the permission of the National Bank of Kazakhstan for currency transactions, and
 
    
    restrict overseas transfers of foreign currency.
  Exploration, drilling and estimates
  Exploration
 Historical drilling
 
    
    Historical drilling at Inkai included 4,898 holes in blocks 1 and 2, and 510 in block 3.
 
    
    Drilling was vertical, on a grid at prescribed density of 3.2 to 1.6 kilometre line spacing
and 200 to 50 metre (3.2-1.6 kilometres x 200-50 metres) hole spacing. Additional drilling at
grids of 800-400 × 200-50 metres and 200-100 x 50-25 metre grid increased the level of
geological knowledge and confidence.
 
    
    Vertical holes were drilled with a triangular drill bit for use in unconsolidated
formations down to a certain depth and the rest of the holes were cored.
 
    
    Volkovgeology, a subsidiary of Kazatomprom, compiled the data for block 1 of the Inkai
deposit as well as some of the data for block 2 to produce a report in 1991.
 Exploration drilling
 
    
    Inkais geological department oversees exploration, including the strategic direction of
the drilling program and management of contractors. Inkai has retained a contractor to direct
and coordinate day-to-day drilling activities, and to ensure drilling quality, core recovery,
surveying, and geological logging, sampling and daily data processing.
 
    
    There have been from three to over 20 rigs actively drilling on block 3, and anywhere from
one to four drilling contractors in the last 24 months. This year, four contractors drilled in
January and February (15 drilling rigs), and two from March to December (10 drilling rigs).
 
    
    Inkai had drilled a total of 2,159 exploration holes in block 3 as of the end of December
2010 (510 before 2006,
45 in 2006, 90 in 2008, 456 in 2009, and 1,058 in 2010). Approximately 70% of all exploration
holes are cored through the entire mineralized interval, and have better than 70% core recovery.
 Recent activity
 
    
    Invested $133.7 million (US) in exploring and developing the mineral processing
infrastructure in blocks 2 and 3 during the pilot test mining period.
 
    
    Estimated block 2 mineral reserves and put them on the Kazakh state balance sheet of
mineral resources.
 
    
    Drilled 1,649 exploration drillholes in block 3 between 1999 and December 31, 2010, and
analysed more than 12,000 samples.
 
    
    Focused the first phase of the drilling program on following the trends and delineated
mineralization in the Inkuduk horizons along the northwestern border, and mineralization in
the Mynkuduk along the southern border. Used a drilling grid of 800 metres x 50 to 100 metres
to form resource estimation blocks suitable for C2 Kazakhstan resources (equivalent to
inferred resources). At the same time, conducted exploration drilling in the central part of
the block 3 area and found mineralization traces. This area requires further delineation
drilling.
 
    
    Submitted a preliminary resource estimate for the southwestern corner of the block 3 area
to government authorities on July 10, 2010. The report was prepared for Inkai by
Volkovgeology. Under Kazakhstan regulations, if a potential commercial discovery is declared,
a preliminary resource estimate must be prepared for at least a portion of the related area to
support the claim. Kazakhstan government authorities such as the State Reserve Committee are
still reviewing the report.
 Annual information form




---



##### 




    
    Drilled the southwestern part of block 3 from October to December 2010, using progressively
tightening drilling grids (from 800 x 50 metres to 200 x 50 metres) to delineate
mineralization for the Kazakhstan C1 resource category (equivalent to indicated resources).
 
    
    Conducted hydrogeological testing work, including aquifer pumping tests (two wall and
multiwall) at two separate sites, to establish the hydrogeological characteristics of the
aquifers hosting mineralization, and their relationship to the surrounding aquitards and other
aquifers. These characteristics are important for the ISR mining.
 
    
    Results of exploration and delineation:
 
    
    traced the presence of mineralization throughout block 3 with greater certainty. There was
a significant increase in the extent of mineralization in many places, especially in the
Inkuduk horizon compared to results of predecessors, which were based on sparser historical
drilling grids.
    
    encountered more complex morphology of the mineralized zones, particularly in the Mynkuduk
horizon and along the southern border of block 3
    
    used the mineralization delineation from 800 x 50 metre drilling grids in block 3 to form
resource estimate blocks for the Kazakhstan C2 resource category for most of the area
covered. Additional drilling is needed to close off mineralization zones and better define
their morphology and continuity.
 Sampling and analysis
 Sampling
 
    
    Detailed sampling procedures guide the sampling interval within the mineralization. Holes
are drilled on progressively tightening grids: 3.2 to 1.6 kilometres x 200-50 metres, 800-400
metres x 200-50 metres and 200-100 metres x 50-25 metres. When core recoveries are higher than
70% and radioactivity greater than 40 micro-roentgen per hour, core samples are taken at
irregular intervals of 0.2 to 1.2 metres. Sample intervals are also differentiated by barren
or low permeability material.
 
    
    The drillholes are nearly vertical and the mineralized horizons are almost horizontal, so
the mineralized intercepts represent the true thickness of the mineralization.
 
    
    Inkais geophysical crews survey the drillholes, logging radiometric, electrical
(spontaneous potential and resistivity), caliper and deviation data. For greater accuracy,
they collect downhole data only from open or uncased holes.
 
    
    Sampling is done sectionally from half of the core, which is divided along its axis and
cleared from the clay envelope. The average core sample length is 0.4 metres.
 
    
    The split core is tested for grainsize and carbonate content.
 
    
    Since gamma probing of the drillholes is used to estimate mineral resources, assays from
core sampling are used only when core recovery is at least 70%, for correlation.
 
    
    Core recovery is generally considered to be acceptable given the unconsolidated state of
the mineralized material.
 Analysis
  
    
    studying and coding all 1,294 drillholes on the Volkovgeology cross sections
 
    
    sampling and assaying all drillhole core that could be recovered for uranium and radium
content (and according to the drill logs, this recovery was very good)
 
    
    recording the location of each sample and its assay results on the drillhole log (referred
to as a passport).
 Quality control
 
    
    One of our geoscientists has witnessed core handling, logging and sampling used at the
Inkai mine and considers the methodologies to be very satisfactory and the results
representative and reliable.
 
    
    Geologists with Inkai, Volkovgeology, the State Reserves Commission and Cameco, have
validated the current database a number of times. Our geologists consider it relevant and
reliable.
 
    
    The findings are supported by results of the leach tests on block 2, and recent production,
drilling results and exploration drilling in block 3.
 
    
    The exchange of digital drillhole information between Inkai and us is very good. All
information is available for our review.
 Cameco Corporation




---



##### 



Sample security
  Accuracy
 sampling and analysis .
 Mineral reserve and resource estimates
  Annual information form




---



##### 



Uranium  development project
 
 Cigar Lake
   Location
    
    Saskatchewan, CanadaOwnership
    
    50.025%End product
    
    U3O8Deposit type
    
    undergroundEstimated mineral reserves
    
    104.7 million pounds (proven and probable)(our share)
    
    average grade U3O8  17.04%Estimated mineral resources
    
    0.6 million pounds (measured and indicated)(our share)
    
    average grade U3O8  2.27%66.8 million pounds (inferred)average grade U3O8  12.61%Mining method
    
    jet boringTarget production date
    
    mid-2013Target annual production
    
    9 million pounds after rampup(our share)Estimated mine life
    
    15 years (based on current reserves)Estimated decommissioning cost
    
    $27.7 million (to the end of construction)
 Business structure
  
    
    Cameco  50.025% (operator)
    
    AREVA Resources Canada Inc. (Areva)  37.1%
    
    Idemitsu Canada Resources Ltd. (Idemitsu)  7.875%
    
    TEPCO Resources Inc. (TEPCO)  5.0%
 Cameco Corporation




---



##### 



History
 1976
    

   Canadian Kelvin Resources and Asamera Oil Corporation form an exploration joint venture,
which includes the lands that the Cigar Lake mine is being built on1977
    
       Saskatchewan Mining Development Corporation (SMDC), one of our predecessor companies,
acquires a 50% interest1980
    
       Waterbury Lake joint venture formed, includes lands now called Cigar Lake1981
    
       Deposit discovered by surface drilling  it was delineated by a surface drilling program
between 1982 and 19861985
    
       Reorganization of the Waterbury Lake joint venture  Cigar Lake Mining Corporation becomes
the operator of the Cigar Lake lands and a predecessor to Areva becomes the operator of the
remaining Waterbury Lands   SMDC has a 50.75% interest1987-1992
    
       Test mining, including sinking shaft 1 to 500 metres and lateral development on 420 metre,
465 metre and 480 metre levels1988
    
       Eldorado Resources Limited merges with SMDC to form Cameco1993-1997
    
       Canadian and Saskatchewan governments authorize the project to proceed to regulatory
licensing stage, based on recommendation of the joint federal-provincial panel after public
hearings on the projects environmental impact2000
    
       Jet boring mining system tested in waste and frozen ore2001
    
       Joint venture approves a feasibility study and detailed engineering begins in June2002
    
       Joint venture is reorganized, new joint venture agreement is signed, Rabbit Lake and JEB
toll milling agreements are signed, and we replace Cigar Lake Mining Corporation as Cigar Lake
operator2004
    
       Environmental assessment process is complete   CNSC issues a construction licence2005
    
       Development begins in January2006
    
       Two water inflow incidents delay development:   in April, shaft 2 (which is under construction) floods   in October, underground development areas flood   In November, we begin work to remediate the underground development areas2008
    
       Remediation interrupted by another inflow in August, preventing the mine from being dewatered2009
    
       Remediation of shaft 2 completed in May   We seal the 2008 inflow in October2010
    
       We finish dewatering the underground development areas in February, and establish safe
access to the 480 metre level, the main working level of the mine   We substantially complete cleanup, inspection, assessment and securing of underground
development and resume underground development in the south end of the mine
 Annual information form




---



##### 



Technical report
 Cigar Lake Project,
Northern Saskatchewan, Canada,
  qualified persons
 Sustainable development
   About the property
 Location
  Accessibility
   Leases
 Surface lease
     Mineral lease
  Mineral claims
  Cameco Corporation




---



##### 



Climate
  Setting
  Geology
   Mineralization
   
    
    high-grade mineralization at the unconformity
 
    
    fracture controlled, vein-like mineralization higher up in the sandstone
 
    
    fracture controlled, vein-like mineralization in the basement rock.
   About the operation
  Permits
  Infrastructure
  
    
    an underground mine with one shaft constructed and one shaft under construction
 
    
    waste rock stockpile
 
    
    ore slurry load out building
 
    
    contingency ponds
 
    
    water treatment ponds
 
    
    water treatment plant
 
    
    construction camp
 
    
    freeze plant
 
    
    sewage lagoon
 
    
    an employee residence.
 Annual information form




---



##### 



Water, power and heat
   Employees
  Mining method
  
 Bulk freezing
   
    
    reduce risk to the production schedule by advancing the availability of frozen ground and
simplifying construction activities underground by moving some of the related freezing
infrastructure to surface
 
    
    move up to 10 million pounds forward in the production schedule
 Cameco Corporation




---



##### 




    
    improve mining costs and economics of the project.
  Jet boring
     Processing
  High density ore slurry
 Processing
 Tailings
  Waste
  
    
    clean rock (two piles)  will remain on the minesite
 
    
    mineralized waste (>0.03% U3O8)  will be disposed of underground
at the Cigar Lake mine. We have not identified any mineralized waste in development to date.
 
    
    waste with acid-generating potential  temporarily stored on engineered lined pads. It
will be transported to the McClean Lake facility for permanent disposal.
  Production
  Annual information form




---



##### 



Total mill production
    

   206.1 million pounds of U3O8, based on an
overall milling recovery of 98.5%   18 million pounds per year after a three-year ramp-up
(less than this in the early and late years of the current mineral reserve life)Total mine production
    
       557,000 thousand tonnes of
oreAverage annual mine 
production
    
       100 to 140 tonnes per day during peak production, depending on
ore gradeAverage mill feed grade
    
       17% U3O8
  3 8
  Payback
  Costs
  Capital
    
    $912 million in capital for Cigar Lake   $405 million already spent on construction and mill modification, plus   $507 million still to comeSustaining capital
    
    $226 million   for Cigar Lake and Rabbit Lake (not including the cost to increase the taililngs capacity at Rabbit Lake.
Please see page 27 for details.)Remediation
    
    $93 million   $64 million already spent and expensed (2006 to 2009), plus   $29 million still to come
   
    
    invested $492 million for our share of the construction costs to develop Cigar Lake
    
    invested $262 million related to test mining and infrastructure development (prior to our
2005 development decision)
    
    expensed $81 million in remediation expenses, including $17 million in 2010.
   48     Cameco Corporation




---



##### 



Assumptions
 
    
    natural phenomena, an equipment failure or other causes do not result in a material delay
or disruption of our plans
 
    
    there are no additional water inflows
 
    
    the seals or plugs used for previous water inflows do not fail
 
    
    there are no labour disputes or shortages
 
    
    we obtain contractors, equipment, operating parts, supplies, regulatory permits and
approvals when we need them
 
    
    our mine plans are achieved, our processing plants are available and function as designed,
sufficient tailings capacity is available and our mineral reserve estimates are accurate
 Material risks
 
    
    an unexpected geological, hydrological or underground condition, such as an additional
water inflow, further delays our progress
 
    
    we cannot obtain or maintain the necessary regulatory permits or approvals
 
    
    natural phenomena, labour disputes, equipment failure, delay in obtaining the required
contractors, equipment, operating parts or supplies, or other reasons cause a material delay
or disruption in our plans
 
    
    our mining plans change or do not succeed, our processing plants are not available or do
not function as designed, sufficient tailings capacity is not available and our mineral
reserve estimates are not accurate
 Assurance of success program
 assurance of success
 Reclamation and financial assurances
 preliminary decommissioning plan preliminary
decommissioning cost estimate
    Water inflow and mine rehabilitation
 April 5, 2006 inflow
 
    
    A faulty valve assembly on a grouting standpipe at the base of shaft 2 caused a water
inflow. The shaft flooded and we stopped all activities.
 
    
    Flooding did not go beyond the shaft because it was under construction and not connected to
the mine.
 
    
    We finished dewatering and completed remediating the shaft in the first half of 2009.
 
    
    We prepared the ground around the shaft in 2010 for freezing in preparation to resume shaft
sinking.
 October 23, 2006 inflow
 
    
    A rock fall caused a significant water inflow that flooded the mine. We stopped all
underground activities.
 
    
    We developed, and began to carry out, a multi-phase remediation plan to restore the
underground workings. As we carried out the plan, it was refined.
 2010 Annual information form     49




---



##### 




    
    We drilled holes from the surface to the source of the inflow, and to a nearby tunnel that
had to be reinforced. We pumped concrete and grout through the drillholes to seal off the
inflow, and then drilled dewatering holes and began dewatering the mine in July 2008.
 August 12, 2008 inflow
 
    
    We dewatered shaft 1, which was connected to the flooded mine, down to 430 metres below the
surface.
 
    
    We observed an increase in the rate of water inflow and temporarily suspended remediation.
 
    
    We later identified the source of the increase to be a fissure in a tunnel on the 420 metre
level.
 
    
    We sealed the inflow in October 2009 by placing an inflatable seal between the shaft and
the source of the inflow and filling the area behind the seal with concrete and grout.
 
    
    Crews entered shaft 1 in November 2009 and began refurbishing the shaft, installing the
ladderway, replacing mechanical and electrical components and extending the in-shaft pumping
system.
 
    
    We finished dewatering in February 2010 and established safe access to the 480 metre level,
the main working level of the mine.
 
    
    By the end of the 2010, we had:
 
    
    substantially completed our cleanup, inspection and assessment, and secured the
underground development areas
 
    
    begun to restore the underground mine systems and infrastructure to prepare them for
construction
 
    
    made progress on remediating the underground brine handling system to support freezing
the orebody
and shaft 2
 
    
    increased the installed pumping capacity
 
    
    re-established the permanent refuge stations and communications
 
    
    resumed underground development in the south end of the mine
 
    
    backfilled the 465 metre level, which has been abandoned because it is no longer part of
our mine plan
 
    
    installed a permanent bulkhead and filled the entire 420 metre level with concrete
backfill. This level was abandoned because it is no longer part of our mine plan.
 Rehabilitating the mine
  Securing the mine
  Rehabilitating the underground
  
    
    re-establishing the underground orebody freezing program. We also are implementing our
surface freeze strategy to accelerate our plans to mine the orebody.
 
    
    completing the shaft 2 freezing program
 
    
    preparing areas for construction and development.
 Construction
  Completing shaft 2
  
    
    refurbishing the main areas of the underground mine
    
    sinking the shaft from the current shaft bottom (392 metres) to its final depth of 500
metres  to be completed in 2011
 50     Cameco Corporation




---



##### 




    
    installing a hydrostatic liner from the 392 metre to the 480 metre level
 
    
    establishing a shaft station at the 480 metre level
 
    
    installing shaft furnishings in the fresh air compartment.
 Increase pumping capacity
   3
 Surface construction
  Capital construction
  Toll milling agreements
  
    
    processing the ore slurry into JEB uranium solution
 
    
    processing the JEB uranium solution into uranium concentrates.
  McClean Lake JEB toll milling agreement
 JEB toll
milling agreement
  
    
    its share of milling expenses
 
    
    a toll milling fee based on the type of ore being processed (phase 1(a), phase 1(b) or
phase 2).
    Rabbit Lake toll milling agreement
 Rabbit Lake toll milling agreement
 2010 Annual information form     51




---



##### 




    
    its share of milling expenses
 
    
    a toll milling fee based on the type of ore being processed (phase 1(a), phase 1(b)).
   
    
    2011  begin detailed study of Rabbit Lake mill modifications
 
    
    2012  begin detailed design of mill modifications
 
    
    2014  complete required transportation infrastructure
 
    
    2015  complete a uranium solution receiving station and associated handling equipment.
   Division of work
  Phase 1 ore  Cigar Lakes current mineral reserves
 Processing the ore slurry from Cigar Lake into JEB uranium solution
  Processing the JEB uranium solution into uranium concentrates
  
    
    the end of the initial rampup period of 730 days (the period starts after the testing and
commissioning)
 
    
    the day it finishes processing over 2.5 million pounds of uranium concentrates over a
period of three consecutive months.
  Category
    
    Percent of JEB uranium solution processedPhase 1 (a) ore
the first 160 million pounds of
uranium concentrates produced by
McClean Lake
and Rabbit Lake (in total)
    
    McClean Lake  at least 42.7%
Rabbit Lake  up to 57.3%Phase 1(b) ore
the rest of the phase 1 ore
(47 million pounds)
    
    McClean Lake  50%
Rabbit Lake  50%
 Phase 2 ore  Cigar Lakes current inferred mineral resources
   Regulatory approvals
 Environmental assessment
 
    
    In 1995, the Cigar Lake Project, Environmental Impact Statementwas submitted to the Joint
Federal-Provincial review panel on Uranium Mining Developments in Northern Saskatchewan.
 52     Cameco Corporation




---



##### 




    
    In 1997, the panel recommended that the project should proceed, pending identification of a
suitable waste rock disposal location.
 
    
    The Canadian and Saskatchewan governments both accepted the panels recommendation and in
1998 both government bodies approved the project in principle.
 
    
    In February 2004, we submitted an environmental assessment study report for the Cigar Lake
mine plan. The CNSC agreed that this report met the requirements
of the  Canadian Environment
Assessment Actand approved proceeding with the licensing and permitting process.
 Construction licence
 
    
    The CNSC issued a construction licence in December 2004.
 
    
    With water inflows in 2006 and 2008, the CNSC has twice extended the licence term. It now
expires on December 31, 2013. The second extension was provided to give us time to complete mine
construction, including remediation, sinking shaft 2 and surface construction.
 
    
    As part of our construction licence, we need additional regulatory approvals to complete
remediation and resume pre-flood underground construction and development activities.
 
    
    The licence also contains a condition that the revised mine plan requires regulatory
approval. We are working to obtain this approval in 2011.
 Operating licence
  Processing licences
 
    
    An amendment is required to the McClean Lake JEB mill licence to process Cigar Lake ore at
the McClean Lake JEB mill. We do not anticipate any issues with the licence amendment. In
1997, the environmental impact statement for this processing was approved.
 
    
    In August 2008, we completed the environmental assessment process for processing the Cigar
Lake solution at the Rabbit Lake mill. See page 27 for more information.
 
    
    With extensions to the Rabbit Lake mine life, we are planning to expand Rabbit Lake
tailings capacity. Regulatory approval is required.
 
    
    An amendment is required to the Rabbit Lake mill licence to process Cigar Lake uranium
solution at the Rabbit Lake mill. We do not anticipate any issues with the licence amendment.
 Water treatment/effluent discharge system
 
    
    We designed the Cigar Lake system for both routine and non-routine water treatment and
effluent discharge, and it has been approved and licensed by the CNSC and the Saskatchewan
Ministry of Environment.
 
    
    We want to manage the potentially higher water inflow we may see during construction and
operations by building infrastructure that will allow us to discharge treated water directly
to Seru Bay of Waterbury Lake. Our application in 2008 to the CNSC in respect of this
infrastructure has triggered a joint federal and provincial environmental assessment screening
under the Canadian Environment Assessment Act,which is underway. We anticipate an assessment
decision in 2011, and have interim approvals and measures in place to increase discharge to
the Aline Creek system if we need to.
 Exploration, drilling and estimates
    Surface drilling  mineral lease
  2010 Annual information form     53




---



##### 



3 8 3 8
 1982  1986
    
    A major surface drilling program delineated the deposit1987  2002
    
    Drilling for geotechnical and infill holes2007  2009
    
    51 holes drilled for various geotechnical and geophysical programs2010
    
    35 holes drilled over Phase 1 of the deposit and 6 holes drilled over Phase 2 of the deposit
 Surface drilling  mineral claims
   Underground drilling
  1989  2006
    
    132 underground diamond drillholes were drilled, over 11,108 metres. Only 10 of these
intersected the orebody.A total of 347 freeze and temperature monitoring holes were drilled from the underground
workings during the construction phase. 150 of these were gamma surveyed by radiometric
probing.Due to the drilling method for freeze holes, no core is available for assays. Uranium
content is estimated by radiometric probing of the holes.We plan to drill several core holes and use them for calibration, to reconfirm the current
conversion factors for estimating uranium grade from the freezehole radiometrics.2007  2009
    
    There was no underground drilling because of flooding.2010
    
    34 holes were drilled underground totalling 2,833 metres.
None intersected the orebody.6 of the 34 holes were drilled from inside Shaft 2, in advance of the top seal grout cover.22 holes were drilled from the 480 metre level and the remaining 6 holes were drilled from
the 500 metre level.
 Sampling and analysis
 Sampling
      
    
    nominal drillhole fence spacing was 50 metres east-west by 20 metres north-south
 
    
    wedge drilling from primary holes generated intersections at 10 metres along three of the
fences
 
    
    two infill fences were drilled at 25 metres apart, with holes at nominally 20 metres along
the fences
    
    five holes were drilled at 25 metres apart, along the central east-west axis of the eastern
zone
 54     Cameco Corporation




---



##### 




    
    nominal drillhole fence spacing was 200 metres east-west by 20 metres north-south
 3 8
  Analysis
 
    
    More than 4,400 samples were assayed from surface and underground drilling.
 
    
    Starting in 1983, all drilling and sample procedures were standardized and documented. This
gives us a high degree of confidence in the accuracy and reliability of results of all phases
of the work.
 
    
    The entire core from each sample interval was taken for assay, except for some of the
earliest sampling in 1981 and 1982. This reduced the sample bias inherent when splitting core.
 
    
    Underground drillholes were sampled and gamma probed to the same standards as the surface
drillholes.
 
    
    Most of the underground drillholes were rotary holes for ground freezing, however, so no
core was recovered. For these holes, we will rely on radiometric assays to determine grade to
be used in future mineral resource and mineral reserve estimations.
 
    
    Chemical assays were used to determine grade in mineralized rock.
 
    
    Core recovery through the ore zone has generally been very good. Where necessary, uranium
grade determination is supplemented by radiometric probing results.
 
    
    To estimate mineral resources and reserves when core recovery was less than 100%, the
assayed value was assumed to be representative of the whole interval. Of the 2,612 assayed
samples for Phase 1 mineralization, only 48 samples had recoveries of less than 75%.
 
    
    Sample composites were calculated by taking the weighted average for the mineralized
intercept in each drillhole using a 1.0% U3O8 cut-off grade.
 Width
    
    Assay
    
    Density     largest 11.5 metres
    
         highest 82.9% U3O8
    
         highest 8.44 g/cm3     smallest 0.5 metres
    
         lowest 0.0% U3O8
    
         lowest 1.27 g/cm3     average 5 metres
 Quality control
   Sample security
  Accuracy
  Mineral reserve and resource estimates
  2010 Annual information form     55




---



##### 



Uranium  projects under evaluation
 Kintyre
 
 Location
    
    Western AustraliaOwnership
    
    70%End product
    
    U3O8Deposit type
    
    open pit
 Business structure
  
 History
   56     Cameco Corporation




---



##### 



Uranium  projects under evaluation
 Millennium
  Location
    
    Saskatchewan, CanadaOwnership
    
    42%End product
    
    U3O8Deposit type
    
    undergroundEstimated mineral resources
(our share)
    
    21.4 million pounds (indicated)
average grade U3O8 4.55%
4.3 million pounds (inferred)
average
grade U3O8 2.12%
 Business structure
  
    
    Cameco  42% (operator)
 
    
    Areva  38%
 
    
    JCU Exploration (Canada) Co. Ltd.  30%
 History
 
  2010 Annual information form     57




---



##### 



Exploration
  Exploration
and development spending
 
   Brownfield exploration
  Regional exploration
   Plans for 2011
  Brownfield exploration
  Regional exploration
  58     Cameco Corporation




---



##### 



Fuel services  refining
 Blind River refinery
 3 8 3
 Location
    
    Ontario, CanadaOwnership
    
    100%End product
    
    UO3ISO certification
    
    ISO 14001 certifiedLicensed capacity
    
    approved: 18 million kgU as UO3 per year application: 24 million kgU as UO3
per year2010 production
    
    12.4 million kgUEstimated decommissioning cost
    
    $36 million
 Markets
 3 6 2  6
 Production
 3
 Inventory
 3
 Capacity
   2010 Annual information form     59




---



##### 



Fuel services  conversion and fuel manufacturing
 6
 Port Hope conversion services
 2
 Location
    
    Ontario, CanadaOwnership
    
    100%End product
    
    UF6, UO2ISO certification
    
    ISO 14001 certifiedLicensed capacity
    
    12.5 million kgU as UF6 per year2.8 million kgU as UO2 per yearEstimated decommissioning cost
    
    $96 million
 Cameco Fuel Manufacturing Inc. (CFM)
  Location
    
    Ontario, CanadaOwnership
    
    100%End product
    
    Candu fuel bundles and componentsISO certification
    
    ISO 9001 certifiedLicensed capacity
    
    1.2 million kgU as UO2as finished bundlesEstimated decommissioning cost
    
    $18 million
 Springfields Fuels Ltd. (SFL)
  Location
    
    Lancashire, UKToll-processing agreement
    
    annual conversion of 5 million kgU as UO3 to UF6Licensed capacity
    
    6.0 million kgU as UF6 per year
  60     Cameco Corporation




---



##### 



Conversion services
 2 2
 6 3 6 6 2
 Shutdowns
 6 6 6
 6 6 6
 2 6
 6
 Environment
  Port Hope conversion facility cleanup and modernization (Vision 2010)
   10-year toll conversion agreement
 3 6 3
 Fuel manufacturing
 2
 Manufacturing services agreements
 2
 2010 Annual information form     61




---



##### 



Electricity
 Bruce Power Limited Partnership (BPLP)
  Location
    
    Ontario, CanadaOwnership
    
    31.6%ISO certification
    
    ISO 14001 certifiedExpected reactor life
    
    2018 to 2021Term of lease
    
    2018  right to extend for up to 25 yearsGeneration capacity
    
    3,260 MW
 Business structure
  
    
    Cameco  31.6%
 (through our wholly owned Canadian subsidiaries, Cameco Bruce
Holdings Inc. and Cameco Bruce Holdings II Inc.)
 
    
    TransCanada PipeLines Limited  31.6%
 
    
    Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System Trust  31.6%
 
    
    The Power Workers Union and The Society of Energy Professionals  5.2%
 History
 2001
    

    We acquire a 15% limited partnership interest in BPLP and become BPLPs fuel manager.     BPLP enters into agreements with Ontario Power Generation Inc. (OPG) to lease and operate the Bruce A and  B
nuclear-powered units in southwestern Ontario. The initial lease period expires in 2018. BPLP can extend the  lease for up
to another 25 years.     OPG retains ownership of the units, and responsibility for decommissioning and waste management.2003
    
         British Energy plc sells its 79.8% limited partnership interest in BPLP to a consortium of companies, including
us.     After the transaction is completed, BPLP is owned: Cameco (31.6%), TransCanada PipeLines Limited (31.6%), an
Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System trust (31.6%), and The Power Workers Union and The Society of Energy
Professionals (5.2%).     We continue as BPLPs fuel manager.2005
    
         BPLP is restructured and announces a new arrangement with the Ontario government to increase output of the four
Bruce A reactors, including by refurbishing and restarting two Bruce A reactors that had been removed from service. BALP
is formed and subleases the four Bruce A reactors from BPLP.     BPLP receives payment for the sublease, the assets it transfers to BALP under the sublease, and for Bruce A
refurbishment costs already incurred.     BPLP is responsible for the overall management of the Bruce site and continues to lease and operate the four
Bruce B reactors.    We maintain our 31.6% interest in BPLP and do not participate in BALP.     BPLP pays a special distribution to its limited partners. We receive $200 million.
 62     Cameco Corporation




---



##### 



About the generating facilities
 Location
  Infrastructure
 
    
    four Bruce B Candu reactors: commissioned between 1984 and 1987 and have a combined net
generating capacity of 3,260 megawatts
 
    
    four Bruce A Candu reactors: commissioned between 1977 and 1979 and have a combined
generating capacity of 3,000 megawatts. These were removed from service from 1995 and 1998. In
2003 and 2004, two of them were returned to service, and these have a combined net generating
capacity of 1,500 megawatts. The Bruce A1 and A2 units are scheduled to start again in 2012.
 Average capacity factor
   Capital expenditures
  Employees
  About Candu technology
   
    
    they are fuelled by natural uranium (UO2)
 
    
    they use deuterium oxide, or heavy water, both to slow down the fission process and to
transfer heat within the reactor
 
    
    they can be refuelled without being taken offline.
  Shutdown systems
  Unit power ratings
    2010 Annual information form     63




---



##### 



Operating life
   
    
    2021 for the Bruce B8 unit
 
    
    2018 to 2019 for the other three B units.
  Steam generators
  .
 Fuel channels
  Feeder pipes
    Relationship with our fuel manufacturing and UO 2 businesses
 2
 64     Cameco Corporation




---



##### 



Financial commitments
    Reliance on OPG
    
    
    services related to the supply, delivery and processing of heavy water
 
    
    low level and intermediate waste storage and disposal services
 
    
    collection and storage of used fuel bundles (see page 83 for more information about nuclear
waste management and decommissioning).
 Lease payments to OPG
    
    
    if BPLP fails to renew the lease past 2027
 
    
    if a BPLP material event of default occurs under the lease prior to June 30, 2027
 
    
    if BPLP terminates the lease prematurely because it is no longer economically viable to
operate the facility.
     
    
    pays a lease termination fee of $175 million
 
    
    pays the increase in base rent specified in the 2008 settlement with OPG
 
    
    meets specified ongoing operational requirements during handover
 
    
    meets specified shut-down conditions before handover.
  2010 Annual information form     65




---



##### 



Reinforcing the system
  66     Cameco Corporation




---



##### 



Mineral reserves and resources
   National Instrument 43-101  Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (NI 43-101)
 About mineral resources
  
    
    Measured and indicated mineral resources can be estimated
 with a level of confidence sufficient to apply technical and
economic parameters to support evaluation of the
economic viability of the deposit.
 
    
    measured resources: we can confirm both
geological and grade continuity to support production
planning.
 
    
    indicated resources:we can reasonably assume geological and grade
continuity to support
mine planning.
 
    
    Inferred mineral resources are estimated using limited information. We do not have enough
confidence to evaluate their economic viability in a meaningful way. You should not assume
that all or any part of an inferred mineral resource will be upgraded to an indicated or
measured mineral resource as a result of continued exploration.
 About mineral reserves
  
    
    proven reserves:  the economically mineable part of a measured resource
for which a preliminary feasibility study demonstrates that economic
extraction is justified.
 
    
    probable reserves: the economically mineable part of a measured and/or indicated resource
for which a preliminary feasibility study demonstrates that economic extraction can be justified.
 3 8
  Qualified persons
  McArthur River/Key Lake
    
    Cigar Lake    Alain G. Mainville, director, mineral resources management, Cameco
    
        Alain G. Mainville, director, mineral resources management, Cameco    David Bronkhorst, vice-president, Saskatchewan mining south, Cameco
    
        C. Scott Bishop, principal mine engineer, major projects  technical services, Cameco    Greg Murdock, technical superintendent, McArthur River, Cameco
    
        Grant J.H. Goddard, vice-president, Saskatchewan mining north, Cameco
 2010 Annual information form     67




---



##### 



    Les Yesnik, general manager, Key Lake, Cameco    Lorne D. Schwartz, chief metallurgist, major projects- technical services,
Cameco
    
        Lorne D. Schwartz, chief metallurgist, major projects- technical services, CamecoInkai    Alain G. Mainville, director, mineral resources management, Cameco    Charles J. Foldenauer, operations director, JV Inkai
 Important information about mineral reserve and resource estimates
   
    
    geological interpretation
 
    
    extraction plans
 
    
    commodity prices
 
    
    recovery rates
 
    
    operating and capital costs.
   Important information for US investors
  
    
    any or all of a measured or indicated mineral resource will ever be converted into proven
or probable mineral reserves
 
    
    any or all of an inferred mineral resource exists or is economically or legally mineable,
or will ever be upgraded to a higher category. Under Canadian securities regulations,
estimates of inferred resources may not form the basis of feasibility or prefeasibility
studies. Inferred resources have a great amount of uncertainty as to their existence and
economic and legal feasibility.
   68     Cameco Corporation




---



##### 



Mineral reserves
  Proven and probable
 Proven
    
    
    Probable
    
    
    Total mineral reservesCamecosContent
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    share of
    
    
    EstimatedGrade
    
    
    (lbs
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Grade
    
    
    Content
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Grade
    
    
    Content
    
    
    content
    
    
    metallurgicalProperty
    
    Mining method
    
    Tonnes
    
    
    %U3O8
    
    
    U3O8)
    
    
    Tonnes
    
    
    %U3O8
    
    
    (lbs U3O8)
    
    
    Tonnes
    
    
    %U3O8
    
    
    (lbs U3O8)
    
    
    (lbs U3O8)
    
    
    recovery (%)McArthur River
    
    underground
    
    
    458.5
    
    
    
    17.29
    
    
    
    174.8
    
    
    
    540.2
    
    
    
    13.49
    
    
    
    160.7
    
    
    
    998.7
    
    
    
    15.24
    
    
    
    335.5
    
    
    
    234.2
    
    
    
    98.7Cigar Lake
    
    underground
    
    
    130.5
    
    
    
    25.62
    
    
    
    73.7
    
    
    
    426.8
    
    
    
    14.41
    
    
    
    135.6
    
    
    
    557.3
    
    
    
    17.04
    
    
    
    209.3
    
    
    
    104.7
    
    
    
    98.5Rabbit Lake
    
    underground
    
    
    39.6
    
    
    
    0.62
    
    
    
    0.5
    
    
    
    1,478.1
    
    
    
    0.77
    
    
    
    25.0
    
    
    
    1,517.7
    
    
    
    0.76
    
    
    
    25.5
    
    
    
    25.5
    
    
    
    96.7Key Lake
    
    open pit
    
    
    61.9
    
    
    
    0.52
    
    
    
    0.7
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    61.9
    
    
    
    0.52
    
    
    
    0.7
    
    
    
    0.6
    
    
    
    98.7Inkai
    
    ISR
    
    
    4,817.2
    
    
    
    0.08
    
    
    
    8.9
    
    
    
    75,810.0
    
    
    
    0.07
    
    
    
    112.7
    
    
    
    80,627.2
    
    
    
    0.07
    
    
    
    121.6
    
    
    
    72.9
    
    
    
    85.0Gas Hills-Peach
    
    ISR
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    6,403.8
    
    
    
    0.13
    
    
    
    19.0
    
    
    
    6,403.8
    
    
    
    0.13
    
    
    
    19.0
    
    
    
    19.0
    
    
    
    72.0North Butte-Brown
Ranch
    
    ISR
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    3,803.2
    
    
    
    0.10
    
    
    
    8.2
    
    
    
    3,803.2
    
    
    
    0.10
    
    
    
    8.2
    
    
    
    8.2
    
    
    
    80.0Smith Ranch-Highland
    
    ISR
    
    
    1,243.4
    
    
    
    0.11
    
    
    
    3.1
    
    
    
    2,707.7
    
    
    
    0.08
    
    
    
    4.9
    
    
    
    3,951.1
    
    
    
    0.09
    
    
    
    8.0
    
    
    
    8.0
    
    
    
    80.0Crow Butte
    
    ISR
    
    
    922.2
    
    
    
    0.11
    
    
    
    2.3
    
    
    
    282.2
    
    
    
    0.13
    
    
    
    0.8
    
    
    
    1,204.4
    
    
    
    0.12
    
    
    
    3.1
    
    
    
    3.1
    
    
    
    85.0Total
    
    
    
    
    7,673.3
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    264.0
    
    
    
    91,452.0
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    466.9
    
    
    
    99,125.3
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    730.9
    
    
    
    476.2
 Notes
 Recent activity on
 in situ recovery
  
    
    are based on the average exchange rate at December 31, 2010 ($1.00 US = $0.99 Cdn)
 
    
    use an average uranium price of $56.50 (US)/lb U3O8.
   Metallurgical recovery
  Estimates for Inkai
    
    
    obtain the necessary permits and approvals to produce at an annual rate of 5.2 million
pounds (our share 3.1 million pounds)
  2010 Annual information form     69




---



##### 



Changes this year
  
    
    mining and milling activities which consumed 24 million pounds
 
    
    conversion of mineral resources to mineral reserves from drilling and mine design updates
at McArthur River, Rabbit Lake and Smith Ranch-Highland
 
    
    conversion of mineral reserves to mineral resources at Inkai due to the production ramp up
schedule and increased leaching recovery applied to a limited annual production rate.
 December 31,
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Additions
    
    
    December 31,(thousands of pounds U3O8)
    
    2009
    
    
    Throughput
    
    
    (deletions)
    
    
    2010Proven mineral reservesCigar Lake
    
    
    36,861
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    36,861Crow Butte
    
    
    2,316
    
    
    
    (864
    )
    
    
    845
    
    
    
    2,297Inkai
    
    
    6,674
    
    
    
    (1,352
    )
    
    
    
    
    
    
    5,322Key Lake
    
    
    590
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    590McArthur River
    
    
    120,578
    
    
    
    (14,091
    )
    
    
    15,516
    
    
    
    122,003Rabbit Lake
    
    
    617
    
    
    
    (72
    )
    
    
    
    
    
    
    545Smith Ranch-Highland
    
    
    1,979
    
    
    
    (2,129
    )
    
    
    3,272
    
    
    
    3,122169,615
    
    
    
    (18,508
    )
    
    
    19,633
    
    
    
    170,740Probable mineral reservesCigar Lake
    
    
    67,819
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    67,819Crow Butte
    
    
    1,840
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    (1,056
    )
    
    
    784Gas Hills  Peach
    
    
    18,984
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    18,984Inkai
    
    
    74,167
    
    
    
    (1,662
    )
    
    
    (4,880
    )
    
    
    67,625McArthur River
    
    
    113,442
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    (1,265
    )
    
    
    112,177North Butte  Brown Ranch
    
    
    8,208
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    8,208Rabbit Lake
    
    
    20,706
    
    
    
    (3,969
    )
    
    
    8,271
    
    
    
    25,008Smith Ranch-Highland
    
    
    3,932
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    972
    
    
    
    4,904309,098
    
    
    
    (5,631
    )
    
    
    2,042
    
    
    
    305,509Total mineral reserves
    
    
    478,713
    
    
    
    (24,139
    )
    
    
    21,675
    
    
    
    476,249
 Notes
 3 8
  70     Cameco Corporation




---



##### 



Mineral resources
  Measured and indicated
 Measured
    
    
    Indicated
    
    
    Total measured and indicatedCamecosMining
    
    
    
    
    
    Grade
    
    
    Content
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Grade
    
    
    Content
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Grade
    
    
    Content
    
    
    shareProperty
    
    method
    
    Tonnes
    
    
    % U3O8
    
    
    (lbs U3O8)
    
    
    Tonnes
    
    
    % U3O8
    
    
    (lbs U3O8)
    
    
    Tonnes
    
    
    % U3O8
    
    
    (lbs U3O8)
    
    
    (lbs U3O8)McArthur River
    
    underground
    
    
    85.9
    
    
    
    6.28
    
    
    
    11.9
    
    
    
    22.2
    
    
    
    10.23
    
    
    
    5.0
    
    
    
    108.1
    
    
    
    7.09
    
    
    
    16.9
    
    
    
    11.8Cigar Lake
    
    underground
    
    
    8.4
    
    
    
    2.07
    
    
    
    0.4
    
    
    
    15.6
    
    
    
    2.35
    
    
    
    0.8
    
    
    
    24.0
    
    
    
    2.27
    
    
    
    1.2
    
    
    
    0.6Rabbit Lake
    
    underground
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    348.0
    
    
    
    0.52
    
    
    
    4.0
    
    
    
    348.0
    
    
    
    0.52
    
    
    
    4.0
    
    
    
    4.0Dawn Lake
    
    open pit, underground
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    347.0
    
    
    
    1.69
    
    
    
    12.9
    
    
    
    347.0
    
    
    
    1.69
    
    
    
    12.9
    
    
    
    7.4Millennium
    
    underground
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    507.8
    
    
    
    4.55
    
    
    
    50.9
    
    
    
    507.8
    
    
    
    4.55
    
    
    
    50.9
    
    
    
    21.4Phoenix
    
    underground
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    89.9
    
    
    
    17.98
    
    
    
    35.6
    
    
    
    89.9
    
    
    
    17.98
    
    
    
    35.6
    
    
    
    10.7Tamarack
    
    underground
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    183.8
    
    
    
    4.42
    
    
    
    17.9
    
    
    
    183.8
    
    
    
    4.42
    
    
    
    17.9
    
    
    
    10.3Inkai
    
    ISR
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    18,386.3
    
    
    
    0.08
    
    
    
    30.5
    
    
    
    18,386.3
    
    
    
    0.08
    
    
    
    30.5
    
    
    
    18.3Gas Hills-Peach
    
    ISR
    
    
    1,964.2
    
    
    
    0.08
    
    
    
    3.4
    
    
    
    1,418.2
    
    
    
    0.07
    
    
    
    2.3
    
    
    
    3,382.4
    
    
    
    0.08
    
    
    
    5.7
    
    
    
    5.7North Butte-Brown
Ranch
    
    ISR
    
    
    762.1
    
    
    
    0.08
    
    
    
    1.4
    
    
    
    4,012.0
    
    
    
    0.07
    
    
    
    6.0
    
    
    
    4,774.1
    
    
    
    0.07
    
    
    
    7.4
    
    
    
    7.4Smith
Ranch-Highland
    
    ISR
    
    
    2,079.1
    
    
    
    0.11
    
    
    
    4.9
    
    
    
    13,906.5
    
    
    
    0.06
    
    
    
    17.6
    
    
    
    15,985.6
    
    
    
    0.06
    
    
    
    22.5
    
    
    
    22.5Crow Butte
    
    ISR
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    2,466.2
    
    
    
    0.21
    
    
    
    11.2
    
    
    
    2,466.2
    
    
    
    0.21
    
    
    
    11.2
    
    
    
    11.2Ruby Ranch
    
    ISR
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    2,215.3
    
    
    
    0.08
    
    
    
    4.1
    
    
    
    2,215.3
    
    
    
    0.08
    
    
    
    4.1
    
    
    
    4.1Ruth
    
    ISR
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    1,080.5
    
    
    
    0.09
    
    
    
    2.1
    
    
    
    1,080.5
    
    
    
    0.09
    
    
    
    2.1
    
    
    
    2.1Shirley Basin
    
    ISR
    
    
    89.2
    
    
    
    0.16
    
    
    
    0.3
    
    
    
    1,638.2
    
    
    
    0.11
    
    
    
    4.1
    
    
    
    1,727.4
    
    
    
    0.12
    
    
    
    4.4
    
    
    
    4.4Total
    
    
    
    
    4,988.9
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    22.3
    
    
    
    46,637.5
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    205.0
    
    
    
    51,626.4
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    227.3
    
    
    
    141.9
 Inferred
 CamecosMining
    
    
    
    
    
    Grade
    
    
    Content
    
    
    shareProperty
    
    method
    
    Tonnes
    
    
    % U3O8
    
    
    (lbs U3O8)
    
    
    (lbs U3O8)McArthur River
    
    underground
    
    
    506.1
    
    
    
    13.46
    
    
    
    150.2
    
    
    
    104.8Cigar Lake
    
    underground
    
    
    480.4
    
    
    
    12.61
    
    
    
    133.5
    
    
    
    66.8Rabbit Lake
    
    underground
    
    
    369.4
    
    
    
    1.26
    
    
    
    10.2
    
    
    
    10.2Millennium
    
    underground
    
    
    217.8
    
    
    
    2.12
    
    
    
    10.2
    
    
    
    4.3Phoenix
    
    underground
    
    
    23.8
    
    
    
    7.27
    
    
    
    3.8
    
    
    
    1.1Tamarack
    
    underground
    
    
    45.6
    
    
    
    1.02
    
    
    
    1.0
    
    
    
    0.6Inkai
    
    ISR
    
    
    254,696.0
    
    
    
    0.05
    
    
    
    255.1
    
    
    
    153.0Gas Hills-Peach
    
    ISR
    
    
    861.5
    
    
    
    0.07
    
    
    
    1.3
    
    
    
    1.3North Butte-Brown Ranch
    
    ISR
    
    
    640.6
    
    
    
    0.06
    
    
    
    0.9
    
    
    
    0.9Smith Ranch-Highland
    
    ISR
    
    
    6,370.1
    
    
    
    0.05
    
    
    
    6.6
    
    
    
    6.6Crow Butte
    
    ISR
    
    
    2,349.4
    
    
    
    0.11
    
    
    
    5.6
    
    
    
    5.6Ruby Ranch
    
    ISR
    
    
    56.2
    
    
    
    0.14
    
    
    
    0.2
    
    
    
    0.2Ruth
    
    ISR
    
    
    210.9
    
    
    
    0.08
    
    
    
    0.4
    
    
    
    0.4Shirley Basin
    
    ISR
    
    
    508.0
    
    
    
    0.10
    
    
    
    1.1
    
    
    
    1.1Total
    
    
    
    
    267,335.8
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    580.1
    
    
    
    356.9
 Notes
 in situ recovery
  2010 Annual information form     71




---



##### 



Changes this year
  
    
    addition of mineral resources at the new Phoenix deposit
 
    
    conversion of mineral resources to mineral reserves at McArthur River and Rabbit Lake
 
    
    conversion of mineral reserves to mineral resources at Inkai
 
    
    additional inferred resources came from the new Powell zone at Rabbit Lake and drilling and
new mining plans at McArthur River zone 4 south.
 (thousands of pounds U3O8)
    
    December 31, 2009
    
    
    Additions (deletions)
    
    
    December 31, 2010Measured mineral resourcesCigar Lake
    
    
    193
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    193Crow Butte
    
    
    322
    
    
    
    (322
    )
    
    
    0Gas Hills  Peach
    
    
    3,372
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    3,372McArthur River
    
    
    16,005
    
    
    
    (7,697
    )
    
    
    8,308North Butte  Brown Ranch
    
    
    1,366
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    1,366Shirley Basin
    
    
    304
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    304Smith Ranch-Highland
    
    
    5,952
    
    
    
    (1,024
    )
    
    
    4,92827,514
    
    
    
    (9,043
    )
    
    
    18,471Indicated mineral resourcesCigar Lake
    
    
    405
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    405Crow Butte
    
    
    10,149
    
    
    
    1,026
    
    
    
    11,175Dawn Lake
    
    
    7,436
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    7,436Gas Hills  Peach
    
    
    2,268
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    2,268Inkai
    
    
    13,118
    
    
    
    5,153
    
    
    
    18,271McArthur River
    
    
    5,136
    
    
    
    (1,648
    )
    
    
    3,488Millennium
    
    
    19,643
    
    
    
    1,726
    
    
    
    21,369North Butte  Brown Ranch
    
    
    5,984
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    5,984Phoenix
    
    
    
    
    
    
    10,691
    
    
    
    10,691Rabbit Lake
    
    
    10,372
    
    
    
    (6,370
    )
    
    
    4,002Ruby Ranch
    
    
    4,078
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    4,078Ruth
    
    
    2,097
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    2,097Shirley Basin
    
    
    4,085
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    4,085Smith Ranch-Highland
    
    
    16,962
    
    
    
    685
    
    
    
    17,647Tamarack
    
    
    10,288
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    10,288112,021
    
    
    
    11,263
    
    
    
    123,284Total measured and indicated mineral resources
    
    
    139,535
    
    
    
    2,200
    
    
    
    141,755
 72     Cameco Corporation




---



##### 



(thousands of pounds U3O8)
    
    December 31, 2009
    
    
    Additions (deletions)
    
    
    December 31, 2010Inferred mineral resourcesCigar Lake
    
    
    66,792
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    66,792Crow Butte
    
    
    6,694
    
    
    
    (1,101
    )
    
    
    5,593Gas Hills  Peach
    
    
    1,289
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    1,289Inkai
    
    
    153,049
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    153,049McArthur River
    
    
    111,278
    
    
    
    (6,443
    )
    
    
    104,835Millennium
    
    
    4,089
    
    
    
    182
    
    
    
    4,271North Butte  Brown Ranch
    
    
    900
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    900Phoenix
    
    
    
    
    
    
    1,143
    
    
    
    1,143Rabbit Lake
    
    
    942
    
    
    
    9,302
    
    
    
    10,244Ruby Ranch
    
    
    167
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    167Ruth
    
    
    365
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    365Shirley Basin
    
    
    1,132
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    1,132Smith Ranch-Highland
    
    
    6,560
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    6,560Tamarack
    
    
    591
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    591Total inferred mineral resources
    
    
    353,848
    
    
    
    3,083
    
    
    
    356,931
 Note
  Key assumptions, parameters and methods
 McArthur River
 Key assumptions
 
    
    Mineral reserves include allowances for dilution (20%) and mining recovery (95%). Mineral
resources do not include allowances for either.
 
    
    Mineral resources are estimated at a minimum mineralized
thickness of 1.0 metre and at a
cutoff grade of 0.1% to 0.5% U3O8. Mineral reserves are estimated at a
cut-off grade of 0.8% U3O8.
 Key parameters
 
    
    For mineral resources estimated from surface drillholes, the uranium grade is determined
from assay sample.
 
    
    For mineral resources and mineral reserves estimated from underground drillholes, grades
are determined by converting radiometric probing to percentage U3O8
based on a correlation between radiometric counts and assay values.
 
    
    Densities are determined using formulas based on density measurements of drill core and
chemical assay grades.
 
    
    Mineral reserves at McArthur River are estimated using the raisebore, boxhole and
blast-hole stoping methods combined with freeze curtains. The planned mining rate is to vary
between 150 and 200 tonnes per day at a full mill production rate of 18.7 million pounds
U3O8 per year based on 98.7% mill recovery.
 Key methods
 
    
    Mineral resources were estimated using 3-dimensional block models. The models were created
from the geological interpretation of mineralization outlines using lithology, structure and
uranium grade information interpreted on vertical cross-sections and plan views. Estimates of
block grade and density were obtained with ordinary kriging or inverse squared distance
methods.
 2010 Annual information form     73




---



##### 



Cigar Lake
 Key assumptions
 
    
    Phase 1 mineral resources (the eastern part of the deposit, 700 metres long by 150 metres
wide) have been estimated within minimum mineralization thickness of 1.0 metres and a cut-off
grade of 1% U3O8. The Phase 2 mineral resources (the western part of the
deposit, 1,200 metres long by 100 metres wide) have been estimated with a minimum
mineralization thickness of 2.5 metres and a cut-off grade of 5.9% U3O8.
 
    
    Phase 1 mineral resources have been estimated with no allowance for mining dilution or
mining recovery.
 Phase 2 mineral resources incorporate an allowance of 0.5 metre of dilution material.
 
    
    Phase 1 mineral reserves have been estimated at a cut-off grade of 2.0%
U3O8 and a minimum mineral thickness of 1.5 metres.
 
    
    Mineral reserves have been estimated with an allowance of 0.5 metres of dilution material
above and below the ore zone, plus 20% external dilution at 0% U3O8.
Dilution from sump slimes and drilling cuttings is also included as part of the 20% external
dilution. Mineral reserves have been estimated based on 90% mining recovery.
 Key parameters
 
    
    Grades of U3O8 were obtained from chemical assaying of drill core and
checked against radiometric probing results. In areas of lost core or missing samples, the
grade was determined from probing.
 
    
    A correlation between uranium grade and density was applied where the density was not
directly measured for each sample.
 
    
    Mining rates are planned to vary between 100 and 140 tonnes per day during peak production
at a full mill production rate of 18 million pounds of U3O8 per year
based on 98.5% mill recovery.
 Key methods
 
    
    The geological interpretation of the orebody outline was done on section and plan views
derived from drillhole information. Phase 1 mineral resources and mineral reserves were
estimated using a 3-dimensional block model. Phase 2 mineral resources were estimated using a
2-dimensional block model. Ordinary kriging was used to estimate the grade and density of the
blocks.
 Inkai
 
    
    The estimated mineral resources and reserves at Inkai are located in blocks 1 and 2. No
mineral resources or reserves have been estimated for block 3.
 
    
    The resource models follow the Kazakhstan State Committee of Mineral Reserves (GKZ) guide
and use the Grade-Thickness (GT) estimation method on 2-dimensional blocks in plan. They were
created by Volkovgeology, a subsidiary of Kazatomprom which is responsible for prospecting,
exploration and development of uranium deposits in Kazakhstan. We performed a validation of
the Kazakh reserves estimate for block 1 in 2003, and confirmed the estimated pounds of
uranium to within 2.5% of the Kazakh estimate. The Kazakh estimate was also validated by an
independent consulting firm in 2005. In 2007, we and an independent consulting firm verified
the block 2 Kazakh mineral reserves estimate and obtained results that were consistent with
the Kazakh estimate.
 
    
    Historic drilling pattern densities over blocks 1 and 2 were sufficient to satisfy the
Kazakhstan State Reserve Commission requirements in defining reserves in the C2, C1 and B
categories within block 1 and C2 and C1 categories within block 2.
 
    
    Our reconciliation of the Kazakh classification system to the CIM standard definitions are
set out in Section 6.3
 (Table 6-4) of the Inkai technical report. We believe that Kazakhstans reserves categories B, C1
and C2 correspond respectively to NI 43-101 mineral resource categories of measured, indicated and
inferred.
 Key assumptions
 
    
    Dilution and mining loss are not relevant factors because Inkai uses in situ recovery as
the uranium extraction method. The recovery obtained from the in situ leaching process is
included in the metallurgical recovery.
 
    
    Mineral reserves have been estimated at a minimum grade-thickness of 0.130 m%
U3O8.
 74     Cameco Corporation




---



##### 



Key parameters
 
    
    Grades (%U3O8) were obtained from downhole gamma radiometric probing
of drillholes, checked against assay results and prompt-fission neutron probing results in
order to account for disequilibrium.
 
    
    An average density of 1.70 t/m3 was used, based on historical and current sample
measurements.
 
    
    In situ recovery production rates are planned to vary between 13,000 and 16,000 lbs
U3O8 per day at a full mill production rate of 5.2 million lbs of
U3O8 per year based on 85% recovery.
 Key methods
 
    
    The geological interpretation of the orebody outline was done on section and plan views
derived from core drillhole information.
 
    
    Mineral resources and mineral reserves were estimated with the grade-thickness method using
2-dimensional block models.
 2010 Annual information form     75




---



##### 



Sustainable development
    Safe and rewarding workplace
  Clean environment
   Supportive communities
  Outstanding financial performance
   Focus on environmental leadership
    SHEQ management system
  76     Cameco Corporation




---



##### 



Our environmental principles
 
    
    keep risks at levels as low as reasonably achievable, accounting for social and economic
factors
 
    
    prevent pollution
 
    
    comply with and move beyond legal compliance requirements
 
    
    ensure quality of processes, products and services
 
    
    continually improve our overall performance.
 Seven SHEQ programs
 
    
    Quality management program
 
    
    Safety and health management program
 
    
    Radiation protection program
 
    
    Environment management program
 
    
    Management system audit program
 
    
    Emergency preparedness and response program
 
    
    Contractor management program
       
    
    $76 million in environmental protection, monitoring and assessment programs, a decrease of
17% compared to 2009
 
    
    $34 million in health and safety programs, unchanged compared to 2009.
     Reducing our impact
  2010 Annual information form     77




---



##### 



Land
   Water
   Key Lake
  McArthur River
  
    
    The three shafts at the site seep good quality water. We are capturing it and using it for
underground mining, rather than piping more water down from the surface.
 
    
    The water quality from shaft 3 has been assessed and approved for discharge to the
environment without treatment, so we discharge all excess water picked up in shaft 3 directly
to the environment. This keeps the water away from underground processes, reducing the
concentration of molybdenum.
 
    
    We are studying how to send excess water from the other shafts directly to the surface
water treatment plant.
  Rabbit Lake
  78     Cameco Corporation




---



##### 



Port Hope
 6 Shutdowns
 2 6 2
 6 2 6
 United States
   Kazakhstan
   Air
 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
 2009
    
    
    2008Greenhouse gas emissions of tonnes of CO2 equivalent (CO2e)
    
    
    460,000
    
    
    
    421,000Greenhouse gas emissions include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulphur
hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and perfluorocarbons (PFCs) expressed
as a carbon equivalent (CO2e).
  Port Hope
  McArthur River
  2010 Annual information form     79




---



##### 



Cigar Lake
  Waste
    Complying with environmental regulations
   Canada
  Canadian Nuclear Safety and Control Act Canadian Environmental Assessment Act
  
    
    potential adverse environmental effects are considered before proceeding with a project
 
    
    projects that cause unjustifiable, significant adverse environmental effects are not
permitted to proceed
 
    
    appropriate measures are implemented, where necessary, to mitigate risk.
  80     Cameco Corporation




---



##### 



    radiation protection    environmental monitoring    fire protection    operational quality assurance    organization and management systems
effectiveness    transportation systems    geotechnical monitoring    training    ventilation systems
  
    
    dealing with more stringent controls on fugitive uranium emissions from ventilation systems
at fuel services facilities
 
    
    optimizing performance of our facilities to reduce molybdenum and selenium loadings
 
    
    lessening the impacts our facilities have on groundwater.
     United States
     Kazakhstan
  2010 Annual information form     81




---



##### 



Ecological Code
  Ecological Code Water
Code.
  Ecological Code
 Nuclear waste management and decommissioning
  Estimating decommissioning and reclamation costs
      82     Cameco Corporation




---



##### 



Canada
 Decommissioning estimates
 McArthur River
    
    $  36.1 millionRabbit Lake
    
    $105.2 millionKey Lake
    
    $120.7 millionCigar Lake
    
    $  27.7 million
   Decommissioning estimates
 Port Hope
    
    $96 millionBlind River
    
    $36 millionCFM
    
    $18 million
  Bruce Power
  
    
    used nuclear fuel bundles (high-level radioactive waste)
 
    
    other material that has come in close contact with the reactors or is reactor equipment
such as pressure tubes. This material is less radioactive than used nuclear fuel bundles
(intermediate-level radioactive waste)
 
    
    material used in operating the station (low-level radioactive waste).
 High-level radioactive waste
 wet bays
  
    
    title to any used nuclear fuel bundles that are discharged from the Bruce reactors during
the term of the lease
 
    
    the cost of, and responsibility for, disposing of these nuclear fuel bundles. It also
receives a fee, paid as supplemental rent under the lease, for this
disposal.
 Intermediate and low-level radioactive waste
  Decommissioning
  
    
    decommissioning the eight units
 
    
    funding the decommissioning and meeting any other related requirements imposed by the CNSC
 2010 Annual information form     83




---



##### 




    
    managing the radioactive waste associated with decommissioning the Bruce nuclear plants.
 Historical waste
 historical waste historical facilities
  
    
    the first $2 million of all costs and expenses related to historical waste and the
historical facilities, including costs and expenses relating to any claim arising out of or
related to historical waste and decommissioning or reclamation costs and expenses related to
historical waste and the historical facilities
 
    
    23/98ths of the next $98 million of these costs.
  Principles of understanding
 principles of understanding
    Port Hope Area Initiative
   Recycling uranium byproducts
   84     Cameco Corporation




---



##### 



United States
   Crow Butte
   Smith Ranch-Highland
    Kazakhstan
    2010 Annual information form     85




---



##### 



The regulatory environment
 Complying with environmental regulations
 International treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons
  
    
    to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology
 
    
    to foster the peaceful uses of nuclear energy
 
    
    to further the goal of achieving general and complete disarmament.
  Industry regulation and permits
 Canada
  
    
    CNSC (federal)
 
    
    Fisheries and Oceans Canada (federal)
 
    
    Transport Canada (federal)
 
    
    Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment
 
    
    Ontario Ministry of Environment.
  Uranium industry regulation
   Mine ownership restrictions
  
    
    a minimum of 51% ownership by residents
 
    
    a basic maximum limit of 49% ownership by non-residents of uranium properties at the first
stage of production.
   86     Cameco Corporation




---



##### 



Cameco ownership restriction
 Eldorado Nuclear Limited Reorganization
and Divestiture Act
 Industry governance
 Canadian Nuclear Safety and Control Act
    Uranium export
  Land tenure
  
    
    a mineral claimfrom the province gives us the right explore for minerals (other government
approvals are required to carry out surface exploration)
 
    
    a crown leasewith the province gives us the right to mine the minerals on the property
 
    
    a surface leasewith the province gives us the right to use the land for surface facilities
and mine shafts while mining and reclaiming the land.
  The Crown Minerals
Act The Crown Minerals Act The Mineral Disposition Regulations, 1986
  2010 Annual information form     87




---



##### 



Electricity regulation
 Uranium industry regulation
 Nuclear Liability Act
 Licence renewals
   Liability insurance
 Nuclear Liability Act Nuclear Liability Act
 Nuclear Liability Act
 
    
    Under Part I, an operator is strictly liable for any damage to public property or personal
injury arising from a nuclear incident (as it defines), other than damage resulting from
sabotage or acts of war. If the Governor in Council is of the opinion that an operators
liability for a nuclear incident could be higher than $75 million, or it would be in the
public interest to provide special measures for compensation, the Governor in Council may
proclaim Part II in effect.
 
    
    Under Part II, an operator is liable for the amount of insurance. The Governor in Council
may authorize the federal government to pay funds for claims exceeding that amount.
 Nuclear Liability Act
 Ontario
    United States
 Uranium industry regulation
 Atomic Energy Act of
1954
 
    
    ensure employees, the public and the environment are protected from radioactive materials
 
    
    regulate most aspects of the uranium recovery process.
 88     Cameco Corporation




---



##### 



Title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations National
Environmental Policy Act
 Wyoming
 Wyoming Environmental Quality Act Land
Quality Division Non-Coal Rules and Regulations
 Clean Air Act Clean Water Act. Underground Injection Control
Regulations Land Quality Division Non-Coal Rules and Regulations
 Nebraska
 Nebraska Environmental Protection Act
    Land tenure
  Kazakhstan
 Kazakhstan government and legislation
 Royalties and taxes
 Canadian royalties
 Crown Mineral
Royalty Schedule
  
    
    basic royalty: 5% of gross sales of uranium, less the Saskatchewan resource credit (1% of
the gross sales of uranium)
 
    
    tiered royalty: an additional percentage of gross sales of uranium, when the realized sales
price of uranium (after deducting capital allowances) is higher than the sales prices listed
in the schedule.
   2010 Annual information form     89




---



##### 



Canadian income taxes
    Income Tax Act
 US taxes
   Kazakhstan taxes
   Tax stabilization eliminated
  Corporate income tax rate
  Mineral extraction tax
 Tax on Production of Useful Minerals
 90     Cameco Corporation




---



##### 



Payment for commercial discovery
  Excess profits tax
  2010 Annual information form     91




---



##### 



Risks that can affect our business
  our
   Types of riskOperational
    
    
    92Political
    
    
    98Regulatory
    
    
    100Financial
    
    
    102Environmental
    
    
    107Legal and other
    
    
    108Industry
    
    
    110
 1  Operational risks
 General operating risks and hazards
       environmental damage (including
hazardous emissions from our refinery and
conversion facilities, like a release of
UF6 or a leak of anhydrous
hydrogen fluoride used in the
UF6 conversion process)    industrial and transportation
accidents, which may involve radioactive or
other hazardous materials    labour shortages, disputes or
strikes    cost increases for contracted or
purchased materials, supplies and services    shortages of required materials and
supplies (including the availability of
acid for Inkais operations in Kazakhstan
and hydrofluoric acid at our conversion
facilities)    transportation disruptions    electrical power interruptions    equipment failures    catastrophic accident    fires    blockades or other acts of social or political
activism    regulatory constraints    natural phenomena, such as inclement weather
conditions, floods and earthquakes    unusual or unexpected geological or hydrological
conditions    underground floods    ground movement or cave-ins    tailings pipeline or dam failures    adverse mining conditions    technological failure of mining methods.
 92     Cameco Corporation




---



##### 



    damage to or destruction of our properties and facilities located on these properties    personal injury or death    environmental damage    delays in, interruptions of, or decrease in
production
at our mines, our mills, our refining, conversion or fuel
manufacturing facilities, our exploration or development
activities or transportation of our products    interruptions or decreases in electricity generation from BPLP    costs, expenses or monetary losses    legal liability    adverse government action.
  Insurance coverage
   Flooding at our Saskatchewan mines
  McArthur River
   Cigar Lake
   
    
    a significant delay in development and production at the property
    
    a significant increase in capital costs
    
    the need to notify many of our customers of the interruption in planned uranium supply.
 Rabbit Lake
  2010 Annual information form     93




---



##### 




    
    significant delays or interruptions in production or lower production
 
    
    significant delays or interruptions in mine development or remediation activities
 
    
    loss of mineral reserves
 
    
    a material increase in capital or operating costs.
  Technical challenges at Cigar Lake and McArthur River
  Tailings management
  Key Lake
  Rabbit Lake
   Aging facilities
    94     Cameco Corporation




---



##### 



Reliance on development and expansion projects to fuel growth
       capital and operating costs    metallurgical recoveries    the accuracy of reserve estimates    government regulations    availability of appropriate
infrastructure, particularly power and
water    future uranium prices    the accuracy of feasibility studies    acquiring surface or other land rights    receiving necessary government permits.
    Developing additional reserves to sustain operations
   
    
    the Cigar Lake deposit is not successfully developed and does not achieve its planned level
of production
 
    
    the Inkai block 3, Millennium and Kintyre deposits are not successfully developed
 
    
    production from our US ISR sites is not increased
 
    
    we do not identify, discover or acquire other deposits
 
    
    we do not find extensions to existing orebodies, or
 
    
    we do not convert resources to reserves at our mines and development projects.
   2010 Annual information form     95




---



##### 



Nuclear operations risks
 Risks, hazards and potential legal liability with nuclear power
     
    
    damage to or destruction of BPLPs nuclear facilities
    
    personal injury or death
    
    environmental damage
    
    delays in, interruption or decrease of electrical generation or halting
of electrical generation from BPLPs facilities
    
    costs, expenses or monetary losses
    
    legal liability
    
    adverse government action.
  Impact of unplanned or extended outages on electrical production
  Dependence on reliable transmission systems
  Impact of weather and economic conditions on electrical production
   Dependence on a single contractor
   Cameco Corporation




---



##### 



Major nuclear incident risk
  Labour and employment
    
    
    The collective agreement with the bargaining unit employees at CFM expires on June 1, 2012.
This agreement was signed following a three-month strike in 2009.
    
    The collective agreement with the bargaining unit employees at the McArthur River and Key
Lake operations expires on December 31, 2013.
    
    The collective agreement with the bargaining unit employees at the Port Hope conversion
facility expires on June 30, 2013.
    
    BPLPs collective agreements with both the Power Workers Union and The Society of Energy
Professionals expired in December 2010. BPLP has reached a tentative agreement with the Power
Workers Union and discussions with the Society are underway.
    Joint ventures
   
    
    disagreement with a joint venture partner about how to develop, operate or finance a
project
    
    a joint venture partner not complying with a joint venture agreement
    
    possible litigation between joint venture partners about joint venture matters
    
    the inability to exert control over decisions related to a joint venture we do not have a
controlling interest in.
 Annual information form




---



##### 



Uranium exploration is highly speculative
    Infrastructure
    Supplies and contractors
 Supplies
  Contractors
  2  Political risks
 Foreign investments and operations
  Cameco Corporation




---



##### 




    
    uncertain political and economic environments
    
    strong governmental control and regulation
    
    lack of an independent judiciary
    
    war, terrorism and civil disturbances
    
    crime, corruption, making improper payments or providing benefits that may violate Canadian
or United States law or laws relating to foreign corrupt practices
    
    unexpected changes in governments and regulatory officials
    
    uncertainty or disputes as to the authority of regulatory officials
    
    changes in a countrys laws or policies, including those related to mineral tenure, mining,
imports, exports, tax, duties and currency
    
    cancellation or renegotiation of permits or contracts
    
    royalty and tax increases or other claims by government entities, including retroactive
claims
    
    expropriation and nationalization
    
    delays in obtaining the necessary permits or the inability to obtain or maintain them
    
    currency fluctuations
    
    high inflation
    
    joint venture partners falling out of political favour
    
    restrictions on local operating companies selling their production offshore, and holding US
dollars or other foreign currencies in offshore bank accounts
    
    import and export regulations, including restrictions on the export of uranium
    
    limitations on the repatriation of earnings
    
    increased financing costs.
     Kazakhstan
   Subsoil law
  Annual information form




---



##### 



Nationalization
   Government regulations
   Australia
  3  Regulatory risks
 Government laws and regulation
      Cameco Corporation




---



##### 




    
    corrective measures that require us to increase capital or operating expenditures or
install additional equipment
    
    remedial actions that result in temporary or permanent shut-down or reduction of our
operations
    
    requirements that we compensate communities that suffer loss or damage because of our
activities
    
    civil or criminal fines or penalties.
  Permitting and licensing
    Nuclear plant regulation
    Regulation of the Ontario electricity market
   Annual information form




---



##### 



4  Financial risks
 Volatility and sensitivity to prices
 3 8
  
    
    demand for nuclear power
    
    forward contracts of U3O8 supplies by nuclear power plants
    
    political and economic conditions in countries producing and buying uranium
    
    reprocessing of used reactor fuel and the re-enrichment of depleted uranium tails
    
    sales of excess civilian and military inventories of uranium by governments and industry
participants (including uranium from dismantling nuclear weapons)
    
    levels of uranium production and production costs
    
    significant interruptions in production or delays in expansion plans or new mines going
into production
    
    investment and hedge fund activity in the uranium market.
 3 8
  2006
    
    
    2007
    
    
    2008
    
    
    2009
    
    
    2010Range of spot uranium prices
US$/lb of U3O8High
    
    $
    72.00
    
    
    $
    135.50
    
    
    $
    76.50
    
    
    $
    51.50
    
    
    $
    62.25Low
    
    
    37.50
    
    
    
    75.00
    
    
    
    45.50
    
    
    
    42.00
    
    
    
    40.75Spot UF
6conversion values
US$/kg UHigh
    
    $
    11.75
    
    
    $
    11.63
    
    
    $
    9.50
    
    
    $
    8.50
    
    
    $
    13.00Low
    
    
    11.25
    
    
    
    8.75
    
    
    
    8.00
    
    
    
    5.75
    
    
    
    5.38
  2006
    
    
    2007
    
    
    2008
    
    
    2009
    
    
    2010Range of term uranium prices
US$/lb of U3O8High
    
    $
    72.00
    
    
    $
    95.00
    
    
    $
    95.00
    
    
    $
    69.50
    
    
    $
    66.00Low
    
    
    37.00
    
    
    
    75.00
    
    
    
    70.00
    
    
    
    61.00
    
    
    
    59.00Term UF6conversion
values
US$/kg UHigh
    
    $
    12.25
    
    
    $
    12.25
    
    
    $
    12.25
    
    
    $
    12.25
    
    
    $
    15.00Low
    
    
    11.75
    
    
    
    12.25
    
    
    
    12.25
    
    
    
    11.00
    
    
    
    11.00
 Notes
  6
 3 8
 Cameco Corporation




---



##### 



3 8
 3 8
 3 8
  Spot market electricity prices
  Reserve, resource, production and capital cost estimates
 Reserve and resource estimates are not precise
       Annual information form




---



##### 




    
    require us to write down the value of an operating property or development project
    
    result in lower uranium concentrate production than previously estimated
    
    require us to incur increased capital or operating costs, or
    
    require us to operate mines or facilities unprofitably.
  Production and capital cost estimates may be inaccurate
     
    
    actual ore mined varying from estimated grade, tonnage, dilution, metallurgical and other
characteristics
    
    mining and milling losses greater than planned
    
    short-term operating factors relating to the ore, such as the need for sequential development of
orebodies and the processing of new or different ore grades
    
    risk and hazards associated with mining, milling, uranium refining, conversion and fuel manufacturing
    
    failure of mining methods and plans
    
    failure to obtain and maintain the necessary regulatory and partner approvals
    
    lack of tailings capacity
    
    natural phenomena, such as inclement weather conditions or floods
    
    labour shortages or strikes
    
    delay or lack of success in mining new areas at McArthur River, completing remediation and development
activities at Cigar Lake or completing construction activities
    
    delays, interruption or reduction in production or construction activities due to fires, failure of
critical equipment, shortage of supplies, underground floods, earthquakes, tailings dam failures, lack of
tailings capacity, ground movements and cave-ins, or other difficulties.
  Currency fluctuations
   Cameco Corporation




---



##### 



Customers
   
    
    our five largest customers to account for 36% of our contracted supply of
U3O8
    
    our five largest UF6 conversion customers to account for 43% of our contracted
supply of UF6 conversion services.
 2 2
   Counterparty and credit risk
  
    
    customers
    
    suppliers
    
    financial institutions and other counterparties to our derivative financial instruments and
hedging arrangements relating to foreign currency exchange rates and interest rates
    
    financial institutions which hold our cash on deposit
    
    insurance providers.
  Uranium products, conversion and fuel services
  
    
    monitoring their creditworthiness
    
    asking for pre-payment or another form of security if they pose an unacceptable level of
credit risk.
  Electricity
  
    
    electricity sales through the spot market administered by government regulators
    
    electricity sales under medium-term and long-term power purchase and electricity price
hedging agreements.
   Other
  Annual information form




---



##### 



Liquidity and financing
    Operating and capital plans
   Internal controls
    Carrying values of assets
   Cameco Corporation




---



##### 



5  Environmental risks
 Complex legislation and environmental, health and safety risk
         Decommissioning and reclamation obligations
  Annual information form




---



##### 



Nuclear waste management and decommissioning (Bruce Power)
  
    
    prosecution, and possibly cause the operating licences for its nuclear generation
facilities to be revoked
    
    additional conditions imposed under the licences
    
    fines and other penalties.
   6  Legal and other risks
 Litigation
  Legal proceedings
 Legal rights
   Cameco Corporation




---



##### 



Defects in title
  Indigenous rights, title claims and consultation
  Saskatchewan
  
    
    exploration, development and mining at McArthur River and Rabbit Lake, our uranium
producing properties
    
    milling at Key Lake
    
    Cigar Lake, our development property
    
    Millennium, an exploration property.
    Kintyre
  Fuel fabrication defects and product liability
  Annual information form




---



##### 



7  Industry risks
 Industry competition and international trade restrictions
   6
  Competition for sources of uranium
   Deregulation of the electrical utility industry
     Cameco Corporation




---



##### 



Alternate sources of energy
   
 Legal proceedings
  Annual information form




---



##### 



Investor information
 Share capital
  
    
    first preferred shares
    
    second preferred shares
    
    common shares
    
    one class B share.
 Preferred shares
   First preferred shares
  Second preferred shares
  Common shares
   after
 Ownership and voting restrictions,
   Ownership and voting restrictions
 Class B shares
   Cameco Corporation




---



##### 




    
    amend Part 1 of Schedule B of the articles, which states that:
 
    
    Camecos registered office and head office operations must be in Saskatchewan
    
    the vice-chairman of the board, chief executive officer (CEO), president, chief financial
officer (CFO) and generally all of the senior officers (vice-presidents and above) must live
in Saskatchewan
    
    all annual meetings of shareholders must be held in Saskatchewan
 
    
    amalgamate, if it would require an amendment to Part 1 of Schedule B of the articles, or
    
    amend the articles in a way that would change the rights of class B shareholders.
   Ownership and voting restrictions
 Eldorado Nuclear Limited Reorganization and Divestiture Act
  Residents
  Non-residents
  Voting restrictions
   Enforcement
 The company articles allow us to enforce the ownership and voting restrictions by:
 
    
    suspending voting rights
    
    forfeiting dividends and other distributions
    
    prohibiting the issue and transfer of Cameco shares
    
    requiring the sale or disposition of Cameco shares
    
    suspending all other shareholder rights.
 Annual information form




---



##### 



Understanding the terms
 associate resident non-resident control beneficial ownership
 Other restrictions
  
    
    creating restricted shares (these are generally defined as a participating share with
restrictive voting rights)
    
    applying for continuance in another jurisdiction
    
    enacting articles of incorporation or bylaws that have provisions that are inconsistent
with the ENL Reorganization Act.
 the
Saskatchewan Mining Development Corporation Reorganization Act
 Credit ratings
 not
    
    
    $300 million of debentures that have an interest rate of 4.7% per year and mature September
16, 2015
    
    $500 million of debentures that have an interest rate of 5.67% per year and mature
September 2, 2019.
  DBRS1
    
    S&P2Commercial paper
    
    R-1 (low)
    
    A-1 (low)3Senior unsecured debentures
    
    A (low)
    
    BBB+
 
 1
    
    Current as of January 2011.2
    
    Current as of August 2010.3
    
    A-1 (low) is the Canadian National Scale Rating (the Global Scale Rating is A-2). Cameco Corporation




---



##### 



Commercial paper
   Rating
    
    RankingDBRS
rates commercial paper by categories ranging
from a high of R-1to a low of D
    
    R-1 (low)
    
       lower end of the R-1
category
   represents satisfactory
credit quality
   third highest of
10 available credit ratingsS&P
rates commercial paper by categories ranging 
from a high of A-1 (high)to a low of D
    
    A-1 (low)
    
       represents satisfactory
capacity to meet its financial
commitments on the obligation
   the third highest
of eight available credit ratings
 Senior unsecured debentures
   Rating
    
    RankingDBRS
rates senior unsecured debentures by categories
ranging from a high of AAAto a low of D
    
    A (low)
    
       lower end of the A category
   represents satisfactory
credit quality
   third highest of 10
available credit ratingsS&P
rates senior unsecured debentures by categories
ranging from a high of AAAto a low of D
    
    BBB+
    
       higher end of the BBB
category
   represents adequate
protection parameters
   the fourth highest of 10
available credit ratings
 Material contracts
  
    
    entered into in 2010   there were none
    
    entered into before 2010 and remain in effect  there are two, which are described below.
 Supplemental indentures
 
    
    We entered into the Third supplemental indenturewith CIBC Mellon Trust Company (CIBC
Mellon) on September 16, 2005, relating to the issue of $300 million in unsecured debentures
at an interest rate of 4.7% per year and due in 2015.
    
    We entered into the Fourth supplemental indenturewith CIBC Mellon on September 2, 2009,
relating to the issue of $500 million in unsecured debentures at an interest rate of 5.67% and
due in 2019.
 Senior unsecured debentures
  Annual information form




---



##### 



Market for our securities
   Canada
    
    CIBC Mellon Trust Company
320 Bay Street, P.O. Box 1
Toronto, Ontario M5H 4A6US
    
    Mellon Investor Services LLC
29 Jersey City
New Jersey 07310
 Trading activity
  2010
    
    High ($)
    
    
    Low ($)
    
    
    VolumeJanuary
    
    
    35.00
    
    
    
    28.75
    
    
    
    20,062,146February
    
    
    30.86
    
    
    
    27.11
    
    
    
    20,116,486March
    
    
    29.18
    
    
    
    27.23
    
    
    
    27,302,434April
    
    
    27.95
    
    
    
    24.36
    
    
    
    28,880,932May
    
    
    26.07
    
    
    
    24.03
    
    
    
    24,501,621June
    
    
    25.62
    
    
    
    22.63
    
    
    
    19,135,471July
    
    
    26.97
    
    
    
    21.64
    
    
    
    24,109,817August
    
    
    27.38
    
    
    
    25.40
    
    
    
    21,267,840September
    
    
    28.72
    
    
    
    26.07
    
    
    
    20,244,783October
    
    
    31.93
    
    
    
    28.05
    
    
    
    19,446,730November
    
    
    38.57
    
    
    
    31.29
    
    
    
    33,114,817December
    
    
    40.95
    
    
    
    37.00
    
    
    
    23,242,251
 Dividend policy
   2011
    
    
    2010
    
    
    2009Cash dividends
    
    $
    0.40
    
    
    $
    0.28
    
    
    $
    0.24
 Cameco Corporation




---



##### 



Governance
 Directors
 Director
    
    Board committees
    
    Principal occupation or employmentJohn H. Clappison
    
    Audit (Chair)
    
    Corporate director as of 2006Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    
    Human resources and
    
    1990 to December 2005 - managing partner of theDirector since 2006
    
    compensation
    
    Toronto office of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLPJoe F. Colvin
    
    Safety, health and
    
    June 2010 to present - President of AmericanKiawah Island, South Carolina, USA
    
    environment (Chair)
    
    Nuclear SocietyDirector since 1999
    
    Nominating, corporate
    
    February 2005 to present - Corporate directorgovernance and risk
    
    and president emeritus of the Nuclear EnergyInstituteJames R. Curtiss
    
    Human resources and
    
    April 2008 to present - principal of Curtiss lawBrookeville, Maryland, USA
    
    compensation (Chair)
    
    1993 to March 31, 2008 - lawyer, partner,Director since 1994
    
    Nominating, corporate
    
    Winston & Strawngovernance and riskDonald H.F. Deranger
    
    Reserves oversight
    
    Athabasca Vice Chief of the Prince Albert GrandPrince Albert, Saskatchewan, Canada
Director since 2009
    
    Safety, health and environment
    
    Council since 2003
President of Points Athabasca Contracting Ltd.since 2001James K. Gowans
    
    Reserves oversight
    
    January 2011 to present - Managing Director,Gaborone, Botswana
Director since 2009
    
    Safety, health and environment
Nominating, corporate
governance and risk
    
    Debswana Diamond Company
March 2010 to December 2010 - COO and
Chief Technical Officer of
DeBeers SA
April 2006 to December 2010 - CEO ofDeBeers Canada Inc.
2002 to 2006 - Senior vice-president and COO of
PT Inco in IndonesiaGerald W. Grandey
    
    None
    
    Chief Executive Officer since January 2003Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
    
    
    
    January 2003 to May 2010 - President and ChiefDirector since 2000
    
    
    
    Executive OfficerNancy E. Hopkins, Q.C.
    
    Audit
    
    1984 to present - Lawyer, partner, McDougallSaskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
    
    Nominating, corporate
    
    Gauley LLP (Gauley & Company merged withDirector since 1992
    
    governance and risk (Chair)
    
    McDougall Ready to form McDougall Gauley as ofJanuary 2001)Oyvind Hushovd
    
    Reserves oversight
    
    June 2005 to present - Corporate directorKristiansand S, Norway
    
    Audit
    
    May 2003 to May 31, 2005 - Chairman and ChiefDirector since 2003
    
    Human resources and
    
    Executive Officer of Gabriel Resources Ltd.compensationJ.W. George Ivany
    
    Audit
    
    1995 to present - Corporate directorKelowna, British Columbia, CanadaDirector since 1999
    
    Safety, health and environmentHuman resources andcompensationA. Anne McLellan
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Director since 2006
    
    Safety, health and environment
Human resources and
compensation
Nominating, corporate
governance and risk
    
    July 2006 to present - Distinguished Scholar in
Residence at Alberta Institute for American
Studies, University of Alberta
June 2006 to present - Lawyer, counsel at
Bennett Jones LLP
1993 to 2006 - cabinet minister in various
portfolios with the Canadian government, most
recently as Deputy Prime Minister of Canada from
2003 to 2006
 Annual information form




---



##### 



Director
    
    Board committees
    
    Principal occupation or employmentA. Neil McMillan
    
    Reserves oversight (Chair)
    
    March 2004 to present - President and ChiefSaskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
    
    Audit
    
    Executive Officer, Claude Resources Inc.Director since 2002Victor J. Zaleschuk
    
    Reserves oversight
    
    November 2001 to present - Corporate directorCalgary, Alberta, Canada
Director since 2001
  Officers
 Officer
    
    Principal occupation or employment for past five yearsVictor J. Zaleschuk
    
    November 2001 to present - Corporate directorChair of the Board 
Calgary, Alberta, CanadaGerald W. Grandey
    
    Assumed current position January 2003Chief Executive Officer
    
    January 2003 to May 2010 - President and Chief Executive OfficerSaskatoon, Saskatchewan, CanadaTimothy S. Gitzel
    
    Assumed current position May 2010President
    
    January 2007 to May 2010 - Senior Vice-President and Chief Operating OfficerSaskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
    
    June 2004 to January 2007 - Executive Vice-President, mining business unit, ArevaGary M.S. Chad, Q.C.
    
    Assumed current position January 2000Senior Vice-President, Governance, Law
and Corporate Secretary 
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, CanadaO. Kim Goheen
    
    Assumed current position August 2004Senior Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer 
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, CanadaGrant E. Isaac
    
    Assumed current position July 2009Senior Vice-President, Corporate Services
    
    2006 to 2009 - Dean of Edwards School of Business (formerlySaskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
    
    College of Commerce), University of SaskatchewanKenneth A. Seitz
    
    Assumed current position January 2011Senior Vice-President, Marketing and Business Development
    
    2009 to December 2010, Vice-President, Marketing Strategy and AdministrationSaskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
    
    2006 to 2009, Vice-President, Corporate Development and PowerGenerationRobert A. Steane
    
    Assumed current position May 2010Senior Vice-President and Chief Operating Officer
    
    2007 to May 2010 Vice-President, Major ProjectsSaskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
    
    1999 to 2007 Vice-President, Fuel Services
   Cameco Corporation




---



##### 



Other information about our directors and officers
  
    
    was the subject of a cease trade or similar order, or an order denying that company any
statutory exemptions for more than 30 consecutive days
 
    
    was involved in an event that resulted in the company being subject to one of the above
after the director or executive officer no longer held that role with the company
 
    
    within a year of no longer acting in that capacity, became bankrupt, made a proposal under
any legislation relating to bankruptcy or insolvency or was subject to or instituted any
proceedings, arrangement or compromise with creditors or had a receiver, receiver manager or
trustee appointed to hold the assets of that company.
  
    
    were bankrupt
 
    
    made a proposal under any legislation relating to bankruptcy or insolvency,
 
    
    has been subject to or launched any proceedings, arrangement or compromise with any
creditors, or
 
    
    had a receiver, receiver manager or trustee appointed to hold the assets of that company.
  
    
    penalties or sanctions imposed by a court relating to securities legislation or by a
securities regulatory authority or has entered into a settlement agreement with a securities
regulatory authority; or
 
    
    any other penalties or sanctions imposed by a court or regulatory body that would likely be
considered important to a reasonable investor in making an investment decision.
 About the audit committee
 Audit committee charter
  Composition of the audit committee
  Relevant education and experience
 John Clappison
 Nancy Hopkins
 Oyvind Hushovd
 George Ivany
 Annual information form




---



##### 



Neil McMillan
 Auditors fees
  % of total
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    % of2010
    
    
    fees
    
    
    
    2009
    
    
    total fees($)
    
    
    (%)
    
    
    
    ($)
    
    
    (%)Audit feesCameco
    
    
    1,697,700
    
    
    
    62.6
    
    
    
    
    1,739,900
    
    
    
    48.7Centerra and other subsidiaries
    
    
    256,200
    
    
    
    9.5
    
    
    
    
    978,600
    1
    
    
    27.4Total audit fees
    
    
    1,953,900
    
    
    
    72.1
    
    
    
    
    2,718,500
    
    
    
    76.1Audit-related feesCameco
    
    
    273,400
    
    
    
    10.1
    
    
    
    
    219,800
    
    
    
    6.1Centerra and other subsidiaries
    
    
    
    
    
    
    0.0
    
    
    
    
    32,300
    1
    
    
    0.9Translation services
    
    
    44,500
    
    
    
    1.6
    
    
    
    
    424,000
    
    
    
    11.9Pensions
    
    
    20,000
    
    
    
    0.7
    
    
    
    
    17,000
    
    
    
    0.5Total audit-related fees
    
    
    337,900
    
    
    
    12.5
    
    
    
    
    693,100
    
    
    
    19.4Tax feesCompliance
    
    
    199,200
    
    
    
    7.3
    
    
    
    
    40,000
    
    
    
    1.1Planning and advice
    
    
    219,500
    
    
    
    8.1
    
    
    
    
    122,400
    
    
    
    3.4Total tax fees
    
    
    418,700
    
    
    
    15.4
    
    
    
    
    162,400
    
    
    
    4.5All other fees
    
    
    
    
    
    
    0.0
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    0.0Total fees
    
    
    2,710,500
    
    
    
    100.0
    
    
    
    
    3,574,000
    
    
    
    100.0
 
 1
    
    The 2009 fees include amounts related to Centerra. We disposed of our entire
interest in Centerra in December 2009. Approving services
    Cameco Corporation




---



##### 



Interest of experts
   Mineral
reserves and resources
 Annual information form




---



##### 



Appendix A
 Audit committee of the board of directors
 Mandate
 Purpose
     Composition
    Financially literate
 Accounting or related financial expertise
   Meetings
  Cameco Corporation




---



##### 



Duties and responsibilities
  Financial reporting process
 1.
    
    Review with management and the external auditors any items of concern, any proposed changes
in the selection or application of major accounting policies and the reasons for the change,
any identified risks and uncertainties, and any issues requiring management judgement, to the
extent that the foregoing may be material to financial reporting.
 2.
    
    Consider any matter required to be communicated to the committee by the external auditors
under applicable generally accepted auditing standards, applicable law and listing standards,
including the external auditors report to the committee (and managements response thereto)
on: (a) all critical accounting policies and practices used by the corporation; (b) all
material alternative accounting treatments of financial information within generally accepted
accounting principles that have been discussed with management, including the ramifications of
the use of such alternative treatments and disclosures and the treatment preferred by the
external auditors; and (c) any other material written communications between the external
auditors and management.
 3.
    
    Require the external auditors to present and discuss with the committee their views about the
quality, not just the acceptability, of the implementation of generally accepted accounting
principles with particular focus on accounting estimates and judgements made by management and
their selection of accounting principles.
 4.
    
    Discuss with management and the external auditors (a) any accounting adjustments that were
noted or proposed (i.e. immaterial or otherwise) by the external auditors but were not
reflected in the financial statements, (b) any material correcting adjustments that were
identified by the external auditors in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles or applicable law, (c) any communication reflecting a difference of opinion between
the audit team and the external auditors national office on material auditing or accounting
issues raised by the engagement, and (d) any management or internal control letter issued,
or proposed to be issued, by the external auditors to the corporation.
 5.
    
    Discuss with management and the external auditors any significant financial reporting issues
considered during the fiscal period and the method of resolution. Resolve disagreements
between management and the external auditors regarding financial reporting.
 6.
    
    Review with management and the external auditors (a) any off-balance sheet financing
mechanisms being used by the corporation and their effect on the corporations financial
statements and (b) the effect of regulatory and accounting initiatives on the corporations
financial statements, including the potential impact of proposed initiatives.
 7.
    
    Review with management and the external auditors and legal counsel, if necessary, any
litigation, claim or other contingency, including tax assessments, that could have a material
effect on the financial position or operating results of the corporation, and the manner in
which these matters have been disclosed or reflected in the financial statements.
 8.
    
    Review with the external auditors any audit problems or difficulties experienced by the
external auditors in performing the audit, including any restrictions or limitations imposed
by management, and managements response. Resolve any disagreements between management and the
external auditors regarding these matters.
 Annual information form




---



##### 



9.
    
    Review the results of the external auditors audit work including findings and
recommendations, managements response, and any resulting changes in accounting practices or
policies and the impact such changes may have on the financial statements.
 10.
    
    Review and discuss with management and the external auditors the audited annual financial
statements and related management discussion and analysis, make recommendations to the board
with respect to approval thereof, before being released to the public, and obtain an
explanation from management of all significant variances between comparable reporting periods.
Obtain confirmation from management and the external auditors that the reconciliation of the
audited financial statements to U.S. GAAP complies with the requirements of U.S. securities
laws.
 11.
    
    Review and discuss with management and the external auditors all interim unaudited financial
statements and quarterly reports and related interim management discussion and analysis and
make recommendations to the board with respect to the approval thereof, before being released
to the public.
 12.
    
    Obtain confirmation from the chief executive officer and the chief financial officer (and
considering the external auditors comments, if any, thereon) to their knowledge:
 (a)
    
    that the audited financial statements, together with any financial information included
in the annual MD&A and annual information form, fairly represent in all material respects
the corporations financial condition, cash flow and results of operation, as of the date
and for the periods presented in such filings; and(b)
    
    that the interim financial statements, together with any financial information included
in the interim MD&A, fairly represent in all material respects the corporations financial
condition, cash flow and results of operation, as of the date and for the periods presented
in such filings.
 13.
    
    Review earnings press releases, before being released to the public. Discuss the type and
presentation of information to be included in earnings press releases (paying particular
attention to any use of pro-forma or adjusted Non-GAAP, information).
 14.
    
    Review any news release, before being released to the public, containing earnings guidance or
financial information based upon the corporations financial statements prior to the release
of such statements.
 15.
    
    Review the appointment of the chief financial officer and have the chief financial officer
report to the committee on the qualifications of new key financial executives involved in the
financial reporting process.
 16.
    
    Consult with the human resources and compensation committee on the succession plan for the
chief financial officer and controller. Review the succession plans in respect of the chief
financial officer and controller.
 Internal Controls
 1.
    
    Receive from management a statement of the corporations system of internal controls over
accounting and financial reporting.
 2.
    
    Consider and review with management, the internal auditor and the external auditors, the
adequacy and effectiveness of internal controls over accounting and financial reporting within
the corporation and any proposed significant changes in them.
 3.
    
    Consider and discuss the scope of the internal auditors and external auditors review of the
corporations internal controls, and obtain reports on significant findings and
recommendations, together with management responses.
 4.
    
    Discuss, as appropriate, with management, the external auditors and the internal auditor, any
major issues as to the adequacy of the corporations internal controls and any special audit
steps in light of material internal control deficiencies.
 5.
    
    Review annually the disclosure controls and procedures, including (a) the certification
timetable and related process and (b) the procedures that are in place for the review of the
corporations disclosure of financial information extracted from the corporations financial
statements and the adequacy of such procedures. Receive confirmation from the chief executive
officer and the chief financial officer of the effectiveness of disclosure controls and
procedures, and whether there are any significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
 Cameco Corporation




---



##### 



design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the corporations ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information or any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the corporations internal control over financial reporting. In
addition, receive confirmation from the chief executive officer and the chief financial officer
that they are prepared to sign the annual and quarterly certificates required by applicable
securities law.
 6.
    
    Review managements annual report and the external auditors report on the assessment of the
effectiveness of the corporations internal control over financial reporting.
 7.
    
    Receive a report, at least annually, from the reserves oversight committee of the board on
the corporations mineral reserves.
 External Auditors
 (i)
    
    External Auditors Qualifications and Selection
 1.
    
    Subject to the requirements of applicable law, be solely responsible to select, retain,
compensate, oversee, evaluate and, where appropriate, replace the external auditors, who must
be registered with agencies mandated by applicable law. The committee shall be entitled to
adequate funding from the corporation for the purpose of compensating the external auditors
for completing an audit and audit report.
 2.
    
    Instruct the external auditors that:
 (a)
    
    they are ultimately accountable to the board and the committee, as representatives of
shareholders; and(b)
    
    they must report directly to the committee.
 3.
    
    Ensure that the external auditors have direct and open communication with the committee and
that the external auditors meet regularly with the committee without the presence of
management to discuss any matters that the committee or the external auditors believe should
be discussed privately.
 4.
    
    Evaluate the external auditors qualifications, performance, and independence. As part of
that evaluation:
 (a)
    
    at least annually, request and review a formal report by the external auditors
describing: the firms internal quality-control procedures; any material issues raised by
the most recent internal quality-control review, or peer review, of the firm, or by any
inquiry or investigation by governmental or professional authorities, within the preceding
five years, respecting one or more independent audits carried out by the firm, and any
steps taken to deal with any such issues; and (to assess the auditors independence) all
relationships between the external auditors and the corporation, including the amount of
fees received by the external auditors for the audit services and for various types of
non-audit services for the periods prescribed by applicable law; and(b)
    
    annually review and confirm with management and the external auditors the independence
of the external auditors, including the extent of non-audit services and fees, the extent
to which the compensation of the audit partners of the external auditors is based upon
selling non-audit services, the timing and process for implementing the rotation of the
lead audit partner, reviewing partner and other partners providing audit services for the
corporation, whether there should be a regular rotation of the audit firm itself, and
whether there has been a cooling off period of one year for any former employees of the
external auditors who are now employees with a financial oversight role, in order to assure
compliance with applicable law on such matters; and(c)
    
    annually review and evaluate senior members of the external audit team, including their
expertise and qualifications. In making this evaluation, the audit committee should
consider the opinions of management and the internal auditor.
  5.
    
    Review and approve the corporations policies for the corporations hiring of employees and
former employees of the external auditors. Such policies shall include, at minimum, a one-year
hiring cooling off period.
 Annual information form




---



##### 



(ii)
    
    Other Matters
 6.
    
    Meet with the external auditors to review and approve the annual audit plan of the
corporations financial statements prior to the annual audit being undertaken by the external
auditors, including reviewing the year-to-year co-ordination of the audit plan and the
planning, staffing and extent of the scope of the annual audit. This review should include an
explanation from the external auditors of the factors considered by the external auditors in
determining their audit scope, including major risk factors. The external auditors shall
report to the committee all significant changes to the approved audit plan.
 7.
    
    Review and approve the basis and amount of the external auditors fees with respect to the
annual audit in light of all relevant matters.
 8.
    
    Review and pre-approve all audit and non-audit service engagement fees and terms in
accordance with applicable law, including those provided to the subsidiaries of the
corporation by the external auditors or any other person in its capacity as external auditors
of such subsidiary. Between scheduled committee meetings, the chair of the committee, on
behalf of the committee, is authorised to pre-approve any audit or non-audit service
engagement fees and terms. At the next committee meeting, the chair shall report to the
committee any such pre-approval given. Establish and adopt procedures for such matters.
 Internal Auditor
 1.
    
    Review and approve the appointment or removal of the internal auditor.
 2.
    
    Review and discuss with the external auditors, management, and internal auditor the
responsibilities, budget and staffing of the corporations internal audit function.
 3.
    
    Review and approve the mandate for the internal auditor and the scope of annual work planned
by the internal auditor, receive summary reports of internal audit findings, managements
response thereto, and reports on any subsequent follow-up to any identified weakness.
 4.
    
    Ensure that the internal auditor has direct and open communication with the committee and
that the internal auditor meets regularly with the committee without the presence of
management to discuss any matters that the committee or the internal auditor believe should be
discussed privately, such as problems or difficulties which were encountered in the course of
internal audit work, including restrictions on the scope of activities or access to required
information, and any disagreements with management.
 5.
    
    Review and discuss with the internal auditor and management the internal auditors ongoing
assessments of the corporations business processes and system of internal controls.
 6.
    
    Review the effectiveness of the internal audit function, including staffing, organizational
structure and qualifications of the internal auditor and staff.
 Compliance
 1.
    
    Monitor compliance by the corporation with all payments and remittances required to be made
in accordance with applicable law, where the failure to make such payments could render the
directors of the corporation personally liable.
 2.
    
    The receipt of regular updates from management regarding compliance with laws and regulations
and the process in place to monitor such compliance, excluding, however, legal compliance
matters subject to the oversight of the safety, health and environment committee of the board.
Review the findings of any examination by regulatory authorities and any external auditors
observations relating to such matters.
 3.
    
    Establish and oversee the procedures in the code of conduct and ethics policy to address:
 (a)
    
    the receipt, retention and treatment of complaints received by the corporation
regarding accounting, internal accounting or auditing matters; and(b)
    
    confidential, anonymous submissions by employees of concerns regarding questionable
accounting and auditing matters.
 Cameco Corporation




---



##### 



Receive periodically a summary report from the senior vice-president governance, law and
corporate secretary on such matters as required by the code of conduct and ethics.
 4.
    
    Monitor managements implementation of the code of conduct and ethics and the international
business conduct policy and review compliance therewith by, among other things, obtaining an
annual report summarising statements of compliance by employees pursuant to such policies and
reviewing the findings of any investigations of non-compliance. Periodically review the
adequacy and appropriateness of such policies and make recommendations to the board thereon.
 5.
    
    Monitor managements implementation of the anti-fraud policy; and review compliance therewith
by, among other things, receiving reports from management on:
 (a)
    
    any investigations of fraudulent activity;(b)
    
    monitoring activities in relation to fraud risks and controls; and(c)
    
    assessments of fraud risk.
  6.
    
    Review all proposed related party transactions and situations involving a directors, senior
officers or an affiliates potential or actual conflict of interest that are not required to
be dealt with by an independent committee pursuant to securities law rules, other than
routine transactions and situations arising in the ordinary course of business, consistent
with past practice. Between scheduled committee meetings, the chair of the committee, on
behalf of the committee, is authorised to review all such transactions and situations. At the
next committee meeting, the chair shall report the results of such review. Ensure that
political and charitable donations conform with policies and budgets approved by the board.
 7.
    
    Monitor management of hedging, debt and credit, make recommendations to the board respecting
policies for management of such risks, and review the corporations compliance therewith.
 8.
    
    Approve the review and approval process for the expenses submitted for reimbursement by the
chief executive officer.
 Organizational matters
 1.
    
    The procedures governing the committee shall, except as otherwise provided for herein, be
those applicable to the board as set forth in Part 7 of the General Bylaws of the corporation.
 2.
    
    The members and the chair of the committee shall be entitled to receive remuneration for
acting in such capacity as the board may from time to time determine.
 3.
    
    The committee shall have the resources and authority appropriate to discharge its duties and
responsibilities, including the authority to:
 (a)
    
    select, retain, terminate, set and approve the fees and other retention terms of
special or independent counsel, accountants or other experts, as it deems appropriate; and(b)
    
    obtain appropriate funding to pay, or approve the payment of, such approved fees;
without seeking approval of the board or management.
 4.
    
    Any member of the committee may be removed or replaced at any time by the board and shall
cease to be a member of the committee upon ceasing to be a director. The board may fill
vacancies on the committee by appointment from among its members. If and whenever a vacancy
shall exist on the committee, the remaining members may exercise all its powers so long as a
quorum remains in office. Subject to the foregoing, each member of the committee shall remain
as such until the next annual meeting of shareholders after that members election.
 Annual information form




---



##### 



5.
    
    The committee shall annually review and assess the adequacy of its mandate and recommend any
proposed changes to the nominating, corporate governance and risk committee for recommendation
to the board for approval.
 6.
    
    The committee shall participate in an annual performance evaluation, the results of which
will be reviewed by the board.
 7.
    
    The committee shall perform any other activities consistent with this mandate, the
corporations governing laws and the regulations of stock exchanges, as the committee or the
board deems necessary or appropriate.
 Cameco Corporation