Forward Looking Statements

1

2
Forward Looking Statements
This presentation contains certain
forward-looking statements. Forward-looking
statements include but are not limited to those
with respect to the availability of electrical
power, the planned addition of owner-operated
power generation, price of uranium and gold,
price of electrical power and sulphuric acid, the
estimation of mineral resources and reserves, the
realization of mineral reserve estimates, the
timing and amount of estimated future production,
costs of production, capital expenditures, costs
and timing of development of new deposits,
success of exploration activities, permitting
time lines, currency fluctuations, requirements
for additional capital, availability of financing
on acceptable terms, government regulation of
mining operations, environmental risks,
unanticipated reclamation expenses, title
disputes or claims and limitations on insurance
coverage and the timing and possible outcome of
pending litigation. In certain cases,
forward-looking statements can be identified by
the use of words such as goal, objective,
plans, expects or does not expect, is
expected, projected, assumed, budget,
scheduled, estimates, forecasts, intends,
anticipates, or does not anticipate, or
believes or variations of such words and
phrases, or state that certain actions, events or
results may, could, would, might or
will be taken, occur or be achieved.
Forward-looking statements involve known and
unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors
which may cause the actual results, performance
or achievements of First Uranium to be materially
different from any future results, performance or
achievement expressed or implied by the
forward-looking statements. Such risks and
uncertainties include, among others, the actual
results of current exploration activities,
conclusions of economic evaluations, changes in
project parameters as plans continue to be
refined, availability of equipment, materials and
fuel, possible variations in grade and ore
densities or recovery rates, failure of plant,
equipment or processes to operate as anticipated,
accidents, labour disputes or other risks of the
mining industry, delays in obtaining government
approvals or financing or in completion of
development or construction activities, risks
relating to the integration of acquisitions, to
international operations, to prices of uranium
and gold, to price of electrical power and
sulphuric acid. Although First Uranium has
attempted to identify important factors that
could cause actual actions, events or results to
differ materially from those described in
forward-looking statements, there may be other
factors that cause actions, events or results not
to be as anticipated, estimated or intended. It
is important to note, that (i) unless otherwise
indicated, forward-looking statements indicate
the Companys expectations as of the date of this
presentation (ii) actual results may differ
materially from the Companys expectations if
known and unknown risks or uncertainties affect
its business, or if estimates or assumptions
prove inaccurate (iii) the Company cannot
guarantee that any forward-looking statement will
materialize and, accordingly, readers are
cautioned not to place undue reliance on these
forward-looking statements and (iv) the Company
disclaims any intention and assumes no obligation
to update or revise any forward-looking statement
even if new information becomes available, as a
result of future events or for any other reason.
3
Cautionary Note
In making the forward-looking statements in this
news release, First Uranium has made several
material assumptions, including but not limited
to, the assumption that (i) consistent supply of
sufficient power will be available to develop and
operate the projects as planned (ii) approvals
to transfer or grant, as the case may be, mining
rights will be obtained (iii) metal prices,
exchange rates and discount rates applied in the
preliminary economic assessments are achieved
(iv) mineral resource estimates are accurate (v)
the technology used to develop and operate its
two projects has, for the most part, been proven
and will work effectively (vi) that labour and
materials will be sufficiently plentiful as to
not impede the projects or add significantly to
the estimated cash costs of operations (vii)
that Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) investors
will maintain their interest in the Company and
their investment in the Companys common shares
to a sufficient level to continue to support the
Companys compliance with 2014 BEE requirements
and (viii) that the innovative work on
stabilizing the main shaft at the Ezulwini Mine
will be successful in maintaining a safe and
uninterrupted working environment until
2024. All technical disclosure in this
presentation relating to Mine Waste Solutions
tailings recovery project (MWS and formerly
named the Buffelsfontein tailings recovery
project) has been prepared in accordance Canadian
National Instrument 43-101 (NI 43-101) by Daan
van Heerden, BSc., M. Comm., Charles Muller,
B.Sc., Pr.Sci.Nat., and Johan Odendaal, B.Sc.,
M.Sc. Pr.Sci.Nat. all of Minxcon Pty Ltd., Trevor
Pearton, B.Sc. Eng PhD, FGSA and Mike Valenta, Pr
Eng, B.Sc., of Metallicon Process Consulting
(Pty) Ltd. each of whom is a qualified person
and is independent of the Company. Technical
information related to MWS is extracted from a
technical report entitled Technical Report
Pre-Feasibility of the Buffelsfontein Tailings
Recovery Project, located in Stilfontein, North
West Province, Republic of South Africa
submitted on November 1, 2007, revised on March
31, 2008 and prepared in accordance with NI
43-101 by Messrs. Van Heerden, Muller and
Odendaal. All technical disclosure in this
presentation relating to the Ezulwini Mine has
been prepared in accordance with NI 43-101 by R.
Dennis Bergen, P. Eng. and Wayne Valliant, P. Geo
of Scott Wilson Roscoe Postle Associates Inc.,
each of whom is a qualified person under NI
43-101 and is independent of the Company.
Technical information in this presentation
relating to the Ezulwini Mine is extracted from a
technical report entitled Technical Report
Preliminary Assessment of the Ezulwini Project,
Gauteng Province, Republic of South Africa (the
Ezulwini Report) originally submitted on
November 8, 2006, revised on December 5, 2006,
January 31, 2007, May 9, 2007 and June 5, 2008
prepared in accordance with NI 43-101 by Messrs.
Bergen and Valliant. The economic analysis
contained in this presentation in respect of the
Ezulwini Mine is based, in part, on inferred
resources, and is preliminary in nature. Inferred
resources are considered too geologically
speculative to have mining and economic
considerations applied to them and to be
categorized as mineral reserves. There is no
certainty that the reserves development,
production and economic forecast on which the
preliminary assessment contained in the Ezulwini
Report is based, will be realized.
4
Overview of First Uranium
Company Overview
Market Statistics(1)

• Emerging South African metals company with
  long-life uranium and gold assets
• Ezulwini Mine
• Mine Waste Solutions (MWS)
• Listed on TSX (FIU) and JSE (FUM)

Exchange TSX
Symbol FIU
Share Price C4.29
Shares Outstanding (fully-diluted) 131.1 MM
Market Capitalization1 C562 MM

1. As at close on September 5, 2008

Project Locations
Resource Summary

1. As at April 23, 2008

Ezulwini Mine
Project Type of Resource Grade Grade Contained Contained
Name Operation(1) Category(2) Tonnes Gold U3O8 Gold U3O8
Mt g/t (M oz) (M lbs)
Ezulwini Mine U/G PP - - - - -
MI 9.95 6.1 n/a 1.94 6.77
Inferred 201.45 5.0 n/a 32.15 218.3
MWS TR PP 325.4 0.28 0.0076 2.91 54.77
MI 335.1 0.27 0.0075 2.95 55.77
Inferred 21.2 0.28 0.0100 0.19 4.64
MWS

1. Underground (U/G) and Tailings Recovery (TR)
2. Measured Indicated (MI) reported inclusive of
   Proven Probable (PP)

5
Ezulwini Mine
Ore stockpile

• Gold and uranium plants as at (July 2008)

6
Mine Waste Solutions

• Construction of the second gold plant module
  and first two uranium plant modules, with the
  operating gold plant in the background July 2008

7
Mine Waste Solutions

• Hydraulic mining of the Buffelsfontein tailings
  to feed the MWS gold plant

8
Why Invest in First Uranium?

1. Low-cost operator
2. Near-term producer
3. Focused on risk management
9
1. Low-Cost Operator

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

10
Life of Mine Total Co-Product Cash Costs
Gold (per oz.)
U3O8 (per lb.)
Ezulwini Mine
33
376
22
347
Mine Waste Solutions
11
Very Competitive Cash Cost Structure
Ezulwini Mine
Mine Waste Solutions
74 Margin
35 Margin

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

1. Source MWS Technical Report Summary Cash Flow
   Model, 20 Apr 08, assuming total mill feed of
   323.9 Mt, total capex of 241 mm, total operating
   costs of 186 mm, and total revenue of 2.6 bn
2. Analysis assumes gold prices of 890 in 2009,
   907 in 2010, 874 in 2011, 797 in 2012, and
   711 long-term, uranium prices of 96 in 2009,
   92 in 2010, 79 in 2011, 75 in 2012, and 50
   long-term, and R/US exchange rates of 7.27 in
   2009, 7.36 in 2010, 7.50 in 2011, 7.45 in 2012,
   and 7.57 long-term

12
2. Near-Term Producer

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

13
Gold Production Schedule
For the fiscal year ended March 31
Gold Production (000 ozs)
14
Uranium Production Schedule
For the fiscal year ended March 31
Uranium Production (000 lbs)
15
NAV Build-Up
New Price Assumptions
US Millions
Project NPVs
667
Ezulwini Mine(1,2)
413
Mine Waste Solutions(3)
28
Acid Plant Operations(4)
1,108
Project NPV
102
Add Cash Balance as at June 30, 2008
- 148
Less Convertible Debentures
1,062
Total NAV

1. Source Ezulwini Technical Report Summary Cash
   Flow Model, 20 Apr 08, assuming a nominal
   discount rate of 8
2. This economic analysis is based, in part, on
   inferred resources, and is preliminary in nature.
   Inferred resources are considered too
   geologically speculative to have mining and
   economic considerations applied to them and to be
   categorized as Mineral Reserves. There is no
   certainty that the reserves development,
   production and economic forecasts on which this
   preliminary assessment is based, will be
   realized.
3. Source Mine Waste Solutions Technical Report
   Summary Cash Flow Model, 20 Apr 08, assuming a
   real discount rate of 8
4. Source Press release dated 21 Apr 08, assuming a
   real discount rate of 8

16
3. Focused on Risk Management

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

17
Risk Management - Shaft Rehabilitation

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

18
Risk Management - Power Generation

• Requirement for 24MW of self-generated power
• 14MW able to be met by existing capacity at site
• 10MW requirement to be drawn from new generator
  system
• 10MW requirement reflects peak period operation
  and generators will not need to run continuously
  to fill the gap

Ezulwini Mine Power Gap Analysis
80,000
70,000
60,000
Demand (kVA)
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
Aug-08
Aug-09
Aug-10
Dec-10
Feb-11
Dec-07
Feb-08
Apr-08
Jun-08
Oct-08
Dec-08
Feb-09
Apr-09
Jun-09
Oct-09
Dec-09
Feb-10
Apr-10
Jun-10
Oct-10
Eskom Commitment as of June 9, 2008
Eskom Available Assumed
Required
19
Risk Management - Power Generation

• Requirement for 14MW of self-generated power
• 14MW requirement reflects peak period operation
  and generators will not need to run continuously
  to fill the gap
• have placed order for a power plant (12 2.5MW
  units for 30MW) for 20 million to be
  commissioned in December 2008

Mine Waste Solutions Power Gap Analysis
20
Risk Management - Sulphur Pricing

• Sulphuric acid demand forecasted to exceed supply
  in South Africa
• Market dynamics have led to sharp increases in
  acid price
• Even at elevated prices, acid may not be available

Sulphur Spot Price (Historical to Date)
Notes 1. fob means free on board and
indicates that the quoted price includes the cost
of loading the goods into transport vessels at
the specified location 2. cfr means cost and
freight and indicates that the cost of the goods
and freight charges are included in the quoted
price while the buyer arranges for and pays
insurance 3. As South Africa is a net importer of
sulphur, local suppliers practice import parity
pricing with industry recognized benchmark prices
as shown
21
Risk Management - Sulphuric Acid Plant

• Construction of 600tpd acid plant allows FIU to
• Secure supply of low-cost sulphuric acid upon
  expected completion of plant in January 2010
• Benefit from feed-stock availability in the
  pyrite within tailings dams
• Improve the economics at both Ezulwini and MWS
• Generate incremental revenue through the sale of
  excess acid production into the spot market

Life of mine acid consumption 1.9 Mt 1.9 Mt
Total capital 124 mm 124 mm
Operating cost of acid plant per tonne of acid produced 14/t 14/t

PV of acid costs at IPO (60/t)(1) 59 mm 59 mm
Long-term acid price assumptions Low High
PV of acid costs using forward acid price assumptions(2) 138 mm 205 mm
PV of acid costs assuming addition of acid plant operations(2,3) 33 mm (20) mm

1. Present value assuming a discount rate of 8.0
2. Low acid price assumptions reflect prices of
   350/t in 2009, 265/t in 2010, 170/t from
   2011-14, and 95/t thereafter high acid price
   assumptions reflect prices of 350/t in 2009,
   265/t in 2010, and 200/t thereafter
3. Acid plant operations assume acid costing of
   14/t for the life of mine, incremental capital
   costs of 124 million, and incremental revenue
   from the sale of acid produced from excess
   capacity to third parties at prices outlined in
   footnote (1) above

Secured low-cost sulphuric acid supply
22
First Uranium Growth Agenda
Organic Growth at Current Project Sites
Regional Consolidation
Exploration adjacent to the Ezulwini Mine
Investigating a North American growth strategy
23
Southern African Supply and Demand
Namibia Trekkopje (UraMin)
Malawi Kayelekera (Paladin Energy) Namibia
Rössing additions (Rio Tinto) South Africa
Ezulwini Mine (First Uranium) South Africa Mine
Waste Solutions (First Uranium)
Eskom Demand
Namibia Langer Heinrich (Paladin
Energy) Namibia Rössing (Rio Tinto) South
Africa Dominion (Uranium One) South Africa
Vaal River (Anglo Ashanti)
23
24
First Uranium Corporation

• CONTACT INFORMATION
• Bob Tait
• Vice President, Investor Relations
• 155 University Avenue, Suite 1240
• Toronto, Ontario M5H 3B7
• eMail bob_at_firsturanium.com
• Office [phone]
• Fax [phone]
• Mobile [phone]
• 5 Press Avenue, Selby
• Johannesburg, 2025
• P.O.Box 82291
• Southdale, 2135
• South Africa
• 27 11 830-0390

• CORPORATE WEBSITE
• www.firsturanium.com
• TORONTO STOCK EXCHANGE
• Common share symbol FIU
• Convertible Debentures FIU.DB
• JOHANNESBURG STOCK EXCHANGE
• Common share symbol FUM

25
Metal Price Assumptions (in US dollars)
Gold Price Assumptions (/ounce)
The December 2007 and April 2008 real term
commodity price assumptions are based on the
consensus of the nominal forecasts by the
investment research analysts at 13 North
American-based brokerage firms, adjusted downward
by the US inflation rate for the period covering
the construction of the Project.
26
Metal Price Assumptions (in US dollars)
Uranium Price Assumptions (/pound)
The December 2007 and April 2008 real term
commodity price assumptions are based on the
consensus of the nominal forecasts by the
investment research analysts at 13 North
American-based brokerage firms, adjusted downward
by the US inflation rate for the period covering
the construction of the Project.
27
Exchange Rate Assumptions
South African Rand per US Dollar
The April 2008 exchange rate assumption is based
on the consensus of the nominal forecasts by the
investment research analysts at 13 North
American-based brokerage firms.
28
Sulphuric Acid Price Assumptions
Sulphuric Acid Price (US/tonne)
29
Ezulwini Mine Resources
Tonnes (t 000s)
Gold Grade (g/t)
U308 Grade ()
Cont. Gold (oz 000s)
Cont.U308 (lb 000s)
April 2007
Measured Indicated Reef
6,130 3,820
6.6 5.2
- 0.080
1,298 641
- 6,768
UE Shaft Pillar Middle Elsburg
9,950
6.1
n/a
1,939
6,768
Total
Inferred Reef
UE Shaft Pillar Middle Elsburg Channel Middle
Elsburg
64,550 4,810 132,100
5.8 2.3 4.7
- - 0.075
12,055 351 19,742
- - 218,319
Total
201,460
5.0
n/a
32,148
218,319
20 18 Year Mine Life
(1) CIM definitions were followed for mineral
resources. (2) Mineral resources in the Upper
Elsburg shaft pillar are estimated at a 4.0 g/t
cutoff grade. (3) Mineral resources are estimated
using an average long-term gold price of US500
per ounce, and a US/R exchange rate of 7.40.
(4) A minimum mining width of 1.53 m was
used. (5) Rows and columns may not add exactly
due to rounding. (6) Mineral resources that are
not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated
economic viability.
30
Mine Waste Solutions - Mineral Resources
Gold
Uranium
Tonnes (millions)
Grade (g/t)
Content (000 oz)
Grade ()
Content (M lb)
March 31 2008
Measured
99.4
0.30
965
0.008
18.33
Indicated
235.7
0.26
1,984
0.007
37.44
Total MI
335.1
0.27
2,949
0.008
55.77
Total Inferred
21.2
0.28
189
0.010
4.64
16 Year Mine Life
Notes (1) Mineral resources are quoted as
in-situ mineral resources. (2) No cutoff grades
were applied. (3) Rows and columns may not add
exactly due to rounding. (4) Mineral resources
are quoted as inclusive of mineral reserves.
Resources which are not reserves do not have
demonstrated economic viability. (5) MWS 4 Dam is
split into two domains, namely Domain 1, which is
the uppermost section of the dam, and Domain 2,
the lowermost portion of the dam. The
tailings dam has been evaluated in two separate
sections as they show distinct differences in
grade.
31
Mine Waste Solutions - Mineral Reserves
Gold
Uranium
Tonnes (millions)
Grade (g/t)
Content (000 oz)
Grade ()
Content (M lb)
March 31, 2008
Proven
99.4
0.30
965
0.008
18.33
Probable
226.0
0.27
1,941
0.007
36.44
Total Proven Probable
325.4
0.28
2,907
0.008
54.77
16 Year Mine Life
Notes (1) Mineral reserves are quoted as fully
diluted delivered to mill estimates. (2)
Based on assumptions of a gold price of 711 per
ounce, a uranium price of 49 per pound and ZAR/
exchange rate of 7.57, which are long-term
forecast figures. (3) A reserve cutoff grade of
0.28 grams per tonne gold equivalent was used.
Uranium grades were converted to gold equivalent
using a conversion factor of 1 gram per
tonne, which equals 0.503 kilograms per tonne on
an extracted metal basis. (4) Rows and columns
may not add exactly due to rounding. (5) The
average LOM gold recovery applied was 68 and 34
for uranium. (6) Only Domain 2 of the MWS 4 Dam
has been converted to a Mineral Reserve as the
gold grade in Domain 1 is below cut-off.