The Botham Lake Property is located in northern Saskatchewan, just south of Tommy Davis Bay (Cree Lake), approximately 254 kilometres north-northwest of the town of La Ronge and approximately 53 kilometres west of the Key Lake Uranium Mine.

In 2006, 101073531 Saskatchewan Corp. (“Sask Co.” – who, as earlier announced by Midwest, recently entered into an agreement to sell its interest in some 74,000 hectares of Uranium leases to Midwest, which includes the Botham Lake prospect), undertook a 826 line-kilometre MEGATEM airborne survey of the Botham Lake prospect. This detailed survey included 68 traverse lines at 300 meter spacing and an azimuth of 135 degrees, and nine tie-lines at 3000 meter spacing. Magnetic and multicomponent transient electromagnetic (TEM) data were measured on all lines. A total of (9) nine anomalies (B1 – B9) were identified from the Botham Lake airborne survey.

Most of the anomalies presented indicated favourable prospects for mineral exploration, with the highest magnitude of response existing in anomalies B1, B2, B4, and B9.

Table 1 – Conductor Overview

During the summer/fall of 2007 Sask Co. retained Patterson Geophysics of La Ronge, Saskatchewan, to undertake additional ground prospecting and analysis on the Botham Lake prospect to identify potential drill targets. After reviewing all relevant data, including the airborne electromagnetic and magnetic surveying, ground geophysics, and local geological structure, the proposed drill locations on the various earlier identified anomalies can described as follows:

Grid B1

Four anomalous conductors are present on grid B1, with anomaly 1 being the most conductive over most of the grid. Drilling of this anomaly will focus on the area between lines 16S and 34S, where the response is strongest. A number of additional drill targets have been proposed along the considerable strike length of this anomaly; however drilling will focus on the warped, offset EM response near the interpreted fault at 3+50W on line 2600S; the strong EM response south of the interpreted fault, at 3+00W on line 2800S; the strong EM response north of the interpreted fault, at 2+75W on line 2400S; and the strong, well-defined EM responses at 2+75W on lines 2200S, 2000S, and 1800S.

Grid B2

The strong main anomaly on Grid B2 experiences an offset of approximately 400 meters between lines 2200S and 2600S. A weak secondary conductor mirrors the main anomaly in this area. The main anomaly is stronger and probably shallower to the north, but the flexure is a good target for drilling and prospecting. Magnetic data also suggests a possible cross-cutting structure in this area. Anomaly B2 is up to 80m deep, dips 60-70 degrees E and strikes close to N-S. Five targets are proposed on this anomaly:

Grid B45

Anomaly B45 has numerous conductors of interest. Conductor #1 on grid B45 widens towards the north end of the grid, exhibiting a medium-strong EM response on all lines. The appearance is that of a double conductor (Conductor #2); the two are near together and interfere with geometry calculations. A single target at 3+00E on line 800S focuses on an apparent bend in the conductor and may reveal structure which precipitates the onset of conductors #2 and #3 at line 800S. Conductor #3 forms a curve, following a magnetic trend approximately 700 meters NW of anomaly 1. Response is again complex due to weak nearby conductor #2. A single target focuses on the bend in this conductor at 3+25W on line 600S.

Grid B79

Perhaps the most promising area is the southern portion of grid B79. Several distinct conductors are present which follow magnetic trends and coincide with the boundary of pelitic rock with gneisses. A number of targets are proposed on the #3 Conductor, the strongest of the anomalies on Grid B79. Conductor #3 has an average (though quite variable) dip of 60-80 degrees NW and the calculated depth to top is usually less than 30 meters.

The #1 Conductor on Grid B79 is strongest near the south end of the grid, though it terminates abruptly at line 3000S. Calculated dip on this conductor is 50-80 degrees SE, but this may be false due to distortion from nearby weaker conductors. Depth is on average calculated at approximately 50 meters. Three targets are proposed on this anomaly, which possibly represents multiple conductors.

The #4 Conductor on B79, a relatively strong airborne conductor, was not well-defined on most ground EM lines and hence its geometry is not known. It is likely distorted by the same folding and faulting that appears to terminate the #1 and #3 Conductors. A single drill target is proposed on this conductor where the anomaly is strongest and best-defined. Resolution of some of the structural complexity in this area will help to define #4 and hopefully several of the other nearby anomalies.

The drill program is expected to be completed by year end 2007. The drill program and associated mobilization and demobilization are estimated at $1.3 million. The costs of the program will be paid by Tribune Uranium Corp. as part of its 2007 and 2008 $3 million expenditure obligation under its Option Agreement with THU and the Company.

About Midwest Uranium Corporation:

Midwest Uranium Corporation's focus is to acquire, identify and develop significant uranium deposits in the Athabasca Basin in Saskatchewan and elsewhere.

For more information regarding the Company and its projects, please contact Gordon Nesbitt at Midwest Uranium Corporation at info@midwesturanium.com or 1-800-293-3312.

Notice Regarding Forward-Looking Statements:

This news release contains "forward-looking statements." Statements in this press release, which are not purely historical, are forward-looking statements and include any statements regarding beliefs, plans, expectations or intentions regarding the future. Such forward-looking statements include, among others, the expectation and/or claim, as applicable, that Midwest will complete the transactions contemplated in the letters of intent with Saskco, including any proposed reorganization or combination.

It is important to note that actual outcomes, drill programs and Midwest's actual results could differ materially from those in such forward-looking statements. Actual results could differ from those projected in any forward-looking statements due to numerous factors. Such factors include, among others: (1) the failure to complete the transactions contemplated including the reorganization or combination with THU for any reason whatsoever, (2) the failure to obtain any required approvals, including regulatory approval, shareholder approval or approval from any other third parties, (3) the failure to successfully integrate the businesses of Midwest, THU and Saskco after completion of any reorganization or combination, (4) the failure to complete any planned drill programs, (5) Midwest's ability to retain the employees necessary to continue its operations, (6) the price and demand for uranium, (7) general economic conditions as they affect Midwest and its prospective customers, (12) the ability of Midwest to control costs operating, general administrative and other expenses, and (13) insufficient investor interest in Midwest's securities which may impact on Midwest's ability to raise additional financing as required. Readers should also refer to the risk disclosures outlined in Midwest's quarterly reports on Form 10-QSB, annual reports on Form 10-KSB and Midwest's other disclosure documents filed from time-to-time with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Midwest Uranium Corporation
Gordon Nesbitt, 1-800-293-3312
info@midwesturanium.com