ENERGY FUELS INC

Overview

Energy Fuels is a leading U.S.-based critical minerals company. The Company mines uranium and produces natural uranium concentrates that are sold to major nuclear utilities for the production of carbon-free nuclear energy. Energy Fuels recently began production of mixed RE Carbonate, an advanced REE material at the White Mesa Mill and plans to produce commercial quantities of separated REE oxides at the White Mesa Mill in 2024. Energy Fuels also produces vanadium from certain of its projects, as market conditions warrant, and is evaluating the recovery at the Mill of radionuclides needed for emerging cancer treatments. Energy Fuels holds two of America's key uranium production centers: the White Mesa Mill in Utah and the Nichols Ranch ISR Project in Wyoming. In 2023, the Company acquired the Bahia Project in Brazil, which is believed to have significant quantities of titanium (ilmenite and rutile), zirconium (zircon) and REE (monazite) minerals.

ISR Uranium Activities

The Company conducts its ISR recovery activities through its Nichols Ranch Project in northeast Wyoming, which it acquired in June 2015 through the acquisition of Uranerz.

The Nichols Ranch Project includes: (i) the Nichols Ranch Plant (100% ownership); (ii) the Nichols Ranch Wellfields (100% ownership); (iii) the Jane Dough Property (81% ownership); (iv) the Hank Project (100% ownership), which includes the permitted but not constructed Hank Satellite Plant; (v) North Rolling Pin (100% ownership); and (vi) West North Butte (100% ownership). See “The Nichols Ranch ISR Project.” The Company also acquired through the acquisition of Uranerz the Reno Creek Property (which it has since sold) and the Arkose Mining Venture, a joint venture of ISR properties held 81% by Energy Fuels. See “Non-Material Mineral Properties - Other ISR Projects.” Production from existing wellfields at Nichols Ranch was depleted during 2021. In order for Nichols Ranch to engage in future uranium production, the Company will need to incur capital expenditures to develop additional wellfields. While production at the Nichols Ranch Project is currently being maintained on standby, the Company is undertaking exploration and development activities to expand the resources at the Nichols Ranch Project and to further develop a wellfield to be ready for potential recommencement of production in late 2024 or in 2025.

Alta Mesa Transaction and Assignment of Convertible Note

On February 14, 2023, the Company closed on its sale to enCore of three wholly-owned subsidiaries that together held the Alta Mesa ISR Project for total consideration of $120 million (the “Alta Mesa Transaction”), paid as follows:

•$60 million in cash, which included $6 million prior to closing and $54 million at closing; and

•$60 million Convertible Note, payable in two years from the closing, bearing annual interest of eight percent (8%). The Convertible Note was convertible at Energy Fuels’ election into fully paid and non-assessable enCore common shares at a conversion price of $2.9103 per share, being a 20% premium to the 10-day volume-weighted average price of enCore shares ending the day before the Closing. The Convertible Note was guaranteed by enCore and fully secured by Alta Mesa. Except in the instance of a block trade or similar distribution to sell the enCore common shares received on conversion of the Convertible Note, Energy Fuels was limited to selling a maximum of $10 million of enCore common shares per thirty (30)-day period.

As a post-closing condition of the Alta Mesa Transaction, enCore was required to replace the $3.59 million of reclamation bonds then in place for Alta Mesa. Upon replacement, the original bonds were released and the Company received back the underlying collateral during the year ended December 31, 2023.

Then, on November 13, 2023, the Company announced that, on November 9, 2023, it sold to MMCAP International Inc. SPC (“MMCAP”) the remaining unpaid balance of $20 million owed under the secured Convertible Note issued to the Company by enCore for total consideration of $21 million plus $1.5 million in unpaid accrued interest, less a sales commission of $100,000 paid to a third-party broker. As disclosed in the Company’s Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2023, enCore previously paid $40 million toward the $60 million principal Convertible Note balance and $1.8 million of interest to the Company in partial fulfillment of its obligations under the Convertible Note. As a result of enCore’s earlier pay-down and the $22.4 million received in connection with the Convertible Note’s sale, the Company has now received payment in full for the Alta Mesa Transaction, and no further consideration is owed in connection therewith.

Conventional Uranium Activities

The Company conducts its conventional uranium extraction and recovery activities through its 100% owned White Mesa Mill, which is the only operating conventional uranium mill in the U.S. The Mill, located near Blanding, Utah, is centrally located such that it can be fed by a number of the Company’s uranium and uranium/vanadium projects in Colorado, Utah, Arizona and New

Mexico, as well as by ore purchase or toll milling arrangements with third party miners in the region, as market conditions warrant. The Company also owns the Sheep Mountain Project in Wyoming, which is a conventional uranium project. Due to its distance from the White Mesa Mill, the Sheep Mountain Project is not expected to be a source of feed material for the Mill. The Sheep Mountain Project consists of the Sheep Mountain Extraction Operation (both open pit and underground), which is permitted, and the proposed Sheep Mountain Processing Operation (heap leach), which is not permitted at this time.

The Company’s principal conventional uranium properties include the following:

•the White Mesa Mill (see “The White Mesa Mill”);

•the Pinyon Plain Project (see “The Pinyon Plain Project”);

•the Roca Honda Project (see “The Roca Honda Project”);

•the Sheep Mountain Project (see “The Sheep Mountain Project”);

•the Bullfrog Project (see “The Bullfrog Project”);

•the La Sal Project (see “The La Sal Project”);

•the Arizona Strip uranium properties located in north-central Arizona, including: the Arizona 1 Project, the Wate Project, and EZ Project (see “Non-Material Mineral Properties – Other Conventional Projects – Arizona Strip”); and

•the Whirlwind Project located in southwest Colorado on the Colorado and Utah border (see “Non-Material Mineral Properties – Other Conventional Projects – Colorado Plateau”).

The Company has a 100% interest in all these conventional properties.

The Mill is licensed to process 2,000 tons of mineralized material per day. It is primarily a uranium recovery facility that mills uranium mineralized materials from the Company’s uranium mines on the Colorado Plateau as well as ore purchased or toll milled from third party miners in the region, as market conditions warrant. In addition, the Mill can recycle other uranium-bearing materials not derived from natural or native ore, known as Alternate Feed Materials, for the recovery of uranium, alone or in combination with other metals. In this regard, the Company is currently evaluating a number of potential Alternate Feed Materials for the recovery of uranium. The Mill is also pursuing other opportunities to process mineralized materials from the clean-up of abandoned uranium mines on the Navajo Reservation and in the Four Corners area of the U.S. Energy Fuels recently began production of mixed RE Carbonate, an advanced REE material, at the White Mesa Mill, and plans to produce commercial quantities of separated REE oxides at the White Mesa Mill in 2024. Energy Fuels also produces vanadium from certain of its projects, as market conditions warrant, and is evaluating the recovery at the Mill of radionuclides needed for emerging cancer treatments.

The material projects are shown on the map above and are described in further detail below. Properties that the Company does not consider material are summarized at the end of this Item 2.

Conventional Activities (Other)

Bahia Project

On February 10, 2023, the Company acquired 17 Agencia Nacional de Mineracao (“ANM”) Process Areas totaling 15,089.71 hectares in the state of Bahia, Brazil comprising the Bahia Project. The primary minerals associated with the Bahia Project are ilmenite, rutile, zircon and monazite. See “Bahia Project,” below. The Company acquired the Bahia Project to expand its in-ground holdings of monazite for REE processing at the Mill. See Item I, “Material Transactions” above and Item 2, “The Bahia Project” below. Under S-K 1300 regulations, Bahia Project is an exploration stage property because there are no Mineral Resources or Mineral Reserves disclosed for the property.

In 2024, the Company plans to initiate permitting activities, finish phase I of drilling (2,250 meters) and initiate phase II drilling on the Bahia Project, which is expected to provide the necessary data to disclose Mineral Resources on a portion of the project.

Uranium, Vanadium and Rare Earth Recovery History

The following tables show the mineralized material processed and pounds of uranium and vanadium and total rare earth oxides recovered from the Company’s projects and facilities from January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2023:(1)

Recovery History(1)

Notes:

(1) Mineralized material is shown as being processed and pounds recovered during the year in which the materials were processed at the Mill or at the Nichols Ranch Plant, which is not necessarily the year in which the materials were extracted from the project facilities.

(2) All Alternate Feed Materials were processed at the Mill. A number of different Alternate Feed Materials were processed during the period 2019 – 2023. The table shows the average uranium grades and the total pounds recovered from all Alternate Feed Materials processed at the Mill during each of the years in that period. Because of the variability in uranium grades, pounds recovered is considered to be the relevant metric and tons fed is not considered to be relevant.

(3) The 161,000 pounds recovered in 2022 include nil pounds recovered for the accounts of third parties. The 144,000 pounds recovered in 2020 include nil pounds recovered for the accounts of third parties.

(4) Pounds contained in tailings solutions containing previously unrecovered uranium and vanadium, together with in-circuit mineralized material from previous conventional mine material processing, were recovered at the Mill, though tons and grade are not available because they cannot be tied to any specific source.

(5) Includes uranium and TREO recovered from monazite processing.

(6) The 1,000 pounds of the 162,000 pounds of U 3 O 8 packaged in 2022 is uranium recovered from monazite processing in 2021 and 2022. This amount does not include an additional approximately 1,000 pounds of U 3 O 8 recovered during 2021 and 2022, which was in process and not packaged as of December 31, 2022. All uranium recovered from monazite processing in 2021 was retained in process and not packaged in 2021. A portion of uranium recovered in 2021 was packaged in 2022, with the remainder held in process as at December 31, 2022. The uranium concentration of monazite is comparable to typical Colorado

Plateau conventional ores processed at the Mill on a regular basis. The relatively small quantities of uranium recovered from the monazite processed in 2021 and 2022 is a reflection of the low tonnage of monazite processed through the Mill during those years.

(7) Uranium recovery commenced at the Nichols Ranch Project on April 17, 2014. Because the Nichols Ranch Project uses ISR instead of conventional extraction methods, grade and tons of mineralized material are inapplicable to it.

(8) The Alta Mesa Project was sold by the Company on February 14, 2023.

Mineral Extraction

The following table shows the extraction history from 2019 to December 31, 2023 from the mineral properties currently owned by the Company:

Notes:

(1) All properties reported in this table were owned by the Company on December 31, 2023 and continue to be owned by the Company. Nichols Ranch was acquired by the Company in June 2015 as part of the Uranerz acquisition. Properties sold or otherwise disposed of are not included in this table. Uranium pounds recovered since 2021 are immaterial and correspond to pounds captured during standby.

Summary of Mineral Reserves and Resources

Daniel Kapostasy, a Professional Geologist licensed in Wyoming (PG-6778) and in Utah (10110615-2250), employed as the Company’s Vice President, Technical Services, is the Qualified Person responsible for the disclosure of scientific or technical information concerning mineral projects in this Annual Report. Except to the extent explicitly stated, the land tenure and permitting efforts disclosed in this Part I, Item 2 are not made in reliance on or with reference to any of the technical reports or the preliminary feasibility study referenced herein and attached hereto as Exhibits 96.1 through 96.7 and are the responsibility of Daniel Kapostasy in his capacity as a Qualified Person.

The following tables show the Company’s estimate of Mineral Reserves and Mineral Resources as defined in S-K 1300 and NI 43-101 as of December 31, 2023. Both S-K 1300 and NI 43-101 require mineral companies to disclose Mineral Reserves and Mineral Resources using the subcategories of Proven Mineral Reserves, Probable Mineral Reserves, Measured Mineral Resources, Indicated Mineral Resources and Inferred Mineral Resources. The Company reports Mineral Resources exclusive of Mineral Reserves. Except as stated below, the Mineral Reserve and Mineral Resource information shown below, which was reviewed and approved by Daniel Kapostasy, one of the Company’s non-independent Qualified Persons, is as reported in the various Technical Report Summaries prepared in accordance with S-K 1300 and NI 43-101 (the “Technical Report Summaries”) by Qualified Persons employed by SLR International Corporation (“SLR”), Woods Process Services, Consultants in Hydrogeology, Gochnour & Associate, Inc. and BRS Inc. (“BRS”), none of which is affiliated with the Company or any other entity that has an ownership, royalty, or other interest in the relevant property that is the subject of the Technical Report Summary. See “Material Properties.” Between December 31, 2022 and December 31, 2023, there were no changes to the Mineral Reserves or Mineral Resources. The Alta Mesa Project was sold on February 14, 2023, thus all Mineral Resources associated with that project have been removed from this disclosure along with the description of the Alta Mesa Project from the “Material Properties”section of this Annual Report.

Mineral Reserve Estimates - In Situ Uranium(1)(8)(9)(10)(11)

Notes:

(1) The Mineral Reserve estimates in this table comply with the requirements of both S-K 1300 and NI 43-101.

(2) Mineral Reserves are estimated at a uranium grade x thickness (G.T.) cut-off grade of 0.10 G.T. (2 ft. of 0.05% eU 3 O 8) for the Congo Pit.

(3) Mineral Reserves are estimated at a uranium grade x thickness (G.T.) cut-off grade of 0.45 G.T. (6 ft. of 0.075% eU 3 O 8) for Sheep Underground.

(4) Underground Mineral Reserves were estimated by creating stope shapes. The stope shapes were created using a grade envelope of 0.15% U 3 O 8, with a minimum mining width of 5 ft (including hanging wall and footwall dilution), on 10 ft vertical stope heights. and 0.45 G.T. (6 ft. of 0.075% eU 3 O 8) for Sheep Underground.

(5) The breakeven cut-off grade is 0.30% U 3 O 8.

(6) A mining extraction factor of 95% was applied to the underground stopes, while underground development assumed a 100% mining extraction factor.

(7) The density varies according to the block model.

(8) Mineral Reserves are estimated using a long-term uranium price of $65 per pound U 3 O 8 for Sheep Mountain and a uranium price of $60 per pound for Pinyon Plain. The long-term uranium price for Sheep Mountain is based on supply and demand projections for the period 2021-2035. The uranium price for Pinyon Plain is based on anticipated spot prices from 2023-2035.

(9) Numbers may not add due to rounding.

(10) The Mineral Reserves are fully excluded from the total Mineral Resources shown below.

(11) Mineral Reserves are 100% attributable to the Company.

Mineral Resource Estimates – In Situ Uranium(1)(2)(3)(4)(10)

Notes:

(1) The Mineral Resource estimates in this table comply with the requirements of both S-K 1300 and NI 43-101.

(2) Mineral Resources were estimated at various %eU 3 O 8 or G.T. cut-off grades. Nichols Ranch 0.02% U 3 O 8(0.20 GT), Pinyon Plain 0.30% (Uranium Only) and 0.40% (Uranium + Copper) eqv. U 3 O 8, Roca Honda 0.19% U 3 O 8, Sheep Mountain 0.05% U 3 O 8 (0.10 GT Open Pit) and 0.05% U 3 O 8 (0.3 GT Underground), Bullfrog 0.165% U 3 O 8 (0.50 GT), and La Sal 0.17% U 3 O 8.

(3) Mineral Resources were estimated using a long-term uranium price of $65/lb. The long-term uranium price for Sheep Mountain is based on supply and demand projections for the period 2021-2035.

(4) Numbers may not add due to rounding.

(5) The Nichols Ranch Project is comprised of four properties: Nichols Ranch, the Hank Property, the Jane Dough Property, and North Rolling Pin. The numbers shown represent Energy Fuels’ share of the Nichols Ranch Project, which is less than 100% due to a portion of the Jane Dough Property being held through the Arkose Mining Venture, in which the Company has an 81% interest. For more information, see “The Nichols Ranch Project,” below.

(6) The name of the Canyon Project was changed to “Pinyon Plain Project” in 2020.

(7) The Pinyon Plain Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources exclude the Proven and Probable Mineral Reserves calculated in accordance with S-K 1300 and NI 43-101 of 1,567,800 pounds of U 3 O 8 in 134,500 tons at a grade of 0.58%.

(8) The Sheep Mountain Indicated Mineral Resource excludes the Probable Mineral Reserves calculated in accordance with S-K 1300 and NI 43-101 of 18,365,000 pounds of eU 3 O 8 in 7,453,000 tons at a grade of 0.123%.

(9) The La Sal Project includes the Energy Queen, Redd Block, Beaver, and Pandora properties.

(10) Except for Nichols Ranch (see note 5), Mineral Resources are 100% attributable to the Company.

Mineral Resource Estimate – In Situ Vanadium(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)

Notes:

(1) Both S-K 1300 and NI 43-101 definitions were followed for all Mineral Resource categories.

(2) Mineral Resources were estimated at a %U 3 O 8 or G.T. cut-off grade of 0.17%.

(3) The cut-off grade is calculated using a metal price of $65/lb. U 3 O 8. The long-term uranium price is based on supply and demand projections for the period 2021-2035.

(5) Mineral Resources are based on a tonnage factor of 14.5ft 3/ton (Bulk density 0.0690 ton /ft 3 or 2.21 t/m 3).

(6) Mineral Resources are not Mineral Reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability.

(9) The La Sal Project includes the Energy Queen, Red Block, Beaver and Pandora properties.

Mineral Resource Estimate – In Situ Copper(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)

Notes:

(1) The Mineral Resource estimates in this table comply with the requirements of both S-K 1300 and NI 43-101.

(2) For the Main and Juniper zones of the Pinyon Plain Project, a 0.40% uranium equivalent cut-off grade (% U 3 O 8 Eq) was applied to account for both the copper and uranium mineralization. The %U 3 O 8 Eq grade term is not the same as the eU 3 O 8% grade term with indicates probe rather than assay data listed elsewhere in this report. See the Pinyon Plain Project.

(3) Mineral Resources are estimated using a long-term uranium price of $65 per pound and a Copper price of $4.00 per lb. These prices are based on independent, third-party, and market analysts’ average forecasts as of 2022, and the supply and demand projections are for the period 2023 to 2035.

(4) A copper to U 3 O 8 conversion factor of 18.19 was used for converting copper grades to equivalent U 3 O 8 grades (U 3 O 8 Eq) for cut-off grade evaluation and reporting.

(5) Numbers may not add due to rounding.

(6) For the Pinyon Plain Project, Mineral Resource tonnages of uranium and copper cannot be added as they overlap in the Main and Main-Lower Zones.

(7) The name of the Canyon Project was changed to “Pinyon Plain Project” in 2020.

MATERIAL PROPERTIES

The Nichols Ranch Project

The following technical and scientific description of the Nichols Ranch Project is based in part on the report titled “Technical Report on the Nichols Ranch Project, Johnson and Campbell Counties, Wyoming, USA” dated February 22, 2022 and effective December 31, 2021, as amended February 8, 2023, and prepared by Grant A. Malensek, M.Eng., P. Eng., Mark B. Mathisen, C.P.G., Jeremy Scott Collyard, PMP, MMSA QP, each a Qualified Person employed by SLR, Jeffrey L. Woods, MMSA QP, a Qualified Person employed by Woods Process Services, and Phillip E. Brown, C.P.G., R.P.G., a Qualified Person employed by Consultants In Hydrogeology (the “Nichols Ranch Technical Report Summary”). The Nichols Ranch Technical Report Summary was prepared in accordance with S-K 1300 and also constitutes a PEA pursuant to NI 43-101. The Nichols Ranch Project does not have known “Mineral Reserves” and is therefore considered under SEC S-K 1300 definitions to be an exploration stage property, despite commercial uranium extraction activities occurring as recently as 2019 (withde minimis levels of extraction more recently).

The Nichols Ranch Uranium Complex (the “Complex”) is an existing ISR mine with associated prospective ISR properties located in Campbell and Johnson Counties, in eastern Wyoming, USA in the Pumpkin Buttes Mining District of the Powder River Basin, 80 miles northeast of the city of Casper, Wyoming. The Complex is located approximately at latitude 43°42' North and longitude 106°01' West. The proposed Nichols Ranch Project will produce approximately 366 lb of U 3 O 8 annually. The Complex is an ISR project; it is not an underground or open pit project.

Excluding the Jane Dough area in which the Company owns an 81% interest, the Company owns a 100% interest in the remaining areas which comprise the Complex land holdings totaling 10,755 acres.

The Complex is divided into two primary areas, the Nichols Ranch Mining Unit and the Satellite Properties.

The Nichols Ranch Mining Unit includes the following:

a. Nichols Ranch Area (approximately 1,120 acres)

b. Jane Dough Area (approximately 3,680 acres)

c. Hank Area (approximately 2,250 acres)

Nichols Ranch and Jane Dough are contiguous, and the Hank area is located approximately six miles north of Nichols Ranch.

The Company currently controls four additional properties (the Satellite Properties) which are known to have significant mineralization, but not currently included in the mine permit. These include:

a. North Rolling Pin (NRP) Area (approximately 1,180 acres)

b. West North Butte (WNB) Area (approximately 2,360 acres)

c. East North Butte (ENB) Area (approximately 325 acres)

d. Willow Creek (WC) Area (approximately 220 acres)

Except where noted in the individual sections below, all mineral rights associated with the Project including claims, surface use agreements, mineral leases, etc. were acquired through the acquisition of Uranerz in 2015. Annual land holding fees associated with the Projects for 2023 totaled $770,000. Details of property ownership are described below by project area.

Nichols Ranch

The permit boundary for the Nichols Ranch Area, located in Sections 7, 8, 17, and 18, T43N, R76W, encompasses 1,120.00 acres. Within the Nichols Ranch permit boundary, Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc. (“EFR”) has 38 unpatented lode-mining claims (totaling approximately 639 acres), two fee mineral leases and three Surface Use Agreements (“SUAs”). The claims and fee leases encompass approximately 920 acres. The mineral fee leases and SUAs have a 10-year primary term that has now been extended indefinitely due to the Project being in production. Provisions are set by the SUAs for reimbursement to the surface owner for damages resulting from operations.

Claims do not have an expiration date, however, affidavits must be filed annually with the BLM and respective county recorder’s offices in order to maintain the claims’ validity. In addition, most of the unpatented lode claims are located on Stock Raising Homestead land where the U.S. government has issued a patent for the surface to an individual and reserved the minerals to the U.S. government subject to the location rights by claimants as set forth in the 1872 Mining Law. The Nichols Ranch lode mining claims are held by Uranerz, which is 100% owned by the Company.

In Section 21, the northern portion of Section 28, eastern portion of Section 20, and northeast quarter of Section 29, unpatented lode mining claims have an overriding royalty interest burden of 6% or 8% depending on the sale price of uranium. In the southern portion of Section 32, 20 of the unpatented lode mining claims have an overriding royalty of 0.25% based on production. In the southern portion of Section 28 where North Jane is located, 14 fee mineral leases have royalties ranging from 2% to 10% depending on the sale price of uranium. In the western half of Section 29 two mineral leases have a royalty of 6% or 8% depending on the sale price of uranium. Surface owners have a set rate for reimbursement of any land taken out of service for mining activities and two of the Surface Owners could receive an extraction fee on production with a burden of 1% or 2% percent depending on the sale price of uranium.

The unpatented lode mining claims will remain the property of EFR provided it adheres to the required filing and annual payment requirements with Campbell County and the BLM. The SUA’s will remain in force so long as the mining claims are maintained. Legal surveys of unpatented lode mining claims are not required and are not known to have been completed.

All of the unpatented lode mining claims have annual filing requirements ($165 per claim) with the BLM, to be paid on or before September 1 of each year.

Jane Dough

The permit boundary for the Jane Dough area encompasses approximately 3,680 acres. Within the Jane Dough permit boundary, EFR controls 117 unpatented lode-mining claims, three SUAs and 16 fee mineral leases. The fee mineral leases and claims encompass approximately 3,121.43 acres. The fee mineral leases and SUAs have terms of 10 years. These leases have expiration dates ranging from 2027 to 2032. They can be extended indefinitely by establishing production on the lease. The SUAs have set provisions for reimbursement to the surface owner for damages resulting from Company operations. In the south half of Section 28, T43N, R76W, the Company controls 57.29% of the fee mineral estate under various fee mineral leases mentioned above.

Portions of the Jane Dough Area were formerly held separately by EFR and the Arkose Project Joint Venture (“JV”). These holdings have been combined. The Company retains 100% of the mineral rights for the portion it originally held and 81% of the mineral rights for the Arkose Project JV portion of Jane Dough. Mineral Resources for Jane Dough reflect this partition of mineral ownership. The Jane Dough lode mining claims are held by Uranerz, which is 100% owned by the Company. In a single instance, in the south half of Section 28, T43N, R76W, the JV only controls 57.29% of a fee mineral lease. The partial ownership of the lease is split along the JV ownership agreement with the Company holding 81%.

In the south portion of Section 32, twenty of the unpatented lode mining claims have an overriding royalty of 0.25% based on production. In the southern half of Section 28 and northern half of section 32, five fee mineral leases have royalties ranging from 2% to 10% depending on the sale price of uranium. In the west half of Section 29, two mineral leases have a royalty of 6% or 8% depending on the sale price of uranium. Surface owners have a set rate for reimbursement of any land taken out of service for mining activities and two of the Surface Owners could receive an extraction fee on production with a burden of 1% or 2%, depending on the sale price of uranium.

The unpatented lode mining claims will remain the property of EFR provided it adheres to required filing and annual payment requirements with Campbell County and the BLM. The SUAs will remain in force so long as the mining claims are maintained. Legal surveys of unpatented lode mining claims are not required and are not known to have been completed.

All of the unpatented lode mining claims have annual filing requirements with the BLM, to be paid on or before September 1 of each year.

Hank

The Hank Area permit boundary encompasses approximately 2,250 acres. Within the permit boundary, the Company has 49 unpatented lode-mining claims (totaling approximately 968 acres), and one SUA covering approximately 1,392.58 acres. The Hank lode mining claims are held by Uranerz, which is 100% owned by the Company. The SUA is in effect as long as the unpatented lode-mining claims are maintained by annual payment.

All claims were located or acquired by EFR and a portion of the claims were subject to a 6% to 8% royalty which has since been extinguished. Four claims may be subject to a 5% overriding royalty vested in Brown Land Company and its successors. The claims will remain the property of EFR provided they adhere to required filing and annual payment requirements with Campbell County and the BLM. All of the unpatented lode claims have annual filing requirements with the BLM, to be paid on or before September 1 of each year.

The SUA will remain in force so long as the terms of the agreements are met. Legal surveys of unpatented claims are not required and are not known to have been completed.

North Rolling Pin

The North Rolling Pin (“NRP”) Area has 54 unpatented lode-mining claims (totaling approximately 1,018 acres) and one SUA. There are no mineral fee leases associated with the NRP Area. There is one SUA that will remain in force so long as the terms of the agreement are met. All of the unpatented lode mining claims have annual filing requirements with the BLM, to be paid on or before September 1 of each year. The claims area encompasses approximately 1,180 acres. The NRP lode mining claims are held by Uranerz, which is 100% owned by the Company.

Lode mining claims in the North Rolling Pin area are not subject to royalties. There are no fee mineral leases.

West North Butte

The West North Butte (“WNB”) Area claims were acquired by Uranerz, which was acquired by the Company in 2015. WNB is held by 109 unpatented lode-mining claims totaling approximately 1,800 acres. There are no fee leases associated with West North Butte. There is one SUA that will remain in force provided the terms of the agreement are met. The WNB lode mining claims are held by Uranerz, which is 100% owned by the Company.

East North Butte

The East North Butte (“ENB”) Area claims were acquired by Uranerz. ENB is held by 16 unpatented lode-mining claims totaling approximately 304 acres. There are no fee leases associated with East North Butte. There is one SUA which will remain in force so long as the terms of the agreement are met. The ENB lode mining claims are held by Uranerz, which is 100% owned by the Company.

None of the unpatented lode claims in the ENB Area are subject to a royalty. There are no fee mineral leases.

Willow Creek

The Willow Creek (“WC”) Area claims were acquired by Uranerz. WC is held by 11 unpatented lode-mining claims totaling approximately 191 acres. There are no fee leases associated with Willow Creek. There is one SUA that will remain in force so long as the terms of the agreement are met. The WC lode mining claims are held by Uranerz, which is 100% owned by the Company.

The claims were acquired by Uranerz and none of the unpatented lode claims in the WC Area are subject to a royalty. There are no fee leases associated with Willow Creek.

Nichols Ranch is located 80 miles northeast of Casper, Wyoming and accessible via two-wheel drive on existing county and/or private gravel and dirt roads by proceeding north approximately 10 mi from Wyoming Highway 387 on the IDT Road and approximately 12 mi northwest of the junction of Wyoming Highway 387 and Wyoming Highway 50.

NRP is accessible via two-wheel drive on existing private gravel and dirt roads, many of which have been improved by coal bed methane (“CBM”) development. The approximate center of the NRP property is approximately nine miles north of Wyoming Highway 387. Some road development and improvements may be required at a later time to facilitate future development of wellfields or satellite facilities.

WNB is accessible via two-wheel drive on existing county and/or private gravel and dirt roads. The approximate center of the Satellite Properties is roughly 8 mi to 11 mi west of Wyoming Highway 50, and the southern edge of the Satellite Properties is approximately 12 mi to 15 mi north of Wyoming Highway 387. Road development and improvements may be required at a later time to facilitate future development of wellfields and processing facilities. The north-northwest half of the WNB Area is located in an area of significant topographical relief and would likely require significant excavation to construct roads to potential wellfields or require the use of directional drilling to develop the resource.

In the vicinity of the Complex, the climate is semi-arid and receives an annual precipitation of approximately 13 in., the majority of which falls from February to April as snow. Cold, wind, and snow/blizzards may occasionally present challenges for winter exploration and construction work in this area however operations can take place year-round. The summer months are typically hot, dry, and clear, except for infrequent high-intensity, short-duration storm events.

The Complex is located in Johnson and Campbell Counties. These counties are generally rural; according to the April 1, 2020 United States Census, there were 8,447 people living in Johnson County and 47,026 people living in Campbell County. Most of the workers at the Complex are from the local area and nearby communities such as Casper, Wyoming, approximately 80 mi southwest of the Complex. Casper is the county seat of Natrona County and, as of the 2020 census, has a population of 59,038. Casper has numerous industrial supply and service companies to support mining operations. EFR maintains an office in Casper to support its Wyoming mining operations.

The Company has secured sufficient surface access rights for exploration and development of the Complex. The Nichols Ranch Mining Unit is a fully licensed, operable facility with sufficient sources of power, water, and waste disposal facilities for operations and aquifer restoration.

The basic infrastructure (power, water, and transportation) necessary to support an ISR mining operation has been established at the Nichols Ranch Mining Unit and is located within reasonable proximity of all satellite properties within this report. Existing infrastructure is associated with local oil, gas, and CBM development.

Non-potable water is and/or will be supplied by wells developed at or near the sites. Water extracted as part of ISR operations will be recycled for reinjection. Typical ISR mining operations also require a disposal well for limited quantities of fluids that cannot be returned to the production aquifers. Two deep disposal wells have been permitted and are operational at the Nichols Ranch ISR Plant.

The proximity of the Complex to paved roads will facilitate transportation of equipment, supplies, personnel, and product to and from the properties. Although the population within 50 miles of the subject properties consists mainly of rural ranch residences, personnel required for exploration, construction, and operation are available in the nearby towns of Wright, Midwest, Edgerton, Gillette, Buffalo, and Casper, Wyoming.

Power transmission lines are located on or near parts of the property. EFR has secured power from the local electrical service provider to accommodate all operational needs.

Tailing storage areas, waste disposal areas, heap leach pad(s) are not part of the required infrastructure for the Complex, as ISR operations do not require these types of facilities. Waste disposal is accomplished via deep well injection. EFR has two such wells permitted and in operation at Nichols Ranch.

The Complex is located within the Wyoming Basin physiographic province in the western portion of the Powder River Basin, within the Pumpkin Buttes Mining District. The Pumpkin Buttes are a series of small buttes rising up to nearly 6,000 feet above sea level (ft ASL) in elevation and approximately 1,000 ft above the surrounding plains. The rock capping the top of the buttes is the Oligocene age White River Formation erosional remnant, which is believed to have overlain the majority of the Powder River

Basin. The volcanic tuffs in the White River Formation have been cited as the source of uranium in the basin (Davis, 1969). Historic and current land use in the Pumpkin Buttes Mining District includes livestock grazing, mineral development, and oil and gas development.

Vegetation and wildlife surveys of the Complex area were completed as part of the environmental baseline studies required for permitting and licensing. Vegetation communities consist primarily of sagebrush shrub-land and mixed grasslands, with limited juniper, greasewood, and wetland communities. The Complex area has the potential to provide habitat for mule deer, elk, pronghorn antelope, jackrabbit, cottontail rabbit, coyote, bobcat, mountain lion, red fox, badger, raccoon, skunk, chipmunk, rodents, songbirds, waterfowl, eagles, hawks, owls, sage grouse, chukar, wild turkey, Hungarian partridge, mourning dove, magpie, and crow. Most species are yearlong residents, however, some species such as elk, eagles, songbirds, and waterfowl are more abundant during migration periods.

The Nichols Ranch Mining Unit is situated in a low-lying plain with elevations ranging from roughly 4,600 ft ASL to 4,900 ft ASL. There are two main ephemeral drainages at the site. Both are tributaries of Cottonwood Creek, which drains to the Cheyenne River.

The NRP Area consists of sagebrush and native grasses, covering rolling hills, steep walled gullies, and ephemeral streams. Elevations range from approximately 4,800 ft ASL to 5,180 ft ASL.

The WNB is located on the west flank of the North Pumpkin Butte. This area consists of sagebrush and native grasses, covering rolling hills, steep walled gullies, and flat-topped North Butte. Elevations range from approximately 4,900 ft ASL to 5,800 ft ASL, and generally slope from northeast to southwest.

History

The Complex was originally part of a large exploration area encompassing Townships 33 through 50 North of Ranges 69 through 79 West, on the Sixth Principal Meridian. In 1966, Mountain West Mines Inc. (“MWM”) – now Excalibur Industries) began a drilling exploration program in this area. In 1967, MWM entered into an agreement with Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Company (“CCI”) for further exploration and option if suitable resources were found. CCI exercised its option in 1976 with plans to begin underground mining operations near North Butte, approximately six and a half miles northeast of Nichols Ranch. As economic conditions changed, and with the development of ISR mining technology, CCI’s interest in the area waned. By the late 1980s, it began selling select properties or allowing them to revert back to MWM.

Uranerz acquired six uranium properties in the Powder River Basin from a third party in 2005, including the Complex.

In June 2015, EFR acquired all of the outstanding shares of Uranerz. Under that transaction, EFR acquired the Nichols Ranch Project, the Hank Project, the Reno Creek Property, the West North Butte Property, the North Rolling Pin Property, and the Arkose Project JV (a joint venture of ISR mining properties held 81% by Uranerz and 19% by United Nuclear Corp.), uranium sales contracts, and other assets, as well as the shares of Uranerz, which holds those assets. In May 2018, EFR sold its non-core Reno Creek Property to Uranium Energy Corp. In August 2018, EFR acquired royalties on the Nichols Ranch Project, along with royalties on several operating, standby, and advanced-stage ISR projects in Wyoming owned and operated by Power Resources, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Cameco Corporation.

The Nichols Ranch Mining Unit includes: (i) the Nichols Ranch Plant; (ii) the Nichols Ranch Wellfields; (iii) the Jane Dough Area; and (iv) the Hank Area, which includes the permitted but not constructed Hank Satellite Plant and the Hank Deposit. A portion of the Jane Dough Area is held through the Arkose Project JV, in which the EFR has an 81% interest.

The North Rolling Pin Area is located within a large exploration area encompassing Townships 33 through 50 North of Ranges 69 through 79 West, on the Sixth Principal Meridian. In 1966, MWM (now Excalibur Industries) began a successful drilling exploration program in a portion of the larger area. In 1967, MWM entered into an agreement with CCI for further exploration and option if suitable resources were found. CCI exercised its option in 1976 with plans to begin underground mining operations in the vicinity of North Butte. Changing economic conditions and the development of ISR mining technology reportedly ended much of CCI’s interest in the area.

In addition to CCI, other uranium exploration companies during the last forty years have controlled property either within or near the North Rolling Pin Property. These included Kerr McGee, Conoco, Texaco, American Nuclear, Tennessee Valley Authority, Rio Algom Mining Corporation (Rio Algom), and Uranerz. The mining claims and leases originally controlled by most of these companies were let go over the years due to market conditions. These property abandonments continued into 2004.

In February 2007, Uranerz purchased the North Rolling Pin claims group from Robert Shook as part of a larger 138 Federal mining claims acquisition. Uranerz subsequently expanded the properties by staking additional claims in the immediate area.

The WNB, ENB, and Willow Creek Areas were originally part of a large exploration area encompassing Townships 33 through 50 North of Ranges 69 through 79 West, on the 6th principal meridian. In 1966, MWM (now Excalibur Industries) began a successful drilling exploration program in a portion of this area. In 1967, MWM entered into an agreement with CCI for further exploration and option if suitable resources were found. CCI exercised its option in 1976 with plans to begin underground mining operations in the vicinity of North Butte. Changing economic conditions and the development of ISR mining technology reportedly ended much of CCI’s interest in the area.

In addition to CCI, other uranium exploration companies during the last forty years have controlled property either within or near the Satellite Properties. These included Kerr McGee, Conoco, Texaco, American Nuclear, Tennessee Valley Authority, and Uranerz U.S.A., Inc. Areva NC, via subsidiary Cogema Resources Inc. (Cogema), and Power Resources Inc. (a subsidiary of Cameco Corporation) have retained portions of their original land positions in the area. The mining claims and leases originally controlled by most of these companies were let go over the years due to market conditions. These property abandonments continued into 2004.

WNB, ENB, and WC cover an area of land located on the west, east and south flank of North Butte in Campbell County, Wyoming. Detailed disclosure pertaining to the chain of title of the properties comprising these Areas is not known to the Authors or Uranerz representatives and is beyond the scope of this Technical Report. The following is a brief description of what is known about ownership history of these Areas.

The locators of the claims acquired rights to the properties comprising the WNB Area in 1987. In January 2007, Uranerz completed an acquisition of an undivided one-hundred percent interest in the claims comprising the WNB Area.

The locators of the claims acquired rights to the properties comprising the ENB Area in 1987. In January 2007, Uranerz completed an acquisition of an undivided 100% interest in the claims comprising the East North Butte Area.

The locators of the claims acquired rights to the properties comprising the Willow Creek Area in the 1960s. In December 2005, Uranerz entered into an option agreement to acquire an undivided one-hundred percent interest in the claims comprising the Willow Creek Area. The terms of the option agreement were satisfied in 2007 and the transfer of the claims to Uranerz was completed.

On October 15, 1951, J. D. Love discovered uranium mineralization in the Pumpkin Buttes districts in the Wasatch Formation on the south side of North Pumpkin Butte in the west-central portion of the Powder River Basin. The mineralization was one of eight areas recommended by the U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS) in April 1950 for investigation in the search for uranium bearing lignites and volcanic tuffs. In response to this recommendation, an airborne radiometric reconnaissance of most of these areas was undertaken by the USGS in October 1950. The uranium mineralization discovered by J. D. Love was near an aerial radiometric anomaly identified from this survey (Love, 1952).

Exploration drilling was conducted in the Jane Dough Area, Section 21 and 28, T43N, R76W, between the late 1960s and late 1970s by CCI. Little interest was generated by the completion of 46 holes from this drilling. Between 1968 and 1980 CCI drilled 150 holes and installed 3 water wells on the Nichols Ranch and Jane Dough Areas. Texas Eastern Nuclear Inc. completed limited drilling and exploration on the property in 1985. In the early 1990s, Rio Algom also completed limited drilling in the area. In December 2005, Uranerz purchased the Nichols Ranch, Jane Dough, and Hank claims groups as part of a six-property agreement to option from Excalibur Industries. Uranerz then expanded the properties by staking additional claims in the immediate and surrounding areas.

Uranerz began exploration drilling on the Nichols Ranch Area on July 11, 2006, and continued to June 6, 2015. A total of 1,098 holes (253 exploration holes, 105 monitor wells, and 740 production wells) were drilled during that time. A total of 51 exploration holes were drilled on the Hank Area in 2008.

Uranerz received the Source Material License SUA-1597 in July of 2011. Nichols Ranch ISR operations began on April 15, 2014, after completion of a pre-operational inspection by the NRC Region IV office. There were two planned Production Areas (PA1 and PA2) in the Nichols Ranch Area. Five header houses and their respective wellfields were installed and in operation in June 2015, when EFR acquired Uranerz, in Production Area #1. Header house #6 was commissioned in November 2015. In 2016, the EFR completed drilling 12 delineation holes and drilling and casing of 86 extraction wells in Header Houses #7 and #8 in Production Area #1. Header House #7 was turned on in March 2016 and Header House #8 was turned on in June 2016. In Production Area #2, 133 extraction and injection wells were drilled and cased. Header House #9 was completed and turned on in March 2017. No drilling or other development activities have been performed since 2017.

In January 2008, Uranerz entered into the JV, resulting in an 81% undivided interest in the mineral rights controlled by the JV. Uranerz commenced exploration on the Arkose Project in 2008. A total of 1,971 exploration holes were drilled on the Arkose Project JV from April 2008 to August 2012. A portion of the Arkose Project JV holdings were subsequently incorporated into the

Jane Dough portion of the Nichols Ranch Mining Unit and remain subject to the 81% ownership, as discussed in Section 4.0 of this Technical Report.

Mining claims were first staked in the North Rolling Pin Area by MWM sometime before 1968. Exploration drilling was conducted in the North Rolling Pin Area Sections 11, 14 and 15, T43N, R76W, between 1968 and 1982 by CCI. A total of 476 exploration holes were drilled including 10 core holes. CCI was reported to be investigating the NRP Area for open pit mining potential but never carried those plans past the exploration phase. In 2008 and 2009, Uranerz drilled 18 exploration holes in Sections 11 and 14. This drilling was performed to evaluate the potential for mineralization below the zones explored by CCI and for confirmation of the previously identified mineralization in the F Sand.

Between 1968 and 1985, CCI drilled approximately 380 exploratory holes within the West North Butte, East North Butte, and Willow Creek Areas. From 1983 to 1985, Texas Eastern Nuclear drilled approximately 12 exploratory holes in these Areas. From approximately 1990 to 1992, Rio Algom drilled approximately 5 exploratory holes. In 2006, Uranerz completed an acquisition of these Areas, and in 2007 and 2008, drilled approximately 127 exploratory holes.

The Complex is an advanced stage project which is licensed to operate by the NRC and the WDEQ. Construction of the processing facility began in 2011. Plant construction and initial wellfield installation was completed in 2014 and operations were initiated in April 2014. Production of 1,265,805 pounds of uranium oxide has been reported from initiation of production through December 31, 2019, via ISR mining. Since 2019, the Nichols Ranch portion of the Complex has been on standby due to low uranium prices.

Energy Fuels has received all regulatory approvals necessary to conduct extraction and uranium processing activities at the Nichols Ranch Plant and Nichols Ranch Wellfield. In December 2010, Uranerz received its Permit to Mine for the Nichols Ranch Project from the WDEQ-LQD. In July 2011, Uranerz received a Source Material License from the NRC for the Nichols Ranch Plant and Nichols Ranch Wellfield, and construction of the Nichols Ranch Plant immediately began. Effective September 30, 2018, the State of Wyoming became an Agreement State under the Atomic Energy Act (as amended) for the regulation of uranium mills and uranium ISR facilities, and regulation of the Source Material License was transferred from the NRC to WDEQ-LQD.

Both the state and federal agencies analyzed all environmental aspects of the Nichols Ranch Project including reclamation of the land surface following extraction operations and restoration of impacted ground water. Workplace safety and the safety of the public are also closely monitored by regulatory agencies. We have posted a reclamation bond with the regulatory agencies in an amount of $7.1 million (most recently approved on August 15, 2023) to cover the total estimated cost of reclamation by a third party as a requirement of the licenses.

The various state and federal permits and licenses that were required and have been obtained for the Nichols Ranch Project, exclusive of the expansion to the Jane Dough Property, are summarized below:

Primary Permits and Licenses for the Nichols Ranch Project (Nichols Ranch and Hank Units Only)

Notes:

(1) NRC - Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(2) EPA - Environmental Protection Agency

(3) UIC - Underground Injection Control

(4) WDEQ-LQD - Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality Land Quality Division

(5) WDEQ-WQD - Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality Water Quality Division

(6) WDEQ-AQD - Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality Air Quality Division

(7) WSEO - Wyoming State Engineer’s Office

(8) WYPDES - Wyoming Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

Under the licensed plan, the Nichols Ranch Plant has been built, and a satellite processing facility is licensed for the Hank Project. In 2017, the NRC approved a source material license amendment to add the Jane Dough Property to the existing license for the Nichols Ranch Project, and the WDEQ approved an amendment to our Permit to Mine to incorporate the Jane Dough Property. The Jane Dough Property is now fully licensed and permitted as part of the Nichols Ranch Project. The Jane Dough Property is adjacent to the Nichols Ranch Wellfield and is expected to share its infrastructure. Uranerz is now able to bring the Jane Dough Property into extraction operations before the Hank Project. Due to its close proximity, extracted solutions from the Jane Dough Property may be delivered directly to our Nichols Ranch Plant by pipeline, thus eliminating the need for a larger capital outlay to construct a satellite plant as is planned for the Hank Project. The Jane Dough Property includes the Doughstick, South Doughstick and North Jane properties. Additional wellfields may be added to the extraction operations plan as the Company continues to assess geological data.

The Complex is located in the Powder River Basin, which is a large structural and topographic depression sub-parallel to the trend of the Rocky Mountains. The Basin is bounded on the south by the Hartville Uplift and the Laramie Range, on the east by the Black Hills, and on the west by the Big Horn Mountains and the Casper Arch. The Miles City Arch in southeastern Montana forms the northern boundary of the Basin.

The Powder River Basin is an asymmetrical syncline with its axis closely paralleling the western basin margin. During sedimentary deposition, the structural axis (the line of greatest material accumulation) shifted westward resulting in the Basin’s asymmetrical shape.

Uranium mineralization at the Complex deposits is hosted by the Eocene Wasatch Formation. The Wasatch Formation was deposited in a multi-channel fluvial and flood plain environment. The climate at the time of deposition was wet tropical to subtropical with medium stream and river sediment load depositing most medium grained materials. The source of the sediments, as evidenced by abundant feldspar grains in the sandstones, was the nearby Laramie and Granite Mountains.

Within the Complex, there is a repetitive transgressive/regressive sequence of sandstones separated by fine-grained horizons composed of siltstone, mudstone, carbonaceous shale, and poorly developed thin coal seams. The fine-grained materials were deposited in flood plain, shallow lake (lacustrine), and swamp environments. Ultimately, deposition of the Wasatch Formation was a function of stream bed load entering the basin and subsidence from within the basin. However, in the central part of the Powder River Basin, long periods of balanced stability occurred. During these periods the stream gradients were relatively low and allowed for development of broad (0.5 mi to 6.0 mi wide) meander belt systems, associated over-bank deposits, and finer grained materials in flood plains, swamps, and shallow bodies of water.

Meander belts in the Wasatch Formation are generally 5 ft to 30 ft thick. The A Sand at Nichols Ranch Area is made up of three to four stacked meander belts and the F Sand at Hank Area has two to three stacked meander belts. Individual meander belt layers will rarely terminate at the same location twice. Meanders have been noted to frequently terminate in the interior of a belt system but are more likely to terminate somewhere closer to the edge of the meander stream valley. The net effect for fluvial sands is to generally thin away from the main axis of the meander belt system. The A Sand meander belt system at Nichols Ranch Area is approximately four miles wide. At Hank, the F Sand meander belt system is smaller than Nichols Ranch at approximately one and a half miles wide.

At the North Rolling Pin Area, the mineralized sand horizon (F Sand) occurs within the Wasatch Formation at an approximate depth from surface ranging from 51 ft to 403 ft and averaging 282 ft to the top of the mineralization. Generally, the depth of mineralization decreases from the northeast to the southwest due mainly to topography along which the surface elevation decreases from approximately 5,180 ft to approximately 4,800 ft. The F Sand primarily consists of two stacked sand sets, termed the Upper and Lower F Sands that each average 20 ft to 25 ft thick.

The mineralized sand horizons occur within the lower part of the Wasatch Formation, at an approximate depth from surface ranging from 482 ft to 1,012 ft at West North Butte, 540 ft to 660 ft at East North Butte, and 172 ft to 567 ft at Willow Creek. The host sands are primarily arkosic in composition, friable, and contain trace carbonaceous material and organic debris. There are local sandy mudstone/siltstone intervals with the sandstones, and the sands may thicken or pinch-out in some locations. Mineral resources are located in the Eocene age Wasatch Formation in what is identified as the A, B, C and F host sand units of the WNB Area, the A and B host sands of the ENB Area and in the A and F host sand units of the WC Area.

The uranium mineralization is composed of amorphous uranium oxide, sooty pitchblende, and coffinite, and is deposited in void spaces between detrital sand grains and within minor authigenic clays. The host sandstone is composed of quartz, feldspar, accessory biotite and muscovite mica, and locally occurring carbon fragments. Grain size ranges from very fine to very coarse sand but is medium grained overall. The sandstones are weakly to moderately cemented and friable. Pyrite and calcite are associated with the sands in the reduced facies. Hematite or limonite stain from pyrite are common oxidation products in the oxidized facies. Montmorillonite and kaolinite clays from oxidized feldspars are also present in the oxidized facies (Uranerz, 2010a). The uranium being extracted is hosted in a sandstone, roll front deposit at a depth ranging from 400 ft to 800 ft.

Wyoming uranium deposits are typically sandstone roll front uranium deposits as defined in the “World Distribution of Uranium Deposits (UDEPO) with Uranium Deposit Classification” (IAEA, 2009). The key components in the formation of roll front type mineralization include:

•A permeable host formation:

◦Sandstone units of the Wasatch Formation.

•A source of soluble uranium:

◦Volcanic ash flows coincidental with Wasatch deposition containing elevated concentration of uranium is the probable source of uranium deposits for the Pumpkin Buttes Uranium District.

•Oxidizing groundwaters to leach and transport the uranium:

◦Groundwaters regionally tend to be oxidizing and slightly alkaline.

•Adequate reductant within the host formation:

◦Conditions resulting from periodic hydrogen sulfide (H 2 S gas) migrating along faults and subsequent iron sulfide (pyrite) precipitation created local reducing conditions.

•Time sufficient to concentrate the uranium at the oxidation/reduction interface.

◦Uranium precipitates from solution at the oxidation/reduction boundary (REDOX) as uraninite (UO 2, Uranium oxide), which is dominant, or coffinite (USiO 4, uranium silicate).

◦The geohydrologic regime of the region has been stable over millions of years with groundwater movement controlled primarily by high-permeability channels within the predominantly sandstone formations of the Tertiary.

The primary assay data used to calculate the Mineral Resource estimate for the Complex is downhole radiometric log data. Calibration data for both natural gamma and prompt fission neutron (“PFN”) geophysical logging units are available for both historical and recent drilling. When drilling is active, both the natural gamma and PFN logging trucks are calibrated at least every three months. Natural gamma calibration is performed at DOE standard calibration facilities located in Casper, Wyoming. Commercial logging services for both natural gamma and PFN logging are calibrated at the DOE standard facilities located in Casper, Wyoming, and/or Grand Junction, Colorado.

Only natural gamma logs were used for Resource estimation as assay data could lead to an over or under estimation of Mineral Resources due to disequilibrium. Positive disequilibrium occurs when the uranium present has not had enough time to decay and produce daughter isotopes, which are what are actually measured during a natural gamma assay. Under positive disequilibrium a natural gamma assay would indicate lower amounts of uranium than what is present. Negative disequilibrium occurs when uranium has had enough time to decay to produce the daughter radioisotopes but was remobilized and removed from the deposit. This would lead to measuring more uranium than is present. The use of a PFN logging unit, which directly measures uranium content, would remove this risk. The disequilibrium factor applied to the Mineral Resource is 1.0.

Mineral Resources have been estimated using the GT (Grade x Thickness) contour method for each of the mineral sandstone horizons or units identified across the deposits (1, A, B, C, F, G and H). The uranium resource can generally be defined by existing drilling information which is of sufficient density and continuity to identify a meandering discontinuous mineralized trend. The grade and mineralized zone thickness were obtained from historical and recent drilling.

The GT contour method is well suited for estimating tonnage and average grades of relatively planar mineralized bodies. It is a smoothing technique that allows the geologist to apply judgment regarding the variability of the mineralization within the plane of the mineralized body. This technique is particularly effective in generating a realistic landscape of metal values along the plane of the mineralized body and limiting the effect of local high values. The technique is best applied to estimate tonnage and average grade of relatively planar bodies, i.e., where the two dimensions of the mineralized body are much greater than the third dimension (Agnerian and Roscoe, 2001). For these types of deposits, the contour method can provide a clear view of the “mineralization landscape” with “peaks and valleys” along the plane of the mineralization. Due to the two-dimensional nature of the contour method, data from drillhole intersections means the reported averaged assay grade is across the entire thickness of the mineralized body being considered. If necessary, the average intersection value is diluted to a specified minimum thickness.

The rationale for all Mineral Resource estimation methods is that there is continuity of mineralization from one sample point to another, whether they are drillhole pierce points, underground workings, surface trenches, or wellfields. When a mineral deposit has been tested by many drillholes, the estimate of tonnage and average grade by all conventional methods will likely be similar. When a deposit has been tested by a relatively few widely spaced or irregularly spaced drillholes, however, the estimates by various methods may vary greatly and a few high-grade or wide intercepts may have a large influence on the average grade or tonnage of the deposit. The contour method can be effective in reducing the influence of high-grade or wide intersections as well as the effects of widely spaced, irregularly spaced, or clustered drillholes. This is particularly the case for roll front uranium deposits. It can also be applied to estimate Mineral Reserves by deleting certain portions of the Mineral Resources estimated by the same method, such as clipping the edges of the contoured area, deleting certain parts of the tonnage estimate as pillars and sills and/or applying economic factors to the Mineral Resources.

The Mineral Resource estimates were calculated using GT contours with a minimum grade cut-off of 0.02% eU 3 O 8 and a minimum mineralization thickness of 1.0 feet. The GT values of the subject sand intervals for each hole were plotted on a drillhole map and contour lines were drawn along the mineralization trend using ArcGIS software. The contour map was developed from the calculated GTs for various GT ranges. The areas within the GT contour boundaries, up to certain distances from the drillhole and to certain maximum areas of influence, were used for calculating estimates for resources. All resources were limited to the extent of the 0.2 GT boundaries. The contained pounds of uranium were calculated using the following formula:

Mineral Resource, pounds = (Area, ft 2) x (GT, %-ft) x (20 lb) x (DEF) / (RD, ft 3/ton)

•Area (ft 2) = Area of influence in square feet (measured from contour interval)

•GT (percent x feet) = Material grade in percent times feet thickness of mineralization (GT multiplied by 20 lb to convert from short tons to pounds as 1% of a short ton equals 20 lb)

•DEF (1.00) = Disequilibrium factor (1.00)

•RD (15.5) = Rock density (15.5 ft 3/ton)

Tonnage was calculated based on grade, pounds and a tonnage conversion factor for a given GT contour area.

Details regarding the Mineral Resource estimate disclosed herein can be found in Section 14.0, Mineral Resource Estimates of the Nichols Ranch Technical Report Summary.

The table below sets out the Mineral Resources estimates for the Nichols Ranch Project as of December 31, 2023. These estimates are derived from the Nichols Ranch Technical Report Summary, which estimated the Mineral Resources as of December 31, 2021. Daniel Kapostasy, the Company’s non-independent Qualified Person, reviewed and confirmed that the Mineral Resources estimates set forth in the Nichols Ranch Technical Report Summary remained accurate as of December 31, 2023.

Nichols Ranch Remaining Mineral Resources – In Situ Uranium(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)

Notes:

(1) SEC S-K definitions were followed for all Mineral Resource categories. These definitions are also consistent with CIM (2014) definitions in NI 43-101.

(2) The cut-off grade is calculated using a metal price of $65/lb. U 3 O 8. The long-term uranium price is based on supply and demand projections for the period 2021-2035.

(3) Mineral Resources are based on a tonnage factory of 15.0 ft 3/ton (Bulk density 0.0667 ton/ft 3 or 2.13 t/m 3).

(4) Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.

(5) Numbers may not add due to rounding.

(6) Mineral Resources are 100% attributable to EFR for Nichols Ranch, Hank, and North Rolling Pin.

(7) Mineral Resources are 81% attributable to EFR and 19% attributable to United Nuclear Corp. in parts of Jane Dough.

(8) Cut-off grade is a GT cut-off or %U 3 O 8 x thickness (ft).

(9) Metallurgical recoveries for ISR operations represent the percent recovery (71%) for under pattern Mineral Resources. Measured Mineral Resources are 100% under pattern. Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resources assume 85% under pattern and 71% recovery totaling 60.4% overall recovery of the Mineral Resource.

Present Condition of the Property

Current Status of Wellfields

All the currently planned and permitted wellfields are in Production Areas #1 and #2 of the Nichols Ranch Wellfield. The Nichols Ranch Wellfield is expected to have a total of 13 header-houses, with Production Area #1 comprising header-houses 1 through 8, and Production Area #2 comprising header-houses 9 through 13. Each of the two planned Nichols Ranch Wellfield Production Areas will include a number of injection wells, recovery wells, monitoring wells, header houses and associated piping and power supply. Header houses will be located within the Production Areas and will distribute recovered fluids from recovery wells to trunk lines, and injection fluids from the processing facility through the trunk lines to injection wells.

The first five header houses and their respective wellfields in Production Area #1 at the Nichols Ranch Wellfield were installed and extracting uranium at the time the Company acquired Uranerz in June 2015. Header house #6 was commissioned in November 2015. Uranerz placed the 7th and 8th header-houses online in March and July 2016, respectively, thereby completing development of Production Area #1. In February 2017 Uranerz completed construction on the 9th header-house, marking the beginning of development in Production Area #2. Uranium recovery operations from Production Area #2 commenced in March of 2017. Currently, Production Area #1 is in restoration and Production Area #2 is on standby. In order for Nichols Ranch to engage in future uranium production, the Company will need to incur capital expenditures to develop additional wellfields.

Nichols Ranch Plant

In 2014, construction of the Nichols Ranch Plant was completed. The Nichols Ranch Plant is licensed to produce up to two million pounds of uranium per year through three major processing solution circuits: (i) a recovery and extraction circuit; (ii) an elution circuit; and (iii) a yellowcake production circuit. The Nichols Ranch Plant is currently constructed and operated with the recovery and extraction circuit and the elution circuit installed. The Company retains the ability to construct and operate a yellowcake drying and packaging circuit at the Nichols Ranch Plant at a later date if desired.

Uranerz is still processing uranium-bearing wellfield solutions from Production Areas #1 and #2 of the Nichols Ranch Wellfield forde minimis recoveries of uranium. When not on standby, yellowcake slurry, produced at the Nichols Ranch Plant, is shipped by truck from the Nichols Ranch Project to the White Mesa Mill where it is dried and packaged in drums as uranium concentrate product. Prior to the completion of the elution circuit in February 2016, loaded resin was transported by truck to a third-party facility for elution, drying and packaging, under a toll processing arrangement.

The Nichols Ranch Plant was acquired by the Company on June 18, 2015 through the acquisition of Uranerz. As of December 31, 2023, the total net book value attributable to the Nichols Ranch Plant on the Company’s consolidated financial statements was $7.2 million. The total net book value attributable to the North Rolling Pin and WNB properties was $10.2 million.

Production at Nichols Ranch is currently on standby and restoration, pending market conditions improving sufficiently to resume production. In order for Nichols Ranch to engage in future uranium production, the Company will need to incur capital expenditures to develop additional wellfields, as all existing wellfields are now depleted. While production at the Nichols Ranch Project is currently being maintained on standby, in 2024 the Company is undertaking exploration drilling around the Collins Draw and Arkose portions of its larger land holdings around the Nichols Ranch Complex to expand the resources at the Nichols Ranch Project and to conduct delineation drilling in PA2 in order to plan out future wellfields to be ready for potential recommencement of production in late 2024 or in 2025.

The White Mesa Mill

General

The White Mesa Mill is a fully licensed uranium, vanadium and REE processing facility located in southeastern Utah, approximately six miles south of the city of Blanding, Utah. The Mill offices are located at 37°32’3.749” north latitude and 109°30’10.297” west longitude. It is within trucking distance of the Company’s conventional properties in Utah, Colorado, Arizona and New Mexico, including the Pinyon Plain Project, the Roca Honda Project, the Bullfrog Project, the La Sal Project and the Whirlwind Project. The Mill is the only fully operational and licensed conventional uranium mill in the U.S. It is capable of functioning independently of off-site support except for commercial power from Rocky Mountain Power and as-needed supplemental water supply from the City of Blanding, Utah, and the San Juan Water Conservancy District. The Mill is a uranium, vanadium and REE processing and recovery facility. It is not an underground or open pit project.

The Mill is licensed to process an average of 2,000 tons of ore per day and to extract over 8.0 million pounds of U 3 O 8 per year. In addition to the conventional circuit, the Mill has a separate vanadium by-product recovery circuit, and is constructing a separate REE oxide separation circuit.

In addition to the Mill processing equipment, which includes the grinding and leaching circuits, CCD (liquid–solid separation), solvent extraction, and precipitation and drying circuits, the Mill has several days of reagent storage for sulfuric acid, hydrochloric acid, ammonia, salt, soda ash, caustic soda, ammonium sulfate, flocculants, kerosene, amines, and liquefied natural gas.

The onsite infrastructure also includes a stockpile area capable of storing up to 450,000 tons of mineralized material, and existing tailings capacity of approximately 2.5 million tons of solids. In addition, the Mill has approximately 90 acres of evaporation capacity.

Synthetic lined cells are used to contain tailings and solutions for evaporation. The Company operates two tailings cells and one or more evaporation ponds during normal operations. As each tailings cell is filled, the water is drawn off and pumped to an evaporation pond and the tailings solids are allowed to dry. As each tailings cell reaches final capacity, reclamation begins with the placement of interim cover over the tailings. Additional cells are excavated, and the overburden is used to reclaim previous cells. In this way, there is an ongoing reclamation process.

When in full operation, the Mill employs approximately 150 people, which is reduced to approximately 110 people when the vanadium circuit is not being operated.

Alternate Feed Materials

The Mill License (defined below) also gives the Company the right to process other uranium-bearing materials known as Alternate Feed Materials pursuant to an Alternate Feed Guidance published by the NRC. Alternate Feed Materials are uranium-bearing materials, other than natural or native ore, usually classified as waste products by the generators of the materials, which can be recycled by the Mill for the recovery of U 3 O 8. The Mill License does not permit the processing of uranium-bearing materials that have undergone enrichment. Requiring a routine amendment to the Mill License for each different Alternate Feed Material, the Company can process these uranium-bearing materials and recover uranium, in some cases at a fraction of the cost of processing conventionally mined material. In other cases, the generators of the Alternate Feed Materials are willing to pay a recycling fee to the Company to process these materials to recover uranium and then dispose of the remaining by-product in the Mill’s licensed tailings cells, rather than directly disposing of the materials at a disposal site. By working with the Company and taking the recycling approach, the suppliers of Alternate Feed Materials can significantly reduce their remediation costs, as there are only a limited number of disposal sites for such materials in the U.S. Alternate Feed Materials are particularly attractive to Energy Fuels because they carry no associated mining costs.

Throughout its history, the Mill has received 18 license amendments, authorizing it to process 22 different Alternate Feed Materials. Of these amendments, twelve have involved the processing of feeds provided by nuclear fuel cycle facilities and private industry, and one has involved the processing of material from the DOE. These thirteen feed materials have been relatively high in uranium content and relatively low in volume. The remaining five amendments have allowed the Mill to process uranium-bearing soils from former defense sites, known as FUSRAP sites, which were being remediated by the USACE. These materials are typically relatively low in uranium content but relatively high in volume.

The Mill has a separate circuit for processing certain types of Alternate Feed Materials, which was built in 2009. This circuit enables the Mill to process both conventionally mined material and Alternate Feed Materials simultaneously.

Rare Earth Elements

In 2021, the Company began utilizing the Mill to process REEs at commercial scale from a monazite feed source. Monazite is typically produced as part of HMS mining operations and contains elevated quantities of the rare earth suite of elements as well as uranium. Since 2021, the Mill has successfully recovered rare earths as a mixed RE Carbonate product, which has been sold into the rare earth market. The Mill processed approximately 360 tons of monazite in 2023 and the Company is planning on processing approximately 480 MT of monazite in early 2024. The Mill is also completing installation of a RE separation facility (Phase I) that will allow for the production of NdPr oxide as well as heavy RE concentrate products at the Mill. Installation of the Phase I separation facility is expected to be completed near the end of Q1 2024. Phase I is expected to be capable of processing the equivalent of 8,000 to 10,000 tonnes of monazite annually. The Mill is uniquely suited to process monazite and extract both the REEs as well as the uranium. See “Part I, Item 1. Business Overview - The Company’s Rare Earth Elements Business” for a more detailed discussion of the Company’s REE initiatives.

Potential Recovery of Radioisotopes for use in Advanced Cancer Therapeutics

In 2021, the Company announced the execution of a Strategic Alliance Agreement with RadTran, a technology development company focused on closing critical gaps in the procurement of medical isotopes for emerging TAT cancer therapeutics and other applications. Under this strategic alliance, the Company is evaluating the feasibility of recovering Th-232, and Ra-226, from its existing REE and uranium process streams at the Mill and, together with RadTran, is evaluating the feasibility of recovering Ra-228 from the Th-232, potentially Th-228 from the Ra-228 and concentrating Ra-226 at the Mill. Recovered Ra-228, Th-228 and Ra-226 would then be sold to pharmaceutical companies and others to produce Pb-212, Ac-225, Bi-213, Ra-224 and/or Ra-223, which are the leading medically attractive TAT isotopes for the treatment of cancer. Existing supplies of these isotopes for TAT applications are in short supply, and methods of production are costly and currently cannot be scaled to meet the demand created as new drugs are developed and approved. This is a major roadblock in the research and development of new TAT drugs as pharmaceutical companies wait for scalable and affordable production technologies to become available. Under this initiative, the Company has the potential to recover valuable isotopes from its existing process streams, thereby recycling back into the market material that would otherwise be lost to disposal for use in treating cancer. See“Part I, Item 1. Business Overview - The Company’s Strategic Alliance for the Development of Radioisotopes for Medical Therapeutics” for a more detailed discussion of this initiative.

The Mill is located in central San Juan County, Utah, approximately six miles (9.5 km) south of the city of Blanding. It can be reached by taking a private road for approximately 0.5 miles west of U.S. Highway 191.

The climate of southeastern Utah is classified as dry to arid continental. Although varying somewhat with elevation and terrain, the climate in the vicinity of the Mill can be considered as semi-arid with normal annual precipitation of about 13.4 inches. The weather in the Blanding area is typified by warm summers and cold winters. The mean annual temperature in Blanding is about 50°F. Winds are usually light to moderate in the area during all seasons, although occasional stronger winds may occur in the late winter and spring.

The Mill site is located on a gently sloping mesa that, from the air, appears similar to a peninsula, as it is surrounded by steep canyons and washes and is connected to the Abajo Mountains to the north by a narrow neck of land. On the mesa, the topography is relatively flat, sloping at less than one (1) percent to the south and nearly horizontal from east to west.

The natural vegetation presently occurring within a 25-mile (40-km) radius of the Mill site is very similar to that of the region, characterized by pinyon-juniper woodland integrating with big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) communities.

Off-site infrastructure includes paved highway access from U.S. Highway 191 and rights-of-way for commercial power and a water supply pipeline from Recapture Reservoir, which brings up to 1,000 acre-feet of water per year to the Mill site. The Mill also has three deep (2,000+ foot) water supply wells, which are available to supply process water during normal operations.

The White Mesa Mill is located on 4,816 acres of private land owned in fee by Energy Fuels. This land is located in Township 37S and 38S Range 22E Salt Lake Principal Meridian. Energy Fuels also holds 253 acres of mill site claims and a 320-acre Utah state lease. No facilities are planned on the mill site claims or leased land, which are used as a buffer to the operations. Total holding costs for the Mill in 2023 were $14,084.

All operations authorized by the Mill’s License are conducted within the confines of the existing site boundary. The milling facility currently occupies approximately 50 acres, and the current tailings disposal cells encompass another 250 acres.

The White Mesa Mill holds a Radioactive Materials License through the State of Utah (the “Mill License”). Uranium milling in the U.S. is primarily regulated by the NRC pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. The NRC’s primary function is to ensure the protection of employees, the public and the environment from radioactive materials, and it also regulates most aspects of the uranium recovery process. The NRC regulations pertaining to uranium recovery facilities are codified in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations. These regulations also apply to our ISR facilities in Wyoming and Texas.

On August 16, 2004, the State of Utah became an Agreement State for the regulation of uranium mills. This means that the primary regulator for the Mill is the UDEQ rather than the NRC. At that time, the Source Material License, which was previously issued and regulated by the NRC, was transferred to the State and became a Radioactive Materials License. The State of Utah incorporates, through its own regulations or by reference, all aspects of Title 10 pertaining to uranium recovery facilities. The Mill License was due for renewal on March 31, 2007. Energy Fuels’ predecessor timely submitted its application for its Mill License renewal on February 28, 2007. The renewed Mill License was issued by UDEQ on January 19, 2018, then reissued on February 16, 2018, for a period of ten years (with a number of Amendments issued since), after which another application for renewal will need to be submitted. During the review period for each application for renewal, the Mill can continue to operate under its then existing Mill License until such time as the renewed Mill License is issued. The Mill License was initially issued in 1980 and was also renewed in 1987 and 1997.

When the State of Utah became an Agreement State, it required that a GWDP be put in place for the Mill. The GWDP is required for all similar facilities in the State of Utah and affects the State groundwater regulations to the Mill site. The State of Utah requires that every operating uranium mill have a GWDP, regardless of whether the facility discharges to groundwater. The GWDP for the Mill was finalized and implemented in March 2005. The GWDP required that the Mill add over 40 additional monitoring parameters and 15 additional monitoring wells at the site. The GWDP came up for renewal in 2010, at which time an application for renewal was timely submitted. The renewed GWDP was issued by UDEQ on January 19, 2018 for a period of five years. An application for renewal of the GWDP was submitted on July 15, 2022, prior to expiration of the current GWDP. The application remains under consideration at this time. During the review period for each application for renewal, the Mill can continue to operate under its then existing GWDP until such time as the renewed GWDP is issued. The Mill also maintains a permit for air emissions with the UDEQ, Division of Air Quality.

The Mill is subject to decommissioning liabilities. Energy Fuels, as part of the Mill License, is required to annually review its estimate for the decommissioning of the Mill site and submit it to UDEQ for approval. The estimate of closure costs for the Mill is $23.8 million as of December 31, 2023, and financial assurances are in place for the total amount. However, there can be no assurance that the ultimate cost of such reclamation obligations will not exceed the estimated liability contained in the Company’s financial statements.

History

The Mill was originally constructed and owned by Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc. (“EFN”) and its affiliates (no relation to the Company). It was licensed by the NRC and commenced operations in June 1980. In 1984, EFN transferred a 70% interest in the Mill to UMETCO Minerals Corp., a subsidiary of Union Carbide Corporation (“UMETCO”). UMETCO became the operator of the Mill in 1984 and continued to be the operator until 1994, at which time UMETCO transferred its interest in the Mill back to EFN and its affiliates. The Mill was acquired by Denison Mines Corp. (“Denison”), then named International Uranium Corporation (“IUC”) and its affiliates in 1997 and was operated by Denison until it was acquired by the Company in June 2012. From the original commissioning in 1980 through December 31, 2023, the Mill has recovered a total of approximately 40 million pounds of U 3 O 8 and 46 million pounds of vanadium.

In late 2006, Denison began a program to refurbish the Mill. The refurbishment program included the purchase of mobile equipment, restoration of the vanadium roasting, fusion and packaging circuits, replacement of major pumps and component drives, modernization of the Mill’s instrumentation and process control systems, and completion of relining tailings Cell 4A. The total cost of the refurbishment program was approximately $31.0 million and was completed in 2008.

The Mill has historically operated on a campaign basis. In 2008, the Mill began processing uranium/vanadium conventional mined material, extracting uranium concentrate in the form of U 3 O 8, and vanadium in the form of V 2 O 5. Mineral processing continued through the end of March 2009, at which time maintenance activities were performed at the Mill. Mineral processing recommenced near the end of April 2009 but was discontinued due to a decline in uranium prices at the time. The Mill began mineral processing again in March 2010 and continued through June 2011. Conventional processing recommenced in November 2011 and continued until early March 2012, at which time it ceased for routine maintenance. Conventional mineral processing recommenced at the Mill in August 2012 and continued until early June 2013. Mineral processing began again in May 2014 and continued through August 2014. The alternate feed circuit processed materials from January through December 2014 and continued processing Alternate Feed Materials through December 2015. In 2016, the Company continued processing several Alternate Feed Materials and processed 45,057 tons of mineralized material from its Pinenut mine. In 2017 and 2018, the Mill continued processing Alternate Feed Materials as well as the recovery of uranium from tailings pond solutions at the site. In 2020, Mill activities focused solely on processing Alternate Feed Materials and uranium and vanadium recovery from tailings pond solutions at the site. In 2021, Mill activities focused solely on processing monazite from heavy mineral sands operation for the recovery of U 3 O 8 and rare earth elements. In 2023, the Mill processed monazite feeds to produce approximately 260 metric tonnes of partially separated rare earth oxides.

Energy Fuels acquired the Mill from Denison Mines Corp. on June 29, 2012. All mineral processing after that date has been for the account of Energy Fuels.

Notes:

(1) Mineralized material is shown as being processed and pounds recovered during the year in which the materials were processed at the Mill or at the Nichols Ranch Plant, which is not necessarily the year in which the materials were extracted from the project facilities.

(2) All Alternate Feed Materials were processed at the Mill. A number of different Alternate Feed Materials were processed during the period from 2019 through 2023. The table shows the average uranium grades and the total pounds recovered from all Alternate Feed Materials processed at the Mill during each of the years in that period. Because of the variability in uranium grades, pounds recovered is considered to be the relevant metric and tons fed is not considered to be relevant.

(3) The 161,000 pounds recovered in 2022 include nil pounds recovered for the accounts of third parties. The 144,000 pounds recovered in 2020 include nil pounds recovered for the accounts of third parties.

(4) Pounds contained in tailings solutions containing previously unrecovered uranium and vanadium, together with in-circuit mineralized material from previous conventional mine material processing, were recovered at the Mill, though tons and grade are not available because they cannot be tied to any specific source.

(5) Includes uranium and TREO recovered from monazite processing.

(6) The 1,000 pounds of 162,000 pounds of U 3 O 8 packaged in 2022 is uranium recovered from monazite processing in 2021 and 2022. This amount does not include an additional approximately 1,000 pounds of U 3 O 8 recovered during 2021 and 2022, which was in process and not packaged as of December 31, 2022. All uranium recovered from monazite processing in 2021 was retained in process and not packaged in 2021. A portion of uranium recovered in 2021 was packaged in 2022, with the remainder held in process as at December 31, 2022. The uranium concentration of monazite is comparable to typical Colorado Plateau conventional ores processed at the Mill on a regular basis. The relatively small quantities of uranium recovered from the monazite processed in 2021 and 2022 is a reflection of the low tonnage of monazite processed through the Mill during those years.

(7) Uranium recovery commenced at the Nichols Ranch Project on April 17, 2014. Because the Nichols Ranch Project uses ISR instead of conventional extraction methods, grade and tons of mineralized material are inapplicable to the Nichols Ranch Project.

(8) The Alta Mesa Project was sold by the Company on February 14, 2023.

Present Condition of the Property

Planned Operations and Maintenance

The Mill recovered no pounds of U 3 O 8 during 2019, and operations focused solely on vanadium recovery from dissolved vanadium in the Mill’s tailings management system not recovered from previous processing activities (“Pond Return”). The Mill recovered approximately 67,000 pounds of V 2 O 5 in 2020 from Pond Return. Of these 67,000 pounds of V 2 O 5, all were for the account of the Company. During 2020, the Company recovered approximately 190,000 pounds of U 3 O 8 from the processing of Alternate Feed Materials and Pond Return. The Company also recovered approximately 68,000 pounds of V 2 O 5 from Pond Returns. In 2020, the Company also began processing an REE feed at a pilot scale. The Company produced approximately 4 metric tons of RE Carbonate. In 2021, the Mill processed 400 tons of monazite and produced 120 tonnes of TREO in the form of RE Carbonate. In 2022, the Mill processed 184 tonnes of monazite and produced 95 tonnes of TREO in the form of RE Carbonate and, in 2023, the Mill processed 326 tonnes of monazite and recovered 260 tonnes of TREO in the form of RE Carbonate. The Mill operations registered zero lost time accidents in 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 and 2023.

Environmental Matters

Prior to Energy Fuels’ acquisition of the Mill from Denison, chloroform in the shallow aquifer at the Mill site was discovered. The chloroform appears to have resulted from the operation of a temporary laboratory facility that was located at the site prior to and during the construction of the Mill, and from septic drain fields that were used for laboratory and sanitary wastes prior to construction of the Mill’s Tailings Management System (“TMS”). In April 2003, Denison commenced an interim remedial program of pumping the chloroform affected water from the groundwater to the Mill’s TMS. This action enabled Energy Fuels to begin cleanup of the affected areas and to take a further step towards resolution of this outstanding issue. Pumping from the wells continued through 2015. On September 14, 2015, the State of Utah approved a long-term Corrective Action Plan (“CAP”) for cleanup of the chloroform, which involves additional pumping wells and continued pumping of the affected water to the Mill’s TMS. While the investigations to date indicate that this chloroform appears to be contained in a manageable area, the scope and costs of final remediation have not yet been determined and could be significant.

Prior to Energy Fuels’ acquisition of the Mill from Denison, elevated concentrations of nitrate and chloride were observed in some of the monitoring wells at the Mill site in 2008, a number of which are upgradient of the Mill’s TMS. Pursuant to a Stipulated Consent Agreement with UDEQ, Denison retained INTERA, Inc., an independent professional engineering firm, to investigate these elevated concentrations and to prepare a Contamination Investigation Report for submittal to UDEQ. The investigation was completed in 2009, and the Contamination Investigation Report was submitted to UDEQ in January 2010. INTERA concluded in the Report that: (1) the nitrate and chloride are co-extensive and appear to originally come from the same source; and (2) the source is upgradient of the Mill property and is not the result of Mill activities. UDEQ reviewed the Report and concluded that further investigations were required before it could determine the source of the contamination and the responsibility for cleanup. Such investigations were performed in 2010 and 2011 but were considered inconclusive by UDEQ. As a result, after the investigations, it was determined that there are site conditions that make it difficult to ascertain the source(s) of contamination at the site, and that it was not possible at that time to determine the source(s), causes(s), attribution, magnitude(s) of contribution, and proportion(s) of the local nitrate and chloride in groundwater. For those reasons, UDEQ decided that it could not eliminate Mill activities as a potential cause, either in full or in part, of the contamination. The Company and UDEQ have therefore agreed that resources are better spent in developing and implementing a CAP, rather than continuing with further investigations as to the source(s) and attribution of the groundwater contamination. Pursuant to a revised Stipulated Consent Agreement, Denison submitted a draft CAP for remediation of the contamination to UDEQ in November 2011. The CAP proposed a program of pumping the nitrate contaminated groundwater to the Mill’s tailings cells, similar to the chloroform remedial program. On December 12, 2012, the Utah Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control (“DWMRC”), signed the Stipulation and Consent Order (“SCO”), Docket Number UGW12-04, which approved the Mill’s CAP dated May 7, 2012 and required the Mill to fully implement all elements of it. In accordance with the CAP, in 2013 the Company commenced pumping nitrate/chloride contaminated water from four monitoring wells for use in Mill processing or discharge into the Mill’s process or TMS. In December 2017 the Mill filed its first Corrective Action Comprehensive Monitoring Evaluation (“CACME”), required under the CAP every five years. By letter dated June 22, 2018, the DWMRC requested the implementation of Phase III actions specified in the CAP. Phase III actions include modeling, and study of plume dynamics and assessment of future actions if any. The Phase III report was submitted to DWMRC in December 2018 and is currently under review by DWMRC. Although the contamination appears to be contained in a manageable area, the scope and costs of final remediation have not yet been determined and could be significant.

The Mill has reported consecutive exceedances of groundwater compliance limits (“GWCLs”) under the Mill’s GWDP for several constituents in several wells. These exceedances include wells that are up-gradient of the Mill facilities, far down-gradient of the Mill site cross-gradient of the Mill site and at the site itself. As required by the GWDP, these consecutive exceedances of GWCLs have resulted in the completion of constituent specific assessments and additional studies which are documented in Source Assessment Reports. Source Assessment Reports were submitted addressing each exceedance at the site. UDEQ has accepted the Source Assessment Reports and has concluded that such exceedances are due to natural background influences at the site. Amendments to the GWDP issued on January 19, 2018, March 19, 2019 and March 8, 2021, respectively, include revised GWCLs intended to account for these background influences and put the constituents back into compliance. Most recently, a GWDP renewal application was submitted in July 2022 and remains under consideration by DWMRC at this time.

Total Cost of Project

The Mill was acquired by the Company in June 2012, through the acquisition of the U.S. Mining Division from Denison. The cost of the Mill has been fully impaired, and as of December 31, 2023, the total net book value attributable to the Mill and its associated equipment on the financial statements of the Company was nil.

During 2024, the Company expects to commission its rare earth separation circuits (Phase 1), which will allow it to recover approximately 25 to 35 tonnes of NdPr Oxide in the form of NdPr oxalate, as well as 10 to 20 tons of SEG and heavy rare earth oxides in the form RE carbonate from approximately 480 tonnes of monazite. The Company also expects to recover the associated uranium in the monazite, which is expected to result in a few thousand pounds of U 3 O 8.

The Company also plans to process Alternate Feed Materials and uranium ore, which is expected to result in the recovery of approximately 150,000 to 500,000 pounds of U 3 O 8, depending on the timing of ramp up of production at the Company's Pinyon Plain, La Sal and Pandora mines.

The Pinyon Plain Project

The following technical and scientific description of the Pinyon Plain Project is based in part on the Preliminary Feasibility Study titled “Technical Report on the Pre-Feasibility Study on the Pinyon Plain Project, Coconino County, Arizona, USA,” dated February 23, 2023, effective as of December 31, 2022, and prepared by Mark B. Mathisen, C.P.G., R. Dennis Bergen, P. Eng. and Grant Malensek, M.Eng., P. Eng., each a Qualified Person employed by SLR, Lee (Pat) Gochnour, MMSA, a Qualified Person employed by Gouchnour & Associate, Inc. and Jeffrey Woods, MMSA, a Qualified Person employed by Woods Process Services (the “Pinyon Plain Technical Report Summary”). The Pinyon Plain Technical Report Summary was prepared in accordance with S-K 1300 and NI 43-101. The Pinyon Plain Project was considered under SEC S-K 1300 definitions to be a development stage property as at December 31, 2023 because it contains both Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves. In January 2024, the Company commenced uranium production at the Pinyon Plain Project. If and when the Company engages in material extraction from the Pinyon Plain Project, the Project will be considered a production stage property and the Company will be considered a production stage issuer.

The Pinyon Plain Project is a fully permitted underground uranium and copper deposit in northern Arizona, located on a 17-acre site within the Kaibab National Forest. The property is located at latitude 35°52'58.65" N and longitude 112° 5'47.05" W. It is situated 153 mi north of Phoenix, 86 mi northwest of Flagstaff, and seven miles southeast of Tusayan, in Sections 19 and 20, Township 29 North, Range 03 East, Gila and Salt River Meridian (GSRM), Coconino County, Arizona. Ore haulage from the Pinyon Plain Project to the Mill in Blanding, Utah, is 315 miles on paved roads and 5 miles on dirt roads.

The Company’s property position at the Pinyon Plain Project consists of nine unpatented lode mining claims (Canyon 64–66, 74–76, and 84–86), located on USFS land, encompassing approximately 186 acres. All claims are held in perpetuity by annual claims payments due on September 1. EFR acquired the Pinyon Plain Project in June 2012 and has a 100% interest in the claims.

Claim maintenance costs for 2023 were $1,485. The claims have a 3.5% Atomic Energy Commission Circular 5 royalty on uranium production, payable to a former owner of the claims.

Access to the Pinyon Plain Project site is via State Highway 64 and Federal Highway 180 to within five miles of the project site, then over unsurfaced public USFS roads. The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe railway line passes east-west 50 mi south of the site at Williams, and a spur of the railway, which passes 10 mi west of the Pinyon Plain Project site, services the Grand Canyon National Park. Airports at Flagstaff, Phoenix, Prescott and Tusayan provide air access to the area.

The climate in northern Arizona is semi-arid, with cold winters and hot summers. January temperatures range from approximately 7°F to 57°F and July temperatures range from 52°F to 97°F. Annual precipitation, mostly in the form of rain but with some snow, is about 12 in.

Northern Arizona is part of the Colorado Plateau, a region of the western U.S. characterized by semi-arid, high-altitude, gently sloping plateaus dissected by steep walled canyons, volcanic mountain peaks, and extensive erosional escarpments. The Pinyon Plain Project is located on the Coconino Plateau within the Colorado Plateau, at an elevation of approximately 6,500 feet above sea level (ft ASL).

Although the Coconino Plateau is sparsely populated, tourist traffic to Grand Canyon National Park results in large numbers of people passing through the region daily. Personnel for future mining operations are expected to be sourced from the nearby towns of Williams and Flagstaff, Arizona (50 miles and 70 miles, respectively), as well as other underground mining districts in the western U.S. Material mined at the Pinyon Plain Project will be transported 320 miles on paved roads to EFR’s White Mesa Mill in Blanding, Utah for processing.

In 1982, EFN, which is not part of Energy Fuels Inc., acquired the Project. From 1982 to 1987, EFN conducted exploration drilling, permitted the mine, constructed certain surface facilities including a headframe, hoist, and compressor, and sunk the shaft to a depth of 50 ft. From 1987 to 2013, the Project was put on standby due to low uranium prices. In 2012, EFR acquired the Project through its acquisition of Denison Mines Corporation’s US assets (Denison). Beginning in 2013, EFR refurbished the surface facilities and extended the shaft an additional 228 ft to a depth of 278 ft. In late 2013, the project was again placed on standby due to low uranium prices. In October 2015, EFR re-started the Project and committed to completing the shaft and underground delineation drilling program. From October 2015 to March 2017, the shaft was sunk to a depth of 1,452 ft, and three development levels were started at the 1,003 ft, 1,220 ft; and 1,400 ft depths, all of which have functioned as drill stations. The final depth for the shaft is 1,470 ft.

In addition to the mine shaft, existing surface mine infrastructure includes surface maintenance shops, employee offices and change rooms, a water well, an evaporation pond, water treatment plant, explosive magazines, water tanks, fuel tank, and a rock stockpile (development rock). Electrical power is available through an existing power line that terminates at the site.

History

The Pinyon Plain Project is located on mining claims that EFN acquired from Gulf Mineral Resources (Gulf) in 1982 who originally staked the claims in April 1978. EFN was acquired by the Concord group in the early-1990s. The Concord group declared bankruptcy in 1995, and most of the EFN assets, including the Pinyon Plain Project, were acquired by IUC in 1997. IUC merged with Denison Mines Inc. on December 1, 2006, and the new company changed its name to Denison Mines Corporation. In June 2012, Energy Fuels Inc. acquired all of Denison’s mining assets and operations in the U.S. Currently the Pinyon Plain Project claims are held by the Company. Between 1978 and 1994, Gulf and EFN drilled 45 surface holes, including a deep water well, totaling 62,289 ft.

Since 1994, exploration activities undertaken on the property have only included drilling. Prior to that, exploration activities carried out by EFR’s predecessors from 1983 to 1987 include:

•Ground control source audio magneto tellurium (CSAMT) surveys

•Ground magnetics

•Ground very low frequency (VLF) surveys

•Time domain electro-magnetic surveys (TDEM)

•Surface gravity surveys

•Airborne electromagnetic (EM) surveys

During 2016 and 2017 the Company conducted an underground exploration drilling campaign during shaft sinking completing 30,314 ft. of drilling. Shaft sinking continued into 2018 finishing at a total depth of 1,470 ft.

The Pinyon Plain Project is located on public lands managed by the USFS and has an approved PO with the USFS. In 2020, the Company submitted a clean closure plan to the USFS to provide a description of how the Company will reclaim the mine to clean closure standards after the cessation of mining operations, as contemplated in the USFS-approved PO, Record of Decision and modifications to the reclamation plan contained in Appendix B of the Environmental Impact Statement. The clean closure plan included an update to the reclamation cost estimate, resulting in an increase from $461,245 to $1,407,235. In September 2009, the groundwater General Aquifer Protection Permit (“APP”) was obtained for the water storage pond from the ADEQ. This permit was up for renewal in 2019, and an application for renewal was timely submitted by the Company in 2019. General APPs were also obtained from ADEQ for the development rock stockpile and intermediate ore stockpile in December 2011 and renewed in 2018. At the request of the ADEQ, the three General APPs were consolidated into an Individual APP on April 28, 2022, which resulted in a supplemental reclamation bond being issued in the amount of $132,581. An Air Quality Permit was issued by the ADEQ in March 2011, renewed in 2016, amended in 2017 and renewed in 2021. The Company received EPA’s approval under the Clean Air Act National Emissions Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the Pinyon Plain Project in September of 2015.

Development of uranium-bearing breccia pipes of the Arizona Strip requires minimal surface disturbance, typically less than 20 acres total. Thus, the overall environmental impact is minimal. Nevertheless, the areas in the general vicinity of the Grand Canyon can be environmentally sensitive in many ways and so the permitting, development, and operation of a uranium extraction facility in this area remains a contentious issue. As described above, in 2009 over one million acres of federal land were withdrawn from mineral location, subject to valid existing rights, and on August 8, 2023, President Biden designated the Baaj Nwaavjo I’tah Kukveni – Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon National Monument, which also restricted approximately one million acres of previously withdrawn lands from mineral location, subject to valid existing rights. The Pinyon Plain mine is located within these withdrawal and national monument areas, but is considered to have valid existing rights, so can continue to be mined in accordance with its USFS-approved PO. Reclamation at the Pinyon Plain Project is bonded at its total expected cost.

Parts of two distant physiographic provinces are found in Arizona: the Basin and Range Province located in the southern portion of the state; and the Colorado Plateau Province located across the northern and central portions of the state. Pinyon Plain lies within the Colorado Plateau Province.

The region has experienced volcanic activity since the Pliocene epoch. A number of lava-capped buttes rise above the general landscape, and lava flows cover large areas in the southern part of the district. Faulting has exerted significant control on the geologic development and geomorphic history of the region. Major structural features include the Grand Wash, Hurricane, and Toroweap fault systems, all trending generally north-south with an eastern up-thrown side. These faults are topographically prominent and show impressive scarps though other less prominent fault systems exist.

The surface expression of the Pinyon Plain breccia pipe is a broad shallow depression in the Permian Kaibab Formation. The pipe is essentially vertical with an average diameter of less than 200 ft. but is considerably narrower through the Coconino and Hermit horizons (80 ft in diameter). The cross-sectional area is in the order of 20,000 ft 2 to 25,000 ft 2. The pipe extends for at least 2,300 ft vertically from the Toroweap limestone to the upper Redwall horizons. The ultimate depth of the pipe is unknown. Uranium mineralization is concentrated in an annular ring within the breccia pipe.

Mineralization extends vertically both inside and outside the pipe over approximately 1,700 vertical ft, but potentially economic grade mineralization has been found mainly in the collapsed portions of the Coconino, Hermit, and Esplanade horizons and at the margins of the pipe in fracture zones. Sulphide zones are found scattered throughout the pipe but are especially concentrated in a sulphide cap near the Toroweap-Coconino contact, where the cap averages 20 ft in thickness and consists of pyrite and bravoite, an iron-nickel sulphide. The mineralization assemblage consists of uranium-pyrite-hematite with massive copper sulphide mineralization common in and near the uranium zone. The strongest mineralization appears to occur in the lower Hermit-upper Esplanade horizons in an annular fracture zone.

In the mineralized zone, the uranium mineralization occurs largely as blebs, streaks, small veins, and fine disseminations of uraninite/pitchblende (UO 2). Mineralization is mainly confined to matrix material, but may extend into clasts and larger breccia fragments, particularly where these fragments are Coconino sandstone. In addition to uranium, copper mineralization is also found within the Main Zone of the breccia pipe. Typically replacing the matrix material, copper occurs as chalcocite, bornite, tennantite, and covelite. Additionally, lower quantities of silver, zinc, lead, molybdenum, copper, nickel, and vanadium are present and scattered throughout the pipe.

The assay data used to calculate the Mineral Resource and Reserve estimate for the Project is a combination of radiometric log data and core. Calibration data for natural gamma is available for both historical and recent drilling. When drilling is active, the natural gamma logging trucks and tools are calibrated at least every three months. Natural gamma calibration is performed at DOE standard calibration facilities located in Grand Junction, Colorado.

Drill core was collected from both historical surface holes and recent underground drilling. Recent core, which makes up the majority of data for the Project was analyzed at the Mill. The Company utilized standard QA/QC procedures for analyzing both uranium and copper. This QA/QC program involved the submission of duplicate samples, certified reference materials and blank samples to the White Mesa Mill laboratory. It also included sending samples to 3 rd Party laboratories for analysis and the submission of certified reference materials to those laboratories.

Utilizing only natural gamma logs as assay data could lead to an over or under estimation of Mineral Resources due to disequilibrium. Positive disequilibrium occurs when the uranium present has not had enough time to decay and produce daughter isotopes, which are what are actually measured during a natural gamma assay. Under positive disequilibrium a natural gamma assay would indicate lower amounts of uranium than what is present. Negative disequilibrium occurs when uranium has had enough time to decay to produce the daughter radioisotopes but was remobilized and removed from the deposit. This would lead to measuring more uranium than is present. The use of core to verify natural gamma logs is standard practice and allows for the calculation of a disequilibrium factor. The disequilibrium factor applied to the Project Mineral Resource is 1.0.

Mineral Resource Estimate

Mineral Resource estimates were prepared for the Pinyon Plain deposit using both historical surface drill hole gamma and assay data and gamma and assay data collected during underground drilling in 2016 and 2017. A model of the breccia pipe host was constructed based on drill logs and constrains the Mineral Resource. Mineralization wireframes for U 3 O 8 were based on assays and gamma data at a nominal cut-off grade of 0.15%. Low and high-grade copper wireframes were based on nominal cutoff grades of 1% and 8% respectively. Values for U 3 O 8 and copper were interpolated into blocks using inverse distance squared or ordinary kriging. Resources are presented a 0.40% U 3 O 8 Eq equivalent cut-off grade for zones that contain both uranium and copper mineralization (Main and Main-Lower) and at a 0.30% U 3 O 8 cut-off grade for zones that contain only uranium mineralization (Main-Lower, Juniper I and Juniper II).

A copper mineral resource is also associated with the Main and Main-Lower zones at Pinyon Plain. Further study is required to determine if the copper associated with uranium mineralization in the zones can be economically extracted.

The table below sets out the Mineral Resources estimates for the Pinyon Plain Project as of December 31, 2023. As stated in SK-1300 regulations, Mineral Resources must be reported exclusively of Mineral Reserves; therefore, because Mineral Resource to Mineral Reserve conversion was 100% in the Main Zone, no Mineral Resources are reported for the Main Zone. These estimates are derived from the Pinyon Plain Technical Report Summary. Daniel Kapostasy, the Company’s non-independent Qualified Person, reviewed and confirmed that the Mineral Resources estimates set forth in the Pinyon Plain Technical Report Summary remained accurate as of December 31, 2023.

Pinyon Plain Project – Summary of Mineral Resources – In Situ Uranium, December 31, 2023(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)

Notes:

(1) SEC S-K 1300 definitions were followed for all Mineral Resource categories. These definitions are also consistent with CIM (2014) definitions in NI 43-101.

(2) Mineral Resources are estimated at 0.30% U 3 O 8 with an estimated metallurgical recovery of 96% for uranium.

(3) Mineral Resources are estimated using a long-term uranium price of US$65 per pound. The long-term uranium price is based on supply and demand projections for the period 2021-2035.

(5) Bulk density is 0.082 st/ft 3 (12.2 ft 3/ton or 2.63 ton/m 3).

(6) Mineral Resources are exclusive of Mineral Reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability.

(7) Numbers may not add due to rounding.

The U 3 O 8 Mineral Resource estimate for the Pinyon Plain Project dated December 31, 2023 decreased from the previously reported Mineral Resource estimate effective December 31, 2021 due to the first-time disclosure of Mineral Reserves. Total Measured Mineral Resources decreased from 6,000 tons at 0.46% U 3 O 8 containing 55,000 lbs U 3 O 8 on December 31, 2021 to nil on December 31, 2022, a 100% decrease. Total Indicated Mineral Resources decreased from 127,000 tons at 0.92% U 3 O 8 containing 2,347,000 lbs U 3 O 8 to 37,000 tons at 0.95% U 3 O 8, totaling 703,000 lbs U 3 O 8, a 70% decrease. Total Inferred Mineral Resources decreased from 16,300 tons at 0.39% U 3 O 8, containing 126,000 lbs U 3 O 8 to 5,000 tons at 0.50%U 3 O 8, totaling 48,000 lbs U 3 O 8, a 62% decrease. The decrease in the Inferred Mineral Resource is attributable to removing the Upper and Cap Mineral Resources from the Mineral Resource estimate and converting these amounts to Mineral Reserves as further disclosed below. Daniel Kapostasy, the Company’s non-independent Qualified Person, reviewed and confirmed that the Mineral Resources estimates set forth in the Pinyon Plain Technical Report Summary remained accurate as of December 31, 2023.

Pinyon Plain Project – Summary of Mineral Resources – In Situ Copper, December 31, 2023(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)

Notes:

(1) SEC S-K 1300 definitions were followed for all Mineral Resource categories. These definitions are also consistent with CIM (2014) definitions in NI 43-101.

(2) For the Main and Main-Lower zones of the Pinyon Plain Project, a 0.40% uranium equivalent cut-off grade (% U 3 O 8 Eq) was applied to account for both the copper and uranium mineralization. The %U 3 O 8 Eq grade term is not the same as the eU 3 O 8% grade term which indicates probe rather than assay data listed elsewhere in this report. For details, seethe Pinyon Plain Project below.

(3) Mineral Resources are estimated using a long-term uranium price of $65 per pound and a Copper price of $4.00 per lb. These prices are based on independent, third-party, and market analysts’ average forecasts as of 2022, and the supply and demand projections are for the period 2023 to 2035.

(4) A copper to U 3 O 8 conversion factor of 18.19 was used for converting copper grades to equivalent U 3 O 8 grades (U 3 O 8 Eq) for cut-off grade evaluation and reporting.

(5) For the Pinyon Plain Project, Mineral Resource tonnages of uranium and copper cannot be added as they overlap in the Main and Main-Lower zones.

(6) No minimum mining width was used in determining Mineral Resources.

(7) Bulk density is 0.082 ton/ft 3 (12.2 ft 3/ton or 2.63 t/m 3).

(8) Mineral Resources are exclusive of Mineral Reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability.

(9) Numbers may not add due to rounding.

(10) Mineral Resources are 100% attributable to EFR.

Mineral Reserve Estimate

Mineral Reserve estimates for Pinyon Plain are based on the Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources as of January 10, 2023, and a detailed mine designs and modifying factors such as external dilution and mining extraction factors. Mineral Resource to Mineral Reserve conversion was 100% within the Main Zone, with the remaining zones (Main-Lower and Juniper) not considered for inclusion as Mineral Reserves. No Inferred Mineral Resources were converted to Mineral Reserves.

Based on the similarity of the Pinyon Plain deposit to other past producing breccia pipe deposits in northern Arizona, the proposed mining methods at Pinyon Plain will include a combination of long-hole stoping, shrinkage stoping, and drifting. At the completion of mining, waste generated during mine development will be used to fill the mine openings per agreed upon government regulations. Metallurgical test results provided by the Company indicated that metallurgical recoveries using optimum roasting and leach conditions will be approximately 96% for uranium.

Underground mine design completed by the Company were based on grade envelopes of assays at a nominal grade of 0.15% U 3 O 8 based on underground mining methods and processing via a toll milling agreement.

The table below sets out the Mineral Reserves estimates for the Pinyon Plain Project as of December 31, 2023. These estimates are derived from the Pinyon Plain Technical Report Summary. Current economic conditions, mine design, and cash flow analysis do not account for processing of copper mineralization and thus copper is excluded from the Mineral Reserve estimate. Daniel Kapostasy, the Company’s non-independent Qualified Person, reviewed and confirmed that the Mineral Resources estimates set forth in the Pinyon Plain Technical Report Summary remained accurate as of December 31, 2023.

Pinyon Plain Project – Summary of Mineral Reserves, December 31, 2023(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)

Notes:

(1) SEC S-K 1300 definitions were followed for all Mineral Reserve categories. These definitions are also consistent with CIM (2014) definitions in NI 43-101.

(2) Mineral Reserves are estimated using a long-term uranium price of US$60.00 per pound. The long-term uranium price is based on supply and demand projections for the period 2021-2035.

(3) Underground Mineral Reserves were estimated by creating stope shapes. The stope shapes were created using a grade envelope of 0.15% U 3 O 8, with a minimum mining width of 5 ft (including hanging wall and footwall dilution), on 10 ft vertical stope heights.

(4) The breakeven cut-off grade is 0.32% U 3 O 8.

(5) A mining extraction factor of 95% was applied to the underground stopes, while underground development assumed a 100% mining extraction factor.

(6) Mining Reserves are in-situ.

(7) The density varies according to the block model.

(8) Numbers may not add due to rounding.

The Pre-Feasibility Study on the Pinyon Plain Project dated December 31, 2022 includes a first-time disclosure of Mineral Reserves. Proven and Probable Mineral Reserves disclosed as of December 31, 2021 were nil. Current Mineral Reserves as of December 31, 2022 include Proven and Probable Mineral Reserves totaling 134,500 tons at 0.58% U 3 O 8 containing 1,567,800 lbs U 3 O 8.

At the Pinyon Plain Project, all surface facilities are in place. During 2017, an underground drilling program was completed, shaft sinking continued, and a large water tank was installed. The shaft sinking was completed by mid-March 2018. The depth of the shaft is approximately 1,470 feet below ground surface. Shaft stations are developed at depths of 1,000 feet (elevation 5,506 feet above sea level), 1,220 feet (elevation 5,286) and 1,400 feet (elevation 5,106).

The Company is evaluating the potential to recover copper from the mine as a co-product with uranium. During 2018, bench scale and pilot plant scale metallurgical test work was carried out by Hazen Research (“HAZEN”) in Golden, Colorado, in connection with the potential recovery of copper from the mine. At this time, any copper recovered would be expected to be processed using roasting, followed by acid leach and solvent extraction. Acid leach followed by SX is the current process used for uranium recovery. Following solvent extraction, if recovered, a saleable copper product would be expected to be produced by electro-winning. To recover copper from the Pinyon Plain mineralized material, some modifications to White Mesa Mill process circuits would be required. The copper modifications would be expected to include using the existing vanadium SX circuit for copper extraction, the addition of a roaster to improve copper recovery, and the addition of an electro-winning circuit. Bench and pilot scale test work done by HAZEN in 2018 indicates that acid leaching after roasting pre-treatment is expected to result in satisfactory copper and uranium recoveries. The Company has not yet determined whether it would be feasible to recover copper along with uranium at the Pinyon Plain mine and may elect to forego processing copper mineralization from the mine.

In 2019, a 1,000,000-gallon water tank was installed, in addition to the existing 400,000-gallon tank installed in 2017. These above-ground storage tanks are used for operational flexibility and extra water storage capacity during winter months. Three floating, downcasting, enhanced evaporators have been installed in the Non-Stormwater Impoundment to aid in evaporation. The tanks and evaporators are part of Energy Fuels’ water balance management practices at the site.

In 2020, a fourth floating, down-casting, enhanced evaporator was installed at the site to increase the operational flexibility of the water balance management practices. Additionally, a water capture and pumping system was installed in the shaft to segregate unimpacted water and store it for beneficial use.

In 2021, a water treatment plant was installed to process water for offsite transport. The water treatment plant was commissioned in April 2021. Water use agreements have been entered into with local farmers and ranchers through which they may utilize excess water from the Pinyon Plain Project for their own beneficial uses within the Coconino Plateau groundwater basin.

The Company decided in early 2022 to resume construction work at the Pinyon Plain mine. Site personnel were hired mid-year and work commenced to rehabilitate surface and underground infrastructure, including the mine shaft, hoist, shaft load out equipment, air compressors and mobile mine equipment. In some cases, new and used mining equipment was purchased. Engineering included finalizing the mine design, ventilation network and load out system. Mine development began in late 2022, which included driving drifts to the shaft loadout and sump clean-out.

In continuing to move the Project towards production, work in 2023 included the hiring of new onsite personnel, installation of underground loading pockets, continued underground drift development, the installation of an underground shop, construction of a surface ore pad and starting a vent raise. The vent raise is expected to be completed in early 2024.

The Pinyon Plain Project was acquired by the Company in June 2012 through the acquisition of the U.S. Mining Division from Denison. As of December 31, 2023, the total net book value attributable to the Pinyon Plain Project and its associated equipment on the financial statements of the Company was $3.41 million.

The Company announced in December 2023 that it was putting the Pinyon Plain mine into production, which production did not actually commence in any significant way until early 2024. This production will fulfill uranium contracts the Company entered into in 2022. The Company expects to produce 25,000 to 30,000 tons of ore from the Pinyon Plain Mine in 2024. In addition to production, the Company plans to complete an underground exploration drilling program during the year on the Juniper Zone of the deposit.

The Roca Honda Project

The following technical and scientific description of the Roca Honda Project is based in part on the report titled “Technical Report on the Roca Honda Project, McKinley County, State of New Mexico, USA” dated February 22, 2022, prepared by Grant A. Malensek, M.Eng, P.Eng., Mark B. Mathisen, C.P.G., and David M. Robson, P.Eng., MBA, each a Qualified Person employed by SLR, Jeffrey L. Woods, MMSA QP, a Qualified Person Employed by Woods Process Services, Phillip E. Brown, C.P.G., R.P.G., a Qualified Person employed by Consultants in Hydrogeology, and Daniel D. Kapostasy, P.G., SME R.M., a non-independent Qualified Person employed with the Company (the “Roca Honda Technical Report Summary”). The Roca Honda Technical Report Summary was prepared in accordance with S-K 1300 and also constitutes a PEA pursuant to NI 43-101. The Roca Honda Project does not have known “Mineral Reserves” and is therefore considered under S-K 1300 definitions to be an exploration stage property, despite current ongoing permitting activities.

The Company acquired a majority of the Roca Honda Project on August 29, 2013 as a result of its acquisition of Strathmore. Certain adjacent properties (which now form part of the Roca Honda Project) were later acquired by the Company from URI in June 2015.

The Roca Honda project is a proposed underground uranium mine located in McKinley County, in Central New Mexico, USA in the Ambrosia Lake subdistrict, immediately northeast of the city of Grants, New Mexico. The Mine is located at latitude 35°21’34.36” N and longitude 107°42’20.39” W.

The Roca Honda Project does not have known “Mineral Reserves” and is therefore considered under S-K 1300 definitions to be exploratory in nature.

Since May 27, 2016, the Roca Honda Project has been held solely by Strathmore Resources (US) Ltd (Strathmore), which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Energy Fuels Inc. Strathmore acquired the initial portion of the property on March 12, 2004, from Rio Algom Mining LLC (Rio Algom), a successor to Kerr-McGee Corporation (Kerr-McGee), which had staked the claims in 1965 and had continuously maintained them. Roca Honda Resources LLC. (RHR) was established on July 26, 2007, when Strathmore formed a limited liability company with Sumitomo Corporation of Japan and transferred the property to RHR. Energy Fuels Inc. acquired a 100% interest in Strathmore in August 2013 and assumed Strathmore’s 60% ownership interest in RHR. Energy Fuels Inc. acquired the remaining 40% ownership interest in RHR in May 2016 and is now 100% owner of the Roca Honda Project. Total holding costs for 2023 were $34,275.

The Roca Honda Project covers an area of 4,440 acres and includes 63 unpatented lode-mining claims in Sections 9, 10 and 11; 64 unpatented claims in Sections 5 and 6; 36 unpatented claims in Section 8; one adjoining New Mexico State General Mining Lease in Section 16; and the fee mineral interest in all of Section 17. The mining claims also extend onto a 9.4-acre narrow strip of Section 11. The New Mexico State Lease was acquired by David Miller (former Strathmore CEO) on November 30, 2004, and subsequently transferred to Strathmore. Strathmore subsequently relinquished the lease and acquired it again in December 2015 (HG-0133) for a new 15-year term expiring on December 14, 2030. The “Rocca Honda” Claims in Sections 5 and 6 were staked by Miller and Associates in September 2004 and assigned to RHR on August 28, 2013. Strathmore acquired the “Roca Honda” claims in Section 8 and the fee mineral interest in Section 17 on June 26, 2015, from Uranium Resource Incorporated (URI).

Mining claim numbers RH 252, RH 279, RH 306, and RH 333, located in the southern part of Section 10, overlap into the northern part of Section 15, which is privately owned land, therefore, the overlapping portion of these claims are not valid. The Roca Honda property extends only to the Section 15 boundary.

Mining claim numbers RH 325 to RH 333 are located along the eastern boundary of Section 10, extending west across the Section 11 line by approximately 150 ft.

The initial 63 unpatented, contiguous mining claims (the Roca Honda group), covering an area of approximately 1,248.5 acres, are located on Sections 9, 10, and 11, which are federally owned lands within the Cibola National Forest administered by the USFS. Section 5 is also administered by the USFS while claims in Section 6 are located on U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land. Section 8 is split estate, the private surface belonging to Fernandez Ranch. Sections 5, 6, 9, 10, and 11 are open to the public, with the land used for a variety of purposes including grazing, mineral extraction, hunting, hiking, and other outdoor recreation activities. All claims are listed in the U.S. BLM Mining Claim Geographic Index Report Mineral and Land Record System (MLRS). The claims covering Section 9, 10, and part of 11 have a location date of June 29 and 30, 1965. The claims in Section 8 have location dates of September 10, 1997. The Rocca Honda claims in Sections 5 and 6 were located on September 6, 2004. The latest assessment year shown in MLRS is 2021 and the claims are shown as “Active.”

There is a 1% gross revenue, no deduction royalty payable to the original claim holders for the claims on Section 9. There are no royalties associated with the claims on Sections 5, 6, 8, 10, or 11.

Holding costs for the 163 claims include a claim maintenance fee of $165.00 per claim payable to the BLM before September 1 of each calendar year and recording an affidavit and Notice of Intent to hold with the McKinley County Clerk, New Mexico. County recording fees for the claims are approximately $425 per year

New Mexico General Mining Lease number HG-0133, located on Section 16, covers an area of 638 acres. The mining lease has a primary, secondary, tertiary, and quaternary term, each with annual rentals to be paid in advance. Strathmore first acquired a lease on Section 16 in November 2004 (Lease number HG-0036-002). As there was no provision to extend the lease past 2019 other than by production, Strathmore dropped the lease as its payment came due in December 2015. The New Mexico Land Office held an auction of the lease parcel that same month. Strathmore was the successful bidder, paying a $100,000 bonus. The new lease has a primary term of three years, and the annual rental is $1.00/acre ($640). The secondary term for years 4 and 5 will require a payment of $10/acre each year, and the tertiary term, years 6 through 10, will cost $3.00/acre each year. The lease will have a quaternary term for years 11 through 15 requiring an annual rental of $10.00 per acre plus an escalating advanced royalty of $10.00 per acre per year. By acquiring the new lease, Strathmore may now hold the land until production can begin up to December 14, 2030. At the end of the quaternary term, the lease may be automatically extended if production has begun. The lease stipulates a 5% of gross returns royalty to the State of New Mexico “less actual and reasonable transportation and smelting or reduction costs, up to 50% of the gross returns” for production of uranium, which is designated a “special mineral” in the lease.

The Roca Honda Project is located approximately three miles northwest of the community of San Mateo, New Mexico, in McKinley County, and approximately 22 miles by road northeast of Grants, New Mexico, via State Highway NM 605.

Climate in the project area may be classified as arid to semi-arid continental, characterized by cool, dry winters, and warm, dry summers. Grants has an annual average temperature of 50°F, with an average summer high of 87°F and low of 52°F, and average winter high of 47°F and low of 18°F.

The Roca Honda Project would employ 257 personnel who would be based around the town of Grants, Cibola County, New Mexico, which is the largest community near the Mine area. As of the 2020 census, Cibola County has a population of 27,172 people of which 8,866 people reside in Grants. Additionally, the city of Albuquerque, New Mexico is located approximately 100 miles east of the Roca Honda Project area and could be a source of most materials and technical support needed for the Roca Honda Project. To process mill feed from the Roca Honda Project for the 11-year mine life.

The Roca Honda Project is located in an historically important uranium-producing region of central New Mexico. All the infrastructure necessary to mine and process significant commercial quantities of U 3 O 8 currently exists. Infrastructure items include high voltage electrical supplies, water sources, paved roads and highways for transporting ROM mill feed crude ore and finished products, and accommodations for employees. Local and State infrastructure also includes hospitals, schools, airports, equipment suppliers, fuel suppliers, and communication systems.

The Roca Honda Project is located at elevations ranging from 7,100 ft above sea level (ft ASL) to 7,680 ft ASL with easterly and southerly dipping slopes. The area is sparsely populated, rural, and largely undeveloped. The predominant land uses include low- density livestock grazing, hay cultivation, and recreational activities such as hiking, sightseeing, picnicking, and seasonal hunting. Vegetation in the area consists mainly of grasses, pinyon pine, and juniper trees.

Material mined at Roca Honda will be trucked 272 mi to the Mill in Blanding, Utah for processing.

History

The Roca Honda Project has a long history of exploration and development with a number of owners. Kerr-McGee Oil Industries (Kerr-McGee), its subsidiaries, and successor (Rio Algom) completed significant work in from the mid-1960s until 1982 succeeded by Western Nuclear Corporation (Western Nuclear), Conoco, and Strathmore Resources (Strathmore). Roca Honda Resources (RHR) was established on July 26, 2007, when Strathmore (60%) formed a limited liability company with Sumitomo Corporation (40%) and transferred the property to RHR. In August 2013, EFR acquired a 100% interest in Strathmore, and assumed Strathmore’s 60% ownership interest in RHR. In June 2015, EFR acquired a 100% interest in the mineral properties controlled by Uranium Resource Incorporated (URI). In May 2016, EFR completed the purchase of Sumitomo Corporation’s 40% interest in RHR and, since then, has a 100% interest in the Property.

No additional work has been completed on the property since its acquisition by the Company in 2013.

The Roca Honda Project is at an advanced stage of permitting. A Draft EIS was completed by the USFS in February 2013. In March 2015 the USFS initiated the scoping process for a new mine dewatering alternative to be addressed in a Supplement to the Draft EIS. In September 2016, an additional scoping process to incorporate Section 17 (the “Adjacent Properties”) and development drilling into the mine plan was initiated by the USFS. The Supplement to the Draft EIS is expected to be completed during late 2024 or early 2025 with a Final EIS and RoD scheduled to be completed in 2025.

Other major permits required for the Roca Honda Project include a Permit to Mine to be issued by the New Mexico Mining and Minerals Division, a Discharge Permit issued by the New Mexico Environment Department, and a Mine Dewatering Permit issued by the New Mexico State Engineer’s Office. The Mine Dewatering Permit was approved in December 2013 but appealed by the Acoma Pueblo in January 2014. RHR subsequently proposed a new alternative for discharging treated mine water that would benefit a number of downstream users including the Acoma Pueblo. The Acoma Pueblo agreed to withdraw the dewatering permit appeal in March 2015. The dewatering permit will need to be revised to reflect a higher dewatering rate with the addition of Section 17 to the mine plan.

The two other major permits that are in the agency review stage are the Discharge Permit, which is expected to be issued in 2025, and the Permit to Mine, which is expected to be issued in 2025 following approval of the Final EIS by the USFS. Permit approvals from the USACE and the EPA are also required for discharge of treated mine water associated with mine activities. An application for the USACE permit has been submitted and the permit is expected prior to issuance of the Permit to Mine in 2025. An application for the EPA permit has also been submitted, however; the previous application is expected to be withdrawn and a new application submitted during 2024. The EPA permit for discharge of treated mine water is expected prior to issuance of the Permit to Mine in 2025. EPA approval under the Clean Air Act National Emissions Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants will also be required prior to mining.

As the project has not yet been developed or operated, we are not aware of any environmental liabilities of any significance.

No permitting is required to start milling the Roca Honda Project material at the White Mesa Mill. The White Mesa Mill is fully permitted with the State of Utah and has all the necessary operating licenses for a conventional uranium mill. As additional tailings storage capacity may eventually be required at the Mill over the life of the mine, an Amendment to the White Mesa Mill’s Radioactive Materials License issued by the Utah Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control will be required in due course to construct additional tailing cells, if and when required.

More than 340 Mlb of U 3 O 8 have been produced from the Grants uranium deposits in New Mexico between 1948 and 2002, and at least 403 Mlb of U 3 O 8 remain as unmined resources. The Grants uranium district is one of the largest uranium provinces in the world. The Grants uranium district extends from east of Laguna to west of Gallup in the San Juan Basin of New Mexico. Three types of sandstone uranium deposits are recognized: tabular, redistributed (roll-front, fault-related), and remnant-primary.

Rocks exposed in the Ambrosia Lake subdistrict of the Grants uranium district, which includes the Roca Honda Project area, include marine and non-marine sediments of Late Cretaceous age, unconformably overlying the uranium-bearing Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation. The uppermost sequence of conformable strata consists of the Mesaverde Group, Mancos Shale, and Dakota Sandstone. All rocks that outcrop at the Roca Honda Project area are of Late Cretaceous age; these rocks and the Quaternary Period deposits that cover them in some places.

The uranium mineralization found in the Roca Honda Project area is contained within five sandstone units of the Westwater Canyon Member. Zones of mineralization vary from approximately one foot to 30 ft thick, 100 ft to 600 ft wide, and 200 ft to 3,000 ft in length in elongated pods. Uranium mineralization in the Roca Honda Project area west to east, and northwest to southeast depending on general area within the Roca Honda Project area, consistent with trends of the fluvial sedimentary structures of the Westwater Canyon Member, and the general trend of mineralization across the Ambrosia Lake subdistrict.

Uranium mineralization in the Roca Honda Project area is believed to be predominantly primary (trend) mineralization, with some secondary mineralization due to oxidation and mobilization of uranium near permeable geologic structures. Uranium mineralization consists of dark organic-uranium oxide complexes. The uranium in the Roca Honda Project area is dark grey to black in color and is found between depths of approximately 1,380 ft to 2,600 ft below the surface.

Primary mineralization pre-dates the formation of the Laramide aged structures in the Mine area, with a small amount of vertical offset of mineralization present across the local faults. There is a possibility of some redistribution and stack ore along faults; however, it appears that most of the Roca Honda Project mineralization is primary. Paleochannels that contain quartz-rich, arkosic, fluvial sandstones are the primary mineralization control associated with this trend.

The assay data used to calculate the Mineral Resource estimate for the Project is natural gamma radiometric log data. Core was collected by Strathmore Resources during a 2007 drill program to verify historical natural gamma data but was not used for Mineral Resource estimation. Calibration data for natural gamma logs are available for both historical and recent drilling. The majority of the data used in the Mineral Resource estimate is historical and collected by Kerr-McGee. Kerr-McGee regularly calibrated their logging tools at the DOE calibration test pits in Grants, NM. The calibration data associated with the Kerr-McGee drilling is contained in a series of calibration notebooks and tables.

Drill core collected by Strathmore Resources was analyzed at Energy Labs in Casper, Wyoming.

Utilizing only natural gamma logs as assay data could lead to an over or under estimation of Mineral Resources due to disequilibrium. Positive disequilibrium occurs when the uranium present has not had enough time to decay and produce daughter isotopes, which are what are actually measured during a natural gamma assay. Under positive disequilibrium a natural gamma assay would indicate lower amounts of uranium than what is present. Negative disequilibrium occurs when uranium has had enough time to decay to produce the daughter radioisotopes but was remobilized and removed from the deposit. This would lead to measuring more uranium than is present. The use of core to verify natural gamma logs is standard practice and allows for the calculation of a disequilibrium factor. In addition, the Project is located in a large uranium district that never reported issues with disequilibrium. The disequilibrium factor applied to the Project Mineral Resource is 1.0.

Grades were estimated for the Roca Honda project using a combination of nearest neighbor, inverse distance and ordinary kriging methods. Grades were estimated from historic surface drilling completed by Kerr-McGee, Western Nuclear, Conoco, and Strathmore Minerals. Information regarding the Mineral Resource calculation are given below, and specific details regarding the estimation procedure can be found in Section 14.0, Mineral Resource Estimate of the Roca Honda Technical Report Summary.

In Sections 9. 10 and 16, block grades were estimated using the Inverse Distance Cubed (ID 3) method. Domain models were used as hard boundaries to limit the extent of influence of composite grades within the domains.

Suitable variograms could not be generated for individual or combined domain models due to the small number of contained composite samples. Search ranges were determined visually based on continuity of mineralization and drillhole spacing.

Search directions were determined visually for each domain. Isotropic search ranges in the major and semi-major directions following the trend of individual domain models were applied. Minor search ranges were also determined visually and were shorter.

Two grade estimation passes were run with the major, semi-major, and minor search ranges increased by a factor of 1.5 in the second estimation run. Estimation flags were stored for each estimation run based on increasing search distances. The number of samples and holes were stored in separate block variables for use in determining resource classification.

Octant restrictions were not enforced to preserve local grades. Only the closest composites to block centroids (adhering to defined trends) were used.

In Section 17, block grades were estimated using the Inverse Distance Squared (ID 2), Ordinary Kriging (OK), or Nearest Neighbor (NN) methods. Domain models were used as hard boundaries to limit the extent of influence of composite grades within the domains.

Where wireframes contained only a single drillhole, the NN method was used; in cases where there was enough data to generate variograms, OK was used; and in all other cases, ID 2 was used. ID 2 was used in Section 17 instead of ID 3 because the drill spacing is much tighter than in Sections 9, 10, and 16 and nearby drillholes were determined to have better grade continuity, and therefore more holes should have a greater influence on a block estimate than the nearest drillhole.

Search directions were determined visually for each domain. Anisotropic search ranges were used oriented along the major trend of the mineralized zones. As the mineralization tends to be tabular in nature, tops and bottoms of the mineralization were modeled as part of the wireframe process. Those top and bottom surfaces were used to generate unfolding models that were used in place of dip and plunge (Y rotation and X rotation).

Up to three grade estimation passes were run with the major, semi-major, and minor search ranges increased by a factor of 2.0 in the second and third estimation runs. Estimation flags were stored for each estimation run based on increasing search distances. The number of samples and holes were stored in separate block variables for use in determining resource classification.

Octant restrictions were not enforced to preserve local grades. Only the closest composites to block centroids (adhering to defined trends) were used.

The table below sets out the Mineral Resources estimates for the Roca Honda Project as of December 31, 2023. These estimates are derived from the Roca Honda Technical Report Summary, in which Mineral Resources were estimated as of December 31, 2021. Daniel Kapostasy, the Company’s non-independent Qualified Person, reviewed and confirmed that the Mineral Resources estimates set forth in the Roca Honda Technical Report Summary remained accurate as of December 31, 2023.

Roca Honda Project – Summary of Mineral Resources – In Situ Uranium(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)

Notes:

(1) SEC S-K 1300 and NI 43-101 definitions were followed for all Mineral Resource categories.

(2) Mineral Resources are estimated at a U 3 O 8 cut-off grade of 0.19% eU 3 O 8.

(3) Mineral Resources are estimated using a long-term Uranium price of US$65 per pound. The long-term uranium price is based on supply and demand projections for the period 2021-2035.

(4) Bulk density is 0.067 tons/ft 3 (15.0 ft 3/ton or 2.14 t/m 3).

(5) There are no Mineral Reserves for the property.

(6) Numbers may not add due to rounding.

(7) Mineral Resources are 100% attributable to the Company.

Old drill roads were previously established across the property, and an electrical line transects the northern half of Section 16 in the project area. The line continues along the west side of the project area into Section 17, where it terminates, and on the east side of Section 16 through the northwest quarter of Section 15 and along the southern section boundary of Section 10. Three monitor water wells were drilled by RHR in 2007 and are located on Section 16. More than 900 historic drill exploration holes were completed on the property from the late 1960s to the early 1980s. Except for the existing shaft on Section 17, there are no mine workings, existing tailings ponds, waste deposits or other improvements or facilities at the site.

The Company has not conducted any exploration activities on the Project since acquiring the properties in August 2013.

The Roca Honda Project was acquired by the Company in August 2013, through the Company’s acquisition of Strathmore. As of December 31, 2023, the total net book value attributable to the Roca Honda Project on the consolidated financial statements of the Company was $22.10 million.

The Company intends to continue its permitting and related activities at the Roca Honda Project during 2024. Permitting efforts in 2024 include the integration of the Adjacent Roca Honda Properties into the permitting efforts underway for the Roca Honda Project properties, including the submittal of a revised National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permit application to the EPA and continuation of the Supplement to the Draft EIS through the USFS.

The Sheep Mountain Project

The following technical and scientific description of the Sheep Mountain Project is based in part on a Preliminary Feasibility Study titled “Preliminary Feasibility Study for the Sheep Mountain Project, Fremont County, Wyoming, USA” originally dated and effective as of December 31, 2021, as amended January 30, 2023, and prepared by Douglas Beahm, PE, PG SME R.M., a Qualified Person employed by BRS, as well as Daniel Kapostasy, PG, SME R.M., a non-independent Qualified Person employed with the Company, and Terence McNulty, PE, PhD, an independent consultant (the “Sheep Mountain Technical Report Summary”). The Sheep Mountain Technical Report Summary was prepared in accordance with both S-K 1300 and NI 43-101. The Sheep Mountain Project contains both Mineral Resources and Minerals Reserves, as defined in S-K 1300 and NI 43-101 and is therefore considered under SEC S-K 1300 definitions to be a development stage property.

The Sheep Mountain Project is located in portions of Sections 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 27, 28, 29, 32, and 33, Township 28 North, Range 92 West at approximate Latitude 42º 24’ North and Longitude 107º 49’ West, within the Wyoming Basin physiographic province in the Great Divide Basin at the northern edge of the Great Divide Basin. The project is approximately eight miles south of Jeffrey City, Wyoming.

The Sheep Mountain Project includes the open pit Congo Pit, comprised of the Congo, North Gap, and South Congo areas, a proposed heap leach facility, and the reopening of the existing underground facility (the “Sheep Underground”), which includes the Sheep I and Sheep II underground areas. Although alternatives were considered in the past, the current recommended recovery method is the processing of extracted materials via an on-site heap leach facility. Material from the underground and open pit operations are expected to be commingled at the stockpile site located near the underground portal and in close proximity to the pit.

At the stockpile, the mineralized material will be sized if needed, blended, and then conveyed via a covered overland conveyor system to the heap leach pad where it will be stacked on a double lined pad for leaching. The primary lixiviant will be sulfuric acid. Pregnant leach solution (“PLS”) will be collected by gravity in a double lined collection pond and then transferred to the mineral processing facility for extraction and drying. The final product will be uranium concentrate (U 3 O 8, also known as “yellowcake”). Energy Fuels owns the Mill and the Nichols Ranch Plant, which creates the option to transport loaded resin to either of those facilities for stripping, and to the Mill for drying, and packaging of yellowcake.

The mineral properties at the Sheep Mountain Project are comprised of 218 unpatented mining claims on land administered by the BLM, and approximately 640 acres within a State of Wyoming lease. The combination of the mineral holdings comprises approximately 5,055 acres. Total holding costs for 2023 were $38,581.

In February 2012, Energy Fuels purchased 320 acres of private surface overlaying some of the federal minerals covered by 18 of the claims. The purchased parcel includes the SW¼ Section 28 and SE¼, E½ SW¼, and NW¼ SW¼ Section 29, T28N, R92W. A final payment of $5,000 was made in January 2016 for the purchased parcel. The combination of land holdings gives Energy Fuels mineral rights to resources as defined in the Congo Pit and the Sheep Underground areas. The Company increased the Sheep Mountain property size by 26 unpatented mining claims (approximately 520 acres) through the acquisition of Strathmore. These contiguous claims form a larger buffer, with potential for additional uranium resources, along the west side of the Sheep Mountain Project.

To maintain these mineral rights, the Company must comply with the lease provisions, including annual payments with respect to the State of Wyoming leases; BLM and Fremont County, as well as Wyoming filing and/or annual payment requirements to maintain the validity of the unpatented mining lode claims as follows. Mining claims are subject to annual filing requirements and payment of a fee of $165 per claim. Unpatented mining claims expire annually but are subject to indefinite annual renewal by filing appropriate documents and paying the fees described above. Wyoming State Mineral Lease (“ML”) 0-15536 will expire on January 1, 2024. Annual payments to maintain ML 0-15536 are $2,560 per year.

The original claims owned by Western Nuclear in the Sheep Mountain Project are subject to an overall sliding scale royalty of 1% to 4% due to Western Nuclear, based on the Nuclear Exchange Corporation Exchange (“NUEXCO”) Value. Claims which were not included in the agreement are not subject to this royalty. Under Wyoming State Lease ML 0-15536, there is a royalty of 5% of the quantity or gross realization value of the U 3 O 8, based on the total arms-length consideration received for uranium products sold.

Uranium mining in Wyoming is subject to both a gross products (county) tax and a mineral severance tax (state). At the Federal level, aggregate corporate profit from mining ventures is taxable at corporate income tax rates, i.e., individual mining projects are not assessed Federal income tax but rather the corporate entity is assessed as a whole. For mineral properties, depletion tax credits are available on a cost or percentage basis, whichever is greater. The percentage depletion tax credit for uranium is 22%, among the highest for mineral commodities (IRS Pub. 535).

The Sheep Mountain Project is located at approximate Latitude 42°24’ North and Longitude 107° 49’ West within the Wyoming Basin physiographic province in the Great Divide Basin at the northern edge of the Great Divide Basin. The project is approximately eight miles south of Jeffrey City, Wyoming. The nearest commercial airport is located in Riverton, Wyoming approximately 56 miles from Jeffrey City on a paved two-lane state highway. The project is accessible via 2-wheel drive on existing county and two-track roads.

The Sheep Mountain Project falls within the inter-mountain semi-desert weather province, with average maximum temperatures ranging from 31.1 °F (January and December) to 84.9 °F (July), average minimum temperatures ranging from 9.1 °F (January) to 49.2 °F (July), and average total monthly precipitation ranging from 0.36 inches (January) to 2.04 inches (May). The topography consists of rounded hills with moderate to steep slopes. Elevations range from 6,600 feet to 8,000 feet above sea level. The ground is sparsely vegetated with sage and grasses and occasional small to medium sized pine trees at higher elevations. Year-round operations are contemplated for the Sheep Mountain Project.

Telephone, electric and natural gas service adequate for the planned extraction and mineral processing operations have been established at the Sheep Mountain Project. Electric service and a waterline have been extended via right-of-way issued by the BLM in 2011 to the existing Sheep 1 and 2 shafts. Adequate water rights are held by the Company for planned extraction and mineral processing operations but need to be updated with the Wyoming State Engineer with respect to type of industrial use, points of diversion, and points of use.

History

Three companies dominated the district by the mid-1950s: Western Nuclear Corporation (“WNC”), Phelps Dodge (“PD”) and Continental Uranium Corporation (“CUC”). WNC built the Split Rock Mill at Jeffrey City in 1957 and initiated production from the Paydirt pit in 1961, Golden Goose 1 in 1966 and Golden Goose 2 in 1970. PD was the principal shareholder and operator of the Green Mountain Uranium Corporation’s Ravine Mine, which began production in 1956. CUC developed the Seismic Pit in 1956, the Seismic Mine in 1957, the Reserve Mine in 1961 and the Congo Decline in 1968. In 1967, CUC acquired the PD properties and in 1972, WNC acquired all of CUC’s Crooks Gap holdings. During the mid-1970s, PD acquired an interest in WNC, which began work on Sheep Mountain I in 1974, the McIntosh Pit in 1975, and Sheep Mountain II in 1976. WNC ceased production from the area in 1982.

Subsequent to closure of the Sheep Mountain I by WNC, during April to September 1987, Pathfinder Mines Corp. (“PMC”) mined a reported 12,959 tons, containing 39,898 pounds of uranium at an average grade of 0.154% U 3 O 8 from Sheep Mountain I, (PMC, 1987). U.S. Energy-Crested Corp. (“USECC”) acquired the properties from WNC in 1988 and during May to October 1988 USECC mined 23,000 tons from Sheep Mountain I, recovering 100,000 pounds of uranium for a mill head grade of 0.216% U 3 O 8 (WGM, 1999). The material was treated at PMC’s Shirley Basin mill, 130 miles east of the mine.

In December 2004, Uranium Power Corp. (“UPC”), then known as Bell Coast Capital, entered into a Purchase and Sales Agreement with USECC to acquire a 50% interest in the Sheep Mountain property. The acquisition was completed in late 2007 with aggregate payments to USECC of $7.05 million and the issuance of four million Common Shares to USECC. USECC sold all of its uranium assets, including its 50% interest in Sheep Mountain, to Uranium One Inc. (“U1”) in April 2007. Titan Uranium Inc. acquired a 50% interest in the property when it acquired UPC by a Plan of Arrangement in July 2009. The ownership was subsequently transferred to Titan Uranium Inc.’s (“TUI”) wholly owned subsidiary, Titan Uranium USA Inc. (referred herein to as “Titan”). The remaining 50% interest was purchased from U1 on October 1, 2009. Subsequently, Energy Fuels and TUI announced that they had entered into a Certificate of Arrangement giving effect to the parties’ February 29, 2012 Plan of Arrangement, whereby Energy Fuels acquired TUI, making Titan a wholly owned subsidiary of Energy Fuels, which is now named Energy Fuels Wyoming Inc.

Other than care and maintenance work, the Company has not performed any significant work on the Sheep Mountain Property since its acquisition.

In June 2010, Titan commenced baseline environmental studies to support an application to the NRC for a Source Material and Byproduct Material License (the “License”) for operation of a heap leach facility. Work was also initiated on a revision to the existing WDEQ Mine Permit, as well as a PO for the BLM. Baseline studies included wildlife and vegetation surveys, air quality and meteorological monitoring, ground and surface water monitoring, radiological monitoring, and cultural resource surveys.

Submission of the PO to the BLM was made in June 2011. The PO was accepted as complete by the BLM, and an EIS was initiated in August 2011. Energy Fuels revised the PO in July 2012, consistent with the modified plan presented in the Sheep Mountain Technical Report. In July 2013, the PO was again revised to reflect a new waste rock disposal layout for the open pit mine and an improved and more economical heap leach and processing facility. The revised PO also included the option of transporting mineralized material off-site for processing. The Final EIS was completed in August of 2016. On January 6, 2017, the BLM issued its RoD and approved the PO.

In October 2011, Titan submitted a draft revision to its existing Mine Permit 381C to WDEQ. WDEQ then provided Titan with review comments as part of its “courtesy review.” The proposed permit amendment was revised and resubmitted in January 2014. In July 2015, the revision was approved by WDEQ. The revision includes expansion of surface and underground mining operations and an updated reclamation plan consistent with current reclamation practices.

Development of an application to the NRC for a license to construct and operate the uranium recovery facility has been taken to an advanced stage of preparation. This license would allow Energy Fuels to process the mineralized material into yellowcake at the Sheep Mountain Project site. The draft application to NRC for a Source Material License was reviewed in detail by the NRC in October 2011. The NRC audit report identified areas where additional information should be provided. Effective September 30, 2018, the State of Wyoming became an Agreement State under the Atomic Energy Act (as amended) for the regulation of uranium mills and heap leach facilities, and authorization for the Source Material and Byproduct Material License was transferred from the NRC to WDEQ-LQD. The review and approval process for this license is anticipated to take approximately four years from the date submitted to the WDEQ-LQD. Submittal of the license application to the WDEQ-LQD is on hold pending the Company’s evaluation of off-site processing options for this project, and whether or not to proceed with an on-site uranium recovery facility, pending improvements in uranium market conditions.

The heap leach facility has been permitted by the State of Wyoming through issuance of the Mine Permit and by the BLM, yet still requires licensing by the WDEQ-LQD. Mining could commence at this time under the existing RoD and Mine Permit, but the mined ore would need to be processed at a licensed off-site processing facility under a toll-milling or other arrangement.

A primary component of the geology for the Sheep Mountain Project is the Battle Spring Formation. Battle Spring is Eocene in age. Prior to deposition of the Battle Spring Formation and subsequent younger Tertiary formations, underlying Paleocene, Cretaceous, and older formations were deformed during the Laramide Orogeny. During the Laramide Orogeny, faults, including the Emigrant Thrust Fault at the northern end of the project area, were active and displaced sediments by over 20,000 feet. Coincident with this mountain building event, Paleocene and older formations were folded in a series of echelon anticlines and synclines, generally trending from southeast to northwest. The Battle Spring Formation was deposited unconformably on an erosional landscape influenced by these pre-depositional features. Initial stream channels transporting clastic sediments from the Granite Mountains formed in the synclinal valleys.

The geologic setting of the Sheep Mountain Project is important in that it controlled uranium mineralization by focusing movement of the groundwaters, which emplaced the uranium into the stream channels, which had developed on the pre-tertiary landscape. The Battle Spring Formation and associated mineralization at the Sheep Mountain Project is bounded to the east by the western flank of the Sheep Mountain Syncline and to the west by the Spring Creek Anticline. To the north the system is cut off by erosion. To the south the Battle Spring continues into the northern portions of the Great Divide Basin.

Mineralization occurs throughout the lower A Member of the Battle Spring Formation and is locally up to 1,500 feet thick. The upper B Member is present only in portions of the project and may be up to 500 feet thick. Although arkosic sandstone is the preferred host, uranium has been extracted from all lithologies. Grade and thickness are extremely variable depending on whether the samples are taken from the nose or the tails of a roll front. Typically, the deposits range from 50 feet to 200 feet along a strike, five feet to eight feet in height, and 20 feet to 100 feet in width. Deposits in the Sheep Mountain Project area occur in stacked horizons from 7,127 feet in elevation down to 6,050 feet in elevation.

Most of the mineralization in the Crooks Gap District occurs in roll-front deposits. Roll fronts have an erratic linear distribution but are usually concordant with the bedding. Deposits have been discovered from the surface down to a depth of 1,500 feet. The two major uranium minerals are uranophane and autunite. Exploration drilling indicated that the deeper roll-type deposits are concentrated in synclinal troughs in the lower Battle Spring Formation. Three possible sources for uranium have been suggested: post-Eocene tuffaceous sediments, leached Battle Spring arkoses, and Precambrian granites. Structural controls of uranium occurrences along roll fronts include carbonaceous siltstone beds that provide a local reducing environment for precipitation of uranium-bearing minerals, and abrupt changes in permeability along faults, where impermeable gouge is in contact with permeable sandstones. Uranium has also been localized along the edges of stream channels and at contacts with carbonaceous shales.

The assay data used to calculate the Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve estimate for the Project is natural gamma radiometric log data. Core was collected by Uranium Power Corp. starting in 2005 and continued by Titan after its acquisition in 2009 to verify historical natural gamma data but was not used for Mineral Resource estimation. Calibration data for natural gamma logs are available for both historical and recent drilling.

Drill core collected by Uranium Power Corp. and Titan was analyzed at Energy Labs in Casper, Wyoming.

Utilizing only natural gamma logs as assay data could lead to an over or under estimation of Mineral Resources due to disequilibrium. Positive disequilibrium occurs when the uranium present has not had enough time to decay and produce daughter isotopes, which are what are actually measured during a natural gamma assay. Under positive disequilibrium a natural gamma assay would indicate lower amounts of uranium than what is present. Negative disequilibrium occurs when uranium has had enough time to decay to produce the daughter radioisotopes but was remobilized and removed from the deposit. This would lead to measuring more uranium than is present. The use of core to verify natural gamma logs is standard practice and allows for the calculation of a disequilibrium factor. The disequilibrium factor applied to the Project Mineral Resource is 1.0.

Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve Estimate

Mineral Resources

The mineral resource estimate was completed using the Grade x Thickness Contour Method (also known as the GT Method) on individual mineralized zones as defined in a full 3D geological model of the deposit. The GT Method is a well-established approach for estimating uranium resources and has been in use since the 1950s in the U.S. The technique is most useful in estimating tonnage and average grade of relatively planar bodies where lateral extent of the mineralized body is much greater than its thickness, as was observed in drilling of the Congo and Sheep deposits.

For tabular and roll front style deposits the GT Method provides a clear illustration of the distribution of the thickness and average grade of uranium mineralization. The GT Method is particularly applicable to the Congo and Sheep deposits as it can be effective in reducing the undue influence of high-grade or thick intersections as well as the effects of widely spaced, irregularly spaced, or clustered drill holes, all of which occur to some degree in the Congo and Sheep deposits. This method also makes it possible for the geologist to fit the contour pattern to the geologic interpretation of the deposit.

Details and figures regarding the estimation can be found in Section 14.0, Mineral Resource Estimates, of the Sheep Mountain Technical Report Summary.

Open Pit Mineral Resources

The current mineral resource model includes 18 separate sand units for all areas and includes deletion of the portions of the mineral resource model that falls within the historic mine limits determined from mine maps, which equated to approximately 25% of the initial resource estimate. Historic mining limits were imported into the resource model by individual sand horizons in three dimensions. The extent of mining was taken to be the actual mapped underground mine limit or the GT boundary representing the historical mining cut-off (8 feet at 0.095 or a GT of 0.76), whichever was greatest. Although in many cases the mine maps showed remnant pillars, none of these areas were included in the Mineral Reserve estimate. Thus, the estimate of current Mineral Resources is conservative with respect to the exclusion of areas affected by historic mining.

The Congo sum GT, diluted to a minimum 2-foot mining thickness from the mineralized envelope for each drill hole, was plotted in AutoCAD. If the thickness exceeded 2 feet, no dilution was added. The diluted thickness of mineralization for each drill hole was also plotted. Resource estimates include deletion of the portions of the mineral resource model that fall within the historic mine limits as previously discussed.

Underground Mineral Resources

The GT contours, diluted to a minimum 6-foot mining thickness from the mineralized envelope for each drill hole and each horizon, was plotted in AutoCAD™. If the thickness exceeded 6 feet no dilution was added. The diluted thickness of mineralization for each drill hole was also plotted. Mineral resource estimates account for the deletion of mined areas within the resource model estimated from surface drilling. The total reported mined tonnage from the Sheep I underground mine was 275,000 tons containing 522,500 pounds of U 3 O 8 and an average grade of 0.095% U 3 O 8. However, the portions of the current mineral resource estimates which were within the defined previously mined area was only an estimated 62,618 tons of material containing 160,666 pounds of eU 3 O 8 and an average grade of 0.128% eU 3 O 8. From review of the Sheep, I and II as-built mine plans, it was apparent that little or no material was mined at Sheep II and that only development work was completed. Further, it was apparent at the Sheep I mine that many of the mined areas were located by underground delineation drilling rather than by surface drilling. The mine history clearly shows that underground development drilling and sampling expanded the resource as compared to that which could be projected from the surface drilling alone.

For mine planning purposes, a three-dimensional block model was created from the Sheep GT, geologic and mineralized envelope models. The modeling utilized an automated routine that assigned the thickness of mineralization, GT, and mineralized elevation reflected by their respective contours, to the centroids of a uniform 25 x 25-foot (25’x25’) grid. From the thickness and GT contours, average grade, mineralized and waste tonnages, and contained pounds was calculated and assigned to each block. Each 25’x25’ block was then evaluated based on its grade and thickness for mine planning and scheduling.

The table below sets out the Mineral Resources estimates for the Sheep Mountain Project as of December 31, 2023. These estimates are derived from the Sheep Mountain Technical Report Summary, which estimated Mineral Resources as of December 31, 2021 and are exclusive of Mineral Reserves. Daniel Kapostasy, the Company’s non-independent Qualified Person, reviewed and confirmed that the Mineral Resources estimates set forth in the Sheep Mountain Technical Report Summary remained accurate as of December 31, 2023.

Sheep Mountain Mineral Resources – In Situ Uranium(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)

Notes:

(1) S-K 1300 and NI 43-101 definitions were followed for Mineral Resources.

(2) Mineral Resources are estimated at a uranium grade x thickness (G.T.) cut-off grade of 0.10 G.T. (2 ft. of 0.05% eU 3 O 8 for the Congo Pit and 0.30 G.T. (6 ft. of 0.05% eU 3 O 8) for the Sheep Underground.

(3) Numbers may not add due to rounding.

(4) Mineral Resources are estimated using a long-term uranium price of $65 per pound U 3 O 8. The long-term uranium price is based on supply and demand projections for the period 2021-2035.

(5) Mineral Resources are exclusive of Mineral Reserves.

(6) Mineral Resource are 100% attributable to the Company.

Mineral Reserves

Conversion of Open Pit Resources to Reserves

This estimate includes deletion of the portions of the mineral resource model that fall within the historic mine limits. Historic mining limits were imported into the resource model by individual sand horizons in three dimensions. The extent of mining was taken to be the actual mapped underground mine limit or the GT boundary representing the historical mining cut-off (8 feet at 0.095 or a GT of 0.76), whichever was greatest. Although in many cases the mine maps showed remnant pillars, none of these areas were included in the mineral reserve estimate, though the potential exists for these to be mined. Both the estimated mineral resources and mineral reserves were diluted to a minimum mining thickness of two feet. The reported Probable Mineral Reserve is that portion of the reported Indicated Mineral Resource that is within the current open pit design.

Conversion of Underground Resources to Reserves

This estimate includes deletion of the portions of the mineral resource model which falls within the historic mine limits. Both the estimated Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves were diluted to a minimum mining thickness of six feet. The reported Probable Mineral Reserve is that portion of the reported Indicated Mineral Resource that is within the current underground mine design.

The table below sets out the Mineral Reserve estimates for the Sheep Mountain Project as of December 31, 2023. These estimates are derived from the Sheep Mountain Technical Report Summary, which estimated Mineral Reserves as of December 31, 2021. Daniel Kapostasy, the Company’s non-independent Qualified Person, reviewed and confirmed that the Mineral Reserve estimates set forth in the Sheep Mountain Technical Report Summary remained accurate as of December 31, 2023.

Sheep Mountain Mineral Reserves – In Situ Uranium(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)

Notes:

(1) The Mineral Reserve estimate in this table complies with the requirements of both S-K 1300 and NI 43-101.

(2) Mineral Reserves are estimated at a uranium grade x thickness (G.T.) cut-off grade of 0.10 G.T. (2 ft. of 0.05% eU 3 O 8) for the Congo Pit and 0.45 G.T. (6 ft. of 0.075% eU 3 O 8) for Sheep Underground.

(3) Mineral Reserves are estimated using a long-term uranium price of $65 per pound U 3 O 8. The long-term uranium price is based on supply and demand projections for the period 2021-2035.

(4) Numbers may not add due to rounding.

(5) The Mineral Reserves are excluded from the Mineral Resources shown above.

(6) Mineral Reserves are 100% attributable to the Company.

The Probable Mineral Reserve is that portion of the Indicated Mineral Resource that is economic under the estimated costs and assumed pricing conditions. The cut-off grade of 0.075% eU 3 O 8 at a minimum mining height of 2 foot equates to a 0.10 GT cut-off for the Congo Pit. The cut-off grade of 0.075% eU 3 O 8 at a minimum mining height of 6 feet equals a 0.45 GT cut-off used for the Sheep underground extraction area. The cutoff grade was determined based on an assumed uranium price of $65 per pound U 3 O 8.

The Sheep Mountain Project includes the Congo Pit, a proposed heap leach, and the planned reopening of the existing Sheep Underground mining facility. Mineral Extraction at the Sheep Underground mining facility was suspended in 1988 and the project has been on care and maintenance since that time.

The Sheep Mountain Project does not currently have a processing facility. Transportation of mineralized materials to the White Mesa Mill is not economic at current uranium prices. As a result, it will be necessary to permit and construct a heap leach processing facility at the site or make arrangements to process Sheep Mountain mineralized materials at a third-party processing facility.

The Company is subject to liabilities for mine reclamation at the Sheep Mountain Project. The Company files an annual report with the State of Wyoming, and the amount of the bond may be adjusted annually to ensure sufficient surety is in place to cover the full cost of reclamation. The Company’s reclamation of the exploration drilling performed by Titan was deemed complete in October 2014; the drilling permit was terminated, and that bond was fully released.

The Sheep Mountain Project was acquired by the Company in February 2012, through the Company’s acquisition of Titan. As of December 31, 2023, the total net book value attributable to the Sheep Mountain Project on the Company's consolidated financial statements was $34.18 million.

The Company will continue to evaluate its options for processing Sheep Mountain mineralized material, including continuing to pursue permitting for a heap leach facility at the site, or determining whether arrangements can be made to process Sheep Mountain mineralized materials at a third-party processing facility. Submittal of the license application to the WDEQ-LQD for a heap leach processing facility at the site is on hold pending the Company’s evaluation of off-site processing options for this project. The project is currently on standby, pending completion of the evaluation of the processing options for the Sheep Mountain Project and improvement in market conditions. Additional work is subject to any actions the Company may take in response to general market conditions.

The Bullfrog Project

The following technical and scientific description of the Bullfrog Project is based in part on the report titled “Technical Report on the Bullfrog Project, Garfield County, Utah, USA,” dated February 22, 2022, prepared by Mark B. Mathisen, C.P.G., a Qualified Person employed by SLR (the “Bullfrog Technical Report Summary”). The Bullfrog Technical Report Summary was prepared in accordance with S-K 1300 and NI 43-101. The Bullfrog Project does not have known “Mineral Reserves” and is therefore considered under SEC S-K 1300 definitions to be an exploration stage property. Once developed, Bullfrog will operate as an underground mine.

The Bullfrog Project consists of two separate contiguous deposits, also known as Copper Bench and Indian Bench. The Bullfrog Project is located in eastern Garfield County, Utah, 17 miles north of Bullfrog Basin Marina on Lake Powell and approximately 40 air miles south of the town of Hanksville, Utah. The property is located at latitude 37°48’38.71” N and longitude 110°41’50.09” W.

The Bullfrog Project does not have known “Mineral Reserves” and is therefore considered under S-K 1300 definitions to be exploratory in nature.

The Company’s property position at the Bullfrog Project consists of 127 unpatented mining claims located on BLM land, encompassing approximately 2,344 acres. Surface access to conduct exploration, development and mining activities on unpatented mining claims is granted by the BLM as long as NEPA regulations are met. The property is 100% owned by the Company and was acquired from Denison Mines Corp. and its affiliates in June 2012. Total holding costs in 2023 were $21,222.

Road access to the Bullfrog Project is by paved Highway 276, running between Hanksville, Utah, and Bullfrog Basin Marina, Utah. An unimproved gravel road, maintained by Garfield County, extends west from Highway 276, passes by the portal of the Tony M Mine, and extends northerly to the Bullfrog Project. The northern end of the Bullfrog Project can be accessed by the Eggnog Star Spring county road, approximately 10.4 miles north of Ticaboo, Utah along Highway 276. A network of unimproved, dirt exploration roads provide access over the property except in the areas of rugged terrain.

The climate is distinctly arid with an average annual precipitation of approximately eight inches, in addition to approximately 12 in. of snow. Local records indicate the temperature ranges from a minimum of -10°F to a maximum of 110°F. These conditions allow year-round exploration to take place.

Skilled labor can be recruited from the region, which has a tradition of uranium mining.

The Bullfrog Project is located in a relatively remote area of Utah with limited supporting infrastructure in the area. The town of Ticaboo, Utah, is located approximately five miles south of the Bullfrog Project. The next closest community is Hanksville, Utah, a small town of a few hundred people, located approximately 40 mi north of the Bullfrog Project. The Bullfrog Basin Marina airstrip is located approximately 15 mi south of the Bullfrog Project area. There is no line power or water service in the area, all power for the project will need to be generated on site and a well will need to be drilled for water.

Materials and supplies are transported to the site by truck approximately 275 mi from Salt Lake City, Utah, and approximately 190 mi from Grand Junction, Colorado. Material mined at Bullfrog will be transported 117 road mi to Energy Fuels’ White Mesa Mill near Blanding, Utah, of which 107 miles are on paved roads.

History

In the late 1960s, Gulf Minerals (Gulf) acquired a significant land position southwest of the Bullfrog Project (formerly referred to as the Henry Mountains Complex) and drilled approximately 70 holes with little apparent success. In 1970 and 1971, Rioamex Corporation conducted a 40-hole drilling program in an east-west zone extending across the southerly end of the Bullfrog property and the northerly end of the Tony M–Frank M property. Some of these holes intercepted significant uranium mineralization.

The ownership history of the Bullfrog and Southwest deposits and The Tony M deposit evolved independently from the mid-1970s until early 2005. The Bullfrog and Southwest deposits were initially explored by Exxon Minerals Company (“Exxon”), while the Tony M deposit was explored and developed by Plateau, a subsidiary of Consumers Power Company (Consumers) of Michigan. In 2005, International Uranium Corporation (“IUC”) combined the three deposits into a larger land package. In 2021, EFR divested of the Tony M Property and Southwest deposit, retaining the mineral claims associated with the Bullfrog Deposits (Copper Bench and Indian Bench).

Exxon conducted reconnaissance in the area in 1974 and 1975, resulting in staking of the first “Bullfrog” claims in 1975 and 1976. The first drilling program in 1977 resulted in the discovery of what became the Southwest deposit. Additional claims were subsequently staked, and drilling was continued, first by Exxon’s Exploration Group, and then by its Pre-Development Group. Several uranium and vanadium zones were discovered in the Southwest and Copper Bench areas, and mineralization exhibiting potential economic grade was also discovered in the Indian Bench area. With the declining uranium markets of the early 1980s, Exxon prepared a prefeasibility report and then discontinued development of the property. Subsequently, Exxon offered the property to Atlas Minerals Corporation (“Atlas”) in January 1982.

Atlas entered into an agreement to purchase the Bullfrog property from Exxon in July 1982. From July 1982 to July 1983, Atlas completed 112 drillholes delineating the Southwest and Copper Bench deposits on approximately 100 ft centers. In August 1983, Atlas commissioned Pincock, Allen and Holt, Inc. (“PAH”), to conduct a feasibility study for development of the Southwest and Copper Bench deposits. From July 1983 to March 1984, Atlas completed a core drilling program throughout the Bullfrog property, as well as a rotary drillhole program to delineate the Indian Bench deposit. In November 1983, Atlas renamed the Bullfrog deposits as the “Edward R. Farley Jr. Deposit,” but that name is no longer used.

Atlas continued to hold the Bullfrog property until 1990 when a corporate decision was made to consider its sale. During that year, Mine Reserves Associates, Inc. (MRA) of Tucson, Arizona, was retained to prepare mineral inventory and mineable reserve estimates for the Indian Bench deposit and incorporate the results into a project-wide reserve base. Steve Milne of Milne and Associates (“Milne”), a principal engineer for the PAH study, was engaged in November 1990 to update the PAH feasibility study and to complete an optimization study on selected mining/milling scenarios. The completed Milne study was submitted to Atlas in December 1990.

Atlas did not sell the Bullfrog property, and in 1991 returned it to Exxon. In late 1992, EFN, no relation to EFR, acting through its subsidiary Energy Fuels Exploration Company, purchased the property from Exxon. EFN conducted a geologic review and internal economic analysis of the Bullfrog property. In 1997, IUC became the owner of the Bullfrog property as part of an acquisition in which IUC acquired all of EFN’s assets. IUC performed no exploration activities on the properties.

On December 1, 2006, IUC combined its operations with those of DMI, and DMI became a subsidiary of IUC. IUC was then renamed Denison.

In June 2012, Energy Fuels acquired 100% of the Bullfrog Project (formerly referred to as the Henry Mountains Complex) through the acquisition of Denison and its affiliates’ U.S. Mining Division. The Company has not performed any work on the property since the Bullfrog Project was acquired in 2012.

In October 2021, EFR divested of the Tony M property and Southwest deposit to CUR, retaining the mineral claims associated with the Bullfrog (Copper Bench and Indian Bench) Deposits.

Although the Company has completed initial environmental baseline studies and mine plans for permitting purposes at the Bullfrog Property, the submittal of permit applications has been deferred pending favorable market conditions.

The Copper Bench and Indian Bench Deposits are classified as sandstone hosted uranium deposits. Sandstone-type uranium deposits typically occur in fine to coarse grained sediments deposited in a continental fluvial environment. The uranium may be derived from a weathered rock containing anomalously high concentrations of uranium, leached from the sandstone itself or an adjacent stratigraphic unit. It is then transported in oxygenated groundwater until it is precipitated from solution under reducing conditions at an oxidation-reduction interface. The reducing conditions may be caused by such reducing agents in the sandstone as carbonaceous material, sulfides, hydrocarbons, hydrogen sulfide, or brines.

Uranium mineralization on the Bullfrog Property is hosted by favorable sandstone horizons in the lowermost portion of the Salt Wash Member of the Jurassic age Morrison Formation, where detrital organic debris is present. Mineralization primarily consists of coffinite, with minor uraninite, which usually occurs in close association with vanadium mineralization. Uranium mineralization occurs as intergranular disseminations, as well as coatings and/or cement on and between sand grains and organic debris. Vanadium occurs as montroseite (hydrous vanadium oxide) and vanadium chlorite in primary mineralized zones located below the water table.

The vanadium content of the Henry Mountains Basin deposits is relatively low compared to many other Salt Wash hosted deposits on the Colorado Plateau. Furthermore, the Henry Mountains Basin deposits occur in broad alluvial sand accumulations, rather than in major sandstone channels as is typical of the Uravan Mineral Belt deposits of western Colorado. The Henry Mountains Basin deposits do, however, have the same general characteristic geochemistry of the Uravan deposits, and are therefore classified as Salt Wash type deposits.

The assay data used to calculate the Mineral Resource estimate for the Project is natural gamma radiometric log data. Core was collected by both Exxon and Atlas at various times to verify natural gamma data but was not used for Mineral Resource estimation. Calibration data for natural gamma logs are available for all drilling.

Utilizing only natural gamma logs as assay data could lead to an over or under estimation of Mineral Resources due to disequilibrium. Positive disequilibrium occurs when the uranium present has not had enough time to decay and produce daughter isotopes, which are what are actually measured during a natural gamma assay. Under positive disequilibrium a natural gamma assay would indicate lower amounts of uranium than what is present. Negative disequilibrium occurs when uranium has had enough time to decay to produce the daughter radioisotopes but was remobilized and removed from the deposit. This would lead to measuring more uranium than is present. The Project is part of a larger mining district with no history of disequilibrium issues. The disequilibrium factor applied to the Project Mineral Resource is 1.0.

Mineral Resources for the Bullfrog deposits were calculated using the GT contour method. The GT contour method is commonly used in the uranium industry and refers to the estimated grade multiplied by estimated thickness. In many uranium deposits, thin uranium mineralization can be mined due to those zones being higher grade. The GT method allows that information to be accurately calculated and displayed.

For the GT method, composite samples were flagged by each sand unit for each deposit. GT contours were modeled using this composite data for each of the three mineralized sand zones (MU, ML and L) within the Bullfrog deposit. The modeling process resulted in the creation of grade and thickness grid files or rasters.

Mineral Resources have been estimated using ESRI’s ArcGIS software Spline with Barriers tool routine. The Spline with Barriers tool applies a minimum curvature method, as implemented through a one-directional multigrid technique that moves from an initial coarse grid, initialized in this case to the average of the input data, through a series of finer grids until an approximation of a minimum curvature surface is produced at the desired row and column spacing.

The methodology employed was chosen to replicate the 2012 Mineral Resource estimate that used the GT contour method (Agnerian and Roscoe, 2001), while allowing for calculating resources at various GT cut-off grades. Each of the deposits was gridded into 25 ft by 25 ft cells and a spline interpolator was used to calculate a grade (% eU 3 O 8) and thickness (feet) raster for each of the sands for the deposit. Based on the grade raster, a 0.10% eU 3 O 8 contour was generated for each of the sand units. The 0.10% eU 3 O 8 constrained grade contours were used as a maximum extent to determine a reasonable prospect for economic extraction for each zone. Both the grade and thickness rasters for each of the sands were constrained to the 0.10% U 3 O 8 contour. Those two rasters were then multiplied together to get a GT grid.

Interpolated grade and thickness for each 25 ft by 25 ft grid node within the grade boundary defined by 0.10% eU 3 O 8 were exported into a series of Excel spreadsheets to calculate GT on a per grid node bases for the MU, ML, and L zones.

The plan areas of the MU, ML, and L zones resolved into numerous lenses of mineralization above 0.10% eU 3 O 8. Only GT and thickness interpolated values inside the 0.10% eU 3 O 8 “cookie cutter” boundaries were retained, and isolated areas over 0.10% eU 3 O 8 defined by a single drillhole were removed.

The thickness times area products for each set of grid node were summed to give a volume for each of the MU, ML, and L zones. A tonnage factor of 15 ft 3/ton was applied to calculate the total tonnage for each domain.

The GT by area products for each grid node were summed and divided by the tonnage factor of 15 ft 3/ton for a total that is converted to pounds of contained metal (lb eU 3 O 8) for each zone. The average grade of each node is obtained from converting the total contained pounds of metal (lb eU 3 O 8) into tons of contained metal (ton eU 3 O 8) divided by the total tonnage.

Specific details regarding the estimation of Mineral Resources can be found in Section 14.0 Mineral Resource Estimates of the Bullfrog Technical Report Summary.

The table below sets out the Mineral Resources estimates for the Bullfrog Project as of December 31, 2023. These estimates are derived from the Bullfrog Technical Report Summary, which estimated Mineral Resources as of December 31, 2021. Daniel Kapostasy, the Company’s non-independent Qualified Person, reviewed and confirmed that the Mineral Resources estimates set forth in the Bullfrog Technical Report Summary remained accurate as of December 31, 2023.

Bullfrog Project Mineral Resources – In Situ Uranium(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)

Notes:

(1) SEC S-K 1300 and NI 43-101 definitions were followed for all Mineral Resource categories.

(2) Cut-off grade is a 0.5 GT cut-off (minimum 0.165% eU 3 O 8 over a minimum thickness of 3 ft.).

(3) Cut-off grade is calculated using a sale price of $65/lb. U 3 O 8. The long-term uranium price is based on supply and demand projections for the period 2021-2035.

(5) Mineral Resources based on a tonnage factory of 15.0 ft.3/ton (Bulk density 0.0667 ton/ft 3 or 2.13 t/m 3).

(6) Mineral Resources have not been demonstrated to be economically viable.

(8) Mineral Resources are 100% attributable to EFR.

There is no existing infrastructure on the Bullfrog Property.

The Bullfrog Project was acquired by the Company in June 2012, through the acquisition of the U.S. Mining Division from Denison. The cost of the Bullfrog Project has been fully impaired, and as of December 31, 2023, the total net book value attributable to the Bullfrog Project and its associated equipment on the financial statements of the Company was nil.

Due to improvement in the uranium market, the Company is planning to conduct additional evaluation work at the Bullfrog Project during 2024. The Company plans on initiating an engineering study to determine the surface and underground infrastructure required to bring the Project into production. This information will also be used in permitting activities associated with the Project.

The La Sal Project

The following technical and scientific description of the La Sal Project is based in part on the report titled “Technical Report on the La Sal Project, San Juan County, Utah, USA” dated February 22, 2022, prepared by Mark B. Mathisen, C.P.G., a Qualified Person employed by SLR (the “La Sal Technical Report Summary”). The La Sal Technical Report Summary was prepared in accordance with S-K 1300 and NI 43-101. The La Sal Project does not have known “Mineral Reserves” and is therefore considered under SEC S-K 1300 definitions to be an exploration stage property, notwithstanding that the Company commenced production from the property starting in January 2024.

The La Sal Project is an existing complex comprised of seven individual underground uranium mines and properties. From east to west, these are Pine Ridge (reclaimed mine), Pandora Mine, Snowball Mine, La Sal Decline, Beaver Shaft, Redd Block IV (property), and the Energy Queen Mine. All the properties that make up the La Sal Project is 100% controlled by the Company’s wholly owned subsidiary EFR Colorado.

The area encompassed by the La Sal Project is located on two U.S. Geological Survey 7½ minute quadrangle topographic maps, La Sal West and La Sal East. The geographic coordinates for the approximate center of the La Sal Project are latitude 38°18’48.20” N and longitude 109°15’56.28” W.

The Project consists of approximately 9,500 acres of mineral rights in a combination of unpatented mining claims owned by EFR Colorado, unpatented mining claims leased by EFR Colorado, State of Utah mineral leases, a San Juan County surface use, access, and mineral lease, and mining leases on private mineral rights, all located in the La Sal Mining District. The land surface overlying some mineral rights is also of varying ownership. Where the federal government controls the surface and minerals, EFR Colorado has the right to access, explore, develop, and mine on unpatented mining claims located on land managed by the BLM or USFS, as long as NEPA regulations are met. All other property, regardless of ownership, is covered by access or surface lease agreements with landowners, including ranchers, San Juan County, and the State of Utah. Total holding costs including fee leases, surface use agreements and claims in 2023 were $194,856.

The Company holds 90 unpatented mining claims on various sections of both USFS and BLM land across the Project. A mining lease between Robert H. Sayre, Jr. and UMETCO, dated July 11, 1973, applies to the 10 unpatented Martha claims at the east end of the Pandora claims. EFR Colorado is successor to this lease. Production from these claims is subject to a royalty to Sayre’s successors of 10% of the contained value of uranium and vanadium, less certain allowable deductions. The Martha claims lie in Section 31, Township 28 South, Range 25 East and Section 5, Township 29 South, Range 25 East. The mining lease does not include any requirement for annual advance royalties or other lease payments.

All claims, which are renewed annually in September of each year, are in good standing until September 1, 2024 (at which time they will be renewed for the following year as a matter of course). All unpatented mining claims are subject to an annual federal mining claim maintenance fee of $165 per claim plus approximately $10 per claim for county filing fees to the BLM.

The Company leases the mineral rights on 119 claims located across the Project. These claims are held through four separate mineral leases (“MLs”) described in detail below.

Six Crested and two T&A claims are covered by a Mining Lease dated February 1, 2009, between eight individual owners and Denison, which was acquired by the Company in June 2012. These claims are located in Sections 33 and 34, Township 28 South, Range 24 East and Section 3, Township 29 South, Range 24 East. EFR Colorado pays an annual advance royalty determined by the long-term uranium price in the preceding twelve months. Production royalties are on a sliding scale for both uranium and vanadium depending on the respective commodity’s market price. The uranium royalty varies from 3% to 8% and the vanadium royalty from 2% to 6%, less allowable deductions. The annual $165/claim annual BLM fees are the responsibility of the Company. No other lease costs apply to these claims.

Six Mike claims are covered by a Mining Lease dated August 1, 2001, between various stakeholders of the Mike claims and Denison, which was acquired by the Company in June 2012. This lease supersedes the original 1970 lease between UMETCO and the owners. The claims lie in Section 1, Township 29 South, Range 24 East. Production royalties are on a sliding scale for both uranium and vanadium depending on the respective commodity’s market price. The uranium royalty varies from 3% to 8% and the vanadium royalty from 2% to 6%, less allowable deductions. The annual $165/claim annual BLM fees are the responsibility of the Company. No other lease costs apply to these claims.

The Pandora Mining Lease, dated June 16, 1967, was originally between Robert H. Sayre, Jr. and American Metal Climax, Inc. (American Metal). Successors to American Metal include Atlas Minerals in 1973 and UMETCO in 1988. The Company is the current successor to the Pandora Mining Lease and its amendments. The Pandora Mining Lease and amendments apply to 105 unpatented Pandora claims. The claims lie in Sections 1 and 12, Township 29 South, Range 24 East, Section 31, Township 28 South, Range 25 East, and Sections 5, 6, and 7, Township 29 South, Range 25 East. Production from these claims is subject to a royalty to Sayre’s successors of 10% of the contained value of uranium and vanadium, less certain allowable deductions. The annual $165/claim annual BLM fees are the responsibility of the Company. No other lease costs apply to these claims.

EFR Colorado holds approximately 2,182 acres under mineral lease from the State of Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (“SITLA”) in seven separate leases. Three of the leases (ML-18301, -49313, and –51440), covering 900 acres of the surface area, are owned by the State of Utah and thereby grant access to EFR Colorado for exploration and mining related work. The other 1,282 acres of surface are under private ownership. The private parcels are all subject to valid access and surface use agreements with the landowners. The production royalty for all SITLA leases is 8% on uranium and 4% on vanadium. It is based on the gross value received under contract for the processed products less the actual processing and refining costs. Mining costs are not allowable deductions.

The Utah State mineral lease ML-18301, covering all of the 640 acres in Section 36, T28S, R24E, was originally issued to an individual, Robert Manly, on April 25, 1960. Through a series of assignments and amendments, the lease is now held by EFR Colorado. The current term of the lease runs through December 31, 2024; it is renewable annually by making an annual rental payment as well as advance royalty payments. The annual rental is $1.00/acre ($640 total) and the advance royalty payment is based on the previous January through November’s average uranium and vanadium market prices. Rentals and annual minimum royalties are credited against actual production royalties for the year in which they accrue. Mining costs are not allowable deductions. The surface of approximately 384 acres of the western part of the lease parcel is owned by Charles Hardison Redd and EFR Colorado has a surface access agreement with Redd. The surface of the eastern part of the lease, a total of 256 acres, is owned by the State of Utah State. Rights to necessary surface use are granted by the mineral lease. The eastern part of the Beaver/La Sal mine lies within this lease.

Mineral lease ML-27247 covers 40 acres in the SW¼, SW¼, Section 35, T28S, R24E. The lease was originally issued on December 4, 1970, to an individual, Gregory Hoskin. Through a series of assignments and amendments, the lease is now held by the Company. The current term of the lease runs through December 31, 2024; it is renewable annually by making advance royalty payments. The surface of the western 20 acres of the lease parcel is owned by Redd Agri LLC (Redd Agri) and the eastern 20 acres is owned by La Sal Livestock. The Company has a surface access agreement with both Redd Agri and La Sal Livestock. Portions of the western part of the Beaver mine lie on this lease parcel. The lease is held by paying an annual rental payment and an annual minimum royalty based on the previous January through November’s average uranium and vanadium market prices. Rentals and annual minimum royalties are credited against actual production royalties for the year in which they accrue.

As with ML-27247, the Mineral Lease ML-27248 was originally issued to Gregory Hoskin in December 1970 and is now held by the Company following several assignments and amendments. It covers 80 acres in the W½, NW¼, Section 2, Township 29 South, Range 24 East. With the exception of small parcels owned by the San Juan School District and the La Sal Recreation District, the surface is owned by Redd Agri. The Company has a surface use agreement with Redd Agri for those portions held by Redd Agri. Portions of the western part of the Beaver mine are located on this lease. The Company’s operations of the Beaver mine and any expected exploration drilling are not affected by access restrictions to the School and Recreation District’s acreage. The lease is held by paying in advance an annual rental and an annual minimum royalty based on the previous January through November average uranium and vanadium market prices. Rentals and annual minimum royalties are credited against actual production royalties for the year in which they accrue.

In December 2010, the Company purchased Utah State mineral lease ML-49313 from Uranium One with the seller retaining a 1% overriding royalty. Uranium One acquired the lease from the original assignee, William Sheriff. The lease was renewed by the Company on May 1, 2014, for a second 10-year term. This lease covers about 484 acres in the S½, S½ of NW¼, and E½ of NE¼, Section 36, Township 28 South, Range 23 East. The southeast corner of this section is about one mile west of the Energy Queen shaft. It is connected to the Energy Queen lease property by BLM land (W½, Section 31, Township 28 South, Range 24 East and part of NW¼, Section 6, Township 29 South, Range 24 East) currently covered by unpatented mining claims (Daisy and DOD claims) held by EFR Colorado. ML-49313 is contiguous to the north border of the RM and Judas claims. No mining has taken place on this lease. The surface is owned by SITLA. Rights to necessary surface use are granted by the lease. This lease is held by an annual payment. No annual minimum royalties apply.

This lease was issued on April 30, 2004, to William Sheriff. Mr. Sheriff assigned it to Energy Metals Corporation in 2006, which then became Uranium One in 2009. In February 2011, Denison (acquired by the Company in June 2012) purchased it from Uranium One. The lease was renewed by the Company on May 1, 2014, for a second 10-year term. The lease covers 640 acres, all of Section 32, Township 28 South, Range 25 East. This lease lies north of the eastern part of the Pandora Mine, but no mining has occurred on this lease. The surface is owned by Paul Redd. EFR Colorado has a surface access agreement with Mr. Redd to access a Pandora Mine ventilation hole. The lease is held by paying in advance an annual rental. No annual minimum royalties apply.

This lease was issued on April 30, 2004, to William Sheriff. Mr. Sheriff assigned it to Energy Metals Corporation in 2006, which then became Uranium One in 2009. In February 2011, Denison (acquired by the Company in June 2012) purchased it from Uranium One. The lease was renewed by the Company on May 1, 2014, for a second 10-year term. The lease covers almost 138 acres, mostly in the NE¼ and parts of the NW¼, Section 5, Township 29 South, Range 24 East. A portion of the Redd Block Mineral Resource is located on this lease. The surface is owned by SITLA. Rights to necessary surface use are granted by the lease. No mining has yet occurred. This lease is held by paying in advance an annual rental. No annual minimum royalties apply.

In September 2008, the Company was the highest bidder on a State of Utah mineral lease, ML-51440, which covers 160 acres in the N½ S½, Section 32, Township 28 South, Range 24 East. This lease was renewed by the Company on October 31, 2018, for a second 10-year term. This lease borders the Redd Block Mineral Resource on the north side. The surface is owned by SITLA. Rights to necessary surface use are granted by the lease. An annual payment is required to hold this lease. No annual minimum royalties apply.

The Company has leased the mineral rights on numerous parcels from various private landowners. The Redd family, as individuals or in legal entities, namely La Sal Livestock and Redd Agri, LLC, has owned much of the subject land for many decades, both mineral rights and surface. A few small parcels have joint ownership of minerals with parties other than the Redd family. The surface estate has been split from the minerals on numerous parcels. The Company has surface use and access agreements in place with all the private landowners that allow for any activities pertaining to exploration, development, and mining. The expiration dates for these leases range from 2026 to 2031 but can be held indefinitely through production. All fee leases are subject to annual payment, which may require adjustments based on the long-term spot price of uranium and vanadium.

Most of the mineral ownership east and north of the Energy Queen Mine is vested in Redd Royalties, Ltd. The Energy Queen lease at the west end of the district is not owned by Redd Ranches (a partnership of 11 members of the Redd family) or its affiliates.

The Company entered into a 30-day option with Markle Ranch Holdings, LLC on November 15, 2006, to lease the Energy Queen surface rights. A lease was signed on December 15, 2006, for a term of twenty years, which is extendable if mineral production occurs on a continuing basis. The lease gives EFR the right to use any of the 702 acres for exploration, development, or mining purposes. Markle will be paid a small percentage of market value for any material mined on adjoining properties, if such minerals are removed by use of the mineshaft located on the Markle property.

The Company also entered into a 30-day option to lease the Energy Queen mineral rights from Superior Uranium (Superior) on November 15, 2006. A Mining Lease Agreement was signed on December 13, 2006, for a term of twenty years, which is extendable if mineral production occurs on a continuing basis.

The mineral lease and surface lease cover the same 702 acres located in most of Section 6 and the N½ NE¼ and NE¼ NW¼ Section 7, Township 29 South, Range 24 East. A production royalty will be paid on a sliding scale for both uranium and vanadium depending on the market prices of uranium.

The surface and minerals of this parcel were leased previously to Hecla Mining with the surrounding properties controlled by UMETCO. These two companies operated the mine, then known as the Hecla Shaft, in a joint venture. The shaft and other surface facilities for the Energy Queen Mine are located in the northeast corner of Section 6.

The leased parcel referred to as Redd 1-A covers 160 acres in the SE¼ Section 31, Township 28 South, Range 24 East, immediately north of the Energy Queen Mine. This lease was once part of a much larger mining lease dated June 1, 1971, between Union Carbide Corporation (Union Carbide) and Redd Ranches, a partnership of 11 members of the Redd family. The other parcels were released in November 1999. Through a succession of assignments, the Company became the owner of the Mining Lease with the acquisition of Denison’s U.S. Mining Division in June 2012. It is the intent of the Company to continue to hold the lease. No mining has occurred on this parcel. The production royalty is a percentage of “gross value.” The gross value is the combination of the Uranium Base plus the Vanadium Base. The Uranium Base is determined by a table that has specified dollar amounts based on the U 3 O 8 grade of the ore produced. The Uranium Base is adjusted from the table value by the actual price received for sale of concentrates in the preceding six months. The Vanadium Base is determined by the V 2 O 5 component of an ore purchase price offered by the Mill or other price of V 2 O 5 contained in ore prevailing in the area at the time the ore is fed to the initial process. Surface access is granted to this land in an agreement with La Sal Livestock.

The leased parcel referred to as Redd 1-B was entered at the same time and in the same form as the Redd 1-A lease described above, but covering different parcels of land. The Redd 1-B Mining Lease applies to 1,720 acres in the following sections: S½ SW¼ and SW¼ SE¼, Section 25, NE¼ NE¼, Section 35, N½ NW¼ and W½ SW¼ Section 36, Township 28 South, Range 23 East; E½ SE¼ and SE¼ NE¼ Section 34 and W½ NW¼ Section 35, Township 28 South, Range 24 East; all of Section 2, Township 29 South, Range 24 East, except the W½ NW¼; the SE¼, E½ SW¼ and E¼ NE¼, Section 3, Township 29 South, Range 24 East; and the N½ Section 11, Township 29 South, Range 24 East. An annual advance royalty is paid to hold this lease. It is the intent of EFR Colorado to continue to hold the lease. The production royalty is a percentage of the “gross value”; gross value is defined the same here as under the Redd Royalties Block 1-A mining lease. EFR Colorado is granted access to the surface of this Mining Lease under agreements with both La Sal Livestock and Redd Agri.

This lease was entered into on February 5, 2008, between Denison (acquired by the Company in June 2012) and Redd Royalties for a 20-year term to cover some of the land previously part of the Redd 1-A that had been released from the 1-A lease in 1999. The leased land lies in the following parcels: NE¼ Section 31, Township 28 South, Range 24 East; S½ NE¼ and SE¼ Section 4, Township 29 South, Range 24 East; and SE½ Section 5, Township 29 South, Range 24 East. It totals approximately 683 acres. An annual advance royalty is paid to hold this lease. No mining has occurred on the subject land. If mining occurs on the lease. a “market value” production royalty will be due on a sliding scale. The “market value” is determined to be the published prices for the two products, uranium and vanadium, in the month the ore is fed to process multiplied by the contained pounds less allowable deductions. The allowable deductions include sales brokerage fees, costs of transporting processed concentrates to point of sale, and applicable production and sales taxes. Payments for surface access agreements are made to Lowry Redd and Charles Redd for specific surface parcel ownership.

On January 31, 1968, Union Carbide entered a mining lease with Redd Ranches, a partnership of 11 members of the Redd family, for the rights to more than 3,680 acres north and east of La Sal, Utah. Since then, various parcels have been dropped from the lease. The current lease held by the Company is applicable to only 60 acres described as SE¼ SW¼ and E½ SW¼ SW¼ Section 31, Township 28 South, Range 25 East. It is the intent of the Company to continue to hold the lease. A production royalty is based upon the “gross value”; gross value is defined the same here as under the Redd Royalties Block 1-A mining lease. Mining in portions of the Snowball Mine took place on the subject land up to the cessation of mining in the Pandora/Snowball Mines in December 2012.

Denison (acquired by the Company in June 2012) entered into a mining lease with Redd Royalties on February 5, 2008, to cover an area previously in the Pine Lodge Unit (described above) that had been dropped from the older lease. The current lease held by the Company applies to 100.4 acres described as W½ NE¼ SW¼; NW¼ SW¼; and Lots 2 and 3, Section 31, Township 28 South, Range 25 East. An annual advance royalty is paid to hold this lease. It is the intent of the Company to continue to hold this lease. No mining has occurred on the subject land. When ore production commences, a “market value” production royalty will be due on a sliding scale. The “market value” is determined to be the published prices for the two products, uranium and vanadium, in the month the ore is fed to process multiplied by the contained pounds, less allowable deductions. The allowable deductions include sales brokerage fees, costs of transporting processed concentrates to point of sale, and applicable production and sales taxes.

Union Carbide entered into a lease with Katheryn Anne Redd Mullins and 10 other members of the Redd family on April 16, 1973. It covered 50% of the mineral ownership of 280 acres located in S½ SW¼ and S½ SE¼, Section 33, Township 28 South, Range 24 East and SE¼ SW¼ and W½ SE¼, Section 34, Township 28 South, Range 24 East. The remaining 50% mineral ownership of these parcels is discussed in the subsections Crawford-Kelly portion of Redd-Mullins Land and Barton Norton Estate portion of Redd-Mullins Land.

The lease has undergone various assignments and amendments. The lease is held by an annual advance royalty payment. It is the Company’s intent to continue to hold this lease. The production royalty on the 50% mineral ownership on this leased land is due at a percentage of “gross value”; gross value is defined the same here as under the Redd Royalties Block 1-A mining lease. Production from the western end of the Beaver Shaft has occurred on the Section 34 portion of this lease. Surface access is secured through agreements with both La Sal Livestock and Redd Agri for various portions of the leased land.

A 20-year mining lease was entered into between Denison (acquired by the Company in June 2012) and the Erma Crawford Family Trust on April 1, 2008. It applies to the Crawford’s 25% mineral ownership of 240 acres of land situated in S½ SW¼ and SW¼ SE¼, Section 33, Township 28 South, Range 24 East and SE¼ SW¼ and W½ SE¼, Section 34, Township 28 South, Range 24 East. An annual advance royalty payment is made to hold this lease. The production royalty is based on a sliding scale. The “market value” is determined to be the published prices for the two products, uranium and vanadium, in the month the ore is fed to process multiplied by the contained pounds, less allowable deductions. The allowable deductions include sales brokerage fees, costs of transporting processed concentrates to point of sale, and applicable production and sales taxes.

Two additional, identical mining leases were made effective May 1, 2008, and May 12, 2008, between Denison (acquired by the Company in June 2012) and Robert and Pamela Fergusson, and between Denison (acquired by the Company in June 2012) and Carole and Fay Giles, respectively, to lease equally the remaining 25% of mineral rights in the same land parcels. These two leases combined are referred to as the Keller Estate portion of the Redd-Mullins Mining Lease. The annual advance royalty, determined in the same manner as the Crawford portion, is paid in four equal parts to the heirs of the Keller Estate. The Keller Estate lease carries the same production royalty as the Crawford portion.

Denison (acquired by the Company in June 2012) entered into a mining lease with Joel Norton, representative of the Thora Barton Norton Estate on April 25, 2008. The lease covers a 50% mineral ownership on 40 acres located in the SE¼ SE¼, Section 33, Township 28 South, Range 24 East. The other 50% mineral right resides with Redd Royalties, as described in the Redd-Mullins Mining Lease subsection. An annual advance royalty payment is made to hold the Barton Norton mineral lease. The vanadium “market value” royalty is variable. The “market value” is determined to be the published prices for the two products, uranium and vanadium, in the month the ore is fed to process multiplied by the contained pounds, less allowable deductions. The allowable deductions include sales brokerage fees, costs of transporting processed concentrates to point of sale, and applicable production and sales taxes. A portion of the Redd Block Mineral Resource is located on this parcel. No mining has taken place on this mineral lease. Surface access is covered by the La Sal Livestock Agreement.

A Metalliferous Mineral Lease between San Juan County, Utah, and Hecla Mining Company was signed April 17, 1967. This gave Hecla the right to explore and mine 262.69 acres located in the S½ S½, Section 32, Township 28 South, Range 24 East and most of the NW¼, Section 5, Township 29 South, Range 24 East. Two small private parcels in the NW¼ of Section 5 are excluded. A very small parcel, 0.18 acres in Section 10, Township 29 South, Range 24 East, is included in the lease. Hecla assigned 50% interest in the lease to Union Carbide in December 1976 as part of the Hecla-Union Carbide joint venture (JV). This JV operated the Hecla

Shaft (now Energy Queen) immediately west of Section 5 on the Superior Uranium Lease. The San Juan County Mineral Lease is held by an annual payment. It is the intent of the Company to continue to hold this lease. An amendment to the lease in January 1968 changed the production royalty to match that used by the State of Utah on it metalliferous leases. When the Energy Queen Mine (Hecla Shaft) ceased operation in 1983, a development drift had advanced into the County land by a few tens of feet. Very little if any ore was produced at that time. The drift was developing toward mineral resources that are now part of the Redd Block Mineral Resources. The mineral lease allows for surface use as necessary for exploration and mining.

The La Sal Project is easily accessed from the all-weather Utah State Highway 46. Utah 46 enters the La Sal Project land about one mile west of the Energy Queen lease. Utah 46 stays within or very near the La Sal Project for the next eight miles to the east. The Energy Queen headframe, visible from the highway, is located approximately 500 ft south of Utah 46 and is accessed by a gravel road.

The area of the La Sal Project is semi-arid. Temperatures range between an average low of 41°F to an average high of 72°F. Less than 10 in. of precipitation falls per year. Winters are not particularly severe, although there are numerous snowstorms. The temperature drops below 0°F at times, and snow can accumulate to over a foot in the lower elevations and more than two feet at higher elevations.

It is anticipated that most personnel will be hired from the local area with other personnel being hired from other mining districts around the country.

La Sal, Utah, is a small town consisting of a Post Office and general store. Most supplies necessary for mining operations can be found locally in the towns of Moab, Utah, or Monticello, Utah, 24 mi northwest or 34 mi south of the La Project, respectively.

The primary infrastructure as well as electricity and water are already in place at the Project. The mines associated with the Project were in commercial production between 2009 and 2012, before being placed on standby. A test-mining program that began in April 2018 and ran through May 2019 included the rehabilitation of both the La Sal and Pandora declines and re-established underground utilities to most of the mine workings. An airport in Moab, Utah provides daily service to Salt Lake City, Utah, and Denver, Colorado, both of which have international airports.

Electric transmission and distribution lines exist throughout the project area, of sufficient size to supply the load the mines demanded in the past. Many portions of the electrical distribution system were replaced or refurbished as part of a test-mining and rehabilitation program that occurred at the Project between April 2018 and May 2019. The electrical supply is also adequate for additional demand should more ventilation fans, compressors, and even another production shaft with hoisting equipment be added when production resumes and expands. Natural gas is also available for any future production needs.

Water for the mine is purchased from a local rancher who maintains a water well near the Beaver Shaft. Water pumped from the well is either transported by truck to the facilities where it is distributed to the mines or by utility drops located throughout the Project. The eastern end of the Project, including all the current mine workings associated with the Beaver Shaft, La Sal Decline, and Pandora Mines are dry. The Energy Queen Mine workings and shaft are currently flooded and will need to be dewatered prior to mining.

History

In the late 1960s, three mining companies controlled most of the Project. Union Carbide had leases and claims in the central portion of the Project including the La Sal Decline, Snowball Mine, Beaver Shaft, and most of the Redd Block IV property; Union Carbide reorganized in the early 1980s and became UMETCO. American Metal Climax held the lease on the Pandora Mine as the east end of the Project; that lease was assigned to Atlas Minerals in 1973 and Atlas Minerals assigned it to UMETCO in 1988, retaining an overriding royalty. Hecla Mining held the Energy Queen and San Juan County leases on the west end of the Project. Hecla and Union Carbide formed a joint venture on those properties in 1976.

UMETCO and EFN (no relation to the Company) entered into an agreement in 1984 whereby UMETCO owned 70% capacity in, and was the operator of, the Mill. That operating agreement was restructured in 1988 wherein EFN became 20% owner of the UMETCO uranium-vanadium properties in Colorado and Utah, including the La Sal properties. In 1994, UMETCO gave back its interest in the Mill to EFN and assigned all interest in the La Sal properties, among others, to EFN, thereby giving EFN control of all previous UMETCO, Hecla, and Atlas properties in the Project. Many of the UMETCO personnel continued working for EFN. Original data of the previous operators also transferred to EFN ownership. EFN bought-out the Atlas Minerals royalty on the Pandora Mine in the mid-1990s. The Hecla 50% interest was also acquired by EFN.

IUC bought all assets of EFN in 1997 including the Project and the Mill. IUC did not retain the Superior Uranium lease (Energy Queen lease). Again, many personnel and all data on the Project transferred to IUC. In 2006, IUC acquired Denison and changed its name to Denison Mines Corporation (Denison). EFR Colorado entered into a new lease on the Energy Queen property in late 2006. The Company acquired Denison’s U.S. Mining Division in June 2012, thereby becoming owner and operator (through various subsidiaries) of the entire Project and the Mill. Several Company staff have been associated with all or portions of the Project since the 1980s. All historical data on the Project is the property of the Company.

Following the end of commercial mining at the Project in October 2012, the Project was placed on care and maintenance. In 2018 the La Sal, Beaver, and Pandora portions of the Complex were reopened and rehabilitated as part of a test mining program. In May 2019 the Project was placed back into care and maintenance mode.

Mineral extraction facilities on private and public lands in Utah require an approved Notice of Intent (“NOI”) with the UDOGM. If the facility generates water, a ground water discharge permit is required for the treatment plant and ponds, and a surface water discharge permit is required for discharge of treated water. Both permits are issued through DWQ. Air permits for air emissions including radon are issued by the Utah Division of Air Quality. Water well permits, water rights, and stream alteration permits are issued through the Division of Water Rights. On federal land, all the state permits listed above are required, as well as a Plan of Operations approved through a NEPA review by the responsible federal land managing agency.

The Company’s mineral facilities at the La Sal Project are all existing facilities in historic mining areas, and approvals by the BLM and USFS have been obtained under EAs and FONSIs under NEPA. The Energy Queen and Redd Block IV Properties are located on private land and were permitted with UDOGM in the early 1980s by Union Carbide. The Energy Queen Property was developed and has conducted mineral extraction, but the Redd Block IV Property was discontinued soon after the start of construction. An NOI amendment for the Energy Queen Property was approved by the UDOGM on September 22, 2009. This amendment allows the Company to install water treatment and other new surface facilities to support extraction of up to 250 tons per day of mineralized materials. Water discharge permits to allow initial and ongoing discharge of water from underground workings were also approved by the DWQ in 2009 and renewed most recently in 2018. Energy Fuels initiated permitting plans for additional facility expansion in 2012, but then deferred these plans when the Redd Block IV resource was acquired in the Denison acquisition. As market conditions may warrant, the Company intends to perform engineering studies to determine if the Redd Block IV resource can be extracted from the Energy Queen shaft and surface facilities. If this proves to be the case, the Energy Queen UDOGM permit would be updated to include the Redd Block IV area as well as other resources that have been acquired since the 2009 amendment. A Small Source Exemption that is in place for air emissions would also need to be replaced with an air permit because of the increased surface disturbance. A groundwater discharge permit through DWQ may also be required prior to resuming dewatering operations at the Energy Queen Property.

Existing mining operations at the Pandora, Beaver, La Sal and Snowball Properties are fully permitted with the State of Utah, the BLM, and the USFS. In order to allow expansion of the existing mines, Energy Fuels has obtained regulatory approvals for expansion of the Pandora, Beaver, and La Sal operations through the UDOGM, the BLM, and the USFS. In late 2014, an EA, draft Decision Notice and FONSI were issued for public comment. In March 2015, in response to an objection filed by an environmental interest group, the USFS ruled that additional analysis was required before a modified Plan of Operations and EA could be approved for the proposed expansion. An expanded EA was finalized by the USFS and BLM in September 2017. On February 23, 2018, the BLM and USFS issued the EA, Decision Record (BLM)/Decision Notice (USFS), and FONSI approving the expansion, conditional upon the Company incorporating certain specific requirements into the Plan of Operations amendment and having the required reclamation bond in place. On September 26, 2018, the USFS approved the Plan of Operations amendment and surety bond. In November 2020, the Large Mine NOI permit expansion was approved through UDOGM. All other regulatory approvals needed for project expansion, including an air emissions permit, are in place.

The Colorado Plateau covers nearly 130,000 square miles in the Four Corners regions. The La Sal Project lies in the Canyon Lands Section in the east-central part of the Plateau in Utah. The La Sal Mountains Intrusion is located to the north and east of the La Sal Project and the peaks are visible from most of the La Sal Project.

The La Sal deposits are classified as sandstone hosted uranium-vanadium deposits. Sandstone-type uranium deposits typically occur in fine to coarse grained sediments deposited in a continental fluvial environment. The La Sal Trend uranium-vanadium deposits are a similar type to those elsewhere in the Uravan Mineral Belt. The Uravan Mineral Belt was defined by Fisher and Hilpert (1952) as a curved, elongated area in southwestern Colorado where the uranium-vanadium deposits in the Salt Wash Member of the Morrison Formation generally have closer spacing, larger size, and higher grade than those in adjacent areas and the region as a whole. The location and shape of mineralized deposits are largely controlled by the permeability of the host sandstone. Most mineralization is in trends where Top Rim sandstones are thick, usually 40 feet or greater.

The La Sal Trend is a large channel of Top Rim sandstone that trends due east, possibly as a major trunk channel to tributaries that fanned-out to the east to make a portion of the Uravan Mineral Belt. The Energy Queen deposit appears to be at the location of the junction of a tributary channel that joins the main channel from the southwest. The uranium may be derived from a weathered rock containing anomalously high concentrations of uranium, leached from the sandstone itself or an adjacent stratigraphic unit. It is then transported in oxygenated groundwater until it is precipitated from solution under reducing conditions at an oxidation-reduction interface. The reducing conditions may be caused by such reducing agents in the sandstone as carbonaceous material, sulfides, hydrocarbons, hydrogen sulfide, or brines.

The primary assay data used to calculate the Mineral Resource estimate for the Project is natural gamma radiometric log data. Core was collected by Union Carbide to determine vanadium assays and core was collected by the Company in 2019 to verify vanadium assays and to verify natural gamma grades, where core data was available it was used in place of natural gamma data. Calibration for natural gamma completed by the Company was done at the DOE test pits in Casper, WY. No calibration records are available from Atlas or Union Carbide, but it is assumed that they followed standard operating procedures for calibrating their natural gamma equipment.

Core analysis from Union Carbide was completed at their own laboratories. Core analysis by the Company was done at the White Mesa Mill in Blanding, Utah. The Company submitted uranium standards and blanks to the mill as part of a standard QA/QC procedure.

Utilizing only natural gamma logs as assay data could lead to an over or under estimation of Mineral Resources due to disequilibrium. Positive disequilibrium occurs when the uranium present has not had enough time to decay and produce daughter isotopes, which are what are actually measured during a natural gamma assay. Under positive disequilibrium a natural gamma assay would indicate lower amounts of uranium than what is present. Negative disequilibrium occurs when uranium has had enough time to decay to produce the daughter radioisotopes but was remobilized and removed from the deposit. This would lead to measuring more uranium than is present. The Project is part of a larger mining district with no history of disequilibrium issues. The disequilibrium factor applied to the Project Mineral Resource is 1.0.

Mineral Resources Estimates

Uranium block grade estimations for the La Sal Project were based on radiometric drillhole logs on the five principal mineralized domains (La Sal West, Energy Queen, Redd Block, Beaver/La Sal, and Pandora). Mineral Resources were estimated using Vulcan software using inverse distance squared methods. Vanadium grades were calculated based on the uranium grades utilizing a regression analysis. A power relationship was observed between the uranium grade (% U 3 O 8) and the vanadium to uranium ratio (V 2 O 5:U 3 O 8). The relationship is given by the equation below:

y = 2.4805 x-0.382

Where y is the V 2 O 5:U 3 O 8 ratio and x is the uranium grade (%U 3 O 8). The vanadium grade (%V 2 O 5) for La Sal can then be calculated by the equation:

%V 2 O 5 =V 2 O 5: U 3 O 8

%U 3 O 8

Additional details regarding the estimation technique can be found in Section 14.0 Mineral Resource Estimate in the La Sal Technical Report Summary.

The table below sets out the Mineral Resources estimates for the La Sal Project as of December 31, 2023. These estimates are derived from the La Sal Technical Report Summary, which estimated the Mineral Resources as of December 31, 2021. Daniel Kapostasy, the Company’s non-independent Qualified Person, reviewed and confirmed that the Mineral Resources estimates set forth in the La Sal Technical Report Summary remained accurate as of December 31, 2023.

La Sal Mineral Resources – In Situ Uranium and Vanadium(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)

Notes:

(1) SEC S-K definitions were followed for all Mineral Resource categories. These definitions are also consistent with CIM (2014) definitions in NI 43-101.

(2) Mineral Resources are estimated at a cut-off grade of 0.17% U 3 O 8.

(3) The cut-off grade is calculated using a metal price of $65/lb U 3 O 8. The long-term uranium price is based on supply and demand projections for the period 2021-2035.

(5) Mineral Resources are based on a tonnage factory of 14.5 ft 3/ton (Bulk density 0.0690 ton/ft 3 or 2.21 t/m 3).

(6) Mineral Resources are not Mineral Reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability.

(8) Mineral Resources are 100% attributable to EFR.

Permanent structures existing at the Energy Queen Property include the head frame and a metal building containing an office, shop, showers, warehouse, and the hoist. The compressor is located in a separate building. One cased vertical ventilation hole was established into the underground working level. A small water treatment building and settling ponds are located on the San Juan County land in Section 5. In the past, water was treated with barium chloride to remove radium.

The Beaver and La Sal Properties are accessed through the La Sal decline with rubber-tired equipment. The principal shop, offices, and warehouse facilities used by all properties in the district are housed at the surface facilities of the La Sal decline. There are large fenced-in yards, as well as buildings for equipment and supply storage. It is used as a central receiving site for bulk and large orders, which are then distributed to the other Energy Fuels’ properties in the district and other parts of the region. The shop areas include facilities specific to electrical equipment, drills, mobile diesel equipment, and welding. Engineering, geology, safety, environmental, and supervisory and clerk offices are also located near the La Sal decline, in addition to staff and underground crew’s dry rooms. Ample stockpile space is available for easy truck load-out for transporting mineralized material to the White Mesa Mill. Electrical lines and substations exist and are adequately sized for any future extraction potential of the Mineral Resources. The Beaver and La Sal Properties are dry, so no water treatment facilities are needed.

The surface infrastructure at the Beaver shaft location consists of the hoist house, hoist, and head frame. The shaft is 690 feet deep to the underground haulage level and 750 feet in total depth. There are three loading pockets, two of 70-ton capacity and one of 90-ton capacity. This arrangement allows for separation of mineralized material and waste. The skips dump into a surface bin from which the mineralized material is trucked a short distance to a stockpile and subsequently loaded into highway trucks for haulage to the White Mesa Mill. The shaft conveyance system is certified for man trips, although the routine access for personnel is through the La Sal decline. Another building houses the compressors, which supply compressed air for the underground workings in the Beaver Project. Power lines and substations are in place. The Beaver Property is dry underground; therefore, no water treatment facilities exist.

Access into the Pandora Property is through a decline with rubber-tired equipment. Surface facilities here are less than at the other projects. They consist of a small office and shop buildings. A third building is used for storage of materials and equipment. Power lines exist to the property with enough capacity for the required load of potential future mining activities. The Pandora Property is dry underground.

Reclamation work on the Snowball development rock area was completed in 2021.

The Company acquired the Energy Queen Property in December 2006. The remainder of the La Sal Project was acquired by the Company in June 2012, through the acquisition of the Denison US Mining Division. As of December 31, 2023, the total net book value attributable to the La Sal Project and its associated equipment on the financial statements of the Company was $0.40 million.

The Company announced in December 2023 that it was putting the La Sal Project back into production. The Company is utilizing employees that were working on rehabilitation of the Whirlwind mine decline during the summer of 2023 as well as some additional personnel to mine the La Sal/Beaver portion of the La Sal Complex. The Company has hired a contract mining company to mine the Pandora portion of the La Sal Complex. At full production, the La Sal/Beaver and Pandora mines can each produce approximately 4,000 tons of uranium/vanadium ore per month (8,000 tons total). The mines will ramp up production during early 2024 and should achieve full production by mid-year.

The Bahia Project

The following technical and scientific description of the Bahia Project is based in part on a number of historical exploration reports provided by previous owners to the Brazilian Mining Agency, Agência Nacional de Mineração (National Mining Agency (“ANM”). These reports were submitted to ANM between 10/20/2016 and 4/29/2022 and do not comply with S-K 1300 or NI 43-101. Daniel Kapostasy, a Qualified Person employed by the Company and currently serving as the Company’s Vice President, Technical Services, has reviewed these reports in detail and held various discussions with the people who collected the samples and wrote the reports. The Company is currently collecting the data and conducting the test work required to prepare an S-K 1300 compliant initial assessment and NI 43-101 compliant technical report, including a Mineral Resource estimate if the test work is successful in confirming a Mineral Resource, and expects to disclose its results in Q1 2025. Currently, the Bahia Project has no S-K 1300 or NI 43-101 Mineral Resources or Mineral Reserves and is therefore considered to be an exploration stage property.

The Bahia Project is an exploration stage property comprised of seventeen individual ANM Process Areas between the municipalities of Prado and Caravelas in the state of Bahia, Brazil, prospective for heavy mineral sands (“Heavy Minerals”), including ilmenite, rutile, zircon and monazite. All seventeen of the Process Areas are 100% controlled by the Company’s wholly owned subsidiary Energy Fuels Brazil Ltda. If the Project is put into production, it will be comprised of multiple shallow open pits.

The geographic coordinates for the Bahia Project are approximately latitude 17°17’27.6” S and longitude 39°13’26.4” W for the northern extent, latitude 17°44’27.6” S and longitude 39°13’15.6” W for the southern extent, and latitude 17°30’56.6” S and longitude 39°13’15.6” W for the approximate center of the Project.

The Project consists of approximately 15,089.71 hectares (37,300 acres or 58.3 square miles) of mineral rights controlled by the Company’s wholly owned subsidiary Energy Fuels Brazil Ltda.

Mineral tenure is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution in Brazil. Mineral resources are separate from the surface owners (i.e. split estate), and the Republic of Brazil is the owner of all mineral resources. The federal government can grant mineral rights for exploration and production to Brazilian companies (or foreign companies with established Brazilian entities). Brazilian entities that are granted mining rights have the ownership of the product they are mining. Mineral rights can be assigned, transferred or subject to encumbrance, provided that legal requirements are fulfilled and that the transaction is registered with and approved by the Brazilian National Mining Agency (“ANM”).

Mineral rights do not grant the land where the mineral deposits are located but do provide the possibility of creating a mineral easement that allows holders of the mineral rights the ability to explore or mine the mineral and take ownership of the product. This right of access also includes neighboring lands, as long as ANM recognizes that such lands are needed for exploration and production. The surface owners are entitled to a royalty and damages caused by exploration, mining and ancillary activities. A maximum royalty is set at half the federal government royalty. If the Company and the surface owner are unable to reach an agreement the matter will be settled by the local court based on criteria provided in applicable laws.

The granting of mineral rights in Brazil is performed in four steps:

1. Exploration Authorization: A 1-3 year authorization that is renewable for an additional 1-3 years. Exceptions can be made for additional renewals following the first authorization. The purpose of this authorization is to allow a company to explore for a mineral of interest. The company must then submit an exploration report to ANM. ANM will approve or deny the report based on the economic and technical feasibility of exploiting the mineral explored for under the report. Four of the mineral rights underlying the Bahia Project currently fall within this category (870.270/2016, 870.271/2016, 870.869/2011 and 871.441/2018).

2. Right to Request a Mining Concession: Following approval of the exploration report the company has 1 year to apply for a mining concession. This request period can be renewed, upon request and justification, based on ANM’s criteria. If ANM does not agree with the justification, ANM may request the holder of the mineral right to proceed with the request for a mining concession stage. Eventually, ANM can forfeit the request right if there is clear and strong evidence of procrastination. One of the mineral rights underlying the Bahia Project currently falls within this category (870.871/2011).

3. Mining Concession Request: The request for a mining concession has to include a mine development plan. Furthermore, the mining concession will only be granted once an environmental construction permit is obtained. Extensions can be granted if the environmental permitting process is delayed. The holder must use best efforts to obtain the environmental permit and report to ANM. Eventually, ANM can deny the request if there is clear and strong evidence of procrastination. Twelve of the mineral rights underlying the Bahia Project currently fall within this category (870.267/2016, 870.864/2011, 870.866/2011, 870.868/2011, 870.872/2011, 870.873/2011, 870.874/2011, 870.785/2011, 870.876/2011, 873.520/2011, 873.723/2011 and 873.724/2011).

4. Mining Concession: This is the approval to mine. Once this is granted the company has six months to start mining and is required to provide an annual report to ANM. The mining concession is valid for the life of the mine.

Under the terms of the purchase agreement with the previous owners no royalty payment is due. Under the terms of a finders’ fee agreement with an agent that assisted in the purchase of the Process Areas a 4% gross revenue royalty is due on Heavy Minerals concentrates sold from the Project. A 2% gross revenue royalty is due to the Brazilian government and a maximum 1% gross revenue royalty is due to the surface owners where production occurs.

The Bahia Project is easily accessed from the all-weather Bahia State Road 001 (BA-001), which runs north to south through and along the western edge of the project. Additional local paved roads and dirt roads for various ranches provide access to the individual Process Areas. Airports in Porto Seguro, BA, approximately 230 km to the north and Teixeira de Freitas, BA approximately 60 km to the west provide commercial air service. A port on the Caravelas River at the extreme southern end of the project area was last operated in 2021 but has been maintained in a standby condition and could be used for the Project. The closest deepwater port is the Port of Ilheus approximately 380 km to the north. There is no rail near the Project.

The State of Bahia is approximately 564,692 square kilometers, of which, 68.7% are considered semi-arid. Near the project, the climate is tropical to subtropical with average temperatures between 21 and 25°C. Relative humidity is approximately 80% on average and annual rainfall is around 1,500 – 1,750 mm.

Prado, Alcobaça and Caravelas are the nearest municipalities to the project and have populations of approximately 28,000, 22,500 and 22,000 people respectively. The municipalities are sufficient for providing necessities for initial work at the project including personnel, lodging, and supplies. Larger equipment and more technical items can be purchased in the larger surrounding cities of Teixeira de Freitas, Itamaraju or Eunapolis. Belo Horizonte, a large city and home to a number of mining service providers, is 750 km away.

It is anticipated that most personnel will be hired from the local area with other technical personnel being hired from other mining districts around Brazil.

Electric transmission and distribution lines exist throughout the project area, supplying the three major municipalities in the area. Groundwater in the region is relatively shallow and depending on the season or portion of the project can range from near surface to 10 meters below the surface. It is anticipated that water for the operation will be supplied by groundwater wells.

History

Sixteen of the ANM Process Areas were acquired from G-4 Esmeralda and URBtopo who did the majority of the exploration work on the Project including the drilling of over 3,300 hand auger drill holes. In addition to the drilling, these groups conducted a gamma survey of the region. Monazite, one of the heavy minerals of interest contains both uranium and thorium and is therefore naturally radioactive. Surveying for this radioactivity with gamma detectors provides an indication of mineralization and therefore can focus drilling efforts.

The data from the drilling was used to publish exploration reports for each of the Process Areas to ANM. This is a required process under Brazilian law to move the Process Areas towards mine production. The reports detail in-situ mineral inventory and then apply economics to declare “reserves” and provide evidence to ANM that the Process Areas are able to economically produce the mineral being applied for in the Process Area. The reports are extremely detailed and are the sources of the historical resource provided below. It should be noted that the numbers given in the table are historical in nature and a Qualified Person has not done sufficient work to classify the estimates as a current estimate of Mineral Resources, Mineral Reserves or exploration results. The Company is not treating the following as a current estimate of Mineral Resources, Mineral Reserves or exploration results. Further drilling and data collection might not prove out the numbers in the table below.

Notes:

1. Heavy Minerals represent all the heavy minerals greater than specific gravity 2.9, those of primary economic interest are ilmenite, rutile, zircon and monazite, but also include minerals such as kyanite, garnet, staurolite and magnetite.

2. Heavy mineral percentages are reported at a cutoff grade of 2.0%, although no work was done to justify this value as an economic cutoff grade

3. Process Area 871.441/2018 was owned by a different party and the calculations provided in the exploration report differed from the calculations by G-4 Esmeralda and URBtopo. The data in the blank columns was not provided.

Limited data was collected and provided in the exploration reports on the concentrations of the valuable minerals (ilmenite, rutile, zircon, monazite and kyanite) at the Project. The data contained in the table below is taken from the same historical exploration reports listed in the table above, dated between October 20, 2016 and April 29, 2022. The values in the table were determined using microscopic mineral identification and point counting. Based on this limited data, the Company expects concentrations in the ranges below. As with the table above, it should be noted that the numbers given in the table are historical in nature, and a Qualified Person has not done sufficient work to classify the estimates as a current estimate of Mineral Resources, Mineral Reserves or exploration results. The Company is not treating the following as a current estimate of Mineral Resources, Mineral Reserves or exploration results. Further drilling and data collection might not prove out the numbers in the table below.

Limited permitting work has been conducted at the Project. The Company has engaged a local consulting firm to provide an overview of the permitting process, identify any significant issues and initiate a stakeholder engagement program. Permitting is expected to commence in 2024. As more information is available and the permitting process begins, additional information will be provided.

The Barreiras Group is a unit that occurs along the coast of Brazil, from the State of Amapá to Rio de Janeiro. It is an alluvial fan deposit composed of clay, sand and gravel and was by fluvial systems. Overlying the Barreiras Group are the mineral bearing beach/dune sand deposits of Holocene age. These mineralized beach/dune deposits are referred to below as placers.

Most of the Heavy Minerals were brought down from the higher interior of Brazil by rivers and reworked along the Brazilian coastline by wave action and currents. This primarily occurred during the last 6,000 years during a sea level decline of about 3 to 4 meters. This event and the deposition of material from the various rivers gave rise to extensive plains of coastal dunes. One of these plains, Belmonte, is located in the southern part of the state of Bahia, which is part of the Jequitinhonha River delta. Another plain of considerable size stretches from the Prado region to Caravelas, where the clear strands of beachfront can be seen and makes up the majority of the Project area. All coastal dunes are reworked by the wind, most prominently in the frontal dunes. The study of the geometry, orientation and truncation patterns of coastal ridges can provide a great deal of information about the evolution of these plains, sediment dispersion patterns and past episodes of severe erosion that affected the coastline.

Placer deposits form from the concentration of a diverse group of valuable, resistant, detrital minerals resulting from the erosion of its source rock. These resistant minerals include gold, cassiterite, zircon, rutile, ilmenite, monazite, magnetite, platinum group minerals, chromite and various gemstones. It is important to emphasize that the source of the placer minerals might not be of economic value, but the erosion and concentration of the mineral can make the placer economically viable. In the case of the Bahia Project, detrital minerals concentrated in the placers are referred to as heavy minerals, due to their high specific gravity (greater than 2.9 g/cm 3), higher than quartz (2.65 g/cm 3). Typically, the heaviest minerals such as gold and platinum are not transported long distances and are found close to the source rocks. Lighter heavy minerals such as ilmenite, rutile, monazite and zircon can be transported longer distances and typically end up in coastal environments.

In the region from Prado to Caravelas (passing through Alcobaca), the placers are classified as placer beach disseminated. This type of deposit forms by waves and currents concentrating the heavy minerals and typically contains the lighter heavy minerals such as ilmenite, rutile, zirconite, monazite, garnet and magnetite.

Placer deposits, similar to those found at the Project, can be found globally in places such as South Africa, Australia, Madagascar, India, Thailand, and the Southeastern United States. In Brazil, similar placers were mined in São Francisco de Itabapoana, Rio de Janeiro, and Cumuruxatiba (located 30 km to north of Prado), in Bahia.

The data collected and provided in this disclosure is derived entirely from the exploration reports for each of the seventeen ANM Process Areas. Daniel Kapostasy, Vice President, Technical Services and Qualified Person for the Company has reviewed these reports in detail and discussed the methods used with the project geologist in charge of field and laboratory activities for the previous owners. This person is also currently an employee of Energy Fuels Brazil Ltda. Heavy mineral concentrations were derived for every meter drilled using heavy liquid separations, a standard method of heavy mineral determination.

To determine the concentration of the various Heavy Minerals in a sample, the heavy fraction is separated from the silica sand by using heavy liquid separation. The heavy fraction is then mounted in epoxy or dispersed on slide glass and viewed under a microscope. A geologist then can identify the various minerals and determine the concentration of each mineral through a process called point counting, whereby the geologist identifies each sand grain individually, tallies the number of each mineral and then divides by the total.

Verification of the Heavy Minerals concentration was started by the Company in September 2022, when it hired a contract driller to collect samples using a sonic rig. While no laboratory analyses have been received to date, visual estimation of the Heavy Minerals quantity indicates that the historical values seen at the various Process Areas are valid. The Company expects to start receiving data from its confirmation drilling program in early 2024.

The Project is a greenfield project in that no mining has taken place on the ANM Process Areas. Most of the surface use in the region is for farming and ranching. As mentioned previously, the former owners carried out an extensive auger drill exploration program completing over 3,300 holes. Between September 20, 2022 and February 14, 2023, the Company drilled 2,266 meters of sonic drill core on various ANM Process Areas to confirm the prior drilling and collect samples and data for use in an S-K 1300/NI 43-101 compliant technical report for publication in Q1 2025.

As of December 31, 2023, the net book value of the Bahia Project was $29.13 million.

The Company plans to start a Phase II drilling program in Q1 2024, utilizing its own sonic drill rig. The purchase of a drill rig provides the Company with flexibility in drilling out this large project. Additional work planned in 2024 includes continuation of permitting and community engagement activities, continuation of metallurgical test work and engineering design. The Company plans to use this information to prepare an S-K 1300 compliant initial assessment and NI 43-101 compliant technical report in Q1 2025, including an estimate of Mineral Resources if Mineral Resources are confirmed.

Non-Material Mineral Properties

This section describes certain non-material mineral properties held by the Company. As these properties are not considered material to the Company’s business, the Company may choose to pursue or to take into consideration the potential sale, joint venture, trade or other transaction involving one or more of these projects. None of the Company’s non-material properties have any Mineral Resources or Mineral Reserves.

The Company holds the following non-material mineral properties:

Other ISR Projects

The Company’s Properties located in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming are as follows:

The Company’s properties in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming, but outside of the Nichols Ranch Project, include 4,359 acres owned 100% by the Company through its wholly owned subsidiary, Uranerz. These properties, located at Arkose, include the: Verna Ann, Niles Ranch, Arvina, Streeter, Table Mountain, Heldt Draw, Drew, Collins Draw and Jack properties. The Company, through Uranerz, also holds an 81% interest in the Arkose Joint Venture, which holds 40,852 net acres in the Powder River Basin.

In September 2016, Uranerz elected to forfeit 298 unpatented lode mining claims covering approximately 6,157 acres from its North Willow Creek (50 claims), Hat (61 claims), Divide (36 claims), North Nichols (107 Claims) and East Nichols (44 claims) properties, which constitutes all the claims in those projects.

In general, these ISR projects are located in basins containing sandstones of Tertiary age with known uranium mineralization. Limited exploration was conducted by Uranerz on each project.

Arkose Joint Venture, Powder River Basin, Wyoming:

The Company, through its wholly owned subsidiary Uranerz, holds an undivided 81% interest in the Arkose Joint Venture, which holds an additional 40,852 net acres in the Powder River Basin. Uranerz completed the acquisition of its interest in the Arkose Joint Venture mineral properties on January 15, 2008. This acquisition was completed pursuant to a purchase and sale agreement previously announced on September 19, 2007 between Uranerz, NAMMCO, Steven C. Kirkwood, Robert W. Kirkwood and Stephen L. Payne (collectively, the “NAMMCO Sellers”).

In connection with the acquisition of its interest in the Arkose Joint Venture, Uranerz entered into a venture agreement dated January 15, 2008 (the “Venture Agreement”) with United Nuclear, LLC (“United Nuclear”), a limited liability company wholly owned by the NAMMCO Sellers and their designee under the purchase and sale agreement. Under the Venture Agreement, United Nuclear retained its nineteen percent (19%) working interest in the Arkose Joint Venture, and Uranerz assumed operations and management responsibilities of the Venture. Uranerz and United Nuclear agreed to contribute funds to programs and budgets approved under the Arkose Mining Venture in accordance with their respective interests in the Venture.

The Arkose Mining Venture includes the following property units on which Uranerz has conducted exploration:

•North Jane*

•South Doughstick

•Cedar Canyon

•East Buck

•South Collins Draw

•Sand Rock

•Little Butte

•Beecher Draw

•Monument

•Stage

*Now included in the Nichols Ranch Project as part of the Jane Dough Property.

In September 2016, the Arkose Joint Venture elected to forfeit 190 unpatented lode mining claims covering 3,925 acres from its Kermit property and 144 claims covering 2,975 acres from its Lone Bull property, which constitute all of the Arkose claims in those projects. In addition, four mineral leases comprising 592 acres in the East Buck project were allowed to expire in 2016 without attempting to negotiate extensions to those leases. In 2017, mineral leases in the Monument, Cedar Canyon, Sand Rock, East Buck and House Creek projects were allowed to expire; however, the expiry of those property interests did not materially affect the Company’s ability to continue exploration and extraction activities on its properties.

Other Conventional Projects

Arizona Strip

The Pinenut Project has been reclaimed except for a two-acre disturbance associated with a monitor well. Mineral extraction at the Company’s Arizona 1 Project commenced in December 2009 and continued until the project was placed on standby in February 2014 due to the depletion of the readily available resources. The Wate Project and EZ Project are in the evaluation stage. Permitting at the Wate and EZ Projects are currently on hold.

Colorado Plateau

The Whirlwind Project comprises 126 unpatented lode mining claims covered by three Mineral Leases and a Utah State Mineral Lease of 320 acres for a total acreage of about 2,800 acres. The property size has been reduced since the acquisition. The retained property continues to cover the known mineralized areas. The Whirlwind Project straddles the Utah/Colorado state line 4.5 miles southwest of Gateway, Colorado. Exploration drill projects were conducted in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012. In 2022, the Company initiated work at Whirlwind to rehabilitate the existing decline. Work progressed until December 2022, when it was put on hold due to inclement weather. The Company finished rehabilitation work on the decline in 2023.

Internal Controls Relating to Exploration, Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve Estimation Efforts

The primary exploration tool used for uranium projects is a downhole gamma probe. The gamma probe provides an equivalent %U 3 O 8 grade by measuring decay products of U-238. The Company regularly calibrates its gamma probe during drilling programs at one of a number of DOE test-pits. This is standard procedure in the uranium industry. To verify gamma probe readings, the Company will either collect core and send that material to a 3 rd party lab for assay or use a prompt fission neutron (“PFN”) probe that directly measures the downhole uranium concentrations. Similar to the gamma probe the PFN probe, when in operation, is regularly calibrated at the DOE test-pit.

To verify uranium grades or to assay for other metals, such as, vanadium and copper, core is collected during drilling, logged, sampled and sent out for assay either at the Company’s Mill or at 3 rd party labs. Assaying of the materials includes the submission of standards and blanks and assay verification by other laboratories.

The primary risk associated with a Mineral Resource or Mineral Reserve estimate on a uranium project is disequilibrium. As stated above, a gamma probe measures the decay products of U-238. It is possible that, under the correct conditions, the uranium could have produced decay products but, later, the uranium is dissolved by oxidized groundwater and moved out of the system (negative disequilibrium) so that the measured value is overestimating the amount of uranium present. The opposite can also be true, uranium could have moved into the system and not decayed long enough to produce the decay products to calculate the uranium present (positive disequilibrium). Both situations can be quantified by either collecting core and assaying for uranium directly or measuring uranium in the ground with a PFN tool.

Exploration for Heavy Minerals employs different procedures than those noted for uranium exploration and quantification. The Company utilizes a sonic drill rig for Heavy Minerals exploration as this type of rig is able to collect relatively undisturbed cores of loose sediment. Following retrieval of the core (typically in 2 meter intervals), the core is logged by the onsite geologist and a sample of each meter is collected and panned (similar to gold panning) to get a visual estimate of Heavy Minerals concentration. The samples are then taken back to the field office where they are split, dried and analyzed for grain size, utilizing a standard set of wire mesh sieves. A second fraction of the split is then sent to a 3 rd party analytical lab for heavy liquid separation, elemental analysis and mineralogical characterization (XRD or QEMSCAN). Elements of interest include Ti, Fe, Zr, the REEs, uranium and thorium. Standards and blanks will be submitted to the lab as part of the quality assurance/quality control program. Samples will also be sent to other third-party labs to verify the analyses by the primary lab.