ENERGY FUELS INC

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, 2024. 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, 2023 and December 31, 2024, there were no changes to the Mineral Reserves or Mineral Resources.

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.

(12) Mineral Reserves reported in the table were adjusted from the 2023 year-end reported Mineral Reserves to reflect production from Pinyon Plain in 2024 of 6,815 tons of ore containing 207,981 lb U 3 O 8.

Historical Mineral Reserve Estimates – In Situ Historical Ore Reserves(1)(2)(3)(8)

Notes:

(1)The ore reserves given in this table conform to the Joint Ore Reserve Committee (“JORC”) code of reporting and do not represent current Mineral Reserves under S-K 1300 or NI 43-101, nor is the Company treating these as current Mineral Reserves. These ore reserves are historical in nature and a Qualified Person has not done sufficient work to classify the estimates as a current estimate of Mineral Reserves. JORC definitions were followed for all mineral resource categories. Further, the Toliara estimates do not reflect the key fiscal terms of the MOU signed in December 2024.

(2)A break-even cut-off has been applied defining any material with product values greater than processing ore.

(3)Mining recovery and dilution have been applied to the figures above when estimating the mineral resource for the tenements listed above. However, no additional dilution or ore loss has been applied when converting the mineral resource to ore reserves.

(4)The effective date of this historical Ore Reserve Estimate is September 27, 2021

(5)Total HM is from within the +63 µm to -1 mm size fraction and is reported as a percentage of the total material. Slimes are the -63 µm fraction and oversize is the +1 mm fraction.

(6)The area is wholly within the mining license area MIN5532.

(7)RUT (%) are a combination of rutile plus anatase.

(8)Numbers might not add due to rounding.

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.

(11) Mineral Resources reported in the table were adjusted from the 2023 year-end reported Mineral Resources to reflect production from the La Sal Complex in 2024 of 29,777 tons at 0.19% U 3 O 8. The 2024 contained pounds mined are 116,038 lbs U 3 O 8.

Mineral Resource Estimate – In Situ Vanadium(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)

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.

(10) Mineral Resources reported in the table were adjusted from the 2023 year-end reported Mineral Resources to reflect production from the La Sal Complex in 2024 of 29,777 tons at 1.08% V 2 O 5. The current vanadium grade of the produced ore is unknown as it has not been assayed as of the date of this filing. It is assumed the average grade produced is the average grade of the deposit of 1.08% V 2 O 5. Contained pounds mined for 2024 were 643,180 lbs V 2 O 5.

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

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.

(9) Mineral Resources reported in the table were adjusted from the 2023 year-end reported Mineral Resources to reflect production from Pinyon Plain in 2024 of 6,815 tons at 5.9% Cu. The current copper grade of the produced ore is unknown as it has not been assayed as of the date of this filing. It is assumed the average grade produced is the average grade of the deposit of 5.9% Cu. The 2024 contained pounds mined were 804 klbs Cu.

Historical Mineral Resource Estimates – In Situ Heavy Mineral Sand Products(1)(2)(12)

Notes:

(1)The mineral resources given in this table conform to the JORC code of reporting and do not represent current Mineral Resources under S-K 1300 or NI 43-101, nor is the Company treating these as current Mineral Resources. These mineral resources are historical in nature, and a Qualified Person has not done sufficient work to classify the estimates as a current estimate of Mineral Resources. JORC definitions were followed for all mineral resource categories. Further, the Toliara estimates do not reflect the key fiscal terms of the MOU signed in December 2024.

(2)Mineral resources are exclusive of ore reserves

(3)Total HM is from within the +63 µm to -1 mm size fraction and is reported as a percentage of the total material. Slimes are the -63 µm fraction and oversize is the +1 mm fraction.

(4)The cut-off grade of 1.5% HM used for reporting the ore reserve estimates is based on parameters developed during feasibility studies for the deposit. Prices used to calculate the cut-off grade are $257/tonne, $168/tonne, $177/tonne, $1,250/tonne and $1,200/tonne for chloride ilmenite, sulfate ilmenite, slag ilmenite, rutile and zircon respectively.

(5)The bulk density used for the Ranobe deposit is one that has been utilized by previous consultants and is based on a simple linear algorithm originally developed by John Baxter (1977). BD = 1.61 + (0.01 x HM).

(6)Wet plant recoveries used are 94.9%, 92.3% ,75.0% and 97.2% for ilmenite, rutile, leucoxene and zircon respectively. Dry plant recoveries used are 94.4%, 54.1%, 23.3% and 79.4% for ilmenite, rutile, leucoxene and zircon respectively.

(7)Monazite is not reported in the ore reserve for the Toliara Project; therefore the monazite percentage reported in this table is unchanged from the mineral resource table inclusive of ore reserves.

(8)Mineralization reported above at a cut-off grade of 1.0% total heavy minerals (“HM”).

(9)Total HM is from within the +20 µm to -250 µm size fraction and is reported as a percentage of the total material. Slimes are the -20 µm fraction and oversize is the +1 mm fraction.

(10)Bulk density was based on a correlation between bulk density and HM% using the following industry accepted formula: BD = 1.65 + (0.01 x HM%).

(11)RUT (%) is a combination of rutile + anatase.

(12)Numbers might not add due to rounding.

MATERIAL PROPERTIES