ENERGY FUELS INC

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 2024 were $25,889.

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, 2024. 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, 2024.

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, 2024, 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 in recent years, the Company is planning to conduct additional evaluation work at the Bullfrog Project during 2025. The Company plans on continuing an engineering study started in 2024 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.