ENERGY FUELS INC

Except to the extent explicitly stated in this Annual Report:

•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; and

•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 summaries referenced herein and attached hereto as Exhibits 96.1 through 96.8 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, 2025. 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 the Qualified Persons named in such Technical Report Summaries, and in the material property descriptions below. The employers of such Qualified Persons are named in the relevant material property descriptions below. With the exception of the Company and its subsidiary Base Resources, which are the employers of Daniel Kapostasy and Ian Bernardo, respectively, none of the employers of the Qualified Persons who authored the Technical Report Summaries 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.

Mineral Reserve Estimates - In Situ Uranium(1)(6)(7)(8)(9)

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 utilizing a stope optimizer using a minimum mining width of 4 ft and 20 ft vertical stope height for Pinyon Plain with a breakeven cut-off grade of 0.35% U 3 O 8.

(5) The tonnage factor used for Mineral Reserves was 0.099 short ton/ft 3, which was derived from operational data.

(6) 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 $80 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 contract sales through 2028.

(7) Numbers may not add due to rounding.

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

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

(10) Mineral Reserves reported in the table were updated from the December 31 2024 numbers and are based on a new Mineral Resource model. Mineral extraction from Pinyon Plain in 2024 totaled 47,200 tons containing 1,534,000 lbs U 3 O 8. Mineral Reserves are exclusive of past production.

Mineral Reserve Estimates – In Situ Heavy Mineral Sands(1)(15)

Notes:

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

(2)Mineral assemblage is reported as a percentage of in situ Total Heavy Minerals (“THM”) content.

(3)The reference point for the Mineral Reserve is the point of feed to the Dry Mining Unit (“DMU”).

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

(5)Assumed price per metric tonne for Ilmenite $199, Rutile $1,250, Leucoxene $0 (when processed, Leucoxene reports to Ilmenite and Rutile products), Zircon $1,200, Monazite $6,600.

(6)Assumed recovery for Ilmenite 89.6%, Rutile 49.9%, Leucoxene 17.5%, Zircon 77.2%, Monazite 78.6%.

(7)Operating costs $1.00/t mined, $0.64/t feed to WCP, $13.38/t feed to MSP ilmenite, $18.04/t feed to MSP rutile, leucoxene, zircon, monazite, $3.45/t product transport to port, $8.91/t product wharf cost, $1.71/t mined overhead cost.

(8)The Mineral Reserve is based on Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources contained within RF70 optimized pit shells and a practical mine design

(9)A breakeven cut-off has been applied defining any parcel of material with recovered product values greater than processing, G&A and concentrate transport costs as ore

(10)The rutile grades are a combination of rutile and anatase minerals. Estimates of the mineral assemblage (zircon, ilmenite, rutile (including anatase), leucoxene, monazite and xenotime) are presented as percentages of the total HM component.

(11)The reference point for the Mineral Reserve is in-situ with allowance for mining recovery

(12)All tonnages and grades have been rounded to reflect the relative uncertainty of the estimate, thus the sum of columns may not equal

(13)Operating costs include clearing and rehabilitation costs of $3,300/hectare disturbed, top and sub-soil mining costs of $1.66/broken cubic meter ("bcm"), overburden mining costs of $3.16/bcm, ore mining costs of $6.25/bcm, processing costs of $6.24/tonne ore, transport costs of $42/wet tonne for HC and $345/wet tonne for REEC.

(14)Assumed prices used for the HMC were ZrO2: $18.52/% in product and REEC $11,595/tonne product

(15)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 0.31% (Uranium Only), 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 0.15% U 3 O 8, and La Sal 0.17% U 3 O 8.

(3) Mineral Resources were estimated using a long-term uranium price of $90/pound of U 3 O 8 for Pinyon Plain, $65/pound of U 3 O 8 for Roca Honda Sheep Mountain and La Sal. Mineral Resources for Bullfrog were estimated using a long-term uranium price of $90/pound of U 3 O 8.

(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 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.

(7) The Sheep Mountain Indicated Mineral Resource excludes the Probable Mineral Reserves calculated in accordance with S-K 1300 and NI 43-101.

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

(10) Except for Nichols Ranch (see The Nichols Ranch Project, below), Mineral Resources are 100% attributable to the Company.

(11) Mineral Resources reported in the table were adjusted from the 2024 year-end reported Mineral Resources to reflect production from the La Sal Complex in 2025 of 44,869 tons at 0.17% U 3 O 8. The 2024 contained pounds mined are 155,117 pounds 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/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 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.

(7) Total may not add due to rounding.

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

(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 2024 year-end reported Mineral Resources to reflect production from the La Sal Complex in 2025 of 44,869 tons at 1.01% 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 1.01% V 2 O 5. Contained pounds mined for 2025 were 911,000 pounds V 2 O 5.

Mineral Resource Estimate – In Situ Copper

In previous reports and Form 10-K filings, the Company reported Mineral Resources for in situ copper at its Pinyon Plain Project in Arizona. The Company made the determination prior to processing the Pinyon Plain ore for uranium in 2025 that it would not be economic to recover copper from the ore, due primarily to the total amount of contained copper relative to the capital cost that would be required to add a copper recovery circuit at the Mill. Therefore, the Company is no longer declaring copper Mineral Resources at Pinyon Plain.

Mineral Resource Estimates – In Situ Heavy Mineral Sand Products(1)(2)(3)(15)

Notes:

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

(2)Mineral resources are exclusive of ore reserves.

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

(4)Mineral Resources reported at a cut-off grade of 1.5% THM.

(5)Mineral assemblage is reported as a percentage of in situ THM content.

(6)Reported Mineral Resource excludes material affected by planned infrastructure and tailings storage.

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

(8)All tonnages and grades have been rounded to reflect the relative uncertainty of the estimate; thus, the sum of columns may not equal.

(9)Assumed price per metric tonne for Ilmenite $199, Rutile $1,250, Leucoxene $0 (when processed, Leucoxene reports to Ilmenite and Rutile products), Zircon $1,200, Monazite $6,600.

(10)Assumed recovery for Ilmenite 89.6%, Rutile 49.9%, Leucoxene 17.5%, Zircon 77.2%, Monazite 78.6%.

(11)Assumed operating costs $1.00/t mined, $0.64/t feed to WCP, $13.38/t feed to MSP ilmenite, $18.04/t feed to MSP rutile, leucoxene, zircon, monazite, $3.45/t product transport to port, $8.91/t product wharf cost, $1.71/t mined overhead cost.

(12)Mineral Resources are reported above a cut-off grade of 1.0% total HM within MIN5532 without consideration to commodity prices

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

(14)Estimates of the mineral assemblage (zircon, ilmenite, rutile (including anatase), leucoxene, monazite and xenotime) are presented as percentages of the total HM component.

(15)Numbers might not add due to rounding.