ENERGY FUELS INC

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 Inc. ("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 2025 were $46,260.

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 $200 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 was set to expire on January 1, 2024. Annual payments to maintain ML 0-15536 are$2,560 per year, which the Company elected to pay.

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, 2025. 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, 2025.

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, 2025. 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, 2025.

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 provide sufficient surety to cover the expected 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, 2025, 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.