enCore Energy Corp

Our Company

enCore Energy Corp., America’s Clean Energy Company™, was incorporated on October 30, 2009, under the Laws of British Columbia and is a reporting issuer in all of the provinces and territories of Canada. As of January 1, 2025, the Company ceased to be a “foreign private issuer” and has become a “domestic issuer” and a large accelerated filer within the meanings under the Exchange Act. As a result, the Company must comply with the filing deadlines and disclosure obligations of a domestic issuer and large accelerated filer as set forth in the Exchange Act. This classification impacts the timing of our periodic filings, internal control assessments, and other regulatory requirements. The Company’s common shares are listed on The Nasdaq Capital Market and the TSX Venture Exchange (“TSX-V”) under the trading symbol EU.

As of December 31, 2024, the Company is an “Exploration Stage Issuer” as defined by S-K 1300, and as required by the SEC to be defined as a Development Stage Issuer as it has not established proven or probable Mineral Reserves, through the completion of a pre-feasibility or feasibility study for any of our uranium projects. Even though we commenced extraction of uranium at our Rosita Uranium Project and our Alta Mesa Uranium Project, the Company remains classified as an Exploration Stage Issuer and will continue to remain an Exploration Stage Issuer until such time as Proven or Probable Mineral Reserves have been established at one of our uranium projects.

The Company is focused on extracting domestic uranium within the United States. The Company only utilizes the proven ISR technology to provide necessary fuel for the generation of clean, reliable, and carbon-free nuclear energy. In 2024, the Company commenced uranium extraction at the Rosita CPP in South Texas, becoming one of only three uranium extraction operations in the United States and the first in Texas in 10 years. In June 2024, the Company commenced uranium extraction at the Alta Mesa CPP in South Texas. enCore’s strategy is to build uranium extraction capacity by developing and placing into operation a series of uranium extraction facilities in South Texas, followed by a future pipeline of exploration projects in South Dakota and Wyoming, becoming a leading supplier of domestic uranium to fuel a growing demand for clean energy generation using nuclear power.

In 2024, the Company set forth to execute five main objectives. The Company believes the execution of these objectives has and will continue to position enCore to quickly respond to the ever-changing global factors, achieve strategic expansions, and build on its adaptability while strengthening the Company’s financial health. These objectives are as follow:

Commenced and Expanded Uranium Extraction at the Alta Mesa Project

Utilizing extraction-ready CPP in South Texas, the Company has implemented a strategy that it anticipates will continue to build value and phased growth. In the second quarter of 2024, the Company commenced uranium extraction operations at its Alta Mesa CPP, and as a result, became one of only a handful of companies in the world with more than one operational uranium extraction operation. In 2025, through the expansion of CPP and wellfield capacity, the Company believes it can double the uranium extraction over the 2024 extraction results. The Company is focused on a long-term strategy of being a supplier of choice for a nuclear industry that is experiencing sustainable growth for the first time in over 45 years.

Streamlined Operations and Rationalized Asset Base

Successful execution is critical, especially in an industry where talent and timing are essential to our success. Adapting swiftly to favorable market conditions is a priority for us. In December 2023, we announced the sale of 30% of the Alta Mesa Project to Boss in the form of a Joint Venture for $60 million. Additionally, Boss invested directly in the Company an additional $10 million. The Company intends to continue to rationalize its asset base through the execution of our non-core asset divestment strategy strengthening our financial position and increasing financial resources in a non-dilutive way. We have demonstrated the ability to derive substantial value for our shareholders from our non-core assets by using different approaches to divestment. The Company currently holds several non-core conventional projects available for acquisition. Lastly, the Company continues to optimize operations to improve extraction results and manage costs effectively.

Mergers and Acquisitions

Since December 2020, we have demonstrated, through four significant transactions, our intent is to drive growth and provide value for our shareholders through select, accretive merger and acquisition (M&A) activity that complement its own organic growth.

Contract and Sales Strategy Formalization

The Company will continue to leverage its strong baseload contracting strategy and industry reputation as a reliable multi-facility domestic supplier to ensure that our operating assets are able to create revenue regardless of market conditions. As the Company increases uranium extraction from its South Texas facilities, we expect to grow our contract portfolio through the addition of new contracts. The Company will continue to focus on adding new multi-year, hybrid, market-based contracts to maximize profits while protecting against price declines. The Company believes this strategy should provide robust returns on uranium extraction while ensuring a base level of income to support continued operations during market declines over the next decade.

Established Fiscally Responsible Management and Strong Governance for the Benefit of Shareholders

On October 24, 2024, the Company announced that it completed its inaugural greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions and sustainability report to meet the needs of institutional clients and utility customers (the “Sustainability Report”). The Company will continue to strengthen and grow its management and operations teams by offering competitive employment opportunities and benefits package. The Company has established continuous improvement systems in its organization to ensure proper governance of the company, its operations, and its employees. Finally, the Company works to ensure its costs are as low as practicable while maintaining its ability to leverage its assets to provide value to shareholders. The Company assesses supply chain risks to ensure its ability to obtain critical components necessary to sustain its strategy.

About In-Situ Recovery (ISR), Technology

ISR is a minimally invasive, environmentally friendly, and economically competitive way of extracting minerals from the ground. It has proven to be a successful method of extracting uranium, and due to its cost efficiency, is economically viable to extract lower grade uranium deposits that might not justify the cost of conventional open pit or underground mining. In addition to significantly lower capital and operating costs, ISR operates without the open pits, waste dumps, or tailings associated with conventional mining and milling. These factors result in uranium extraction that is more environmentally responsible in a faster, more cost-efficient permitting, development and remediation process. ISR extracts uranium from the ground with minimal surface impact. When reclamation is completed, the surface is returned to its original state and use.

ISR is highly regulated in the United States. While some ISR operations in other jurisdictions use harsh chemicals such as sulfuric acid to remove uranium from the ore body, enCore only uses a lixiviant comprised of just oxygen and sodium bicarbonate (common baking soda) in the native groundwater to extract uranium at a near neutral pH with significantly less environmental impacts.

ISR usually takes place in sandstone deposits within a portion of the aquifer that the government has already exempted from protection as an underground source of drinking water due to its mineral content such as uranium, radium, and other minerals. An ISR wellfield is developed using a series of production patterns comprised of a series of injection and recovery wells. Injection wells introduce the lixiviant described above to the uranium bearing sandstone. As the lixiviant is injected through the uranium-bearing sandstone, the uranium is solubilized by the oxygen in the lixiviant, and the uranium-bearing lixiviant is carried through the sandstone to the recovery well. Recovery wells, equipped with submersible pumps, recover the uranium-bearing lixiviant out of the sandstone and lift it to the surface. The uranium-bearing lixiviant is then pumped into a surface collection system to be transferred to the ion exchange (IX) system. Surrounding the production patterns is a network of monitor wells used to observe groundwater chemistry and hydrology to assure there are no impacts to adjacent underground sources of drinking water. The combination of the production patterns and the monitor well network constitute what is called a wellfield.

After the uranium-bearing lixiviant reaches the IX system, it flows through a bed of IX resin where the uranium is removed from the lixiviant and loaded onto IX resin beads. This process is very similar to how a water softener works. The barren lixiviant is returned to the wellfield, where it is refortified with oxygen and sodium bicarbonate and reinjected into the uranium-bearing sandstone. A small portion, approximately 1% of the total volume, of the barren lixiviant is held back from reinjection. This is called a “process bleed,” and it is intended to create a hydraulic sink in the wellfield to contain lixiviant within production patterns.

When the IX resin loads to capacity with uranium it is regenerated, using a salt solution rich in sodium bicarbonate, in the exact same manner as done for a water softener. This process is called “elution.” Elution produces a uranium-rich eluant that is transferred from the ion exchange system to the precipitation system. Using a series of additions of hydrogen peroxide, acid, and sodium hydroxide, the uranium is precipitated from the eluant and a uranium, “yellowcake,” slurry is created. It is then filtered and washed in a filter press and transferred to the drying system. Drying systems at the Company’s processing facilities use a low-temperature, zero emission, rotary vacuum drying system, the same equipment used for producing pharmaceuticals. Once dried the yellowcake is packaged into 55-gallon drums that are grouped into shipping lots. Each shipping lot is then transported to a North American conversion facility where it is weighed, sampled, and inventoried. This is the point at which the Company sells its product to its customers.

When the uranium orebody within an ISR wellfield is depleted, the Company is required to clean up the groundwater. The process of extracting uranium from the orebodies using our lixiviant does change the groundwater chemistry within the production patterns. After production is complete, the groundwater quality is restored to a quality consistent with the chemistry prior to the start of injection using reverse osmosis technology to clean it. This process does increase the amount of water that is consumed during wellfield operations, but in an average ISR wellfield, approximately 95% of the groundwater is preserved and retained at the end of the full production and restoration cycle. Once the government approves the groundwater restoration work, the injection, recovery and monitor wells are plugged and abandoned and the surface infrastructure is removed. The site is then surveyed for residual contamination that may need to be removed and the wellfield is returned to its prior use. At this point, the land and groundwater are once again suitable for all the same uses as prior to mining efforts.

The use of ISR technology in the US has a documented strong environmental record. Several wellfields have been restored and released, with the former wellfields now indistinguishable from the adjacent unimpacted land. The US government, in several public documents, has concluded that there have been no impacts to underground sources of drinking water by ISR uranium extraction or restoration.

Corporate Information

enCore was incorporated on October 30, 2009, under the Business Corporations Act (British Columbia) (the “BCBCA”) under the name “Dauntless Capital Corp.” The Company’s name was changed to “Tigris Uranium Corp.” on September 2, 2010, and changed to “Wolfpack Gold Corp.” on May 15, 2013. On August 15, 2014, the Company’s name was changed to “enCore Energy Corp.”

The following organizational chart illustrates enCore’s principal subsidiaries as at the date of this Annual Report.

Notes:

*POI = Place of incorporation or legal organization

*PPB= Principal place of business

*Green = Expected to be dissolved

*Purple = Joint Venture with Boss

The principal offices of the Company are located at Suite 450, 101 N. Shoreline Blvd, Corpus Christi, Texas 78401. The Company’s registered and records office is located at Suite 1200, 750 West Pender Street, Vancouver, British Columbia, V6C 2T8.

Competition

The uranium industry is highly competitive, and our competition includes larger, more established companies with longer operating histories that not only explore for and produce uranium but also market uranium and other products on a regional, national or worldwide basis. Due to their greater financial and technical resources, we may not be able to acquire additional uranium projects in a competitive bidding process involving such companies. Additionally, these larger companies have greater resources to continue with their operations during periods of depressed market conditions.

Geopolitical uncertainty

Geopolitical uncertainty driven by the Russian invasion of Ukraine has led many governments and utility providers to re-examine supply chains and procurement strategies reliant on nuclear fuel supplies coming out of, or through, Russia.

Sanctions, restrictions, and an inability to obtain insurance on cargo have contributed to transportation and other supply chain disruptions between producers and suppliers. As a result of this and coupled with multiple years of declining uranium production globally, uranium market fundamentals are shifting from an inventory driven market to one more driven by production. The Prohibiting Russian Uranium Imports Act (H.R. 1042) which was signed into law in May 2024, prohibits the importation of unirradiated, low-enriched uranium projected in the Russian Federation or by a Russian entity, with temporary waivers until January 1, 2028 in certain circumstances, after which the ban will be in effect until December 31, 2040.

Employees and Human Capital

As of December 31, 2024, 131 people were employed on a full-time basis and approximately 65 individuals provided services on a contractual basis, principally through our drilling rig contractors, all of whom were located in the U.S. Our Company is committed to attracting and retaining talented and experienced individuals to manage and support our operations. We engage in a variety of learning and development opportunities with our employees, including ongoing training, continuing education courses, workshops and seminars and membership in professional organizations relating to employees’ areas of expertise. We strive to fill employment openings through internal promotions or transfers of qualified employees, as appropriate.

Available Information

The Company’s website address iswww.encoreuranium.com and the Company’s filings with the SEC, including our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and amendments to such reports, are available free of charge on our website as soon as reasonably practicable after such materials are filed or furnished electronically with the SEC. Additional information about the Company can be found on our website, however, such information is neither incorporated by reference nor included as part of this or any other report or information filed with or furnished to the SEC.

The SEC maintains an internet site (www.sec.gov) that contains reports, proxy and information statements and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC. Canadian securities authorities also maintain an internet site (www.sedarplus.ca) that contains reports, circulars, annual information statements and other information regarding the Company.

Our Mineral Properties

enCore controls key mineral properties within the United States, in Texas, South Dakota, Wyoming and New Mexico. enCore owns three of the current 11 licensed and constructed ISR CPPs in the United States[1], with all existing facilities located in the business-friendly, energy-centric state of Texas. Our plants’ operations are designed and permitted to process uranium from a mix of satellite plants and primary sources within south Texas.

Property Location Map

Summary of Properties

South Texas Integrated ISR Project (Rosita CPP)

The South Texas Integrated ISR Project is an Exploration Stage Property which consists of five project areas: the Rosita Central Processing Plant (Rosita CPP), Butler Ranch Uranium ISR Project (Butler Ranch), Upper Spring Creek - Brevard Area ISR Uranium Project (USC – Brevard or Brevard), Upper Spring Creek - Brown Area ISR Uranium Project (USC – Brown or Brown), and Rosita South Cadena ISR Project (RS – Cadena or Cadena).

The Rosita CPP is a licensed ISR production facility with a capacity of 800,000 pounds of U 3 O 8 per year. The Rosita CPP is located in Duval County about 14 miles southeast of the town of Freer and 60 miles west-northwest of the city of Corpus Christi on a 200-acre tract owned by the Company.

Alta Mesa Uranium Project, Texas

The Alta Mesa Uranium Project is an Exploration Stage Property and is a fully licensed and constructed ISR project and central processing facility, located on over 4,597 acres of private land in the state of Texas. Total operating capacity is 1.5 million lbs U 3 O 8 per year of IX processing capacity, and further, the CPP has 2.0 million lbs per year of IX elution, uranium precipitation, drying and packaging capacity.

Mesteña Grande Uranium Project, Texas

The Mesteña Grande Uranium Project is an Exploration Stage Property that is located in Brooks and Jim Hogg Counties, Texas and is on land located adjacent to, and to the south, north, and west of the Alta Mesa Uranium Project. The property contains significant inferred mineral resources over approximately 195,717 acres of private land. It covers an approximate area of 35 miles in a north-south direction by 30 miles in an east-west direction.

Dewey Burdock Project, South Dakota

The Dewey Burdock Project is an Exploration Stage Property located in southwest South Dakota and is part of the northwestern extension of the Edgemont Uranium Mining District. The Dewey Burdock Project includes federal claims, private mineral rights and private surface rights controlling the entire area within the licensed project permit boundary as well as surrounding areas. The Company currently controls approximately 16,962 acres of net mineral rights and 12,613 acres of surface rights.

Gas Hills Project, Wyoming

The Gas Hills Project is an Exploration Stage Property located in Wyoming. The Company owns a 100% interest in the Gas Hills Exploration Project located in the historic Gas Hills Uranium District 45 miles east of Riverton, Wyoming. The Project consists of approximately 1,280 surface acres and 12,960 net mineral acres of unpatented lode mining claims, a State of Wyoming mineral lease, and private mineral leases, within a brownfield site which has experienced extensive development including mine and mill site production.

Other Non-Material Properties

The Company holds a number of other Exploration Stage Properties that the Company has determined are not material to its business, including the following properties which total in the aggregate approximately 360,000 acres of mineral claims, mineral leases, and fee minerals:

•Nose Rock, New Mexico. The Nose Rock project is located in McKinley County New Mexico on the northern edge of the Grants Uranium District.

•Metamin Properties, Arizona, Utah and Wyoming. Through its subsidiary Metamin Enterprises US Inc. (“MEUS”), the Company holds various prospective uranium mining properties located in the States of Arizona, Utah and Wyoming.

•West Largo, New Mexico. The West Largo project consist of approximately 3,840 acres (i.e. six square miles) in McKinley County, New Mexico.

•Ambrosia Lake-Treeline, New Mexico. The Ambrosia Lake – Treeline Property consists of deeded mineral rights totaling 24,555 acres and a mining lease along with certain unpatented mining claims covering approximately 1,700 acres.

•Checkerboard Mineral Rights, New Mexico. The land position covers approximately 300,000 acres of deeded ‘checkerboard’ mineral rights, also known as the Frisco and Santa Fe railroad grants.

•Kingsville Dome, Texas. The Kingsville Dome property is located in Kleberg County and is situated on several tracts of land leased from third parties. The property is situated approximately eight miles southeast of the city of Kingsville. The project is comprised of numerous mineral leases from private landowners, covering an area of approximately 2,434 gross and 2,227 net acres of mineral rights. The Kingsville Dome CPP is a licensed ISR production facility located on 15 acres of Company-owned property.

•Vasquez Project, Texas. The Vasquez project is located in Duval County. The Vasquez property consists of a mineral lease on 1,023 gross and net acres.

•Dewey Terrace Project, Wyoming. This project consists of approximately 1,874 acres of surface rights and approximately 7,514 acres of net mineral rights. The Dewey Terrace Project is located adjacent to the Dewey Burdock Project.

•Juniper Ridge Project, Wyoming. The Juniper Ridge project in Carbon County consists of approximately 640 surface acres and 3,240 net mineral acres of unpatented lode mining claims and a State of Wyoming mineral lease and is located within a brownfield site which has experienced extensive exploration, development, and mine production.

•Centennial Project, Colorado. The Centennial Project in Weld County is comprised of approximately 523.21 acres of surface rights and 237.09 acres of net mineral rights. Approximately 5,760 acres of minerals rights were conveyed back to Anadarko by Special Warranty Deed on January 2025, this conveyance significantly reduced the project size. The Company intends to allow current leases to expire, and maintain existing mineral rights currently owned by the Company in fee.

•Aladdin Project, Wyoming. The Aladdin Project is comprised of private leases that cover approximately 5,166 acres of surface rights and 4,712 acres of net mineral rights. The Aladdin Project is 80 miles northwest of the Dewey Burdock Project.

•Other Properties: The Company holds the Shirley Basin Project in Wyoming the JB Project in Colorado and Utah, and the Ticaboo project in Utah.

Summary of Mineral Resources

The following table shows the Company’s estimate of Mineral Resources as defined in S-K 1300 as of December 31, 2024.

Notes:

1. The Mineral Resource estimates in this table comply with the requirements of S-K 1300.

2. Mineral Resources were estimated using the following prices: (a) the South Texas Integrated ISR Project used a variable U 3 O 8 sales price ranging from $78.37/lb up to $92.04/lb with an overall average U 3 O 8 sales price of $87.05/lb (b) Alta Mesa Project used a uranium sales price that ranges from $82.00 to $89.00, with an average life of mine sales price of $83.43, (c) the Dewey Burdock Project used using a uranium sales price ranging from $82.00 to $89.00, with an average sales price of $86.34 .and (d) Gas Hills Project used a U 3 O 8 sales price of $87.00/lb.

3. Mineral Resources were estimated using various %eU 3 O 8 or G.T. cut-off grades. The following are the averages for Measured and Indicated Resources: (a) the South Texas Integrated ISR Project used 0.2 to 0.3 GT cutoff with avg GT values ranging between 0.40 and 2.15, (b) the Alta Mesa Project used 0.145 %U 3 O 8, (c) the Mesteña Grande Project had no Measured or Indicated resources,(d) the Dewey Burdock Project used 0.12 % U 3 O 8 (0.66 avg. GT) and (e) the Gas Hills Project used 0.10 % U 3 O 8 (0.502 avg. GT).

4. The South Texas Integrated ISR Project includes Mineral Resources from the Upper Spring Creek Brevard, Upper Spring Creek – Brown and Rosita South – Cadena project areas.

Material Properties

South Texas Integrated ISR Project (Rosita CPP)

The South Texas Integrated ISR Project and associated well fields (collectively, the “STX Integrated”) is comprised of the Rosita CPP located in Duval County on a 200-acre tract owned by the Company, and multiple associated Satellite IX facilities at various project sites across south Texas. The STX Integrated project is located within the South Texas uranium province, about 22 miles west of the town of Alice. The Rosita CPP was constructed in 1990 and was originally designed and constructed to operate as an up-flow extraction facility. The Rosita property holdings consist of mineral leases from private landowners covering approximately 3,475 gross and net acres of mineral rights.

The STX Integrated, including the Rosita CPP, was the starting point for enCore’s Texas production strategy. In the fourth quarter of 2023, the Company announced it had commenced uranium extraction operations at Rosita from the Rosita Extension wellfield (“Rosita Extension”), PAA-5. The Rosita CPP has an 800,000-pound U 3 O 8 per year production capacity. At the Rosita CPP, 76,909 pounds U 3 O 8 were extracted and packaged in the year ended December 31, 2024.

The following technical and scientific description of the STX Integrated is based in part on the report titled “Technical Report on the South Texas Integrated Uranium Projects, Texas, USA” dated February 4, 2025 and effective December 31, 2024, and prepared by Christopher McDowell, P.G. and Ray Moores P.E. each, a Qualified Person employed by WWC Engineering and is independent of the Company (the “South Texas Technical Report Summary”). The South Texas Technical Report Summary was prepared in accordance with S-K 1300. The STX Integrated does not have known “Mineral Reserves” and is therefore considered under SEC S-K 1300 definitions to be an Exploration Stage Property.

Property Description

The Rosita CPP is located in Duval County, Texas, approximately 13.7 miles east of Freer and approximately 60 miles west of Corpus Christi at latitude 27.830423 and longitude -98.403543 (decimal degrees). This facility represents the central location of the Project and includes the central processing facility where resin from each satellite facility will be processed. The Rosita CPP is supplied with uranium-loaded ion exchange resin from ISR mining at one or more of the project areas. The Rosita CPP initiated extraction in 1990 and extracted 2.65 million pounds of U 3 O 8 from 1990 to 1999. The Rosita CPP restarted operations in 2023. This plant was originally constructed as an up-flow ion exchange facility in 1990, and its conversion to a CPP was completed in 2023. At the Rosita CPP, resin is processed, and uranium is recovered, precipitated as a slurry, and is then dried and packaged.

The Butler Ranch project consists of approximately 743 acres located in a rural area of Karnes County, Texas, approximately 44 miles south of San Antonio. It is centered at the approximate location of latitude 28.887336 and longitude -98.059851 (decimal degrees). Butler Ranch is comprised of four different non-connected property leases over approximately 10 miles in the western part of the county.

Upper Spring Creek- Brevard is located 6 miles northeast of the Ray Point Mining District in the Gulf Coast Uranium Province and South Texas Uranium Province or “GCUP”/”STUP” and is situated in Bee and Live Oak counties, Texas approximately halfway between San Antonio and Corpus Christi. Brevard is situated at latitude 28.567478 and longitude -98.024910 (decimal degrees). Three properties form the Brevard project area (Benham, Brevard, and Johnston) and total approximately 1,110 acres.

Upper Spring Creek – Brown Area project is located approximately 12 miles south-southwest of Three Rivers, Texas at the intersection of FM 889 and County Road 135 in Live Oak County latitude 28.287518 and longitude -98.214002 (decimal degrees). Brown includes three properties totaling approximately 247 acres. The two properties (Brown and Geibel) located to the south and east of FM 889 are collectively referred to as the Brown property and the property to the west of FM 889 is the Geffert property. URI, Inc. owns both surface and mineral rights for the former Brown and Geffert properties and owns surface and leases mineral rights for the former Geibel property at this project location.

Rosita South-Cadena is located in Duval County, Texas, approximately 11.5 miles east of Freer and approximately 64 miles west of Corpus Christi at latitude.

This STX Integrated is owned and operated by the Company. The Company has executed surface use and access agreements and fee mineral leases with surface and mineral owners at the STX Integrated. The net mineral ownership, royalty burden, and estimated annual costs are provided below for each of the projects:

The Rosita CPP and Rosita South - Cadena are served by Texas State Highway 44. Texas State Highway 44 is a State maintained, two-lane, sealed, asphalt road providing year-round access. Two different County Roads “CR”, (CR 330 and CR 333) from Highway 44 are used as access to the Rosita CPP. County Road 330 provides access from Highway 44 while County Road 333 provides access to the Rosita CPP from County Road 330. From County Road 333 a private road is utilized into the Rosita CPP site. Cadena can also be accessed from County Roads (CR 321 and CR 3196). Commercial airlines serve both San Antonio and Corpus Christi. Many of the local communities have small public airfields and there are numerous private airfields in the region.

Butler Ranch is served by Texas Highway 181. Texas Highway 181 is a State maintained, four-lane, sealed, asphalt road providing year-round access. Multiple county roads from Highway 181 lead to the Butler Ranch project area. At Butler Ranch, there are crown-and-ditched mixed gravel and pavement access roads to the area. In addition to the designated routes, there are a few tertiary or ‘two-track’ roads that traverse the area for recreation and grazing access, as well as various other uses, including mineral and petroleum exploration.

Upper Spring Creek - Brevard is served by Texas State Highway 72. Highway 72 is a state-maintained, two-lane, sealed, asphalt road providing year-round access. Two different county roads (CR 147 and CR 231) from Highway 72 can be used to access Brevard.

Upper Spring Creek - Brown is served by U.S. Interstate Highway 37 (I-37). I-37 is a state-maintained, four-lane, sealed, asphalt road providing year-round access. Access to this highway from the west and northeast is U.S. Highway 72, access from the east and southwest is U.S. Highway 59. The area can also be accessed from the south via U.S. Highway 281 leading to U.S. Highway 37. Multiple county roads from U.S. Highways 281 and 59 lead to the Brown. Once on Brown, there are crown-and-ditched mixed gravel and pavement access roads to the area. The physical address of the property is 216 County Road (CR) 135, George West, in Live Oak County, Texas. Brown is located approximately 6.75 miles south-southwest of the intersection of U.S. Highway 281 and Farm-to-Market Road (FM) 889.

Equipment, supplies and personnel needed for exploration and day-to-day operation are available from population centers such as San Antonio and Corpus Christi. Specialized equipment for the wellfields is often available in Texas but may need to be acquired from outside of the state. The local economy for all project areas is geared toward oil and gas exploration, energy production, and ranching operations, providing a well-trained and capable pool of workers for ISR production and processing operations. Workers will reside locally and commute to work daily. As a result of energy development since the early 1900s, all the project areas have existing or nearby electrical power, gas and adequate telephone and internet connectivity. Generally, the local and regional infrastructure is in place for all project areas including roads, power and maintenance facilities. The exceptions include local access roads, wellfield development, local power and well control facilities that must be constructed. Specific information about the available infrastructure for each project area is described below.

Rosita CPP - Projects

The Company currently owns and operates the Rosita CPP within the Rosita Project radioactive materials license and injection permit boundaries. Site infrastructure includes the Rosita CPP and associated infrastructure, electric transmission lines, water supply, ponds, and several paved and well-graded county roads that traverse the area providing access to the property. The remaining unused lands are primarily undeveloped farmland.

Butler Ranch

The Company leases the surface and mineral rights at Butler Ranch and has access to the land for exploration and development. Site infrastructure consists of residential buildings, undeveloped farmland, and retention ponds. Several paved and well-graded county roads traverse the area providing access to each property. Several electric transmission lines run adjacent to these roads and by the individual properties. Non-potable water will be supplied by water supply wells at or near the site. There is an existing water supply well at the STX Integrated, but additional water supply wells may need to be developed. Water extracted as part of ISR operations will be recycled for re-injection.

Upper Spring Creek - Brevard

The Company has or will obtain legal access to the land surface through confidential agreements.

Site infrastructure consists of land to support cattle ranching and agriculture. Several paved county roads provide access to Brevard. An overhead electric transmission line and underground phone line run parallel to CR 140. Non-potable water will be supplied by water supply wells at or near the site. There are two existing water supply wells at Brevard, but additional water supply wells may need to be developed. A public water system, El Oso Water Supply Corporation, also serves the area. Water extracted as part of ISR operations will be recycled for re-injection.

Upper Spring Creek – Brown

The Company owns both surface and mineral rights at the Brown and Geffert properties. The Company leases minerals located beneath the Geibel property and has access to the land for exploration and development.

Site infrastructure consists of residential buildings, undeveloped farmland, and retention ponds. Several paved and well-graded county roads traverse the area providing access to each property. Several electric transmission lines run adjacent to these roads and by the individual properties. Non-potable water will be supplied by water supply wells at or near the site. There is an existing water supply well at the Project, but additional water supply wells may need to be developed. Water extracted as part of ISR operations will be recycled for re-injection.

Rosita South - Cadena

The Company has obtained legal access to the land surface through confidential agreements.

Site infrastructure consists of residential buildings and land to support ranching and agriculture. Several paved and well-graded county roads traverse the area providing access to the property. Several electric transmission lines run adjacent to these roads to supply power to residential areas. No water supply sources have been developed for this site.

The Project is located along the South Texas coastal plain, within the STUP. The uranium-bearing deposits in the STUP include sandstones in Tertiary formations ranging in age from Eocene (oldest) to Lower Pliocene (youngest). These permeable deposits are interbedded with claystones, mudstones and siltstones.

Uranium mineralization at the Project is typical of Texas roll-front sandstone deposits. The formation of roll-front deposits is largely a groundwater process that occurs when uranium-rich, oxygenated groundwater interacts with a reducing environment in the subsurface and precipitates uranium. The most favorable host rocks for roll-fronts are permeable sandstones with large aquifer systems. Interbedded mudstone, claystone and siltstone are often present and aid in the formation process by focusing groundwater flux. The roll-front deposits at Brevard are slightly different from the other roll-front deposits at Butler Ranch, Brown, and Cadena.

History

The STX Integrated is located in the South Texas Uranium Province. This province produced over 70 million pounds of U 3 O 8 from 1954 through 1994. In recent years, mining companies have shifted from surface mining to ISR. Since 1975, the State of Texas has required the reclamation of surface mining operations.

Uranium exploration and mining in South Texas primarily targets sandstone formations throughout the Coastal Plain bordering the Gulf of Mexico. The area has long been known to contain uranium oxide, which was first discovered in Karnes County, Texas in 1954 using airborne radiometric survey. The uranium deposits discovered were within a belt of strata extending 250 miles from the middle coastal plain southwestward to the Rio Grande. This area includes the Carrizo, Whitsett, Catahoula, Oakville and Goliad geologic formations. Open pit mining began in 1961 and ISR mining was initiated in 1975. The uranium market experienced lower demand and price in the late 1970s and in 1980 there was a sharp decline in all Texas uranium operations.

During the late 1970s and early 1980s, exploration of uranium in South Texas had evolved towards deeper drilling targets within the known host sandstone formations. Deeper exploration drilling was more costly and excluded many of the smaller uranium mining companies from participating in the down-dip, deeper undrilled trend extensions. Uranium had been mined by several major oil companies in the past in South Texas, including Conoco, Mobil, Humble (later Exxon), Atlantic Richfield (“ARCO”) and others. Mobil had found numerous deposits in South Texas in the past, including the O’Hern, Holiday-El Mesquite and several smaller deposits, mostly in Oligocene-age Catahoula Formation tuffaceous sands. ARCO discovered several Oakville Formation (Miocene-age) uranium-bearing deposits and acquired other deposits located nearby in Live Oak County. They were exploring deeper extensions of Oakville Formation trends when they discovered the Mt. Lucas Goliad Formation deposit, located near Lake Corpus Christi in Live Oak County near the Bee County line (Carothers 2011). Ownership, control, and operation of the project areas has varied greatly since the 1960s.

ISR projects in Texas require a number of permitting steps before recovery of uranium can commence. The first requirement is an exploration permit regulated by the Texas Railroad Commission. All of the sites have active exploration permits that allow drilling of exploration holes allowing enCore to collect data to determine if an economic ore body exists. The results of the drilling programs through exploration permits are used to define the resources on the associated property.

Once it has been decided to move towards production, an aquifer exemption must be obtained through the U.S. EPA. An aquifer exemption is an acknowledgment by the EPA that naturally occurring uranium exists in the aquifer in the designated area and that section of the aquifer is not suitable for use as a drinking water source.

Texas is an agreement state and has primacy over the permitting of Underground Injection Control “UIC” activities. The state agency that regulates the uranium recovery process is the TCEQ. An area permit is required to progress to the next stage. This stipulates the area in which production can be pursued on and the requirements regarding operations and reclamation of uranium ISR activities. Within the permitted areas, individual production area authorizations (PAA) must next be obtained. To obtain a PAA, monitor wells must be installed and pump tests conducted to verify connectivity within the aquifer. Baseline wells must also be installed and analyses run to establish baseline testing. Bonding must be put into place prior to operations.

Current Permits for the STX Integrated are as follows:

Signal Equities, LLC, had written procedures for the collection of drill data including lithological logging, natural gamma logging, PFN logging, and also for data entry into databases and GIS. All drill hole data are now maintained at enCore’s corporate office in Corpus Christi, TX. For the initial exploration of the Brevard and Brown properties, Signal Equities, LLC previously had written procedures for the collection of drill data including lithological logging, natural gamma logging, and PFN logging, and also for data entry into databases and GIS. All data were stored on a secure server at the Signal Equities corporate office in New Braunfels, TX, with a full copy backup at a secure off-site contract data storage facility. enCore has since acquired and retains all data collected by Signal Equities.

For the South Texas Technical Report Summary, the QP reviewed PFN logs, gamma logs and drilling records for each drill hole used to calculate mineral resources. The QP corrected errors that were identified in the previous owner’s PFN calibration calculations and grade calculations using the raw logging data and known constants such as hole diameter and published DOE test pit grade values. Using the carefully verified and corrected data, the QP checked the GT contour and GIS data provided by enCore. Approximately 75% of all the drill hole data used to prepare the mineral resource estimate were validated by checking the corresponding PFN logs.

Butler Ranch

Data supporting the South Texas Technical Report Summary comes almost exclusively in the form of drilling data gained from historical drilling activities by previous operators and done since the acquisition of the STX Integrated. The tabulations of mineral intercepts compiled by the Company are consistent with the original down-hole gamma logs and the geophysical operator’s mineral intercept calculations. WWC has verified historical drill data by comparing historical drilling and reports in the STX Integrated adjacent to historical exploration holes with results which validate the historical data. The tabulations of mineral intercepts compiled by the Company have been confirmed by the QP to be consistent with the original down-hole electric logs and the geophysical operator’s mineral intercept estimate.

Furthermore, historical mineral intercept data of previous operators of Butler Ranch have been evaluated and selectively checked for accuracy.

Upper Spring Creek – Brevard

The Company provided the QP with access to the complete electronic dataset for Brevard for the purpose of preparing the South Texas Technical Report Summary. The QP did not review hard copy records, but the electronic dataset included scans of field data sheets. The QP verified all of the assay data used to prepare the mineral resource estimate. This verification included reviewing PFN tool calibration records and grade calculations, comparing core and PFN assay results, and reviewing each PFN log used in the mineral resource estimate.

Signal Equities, LLC’s calibration records for the PFN tools were reviewed to confirm the tools were properly calibrated. The PFN calibration does not affect the raw data (epithermal and thermal neutron counts) measured by the PFN tool; it only affects how the U 3 O 8 grades are calculated from the raw data.

The QP also reviewed the previous operator’s U 3 O 8 grade calculations to ensure the appropriate factors were used. The borehole correction factor is directly related to the drill hole diameter and should be the same for drill holes of the same size. The QP identified some logs (approximately seven percent of the logs used to prepare the mineral resource estimate) in which the incorrect borehole correction factor was used to calculate the U 3 O 8 grade. As with the calibration calculation errors, this calculation does not affect the raw data measured by the PFN tool, it only affects how the U 3 O 8 grades are calculated. The QP subsequently reviewed records for every drill hole that was used in the mineral resource estimate to confirm that the correct borehole correction factor was used. The QP corrected the borehole correction factor errors and associated U 3 O 8 grade calculations as necessary.

The QP compared core assay data with PFN assay data for ten core holes at the Brevard property. Results were compared by summing all intervals in a core hole that had both core and PFN assay data, to produce a grade sum. Initially, it appeared that the core assay results were higher than the PFN assay results. The PFN assay results were then corrected for the calibration and grade calculation errors as described above.

Sample recovery in two of the core holes was poor and records clearly indicate that the mineralized interval was not recovered, so the lab assay results are not representative. For the remaining eight core holes, the corrected PFN assay results were within -10.3% to +10.8% of the core assay results. The average difference was 0.5% (with the PFN assay 0.5% higher than the core assay). The results confirm that the methodology used to correct the PFN data is reliable, since the resulting data are independently supported by core assay data.

The QP reviewed the PFN logs of every drill hole used in the mineral resource estimate. PFN logs were compared against gamma logs to check that the results of the two independently run logs were similar. Although there were differences due to radiometric disequilibrium, both logs typically identified similar depths of mineralization and relative magnitude of response to mineral intercepts with respect to background levels. Since some PFN logs had high noise levels, each log was evaluated to ensure that PFN noise was not being incorrectly inferred as uranium. In noisy logs, only the clearly mineralized intervals with responses higher than background noise (as verified by corresponding gamma responses) were included in the Grade-Thickness sum or “GT” sum.

Upper Spring Creek – Brown

The Company maintains digital copies of data at their office in Corpus Christi, TX. All PFN log data for the STX Integrated area was provided digitally by the Company. The PFN records included the raw data files collected by the logging tool (LAS files) and calculations of the PFN grades. Approximately 75% of all the logs used for the STX Integrated area were reviewed by the QP. In the opinion of the QP, the mineralized intervals previously defined by enCore for the South Texas Technical Report Summary were valid.

In addition, GT contours were provided by enCore for mineralized zones throughout Brown. These zones were referred to as the A, C (separated into upper and lower sub-zones), D (separated into upper and lower sub-zones), E, and F Sand Zones in the Brown property and Sand 4, 3c, 3b, 3, 2 and 1 in the Geffert property. Contours for each mineralized sand zone were then directly compared to the mineral intercept data on PFN logs. After reviewing and editing these contours for accuracy, it is the QP’s opinion that the contours provided by enCore for the South Texas Technical Report Summary were valid. Much of the data for Brown came from Signal’s 2010 drilling program. Therefore, calibration of the down hole geophysical logging instruments was vital to providing accurate data. While drilling, both the natural gamma and PFN logging trucks were calibrated routinely. In both 2009 and 2010, according to calibration records, the PFN tools were calibrated on 37 separate occasions while Signal records indicate that the Mt. Sopris® tools were ‘routinely’ calibrated. Natural gamma tool and PFN tool calibration was performed at the George West, TX facility, which is maintained by the DOE (Signal Equities 2017). During the data verification process, the QP determined that the PFN tool calibration grade used by the logging contractor was not the published grade for the George West, TX calibration test pit. This error in calibration grade affected the calculated grades of U 3 O 8 on drill holes logged after the PFN tool was calibrated to the incorrect grade. The records indicate that aside from the calibration grade, the PFN tool runs in the calibration pits were performed per normal accepted protocols. The PFN calibration does not affect the raw data (epithermal and thermal neutron counts) measured by the PFN tool; it only affects how the U 3 O 8 historical calibration calculation error and associated U 3 O 8 grade calculations. The QP also identified some logs in which the incorrect borehole correction factor was used to calculate the U 3 O 8 grade. The QP subsequently reviewed records for every drill hole that was used in the mineral resource estimate to confirm that the correct borehole correction factor was used. As with the calibration calculation errors, this calculation does not affect the raw data measured by the PFN tool, it only affects how the U 3 O 8 grades are calculated. The QP was able to correct the borehole correction factor errors and associated U 3 O 8 grade calculations. During enCore’s 2022-2024 drilling program PFN tools owned by enCore were used for logging. These PFN tools were regularly calibrated at the test pits at Kingsville Dome and the calibration pits at George West.

Radioactive isotopes decay until they reach a stable non-radioactive state. The radioactive decay chain isotopes are referred to as daughters. When all the decay products are maintained in close association with the primary uranium isotope U 238 on the order of a million years or more, the daughter isotopes will be in equilibrium with the parent isotope. Signal relied on PFN log data for determination of uranium grade. This method is a direct measurement of U 3 O8 content rather than an equivalent U 3 O 8 estimate. Therefore, the DEF is unnecessary and not applicable. Wet chemical assays were performed on three cores from the core holes drilled at the Project. The results of the PFN data and the core assays are inconsistent and due to the limited number of core holes, the dataset is too small to determine why the assay results are inconsistent with the PFN data. Brevard was cored at the same time with the same coring rigs, PFN equipment, and operators have a larger set of coring records. Records from this nearby project show that the coring recovery was sometimes poor, especially in sands (i.e., mineralized zones). There were also problems with swelling clays expanding in the core tubes, which affected the core sample depths. When the coring recovery at the nearby project was good, the grade sums measured by the core assay and PFN (corrected) matched closely.

Rosita South – Cadena

No data is available for the calibration of any geophysical logging tools used on the STX Integrated. However, it is assumed that the PFN and gamma data used in this mineral estimate were calibrated to industry standards. Assay data compared to the mineral grades used to calculate the Grade-Thickness “GT” values in the mineral estimate were comparable and the grades used to calculate the GTs were conservative in some cases. Therefore, it was the QP’s opinion that the data used in the STX Integrated is valid and suitable for estimating Mineral Resources.

Mineral Extraction Activities

The following table shows the extraction history from January 1, 2024 to December 31, 2024, from the STX Integrated:

The STX Integrated Mineral Resources have a reasonable prospect for economic extraction due to the depth of mineralization, GT values, and continuity of mineralization. Studies completed to date support the conclusion that the STX Integrated deposits could be mined through ISR. The Mineral Resource estimates presented in the South Texas Technical Report Summary use cutoffs that are appropriate for ISR mining and may not be applicable to other mining methods.

Some of the shallower STX Integrated Mineral Resources and exploration targets may not be fully saturated. Deeper STX Integrated deposits are fully saturated, and there are ISR techniques that can be used to recover uranium from partially saturated or unsaturated deposits. These techniques include the use of alternate oxidants, water transfers and aquifer enhancement.

Mineral reportable as Mineral Resources meets the following cutoff criteria:

•Minimum Grade: 0.020 %U 3 O 8

Grade is calculated at 0.5 ft depth increments, and values below this cutoff are excluded from reported resources.

•Minimum GT (Grade x Thickness):

• 0.30 for Brevard, Cadena, and the measured resources at Brown

• 0.20 for the indicated and inferred resources at Brown

The GT cutoff is applied to mineral horizons, and values below this cutoff are excluded from reported resources.

No specific minimum thickness is applied; however, the grade is calculated at 0.5 ft depth increments, making this the minimum possible thickness. It is the QP’s opinion that the cutoffs used in this Report are typical of ISR industry standard practice and are appropriate for current ISR methods.

The following key assumptions were used for all resource estimates:

• Resources are in permeable and porous sandstones; and

• Resources are located below the water table.

Mineral resource estimation methods used for the project areas include the GT contour and Polygonal. Mineral resources were estimated separately for each of the project areas.

Summary of Uranium Mineral Resources at the South Texas Integrated ISR Project as of December 31, 2024

(Based on a metal price of $87.05/lb. U 3 O 8)

Notes:

1. Mineral resources as defined in S-K 1300.

2. All resources occur below the static water table.

3. An 80% metallurgical recovery factor was considered for the purposes of the economic analysis.

4. There are no measured or indicated resources at Rosita CPP or Butler Ranch.

A central processing plant (CPP) and Satellite facility will collect and process uranium. The CPP processing circuits will consist of elution, precipitation, dewatering, drying and packaging. The Satellite facility will include an ion exchange circuit (IX) and a resin transfer system to facilitate transfer of loaded resin by truck from the Satellite to the CPP.

The CPP is located at the existing Rosita Central Plant property and Satellites will be located at each of the identified locations.

Mining Method

enCore will mine uranium using the in-situ recovery (ISR) method. ISR has historically been utilized at the STX Integrated and is relatively environmentally benign when compared to conventional open pit or underground recovery techniques. This mining method utilizes injection wells to introduce a mining solution, called lixiviant, into the mineralized zone. An alkaline leach solution of carbon dioxide and oxygen added to the native groundwater, will be used as the lixiviant. Bicarbonate, resulting from the addition of carbon dioxide to the extracting solution, will be used as the complexing agent. Oxygen will be added to oxidize the uranium to a soluble +6 valence state. Recovery wells are used to remove the solution from the formation where it is piped to a processing plant. An ion exchange (IX) column is used to remove the dissolved uranyl carbonate from the solution. The groundwater is re-fortified with the oxidizer and complexing agent and sent back to the wellfield to recover additional uranium. To use ISR, the mineralized body must be saturated with groundwater, transmissive to water, and amenable to dissolution by the lixiviant. Previous operations have demonstrated uranium mineralization within the Project area is recoverable using the proposed ISR techniques.

Mine Design and Plans

The fundamental production unit for design and production planning or scheduling is the pattern. A pattern is comprised of a production or recovery well, and some number of injection wells. Patterns are typically configured in a five or seven well configuration. A five well, or five-spot well pattern consists of one recovery and four injection wells generally in a square or near-square configuration. A seven well or seven-spot well pattern, like the five-spot, is comprised of a recovery well surrounded by six injection wells in a hexagon or near-hexagon configuration. In areas where the ore is not as widespread to allow for these patterns, encore will utilize an alternative line drive pattern placed over the recovery zone with wells alternating between production and injection wells. Pattern design is determined by the size and shape of the deposit, hydrogeological properties of the mining formation, and mining economics. enCore plans to use a combination of five-spot and alternating line drive patterns with recovery wells spaced 50-100 feet from injection wells.

Patterns are grouped into production units referred to as wellfields. Wellfields form a practical means for design, development and production, where groups of recovery wells and their associated injection wells are designed, constructed and operated, serving as the fundamental operating unit for distribution of the alkaline leach system.

An economic wellfield must cover the construction costs associated with well installation, connection of wells to piping that conveys the leach system between wellfields and the IX facility, wellfield and plant operating costs, and reclamation costs.

To further facilitate planning, wellfields are grouped into production areas (PAs). Production areas represent a collection of wellfields for which baseline data, monitoring requirements, and restoration criteria have been established, for development of a Wellfield Hydrologic Data Package that will be submitted to regulatory authorities for mining approval. In Texas, this is known as a Production Authorization Area (PAA) in which the area and baseline restoration standards are specified in the permit.

Wellfields will typically be developed based on conventional five-spot or alternating line drive patterns. Injection and recovery wells will be completed in a manner to isolate the screened uranium-bearing interval. To establish baseline data, monitoring requirements, and restoration criteria, monitor wells will be installed for each mine unit. Baseline production zone monitor wells will be completed in the deposit hosting sandstone unit to establish baseline water restoration criteria.

Production zone monitor wells will also be installed in a ring around the entire wellfield. This ring of perimeter monitor wells will be setback approximately 400 feet from the patterns and 400 feet apart, respectively. Certain exceptions can be made to this distance based upon land and ore outline limitations when approved in the permit. This monitor well ring will be used to ensure mining fluids are contained within wellfield.

Overlying and underlying monitor wells will also be completed in hydro-stratigraphic units immediately above and below the production zone to monitor the potential for vertical lixiviant migration. Overlying monitor wells will be completed in all overlying units. Underlying wells will be completed in the immediately underlying unit.

Each injection and production well will be connected within a network of high-density polyethylene (HDPE) piping to an injection or production manifold located in the wellfield. The manifolds are connected to pipes that convey leaching solutions to and from the ion exchange columns in the CPP or Satellite facility. Flow meters, control valves, and pressure gauges in the individual well piping will monitor and control the individual well flow rates. Wellfield piping will be constructed using high-density polyethylene pipe.

The proposed uranium ISR process will involve the dissolution of the water-soluble uranium compound from the mineralized host sands at near neutral pH ranges. The lixiviant contains dissolved oxygen and carbon dioxide. The oxygen oxidizes the uranium, which is complexed with the bicarbonate formed by addition of carbon dioxide to the solution. The uranium-rich solution will be pumped from the recovery wells to the nearby CPP or Satellite facility for uranium concentration with ion exchange (IX) resin. A slightly greater volume of water will be recovered from the mineralized zone hydro-stratigraphic unit than injected, referred to as “bleed”, to create an inward flow gradient towards the wellfields. Thus, overall recovery flow rates will always be slightly greater than overall injection rates. This bleed solution will be disposed, as permitted, via injection into Class I DDW’s.

Production Rates and Expected Mine Life

Production rate was calculated using a production model derived from recent wellfields operating in the South Texas region. The production model was applied to mineral resources based upon the observed monthly recovery with a recovery of 80% in 32 months. The figure below depicts the production forecast model for the wellfields.

Processing and Recovery

A central processing plant (CPP) and Satellite facility will collect and process uranium. The CPP processing circuits will consist of elution, precipitation, dewatering, drying and packaging. The Satellite facility will include an ion exchange circuit (IX) and a resin transfer system to facilitate transfer of loaded resin by truck from the Satellite to the CPP.

The CPP is located at the existing Rosita Central Plant property and Satellites will be located at each of the identified locations.

Ion Exchange

Uranium will be recovered from pregnant lixiviant solution using the ion exchange circuit. Each vessel is designed to contain a 300 cubic foot batch of anionic ion exchange resin. The satellite design is based upon modules with a nominal capacity of 800 gallons per minute. Additional modules can be added to increase capacity based upon in place reserves and timing of the system. Each module will be configured with three tanks operating in series, utilizing pressurized down-flow methodology for loading. Piping and valving allows the flow to be redirected to any of the three tanks and change the order of flow between the tanks in order to allow for resin transfer and optimizing resin loading. Production and Injection booster pumps will be located upstream and downstream of the trains, as needed for wellfield conditions.

Vessels will be designed to provide optimum contact time between pregnant lixiviant and IX resin. An interior stainless-steel piping manifold system will distribute lixiviant evenly across the resin. The dissolved uranium in the pregnant lixiviant will bond to the ion exchange resin in exchange for a pre-existing chloride ion. The resultant barren lixiviant exiting the vessels will contain less than 2 ppm of uranium and will be returned to the wellfield where oxygen and carbon dioxide will be added prior to reinjection.

Bleed

A bleed will be drawn from the injection stream prior to reinjection into the wellfield to maintain control of hydraulic conditions in production zone. The bleed will be directed through filters and then to storage tanks and then to an onsite non-hazardous Class I disposal well. The water in the storage tanks will also be utilized for resin transfers and tank backwashes as needed.

Elution Circuit

Loaded resin will be transferred to the CPP via truck and trailer where an elution circuit will strip uranium from the resin with a sodium chloride and sodium carbonate brine solution forming a uranium rich eluant. The pH will be controlled with sodium hydroxide. Eluted resin will then be rinsed and returned to the IX vessels for reloading.

The elution circuit will consist of three eluant tanks and an elution tank. All three tanks will have the described eluant, but based upon the order of stripping, will have different grades of uranium in them. The contents of tank one will be pumped through the elution tank containing the resin and then into a precipitation tank. Next, the eluant in tank two will run through the eluant tank with resin, and into tank one. Tank three consisting of fresh eluate with no uranium will be the final step to remove the last of the remaining uranium from the resin. It will be pumped through the eluant tank and will be deposited in tank two. A fresh batch of eluant will be made once depleted. The resin should now be mostly barren of uranium and is ready to be reused in a wellfield.

Precipitation Circuit

Hydrochloric acid will be added to the uranium rich eluant in the precipitation tank to bring the pH down to the range of 2 to 3 where the uranyl carbonate breaks down, liberating carbon dioxide and leaving free uranyl ions. Next, sodium hydroxide (caustic soda) will be added to raise the pH to the range of 4 to 5. After this pH adjustment, hydrogen peroxide will be added in a batch process to form an insoluble uranyl peroxide (UO2O2.H2O) compound. After precipitation, the uranium precipitate slurry is pumped to a filter press where the uranium solids are separated from the barren precipitation fluid. The liquid from the precipitation circuit is sent to a settling pond where it is appropriately neutralized and injected in a non-hazardous, class I disposal well.

Filtering, Drying and Packaging

After precipitation, yellowcake is removed for filtering, washing, drying and product packaging in a controlled area. The yellowcake in the filter press is washed with fresh water to remove excess chlorides and other soluble contaminants. The filter cake is transferred to a yellowcake storage bin for settling, decanting, and loading directly into the yellowcake dryer.

The yellowcake will be dried in a rotary vacuum dryer. The dryer is an enclosed unit and heated by circulating thermal fluid through an external jacket at ~450F. The off gases generated during the drying cycle, which will be primarily water vapor, are filtered through a bag house to remove entrained particulates and then condensed. Compared to conventional high temperature drying by multi-hearth systems, this dryer will have no significant airborne particulate emissions.

The dried yellowcake will be packaged into 55-gallon drums for storage before transport by truck to a conversion facility.

The yellowcake drying and packaging stations will be segregated within the processing plant for worker safety. Dust abatement and filtration equipment will be deployed in this area of the facility. Filled yellowcake drums will be staged in a dedicated storage area until transport.

Following standard industry protocols, yellowcake will be transported to a conversion facility in 55-gallon steel drums. The shipment method will be via specifically licensed trucking contractor.

Water Balance

The water balance is based on a production flow rate of 800-1000 gpm per satellite module with a 1% or 8-10 gpm bleed to maintain hydraulic control of fluids within the mine units. In the CPP water will be used for make-up and washdown at a rate of approximately 12 gpm from a local fresh water supply well. Restoration activities will include feed to a two-stage reverse osmosis unit (RO), with a 75% recovery rate to the wellfield. 25% of flow will be a concentrate and will be disposed of through a class I non-hazardous disposal well.

Liquid Waste Disposal

Class I non-hazardous waste disposal wells will be the sole method for liquid waste disposal. Liquid waste will be injected and isolated from any underground source of drinking water.

Solid Waste Disposal

Waste classified as non-contaminated (non-hazardous, non-radiological) will be disposed of in the nearest permitted sanitary waste disposal facility. Waste classified as hazardous (non-radiological) will be segregated and disposed of at the nearest permitted hazardous waste facility. Radiologically contaminated solid wastes, that cannot be decontaminated, are classified as 11.e.(2) byproduct material. This waste will be packaged and stored on site temporarily, and periodically shipped to a licensed 11.e.(2) byproduct waste facility or a licensed mill tailings facility.

The South Texas Technical Report Summary contains an Initial Assessment which indicates a pre-tax Net Present Value of $104.3 million at an 8% discount rate compared to an after- tax Net Present Value of $81.8 million at an 8% discount rate.

The South Texas Technical Report Summary contemplates an annual production of just over 0.5 million pounds in the first year and then ramping up to approximately 0.8 million pounds by the second year. Total life of the project is estimated at approximately 9 years (6 years production followed by 3 years of restoration/surface reclamation). The NPV assumes cash flows take place in the middle of the periods and is calculated based on a discounted cash flow. The production estimates, Capital Expenses, and Operating Expenses, cost distributions used to develop the cash flow are based on the production and restoration models developed by enCore and incorporated in the cash flow. The cash flow assumes no escalation, no debt, interest, or capital repayment. The initial capitalized STX Integrated project construction was completed prior to this analysis. Excluding sunk costs which occurred prior to the operations proposed in the analysis, the STX Integrated is estimated to generate net cash flow over its life, before income tax, of $123.96 million and $97.01 million after income tax.

The mine plan and economic analysis are based on the following assumptions:

•NI 43-101 and S-K 1300 compliant estimate of Mineral Resources and a recovery factor of 80%,

•A variable U 3 O 8 sales price ranging from $78.37/lb up to $92.04/lb with an overall average U 3 O 8 sales price of $87.05/lb,

•A mine life 9 years (6 years production followed by 3 years of restoration/surface reclamation),

•A pre-income tax cost including royalties, state and local taxes, operating costs, and capital costs of $43.12/lb, and costs for the Project are based on actual costs from enCore’s currently operating south Texas ISR projects, economic analyses for similar ISR uranium projects, and WWC’s in house experience with mining and construction costs. All costs are in U.S. dollars (USD).

This analysis above is based on Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources which do not have demonstrated economic viability. Given the speculative nature of mineral resources, there is no guarantee that any or all of the mineral resources included in the Initial Assessment will be recovered. The Initial Assessment is preliminary in nature and there is no certainty that the Project will be realized.

Capital Costs Estimate

Operating Costs Estimate

Taxation and Royalties

The results of the analyses presented herein provide for pre-income tax and post-income tax estimates. The post tax estimate includes U.S. federal income taxes. There is no State of Texas income tax. Texas does not have a severance tax on uranium mining. Ad valorem taxes would be assessed at the individual county level based on the value of the project. Actual tax rates will vary based on the county mill levies. For the purposes of this analysis the ad valorem taxes were based on average rates paid on Encore’s existing properties.

Various production royalties exist on the Projects. Due to the sensitive nature of royalty negotiations on existing and future properties, intimate details on the royalties are not provided. However, for the purposes of this analysis the Royalty rates were estimated as follows:

• At Brown the royalty is estimated at 1.5 percent of gross revenue.

• At Brevard the royalty rate is estimated at 5 percent of gross revenue.

• At Cadena the royalty rate is estimated at 10 percent of gross revenue.

The STX Integrated is sensitive to changes in the price of uranium. A five percent change in the commodity price results in a $10.3 million change to the pre-tax Net Present Value “NPV” and $8.1 million to the post tax NPV at a discount rate of 8%. The analysis is based on a variable commodity price per pound. The STX Integrated is also slightly sensitive to changes in OPEX costs. A 5% variation in Operating Expenses results in a $2.1 million variation in pre-tax NPV and $1.7 million to the post-tax NPV. A 5% variation in Capital Expenses results in a $2.6 million variation in the pre-tax NPV and $2.1 million to the post-tax NPV. This analysis is based on an eight percent discount rate and a variable commodity price per pound.

Exploration Target

Conventional rotary drilling and down-hole geophysical logging were the primary exploration method at the STX Integrated. An exploration target has also been identified at the Butler Ranch Project.

The ranges of potential quantity and grade of the exploration target are conceptual in nature. There has been insufficient exploration to define a mineral resource or mineral reserve. It is uncertain if further exploration will result in the target being delineated as a mineral resource. An exploration target was estimated for the Butler Ranch Project. Data evaluated to prepare the exploration target include Project maps, mineral trend maps, historical ore body maps, cross sections, logs, previous technical reports, correspondence, and historical resource estimates and reporting. An extensive review of historical drill hole data was undertaken in order to estimate existing uranium resources within the property boundaries that have not been mined. Data from over 1,934 drill holes at Butler Ranch were evaluated.

This evaluation included the use of historical down-hole electric logs, drill hole location maps, a 2015 drilling project report, a data acquisitions summary, past memos and permits, and historical ore reserve estimates by Conoco in 1978 and 1981. In addition, log data was inventoried and includes summaries of mineralized drill hole intercepts with grade, thickness, and local survey coordinates for drill holes. Those projects without down-hole electric logs were evaluated for exploration potential which is detailed herein.

An exploration target was estimated for several of the properties within the Butler Ranch Project area. The table below contains the results from this estimate. These estimates were derived from historical maps with mineral intercept data. No data on these maps could be confirmed by drill logs so these resources could not be classified. These properties are clearly targets for further exploration in the future.

Historical maps were used to map exploration targets at Butler Ranch. These maps were developed by previous owners of Butler Ranch. The mineral intercept data on each map was evaluated and a 0.10 GT contour was drawn around the trend as a mineral outline. The area inside of the mineral outline was calculated using AutoCAD. Both a minimum GT (cutoff of 0.10) and a weighted average GT (0.37) were used with the weighted average of the nearby Turner property as the analog since this trend closely resembled the trends on the exploration target properties. The weighted average GT and the calculated trend areas were then used to calculate pounds using the same equation as the classified mineral estimate. The conversion constant (20) and tonnage factor (17.0) were used for the exploration target.

Four distinct trends were identified with the historical maps.

The Company’s planned work will focus on commencing uranium extraction from Upper Spring Creek – Brown. The necessary initial steps include the completion of the regulatory approvals of the amendment to the Radioactive Materials License RO3653, Class I UIC non-hazardous liquid byproduct disposal well, and the Production Area Authorization. Additional planned work includes the installation of the wellfield patterns, wellfield infrastructure, and the satellite IX facility for the site. The intent of this work is to start uranium extraction in 2025. Additionally, the Company intends to conduct additional exploratory drilling on the Geffert property to identify additional Mineral Resources and increase confidence of the reported inferred Mineral Resources. In 2026, the Company will file applications to amend the RML RO3653 to incorporate Upper Spring Creek–Brevard and file applications for Class III and Class I Underground Injection Control permits for Upper Spring Creek–Brevard.

Alta Mesa Project (Alta Mesa CPP), Brooks County, TX

The Alta Mesa Project is a fully licensed and constructed CPP, located on over 203,000 acres of private land. Total operating capacity is currently approximately 1.5 million lbs. U 3 O 8 per year. Alta Mesa historically produced approximately 4.6 million lbs. of U 3 O 8 between 2005 and 2013, when full production was curtailed because of low uranium prices at the time by the previous owner.

The following technical and scientific description of the Alta Mesa Project is based in part on the report titled “Alta Mesa Uranium Project, Brooks County, Texas, USA, S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary” and “Alta Mesa Uranium Project, Brooks County, Texas, USA, National Instrument 43-101, Technical Report” dated February 19, 2025 and effective

December 31, 2024 prepared by Stuart Bryan Soliz, PG of SOLA Project Services. (the “Alta Mesa Technical Report Summary”). The Alta Mesa Technical Report Summary was prepared in accordance with S-K 1300. The Alta Mesa Project does not have known “Mineral Reserves” and is therefore considered under SEC S-K 1300 definitions to be an Exploration Stage Property.

The Alta Mesa Project is an Exploration Stage ISR uranium mining project located in south Texas. The Alta Mesa Project lies within the southern part of the South Texas Uranium Province. Uranium deposits in the South Texas Uranium Province extend from Starr County at the international border with Mexico northeastward through Zapata, Jim Hogg, Brooks, Webb, Duval, Kleberg, McMullen, Live Oak, Bee, Atascosa, Karnes, Wilson, Goliad, and Gonzales counties. The Alta Mesa Project is located entirely within private land holdings of the Jones Ranch. The Jones Ranch is an approximately 380,000-acre ranch that was founded in 1897, and enCore controls over 200,000 of the 380,000 acres with mineral leases and options for uranium exploration and development.

The Alta Mesa Project is comprised of the Alta Mesa Mining Lease and the Alta Mesa CPP. The Alta Mesa Project consists of 4,597 acres. The active mine and CPP are located on the Alta Mesa project area approximately 35.5 miles southwest of Falfurrias via US Highway 281 to Ranch Road 755 to Ranch Road 430 to CR 314 to CR 315, Encino, Texas 78353, in Brooks County, Texas.

Mineral Rights

Royalty agreements have been established with mineral and surface owners. Furthermore, surface owners are paid an annual rental to hold the surface on behalf of enCore. Additionally, the agreements also provide for additional charges to the surface owner to cover surface damages and for reduction of husbandry grazing during field operations.

Amended and Restated Uranium Solution Mining Lease

The Uranium Solution Mining Lease, originally dated June 1, 2004, covers approximately 4,598 acres, out of the “La Mesteñas” Ysidro Garcia Survey, A-218, Brooks County, Texas and the “Las Mesteñas Y Gonzalena” Rafael Garcia Salinas Survey, A-480, Brooks County, Texas. These have been superseded by the Amended and Restated Uranium Solution Mining Lease dated June 16, 2016, as part of the share purchase agreement between enCore and the various holders of the Mesteña project. The Lease now comprises Tract 5 and a portion of Tracts 1, 4, and 6 of “W.W. Jones Subdivision”, said tract being out of the “La Mesteña Y Gonzalena” Rafael Garcia Salinas Survey, Abstract N0. 480 and the “La Mesteñas” Ysidro Garcia Survey, Abstract No. 218, Brooks County, Texas. The Lease now covers uranium, thorium, vanadium, molybdenum, other fissionable minerals, and associated minerals and materials under 4,597.67 acres.

The term of the amended lease is fifteen (15) years which commenced on June 16, 2016, or however long as the lessee is continuously engaged in any mining, development, production, processing, treating, restoration, or reclamation operations on the leased premises. The amended lease can be extended by the Lessee for an additional 15 years.

The lease includes provisions for royalty payments on net proceeds, less allowable deductions, received by the Lessee. The royalties range from 3.1% to 7.5% depending on the price received for the uranium. The lease also calls for a royalty on substances produced on adjacent lands but processed on the leased premises. The table below illustrates royalty details.

Amended Uranium Solutions Mining Lease Royalties

Amended and Restated Uranium Testing Permit and Lease Option Agreement

The Uranium Testing Permit and Lease Option Agreement (see table below), originally dated August 1, 2006, covers all land containing mineral potential as identified through exploration efforts and covers uranium, thorium, vanadium, molybdenum, and all other fissionable materials, compounds, solutions, mixtures, and source materials; this agreement has been superseded by the Amended and Restated Uranium Testing and Lease Option Agreement dated June 16, 2016, as part of the share purchase agreement between enCore Energy and the various holders of the Mesteña project. It now covers 195,501 acres.

The term of the amended lease and option agreement is for eight (8) years which commenced on June 16, 2016. The amended lease and option agreement has been extended by the grantee for an additional seven (7) years by certain payments conducted in April 2024. The Lease Option was further amended to extend the lease option period by an additional five (5) years in June 2024.

Amended and Restated Uranium Testing Permit and Lease Option Agreements Royalties

Surface Rights

The mineral leases and options include provisions for reasonable use of the land surface for the purposes of ISR mining and mineral processing. Alta Mesa is a fully licensed, operable facility with sufficient sources of power, water, and waste disposal facilities for operations and aquifer restoration. While the current staff level has been reduced, sufficient local personnel were available for mine operations. Alta Mesa LLC, either has in place or can obtain the necessary permits and/or agreements, and local resources are sufficient for current and future ISR operations within the Project. Amended surface use agreements have been entered into with all the surface owners on the various prospect areas as part of the Membership Interest Purchase Agreement between Energy Fuels Inc and the various holders of the Mesteña Project.

Amended surface use agreements have been entered into with all the surface owners on the various prospect areas as part of the Membership Interest Purchase Agreement between Energy Fuels Inc and the various holders of the Mesteña Project. These amended agreements, unchanged from those originally entered into on June 1, 2004, provide, amongst other things, for stipulated damages to be paid for certain activities related to the exploration and production of uranium.

Specifically, the agreements call for U.S. Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjusted payments for the following disturbances: exploratory test holes, development test holes, monitor wells, new roads, and related surface disturbances. The lease also outlines an annual payment schedule for land taken out of agricultural use around the area of a deep disposal well, land otherwise taken out of agricultural use, and pipelines constructed outside of the production area.

Surface rights are expressly stated in the lease and in general provide the lessee with the right to ingress and egress, and the right to use so much of the surface and subsurface of the leased premises as reasonably necessary for ISR mining. Open pit and/or strip mining are prohibited by the lease.

State and Local Taxes and Royalties

Ad valorem tax rates per $100 of taxable value applicable to tangible property and royalty for 2022 were as follows:

•Brooks County 0.773160

•Brooks County Rd and Bridge 0.072987

•Brooks County Independent School District 1.411298

•Brooks County FM FC 0.042863

•Brush Country Groundwater 0.015263

The Project is accessible year-round and is located approximately 11 miles west of the intersection of US Highway 281 (paved) and North Farm to Market Road 755 (paved), 22 miles south of Falfurrias, Texas.

The Alta Mesa Project is well supported by nearby towns and services. Larger cities, Corpus Christi, McAllen and Laredo, are each about 100 miles or less from the site and are ready sources of materials and equipment. Major power lines are located across the Alta Mesa Project and are accessed for electrical service. The road system is comprehensive and well maintained and used for shipment of materials and equipment.

Human resources are employed from nearby population centers. Numerous local communities provide sources for labor, housing, offices and basic supplies. enCore utilizes local resources when and where possible supporting the local economy.

The site has uranium drill holes and related infrastructure (e.g., small mud pits temporarily constructed to facilitate drill operations and water supply ponds), trucks and other equipment, historic and new wellfields, a CPP, administration building, shop and warehouse, environmental office, logging building and test pits.

The site has telephone and internet service in the form of a T-1 fiber optics line. The CPP has an automated control and monitoring system that allows remote monitoring of the facility and includes fail safe systems that can shut down portions of the system in the event of an upset condition. The facility is also fully secured with on-site and remote monitoring.

Water supply for the Project is from established and permitted local wells. Liquid waste from the processing facility is disposed via deep well injection through two permitted Underground Injection Control “UIC” Class I disposal wells. Solid waste is disposed off-site at licensed disposal facilities. No tailings or other related waste disposal facilities are needed.

Other land uses and associated infrastructure include, water wells, agricultural stock tanks/ponds, an aircraft landing strip located approximately 1.4 miles West of the CPP, cattle/horse ranches, and numerous caliche pits. In addition, agricultural cattle and horse grazing occurs in portions of the Project area and hunting stands and blinds are scattered throughout the area and are connected through a series of roads and senderos.

Oil and gas-related infrastructure on the Project includes oil and gas exploration and production wells, tank batteries, and numerous transmission and gathering pipelines.

The Texas Gulf Coast comprises the western flank of the Gulf of Mexico sedimentary basin with active deposition throughout the mid to late Mesozoic Era and into the Cenozoic Era. Deposition is dominated by clastic sediments transported from continental highlands into the Gulf of Mexico basin for a period exceeding 50 million years. These sediments were transported to the coast by rivers and deposited in a variety of fluvial to marine depositional environments.

Structurally the Texas Gulf Coast consists of three regions, the Rio Grande Embayment, the San Marcos Arch, and the Houston Embayment. Other structural features found in the Texas Gulf Coast include the Stuart City and Sligo Shelf Margins, and the Wilcox, Frio, and Vicksburg Fault Zones.

The San Marcos Arch is a broad gently sloping positive structural feature extending from the Llano Uplift in Central Texas to the Gulf Coast during the Ouachita Orogeny. The Rio Grande and Houston Embayment’s are thought to have resulted from subsidence induced by high rates of sedimentation (Dodge and Posey, 1981).

The Tertiary sediments deposited in the Rio Grande and Houston Embayment’s are characterized by deltaic sands and shales. High rates of clastic deposition resulted in the formation of normal listric growth faults. Constant sediment loading and coastal subsidence into the basin led to the accumulation of over 50,000 feet of Cenozoic strata into the Gulf Coast Basin.

Jurassic salt and younger shale diapirs are also present in the subsurface along the Gulf Coastal Plain. The displacement of shale and salt is generated by the accumulation of an excessive thickness of overburden sediment causing plastic flow of the more ductile sediments. The resulting structures may cause local faulting and/or dip reversal along with the formation of domes and anticlinal structures.

Within the South Texas Uranium Province, uranium mineralization occurs primarily in the Cenozoic sediments of the Miocene/Pliocene Goliad Formation, Miocene Oakville Formation, Oligocene/Miocene Catahoula Formation, and the Eocene Jackson Group. Project deposits occur in the Goliad Formation which is a major fluvial system that represents a low to moderate energy environment composed of isolated mixed-load channel-fill sands separated by thick inter-channel clays.

Uranium deposits are roll-fronts, typical to others found in the South Texas Uranium Province. Deposit genesis is related to the presence of highly reduced groundwater systems generated from the biogenic decomposition of natural gas and/or hydrogen sulfide seepage derived from deeper formations through localized faulting. At Alta Mesa, uranium bearing groundwater moved from northwest to southeast within the Goliad Formation and encountered reduction zones associated with the Vicksburg fault system and the Alta Mesa salt dome and associated faulting which allowed the introduction of organics and other fluids upward through faults and fractures.

The deposits are characterized by numerous vertically stacked roll-fronts controlled by stratigraphic heterogeneity, host lithology, permeability, reductant type and concentration, and groundwater geochemistry. Individual roll-fronts are a few tens of feet wide, 4 to 10 feet thick, and often thousands of feet long. Collectively, roll-fronts result in an overall deposit that is up to a few hundred feet wide, 50 to 75 feet thick and continuous for miles in length.

History

In the early 1970’s through June of 1985, Chevron Minerals held Project mineral leases. In 1985, Chevron allowed leases to expire reverting rights back to landowners.

From July 1988 to 1993, total minerals held the mineral the leases. Total engaged URI to complete a feasibility study of the project. In 1993, Total relinquished mineral leases to Cogema under directive from the French government.

From 1993 to 1996, Cogema held the Alta Mesa mineral leases, but once relinquished were acquired by URI. URI held the mineral leases from 1996 to 1998, and during their tenure obtained the Radioactive Material License.

In 1999, Mesteña Uranium LLC was formed by the landowners. Mesteña completed most of the drilling on the project and began construction of the ISR facility in 2004. Production began in the fourth quarter of 2005 and Mesteña operated the facility through February 2013. Due to downturn in the uranium market, in 2013 the project was put into care and maintenance standby.

Mesteña acquired the adjacent Mesteña Grande projects in 2006 through the execution of the Uranium Testing Permit and Lease Option to explore on mineral rights outside of the existing Uranium In-Situ Mining Lease with the expectation that additional mineralized uranium resources could provide future feed for the Project.

On June 17, 2016, Energy Fuels acquired the Project, including both the Alta Mesa and Mesteña Grande projects.

In November 2022, enCore entered into a Membership Interest Purchase Agreement dated November 14, 2022, with EFR White Canyon Corp., a subsidiary of Energy Fuels, to acquire four limited liability companies that together hold 100% of the Project. Acquisition cost was US$120 million USD payable in a combination of cash and vendor take-back convertible note secured against the assets.

In February 2024, the Company entered a joint venture with Boss to develop and advance the Project. enCore retains ownership of 70% of the project and Boss holds 30%. Prior to 2023, all drilling was considered historical. Initial drilling at the Alta Mesa portion of the project was done by Chevron between 1981 and 1984 when they drilled approximately 360 holes. These holes included exploration, some coring and well completions. Minor drilling and monitor well installation were also completed by Total Metals and Cogema. Most of the drilling was completed by MULLC between 1999 and 2013. From these drill programs, drill data is available for a total of 10,744 drill holes in the Alta Mesa portion of the project of which 5,620 drill holes were considered barren. Of the remaining 5,124 drill holes approximately 3,000 are within the existing wellfields. However, many of the drill holes within the wellfield have mineralized intercepts in sands that were not mined either above or below the mining units. Wellfields PAA-1 through PAA-3 were mined within the Goliad middle C sand. Wellfield PAA-5 was mined within the B sand and wellfields PAA-4 and PAA-6 are within the lower C sand. In addition, data is available for 460 drill holes in the Mesteña Grande portion of the Project.

Uranium was first discovered in Texas via airborne radiometric surveys in 1954 along the northern boundary of the South Texas Uranium Province where host formations outcrop. These initial discoveries led to the development of numerous conventional open pit mines. Subsequent exploration primarily, by drilling, extended mineralization down dip from the outcrop. At Alta Mesa, oil and gas drilling had been ongoing since the 1930’s. The Alta Mesa deposits were discovered by Chevron in the mid 1970s while evaluating oil and gas geophysical logs for natural gamma signatures. From 1981 to 1984, Chevron drilled approximately 360 holes, collected core and completed some wells.

Total and Cogema conducted small drilling programs and installed some monitor wells. Most of the Project drilling was completed by Mesteña between 1999 and 2013.

Mesteña developed six wellfields or production areas, identified as PAA-1 through PAA-6. All production was from the Goliad; however, from different formation sands. PAA-1 through PAA-3 were mined within the Goliad middle C-Sand. PAA-5 was mined within the B-Sand and wellfields PAA-4 and PAA-6 are within the lower C-Sand. Many of the wellfield drill holes intersected mineralization in sands above or below the wellfields indicating additional mineral resource potential. Approximately, 3,000 holes are drilled within the wellfields.

Between 2005 and 2013, approximately 4.6 M lbs of uranium were produced by ISR mining. Maximum annual production achieved was 1.07 million pounds. Average annual production was 0.57 million pounds. The facility was in production from 2005 until February 2013, when the project was placed in care and maintenance due to unfavorable market conditions.

The most significant permits and licenses required to operate the Project are (1) the Source and Byproduct Materials License, which was issued by TCEQ (formerly Texas Bureau of Radiation Control) in 2002; (2) the Mine Area Permit issued by TCEQ in April 2000; and (3) Production Area Authorizations (UIC Class III) issued at various times since April 2000, two deep injection non-hazardous disposal wells (V wells) issued by TCEQ in April 2000 and an aquifer exemption issued by USEPA in 2002 and the area was expanded in a revised Aquifer Emption dated 2009. Similar permits would be required for the Mesteña Grande project area depending upon the nature of operations and their integration with the Alta Mesa facility.

PAA-1 has been mined, and the groundwater restoration has been approved by the TCEQ. PAA-2 through PAA-6 is either in standby or in the process of groundwater restoration. PAA-7 is currently being mined.

The status of the various federal and state permits and licenses are summarized in the table below

Permitting Status

enCore maintains written standard operating procedures for drilling, lithological logging and geophysical logging. Virtually all drilling completed by enCore for the purposes of exploring and resource development consists of rotary drilling. enCore collected rotary mud samples for lithological logging by 5-foot increments. Lithological logs of the samples are completed in the field by geologists following the standard written procedures and using standard lithological log forms.

Drill hole locations are staked in the field using a Trimble hand-held GPS capable of sub-meter accuracy. The holes are surveyed prior to drilling. Field surveys of 8 exploration drill holes and one well with the Alta Mesa GPS unit as a check. The well location was within 0.13 feet of the recorded location. The drill hole locations deviated from the reported location by 1.33 to 11.28 feet with an average variance of 6.06 feet. It is this author’s conclusion that the majority of the variance is due to the driller not accurately locating the drill hole at the staked location rather than the accuracy of the GPS unit, and thus, recommends that the drill hole location procedure be modified to include both pre and post drilling surveys of the drill holes.

Past drilling practices were conducted in accordance with industry standard procedures and the most recent drilling conducted by enCore, confirmed historical drill results in previously intersected mineralization for thickness, grade and location.

Sample Preparation, Analysis, and Security

Sample Methods

Samples are collected from drill holes for drill cuttings, down hole geophysics and core samples. Cores are the only samples that are prepared and dispatched to an analytical or testing laboratory. Cuttings and geophysical data are prepared and analyzed in house. Sampling, sample preparation and security are described in the following sections.

Down Hole Geophysical Data

Continuous measurement of down hole geophysical properties is measured from total hole depth to surface. Geophysical data is collected using logging probes equipped with gamma, resistivity, SP, PFN and down hole survey logging tools. This suite of logs is ideal for defining lithologic units in the subsurface. The resistivity and spontaneous potential tools are used to define lithology by qualitative measurements of water conductivities.

The gamma tool provides an indirect measurement of uranium content. Gamma radiation is measured in one-tenth foot intervals and converted to gamma ray readings measured in counts-per-second into %-eU 3 O 8. Equivalent percent uranium grades are reported in one-half foot increments.

The PFN tool provides a direct measurement of uranium around the borehole. The pulsed neutrons sources electronically generate neutrons which causes fission of U 235 in the formation. Tool detectors count epithermal and thermal neutrons returning from the formation providing a direct measurement of formation uranium content.

Drill holes are also down hole surveyed measuring deviation by azimuth and declination, providing a holes true bottom location and depth.

enCore samples all drill holes with gamma, resistivity, spontaneous potential and down hole survey. Due to cost and time, enCore only PFN samples mineralized intervals with gamma measured grades above 0.02 %-eU 3 O 8.

To ensure geophysical data quality control, tools are calibrated at a US Department of Energy test pit in George West, Texas. PFN tools are calibrated using onsite test pits. Test pit have known uranium source concentration and using industry calibration procedures tools are calibrated, to ensure consistent measurement and reporting of uranium concentrations from US deposits.

PFN Calibration

The table below reflects a typical calibration curve for the PFN tool.

PFN Tool Calibration

Disequilibrium

Radioactive isotopes decay until they reach a stable non-radioactive state; the radioactive decay chain isotopes are referred to as daughters. When all the decay products are maintained in close association with the primary uranium isotope U238 for the order of a million years or more, the daughter isotopes will be in equilibrium with the parent isotope (McKay et.al., 2007). Disequilibrium occurs when one or more decay products are dispersed because of differences in solubility between uranium and its daughters. Disequilibrium is considered positive when there is a higher proportion of uranium present compared to daughters and negative where daughters accumulate, and uranium is depleted. The disequilibrium factor (DEF) is determined by comparing radiometric equivalent uranium grade eU 3 O 8 to chemical uranium grade. Radiometric equilibrium is represented by a DEF of 1, positive DEF by a factor greater than 1, and negative DEF by a factor of less than 1. Total Minerals Incorporated applied a positive DEF of 1.13 to their Mineral Resource estimation (Total, 1989). Whereas Mesteña relied on PFN log data for determination of uranium grade and this method is a direct measurement of uranium content not equivalent radiometric assay, assessment of DEF is not applicable in this case where 92.8% of the data is PFN assay. The table below shows a disequilibrium graph comparing natural gamma U 3 O 8 equivalent grades with PFN assays.

Disequilibrium Graph: Natural Gamma vs. PFN Grade

Drill Cutt ings

Drill cuttings are collected at 5-foot intervals while drilling. Samples are arranged on the ground in order of depth to show changes in lithology and color. Lithology and color are recorded on a lithology log for entire hole depth. Particular attention is paid to color in the mineralized sand to assess oxidation/reduction potential. Cuttings are not chemically assayed as drilling mud will contaminate samples and precise sample location or depth cannot be determined from cuttings.

Core Samples

Core samples are collected to conduct chemical analyses, metallurgical testing, and testing of physical parameters of lithologic units. Retrieved cores are measured to determine core recovery. Cores are also washed, photographed and described. In preparation for laboratory analysis, to maintain moisture content and prevent oxidation, core is wrapped in plastic, boxed and frozen or iced.

Laboratory Analysis

When core is collected in the field, it is immediately rinsed, measured for length, split in half and photographed. One half of the core is sampled in 1-foot increments and either wrapped in plastic or vacuum sealed to maintain moisture content and prevent oxidation, boxed, frozen or iced and transferred to an analytical or testing laboratory.

The other half of core is split into quarters. One quarter is preserved as previously described, and the other quarter is used to describe lithologic characteristics (i.e., lithology, color, grain size and fraction).

Core preserved for testing is used for leach amenability determination. Leach amenability studies are intended to demonstrate that the uranium mineralization is capable of being leached and determination of the optimal mining lixiviant chemistry. Typically, sodium bicarbonate is used as the source for a carbonate complexing agent to form uranyldicarbonate (UDC) or uranyltricarbonate ion (UTC), and Oxygen or Hydrogen peroxide are used as the uranium-oxidizing agent. Tests are not designed to approximate in-situ conditions (permeability, porosity, pressure) but are an indication of an ore’s reaction rate and potential uranium recovery.

enCore adheres to security measures using Chain of Custody procedures to ensure the validity and integrity of samples through the analysis process. enCore may sample and transfer duplicate samples to assess reliability and precision of analytical results for quality control of sample collection or laboratory analysis procedures.

Core samples are submitted to an analytical or testing laboratory that is certified through the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program, which establishes and promotes mutually acceptable performance standards for the operation of environmental laboratories. The standards address analytical testing, with State and Federal agencies and serve as accrediting authorities with coordination facilitated by the EPA to assure uniformity.

Opinion on Adequacy

It is the opinion of the QP to the Alta Mesa Technical Report Summary, that enCore’s sample preparation, methods of analysis, and sample and data security procedures adhere to acceptable industry standard procedures.

With respect to historical sample preparation, analysis and security of other previous operators, this information is not available and cannot be confirmed.

It is the opinion of this QP that there are no known sampling preparation, analysis and security factors that could materially affect the accuracy and reliability of results.

The QP visited the site on January 7, 2025, to inspect the site and verify data in the technical report.

The previous owner/operator, Mesteña Uranium LLC, who conducted most of the drilling on the project had written procedures for the collection of drill data including lithological logging, natural gamma logging, and PFN logging, and for the entry of said data into the Geographic Information System (GIS) based master database.

Data Confirmation

To verify data, the following steps were taken by the QP to review:

•SOP’s for drilling procedures, lithological and geophysical logging, and coring,

•Drilling, lithological and geophysical logging in the field,

•Geologists’ interpretation of lithology comparing drill cuttings to resistivity and SP geophysical results,

•Raw downhole geophysical data, grade calculations from raw data, and compositing method used to calculate average mineral grade and determine thickness,

•Geologists’ interpretation of deposit characteristics from gamma and PFN downhole geophysical data,

•Historic core information,

•Workflow and data management including collection, processing, interpretation, digital documentation and database storage; and,

•Geophysical calibration records.

Limitations

Coring was not observed in the field as no coring activities were conducted during the duration of the site visit; however, the data for previously collected and sampled core was reviewed.

Data Adequacy

A considerable amount of work has been done by enCore and previous operators to ensure an adequate data set exists for the Project. It is the QP’s opinion that the data used in this technical report is adequate for technical reporting.

Based on data quality, efforts of others, and the QP’s review, it is the opinion of the QP that there are no known data factors that will materially affect the accuracy and reliability of results.

Mineral Extraction Activities

The following table shows the extraction history from the beginning of extraction activities in June 2024 to December 31, 2024 from the South Texas Integrated ISR Project:

Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves have no demonstrated economic viability and do not meet the requirement for all the relevant modifying factors. Stated mineral resources are derived from estimated quantities of mineralized material recoverable by ISR methods.

Key Assumptions, Parameters and Methods

Key Assumptions

•Price forecast, production costs and an 80% metallurgical recovery were used to estimate mineral resources.

•Average wellfield recovery of 80% that accounts for dilution from mining hydro logic efficiency and metallurgical recovery,

•Average plant recovery of 98%; and,

•Average uranium price of $83.43 based on TradeTech’s Uranium Market Study 2023: Issue 4.

Key Parameters

•The mineral resources estimates are based on data collected from drill holes,

•Grades (% U 3 O 8) were obtained from gamma radiometric probing of drill holes and checked against assay results to account for disequilibrium,

•Average density of 17.0 cubic feet per ton was used, based on historical sample measurements,

•Minimum GT (Grade x Thickness) cut-off per hole per mineralized interval for grade-thickness contour modeling is 0.30 feet% U 3 O 8,

•Mineralized interval with GT values below the 0.30 feet% U 3 O 8 GT cut-off is used for model definition but are not included within the mineral resource estimation,

•Average annual production rate of approximately 0.4 million pounds,

•Average annual estimated operating costs of $27.44 per pound,

•Average annual estimated wellfield development costs of $11.33 per pound; and,

•Average annual restoration and reclamation costs of $2.94 per pound.

Key Methods

•Geological interpretation of the orebody was done on section and plan from surface drill hole information,

•The orebody was modeled creating roll-front outlines for each of the deposit’s individual mineralized zones,

•Pre-wellfield development, mineral resources within the roll-front outlines were estimated by grade-thickness averaging, where the variable of uranium grade is multiplied by interval thickness and averaged within the roll-front outline,

•Post-wellfield development, mineral resources within the roll-front outlines were estimated by grade-thickness contouring, where the variable of uranium grade is multiplied by interval thickness and contoured area,

•Wellfield recovery, lixiviant uranium head grades, wellfield flow rates and production requirements were used to define production sequencing; and,

•Geological modeling and mining applications used was ArcGIS Pro.

Resource Classification

Mineral resources are disclosed as required by United States Code of Federal Regulations, Title 17, Chapter II, Part 229, §229.1303 and §229.1304, and are based upon and accurately reflect information and supporting documentation prepared by the QP, as defined in §229.1300.

The following classification criteria for each mineral resource category are applied for alignment with §229.1300 definitions of Measured, Indicated and Inferred mineral resources.

Measured Mineral Resources

Drilling is denser than 50 x 200 feet spacing for mineralized zones characterized by a uniform and easily correlatable roll-front morphology, from one drilling fence line to another. Mineralization must be continuous between drill fences. The hydrogeological properties of the hosting horizon are studied by aquifer pump tests. The amenability of mineralization to ISR mining is demonstrated by laboratory leach tests. Mineralization is characterized by sufficient confidence in geological interpretation to support detailed wellfield planning and development with no or very little changes expected from additional drilling.

Indicated Mineral Resources

Drilling density equivalent to or denser than 50 x 200 feet spacing for mineralized zones characterized by a uniform and easily correlatable roll-front morphology, from one drilling fence line to another. Mineralization must be continuous between drill fences. The hydrogeological properties of the hosting horizon are studied by aquifer pump tests. The amenability of mineralization to ISR mining is demonstrated by laboratory leach tests. Mineralization is characterized by sufficient confidence in geological interpretation to support wellfield planning and development with some changes expected from additional drilling.

Inferred Mineral Resources

Drilling density equivalent to about 800 feet spacing for mineralized zones characterized by less uniformity and not easily correlatable roll-front morphology, from one drilling fence line to another. Mineralization must be continuous between drill fences but there is less confidence in geologic interpretation. The hydrogeological properties of the hosting horizon are studied by aquifer pump tests. The amenability of mineralization to ISR mining is demonstrated by laboratory leach tests. Mineralization is characterized by insufficient confidence in geological interpretation to support wellfield planning and development due to significant changes expected from additional drilling.

Mineral Resource Estimates

A summary of the Project’s mineral resource estimates is provided in the table below.

Summary of Uranium Mineral Resources at the Alta Mesa ISR Project as of December 31, 2024

(Based on a metal price of $83.43/lb. U 3 O 8)

Notes:

1 enCore reports mineral reserves and mineral resources separately. Reported mineral resources do not include mineral reserves.

2 The geological model used is based on geological interpretations on section and plan derived from surface drill hole information.

3 Mineral resources have been estimated using a minimum grade-thickness cut-off of 0.30 ft% U 3 O 8.

4 Mineral resources are estimated based on the use of ISR for mineral extraction.

5 Inferred mineral resources are estimated with a level of sampling sufficient to determine geological continuity but less confidence in grade and geological interpretation such that inferred resources cannot be converted to mineral reserves.

Mining Method

enCore is mining uranium using ISR. An alkaline leach system of carbon dioxide and oxygen is used as the extracting solution. Bicarbonate, resulting from the addition of carbon dioxide to the extracting solution, is the complexing agent. Oxygen is added to oxidize the uranium to a soluble +6 valence state.

ISR has been successfully used for over five decades in the United States as well as in other countries such as Kazakhstan and Australia. ISR mining was developed independently in the 1970s in the former USSR and U.S. for extracting uranium from sandstone hosted uranium deposits that were not suitable for open pit or underground mining. Many sandstones host deposits that are amenable to ISR, which is now a well-established mining method. As discussed in Section 5.0, Alta Mesa is an operating mine that was in production from 2005 to 2013, with resumption of production in 2024, demonstrates that uranium can be mobilized and recovered with an oxygenated carbonate lixiviant.

Mine Designs and Plans

Production and injection wells are installed to facilitate the in-situ mining process. Injection wells are used to inject chemically fortified natural groundwater into the ore body liberating uranium. Production wells are used to recover the uranium rich waters by pumping the production fluid to the surface. Wells are completed in only one mineralized zone at a time and in a manner that focuses fluid flow across the deposit.

The fundamental production unit for design and production planning or scheduling is the pattern. A pattern is comprised of a production well and some number of injection wells.

Typical well patterns used are alternating single line drive, staggered line drive and five-spot. Pattern configuration is determined by the size and shape of the deposit, hydrogeological properties of the uranium bearing formation and mining economics.

Patterns are grouped into production units referred to as wellfields or modules. Modules form a practical means for design, development and production, where groups of 10-15 production wells and their associated injections wells are designed, constructed and operated, serving as the fundamental operating unit for distribution of the alkaline leach system.

To further facilitate planning, wellfields are grouped into PAAs. PAAs represent a collection of wellfields for which baseline data, monitoring requirements, and restoration criteria have been established. This data is included in the Production Area Authorization Application that is submitted to the TCEQ for approval prior to injection into a new mine unit.

An economic wellfield must cover the construction costs associated with well installation, connection of wells to piping that conveys the leach system between wellfields and the processing plant, and wellfield and plant operating costs.

To establish baseline data, monitoring requirements and restoration criteria, baseline production zone and non-production zone monitor wells are installed for each mine unit.

Baseline monitor wells are completed in the wellfield within the deposit hosting sandstone to establish baseline water restoration criteria of the wellfield production zone. Perimeter monitor wells are installed in a ring around the entire wellfield. This ring is setback approximately 400 feet from the patterns and 400 feet apart. This monitor well ring will be used to ensure mining fluids are contained within the wellfield.

Monitor wells will also be completed in non-production zone hydro-stratigraphic units above (overlying) and, if required below (underlying), the production zone to monitor the potential for vertical lixiviant migration. These monitor wells will be completed in the first overlying aquifer. In the event a second overlying aquifer is identified, the thickness and integrity of the intervening aquitard will be evaluated to determine if the second aquifer will require monitoring.

Each injection and production well will be connected within a network of polyethylene pipe to an injection or production manifold. Manifolds are fitted with meters, valves, and pressure gauges to measure and regulate flow to and from the wells. The manifolds are connected to larger trunk line pipes that convey fluids to and from the wellfield and CPP.

Since the climate is mild with winter temperatures rarely below freezing for prolonged periods of time, the production and injection pipelines and manifolds are not required to be buried below the ground. In colder climates ISR wellfields also need structures to house the manifolds and associated valves and instrumentation to prevent them from freezing. This expense is not necessary in south Texas. The ability to use surface piping reduces wellfield capital costs and reclamation costs.

Uranium is produced in wellfields by the dissolution of water-soluble uranium minerals from the deposit using a lixiviant at near neutral pH ranges. The lixiviant contains dissolved oxygen and carbon dioxide. The addition of carbon dioxide increases the bicarbonate level; however, the natural bicarbonate in the ground is generally high enough that additional CO 2 is not needed. The oxygen oxidizes the uranium, which is then complexed with the bicarbonate. The uranium-rich solution is then pumped from the production wells to the CPP for uranium concentration with ion exchange (IX) resin. A slightly greater volume of water is recovered from the hydro-stratigraphic unit than is injected, referred to as “bleed”, to create an inward flow gradient towards the wellfields. Thus, overall production flow rates will always be slightly greater than overall injection rates. This bleed solution is disposed, as permitted, via injection into Class I DDW’s.

Production Rates and Expected Mine Life

Flow rate and head grades will be maintained to achieve annual production rate. New wellfields will be developed and commissioned at a rate to ensure adequate head grades are maintained as operating wellfields are depleted to achieve production objectives.

Production rate was calculated using a production model as shown below. The production model was applied to mineral resources using the following parameters:

•Average recovery well flow rate of 45 gpm

•Maximum CPP flow rate of 7,500 gpm

•Average feed grade of 60 ppm U 3 O 8

•80% mineral recovery in 32 months

For 2024, the Alta Mesa the Project’s wellfield solution head grades peaked at approximately 140 mg/L U 3 O 8 and averaged approximately 65 mg/L U 3 O 8.

Production Forecast Model

Mine Construction

In February 2023, enCore completed the acquisition of the Project from Energy Fuels, Inc establishing ownership of a second south Texas uranium processing plant. In March, the company announced its formal decision to resume commercial operations in early 2024 and commenced pre-construction and drilling activities preparing staging areas, drill pads and identification of equipment requiring maintenance or repair.

From March 2023 to Q2 2024, enCore renovated the CPP with equipment upgrades and refurbishments to the IX, elution and yellowcake processing circuits. During this timeframe, enCore also advanced mine development. The Project includes existing and new near-term production areas such as PAA-6 and PAA-7, which are fully permitted. Development is progressing in PAA-7, and brownfield drilling is being conducted in PAA-8, PAA-9 and PAA-10.

In PAA-7, 943 holes were drilled of which 224 were deemed suitable for further development into injection and production wells. In PAAs 8 through 10, 161 holes were drilled targeting mineralization in multiple horizons.

enCore commenced mining operations in PAA-7 in June 2024 and plans to ramp up production with a progressive process to advance and continually increase output. The plant has an operating flow capacity of 7,500 gpm. A new wellfield will be brought online on a near quarterly basis until the CPP name plate flow rate is achieved. The CPP has a design capacity of 2.0 million pounds U 3 O 8 per year for IX elution, precipitation, slurry filtration, drying and packaging. The CPP has an IX uranium recovery capacity of 1.5 million pounds U 3 O 8 per year through three separate IX circuits.

Flow rate and head grades will be maintained to achieve annual production rate. New wellfields will be developed and commissioned at a rate to ensure adequate head grades are maintained as operating wellfields are depleted to achieve production objectives.

Texas does not set a license capacity. It is determined by MILDOS estimates that were done in 2008, assuming 2 million pounds per year. We can change that without needing an amendments. The IX circuits have demonstrated the ability to capture and elute about 500,000 pounds per year.

Alta Mesa Mine

Processing and Recovery

The CPP collects and processes uranium. The CPP processing circuits consists of IX, elution, precipitation, dewatering, drying and packaging. Part of enCore’s operational plan is to mine uranium from satellite properties processing product at one of the company’s CPPs.

In February 2024, enCore submitted the License R05360 Renewal and Amendment Application to the TCEQ requesting amendment to the existing license activities authorization to construct and operate remote ion exchange (RIX) facilities within the existing license area and to process resin for uranium extraction that is generated from other sources. RIX are self-contained stand-alone processing facilities with an IX circuit and a resin transfer system. RIX is the same uranium recovery process as IX in the CPP. Once uranium is recovered, loaded resin will be transferred via the resin transfer system and trucked to the CPP.

Ion Exchange

Uranium is recovered from pregnant lixiviant solution using the IX circuit. The IX circuit consists of three independent parallel process streams of four up-flow columns each that are operated in series. Each IX circuit has a 2,500 gallons per minute operational capacity for a total IX operational capacity of 7,500 gallons per minute. Each IX circuit has four (4) up flow IX columns each containing 500 cubic foot batch of anionic ion exchange resin to capture uranium from the pregnant lixiviant. The circuit does have a secondary downflow IX processing circuit downstream of the up-flow circuits to capture any residual uranium from the up-flow columns effluent. Production and Injection booster pumps are located upstream and downstream of the trains, respectively.

Vessels are designed to provide optimum contact time between pregnant lixiviant and IX resin. An interior stainless-steel piping manifold system distributes lixiviant evenly across the resin. The dissolved uranium in the pregnant lixiviant is chemically adsorbed onto the ion exchange resin. The resultant barren lixiviant exiting the vessels contains less than 2 ppm of uranium and is returned to the wellfield where oxygen and carbon dioxide are added prior to reinjection.

Bleed

A bleed is drawn from the injection stream prior to reinjection into the wellfield to maintain control of hydraulic conditions in the production zone. Bleed water is directed into the liquid waste stream and disposed of.

Elution Circuit

Loaded resin in the up-flow columns is eluted in-situ stripping uranium from the resin with a brine solution and forming a uranium rich eluate. The uranium rich eluate overflows from the up-flow columns and is then pumped to eluant tanks.

Precipitation Circuit

Uranium rich eluate is transferred to a precipitation circuit. Sulfuric acid is added to the uranium rich eluate lowering the pH to the range of 2 to 3 where the uranyl carbonate breaks down, liberating carbon dioxide and leaving free uranyl ions. Next, sodium hydroxide (caustic soda) is added to raise the pH to the range of 4 to 5. After this pH adjustment, hydrogen peroxide is added in a batch process to form an insoluble uranyl peroxide (UO 2 O 2. H 2 O) compound. After precipitation, the pH is raised to approximately 7 and the uranium precipitated slurry is pumped to a filter press. The barren solution is disposed of via a deep injection well.

Filtering, Drying and Packaging

After precipitation, yellowcake is removed for washing, filtering, drying and product packaging in a separate building at the CPP. The yellowcake from the filter press is washed to remove excess chlorides and other soluble contaminants. The filter cake is transferred via progressive cavity pump to a yellowcake hopper and then to the yellowcake dryer.

The CPP is equipped with two rotary low temperature vacuum dryers. The yellowcake is dried at temperature ranging from approximately 176 to 212 °F. The dryer is an enclosed unit and heated by circulating propane heated oil through an external jacket. Drying time per batch typically ranges between 9 to 14 hours. The off gases generated during the drying cycle, which are primarily water vapor, are filtered through a bag house to remove entrained particulates and then condensed. Compared to conventional high temperature drying by multi-hearth systems, this dryer has no significant airborne particulate emissions.

The dried yellowcake is packaged into 55-gallon drums for storage before transport by truck to a conversion facility.

The yellowcake drying and packaging stations are segregated within the processing plant for worker safety. Dust abatement and filtration equipment is deployed in this area of the facility. Filled yellowcake drums are stored on a curbed concrete pad until transport.

Water Balance

The water balance is based on a production maximum flow rate of 7,500 gpm and a 1% bleed to maintain hydraulic control of the mine units. In the CPP water will be used for make-up and washdown at a rate of approximately 12 gpm from a local fresh water supply well. Restoration activities will include 250 gpm feed to an RO, with 175 gpm returned to the wellfield and 75 gpm to a liquid effluent management system that includes the use of six above ground 44,000-gallon storage tanks and water injection into permitted Class I injection wells.

Liquid Waste Disposal

The Project uses deep disposal wells for disposal of liquid waste generated during production and restoration. Alta Mesa has two disposal wells that are permitted under TCEQ’s Underground Injection Control Class I permit program.

Solid Waste Disposal

Waste classified as non-contaminated (non-hazardous, non-radiological) will be disposed of in the nearest permitted sanitary waste disposal facility. Waste classified as hazardous (non-radiological) will be segregated and disposed of at the nearest permitted hazardous waste facility. Radiologically contaminated solid wastes that cannot be decontaminated, are classified as 11.e.(2) byproduct material. This waste will be packaged and stored on-site temporarily and periodically shipped to a licensed 11.e.(2) byproduct waste facility or a licensed mill tailings facility.

The Alta Mesa Project economic analysis illustrates a cash flow forecast on an annual basis using Mineral Resources and an annual extraction schedule for the LOM NPV. A summary of taxes, royalties, and other interests, as applicable to extraction and revenue are also discussed, as well as the impact of significant parameters such as uranium sales price, and capital and operating costs to economic sensitivity. The analysis assumes no escalation, no debt, no debt interest, no capital repayment and no state income tax since Texas does not impose a corporate income tax.

enCore is using a uranium sales price ranging from $82.00 to $89.00 with an average sales price of $83.43.

The economic analysis assumes that 80% of the mineral resources and mineral reserves are recoverable. The pre-tax net cash flow incorporates estimated sales revenue from recoverable uranium, less costs for surface and mineral royalties, property tax in the form of ad valorem, plant and wellfield operations, product transaction, administrative and technical support, D&D, and restoration. The after-tax analysis includes the above information plus depreciated plant and wellfield capital costs, to estimate federal income tax.

Less federal tax, the Projects cash flow is estimated at $83.8 million or $42.89 per pound U 3 O 8. Using an 8% discount rate, the Projects NPV is $63.4 M. The Projects after tax cash flow is estimated at $64.9 M for a cost per pound U 3 O 8 of $52.03. Using an 8.0% discount rate, the Project’s NPV is $51.6 million.

Economic Analysis Forecast by Year with Exclusion of Federal Income Tax

Taxes, Royalties and Other Interests

Federal Income Tax

Total federal income tax for LOM is estimated at $18.9 M for a cost per pound U 3 O 8 of $9.13. Federal income tax estimates do account for depreciation of plant and wellfield capital costs.

State Income Tax

The state of Texas does not impose a corporate income tax.

Production Taxes

Production taxes in Texas include property tax in the form of ad valorem tax. The Projects personal property (i.e., uranium facilities, buildings, machinery and equipment) are subject to property tax by the following taxing jurisdictions: Brooks County, Brooks County Roads & Bridges, Brooks County Independent School District, Brooks County Farm to Market & Flood Control Fund and Brush Country Groundwater Conservation District.

In 2024, Alta Mesa personal property was valued at $1.4 million and subject to the following tax rates resulted in 2024, property tax of $0.03 million.

Royalties

Royalties are assessed on gross proceeds. The project is subject to a cumulative 3.0% surface and mineral royalty at an average LOM sales price of $83.43 per lb. U 3 O 8 for $5.4 M or $2.61 per pound.

NPV v. Uranium Price

This analysis is based on a variable commodity price per pound of U 3 O 8 and the cash flow results. The Project is most sensitive to changes in the price of uranium. A $5.0 change in the price of uranium can have an impact to the NPV of more than $8.0 million at a discount rate of 8%.

Project economics are sensitive to changes in price of uranium, capital and operating costs. At an average sales price of $83.43 and discount rate of 8%, a $5.0 change in the price of uranium can have an impact to the NPV of more than $8.0 million. Whereas a 5% change in operating and capital costs can have an impact to the NPV of approximately $2.0 and $1.0 million, respectively.

For 2025, the Company intends to conduct the following work at the Alta Mesa Project:

•Continue uranium extraction in the Phase 1 area of PAA 7.

•Start uranium extraction and expand wellfield capacity for Phase 2 to feed the 2nd IX circuit at the Alta Mesa CPP (West Plant)

•Install monitor wells for PAA 8.

•Conduct exploration drilling for the LC South and the D sand inferred resource areas.

Mesteña Grande Uranium Project, Brooks and Jim Hogg Cos, Texas

The Mesteña Grande Project is an ISR uranium project located in south Texas. The Project lies within the southern part of the South Texas Uranium Province. Uranium deposits in the South Texas Uranium Province extend from Starr County at the international border with Mexico northeastward through Zapata, Jim Hogg, Brooks, Webb, Duval, Kleberg, McMullen, Live Oak, Bee, Atascosa, Karnes, Wilson, Goliad, and Gonzales counties.

Part of enCore’s operational plan is to mine uranium from satellite properties processing IX resin at one of the company’s CPPs. At the Alta Mesa Project, enCore has an active mine and CPP. Portions of the Project are located adjacent to the south and to the north of the Alta Mesa Project, with other parts located as much as 50 miles northwest of the CPP. enCore plans to develop and advance the Project and process uranium at Alta Mesa.

The following technical and scientific description of the Mesteña Grande Project is based in part on the report titled “Mesteña Grande Uranium Project, Brooks and Jim Hogg Counties, Texas, USA, S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary” dated February 19, 2025, and effective December 31, 2024, and prepared by SOLA Project Services, LLC, a Qualified Person and independent of the Company (the “Mesteña Grande Technical Report Summary”). The Mesteña Grande Technical Report Summary was prepared in accordance with S-K 1300. The Mesteña Grande Project does not have known “Mineral Reserves” and is therefore considered under SEC S-K 1300 definitions to be an Exploration Stage Property.

The Mesteña Grande Project properties include multiple project areas, including Mesteña Grande North (MGN), Mesteña Grande Central (MGC), Mesteña Grande South (MGS) Mesteña Grande Alta Vista (MGAV), Mesteña Grande El Sordo (MGES), Mesteña Grande North Alta Mesa (MGNAM) and Mesteña Grande South Alta Mesa (MGSAM) project areas. The properties collectively total 194,119 acres. The northwest corner of the Project is adjacent to and extends for about 36 miles north-northwest of the Alta Mesa CPP from Brooks County into Jim Hogg County, Texas. The project extents cover approximately 30 miles in an east-west direction, and approximately 35 miles in a north-south direction.

Mineral ownership in Texas is private estate. Private title to all land in Texas emanates from a grant by the sovereign of the soil (successively, Spain, Mexico, the Republic of Texas, and the state of Texas). By a provision of the Texas Constitution, the state released to the owner of the soil all mines and mineral substances therein. Under the Relinquishment Act of 1919, as subsequently amended, the surface owner is made the agent of the state for the leasing of such lands, and both the surface owner and the state receive a fractional interest in the proceeds of the leasing and production of minerals.

The Jones Ranch holdings include private surface and mineral rights for oil and gas and other minerals, including uranium.

Uranium recovered at the Mesteña Grande Project will be processed at the Alta Mesa CPP under the current Uranium Solution Mining Lease, as described above under the property description for the Alta Mesa Project.

The Project is accessible year-round from two primary locations: 1) a ranch gate located approximately 5 miles east of Hebbronville, Texas along State Highway 285 (paved); and 2) a ranch gate located approximately 19 miles south of Hebbronville along Farm to Market Road 1017 (paved), as well as from the adjacent the Alta Mesa Project. The Alta Mesa Project location is approximately 11 miles west of the intersection of US Highway 281 (paved) and North Farm to Market Road 755 (paved), 22 miles south of Falfurrias, Texas.

The Project is well supported by nearby towns and services. Larger cities, Corpus Christi, McAllen and Laredo, are each about 100 miles or less from the site and are ready sources of materials and equipment. Major power lines are located across the Project and are accessed for electrical service. The road system is comprehensive and well maintained and used for shipment of materials and equipment.

Human resources are employed from nearby population centers. Numerous local communities provide sources for labor, housing, offices and basic supplies. enCore utilizes local resources when and where possible supporting the local economy.

The site has uranium drill holes and related infrastructure (e.g., small mud pits temporarily constructed to facilitate drill operations and water supply ponds), and trucks and other equipment. Because of the Project’s proximity to Alta Mesa, Alta Mesa does serve as a base of operation for, administration, shop and warehouse, environmental support, and logging services.

Water supply for the Project is from established and permitted local wells. Solid waste is disposed off-site at licensed disposal facilities. No tailings or other related waste disposal facilities are needed.

The Texas Gulf Coast comprises the western flank of the Gulf of Mexico sedimentary basin with active deposition throughout the mid to late Mesozoic Era and into the Cenozoic Era. Deposition is dominated by clastic sediments transported from continental highlands into the Gulf of Mexico basin for a period exceeding 50 million years. These sediments were transported to the coast by rivers and deposited in a variety of fluvial to marine depositional environments.

Structurally the Texas Gulf Coast consists of three regions, the Rio Grande Embayment, the San Marcos Arch, and the Houston Embayment. Other structural features found in the Texas Gulf Coast include the Stuart City and Sligo Shelf Margins, and the Wilcox, Frio, and Vicksburg Fault Zones.

The San Marcos Arch is a broad gently sloping positive structural feature extending from the Llano Uplift in Central Texas to the Gulf Coast during the Ouachita Orogeny. The Rio Grande and Houston Embayment’s are thought to have resulted from subsidence induced by high rates of sedimentation (Dodge and Posey, 1981).

The Tertiary sediments deposited in the Rio Grande and Houston Embayment’s are characterized by deltaic sands and shales. High rates of clastic deposition resulted in the formation of normal listric growth faults. Constant sediment loading and coastal subsidence into the basin led to the accumulation of over 50,000 feet of Cenozoic strata into the Gulf Coast Basin.

Jurassic salt and younger shale diapirs are also present in the subsurface along the Gulf Coastal Plain. The displacement of shale and salt is generated by the accumulation of an excessive thickness of overburden sediment causing plastic flow of the more ductile sediments. The resulting structures may cause local faulting and/or dip reversal along with the formation of domes and anticlinal structures.

Within the South Texas Uranium Province, uranium mineralization occurs primarily in the Cenozoic sediments of the Miocene/Pliocene Goliad Formation, Miocene Oakville Formation, Oligocene/Miocene Catahoula Formation, and the Eocene Jackson Group. Project deposits occur in the Goliad Formation which is a major fluvial system that represents a low to moderate energy environment composed of isolated mixed-load channel-fill sands separated by thick inter-channel clays.

Uranium deposits are roll-fronts, typical to others found in the South Texas Uranium Province. Deposit genesis is related to the presence of highly reduced groundwater systems generated from the biogenic decomposition of natural gas and/or hydrogen sulfide seepage derived from deeper formations through localized faulting. At Alta Mesa, uranium bearing groundwater moved from northwest to southeast within the Goliad Formation and encountered reduction zones associated with the Vicksburg fault system and the Alta Mesa salt dome and associated faulting which allowed the introduction of organics and other fluids upward through faults and fractures. At Mesteña Grande, uranium mineralization occurs in numerous locations within the Goliad, Oakville, and Catahoula Formations and is formed in much the same way as at Alta Mesa. Uranium bearing groundwater within each of these formations encountered reduction within the groundwater associated with major growth fault systems within the region.

The deposits at Mesteña Grande are characterized by vertically stacked roll-fronts controlled by stratigraphic heterogeneity, host lithology, permeability, reductant type and concentration, and groundwater geochemistry. Individual known roll-fronts may be few tens of feet wide, 2 to 10 feet thick, and often thousands of feet long. Collectively, roll-fronts are inferred to result in an overall deposit that is up to a few hundred feet wide, 50 to 75 feet thick and continuous for miles in length

History

In 1999, Mesteña Uranium LLC was formed by the landowners. Mesteña completed most of the drilling on the adjacent Alta Mesa project and began construction of the Alta Mesa ISR facility in 2004. Production began in the fourth quarter of 2005 and Mesteña operated the facility through February 2013. Due to a downturn in the uranium market, in 2013 the project was put into care and maintenance standby.

Mesteña Uranium, LLC acquired the Mesteña Grande projects in 2006 as an exploration option to provide additional uranium feed to the Alta Mesa plant.

On June 17, 2016, Energy Fuels acquired the Project, including both the Alta Mesa and Mesteña Grande projects. In November 2022, enCore entered into a Membership Interest Purchase Agreement dated November 14, 2022, with EFR White Canyon Corp., a subsidiary of Energy Fuels, to acquire four limited liability companies that together hold 100% of the Project. Acquisition cost were $120 million USD payable in a combination of cash and vendor take-back convertible note secured against the assets.

In February, the Company entered a joint venture with Boss Energy, Ltd. to develop and advance the Project. enCore retains ownership of 70% of the project and Boss Energy holds 30%. See the discussion above under the description of the Alta Mesa Project for more information regarding the joint venture with Boss.

Licensing and Permitting

The Project is not permitted or licensed to operate with the exception of the permits necessary for exploration.

The most significant permits and licenses that will be required to operate the Project are (1) the TCEQ Source and Byproduct Materials License, (2) the Mine Area Permit issued by TCEQ and (3) Production Area Authorizations (UIC Class III) that are issued at various times through LOM, deep injection non-hazardous disposal wells (V wells) issued by TCEQ, and an USEPA aquifer exemption.

The timing to prepare the applications and for agency review and approval is estimated to be 3 to 4 years. The length of time is not entirely in enCore’s control. The TCEQ’s ability to process enCore’s applications is dependent on the workload of the agency. With the renewed interest in uranium recovery, the application process timeline could be longer due to additional requests for ISR permits and licenses.

The costs to obtain these licenses and permits is estimated to be $2.87 million. These costs include environmental baseline sampling of the air, water (surface and subsurface), soils, and vegetation in the vicinity of the proposed activities. The background radionuclide concentrations in the environment will also be determined. For the UIC Class III permits monitor wells will be installed and sampled to establish baseline water quality prior to mining.

Quality Assurance and Quality Control at the Mesteña Grande Project are identical to those for the adjacent Alta Mesa Project and are disclosed above under the description of the Alta Mesa Project.

Since enCore’s acquisition of the Mesteña Grande Project, there has been no sampling of natural materials for the assessment of geologic or hydrologic conditions that require preparation, analysis and security to submit samples to a laboratory; however, enCore does have sample preparation, methods of analysis, and sample and data security procedures that meet acceptable industry standards.

With respect to historical sample preparation, analysis and security of other previous operators, this information was not available and cannot be confirmed.

It is the opinion of the QP for the Mesteña Grande Technical Report Summary that there are no known sampling preparation, analysis and security factors that when used will materially affect the accuracy and reliability of results.

Data verification procedures at the Mesteña Grande Project are identical to those for the adjacent Alta Mesa Project and are disclosed above under the description of the Alta Mesa Project.

Based on data quality, efforts of others, and the QP’s review, it is the opinion of the QP for the Mesteña Grande Technical Report Summary that there are no known data factors that will materially affect the accuracy and reliability of results.

Key assumptions for the following Mineral Resource estimates are as follows:

•Price forecast, production costs and an average wellfield recovery of 60% that accounts for dilution from mining hydrologic efficiency and metallurgical recovery, were used to estimate mineral resources,

•Average plant recovery of 98 %; and

•Average LOM uranium price of $85.48 based on TradeTech’s Uranium Market Study 2023: Issue 4.

Key parameters for the following Mineral Resource estimates are as follows:

•The mineral resources estimates are based on data collected from drillholes,

•Grades (% U 3 O 8) were obtained from gamma radiometric probing of drillholes and checked against assay results to account for disequilibrium,

•Average density of 17.0 cubic feet per ton was used, based on historical sample measurements,

•Minimum GT (Grade x Thickness) cut-off per hole per mineralized interval for grade thickness contour modeling is 0.30ft % U 3 O 8,

•Mineralized interval with GT values below the 0.30ft %U 3 O 8 GT cut-off is used for model definition but are not included within the mineral resource estimation,

•Average annual production rate of approximately 1.2 pounds,

•Average annual estimated operating costs of $25.49 per pound ,

•Average annual estimated wellfield development costs of $11.33 per pound; and,

•Average annual restoration and reclamation costs of $2.94 per pound.

Key Methods for the following Minderal Resources estimates are as follows:

• Geological interpretation of the orebody was done on section and plan from surface drill hole information,

• The orebody was modeled creating roll-front outlines for each of the deposit’s individual mineralized zones; and,

• Geological modeling and mining applications used was ArcGIS Pro.

Resource Classification

Mineral resources are disclosed as required by United States Code of Federal Regulations, Title 17, Chapter II, Part 229, §229.1303 and §229.1304, and are based upon and accurately reflect information and supporting documentation prepared by the QP, as defined in §229.1300.

The following classification criteria for each mineral resource category are applied for alignment with §229.1300 definitions of Measured, Indicated and Inferred mineral resources.

Measured Mineral Resources

Drilling is denser than 50x100 feet spacing for mineralized zones characterized by a uniform and easily correlatable roll-front morphology, from one drilling fence line to another. Mineralization must be continuous between drill fences. The hydrogeological properties of the hosting horizon are studied by aquifer pump tests. The amenability of mineralization to ISR mining is demonstrated by laboratory leach tests. Mineralization is characterized by sufficient confidence in geological interpretation to support detailed wellfield planning and development with no or very little changes expected from additional drilling.

Indicated Mineral Resources

Drilling density equivalent to or denser than 200x400 feet spacing for mineralized zones characterized by a uniform and easily correlatable roll-front morphology, from one drilling fence line to another. Mineralization must be continuous between drill fences. The hydrogeological properties of the hosting horizon are studied by aquifer pump tests. The amenability of mineralization to ISR mining is demonstrated by laboratory leach tests. Mineralization is characterized by sufficient confidence in geological interpretation to support wellfield planning and development with some changes expected from additional drilling.

Inferred Mineral Resources

Drilling density equivalent to about 800 feet spacing for mineralized zones characterized by less uniformity and not easily correlatable roll-front morphology, from one drilling fence line to another. Mineralization must be continuous between drill fences but there is less confidence in geologic interpretation. The hydrogeological properties of the hosting horizon are studied by aquifer pump tests. The amenability of mineralization to ISR mining is demonstrated by laboratory leach tests. Mineralization is characterized by insufficient confidence in geological interpretation to support wellfield planning and development due to significant changes expected from additional drilling.

Mineral Resource Estimates

Summary of Uranium Mineral Resources at the Mesteña Grande Uranium Project as of December 31, 2024.

Based on a metal price of $85.48/lb. U3O8

Notes:

1. enCore reports mineral reserves and mineral resources separately. Reported mineral resources do not include mineral reserves.

2. The geological model used is based on geological interpretations on section and plan derived from surface drillhole information.

3. Mineral resources have been estimated using a minimum grade-thickness cut-off of 0.30 ft% U 3 O 8.

4. Mineral resources are estimated based on the use of ISR for mineral extraction.

5. Inferred mineral resources are estimated with a level of sampling sufficient to determine geological continuity but less confidence in grade and geological interpretation such that inferred resources cannot be converted to mineral reserves.

enCore’s operational plan is to mine uranium from satellite properties processing product at one of the company’s CPPs. At the Alta Mesa Project, enCore operates an active mine and CPP and the Project is located about 30 miles northwest of the CPP. enCore plans to develop and advance the Project and process the RIX resin at Alta Mesa.

enCore plans to recover uranium using RIX. RIX are self-contained stand-alone processing facilities with an IX circuit and a resin transfer system. The process flow of the RIX is the same as the IX circuit in the CPP. Once uranium is recovered at the RIX, the loaded resin will be transferred via the resin transfer system to a resin trailer and trucked to the CPP for elution, precipitation, drying, and packaging. Figures 14.1 and 14.2 are the P&ID and general arrangement drawings for a modular 1,000 gpm RIX design that can be expanded by adding 1,000 gpm RIX modules. The RIXs at the Mesteña Grande will be larger to accommodate an increased flowrate. Infrastructure at the Alta Mesa Project will allow for processing of all RIX resin at the Alta Mesa CPP.

For a description of mining method, mine design and plans and processing at Alta Mesa, see the discussion above for the Alta Mesa Project.

The Company does not consider the economic analysis in the Mesteña Grande Technical Report Summary to be material to the Company’s operations at this time or to the Company’s planned work for the Project in 2025.

For 2025, the Company intends to continue to conduct exploration drilling.

Dewey-Burdock Project, Fall River and Custer Counties, South Dakota

The Dewey Burdock Project is an Exploration Stage Property located in southwest South Dakota and forms part of the northwestern extension of the Edgemont Uranium Mining District (the “Dewey Burdock Project”). The Dewey Burdock Project includes federal claims, private mineral rights and private surface rights controlling the entire area within the licensed project permit boundary as well as surrounding areas. The Company currently controls approximately 16,962 acres of net mineral rights and 12,613 acres of surface rights. The net result of the royalty and rental payments results in a cumulative 4.85% surface and mineral royalty.

The following technical and scientific description of the Dewey-Burdock Project is based in part on the report titled “Dewey Burdock Project, South Dakota, USA, S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary” dated January 6, 2025, and effective October 8, 2024, and prepared by SOLA Project Services, LLC, a Qualified Person and independent of the Company (the “Dewey Burdock Technical Report Summary”). The Dewey Burdock Technical Report Summary was prepared in accordance with S-K 1300. The Dewey Burdock Project does not have known “Mineral Reserves” and is therefore considered under SEC S-K 1300 definitions to be an Exploration Stage Property.

The Project is in southwest South Dakota and forms part of the northwestern extension of the Edgemont Uranium Mining District. The project area is in Townships 6 and 7 South, Range 1 East, of the Black Hills Prime Meridian approximately 13 miles north-northwest of Edgemont. The county line dividing Custer and Fall River counties, South Dakota, lies at the confluence of Townships 6 and 7 South. The company holds approximately 16,962 acres of mineral rights in the area. The permitted area encompasses approximately 10,580 acres of mostly private land and 240 acres under the control of the BLM.

Mineral titles are comprised of federal claims, private minerals and private surface rights within the permit boundary and surrounding areas. Access and mineral rights are currently held by a combination of private surface use agreements, access and mining lease agreements, purchase agreements and federal mineral claims. The Company currently holds 16,962 mineral acres with an annual cost of $401,307. These royalties for fee minerals range from 2% to 4% of gross sales.

The nearest population center to the Project is Edgemont, South Dakota (population 900) located on US Highway 18, 14 miles east from the Wyoming-South Dakota state line. Fall River County Road 6463 extends northwestward from Edgemont to the abandoned community of Burdock located in the southern portion of the Project, about 16 miles from Edgemont. This road is two-lane and all-weather gravel and continues north from Burdock to the Fall River-Custer County line where it becomes Custer County Road 769. The road closely follows the tracks of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railways “BNSF” between Edgemont and Newcastle, Wyoming. Dewey is about 2 miles from the northwest corner of the Project.

An unnamed unimproved public access road into the Black Hills National Forest intersects Fall River County Road 6463 4.3 miles southeast of Burdock and extends northward about 4 miles, allowing access to the east side of the Project. About 0.9 miles northwest from Burdock, an unimproved public access road to the west from Fall River County Road 6463 allows access to the western portion of the Project. Private ranch roads intersecting Fall River County Road 6463 and Custer County Road 769 allow access to all other portions of the Project.

Project access is granted by private surface leases, or public access on federal lands. There are no significant limitations to surface access and usage rights that will affect the company’s ability to conduct exploration, development or operations. Since waste rock and tailing will not be generated there is no requirement for surface mine waste disposal and no requirement for acquiring surface rights for on-site disposal. All 11.e.(2) designated waste will be disposed of at an off-site licensed facility, all non 11.e.(2) waste will be disposed of at a local licensed landfill and liquid wastes will be disposed of using licensed lined impoundments and treated liquid effluents will be injected into a subsurface aquifer using permitted Class V injection wells.

The Project is well supported by nearby towns and services. Major power lines are located across the Project and can be accessed for electrical service. The BNSF railroad crosses the Project, and a major railroad siding occurs at Edgemont and may be used for shipment of materials and equipment, if necessary.

Human resources will be employed from nearby population centers. The local communities of Edgemont, Custer and Hot Springs offer sources for labor, housing, offices and basic supplies. It is enCore’s plan to utilize local resources when and where possible supporting the local economy.

Regarding site infrastructure, leases are written to have maximum flexibility for emplacement of tanks, out buildings, storage areas and pipelines. Most of the topography is relatively low lying and undulating and is conducive to development and operations.

The project site has no mining facilities or buildings. The only site equipment related to mining includes a weather monitoring station, radiological monitoring stations, and monitor wells. All are accessible by dirt roads.

The Edgemont Uranium District is located on the southwest side of the Black Hills Uplift. The Black Hills Uplift is a Laramide Age structure forming a northwest trending dome about 125 miles long x 60 miles wide located in southwestern South Dakota and northeastern Wyoming.

The uplift has deformed all rocks in age from Cambrian to latest Cretaceous. Subsequent erosion has exposed these rock units dipping outward in successive elliptical outcrops surrounding the central Precambrian granite core. Differential weathering has resulted in present day topography of concentric ellipsoids of valleys under softer rocks and ridges held up by more competent units.

The Cretaceous sediments contain uranium roll front deposits in the more porous and permeable sands within the Inyan Kara Group, Lakota and Fall River Formations. The entire Inyan Kara Group consists of basal fluvial sediments grading into near marine sandstones, silts and clays deposited along the ancestral Black Hills Uplift. The sandstones are continuous along the entire western flank of the uplift and dip about 3 degrees to the southwest in the Project area.

The Lakota and Fall River Formations were deposited by northward flowing stream systems. Sediments are characterized by point bar and traverse bar deposition, in meandering fluvial systems. Sand units fine upward with numerous cut-and-fill indicative of channel migration depositing silt and clay upon older sand and additional channel sands overly older silts and clays. The Fall River sands are noticeably thinner with marine sediments superimposed directly on the fluvial sands.

The depositional characteristics of the Lakota and Fall River Formations results in stratigraphic heterogeneity within the sands. Because of this heterogeneity, uranium mineralization occurs as multiple sinuous roll fronts, instead of one large front as is observed in more homogeneous sands. Individual roll fronts are continuous and generally trend along strike but may or may not overlap. Individual roll fronts average about 8 feet thick and 30 feet wide. Where overlapping the deposit can be tens of feet thick and hundreds of feet wide. The strike length of individual roll fronts is variable but often on the order of thousands of feet, where the total strike length of the deposit is miles. Depth to mineralization is variable and ranges from about 180 to 920 feet.

History

Property ownership is often represented by split estate where separate parties own the rights to a surface parcel and the minerals beneath that parcel are owned by a different entity. Historically, when surface real estate was sold, property owners often retained mineral ownership resulting in the above-mentioned spilt estate. Other properties are split estate that were homesteaded under the 1916 Homestead Act granting homesteader surface ownership and the mineral rights were reserved by the U.S. Government.

Uranium minerals were discovered in the vicinity of the Project as early as 1952 and were soon mined by small mining companies using open pit, adit, or shallow underground mines. These mining companies leased the mineral rights from mineral or other claim owners. By the late 1950’s, these deposits came under the control of Susquehanna who had purchased the process mill located in Edgemont. Susquehanna mined most of the known, shallow uranium deposits before closure of the mill in 1972.

During the uranium boom of the 1970s, several companies returned to the Project area, acquired leases and began exploration for deeper deposits. During this period, exploration companies such as Wyoming Mineral, Homestake Mining Company, Federal Resources and Susquehanna discovered deeper uranium roll-front type uranium mineralization. In 1978, TVA purchased Susquehanna’s interest in the Edgemont Uranium Mining District, including the Edgemont mill. TVA made Dewey Burdock its main exploration target and developed enough reserves to warrant mine plans that included an underground mine shaft at both the Burdock and Dewey sites and a new uranium mill that was planned to be located near Burdock. TVA’s plans ended when the price of uranium dropped in the early 1980’s. Eventually, TVA dropped their leases and mining claims.

In 1994, Energy Fuels acquired the properties with an interest in exploration and development of the roll-front deposits. By 2000, Energy Fuels relinquished their land position in the Project. In 2005, Denver Uranium acquired federal claims and private mineral leases covering 11,180 acres and private surface rights covering 11,520 acres in the Project area. This acreage created a contiguous land position of both surface and mineral rights covering most of the discovered and delineated uranium in this district.

On February 21, 2006, Powertech and Denver Uranium entered into a binding Agreement of Purchase and Sale for the Project assets.

On October 29, 2014, Powertech merged with Azarga Resources Limited forming Azarga Uranium. To further consolidate project resources, Azarga entered into a binding property purchase agreement with Energy Metals on November 18, 2005, whereby Azarga acquired a 100% interest in 119 mineral claims covering approximately 2,300 acres.

In 2021, Azarga and enCore entered into an agreement whereby enCore was to purchase Azarga. In September of 2021, the acquisition was finalized with enCore acquiring multiple assets in various stages of development including the advanced stage Dewey Burdock Project.

Licensing and Permitting

The Project is the first uranium ISR facility to submit permit applications in the State of South Dakota. As such, there is inherent risk in a new permitting process, regulatory unfamiliarity with ISR methods, and an untested review period. The amount of time required for regulatory review of all permits associated with the commissioning of an ISR facility is highly variable and directly affects project economics. It is assumed enCore will have all permits necessary to construct in 2027. The timeframe to obtain licenses and permits is expected to be impacted by environmental NGO’s and public contestation of both state and federal permits and licenses. Time for contested cases has been accounted for in the project development schedule.

The Project has drawn attention from environmental Non-Government Organizations “NGO’s”, tribal governments, and individuals in the public. enCore is managing this risk through the State and Federal permitting processes.

Extensive efforts by the regulatory agencies have proceeded to near completion of all major permitting and licensing actions.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission “NRC” license (SUA 1600) was issued in 2014, challenged and appealed, is now in good standing and in timely renewal. The Environmental Protection Agency “EPA” issued the Class III and Class V Area Underground Injection Control “UIC” permits and Aquifer Exemption in 2020. The Class III and Class V UIC permits, and Aquifer Exemption were challenged by the OST and are under appeal.

The Environmental Appeals Board “EAB” heard oral arguments on the Class III and Class V UIC permits in March 2024. In September, the EAB issued its ruling on the Oglala Sioux Tribe “OST” appeal finding:

•The EAB 2023 decision denying OST claims and finding that EPA complied with the National Historic Preservation ACT “NHPA” Section 106,

•Denied OST claims and found that EPA complied with NHPA Section 110,

•Denied OST claims that EPA failed to comply with the National Environmental Protection Act “NEPA”,

•Reserved judgment on other OST claims until EPA expands the administrative record adding documents, considers those additional materials, responds to related comments, takes further appropriate action in reissuing the permit decisions; and,

•The EAB remanded the reserved issues to EPA and specified that any appeals challenging the reissued permit decisions will be limited to the issues reserved in the remand and any modifications to the permits made as a result of the remand.

The EAB decisions regarding EPA compliance with NHPA and NAPA were favorable rulings and consistent with the 2023, D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals rulings where similar appeals were made by the OST against the NRC Source Material License.

Regarding the portion of the ruling remanded back to the EPA Region 8, it is anticipated that this will be an exercise to formally complete the administrative record. Once the administrative record is complete and the permit decision reissued, the EAB will consider any additional materials and respond to related comments. It is also anticipated that the OST will appeal the reissued permit, but the EAB will rule in favor of the EPA and enCore with minimal impact to the overall project schedule. If the EAB does find merit in the appealed reissued permit, there could be an impact to the project schedule.

A ruling on the issuance of the Aquifer Exemption is currently under appeal to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals and will rule upon once the EAB issues final ruling on the Class III and Class V UIC permits.

In South Dakota, enCore is advancing work on the major state permits needed to operate the Project. The State Engineer had previously recommended approval of the Inyan Kara (#2686-2) and Madison (#2685-2) Water Rights. The next step to advance water rights will be the resumption of the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources “DANR” Water Management Board hearings. Efforts are also advancing on the DANR Groundwater Discharge Plan and Large- Scale Permit to Mine approvals. The DANR has recommended conditional approval of the Groundwater Discharge Plan and Large-Scale Permit to Mine, pending completion of all federal challenges of the Class III, Class V and Aquifer Exemption.

Past drilling practices were conducted in accordance with industry standard procedures and the most recent drilling conducted by Powertech, confirmed historical drill results in previously intersected mineralization for thickness, grade and location. The QP of the Dewey Burdock Technical Report Summary is knowledgeable of the 2007 and 2008 work and technical participants who were responsible for the work.

Numerous companies have worked on the Project since the 1950’s and as a result numerous data sets of different vintages exist. enCore has a nearly complete data set for the Project. The QP of this report has reviewed geophysical, core and hydrogeologic technical data. Technical data is stored in digital format for geologic interpretation and modeling. The QP has reviewed geologic interpretations and the resultant models, in the form of cross-sections, isopach and structuralmaps, and uranium roll front deposit models.

The work done by enCore and previous operators to verify historical records does validate Project information. Data are available for over 6,300 drill holes and for approximately 24% of the holes, enCore does not have the actual geophysical logs. The company does have collar location and mineralization data, for all holes, and has used data from surrounding holes to verify data for holes with missing geophysical logs. Considering drilling density, enCore’s approach to dataverification is a reasonable means to confirm data validity; however, not having data in hand does limit knowledge of precise location of down hole information.

Key assumptions for the following Mineral Resource estimates are as follows:

•Uranium price forecast is based on TradeTech’s Uranium Market Study 2023: Issue 4,

•Price forecast, production costs and an 80% metallurgical recovery were used to estimate mineral resources.

Key parameters for the following Mineral Resource estimates are as follows:

•The mineral resources estimates are based on 6,394 drill holes,

•Grades (% U 3 O 8) were obtained from gamma radiometric probing of drill holes and checked against assay results to account for disequilibrium,

•Average density of 16.0 cubic feet per ton was used, based on historical sample measurements,

•Minimum GT (Grade x Thickness) cut-off per hole per mineralized interval for grade thickness contour modeling is 0.20ft % U 3 O 8,

•Mineralized interval with GT values below the 0.20ft %U 3 O 8 GT cut-off is used for model definition but are not included within the mineral resource estimation.

Summary of Uranium Mineral Resources at the Dewey-Burdock ISR Project as of December 31, 2024,

Based on a metal price of $87.05/lb. U3O 8

Notes:

1. enCore reports mineral reserves and mineral resources separately. Reported mineral resources do not include mineral reserves.

2. The geological model used is based on geological interpretations on section and plan derived from surface drill hole information.

3. Mineral resources have been estimated using a minimum grade-thickness cut-off of 0.20 ft% U3O8.

4. Mineral resources are estimated based on the use of ISR for mineral extraction.

5. Inferred mineral resources are estimated with a level of sampling sufficient to determine geological continuity but less confidence in grade and geological interpretation such that inferred resources cannot be converted to mineral reserves.

enCore will mine uranium using ISR. An alkaline leach system of carbon dioxide and oxygen will be used as the extracting solution. Bicarbonate, resulting from the addition of carbon dioxide to the extracting solution, will be used as the complexing agent. Oxygen will be added to oxidize the uranium to a soluble +6 valence state.

ISR has been successfully used for over five decades elsewhere in the United States as well as in other countries such as Kazakhstan and Australia. ISR mining was developed independently in the 1970s in the former USSR and U.S. for extracting uranium from sandstone hosted uranium deposits that were not suitable for open pit or underground mining. Many sandstones host deposits that are amenable to ISR, which is now a well-established mining method. As discussed in Section 13.0, bottle roll tests demonstrate that uranium can be mobilized and recovered with an oxygenate carbonate lixiviant.

A CPP and Satellite will collect and process uranium. The CPP processing circuits will consist of ion exchange, elution, precipitation, de-watering, drying and packaging. The Satellite facility will include an IX circuit and a resin transfer system to facilitate transfer of loaded resin by truck from the Satellite to the CPP. The processing method is an industry standard and proven method that is most suitable for uranium processing and recovery. The method also has low environmental impact and results in a high purity product.

The CPP will be located on the Burdock property and the Satellite will be located at Dewey. The distance between the two facilities is approximately four miles.

The Project economic analysis illustrates a cash flow forecast on an annual basis using mineral resources and an annual production schedule for the Life Of Mine Net Present Value “LOM NPV”, Internal Rate of Return “IRR” and capital payback period. A summary of taxes, royalties, and other interests, as applicable to production and revenue are also discussed, as well as the impact of significant parameters such as uranium sales price, and capital and operating costs to economic sensitivity. The analysis assumes no escalation, no debt, no debt interest, no capital repayment and no state income tax since South Dakota does not impose a corporate income tax.

enCore is using a uranium sales price ranging from $82.00 to $89.00, with an average sales price of $86.34. The economic analysis assumes that 80% of the mineral resources are recoverable. The pre-tax net cash flow incorporates estimated sales revenue from recoverable uranium, less costs for surface and mineral royalties, severance and conservation tax, property tax, plant and wellfield operations, product transaction, administrative support, D&D, restoration, and pre-construction capital. The after-tax analysis includes the above information plus amortized development costs, depreciated plant and wellfield capital costs, existing and forecasted operating losses to estimate federal income tax. Less Federal Tax, the Projects cash flow is estimated at $476.8 million or $52.56 per pound U 3 O 8. Using an 8% discount rate, the Projects NPV is $180.1 million with an IRR of 39%. The Projects after tax cash flow is estimated at $363.4 million for a cost per pound U 3 O 8 of $60.60. Using an 8.0% discount rate, the Projects NPV is $133.6 million and has an IRR of 33%.

Capital Cost Estimates

Estimated capital costs are $264.2 million and includes $2.2 million for pre-construction permitting and licensing costs, $178.0 million for wellfield development, $84.0 million for the CPP, Satellite and associated infrastructure. Labor costs for Wellfield Construction are also included in capital costs totaling $34.1 million.

Capital is heavily weighted from 2027 through 2029 with start-up costs for construction of the Burdock CPP, Dewey Satellite, initial Dewey and Burdock wellfields, and associated infrastructure. Capital costs during this period are estimated at $105.0 million.Operating Costs Estimates.

Operation Costs Estimates

Estimated operating costs for plant and wellfield operations, product transactions, administrative support, decontamination, and decommissioning, and restoration are presented in the table below.

Wellfield operating costs include electricity, replacement wells and associated equipment, header house repairs, rental equipment, rolling stock, equipment fuel and maintenance, and wellfield chemicals.

Plant operating expenses include plant chemicals, electricity, equipment fuel and maintenance, waste management operations, rentals and supplies, RO operations and product handling. Product transaction costs include costs for product shipping and conversion fees. Decontamination & Decommissioning “D&D” and restoration costs include costs for restoration of the wellfields, decontamination and decommissioning of facilities, and reclamation of the site.

Administrative support costs include legal fees, land and mineral acquisitions, regulatory fees, insurance, office supplies and financial assurance. Baseline, environmental monitoring and operational monitoring are included in Closure, Labor and plant operating costs.

Operating costs are estimated to be $23.81 per pound of U 3 O 8. The basis for operating costs is planned development and production sequence and quantity, in conjunction with past production knowledge.

Labor costs associated with wellfield and plant operations, restoration and administration are included in operating costs.

The analysis is based on a variable commodity price per pound of U 3 O 8 and the cash flow results. The Project is most sensitive to changes in the price of uranium. A $5.0 change in the price of uranium can have an impact to the NPV of more than $29.0 million, and impact to the IRR of approximately 5% at a discount rate of 8%.

The Project NPV and IRR are also sensitive to changes in either capital or operating costs. A 5% change in the operating cost can have an impact to the NPV of approximately $6.5 million and the IRR of approximately 1% based on a discount rate of 8% and a uranium price of $86.34 per pound of U 3 O 8. Using the same discount rate and sales price, a 5% change in the capital cost can have an impact to the NPV of approximately $7.1 million and the IRR of approximately 2.3%.

For 2025, the Company plans to complete significant permitting and license milestones, including the 10 year renewal of the Source Material License, SUA-1600, with the U.S. NRC, and the advancement of State approvals of its water rights application, large mine permit, and discharge permit.

Gas Hills Project, Natrona Co. and Fremont Counties, Wyoming

The Company owns a 100% interest in a project (the “Gas Hills Project”) located in the historic Gas Hills uranium district situated 45 miles east of Riverton, Wyoming. The Gas Hills Project consists of approximately 1,280 surface acres and 12,960 net mineral acres of unpatented lode mining claims, a State of Wyoming mineral lease, and private mineral leases, within a brownfield site which has experienced extensive development including mine and mill site production.

The following technical and scientific description of the Gas Hills Project is based in part on the report titled “Preliminary Economic Assessment, Gas Hills Uranium Project, Fremont and Natorna Counties, Wyoming, USA” dated February 5, 2025 and effective December 31, 2024, and prepared by Christopher McDowell, P.G. and Ray Moores, P.E., employed by WWC Engineering, each a Qualified Person and independent of the Company (the “Gas Hills Technical Report Summary”). The Gas Hills Technical Report Summary was prepared in accordance with S-K 1300. The Gas Hills Project does not have known “Mineral Reserves” and is therefore considered under SEC S-K 1300 definitions to be an Exploration Stage Property.

enCore’s 100 percent owned Gas Hills Uranium Project is located approximately 45 miles east of Riverton, Wyoming in the historic Gas Hills Uranium District. The Project and the Gas Hills Uranium District are located along the southern extent of the Wind River Basin, near the northern edge of the Granite Mountains. The company’s Project properties, including the West Unit, Central Unit, Rock Hill, South Black Mountain, and Jeep properties, consist of 628 unpatented lode mining claims, one State of Wyoming mineral lease, one private mineral lease, and one private surface use agreement.

Together the properties encompass approximately 360 surface acres and 12,960 mineral acres. The properties are located at latitude 42.7295°, longitude -107.6596° in Townships 32 and 33 North, Ranges 89, 90 and 91 West, 6th Principal Meridian, Fremont and Natrona Counties, Wyoming.

The U.S. federal government owns the minerals associated with the mining claims, the State of Wyoming owns the minerals and surface associated with the State lease, the South Pass Land and Livestock Company owns the minerals associated with the private mineral lease, and the Philp Sheep Company owns the surface associated with the private surface use agreement. The BLM manages the claims on behalf of the US federal government. The mining claims, State lease, and private mineral lease were assembled by Strathmore Resources (US) Ltd. (Strathmore) between April 2006 and September 2012 and sold to UColo on October 31, 2016. Title has remained in UColo’s name since that date and UColo is a subsidiary of enCore. The surface use agreement was entered into by UColo effective July 7, 2023.

On September 9, 2016, URZ’s subsidiary, UColo, entered into an Asset Purchase and Sale Agreement (APA) with Strathmore, a wholly owned subsidiary of Energy Fuels, whereby URZ purchased all of Strathmore’s interest in the Project. In addition to the Project, the APA transaction included URZ’s purchase of Strathmore’s claims and State mineral leases for the Juniper Ridge and Shirley Basin Properties, however, these two properties are not discussed in this Report. The transaction closed on October 31, 2016.

On May 7, 2018, Azarga and URZ announced an agreement to merge under a plan of arrangement. On June 29, 2018, the shareholders of both URZ and Azarga approved the merger and on July 5, 2018 the merger was completed. As a result, URZ became a wholly owned subsidiary of Azarga. On December 31, 2021, the shareholder approved merger of Azarga and enCore. The merger closed and Azarga became a wholly owned subsidiary of enCore. Approximately 12,560 mineral acres are encompassed by the Project claims. A 5% net proceeds royalty applies to 172 of the 628 claims as follows:

•A net proceeds royalty of 5% on 155 claims was granted by Quit Claim Deed from Strathmore to Elmhurst Financial Group, Inc. On October 31, 2007. One of the claims was relinquished during Strathmore’s ownership. The surviving 154 claims were sold to UColo and remain subject to the 5% net proceeds royalty.

•A 5% net proceeds royalty was granted by Assignment from Strathmore to Blue Rock on October 31, 200, on nine full claims and on the southern 720 feet of nine additional claims. The 18 claims were sold to UColo and remain subject to the 5% net proceeds royalty.

• The other 456 claims are not subject to royalties or other encumbrances.

UColo has the possessory right to explore, develop and produce from the unpatented lode mining claim areas and must pay an annual maintenance fee to the BLM of $200.00 per claim on or before September 1 each year. Surface use at the location of the mining claims on BLM lands is allowed subject to Title 43 of the US Code of Federal Regulations Subpart 3809 and requires permitting by both the BLM and the State of Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Land Quality Division “WDEQ-LQD”.

State of Wyoming Lease

Strathmore entered into a ten-year lease with the State of Wyoming for Mineral Lease #0-42121 on April 2, 2007. The lease was subsequently transferred by Assignment from Strathmore to UColo on October 31, 2016. UColo renewed the lease before its 10-year expiration, extending the lease an additional ten years to April 1, 2027. The lease can be renewed, at UColo’s option, for unlimited additional 10-year periods as long as the terms and conditions of the lease have been met up to the time of applying to the State of Wyoming for renewal. The lease encompasses approximately 320 surface acres and 320 mineral acres in the NE¼, N½NW¼, and E½SE¼ of Section 36, Township 33 North, Range 90 West, 6th Principal Meridian, Fremont County, Wyoming. The lease grants to the State a royalty of 4 percent of the gross selling price of U 3 O 8 or $5.00 per leased acre per year, whichever is more. No mineral resources in this Report are located on this lease.

Private Mineral Lease

Strathmore entered into a private mineral lease with South Pass Land and Livestock Company on July 28, 2010, for rights to minerals on the following two parcels of land: 40 mineral acres in the Jeep area in the SE¼ of Section 32, Township 32 North, Range 91 West, 6th Principal Meridian, Fremont County, Wyoming and 40 mineral acres in the West Unit area in the SW¼ of Section 19, Township 32 North, Range 90 West, 6th Principal Meridian, Fremont County, Wyoming. The mineral lease was transferred by Assignment and Assumption of Mineral Lease from Strathmore to UColo on October 31,

2016. UColo exercised its option to renew the lease for an additional 10 years in July 2020, by making the required payment. Unlimited 10-year renewals are available at UColo’s option for additional payments. The lease grants a 5 percent net proceeds royalty to the owner of the mineral properties. The surface is owned separately from South Pass Land and Livestock Company. An agreement for surface access at the West Unit is described below. Presently, there is no agreement for surface access at the Jeep parcel.

Private Surface Use Agreement

UColo entered into a private surface use and access agreement with Philp Sheep Company on July 7, 2023, to access and use approximately 40 surface acres in the West Unit located in the SW1/4 of Section 19, Township 32 North, Range 90 West, 6th Principal Meridian, Fremont County, Wyoming. The agreement allows exploring, prospecting, drilling, constructing, and plugging and abandoning up to 10 exploratory boreholes on the parcel. Access to Section 19 is provided across the SW¼ of Section 13, Township 32 North, Range 91 West, 6th Principal Meridian, Fremont County, Wyoming under the agreement. The term of the agreement is through November 7, 2025. Philp Sheep Company does not own the minerals in the parcel covered by the agreement. The minerals are owned by the South Pass Land and Livestock Company described above.

The Gas Hills Uranium District can be accessed by traveling southeast of Riverton approximately 45 miles along Wyoming State Highway 136 (Gas Hills Road) to the junction of Fremont County Road #5 (Ore Haul Road).

Extensive production in Wyoming of minerals (coal, trona, uranium) and oil/gas has provide a highly skilled labor force in the region. Population centers within two hours of the Project include Casper, Riverton, Lander, and Rawlins, where equipment and supplies may be obtained. Paved roads from these towns and cities extend to the edge of the Project area. Access and haul roads within the Project are graded gravel and are maintained by the State, County, and mining companies operating in the area. Functioning power lines, natural gas lines, telephone lines, and fiber optic cable are present on and near enCore’s properties. Several wells producing water for domestic and industrial use are also on or close to enCore’s properties. It is the Author’s opinion that the Property area controlled by enCore is more than adequate to provide areas for potential mining operations and associated facilities and for mineral processing operations.

In the Gas Hills district, lower Tertiary rocks unconformably overlie folded and faulted Mesozoic and older rocks (Figure 7.3). The Wind River Formation is conformably overlain by tuffaceous sandstones of the Eocene Wagon Bed Formation.

The Puddle Springs Arkose member of the Wind River Formation is the host rock for the uranium deposits at the Project. It consists of poorly consolidated arkosic sandstone and conglomerate with thin discontinuous interbeds of mudstone. The Puddle Springs arkose was deposited rapidly by northward-flowing braided streams to form coalescing piedmont alluvial fans (Soister, 1968).

The full thickness of the Wind River Formation is present from just north of the base of Beaver Rim Divide southward for a few miles. North of the contact between Wind River Formation and younger rocks, erosion has cut across the formation at a low angle and it progressively thins toward the north, where basal beds lie unconformably on older rocks.

The pre-Cenozoic strata in the Gas Hills are from Cambrian to Cretaceous in age. The Wind River Formation is the predominant rock outcrop at the Project, but Mesozoic and Tertiary formations also outcrop at the surface (Strathmore, 2013). The pre-Cenozoic rocks were extensively deformed during the Early Eocene faulting, uplift and basin development associated with the Laramide Orogeny. The pre-Cenozoic rocks are exposed sporadically throughout the Gas Hills. The area of greatest exposure is along the flanks of the Dutton Basin anticline. The anticline is exposed at the surface one mile east of the George-Ver Property; deposits from the Cody Shale downward to the Chugwater Formation outcrop (Beahm, 2017).

The uranium deposits are present in an arkosic sandstone facies of the Puddle Springs member of the Wind River formation (Strathmore, 2013). Drilling in the west Gas Hills indicates that the favorable arkosic sandstone grades into unfavorable silty facies. A local sandstone facies has been found within the silty facies, and a small area containing uranium (Jeep deposit) has been found in the sandstone facies. Thus, the favorable host for mineralization in the above-mentioned deposits is bounded on the north by an erosional pinch out; on the east by a change of facies to an unfavorable silty sandstone host; on the south by a subsurface onlap pinch out; and on the west by change of facies to an unfavorable silty sandstone host.

Uranium mineralization in the Gas Hills is present in bodies usually referred to as “rolls” (King and Austin, 1966; Armstrong, 1970). In vertical cross section they are irregularly crescent or “C” shaped. Rolls are the result of oxidized and soluble uranium being transported by ground water to a location within a permeable sandstone host where a reaction within a reducing environment occurs and insoluble reduced, uranium minerals are deposited. The contact between oxidized and reduced conditions is the “roll front”.

Uranium deposits in the Gas Hills were formed by the classic Wyoming-type roll-fronts. Roll-fronts are irregular in shape, roughly tabular and elongated, and range from thin pods and a few feet in width and length, to bodies several hundred or thousands of feet in length. The deposits are roughly parallel to the enclosing beds but may form rolls that cut across bedding. Roll-front deposits are typified by a C-shaped morphology in which the outside of the C extends down-gradient in the direction of historic groundwater flow and the tails extend up-gradient of historic groundwater flow. Tails are typically caught up in the finer sand and silt deposits that grade into over and underlying mudstones, whereas the heart of the roll-front (higher grade mineralization) lies within the more porous and permeable sandstones toward the middle of the fluvial deposits.

History

The Gas Hills Uranium District (Gas Hills) was one of the major uranium mining and production regions in the USA. Between 1953 and 1988, many companies explored, developed, and produced uranium in the Gas Hills, including on lands now controlled by enCore. Three uranium mills operated in the district and two others nearby were also fed by ore mined from Gas Hills. Cumulative production from the Gas Hills is in excess of 100 million pounds of uranium, mainly from open-pit mining, but also from underground mining and ISR.

Mine production did occur adjacent to and in the vicinity of the Project; however, the areas for which mineral resources are defined are unmined. Uranium was discovered in the Gas Hills in September 1953 by both ground and airborne radiometric surveys. Early exploration in the district exposed numerous near surface oxidized deposits and small shipments of ore were shipped out of state for processing. In 1955, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC now the US DOE) constructed an ore buying station in Riverton, WY where ore was stockpiled and eventually milled. In the Gas Hills area, when the AEC approved purchase allotments in 1956, Utah Construction (later Pathfinder and then Areva) began the Lucky Mc Mill in the central Gas Hills and Lost Creek Oil and Uranium (later Western Nuclear) began the Split Rock Mill 15 miles south at Jeffrey City. By 1959 the AEC authorized three additional mills in the county: Fremont Minerals’ (Susquehanna Mining) mill in Riverton, Federal-Radorock-Gas Hills Partners’ (later Federal American Partners) central Gas Hills mill, and Globe Uranium Company’s (later Union Carbide) east Gas Hills mill.

With the rapid decline in uranium price in the early to mid-1980’s production slowly halted. The last mill production in the Gas Hills occurred in 1988, at Lucky Mc. Extensive mill site and mine reclamation occurred from the late 1980s through to the present time in the Gas Hills. However, Wyoming remains the largest current uranium producer in the USA and there are numerous uranium projects in the state (Beahm, 2017).

The present Project area was acquired by URZ’s subsidiary UColo from Strathmore on October 31, 2016, and subsequently the Project area was acquired by enCore through a merger with Azarga in 2021. The minerals were originally acquired by staking and purchasing unpatented mining claims, and by acquiring the State of Wyoming Mineral Lease and the private South Pass Land and Livestock Company mineral lease.

More than 100,000 exploration and development holes were drilled in the Gas Hills from the mid-1950s to the mid-1980s. Since 1990, a few hundred holes have been drilled, nearly all by Strathmore and Cameco. Strathmore acquired exploration data for several of its Gas Hills properties; all of which are now controlled by enCore.

Prior to significant construction and mining, several permits/licenses from federal, state, and local agencies will be required as follows:

Federal

•EPA – Aquifer Exemption for UIC Class III wells and UIC Class I disposal wells (as necessary) and Subpart W Pond Construction Permit for the holding pond.

•BLM – Environmental Assessment (EA) and Approval of the Plan of Operations.

State

•Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality Uranium Recovery Program “WDEQ-URP” – Source and Byproduct Material License.

•WDEQ Land Quality Division “WDEQ-LQD” – Permit to Mine.

•WDEQ Water Quality Division “WDEQ-WQD” – UIC Class I Permit for deep well injection of wastewater generated from wellfield bleed and other plant processes, and Storm Water Discharge Permit which allows for surface discharge of storm water.

•WDEQ-Air Quality Division “WDEQ-AQD” – Air Quality Division, Chapter 6, Section 2, New Source Permit Authorization to Construct. • Wyoming State Engineer’s Office “SEO” – Various groundwater appropriation permits for ISR of uranium.

Local

•Fremont County Septic system.

Since a large portion of the project lies over federal surface, the BLM will complete the National Environmental Protection Act “NEPA” analysis for this project which will be required to approve the BLM Plan of Operation. Since the footprint of this project is less than 640 acres, BLM regulations indicate that the NEPA analysis should be an Environmental Assessment “EA” level review. For the purposes of this PEA, it was assumed that the BLM would elect to do an EA level of analysis. Should BLM decide to pursue a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) a much more detailed analysis of potential project impacts will be required.

WDEQ-URP license preparation and review process will take approximately two years to complete. The review will include an opportunity for public comment. WDEQ-LQD, will review the permit to mine application pursuant to Noncoal Chapter 11 Rules and Regulations and will provide opportunities for public comment. The LQD review will also likely take about two years which will happen in parallel with the URP review. Following permit to mine approval, an aquifer exemption from the EPA Region 8 will be requested. The EPA will review the LQD’s request against UIC Program requirements found in 40 CFR Parts 144 and 146 to ensure compliance. If the EPA determines the operation will be in compliance, the agency will issue an aquifer exemption which allows mining within a defined portion of the uranium host aquifer.

For 2011 and 2012, drilling security practices involved: awareness of chain-of-custody issues, limited access to logging tools through locked storage as approved by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and continuing calibration of logging tools to assure that no tampering has occurred. All drill hole samples were in locked storage until sent out for laboratory testing. Drill cutting samples were generally not preserved and it was typical for the mine operators to assay drill samples at their on-site laboratories.

Data sources reviewed for the estimation of uranium mineral resources for the Project include radiometric equivalent data (eU3O8) for 4,570 drill holes (4,056 pre-2007), eU3O8 data and PFN assay data for 272 drill holes completed from 2007 to 2013, and eU3O8 and core data for one core hole completed in 2024. For the 2011-2012, drilling programs, down hole geophysical logging using the PFN tool was completed with Strathmore’s PFN logging truck and independently confirmed by GAA Wireline Services.

Extensive verification work was previously completed for holes drilled pre-2007 in the 2017, mineral estimate (Beahm, 2017). This Report used the results of the 2007 to 2013 drilling as part of the verification procedures on the pre-2007 drilling. The Authors reviewed this analysis as well as post-2007 drilling raw data.

The mineral resource estimates are based on radiometric equivalent uranium grades % eU 3 O 8. A minimum 0.02% eU 3 O 8, minimum 1.0-foot thickness, and minimum GT of 0.10 was used in the estimations along with a bulk dry density of 16 cubic feet per ton. Resources were estimated using the GT contour method, which is industry standard for this type of deposit. The GT was determined for each drill hole by major stratigraphic horizon, then the GT was summed separately for each mineralized sub-horizon for intercepts meeting the cutoff criteria. Contours were drawn in two-dimensional space around horizon intercepts, allowing projection up to 100 feet across a mineralized trend and up to 600 feet along the mineralized trend.

Average GT for each contour was calculated one of two ways depending on if the contour was the highest GT contour or if it contained another, higher GT contour. If the contour was the highest GT contour, all GT values within the contour were averaged, then averaged with the value of that GT contour. For example, a 1.0 GT contour with two GT values of 1.20 and 1.47 and no higher contour within would be (((1.20+1.47)/2)+1.0)/2 = 1.17 average GT. If the contour contained another higher contour, the average GT was the average of the upper and lower GT contour values. For example, a 1.0 GT contour with a 2.0 GT contour within would be (1.0+2.0)/2 = 1.5 average GT.

Pounds of uranium for each contour were calculated by multiplying the contour area by GT for the contour and applying the conversion constant and dividing by bulk density factor ((Area x Avg GT x 20)/16 = Pounds). Tonnage was calculated by multiplying composited contour thickness by contour area to get cubic feet, then converting to tonnage by applying the density factor (Thickness x Area/16).

The 0.10 GT base case cutoff was selected by meeting economic criteria for both ISR and open pit/heap leach methods differentiated on the relative location to the water table. Resources labeled “ISR” meet the criteria of being sufficiently below the water table to be amenable by ISR methods and as well as also meeting other hydrogeological criteria. “Non-ISR” resources include those generally above the natural water table, which would typically be mined using open pit methods.

Mineral resources were classified as measured, indicated, and inferred based on the distance to the nearest drilling intercept to measure drilling density. To be classified as measured resources, the contour must fall within 100 feet of a mineralized drill hole intercept in that horizon. Indicated resources must fall between 100 and 250 feet from the nearest mineralized intercept in that horizon. Inferred resources must be within 600 feet of a mineralized intercept in that horizon.

The GT contours were divided and classified based on area contained within each of the distance boundaries from drill hole intercepts. After classifying resources based on distance from drilling, further consideration was given to applicable mining methods for each pod. Reclassification of resource was determined based on local water table levels at each resource pod and the level of detail of hydrogeologic understanding.

At this time, only the Central Unit has had groundwater flow modeling completed. All other ISR resources which met the measured criteria for ISR drilling density were classified as indicated resource until more detailed hydrologic studies to support ISR are conducted on these resource areas.

The cutoff used for mineral resource classification was a minimum 0.02% eU3O8, minimum 1.0-foot thickness, and minimum 0.10 GT. These criteria were determined to meet the criteria for “reasonable prospects for economic extraction” for both ISR and open pit heap/leach mining methods. The GT cutoff of 0.10 GT is also consistent with previous historic resource estimation in the area. The average grade of ISR resources in this estimate at a 0.10 GT cutoff met economic criteria for ISR extraction and thus is considered the base case for this Report.

When drawing GT contours, the maximum allowable GT was set at 7.0. Any drilling intercept with a higher GT was included in the 7.0 GT contour and assigned that value.

Measured and Indicated Mineral Resource Summary:

Notes:

1. Mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300.

2. All ISR Only resources occur below the static water table.

3. An 80% metallurgical recovery factor was considered for the purposes of the economic analysis.

4. Totals may not sum due to rounding.

Inferred Mineral Resource Summary

Notes:

1. Mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300.

2. All ISR Only resources occur below the static water table.

3. Totals may not sum due to rounding.

enCore plans to use the ISR mining technique with a low pH lixiviant at the Project. Gas Hills was one of the major uranium mining and production regions in the USA with cumulative production in excess of 100 million pounds of uranium, mainly from open-pit mining, but also from underground and ISR mining methods. This historical production demonstrated the host Wind River Formation sandstones and the hydrological conditions to be suitable for ISR production.

ISR is employed because this technique allows for the low cost and effective recovery of roll front mineralization. An additional benefit is that ISR is relatively environmentally benign when compared to conventional open pit or underground recovery techniques. ISR does not require the installation of tailings facilities or require significant surface disturbance.

This mining method utilizes injection wells to introduce a lixiviant into the mineralized zone. This PEA assumes a low pH lixiviant will be utilized in the ISR process. Low pH ISR lixiviants have technical and economic advantages over alkaline lixiviants in formations that have relatively low carbonate content and amenable geology. These advantages include potential for higher recovery, shorter leaching duration, lower lixiviant and oxidant requirements, constituent-specific advantages during groundwater restoration, and a higher degree of natural attenuation than alkaline lixiviant. The lixiviant is made of native groundwater fortified with a complexing agent such as sulfuric acid. The complexing agent bonds with the uranium to form uranyl sulfate, which is then recovered through a series of production wells and piped to a processing plant where the uranyl sulfate is removed from solution using ion exchange. The groundwater is re-fortified with the complexing agent and recirculated to the wellfield to recover additional uranium.

ISR operations consist of four major solution circuits, ion exchange to extract uranium from the mining solution, an elution circuit to remove uranium from the IX resin, a yellowcake precipitation circuit, and a dewatering, drying, and packaging circuit.

The economic assessment presented in the Gas Hills Technical Report Summary is based on geological evaluation and mapping of production areas, determining which areas are not viable for production activities due to hydrologic features, and obtaining an 80 percent recovery of the remaining resources.

A cash flow statement has been developed based on the CAPEX, OPEX, and closure cost estimates and the production schedule. The sales price for the produced uranium is assumed at $87.00 per pound for the life of the Project.

The production rate assumes an average solution uranium grade (headgrade) of approximately 97 mg/L. The sales for the cash flow are developed by applying the recovery factor to the Project resource estimate. The total uranium production over the life of the Project is estimated to be 6.16 million lbs.

The production estimates and OPEX distribution used to develop the cash flow are based on the production and restoration models developed by enCore and incorporated in the cash flow. The cash flow assumes no escalation, no debt interest, or capital repayment. It also does not include depreciation. Estimated payback in the post-federal tax cash flow model is near the middle of the third year of production. Net cash flow before income tax over life of the Project is estimated to be $286.0 million and the net after-tax cash flow is estimated at $245.7 million. The Project has an estimated pre-tax Internal Rate of Return (IRR) of 54.8 percent and a Net Present Value (NPV) of $166.9 million. After-tax IRR and NPV are estimated at 50.2 percent and $141.8 million, respectively. The NPV was calculated assuming an 8 percent discount rate. The NPV assumes cash flows take place in the middle of each period. NPV and IRR calculations are based on Year-2 through Year 11 and includes costs escalated by 8 percent per year from Year -4 and Year -3 treated as if the escalated costs occurred in Year-2. This approach to calculating the IRR and NPV was taken because Year -2 is the first year a significant sum of capital is invested in the project. Pre-income tax estimated cost of uranium produced is $40.61 per pound including royalties, severance taxes, ad valorem taxes, plus all operating and capital costs.

Capital Cost Estimates

CAPEX costs were developed based on the current designs, quantities, and unit costs. The cost estimates presented herein are based on personnel and capital equipment requirements, as well as wellfield layouts, process flow diagrams, tank and process equipment and buildings at enCore’s Dewey-Burdock Project in western South Dakota as well as other similar uranium projects. The Project has pre-mining development and capital costs of $55.2 million.

After the start of mining, the CAPEX category will include subsequent mine unit drilling and wellfield installation costs as well as construction of transfer pipelines to move water from the Jeep, South Black Mountain, and Central Units to the CPP location in the West Unit. Wellfield development costs used in this analysis were developed based on costs estimated in the Shirley Basin 2024 PEA. The average well depth in the Project is nearly 60 ft. deeper than the average well in the Shirley Basin Project and the monitor wells will target the underlying rather than an overlying aquifer. As such, the costs were escalated to account for these factors. No additional contingency was applied to the CAPEX costs for the purposes of this report.

The first series of header houses will be brought online sequentially until the planned plant throughput (approximately 2,400 gpm) is attained. In the event headgrades at the plant fall below projected values, the CPP as considered in this analysis will have additional capacity (up to 4,400 gpm) to allow for flows to be increased to meet the production target of 1 million pounds of U3O8 per year. The remainder of the additional mine units will be developed in such a way as to allow for plant capacity/production targets to be maintained.

The wellfield development costs include both wellfield drilling and wellfield construction activities and were estimated based on the assumption that the wellfields in this Project will be similar in design to those in the Shirley Basin PEA (WWC, 2024). The wellfield costs include wells, header houses, and the hydraulic conveyance (piping) system associated with the wellfields. Additionally, trunk and feeder pipelines, electrical service, roads and wellfield fencing are included in the costs.

The accuracy of the CAPEX estimation complies with item 1302 of Regulation S-K for an Initial Assessment with economics.

Operating Costs Estimates

The OPEX costs have been developed by evaluating and including each process unit operation and the associated required services (power, water, air, waste disposal), infrastructure (offices, shops and roads), salary and benefit burden, and environmental control (heat, air conditioning, monitoring). Total OPEX costs, including selling, production and operating costs have been estimated at $95.6 million, or approximately $15.51 per pound. The costs are based on enCore’s estimated costs at the Dewey-Burdock Project and have no additional contingency attached except for escalation for inflation. The prices for the major items identified in this report have been sourced in the United States. Major cost categories considered when developing OPEX costs include wellfield, plant, processing, and site administration costs as detailed in the table below.

The accuracy of the OPEX estimation complies with item 1302 of Regulation S-K for an Initial Assessment with economics.

The Project is sensitive to changes in the price of uranium. Assuming an 8 % discount rate, a $5.00 per pound change in the uranium price adjusts the pre-federal income tax NPV by just over $18 million and the post-federal tax NPV by just over $15 million. A $5.00 per pound increase in uranium price adjusts the pre-tax and post-tax IRR by approximately 3 %.

Assuming an 8 % discount rate and a constant uranium price of $87.00 per pound of U 3 O 8, CAPEX and OPEX costs were varied in both the pre- and post-federal income tax cashflow models to evaluate effects on NPV. A 5% change in CAPEX and OPEX costs can impact the NPV by approximately $5.6 million and $2.6 million, respectively. The IRR is also affected by changes in CAPEX and OPEX costs. A 5% change in OPEX costs adjusts the IRR by approximately 2 % in the pre-tax cashflow model.

A 5% change in the OPEX and CAPEX costs can have an impact to the NPV of approximately $3.0 million and $5.7 million in both the pre- and post-tax cashflow models, respectively. The IRR is also affected by changes in OPEX and CAPEX costs. The changes in IRR are not linear.

In 2025, the Company plans to complete environmental data collection necessary to prepare an application for a source material license and a permit to mine with the State of Wyoming. Additionally, the Company expects to begin preliminary work on an application for a plan of operations from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management.

Seasonality

The timing of our uranium concentrate sales are dependent upon factors such as extraction results from our uranium recovery activities, cash requirements, contractual requirements and perception of the uranium market. As a result, our sales are neither tied to nor dependent upon any particular season. In addition, our ability to extract and process uranium does not change on a seasonal basis.

Environmental, Social, and Governance Principles

The long-term success of enCore requires the integration of sustainability into all aspects of its business. Leading environmental, social and governance performance (“ESG”) is strongly correlated to strong financial performance and the creation of long-term value for enCore’s shareholders and other stakeholders. This includes striving to meet the highest standards, contributing toward sustainable development, and serving as responsible natural resource stewards to make positive and lasting impacts on the communities where we operate. enCore is responsible to its shareholders, governments, and community stakeholders as the Company’s projects are advanced, and we consider appropriate best practices and innovative methods to meet and exceed these standards where practical, within our financial means. The Company announced on October 21, 2024, the release of its inaugural Sustainability Report that provides details on the Company’s commitment to ESG performance, and the report provides measurable goals for demonstrating performance for key ESG metrics. The Company’s Sustainability Report can be found at its website, https:// encoreuranium.com.

Land Tenure

The Company’s land holdings in the U.S. are held either by leases from the fee simple owners (private parties or the State) or unpatented mining claims located on property owned and managed by the U.S. Federal Government. Annual fees must be paid to maintain unpatented mining claims, but work expenditures are not required. Holders of unpatented mining claims are generally granted surface access to conduct mineral exploration and extraction activities. However, additional permits and plans are generally required prior to conducting exploration or mining activities on such claims.

Government and Environmental Regulations

Government Regulations

The Company’s properties and facilities are subject to extensive laws and regulations which are overseen and enforced by multiple federal, state and local authorities. These laws govern exploration, construction, extraction, recovery, processing, exports, various taxes, labor standards, occupational health and safety, waste disposal, protection and remediation of the environment, protection of endangered and protected species, toxic and hazardous substances, and other matters. Uranium minerals exploration, extraction, recovery, and processing are also subject to risks and liabilities associated with the perceived potential for impacts to the environment and disposal of waste products occurring as a result of such activities.

Compliance with these laws and regulations may impose substantial costs on the Company and may subject the Company to significant potential liabilities. Changes in these regulations or changes in regulatory attitudes or interpretations could require the Company to expend significant resources to comply with new laws or regulations, attitudes or interpretations relating thereto, or changes to current requirements and could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business operations. However, compliance with government regulations generally, including but not limited to environmental regulations, is an integral part of the Company’s day-to-day business and impacts virtually all the Company’s capital expenditure and operating decisions at its facilities, as the Company’s facilities and operations must comply with this extensive array of environmental, health and safety laws and regulations. The costs of compliance with these laws and regulations are therefore well understood and assumed by the Company in all its capital budgeting decisions, project analyses and cost and earnings projections. As all the Company’s competitors in the uranium mining industry in the U.S. face the same or similar regulatory requirements, the Company does not believe its need to comply with this extensive array of laws and regulations materially affects the Company’s competitive position within the U.S. uranium mining industry.

Environmental Regulations

Our operations where exploration, development and operations are taking place, are subject to extensive laws and regulations which are overseen and enforced by multiple federal, state and local authorities. These laws and regulations govern exploration, development, various taxes, labor standards, occupational health and safety including radiation safety, waste disposal, underground source of drinking water, protection and remediation of the environment, protection of endangered and protected species, toxic and hazardous substances and other matters. Uranium minerals exploration is also subject to risks and liabilities associated with pollution of the environment and disposal of waste products occurring as a result of mineral exploration.

Compliance with these laws and regulations imposes substantial costs on us and may subject us to significant potential liabilities or impacts to operations or project development. Changes in these regulations could require us to expend significant resources to comply with new laws or regulations or changes to current requirements and could have a material adverse effect on our business operations. Compliance with all current regulations, including but not limited to the environmental and safety regulatory schemes, is an integral part of our day-to-day business, management and staff commitment and expenditures. The costs attendant to compliance are understood and routinely budgeted and are generally comparable to those of other U.S. uranium companies and other natural resources companies in the U.S. and Canada. It should be noted that environmental protections and regulatory oversight thereof vary significantly outside North America, particularly in Kazakhstan and Russia, where state-owned enterprises operate with only limited regulatory oversight related to environmental and worker safety.

Mineral exploration and development activities, as well as our uranium recovery operations, are subject to comprehensive regulation which may cause substantial delays, restrictions or require capital outlays in excess of those anticipated, causing an adverse effect on our business operations. Mineral exploration operations are also subject to federal and state laws and regulations that seek to maintain health and safety standards. Various permits from government bodies are required for drilling operations to be conducted; no assurance can be given that such permits will be received. Environmental standards imposed by federal and state authorities may be changed and any such changes may have material adverse effects on our activities. Mineral recovery operations are subject to federal and state laws relating to the protection of the environment, including laws regulating removal of natural resources from the ground and the discharge of materials into the environment. The posting of a performance bond and the costs associated with our permitting and licensing activities require a substantial budget and ongoing cash commitments. In addition to pursuing ongoing permitting and licensure for new projects and additions to our existing projects, these expenditures include ongoing monitoring (e.g., wildlife, groundwater and effluent monitoring) and other activities to ensure regulatory and legal compliance, as well as compliance with our permits and licenses.

We believe that we comply with all federal, state and local applicable laws and regulations which govern environmental quality and pollution control. The appropriate regulatory agencies do conduct routine and regular inspections of activities by the Company at all of its operating and past operating sites, and to date, the Company has not been notified of any material non-compliance that would require any form of financial penalty or operating restriction.

In November 2023, the Company received renewed license approval from the TCEQ for the Company’s combined South Texas CPPs at its Rosita, Kingsville Dome and Vasquez uranium projects. The renewed license allows for the removal of two IX units at the Rosita CPP and wellfield.

A Source and Byproduct Materials License was issued by the NRC in April of 2014 for our Dewey-Burdock Project. The State of South Dakota Large Scale Mine Permit (“LSMP”) has been recommended for approval by the South Dakota Department of Environment, and draft UIC Class III and Class V permits were initially issued in March 2017 and reissued in August 2019.

Licenses and Permits

In Texas, the TCEQ regulates uranium recovery and issues the necessary licenses and permits. A Radioactive Material License issued by TCEQ covers the Rosita, Kingsville Dome and Vasquez projects, and it was renewed in May 2021. Each site also has Class I non-hazardous injection permits for operation of waste disposal wells on site, which are also regulated by the TCEQ. All permits for the disposal wells are active.

The Rosita Project includes four TCEQ production area authorizations (“PAA”) that could allow for low cost and accelerated timeline to extraction. Production areas 1 and 2 are depleted, and groundwater restoration has been completed to regulatory standards. Production areas 3 has been depleted by previous uranium extraction operations that were shut in in 2008. Production Area 5 is currently undergoing uranium extraction. In 2013, enCore completed the final phase of TCEQ required stabilization in production areas 1 and 2.

The Alta Mesa Uranium Project is a fully licensed and constructed ISR project. The current Radioactive Materials License and Class III Underground Injection Control Permit are in timely renewal. Production Areas 1 through 4 have been depleted and the groundwater in Production Area 1 has been restored. Production Areas 5 and 6 have been partially extracted and will be restarted with future extraction operations. Production Area 7 is currently undergoing uranium extraction operations. The Alta Mesa Project has two fully permitted Class I non-hazardous injection permits for the operation of two disposal wells on site.

The Company’s Upper Spring Creek – Brown Uranium Project is currently partially permitted. It currently has an aquifer exemption and a Class III Underground Injection Control Permit. The Company has applied to amend the Radioactive Materials License for the Rosita CPP to incorporate the wellfields and satellite IX facility for the project.

Waste Disposal

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”) and comparable state statutes affect mineral exploration and uranium recovery activities by imposing regulations on the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, disposal and cleanup of “hazardous wastes” and on the disposal of non-hazardous wastes. Under the auspices of the EPA, the individual states administer some or all the provisions of RCRA, sometimes in conjunction with their own, more stringent requirements.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act

The federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) imposes joint and several liability for costs of investigation and remediation and for natural resource damages, without regard to fault or the legality of the original conduct, on certain classes of persons with respect to the release into the environment of substances designated under CERCLA as hazardous substances (collectively, “Hazardous Substances”). These classes of persons or potentially responsible parties include the current and certain past owners and operators of a facility or property where there is or has been a release or threat of release of a Hazardous Substance and persons who disposed of or arranged for the disposal of the Hazardous Substances found at such a facility. CERCLA also authorizes the EPA and, in some cases, third parties, to take actions in response to threats to the public health or the environment and to seek to recover the costs of such action. We may also in the future become an owner of facilities on which Hazardous Substances have been released by previous owners or operators. We may in the future be responsible under CERCLA for all or part of the costs to clean up facilities or properties at which such substances have been released and for natural resource damages.

Air Emissions

Our operations are subject to local, state and federal regulations for the control of emissions of air pollution. Major sources of air pollutants are subject to more stringent, federally imposed permitting requirements. Administrative enforcement actions for failure to comply strictly with air pollution regulations or permits are generally resolved by payment of monetary fines and correction of any identified deficiencies. Alternatively, regulatory agencies could require us to forego construction, modification or operation of certain air emission sources. In Texas, the TCEQ issues an exemption for those processes that meet the criteria for low to zero emission by issuing a permit by rule.

Water Management

We commit our management team, employees and contractors to be good stewards of the water it utilizes in all parts of its operations. From exploration to restoration, water is the critical factor for ISR projects and responsibly managing that water is crucial to our business.

At all our ISR projects the ore hosted groundwater does not meet either primary or secondary drinking water standards and should only be used for industrial or agricultural use without proper treatment.

Water consumption at our ISR projects is primarily natural groundwater. During the recovery process, water is pumped from the ore hosted aquifer and piped to the satellite facility. The groundwater is filtered for solids, stripped of uranium, and then approximately 95% is re-injected or recirculated back into the same aquifer it was recovered from. This recycling process is an advantage of ISR extraction compared to other methods such as conventional or open pit mining operations that may require significant groundwater de-watering to facilitate safe mining.

In order to ensure appropriate water management, and to ensure our team can continuously make decisions to reduce our water usage, we closely monitor our water consumption. We are identifying ways to reduce water consumption on an ongoing basis.

Compliance with the Clean Water Act

The Clean Water Act (“CWA”) imposes restrictions and strict controls regarding the discharge of wastes, including mineral processing wastes, into waters of the U.S.; a term broadly defined. Permits must be obtained to discharge pollutants into federal waters. The CWA provides for civil, criminal and administrative penalties for unauthorized discharges of hazardous substances and other pollutants. It imposes substantial potential liability for the costs of removal or remediation associated with discharges of oil or hazardous substances. State laws governing discharges to water also provide varying civil, criminal and administrative penalties and impose liabilities in the case of a discharge of petroleum or its derivatives, or other hazardous substances, into state waters. In addition, the EPA has promulgated regulations that may require us to obtain permits to discharge storm water runoff. Management believes that we are in substantial compliance with current applicable environmental laws and regulations. The Company has no discharges that are regulated by the Clean Water Act at any of its current and planned operations.

GHG Emissions Management

Mining is an essential industry to enable the global transition to net-zero. Uranium recovery using ISR technology, at the heart of our business, fuels nuclear energy, which is an essential carbon-free energy source. Beyond this, we understand that our operational activities do release emissions that are considered to contribute to climate change. Therefore, over the next several years we will begin a process to understand our emissions profile, as well as identify and implement opportunities to reduce emissions, where and when possible. In October 2024, the Company issued its inaugural Sustainability Report, and in that report, a preliminary assessment of Scope 1 and 2 emissions was provided. The Company has set a goal of completing a baseline assessment Scope 1, 2, and 3 greenhouse gas emissions for its operations by the end of calendar year 2026.