uec20220731_10ka.htm
 
 
Table of Contents
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
 
FORM 10-K
 
☒
ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 
For the fiscal year ended   July 31, 2023
 
☐
TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
   
  For the transition period from ________________ to ________________
 
Commission file number : 001-33706
 
URANIUM ENERGY CORP.
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
 
Nevada
  98-0399476
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation of organization)
  (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)
 
500 North Shoreline, Ste. 800 , Corpus Christi , Texas , U.S.A.
  78401
(U.S. corporate headquarters)
  (Zip Code)
 
1830 –  1188 West Georgia Street
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
  V6E 4A2
(Canadian corporate headquarters)
  (Zip Code)
 
(Address of principal executive offices)
 
  ( 361 ) 888-8235
 
  (Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)
 
 
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
 
Title of each class:
Trading Symbol(s)
Name of each exchange on which registered:
Common Stock
UEC
NYSE American
 
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:
 
N/A
(Title of class)
 
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.
Yes ☒ No ☐
 
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.
Yes ☐ No ☒
 
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.
Yes ☒ No ☐
 
 
Table of Contents
 
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit such files). Yes ☒ No ☐
 
Indicate by checkmark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, a smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer”, “accelerated filer”, “smaller reporting company” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.
 
☒ Large accelerated filer ☐ Accelerated filer
☐ Non-accelerated filer ☐ Smaller reporting company
  ☐ Emerging growth company
 
If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ☐
 
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed a report on and attestation to its management’s assessment of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting under Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (15 U.S.C. 7262(b)) by the registered public accounting firm that prepared or issued its audit report.  ☒
 
If securities are registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act, indicate by check mark whether the financial statements of the registrant included in the filing reflect the correction of an error to previously issued financial statements.  ☐
 
Indicate by check mark whether any of those error corrections are restatements that required a recovery analysis of incentive-based compensation received by any of the registrant’s executive officers during the relevant recovery period pursuant to §240.10D-1(b).  ☐
 
Indicate by checkmark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).
Yes ☐ No ☒
 
The aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates computed by reference to the price at which the common equity was last sold, or the average bid and asked price of such common equity, as of the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter ($4.03 on January 31, 2023) was approximately $ 1,479,408,555 .
 
The registrant had 385,848,443 shares of common stock outstanding as of September 28, 2023.
 
 
ii
Table of Contents
 
 
 
CAUTIONARY NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS
 
This Form 10-K Annual Report and any documents incorporated herein by reference (collectively, the “Annual Report”) include statements and information about our strategy, objectives, plans and expectations for the future that are not statements or information of historical fact. These statements and information are considered to be forward-looking statements, or forward-looking information, within the meaning of and under the protection provided by the safe harbor provisions for forward-looking statements as contained in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and similar Canadian securities laws.
 
Forward-looking statements, and any estimates and assumptions upon which they are based, are made in good faith and reflect our views and expectations for the future as of the date of this Annual Report, which can change significantly. Furthermore, forward-looking statements are subject to known and unknown risks and uncertainties which may cause actual results, performance, achievements or events to be materially different from any future results, performance, achievements or events implied, suggested or expressed by such forward-looking statements. Accordingly, forward-looking statements in this Annual Report should not be unduly relied upon.
 
Forward-looking statements may be based on a number of material estimates and assumptions, of which any one or more may prove to be incorrect. Forward-looking statements may be identifiable by terminology concerning the future, such as “anticipate”, “believe”, “continue”, “could”, “estimate”, “expect”, “forecast”, “intend”, “goal”, “likely”, “may”, “might”, “outlook”, “plan”, “predict”, “potential”, “project”, “should”, “schedule”, “strategy”, “target”, “will” or “would”, and similar expressions or variations thereof including the negative use of such terminology. Examples in this Annual Report include, but are not limited to, such forward-looking statements reflecting or pertaining to:
 
 
●
our overall strategy, objectives, plans and expectations for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2023 (“Fiscal 2023”) and beyond;
 
●
our expectations for worldwide nuclear power generation and future uranium supply and demand, including long-term market prices for uranium oxide (“U 3 O 8 ”);
 
●
our belief and expectations of in-situ recovery mining for our uranium projects, where applicable;
 
●
our estimation of mineralized materials, which are based on certain estimates and assumptions, and the economics of future extraction for our uranium projects including our Palangana Mine and Christensen Ranch Mine (collectively, the “ISR Mines”);
 
●
our plans and expectations including anticipated expenditures relating to exploration, pre-extraction, extraction and reclamation activities for our uranium projects including our ISR Mines;
 
●
our ability to obtain, maintain and amend, within a reasonable period of time, required rights, permits and licenses from landowners, governments and regulatory authorities;
 
●
our ability to obtain adequate additional financing including access to the equity and credit markets;
 
●
our ability to remain in compliance with the terms of our indebtedness; and
 
●
our belief and expectations including the possible impact of any legal proceedings or regulatory actions against the Company.
 
Forward-looking statements, and any estimates and assumptions upon which they are based, are made as of the date of this Annual Report, and we do not intend or undertake to revise, update or supplement any forward-looking statements to reflect actual results, future events or changes in estimates and assumptions or other factors affecting such forward-looking statements, except as required by applicable securities laws. Should one or more forward-looking statements be revised, updated or supplemented, no inference should be made that we will revise, update or supplement any other forward-looking statements.
 
Forward-looking statements are subject to known and unknown risks and uncertainties. As discussed in more detail under Item 1A. Risk Factors herein, we have identified a number of material risks and uncertainties which reflect our outlook and conditions known to us as of the date of this Annual Report, including but not limited to the following:
 
 
●
our limited financial and operating history;
 
●
our need for additional financing;
 
●
our ability to service our indebtedness;
 
●
our limited uranium extraction and sales history;
 
●
our operations are inherently subject to numerous significant risks and uncertainties, of which many are beyond our control;
 
●
our exploration activities on our mineral properties may not result in commercially recoverable quantities of uranium;
 
●
limits to our insurance coverage;
 
●
the level of government regulation, including environmental regulation;
 
●
changes in governmental regulation and administrative practices;
 
●
nuclear incidents;
 
●
the marketability of uranium concentrates;
 
●
the competitive environment in which we operate;
 
●
our dependence on key personnel; and
 
●
conflicts of interest of our directors and officers.3
 
Any one of the foregoing material risks and uncertainties has the potential to cause actual results, performance, achievements or events to be materially different from any future results, performance, achievements or events implied, suggested or expressed by any forward-looking statements made by us or by persons acting on our behalf. Furthermore, there is no assurance that we will be successful in preventing the material adverse effects that any one or more of these material risks and uncertainties may cause on our business, prospects, financial condition and operating results, or that the foregoing list represents a complete list of the material risks and uncertainties facing us. There may be additional risks and uncertainties of a material nature that, as of the date of this Annual Report, we are unaware of or that we consider immaterial that may become material in the future, any one or more of which may result in a material adverse effect on us.
 
Forward-looking statements made by us or by persons acting on our behalf are expressly qualified in their entirety by the foregoing cautionary information.
 
 
ii
Table of Contents
 
CAUTIONARY NOTE TO U.S. RESIDENTS CONCERNING DISCLOSURE OF MINERAL RESOURCES
 
The Company is a U.S. Domestic Issuer for United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) purposes, most of its shareholders are U.S. residents, the Company is required to report its financial results under U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“U.S. GAAP”) and its only trading market is the NYSE American.  However, because the Company is a reporting issuer in Canada, certain prior regulatory filings required of the Company in Canada contain or incorporate by reference therein certain disclosure that satisfies the additional requirements of Canadian securities laws, which differ from the requirements of United States’ securities laws.  Unless otherwise indicated, all Company resource estimates included in those Canadian filings, and in the documents incorporated by reference therein, had been prepared in accordance with Canadian National Instrument 43-101 -  Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects  (“NI 43-101”) and the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum classification system.  NI 43-101 is a rule developed by the Canadian Securities Administrators which establishes standards for all public disclosure an issuer makes of scientific and technical information concerning mineral projects.
 
On October 31, 2018, the SEC adopted the Modernization of Property Disclosures for Mining Registrants (the “New Rule”), introducing significant changes to the existing mining disclosure framework to better align it with international industry and regulatory practice, including NI 43-101.  The New Rule was codified as 17 CFR Subpart 220.1300 and 229.601(b)(96) (collectively, “S-K 1300”) and replaced SEC Industry Guide 7.  The New Rule became effective as of February 25, 2019, and issuers are required to comply with the New Rule as of the annual report for their first fiscal year beginning on or after January 1, 2021, and earlier in certain circumstances.  The Company has been complying with the New Rule since the filing of its Annual Report for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2022 and its related filings.
 
All mineral estimates constituting mining operations that are material to our business or financial condition included in this Annual Report for Fiscal 2023, and in the documents incorporated by reference herein, have been prepared in accordance with S-K 1300 and are supported by initial assessments prepared in accordance with the requirements of S-K 1300. S-K 1300 provides for the disclosure of: (i) “Inferred Mineral Resources,” which investors should understand have the lowest level of geological confidence of all mineral resources and thus may not be considered when assessing the economic viability of a mining project and may not be converted to a Mineral Reserve; (ii) “Indicated Mineral Resources,” which investors should understand have a lower level of confidence than that of a “Measured Mineral Resource” and thus may be converted only to a “Probable Mineral Reserve”; and (iii) “Measured Mineral Resources,” which investors should understand have sufficient geological certainty to be converted to a “Proven Mineral Reserve” or to a “Probable Mineral Reserve.”  Investors are cautioned not to assume that all or any part of Measured or Indicated Mineral Resources will ever be converted into Mineral Reserves   as defined by S-K 1300. Investors are cautioned not to assume that all or any part of an Inferred Mineral Resource exists or is economically or legally mineable, or that an Inferred Mineral Resource will ever be upgraded to a higher category.
 
REFERENCES
 
As used in this Annual Report: (i) the terms “we”, “us”, “our”, “Uranium Energy”, “UEC” and the “Company” mean Uranium Energy Corp., including our wholly-owned subsidiaries and a controlled partnership; (ii) “SEC” refers to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission; (iii) “Securities Act” refers to the United States Securities Act of 1933 , as amended; (iv) “Exchange Act” refers to the United States Securities Exchange Act of 1934 , as amended; and (v) all dollar amounts refer to United States dollars unless otherwise indicated.
 
 
iii
Table of Contents
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS
 
PART I
2
Item 1. Business
2
Item 1A. Risk Factors
11
Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments
18
Item 2. Description of Properties
19
Item 3.  Legal Proceedings
98
Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures
98
PART II
99
Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities
99
Item 6. Selected Financial Data
101
Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
101
Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk
110
Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data
110
Item 9. Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure
111
Item 9A. Controls and Procedures
111
Item 9B. Other Information
111
Item 9C. Disclosure Regarding Foreign Jurisdictions that Prevent Inspections
111
Part III
112
Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance
112
Item 11. Executive Compensation
120
Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters
146
Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence
147
Item 14. Principal Accounting Fees and Services
148
Part IV
149
Item 15. Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules
149
Item 16. Form 10-K Summary
153
 
 
 
 
1
Table of Contents
 
 
PART I
 
Item 1. Business
 
Uranium Energy Corp. is a fast growing, uranium mining company listed on the NYSE American. UEC is working towards fueling the global demand for carbon-free nuclear energy, a key solution to climate change, and energy source for the low-carbon future.
 
UEC is a pure-play uranium company and is advancing its next generation of low-cost, environmentally friendly, in-situ recovery (“ISR”) mining uranium projects. The Company has two extraction ready ISR hub and spoke platforms in South Texas and Wyoming, anchored by fully licensed and operational processing capacity at its Hobson and Irigaray plants.
 
UEC also has seven U.S. ISR uranium projects with all of their major permits in place, with additional diversified holdings of uranium assets across the U.S., Canada and Paraguay.
 
We believe nuclear energy will continue to be an important part of the energy transition and the energy mix of a future low carbon economy. As such, we are focused on scaling our business to meet the future energy needs for nuclear in the U.S. and globally.
 
Corporate Organization
 
Uranium Energy Corp. was incorporated under the laws of the State of Nevada on May 16, 2003 under the name Carlin Gold Inc. During 2004 we changed our business operations and focus from precious metals exploration to uranium exploration in the United States. On January 24, 2005, we completed a reverse stock split of our common stock on the basis of one share for each two outstanding shares and amended our Articles of Incorporation to change our name to Uranium Energy Corp. Effective February 28, 2006, we completed a forward stock split of our common stock on the basis of 1.5 shares for each outstanding share and amended our Articles of Incorporation to increase our authorized capital from 75,000,000 shares of common stock, with a par value of $0.001 per share, to 750,000,000 shares of common stock, with a par value of $0.001 per share. In June 2007 we changed our fiscal year end from December 31 st to July 31 st (in each instance our “Fiscal” year now).
 
On December 31, 2007, we incorporated a wholly-owned subsidiary, UEC Resources Ltd., under the laws of the Province of British Columbia, Canada. On December 18, 2009, we acquired a 100% interest in the South Texas Mining Venture, L.L.P. (“STMV”), a Texas limited liability partnership, from each of URN Resources Inc., a subsidiary of Uranium One Inc., and Everest Exploration, Inc. On September 3, 2010, we incorporated a wholly-owned subsidiary, UEC Paraguay Corp., under the laws of the State of Nevada. On May 24, 2011, we acquired a 100% interest in Piedra Rica Mining S.A., a private company incorporated in Paraguay. On September 9, 2011, we acquired a 100% interest in Concentric Energy Corp. (“Concentric”), a private company incorporated in the State of Nevada.  On March 30, 2012, we acquired a 100% interest in Cue Resources Ltd. (“Cue”), a formerly publicly-traded company incorporated in the Province of British Columbia, Canada. On March 4, 2016, we acquired a 100% interest in JDL Resources Inc., a private company incorporated in the Cayman Islands. On July 7, 2017, we acquired a 100% interest in CIC Resources (Paraguay) Inc., a private company incorporated in the Cayman Islands. On August 9, 2017, we acquired a 100% interest in AUC Holdings (US), Inc. (“AUC”). On January 31, 2018, we incorporated a wholly-owned subsidiary, UEC Resources (SK) Corp. (“UEC SK”), under the laws of the Province of Saskatchewan, Canada. On December 17, 2021, we acquired a 100% interest in Uranium One Americas, Inc. (“U1A”) (now UEC Wyoming Corp.). On August 19, 2022, we, through UEC 2022 Acquisition Co. (“UEC Acquisition Co.”) (now UEX Corporation), acquired all of the issued and outstanding common shares of UEX Corporation (“UEX”), which we did not already own, by way of a statutory plan of arrangement (the “Arrangement”) under the  Canada Business Corporations Act . As part of the final steps of the Arrangement, UEC Acquisition Co. and UEX amalgamated to continue as one corporation under the name UEX Corporation. UEX Corporation holds a development stage uranium property portfolio in Saskatchewan, Canada, and Nunavut, Canada. On October 14, 2022, we acquired, through UEC SK, Roughrider Mineral Holdings Inc., a Saskatchewan corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of Rio Tinto Fer Et Titane Inc., which, in turn, owns all of the issued and outstanding shares of Roughrider Mineral Assets Inc., also a Saskatchewan corporation, that holds certain mineral leases totaling approximately 598 hectares in northern Saskatchewan that is commonly referred to as the “Roughrider Project” located in the Athabasca Basin in Saskatchewan, Canada.
 
Our principal executive office (U.S. corporate headquarters) is located at 500 North Shoreline, Ste. 800, Corpus Christi, Texas, 78401, and our administrative office (Canadian corporate headquarters) is located at 1188 West Georgia Street, Suite 1830, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, V6E 4A2.
 
General Business
 
UEC’s goal is to provide the much needed fuel for the global energy transition. The International Energy Outlook projects that worldwide electricity generation will grow by 1.8% per year, through to 2050. As the global community calls on all governments and industries to curb their carbon emissions to stop the effects of climate change, there is growing need to combine intermittent renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar, with one or more “firm” zero-carbon sources, such as nuclear energy, to ensure the affordability and accessibility of the net-zero electricity grid.
 
We are predominantly engaged in uranium mining and related activities, including exploration, pre-extraction, extraction and processing, on uranium projects located in the United States, Canada and the Republic of Paraguay.  We utilize ISR mining where possible which we believe, when compared to conventional open pit or underground mining, requires lower capital and operating expenditures with a shorter lead time to extraction and a reduced impact on the environment. We do not expect, however, to utilize ISR mining for all of our uranium projects in which case we would expect to rely on conventional open pit and/or underground mining techniques.  We have one uranium mine located in the State of Texas, our Palangana Mine, which utilizes ISR mining and commenced extraction of U 3 O 8 , or yellowcake, in November 2010. We have one uranium processing facility located in the State of Texas, our Hobson Processing Facility, which processes material from our ISR Mines into drums of U 3 O 8 , our only sales product and source of revenue, for shipping to a third-party storage and sales facility.  Since commencement of uranium extraction from our ISR Mines in November 2010 to July 31, 2023, our Hobson Processing Facility has processed 578,000 pounds of U 3 O 8 . As at July 31, 2023, we had no uranium supply or “off-take” agreements in place. Future sales of U 3 O 8 are therefore expected to generally occur through the uranium spot market, with any fluctuations in the market price continuing to have a direct impact on our revenues and cash flows.
 
Our fully-licensed and 100%-owned Hobson Processing Facility forms the basis for our regional operating strategy in the State of Texas, specifically in the South Texas Uranium Belt, where we utilize ISR mining. We utilize a “hub-and-spoke” strategy whereby the Hobson Processing Facility acts as the central processing site (the “hub”) for our Palangana Mine and future satellite uranium mining activities, such as our Burke Hollow and Goliad Projects, located within the South Texas Uranium Belt (the “spokes”). The Hobson Processing Facility has a physical capacity to process uranium-loaded resins up to a total of two million pounds of U 3 O 8 annually and is licensed to process up to four million pounds of U 3 O 8 annually.
 
With the acquisition of U1A in Fiscal 2022, the Irigaray Processing Facility forms the focus of our regional operating strategy in the Powder River and Great Divide uranium districts in the state of Wyoming. The Irigaray plant has a licensed capacity of 2.5 million pounds of U 3 O 8  per year, with the potential to process uranium from eleven satellite ISR projects in the state, including four fully permitted projects.
 
2
Table of Contents
 
Recently, we acquired a substantial portfolio of projects in Canada, with the purchase of UEX and the Roughrider Project from a subsidiary of Rio Tinto plc (“Rio Tinto”). The UEX portfolio consists of a mix of uranium deposits, primarily focused on the Athabasca Basin uranium district in Saskatchewan, Canada. This includes interests in the Shea Creek, Christie Lake, Horseshoe Raven, Millennium and Wheeler River projects. In addition to advancing its uranium development projects through its ownership interest in JCU (Canada) Exploration Company, Limited, UEX was advancing several other uranium deposits in the Athabasca Basin which include the Paul Bay, Ken Pen and Ōrora deposits at the Christie Lake Project, the Kianna, Anne, Colette and 58B deposits at its currently 49.1%-owned Shea Creek Project, and the Horseshoe and Raven deposits located on its 100%-owned Horseshoe-Raven Project. The Roughrider Project is an exploration stage asset, having been advanced by Rio Tinto over a decade of work. The acquisition brought in an exploration stage, high-grade, conventional asset into UEC’s portfolio that, along with the UEX acquisition, begins to develop a critical mass of 100% owned resources in the Athabasca Basin to accelerate extraction and/or production plans. The two transactions provide a portfolio of medium to long term, high-grade, conventional projects that complement our nearer term, U.S. ISR assets.
 
In August 2023, we acquired a portfolio of exploration-stage projects in the Athabasca Basin, Saskatchewan, Canada, for CAD$1.5 million from Rio Tinto Exploration Canada Inc., a subsidiary of Rio Tinto, whereby we acquired a 60% equity stake in the Henday Lake joint venture, 100% of the Milliken project and a 50% equity stake in the Carswell joint venture project.  With this transaction, we added an additional 44,444 acres of prospective ground in the Athabasca Basin to our existing portfolio.
 
As at July 31, 2023, we hold certain mineral rights in various stages in the States of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Texas and Wyoming, in Canada and in the Republic of Paraguay, many of which are located in historically successful mining areas and have been the subject of past exploration and pre-extraction activities by other mining companies. We do not expect, however, to utilize ISR mining for all of our uranium projects in which case we would expect to rely on conventional open pit and/or underground mining techniques.
 
Our operating and strategic framework is based on expanding our uranium extraction activities, which includes advancing certain uranium projects with established mineralized materials towards uranium extraction, and establishing additional mineralized materials on our existing uranium projects or through acquisition of additional uranium projects.
 
Physical Uranium Program
 
The Company is investing in building the next generation of low-cost and environmentally friendly uranium projects that will be competitive on a global basis. Despite our focus on low cost ISR mining with its low capital requirements, we saw a unique opportunity to purchase drummed uranium at prevailing spot prices which are below most global industry mining costs. Hence, we established a physical uranium portfolio (the “Physical Uranium Program”) and, as of July 31, 2023, we had entered into agreements to purchase 1,695,000 pounds of U.S. warehoused uranium from Fiscal 2024 to Fiscal 2026 at the ConverDyn conversion facility located in Metropolis, Illinois, at a volume weighted average price of approximately $42.78 per pound.
 
During Fiscal 2023, we generated revenue of $164.0 million from sales of 3,150,000 pounds of uranium, which included $17.85 million from sales of 300,000 pounds of U.S. origin uranium concentrates to the U.S. Department of Energy.
 
Our Physical Uranium Program will support three objectives for our Company: (i) to bolster our balance sheet as uranium prices appreciate; (ii) to provide strategic inventory to support future marketing efforts with utilities that could compliment production and accelerate cash flows; and (iii) to increase the availability of our Texas and Wyoming production capacity for emerging U.S. origin specific opportunities which may command premium pricing due to the scarcity of domestic uranium. One such U.S. origin specific opportunity is the Company’s plan to participate in supplying the Uranium Reserve, as outlined in the Nuclear Fuel Working Group report published by the U.S. Department of Energy. 
 
During Fiscal 2023, we made significant advancements in various aspects of our operations, including:
 
 
●
we completed and filed TRS reports in accordance with S-K 1300 disclosing mineral resources for each of our Texas ISR Hub and Spoke, updated Wyoming ISR Hub and Spoke, Shea Creek, Horseshoe-Raven, Workman Creek and Roughrider Projects on August 11, 2022, September 14, 2022, January 13, 2023, January 24, 2023, March 16, 2023 and May 2, 2023, respectively;
 
 
●
we completed the acquisition of UEX on August 19, 2022, making us one of the largest diversified North American focused uranium companies;
 
 
●
we completed the acquisition of the Roughrider Project on October 14, 2022. The acquisition of the Roughrider Project represented an opportunity to scale-up in the high-grade Eastern Athabasca Basin of Saskatchewan, Canada;
 
 
●
we generated revenue of $164.0 million from sales of 3,150,000 pounds of uranium, which included $17.85 million from sales of 300,000 pounds of U.S. origin uranium concentrates to the U.S. Department of Energy;
 
 
●
we published our inaugural sustainability report;
 
 
●
we expanded licensed capacity to four million pounds of U 3 O 8  annually at our Hobson Processing Facility, distinguishing the plant as having the largest licensed capacity in Texas and the second largest in the United States; and
 
 
●
we commenced a drilling campaign at our 82.77% owned Christie Lake Project and drilled 19,778.9 meters.
 
3
Table of Contents
 
Uranium Market Developments
 
Over the past few years, global uranium market fundamentals have been improving as the market transitions from an inventory driven market to a production driven market. The spot market bottomed in November 2016 at about $17.75 per pound U 3 O 8  and stood at $56.25 per pound on July 31, 2023 (UxC U 3 O 8  Daily Spot Price). Production dropped to a multi-year low in 2020 at about 122 million pounds but began to recover in 2021 and totalled about 129 million pounds in 2022, still well below reactor requirements. Global supply and demand projections show a structural deficit between production and utility requirements averaging over 44 million pounds a year over the next 10 years and increasing thereafter (UxC 2023 Q2 Uranium Market Outlook). The current gap is being filled with secondary market sources, including finite inventory that is projected to decline in coming years. As secondary supplies diminish, and as existing mines deplete their resources, new production will be needed to meet utility demand. This will require higher prices to stimulate new mining investment but market prices are still below the incentive prices for many producers.
 
Uranium supply has become more complicated due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as Russia is a significant supplier of nuclear fuel around the globe. Economic sanctions, transportation restrictions, pending legislation and buyer avoidance of Russian fuel is causing a fundamental change to the nuclear fuel markets. We believe this is resulting in a bifurcation of the uranium market, increasing an already notable supply gap for western utilities. More recently, the coup in Niger has raised questions about uranium supply from that country that provided about 25% of European supply this past year.  Secondary supply is also likely to be further reduced with western enrichers reversing operations from underfeeding to overfeeding that requires more uranium to increase the production of enrichment services. While these situations are still unfolding, new trends appear to be pointing towards U.S. and European utilities beginning to shift more focus to security of supply with production from areas of low geopolitical risk.
 
On the demand side of the equation, the global nuclear energy industry continues robust growth, with 69 new reactors connected to the grid since 2013 and another 59 reactors under construction as of August 2023 (PRIS and WNA August 2023 data).  In October 2022, World Nuclear News reported that: “The International Energy Agency projects more than a doubling of nuclear generation by 2050 with at least 30 countries increasing their use of nuclear power, in the Net Zero Emissions by 2050 scenario of its latest World Energy Outlook”. Additional upside market pressure is also emerging as utilities return to a longer-term contracting cycle to replace expiring contracts; something the market has not experienced for several years.  Increasing demand has also occurred with financial entities and various producers, including our Company, purchasing significant quantities of drummed uranium inventory, further removing excess near term supplies.
 
Titanium (TiO2) Industry Updates
 
During Fiscal 2023, the market fundamentals for titanium dioxide remained positive although some softening is expected during the latter part of 2023. There is no economical substitute or environmentally safe alternative to titanium dioxide. Titanium dioxide is used in many “quality of life” products for which demand historically has been linked to global gross domestic product (“GDP”), ongoing urbanization trends and discretionary spending.  90% of all the mined titanium feedstocks are used to manufacture pure titanium dioxide – a pigment that enhances brightness and opacity in paints, inks, paper, plastics, food products and cosmetics. The remaining 10% of supply is used in the production of titanium metal and steel fabrication.
 
Demand for titanium feedstocks, such as ilmenite, is closely tied to titanium dioxide pigment demand. The global titanium pigment demand fundamentals are underpinned by urbanization and rising living standards and as such the long-term demand fundamentals remain robust. Demand for titanium pigment is expected to soften during the latter half of 2023 mainly due to slower growth in China. During 2023, China has seen increasing competition for pigment sales in both the domestic and export markets which has led to reduced pigment production from some operations and in turn has impacted the demand for ilmenite during the first part of the year.
 
Longer-term, China, the world’s largest feedstock market, is becoming increasingly more reliant on higher quality imported feedstocks. Chinese domestic ilmenite is mainly unsuitable for processing under the stricter environmental regulations and, as such, the long-term global shift towards chloride pigment production will continue to drive overall high-quality feedstock demand and prices.  
 
In our view, what appear to be longer-term supply and demand fundamentals and, more specifically, the long-term global shift towards higher grade feedstocks, have the potential to keep upward pressure on high-quality feedstock prices and hence the potential product from the Alto Parana Project.
 
In-Situ Recovery (ISR) Mining
 
We utilize in-situ recovery or ISR uranium mining for our South Texas projects as well as our Reno Creek Project in Wyoming, and will continue to utilize ISR mining whenever such an alternative is available to conventional mining. When compared to conventional mining, ISR mining requires lower capital expenditures, has a reduced impact on the environment and results in a shorter lead time to uranium recovery.
 
ISR mining is considered considerably more environmentally friendly compared to alternative, traditional mining approaches, as the ISR process does not require blasting or waste rock movement, resulting in less damage to the environment, minimal dust, and no resulting tailings or tailings facilities. Further, ISR mining is more discrete and, therefore, land access does not typically have to be restricted, and the area may be restored to its pre-mining usage faster than when applying traditional mining approaches.
 
ISR mining involves circulating oxidized water through an underground uranium deposit, dissolving the uranium and then pumping the uranium-rich solution to the surface for processing. Oxidizing solution enters the formation through a series of injection wells and is drawn to a series of communicating extraction wells. To create a localized hydrologic cone of depression in each wellfield, more groundwater will be produced than injected. Under this gradient, the natural groundwater movement from the surrounding area is toward the wellfield, providing control of the injection fluid. Over-extraction is adjusted as necessary to maintain a cone of depression which ensures that the injection fluid does not move outside the permitted area.
 
The uranium-rich solution is pumped from an ore zone to the surface and circulated through a series of ion exchange columns located at the mine site. The solution flows through resin beds inside an ion exchange column where the uranium bonds to small resin beads. As the solution exits the ion exchange column, it is mostly void of uranium and is re-circulated back to the wellfield and through the ore zone. Once the resin beads are fully-loaded with uranium, they are transported by truck to our Hobson Processing Facility and transferred to a tank for flushing with a brine solution, or elution, which strips the uranium from the resin beads. The stripped resin beads are then transported back to the mine and reused in the ion exchange columns. The uranium solution, now free from the resin, is precipitated out and concentrated into a slurry mixture and fed to a filter press to remove unwanted solids and contaminants. The slurry is then dried in a zero-emissions rotary vacuum dryer, packed in metal drums and shipped out as uranium concentrates, or yellowcake, to a conversion facility for storage and sales.
 
Each project is divided into a mining unit, known as a Production Area Authorization (“PAA”), which lies inside an approved Mine Permit Boundary. Each PAA will be developed, extracted and restored as one unit and will have its own set of monitor wells. It is common to have multiple PAAs in extraction at any one time with additional units in various states of exploration, pre-extraction and/or restoration.
 
4
Table of Contents
 
After mining is complete in a PAA, aquifer restoration will begin as soon as practicable and will continue until the groundwater is restored to pre-mining conditions. Once restoration is complete, a stability period of no less than one year is scheduled with quarterly baseline and monitor well sampling. Wellfield reclamation will follow after aquifer restoration is complete and the stability period has passed.
 
Hobson Processing Facility
 
Our Hobson Processing Facility is located in Karnes County, Texas, about 100 miles northwest of Corpus Christi. It was originally licensed and constructed in 1978, serving as the hub for several satellite mining projects until 1996, and completely refurbished in 2008. On December 18, 2009, we acquired the Hobson Processing Facility as part of our acquisition of STMV.
 
With a physical capacity to process uranium-loaded resins up to a total of two million pounds of U 3 O 8 annually and licensed to process up to four million pounds of U 3 O 8 annually, our fully-licensed and 100%-owned Hobson Processing Facility forms the basis for our “hub-and-spoke” strategy in the State of Texas, specifically in the South Texas Uranium Belt, where we utilize ISR mining.
 
Palangana Mine
 
We hold various mining lease and surface use agreements generally having an initial five-year term with extension provisions, granting us the exclusive right to explore, develop and mine for uranium at our Palangana Mine, a 6,969-acre property located in Duval County, Texas, approximately 100 miles south of the Hobson Processing Facility. These agreements are subject to certain royalty and overriding royalty interests indexed to the sales price of uranium.
 
On December 18, 2009, we acquired the Palangana Mine as part of our acquisition of STMV. In November 2010, the Palangana Mine commenced uranium extraction utilizing ISR mining and in January 2011 the Hobson Processing Facility began processing resins received from the Palangana Mine.
 
Material Relationships Including Long-Term Delivery Contracts
 
As at July 31, 2023, we had no uranium supply or “off-take” agreements in place.
 
Given that there are up to approximately 60 different companies as potential buyers in the uranium market, we are not substantially dependent upon any single customer to purchase uranium extracted by us.
 
Seasonality
 
The timing of our uranium concentrate sales is dependent upon factors such as extraction results from our mining 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. Over the past ten years uranium prices have tended to decline during the calendar third quarter before rebounding during the fourth quarter, but there does not appear to be a strong correlation.
 
Mineral Rights
 
In Texas our mineral rights are held exclusively through private leases from the owners of the land/mineral/surface rights with varying terms. In general, these leases provide for uranium and certain other specified mineral rights only including surface access rights for an initial term of five years and renewal for a second five-year term. We have amended the majority of the leases to extend the time period for an additional five years past the original five-year renewal periods. Our Burke Hollow and some of our Goliad Project leases have a fixed royalty amount based on net proceeds from sales of uranium, and our other projects have production royalties calculated on a sliding-scale basis tied to the gross sales price of uranium. Remediation of a property is required in accordance with regulatory standards, which may include the posting of reclamation bonds.
 
In Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and Wyoming our mineral rights are held either exclusively or through a combination of federal mining claims and state and private mineral leases. Remediation of a property is required in accordance with regulatory standards, which may include the posting of reclamation bonds. Our federal mining claims consist of both unpatented lode and placer mining claims registered with the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) and the appropriate counties. These claims provide for all mineral rights including surface access rights for an indefinite period. Annual maintenance requirements include BLM claim fees of $165 per claim due yearly on September 1 st .  Our state mineral leases are registered with their respective states. These leases provide for all mineral rights, including surface access rights, to be subject to a production royalty of 4% in Wyoming and 5% to 6% in Arizona, ranging from a five-year term in Arizona to a ten-year term in Wyoming. Annual maintenance requirements include lease fees of between $1 and $3 per acre and minimum exploration expenditure requirements of between $10 and $20 per acre in Arizona. Our private mineral leases are negotiated directly with the owners of the land/mineral/surface rights with varying terms. These leases provide for uranium and certain other specified mineral rights only, including surface access rights, subject to production royalties, ranging from an initial term of five to seven years and renewal for a second five-year to seven-year term, and some of which have an initial term of 20 years.
 
Under the mining laws of Saskatchewan, Canada, title to mineral rights for our projects in Saskatchewan is held through The Crown Minerals Act of the Province of Saskatchewan.  In addition, The Mineral Resources Act, 1985 and The Mineral Tenure Registry Regulations affect the rights and administration of mineral tenure in Saskatchewan. Our lands of Saskatchewan projects are currently claimed as “Crown dispositions” or “mineral dispositions”. Subject to section 19 of The Crown Minerals Act, a claim grants to the holder the exclusive right to explore for any Crown minerals that are subject to these regulations within the claim lands. Claims are renewed annually and the claim holder is required to satisfy work expenditure requirements. Expenditure requirements are $Nil for the first year, $15 per hectare for the second year to the tenth year of assessment work periods and $25 per hectare for the eleventh year and subsequent assessment work periods. For registering exploration expenditures, mineral dispositions may be grouped at the time of submission if the total mineral disposition area is not greater than 18,000 hectares. The holder may also submit a cash payment or cash deposit in lieu of a work assessment submission for not more than three consecutive work periods. A claim may be converted to a mineral lease upon application and payment of a registration fee.
 
Under the mining laws of the Republic of Paraguay, title to mineral rights for our Yuty Project is held through a “Mineral Concession Contract” approved by the National Congress and signed between the Government of the Republic of Paraguay and the Company, and titles to mineral rights for our Oviedo Project and our Alto Paraná Titanium Project are held through “Exploration Mining Permits” granted by the Ministry of Public Works and Communications (“MOPC”), the mining regulator in Paraguay. These mineral rights provide for the exploration of metallic and non-metallic minerals and precious and semi-precious gems within the territory of Paraguay for up to a six-year period, and for the exploitation of minerals for a minimum period of 20 years from the beginning of the production phase, extendable for an additional ten years.
 
5
Table of Contents
 
Environmental, Social and Governance Overview
 
UEC is dedicated to preserving the environment in which we operate, and to being a responsible neighbor to our local communities. We believe in mining in a responsible manner, such as through the deployment of ISR technology when possible, adhering to all applicable environmental regulations and managing and reducing our carbon emissions. UEC believes that uranium and nuclear energy will be an important part of the energy transition as it can provide reliable and consistent power to the grid. Ensuring responsible mining practices better positions nuclear to be an energy source of choice to governments, and enables us to be a better partner and corporate citizen to our local communities.
 
Environmental Management
 
Environmental Governance
 
UEC approved an Environmental, Health and Safety Policy in Fiscal 2022 which sets out objectives and provides overarching guidelines for the management of the environment. This enterprise-wide policy can be found at https://www.uraniumenergy.com/about/corporate-governance/ . Topics covered in this policy include the management of hazardous waste, water, biodiversity and land use, air quality and pollutants, green-house gas (“GHG”) emissions and energy management. Adherence to and performance against this policy will be reviewed by our Board of Directors’ (the “Board of Directors” or “Board”) Sustainability Committee annually.
 
U.S. Environmental Regulations
 
We believe that we comply with all federal, state and local applicable laws and regulations which govern environmental quality and pollution control.  Our operations are subject to stringent environmental regulation by state and federal authorities including the Railroad Commission of Texas (“RCT”), the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (“TCEQ”), the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (“WDEQ”) Land, Water and Air Quality Divisions, the United States BLM(Wyoming) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”).
 
Texas
 
In Texas, where the Company’s hub-and-spoke operations are anchored by the fully-licensed Hobson Processing Facility, surface extraction and exploration for uranium is regulated by the RCT, while ISR uranium extraction is regulated by the TCEQ. An exploration permit is the initial permit granted by the RCT that authorizes exploration drilling activities inside an approved area. This permit authorizes specific drilling and plugging activities requiring documentation for each borehole drilled. All documentation is submitted to the RCT on a monthly basis and each borehole drilled under the exploration permit is inspected by an RCT inspector to ensure compliance. As at July 31, 2023, we held one exploration permit in each of Bee, Duval and Goliad Counties in Texas.
 
As an example of the regulation that guides our industry, before ISR uranium extraction can begin in Texas, a number of permits must be granted by the TCEQ.
 
A Mine Area Permit (“MAP”) application is required for submission to the TCEQ to establish a specific permit area boundary, aquifer exemption boundary and the mineral zones of interests or production zones. The application also includes a financial surety plan to ensure funding for all plugging and abandonment requirements. Funding for surety is in the form of cash or bonds, including an excess of 15% for contingencies and 10% for overhead, adjusted annually for inflation. As at July 31, 2023, we held MAPs for our Palangana Mine and our Goliad and Burke Hollow Projects.
 
A Radioactive Material License (“RML”) application is also required for submission to the TCEQ for authorization to operate a uranium recovery facility. The application includes baseline environmental data for soil, vegetation, surface water and groundwater along with operational sampling frequencies and locations. A Radiation Safety Manual is a key component of the application which defines the environmental health and safety programs and procedures to protect employees and the environment. Another important component of the application is a financial surety mechanism to ensure plant and wellfield decommissioning is properly funded and maintained. Surety funding is in the form of cash or bonds, and includes an excess of 15% for contingencies and 10% for overhead, adjusted annually for inflation. As at July 31, 2023, we held RMLs for our Palangana Mine, Burke Hollow and Goliad Projects and Hobson Processing Facility.
 
PAA applications are also required for submission to the TCEQ to establish specific extraction areas inside the MAP boundary. These are typically 30 to 100-acre units that have been delineated and contain extractible quantities of uranium. The PAA application includes baseline water quality data that is characteristic of that individual unit, proposes upper control limits for monitor well analysis and establishes restoration values. The application will also include a financial security plan for wellfield restoration and reclamation which must be funded and in place prior to commencing uranium extraction. As at July 31, 2023, we held four PAA permits for our Palangana Mine and one for our Goliad Project. An application for PAA-1 at Burke Hollow was submitted in February 2023.
 
A Class I disposal well permit application is also required for submission to the TCEQ for authorization for deep underground wastewater injection. It is the primary method for disposing of excess fluid from the extraction areas and for reverse osmosis concentrate during the restoration phase. This permit authorizes injection into a specific injection zone within a designated injection interval. The permit requires continuous monitoring of numerous parameters including injection flow rate, injection pressure, annulus pressure and injection/annulus differential pressure.  Mechanical integrity testing is required initially and annually to ensure the well is mechanically sound.  Surety funding for plugging and abandonment of each well is in the form of cash or bonds, including 15% for contingencies and 10% for overhead, adjusted annually for inflation. As at July 31, 2023, we held two Class I disposal well permits for each of our Hobson Processing Facility, Palangana Satellite Facility and Burke Hollow and Goliad Projects.
 
The federal Safe Drinking Water Act (“SDWA”) creates a regulatory program to protect groundwater and is administered by the EPA. The SDWA allows states to issue underground injection control (“UIC”) permits under two conditions: the state’s program must have been granted primacy; and the EPA must have granted an aquifer exemption upon the state’s request (an “Aquifer Exemption”). Texas, being a primacy state, is therefore authorized to grant UIC permits and makes the official requests for an Aquifer Exemption to the EPA. The Aquifer Exemption request is submitted by the Company to the TCEQ and, once approved, is then submitted by the TCEQ to the EPA for concurrence and final issuance. As at July 31, 2023, we held an Aquifer Exemption for each of our Palangana Mine and our Goliad and Burke Hollow Projects.
 
Wyoming
 
In Wyoming ISR mining activities are regulated by the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (“WDEQ”), Land Quality Division (“LQD”), under Wyoming Administrative Code §35-11-401 through §35-11-437. Before ISR uranium mining is allowed to proceed in Wyoming, certain permits and licenses must be granted by WDEQ, which are subject to financial assurance plans to ensure anticipated future costs for decontamination, decommissioning, reclamation, groundwater restoration, disposal, or any other reclamation requirements are adequately funded. Bonding regulations for ISR facilities are discussed in §35-11-417 of the Wyoming Administrative Code and further in WDEQ/LQD regulations contained in Non-Coal Chapters 1 through 13.  
 
There are two major permits/licenses required for ISR uranium mining in Wyoming.  The first is the Permit to Mine, issued by the WDEQ/LQD.  The second is the RML, previously issued by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (“NRC”), now issued by the WDEQ/LQD Uranium Recovery Program (“URP”). In 2018 the State of Wyoming became an NRC agreement state for the licensing of uranium recovery operations.  RMLs are now issued and regulated by the WDEQ/LQD/URP.  Annual financial surety updates are required on the Mine Permit anniversary date and are reviewed by both the WDEQ/LQD and WDEQ/LQD/URP as part of the approval process.  As at July 31, 2023, UEC held Permits to Mine and RMLs for each of its Christensen Ranch, Irigaray, Ludeman, Moore Ranch and Reno Creek Projects.   
 
6
Table of Contents
 
In Wyoming, a Class I disposal well permit is required for deep underground wastewater injection (same process as in Texas). It is the primary method for disposing of excess fluid from the extraction areas and for reverse osmosis concentrate during the restoration phase. Permits for Class I Injection wells are authorized by the WDEQ Water Quality Division who has primacy for this program under EPA.  In Wyoming, as at July 31, 2023, UEC holds Class I Injection well permits for four disposal wells at the Christensen Ranch Project, two disposal wells at the Irigaray Project, four disposal wells at the Moore Ranch Project and four disposal wells at its Reno Creek Project. 
 
Exploration drilling outside of areas within a Permit to Mine is regulated by the WDEQ LQD. To conduct exploration drilling, an application must be filed with LQD that provides location details of the areas to be explored, the number of drill holes anticipated, the methods of drill hole abandonment to be used; location of access roads to be used or constructed, and an estimate of the cost to reclaim all drill holes and surfaces impacted by the drilling program.  If approved, LQD will approve the reclamation cost estimate and the company will post a bond or other financial assurance instrument acceptable to LQD.  After the financial assurance instrument is approved by LQD, they will issue a Drilling Notification permit to the company to conduct the exploration drilling.  After reclamation is completed, LQD will inspect the drill hole sites and either approve the reclamation and release the bond, or make recommendations for further corrective action.  As at July 31, 2023, UEC holds three Drilling Notification Permits, two for various exploration projects in the Powder River Basin and one for exploration in the Great Divide Basin of Wyoming. 
 
Under the WDEQ the Bonding Provisions (§35-11-417) and regulations for Financial Assurance Requirements for Closure, Post Closure, and Corrective Action outlines financial assurance for in-situ uranium sites to include costs relating to: decommissioning, decontamination, demolition and waste disposal for buildings, structures, foundations, equipment and utilities; well plugging and abandonment; surface reclamation of operating areas, roads, wellfields and surface impoundments; groundwater restoration in mining areas; and radiological surveying for final release of the lands. Funding for the financial assurance is in the form of cash, reclamation bonds, letters of credit, and other mechanisms approved by the WDEQ.  The financial assurance calculations include an excess of 15% for contingencies and 10% for overhead, adjusted annually for inflation. As at July 31, 2023, UEC held reclamation bonds for all of the Permits to Mine and RMLs Licenses plus three Drilling Notifications (exploration by drilling permits). 
 
As in Texas, the State of Wyoming is allowed to issue UIC permits under two conditions: the state’s program must have been granted primacy; and the EPA must have granted an aquifer exemption upon the state’s request (an Aquifer Exemption). Wyoming issues UIC Class I permits (disposal wells) and UIC Class III permits for ISR wells.  Wyoming requests the official aquifer exemption from the EPA for these permits. As at July 31, 2023, UEC held Aquifer Exemptions for each of its Christensen Ranch, Irigaray, Ludeman, Moore Ranch and Reno Creek Projects, as well as the Christensen Ranch Class I disposal wells. 
 
Canada Environmental Regulations
 
Uranium mining and milling projects in Canada are among the most heavily regulated types of projects in the country with full regulatory oversight from both the federal and provincial levels of government. That full regulatory oversight includes a strong, independent federal nuclear regulator, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (“CNSC”), which is charged with regulating all aspects of nuclear activities in Canada. Modern uranium mines, despite their strong safety and environmental protection record, operate in this heavily regulated environment effectively using integrated management systems maintain compliance and extensive reporting to demonstrate ongoing compliance. Monitoring includes community groups (e.g., North Environmental Quality Committee), First Nations, periodic state of the environment reporting and occasional independent third-party monitoring funded by the CNSC. 
 
For mining in Saskatchewan, a surface lease is required prior to work commencing on site. The surface lease will generally cover all areas that are predicted to be disturbed and accrues annual fees per hectare. Surface leases are coordinated through the Ministry of Government Relations, Northern Engagement Branch, and the Ministry of Environment (“MOE”), Lands Branch, and includes input from other government agencies where appropriate. While negotiations can start early, and in parallel with a provincial Environmental Impact Assessment (“EIA”) process, a precondition of the issuance of a surface lease is the successful outcome of the EIA process. In Saskatchewan, the EIA and licensing process are sequential, as the EIA process must be completed prior to the issuance of specific leases, licenses and permits. 
 
To require an EIA, a project must be deemed a Development per section 2(d) of the Saskatchewan Environmental Assessment Act (“EAA”) and a formal Ministerial Determination to that effect. The work required for an EIA includes any delegated Duty to Consult engagement and consultation along with environmental baseline work. 
 
Once an EIA is submitted and the provincial internal reviews are finished, the EASB compiles the comments and produces the technical review comments (“TRC”) document. If there are deficiencies in the EIA, the proponent will be required to address them before the TRC document and the final EIS are placed into public review. Public review is generally 30 or 60 days. When the public comments period is complete, EASB will produce an EIA decision document for the Minister of Environment. While there are three outcomes possible, the likely outcome for a project that gets to this stage is approval of the EIA with conditions. With approval of the EIA, licensing and permitting can be completed. 
 
While the EIA is in progress, the proponent can develop the surface lease application, and other provincial licensing packages for review by the government, although approval of these cannot occur until the EIA process is completed and a positive outcome obtained. Provincially, the licensing is through the MOE Environmental Protection Branch, which largely provides a one window approach for mining project licensing on behalf of other branches and ministries. There will be other ministries and permitting required related to health and safety, labour, employment, and royalties. Overall, a number of permissions, of one form or another, are required to complete the project, but when compared to the EIA process, they are rarely material to the schedule or budget if organized properly. Most ministries will indicate their interest and the need for any permits at the Technical Proposal and EIA review stages and those comments will come forward in the TRC.  
 
The federal Impact Assessment Act, 2019 (“IAA”) and the need to produce an Impact Assessment (“IA”) can be triggered in two ways. The first is by triggering one of the activity thresholds in the Physical Activities Regulations, 2019 , and the second is that the project can be designated by the federal Minister of Environment and Climate Change (the “Minister”) in response to a request to designate the project and a supporting recommendation from the Canadian Impact Assessment Agency (“CIAA”). Currently, the proposed project does not trigger any thresholds in the Physical Activities Regulations. 
 
The CNSC and Saskatchewan MOE have historically worked closely together and the CNSC will have the ability to review the provincial EIA. The regulators have demonstrated recently that they can cooperate in their review of projects despite the expiration of their cooperation agreement. The CNSC can review and provide comments on any submission to EASB. In addition, the CNSC will act as a technical advisor and is a participant in the EIA process; however, the provincial EIA decision is independent of the federal government. 
 
The main federal licensing agency for the Project, the CNSC, will need to be satisfied that the environment, writ large, is protected. The CNSC will conduct an environmental protection review (“EPR”) for the license application in accordance with their mandate under the NSCA to ensure the protection of the environment and the health of persons. The CNSC follows the federal mandates with respect to Indigenous peoples and other initiatives such as Climate Change. 
 
The CNSC and Saskatchewan MOE have historically worked closely together and the CNSC will have the ability to review the provincial EIA. The regulators have demonstrated recently that they can cooperate in their review of projects despite the expiration of their cooperation agreement. The CNSC can review and provide comments on any submission to EASB. In addition, the CNSC will act as a technical advisor and is a participant in the EIA process; however, the provincial EIA decision is independent of the federal government. 
 
7
Table of Contents
 
Per the NSCA, a project needs to initiate the licensing process in order to have meaningful discussions with the CNSC and early discussions with the CNSC on the licensing process, engagement and consultation expectations, and the scope of the Project’s licensing are meaningful to help advance a project. While the option of sequentially doing the provincial EIA and the CNSC licensing is available to the proponent, the CNSC suggests doing these two distinct processes in parallel to save time. Effectively, while the EIA process is proceeding, the development and submission of the provincial and CNSC licensing packages can proceed in parallel. It is assumed that a successful outcome for the provincial EIA would be an important part of the CNSC’s EPR, which would be presented to the Commission Tribunal as part of the licensing reviews. As for Saskatchewan, a positive environmental decision is required prior to the Commission approving any licensing packages. The CNSC’s licensing and oversight processes are done on a cost recovery basis through the Cost Recovery Fees Regulations. 
 
In support of licensing, proponents are required to develop management systems complete with policies, systems/programs, procedures, and monitoring commensurate with the proposed scope of activities. To protect human health and the environment, the CNSC focusses on their regulated areas of safety and control in their assessment of projects, including areas of higher risk such as quality management, occupational health and safety, environmental protection, radiation protection, tailings management, and safeguards and non-proliferation, to name a few. 
 
There may be a need to engage with Fisheries and Oceans Canada (under the Fisheries Act) regarding treated effluent discharge or pump stations for fresh water. Transport Canada authorization may be required if there are any in-water works with a potential to impact navigation (under the Canadian Navigable Waters Act or under the Canadian Aviation Regulations ). Water quality and the monitoring of biological effects will be governed by the Metal and Diamond Mining Effluent Regulations to the Fisheries Act, in addition to any provincial requirements. Other federal legislation of importance to a project will be compliance with the Species at Risk Act (e.g. the need for a woodland caribou management plan) and the Migratory Birds Convention Act . It is not clear whether the proposed federal Policy on Biodiversity will have an impact on the project, but if enacted, it could mean more bio-physical offsets will be required for disturbed ground. 
 
As part of the environmental assessment process, projects are required to develop conceptual decommissioning plans for inclusion in the EIA, which detail the steps to be taken to decommission project facilities and reclaim the land at the end of project life. As part of licensing, the conceptual plan is expanded into a more detailed Preliminary Decommissioning Plan (“PDP”) and a cost estimate for implementation is prepared from that: The Preliminary Decommissioning Cost (“PDC”). The Company will then be required to provide some form of surety or bond to cover the cost of carrying out the PDP. The surety is designed to cover the unlikely situation whereby the proponent is unable to complete the decommissioning and reclamation and the government must step in to complete the work in a ‘decommission tomorrow’ scenario. While salvage of some materials is likely, these cannot be considered in the PDC. The plan and costs are periodically reviewed and updated and can be scaled to reflect the current state of a project. As operations progress, progressive decommissioning is encouraged as it lowers close-out liabilities, which, in turn, can reduce the amount of a surety bond, and often reduces the cost of disturbed-land lease fees. 
 
For a uranium mining and milling project, once operations have stopped, the first step is to conduct systematic surveys to determine the extent of contamination, if any. Contamination may be chemical or radiological. Areas that can be decontaminated will be cleaned and re-surveyed to ensure that the clean-up criteria are met. Material that cannot be decontaminated to release standards would be disposed of on site or at an approved off-site disposal facility. The remainder of the site will be decommissioned as the facilities are no longer required with the material salvaged for reuse, recycling, or disposal.  
 
In Saskatchewan, reclaimed land can be returned to the Crown under The Reclaimed Industrial Sites Act and The Reclaimed Industrial Sites Regulations , which establish an Institutional Control Program. This program is implemented once a decommissioned site has been deemed to be reclaimed in a stable, self-sustaining and non-polluting manner. The property can then be transferred back to the province for monitoring and maintenance. For this to happen, the proponent pays a calculated sum into the Institutional Control Monitoring and Maintenance Fund, and the Institutional Control Unforeseen Events Fund for long term monitoring of the property and maintenance, if required. In the unlikely event that the site does not behave as predicted, the government can seek redress from the proponent if the costs exceed the funds available. 
 
Indigenous Engagement   in Saskatchewan
 
For both the federal and provincial EIA and permitting/licensing processes, engagement and consultation are required with Indigenous groups. Engagement in Saskatchewan consists of the Crown’s Duty to Consult, a legal requirement, and interest-based engagement, which is essential to a Project’s social license. Both levels of government (‘the Crown’) have a Duty to Consult First Nations and Métis groups on any decision within their purview with the potential to affect Aboriginal or Treaty Rights. As the project progresses through the regulatory process, several provincial and federal decisions will be made that must be informed by engagement and consultation. Implementation of the Duty to Consult is guided by a combination of provincial and federal regulatory requirements and guidance documents (e.g. Section 35, The Constitution Act, 1982 ).  
 
Although the Duty to Consult lies with the federal and provincial governments, the procedural aspects of the Duty to Consult are frequently delegated to the proponent to undertake. This often results in the proponent entering into engagement agreements with some First Nations and Metis governments to do studies to identify any potential impacts to rights. Companies are expected to meet with each potentially affected community to discuss engagement plans and an appropriate budget for the communities to complete the necessary meetings and studies, although the level of effort is generally commensurate with proximity to the site. The engagement plan should include opportunities to inform communities of the nature of the proposed activities, the potential impacts of a project, and proposed mitigation strategies. The purpose is to receive feedback or information on current traditional land uses and potential impacts to Treaty and Aboriginal rights. Companies are expected to work with the communities to determine the impacts of the projects and mitigation strategies.
 
8
Table of Contents
 
Waste Disposal
 
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”) and comparable state statutes affect mineral exploration and production 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 of 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. Presently our Palangana Mine, our Hobson Processing Facility and our Goliad Project all have permits by rule covering air emissions.
 
Water Management
 
UEC commits its 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 mining and responsibly managing that water is crucial to our business.
 
At all UEC’s 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 UEC’s ISR mining 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, allowed to settle and then approximately 95% is reinjected or recirculated back into the same aquifer it was recovered from. This recycling process is an overwhelming advantage of ISR mining compared to other methods such as conventional or open pit.
 
In order to ensure appropriate water management, and to ensure our team can continuously make decisions to reduce our water usage, UEC closely monitors our water consumption. UEC is 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.
 
GHG Emissions Management
 
Mining is an essential industry to enable the global transition to net-zero. Uranium mining, at the heart of UEC’s business, fuels nuclear energy, which is an essential carbon-free energy source. Beyond this, we understand that our operational activities do contribute to climate change through the release of emissions. 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 2022, we have created an emissions inventory of all sources (mobile and stationary) for each Texas project, including tracking fuel consumption by individual source at each project. In Fiscal 2023, we expanded our emissions measurement approach to cover all sites, including Wyoming, Saskatchewan and Paraguay. Scope 1 emissions covers direct emissions from owned or controlled sources. Scope 2 emissions covers indirect emissions from the generation of purchased electricity, steam, heating and cooling consumed by the Company.
 
Through developing this inventory, we have been able to identify, assess and conduct a cost benefit analysis for emission reduction opportunities at UEC’s Texas projects. Such opportunities include exploring ways to upgrade our Hobson plant into a zero-emissions processing plant. 
 
Aligned to responsibly managing our emissions in the short-term, we will look to purchase carbon offset credits for our Scope 1 and 2 emissions for our corporate sites.
 
9
Table of Contents
 
Health and Safety
 
Health and safety is one of our top priorities. We pride ourselves on employing safe practices in all aspects of its work.
 
In Fiscal 2022, UEC’s Board approved an Environmental, Health and Safety Policy that provides overall objectives and guidance for our health and safety management. Supporting this Policy, at each site, UEC has a number of operational policies and practices covering radiation safety and procedures, spills and leakage reporting, equipment training and emergency response procedures. There is also a company-wide Injury and Incident Policy covered in the employee handbook that all employees are familiar with and are required to comply against.
 
Training for employees on health and safety protocols are essential to ensuring we employ best safety practices at all times. Although exact training hours have not been recorded for this fiscal year, UEC has provided training to staff on a variety of safety topics, including, but not limited to, the following topics:
 
 
●
Annual radiation safety training for all plant and wellfield employees;
 
●
Bi-Annual Radiation Safety Officer training;
 
●
Radiation Safety Technician training;
 
●
Logging training;
 
●
First Aid/CPR training every two years;
 
●
Rig Safety/Inspections training; and
 
●
Annual DOT Training/HazMat training.
 
UEC’s health and safety practices are developed to ensure that all regulatory requirements are met. Across all of our sites, our employees are required to report all injuries to their supervisor. On an annual basis, all reports are analyzed and tracked as required by the Occupational Health and Safety Association (“OSHA”). Given the nature of UEC’s specialized industry, there are site-specific emergency procedures in place that identify the steps employees should take in the event of a health and safety emergency.
 
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.
 
The global titanium market is highly competitive, with the top six producers accounting for approximately 60% of the world’s production capacity according to TZ Minerals International Pty. Ltd. Competition is based on a number of factors, such as price, product quality and service. Among our competitors are companies that are vertically-integrated (those that have their own raw material resources).
 
Research and Development Activities
 
No research and development expenditures have been incurred, either on our account or sponsored by customers, for our three most recently completed fiscal years.
 
Employees
 
Amir Adnani is our President and Chief Executive Officer and, effective October 29, 2015, Pat Obara was appointed our Chief Financial Officer. These individuals are primarily responsible for all our day-to-day operations. Effective September 8, 2014, Scott Melbye was appointed our Executive Vice President. Other services are provided by outsourcing and consulting and special purpose contracts. As of July 31, 2023, we had 83 persons employed on a full-time basis and 9 individuals providing services on a contractual basis.
 
Human Capital
 
As of July 31, 2023, our employee population consisted of 83 individuals working for us and our consolidated subsidiaries, 43 of whom were located in the United States, 25 in Canada and 15 in Paraguay. 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’ projects 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 is www.uraniumenergy.com and our annual reports on Form 10-K and quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, 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. These same reports, as well as our current reports on Form 8-K, and amendments to those reports, filed or furnished electronically with the SEC are available for review at the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov . Printed copies of the foregoing materials are available free of charge upon written request by email at info@uraniumenergy.com . 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.
 
10
Table of Contents
 
Item 1A. Risk Factors
 
In addition to the information contained in this Form 10-K Annual Report, we have identified the following material risks and uncertainties which reflect our outlook and conditions known to us as of the date of this Annual Report. These material risks and uncertainties should be carefully reviewed by our stockholders and any potential investors in evaluating the Company, our business and the market value of our common stock. Furthermore, any one of these material risks and uncertainties has the potential to cause actual results, performance, achievements or events to be materially different from any future results, performance, achievements or events implied, suggested or expressed by any forward-looking statements made by us or by persons acting on our behalf. Refer to “ Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-looking Statements ” .
 
There is no assurance that we will be successful in preventing the material adverse effects that any one or more of the following material risks and uncertainties may cause on our business, prospects, financial condition and operating results, which may result in a significant decrease in the market price of our common stock. Furthermore, there is no assurance that these material risks and uncertainties represent a complete list of the material risks and uncertainties facing us. There may be additional risks and uncertainties of a material nature that, as of the date of this Annual Report, we are unaware of or that we consider immaterial that may become material in the future, any one or more of which may result in a material adverse effect on us. You could lose all or a significant portion of your investment due to any one of these material risks and uncertainties.
 
Risks Related to Our Company and Business
 
Evaluating our future performance may be difficult since we have a limited financial and operating history, with significant negative operating cash flow and an accumulated deficit to date. Our long-term success will depend ultimately on our ability to achieve and maintain profitability and to develop positive cash flow from our mining activities.
 
As more fully described under Item 1. Business herein, Uranium Energy Corp. was incorporated under the laws of the State of Nevada on May 16, 2003 and, since 2004, we have been engaged in uranium mining and related activities, including exploration, pre-extraction, extraction and processing, on projects located in the United States, Canada and the Republic of Paraguay. In November 2010, we commenced uranium extraction for the first time at our Palangana Mine utilizing ISR methods and processed those materials at our Hobson Processing Facility into drums of U 3 O 8 . We also hold uranium projects in various stages of exploration and pre-extraction in the States of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Texas and Wyoming, in Canada and the Republic of Paraguay. Since we completed the acquisition of our Alto Paraná Project located in the Republic of Paraguay in July 2017, we are also involved in mining and related activities, including exploration, pre-extraction, extraction and processing, of titanium minerals.
 
As more fully described under “Liquidity and Capital Resources” of Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations herein, we have a history of significant negative cash flow and net losses, with an accumulated deficit balance of $289.7 million as at July 31, 2023. Historically, we have been reliant primarily on equity financings from the sale of our common stock and on debt financing in order to fund our operations. Although we generated revenues from sales of U 3 O 8 we extracted during Fiscal 2015, Fiscal 2013 and Fiscal 2012 of $3.1 million, $9.0 million and $13.8 million, respectively, and generated revenues from sales of purchased uranium inventory and toll processing services totaling $164.4 million during Fiscal 2023, we have yet to achieve consistent profitability or develop consistent positive cash flow from our operations, and we do not expect to achieve consistent profitability or develop consistent positive cash flow from operations in the near term. As a result of our limited financial and operating history, including our significant negative cash flow from operations and net losses to date, it may be difficult to evaluate our future performance.
 
As at July 31, 2023, we had a working capital (current assets less current liabilities) of $43,011 including cash and cash equivalents of $ 45,614 million and uranium inventory holdings of $6,207. Subsequent to July 31, 2023, we received additional cash proceeds of $36.2 million under our at-the-market offering. We believe that our existing cash resources and, if necessary, cash generated from the sale of the Company’s liquid assets, will provide sufficient funds to carry out our planned operations for 12 months from the date of this Annual Report. Our continuation as a going concern for a period beyond those 12 months will be dependent upon our ability to obtain adequate additional financing, as our operations are capital intensive and future capital expenditures are expected to be substantial. Our continued operations, including the recoverability of the carrying values of our assets, are dependent ultimately on our ability to achieve and maintain profitability and positive cash flow from our operations.
 
Our reliance on equity and debt financings is expected to continue for the foreseeable future, and their availability whenever such additional financing is required will be dependent on many factors beyond our control including, but not limited to, the market price of uranium, the continuing public support of nuclear power as a viable source of electrical generation, the volatility in the global financial markets affecting our stock price and the status of the worldwide economy, any one of which may cause significant challenges in our ability to access additional financing, including access to the equity and credit markets. We may also be required to seek other forms of financing, such as asset divestitures or joint venture arrangements, to continue advancing our projects which would depend entirely on finding a suitable third party willing to enter into such an arrangement, typically involving an assignment of a percentage interest in the mineral project.
 
Our long-term success, including the recoverability of the carrying values of our assets and our ability to acquire additional uranium projects and continue with exploration and pre-extraction activities and mining activities on our existing uranium projects, will depend ultimately on our ability to achieve and maintain profitability and positive cash flow from our operations by establishing ore bodies that contain commercially recoverable uranium and to develop these into profitable mining activities. The economic viability of our mining activities, including the expected duration and profitability of our ISR Mines and of any future satellite ISR mines, such as our Burke Hollow and Goliad Projects located within the South Texas Uranium Belt, our Christensen Ranch Mine and Reno Creek Project located in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming, and our projects in Canada and in the Republic of Paraguay, have many risks and uncertainties. These include, but are not limited to: (i) a significant, prolonged decrease in the market price of uranium and titanium minerals; (ii) difficulty in marketing and/or selling uranium concentrates; (iii) significantly higher than expected capital costs to construct a mine and/or processing plant; (iv) significantly higher than expected extraction costs; (v) significantly lower than expected mineral extraction; (vi) significant delays, reductions or stoppages of uranium extraction activities; and (vii) the introduction of significantly more stringent regulatory laws and regulations. Our mining activities may change as a result of any one or more of these risks and uncertainties and there is no assurance that any ore body that we extract mineralized materials from will result in achieving and maintaining profitability and developing positive cash flow.
 
11
Table of Contents
 
Our operations are capital intensive, and we will require significant additional financing to acquire additional mineral projects and continue with our exploration and pre-extraction activities on our existing projects.
 
Our operations are capital intensive and future capital expenditures are expected to be substantial. We will require significant additional financing to fund our operations, including acquiring additional mineral projects and continuing with our exploration and pre-extraction activities which include assaying, drilling, geological and geochemical analysis and mine construction costs. In the absence of such additional financing we would not be able to fund our operations or continue with our exploration and pre-extraction activities, which may result in delays, curtailment or abandonment of any one or all of our projects.
 
Our uranium extraction and sales history is limited. Our ability to generate revenue is subject to a number of factors, any one or more of which may adversely affect our financial condition and operating results .
 
We have a limited history of uranium extraction and generating revenue.  In November 2010, we commenced uranium extraction at our Palangana Mine, which has been our sole source of revenues from the sales of produced U 3 O 8 during Fiscal 2015, Fiscal 2013 and Fiscal 2012, with no revenues from sales of produced U 3 O 8 during other fiscal years.
 
During Fiscal 2023, we continued to operate our ISR Mines at a reduced pace. This strategy has included the deferral of major pre-extraction expenditures and remaining in a state of operational readiness in anticipation of a recovery in uranium prices. Our ability to generate revenue from our Palangana and recently acquired Christensen Ranch Mines is subject to a number of factors which include, but are not limited to: (i) a significant, prolonged decrease in the market price of uranium; (ii) difficulty in marketing and/or selling uranium concentrates; (iii) significantly higher than expected extraction costs; (iv) significantly lower than expected uranium extraction; (v) significant delays, reductions or stoppages of uranium extraction activities; and (vi) the introduction of significantly more stringent regulatory laws and regulations. Furthermore, continued mining activities at our ISR Mines will eventually deplete the mines or cause such activities to become uneconomical, and if we are unable to directly acquire or develop existing uranium projects, such as our Moore Ranch, Reno Creek, Burke Hollow and Goliad Projects, into additional uranium mines from which we can commence uranium extraction, it will negatively impact our ability to generate revenues. Any one or more of these occurrences may adversely affect our financial condition and operating results.
 
Exploration and pre-extraction programs and mining activities are inherently subject to numerous significant risks and uncertainties, and actual results may differ significantly from expectations or anticipated amounts. Furthermore, exploration programs conducted on our projects may not result in the establishment of ore bodies that contain commercially recoverable uranium.
 
Exploration and pre-extraction programs and mining activities are inherently subject to numerous significant risks and uncertainties, with many beyond our control and including, but not limited to: (i) unanticipated ground and water conditions and adverse claims to water rights; (ii) unusual or unexpected geological formations; (iii) metallurgical and other processing problems; (iv) the occurrence of unusual weather or operating conditions and other force majeure events; (v) lower than expected ore grades; (vi) industrial accidents; (vii) delays in the receipt of or failure to receive necessary government permits; (viii) delays in transportation; (ix) availability of contractors and labor; (x) government permit restrictions and regulation restrictions; (xi) unavailability of materials and equipment; and (xii) the failure of equipment or processes to operate in accordance with specifications or expectations. These risks and uncertainties could result in: (i) delays, reductions or stoppages in our mining activities; (ii) increased capital and/or extraction costs; (iii) damage to, or destruction of, our mineral projects, extraction facilities or other properties; (iv) personal injuries; (v) environmental damage; (vi) monetary losses; and (vii) legal claims.
 
Success in mineral exploration is dependent on many factors including, without limitation, the experience and capabilities of a company’s management, the availability of geological expertise and the availability of sufficient funds to conduct the exploration program. Even if an exploration program is successful and commercially recoverable material is established, it may take a number of years from the initial phases of drilling and identification of the mineralization until extraction is possible, during which time the economic feasibility of extraction may change such that the material ceases to be economically recoverable. Exploration is frequently non-productive due, for example, to poor exploration results or the inability to establish ore bodies that contain commercially recoverable material, in which case the project may be abandoned and written-off. Furthermore, we will not be able to benefit from our exploration efforts and recover the expenditures that we incur on our exploration programs if we do not establish ore bodies that contain commercially recoverable material and develop these projects into profitable mining activities, and there is no assurance that we will be successful in doing so for any of our projects.
 
Whether an ore body contains commercially recoverable material depends on many factors including, without limitation: (i) the particular attributes, including material changes to those attributes, of the ore body such as size, grade, recovery rates and proximity to infrastructure; (ii) the market price of uranium, which may be volatile; and (iii) government regulations and regulatory requirements including, without limitation, those relating to environmental protection, permitting and land use, taxes, land tenure and transportation.
 
We have not established proven or probable reserves through the completion of a “ final ” or “ bankable ” feasibility study for any of our projects, including our ISR Mines. Furthermore, we have no plans to establish proven or probable reserves for any of our uranium projects for which we plan on utilizing ISR mining, such as our ISR Mines. Since we commenced extraction of mineralized materials from our ISR Mines without having established proven or probable reserves, it may result in our mining activities at our ISR Mines, and at any future projects for which proven or probable reserves are not established, being inherently riskier than other mining activities for which proven or probable reserves have been established.
 
12
Table of Contents
 
We have established the existence of mineralized materials for certain of our projects, including our ISR Mines. We have not established proven or probable reserves, as defined by the SEC, through the completion of a “final” or “bankable” feasibility study for any of our projects, including our ISR Mines. Furthermore, we have no plans to establish proven or probable reserves for any of our projects for which we plan on utilizing ISR mining. Since we commenced the extraction of mineralized materials at our ISR Mines without having established proven or probable reserves, there may be greater inherent uncertainty as to whether or not any mineralized material can be economically extracted as originally planned and anticipated. Any mineralized materials established or extracted from our ISR Mines should not in any way be associated with having established or produced from proven or probable reserves.
 
On October 31, 2018, the SEC adopted the Modernization of Property Disclosures for Mining Registrants (again, the New Rule), introducing significant changes to the existing mining disclosure framework to better align it with international industry and regulatory practice, including NI 43-101. The New Rule became effective as of February 25, 2019, and issuers are required to comply with the New Rule as of the annual report for their first fiscal year beginning on or after January 1, 2021, and earlier in certain circumstances. The Company believes that it is presently in compliance with the New Rule.
 
Since we are in the Exploration Stage, pre-production expenditures including those related to pre-extraction activities are expensed as incurred, the effects of which may result in our consolidated financial statements not being directly comparable to the financial statements of companies in the Production Stage.
 
Despite the fact that we commenced uranium extraction at our ISR Mines, we remain in the Exploration Stage (as defined by the SEC) and will continue to remain in the Exploration Stage until such time as proven or probable reserves have been established, which may never occur. We prepare our consolidated financial statements in accordance with United States generally accepted accounting principles (“U.S. GAAP”) under which acquisition costs of mineral rights are initially capitalized as incurred while pre-production expenditures are expensed as incurred until such time as we exit the Exploration Stage. Expenditures relating to exploration activities are expensed as incurred and expenditures relating to pre-extraction activities are expensed as incurred until such time as proven or probable reserves are established for that uranium project, after which subsequent expenditures relating to mine development activities for that particular project are capitalized as incurred.
 
We have neither established nor have any plans to establish proven or probable reserves for our uranium projects for which we plan on utilizing ISR mining. Companies in the Production Stage, (as defined by the SEC), having established proven and probable reserves and exited the Exploration Stage, typically capitalize expenditures relating to ongoing development activities, with corresponding depletion calculated over proven and probable reserves using the units-of-production method and allocated to inventory and, as that inventory is sold, to cost of goods sold. As we are in the Exploration Stage, it has resulted in us reporting larger losses than if we had been in the Production Stage due to the expensing, instead of capitalization, of expenditures relating to ongoing processing facility and mine pre-extraction activities. Additionally, there would be no corresponding amortization allocated to our future reporting periods since those costs would have been expensed previously, resulting in both lower inventory costs and cost of goods sold and results of operations with higher gross profits and lower losses than if we had been in the Production Stage. Any capitalized costs, such as acquisition costs of mineral rights, are depleted over the estimated extraction life using the straight-line method. As a result, our consolidated financial statements may not be directly comparable to the financial statements of companies in the Production Stage.
 
Estimated costs of future reclamation obligations may be significantly exceeded by actual costs incurred in the future. Furthermore, only a portion of the financial assurance required for the future reclamation obligations has been funded.
 
We are responsible for certain remediation and decommissioning activities in the future, primarily for our Hobson and Irigaray Processing Facilities, our ISR Mines and our recently acquired Roughrider Project, and have recorded a liability of $18.7 million on our balance sheet at July 31, 2023, to recognize the present value of the estimated costs of such reclamation obligations. Should the actual costs to fulfill these future reclamation obligations materially exceed these estimated costs, it may have an adverse effect on our financial condition and operating results, including not having the financial resources required to fulfill such obligations when required to do so.
 
During Fiscal 2015, we secured $5.6 million of surety bonds as an alternate source of financial assurance for the estimated costs of the reclamation obligations of our Hobson Processing Facility and Palangana Mine, of which we have $1.7 million funded and held as restricted cash for collateral purposes as required by the surety. In connection with the U1A acquisition (the “U1A Acquisition”), we assumed $13.7 million of restricted cash as surety bond collateral for total estimated reclamation costs of $18.6 million for the Christensen Ranch Mine and Irigaray Processing Facility. During Fiscal 2022, $8.6 million of surety bond collateral related to the Christensen Ranch Mine and Irigaray Processing Facility was released. We may be required at any time to fund the remaining $17.4 million or any portion thereof for a number of reasons including, but not limited to, the following: (i) the terms of the surety bonds are amended, such as an increase in collateral requirements; (ii) we are in default with the terms of the surety bonds; (iii) the surety bonds are no longer acceptable as an alternate source of financial assurance by the regulatory authorities; or (iv) the surety encounters financial difficulties. Should any one or more of these events occur in the future, we may not have the financial resources to fund the remaining amount or any portion thereof when required to do so.
 
We cannot provide any assurance that our Physical Uranium Program involving the strategic acquisition of physical uranium will be successful, which may have an adverse effect on our results of operations.
 
We have used or allocated a large portion of our cash on hand in order to fund the acquisition of drummed uranium. This strategy will be subject to a number of risks and there is no assurance that the strategy will be successful. Future deliveries are subject to performance by other parties and there is a possibility of default by those parties, thus depriving us of potential benefits.
 
Due to the fluctuation of uranium prices, the price of uranium will fluctuate and we will be subject to losses should we ultimately determine to sell the uranium at prices lower than the acquisition cost. The primary risks associated with physical uranium will be the normal risks associated with supply and demand fundamentals affecting price movements.
 
We may be required to sell a portion or all of the physical uranium accumulated to fund our operations should other forms of financing not be available to meet our capital requirements.
 
13
Table of Contents
 
Since there is no public market for uranium, selling the uranium may take extended periods of time and suitable purchasers may be difficult to find, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and may have a material adverse effect on our securities.
 
There is no public market for the sale of uranium, although there are several trading and brokerage houses that serve the industry with bid and ask data as well as locations and quantities. The uranium futures market on the New York Mercantile Exchange does not provide for physical delivery of uranium, only cash on settlement, and that trading forum does not offer a formal market but rather facilitates the introduction of buyers to sellers.
 
The pool of potential purchasers and sellers is limited, and each transaction may require the negotiation of specific provisions. Accordingly, a sale may take several weeks or months to complete. If we determine to sell any physical uranium that we have acquired, we may likewise experience difficulties in finding purchasers that are able to accept a material quantity of physical uranium at a price and at a location that is compatible with our interests. The inability to sell on a timely basis in sufficient quantities and at a desired price and location could have a material adverse effect on our securities.
 
As part of our Physical Uranium Program, we have entered into commitments to purchase U 3 O 8 and may purchase additional quantities. There is no certainty that any future purchases contemplated by us will be completed.
 
Storage arrangements, including the extension of storage arrangements, along with credit and operational risks of uranium storage facilities, may result in the loss or damage of our physical uranium which may not be covered by insurance or indemnity provisions and could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition.
 
Currently, the uranium we purchased will be stored at the licensed uranium conversion facility of ConverDyn owned by Honeywell. There can be no assurance that storage arrangements that have been negotiated will be extended indefinitely, forcing actions or costs not currently contemplated. Failure to negotiate commercially reasonable storage terms for a subsequent storage period with ConverDyn may have a material adverse effect on our financial condition.
 
By holding our uranium inventory at the ConverDyn conversion facility we are exposed to the credit and operational risks of the facility. There is no guarantee that we can fully recover all of our investment in uranium held with the facility in the event of a disruptive event. Failure to recover all uranium holdings could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition. Any loss or damage of the uranium may not be fully covered or absolved by contractual arrangements with ConverDyn or our insurance arrangements, and we may be financially and legally responsible for losses and/or damages not covered by indemnity provisions or insurance. Such responsibility could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition.
 
The uranium industry is subject to influential political and regulatory factors which could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition.
 
The international uranium industry, including the supply of uranium concentrates, is relatively small, competitive and heavily regulated. Worldwide demand for uranium is directly tied to the demand for electricity produced by the nuclear power industry, which is also subject to extensive government regulation and policies. In addition, the international marketing and trade of uranium is subject to political changes in governmental policies, regulatory requirements and international trade restrictions (including trade agreements, customs, duties and/or taxes). International agreements, governmental policies and trade restrictions are beyond our control. Changes in regulatory requirements, customs, duties or taxes may affect the availability of uranium, which could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition.
 
We do not insure against all of the risks we face in our operations.
 
In general, where coverage is available and not prohibitively expensive relative to the perceived risk, we will maintain insurance against such risk, subject to exclusions and limitations. We currently maintain insurance against certain risks, including securities and general commercial liability claims and certain physical assets used in our operations, subject to exclusions and limitations, however, we do not maintain insurance to cover all of the potential risks and hazards associated with our operations. We may be subject to liability for environmental, pollution or other hazards associated with our exploration, pre-extraction and extraction activities, which we may not be insured against, which may exceed the limits of our insurance coverage or which we may elect not to insure against because of high premiums or other reasons. Furthermore, we cannot provide assurance that any insurance coverage we currently have will continue to be available at reasonable premiums or that such insurance will adequately cover any resulting liability.
 
Acquisitions that we may make from time to time could have an adverse impact on us.
 
From time to time we examine opportunities to acquire additional mining assets and businesses. Any acquisition that we may choose to complete may be of a significant size, may change the scale of our business and operations and may expose us to new geographic, political, operating, financial and geological risks. Our success in our acquisition activities depends on our ability to identify suitable acquisition candidates, negotiate acceptable terms for any such acquisition and integrate the acquired operations successfully with those of our Company. Any acquisitions would be accompanied by risks which could have a material adverse effect on our business. For example: (i) there may be a significant change in commodity prices after we have committed to complete the transaction and established the purchase price or exchange ratio; (ii) a material ore body may prove to be below expectations; (iii) we may have difficulty integrating and assimilating the operations and personnel of any acquired companies, realizing anticipated synergies and maximizing the financial and strategic position of the combined enterprise and maintaining uniform standards, policies and controls across the organization; (iv) the integration of the acquired business or assets may disrupt our ongoing business and our relationships with employees, customers, suppliers and contractors; and (v) the acquired business or assets may have unknown liabilities which may be significant. In the event that we choose to raise debt capital to finance any such acquisition, our leverage will be increased. If we choose to use equity as consideration for such acquisition, existing shareholders may suffer dilution. Alternatively, we may choose to finance any such acquisition with our existing resources. There can be no assurance that we would be successful in overcoming these risks or any other problems encountered in connection with such acquisitions.
 
14
Table of Contents
 
The uranium and titanium industries are subject to numerous stringent laws, regulations and standards, including environmental protection laws and regulations. If any changes occur that would make these laws, regulations and standards more stringent, it may require capital outlays in excess of those anticipated or cause substantial delays, which would have a material adverse effect on our operations.
 
Uranium and titanium exploration and pre-extraction programs and mining activities are subject to numerous stringent laws, regulations and standards at the federal, state and local levels governing permitting, pre-extraction, extraction, exports, taxes, labor standards, occupational health, waste disposal, protection and reclamation of the environment, protection of endangered and protected species, mine safety, hazardous substances and other matters. Our compliance with these requirements requires significant financial and personnel resources.
 
The laws, regulations, policies or current administrative practices of any government body, organization or regulatory agency in the United States, or any other applicable jurisdiction, may change or be applied or interpreted in a manner which may also have a material adverse effect on our operations. The actions, policies or regulations, or changes thereto, of any government body or regulatory agency or special interest group may also have a material adverse effect on our operations.
 
Uranium and titanium exploration and pre-extraction programs and mining activities are subject to stringent environmental protection laws and regulations at the federal, state and local levels. These laws and regulations include permitting and reclamation requirements, regulate emissions, water storage and discharges and disposal of hazardous wastes. Uranium mining activities are also subject to laws and regulations which seek to maintain health and safety standards by regulating the design and use of mining methods. Various permits from governmental and regulatory bodies are required for mining to commence or continue, and no assurance can be provided that required permits will be received in a timely manner.
 
Our compliance costs, including the posting of surety bonds associated with environmental protection laws and regulations and health and safety standards, have been significant to date, and are expected to increase in scale and scope as we expand our operations in the future. Furthermore, environmental protection laws and regulations may become more stringent in the future, and compliance with such changes may require capital outlays in excess of those anticipated or cause substantial delays, which would have a material adverse effect on our operations.
 
While the very heart of our business – uranium extraction, which is the fuel for carbon-free, emission-free baseload nuclear power – and our recycling programs, help address global climate change and reduce air pollution, the world’s focus on addressing climate change will require the Company to continue to conduct all of its operations in a manner that minimizes the use of resources, including enhancing energy efficiency and reducing our reliance on fossil fuels, in order to continue to minimize air emissions at our facilities, which can also increase mine and facility, construction, development and operating costs. Regulatory and environmental standards may also change over time to address global climate change, which could further increase these costs.
 
To the best of our knowledge, our operations are in compliance, in all material respects, with all applicable laws, regulations and standards. If we become subject to liability for any violations, we may not be able or may elect not to insure against such risk due to high insurance premiums or other reasons. Where coverage is available and not prohibitively expensive relative to the perceived risk, we will maintain insurance against such risk, subject to exclusions and limitations. However, we cannot provide any assurance that such insurance will continue to be available at reasonable premiums or that such insurance will be adequate to cover any resulting liability.
 
We may not be able to obtain, maintain or amend rights, authorizations, licenses, permits or consents required for our operations.
 
Our exploration and mining activities are dependent upon the grant of appropriate rights, authorizations, licences, permits and consents, as well as continuation and amendment of these rights, authorizations, licences, permits and consents already granted, which may be granted for a defined period of time, or may not be granted or may be withdrawn or made subject to limitations. There can be no assurance that all necessary rights, authorizations, licences, permits and consents will be granted to us, or that authorizations, licences, permits and consents already granted will not be withdrawn or made subject to limitations.
 
Major nuclear and global market incidents may have adverse effects on the nuclear and uranium industries.
 
The nuclear incident that occurred in Japan in March 2011 had significant and adverse effects on both the nuclear and uranium industries. If another nuclear incident were to occur, it may have further adverse effects for both industries. Public opinion of nuclear power as a source of electrical generation may be adversely affected, which may cause governments of certain countries to further increase regulation for the nuclear industry, reduce or abandon current reliance on nuclear power or reduce or abandon existing plans for nuclear power expansion. Any one of these occurrences has the potential to reduce current and/or future demand for nuclear power, resulting in lower demand for uranium and lower market prices for uranium, adversely affecting the operations and prospects of our Company. Furthermore, the growth of the nuclear and uranium industries is dependent on continuing and growing public support of nuclear power as a viable source of electrical generation.
 
In March 2020 the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a black swan event impacting about 50% of the world’s uranium production and has accelerated the market rebalancing. In 2020 significant production cuts were announced in response to the global COVID-19 pandemic, including uranium facilities in Canada, Kazakhstan and Namibia. In 2023, although most production impacted by COVID-19 has returned to an operating status, some production has continued to be affected. It is unknown at this time exactly how long all the impacts will last or how much uranium production will ultimately be removed from the market as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Company also believes that a large degree of uncertainty exists in the market, primarily due to the size of mobile uranium inventories, transportation issues, premature reactor shutdowns in the U.S. and the length of time of any uranium mine, conversion or enrichment facility shutdowns.
 
The marketability of uranium concentrates will be affected by numerous factors beyond our control which may result in our inability to receive an adequate return on our invested capital.
 
The marketability of uranium concentrates extracted by us will be affected by numerous factors beyond our control. These factors include: (i) macroeconomic factors; (ii) fluctuations in the market price of uranium; (iii) governmental regulations; (iv) land tenure and use; (v) regulations concerning the importing and exporting of uranium; and (vi) environmental protection regulations. The future effects of these factors cannot be accurately predicted, but any one or a combination of these factors may result in our inability to receive an adequate return on our invested capital.
 
15
Table of Contents
 
The titanium industry is affected by global economic factors, including risks associated with volatile economic conditions, and the market for many titanium products is cyclical and volatile, and we may experience depressed market conditions for such products.
 
Titanium is used in many “quality of life” products for which demand historically has been linked to global, regional and local GDP and discretionary spending, which can be negatively impacted by regional and world events or economic conditions. Such events are likely to cause a decrease in demand for products and, as a result, may have an adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition. The timing and extent of any changes to currently prevailing market conditions is uncertain, and supply and demand may be unbalanced at any time. Uncertain economic conditions and market instability make it particularly difficult for us to forecast demand trends. As a consequence, we may not be able to accurately predict future economic conditions or the effect of such conditions on our financial condition or results of operations. We can give no assurances as to the timing, extent or duration of the current or future economic cycles impacting the industries in which we operate.
 
Historically, the market for large volume titanium applications, including coatings, paper and plastics, has experienced alternating periods of tight supply, causing prices and margins to increase, followed by periods of lower capacity utilization, resulting in declining prices and margins. The volatility this market experiences occurs as a result of significant changes in the demand for products as a consequence of global economic activity and changes in customers’ requirements. The supply-demand balance is also impacted by capacity additions or reductions that result in changes of utilization rates. In addition, titanium margins are impacted by significant changes in major input costs, such as energy and feedstock. Demand for titanium depends in part on the housing and construction industries. These industries are cyclical in nature and have historically been impacted by downturns in the economy. In addition, pricing may affect customer inventory levels as customers may from time to time accelerate purchases of titanium in advance of anticipated price increases or defer purchases of titanium in advance of anticipated price decreases. The cyclicality and volatility of the titanium industry results in significant fluctuations in profits and cash flow from period to period and over the business cycle.
 
The uranium industry is highly competitive and we may not be successful in acquiring additional projects.
 
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.
 
The titanium industry is concentrated and highly competitive, and we may not be able to compete effectively with our competitors that have greater financial resources or those that are vertically integrated, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.
 
The global titanium market is highly competitive, with the top six producers accounting for approximately 60% of the world’s production capacity. Competition is based on a number of factors, such as price, product quality and service. Among our competitors are companies that are vertically-integrated (those that have their own raw material resources). Changes in the competitive landscape could make it difficult for us to retain our competitive position in various products and markets throughout the world. Our competitors with their own raw material resources may have a competitive advantage during periods of higher raw material prices. In addition, some of the companies with whom we compete may be able to produce products more economically than we can. Furthermore, some of our competitors have greater financial resources, which may enable them to invest significant capital into their businesses, including expenditures for research and development.
 
We hold mineral rights in foreign jurisdictions which could be subject to additional risks due to political, taxation, economic and cultural factors.
 
We hold certain mineral rights located in the Republic of Paraguay through Piedra Rica Mining S.A., Transandes Paraguay S.A., Trier S.A. and Metalicos Y No Metalicos Paraguay S.R.L., which are incorporated in Paraguay. Operations in foreign jurisdictions outside of the United States and Canada, especially in developing countries, may be subject to additional risks as they may have different political, regulatory, taxation, economic and cultural environments that may adversely affect the value or continued viability of our rights. These additional risks include, but are not limited to: (i) changes in governments or senior government officials; (ii) changes to existing laws or policies on foreign investments, environmental protection, mining and ownership of mineral interests; (iii) renegotiation, cancellation, expropriation and nationalization of existing permits or contracts; (iv) foreign currency controls and fluctuations; and (v) civil disturbances, terrorism and war.
 
In the event of a dispute arising at our foreign operations in Paraguay, we may be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of foreign courts or may not be successful in subjecting foreign persons to the jurisdiction of the courts in the United States or Canada. We may also be hindered or prevented from enforcing our rights with respect to a government entity or instrumentality because of the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Any adverse or arbitrary decision of a foreign court may have a material and adverse impact on our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.
 
The title to our mineral property interests may be challenged.
 
Although we have taken reasonable measures to ensure proper title to our interests in mineral properties and other assets, there is no guarantee that the title to any of such interests will not be challenged. No assurance can be given that we will be able to secure the grant or the renewal of existing mineral rights and tenures on terms satisfactory to us, or that governments in the jurisdictions in which we operate will not revoke or significantly alter such rights or tenures or that such rights or tenures will not be challenged or impugned by third parties, including local governments, aboriginal peoples or other claimants. The Company has had communications and filings with the MOPC, whereby the MOPC is taking the position that certain concessions forming part of the Company’s Yuty and Alto Paraná Projects are not eligible for extension as to exploration or continuation to exploitation in their current stages. While we remain fully committed to our development path forward in Paraguay, we have filed certain applications and appeals in Paraguay to reverse the MOPC’s position in order to protect the Company’s continuing rights in those concessions.  Our mineral properties may be subject to prior unregistered agreements, transfers or claims, and title may be affected by, among other things, undetected defects. A successful challenge to the precise area and location of our claims could result in us being unable to operate on our properties as permitted or being unable to enforce our rights with respect to our properties.
 
16
Table of Contents
 
Due to the nature of our business, we may be subject to legal proceedings which may divert management ’ s time and attention from our business and result in substantial damage awards.
 
Due to the nature of our business, we may be subject to numerous regulatory investigations, securities claims, civil claims, lawsuits and other proceedings in the ordinary course of our business including those described under Item 3. Legal Proceedings herein. The outcome of these lawsuits is uncertain and subject to inherent uncertainties, and the actual costs to be incurred will depend upon many unknown factors. We may be forced to expend significant resources in the defense of these suits, and we may not prevail. Defending against these and other lawsuits in the future may not only require us to incur significant legal fees and expenses, but may become time-consuming for us and detract from our ability to fully focus our internal resources on our business activities. The results of any legal proceeding cannot be predicted with certainty due to the uncertainty inherent in litigation, the difficulty of predicting decisions of regulators, judges and juries and the possibility that decisions may be reversed on appeal. There can be no assurances that these matters will not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position or operating results.
 
We depend on certain key personnel, and our success will depend on our continued ability to retain and attract such qualified personnel.
 
Our success is dependent on the efforts, abilities and continued service of certain senior officers and key employees and consultants. A number of our key employees and consultants have significant experience in the uranium industry. A loss of service from any one of these individuals may adversely affect our operations, and we may have difficulty or may not be able to locate and hire a suitable replacement.
 
Certain directors and officers may be subject to conflicts of interest.
 
The majority of our directors and officers are involved in other business ventures including similar capacities with other private or publicly-traded companies. Such individuals may have significant responsibilities to these other business ventures, including consulting relationships, which may require significant amounts of their available time. Conflicts of interest may include decisions on how much time to devote to our business affairs and what business opportunities should be presented to us. Our Code of Conduct and Ethics provides for guidance on conflicts of interest.
 
The laws of the State of Nevada and our Articles of Incorporation may protect our directors and officers from certain types of lawsuits.
 
The laws of the State of Nevada provide that our directors and officers will not be liable to our Company or to our stockholders for monetary damages for all but certain types of conduct as directors and officers. Our Bylaws provide for broad indemnification powers to all persons against all damages incurred in connection with our business to the fullest extent provided or allowed by law. These indemnification provisions may require us to use our limited assets to defend our directors and officers against claims, and may have the effect of preventing stockholders from recovering damages against our directors and officers caused by their negligence, poor judgment or other circumstances.
 
Several of our directors and officers are residents outside of the United States, and it may be difficult for stockholders to enforce within the United States any judgments obtained against such directors or officers.
 
Several of our directors and officers are nationals and/or residents of countries other than the United States, and all or a substantial portion of such persons’ assets are located outside of the United States. As a result, it may be difficult for investors to effect service of process on such directors and officers, or enforce within the United States any judgments obtained against such directors and officers, including judgments predicated upon the civil liability provisions of the securities laws of the United States or any state thereof. Consequently, stockholders may be effectively prevented from pursuing remedies against such directors and officers under United States federal securities laws. In addition, stockholders may not be able to commence an action in a Canadian court predicated upon the civil liability provisions under United States federal securities laws. The foregoing risks also apply to those experts identified in this document that are not residents of the United States.
 
Disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting, no matter how well designed and operated, are designed to obtain reasonable, and not absolute, assurance as to its reliability and effectiveness.
 
Management’s evaluation on the effectiveness of disclosure controls and procedures is designed to ensure that information required for disclosure in our public filings is recorded, processed, summarized and reported on a timely basis to our senior management, as appropriate, to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure. Management’s report on internal control over financial reporting is designed to provide reasonable assurance that transactions are properly authorized, assets are safeguarded against unauthorized or improper use and transactions are properly recorded and reported. However, any system of controls, no matter how well designed and operated, is based in part upon certain assumptions designed to obtain reasonable, and not absolute, assurance as to its reliability and effectiveness. Any failure to maintain effective disclosure controls and procedures in the future may result in our inability to continue meeting our reporting obligations in a timely manner, qualified audit opinions or restatements of our financial reports, any one of which may affect the market price for our common stock and our ability to access the capital markets.
 
Proposed   and new legislation in the U.S. Congress, including changes in U.S. tax law, may adversely impact the Company and the value of shares of our common stock.
 
Changes to U.S. tax laws (which changes may have retroactive application) could adversely affect the Company or holders of shares of our common stock. In recent years, many changes to U.S. federal income tax laws have been proposed and made, and additional changes to U.S. federal income tax laws are likely to continue to occur in the future.
 
The U.S. Congress has recently passed and is currently considering numerous items of legislation which may be enacted prospectively or with retroactive effect, and which legislation could adversely impact the Company’s financial performance and the value of shares of our common stock. In particular, we understand that new legislation known as the “Build Back Better Act” has been passed by both houses of the U.S. Congress. The legislation includes, without limitation, new corporate minimum income taxes. We understand that the proposals would be effective for 2022 or later years. 
 
In addition, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 was recently signed into law and includes provisions that will impact the U.S. federal income taxation of corporations. Among other items, this legislation includes provisions that will impose a minimum tax on the book income of certain large corporations and an excise tax on certain corporate stock repurchases that would be imposed on the corporation repurchasing such stock. It is unclear how this legislation will be implemented by the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Company cannot predict how this legislation or any future changes in tax laws might affect the Company or purchasers of our common stock.
 
17
Table of Contents
 
Risks Related to Our Common Stock
 
Historically, the market price of our common stock has been and may continue to fluctuate significantly.
 
On September 28, 2007, our common stock commenced trading on the NYSE American (formerly known as the American Stock Exchange, the NYSE Amex Equities Exchange and the NYSE MKT) and prior to that, traded on the OTC Bulletin Board.
 
The global markets have experienced significant and increased volatility in the past, and have been impacted by the effects of mass sub-prime mortgage defaults and liquidity problems of the asset-backed commercial paper market, resulting in a number of large financial institutions requiring government bailouts or filing for bankruptcy. The effects of these past events and any similar events in the future may continue to or further affect the global markets, which may directly affect the market price of our common stock and our accessibility for additional financing. Although this volatility may be unrelated to specific company performance, it can have an adverse effect on the market price of our shares which, historically, has fluctuated significantly and may continue to do so in the future.
 
In addition to the volatility associated with general economic trends and market conditions, the market price of our common stock could decline significantly due to the impact of any one or more events including, but not limited to, the following: (i) volatility in the uranium market; (ii) occurrence of a major nuclear incident such as the events in Japan in March 2011; (iii) changes in the outlook for the nuclear power and uranium industries; (iv) failure to meet market expectations on our exploration, pre-extraction or extraction activities, including abandonment of key uranium projects; (v) sales of a large number of our shares held by certain stockholders including institutions and insiders; (vi) downward revisions to previous estimates on us by analysts; (vii) removal from market indices; (viii) legal claims brought forth against us; and (ix) introduction of technological innovations by competitors or in competing technologies.
 
A prolonged decline in the market price of our common stock could affect our ability to obtain additional financing which would adversely affect our operations.
 
Historically, we have relied on equity financing and, more recently, on debt financing, as primary sources of financing. A prolonged decline in the market price of our common stock or a reduction in our accessibility to the global markets may result in our inability to secure additional financing which would have an adverse effect on our operations.
 
Additional issuances of our common stock may result in significant dilution to our existing shareholders and reduce the market value of their investment.
 
We are authorized to issue 750,000,000 shares of common stock of which 378,452,864 shares were issued and outstanding as of July 31, 2023. Future issuances for financings, mergers and acquisitions, exercise of stock options and share purchase warrants and for other reasons may result in significant dilution to and be issued at prices substantially below the price paid for our shares held by our existing stockholders. Significant dilution would reduce the proportionate ownership and voting power held by our existing stockholders and may result in a decrease in the market price of our shares.
 
We are subject to the Continued Listing Criteria of the NYSE   American   and our failure to satisfy these criteria may result in delisting of our common stock .
 
Our common stock is currently listed on the NYSE American. In order to maintain this listing, we must maintain certain share prices, financial and share distribution targets, including maintaining a minimum amount of shareholders’ equity and a minimum number of public shareholders. In addition to these objective standards, the NYSE American may delist the securities of any issuer: (i) if in its opinion, the issuer’s financial condition and/or operating results appear unsatisfactory; (ii) if it appears that the extent of public distribution or the aggregate market value of the security has become so reduced as to make continued listing on the NYSE American inadvisable; (iii) if the issuer sells or disposes of principal operating assets or ceases to be an operating company; (iv) if an issuer fails to comply with the NYSE American’s listing requirements; (v) if an issuer’s common stock sells at what the NYSE American considers a “low selling price” and the issuer fails to correct this via a reverse split of shares after notification by the NYSE American; or (vi) if any other event occurs or any condition exists which makes continued listing on the NYSE American, in its opinion, inadvisable.
 
If the NYSE American delists our common stock, investors may face material adverse consequences including, but not limited to, a lack of trading market for our securities, reduced liquidity, decreased analyst coverage of our securities, and an inability for us to obtain additional financing to fund our operations.
 
Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments
 
Not applicable
 
18
Table of Contents
 
 
Item 2. Description of Properties
 
Figure 2.1 – Portfolio Overview of Significant Properties
 
 
Overview
 
The Company is engaged in conventional and in situ recovery (ISR) uranium extraction and recovery, along with the exploration, permitting and evaluation of uranium properties in the United States, the Republic of Paraguay, and Canada.
 
19
Table of Contents
 
Summary Disclosure
 
Table 2.1 - Location, Ownership Interest, Operator, Stage, Mining Method, and Mineralization Style Summary
 
Country
State/Province
Project
Location
(Latitude)
Location
(Longitude)
Equity
Interest
Operator
Stage
Mining
Method
Mineralization Style
Uranium Projects
United States
Wyoming
Allemand-Ross
43.3101
-105.7787
100%
UEC
Exploration Stage
ISR
Roll-Front
Antelope
42.2263
-107.9095
100%
UEC
Exploration Stage
ISR
Roll-Front
Barge
43.2729
-105.5905
100%
UEC
Exploration Stage
ISR
Roll-Front
Black Hills
44.7764
-104.8831
100%
UEC
Exploration Stage
ISR
Roll-Front
Brown Ranch
43.7377
-105.9684
100%
UEC
Exploration Stage
ISR
Roll-Front
Bull Springs
42.1584
-107.6305
100%
UEC
Exploration Stage
ISR
Roll-Front
Central Shirley Basin
42.3378
-106.4100
100%
UEC
Exploration Stage
ISR
Roll-Front
Charlie
43.8274
-106.0594
100%
UEC
Exploration Stage
ISR
Roll-Front
Christensen Ranch
43.7982
-106.0235
100%
UEC
Exploration Stage
ISR
Roll-Front
Clarkson Hills
42.6593
-106.7006
100%
UEC
Exploration Stage
ISR
Roll-Front
Crooks Creek
42.2867
-107.7660
100%
UEC
Exploration Stage
ISR
Roll-Front
Crook's Mountain
42.3840
-107.9060
100%
UEC
Exploration Stage
ISR
Roll-Front
Crossroads
43.0040
-105.6364
100%
UEC
Exploration Stage
ISR
Roll-Front
Cyclone Rim
42.2943
-108.3332
100%
UEC
Exploration Stage
ISR
Roll-Front
East Shirley Basin
42.3192
-106.1616
100%
UEC
Exploration Stage
ISR
Roll-Front
Gas Hills
42.7094
-107.6521
100%
UEC
Exploration Stage
ISR
Roll-Front
Horse Creek
42.5957
-106.9867
100%
UEC
Exploration Stage
ISR
Roll-Front
Irigaray
43.8683
-106.1186
100%
UEC
Exploration Stage
ISR
Roll-Front
Jab/West Jab
42.2209/42.2611
-108.0439/-108.1225
100%
UEC
Exploration Stage
ISR
Roll-Front
Ludeman
42.9119
-105.6277
100%
UEC
Exploration Stage
ISR
Roll-Front
Moore Ranch
43.5652
-105.8480
100%
UEC
Exploration Stage
ISR
Roll-Front
Mule Creek
42.2118
-105.8143
100%
UEC
Exploration Stage
ISR
Roll-Front
Niles Ranch
43.8024
-105.7961
100%
UEC
Exploration Stage
ISR
Roll-Front
Nine Mile Lake
42.9807
-106.3278
100%
UEC
Exploration Stage
ISR
Roll-Front
Pine Ridge
43.4591
-106.0725
100%
UEC
Exploration Stage
ISR
Roll-Front
Pine Tree U1
43.6173
-105.7860
100%
UEC
Exploration Stage
ISR
Roll-Front
Pumpkin Creek
43.8163
-105.8955
100%
UEC
Exploration Stage
ISR
Roll-Front
Red Rim
41.6502
-107.5755
100%
UEC
Exploration Stage
ISR
Roll-Front
Reno Creek
43.6796
-105.7226
100%
UEC
Exploration Stage
ISR
Roll-Front
Ross Flats
43.5224
-105.8861
100%
UEC
Exploration Stage
ISR
Roll-Front
Sand Creek
42.7007
-105.2645
100%
UEC
Exploration Stage
ISR
Roll-Front
South Pine Ridge
43.1204
-105.9251
100%
UEC
Exploration Stage
ISR
Roll-Front
South Reno Creek
43.6440
-105.6199
100%
UEC
Exploration Stage
ISR
Roll-Front
 
20
Table of Contents
 
Country
State/Province
Project
Location
(Latitude)
Location
(Longitude)
Equity
Interest
Operator
Stage
Mining
Method
Mineralization
Style
Uranium Projects
 
 
South Sweetwater
41.9694
-107.9820
100%
UEC
Exploration Stage
ISR
Roll-Front
Stewart Creek
43.3124
-105.7342
100%
UEC
Exploration Stage
ISR
Roll-Front
Taylor Ranch
43.5578
-106.0098
100%
UEC
Exploration Stage
ISR
Roll-Front
Twin Buttes
42.2316
-107.7205
100%
UEC
Exploration Stage
ISR
Roll-Front
West Beaver Rim
42.5967
-108.1568
100%
UEC
Exploration Stage
ISR
Roll-Front
West Crook's Creek
42.2984
-107.8603
100%
UEC
Exploration Stage
ISR
Roll-Front
West Sweetwater
42.1318
-108.0931
100%
UEC
Exploration Stage
ISR
Roll-Front
Texas
Burke Hollow
27.6756
-97.5176
100%
UEC
Exploration Stage
ISR
Roll-Front
Goliad
28.8686
-97.3433
100%
UEC
Exploration Stage
ISR
Roll-Front
La Palangana
28.2638
-98.3959
100%
UEC
Exploration Stage
ISR
Roll-Front
Salvo
28.2632
-97.7889
100%
UEC
Exploration Stage
ISR
Roll-Front
Longhorn
28.1700
-98.1200
100%
UEC
Exploration Stage
ISR
Roll-Front
Arizona
Anderson
34.1829
-113.1632
100%
UEC
Exploration Stage
Conventional
Tabular
Los Cuatros
33.548
-112.322
100%
UEC
Exploration Stage
Conventional
Tabular
Workman Creek
33.50
-110.57
100%
UEC
Exploration Stage
Conventional
Tabular
New Mexico
C de Baca
34.18
-107.15
100%
UEC
Exploration Stage
Conventional
Tabular
Dalton Pass
35.40
-108.14
100%
UEC
Exploration Stage
Conventional
Tabular
Canada
Saskatchewan
Alexandra
58.023
-109.789
21.05%
Orano Canada Inc.
Exploration Stage
Conventional
Unconformity Related
Axis Lake
59.304
-106.136
100.00%
UEC
Exploration Stage
Conventional
Unconformity Related
Beatty River
57.897
-109.542
32.76%
Orano Canada Inc.
Exploration Stage
Conventional
Unconformity Related
Black Lake
59.1167
-105.905
51.43%
UEC
Exploration Stage
Conventional
Unconformity Related
Brander Lake
58.2895
-109.888
49.10%
Orano Canada Inc.
Exploration Stage
Conventional
Unconformity Related
Candle Lake
57.9969
-104.93
12.50%
Denison Mines Corp.
Exploration Stage
Conventional
Unconformity Related
Christie Lake
57.8128
-104.86
82.77%
UEC
Exploration Stage
Conventional
Unconformity Related
Close Lake
57.9729
-105.082
5.16%
Orano Canada Inc.
Exploration Stage
Conventional
Unconformity Related
Cree Extension
57.5881
-105.551
15.05%
Cameco Corporation
Exploration Stage
Conventional
Unconformity Related
Diabase Peninsula
57.4294
-106.913
100.00%
UEC
Exploration Stage
Conventional
Unconformity Related
Erica
58.1465
-109.731
49.10%
Orano Canada Inc.
Exploration Stage
Conventional
Unconformity Related
Hidden Bay
58.157
-103.88
100.00%
UEC
Exploration Stage
Conventional
Unconformity Related
Horseshoe-Raven
58.1331
-103.76
100.00%
UEC
Exploration Stage
Conventional
Unconformity Related
Key West
57.2731
-106.217
100.00%
UEC
Exploration Stage
Conventional
Unconformity Related
Laurie
57.6579
-108.721
32.99%
Orano Canada Inc.
Exploration Stage
Conventional
Unconformity Related
Millennium
57.5138
-105.639
15.05%
Cameco Corporation
Exploration Stage
Conventional
Unconformity Related
Mirror River
57.6078
-108.423
32.34%
Orano Canada Inc.
Exploration Stage
Conventional
Unconformity Related
Moon Lake
57.4669
-105.634
10.07%
Orano Canada Inc.
Exploration Stage
Conventional
Unconformity Related
Moore Tomblin
57.4512
-105.135
6.80%
Orano Canada Inc.
Exploration Stage
Conventional
Unconformity Related
Nikita
58.0107
-109.574
12.72%
Orano Canada Inc.
Exploration Stage
Conventional
Unconformity Related
 
21
Table of Contents
 
Country
State/Province
Project
Location (Latitude)
Location (Longitude)
Equity Interest
Operator
Stage
Mining Method
Mineralization Style
Uranium Projects
 
 
Riou Lake
59.0491
-106.156
100.00%
UEC
Exploration Stage
Conventional
Unconformity Related
Roughrider
58.3374
-104.021
100.00%
UEC
Exploration Stage
Conventional
Unconformity Related
Shea Creek
58.1804
-109.49
49.10%
Orano Canada Inc.
Exploration Stage
Conventional
Unconformity Related
Uchrich
57.7196
-108.483
30.48%
Orano Canada Inc.
Exploration Stage
Conventional
Unconformity Related
Waterfound River
58.4588
-104.548
12.90%
Orano Canada Inc.
Exploration Stage
Conventional
Unconformity Related
West Bear
57.8744
-103.975
100.00%
UEC
Exploration Stage
Conventional
Unconformity Related
Wheeler River
57.5000
-105.421
5.00%
Denison Mines Corp.
Development
Conventional
Unconformity Related
Wolly
58.3927
-103.799
6.38%
Orano Canada Inc.
Exploration Stage
Conventional
Unconformity Related
Nunavut
Kiggavik
64.3752
-97.7685
16.91%
Orano Canada Inc.
Exploration Stage
Conventional
Unconformity Related
Paraguay
 
Yuty
25.2702
56.3125
100.00%
UEC
Exploration Stage
ISR
Roll-Front
Oviedo
25.2702
56.2828
100.00%
UEC
Exploration Stage
ISR
Roll-Front
Titanium Projects
Paraguay
 
Alto Parana
24.8147
54.9083
100.00%
UEC
Exploration Stage
Conventional
Surficial
 
Table 2.2 – Titles, Mineral Rights, Leases, and Acreage Summaries
 
 
 
 
Acres
Hectares
State Leases
Fee Mineral Leases
Federal Lode Mining Claims
Provincial Mineral Dispositions
Provincial Mining Leases
Country
State/Province
Project
Total
Total
Number
Acres
Expiration Date
Number
Acres
Expiration Date
Number
Acres
Expiration Date
Number
Hectares
Expiration Date
Number
Hectares
Expiration Date
Uranium Projects
United States
Wyoming
Allemand-Ross
13,331.72
5,395.16
3
958
Annual
7
3,333.72
July 2025 through Feb. 2029 (variable)
452
9,040
Annual
 
 
 
 
 
 
Antelope
13,220
5,349.94
1
640
Annual
 
 
 
629
12,580
Annual
 
 
 
 
 
 
Barge
7,480
3,027.05
1
640
Annual
 
 
 
342
6,840
Annual
 
 
 
 
 
 
Black Hills
1,280
518.00
1
640
Annual
 
 
 
32
640
Annual
 
 
 
 
 
 
Brown Ranch
3,640
1,473.06
1
640
Annual
 
 
 
150
3,000
Annual
 
 
 
 
 
 
Bull Springs
5,702.8
2,307.84
2
1,922.8
Annual
 
 
 
189
3,780
Annual
 
 
 
 
 
 
Central Shirley Basin
2,380
963.15
2
760
Annual
 
 
 
81
1,620
Annual
 
 
 
 
 
 
Charlie
820
331.84
1
720
Annual
 
 
 
5
100
Annual
 
 
 
 
 
 
Christensen Ranch
11,140
4,508.20
1
1,280
Annual
1
720
Annual
358
9,140
Annual
 
 
 
 
 
 
Clarkson Hills
400
161.87
 
 
 
 
 
 
20
400
Annual
 
 
 
 
 
 
Crooks Creek
6,979.25
2,824.40
6
2,599.25
Annual
 
 
 
219
4,380
Annual
 
 
 
 
 
 
Crook's Mountain
2,480
1,003.62
2
1,280
Annual
 
 
 
60
1,200
Annual
 
 
 
 
 
 
Crossroads
5,680
2,298.61
2
1,280
Annual
 
 
 
220
4,400
Annual
 
 
 
 
 
 
Cyclone Rim
4,280
1,732.06
0
0
 
 
 
 
214
4,280
Annual
 
 
 
 
 
 
East Shirley Basin
4,599.90
1,861.51
4
2,099.9
Annual
 
 
 
125
2,500
Annual
 
 
 
 
 
 
Gas Hills
6,114.76
2,474.56
5
3,394.76
Annual
 
 
 
136
2,720
Annual
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
22
Table of Contents
 
 
 
 
Acres
Hectares
State Leases
Fee Mineral Leases
Federal Lode Mining Claims
Provincial Mineral Dispositions
Provincial Mining Leases
Country
State/Province
Project
Total
Total
Number
Acres
Expiration Date
Number
Acres
Expiration Date
Number
Acres
Expiration Date
Number
Hectares
Expiration Date
Number
Hectares
Expiration Date
 
 
Horse Creek
540
218.53
 
 
 
 
 
 
27
540
Annual
 
 
 
 
 
 
Irigaray
2,320
938.87
2
480
Annual
 
 
 
92
1,840
Annual
 
 
 
 
 
 
Jab/West Jab
5,300
2,144.83
3
960
Annual
 
 
 
217
4,340
Annual
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ludeman
18,101.89
7,325.57
4
1,440
Annual
2
1,741.89
Sept. 2026 and Jan. 2029
746
14,920
Annual
 
 
 
 
 
 
Moore Ranch
4,180
1,691.59
3
1,280
Annual
4
1,180
Aug. 2025 through Mar. 2027 (variable)
86
1,720
Annual
 
 
 
 
 
 
Mule Creek
260
105.22
 
 
 
 
 
 
13
260
Annual
 
 
 
 
 
 
Niles Ranch
3,560
1,440.68
6
2,560
Annual
 
 
 
50
1,000
Annual
 
 
 
 
 
 
Nine Mile Lake
2,620
1,060.28
3
1,280
Annual
 
 
 
67
1,340
Annual
 
 
 
 
 
 
Pine Ridge
3,780
1,529.71
2
720
Annual
 
 
 
153
3,060
Annual
 
 
 
 
 
 
Pine Tree U1
1,540
623.22
1
80
Annual
 
 
 
73
1,460
Annual
 
 
 
 
 
 
Pumpkin Creek
1,000
404.69
 
 
 
 
 
 
50
1,000
Annual
 
 
 
 
 
 
Red Rim
680
275.19
 
 
 
 
 
 
34
680
Annual
 
 
 
 
 
 
Reno Creek
18,763
7,593.12
4
3,200
Annual
36
4,583
Variable
549
10,980
Annual
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ross Flats
5,480
2,217.68
3
1,040
Annual
3
1,680
Mar. 2027
138
2,760
Annual
 
 
 
 
 
 
Sand Creek
3,000
1,214.06
3
1,920
Annual
 
 
 
54
1,080
Annual
 
 
 
 
 
 
South Pine Ridge
4,020
1,626.84
5
2,360
Annual
 
 
 
83
1,660
Annual
 
 
 
 
 
 
South Reno Creek
2,580
1,044.09
1
80
Annual
 
 
 
125
2,500
Annual
 
 
 
 
 
 
South Sweetwater
1,120
453.25
1
640
Annual
 
 
 
24
480
Annual
 
 
 
 
 
 
Stewart Creek
2,460
995.53
1
640
Annual
 
 
 
91
1,820
Annual
 
 
 
 
 
 
Taylor Ranch
3,940
1,594.46
7
2,880
Annual
 
 
 
53
1,060
Annual
 
 
 
 
 
 
Twin Buttes
7,740
3,132.27
3
1,600
Annual
 
 
 
307
6,140
Annual
 
 
 
 
 
 
West Beaver Rim
1,900
768.90
1
640
Annual
 
 
 
63
1,260
Annual
 
 
 
 
 
 
West Crook's Creek
1,520
615.12
1
640
Annual
 
 
 
44
880
Annual
 
 
 
 
 
 
West Sweetwater
1,080
437.06
 
 
 
 
 
 
54
1,080
Annual
 
 
 
 
 
 
Texas
Burke Hollow
17,511
7,086
 
 
 
1
17,511
2032
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Goliad
636
257
 
 
 
7
636
2024 & 2025
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Palangana
6,969
2,820
 
 
 
12
6,969
2025 thru 2032
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Salvo
800
324
 
 
 
2
800
2026 & 2027
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Longhorn
594
240
 
 
 
40
594
2027 thru 2028
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Arizona
Anderson
8,268
3,346
1
640
2024
 
 
 
386
7,628
2024
 
 
 
 
 
 
Los Cuatros
640
259
1
640
2024
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
23
Table of Contents
 
 
 
 
Acres
Hectares
State Leases
Fee Mineral Leases
Federal Lode Mining Claims
Provincial Mineral Dispositions
Provincial Mining Leases
Country
State/Province
Project
Total
Total
Number
Acres
Expiration Date
Number
Acres
Expiration Date
Number
Acres
Expiration Date
Number
Hectares
Expiration Date
Number
Hectares
Expiration Date
 
 
Workman Creek
4,036
1,374
 
 
 
 
 
 
198
4,036
2024
 
 
 
 
 
 
New Mexico
C de Baca
600
243
 
 
 
 
 
 
30
600
2024
 
 
 
 
 
 
Dalton Pass
1,020
413
 
 
 
 
 
 
51
1,020
2024
 
 
 
 
 
 
Canada
Saskatchewan
Alexandra
36,485
14,765
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6
14,765
Oct. 4042
 
 
 
Axis Lake
13,045
5,279
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3
5,279
Aug. 2023
 
 
 
Beatty River
16,526
6,688
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7
6,688
Sept. 2027
 
 
 
Black Lake
78,335
31,701
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
13
31,701
Nov. 2024
 
 
 
Brander Lake
34,577
13,993
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
9
13,993
Apr. 2035
 
 
 
Candle Lake
6,412
2,595
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1
2,595
Oct. 2038
 
 
 
Christie Lake
19,575
7,922
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6
7,922
Mar. 2044
 
 
 
Christie West
813
329
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2
329
Jun. 2023
 
 
 
Close Lake
95,578
38,679
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
21
38,679
Oct. 2023
 
 
 
Cree Extension
30,115
12,187
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
11
12,187
Aug. 2040
 
 
 
Diabase Peninsula
77,164
31,227
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
22
31,227
 
 
 
 
Erica
91,409
36,992
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
20
36,992
Nov. 2036
 
 
 
Hidden Bay
126,933
51,368
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
45
51,368
Aug. 2037
 
 
 
Horseshoe-Raven
11,085
4,486
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1
4,486
Feb. 2041
 
 
 
Key West
31,827
12,880
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4
12,880
Apr. 2024
 
 
 
Laurie
21,691
8,778
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4
8,778
May 2027
 
 
 
Millennium
1,458
590
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1
590
Feb. 2039
 
 
 
Mirror River
42,996
17,400
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5
17,400
Apr. 2024
 
 
 
Moon Lake
9,385
3,798
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5
3,798
Oct. 2039
 
 
 
Moore Tomblin
3,249
1,315
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2
1,315
May 2028
 
 
 
Nikita
37,390
15,131
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6
15,131
Jun. 2043
 
 
 
Riou Lake
27,634
11,183
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
14
11,183
Nov. 2023
 
 
 
Roughrider
1,475
597
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1
597
Jan. 2028
Shea Creek
81,451
32,962
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
18
32,962
Mar. 2035
 
 
 
Uchrich
5,592
2,263
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1
2,263
May 2027
 
 
 
Waterfound River
28,837
11,670
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
25
11,670
Jul. 2031
 
 
 
West Bear
27,439
11,104
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
26
10,807
Feb 2043
1
297
June 2035
Wheeler River
28,961
11,720
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
19
11,720
Oct. 2041
 
 
 
Wolly
58,564
23,700
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
17
23,700
Nov. 2038
 
 
 
Nunavut
Kiggavik
45,638
18,469
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
37
18,469
Oct. 2038
 
 
 
Paraguay
 
Yuty
289,687
117,232
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Oviedo
223,754
90,550
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Titanium Projects
Paraguay
 
Alto Parana
174,204
70,498
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
24
Table of Contents
 
Table 2.3 – Permit Status and Conditions
 
Uranium Projects
Texas
Property
Fully Permitted to Mine
Partially Permitted to Mine
Not Permitted to Mine
RRC Exploration Permit
TCEQ Class 1 Well Permits
TCEQ Injection Control Permit
TCEQ Area Permit
TCEQ/EPA Aquifer Exemption
TCEQ Radioactive Materials License
Notes
Burke Hollow
X
 
 
Yes
2
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Has all major permits, waiting on final production authorization
Goliad
X
 
 
Yes
2
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Has all major permits and first production authorization
La Palangana
X
 
 
Yes
2
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Has all major permits and four production authorizations
Salvo
 
 
X
No
0
No
No
No
No
 
Longhorn
 
 
X
No
0
No
No
No
No
 
Wyoming
Property
Fully Permitted to Mine
Partially Permitted to Mine
Not Permitted to Mine
Class III UIC Permit to Mine
WDEQ Class 1 Well Permits
Source and Byproduct Materials License
BLM Plan of Operations
WDEQ/EPA Aquifer Exemption
 
Notes
Allemand-Ross
 
 
X
 
 
 
 
 
 
Drilling Notification DN339
Antelope
 
 
X
 
 
 
Yes
 
 
Drilling Notification DN353
Barge
 
 
X
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Black Hills
 
 
X
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Brown Ranch
 
 
X
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Bull Springs
 
 
X
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Central Shirley Basin
 
 
X
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Charlie
 
X
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Permitted as an open pit mine not ISR
Christensen Ranch
X
 
 
Yes
Yes
Yes
 
Yes
 
 
Clarkson Hill
 
 
X
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Crooks Creek
 
 
X
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Crook's Mountain
 
 
X
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Crossroads
 
 
X
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Cyclone Rim
 
 
X
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
East Shirley Basin
 
 
X
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Gas Hills
 
 
X
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Horse Creek
 
 
X
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Irigaray Project
X
 
 
Yes
Yes
Yes
 
Yes
 
Irigaray mine expansion to north and south will require a permit revision.
Drilling Notification DN342
Jab/West Jab
 
 
X
 
 
 
 
 
 
Drilling Notification DN353
Ludeman
X
 
 
Yes
 
Yes
 
Yes
 
 
Moore Ranch
X
 
 
Yes
Yes
Yes
 
Yes
 
 
Mule Creek
 
 
X
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
25
Table of Contents
 
Niles Ranch
 
 
X
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Nine Mile Lake
 
 
X
 
 
 
 
 
 
Drilling Notification DN339
Pine Ridge
 
 
X
 
 
 
 
 
 
Drilling Notification DN342
Pine Tree U1
 
 
X
 
 
 
 
 
 
Drilling Notification DN342
Pumpkin Creek
 
 
X
 
 
 
 
 
 
Drilling Notification DN342
Red Rim
 
 
X
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Reno Creek
X
 
 
Yes
Yes
Yes
 
Yes
 
North Reno Creek and SW Reno Creek Resource areas are permitted.
Ross Flat
 
 
X
 
 
 
 
 
 
Drilling Notification DN342
Sand Creek
 
 
X
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
South Pine Ridge
 
 
X
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
South Reno Creek
 
 
X
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
South Sweetwater
 
 
X
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Stewart Creek
 
 
X
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Taylor Ranch
 
 
X
 
 
 
 
 
 
Drilling Notification DN342
Twin Buttes
 
 
X
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
West Beaver Rim
 
 
X
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
West Crook's Creek
 
 
X
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
West Sweetwater
 
 
X
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Arizona
Property
Fully Permitted to Mine
Partially Permitted to Mine
Not Permitted to Mine
Class III UIC Permit to Mine
WDEQ Class 1 Well Permits
Source and Byproduct Materials License
BLM Plan of Operations
WDEQ/EPA Aquifer Exemption
 
Notes
Anderson
 
 
X
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Los Cuatros
 
 
X
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Workman Creek
 
 
X
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
New Mexico
Property
Fully Permitted to Mine
Partially Permitted to Mine
Not Permitted to Mine
Class III UIC Permit to Mine
WDEQ Class 1 Well Permits
Source and Byproduct Materials License
BLM Plan of Operations
WDEQ/EPA Aquifer Exemption
 
Notes
C de Baca
 
 
X
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Dalton Pass
 
 
X
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Canada
Property
Fully Permitted to Mine
Partially Permitted to Mine
Not Permitted to Mine
 
 
 
 
 
 
Notes
Alexandra
 
 
X
 
 
 
 
 
 
Exploration-Stage Project with no resources
Axis Lake
 
 
X
 
 
 
 
 
 
Exploration-Stage Project with no resources
Beatty River
 
 
X
 
 
 
 
 
 
Exploration-Stage Project with no resources
Black Lake
 
 
X
 
 
 
 
 
 
Exploration-Stage Project with no resources
Brander Lake
 
 
X
 
 
 
 
 
 
Exploration-Stage Project with no resources
Candle Lake
 
 
X
 
 
 
 
 
 
Exploration-Stage Project with no resources
Christie Lake
 
 
X
 
 
 
 
 
 
Exploration-Stage Project with resources
 
26
Table of Contents
 
Christie West
 
 
X
 
 
 
 
 
 
Exploration-Stage Project with no resources
Close Lake
 
 
X
 
 
 
 
 
 
Exploration-Stage Project with no resources
Cree Extension
 
 
X
 
 
 
 
 
 
Exploration-Stage Project with no resources
Diabase Peninsula
 
 
X
 
 
 
 
 
 
Exploration-Stage Project with no resources
Erica
 
 
X
 
 
 
 
 
 
Exploration-Stage Project with no resources
Hidden Bay
 
 
X
 
 
 
 
 
 
Exploration-Stage Project with no resources
Horseshoe-Raven
 
 
X
 
 
 
 
 
 
Exploration-Stage Project with resources
Key West
 
 
X
 
 
 
 
 
 
Exploration-Stage Project with no resources
Laurie
 
 
X
 
 
 
 
 
 
Exploration-Stage Project with no resources
Millennium
 
 
X
 
 
 
 
 
 
Exploration-Stage Project with resources
Mirror River
 
 
X
 
 
 
 
 
 
Exploration-Stage Project with no resources
Moon Lake
 
 
X
 
 
 
 
 
 
Exploration-Stage Project with no resources
Moore Tomblin
 
 
X
 
 
 
 
 
 
Exploration-Stage Project with no resources
Nikita
 
 
X
 
 
 
 
 
 
Exploration-Stage Project with no resources
Riou Lake
 
 
X
 
 
 
 
 
 
Exploration-Stage Project with no resources
Roughrider
 
 
X
 
 
 
 
 
 
Exploration-Stage Project with resources
Shea Creek
 
 
X
 
 
 
 
 
 
Exploration-Stage Project with resources
Uchrich
 
 
X
 
 
 
 
 
 
Exploration-Stage Project with no resources
Waterfound River
 
 
X
 
 
 
 
 
 
Exploration-Stage Project with no resources
West Bear
 
 
X
 
 
 
 
 
 
Exploration-Stage Project with no resources
Wheeler River
 
X
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Feasibility Field Test mining completed
Wolly
 
 
X
 
 
 
 
 
 
Exploration-Stage Project with no resources
Kiggavik
 
 
X
 
 
 
 
 
 
Development-Stage, not permitted to mine
Paraguay
Property
Fully Permitted to Mine
Partially Permitted to Mine
Not Permitted to Mine
 
 
 
 
 
 
Notes
Yuty
 
 
X
 
 
 
 
 
 
Exploration-Stage Project with resources
Oviedo
 
 
X
 
 
 
 
 
 
Exploration-Stage Project with no resources
Titanium Projects
Paraguay
Property
Fully Permitted to Mine
Partially Permitted to Mine
Not Permitted to Mine
 
 
 
 
 
 
Notes
Alto Parana
 
 
X
 
 
 
 
 
 
Exploration-Stage Project with no resources
 
27
Table of Contents
 
Table 2.4 – Processing Plants and other Facilities
 
State/Province
Plant
Location (Latitude)
Location (Longitude)
Equity Interest
Operator
Status
Annual Permitted Production Capacity
Fully Permitted to Mine
Partially Permitted to Mine
Not Permitted to Mine
WDEQ Class 1 Well Permits
TCEQ Radioactive Materials License
Wyoming
Irigaray Central Processing Plant
 
 
100%
UEC
Production Suspended
2.5 Mlb/year
X
 
 
2
Yes
 
Christensen Ranch Satellite Production Plant
 
 
100%
UEC
Standby
9,000 gpm
X
 
 
4
Yes
 
State/Province
Plant
Location (Latitude)
Location (Longitude)
Equity Interest
Operator
Status
Annual Permitted Production Capacity
Fully Permitted to Mine
Partially Permitted to Mine
Not Permitted to Mine
TCEQ Class 1 Well Permits
TCEQ Radioactive Materials License
Texas
Hobson Central Processing Plant
28.945
-97.989
100%
UEC
Production Suspended
4.0 Mlb/year
X
 
 
2
Yes
 
Our Mineral Properties
 
Below is a table setting out our summary disclosure of current measured, indicated, and inferred mineral resource estimates. Details regarding the mineral resource estimate disclosed herein can be found in Section 11, Mineral Resource Estimates, of each relevant TRS.
 
Table 2.5 – Mineral Resources
 
Uranium Oxide Mineral Resources
Country
State/Province
Project
Measured
Indicated
Inferred
Tons
('000's)
Tonnes
('000's)
Grade
(% U 3 O 8 )
Pounds
U 3 O 8 ('000's)
Tons
('000's)
Tonnes
('000's)
Grade
(% U 3 O 8 )
Pounds
U 3 O 8  ('000's)
Tons
('000's)
Tonnes
('000's)
Grade
(% U 3 O 8 )
Pounds
U 3 O 8  ('000's)
United States
Wyoming
Allemand-Ross
246
223
0.08%
417
32
29
0.07%
42
1,275
1,157
0.10%
2,496
Barge
 
 
 
 
4,301
3,902
0.05%
4,361
 
 
 
 
Charlie
 
 
 
 
1,255
1,139
0.12%
3,100
411
373
0.12%
988
Christensen Ranch
 
 
 
 
6,555
5,947
0.07%
9,596
 
 
 
 
Clarkson Hill
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
957
868
0.06%
1,113
Irigaray
 
 
 
 
3,881
3,521
0.08%
5,899
104
94
0.07%
141
Jab/West Jab
1,621
1,471
0.07%
2,335
253
230
0.08%
392
1,402
1,272
0.06%
1,677
Ludeman
2,674
2,426
0.09%
5,017
2,660
2,413
0.09%
4,697
866
786
0.07%
1,258
Moore Ranch
2,675
2,427
0.06%
3,210
 
 
 
 
46
42
0.05%
44
Nine Mile Lake
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3,405
3,089
0.04%
4,308
Red Rim
 
 
 
 
337
306
0.17%
1,142
473
429
0.16%
1,539
Reno Creek
14,990
13,599
0.04%
12,920
16,980
15,404
0.04%
13,070
1,920
1,742
0.04%
1,490
Wyoming Total
22,206
20,145
0.05%
23,899
36,254
32,889
0.06%
42,299
10,859
9,851
0.07%
15,054
Texas
Burke Hollow
70
64
0.08%
115
1,337
1,213
0.09%
2,209
2,494
2,263
0.10%
4,859
Goliad
1,595
1,447
0.05%
2,668
1,504
1,364
0.10%
3,492
1,548
1,403
0.20%
1,225
Palangana
 
 
 
 
232
210
0.13%
643
302
274
0.18%
1,001
Salvo
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1125
1,020
0.09%
2,839
Texas Total
1,665
1,510
0.08%
2,783
3,073
2,788
0.10%
6,344
5,469
4,961
0.09%
9,924
Arizona
Anderson
 
 
 
 
16,175
14,674
0.10%
32,055
 
 
 
 
Workman Creek
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1,981
1,797
0.11%
4,459
Arizona Total
 
 
 
 
16,175
14,674
0.10%
32,055
1,981
1,797
0.11%
4,459
United States Total
23,871
21,655
0.06%
26,682
55,502
50,351
0.07%
80,698
18,309
16,610
0.08%
29,437
 
Canada
Saskatchewan
Christie Lake
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
537
488
1.57%
16,836
Roughrider
 
 
 
 
429
389
3.25%
27,842
396
359
4.55%
36,043
Horseshoe-Raven
 
 
 
 
11,412
10,353
0.16%
37,426
 
 
 
 
Shea Creek
 
 
 
 
1,113
1,009
1.49%
33,175
679
616
1.02%
13,775
Millennium
 
 
 
 
239
217
2.39%
11,423
68
62
3.19%
4,364
Canada Total
 
 
 
 
13,192
11,968
0.42%
109,867
1,681
1,525
2.11%
71,019
 
Paraguay
 
Yuty
 
 
 
 
9,074
8,232
0.05%
8,962
2,733
2,479
0.04%
2,203
 
Total Resources
 
23,871
21,655
0.06%
26,682
77,768
70,550
0.13%
199,527
22,797
20,681
0.23%
102,658
 
Notes:
 
 
1.
The Mineral Resource estimates in this table meet S-K 1300 definitions.
 
2.
Mineral Resources are not Mineral Reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability.
 
3.
The point of reference for mineral resources is in-situ at the Project.
 
4.
Mineral Resources are estimated using a long-term uranium price of $40 per pound for ISR projects and $65 per pound for conventional projects.
 
5.
Mineral Resources are 100% attributable to the Company.
 
6.
Numbers may not add due to rounding.
 
28
Table of Contents
 
Table 2.6 – Year over Year Changes in Mineral Resources
 
UEC has recently completed updated mineral resource and reserve updates on the company’s material properties and presently does not have projects in production. As such, there were no changes to stated resources between fiscal year 2022 and 2023.
 
Uranium Oxide Resources
 
 
 
FY 2022
FY 2023
YOY Change
Country
State/Province
Project
Measured Pounds U 3 O 8  ('000's)
Indicated Pounds U 3 O 8  ('000's)
Inferred Pounds U 3 O 8 ('000's)
Measured Pounds U 3 O 8 ('000's)
Indicated Pounds U 3 O 8 ('000's)
Inferred Pounds U 3 O 8 ('000's)
% Change in Measured Pounds
% Change in Indicated Pounds
% Change in Inferred Pounds
United States
Wyoming
Allemand-Ross
417
42
2,496
417
42
2,496
0%
0%
0%
Barge
 
4,361
 
 
4,361
 
 
0%
 
Charlie
 
3,100
988
 
3,100
988
 
0%
0%
Christensen Ranch
 
9,596
 
 
9,596
 
 
0%
 
Clarkson Hill
 
 
1,113
 
 
1,113
 
 
0%
Irigaray
 
5,899
141
 
5,899
141
 
0%
0%
Jab/West Jab
2,335
392
1,677
2,335
392
1,677
0%
0%
0%
Ludeman
5,017
4,697
1,258
5,017
4,697
1,258
0%
0%
0%
Moore Ranch
3,210
 
44
3,210
 
44
0%
 
0%
Nine Mile Lake
 
 
4,308
 
 
4,308
 
 
0%
Red Rim
 
1,142
1,539
 
1,142
1,539
 
0%
0%
Reno Creek
12,920
13,070
1,490
12,920
13,070
1,490
0%
0%
0%
Wyoming Total
23,899
42,299
15,054
23,899
42,299
15,054
0%
0%
0%
Texas
Burke Hollow
115
2,209
4,859
115
2,209
4,859
0%
0%
0%
Goliad
2,668
3,492
1,225
2,668
3,492
1,225
0%
0%
0%
Palangana
 
643
1,001
 
643
1,001
 
0%
0%
Salvo
 
 
2,839
 
 
2,839
 
 
0%
Texas Total
2,783
6,344
9,924
2,783
6,344
9,924
0%
0%
0%
Arizona
Anderson
 
32,055
 
 
32,055
 
 
0%
 
Workman Creek
 
 
4,459
 
 
4,459
 
 
0%
Arizona Total
 
32,055
4,459
 
32,055
4,459
 
0%
0%
United States Total
26,682
80,698
29,437
26,682
80,698
29,437
0%
0%
0%
Canada
Saskatchewan
Christie Lake
 
 
16,836
 
 
16,836
 
 
0%
Roughrider
 
27,842
36,043
 
27,842
36,043
 
0%
0%
Horseshoe-Raven
 
37,426
 
 
37,426
 
 
0%
 
Shea Creek
 
33,175
13,775
 
33,175
13,775
 
0%
0%
Millennium
 
11,423
4,364
 
11,423
4,364
 
0%
0%
Canada Total
 
109,867
71,019
 
109,867
71,019
 
0%
0%
Paraguay
 
Yuty
 
8,962
2,203
 
8,962
2,203
 
0%
0%
Total Resources
 
26,682
199,527
102,658
26,682
199,527
102,658
0%
0%
0%
 
Notes:
 
 
1.
The Mineral Resource estimates in this table meet S-K 1300 definitions.
 
2.
Mineral Resources are not Mineral Reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability.
 
3.
The point of reference for mineral resources is in-situ at the Project.
 
4.
Mineral Resources are estimated using a long-term uranium price of $40 per pound for ISR projects and $65 per pound for conventional projects.
 
5.
Mineral Resources are 100% attributable to the Company.
 
6.
Numbers may not add due to rounding.
 
Internal Controls Over Uranium Resource Estimation Efforts
 
For Canadian and U.S. exploration programs, Quality Control and Quality Assurance (“QA/QC”) programs for geologic data collection and resource estimation are defined in each TRS along with protocols and procedures for data collection.  To summarize, the QA/QC programs for exploration data are in place that cover four broad categories: geologic data collection; data verification; radiometric equivalent data; and geochemical data.  The controls in each of these broad categories serve to help the Company and its QPs have confidence in the data and geologic interpretations that are being used in resource estimation.
 
Geochemical data for Canadian exploration programs is supplied by the Geoanalytical Laboratory at the Saskatchewan Research Council (“SRC”).  The quality management system at SRC, Geoanalytical Laboratories, operates in accordance with ISO/IEC 17025, General Requirements for the Competence of Testing and Calibration Laboratories, and is also compliant to ASB, Requirements and Guidance for Mineral Analysis Testing Laboratories.  The management system and selected methods are accredited by the Standards Council of Canada.  As part of the SRC’s commitment to continually assess the effectiveness of the services, all processes are subject to internal, second party and third-party audits.  In addition to the lab controls on QA/QC, the Company submits duplicate samples and blank samples to the lab at a rate of approximately one in 20 samples each along with standard and a round robin pulp that are inserted at the lab, so that in a 20-sample batch there are 16 geochemistry samples for analysis.  Failures of lab standards, blanks or duplicates are investigated and can result in re-assay of the samples to replace the original data in the database if necessary.  Samples of mineralization at a rate of about 5% of the population are checked externally with a different accredited lab to help assure accuracy.
 
29
Table of Contents
 
For U.S. exploration programs the preponderance of data utilized for resource and reserve estimates is generated from radiometric equivalent measurements made utilizing downhole geophysical logging techniques such as gamma-ray and prompt fission neutron (“PFN”) techniques.  This technology has been employed in the exploration and development of sandstone uranium deposits in the U.S. since the 1950s.  QA/QC of gamma-ray and PFN probes from each logging truck are required to maintain calibration by regular cross-checking the probes at a U.S. Department of Energy test pits located in George West, Texas, or Casper, Wyoming.  The pit is set up for logging units to calibrate the probes with a known radioactive source.  Each test run generates calibration files for the operator to review and make necessary tool adjustments.  Calibration runs typically are made on a one- or two-month interval, and files with the test pit run results are maintained by the operator.  The available data indicate that the logging provided by the Company and contract probe trucks at the various U.S. projects have maintained industry standard calibration procedures for their probes.
 
For resource estimation the internal controls are more common to the U.S. and Canadian operations.  Company staff will perform database verification on the geologic database which is then reviewed by the QP.  If the QP was not involved in the primary data collection field program the QP will spot check a subset of drill collar locations and, if available, also compare collar elevations against a digital elevation model to evaluate and cross check the drill hole collar elevations.  For resource estimation the block model is evaluated visually against geologic cross sections to ensure block grades match drill hole grades.  The QP will evaluate probability plots and perform statistical analysis of the sample population to determine the need for an appropriate grade cap to limit the influence of high-grade samples to the appropriate area.  The preparation of Swath Plots is another internal control which can inform the QP if high-grade samples have had an exaggerated influence on the resource model.
 
The resource estimates have inherent risks due to data accuracy, uncertainty from geological interpretation, mine plan assumptions, uncontrolled rights for mineral and surface properties, environmental challenges, uncertainty for future market supply and demand and changes in laws and regulations.  Company management and QPs are aware of those risks that might directly impact the assessment of mineral reserves and resources.  The current mineral resources are estimated based on the best information available and are subject to reassessment when conditions change.
 
ISR Uranium Activities
 
The Company conducts its ISR activities through two district scale hubs located in Wyoming and Texas. The Irigaray Central Processing Plant (“CPP”) is located in northeastern Wyoming, was acquired in December 2021 through the acquisition of U1A. The Hobson CPP is located in south Texas, which it acquired in 2009 from Uranium One.
 
The Wyoming hub is comprised of the following material ISR projects that are intended to feed resources into the Irigaray CPP: Christensen Ranch, Charlie, Reno Creek, Moore Ranch, Ludeman, Allemand-Ross, Barge, Jab/West Jab, the Nine Mile Lake, Red Rim and Clarkson Hill. Please refer to Summary Disclosure Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4 for detailed information on each project. Production from existing wellfields at Christensen Ranch ceased in 2018 and the project was put in care and maintenance mode. Processing of toll resins from other projects continues at the Irigaray CPP. In order for Christensen Ranch to engage in future uranium extraction, the Company will need to incur capital expenditures to restart idled wellfields.
 
United States Properties
 
Wyoming Properties
 
Below is a map showing our Wyoming projects:
 
 
Figure 2.2 – Locations of our Projects in Wyoming
 
30
Table of Contents
 
Permitting Requirements in Wyoming
 
The Irigaray CPP is fully permitted.  The Christensen Ranch, Ludeman and Moore Ranch project areas are fully permitted for ISR operations through both the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Land Quality Division (WDEQ/LQD) and the BLM as appropriate. Portions of the Irigaray and Reno Creek project areas are also permitted for ISR operations.
 
The Allemand-Ross, Barge, Charlie, Clarkson Hill, Jab/West Jab, Nine Mile and Red Rim project areas are not permitted. Portions of the Reno Creek project area and the majority of the Irigaray project area are also not permitted for ISR operations.
 
Geology and Mineralization in Wyoming
 
The Allemand-Ross, Barge, Charlie, Christensen Ranch, Irigaray, Ludeman, Moore Ranch, Nine Mile and Reno Creek project areas reside in the Powder River Basin (“PRB”). The PRB is a structural basin that extends over much of northeastern Wyoming and southeastern Montana and consists of a large north-northwest trending asymmetric syncline.  The basin is bounded by the Big Horn Mountains on the west and Casper Arch to the southwest, the Black Hills to the east and the Hartville Uplift and Laramie Mountains to the south.  The PRB is filled with marine, non-marine and continental sediments ranging in age from early Paleozoic through Cenozoic.
 
The Jab/West Jab and Red Rim project areas are located within the northeastern portion of the Greater Green River Basin (“GGRB”). The GGRB is a structural basin that extends over southwestern Wyoming and northwestern Colorado and is divided by the Rock Springs Uplift, a north-south trending anticline. The basin is bounded by the Wyoming thrust belt to the west, the Rawlins Uplift and the Sierra Madre Mountains to the east, the Wind River Mountains to the north and the Uinta Mountains to the south. The GGRB contains up to 25,000 feet of Cretaceous to recent sedimentary rocks.
 
The Clarkson Hill project area is located in the eastern portion of the Wind River Basin (“WRB”).  The WRB is a structural basin in west-central Wyoming. The basin is bounded by the Wind River Range to the west, the Casper Arch to the east, the Owl Creek Mountains to the north and the Granite Mountains to the south. The WRB is filled with marine, lacustrine and fluvial sediments ranging in age from Paleozoic to Cenozoic.
 
Uranium mineralization at the project is typical of Wyoming 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 flow.
 
Geology of the Powder River Basin
 
The PRB extends over much of northeastern Wyoming and southeastern Montana and consists of a large north-northwest trending asymmetric syncline, with the basin axis located to the west of the projects.  The PRB is bounded by the Big Horn Mountains and Casper Arch to the west, the Black Hills to the east and the Hartville Uplift and Laramie Mountains to the south.  The PRB is filled with marine, non-marine and continental sediments ranging in age from early Paleozoic through Cenozoic.
 
Within the PRB, the Paleocene Fort Union Formation conformably overlies the Lance Formation and is a fluvial-sedimentary stratigraphic unit that consists of fine- to coarse-grained arkosic sandstone, which is interbedded with siltstone, mudstone and carbonaceous materials.  In some areas of the PRB, the Fort Union Formation is divided into two members, identified as the Upper and Lower members of the Fort Union Formation.  However, Flores divides the Fort Union into three members: the Tullock; Lebo; and Tongue River members (listed from oldest to youngest); as follows:
 
 
●
The Tullock member consists of sandstone, siltstone and sparse coal and carbonaceous shale;
 
 
●
The Lebo member consists of abundant drab gray mudstone, minor siltstone and sandstone and sparse coal and carbonaceous shale beds; and
 
 
●
The Tongue River member consists of interbedded sandstone, conglomerate, siltstone, mudstone, limestone, anomalously thick coal beds and carbonaceous shale beds.  This member has been mined extensively for its coal beds, which can be hundreds of feet thick.
 
Uranium mineralization occurs in zones that are located in channel sands of the Fort Union Formation.  These channel sands are typical fining upward sand sequences consisting of fine-grained sandstones.  The zones of mineralization are formed as typical roll-front deposits in these sandstones.
 
The early Eocene Wasatch Formation unconformably overlies the Fort Union Formation around the margins of the PRB.  However, the two formations are conformable and gradational towards the basin center.  The relative amount of coarse, permeable clastics increases near the top of Fort Union, and the overlying Wasatch Formation contains numerous beds of sandstone that can sometimes be correlated over wide areas.  The Wasatch-Fort Union contact is separated by Paleocene and Eocene rocks and is generally placed above the Roland coal.  However, other authors have placed the Wasatch-Fort Union contact above the School, Badger and Anderson Coals in other parts of the PRB.
 
The Wasatch Formation occurs at the surface in the central PRB, but has been mostly removed by erosion with only small, scattered outcrops still present in the southern PRB.  The Wasatch Formation is also a fluvial sedimentary unit that consists of a series of silt to very coarse-grained gradational intervals in arkosic sandstone.  The sandstone horizons in the Wasatch Formation are the host rocks for several uranium deposits in the central PRB.  Within this area, mineralization is found in a 50- to 100-ft thick sandstone lens.  On a regional scale, mineralization is localized and controlled by facies changes within this sandstone, including thinning of the sandstone unit, decrease in grain size and increase in clay and organic material content.  The Wasatch Formation reaches a maximum thickness of about 1,600 feet and dips northwestward from one degree to two-and-a-half degrees in the southern and central parts of the PRB.
 
The Oligocene White River Formation overlies the Wasatch Formation and has been removed from most of the basin by erosion. Remnants of this unit crop out on the Pumpkin Buttes, and at the extreme southern edge of the PRB.  The White River Formation consists of clayey sandstone, claystone, a boulder conglomerate and tuffaceous sediments, which may be the primary source rock for uranium in the southern part of the PRB as a whole.  The youngest sediments consist of Quaternary alluvial sands and gravels locally present in larger valleys. Quaternary eolian sands can also be found locally.
 
31
Table of Contents
 
Geology of the Great Divide and Greater Green River Basins
 
The Jab/West Jab and Red Rim project areas are located within the northeastern portion of the Great Divide Basin.
 
The Great Divide Basin (“GDB”) and the Washakie Basin (“WB”) in the southwest together comprise the Greater Green River Basin (“GGRB”). The GGRB is a structural basin that extends over southwestern Wyoming and northwestern Colorado and is divided by the Rock Springs Uplift, a north-south trending anticline.  The basin is bounded by the Wyoming thrust belt to the west, the Rawlins Uplift and the Sierra Madre Mountains to the east, the Wind River Mountains to the north and the Uinta Mountains to the south.  The GGRB contains up to 25,000 feet of Cretaceous to recent sedimentary rocks.
 
During the end of the Cretaceous Period, the Laramide Orogeny divided the Wyoming Basin Province into a series of down warped basins.  As these basins were created, uplift created the Granite and Seminoe Mountains, and older formations were altered during the same time.  In the northern regions of the GDB, swamps, alluvial plains and fluvial fans were present at the margins of the uplifted Granite Mountains.  To the southwest, the GDB is occupied by the lacustrine Eocene Green River Formation and by the lower energy Wasatch Formation.  These two facies interfinger with the high-energy fluvial facies of the Battle Spring Formation at the central and eastern areas in the GDB.
 
Uranium deposits occur principally in the Battle Spring Formation which consists of alluvial-fluvial fan deposits of west- to southwest-flowing paleodrainage.  The common rock type is arkosic sandstone with interbedded claystone.  These types of rock are typical of alluvial-fan facies.  Much of this material is sourced from the Granite Mountains, by blockages in normal drainages due to differential subsidence rates.  The Wasatch Formation, due to its fluvial nature, contains interbedded siltstones, coal, carbonaceous shale, fine-grained sandstone, sandy limestone and medium-grained fluvial sandstones.
 
The Battle Spring Formation consists of alluvial-fluvial fan deposits of west to southwest-flowing paleodrainage.  The common rock type is arkosic sandstone with interbedded claystone.  These types of rock are typical of alluvial-fan facies.  Much of this material is sourced from the Granite Mountains by blockages in normal drainages due to differential subsidence rates.  The Wasatch Formation, due to its fluvial nature, contains interbedded siltstones, coal, carbonaceous shale, fine-grained sandstone, sandy limestone and medium-grained fluvial sandstones.  The permeable medium- to very coarse-grained sandstones and arkoses are a favorable host for sandstone-type uranium deposits.  Fluvial channels incised into less permeable underlying siltstones and sandstones in the Battle Spring during early Eocene time.  The channels were backfilled by the massive, poorly-sorted, coalescing alluvial fan deposits, known as the Battle Spring Formation.  The Battle Spring Formation includes impermeable carbonaceous shales that created an impermeable boundary for uranium deposits.
 
The Fort Union Formation surfaces around the boundary of the GDB.  The Fort Union Formation is described as an interbedded sequence of white, gray, tan, buff and brown sandstone, gray to black shale, carbonaceous shale, siltstone, local conglomerate beds and (usually) thin coal beds.  It may truncate and unconformably overlie older units near basin margins.  The Fort Union is unconformably underlain by the Cretaceous Lance Formation and regionally overlain by either the Eocene Wasatch or Battle Spring Formation.
 
The Lance Formation is described as a gray to buff fine-grained to very fine-grained silty sandstone interbedded with drab to light-green to gray locally carbonaceous siltstone and thin conglomeratic lenses locally.  The Lance Formation contains the upper Red Rim Member and the lower (unnamed) member.  The Red Rim Member is a prominent sandstone package named for its color as it crops out south of Interstate 80 on the eastern rim of the WB.
 
Overbank and floodplain deposits in the Battle Spring Formation also were likely to restrict groundwater flow.  These boundaries focused uranium-rich waters into confined permeable units. Faulting also created structural and permeability control.
 
Geology of the Wind River Basin
 
The Clarkson Hill project area is located in the eastern portion of the Wind River Basin (“WRB”).  The WRB is a structural basin in west-central Wyoming.  The basin is bounded by the Wind River Range to the west, the Casper Arch to the east, the Owl Creek Mountains to the north and the Granite Mountains to the south.  The WRB is filled with marine, lacustrine and fluvial sediments ranging in age from Paleozoic to Cenozoic.
 
Both the Wind River and Fort Union Formations are Cenozoic fluvial sedimentary deposits containing sandstone with economic quantities of uranium. The primary source of sediments for the Wind River and Fort Union Formations in the eastern WRB was the ancestral Granite Mountains along the southern boundary of the basin. The Granite Mountains were formed during the Laramide Orogeny, a period of extensive mountain building, which began at the end of the Mesozoic Era and continued into the early Cenozoic Era. Subsequent erosion of the Granite Mountain highlands coupled with the down-warping of adjacent basins, such as the Wind River and Powder River Basins, combined to accumulate thousands of feet of sedimentary deposits.
 
The Paleocene Fort Union is the oldest Tertiary formation and consists of sandstone, siltstone, shale, coal and local conglomerates. The Fort Union is overlain, often unconformably, by the Eocene Wind River Formation, which consists of sandstones, conglomerates, siltstones and shale. Overlying the Wind River Formation is the Oligocene White River Formation. The White River Formation also consists of sandstones, siltstone and shale, however, along with fluvial deposition of the sands and clays, substantial volumes of windblown volcanic ash (tuffs) were also deposited. This volcanic ash is regarded by many as the source of uranium for many Wyoming sandstone uranium deposits. Economic uranium deposits in the WRB typically occur as roll-front deposits in porous sandstones within the Wind River and Fort Union Formations.
 
32
Table of Contents
 
Material Project Descriptions in Wyoming
 
Irigaray CPP
 
The following technical and scientific description for the Irigaray CPP Project area (the “Irigaray Project Area”) is based in part on the TRS titled “S-K 1300 Mineral Resource Report Wyoming Assets ISR Hub and Spoke Project, WY USA”, dated March 31, 2022, prepared by Western Water Consultants d/b/a WWC Engineering (“WWC”), a qualified firm (the “QP” herein).  The Irigaray Project Area does not have mineral reserves and is therefore considered an Exploration Stage property under S-K 1300 definitions, despite a history of commercial production.
 
 
Figure 2.3 – Location of the Irigaray Project
 
Property Description
 
The Irigaray Project Area is located in Johnson County, Wyoming, northwest of Pumpkin Buttes and near Willow Creek, within the PRB, at latitude 43.8683 and longitude 106.1186 in decimal degrees.  The Irigaray Project Area covers 2,320 acres, including all (or portions of) 12 sections of the PRB.
 
The Irigaray Project Area is approximately 70 air miles north-northeast of Casper, Wyoming, 48 air miles southeast of Buffalo, Wyoming, and 40 air miles southwest of Gillette.  The Irigaray Project Area can be accessed from Casper, Wyoming, by traveling north on I-25, exit onto State Highway 259 at Midwest turn onto State Highway 387, turn left onto State Highway 192 toward Lynch, travel approximately six miles past Lynch, then turn right onto Streeter Road County Road 135 and follow signs to Irigaray and/or Christensen site. From Buffalo travel south on I-25 exit onto Trabing Road County Road 13, travel for approximately 14 miles then exit left onto Irigaray Road and follow signs to the Irigaray site. For access from Gillette, take State Highway 50 south approximately 25 miles exit right onto Black and Yellow Road, travel for approximately 20 miles and follow signs to Irigaray.  The Irigaray Project Area is primarily located on private surface land, federal BLM land and a portion located on one section of state-managed land.
 
The site is accessible year-round on county and private roads which are shared by oil and gas operators and ranchers. Limited services are available from several smaller towns proximal to the site. Primarily, services and personnel are available from Buffalo, Gillette, and Casper. Casper and Gillette provide flight services with daily service to Denver, Billings and Salt Lake City. Water is sourced locally at the mine while electrical service is provided by a regional power company.
 
UEC’s mineral holdings in the Irigaray Project Area include two State of Wyoming uranium leases (480 acres) and 92 unpatented lode claims on federally administered minerals (1,840 acres).  These mineral holdings comprise 2,320 acres.  All payments for all leases and claims are up to date.
 
History
 
Uranium was first discovered in the southern PRB during the early 1950s. By the mid- to late 1950s, small open pit mine operations were established in the PRB. Early prospecting and exploration included geologic mapping and gamma surveys, which led to discoveries of uranium in the Wasatch and Fort Union Formations. Extensive drill hole exploration has been utilized to locate deeper uranium mineralization since the 1960s to progress geologic models.
 
The table below describes the historic ownership and operations at the Irigaray Project Area.
 
33
Table of Contents
 
Table 2.7: Historic Ownership and Operations at the Irigaray Project Area
 
Year
Company
Operations/Activity
Amount
(No. of Drill holes)
Results of Work
1969
Homestake Mining (“Homestake”)
Original controller of the Irigaray Project Area.
Approximately 1,340
Right to mine secured. Preliminary delineation of mineralized areas.
1975
Westinghouse Electric Corporation (“Westinghouse”)
Acquired property from Homestake. The project was licensed for ISR production in 1978 and was operated by Wyoming Mineral Corporation, a subsidiary of Westinghouse. Operations ceased in 1982 due to market trends.
Approximately 470
Delineation of mineralized areas. Began ISR production.
1987
Malapai Resources Company (“Malapai”)
Acquired property from Westinghouse.
None
Ownership transition.
1990
Total Minerals Corporation (“TOMIN”) and Électricité de France (“EDF”)
Acquired property from Malapai. TOMIN acted as project operator.
None
Ownership transition.
1993
COGEMA Resources, Inc. (“COGEMA”) (now Orano S.A.)/Areva
Replaced TOMIN as project operator in partnership with EDF. COGEMA acquired interests from TOMIN.
Approximately 20
0.74 million lb. of U 3 O 8  produced from 1978 through 2000.
2010
Uranium One
Dried many millions of pounds from Christensen Ranch and through toll milling.
N/A
Decommissioned Irigaray wellfields.
2021
UEC
Irigaray Project Area acquired by UEC from Uranium One.
N/A
Ownership transition.
 
Property Condition and Proposed Development
 
The condition of the property is very good, and meets all standards and requirements of Federal, State and local regulations. Future development of the property includes a proposed expansion of the permit boundary to include future Mine Units 15 through 19 and further delineation of known roll front type deposits through exploration and delineation drilling. Seventeen (17) exploration and delineation holes were drilled in 2023 in sections 28 and 33, T45N R77W, in the future Mine Unit 15 area.
 
Facilities, Infrastructure and Underground Development
 
The Irigaray CPP was first constructed in 1977-1978.  Mining occurred at the time in Wellfields 1 through 9.  These wellfields have gone through groundwater restoration, decommissioning and final reclamation, which has been approved by the Wyoming DEQ.  Currently, the only facilities at the Irigaray Project are the CPP and associated infrastructure including evaporation ponds, access roads, power lines and chemical and fuel storage tanks. The CPP was upgraded in 2009 by removing the original equipment and adding replacement elution systems, additional precipitation tanks, new concrete foundations and upgrades to the filter press and other equipment.  The CPP now contains two complete resin elution systems, multiple precipitation areas, filter press, yellowcake thickeners, and a calciner for drying yellowcake product. A vacuum dryer is in storage at the CPP for future installation when needed.  The plant is capable of accepting third party resins for stripping, precipitation and drying of yellowcake product, as well as our own resins from Christensen Ranch and other properties. Although the building is older, it has been maintained in good condition.  The entire CPP roof was replaced in 2021.
 
Permit Status and Encumbrances
 
The Irigaray Project is permitted under Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (“WDEQ”), Land Quality Division (“LQD”) Permit to Mine No. 478.  The project is also licensed under WDEQ/LQD Uranium Recovery Program Radioactive Materials License WYSUA-1341, formerly a U.S. NRC license.  Wyoming became an Agreement State for NRC regulation in 2018.  Permit to Mine No. 478 and Radioactive Materials License WYSUA-1341 are in good standing, with no violations of permit or license conditions.  Mining permit requirements can be found in Wyoming Statutes §35-11-400 through 437, with specific laws for ISR mining in sections 426 – 436. Conditions of the Radioactive Materials License applicable to ISR mining are generally standard for all licensees.  Requirements of Radioactive Materials Licenses are found in WDEQ, LQD/Uranium Recovery Program Chapter 4 Rules and Regulations for Licensing of Source and Byproduct Material. There are no materially significant encumbrances on the Irigaray Project.  Standard encumbrances include reclamation bonding, mining and surface lease royalties.
 
Geologic setting, Mineralization and Deposit
 
The Irigaray Project Area resides in the Powder River Basin and targets mineralization in the Eocene-aged Wasatch Formation. For additional information, refer to the discussion on the Powder River Basin geology previously outlined.
 
Mineralization in the Irigaray Project Area occurs in fluvial sandstones of the lower parts of the Wasatch Formation. Most of the upper Wasatch Formation has been eroded away. The sandstones are arkosic, fine- to coarse-grained with local calcareous lenses. The sandstones contain minor amounts of organic carbon that occurs as dispersed bits or as stringers. Unaltered sandstones are generally gray, while altered sandstones are tan or pink due to hematite or show yellowish coloring due to limonite.
 
Pyrite occurs in several forms within the host sandstones. In unaltered sandstones, pyrite occurs as small to large single euhedral crystals associated with magnetite, ilmenite and other dark detrital minerals. In altered sandstone, pyrite is typically absent, but locally occurs as tarnished, very fine-grained euhedral crystals. In areas of intense or heavy mineralization, pyrite locally occurs as massive, tarnished crystal aggregates (Utah International, 1971).
 
The Irigaray Project Area contains portions of four alteration systems, all within fluvial sands of the Wasatch Formation. These fluvial host systems are labelled K1, K2, K3 and K4 sands and are in descending order. These sands vary in thickness from 0 feet to 100 feet within the Irigaray Project Area. They coalesce within portions of the Irigaray Project Area and form massive sand sequences of roughly 250 feet (80 m) in thickness. These sands in turn host the K1, K2, K3 and K4 uranium roll-front systems, each of which is composed of multiple stacked individual roll-front deposits.
 
34
Table of Contents
 
Table 2.8 – Mineral Resources for the Irigaray Project as at the date of this Annual Report
 
Classification
Tons Ore
(000 ’ s)
Tonnes Ore
(1000 ’ s)
Average
Grade
(% eU 3 O 8 )
Pounds
eU 3 O 8
(000 ’ s)
Measured
-
-
-
-
Indicated
3,881
3,521
0.076
5,899.0
Total M&I
3,881
3,521
0.076
5,899.0
Inferred
104
94
0.068
141.0
Total Resources
3,985
3,615
0.076
6,040.0
 
Notes:
 
1.
The sum of resource tons and lbs. may not add up to the reported total due to rounding.
 
2.
Measured, indicated and inferred mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300.
 
3.
GT Cutoff = 0.25 m% eU 3 O 8
 
4.
All reported resources occur below the static water table.
 
5.
The point of reference for mineral resources is in-situ at the Project.
 
6.
Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
 
Christensen Ranch ISR Project
 
The following technical and scientific description for the Christensen Ranch Project area (the “Christensen Ranch Project Area”) is based in part on the TRS titled “S-K 1300 Mineral Resource Report Wyoming Assets ISR Hub and Spoke Project, WY USA”, dated March 31, 2022, prepared by WWC, a qualified firm (the “QP” herein). The Christensen Ranch Project Area does not have mineral reserves and is therefore considered an Exploration Stage property under S-K 1300 definitions, despite a history of commercial production.
 
 
Figure 2.4 – Location of the Christensen Ranch Project
 
Property Description
 
The Christensen Ranch Project Area is located in Johnson and Campbell Counties, Wyoming, west of Pumpkin Buttes within the PRB, at latitude 43.7982 and longitude -106.0235 in decimal degrees.  The Christensen Ranch Project Area covers 11,140 acres, including all (or portions of) 30 sections of the PRB.
 
The Christensen Ranch Project Area is approximately 70 air miles north-northeast of Casper, Wyoming, 48 air miles southeast of Buffalo, Wyoming and 40 air miles southwest of Gillette.  The Christensen Ranch Project Area can be accessed from Casper, Wyoming, by traveling north on I-25, exit onto State Highway 259 at Midwest turn onto State Highway 387, turn left onto State Highway 192 toward Lynch, travel approximately six miles past Lynch, turn right onto Streeter Road County Road 135, and then follow the signs to the Christensen site. From Buffalo travel south on I-25 exit onto Trabing Road County Road 13, travel for approximately 14 miles, then exit left onto Irigaray Road and follow signs to the Christensen site. For access from Gillette, take State Highway 50 south approximately 25 miles exit right onto Black and Yellow Road, travel for approximately 20 miles, then follow signs to Christensen.  The Christensen Ranch Project is located 13 miles to the southeast of the Irigaray Central Processing Plant and is accessed by travelling west on Black and Yellow Road to Irigaray Road.  The Christensen Ranch Project Area is primarily located on private surface land, with two portions located on federal BLM-managed land.
 
The site is accessible year-round on county and private roads which are shared by oil and gas operators and ranchers. Limited services are available from several smaller towns proximal to the site. Primarily, services and personnel are available from Buffalo, Gillette and Casper. Casper and Gillette provide flight services with daily service to Denver, Billings and Salt Lake City. Water is sourced locally at the mine while electrical service is provided by a regional power company.
 
35
Table of Contents
 
UEC’s mineral holdings in the Christensen Ranch Project Area include one State of Wyoming uranium lease (1,280 acres), 358 unpatented lode claims on federally administered minerals (9,140 acres) and one fee (private) mineral lease (720 acres).  These mineral holdings comprise 11,140 acres.  All payments for all leases and claims are up to date.
 
History
 
Uranium was first discovered in the southern PRB during the early 1950s. By the mid- to late 1950s, small open pit mine operations were established in the PRB. Early prospecting and exploration included geologic mapping and gamma surveys, which led to discoveries of uranium in the Wasatch and Fort Union Formations. Extensive drill hole exploration has been utilized to locate deeper uranium mineralization since the 1960s to progress geologic models.
 
The table below describes the historic ownership and operations at the Christensen Ranch Project Area.
 
Table 2.9: Historic Ownership and Operations at the Christensen Ranch Project Area
 
Year
Company
Operations/Activity
Amount
(No. of Drill holes)
Results of Work
1967
Independent Operators
Assembled as a large land package by independent operators.
Approximately 4,860
Right to mine secured. Preliminary delineation of mineralized areas.
1979
Arizona Public Services (“APS”), parent company of Malapai
APS became a 50% partner in 1979.
Approximately 2,220
Delineation of mineralized areas.
1981
Malapai
Malapai assumed sole ownership of the Christensen Ranch Project Area by acquiring the interests of Wold Energy (“Wold”) and Western Nuclear Corporation (“WNC”). Malapai purchased the Irigaray Project Area from Westinghouse in 1987, and the Christensen Ranch Project Area was licensed for operations under the Irigaray U.S. NRC and Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (“WDEQ”) license/permit in 1988. Uranium production by ISR was started by Malapai in 1989 and was placed on standby in 1990.
Approximately 1,460
Delineation of mineralized areas. Began ISR production.
1990
TOMIN and EDF
EDF acquired the Irigaray and Christensen Ranch Project Areas from Malapai in 1990. TOMIN acted as project operator for EDF under a joint participation agreement. TOMIN restarted ISR operations in 1991.
Approximately 2,270
Delineation of mineralized areas. Restarted ISR production.
1993
COGEMA and EDF
In 1993, COGEMA acquired the assets of TOMIN and changed the name of the operating entity to COGEMA Mining, Inc. EDF (now Malapai) was still owner of 29%, COGEMA, as operator, owned 71% through the joint participation agreement.
Approximately 3,690
3.70 million lbs of U 3 O 8  produced from 1989 through 2000.
2000
COGEMA and Malapai
Groundwater restoration of Mine Units 2 through 6 was completed. The Christensen Ranch Project Area was placed on standby from 2006 through 2010, at which time COGEMA and Malapai sold the project to Uranium One and Uranium One USA, Inc. (collectively, “Uranium One”).
N/A
188,000 lbs of U 3 O 8  produced during restoration.
2010
Uranium One
Mine Units 7, 8 and 10 were installed and operated. A ramp up occurred in 2011, and a ramp down occurred in 2013 (all wellfield development ceased). Low production mode occurred in 2014 through 2018, and production ended in 2018, at which time the Christensen Ranch Project Area was placed on care and maintenance.
N/A
2.6 million lbs of U 3 O 8  produced.
2021
UEC
The Christensen Ranch Project Area acquired by UEC from Uranium One.
N/A
Ownership transition.
 
Property Condition and Proposed Development
 
The condition of the property is very good while meeting all standards and requirements of Federal, State and local regulations. Development activity to advance the property includes the installation and completion of production and injection wells in Mine Unit 10. Additionally, exploration and delineation holes are planned in an area adjacent to Mine Unit 5.
 
Facilities, Infrastructure and Underground Development
 
The Christensen Ranch Project facilities include the ion exchange satellite plant, four evaporation ponds, one permeate storage pond, two EPA Class I injection disposal wells, several miles of buried production and injection trunklines connecting Mine Units to the satellite plant, access roads, office building, maintenance shop, powerlines, and eight installed wellfields (Mine Units 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10).  Mine Units 2, 3, 4 and 6 have gone through groundwater restoration, which has been approved by Wyoming DEQ.  These wellfields are undergoing decommissioning.  Mine Units 7, 8 and 10 have been partially mined and will be the focus of resuming operations.  Operations in portions of Mine Unit 5 may also be resumed in the future.  All facilities are in very good condition.
 
36
Table of Contents
 
Permit Status and Encumbrances
 
The Christensen Ranch Project is permitted under WDEQ Permit to Mine No. 478.  The project is also licensed under WDEQ Radioactive Materials License WYSUA-1341, formerly a U.S. NRC license.  Wyoming became an Agreement State for NRC regulation in 2018.  Permit to Mine No. 478 and Radioactive Materials License WYSUA-1341 are in good standing, with no violations of permit or license conditions.  Mining permit requirements can be found in Wyoming Statutes §35-11-400 through 437, with specific laws for ISR mining in sections 426 – 436. Conditions of the Radioactive Materials License applicable to ISR mining are generally standard for all licensees.  Requirements of Radioactive Materials Licenses are found in WDEQ, LQD/Uranium Recovery Program Chapter 4 Rules and Regulations for Licensing of Source and Byproduct Material.  There are no materially significant encumbrances on the Christensen Ranch Project.  Standard encumbrances include reclamation bonding, mining and surface lease royalties.
 
Geologic Setting, Mineralization and Deposit
 
The Christensen Ranch Project Area targets mineralization in the Eocene-aged Wasatch Formation of the Powder River Basin.
 
Mineralization in the Christensen Ranch Project Area occurs in fluvial sandstones of the lower parts of the Wasatch Formation. Most of the upper Wasatch Formation has been eroded away. The sandstones are arkosic, fine- to coarse-grained with local calcareous lenses. The sandstones contain minor amounts of organic carbon that occurs as dispersed bits or as stringers. Unaltered sandstones are generally gray, while altered sandstones are tan or pink due to hematite, or show yellowish coloring due to limonite.
 
Pyrite occurs in several forms within the host sandstones.   In unaltered sandstones, pyrite occurs as small to large single euhedral crystals associated with magnetite, ilmenite and other dark detrital minerals. In altered sandstone, pyrite is typically absent, but locally occurs as tarnished, very fine-grained euhedral crystals. In areas of intense or heavy mineralization, pyrite locally occurs as massive, tarnished crystal aggregates.
 
The Christensen Ranch Project Area contains portions of four alteration systems, all within fluvial sands of the Wasatch Formation. These fluvial host systems are identified as K1, K2, K3 and K4 sands and are in descending order. These sands vary in thickness from 0 feet to 100 feet within the Christensen Ranch Project Area. They coalesce within portions of the Christensen Ranch Project Area and form massive sand sequences of roughly 250 feet (80 m) in thickness. These sands in turn host the K1, K2, K3 and K4 uranium roll-front systems, each of which is composed of multiple stacked individual roll-front deposits.
 
Uranium mineralization at the Christensen Ranch Project Area is typical of Wyoming 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 geometry of mineralization is dominated by the classic roll-front “C” shape or crescent configuration at the redox interface. The highest-grade portion of the front occurs in a zone termed the “nose” within reduced ground just ahead of the alteration front. Ahead of the nose, at the leading edge of the solution front, mineral quality gradually diminishes to barren within the “seepage” zone. Trailing behind the nose, in oxidized (altered) ground, are weak remnants of mineralization referred to as “tails” which have resisted re-mobilization to the nose due to association with shale, carbonaceous material or other lithologies of lower permeability. Tails are generally not amenable to ISR because the uranium is typically found within strongly reduced or impermeable strata, therefore making it difficult to leach.
 
Table 2.10 – Mineral Resources for the Christensen Ranch Project as at the date of this Annual Report
 
Classification
Tons Ore
(000 ’ s)
Tonnes Ore
(1000 ’ s)
Average
Grade
(% eU 3 O 8 )
Pounds
eU 3 O 8
(000 ’ s)
Measured
-
-
-
-
Indicated
6,555
5,947
0.073
9,596
Total M&I
6,555
5,947
0.073
9,596
Inferred
-
-
-
-
Total Resources
6,555
5,947
0.073
9,596
 
Notes:
 
1.
The sum of resource tons and lbs. may not add up to the reported total due to rounding.
 
2.
Measured, indicated, and inferred mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300.
 
3.
GT Cutoff = 0.25 m% eU 3 O 8
 
4.
All reported resources occur below the static water table.
 
5.
The point of reference for mineral resources is in-situ at the Project.
 
6.
Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability
 
37
Table of Contents
 
Moore Ranch ISR Project
 
The following technical and scientific description for the Moore Ranch Project area (the “Moore Ranch Project Area”) is based in part on the TRS titled “S-K 1300 Mineral Resource Report Wyoming Assets ISR Hub and Spoke Project, WY USA”, dated March 31, 2022, prepared by WWC, a qualified firm (the “QP” herein).  The Moore Ranch Project Area does not have mineral reserves and is therefore considered an Exploration Stage property under S-K 1300 definitions, despite a history of commercial production.
 
Figure 2.5 – Location of the Moore Ranch Project
 
Property Description
 
The Moore Ranch Project Area is located in Campbell County, Wyoming, the southern portion of the Pumpkin Buttes within the PRB, at latitude 43.5652 and longitude ‑105.8480 in decimal degrees. The Moore Ranch Project area covers 4,180 acres, including all (or portions of) 16 sections of the PRB.
 
The Moore Ranch Project Area is 54 air miles northeast of Casper, Wyoming, and 24 miles southwest of Wright, Wyoming, along State Highway 387. The Moore Ranch Project Area is primarily located on private surface land with some areas of state-managed land.
 
The site is accessible year-round via state, county and private roads which are shared by oil and gas operators and ranchers. Services and personnel are available from Gillette or Casper. Flight service is offered from Gillette or Casper with daily service to Denver, Billings and Salt Lake City. Water will be sourced locally while electrical service will be provided by a regional power company.
 
UEC’s mineral holdings within the Moore Ranch Project Area include three State of Wyoming uranium leases (1,280 acres), 86 unpatented lode claims on federally administered minerals (1,720 acres) and four fee (private) mineral leases (1,180 acres).  These mineral holdings comprise 4,180 acres.  All payments for all leases and claims are up to date.
 
38
Table of Contents
 
History
 
Uranium was first discovered in the southern PRB during the early 1950s. By the mid- to late 1950s, small open pit mine operations were established in the PRB. Early prospecting and exploration included geologic mapping and gamma surveys, which led to discoveries of uranium in the Wasatch and Fort Union Formations. Extensive drill hole exploration has been utilized to locate deeper uranium mineralization since the 1960s to progress geologic models.
 
The table below describes the historic ownership and operations at the Moore Ranch Project Area.
 
Table 2.11: Historic Ownership and Operations at the Moore Ranch Project Area
 
Year
Company
Operations/Activity
Amount
(No. of Drill holes)
Results of Work
1971
Conoco Minerals (“Conoco”) and Kerr-McGee Corporation (“Kerr-McGee”)
Conoco and Kerr-McGee operated as a joint venture. Of the joint venture, Conoco controlled 50% of the Moore Ranch Project Area and served as the operator.
Approximately 2,700 rotary drill holes
Approximately 130 core holes
Discovery and delineation of mineralized areas. Permitting and licensing of a proposed uranium processing facility known as Sand Rock Mill was completed through the WDEQ/LQD and the NRC.
1983
Wold and Kerr-McGee
Conoco sold its interests to Wold in 1983. Kerr-McGee retained the rights with Wold. Assessment drilling was conducted.
None
Retained mining claims. Mining claim assessment drilling.
1989
Rio Algom Mining Corp.
(“Rio Algom”)
Rio Algom acquired the project in 1989. Rio Algom conducted mining claim assessment drilling to retain mining claims through 1992, which was the last year to allow mining claim assessment drilling.
None
Retained mining claims. Mining claim assessment drilling.
1992
Rio Algom
Claim maintenance paid directly to the BLM. No further drilling conducted.
None
Mining claims retained through payment.
2002
Power Resources, Inc. (“PRI”)
(now Cameco Resources)
Rio Algom acquired by PRI.
None
Ownership transition.
2004
Energy Metals Corporation (“EMC”)
EMC acquired most of the mining claims and state leases.
N/A
Secured right to mine.
2007
Uranium One
Uranium One acquired EMC and all rights to the Moore Ranch Project Area. Uranium One completed verification and resource enhancement drilling, coring, baseline monitor wells, and pump test wells. The Moore Ranch Project Area is fully permitted by WDEQ/LQD in 2011 and the NRC in 2013.
Approximately 800
Exploration efforts focused on developing and upgrading mineral resources.
2021
UEC
Moore Ranch Project Area acquired by UEC from Uranium One.
N/A
Ownership transition.
 
Property Condition and Proposed Development
 
The condition of the property is good while meeting all standards and requirements of Federal, State and local regulations. Development is in the planning stage with no immediate plans for exploration or delineation drilling.
 
Facilities, Infrastructure and Underground Development
 
Facilities or wellfields have not been constructed to date. Power lines are constructed and accessible in the area.
 
Permit Status and Encumbrances
 
The Moore Ranch Project is permitted under WDEQ Permit to Mine No. 777.  The project is also licensed under WDEQ Radioactive Materials License WYSUA-1596, formerly a U.S. NRC license.  Wyoming became an Agreement State for NRC regulation in 2018.  Permit to Mine No. 777 and Radioactive Materials License WYSUA-1596 are in good standing, with no violations of permit or license conditions.  Mining permit requirements can be found in Wyoming Statutes §35-11-400 through 437, with specific laws for ISR mining in sections 426 – 436. Conditions of the Radioactive Materials License applicable to ISR mining are generally standard for all licensees.  Requirements of Radioactive Materials Licenses are found in WDEQ, LQD/Uranium Recovery Program Chapter 4 Rules and Regulations for Licensing of Source and Byproduct Material.  There are no materially significant encumbrances on the Moore Ranch Project.  Standard encumbrances include reclamation bonding, mining and surface lease royalties.
 
39
Table of Contents
 
Geologic Setting, Mineralization and Deposit
 
The Moore Ranch Project Area targets mineralization in the Eocene-aged Wasatch Formation.
 
Mineralization in the Moore Ranch Project Area occurs in fluvial sandstones of the lower parts of the Wasatch Formation. Most of the upper Wasatch Formation has been eroded away. The sandstones are arkosic, fine- to coarse-grained with local calcareous lenses. The sandstones contain minor amounts of organic carbon that occurs as dispersed bits or as stringers. Unaltered sandstones are generally gray, while altered sandstones are tan or pink due to hematite, or show yellowish coloring due to limonite.
 
Pyrite occurs in several forms within the host sandstones. In unaltered sandstones, pyrite occurs as small to large single euhedral crystals associated with magnetite, ilmenite and other dark detrital minerals. In altered sandstone, pyrite is typically absent, but locally occurs as tarnished, very fine-grained euhedral crystals. In areas of intense or heavy mineralization, pyrite locally occurs as massive, tarnished crystal aggregates.
 
Geology at the Moore Ranch Project Area is similar to the geology at the North and Southwest Reno Creek resource areas and includes the Felix and Badger coals. The mineralized host sand lies 5 to 30 feet below this coal bed and at a depth of 200–350 feet below the surface. The host sandstone is 80-150 feet thick.
 
Uranium mineralization at the Moore Ranch Project Area is typical of Wyoming 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 geometry of mineralization is dominated by the classic roll-front “C” shape or crescent configuration at the redox interface. The highest-grade portion of the front occurs in a zone termed the “nose” within reduced ground just ahead of the alteration front. Ahead of the nose, at the leading edge of the solution front, mineral quality gradually diminishes to barren within the “seepage” zone. Trailing behind the nose, in oxidized (altered) ground, are weak remnants of mineralization referred to as “tails” which have resisted re-mobilization to the nose due to association with shale, carbonaceous material or other lithologies of lower permeability. Tails are generally not amenable to ISR because the uranium is typically found within strongly reduced or impermeable strata, therefore making it difficult to leach.
 
Table 2.12 – Mineral Resources for the Moore Ranch Project as at the date of this Annual Report
 
Classification
Tons Ore
(000 ’ s)
Tonnes Ore
(1000 ’ s)
Average
Grade
(% eU 3 O 8 )
Pounds
eU 3 O 8
(000 ’ s)
Measured
2,675
2,427
0.06
3,210.0
Indicated
-
-
-
-
Total M&I
2,675
2,427
0.06
3,210.0
Inferred
46
42
0.047
43.7
Total Resources
2,721
2,469
0.06
3,253.7
 
Notes:
 
1.
The sum of resource tons and lbs. may not add up to the reported total due to rounding.
 
2.
Measured, indicated, and inferred mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300.
 
3.
GT Cutoff = 0.3 m% eU 3 O 8
 
4.
All reported resources occur below the static water table.
 
5.
The point of reference for mineral resources is in-situ at the Project.
 
6.
Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
 
40
Table of Contents
 
Reno Creek ISR Project
 
The following technical and scientific description for the Reno Creek Project area (the “Reno Creek Project Area”) is based in part on the TRS titled “S-K 1300 Mineral Resource Report Wyoming Assets ISR Hub and Spoke Project, WY USA”, dated March 31, 2022, prepared by WWC, a qualified firm (the “QP” herein). The Reno Creek Project Area does not have mineral reserves and is therefore considered an Exploration Stage property under S-K 1300 definitions.
 
 
Figure 2.6 - Location of the Reno Creek Project
 
Property Description
 
The Reno Creek Project Area is in Campbell County, Wyoming, within the PRB, at latitude 43.6796 and longitude ‑105.7226 in decimal degrees. The Reno Creek Project Area covers 18,763 acres, including all (or portions of) 46 sections of the PRB.
 
The Reno Creek Project Area is approximately five miles to the northwest of the North and Southwest Reno Creek Resource Areas. The Pine Tree resource area lies approximately five miles to the southwest of the permitted resource areas, immediately southeast of the intersection of U.S. Highway 387 and Wyoming Highway 50, also known as Pine Tree Junction. The Bing resource area lies approximately five miles west of the permitted resource areas adjacent to Wyoming Highway 50, three miles north of Pine Tree Junction.
 
The site is accessible year-round via state, county and private roads which are shared by oil and gas operators and ranchers. Services and personnel are available from Gillette or Casper. Flight service is offered from Gillette or Casper with daily service to Denver, Billings, and Salt Lake City. Water will be sourced locally while electrical service will be provided by a regional power company.
 
UEC’s mineral holdings in the Reno Creek Project Area include four State of Wyoming uranium leases (3,200 acres), 549 unpatented lode claims on federally administered minerals (10,980 acres) and 36 fee (private) mineral leases (4,583 acres).  The mineral holdings comprise 18,763 acres.  All payments for all leases and claims are up to date.
 
41
Table of Contents
 
History
 
Uranium was first discovered in the southern PRB during the early 1950s. By the mid- to late- 1950s, small open pit mine operations were established in the PRB. Early prospecting and exploration included geologic mapping and gamma surveys, which led to discoveries of uranium in the Wasatch and Fort Union Formations. Extensive drill hole exploration has been utilized to locate deeper uranium mineralization since the 1960s to progress geologic models.
 
The table below describes the historic ownership and operations at the Reno Creek Project Area.
 
Table 2.13: Historic Ownership and Operations at the Reno Creek Project Area
 
Year
Company
Operations/Activity
Amount
(No. of Drill holes)
Results of Work
Reno Creek –  North Reno Creek
Late 1960s
Rocky Mountain Energy Company (“RME”)
Drilled exploration holes at and around North Reno Creek resource area.
Approximately 5,800
Delineated Approximately 10 miles of roll-front deposits.
Mid 1970s
RME, Mono Power Company (“Mono”) and Halliburton Services
Partnership formed to develop North Reno Creek Resource Area using ISR methods.
N/A
Acquisition of the Reno Creek Project Area.
1992
Energy Fuels Nuclear Inc./International Uranium Corporation
Energy Fuels Nuclear Inc. acquired RME’s North Reno Creek Resource Area and later became International Uranium Corporation.
N/A
Acquisition of the Reno Creek Project Area.
2001
Rio Algom
Rio Algom acquired International Uranium Corporation’s property.
N/A
Acquisition of the Reno Creek Project Area.
2001
PRI
PRI acquired North Reno Creek Area and dropped claims in 2003.
N/A
Acquisition of the Reno Creek Project Area and mining claims dropped.
2004
Strathmore Minerals Corporation and American Uranium Corporation (“AUCA”)
Re-staked and filed new mining claims on approximately 16,000 acres.
N/A
Refiled mining claims and secured right to mine.
2007
AUCA
Advanced project through acquisition of most major permits and required authorizations.
N/A
Acquisition of the Reno Creek Project Area and secured permits and authorizations.
2017
UEC
Consolidated ownership of multiple resource areas and oversaw technical reporting and auditing of Project resources.
N/A
Consolidation of ownership. Auditing of project resources.
Reno Creek –  Southwest Reno Creek
Pre-2007
AUCA and Tennessee Valley Authority JV
Controlled Southwest Reno Creek and drilled exploration holes.
Approximately 700
Delineation of mineralized areas.
2007
AUCA
Advanced project through acquisition of most major permits and required authorizations.
N/A
Secured permits and required authorizations.
2017
UEC
Consolidated ownership of multiple Resource Areas and oversaw technical reporting and auditing of Project resources.
N/A
Consolidation of ownership. Auditing of the Reno Creek Project Area resources.
Reno Creek –  Moore, Pine Tree, and Bing
1960s
Utah International Mining Company
Exploration on Moore and Pine Tree Resource Areas.
N/A
Delineation of mineralized areas.
Late 1970s
Pathfinder Mines, Inc.
Utah International Mining Company becomes Pathfinder Mines, Inc. and continues exploration on Moore and Pine Tree Resource Areas.
>1,560
Delineation of mineralized areas.
1980s
RME
Obtained ownership of Moore Area, continued exploration drilling until the 1990s.
>400
Acquired the Reno Creek Project Area. Delineation of mineralized areas.
1960s
Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Company
Exploration of Bing Area, drilled several hundred exploration holes and conducted limited hydrologic testing in the 1970s.
177
Delineation of mineralized areas through drilling and conducted hydrologic testing.
2007
AUCA
Consolidated the Resource Areas under one owner.
N/A
Consolidated ownership.
2017
UEC
Oversaw technical reporting and auditing of project resources.
N/A
Auditing of the Reno Creek Project Area resources.
 
42
Table of Contents
 
Property Condition and Proposed Development
 
The condition of the property is good while meeting all standards and requirements of Federal, State and local regulations. Development is in the planning stage with no immediate plans for exploration or delineation drilling.
 
Facilities, Infrastructure and Underground Development
 
Facilities or wellfields have not been constructed.
 
Permit Status and Encumbrances
 
The Reno Project is permitted under WDEQ Permit to Mine No. 824.  The project is also licensed under WDEQ Radioactive Materials License WYSUA-1602, formerly a U.S. NRC license.  Wyoming became an Agreement State for NRC regulation in 2018.  Permit to Mine No. 824 and Radioactive Materials License WYSUA-1602 are in good standing, with no violations of permit or license conditions.  Mining permit requirements can be found in Wyoming Statutes §35-11-400 through 437, with specific laws for ISR mining in sections 426 – 436. Conditions of the Radioactive Materials License applicable to ISR mining are generally standard for all licensees.  Requirements of Radioactive Materials Licenses are found in WDEQ, LQD/Uranium Recovery Program Chapter 4 Rules and Regulations for Licensing of Source and Byproduct Material.  There are no materially significant encumbrances on the Reno Creek Project.  Standard encumbrances include reclamation bonding, mining and surface lease royalties.
 
Geologic Setting, Mineralization and Deposit
 
The Reno Creek Project Area targets mineralization in the Eocene-aged Wasatch Formation.
 
Mineralization in the Reno Creek Project Area occurs in fluvial sandstones of the lower parts of the Wasatch Formation.  Most of the upper Wasatch Formation has been eroded away.  The sandstones are arkosic, fine- to coarse-grained with local calcareous lenses.  The sandstones contain minor amounts of organic carbon that occurs as dispersed bits or as stringers.  Unaltered sandstones are generally gray, while altered sandstones are tan or pink due to hematite or show yellowish coloring due to limonite.
 
Pyrite occurs in several forms within the host sandstones. In unaltered sandstones, pyrite occurs as small to large single euhedral crystals associated with magnetite, ilmenite and other dark detrital minerals. In altered sandstone, pyrite is typically absent, but locally occurs as tarnished, very fine-grained euhedral crystals. In areas of intense or heavy mineralization, pyrite locally occurs as massive, tarnished crystal aggregates.
 
At the Reno Creek Project Area, the Felix Coal seams are laterally continuous in the North and Southwest Reno Creek resource areas and extend northward into the Moore and Bing resource areas. The Felix Coal seams, and the underlying Badger Coal seam, provide important correlation points across the Reno Creek Project Area. Sandstone horizons that host uranium mineralization within the production zone aquifer are typically cross-bedded, graded sequences fining upward from very coarse-grained at the base to fine-grained at the top, representing sedimentary cycles from 5-20 feet thick. Stacking of depositional cycles resulted in sandstone body accumulations over 200 feet thick.
 
Uranium mineralization at the Reno Creek Project Area is typical of Wyoming 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 geometry of mineralization is dominated by the classic roll-front “C” shape or crescent configuration at the redox interface. The highest-grade portion of the front occurs in a zone termed the “nose” within reduced ground just ahead of the alteration front. Ahead of the nose, at the leading edge of the solution front, mineral quality gradually diminishes to barren within the “seepage” zone. Trailing behind the nose, in oxidized (altered) ground, are weak remnants of mineralization referred to as “tails” which have resisted re-mobilization to the nose due to association with shale, carbonaceous material or other lithologies of lower permeability. Tails are generally not amenable to ISR because the uranium is typically found within strongly reduced or impermeable strata, therefore making it difficult to leach.
 
Table 2.14 – Mineral Resources for the Reno Creek Project as at the date of this Annual Report
 
Classification
Tons Ore
(000 ’ s)
Tonnes Ore
(1000 ’ s)
Average
Grade
(% eU 3 O 8 )
Pounds
eU 3 O 8
(000 ’ s)
Measured
14,990
13,599
0.043
12,920.0
Indicated
16,980
15,404
0.039
13,070.0
Total M&I
31,970
29,003
0.041
25,990.0
Inferred
1,920
1,742
0.039
1,490.0
Total Resources
33,890
30,745
0.041
27,480.0
 
Notes:
 
1.
The sum of resources tons and lbs. may not add up to the reported total due to rounding.
 
2.
Measured, indicated, and inferred mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300.
 
3.
GT Cutoff = 0.20 m% eU 3 O 8
 
4.
All reported resources occur below the static water table.
 
5.
The point of reference for mineral resources is in-situ at the Project.
 
6.
Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
 
43
Table of Contents
 
Ludeman ISR Project
 
The following technical and scientific description for the Ludeman Project area (the “Ludeman Project Area”) is based in part on the TRS titled “S-K 1300 Mineral Resource Report Wyoming Assets ISR Hub and Spoke Project, WY USA”, dated March 31, 2022, prepared by WWC, a qualified firm (the “QP” herein). The Ludeman Project Area does not have mineral reserves and is therefore considered an Exploration Stage property under S-K 1300 definitions, despite a history of successful in situ research and development testing.
 
 
Figure 2.7 – Location of the Ludeman Project
 
Property Description
 
The Ludeman Project Area is located in Converse County, Wyoming, in the southern portion of the PRB, at latitude 42.9119 and longitude ‑105.6277 in decimal degrees. The Ludeman Project Area covers 18,101.89 acres including all (or portions of) 31 sections of the PRB.
 
The Ludeman Project Area is located approximately 12 miles northeast of Glenrock and 30 miles east-northeast of Casper, Wyoming. State Highway 95 provides access to the Ludeman Project Area from the Towns of Glenrock and Rolling Hills to the west and State Highway 93 provides access from Douglas to the southeast. Interstate 25 provides access to both of these state highways from the south of the Ludeman Project Area. The Ludeman Project Area is primarily located on private surface land with some areas of Federal or state lands.
 
The site is accessible year-round on state and county roads. Services and personnel are available from Glenrock, Douglas or from Casper, which has full services and the nearest airport with daily service to Denver and Salt Lake City. Water will be sourced locally at the site while electrical service will be provided by a regional power company.
 
UEC’s mineral holdings in the Ludeman Project Area include four State of Wyoming uranium leases (1,440 acres), 746 unpatented lode claims on federally administered minerals (14,920 acres) and two fee (private) mineral leases (1,741.89 acres).  These mineral holdings comprise 18,101.89 acres.  All payments for all leases and claims are up to date.
 
44
Table of Contents
 
History
 
Uranium was first discovered in the southern PRB during the early 1950s. By the mid- to late 1950s, small open pit mine operations were established in the PRB. Early prospecting and exploration included geologic mapping and gamma surveys, which led to discoveries of uranium in the Wasatch and Fort Union Formations. Extensive drill hole exploration has been utilized to locate deeper uranium mineralization since the 1960s to progress geologic models.
 
The table below describes the historic ownership and operations at the Ludeman Project Area.
 
Table 2.15: Historic Ownership and operations at the Ludeman Project Area
 
Year
Company
Operations/Activity
Amount
(No. of Drill holes)
Results of Work
1960s-1970s
Cordero Mining
Numerous exploration companies including Teton Exploration (“Teton”), PRI, Uranium Resources, Inc. (“URI”) and Malapai (a subsidiary of APS) collectively explored in the Ludeman Project Area.
Approximately 5,420
Explored for uranium roll-front mineralization and delineated deposits in the Ludeman Project Area.
1980
United Nuclear Corp. (“UNC”) and partner Teton
Constructed and operated the Leuenberger ISR pilot test facility for 12 months. Groundwater restoration was completed following production and a commercial permit to mine was granted. Due to a decline in the market, the permitted mine was not placed into commercial operation and the permit expired.
N/A
Produced 12,800 lbs of U 3 O 8  from the pilot facility.
1981
URI
Constructed and operated the North Platte ISR project on a portion of the Ludeman Project Area. The pilot test facility produced for five months during 1982.
N/A
Produced 1,515 lbs of U 3 O 8  from the pilot facility.
1980s
Malapai
Permitted the Peterson Project for pilot operations but was never operated.
N/A
Facility was never operated.
1985-Early 1990s
Central Electrical Generating Board of England (known as PRI)
Nedco and Union Pacific properties were consolidated into the Teton Leuenberger Project. PRI purchased the property and added to the acreage through the purchase of adjacent claim blocks owned by Kerr-McGee.
N/A
Ownership transition and growth in acreage through acquisitions.
Late 1990s
PRI
Leuenberger properties were released due to declining market trends. Some claims reverted to previous owners.
N/A
Decrease in claims and generally the Ludeman Project Area.
Early to Mid- 2000s
High Plains Uranium (“HPU”) and EMC
HPU held most claims and leases in the Ludeman Project Area. Energy Metals held the remaining claims in the Ludeman Project Area.
N/A
Claims and leases increased in the Ludeman Project Area.
2007
EMC
EMC acquired HPU.
N/A
Consolidation through acquisition.
2007
Uranium One
Uranium One acquired Energy Metals in late 2007 and continued exploration of the Ludeman Project Area from 2007 through 2012. The primary goals of drilling included exploration to establish continuity of regional ore trends, development drilling to determine the lateral extents of the ore body, stratigraphic investigation, confirmation of the location and nature of mineralization, and collection of cores for leach testing and analysis of uranium, mineralogy, trace metals, disequilibrium, permeability, porosity and density. Acquired the WDEQ/LQD mine permit and NRC license.
Approximately 2,180
Continued exploration of the Ludeman Project Area. Additional holes included boreholes, core holes, and monitor wells.
2021
UEC
The Ludeman Project Area acquired by UEC from Uranium One.
N/A
Ownership transition.
 
45
Table of Contents
 
Property Condition and Proposed Development
 
The condition of the property is very good while meeting all standards and requirements of Federal, State and local regulations. There are no immediate plans for exploration or delineation drilling.
 
Facilities, Infrastructure and Underground Development
 
The Ludeman property is fully permitted and licensed for commercial ISR production.  The engineering and design work has been completed for the satellite plant, evaporation ponds, infrastructure, and the first Mine Unit.  Construction of these facilities has not occurred to date.
 
Permit Status and Encumbrances
 
The Ludeman Project is permitted under WDEQ Permit to Mine No. 844.  The project is also licensed under WDEQ Radioactive Materials License WYSUA-1341, formerly a U.S. NRC license.  Wyoming became an Agreement State for NRC regulation in 2018.  Permit to Mine No. 844 and Radioactive Materials License WYSUA-1341 are in good standing, with no violations of permit or license conditions.  Mining permit requirements can be found in Wyoming Statutes §35-11-400 through 437, with specific laws for ISR mining in sections 426 – 436. Conditions of the Radioactive Materials License applicable to ISR mining are generally standard for all licensees.  Requirements of Radioactive Materials Licenses are found in WDEQ, LQD/Uranium Recovery Program Chapter 4 Rules and Regulations for Licensing of Source and Byproduct Material.  There are no materially significant encumbrances on the Ludeman Project.  Standard encumbrances include reclamation bonding, mining and surface lease royalties.
 
Geologic Setting, Mineralization, and Deposit
 
The Ludeman Project Area targets mineralization in the Fort Union Formation, which underlies the Wasatch Formation.  The host rocks for the uranium ore deposits in the project areas are the arkosic sandstones of the Fort Union Formation.  These channel deposits are confined by mudstones that serve as aquitards to the water saturated aquifers.
 
Uranium mineralization at the Ludeman Project Area is typical of Wyoming 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 geometry of mineralization is dominated by the classic roll-front “C” shape or crescent configuration at the redox interface. The highest-grade portion of the front occurs in a zone termed the “nose” within reduced ground just ahead of the alteration front. Ahead of the nose, at the leading edge of the solution front, mineral quality gradually diminishes to barren within the “seepage” zone. Trailing behind the nose, in oxidized (altered) ground, are weak remnants of mineralization referred to as “tails” which have resisted re-mobilization to the nose due to association with shale, carbonaceous material or other lithologies of lower permeability. Tails are generally not amenable to ISR because the uranium is typically found within strongly reduced or impermeable strata, therefore making it difficult to leach.
 
Table 2.16 – Mineral Resources for the Ludeman Project as at the date of this Annual Report
 
Classification
Tons Ore
(000 ’ s)
Tonnes Ore
(1000 ’ s)
Average
Grade
(% eU 3 O 8 )
Pounds
eU 3 O 8
(000 ’ s)
Measured
2,674
2426
0.094
5,016.9
Indicated
2,660
2660
0.088
4,696.9
Total M&I
5,334
5,086
0.091
9,713.8
Inferred
866
786
0.073
1,258.0
Total Resources
6,200
5,872
0.088
10,971.8
 
Notes:
 
1.
The sum of measured and indicated tons and lbs. may not add up to the reported total due to rounding.
 
2.
Measured and indicated mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300.
 
3.
GT Cutoff = 0.25 m% eU 3 O 8
 
4.
All reported resources occur below the static water table.
 
5.
The point of reference for mineral resources is in-situ at the Project.
 
6.
Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
 
46
Table of Contents
 
Allemand-Ross ISR Project
 
The following technical and scientific description for the Allemand-Ross Project area (the “Allemand-Ross Project Area”) is based in part on the TRS titled “S-K 1300 Mineral Resource Report Wyoming Assets ISR Hub and Spoke Project, WY USA”, dated March 31, 2022, prepared by WWC, a qualified firm (the “QP” herein). The Allemand-Ross Project Area does not have mineral reserves and is therefore considered an Exploration Stage property under S-K 1300 definitions.
 
 
Figure 2.8 – Location of the Allemand-Ross Project
 
Property Description
 
The Allemand-Ross Project Area is located in Converse County, Wyoming, in the southern PRB Uranium District of Wyoming, at latitude 43.3101 and longitude -105.7787 in decimal degrees. The Allemand-Ross Project Area covers 13,331.72 acres, including all (or portions of) 21 sections within three townships of the PRB.
 
The Allemand-Ross Project Area is located approximately 42 air miles northeast of Casper, Wyoming., The Allemand-Ross Project Area is primarily located on private surface land with some areas of federal or state-managed land. The Allemand-Ross Project Area was previously divided into North and South areas, with North Allemand-Ross historically called the Sand Draw Property and South Allemand-Ross called the North Bear Creek Property., This designation is not utilized by UEC, as both areas are now within the Allemand-Ross Project Area. The land ownership is a combination of private, state of Wyoming and federally owned land administered by the BLM.
 
The site is accessible year-round on state and county roads. Services and personnel are available from Glenrock, Douglas or from Casper, which has full services and the nearest airport with daily service to Denver and Salt Lake City. Water will be sourced locally at the site while electrical service will be provided by a regional power company.
 
UEC’s mineral holdings in the Allemand-Ross project area include three State of Wyoming uranium leases (958 acres), 452 unpatented lode claims on federally administered minerals (9,040 acres) and seven fee (private) mineral leases (3,333.72 acres).  These mineral holdings comprise 13,331.72 acres.  All payments for all leases and claims are up to date.
 
47
Table of Contents
 
History
 
Uranium was first discovered in the southern PRB during the early 1950s. By the mid- to late 1950s, small open pit mine operations were established in the PRB. Early prospecting and exploration included geologic mapping and gamma surveys, which led to discoveries of uranium in the Wasatch and Fort Union Formations. Extensive drill hole exploration has been utilized to locate deeper uranium mineralization since the 1960s to progress geologic models.
 
The table below describes the historic ownership and operation at the Allemand-Ross Project Area.
 
Table 2.17: Historic Ownership and Operations at the Allemand-Ross Project Area
 
Year
Company
Operations/Activity
Amount
(No. of Drill holes)
Results of Work
1967
Kerr-McGee, Homestake, Teton
Early uranium exploration was completed by the three companies in the Allemand-Ross Project Area. Exploration was typically for shallower mineralization (<1,000 ft).
Approximately 100
Exploration of shallow mineralization (<1,000 ft).
1971
Conoco
Conoco staked lode mining claims in 1969. In 1970, Conoco entered an agreement with National Resources Corporation to earn in on the Allemand-Ranch land holdings. National Resources Corporation’s interests were acquired by Pioneer Nuclear in 1972 and the joint venture partnership was maintained until 1975. In 1979, Conoco continued to operate the drilling program. Conoco closed its mineral department in 1984.
Approximately 1,180
A significant amount of the mineralization within the Allemand-Ross Project Area was delineated.
1984
Power Reactor and Nuclear Fuel Development Corporation (“PNC”)
PNC assumed control of the Allemand-Ross Project Area and continued exploration.
Approximately 50
Additional exploration completed by PNC.
Early 1990s
PNC
Mineral rights were allowed to lapse due to further declining uranium market conditions.
N/A
Lost mineral rights.
Early 2000s-2005
HPU and EMC
Claims and leases were acquired during the uranium market upswing. HPU held most claims and leases and EMC holding the remainder of the Allemand-Ross Project Area.
N/A
Mineral rights were acquired.
2007
EMC
EMC acquired HPU. The properties were consolidated.
N/A
Properties consolidated.
2007
Uranium One
Uranium One acquired EMC. Uranium One proceeded to conduct verification and resource enhancement drilling. Most drilling was completed between 2008 and 2010.
Approximately 300
Additional exploration completed within the Allemand-Ross Project Area with average depths ranging from 1,118 ft to 1,546 ft.
2021
UEC
The Allemand-Ross Project Area acquired by UEC from Uranium One.
N/A
Ownership transition.
 
48
Table of Contents
 
Property Condition and Proposed Development
 
The condition of the property is good while meeting all standards and requirements of Federal, State and local regulations. There are no immediate plans for exploration or delineation drilling.
 
Facilities, Infrastructure and Underground Development
 
Facilities or wellfields have not been constructed.
 
Permit Status and Encumbrances
 
The Allemand Ross Project has not been permitted or licensed for ISR operations.  Exploration and delineation drilling is conducted under a WDEQ LQD Drilling Notification.  There are no materially significant encumbrances on the Allemand Ross Project.  Standard encumbrances include reclamation bonding, mining and surface lease royalties.
 
Geologic Setting, Mineralization and Deposit
 
Union Formation, which underlies the Wasatch Formation and is part of the thick PRB sedimentary series.  It consists of mudstones, siltstones and clays with minor cross bedded sandstone channels and occasional thin limestone and lignite beds (Lemmers and Smith, 1981).  The Fort Union Formation sandstones were deposited in a fluvial paleo-drainage system, which flowed generally in a north-northeasterly direction.  The targeted host rocks for uranium ore deposits in the Allemand-Ross Project area are the arkosic sandstones of the Lebo member of the Fort Union formation.  These channel deposits are confined by mudstones that serve as aquitards to the water saturated aquifers.
 
Pyrite occurs in several forms within the host sandstones.  In unaltered sandstones, pyrite occurs as small to large single euhedral crystals associated with magnetite, ilmenite and other dark detrital minerals.  In altered sandstone, pyrite is typically absent, but locally occurs as tarnished, very fine-grained euhedral crystals.  In areas of intense or heavy mineralization, pyrite locally occurs as massive, tarnished crystal aggregates.
 
Uranium mineralization at the Allemand-Ross Project Area is typical of Wyoming 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 geometry of mineralization is dominated by the classic roll-front “C” shape or crescent configuration at the redox interface.  The highest-grade portion of the front occurs in a zone termed the “nose” within reduced ground just ahead of the alteration front.  Ahead of the nose, at the leading edge of the solution front, mineral quality gradually diminishes to barren within the “seepage” zone.  Trailing behind the nose, in oxidized (altered) ground, are weak remnants of mineralization referred to as “tails”, which have resisted re-mobilization to the nose due to association with shale, carbonaceous material or other lithologies of lower permeability.  Tails are generally not amenable to ISR because the uranium is typically found within strongly reduced or impermeable strata, therefore making it difficult to leach.
 
Table 2.18 – Mineral Resources for the Allemand Ross Project as at the date of this Annual Report
 
Classification
Tons Ore
(000 ’ s)
Tonnes Ore
(1000 ’ s)
Average
Grade
(% eU 3 O 8 )
Pounds
eU 3 O 8
(000 ’ s)
Measured
246
223
0.085
417.0
Indicated
32
29
0.066
42.4
Total M&I
278
252
0.083
459.4
Inferred
1,275
1,157
0.098
2,496.0
Total Resources
1,553
1,409
0.095
2,955.4
 
Notes:
 
1.
The sum of resource tons and lbs. may not add up to the reported total due to rounding.
 
2.
Measured and indicated mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300.
 
3.
GT Cutoff = 0.25 m% eU 3 O 8
 
4.
All reported resources occur below the static water table.
 
5.
The point of reference for mineral resources is in-situ at the Project.
 
6.
Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
 
49
Table of Contents
 
Barge ISR Project
 
The following technical and scientific description for the Barge Project area (the “Barge Project Area”) is based in part on the TRS titled “S-K 1300 Mineral Resource Report Wyoming Assets ISR Hub and Spoke Project, WY USA”, dated March 31, 2022, prepared by WWC, a qualified firm (the “QP” herein). The Barge Project Area does not have mineral reserves and is therefore considered an Exploration Stage property under S-K 1300 definitions.
 
 
Figure 2.9 – Location of the Barge Project
 
Property Description
 
The Barge Project Area is located in Converse County, Wyoming, the southern portion of the PRB Uranium District of Wyoming, at latitude 43.2729 and longitude -105.5905 in decimal degrees. The Barge Project Area covers 7,480 acres, including all (or portions of) 18 sections of the PRB.
 
The Barge Project Area is located approximately 50 air miles northeast of Casper, Wyoming. The Barge Project Area is primarily located on private surface land with some areas of federal BLM or state-managed land.
 
The site is accessible year-round on state and county roads. Services and personnel are available from Glenrock, Douglas or from Casper, which has full services and the nearest airport with daily service to Denver and Salt Lake City. Water will be sourced locally at the site while electrical service will be provided by a regional power company.
 
UEC’s mineral holdings in the Barge project area include one State of Wyoming uranium lease (640 acres) and 342 unpatented lode claims on federally administered minerals (6,840 acres).  These mineral holdings comprise 7,480 acres.  All payments for the lease and claims are up to date.
 
50
Table of Contents
 
History
 
Uranium was first discovered in the southern PRB during the early 1950s. By the mid- to late 1950s, small open pit mine operations were established in the PRB. Early prospecting and exploration included geologic mapping and gamma surveys, which led to discoveries of uranium in the Wasatch and Fort Union Formations. Extensive drill hole exploration has been utilized to locate deeper uranium mineralization since the 1960s to progress geologic models.
 
The table below describes the historic ownership and operations at the Barge Project Area.
 
Table 2.19: Historic Ownership and Operations at the Barge Project Area
 
Year
Company
Operations/Activity
Amount
(No. of Drill holes)
Results of Work
1969
Mono and RME
Under a joint venture, Mono and RME conducted the initial exploration program through drilling. Upon successful exploration, the Bear Creek Uranium Company was formed under general partnership between Mono and RME.
Unspecified and included in the total estimate.
Successful exploration led to joint venture and mill construction.
1975-1982
Bear Creek Uranium Company
A mill was constructed in 1975. Open pit mining operations began in 1977 until 1982. Mining claims were dropped after 1982.
Approximately 6,880
4.7 million tons of material from open pit mining processed at the Bear Creek mill.
2006
EMC
EMC located the unpatented mining claims and acquired the state mineral leases.
N/A
Lapsed mineral leases acquired.
2007
Uranium One
Uranium One acquired EMC and all rights to the Barge Project Area.
None as of 2019.
No exploration had been completed.
2021
UEC
Barge Project Area acquired by UEC from Uranium One.
N/A
Ownership.
 
Property Condition and Proposed Development
 
The condition of the property is good while meeting all standards and requirements of Federal, State and local regulations. There are no immediate plans for exploration or delineation drilling.
 
Facilities, Infrastructure and Underground Development
 
Facilities or wellfields have not been constructed.
 
Permit Status and Encumbrances
 
The Barge Project has not been permitted or licensed for ISR operations.  Exploration and delineation drilling is conducted under a WDEQ LQD Drilling Notification.  There are no materially significant encumbrances on the Barge Project.  Standard encumbrances include reclamation bonding, mining and surface lease royalties.
 
51
Table of Contents
 
Geologic Setting, Mineralization and Deposit
 
The Barge Project Area mineralization occurs in both the Wasatch Formation and the Paleocene Fort Union Formation.
 
Mineralization in the Barge Project Area occurs in fluvial sandstones of the lower parts of the Wasatch Formation.  Most of the upper Wasatch Formation has been eroded away.  The sandstones are arkosic, fine- to coarse-grained with local calcareous lenses.  The sandstones contain minor amounts of organic carbon that occurs as dispersed bits or as stringers.  Unaltered sandstones are generally gray while altered sandstones are tan or pink due to hematite, or show yellowish coloring due to limonite.
 
Pyrite occurs in several forms within the host sandstones. In unaltered sandstones, pyrite occurs as small to large single euhedral crystals associated with magnetite, ilmenite and other dark detrital minerals.  In altered sandstone, pyrite is typically absent, but locally occurs as tarnished, very fine-grained euhedral crystals.  In areas of intense or heavy mineralization, pyrite locally occurs as massive, tarnished crystal aggregates.
 
Table 2.20 – Mineral Resources for the Barge Project as at the date of this Annual Report
 
Classification
Tons Ore (000 ’ s)
Tonnes Ore (1000 ’ s)
Average Grade (% eU 3 O 8 )
Pounds eU 3 O 8  (000 ’ s)
Measured
-
-
-
-
Indicated
4,301
3,902
0.051
4,361.0
Total M&I
4,301
3,902
0.051
4,361.0
Inferred
-
-
-
-
Total Resources
4,301
3,902
0.051
4,361.0
 
Notes:
 
1.
The sum of measured and indicated tons and lbs. may not add up to the reported total due to rounding.
 
2.
Measured and indicated mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300.
 
3.
GT Cutoff = 0.25 m% eU 3 O 8
 
4.
All reported resources occur below the static water table.
 
5.
The point of reference for mineral resources is in-situ at the Project.
 
6.
Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
 
Jab/West Jab ISR Project
 
The following technical and scientific description for the Jab/West Jab Project area (the “Jab/West Jab Project Area”) is based in part on the TRS titled “S-K 1300 Mineral Resource Report Wyoming Assets ISR Hub and Spoke Project, WY USA”, dated March 31, 2022, as prepared by WWC, a qualified firm (the “QP” herein). The Jab/West Jab Project Area does not have mineral reserves and is therefore considered an Exploration Stage property under S-K 1300 definitions.
 
 
Figure 2.10 – Location of the Jab/West Jab Project
 
52
Table of Contents
 
Property Description
 
The Jab/West Jab Project Area is located in the GDB in Fremont and Sweetwater Counties, Wyoming.  The Jab/West Jab Project Area consists of two separate areas of mining claims and state leases separated by less than two miles in the GDB.  The Jab/West Jab Project Area is located in both Fremont and Sweetwater Counties in all or portions of 11 sections (5,300 acres), at latitude 42.2611 and longitude -108.1225 in decimal degrees.
 
The Jab/West Jab Project Area is approximately 100 air miles southwest of Casper, Wyoming, and 20 air miles southwest of Jeffrey City, Wyoming.  The Jab/West Jab Project Area is accessed from State Highway 287 and through Bairoil, Wyoming, by traveling west on Bairoil Road (County Road 22).  Alternatively, the Jab/West Jab Project Area may be accessed by traveling south from Jeffrey City, Wyoming, following Crooks Gap Road.  The Jab/West Jab Project Area is located on federal BLM and state-managed land.
 
The site is accessible year-round on county roads. Limited services and personnel are available from Rawlins, WY, Primarily, services and personnel will be sourced from Casper. Water will be sourced locally at the site while electrical service will be provided by a regional power company.
 
UEC’s mineral holdings in the Jab/West Jab Project Area include three State of Wyoming uranium leases (960 acres) and 217 unpatented lode claims on federally administered minerals (4,340 acres).  These mineral holdings comprise 5,300 acres.  All payments for all leases and claims are up to date.
 
History
 
Uranium mineralization was discovered in the GDB at the Lost Creek Schoekingerite deposit in the early 1950s. The Schoekingerite deposits were exposed at the surface along the Lost Creek drainage and were located using radiometric surveys. The USGS used shallow exploration to further evaluate the deposits. Similar to the PRB, drilling for deeper deposits began in the 1960s and exploration has primarily consisted of drilling since that time.
 
Table 2.21: Historic Ownership and Operations at the Jab/West Jab Project Area
 
Year
Company
Operations/Activity
Amount
(No. of Drill holes)
Results of Work
Jab
Unspecified
Silverbell Industries
Originator of the Jab/West Jab Project Area.
Not specified.
The Jab/West Jab Project Area initially developed.
1972
Union Carbide Corporation (“UCC”)
Delineated an area of shallow oxidized mineralization and completed feasibility studies for open pit mining. The plan was not executed, and a mining permit was prepared for the WDEQ/LQD. The permit was withdrawn due to the declining uranium market in 1982.
Approximately 1,830
Delineation of shallow oxidized material.
1985-2000
Yellowstone Fuels
Property held until a decline in the uranium market in 2000. No data developed by Yellowstone Fuels were available for evaluation.
No data available.
The Jab/West Jab Project Area held but not substantially developed.
West Jab
Unspecified
AMAX Petroleum Company
Originator of the Jab/West Jab Project Area.
Not specified.
The Jab/West Jab Project Area initially developed.
1975-1983
WNC
WNC drilled the Jab/West Jab Project Area until 1983 when uranium markets had dropped. WNC terminated claim. AMAX Petroleum Company regained control until the claims were dropped.
Approximately 1,020
Exploration completed by WNC.
Jab/West Jab
2006
EMC
Identified the unpatented mining claims and acquired the state mineral leases.
N/A
Secured right to mine.
2007
Uranium One
Uranium One acquired EMC and all rights to the Jab/West Jab Project Area.
None as of 2019
No exploration had been completed. Right to mine secured.
2021
UEC
The Jab/West Jab Project Area acquired by UEC from Uranium One.
N/A
Ownership transition.
 
53
Table of Contents
 
Property Condition and Proposed Development
 
The condition of the property is good while meeting all standards and requirements of Federal, State and local regulations. There are no immediate plans for exploration or delineation drilling.
 
Facilities, Infrastructure and Underground Development
 
Facilities or wellfields have not been constructed.
 
Permit Status and Encumbrances
 
The JAB/West JAB Project has not been permitted or licensed for ISR operations.  Exploration and delineation drilling is conducted under a WDEQ LQD Drilling Notification.  There are no materially significant encumbrances on the JAB/West JAB Project.  Standard encumbrances include reclamation bonding for drilling work.  There are no royalties on this project.
 
Geologic Setting, Mineralization and Deposit
 
The Jab/West Jab Project Area is located within the north-central part of the Great Divide Basin.  Mineralization at the Jab/West Jab project area occurs in the Battle Spring Formation.
 
The Battle Spring Formation was deposited by a large alluvial fan system and consists of very fine to very coarse-grained arkosic sandstones with interbedded thick shales, mudstones and localized conglomerates. The Battle Spring Formation is relatively flat in the Jab/West Jab project areas.
 
Within the Jab project area, mineralization occurs as a trend that is approximately 10,000 ft long and 100 to over 1,000 ft wide. Mineralization occurs within a single sandstone unit and ranges in thickness from less than 1 to over 40 ft. The Jab project area contains the Silverbell and RD areas, which are divided by a high-angle normal fault with approximately 80 ft of displacement. The Silverbell portion of the mineralization is on the down-thrown side of the fault, and the RD portion of the mineralization is on the up-thrown side of the fault.
 
At the West Jab project area, mineralization occurs along a trend that is approximately 7,100 ft long and 50 to over 200 ft wide. Most of the mineralization occurs within a single unit; however, in the northeast portion of the project, there is also mineralization in a lower sand unit (BRS, 2019b). Mineralized thickness at the West Jab project area ranges from less than 1 to over 25 ft.
 
Table 2.22 – Mineral Resources for the Jab/West Jab Project as at the date of this Annual Report
 
Classification
Tons Ore (000 ’ s)
Tonnes Ore (1000 ’ s)
Average Grade (% eU 3 O 8 )
Pounds eU 3 O 8  (000 ’ s)
Measured
1,621
1,471
0.072
2,335.0
Indicated
253
230
0.077
392.0
Total M&I
1,874
1,701
0.073
2,727.0
Inferred
1,402
1,272
0.06
1,677.0
Total Resources
3,276
2,973
0.067
4,404.0
 
Notes:
 
1.
The sum of resource tons and lbs. may not add up to the reported total due to rounding.
 
2.
Measured, indicated, and inferred mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300.
 
3.
GT Cutoff = 0.25 m% eU 3 O 8
 
4.
Measured and indicated resources occur below the static water table. The inferred resources at Jab/West Jab occur above the water table and may not be amenable to ISR.
 
5.
The point of reference for mineral resources is in-situ at the Project.
 
6.
Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
 
54
Table of Contents
 
Charlie ISR Project
 
The following technical and scientific description for the Charlie Project area (the “Charlie Project Area”) is based in part on the TRS titled “S-K 1300 Mineral Resource Report Wyoming Assets ISR Hub and Spoke Project, WY USA”, dated March 31, 2022, prepared by WWC, a qualified firm (the “QP” herein).  The Charlie Project Area does not have mineral reserves and is therefore considered an Exploration Stage property under S-K 1300 definitions, though it is intended to be mined as part of the Christensen Ranch mine plan.
 
 
Figure 2.11 – Location of the Charlie Project
 
Property Description
 
The Charlie Project Area is in the PRB in Johnson County at latitude 43.8274 and longitude -106.0594 in decimal degrees.  It is surrounded by the Christensen Ranch Project Area.  The Charlie Project Area covers 820 acres including all (or portions of) two sections of the PRB.
 
The Charlie Project Area is located approximately 90 air miles north of Casper, Wyoming, and is located on private surface land.
 
The site is accessible year-round on county and private roads which are shared by oil and gas operators and ranchers. Limited services are available from several smaller towns proximal to the site. Primarily, services and personnel are available from Buffalo, Gillette and Casper. Casper and Gillette provide flight services with daily service to Denver, Billings and Salt Lake City. Water will be sourced locally at the site while electrical service will be provided by a regional power company.
 
UEC’s mineral holdings in the Charlie project area include one State of Wyoming uranium lease (720 acres) and five unpatented lode claims on federally administered minerals (100 acres).  These mineral holdings comprise 820 acres. All payments for the lease are up to date.
 
55
Table of Contents
 
History
 
Uranium was first discovered in the southern PRB during the early 1950s. By the mid to late 1950s, small open pit mine operations were established in the PRB. Early prospecting and exploration included geologic mapping and gamma surveys which led to discoveries of uranium in the Wasatch and Fort Union Formations. Extensive drill hole exploration has been utilized since the 1960s to locate deeper uranium mineralization and progress geologic models.
 
Table 2.23: Historic Ownership and Operations at the Charlie Project Area
 
Year
Company
Operations/Activity
Amount
(No. of Drill holes)
Results of Work
1966
Preston Oil Co. (“Preston Oil”)
Awarded the state lease for 720 acres.
None.
Right to mine secured.
1966
Inexco Oil Company (“Inexco”)
Inexco assigned lease from Preston Oil in 1966 and conducted exploration drilling program in 1969 and 1970.
215
Delineation of mineralized areas.
1974
Uranerz USA
Inexco formed a joint venture with Uranerz USA who became the operator. Over the next two years, Uranerz expanded the drilling program, including core drilling.
715
Delineation of mineralized areas.
Not specified
Cotter Corporation (“Cotter”)
Cotter acquired the property and evaluated both conventional open pit and in situ mining methods. Cotter obtained a surface mining permit in 1979. A 200-foot-deep test pit was excavated in 1981 in a small mineralization area. The pit was subsequently reclaimed, but the state mining permit remains active.
Not specified
Falling uranium prices in the 1980’s halted
further development.
1994
Cotter and PRI
PRI entered a joint venture agreement with Cotter and completed a feasibility study for development as an ISR mine (PRI, 1995). Completed additional drilling in 1994.
Not specified
The feasibility study was positive; however, the Charlie Project Area did not proceed, and the joint venture agreement expired.
2014
Cotter
In 2014 Cotter sought to convert the permit to ISR mining; however, that process has not been completed.
None
Unknown.
2018
Anfield Energy Inc. (“Anfield”)
Anfield acquired the Charlie Project Area from Cotter.
None
Oversaw technical reporting and auditing of Charlie Project Area resources.
2021
UEC
UEC acquired the Charlie Project Area from Anfield.
N/A
Ownership transition.
 
Property Condition and Proposed Development
 
The condition of the property is good while meeting all standards and requirements of Federal, State and local regulations. There are no immediate plans for exploration or delineation drilling.  The Charlie Project will eventually be mined as part of the Christensen Ranch Life of Mine.
 
Facilities, Infrastructure and Underground Development
 
The Charlie Project is essentially an extension of the Christensen Ranch ore body located in Mine Units 8 and 10.  There are currently no facilities located on the Charlie Project other than various monitor wells that have been used for groundwater baseline studies to permit the property.
 
Permit Status and Encumbrances
 
The Charlie Project was permitted through Permit to Mine No. 489 years ago for an open pit uranium mine.  It is not permitted or licensed for ISR operations.  Exploration and delineation drilling is conducted under a WDEQ LQD Drilling Notification or the Permit to Mine.  There are no materially significant encumbrances on the Charlie Project.  Standard encumbrances include reclamation bonding, mining, and surface lease royalties.
 
56
Table of Contents
 
Geologic setting, Mineralization and Deposit
 
The Charlie Project Area targets mineralization in the Eocene-aged Wasatch Formation.
 
Mineralization in the Charlie Project Area occurs in fluvial sandstones of the lower parts of the Wasatch Formation.  Most of the upper Wasatch Formation has been eroded away.  The sandstones are arkosic, fine to coarse-grained with local calcareous lenses.  The sandstones contain minor amounts of organic carbon that occurs as dispersed bits or as stringers.  Unaltered sandstones are generally gray while altered sandstones are tan or pink due to hematite or show yellowish coloring due to limonite.
 
Pyrite occurs in several forms within the host sandstones.  In unaltered sandstones, pyrite occurs as small to large single euhedral crystals associated with magnetite, ilmenite, and other dark detrital minerals.  In altered sandstone, pyrite is typically absent, but locally occurs as tarnished, very fine-grained euhedral crystals.  In areas of intense or heavy mineralization, pyrite locally occurs as massive, tarnished crystal aggregates.
 
At the Charlie Project Area, the Wasatch Formation sand units have been subdivided into eight separate sub-roll-fronts within the overall mineralized horizon.  The sands have been designated locally as A through G in descending order.  The majority of the currently defined mineral resource falls within the A through D sands, which have a combined thickness of approximately 80 to 100 feet.  While mineralization is present in the F and G sands, less than 40 of the over 1,100 drill holes fully penetrated the F and G sands. Similarly, the E sand has only been partially explored.
 
Uranium mineralization at all of the Charlie Project Area is typical of Wyoming 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 geometry of mineralization is dominated by the classic roll-front “C” shape or crescent configuration at the redox interface.  The highest-grade portion of the front occurs in a zone termed the “nose” within reduced ground just ahead of the alteration front.  Ahead of the nose, at the leading edge of the solution front, mineral quality gradually diminishes to barren within the “seepage” zone.  Trailing behind the nose, in oxidized (altered) ground, are weak remnants of mineralization referred to as “tails” which have resisted re-mobilization to the nose due to association with shale, carbonaceous material or other lithologies of lower permeability.  Tails are generally not amenable to ISR because the uranium is typically found within strongly reduced or impermeable strata, therefore making it difficult to leach.
 
Table 2.24 – Mineral Resources for the Charlie Project as at the date of this Annual Report
 
Classification
Tons Ore (000 ’ s)
Tonnes Ore (1000 ’ s)
Average Grade (% eU 3 O 8 )
Pounds eU 3 O 8  (000 ’ s)
Measured
-
-
-
-
Indicated
1,255
1,139
0.123
3,100.0
Total M&I
1,255
1,139
0.123
3,100.0
Inferred
411
373
0.120
988.0
Total Resources
1,666
1,512
0.123
4,088.0
 
Notes:
 
1.
The sum of resource tons and lbs. may not add up to the reported total due to rounding.
 
2.
Measured, indicated, and inferred mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300.
 
3.
GT Cutoff = 0.20 m% eU 3 O 8
 
4.
All reported resources occur below the static water table.
 
5.
The point of reference for mineral resources is in-situ at the Project.
 
6.
Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
 
57
Table of Contents
 
Nine Mile Lake ISR Project
 
The following technical and scientific description for the Nine Mile Lake Project area (the “Nine Mile Lake Project Area”) is based in part on the TRS titled “S-K 1300 Mineral Resource Report Wyoming Assets ISR Hub and Spoke Project, WY USA”, dated March 31, 2022, prepared by WWC, a qualified firm (the “QP” herein).  The Nine Mile Lake Project Area does not have mineral reserves and is therefore considered an Exploration Stage property under S-K 1300 definitions, but the area has undergone test mining for ISR mining processes.
 
 
Figure 2.12 – Location of the Nine Mile Lake Project
 
Property Description
 
The Nine Mile Lake Project Area is located in Natrona County, Wyoming, in the PRB, at latitude 42.9807 and longitude ‑106.3278 in decimal degrees.  The Nine Mile Lake Project Area covers all or portions of approximately 22 sections of the PRB.
 
The Nine Mile Lake Project Area is located approximately 1.5 miles north of Casper, Wyoming, and is located on private surface land and state managed land.  The Nine Mile Lake Project Area is bisected by Interstate 25 and is accessible from the Salt Creek highway which parallels Interstate 25 and from County Road 705.  Casper is the major population center with a population of 58,287 and is located 5 miles south of the Nine Mile Lake Project Area.  The east-west railway owned by BNSF is located approximately five miles south of the Nine Mile Lake Project Area.
 
All services and personnel will be available from Casper. Water will be sourced locally at the site or the City of Casper, while electrical service will be provided by a regional power company.
 
UEC’s mineral holdings in the Nine Mile project area include two State of Wyoming uranium leases (1,280 acres), 67 unpatented lode claims on federally administered minerals (1,340 acres).  These mineral holdings comprise 2,620 acres.  All payments for all leases and claims are up to date.
 
58
Table of Contents
 
History
 
The initial discovery of mineralization at the Nine Mile Lake Project Area was made in the early 1950s by a Mr. Vickers of Casper, Wyoming, who reportedly discovered surficial mineralization and mined some 100 tons at an average grade of 0.30 % U 3 O 8 which was shipped to the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (the “AEC”) buying station at Edgemont, South Dakota. Rocky Mountain Energy (“RME”) acquired an interest in the Nine Mile Lake Project Area in 1972 and conducted extensive drilling through 1978. Pilot scale ISR mining was conducted using four seven-spot patterns with a 50-foot radius. The first three patterns used sulfuric acid as the primary lixiviant and the fourth sodium carbonate-bicarbonate as the primary lixiviant. The U.S. Bureau of Mines assisted RME in conducting the pilot testing and documented the results in a publication titled “Case History of a Pilot-Scale Acidic In-Situ Uranium Leaching Experiment”.
 
RME controlled the Nine Mile Lake Project Area until the late 1980s after which it dropped its mineral interests due to the declining uranium market. In 2005 and 2006, EMC began locating unpatented mining lode claims and securing mineral leases and surface agreements within the former area held by RME. EMC also acquired a variety of geologic data including reports, maps and geophysical logs for the Nine Mile Lake Project Area. EMC was subsequently acquired by Uranium One Inc. in August of 2008. Uranium One sold its interest in 24 uranium projects located in Wyoming, including this project, to Anfield. The transaction closed on September 14, 2016. UEC acquired the Nine Mile Lake Project Area from Anfield in June 2022.
 
The table below describes the historic ownership and operations at the Nine Mile Lake Project Area.
 
Table 2.25: Historic Ownership and Operations at the Nine Mile Lake Project Area
 
Year
Company
Operations/Activity
Amount
(No. of Drill holes)
Results of Work
Early 1950s
Independent operator
An internal report from 1969 states a Mr. Vickers reportedly discovered surficial mineralization and mined approximately 100 tons U 3 O 8 at an average grade of 0.30%. Uranium was shipped to the AEC buying station at Edgemont, South Dakota.
None
Exploration and production of 100 tons U 3 O 8 .
1972
RME
RME acquired interest in the project in 1972 and conducted extensive drilling through 1978. Pilot scale ISR mining was conducted using four seven-spot patterns with a 50-foot radius. The first 3 patterns used sulfuric acid as the primary lixiviant and the fourth sodium carbonate-bicarbonate as the primary lixiviant. The U.S. Bureau of Mines assisted RME in conducting the pilot testing and documented the results in a publication titled “Case History of a Pilot-Scale Acidic In Situ Uranium Leaching Experiment” (Nigbor, N. T., et al, 1982). RME controlled the project until the late 1980s when the mineral interests were dropped due to declining uranium prices.
Approximately 1,100
Exploration and pilot scale ISR mining.
2005 and 2006
EMC
EMC located unpatented mining lode claims and secured mineral leases and surface agreements within the area formerly held by RME. EMC conducted exploratory drilling and compiled previous data and maps for the project.
Approximately 45
Secured right to mine.
2008
Uranium One
EMC was acquired by Uranium One.
None
Ownership transition.
2016
Anfield
Anfield purchased Nine Mile Lake Project from Uranium One.
None
Oversaw technical reporting and auditing of project resources.
2022
UEC
UEC acquired the Nine Mile Lake Project from Anfield.
N/A
Ownership transition.
 
59
Table of Contents
 
Property Condition and Proposed Development
 
The property is in good condition.  There are no plans for near term exploration or delineation drilling.
 
Facilities, Infrastructure and Underground Development
 
There are no facilities or wellfields constructed on the project.
 
Permit Status and Encumbrances
 
The Nine Mile Lake Project has not been permitted or licensed for ISR operations.  Exploration and delineation drilling is conducted under a WDEQ LQD Drilling Notification.  Standard encumbrances include reclamation bonding for drill holes, mining, and surface lease royalties.  It should be noted that parts of the surface in the Nine Mile Lake vicinity are privately owned with dwellings. 
 
Geologic Setting, Mineralization and Deposit
 
The Nine Mile Lake Project Area resides in the PRB. 
 
The Nine Mile Lake Project Area is located along the southwestern flank of the PRB which is an asymmetric syncline trending north-northwest. The project is bounded to the west by the Casper Arch, a regional fold sub-parallel to the axis of the basin.  In the vicinity of the project no major faults have been identified and the formation dip is less than 6° to the east, north-east.
 
Uranium deposits at the Nine Mile Lake Project Area are roll-front uranium deposits as defined in the “World Distribution of Uranium Deposits (UDEPO) with Uranium Deposit Classification”.  The mineralization at the Nine Mile Lake Project Area is typical of the Wyoming roll-front sandstone deposits. 
 
Table 2.26 – Mineral Resources for the Nine Mile Lake Project as at the date of this Annual Report
 
Classification
Tons Ore (000 ’ s)
Tonnes Ore (1000 ’ s)
Average Grade (% eU 3 O 8 )
Pounds eU 3 O 8  (000 ’ s)
Measured
-
-
-
-
Indicated
-
-
-
-
Total M&I
-
-
-
-
Inferred
3,405
3,089
0.036
4,308.0
Total Resources
3,405
3,089
0.036
4,308.0
 
Notes:
 
1.
The sum of resource tons and lbs. may not add up to the reported total due to rounding.
 
2.
Measured, indicated, and inferred mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300.
 
3.
GT Cutoff = 0.25 m% eU 3 O 8
 
4.
All reported resources occur below the static water table.
 
5.
The point of reference for mineral resources is in-situ at the Project.
 
6.
Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
 
60
Table of Contents
 
Red Rim Project
 
The following technical and scientific description for the Red Rim Project area (the “Red Rim ISR Project Area”) is based in part on the TRS titled “S-K 1300 Mineral Resource Report Wyoming Assets ISR Hub and Spoke Project, WY USA”, dated March 31, 2022, as prepared by WWC, a qualified firm (the “QP” herein). The Red Rim Project Area does not have mineral reserves and is therefore considered an Exploration Stage property under S-K 1300 definitions.
 
 
Figure 2.13 - Location of the Red Rim Project
 
Property Description
 
The Red Rim Project Area is in the GGRB in Carbon County at latitude 41.6502 and longitude ‑107.5755 in decimal degrees. The Red Rim Project Area covers 680 acres, including all (or portions of) four sections.
 
The Red Rim Project Area is located approximately 20 air miles southwest of Rawlins, Wyoming, and is located on federal BLM-managed land. The site is accessible via two-wheel drive via three different routes - the Daley Road which proceeds south from Interstate 80 to the site and the Carbon County Road 605 which proceeds approximately 23 miles southwest from Rawlins along Hogback Ridge. The shortest route to the site is to proceed west from Rawlins on I-80 11 miles to the Daley Road, then travel south for approximately eight miles.
 
Limited services and personnel are available from Rawlins, WY, Primarily, services and personnel will be sourced from Casper. Water will be sourced locally at the site while electrical service will be provided by a regional power company.
 
UEC’s mineral holdings in the Red Rim Project Area include 34 unpatented federal mining lode claims (680 acres).  All payments for all claims are up to date.
 
61
Table of Contents
 
History
 
Uranium mineralization was discovered in the GGRB at the Lost Creek Schoekingerite deposit in the early 1950s. The Schoekingerite deposits were exposed at the surface along the Lost Creek drainage and were located using radiometric surveys. The USGS used shallow exploration to further evaluate the deposits. As in the PRB, drilling for deeper deposits began in the 1960s and exploration since that time has primarily consisted of drilling.
 
Table 2.27: Historic Ownership and Operations at the Red Rim Project Area
 
Year
Company
Operations/Activity
Amount
(No. of Drill holes)
Results of Work
1970
Kerr McGee Corp. and UCC
Both companies located claims in the vicinity and conducted exploration and drilling programs. The claims were dropped by 1973.
Not specified.
Exploration is reported to have encountered alteration and mineralization at depth.
1974
Timberline Minerals and Wold
Both companies located claims in the vicinity.
None.
Secured federal mining claims.
1976
UCC
UCC leased the Timberline Minerals property and entered a joint venture agreement with RME, a subsidiary of the Union Pacific Railroad, for the alternate sections of railroad grant lands in the area. UCC relinquished their mineral interests at Red Rim in 1986 and the mining claims reverted to Timberline Minerals, which subsequently dropped the claims.
138
Conducted an exploration and drilling program. Of the 138 drill holes on the current Red Rim Project Area, 42 are barren or contain trace mineralization and the remaining 96 are mineralized.
2004
EMC
Located 49 unpatented mining lode claims that comprise the current Red Rim Project Area.
None.
Secured federal mining claims.
2007
Uranium One
Uranium One Inc. acquired EMC. Through subsequent transactions, Uranium One Inc. became Uranium One Americas, Inc.
None.
Ownership transition.
2016
Anfield
Anfield purchased Red Rim Project from Uranium One.
None.
Oversaw technical reporting and auditing of project resources.
2022
UEC
UEC acquired the Red Rim project from Anfield.
N/A
Ownership transition.
 
Property Condition and Proposed Development
 
The property is in good condition.  There are no plans for near term exploration or delineation drilling.
 
Facilities, Infrastructure and Underground Development
 
There are no facilities or wellfields constructed on the project.
 
Permit Status and Encumbrances
 
The Red Rim Project has not been permitted or licensed for ISR operations.  Exploration and delineation drilling is conducted under a WDEQ LQD Drilling Notification.  There are no materially significant encumbrances on the Red Rim Project.  Standard encumbrances include reclamation bonding for drilling, mining and surface lease royalties.
 
Geologic Setting, Mineralization and Deposit
 
The Red Rim Project Area is located within the WB portion of the GGRB.  Together, the GDB and WB compromise the eastern portion of the GGRB. Mineralization at the Red Rim project area occurs in the Fort Union Formation.
 
The Fort Union Formation is a medium to coarse-grained arkosic sandstone that generally grades upward. The Fort Union is unconformably underlain by the Cretaceous Lance Formation and regionally overlain by the Eocene Wasatch Formation. North of Separation Creek, the basal portion of the Fort Union Formation is a prominent ridge-forming unit that is composed of dominantly arkosic sandstone that is often altered. South of Separation Creek, the formation becomes less resistant, is composed of sub-arkosic to quartzose, and is generally not altered. The two commonly cited sources of uranium for the Red Rim are the Granite Mountains and leaching of Oligocene and Miocene volcanics.
 
Uranium deposits at the Red Rim project area occur as roll-fronts in a single sand unit within the lower Fort Union Formation, near the contact with the Lance Formation. The host sandstone unit has been designated the #3 sand, and ranges in thickness from approximately 60 to 120 ft. Mineralized thickness ranges from 1 to 23.5 ft.
 
Table 2.28 – Mineral Resources for the Red Rim Project as at the date of this Annual Report
 
Classification
Tons Ore (000 ’ s)
Tonnes Ore (1000 ’ s)
Average Grade (% eU 3 O 8 )
Pounds eU 3 O 8  (000 ’ s)
Measured
-
-
-
-
Indicated
337
306
0.170
1,142.0
Total M&I
337
306
0.170
1,142.0
Inferred
473
429
0.163
1,539.0
Total Resources
810
735
0.165
2,681.0
 
Notes:
 
1.
The sum of resource tons and lbs. may not add up to the reported total due to rounding.
 
2.
Measured, indicated, and inferred mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300.
 
3.
GT Cutoff = 0.25 m% eU 3 O 8
 
4.
All reported resources occur below the static water table.
 
5.
The point of reference for mineral resources is in-situ at the Project.
 
6.
Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
 
62
Table of Contents
 
Clarkson Hill Project
 
The following technical and scientific description for the Clarkson Hill Project area (the “Clarkson Hill Project Area”) is based in part on the TRS titled “S-K 1300 Mineral Resource Report Wyoming Assets ISR Hub and Spoke Project, WY USA”, dated March 31, 2022, as prepared by WWC, a qualified firm (the “QP” herein).  The Clarkson Hill Project Area does not have mineral reserves and is therefore considered an Exploration Stage property under S-K 1300 definitions.
 
 
Figure 2.14 – Location of the Clarkson Project
 
Property Description
 
The Clarkson Hill Project is located in Natrona County, Wyoming, about 20 air miles southwest of Casper, Wyoming, at latitude 42.6593 and longitude -106.7006 in decimal degrees.  The property is located on portions of sections 7, 17, and 18 of T31N R82W.  Land ownership consists of federal lands administered by the BLM, state lands and private lands.  The Clarkson Hill Project Area is accessible from either Highway 220 or from the Oregon Trail Road, a Natrona County improved gravel road.  From Highway 220, the site is approximately four miles northwest of the junction of the highway with Natrona County Road 318.  From the Oregon Trail Road, the site is approximately three miles to the southeast.  Site access from either route will require an arrangement with intervening private landowners for ingress/egress.  The communities of Alcova and Bessemer Bend are located 10 and 13 miles away, respectively, and have limited services.  The east-west BNSF railway in Casper is approximately 25 miles northeast of the Clarkson Hill Project Area.
 
The site is accessible year-round on county and private roads as described above. All services and personnel will be available from Casper. Water will be sourced locally at the site, while electrical service will be provided by a regional power company.
 
UEC’s mineral holdings in the Clarkson Hill Project Area include 20 unpatented lode claims on federally administered minerals (400 acres).  All payments for all claims are up to date.
 
63
Table of Contents
 
History
 
The initial discovery of mineralization at the Clarkson Hill Claims was made in the 1950s and “small amounts of ore were mined and shipped for treatment from the old pit area located in Section 17, T31N, R82W” (Ljung et al, March 1974). However, USGS and the U.S. Bureau of Mines databases list the Clarkson Hill Project Area claims as a surface mine prospect with no reported production. The surface disturbance, based on site observation by the QP of the TRS, is shallow (less than 20 feet in depth) and limited in aerial extent. Surface disturbance is limited and there is no known infrastructure, tailings or mine waste apparent at the site. Drill data utilized in the estimation of mineral resources at the Clarkson Hill Project Area Claims in the TRS reflect a deeper horizon and is not affected by the presence of “old pit”. Surface disturbance from past exploration and/or limited mining activities at the site are readily apparent from current aerial views and on the ground.
 
Table 2.29: Historic Ownership and Operations at the Clarkson Hill Project Area
 
Year
Company
Operations/Activity
Amount
(No. of Drill holes)
Results of Work
1959
Utah Construction and Mining
Conducted uranium exploration drilling.
Not specified.
Unknown.
1968
Minerals Exploration Company (“MEC”) and Nuclear Reserves Inc.
MEC performed exploratory drilling between 1968 and 1981. In 1969, MEC and Nuclear Reserves Inc. entered into a joint venture. MEC held the Clarkson Hill Project Area through the mid-1980s, when they dropped the claims due to declining uranium prices.
250
Delineation of mineralized areas. Falling uranium prices in the 1980’s halted further development.
Unknown
EMC
EMC performed initial staking of 14 claims and compiled relevant data for the Clarkson Hill Project Area. EMC optioned the Clarkson Hill Project Area to Artha Resources, who conducted limited verification drilling during 2008. The Clarkson Hill Project Area reverted from Artha to EMC.
5
Unknown.
2008
Uranium One
EMC was acquired by Uranium One Inc. Through subsequent transactions Uranium One Inc. became Uranium One Americas Inc.
None.
Ownership transition.
2016
Anfield Resources, Inc. (now Anfield Energy, Inc.)
Anfield purchased the Clarkson Hill Project Area from Uranium One.
None.
Oversaw technical reporting and auditing of the Clarkson Hill Project Area resources.
2022
UEC
UEC acquire the Clarkson Hill Project Area from Anfield.
N/A
Ownership transition.
 
Property Condition and Proposed Development
 
The property is in good condition.  There are currently no plans for near term exploration or delineation drilling.
 
Facilities, Infrastructure and Underground Development
 
There are no facilities or wellfields constructed on the property.
 
Permit Status and Encumbrances
 
The Clarkson Hill Project has not been permitted or licensed for ISR operations.  Exploration and delineation drilling is conducted under a WDEQ LQD Drilling Notification.  There are no materially significant encumbrances on the Clarkson Hill Project.  Standard encumbrances may include reclamation bonding for drilling, mining and surface lease royalties.
 
Geologic Setting, Mineralization and Deposit
 
The Clarkson Hill Project Area is located near the southern and eastern margin of the WRB, just west of the Casper Arch, which separates the PRB and WRB. 
 
Mineralization at the Clarkson Hill Project Area occurs in the Fort Union Formation.  Mineralization has also been reported in the overlying Wind River Formation, but exploration has not characterized this mineralization.
 
The Paleocene Fort Union Formation is a terrestrial sedimentary deposit consisting of sandstone, siltstone, shale, coal and local conglomerates.  The primary source of Fort Union Formation sediments was the ancestral Granite Mountains west and south of the Clarkson Hill Project Area.  At the Clarkson Hill Project Area, the Fort Union Formation is approximately 75 to 150 feet thick.
 
At the Clarkson Hill Project Area, mineralization occurs at multiple depths within the Fort Union Formation.  Mineralized thickness ranges from less than five feet to over 20 feet, and the mineralized trend is approximately 5,500 feet long.
 
64
Table of Contents
 
Table 2.30 – Mineral Resources for the Clarkson Hill Project as at the date of this Annual Report
 
Classification
Tons Ore (000 ’ s)
Tonnes Ore (1000 ’ s)
Average Grade (% eU 3 O 8 )
Pounds eU 3 O 8  (000 ’ s)
Measured
-
-
-
-
Indicated
-
-
-
-
Total M&I
-
-
-
-
Inferred
957
868
0.058
1,113.0
Total Resources
957
868
0.058
1,113.0
 
Notes:
 
1.
The sum of resource tons and lbs. may not add up to the reported total due to rounding.
 
2.
Measured, indicated, and inferred mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300.
 
3.
GT Cutoff = 0.25 m% eU 3 O 8
 
4.
All reported resources occur below the static water table.
 
5.
The point of reference for mineral resources is in-situ at the Project.
 
6.
Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
 
Texas Properties
 
Figure 2.15 – Location of our Projects in Texas
 
ISR Uranium Activities in Texas
 
Our ISR operations in Texas consist of the following projects, (i) the Hobson CPP; (ii) the Palangana Project; (iii) the Burke Hollow Project; (iv) the Goliad Project; and (v) the Salvo Project. Production from existing wellfields at the Palangana Project ceased in 2016 and the project was put in care and maintenance mode. In order for Palangana to engage in future uranium production, the Company will need to incur capital expenditures to restart idled wellfields.
 
65
Table of Contents
 
Permitting Requirements in Texas
 
The Hobson CPP is fully permitted. The Burke Hollow, Goliad and Palangana Projects are fully permitted to mine. The Salvo Project still requires all mining permits. Regulatory agencies include the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (“TCEQ”), the Railroad Commission of Texas (“RRC”) and the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”).
 
Other potential permitting requirements, depending on the status of each project area, may include:
 
 
●
the TCEQ will require UEC to apply for and obtain a radioactive material license pursuant to Title 30 Texas Administrative Code Chapters 305 and 336. The application must address a number of matters including, but not limited to, site characteristics (ecology, geology, topography, hydrology, meteorology, historical and cultural landmarks and archaeology), radiological and non-radiological impacts, environmental effects of accidents, decommissioning, decontamination and reclamation;
 
 
●
to produce uranium from subsurface deposits, an operator must obtain an area permit and production area authorization (PAA) pursuant to the Texas Water Code, Chapter 27. Underground injection activities cannot commence until the TCEQ has issued an area permit and PAA to authorize such activities. In addition, all portions of the proposed production zone in groundwater with a total dissolved solids concentration less than 10,000 mg/L, which will be affected by mining solutions, are included within an aquifer exemption approved by TCEQ and the EPA. The PAA application may be developed concurrently with or after the area permit application. As additional production areas are proposed to be activated within the area permit, additional PAA applications must be submitted to the TCEQ for processing and issuance before injecting within the production area;
 
 
●
in 1975, the Texas Legislature gave the RRC jurisdiction to regulate surface mining for coal and uranium. No surface mining for uranium is currently conducted at the Project, but uranium exploration for ISR operations is administered by the Surface Mining and Reclamation Division of the RRC. Active uranium exploration sites are inspected monthly (RRC, 2023). The RRC requires exploration permits for any uranium exploration in the state;
 
 
●
Texas state law does not provide any agency with the authority to regulate the use or production of groundwater unless the location lies within a water conservation district (WCD). Burke Hollow and Salvo are both located in the Bee County WCD, Goliad is located in the Goliad County WCD and Palangana resides in the Duval County WCD. Prior to initiating uranium recovery at the Project, UEC will need to acquire industrial permits to withdraw groundwater from the host sandstones. Please refer to the TRS report for the Texas Hub and Spoke Project for further details.; and
 
 
●
Class I and III injection wells are also regulated by the TCEQ. Therefore, UEC will need to acquire the appropriate permits in order to construct and operate these wells.
 
In terms of leases and mineral rights, UEC’s mineral rights in Texas are held through private (fee) mineral leases. Fee mineral leases were obtained through negotiation with individual mineral owners.
 
Fee minerals have varying royalty rates and calculations, depending on the agreements negotiated with individual mineral owners. In addition, surface use and access agreements may include a production royalty, depending on agreements negotiated with individual surface owners at various levels. UEC’s average combined mineral plus surface production royalty applicable to each project are variable and based upon the selling price of U 3 O 8 . Most of the leases have term periods of 5 years with a 5-year renewal option. The primary lease stipulation for ISR mining is the royalty payments as a percentage of production. Royalties vary by lease and are confidential. The various lease fees and royalty conditions are negotiated with individual lessors and conditions may vary from lease to lease. No resources are reported in areas outside of the project area boundaries, which are determined by each project area’s leases.
 
Surface ownership at each project consists of fee lands predominantly used for agriculture and wind turbine development. On the project areas that are currently permitted, UEC has surface use agreements in place with the private landowners where appropriate. Obtaining surface access rights is a standard process in mine permitting and UEC does not anticipate that maintaining these rights presents a significant risk to UEC’s ability to perform work in Texas.
 
Geology and Mineralization in Texas
 
The Texas ISR Projects resides in the Gulf of Mexico Basin (“GMB”). The GMB extends over much of South Texas and includes the Texas coastal plain and South Texas Uranium Province (“STUP”) where the project is located. The coastal plain is bounded by the Rocky Mountain uplift to the west and drains into the Gulf of Mexico. The coastal plain is comprised of marine, non-marine and continental sediments ranging in age from Paleozoic through Cenozoic.
 
Uranium mineralization at the projects 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 coastal plains of the GMB were formed by the downfaulting and down warping of Paleozoic Era (252-541 Mya) basement rocks during the breakup of the Paleozoic mega continent, Pangaea and the opening of the North Atlantic Ocean in the Late Triassic Epoch (201-237 Mya).  The Rocky Mountain Uplift in the Paleogene Period (43-65 Mya) gave rise to the vast river systems that flowed toward the Gulf of Mexico carrying abundant sediments.  Deposits typically thicken down-dip towards the Gulf of Mexico from western-northwestern sources.  Stratigraphy in this area can be complex because of the cyclic deposition of sedimentary facies.  Shallow inland seas formed broad continental shelves that covered most of Texas and deposited sedimentary units that are dominantly continental clastic with some near shore and shallow marine facies.  Volcanic episodes during deposition (more than 20 Mya) are credited as being the source of the uranium deposits through ash-fall and related sediments.
 
All mineralization at our Texas projects occurs in the Goliad Formation. The Goliad Formation was originally classified as Pliocene in age by most sources, but the formation has been reclassified as early Pliocene to middle Miocene after recent research revealed the presence of indigenous Pliocene-aged mega-fossils occurring in upper Goliad sands, whereas the lower Goliad fluvial sands are correlative with down-dip strata containing benthic foraminifera indicating a Miocene age.  The Geology of Texas map published by BEG in 1992 classifies the Goliad as Miocene in age.
 
The BEG’s geologic map of Texas describes the Goliad Formation as clays, sandstones, marls, caliches, limestones and conglomerates with a thickness of 100 to 500 feet.  Above the Goliad Formation lies the Deweyville Formation, Beaumont Clay, Lissie Formation, Montgomery Formation and the Willis Sand, which are composed of sand, gravel, silt and clay.
 
66
Table of Contents
 
Three main structural zones are present in the STUP: the Balcones Fault Zone; the San Marcos Arch; and the Rio Grande Embayment.  The Balcones Fault Zone is north of the Hobson Project Area and divides the Upper Cretaceous and Eocene strata.  The Balcones Fault Zone is comprised of mainly normal faults that displace sediments by up to 1,500 feet, moving downward to the Gulf of Mexico.  The San Marcos Arch, northeast of the Hobson Project Area between the Rio Grande Embayment and East Texas Basin, is a broad area of lesser subsidence and a subsurface extension of the Llano Uplift.  The arch is crossed by basement-related normal faults that parallel the buried Ouachita Orogenic Belt of Paleozoic age.  The Rio Grande Embayment is a small, deformed basin that lies between the El Burro Uplift in northeast Mexico and the basin marginal Balcones Fault Zone to the south.  Some data indicate that the embayment was possibly compressed during the Laramide Orogeny in the Late Cretaceous–Paleogene.
 
The uranium-bearing units in the STUP include most sands and sandstones in Tertiary formations ranging in age from Eocene (oldest) to Lower Pliocene (youngest).
 
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 geometry of mineralization is dominated by the classic roll-front “C” shape or crescent configuration at the redox interface.  The highest-grade portion of the front occurs in a zone termed the “nose” within reduced ground just ahead of the alteration front.  Ahead of the nose, at the leading edge of the solution front, mineral quality gradually diminishes to barren within the “seepage” zone.  Trailing behind the nose, in oxidized (altered) ground, are weak remnants of mineralization referred to as “tails” which have resisted re-mobilization to the nose due to association with shale, carbonaceous material or other lithologies of lower permeability.  Tails are generally not amenable to ISR because the uranium is typically found within strongly reduced or impermeable strata, therefore making it difficult to leach.
 
Our Material Properties in Texas
 
Hobson CPP
 
The independent TRS for the Hobson CPP Project area (the “Hobson Project Area”) has been prepared for UEC, under the supervision of WWC (the “QP” herein”), pursuant to S‑K 1300. This TRS identifies and summarizes the scientific and technical information and conclusions reached from the initial assessment (“IA”) to support disclosure of mineral resources on projects surrounding the Hobson Project Area. There are no resources directly associated with the Hobson Project Area.
 
Property Description
 
The Hobson Project Area is located in Karnes County, Texas, northwest of Karnes City, within the GMB, approximately 100 miles northwest of Corpus Christi and 40 miles southeast of San Antonio. This facility represents the ‘hub’ of UEC’s ‘hub-and-spoke’ business model, which comprises a central processing facility supplied with uranium-loaded IX resin from ISR mining at one or more of the project areas. The Hobson CPP was constructed in 1978 when the Hobson Project Area was mined. In 2008, the plant was refurbished. The Hobson CPP has previously processed uranium from UEC’s Palangana Mine satellite facility (i.e., the first UEC ‘spoke’), and UEC plans to also process uranium from its Burke Hollow, Goliad, and Salvo Project satellite facilities.
 
The Hobson CPP consists of a resin transfer circuit for loading/unloading IX resin from tanker trucks, an elution circuit to strip uranium from the IX resin, a circuit to precipitate uranium oxide solids, a yellowcake thickener (if necessary) and a modern, zero-emission vacuum dryer. Other facilities and equipment include an advanced laboratory with inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry, office building, yellowcake and byproduct material storage area, chemical storage tanks and one permitted and constructed waste disposal well. Another waste disposal well is permitted but has not been drilled because additional disposal capacity is not needed at the current time. With an average dryer cycle time of 40 hours and a current dryer loading capacity of 8 to 10 drums, the plant appears capable of yielding up to 1.5 million pounds per year without requiring physical modifications. An amendment to the license to increase annual capacity up to 4.0 millons pounds per year was recently approved, so the Hobson CPP is now permitted for production of up to four million pounds per year of uranium concentrates (yellowcake or U 3 O 8 ). WWC personnel visited the Hobson CPP on November 2, 2021, and found it to be in a well-maintained and apparently fully operational condition, although the plant was inactive (i.e., not processing a batch of uranium-loaded resin) during the site visit.
 
The Hobson CPP will serve as the ‘hub’ of the Hobson Project Area with the other project areas serving as satellite facilities, or the ‘spokes”. The satellite facilities are considered material to the Hobson CPP. Mineral is mined at the project areas and is then transported to the Hobson CPP for processing.
 
A surety bond is in place for the Hobson CPP decommissioning requirements and is updated annually.
 
History
 
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 for 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 deposit, located near Lake Corpus Christi in Live Oak County near the Bee County line.
 
Ownership, control and operation of the Hobson Project Areas has varied greatly since the 1950s. The table below summarizes the operations and activities of various companies, the timeframe during which these activities were completed and the results of the work. The table below also summarizes historic drilling and the number of drill holes completed during each period.
 
67
Table of Contents
 
Table 2.31: Historic Ownership and Operations at the Hobson Project Area
 
Year
Company
Operations/Activity
Amount
(No. of Drill holes)
Results of Work
1979-1988
Everest Minerals Corporation (later Everest Exploration, Inc. (EEI))
Hobson facility constructed.
N/A
N/A
2005
Standard Uranium
N/A
N/A
N/A
2006
EMC
Standard Uranium and EMC merger.
Extensive renovation of the plant.
N/A
N/A
2007
Uranium One
Renovation of the plant.
N/A
CPP capable of processing 1.5 million lbs per year.
2009
UEC
Acquires the Hobson Plant through acquisition of South Texas Mining Venture (STMV)/Uranium One.
N/A
N/A
 
Geologic Setting, Mineralization and Deposit
 
The Hobson Project Area is located in the STUP which lies along the GMB.
 
All mineralization at the Hobson Project Area occurs in the Goliad Formation. The Goliad Formation was originally classified as Pliocene in age by most sources, but the formation has been reclassified as early Pliocene to middle Miocene after recent research revealed the presence of indigenous Pliocene-aged mega-fossils occurring in upper Goliad sands, whereas the lower Goliad fluvial sands are correlative with down-dip strata containing benthic foraminifera indicating a Miocene age. The Geology of Texas map published by the Texas Bureau of Economic Geology (“BEG”) in 1992 classifies the Goliad as Miocene in age.
 
Uranium mineralization occurs in zones that are located in fluvial channel sands of the Goliad Formation. These deposits consist of multiple mineralized sand horizons which are separated vertically by confining beds of silt, mudstone, and clay.
 
The Hobson project does not have associated current reserves or resources.
 
Palangana Project
 
The independent TRS for the Palangana Project area (the “Palangana Project Area”) has been prepared for UEC, under the supervision of WWC (the “QP” herein), pursuant to S-K 1300.  This TRS identifies and summarizes the scientific and technical information and conclusions reached from the IA to support disclosure of mineral resources on the Palangana Project Area. 
 
Figure 2.16 – Location of the Palangana Project
 
68
Table of Contents
 
Property Description
 
The Palangana Project Area is 25 miles west of the town of Alice, Texas, and 15 miles to the southeast of Freer, Texas, in Duval County.  Corpus Christi is about 65 miles to the east of the Palangana Project Area.  The Palangana Project Area has been developed by several operators since the 1950s and has several wellfields that are drilled and ready for operations.  In addition, the Palangana Project Area produced 563,600 pounds U 3 O 8 from 2010 to 2016 and currently has the infrastructure to begin mining immediately.  No resources are reported in areas outside of the Palangana Project Area boundary.  There are no reserves associated with the Palangana Project Area and it is considered a remote ‘satellite’ to the Hobson CPP.
 
Mineral rights for the Project are private (fee) mineral leases, obtained through negotiation with individual mineral owners. There are 12 fee mineral leases comprised of 6,969 acres at the Palangana project area. No resources are reported in areas outside of the Palangana project area boundary.
 
The Palangana Project is considered an Exploration Stage property under S-K 1300 as it has no currently defined reserves, but is a past producer and in terms of present conditions has all of the required permits and infrastructure necessary for ISR production. It has been carried in a care and maintenance condition since cessation of uranium recovery in 2016. The Company intends to continue the care and maintenance of the Palangana ISR Project Area, pending restart of uranium recovery operations.
 
There are no significant encumbrances to the property though routine renewals of permits and authorizations is ongoing. No recent regulatory violations or fines have been levied. A surety bond is in place for the Palangana Project’s restoration, reclamation and decommissioning requirements and is updated annually.
 
History
 
Uranium mineralization was discovered during potash exploration drilling of the Palangana Project Area Dome’s gypsum-anhydrite cap rock in 1952 by Columbia Southern Inc. (“CSI”), a subsidiary of Pittsburgh Plate Glass Corp. CSI conducted active uranium exploration drilling on the property starting in March 1956. Records of CSI’s exploration work are unavailable. However, both CSI and the AEC estimated underground mineable uranium resources. The only known details of the estimation method include a 0.15% eU 3 O 8 , a minimum mining thickness of 3 feet and widely spaced drilling on a nominal 200-foot exploration grid.
 
Union Carbide Corporation (“UCC”) acquired the Palangana Project Area property in 1958 and initiated underground mine development. Development work was quickly abandoned due to heavy concentrations of H2S gas, and UCC dropped the property. UCC reacquired the Palangana Project Area in 1967 after recognizing that it would be amenable to exploitation by the emerging ISR mining technologies. During the 1960s and 1970s, UCC drilled over 1,000 exploration and development holes and installed over 3,000 injection-production holes in a 31-acre block.
 
UCC attempted an ISR operation from 1977 through 1979 using a push/pull injection/recovery system. Ammonia was used as the lixiviate that later caused some environmental issues with groundwater. About 340,000 pounds of U 3 O 8 were produced from portions of a 31-acre wellfield block. The production pounds indicate a 32% to 34% recovery rate. The push/pull injection/recovery system was later proven to be less productive than well configurations or patterns of injection wells around a recovery well. Further, the wellfield was developed without any apparent regard to the geology of the deposit, including disequilibrium. The UCC ISR work was basically conducted at a research level in contrast to the current level of knowledge. The historic production area lies on the western side of the dome and is not part of this resource estimate.
 
UCC placed the property leases up for sale in 1980. In 1981, Chevron Corporation (“Chevron”) acquired the UCC leases and conducted their own resource evaluation. After the price of uranium dropped to under $10/lb., General Atomics acquired the property and dismantled the process plant in a property-wide restoration effort. Upon formal approval of the clean up by the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission and the NRC, the property was returned to the landowners in the late 1990s.
 
In 2005, EEI acquired the Palangana Project Area property and later joint ventured with Energy Metals through the formation of STMV. An independent consultant estimated that there were 5.7 million pounds of inferred resources in an area now referred to as the Dome trend proximal to the dome on the west side north of the prior UCC leach field. In 2006 and 2007, Energy Metals drilled approximately 200 additional confirmation and delineation holes. The PA-1 and PA-2 areas were found during this drilling program. In 2008, Energy Metals was acquired by Uranium One. During 2008 and 2009, the remainder of the holes on this Palangana Project Area were drilled by Uranium One. During this time, the five exploration trends to the east of the dome were identified and partially delineated. In December 2009, UEC acquired 100% ownership of STMV.
 
69
Table of Contents
 
The table below describes the historic ownership and operations at the Palangana Project Area.
 
Table 2.32: Historic Ownership and Operations at the Palangana Project Area
 
Year
Company
Operations/Activity
Amount
(No. of Drill holes)
Results of Work
1952
CSI
Original controller of Palangana Project Area.
Records of CSI’s exploration work was unavailable
Right to mine secured. Uranium mineralization was discovered during potash exploration drilling of the Palangana Dome in 1952 by CSI. CSI conducted active uranium exploration drilling on the property starting in March 1956. CSI and the AEC estimated underground mineable uranium resources. The estimation method included identifying 0.15% eU 3 O 8 , a minimum mining thickness of 3 ft, and exploration was widely spaced drilling on a nominal 200 ft exploration grid.
1958
UCC
UCC acquired the Palangana Project Area in 1958 and ceased operations shortly after until 1967, when operations resumed for over a decade due to new technology. UCC placed the Palangana Project Area up for lease in 1980.
Over 1,000 exploration and development holes in 1960s and 70s (296 cores)
Over 3,000 injection-production holes
Early development work was quickly abandoned because of concentrations of Hydrogen Sulfide (H 2 S) gas. The property was reacquired in 1967 after emerging ISR mining technologies were available. ISR operation occurred from 1977 through 1979. About 340,000 lbs of U 3 O 8  were produced from portions of a 31-acre wellfield block. The production pounds indicate a 32% to 34% recovery rate. The ISR work was conducted at a research level in contrast to the current level of knowledge. Historic production lies on the western flank of the dome and is not part of this resource estimate.
1981 –  Unknown
Chevron
Chevron acquired the UCC leases and conducted their own resource evaluation.
N/A
Chevron resource evaluation indicated that an estimated 8 million lbs (non-CIM compliant) of eU 3 O 8  existed on the entire site within unclassified material containing 0.125% eU 3 O 8 .
Unknown to late 1990 ’ s
General Atomics
General Atomics acquired the Palangana Project Area for restoration work.
N/A
General Atomics acquired the property and dismantled the process plant in a property-wide restoration effort. Upon formal approval of the clean up by the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission and the NRC, the property was returned to the landowners in the late 1990s.
Late 1990 ’ s to 2005
N/A
The Palangana Project Area returned to surface rights landowners.
N/A
N/A
2005
EEI and Energy Metals/Uranium One
EEI acquires Palangana and joint ventured with Energy Metals by forming the STMV. In 2008, Energy Metals was acquired by Uranium One.
Approximately 236 exploration and confirmation holes.
Blackstone (2005) estimated 5.7 million lbs of inferred resources in the area referred to as the Dome trend proximal to the dome on the west side, north of the prior UCC leach field. In 2006 and 2007, Energy Metals drilled approximately 200 additional confirmation and delineation holes. The PA-1 and PA-2 areas were delineated during this drilling program. During 2008 and 2009, the remainder of the holes were drilled by Uranium One. During this time, five exploration trends on the east side of the dome were identified and partially delineated.
2009
UEC
Palangana Project Area acquired by UEC from Uranium One.
N/A
UEC acquires Palangana. SRK was retained by UEC in 2010 to provide an independent resource and reserve evaluation on PA-1 and PA-2 and adjacent exploration areas. SRK concluded the sandstone, roll-front deposits on the east side of the Palangana Dome contain significant resources of eU 3 O 8 . Specifically, PA-1 and PA-2 bodies are adequately delineated for the calculation of Measured and Indicated Resources. SRK developed resource estimates within distinct sand and roll-front zones utilizing detailed computer block modeling of grade and GT modeling. The results of the resource estimation are complex and presented in more detail in this report. In 2010, UEC resumed production at Palangana. Approximately 563,600 pounds were produced from 2010 to 2016 in PA-1, PA-2 and PA-3.
 
Geologic Setting, Mineralization, and Deposit
 
The Palangana Project Area is located in the STUP, which lies along the GMB. 
 
The local geology at the Palangana Project Area is characterized by the occurrence of a Gulf Coast piercement salt dome.  This dome is approximately two miles in diameter and is overlain by Pliocene sediments of the Goliad Formation.  The Palangana Project Area dome is marked at the surface by a shallow circular basin surrounded by low hills rising above the basin floor.  The Palangana Project Area dome has an almost perfectly circular salt core with a remarkably flat top that is approximately 10,000 feet across and occurs from 800 to 850 feet below ground surface (“bgs”).  Radial faulting is present in all Goliad Formation sands on the flanks of the dome due to uplift during the intrusion of the dome.  Faults and fractures also exist in a random nature in the sands above the caprock due to dissolution of the salt dome from groundwater.  Once the salt was solubilized and removed, the overlying sediment collapsed, creating the basin and associated faults.
 
Uranium mineralization at the Palangana Project Area is typical of Texas roll-front sandstone deposits.  Uranium mineralization occurs along oxidation/reduction interfaces in fluvial channel sands of the Goliad Formation.  These deposits consist of multiple mineralized sand horizons, which are separated vertically by confining beds of silt, mudstone, and clay.
 
The Goliad Formation at the Palangana Project Area is composed of fine- to medium-grained, often silty, channel sands interbedded with lenses of mudstone and siltstone.  For the most part, the sand is very sparsely cemented although it varies from friable to indurated.  There is known to be minor faulting on the north end of the PA-1 deposit.  The Palangana Project Area stratigraphy is horizontal to sub-horizontal, with a 2-to-3-degree southeasterly dip at most.
 
70
Table of Contents
 
Table 2.33 – Mineral Resources for the Palangana Project as at the date of this Annual Report
 
Classification
Tons Ore
(000 ’ s)
Tonnes Ore
(1000 ’ s)
Average
Grade
(% eU 3 O 8 )
Pounds
eU 3 O 8
(000 ’ s)
Measured
-
-
-
-
Indicated
232
210
0.134
643.1
Total M&I
232
210
0.134
643.1
Inferred – PA-1 and PA-2
96
87
0.100
192.5
Inferred – Dome, NE Garcia, SW Garcia, CC Brine, Jemison Fence, Jemison East
206
187
0.110 – 0.300
808.8
Total Resources
534
484
0.154
1,644.4
 
Notes:
 
1.
Pounds reported with Disequilibrium Factor (DEF) applied.
 
2.
A range of grades is presented for the Palangana inferred mineral because the resource estimation methods differed between PA-1/PA-2 and the rest of the trends. There was no cutoff for PA-1 and PA-2 block models. See Section 11.1 of the Texas Hub and Spoke TRS for a more detailed explanation.
 
3.
The sum of resource tons and lbs may not add up to the reported total due to rounding.
 
4.
Measured, indicated, and inferred mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300.
 
5.
Delineation drilling conducted at Palangana after 2010 was not incorporated into the resource estimate as in the experience of the QP, this type of drilling does not generally substantially change the resource estimates.
 
6.
All reported resources occur below the static water table.
 
7.
The point of reference for mineral resources is in-situ at the Project.
 
8.
Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
 
Burke Hollow ISR Project
 
The independent TRS for the Burke Hollow Project area (the “Burke Hollow Project Area”) has been prepared for UEC, under the supervision of WWC (the “QP” herein), pursuant to S-K 1300.  This TRS identifies and summarizes the scientific and technical information and conclusions reached from the IA to support disclosure of mineral resources on the Burke Hollow Project Area.  There are no reserves associated with the Burke Hollow Project Area.
 
 
Figure 2.17 – Location of the Burke Hollow Project
 
 
Property Description
 
UEC’s Burke Hollow Project property is located within the extensive STUP. The Burke Hollow Project is about 18 miles southeast of the town of Beeville and is located on the western side of US 77 and northeasterly of US 181, which links with US 59 in Beeville. The approximate center of the Burke Hollow Project lease is located at latitude 28.2638 and longitude -97.5176, in decimal degrees. Site drilling roads are entirely composed of caliche and gravel, allowing access for trucks and cars in most weather conditions. Four-wheel drive vehicles may be needed during high rainfall periods.
 
71
Table of Contents
 
The Burke Hollow Project consists of one fee (private) mineral leases comprised of 17,511 acres. This lease area would allow for the mining of uranium by ISR methods while utilizing the land surface (with variable conditions) as needed, for mining wells and above ground surface facilities for fluid processing and uranium production during the mining and groundwater restoration phases of the Burke Hollow Project. All payments for the private lease are up to date. No mineral resources are reported in areas outside of the Burke Hollow Project boundary.
 
The present condition of the property is considered advanced with monitor well installation completed in the first production area. A caliche pad site with offices and storage containers in addition to some all-weather roads are constructed, and plans are in place for power and other infrastructure needs.
 
No significant encumbrances exist on the property. The Company intends to complete the permitting of the production area authorization (PAA) and other necessary approvals in the coming years. To date, there have been no violations or fines levied on the property. A surety estimate for Burke Hollow’s project restoration, reclamation and decommissioning costs have been prepared and approved by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ).  A surety bond for the current restoration, reclamation and decommissioning requirements will be in place at least 60 days prior to production. 
 
History
 
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 for 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), 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.
 
The earliest known uranium exploration in the immediate area of the Burke Hollow Project Area was performed by Nufuels Corporation (“Nufuels”, a Mobil Corporation subsidiary) in 1982. Nufuels drilled a total of 18 exploration holes on or nearby UEC’s 1,825 acre Welder lease. These holes were drilled in conjunction with a larger regional program that was conducted by Nufuels. Each exploration hole was drilled to an average total depth of approximately 1,100 ft in order to test the entire prospective Goliad Formation. UEC acquired copies of the Nufuels logs through its purchase of TOMIN’s database.
 
Following Nufuels, in 1993, TOMIN conducted a short reconnaissance exploration drilling program on the Thomson-Barrow lease. TOMIN drilled a total of 12 holes on permitted acreage that they negotiated for exploration. 11 of the 12 drill holes intersected anomalous gamma ray log signatures indicative of uranium mineralization.
 
The historic data package obtained by UEC for portions of the current Burke Hollow Project Area provided the above-described information. Based on the limited number of drill holes, no meaningful resource or reserve determination was made by TOMIN or Nufuels. However, the actual drilling and geophysical logging results have been determined to be properly conducted according to current industry standards.
 
72
Table of Contents
 
Table 2.34: Historic Ownership and Operations at the Burke Hollow Project Area
 
Year
Company
Operations/Activity
Amount
(No. of Drill holes)
Results of Work
1982
Nufuels
Original controller of the Burke Hollow Project Area.
18 exploration holes on or nearby the Welder Lease
Nufuels drilled 18 exploration holes on or nearby UEC’s 1,825-acre Welder lease in conjunction with a larger regional program, which was conducted by Nufuels. Exploration holes were drilled to approximately 1,100 ft bgs and tested the entire prospective Goliad Formation. Results showed the presence of a reduction-oxidation interface in sands of the lower Goliad Formation, but there was insufficient data to link economically viable uranium mineralization.
1993
TOMIN
Exploration program.
12 exploration holes on or near the Thomson-Barrow Lease.
TOMIN conducted a short reconnaissance exploration drilling program on the Thomson-Barrow lease. TOMIN drilled a total of 12 holes on permitted acreage that they negotiated for exploration. 11 of the 12 drill holes intersected anomalous gamma ray log signatures indicative of uranium mineralization, but there was insufficient data to link economically viable uranium mineralization.
2011
UEC
The Burke Hollow Project Area was acquired by UEC from TOMIN.
From 2012-2017, 707 uranium exploration drill holes, including 30 monitor wells completed at the Welder lease (Kurrus et al. 2014).
The historic data package was obtained and reviewed by UEC for portions of the current Burke Hollow Project Area (Kurrus and Yancy, 2017). Based on the limited number of drill holes, no meaningful resource or reserve determination was made using the historic exploration data. However, the actual drilling and geophysical logging results were determined to be properly conducted, per industry standards. UEC completed two drilling campaigns to delineate the opened ended Lower B1 and B2 trends (Carothers et al., 2013). The results of historic and contemporary borehole gamma-ray, SP and resistance logs, as well as PFN logs indicate that uranium mineralization occurs in the upper to lower Goliad Formation sand/sandstone units below the water table at depths from approximately 180 to 1,100 ft bgs. Evidence indicate ISR would likely be the most suitable mining method for this project. In 2017, UEC estimated an Inferred Mineral Resource of 4,064,575 tons grading 0.088% pU 3 O 8  (PFN determination) containing approximately 7.09 million pounds U 3 O 8  in the combined Graben and Eastern Lower B trends.
2019
UEC
Exploration program.
In 2019, 129 delineation holes were drilled.
From 2021-2022, 168 delineation and exploration holes were drilled.
 
In 2019, UEC completed 129 drill holes, mostly focusing on delineating the Lower B1 and Lower B2 sands in the proposed PA-1. In addition, UEC began installing perimeter monitor wells in proposed PA-1. In total, 57 holes were drilled solely for delineation and exploration purposes and 72 holes were drilled for monitoring purposes. From 2021 to 2022, UEC conducted another drilling program to upgrade a portion of their resources from inferred to measured and indicated, to better define the ore body in proposed PA-1 and to install monitor wells. 168 delineation and exploration holes were drilled as of March 7, 2022. 24 of these holes were also used as monitor wells. This drilling program is ongoing for the purpose of completing more monitor wells. The first production area authorization application has been submitted and 533 exploration and delineation holes have been drilled within PA-2 area as of July 31, 2023.
 
 
73
Table of Contents
 
Geologic Setting, Mineralization and Deposit
 
The Burke Hollow Project Area is located in the STUP, which lies along the GMB. 
 
Uranium mineralization at the Burke Hollow Project Area is typical of Texas roll-front sandstone deposits. All mineralization at the Burke Hollow Project Area occurs in the Goliad Formation. Uranium mineralization occurs along oxidation/reduction interfaces in fluvial channel sands of the Goliad Formation.  These deposits consist of multiple mineralized sand horizons which are separated vertically by confining beds of silt, mudstone, and clay.
 
The uranium-bearing sands of the Goliad Formation at the Burke Hollow Project Area occur beneath a thin layer of Pleistocene-aged Lissie Formation gravels, sands, silts, and clays, which overlie much of the Burke Hollow Project Area.  The Goliad Formation uncomfortably underlies the Lissie Formation.  Uranium mineralization discovered to date occurs within three of the four sand members of the Goliad, designated as the uppermost Goliad A, Goliad B and the lowermost Goliad D.
 
The Goliad sand is one of the principal water-bearing formations in South Texas and is capable of yielding moderate to large quantities of water.  All of the project areas included in this Burke Hollow Project Area target the Goliad Formation, which is a proven aquifer with characteristics favorable to ISR.
 
There are two northeast-southwest trending faults at the Burke Hollow Project Area that are likely related to the formation of uranium mineralization.  The northwesterly fault is a typical Gulf Coast normal fault, downthrown toward the coast, while the southeastern fault is an antithetic fault downthrown to the northwest, forming a large graben structure.  The presence of these faults is likely related to the increased mineralization at the site.  The faulting may have served as conduits for reducing waters and natural gas to migrate upward from deeper horizons, as well as altering the groundwater flow system in the uranium-bearing sands.
 
Table 2.35 – Mineral Resources for the Burke Hollow Project as at the date of this Annual Report
 
Classification
Tons Ore (000 ’ s)
Tonnes Ore (1000 ’ s)
Average Grade (% eU 3 O 8 )
Pounds eU 3 O 8  (000 ’ s)
Measured
70
64
0.082
114.7
Indicated
1,337
1,213
0.087
2,209.0
Total M&I
1,407
1,277
0.083
2,323.7
Inferred
2,494
2,263
0.095
4,859.0
Total Resources
3,901
3,540
0.092
7,182.7
 
Notes:
 
1.
Pounds reported with Disequilibrium Factor (DEF) applied.
 
2.
The sum of resource tons and lbs. may not add up to the reported total due to rounding.
 
3.
Measured, indicated, and inferred mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300.
 
4.
GT Cutoff = 0.3 m% eU 3 O 8
 
5.
All reported resources occur below the static water table.
 
6.
The point of reference for mineral resources is in-situ at the Project.
 
7.
Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
 
Goliad Project
 
The independent TRS for the Goliad Project area (the “Goliad Project Area”) has been prepared for UEC, under the supervision of WWC (the “QP” herein), pursuant to S-K 1300.  This TRS identifies and summarizes the scientific and technical information and conclusions reached from the IA to support disclosure of mineral resources on the Goliad Project Area.  There are no reserves associated with the Goliad Project Area.
 
 
Figure 2.18 – Location of the Goliad Project
 
74
Table of Contents
 
Property Description
 
The Goliad Project Area is located in South Texas near the northeast end of the STUP.  The Goliad Project Area consists of multiple contiguous leases that would allow the mining of uranium by ISR methods.  The Goliad Project Area is about 14 miles north of the town of Goliad and is located on the east side of US Highway 77A/183, a primary highway that intersects with US Highway 59 in Goliad and I-10 to the north.  Site drilling roads are mostly gravel based and allow access for trucks and cars in most weather conditions.  Four-wheel drive vehicles may be needed during high rainfall periods.
 
There are seven fee (private) mineral leases comprised of 636 acres on the Goliad Project Area.  Payments for the private leases are up to date.  UEC obtained mining leases by assignment from a private entity (Brad A. Moore) in 2006.  No resources are reported in areas outside of the Goliad Project Area boundary. UEC has completed all the required permitting in order to mine at the Goliad Project Area.
 
While the projects current designation under S-K 1300 is Exploration Stage due to lack of reserves, the current condition of the property is moderately advanced. The project lacks only the production area authorization in terms of regulatory authorizations and is otherwise fully permitted with the radioactive materials license in timely renewal. The Company plans to continue to keep the property in a care and maintenance status.
 
No significant encumbrances are on the property. The Company intends to continue permit renewals and there have been no violations or fines levied on the property. A surety estimate for the Goliad Project’s restoration, reclamation and decommissioning has been prepared and approved by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ).  A surety bond for the current restoration, reclamation and decommissioning requirements will be in place at least 60 days prior to production. 
 
History
 
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 for 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), 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.
 
Table 2.36: Historic Ownership and Operations at the Goliad Project Area
 
Year
Company
Operations/Activity
Amount
(No. of Drill holes)
Results of Work
1979
Coastal Uranium, Inc. (Coastal Uranium)
Exploration program.
12 exploration holes.
Coastal Uranium drilled widely spaced exploration holes in the region as part of the Coastal States wide-spaced drilling exploration effort. Eight of these holes were drilled at or near the Goliad Project Area. Additional information on the exploration is described below.
1980
Moore Energy Corporation
Review of data and leases from Coastal Uranium and exploration program.
479 exploration and delineation holes.
Moore Energy Corporation reviewed the Coastal States exploration data and soon after acquired several leases from Coastal Uranium, including several in the Goliad Project Area. From March 1983 through August 1984, Moore Energy Corporation conducted an exploration program at Goliad. All of the boreholes were drilled using truck-mounted drilling rigs contracted with various drilling companies. Samples were taken by the driller for review and logged by a geologist. The holes were logged for gamma ray, self-potential and resistance by contract logging companies. No down-hole deviation tool was available. Historical resource estimates were prepared by Moore Energy Corporation from data gathered in 1983-1985. For each drill hole, a Grade x Thickness (GT) was determined, and the mineral was outlined with a 0.3 GT contour. The average GT of the holes within the contoured outline was used to estimate the resources meeting the specified criteria. Moore Energy Corporation’s historical resource estimated approximately 3,366,000 tons at an average grade of 0.05% (eU 3 O 8 and an average DEF of 1.494 (Moore, 1986). This equates to approximately 5.2 million lbs of uranium.
2006
UEC
Exploration program.
360 exploration and delineation holes.
UEC obtained mine leases by assignment from Brad A. Moore for the current Goliad Project Area in 2006. UEC drilled 360 more holes at the property from May 2006 through June 2007. These holes include closer-spaced delineation work on the areas drilled by Moore Energy Corporation. Additionally, several of the UEC holes were drilled to further exploration on contiguous leases to the east of the property. A 2007/2008 report by Thomas Carothers, PG estimated historical mineral resources based on the UEC 2006-2007 confirmation drilling results and the Moore Energy Corporation historical estimate. The author concluded that significant uranium resources from the work in 1983-85 described by Moore Energy Corporation appears to be backed and supported by the more recent UEC exploration data.
2014
UEC
Exploration and water well program.
33 exploration holes and two water wells drilled.
In 2014, UEC conducted a drilling program at the Goliad Project Area for exploration and water wells. 35 holes were drilled and logged for exploration and water supply purposes with a majority of the holes being drilled in PA-1 and PA-2.
 
Geologic Setting, Mineralization, and Deposit
 
The Goliad Project Area is located in the STUP, which lies along the GMB.
 
75
Table of Contents
 
Uranium mineralization at the Goliad Project Area is typical of Texas roll-front sandstone deposits. All mineralization at the Goliad Project Area occurs in the Goliad Formation. The Goliad Formation occurs at surface on the Goliad Project Area. The mineralized units are sandstones within the Goliad Formation and are designated by UEC as the A through D sands from younger (upper) to older (lower), respectively. The sand units are generally fine to medium-grained sands with silt and varying amounts of secondary calcite. The sand units vary in color depending upon the degree of oxidation-reduction and could be from light brown-tan to gray. The sand units are generally separated from each other by silty clay or clayey silts that serve as confining units between the sand units.
 
The four sandstone units (A-D) designated as containing uranium mineralization at the site are all considered to be a part of the Gulf Coast Aquifer on a regional basis. At the Goliad Project Area, each unit is a hydrogeologic unit with similar but variable characteristics. Groundwater from sands of the Goliad Formation is used for water supplies over much of the northern portion
/stocks — the workspaceLOADING