2 unchanged sentences
Description of Properties
−Removed: Uranium Energy Corp.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: Measured Mineral Resources
−Removed: Indicated Mineral Resources
−Removed: Inferred Mineral Resources
+Added: Figure 2.1 –
+Added: Portfolio Overview of Significant Properties
+Added: 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.
+Added: Summary Disclosure
+Added: Table 2.1 - Location, Ownership Interest, Operator, Stage, Mining Method, and Mineralization Style Summary
+Added: State/Province
+Added: Mineralization Style
+Added: Uranium Projects
+Added: United States
+Added: Allemand-Ross
+Added: Exploration Stage
+Added: Exploration Stage
+Added: Exploration Stage
+Added: Exploration Stage
+Added: Exploration Stage
+Added: Exploration Stage
+Added: Central Shirley Basin
+Added: Exploration Stage
+Added: Exploration Stage
Christensen Ranch
+Added: Exploration Stage
+Added: Clarkson Hills
+Added: Exploration Stage
+Added: Exploration Stage
+Added: Crook's Mountain
+Added: Exploration Stage
+Added: Exploration Stage
+Added: Exploration Stage
+Added: East Shirley Basin
+Added: Exploration Stage
+Added: Exploration Stage
+Added: Exploration Stage
+Added: Exploration Stage
+Added: 42.2209/42.2611
+Added: -108.0439/-108.1225
+Added: Exploration Stage
+Added: Exploration Stage
+Added: Exploration Stage
+Added: Exploration Stage
+Added: Exploration Stage
+Added: Nine Mile Lake
+Added: Exploration Stage
+Added: Exploration Stage
+Added: Exploration Stage
+Added: Pumpkin Creek
+Added: Exploration Stage
+Added: Exploration Stage
+Added: Exploration Stage
+Added: Exploration Stage
+Added: Exploration Stage
+Added: South Pine Ridge
+Added: Exploration Stage
+Added: South Reno Creek
+Added: Exploration Stage
+Added: State/Province
+Added: Mineralization
+Added: Uranium Projects
+Added: South Sweetwater
+Added: Exploration Stage
+Added: Stewart Creek
+Added: Exploration Stage
+Added: Exploration Stage
+Added: Exploration Stage
+Added: West Beaver Rim
+Added: Exploration Stage
+Added: West Crook's Creek
+Added: Exploration Stage
+Added: West Sweetwater
+Added: Exploration Stage
+Added: Exploration Stage
+Added: Exploration Stage
+Added: Exploration Stage
+Added: Exploration Stage
+Added: Exploration Stage
+Added: Exploration Stage
+Added: Exploration Stage
+Added: Workman Creek
+Added: Exploration Stage
+Added: Exploration Stage
+Added: Exploration Stage
+Added: Orano Canada Inc.
+Added: Exploration Stage
+Added: Unconformity Related
+Added: Exploration Stage
+Added: Unconformity Related
+Added: Orano Canada Inc.
+Added: Exploration Stage
+Added: Unconformity Related
+Added: Exploration Stage
+Added: Unconformity Related
+Added: Orano Canada Inc.
+Added: Exploration Stage
+Added: Unconformity Related
+Added: Denison Mines Corp.
+Added: Exploration Stage
+Added: Unconformity Related
+Added: Christie Lake
+Added: Exploration Stage
+Added: Unconformity Related
+Added: Orano Canada Inc.
+Added: Exploration Stage
+Added: Unconformity Related
+Added: Cree Extension
+Added: Cameco Corporation
+Added: Exploration Stage
+Added: Unconformity Related
+Added: Diabase Peninsula
+Added: Exploration Stage
+Added: Unconformity Related
+Added: Orano Canada Inc.
+Added: Exploration Stage
+Added: Unconformity Related
+Added: Exploration Stage
+Added: Unconformity Related
+Added: Horseshoe-Raven
+Added: Exploration Stage
+Added: Unconformity Related
+Added: Exploration Stage
+Added: Unconformity Related
+Added: Orano Canada Inc.
+Added: Exploration Stage
+Added: Unconformity Related
+Added: Cameco Corporation
+Added: Exploration Stage
+Added: Unconformity Related
+Added: Orano Canada Inc.
+Added: Exploration Stage
+Added: Unconformity Related
+Added: Orano Canada Inc.
+Added: Exploration Stage
+Added: Unconformity Related
+Added: Moore Tomblin
+Added: Orano Canada Inc.
+Added: Exploration Stage
+Added: Unconformity Related
+Added: Orano Canada Inc.
+Added: Exploration Stage
+Added: Unconformity Related
+Added: State/Province
+Added: Location (Latitude)
+Added: Location (Longitude)
+Added: Equity Interest
+Added: Mining Method
+Added: Mineralization Style
+Added: Uranium Projects
+Added: Exploration Stage
+Added: Unconformity Related
+Added: Exploration Stage
+Added: Unconformity Related
+Added: Orano Canada Inc.
+Added: Exploration Stage
+Added: Unconformity Related
+Added: Orano Canada Inc.
+Added: Exploration Stage
+Added: Unconformity Related
+Added: Waterfound River
+Added: Orano Canada Inc.
+Added: Exploration Stage
+Added: Unconformity Related
+Added: Exploration Stage
+Added: Unconformity Related
+Added: Wheeler River
+Added: Denison Mines Corp.
+Added: Unconformity Related
+Added: Orano Canada Inc.
+Added: Exploration Stage
+Added: Unconformity Related
+Added: Orano Canada Inc.
+Added: Exploration Stage
+Added: Unconformity Related
+Added: Exploration Stage
+Added: Exploration Stage
+Added: Titanium Projects
+Added: Exploration Stage
+Added: Table 2.2 –
+Added: Titles, Mineral Rights, Leases, and Acreage Summaries
+Added: Fee Mineral Leases
+Added: Federal Lode Mining Claims
+Added: Provincial Mineral Dispositions
+Added: Provincial Mining Leases
+Added: State/Province
+Added: Expiration Date
+Added: Expiration Date
+Added: Expiration Date
+Added: Expiration Date
+Added: Expiration Date
+Added: Uranium Projects
+Added: United States
Allemand-Ross
+Added: July 2025 through Feb.
+Added: 2029 (variable)
+Added: Central Shirley Basin
+Added: Christensen Ranch
+Added: Clarkson Hills
+Added: Crook's Mountain
+Added: East Shirley Basin
+Added: Fee Mineral Leases
+Added: Federal Lode Mining Claims
+Added: Provincial Mineral Dispositions
+Added: Provincial Mining Leases
+Added: State/Province
+Added: Expiration Date
+Added: Expiration Date
+Added: Expiration Date
+Added: Expiration Date
+Added: Expiration Date
+Added: 2026 and Jan.
+Added: 2025 through Mar.
+Added: 2027 (variable)
Nine Mile Lake
+Added: Pumpkin Creek
+Added: South Pine Ridge
+Added: South Reno Creek
+Added: South Sweetwater
+Added: Stewart Creek
+Added: West Beaver Rim
+Added: West Crook's Creek
+Added: West Sweetwater
+Added: 2025 thru 2032
+Added: 2027 thru 2028
+Added: Fee Mineral Leases
+Added: Federal Lode Mining Claims
+Added: Provincial Mineral Dispositions
+Added: Provincial Mining Leases
+Added: State/Province
+Added: Expiration Date
+Added: Expiration Date
+Added: Expiration Date
+Added: Expiration Date
+Added: Expiration Date
+Added: Workman Creek
+Added: Christie Lake
+Added: Christie West
+Added: Cree Extension
+Added: Diabase Peninsula
+Added: Horseshoe-Raven
+Added: Moore Tomblin
+Added: Waterfound River
+Added: Wheeler River
+Added: Titanium Projects
+Added: Table 2.3 –
+Added: Permit Status and Conditions
+Added: Uranium Projects
+Added: Fully Permitted to Mine
+Added: Partially Permitted to Mine
+Added: Not Permitted to Mine
+Added: RRC Exploration Permit
+Added: TCEQ Class 1 Well Permits
+Added: TCEQ Injection Control Permit
+Added: TCEQ Area Permit
+Added: TCEQ/EPA Aquifer Exemption
+Added: TCEQ Radioactive Materials License
+Added: Has all major permits, waiting on final production authorization
+Added: Has all major permits and first production authorization
+Added: Has all major permits and four production authorizations
+Added: Fully Permitted to Mine
+Added: Partially Permitted to Mine
+Added: Not Permitted to Mine
+Added: Class III UIC Permit to Mine
+Added: WDEQ Class 1 Well Permits
+Added: Source and Byproduct Materials License
+Added: BLM Plan of Operations
+Added: WDEQ/EPA Aquifer Exemption
+Added: Allemand-Ross
+Added: Drilling Notification DN339
+Added: Drilling Notification DN353
+Added: Central Shirley Basin
+Added: Permitted as an open pit mine not ISR
+Added: Christensen Ranch
Clarkson Hill
−Removed: Conventional Subtotal
−Removed: Total Mineral Resources
−Removed: The Mineral Resources estimates in this table meet S-K 1300 definitions
+Added: Crook's Mountain
+Added: East Shirley Basin
+Added: Irigaray Project
+Added: Irigaray mine expansion to north and south will require a permit revision.
+Added: Drilling Notification DN342
+Added: Drilling Notification DN353
+Added: Nine Mile Lake
+Added: Drilling Notification DN339
+Added: Drilling Notification DN342
+Added: Drilling Notification DN342
+Added: Pumpkin Creek
+Added: Drilling Notification DN342
+Added: North Reno Creek and SW Reno Creek Resource areas are permitted.
+Added: Drilling Notification DN342
+Added: South Pine Ridge
+Added: South Reno Creek
+Added: South Sweetwater
+Added: Stewart Creek
+Added: Drilling Notification DN342
+Added: West Beaver Rim
+Added: West Crook's Creek
+Added: West Sweetwater
+Added: Fully Permitted to Mine
+Added: Partially Permitted to Mine
+Added: Not Permitted to Mine
+Added: Class III UIC Permit to Mine
+Added: WDEQ Class 1 Well Permits
+Added: Source and Byproduct Materials License
+Added: BLM Plan of Operations
+Added: WDEQ/EPA Aquifer Exemption
+Added: Workman Creek
+Added: Fully Permitted to Mine
+Added: Partially Permitted to Mine
+Added: Not Permitted to Mine
+Added: Class III UIC Permit to Mine
+Added: WDEQ Class 1 Well Permits
+Added: Source and Byproduct Materials License
+Added: BLM Plan of Operations
+Added: WDEQ/EPA Aquifer Exemption
+Added: Fully Permitted to Mine
+Added: Partially Permitted to Mine
+Added: Not Permitted to Mine
+Added: Exploration-Stage Project with no resources
+Added: Exploration-Stage Project with no resources
+Added: Exploration-Stage Project with no resources
+Added: Exploration-Stage Project with no resources
+Added: Exploration-Stage Project with no resources
+Added: Exploration-Stage Project with no resources
+Added: Christie Lake
+Added: Exploration-Stage Project with resources
+Added: Christie West
+Added: Exploration-Stage Project with no resources
+Added: Exploration-Stage Project with no resources
+Added: Cree Extension
+Added: Exploration-Stage Project with no resources
+Added: Diabase Peninsula
+Added: Exploration-Stage Project with no resources
+Added: Exploration-Stage Project with no resources
+Added: Exploration-Stage Project with no resources
+Added: Horseshoe-Raven
+Added: Exploration-Stage Project with resources
+Added: Exploration-Stage Project with no resources
+Added: Exploration-Stage Project with no resources
+Added: Exploration-Stage Project with resources
+Added: Exploration-Stage Project with no resources
+Added: Exploration-Stage Project with no resources
+Added: Moore Tomblin
+Added: Exploration-Stage Project with no resources
+Added: Exploration-Stage Project with no resources
+Added: Exploration-Stage Project with no resources
+Added: Exploration-Stage Project with resources
+Added: Exploration-Stage Project with resources
+Added: Exploration-Stage Project with no resources
+Added: Waterfound River
+Added: Exploration-Stage Project with no resources
+Added: Exploration-Stage Project with no resources
+Added: Wheeler River
+Added: Feasibility Field Test mining completed
+Added: Exploration-Stage Project with no resources
+Added: Development-Stage, not permitted to mine
+Added: Fully Permitted to Mine
+Added: Partially Permitted to Mine
+Added: Not Permitted to Mine
+Added: Exploration-Stage Project with resources
+Added: Exploration-Stage Project with no resources
+Added: Titanium Projects
+Added: Fully Permitted to Mine
+Added: Partially Permitted to Mine
+Added: Not Permitted to Mine
+Added: Exploration-Stage Project with no resources
+Added: Table 2.4 –
+Added: Processing Plants and other Facilities
+Added: State/Province
+Added: Location (Latitude)
+Added: Location (Longitude)
+Added: Equity Interest
+Added: Annual Permitted Production Capacity
+Added: Fully Permitted to Mine
+Added: Partially Permitted to Mine
+Added: Not Permitted to Mine
+Added: WDEQ Class 1 Well Permits
+Added: TCEQ Radioactive Materials License
+Added: Irigaray Central Processing Plant
+Added: Production Suspended
+Added: Christensen Ranch Satellite Production Plant
+Added: State/Province
+Added: Location (Latitude)
+Added: Location (Longitude)
+Added: Equity Interest
+Added: Annual Permitted Production Capacity
+Added: Fully Permitted to Mine
+Added: Partially Permitted to Mine
+Added: Not Permitted to Mine
+Added: TCEQ Class 1 Well Permits
+Added: TCEQ Radioactive Materials License
+Added: Hobson Central Processing Plant
+Added: Production Suspended
+Added: 4.0 Mlb/year
+Added: Our Mineral Properties
+Added: Below is a table setting out our summary disclosure of current measured, indicated, and inferred mineral resource estimates.
+Added: Details regarding the mineral resource estimate disclosed herein can be found in Section 11, Mineral Resource Estimates, of each relevant TRS.
+Added: Table 2.5 –
+Added: Mineral Resources
+Added: Uranium Oxide Mineral Resources
+Added: State/Province
+Added: U 3 O 8 ('000's)
+Added: U 3 O 8  ('000's)
+Added: U 3 O 8  ('000's)
+Added: United States
+Added: Allemand-Ross
+Added: Christensen Ranch
+Added: Clarkson Hill
+Added: Nine Mile Lake
+Added: Wyoming Total
+Added: Workman Creek
+Added: Arizona Total
+Added: United States Total
+Added: Christie Lake
+Added: Horseshoe-Raven
+Added: Total Resources
+Added: The Mineral Resource estimates in this table meet S-K 1300 definitions.
Mineral Resources are not Mineral Reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability.
−Removed: Mineral Resources are estimated using a long-term uranium price of $40 per pound for ISR projects and $65 per ton for conventional properties
+Added: The point of reference for mineral resources is in-situ at the Project.
+Added: Mineral Resources are estimated using a long-term uranium price of $40 per pound for ISR projects and $65 per pound for conventional projects.
Mineral Resources are 100% attributable to the Company.
Numbers may not add due to rounding.
+Added: Table 2.6 –
+Added: Year over Year Changes in Mineral Resources
+Added: UEC has recently completed updated mineral resource and reserve updates on the company’s material properties and presently does not have projects in production.
+Added: As such, there were no changes to stated resources between fiscal year 2022 and 2023.
+Added: Uranium Oxide Resources
+Added: State/Province
+Added: Measured Pounds U 3 O 8  ('000's)
+Added: Indicated Pounds U 3 O 8  ('000's)
+Added: Inferred Pounds U 3 O 8 ('000's)
+Added: Measured Pounds U 3 O 8 ('000's)
+Added: Indicated Pounds U 3 O 8 ('000's)
+Added: Inferred Pounds U 3 O 8 ('000's)
+Added: % Change in Measured Pounds
+Added: % Change in Indicated Pounds
+Added: % Change in Inferred Pounds
+Added: United States
+Added: Allemand-Ross
+Added: Christensen Ranch
+Added: Clarkson Hill
+Added: Nine Mile Lake
+Added: Wyoming Total
+Added: Workman Creek
+Added: Arizona Total
+Added: United States Total
+Added: Christie Lake
+Added: Horseshoe-Raven
+Added: Total Resources
+Added: The Mineral Resource estimates in this table meet S-K 1300 definitions.
+Added: Mineral Resources are not Mineral Reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability.
+Added: The point of reference for mineral resources is in-situ at the Project.
+Added: Mineral Resources are estimated using a long-term uranium price of $40 per pound for ISR projects and $65 per pound for conventional projects.
+Added: Mineral Resources are 100% attributable to the Company.
+Added: Numbers may not add due to rounding.
+Added: Internal Controls Over Uranium Resource Estimation Efforts
+Added: For Canadian and U.S.
+Added: 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. 
+Added: To summarize, the QA/QC programs for exploration data are in place that cover four broad categories:
+Added: geologic data collection;
+Added: data verification;
+Added: radiometric equivalent data;
+Added: and geochemical data. 
+Added: 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.
+Added: Geochemical data for Canadian exploration programs is supplied by the Geoanalytical Laboratory at the Saskatchewan Research Council (“SRC”). 
+Added: 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. 
+Added: The management system and selected methods are accredited by the Standards Council of Canada. 
+Added: 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. 
+Added: 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. 
+Added: 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. 
+Added: Samples of mineralization at a rate of about 5% of the population are checked externally with a different accredited lab to help assure accuracy.
+Added: 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. 
+Added: This technology has been employed in the exploration and development of sandstone uranium deposits in the U.S.
+Added: since the 1950s. 
+Added: 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.
+Added: Department of Energy test pits located in George West, Texas, or Casper, Wyoming. 
+Added: The pit is set up for logging units to calibrate the probes with a known radioactive source. 
+Added: Each test run generates calibration files for the operator to review and make necessary tool adjustments. 
+Added: 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. 
+Added: The available data indicate that the logging provided by the Company and contract probe trucks at the various U.S.
+Added: projects have maintained industry standard calibration procedures for their probes.
+Added: For resource estimation the internal controls are more common to the U.S.
+Added: and Canadian operations. 
+Added: Company staff will perform database verification on the geologic database which is then reviewed by the QP. 
+Added: 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. 
+Added: For resource estimation the block model is evaluated visually against geologic cross sections to ensure block grades match drill hole grades. 
+Added: 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. 
+Added: 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.
+Added: 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. 
+Added: Company management and QPs are aware of those risks that might directly impact the assessment of mineral reserves and resources. 
+Added: The current mineral resources are estimated based on the best information available and are subject to reassessment when conditions change.
ISR Uranium Activities
−Removed: The Company conducts its ISR recovery activities through its Irigaray Central Processing Plant (“CPP”) and Christensen Ranch ISR Project, located in northeast Wyoming, which it acquired in December 2021 through the acquisition of U1A, and its Hobson CPP and Palangana ISR Project, located in south Texas, which it acquired in 2009 from Uranium One.
−Removed: The Irigaray CPP Project includes:
−Removed: (i) the Irigaray CPP (100% ownership);
−Removed: (ii) the Christensen Ranch Wellfields (100% ownership);
−Removed: (iii) the Charlie Wellfields (100% ownership);
−Removed: (iv) the Reno Creek ISR Project (100% ownership);
−Removed: (v) the Moore Ranch ISR Project (100% ownership);
−Removed: (vi) the Ludeman ISR Project (100% ownership);
−Removed: (vii) the Allemand-Ross ISR Project;
−Removed: (viii) the Barge ISR Project;
−Removed: (ix) the Jab/West Jab ISR Project (100% ownership);
−Removed: (x) the Nine Mile Lake ISR Project (100% ownership);
−Removed: (xi) the Red Rim ISR Project (100% ownership);
−Removed: and (xii) the Clarkson Hill ISR Project all in Wyoming.
−Removed: See “Non-Material Mineral Properties - Other ISR Projects.”
+Added: The Company conducts its ISR activities through two district scale hubs located in Wyoming and Texas.
+Added: The Irigaray Central Processing Plant (“CPP”) is located in northeastern Wyoming, was acquired in December 2021 through the acquisition of U1A.
+Added: The Hobson CPP is located in south Texas, which it acquired in 2009 from Uranium One.
+Added: The Wyoming hub is comprised of the following material ISR projects that are intended to feed resources into the Irigaray CPP:
+Added: Christensen Ranch, Charlie, Reno Creek, Moore Ranch, Ludeman, Allemand-Ross, Barge, Jab/West Jab, the Nine Mile Lake, Red Rim and Clarkson Hill.
+Added: 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.
1 unchanged sentence
In order for Christensen Ranch to engage in future uranium extraction, the Company will need to incur capital expenditures to restart idled wellfields.
−Removed: The Hobson CPP Project includes:
−Removed: (i) the Hobson CPP (100% ownership);
−Removed: (ii) the Palangana ISR Project (100% ownership);
−Removed: (iii) the Burke Hollow ISR Project (100% ownership);
−Removed: (iv) the Goliad ISR Project (100% ownership);
−Removed: and (v) the Salvo ISR Project all in Texas.
−Removed: Production from existing wellfields at the Palangana ISR Project ceased in 2016 and the project was put in care and maintenance mode.
−Removed: In order for Palangana to engage in future uranium production, the Company will need to incur capital expenditures to restart idled wellfields.
−Removed: The 100% owned Yuty ISR Project, located in Paraguay, is an exploration phase project.
−Removed: Conventional Uranium Activities
−Removed: The Company’s Anderson Project (100% ownership) located in Arizona, is an exploration phase project containing estimated resources that are suitable for conventional open-pit and underground mining methods.
−Removed: 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”).
+Added: United States Properties
+Added: Wyoming Properties
+Added: Below is a map showing our Wyoming projects:
+Added: Figure 2.2 –
+Added: Locations of our Projects in Wyoming
+Added: Permitting Requirements in Wyoming
+Added: The Irigaray CPP is fully permitted. 
+Added: 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.
+Added: Portions of the Irigaray and Reno Creek project areas are also permitted for ISR operations.
+Added: The Allemand-Ross, Barge, Charlie, Clarkson Hill, Jab/West Jab, Nine Mile and Red Rim project areas are not permitted.
+Added: Portions of the Reno Creek project area and the majority of the Irigaray project area are also not permitted for ISR operations.
+Added: Geology and Mineralization in Wyoming
+Added: 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”).
+Added: 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. 
+Added: 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. 
+Added: The PRB is filled with marine, non-marine and continental sediments ranging in age from early Paleozoic through Cenozoic.
+Added: The Jab/West Jab and Red Rim project areas are located within the northeastern portion of the Greater Green River Basin (“GGRB”).
+Added: 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.
+Added: 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.
+Added: The GGRB contains up to 25,000 feet of Cretaceous to recent sedimentary rocks.
+Added: The Clarkson Hill project area is located in the eastern portion of the Wind River Basin (“WRB”). 
+Added: The WRB is a structural basin in west-central Wyoming.
+Added: 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.
+Added: The WRB is filled with marine, lacustrine and fluvial sediments ranging in age from Paleozoic to Cenozoic.
+Added: Uranium mineralization at the project is typical of Wyoming roll-front sandstone deposits. 
+Added: 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.
+Added: The most favorable host rocks for roll-fronts are permeable sandstones with large aquifer systems.
+Added: Interbedded mudstone, claystone and siltstone are often present and aid in the formation process by focusing groundwater flow.
+Added: Geology of the Powder River Basin
+Added: 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. 
+Added: 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. 
+Added: The PRB is filled with marine, non-marine and continental sediments ranging in age from early Paleozoic through Cenozoic.
+Added: 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. 
+Added: 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. 
+Added: However, Flores divides the Fort Union into three members:
+Added: and Tongue River members (listed from oldest to youngest);
+Added: The Tullock member consists of sandstone, siltstone and sparse coal and carbonaceous shale;
+Added: The Lebo member consists of abundant drab gray mudstone, minor siltstone and sandstone and sparse coal and carbonaceous shale beds;
+Added: 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.
+Added: Uranium mineralization occurs in zones that are located in channel sands of the Fort Union Formation. 
+Added: These channel sands are typical fining upward sand sequences consisting of fine-grained sandstones. 
+Added: The zones of mineralization are formed as typical roll-front deposits in these sandstones.
+Added: The early Eocene Wasatch Formation unconformably overlies the Fort Union Formation around the margins of the PRB. 
+Added: However, the two formations are conformable and gradational towards the basin center. 
+Added: 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. 
+Added: The Wasatch-Fort Union contact is separated by Paleocene and Eocene rocks and is generally placed above the Roland coal. 
+Added: However, other authors have placed the Wasatch-Fort Union contact above the School, Badger and Anderson Coals in other parts of the PRB.
+Added: 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. 
+Added: 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. 
+Added: The sandstone horizons in the Wasatch Formation are the host rocks for several uranium deposits in the central PRB. 
+Added: Within this area, mineralization is found in a 50- to 100-ft thick sandstone lens. 
+Added: 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. 
+Added: 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.
+Added: The Oligocene White River Formation overlies the Wasatch Formation and has been removed from most of the basin by erosion.
+Added: Remnants of this unit crop out on the Pumpkin Buttes, and at the extreme southern edge of the PRB. 
+Added: 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. 
+Added: The youngest sediments consist of Quaternary alluvial sands and gravels locally present in larger valleys.
+Added: Quaternary eolian sands can also be found locally.
+Added: Geology of the Great Divide and Greater Green River Basins
+Added: The Jab/West Jab and Red Rim project areas are located within the northeastern portion of the Great Divide Basin.
+Added: The Great Divide Basin (“GDB”) and the Washakie Basin (“WB”) in the southwest together comprise the Greater Green River Basin (“GGRB”).
+Added: 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. 
+Added: 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. 
+Added: The GGRB contains up to 25,000 feet of Cretaceous to recent sedimentary rocks.
+Added: During the end of the Cretaceous Period, the Laramide Orogeny divided the Wyoming Basin Province into a series of down warped basins. 
+Added: As these basins were created, uplift created the Granite and Seminoe Mountains, and older formations were altered during the same time. 
+Added: In the northern regions of the GDB, swamps, alluvial plains and fluvial fans were present at the margins of the uplifted Granite Mountains. 
+Added: To the southwest, the GDB is occupied by the lacustrine Eocene Green River Formation and by the lower energy Wasatch Formation. 
+Added: These two facies interfinger with the high-energy fluvial facies of the Battle Spring Formation at the central and eastern areas in the GDB.
+Added: Uranium deposits occur principally in the Battle Spring Formation which consists of alluvial-fluvial fan deposits of west- to southwest-flowing paleodrainage. 
+Added: The common rock type is arkosic sandstone with interbedded claystone. 
+Added: These types of rock are typical of alluvial-fan facies. 
+Added: Much of this material is sourced from the Granite Mountains, by blockages in normal drainages due to differential subsidence rates. 
+Added: The Wasatch Formation, due to its fluvial nature, contains interbedded siltstones, coal, carbonaceous shale, fine-grained sandstone, sandy limestone and medium-grained fluvial sandstones.
+Added: The Battle Spring Formation consists of alluvial-fluvial fan deposits of west to southwest-flowing paleodrainage. 
+Added: The common rock type is arkosic sandstone with interbedded claystone. 
+Added: These types of rock are typical of alluvial-fan facies. 
+Added: Much of this material is sourced from the Granite Mountains by blockages in normal drainages due to differential subsidence rates. 
+Added: The Wasatch Formation, due to its fluvial nature, contains interbedded siltstones, coal, carbonaceous shale, fine-grained sandstone, sandy limestone and medium-grained fluvial sandstones. 
+Added: The permeable medium- to very coarse-grained sandstones and arkoses are a favorable host for sandstone-type uranium deposits. 
+Added: Fluvial channels incised into less permeable underlying siltstones and sandstones in the Battle Spring during early Eocene time. 
+Added: The channels were backfilled by the massive, poorly-sorted, coalescing alluvial fan deposits, known as the Battle Spring Formation. 
+Added: The Battle Spring Formation includes impermeable carbonaceous shales that created an impermeable boundary for uranium deposits.
+Added: The Fort Union Formation surfaces around the boundary of the GDB. 
+Added: 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. 
+Added: It may truncate and unconformably overlie older units near basin margins. 
+Added: The Fort Union is unconformably underlain by the Cretaceous Lance Formation and regionally overlain by either the Eocene Wasatch or Battle Spring Formation.
+Added: 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. 
+Added: The Lance Formation contains the upper Red Rim Member and the lower (unnamed) member. 
+Added: 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.
+Added: Overbank and floodplain deposits in the Battle Spring Formation also were likely to restrict groundwater flow. 
+Added: These boundaries focused uranium-rich waters into confined permeable units.
+Added: Faulting also created structural and permeability control.
+Added: Geology of the Wind River Basin
+Added: The Clarkson Hill project area is located in the eastern portion of the Wind River Basin (“WRB”). 
+Added: The WRB is a structural basin in west-central Wyoming. 
+Added: 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. 
+Added: The WRB is filled with marine, lacustrine and fluvial sediments ranging in age from Paleozoic to Cenozoic.
+Added: Both the Wind River and Fort Union Formations are Cenozoic fluvial sedimentary deposits containing sandstone with economic quantities of uranium.
+Added: 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.
+Added: 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.
+Added: 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.
+Added: The Paleocene Fort Union is the oldest Tertiary formation and consists of sandstone, siltstone, shale, coal and local conglomerates.
+Added: The Fort Union is overlain, often unconformably, by the Eocene Wind River Formation, which consists of sandstones, conglomerates, siltstones and shale.
+Added: Overlying the Wind River Formation is the Oligocene White River Formation.
+Added: 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.
+Added: This volcanic ash is regarded by many as the source of uranium for many Wyoming sandstone uranium deposits.
+Added: Economic uranium deposits in the WRB typically occur as roll-front deposits in porous sandstones within the Wind River and Fort Union Formations.
+Added: Material Project Descriptions in Wyoming
+Added: 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”
+Added: 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.
+Added: Figure 2.3 –
+Added: Location of the Irigaray Project
Property Description
−Removed: The Irigaray Project Area is located in Johnson County, Wyoming, northwest of Pumpkin Buttes and near Willow Creek, within the Powder River Basin (the “PRB”).
+Added: 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.
−Removed: The Irigaray Project Area is approximately 70 air miles north-northeast of Casper, Wyoming, and 30 air miles east of Kaycee, Wyoming.
−Removed: The Irigaray Project Area can be accessed from Kaycee, Wyoming, by traveling east on State Highway 192 through the town of Sussex, and then traveling north on Streeter Road to the intersection of Irigaray Road.
−Removed: The Irigaray Project Area is located on Irigaray Road approximately four miles north of the intersection with Streeter Road.
+Added: 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. 
+Added: 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.
+Added: 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.
+Added: 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.
−Removed: Map of UEC Project Areas
−Removed: The Irigaray Project Area is owned and operated by UEC.
−Removed: UEC has executed surface use and access agreements and fee mineral leases with landowners who hold surface and mineral ownership within and outside the various Irigaray Project Area boundaries.
−Removed: UEC also holds unpatented BLM lode claims and leases on Wyoming state land on the various project areas.
−Removed: Mineral rights for the Irigaray Project Area are a combination of federally administered minerals (unpatented lode claims), State of Wyoming mineral leases and private (fee) mineral leases.
−Removed: Federal mining claims were staked and recorded consistent with federal and state law, state mineral leases were obtained by submitting a lease application and appropriate fee to the State Board of Land Commissioners and fee mineral leases were obtained through negotiation with individual mineral owners.
−Removed: Property Characteristics Summary
−Removed: State of Wyoming Leases
−Removed: Fee Mineral Leases
−Removed: Federal Lode Mining Claims
−Removed: Leases/Claims
−Removed: Total Annual Cost
−Removed: Within the Irigaray Project Area, UEC holds one State of Wyoming uranium lease on state lands and 257 unpatented lode claims on federally administered minerals.
−Removed: There is one fee (private) mineral lease on the Irigaray Project Area.
−Removed: Payments for the state and private lease and BLM mining claim filing payments are up to date, as of the effective date of the TRS.
−Removed: Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography
−Removed: The Irigaray Project Area is within Johnson County, Wyoming.
−Removed: This county resides in the Wyoming Basin Physiographic Province in the southern portion of the PRB.
−Removed: The site generally lies near the synclinal axis of the basin.
−Removed: The PRB is a part of the Northwestern Great Plains eco-region, a semiarid rolling plain of shale and sandstone punctuated by occasional buttes.
−Removed: Regional structural features also include the Big Horn Mountains to the west, Casper Arch to the south and the Black Hills to the east.
−Removed: In the Irigaray Project Area the landscape is dominated by the Pumpkin Buttes.
−Removed: Topography in the Irigaray Project Area ranges from generally flat to gently rolling hills with numerous drainages containing ephemeral streams dissecting the Irigaray Project Area.
−Removed: Elevations ranges from approximately 4,500 ft to 5,400 ft above mean sea level.
−Removed: Vegetation within the Irigaray Project Area consists primarily of grassland, with areas of sagebrush.
−Removed: The Irigaray Project Area lies within the mixed grass eco-region of the Northwestern Great Plains.
−Removed: Interspersed among these major vegetation communities, within and along the ephemeral drainages, are grassland and meadow grassland and less abundant types of seeded grasslands (improved pastures).
−Removed: The Irigaray Project Area in the PRB is located in a semi-arid or steppe climate.
−Removed: The region is characterized by cold, harsh winters and hot, dry summers.
−Removed: The spring season is relatively warm and moist, and autumns are cool.
−Removed: Temperature extremes range from roughly -25°
−Removed: F in the winter to 100°
−Removed: F in the summer.
−Removed: Typically, the last freeze occurs during late May and the first freeze occurs in mid- to late September.
−Removed: Yearly precipitation in the PRB averages about 13 inches.
−Removed: The PRB is prone to severe thunderstorm events throughout the spring and early summer months, and much of the precipitation is attributed to these events.
−Removed: Snow falls throughout the winter months (approximately 40 to 50 inches per year), but provides much less moisture than rain events.
−Removed: The nearest community to the Irigaray Project Area is Wright, a small, incorporated town with a population of 1,644 at the junction of Wyoming Highway 387 and Wyoming Highway 59.
−Removed: Gillette is a major local population center with a population of 33,403 and a regional airport.
−Removed: Gillette is located along Interstate 90, north and east of the Irigaray Project Area via both Wyoming Highway 59 (due north of Wright) and Wyoming Highway 50.
−Removed: The towns of Edgerton and Midwest are in Natrona County, southwest of the Irigaray Project Area on Wyoming Highway 387.
−Removed: A major north–south railroad, BNSF Railway, used primarily for transporting coal, lies east of the Irigaray Project Area and parallel to Wyoming Highway 59.
−Removed: Equipment and supplies needed for exploration and day-to-day operations are available from population centers such as Gillette and Casper.
−Removed: Specialized equipment for the Irigaray Project Area will likely need to be acquired from outside of Wyoming.
−Removed: The local economy is geared toward coal mining and oil and gas production as well as ranching operations, providing a well-trained and capable pool of workers for ISR production and processing operations.
−Removed: Workers will reside locally and commute to work daily.
−Removed: As a result of energy development over the past 50 years, the Irigaray Project Area has existing or nearby (less than two miles) electrical power, gas and adequate telephone and internet connectivity.
−Removed: The Irigaray Project Area is a fully operational and licensed ISR processing plant for resin elution, precipitation, filtration, and drying and packaging of U 3 O 8 .
−Removed: The Irigaray Project Area has a capacity of 1.3 million lbs U 3 O 8 per year, which is expandable to 2.5 million lbs U 3 O 8 per year.
−Removed: A second elution system is also at the Irigaray Project Area for toll processing.
−Removed: The Irigaray Project Area is equipped with a warehouse and office, power, telephone, water tank and domestic waste disposal.
+Added: The site is accessible year-round on county and private roads which are shared by oil and gas operators and ranchers.
+Added: Limited services are available from several smaller towns proximal to the site.
+Added: Primarily, services and personnel are available from Buffalo, Gillette, and Casper.
+Added: Casper and Gillette provide flight services with daily service to Denver, Billings and Salt Lake City.
+Added: Water is sourced locally at the mine while electrical service is provided by a regional power company.
+Added: 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). 
+Added: These mineral holdings comprise 2,320 acres. 
+Added: All payments for all leases and claims are up to date.
Uranium was first discovered in the southern PRB during the early 1950s.
22 unchanged sentences
Ownership transition.
−Removed: Total Minerals Corporation (“TOMIN”) and Électricité
−Removed: de France (“EDF”)
+Added: Total Minerals Corporation (“TOMIN”) and Électricité de France (“EDF”)
Acquired property from Malapai.
6 unchanged sentences
Approximately 20
−Removed: 0.74 million lbs of U 3 O 8  produced from 1978 through 2000.
+Added: 0.74 million lb. of U 3 O 8  produced from 1978 through 2000.
Dried many millions of pounds from Christensen Ranch and through toll milling.
2 unchanged sentences
Ownership transition.
−Removed: Permitting and Licensing
−Removed: A majority of the resources in the Irigaray Project Area are not permitted.
−Removed: Portions of the Irigaray Project Area resources on federal lands would require BLM permitting.
−Removed: Permitting would include wildlife considerations, such as greater sage grouse leks and core area, which could limit development of resources.
−Removed: The CPP and related infrastructure are fully permitted to process loaded ion-exchange resins.
+Added: Property Condition and Proposed Development
+Added: The condition of the property is very good, and meets all standards and requirements of Federal, State and local regulations.
+Added: 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.
+Added: Seventeen (17) exploration and delineation holes were drilled in 2023 in sections 28 and 33, T45N R77W, in the future Mine Unit 15 area.
+Added: Facilities, Infrastructure and Underground Development
+Added: The Irigaray CPP was first constructed in 1977-1978. 
+Added: Mining occurred at the time in Wellfields 1 through 9. 
+Added: These wellfields have gone through groundwater restoration, decommissioning and final reclamation, which has been approved by the Wyoming DEQ. 
+Added: 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.
+Added: 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. 
+Added: The CPP now contains two complete resin elution systems, multiple precipitation areas, filter press, yellowcake thickeners, and a calciner for drying yellowcake product.
+Added: A vacuum dryer is in storage at the CPP for future installation when needed. 
+Added: 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.
+Added: Although the building is older, it has been maintained in good condition. 
+Added: The entire CPP roof was replaced in 2021.
+Added: Permit Status and Encumbrances
+Added: The Irigaray Project is permitted under Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (“WDEQ”), Land Quality Division (“LQD”) Permit to Mine No.
+Added: The project is also licensed under WDEQ/LQD Uranium Recovery Program Radioactive Materials License WYSUA-1341, formerly a U.S.
+Added: NRC license. 
+Added: Wyoming became an Agreement State for NRC regulation in 2018. 
+Added: Permit to Mine No.
+Added: 478 and Radioactive Materials License WYSUA-1341 are in good standing, with no violations of permit or license conditions. 
+Added: Mining permit requirements can be found in Wyoming Statutes §35-11-400 through 437, with specific laws for ISR mining in sections 426 –
+Added: Conditions of the Radioactive Materials License applicable to ISR mining are generally standard for all licensees. 
+Added: 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.
+Added: There are no materially significant encumbrances on the Irigaray Project. 
+Added: Standard encumbrances include reclamation bonding, mining and surface lease royalties.
Geologic setting, Mineralization and Deposit
−Removed: The Irigaray Project Area resides in the PRB.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: The PRB is filled with marine, non-marine and continental sediments ranging in age from early Paleozoic through Cenozoic.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: However, Flores divides the Fort Union into three members:
−Removed: and Tongue River members (listed from oldest to youngest);
−Removed: The Tullock member consists of sandstone, siltstone and sparse coal and carbonaceous shale.
−Removed: The Lebo member consists of abundant drab gray mudstone, minor siltstone and sandstone and sparse coal and carbonaceous shale beds.
−Removed: The Tongue River member consists of interbedded sandstone, conglomerate, siltstone, mudstone, limestone, anomalously thick coal beds and carbonaceous shale beds.
−Removed: This member has been mined extensively for its coal beds, which can be hundreds of feet thick.
−Removed: Uranium mineralization occurs in zones that are located in channel sands of the Fort Union Formation.
−Removed: These channel sands are typical fining upward sand sequences consisting of fine-grained sandstones.
−Removed: The zones of mineralization are formed as typical roll-front deposits in these sandstones.
−Removed: The early Eocene Wasatch Formation unconformably overlies the Fort Union Formation around the margins of the PRB.
−Removed: However, the two formations are conformable and gradational towards the basin center.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: The Wasatch-Fort Union contact is separated by Paleocene and Eocene rocks and is generally placed above the Roland coal.
−Removed: However, other authors have placed the Wasatch-Fort Union contact above the School, Badger and Anderson Coals in other parts of the PRB.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: The sandstone horizons in the Wasatch Formation are the host rocks for several uranium deposits in the central PRB.
−Removed: Within this area, mineralization is found in a 50- to 100-ft thick sandstone lens.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: The Wasatch Formation reaches a maximum thickness of about 1,600 ft and dips northwestward from one degree to two-and-a-half degrees in the southern and central parts of the PRB.
−Removed: The Oligocene White River Formation overlies the Wasatch Formation and has been removed from most of the basin by erosion.
−Removed: Remnants of this unit crop out on the Pumpkin Buttes, and at the extreme southern edge of the PRB.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: The youngest sediments consist of Quaternary alluvial sands and gravels locally present in larger valleys.
−Removed: Quaternary eolian sands can also be found locally.
−Removed: The Irigaray Project Area targets mineralization in the Eocene-aged Wasatch Formation.
+Added: The Irigaray Project Area resides in the Powder River Basin and targets mineralization in the Eocene-aged Wasatch Formation.
+Added: 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.
7 unchanged sentences
In areas of intense or heavy mineralization, pyrite locally occurs as massive, tarnished crystal aggregates (Utah International, 1971).
−Removed: The Irigaray Project Area contain portions of four alteration systems, all within fluvial sands of the Wasatch Formation.
+Added: 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.
−Removed: These sands vary in thickness from 0 ft to 100 ft within the Irigaray Project Area.
−Removed: They coalesce within portions of the Irigaray Project Area and form massive sand sequences of roughly 250 ft (80 m) in thickness.
+Added: These sands vary in thickness from 0 feet to 100 feet within the Irigaray Project Area.
+Added: 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.
−Removed: Data Verification
−Removed: The resource estimate is based on historic drill holes with uranium assays by gamma logging and a limited number of core holes with chemical assays.
−Removed: Industry standard methods were used at the time of data collection.
−Removed: The Irigaray Project Area is currently on care and maintenance and has been successfully mined since 1978.
−Removed: Past production from both projects confirms the presence of significant mineral resources that were estimated using similar methods.
−Removed: A study was conducted in 1982 that compared the chemical assays of 77 historic core holes drilled on the Irigaray Project Area with radiometric data that had been reinterpreted.
−Removed: Conclusions of the study indicate that the total grade thicknesses (the “GT”) are well within the margin of error expected in such calculations, but that radiometric interpretations showed a bias.
−Removed: The original estimates underestimated the in-place grades and overestimated the in-place thicknesses of mineralized zones.
−Removed: It was concluded that these biases effectively offset one another.
−Removed: Another study in 1994 was conducted with Prompt Fission Neutron (“PFN”) logging equipment to determine equilibrium and to determine the extent of remobilized uranium in a producing wellfield.
−Removed: Core samples were also collected and chemically assayed to check the accuracy of the PFN logging and further determine disequilibrium.
−Removed: The study found that the PFN logging determined the same vertical and horizontal mineralization limits as the gamma logs.
−Removed: Core hole chemical assays were also compared with historic gamma logs, and the results overall indicated reasonably good correlations between the two.
−Removed: A WWC professional previously worked at the Irigaray Project Area from 1995 until 1999.
−Removed: During that time, he was the only on-staff geologist at the Irigaray Project Area and was responsible for reviewing thousands of logs for mine unit planning and development and has personal knowledge of the data quality.
−Removed: Mineral Resource Estimates
−Removed: The following key assumptions were used for resource estimates, unless otherwise noted:
−Removed: resources are located in permeable and porous sandstones;
−Removed: resources are located below the water table.
−Removed: The GT contour method was used to estimate the mineral resources at the Irigaray Project Area.
−Removed: The GT contour method is one of the most widely used and dependable methods to estimate resources in uranium roll-front deposits.
−Removed: The basis of the GT contour method is the GT (grade x mineralized thickness) values, which are determined for each drill hole using radiometric log results and a suitable GT cutoff, below which the GT value is considered to be zero.
−Removed: The GT values are then plotted on a drill hole map and GT contours are drawn accordingly using roll-front data derived from cuttings and the nature of the gamma anomalies.
−Removed: The resources are calculated from the area within the GT contour boundaries considering the disequilibrium factor (“DEF”) and the ore zone density.
−Removed: The resource estimate method, general parameters and mineralized cutoffs used at the Irigaray Project Area are summarized below.
−Removed: Irigaray Project Area Resource Estimate Methodology
−Removed: Cutoff Parameters
−Removed: Mineral Resource
−Removed: Estimation Method
−Removed: Disequilibrium
−Removed: GT Contour Method
−Removed: Cutoff parameters are discrete and therefore the GT cutoff is not necessarily the product of cutoff grade and cutoff thickness.
−Removed: Based on the depths of mineralization, average grade, thickness and GT, it is the TRS QP’s opinion that the mineral resources of the Irigaray Project Area can be recoverable by ISR methods using a long-term uranium price of $40/lb.
−Removed: Uranium does not trade on the open market and many of the private sales contracts are not publicly disclosed.
−Removed: UEC used $40/lb as the forecast uranium price for the Irigaray Project Area.
−Removed: This is based on:
−Removed: (i) the long-term contract price at the end of February 2022, which was $43.88/lb from Cameco Resources’
−Removed: combination of Ux Consulting (“UxC”) and Trade Tech reports (Cameco, 2022);
−Removed: (ii) the spot price at the end of February 2022 ($48.75/lb);
−Removed: (iii) UxC’s price forecast;
−Removed: and (iv) UEC’s understanding of market expectations.
−Removed: The table below contains the UxC uranium price forecast for Q4 of 2021
−Removed: UxC Q4 2021 Uranium Price Forecast ($/lb U 3 O 8 )
−Removed: UxC Market Outlook Q4 2021
−Removed: UxC High Price Midpoint
−Removed: UxC Low Price Midpoint
−Removed: UxC Mid Price Midpoint
−Removed: In the opinion of the TRS QP, $40/lb is a conservative forecast price for the following reasons:
−Removed: first, at the issuance date, both the long-term price and spot price are greater than $40/lb;
−Removed: second, new physical uranium investment vehicles were created in 2021, such as the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust and the upcoming physical uranium fund backed by Kazatomprom, the National Bank of Kazakhstan and Genchi Global Ltd., which effectively remove uranium supply from the market;
−Removed: third, the increasing demand for carbon-free energy and global plans to construct new nuclear reactors will increase demand for uranium;
−Removed: finally, there has already been a steady increase in the uranium price for the last three years with a sharp rise to greater than $40/lb in the second half of 2021, due in part to increased demand from the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust.
−Removed: Due to recent volatility in the uranium market, the TRS QP believes that a conservative forecast price is justified.
−Removed: For the above reasons, the TRS QP also believes that a $40/lb price is considered reasonable by the QP for use in cutoff determination and to assess reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction.
−Removed: Measured, indicated and inferred resource classifications at the Irigaray Project Area are defined by the density of the drill hole data.
−Removed: Higher drill hole densities allow more confidence in the shape and size of the interpreted mineral horizons.
−Removed: The table below details the resource classification criteria used in the resource estimates in the Irigaray Project Area.
−Removed: Irigaray Project Area Drill Hole Information
−Removed: Distance Between Drill Hole Locations
−Removed: for Resource Classifications (ft)
−Removed: 100 – 300
−Removed: 300 – 500
−Removed: There are numerous reasons that mineralization was interpreted as measured resources within the Irigaray Project Area:
−Removed: first, the drill hole spacing used to classify the measured resource is generally less than or equal to the 100 ft well spacing in a typical production pattern, which enables a detailed wellfield design to be completed;
−Removed: second, the sub-surface geology within the Irigaray Project Area is very well characterized with aquifers that correlate, consistent host sandstone intervals and reliable aquitards across the resource areas;
−Removed: third, mineralization occurs along the redox interface, and the oxidized sands have different coloration than the reduced sands.
−Removed: These color variations are visible in drill cuttings and are used to map the redox interface and to guide drilling and wellfield design;
−Removed: finally, historic production has occurred both commercially and through research and development facilities at the Irigaray Project Area.
−Removed: This combination of drill hole spacing, well-known subsurface geology, well-understood deposit model, successful production and the variety of data collected led WWC, as the TRS QP, to conclude that the mineralization in areas with drill hole spacing tabulated above fit the definition for measured resources.
−Removed: Mineral resources were estimated separately for the Irigaray Project Area.
−Removed: The estimates of measured and indicated mineral resources for the Irigaray Project Area are reported in the table below and the estimates of inferred mineral resources are reported in the table following.
−Removed: Irigaray Project Area Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources
−Removed: Mineral Resource
−Removed: Average Grade % eU 3 O 8
−Removed: Total Measured and Indicated
−Removed: Irigaray Project Area Inferred Mineral Resources
−Removed: Mineral Resource
−Removed: Average Grade % eU 3 O 8
−Removed: Details regarding the mineral resource estimate disclosed herein can be found in Chapter 11, Mineral Resource Estimates of the TRS.
−Removed: Present Condition of Property and Work Completed to Date
−Removed: Irigaray is operating in a toll processing capacity with the facilities maintained for this purpose.
−Removed: The Company ’
−Removed: s Planned Work
−Removed: Irigaray will be maintained to continue to serve in a toll processing capacity.
+Added: Table 2.8 –
+Added: Mineral Resources for the Irigaray Project as at the date of this Annual Report
+Added: Classification
+Added: (000 ’
+Added: (1000 ’
+Added: (% eU 3 O 8 )
+Added: (000 ’
+Added: Total Resources
+Added: The sum of resource tons and lbs.
+Added: may not add up to the reported total due to rounding.
+Added: Measured, indicated and inferred mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300.
+Added: GT Cutoff = 0.25 m% eU 3 O 8
+Added: All reported resources occur below the static water table.
+Added: The point of reference for mineral resources is in-situ at the Project.
+Added: Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
Christensen Ranch ISR Project
−Removed: 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”, current on March 31, 2022, prepared by WWC, a qualified firm (the “QP”
+Added: 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”
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.
+Added: Figure 2.4 –
+Added: Location of the Christensen Ranch Project
Property Description
−Removed: The Christensen Ranch Project Area is located in Johnson and Campbell Counties, Wyoming, west of Pumpkin Buttes within the PRB.
+Added: 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.
−Removed: The Christensen Ranch Project Area is approximately 70 air miles north-northeast of Casper, Wyoming, and 30 air miles east of Kaycee, Wyoming.
−Removed: The Christensen Ranch Project Area can be accessed from Kaycee, Wyoming, by traveling east on State Highway 192 through the town of Sussex, and then traveling north on Streeter Road to the intersection of Irigaray Road.
−Removed: The Christensen Ranch Project Area boundary is located 1.6 miles southeast of the intersection of Streeter Road and Irigaray Road.
−Removed: The Christensen Ranch satellite ion exchange (IX) plant is approximately three miles north-northeast of Irigaray Road.
+Added: 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. 
+Added: 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.
+Added: 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.
+Added: 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. 
+Added: 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.
−Removed: Map of UEC Project Areas
−Removed: This Christensen Ranch Project Area is owned and operated by UEC.
−Removed: UEC has executed surface use and access agreements and fee mineral leases with landowners who hold surface and mineral ownership within and outside the various Christensen Ranch Project Area boundaries.
−Removed: UEC also holds unpatented BLM lode claims and leases on Wyoming state land on the project area.
−Removed: Mineral rights for the Christensen Ranch Project Area are a combination of federally administered minerals (unpatented lode claims), State of Wyoming mineral leases and private (fee) mineral leases.
−Removed: Federal mining claims were staked and recorded consistent with federal and state law, state mineral leases were obtained by submitting a lease application and appropriate fee to the State Board of Land Commissioners, and fee mineral leases were obtained through negotiation with individual mineral owners.
−Removed: Property Characteristics Summary
−Removed: State of Wyoming Leases
−Removed: Fee Mineral Leases
−Removed: Federal Lode Mining Claims
−Removed: Christensen Ranch
−Removed: Leases/Claims
−Removed: Total Annual Cost
−Removed: Within the Christensen Ranch Project Area, UEC holds one State of Wyoming uranium lease on state lands and 257 unpatented lode claims on federally administered minerals.
−Removed: There is one fee (private) mineral lease on the Christensen Ranch Project Area.
−Removed: Payments for the state and private lease and BLM mining claim filing payments are up to date, as of the effective date of the TRS.
−Removed: Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography
−Removed: The Christensen Ranch Project Area is within the Johnson and Campbell counties, Wyoming.
−Removed: These counties reside in the Wyoming Basin Physiographic Province in the southern portion of the PRB.
−Removed: The sites generally lie near the synclinal axis of the basin.
−Removed: The PRB is a part of the Northwestern Great Plains eco-region, a semi-arid rolling plain punctuated by occasional buttes.
−Removed: Regional structural features also include the Bighorn Mountains to the west, Casper Arch to the south and the Black Hills to the east.
−Removed: In the Christensen Ranch Project Area, the landscape is dominated by the Pumpkin Buttes.
−Removed: Topography in the Christensen Ranch Project Area ranges from generally flat to gently rolling hills, with numerous drainages containing ephemeral streams dissecting the Christensen Ranch Project Area.
−Removed: Elevations ranges from approximately 4,500 ft to 5,400 ft above mean sea level.
−Removed: Vegetation within the Christensen Ranch Project Area consists primarily of grassland, with areas of sagebrush.
−Removed: The Christensen Ranch Project Area lies within the mixed grass eco-region of the Northwestern Great Plains.
−Removed: Interspersed among these major vegetation communities, within and along the ephemeral drainages, are grassland and meadow grassland and less abundant types of seeded grasslands (improved pastures).
−Removed: The Christensen Ranch Project Area in the PRB is located in a semi-arid or steppe climate.
−Removed: The region is characterized by cold, harsh winters and hot, dry summers.
−Removed: The spring season is relatively warm and moist, and autumns are cool.
−Removed: Temperature extremes range from roughly -25°
−Removed: F in the winter to 100°
−Removed: F in the summer.
−Removed: Typically, the last freeze occurs during late May and the first freeze in mid- to late September.
−Removed: Yearly precipitation in the PRB averages about 13 inches.
−Removed: The PRB is prone to severe thunderstorm events throughout the spring and early summer months, and much of the precipitation is attributed to these events.
−Removed: Snow falls throughout the winter months (approximately 40 to 50 inches per year), but provides much less moisture than rain events.
−Removed: The nearest community to the Christensen Ranch Project Area is Wright, Wyoming, a small, incorporated town with a population of 1,644 at the junction of Wyoming Highway 387 and Wyoming Highway 59.
−Removed: Gillette is a major local population center with a population of 33,403 and a regional airport.
−Removed: Gillette is located along Interstate 90, north and east of the Christensen Ranch Project Area via both Wyoming Highway 59 (due north of Wright) and Wyoming Highway 50.
−Removed: The towns of Edgerton and Midwest are in Natrona County, southwest of the Christensen Ranch Project Area on Wyoming Highway 387.
−Removed: A major north–south railroad, BNSF Railway, used primarily for transporting coal, lies east of the Christensen Ranch Project Area and parallel to Wyoming Highway 59.
−Removed: Equipment and supplies needed for exploration and day-to-day operations are available from population centers such as Gillette and Casper.
−Removed: Specialized equipment for the wellfields will likely need to be acquired from outside of Wyoming.
−Removed: The local economy is geared toward coal mining and oil and gas production as well as ranching operations, providing a well-trained and capable pool of workers for ISR production and processing operations.
−Removed: Workers will reside locally and commute to work daily.
−Removed: As a result of energy development over the past 50 years, the Christensen Ranch Project Area has existing or nearby (less than two miles) electrical power, gas, and adequate telephone and internet connectivity.
−Removed: The Christensen Ranch Project Area is equipped with a satellite IX plant with a 6,500 gallons per minute (gpm) installed capacity, a groundwater restoration plant with a 1,000 gpm capacity, two wastewater disposal wells and four lined evaporation ponds.
+Added: The site is accessible year-round on county and private roads which are shared by oil and gas operators and ranchers.
+Added: Limited services are available from several smaller towns proximal to the site.
+Added: Primarily, services and personnel are available from Buffalo, Gillette and Casper.
+Added: Casper and Gillette provide flight services with daily service to Denver, Billings and Salt Lake City.
+Added: Water is sourced locally at the mine while electrical service is provided by a regional power company.
+Added: 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). 
+Added: These mineral holdings comprise 11,140 acres. 
+Added: All payments for all leases and claims are up to date.
Uranium was first discovered in the southern PRB during the early 1950s.
18 unchanged sentences
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.
−Removed: Nuclear Regulatory Commission (“NRC”) and Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (“WDEQ”) license/permit in 1988.
+Added: 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.
19 unchanged sentences
188,000 lbs of U 3 O 8  produced during restoration.
−Removed: Historic Ownership and Operations at the Christensen Ranch Project Area (Continued)
−Removed: Operations/Activity
−Removed: Results of Work
Mine Units 7, 8 and 10 were installed and operated.
4 unchanged sentences
Ownership transition.
−Removed: Permitting and Licensing
−Removed: The Christensen Ranch Project Area is fully permitted through the WDEQ/Land Quality Division (“LQD”).
+Added: Property Condition and Proposed Development
+Added: The condition of the property is very good while meeting all standards and requirements of Federal, State and local regulations.
+Added: Development activity to advance the property includes the installation and completion of production and injection wells in Mine Unit 10.
+Added: Additionally, exploration and delineation holes are planned in an area adjacent to Mine Unit 5.
+Added: Facilities, Infrastructure and Underground Development
+Added: 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). 
+Added: Mine Units 2, 3, 4 and 6 have gone through groundwater restoration, which has been approved by Wyoming DEQ. 
+Added: These wellfields are undergoing decommissioning. 
+Added: Mine Units 7, 8 and 10 have been partially mined and will be the focus of resuming operations. 
+Added: Operations in portions of Mine Unit 5 may also be resumed in the future. 
+Added: All facilities are in very good condition.
+Added: Permit Status and Encumbrances
+Added: The Christensen Ranch Project is permitted under WDEQ Permit to Mine No.
+Added: The project is also licensed under WDEQ Radioactive Materials License WYSUA-1341, formerly a U.S.
+Added: NRC license. 
+Added: Wyoming became an Agreement State for NRC regulation in 2018. 
+Added: Permit to Mine No.
+Added: 478 and Radioactive Materials License WYSUA-1341 are in good standing, with no violations of permit or license conditions. 
+Added: Mining permit requirements can be found in Wyoming Statutes §35-11-400 through 437, with specific laws for ISR mining in sections 426 –
+Added: Conditions of the Radioactive Materials License applicable to ISR mining are generally standard for all licensees. 
+Added: 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. 
+Added: There are no materially significant encumbrances on the Christensen Ranch Project. 
+Added: Standard encumbrances include reclamation bonding, mining and surface lease royalties.
Geologic Setting, Mineralization and Deposit
−Removed: The Christensen Ranch Project Area resides in the PRB.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: The PRB is bounded by the Bighorn Mountains and Casper Arch to the west, the Black Hills to the east, and the Hartville Uplift and Laramie Mountains to the south.
−Removed: The PRB is filled with marine, non-marine and continental sediments ranging in age from early Paleozoic through Cenozoic.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: However, the U.S.
−Removed: Geological Survey (“USGS”) divides the Fort Union into three members:
−Removed: and Tongue River members (listed from oldest to youngest);
−Removed: The Tullock member consists of sandstone, siltstone, and sparse coal and carbonaceous shale.
−Removed: The Lebo member consists of abundant drab gray mudstone, minor siltstone and sandstone and sparse coal and carbonaceous shale beds.
−Removed: The Tongue River member consists of interbedded sandstone, conglomerate, siltstone, mudstone, limestone, anomalously thick coal beds and carbonaceous shale beds.
−Removed: This member has been mined extensively for its coal beds, which can be hundreds of feet thick.
−Removed: The total thickness of the Fort Union Formation varies between 2,000 and 3,500 ft.
−Removed: Uranium mineralization occurs in zones that are located in channel sands of the Fort Union Formation.
−Removed: These channel sands are typical fining upward sand sequences consisting of fine-grained sandstones.
−Removed: The zones of mineralization are formed as typical roll-front deposits in these sandstones.
−Removed: The early Eocene Wasatch Formation unconformably overlies the Fort Union Formation around the margins of the PRB.
−Removed: However, the two formations are conformable and gradational towards the basin center.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: The Wasatch-Fort Union contact is separated by Paleocene and Eocene rocks and is generally placed above the Roland coal.
−Removed: However, other authors have placed the Wasatch-Fort Union contact above the School, Badger and Anderson Coals in other parts of the PRB.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: The sandstone horizons in the Wasatch Formation are the host rocks for several uranium deposits in the central PRB.
−Removed: Within this area, mineralization is found in 50- to 100-ft thick sandstone lenses.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: The Wasatch Formation reaches a maximum thickness of about 1,600 ft and dips northwestward from one degree to two-and-a-half degrees in the southern and central parts of the PRB.
−Removed: The Oligocene White River Formation overlies the Wasatch Formation and has been removed from most of the PRB by erosion.
−Removed: Remnants of this unit crop out on the Pumpkin Buttes and at the extreme southern edge of the PRB.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: The youngest sediments consist of Quaternary alluvial sands and gravels locally present in larger valleys.
−Removed: Quaternary eolian sands can also be found locally.
−Removed: The Christensen Ranch Project Area targets mineralization in the Eocene-aged Wasatch Formation.
+Added: 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.
3 unchanged sentences
Unaltered sandstones are generally gray, while altered sandstones are tan or pink due to hematite, or show yellowish coloring due to limonite.
−Removed: Pyrite occurs in several forms within the host sandstones.
−Removed: In unaltered sandstones, pyrite occurs as small to large single euhedral crystals associated with magnetite, ilmenite and other dark detrital minerals.
+Added: Pyrite occurs in several forms within the host sandstones. 
+Added:  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.
2 unchanged sentences
These fluvial host systems are identified as K1, K2, K3 and K4 sands and are in descending order.
−Removed: These sands vary in thickness from 0 ft to 100 ft within the Christensen Ranch Project Area.
−Removed: They coalesce within portions of the Christensen Ranch Project Area and form massive sand sequences of roughly 250 ft (80 m) in thickness.
+Added: These sands vary in thickness from 0 feet to 100 feet within the Christensen Ranch Project Area.
+Added: 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.
11 unchanged sentences
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.
−Removed: Data Verification
−Removed: The resource estimate is based on historic drill holes with uranium assays by gamma logging and a limited number of core holes with chemical assays.
−Removed: Industry standard methods were used at the time of data collection.
−Removed: The Christensen Ranch Project Area is currently on care and maintenance and has been successfully mined since 1978.
−Removed: Past production confirms the presence of significant mineral resources that were estimated using similar methods.
−Removed: A study was conducted in 1982 that compared the chemical assays of 77 historic core holes drilled on the Christensen Ranch Project Area with radiometric data that had been reinterpreted.
−Removed: Conclusions of the study indicate that the total GT are well within the margin of error expected in such calculations, but that radiometric interpretations showed a bias.
−Removed: The original estimates underestimated the in-place grades and overestimated the in-place thicknesses of mineralized zones.
−Removed: It was concluded that these biases effectively offset one another.
−Removed: Another study in 1994 was conducted with PFN logging equipment to determine equilibrium and to determine the extent of remobilized uranium in a producing wellfield.
−Removed: Core samples were also collected and chemically assayed to check the accuracy of the PFN logging and further determine disequilibrium.
−Removed: The study found that the PFN logging determined the same vertical and horizontal mineralization limits as the gamma logs.
−Removed: Core hole chemical assays were also compared with historic gamma logs, and the results overall indicated reasonably good correlations between the two.
−Removed: A WWC professional previously worked at the Christensen Ranch Project Area from 1995 until 1999.
−Removed: During that time, he was the only on-staff geologist at the Christensen Ranch Project Area and was responsible for reviewing thousands of logs for mine unit planning and development and has personal knowledge of the data quality.
−Removed: Mineral Resource Estimates
−Removed: The following key assumptions were used for resource estimates, unless otherwise noted:
−Removed: resources are located in permeable and porous sandstones;
−Removed: resources are located below the water table.
−Removed: The GT contour method was used to estimate the mineral resources at the Christensen Ranch Project Area.
−Removed: The GT contour method is one of the most widely used and dependable methods to estimate resources in uranium roll-front deposits.
−Removed: The basis of the GT contour method is the GT (grade x mineralized thickness) values, which are determined for each drill hole using radiometric log results and a suitable GT cutoff, below which the GT value is considered to be zero.
−Removed: The GT values are then plotted on a drill hole map and GT contours are drawn accordingly using roll-front data derived from cuttings and the nature of the gamma anomalies.
−Removed: The resources are calculated from the area within the GT contour boundaries considering the DEF and the ore zone density.
−Removed: The resource estimate method, general parameters and mineralized cutoffs used at the Christensen Ranch Project Area are summarized below.
−Removed: Christensen Ranch Project Area Resource Estimate Methodology
−Removed: Cutoff Parameters
−Removed: Mineral Resource
−Removed: Estimation Method
−Removed: Disequilibrium
−Removed: Thickness (ft)
−Removed: GT Contour Method
−Removed: Cutoff parameters are discrete and therefore the GT cutoff is not necessarily the product of cutoff grade and cutoff thickness.
−Removed: Based on the depths of mineralization, average grade, thickness and GT, it is the TRS QP’s opinion that the mineral resources of the Christensen Ranch Project Area can be recoverable by ISR methods using a long-term uranium price of $40/lb.
−Removed: Uranium does not trade on the open market and many of the private sales contracts are not publicly disclosed.
−Removed: UEC used $40/lb as the forecast uranium price for the Christensen Ranch Project Area.
−Removed: This is based on:
−Removed: (i) the long-term contract price at the end of February 2022, which was $43.88/lb from Cameco Resources’
−Removed: combination of UxC and Trade Tech reports (Cameco, 2022);
−Removed: (ii) the spot price at the end of February 2022 ($48.75/lb);
−Removed: (iii) UxC’s price forecast;
−Removed: and (iv) UEC’s understanding of market expectations.
−Removed: The table below contains the UxC uranium price forecast for Q4 of 2021.
−Removed: UxC Q4 2021 Uranium Price Forecast ($/lb U 3 O 8 )
−Removed: UxC Market Outlook Q4 2021
−Removed: UxC High Price Midpoint
−Removed: UxC Low Price Midpoint
−Removed: UxC Mid Price Midpoint
−Removed: In the opinion of the TRS QP, $40/lb is a conservative forecast price for the following reasons:
−Removed: first, at the issuance date, both the long-term price and spot price are greater than $40/lb;
−Removed: second, new physical uranium investment vehicles were created in 2021, such as the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust and the upcoming physical uranium fund backed by Kazatomprom, the National Bank of Kazakhstan and Genchi Global Ltd., which effectively remove uranium supply from the market;
−Removed: third, the increasing demand for carbon-free energy and global plans to construct new nuclear reactors will increase demand for uranium;
−Removed: finally, there has already been a steady increase in the uranium price for the last three years with a sharp rise to greater than $40/lb in the second half of 2021, due in part to increased demand from the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust.
−Removed: Due to recent volatility in the uranium market, the QP believes that a conservative forecast price is justified.
−Removed: For the above reasons, the TRS QP also believes that a $40/lb price is considered reasonable for use in cutoff determination and to assess reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction.
−Removed: Measured, indicated and inferred resource classifications at the Christensen Ranch Project Area are defined by the density of the drill hole data.
−Removed: Higher drill hole densities allow more confidence in the shape and size of the interpreted mineral horizons.
−Removed: Table below details the resource classification criteria used in the resource estimates in the Christensen Ranch Project Area.
−Removed: Project Area Drill Hole Information
−Removed: Distance Between Drill Hole Locations for Resource Classifications (ft)
−Removed: Christensen Ranch
−Removed: 100 – 300
−Removed: 300 – 500
−Removed: There are numerous reasons that mineralization was interpreted as measured resources within the Christensen Ranch Project Area:
−Removed: first, the drill hole spacing used to classify the measured resource is generally less than or equal to the 100 ft well spacing in a typical production pattern, which enables a detailed wellfield design to be completed;
−Removed: second, the sub-surface geology within the Christensen Ranch Project Area is very well characterized with aquifers that correlate, consistent host sandstone intervals, and reliable aquitards across the resource areas;
−Removed: third, mineralization occurs along the redox interface and the oxidized sands have different coloration than the reduced sands.
−Removed: These color variations are visible in drill cuttings and are used to map the redox interface and to guide drilling and wellfield design;
−Removed: finally, historic production has occurred both commercially and through research and development facilities at the Irigaray Project Area.
−Removed: This combination of drill hole spacing, well-known subsurface geology, well-understood deposit model, successful production and the variety of data collected led WWC, as the TRS QP, to conclude that the mineralization in areas with drill hole spacing tabulated above fit the definition for measured resources.
−Removed: Mineral resources were estimated separately for the Christensen Ranch Project Area.
−Removed: The estimates of measured and indicated mineral resources for the Christensen Ranch Project Area are reported in the table below and the estimates of inferred mineral resources are reported in table following.
−Removed: Christensen Ranch Project Area Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources
−Removed: Mineral Resource
−Removed: Average Grade
−Removed: Christensen Ranch
−Removed: Total Measured and Indicated
−Removed: Christensen Ranch Project Area inferred Mineral Resources
−Removed: Mineral Resource
−Removed: Average Grade
−Removed: Christensen Ranch
−Removed: Details regarding the mineral resource estimate disclosed herein can be found in Chapter 11, Mineral Resource Estimates of the TRS.
−Removed: Present Condition of Property and Work Completed to Date
−Removed: The Christensen Ranch Project Area is currently under care and maintenance.
−Removed: Mine Units 2, 3, 4 and 6 were determined restored by the WDEQ/LQD in 2021.
−Removed: Mine Units 5, 7, 8 and 10 are in a standby mode awaiting restart, and Mine Units 9, 11 and 12 have yet to be constructed.
−Removed: The Company ’
−Removed: s Planned Work
−Removed: The Christensen Ranch Project Area is currently under care and maintenance, pending market conditions improving sufficiently to resume production.
+Added: Table 2.10 –
+Added: Mineral Resources for the Christensen Ranch Project as at the date of this Annual Report
+Added: Classification
+Added: (000 ’
+Added: (1000 ’
+Added: (% eU 3 O 8 )
+Added: (000 ’
+Added: Total Resources
+Added: The sum of resource tons and lbs.
+Added: may not add up to the reported total due to rounding.
+Added: Measured, indicated, and inferred mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300.
+Added: GT Cutoff = 0.25 m% eU 3 O 8
+Added: All reported resources occur below the static water table.
+Added: The point of reference for mineral resources is in-situ at the Project.
+Added: Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability
Moore Ranch ISR Project
−Removed: 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”, current on March 31, 2022, prepared by WWC, a qualified firm (the “QP”
+Added: 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”
+Added: 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.
+Added: Figure 2.5 –
+Added: Location of the Moore Ranch Project
Property Description
−Removed: The Moore Ranch Project Area is located in Campbell County, Wyoming, the southern portion of the Pumpkin Buttes within the PRB.
+Added: 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.
−Removed: The Moore Ranch Project Area is 54 air miles northeast of Casper, Wyoming, and 24 miles southwest of Wright, WY, along State Highway 387.
+Added: 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.
−Removed: Map of UEC Project Areas
−Removed: This Moore Ranch Project Area is owned and operated by UEC.
−Removed: UEC has executed surface use and access agreements and fee mineral leases with landowners who hold surface and mineral ownership within and outside the various Moore Ranch Project Area boundaries.
−Removed: UEC also holds unpatented BLM lode claims and leases on Wyoming state land on the project area.
−Removed: Mineral rights for the Moore Ranch Project Area are a combination of federally administered minerals (unpatented lode claims), State of Wyoming mineral leases and private (fee) mineral leases.
−Removed: Federal mining claims were staked and recorded consistent with federal and state law, state mineral leases were obtained by submitting a lease application and appropriate fee to the State Board of Land Commissioners and fee mineral leases were obtained through negotiation with individual mineral owners.
−Removed: Property Characteristics Summary
−Removed: State of Wyoming
−Removed: Mining Claims
−Removed: Leases/Claims
−Removed: Total Annual Cost
−Removed: Within the Moore Ranch Project Area, UEC holds two State of Wyoming uranium leases on state lands and 86 unpatented lode claims on federally administered minerals.
−Removed: There are five fee (private) mineral leases with private mineral owners on the Moore Ranch Project Area.
−Removed: Payments for the state and private lease and BLM mining claim filing payments are up to date, as of the effective date of the TRS.
−Removed: Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography
−Removed: The Moore Ranch Project Area is within Campbell County, Wyoming.
−Removed: This county resides in the Wyoming Basin Physiographic Province in the southern portion of the PRB.
−Removed: This site generally lies near the synclinal axis of the basin.
−Removed: The PRB is a part of the Northwestern Great Plains eco-region, a semi-arid rolling plain of shale and sandstone punctuated by occasional buttes.
−Removed: Regional structural features also include the Big Horn Mountains to the west, Casper Arch to the south and the Black Hills to the east.
−Removed: In the northern Moore Ranch Project Area, the landscape is dominated by the Pumpkin Buttes.
−Removed: Topography in the Moore Ranch Project Area ranges from generally flat to gently rolling hills, with numerous drainages containing ephemeral streams dissecting the Moore Ranch Project Area.
−Removed: Elevations ranges from approximately 4,500 ft to 5,400 ft above mean sea level.
−Removed: Vegetation within the Moore Ranch Project Area consists primarily of grassland, with areas of sagebrush.
−Removed: The Moore Ranch Project Area lies within the mixed grass eco-region of the Northwestern Great Plains.
−Removed: Interspersed among these major vegetation communities, within and along the ephemeral drainages, are grassland and meadow grassland and less abundant types of seeded grasslands (improved pastures).
−Removed: The Moore Ranch Project Area in the PRB is located in a semi-arid or steppe climate.
−Removed: The region is characterized by cold, harsh winters and hot, dry summers.
−Removed: The spring season is relatively warm and moist, and autumns are cool.
−Removed: Temperature extremes range from roughly -25°
−Removed: F in the winter to 100°
−Removed: F in the summer.
−Removed: Typically, the last freeze occurs during late May and the first freeze occurs in mid- to late September.
−Removed: Yearly precipitation in the PRB averages about 13 inches.
−Removed: The PRB is prone to severe thunderstorm events throughout the spring and early summer months, and much of the precipitation is attributed to these events.
−Removed: Snow falls throughout the winter months (approximately 40 to 50 inches per year), but provides much less moisture than rain events.
−Removed: The nearest community to the Moore Ranch Project Area is Wright, Wyoming a small, incorporated town with a population of 1,644 at the junction of Wyoming Highway 387 and Wyoming Highway 59.
−Removed: Gillette is a major local population center with a population of 33,403 and a regional airport.
−Removed: Gillette is located along Interstate 90, north and east of the Moore Ranch Project Area via both Wyoming Highway 59 (due north of Wright) and Wyoming Highway 50.
−Removed: The towns of Edgerton and Midwest are in Natrona County, approximately 20 to 30 miles southwest of the Moore Ranch Project Area on Wyoming Highway 387.
−Removed: A major north–south railroad, BNSF Railway, used primarily for transporting coal, lies east of the Moore Ranch Project Area and parallel to Wyoming Highway 59.
−Removed: Equipment and supplies needed for exploration and day-to-day operations are available from population centers such as Gillette and Casper.
−Removed: Specialized equipment for the wellfields will likely need to be acquired from outside of Wyoming.
−Removed: The local economy is geared toward coal mining and oil and gas production as well as ranching operations, providing a well-trained and capable pool of workers for ISR production and processing operations.
−Removed: Workers will reside locally and commute to work daily.
−Removed: As a result of energy development over the past 50 years, all the Moore Ranch Project Area has existing or nearby (less than two miles) electrical power, gas and adequate telephone and internet connectivity.
−Removed: At the Moore Ranch Project Area, non-potable water will be supplied by wells developed on or near the Moore Ranch Project Area.
−Removed: Water extracted as part of ISR will be recycled for reinjection.
−Removed: Four Class I Underground Injection Control (UIC) disposal wells have been permitted for disposal of limited quantities of fluids that cannot be returned to the production aquifers.
−Removed: The Moore Ranch Project Area is adjacent to paved, public roadways which facilitate the transportation of equipment, supplies, personnel and products.
−Removed: Electrical power lines extend into and across the Moore Ranch Project Area.
+Added: The site is accessible year-round via state, county and private roads which are shared by oil and gas operators and ranchers.
+Added: Services and personnel are available from Gillette or Casper.
+Added: Flight service is offered from Gillette or Casper with daily service to Denver, Billings and Salt Lake City.
+Added: Water will be sourced locally while electrical service will be provided by a regional power company.
+Added: 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). 
+Added: These mineral holdings comprise 4,180 acres. 
+Added: All payments for all leases and claims are up to date.
Uranium was first discovered in the southern PRB during the early 1950s.
15 unchanged sentences
Wold and Kerr-McGee
−Removed: Conoco sold interests to Wold in 1983.
+Added: Conoco sold its interests to Wold in 1983.
Kerr-McGee retained the rights with Wold.
26 unchanged sentences
Ownership transition.
−Removed: Permitting and Licensing
−Removed: The Moore Ranch Project Area is fully permitted through the WDEQ/LQD.
+Added: Property Condition and Proposed Development
+Added: The condition of the property is good while meeting all standards and requirements of Federal, State and local regulations.
+Added: Development is in the planning stage with no immediate plans for exploration or delineation drilling.
+Added: Facilities, Infrastructure and Underground Development
+Added: Facilities or wellfields have not been constructed to date.
+Added: Power lines are constructed and accessible in the area.
+Added: Permit Status and Encumbrances
+Added: The Moore Ranch Project is permitted under WDEQ Permit to Mine No.
+Added: The project is also licensed under WDEQ Radioactive Materials License WYSUA-1596, formerly a U.S.
+Added: NRC license. 
+Added: Wyoming became an Agreement State for NRC regulation in 2018. 
+Added: Permit to Mine No.
+Added: 777 and Radioactive Materials License WYSUA-1596 are in good standing, with no violations of permit or license conditions. 
+Added: Mining permit requirements can be found in Wyoming Statutes §35-11-400 through 437, with specific laws for ISR mining in sections 426 –
+Added: Conditions of the Radioactive Materials License applicable to ISR mining are generally standard for all licensees. 
+Added: 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. 
+Added: There are no materially significant encumbrances on the Moore Ranch Project. 
+Added: Standard encumbrances include reclamation bonding, mining and surface lease royalties.
Geologic Setting, Mineralization and Deposit
−Removed: The Moore Ranch Project Area resides in the PRB.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: The PRB is filled with marine, non-marine and continental sediments ranging in age from early Paleozoic through Cenozoic.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: However, Flores divides the Fort Union into three members:
−Removed: and Tongue River members (listed from oldest to youngest);
−Removed: The Tullock member consists of sandstone, siltstone and sparse coal and carbonaceous shale.
−Removed: The Lebo member consists of abundant drab gray mudstone, minor siltstone and sandstone and sparse coal and carbonaceous shale beds.
−Removed: The Tongue River member consists of interbedded sandstone, conglomerate, siltstone, mudstone, limestone, anomalously thick coal beds and carbonaceous shale beds.
−Removed: This member has been mined extensively for its coal beds which can be hundreds of feet thick.
−Removed: Uranium mineralization occurs in zones that are located in channel sands of the Fort Union Formation.
−Removed: These channel sands are typical fining upward sand sequences consisting of fine-grained sandstones.
−Removed: The zones of mineralization are formed as typical roll-front deposits in these sandstones.
−Removed: The early Eocene Wasatch Formation unconformably overlies the Fort Union Formation around the margins of the PRB.
−Removed: However, the two formations are conformable and gradational towards the basin center.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: The Wasatch-Fort Union contact is separated by Paleocene and Eocene rocks and is generally placed above the Roland coal.
−Removed: However, other authors have placed the Wasatch-Fort Union contact above the School, Badger and Anderson Coals in other parts of the PRB.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: The sandstone horizons in the Wasatch Formation are the host rocks for several uranium deposits in the central PRB.
−Removed: Within this area, mineralization is found in a 50- to 100-ft thick sandstone lens.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: The Wasatch Formation reaches a maximum thickness of about 1,600 ft and dips northwestward from one degree to two-and-a-half degrees in the southern and central parts of the PRB.
−Removed: The Oligocene White River Formation overlies the Wasatch Formation and has been removed from most of the PRB by erosion.
−Removed: Remnants of this unit crop out on the Pumpkin Buttes, and at the extreme southern edge of the PRB.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: The youngest sediments consist of Quaternary alluvial sands and gravels locally present in larger valleys.
−Removed: Quaternary eolian sands can also be found locally.
The Moore Ranch Project Area targets mineralization in the Eocene-aged Wasatch Formation.
9 unchanged sentences
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.
−Removed: The mineralized host sand lies 5 to 30 ft below this coal bed and at a depth of 200–350 ft below the surface.
−Removed: The host sandstone is 80-150 ft thick.
+Added: The mineralized host sand lies 5 to 30 feet below this coal bed and at a depth of 200–350 feet below the surface.
+Added: The host sandstone is 80-150 feet thick.
Uranium mineralization at the Moore Ranch Project Area is typical of Wyoming roll-front sandstone deposits.
10 unchanged sentences
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.
−Removed: Data Verification
−Removed: Data used for the resource estimate at the Moore Ranch Project Area consisted of drill maps, cross-sections, geophysical logs and lithologic logs developed by Conoco, a major US company, intent on developing the property as a production center.
−Removed: Standard industry methods were used at the time of data collection.
−Removed: Paper records of historic radiometric data were input into a spreadsheet.
−Removed: Radiometric log interpretation was spot checked for the higher-grade intercepts.
−Removed: Historic drill hole locations were verified by plotting their coordinates and checking against original maps.
−Removed: Historic drill hole location coordinates were then converted to match the North American Datum (“NAD”) 83 coordinate system for recent drill holes.
−Removed: Approximately 10% of the historic drill holes were resurveyed.
−Removed: Recent drill hole data included collar elevation, collar location, grade and elevation of mineralized intercepts, bottom hole elevation and locations that had utilized modern survey grade GPS equipment.
−Removed: Confirmation drilling by way of offset holes has been conducted by previous owners to validate historic data.
−Removed: Since no historic core samples exist for verification, core drilling of the Moore Ranch Project Area was conducted in 2006 and 2008.
−Removed: The cores were assayed to verify historic data and two were used for leach testing.
−Removed: WWC prepared an independent Canadian NI 43-101 technical report on resources for this Moore Ranch Project Area in April of 2019 (WWC, 2019a).
−Removed: The current resource estimate is based, in part, on that report.
−Removed: Mineral Resource Estimates
−Removed: The following key assumptions were used for resource estimates, unless otherwise noted:
−Removed: resources are located in permeable and porous sandstones;
−Removed: resources are located below the water table.
−Removed: The GT contour method was used to estimate resources at the Moore Ranch Project Area.
−Removed: The GT contour method is one of the most widely used and dependable methods to estimate resources in uranium roll-front deposits.
−Removed: The basis of the GT contour method is the GT (grade x mineralized thickness) values, which are determined for each drill hole using radiometric log results and a suitable GT cutoff, below which the GT value is considered to be zero.
−Removed: The GT values are then plotted on a drill hole map and GT contours are drawn accordingly using roll-front data derived from cuttings and the nature of the gamma anomalies.
−Removed: The resources are calculated from the area within the GT contour boundaries considering the DEF and the ore zone density.
−Removed: The resource estimate methods, general parameters and mineralized cutoffs used at the Moore Ranch Project Area are summarized below.
−Removed: Moore Ranch Project Area Resource Estimate Methodology
−Removed: Cutoff Parameters
−Removed: Mineral Resource
−Removed: Estimation Method
−Removed: Disequilibrium
−Removed: GT Contour Method
−Removed: Cutoff parameters are discrete and therefore the GT cutoff is not necessarily the product of cutoff grade and cutoff thickness.
−Removed: Based on the depths of mineralization, average grade, thickness and GT, it is the TRS QP’s opinion that the mineral resources of the Moore Ranch Project Area can be recoverable by ISR methods using a long-term uranium price of $40/lb.
−Removed: Uranium does not trade on the open market and many of the private sales contracts are not publicly disclosed.
−Removed: UEC used $40/lb as the forecast uranium price for the Moore Ranch Project Area.
−Removed: This is based on:
−Removed: (i) the long-term contract price at the end of February 2022, which was $43.88/lb from Cameco Resources’
−Removed: combination of UxC and Trade Tech reports;
−Removed: (ii) the spot price at the end of February 2022 ($48.75/lb);
−Removed: (iii) UxC’s price forecast;
−Removed: and (iv) UEC’s understanding of market expectations.
−Removed: The table below contains the UxC uranium price forecast for Q4 of 2021.
−Removed: UxC Q4 2021 Uranium Price Forecast ($/lb U 3 O 8 )
−Removed: UxC Market Outlook Q4 2021
−Removed: UxC High Price Midpoint
−Removed: UxC Low Price Midpoint
−Removed: UxC Mid Price Midpoint
−Removed: In the opinion of the TRS QP, $40/lb is a conservative forecast price for the following reasons:
−Removed: first, at the issuance date, both the long-term price and spot price are greater than $40/lb;
−Removed: second, new physical uranium investment vehicles were created in 2021, such as the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust and the upcoming physical uranium fund backed by Kazatomprom, the National Bank of Kazakhstan and Genchi Global Ltd., which effectively remove uranium supply from the market;
−Removed: third, the increasing demand for carbon-free energy and global plans to construct new nuclear reactors will increase demand for uranium;
−Removed: finally, there has already been a steady increase in the uranium price for the last three years with a sharp rise to greater than $40/lb in the second half of 2021, due in part to increased demand from the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust.
−Removed: Due to recent volatility in the uranium market, the QP believes that a conservative forecast price is justified.
−Removed: For the above reasons, the TRS QP also believes that a $40/lb price is considered reasonable by the QP for use in cutoff determination and to assess reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction.
−Removed: Measured, indicated and inferred resource classifications at the Moore Ranch Project Area are defined by the density of the drill hole data.
−Removed: Higher drill hole densities allow more confidence in the shape and size of the interpreted mineral horizons.
−Removed: The table below details the resource classification criteria used in the resource estimates in each of the Moore Ranch Project Area.
−Removed: Moore Ranch Project Area Drill Hole Information
−Removed: Distance Between Drill Hole Locations
−Removed: for Resource Classifications (ft)
−Removed: 0 – 70
−Removed: 70 – 200
−Removed: 200 – 400
−Removed: There are numerous reasons that mineralization was interpreted as measured resources within the Moore Ranch Project Area:
−Removed: first, the drill hole spacing used to classify the measured resource is generally less than or equal to the 100 ft well spacing in a typical production pattern, which enables a detailed wellfield design to be completed;
−Removed: second, the sub-surface geology within the Moore Ranch Project Area is very well characterized with aquifers that correlate, consistent host sandstone intervals and reliable aquitards across the resource areas;
−Removed: third, mineralization occurs along the redox interface, and the oxidized sands have different coloration than the reduced sands.
−Removed: These color variations are visible in drill cuttings and are used to map the redox interface and to guide drilling and wellfield design;
−Removed: finally, historic production has occurred both commercially and through research and development facilities at the Irigaray Project Area.
−Removed: This combination of drill hole spacing, well-known subsurface geology, well-understood deposit model, successful production and the variety of data collected led WWC, as the TRS QP, to conclude that the mineralization in areas with drill hole spacing tabulated above fit the definition for measured resources.
−Removed: Mineral resources were estimated separately for the Moore Ranch Project Area.
−Removed: The estimates of measured and indicated mineral resources for the Moore Ranch Project Area are reported in the table below.
−Removed: Moore Ranch Project Area Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources
−Removed: Mineral Resource
−Removed: Average Grade
−Removed: Total Measured and Indicated
−Removed: The estimates of inferred mineral resources are reported in the table below.
−Removed: Moore Ranch Project Area Inferred Mineral Resources
−Removed: Mineral Resource
−Removed: Average Grade
−Removed: Details regarding the mineral resource estimate disclosed herein can be found in Chapter 11, Mineral Resource Estimates of the TRS.
−Removed: Present Condition of Property and Work Completed to Date
−Removed: The Moore Ranch Project Area is currently under care and maintenance with the license renewal process in public notice.
−Removed: The Company ’
−Removed: s Planned Work
−Removed: The Company intends to continue to keep the Moore Ranch Project Area in a care and maintenance mode.
+Added: Table 2.12 –
+Added: Mineral Resources for the Moore Ranch Project as at the date of this Annual Report
+Added: Classification
+Added: (000 ’
+Added: (1000 ’
+Added: (% eU 3 O 8 )
+Added: (000 ’
+Added: Total Resources
+Added: The sum of resource tons and lbs.
+Added: may not add up to the reported total due to rounding.
+Added: Measured, indicated, and inferred mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300.
+Added: GT Cutoff = 0.3 m% eU 3 O 8
+Added: All reported resources occur below the static water table.
+Added: The point of reference for mineral resources is in-situ at the Project.
+Added: Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
Reno Creek ISR Project
−Removed: 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”, current on March 31, 2022, prepared by WWC, a qualified firm (the “QP”
−Removed: The Reno Creek 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.
+Added: 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”
+Added: The Reno Creek Project Area does not have mineral reserves and is therefore considered an Exploration Stage property under S-K 1300 definitions.
+Added: Figure 2.6 - Location of the Reno Creek Project
Property Description
−Removed: The Reno Creek Project Area is in Campbell County, Wyoming, within the PRB.
+Added: 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.
3 unchanged sentences
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.
−Removed: Map of UEC Project Areas
−Removed: This Reno Creek Project Area is owned and operated by UEC.
−Removed: UEC has executed surface use and access agreements and fee mineral leases with landowners who hold surface and mineral ownership within and outside the various Reno Creek Project Area boundaries.
−Removed: UEC also holds unpatented BLM lode claims and leases on Wyoming state land on the project area.
−Removed: Mineral rights for the Reno Creek Project Area are a combination of federally administered minerals (unpatented lode claims), State of Wyoming mineral leases and (fee) private mineral leases.
−Removed: Federal mining claims were staked and recorded consistent with federal and state law, state mineral leases were obtained by submitting a lease application and appropriate fee to the State Board of Land Commissioners, and fee mineral leases were obtained through negotiation with individual mineral owners.
−Removed: Property Characteristics Summary
−Removed: State of Wyoming
−Removed: Fee Mineral Leases
−Removed: Mining Claims
−Removed: Leases/Claims
−Removed: Total Annual Cost
−Removed: Within the Reno Creek Project Area, UEC holds four State of Wyoming uranium leases on state lands and 549 unpatented lode claims on federally (BLM) administered minerals.
−Removed: The BLM administers no surface rights at the Reno Creek Project Area, only mineral rights.
−Removed: UEC has 36 fee (private) mineral leases on the Reno Creek Project Area.
−Removed: Payments for the state and private lease and BLM mining claim filing payments are up to date, as of the effective date of the TRS.
−Removed: Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography
−Removed: The Reno Creek Project Area is within Campbell County, Wyoming.
−Removed: This county resides in the Wyoming Basin Physiographic Province in the southern portion of the PRB.
−Removed: This site generally lies near the synclinal axis of the basin.
−Removed: The PRB is a part of the Northwestern Great Plains eco-region, a semiarid rolling plain of shale and sandstone punctuated by occasional buttes.
−Removed: Regional structural features also include the Big Horn Mountains to the west, Casper Arch to the south, and the Black Hills to the east.
−Removed: In the Reno Creek Project Area, the landscape is dominated by the Pumpkin Buttes.
−Removed: Topography in the Reno Creek Project Area ranges from generally flat to gently rolling hills, with numerous drainages containing ephemeral streams dissecting the Reno Creek Project Area.
−Removed: Elevations ranges from approximately 4,500 to 5,400 ft above mean sea level.
−Removed: Vegetation within the Reno Creek Project Area consists primarily of grassland, with areas of sagebrush.
−Removed: The Reno Creek Project Area lies within the mixed grass eco-region of the Northwestern Great Plains.
−Removed: Interspersed among these major vegetation communities, within and along the ephemeral drainages, are grassland and meadow grassland and less abundant types of seeded grasslands (improved pastures).
−Removed: The Reno Creek Project Area in the PRB is located in a semi-arid or steppe climate.
−Removed: The region is characterized by cold, harsh winters and hot, dry summers.
−Removed: The spring season is relatively warm and moist, and autumns are cool.
−Removed: Temperature extremes range from roughly -25°
−Removed: F in the winter to 100°
−Removed: F in the summer.
−Removed: Typically, the “last freeze”
−Removed: occurs during late May and the “first freeze”
−Removed: occurs in mid- to late September.
−Removed: Yearly precipitation in the PRB averages about 13 inches.
−Removed: The PRB is prone to severe thunderstorm events throughout the spring and early summer months, and much of the precipitation is attributed to these events.
−Removed: Snow falls throughout the winter months (approximately 40 to 50 inches per year), but provides much less moisture than rain events.
−Removed: The nearest community to the Reno Creek Project Area is Wright, Wyoming, a small, incorporated town with a population of 1,644 at the junction of Wyoming Highway 387 and Wyoming Highway 59.
−Removed: Gillette is a major local population center with a population of 33,403 and a regional airport.
−Removed: Gillette is located along Interstate 90, north and east of the Reno Creek Project Area via both Wyoming Highway 59 (due north of Wright) and Wyoming Highway 50.
−Removed: The towns of Edgerton and Midwest are in Natrona County, approximately 20 to 30 miles southwest of the Reno Creek Project Area on Wyoming Highway 387.
−Removed: A major north–south railroad, BNSF Railway, used primarily for transporting coal, lies east of the Reno Creek Project Area and parallel to Wyoming Highway 59.
−Removed: Equipment and supplies needed for exploration and day-to-day operations are available from population centers such as Gillette and Casper.
−Removed: Specialized equipment for the wellfields will likely need to be acquired from outside of Wyoming.
−Removed: The local economy is geared toward coal mining and oil and gas production as well as ranching operations, providing a well-trained and capable pool of workers for ISR production and processing operations.
−Removed: Workers will reside locally and commute to work daily.
−Removed: As a result of energy development over the past 50 years, the Reno Creek Project Area has existing or nearby (less than two miles) electrical power, gas and adequate telephone and internet connectivity.
−Removed: UEC owns 40 acres of land near the intersection of Wyoming State Highway 387 and the Clarkelen County Road to build and operate a future satellite facility.
−Removed: This land is equipped with a warehouse and office, power, telephone, water tank and domestic waste disposal.
−Removed: A well will be drilled to provide potable water for the Reno Creek Project Area.
+Added: The site is accessible year-round via state, county and private roads which are shared by oil and gas operators and ranchers.
+Added: Services and personnel are available from Gillette or Casper.
+Added: Flight service is offered from Gillette or Casper with daily service to Denver, Billings, and Salt Lake City.
+Added: Water will be sourced locally while electrical service will be provided by a regional power company.
+Added: 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). 
+Added: The mineral holdings comprise 18,763 acres. 
+Added: All payments for all leases and claims are up to date.
Uranium was first discovered in the southern PRB during the early 1950s.
18 unchanged sentences
Energy Fuels Nuclear Inc.
−Removed: acquired RME's North Reno Creek Resource Area and later became International Uranium Corporation.
+Added: acquired RME’s North Reno Creek Resource Area and later became International Uranium Corporation.
Acquisition of the Reno Creek Project Area.
11 unchanged sentences
Auditing of project resources.
−Removed: Historic Ownership and Operations at the Reno Creek Project Area
−Removed: Operations/Activity
−Removed: of Drill holes)
−Removed: Results of Work
Reno Creek –
28 unchanged sentences
Auditing of the Reno Creek Project Area resources.
−Removed: Permitting and Licensing
−Removed: The Reno Creek Project Area is fully permitted through the WDEQ/LQD.
+Added: Property Condition and Proposed Development
+Added: The condition of the property is good while meeting all standards and requirements of Federal, State and local regulations.
+Added: Development is in the planning stage with no immediate plans for exploration or delineation drilling.
+Added: Facilities, Infrastructure and Underground Development
+Added: Facilities or wellfields have not been constructed.
+Added: Permit Status and Encumbrances
+Added: The Reno Project is permitted under WDEQ Permit to Mine No.
+Added: The project is also licensed under WDEQ Radioactive Materials License WYSUA-1602, formerly a U.S.
+Added: NRC license. 
+Added: Wyoming became an Agreement State for NRC regulation in 2018. 
+Added: Permit to Mine No.
+Added: 824 and Radioactive Materials License WYSUA-1602 are in good standing, with no violations of permit or license conditions. 
+Added: Mining permit requirements can be found in Wyoming Statutes §35-11-400 through 437, with specific laws for ISR mining in sections 426 –
+Added: Conditions of the Radioactive Materials License applicable to ISR mining are generally standard for all licensees. 
+Added: 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. 
+Added: There are no materially significant encumbrances on the Reno Creek Project. 
+Added: Standard encumbrances include reclamation bonding, mining and surface lease royalties.
Geologic Setting, Mineralization and Deposit
−Removed: The Reno Creek Project Area resides in the PRB.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: The PRB is filled with marine, non-marine and continental sediments ranging in age from early Paleozoic through Cenozoic.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: However, Flores divides the Fort Union into three members:
−Removed: and Tongue River members (listed from oldest to youngest);
−Removed: The Tullock member consists of sandstone, siltstone and sparse coal and carbonaceous shale.
−Removed: The Lebo member consists of abundant drab gray mudstone, minor siltstone and sandstone and sparse coal and carbonaceous shale beds.
−Removed: The Tongue River member consists of interbedded sandstone, conglomerate, siltstone, mudstone, limestone, anomalously thick coal beds and carbonaceous shale beds.
−Removed: This member has been mined extensively for its coal beds which can be hundreds of feet thick.
−Removed: Uranium mineralization occurs in zones that are located in channel sands of the Fort Union Formation.
−Removed: These channel sands are typical fining upward sand sequences consisting of fine-grained sandstones.
−Removed: The zones of mineralization are formed as typical roll-front deposits in these sandstones.
−Removed: The early Eocene Wasatch Formation unconformably overlies the Fort Union Formation around the margins of the PRB.
−Removed: However, the two formations are conformable and gradational towards the basin center.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: The Wasatch-Fort Union contact is separated by Paleocene and Eocene rocks and is generally placed above the Roland coal.
−Removed: However, other authors have placed the Wasatch-Fort Union contact above the School, Badger and Anderson Coals in other parts of the PRB.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: The sandstone horizons in the Wasatch Formation are the host rocks for several uranium deposits in the central PRB.
−Removed: Within this area, mineralization is found in a 50- to 100-ft thick sandstone lens.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: The Wasatch Formation reaches a maximum thickness of about 1,600 ft and dips northwestward from one degree to two-and-a-half degrees in the southern and central parts of the PRB.
−Removed: The Oligocene White River Formation overlies the Wasatch Formation and has been removed from most of the PRB by erosion.
−Removed: Remnants of this unit crop out on the Pumpkin Buttes, and at the extreme southern edge of the PRB.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: The youngest sediments consist of Quaternary alluvial sands and gravels locally present in larger valleys.
−Removed: Quaternary eolian sands can also be found locally.
The Reno Creek Project Area targets mineralization in the Eocene-aged Wasatch Formation.
−Removed: Mineralization in the Reno Creek Project Area occurs in fluvial sandstones of the lower parts of the Wasatch Formation.
−Removed: Most of the upper Wasatch Formation has been eroded away.
−Removed: The sandstones are arkosic, fine- to coarse-grained with local calcareous lenses.
−Removed: The sandstones contain minor amounts of organic carbon that occurs as dispersed bits or as stringers.
+Added: Mineralization in the Reno Creek Project Area occurs in fluvial sandstones of the lower parts of the Wasatch Formation. 
+Added: Most of the upper Wasatch Formation has been eroded away. 
+Added: The sandstones are arkosic, fine- to coarse-grained with local calcareous lenses. 
+Added: 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.
5 unchanged sentences
The Felix Coal seams, and the underlying Badger Coal seam, provide important correlation points across the Reno Creek Project Area.
−Removed: 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 ft thick.
−Removed: Stacking of depositional cycles resulted in sandstone body accumulations over 200 ft thick.
+Added: 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.
+Added: 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.
10 unchanged sentences
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.
−Removed: Data Verification
−Removed: WWC prepared an independent TRS titled “S-K 1300 Initial Assessment Mineral Resource Report Reno Creek Project Campbell County, WY USA”, which was completed and was current on March 31, 2022.
−Removed: That TRS details the resource estimate data verification for the Reno Creek Project Area.
−Removed: A summary of the data verification found in that TRS is provided below.
−Removed: The UEC database contains 10,151 drill holes drilled by RCH and other former operators on and adjacent to the resource areas.
−Removed: Electric log gamma data are available for more than 75% of these holes, and interval data (thickness, grade, and grade-thickness) are available for about 95% of the mineralized holes.
−Removed: Approximately 50 drill holes were not used in the current resource estimate due to identification of problematic data during recent data validation processes.
−Removed: Data for 6,191 drill holes were used in the current resource estimate;
−Removed: however, more or less all of the holes supported geological model construction, so essentially all holes were used to support mineral resource estimation.
−Removed: Within the data set, 6,061 holes are within the Reno Creek Project Area.
−Removed: The drill hole data consists of logs, surveys and data generated for those holes.
−Removed: UEC personnel entered the data into the database and constantly monitored data quality during data entry and when data are extracted for any purposes.
−Removed: As previously discussed, industry standard methods were utilized at the time of data collection.
−Removed: Available data were from drill maps, cross sections, geophysical logs and lithologic logs.
−Removed: WWC has worked with UEC contacts to obtain and verify exploration drilling and sampling data was complete, thorough and accurate.
−Removed: Geophysical logs for historic drill holes were analyzed and evaluated for completeness and sufficiently quality check in the process of developing the drill hole database for the resource modeling.
−Removed: Surveyed monuments or markers documenting the location of abandoned drill holes were not able to be physically inspected during the site visit, however, the database of drill hole locations was checked against the hole location identified on geophysical logs.
−Removed: Mineral Resource Estimates
−Removed: The following key assumptions were used for resource estimates, unless otherwise noted:
−Removed: resources are located in permeable and porous sandstones;
−Removed: resources are located below the water table.
−Removed: The estimation method was a two-dimensional (2D) Delaunay Triangulation implemented in RockWorks, a comprehensive software program for creating 2D and 3D maps and is an industry standard in the environmental, geotechnical, petroleum and mining industries.
−Removed: The Delaunay Triangulation method connects data points (drill holes) via a triangular network with one data point at each triangle vertex and constructs the triangles as close to equilateral as possible.
−Removed: Once the network was determined, the slope of each triangular plate was computed using the three vertex point values.
−Removed: Next, a 25 ft x 25 ft grid was superimposed over the triangular network, and each grid node (grid center) was assigned a Z-value, based on the intercept of the node and the sloping triangular plate.
−Removed: Only grid nodes falling within the boundary of the triangular network (convex hull) were estimated.
−Removed: The distance of the grid node from a drill hole location was computed and used to determine whether the node was located within UEC’s property boundary.
−Removed: Triangulations and grids for both grade and thickness were constructed.
−Removed: Next, the thickness and grade grids were multiplied to obtain a GT grid.
−Removed: Finally, the mineral resource classification criteria was applied to the GT grid to obtain a classified mineral resource.
−Removed: Resource pounds were determined by taking the average GT in each GT contour interval and multiplying it by the area and a conversion factor, then dividing that value by the tonnage factor.
−Removed: The resource estimate methods, general parameters and mineralized cutoffs used at the Reno Creek Project Area are summarized below.
−Removed: Reno Creek Project Area Resource Estimate Methodology
−Removed: Cutoff Parameters
−Removed: Mineral Resource
−Removed: Estimation Method
−Removed: Disequilibrium
−Removed: Delaunay Triangulation Method
−Removed: Cutoff parameters are discrete and therefore the GT cutoff is not necessarily the product of cutoff grade and cutoff thickness.
−Removed: Based on the depths of mineralization, average grade, thickness and GT, it is the TRS QP’s opinion that the mineral resources of the Reno Creek Project Area can be recoverable by ISR methods using a long-term uranium price of $40/lb.
−Removed: Uranium does not trade on the open market and many of the private sales contracts are not publicly disclosed.
−Removed: UEC used $40/lb as the forecast uranium price for the Reno Creek Project Area.
−Removed: This is based on:
−Removed: (i) the long-term contract price at the end of February 2022, which was $43.88/lb from Cameco Resources’
−Removed: combination of UxC and Trade Tech reports (Cameco, 2022);
−Removed: (ii) the spot price at the end of February 2022 ($48.75/lb);
−Removed: (iii) UxC’s price forecast;
−Removed: and (iv) UEC’s understanding of market expectations.
−Removed: The table below contains the UxC uranium price forecast for Q4 of 2021.
−Removed: UxC Q4 2021 Uranium Price Forecast ($/lb U3O8)
−Removed: UxC Market Outlook Q4 2021
−Removed: UxC High Price Midpoint
−Removed: UxC Low Price Midpoint
−Removed: UxC Mid Price Midpoint
−Removed: In the opinion of the TRS QP, $40/lb is a conservative forecast price for the following reasons:
−Removed: first, at the issuance date, both the long-term price and spot price are greater than $40/lb;
−Removed: second, new physical uranium investment vehicles were created in 2021, such as the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust and the upcoming physical uranium fund backed by Kazatomprom, the National Bank of Kazakhstan and Genchi Global Ltd., which effectively remove uranium supply from the market;
−Removed: third, the increasing demand for carbon-free energy and global plans to construct new nuclear reactors will increase demand for uranium;
−Removed: finally, there has already been a steady increase in the uranium price for the last three years with a sharp rise to greater than $40/lb in the second half of 2021 due in part to increased demand from the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust.
−Removed: Due to recent volatility in the uranium market, the QP believes that a conservative forecast price is justified.
−Removed: For the above reasons, the TRS QP also believes that a $40/lb price is considered reasonable by the QP for use in cutoff determination and to assess reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction.
−Removed: Measured, indicated and inferred resource classifications at the Reno Creek Project Area are defined by the density of the drill hole data.
−Removed: Higher drill hole densities allow more confidence in the shape and size of the interpreted mineral horizons.
−Removed: The table below details the resource classification criteria used in the resource estimates in each of the Reno Creek Project Area.
−Removed: Reno Creek Project Area Drill Hole Information
−Removed: Distance Between Drill Hole Locations
−Removed: for Resource Classifications (ft)
−Removed: 0 – 50
−Removed: 50 – 250
−Removed: 250 – 500
−Removed: There are numerous reasons that mineralization was interpreted as measured resources within the Reno Creek Project Area:
−Removed: first, the drill hole spacing used to classify the measured resource is generally less than or equal to the 100 ft well spacing in a typical production pattern, which enables a detailed wellfield design to be completed;
−Removed: second, the sub-surface geology within the Reno Creek Project Area is very well characterized with aquifers that correlate, consistent host sandstone intervals, and reliable aquitards across the resource areas;
−Removed: third, mineralization occurs along the redox interface, and the oxidized sands have different coloration than the reduced sands.
−Removed: These color variations are visible in drill cuttings and are used to map the redox interface and to guide drilling and wellfield design;
−Removed: finally, historic production has occurred both commercially and through research and development facilities at the Reno Creek Project Area.
−Removed: This combination of drill hole spacing, well-known subsurface geology, well-understood deposit model, successful production and the variety of data collected led WWC, as the TRS QP, to conclude that the mineralization in areas with drill hole spacing tabulated above fit the definition for measured resources.
−Removed: Mineral resources were estimated separately for the Reno Creek Project Area.
−Removed: The estimates of measured and indicated mineral resources for the Reno Creek Project Area are reported in the table below and the estimates of inferred mineral resources are reported in the table following.
−Removed: Reno Creek Project Area Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources
−Removed: Mineral Resource
−Removed: Average Grade
−Removed: Total Measured and Indicated
−Removed: Reno Creek Project Area Inferred Mineral Resources
−Removed: Mineral Resource
−Removed: Average Grade
−Removed: Details regarding the mineral resource estimate disclosed herein can be found in Chapter 11, Mineral Resource Estimates of the TRS.
−Removed: Present Condition of Property and Work Completed to Date
−Removed: The Reno Creek Project Area is currently under care and maintenance with additional areas currently being added to the Reno Creek Project Area through the amendment process overseen by the state of Wyoming.
−Removed: The Company ’
−Removed: s Planned Work
−Removed: The Company plans to complete permit and license amendments to add new mineable acreage to the Reno Creek Project Area.
−Removed: Drilling plans are also in the initial stages of development.
+Added: Table 2.14 –
+Added: Mineral Resources for the Reno Creek Project as at the date of this Annual Report
+Added: Classification
+Added: (000 ’
+Added: (1000 ’
+Added: (% eU 3 O 8 )
+Added: (000 ’
+Added: Total Resources
+Added: The sum of resources tons and lbs.
+Added: may not add up to the reported total due to rounding.
+Added: Measured, indicated, and inferred mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300.
+Added: GT Cutoff = 0.20 m% eU 3 O 8
+Added: All reported resources occur below the static water table.
+Added: The point of reference for mineral resources is in-situ at the Project.
+Added: Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
Ludeman ISR Project
−Removed: The following technical and scientific description for the Ludeman Project (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”, current on March 31, 2022, prepared by WWC, a qualified firm (the “QP”
+Added: 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”
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.
+Added: Figure 2.7 –
+Added: Location of the Ludeman Project
Property Description
−Removed: The Ludeman Project Area is located in Converse County, Wyoming, in the southern portion of the PRB.
+Added: 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.
3 unchanged sentences
The Ludeman Project Area is primarily located on private surface land with some areas of Federal or state lands.
−Removed: Map of UEC Project Areas
−Removed: This Ludeman Project Area is owned and operated by UEC.
−Removed: UEC has executed surface use and access agreements and fee mineral leases with landowners who hold surface and mineral ownership within and outside the various Ludeman Project Area boundaries.
−Removed: UEC also holds unpatented BLM lode claims and leases on Wyoming state land on the Ludeman Project Area.
−Removed: Mineral rights for the Ludeman Project Area are a combination of federally administered minerals (unpatented lode claims), State of Wyoming mineral leases and private (fee) mineral leases.
−Removed: Federal mining claims were staked and recorded consistent with federal and state law, state mineral leases were obtained by submitting a lease application and appropriate fee to the State Board of Land Commissioners, and fee mineral leases were obtained through negotiation with individual mineral owners.
−Removed: Property Characteristics Summary
−Removed: State of Wyoming
−Removed: Fee Mineral Leases
−Removed: Mining Claims
−Removed: Leases/Claims
−Removed: Total Annual Cost
−Removed: Within the Ludeman Project Area, UEC holds four State of Wyoming uranium leases on state lands with a combined acreage of 1,440 acres.
−Removed: UEC also holds 746 unpatented lode claims on federally administered minerals.
−Removed: An additional two fee mineral leases are held with private mineral owners.
−Removed: In total, the project mineral holdings total approximately 20,768 acres in the Ludeman Project Area.
−Removed: Payments for state and private leases and BLM mining claim filing payments are up to date, as of the effective date of the TRS.
−Removed: Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography
−Removed: The Ludeman Project Area is within Converse County, Wyoming.
−Removed: This county resides in the Wyoming Basin Physiographic Province in the southern portion of the PRB.
−Removed: This site generally lies near the synclinal axis of the basin.
−Removed: The PRB is a part of the Northwestern Great Plains eco-region, a semi-arid rolling plain of shale and sandstone punctuated by occasional buttes.
−Removed: Regional structural features also include the Big Horn Mountains to the west, Casper Arch to the south, and the Black Hills to the east.
−Removed: In the Ludeman Project Area, the landscape is dominated by the Pumpkin Buttes.
−Removed: Topography in the Ludeman Project Area ranges from generally flat to gently rolling hills, with numerous drainages containing ephemeral streams dissecting the Ludeman Project Area.
−Removed: Elevations ranges from approximately 4,500 to 5,400 ft above mean sea level.
−Removed: Vegetation within the Ludeman Project Area consists primarily of grassland, with areas of sagebrush.
−Removed: The Ludeman Project Area lies within the mixed grass eco-region of the Northwestern Great Plains.
−Removed: Interspersed among these major vegetation communities, within and along the ephemeral drainages, are grassland and meadow grassland and less abundant types of seeded grasslands (improved pastures).
−Removed: The Ludeman Project Area in the PRB is located in a semi-arid or steppe climate.
−Removed: The region is characterized by cold, harsh winters and hot, dry summers.
−Removed: The spring season is relatively warm and moist, and autumns are cool.
−Removed: Temperature extremes range from roughly -25°
−Removed: F in the winter to 100°
−Removed: F in the summer.
−Removed: Typically, the “last freeze”
−Removed: occurs during late May and the “first freeze”
−Removed: occurs in mid- to late September.
−Removed: Yearly precipitation in the PRB averages about 13 inches.
−Removed: The PRB is prone to severe thunderstorm events throughout the spring and early summer months, and much of the precipitation is attributed to these events.
−Removed: Snow falls throughout the winter months (approximately 40 to 50 inches per year), but provides much less moisture than rain events.
−Removed: Equipment and supplies needed for exploration and day-to-day operations are available from population centers such as Douglas, Glenrock and Casper.
−Removed: Specialized equipment for the wellfields will likely need to be acquired from outside of Wyoming.
−Removed: The local economy is geared toward coal mining and oil and gas production as well as ranching operations, providing a well-trained and capable pool of workers for ISR production and processing operations.
−Removed: Workers will reside locally and commute to work daily.
−Removed: As a result of energy development over the past 50 years, all the Ludeman Project Area have existing or nearby (less than two miles) electrical power, gas and adequate telephone and internet connectivity.
−Removed: The Ludeman Project Area has been historically used for livestock grazing.
−Removed: Nearby uranium operations have occurred historically.
−Removed: Non-potable water will be supplied by wells developed on or near the Ludeman Project Area.
−Removed: Water extracted as part of ISR operations will be recycled for reinjection.
−Removed: Ponds are the primary permitted wastewater disposal method at the Ludeman Project Area.
−Removed: However, typical ISR mining operations use disposal wells, which are permitted as a secondary wastewater disposal method at the Ludeman Project Area.
−Removed: The proximity of the Ludeman Project Area to paved roads will facilitate transportation of equipment, supplies, personnel and products.
−Removed: High voltage transmission lines from the Dave Johnston Power Plant pass within the Ludeman Project Area.
+Added: The site is accessible year-round on state and county roads.
+Added: 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.
+Added: Water will be sourced locally at the site while electrical service will be provided by a regional power company.
+Added: 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). 
+Added: These mineral holdings comprise 18,101.89 acres. 
+Added: All payments for all leases and claims are up to date.
Uranium was first discovered in the southern PRB during the early 1950s.
38 unchanged sentences
Consolidation through acquisition.
−Removed: Historic Ownership and operations at the Ludeman Project Area (Continued)
−Removed: Operations/Activity
−Removed: of Drill holes)
−Removed: Results of Work
Uranium One acquired Energy Metals in late 2007 and continued exploration of the Ludeman Project Area from 2007 through 2012.
6 unchanged sentences
Ownership transition.
−Removed: Permitting and Licensing
−Removed: The Ludeman Project Area is fully permitted through the WDEQ/LQD.
+Added: Property Condition and Proposed Development
+Added: The condition of the property is very good while meeting all standards and requirements of Federal, State and local regulations.
+Added: There are no immediate plans for exploration or delineation drilling.
+Added: Facilities, Infrastructure and Underground Development
+Added: The Ludeman property is fully permitted and licensed for commercial ISR production. 
+Added: The engineering and design work has been completed for the satellite plant, evaporation ponds, infrastructure, and the first Mine Unit. 
+Added: Construction of these facilities has not occurred to date.
+Added: Permit Status and Encumbrances
+Added: The Ludeman Project is permitted under WDEQ Permit to Mine No.
+Added: The project is also licensed under WDEQ Radioactive Materials License WYSUA-1341, formerly a U.S.
+Added: NRC license. 
+Added: Wyoming became an Agreement State for NRC regulation in 2018. 
+Added: Permit to Mine No.
+Added: 844 and Radioactive Materials License WYSUA-1341 are in good standing, with no violations of permit or license conditions. 
+Added: Mining permit requirements can be found in Wyoming Statutes §35-11-400 through 437, with specific laws for ISR mining in sections 426 –
+Added: Conditions of the Radioactive Materials License applicable to ISR mining are generally standard for all licensees. 
+Added: 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. 
+Added: There are no materially significant encumbrances on the Ludeman Project. 
+Added: Standard encumbrances include reclamation bonding, mining and surface lease royalties.
Geologic Setting, Mineralization, and Deposit
−Removed: The Ludeman Project Area resides in the PRB.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: The PRB is filled with marine, non-marine and continental sediments ranging in age from early Paleozoic through Cenozoic.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: However, Flores divides the Fort Union into three members:
−Removed: and Tongue River members (listed from oldest to youngest);
−Removed: The Tullock member consists of sandstone, siltstone and sparse coal and carbonaceous shale.
−Removed: The Lebo member consists of abundant drab gray mudstone, minor siltstone and sandstone and sparse coal and carbonaceous shale beds.
−Removed: The Tongue River member consists of interbedded sandstone, conglomerate, siltstone, mudstone, limestone, anomalously thick coal beds and carbonaceous shale beds.
−Removed: This member has been mined extensively for its coal beds which can be hundreds of feet thick.
−Removed: The total thickness of the Fort Union Formation varies between 2,000 and 3,500 ft.
−Removed: Uranium mineralization occurs in zones that are located in channel sands of the Fort Union Formation.
−Removed: These channel sands are typical fining upward sand sequences consisting of fine-grained sandstones.
−Removed: The zones of mineralization are formed as typical roll-front deposits in these sandstones.
−Removed: The early Eocene Wasatch Formation unconformably overlies the Fort Union Formation around the margins of the PRB.
−Removed: However, the two formations are conformable and gradational towards the basin center.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: The Wasatch-Fort Union contact is separated by Paleocene and Eocene rocks and is generally placed above the Roland coal.
−Removed: However, other authors have placed the Wasatch-Fort Union contact above the School, Badger and Anderson Coals in other parts of the PRB.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: The sandstone horizons in the Wasatch Formation are the host rocks for several uranium deposits in the central PRB.
−Removed: Within this area, mineralization is found in a 50- to 100-ft thick sandstone lens.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: The Wasatch Formation reaches a maximum thickness of about 1,600 ft and dips northwestward from one degree to two-and-a-half degrees in the southern and central parts of the PRB.
−Removed: The Oligocene White River Formation overlies the Wasatch Formation and has been removed from most of the PRB by erosion.
−Removed: Remnants of this unit crop out on the Pumpkin Buttes, and at the extreme southern edge of the PRB.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: The youngest sediments consist of Quaternary alluvial sands and gravels locally present in larger valleys.
−Removed: Quaternary eolian sands can also be found locally.
−Removed: The Ludeman Project Area targets mineralization in the Fort Union Formation, which underlies the Wasatch Formation.
−Removed: The host rocks for the uranium ore deposits in the project areas are the arkosic sandstones of the Fort Union Formation.
+Added: The Ludeman Project Area targets mineralization in the Fort Union Formation, which underlies the Wasatch Formation. 
+Added: 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.
11 unchanged sentences
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.
−Removed: Data Verification
−Removed: Data used for the resource estimate at the Ludeman Project Area consisted of drill maps, cross-sections, geophysical logs, lithologic logs, reports and digital databases.
−Removed: Standard industry methods were used at the time of data collection.
−Removed: Historic radiometric data log interpretation was spot checked for the higher-grade intercepts.
−Removed: Historic drill hole locations were verified by plotting their coordinates and checking against original maps.
−Removed: Historic drill hole location coordinates were then converted to match the NAD 83 coordinate system for recent drill holes.
−Removed: Approximately 10% of the historic drill holes were resurveyed.
−Removed: Recent drill hole data included collar elevation, collar location, grade and elevation of mineralized intercepts, bottom hole elevation and locations that had utilized modern survey grade GPS equipment.
−Removed: Confirmation drilling by way of offset holes has been conducted by previous owners to validate historic data.
−Removed: The Ludeman Project Area has been host to two successful pilot plant studies.
−Removed: The Leuenberger Pilot was in production for 12 months from two wellfields which recovered a combined 14,600 lbs U3O8.
−Removed: Recovery rates in the two wellfields were 68 percent and 27 percent of estimated in-place resources, and peak head grades were 175 ppm and 32 ppm (UNC Teton-Nedco, 1983).
−Removed: The North Platte Pilot was in production for five months with total recovery of 1,515 lbs of U3O8 at a recovery rate of 27 percent.
−Removed: Baseline investigations for a third pilot study were conducted by the APS Commission;
−Removed: however, actual pilot scale production was never conducted.
−Removed: Laboratory leach testing noted that the overall recovery averaged 76 percent of estimated in-place resource.
−Removed: Mineral Resource Estimates
−Removed: The following key assumptions were used for resource estimates, unless otherwise noted
−Removed: resources are located in permeable and porous sandstones;
−Removed: resources are located below the water table.
−Removed: The GT contour method was used to estimate the mineral resources at the Ludeman Project Area.
−Removed: The GT contour method is one of the most widely used and dependable methods to estimate resources in uranium roll-front deposits.
−Removed: The basis of the GT contour method is the GT (grade x mineralized thickness) values, which are determined for each drill hole using radiometric log results and a suitable GT cutoff, below which the GT value is considered to be zero.
−Removed: The GT values are then plotted on a drill hole map and GT contours are drawn accordingly using roll-front data derived from cuttings and the nature of the gamma anomalies.
−Removed: The resources are calculated from the area within the GT contour boundaries considering the DEF and the ore zone density.
−Removed: The resource estimate methods, general parameters and mineralized cutoffs used at the Ludeman Project Area are summarized below.
−Removed: Ludeman Project Area Resource Estimate Methodology
−Removed: Cutoff Parameters
−Removed: Mineral Resource
−Removed: Estimation Method
−Removed: Disequilibrium
−Removed: GT Contour Method
−Removed: Cutoff parameters are discrete and therefore the GT cutoff is not necessarily the product of cutoff grade and cutoff thickness.
−Removed: Based on the depths of mineralization, average grade, thickness and GT, it is the TRS QP’s opinion that the mineral resources of the Ludeman Project Area can be recoverable by ISR methods using a long-term uranium price of $40/lb.
−Removed: Uranium does not trade on the open market and many of the private sales contracts are not publicly disclosed.
−Removed: UEC used $40/lb as the forecast uranium price for the Ludeman Project Area.
−Removed: This is based on:
−Removed: (i) the long-term contract price at the end of February 2022, which was $43.88/lb from Cameco Resources’
−Removed: combination of UxC and Trade Tech reports (Cameco, 2022);
−Removed: (ii) the spot price at the end of February 2022 ($48.75/lb);
−Removed: (iii) UxC’s price forecast;
−Removed: and (iv) UEC’s understanding of market expectations.
−Removed: The table below contains the UxC uranium price forecast for Q4 of 2021.
−Removed: UxC Q4 2021 Uranium Price Forecast ($/lb U3O8)
−Removed: UxC Market Outlook Q4 2021
−Removed: UxC High Price Midpoint
−Removed: UxC Low Price Midpoint
−Removed: UxC Mid Price Midpoint
−Removed: In the opinion of the TRS QP, $40/lb is a conservative forecast price for the following reasons:
−Removed: first, at the issuance date, both the long-term price and spot price are greater than $40/lb;
−Removed: second, new physical uranium investment vehicles were created in 2021, such as the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust and the upcoming physical uranium fund backed by Kazatomprom, the National Bank of Kazakhstan and Genchi Global Ltd., which effectively remove uranium supply from the market;
−Removed: third, the increasing demand for carbon-free energy and global plans to construct new nuclear reactors will increase demand for uranium;
−Removed: finally, there has already been a steady increase in the uranium price for the last three years with a sharp rise to greater than $40/lb in the second half of 2021, due in part to increased demand from the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust.
−Removed: Due to recent volatility in the uranium market, the QP believes that a conservative forecast price is justified.
−Removed: For the above reasons, the TRS QP also believes that a $40/lb price is considered reasonable by the QP for use in cutoff determination and to assess reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction.
−Removed: Measured, indicated and inferred resource classifications at the Ludeman Project Area are defined by the density of the drill hole data.
−Removed: Higher drill hole densities allow more confidence in the shape and size of the interpreted mineral horizons.
−Removed: The table below details the resource classification criteria used in the resource estimates in each of the Ludeman Project Area.
−Removed: Ludeman Project Area Drill Hole Information
−Removed: Distance Between Drill Hole Locations
−Removed: for Resource Classifications (ft)
−Removed: 0 – 70
−Removed: 70 – 200
−Removed: 200 – 400
−Removed: There are numerous reasons that mineralization was interpreted as measured resources within the Ludeman Project Area:
−Removed: first, the drill hole spacing used to classify the measured resource is generally less than or equal to the 100 ft well spacing in a typical production pattern, which enables a detailed wellfield design to be completed;
−Removed: second, as shown on the geologic cross sections the sub-surface geology within the Ludeman Project Area is very well characterized with aquifers that correlate, consistent host sandstone intervals and reliable aquitards across the resource areas;
−Removed: third, mineralization occurs along the redox interface and the oxidized sands have different coloration than the reduced sands.
−Removed: These color variations are visible in drill cuttings and are used to map the redox interface and to guide drilling and wellfield design;
−Removed: finally, historic production has occurred both commercially and through research and development facilities at the Ludeman Project Area.
−Removed: This combination of drill hole spacing, well-known subsurface geology, well-understood deposit model, s uccessful production, and the variety of data collected led WWC, as the TRS QP, to conclude that the mineralization in areas with drill hole spacing tabulated above fit the definition for measured resources.
−Removed: Mineral resources were estimated separately for the Ludeman Project Area.
−Removed: The estimates of measured and indicated mineral resources for the Ludeman Project Area are reported in the table below and the estimates of inferred mineral resources are reported in the table following.
−Removed: Ludeman Project Area Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources
−Removed: Mineral Resource
−Removed: Average Grade
−Removed: Total Measured and Indicated
−Removed: Ludeman Project Area Inferred Mineral Resources
−Removed: Mineral Resource
−Removed: Average Grade
−Removed: Present Condition of Property and Work Completed to Date
−Removed: The Ludeman Project Area is fully permitted and in a care and maintenance mode.
−Removed: The Company ’
−Removed: s Planned Work
−Removed: The Company plans to maintain the Ludeman Project Area in a care and maintenance status.
+Added: Table 2.16 –
+Added: Mineral Resources for the Ludeman Project as at the date of this Annual Report
+Added: Classification
+Added: (000 ’
+Added: (1000 ’
+Added: (% eU 3 O 8 )
+Added: (000 ’
+Added: Total Resources
+Added: The sum of measured and indicated tons and lbs.
+Added: may not add up to the reported total due to rounding.
+Added: Measured and indicated mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300.
+Added: GT Cutoff = 0.25 m% eU 3 O 8
+Added: All reported resources occur below the static water table.
+Added: The point of reference for mineral resources is in-situ at the Project.
+Added: Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
Allemand-Ross ISR Project
−Removed: 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”, current on March 31, 2022, prepared by WWC, a qualified firm (the “QP”
+Added: 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”
+Added: The Allemand-Ross Project Area does not have mineral reserves and is therefore considered an Exploration Stage property under S-K 1300 definitions.
+Added: Figure 2.8 –
+Added: Location of the Allemand-Ross Project
Property Description
−Removed: The Allemand-Ross Project Area is located in Converse County, Wyoming, in the southern PRB Uranium District of Wyoming.
+Added: 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.
−Removed: The Allemand-Ross Project Area is located approximately 42 air miles northeast of Casper, Wyoming.
−Removed: The Allemand-Ross Project Area is primarily located on private surface land with some areas of federal or state-managed land.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: This designation is not utilized by UEC, as both areas are now within the Allemand-Ross Project Area.
+Added: 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.
+Added: 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.
−Removed: Map of UEC Project Areas
−Removed: This Allemand-Ross Project Area is owned and operated by UEC.
−Removed: UEC has executed surface use and access agreements and fee mineral leases with landowners who hold surface and mineral ownership within and outside the various Allemand-Ross Project Area boundaries.
−Removed: UEC also holds unpatented BLM lode claims and leases on Wyoming state land on the project area.
−Removed: Mineral rights for the Allemand-Ross Project Area are a combination of federally administered minerals (unpatented lode claims), State of Wyoming mineral leases and private (fee) mineral leases.
−Removed: Federal mining claims were staked and recorded consistent with federal and state law, state mineral leases were obtained by submitting a lease application and appropriate fee to the State Board of Land Commissioners and fee mineral leases are obtained through negotiation with individual mineral owners.
−Removed: Property Characteristics Summary
−Removed: State of Wyoming
−Removed: Mining Claims
−Removed: Allemand-Ross
−Removed: Leases/Claims
−Removed: Total Annual Cost
−Removed: Within the Allemand-Ross Project Area, UEC holds two State of Wyoming uranium leases with a combined acreage of 318 acres.
−Removed: UEC also holds 452 unpatented lode claims on federally administered minerals.
−Removed: An additional seven fee (private) mineral leases are held with private mineral owners.
−Removed: In total, the net mineral holdings in the Allemand-Ross Project Area comprise 11,610.1 acres.
−Removed: Payments for state and private leases and BLM mining claim filing payments are up to date as of the effective date of the TRS.
−Removed: Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography
−Removed: The Allemand-Ross Project Area is within Converse County, Wyoming.
−Removed: This county resides in the Wyoming Basin Physiographic Province in the southern portion of the PRB.
−Removed: This site generally lies near the synclinal axis of the basin.
−Removed: The PRB is a part of the Northwestern Great Plains eco-region, a semiarid rolling plain of shale and sandstone punctuated by occasional buttes.
−Removed: Regional structural features also include the Big Horn Mountains to the west, Casper Arch to the south and the Black Hills to the east.
−Removed: In the northern Allemand-Ross Project Area, the landscape is dominated by the Pumpkin Buttes.
−Removed: Topography in the Allemand-Ross Project Area ranges from generally flat to gently rolling hills, with numerous drainages containing ephemeral streams dissecting the Allemand-Ross Project Area.
−Removed: Elevations ranges from approximately 4,500 ft to 5,400 ft above mean sea level.
−Removed: Vegetation within the Allemand-Ross Project Area consists primarily of grassland, with areas of sagebrush.
−Removed: The Allemand-Ross Project Area lies within the mixed grass eco-region of the Northwestern Great Plains.
−Removed: Interspersed among these major vegetation communities, within and along the ephemeral drainages, are grassland and meadow grassland and less abundant types of seeded grasslands (improved pastures).
−Removed: The Allemand-Ross Project Area in the PRB is located in a semi-arid or steppe climate.
−Removed: The region is characterized by cold, harsh winters and hot, dry summers.
−Removed: The spring season is relatively warm and moist, and autumns are cool.
−Removed: Temperature extremes range from roughly -25°
−Removed: F in the winter to 100°
−Removed: F in the summer.
−Removed: Typically, the last freeze occurs during late May and the first freeze occurs in mid- to late September.
−Removed: Yearly precipitation in the PRB averages about 13 inches.
−Removed: The PRB is prone to severe thunderstorm events throughout the spring and early summer months, and much of the precipitation is attributed to these events.
−Removed: Snow falls throughout the winter months (approximately 40 to 50 inches per year), but provides much less moisture than rain events.
−Removed: The Allemand-Ross Project Area is accessible via two-wheel drive on existing county and/or two-track roads as follows:
−Removed: from Douglas, Wyoming, proceed northwesterly on WY Highway 93, approximately 21 miles to the junction with WY Highway 95.
−Removed: From the junction of WY Highways 93 and 95, proceed northerly approximately 32 miles on Converse County Road 31, also known as the Ross Road.
−Removed: The Ross Road is an all-season road that is maintained by Converse County.
−Removed: The southern section of which is paved, and the northern section is gravel surface.
−Removed: A major north–south railroad, BNSF Railway, used primarily for transporting coal, lies east of the Allemand-Ross Project Area and parallel to Wyoming Highway 59.
−Removed: Equipment and supplies needed for exploration and day-to-day operations are available from population centers such as Glenrock, Douglas and Casper.
−Removed: Specialized equipment for the wellfields will likely need to be acquired from outside of Wyoming.
−Removed: The local economy is geared toward coal mining and oil and gas production as well as ranching operations, providing a well-trained and capable pool of workers for ISR production and processing operations.
−Removed: Workers will reside locally and commute to work daily.
−Removed: As a result of energy development over the past 50 years, all the Allemand-Ross Project Area have existing or nearby (less than two miles) electrical power, gas and adequate telephone and internet connectivity.
−Removed: At the Allemand-Ross Project Area, non-potable water will be supplied by wells developed on or near the Allemand-Ross Project Area.
−Removed: Water extracted as part of ISR will be recycled for reinjection.
−Removed: At least two Class I UIC deep disposal wells are planned for the Allemand-Ross Project Area.
−Removed: The Allemand-Ross Project Area is adjacent to all-weather roadways which facilitate the transportation of equipment, supplies, personnel and product.
−Removed: Electrical power lines extend into and across the Allemand-Ross Project Area.
+Added: The site is accessible year-round on state and county roads.
+Added: 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.
+Added: Water will be sourced locally at the site while electrical service will be provided by a regional power company.
+Added: 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). 
+Added: These mineral holdings comprise 13,331.72 acres. 
+Added: All payments for all leases and claims are up to date.
Uranium was first discovered in the southern PRB during the early 1950s.
8 unchanged sentences
Kerr-McGee, Homestake, Teton
−Removed: Early uranium exploration completed by the three companies in the Allemand-Ross Project Area.
+Added: Early uranium exploration was completed by the three companies in the Allemand-Ross Project Area.
Exploration was typically for shallower mineralization (<1,000 ft).
28 unchanged sentences
Ownership transition.
−Removed: Permitting and Licensing
−Removed: The Allemand-Ross Project Area is not permitted.
+Added: Property Condition and Proposed Development
+Added: The condition of the property is good while meeting all standards and requirements of Federal, State and local regulations.
+Added: There are no immediate plans for exploration or delineation drilling.
+Added: Facilities, Infrastructure and Underground Development
+Added: Facilities or wellfields have not been constructed.
+Added: Permit Status and Encumbrances
+Added: The Allemand Ross Project has not been permitted or licensed for ISR operations. 
+Added: Exploration and delineation drilling is conducted under a WDEQ LQD Drilling Notification. 
+Added: There are no materially significant encumbrances on the Allemand Ross Project. 
+Added: Standard encumbrances include reclamation bonding, mining and surface lease royalties.
Geologic Setting, Mineralization and Deposit
−Removed: The Allemand-Ross Project Area resides in the PRB.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: The PRB is filled with marine, non-marine and continental sediments ranging in age from early Paleozoic through Cenozoic.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: However, Flores divides the Fort Union into three members:
−Removed: and Tongue River members (listed as oldest to youngest);
−Removed: The Tullock member consists of sandstone, siltstone and sparse coal and carbonaceous shale.
−Removed: The Lebo member consists of abundant drab gray mudstone, minor siltstone and sandstone and sparse coal and carbonaceous shale beds.
−Removed: The Tongue River member consists of interbedded sandstone, conglomerate, siltstone, mudstone, limestone, anomalously thick coal beds and carbonaceous shale beds.
−Removed: This member has been mined extensively for its coal beds, which can be hundreds of feet thick.
−Removed: The total thickness of the Fort Union Formation varies between 2,000 and 3,500 ft.
−Removed: Uranium mineralization occurs in zones that are located in channel sands of the Fort Union Formation.
−Removed: These channel sands are typical fining upward sand sequences consisting of fine-grained sandstones.
−Removed: The zones of mineralization are formed as typical roll-front deposits in these sandstones.
−Removed: The early Eocene Wasatch Formation unconformably overlies the Fort Union Formation around the margins of the PRB.
−Removed: However, the two formations are conformable and gradational towards the basin center.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: The Wasatch-Fort Union contact is separated by Paleocene and Eocene rocks and is generally placed above the Roland coal.
−Removed: However, other authors have placed the Wasatch-Fort Union contact above the School, Badger and Anderson Coals in other parts of the PRB.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: The sandstone horizons in the Wasatch Formation are the host rocks for several uranium deposits in the central PRB.
−Removed: Within this area, mineralization is found in a 50- to 100-ft thick sandstone lens.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: The Wasatch Formation reaches a maximum thickness of about 1,600 ft and dips northwestward from one degree to two-and-a-half degrees in the southern and central parts of the PRB.
−Removed: The Oligocene White River Formation overlies the Wasatch Formation and has been removed from most of the PRB by erosion.
−Removed: Remnants of this unit crop out on the Pumpkin Buttes, and at the extreme southern edge of the PRB.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: The youngest sediments consist of Quaternary alluvial sands and gravels locally present in larger valleys.
−Removed: Quaternary eolian sands can also be found locally.
−Removed: The Allemand-Ross Project Area targets mineralization in the Fort Union Formation, which underlies the Wasatch Formation and is part of the thick PRB sedimentary series.
−Removed: It consists of mudstones, siltstones and clays with minor cross bedded sandstone channels and occasional thin limestone and lignite beds (Lemmers and Smith, 1981).
−Removed: The Fort Union Formation sandstones were deposited in a fluvial paleo-drainage system, which flowed generally in a north-northeasterly direction.
−Removed: 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.
+Added: Union Formation, which underlies the Wasatch Formation and is part of the thick PRB sedimentary series. 
+Added: It consists of mudstones, siltstones and clays with minor cross bedded sandstone channels and occasional thin limestone and lignite beds (Lemmers and Smith, 1981). 
+Added: The Fort Union Formation sandstones were deposited in a fluvial paleo-drainage system, which flowed generally in a north-northeasterly direction. 
+Added: 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.
−Removed: Pyrite occurs in several forms within the host sandstones.
−Removed: In unaltered sandstones, pyrite occurs as small to large single euhedral crystals associated with magnetite, ilmenite and other dark detrital minerals.
−Removed: In altered sandstone, pyrite is typically absent, but locally occurs as tarnished, very fine-grained euhedral crystals.
+Added: Pyrite occurs in several forms within the host sandstones. 
+Added: In unaltered sandstones, pyrite occurs as small to large single euhedral crystals associated with magnetite, ilmenite and other dark detrital minerals. 
+Added: 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.
−Removed: Uranium mineralization at the Allemand-Ross Project Area is typical of Wyoming roll-front sandstone deposits.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: The most favorable host rocks for roll-fronts are permeable sandstones with large aquifer systems.
−Removed: Interbedded mudstone, claystone and siltstone are often present and aid in the formation process by focusing groundwater flux.
+Added: Uranium mineralization at the Allemand-Ross Project Area is typical of Wyoming roll-front sandstone deposits. 
+Added: 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. 
+Added: The most favorable host rocks for roll-fronts are permeable sandstones with large aquifer systems. 
+Added: 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”
−Removed: shape or crescent configuration at the redox interface.
+Added: shape or crescent configuration at the redox interface. 
The highest-grade portion of the front occurs in a zone termed the “nose”
−Removed: within reduced ground just ahead of the alteration front.
+Added: 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”
−Removed: 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.
+Added: 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.
−Removed: Data Verification
−Removed: Data used for the resource estimate at the Allemand-Ross Project Area consisted of drill maps, cross-sections, geophysical logs, lithologic logs and historic reports developed by Conoco intent on developing the property as a production center.
−Removed: Standard industry methods were used at the time of data collection.
−Removed: Paper records of historic radiometric data were input into a spreadsheet.
−Removed: Radiometric log interpretation was spot checked for the higher-grade intercepts.
−Removed: Historic drill hole locations were verified by plotting their coordinates and checking against original maps.
−Removed: Field checks of historic drill hole locations were conducted, with the locations found to be within acceptable tolerances.
−Removed: Historic drill hole location coordinates were then converted to match the NAD 83 coordinate system for recent drill holes.
−Removed: Approximately 10% of the historic drill holes were resurveyed.
−Removed: Recent drill hole data included collar elevation, collar location, grade and elevation of mineralized intercepts, bottom hole elevation and locations that had utilized modern survey grade GPS equipment.
−Removed: Confirmation drilling by way of offset holes has been conducted by previous owners to validate historic data.
−Removed: Since no historic core samples exist for verification, core drilling of the project was conducted in 2005 with the completion of 11 holes.
−Removed: Mineral Resource Estimates
−Removed: The following key assumptions were used for resource estimates, unless otherwise noted:
−Removed: resources are located in permeable and porous sandstones;
−Removed: resources are located below the water table.
−Removed: The GT contour method was used to estimate the mineral resources at the Allemand-Ross Project Area.
−Removed: The GT contour method is one of the most widely used and dependable methods to estimate resources in uranium roll-front deposits.
−Removed: The basis of the GT contour method is the GT (grade x mineralized thickness) values, which are determined for each drill hole using radiometric log results and a suitable GT cutoff, below which the GT value is considered to be zero.
−Removed: The GT values are then plotted on a drill hole map and GT contours are drawn accordingly using roll-front data derived from cuttings and the nature of the gamma anomalies.
−Removed: The resources are calculated from the area within the GT contour boundaries considering the DEF and the ore zone density.
−Removed: The GT Contour method was used to estimate the resources at all the Christensen Ranch Project Area.
−Removed: The resource estimate methods, general parameters, and mineralized cutoffs used at the Allemand-Ross Project Area are summarized below.
−Removed: Allemand-Ross Project Area Resource Estimate Methodology
−Removed: Cutoff Parameters
−Removed: Mineral Resource
−Removed: Estimation Method
−Removed: Disequilibrium
−Removed: Allemand-Ross
−Removed: GT Contour Method
−Removed: Cutoff parameters are discrete and therefore the GT cutoff is not necessarily the product of cutoff grade and cutoff thickness.
−Removed: Based on the depths of mineralization, average grade, thickness and GT, it is the TRS QP’s opinion that the mineral resources of the Allemand-Ross Project Area can be recoverable by ISR methods using a long-term uranium price of $40/lb.
−Removed: The cutoffs were determined separately for each Allemand-Ross Project Area with the unique aspects of each Allemand-Ross Project Area taken into consideration.
−Removed: Uranium does not trade on the open market and many of the private sales contracts are not publicly disclosed.
−Removed: UEC used $40/lb as the forecast uranium price for the Allemand-Ross Project Area.
−Removed: This is based on:
−Removed: (i) the long-term contract price at the end of February 2022, which was $43.88/lb from Cameco Resources’
−Removed: combination of UxC and Trade Tech reports (Cameco, 2022);
−Removed: (ii) the spot price at the end of February 2022 ($48.75/lb);
−Removed: (iii) UxC’s price forecast;
−Removed: and (iv) UEC’s understanding of market expectations.
−Removed: The table below contains the UxC uranium price forecast for Q4 of 2021
−Removed: UxC Q4 2021 Uranium Price Forecast ($/lb U3O8)
−Removed: UxC Market Outlook Q4 2021
−Removed: UxC High Price Midpoint
−Removed: UxC Low Price Midpoint
−Removed: UxC Mid Price Midpoint
−Removed: In the opinion of the TRS QP, $40/lb is a conservative forecast price for the following reasons:
−Removed: first, at the issuance date, both the long-term price and spot price are greater than $40/lb;
−Removed: second, new physical uranium investment vehicles were created in 2021, such as the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust and the upcoming physical uranium fund backed by Kazatomprom, the National Bank of Kazakhstan and Genchi Global Ltd., which effectively remove uranium supply from the market;
−Removed: third, the increasing demand for carbon-free energy and global plans to construct new nuclear reactors will increase demand for uranium;
−Removed: finally, there has already been a steady increase in the uranium price for the last three years with a sharp rise to greater than $40/lb in the second half of 2021, due in part to increased demand from the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust.
−Removed: Due to recent volatility in the uranium market, the TRS QP believes that a conservative forecast price is justified.
−Removed: For the above reasons, the TRS QP also believes that a $40/lb price is considered reasonable by the QP for use in cutoff determination and to assess reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction.
−Removed: Measured, indicated and inferred resource classifications at the Allemand-Ross Project Area are defined by the density of the drill hole data.
−Removed: Higher drill hole densities allow more confidence in the shape and size of the interpreted mineral horizons.
−Removed: The table below details the resource classification criteria used in the resource estimates in each of the Allemand-Ross Project Area.
−Removed: Allemand-Ross Project Area Drill Hole Information
−Removed: Distance Between Drill Hole Locations
−Removed: for Resource Classifications (ft)
−Removed: Allemand-Ross
−Removed: 0 – 70
−Removed: 70 – 200
−Removed: 200 – 400
−Removed: There are numerous reasons that mineralization was interpreted as measured resources within the Allemand-Ross Project Area:
−Removed: first, the drill hole spacing used to classify the measured resource is generally less than or equal to the 100 ft well spacing in a typical production pattern, which enables a detailed wellfield design to be completed;
−Removed: second, the sub-surface geology within the Allemand-Ross Project Area is very well characterized with aquifers that correlate, consistent host sandstone intervals and reliable aquitards across the resource areas;
−Removed: third, mineralization occurs along the redox interface and the oxidized sands have different coloration than the reduced sands.
−Removed: These color variations are visible in drill cuttings and are used to map the redox interface and to guide drilling and wellfield design;
−Removed: commercial production at the Smith Highland Mine is just south of the Allemand-Ross Project Area.
−Removed: This combination of drill hole spacing, well-known subsurface geology, well-understood deposit model, successful production and the variety of data collected led WWC, as the TRS QP, to conclude that the mineralization in areas with drill hole spacing tabulated above fit the definition for measured resources.
−Removed: Mineral resources were estimated separately for the Allemand-Ross Project Area.
−Removed: The estimates of measured and indicated mineral resources for the Allemand-Ross Project Area are reported in the table below and the estimates of inferred mineral resources are reported in the table following.
−Removed: Allemand-Ross Project Area Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources
−Removed: Mineral Resource
−Removed: Average Grade
−Removed: Allemand-Ross
−Removed: Total Measured and Indicated
−Removed: Allemand-Ross Project Area Inferred Mineral Resources
−Removed: Mineral Resource
−Removed: Average Grade
−Removed: Allemand-Ross
−Removed: Present Condition of Property and Work Completed to Date
−Removed: The Allemand-Ross Project Area is not permitted.
−Removed: The Company ’
−Removed: s Planned Work
−Removed: The Company plans to maintain the mineral leases and mining claims in the Allemand-Ross Project Area.
+Added: Table 2.18 –
+Added: Mineral Resources for the Allemand Ross Project as at the date of this Annual Report
+Added: Classification
+Added: (000 ’
+Added: (1000 ’
+Added: (% eU 3 O 8 )
+Added: (000 ’
+Added: Total Resources
+Added: The sum of resource tons and lbs.
+Added: may not add up to the reported total due to rounding.
+Added: Measured and indicated mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300.
+Added: GT Cutoff = 0.25 m% eU 3 O 8
+Added: All reported resources occur below the static water table.
+Added: The point of reference for mineral resources is in-situ at the Project.
+Added: Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
Barge ISR Project
−Removed: 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”, current on March 31, 2022, prepared by WWC, a qualified firm (the “QP”
+Added: 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”
+Added: The Barge Project Area does not have mineral reserves and is therefore considered an Exploration Stage property under S-K 1300 definitions.
+Added: Figure 2.9 –
+Added: Location of the Barge Project
Property Description
−Removed: The Barge Project Area is located in Converse County, Wyoming, the southern portion of the PRB Uranium District of Wyoming.
+Added: 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.
1 unchanged sentence
The Barge Project Area is primarily located on private surface land with some areas of federal BLM or state-managed land.
−Removed: Map of UEC Project Areas
−Removed: This Barge Project Area is owned and operated by UEC.
−Removed: UEC has executed surface use and access agreements and fee mineral leases with landowners who hold surface and mineral ownership within and outside the various Barge Project Area boundaries.
−Removed: UEC also holds unpatented BLM lode claims and leases on Wyoming state land on the project area.
−Removed: Mineral rights for the Barge Project Area are a combination of federally administered minerals (unpatented lode claims), State of Wyoming mineral leases and (fee) private mineral leases.
−Removed: Federal mining claims were staked and recorded consistent with federal and state law, state mineral leases were obtained by submitting a lease application and appropriate fee to the State Board of Land Commissioners and fee mineral leases were obtained through negotiation with individual mineral owners.
−Removed: Property Characteristics Summary
−Removed: State of Wyoming
−Removed: Fee Mineral Leases
−Removed: Mining Claims
−Removed: Leases/Claims
−Removed: Total Annual Cost
−Removed: Within the Barge Project Area, UEC holds one State of Wyoming uranium leases of 640 acres.
−Removed: UEC also holds 342 unpatented lode claims on federally administered minerals.
−Removed: In total, the net mineral holdings in the Barge Project Area comprise 7,014 acres.
−Removed: Payments for state leases and BLM mining claim filing payments are up to date as of the effective date of this TRS.
−Removed: Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography
−Removed: The Barge Project Area is within Converse County, Wyoming.
−Removed: This county resides in the Wyoming Basin Physiographic Province in the southern portion of the PRB.
−Removed: This site generally lies near the synclinal axis of the basin.
−Removed: The PRB is a part of the Northwestern Great Plains eco-region, a semi-arid rolling plain of shale and sandstone punctuated by occasional buttes.
−Removed: Regional structural features also include the Big Horn Mountains to the west, Casper Arch to the south and the Black Hills to the east.
−Removed: In the northern Barge Project Area, the landscape is dominated by the Pumpkin Buttes.
−Removed: Topography in the Barge Project Area ranges from generally flat to gently rolling hills, with numerous drainages containing ephemeral streams dissecting the Barge Project Area.
−Removed: Elevations ranges from approximately 4,500 ft to 5,400 ft above mean sea level.
−Removed: Vegetation within the Barge Project Area consists primarily of grassland, with areas of sagebrush.
−Removed: The Barge Project Area lies within the mixed grass eco-region of the Northwestern Great Plains.
−Removed: Interspersed among these major vegetation communities, within and along the ephemeral drainages, are grassland and meadow grassland and less abundant types of seeded grasslands (improved pastures).
−Removed: The Barge Project Area in the PRB is located in a semi-arid or steppe climate.
−Removed: The region is characterized by cold, harsh winters and hot, dry summers.
−Removed: The spring season is relatively warm and moist, and autumns are cool.
−Removed: Temperature extremes range from roughly -25°
−Removed: F in the winter to 100°
−Removed: F in the summer.
−Removed: Typically, the last freeze occurs during late May and the first freeze occurs in mid- to late September.
−Removed: Yearly precipitation in the PRB averages about 13 inches.
−Removed: The PRB is prone to severe thunderstorm events throughout the spring and early summer months, and much of the precipitation is attributed to these events.
−Removed: Snow falls throughout the winter months (approximately 40 to 50 inches per year), but provides much less moisture than rain events.
−Removed: The site is accessible via two-wheel drive.
−Removed: From Glenrock, Wyoming, proceed northeast on WY Highway 95 approximately 18 miles to the junction with WY Highway 93.
−Removed: From Douglas, Wyoming, proceed northwesterly approximately 21 miles to the junction with WY Highway 95.
−Removed: From the junction of WY Highways 93 and 95, proceed northerly approximately 25 miles on Ross Road.
−Removed: The site is then approximately two miles west of Ross Road.
−Removed: A major north–south railroad, BNSF Railway, used primarily for transporting coal, lies east of the Barge Project Area and parallel to Wyoming Highway 59.
−Removed: Equipment and supplies needed for exploration and day-to-day operations are available from population centers such as Gillette and Casper.
−Removed: Specialized equipment for the wellfields will likely need to be acquired from outside of Wyoming.
−Removed: The local economy is geared toward coal mining and oil and gas production as well as ranching operations, providing a well-trained and capable pool of workers for ISR production and processing operations.
−Removed: Workers will reside locally and commute to work daily.
−Removed: As a result of energy development over the past 50 years, all the Barge Project Area have existing or nearby (less than two miles) electrical power, gas and adequate telephone and internet connectivity.
−Removed: Near the Barge Project Area, historical uranium operations in the late 1970s and early 1980s brought access and electrical power to the area, which remain.
−Removed: Water supply needs to be reestablished in the Barge Project Area.
−Removed: Loaded resin would be transported to the Irigaray CPP for final concentrate production.
−Removed: The Barge Project Area is adjacent to all-weather roadways which facilitate the transportation of equipment, supplies, personnel and product.
+Added: The site is accessible year-round on state and county roads.
+Added: 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.
+Added: Water will be sourced locally at the site while electrical service will be provided by a regional power company.
+Added: 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). 
+Added: These mineral holdings comprise 7,480 acres. 
+Added: All payments for the lease and claims are up to date.
Uranium was first discovered in the southern PRB during the early 1950s.
23 unchanged sentences
Barge Project Area acquired by UEC from Uranium One.
−Removed: Permitting and Licensing
−Removed: The Barge Project Area is not permitted.
+Added: Property Condition and Proposed Development
+Added: The condition of the property is good while meeting all standards and requirements of Federal, State and local regulations.
+Added: There are no immediate plans for exploration or delineation drilling.
+Added: Facilities, Infrastructure and Underground Development
+Added: Facilities or wellfields have not been constructed.
+Added: Permit Status and Encumbrances
+Added: The Barge Project has not been permitted or licensed for ISR operations. 
+Added: Exploration and delineation drilling is conducted under a WDEQ LQD Drilling Notification. 
+Added: There are no materially significant encumbrances on the Barge Project. 
+Added: Standard encumbrances include reclamation bonding, mining and surface lease royalties.
Geologic Setting, Mineralization and Deposit
−Removed: The Barge Project Area resides in the PRB.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: The PRB is filled with marine, non-marine and continental sediments ranging in age from early Paleozoic through Cenozoic.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: However, Flores divides the Fort Union into three members:
−Removed: and Tongue River members (oldest to youngest);
−Removed: The Tullock member consists of sandstone, siltstone and sparse coal and carbonaceous shale.
−Removed: The Lebo member consists of abundant drab gray mudstone, minor siltstone and sandstone and sparse coal and carbonaceous shale beds.
−Removed: The Tongue River member consists of interbedded sandstone, conglomerate, siltstone, mudstone, limestone, anomalously thick coal beds and carbonaceous shale beds.
−Removed: This member has been mined extensively for its coal beds, which can be hundreds of feet thick.
−Removed: The total thickness of the Fort Union Formation varies between 2,000 and 3,500 ft.
−Removed: Uranium mineralization occurs in zones that are located in channel sands of the Fort Union Formation and Wasatch Formation.
−Removed: These channel sands are typical fining upward sand sequences consisting of fine-grained sandstones.
−Removed: The zones of mineralization are formed as typical roll-front deposits in these sandstones.
−Removed: The early Eocene Wasatch Formation unconformably overlies the Fort Union Formation around the margins of the PRB.
−Removed: However, the two formations are conformable and gradational towards the basin center.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: The Wasatch-Fort Union contact is separated by Paleocene and Eocene rocks and is generally placed above the Roland coal.
−Removed: However, other authors have placed the Wasatch-Fort Union contact above the School, Badger and Anderson Coals in other parts of the PRB.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: The sandstone horizons in the Wasatch Formation are the host rocks for several uranium deposits in the central PRB.
−Removed: Within this area, mineralization is found in a 50- to 100-ft-thick sandstone lens.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: The Wasatch Formation reaches a maximum thickness of about 1,600 ft and dips northwestward from one degree to two-and-a-half degrees in the southern and central parts of the PRB.
−Removed: The Oligocene White River Formation overlies the Wasatch Formation and has been removed from most of the PRB by erosion.
−Removed: Remnants of this unit crop out on the Pumpkin Buttes, and at the extreme southern edge of the PRB.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: The youngest sediments consist of Quaternary alluvial sands and gravels locally present in larger valleys.
−Removed: Quaternary eolian sands can also be found locally.
The Barge Project Area mineralization occurs in both the Wasatch Formation and the Paleocene Fort Union Formation.
−Removed: Mineralization in the Barge Project Area occurs in fluvial sandstones of the lower parts of the Wasatch Formation.
−Removed: Most of the upper Wasatch Formation has been eroded away.
−Removed: The sandstones are arkosic, fine- to coarse-grained with local calcareous lenses.
−Removed: The sandstones contain minor amounts of organic carbon that occurs as dispersed bits or as stringers.
+Added: Mineralization in the Barge Project Area occurs in fluvial sandstones of the lower parts of the Wasatch Formation. 
+Added: Most of the upper Wasatch Formation has been eroded away. 
+Added: The sandstones are arkosic, fine- to coarse-grained with local calcareous lenses. 
+Added: 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.
−Removed: In unaltered sandstones, pyrite occurs as small to large single euhedral crystals associated with magnetite, ilmenite and other dark detrital minerals.
−Removed: In altered sandstone, pyrite is typically absent, but locally occurs as tarnished, very fine-grained euhedral crystals.
+Added: In unaltered sandstones, pyrite occurs as small to large single euhedral crystals associated with magnetite, ilmenite and other dark detrital minerals. 
+Added: 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.
−Removed: Mineralization and Deposit Type
−Removed: Uranium mineralization at the Barge Project Area is typical of Wyoming roll-front sandstone deposits.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: The most favorable host rocks for roll-fronts are permeable sandstones with large aquifer systems.
−Removed: Interbedded mudstone, claystone and siltstone are often present and aid in the formation process by focusing groundwater flux.
−Removed: The geometry of mineralization is dominated by the classic roll-front “C”
−Removed: shape or crescent configuration at the redox interface.
−Removed: The highest-grade portion of the front occurs in a zone termed the “nose”
−Removed: within reduced ground just ahead of the alteration front.
−Removed: Ahead of the nose, at the leading edge of the solution front, mineral quality gradually diminishes to barren within the “seepage”
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: Data Verification
−Removed: Data used for the resource estimate at the Barge Project Area consisted of original geophysical and lithologic logs and an electronic drill hole database.
−Removed: The TRS QP reviewed the mineral resource model and in the QP’s opinion the model is accurate and reliable.
−Removed: Mineral Resource Estimates
−Removed: The following key assumptions were used for resource estimates, unless otherwise noted:
−Removed: resources are located in permeable and porous sandstones;
−Removed: resources are located below the water table.
−Removed: The GT contour method was used to estimate the mineral resources at the Barge Project Area.
−Removed: The GT contour method is one of the most widely used and dependable methods to estimate resources in uranium roll-front deposits.
−Removed: The basis of the GT contour method is the GT (grade x mineralized thickness) values, which are determined for each drill hole using radiometric log results and a suitable GT cutoff, below which the GT value is considered to be zero.
−Removed: The GT values are then plotted on a drill hole map and GT contours are drawn accordingly using roll-front data derived from cuttings and the nature of the gamma anomalies.
−Removed: The resources are calculated from the area within the GT contour boundaries considering the DEF and the ore zone density.
−Removed: The resource estimate methods, general parameters and mineralized cutoffs used at the Barge Project Area are summarized below.
−Removed: Barge Project Area Resources Estimate Methodology
−Removed: Cutoff Parameters
−Removed: Mineral Resource
−Removed: Estimation Method
−Removed: Disequilibrium
−Removed: GT Contour Method
−Removed: Cutoff parameters are discrete and therefore the GT cutoff is not necessarily the product of cutoff grade and cutoff thickness.
−Removed: Based on the depths of mineralization, average grade, thickness and GT, it is the TRS QP’s opinion that the mineral resources of the Barge Project Area can be recoverable by ISR methods using a long-term uranium price of $40/lb.
−Removed: Uranium does not trade on the open market and many of the private sales contracts are not publicly disclosed.
−Removed: UEC used $40/lb as the forecast uranium price for the Barge Project Area.
−Removed: This is based on:
−Removed: (i) the long-term contract price at the end of February 2022, which was $43.88/lb from Cameco Resources’
−Removed: combination of UxC and Trade Tech reports (Cameco, 2022);
−Removed: (ii) the spot price at the end of February 2022 ($48.75/lb);
−Removed: (iii) UxC’s price forecast;
−Removed: and (iv) UEC’s understanding of market expectations.
−Removed: The table below contains the UxC uranium price forecast for Q4 of 2021.
−Removed: UxC Q4 2021 Uranium Price Forecast ($/lb U3O8)
−Removed: UxC Market Outlook Q4 2021
−Removed: UxC High Price Midpoint
−Removed: UxC Low Price Midpoint
−Removed: UxC Mid Price Midpoint
−Removed: In the opinion of the TRS QP, $40/lb is a conservative forecast price for the following reasons:
−Removed: first, at the issuance date, both the long-term price and spot price are greater than $40/lb;
−Removed: second, new physical uranium investment vehicles were created in 2021, such as the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust and the upcoming physical uranium fund backed by Kazatomprom, the National Bank of Kazakhstan and Genchi Global Ltd., which effectively remove uranium supply from the market;
−Removed: third, the increasing demand for carbon-free energy and global plans to construct new nuclear reactors will increase demand for uranium;
−Removed: finally, there has already been a steady increase in the uranium price for the last three years with a sharp rise to greater than $40/lb in the second half of 2021, due in part to increased demand from the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust.
−Removed: Due to recent volatility in the uranium market, the QP believes that a conservative forecast price is justified.
−Removed: For the above reasons, the TRS QP also believes that a $40/lb price is considered reasonable by the QP for use in cutoff determination and to assess reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction.
−Removed: Measured, indicated and inferred resource classifications at the Barge Project Area are defined by the density of the drill hole data.
−Removed: Higher drill hole densities allow more confidence in the shape and size of the interpreted mineral horizons.
−Removed: The table below details the resource classification criteria used in the resource estimates in each of the Barge Project Area.
−Removed: Barge Project Area Drill Hole Information
−Removed: Distance Between Drill Hole Locations
−Removed: for Resource Classifications (ft)
−Removed: 50 – 100
−Removed: There are numerous reasons that mineralization was interpreted as measured resources within the Barge Project Area:
−Removed: first, the drill hole spacing used to classify the measured resource is generally less than or equal to the 100 ft well spacing in a typical production pattern, which enables a detailed wellfield design to be completed;
−Removed: second, as shown on the geologic cross sections the sub-surface geology within the Barge Project Area is very well characterized with aquifers that correlate, consistent host sandstone intervals and reliable aquitards across the resource areas;
−Removed: third, mineralization occurs along the redox interface and the oxidized sands have different coloration than the reduced sands.
−Removed: These color variations are visible in drill cuttings and are used to map the redox interface and to guide drilling and wellfield design.
−Removed: This combination of drill hole spacing, well-known subsurface geology, well-understood deposit model, successful production and the variety of data collected led WWC, as the TRS QP, to conclude that the mineralization in areas with drill hole spacing tabulated above fit the definition for measured resources.
−Removed: Mineral resources were estimated separately for the Barge Project Area.
−Removed: The estimates of measured and indicated mineral resources for the Barge Project Area are reported in the table below and the estimates of inferred mineral resources are reported in the table following.
−Removed: Barge Project Area Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources
−Removed: Mineral Resource
−Removed: Average Grade
−Removed: Total Measured and Indicated
−Removed: Barge Project Area Inferred Mineral Resources
−Removed: Mineral Resource
−Removed: Average Grade
−Removed: Present Condition of Property and Work Completed to Date
−Removed: The Barge Project Area is not permitted.
−Removed: The Company ’
−Removed: s Planned Work
−Removed: The Company plans to maintain the mineral leases and federal mining claims within the Barge Project Area.
+Added: Table 2.20 –
+Added: Mineral Resources for the Barge Project as at the date of this Annual Report
+Added: Classification
+Added: Tons Ore (000 ’
+Added: Tonnes Ore (1000 ’
+Added: Average Grade (% eU 3 O 8 )
+Added: Pounds eU 3 O 8  (000 ’
+Added: Total Resources
+Added: The sum of measured and indicated tons and lbs.
+Added: may not add up to the reported total due to rounding.
+Added: Measured and indicated mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300.
+Added: GT Cutoff = 0.25 m% eU 3 O 8
+Added: All reported resources occur below the static water table.
+Added: The point of reference for mineral resources is in-situ at the Project.
+Added: Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
Jab/West Jab ISR Project
−Removed: 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”, current on March 31, 2022, as prepared by WWC, a qualified firm (the “QP”
+Added: 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”
+Added: The Jab/West Jab Project Area does not have mineral reserves and is therefore considered an Exploration Stage property under S-K 1300 definitions.
+Added: Figure 2.10 –
+Added: Location of the Jab/West Jab Project
Property Description
−Removed: The Jab/West Jab Project Area is located in the Great Divide Basin (“GDB”) in Fremont and Sweetwater Counties, Wyoming, USA.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: Jab is located entirely in Sweetwater County in all or portions of 11 sections (4,006 acres).
−Removed: The Jab/West Jab Project Area is located in both Fremont and Sweetwater Counties in all or portions of 11 sections (3,509 acres).
−Removed: The Jab/West Jab Project Area is approximately 100 air miles southwest of Casper, Wyoming, and 20 air miles southwest of Jeffrey City, Wyoming.
−Removed: 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).
−Removed: Alternatively, the Jab/West Jab Project Area may be accessed by traveling south from Jeffrey City, Wyoming, following Crooks Gap Road.
−Removed: The Jab/West Jab Project Area are located on federal BLM and state-managed land.
−Removed: Map of UEC Project Areas
−Removed: This Jab/West Jab Project Area is owned and operated by UEC.
−Removed: UEC has executed surface use and access agreements and fee mineral leases with landowners who hold surface and mineral ownership within and outside the various Jab/West Jab Project Area boundaries.
−Removed: UEC also holds unpatented BLM lode claims and leases on Wyoming state land on the Jab/West Jab Project Area.
−Removed: Mineral rights for the Jab/West Jab Project Area are a combination of federally administered minerals (unpatented lode claims) and State of Wyoming mineral leases.
−Removed: Federal mining claims were staked and recorded consistent with federal and state law and state mineral leases were obtained by submitting a lease application and appropriate fee to the State Board of Land Commissioners.
−Removed: Property Characteristics Summary
−Removed: State of Wyoming
−Removed: Mining Claims
−Removed: Leases/Claims
−Removed: Total Annual Cost
−Removed: Within the Jab/West Jab Project Area, UEC holds three State of Wyoming uranium leases on state lands and 217 unpatented lode claims on federally administered minerals.
−Removed: There are no fee (private) minerals in the Jab/West Jab Project Area.
−Removed: Payments for state leases and BLM mining claim filing payments are up to date, as of the effective date of this TRS.
−Removed: Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography
−Removed: The Jab/West Jab Project Area is in Sweetwater and Fremont Counties, Wyoming.
−Removed: These counties are in the north-central portion of the GDB, which is the major physiographic feature of southwestern Wyoming.
−Removed: The GDB is an oval-shaped structural depression that encompasses nearly 3,500 square miles in south-central Wyoming.
−Removed: Regional structural features also include the Granite Mountains and Wind River Range to the North, the Rawlins Uplift to the east, Rock Springs Uplift to the west and the Wamsutter Arch to the south.
−Removed: The topography in Sweetwater County ranges from flat plains to gentle slopes that are dissected by southerly-flowing ephemeral washes.
−Removed: Elevations in the area ranges from approximately 6,900 ft to 7,400 ft above mean sea level.
−Removed: Vegetation on the Jab/West Jab Project Area mostly consists of sagebrush but includes some native perennial grasses, cushion plants, cacti, perennial forbs and lichens.
−Removed: Yearly precipitation in the Jab/West Jab Project Area is approximately 8 to 12 inches.
−Removed: The Jab/West Jab Project Area is located in Sweetwater and Fremont Counties in the GDB.
−Removed: The nearest community is the small, incorporated town of Bairoil, Wyoming, with a population of 68, which is approximately 22 miles from the Jab/West Jab Project Area.
−Removed: The Jab/West Jab Project Area is accessed from State Highway 287 and through Bairoil by traveling west on Bairoil Road (County Road 22).
−Removed: Alternatively, the Jab and West Jab Project Area may be accessed by traveling south from Jeffrey City following Crooks Gap Road.
−Removed: The Jab/West Jab Project Area may be accessed from Rawlins an incorporated community with population of 8,221, which is located on Interstate 80 approximately 45 air miles southeast.
−Removed: Alternatively, the Jab/West Jab Project Area may be accessed from Casper, by traveling southwest on Wyoming Highway 220 to the intersection with Wyoming Highway 287.
−Removed: The Jab/West Jab Project Area may then be accessed from Wyoming Highway 287 by County Road 22.
−Removed: Bairoil is approximately 90 miles from Casper.
−Removed: A major east-west railroad (the Union Pacific) lies approximately 40 air miles south of the Jab/West Jab Project Area.
−Removed: The Union Pacific generally parallels the alignment of Interstate 80 south of the Jab/West Jab Project Area.
−Removed: Equipment and supplies needed for exploration and day-to-day operation are available from population centers such as Rawlins and Casper.
−Removed: The local economy is geared toward coal mining and oil and gas production as well as ranching operations, providing a well-trained and capable pool of workers for ISR production and processing operations.
−Removed: Workers will reside locally and commute to work daily.
+Added: The Jab/West Jab Project Area is located in the GDB in Fremont and Sweetwater Counties, Wyoming. 
+Added: 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. 
+Added: 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.
+Added: The Jab/West Jab Project Area is approximately 100 air miles southwest of Casper, Wyoming, and 20 air miles southwest of Jeffrey City, Wyoming. 
+Added: 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). 
+Added: Alternatively, the Jab/West Jab Project Area may be accessed by traveling south from Jeffrey City, Wyoming, following Crooks Gap Road. 
+Added: The Jab/West Jab Project Area is located on federal BLM and state-managed land.
+Added: The site is accessible year-round on county roads.
+Added: Limited services and personnel are available from Rawlins, WY, Primarily, services and personnel will be sourced from Casper.
+Added: Water will be sourced locally at the site while electrical service will be provided by a regional power company.
+Added: 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). 
+Added: These mineral holdings comprise 5,300 acres. 
+Added: All payments for all leases and claims are up to date.
Uranium mineralization was discovered in the GDB at the Lost Creek Schoekingerite deposit in the early 1950s.
38 unchanged sentences
Ownership transition.
−Removed: Permitting and Licensing
−Removed: The Jab/West Jab Project Area is not permitted.
+Added: Property Condition and Proposed Development
+Added: The condition of the property is good while meeting all standards and requirements of Federal, State and local regulations.
+Added: There are no immediate plans for exploration or delineation drilling.
+Added: Facilities, Infrastructure and Underground Development
+Added: Facilities or wellfields have not been constructed.
+Added: Permit Status and Encumbrances
+Added: The JAB/West JAB Project has not been permitted or licensed for ISR operations. 
+Added: Exploration and delineation drilling is conducted under a WDEQ LQD Drilling Notification. 
+Added: There are no materially significant encumbrances on the JAB/West JAB Project. 
+Added: Standard encumbrances include reclamation bonding for drilling work. 
+Added: There are no royalties on this project.
Geologic Setting, Mineralization and Deposit
−Removed: The Jab/West Jab Project Area is located within the north-central part of the GDB.
−Removed: The GDB and the Washakie Basin (“WB”) in the southwest together compromise the Greater Green River Basin (the “GGRB”).
−Removed: These basins contain up to 25,000 ft of cretaceous to recent sedimentary rocks.
−Removed: During the end of the Cretaceous Period, the Laramide Orogeny divided the Wyoming Basin Province into a series of down warped basins.
−Removed: As these basins were created, uplift created the Granite and Seminoe Mountains, and older formations were altered during the same time.
−Removed: In the northern regions of the GDB, swamps, alluvial plains and fluvial fans were present at the margins of the uplifted Granite Mountains.
−Removed: To the southwest, the GDB is occupied by the lacustrine Eocene Green River Formation and by the lower energy Wasatch Formation.
−Removed: These two facies interfinger with the high-energy fluvial facies of the Battle Spring Formation at the central and eastern areas in the GDB.
−Removed: Uranium deposits occur principally in the Battle Spring Formation which consists of alluvial-fluvial fan deposits of west- to southwest-flowing paleodrainage.
−Removed: The common rock type is arkosic sandstone with interbedded claystone.
−Removed: These types of rock are typical of alluvial-fan facies.
−Removed: Much of this material is sourced from the Granite Mountains, by blockages in normal drainages due to differential subsidence rates.
−Removed: The Wasatch Formation, due to its fluvial nature, contains interbedded siltstones, coal, carbonaceous shale, fine-grained sandstone, sandy limestone and medium-grained fluvial sandstones.
−Removed: The permeable medium- to very coarse-grained sandstones and arkoses are a favorable host for sandstone-type uranium deposits.
−Removed: Fluvial channels incised into less permeable underlying siltstones and sandstones in the Battle Spring during early Eocene time.
−Removed: The channels were backfilled by the massive, poorly-sorted, coalescing alluvial fan deposits, known as the Battle Spring Formation.
−Removed: The Battle Spring Formation includes impermeable carbonaceous shales that created an impermeable boundary for uranium deposits.
−Removed: Overbank and floodplain deposits in the Battle Spring Formation also were likely to restrict groundwater flow.
−Removed: These boundaries focused uranium-rich waters into confined permeable units.
−Removed: Faulting also created structural and permeability control.
−Removed: Geology –
−Removed: Battle Spring Hosted Mineralization
−Removed: One of the primary stratigraphic units in the Jab/West Jab Project Area is in the Battle Spring Formation, which is the host to uranium mineralization.
−Removed: The Battle Spring Formation is overlain by erosional remnants of the Laney Member of the Green River Formation and the Bridger Formation.
−Removed: The Battle Spring Formation was deposited by a large alluvial fan system consisting of deposits of very fine- to very coarse-grained arkosic sandstones with interbedded think shales, mudstones and localized conglomerates.
−Removed: The Battle Spring Formation is relatively flat in the Jab/West Jab Project Area.
−Removed: In the Jab/West Jab Project Area, there is a high-angle normal fault, which forms the northern limit of mineralization in the Silverbell portion of the deposit.
−Removed: The displacement along the fault is approximately 80 ft.
−Removed: The Silverbell portion of the mineralization is on the down-thrown side of the fault, while the Red Desert portion of the mineralization is on the up-thrown side of the fault.
−Removed: Within the Jab/West Jab Project Area, mineralization occurs within a single sandstone unit.
−Removed: At the Jab/West Jab Project Area, most of the mineralization occurs within a single unit;
−Removed: however, in the northeast portion of the Jab/West Jab Project Area, there is also mineralization in a lower sand unit.
−Removed: Mineralization and Deposit Type
−Removed: Uranium mineralization at the Jab/West Jab Project Area is typical of Wyoming roll-front sandstone deposits.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: The most favorable host rocks for roll-fronts are permeable sandstones with large aquifer systems.
−Removed: Interbedded mudstone, claystone and siltstone are often present and aid in the formation process by focusing groundwater flux.
−Removed: The geometry of mineralization is dominated by the classic roll-front “C”
−Removed: shape or crescent configuration at the redox interface.
−Removed: The highest-grade portion of the front occurs in a zone termed the “nose”
−Removed: within reduced ground just ahead of the alteration front.
−Removed: Ahead of the nose, at the leading edge of the solution front, mineral quality gradually diminishes to barren within the “seepage”
−Removed: Trailing behind the nose, in oxidized (altered) ground, are weak remnants of mineralization referred to as “tails”
−Removed: which have resisted re-mobilization to the nose due to association with shale, carbonaceous material or other lithologies of lower permeability.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: Data Verification
−Removed: Data used for the resource estimate at the Jab/West Jab Project Area consisted of original geophysical and lithologic logs and an electronic drill hole database.
−Removed: The TRS QP has reviewed the data verification procedures of this report and considers the procedures credible and reliable.
−Removed: The TRS QP reviewed a random sampling of 10 percent of the original logs and compared the GT, intercept depth, and location to the mineral intercept table used in the GT contour mineral resource estimate.
−Removed: Confirmation drilling to validate historic data on the Jab portion of the Jab/West Jab Project Area was conducted by previous owners in 2006 and 2007.
−Removed: 20 offset holes were drilled within 10 ft of the surface location of historic holes.
−Removed: With respect to total GT of all 20 verification holes, the variance from historic holes was less than one percent;
−Removed: however, variation in individual holes was higher.
−Removed: The GT variation of offset holes ranged from 39 percent less to 142 percent more than the historic holes.
−Removed: In the opinion of the TRS QP, the methods used and results of the exploration potential for the Jab/West Jab Project Area are reasonable and standard for the ISR industry.
−Removed: However, exploration potential does not meet the SEC standards identified in S-K 1300 to be considered mineral resources or mineral reserves and as such, there is no certainty that the exploration potential provided herein will be realized.
−Removed: Mineral Resource Estimates
−Removed: The following key assumptions were used for resource estimates, unless otherwise noted:
−Removed: resources are located in permeable and porous sandstones;
−Removed: resources are located below the water table.
−Removed: Mineral resource estimation methods used for the Jab/West Jab Project Area include the GT contour method and the Delaunay Triangulation Method.
−Removed: Each method is briefly discussed below.
−Removed: The GT contour method is one of the most widely used and dependable methods to estimate resources in uranium roll-front deposits.
−Removed: The basis of the GT contour method is the GT (grade x mineralized thickness) values, which are determined for each drill hole using radiometric log results and a suitable GT cutoff, below which the GT value is considered to be zero.
−Removed: The GT values are then plotted on a drill hole map and GT contours are drawn accordingly using roll-front data derived from cuttings and the nature of the gamma anomalies.
−Removed: The resources are calculated from the area within the GT contour boundaries considering the DEF and the ore zone density.
−Removed: The resource estimate methods, general parameters and mineralized cutoffs used at the Jab/West Jab Project Area are summarized below.
−Removed: Methods, Parameter, and Cutoff Summary by Jab/West Jab Project Area
−Removed: Cutoff Parameters
−Removed: Mineral Resource
−Removed: Estimation Method
−Removed: Disequilibrium
−Removed: GT Contour Method
−Removed: Cutoff parameters are discrete and therefore the GT cutoff is not necessarily the product of cutoff grade and cutoff thickness.
−Removed: Based on the depths of mineralization, average grade, thickness and GT, it is the TRS QP’s opinion that the mineral resources of the Jab/West Jab Project Area can be recoverable by ISR methods using a long-term uranium price of $40/lb.
−Removed: Uranium does not trade on the open market and many of the private sales contracts are not publicly disclosed.
−Removed: UEC used $40/lb as the forecast uranium price for the Jab/West Jab Project Area.
−Removed: This is based on:
−Removed: (i) the long-term contract price at the end of February 2022, which was $43.88/lb from Cameco Resources’
−Removed: combination of UxC and Trade Tech reports (Cameco, 2022);
−Removed: (ii) the spot price at the end of February 2022 ($48.75/lb);
−Removed: (iii) UxC’s price forecast;
−Removed: and (iv) UEC’s understanding of market expectations.
−Removed: The table below contains the UxC uranium price forecast for Q4 of 2021.
−Removed: UxC Q4 2021 Uranium Price Forecast ($/lb U 3 O 8 )
−Removed: UxC Market Outlook Q4 2021
−Removed: UxC High Price Midpoint
−Removed: UxC Low Price Midpoint
−Removed: UxC Mid Price Midpoint
−Removed: In the opinion of the TRS QP, $40/lb is a conservative forecast price for the following reasons:
−Removed: first, at the issuance date, both the long-term price and spot price are greater than $40/lb;
−Removed: second, new physical uranium investment vehicles were created in 2021, such as the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust and the upcoming physical uranium fund backed by Kazatomprom, the National Bank of Kazakhstan and Genchi Global Ltd., which effectively remove uranium supply from the market;
−Removed: third, the increasing demand for carbon-free energy and global plans to construct new nuclear reactors will increase demand for uranium;
−Removed: finally, there has already been a steady increase in the uranium price for the last three years with a sharp rise to greater than $40/lb in the second half of 2021, due in part to increased demand from the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust.
−Removed: Due to recent volatility in the uranium market, the QP believes that a conservative forecast price is justified.
−Removed: For the above reasons, the TRS QP also believes that a $40/lb price is considered reasonable by the QP for use in cutoff determination and to assess reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction.
−Removed: Confidence Classification of Mineral Resource Estimates
−Removed: Measured, indicated and inferred resource classifications at the Jab/West Jab Project Area are defined by the density of the drill hole data.
−Removed: Higher drill hole densities allow more confidence in the shape and size of the interpreted mineral horizons.
−Removed: The table below details the resource classification criteria used in the resource estimates in the Jab/West Jab Project Area.
−Removed: Jab/West Jab Project Area Drill Hole Information
−Removed: Distance Between Drill Hole Locations
−Removed: for Resource Classifications (ft)
−Removed: 50 – 100
−Removed: 50 – 100
−Removed: There are numerous reasons that mineralization was interpreted as measured resources within the Jab/West Jab Project Area:
−Removed: first, the drill hole spacing used to classify the measured resource is generally less than or equal to the 100 ft well spacing in a typical production pattern, which enables a detailed wellfield design to be completed;
−Removed: second, the sub-surface geology within the Jab/West Jab Project Area is very well characterized with aquifers that correlate, consistent host sandstone intervals and reliable aquitards across the resource areas;
−Removed: third, mineralization occurs along the redox interface and the oxidized sands have different coloration than the reduced sands.
−Removed: These color variations are visible in drill cuttings and are used to map the redox interface and to guide drilling and wellfield design;
−Removed: finally, historic production has occurred both commercially and through research and development facilities at the Irigaray Project Area.
−Removed: This combination of drill hole spacing, well-known subsurface geology, well-understood deposit model, successful production and the variety of data collected led WWC, the TRS QP, to conclude that the mineralization in areas with drill hole spacing tabulated above fit the definition for measured resources.
−Removed: Mineral resources were estimated separately for the Jab/West Jab Project Area.
−Removed: The estimates of measured and indicated mineral resources for the Jab/West Jab Project Area are reported in the table below.
−Removed: Jab/West Jab Project Area Measured and Indicated Resources Summary
−Removed: Mineral Resource
−Removed: Average Grade
−Removed: Total Measured and Indicated
−Removed: The estimates of inferred mineral resources are reported in the table below.
−Removed: Jab/West Jab Project Area Inferred Resources Summary
−Removed: Mineral Resource
−Removed: Average Grade
−Removed: Uncertainties (Factors) That May Affect the Mineral Resource Estimate
−Removed: Factors that may affect the mineral resource estimate include:
−Removed: assumptions as to forecasted uranium price;
−Removed: changes to the assumptions used to generate the GT cutoff;
−Removed: changes to future commodity demand;
−Removed: variance in the grade and continuity of mineralization from what was interpreted by drilling and estimation techniques;
−Removed: density assignments;
−Removed: changes to the continued ability to access the site, retain mineral and surface rights titles, maintain environment and other regulatory permits and maintain the social license to operate.
−Removed: Mineral resource estimation is based on data interpretation and uses a limited number of discrete samples to characterize a larger area.
−Removed: These methods have inherent uncertainty and risk.
−Removed: Three elements of risk are identified for the Jab/West Jab Project Area:
−Removed: Grade interpretation methods:
−Removed: interpreted to be low to moderate risk.
−Removed: Automated grade estimates depend on many factors and interpretation methods assume continuity between samples.
−Removed: A risk exists that a grade estimate at any three-dimensional location in a deposit will differ from the actual grade at that location when it is mined;
−Removed: Geological definition:
−Removed: interpreted to be a moderate risk.
−Removed: The geological roll-front interpretation by the UEC geologists was checked using several automated techniques.
−Removed: The host units are relatively flat-lying, but there is a possibility of miscorrelation of a horizon when multiple closely spaced intercepts are present.
−Removed: A few uncertain roll-front interpretations were noted.
−Removed: Some of the interpretations were revised, but additional work is needed to ensure a remaining small percentage of interpretations are verified;
−Removed: interpreted to be low risk.
−Removed: The QP and coworkers supervised by the QP reviewed multiple maps, drilling records and prior work at the Project that demonstrate and confirm the continuity of the roll-fronts within the Jab/West Jab Project Area.
−Removed: Mineral resources do not have demonstrated economic viability, but they have technical and economic constraints applied to them to establish reasonable prospects for economic extraction.
−Removed: The geological evidence supporting indicated mineral resources is derived from adequately detailed and reliable exploration, sampling and testing, and is sufficient to reasonably assume geological and grade continuity.
−Removed: The measured and indicated mineral resources are estimated with sufficient confidence to allow the application of technical, economic, marketing, legal, environmental, social and government factors to support mine planning and economic evaluation of the economic viability of the Jab/West Jab Project Area.
−Removed: The inferred mineral resources are estimated on the basis of limited geological evidence and sampling;
−Removed: however, the information is sufficient to imply, but not verify, geological grade and continuity.
−Removed: The QP expects that the majority of the inferred mineral resources could be upgraded to indicated mineral resources with additional drilling.
−Removed: Present Condition of Property and Work Completed to Date
−Removed: The Jab/West Jab Project Area is not permitted.
−Removed: The Company ’
−Removed: s Planned Work
−Removed: The Company plans to maintain the State of Wyoming mineral leases and lode claims within the Jab/West Jab Project Area.
+Added: The Jab/West Jab Project Area is located within the north-central part of the Great Divide Basin. 
+Added: Mineralization at the Jab/West Jab project area occurs in the Battle Spring Formation.
+Added: 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.
+Added: The Battle Spring Formation is relatively flat in the Jab/West Jab project areas.
+Added: 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.
+Added: Mineralization occurs within a single sandstone unit and ranges in thickness from less than 1 to over 40 ft.
+Added: 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.
+Added: 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.
+Added: 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.
+Added: Most of the mineralization occurs within a single unit;
+Added: however, in the northeast portion of the project, there is also mineralization in a lower sand unit (BRS, 2019b).
+Added: Mineralized thickness at the West Jab project area ranges from less than 1 to over 25 ft.
+Added: Table 2.22 –
+Added: Mineral Resources for the Jab/West Jab Project as at the date of this Annual Report
+Added: Classification
+Added: Tons Ore (000 ’
+Added: Tonnes Ore (1000 ’
+Added: Average Grade (% eU 3 O 8 )
+Added: Pounds eU 3 O 8  (000 ’
+Added: Total Resources
+Added: The sum of resource tons and lbs.
+Added: may not add up to the reported total due to rounding.
+Added: Measured, indicated, and inferred mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300.
+Added: GT Cutoff = 0.25 m% eU 3 O 8
+Added: Measured and indicated resources occur below the static water table.
+Added: The inferred resources at Jab/West Jab occur above the water table and may not be amenable to ISR.
+Added: The point of reference for mineral resources is in-situ at the Project.
+Added: Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
Charlie ISR Project
−Removed: The following technical and scientific description for the Charlie Project (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”, current on March 31, 2022, prepared by WWC, a qualified firm (the “QP”
−Removed: The Charlie Project Area does not have mineral reserves and is therefore considered an Exploration Stage property under S-K 1300 definitions.
+Added: 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”
+Added: herein). 
+Added: 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.
+Added: Figure 2.11 –
+Added: Location of the Charlie Project
Property Description
−Removed: The Charlie Project Area is in the PRB in Johnson County.
−Removed: It is surrounded by the Christensen Ranch Project Area.
+Added: The Charlie Project Area is in the PRB in Johnson County at latitude 43.8274 and longitude -106.0594 in decimal degrees. 
+Added: 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.
−Removed: Map of UEC Project Areas
−Removed: This Charlie Project Area is owned and operated by UEC.
−Removed: UEC has executed surface use and access agreements and fee mineral leases with landowners who hold surface and mineral ownership within and outside the various Charlie Project Area boundaries.
−Removed: UEC also holds unpatented BLM lode claims and leases on Wyoming state land on the Project Area.
−Removed: Mineral rights for the Charlie Project Area are a combination of federally administered minerals (unpatented lode claims), State of Wyoming mineral leases and private (fee) mineral leases.
−Removed: Federal mining claims were staked and recorded consistent with federal and state law, state mineral leases were obtained by submitting a lease application and appropriate fee to the State Board of Land Commissioners, and fee mineral leases are obtained through negotiation with individual mineral owners.
−Removed: Property Characteristics Summary
−Removed: State of Wyoming
−Removed: Mining Claims
−Removed: Leases/Claims
−Removed: Total Annual Cost
−Removed: UEC controls the state mineral lease.
−Removed: Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography
−Removed: The site is accessible from Casper via Interstate 25, then U.S.
−Removed: Highway 87 to Lynch, State Highways 387 and 192 and along 18 miles of secondary unpaved roads.
−Removed: Access from Gillette is via Highway 50, Campbell County Highway 14 and the “Black and Yellow”
−Removed: road to Heldt Draw.
−Removed: All roads are shared by oilfield and other uranium ISR operators and are usually maintained during the winter.
−Removed: The site is readily accessible year-round.
−Removed: The Charlie Project is located at an average elevation of 4,615 feet above mean sea level.
−Removed: The property is dissected by Willow Creek, which is a tributary of the Powder River and carries intermittent seasonal flow.
−Removed: Topography of the area consists of gently rolling hills to the east of the Willow Creek drainage and steep sided drainage features to the west.
−Removed: Climate at the Charlie Project Area is continental semi-arid, with an average annual precipitation of approximately 14 inches, mostly falling in the form of late autumnal to early spring snows.
−Removed: The summer months are usually hot with temperature occasionally exceeding 100°F, dry and clear except for infrequent rains.
−Removed: Winter conditions can be severe and can include sub-zero temperatures and ground blizzards.
−Removed: Most drainages in the area are ephemeral, flowing only during storm events or spring snow melt.
−Removed: The Project is located approximately midway between Casper and Gillette, Wyoming.
−Removed: Casper and Gillette, Wyoming average weather conditions follow:
−Removed: Property Climatological Summary
−Removed: Average Annual high temperature
−Removed: Average Annual low temperature
−Removed: Average Annual temperature
−Removed: Average annual precipitation –
−Removed:  rainfall
−Removed: Average annual snowfall
−Removed: Most common native vegetation is sagebrush and prairie grasses and to a lesser extent, rabbit brush.
−Removed: No threatened or endangered plants are known in the area.
−Removed: There is no cultivation for crops within 10 miles of the site.
−Removed: The general area is subject to grazing by sheep and cattle.
−Removed: Mule deer and pronghorn antelope are common, as are nesting raptors.
−Removed: Small rodents and rabbits are common.
−Removed: The Greater Sage Grouse are present in the general area of the Charlie Project Area, however, the Charlie Project Area is not within a Sage Grouse Core area.
−Removed: Mine development will require access, power and water supply.
−Removed: Infrastructure in the immediate vicinity includes an electrical substation and coal-bed methane gas plant.
−Removed: There is also a 14.4 kVa electrical supply at the Willow Creek ISR mine operated by the Sheridan-Johnson Rural Electrical association approximately two miles from the Charlie Project Area.
−Removed: Water is typically supplied through ground water wells.
−Removed: Several industrial water wells are located in the vicinity of the Charlie Project Area.
−Removed: The nearest major communities include Casper and Gillette, Wyoming.
−Removed: Casper is the second-largest city in Wyoming, with a population of approximately 55,000.
−Removed: Gillette is the third largest city in Wyoming with a population of approximately 29,000.
−Removed: Casper and Gillette are, respectively, the county seats of Natrona and Campbell counties.
−Removed: Both areas have a long history of both an oil and gas development and uranium and coal mining.
−Removed: Several oilfield and mining service companies are located in Casper, including a caterpillar dealership, several drilling companies and industrial supply companies.
−Removed: Casper and/or Gillette has an adequate workforce skilled in mining and mineral exploration to support the Charlie Project Area.
−Removed: Surface ownership is held by the Christensen Ranch.
−Removed: UEC will need to develop a surface use agreement with the Christensen Ranch.
−Removed: Wyoming has granted surface use for open pit mining in a portion of the Charlie Project Area in the past and is not expected to hinder ISR mine development including necessary surface facilities subject to appropriate permitting and licensing.
−Removed: For future mining and mineral processing, the author concludes that UEC can obtain through permitting and licensing of site activities, sufficient surface rights for possible future mining operations, including potential waste disposal areas, ISR wellfields and potential plant sites.
+Added: The site is accessible year-round on county and private roads which are shared by oil and gas operators and ranchers.
+Added: Limited services are available from several smaller towns proximal to the site.
+Added: Primarily, services and personnel are available from Buffalo, Gillette and Casper.
+Added: Casper and Gillette provide flight services with daily service to Denver, Billings and Salt Lake City.
+Added: Water will be sourced locally at the site while electrical service will be provided by a regional power company.
+Added: 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). 
+Added: These mineral holdings comprise 820 acres.
+Added: All payments for the lease are up to date.
Uranium was first discovered in the southern PRB during the early 1950s.
39 unchanged sentences
Ownership transition.
−Removed: Permitting and Licensing
−Removed: The Charlie Project Area is not permitted for ISR, but does have a permit to mine using open-pit methods.
+Added: Property Condition and Proposed Development
+Added: The condition of the property is good while meeting all standards and requirements of Federal, State and local regulations.
+Added: There are no immediate plans for exploration or delineation drilling. 
+Added: The Charlie Project will eventually be mined as part of the Christensen Ranch Life of Mine.
+Added: Facilities, Infrastructure and Underground Development
+Added: The Charlie Project is essentially an extension of the Christensen Ranch ore body located in Mine Units 8 and 10. 
+Added: 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.
+Added: Permit Status and Encumbrances
+Added: The Charlie Project was permitted through Permit to Mine No.
+Added: 489 years ago for an open pit uranium mine. 
+Added: It is not permitted or licensed for ISR operations. 
+Added: Exploration and delineation drilling is conducted under a WDEQ LQD Drilling Notification or the Permit to Mine. 
+Added: There are no materially significant encumbrances on the Charlie Project. 
+Added: Standard encumbrances include reclamation bonding, mining, and surface lease royalties.
Geologic setting, Mineralization and Deposit
−Removed: The Charlie Project Area resides in the PRB.
−Removed: 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 Charlie Project Area.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: The PRB is filled with marine, non-marine and continental sediments ranging in age from early Paleozoic through Cenozoic.
−Removed: Within the PRB, Tertiary geology includes the Paleocene Fort Union Formation, which 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.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: However, Flores divides the Fort Union into three members:
−Removed: and Tongue River members (listed from oldest to youngest);
−Removed: The Tullock member consists of sandstone, siltstone and sparse coal and carbonaceous shale.
−Removed: The Lebo member consists of abundant drab gray mudstone, minor siltstone and sandstone and sparse coal and carbonaceous shale beds.
−Removed: The Tongue River member consists of interbedded sandstone, conglomerate, siltstone, mudstone, limestone, anomalously thick coal beds and carbonaceous shale beds.
−Removed: This member has been mined extensively for its coal beds which can be hundreds of feet thick.
−Removed: The total thickness of the Fort Union Formation varies between 2,000 and 3,500 ft.
−Removed: Fort Union Formation uranium mineralization occurs in zones that are located in channel sands.
−Removed: These channel sands are typical fining upward sand sequences consisting of fine-grained sandstones.
−Removed: The zones of mineralization are formed as typical roll-front deposits in these sandstones.
−Removed: The early Eocene Wasatch Formation unconformably overlies the Fort Union Formation around the margins of the PRB.
−Removed: However, the two formations are conformable and gradational towards the basin center.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: The Wasatch-Fort Union contact is separated by Paleocene and Eocene rocks and is generally placed above the Roland coal.
−Removed: However, other authors have placed the Wasatch-Fort Union contact above the School, Badger and Anderson Coals in other parts of the PRB.
−Removed: The Wasatch Formation occurs at the surface across much of the PRB.
−Removed: The Wasatch is a fluvial sedimentary unit that consists of a series of silt to very coarse-grained gradational intervals in arkosic sandstone.
−Removed: The sandstone horizons in the Wasatch Formation are the host rocks for several uranium deposits in the central PRB.
−Removed: Within this area, mineralization is found in a 50- to 100-ft thick sandstone lens.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: The Wasatch Formation reaches a maximum thickness of about 1,600 ft and dips northwestward from one degree to two-and-a-half degrees in the southern and central parts of the PRB.
−Removed: The Oligocene White River Formation overlies the Wasatch Formation and has been removed from most of the PRB by erosion.
−Removed: Remnants of this unit crop out on the Pumpkin Buttes, and at the extreme southern edge of the PRB.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: The youngest sediments consist of Quaternary alluvial sands and gravels locally present in larger valleys.
−Removed: Quaternary eolian sands can also be found locally.
The Charlie Project Area targets mineralization in the Eocene-aged Wasatch Formation.
−Removed: Mineralization in the Charlie Project Area occurs in fluvial sandstones of the lower parts of the Wasatch Formation.
−Removed: Most of the upper Wasatch Formation has been eroded away.
−Removed: The sandstones are arkosic, fine to coarse-grained with local calcareous lenses.
−Removed: The sandstones contain minor amounts of organic carbon that occurs as dispersed bits or as stringers.
+Added: Mineralization in the Charlie Project Area occurs in fluvial sandstones of the lower parts of the Wasatch Formation. 
+Added: Most of the upper Wasatch Formation has been eroded away. 
+Added: The sandstones are arkosic, fine to coarse-grained with local calcareous lenses. 
+Added: 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.
−Removed: Pyrite occurs in several forms within the host sandstones.
−Removed: In unaltered sandstones, pyrite occurs as small to large single euhedral crystals associated with magnetite, ilmenite and other dark detrital minerals.
−Removed: In altered sandstone, pyrite is typically absent, but locally occurs as tarnished, very fine-grained euhedral crystals.
+Added: Pyrite occurs in several forms within the host sandstones. 
+Added: In unaltered sandstones, pyrite occurs as small to large single euhedral crystals associated with magnetite, ilmenite, and other dark detrital minerals. 
+Added: 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.
−Removed: At the Charlie Project Area, the Wasatch Formation sand units have been subdivided into eight separate sub-roll-fronts within the overall mineralized horizon.
−Removed: The sands have been designated locally as A through G in descending order.
−Removed: 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.
+Added: At the Charlie Project Area, the Wasatch Formation sand units have been subdivided into eight separate sub-roll-fronts within the overall mineralized horizon. 
+Added: The sands have been designated locally as A through G in descending order. 
+Added: 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.
−Removed: Uranium mineralization at all of the Charlie Project Area is typical of Wyoming roll-front sandstone deposits.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: The most favorable host rocks for roll-fronts are permeable sandstones with large aquifer systems.
−Removed: Interbedded mudstone, claystone and siltstone are often present and aid in the formation process by focusing groundwater flux.
+Added: Uranium mineralization at all of the Charlie Project Area is typical of Wyoming roll-front sandstone deposits. 
+Added: 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. 
+Added: The most favorable host rocks for roll-fronts are permeable sandstones with large aquifer systems. 
+Added: 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”
−Removed: shape or crescent configuration at the redox interface.
+Added: shape or crescent configuration at the redox interface. 
The highest-grade portion of the front occurs in a zone termed the “nose”
−Removed: within reduced ground just ahead of the alteration front.
+Added: 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”
Trailing behind the nose, in oxidized (altered) ground, are weak remnants of mineralization referred to as “tails”
−Removed: which have resisted re-mobilization to the nose due to association with shale, carbonaceous material or other lithologies of lower permeability.
+Added: 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.
−Removed: Data Verification
−Removed: Exploration potential was estimated for several of the sand units at the Charlie Project Area.
−Removed: Exploration targets were defined for the E, F and G sand units.
−Removed: These units are deeper and were not as extensively drilled as the upper sand units A through D.
−Removed: While mineralization is present in drilling for the F and G sands, less than 40 of the over 1,100 drill holes fully penetrated the F and G sands.
−Removed: Similarly, the E sand has only been partially explored.
−Removed: Within the E sand, there are areas where the drill data reflects sufficient thickness, grade and continuity to estimate indicated and inferred mineral resources.
−Removed: Exploration targets were estimated by applying a range of GT values, determined from available drill data to an interpreted trend of mineralization.
−Removed: A trend for each of the exploration target areas was defined from drilling and/or geologic data based on a redox front interpreted from the drill data by the TRS QP.
−Removed: Specific parameters used:
−Removed: The average GT by sand varied from a low value of 0.63 (7.0 feet @ 0.09 %eU3O8) to a high value of 1.28 (8.5 feet @ 0.151 %eU3O8);
−Removed: A width across the redox front of 50 feet was assumed for both the low and high cases;
−Removed: The length of trend was interpreted as 10,060 feet without accounting for the typical sinuosity observed along roll-fronts.
−Removed: In the opinion of the TRS QP, the methods used and results of the exploration potential for the Charlie Project Area are reasonable and standard for the ISR industry.
−Removed: However, exploration potential does not meet the SEC standards identified in S-K 1300 to be considered mineral resources or mineral reserves and, as such, there is no certainty that the exploration potential provided herein will be realized.
−Removed: Mineral Resource Estimates
−Removed: The following key assumptions were used for resource estimates, unless otherwise noted:
−Removed: resources are located in permeable and porous sandstones;
−Removed: resources are located below the water table.
−Removed: The primary method for estimating Charlie Project Area mineral resources is the GT contour method.
−Removed: The GT contour method is one of the most widely used and dependable methods to estimate resources in uranium roll-front deposits.
−Removed: The basis of the GT contour method is the GT (grade x mineralized thickness) values, which are determined for each drill hole using radiometric log results and a suitable GT cutoff, below which the GT value is considered to be zero.
−Removed: The GT values are then plotted on a drill hole map and GT contours are drawn accordingly using roll-front data derived from cuttings and the nature of the gamma anomalies.
−Removed: The resources are calculated from the area within the GT contour boundaries considering the DEF and the ore zone density.
−Removed: The resource estimate methods, general parameters, and mineralized cutoffs used at the Charlie Project Area are summarized below.
−Removed: Charlie Project Area Resource Estimate Methodology
−Removed: Cutoff Parameters 1
−Removed: Mineral Resource
−Removed: Estimation Method
−Removed: Disequilibrium
−Removed: GT Contour (Indicated)
−Removed: Projected (Inferred)
−Removed: Cutoff parameters are discrete and therefore the GT cutoff is not necessarily the product of cutoff grade and cutoff thickness.
−Removed: Based on the depths of mineralization, average grade, thickness, and GT, it is the TRS QP’s opinion that the mineral resources of the Charlie Project Area can be recoverable by ISR methods using a long-term uranium price of $40/lb.
−Removed: The cutoffs were determined separately for each Charlie Project Area with the unique aspects of each Charlie Project Area taken into consideration.
−Removed: Uranium does not trade on the open market and many of the private sales contracts are not publicly disclosed.
−Removed: UEC used $40/lb as the forecast uranium price for the Charlie Project Area.
−Removed: This is based on:
−Removed: (i) the long-term contract price at the end of February 2022, which was $43.88/lb from Cameco Resources’
−Removed: combination of UxC and Trade Tech reports (Cameco, 2022);
−Removed: (ii) the spot price at the end of February 2022 ($48.75/lb);
−Removed: (iii) UxC’s price forecast;
−Removed: and (iv) UEC’s understanding of market expectations.
−Removed: The table below contains the UxC uranium price forecast for Q4 of 2021.
−Removed:          
−Removed: UxC Q4 2021 Uranium Price Forecast ($/lb U3O8)
−Removed: UxC Market Outlook Q4 2021
−Removed: UxC High Price Midpoint
−Removed: UxC Low Price Midpoint
−Removed: UxC Mid Price Midpoint
−Removed: In the opinion of the TRS QP, $40/lb is a conservative forecast price for the following reasons:
−Removed: first, at the issuance date, both the long-term price and spot price are greater than $40/lb;
−Removed: second, new physical uranium investment vehicles were created in 2021, such as the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust and the upcoming physical uranium fund backed by Kazatomprom, the National Bank of Kazakhstan and Genchi Global Ltd., which effectively remove uranium supply from the market;
−Removed: third, the increasing demand for carbon-free energy and global plans to construct new nuclear reactors will increase demand for uranium;
−Removed: finally, there has already been a steady increase in the uranium price for the last three years with a sharp rise to greater than $40/lb in the second half of 2021, due in part to increased demand from the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust.
−Removed: Due to recent volatility in the uranium market, the QP believes that a conservative forecast price is justified.
−Removed: For the above reasons, the TRS QP also believes that a $40/lb price is considered reasonable by the QP for use in cutoff determination and to assess reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction.
−Removed: Measured, indicated and inferred resource classifications at the Charlie Project Area are classified based on the density of the drill hole data.
−Removed: Higher drill hole densities allow more confidence in the shape and size of the interpreted mineral horizons.
−Removed: The specific criteria for classifying resources as measured, indicated or inferred vary by Charlie Project Area depending on the methodology used.
−Removed: The table below details the resource classification criteria used in the resource estimates in the Charlie Project Area.
−Removed:          
−Removed: Charlie Project Area Drill Hole Information
−Removed: Distance Between Drill Hole Locations
−Removed: for Resource Classifications (ft)
−Removed: There are numerous reasons that mineralization was interpreted as measured resources within the Charlie Project Area:
−Removed: first, the drill hole spacing used to classify the measured resource is generally less than or equal to the 100 ft well spacing in a typical production pattern, which enables a detailed wellfield design to be completed;
−Removed: second, the sub-surface geology within the Charlie Project Area is very well characterized with aquifers that correlate consistent host sandstone intervals and reliable aquitards across the resource areas;
−Removed: third, mineralization occurs along the redox interface, and the oxidized sands have different coloration than the reduced sands.
−Removed: These color variations are visible in drill cuttings and are used to map the redox interface and to guide drilling and wellfield design;
−Removed: finally, historic production has occurred both commercially and through research and development facilities at the Charlie Project Area.
−Removed: Mineral resources were estimated separately for the Charlie Project Area.
−Removed: The estimates of measured and indicated mineral resources for the Charlie Project Area are reported in the table below.
−Removed: Charlie Project Area Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources
−Removed: Mineral Resource
−Removed: Average Grade
−Removed: Total Measured and Indicated
−Removed: The estimates of inferred mineral resources for the Charlie Project Area are reported in the table below.
−Removed: Charlie Project Area Inferred Mineral Resources
−Removed: Mineral Resource
−Removed: Average Grade
−Removed: This combination of drill hole spacing, well-known subsurface geology, well-understood deposit model, successful production and the variety of data collected led WWC, the TRS QP, to conclude that the mineralization in areas with drill hole spacing tabulated above fit the definition for measured resources.
−Removed: Present Condition of Property and Work Completed to Date
−Removed: A WDEQ Permit to Mine exists for the Charlie Project Area, which UEC intends to update to current standards for ISR mining and incorporate the Charlie Project Area as two additional Mine Units of the Christensen Ranch Project Area.
−Removed: The Company plans to maintain the State of Wyoming mineral lease for the Charlie Project Area.
+Added: Table 2.24 –
+Added: Mineral Resources for the Charlie Project as at the date of this Annual Report
+Added: Classification
+Added: Tons Ore (000 ’
+Added: Tonnes Ore (1000 ’
+Added: Average Grade (% eU 3 O 8 )
+Added: Pounds eU 3 O 8  (000 ’
+Added: Total Resources
+Added: The sum of resource tons and lbs.
+Added: may not add up to the reported total due to rounding.
+Added: Measured, indicated, and inferred mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300.
+Added: GT Cutoff = 0.20 m% eU 3 O 8
+Added: All reported resources occur below the static water table.
+Added: The point of reference for mineral resources is in-situ at the Project.
+Added: Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
Nine Mile Lake ISR Project
−Removed: 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”, current on March 31, 2022, prepared by WWC, a qualified firm (the “QP”
−Removed: The Nine Mile Lake Project Area does not have mineral reserves and is therefore considered an Exploration Stage property under S-K 1300 definitions.
+Added: 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”
+Added: herein). 
+Added: 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.
+Added: Figure 2.12 –
+Added: Location of the Nine Mile Lake Project
Property Description
−Removed: The Nine Mile Lake Project Area is located in Natrona County, Wyoming, in the PRB.
+Added: 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.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: 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.
+Added: 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. 
+Added: 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. 
+Added: 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.
−Removed: Map of UEC Project Areas
−Removed: This Nine Mile Lake Project Area is owned and operated by UEC.
−Removed: UEC has executed fee mineral leases with landowners who hold mineral ownership within and outside the various Nine Mile Lake Project Area boundaries.
−Removed: UEC also holds unpatented BLM lode claims and leases on Wyoming state land on the various project areas.
−Removed: UEC has a possessory right to explore, develop and produce on the unpatented lode mining claims and must pay an annual maintenance fee to the Bureau of Land Management of $155.00 per claim on or before September 1.
−Removed: Surface use on mining claims on BLM lands are allowed subject to 3809 regulations and require both BLM and WDEQ/LQD permitting.
−Removed: Surface use on private lands is subject to the terms of the respective surface owner leases and/or agreements.
−Removed: Property Characteristics Summary
−Removed: State of Wyoming
−Removed: Mining Claims
−Removed: Nine Mile Lake
−Removed: Leases/Claims
−Removed: Total Annual Cost
−Removed: Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography
−Removed: The site is accessible from either Interstate Highway 25 or from the Salt Creek highway.
−Removed: The site is readily accessible year-round.
−Removed: Infrastructure was established for past pilot ISR mining operations and currently exists for nearby residents, including power lines and water wells.
−Removed: The PRB is a part of the Northwestern Great Plains ecoregion, a semiarid rolling plain of shale and sandstone punctuated by occasional buttes.
−Removed: The Nine Mile Lake Project Area is characterized as rolling prairie and dissected river breaks.
−Removed: Regional structural features include the Big Horn Mountains to the west, Casper Arch to the south and the Black Hills to the east.
−Removed: At the northernmost Nine Mile Lake Project Area in the PRB the landscape is dominated by the Pumpkin Buttes.
−Removed: Topography in the area ranges from generally flat to gently rolling hills with numerous drainages containing ephemeral streams that dissect the area.
−Removed: Elevations range from approximately 4,500 to 5,400 ft above mean sea level.
−Removed: Nine Mile Lake for which the project is named is located approximately 2 miles south of the project.
−Removed: Vegetation within the Nine Mile Lake Project Area consists primarily of grassland with areas of sagebrush.
−Removed: Some of the Nine Mile Lake Project Area lies within the mixed grass ecoregion of the Northwestern Great Plains.
−Removed: Interspersed among these major vegetation communities, within and along the ephemeral drainages, are grassland and meadow grassland and less abundant types of seeded grasslands (improved pastures).
−Removed: The Nine Mile Lake Project Area is located in a semi-arid or steppe climate.
−Removed: The region is characterized by cold, harsh winters and hot, dry summers.
−Removed: The spring season is relatively warm and moist, and autumns are cool.
−Removed: Temperature extremes range from roughly -25°
−Removed: F in the winter to 100°
−Removed: F in the summer.
−Removed: Typically, the “last freeze”
−Removed: occurs during late May and the “first freeze”
−Removed: in mid- to late September.
−Removed: Yearly precipitation averages about 13 inches.
−Removed: The region is prone to severe thunderstorm events throughout the spring and early summer months and much of the precipitation is attributed to these events.
−Removed: Snow falls throughout the winter months (approximately 40 to 50 inches per year) but provides much less moisture than rain events.
−Removed: Most common native vegetation is sagebrush and prairie grasses and to a lesser extent, rabbit brush.
−Removed: No threatened or endangered plants are known in the area.
−Removed: Limited upland areas have juniper and limber pine trees on north facing slopes.
−Removed: Mule deer and pronghorn antelope are common, as are nesting raptors.
−Removed: Small rodents and rabbits are common.
−Removed: The Greater Sage Grouse, present in the general area of the Nine Mile Lake Project Area, however, the project is not within a Sage Grouse Core area.
−Removed: Mine development will require access, power and water supply.
−Removed: Infrastructure is present and/or readily proximate to the Project.
−Removed: The nearest community is the town of Casper, Wyoming.
−Removed: Casper is the second-largest city in Wyoming, according to the 2010 census, with a population of 55,316.
−Removed: Several oilfield and mining service companies are located in Casper including a caterpillar dealership, several drilling companies, and industrial supply companies.
−Removed: Casper has an adequate workforce skilled in mining and mineral exploration to support the Nine Mile Lake Project.
+Added: All services and personnel will be available from Casper.
+Added: Water will be sourced locally at the site or the City of Casper, while electrical service will be provided by a regional power company.
+Added: 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). 
+Added: These mineral holdings comprise 2,620 acres. 
+Added: All payments for all leases and claims are up to date.
The initial discovery of mineralization at the Nine Mile Lake Project Area was made in the early 1950s by a Mr.
1 unchanged sentence
Atomic Energy Commission (the “AEC”) buying station at Edgemont, South Dakota.
−Removed: Rocky Mountain Energy (“RME”) acquired interest in the Nine Mile Lake Project Area  in 1972 and conducted extensive drilling through 1978.
+Added: 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.
38 unchanged sentences
Ownership transition.
−Removed: Permitting and Licensing
−Removed: The Nine Mile Lake Project Area is not permitted.
−Removed: In order to conduct exploratory drilling UEC would be required to obtain a Drilling Notification (“DN”) approved by the WDEQ/LQD and the BLM.
−Removed: The DN would allow for surface use for the purposes of exploration by drilling on BLM surface.
−Removed: Separate surface leases and/or agreements would be required for drilling on private lands.
−Removed: Although not required at this stage, mine development would require a number of permits depending on the type and extent of development, the most significant permits being the Permit to Mine issued by the WDEQ/LQD and the Source Materials License also from the WDEQ/LQD required for mineral processing of natural uranium.
−Removed: Any injection or pumping operations will require permits from the WDEQ which has authority under the Safe Water Drinking Act that stems from a grant of primacy from the U.S.
−Removed: Environmental Protection Agency for administering UIC programs in Wyoming.
+Added: Property Condition and Proposed Development
+Added: The property is in good condition. 
+Added: There are no plans for near term exploration or delineation drilling.
+Added: Facilities, Infrastructure and Underground Development
+Added: There are no facilities or wellfields constructed on the project.
+Added: Permit Status and Encumbrances
+Added: The Nine Mile Lake Project has not been permitted or licensed for ISR operations. 
+Added: Exploration and delineation drilling is conducted under a WDEQ LQD Drilling Notification. 
+Added: Standard encumbrances include reclamation bonding for drill holes, mining, and surface lease royalties. 
+Added: 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
−Removed: The Nine Mile Lake Project Area resides in the PRB.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: The PRB is filled with marine, non-marine, and continental sediments ranging in age from early Paleozoic through Cenozoic.
−Removed: The Nine Mile Lake Project Area is located along the southwestern flank of the PRB which is a asymmetric syncline trending north-northwest.
−Removed: The project is bounded to the west by the Casper Arch, a regional fold sub-parallel to the axis of the basin.
+Added: The Nine Mile Lake Project Area resides in the PRB. 
+Added: The Nine Mile Lake Project Area is located along the southwestern flank of the PRB which is an asymmetric syncline trending north-northwest.
+Added: 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.
−Removed: Surface exposures, in order of prevalence, include the Cretaceous Lewis Shale, Quaternary sand and gravel deposits and the Cretaceous Mesa Verde Formation.
−Removed: Uranium mineralization occurs within the upper portions of the Mesa Verde Formation which is overlain by the Lewis Shale and underlain by the Cody Shale.
−Removed: Locally the Mesa Verde Formation is subdivided into the Teapot Sandstone and Nine Mile Lake Facies.
−Removed: Uranium mineralization occurs in the Teapot Sandstone which is locally 50- to 100-ft thick and occurs at depths ranging from 50 to 600 feet below the ground surface.
−Removed: The Teapot Sandstone is further subdivided into two major stratigraphic horizons termed the Upper and Lower sands which are separated by a relatively thin (approximately 4 foot) layer of lignite and carbonaceous shale.
−Removed: The Teapot Sandstone is sub-arkosic, medium to fine grained, angular to sub-angular, and moderate to well sorted.
−Removed: Uranium mineralization occurs in both the Upper and Lower sands.
−Removed: Uranium mineralization is of the roll-front type with an average thickness of 9 feet.
−Removed: The principal uranium mineral is uraninite (UO2) with minor amounts of coffinite a uranium silicate.
−Removed: The principal reductant appears to be carbonaceous material and lignites interspersed in zones of mineralization.
−Removed: 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”.
−Removed: The mineralization at the Nine Mile Lake Project Area is typical of the Wyoming roll-front sandstone deposits.
−Removed: However, the occurrence of uranium mineralization is only known to occur in the vicinity of the project.
−Removed: The sedimentary host sandstone formed in a deltaic environment and is interfingered with thin shale, carbonaceous shale, and liginite units.
−Removed: The carbonaceous material considered the primary reductant although seepage of H2S gas from underlying oil and gas deposits reacting with iron in the ground water could account for the presence of pyrite which would also serve as a reductant.
−Removed: Potential sources of uranium would include leaching of uranium from oligocene volcanic detritus in the White River Formation and leaching of uranium from Granite Mountains.
−Removed: Roll-front deposits are characterized by oxidized or altered rock on one side of the roll-front and reduced or unaltered rock on the opposite side of the front.
−Removed: Based on review of geologic reports and the drill data including geophysical logs and lithological descriptions, the TRS QP concludes that at the oxidized tongue of the geochemical system is located to the west of the mineralization with the reduced side of the roll-front to the east.
−Removed: Mineralization occurs in multiple fronts trending generally from south southeast to north north-west.
−Removed: The key components for the formation of roll-front type deposits according to Granger and Warren (1979) include:
−Removed: a permeable host formation;
−Removed: a source of soluble uranium;
−Removed: oxidizing ground waters to leach and transport the uranium;
−Removed: adequate reductant within the host formation;
−Removed: time sufficient to concentrate the uranium at the oxidation/reduction interface;
−Removed: both the Upper and Lower members of the Teapot Sandstone are permeable;
−Removed: both the White River Formation and Granite Mountains are in reasonable proximity and could have provided the source of uranium;
−Removed: oxidation of the sandstone host is evident from the lithologic descriptions from drilling and field examination of the outcrop;
−Removed: carbonaceous material is described to occur within the host;
−Removed: drilling demonstrates the presence of uranium mineralization at an oxidation/reduction interface (“REDOX”) indicating that favorable hydrologic and geochemical conditions were present for sufficient time to concentrate uranium.
−Removed: Data Verification
−Removed: Data used for the resource estimate at the Nine Mile Lake Project Area consisted of original geophysical and lithologic logs and an electronic drill hole database.
−Removed: The Nine Mile Lake Project Area was host to several pilot scale ISR studies in the 1970s performed by RME, including a joint study with U.S.
−Removed: Bureau of Mines from 1977 to 1979.
−Removed: Pilot scale ISR mining was conducted using four seven-spot patterns with a 50-foot radius.
−Removed: The testing demonstrated that uranium recovery using a sulfuric acid and hydrogen peroxide lixiviant was successful.
−Removed: An independent NI 43-101 for the project was prepared in April of 2019 by BRS Inc.
−Removed: The TRS QP has reviewed the data verification procedures of this report and considers the procedures credible and reliable.
−Removed: Currently available drill data for the main resource area consists of radiometric equivalent data (%eU3O8) for 1,100 drill holes completed primarily between 1972 and 1978.
−Removed: Of these 1,100 drill holes, 26 were cored.
−Removed: In addition, in 2006 EMC drilled 45 holes on a separate mineral lease.
−Removed: All original drill data including geophysical logs and lithological logs are available for the Nine Mile Lake Project Area.
−Removed: The drill hole databased utilized for the estimation of mineral resources was developed directly from the original geophysical logs by the TRS QP.
−Removed: The estimation of Indicated Mineral Resources was limited to this area where the original drill data was available.
−Removed: Additional drilling was completed outside the main resource area.
−Removed: This includes areas along the REDOX north and south of the mean resource area and on both the east and west sides of I25.
−Removed: In these areas, available data includes maps showing drill hole locations, REDOX boundaries, GT data, and polygonal blocks used for historic resource estimation.
−Removed: While this data demonstrates the location and general nature of mineralization outside the main resource areas the drill data cannot be sufficiently verified, in the opinion of the TRS QP, to justify estimation of Indicated Mineral Resources.
−Removed: Thus, in these areas, where the available data clearly indicated a mineralized trend the TRS QP projected Inferred Mineral Resources.
−Removed: Pre-2000 drill data generally consists of geophysical logs of drill holes including of copies (blueprints) of original drill logs and copies of digital printouts of depth and counts per second (“CPS”) in one-half foot increments within the mineralized zones.
−Removed: The geophysical logs include natural gamma, resistivity, and spontaneous potential (“SP”).
−Removed: All drill holes were drilled with fluid and logged in the open hole with no casing.
−Removed: All drill holes were vertical.
−Removed: Drift data was available from 82% of the geophysical logs.
−Removed: Downhole drift shifted the downhole location with respect to the surface collar location by an average of 11.4.
−Removed: Variation in true depth ranged from 0 to 0.5 feet and averaged 0.2 feet.
−Removed: Radiometric equivalent data is available for all the drill holes used in the mineral resource estimate and is incorporated into the drill hole database.
−Removed: Radioactive isotopes decay until they reach a stable non-radioactive state.
−Removed: The radioactive decay chain isotopes are referred to as daughters.
−Removed: When all the decay products are maintained in close association with the primary uranium isotope U238 for the order of a million years or more, the daughter isotopes will be in equilibrium with the parent isotope.
−Removed: Disequilibrium occurs when one or more decay products are dispersed as a result of differences in solubility between uranium and its daughters.
−Removed: Disequilibrium is considered positive when there is a higher proportion of uranium present compared to daughters and negative where daughters are accumulated and uranium is depleted.
−Removed: The DEF is determined by comparing radiometric equivalent uranium grade eU3O8 to chemical uranium grade.
−Removed: Radiometric equilibrium is represented by a DEF of 1, positive radiometric equilibrium by a factor greater than 1 and negative radiometric equilibrium by a factor of less than 1.
−Removed: Except in cases where uranium mineralization is exposed to strongly oxidized conditions, most of the sandstone roll-front deposits reasonably approximate radiometric equilibrium.
−Removed: The nose of a roll-front deposit tends to have the most positive DEF and the tails of a roll-front would tend to have the lowest DEF.
−Removed: Available data shows a range in DEF from 0.835 to 1.125 and generally shows depletion of the tails or altered portions of the roll-front and enrichment near the REDOX boundary or nose of the roll-front.
−Removed: Only 2% of the drilling was completed by coring, while the TRS QP does not consider the available core data sufficiently conclusive to apply a correction for DEF, an assumption of radiometric equilibrium (DEF = 1) is considered reasonable with respect to mineral resources as the mineralization is well below the ground water table and not subject to surficial oxidation.
−Removed: It is recommended that in the future assessment of mineral reserves additional data relative to radiometric equilibrium be collected and radiometric equilibrium conditions be evaluated.
−Removed: The density of mineralization used in the resource estimation was 16 cubic feet per ton.
−Removed: This is the most common figure used for sandstone hosted, roll-front uranium deposits in Wyoming and Colorado, as noted extensively throughout the literature on these deposits, and from the QP’s working experience from mining similar sandstone-hosted deposits.
−Removed: Specific rock density studies are not available for the project.
−Removed: Mineral Resource Estimates
−Removed: The following key assumptions were used for resource estimates, unless otherwise noted:
−Removed: resources are located in permeable and porous sandstones;
−Removed: resources are located below the water table.
−Removed: The primary method for estimating Nine Mile Lake Project Area mineral resources is the GT contour method.
−Removed: The GT contour method is one of the most widely used and dependable methods to estimate resources in uranium roll-front deposits.
−Removed: The basis of the GT contour method is the GT (grade x mineralized thickness) values, which are determined for each drill hole using radiometric log results and a suitable GT cutoff below which the GT value is considered to be zero.
−Removed: The GT values are then plotted on a drill hole map and GT contours are drawn accordingly using roll-front data derived from cuttings and the nature of the gamma anomalies.
−Removed: The resources are calculated from the area within the GT contour boundaries considering the disequilibrium factor and the ore zone density.
−Removed: At the Nine Mile Lake Project Area inferred mineral resources were estimated by projecting along an identified redox boundary or mineral trend.
−Removed: The resource estimate method, general parameters and mineralized cutoffs used at the Nine Mile Lake Project Area are summarized below.
−Removed: Nine Mile Lake Project Area Resource Estimate Methodology
−Removed: Cutoff Parameters
−Removed: Mineral Resource
−Removed: Estimation Method
−Removed: Disequilibrium
−Removed: Nine Mile Lake
−Removed: GT Contour (Inferred)
−Removed: Projected (Inferred)
−Removed: Based on the depths of mineralization, average grade, thickness and GT, it is the TRS QP’s opinion that the mineral resources of the Nine Mile Lake Project Area can be recoverable by ISR methods using a long-term uranium price of $40/lb.
−Removed: The cutoffs were determined separately for each Nine Mile Lake Project Area with the unique aspects of each Nine Mile Lake Project Area taken into consideration.
−Removed: Uranium does not trade on the open market and many of the private sales contracts are not publicly disclosed.
−Removed: UEC used $40/lb as the forecast uranium price for the Project.
−Removed: This is based on:
−Removed: (i) the long-term contract price at the end of February 2022, which was $43.88/lb.
−Removed: from Cameco Resources’
−Removed: combination of UxC and Trade Tech reports (Cameco, 2022);
−Removed: (ii) the spot price at the end of February 2022 ($48.75/lb.);
−Removed: (iii) UxC’s price forecast;
−Removed: and (iv) UEC’s understanding of market expectations.
−Removed: The table below contains the UxC uranium price forecast for Q4 of 2021.
−Removed: UxC Q4 2021 Uranium Price Forecast ($/lb U3O8)
−Removed: UxC Market Outlook Q4 2021
−Removed: UxC High Price Midpoint
−Removed: UxC Low Price Midpoint
−Removed: UxC Mid Price Midpoint
−Removed: In the opinion of the TRS QP, $40/lb is a conservative forecast price for the following reasons:
−Removed: first, at the issuance date, both the long-term price and spot price are greater than $40/lb;
−Removed: second, new physical uranium investment vehicles were created in 2021, such as the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust and the upcoming physical uranium fund backed by Kazatomprom, the National Bank of Kazakhstan and Genchi Global Ltd., which effectively remove uranium supply from the market;
−Removed: third, the increasing demand for carbon-free energy and global plans to construct new nuclear reactors will increase demand for uranium;
−Removed: finally, there has already been a steady increase in the uranium price for the last three years with a sharp rise to greater than $40/lb in the second half of 2021, due in part to increased demand from the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust.
−Removed: Due to recent volatility in the uranium market, the QP believes that a conservative forecast price is justified.
−Removed: For the above reasons, the TRS QP also believes that a $40/lb price is considered reasonable by the QP for use in cutoff determination and to assess reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction.
−Removed: Inferred resources at the Nine Mile Lake Project Area are classified based on the density of the drill hole data.
−Removed: Higher drill hole densities allow more confidence in the shape and size of the interpreted mineral horizons.
−Removed: The specific criteria for classifying resources as measured, indicated or inferred vary by Nine Mile Lake Project Area depending on the methodology used.
−Removed: The table below details the resource classification criteria used in the resource estimates in each of the Nine Mile Lake Project Area.
−Removed: Nine Mile Lake Project Area Drill Hole Information
−Removed: Distance Between Drill Hole Locations
−Removed: for Resource Classifications (ft)
−Removed: Nine Mile Lake
−Removed: There are numerous reasons that mineralization was interpreted as measured resources within the Nine Mile Lake Project Area:
−Removed: first, the drill hole spacing used to classify the measured resource is generally less than or equal to the 100 ft well spacing in a typical production pattern, which enables a detailed wellfield design to be completed;
−Removed: second, the sub-surface geology within the Nine Mile Lake Project Area is very well characterized with aquifers that correlate, consistent host sandstone intervals and reliable aquitards across the resource areas;
−Removed: third, mineralization occurs along the redox interface and the oxidized sands have different coloration than the reduced sands.
−Removed: These color variations are visible in drill cuttings and are used to map the redox interface and to guide drilling and wellfield design.
−Removed: Inferred mineral resources were estimated for the Nine Mile Lake Project Area and are summarized in the following table.
−Removed: Nine Mile Lake Project Area Inferred Mineral Resources
−Removed: Mineral Resource
−Removed: Average Grade
−Removed: Nine Mile Lake
−Removed: Present Condition of Property and Work Completed to Date
−Removed: The Nine Mile Lake Project Area is not currently permitted and work includes maintaining the mineral leases and mining claims.
−Removed: The Company ’
−Removed: s Planned Work
−Removed: The Company plans to maintain the leases and mining claims comprising the Nine Mile Lake Project Area.
+Added: 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”. 
+Added: The mineralization at the Nine Mile Lake Project Area is typical of the Wyoming roll-front sandstone deposits. 
+Added: Table 2.26 –
+Added: Mineral Resources for the Nine Mile Lake Project as at the date of this Annual Report
+Added: Classification
+Added: Tons Ore (000 ’
+Added: Tonnes Ore (1000 ’
+Added: Average Grade (% eU 3 O 8 )
+Added: Pounds eU 3 O 8  (000 ’
+Added: Total Resources
+Added: The sum of resource tons and lbs.
+Added: may not add up to the reported total due to rounding.
+Added: Measured, indicated, and inferred mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300.
+Added: GT Cutoff = 0.25 m% eU 3 O 8
+Added: All reported resources occur below the static water table.
+Added: The point of reference for mineral resources is in-situ at the Project.
+Added: Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
Red Rim Project
−Removed: The following technical and scientific description for the Red Rim Project (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”, current on March 31, 2022, as prepared by WWC, a qualified firm (the “QP”
−Removed: The Red Rim ISR Project Area does not have mineral reserves and is therefore considered an Exploration Stage property under S-K 1300 definitions.
+Added: 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”
+Added: The Red Rim Project Area does not have mineral reserves and is therefore considered an Exploration Stage property under S-K 1300 definitions.
+Added: Figure 2.13 - Location of the Red Rim Project
Property Description
−Removed: The Red Rim Project Area is in the GGRB in Carbon County.
−Removed: The Red Rim Project Area covers 1,000 acres, including all (or portions of) 4 sections.
+Added: The Red Rim Project Area is in the GGRB in Carbon County at latitude 41.6502 and longitude ‑107.5755 in decimal degrees.
+Added: 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.
−Removed: The site is accessible via two-wheel drive via three different routes.
−Removed: The Daley Road which proceeds south from Interstate 80 to the site, and Carbon County Road 605 which proceeds approximately 23 miles southwest from Rawlins along Hogback Ridge.
+Added: 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.
−Removed: Map of UEC Project Areas
−Removed: The Red Rim Project Area is owned and operated by UEC.
−Removed: UEC holds unpatented BLM lode claims for the Red Rim Project Area.
−Removed: Mineral rights for the Red Rim Project Area are comprised of federally administered minerals (unpatented lode claims).
−Removed: Federal mining claims were staked and recorded consistent with federal and state law.
−Removed: Property Characteristics Summary
−Removed: State of Wyoming
−Removed: Mining Claims
−Removed: Leases/Claims
−Removed: Total Annual Cost
−Removed: UEC’s mineral holdings in the Red Rim Project Area include 49 unpatented federal mining lode claims (1,000 acres).
−Removed: Payments for all claims are up to date as of the effective date of the TRS.
−Removed: Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography
−Removed: The Red Rim Project Area is located in the GGRB in Carbon County, Wyoming.
−Removed: The Red Rim Project Area is located in the northeast portion of the GGRB.
−Removed: The GGRB is a structural basin that encompasses nearly 21,000 square miles in southwest Wyoming and northwest Colorado.
−Removed: Regional structural features include 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.
−Removed: The topography at the Red Rim Project Area has a prominent low-lying ridge with a southwest/northeast orientation, and Separation Creek, which generally forms the southern boundary of the Red Rim Project Area.
−Removed: Elevations range from approximately 6,000 to slightly over 7,000 feet above mean sea level.
−Removed: The Red Rim Project Area is located in the Wyoming Basin Level III ecoregion and are characterized as rolling sagebrush steppe.
−Removed: This ecoregion is a broad intermontane basin interrupted by hills and low mountains and dominated by arid grasslands and shrublands.
−Removed: The Red Rim Project Area is rangeland with vegetation also consisting primarily of sagebrush and grasses.
−Removed: Yearly precipitation in the Red Rim Project Area is approximately 8 to 12 inches.
−Removed: Precipitation is predominantly in the form of late autumnal to early spring snows.
−Removed: The summer months are usually hot with temperature occasionally exceeding 100°
−Removed: F, dry and clear, except for infrequent rains.
−Removed: Winter conditions can be severe and can include sub-zero temperatures and ground blizzards.
+Added: Limited services and personnel are available from Rawlins, WY, Primarily, services and personnel will be sourced from Casper.
+Added: Water will be sourced locally at the site while electrical service will be provided by a regional power company.
+Added: UEC’s mineral holdings in the Red Rim Project Area include 34 unpatented federal mining lode claims (680 acres). 
+Added: All payments for all claims are up to date.
Uranium mineralization was discovered in the GGRB at the Lost Creek Schoekingerite deposit in the early 1950s.
29 unchanged sentences
Ownership transition.
−Removed: Permitting and Licensing
−Removed: The Red Rim Project Area is not permitted.
+Added: Property Condition and Proposed Development
+Added: The property is in good condition. 
+Added: There are no plans for near term exploration or delineation drilling.
+Added: Facilities, Infrastructure and Underground Development
+Added: There are no facilities or wellfields constructed on the project.
+Added: Permit Status and Encumbrances
+Added: The Red Rim Project has not been permitted or licensed for ISR operations. 
+Added: Exploration and delineation drilling is conducted under a WDEQ LQD Drilling Notification. 
+Added: There are no materially significant encumbrances on the Red Rim Project. 
+Added: Standard encumbrances include reclamation bonding for drilling, mining and surface lease royalties.
Geologic Setting, Mineralization and Deposit
−Removed: The Red Rim Project Area is located within the WB portion of the GGRB.
+Added: 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.
−Removed: These basins contain up to 25,000 ft of Cretaceous to recent sedimentary rocks.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: The GGRB contains up to 25,000 ft of Cretaceous to recent sedimentary rocks.
−Removed: During the end of the Cretaceous Period, the Laramide Orogeny divided the Wyoming Basin Province into a series of down warped basins.
−Removed: As these basins were created, uplift created the Granite and Seminoe Mountains, and older formations were altered during the same time.
−Removed: In the northern regions of the GGRB, swamps, alluvial plains and fluvial fans were present at the margins of the uplifted Granite Mountains.
−Removed: To the southwest, the GGRB is occupied by the lacustrine Eocene Green River Formation and by the lower energy Wasatch Formation.
−Removed: These two facies interfinger with the high-energy fluvial facies of the Battle Spring Formation at the central and eastern areas in the GGRB.
−Removed: The Paleocene Fort Union Formation Underlies the Wasatch or Battle Springs formation, depending on position within the basin.
−Removed: Uranium deposits occur in the GDB/WB predominantly in roll-front redox deposits, but also desert evaporite.
−Removed: Roll-front deposits occur in the Battle Spring, Wasatch and Fort Union Formations.
−Removed: The Battle Spring Formation consists of alluvial-fluvial fan deposits of west to southwest-flowing paleodrainage.
−Removed: The common rock type is arkosic sandstone with interbedded claystone.
−Removed: These types of rock are typical of alluvial-fan facies.
−Removed: Much of this material is sourced from the Granite Mountains by blockages in normal drainages due to differential subsidence rates.
−Removed: The Wasatch Formation, due to its fluvial nature, contains interbedded siltstones, coal, carbonaceous shale, fine-grained sandstone, sandy limestone and medium-grained fluvial sandstones.
−Removed: The permeable medium- to very coarse-grained sandstones and arkoses are a favorable host for sandstone-type uranium deposits.
−Removed: Fluvial channels incised into less permeable underlying siltstones and sandstones in the Battle Spring during early Eocene time.
−Removed: The channels were backfilled by the massive, poorly-sorted, coalescing alluvial fan deposits, known as the Battle Spring Formation.
−Removed: The Battle Spring Formation includes impermeable carbonaceous shales that created an impermeable boundary for uranium deposits.
−Removed: The Fort Union Formation surfaces around the boundary of the GDB.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: It may truncate and unconformably overlie older units near basin margins.
−Removed: The Fort Union is unconformably underlain by the Cretaceous Lance Formation and regionally overlain by either the Eocene Wasatch or Battle Spring Formation.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: The Lance Formation contains the upper Red Rim Member and the lower (unnamed) member.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: Overbank and floodplain deposits in the Battle Spring Formation also were likely to restrict groundwater flow.
−Removed: These boundaries focused uranium-rich waters into confined permeable units.
−Removed: Faulting also created structural and permeability control.
−Removed: Data Verification
−Removed: Data used for the resource estimate at the Red Rim Project Area consisted of original geophysical and lithologic logs and an electronic drill hole database.
−Removed: The original radiometric drill data was available as a paper record.
−Removed: This data was inputted as electronic data via a spreadsheet into the computer programs utilized in the development of this report.
−Removed: Data entry was checked and confirmed.
−Removed: Drill hole locations were scanned and digitally rectified.
−Removed: The resultant drill maps were then checked and confirmed by overlaying with the original maps.
−Removed: Radiometric log interpretation was confirmed from available geophysical logs.
−Removed: Geologic interpretation and correlation of lithology was completed by the QP by personally examining each drill log.
−Removed: The TRS QP worked on the Red Rim Project Area in 1980 and 1981 when the exploratory drilling was being conducted and can personally verify that the drill data was collected according to recognized standards of the industry.
−Removed: Limited data is available for the evaluation of radiometric equilibrium.
−Removed: The Red Rim occurs at depth, is more than 1,000 feet below the modern water table and is not subjected to oxidizing surface waters.
−Removed: As a result, the mineralization is not expected to exhibit significant disequilibrium.
−Removed: Available chemical data from two core holes is summarized in the following table.
−Removed: Radiometric Equilibrium
−Removed: Mineralization
−Removed: Identification
−Removed: It should be noted that the core holes intercepted thin intervals of mineralization and the equilibrium ratios varied from 0.71 (depletion) to 1.47 (enrichment) of chemical U3O8 assayed versus the radiometric equivalent.
−Removed: The TRS QP concludes that the available information does not warrant adjustment of the radiometric data and that a DEF of 1 be applied to the mineral resource estimate.
−Removed: Mineral Resource Estimates
−Removed: The following key assumptions were used for resource estimates, unless otherwise noted:
−Removed: resources are located in permeable and porous sandstones;
−Removed: resources are located below the water table.
−Removed: The primary method for estimating Red Rim Project Area mineral resources is the GT contour method.
−Removed: The GT contour method is one of the most widely used and dependable methods to estimate resources in uranium roll-front deposits.
−Removed: The basis of the GT contour method is the GT (grade x mineralized thickness) values, which are determined for each drill hole using radiometric log results and a suitable GT cutoff, below which the GT value is considered to be zero.
−Removed: The GT values are then plotted on a drill hole map and GT contours are drawn accordingly using roll-front data derived from cuttings and the nature of the gamma anomalies.
−Removed: The resources are calculated from the area within the GT contour boundaries considering the DEF and the ore zone density.
−Removed: The resource estimate methods, general parameters, and mineralized cutoffs used at the Red Rim Project Area are summarized below.
−Removed: Red Rim Project Area Resource Estimate Methodology
−Removed: Cutoff Parameters
−Removed: Mineral Resource
−Removed: Estimation Method
−Removed: Disequilibrium
−Removed: GT Contour (Indicated)
−Removed: Polygonal (Indicated)
−Removed: GT Contour (Inferred)
−Removed: Projected (Inferred)
−Removed: Based on the depths of mineralization, average grade, thickness and GT, it is the TRS QP’s opinion that the mineral resources of the Red Rim Project Area can be recoverable by ISR methods using a long-term uranium price of $40/lb.
−Removed: The cutoffs were determined separately for each Red Rim Project Area with the unique aspects of each Red Rim Project Area taken into consideration.
−Removed: Uranium does not trade on the open market and many of the private sales contracts are not publicly disclosed.
−Removed: UEC used $40/lb as the forecast uranium price for the Project.
−Removed: This is based on:
−Removed: (i) the long-term contract price at the end of February 2022, which was $43.88/lb from Cameco Resources’
−Removed: combination of UxC and Trade Tech reports (Cameco, 2022);
−Removed: (ii) the spot price at the end of February 2022 ($48.75/lb);
−Removed: (iii) UxC’s price forecast;
−Removed: and (iv) UEC’s understanding of market expectations.
−Removed: The table below contains the UxC uranium price forecast for Q4 of 2021.
−Removed:          
−Removed: UxC Q4 2021 Uranium Price Forecast ($/lb U3O8)
−Removed: UxC Market Outlook Q4 2021
−Removed: UxC High Price Midpoint
−Removed: UxC Low Price Midpoint
−Removed: UxC Mid Price Midpoint
−Removed: In the opinion of the TRS QP, $40/lb is a conservative forecast price for the following reasons:
−Removed: first, at the issuance date, both the long-term price and spot price are greater than $40/lb;
−Removed: second, new physical uranium investment vehicles were created in 2021, such as the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust and the upcoming physical uranium fund backed by Kazatomprom, the National Bank of Kazakhstan and Genchi Global Ltd., which effectively remove uranium supply from the market;
−Removed: third, the increasing demand for carbon-free energy and global plans to construct new nuclear reactors will increase demand for uranium;
−Removed: finally, there has already been a steady increase in the uranium price for the last three years with a sharp rise to greater than $40/lb in the second half of 2021, due in part to increased demand from the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust.
−Removed: Due to recent volatility in the uranium market, the QP believes that a conservative forecast price is justified.
−Removed: For the above reasons, the TRS QP also believes that a $40/lb price is considered reasonable by the QP for use in cutoff determination and to assess reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction.
−Removed:          
−Removed: Red Rim Project Area Drill Hole Information
−Removed: Distance Between Drill Hole Locations
−Removed: for Resource Classifications (ft)
−Removed: There are numerous reasons that mineralization was interpreted as measured resources within the Red Rim Project Area:
−Removed: first, the drill hole spacing used to classify the measured resource is generally less than or equal to the 100 ft well spacing in a typical production pattern, which enables a detailed wellfield design to be completed;
−Removed: second, the sub-surface geology within the Red Rim Project Area is very well characterized with aquifers that correlate consistent host sandstone intervals and reliable aquitards across the resource areas;
−Removed: third, mineralization occurs along the redox interface, and the oxidized sands have different coloration than the reduced sands.
−Removed: These color variations are visible in drill cuttings and are used to map the redox interface and to guide drilling and wellfield design;
−Removed: finally, historic production has occurred both commercially and through research and development facilities at the Red Rim Project Area.
−Removed: Mineral resources were estimated separately for the Red Rim Project Area.
−Removed: The estimates of measured and indicated mineral resources for the Red Rim Project Area are reported in the table below.
−Removed: Red Rim Project Area Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources
−Removed: Mineral Resource
−Removed: Average Grade
−Removed: Total Measured and Indicated
−Removed: The estimates of inferred mineral resources for the Red Rim Project Area are reported in the table below.
−Removed: Red Rim Project Area Inferred Mineral Resources
−Removed: Mineral Resource
−Removed: Average Grade
−Removed: This combination of drill hole spacing, well-known subsurface geology, well-understood deposit model, successful production and the variety of data collected led WWC, the TRS QP, to conclude that the mineralization in areas with drill hole spacing tabulated above fit the definition for measured resources.
−Removed: Present Condition of Property and Work Completed to Date
−Removed: The Red Rim Project Area remains undeveloped and unpermitted.
−Removed: Current work is claim maintenance only.
−Removed: The Company ’
−Removed: s Planned Work
−Removed: The Company plans to maintain the federal lode claims comprising the Red Rim Project Area.
+Added: Mineralization at the Red Rim project area occurs in the Fort Union Formation.
+Added: The Fort Union Formation is a medium to coarse-grained arkosic sandstone that generally grades upward.
+Added: The Fort Union is unconformably underlain by the Cretaceous Lance Formation and regionally overlain by the Eocene Wasatch Formation.
+Added: 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.
+Added: South of Separation Creek, the formation becomes less resistant, is composed of sub-arkosic to quartzose, and is generally not altered.
+Added: The two commonly cited sources of uranium for the Red Rim are the Granite Mountains and leaching of Oligocene and Miocene volcanics.
+Added: 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.
+Added: The host sandstone unit has been designated the #3 sand, and ranges in thickness from approximately 60 to 120 ft.
+Added: Mineralized thickness ranges from 1 to 23.5 ft.
+Added: Table 2.28 –
+Added: Mineral Resources for the Red Rim Project as at the date of this Annual Report
+Added: Classification
+Added: Tons Ore (000 ’
+Added: Tonnes Ore (1000 ’
+Added: Average Grade (% eU 3 O 8 )
+Added: Pounds eU 3 O 8  (000 ’
+Added: Total Resources
+Added: The sum of resource tons and lbs.
+Added: may not add up to the reported total due to rounding.
+Added: Measured, indicated, and inferred mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300.
+Added: GT Cutoff = 0.25 m% eU 3 O 8
+Added: All reported resources occur below the static water table.
+Added: The point of reference for mineral resources is in-situ at the Project.
+Added: Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
Clarkson Hill Project
−Removed: The following technical and scientific description for the Clarkson Hill (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”, current on March 31, 2022, as prepared by WWC, a qualified firm (the “QP”
+Added: 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”
+Added: herein). 
The Clarkson Hill Project Area does not have mineral reserves and is therefore considered an Exploration Stage property under S-K 1300 definitions.
+Added: Figure 2.14 –
+Added: Location of the Clarkson Project
Property Description
−Removed: The Clarkson Hill Project is located in Natrona County, Wyoming, about 20 air miles southwest of Casper, Wyoming.
−Removed: The property is located on portions of sections 7, 17, and 18 of T31N R82W.
−Removed: Land ownership consists of federal lands administered by the BLM, state lands, and private lands.
−Removed: The Clarkson Hill Project Area is accessible from either Highway 220 or from the Oregon Trail Road, a Natrona County improved gravel road.
−Removed: From Highway 220, the site is approximately four miles northwest of the junction of the highway with Natrona County Road 318.
−Removed: From the Oregon Trail Road, the site is approximately three miles to the southeast.
−Removed: Site access from either route will require an arrangement with intervening private landowners for ingress/egress.
−Removed: The communities of Alcova and Bessemer Bend are located 10 and 13 miles away, respectively, and have limited services.
+Added: 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. 
+Added: The property is located on portions of sections 7, 17, and 18 of T31N R82W. 
+Added: Land ownership consists of federal lands administered by the BLM, state lands and private lands. 
+Added: The Clarkson Hill Project Area is accessible from either Highway 220 or from the Oregon Trail Road, a Natrona County improved gravel road. 
+Added: From Highway 220, the site is approximately four miles northwest of the junction of the highway with Natrona County Road 318. 
+Added: From the Oregon Trail Road, the site is approximately three miles to the southeast. 
+Added: Site access from either route will require an arrangement with intervening private landowners for ingress/egress. 
+Added: 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.
−Removed: Map of UEC Project Areas
−Removed: This Clarkson Hill Project Area is owned by UEC.
−Removed: UEC acquired the property from Anfield in 2022.
−Removed: Land ownership consists of federal lands administered by the BLM, state lands and private lands.
−Removed: The mineral ownership is comprised of unpatented mining lode claims held by UEC.
−Removed: The 25 mining claims are unpatented mining lode claims, comprise some 500 acres and are located on federal lands.
−Removed: Property Characteristics Summary
−Removed: State of Wyoming
−Removed: Mining Claims
−Removed: Clarkson Hill
−Removed: Leases/Claims
−Removed: Total Annual Cost
−Removed: Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography
−Removed: The Clarkson Hill Project Area is in the Wind River Basin (the “WRB”) in Natrona County, Wyoming.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: The Clarkson Hill Project Area is located in a broad synclinal valley northeast of the North Granite Mountain Fault.
−Removed: The Clarkson Hill Project Area extends from the base to the top of a small mesa known as Clarkson Hill.
−Removed: Although the site is situated on public lands administered by the BLM, site access from either route will require an arrangement with intervening private land owners for ingress/egress.
−Removed: Although past mining on a limited scale was completed on the site in the 1950s, no infrastructure is present at the site.
−Removed: Utility corridors exist along the Oregon Trail Road, including power and gas transmission lines.
−Removed: The principal access roads to the site are maintained year-round and year round operations could be conducted at the Clarkson Hill Project Area.
−Removed: The Clarkson Hill Project Area is located in the Wyoming Basin Level III ecoregion, which is characterized as rolling sagebrush steppe.
−Removed: This ecoregion is a broad intermontane basin interrupted by hills and low mountains and dominated by arid grasslands and shrublands.
−Removed: Most common native vegetation is sage brush and prairie grasses and to a lesser extent, rabbit brush.
−Removed: No threatened or endangered plants are known in the area.
−Removed: Limited upland areas have juniper and limber pine trees on north facing slopes.
−Removed: Most drainages in the area are ephemeral, flowing only during storm events or spring snow melt.
−Removed: The North Platte River some 4-5 miles south of the Clarkson Hill Project Area, is perennial and is one of the major river systems in Wyoming.
−Removed: The top of the mesa is relatively flat, with an elevation of approximately 6,200 feet above mean sea level.
−Removed: The mesa has approximately 200 feet of vertical relief with some relatively steep slopes, in excess of 3:1 (horizontal to vertical).
−Removed: The currently defined area of mineralization is at the base and along the slope of the mesa.
−Removed: Climate at the Clarkson Hill Project Area is continental semi-arid, with annual precipitation of 8-12 inches, mostly falling in the form of late autumnal to early spring snows.
−Removed: The summer months are usually hot with temperature occasionally exceeding 100° F, dry and clear except for infrequent rains.
−Removed: Winter conditions can be severe and can include sub-zero temperatures and ground blizzards.
−Removed: Mule deer and pronghorn antelope are common, as are nesting raptors.
−Removed: Small rodents and rabbits are common.
−Removed: The Greater Sage Grouse, present in the general area of the Clarkson Hill Project Area, has been considered for listing as a threatened or endangered species.
−Removed: In addition to site access, mine development will require utilities and water supply.
−Removed: No current infrastructure is present at the site.
−Removed: The nature and scope of the mine operations will greatly influence utility and water supply demands.
−Removed: The closest utility services are along the right of way of the Oregon Trail Road.
−Removed: Water supply could be obtained from locally permitted and constructed wells or from surface water sources, including the Platte River south of the Clarkson Hill Project Area.
−Removed: Water rights for both surface and ground water are administered by the Wyoming State Engineer’s Office and are subject to prior water rights.
−Removed: Options for on-site power demands would include extension of existing utilities to the Clarkson Hill Project Area or the generation of power on site.
−Removed: The nearest community is the town of Casper, Wyoming.
−Removed: Casper is the second-largest city in Wyoming, according to the 2010 census, with a population of 55,316.
−Removed: Casper is the County Seat and has a long history as an oil boomtown.
−Removed: Several oilfield and mining service companies are located in Casper, including a caterpillar dealership, several drilling companies and industrial supply companies.
−Removed: Casper has an adequate workforce skilled in mining and mineral exploration to support the Clarkson Hill Project Area.
+Added: The site is accessible year-round on county and private roads as described above.
+Added: All services and personnel will be available from Casper.
+Added: Water will be sourced locally at the site, while electrical service will be provided by a regional power company.
+Added: UEC’s mineral holdings in the Clarkson Hill Project Area include 20 unpatented lode claims on federally administered minerals (400 acres). 
+Added: All payments for all claims are up to date.
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).
−Removed: However, USGS and U.S.
−Removed: Bureau or Mines databases list the Clarkson Hill Project Area claims as a surface mine prospect with no reported production.
+Added: However, USGS and the U.S.
+Added: 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.
−Removed: Surface disturbance is limited and there is no known infrastructure, tailings or mine waste apparent at the site.
+Added: 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”.
27 unchanged sentences
Ownership transition.
−Removed: Permitting and Licensing
−Removed: The Clarkson Hill Project Area is not permitted.
−Removed: In order to conduct exploratory drilling, UEC would be required to obtain a DN approved by the State of Wyoming WDEQ/LQD and the BLM to allow surface use for the purposes of exploration by drilling.
−Removed: Although not required at this stage, mine development would require a number of permits depending on the type and extent of development, the most significant permits being the Permit to Mine issued by the WDEQ/LQD and the Source Materials License also issued by the WDEQ/LQD, which is required for mineral processing of natural uranium.
−Removed: Any injection or pumping operations will require permits from the WDEQ, which has authority under the Safe Water Drinking Act that stems from a grant of primacy from the U.S.
−Removed: Environmental Protection Agency for administering UIC programs in Wyoming.
+Added: Property Condition and Proposed Development
+Added: The property is in good condition. 
+Added: There are currently no plans for near term exploration or delineation drilling.
+Added: Facilities, Infrastructure and Underground Development
+Added: There are no facilities or wellfields constructed on the property.
+Added: Permit Status and Encumbrances
+Added: The Clarkson Hill Project has not been permitted or licensed for ISR operations. 
+Added: Exploration and delineation drilling is conducted under a WDEQ LQD Drilling Notification. 
+Added: There are no materially significant encumbrances on the Clarkson Hill Project. 
+Added: Standard encumbrances may include reclamation bonding for drilling, mining and surface lease royalties.
Geologic Setting, Mineralization and Deposit
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: The WRB is a structural basin in west-central Wyoming.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: The WRB is filled with marine, lacustrine and fluvial sediments ranging in age from Paleozoic to Cenozoic.
−Removed: Both the Wind River and Fort Union Formations are Cenozoic fluvial sedimentary deposits containing sandstone with economic quantities of uranium.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: The Paleocene Fort Union is the oldest Tertiary formation and consists of sandstone, siltstone, shale, coal and local conglomerates.
−Removed: The Fort Union is overlain, often unconformably, by the Eocene Wind River Formation, which consists of sandstones, conglomerates, siltstones and shale.
−Removed: Overlying the Wind River Formation is the Oligocene White River Formation.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: This volcanic ash is regarded by many as the source of uranium for many Wyoming sandstone uranium deposits.
−Removed: Economic uranium deposits in the WRB typically occur as roll-front deposits in porous sandstones within the Wind River and Fort Union Formations.
−Removed: Mineralization at the Clarkson Hill Project Area occurs in the Fort Union Formation.
+Added: 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. 
+Added: 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.
−Removed: The Paleocene Fort Union Formation is a terrestrial sedimentary deposit consisting of sandstone, siltstone, shale, coal and local conglomerates.
−Removed: The primary source of Fort Union Formation sediments was the ancestral Granite Mountains west and south of the Clarkson Hill Project Area.
+Added: The Paleocene Fort Union Formation is a terrestrial sedimentary deposit consisting of sandstone, siltstone, shale, coal and local conglomerates. 
+Added: 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.
−Removed: At the Clarkson Hill Project Area, mineralization occurs at multiple depths within the Fort Union Formation.
+Added: 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.
−Removed: Data Verification
−Removed: Data used for the resource estimate at the Clarkson Hill Project Area consisted of original geophysical and lithologic logs and an electronic drill hole database.
−Removed: The TRS QP has reviewed the data verification procedures and considers the procedures credible and reliable.
−Removed: Currently available drill data consists of radiometric equivalent data (eU3O8) for 255 drill holes;
−Removed: 250 pre-2008 and five completed in 2008.
−Removed: No additional recent drilling is known.
−Removed: Of the total 238 drill holes, 17 were cored.
−Removed: All original drill data including geophysical logs, lithological logs, and chemical assay certificates are available for the Clarkson Hill Project Area.
−Removed: The pre-2008 drill data was originally collected by MEC, using company logging trucks and several third party contractors.
−Removed: The pre-2008 drill data includes geophysical logs from MEC (40%), Century Geophysical (4%), Birdwell (20%), Master Logging Inc.
−Removed: (10%), Velocity Radiation Surveys (22%) and GEO Nuclear Services (4%).
−Removed: It was standard industry practice at the time, and it is the current practice, to maintain calibration of geophysical logging equipment through use of the AEC/ERDA (now DOE) standard calibration pits located at Casper, Wyoming and Grand Junction, Colorado, for quality control and assurance with respect to radiometric equivalent data.
−Removed: The geophysical logs include natural gamma, resistivity and spontaneous potential.
−Removed: All drill holes were drilled with fluid and logged in the open hole with no casing.
−Removed: All drill holes were vertical with no drift data.
−Removed: Radiometric equivalent data is available for all the drill holes used in the mineral resource estimate (pre- and post-2008) and is incorporated into the drill hole database.
−Removed: The pre-2008 drill data was combined with data from 2008 drilling in an electronic database.
−Removed: During the preparation of the Clarkson Hill Project Area’s TRS, the available electronic data was reviewed for each of the mineral resource areas.
−Removed: This process included:
−Removed: Plotting of the drill hole locations and comparing these to drill maps prepared by previous operators;
−Removed: Screening the drill hole data and preparing a subset of the data containing mineralized intercepts meeting grade, thickness and GT cut-off criteria;
−Removed: Correlating the mineralized intercept data such that mineral resource estimates reflected only continuous horizons within the Fort Union Formation;
−Removed: Excluding any spurious mineralized horizons (laterally or by depth from the continuous horizons) from the mineral resource estimate.
−Removed: This process excluded mineralization in the overlying Wind River Formation;
−Removed: Examining any mineralized intercepts which were either substantially higher or lower than the surrounding values to insure the data was considered reliable and therefore suitable to be used.
−Removed: Radiometric equivalent (%eU3O8) drill data from a total of 255 drill holes was available for the Clarkson Hill Project Area.
−Removed: Of the total 255 drill holes, 110 expressed uranium mineralization greater than 0.02 %eU3O8 and a GT greater than 0.10 and thus were included in the mineral resource estimate.
−Removed: For verification purposes, 10% of the drill holes used in the mineral resource estimate (5% of total drill holes) were selected, representing the range of mineralization observed and year drilled.
−Removed: The earliest year was 1968 and the latest was 1981.
−Removed: Mineralization in the selected drill holes ranged from a high GT value of 3.5 to a low value of 0.16.
−Removed: Barren holes were examined but not included in the analysis.
−Removed: Examination of these drill holes confirmed that the drill hole database reasonably reflects the depth, thickness and radiometric equivalent uranium grade from the original geophysical logs.
−Removed: The only discrepancy noted was the omission of isolated mineralized intercepts of lower grade and thickness, which were not included in the database, which the TRS QP concurs with.
−Removed: Re-calculation by the QP shows the original interpretation of radiometric equivalent uranium grade is approximately 8.2% less the re-calculated values, which means that the database is conservative with respect to grade as compared to the re-calculated holes.
−Removed: Radioactive isotopes decay until they reach a stable non-radioactive state.
−Removed: The radioactive decay chain isotopes are referred to as daughters.
−Removed: When all the decay products are maintained in close association with the primary uranium isotope U238 for the order of a million years or more, the daughter isotopes will be in equilibrium with the parent isotope.
−Removed: Disequilibrium occurs when one or more decay products are dispersed as a result of differences in solubility between uranium and its daughters.
−Removed: Disequilibrium is considered positive when there is a higher proportion of uranium present compared to daughters and negative where daughters are accumulated and uranium is depleted.
−Removed: The DEF is determined by comparing radiometric equivalent uranium grade eU3O8 to chemical uranium grade.
−Removed: Radiometric equilibrium is represented by a DEF of 1, positive radiometric equilibrium by a factor greater than 1 and negative radiometric equilibrium by a factor of less than 1.
−Removed: Except in cases where uranium mineralization is exposed to strongly oxidized conditions, most of the sandstone roll-front deposits reasonably approximate radiometric equilibrium.
−Removed: The nose of a roll-front deposit tends to have the most positive DEF and the tails of a roll-front tend to have the lowest DEF.
−Removed: The great majority of the data available for estimation of mineral resources is radiometric geophysical logging data from which the uranium content is interpreted.
−Removed: Radiometric equilibrium conditions may affect the grade and spatial location of uranium in the deposit.
−Removed: Generally an equilibrium ratio (Radiometric eU3O8 to Chemical U3O8) is assumed to be 1, i.e.
−Removed: equilibrium is assumed.
−Removed: For the Clarkson Hill Project Area, data is available for the evaluation of radiometric equilibrium.
−Removed: Available chemical data includes 17 core holes, however, only 13 were mineralized.
−Removed: The table below summarizes the results of the data available for evaluation of radiometric equilibrium conditions:
−Removed: Evaluation of Radiometric Equilibrium Conditions
−Removed: Weight % eU3O8
−Removed: Equilibrium Ratio
−Removed: >0.03 % eU3O8
−Removed: >0.05 % eU3O8
−Removed: In summary, based on available data and considering typical grade cutoffs in the range of 0.03 to 0.05 Weight % eU3O8, an assumption of radiometric equilibrium (DEF = 1) is reasonable with respect to mineral resources.
−Removed: It is recommended that in the future assessment of mineral reserves, additional data relative to radiometric equilibrium be developed and equilibrium be evaluated for each potential mining area by elevation with respect to the water table.
−Removed: The density of mineralization used in the Clarkson Hill Project Area resource estimation was 16 cubic feet per ton.
−Removed: This is the most common figure used for sandstone hosted, roll-front uranium deposits in Wyoming and Colorado, as noted extensively throughout the literature on these deposits.
−Removed: Density studies were completed by a previous operator MEC based on limited data from 17 core holes (13 of which were mineralized).
−Removed: This study stated an average density of 16.9 cubic feet per ton.
−Removed: Based on the limited number of core sampled for density, and the overall average being very similar to the 16 ft3/ton average used historically, the TRS QP has assumed a density factor of 16 ft3/ton for the mineral resource estimates reported in Section 14.
−Removed: The variance in the use of a density factor of 16 versus 16.9 cubic feet per ton is 5%.
−Removed: Mineral Resource Estimates
−Removed: The following key assumptions were used for resource estimates, unless otherwise noted:
−Removed: resources are located in permeable and porous sandstones;
−Removed: resources are located below the water table.
−Removed: The primary method for estimating Clarkson Hill Project Area mineral resources is the GT contour method.
−Removed: The GT contour method is one of the most widely used and dependable methods to estimate resources in uranium roll-front deposits.
−Removed: The basis of the GT contour method is the GT (grade x mineralized thickness) values, which are determined for each drill hole using radiometric log results and a suitable GT cutoff, below which the GT value is considered to be zero.
−Removed: The GT values are then plotted on a drill hole map and GT contours are drawn accordingly using roll-front data derived from cuttings and the nature of the gamma anomalies.
−Removed: The resources are calculated from the area within the GT contour boundaries considering the DEF and the ore zone density.
−Removed: The resource estimate methods, general parameters and mineralized cutoffs used at the Clarkson Hill Project Area are summarized below.
−Removed: Clarkson Hill Project Area Resource Estimate Methodology
−Removed: Cutoff Parameters
−Removed: Mineral Resource
−Removed: Estimation Method
−Removed: Disequilibrium
−Removed: Thickness (ft)
−Removed: Clarkson Hill
−Removed: The Clarkson Hill Project Area only contains inferred mineral resources.
−Removed:          
−Removed: Clarkson Hill Project Area Drill Hole Information
−Removed: Distance Between Drill Hole Locations
−Removed: for Resource Classifications (ft)
−Removed: Clarkson Hill
−Removed: The estimates of inferred mineral resources for the Clarkson Hill Project Area are reported in the table below.
−Removed: Clarkson Hill Project Area Inferred Mineral Resources
−Removed: Mineral Resource
−Removed: Average Grade
−Removed: Clarkson Hill
−Removed: This combination of drill hole spacing, well-known subsurface geology, well-understood deposit model, successful production and the variety of data collected led WWC, the TRS QP, to conclude that the mineralization in areas with drill hole spacing tabulated above fit the definition for measured resources.
−Removed: Present Condition of Property and Work Completed to Date
−Removed: The Clarkson Hill Project Area remains unpermitted and work includes maintaining the federal lode claims.
−Removed: The Company ’
−Removed: s Planned Work
−Removed: The Company intends to maintain the federal lode claims comprising the Clarkson Hill Project Area.
−Removed: The independent TRS for the Hobson CPP (the “Hobson Project Area”) has been prepared for UEC, under the supervision of WWC (the “QP” herein”), pursuant to S‑K 1300.
−Removed: 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 the Hobson Project Area.
−Removed: The objective of this TRS is to disclose the mineral resources on the Hobson Project Area.
−Removed: There are no resources associated with the Hobson Project Area.
+Added: Table 2.30 –
+Added: Mineral Resources for the Clarkson Hill Project as at the date of this Annual Report
+Added: Classification
+Added: Tons Ore (000 ’
+Added: Tonnes Ore (1000 ’
+Added: Average Grade (% eU 3 O 8 )
+Added: Pounds eU 3 O 8  (000 ’
+Added: Total Resources
+Added: The sum of resource tons and lbs.
+Added: may not add up to the reported total due to rounding.
+Added: Measured, indicated, and inferred mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300.
+Added: GT Cutoff = 0.25 m% eU 3 O 8
+Added: All reported resources occur below the static water table.
+Added: The point of reference for mineral resources is in-situ at the Project.
+Added: Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
+Added: Texas Properties
+Added: Figure 2.15 –
+Added: Location of our Projects in Texas
+Added: ISR Uranium Activities in Texas
+Added: Our ISR operations in Texas consist of the following projects, (i) the Hobson CPP;
+Added: (ii) the Palangana Project;
+Added: (iii) the Burke Hollow Project;
+Added: (iv) the Goliad Project;
+Added: and (v) the Salvo Project.
+Added: Production from existing wellfields at the Palangana Project ceased in 2016 and the project was put in care and maintenance mode.
+Added: In order for Palangana to engage in future uranium production, the Company will need to incur capital expenditures to restart idled wellfields.
+Added: Permitting Requirements in Texas
+Added: The Hobson CPP is fully permitted.
+Added: The Burke Hollow, Goliad and Palangana Projects are fully permitted to mine.
+Added: The Salvo Project still requires all mining permits.
+Added: Regulatory agencies include the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (“TCEQ”), the Railroad Commission of Texas (“RRC”) and the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”).
+Added: Other potential permitting requirements, depending on the status of each project area, may include:
+Added: 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.
+Added: 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;
+Added: 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.
+Added: Underground injection activities cannot commence until the TCEQ has issued an area permit and PAA to authorize such activities.
+Added: 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.
+Added: The PAA application may be developed concurrently with or after the area permit application.
+Added: 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;
+Added: in 1975, the Texas Legislature gave the RRC jurisdiction to regulate surface mining for coal and uranium.
+Added: 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.
+Added: Active uranium exploration sites are inspected monthly (RRC, 2023).
+Added: The RRC requires exploration permits for any uranium exploration in the state;
+Added: 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).
+Added: 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.
+Added: Prior to initiating uranium recovery at the Project, UEC will need to acquire industrial permits to withdraw groundwater from the host sandstones.
+Added: Please refer to the TRS report for the Texas Hub and Spoke Project for further details.;
+Added: Class I and III injection wells are also regulated by the TCEQ.
+Added: Therefore, UEC will need to acquire the appropriate permits in order to construct and operate these wells.
+Added: In terms of leases and mineral rights, UEC’s mineral rights in Texas are held through private (fee) mineral leases.
+Added: Fee mineral leases were obtained through negotiation with individual mineral owners.
+Added: Fee minerals have varying royalty rates and calculations, depending on the agreements negotiated with individual mineral owners.
+Added: In addition, surface use and access agreements may include a production royalty, depending on agreements negotiated with individual surface owners at various levels.
+Added: 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 .
+Added: Most of the leases have term periods of 5 years with a 5-year renewal option.
+Added: The primary lease stipulation for ISR mining is the royalty payments as a percentage of production.
+Added: Royalties vary by lease and are confidential.
+Added: The various lease fees and royalty conditions are negotiated with individual lessors and conditions may vary from lease to lease.
+Added: No resources are reported in areas outside of the project area boundaries, which are determined by each project area’s leases.
+Added: Surface ownership at each project consists of fee lands predominantly used for agriculture and wind turbine development.
+Added: On the project areas that are currently permitted, UEC has surface use agreements in place with the private landowners where appropriate.
+Added: 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.
+Added: Geology and Mineralization in Texas
+Added: The Texas ISR Projects resides in the Gulf of Mexico Basin (“GMB”).
+Added: 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.
+Added: The coastal plain is bounded by the Rocky Mountain uplift to the west and drains into the Gulf of Mexico.
+Added: The coastal plain is comprised of marine, non-marine and continental sediments ranging in age from Paleozoic through Cenozoic.
+Added: Uranium mineralization at the projects is typical of Texas roll-front sandstone deposits.
+Added: 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.
+Added: The most favorable host rocks for roll-fronts are permeable sandstones with large aquifer systems.
+Added: Interbedded mudstone, claystone and siltstone are often present and aid in the formation process by focusing groundwater flux.
+Added: 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). 
+Added: 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. 
+Added: Deposits typically thicken down-dip towards the Gulf of Mexico from western-northwestern sources. 
+Added: Stratigraphy in this area can be complex because of the cyclic deposition of sedimentary facies. 
+Added: 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. 
+Added: Volcanic episodes during deposition (more than 20 Mya) are credited as being the source of the uranium deposits through ash-fall and related sediments.
+Added: All mineralization at our Texas projects occurs in the Goliad Formation.
+Added: 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. 
+Added: The Geology of Texas map published by BEG in 1992 classifies the Goliad as Miocene in age.
+Added: 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. 
+Added: 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.
+Added: Three main structural zones are present in the STUP:
+Added: the Balcones Fault Zone;
+Added: the San Marcos Arch;
+Added: and the Rio Grande Embayment. 
+Added: The Balcones Fault Zone is north of the Hobson Project Area and divides the Upper Cretaceous and Eocene strata. 
+Added: 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. 
+Added: 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. 
+Added: The arch is crossed by basement-related normal faults that parallel the buried Ouachita Orogenic Belt of Paleozoic age. 
+Added: 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. 
+Added: Some data indicate that the embayment was possibly compressed during the Laramide Orogeny in the Late Cretaceous–Paleogene.
+Added: 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).
+Added: 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. 
+Added: The most favorable host rocks for roll-fronts are permeable sandstones with large aquifer systems.
+Added: Interbedded mudstone, claystone and siltstone are often present and aid in the formation process by focusing groundwater flux. 
+Added: The geometry of mineralization is dominated by the classic roll-front “C”
+Added: shape or crescent configuration at the redox interface. 
+Added: The highest-grade portion of the front occurs in a zone termed the “nose”
+Added: within reduced ground just ahead of the alteration front. 
+Added: Ahead of the nose, at the leading edge of the solution front, mineral quality gradually diminishes to barren within the “seepage”
+Added: Trailing behind the nose, in oxidized (altered) ground, are weak remnants of mineralization referred to as “tails”
+Added: which have resisted re-mobilization to the nose due to association with shale, carbonaceous material or other lithologies of lower permeability. 
+Added: 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.
+Added: Our Material Properties in Texas
+Added: 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”
+Added: herein”), pursuant to S‑K 1300.
+Added: 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.
+Added: There are no resources directly associated with the Hobson Project Area.
Property Description
−Removed: The Hobson Project Area is located in Karnes County, Texas, northwest of Karnes City, within the Gulf of Mexico Basin (the “GMB”) approximately 100 miles northwest of Corpus Christi and 40 miles southeast of San Antonio.
+Added: 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’
4 unchanged sentences
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.
−Removed: The 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.
−Removed: Other facilities and equipment include an advanced laboratory with inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry, office building, yellowcake and 11e.(2) byproduct material storage area, chemical storage tanks and one permitted and constructed waste disposal well.
+Added: 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.
+Added: 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.
−Removed: The Hobson CPP is permitted for one million lbs per year of uranium concentrates (yellowcake or U3O8).
−Removed: 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 lbs per year without requiring physical modifications.
−Removed: However, an increase would require a license modification, which UEC is currently pursuing with an amendment to its current license being under review for an increased capacity of up to 4.0 million lbs per year.
+Added: 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.
+Added: 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’
−Removed: of the Hobson Project Area with the other project areas serving as satellite facilities, or the ‘spokes.’
−Removed: For the purposes of the TRS, the satellite facilities are considered material to the Hobson CPP.
+Added: of the Hobson Project Area with the other project areas serving as satellite facilities, or the ‘spokes”.
+Added: 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.
−Removed: Map of UEC Project Areas
−Removed: This Hobson Project Area is owned and operated by UEC.
−Removed: UEC has executed surface use and access agreements within the Project.
−Removed: Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography
−Removed: The Hobson Project Area can be accessed off Texas Highway 44 toward Freer.
−Removed: Halfway between San Diego and Freer is a turn-off to the south called Ranch Road 3196 that runs through the Hobson Project Area.
−Removed: The road continues south, after passing Palangana, for about six miles to the town of Benavides.
−Removed: Access is excellent with major two-lane paved roads connecting the three surrounding towns and dirt secondary roads connecting to Palangana.
−Removed: For water supply, shallow wells in the Goliad Formation in Duval County generally yield mineralized water, whereas deeper wells yield water of comparatively low mineral content and are used for water supply.
−Removed: Corpus Christi, with a population of 317,773 and Alice, with a population of 17,761, are the largest nearby cities that should provide an ample workforce and any necessary supplies for the Hobson Project Area.
−Removed: The Hobson CPP is about 40 miles west of the Goliad Project Area, about 55 miles northwest of the Burke Hollow Project Area, about 50 miles north northwest of the Salvo Project Area, and about 90 miles north of the Palangana Project Area.
−Removed: Equipment, supplies and personnel needed for exploration and day-to-day operation are available from population centers such as San Antonio and Corpus Christi.
−Removed: Specialized equipment for the wellfields is often available in Texas, but may need to be acquired from outside of the state.
−Removed: The local economy for all five project areas is geared toward oil and gas exploration, energy production and ranching operations, providing a well-trained and capable pool of workers for ISR production and processing operations.
−Removed: Workers will reside locally and commute to work daily.
−Removed: As a result of energy development since the early 1900s, all the project areas have existing or nearby electrical power, gas and adequate telephone and internet connectivity.
+Added: A surety bond is in place for the Hobson CPP decommissioning requirements and is updated annually.
Uranium exploration and mining in South Texas primarily targets sandstone formations throughout the Coastal Plain bordering the Gulf of Mexico.
26 unchanged sentences
Acquires the Hobson Plant through acquisition of South Texas Mining Venture (STMV)/Uranium One.
−Removed: Permitting and Licensing
−Removed: The Hobson CPP is fully permitted as necessary to process loaded resins from nearby satellite facilities.
−Removed: Exploration Permit
−Removed: Disposal Well
−Removed: Authorization
−Removed: Radioactive Materials
Geologic Setting, Mineralization and Deposit
−Removed: The Hobson Project Area is located in the South Texas Uranium Province (“STUP”), which lies along the GMB.
−Removed: 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).
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: Deposits typically thicken down-dip towards the Gulf of Mexico from western-northwestern sources.
−Removed: Stratigraphy in this area can be complex because of the cyclic deposition of sedimentary facies.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: Volcanic episodes during deposition (more than 20 Mya) are credited as being the source of the uranium deposits through ash-fall and related sediments.
−Removed: Three main structural zones are present in the STUP:
−Removed: the Balcones Fault Zone, the San Marcos Arch and the Rio Grande Embayment.
−Removed: The Balcones Fault Zone is north of the Hobson Project Area and divides the Upper Cretaceous and Eocene strata.
−Removed: The Balcones Fault Zone is comprised of mainly normal faults that displace sediments by up to 1,500 ft, moving downward to the Gulf of Mexico.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: The arch is crossed by basement-related normal faults that parallel the buried Ouachita Orogenic Belt of Paleozoic age.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: Some data indicate that the embayment was possibly compressed during the Laramide Orogeny in the Late Cretaceous–Paleogene.
−Removed: 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).
+Added: 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.
1 unchanged sentence
The Geology of Texas map published by the Texas Bureau of Economic Geology (“BEG”) in 1992 classifies the Goliad as Miocene in age.
−Removed: The BEG’s geologic map of Texas describes the Goliad Formation as clays, sandstones, marls, caliches, limestones and conglomerates with a thickness of 100 ft to 500 ft.
−Removed: 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.
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.
−Removed: Data Verification
−Removed: No data verification is necessary though a site visit by the TRS QP was performed on November 2, 2021.
−Removed: Mineral Resource Estimates
−Removed: No mineral resources or reserves are present at the Hobson Project Area.
−Removed: Present Condition of Property and Work Completed to Date
−Removed: The Hobson Project Area remains in a care and maintenance status.
−Removed: The radioactive materials license is currently in timely renewal with the TCEQ.
−Removed: The Company ’
−Removed: s Planned Work
−Removed: The Company plans to maintain the Hobson Project Area and related Hobson CPP in a care and maintenance status pending restart of uranium recovery operations.
−Removed: Palangana ISR Project
−Removed: The independent TRS for the Palangana ISR Project (the “Palangana ISR Project Area”) has been prepared for UEC, under the supervision of WWC (the “QP”
−Removed: herein), pursuant to S-K 1300.
−Removed: 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 ISR Project Area.
−Removed: The objective of this TRS is to disclose the mineral resources on the Palangana ISR Project Area.
+Added: The Hobson project does not have associated current reserves or resources.
+Added: Palangana Project
+Added: The independent TRS for the Palangana Project area (the “Palangana Project Area”) has been prepared for UEC, under the supervision of WWC (the “QP”
+Added: herein), pursuant to S-K 1300. 
+Added: 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. 
+Added: Figure 2.16 –
+Added: Location of the Palangana Project
Property Description
−Removed: The Palangana ISR Project Area is 25 miles west of the town of Alice, Texas and 15 miles to the southeast of Freer, Texas in Duval County.
−Removed: Corpus Christi is about 65 miles to the east of the Palangana ISR Project Area.
−Removed: The Palangana ISR Project Area has been developed by several operators since the 1950s and has several wellfields that are drilled and ready for operations.
−Removed: In addition, the Palangana ISR Project Area produced 563,600 lbs U3O8 from 2010 to 2016 and currently has the infrastructure to begin mining immediately.
−Removed: No resources are reported in areas outside of the Palangana ISR Project Area boundary.
−Removed: There are no reserves associated with the Palangana ISR Project Area and it is considered a remote ‘satellite’
+Added: 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. 
+Added: Corpus Christi is about 65 miles to the east of the Palangana Project Area. 
+Added: The Palangana Project Area has been developed by several operators since the 1950s and has several wellfields that are drilled and ready for operations. 
+Added: 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. 
+Added: No resources are reported in areas outside of the Palangana Project Area boundary. 
+Added: There are no reserves associated with the Palangana Project Area and it is considered a remote ‘satellite’
to the Hobson CPP.
−Removed: Map of UEC Project Areas
−Removed: There are nine current leases covering the area of interest of the Palangana ISR Project Area, which total to 6,987 acres.
−Removed: The PA-1 deposit is on the DeHoyos lease, while the PA-2 deposit, the Dome trend and the CC Brine trend are on the Palangana ISR Project Area Ranch Lease.
−Removed: Bordering the east side of the Palangana ISR Project Area Ranch Lease is the White Bell Ranch Lease, comprised of 1,000 acres, which contains the Jemison Fence and Jemison East trends.
−Removed: The fourth major lease is the Garcia/Booth lease, which borders the east side of the DeHoyos property.
−Removed: It contains the NE Garcia and SW Garcia trends.
−Removed: Current lease ownership is in STMV, which is a Texas limited partnership that is wholly and indirectly owned by UEC through its subsidiary URN Resources Inc.
−Removed: (as to 99%), and through its direct acquisition of the remaining 1% of STMV from EEI.
−Removed: The PA-1 deposit is on the DeHoyos lease, while the PA-2 deposit is on the Schallert lease.
−Removed: Palangana ISR Project Area Mineral Lease Summary
−Removed: Fee Mineral Leases
−Removed: Held by shut-in royalty
−Removed: Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography
−Removed: The Palangana ISR Project Area uranium ISR, of which PA-1 and PA-2 are a part, occurs in the South Texas Uranium Belt between San Antonio and Corpus Christi in Duval County.
−Removed: Corpus Christi is about 65 miles to the east of the Palangana ISR Project Area property.
−Removed: It can be accessed off Texas Highway 44 toward Freer.
−Removed: Halfway between San Diego and Freer is a turn-off to the south called Ranch Road 3196 that runs right through the property about eight miles from the turn.
−Removed: The road continues southward about six miles to the town of Benavides.
−Removed: Access is excellent, with major two lane roads connecting the three surrounding towns and dirt secondary roads connecting the Palangana ISR Project Area to these.
−Removed: Corpus Christi, 65 miles east, is the largest nearby metropolitan district.
−Removed: The region’s subtropical climate allows uninterrupted, year-round mining operations.
−Removed: Temperatures during the summer range from 75°
−Removed: to 95°F, although highs above 100°F are common;
−Removed: winter temperatures range from 45°
−Removed: to 65°F.
−Removed: Humidity is generally over 85% year-round, and commonly exceeds 90% during the summer months.
−Removed: Average annual rainfall is 30 inches.
−Removed: The climate is characterized by a warm desert-like to subtropical climate and low gentle relief with elevations of 300 to 500 ft above sea level.
−Removed: The dome area to the west of the PA-1 and PA-2 deposits is a concentric collapsed area with the surrounding landscape being hilly and elevated.
−Removed: Surface water generally drains away from the dome area although no prominent creeks or rivers are evident.
−Removed: The uranium leaseholders under most of the current leases have conveyed the surface rights under certain conditions of remuneration.
−Removed: These conditions essentially require payments for surface area taken out of usage.
−Removed: Excepting the wellfield development, much of the infrastructure is in place, including roads and power maintenance faculties.
−Removed: A portion of the well control facilities and wellfields are yet to be constructed.
−Removed: Uranium mineralization was discovered during potash exploration drilling of the Palangana ISR Project Area Dome’s gypsum-anhydrite cap rock in 1952 by Columbia Southern Inc.
+Added: Mineral rights for the Project are private (fee) mineral leases, obtained through negotiation with individual mineral owners.
+Added: There are 12 fee mineral leases comprised of 6,969 acres at the Palangana project area.
+Added: No resources are reported in areas outside of the Palangana project area boundary.
+Added: 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.
+Added: It has been carried in a care and maintenance condition since cessation of uranium recovery in 2016.
+Added: The Company intends to continue the care and maintenance of the Palangana ISR Project Area, pending restart of uranium recovery operations.
+Added: There are no significant encumbrances to the property though routine renewals of permits and authorizations is ongoing.
+Added: No recent regulatory violations or fines have been levied.
+Added: A surety bond is in place for the Palangana Project’s restoration, reclamation and decommissioning requirements and is updated annually.
+Added: 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.
2 unchanged sentences
However, both CSI and the AEC estimated underground mineable uranium resources.
−Removed: The only known details of the estimation method include a 0.15% eU3O8, a minimum mining thickness of 3 ft and widely spaced drilling on a nominal 200 ft exploration grid.
−Removed: Union Carbide Corporation (“UCC”) acquired the Palangana ISR Project Area property in 1958 and initiated underground mine development.
+Added: 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.
+Added: 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.
−Removed: UCC reacquired the Palangana ISR Project Area in 1967 after recognizing that it would be amenable to exploitation by the emerging ISR mining technologies.
+Added: 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.
1 unchanged sentence
Ammonia was used as the lixiviate that later caused some environmental issues with groundwater.
−Removed: About 340,000 lbs of U3O8 were produced from portions of a 31-acre wellfield block.
+Added: 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.
5 unchanged sentences
In 1981, Chevron Corporation (“Chevron”) acquired the UCC leases and conducted their own resource evaluation.
−Removed: After the price of uranium dropped to under US$10/lb, General Atomics acquired the property and dismantled the process plant in a property-wide restoration effort.
+Added: 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.
−Removed: In 2005, EEI acquired the Palangana ISR Project Area property and later joint ventured with Energy Metals through the formation of STMV.
−Removed: An independent consultant estimated that there were 5.7 Mlbs 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.
+Added: In 2005, EEI acquired the Palangana Project Area property and later joint ventured with Energy Metals through the formation of STMV.
+Added: 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.
1 unchanged sentence
In 2008, Energy Metals was acquired by Uranium One.
−Removed: During 2008 and 2009, the remainder of the holes on this Palangana ISR Project Area were drilled by Uranium One.
+Added: 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.
−Removed: The table below describes the historic ownership and operations at the Palangana ISR Project Area.
−Removed: Historic Ownership and Operations at the Palangana ISR Project Area
+Added: The table below describes the historic ownership and operations at the Palangana Project Area.
+Added: Historic Ownership and Operations at the Palangana Project Area
Operations/Activity
1 unchanged sentence
Results of Work
−Removed: Original controller of Palangana ISR Project Area.
+Added: Original controller of Palangana Project Area.
Records of CSI’s exploration work was unavailable
4 unchanged sentences
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.
−Removed: UCC acquired the Palangana ISR Project Area in 1958 and ceased operations shortly after until 1967, when operations resumed for over a decade due to new technology.
−Removed: UCC placed the Palangana ISR Project Area up for lease in 1980.
+Added: 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.
+Added: UCC placed the Palangana Project Area up for lease in 1980.
Over 1,000 exploration and development holes in 1960s and 70s (296 cores)
13 unchanged sentences
General Atomics
−Removed: General Atomics acquired the Palangana ISR Project Area for restoration work.
+Added: General Atomics acquired the Palangana Project Area for restoration work.
General Atomics acquired the property and dismantled the process plant in a property-wide restoration effort.
1 unchanged sentence
Late 1990 ’
−Removed: The Palangana ISR Project Area returned to surface rights landowners.
+Added: The Palangana Project Area returned to surface rights landowners.
EEI and Energy Metals/Uranium One
7 unchanged sentences
During this time, five exploration trends on the east side of the dome were identified and partially delineated.
−Removed: Historic Ownership and Operations at the Palangana ISR Project Area (Continued)
−Removed: Operations/Activity
−Removed: of Drill holes)
−Removed: Results of Work
Palangana Project Area acquired by UEC from Uranium One.
7 unchanged sentences
Approximately 563,600 pounds were produced from 2010 to 2016 in PA-1, PA-2 and PA-3.
−Removed: Permitting and Licensing
−Removed: All of the environmental baseline studies were completed as required by the permitting process.
−Removed: Completed studies include cultural resources (including archaeology), socioeconomic impact and soils mapping.
−Removed: Flora and fauna studies are completed as are background radiation surveys.
−Removed: The cultural resources study found no adverse impacts to the site and socioeconomic impacts are projected to be positive for the community.
−Removed: The permitting process commenced in the summer of 2006 and was fully completed in January 2010.
−Removed: In November 2008, the larger Area Mine Permit was issued by TCEQ.
−Removed: In January 2009, PA-1 Permit was approved by TCEQ.
−Removed: The Class I disposal well permits for WDW-418 and WDW-419 were issued in March 2009.
−Removed: The Radioactive Material License was issued by the TCEQ in January 2010.
−Removed: This would complete all of the permitting requirements to begin operation at the Palangana ISR Project Area.
−Removed: As far as the studies have shown, the Palangana ISR Project Area has no environmental liabilities.
−Removed: The UCC ISR field and plant site, partially on the DeHoyos tract, have been fully restored and reclaimed and are not hierologically linked to PA-1 and PA-2.
−Removed: The TRS QP has not assessed the potential for environmental liability associated with the Hobson Plant.
−Removed: UEC, as part of the acquisition of STMV has obtained all necessary permits and licenses to begin ISR mining operations at the Palangana ISR Project Area.
Geologic Setting, Mineralization, and Deposit
−Removed: The Palangana ISR Project Area is located in the STUP, which lies along the GMB.
−Removed: 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).
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: Deposits typically thicken down-dip towards the Gulf of Mexico from western-northwestern sources.
−Removed: Stratigraphy in this area can be complex because of the cyclic deposition of sedimentary facies.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: Volcanic episodes during deposition (more than 20 Mya) are credited as being the source of the uranium deposits through ash-fall and related sediments.
−Removed: Three main structural zones are present in the STUP:
−Removed: the Balcones Fault Zone;
−Removed: the San Marcos Arch;
−Removed: and the Rio Grande Embayment.
−Removed: The Balcones Fault Zone is north of the Palangana ISR Project Area and divides the Upper Cretaceous and Eocene strata.
−Removed: The Balcones Fault Zone is comprised of mainly normal faults that displace sediments by up to 1,500 ft moving downward to the Gulf of Mexico.
−Removed: The San Marcos Arch, northeast of the Palangana ISR 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.
−Removed: The arch is crossed by basement-related normal faults that parallel the buried Ouachita Orogenic Belt of Paleozoic age.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: Some data indicates that the embayment was possibly compressed during the Laramide Orogeny in the Late Cretaceous–Paleogene.
−Removed: 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).
−Removed: All mineralization at the Palangana ISR Project Area occurs in the Goliad Formation.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: The Geology of Texas map published by BEG in 1992 classifies the Goliad as Miocene in age.
−Removed: The BEG’s geologic map of Texas describes the Goliad Formation as clays, sandstones, marls, caliches, limestones and conglomerates with a thickness of 100 ft to 500 ft.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: Uranium mineralization occurs along oxidation/reduction interfaces in fluvial channel sands of the Goliad Formation.
−Removed: These deposits consist of multiple mineralized sand horizons, which are separated vertically by confining beds of silt, mudstone and clay.
−Removed: Uranium mineralization at the Palangana ISR Project Area is typical of Texas roll-front sandstone deposits.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: The most favorable host rocks for roll-fronts are permeable sandstones with large aquifer systems.
−Removed: Interbedded mudstone, claystone and siltstone are often present and aid in the formation process by focusing groundwater flux.
−Removed: The geometry of mineralization is dominated by the classic roll-front “C”
−Removed: shape or crescent configuration at the redox interface.
−Removed: The highest-grade portion of the front occurs in a zone termed the “nose”
−Removed: within reduced ground just ahead of the alteration front.
−Removed: Ahead of the nose, at the leading edge of the solution front, mineral quality gradually diminishes to barren within the “seepage”
−Removed: Trailing behind the nose, in oxidized (altered) ground, are weak remnants of mineralization referred to as “tails”
−Removed: which have resisted re-mobilization to the nose due to association with shale, carbonaceous material or other lithologies of lower permeability.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: The local geology at the Palangana ISR Project Area is characterized by the occurrence of a Gulf Coast piercement salt dome.
−Removed: This dome is approximately two miles in diameter and is overlain by Pliocene sediments of the Goliad Formation.
−Removed: The Palangana ISR Project Area dome is marked at the surface by a shallow circular basin surrounded by low hills rising above the basin floor.
−Removed: The Palangana ISR Project Area dome has an almost perfectly circular salt core with a remarkably flat top that is approximately 10,000 ft across and occurs from 800 to 850 ft below ground surface (“bgs”).
−Removed: Radial faulting is present in all Goliad Formation sands on the flanks of the dome due to uplift during the intrusion of the dome.
−Removed: Faults and fractures also exist in a random nature in the sands above the caprock due to dissolution of the salt dome from groundwater.
+Added: The Palangana Project Area is located in the STUP, which lies along the GMB. 
+Added: The local geology at the Palangana Project Area is characterized by the occurrence of a Gulf Coast piercement salt dome. 
+Added: This dome is approximately two miles in diameter and is overlain by Pliocene sediments of the Goliad Formation. 
+Added: The Palangana Project Area dome is marked at the surface by a shallow circular basin surrounded by low hills rising above the basin floor. 
+Added: 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”). 
+Added: Radial faulting is present in all Goliad Formation sands on the flanks of the dome due to uplift during the intrusion of the dome. 
+Added: 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.
−Removed: The Goliad Formation at the Palangana ISR Project Area is composed of fine- to medium-grained, often silty, channel sands interbedded with lenses of mudstone and siltstone.
−Removed: For the most part, the sand is very sparsely cemented although it varies from friable to indurated.
−Removed: There is known to be minor faulting on the north end of the PA-1 deposit.
−Removed: The Palangana ISR Project Area stratigraphy is horizontal to sub-horizontal, with a 2o to 3o southeasterly dip at most.
−Removed: Data Verification
−Removed: A review was made of UEC’s project files at their office in Corpus Christi, Texas.
−Removed: Review of information included both analog and digital gamma ray logs with conversions to chemical equivalents by interval, PFN logs with gamma and chemical equivalents, edited SP and resistivity logs flagging correlated sand zones and marker clays, interpretive GT maps, historical reports, memos, field photographs cuttings and invaluable discussions with experienced field personnel.
−Removed: Over 100 drill logs, numerous cross-sections and analytical data were reviewed in detail and cross checked against input files in access for computer entry by Sean Muller.
−Removed: Some errors in correlation were discovered particularly for PA-2, not of a technical nature but of a correlation nature.
−Removed: Early interpretations of the mineralized sand zone had called the “E”
−Removed: sand, the “C”.
−Removed: This miscoding was recognized during computer validation runs and corrected with the assistance of UEC’s geologists.
−Removed: Other potential data miscodings were found where early rotary samples were either mixed with drilling mud or field interpretation of the oxidation-reduction zone was poor.
−Removed: To validate and correct these data entries to the model, the PFN tool proved invaluable providing disequilibrium data supporting either oxidized or reduced samples where neither could be discerned in the field.
−Removed: This was coordinated and corrected in the database.
−Removed: As far as could be determined, the down-hole eU3O8 data from the Palangana ISR Project Area exploration programs are reliably represented by the continuous gamma-logs from the various drilling programs.
−Removed: These logs were run by in-house and independent contract logging companies.
−Removed: The procedure followed was standard to uranium industry practice and all required correction factors were recorded on the headings of the logs reviewed.
−Removed: To further quantify the corrected DEF data, the areal distribution by roll-front zone was mapped and integrated into the DEF adjusted resource estimate.
−Removed: This was done by taking half the distance of the average PFN hole spacing per hole in a zone for defining an area of influence on all of the gamma holes in a resource trend.
−Removed: Next, modeled blocks that fell outside of this range but still fell in the block were assigned the average DEF for the block.
−Removed: This technique far surpasses the older methodology of taking a deposit-wide average of the DEF for the conversion to chemical.
−Removed: Quality control measures for PFN logging could be improved with periodic calibration of the probes.
−Removed: Adjustment of the data using the relogging of a core hole with known chemical values partially compensated for this QC omission.
−Removed: It has been concluded that adjustment of the DEF values to account for the PFN drift is acceptable.
−Removed: Generally, the DEF of a deposit is based upon an average of the disequilibrium in core holes.
−Removed: This practice is a limitation in roll-front deposits that are in disequilibrium such as those found in South Texas.
−Removed: UEC has compensated for this limitation by using the PFN probe.
−Removed: To increase the accuracy of the application of the post-probing calibration, UEC employed a site and mineralized zone specific application of the DEF results rather than the averaging method.
−Removed: This method compensates for a limitation commonly used by the industry by increasing the accuracy of the prediction of grade in a specific area.
−Removed: Mineral Resource Estimates
−Removed: The following key assumptions were used for resource estimates, unless otherwise noted:
−Removed: resources are located in permeable and porous sandstones;
−Removed: resources are located below the water table.
−Removed: Mineral resource estimation methods used for the Palangana ISR Project Area include the GT contour, GT outline, block model using VULCAN software and Delaunay Triangulation method using RockWorks software.
−Removed: Each method is briefly discussed below.
−Removed: The GT contour and outline methods are some of the most widely used and dependable methods to estimate resources in uranium roll-front deposits.
−Removed: The basis of these methods is the GT (grade x mineralized thickness) values, which are determined for each drill hole using radiometric log results and a suitable GT cutoff, below which the GT value is considered to be zero.
−Removed: The GT values are then plotted on a drill hole map and GT contours or a GT outline are drawn accordingly using roll-front data derived from cuttings and logs data trends.
−Removed: The resources are calculated from the area within the GT contour/outline boundaries considering the DEF and the ore zone density.
−Removed: The GT outline method was used to estimate the mineral resources at portions of the Palangana ISR Project Area (Dome, NE Garcia, SW Garcia, CC Brine, Jemison Fence and Jemison East).
−Removed: The resource estimate methods, general parameters and mineralized cutoffs used at the Palangana ISR Project Area are summarized in the table below.
−Removed: Palangana ISR Project Area Resource Estimate Methodology
−Removed: Cutoff Parameters
−Removed: Mineral Resource
−Removed: Estimation Method
−Removed: Disequilibrium
−Removed: PA-1 and PA-2
−Removed: Block Models (VULCAN) Method
−Removed: 1.453 - 2.424 1
−Removed: Dome, NE Garcia, SW Garcia, OC Brine, Jemison Fence and Jemison East
−Removed: GT Contouring in Conjunction with 3D Block Models
−Removed: 1.  
−Removed:  A range of disequilibrium data is presented because each production area/trend was divided into multiple zones that were each assigned a separate DEF.
−Removed: For more data on the Palangana ISR Project Area, please see NI 43-101 TRS on Resources, Uranium Energy Corp., Palangana ISR Uranium Project, Deposits PA-1, PA-2 and Adjacent Exploration Areas, Duval County, Texas. 
−Removed: 2.  
−Removed:  Minimum thickness was not reported for several of the project areas.
−Removed: However, minimum thickness is inherent in minimum GT which is reported in every estimate other than PA-1 and PA-2 for the Palangana ISR Project Area.
−Removed: Based on the depths of mineralization, average grade, thickness, and GT, it is the TRS QP’s opinion that the mineral resources at the Palangana ISR Project Area can be recoverable by ISR methods using a long-term uranium price of $40/lb.
−Removed: The cutoffs were determined separately for each Palangana ISR Project Area with the unique aspects of each project area taken into consideration.
−Removed: Uranium does not trade on the open market and many of the private sales contracts are not publicly disclosed.
−Removed: UEC used $40/lb as the forecast uranium price for the Project.
−Removed: This is based on:
−Removed: (i) the long-term contract price at the end of February 2022, which was $43.88/lb from Cameco Resources’
−Removed: combination of UxC and Trade Tech reports (Cameco, 2022);
−Removed: (ii) the spot price at the end of February 2022 ($48.75/lb);
−Removed: (iii) UxC’s price forecast;
−Removed: and (iv) UEC’s understanding of market expectations.
−Removed: The table below contains the UxC uranium price forecast for Q4 of 2021.
−Removed: UxC Q4 2021 Uranium Price Forecast ($/lb U3O8)
−Removed: UxC Market Outlook Q4 2021
−Removed: UxC High Price Midpoint
−Removed: UxC Low Price Midpoint
−Removed: UxC Mid Price Midpoint
−Removed: In the opinion of the TRS QP, $40/lb is a conservative forecast price for the following reasons:
−Removed: first, at the issuance date, both the long-term price and spot price are greater than $40/lb;
−Removed: second, new physical uranium investment vehicles were created in 2021, such as the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust and the upcoming physical uranium fund backed by Kazatomprom, the National Bank of Kazakhstan and Genchi Global Ltd., which effectively remove uranium supply from the market;
−Removed: third, the increasing demand for carbon-free energy and global plans to construct new nuclear reactors will increase demand for uranium;
−Removed: finally, there has already been a steady increase in the uranium price for the last three years with a sharp rise to greater than $40/lb in the second half of 2021, due in part to increased demand from the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust.
−Removed: Due to recent volatility in the uranium market, the TRS believes that a conservative forecast price is justified.
−Removed: For the above reasons, the TRS QP also believes that a $40/lb price is considered reasonable by the QP for use in cutoff determination and to assess reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction.
−Removed: Measured, indicated and inferred resource classifications at the Palangana ISR Project Area are defined by the density of the drill hole data.
−Removed: Higher drill hole densities allow more confidence in the shape and size of the interpreted mineral horizons and the accuracy of the geologic model.
−Removed: The table below details the resource classification criteria used in the resource estimates in the Palangana ISR Project Area.
−Removed: Resource Classification Criteria by Palangana ISR Project Area
−Removed: Distance Between Drill Hole Locations for
−Removed: Resource Classifications (ft)
−Removed: PA-1 and PA-2
−Removed: 50 – 100
−Removed: Dome, NE Garcia, SW Garcia, OC Brine, Jemison Fence and Jemison East
−Removed: ≤ 400
−Removed: There are several reasons that mineralization was interpreted as measured resources within the Palangana ISR Project Area:
−Removed: first, the drill hole spacing used to classify the measured resource is generally less than or equal to the 100 ft well spacing in a typical production pattern, which enables a detailed wellfield design to be completed;
−Removed: second, the sub-surface geology within each Palangana ISR Project Area is very well characterized, with aquifers that correlate, consistent host sandstone intervals and reliable aquitards across the Palangana ISR Project Area;
−Removed: third, mineralization in the Goliad Formation occurs along the redox interface and the oxidized sands have different coloration than the reduced sands.
−Removed: These color variations are visible in drill cuttings and are used to map the redox interface and mineral trends;
−Removed: finally, historic production has occurred commercially at the Palangana ISR Project Area from 1977 to 1979 and again from 2010 to 2016 (UEC).
−Removed: Approximately 340,000 lbs of U3O8 were produced during historic operations and 563,600 lbs U3O8 were produced from 2010-2016.
−Removed: This combination of drill hole spacing, well-known subsurface geology, well-understood deposit models, successful production and the variety of data collected led the TRS QP to conclude that the mineralization in areas with drill hole spacing tabulated above fit the definition for measured resources.
−Removed: Mineral resources were estimated separately for the Palangana ISR Project Area.
−Removed: The estimates of measured and indicated mineral resources for the Project are reported in the table below and the estimates of inferred mineral resources are reported in the table following.
−Removed: Palangana ISR Project Area Measured and Indicated Resources Summary
−Removed: Mineral Resource
−Removed: Average Grade
+Added: Uranium mineralization at the Palangana Project Area is typical of Texas roll-front sandstone deposits. 
+Added: Uranium mineralization occurs along oxidation/reduction interfaces in fluvial channel sands of the Goliad Formation. 
+Added: These deposits consist of multiple mineralized sand horizons, which are separated vertically by confining beds of silt, mudstone, and clay.
+Added: 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. 
+Added: For the most part, the sand is very sparsely cemented although it varies from friable to indurated. 
+Added: There is known to be minor faulting on the north end of the PA-1 deposit. 
+Added: The Palangana Project Area stratigraphy is horizontal to sub-horizontal, with a 2-to-3-degree southeasterly dip at most.
+Added: Table 2.33 –
+Added: Mineral Resources for the Palangana Project as at the date of this Annual Report
+Added: Classification
+Added: (000 ’
+Added: (1000 ’
(% eU 3 O 8 )
−Removed: Total Measured and Indicated
−Removed: 1.         Pounds reported with DEF applied.
−Removed: 2.         Measured and indicated mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300.
−Removed: 3.         All reported resources occur below the static water table.
−Removed: 4.         The point of reference for mineral resources is in situ at the Palangana ISR Project Area.
−Removed: 5.         Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability.
−Removed: Palangana ISR Project Area Inferred Resources Summary
−Removed: Mineral Resource
−Removed: Average Grade
−Removed: PA-1 and PA-2 Inferred
−Removed: Dome, NE Garcia, SW Garcia, CC Brine, Jemison Fence and Jemison East Inferred
−Removed: 0.110 - 0.300
−Removed: Total Inferred
−Removed: 1.       
−Removed: Pounds reported with DEF applied.
−Removed: 2.       
−Removed: A range of grades is presented for the Palangana ISR Project Area inferred mineral because the resource estimation methods differed between PA-1/PA-2 and the rest of the trends.
+Added: (000 ’
+Added: Inferred – PA-1 and PA-2
+Added: Inferred – Dome, NE Garcia, SW Garcia, CC Brine, Jemison Fence, Jemison East
+Added: 0.110 – 0.300
+Added: Total Resources
+Added: Pounds reported with Disequilibrium Factor (DEF) applied.
+Added: 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.
−Removed: 3.       
−Removed: Inferred mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300.
−Removed: 4.       
+Added: See Section 11.1 of the Texas Hub and Spoke TRS for a more detailed explanation.
+Added: The sum of resource tons and lbs may not add up to the reported total due to rounding.
+Added: Measured, indicated, and inferred mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300.
+Added: 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.
All reported resources occur below the static water table.
−Removed: 5.       
−Removed: The point of reference for mineral resources is in situ at the Palangana ISR Project Area.
−Removed: 6.       
−Removed: Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability.
−Removed: Factors that may affect the mineral resource estimate include:
−Removed: assumptions as to forecasted uranium price;
−Removed: changes to the assumptions used to generate the GT cutoff;
−Removed: changes to future commodity demand;
−Removed: variance in the grade and continuity of mineralization from what was interpreted by drilling and estimation techniques;
−Removed: host formation density assignments;
−Removed: changes that affect the continued ability to access the site, retain mineral and surface rights titles, maintain environmental and other regulatory permits and maintain the social license to operate.
−Removed: Mineral resource estimation is based on data interpretation and uses a limited number of discrete samples to characterize a larger area.
−Removed: These methods have inherent uncertainty and risk.
−Removed: Three elements of risk are identified for the Palangana ISR Project Area:
−Removed: Grade interpretation methods:
−Removed: interpreted to be low to moderate risk.
−Removed: Automated grade estimates depend on many factors and interpretation methods assume continuity between samples.
−Removed: A risk exists that a grade estimate at any 3D location in a deposit will differ from the actual grade at that location when it is mined;
−Removed: Geological definition:
−Removed: interpreted to be a moderate risk.
−Removed: The geological roll-front interpretation by the UEC geologists was checked using several techniques.
−Removed: The host units are relatively flat-lying, but there is a possibility of miscorrelation of a horizon when multiple closely spaced intercepts are present;
−Removed: interpreted to be low risk.
−Removed: The TRS QP and coworkers supervised by the TRS QP reviewed multiple maps, drilling records, and prior work at the Palangana ISR Project Area that demonstrate and confirm the continuity of the roll-fronts within the Palangana ISR Project Area.
−Removed: Mineral resources do not have demonstrated economic viability, but they have technical and economic constraints applied to them to establish reasonable prospects for economic extraction.
−Removed: The geological evidence supporting indicated mineral resources is derived from adequately detailed and reliable exploration, sampling and testing, and is sufficient to reasonably assume geological and grade continuity.
−Removed: The measured and indicated mineral resources are estimated with sufficient confidence to allow the application of technical, economic, marketing, legal, environmental, social and government factors to support mine planning and economic evaluation of the economic viability of the Palangana ISR Project Area.
−Removed: The inferred mineral resources are estimated on the basis of limited geological evidence and sampling;
−Removed: however, the information is sufficient to imply, but not verify, geological grade and continuity.
−Removed: The TRS expects that the majority of the inferred mineral resources could be upgraded to indicated mineral resources with additional drilling.
−Removed: In the opinion of the TRS QP, it is virtually impossible that all issues relating to relevant technical and economic factors likely to influence the prospect of economic extraction can be resolved with future work.
−Removed: However, the work undertaken on the Palangana ISR Project Area to date, both through historical in situ and recent laboratory testing demonstrates that uranium can be extracted using common industry methods and standard leaching technology.
−Removed: Further, through work conducted in support of receiving regulatory authorization, UEC has demonstrated that the host sandstones have the hydraulic properties required for in situ extraction with adequate confinement by overlying and underlying intervals.
−Removed: Finally, the host sandstones of the Goliad Formation have been mined in South Texas since the 1970s using ISR technology with significant production under similar conditions to those of the Palangana ISR Project Area.
−Removed: Block models were constructed for the resource estimates at the Palangana ISR Project Area.
−Removed: UEC developed its resource estimates within distinct sand and roll-front zones utilizing detailed computer block modeling of grade and GT modeling.
−Removed: For PA-1 and PA-2, the targeted mineralized sands were differentiated and evaluated at each trend.
−Removed: The block model was derived from the stratigraphic Jemison East trends at the Palangana ISR Project Area, and GT contouring was conducted, which became the basis for the block models for each of the trends.
−Removed: Using the top and bottom elevations for each of the zone composite intercepts, digital terrain models for the top and bottom of the surfaces were created and loaded into the block models to create a thickness representation for each zone of each trend.
−Removed: The horizontal extent of the zones was limited by the respective zone outlines/contours.
−Removed: After the blocks were generated, GT data and other attributes were assigned to each block.
−Removed: UEC resumed ISR production at the Palangana ISR Project Area in 2010.
−Removed: In addition to PA-1 and PA-2, UEC permitted PA-3 in the CC Brine Trend.
−Removed: Between these three PAs, 563,600 lbs U3O8 were produced from 2010 to 2016.
−Removed: A list of production in each PA can be seen in the table below.
−Removed: For the current estimate, production from 2010-2016 was subtracted from the 2010 estimate.
−Removed: Palangana Production from 2010 to 2016
−Removed: Production Area
−Removed: PA-3 (CC Brine Trend)
−Removed: Total Pounds Produced (2010-2016)
−Removed: Present Condition of Property and Work Completed to Date
−Removed: The Palangana ISR Project Area is in a care and maintenance status.
−Removed: The Company ’
−Removed: s Planned Work
−Removed: The Company intends to continue the care and maintenance of the Palangana ISR Project Area pending restart of uranium recovery operations.
+Added: The point of reference for mineral resources is in-situ at the Project.
+Added: 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”
−Removed: herein), pursuant to S-K 1300.
−Removed: 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.
−Removed: The objective of this TRS is to disclose the mineral resources on the Burke Hollow Project Area.
+Added: herein), pursuant to S-K 1300. 
+Added: 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.
+Added: Figure 2.17 –
+Added: Location of the Burke Hollow Project
Property Description
UEC’s Burke Hollow Project property is located within the extensive STUP.
−Removed: The Burke Hollow Project currently consists of a 19,335-acre lease area, after the addition of the 1,825-acre Welder lease, which was taken in December 2012.
−Removed: 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 Area.
−Removed: The UEC Burke Hollow Project Area 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.
+Added: 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.
1 unchanged sentence
Four-wheel drive vehicles may be needed during high rainfall periods.
−Removed: Map of UEC Project Areas
−Removed: This Burke Hollow Project Area is owned and operated by UEC.
−Removed: UEC has executed surface use and access agreements and fee mineral leases with surface and mineral owners within and outside the various Burke Hollow Project Area boundaries.
−Removed: Virtually all uranium mining in Texas is on private lands, with leases negotiated between companies and each individual landowner/mineral owner.
−Removed: The Burke Hollow Project Area consists of two fee (private) mineral leases comprised of 19,336 acres.
−Removed: Payments for the private lease are up to date as of the effective date of the TRS.
−Removed: The lease is a paid-up lease for a primary term of five years and allows for an extension term of an additional five years and so long thereafter as uranium or other leased substances are being produced.
−Removed: This lease term was extended on January 20, 2017.
−Removed: The lease has various stipulated fees for land surface alterations, such as per well or exploration hole fees (damages).
−Removed: The primary lease stipulation is the royalty payments as a percentage of production.
−Removed: Because the lease is negotiated with a private land and mineral owner and none of the property is located on government land, some of the details of the lease information and terms are considered confidential.
−Removed: Burke Hollow Project Area Mineral Lease Summary
−Removed: Fee Mineral Leases
−Removed: 2/2027 and 12/2022
−Removed: Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography
−Removed: The southern portion of the Burke Hollow Project Area can be accessed from US Highway 181 and Farm to Market (FM)-797.
−Removed: The Burke Hollow Project Area has several other secondary gravel roads that provide access to the Burke Hollow Project Area.
−Removed: The nearest population centers are Skidmore (about three miles east with a population of 863), Tynan (about four miles south with a population of 254) and Beeville (about 10 miles north with a population of 13,641).
−Removed: While Skidmore and Tynan are relatively small towns, they provide basic needs for food and lodging and some supplies.
−Removed: Beeville is a much larger city and provides a well-developed infrastructure, resulting from regional oil and gas exploration and production.
−Removed: The nearest population centers are Skidmore, approximately 11 miles west, Refugio, about 15 miles east, and Beeville, approximately 18 miles northwest.
−Removed: Refugio is a relatively small town but offers basic needs for food and lodging and some supplies.
−Removed: The Burke Hollow Project Area has good accessibility for light to heavy equipment.
−Removed: There is an excellent network of county, state and federal highways that serve the region.
−Removed: The topography with dominantly sandy, well-drained soils provides satisfactory construction conditions for building gravel access site roads.
−Removed: The Burke Hollow Project Area is located in Bee County in a rural setting but includes excellent county, state and federal highways that serve the region and good construction conditions.
−Removed: Water supply in the Burke Hollow Project Area is from private water wells, mostly tapping sands of the Goliad Formation.
−Removed: Water supply for potential future mine development would be from the same sources.
−Removed: The Burke Hollow Project Area is about 30 to 35 miles north of Corpus Christi, the closest metropolitan district to the Bee County Project Area.
−Removed: The Burke Hollow Project Area is situated in the interior portion of the Gulf Coastal Plain physiographic province.
−Removed: The area is characterized by rolling topography with parallel to sub-parallel ridges and valleys.
−Removed: There is a maximum of 47 feet of relief at the site, with ground surface elevations ranging from a low of 92 feet to a high of 139 feet above mean sea level.
−Removed: The leased property for the Burke Hollow Project Area is used mostly for petroleum production, ranching and game management.
−Removed: Access by vehicular traffic is provided from Highway 77 into the property by private gravel roads.
−Removed: Bee County has a climate characterized by long, hot summers and cool to warm winters.
−Removed: The moderate temperatures and precipitation result in excellent conditions for developing an ISR mine.
−Removed: The average annual precipitation is approximately 32 inches with the months from November to March, normally the driest period, and May through October typically having more precipitation due partly to more intense tropical storms.
−Removed: From June through September, the normal high temperatures are routinely above 90° Fahrenheit, while the months from December through February are the coolest, with average low temperatures below 50° Fahrenheit.
−Removed: Periods of freezing temperatures are generally quite brief and infrequent.
−Removed: Tropical weather from the Gulf of Mexico can occur during the hurricane season and may affect the site area with large rain storms.
−Removed: The infrequent freezing weather and abnormally large rainfalls are the primary conditions that could cause temporary shutdowns at an operating ISR mine.
−Removed: Operations can be conducted year around.
−Removed: Uranium exploration and mining in South Texas primarily targets sandstone formations throughout the Coastal Plain bordering the Gulf of Mexico.
−Removed: The area has long been known to contain uranium oxide, which was first discovered in Karnes County, Texas, in 1954 using airborne radiometric survey.
−Removed: The uranium deposits discovered were within a belt of strata extending 250 miles from the middle coastal plain southwestward to the Rio Grande.
−Removed: This area includes the Carrizo, Whitsett, Catahoula, Oakville and Goliad geologic formations.
+Added: The Burke Hollow Project consists of one fee (private) mineral leases comprised of 17,511 acres.
+Added: 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.
+Added: All payments for the private lease are up to date.
+Added: No mineral resources are reported in areas outside of the Burke Hollow Project boundary.
+Added: The present condition of the property is considered advanced with monitor well installation completed in the first production area.
+Added: 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.
+Added: No significant encumbrances exist on the property.
+Added: The Company intends to complete the permitting of the production area authorization (PAA) and other necessary approvals in the coming years.
+Added: To date, there have been no violations or fines levied on the property.
+Added: 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). 
+Added: A surety bond for the current restoration, reclamation and decommissioning requirements will be in place at least 60 days prior to production. 
+Added: Uranium exploration and mining in South Texas primarily targets sandstone formations throughout the Coastal Plain bordering the Gulf of Mexico. 
+Added: The area has long been known to contain uranium oxide, which was first discovered in Karnes County, Texas, in 1954 using airborne radiometric survey. 
+Added: The uranium deposits discovered were within a belt of strata extending 250 miles from the middle coastal plain southwestward to the Rio Grande. 
+Added: 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.
26 unchanged sentences
Exploration holes were drilled to approximately 1,100 ft bgs and tested the entire prospective Goliad Formation.
−Removed: Results showed the presence of a reduction-oxidation interface in sands of the lower Goliad Formation, but there were insufficient data to link economically viable uranium mineralization.
+Added: 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.
Exploration program.
2 unchanged sentences
TOMIN drilled a total of 12 holes on permitted acreage that they negotiated for exploration.
−Removed: 11 of the 12 drill holes intersected anomalous gamma ray log signatures indicative of uranium mineralization, but there were insufficient data to link economically viable uranium mineralization.
+Added: 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.
The Burke Hollow Project Area was acquired by UEC from TOMIN.
7 unchanged sentences
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.
−Removed: Historic Ownership and Operations at the Burke Hollow Project Area (Continued)
+Added: Exploration program.
+Added: In 2019, 129 delineation holes were drilled.
+Added: From 2021-2022, 168 delineation and exploration holes were drilled.
+Added: In 2019, UEC completed 129 drill holes, mostly focusing on delineating the Lower B1 and Lower B2 sands in the proposed PA-1.
+Added: In addition, UEC began installing perimeter monitor wells in proposed PA-1.
+Added: In total, 57 holes were drilled solely for delineation and exploration purposes and 72 holes were drilled for monitoring purposes.
+Added: 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.
+Added: 168 delineation and exploration holes were drilled as of March 7, 2022.
+Added: 24 of these holes were also used as monitor wells.
+Added: This drilling program is ongoing for the purpose of completing more monitor wells.
+Added: 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.
+Added: Geologic Setting, Mineralization and Deposit
+Added: The Burke Hollow Project Area is located in the STUP, which lies along the GMB. 
+Added: Uranium mineralization at the Burke Hollow Project Area is typical of Texas roll-front sandstone deposits.
+Added: All mineralization at the Burke Hollow Project Area occurs in the Goliad Formation.
+Added: Uranium mineralization occurs along oxidation/reduction interfaces in fluvial channel sands of the Goliad Formation. 
+Added: These deposits consist of multiple mineralized sand horizons which are separated vertically by confining beds of silt, mudstone, and clay.
+Added: 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. 
+Added: The Goliad Formation uncomfortably underlies the Lissie Formation. 
+Added: 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.
+Added: 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. 
+Added: 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.
+Added: There are two northeast-southwest trending faults at the Burke Hollow Project Area that are likely related to the formation of uranium mineralization. 
+Added: 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. 
+Added: The presence of these faults is likely related to the increased mineralization at the site. 
+Added: 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.
+Added: Table 2.35 –
+Added: Mineral Resources for the Burke Hollow Project as at the date of this Annual Report
+Added: Classification
+Added: Tons Ore (000 ’
+Added: Tonnes Ore (1000 ’
+Added: Average Grade (% eU 3 O 8 )
+Added: Pounds eU 3 O 8  (000 ’
+Added: Total Resources
+Added: Pounds reported with Disequilibrium Factor (DEF) applied.
+Added: The sum of resource tons and lbs.
+Added: may not add up to the reported total due to rounding.
+Added: Measured, indicated, and inferred mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300.
+Added: GT Cutoff = 0.3 m% eU 3 O 8
+Added: All reported resources occur below the static water table.
+Added: The point of reference for mineral resources is in-situ at the Project.
+Added: Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
+Added: Goliad Project
+Added: The independent TRS for the Goliad Project area (the “Goliad Project Area”) has been prepared for UEC, under the supervision of WWC (the “QP”
+Added: herein), pursuant to S-K 1300. 
+Added: 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. 
+Added: There are no reserves associated with the Goliad Project Area.
+Added: Figure 2.18 –
+Added: Location of the Goliad Project
+Added: Property Description
+Added: The Goliad Project Area is located in South Texas near the northeast end of the STUP. 
+Added: The Goliad Project Area consists of multiple contiguous leases that would allow the mining of uranium by ISR methods. 
+Added: 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. 
+Added: Site drilling roads are mostly gravel based and allow access for trucks and cars in most weather conditions. 
+Added: Four-wheel drive vehicles may be needed during high rainfall periods.
+Added: There are seven fee (private) mineral leases comprised of 636 acres on the Goliad Project Area. 
+Added: Payments for the private leases are up to date. 
+Added: UEC obtained mining leases by assignment from a private entity (Brad A.
+Added: Moore) in 2006. 
+Added: No resources are reported in areas outside of the Goliad Project Area boundary.
+Added: UEC has completed all the required permitting in order to mine at the Goliad Project Area.
+Added: 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.
+Added: 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.
+Added: The Company plans to continue to keep the property in a care and maintenance status.
+Added: No significant encumbrances are on the property.
+Added: The Company intends to continue permit renewals and there have been no violations or fines levied on the property.
+Added: 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). 
+Added: A surety bond for the current restoration, reclamation and decommissioning requirements will be in place at least 60 days prior to production. 
+Added: Uranium exploration and mining in South Texas primarily targets sandstone formations throughout the Coastal Plain bordering the Gulf of Mexico.
+Added: The area has long been known to contain uranium oxide, which was first discovered in Karnes County, Texas, in 1954 using airborne radiometric survey.
+Added: The uranium deposits discovered were within a belt of strata extending 250 miles from the middle coastal plain southwestward to the Rio Grande.
+Added: This area includes the Carrizo, Whitsett, Catahoula, Oakville and Goliad geologic formations.
+Added: Open pit mining began in 1961 and ISR mining was initiated in 1975.
+Added: 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.
+Added: 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.
+Added: 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.
+Added: Uranium had been mined by several major oil companies in the past in South Texas, including Conoco, Mobil, Humble (later Exxon), ARCO and others.
+Added: 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.
+Added: ARCO discovered several Oakville Formation (Miocene-age) uranium-bearing deposits and acquired other deposits located nearby in Live Oak County.
+Added: They were exploring deeper extensions of Oakville Formation trends when they discovered the Mt.
+Added: Lucas Goliad Formation deposit, located near Lake Corpus Christi in Live Oak County near the Bee County line.
+Added: Historic Ownership and Operations at the Goliad Project Area
+Added: Operations/Activity
+Added: of Drill holes)
+Added: Results of Work
+Added: Coastal Uranium, Inc.
+Added: (Coastal Uranium)
+Added: Exploration program.
+Added: 12 exploration holes.
+Added: Coastal Uranium drilled widely spaced exploration holes in the region as part of the Coastal States wide-spaced drilling exploration effort.
+Added: Eight of these holes were drilled at or near the Goliad Project Area.
+Added: Additional information on the exploration is described below.
+Added: Moore Energy Corporation
+Added: Review of data and leases from Coastal Uranium and exploration program.
+Added: 479 exploration and delineation holes.
+Added: 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.
+Added: From March 1983 through August 1984, Moore Energy Corporation conducted an exploration program at Goliad.
+Added: All of the boreholes were drilled using truck-mounted drilling rigs contracted with various drilling companies.
+Added: Samples were taken by the driller for review and logged by a geologist.
+Added: The holes were logged for gamma ray, self-potential and resistance by contract logging companies.
+Added: No down-hole deviation tool was available.
+Added: Historical resource estimates were prepared by Moore Energy Corporation from data gathered in 1983-1985.
+Added: For each drill hole, a Grade x Thickness (GT) was determined, and the mineral was outlined with a 0.3 GT contour.
+Added: The average GT of the holes within the contoured outline was used to estimate the resources meeting the specified criteria.
+Added: 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).
+Added: This equates to approximately 5.2 million lbs of uranium.
+Added: Exploration program.
+Added: 360 exploration and delineation holes.
+Added: UEC obtained mine leases by assignment from Brad A.
+Added: Moore for the current Goliad Project Area in 2006.
+Added: UEC drilled 360 more holes at the property from May 2006 through June 2007.
+Added: These holes include closer-spaced delineation work on the areas drilled by Moore Energy Corporation.
+Added: Additionally, several of the UEC holes were drilled to further exploration on contiguous leases to the east of the property.
+Added: 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.
+Added: 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.
+Added: Exploration and water well program.
+Added: 33 exploration holes and two water wells drilled.
+Added: In 2014, UEC conducted a drilling program at the Goliad Project Area for exploration and water wells.
+Added: 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.
+Added: Geologic Setting, Mineralization, and Deposit
+Added: The Goliad Project Area is located in the STUP, which lies along the GMB.
+Added: Uranium mineralization at the Goliad Project Area is typical of Texas roll-front sandstone deposits.
+Added: All mineralization at the Goliad Project Area occurs in the Goliad Formation.
+Added: The Goliad Formation occurs at surface on the Goliad Project Area.
+Added: 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.
+Added: The sand units are generally fine to medium-grained sands with silt and varying amounts of secondary calcite.
+Added: The sand units vary in color depending upon the degree of oxidation-reduction and could be from light brown-tan to gray.
+Added: The sand units are generally separated from each other by silty clay or clayey silts that serve as confining units between the sand units.
+Added: 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.
+Added: At the Goliad Project Area, each unit is a hydrogeologic unit with similar but variable characteristics.
+Added: Groundwater from sands of the Goliad Formation is used for water supplies over much of the northern portion of Goliad County.
+Added: The Goliad structures include two faults that intersect and offset the mineralized units.
+Added: These faults are normal faults, with one downthrown toward the coast and one downthrown toward the northwest.
+Added: The fault throws range from about 40 to 80 feet.
+Added: The Goliad sand is one of the principal water-bearing formations in South Texas and can yield moderate to large quantities of water.
+Added: All of the project areas included in this Goliad Project Area target the Goliad Formation, which is a proven aquifer with characteristics favorable to ISR.
+Added: Table 2.37 –
+Added: Mineral Resources for the Goliad Project as at the date of this Annual Report
+Added: Classification
+Added: Tons Ore (000 ’
+Added: Tonnes Ore (1000 ’
+Added: Average Grade (% eU 3 O 8 )
+Added: Pounds eU 3 O 8  (000 ’
+Added: Total Resources
+Added: Pounds reported with Disequilibrium Factor (DEF) applied.
+Added: The sum of resource tons and lbs.
+Added: may not add up to the reported total due to rounding.
+Added: Measured, indicated, and inferred mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300.
+Added: GT Cutoff = 0.20 m% eU 3 O 8
+Added: All reported resources occur below the static water table.
+Added: The point of reference for mineral resources is in-situ at the Project.
+Added: Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
+Added: Salvo ISR Project
+Added: An independent TRS for the Salvo Project area (the “Salvo Project Area”) has been prepared for UEC, under the supervision of WWC (as “QP”
+Added: herein), pursuant to S-K 1300.
+Added: This TRS identifies and summarizes the scientific and technical information and conclusions reached from the IA to support disclosure of mineral resources on the Salvo Project Area.
+Added: There are no mineral reserves associated with this Salvo Project Area.
+Added: Surety estimates for restoration, reclamation or decommissioning will be calculated when the project is permitted.
+Added: Figure 2.19 –
+Added: Location of the Salvo Project
+Added: Property Description
+Added: The Salvo Project Area is located in South Texas near the northeast end of the STUP.
+Added: The Salvo Project Area consists of two leases that would allow the mining of uranium by ISR methods.
+Added: The Salvo Project Area is about 10 miles south of the city of Beeville and approximately five miles west of US Highway 181, a primary highway that intersects with US Highway 59 in Beeville and I-10 to the north.
+Added: Site drilling roads are mostly caliche-gravel based and allow access for trucks and cars in most weather conditions.
+Added: Four-wheel drive vehicles may be needed during high rainfall periods.
+Added: The Salvo Project Area does not have mineral reserves and is therefore considered an Exploration Stage property under S-K 1300 definitions.
+Added: The Company has maintained the leases though has no near-term work plans for the property.
+Added: The Salvo Project Area is also located in an area of Texas that has extensive farming activity.
+Added: Most of the property is used for farming and has a high level of crop cultivation.
+Added: There are two mineral leases comprised of 800 acres at the Salvo Project Area.
+Added: All payments for the private lease are up to date.
+Added: No historic uranium mining is known to have occurred on any of the Salvo Project Area leases and only state permitted (RCC) uranium exploration drilling has taken place.
+Added: Prior to any mining activity at Salvo, UEC will need to acquire all the necessary permits from the RCC, TCEQ and EPA.
+Added: No significant encumbrances are on the property.
+Added: All necessary permits will be required though the Company does not intend to initiate those efforts in the near term.
+Added: No violations or fines have been levied on the Property.
+Added: Uranium exploration and mining in South Texas primarily targets sandstone formations throughout the Coastal Plain bordering the Gulf of Mexico.
+Added: The area has long been known to contain uranium oxide, which was first discovered in Karnes County, Texas, in 1954 using airborne radiometric survey.
+Added: The uranium deposits discovered were within a belt of strata extending 250 miles from the middle coastal plain southwestward to the Rio Grande.
+Added: This area includes the Carrizo, Whitsett, Catahoula, Oakville and Goliad geologic formations.
+Added: Open pit mining began in 1961 and ISR mining was initiated in 1975.
+Added: 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.
+Added: 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.
+Added: 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.
+Added: Uranium had been mined by several major oil companies in the past in South Texas, including Conoco, Mobil, Humble (later Exxon), ARCO and others.
+Added: 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.
+Added: ARCO discovered several Oakville Formation (Miocene-age) uranium-bearing deposits and acquired other deposits located nearby in Live Oak County.
+Added: They were exploring deeper extensions of Oakville Formation trends when they discovered the Mt.
+Added: Lucas Goliad Formation deposit, located near Lake Corpus Christi in Live Oak County near the Bee County line.
+Added: The table below summarizes the historic ownership and operations at the Salvo Project Area.
+Added: Historic Ownership and Operations at the Salvo Project Area
+Added: Operations/Activity
+Added: of Drill holes)
+Added: Results of Work
+Added: Unknown to 1983
+Added: Original controller of the Salvo Project Area.
+Added: 111 exploration holes.
+Added: Nufuels discovered uranium mineralization in La Para sands of the Miocene-aged Goliad Formation in 1982 in Bee County, Texas.
+Added: Mobil’s reconnaissance drilling located two areas of interest, known as the Salvo and Segar projects.
+Added: Mobil had drilled a total of 111 exploration holes at Salvo and Seger in 1982.
+Added: Shortly after conducting their exploration drilling in this area, Mobil elected to discontinue their uranium exploration efforts and sell their uranium production facilities.
+Added: The early Salvo exploration drilling conducted by Nufuels indicated significant uranium mineralization was present.
+Added: URI joint venture with Saaberg Interplan Uran Gmbh (“SIPU”) (“URI/SIPU”)
+Added: URI formed a joint venture exploration program with SIPU, a German utility.
+Added: URI/SIPU acquired Salvo from Mobil, along with the Seger Project, an eastward extension along the same geochemical roll-front system.
+Added: URI/SIPU leased the property until about 1993 when secondary lease expired.
+Added: 295 exploration and delineation holes in 1984.
+Added: 19 exploration holes at the nearby Seger Project.
+Added: URI/SIPU calculated a resource of approximately 1.5 million pounds U 3 O 8 at Salvo using a 0.5 GT cutoff in 1984.
+Added: Average GT was modeled at 0.989, with a ratio of 0.194, width of 45 ft, length of 140 ft, and tonnage factor of 1.236 lbs/ft 2 .
+Added: Due to low uranium prices, URI/SIPU elected not to permit the project at that time (R.B.
+Added: Smith, unpublished report, 2005).
+Added: URI utilized a Monte Carlo-based computer simulation to calculate the historic resource (URI, 1984).
+Added: Smith & Associates Inc.
+Added: (“R.B.
+Added: Smith”)
+Added: Review of past exploration data.
+Added: Smith (2005) completed an evaluation of the Goliad Formation trend project data at the Salvo and Seger projects.
+Added: Data were on loan from URI/SIPU.
+Added: Smith did not retain copies of maps or electric logs, and the original data set of logs and maps was returned to URI.
+Added: URI held the data in storage until 2010.
+Added: The Salvo Project Area was acquired by UEC from URI/SIPU.
+Added: UEC negotiated a purchase of available data from URI.
+Added: URI and UEC reached agreement on sales of Salvo and Seger project data in 2010.
+Added: The adjacent Seger property is no longer included in UEC’s Salvo leases.
+Added: Ownership transition.
+Added: UEC received 425 exploration log files, and several drill hole location maps and land maps.
+Added: The 425 log files include good quality electric logs from Mobil’s activities at Seger and Salvo in 1982, as well as URI/SIPU’s drill hole logs from exploration activities in 1984.
+Added: Each log file also contains a detailed lithological report based on drill hole cuttings prepared by Mobil’s and later by URI’s field geologists supervising and monitoring drilling activity.
+Added: Four core holes were drilled by URI, and core analysis reports were included in the appropriate log files.
+Added: Eight holes were logged by Princeton Gamma-Tech (PGT, and early form of PFN), a logging company which specialized in uranium chemical assay logging.
+Added: The PGT logs were utilized and verified as having excellent correlation to actual chemical uranium content by several south Texas ISR mining operations.
+Added: These results are believed to be pertinent to the understanding of this deposit and indicated a generally positive DEF like other known Goliad Formation sandstones in the region.
+Added: The historic mineralized intercepts from URI exploration boreholes were presented in the initial NI 43-101 UEC Salvo Project TRS dated July 16, 2010.
+Added: The estimated historic uranium resource (URI 1984 classification only) of approximately 1.5 million pounds eU 3 O 8 was determined but was not verified independently.
+Added: However, it was presented in the initial 43-101 TRS.
+Added: Geologic Setting, Mineralization and Deposit
+Added: The Salvo Project Area is located in the STUP, which lies along the GMB.
+Added: All mineralization at the Salvo Project Area occurs in the Goliad Formation.
+Added: Uranium mineralization occurs along oxidation/reduction interfaces in fluvial channel sands of the Goliad Formation.
+Added: These deposits consist of multiple mineralized sand horizons, which are separated vertically by confining beds of silt, mudstone and clay.
+Added: The Salvo Project Area is situated in the major northeast-southwest trending Goliad Formation of fluvial origin.
+Added: The Geologic Map of Texas indicates that a thin layer of Pleistocene-aged Lissie Formation uncomfortably overlies the Miocene Goliad Formation.
+Added: The Lissie Formation consists of unconsolidated deposits of sand, silt and clay, with minor amounts of gravel.
+Added: The uranium-bearing Goliad Formation underlies the Lissie Formation and is present at depths ranging from near-surface to approximately 600 feet in depth on the eastern side of the Salvo Project Area.
+Added: Uranium Resources Inc.
+Added: (“URI”) determined that uranium mineralization occurs within six individual sand units in the lower Goliad La Para member at depths generally ranging from 400 to 600 feet.
+Added: The entire La Para member can be considered to be a single thick uranium roll-front migration system, which is separated into six definable units designated as the L, M, N, O, P and Q, with the Q member located at the base.
+Added: Each unit is separated from the other by continuous beds of clay or silts, which serve as confining units between the sand beds.
+Added: The Salvo Project Area uranium deposit is similar in many geologic characteristics to other known Goliad sand/sandstone deposits in south Texas.
+Added: The mineralization occurs within fluvial sands and silts as roll-front deposits that are typically a “C”
+Added: or cutoff “C”
+Added: The roll-fronts are generally associated with an extended oxidation–reduction boundary or front.
+Added: At the Salvo Project Area there are at least five stacked mineralized sand horizons that are separated vertically by zones of finer sand, silt and clay.
+Added: Deposition and concentration of uranium in the Goliad Formation likely resulted due to a combination of leaching of uranium from volcanic tuff or ash deposits within the Goliad or erosion of uranium-bearing materials from older Oakville and Catahoula deposits.
+Added: The natural leaching process occurred near the outcrop area where recharge of oxidizing groundwater increased the solubility of uranium minerals in the interstices and coating sand grains in the sediments.
+Added: Subsequent downgradient migration of the soluble uranium within the oxygenated groundwater continued until the geochemical conditions became reducing and uranium minerals were deposited in roll-front or tabular bodies due to varying stratigraphic or structural conditions.
+Added: There are at least two northeast-southwest trending faults located near the Salvo Project Area that are likely related to the formation of the Salvo Project mineralization.
+Added: These exist at a depth of approximately 3,000 feet bgs based on petroleum industry maps and are not believed to extend into the Goliad Formation.
+Added: The northwesterly fault is a typical Gulf Coast normal fault, downthrown toward the coast, while the southeastern fault is an antithetical fault downthrown to the northwest, forming a graben structure.
+Added: The presence of these faults is likely related to the increased mineralization at the site.
+Added: The faulting has probably served as a conduit for reducing waters and/or gases to migrate from deeper horizons as well as altering the groundwater flow system in the uranium-bearing sands.
+Added: The Geologic Atlas of Texas, Beeville-Bay City Sheet does not show any faulting at the surface in the Salvo Project Area.
+Added: Table 2.39 –
+Added: Mineral Resources for the Salvo Project as at the date of this Annual Report
+Added: Classification
+Added: Tons Ore (000 ’
+Added: Tonnes Ore (1000 ’
+Added: Average Grade (% eU 3 O 8 )
+Added: Pounds eU 3 O 8  (000 ’
+Added: Total Resources
+Added: Pounds reported with Disequilibrium Factor (DEF) applied.
+Added: The sum of resource tons and lbs.
+Added: may not add up to the reported total due to rounding.
+Added: Measured, indicated, and inferred mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300.
+Added: GT Cutoff = 0.3 m% eU 3 O 8
+Added: All reported resources occur below the static water table.
+Added: The point of reference for mineral resources is in-situ at the Project.
+Added: Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
+Added: Arizona Properties
+Added: Arizona Conventional Uranium Activities
+Added: Uranium mining and processing work has occurred in Arizona over several historical periods, primarily from small tonnage production underground mines.
+Added: Initial historical mining in the 1950’s and early 1960’s was primarily out of the Four Corners area of Southwestern Arizona in the Salt Wash member of the Morrison Formation.
+Added: Mining was typically completed using underground access and targeted both uranium and vanadium.
+Added: A second important deposit type was the breccia pipes of the Colorado Plateau area.
+Added: A compilation produced by the U.S.
+Added: Department of Energy in 1980 estimated that over 18 Mlb.
+Added: of uranium oxide was produced out of Arizona between 1948 and 1970.
+Added: (Scarborough, R.B., 1981)
+Added: UEC’s projects in Arizona include the material Anderson Project and the non-material Workman Creek Project.
+Added: The uranium mineralization at both projects is hosted in flat lying sedimentary rocks.
+Added: Uranium mineralization at the Anderson Project occurs in the Date Creek Basin.
+Added: The uranium mineralization at Workman Creek occurs in the Sierra Ancha mountain range and hosted in flat-lying quartzite of the Dripping Spring Quartzite.
+Added: While UEC’s conventional projects in Arizona remain at an Exploration Stage, with sufficient price support they would become economic and would be recovered through open pit and/or underground mining methods, benefitting from the proximity to existing power and road infrastructure, and available labor from the nearby city of Phoenix.
+Added: In the Workman Creek area up to 13 mines were in operation within the Sierra Ancha region.
+Added: Between 1953 and 1960, over 21,000 tons of ore was produced with an average grade of 0.24% U 3 O 8 .
+Added: In 1954, the United States Atomic Energy Commission (“AEC”) conducted a low-level airborne radiometric survey of the Sierra Ancha region. 
+Added: A large prospecting and developing rush followed the release of the results of the airborne survey.
+Added: By 1957 more than 100 uranium showings were discovered within the Dripping Spring quartzite;
+Added: of these about 30 had been explored by workings or drillholes.
+Added: By 1960, all of the small mining operations in the Sierra Ancha region ceased production.
+Added: Uranium mining in the Anderson area began in January 1955, when anomalous radioactivity was detected in the vicinity of the Project using an airborne scintillometer. 
+Added: After a ground check revealed uranium oxide in outcrop, numerous claims were staked.
+Added: The “Anderson Mine,”
+Added: as the operation was known at the time, was drilled and mined by Mr.
+Added: Anderson. 
+Added: Between 1955 and 1959 mining activity resulted in 10,758 tons that averaged 0.15% U 3 O 8 , and 33,230 pounds U 3 O 8 were shipped to Tuba City, Arizona for custom milling.
+Added: In 1959, production stopped when the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) ended the purchasing program.
+Added: Permitting Requirements in Arizona
+Added: Exploration drilling and associated activities require an exploration permit and a reclamation bond must be posted. 
+Added: Exploration and mining activities on Arizona state land are administrated by the Arizona State Land Office. 
+Added: In order to conduct additional work for BLM administered ground, UEC needs to submit a plan of operations, a minimal impact exploration permit and a special use permit.
+Added: The permitting and licensing requirements in Arizona are similar to other states in the US.
+Added: all exploration and mining activities must comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA);
+Added: required environmental permits and licenses would include but may not be limited to:
+Added: Mine Land Reclamation Plan;
+Added: Arizona State Mine Inspector;
+Added: Exploration Permit;
+Added: Arizona State Land Department;
+Added: Plan of Operations;
+Added: Bureau of Land Management;
+Added: Source Material License;
+Added: Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
+Added: Water Wells and Appropriations;
+Added: Arizona Department of Water Resources;
+Added: Dams and Impoundments;
+Added: Arizona Department of Water Resources;
+Added: Air Quality Control Permit;
+Added: Arizona Department of Environmental Quality;
+Added: Water and Stormwater Discharge Permits;
+Added: Arizona Department of Environmental Quality;
+Added: Hazardous Waste;
+Added: Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and EPA;
+Added: Arizona Department of Environmental Quality;
+Added: Mine Safety and Health;
+Added: Arizona State Mine Inspector and MSHA;
+Added: County Zoning and Construction Permits.
+Added: Geology and Mineralization in Arizona
+Added: Geology of the Date Creek Basin
+Added: The Date Creek Basin is one of hundreds of Paleogene basins throughout western Arizona, southeastern California, Nevada and western Utah. 
+Added: Paleogene lacustrine and fluvial sediments and Quaternary gravels have filled these basins to depths of several thousand meters.
+Added: The basin is surrounded by dissected mountain ranges containing Precambrian metamorphic rocks and granites. 
+Added: Surrounding mountain ranges include the Black Mountains, to the north and northeast, and the Rawhide, Buckskin and McCracken Mountains, to the west. 
+Added: To the south and southeast the basin is bordered by a low drainage divide imposed by the Harcuvar and the Black Mountains. 
+Added: The margins of the basin are filled with early Paleogene volcanic flows and volcaniclastic sediments. 
+Added: The basin itself is filled with Oligocene to Miocene lacustrine and deltaic sediments covered by a thick mantle of Quaternary valley fill.
+Added: The Date Creek Basin was an area of active volcanism during Paleogene time. 
+Added: A thick series of volcanic flows and associated sediments of volcanic ash and clastics were deposited on the pre-existing surface. 
+Added: During a quiescent period, the Date Creek Basin was covered by a shallow lake or swamp in which a thick sequence of fine-grained sediments was deposited. 
+Added: Interbedded coarse sediments, volcanic basalt flows and conglomerates overlay the lake-bed sediments. 
+Added: This sequence of stratified volcanic and sedimentary rocks is 3,000 to 5,000 feet thick in the central portion of the Date Creek Basin.
+Added: The regional stratigraphic sequence was summarized, from oldest to youngest by MinEx, as follows:
+Added: Precambrian or Jurassic granitic basement complex;
+Added: Lacustrine clastic and volcanic members of the Palaeocene-Eocene Artillery Peak Formation;
+Added: Arrastra Volcanic Complex, including dacitic intrusions, andesitic flows and volcaniclastic members of Paleogene age;
+Added: Chapin Wash Formation, Anderson Mine lacustrine sediments of Miocene age;
+Added: Conglomeratic-sandstone unit, possibly equivalent to upper Chapin Wash Formation;
+Added: Miocene basalt;
+Added: Pliocene-Pleistocene conglomerate;
+Added: Quaternary alluvium.
+Added: The Date Creek Basin has been on the margin of several regional deformations. 
+Added: The basin was located on the northwestern margin of Mazatzal Land and the southeastern margin of the Cordilleran Geosyncline and was subsequently deformed by the Laramide Orogeny. 
+Added: The Date Creek Basin is presently located on the margin of the Basin and Range Province and exhibits structural deformation typical of the province. 
+Added: Basin and Range deformation is the dominant expression evident at the Anderson Project Area today.
+Added: Structural trends of this deformation comprise a dominant northwest-southeast trend of parallel to sub-parallel hinged block faults and a less dominant west-northwest, east-southeast fault system. 
+Added: Many of these faults exhibit recurrent movements.
+Added: Our Material Properties in Arizona
+Added: Anderson Uranium Project
+Added: A TRS was prepared for UEC on the Anderson Project area (the “Anderson Project Area”) located in Arizona.
+Added: This TRS was prepared for UEC by BRS Inc.
+Added: Engineering (“BRS”) under the supervision of Douglas Beahm, PE, PG, and co-authored by Clyde Yancey, PG, then Vice President of Exploration, UEC (collectively, the “QP”
+Added: The Anderson Project Area does not have mineral reserves and is therefore considered an exploration stage property under S-K 1300 definitions.
+Added: Property Description
+Added: The Anderson Project Area is located in Yavapai County, west-central Arizona, approximately 75 miles northwest of Phoenix and 43 miles northwest of Wickenburg (latitude 34°18'29" N and longitude 113°16'32" W, datum WGS84).
+Added: The general area is situated along the northeast margin of the Date Creek Basin.
+Added: The Anderson Project Area is located on the south side of the Santa Maria River, approximately 13 miles west of State Highway 93 (refer to Project Location Map).
+Added: The Anderson Project Area occupies part or all of Sections 1 and 3, 9 through 16, 21 through 27, and 34 of Township 11 North, Range 10 West and portions of Sections 18, 19, and 30 of Township 11 North, Range 9 West of the Gila and Salt River Base Meridian.
+Added: Figure 2.20 –
+Added: Location of the Anderson Project
+Added: The Anderson Project Area covers 8,268 acres (12.9 square miles) and is comprised of 386 contiguous, unpatented lode mining and placer claims totaling 7,628 acres and one Arizona State land section totaling 640 acres.
+Added: It is located in western Yavapai County, approximately 75 miles northwest of Phoenix.
+Added: The northern section of the Anderson Project Area holds the open-pit resource, and the adjacent southern section holds the underground resource.
+Added: The Anderson Project Area is located along the northeast margin of the Date Creek Basin of the Basin and Range Province of the western United States.
+Added: Uranium mineralization at the Anderson Project Area is strata bound and occurs exclusively in the sequence of Miocene-age lacustrine lakebed sediments.
+Added: The lacustrine sediments unconformably overlie the andesitic volcanic unit over most of the Anderson Project Area.
+Added: To maintain the mineral tenor, UEC must pay annual claim maintenance fees of $165 per claim, due on September 1 of each year.
+Added: In addition, Arizona State mineral leases are held with an exploration permit.
+Added: There is a $500 annual fee for the exploration permit, plus $1 per acre rental for the first five years.
+Added: For the first two years, there is also a minimal exploration expenditure requirement of $10 per acre per year.
+Added: For years three through five, there is a $20 per acre minimum.
+Added: There are no royalties on the BLM unpatented mining claims.
+Added: Arizona State mineral leases are subject to a 5% production royalty.
+Added: The state of Arizona has an overriding severance tax of 2.5% on 50% of the net proceeds.
+Added: No other encumbrances are known.
+Added: Infrastructure and Local Resources
+Added: The Project area is undeveloped and there are no facilities or equipment on site, except for various access and drill roads and various water wells previously constructed.
+Added: No utilities exist on or immediately adjacent to the Project area.
+Added: Various water wells exist on and near the Project that can support large-scale mining operations.
+Added: The nearest town is Congress (population 1,700) located 32 road miles to the east.
+Added: The nearest major housing, supply center and rail terminal is in Wickenburg (population 6,363) located approximately 43 miles from the Project by road.
+Added: Phoenix (population 1.45 million), approximately 100 miles to the southeast by road, is the nearest major industrial and commercial airline terminal.
+Added: Kingman (population 24,000) is located approximately 110 miles to the northwest by road.
+Added: In January 1955, T.R.
+Added: Anderson, of Sacramento, California, detected anomalous radioactivity in the vicinity of the Anderson Project Area using an airborne scintillometer.
+Added: After a ground check revealed uranium oxide in outcrop, numerous claims were staked.
+Added: The Anderson Mine, as the operation was known at the time, was drilled and mined by Mr.
+Added: Work between 1955 and 1959 resulted in 10,758 tons that averaged 0.15% U 3 O 8 and 33,230 pounds U 3 O 8 were shipped to Tuba City, Arizona, for custom milling.
+Added: In 1959, production stopped when the AEC ended the purchasing program.
+Added: During 1967 and 1968, Getty Oil Company (“Getty”) secured an option on claims in the northern portion of the Anderson Project Area.
+Added: Some drilling and downhole gamma logging was conducted during the option period, but this failed to locate a sizeable uranium deposit.
+Added: In 1968, Getty dropped their option.
+Added: In 1974, the increasing price of uranium created a renewed interest in the vicinity of the Anderson Project Area.
+Added: Following a field check and an evaluation of the 1968 Getty drill data, MEC optioned the northern portion of the current Anderson Project Area.
+Added: In 1975, MinEx purchased the northern portion of the current Anderson Project Area after a 53-hole, 5,800 meter (19,000 foot) drilling program on 250 meter centers confirmed a much greater uranium resource potential than had been interpreted from the 1968 Getty gamma log data.
+Added: Further exploration work, consisting of a 180-hole, 22,555 meter (74,000 ft) drill and core program on 120 meter centers, was conducted from November 1975 through February 1976 to further delineate the uranium resources.
+Added: By 1980, MinEx had completed a total of 1,054 holes by rotary and core drilling.
+Added: In 1977, the Palmerita Ranch, located 11 kms west of the deposit along the Santa Maria River, was acquired by MinEx to provide a water source for the operations in the event that closer sources proved inadequate.
+Added: Based on favorable economics, indicated in a Preliminary Feasibility Study completed by Morrison-Knudsen Company, Inc., in December 1977, a detailed Final Feasibility Study was undertaken early in 1978 to evaluate the MinEx holdings on the northern portion of the current project.
+Added: In 1973, Urangesellschaft expressed an interest in the former Anderson Property.
+Added: Urangesellschaft located a claim block, “Date Creek Project”, on the down-dip extension of the mineralization immediately to the south of MinEx’s claims.
+Added: In 1973 to 1982, subsequent drilling programs delineated mineralization from a total of 352 drill holes with 122,744 meters (402,773 feet) of rotary and core drilling.
+Added: Depressed uranium prices stalled exploration activities until 1995 when an individual, Hanson, consolidated portions of the former MinEx and Urangesellschaft claims under single ownership.
+Added: Hanson dropped the claims by 1998.
+Added: In 2001, Concentric Energy Corp.
+Added: (“Concentric”) restaked the claims and controlled ownership until May, 2011.
+Added: In 2006, Concentric drilled 24 reverse-circulation holes and one core hole on the MinEx portion of the Anderson Project Area to confirm the reproducibility and authenticity of the historical MinEx exploration database.
+Added: Concentric had planned a similar confirmation drilling campaign on the former Urangesellschaft portion of the Anderson Project Area for the 2007 field season, but the drill program was never done.
+Added: UEC has not conducted any drilling activity to date.
+Added: Permitting and Licensing
+Added: Exploration and mining activities for the mining claims of the Anderson Project Area are administrated by the BLM, Kingman Field Office.
+Added: Exploration drilling and associated activities require an exploration permit and a reclamation bond must be posted.
+Added: The Anderson Project Area was drilled as recently as 2006, and it is not expected that any of these requirements will have an effect on the ability to conduct exploration activities.
+Added: UEC has exploration permits on the two state sections.
+Added: In order to conduct additional work for BLM administered ground UEC needs to submit a plan of operations, a minimal impact exploration permit and a special use permit.
+Added: The authors are not aware of significant environmental liabilities on the property.
+Added: However, it is important to note that 195 acres in the northern part of the project area were classified as “disturbed”
+Added: by the Bureau of Land Management.
+Added: The disturbed area is a result of minor production via dozer cuts from surface mining done in the 1950s.
+Added: No specific social or community related requirements, negotiations, and/or agreements are known to exist with local communities and/or agencies other than those discussed herein.
+Added: No outstanding environmental liabilities to UEC are known to the authors.
+Added: Arizona mine regulations do not require backfill and regrading to approximate original contours and do allow remnant highwalls so long as stability and protection of human health and the environment are adequately addressed. 
+Added: Heap leach recovery will require the isolation of all mill waste material including contaminated buildings and equipment to be disposed of in a lined disposal cell which is isolated from dispersion through all environmental pathways. 
+Added: The heap pads meet this criterion when covered with a radon cap and erosional protection layer.
+Added: If properly sited, the heap pads can be reclaimed in place along with any contaminated materials for the plant decommissioning.
+Added: Reclamation of the heap leach and mineral processing facility will be in accordance with USNRC source materials license conditions for the project.
+Added: Geologic Setting, Mineralization and Deposit
+Added: The Anderson Project Area is located along the northeast margin of the Date Creek Basin of the Basin and Range Province of the western United States.
+Added: Three major faults cross the Anderson Project Area:
+Added: The East Boundary Fault System;
+Added: and the West Boundary Fault System.
+Added: Faults trend predominantly from N30 o W to N55 o W and dip steeply (approximately 80 o ) to the southwest.
+Added: Another set of faults trending more westerly (N65 o W) are present in the south-central portion of the Anderson Project Area.
+Added: A fault set trending northeast-southwest has been speculated by Urangesellschaft and others but has not been observed in the field.
+Added: Many of the north-westerly surface water drainage tributaries are developed partially along fault traces. 
+Added: Fault displacements range from a few inches to more than 300 feet.
+Added: Fault movement is generally of normal displacement resulting in stair-stepped fault blocks.
+Added: Local faults also tend to hinge.
+Added: Nine stratigraphic units were identified on the Anderson Project Area.
+Added: Listed from oldest to youngest, they are as follows:
+Added: Crystalline Intrusive Rocks:
+Added: coarse-grained to pegmatitic Precambrian granite;
+Added: Felsic to Intermediate Volcanic:
+Added: flows, breccias, tuffs and minor intrusive;
+Added: Felsic to Intermediate Volcaniclastic:
+Added: ash flows, tuffaceous beds and arkosic sandstone;
+Added: Andesitic Volcanic:
+Added: porphyritic andesitic flows with a paleosurface and locally reddish-brown paleosols;
+Added: Lacustrine Sedimentary rocks:
+Added: micaceous siltstones and mudstone, calcareous siltstones and silty limestone, thin beds of carbonaceous siltstone and lignitic material and host of uranium mineralization, averaging about 60 to 100 meters thick;
+Added: Lower Sandstone Conglomerate:
+Added: arkosic sandstones and conglomerate, averaging about 60 to 100 meters thick;
+Added: Basaltic Flows and Dikes:
+Added: amygdular basalt, averaging about 20 meters thick;
+Added: Upper Conglomerate:
+Added: cobble and boulder conglomerate, partly indurate and locally calcite cemented, averaging about zero to 60 meters thick;
+Added: Quaternary Alluvium:
+Added: unconsolidated sand and gravel, caliche formed where calcite cemented.
+Added: Uranium mineralization at the Anderson Project Area occurs exclusively in the sequence of Miocene age lacustrine lakebed sediments.
+Added: The lacustrine sediments unconformably overlie the andesitic volcanic unit over most of the Anderson Project Area.
+Added: However, to the east of the Anderson Project Area they overlie the felsic to intermediate volcanic unit.
+Added: The uranium host rock sequence consists predominantly of a green to gray-green tuffaceous mudstone, which is interbedded with calcareous mudstone, carbonaceous mudstone, limestone, marl, lignite, chert and minor sand lenses.
+Added: This sequence has been called the Anderson Mine Formation by Sherborne and ranges from 100 meters to more than 500 meters in thickness.
+Added: This section has been tentatively correlated westward with the Chapin Wash Formation and most probably inter-tongues with the Chapin Wash Formation.
+Added: Uranium mineralization in outcrops and the pit floor at the old Anderson Mine was reported by the U.S.
+Added: Bureau of Mines in Salt Lake City as tyuyamunite (Ca(UO 2 ) 2 (VO 4 ) 2 ·5-8H 2 O).
+Added: Carnotite (K(UO 2 ) 2 (VO 4 ) 2 ·3H2O) and a rarer silicate mineral, weeksite (K 2 (UO 2 ) 2 (Si 2 O 5 ) 3 ·4H 2 O), was also reported in outcrop samples.
+Added: Carnotite mineralization occurs as fine coatings and coarse fibrous fillings along fractures and bedding planes and has been noted in shallow drill holes and surface exposures.
+Added: The uranium mineralization found at depth on the former Urangesellschaft property was reported by Hazen Research, Inc.
+Added: (“Hazen Research”) to be poorly crystallized, very fine-grained, amorphous uranium with silica.
+Added: This could be in the form of either coffinite (U(SiO 4 )1-x(OH)4x) or uraninite (UO 2 ) in a primary or unoxidized state.
+Added: Mineralogical studies performed by Hazen Research on Urangesellschaft core found that mineralization was associated, for the most part, with organic-rich fractions of the samples.
+Added: Specifically, the uraniferous material occurs as stringers, irregular masses and disseminations in carbonaceous veinlets with uranium up to 54% as measured by microprobe analysis.
+Added: X-ray diffraction identified the mineral as coffinite.
+Added: It is possible that an amorphous, ill-defined uranium silicate with a variable U:Si ratio is precipitated and, under favorable conditions, develops into an identifiable crystalline form (coffinite).
+Added: Urangesellschaft distinguished seven mineralized zones, identified as Horizons A, B, C, D, E, F and G, with the youngest (uppermost) being Horizon A and the oldest (deepest) being Horizon G.
+Added: The majority of uranium occurs in Horizons A, B and C within the property.
+Added: A conglomeratic sandstone unit interbeds with these units, but does not contain uranium mineralization;
+Added: it is referred to as the Barren Sandstone Unit and it lies between Horizon C and Horizon D.
+Added: Consequently, Horizons A through C have been called the Upper Lakebed Sequence and Horizons D through G have been called the Lower Lakebed Sequence.
+Added: Grades of mineralization range from 0.025% U 3 O 8 to normal highs of 0.3 to 0.5% U 3 O 8 , with intercepts on occasion of 1.0% to 2.0% U 3 O 8 .
+Added: Secondary enrichment of syngenetic mineralization is observed along faults and at outcrops.
+Added: Mineral Resources
+Added: Based on the density of drilling, continuity of geology and mineralization, testing, and data verification the mineral resource estimates meet the criteria for indicated mineral resources as summarized herein.
+Added: Estimated indicated mineral resources are summarized in the following table at a 0.02% eU 3 O 8 grade cutoff and a 0.1 ft% GT cutoff.
+Added: Mineral resources were estimated separately for each mineralized zone.
+Added: The total contained mineralized material was first estimated.
+Added: Then reasonable prospects for economic extraction were applied resulting in an 18% reduction from the estimate of total mineralized material.
+Added: Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability.
+Added: However, considerations of reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction were applied to the mineral resource calculations herein.
+Added: Table 2.40 –
+Added: Mineral Resources for the Anderson Project as at the date of this Annual Report
+Added: Classification
+Added: Tons Ore (000 ’
+Added: Tonnes Ore (1000 ’
+Added: Average Sum Thickness (ft)
+Added: Average Grade (% eU 3 O 8 )
+Added: Pounds eU 3 O 8  (000 ’
+Added: Indicated – Zone A
+Added: Indicated – Zone B
+Added: Indicated – Zone C
+Added: Indicated – Zone D
+Added: Indicated – Zone E
+Added: Indicated – Zone F
+Added: Total Resources
+Added: The sum of resource tons and lbs.
+Added: may not add up to the reported total due to rounding.
+Added: Measured, indicated, and inferred mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300.
+Added: GT Cutoff = 0.1 m% eU 3 O 8  and metallurgical Recovery estimated at 90%.
+Added: Economic factors have been applied to the estimates in consideration of reasonable prospects for economic extraction.
+Added: The point of reference for mineral resources is in-situ at the Project.
+Added: Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
+Added: Canadian Uranium Projects
+Added: Canadian Conventional Projects
+Added: The majority of our Canadian projects are currently considered to be potential conventional open pit or underground uranium projects.
+Added: These projects are in two different geological terrains, the well-known Athabasca Basin in Saskatchewan, and the Thelon Basin in Nunavut.
+Added: We do not currently have Canadian projects that we operate at a Development stage, all assets operated by UEC are considered to be Exploration Stage projects under S-K 1300 definitions.
+Added: Conventional uranium deposits in the Athabasca and Thelon Basins of Saskatchewan and Nunavut respectively are typically unconformity-associated uranium deposits.
+Added: Wherein uranium mineralization is focused by structures that have promoted the penetration of uranium bearing fluids into trap locations at or near the unconformity between Archean and early-Paleoproterozoic metamorphosed sedimentary and igneous basement rocks and the overlying unmetamorphosed late-Paleoproterozoic sandstone rocks.
+Added: Figure 2.20 –
+Added: Canadian Uranium Projects
+Added: Figure 2.21 –
+Added: Saskatchewan Uranium Projects
+Added: Geology of the Athabasca Basin
+Added: The Athabasca Basin is elongated along an east-west axis and straddles the boundary between two subdivisions of the Western Churchill Province.
+Added: The Rae Subprovince to the west and the Hearne Subprovince to the east.
+Added: The subprovinces are separated by the northeast trending Snowbird Tectonic Zone, locally known as the Virgin River-Black Lake shear zone in the area of the Athabasca Basin.
+Added: The Hearne Craton beneath the eastern Athabasca Basin comprises variably reworked Archean basement, which is dominated by granitic domes and foliated to gneissic granitoid rocks with infolded outliers of Paleoproterozoic metasedimentary rocks.
+Added: The structural and tectonic regime of the area has been influenced strongly by collisional tectonics between the Hearne and Superior Cratons during the early Proterozoic Trans-Hudson Orogen, which occurred approximately 1.9 billion years ago (“Ga”) to 1.77 Ga.
+Added: Prior to deposition of the Athabasca Group, rocks of the Rae and Hearne Provinces that would later form the basement of the basin rocks experienced a lengthy period of weathering and non-deposition.
+Added: Consequently, the basal Athabasca stratigraphy is underlain by a regolith of deeply weathered, hematite-stained basement.
+Added: In places, the preserved regolith can reach a thickness of up to 50 m, but typically less than 10 m.
+Added: Unconformably overlying the basement rocks is the late Mesoproterozoic Athabasca Group consisting mainly of fluvial clastic sedimentary rocks, which are about 1,400 m thick in the central part of the basin (Ramaekers, 2001).
+Added: The Athabasca Group comprises eight formations, although in the eastern Athabasca Basin, the Manitou Falls Formation is the only formation present.
+Added: It is subdivided into four units, from bottom to top, designated MFa to MFd.
+Added: Lithologies are dominated by fine to coarse-grained, partly pebbly or clay-intraclast-bearing quartz arenites.
+Added: Minor conglomerates, mudstones, and dolostones also occur. 
+Added: Apart from faulting and local folding associated with thrusting, the Athabasca Group strata are undeformed and unmetamorphosed.
+Added: Age dating of zircons and diagenetic fluorapatite (SGS, 2003) indicate an age of sedimentary deposition around 1.77 Ga, post-dating the Trans-Hudson Orogeny (circa 1.9 Ga to 1.77 Ga).
+Added: Our Material Saskatchewan Properties
+Added: Roughrider Uranium Project
+Added: The independent TRS for the Roughrider Project area (the “Roughrider Project Area”) has been prepared for UEC, under the supervision of SRK Consulting (UK) Limited (the “QP”
+Added: herein), pursuant to S-K 1300. 
+Added: This TRS identifies and summarizes the scientific and technical information and conclusions reached from the initial assessment to support disclosure of mineral resources on the Roughrider Project Area. 
+Added: There are no mineral reserves associated with the Roughrider Project Area.
+Added: The Roughrider Project does not have mineral reserves and is therefore considered an Exploration Stage property under S-K 1300 definitions.
+Added: Figure 2.22 –
+Added: Location of the Roughrider Project
+Added: Property Description
+Added: The Roughrider Project Area is located seven kms north, via gravel road, of Points North Landing, a service centre on Provincial Road 905, in the eastern Athabasca basin of northern Saskatchewan, Canada.
+Added: The Roughrider Project Area is approximately 440 kms north of La Ronge, and 700 kms north of Saskatoon, at the coordinates 556,545E and 6,466,820N UTM. 
+Added: The Roughrider Project Area is an Exploration Stage property within the 597-hectare mineral lease ML-5547, which is 100% held by UEC.
+Added: The Roughrider Project Area site comprises core logging, office and storage facilities.
+Added: The area around the Roughrider Project Area is a well-developed mining area close to necessary infrastructure and resources.
+Added: The Roughrider Project Area can be accessed by a seven km gravel road, floatplane or helicopter from Points North Landing.
+Added: Points North Landing is on Provincial Road 905 which is linked to the nearest sizeable population centre, La Ronge 440 kms south, by Highway 102.
+Added: There are several daily commercial airline services from Saskatoon to Points North Landing, and regular charter flights for Orano’s McLean Lake operation.
+Added: There is one mineral lease on the Roughrider Project Area, which is 100% held by UEC. 
+Added: The lease covers 597 hectares and has been registered with the Saskatchewan Ministry of Energy and Resources.
+Added: The project is a mature Exploration Stage project, with significant historical drilling, environmental baseline work, and historical economic assessment work as outlined below.
+Added: At present, UEC is completing an updated economic assessment of the project, as well as camp infrastructure rehabilitation and upgrades.
+Added: UEC intends to complete additional resource delineation work in the upcoming 2023/2024 fiscal year to further advance the project.
+Added: The current exploration camp facilities are over 10 years old but remain in good condition.
+Added: No mine infrastructure or underground development is present on the project.
+Added: Between 1969 and 1974, following the discovery of the Rabbit Lake uranium deposit in 1968 by Gulf Minerals Ltd., Numac Oil and Gas (“Numac”) held the large Permit Number Eight over the Midwest Lake (McMahon Lake) and Dawn Lake areas.
+Added: At the time, Numac, in conjunction with their partners.
+Added: Esso Minerals and Bow Valley Industries, focused on the Midwest Lake area, located adjacent to the Roughrider Project Area. 
+Added: In 1976, Asamera Oil Corp.
+Added: (“Asamera”) initiated the Dawn Lake project, located approximately six kms southeast of the current Roughrider Project Area.
+Added: In 1983, the Saskatchewan Mining and Development Corporation (“SMDC”), predecessor to Cameco Corporation (“Cameco”), became the operator of the Dawn Lake Joint Venture.
+Added: By 1995, the Dawn Lake Joint Venture consisted of Cameco, Cogema Resources Inc.
+Added: (now Orano SA), PNC Exploration Canada Ltd.
+Added: and Kepco Canada Ltd.
+Added: Early work by Asamera on the Esso North claim consisted of electromagnetic (“EM”) and aeromagnetic surveys in 1977, followed by airborne very low frequency (“VLF”) EM, magnetic and radiometric surveys in 1978 and 1979 by Kenting and Geoterrex, respectively.
+Added: From 1978 to 1981, Turam, Vector Pulse EM and VLF-EM surveys confirmed the east-west conductor as well as some weaker northeast trending VLF-EM conductors.
+Added: During this same period, Asamera drilled 21 holes on the Esso North claim. 
+Added: The first 10 holes were drilled across the projected northeast strike extent of the Roughrider Project Area.
+Added: The other eleven holes were drilled on the main east-west striking conductor.
+Added: In 1984, SMDC carried out Time Domain EM (“TEM”) on the Esso North claim and completed two additional holes. 
+Added: Exploration on the Esso North claim was dormant until 1995, when Cameco resurveyed the area with TEM and located both the east-west conductor and the weak northeast striking conductor.
+Added: The latter target was tested by one hole, EN-20;
+Added: it intersected faulted and altered sandstone but no significant radioactivity. 
+Added: In 1996 one drillhole, EN-21, was completed that targeted the east-west conductor.
+Added: No conductive material was intersected, and the basement lithology was granite.
+Added: Under an agreement dated September 10, 2004, between Roughrider Uranium Corp.
+Added: (“Roughrider”) and Bullion Fund Inc.
+Added: (“Bullion Fund”), Roughrider earned a 90% interest in claim S-107243 (and six other claims that became part of Roughrider’s Russell South property).
+Added: On August 10, 2006, Roughrider became a wholly owned subsidiary of Hathor.
+Added: On April 12, 2007, Terra Ventures Inc.
+Added: (“Terra”) announced that it had closed a deal with Bullion Fund to acquire an 8% carried working interest in seven claims comprising 56,360 acres in two separate projects located in the Athabasca Basin, Saskatchewan, of which 90% of the remaining 92% working interest was held by Hathor.
+Added: One of the claims was S-107243.
+Added: Terra’s interest was to be carried in all respects through to the completion of a feasibility study and the public announcement that the claims will be put into commercial production.
+Added: On March 24, 2008, Terra announced that it had closed its agreement with Bullion Fund to purchase Bullion Fund’s remaining 2% of Hathor’s carried working interest in the project.
+Added: This purchase increased Terra’s holding to a 10% carried working interest through to the completion of a feasibility study and the public announcement that the claims will be put into commercial production.
+Added: RRW was discovered by Hathor during the winter drilling program of February 2008.
+Added: RRE was discovered during the summer drilling program in September 2009.
+Added: A third zone, RRFE, was discovered during the winter drilling program in February 2011.
+Added: On April 18, 2011, Hathor and Terra announced that they had executed a binding letter agreement pursuant to which Hathor would acquire, in an all-share transaction, all of the issued and outstanding shares of Terra.
+Added: On May 9, 2011, Hathor and Terra announced that they had executed a definitive plan of arrangement agreement (the “Arrangement”) to complete the previously announced merger.
+Added: The result of the Arrangement was consolidation of 100% ownership of the Roughrider Project.
+Added: On August 5, 2011, Hathor and Terra announced the completion of the Arrangement and Terra became a wholly owned subsidiary of Hathor.
+Added: On December 1, 2011, Rio Tinto announced that it was successful in acquiring Hathor, through a wholly-owned Canadian subsidiary, RTCU.
+Added: On January 11, 2012, RTCU acquired all remaining Hathor common shares making RTCU 100% owners of the Roughrider Project Area.
+Added: After acquiring the Roughrider Project, RTCU continued to advance the Roughrider Project Area. 
+Added: On October 17, 2022, UEC completed the acquisition of 100% of the Roughrider Project Area from RTCU.
+Added: Permitting and Licensing
+Added: Should the Roughrider Project Area proceed, either to advanced exploration or to full development, the necessary development and operational approvals will need to be obtained.
+Added: This includes federal and provincial EIA and permitting/licensing processes and engagement and consultation with Indigenous groups. 
+Added: It is estimated the environmental and social assessment and CSNC licensing for the Roughrider Project Area may require between 48 months and 72 months to complete. 
+Added: A comprehensive list of the potential permits, approvals and authorizations required for the Roughrider Project Area can be found in the Roughrider Project Area TRS as filed.
+Added: Currently, the project does not require formal environmental bonding or rehabilitation requirements outside of those required as part of early-stage exploration permit requirements.
+Added: Geological Setting, Mineralization and Deposit
+Added: The Roughrider Project Area, comprising the Roughrider West (“RRW”), Roughrider East (“RRE”) and Roughrider Far East (“RRFE”) deposits, occurs in the Athabasca Basin, which covers over 85,000 km 2 in northern Saskatchewan and north-eastern Alberta.
+Added: The saucer-shaped basin contains a relatively undeformed and unmetamorphosed sequence of Mesoproterozoic clastic rocks known as the Athabasca.
+Added: These rocks lie unconformably on the basement rocks.
+Added: The basement rocks consist of Archean orthogneisses, which are overlain by, and structurally intercalated with, the highly deformed supracrustal Palaeoproterozoic Wollaston Group.
+Added: The RRW, RRE, and RRFE deposits occur in the basal part of the Wollaston Group of the WMTZ.
+Added: The basement is structurally complex, comprising steeply dipping Wollaston Group rocks dominated by garnet- and cordierite-bearing pelitic gneisses with subordinate amounts of graphitic pelitic gneisses and psammopelitic to psammitic gneisses, and rare garnetites.
+Added: The pelitic gneiss varies from equigranular to porphyroblastic in texture.
+Added: The porphyroblasts vary in size up to centimetre-scale and normally comprise red almandine rich garnets when fresh.
+Added: The gneisses have been intruded by syn- to post-peak metamorphic felsic pegmatites, granites, and microgranites of Hudsonian age.
+Added: These rocks locally contain up to 400 ppm of primary uranium.
+Added: Proximal to mineralization, graphite in graphitic pelitic gneisses has been consumed by alteration and mineralization;
+Added: distal to mineralization, the graphite appears to be discontinuous.
+Added: These two features may help explain the absence of basement-hosted graphitic conductors at the Roughrider Project.
+Added: Hydrothermal calc-silicate alteration of the orthogneisses is present locally.
+Added: The alteration is interpreted to be post-peak metamorphism in age and is probably related to the introduction of the Hudsonian felsic rocks.
+Added: The sandstone and basement rocks have been subjected to several episodes of brittle deformation, including the brittle reactivation of older ductile shear zones.
+Added: Uranium deposits in the Athabasca Basin can be broadly subdivided into two styles:
+Added: unconformity-hosted (occurring at or above the unconformity) and basement-hosted.
+Added: The Roughrider Project is characterized by basement hosted mineralization, which is typically hosted in faults (often referred to as veins when hosting mineralization) which must have been open to hydrothermal fluid flow at the time of mineralization and thus were likely active at some stage post basin formation.
+Added: Uranium mineralization at the Project is highly variable in thickness and style in all zones.
+Added: High grade uranium mineralization occurs primarily as structurally controlled, medium- to coarse-grained, semi-massive to massive pitchblende with what has been termed worm-rock texture, and texturally complex redox controlled mineralization.
+Added: This high-grade uranium mineralization is intimately associated locally with lesser amounts of red-to-orange coloured oxy-hydroxillized iron oxides.
+Added: Yellow secondary uranium minerals, probably uranophane, are present locally as veinlets or void-filling masses within the high-grade primary mineralization.
+Added: Lower grade mineralization occurs as either disseminated grains of pitchblende, fracture-lining, or veins of pitchblende.
+Added: Galena occurs in a number of habits and is variably present associated with the uranium mineralization.
+Added: The lead is presumed to have formed from the radioactive decay of uranium.
+Added: Veinlets of galena are up to 5 mm thick and either crosscut massive pitchblende, as anhedral masses (less than 1 mm in size) interstitial to the massive pitchblende, or as fine-grained, sub-millimetre-scale disseminated flecks of galena omnipresent throughout mineralized drill core.
+Added: In all cases, the galena appears to have formed later than the uranium mineralization.
+Added: Mineralization is in general terms, mono-metallic (uraninite) in composition.
+Added: In the RRW deposit, visible, crystalline nickel-cobalt sulph-arsenides are present locally.
+Added: At the RRE and RRFE deposits, the presence of nickel-cobalt sulph-arsenides is rare.
+Added: The exact relationship of these elements to uranium is variable and still unclear at this time.
+Added: However, unlike many unconformity-type uranium deposits in the Athabasca Basin, variable amounts of copper mineralization are present within the Project deposits.
+Added: The deposits of the Roughrider Project are interpreted to be Athabasca unconformity-associated uranium deposits, or some variant thereof.
+Added: Two end-members of the unconformity-associated uranium deposit model have been defined.
+Added: A sandstone hosted egress-type model (one example is the Midwest A deposit south of the Roughrider Project) involves the mixing of oxidizing sandstone-hosted brine with relatively reduced fluids from the basement in the sandstone.
+Added: Basement-hosted, ingress-type deposits (one example is the Rabbit Lake deposit) formed by fluid-rock reactions between an oxidizing sandstone brine and the local wall rock of a basement fault zone.
+Added: Both types of mineralization and associated host-rock alteration occur at sites of basement—sandstone fluid interaction where a spatially stable redox gradient, or front, was present.
+Added: Although either type of deposit can result in high grade pitchblende mineralization with up to 20% pitchblende, they are not physically large.
+Added: Egress-type deposits tend to be polymetallic (uranium-nickel-cobalt-copper-arsenic) and typically follow the trace of the underlying graphitic pelites and associated faults along the unconformity.
+Added: Ingress-type, tend to be mono-minerallic uranium deposits, and can have more irregular, structurally controlled geometry.
+Added: The RRW, RRE, and RRFE deposits at the Project are interpreted to be ingress types, although minor sections of the RRW mineralization do extend above the unconformity and the mineralization is polymetallic compared to the RRE and RRFE deposits.
+Added: Mineral Resources and Reserves
+Added: The current Mineral Resources for the Roughrider project are outlined in the following table:
+Added: Table 2.41–
+Added: Mineral Resources for the Roughrider Project as at the date of this Annual Report
+Added: Mining Scenario
+Added: Classification
+Added: Tons ( ‘
+Added: Tonnes ( ‘
+Added: Pounds U 3 O 8  ( ‘
+Added: Long Hole Open Stope
+Added: Combined RRW, RRE, and RRFE
+Added: Mineral Resources are not Mineral Reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability.
+Added: Mineral Resources are reported exclusive of Mineral Reserves.
+Added: There are no Mineral Reserves for the Project.
+Added: Mineral Resources are reported on a 100% ownership basis.
+Added: Mineral Resources are reported diluted within the MSO shapes based on a U 3 O 8 price of US$56/1b of U 3 O 8 and metallurgical recovery of 97%.
+Added: Cut and Fill (“C&F”) and long-hole open stoping (“LHOS”) scenario cut-off grades are 0.52% U 3 O 8  and 0.45% U 3 O 8 respectively.
+Added: The Mineral Resources were estimated by SRK, a third-party QP under the definitions defined by S-K 1300.The tonnage (presented in metric tonnes), grade (%), and contained metal (metric tonnes and imperial pounds) have been rounded to reflect the accuracy of the estimates.
+Added: Horseshoe-Raven Project
+Added: An independent TRS for the Horseshoe-Raven Project area (the “Horseshoe-Raven Project Area”) has been prepared for UEC, under the supervision of Nathan Barsi, Chris Hamel and Roger Lemaitre (the “QPs”
+Added: herein), pursuant to S-K 1300.
+Added: This TRS identifies and summarizes the scientific and technical information and conclusions reached from the IA to support disclosure of mineral resources on the Horseshoe-Raven Project Area.
+Added: Figure 2.23 –
+Added: Location of the Horseshoe Raven Project
+Added: Property Description
+Added: The Horseshoe-Raven Project Area is in the Wollaston Lake area of Northern Saskatchewan, approximately 695 kms north of Saskatoon, southwest of Wollaston Lake.
+Added: The Horseshoe-Raven Project Area measures approximately 4,486 hectares comprising one mineral claim to which UEX Corporation (“UEX”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of UEC, has title.
+Added: The Horseshoe-Raven Project does not have mineral reserves and is therefore considered an Exploration Stage property under S-K 1300 definitions.
+Added: In Saskatchewan, mineral resources are owned by the Crown and managed by the Saskatchewan Ministry of the Economy through the Crown Minerals Act and the Mineral Tenure Registry Regulations, 2012.
+Added: Staking for mineral dispositions in Saskatchewan is conducted through the online staking system, Mineral Administration Registry Saskatchewan (“MARS”).
+Added: The mineral disposition for the Horseshoe-Raven Project Areay was staked in 1977.
+Added: Accordingly, ground staking methods were employed prior to the initiation of staking by the MARS system.
+Added: These dispositions give the stakeholders the right to explore the lands within the disposition area for economic mineral deposits.
+Added: UEX holds a 100% interest in the Horseshoe-Raven Project Area, subject to standard royalties to the Government of Saskatchewan.
+Added: Access to the Horseshoe-Raven Project Area is via Highway 905, a well-maintained gravel road accessible year-round that passes through the central portion of the Horseshoe-Raven Project Area and over the west end of the Raven Deposit.
+Added: Year-round access is possible by truck.
+Added: The topography of the Horseshoe-Raven Project Area is relatively flat characterized by undulating glacial moraine, outwash and lacustrine plains.
+Added: There is no permanent infrastructure on the project, a temporary work camp and core logging facility are the only infrastructure on the project area.
+Added: Access to electricity is by diesel generator, but future mining operations would utilize the Saskatchewan Power grid that is nearby the project.
+Added: Personnel can be drawn from local communities of Wollaston, Black Lake, Stony Rapids, Fond du Lac, that have supplied personnel for mining operations in the eastern Athabasca Basin for decades.
+Added: Sources of water near the project area are plentiful and should not be a constraining factor.
+Added: The nearest airport for public use is at Points North Landing, approximately 40 kilometres (25 miles) by road to the northwest of the project area.
+Added: There are no rail lines or port facilities near the project area.
+Added: The project is an Exploration Stage project, with significant drilling to determine the indicated resources on the property in the Horseshoe and Raven deposits.
+Added: A program to rehabilitate and upgrade the Raven Camp infrastructure was initiated in fiscal 2023 that is planned to be completed in fiscal year 2024. The camp facilities are approximately 20 years old but with the recent exploration camp remediation work remain in good condition.
+Added: No mine infrastructure or underground development is present on the project, and the work camp on the site is temporary.
+Added: The next step for the project to advance will likely be a drill program to collect metallurgy for the Horseshoe and Raven deposits in advance of a future economic study.
+Added: The Horseshoe-Raven Project Area was initially explored in the late 1960s as part of the greater Rabbit Lake Property after the discovery of the Rabbit Lake Uranium Deposit in 1968.
+Added: Early exploration for uranium was conducted by Gulf Minerals Canada Limited (“Gulf”) and Conwest Exploration Company Limited (“Conwest”).
+Added: Eldorado Nuclear Limited acquired Conwest in 1979, Gulf in 1982 and amalgamated with Saskatchewan Mining and Development Corporation (“SMDC”) to form Cameco in 1988.
+Added: Cameco transferred title to the Hidden Bay Property to UEX through an agreement reached with Pioneer Metals Corporation (“Pioneer”) in 2001.
+Added: The Horseshoe-Raven Project Area deposit was discovered in two stages, four years after the discovery of the Rabbit Lake Mine.
+Added: In the fall of 1972, drill testing of a ground conductor became the discovery hole for the Raven Deposit.
+Added: Subsequent drilling through 1973 and 1974 outlined the deposit.
+Added: During the final year of the Raven Deposit drilling, the discovery hole of the Horseshoe Deposit intersected uranium mineralization to the east of the Raven Deposit while testing a geophysical anomaly similar to the Raven Deposit signature.
+Added: Subsequent diamond drilling during the period of 1974 to mid-1975 succeeded in outlining the Horseshoe Deposit (Studer, 1984).
+Added: Permitting and Licensing
+Added: Mineral exploration on land administered by the Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment requires that surface disturbance permits be obtained before any exploration or development work is performed.
+Added: The Saskatchewan Mineral Exploration and Government Advisory Committee has developed the Mineral Exploration Guidelines for Saskatchewan to mitigate environmental impacts from industry activity and facilitate government approval for such activities (SMEGAC, 2016).
+Added: Applications to conduct an exploration work program need only to address the relevant topics of those listed in the guidelines.
+Added: The types of activities are listed under the guide’s best management practices (“BMP”).
+Added: There are no environmental encumbrances on the project.
+Added: The approximate timeline for projects in Saskatchewan for EA baseline work with permitting and licensing following that is 5-10 years once they are at the stage of having indicated resources.
+Added: There have been no violations or fines associated with the project and the remediation work conducted in 2023 has left the temporary camp facilities in good working order.
+Added: Future permit requirements will be permitting and licensing with both the federal and provincial governments, the Government of Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment, and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to obtain environmental permits, and construction and operating licenses.
+Added: Geologic Setting, Mineralization, and Deposit
+Added: The Horseshoe-Raven Project Area is located just east of the eastern margin of the Athabasca Basin. 
+Added: It is underlain by Paleoproterozoic metasedimentary gneiss and Archean granitic gneiss basement rocks of the Hearne Province.
+Added: The basement rocks of the Horseshoe-Raven Project Area are within the Cree Lake zone of the Early Proterozoic Trans-Hudson orogenic belt.
+Added: The Cree Lake zone is further subdivided into three transitional lithotectonic domains, of which the Horseshoe-Raven Project Area lies within one of them, the Wollaston Domain.
+Added: Lithologies and foliation of the Wollaston Domain rocks of the Horseshoe-Raven Project Area trend northeast with predominantly moderate to steep southeast dips, although northwest dips occur as the result of the broad synform that is the host to uranium mineralization at Horseshoe and Raven.
+Added: The Wollaston Domain is composed of a mixed sequence of metamorphosed arkosic sandstones and pelitic to semi-pelitic gneisses that make up four successive lithostratigraphic units, of which the upper three are present in the deposit area:
+Added: a basal pelitic gneiss composed of coarse, mature quarzitic to arkosic metasedimentary rocks;
+Added: a meta-pelite, commonly graphitic and interlayered with quartzitic semi-pelite and calc-silicate;
+Added: a thick meta-arkose interlayered with minor calc-silicate and pelite;
+Added: upper amphibole-quartzite interlayered with calcareous metasedimentary rocks and graphitic pelite, known as the Hidden Bay assemblage.
+Added: The Horseshoe and Raven Deposits are hosted by the Hidden Bay Assemblage, which occurs within a complex northeast trending D2 synclinorium that sits structurally above and south of the underlying meta-arkose unit of the Daly River subgroup.
+Added: The synclinorium is cored by quartzite that is succeeded outward concentrically from the core of the folds by other components of the Hidden Bay Assemblage, which include a mixed sequence of calc-arkose, additional quartzite, locally graphitic sillimanite-bearing pelitic schist and amphibolite.
+Added: Lithologies in the Horseshoe and Raven areas outline several significant, upright open D2 (F2) folds in the local area.
+Added: These folds have steep to moderate southeasterly dipping axial planes and horizontal to shallow northeast plunging fold axes.
+Added: Mineralization at the Horseshoe Deposit has been defined over a strike length of approximately 800 meters and occurs at depths between 100 and 450 meters below surface.
+Added: Mineralization occurs in several stacked and shallow plunging shoots that generally follow the fold axis of a gently folded arkose-quartzite package.
+Added: Uranium mineralization is often best developed along the dilational zones developed between the bedding units.
+Added: The Raven Deposit is located 500 meters southwest of the Horseshoe Deposit and has been defined over a strike 1000 meters and ranges between 100 and 300 meters in depth.
+Added: The bulk of the uranium mineralization occurs in two sub-horizontal tabular zones that are oriented parallel to the axial plane of the folded arkose-quartzite package.
+Added: Mineral Resources and Reserves
+Added: The current Mineral Resources for the Horseshoe-Raven deposits are outlined in the following table:
+Added: Table 2.42 –
+Added: Mineral Resources for the Horseshoe-Raven Project as at the date of this Annual Report
+Added: Classification
+Added: Tons ( ‘
+Added: Tonnes ( ‘
+Added: Pounds U 3 O 8  ( ‘
+Added: Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and have not demonstrated economic viability.
+Added: There is no certainty that all or any part of the mineral resource will be converted into mineral reserves.
+Added: All figures are rounded to reflect the relative accuracy of the estimates.
+Added: Resources were estimated using a COG of 0.05% U 3 O 8 .
+Added: Shea Creek Project
+Added: An independent TRS for the Shea Creek Project area (the “Shea Creek Project Area”) has been prepared for UEC, under the supervision of Chris Hamel, David Alan Rhys, and James Gray (the “QPs”
+Added: herein), pursuant to S-K 1300.
+Added: This TRS identifies and summarizes the scientific and technical information and conclusions reached from the IA to support disclosure of mineral resources on the Shea Creek Project Area.
+Added: Figure 2.24 –
+Added: Location of the Shea Creek Project
+Added: Property Description
+Added: The Shea Creek Project Area comprises 18 mineral dispositions totaling 32,962 hectares (“ha”) (330 km 2 ), which are registered to and administered by ORANO.
+Added: ORANO acts as project operator.
+Added: UEX Corporation (“UEX Corp.”;
+Added: having amalgamated with UEX, UEC’s wholly-owned subsidiary now) acquired its interest in the Shea Creek Project Area through an option agreement that was signed in March 2004 (the “2004 Agreement”).
+Added: Under the 2004 Agreement, UEX Corp.
+Added: was granted an option to acquire a 49% interest in eight uranium projects located in the Western Athabasca Basin that included the Shea Creek Project Area, from COGEMA Resources Inc.
+Added: (“COGEMA”), the predecessor to AREVA, which subsequently became ORANO. 
+Added: To acquire the initial 49% interest, UEX Corp.
+Added: was required to fund C$30 million in exploration expenditures over an 11-year period.
+Added: fulfilled the option terms of the 2004 Agreement well ahead of the maximum 11-year period by December 31, 2007.
+Added: Under the terms of the 2004 Agreement, UEX Corp.
+Added: granted AREVA (now ORANO) a royalty in an amount equal to US$0.212 per pound of future uranium in concentrate produced from the Anne and Colette deposits to a maximum total royalty of $10.0 million.
+Added: In April 2013, AREVA granted UEX Corp.
+Added: an option to increase UEX Corp’s interest in the nine Western Athabasca Projects (the “Projects”), which include the Shea Creek Project Area, to 49.9% through the expenditure by UEX Corp.
+Added: of an aggregate of C$18.0 million (the "Additional Expenditures") on exploration drilling intended to advance the four known Shea Creek deposits (the “2013 Agreement”).
+Added: This 2013 Agreement expired on December 31, 2018, with exploration expenditures of C$1,949,275 attributed to the option that earned UEX Corp.
+Added: the additional equity above the 2004 Agreement to attain a 49.0975% equity interest in the Shea Creek Project Area.
+Added: In Saskatchewan, mineral resources are owned by the Crown and managed by the Saskatchewan Ministry of the Economy through the Crown Minerals Act and the Mineral Tenure Registry Regulations, 2012.
+Added: Staking for mineral dispositions in Saskatchewan is conducted through the online staking system, MARS.
+Added: Accordingly, ground staking methods were employed prior to the initiation of staking by the MARS system.
+Added: These dispositions give the stakeholders the right to explore the lands within the disposition area for economic mineral deposits.
+Added: Access to the property is by highway 955, approximately 230 km north of the community of La Loche and 5 km south of the formerly producing Cluff Lake mine, the highway passes through the property and within about 2 km of the deposit area.
+Added: Much of the deposit area is below areas of dry ground, and accessible year-round.
+Added: There is an unmaintained airstrip at the former Cluff Lake mine.
+Added: Water is abundant in the area and is not perceived to be a constraint on project development.
+Added: Personnel to operate future operations could be drawn from the local communities of La Loche, Buffalo Narrows, and several other communities in the area that have people experienced in uranium mining operations.
+Added: There is currently no grid power supply to the Property.
+Added: The electrical grid power source is approximately 300 km away at the Key Lake switching station.
+Added: No buildings or ancillary facilities are currently present at the site of the Property.
+Added: The western portions of the Athabasca Basin were initially explored in the 1960s as exploration activities expanded outward from the established Beaverlodge uranium district.
+Added: After airborne radiometric surveys in the late 1960s, ground prospecting followed by drilling led to the discovery of the Cluff Lake deposits.
+Added: Production from the Cluff Lake deposits commenced in 1980 and operations continued until 2002.
+Added: Total production from the Cluff Lake mine site amounted to 64.2 million pounds U 3 O 8 at an average grade of 0.92% U 3 O 8 , from several deposits.
+Added: Despite its proximity to Cluff Lake, systematic exploration on the Shea Creek Project Area did not commence until 1990 when Amok Limited (“Amok”) conducted an airborne GEOTEM EM survey, which identified conductive north-northwest trending zones underlying the Athabasca sandstone sequence.
+Added: Subsequent follow-up with ground EM surveys further refined the position of the conductors, prompting Amok to reduce their mineral permit area claim to claims that now comprise the Shea Creek Project Area.
+Added: Amok drilled several of the EM conductors in 1992, intersecting narrow intervals of uranium mineralization in northern parts of the Shea Creek Project Area near the sub-Athabasca unconformity.
+Added: In 1993, ownership of the Shea Creek Project Area was transferred to COGEMA (now ORANO), who continued exploration by drilling to the north the same conductive basement unit –
+Added: now known as the Saskatoon Lake Conductor (“SLC”) –
+Added: and between 1994 and 2000, drilled more than 95,000 meters in 156 drillholes.
+Added: These resulted in the discovery of the Anne and Colette deposits.
+Added: Between 2000 and 2003, no drilling was completed, but additional airborne and ground EM surveys were undertaken to further enhance targeting.
+Added: In March 2004, COGEMA (subsequently AREVA and now ORANO) and UEX Corp.
+Added: signed the 2004 Agreement.
+Added: Drilling re-commenced and was funded by UEX Corp., and between 2004 and December 2012, approximately 141,317 meters of drilling in 307 diamond drillholes was completed under management by AREVA (now ORANO).
+Added: The drill programs during this period resulted in the discovery and partial delineation of the Kianna Deposit between the Colette and Anne deposits and discovery of new areas of mineralization along the prospective corridor between Anne and Colette (e.g.
+Added: Colette South mineralization, 58B Deposit and Kianna South).
+Added: Exploration during this period also included a MEGATEM survey of the Shea Creek Project Area and ground-based geophysical surveys, which included a DC Resistivity survey in 2005 that outlined several significant untested or poorly tested resistivity lows and a Tensor Magnetotelluric survey in 2008.
+Added: In total, 278,889 meters of drilling in 563 drillholes have been completed on the Shea Creek Project Area since systematic exploration began in 1992, up to December 31, 2021.
+Added: Permitting and Licensing
+Added: Mineral exploration on land administered by the Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment requires that surface disturbance permits be obtained before any exploration or development work is performed. 
+Added: The Saskatchewan Mineral Exploration and Government Advisory Committee has developed the Mineral Exploration Guidelines for Saskatchewan to mitigate environmental impacts from industry activity and facilitate government approval for such activities (SMEGAC, 2016). 
+Added: Applications to conduct an exploration work program need only to address the relevant topics of those listed in the guidelines. 
+Added: The types of activities are listed under the guide’s BMPs.
+Added: There are no environmental encumbrances on the project.
+Added: The approximate timeline for projects in Saskatchewan for EA baseline work with permitting and licensing following that is 5-10 years once they are at the stage of having indicated resources.
+Added: There have been no violations or fines associated with the project.
+Added: Future requirements with respect to permitting and licensing are with both the federal and provincial governments, the Government of Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment, and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to obtain environmental permits, and construction and operating licenses. 
+Added: Geologic Setting, Mineralization, and Deposit
+Added: Local geology at the Shea Creek Project Area comprises 400 to 800 meters of Athabasca Group sandstone, which unconformably overlie Lloyd Domain amphibolite-grade granitic and pelitic gneisses.
+Added: The latter includes the SLC, a 40- to 80-meter-thick north-northwest trending and west-southwest dipping graphitic pelitic gneiss unit that is spatially associated with mineralization.
+Added: The gneiss sequence is affected by penetrative syn-metamorphic deformation that occurred in at least two foliation forming phases during the 1950-1900 Ma Taltson orogeny.
+Added: These peak metamorphic fabrics are overprinted by northeast-trending, right-lateral/oblique, retrograde mylonitic shear zones (D 3 ;
+Added: probable Hudsonian age) including the regional Beatty River Shear zone and northeast-trending second and third order narrow mylonitic shear zones that offset the SLC.
+Added: Post-Athabasca faulting remobilizes these mylonites and is also associated with up to 50 meters of reverse displacement of the unconformity along the R3 fault at the base of the SLC.
+Added: Textural and geometrical relationships suggest that uranium mineralization was coeval with the late faulting, and that the architecture of the older D 3 shear zones may have had a fundamental control on the position of mineralization.
+Added: To date, four uranium deposits have been discovered over a three km strike length along the SLC in northern parts of the Shea Creek Project Area:
+Added: Uranium mineralization in these deposits occurs in three stacked styles that encompass the full range of types of unconformity uranium deposits.
+Added: Most extensive is flat-lying, massive pitchblende-hematite and chlorite-matrix-breccia-hosted mineralization which straddles the unconformity along, and immediately east of, the trace of the SLC.
+Added: Breccia mineralization occurs both as pitchblende-coffinite fragments and as matrix replacement, suggesting it may have occurred in pulses that temporally spanned brecciation.
+Added: Continuous unconformity mineralization occurs along the SLC for much of the 2.5 km known strike extent of the Shea Creek Project Area deposits and is thickest and highest grade where basement mineralization lies beneath it.
+Added: Basement mineralization forms a significant portion of the Shea Creek Project Area’s uranium inventory and is most extensive at the Kianna Deposit.
+Added: It comprises:
+Added: a) concordant-reverse-fault-hosted mineralization that often extends from the unconformity downward into granitic gneiss in the immediate footwall of the SLC;
+Added: and b) discordant fault, vein and replacement pitchblende mineralization that occurs in steep east-west to west-northwest trending zones that may extend for several hundred meters below the unconformity, and which occurs along or beside remobilized mylonitic shear zones.
+Added: Basement mineralization thickens where concordant and discordant faults intersect, forming west-plunging ore shoots.
+Added: Lensoidal zones of perched mineralization are locally present up to several tens of meters above the unconformity and are often where reduced, pyritic chlorite alteration extends into the Athabasca sandstone above areas of basement and thicker unconformity mineralization.
+Added: Table 2.42 –
+Added: Mineral Resources for the Horseshoe-Raven Project as at the date of this Annual Report
+Added: Classification
+Added: Tons (000 ’
+Added: Pounds U 3 O 8  ( ‘
+Added: Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and have not demonstrated economic viability.
+Added: There is no certainty that all or any part of the mineral resource will be converted into mineral reserves.
+Added: Figures are rounded to reflect the relative accuracy of the estimates.
+Added: Resources were estimated using a cut-off grade of 0.30% U 3 O 8 .
+Added: UEC's share of mineral resources is calculated based on UEC's 49.0975% equity in the project.
+Added: South American Uranium Properties
+Added: Paraguay ISR Properties
+Added: Below is a map showing the location for the Company’s uranium projects in Paraguay.
+Added: Figure 2.25 –
+Added: Uranium Project Locations in Paraguay
+Added: Our Material Paraguay ISR Properties
+Added: Yuty ISR Project
+Added: An independent TRS for the Yuty Project area (the “Yuty Project Area”) has been prepared for UEC, under the supervision of BRS Inc.
+Added: Engineering (“BRS”) (the “QP”
+Added: herein), pursuant to S-K 1300.
+Added: This TRS identifies and summarizes the scientific and technical information and conclusions reached from the IA to support disclosure of mineral resources on the Yuty Project Area.
+Added: There are no mineral reserves associated with this Yuty Project Area. 
+Added: The Yuty Project is an exploration stage phase project.
+Added: Figure 2.26 –
+Added: Location of the Yuty Project
+Added: Property Description
+Added: The Yuty Project Area is located in Paraguay, South America.
+Added: UEC operates the Yuty Project Area through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Transandes Paraguay S.A.
+Added: (“TPSA”), which holds a 100% interest in the Yuty Mining Exploration and Exploitation Concession (the “Yuty Concession”) Contract (the “Contract”).
+Added: The planned mining method for the Yuty Project Area is by ISR mining.
+Added: The Yuty Project Area covers an area of 289,687 acres (117,232 hectares), located in the eastern region of the country in the Department of Caazapá, 167 miles northeast of the capital of Paraguay. 
+Added: The geographic coordinates of the central part of the Yuty Project Area, where the bulk of past exploration has been carried out (San Antonio area in Block 1), are approximately 26°37’S and 56°20’W.
+Added: Access to the Yuty Project is via road PY-08, a paved road that borders the town of San Antonio, through the district of the city of Yuty, and through the north portion of the Yuty Deposit area.
+Added: Very close to the mentioned route, the town of San Antonio has storage of deposit samples containing material from an extensive uranium exploration (2007 to 2014), and hosts logging calibration wells, modest field office facilities, and facilities for staff accommodation.
+Added: All facilities are kept in good condition through ongoing maintenance work.
+Added: The Yuty project area is characterized by being primarily a rural area with well-maintained internal dirt roads, electricity, potable water service, hotels, and supplies and public services in the urban area of the city of Yuty.
+Added: Title to the Yuty Concession is now held through the Contract with the Republic of Paraguay (the “Republic”), which grants mining rights for a minimum period of 20 years, renewable every five years.
+Added: The Contract was signed into Law 3575/08 (the “Law”) as an Act of the Paraguayan Congress in August 2008.
+Added: The Law calls for payment of a 2.5% royalty to the Republic on all production, based on the production at the point of sale.
+Added: The Yuty Project Area is located within the Paraná
+Added: Basin and is underlain by predominantly sedimentary rocks of undivided upper Permo-Carboniferous age.
+Added: Uranium mineralization is sandstone hosted roll-front type.
+Added: The Yuty Project Area was explored extensively by Anschutz Corporation (“Anschutz”) of Denver, Colorado in the late 1970s and early 1980s.
+Added: Cue Resources Ltd.
+Added: (“CUE”) controlled the Yuty Project Area prior to acquisition by UEC and conducted exploration and verification drilling projects circa 2007 through 2011.
+Added: UEC possesses the original drill data, from which a drill hole database has been developed and verified.
+Added: Samples from Anschutz were not preserved, however, core samples from areas in the possession of UEC and have been reviewed by the TRS QP.
+Added: Within the Yuty Project Area, drill data from 543 drill holes, including hole location and radiometric equivalent data in 0.1 m downhole increments, were available for the preparation of the TRS.
+Added: Exploration for uranium in Southeastern Paraguay was started in 1976 by Anschutz, after signing of the Concession Agreement between the Government of Paraguay and Anschutz in December 1975. 
+Added: The agreement allowed Anschutz to explore for “all minerals, excluding oil, gas and construction materials”.
+Added: Previously intermittent exploration had been carried out by international oil companies, with insignificant results.
+Added: The region, however, is known for its limited mining activities and production of high-grade iron ore, mineral pigments, clays, limestone, sandstone, sand and gravel by indigenous people.
+Added: In early 1976, a number of reports by Anschutz consultants, A.F.
+Added: Bryant and G.E.
+Added: Thomas, covered the geology of eastern Paraguay based on reconnaissance field trips made through the southern Precambrian area, the sedimentary section from north to south, and the alkalic intrusions in the north-central part of a large concession.
+Added: From field examinations of various rock types and airborne radiometric data, Renfro concluded that the Anschutz concession contained areas with good potential for uranium mineralization.
+Added: The regional correlation of stratigraphic horizons favorable for uranium mineralization is shown in various figures of that report.
+Added: The initial uranium exploration by Anschutz in 1976 covered an exclusive exploration exploitation concession covering approximately 162,700 km 2 , virtually the whole eastern half of Paraguay.
+Added: This included geological mapping, water sampling, soil sampling and a broad reconnaissance Track Etch program, with stations spaced 10 kms apart.
+Added: The station spacing for the Track Etch survey was subsequently reduced to five kms in the southern part of the concession.
+Added: The reconnaissance program outlined large anomalous zones and Anschutz concluded that the concession in Paraguay constituted a new uranium province in an area underlain by granitic rocks and sandstones.
+Added: The initial reconnaissance program by Anschutz was followed by a program of airborne radiometric and magnetic surveys, a detailed Track Etch survey with station spacing of 100 to 200 meters and geochemical stream sediment and soil sampling.
+Added: Flight line spacing for the airborne radiometric survey was five kms with a clearance of 100 meters above the surface.
+Added: Anschutz carried out exploration on behalf of a joint venture with Korea Electric Power Corporation and Taiwan Power Company.
+Added: In 2006, TPSA resumed exploratory activities in San Antonio, a district of the town of Yuty in the Department of Caazapa, Paraguay, by virtue of a prospecting permit granted by the MOPC that enabled the start of the mining exploration phase in May 2007 in four blocks (Blocks I, II, III and IV), encompassing a total of 787,401 acres. 
+Added: In June 2008, with four mining blocks in the exploration phase, the Contract was approved by the Law, and signed between the Government of the Republic and TPSA for the exploration and exploitation of metallic and non-metallic minerals, precious and semiprecious gems.
+Added: In March 2012, UEC acquired Cue Resources Inc.
+Added: (“CUE”).
+Added: At the time of the acquisition, the Yuty Project Area consisted of four blocks with a total area now reduced to 492,234 acres (199,200 hectares).
+Added: Data from 323 drill holes totaling 33,491 meters of core and rotary drilling was available and a technical report was completed.
+Added: Permitting and Licensing
+Added: In summary, all financial and other obligations related to the mineral concession for the Yuty Project Area have been met.
+Added: All environmental licenses and permits are in good standing.
+Added: Except for the San Antonio area, the Yuty Project Area is at an early-to intermediate stage of exploration.
+Added: The Yuty Project does not have mineral reserves and is therefore considered an exploration stage property under S-K 1300 definitions.
+Added: The San Antonio area is at a more advanced stage since it has received considerable drilling in the past by Anschutz and recently by CUE.
+Added: In 2015, the Ministry of Public Works and Communications (MOPC), which is the enforcement authority for mining activities in Paraguay, approved the exploitation phase carried out in the period (2007-2014).
+Added: However, in 2018, the mining enforcement authority in a previous administration took the position that the Yuty concession was not eligible to continue with the exploitation phase, despite the fact that exploitation phase activities were suspended based on the Company’s subsidiary’s, Transandes Paraguay S.A.
+Added: (“TPSA”), requests provided for in the concession contract and approved by the MOPC.
+Added: TPSA initiated legal actions to protect its mining rights and entered into conversations in 2019 with the MOPC and other institutions of the executive branch.
+Added: TPSA reached an out-of-court agreement in 2022 that suspends the ongoing litigation and begins the re-instatement of the TPSA’s mining rights, however, during the process of finalization, the Administrative Court was not in a position to approve the aforementioned agreement and TPSA has now filed an appeal with the Supreme Court in connection with the same.
+Added: Once the re-instatement process of these concession rights regarding the extrajudicial agreement signed with the executive branch is complete, the Yuty project is committed to making annual payments of the mining canon equivalent to $2.5 per hectare, equivalent to a final amount of $293,080 and to make minimum investments equivalent to $690,000 per year during the phase of exploitation.
+Added: In addition, the Company’s subsidiary must report quarterly to the Enforcement Authority on the progress of the project, as well as once the production stage has begun.
+Added: TPSA must also pay a 2.5% royalty to the Republic on all production, based on the production at the point of sale according to the Law 3575/2008.
+Added: The processing of environmental licenses for the new stages of the exploitation phase will require updating and compliance with management plans approved by the licenses in the future.
+Added: Geologic Setting, Mineralization and Deposit
+Added: The Yuty Project Area is situated within the Paraná
+Added: Basin in Southeastern Paraguay.
+Added: The Yuty Project Area is located on the western end of the Paraná
+Added: Basin, which also hosts the Figueira uranium deposit in Brazil.
+Added: The area is underlain by Upper Permian to Carboniferous continental sedimentary rocks, and is known for uranium occurrences, such as the San Pedro, Santa Barbara, Yarati-í
+Added: and San Antonio occurrences.
+Added: Significant radiometric anomalies also occur in Precambrian igneous and metamorphic rocks, Cambrian limestone, Silurian sandstone and Cretaceous to Tertiary carbonatites and alkaline intrusive rocks.
+Added: The exploration methodology applied during past programs has been to determine the favorable host rocks of the Upper Permian-Carboniferous (“UPC”) sequence and determine favorable areas of the host sandstone.
+Added: The stratigraphic sequence of the lithologies in the Yuty Project Area has been divided into the Southern UPC rocks and Lower Permian-Carboniferous (“LPC”) rocks.
+Added: The Southern UPC contains the sequence of rocks as follows:
+Added: Cabacua Formation:
+Added: 200 meters thick;
+Added: Tapyata Formation:
+Added: 125 meters thick;
+Added: Tacuary Formation:
+Added: 280 meters thick;
+Added: San Miguel Formation:
+Added: 20 to 90 meters thick.
+Added: Local sandstone units in descending stratigraphic order are:
+Added: Upper Sand Unit:
+Added: Estimated to be approximately 50 meters thick;
+Added: Alternating Sandstone and Shale Unit:
+Added: Estimated to be approximately 150 meters thick;
+Added: Massive Sand Unit:
+Added: Estimated to be 60 to 100 meters thick;
+Added: Fine-grained Sand Unit:
+Added: Estimated to be up to 15 meters thick;
+Added: Estimated to be up to 20 meters thick.
+Added: The Massive Sand Unit, Fine-Grained Unit and the Wavy Unit are collectively referred to as the San Miguel Formation and are host to the uranium mineralization at the Yuty Project Area.
+Added: At the Yuty Project Area, soils are typically 5 to 15 meters thick.
+Added: There is a diabase sill between the upper sand unit and the Massive Sand Unit.
+Added: Within the Massive Sand Unit there is a distinctive marker shale that is typically above the mineralization.
+Added: The rocks of the UPC are sub-horizontal (dipping 1°
+Added: to the east) and cover the western flank of the Paraná
+Added: Data from reconnaissance drilling indicates that “the basin margin is cut by a series of west and northwest trending faults, with displacements ranging from a few metres to several hundred metres”.
+Added: Continental sedimentary units of the Independencia Formation (of the UPC) are known to have high potential for uranium exploration in eastern Paraguay.
+Added: Earlier work also suggests that the basal sandstone, a 20- to 90-meter-thick unit known as the San Miguel Formation (within the Independencia Formation), is the best host for uranium mineralization in the Yuty Project Area.
+Added: Earlier work further suggests that the San Miguel Formation can be correlated with the Rio Benito Formation in the uranium-bearing Permian rocks near Figueira, in the Paraná
+Added: Basin in Brazil.
+Added: The source of the uranium is thought to be the Lower Permian-Carboniferous Coronel Oviedo Formation, which is correlated with the Itataré
+Added: Formation underlying the Rio Benito Formation in Brazil.
+Added: Occasional diabase sills and dikes intrude the sedimentary rocks, such as at the San Antonio area near the village of Yuty.
+Added: Outcrops are rare, mostly along road cuts, and mapping is done by drilling.
+Added: The Lower Permian Coronel Oviedo Formation underlies the UPC rocks.
+Added: This glacial marine sequence of black shales, glacial sands and diamictites is generally characterized by a high radioactive background.
+Added: Uranium mineralization within the San Miguel Formation is stratabound and possibly syngenetic or diagenetic in origin.
+Added: Recent interpretation of exploration data suggests that areas of limonite and hematite alteration within the grey-green, fine-grained sandstones in the San Antonio area have some characteristics similar to the alteration assemblages present at roll-front-type uranium deposits of the Powder River Basin, Wyoming.
+Added: Uranium mineralization within the UPC rocks is present in other parts of the Paraná
+Added: Basin, such as at Figueira, Brazil, as noted above.
+Added: In a 1982 publication, S.
+Added: Saad proposed a model of mineralization for Figueira-type mineralization.
+Added: This model suggests that the uranium mineralization is predominantly of epigenetic type, and consists of five phases covering the source, sedimentation, precipitation, remobilization and enrichment of uranium along the more permeable coarser fluvio-deltaic channel sediments.
+Added: Past exploration has identified pitchblende or coffinite (or both) as the uranium minerals that are likely to occur in the Yuty Project Area.
+Added: Honea (1981) examined three sandstone samples in a polished section under the scanning electron microscope.
+Added: He reported that “pyrite is confirmed as the sulphide mineral phase present both alone and with clays as partial to complete filling of interstices between clasts…
+Added: and occurs as relatively well-formed cubic crystals, as anhedral aggregates…
+Added: grain size varies from less than one micron to almost one millimetre”.
+Added: Honea further reported that the “uranium-bearing phase(s) could not be isolated even at high magnification but is shown by composition spectra to be present with clay and pyrite in the interstitial fillings.
+Added: Available data indicate a reduced black opaque mineral (very probably either pitchblende or coffinite –
+Added: or both) scattered as sub-microscopic particles”.
+Added: Uranium mineralization hosted by the basal San Miguel Formation of the UPC is interpreted to represent a variety of the roll-front-type mineralization by the early workers of Anschutz.
+Added: Sandstone-type deposits are characteristically sedimentary formations of clastic-detrital origin, containing reducing environments.
+Added: These deposits are usually tabular in shape and may occur in continental sandstones, deltaic or shallow marine environments.
+Added: Typically, roll-front-type uranium deposits have, in the direction of the flow of mineralizing solutions, a barren (oxidized) interior zone surrounded by a (reduced) mineralized zone.
+Added: Between the barren zone and the mineralized zone is an altered zone.
+Added: The overall shape of the roll-front is like a crescent with extended tails at each end, which also outlines the barren interior zone, and uranium is deposited at the interface between the oxidized zone and the reduced zone.
+Added: Ground water flow direction is usually a good guide in detecting roll-front-type deposits in sandstones.
+Added: The style of mineralization within the sandstones at the Yuty Project Area includes some characteristics of the roll-front-type mineralization, as in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming.
+Added: It is likely that the style of mineralization is a variety of the roll-front-type uranium mineralization.
+Added: Table 2.43 –
+Added: Mineral Resources for the Yuty Project as at the date of this Annual Report
+Added: Tons Ore (000 ’
+Added: Tonnes Ore (1000 ’
+Added: Weighted Average Grade (% eU 3 O 8 )
+Added: Pounds eU 3 O 8  (000 ’
+Added: Indicated – Massive Sand Unit
+Added: Indicated – Fine-Grained and Wavy Sand Units
+Added: Inferred – Massive Sand Unit
+Added: Inferred – Fine Grained and Wavy Sand Units
+Added: Total Resources
+Added: The sum of resource tons and lbs.
+Added: may not add up to the reported total due to rounding.
+Added: Measured, indicated, and inferred mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300.
+Added: Resources estimated using a 0.02% eU 3 O 8  grade cutoff and a 0.1 ft% GT cutoff.
+Added: Mineral Resources are estimated using a long-term uranium price of $65 per pound.
+Added: The point of reference for mineral resources is in-situ at the Project.
+Added: Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
Compared sentence by sentence after normalising whitespace, quotation marks, case and digits, so re-formatting and restated figures do not read as changed language. Wording changes appear as one removal and one addition. The current filing and the prior one are authoritative.