URANIUM ENERGY CORP 10-K

Item 2. Properties Overview We are engaged in conventional and ISR uranium extraction and recovery, along with the exploration, permitting and evaluation of uranium properties in the United States, Canada and the Republic of Paraguay. We currently have three hub and spoke platforms in South Texas and Wyoming with a combined licensed production capacity of approximately 12.1 million pounds U 3 O 8 per year. These production platforms are anchored by licensed CPPs and are served by our ISR uranium projects. In August 2024, we commenced ISR operations at our Christensen Ranch project in Wyoming, sending uranium loaded resin to the Irigaray CPP in Wyoming. Other than Christensen Ranch, there was no production from our properties during the Fiscal 2025. The following sets forth the locations of our projects. Figure 2.1 – Portfolio Overview of UEC Properties Note on Mineral Property Disclosures Information concerning our mining properties in this Annual Report has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of S-K 1300. S-K 1300 requires us to disclose our mineral resources as of the end of our most recently completed fiscal year both in the aggregate and for each of our individually material mining properties. For Fiscal 2025, we reviewed the materiality of each of our mineral properties based on various factors in the context of our overall business and financial condition, including their individual book values, relative project stage, resource estimates, planned activities and existing operations. Based on the foregoing, we determined that Christensen Ranch, Reno Creek and Ludeman in Wyoming, Burke Hollow in Texas and Roughrider in Saskatchewan, Canada are our material individual properties for the purposes of S-K 1300. Further information regarding such material individual properties is set forth under “- Material Individual Properties” herein. 31 Table of Contents Summary Disclosure The following table sets forth summary information regarding each of our mineral properties and is presented as at the date hereof. Table 2.1(a) Uranium Projects Project Location Acres Hectares Ownership Interest Operator Stage Mining Method Mineralization Style Commodities Allemand- Ross Wyoming, USA 13,331.72 5,395.16 100% UEC Exploration Stage ISR Roll-Front U Antelope Wyoming, USA 13,220 5,349.94 100% UEC Exploration Stage ISR Roll-Front U Barge Wyoming, USA 7,480 3,027.05 100% UEC Exploration Stage ISR Roll-Front U Black Hills Wyoming, USA 1,280 518 100% UEC Exploration Stage ISR Roll-Front U Brown Ranch Wyoming, USA 3,480 1,408.31 100% UEC Exploration Stage ISR Roll-Front U Bull Springs Wyoming, USA 5,702.80 2,307.84 100% UEC Exploration Stage ISR Roll-Front U Central Shirley Basin Wyoming, USA 2,380 963.15 100% UEC Exploration Stage ISR Roll-Front U Charlie Wyoming, USA 720 291.37 100% UEC Exploration Stage ISR Roll-Front U Christensen Ranch Wyoming, USA 9,420 3,812.14 100% UEC Exploration Stage ISR Roll-Front U Clarkson Hills Wyoming, USA 400 161.87 100% UEC Exploration Stage ISR Roll-Front U Crooks Creek Wyoming, USA 8,379.25 3,390.96 100% UEC Exploration Stage ISR Roll-Front U Crook's Mountain Wyoming, USA 2,480 1,003.62 100% UEC Exploration Stage ISR Roll-Front U Crossroads Wyoming, USA 5,680 2,298.61 100% UEC Exploration Stage ISR Roll-Front U Cyclone Rim Wyoming, USA 4,280 1,732.06 100% UEC Exploration Stage ISR Roll-Front U East Shirley Basin Wyoming, USA 4,599.90 1,861.51 100% UEC Exploration Stage ISR Roll-Front U Gas Hills Wyoming, USA 6,114.76 2,474.56 100% UEC Exploration Stage ISR Roll-Front U Horse Creek Wyoming, USA 540 218.53 100% UEC Exploration Stage ISR Roll-Front U Irigaray Wyoming, USA 2,320 938.87 100% UEC Exploration Stage ISR Roll-Front U Jab/West Jab Wyoming, USA 5,300 2,144.83 100% UEC Exploration Stage ISR Roll-Front U Ludeman Wyoming, USA 18,102 7,325.62 100% UEC Exploration Stage ISR Roll-Front U Moore Ranch Wyoming, USA 4,180 1691.59 100% UEC Exploration Stage ISR Roll-Front U Mule Creek Wyoming, USA 260 105.22 100% UEC Exploration Stage ISR Roll-Front U Niles Ranch Wyoming, USA 3,560 1,440.68 100% UEC Exploration Stage ISR Roll-Front U Nine Mile Lake Wyoming, USA 2,620 1,060.28 100% UEC Exploration Stage ISR Roll-Front U Pine Ridge Wyoming, USA 3,780 1,529.71 100% UEC Exploration Stage ISR Roll-Front U Pine Tree U1 Wyoming, USA 1,940 785.09 100% UEC Exploration Stage ISR Roll-Front U 32 Table of Contents Pumpkin Creek Wyoming, USA 1,000 404.69 100% UEC Exploration Stage ISR Roll-Front U Red Rim Wyoming, USA 680 275.19 100% UEC Exploration Stage ISR Roll-Front U Reno Creek Wyoming, USA 18,867 7,635.20 100% UEC Exploration Stage ISR Roll-Front U Ross Flats Wyoming, USA 5,640 2,282.43 100% UEC Exploration Stage ISR Roll-Front U Sand Creek Wyoming, USA 3,000 1,214.06 100% UEC Exploration Stage ISR Roll-Front U South Pine Ridge Wyoming, USA 4,020 1,626.84 100% UEC Exploration Stage ISR Roll-Front U South Reno Creek Wyoming, USA 2,640 1,068.37 100% UEC Exploration Stage ISR Roll-Front U South Sweetwater Wyoming, USA 1,120 453.25 100% UEC Exploration Stage ISR Roll-Front U Stewart Creek Wyoming, USA 2,460 995.53 100% UEC Exploration Stage ISR Roll-Front U Taylor Ranch Wyoming, USA 4,699.65 1,901.88 100% UEC Exploration Stage ISR Roll-Front U Twin Buttes Wyoming, USA 8,380 3,391.27 100% UEC Exploration Stage ISR Roll-Front U West Beaver Rim Wyoming, USA 1,900 768.9 100% UEC Exploration Stage ISR Roll-Front U West Crook's Creek Wyoming, USA 1,520 615.12 100% UEC Exploration Stage ISR Roll-Front U West Sweetwater Wyoming, USA 1,080 437.06 100% UEC Exploration Stage ISR Roll-Front U Burke Hollow Texas, USA 17,511 7,086 100% UEC Exploration Stage ISR Roll-Front U Goliad Texas, USA 636 257 100% UEC Exploration Stage ISR Roll-Front U La Palangana Texas, USA 6,969 2,820 100% UEC Exploration Stage ISR Roll-Front U Salvo Texas, USA 800 324 100% UEC Exploration Stage ISR Roll-Front U Longhorn Texas, USA 594 240 100% UEC Exploration Stage ISR Roll-Front U Anderson Arizona, USA 12,968 5248 100% UEC Exploration Stage Conventional Tabular U Los Cuatros Arizona, USA 640 259 100% UEC Exploration Stage Conventional Tabular U Workman Creek Arizona, USA 4,036 1,374 100% UEC Exploration Stage Conventional Tabular U C de Baca New Mexico, USA 600 243 100% UEC Exploration Stage Conventional Tabular U Dalton Pass New Mexico, USA 1,020 413 100% UEC Exploration Stage Conventional Tabular U Alexandra Saskatchewan, Canada 36,485 14,765 21.05% Orano Canada Inc. Exploration Stage Conventional Unconformity Related U Beatty River Saskatchewan, Canada 16,526 6,688 32.76% Orano Canada Inc. Exploration Stage Conventional Unconformity Related U Black Lake Saskatchewan, Canada 78,335 31,701 51.43% UEC Exploration Stage Conventional Unconformity Related U Brander Lake Saskatchewan, Canada 34,577 13,993 49.10% Orano Canada Inc. Exploration Stage Conventional Unconformity Related U Candle Lake Saskatchewan, Canada 6,412 2,595 12.50% Denison Mines Corp. Exploration Stage Conventional Unconformity Related U Carswell Saskatchewan, Canada 51,492 20,838 100% UEC Exploration Stage Conventional Unconformity Related U Christie Lake Saskatchewan, Canada 19,575 7,922 82.77% UEC Exploration Stage Conventional Unconformity Related U 33 Table of Contents Close Lake Saskatchewan, Canada 95,578 38,679 5.16% Orano Canada Inc. Exploration Stage Conventional Unconformity Related U Cree Extension Saskatchewan, Canada 30,115 12,187 15.05% Cameco Corporation Exploration Stage Conventional Unconformity Related U Diabase Peninsula Saskatchewan, Canada 77,164 31,227 100.00% UEC Exploration Stage Conventional Unconformity Related U Erica Saskatchewan, Canada 91,409 36,992 49.10% Orano Canada Inc. Exploration Stage Conventional Unconformity Related U Henday Saskatchewan, Canada 17,801 7,204 60% UEC Exploration Stage Conventional Unconformity Related U Hidden Bay Saskatchewan, Canada 126,933 51,368 100.00% UEC Exploration Stage Conventional Unconformity Related U Horseshoe- Raven Saskatchewan, Canada 11,085 4,486 100.00% UEC Exploration Stage Conventional Unconformity Related U Key West Saskatchewan, Canada 31,827 12,880 100.00% UEC Exploration Stage Conventional Unconformity Related U Laurie Saskatchewan, Canada 21,691 8,778 32.99% Orano Canada Inc. Exploration Stage Conventional Unconformity Related U Millennium Saskatchewan, Canada 1,458 590 15.05% Cameco Corporation Exploration Stage Conventional Unconformity Related U Milliken Saskatchewan, Canada 9,872 3,995 100% UEC Exploration Stage Conventional Unconformity Related U Mirror River Saskatchewan, Canada 42,996 17,400 32.34% Orano Canada Inc. Exploration Stage Conventional Unconformity Related U Moon Lake Saskatchewan, Canada 9,385 3,798 10.07% Cameco Corporation Exploration Stage Conventional Unconformity Related U Moore Tomblin Saskatchewan, Canada 3,249 1,315 6.80% Orano Canada Inc. Exploration Stage Conventional Unconformity Related U Nikita Saskatchewan, Canada 37,390 15,131 12.72% Orano Canada Inc. Exploration Stage Conventional Unconformity Related U Riou Lake Saskatchewan, Canada 27,634 11,183 100.00% UEC Exploration Stage Conventional Unconformity Related U Roughrider Saskatchewan, Canada 1,475 597 100.00% UEC Exploration Stage Conventional Unconformity Related U Shea Creek Saskatchewan, Canada 81,451 32,962 49.10% Orano Canada Inc. Exploration Stage Conventional Unconformity Related U Uchrich Saskatchewan, Canada 5,592 2,263 30.48% Orano Canada Inc. Exploration Stage Conventional Unconformity Related U Waterfound River Saskatchewan, Canada 28,837 11,670 12.90% Orano Canada Inc. Exploration Stage Conventional Unconformity Related U West Bear Saskatchewan, Canada 27,439 11,104 100.00% UEC Exploration Stage Conventional Unconformity Related U, Co, Ni Wheeler River Saskatchewan, Canada 28,961 11,720 5.00% Denison Mines Corp. Development ISR / Conventional Unconformity Related U Wolly Saskatchewan, Canada 58,564 23,700 6.38% Orano Canada Inc. Exploration Stage Conventional Unconformity Related U Kiggavik Nunavut, Canada 45,638 18,469 16.91% Orano Canada Inc. Exploration Stage Conventional Unconformity Related U Yuty Paraguay 289,687 117,232 100.00% UEC Exploration Stage ISR Roll-Front U Oviedo Paraguay 223,754 90,550 100.00% UEC Exploration Stage ISR Roll-Front U Table 2.1(b) Titanium Projects Project Location Acres Hectares Ownership Interest Operator Stage Mining Method Mineralization Style Commodities Alto Parana Paraguay 174,204 70,498 100.00% UEC Exploration Stage Conventional Surficial Ti 34 Table of Contents Mineral Resources The following table sets forth the current mineral resource estimates for our uranium properties. For further information regarding estimates concerning our material individual properties, please see "– Material Individual Properties" herein. Country State / Province Project Measured Indicated Inferred Tons ('000's) Tonnes ('000's) Grade (% U 3 O 8 ) Pounds U 3 O 8 ('000's) Tons ('000's) Tonnes ('000's) Grade (% U 3 O 8 ) Pounds U 3 O 8 ('000's) Tons ('000's) Tonnes ('000's) Grade (% U 3 O 8 ) Pounds U 3 O 8 ('000's) Allemand-Ross 246 223 0.09% 417 32 29 0.07% 42 1,275 1,157 0.10% 2,496 Barge 4,301 3,902 0.05% 4,361 Charlie 1,255 1,139 0.12% 3,100 411 373 0.12% 988 Christensen Ranch 6,555 5,947 0.07% 9,596 Clarkson Hill 957 868 0.06% 1,113 Irigaray 3,881 3,521 0.08% 5,899 104 94 0.07% 141 Wyoming Jab/West Jab 1,621 1,471 0.07% 2,335 253 230 0.08% 392 1,402 1,272 0.06% 1,677 Ludeman 2,674 2,426 0.09% 5,017 2,660 2,413 0.09% 4,697 866 786 0.07% 1,258 Moore Ranch 2,675 2,427 0.06% 3,210 46 42 0.05% 44 Nine Mile Lake 3,405 3,089 0.04% 4,308 United States Red Rim 337 306 0.17% 1,142 473 429 0.16% 1,539 Reno Creek 14,990 13,599 0.04% 12,920 16,980 15,404 0.04% 13,070 1,920 1,742 0.04% 1,490 Wyoming Total 22,206 20,145 0.05% 23,899 36,254 32,889 0.06% 42,299 10,859 9,851 0.07% 15,054 Burke Hollow 581 527 0.09% 964 3,329 3,020 0.08% 5,191 2,596 2,355 0.10% 4,883 Goliad 1,595 1,447 0.05% 2,668 1,504 1,364 0.10% 3,492 333 302 0.20% 1,225 Texas Palangana 232 210 0.13% 643 302 274 0.18% 1,001 Salvo 1125 1,021 0.09% 2,839 Texas Total 2,176 1,974 0.08% 3,632 5,065 4,595 0.09% 9,326 4,356 3,952 0.11% 9,948 Anderson 16,175 14,674 0.10% 32,055 Arizona Workman Creek 1,981 1,797 0.11% 4,459 Arizona Total 16,175 14,674 0.10% 32,055 1,981 1,797 0.11% 4,459 United States Total 24,382 22,119 0.06% 27,531 57,494 52,158 0.07% 83,680 17,196 15,600 0.09% 29,461 Christie Lake 537 488 1.57% 16,836 Roughrider 771 699 1.81% 27,860 683 620 2.44% 33,380 Canada Saskatchewan Horseshoe-Raven 11,412 10,353 0.16% 37,426 Shea Creek 1,113 1,009 1.49% 33,176 679 616 1.02% 13,776 Millennium 239 217 2.39% 11,423 68 62 3.19% 4,364 Canada Total 13,534 12,278 0.41% 109,885 1,968 1,785 1.74% 68,021 Paraguay Yuty 9,074 8,232 0.05% 8,962 2,733 2,479 0.04% 2,203 Total Resources 24,382 22,119 0.06% 27,531 80,102 72,668 0.13% 202,527 21,897 19,865 0.23% 100,021 35 Table of Contents Notes: 1. Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability. 2. The point of reference for mineral resources is in-situ at the project. 3. In the year ended July 31, 2025, we commenced operations at Christensen Ranch which included minimal initial production as part of ramp up of 103,545 pounds and 26,421 pounds of precipitated uranium and dried and drummed concentrate, respectively, at the end of such period. Such amount has not been deducted from estimate above. 4. Mineral resources are estimated using a long-term uranium price of $40 per pound for ISR projects and $65 per pound for conventional projects, except for the Canadian projects where a price of $85 per pound was used for the Roughrider Project, a price of $75 per pound was used for the Horseshoe-Raven Project, a price of $50 per pound was used for the Shea Creek Project, a price of $50 per pound was used for the Christie Lake Project and a price of $62 per pound was used for the Millennium Project. 5. Mineral resources are 100% attributable to the Company. Where joint venture projects have resources that are attributable to other companies, these resources are not listed in the table. 6. Numbers may not add due to rounding. In addition to our uranium properties, we also own the Alto Parana titanium project in Paraguay. The following table sets forth the mineral resource for such project. Measured Indicated Inferred Country State / Department Project Tons (10 6 ) Tonnes (10 6 ) Grade Whole Rock TiO 2 Whole Rock TiO 2 tonnes (10 6 ) Recoverable TiO 2 tonnes (10 6 ) Tons (10 6 ) Tonnes (10 6 ) Grade Whole Rock TiO 2 Whole Rock TiO 2 tonnes (10 6 ) Recoverable TiO 2 tonnes (10 6 ) Tons (10 6 ) Tonnes (10 6 ) Grade Whole Rock TiO 2 Whole Rock TiO 2 tonnes (10 6 ) Recoverable TiO 2 tonnes (10 6 ) Paraguay Alto Parana and Canindeyú Alto Parana - - - - - 77 70 7.60% 5.32 2.86 3,945 3,580 7.31% 261.66 N/A Notes: 1. Ilmenite: ‘heavy mineral’ particles between 45µm and 1mm, denser than 2.8g/cm 3 containing an average of 50% TiO 2 2. All grades are expressed as in situ grades. 3. Estimates for the mineral resources and the total and the total are rounded to two significant figures, as appropriate for inferred resources. 4. On the basis of sampling and comparison assays done to date it is estimated the inferred resources contain between 4 and 5% ilmenite. 5. A cut-off grade of 2% ilmenite has been applied where the ilmenite grade is known, otherwise whole rock TiO₂ of 5.75% 6. Cut-off grade was determined using the price of $1,025 per tonne for chlorite slag, $720 per tonne for Chlorite slag fines, and $747 for high purity pig iron 7. As the salable product is a concentrate in the form of either slag or pig iron, metallurgical recovery occurs downstream from the salable product and cannot be reported for TiO 2 . Internal Controls Respecting Exploration and Resource Estimation For Canadian and U.S. exploration programs, Quality Control and Quality Assurance (“ QA/QC ”) programs for geologic data collection and resource estimation are defined in each TRS along with protocols and procedures for data collection. To summarize, the QA/QC programs for exploration data are in place that cover four categories: geologic data collection; data verification; radiometric equivalent data; and geochemical data. The controls in each of these categories serve to help the Company and its qualified persons (each, a “ QP ”) under each TRS have confidence in the data and geologic interpretations that are being used in resource estimation. 36 Table of Contents Geochemical data for Canadian exploration programs is supplied by the Geoanalytical Laboratory at the Saskatchewan Research Council (“ SRC ”). The quality management system at SRC, Geoanalytical Laboratories, operates in accordance with ISO/IEC 17025, General Requirements for the Competence of Testing and Calibration Laboratories, and is also compliant to ASB, Requirements and Guidance for Mineral Analysis Testing Laboratories. The management system and selected methods are accredited by the Standards Council of Canada. As part of the SRC’s commitment to continually assess the effectiveness of the services, all processes are subject to internal, second party and third-party audits. In addition to the lab controls on QA/QC, the Company submits duplicate samples and blank samples to the lab at a rate of approximately one in 20 samples each along with standard and a round robin pulp that are inserted at the lab, so that in a 20-sample batch there are 16 geochemistry samples for analysis. Failures of lab standards, blanks or duplicates are investigated and can result in the re-assay of the samples to replace the original data in the database if necessary. Samples of mineralization at a rate of about 5% of the population are checked externally with a different accredited lab to help assure accuracy. For U.S. exploration programs, the preponderance of data utilized for resource and reserve estimates is generated from radiometric equivalent measurements made utilizing downhole geophysical logging techniques such as gamma-ray and prompt fission neutron (“ PFN ”) techniques. This technology has been employed in the exploration and development of sandstone uranium deposits in the U.S. since the 1950s. QA/QC of gamma-ray and PFN probes from each logging truck are required to maintain calibration by regular cross-checking the probes at U.S. DOE test pits located in George West, Texas, or Casper, Wyoming. The pit is set up for logging units to calibrate the probes with a known radioactive source. Each test run generates calibration files for the operator to review and make necessary tool adjustments. Calibration runs typically are made on a one- or two-month interval, and files with the test pit run results are maintained by the operator. The available data indicate that the logging provided by the Company and contract probe trucks at the various U.S. projects have maintained industry standard calibration procedures for their probes. For resource estimation the internal controls are more common to the U.S. and Canadian operations. Company staff will perform database verification on the geologic database which is then reviewed by the QP. If the QP was not involved in the primary data collection field program the QP will spot check a subset of drill collar locations and, if available, also compare collar elevations against a digital elevation model to evaluate and cross check the drill hole collar elevations. For resource estimation the block model is evaluated visually against geologic cross sections to ensure block grades match drill hole grades. The QP will evaluate probability plots and perform statistical analysis of the sample population to determine the need for an appropriate grade cap to limit the influence of high-grade samples to the appropriate area. The preparation of Swath Plots is another internal control which can inform the QP if high-grade samples have had an exaggerated influence on the resource model. The resource estimates have inherent risks due to data accuracy, uncertainty from geological interpretation, mine plan assumptions, uncontrolled rights for mineral and surface properties, environmental challenges, uncertainty for future market supply and demand and changes in laws and regulations. Company management and QPs are aware of those risks that might directly impact the assessment of mineral reserves and resources. The current mineral resources are estimated based on the best information available and are subject to reassessment when conditions change. Central Processing Plants We currently own three processing plants, consisting of the Irigaray CPP, an ISR plant located in northeastern Wyoming, the Hobson CPP, an ISR plant located in South Texas, and the Sweetwater Plant, a conventional plant located in Southwestern Wyoming. Additional information regarding each processing facility is set forth where applicable in “Individual Material Properties” herein. 37 Table of Contents Individual Material Properties Wyoming Properties Below is a map showing our material Wyoming projects: Figure 2.2 – Locations of our Projects in Wyoming Permitting Requirements in Wyoming The Irigaray CPP is fully permitted. The Christensen Ranch, Ludeman, Moore Ranch and portions of the Reno Creek Project areas are permitted for ISR operations through both WDEQ/LQD and the BLM as appropriate. Geology and Mineralization in Wyoming Uranium was first discovered in the southern PRB during the early 1950s. By the mid- to late 1950s, small open pit mine operations were established in the PRB. Early prospecting and exploration included geologic mapping and gamma surveys, which led to discoveries of uranium in the Wasatch and Fort Union Formations. Extensive drill hole exploration has been utilized to locate deeper uranium mineralization since the 1960s to progress geologic models. Uranium mineralization was discovered in the GDB at the Lost Creek Schoekingerite deposit in the early 1950s. The Schoekingerite deposits were exposed at the surface along the Lost Creek drainage and were located using radiometric surveys. The USGS used shallow exploration to further evaluate the deposits. Similar to the PRB, drilling for deeper deposits began in the 1960s and exploration has primarily consisted of drilling since that time. 38 Table of Contents The Allemand-Ross, Barge, Charlie, Christensen Ranch, Irigaray, Ludeman, Moore Ranch, Nine Mile and Reno Creek Project areas reside in the Powder River Basin (“ PRB ”). The PRB is a structural basin that extends over much of northeastern Wyoming and southeastern Montana and consists of a large north-northwest trending asymmetric syncline. The basin is bounded by the Big Horn Mountains on the west and Casper Arch to the southwest, the Black Hills to the east and the Hartville Uplift and Laramie Mountains to the south. The PRB is filled with marine, non-marine and continental sediments ranging in age from early Paleozoic through Cenozoic. The Jab/West Jab, Crooks Mountain, Crooks Creek, West Cooks Creek, Bull Springs, Stewart Creek, South Sweetwater, West Sweetwater, Antelope, Twin Buttes, Cyclone Rim, Red Desert, Green Mountain and Red Rim Project areas are located within the northeastern portion of the Greater Green River Basin (“ GGRB ”). The GGRB is a structural basin that extends over southwestern Wyoming and northwestern Colorado and is divided by the Rock Springs Uplift, a north-south trending anticline. The basin is bounded by the Wyoming thrust belt to the west, the Rawlins Uplift and the Sierra Madre Mountains to the east, the Wind River Mountains to the north and the Uinta Mountains to the south. The GGRB contains up to 25,000 feet of Cretaceous to recent sedimentary rocks. The Clarkson Hill Project area is located in the eastern portion of the Wind River Basin (“ WRB ”). The WRB is a structural basin in west-central Wyoming. The basin is bounded by the Wind River Range to the west, the Casper Arch to the east, the Owl Creek Mountains to the north and the Granite Mountains to the south. The WRB is filled with marine, lacustrine and fluvial sediments ranging in age from Paleozoic to Cenozoic. Uranium mineralization at the project is typical of Wyoming roll-front sandstone deposits. The formation of roll-front deposits is largely a groundwater process that occurs when uranium-bearing, oxygenated groundwater interacts with a reducing environment in the subsurface and precipitates uranium. The most favorable host rocks for roll-fronts are permeable sandstones with large aquifer systems. Interbedded mudstone, claystone and siltstone are often present and aid in the formation process by focusing groundwater flow. Geology of the Powder River Basin The PRB extends over much of northeastern Wyoming and southeastern Montana and consists of a large north-northwest trending asymmetric syncline, with the basin axis located to the west of the projects. The PRB is bounded by the Big Horn Mountains and Casper Arch to the west, the Black Hills to the east and the Hartville Uplift and Laramie Mountains to the south. The PRB is filled with marine, non-marine and continental sediments ranging in age from early Paleozoic through Cenozoic. Within the PRB, the Paleocene Fort Union Formation conformably overlies the Lance Formation and is a fluvial-sedimentary stratigraphic unit that consists of fine- to coarse-grained arkosic sandstone, which is interbedded with siltstone, mudstone and carbonaceous materials. In some areas of the PRB, the Fort Union Formation is divided into two members, identified as the Upper and Lower members of the Fort Union Formation. However, Flores divides the Fort Union into three members: the Tullock; Lebo; and Tongue River members (listed from oldest to youngest); as follows: ● the Tullock member consists of sandstone, siltstone and sparse coal and carbonaceous shale; ● the Lebo member consists of abundant drab gray mudstone, minor siltstone and sandstone and sparse coal and carbonaceous shale beds; and ● the Tongue River member consists of interbedded sandstone, conglomerate, siltstone, mudstone, limestone, anomalously thick coal beds and carbonaceous shale beds. This member has been mined extensively for its coal beds, which can be hundreds of feet thick. Uranium mineralization occurs in zones that are located in channel sands of the Fort Union Formation. These channel sands are typical fining upward sand sequences consisting of fine-grained sandstones. The zones of mineralization are formed as typical roll-front deposits in these sandstones. The early Eocene Wasatch Formation unconformably overlies the Fort Union Formation around the margins of the PRB. However, the two formations are conformable and gradational towards the basin center. The relative amount of coarse, permeable clastic sediments increases near the top of Fort Union, and the overlying Wasatch Formation contains numerous beds of sandstone that can sometimes be correlated over wide areas. The Wasatch-Fort Union contact is separated by Paleocene and Eocene rocks and is generally placed above the Roland coal. However, other authors have placed the Wasatch-Fort Union contact above the School, Badger and Anderson Coals in other parts of the PRB. 39 Table of Contents The Wasatch Formation occurs at the surface in the central PRB, but has been mostly removed by erosion with only small, scattered outcrops still present in the southern PRB. The Wasatch Formation is also a fluvial sedimentary unit that consists of a series of silt to very coarse-grained gradational intervals in arkosic sandstone. The sandstone horizons in the Wasatch Formation are the host rocks for several uranium deposits in the central PRB. Within this area, uranium mineralization is found in a 50- to 100-ft thick sandstone lens. On a regional scale, the mineralization is localized and controlled by facies changes within this sandstone, including thinning of the sandstone unit, decrease in grain size and increase in clay and organic material content. The Wasatch Formation reaches a maximum thickness of about 1,600 feet and dips northwestward from one degree to two-and-a-half degrees in the southern and central parts of the PRB. The Oligocene White River Formation overlies the Wasatch Formation and has been removed from most of the basin by erosion. Remnants of this unit crop out on the Pumpkin Buttes, and at the extreme southern edge of the PRB. The White River Formation consists of clayey sandstone, claystone, a boulder conglomerate and tuffaceous sediments, which may be the primary source rock for uranium in the southern part of the PRB as a whole. The youngest sediments consist of Quaternary alluvial sands and gravels locally present in larger valleys. Quaternary eolian sands can also be found locally. Geology of the Great Divide and Greater Green River Basins The Jab/West Jab, Crooks Mountain, Crooks Creek, West Cooks Creek, Bull Springs, Stewart Creek, South Sweetwater, West Sweetwater, Antelope, Twin Buttes, Cyclone Rim, Red Desert, Green Mountain and Red Rim Project areas are located within the northeastern portion of the Great Divide Basin (“ GDB ”). The GDB and the Washakie Basin (“ WB ”) in the southwest together comprise the GGRB. The GGRB is a structural basin that extends over southwestern Wyoming and northwestern Colorado and is divided by the Rock Springs Uplift, a north-south trending anticline. The basin is bounded by the Wyoming thrust belt to the west, the Rawlins Uplift and the Sierra Madre Mountains to the east, the Wind River Mountains to the north and the Uinta Mountains to the south. The GGRB contains up to 25,000 feet of Cretaceous to recent sedimentary rocks. During the end of the Cretaceous Period, the Laramide Orogeny divided the Wyoming Basin Province into a series of down warped basins. As these basins were created, uplift created the Granite and Seminoe Mountains and older formations were altered during the same time. In the northern regions of the GDB, swamps, alluvial plains and fluvial fans were present at the margins of the uplifted Granite Mountains. To the southwest, the GDB is occupied by the lacustrine Eocene Green River Formation and by the lower energy Wasatch Formation. These two facies interfinger with the high-energy fluvial facies of the Battle Spring Formation at the central and eastern areas in the GDB. Uranium deposits occur principally in the Battle Spring Formation which consists of alluvial-fluvial fan deposits of west- to southwest-flowing paleodrainage. The common rock type is arkosic sandstone with interbedded claystone. These types of rock are typical of alluvial-fan facies. Much of this material is sourced from the Granite Mountains, by blockages in normal drainages due to differential subsidence rates. The Wasatch Formation, due to its fluvial nature, contains interbedded siltstones, coal, carbonaceous shale, fine-grained sandstone, sandy limestone and medium-grained fluvial sandstones. The Battle Spring Formation consists of alluvial-fluvial fan deposits of west to southwest-flowing paleodrainage. The common rock type is arkosic sandstone with interbedded claystone. These types of rock are typical of alluvial-fan facies. Much of this material is sourced from the Granite Mountains by blockages in normal drainages due to differential subsidence rates. The Wasatch Formation, due to its fluvial nature, contains interbedded siltstones, coal, carbonaceous shale, fine-grained sandstone, sandy limestone and medium-grained fluvial sandstones. The permeable medium- to very coarse-grained sandstones and arkoses are a favorable host for sandstone-type uranium deposits. Fluvial channels incised into less permeable underlying siltstones and sandstones in the Battle Spring during early Eocene time. The channels were backfilled by the massive, poorly-sorted, coalescing alluvial fan deposits, known as the Battle Spring Formation. The Battle Spring Formation includes impermeable carbonaceous shales that created an impermeable boundary for uranium deposits. The Fort Union Formation surfaces around the boundary of the GDB. The Fort Union Formation is described as an interbedded sequence of white, gray, tan, buff and brown sandstone, gray to black shale, carbonaceous shale, siltstone, local conglomerate beds and (usually) thin coal beds. It may truncate and unconformably overlie older units near basin margins. The Fort Union is unconformably underlain by the Cretaceous Lance Formation and regionally overlain by either the Eocene Wasatch or Battle Spring Formation. 40 Table of Contents The Lance Formation is described as a gray to buff fine-grained to very fine-grained silty sandstone interbedded with drab to light-green to gray locally carbonaceous siltstone and thin conglomeratic lenses locally. The Lance Formation contains the upper Red Rim Member and the lower (unnamed) member. The Red Rim Member is a prominent sandstone package named for its color as it crops out south of Interstate 80 on the eastern rim of the WB. Overbank and floodplain deposits in the Battle Spring Formation also were likely to restrict groundwater flow. These boundaries focused uranium-rich waters into confined permeable units. Faulting also created structural and permeability control. Geology of the Wind River Basin The Clarkson Hill Project area is located in the eastern portion of the WRB. The WRB is a structural basin in west-central Wyoming. The basin is bounded by the Wind River Range to the west, the Casper Arch to the east, the Owl Creek Mountains to the north and the Granite Mountains to the south. The WRB is filled with marine, lacustrine and fluvial sediments ranging in age from Paleozoic to Cenozoic. Both the Wind River and Fort Union Formations are Cenozoic fluvial sedimentary deposits containing sandstone with economic quantities of uranium. The primary source of sediments for the Wind River and Fort Union Formations in the eastern WRB was the ancestral Granite Mountains along the southern boundary of the basin. The Granite Mountains were formed during the Laramide Orogeny, a period of extensive mountain building, which began at the end of the Mesozoic Era and continued into the early Cenozoic Era. Subsequent erosion of the Granite Mountain highlands coupled with the down-warping of adjacent basins, such as the Wind River and Powder River Basins, combined to accumulate thousands of feet of sedimentary deposits. The Paleocene Fort Union is the oldest Tertiary formation and consists of sandstone, siltstone, shale, coal and local conglomerates. The Fort Union is overlain, often unconformably, by the Eocene Wind River Formation, which consists of sandstones, conglomerates, siltstones and shale. Overlying the Wind River Formation is the Oligocene White River Formation. The White River Formation also consists of sandstones, siltstone and shale, however, along with fluvial deposition of the sands and clays, substantial volumes of windblown volcanic ash (tuffs) were also deposited. This volcanic ash is regarded by many as the source of uranium for many Wyoming sandstone uranium deposits. Economic uranium deposits in the WRB typically occur as roll-front deposits in porous sandstones within the Wind River and Fort Union Formations. 41 Table of Contents Material Project Descriptions in Wyoming Irigaray CPP The following technical and scientific description for the Irigaray CPP 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 9, 2023, prepared for the Company by Western Water Consultants d/b/a WWC Engineering (“ WWC ”), a qualified firm (the QP herein) that is not affiliated with UEC. Figure 2.3 – Location of the Irigaray Project 42 Table of Contents Property Description The Irigaray CPP hub is located in Johnson County, Wyoming, northwest of Pumpkin Buttes and near Willow Creek. The Irigaray CPP is approximately 70 air miles north-northeast of Casper, Wyoming, 48 air miles southeast of Buffalo, Wyoming, and 40 air miles southwest of Gillette at Latitude / Longitude of 43.888 / -106.128. The site is accessible year-round on county and private roads which are shared by oil and gas operators and ranchers. Limited services are available from several smaller towns near the site. Primarily, services and personnel are available from Buffalo, Gillette and Casper. Casper and Gillette provide flight services with daily service to Denver, Billings and Salt Lake City. Water is sourced locally at the mine while electrical service is provided by a regional power company. Facilities, Infrastructure and Underground Development The Irigaray CPP was first constructed in 1977-1978. Mining occurred at the time in Wellfields 1 through 9. These wellfields have gone through groundwater restoration, decommissioning and final reclamation, which has been approved by the WDEQ. Currently, the only facilities at the Irigaray Project are the CPP and associated infrastructure including evaporation ponds, access roads, power lines and chemical and fuel storage tanks. The CPP was upgraded in 2009 by removing the original equipment and adding replacement elution systems, additional precipitation tanks, new concrete foundations and upgrades to the filter press and other equipment. The CPP now contains two complete resin elution systems, multiple precipitation areas, filter press, yellowcake thickeners, and a calciner for drying yellowcake product. A vacuum dryer is in storage at the CPP for future installation when needed. The plant is capable of accepting third party resins for stripping, precipitation and drying of yellowcake product, as well as our own resins from Christensen Ranch and other properties. Although the building is older, it has been maintained in good condition. The entire CPP roof was replaced in 2021. In addition, significant upgrades at the Irigaray CPP were initiated in the fourth quarter of Fiscal 2025, including a full rebuild of one of two yellowcake thickeners along with calciner improvements. Christensen Ranch Project The following technical and scientific description for the Christensen Ranch Project area (the “ Christensen Ranch Project Are a”) 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 9, 2023, prepared for the Company by WWC, a qualified firm (the QP herein) who is not affiliated with UEC. Figure 2.4 – Location of the Christensen Ranch Project 43 Table of Contents Property Description The Christensen Ranch Project Area is located in Johnson and Campbell Counties, Wyoming, west of Pumpkin Buttes within the PRB. Details of this area and number of claims tabulated below. 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 at Latitude / Longitude of 43.7982 / -106.0235. The Christensen Ranch Project Area is primarily located on private surface land, with two portions located on federal BLM-managed land. The site is accessible year-round on county and private roads which are shared by oil and gas operators and ranchers. Limited services are available from several smaller towns proximal to the site. Primarily, services and personnel are available from Buffalo, Gillette and Casper. Casper and Gillette provide flight services with daily service to Denver, Billings and Salt Lake City. Water is sourced locally at the mine while electrical service is provided by a regional power company. Table 2.2 Christensen Ranch Project Claims Details. Acres Hectares State Leases Fee Mineral Leases Federal Lode Mining Claims Total Total Number Acres Expiration Date Number Acres Expiration Date Number Acres Expiration Date 9,420 3,812.14 1 1,280 Annual 1 720 Annual 399 7,980 Annual 44 Table of Contents History The table below describes the historic ownership and operations at the Christensen Ranch Project Area. Table 2.3: Historic Ownership and Operations at the Christensen Ranch Project Area Year Company Operations/Activity Amount (No. of Drill holes) Results of Work 1967 Independent Operators Assembled as a large land package by independent operators. Approximately 4,860 Right to mine secured. Preliminary delineation of mineralized areas. 1979 Arizona Public Services (“ APS ”), parent company of Malapai APS became a 50% partner in 1979. Approximately 2,220 Delineation of mineralized areas. 1981 Malapai Malapai assumed sole ownership of the Christensen Ranch Project Area by acquiring the interests of Wold Energy (“ Wold ”) and Western Nuclear Corporation (“ WNC ”). Malapai purchased the Irigaray Project Area from Westinghouse in 1987, and the Christensen Ranch Project Area was licensed for operations under the Irigaray U.S. NRC and Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (“ WDEQ ”) license/permit in 1988. Uranium production by ISR was started by Malapai in 1989 and was placed on standby in 1990. Approximately 1,460 Delineation of mineralized areas. Began ISR production. 1990 TOMIN and EDF EDF acquired the Irigaray and Christensen Ranch Project Areas from Malapai in 1990. TOMIN acted as project operator for EDF under a joint participation agreement. TOMIN restarted ISR operations in 1991. Approximately 2,270 Delineation of mineralized areas. Restarted ISR production. 1993 COGEMA and EDF In 1993, COGEMA acquired the assets of TOMIN and changed the name of the operating entity to COGEMA Mining, Inc. EDF (now Malapai) was still owner of 29%, COGEMA, as operator, owned 71% through the joint participation agreement. Approximately 3,690 3.70 million pounds of U 3 O 8 produced from 1989 through 2000. 2000 COGEMA and Malapai Groundwater restoration of Mine Units 2 through 6 was completed. The Christensen Ranch Project Area was placed on standby from 2006 through 2010, at which time COGEMA and Malapai sold the project to Uranium One and Uranium One USA, Inc. (collectively, “Uranium One”). N/A 188,000 pounds of U 3 O 8 produced during restoration. 2010 Uranium One Mine Units 7, 8 and 10 were installed and operated. A ramp up occurred in 2011, and a ramp down occurred in 2013 (all wellfield development ceased). Low production mode occurred in 2014 through 2018, and production ended in 2018, at which time the Christensen Ranch Project Area was placed on care and maintenance. N/A 2.6 million pounds of U 3 O 8 produced. 2021 UEC The Christensen Ranch Project Area acquired by UEC from Uranium One. N/A Ownership transition. 2024 UEC Restarted uranium extraction and ramp-up phase expected to continue while new production areas are being constructed and completed through 2025 and 2016. N/A 45 Table of Contents Property Condition and Proposed Development The condition of the property is very good while meeting all standards and requirements of federal, state and local regulations. Development activity to advance the property included the drilling of 62 delineation holes for a total of 33,507 feet in an area adjacent to Mine Unit 5. Additionally, a nine-hole coring program was conducted in previously produced Mine Units to evaluate non-recovered resource potential remaining in those Mine Units. Production from header houses 10-7 and 10-8 has begun, marking the first two new production areas at Christensen Ranch as part of its phased restart. Construction of four new header houses in Mine Unit 11 are underway with power poles placed and buildings being set on their foundations. Wellfield development advanced with active well installation (piloting, casing, underreaming) in Mine Unit 11, delineation drilling completed in Mine Unit 12, and extensions planned in Mine Unit 8 and Mine Unit 10. Facilities, Infrastructure and Underground Development The Christensen Ranch Project facilities include the ion exchange satellite plant, four evaporation ponds, one permeate storage pond, two EPA Class I injection disposal wells, several miles of buried production and injection trunklines connecting Mine Units to the satellite plant, access roads, office building, maintenance shop, powerlines and eight installed wellfields (Mine Units 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10). Mine Units 2, 3, 4 and 6 have gone through groundwater restoration, which has been approved by WDEQ. These wellfields are undergoing decommissioning with plugging and abandonment of injection and recovery wells undertaken in Mine Unit 2. Mine Units 7, 8 and 10 have been partially mined and have resumed operations. Operations in portions of Mine Unit 5 may also be resumed in the future. All facilities are in very good condition. Permit Status and Encumbrances The Christensen Ranch Project is permitted under WDEQ Permit to Mine No. 478. The project is also licensed under WDEQ RML WYSUA-1341, formerly a U.S. NRC license. Permit to Mine No. 478 and RML WYSUA-1341 are in good standing, with no violations of permit or license conditions. Mining permit requirements can be found in Wyoming Statutes §35-11-400 through 437, with specific laws for ISR mining in sections 426 – 436. Conditions of the RML applicable to ISR mining are generally standard for all licensees. Requirements of RMLs are found in WDEQ, LQD/Uranium Recovery Program Chapter 4 Rules and Regulations for Licensing of Source and Byproduct Material. There are no materially significant encumbrances on the Christensen Ranch Project. Standard encumbrances include reclamation bonding, mining and surface lease royalties. The Christensen Ranch Project Permitting details are tabulated below. Table 2.4 Christensen Ranch Permit Details Property Fully Permitted to Mine Partially Permitted to Mine Not Permitted to Mine Class III UIC Permit to Mine WDEQ Class 1 Well Permits Source and Byproduct Materials License BLM Plan of Operations WDEQ/EPA Aquifer Exemption Notes Christensen Ranch X Yes Yes Yes Yes Geologic Setting, Mineralization and Deposit The Christensen Ranch Project Area targets mineralization in the Eocene-aged Wasatch Formation of the Powder River Basin. Mineralization in the Christensen Ranch Project Area occurs in fluvial sandstones of the lower parts of the Wasatch Formation. Most of the upper Wasatch Formation has been eroded away. The sandstones are arkosic, fine- to coarse-grained with local calcareous lenses. The sandstones contain minor amounts of organic carbon that occurs as dispersed bits or as stringers. Unaltered sandstones are generally gray, while altered sandstones are tan or pink due to hematite, or show yellowish coloring due to limonite. Pyrite occurs in several forms within the host sandstones. In unaltered sandstones, pyrite occurs as small to large single euhedral crystals associated with magnetite, ilmenite and other dark detrital minerals. In altered sandstone, pyrite is typically absent, but locally occurs as tarnished, very fine-grained euhedral crystals. In areas of intense or heavy mineralization, pyrite locally occurs as massive, tarnished crystal aggregates. 46 Table of Contents The Christensen Ranch Project Area contains portions of four alteration systems, all within fluvial sands of the Wasatch Formation. These fluvial host systems are identified as K1, K2, K3 and K4 sands and are in descending order. These sands vary in thickness from 0 feet to 100 feet within the Christensen Ranch Project Area. They coalesce within portions of the Christensen Ranch Project Area and form sand sequences of roughly 250 feet (80 m) in thickness. These sands in turn host the K1, K2, K3 and K4 uranium roll-front systems, each of which is composed of multiple stacked individual roll-front deposits. Uranium mineralization at the Christensen Ranch Project Area is typical of Wyoming roll-front sandstone deposits. The formation of roll-front deposits is largely a groundwater process that occurs when uranium-rich, oxygenated groundwater interacts with a reducing environment in the subsurface and precipitates uranium. The most favorable host rocks for roll-fronts are permeable sandstones with large aquifer systems. Interbedded mudstone, claystone and siltstone are often present and aid in the formation process by focusing groundwater flux. The geometry of mineralization is dominated by the classic roll-front “C” shape or crescent configuration at the redox interface. The highest-grade portion of the front occurs in a zone termed the “nose” within reduced ground just ahead of the alteration front. Ahead of the nose, at the leading edge of the solution front, mineral quality gradually diminishes to barren within the “seepage” zone. Trailing behind the nose, in oxidized (altered) ground, are weak remnants of mineralization referred to as “tails” which have resisted re-mobilization to the nose due to association with shale, carbonaceous material or other lithologies of lower permeability. Tails are generally not amenable to ISR because the uranium is typically found within strongly reduced or impermeable strata, therefore making it difficult to leach. Table 2.5 – Mineral Resources for the Christensen Ranch Project as at the date of this Annual Report Classification Tons Ore (000 ’ s) Tonnes Ore (1000 ’ s) Average Grade (% eU 3 O 8 ) Pounds eU 3 O 8 (000 ’ s) Measured - - - - Indicated 6,555 5,947 0.073 9,596 Total M&I 6,555 5,947 0.073 9,596 Inferred - - - - Total Resources 6,555 5,947 0.073 9,596 Notes: 1. The sum of resource tons and pounds may not add up to the reported total due to rounding. 2. Measured, indicated, and inferred mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300. 3. GT Cutoff = 0.25 ft% eU 3 O 8. 4. All reported resources occur below the static water table. 5. The point of reference for mineral resources is in-situ at the Project. 6. Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. 7. In the year ended July 31, 2025, we commenced operations at Christensen Ranch which included minimal initial production as part of ramp up of 103,545 pounds and 26,421 pounds of precipitated uranium and dried and drummed concentrate, respectively, at the end of such period. Such amount has not been deducted from estimate above. 8. A long-term uranium price of $40 per pound U 3 O 8 and an 80% metallurgical recovery factor were considered for the purposes of determining the reasonable prospect of economic extraction. Reno Creek Project The following technical and scientific description for the Reno Creek Project area (the “ Reno Creek Project Area ”) is based in part on the TRS titled “S-K 1300 Mineral Resource Report Wyoming Assets ISR Hub and Spoke Project, WY USA”, dated March 9, 2023, prepared by WWC, a qualified firm (the QP herein) who is not affiliated with UEC. 47 Table of Contents Figure 2.5 - Location of the Reno Creek Project Property Description The Reno Creek Project Area is in Campbell County, Wyoming, within the PRB, details of project location, area and number of claims are tabulated below. The Reno Creek Project Area is approximately five miles to the northwest of the North and Southwest Reno Creek Resource Areas at Latitude / Longitude of 43.6796 / -105.7226. The Pine Tree resource area lies approximately five miles to the southwest of the permitted resource areas, immediately southeast of the intersection of U.S. Highway 387 and Wyoming Highway 50, also known as Pine Tree Junction. The Bing resource area lies approximately five miles west of the permitted resource areas adjacent to Wyoming Highway 50, three miles north of Pine Tree Junction. The site is accessible year-round via state, county and private roads which are shared by oil and gas operators and ranchers. Services and personnel are available from Gillette or Casper. Flight service is offered from Gillette or Casper with daily service to Denver, Billings and Salt Lake City. Water will be sourced locally while electrical service will be provided by a regional power company. Table 2.6 Reno Creek Project Claims Details Acres Hectares State Leases Fee Mineral Leases Federal Lode Mining Claims Total Total Number Acres Expiration Date Number Acres Expiration Date Number Acres Expiration Date 18,867 7,635.20 5 3,840 Annual 36 3,467.21 Variable 578 11,560 Annual 48 Table of Contents History The table below describes the historic ownership and operations at the Reno Creek Project Area. Table 2.7: Historic Ownership and Operations at the Reno Creek Project Area Year Company Operations/Activity Amount (No. of Drill holes) Results of Work Reno Creek – North Reno Creek Late 1960s Rocky Mountain Energy Company (“ RME ”) Drilled exploration holes at and around North Reno Creek resource area. Approximately 5,800 Delineated Approximately 10 miles of roll-front deposits. Mid 1970s RME, Mono Power Company (“ Mono ”) and Halliburton Services Partnership formed to develop North Reno Creek Resource Area using ISR methods. N/A Acquisition of the Reno Creek Project Area. 1992 Energy Fuels Nuclear Inc./International Uranium Corporation Energy Fuels Nuclear Inc. acquired RME’s North Reno Creek Resource Area and later became International Uranium Corporation. N/A Acquisition of the Reno Creek Project Area. 2001 Rio Algom Rio Algom acquired International Uranium Corporation’s property. N/A Acquisition of the Reno Creek Project Area. 2001 PRI PRI acquired North Reno Creek Area and dropped claims in 2003. N/A Acquisition of the Reno Creek Project Area and mining claims dropped. 2004 Strathmore Minerals Corporation and American Uranium Corporation (“ AUCA ”) Re-staked and filed new mining claims on approximately 16,000 acres. N/A Refiled mining claims and secured right to mine. 2007 AUCA Advanced project through acquisition of most major permits and required authorizations. N/A Acquisition of the Reno Creek Project Area and secured permits and authorizations. 2017 UEC Consolidated ownership of multiple resource areas and oversaw technical reporting and auditing of Project resources. N/A Consolidation of ownership. Auditing of project resources. Reno Creek – Southwest Reno Creek Pre-2007 AUCA and Tennessee Valley Authority JV Controlled Southwest Reno Creek and drilled exploration holes. Approximately 700 Delineation of mineralized areas. 2007 AUCA Advanced project through acquisition of most major permits and required authorizations. N/A Secured permits and required authorizations. 2017 UEC Consolidated ownership of multiple Resource Areas and oversaw technical reporting and auditing of Project resources. N/A Consolidation of ownership. Auditing of the Reno Creek Project Area resources. 49 Table of Contents Year Company Operations/Activity Amount (No. of Drill holes) Results of Work Reno Creek – Moore, Pine Tree, and Bing 1960s Utah International Mining Company Exploration on Moore and Pine Tree Resource Areas. N/A Delineation of mineralized areas. Late 1970s Pathfinder Mines, Inc. Utah International Mining Company becomes Pathfinder Mines, Inc. and continues exploration on Moore and Pine Tree Resource Areas. >1,560 Delineation of mineralized areas. 1980s RME Obtained ownership of Moore Area, continued exploration drilling until the 1990s. >400 Acquired the Reno Creek Project Area. Delineation of mineralized areas. 1960s Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Company Exploration of Bing Area, drilled several hundred exploration holes and conducted limited hydrologic testing in the 1970s. 177 Delineation of mineralized areas through drilling and conducted hydrologic testing. 2007 AUCA Consolidated the Resource Areas under one owner. N/A Consolidated ownership. 2017 UEC Oversaw technical reporting and auditing of project resources. N/A Auditing of the Reno Creek Project Area resources. 50 Table of Contents Property Condition and Proposed Development The condition of the property is good while meeting all standards and requirements of federal, state and local regulations. Development is in the planning stage with no immediate plans for exploration or delineation drilling. Facilities, Infrastructure and Underground Development Facilities or wellfields have not been constructed. Permit Status and Encumbrances The Reno Project is permitted under WDEQ Permit to Mine No. 824. The project is also licensed under WDEQ RML WYSUA-1602, formerly a U.S. NRC license. Permit to Mine No. 824 and RML WYSUA-1602 are in good standing, with no violations of permit or license conditions. Mining permit requirements can be found in Wyoming Statutes §35-11-400 through 437, with specific laws for ISR mining in sections 426 – 436. Conditions of the RML applicable to ISR mining are generally standard for all licensees. Requirements of RMLs are found in WDEQ, LQD/Uranium Recovery Program Chapter 4 Rules and Regulations for Licensing of Source and Byproduct Material. There are no materially significant encumbrances on the Reno Creek Project. Standard encumbrances include reclamation bonding, mining and surface lease royalties. The details of the Reno Creek Project Permit status are tabulated below. Table 2.8 Reno Creek Permit Details Property Fully Permitted to Mine Partially Permitted to Mine Not Permitted to Mine Class III UIC Permit to Mine WDEQ Class 1 Well Permits Source and Byproduct Materials License BLM Plan of Operations WDEQ/EPA Aquifer Exemption Notes Reno Creek Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes North Reno Creek and SW Reno Creek Resource areas are permitted. Geologic Setting, Mineralization and Deposit The Reno Creek Project Area targets mineralization in the Eocene-aged Wasatch Formation. Mineralization in the Reno Creek Project Area occurs in fluvial sandstones of the lower parts of the Wasatch Formation. Most of the upper Wasatch Formation has been eroded away. The sandstones are arkosic, fine- to coarse-grained with local calcareous lenses. The sandstones contain minor amounts of organic carbon that occurs as dispersed bits or as stringers. Unaltered sandstones are generally gray, while altered sandstones are tan or pink due to hematite or show yellowish coloring due to limonite. Pyrite occurs in several forms within the host sandstones. In unaltered sandstones, pyrite occurs as small to large single euhedral crystals associated with magnetite, ilmenite and other dark detrital minerals. In altered sandstone, pyrite is typically absent, but locally occurs as tarnished, very fine-grained euhedral crystals. In areas of intense or heavy mineralization, pyrite locally occurs as massive, tarnished crystal aggregates. At the Reno Creek Project Area, the Felix Coal seams are laterally continuous in the North and Southwest Reno Creek resource areas and extend northward into the Moore and Bing resource areas. The Felix Coal seams, and the underlying Badger Coal seam, provide important correlation points across the Reno Creek Project Area. Sandstone horizons that host uranium mineralization within the production zone aquifer are typically cross-bedded, graded sequences fining upward from very coarse-grained at the base to fine-grained at the top, representing sedimentary cycles from 5-20 feet thick. Stacking of depositional cycles resulted in sandstone body accumulations over 200 feet thick. 51 Table of Contents Uranium mineralization at the Reno Creek Project Area is typical of Wyoming roll-front sandstone deposits. The formation of roll-front deposits is largely a groundwater process that occurs when uranium-bearing, oxygenated groundwater interacts with a reducing environment in the subsurface and precipitates uranium. The most favorable host rocks for roll-fronts are permeable sandstones with large aquifer systems. Interbedded mudstone, claystone and siltstone are often present and aid in the formation process by focusing groundwater flux. The geometry of mineralization is dominated by the classic roll-front “C” shape or crescent configuration at the redox interface. The highest-grade portion of the front occurs in a zone termed the “nose” within reduced ground just ahead of the alteration front. Ahead of the nose, at the leading edge of the solution front, mineral quality gradually diminishes to barren within the “seepage” zone. Trailing behind the nose, in oxidized (altered) ground, are weak remnants of mineralization referred to as “tails” which have resisted re-mobilization to the nose due to association with shale, carbonaceous material or other lithologies of lower permeability. Tails are generally not amenable to ISR because the uranium is typically found within strongly reduced or impermeable strata, therefore making it difficult to leach. Table 2.9 – Mineral Resources for the Reno Creek Project as at the date of this Annual Report Classification Tons Ore (000 ’ s) Tonnes Ore (1000 ’ s) Average Grade (% eU 3 O 8 ) Pounds eU 3 O 8 (000 ’ s) Measured 14,990 13,599 0.043 12,920.0 Indicated 16,980 15,404 0.039 13,070.0 Total M&I 31,970 29,003 0.041 25,990.0 Inferred 1,920 1,742 0.039 1,490.0 Total Resources 33,890 30,745 0.041 27,480.0 Notes: 1. The sum of resources tons and pounds may not add up to the reported total due to rounding. 2. Measured, indicated, and inferred mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300. 3. GT Cutoff = 0.20 ft% eU 3 O 8. 4. All reported resources occur below the static water table. 5. The point of reference for mineral resources is in-situ at the project. 6. Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. 7. A long-term uranium price of $40 per pound U 3 O 8 and an 80% metallurgical recovery factor were considered for the purposes of determining the reasonable prospect of economic extraction. 52 Table of Contents Ludeman Project The following technical and scientific description for the Ludeman Project area (the “ Ludeman Project Area ”) is based in part on the TRS titled “S-K 1300 Mineral Resource Report Wyoming Assets ISR Hub and Spoke Project, WY USA”, dated March 9, 2023, prepared by WWC, a qualified firm (the QP herein) who is not affiliated with UEC. The Ludeman Project Area does not have mineral reserves and is therefore considered an Exploration Stage property under S-K 1300 definitions, despite a history of successful in situ research and development testing. Figure 2.6 – Location of the Ludeman Project 53 Table of Contents Property Description The Ludeman Project Area is located in Converse County, Wyoming, in the southern portion of the PRB, details of project location, area and number of claims are tabulated below. The Ludeman Project Area is located approximately 12 miles northeast of Glenrock and 30 miles east-northeast of Casper, Wyoming at Latitude / Longitude of 42.9119 / -105.6277. State Highway 95 provides access to the Ludeman Project Area from the Towns of Glenrock and Rolling Hills to the west and State Highway 93 provides access from Douglas to the southeast. Interstate 25 provides access to both of these state highways from the south of the Ludeman Project Area. The Ludeman Project Area is primarily located on private surface land with some areas of Federal or state lands. The site is accessible year-round on state and county roads. Services and personnel are available from Glenrock, Douglas or from Casper, which has full services and the nearest airport with daily service to Denver and Salt Lake City. Water will be sourced locally at the site while electrical service will be provided by a regional power company. Table 2.10 Ludeman Project Claims Details Acres Hectares State Leases Fee Mineral Leases Federal Lode Mining Claims Total Total Number Acres Expiration Date Number Acres Expiration Date Number Acres Expiration Date 18,102 7,325.62 4 1,440 Annual 2 1,742 Sept. 2026 and Jan. 2029 746 14,920 Annual 54 Table of Contents History The table below describes the historic ownership and operations at the Ludeman Project Area. Table 2.11: Historic Ownership and operations at the Ludeman Project Area Year Company Operations/Activity Amount (No. of Drill holes) Results of Work 1960s- 1970s Cordero Mining Numerous exploration companies including Teton Exploration (“ Teton ”), PRI, Uranium Resources, Inc. (“ URI ”) and Malapai (a subsidiary of APS) collectively explored in the Ludeman Project Area. Approximately 5,420 Explored for uranium roll-front mineralization and delineated deposits in the Ludeman Project Area. 1980 United Nuclear Corp. (“ UNC ”) and partner Teton Constructed and operated the Leuenberger ISR pilot test facility for 12 months. Groundwater restoration was completed following production and a commercial permit to mine was granted. Due to a decline in the market, the permitted mine was not placed into commercial operation and the permit expired. N/A Produced 12,800 pounds of U 3 O 8 from the pilot facility. 1981 URI Constructed and operated the North Platte ISR project on a portion of the Ludeman Project Area. The pilot test facility produced for five months during 1982. N/A Produced 1,515 pounds of U 3 O 8 from the pilot facility. 1980s Malapai Permitted the Peterson Project for pilot operations but was never operated. N/A Facility was never operated. 1985-Early 1990s Central Electrical Generating Board of England (known as PRI) Nedco and Union Pacific properties were consolidated into the Teton Leuenberger Project. PRI purchased the property and added to the acreage through the purchase of adjacent claim blocks owned by Kerr-McGee. N/A Ownership transition and growth in acreage through acquisitions. Late 1990s PRI Leuenberger properties were released due to declining market trends. Some claims reverted to previous owners. N/A Decrease in claims and generally the Ludeman Project Area. Early to Mid- 2000s High Plains Uranium (“ HPU ”) and EMC HPU held most claims and leases in the Ludeman Project Area. Energy Metals held the remaining claims in the Ludeman Project Area. N/A Claims and leases increased in the Ludeman Project Area. 2007 EMC EMC acquired HPU. N/A Consolidation through acquisition. 2007 Uranium One Uranium One acquired Energy Metals in late 2007 and continued exploration of the Ludeman Project Area from 2007 through 2012. The primary goals of drilling included exploration to establish continuity of regional ore trends, development drilling to determine the lateral extents of the ore body, stratigraphic investigation, confirmation of the location and nature of mineralization, and collection of cores for leach testing and analysis of uranium, mineralogy, trace metals, disequilibrium, permeability, porosity and density. Acquired the WDEQ/LQD mine permit and NRC license. Approximately 2,180 Continued exploration of the Ludeman Project Area. Additional holes included boreholes, core holes, and monitor wells. 2021 UEC The Ludeman Project Area acquired by UEC from Uranium One. N/A Ownership transition. 55 Table of Contents Property Condition and Proposed Development The condition of the property is very good while meeting all standards and requirements of federal, state and local regulations. There are no immediate plans for exploration or delineation drilling. Facilities, Infrastructure and Underground Development The Ludeman property is fully permitted and licensed for commercial ISR production. The engineering and design work has been completed for the satellite plant, evaporation ponds, infrastructure, and the first Mine Unit. Construction of these facilities has not occurred to date. Permit Status and Encumbrances The Ludeman Project is permitted under WDEQ Permit to Mine No. 844. The project is also licensed under WDEQ RML WYSUA-1341, formerly a U.S. NRC license. Permit to Mine No. 844 and RML WYSUA-1341 are in good standing, with no violations of permit or license conditions. Mining permit requirements can be found in Wyoming Statutes §35-11-400 through 437, with specific laws for ISR mining in sections 426 – 436. Conditions of the RML applicable to ISR mining are generally standard for all licensees. Requirements of Radioactive Materials Licenses are found in WDEQ, LQD/Uranium Recovery Program Chapter 4 Rules and Regulations for Licensing of Source and Byproduct Material. There are no materially significant encumbrances on the Ludeman Project. Standard encumbrances include reclamation bonding, mining and surface lease royalties. Ludeman permit status is tabulated below. Table 2.12 Ludeman Permit Details Property Fully Permitted to Mine Partially Permitted to Mine Not Permitted to Mine Class III UIC Permit to Mine WDEQ Class 1 Well Permits Source and Byproduct Materials License BLM Plan of Operations WDEQ/EPA Aquifer Exemption Notes Ludeman X Yes Yes Yes Geologic Setting, Mineralization, and Deposit The Ludeman Project Area targets mineralization in the Fort Union Formation, which underlies the Wasatch Formation. The host rocks for the uranium ore deposits in the project areas are the arkosic sandstones of the Fort Union Formation. These channel deposits are confined by mudstones that serve as aquitards to the water saturated aquifers. Uranium mineralization at the Ludeman Project Area is typical of Wyoming roll-front sandstone deposits. The formation of roll-front deposits is largely a groundwater process that occurs when uranium-bearing, oxygenated groundwater interacts with a reducing environment in the subsurface and precipitates uranium. The most favorable host rocks for roll-fronts are permeable sandstones with large aquifer systems. Interbedded mudstone, claystone and siltstone are often present and aid in the formation process by focusing groundwater flux. The geometry of mineralization is dominated by the classic roll-front “C” shape or crescent configuration at the redox interface. The highest-grade portion of the front occurs in a zone termed the “nose” within reduced ground just ahead of the alteration front. Ahead of the nose, at the leading edge of the solution front, mineral quality gradually diminishes to barren within the “seepage” zone. Trailing behind the nose, in oxidized (altered) ground, are weak remnants of mineralization referred to as “tails” which have resisted re-mobilization to the nose due to association with shale, carbonaceous material or other lithologies of lower permeability. Tails are generally not amenable to ISR because the uranium is typically found within strongly reduced or impermeable strata, therefore making it difficult to leach. 56 Table of Contents Table 2.13 – Mineral Resources for the Ludeman Project as at the date of this Annual Report Classification Tons Ore (000 ’ s) Tonnes Ore (1000 ’ s) Average Grade (% eU 3 O 8 ) Pounds eU 3 O 8 (000 ’ s) Measured 2,674 2426 0.094 5,016.9 Indicated 2,660 2660 0.088 4,696.9 Total M&I 5,334 5,086 0.091 9,713.8 Inferred 866 786 0.073 1,258.0 Total Resources 6,200 5,872 0.088 10,971.8 Notes: 1. The sum of measured and indicated tons and pounds may not add up to the reported total due to rounding. 2. Measured and indicated mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300. 3. GT Cutoff = 0.25 ft% eU 3 O 8. 4. All reported resources occur below the static water table. 5. The point of reference for mineral resources is in-situ at the Project. 6. Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. 7. A long-term uranium price of $40 per pound U 3 O 8 and an 80% metallurgical recovery factor were considered for the purposes of determining the reasonable prospect of economic extraction 57 Table of Contents Texas Properties Figure 2.7 – Location of our Projects in Texas ISR Uranium Activities in Texas Our ISR operations in Texas consist of the following projects, (i) the Hobson CPP; (ii) the Palangana Project; (iii) the Burke Hollow Project; (iv) the Goliad Project; and (v) the Salvo Project. Production from existing wellfields at the Palangana Project ceased in 2016 and the project was put in care and maintenance. In order for Palangana to engage in future uranium production, the Company will need to incur capital expenditures to restart idled wellfields. 58 Table of Contents Permitting Requirements in Texas The Hobson CPP is fully permitted. The Burke Hollow, Goliad and Palangana Projects are fully permitted to mine. The Salvo Project still requires all mining permits. Regulatory agencies include the TCEQ, the Railroad Commission of Texas (“ RRC ”) and the EPA. Other potential permitting requirements, depending on the status of each project area, may include: ● the TCEQ will require UEC to apply for and obtain a RML pursuant to Title 30 Texas Administrative Code Chapters 305 and 336. The application must address a number of matters including, but not limited to, site characteristics (ecology, geology, topography, hydrology, meteorology, historical and cultural landmarks and archaeology), radiological and non-radiological impacts, environmental effects of accidents, decommissioning, decontamination and reclamation; ● to produce uranium from subsurface deposits, an operator must obtain a PAA pursuant to the Texas Water Code, Chapter 27. Underground injection activities cannot commence until the TCEQ has issued an area permit and PAA to authorize such activities. In addition, all portions of the proposed production zone in groundwater with a total dissolved solids concentration less than 10,000 mg/L, which will be affected by mining solutions, are included within an aquifer exemption approved by TCEQ and the EPA. The PAA application may be developed concurrently with or after the area permit application. As additional production areas are proposed to be activated within the area permit, additional PAA applications must be submitted to the TCEQ for processing and issuance before injecting within the production area; ● in 1975, the Texas Legislature gave the RRC jurisdiction to regulate surface mining for coal and uranium. No surface mining for uranium is currently conducted at the Project, but uranium exploration for ISR operations is administered by the Surface Mining and Reclamation Division of the RRC. Active uranium exploration sites are inspected monthly (RRC, 2023). The RRC requires exploration permits for any uranium exploration in the state; ● Texas state law does not provide any agency with the authority to regulate the use or production of groundwater unless the location lies within a water conservation district (“ WCD ”). Burke Hollow and Salvo are both located in the Bee County WCD, Goliad is located in the Goliad County WCD and Palangana resides in the Duval County WCD. Prior to initiating uranium recovery at the project, UEC will need to acquire industrial permits to withdraw groundwater from the host sandstones. Please refer to the TRS report for the Texas Hub and Spoke Project for further details.; and ● Class I and III injection wells are also regulated by the TCEQ. Therefore, UEC will need to acquire the appropriate permits in order to construct and operate these wells. In terms of leases and mineral rights, UEC’s mineral rights in Texas are held through private (fee) mineral leases. Fee mineral leases were obtained through negotiation with individual mineral owners. Fee minerals have varying royalty rates and calculations, depending on the agreements negotiated with individual mineral owners. In addition, surface use and access agreements may include a production royalty, depending on agreements negotiated with individual surface owners at various levels. UEC’s average combined mineral plus surface production royalty applicable to each project are variable and based upon the selling price of U 3 O 8 . Most of the leases have term periods of five years with a five-year renewal option. The primary lease stipulation for ISR mining is the royalty payments as a percentage of production. Royalties vary by lease and are confidential. The various lease fees and royalty conditions are negotiated with individual lessors and conditions may vary from lease to lease. No resources are reported in areas outside of the project area boundaries, which are determined by each project area’s leases. Surface ownership at each project consists of fee lands predominantly used for agriculture and wind turbine development. On the project areas that are currently permitted, UEC has surface use agreements in place with the private landowners where appropriate. Obtaining surface access rights is a standard process in mine permitting and UEC does not anticipate that maintaining these rights presents a significant risk to UEC’s ability to perform work in Texas. Geology and Mineralization in Texas The Texas ISR Projects resides in the Gulf of Mexico Basin (“ GMB ”). The GMB extends over much of South Texas and includes the Texas coastal plain and South Texas Uranium Province (“ STUP ”) where the project is located. The coastal plain is bounded by the Rocky Mountain uplift to the west and drains into the Gulf of Mexico. The coastal plain is comprised of marine, non-marine and continental sediments ranging in age from Paleozoic through Cenozoic. 59 Table of Contents Uranium mineralization at the projects is typical of Texas roll-front sandstone deposits. The formation of roll-front deposits is largely a groundwater process that occurs when uranium-bearing, oxygenated groundwater interacts with a reducing environment in the subsurface and precipitates uranium. The most favorable host rocks for roll-fronts are permeable sandstones with large aquifer systems. Interbedded mudstone, claystone and siltstone are often present and aid in the formation process by focusing groundwater flux. The coastal plains of the GMB were formed by the downfaulting and down warping of Paleozoic Era (252-541 Mya) basement rocks during the breakup of the Paleozoic mega continent, Pangaea and the opening of the North Atlantic Ocean in the Late Triassic Epoch (201-237 Mya). The Rocky Mountain Uplift in the Paleogene Period (43-65 Mya) gave rise to the vast river systems that flowed toward the Gulf of Mexico carrying abundant sediments. Deposits typically thicken down-dip towards the Gulf of Mexico from western-northwestern sources. Stratigraphy in this area can be complex because of the cyclic deposition of sedimentary facies. Shallow inland seas formed broad continental shelves that covered most of Texas and deposited sedimentary units that are dominantly continental clastic with some near shore and shallow marine facies. Volcanic episodes during deposition (more than 20 Mya) are credited as being the source of the uranium deposits through ash-fall and related sediments. All mineralization at our Texas projects occurs in the Goliad Formation. The Goliad Formation was originally classified as Pliocene in age by most sources, but the formation has been reclassified as early Pliocene to middle Miocene after recent research revealed the presence of indigenous Pliocene-aged mega-fossils occurring in upper Goliad sands, whereas the lower Goliad fluvial sands are correlative with down-dip strata containing benthic foraminifera indicating a Miocene age. The Geology of Texas map published by the Texas Bureau of Economic Geology (“ BEG ”) in 1992 classifies the Goliad as Miocene in age. The BEG’s geologic map of Texas describes the Goliad Formation as clays, sandstones, marls, caliches, limestones and conglomerates with a thickness of 100 to 500 feet. Above the Goliad Formation lies the Deweyville Formation, Beaumont Clay, Lissie Formation, Montgomery Formation and the Willis Sand, which are composed of sand, gravel, silt and clay. Three main structural zones are present in the STUP: the Balcones Fault Zone; the San Marcos Arch; and the Rio Grande Embayment. The Balcones Fault Zone is north of the Hobson Project Area and divides the Upper Cretaceous and Eocene strata. The Balcones Fault Zone is comprised of mainly normal faults that displace sediments by up to 1,500 feet, moving downward to the Gulf of Mexico. The San Marcos Arch, northeast of the Hobson Project Area between the Rio Grande Embayment and East Texas Basin, is a broad area of lesser subsidence and a subsurface extension of the Llano Uplift. The arch is crossed by basement-related normal faults that parallel the buried Ouachita Orogenic Belt of Paleozoic age. The Rio Grande Embayment is a small, deformed basin that lies between the El Burro Uplift in northeast Mexico and the basin marginal Balcones Fault Zone to the south. Some data indicate that the embayment was possibly compressed during the Laramide Orogeny in the Late Cretaceous–Paleogene. The uranium-bearing units in the STUP include most sands and sandstones in Tertiary formations ranging in age from Eocene (oldest) to Lower Pliocene (youngest). The formation of roll-front deposits is largely a groundwater process that occurs when uranium-bearing, oxygenated groundwater interacts with a reducing environment in the subsurface and precipitates uranium. The most favorable host rocks for roll-fronts are permeable sandstones with large aquifer systems. Interbedded mudstone, claystone and siltstone are often present and aid in the formation process by focusing groundwater flux. The geometry of mineralization is dominated by the classic roll-front “C” shape or crescent configuration at the redox interface. The highest-grade portion of the front occurs in a zone termed the “nose” within reduced ground just ahead of the alteration front. Ahead of the nose, at the leading edge of the solution front, mineral quality gradually diminishes to barren within the “seepage” zone. Trailing behind the nose, in oxidized (altered) ground, are weak remnants of mineralization referred to as “tails” which have resisted re-mobilization to the nose due to association with shale, carbonaceous material or other lithologies of lower permeability. Tails are generally not amenable to ISR because the uranium is typically found within strongly reduced or impermeable strata, therefore making it difficult to leach. Material Properties in Texas Hobson CPP The following technical and scientific description for the Hobson CPP Project area (the “ Hobson Project Area ”) is based in part on the TRS titled “S-K 1300 Initial Assessment Texas Hub and Spoke ISR Project, U.S.A.”, dated June 10, 2024, prepared for the Company by WWC, a qualified firm (the QP herein) who is not affiliated with UEC. This TRS identifies and summarizes the scientific and technical information and conclusions reached from the initial assessment (“ IA ”) to support disclosure of mineral resources on projects surrounding the Hobson Project Area. There are no resources directly associated with the Hobson Project Area. 60 Table of Contents Property Description The Hobson Project Area is located in Karnes County, Texas, northwest of Karnes City, within the GMB, approximately 100 miles northwest of Corpus Christi and 40 miles southeast of San Antonio at Latitude / Longitude of 28.945 / -97.989. This facility represents the ‘hub’ of UEC’s ‘hub-and-spoke’ business model, which comprises a central processing facility supplied with uranium-loaded IX resin from ISR mining at one or more of the project areas. The Hobson CPP was constructed in 1978 when the Hobson Project Area was mined. In 2008, the plant was refurbished. The Hobson CPP has previously processed uranium from UEC’s Palangana Mine satellite facility (i.e., the first UEC ‘spoke’), and UEC plans to also process uranium from its Burke Hollow, Goliad, and Salvo Project satellite facilities. The Hobson CPP consists of a resin transfer circuit for loading/unloading IX resin from tanker trucks, an elution circuit to strip uranium from the IX resin, a circuit to precipitate uranium oxide solids, a yellowcake thickener (if necessary) and a modern, zero-emission vacuum dryer. Other facilities and equipment include an advanced laboratory with inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry, office building, yellowcake and byproduct material storage area, chemical storage tanks and one permitted and constructed waste disposal well. Another waste disposal well is permitted but has not been drilled because additional disposal capacity is not needed at the current time. With an average dryer cycle time of 40 hours and a current dryer loading capacity of 8 to 10 drums, the plant appears capable of yielding up to 1.5 million pounds per year without requiring physical modifications. An amendment to the license to increase annual capacity up to 4.0 million pounds per year was recently approved, so the Hobson CPP is now permitted for production of up to four million pounds per year of uranium concentrates (yellowcake or U 3 O 8 ). WWC personnel visited the Hobson CPP on November 2, 2021, and found it to be in a well-maintained and apparently fully operational condition, although the plant was inactive (i.e., not processing a batch of uranium-loaded resin) during the site visit. The Hobson CPP will serve as the ‘hub’ of the Hobson Project Area with the other project areas serving as satellite facilities, or the ‘spokes”. The satellite facilities are considered material to the Hobson CPP. Mineral is mined at the project areas and is then transported to the Hobson CPP for processing. A surety bond is in place for the Hobson CPP decommissioning requirements and is updated annually. History Uranium exploration and mining in South Texas primarily targets sandstone formations throughout the Coastal Plain bordering the Gulf of Mexico. The area has long been known to contain uranium oxide, which was first discovered in Karnes County, Texas, in 1954 using airborne radiometric survey. The uranium deposits discovered were within a belt of strata extending 250 miles from the middle coastal plain southwestward to the Rio Grande. This area includes the Carrizo, Whitsett, Catahoula, Oakville and Goliad geologic formations. Open pit mining began in 1961 and ISR mining was initiated in 1975. The uranium market experienced lower demand and price in the late 1970s, and in 1980 there was a sharp decline in all Texas uranium operations. During the late 1970s and early 1980s, exploration for uranium in South Texas had evolved towards deeper drilling targets within the known host sandstone formations. Deeper exploration drilling was more costly and excluded many of the smaller uranium mining companies from participating in the down-dip, deeper undrilled trend extensions. Uranium had been mined by several major oil companies in the past in South Texas, including Conoco, Mobil, Humble (later Exxon), Atlantic Richfield (“ ARCO ”) and others. Mobil had found numerous deposits in South Texas in the past, including the O’Hern, Holiday-El Mesquite and several smaller deposits, mostly in Oligocene-age Catahoula Formation tuffaceous sands. ARCO discovered several Oakville Formation (Miocene-age) uranium-bearing deposits and acquired other deposits located nearby in Live Oak County. They were exploring deeper extensions of Oakville Formation trends when they discovered the Mt. Lucas deposit, located near Lake Corpus Christi in Live Oak County near the Bee County line. 61 Table of Contents Ownership, control and operation of the Hobson Project Areas has varied greatly since the 1950s. The table below summarizes the operations and activities of various companies, the timeframe during which these activities were completed and the results of the work. The table below also summarizes historic drilling and the number of drill holes completed during each period. Table 2.14: Historic Ownership and Operations at the Hobson Project Area Year Company Operations/Activity Amount (No. of Drill holes) Results of Work 1979-1988 Everest Minerals Corporation (later Everest Exploration, Inc. (EEI)) Hobson facility constructed. N/A N/A 2005 Standard Uranium N/A N/A N/A 2006 EMC Standard Uranium and EMC merger. Extensive renovation of the plant. N/A N/A 2007 Uranium One Renovation of the plant. N/A CPP capable of processing 1.5 million pounds per year. 2009 UEC Acquires the Hobson Plant through acquisition of South Texas Mining Venture (STMV)/Uranium One. N/A N/A Burke Hollow ISR Project The following technical and scientific description for the Burke Hollow Project area (the “ Burke Hollow Project Area ”) is based in part on the TRS titled “S-K 1300 Initial Assessment Texas Hub and Spoke ISR Project, U.S.A.”, dated June 10, 2024, prepared for the Company by WWC, a qualified firm (the QP herein) who is not affiliated with UEC. 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. Table 2.15 describes the permit status of the project. Table 2.15 Burke Hollow Project Permit Status Property Fully Permitted to Mine Partially Permitted to Mine Not Permitted to Mine RRC Exploration Permit TCEQ Class 1 Well Permits TCEQ Underground Injection Control Area Permit TCEQ Production Authorization (PAA-1) Permit TCEQ/EPA Aquifer Exemption TCEQ Radioactive Materials License Notes Burke Hollow X Yes 2 Yes Yes Yes Yes Has all major permits and first production area authorization 62 Table of Contents Figure 2.8 – Location of the Burke Hollow Project Property Description UEC’s Burke Hollow Project property is located within the extensive STUP. The Burke Hollow Project is about 18 miles southeast of the town of Beeville and is located on the western side of US 77 and northeasterly of US 181, which links with US 59 in Beeville at Latitude / Longitude of 27.6756 / -97.5176. Details of project location, area, and number of claims are tabulated below. Site drilling roads are entirely composed of caliche and gravel, allowing access for trucks and cars in most weather conditions. Four-wheel drive vehicles may be needed during high rainfall periods. The Burke Hollow Project consists of one fee (private) mineral lease area that 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. No mineral resources are reported in areas outside of the Burke Hollow Project boundary. 63 Table of Contents The present condition of the property is considered advanced with monitor well installation completed in the first production area. A caliche pad site with offices and storage containers in addition to some all-weather roads are constructed, and plans are in place for power and other infrastructure needs. Construction of the Burke Hollow IX facility and first production area were initiated in Fiscal 2025. IX columns were installed and loaded with resin, and drilling of the deep disposal well was completed with testing underway, necessary for the well completion report to be submitted to TCEQ. Additionally, the high-density polyethylene trunkline between the satellite IX facility and the first production area was fused, pressure tested and connected to the IX facility. Installation of wellfield and IX facility equipment has continued concurrently through Fiscal 2025 with provision of three-phase power to the project site by the utility provider. No significant encumbrances exist on the property. The permit for the initial PAA is in place and we will be seeking for the permits for PAAs 2, 3, and 4 in the coming years. To date, there have been no violations or fines levied on the property. A surety estimate for Burke Hollow’s project restoration, reclamation and decommissioning costs have been prepared and approved by the TCEQ. A surety bond for the current restoration, reclamation and decommissioning requirements is in place. Table 2.16 Burke Hollow Project Claims Details Acres Hectares State Leases Fee Mineral Leases Federal Lode Mining Claims Total Total Number Acres Expiration Date Number Acres Expiration Date Number Acres Expiration Date 17,511 7,086 1 17,511 2032 History Uranium exploration and mining in South Texas primarily targets sandstone formations throughout the Coastal Plain bordering the Gulf of Mexico. The area has long been known to contain uranium oxide, which was first discovered in Karnes County, Texas, in 1954 using airborne radiometric survey. The uranium deposits discovered were within a belt of strata extending 250 miles from the middle coastal plain southwestward to the Rio Grande. This area includes the Carrizo, Whitsett, Catahoula, Oakville, and Goliad geologic formations. Open pit mining began in 1961 and ISR mining was initiated in 1975. The uranium market experienced lower demand and price in the late 1970s and in 1980, there was a sharp decline in all Texas uranium operations. During the late 1970s and early 1980s, exploration for uranium in South Texas had evolved towards deeper drilling targets within the known host sandstone formations. Deeper exploration drilling was more costly and excluded many of the smaller uranium mining companies from participating in the down-dip, deeper undrilled trend extensions. Uranium had been mined by several major oil companies in the past in South Texas, including Conoco, Mobil, Humble (later Exxon), ARCO and others. Mobil had found numerous deposits in South Texas in the past, including the O’Hern, Holiday-El Mesquite and several smaller deposits, mostly in Oligocene-age Catahoula Formation tuffaceous sands. ARCO discovered several Oakville Formation (Miocene-age) uranium-bearing deposits and acquired other deposits located nearby in Live Oak County. They were exploring deeper extensions of Oakville Formation trends when they discovered the Mt. Lucas Goliad Formation deposit, located near Lake Corpus Christi in Live Oak County near the Bee County line. The earliest known uranium exploration in the immediate area of the Burke Hollow Project Area was performed by Nufuels Corporation (“ Nufuels ”, a Mobil Corporation subsidiary) in 1982. Nufuels drilled a total of 18 exploration holes on or nearby UEC’s 1,825 acre Welder lease. These holes were drilled in conjunction with a larger regional program that was conducted by Nufuels. Each exploration hole was drilled to an average total depth of approximately 1,100 ft in order to test the entire prospective Goliad Formation. UEC acquired copies of the Nufuels logs through its purchase of TOMIN’s database. Following Nufuels, in 1993, TOMIN conducted a short reconnaissance exploration drilling program on the Thomson-Barrow lease. TOMIN drilled a total of 12 holes on permitted acreage that they negotiated for exploration. 11 of the 12 drill holes intersected anomalous gamma ray log signatures indicative of uranium mineralization. The historic data package obtained by UEC for portions of the current Burke Hollow Project Area provided the above-described information. Based on the limited number of drill holes, no meaningful resource or reserve determination was made by TOMIN or Nufuels. However, the actual drilling and geophysical logging results have been determined to be properly conducted according to current industry standards. 64 Table of Contents Table 2.17: Historic Ownership and Operations at the Burke Hollow Project Area Year Company Operations/Activity Amount (No. of Drill holes) Results of Work 1982 Nufuels Original controller of the Burke Hollow Project Area. 18 exploration holes on or nearby the Welder Lease Nufuels drilled 18 exploration holes on or nearby UEC’s 1,825-acre Welder lease in conjunction with a larger regional program, which was conducted by Nufuels. Exploration holes were drilled to approximately 1,100 ft bgs and tested the entire prospective Goliad Formation. Results showed the presence of a reduction-oxidation interface in sands of the lower Goliad Formation, but there was insufficient data to link economically viable uranium mineralization. 1993 TOMIN Exploration program. 12 exploration holes on or near the Thomson-Barrow Lease. TOMIN conducted a short reconnaissance exploration drilling program on the Thomson-Barrow lease. TOMIN drilled a total of 12 holes on permitted acreage that they negotiated for exploration. 11 of the 12 drill holes intersected anomalous gamma ray log signatures indicative of uranium mineralization, but there was insufficient data to link economically viable uranium mineralization. 65 Table of Contents Year Company Operations/Activity Amount (No. of Drill holes) Results of Work 2011 UEC The Burke Hollow Project Area was acquired by UEC from TOMIN. From 2012-2017, 707 uranium exploration drill holes, including 30 monitor wells completed at the Welder lease (Kurrus et al. 2014). The historic data package was obtained and reviewed by UEC for portions of the current Burke Hollow Project Area (Kurrus and Yancy, 2017). Based on the limited number of drill holes, no meaningful resource or reserve determination was made using the historic exploration data. However, the actual drilling and geophysical logging results were determined to be properly conducted, per industry standards. UEC completed two drilling campaigns to delineate the opened ended Lower B1 and B2 trends (Carothers et al., 2013). The results of historic and contemporary borehole gamma-ray, SP and resistance logs, as well as PFN logs indicate that uranium mineralization occurs in the upper to lower Goliad Formation sand/sandstone units below the water table at depths from approximately 180 to 1,100 ft bgs. Evidence indicate ISR would likely be the most suitable mining method for this project. In 2017, UEC estimated an Inferred Mineral Resource of 4,064,575 tons grading 0.088% pU 3 O 8 (PFN determination) containing approximately 7.09 million pounds U 3 O 8 in the combined Graben and Eastern Lower B trends. 2019 UEC Exploration program. In 2019, 129 delineation holes were drilled. From 2021-2022, 168 delineation and exploration holes were drilled. In 2019, UEC completed 129 drill holes, mostly focusing on delineating the Lower B1 and Lower B2 sands in the proposed PA-1. In addition, UEC began installing perimeter monitor wells in proposed PA-1. In total, 57 holes were drilled solely for delineation and exploration purposes and 72 holes were drilled for monitoring purposes. From 2021 to 2022, UEC conducted another drilling program to upgrade a portion of their resources from inferred to measured and indicated, to better define the ore body in proposed PA-1 and to install monitor wells. 168 delineation and exploration holes were drilled as of March 7, 2022. 24 of these holes were also used as monitor wells. This drilling program is ongoing for the purpose of completing more monitor wells. The first production area authorization application has been submitted and 533 exploration and delineation holes have been drilled within PA-2 area as of July 31, 2023. 66 Table of Contents Geologic Setting, Mineralization and Deposit The Burke Hollow Project Area is located in the STUP, which lies along the GMB. Uranium mineralization at the Burke Hollow Project Area is typical of Texas roll-front sandstone deposits. All mineralization at the Burke Hollow Project Area occurs in the Goliad Formation. Uranium mineralization occurs along oxidation/reduction interfaces in fluvial channel sands of the Goliad Formation. These deposits consist of multiple mineralized sand horizons which are separated vertically by confining beds of silt, mudstone, and clay. The uranium-bearing sands of the Goliad Formation at the Burke Hollow Project Area occur beneath a thin layer of Pleistocene-aged Lissie Formation gravels, sands, silts, and clays, which overlie much of the Burke Hollow Project Area. The Goliad Formation uncomfortably underlies the Lissie Formation. Uranium mineralization discovered to date occurs within three of the four sand members of the Goliad, designated as the uppermost Goliad A, Goliad B and the lowermost Goliad D. The Goliad sand is one of the principal water-bearing formations in South Texas and is capable of yielding moderate to large quantities of water. All of the project areas included in this Burke Hollow Project Area target the Goliad Formation, which is a proven aquifer with characteristics favorable to ISR. There are two northeast-southwest trending faults at the Burke Hollow Project Area that are likely related to the formation of uranium mineralization. The northwesterly fault is a typical Gulf Coast normal fault, downthrown toward the coast, while the southeastern fault is an antithetic fault downthrown to the northwest, forming a large graben structure. The presence of these faults is likely related to the increased mineralization at the site. The faulting may have served as conduits for reducing waters and natural gas to migrate upward from deeper horizons, as well as altering the groundwater flow system in the uranium-bearing sands. Table 2.18 – Mineral Resources for the Burke Hollow Project as at the date of this Annual Report Classification Tons Ore (000 ’ s) Tonnes Ore (1000 ’ s) Average Grade (% eU 3 O 8 ) Pounds eU 3 O 8 (000 ’ s) Measured 581 527 0.086 964 Indicated 3,329 3,020 0.083 5,191 Total M&I 3,910 3,547 0.083 6,155 Inferred 2,596 2,355 0.104 4,883 Total Resources 6,506 5,902 0.092 11,038 Notes: 1. Pounds reported with Disequilibrium Factor (DEF) applied. 2. The sum of resource tons and pounds may not add up to the reported total due to rounding. 3. Measured, indicated, and inferred mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300. 4. GT Cutoff = 0.30 ft% eU 3 O 8. 5. All reported resources occur below the static water table. 6. The point of reference for mineral resources is in-situ at the Project. 7. Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. 8. A long-term uranium price of $40 per pound U 3 O 8 and an 80% metallurgical recovery factor were considered for the purposes of determining the reasonable prospect of economic extraction. 67 Table of Contents Canadian Properties Material Canadian Properties Roughrider Project Figure 2.9 – Saskatchewan Uranium Projects 68 Table of Contents The following technical and scientific description for the Roughrider Project area (the “ Roughrider Project Area ”) is based on the TRS titled “S-K 1300 Initial Assessment Report – Roughrider Uranium Project, Saskatchewan, Canada”, dated November 5, 2024, prepared for the Company by each of Tetra Tech Canada Inc., Understood Mineral Resources Ltd., Clifton Engineering Group Ltd., Snowden Optiro and Terracon Geotechnique Ltd., qualified firms (the QPs herein) who are not affiliated with UEC. 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. Figure 2.10 – Location of the Roughrider Project Property Description The Roughrider Project Area is 100% held by UEC, and 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. The Roughrider Project Area is approximately 440 kms north of La Ronge, and 700 kms north of Saskatoon at Latitude / Longitude of 58.3374 / -104.021, details of project location, area, and number of claims are tabulated below. The Roughrider Project Area site comprises core logging, office and storage facilities. 69 Table of Contents The area around the Roughrider Project Area is a well-developed mining area close to necessary infrastructure and resources. The Roughrider Project Area can be accessed by a seven km gravel road, floatplane or helicopter from Points North Landing. 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. There are several weekly commercial airline services from Saskatoon to Points North Landing, and regular charter flights for Orano’s McLean Lake operation. The project is a mature Exploration Stage project, with significant historical drilling, environmental baseline work and historical economic assessment work as outlined below. On November 5, 2024, UEC completed an updated economic analysis and mineral resource estimate at the project. UEC intends to complete additional resource delineation work in the upcoming 2025/2026 fiscal year to further advance the project. The current exploration camp facilities are over 10 years old but remain in good condition. No mine infrastructure or underground development is present on the project. Table 2.19 Burke Hollow Project Claims Details Acres Hectares Provincial Mineral Dispositions Provincial Mining Leases Total Total Number Hectares Expiration Date Number Hectares Expiration Date 1,475 597 1 597 Jan. 2028 History 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. At the time, Numac, in conjunction with their partners. Esso Minerals and Bow Valley Industries, focused on the Midwest Lake area, located adjacent to the Roughrider Project Area. In 1976, Asamera Oil Corp. (“ Asamera ”) initiated the Dawn Lake project, located approximately six kms southeast of the current Roughrider Project Area. In 1983, the Saskatchewan Mining and Development Corporation (“ SMDC ”), predecessor to Cameco Corporation (“ Cameco ”), became the operator of the Dawn Lake Joint Venture. By 1995, the Dawn Lake Joint Venture consisted of Cameco, Cogema Resources Inc. (now Orano SA), PNC Exploration Canada Ltd. and Kepco Canada Ltd. 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. 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. During this same period, Asamera drilled 21 holes on the Esso North claim. The first 10 holes were drilled across the projected northeast strike extent of the Roughrider Project Area. The other eleven holes were drilled on the main east-west striking conductor. In 1984, SMDC carried out Time Domain EM (“ TEM ”) on the Esso North claim and completed two additional holes. 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. The latter target was tested by one hole, EN-20; it intersected faulted and altered sandstone but no significant radioactivity. In 1996 one drillhole, EN-21, was completed that targeted the east-west conductor. No conductive material was intersected, and the basement lithology was granite. Under an agreement dated September 10, 2004, between Roughrider Uranium Corp. (“ Roughrider ”) and Bullion Fund Inc. (“ Bullion Fund ”), Roughrider earned a 90% interest in claim S-107243 (and six other claims that became part of Roughrider’s Russell South property). On August 10, 2006, Roughrider became a wholly owned subsidiary of Hathor. On April 12, 2007, Terra Ventures Inc. (“ 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. One of the claims was S-107243. 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. 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. 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. RRW was discovered by Hathor during the winter drilling program of February 2008. RRE was discovered during the summer drilling program in September 2009. A third zone, RRFE, was discovered during the winter drilling program in February 2011. 70 Table of Contents 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. 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. The result of the Arrangement was consolidation of 100% ownership of the Roughrider Project. On August 5, 2011, Hathor and Terra announced the completion of the Arrangement and Terra became a wholly owned subsidiary of Hathor. On December 1, 2011, Rio Tinto announced that it was successful in acquiring Hathor, through a wholly-owned Canadian subsidiary, RTCU. On January 11, 2012, RTCU acquired all remaining Hathor common shares making RTCU 100% owners of the Roughrider Project Area. After acquiring the Roughrider Project, RTCU continued to advance the Roughrider Project Area. On October 17, 2022, UEC completed the acquisition of 100% of the Roughrider Project Area from RTCU. Since acquisition UEC completed a drill program to explore on the property for additional deposits and also collect an updated metallurgy sample that would support a potential future economic study. Permitting and Licensing 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. This includes federal and provincial EIA and permitting/licensing processes and engagement and consultation with Indigenous groups. 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. 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. Currently, the project does not require formal environmental bonding or rehabilitation requirements outside of those required as part of early-stage exploration permit requirements. Geology of the Athabasca Basin The Athabasca Basin is elongated along an east-west axis and straddles the boundary between two subdivisions of the Western Churchill Province. The Rae Subprovince to the west and the Hearne Subprovince to the east. 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. 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. 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. 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. Consequently, the basal Athabasca stratigraphy is underlain by a regolith of deeply weathered, hematite-stained basement. In places, the preserved regolith can reach a thickness of up to 50 m, but typically less than 10 m. 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). The Athabasca Group comprises eight formations, although in the eastern Athabasca Basin, the Manitou Falls Formation is the only formation present. It is subdivided into four units, from bottom to top, designated MFa to MFd. Lithologies are dominated by fine to coarse-grained, partly pebbly or clay-intraclast-bearing quartz arenites. Minor conglomerates, mudstones, and dolostones also occur. Apart from faulting and local folding associated with thrusting, the Athabasca Group strata are undeformed and unmetamorphosed. 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). 71 Table of Contents Geological Setting, Mineralization and Deposit 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. The saucer-shaped basin contains a relatively undeformed and unmetamorphosed sequence of Mesoproterozoic clastic rocks known as the Athabasca. These rocks lie unconformably on the basement rocks. The basement rocks consist of Archean orthogneisses, which are overlain by, and structurally intercalated with, the highly deformed supracrustal Palaeoproterozoic Wollaston Group. The RRW, RRE, and RRFE deposits occur in the basal part of the Wollaston Group of the WMTZ. 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. The pelitic gneiss varies from equigranular to porphyroblastic in texture. The porphyroblasts vary in size up to centimetre-scale and normally comprise red almandine rich garnets when fresh. The gneisses have been intruded by syn- to post-peak metamorphic felsic pegmatites, granites, and microgranites of Hudsonian age. These rocks locally contain up to 400 ppm of primary uranium. Proximal to mineralization, graphite in graphitic pelitic gneisses has been consumed by alteration and mineralization; distal to mineralization, the graphite appears to be discontinuous. These two features may help explain the absence of basement-hosted graphitic conductors at the Roughrider Project. Hydrothermal calc-silicate alteration of the orthogneisses is present locally. The alteration is interpreted to be post-peak metamorphism in age and is probably related to the introduction of the Hudsonian felsic rocks. The sandstone and basement rocks have been subjected to several episodes of brittle deformation, including the brittle reactivation of older ductile shear zones. Uranium deposits in the Athabasca Basin can be broadly subdivided into two styles: unconformity-hosted (occurring at or above the unconformity) and basement-hosted. 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. Uranium mineralization at the Project is highly variable in thickness and style in all zones. 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. This high-grade uranium mineralization is intimately associated locally with lesser amounts of red-to-orange coloured oxy-hydroxillized iron oxides. Yellow secondary uranium minerals, probably uranophane, are present locally as veinlets or void-filling masses within the high-grade primary mineralization. Lower grade mineralization occurs as either disseminated grains of pitchblende, fracture-lining, or veins of pitchblende. Galena occurs in a number of habits and is variably present associated with the uranium mineralization. The lead is presumed to have formed from the radioactive decay of uranium. 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. In all cases, the galena appears to have formed later than the uranium mineralization. Mineralization is in general terms, mono-metallic (uraninite) in composition. In the RRW deposit, visible, crystalline nickel-cobalt sulph-arsenides are present locally. At the RRE and RRFE deposits, the presence of nickel-cobalt sulph-arsenides is rare. The exact relationship of these elements to uranium is variable and still unclear at this time. However, unlike many unconformity-type uranium deposits in the Athabasca Basin, variable amounts of copper mineralization are present within the Project deposits. The deposits of the Roughrider Project are interpreted to be Athabasca unconformity-associated uranium deposits, or some variant thereof. Two end-members of the unconformity-associated uranium deposit model have been defined. 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. 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. 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. Although either type of deposit can result in high grade pitchblende mineralization with up to 20% pitchblende, they are not physically large. Egress-type deposits tend to be polymetallic (uranium-nickel-cobalt-copper-arsenic) and typically follow the trace of the underlying graphitic pelite and associated faults along the unconformity. Ingress-type, tend to be mono-minerallic uranium deposits, and can have more irregular, structurally controlled geometry. 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. 72 Table of Contents Mineral Resources and Reserves The year over year change in the resources from FY 2024 to FY 2025 is that in the November 5, 2024 TRS the estimated pounds in the indicated resource category have increased from 27,842,000 Lb. U 3 O 8 to 27,860,000 Lb. U 3 O 8 , in FY 2025, an increase of 0.1%. The pounds of U 3 O 8 in the inferred category have decreased from 36,043,000 Lb. U 3 O 8 to 33,380,000 Lb. U 3 O 8 , in Fy 2025, a decrease of 7.4%. The decrease is largely the result of a revised mining plan for the project. The current Mineral Resource Estimate for the Roughrider project is outlined in the following table: Table 2.20– Mineral Resources for the Roughrider Project as at the date of this Annual Report Deposit Classification Tons ( ‘ 000 ’ s) Tonnes ( ‘ 000s) Grade (% U 3 O 8 ) Pounds U 3 O 8 ( ‘ 000s) RRW Indicated 475 431 1.89 17,970 Inferred 168 152 2.80 9,390 RRE Indicated - - - - Inferred 430 390 2.57 22,050 RRFE Indicated 295 268 1.67 9,890 Inferred 86 78 1.13 1,940 Combined RRW, RRE, and RRFE TOTAL Indicated 771 699 1.81 27,860 Inferred 683 620 2.45 33,380 Notes: 1. Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability. 2. Mineral resources are reported exclusive of mineral reserves. There are no mineral reserves for the Project. 3. Mineral resources are reported on a 100% ownership basis. 4. Mineral resources are reported diluted within the MSO shapes based on a U 3 O 8 price of $85 per pound of U 3 O 8 and a metallurgical recovery of 97.5%. Cut and Fill and long-hole open stoping scenario cut-off grades are 0.52% U 3 O 8 and 0.45% U 3 O 8 respectively. 5. The mineral resources were estimated by UMR, 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.