URANIUM ENERGY CORP 10-K

uec20260731_10k.htm Table of Contents UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 FORM 10-K ☒ ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the fiscal year ended July 31, 2026 or ☐ TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the transition period from ________________ to ________________ Commission file number : 001-33706 URANIUM ENERGY CORP. (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter) Nevada 98-0399476 (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation of organization) (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) 500 North Shoreline, Ste. 800 , Corpus Christi , Texas , U.S.A. 78401 (Address of principal executive offices (U.S.)) (Zip Code) 1830 – 1188 West Georgia Street Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6E 4A2 (Address of principal executive offices (Canada)) (Zip Code) ( 361 ) 888-8235 (Registrant’s telephone number, including area code) Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: Title of each class: Trading Symbol(s) Name of each exchange on which registered: Common Stock, par value $0.001 per share UEC NYSE American Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes ☒ No ☐ Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. Yes ☐ No ☒ Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes ☒ No ☐ Table of Contents Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit such files). Yes ☒ No ☐ Indicate by checkmark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, a smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer”, “accelerated filer”, “smaller reporting company”, and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. ☒ Large accelerated filer ☐ Accelerated filer ☐ Non-accelerated filer ☐ Smaller reporting company ☐ Emerging growth company If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ☐ Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed a report on and attestation to its management’s assessment of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting under Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (15 U.S.C. 7262(b)) by the registered public accounting firm that prepared or issued its audit report. ☒ If securities are registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act, indicate by check mark whether the financial statements of the registrant included in the filing reflect the correction of an error to previously issued financial statements. ☐ Indicate by check mark whether any of those error corrections are restatements that required a recovery analysis of incentive-based compensation received by any of the registrant’s executive officers during the relevant recovery period pursuant to §240.10D-1(b). ☐ Indicate by checkmark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes ☐ No ☒ As of January 30, 2026, the aggregate market value of the registrant’s common stock, par value $0.001 per share, held by non-affiliates of the registrant was approximately $ 8.3 billion, based on the closing price of the common stock as reported on the NYSE American. The registrant had 495,584,665 shares of common stock outstanding as of September 25, 2026. Table of Contents As used in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2026 (this “ Annual Report ”): ● “we”, “us”, “our”, “Uranium Energy”, “UEC” and the “Company” mean Uranium Energy Corp., including our wholly-owned subsidiaries and a controlled partnership; ● “Exchange Act” refers to the United States Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; ● “Fiscal 2024”, “Fiscal 2025” and “Fiscal 2026” refer to our fiscal years ended July 31, 2024, 2025 and 2026, respectively, and “Fiscal 2027” refers to our fiscal year ending July 31, 2027; ● “ISR” refers to the in-situ recovery method of mining uranium; ● “ISR Mines” refers to our Palangana Mine, Christensen Ranch Mine and Burke Hollow Mine; ● “Securities Act” refers to the United States Securities Act of 1933, as amended; ● U 3 O 8 refers to uranium oxide; and ● all dollar amounts refer to United States dollars unless otherwise indicated. CAUTIONARY NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS This Annual Report, including the documents incorporated herein by reference contains statements and information about our strategy, objectives, plans and expectations for the future that are not statements or information of historical fact. These statements and information are considered to be forward-looking statements, or forward-looking information, within the meaning of and under the protection provided by the safe harbor provisions for forward-looking statements as contained in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements may be based on a number of estimates and assumptions, of which any one or more may prove to be incorrect. Forward-looking statements may be identifiable by terminology such as “anticipate”, “believe”, “continue”, “estimate”, “expect”, “intend”, “may”, “might”, “plan”, “potential”, “project”, “should”, “will”, “would” and similar expressions, including the negative thereof. Examples in this Annual Report include, but are not limited to, such forward-looking statements reflecting or pertaining to: ● our overall strategy, objectives, plans and expectations for Fiscal 2027 and beyond; ● our expectations for worldwide nuclear power generation and future uranium supply and demand, including long-term market prices for U 3 O 8 ; ● our belief and expectations of ISR mining for our uranium projects, where applicable; ● our estimation of mineral resources, which are based on certain estimates and assumptions, and the economics of future extraction for our uranium projects including our ISR Mines; ● our plans and expectations including anticipated expenditures relating to exploration, pre-extraction, extraction and reclamation activities for our uranium projects, including our ISR Mines, and relating to our plans to develop a new uranium refining and conversion facility in the United States; ● our ability to obtain, maintain and amend, within a reasonable period of time, required rights, permits and licenses from landowners, governments and regulatory authorities; ● our ability to obtain adequate additional financing including access to the equity and credit markets; and ● our belief and expectations about the possible impact of any legal proceedings or regulatory actions against the Company. i Table of Contents Forward-looking statements, and any estimates and assumptions upon which they are based, are made in good faith and reflect our views and expectations for the future as of the date of this Annual Report, which can change significantly. Forward-looking statements, and any estimates and assumptions upon which they are based, are made as of the date of this Annual Report, and we do not intend or undertake to revise, update or supplement any forward-looking statements to reflect actual results, future events or changes in estimates and assumptions or other factors affecting such forward-looking statements, except as required by applicable securities laws. Should one or more forward-looking statements be revised, updated or supplemented, no inference should be made that we will revise, update or supplement any other forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are subject to known and unknown risks and uncertainties, including those set forth under “Item 1A. Risk Factors” of this Annual Report and in the risk factors disclosed in our other filings with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the “ SEC ”). Such risks and uncertainties have the potential to cause actual results, performance, achievements or events to be materially different from any future results, performance, achievements or events implied, suggested or expressed by any forward-looking statements made by us or by persons acting on our behalf. Furthermore, there is no assurance that we will be successful in preventing the material adverse effects that any one or more of these material risks and uncertainties may cause on our business, prospects, financial condition and operating results, or that the foregoing list represents a complete list of the material risks and uncertainties facing us. There may be additional risks and uncertainties of a material nature that, as of the date of this Annual Report, we are unaware of or that we consider immaterial that may become material in the future, any one or more of which may result in a material adverse effect on us. ii Table of Contents Notice Regarding Scientific and Technical Information The mineral resource estimates and other scientific and technical information in this Annual Report have been prepared in accordance with the mining disclosure requirements of the SEC under subpart 1300 of Regulation S-K (17 CFR 229.1300-229.1305) (“ S-K 1300 ”), which govern disclosure of mineral resources and mineral reserves by companies subject to the reporting requirements of the U.S. federal securities laws. S-K 1300 differs in certain respects from the mineral resource and mineral reserve classification and disclosure standards applicable in other jurisdictions, including the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum classification system incorporated into Canadian National Instrument 43-101 and the Australasian Joint Ore Reserves Committee Code. Accordingly, the mineral resource information in this Annual Report may not be comparable to similar information disclosed by companies reporting under those other standards. The scientific and technical information in this Annual Report, and in the documents incorporated by reference herein, have been prepared in accordance with S-K 1300. S-K 1300 provides for the disclosure of: (i) “inferred mineral resources” have the lowest level of geological confidence of all mineral resources and thus may not be considered when assessing the economic viability of a mining project and may not be converted to a mineral reserve; (ii) “indicated mineral resources” have a lower level of confidence than that of a “measured mineral resource” and thus may be converted only to a “probable mineral reserve”; and (iii) measured mineral resources have sufficient geological certainty to be converted to a “proven mineral reserve” or to a “probable mineral reserve”. Investors are cautioned not to assume that all or any part of measured or indicated mineral resources will ever be converted into mineral reserves as defined by S-K 1300. Investors are cautioned not to assume that all or any part of an inferred mineral resource exists or is economically or legally mineable, or that an inferred mineral resource will ever be upgraded to a higher category. CAUTIONARY NOTE REGARDING EXPLORATION STAGE Issuers Although we have commenced mining operations at certain of our projects, we are considered an “exploration stage issuer” under S-K 1300 because we have not established, and currently have no known, mineral reserves, as defined under S-K 1300, on any of our mineral properties. We will not have known mineral reserves unless and until an appropriate technical and economic study demonstrating “Proven Mineral Reserves” or “Probable Mineral Reserves”, as defined under S-K 1300, is completed for such properties. There can be no assurance that any of our properties contain or will contain such reserves or, even if such reserves are established, that their quantities would warrant continued operations or that we would be successful in economically recovering them. For additional information, see “Item 1A. Risk Factors” of this Annual Report. Industry, Market and Other Data This Annual Report includes market, industry and economic data, estimates, forecasts and other statistical information that we obtained or derived from independent third-party sources, including the International Energy Agency, the World Nuclear Association, the International Atomic Energy Agency, UxC, LLC, the U.S. Energy Information Administration and ICF International Inc., as well as from our own internal research, estimates and assumptions based on our management’s knowledge of, and experience in, the uranium industry. Although we believe the third-party information included in this Annual Report to be reliable, we have not independently verified the data obtained from these third-party sources, and we cannot guarantee its accuracy or completeness. Forecasts, projections and other forward-looking information obtained from these sources are subject to the same qualifications, assumptions and uncertainties described under “Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements” above. iii Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I 5 Item 1. Business 5 Item 1A. Risk Factors 17 Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments 31 Item 1C. Cybersecurity 31 Item 2. Properties 33 Item 3. Legal Proceedings 80 Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures 80 PART II 81 Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities 81 Item 6. [Reserved] 83 Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations 83 Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk 99 Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data 99 Item 9. Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure 100 Item 9A. Controls and Procedures 100 Item 9B. Other Information 101 Item 9C. Disclosure Regarding Foreign Jurisdictions that Prevent Inspections 101 Part III 102 Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance 102 Item 11. Executive Compensation 107 Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters 133 Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence 135 Item 14. Principal Accounting Fees and Services 136 Part IV 137 Item 15. Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules 137 Item 16. Form 10-K Summary 138 4 Table of Contents PART I Item 1. Business Overview We are a uranium mining and development company. In August 2024, we re-commenced production at our Christensen Ranch ISR project in Wyoming and, in April 2026, we commenced production at our Burke Hollow ISR mine in South Texas. We have three ISR mining “hub and spoke” platforms, one in South Texas and two in Wyoming. We operate out of two of these platforms, anchored by fully licensed and operational uranium central processing plants (“ CPPs ”): our Hobson CPP located in Texas and our Irigaray CPP located in Wyoming. The third platform is anchored by our Sweetwater Mill located in Wyoming, currently configured for conventional mining and undergoing refurbishment to accept production from ISR mines. ISR mining is considered a proven mining method with reduced environmental impacts compared to alternative methods. UEC has several U.S. ISR uranium extraction projects with all of their major permits in place, which can be scaled up to feed existing processing facilities. We have a significant uranium resource base and have licensed production capacity of approximately 12.1 million pounds per year across our Wyoming and South Texas platforms. In Canada, we control one of the most extensive land and resource portfolios in the Athabasca Basin, anchored by the Roughrider Project (as defined below) in Saskatchewan. Through our wholly owned subsidiary, United States Uranium Refining & Conversion Corp. (“ UR&C ”), we are pursuing domestic refining and conversion capabilities to further strengthen the U.S. nuclear fuel supply chain. We maintain a 100% unhedged uranium strategy, providing full exposure to uranium market fundamentals. We believe nuclear energy has cemented itself as a key energy form due to its unique ability to provide reliable, carbon-free baseload power. Uranium is the essential fuel needed to power nuclear energy and yet, the United States, which has the largest fleet of nuclear reactors globally, remains heavily dependent on foreign uranium inputs. As such, we are focused on scaling our business to rebuild the domestic nuclear fuel supply chain, strengthen U.S. energy and national security, and meet the future energy needs for nuclear in the U.S. We were incorporated under the laws of the State of Nevada on May 16, 2003 under the name Carlin Gold Inc. During 2004, we changed our business operations and focus from precious metals exploration to uranium exploration in the U.S. Our principal executive office and corporate headquarters in the U.S. is located at 500 North Shoreline, Ste. 800, Corpus Christi, Texas, 78401, and our principal executive office and corporate headquarters in Canada is located at 1188 West Georgia Street, Suite 1830, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, V6E 4A2. Recent Developments During Fiscal 2026, we made significant advancements in various aspects of our operations, including: ● We expanded ISR production at our Christensen Ranch Mine in Wyoming through the construction of additional header houses. We produced 211,942 pounds of precipitated uranium and dried and drummed U 3 O 8 during Fiscal 2026 at our Christensen Ranch Mine and the Irigaray CPP. In April 2026, we commenced production at our Burke Hollow Mine in South Texas. In the first three months since commissioning, we have produced 17,352 pounds of precipitated uranium and dried and drummed U 3 O 8 at Burke Hollow and the Hobson CPP. In total, we produced 229,294 pounds of precipitated uranium and dried and drummed U 3 O 8 during Fiscal 2026 and a total of 359,260 pounds since commissioning. 5 Table of Contents ● At our Sweetwater Project, the FAST-41 and National Environmental Policy Act (“ NEPA ”) federal permitting process continued to advance under the leadership of the Bureau of Land Management (“ BLM ”). Environmental baseline studies have been largely completed, with final reports expected to be submitted to the BLM in Fiscal 2027. Drilling in Sweetwater North identified mineralization trends that support further delineation and advance the first two production areas. We continue to assess the refurbishment requirements for the Sweetwater Mill (as defined below) for both conventional and ISR operations. ● As part of the planned pre-feasibility study at our Roughrider Project, we completed 36,000 meters of diamond drilling to support resource conversion. This included resource targets throughout the West Zone, East Zone and Far East Zones, targeting intersections to convert inferred estimated resources into the indicated resources category at the Roughrider Project. ● We progressed our strategy towards building a vertically integrated U.S. uranium fuel supply chain from mining to conversion, through UR&C. Working with our engineering partner, Fluor Enterprises, Inc. (“ Fluor ”), UR&C completed core execution plans, built a combined dedicated 63-member project team, began preparing its U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission license application and progressed site selection. Business Overview Our operations consist of two reportable segments: (i) mining, which encompasses uranium exploration and mining activities, and (ii) corporate, which encompasses investments and the trading of purchased uranium inventory. Mining Segment The mining segment engages in uranium mining and related activities, including exploration, pre-extraction, extraction and processing, on uranium projects located in the United States, Canada and the Republic of Paraguay. We utilize ISR mining to extract uranium at our South Texas and Wyoming projects. We plan to continue to utilize ISR mining wherever such an alternative is available to conventional open pit or underground mining. When compared to conventional mining, we believe ISR mining requires lower capital and operating expenditures with a shorter lead time to extraction. Furthermore, we believe ISR mining has a reduced impact on the environment since the ISR mining process does not require blasting or waste rock movement, resulting in less damage to the environment and minimal dust, and does not produce tailings or require tailings facilities. Moreover, ISR mining is more discrete and, therefore, land access does not typically have to be restricted, and the area may be restored to its pre-mining usage generally faster than when applying conventional mining approaches. We do not expect, however, to utilize ISR mining for all of our uranium projects, in which case we expect to rely on conventional open pit and/or underground mining techniques. ISR mining involves circulating oxidized water through an underground uranium deposit, dissolving the uranium and then pumping the uranium-rich solution to the surface for processing. Oxidizing solution enters the formation through a series of injection wells and is drawn to a series of communicating extraction wells. To create a localized hydrologic cone of depression in each wellfield, more groundwater will be produced than injected. Under this gradient, the natural groundwater movement from the surrounding area is toward the wellfield, providing control of the injection fluid. Over-extraction is adjusted as necessary to maintain a cone of depression which ensures that the injection fluid does not move outside the permitted area. The uranium-rich solution is pumped from an ore zone to the surface and circulated through a series of ion exchange columns located at the mine site. The solution flows across resin beads inside an ion exchange column where the uranium bonds to small resin beads. As the solution exits the ion exchange column, it is mostly void of uranium and is re-circulated back to the wellfield and through the ore zone. Once the resin beads are fully loaded with uranium, they are transported by truck to one of our CPPs and transferred to a tank for flushing with a brine solution, or elution, which strips the uranium from the resin beads. The stripped resin beads are then transported back to the mine and reused in the ion exchange columns. The uranium solution, now free from the resin, is precipitated and concentrated into a slurry mixture and fed to a filter press to wash and then dewater. The filter cake is then dried in a zero-emissions rotary vacuum dryer at our Hobson CPP in Texas or in a multi-hearth calciner at our Irigaray CPP in Wyoming, packed in 55-gallon metal drums and shipped out as uranium concentrate, or yellowcake, to a conversion facility for storage and sales. 6 Table of Contents Each project is divided into a mining unit, known as a Production Area Authorization (“ PAA ”) or Mine Unit (“ Mine Unit ”), which lies inside an approved Mine Permit Boundary. Each PAA or Mine Unit will be developed, extracted and restored as one unit and will have its own set of monitor wells. It is common to have multiple PAAs or Mine Units in extraction at any one time with additional units in various states of exploration, pre-extraction and/or restoration. After mining is complete in a PAA or Mine Unit, aquifer restoration will begin as soon as practicable and will continue until the groundwater is restored to pre-mining conditions. Once restoration is complete, a stability period of no less than one year is scheduled with quarterly baseline and monitor well sampling. Wellfield reclamation, including plugging and abandonment of wells and removal of surface infrastructure, will follow after aquifer restoration is complete and the stability period has passed. Our fully licensed and 100% owned Hobson CPP forms the basis for our regional operating strategy in the State of Texas, specifically the South Texas Uranium Belt where we utilize ISR mining. We utilize a “hub-and-spoke” strategy whereby the Hobson CPP, which has a physical capacity to process uranium-loaded resins of up to a total of two million pounds of U 3 O 8 annually and is licensed to process up to four million pounds of U 3 O 8 annually, acts as the central processing site (the “hub”) for the Palangana Mine and the Burke Hollow Mine, located within the South Texas Uranium Belt (the “spokes”). At the end of Fiscal 2026, our Hobson CPP has processed 17,352 pounds of precipitated uranium and dried and drummed U 3 O 8 . Our fully licensed and 100% owned Irigaray CPP is the hub to our permitted ISR projects located in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming, including our Christensen Ranch Mine, Reno Creek, Moore Ranch and Ludeman Projects. The Irigaray CPP contains resin transfer and elution processes, precipitation, filtration and drying and packaging of U 3 O 8 . On October 16, 2024, we received approval from the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (“ WDEQ ”), Uranium Recovery Program, to increase the licensed production capacity at our Irigaray CPP to four million pounds of U 3 O 8 annually. Our Irigaray CPP has processed 211,942 pounds of precipitated uranium and dried and drummed U 3 O 8 during Fiscal 2026. We expect the ramp-up phase will continue while new production areas are being constructed in 2026 and 2027. At the same time, we have continued to advance our Ludeman and Sweetwater Projects with installation of wellfields and wellfield delineation, respectively. Precipitated uranium and dried and drummed U 3 O 8 Year Ended July 31, Cumulative since beginning of As at (in pounds) 2026 2025 Fiscal 2025 July 31, 2026 Irigaray CPP 211,942 129,966 341,908 341,908 Hobson CPP 17,352 - 17,352 26,689 Total 229,294 129,966 359,260 368,597 On December 6, 2024, we completed the acquisition of all of the issued and outstanding shares of capital stock of Kennecott Uranium Company (“ KUC ”) and Wyoming Coal Resources Company (“ WCRC ”) from Rio Tinto America Inc. (collectively, the “ Sweetwater Acquisition ”). Sweetwater Uranium Inc. (formerly KUC) and WCRC collectively own or hold the following major assets: (i) the facilities, equipment, improvements and fixtures for the processing of uranium located in Sweetwater County, Wyoming, and related facilities and impoundments (the “ Sweetwater Mill ”); (ii) the Red Desert Project, a uranium project adjacent to the Sweetwater Mill; and (iii) the Green Mountain Project, a uranium project located 22 miles north of the Sweetwater Mill, with two deposits that have potential for ISR mining and three deposits that are considered appropriate for conventional mining. The consideration for the Sweetwater Acquisition was $175.4 million in cash plus acquisition related costs of $4.2 million. On August 1, 2025, Sweetwater (specifically the Sweetwater Mill and Red Desert Project) was designated as a transparency project by the U.S. Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council as part of the implementation of President Trump’s March 20, 2025, Executive Order on Immediate Measures to Increase American Mineral Production. Our first milestone in the process was completed with the submission of the Sweetwater Plan of Operations for ISR operations to the BLM on November 14, 2025. During 2026, the FAST-41 and the NEPA federal permitting process continued to advance under the leadership of the BLM. The FAST-41 Permitting Dashboard currently anticipates the completion of the Environmental Assessment in March 2027 and approval of the Plan of Operations in May 2027. Environmental baseline studies were largely completed in Fiscal 2026, with final reports expected for submittal to BLM in Fiscal 2027. A 200-hole delineation drilling program in the first two planned wellfields at our Sweetwater Project was completed in early May 2026 for the Sweetwater North area, where wellfield pattern planning has commenced. This program has now been expanded by an additional 100 delineation holes expected to be completed in Fiscal 2027 to test the presence of additional resources identified during the first drilling program. We continue to assess the refurbishment requirements for the Sweetwater Mill for both conventional and ISR operations. The current focus is the installation of ion exchange and elution systems for ISR operations. 7 Table of Contents In 2022, we acquired a substantial portfolio of projects in Canada, with the acquisition of UEX Corporation (“ UEX ”) and the acquisition of Roughrider Mineral Holdings Inc. (the “ Roughrider Project ”) from a subsidiary of Rio Tinto plc (“ Rio Tinto ”). The UEX portfolio consists of a mix of uranium deposits, primarily focused on the Athabasca Basin uranium district in Saskatchewan, Canada. This includes interests in the Shea Creek, Christie Lake, Horseshoe Raven, Millennium and Wheeler River Projects. In addition to advancing its uranium development projects through its ownership interest in JCU (Canada) Exploration Company, Limited (“ JCU ”), UEX was advancing several other uranium deposits in the Athabasca Basin which include the Horseshoe and Raven deposits located on its 100%-owned Horseshoe-Raven Project. The Roughrider Project is an exploration stage asset, having been advanced by Rio Tinto over a decade of work. The acquisition brought in an exploration stage, high-grade, conventional asset into UEC’s portfolio that, along with the UEX acquisition, begins to develop a critical mass of 100% owned resources in the Athabasca Basin to accelerate extraction and/or production plans. The two transactions provide a portfolio of medium to long term, high-grade, conventional projects that complement our nearer term, U.S. ISR assets. As part of the planned pre-feasibility study at our Roughrider Project, we have completed 36,000 meters of diamond drilling to support resource conversion. This included resource targets throughout the West Zone, East Zone and Far East Zones, targeting intersections which are expected to convert inferred estimated resources into the indicated resources category. All drilling has been completed to date with uranium assays to follow. We have engaged Tetra Tech Canada Inc. to provide lead technical services for the preparation of the planned pre-feasibility study. In September 2025, a site visit was completed by qualified persons (“ QPs ”) and a technical team consisting of our representatives to review core samples, discuss mine planning, metallurgical processing, tailings management and operational considerations for the pre-feasibility study. The visit facilitated cross-disciplinary discussions among the QPs and our representatives. Process flow diagrams, mass and water balance drawing, and process equipment lists have been completed. In August 2026, we entered into a Definition Study Agreement with Saskatchewan Power Corporation to advance engineering, environmental assessment and community engagement work specifically for the connection of a high-voltage transmission line to the Roughrider Project. Geotechnical drilling to study future tailings management facility locations, collect water samples and set up water level monitoring stations has been completed. We continue to advance the Roughrider Project through technical and environmental studies, community engagement and assessing opportunities to further de-risk the project. The processes of updating the environmental baseline work and Indigenous engagement are expected to support a future Environmental Impact Assessment and licensing required for uranium production. With the completion of the Sweetwater Acquisition in December 2024, we expanded our footprints in Wyoming with our Wyoming hub-and-spoke operations. The acquisitions of UEX in August 2022 and the acquisition of the Roughrider Project in October 2022 further expanded our footprints in Canada and, in particular, the Athabasca Basin in Saskatchewan. We continue to establish additional uranium mines through exploration and pre-extraction activities and direct acquisitions in the United States, Canada and the Republic of Paraguay, all of which require us to manage numerous challenges, risks and uncertainties inherent in our business and operations as more fully described in Part I, “Item 1A. Risk Factors” herein. As of July 31, 2026, we also hold certain mineral rights in various stages in the States of Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and Wyoming, in Canada and in the Republic of Paraguay, many of which are located in historically successful mining areas and have been the subject of past exploration and pre-extraction activities by other mining companies. Corporate Segment In addition to our uranium mining and related activities, we have established a physical uranium portfolio (the “ Physical Uranium Program ”) in order to capitalize on unique opportunities to purchase drummed uranium at prevailing spot prices that are below most global industry mining costs. Our Physical Uranium Program supports three of our objectives: (i) to bolster our balance sheet as uranium prices appreciate; (ii) to provide strategic inventory to support future marketing efforts with utilities that could complement production and accelerate cash flows; and (iii) to increase the availability of our Texas and Wyoming production capacity for emerging U.S.-origin specific opportunities which may command premium pricing due to the scarcity of domestic uranium. Demand from the U.S. Department of Energy (“ DOE ”) for unobligated U.S.-origin uranium is expected to increase in the coming years. U.S.-origin is expected to be needed to supply various DOE programs like the U.S. Uranium Reserve, fuel for the U.S. Navy and other U.S. needs requiring unobligated U.S.-origin uranium. 8 Table of Contents As of July 31, 2026, we held 1,256,000 pounds of purchased uranium, excluding 359,260 pounds of precipitated uranium and dried and drummed U 3 O 8 of production at the Burke Hollow and Christensen Ranch Mines as of July 31, 2026. United States Uranium Refining & Conversion Corp. In September 2025, we announced the incorporation of UR&C, which is intended to pursue the feasibility of developing a new uranium refining and conversion facility in the U.S. To date, a conceptual study has been completed that envisions a conversion facility with an initial capacity of 10,000 metric tonnes of uranium per year. The project will move forward contingent on several factors, including completion and assessment of additional engineering and economic studies, securing strategic government commitments, utility contracts, regulatory approvals and favorable market conditions. On March 18, 2026, UR&C received a docket number from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for its planned uranium conversion facility. The formal license application is expected to be submitted once engineering and design activities, currently underway with Fluor, are at a sufficient level of detail and a site has been selected. Ongoing discussions with the DOE regarding strategic nuclear fuel cycle infrastructure have led UR&C to broaden its site selection process. Additional candidate locations are being evaluated for location-dependent operating costs, excluding incentives and site-independent investment costs, risks associated for each location, and to ensure alignment with federal priorities to restore domestic uranium conversion capacity and strengthen America’s nuclear fuel supply chain. Concurrently, work led by Fluor is advancing into a new phase with a significant expansion of engineering and technical resources, including increased and accelerated staffing, supporting facility design, siting, licensing and development. Uranium Purchase or Sale Agreements As of July 31, 2026, we had no uranium purchase or sale agreements in place. Future sales of U 3 O 8 are expected to generally occur through uranium spot market pricing mechanisms in short-term or long-term contracts, with any fluctuations in the market price continuing to have a direct impact on our revenues and cash flows. Strategic Investments During Fiscal 2026, we increased our equity interests in Anfield Energy Inc. (“ Anfield ”) (TSX-V: AEC). Effective August 1, 2025, Anfield completed a share consolidation on the basis of one (1) post-consolidation common share for every seventy-five (75) pre-consolidation common shares. As of July 31, 2026, we owned 6,500,737 post-consolidated common shares of Anfield, representing approximately 32.6% of the outstanding common shares of Anfield. In addition, we owned 28,967,375 shares of common stock of Uranium Royalty Corp. (“ URC ”), representing a 7.6% interest in URC as of July 31, 2026. Uranium Market Developments The uranium market is being driven by macro demand for increased electricity generation, an unprecedented global push for clean energy, data center and artificial intelligence (“ AI ”) development, geopolitical pressures, national security and underinvestment, among other factors. In its February 6, 2026 Electricity Report, the International Energy Agency (“ IEA ”) reported electricity demand grew by 3% in 2025 and is expected to grow at a 3.6% annual rate through 2030. Nuclear generation set a record high and is projected to increase 13% to 32% by 2030. The report also noted that nuclear energy together with renewable energy sources will generate about half of all global electricity by 2030. IEA projects “global data center electricity consumption is to roughly double by 2030, rising from roughly 415 to 450 Terawatt-hour (“ TWh ”) in 2024 to 2025, to over 900 to 1,000 TWh by 2030.” ICF International Inc., in its September 2025 study, projected that electricity demand in the United States will see a 25% increase by 2030 and a nearly 80% increase by 2050. 9 Table of Contents Countries around the globe are realizing the highly reliable, clean, safe, and economical power nuclear energy provides is a desirable attribute for a country’s baseload energy platform. An increasing number of governments have announced that they are pursuing strategies to increase energy independence for national security interests that dovetail well with nuclear power as a key component in their energy mix. In the United States, several pieces of bipartisan legislation have passed in recent years supporting nuclear energy development and expansion. On May 23, 2025, President Donald Trump signed Executive Orders (the “ Executive Orders ”) that include a policy objective to quadruple U.S. nuclear energy by 2050. The Executive Orders mark a historic level of policy support to rejuvenate the U.S. nuclear industry and its infrastructure, underscoring its importance as a matter of national security. The Executive Orders invoke the Defense Production Act of 1950 and are intended to have significant positive policy and economic impacts on the domestic fuel cycle, reactor new builds, research and new technology advancements. In partnership with the DOE, four private advanced reactor developers demonstrated criticality by July 4, 2026, exceeding the goal of three criticalities established in Executive Order 14301, Reforming Nuclear Reactor Testing, at the DOE. These reactor criticality demonstrations were authorized by the DOE and represent an important milestone toward accelerated commercial advanced reactor deployment in the United States. Underscoring the directives under the Executive Orders, on October 28, 2025, announcements were made that the U.S. government had entered a strategic partnership encompassing at least $80 billion for the construction of new nuclear reactors using Westinghouse technology. To meet the goal of having 10 large reactors under construction by 2030, the DOE Office of Energy Dominance recently announced a commitment to provide $17.5 billion to speed up the development effort in building the Westinghouse reactors. Additionally, large technology companies, like Nvidia, Microsoft, Meta, Google, Oracle and Amazon, have announced significant nuclear energy commitments including that required for their data center energy demand with large investments in the clean, affordable and reliable power that nuclear energy provides. Over 150 nuclear industry companies and 14 of the world’s largest banks, including Citibank, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, Barclay’s, and Goldman Sachs, have all pledged to support the growth of nuclear energy in their investments and commercial activities. Global uranium market fundamentals have shown major improvement in recent years as the market began a transition from being inventory driven to production driven. The spot market bottomed out in November 2016 at about $17.75 per pound of U 3 O 8 , but has since shown significant appreciation, reaching a high in 2024 of $107.00 per pound. Since that time, the spot uranium market retraced some of that advance, reaching a low of $63.45 per pound of U 3 O 8 on March 17, 2025. That low proved to be short-lived, with the market rebounding from that level and reaching $101.50 per pound of U 3 O 8 on January 29, 2026. Since the end of May 2026, the near-term spot price has been in a narrow trading range of approximately $2.00 per pound and has been capped in the $87.00 area. However, recently, the price has broken out of this range to the upside, registering a price of $89.75 per pound of U 3 O 8 on August 31, 2026 at ConverDyn. (Source: UxC LLC Historical Ux Daily Prices) During Fiscal 2026, uranium prices averaged $82.32 per pound U 3 O 8 representing an approximate 11.86% increase compared to the average price of $73.59 per pound U 3 O 8 in Fiscal 2025. As of July 31, 2026, the U 3 O 8 price was $86.45 per pound U 3 O 8 , representing an approximate 21.59% increase from $71.10 per pound as of July 31, 2025. (Source: UxC LLC Historical Ux Daily Prices) Relative underinvestment in uranium mining operations has been evident for more than a decade and has been a major factor contributing to a structural deficit between global production and uranium requirements. Reduced production expectations from some new and existing uranium mines have also been a contributing factor, with several producers cutting back and/or unable to reach previously planned production levels. From 2026 through 2028, the mid-case gap between production and requirements is projected to be about 65 million pounds of U 3 O 8 , and by 2036, the cumulative gap is projected to exceed 250 million pounds of U 3 O 8 (Source: UxC 2026 Q2 Uranium Market Outlook). For context, the U.S. commercial reactor fleet requirements have averaged about 45 million pounds of U 3 O 8 per year. (Source: United States Energy Information Administration, July 29, 2026 - Uranium Marketing Annual Report – uranium loaded in fuel assemblies in 2024 and 2025) The current gap is being filled with secondary market sources, including finite inventory that has been declining and is projected to decline further in coming years. Secondary supply is also expected to be further reduced as Western enrichers reverse operations from underfeeding to overfeeding, which requires more uranium to increase the production of enrichment services. As secondary supplies continue to diminish, and as existing mines deplete resources, new production will be needed to meet future demand. The timeline for many new mining projects can be 10 to 20 years and they are expected to require prices high enough to stimulate new mining investments. 10 Table of Contents Since 2022, uranium supply has become more complicated due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, with its State Atomic Energy Corporation, Rosatom, being a significant supplier of nuclear fuel around the globe. Economic sanctions, transportation restrictions, U.S. legislation banning the importation of Russian nuclear fuel and the European Union’s goals to reduce and eventually eliminate its dependence on Russian fuel are causing a fundamental change to the nuclear fuel markets. As a result of the instability and assurance of supply risks, Western utilities are shifting supply focus to areas of low geopolitical risk. Kazakhstan supply, which has been providing Western utilities with significant quantities, is increasingly being committed to sovereign governments like India, China and Russia as well as being reserved for their own evolving nuclear program. In essence, the global market has become bifurcated with Western utilities increasing their efforts to contract for uranium supply from Western jurisdictions. The U.S. Presidential Executive Order “Establishing The National Energy Dominance Council” stated one of its objectives is to “reduce dependency on foreign imports” for the United States’ “national security” and recognized uranium as an “amazing national asset” (Source: The White House News & Update, February 14, 2025). As of November 7, 2025, uranium was added back into the U.S. Geological Survey list of Critical Minerals, making it also subject to the Section 232 Investigation on Critical Minerals that was already underway. On July 30, 2026, a Presidential Determination “delegated Defense Production Act authority to the Commerce Department to institute export restrictions on critical minerals.” While specific remedies are not yet defined, the actions could potentially lead to resumption of strategic uranium reserve purchases, establishment of import price floors, or other remedies. This determination builds on President Trump’s Proclamation 11001, issued on January 14, 2026, directing the U.S. Trade Representative and Department of Commerce to negotiate agreements with trading partners to secure supply chains and address import volumes. On July 28, 2026, Energy Secretary Chris Wright signed a non-binding memoranda of understanding with five states (Idaho, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Utah) to continue negotiations toward establishing cradle to grave Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campuses, ultimately leading to the selection of sites for permanent storage and disposal of used nuclear fuel and nuclear waste. Campuses are expected to include everything from new conversion, enrichment, and fuel fabrication facilities to used nuclear fuel recycling facilities and associated storage and disposal. On August 26, 2026, the Department of the Army announced the selection of five nuclear reactor developers to be awarded up to a combined $2.2 billion to own, construct, and operate nuclear microreactors on five military installations. The Army anticipated more than 20 microreactors to be deployed through the Janus Program, with all requiring domestically produced unobligated uranium. The global nuclear energy industry continues robust growth, with 72 new reactors connected to the grid from 2015 through July 2026, and with another 72 reactors under construction. (Source: International Atomic Energy Association Power Reactor Information System – August 18, 2026.) Total nuclear generating capacity for the world’s 441 operable reactors stands at 404 Gigawatt electric (Source: World Nuclear Association – August 18, 2026 data). In March 2026, the World Nuclear Association reported 38 countries have pledged to at least triple their nuclear capacity by 2050, further supporting additional growth for the nuclear industry and uranium demand. The utility industry has still not returned to a full long term replacement level contracting to replace expiring contracts. It is estimated that cumulative uncommitted global demand through 2035 is almost 800 million pounds of U 3 O 8 (Source: UxC LLC Uranium Market Overview Q2 2026). The U.S. Energy Information Administration’s July 2026 Uranium Marketing Annual report noted that the U.S. 10-year cumulative unfilled market requirement figure through 2035 was 186 million pounds. This utility contracting demand, together with potential demand from financial entities, data center development and government programs, continues to add positive tailwinds to the strong fundamentals in the uranium market. 11 Table of Contents Competition Current uranium producers include diverse ownership types, including state-owned entities, publicly-traded companies, and mixed ownership companies with majority ownership held by state and privately-held producers. Uranium mining projects can be multi-decade and multi-billion dollar endeavors, which generally require financing underpinned by offtake agreements and/or state sponsored financings. The uranium industry is highly competitive, and our competition includes larger, more established companies with longer operating histories that not only explore for and produce uranium but also market uranium and other products on a regional, national or worldwide basis. Due to their greater financial and technical resources, we may not be able to acquire additional uranium projects in a competitive bidding process involving such companies. Additionally, these larger companies have greater resources to continue with their operations during periods of depressed market conditions. We also compete with other mining and exploration companies for the procurement of equipment, materials and skilled personnel necessary to explore, develop and extract uranium. Government Regulations Our properties and facilities are subject to extensive laws and regulations which are administered by federal, state, provincial, local and foreign authorities. These laws and regulations govern exploration, construction, extraction, recovery, processing, exports, various taxes, labor standards, occupational health and safety, waste disposal, protection and remediation of the environment, protection of endangered and protected species, toxic and hazardous substances and other matters. Uranium minerals exploration, extraction, recovery and processing are also subject to risks and liabilities associated with the perceived potential for impacts to the environment and disposal of waste products occurring as a result of such activities. Compliance with these laws and regulations may impose substantial costs on us and may subject us to significant potential liabilities or impacts to operations or project development. Changes in these regulations or changes in regulatory attitudes or interpretations could require us to expend significant resources to comply with new laws or regulations, attitudes or interpretations relating thereto, or changes to current requirements and could have a material adverse effect on our business operations. However, compliance with government regulations generally, including but not limited to environmental regulations, is an integral part of our day-to-day business and impacts virtually all our capital expenditure and operating decisions at its facilities, as our facilities and operations must comply with this extensive array of environmental, health and safety laws and regulations. The costs of compliance with these laws and regulations are therefore well understood and assumed by us in all its capital budgeting decisions, project analyses and cost and earnings projections. As all of our competitors in the uranium mining industry in the U.S. face the same or similar regulatory requirements, we do not believe its need to comply with this extensive array of laws and regulations materially affects our competitive position within the U.S. uranium mining industry. Environmental Regulations Our projects, exploration, and development activities, and mining and processing operations, are subject to the federal, state, provincial, regional, local and foreign environmental laws and regulations of the jurisdictions in which our activities and facilities are located. For example, in the United States, we are subject to a number of such laws and regulations, including, without limitation: the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act; the Atomic Energy Act; the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act; the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act; the Endangered Species Act; the Federal Land Policy and Management Act; NEPA; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water Acts; the Toxic Substances Control Act; the Clean Air Act; the Pollution Prevention Act; the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act; the Nuclear Waste Policy Act; and related state laws. In Canada, we are subject to similar laws and regulations, including, without limitation, the Nuclear Safety and Control Act (the “ NSCA ”); the Impact Assessment Act, 2019 (the “ Impact Assessment Act ”); the Fisheries Act and the Metal and Diamond Mining Effluent Regulations thereunder; the Canadian Navigable Waters Act; the Canadian Aviation Regulations; the Species at Risk Act; the Migratory Birds Convention Act; the Reclaimed Industrial Sites Act and the Reclaimed Industrial Sites Regulations thereunder; and federal and provincial regulatory requirements implementing a “duty to consult” with Indigenous groups (i.e., First Nations, Inuit and Métis groups) on any decision within their purview with the potential to affect Aboriginal or Treaty Rights. We are subject to similar laws in other jurisdictions in which we operate. 12 Table of Contents In all jurisdictions in which we operate, environmental licenses, permits and other regulatory approvals are required to engage in projects, exploration, mining and processing, and mine closure and reclamation activities. Regulatory approval of a detailed plan of operations and an environmental impact assessment (or equivalent) is required prior to initiating mining or processing activities or for any substantive change to previously approved plans. In all jurisdictions in which we operate, specific statutory and regulatory requirements must be met throughout the life of the mining or processing operations regarding air quality, water quality, fisheries, wildlife and biodiversity protection, archaeological and cultural resources, water rights, solid and hazardous waste management and disposal, the management and transportation of hazardous chemicals, toxic substances, noise, community right-to-know, land use and reclamation. Such laws and regulations, which may change over time, increase the costs of these activities and may prevent or delay the commencement or continuance of a given operation. Compliance with these laws and regulations has not had a material effect on our operations or financial condition to date, compared to industry norms. However, changes in such laws and regulations could require us to expend significant resources and could have a material adverse effect on our business operations. The posting of reclamation and remediation performance bonds and the costs associated with permitting and licensing activities require a substantial budget and ongoing cash commitments, including capital expenditures and operating costs that are incorporated into our budgets, project analyses and earnings projections. We do not currently expect, for the current fiscal year or for any subsequent period, capital expenditures for environmental control facilities to be material beyond amounts included in its ordinary-course project, permitting, restoration and compliance budgets. In addition to pursuing ongoing permitting and licensure for new projects and additions to our existing projects, these expenditures include ongoing monitoring (e.g., wildlife, groundwater and effluent monitoring) and other activities to ensure regulatory and legal compliance, as well as compliance with our permits and licenses. We believe that we comply in all material respects with all federal, state, provincial, local and foreign applicable laws and regulations which govern environmental quality and pollution control. The appropriate regulatory agencies review reports for compliance with permit and license requirements and also conduct routine and regular inspections of our activities at our permitted and licensed sites and, to date, we have not been notified of any material non-compliance that would require any form of financial penalty or operating restriction. The following summarizes certain material environmental and regulatory requirements applicable to our U.S. and Canadian uranium projects. United States Licenses and Permits In Texas, the Railroad Commission of Texas (the “ RCT ”) regulates surface extraction and exploration for uranium and issues the necessary permits for exploration drilling inside an approved area, and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (the “ TCEQ ”) regulates ISR uranium extraction and issues the necessary licenses and permits. The RCT has issued us exploration permits for each of Bee, Duval and Goliad Counties in Texas. The TCEQ has issued Mine Area Permits for our Palangana and Burke Hollow Mines and projects in Goliad County (such projects, the “ Goliad Project ”) and Radioactive Material Licenses (“ RMLs ”) for our Palangana and Burke Hollow Mines, Goliad Project and the Hobson CPP, PAA permits for our Palangana and Burke Hollow Mines and Goliad Project, and Class I disposal well permits for each of our Hobson CPP, Palangana Satellite Facility and Burke Hollow and Goliad Projects. All permits and licenses issued by the RCT and the TCEQ are currently in effect and are expected to be timely renewed; however, certain of Goliad Project’s permits, namely its Class III Injection Well Permit, Production Area Authorization and Aquifer Exemption Order, as amended, and Class I disposal well permits, have been challenged and await final regulatory or judicial resolution. 13 Table of Contents In 2018, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (“ NRC ”) delegated authority to the State of Wyoming for regulation of uranium and thorium milling facilities, source material possessed at the milling facilities, and certain byproduct material regulated under the Atomic Energy Act. In Wyoming, the WDEQ, Land Quality Division (the “ WDEQ/LQD ”) regulates ISR uranium mining activities and issues necessary permits and licenses, the WDEQ/LQD Uranium Recovery Program (the “ WDEQ/LQD/URP ”) regulates uranium recovery operations and issues the necessary licenses, and the WDEQ Water Quality Division (the “ WDEQ/WQD ”) regulates deep underground wastewater injections and issues the necessary permits. The WDEQ/LQD has issued Permits to Mine and the WDEQ/LQD/URP has issued RMLs for each of our Christensen Ranch, Irigaray, Ludeman, Moore Ranch and Reno Creek Projects. Permits to Mine are also held for our Sweetwater, Big Eagle and Jackpot mines in the Great Divide Basin of Wyoming, and an RML is held for our Sweetwater mine, mill and tailing storage facility. The WDEQ/LQD has also issued Drilling Notification Permits, which cover exploration drilling outside of areas within a Permit to Mine, for our various exploration projects in the Powder River Basin and in the Great Divide Basin of Wyoming. The WDEQ/WQD has issued Class I disposal well permits for our Christensen Ranch Mine, our Irigaray Project, our Moore Ranch Project and our Reno Creek Mine. All such permits and licenses issued by the WDEQ/LQD, the WDEQ/LQD/URP and the WDEQ/WQD are currently in effect and are expected to be timely renewed. The federal Safe Drinking Water Act (“ SDWA ”) creates a nationwide regulatory program to protect groundwater and is administered by the US. Environmental Protection Agency (the “ EPA ”). However, to avoid the burden of dual federal and state regulation, the SDWA allows for states to issue underground injection control (“ UIC ”) permits to satisfy the UIC requirements under the SDWA under two conditions: the state’s program must have been granted primacy, as is the case in Texas and Wyoming, and the EPA must have granted an aquifer exemption upon the state’s request (an “ Aquifer Exemption ”). As of July 31, 2026, we held Aquifer Exemptions for each of our Palangana Mine, our Goliad, Burke Hollow, Christensen Ranch, Irigaray, Ludeman, Moore Ranch and Reno Creek Projects, and our Christensen Ranch, Irigaray, Moore Ranch and Reno Creek Class I disposal wells. Waste Disposal The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“ RCRA ”) and comparable state statutes affect mineral exploration and production activities by imposing regulations on the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, disposal and cleanup of “hazardous wastes” and on the disposal of non-hazardous wastes. Under the auspices of the EPA, the individual states administer some or all of the provisions of RCRA, sometimes in conjunction with their own, more stringent requirements. Air Emissions Our operations are subject to local, state and federal regulations for the control of emissions of air pollution. Major sources of air pollutants are subject to more stringent, federally imposed permitting requirements. Administrative enforcement actions for failure to comply strictly with air pollution regulations or permits are generally resolved by payment of monetary fines and correction of any identified deficiencies. Alternatively, regulatory agencies could require us to forego construction, modification or operation of certain air emission sources. In Texas, the TCEQ issues an exemption for those processes that meet the criteria for low to zero emission by issuing a permit by rule. In Wyoming, air permits are required for point source emissions of particulate. We have an air quality permit for the calciner present at the Irigaray CPP. Typically, air quality permits are not required for ISR mining operations as emissions are near zero. Clean Water Act The Clean Water Act (the “ CWA ”) imposes restrictions and strict controls regarding the discharge of wastes, including mineral processing wastes, into waters of the United States, a term which is broadly defined. Permits must be obtained to discharge pollutants into federal waters. The CWA provides for civil, criminal and administrative penalties for unauthorized discharges of hazardous substances and other pollutants. It imposes substantial potential liability for the costs of removal or remediation associated with discharges of oil or hazardous substances. State laws governing discharges to water also provide varying civil, criminal and administrative penalties and impose liabilities in the case of a discharge of petroleum or its derivatives, or other hazardous substances, into state waters. In addition, the EPA has promulgated regulations that may require us to obtain permits to discharge storm water runoff, and Wyoming requires storm water permits for the construction and operation of ISR wellfields and plants. We have storm water permits for our Christensen Ranch Mine where wellfields are under construction. Management believes that we are in substantial compliance with current requirements to obtain permits to discharge storm water runoff; however, in the event of unauthorized discharge of waste, we may be liable for penalties and costs. 14 Table of Contents Canada Uranium mining and milling projects in Canada are among the most heavily regulated types of projects in the country, with regulatory oversight at both the federal and provincial levels. The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (the “ CNSC ”) is the independent federal nuclear regulator responsible for regulating nuclear activities in Canada under the NSCA. Canadian uranium projects are also subject to provincial environmental assessment, permitting and land-use requirements, as well as consultation obligations with Indigenous groups where project approvals may affect Aboriginal or Treaty Rights. Compliance generally requires environmental assessment, licensing, management systems, monitoring, reporting and ongoing regulatory engagement. Province of Saskatchewan In Saskatchewan, uranium mining projects may be subject to The Environmental Assessment Act and the provincial Environmental Impact Assessment (“ EIA ”) process. The process generally begins with a Technical Proposal describing the project and potential impacts to the environment and human health and safety. Following provincial review, a project may be designated as a “development” requiring an EIA and project-specific terms of reference. The EIA process typically includes environmental baseline work, site characterization and engagement or consultation activities, including any activities delegated in support of the province’s duty to consult. After submission of an EIA, provincial authorities review the filing, identify any deficiencies and, if appropriate, place the EIA into public review. Following completion of the review process, the Minister of Environment may approve the EIA, typically subject to conditions, after which project-specific leases, licenses and permits may be completed. A surface lease is required before mining work may commence in Saskatchewan and generally covers the areas expected to be disturbed, together with an appropriate buffer. Although lease discussions and licensing preparation may proceed in parallel with the EIA process, final issuance of material leases, licenses and permits generally requires a positive EIA decision. Provincial mining project licensing is generally coordinated through the Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment, with additional approvals potentially required from other ministries or agencies for matters such as health and safety, labor, employment, royalties, lands and related project activities. Depending on project design and water source, Saskatchewan uranium projects may also require water rights licenses and approvals to construct and operate water-related works from the Saskatchewan Water Security Agency, including for surface water or groundwater use and associated diversion, supply or operating works. Canadian Government At the federal level, the Impact Assessment Act may require an Impact Assessment where a project meets prescribed thresholds under the Physical Activities Regulations, 2019 or is designated by the federal Minister of Environment and Climate Change. Our current proposed Canadian projects do not trigger the prescribed thresholds and therefore do not require a federal Impact Assessment on that basis, although they remain subject to possible ministerial designation. The CNSC may participate in or provide technical comments during the provincial EIA process, although the provincial EIA decision is made independently by the provincial authorities. The CNSC is the principal federal licensing authority for uranium projects and conducts an environmental protection review in connection with license applications under the NSCA to ensure protection of the environment and human health. CNSC review also addresses applicable federal requirements and policy considerations, including those relating to Indigenous peoples. The CNSC licensing process may proceed in parallel with the provincial EIA process, although a positive environmental decision is required before the CNSC may approve applicable licensing packages. CNSC licensing and oversight are conducted on a cost-recovery basis under the Cost Recovery Fees Regulations. In support of licensing, proponents are required to develop management systems, policies, programs, procedures and monitoring commensurate with the proposed scope of activities. The CNSC assesses projects across safety and control areas, including quality management, occupational health and safety, environmental protection, radiation protection, tailings management, safeguards and non-proliferation. CNSC staff present their findings to the Commission as part of licensing deliberations. A licensing stage can take approximately 26 months from the time an application is deemed sufficient to the written Commission license decision. 15 Table of Contents Mineral Rights In Texas, our mineral rights are held exclusively through private leases from the owners of the land/mineral/surface rights with varying terms. In general, these leases provide for uranium and certain other specified mineral rights only including surface access rights for an initial term of five years and renewal for a second five-year term. We have amended the majority of the leases to extend the time period for an additional five years past the original five-year renewal periods. Some of our project leases have a fixed royalty amount based on net proceeds from sales of uranium, and our other projects have production royalties calculated on a sliding-scale basis tied to the gross sales price of uranium. Remediation of a property is required in accordance with regulatory standards, which may include the posting of reclamation bonds. In Arizona, New Mexico and Wyoming, our mineral rights are held either exclusively or through a combination of federal mining claims and state and private mineral leases. Remediation of a property is required in accordance with regulatory standards, which may include the posting of reclamation bonds. Our federal mining claims consist of both unpatented lode and mill site claims registered with the BLM and the appropriate counties. Annual fees must be paid to maintain unpatented mining claims with the BLM. Our state mineral leases are registered with their respective states. These leases provide for mineral rights, and are subject to a production royalty of 4% in Wyoming and 5% to 6% in Arizona, ranging from a five-year term in Arizona to a ten-year term in Wyoming. Annual fees must be paid to maintain state mineral leases, and minimum exploration expenditures are required. Our private mineral leases are negotiated directly with the owners of the land/mineral/surface rights with varying terms. These leases provide for uranium and certain other specified mineral rights only, including surface access rights, subject to production royalties, ranging from an initial term of five to seven years and renewal for a second five-year to seven-year term. In Wyoming, annual fees must be paid to maintain the 410 mill site claims at our Sweetwater Project site. Under the mining laws of Saskatchewan, Canada, title to mineral rights for our projects in Saskatchewan is held through The Crown Minerals Act of the Province of Saskatchewan. In addition, The Mineral Resources Act, 1985, and The Mineral Tenure Registry Regulations affect the rights and administration of mineral tenure in Saskatchewan. The lands of our Saskatchewan projects are currently claimed as “Crown dispositions”, “mineral dispositions” or “mineral leases”. Subject to section 19 of The Crown Minerals Act, a claim grants to the holder the exclusive right to explore for any Crown minerals that are subject to these regulations within the claim lands. Claims are renewed annually and the claim holder is required to satisfy work expenditure requirements. With respect to certain of our mineral rights in Paraguay, the Ministry of Public Works and Communications (“ MOPC ”), the mining regulator in Paraguay, has taken the position that certain concessions forming part of our Yuty, Alto Parana and Colonel Oviedo Projects are not eligible for extension as to exploration or continuation to exploitation in their current stages. As we remain fully committed to our development path forward in Paraguay, we have filed certain applications and appeals in Paraguay to reverse the MOPC’s position in order to protect our continuing rights in those concessions. Human Capital Resources As of July 31, 2026, we had 257 employees, 201 of whom were located in the United States, 36 in Canada and 20 in Paraguay. We seek to attract and retain talented and experienced individuals to manage and support our operations. We engage in a variety of learning and development opportunities with our employees, including ongoing training, continuing education courses, workshops and seminars and membership in professional organizations relating to employees’ projects areas of expertise. We strive to fill employment openings through internal promotions or transfers of qualified employees, as appropriate. Available Information Our website address is www.uraniumenergy.com. Our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and current reports on Form 8-K, and amendments to such reports, are available free of charge on our website as soon as reasonably practicable after such materials are filed or furnished electronically with the SEC. Reports and amendments thereto filed or furnished electronically with the SEC are available at the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov. We routinely post important information for investors on our website, www.uraniumenergy.com, in the “Invest” section. We also may use our website as a means of disclosing material, non-public information and for complying with our disclosure obligations under Regulation FD. Accordingly, investors should monitor the Invest section of our website, in addition to following our press releases, SEC filings, public conference calls, presentations and webcasts. The information contained on, or that may be accessed through, our website is not incorporated by reference into, and is not a part of, this Annual Report or any other report or document filed with or furnished to the SEC. 16 Table of Contents Item 1A. Risk Factors An investment in the shares of our common stock or other securities is subject to risks inherent in our businesses and the industries in which we operate. We describe below certain risks and uncertainties, the occurrences of which could have a material adverse effect on us. The risks and uncertainties described below include known material risks that we face currently, but our material risks are continually evolving, and the below descriptions may not include future risks that are not presently known, risks that are not currently believed to be material or other risks that generally apply to most businesses. Although we have risk management policies, practices and procedures in place that are aimed at mitigating these risks, the occurrence of these uncertainties may nevertheless impair our business operations and adversely affect the actual outcome of matters as to which forward-looking statements are made. This Annual Report is qualified in its entirety by these risk factors. Before making an investment decision, investors should carefully consider all the risks described below together with the other information included in this Annual Report and the other reports we file with the SEC. Risks Related to Our Company and Business Our operations are capital intensive and we will require significant additional financing to continue with our exploration, pre-extraction and extraction activities on our existing projects and to acquire additional mineral projects. Further, we have a history of negative operating cash flow and net losses and may be unable to develop or maintain positive cash flow from our mining activities. Our operations are capital intensive and future capital expenditures are expected to be substantial. We will require significant additional financing to fund our operations, including acquiring additional mineral projects and continuing our exploration, pre-extraction and extraction activities. Historically, we have relied primarily on equity and debt financings, and on cash flows from sales of our purchased uranium inventories under our Physical Uranium Program to fund our operations. However, we have a history of significant negative cash flow and net losses. Although we generated revenue from sales of purchased uranium inventory and toll processing services totaling $164.4 million during fiscal year ended July 31, 2023, from sales of purchased uranium inventory of $66.84 million during Fiscal 2025, and from sales of purchased uranium inventory of $37.25 million during Fiscal 2026, we have yet to achieve consistent profitability or positive cash flow from operations, and we do not expect to do so in the near term. Our reliance on equity and debt financings is expected to continue for the foreseeable future, and their availability whenever such additional financing is required will be dependent on many factors beyond our control including, but not limited to, the market price of uranium, the continuing public support of nuclear power as a viable source of electrical generation, the volatility in the global financial markets affecting our stock price and the status of the worldwide economy, any one of which may cause significant challenges in our ability to access additional financing, including access to the equity and credit markets. Any inability to obtain additional financing when required would have a negative impact on our operations, including delays, curtailment or abandonment of any one or all of our uranium projects. Any failure to successfully develop and/or ramp-up operations at our projects may adversely affect our financial condition and operating results. In August 2024, we restarted uranium extraction at our fully permitted, and past producing, Christensen Ranch Mine ISR operation in Wyoming, and in April 2026, we commenced uranium extraction at our Burke Hollow Mine ISR operation in Texas. The ramp-up phase at these projects will continue while new production areas are being constructed and completed at the Christensen Ranch Mine and the Burke Hollow Mine in 2026 and 2027. The ramp-up stage of our operations involves significant technical, operational, and financial risks. For example, we may experience delays in commissioning equipment, achieving production capacity, and optimizing our processing systems, which could result in lower-than-expected production volumes, increased costs, and extended timelines to reach steady-state operations. Our operations are also vulnerable to interruptions in the supply of critical inputs such as water, electricity, as well as potential equipment failures or shortages of spare parts. These disruptions could lead to unplanned downtime and materially impact our operations. Accordingly, there can be no assurance that we will successfully ramp-up these operations or sustain commercial extraction. 17 Table of Contents Continued mining activities at our ISR Mines will eventually deplete those mines or cause such activities to become uneconomical. If we are unable to directly acquire, or to develop existing uranium projects into, additional uranium mines from which we can commence uranium extraction, our ability to generate revenue and positive cash flows will be negatively impacted. In addition, the economic viability, expected duration and profitability of our ISR Mines, of any future satellite ISR mines, and of our uranium projects, including our Ludeman, Reno Creek and Sweetwater Projects in Wyoming and our Roughrider Project in Saskatchewan, Canada, are subject to numerous risks and uncertainties, many of which are described elsewhere in these risk factors, including a significant or prolonged decline in the market price of uranium, difficulty in marketing or selling uranium concentrates, higher than expected capital or extraction costs, lower than expected extraction, delays, reductions or stoppages of extraction activities, and the introduction of more stringent laws and regulations. Any one or more of these occurrences may adversely affect our financial condition and operating results. We have not established proven or probable reserves through the completion of a final or bankable feasibility study for any of our projects, including our ISR Mines, and we currently have no plans to establish proven or probable reserves for any of our uranium projects for which we plan on utilizing ISR mining. We have established estimates of mineral resources for certain of our projects, including our ISR Mines, but none of our properties contain mineral reserves as defined under S-K 1300, and we have no present plans to establish proven or probable reserves for any project for which we plan to utilize ISR mining. As a result, despite current mining operations having commenced at the Christensen Ranch Mine and Burke Hollow Mine, there is inherent uncertainty and risk as to whether any mineralized material can be economically extracted as originally planned and anticipated. Any mineralized materials established or extracted from our ISR Mines should not in any way be associated with having established or produced from proven or probable reserves. For additional information, see the risk factors “ There are numerous uncertainties involved in the estimation of mineral resources ” and “ Initial assessments on our properties are preliminary in nature and there is no assurance that any economic projections in those assessments will be realized ” below. There are numerous uncertainties involved in the estimation of mineral resources. There are numerous uncertainties inherent in estimating quantities of mineral resources, including many factors beyond our control, and no assurance can be given that the recovery of mineral resources will be realized. In general, estimates of mineral resources are based upon several factors and assumptions made as of the date on which the estimates were determined, including: (i) geological and engineering estimates that have inherent uncertainties and the assumed effects of regulation by governmental agencies; (ii) the judgment of the geologists, engineers and other professionals preparing the estimate; (iii) estimates of future uranium prices and operating costs; (iv) the quality and quantity of available data and the interpretation of that data; and (v) the accuracy of various mandated economic assumptions, all of which may vary considerably from actual results. Initial assessments on our properties are preliminary in nature and there is no assurance that any economic projections in those assessments will be realized. We have completed initial assessments, as defined in S-K 1300, in respect of certain of our mineral properties. The initial assessments for our Irigaray, Christensen Ranch, Reno Creek, Ludeman, Hobson, Burke Hollow and Roughrider projects include economic analysis, sometimes referred to as a preliminary economic assessments or initial economic assessments. Such assessments are preliminary in nature, include inferred mineral resources that are considered too speculative geologically to have modifying factors applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as mineral reserves, and there is no certainty that such economic assessments will be realized. An initial assessment is a preliminary technical and economic study of the economic potential of mineral resources; it is not a pre-feasibility study or feasibility study and does not demonstrate economic viability. There is no certainty that the mineral resource estimates or the economic projections set forth in any initial assessment will be realized, and mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability. 18 Table of Contents Since we are an exploration stage issuer, pre-production expenditures including those related to pre-extraction activities are expensed as incurred, the effects of which may result in our consolidated financial statements not being directly comparable to the financial statements of companies that are a production stage issuer. Despite having commenced uranium extraction at our ISR Mines, we remain an exploration stage issuer (as defined under S-K 1300) and will continue to be until proven or probable reserves are established, which may never occur. Under United States generally accepted accounting principles (“ U.S. GAAP ”), under which acquisition costs of mineral rights are initially capitalized as incurred, while exploration and pre-extraction expenditures are expensed as incurred until proven or probable reserves are established for a project, after which subsequent mine development expenditures for that project are capitalized as incurred. By contrast, a production stage issuer (as defined under S-K 1300) has established proven and probable reserves and typically capitalizes ongoing development expenditures, with corresponding depletion calculated over those reserves using the units-of-production method and allocated to inventory and, as that inventory is sold, to cost of goods sold. Because we expense these expenditures as incurred, we report larger losses than a production stage issuer, and no corresponding depletion is allocated to future periods, resulting in lower inventory costs and cost of goods sold and higher gross profits and lower losses in future periods. Any capitalized costs, such as acquisition costs of mineral rights, are depleted over the estimated extraction life using the straight-line method. As a result, our consolidated financial statements may not be directly comparable to those of a production stage issuer. Estimated costs of future reclamation obligations may be significantly exceeded by actual costs incurred in the future. Furthermore, only a portion of the financial assurance required for the future reclamation obligations has been funded. We are responsible for certain remediation and decommissioning activities in the future, primarily for our processing facilities and uranium projects, and have recorded a liability of $43.14 million on our balance sheet as of July 31, 2026, to recognize the present value of the estimated costs of such reclamation obligations. Should the actual costs to fulfill these future reclamation obligations materially exceed these estimated costs, it may have an adverse effect on our financial condition and operating results, including not having the financial resources required to fulfill such obligations when required to do so. As of July 31, 2026, the total estimated reclamation costs for all of our projects was $93.92 million. We have secured $64.27 million of surety bonds as an alternate source of financial assurance for the estimated costs of the reclamation obligations, of which $1.89 million is funded and held as restricted cash for collateral purposes as required by the surety. We may be required at any time to fund the remaining $62.38 million or any portion thereof for a number of reasons including, but not limited to, the following: (i) the terms of the surety bonds are amended, such as an increase in collateral requirements; (ii) we are in default with the terms of the surety bonds; (iii) the surety bonds are no longer acceptable as an alternate source of financial assurance by the regulatory authorities; or (iv) the surety encounters financial difficulties. Should any one or more of these events occur in the future, we may not have the financial resources to fund the remaining amount or any portion thereof when required to do so. We cannot provide any assurance that our Physical Uranium Program will be successful, which may have an adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition. To date, we have acquired, and may from time to time acquire, additional drummed uranium under our Physical Uranium Program. Typically, we utilize cash on hand, including proceeds from financings, to fund such acquisitions. This strategy is subject to a number of risks and there is no assurance that the strategy will be successful. Future deliveries are subject to performance by other parties and there is a possibility of default by those parties, thus depriving us of potential benefits. The value of our uranium holdings and our ability to sell them at profitable levels in the future may be negatively impacted if uranium prices decline. There is no certainty that any future purchases of U 3 O 8 contemplated by us under our Physical Uranium Program will be completed. Due to the fluctuation of uranium prices, and depending on the price at which we sell any drummed uranium under our Physical Uranium Program, we will be subject to losses should we ultimately determine to sell the uranium at prices lower than the acquisition cost. In addition, we may have to sell a portion or all of the physical uranium accumulated to fund our operations should other forms of financing not be available to meet our capital requirements or finance our business plans, which could result in losses and adversely affect our operations and financial condition. 19 Table of Contents Our uranium storage arrangements expose us to counterparty and operational risks of the storage operators. Currently, the uranium we purchase is or will be stored at the licensed uranium conversion facilities at ConverDyn, located in Metropolis, Illinois, a joint partnership between Solstice Advanced Materials Inc. and General Atomics, and at the facilities owned by Cameco Corporation (“ Cameco ”), located in Ontario, Canada. There can be no assurance that storage arrangements that have been negotiated will be extended indefinitely, forcing actions or costs not currently contemplated. Failure to negotiate commercially reasonable storage terms for a subsequent storage period with ConverDyn and Cameco may have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and operating results. By holding our uranium inventory at third-party facilities, we are exposed to the credit and operational risks of the facility. Any loss or damage of the uranium may not be fully covered or absolved by contractual arrangements with such parties, and we may be financially and legally responsible for losses and/or damages not covered by indemnity provisions or insurance. Such responsibility could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and operating results. We do not insure against all of the risks we face in our operations. In general, where coverage is available and not prohibitively expensive relative to the perceived risk, we will maintain insurance against such risk, subject to exclusions and limitations. We currently maintain insurance against certain risks, including securities, general commercial, cargo and cyber liability claims and certain physical assets used in our operations, subject to exclusions and limitations; however, we do not maintain insurance to cover all of the potential risks and hazards associated with our operations. We may be subject to liability for environmental, pollution or other hazards associated with our exploration, pre-extraction and extraction activities, which we may not be insured against, which may exceed the limits of our insurance coverage or which we may elect not to insure against because of high premiums or other reasons. Furthermore, we cannot provide assurance that any insurance coverage we currently have will continue to be available at reasonable premiums or that such insurance will adequately cover any resulting liability. Acquisitions that we may make from time to time could have an adverse impact on us. From time to time, we examine opportunities to acquire additional assets and businesses. Any acquisition that we may choose to complete may be of a significant size, may change our business and operations and may expose us to new geographic, political, operating, financial and geological risks. They may also introduce new operations or lines of business in addition to our existing focuses. Our success in our acquisition activities depends on our ability to identify suitable acquisition candidates, negotiate acceptable terms for any such acquisition and integrate the acquired operations successfully with those of our Company. Any acquisitions would be accompanied by risks which could have a material adverse effect on our business. For example: (i) there may be a significant change in commodity prices after we have committed to complete the transaction and established the purchase price or exchange ratio; (ii) a material ore body may prove to be below expectations; (iii) we may have difficulty integrating and assimilating the operations and personnel of any acquired companies, realizing anticipated synergies or efficiencies within expected timeframes and maximizing the financial and strategic position of the combined enterprise and maintaining uniform standards, policies and controls across the organization; (iv) the integration of the acquired business or assets may disrupt our ongoing business and our relationships with employees, customers, suppliers and contractors; and (v) the acquired business or assets may have unknown liabilities which may be significant. In the event that we choose to raise debt capital to finance any such acquisition or new businesses, our leverage will be increased. If we choose to use equity as consideration for such acquisition, existing stockholders may suffer dilution. Alternatively, we may choose to finance any such acquisition or new businesses with our existing resources. There can be no assurance that we would be successful in overcoming these risks or any other problems encountered in connection with such acquisitions or new businesses or that any acquisition or new business will achieve the benefits we anticipate. 20 Table of Contents We may not be able to obtain, maintain or amend rights, authorizations, licenses, permits or consents required for our operations. Our exploration and mining activities are dependent upon the grant from regulatory or governmental authorities of appropriate rights, authorizations, licenses, permits and consents (collectively, the “permits”), as well as continuation and amendment of these permits already granted. Such permits may be granted for a defined period of time, may not be granted, may be withdrawn or may be granted subject to limitations. In addition, the ramp-up of projects and activation of new header units require regulatory licensing and permitting. While we make every reasonable attempt to secure the permits necessary to advance our projects according to the policies and guidelines applicable to each permit, approval of permits rests solely with the governing agency and is outside of our control. In addition to the statutory and regulatory processes, there are other factors, such as limited agency staffing due to budgetary constraints and staff turnover and government shutdowns, that can impact permit reviews and approvals. The requirements for obtaining an RML for our mineral properties in the United States allows for public participation. Third parties may object to the issuance of RMLs and/or permits required by us, which may significantly delay our ability to obtain an RML and/or a permit. Also, inexperienced staff at regulatory agencies or government shutdowns may delay the issuance of required permits. Generally, public objections can be overcome through the procedures set forth in the applicable permitting legislation; however, significant financial resources and managerial resources are required through this process. In addition, the various regulatory agencies must allow and fully consider the public objections/comments according to such procedures set out in the applicable legislation and there can be no assurance that we will be successful in obtaining an RML and/or a permit, which could have a material adverse effect on the viability of a project. There can be no assurance that we will receive necessary regulatory permits, licenses and authorizations on a timely basis or at all, or that permits already granted will not be withdrawn or made subject to limitations, including as a result of our failure to meet ongoing permitting conditions and requirements. A failure or delay in obtaining such permits, licenses or authorizations may adversely impact our development and operating plans, results of our operations and financial condition. We may be subject to litigation and regulatory and judicial proceedings, including third-party challenges to our permits and licenses, which could be costly, divert management attention and adversely affect our operations. From time to time, we are or may become party to litigation, arbitration, contested case hearings, regulatory proceedings, administrative appeals and other legal or judicial proceedings arising in the ordinary course of our business or otherwise, including proceedings relating to the issuance, renewal, amendment, or validity of the rights, permits, licenses and authorizations required for our projects and operations. Third parties, including landowners, non-governmental organizations, community and other stakeholder groups, and other persons, have in the past opposed, and may in the future oppose, our applications for, or the continued effectiveness of, our permits and licenses, including through requests for hearings, contested case proceedings, petitions for reconsideration, petitions for judicial review and appeals. For example, certain of Goliad Project’s permits that are currently in effect have been challenged and await final regulatory or judicial resolution. These proceedings may be protracted and expensive, and their outcomes are inherently uncertain. An adverse determination in, or settlement of, any such proceeding, or a decision remanding or vacating a permit or license or requiring us to re-apply for or further support a permit or license, could suspend, revoke, modify, delay or prevent development, extraction, processing or other activities at one or more of our projects, require us to incur significant additional costs, or otherwise have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. Regardless of the merits or ultimate outcome, litigation and other proceedings can be costly to defend or pursue, divert the attention of management and other personnel from our operations, limit our ability to obtain financing, and result in reputational harm. We hold mineral rights in foreign jurisdictions which could be subject to additional risks due to political, taxation, economic and cultural factors. Operations in foreign jurisdictions outside of the United States, including Canada and the Republic of Paraguay, may be subject to additional risks as they may have different political, regulatory, taxation, economic and cultural environments that may adversely affect the value or continued viability of our rights. These additional risks include, but are not limited to: (i) changes in governments or senior government officials; (ii) changes to existing laws or policies on foreign investments, environmental protection, mining and ownership of mineral interests; (iii) renegotiation, cancellation, expropriation and nationalization of existing permits or contracts; (iv) foreign currency controls and fluctuations; and (v) civil disturbances, terrorism and war. In the event of a dispute arising at our foreign operations, we may be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of foreign courts or may not be successful in subjecting foreign persons to the jurisdiction of the courts in the United States. We may also be hindered or prevented from enforcing our rights with respect to a government entity or instrumentality because of the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Any adverse or arbitrary decision of a foreign court may have a material and adverse impact on our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations. 21 Table of Contents The title to our mineral property interests may be challenged. Although we have taken reasonable measures to ensure proper title to our interests in mineral properties and other assets, there is no guarantee that the title to any of such interests will not be challenged. No assurance can be given that we will be able to secure the grant or the renewal of existing mineral rights and tenures on terms satisfactory to us, or that governments in the jurisdictions in which we operate will not revoke or significantly alter such rights or tenures or that such rights or tenures will not be challenged or impugned by third parties, including local governments, counterparties and joint venture partners, aboriginal peoples or other claimants. We depend on certain key personnel, and our success will depend on our continued ability to retain and attract such key personnel and qualified and experienced employees. Our success is dependent on the efforts, abilities and continued service of certain senior officers and key employees and consultants, a number of whom have significant experience in the uranium industry. A loss of service from any one of these individuals may adversely affect our operations, and we may have difficulty or may not be able to locate and hire a suitable replacement. Furthermore, availability and retention of qualified and experienced employees cannot be assured in our industry, many aspects of which are highly specialized. This is particularly true in the current labor markets in which we recruit our employees, including where we compete with higher paying energy jobs, and because of the remote locations for which employees are needed. The skilled professionals with expertise in geologic, engineering and process aspects of uranium ISR and other facets of our business are currently in high demand, as there are relatively few professionals with both expertise and experience. As we grow, there is a risk that we may not be able to grow our qualified workforce in pace with the growth of our business and activities, which could hamper our growth efforts. Certain directors and officers may be in a position of conflict of interest with respect us due to their relationship with other business ventures. The majority of our directors and officers are involved in other business ventures, including having similar capacities with other private or publicly traded companies. Such individuals may have significant responsibilities to these other business ventures, including consulting relationships, which may require significant amounts of their available time. Conflicts of interest may include decisions on how much time to devote to our business affairs and what business opportunities should be presented to us. Our directors are required by law to exercise their respective powers in good faith and with a view to the interests of the Company and to disclose any interest which they may have in any of our projects or opportunities. Conflicts of interest that arise will be subject to and governed by the procedures in our Code of Business Conduct for Directors, Officers and Employees. Our launch of UR&C and its development of a uranium refining and conversion project is at an early stage, and is subject to a number of risks. UR&C’s advancement of its plan to pursue the development of a uranium refining and conversion facility is contingent on several factors, including completion and assessment of additional engineering and economic studies, securing strategic government commitments, utility contracts, regulatory approvals and favorable market conditions. As the project is at an early stage, there are uncertainties regarding its potential benefits, U.S. government engagement and support for the project and capital requirements for the project. Furthermore, the decision to pursue a new conversion plant requires considering current market conditions and market conditions projected for 10 to 30 years from now, including projections of demand for uranium hexafluoride (“ UF 6 ”), the critical feedstock for enrichment that enables the production of low-enriched uranium and high-assay low-enriched uranium, fuels essential to powering large, small and advanced reactors for undersupplied domestic and allied markets. If the actual increase in demand of UF 6 is less than our projections, such demand can be filled by the expansion of existing operations, restart of idled operations or other circumstances which would obviate the desirability of a new conversion plant. We are dependent on information technology systems, which are subject to certain risks, including cybersecurity risks and data leakage risks associated with implementation and integration. Our operations depend upon the availability, capacity, reliability and security of our information technology (“ IT ”) infrastructure, and our ability to expand and update this infrastructure as required, to conduct daily operations. We rely on various IT systems in all areas of our operations, including financial reporting, exploration and development data analysis, human resource management, regulatory compliance and communications with third parties. 22 Table of Contents These IT systems could be subject to network disruptions caused by a variety of sources, including computer viruses, security breaches and cyber-attacks, as well as network and/or hardware disruptions resulting from incidents such as unexpected interruptions or failures, natural disasters, fire, power loss, vandalism and theft. Our operations also depend on the timely maintenance, upgrade and replacement of networks, equipment, IT systems and software, as well as pre-emptive expenses to mitigate the risks of failures. Moreover, the increasing sophistication of cybersecurity threats, coupled with the adoption of emerging technologies such as AI, automation, and cloud-based platforms, poses risks to our operations, financial performance and reputation. We currently employ tools enhanced by AI in limited capacity within our systems for cybersecurity and data gathering, and may expand our use of AI tools in the future to further improve our processes. In addition, our vendors and other service providers may incorporate generative AI tools into their offerings without disclosing or fully clarifying this use to us. While AI has the potential to improve efficiency, it also presents unique vulnerabilities, including algorithmic biases that could lead to inaccurate decisions or unintended outcomes; data integrity risks, such as manipulation or corruption of datasets used to train AI systems; and unauthorized access or exploitation of AI-powered systems, potentially compromising operations or sensitive data. The ability of the IT function to support our business in the event of any such occurrences and the ability to recover key systems from unexpected interruptions cannot be fully tested. There is a risk that, if such an event actually occurs, our continuity plans may not be adequate to immediately address all repercussions of the disaster. In the event of a disaster affecting a data center or key office location, key systems may be unavailable for a number of days, leading to inability to perform some business processes in a timely manner. As a result, the failure of our IT systems or a component thereof could, depending on the nature of any such failure, adversely impact our reputation and results of operations. Although to date we have not experienced any material losses relating to cyber-attacks or other information security breaches, there can be no assurance that we will not incur such losses in the future. Unauthorized access to our IT systems by employees or third parties could lead to corruption or exposure of confidential, fiduciary or proprietary information, interruption to communications or operations or disruption to our business activities or our competitive position. Further, disruption of critical IT services, or breaches of information security, could have a negative effect on our operational performance and our reputation. Our risk and exposure to these matters cannot be fully mitigated because of, among other things, the evolving nature of these threats. As a result, cybersecurity and the continued development and enhancement of controls, processes and practices designed to protect systems, computers, software, data and networks from attack, damage or unauthorized access remain a priority. We apply technical and process controls in line with industry-accepted standards to protect information, assets and systems; however, these controls may not adequately prevent cybersecurity breaches. There is no assurance that we will not suffer losses associated with cybersecurity breaches in the future and may be required to expend significant additional resources to investigate, mitigate and remediate any potential vulnerabilities. As cyber threats continue to evolve, we may be required to expend additional resources to continue to modify or enhance protective measures or to investigate and remediate any security vulnerabilities. Fluctuations in the fair value of our marketable equity securities could materially affect our results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. We hold investments in publicly traded equity securities that are measured at fair value, with changes in fair value recognized in earnings. The market prices of these securities are subject to volatility due to factors beyond our control, including fluctuations in the broader equity markets, changes in investor sentiment, macroeconomic conditions, interest rates, foreign exchange rates, industry specific developments and company specific events affecting the issuers of such securities. As a result, the fair value of our marketable securities may decline significantly over short periods of time. Unrealized losses resulting from declines in the market value of our equity securities are recorded in our results of operations and could adversely affect our reported earnings, even if we do not intend to sell the underlying securities and the issuers’ long-term fundamentals remain unchanged. In addition, if we determine that it is appropriate to divest any of these investments during periods of market weakness, we may be required to realize losses that could negatively impact our liquidity and financial condition. Accordingly, volatility in the fair value of our marketable securities could cause significant variability in our financial results from period to period. 23 Table of Contents General inflationary pressures may impact our costs and affect our results of operations. Inflationary pressure may also affect our labor, commodity, and other input costs, which could affect our financial condition. Operational costs may be affected by continuing inflation and cost-of-goods due to supply chain issues, as well as the possible need to utilize a greater level of contractor services if required staffing is unavailable or cannot timely be hired and trained, resulting in higher costs for key inputs required for our operations, which may be directly through higher transportation costs, as well as indirectly through higher costs of products that rely on energy, which could result in material adverse effects to our operations. Our business is subject to the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and other extraterritorial and national anti-bribery laws and regulations, a breach or violation of which could lead to substantial sanctions and civil and criminal prosecution, as well as fines and penalties, litigation, loss of licenses or permits and other collateral consequences and reputational harm. We are subject to anti-bribery and anti-corruption laws, including the United States Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, as amended, and the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act (Canada). Failure to comply with these laws could subject us to, among other things, reputational damage, civil or criminal penalties, other remedial measures and legal expenses which could adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition. It may not be possible for us to ensure compliance with anti-bribery and anti-corruption laws in every jurisdiction in which our employees, agents, sub-contractors or joint venture partners are located or may be located in the future. Risks Related to our Industry Exploration, pre-extraction and extraction programs and mining activities are inherently subject to numerous significant risks and uncertainties, and actual results may differ significantly from expectations or anticipated amounts. Furthermore, exploration programs conducted on our projects may not result in the establishment of ore bodies that contain commercially recoverable uranium. Exploration, pre-extraction and extraction programs and mining activities are inherently subject to numerous significant risks and uncertainties, with many beyond our control and including, but not limited to: (i) unanticipated ground and water conditions and adverse claims to water rights; (ii) unusual or unexpected geological formations; (iii) metallurgical and other processing problems; (iv) the occurrence of unusual weather or operating conditions, such as wildfires, floods, earthquakes, tornados, lightning, accidental fires, unplanned power outages and water shortages, and other force majeure events; (v) lower than expected ore grades; (vi) industrial accidents; (vii) delays in the receipt of or failure to receive necessary government permits; (viii) delays in transportation; (ix) availability of contractors and labor; (x) operating labor disruptions and labor disputes; (xi) government permit restrictions and regulation restrictions; (xii) unavailability of materials and suitable or adequate machinery or equipment; and (xiii) the failure of equipment or processes to operate in accordance with specifications or expectations. These risks and uncertainties could result in: (i) delays, interruptions, reductions or stoppages in our mining activities or impairment of our exploration and development activities; (ii) increased capital and/or extraction costs; (iii) damage to, or destruction of, our mineral projects, extraction facilities or other properties; (iv) personal injuries or death; (v) environmental damage; (vi) monetary losses; (vii) legal claims; and (viii) adverse governmental action, all of which could have a material adverse impact on our future financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. Success in mineral exploration is dependent on many factors including, without limitation, the experience and capabilities of a company’s management, the availability of geological expertise and the availability of sufficient funds to conduct the exploration program. Even if an exploration program is successful and commercially recoverable material is established, it may take a number of years from the initial phases of drilling and identification of the mineralization until extraction is possible, during which time the economic feasibility of extraction may change such that the material ceases to be economically recoverable. Exploration is frequently non-productive due to, for example, poor exploration results or the inability to establish ore bodies that contain commercially recoverable material, in which case the project may be abandoned and written-off. Furthermore, we will not be able to benefit from our exploration efforts and recover the expenditures that we incur on our exploration programs if we do not establish ore bodies that contain commercially recoverable material and develop these projects into profitable mining activities, and there is no assurance that we will be successful in doing so for any of our projects. 24 Table of Contents Whether an ore body contains commercially recoverable material depends on many factors including, without limitation: (i) the particular attributes, including material changes to those attributes, of the ore body such as size, grade, recovery rates and proximity to infrastructure; (ii) costs and efficiency of the recovery methods that can be employed; (iii) the market price of uranium, which may be volatile; (iv) government regulations and regulatory requirements including, without limitation, those relating to environmental protection, permitting and land use, taxes, royalties, allowable extraction or production, land tenure, transportation, infrastructure, worker health and safety and importing and exporting of uranium; and (v) government actions, including the establishment or expansion of mineral withdrawals, parks and monuments. The future effects of these factors cannot be accurately predicted, but any one or a combination of these factors may result in our inability to economically extract minerals from any identified mineral source. The marketability of uranium concentrates will be affected by numerous factors beyond our control which may result in our inability to receive an adequate return on our invested capital. The marketability of uranium concentrates extracted by us will be affected by numerous factors beyond our control. These factors include: (i) macroeconomic factors; (ii) fluctuations in the market price of uranium; (iii) governmental regulations; (iv) land tenure and use; (v) regulations concerning the importing and exporting of uranium; and (vi) environmental protection regulations. The future effects of these factors cannot be accurately predicted, but any one or a combination of these factors may result in our inability to receive an adequate return on our invested capital. Mining operations involve a high degree of risk. The exploration, construction, development, operation, expansion and restarting mineral projects involve significant financial, technical and regulatory risks over an extended period of time that even a combination of careful evaluation, experience and knowledge may not eliminate. The development or advancement of our exploration properties is contingent upon obtaining satisfactory exploration results, project permitting and licensing and financing, and while discovery of a mine or other facility may result in substantial value, few properties that are staked and explored are ultimately developed into producing mines or extraction or recovery facilities. Major expenses may be required to establish mineral resources and mineral reserves by drilling and to finance, permit, license and construct extraction, mining, recovery and processing facilities, and it is very difficult to ensure that our current or proposed programs will result in profitable commercial extraction, mining or recovery operations. The construction, development, expansion and restarting of projects are subject to the successful completion of engineering studies with adequate results to proceed, the issuance of necessary governmental licenses and permits, the availability of adequate financing, and engineering and construction timetables and capital costs being correctly estimated and not affected by unforeseen circumstances, including delays due to litigation or injunctions. Whether a mineral deposit will ultimately be commercially viable depends on the factors described above under the risk factor “ Exploration, pre-extraction and extraction programs and mining activities are inherently subject to numerous significant risks and uncertainties, and actual results may differ significantly from expectations or anticipated amounts. Furthermore, exploration programs conducted on our projects may not result in the establishment of ore bodies that contain commercially recoverable uranium ”, as well as financing costs and the potential for litigation. The effect of these factors cannot be accurately predicted, but the combination of these factors, along with others, may result in our not receiving an adequate return on invested capital. It is possible that actual costs and economic returns of current and new extraction, mining, or recovery operations may differ materially from our estimates. It is not unusual in the mining industry for new operations and facilities to experience unexpected problems during start-up, to take much longer than anticipated to reach a recovery or producing phase, to require more capital and operate at higher costs than expected, or to incur higher-than-expected reclamation liabilities. Since there is no public market for uranium, selling uranium may take extended periods of time and suitable purchasers may be difficult to find, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and operating results. There is no public market for the sale of uranium, although there are several trading and brokerage houses that serve the industry with bid and ask data as well as locations and quantities. The pool of potential purchasers and sellers is limited, and each transaction may require the negotiation of specific provisions. Accordingly, a sale may take several weeks or months to complete. If we determine to sell any physical uranium that we have acquired or produced, we may likewise experience difficulties in finding purchasers that are able to accept a material quantity of physical uranium at a price and at a location that is compatible with our interests. The inability to sell uranium on a timely basis in sufficient quantities and at a desired price and location could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and operating results. 25 Table of Contents The uranium industry is subject to numerous stringent laws, regulations and standards, including environmental protection laws and regulations. If any changes occur that would make these laws, regulations and standards more stringent, it may require capital outlays in excess of those anticipated or cause substantial delays in any of our projects, which would have a material adverse effect on our operations. Uranium exploration, pre-extraction, extraction and mining activities are subject to numerous stringent federal, state and local laws, regulations and standards governing, among other things, permitting, extraction, exports and imports, taxes, labor and occupational health and safety, waste disposal, emissions, water storage, environmental protection and remediation, mine decommissioning and reclamation, protection of endangered and protected species, mine safety, hazardous substances, and transportation safety and emergency response. Any future changes in these laws, regulations or standards, or in their enforcement or interpretation, could change the legal requirements or in the terms of existing permits, licenses and approvals applicable to us or our projects, which could have a material adverse impact on our operations or planned projects. Our costs to comply with applicable laws, regulations and standards, including the posting of surety bonds associated with environmental and health and safety requirements, have been significant to date and are expected to increase in scale and scope as we expand our operations. Environmental and employee health and safety laws and regulations may also become more stringent in the future, and compliance with such changes may require capital outlays in excess of those anticipated or cause substantial delays, which would have a material adverse effect on our operations, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Any failure to comply with applicable laws, regulations or standards, even if inadvertent, could result in delays, interruption or closure of exploration, pre-extraction and extraction programs, or material fines, penalties or other liabilities. We continue to monitor and assess changes to laws, regulations and standards applicable to us, and we currently believe that the impact of any such changes on our business is unlikely to be material. We cannot, however, assure that our efforts to mitigate the impact of any such changes to laws, regulations or standards will be successful and/or without significant attendant costs. Changes in government policies and regulations could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. The international uranium industry, including the supply of uranium concentrates, is relatively small, competitive and heavily regulated. Worldwide demand for uranium is directly tied to the demand for electricity produced by the nuclear power industry, which is also subject to extensive government regulation and policies. In addition, the international marketing and trade of uranium is subject to changes in governmental policies, regulatory requirements and international trade policies that are beyond our control. Such changes, including the tariff, trade and sanctions measures described below, could affect the demand for uranium and the costs of the products we require to operate and develop our projects, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. The U.S. government has implemented tariffs and discussed additional tariffs, which would further increase costs. There continues to be discussion and dialogue in the U.S. government regarding potential changes to U.S. legislation, regulations, import tariffs, administrative measures and policies that affect trade and transactions with other countries, including Canada, Mexico, China and other U.S. trading partners, and retaliatory tariffs and other measures by such countries. These developments are ongoing and are subject to change, including the imposition of additional tariffs and retaliatory measures by countries subject to such tariffs. Depending on their extent, scope and duration, these tariffs and retaliatory measures may result in increased costs for any equipment and other goods we require to operate and develop our projects in accordance with our current plans, which could have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition and results of operations. At the same time, it is possible that these tariffs and other measures may benefit certain aspects of our business, including by increasing demand for uranium produced in the U.S. Although discussions continue regarding potential economic arrangements between these countries, there remains significant uncertainty over the scope, impact and duration of any tariffs and retaliatory measures, and they may, among other things, adversely impact general economic conditions, including the market and demand for uranium and our business, financial condition and results of operations. 26 Table of Contents In addition, the U.S. government imposes economic sanctions and trade restrictions against certain countries and persons from time to time. For example, the U.S. government continues to impose a ban on the import of low-enriched uranium from Russia. If the U.S. government reduces or rescinds any sanctions or restrictive measures that currently limit U.S. imports of uranium from other countries, such modification could adversely affect the market for uranium of U.S. origin and could have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition, and results of operations. In addition, the outcome and timing of the ongoing Section 232 investigation covering uranium, and the remedies, if any, that may result from it (such as tariffs, quotas, import price floors or strategic reserve purchases), are uncertain, and any such measures, or the failure to adopt them, could adversely affect uranium prices, the market for U.S.-origin uranium and our business, financial condition and results of operations. Mining, extraction, recovery, processing, construction, development and exploration activities depend, to a substantial degree, on adequate infrastructure. Reliable roads, bridges, power sources and water supply are important determinants affecting capital and operating costs. We consider the existing infrastructure to be adequate to support our proposed operations and activities. However, unusual or infrequent weather phenomena, including drought, flooding, sabotage, government and/or other interference in the maintenance or provision of such infrastructure, could adversely affect our operations and activities, financial condition and results of operations. Demand for power generation for AI and data center operations impacts the uranium market and as a result, risks related to AI and data center operations may have an adverse effect on the marketability of uranium. One of the drivers of the uranium market is increased demand of power generation supporting data center operations. We may not be able to identify such commercial opportunities or may be unsuccessful in executing on such opportunities. The rapidly evolving and competitive nature of the data center and AI landscape makes it difficult to evaluate the future prospects of these projects. In addition, we have limited insight into emerging trends that may adversely affect the development of such projects in our areas of operation, and the developers of these projects, if they were to materialize, would encounter the risks and difficulties frequently experienced by growing companies and project developers in rapidly changing industries, including, unpredictable and volatile revenues, increased expenses, an uncertain regulatory and political environment, novel litigation and corresponding outcomes and changes in business conditions. The viability of this business strategy and the resulting demand for our uranium by such customers will be affected by many factors outside of our control and may not be successful. Major nuclear and global market incidents may have adverse effects on the nuclear and uranium industries. The nuclear incident that occurred in Fukushima, Japan on March 11, 2011 had significant and adverse effects on both the nuclear and uranium industries. If another nuclear incident were to occur, it may have further adverse effects for both industries. Public opinion of nuclear power as a source of electrical generation may be adversely affected, which may cause governments of certain countries to further increase regulation for the nuclear industry, reduce or abandon current reliance on nuclear power or reduce or abandon existing plans for nuclear power expansion. Any one of these occurrences has the potential to reduce current and/or future demand for nuclear power, resulting in lower demand for uranium and lower market prices for uranium, and adversely affecting the operations and prospects of our Company. Furthermore, the growth of the nuclear and uranium industries is dependent on continuing and growing public support of nuclear power as a viable source of electrical generation. Nuclear energy competes with other sources of energy, including oil, natural gas, coal and hydroelectricity. These other energy sources are, to some extent, interchangeable with nuclear energy, particularly over the longer term. Technical advancements in, and government subsidies for, renewable and other alternate forms of energy, such as wind and solar power, could make these forms of energy more commercially viable and put additional pressure on the demand for uranium concentrates. Sustained lower prices of alternate forms of energy may result in lower demand for uranium concentrates. Market projections for future demand for uranium are based on various assumptions regarding the rate of construction and approval of new nuclear power plants, as well as continued public acceptance of nuclear energy around the world. The rationale for adopting nuclear energy can be varied, but often includes the clean and environmentally friendly operation of nuclear power plants, as well as the affordability and round-the-clock reliability of nuclear power. A change in public sentiment regarding nuclear energy could have a material impact on the number of nuclear power plants under construction, planned or proposed, which could have a material impact on the market’s and our expectations for the future demand for uranium and the future price of uranium. 27 Table of Contents The Russia-Ukraine war has highlighted to many global policymakers the significant geopolitical risk associated with an overreliance on sources of energy from politically unstable jurisdictions. In many cases, this has resulted in increased calls for a renewed focus on energy independence, to which many nations have identified nuclear power as a potentially critical energy alternative that can both improve energy sovereignty and support the achievement of carbon emission reduction climate goals. However, the uranium industry also potentially faces renewed skepticism and distrust as a result of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine due to Russia’s interference with Ukrainian nuclear plants. Such actions by Russia may result in increased and serious harm to global reception to nuclear energy. Opposition to mining may disrupt our business activities. In recent years, governmental agencies, non-governmental organizations, individuals, communities and courts have become more vocal and active with respect to their opposition to certain mining and business activities, including with respect to permitting activities at our Goliad Project. This opposition may take on forms such as road blockades, vandalism, threats and/or slander, applications for injunctions seeking to cease certain construction, development, extraction, mining and/or milling or recovery activities, refusals to grant access to lands or to sell lands on commercially viable terms, lawsuits for damages or to revoke or modify licenses and permits, government-imposed suspensions, issuances of unfavorable laws and regulations, changes in regulatory attitudes and interpretations and other rulings contrary to or otherwise harming our interests. For example, certain of Goliad Project's permits that are currently in effect have been challenged. These actions can occur in response to current activities or in respect of mines or facilities that are decades old. In addition, these actions can occur in response to our activities or the activities of other unrelated entities. Opposition to our activities may also result from general opposition to nuclear energy and mining. Opposition to our business activities is beyond our control. With the advent of social media and today’s access to information, non-governmental organizations around the world can more readily join together to solicit opposition on a world-wide basis to any of our operations or projects in the U.S. and internationally. Any opposition to our business activities may cause a disruption to our business activities and may result in increased costs and delays, which could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition. We are subject to technical innovation and obsolescence. Requirements for our products and services may be affected by technological changes in nuclear reactors, enrichment and used uranium fuel reprocessing. These technological changes could reduce the demand for our products and services and/or increase the supply of competitive products and services. The cost competitiveness of our operations may be impacted through the development and commercialization of other mining, milling, processing and other technologies. As a result, our competitors may adopt technological advancements that give them an advantage over us or that reduce the demand for our products and services or make them obsolete. The uranium industry is highly competitive and we may not be successful in acquiring additional projects. The uranium industry is highly competitive, and our competition includes larger, more established companies with longer operating histories that not only explore for and produce uranium, but also market uranium and other products on a regional, national or worldwide basis. Due to their greater financial and technical resources, we may not be able to acquire additional uranium projects in a competitive bidding process involving such companies. Additionally, these larger companies have greater resources to continue with their operations during periods of depressed market conditions. Possible amendments to the U.S. General Mining Act of 1872 (the “ General Mining Law ” ) could make it more difficult or impossible for us to execute our business plan. Members of the U.S. Congress have repeatedly introduced bills which would supplant or alter the provisions of the General Mining Law. Such bills have proposed, among other things, to: (i) either eliminate or greatly limit the right to a mineral patent; (ii) significantly alter the laws and regulations relating to uranium mineral development and recovery from unpatented and patented mining claims; (iii) impose a federal royalty on production from unpatented mining claims; (iv) impose time limits on the effectiveness of plans of operation that may not coincide with mine or facility life; (v) impose more stringent environmental compliance and reclamation requirements on activities on unpatented mining claims; (vi) establish a mechanism that would allow states, localities and Native American tribes to petition for the withdrawal of identified tracts of federal land from the operation of the U.S. general mining laws; and (vii) allow for administrative determinations that mining or similar activities would not be allowed in situations where undue degradation of the federal lands in question could not be prevented. If enacted, such legislation could change the cost of holding unpatented mining claims and could significantly impact our ability to develop locatable mineral resources on our patented and unpatented mining claims. Although it is impossible to predict at this point what any legislated royalties might be, enactment could adversely affect the potential for construction and development and the economics of existing operating mines and facilities. Passage of such legislation could adversely affect our financial performance. 28 Table of Contents We are subject to global economic risks. In the event of a general economic downturn or a recession, there can be no assurance that our business, financial condition and results of operations would not be materially adversely affected. During the global financial crisis of 2007 to 2008, economic problems in the United States and Eurozone caused deterioration in the global economy as numerous commercial and financial enterprises either went into bankruptcy or creditor protection or had to be rescued by governmental authorities. Access to public financing was negatively impacted by sub-prime mortgage defaults in the U.S., the liquidity crisis affecting the asset-backed commercial paper and collateralized debt obligation markets and massive investment losses by banks with resultant recapitalization efforts. Moreover, the occurrence of unforeseen or extended catastrophic events, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, and the emergence of a future pandemic or other widespread health emergency (or concerns over the possibility of such an emergency), could create economic and financial disruptions. Political instability, such the ongoing conflicts in Eastern Europe and in the Middle East, and impacts from such political instability, such as on transit routes including the Strait of Hormuz, have caused significant uncertainty in financial markets and disrupted supply chains. These types of challenges can impact commodity prices, including for our U 3 O 8 , as well as currencies and global debt and stock markets. In the event of a future pandemic or other widespread health emergency quarantine or otherwise, requirements or circumstances may require us to change the way we conduct our business and operations, including requiring us to reduce or cease operations at some or all our facilities for an indeterminate period of time. Furthermore, our critical supply chains may similarly be disrupted for an indeterminate amount of time. All these factors could have a material impact on our business, operations, personnel and financial condition. Further, these types of challenges may impact our ability to obtain equity, debt or other financing on terms commercially reasonable to us, or at all, as described under the risk factor, “ Our operations are capital intensive and we will require significant additional financing to continue with our exploration, pre-extraction and extraction activities on our existing projects and to acquire additional mineral projects. Further, we have a history of negative operating cash flow and net losses and may be unable to develop or maintain positive cash flow from our mining activities ” above. Additionally, these types of factors, as well as other related factors, may cause decreases in asset values that are deemed to be other than temporary, which may result in impairment losses. If these types of challenges occur, or if there is a material deterioration in general business and economic conditions, our operations could be adversely impacted and the trading price of our securities could be adversely affected. Risks Related to Our Common Stock Historically, the market price of our common stock has been and may continue to fluctuate significantly. Securities of mining companies have experienced substantial volatility and downward pressure in the recent past, often based on factors unrelated to the operating performance, underlying asset values or prospects of the companies involved. These factors include macroeconomic conditions in North America and globally and market perceptions of the attractiveness of particular industries. In addition to the volatility associated with general economic conditions and market perceptions, the market price of our common stock could decline significantly due to the impact of any one or more events including, but not limited to, the following: (i) volatility in the uranium market; (ii) occurrence of a major nuclear incident such as the events in Japan in March 2011; (iii) changes in the outlook for the nuclear power and uranium industries; (iv) failure to meet market expectations on our exploration, pre-extraction or extraction activities, including abandonment of key uranium projects; (v) sales of a large number of our shares held by certain stockholders including institutions and insiders; (vi) downward revisions to previous estimates on us by analysts; (vii) removal from market indices; (viii) legal claims brought forth against us; and (ix) introduction of technological innovations by competitors or in competing technologies. Additional issuances of our common stock may result in significant dilution to our existing stockholders and reduce the market value of their investment. We are authorized to issue 750,000,000 shares of common stock, of which 495,572,369 shares were issued and outstanding as of July 31, 2026. Future issuances for financings, mergers and acquisitions, exercise of stock options, vesting of restricted stock units and for other reasons may result in significant dilution to and be issued at prices substantially below the price paid for our shares held by our existing stockholders. Significant dilution would reduce the proportionate ownership and voting power held by our existing stockholders and may result in a decrease in the market price of our shares. 29 Table of Contents Proposed and new legislation in the U.S. Congress, including changes in U.S. tax law, may adversely impact the Company and the value of shares of our common stock. Changes to U.S. tax laws (which changes may have retroactive application) could adversely affect us or holders of shares of our common stock. In recent years, many changes to U.S. federal income tax laws have been proposed and made, and additional changes to U.S. federal income tax laws are likely to continue to occur in the future. The U.S. Congress passed and is currently considering numerous items of legislation which may be enacted prospectively or with retroactive effect, and which legislation could adversely impact our financial performance and the value of shares of our common stock. The laws of the State of Nevada and our Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws may protect our directors and officers from certain types of lawsuits. The laws of the State of Nevada provide that our directors and officers will not be liable to us or to our stockholders for monetary damages for all but certain types of conduct as directors and officers. Our Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws provide for broad indemnification powers to all persons against all damages incurred in connection with our business to the fullest extent provided or allowed by law. These indemnification provisions may require us to use our limited assets to defend our directors and officers against claims, and may have the effect of preventing stockholders from recovering damages against our directors and officers caused by their negligence, poor judgment or other circumstances. Several of our directors and officers are residents outside of the United States, and it may be difficult for stockholders to enforce within the United States any judgments obtained against such directors or officers. Several of our directors and officers are nationals and/or residents of countries other than the United States, and all or a substantial portion of such persons’ assets are located outside of the United States. As a result, it may be difficult for investors to effect service of process on such directors and officers, or enforce within the United States any judgments obtained against such directors and officers, including judgments predicated upon the civil liability provisions of the securities laws of the United States or any state thereof. Consequently, stockholders may be effectively prevented from pursuing remedies against such directors and officers under U.S. federal securities laws. In addition, stockholders may not be able to commence an action in a Canadian court predicated upon the civil liability provisions under U.S. federal securities laws. The foregoing risks also apply to those experts identified in this Annual Report that are not residents of the United States. We have never paid dividends and do not currently intend to do so in the foreseeable future. If our share price does not appreciate, our investors could potentially lose on their investment in our common stock. We have never paid cash dividends on our common stock. We currently intend to retain our future earnings, if any, to fund the development and growth of our business, and we do not anticipate paying any cash dividends on our common stock for the foreseeable future. As a result, stockholders will have to rely on capital appreciation, if any, to earn a return on investment in any common stock in the foreseeable future. Furthermore, we may in the future become subject to contractual restrictions on, or prohibitions against, the payment of dividends. Disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting, no matter how well designed and operated, are designed to obtain reasonable, and not absolute, assurance as to its reliability and effectiveness. Management’s evaluation on the effectiveness of disclosure controls and procedures is designed to ensure that information required for disclosure in our public filings is recorded, processed, summarized and reported on a timely basis to our senior management, as appropriate, to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure. Management’s report on internal control over financial reporting is designed to provide reasonable assurance that transactions are properly authorized, assets are safeguarded against unauthorized or improper use and transactions are properly recorded and reported. However, any system of controls, no matter how well designed and operated, is based in part upon certain assumptions designed to obtain reasonable, and not absolute, assurance as to its reliability and effectiveness. Any failure to maintain effective disclosure controls and procedures in the future may result in our inability to continue meeting our reporting obligations in a timely manner, qualified audit opinions or restatements of our financial reports, any one of which may affect the market price for our common stock and our ability to access the capital markets. 30 Table of Contents Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments None. Item 1C. Cybersecurity Globally, organizations are encountering cybersecurity incidents with growing frequency, and the nature of these threats, including through the use of AI, is becoming more sophisticated and constantly changing. We recognize the importance of developing, implementing and maintaining strong cybersecurity policies and processes to protect our information systems and the confidentiality, integrity and accessibility and availability of our data. Risk Management and Strategy We have developed and maintained policies, procedures and controls that seek to assess, identify and manage material risks from cybersecurity threats, and assess and disclose information to investors concerning material cybersecurity incidents. Further, we have strategically integrated cybersecurity risk management into our broader risk management framework to promote awareness and attention to cybersecurity risk management across our business. These risks are evaluated on an ongoing basis as part of our overall risk management strategy that is generally overseen by the Audit Committee (the “ Audit Committee ”) of our Board of Directors (the “ Board ”). Our Chief Executive Officer and our Chief Financial Officer oversee the details of our information security risk management approach. Under the direction of our Chief Financial Officer, our lead IT manager (the “ IT Manager ”) evaluates the effectiveness of the data and information systems in protecting our data and information systems from security threats. The evaluation stratifies IT systems based on the risk and severity of potential security breaches related to the data handled and assesses the effectiveness of the systems in safeguarding against cyber threats. The evaluation reviews, among other things, physical security, network security, host security, application security, data security and AI usage. Our Security Operations Center, which consists of a team provided by our third party managed service provider, continuously monitors for security events and threats, responding and escalating when appropriate. All of our employees, consultants and contractors are encouraged to exercise professional judgement in using computing devices and network resources connected to the information technology network and infrastructure, and are strictly prohibited from certain acts enumerated in our cybersecurity policy including, among other things, accessing such devices or resources for non-business purposes, disabling our security features and requirements and exporting information or technologies without consent and password sharing. Violations or breaches of our cybersecurity policy or the associated schedules, standards or guidelines may result in suspension and/or discipline up to and including termination, in addition to administrative sanctions or legal actions. Despite these efforts, no system is impenetrable. In addition, new technology that could result in greater operational efficiency such as use of AI may further expose our operations and computer systems to risk of cybersecurity incidents. We cannot provide assurances that we will prevent every attack or timely detect every incident. Engagement of Third Parties for Cybersecurity Risk Management When appropriate, we use external subject matter specialists, including assessors, consultants or other third parties, to assess our cybersecurity risk management processes. We will consider resource and capital constraints when determining the nature and timing of enhancing our cybersecurity infrastructure. Overseeing Risks Stemming from Third-Party Service Providers We maintain comprehensive internal protocols to mitigate cybersecurity threats associated with our use of third -party service providers. We have engaged third parties that supply IT services or have access to our systems or data to adhere to our security policies. These third parties provide detailed information on their established security controls via our risk assessment process. Specific certification may be required of critical third -party IT service providers. We are currently enhancing these protocols to further strengthen our defenses and reduce potential vulnerabilities. 31 Table of Contents Material Risks from Cybersecurity Threats We are not aware of any material risks from cybersecurity threats, including as a result of any previous cybersecurity incidents, that have materially affected or are reasonably likely to materially affect us, including our business strategy, results of operations or financial condition. Although our processes are designed to help prevent, detect, respond to, and mitigate the impact of such incidents, there is no guarantee that a future cybersecurity threat would not materially affect our business strategy, results of operations or financial condition. See “ We are dependent on information technology systems, which are subject to certain risks, including cybersecurity risks and data leakage risks associated with implementation and integration ” in “Item 1A. Risk Factors” in this Annual Report. Governance Board of Directors Oversight Our Board recognizes the importance of information security and mitigating cybersecurity and other data security threats and risks as part of our efforts to protect and maintain the confidentiality and security of our employees, service providers, consultants and business associates, as well as non-public information about us. Although our Board has ultimate responsibility with respect to risk management oversight, the Audit Committee is charged with and bears primary responsibility for, among other matters, overseeing risks specific to the identification and mitigation of cybersecurity threats. The Audit Committee is informed of the status of our cybersecurity risk management processes by management at least annually, and more frequently as needed. These briefings encompass a broad range of topics, including: ● current cybersecurity landscape and emerging threats; ● the status of ongoing cybersecurity initiatives, strategies, and best practices; and ● incident reports and learnings from any cybersecurity events. Management ’ s Role in Managing Risk Our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer oversee the details of our information security risk management approach and may appoint team leads from various departments from time to time to assist with certain aspects of our cybersecurity risk mitigation strategy. Our IT Manager , under the direction of our Chief Financial Officer, is responsible for assessing and managing our material risks from cybersecurity threats. The IT Manager has approximately eight years of experience in corporate IT management, cybersecurity and digital transformations. The IT Manager is informed about and monitors the prevention, detection, mitigation and remediation of cybersecurity incidents through management of and participation in the cybersecurity risk management processes described above, and regularly reports to our Chief Financial Officer. Our Chief Financial Officer will immediately notify the Audit Committee and the Board of any cybersecurity incident that is determined to be material. Our Chief Financial Officer delivers updates to the Audit Committee and to the Board annually, or more frequently as needed, in response to specific incidents or emerging threats. As we progress in the assessment and enhancement of our cybersecurity program, we plan to consider the following areas for enhancement and incorporation into the cybersecurity risk management and governance program in the future: ● oversight of third -party cybersecurity risk; ● engaging/outsourcing risk management personnel; ● monitoring system/procedures for cybersecurity incidents; and ● reporting to the Board regarding cybersecurity risks and incidents. 32 Table of Contents 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 and conventional uranium projects. In August 2024, we commenced ISR operations at our Christensen Ranch Mine in Wyoming, sending uranium loaded resin to our Irigaray CPP in Wyoming. In April 2026, we commenced ISR operations at our Burke Hollow Mine in Texas, sending uranium loaded resin to our Hobson CPP in Texas. Other than the Christensen Ranch and Burke Hollow Mines, there was no production from our other properties during the Fiscal 2026. The CPP for the Great Divide Basin (“ GDB ”) properties in Wyoming is our Sweetwater Mill, currently configured for conventional mining, that will be refurbished to also accept production from ISR mines. The following sets forth the locations of our projects. Figure 2.1 – Portfolio Overview of 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 2026, 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 our Christensen Ranch Mine, Reno Creek, Ludeman and Sweetwater Projects in Wyoming, our Burke Hollow Mine in Texas, and our Roughrider Project 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 “- Individual Material Properties” herein. This Annual Report includes disclosure of initial assessments for certain of our projects that include a cash flow analysis to illustrate a property’s economic potential. Such assessments are preliminary in nature, include inferred mineral resources that are considered too speculative geologically to have modifying factors applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as mineral reserves, and there is no certainty that such economic assessments will be realized. An initial assessment is a preliminary technical and economic study of the economic potential of mineral resources; it is not a pre-feasibility study or feasibility study and does not demonstrate economic viability. There is no certainty that the mineral resource estimates or the economic projections set forth in any initial assessment will be realized, and mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability. 33 Table of Contents We commenced uranium extraction at our Christensen Ranch Mine in August 2024 and at our Burke Hollow Mine in April 2026; the quantities of uranium produced from these mines since the effective dates of the applicable TRS have not been material relative to the estimated mineral resources and, accordingly, have not been deducted from the mineral resource estimates presented in this Annual Report. We are not aware of any new information or data that would cause a material change to the mineral resource estimates as of July 31, 2026. Summary Disclosure The following table sets forth summary information regarding each of our mineral properties and is presented as of the date of this Annual Report. 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 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 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 8,780 3,553.14 100% 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 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 1,861.51 100% UEC Exploration Stage ISR Roll-Front U Gas Hills Wyoming, USA 6,114 2,474.56 100% UEC Exploration Stage ISR Roll-Front U Green Mountain Wyoming, USA 30,460 12,326.7 100% UEC Exploration Stage ISR and Conventional Roll-Front (ISR); Tabular (Conventional) 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 4,299 1,739.78 100% 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 34 Table of Contents Project Location Acres Hectares Ownership Interest Operator Stage Mining Method Mineralization Style Commodities 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 18,227 7,376.21 100% 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 Sweetwater (Red Desert) Wyoming, USA 29,030 11,748 100% UEC Exploration Stage ISR and Conventional Roll-Front U Taylor Ranch Wyoming, USA 5,739 2,322.75 100% 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 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 12,688 5,135 100% 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 16,497 6,676 32.76% Orano Canada Inc. Exploration Stage Conventional Unconformity Related U Black Lake Saskatchewan, Canada 78,466 31,754 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 54,358 21,998 100% UEC Exploration Stage Conventional Unconformity Related U Christie Lake Saskatchewan, Canada 19,469 7,879 82.77% UEC Exploration Stage Conventional Unconformity Related U Close Lake Saskatchewan, Canada 96,272 38,960 5.16% Orano Canada Inc. Exploration Stage Conventional Unconformity Related U 35 Table of Contents Project Location Acres Hectares Ownership Interest Operator Stage Mining Method Mineralization Style Commodities Cree Extension Saskatchewan, Canada 30,520 12,351 15.05% Cameco Corporation Exploration Stage Conventional Unconformity Related U Diabase Peninsula Saskatchewan, Canada 77,599 31,403 100.00% UEC Exploration Stage Conventional Unconformity Related U Erica Saskatchewan, Canada 91,599 37,069 49.10% Orano Canada Inc. Exploration Stage Conventional Unconformity Related U Henday Saskatchewan, Canada 17,806 7,206 60% UEC Exploration Stage Conventional Unconformity Related U Hidden Bay Saskatchewan, Canada 127,193 51,473 100.00% UEC Exploration Stage Conventional Unconformity Related U Horseshoe- Raven Saskatchewan, Canada 11,051 4,472 100.00% UEC Exploration Stage Conventional Unconformity Related U Key West Saskatchewan, Canada 31,746 12,847 100.00% UEC Exploration Stage Conventional Unconformity Related U Laurie Saskatchewan, Canada 21,693 8,779 32.99% Orano Canada Inc. Exploration Stage Conventional Unconformity Related U Millennium Saskatchewan, Canada 1,480 599 15.05% Cameco Corporation Exploration Stage Conventional Unconformity Related U Milliken Saskatchewan, Canada 9,869 3,994 100% UEC Exploration Stage Conventional Unconformity Related U Mirror River Saskatchewan, Canada 42,999 17,401 32.34% Orano Canada Inc. Exploration Stage Conventional Unconformity Related U Moon Lake Saskatchewan, Canada 9,373 3,793 10.07% Cameco Corporation Exploration Stage Conventional Unconformity Related U Moore Tomblin Saskatchewan, Canada 3,146 1,273 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 27,562 11,154 100.00% UEC Exploration Stage Conventional Unconformity Related U Roughrider Saskatchewan, Canada 1,478 598 100.00% UEC Exploration Stage Conventional Unconformity Related U Shea Creek Saskatchewan, Canada 81,453 32,963 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 28,713 11,620 12.90% Orano Canada Inc. Exploration Stage Conventional Unconformity Related U West Bear Saskatchewan, Canada 27,426 11,099 100.00% UEC Exploration Stage Conventional Unconformity Related U, Co, Ni Wheeler River Saskatchewan, Canada 28,953 11,717 5.00% Denison Mines Corp. Development ISR / Conventional Unconformity Related U Wolly Saskatchewan, Canada 58,697 23,754 6.22% 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 375,909 152,190 100.00% UEC Exploration Stage Conventional Surficial Ti Production The following sets forth our aggregate annual uranium production from all of our properties for each of the three most recently completed fiscal years, which should be presented in tabular form. We had no uranium production during the fiscal year ended July 31, 2024. During the fiscal year ended July 31, 2025, following the restart of the Christensen Ranch Mine, we produced 129,966 pounds of precipitated uranium and dried and drummed U 3 O 8 , all from the Christensen Ranch Mine. During the fiscal year ended July 31, 2026, we produced 229,294 pounds of precipitated uranium and dried and drummed U 3 O 8 , in the aggregate, from our Christensen Ranch Mine and our Burke Hollow Mine. Other than the Christensen Ranch Mine and the Burke Hollow Mine, we had no production from our properties during these periods. 36 Table of Contents Mineral Resources The following table sets forth the current mineral resource estimates for our uranium properties as of July 31, 2026. For further information regarding estimates concerning our material individual properties, please see “– Individual Material Properties” herein. Measured Indicated Inferred Country State / Province Project 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 20,146 0.05% 23,899 36,254 32,891 0.06% 42,299 10,859 9,852 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 22,120 0.06% 27,531 57,494 52,159 0.07% 83,680 17,196 15,601 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 13,535 12,278 0.41% 109,885 1,967 1,786 1.74% 68,356 Paraguay Yuty 9,074 8,232 0.05% 8,962 2,733 2,479 0.04% 2,203 Total Resources 24,382 22,120 0.06% 27,531 80,103 72,669 0.13% 202,527 21,896 19,866 0.23% 100,020 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. 37 Table of Contents 3. In the year ended July 31, 2025, we commenced operations at our Christensen Ranch Mine which included minimal initial production as part of ramp up of 129,966 pounds of precipitated uranium and dried and drummed U 3 O 8 at the end of such period. In the year ended July 31, 2026, we continued operations at our Christensen Ranch Mine and produced 211,942 pounds of precipitated uranium and dried and drummed concentrate at the end of such period. The cumulative production of 341,908 pounds of precipitated uranium and dried and drummed concentrate as of July 31, 2026 has not been deducted from the estimate above. 4. In the year ended July 31, 2026, we commenced operations at our Burke Hollow Mine which included minimal initial production as part of ramp up of approximately 17,352 pounds of precipitated uranium and dried and drummed concentrate. 5. 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. 6. 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. 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 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. The 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 Mineral 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 Technical Report Summary (each, a “ 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 QPs under each TRS have confidence in the data and geologic interpretations that are being used in resource estimation. 38 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, we submit 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 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 us 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. Our 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. Our 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 Mill, a conventional mill located in Southwestern Wyoming. Additional information regarding each processing facility is set forth where applicable in “Individual Material Properties” herein. 39 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 WDEQ/LQD. In the GDB of Wyoming, the Sweetwater Project is both permitted and licensed through WDEQ/LQD, and the Big Eagle and Jackpot properties hold Permits to Mine. Geology and Mineralization in Wyoming Uranium was first discovered in the southern Powder River Basin (“ 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 Schroeckingerite deposit in the early 1950s. The Schroeckingerite deposits were exposed at the surface along the Lost Creek drainage and were located using radiometric surveys. The U.S. Geological Survey 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. 40 Table of Contents The Allemand-Ross, Barge, Charlie, Christensen Ranch, Irigaray, Ludeman, Moore Ranch, Nine Mile and Reno Creek Project areas reside in the 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 (Sweetwater), Green Mountain and Red Rim Project areas are located within the northeastern portion of the Greater Green River Basin (“ GGRB ”), which portion is also known as the Great Divide Basin. 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. 41 Table of Contents 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. 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 (Sweetwater), Green Mountain and Red Rim Project areas are located within the northeastern portion of the GGRB, with this portion named the 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 permeable medium- to very coarse-grained sandstones and arkoses of the Battle Spring Formation 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. 42 Table of Contents The Fort Union Formation surfaces around the boundary of the GDB. The Fort Union Formation is described as an interbedded sequence of white, gray, tan, buff and brown sandstone, gray to black shale, carbonaceous shale, siltstone, local conglomerate beds and (usually) thin coal beds. It may truncate and unconformably overlie older units near basin margins. The Fort Union is unconformably underlain by the Cretaceous Lance Formation and regionally overlain by either the Eocene Wasatch or Battle Spring Formation. The Lance Formation is described as a gray to buff fine-grained to very fine-grained silty sandstone interbedded with drab to light-green to gray locally carbonaceous siltstone and thin conglomeratic lenses locally. The Lance Formation contains the upper Red Rim Member and the lower (unnamed) member. The Red Rim Member is a prominent sandstone package named for its color as it crops out south of Interstate 80 on the eastern rim of the WB. Overbank and floodplain deposits in the Battle Spring Formation also were likely to restrict groundwater flow. These boundaries focused uranium-rich waters into confined permeable units. Faulting also created structural and permeability control. Geology of the Wind River Basin The Clarkson Hill Project area is located in the eastern portion of the 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 sandstones 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. 43 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 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. Water is sourced locally at the mine while electrical service is provided by a regional power company. 44 Table of Contents 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. Process upgrades at the Irigaray CPP continued in the second quarter of Fiscal 2026, including refurbishment of the calciner to increase throughput of dried yellowcake. Updates included components as recommended by the manufacturer to increase operational efficiency. As a result, the CPP is capable of operating the drying and packaging processes 24/7 under a two shift schedule. 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) that is not affiliated with UEC. Figure 2.4 – Location of the Christensen Ranch Project 45 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. Services and personnel are available from Buffalo, Gillette, Casper and Douglas. Casper and Gillette provide flight services with daily service to Denver. 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 8,780 3,553.14 1 640 Annual 1 720 Annual 399 7,980 Annual 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 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. 46 Table of Contents Year Company Operations/Activity Amount (No. of Drill holes) Results of Work 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 2027. N/A The Christensen Ranch Mine had no production during the fiscal year ended July 31, 2024. During the fiscal year ended July 31, 2025, following the restart of operations, the Christensen Ranch Mine produced 129,966 pounds of precipitated uranium and dried and drummed U 3 O 8 as part of its initial ramp-up. During the fiscal year ended July 31, 2026, the Christensen Ranch Mine produced 211,942 pounds of precipitated uranium and dried and drummed U 3 O 8 . 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 was completed. Three of the four header houses in Mine Unit 11 are in production as of July 31, 2026, with header house 11-2 remaining offline until fully permitted. Wellfield development advanced with active well installation (piloting, casing and underreaming) in Mine Unit 12, Mine Unit 10-extension, and Mine Unit 8-extension. At the end of Fiscal 2026, four header houses were fully constructed in Mine Unit 10-extension, bringing the total to five that were awaiting regulatory approval for startup at such time. On September 28, 2026, final regulatory approvals were issued for four of these. One header house in Mine Unit 12 was completed at the end of Fiscal 2026. 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 nine installed wellfields (Mine Units 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11). 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 10 and 11 have been partially mined and continue to produce uranium. Operations in portions of Mine Unit 5 may also be resumed in the future. All facilities are in very good condition. 47 Table of Contents Permit Status and Encumbrances The Christensen Ranch Project is permitted under WDEQ Permit to Mine No. 478. The project is also licensed under WDEQ 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. Standard encumbrances on the Christensen Ranch Project include reclamation bonding, mining and surface lease royalties, including production-based royalties and sales-based royalties. In addition, the Wyoming Department of Revenue collects severance and ad valorem tax on the value of uranium extracted from our Christensen Ranch Project. 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 Yes 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. 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. 48 Table of Contents Table 2.5 – Mineral Resources for the Christensen Ranch Project as of July 31, 2026 and 2025 Classification Tons Ore (’000’s) Tonnes Ore (’000’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 S-K 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 129,966 pounds of precipitated uranium and dried and drummed U 3 O 8 at the end of such period. In the year ended July 31, 2026, we continued operations at Christensen Ranch and produced 211,942 pounds of precipitated uranium and dried and drummed concentrate at the end of such period. The cumulative production of 341,908 pounds of precipitated uranium and dried and drummed concentrate as of July 31, 2026 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) that is not affiliated with UEC. 49 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. 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 18,227 7,376.21 4 3,200 Annual 36 3,467.21 Variable 578 11,560 Annual 50 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. 51 Table of Contents Year Company Operations/Activity Amount (No. of Drill holes) Results of Work 2007 AUCA Advanced project through acquisition of most major permits and required authorizations. N/A Secured permits and required authorizations. 2017 UEC Consolidated ownership of multiple Resource Areas and oversaw technical reporting and auditing of project resources. N/A Consolidation of ownership. Auditing of the Reno Creek Project Area resources. Reno Creek – Moore, Pine Tree, and Bing 1960s Utah International Mining Company Exploration on Moore and Pine Tree Resource Areas. N/A Delineation of mineralized areas. Late 1970s Pathfinder Mines, Inc. Utah International Mining Company becomes Pathfinder Mines, Inc. and continues exploration on Moore and Pine Tree Resource Areas. >1,560 Delineation of mineralized areas. 1980s RME Obtained ownership of Moore Area, continued exploration drilling until the 1990s. >400 Acquired the Reno Creek Project Area. Delineation of mineralized areas. 1960s Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Company Exploration of Bing Area, drilled several hundred exploration holes and conducted limited hydrologic testing in the 1970s. 177 Delineation of mineralized areas through drilling and conducted hydrologic testing. 2007 AUCA Consolidated the Resource Areas under one owner. N/A Consolidated ownership. 2017 UEC Oversaw technical reporting and auditing of project resources. N/A Auditing of the Reno Creek Project Area resources. 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. 52 Table of Contents Permit Status and Encumbrances The Reno Creek 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. Standard encumbrances on the Reno Creek Project 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. Uranium mineralization at the Reno Creek Project Area is typical of Wyoming roll-front sandstone deposits, the formation and geometry of which, including the classic roll-front “C” shape and the associated “nose”, “seepage” and “tails” zones, are described above under “—Christensen Ranch Project”. 53 Table of Contents Table 2.9 – Mineral Resources for the Reno Creek Project as of July 31, 2026 and 2025 Classification Tons Ore (’000’s) Tonnes Ore (’000’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. 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) that 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. 54 Table of Contents Figure 2.6 – Location of the Ludeman Project 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. Water will be sourced locally at the site while electrical service will be provided by a regional power company. 55 Table of Contents 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 One lease expires in Jan. 2029 and the other lease is held by development, production and reclamation 746 14,920 Annual 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. 2006 EMC EMC acquired HPU. N/A Consolidation through acquisition. 56 Table of Contents Year Company Operations/Activity Amount (No. of Drill holes) Results of Work 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. 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 and is our third ISR project in Wyoming. Monitor, injection and recovery wells for the first wellfield are currently under construction and being tested for mechanical integrity. Procurement of wellfield development piping, mechanical and electrical components is underway for the first seven header houses. Additionally, core samples have been collected for a review of mineralogy. Engineering for the satellite ion-exchange plant was significantly advanced during the fourth quarter of Fiscal 2026, allowing us to award contracts for longer lead time equipment. The civil engineering for the plant pad was completed and a contract for construction issued. The powerline location has been established with the power company, and land surveys of the powerline route are underway. Uranium captured on ion-exchange resin at the Ludeman satellite plant will be transported to our Irigaray CPP, our hub in the PRB, for stripping, precipitation, drying and packaging. 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. Standard encumbrances on the Ludeman Project 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 Yes Yes Yes Yes 57 Table of Contents 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 and geometry of which, including the classic roll-front “C” shape and the associated “nose”, “seepage” and “tails” zones, are described above under “—Christensen Ranch Project.” Table 2.13 – Mineral Resources for the Ludeman Project as of July 31, 2026 and 2025. Classification Tons Ore ( ’ 000 ’ s) Tonnes Ore ( ’ 000 ’ s) Average Grade (% eU 3 O 8 ) Pounds eU 3 O 8 ( ’ 000 ’ s) Measured 2,674 2,426 0.094 5,016.9 Indicated 2,660 2,413 0.088 4,696.9 Total M&I 5,334 4,839 0.091 9,713.8 Inferred 866 786 0.073 1,258.0 Total Resources 6,200 5,625 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 Sweetwater Project Information for the Sweetwater Project area (the “ Sweetwater Project Area ”) is provided below. Property Description The Sweetwater Project consists of a collection of uranium exploration and development projects in Wyoming, comprised of: ● Sweetwater (Red Desert) property mining rights, past producing Sweetwater mine, mill and tailings facility; and ● Green Mountain property mining rights, past producing Big Eagle open pit and the planned Jackpot underground mine. The CPP for the GDB properties in Wyoming is the Sweetwater Mill, currently configured for conventional mining, which will be refurbished to also accept production from ISR mines. 58 Table of Contents These properties are located in the Great Divide Basin of Wyoming in the following locations: Figure 2.7 - Location of the Sweetwater (Red Desert) Project Area Figure 2.8 - Location of the Green Mountain Project Area The primary facilities existing at the Sweetwater Project are located approximately 40 air miles northwest of Rawlins, Wyoming at latitude 42.0535 and longitude -107.8994 in decimal degrees, in Sweetwater County, Wyoming. The site is remote, with the nearest town of Bairoil, population 68, located 22 miles to the northeast of the site. The project is accessible year-round from the east via the Minerals Exploration Road (County Road 63), that connects with US Highway (US 287). The site is also accessible from the west via the Wamsutter-Crooks Gap Road (CR23) and BLM roads. Flight service is available from Rock Springs (108 miles to the west of Rawlins) or Casper (approximately 140 miles to the northeast of the site). Services and personnel are available from Rawlins, Casper, Lander and Rock Springs. Water at the site is sourced locally with electrical service provided by Rocky Mountain Power. 59 Table of Contents The Green Mountain area is located in the southeast corner of Fremont County, 40 miles southeast of Lander, Wyoming, and 45 miles north of Rawlins on Wyoming Highway 287. The area extends eastward from Crooks Gap to Jan-PH in Townships 27 and 28 North, Ranges 90, 91, 92 West. The Green Mountain portion of the Sweetwater Project is approximately 22 miles north of the primary Sweetwater facilities location. It contains two permitted conventional mines (Big Eagle – open pit and Jackpot – underground), one un-permitted conventional project (Big Eagle Phase II) and two potential ISR deposits. The only facilities in this area are located within the Big Eagle permit area and consist of two buildings for truck maintenance and washing and two partially reclaimed open pit mines. A decline to access the orebody at the Jackpot Mine has been reclaimed to state standards, therefore no facilities are located on this property Land Position Table 2.14 Sweetwater Project Land Position Acres Hectares State Leases Fee Mineral Leases Federal Lode Mining Claims Federal Mill Site Claims UEC-Owned Land Total Total Number Acres Expiration Date Number Acres Expiration Date Number Acres Expiration Date Number Acres Expiration Date Acres 61,465 24,874 6 3,280 Annual 0 0 N/A 2,708 54,160 Annual 410 2,050 Annual 1,975 History On December 6, 2024, we completed the acquisition of all of the issued and outstanding shares of capital stock of KUC and WCRC from Rio Tinto America Inc. As a result of such acquisition, we acquired: (i) the facilities, equipment, improvements and fixtures for the processing of uranium located in Sweetwater County, Wyoming, and related facilities and impoundments (the Sweetwater Mill); (ii) the Red Desert Project (now called Sweetwater) uranium mining claims and state leases adjacent to the Sweetwater Mill; and (iii) the Green Mountain Project, a uranium project located 22 miles north of the Sweetwater Mill, with two deposits that have potential for ISR mining and three deposits that are considered appropriate for conventional mining. The table below describes the historic ownership and operations at the Sweetwater Project Area. Table 2.15 Historic Ownership of the Sweetwater Project Area (Sweetwater/Red Desert and Green Mountain) Year Company Operations/Activity 1979-1980 Minerals Exploration Company, subsidiary of Union Oil Company of California (UNOCAL) Built the Sweetwater Mine and Mill 1980-1983 Minerals Exploration Company, subsidiary of Union Oil Company of California (UNOCAL) Mining and milling; production of 1.3 million pounds of uranium; production ceased due to low uranium prices; facilities placed on standby 1992 Sweetwater Project sold to Kennecott Uranium Company and Green Mountain Mining Venture (“ GMMV ”) (joint venture among Kennecott Uranium Company, U.S. Energy Corp. and Crested Corp.) Standby status only 2000 GMMV sold to Kennecott Uranium Company and Wyoming Coal Resources Company Standby status only 2024 Kennecott Uranium Company, GMMV and Wyoming Coal Resources Company sold to Uranium Energy Corp. Standby status continued Property Condition and Proposed Development The condition of the properties is good while meeting all standards and requirements of federal, state and local regulations. 60 Table of Contents The Sweetwater (Red Desert) property is permitted and licensed for conventional mining. We are currently pursuing an amendment to its permits in order for Sweetwater to be mined using ISR methodologies. A 200-hole delineation drilling program in the first two planned wellfields at Sweetwater was completed in early May 2026 for the Sweetwater North area, where wellfield pattern planning has commenced. A second 100-hole delineation drilling program began in August 2026 in the same area to further define potential resources. We have commenced the assessment of refurbishment requirements for the Sweetwater Mill for both conventional and ISR operations. Ion-exchange vessels for the Sweetwater ISR circuit are under construction. The development plans for the Green Mountain properties are currently on standby while ISR is pursued at the Sweetwater property. Facilities, Infrastructure and Underground Development The construction of the Sweetwater Mill occurred in 1979 and 1980, and Minerals Exploration Company processed ore mined from an adjacent open pit from February 1981 through April 1983. It is one of only three conventional uranium mills in the United States and the only mill located in Wyoming. The mill has an ore processing capacity of 3,000 tons/day and is licensed for 4.1 million pounds U 3 O 8 per year, making it the second largest mill in the United States. Mill tailings from the previous processing were disposed of in a tailings storage facility next to the mill, a 60-acre, below-grade lined impoundment, which exists today. The mill has been in standby status since cessation of operation in 1983. Although the Sweetwater Mill has been on standby status for over 40 years, we believe the buildings and equipment have been maintained in exceptional shape throughout this time. The Sweetwater Mill site covers approximately 580 hectares (1,432 acres), consisting of the main mill, ancillary buildings and existing tailings impoundment, as well as an area of proposed new impoundments, evaporation ponds, and diversion channels. The mill and ancillary buildings contain: • offices and a laboratory; • warehouse, change rooms, and maintenance shop; • grinding, leaching, and counter-current decantation equipment; • thickener tanks; • scrubber emission control, stacks; • solvent extraction equipment; and • equipment, tire, and lubrication bay. The previous mining that occurred to feed the Sweetwater Mill was an open pit mine adjacent to the mill called the Sweetwater pit. This mine has been reclaimed, leaving a small high wall area and pit lake. The State of Wyoming has accepted that the reclamation is final and meets state standards. As noted before, there are two partially reclaimed open pit mines at the Big Eagle property and a reclaimed underground decline at the Jackpot property. Permit Status and Encumbrances The Sweetwater (Red Desert) Project is permitted under WDEQ Permit to Mine No. 481. The project is also licensed under WDEQ RML WYSUA-1350, formerly a U.S. NRC license. Permit to Mine No. 481 and RML WYSUA-1350 are in good standing, with no violations of permit or license conditions. The Big Eagle Project on Green Mountain is permitted under WDEQ Permit to Mine No. 451, and Jackpot is permitted under WDEQ Permit to Mine No. 660. During Fiscal 2026, the FAST-41 and NEPA federal permitting process continued to advance under the leadership of the BLM. 61 Table of Contents Mining permit requirements can be found in Wyoming Statutes §35-11-400 through 437, with specific laws for ISR mining in sections 426 – 436. Requirements of RMLs are found in WDEQ, LQD/Uranium Recovery Program Chapter 4 Rules and Regulations for Licensing of Source and Byproduct Material. The details of the Sweetwater Project Permit status are tabulated below. Table 2.16 Sweetwater Permit Details Property Permitted to Mine Drilling Notification for Exploration Class III UIC Permit to Mine WDEQ Class I Well Permits Radioactive Materials License BLM Plan of Operations WDEQ/EPA Aquifer Exemption Notes In progress for ISR mining In progress for ISR mining In progress for ISR mining 1 Conventional open pit mining Sweetwater (Red Desert) Yes 1, 2 Yes No Yes 2 Will be revised to add ISR mining WDEQ PTM 481 DN 267 WYSUA-1350 Green Mountain Big Eagle Yes 1, 2 Yes No No No No No 1 Conventional open pit mining WDEQ PTM 451 DN 267 2 Will require revision to mine plan for continued operations Jackpot Yes 1, 2 No No No No No No 1 Conventional underground mining WDEQ PTM 660 2 Will require revision to mine plan for continued operations Standard encumbrances include reclamation bonding, mining and surface lease royalties. There is a corrective action program (“ CAP ”) in place for the mill tailings storage facility due to a liner breach that occurred between 1983 and 1985, when an estimated 55 million gallons of tailings fluids were released into a shallow perched aquifer as a result of the synthetic liner being damaged by windblown debris, predominately ice. Approximately 2.2 million cubic yards of tailings were deposited in the TSF during site operations from 1981 through 1983. The cleanup under the CAP has substantially reduced the leakage created by the breach; results of the CAP are reported to the WDEQ annually. Geologic Setting, Mineralization and Deposit The Sweetwater Project is located within the GDB, which forms part of the GGRB. The GDB is an enclosed basin bounded by the Continental Divide and has no groundwater outlet. As a result, precipitation within the basin either evaporates or infiltrates into the ground rather than draining into major river systems. The basin contains as much as 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, uplifts created the Granite and Seminoe Mountains and older formations were altered during the same time. In the northern regions of the GGRB, swamps, alluvial plains and fluvial fans were present at the margins of the uplifted Granite Mountains. To the southwest, the GGRB 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 GGRB. In the Green Mountain area, the Battle Spring Formation is capped by the Eocene-Oligocene Crooks Gap Conglomerate, and the Paleocene Fort Union Formation underlies the Wasatch or Battle Spring Formation depending on position within the basin. Uranium deposits in the GDB predominantly occur in roll-front red-ox deposits but also in desert evaporite (Gregory et al. 2010). Roll-front deposits occur in the Battle Spring, Wasatch and Fort Union formations. The Battle Spring Formation, described above under “Geology of the Great Divide and Greater Green River Basins,” is the principal host for uranium mineralization at the Sweetwater Project. Its permeable medium- to very coarse-grained sandstones and arkoses are a favorable host for sandstone-type uranium deposits, while interbedded impermeable carbonaceous shales create boundaries that focus and trap mineralization. 62 Table of Contents The Fort Union Formation is exposed at the surface 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 (Gregory et al. 2010). It may truncate and unconformably overlie older units near basin margins. The Fort Union Formation is unconformably underlain by the Cretaceous Lance Formation and regionally overlain by either the Eocene Wasatch or Battle Spring Formation. At the Sweetwater property, overbank and floodplain deposits in the Battle Spring Formation were likely to restrict groundwater flow. These boundaries focused uranium-rich waters into confined permeable units. Mineralization occurs across multiple sandstone horizons within the Battle Spring Formation. The sand units of the Battle Spring Formation dip at approximately one to three degrees to the north-northwest in this area. At the time of deposition, the beds likely dipped toward the south-southwest as alluvial detritus was shed off the ancestral Granite Mountains. Following deposition of the Battle Spring Formation, subsidence within GDB may have reversed the dip direction. The mineralization was deposited in roll fronts with mineralizing solutions appearing to have migrated in the opposite direction of the present-day dip direction, from the northwest to the southeast. In general, roll fronts typically migrate downdip from outcrops toward basin centers. On Green Mountain, the uranium mineralization in the Battle Spring Formation is located at the redox boundary of three generally southward advancing oxidizing alteration lobes. This alteration destroyed heavy minerals, mafic minerals and syn-depositional carbon, and remobilized uranium to the leading edge of the alteration front. Uranium bearing groundwater migrated through the coarse-grained permeable elastics and deposited mineralization along and within finer-grained impermeable carbon-rich mudstones. 63 Table of Contents Texas Properties Figure 2.9 – 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 Mine; (iii) the Burke Hollow Mine; (iv) the Goliad Project; and (v) the Salvo Project. Production from existing wellfields at the Palangana Mine ceased in 2016 and the project was put in care and maintenance. In order for Palangana Mine to engage in future uranium production, we will need to incur capital expenditures to restart idled wellfields. 64 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 Goliad Project has received its major permits and licenses, certain of which have been challenged and await final regulatory or judicial resolution. The Salvo Project still requires all mining permits. Regulatory agencies include the TCEQ, the RCT 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 RCT 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 RCT 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, our 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. Our 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. 65 Table of Contents 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, we have surface use agreements in place with the private landowners where appropriate. Obtaining surface access rights is a standard process in mine permitting and we do not anticipate that maintaining these rights presents a significant risk to our ability to perform work in Texas. Geology and Mineralization in Texas The Texas ISR Projects resides in the Gulf of Mexico Basin (“ GMB ”). The GMB extends over much of South Texas and includes the Texas coastal plain and South Texas Uranium Province (“ STUP ”) where the project is located. The coastal plain is bounded by the Rocky Mountain uplift to the west and drains into the Gulf of Mexico. The coastal plain is comprised of marine, non-marine and continental sediments ranging in age from Paleozoic through Cenozoic. Uranium mineralization at the projects is typical of Texas roll-front sandstone deposits, which form where uranium-bearing, oxygenated groundwater interacts with a reducing environment in permeable host sandstones and precipitates uranium. 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). 66 Table of Contents The geometry of roll-front mineralization at the Texas projects, including the classic roll-front “C” shape and the associated “nose”, “seepage” and “tails” zones, is as described above under “—Christensen Ranch Project.” 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) that 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. 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 our ‘hub-and-spoke’ business model, which comprises a central processing facility supplied with uranium-loaded ion-exchange 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 our Palangana Mine satellite facility (i.e., the first UEC ‘spoke’), and we plan to also process uranium from our Burke Hollow, Goliad, and Salvo Project satellite facilities. The Hobson CPP consists of a resin transfer circuit for loading/unloading ion-exchange resin from tanker trucks, an elution circuit to strip uranium from the ion-exchange 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 in fully operational condition. During Fiscal 2026, the plant was restarted to process uranium loaded resin from the Burke Hollow Mine. 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. 67 Table of Contents History Uranium exploration and mining in South Texas primarily targets sandstone formations throughout the Coastal Plain bordering the Gulf of Mexico. The area has long been known to contain uranium oxide, which was first discovered in Karnes County, Texas, in 1954 using airborne radiometric survey. The uranium deposits discovered were within a belt of strata extending 250 miles from the middle coastal plain southwestward to the Rio Grande. This area includes the Carrizo, Whitsett, Catahoula, Oakville and Goliad geologic formations. Open pit mining began in 1961 and ISR mining was initiated in 1975. The uranium market experienced lower demand and price in the late 1970s, and in 1980 there was a sharp decline in all Texas uranium operations. During the late 1970s and early 1980s, exploration for uranium in South Texas had evolved towards deeper drilling targets within the known host sandstone formations. Deeper exploration drilling was more costly and excluded many of the smaller uranium mining companies from participating in the down-dip, deeper undrilled trend extensions. Uranium had been mined by several major oil companies in the past in South Texas, including Conoco, Mobil, Humble (later Exxon), Atlantic Richfield (“ ARCO ”) and others. Mobil had found numerous deposits in South Texas in the past, including the O’Hern, Holiday-El Mesquite and several smaller deposits, mostly in Oligocene-age Catahoula Formation tuffaceous sands. ARCO discovered several Oakville Formation (Miocene-age) uranium-bearing deposits and acquired other deposits located nearby in Live Oak County. They were exploring deeper extensions of Oakville Formation trends when they discovered the Mt. Lucas deposit, located near Lake Corpus Christi in Live Oak County near the Bee County line. Ownership, control and operation of the Hobson Project Areas has varied greatly since the 1950s. The table below summarizes the operations and activities of various companies, the timeframe during which these activities were completed and the results of the work. The table below also summarizes historic drilling and the number of drill holes completed during each period. Table 2.17: 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) that 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. Permit Status and Encumbrances Standard encumbrances include reclamation bonding, mining and surface lease royalties, including sales-based royalties. 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 the Burke Hollow 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. 68 Table of Contents Table 2.18 describes the permit status of the project. Table 2.18 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 Yes Yes 2 Yes Yes Yes Yes Has all major permits and first PAA Figure 2.10 – Location of the Burke Hollow Project 69 Table of Contents Property Description Our Burke Hollow Mine is located within the extensive STUP. The Burke Hollow Mine 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 Mine 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. Table 2.19 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 our then-effective 1,825 acre Welder lease. We terminated the Welder lease in January 2023. 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 feet in order to test the entire prospective Goliad Formation. We acquired copies of the Nufuels logs through its purchase of TOMIN’s database. 70 Table of Contents 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. Table 2.20: Historic Ownership and Operations at the Burke Hollow Project Area Year(s) 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 (which UEC terminated in 2023) Nufuels drilled 18 exploration holes on or nearby UEC’s 1,825 acre Welder lease in conjunction with a larger regional program, which was conducted by Nufuels. Exploration holes were drilled to approximately 1,100 ft bgs and tested the entire prospective Goliad Formation. Results showed the presence of a reduction-oxidation interface in sands of the lower Goliad Formation, but there was insufficient data to link economically viable uranium mineralization. 1993 TOMIN Exploration program. 12 exploration holes on or near the Thomson-Barrow Lease. TOMIN conducted a short reconnaissance exploration drilling program on the Thomson-Barrow lease. TOMIN drilled a total of 12 holes on permitted acreage that they negotiated for exploration. 11 of the 12 drill holes intersected anomalous gamma ray log signatures indicative of uranium mineralization, but there was insufficient data to link economically viable uranium mineralization. 2011 to 2017 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 (which was terminated in 2023) (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. 71 Table of Contents Year(s) Company Operations/Activity Amount (No. of Drill holes) Results of Work 2019 to 2023 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 PAA-1. In addition, UEC began installing perimeter monitor wells in proposed PAA-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 PAA-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 PAA application was submitted and 533 exploration and delineation holes were drilled within PAA-2 area as of July 31, 2023. Property Condition and Facilities, Infrastructure and Underground Development The present condition of the property is considered advanced with ISR production in PAA-1 having commenced in April 2026, and with the first shipment of uranium-loaded resin from the Burke Hollow Mine to the Hobson CPP. In August 2023, drilling programs focused on delineation of PAA-1 and additional exploration and delineation of PAA-2. Beginning in July 2024, delineation and production well installation in PAA-1 commenced. Production pattern wells in Phase 1 of PAA-1 were installed alongside further delineation toward sequential production well drilling in phases in the remainder of PAA-1. In conjunction with PAA-1 wellfield installation, PAA-2 was delineated, defined and advanced with monitor well installation. During Fiscal 2025, the construction of the satellite plant, disposal well, wellfield utilities and production wells in Phase 1 of PAA1 was completed. In addition, delineation and installation of production wells beyond Phase 1 of PAA-1 was initiated and is ongoing. PAA-2 was advanced into the permitting stage with delineation and installation of monitor wells through the end of Fiscal 2026. As of July 31, 2026, 73 monitor wells had been drilled. The Burke Hollow Mine had no production during the fiscal years ended July 31, 2024 and 2025. The Burke Hollow Mine commenced production in April 2026 and, during the fiscal year ended July 31, 2026, produced 17,352 pounds of precipitated uranium and dried and drummed U 3 O 8 as part of its initial ramp-up. Geologic Setting, Mineralization and Deposit The Burke Hollow Project Area is located in the STUP, which lies along the GMB. 72 Table of Contents 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 2.21 – Mineral Resources for the Burke Hollow Project as of July 31, 2026 and 2025 Classification Tons Ore (’000s) Tonnes Ore (’000’s) Average Grade (% eU 3 O 8 ) Pounds eU 3 O 8 (’000s) 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. In the year ended July 31, 2026, we commenced operations at the Burke Hollow Mine which included minimal initial production as part of ramp up of approximately 17,352 pounds of precipitated uranium and dried and drummed concentrate. 6. All reported resources occur below the static water table. 7. The point of reference for mineral resources is in-situ at the project. 8. Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. 9. 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. 73 Table of Contents Canadian Properties Material Canadian Properties Roughrider Project Figure 2.11 – Saskatchewan Uranium Projects 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) that 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. 74 Table of Contents Figure 2.12 – Location of the Roughrider Project Property Description The Roughrider Project Area is 100% held by us, 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. 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 center, La Ronge 440 kilometers 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. 75 Table of Contents 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, we completed an updated economic analysis and mineral resource estimate at the project. We completed a resource delineation drilling program during the 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 2.22 Roughrider Project Claims Details Acres Hectares Provincial Mineral Dispositions Provincial Mineral Lease Total Total Number Hectares Expiration Date Number Hectares Expiration Date 1,478 598 1 598 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, 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 Uranium ”) and Bullion Fund Inc. (“ Bullion Fund ”), Roughrider Uranium earned a 90% interest in claim S-107243 (and six other claims that became part of Roughrider Uranium’s Russell South property). On August 10, 2006, Roughrider Uranium 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. 76 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 to complete the previously announced merger. The result of such plan of 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, we completed the acquisition of 100% of the Roughrider Project Area from RTCU. Proposed Development Since acquisition, we have completed a drill program to explore the property for additional deposits and also collect an updated metallurgy sample that would support a potential future economic study. As part of a planned pre-feasibility study, during Fiscal 2026, we completed 36,000 meters of diamond drilling to support resource conversion. This included resource targets throughout the West Zone, East Zone and Far East Zones, targeting intersections to convert inferred estimated resources into the indicated resources category at the Roughrider Project. All drilling has been completed to date with uranium assays to follow. In August 2026, we entered into a Definition Study Agreement with Saskatchewan Power Corporation to advance engineering, environmental assessment and community engagement work specifically for the connection of a high-voltage transmission line to the Roughrider Project. Geotechnical drilling to study future tailings management facility locations, collect water samples and set up water level monitoring stations has been completed. We continue to advance the Roughrider Project through technical and environmental studies, community engagement and assessing opportunities to further de-risk the project. Updating the environmental baseline studies and advancing Indigenous engagement activities will support a future Environmental Impact Assessment and the licensing process required for uranium production. Permitting and Licensing Should the Roughrider Project Area proceed, either to advanced exploration or to full development, 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 CNSC 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 meters, but typically less than 10 meters. 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). 77 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 parts per million 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. 78 Table of Contents 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. Mineral Resources and Reserves There is no year over year change in the resources from Fiscal 2025 to Fiscal 2026. The current Mineral Resource estimate for the Roughrider Project is outlined in the following table: Table 2.23 – Mineral Resources for the Roughrider Project as of July 31, 2026 and 2025 Deposit Classification Tons (’000’s) Tonnes (’000’s) Grade (% U 3 O 8 ) Pounds U 3 O 8 (’000’s) 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. 79 Table of Contents Item 3. Legal Proceedings As of the date of this Annual Report, other than routine litigation incidental to our business, we are not currently a party to any material pending legal proceedings that management believes would be likely to have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures During the fiscal year ended July 31, 2026, UEC held both ISR and conventional mines. Under U.S. regulation, UEC’s ISR Mines were not subject to regulation by the Federal Mine Safety and Health Administration under the Mine Safety Act, but rather fall under oversight by the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“ OSHA ”). The information concerning mine safety violations and other regulatory matters required by Section 1503(a) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 and Item 104 of Regulation S-K are included in Exhibit 95.1 of this Annual Report. 80 Table of Contents PART II Item 5. Market for Registrant ’ s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities Market Information Our common stock is traded on the NYSE American under the trading symbol “UEC”. Holders As of September 25, 2026, we had approximately 241 holders of record of our common stock. This number of holders of record does not represent the actual number of beneficial owners of our common stock because shares are frequently held in “street name” by securities dealers and others for the benefit of individual owners who have the right to vote their shares. Dividends No dividends have been declared or paid on our common stock to date. We have incurred recurring losses and do not currently intend to pay any cash dividends in the foreseeable future. Recent Issuances of Unregistered Securities None. 81 Table of Contents Performance Graph The graph below compares the cumulative total stockholder return on our common stock assuming an investment of $100 and the reinvestment of all dividends, if any, for the years ended July 31, 2022, through to July 31, 2026, with: (i) the cumulative total return on the shares of common stock of a current peer group index comprised of Cameco, Comstock Resources, Inc., Core Natural Resources, Inc., Denison Mines Corp., Gulfport Energy Corporation, Magnolia Oil & Gas Corporation, Matador Resources Company, MP Materials Corp., Murphy Oil Corporation, NexGen Energy Ltd., Northern Oil and Gas, Inc., NuScale Power Corporation, Oklo Inc., USA Rare Earth, Inc. and X-Energy, Inc. (collectively, the “ Current Peer Group ”); (ii) the cumulative total return on the shares of common stock of a previous peer group index comprised of Cameco, Centrus Energy Corp., Comstock Resources, Inc., Denison Mines Corp., Energy Fuels Inc., Gulfport Energy Corporation, Magnolia Oil & Gas Corporation, NexGen Energy Ltd., NGEx Minerals Ltd., Northern Oil and Gas, Inc., NuScale Power Corporation, Oklo Inc. and Vital Energy, Inc. (collectively, the “ Previous Peer Group ”); and (iii) the cumulative return on the Russell 3000 Index. The changes made to arrive at the Current Peer Group were made to address changes in the external market and to better reflect our Company’s business. ​ ​ July 31, 2021 ​ ​ July 31, 2022 ​ ​ July 31, 2023 ​ ​ July 31, 2024 ​ ​ July 31, 2025 ​ ​ July 31, 2026 ​ Uranium Energy Corp. ​ $ 100.00 ​ ​ $ 193.55 ​ ​ $ 165.90 ​ ​ $ 273.27 ​ ​ $ 399.54 ​ ​ $ 442.40 ​ Current Peer Group ​ ​ 100.00 ​ ​ ​ 151.67 ​ ​ ​ 161.66 ​ ​ ​ 188.52 ​ ​ ​ 271.46 ​ ​ ​ 225.02 ​ Previous Peer Group ​ ​ 100.00 ​ ​ ​ 267.84 ​ ​ ​ 377.03 ​ ​ ​ 465.53 ​ ​ ​ 450.18 ​ ​ ​ 249.50 ​ Russell 3000 Index ​ ​ 100.00 ​ ​ ​ 91.35 ​ ​ ​ 101.22 ​ ​ ​ 120.77 ​ ​ ​ 137.89 ​ ​ ​ 162.96 ​ 82 Table of Contents Item 6. [Reserved] Item 7. Management ’ s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations The following Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations (“MD&A”) provides information that management believes is relevant to an assessment and understanding of the Company’s consolidated financial condition and results of operations. We use certain non-GAAP financial measures in this MD&A. For a description of these non-GAAP financial measures and reconciliations to the most directly comparable U.S. GAAP financial measures, refer to the discussion under “Non-GAAP Financial Measures” herein. This MD&A should be read in conjunction with our consolidated financial statements and the related notes included in this Annual Report. The following MD&A contains forward-looking statements that involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions including, among others, statements regarding our capital needs, business plans and expectations. In evaluating these statements, you should consider various factors, including the risks, uncertainties and assumptions set forth in reports and other documents we have filed with or furnished to the SEC and, including, without limitation, this Annual Report for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2026, including the consolidated financial statements and related notes contained herein. These factors, or any one of them, may cause our actual results or actions in the future to differ materially from any forward-looking statement made in this document. Refer to “ Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements ” and Item 1A. Risk Factors herein. Business We have been primarily engaged in uranium mining and related activities, including exploration, pre-extraction, extraction and processing. Our principal projects are located in Wyoming and Texas in the United States and in Saskatchewan, Canada. In August 2024, we restarted uranium extraction at our fully permitted, and past producing, Christensen Ranch Mine ISR operation in Wyoming. During Fiscal 2025, our initial production as part of ramp up yielded 129,966 pounds of precipitated uranium and dried and drummed U 3 O 8 (uranium concentrate). During Fiscal 2026, 211,942 pounds of precipitated uranium and dried and drummed U 3 O 8 were produced at Christensen Ranch. We expect the ramp-up phase will continue while new production areas are being constructed in 2026 and 2027. For a description of wellfield and header house development activity at Christensen Ranch during Fiscal 2026, see “Item 2. Properties” of this Annual Report. At Ludeman, our next ISR project, the previously announced 240-hole delineation drill program was completed. Monitor, injection, and recovery wells for the first wellfield are under construction and being tested for mechanical integrity. Additionally, core samples were collected for laboratory testing. Engineering work for the satellite ion-exchange plant advanced during Fiscal 2026 allowing us to award contracts for some longer lead time equipment. The civil engineering for the plant pad was completed and a contract for construction issued. The powerline location has been established with the power company and surveys are expected to be completed in Fiscal 2027. Uranium captured on ion-exchange resin at the Ludeman satellite plant will be transported to our Irigaray CPP, our hub in the PRB , for stripping, precipitation, drying and packaging. Uranium recovered from our Christensen Ranch Mine is processed at our Irigaray CPP, which has a licensed production capacity of four million pounds of U 3 O 8 per year. The Irigaray CPP is the hub central to our four fully permitted ISR projects located in the PRB, including our Christensen Ranch Mine and our Reno Creek, Moore Ranch and Ludeman Projects. 83 Table of Contents On August 1, 2025, our Sweetwater Project was designated as a FAST-41 transparency project by the U.S. Federal Permitting Improvement “Steering Council” as part of the implementation of President Trump’s Executive Order on Immediate Measures to “Increase American Mineral Production”. Our first milestone in the FAST-41 process was completed in our second fiscal quarter with the submission of the Sweetwater Plan of Operations for ISR operations to the BLM on November 14, 2025. BLM’s 30-day public comment period for the Plan of Operations began on March 16, 2026 and ended April 17, 2026. Comments will be evaluated during the National Environmental Policy Act process, which began in June 2026. The FAST-41 Permitting Dashboard currently anticipates the completion of the Environmental Assessment in March 2027 and approval of the Plan of Operations in May 2027. Environmental baseline studies were largely completed during Fiscal 2026, with final reports expected for submittal to the BLM in Fiscal 2027. Drilling in the Sweetwater North area identified mineralization trends that support continued delineation. Building on these results, additional drilling is planned for Fiscal 2027 to further extend the mineralization identified in the initial program and to advance wellfield design for the first two production areas. We have commenced the assessment of refurbishment requirements for the Sweetwater Mill for both conventional and ISR operations. Ion-exchange vessels for the Sweetwater ISR circuit are under construction. In Texas, our fully-licensed and 100% owned Hobson CPP forms the basis for our regional operating strategy in the State of Texas, specifically the South Texas Uranium Belt, where we utilize ISR mining. We utilize a “hub-and-spoke” strategy whereby the Hobson CPP, which has a physical capacity to process uranium-loaded resins of up to a total of two million pounds of U 3 O 8 annually and is licensed to process up to four million pounds of U 3 O 8 annually, acts as the central processing site (i.e., a hub) for our Burke Hollow Mine and our Palangana Mine, and future satellite uranium mining activities, such as our Goliad Project, located within the South Texas Uranium Belt (i.e., the spokes). Production processes at the Burke Hollow PAA-1 and Hobson CPP were started in April and May, respectively, with the first shipment of uranium-loaded resin from Burke Hollow to Hobson CPP in mid-May. All processes including resin transfer, elution, precipitation, drying and packaging in the Hobson CPP have been commissioned. Production continues to improve, with some of the higher-grade wells still increasing in uranium concentration, while overall flow across the wellfield is steady. PAA-2 was advanced into the permitting stage with delineation and installation of monitor wells through the end of Fiscal 2026. In Fiscal 2026, we produced an initial 17,352 pounds of precipitated uranium and dried and drummed concentrate during the ramp-up phase at the Burke Hollow ISR operation. We expect the ramp-up phase will continue while new production areas are being constructed and completed in 2026 and 2027. In Canada, we continue to advance the planned pre-feasibility study at the Roughrider Project during Fiscal 2026, together with related technical, environmental and community engagement work, as described under “Item 1. Business” and “Item 2. Properties” of this Annual Report. In September 2025, we announced the incorporation of United States Uranium Refining & Conversion Corp., which is intended to pursue the feasibility of developing a new uranium refining and conversion facility in the United States. For a description of UR&C and its activities during Fiscal 2026, see “Item 1. Business” of this Annual Report. During Fiscal 2026, we increased our investments in Anfield and URC by acquiring additional shares. As of July 31, 2026, we owned 6,500,737 post-consolidated common shares of Anfield, representing approximately 32.6% of the outstanding common shares of Anfield. In addition, we owned 28,967,375 shares of URC, representing a 7.6% interest in URC as at July 31, 2026. As at July 31, 2026, we hold certain mineral rights in various stages in the States of Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and Wyoming, in Canada and in the Republic of Paraguay, many of which are located in historically successful mining areas and have been the subject of past exploration and pre-extraction activities by other mining companies. Our operating and strategic framework is to become a leading North American focused uranium supplier based on expanding our uranium extraction activities, which includes advancing certain uranium projects with established mineralized materials towards uranium extraction and establishing additional mineralized materials on our existing uranium projects or through acquisition of additional uranium projects. We continue to establish additional uranium projects through exploration and pre-extraction activities and direct acquisitions in the United States, which require us to manage numerous challenges, risks and uncertainties inherent in our business and operations as more fully described in Item 1A. Risk Factors herein. 84 Table of Contents Results of Operations In Fiscal 2026, we had sales of $37.25 million and realized gross profit of $16.90 million, compared to recorded sales of $66.84 million and realized gross profit of $24.48 million in Fiscal 2025. In Fiscal 2024, we recorded service revenue of $0.22 million and realized gross profit of $0.04 million. We recorded a net loss of $137.31 million ($0.28 per share) in Fiscal 2026, $87.66 million ($0.20 per share) in Fiscal 2025, and $29.22 million ($0.07 per share) in Fiscal 2024. Loss from operations during Fiscal 2026, Fiscal 2025 and Fiscal 2024 were $133.15 million, $73.32 million and $56.40 million, respectively. In Fiscal 2026, earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (“ EBITDA ”) and adjusted EBITDA (“ Adjusted EBITDA ”) were a loss of $130.89 million and $118.11 million, respectively, compared to EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA loss of $84.52 million and $62.83 million, respectively, in Fiscal 2025, and EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA loss of $31.25 million and $49.00 million, respectively, in Fiscal 2024. EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA are non-GAAP financial measures, see “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” of this Annual Report. In Fiscal 2026, we recorded a loss before income taxes of $120.94 million and $18.94 million for the mining and corporate segment, respectively. In Fiscal 2025, we recorded a loss before income taxes of $79.19 million and $11.25 million for the mining and corporate segment, respectively, compared to a loss before income taxes of $40.34 million and an income before taxes of $6.08 million for the mining and corporate segment, respectively, in Fiscal 2024. The increase in loss before income taxes for the mining segment was primarily attributable to the continued advancement of our uranium projects, including Burke Hollow Mine, Christensen Ranch Mine, Ludeman Project, Sweetwater Project and Roughrider Project, where we spent mineral property expenditures of $102.37 million, $66.06 million, and $32.38 million in Fiscal 2026, Fiscal 2025, and Fiscal 2024, respectively. Income or loss before income taxes for the corporate segment fluctuated across Fiscal 2026, Fiscal 2025 and Fiscal 2024, primarily due to variations in the sales volume, selling price and unit cost of sales of purchased uranium inventory, changes in the fair value of equity securities and other financial instruments, gain or loss from equity-accounted investments, and interest income. Throughout Fiscal 2026, we continued ramping up mining activities, including at our Christensen Ranch Mine and our Burke Hollow Mine, where 211,942 pounds and 17,352 pounds of precipitated uranium and dried and drummed U 3 O 8 were produced, respectively. We expect the ramp-up phase will continue while new production areas are being constructed in 2026 and 2027. In parallel, we continued to advance our Roughrider Project with resource expansions and accelerated the development program at our Ludeman Project. In addition, additional delineation drilling at our Sweetwater Project is underway. The rest of our uranium projects are expected to remain in a state of operational readiness and the relevant expenditures, which are directly related to regulatory/mine permit compliance, lease maintenance obligations and maintaining a necessary labor force, are being charged to our Consolidated Statement of Operations. As of July 31, 2026, the aggregate carrying value of our uranium concentrates from extraction and purchased uranium was $73.54 million (July 31, 2025: $74.04 million). 85 Table of Contents Sales and Service Revenue The table below provides a breakdown of our sales and service revenue and cost of sales and services for the periods indicated: ​ ​ Year Ended July 31, ​ (in thousands of U.S. dollars) ​ 2026 ​ ​ 2025 ​ ​ 2024 ​ Sales of purchased uranium inventory ​ $ 37,250 ​ ​ $ 66,837 ​ ​ $ - ​ Revenue from toll processing services ​ ​ - ​ ​ ​ - ​ ​ ​ 224 ​ Total sales and service revenue ​ $ 37,250 ​ ​ $ 66,837 ​ ​ $ 224 ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Cost of purchased uranium inventory ​ $ (20,355 ) ​ $ (42,360 ) ​ $ - ​ Cost of toll processing services ​ ​ - ​ ​ ​ - ​ ​ ​ (187 ) Total cost of sales and services ​ $ (20,355 ) ​ $ (42,360 ) ​ $ (187 ) During Fiscal 2026, we generated revenue of $37.25 million and had gross profit of $16.90 million from sales of 400,000 pounds of purchased uranium inventory at a weighted average price of $93.13 per pound, compared to revenue of $66.84 million and gross profit of $24.48 million from sales of 810,000 pounds of purchased uranium inventory at a weighted average price of $82.52 per pound in Fiscal 2025. The decrease in revenue resulted from lower sales volumes in Fiscal 2026. We did not engage in any sales activities during Fiscal 2024. Variations in sales of purchased uranium inventory are dependent on our cash position, prevailing market prices and the liquidity of the uranium market. No uranium inventory produced from our Christensen Ranch Mine or Burke Hollow Mine was sold during Fiscal 2026 and Fiscal 2025. Revenue from toll processing services is related to a toll processing agreement which was terminated in Fiscal 2024. Operating Costs Mineral Property Expenditures Mineral property expenditures primarily consisted of costs relating to permitting and land payments, mine site services and maintenance, exploration and development, pre-extraction activities and other non-extraction related activities on our mineral projects. We have not established proven or probable reserves, as defined by the SEC under S-K 1300, for any of our mineral projects. As a result, and despite the fact that we commenced extraction of mineralized materials at some of the ISR Mines, we remain an exploration stage issuer, as defined by the SEC. In accordance with U.S. GAAP, expenditures relating to the acquisition of mineral rights are initially capitalized as incurred while exploration and pre-extraction expenditures are expensed as incurred until such time as we exit the exploration stage by establishing proven or probable reserves. Expenditures relating to exploration activities, such as drill programs to establish mineralized materials, are expensed as incurred. Expenditures relating to pre-extraction activities, such as the construction of mine wellfields and disposal wells, are expensed as incurred until such time that proven or probable reserves are established for that project, after which expenditures relating to mine development activities for that particular project are capitalized as incurred. The following table provides the nature of mineral property expenditures during the past three fiscal years: ​ ​ Year Ended July 31, ​ (in thousands of U.S. dollars) ​ 2026 ​ ​ 2025 ​ ​ 2024 ​ Permitting and land payments ​ $ 9,296 ​ ​ $ 5,926 ​ ​ $ 5,600 ​ Extraction readiness and mine site maintenance ​ ​ 12,042 ​ ​ ​ 15,107 ​ ​ ​ 5,464 ​ Exploration ​ ​ 23,228 ​ ​ ​ 11,140 ​ ​ ​ 14,669 ​ Development ​ ​ 57,799 ​ ​ ​ 33,891 ​ ​ ​ 6,650 ​ Total ​ $ 102,365 ​ ​ $ 66,064 ​ ​ $ 32,383 ​ 86 Table of Contents During Fiscal 2026, exploration expenditures, such as drilling and initial economic assessments, were primarily spent on the following projects: ● Burke Hollow Mine: $3.78 million (compared to Fiscal 2025: $2.86 million, Fiscal 2024: $5.23 million), respectively; ● Roughrider Project: $13.51 million (compared to Fiscal 2025: $5.68 million, Fiscal 2024: $6.32 million), respectively; and ● Sweetwater Project: $1.56 million (compared to Fiscal 2025: $0.60 million, Fiscal 2024: $nil), respectively. During Fiscal 2026, development expenditures were primarily spent on the following projects: ● Burke Hollow Mine: $16.99 million (compared to Fiscal 2025: $12.11 million, Fiscal 2024: $1.01 million), respectively; ● Christensen Ranch Mine: $36.28 million (compared to Fiscal 2025: $17.19 million, Fiscal 2024: $2.64 million), respectively; and ● Ludeman Project: $3.87 million (compared to Fiscal 2025: $0.85 million, Fiscal 2024: $nil), respectively. During Fiscal 2026, permitting and land payment expenditures were primarily spent on the following projects: ● Sweetwater Project: $3.78 million (compared to Fiscal 2025: $0.65 million, Fiscal 2024: $nil), respectively; ● Burke Hollow Mine: $1.07 million (compared to Fiscal 2025: $0.96 million, Fiscal 2024: $0.78 million), respectively; ● Christensen Ranch Mine: $0.80 million (compared to Fiscal 2025: $0.60 million, Fiscal 2024: $0.41 million), respectively; and ● Roughrider Project: $0.31 million (compared to Fiscal 2025: $0.30 million, Fiscal 2024: $1.46 million), respectively. During Fiscal 2026, extraction readiness and mine site maintenance expenditures were primarily spent on the following projects: ● Christensen Ranch Mine: $4.27 million (compared to Fiscal 2025: $10.68 million, Fiscal 2024: $2.92 million, respectively); ● Irigaray CPP: $3.81 million (compared to Fiscal 2025: $2.29 million, Fiscal 2024: $0.45 million, respectively); ● Burke Hollow Mine: $1.22 million (compared to Fiscal 2025: $0.03 million, Fiscal 2024: $0.02 million, respectively); and ● Hobson CPP: $1.77 million (compared to Fiscal 2025: $1.09 million, Fiscal 2024: $0.57 million, respectively). The increase in permitting and land payments, as well as exploration and development expenditures, was primarily attributable to the continued advancement of our uranium projects. The decrease in extraction readiness and mine site maintenance expenditures from Fiscal 2025 to Fiscal 2026 reflects our progression into the second year of operations at our Christensen Ranch Mine, resulting in a reduction of these costs from $10.68 million in Fiscal 2025 to $4.27 million in Fiscal 2026. General and Administrative During Fiscal 2026, general and administrative (“ G&A ”) expenses totaled $34.47 million, compared to $27.26 million in Fiscal 2025 and $21.87 million in Fiscal 2024. G&A expenses were comprised of the following for the periods indicated: ​ ​ Year Ended July 31, ​ (in thousands of U.S. dollars) ​ 2026 ​ ​ 2025 ​ ​ 2024 ​ Salaries and management fees ​ $ 12,434 ​ ​ $ 9,960 ​ ​ $ 7,705 ​ Office, investor communication and travel ​ ​ 7,080 ​ ​ ​ 5,197 ​ ​ ​ 4,088 ​ Rent and property tax ​ ​ 903 ​ ​ ​ 561 ​ ​ ​ 674 ​ Insurance ​ ​ 1,627 ​ ​ ​ 1,237 ​ ​ ​ 1,045 ​ Foreign exchange gain ​ ​ (78 ) ​ ​ (100 ) ​ ​ (151 ) Professional fees ​ ​ 4,465 ​ ​ ​ 4,390 ​ ​ ​ 3,340 ​ Sub-total ​ ​ 26,431 ​ ​ ​ 21,245 ​ ​ ​ 16,701 ​ Stock-based compensation ​ ​ 8,041 ​ ​ ​ 6,015 ​ ​ ​ 5,172 ​ Total general and administrative expenses ​ $ 34,472 ​ ​ $ 27,260 ​ ​ $ 21,873 ​ 87 Table of Contents The following summary provides a discussion of our major expense categories including analyses of the factors that caused significant variances from year-to-year: ● During Fiscal 2026, salaries and management fees totaled $12.43 million, compared to $9.96 million during Fiscal 2025 and $7.71 million during Fiscal 2024, respectively. The increases were primarily the result of the expansion of our operations team and the hiring of additional mid-level management and office personnel to support our operational expansion and initiatives, as well as corporate-wide salary increases to adjust for inflation; ● During Fiscal 2026, office expenses, including information technology and filing fees, investor communications and travel expenses totaled $7.08 million, compared to $5.20 million during Fiscal 2025 and $4.09 million during Fiscal 2024, respectively. The increases were primarily due to increased business activities and the expansion of our operations; ● During Fiscal 2026, professional fees totaled $4.47 million, compared to $4.39 million during Fiscal 2025 and $3.34 million during Fiscal 2024, respectively. Professional fees were comprised primarily of legal services related to regulatory compliance and legal affairs, and for audit, accounting and tax compliance services. The overall increasing trend in professional fees was due to the growth in our business activities and the expansion of our operations; and ● During Fiscal 2026 stock-based compensation expense totaled $8.04 million, compared to $6.02 million during Fiscal 2025 and $5.17 million during Fiscal 2024, respectively. Stock-based compensation includes the amortization of the fair value of stock options granted to optionees and the fair value of restricted stock units and performance based restricted stock units issued to directors, officers, employees and consultants under our Stock Incentive Plan. The stock-based compensation varies from year to year primarily as a result of changes in the amount of stock award expenses which were amortized on an accelerating basis, resulting in more expenses being recorded at the beginning of the vesting period than at the end. Uranium refining and conversion project expenditures During Fiscal 2026, we incurred $6.28 million (Fiscal 2025 and Fiscal 2024: $nil) in connection with the planning and evaluation of UR&C’s proposed uranium refining and conversion facility in the United States. Depreciation, Amortization and Accretion During Fiscal 2026, depreciation, amortization and accretion totaled $6.92 million, compared to $4.47 million during Fiscal 2025 and $2.18 million during Fiscal 2024, respectively. The increase in Fiscal 2026 was primarily due to the increase of property, plant and equipment and asset retirement obligations from the Sweetwater Acquisition. Depreciation, amortization and accretion include depreciation and amortization of long-term assets acquired in the normal course of operations and accretion of asset retirement obligations. Other Income and Expenses Interest and Finance Costs Interest and finance costs were comprised of the following: Year Ended July 31, (in thousands of U.S. dollars) 2026 2025 2024 Surety bond premium $ 2,001 $ 1,400 $ 772 Other 71 46 55 Total $ 2,072 $ 1,446 $ 827 88 Table of Contents The surety bond premiums resulted from the surety bonds related to our uranium mines and projects. The increases in surety bond premium in Fiscal 2026 and Fiscal 2025 were due to additional surety bonds associated with the Sweetwater Acquisition and the development of our Burke Hollow Mine. Income (Loss) from Equity-Accounted Investment During Fiscal 2026, Fiscal 2025 and Fiscal 2024, income from the equity-accounted investment comprised of the following: Year Ended July 31, (in thousands of U.S. dollars) 2026 2025 2024 Share of income (loss) $ 1,843 $ (3,380) $ 593 Gain on dilution of ownership interest 5,243 28 424 Total $ 7,086 $ (3,352) $ 1,017 During Fiscal 2026, Fiscal 2025 and Fiscal 2024, we recorded a gain on dilution of ownership interest in URC as a result of URC issuing more shares from its equity financing and pursuant to exercises of warrants and/or stock options. As at July 31, 2026, we had a 7.60% equity interest in URC compared to a 13.5% equity interest as at July 31, 2025 and a 14.8% equity interest as at July 31, 2024, respectively. During Fiscal 2026, Fiscal 2025 and Fiscal 2024, we recorded a share of URC’s income (loss) of $6.83 million, $(0.27) million and $2.03 million, respectively and a share of loss of JCU Canada Exploration Company Limited (“ JCU ”) of $4.99 million, $3.11 million and $1.44 million, respectively. Loss on Revaluation of Subscription Receipts On April 29, 2026, we acquired beneficial ownership of and control over 10,989,011 newly issued subscription receipts (each, a “ Subscription Receipt ”) of URC through a private placement at a price of $3.64 per Subscription Receipt, for an aggregate purchase price of $40.0 million. Each Subscription Receipt entitled us to receive, without additional consideration, one URC common share upon satisfaction of the applicable escrow release conditions by URC. On July 27, 2026, all escrow release conditions were satisfied by URC and the Subscription Receipts were converted into 10,989,011 URC common shares. The Subscription Receipts were remeasured at fair value on the date of conversion and, as a result, we recognized a loss of $9.9 million on the revaluation of the Subscription Receipts in Fiscal 2026. Fair Value Gain (Loss) on Equity Securities During Fiscal 2026, Fiscal 2025 and Fiscal 2024, fair value gain (loss) on equity securities comprised of the following: Year Ended July 31, (in thousands of U.S. dollars) 2026 2025 2024 Unrealized and realized gain (loss) from common shares and warrants of public listed companies $ (10,484 ) $ (14,778) $ 26,350 Unrealized gain (loss) from fair value changes in Anfield common shares (7,026 ) (3,273) 1,155 Total $ (17,510 ) $ (18,051) $ 27,505 During Fiscal 2026, we recognized a realized gain of $0.23 million from the disposition of certain equity securities, with the remaining loss attributable to the revaluation of equity securities at the year end, compared to a realized loss of $14.37 million during Fiscal 2025. In Fiscal 2024, substantially all fair value gain or loss on equity securities were attributable to year-end revaluation at market values. Interest income Interest income totaled $15.58 million, $4.02 million and $2.63 million for Fiscal 2026, Fiscal 2025 and Fiscal 2024, respectively. The interest earned resulted from the investment in short-term deposits of cash proceeds received from our at-the-market offerings and our public offering during that period. 89 Table of Contents Liquidity and Capital Resources (in thousands of U.S. dollars) July 31, 2026 July 31, 2025 Cash and cash equivalents $ 495,460 $ 148,930 Current assets 581,298 234,016 Current liabilities 33,685 26,433 Working capital 547,613 207,583 As at July 31, 2026, the total estimated reclamation costs for all of our projects were $93.92 million. We have secured $64.27 million of surety bonds as an alternate source of financial assurance for the estimated costs of our reclamation obligations, of which $1.89 million is funded and held as restricted cash for collateral purposes as required by the surety. We may be required at any time to fund the remaining $62.38 million or any portion thereof for a number of reasons including, but not limited to, the following: (i) the terms of the surety bonds are amended, such as an increase in collateral requirements; (ii) we are in default with the terms of the surety bonds; (iii) the surety bonds are no longer acceptable as an alternate source of financial assurance by the regulatory authorities; or (iv) the surety encounters financial difficulties. Should any one or more of these events occur in the future, it may have an adverse impact on our financial condition. We have a history of operating losses resulting in an accumulated deficit balance since inception. We had an accumulated deficit balance of $543.87 million as at July 31, 2026. We may not achieve and maintain profitability or develop positive cash flow from our operations in the near term or at all. During Fiscal 2026, we received net proceeds of $529.96 million from our at-the-market offerings, public offerings, a flow-through share private placement and from exercises of our stock options. As at July 31, 2026, we had a working capital (current assets less current liabilities) of $547.61 million. Historically, we have been reliant primarily on equity financings from the sale of our common stock in order to fund our operations. We have yet to achieve consistent profitability or develop consistent positive cash flow from operations. In recent periods, we have also generated cash through the sales from uranium inventories. Our reliance on equity is expected to continue for the foreseeable future and we may need to seek additional equity and/or debt financing in the future to manage our liquidity needs. The availability of such financing will be dependent on many factors beyond our control including, but not limited to, the market price of uranium, the continuing public support of nuclear power as a viable source of electricity generation, the volatility in the global financial markets affecting our stock price and the status of the worldwide economy, any one of which may cause significant challenges in our ability to access additional financing, including access to the equity and credit markets. There is no assurance that we will be successful in securing any form of additional financing when required and on terms favorable to us. Our operations are capital intensive and future capital expenditures are expected to be substantial. Our anticipated operations, including exploration, pre-extraction and extraction activities, however, will be dependent on and may change as a result of our financial position, the market price of uranium and other considerations, and such changes may include accelerating, broadening, curtailing or reducing the pace or scope of our operations. Our ability to secure adequate funding for these activities will be impacted by our operating performance, other uses of cash, the market price of uranium, the market price of our common stock and other factors which may be beyond our control. Specific examples of such factors include, but are not limited to: ● if the market price of uranium weakens; ● if the market price of our common stock weakens; and ● if a nuclear incident, such as the event that occurred in Japan in March 2011, were to occur, continuing public support of nuclear power as a viable source of electricity generation may be adversely affected, which may result in significant and adverse effects on both the nuclear and uranium industries. Our long-term success, including the recoverability of the carrying values of our assets and our ability to acquire additional uranium projects and continue with exploration, pre-extraction, extraction and mining activities on our existing uranium projects, will depend ultimately on our ability to achieve and maintain profitability and positive cash flow from our operations by establishing ore bodies that contain commercially recoverable uranium and to develop these into profitable mining activities. 90 Table of Contents In the future we may make acquisitions of businesses or assets, enter into new lines of business, or make commitments to additional capital projects or strategic initiatives such as the uranium refining and conversion facility. To achieve the long-term goals of expanding our assets and earnings, including through acquisitions of complementary businesses or assets, capital resources may be required. Depending on the size and nature of a transaction or new business, the capital resources that will be required can be substantial. The necessary resources will be generated from cash flow from operations, cash on hand, sales of inventories and securities, borrowing against our assets or the issuance of equity or debt securities. Equity Financings At-the-Market Offering On November 16, 2022, we entered into an at-the-market offering agreement (the “ 2022 ATM Offering Agreement ”) with H.C. Wainwright & Co., LLC and certain other co-managers (collectively, the “ 2022 ATM Managers ”). Under the 2022 ATM Offering Agreement, we could, from time to time, sell shares of our common stock having an aggregate offering price of up to $300 million through the 2022 ATM Managers selected by us. On December 20, 2024, we entered into an at-the-market offering agreement (the “ 2024 ATM Offering Agreement ”) with Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC and certain other co-managers (the “ 2024 ATM Managers ”). Under the 2024 ATM Offering Agreement, we could, from time to time, sell shares of our common stock having an aggregate offering price of up to $300 million through the 2024 ATM Managers selected by us. On November 14, 2025, we entered into an at-the-market offering agreement (the “ 2025 ATM Offering Agreement ”) with Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC and certain other co-managers (collectively, the “ 2025 ATM Managers ”). Under the 2025 ATM Offering Agreement, we could, from time to time, sell shares of our common stock having an aggregate offering price of up to $600 million through the 2025 ATM Managers selected by us. During Fiscal 2024, we issued 26,375,699 shares of our common stock under the 2022 ATM Offering Agreement for gross cash proceeds of $171.74 million. The total issuance costs were $3.86 million, all of which were related to compensation paid to the 2022 ATM Managers. During Fiscal 2025, we issued 11,516,375 and 30,247,661 of our common stock under the 2022 ATM Offering Agreement and the 2024 ATM Offering Agreement for gross cash proceeds of $94.40 million and $197.95 million, respectively. The total issuance costs for stock sold under the 2022 ATM Offering Agreement and 2024 ATM Offering Agreement were $2.15 million and $4.45 million, respectively, which is comprised of a total compensation of $6.58 million paid to the 2022 ATM Managers and 2024 ATM Managers. During Fiscal 2026, we issued 10,077,186 and 11,100,047 shares of our common stock under the 2024 ATM Offering Agreement and the 2025 ATM Offering Agreement for gross cash proceeds of $101.97 million and $190.64 million, respectively. The total issuance costs for stock sold under the 2024 ATM Offering Agreement and 2025 ATM Offering Agreement were $2.29 million and $3.82 million, respectively, all of which were related to compensation paid to the 2024 ATM Managers and the 2025 ATM Managers. Subsequent to July 31, 2026, the Company did not issue any shares of its’ common stock under the 2025 ATM Offering Agreement. Public Offering On October 6, 2025, we completed a public offering of 15,500,000 shares of our common stock at a price of $13.15 per share, resulting in gross proceeds of $203.83 million. On October 9, 2025, the underwriter exercised its over-allotment option to purchase an additional 2,325,000 shares of common stock at the same offering price, providing additional gross proceeds to us of $30.57 million. The total issuance costs were $2.79 million pursuant to the public offering and the over-allotment purchase. Private Placement On October 2, 2025, we completed a private placement offering of 575,000 shares of our common stock issued as “flow through shares” (the “ FT Shares ”), as defined in subsection 66(15) of the Income Tax Act (Canada), for gross proceeds of $8.63 million. The proceeds have been used to fund certain qualifying Canadian exploration expenditures, as defined in the Income Tax Act (Canada), at our Roughrider Project located in Saskatchewan, Canada. 91 Table of Contents Operating Activities During Fiscal 2026, net cash used in operating activities totaled $98.56 million, which was primarily related to mineral property expenditures of $102.37 million, G&A expenses excluding stock-based compensation of $26.43 million, uranium refining and conversion project expenditures of $6.28 million, and changes in operating assets and liabilities, partially offset by a gross profit of $16.90 million from the sale of purchased uranium inventory. During Fiscal 2025, net cash used in operating activities totaled $64.46 million, which was primarily related to mineral property expenditures of $66.06 million, G&A expenses excluding stock-based compensation of $21.25 million and changes in operating assets and liabilities, partially offset by a gross profit of $24.48 million from the sale of purchased uranium inventory. During Fiscal 2024, we recorded net cash used in operating activities of $106.49 million. The negative cash flow was primarily driven by the purchase of uranium concentrates of $69.63 million and operating expenditures such as mineral property expenditures and G&A expenses. Financing Activities During Fiscal 2026, net cash provided by financing activities totaled $526.88 million, comprised primarily of net proceeds of $529.96 million from our common stock sold under the 2024 ATM Offering Agreement and 2025 ATM Offering Agreement, public offering and private placement of FT shares, as well as from the exercises of stock options, partially offset by payments of $3.08 million for tax and withholdings upon settlement of equity awards on a forfeiture basis. During Fiscal 2025, net cash provided by financing activities totaled $284.84 million, from net cash of $287.51 million from our common stock sold under the 2022 ATM Offering Agreement and 2024 ATM Offering Agreement, and the exercises of stock options and share purchase warrants, offset by payments of $2.67 million for tax and withholdings upon settlement of equity awards on a forfeiture basis. During Fiscal 2024, net cash provided by financing activities totaled $173.08 million, from net cash of $176.71 million from our common stock sold under the 2022 ATM Offering Agreement and the exercises of stock options and share purchase warrants, offset by payments of $3.63 million for tax and withholdings upon settlement of equity awards on a forfeiture basis. Investing Activities During Fiscal 2026, net cash used in investing activities totaled $89.09 million, mainly related to investment in equity securities of $40.43 million, investment in URC of $40.00 million, the purchase of property, plant and equipment of $8.78 million and cash used for capital contributions to JCU of $1.05 million, partially offset by proceeds from the sale of equity securities of $1.17 million. During Fiscal 2025, net cash used in investing activities totaled $157.03 million, primarily comprised of cash used for the Sweetwater Acquisition of $179.60 million, the purchase of property, plant and equipment of $5.48 million, the purchase of equity securities and an additional interest in Anfield for a total of $25.70 million, capital contributions to JCU of $0.54 million and investment in mineral rights and properties of $0.22 million, partially offset by proceeds from the sale of equity securities of $54.44 million. During Fiscal 2024, net cash used in investing activities totaled $24.64 million, primarily comprised of cash used for investment in equity securities of $12.12 million, the purchase of an additional interest in URC of $9.24 million, capital contributions to JCU of $2.88 million, investment in mineral rights and properties of $1.44 million and the purchase of property, plant and equipment of $1.99 million, offset by proceeds from the sale of equity securities of $3.01 million. Stock Options As at July 31, 2026, we had 3,366,053 stock options outstanding at a weighted-average exercise price of $3.03 per share. As at July 31, 2026, we had in-the-money stock options outstanding representing 3,246,053 shares at a weighted-average exercise price of $2.78 per share, issuable for gross proceeds of approximately $9.04 million should these stock options be exercised in full on a cash basis. The exercise of these stock options is at the discretion of their respective holders and, accordingly, there is no assurance that any of these stock options will be exercised in the future. 92 Table of Contents Plan of Operations In August 2024, we restarted uranium extraction at our fully permitted, and past producing, Christensen Ranch Mine ISR operation in Wyoming. Production process at our Burke Hollow Mine ISR operation was also commenced in April 2026. We expect the ramp-up phase will continue while new production areas are being constructed at our Christensen Ranch Mine and our Burke Hollow Mine in 2026 and 2027. We will hire additional personnel for future wellfield development and expand extraction at the Christensen Ranch Mine and Burke Hollow Mine in Fiscal 2027. Our Palangana Mine is expected to continue operating at a reduced pace, including the deferral of major pre-extraction expenditures, and to remain in a state of operational readiness. In addition, we will continue construction of the ion-exchange facility and production area at our Ludeman Project, along with advancing wellfield pattern planning and assessing refurbishment requirements for our Sweetwater Project. Concurrently, we will continue to advance our Roughrider Projects, carry out additional exploration activities as required across our remaining project portfolio, and pursue the feasibility of developing a new uranium refining and conversion facility in the United States through UR&C. Material Contractual and Other Obligations As at July 31, 2026, our significant payment obligations over the next five years and beyond are as follows: (in thousands of U.S. dollars) Payment Due by Period Contractual and Other Obligations Total Less Than 1 Year 1-3 Years 3-5 Years More Than 5 Years Asset Retirement Obligations $ 93,918 $ 1,678 $ 5,298 $ 12,489 $ 74,453 Operating Lease Obligations 2,947 612 1,032 577 726 Total $ 96,865 $ 2,290 $ 6,330 $ 13,066 $ 75,179 Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements We do not have any off-balance sheet arrangements that have or are reasonably likely to have a current or future material effect on our financial condition, changes in financial condition, revenues or expenses, results of operations, liquidity, capital expenditures or capital resources. Non-GAAP Financial Measures The non-GAAP financial measures presented below are intended to provide supplemental information and do not have standardized meanings prescribed by U.S. GAAP. Accordingly, these measures may not be comparable to similarly titled measures presented by other companies. Non-GAAP financial measures should not be considered in isolation or as substitutes for financial measures prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP. EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA Management uses EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA to evaluate operating performance and compare our results across periods. Adjusted EBITDA includes adjustments for certain items that management believes are not indicative of our core operating performance or that may have a disproportionate effect on our results for a particular period. EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA do not represent, and should not be considered alternatives to, net income (loss), operating income (loss), cash flows from operating activities or any other measure of financial performance or liquidity determined in accordance with U.S. GAAP. We believe that EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA provide useful supplemental information to investors and other users of its financial statements by facilitating an evaluation of our underlying operating performance and enhancing comparability between periods. However, because the calculation of these measures may differ among companies, our EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA may not be comparable to similarly titled measures used by other companies. 93 Table of Contents The following is a reconciliation of net loss to EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA for the periods presented: Year Ended July 31, (in thousands of U.S. dollars) 2026 2025 2024 Net loss as reported for the year (1) $ (137,311 ) $ (87,656 ) $ (29,221 ) Deferred tax recovery (2,572 ) (2,779 ) (5,034 ) Depreciation, amortization and accretion 6,921 4,474 2,183 Interest expenses and finance costs 2,072 1,446 827 EBITDA (130,890 ) (84,515 ) (31,245 ) Adjustments: ​ ​ ​ Share-based compensation included in general and administrative expenses 8,041 6,015 5,172 Loss on revaluation of Subscription Receipts 9,890 - - (Gain) loss on revaluation of derivative liabilities - (1,706 ) 8,226 Fair value (gain) loss on equity securities 17,510 18,051 (27,505 ) (Income) loss from equity-accounted investment (7,086 ) 3,352 (1,017 ) Interest income (15,578 ) (4,022 ) (2,629 ) Adjusted EBITDA $ (118,113 ) $ (62,825 ) $ (48,998 ) Adjusted EBITDA loss increased from $49.00 million in Fiscal 2024 to $62.83 million in Fiscal 2025, and further to $118.11 million in Fiscal 2026. This increase was primarily attributable to the fluctuation in gross profit, which was $0.04 million in Fiscal 2024, $24.48 million in Fiscal 2025, and $16.90 million in Fiscal 2026, driven mainly by variations in the sales volume, selling price and unit cost of sales of purchased uranium inventory. The higher Adjusted EBITDA loss also reflects increased mineral property expenditures, as discussed below, as well as project expense of $6.28 million incurred in Fiscal 2026 in connection with the planning and evaluation of UR&C’s proposed uranium refining and conversion facility in the United States. (1) Net loss for the year included mineral property expenditures of $102.37 million, $66.06 million and $32.38 million for Fiscal 2026, Fiscal 2025 and Fiscal 2024, respectively. These expenditures primarily related to exploration and development activities supporting our growth investments in our uranium projects, totaling to $81.03 million, $45.03 million and $21.32 million during Fiscal 2026, Fiscal 2025 and Fiscal 2024, respectively. The remaining mineral property expenditures were associated with the holding and maintenance of our mineral projects and primarily comprised of permitting and land payments, together with extraction readiness and mine site maintenance costs, totaling to $21.34 million, $21.03 million and $11.06 million in Fiscal 2026, Fiscal 2025 and Fiscal 2024, respectively. We have not established proven or probable reserves, as defined by the SEC under S-K 1300, for any of our mineral projects. In accordance with U.S. GAAP, expenditures relating to exploration activities, such as drill programs to establish mineralized materials, are expensed as incurred. Expenditures relating to pre-extraction activities, such as the construction of mine wellfields and disposal wells, are expensed as incurred until such time that proven or probable reserves are established for that project, after which expenditures relating to mine development activities for that particular project are capitalized as incurred. Uranium Production Cost Management uses Total Cash Cost per Pound, Total Non-Cash Cost per Pound and Total Cost per Pound as non-GAAP financial measures to evaluate the operating performance and production efficiency of our uranium extraction activities and to analyze production-cost trends between periods. Total Cash Cost per Pound is calculated as additions to in-process inventory and uranium concentrates from extraction, excluding depreciation, depletion and amortization, for the applicable period divided by the quantity, in pounds, of precipitated uranium and dried and drummed U₃O₈ produced during the period. Total Non-Cash Cost per Pound represents depreciation, depletion and amortization included in additions to in-process inventory and uranium concentrates from extraction for the applicable period divided by the quantity, in pounds, of precipitated uranium and dried and drummed U₃O₈ produced during the period. Total Cost per Pound is calculated as additions to in-process inventory and uranium concentrates from extraction for the applicable period divided by the quantity, in pounds, of precipitated uranium and dried and drummed U₃O₈ produced during the period. 94 Table of Contents Cash Production Cost per Pound is calculated as Total Cash Cost per Pound excluding Production-Based Royalties, Ad Valorem and Severance Tax per Pound. Production-Based Royalties, Ad Valorem and Severance Tax per Pound , which is a component of Total Cash Cost per Pound, is calculated as production-based royalties and ad valorem and severance taxes accrued for the applicable period divided by the quantity, in pounds, of precipitated uranium and dried and drummed U₃O₈ produced during the period. Production‑Based Royalties, Ad Valorem and Severance Tax per Pound does not include royalties on sales, which will be recognized as part of cost of sales in future periods when the uranium concentrates are sold. We believe these measures provide investors and other stakeholders with useful supplemental information regarding the cost and efficiency of our uranium production activities and facilitates comparisons of production performance between periods. These measures do not have standardized meanings prescribed by U.S. GAAP and may not be comparable to similarly titled measures reported by other mining companies. They should not be considered in isolation or as substitutes for cost of sales, gross profit, net income or loss, cash flows from operating activities or other measures determined in accordance with U.S. GAAP. Because uranium produced during a period may remain in in-process or finished-goods inventory at the end of that period, these non-GAAP measures may differ from the costs recognized in cost of sales and may not correspond to the uranium sales or revenue recognized during the same period. Total Cost per Pound incurred during the ramp-up phase is not necessarily indicative of the results that may be achieved once the operation attains a steady-state level of production. The following table reconciles Cash Production Costs, being the additions to in-process inventory and uranium concentrates from extraction for the period (excluding depreciation, depletion and amortization), to Cash Production Cost per Pound, Total Cash Cost per Pound, Total Non-Cash Cost per Pound and Total Cost per Pound for the periods presented. Year Ended July 31, (in thousands of U.S. dollars, except cost per pound) 2026 2025 ​ ​ Cash Production Costs A $ 6,338 $ 2,803 Add ​ ​ Production-Based Royalties 316 189 Ad Valorem and Severance Tax 1,197 599 Total Production-Based Royalties and Taxes B 1,513 788 Total Cash Costs C=A+B $ 7,851 $ 3,591 Add ​ ​ Depreciation, depletion and amortization 1,306 1,141 Total Non-Cash Costs D $ 1,306 $ 1,141 ​ ​ Total Costs E=C+D $ 9,157 $ 4,732 ​ ​ Precipitated Uranium and Dried and Drummed Uranium Concentrate (pounds) F 229,294 129,966 ​ ​ Cash Production Costs Per Pound G=A/F $ 27.64 $ 21.57 Production-Based Royalties, Ad Valorem and Severance Tax Per Pound H=B/F 6.60 6.06 Total Cash Cost Per Pound $ 34.24 $ 27.63 Total Non-Cash Cost Per Pound I=D/F 5.70 8.78 Total Cost Per Pound J=G+H+I $ 39.94 $ 36.41 95 Table of Contents Growth Capital Deployed Management uses Growth Capital Deployed, a non-GAAP measure, in reviewing the allocation of capital to growth initiatives, including to execute our strategy, advance our projects and expand our strategic investments. Net Strategic Capital Deployed is calculated as the sum of (i) net cash used in investing activities, excluding (ii) purchase of property, plant and equipment, which is included in the reconciliation for the Project Development Capital below, and (iii) proceeds from sale of equity securities and disposition of assets. Because it is net of these disposition and securities-sale proceeds, Net Strategic Capital Deployed represents the net capital deployed to our long-term strategic investments in our mineral properties and company equities in the applicable period. Project Development Capital represents the spending at our uranium operations with goal of increasing and expanding operation levels and developing new mine units. They are calculated as the sum of (i) purchase of property, plant and equipment, and (ii) exploration and development expenditures, each a component of mineral property expenditures. Growth Capital Deployed is calculated as the sum of Net Strategic Capital Deployed and Project Development Capital. Our management utilizes these measures to determine capital allocation strategies. We believe these measures are useful to investors because they illustrate the proportion of capital allocated to growth related activities. Growth Capital Deployed, Net Strategic Capital Deployed and Project Development Capital are non-GAAP financial measures that do not have any standardized meaning prescribed by U.S. GAAP, and our method of calculating these measures may differ from the methods used by other companies and, accordingly, they may not be comparable to similarly titled measures presented by other companies. These measures are intended to provide supplemental information and should not be considered in isolation or as a substitute for, or superior to, measures of financial performance or liquidity prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP, including net income or loss and cash flows from investing activities, and should be read in conjunction with our consolidated financial statements prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP. The following table reconciles Growth Capital Deployed to the applicable line items in our annual audited consolidated financial statements for the periods presented: ​ ​ Year Ended July 31, ​ (in thousands of U.S. dollars) ​ 2026 ​ ​ 2025 ​ ​ 2024 ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Net Cash Used In Investing Activities ​ ​ $ 89,089 ​ ​ ​ $ 157,029 (1) ​ ​ $ 24,641 ​ Purchase of property, plant and equipment ​ ​ (8,783 ) ​ ​ (5,480 ) ​ ​ (1,988 ) Proceeds from sale of equity securities ​ ​ 1,168 ​ ​ ​ 54,438 ​ ​ ​ 3,008 ​ Proceeds from disposition of assets ​ ​ 6 ​ ​ ​ 59 ​ ​ ​ 8 ​ Net Strategic Capital Deployed ​ ​ 81,480 ​ ​ ​ 206,046 ​ ​ ​ 25,669 ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Purchase of property, plant and equipment ​ ​ 8,783 ​ ​ ​ 5,480 ​ ​ ​ 1,988 ​ Mineral property exploration expenditures ​ ​ 23,228 ​ ​ ​ 11,140 ​ ​ ​ 14,669 ​ Mineral property development expenditures ​ ​ 57,799 ​ ​ ​ 33,891 ​ ​ ​ 6,650 ​ Project Development Capital ​ ​ 89,810 ​ ​ ​ 50,511 ​ ​ ​ 23,307 ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Growth Capital Deployed ​ $ 171,290 ​ ​ $ 256,557 (1) ​ $ 48,976 ​ (1) Included $179.60 million paid for the Sweetwater Acquisition. 96 Table of Contents Critical Accounting Estimates The preparation of financial statements in conformity with U.S. GAAP requires management to make judgements, estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amount of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported revenues and expenses during the reported periods. We have identified the accounting estimates listed below as critical to understanding and evaluating the financial results reported in our consolidated financial statements. These accounting estimates require the application of significant management judgment and are critical due to the significant level of estimation uncertainty regarding the assumptions involved and the magnitude of the asset, liability, revenue or expense being reported. We base our assumptions and estimates on historical experience and various other sources that we believe to be reasonable under the circumstances. We review the underlying factors used in our estimates regularly, including reviewing the significant accounting policies impacting the estimates, to ensure compliance with U.S. GAAP. However, due to the uncertainty inherent in our estimates, actual results may materially differ from the estimates we calculate due to changes in circumstances, global economics and politics, and general business conditions. For a complete summary of all of our significant accounting policies, refer to Note 2: Summary of Significant Accounting Policies of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements as presented under Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data herein. Mineral Rights and Properties Acquisition costs of mineral rights are initially capitalized as incurred while exploration and pre-extraction expenditures are expensed as incurred until such time proven or probable reserves are established for that project. We have established the existence of mineralized materials for certain uranium projects, including our ISR Mines, and our Red Desert, Green Mountain, Roughrider and Christie Lake Projects. We have not established proven or probable reserves, as defined by S-K 1300, through the completion of a “final” or “bankable” feasibility study for any of the uranium projects we operate, including our ISR Mines. Furthermore, we currently have no plans to establish proven or probable reserves for any of our uranium projects for which we plan on utilizing in-situ recovery mining, such as our ISR Mines. As a result, and despite the fact that we commenced extraction of mineralized materials at some of our ISR Mines, we remain an exploration stage issuer, as defined by the SEC, and will continue to remain as an exploration stage issuer until such time proven or probable reserves have been established. Since we commenced extraction of mineralized materials at some of our ISR Mines without having established proven or probable reserves, any mineralized materials established or extracted from our ISR Mines should not in any way be associated with having established or produced from proven or probable reserves. In accordance with U.S. GAAP, expenditures relating to the acquisition of mineral rights are initially capitalized as incurred while exploration and pre-extraction expenditures are expensed as incurred until such time as we exit the exploration stage by establishing proven or probable reserves. Expenditures relating to exploration activities, such as drill programs to establish mineralized materials, are expensed as incurred. Expenditures relating to pre-extraction activities, such as the construction of mine wellfields and disposal wells, are expensed as incurred until such time that proven or probable reserves are established for that project, after which expenditures relating to mine development activities for that particular project are capitalized as incurred. Companies in the production stage, as defined by the SEC, having established proven and probable reserves and exited the exploration stage, typically capitalize ongoing development expenditures, with corresponding depletion calculated over reserves using the units-of-production method and allocated to inventory and, as that inventory is sold, to cost of goods sold. Because we are in the exploration stage and expense the ongoing development expenditures as incurred, we report larger losses than if we would have been in the production stage. Additionally, there would be no corresponding depletion allocated to future reporting periods since those costs had been expensed previously, resulting in lower inventory costs and cost of goods sold and higher gross profits and lower losses than if we would have been in the production stage. Any capitalized costs, such as acquisition costs of mineral rights, are depleted over the estimated extraction life using the straight-line method. As a result, our consolidated financial statements may not be directly comparable to the financial statements of companies in the production stage. 97 Table of Contents Business Combination and Asset Acquisition We recognize and measure the assets acquired and liabilities assumed based on their estimated fair values at the acquisition date. An income, market or cost valuation method may be utilized to estimate the fair value of the assets acquired and liabilities assumed, if any, in a business combination or asset acquisition. The income valuation method represents the present value of future cash flows over the life of the asset using: (i) discrete financial forecasts, which rely on management’s estimates of resource quantities and exploration potential, costs to produce and develop resources, revenues and operating expenses; (ii) appropriate discount rates; and (iii) expected future capital requirements. The market valuation method uses prices paid for a similar asset by other purchasers in the market, normalized for any differences between the assets. The cost valuation method is based on the replacement cost of a comparable asset at the time of the acquisition adjusted for depreciation and economic and functional obsolescence of the asset. For business combination, subsequent to the acquisition date, and not later than one year from the acquisition date, we will record any material adjustments to the initial estimate based on new information obtained that would have existed as of the date of the acquisition. Any adjustment that arises from information obtained that did not exist as of the date of the acquisition will be recorded in the period the adjustments arises. Impairment of Long-lived Assets Long-lived assets including mineral rights and property, plant and equipment are reviewed for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate the carrying amount of an asset or asset group may not be recoverable. Management applies significant judgment to assess whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate the carrying amount of an asset or asset group may not be recoverable giving rise to the requirement to conduct an impairment test. Circumstances which could trigger an impairment test include, but are not limited to: (i) significant decreases in the market price of the asset; (ii) significant adverse changes in the business climate or legal factors including significant decreases in uranium prices and material adverse changes relating to our legal rights to its mineral rights and properties; (iii) significant increase in reclamation costs and accumulation of costs significantly in excess of the amount originally expected for the acquisition or construction of the asset; (iv) current period cash flow or operating losses combined with a history of losses or a forecast of continuing losses associated with the use of the asset; and (v) current expectation that the asset will more likely than not be sold or disposed of significantly before the end of its estimated useful life. Recoverability of these assets is measured by comparing the carrying value to the future undiscounted cash flows expected to be generated by the assets. When the carrying value of an asset exceeds the related undiscounted cash flows, an impairment loss is recorded by writing down the carrying value of the related asset to its estimated fair value, which is determined using discounted future cash flows or other measures of fair value. Restoration and Remediation Costs (Asset Retirement Obligations) Various federal and state mining laws and regulations require us to reclaim the surface areas and restore underground water quality to the pre-existing quality or class of use after the completion of mining. We recognize the present value of the future restoration and remediation costs as an asset retirement obligation (each, an “ ARO ”) in the period in which we incur an obligation associated with the retirement of tangible long-lived assets that result from the acquisition, construction, development and/or normal use of the assets. AROs consist of estimated final well closure, plant and equipment decommissioning and removal and environmental remediation costs to be incurred by us in the future. The AROs are estimated based on the current costs escalated at an inflation rate and discounted at a credit adjusted risk-free rate. The AROs are capitalized as part of the costs of the underlying assets and amortized over its remaining useful life. The AROs are accreted to an undiscounted value until they are settled. The accretion expenses are charged to earnings and the actual retirement costs are recorded against the AROs when incurred. Any difference between the recorded AROs and the actual retirement costs incurred will be recorded as a gain or loss in the period of settlement. Stock-based Compensation We measure stock-based awards at fair value on the date of the grant and expense the awards in our Consolidated Statements of Operations over the requisite service period of employees or consultants. The fair value of stock options is determined using the Black-Scholes Valuation Model. The fair value of restricted stock units is determined using the price of the shares of our common stock at the date of grant. The fair value of performance based restricted stock units is determined using a Monte Carlo Simulation Model. Stock-based compensation expense related to stock awards is recognized over the requisite service period on a graded vesting basis. Forfeitures are accounted for as they occur. 98 Table of Contents Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk Our exposure to market risks includes, but is not limited to, equity price risk, uranium price risk and foreign currency risk. Equity Price Risk We are subject to market risk related to the market price of our common stock which trades on the NYSE American. Historically, we have relied upon equity financings from the sale of our common stock to fund our operations. Movements in the price of our common stock have been volatile in the past and may continue to be volatile in the future. As a result, there is a risk that we may not be able to complete an equity financing at an acceptable price when required. In addition, we have investment in equity securities, which include common shares and warrants of publicly listed companies. Movements in the price of these equity securities have been volatile in the past and may continue to be volatile in the future. With all other variables held constant, our loss before income taxes would decrease or increase by $5.02 million if the price of these equity securities increase or decrease by 10%. Uranium Price Risk We are subject to market risk related to the market price of uranium. As of July 31, 2026, we had no uranium purchase or sale agreements in place. Since future sales of uranium concentrates are expected to generally occur through the uranium spot market, fluctuations in the market price of uranium would have a direct impact on our revenue, results of operations and cash flows. We do not use derivative financial instruments for speculative trading purposes, nor do we hedge our uranium price exposure to manage our uranium price risk. Foreign Currency Risk We are subject to market risk related to foreign currency exchange rate fluctuations. Our functional currency is the United States dollar; however, a portion of our business is transacted in other currencies including the Canadian dollar and the Paraguayan Guarani. To date, these fluctuations have not had a material impact on our results of operations. We do not use derivative financial instruments for speculative trading purposes, nor do we hedge our foreign currency exposure to manage our foreign currency fluctuation risk. Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data Financial Statements The consolidated financial statements and related information as listed below for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2026 are included in this Annual Report beginning on page F-1: ● Reports of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm (PCAOB ID 271); ● Consolidated Balance Sheets; ● Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Loss; ● Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows; ● Consolidated Statements of Stockholders’ Equity; and ● Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements. 99 Table of Contents Supplementary Financial Information The selected unaudited financial data for each of the quarters for the two most recent fiscal years are presented below: For the Quarters Ended (in thousands of U.S. dollars) July 31, 2026 April 30, 2026 January 31, 2026 October 31, 2025 Sales and service revenue $ 17,050 $ - $ 20,200 $ - Gross profit 6,867 - 10,028 - Net loss (60,689 ) (52,344 ) (13,937 ) (10,341 ) Total comprehensive loss (65,314 ) (53,041 ) (7,745 ) (12,873 ) Basic and diluted loss per share (0.12 ) (0.11 ) (0.03 ) (0.02 ) Total assets 1,511,193 1,538,056 1,532,648 1,428,508 For the Quarters Ended (in thousands of U.S. dollars) July 31, 2025 April 30, 2025 January 31, 2025 October 31, 2024 Sales and service revenue $ - $ - $ 49,750 $ 17,087 Gross profit - - 18,226 6,251 Net loss (27,052 ) (30,212 ) (10,234) (20,158) Total comprehensive income (loss) (27,559 ) (19,796 ) (19,003) (21,886 ) Basic and diluted income (loss) per share (0.06 ) (0.07 ) (0.02) (0.05) Total assets 1,107,653 1,007,810 981,957 917,798 Item 9. Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure None. Item 9A. Controls and Procedures Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures Our management, with the participation of our Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer, has evaluated the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures (as such term is defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Exchange Act) as of the end of the period covered by this Annual Report. Based on such evaluation, our Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer have concluded that, as of the end of the period covered by this Annual Report, our disclosure controls and procedures were effective. It should be noted that any system of controls is based in part upon certain assumptions designed to obtain reasonable (and not absolute) assurance as to its effectiveness, and there can be no assurance that any design will succeed in achieving its stated goals. Management’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting, as required by Section 404(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Our internal control over financial reporting is a process designed by and under the supervision of our Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer and effected by the Board, management and other personnel, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of our consolidated financial statements for external purposes in accordance with United States generally accepted accounting principles. Due to its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements on a timely basis. Also, projections of any evaluation of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting to future periods are subject to the risk that the controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate. 100 Table of Contents As of July 31, 2026, management assessed the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting based on the criteria set forth in Internal Control - Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. Based on that evaluation, our management concluded that, as of July 31, 2026, our internal control over financial reporting was effective. The independent registered public accounting firm that audited the consolidated financial statements included in this Annual Report has issued an attestation report on our internal control over financial reporting which appears herein. Changes in Internal Controls over Financial Reporting There have been no changes in our internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) under the Exchange Act) that occurred during the Company’s fourth fiscal quarter for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2026, that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting. Item 9B. Other Information During our fourth quarter ended July 31, 2026, none of our directors or officers (as defined in Rule 16a - 1 (f) under the Exchange Act) adopted, modified or terminated any “Rule 10b5 - 1 trading arrangement” or “non-Rule 10b5 - 1 trading arrangement”, as such terms are defined in Item 408 of Regulation S-K. Item 9C. Disclosure Regarding Foreign Jurisdictions that Prevent Inspections Not applicable. 101 Table of Contents PART III Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance Our current directors and executive officers and their respective ages as of September 15, 2026 are as follows: Name Age Position Amir Adnani 48 President, CEO, Principal Executive Officer and Director Spencer Abraham 74 Chairman (non-executive) and Director David Kong 80 Director Vincent Della Volpe 84 Director Gloria Ballesta 51 Director Trecia Canty 57 Director Josephine Man 52 Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer, Secretary and Principal Accounting Officer Scott Melbye 64 Executive Vice President Brent Berg 55 Senior Vice President, U.S. Operations The following describes the business experience of each of our directors, including other current directorships held in reporting companies. Amir Adnani . Amir Adnani is our founder and has served as our President and Chief Executive Officer and as a director since January 2005. Over the past two decades under his leadership, we have become one of America’s largest and fastest growing uranium companies, with the largest uranium resource base and licensed production capacity in the United States, and one of the most extensive land and resource portfolios in Canada’s Athabasca Basin. Since April 2025, Mr. Adnani has been a member of the Board of Management of the World Nuclear Association, contributing to governance, policy and strategy development. Mr. Adnani has represented the industry in key world forums and has given a variety of presentations at prominent industry conferences organized by the International Atomic Energy Agency, World Nuclear Fuel Market and the Milken Institute. He is a frequent contributor to the business media, including CNBC, The Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg and Fox Business News. Mr. Adnani is the founder and Co-Chairman of GoldMining Inc. (TSX: GOLD and NYSE American: GLDG) and founder and Chairman of Uranium Royalty Corp. (Nasdaq: UROY). Mr. Adnani was also a founder of Gold Royalty Corp. (“ GRC ”) (NYSE American: GROY), a gold royalty company where he served as a director from November 2020 to March 2023. Mr. Adnani holds a Bachelor of Science degree from the University of British Columbia and was a director of the Alumni Association of the University of British Columbia from 2015 to 2021. We believe that Mr. Adnani’s involvement with us since our inception and his business and uranium industry experience qualify him to serve as a director. 102 Table of Contents Spencer Abraham . Spencer Abraham has served as our Chairman (non-executive) of our Board since March 2017. Mr. Abraham served as our Executive Chairman from October 2015 to March 2017 and as the Chairman of our Advisory Board from