SEC Info - Uranium Energy Corp. - ‘10-K/A’ for 7/31/23

SEC Info℠

Home

My Interests

Help

Please Sign In

Uranium Energy Corp. – ‘10-K/A’ for 7/31/23

On: Tuesday, 4/2/24, at 5:22pm ET · For: 7/31/23 · Accession #: 1437749-24-10672 · File #: 1-33706

Previous ‘10-K’: ‘10-K’ on 9/29/23 for 7/31/23 · Latest ‘10-K’: This Filing · 74 References:

  As Of               Filer                 Filing    For·On·As Docs:Size             Issuer                      Filing Agent

 4/02/24  Uranium Energy Corp.              10-K/A      7/31/23   27:12M                                    RDG Filings/FA

Amendment to Annual Report — Form 10-K — SEA’34

Filing Table of Contents

Document/Exhibit                   Description                      Pages   Size 

 1: 10-K/A      Amendment to Annual Report                          HTML   2.13M 
10: EX-23.10    Consent of Expert or Counsel                        HTML     11K 
11: EX-23.11    Consent of Expert or Counsel                        HTML     11K 
12: EX-23.12    Consent of Expert or Counsel                        HTML     11K 
13: EX-23.13    Consent of Expert or Counsel                        HTML     11K 
14: EX-23.14    Consent of Expert or Counsel                        HTML     11K 
 2: EX-23.2     Consent of Expert or Counsel                        HTML     11K 
 3: EX-23.3     Consent of Expert or Counsel                        HTML     12K 
 4: EX-23.4     Consent of Expert or Counsel                        HTML     12K 
 5: EX-23.5     Consent of Expert or Counsel                        HTML     12K 
 6: EX-23.6     Consent of Expert or Counsel                        HTML     12K 
 7: EX-23.7     Consent of Expert or Counsel                        HTML     12K 
 8: EX-23.8     Consent of Expert or Counsel                        HTML     11K 
 9: EX-23.9     Consent of Expert or Counsel                        HTML     11K 
17: EX-96.4     Mining Disclosure                                   HTML   4.24M 
15: EX-31.1     Certification -- §302 - SOA'02                      HTML     10K 
16: EX-31.2     Certification -- §302 - SOA'02                      HTML     10K 
22: R1          Document And Entity Information                     HTML     78K 
24: XML         IDEA XML File -- Filing Summary                      XML     21K 
27: XML         XBRL Instance -- uec20230731c_10ka_htm               XML     25K 
23: EXCEL       IDEA Workbook of Financial Report Info              XLSX     10K 
19: EX-101.DEF  XBRL Definitions -- uec-20230731_def                 XML     54K 
20: EX-101.LAB  XBRL Labels -- uec-20230731_lab                      XML     71K 
21: EX-101.PRE  XBRL Presentations -- uec-20230731_pre               XML     55K 
18: EX-101.SCH  XBRL Schema -- uec-20230731                          XSD     17K 
25: JSON        XBRL Instance as JSON Data -- MetaLinks               17±    30K 
26: ZIP         XBRL Zipped Folder -- 0001437749-24-010672-xbrl      Zip   1.85M

‘10-K/A’ — Amendment to Annual Report

This is an HTML Document rendered as filed. [ Alternative Formats ]

iX: C:

i true i 0001334933 0001334933 2022-08-01 2023-07-31 0001334933 2023-01-31 0001334933 2023-09-28 iso4217:USD xbrli:shares

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM i 10-K/A

(Amendment No. 1)

i ☒	ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the fiscal year ended i July 31, 2023

i ☐	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: i 001-33706

i URANIUM ENERGY CORP.
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

i Nevada		i 98-0399476
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation of organization)		(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)

500 North Shoreline, Ste. 800, Corpus Christi, Texas, U.S.A.		78401
(U.S. corporate headquarters)		(Zip Code)

i 1830 – 1188 West Georgia Street i Vancouver, i British Columbia, i Canada		i V6E 4A2
(Canadian corporate headquarters)		(Zip Code)

(Address of principal executive offices)

	( i 361) i 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:
i Common Stock	i UEC	i NYSE American

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:

N/A
(Title of class)

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.
i 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 ☐ i 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.

i Yes ☒ No ☐

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). i 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.

☒ i Large accelerated filer	☐ Accelerated filer
☐ Non-accelerated filer	i ☐ Smaller reporting company
	i ☐ 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. i ☒

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. i ☐

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 i ☐ No ☒

The aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates computed by reference to the price at which the common equity was last sold, or the average bid and asked price of such common equity, as of the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter ($4.03 on January 31, 2023) was approximately $ i 1,479,408,555.

The registrant had i 385,848,443 shares of common stock outstanding as of September 28, 2023.

EXPLANATORY NOTE

i Uranium Energy Corp. (which may be referred to herein as “we,” “us,” “our” or the “Company”) is filing this Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 1) (the “Form 10-K/A”) to our Annual Report on Form 10-K (the “Form 10-K/A”) for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2023, as originally filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) on September 29, 2023 (the “Original Report”) to amend the disclosure contained in Items 2 and 15 of the Original Report pursuant to correspondence with the staff (the “Staff”) of the SEC in connection with the Staff’s review of the Original Report, including the Staff’s review of the property disclosure requirements for registrants engaged in mining operations and reflected in the Original Report.

Item 15 of the Original Report has been amended to contain: (i) currently dated certifications as specified in Rule 13a-14(a) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), from the Company’s Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer), as required pursuant to Rule 12b-15 under the Exchange Act, attached as Exhibits 31.1 and 31.2 to this Form 10-K/A; (ii) currently dated consents of each of the qualified person authors to each of the Technical Report Summaries filed with or incorporated by reference in this Form 10-K/A, attached as Exhibits 23.2 through 23.14 to this Form 10-K/A; and (iii) the S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary 2024 Technical Report on the Horseshoe-Raven Project, Saskatchewan, dated March 1, 2024, attached as Exhibit 96.4 to this Form 10-K/A.

Except as expressly set forth herein, this Form 10-K/A does not reflect events occurring after the date that the Original Report was filed or modifies or updates any other of the other disclosures contained therein in any way other than as required to reflect the amendments discussed above. The remainder of the Original Report filed with the SEC on September 29, 2023, remains unchanged.

- 1 -

PART I

Item 2. Description of Properties

Figure 2.1 – Portfolio Overview of Significant Properties

Overview

The Company is engaged in conventional and in situ recovery (ISR) uranium extraction and recovery, along with the exploration, permitting and evaluation of uranium properties in the United States, the Republic of Paraguay, and Canada.

- 2 -

Summary Disclosure

Table 2.1 - Location, Ownership Interest, Operator, Stage, Mining Method, and Mineralization Style Summary of Uranium Projects

Country	State/Province	Project	Location (Latitude)	Location (Longitude)	Equity Interest	Operator	Stage	Mining Method	Mineralization Style
		Allemand-Ross	43.3101	-105.7787	100%	UEC	Exploration Stage	ISR	Roll-Front
		Antelope	42.2263	-107.9095	100%	UEC	Exploration Stage	ISR	Roll-Front
		Barge	43.2729	-105.5905	100%	UEC	Exploration Stage	ISR	Roll-Front
		Black Hills	44.7764	-104.8831	100%	UEC	Exploration Stage	ISR	Roll-Front
		Brown Ranch	43.7377	-105.9684	100%	UEC	Exploration Stage	ISR	Roll-Front
		Bull Springs	42.1584	-107.6305	100%	UEC	Exploration Stage	ISR	Roll-Front
		Central Shirley Basin	42.3378	-106.4100	100%	UEC	Exploration Stage	ISR	Roll-Front
		Charlie	43.8274	-106.0594	100%	UEC	Exploration Stage	ISR	Roll-Front
		Christensen Ranch	43.7982	-106.0235	100%	UEC	Exploration Stage	ISR	Roll-Front
		Clarkson Hills	42.6593	-106.7006	100%	UEC	Exploration Stage	ISR	Roll-Front
		Crooks Creek	42.2867	-107.7660	100%	UEC	Exploration Stage	ISR	Roll-Front
		Crook's Mountain	42.3840	-107.9060	100%	UEC	Exploration Stage	ISR	Roll-Front
		Crossroads	43.0040	-105.6364	100%	UEC	Exploration Stage	ISR	Roll-Front
		Cyclone Rim	42.2943	-108.3332	100%	UEC	Exploration Stage	ISR	Roll-Front
		East Shirley Basin	42.3192	-106.1616	100%	UEC	Exploration Stage	ISR	Roll-Front
		Gas Hills	42.7094	-107.6521	100%	UEC	Exploration Stage	ISR	Roll-Front
United States	Wyoming	Horse Creek	42.5957	-106.9867	100%	UEC	Exploration Stage	ISR	Roll-Front
		Irigaray	43.8683	-106.1186	100%	UEC	Exploration Stage	ISR	Roll-Front
		Jab/West Jab	42.2209/42.2611	-108.0439/ -108.1225	100%	UEC	Exploration Stage	ISR	Roll-Front
		Ludeman	42.9119	-105.6277	100%	UEC	Exploration Stage	ISR	Roll-Front
		Moore Ranch	43.5652	-105.8480	100%	UEC	Exploration Stage	ISR	Roll-Front
		Mule Creek	42.2118	-105.8143	100%	UEC	Exploration Stage	ISR	Roll-Front
		Niles Ranch	43.8024	-105.7961	100%	UEC	Exploration Stage	ISR	Roll-Front
		Nine Mile Lake	42.9807	-106.3278	100%	UEC	Exploration Stage	ISR	Roll-Front
		Pine Ridge	43.4591	-106.0725	100%	UEC	Exploration Stage	ISR	Roll-Front
		Pine Tree U1	43.6173	-105.7860	100%	UEC	Exploration Stage	ISR	Roll-Front
		Pumpkin Creek	43.8163	-105.8955	100%	UEC	Exploration Stage	ISR	Roll-Front
		Red Rim	41.6502	-107.5755	100%	UEC	Exploration Stage	ISR	Roll-Front
		Reno Creek	43.6796	-105.7226	100%	UEC	Exploration Stage	ISR	Roll-Front
		Ross Flats	43.5224	-105.8861	100%	UEC	Exploration Stage	ISR	Roll-Front
		Sand Creek	42.7007	-105.2645	100%	UEC	Exploration Stage	ISR	Roll-Front
		South Pine Ridge	43.1204	-105.9251	100%	UEC	Exploration Stage	ISR	Roll-Front
		South Reno Creek	43.6440	-105.6199	100%	UEC	Exploration Stage	ISR	Roll-Front

- 3 -

Country	State/Province	Project	Location (Latitude)	Location (Longitude)	Equity Interest	Operator	Stage	Mining Method	Mineralization Style
Uranium Projects
		South Sweetwater	41.9694	-107.9820	100%	UEC	Exploration Stage	ISR	Roll-Front
		Stewart Creek	43.3124	-105.7342	100%	UEC	Exploration Stage	ISR	Roll-Front
		Taylor Ranch	43.5578	-106.0098	100%	UEC	Exploration Stage	ISR	Roll-Front
		Twin Buttes	42.2316	-107.7205	100%	UEC	Exploration Stage	ISR	Roll-Front
		West Beaver Rim	42.5967	-108.1568	100%	UEC	Exploration Stage	ISR	Roll-Front
		West Crook's Creek	42.2984	-107.8603	100%	UEC	Exploration Stage	ISR	Roll-Front
		West Sweetwater	42.1318	-108.0931	100%	UEC	Exploration Stage	ISR	Roll-Front
		Burke Hollow	27.6756	-97.5176	100%	UEC	Exploration Stage	ISR	Roll-Front
		Goliad	28.8686	-97.3433	100%	UEC	Exploration Stage	ISR	Roll-Front
	Texas	La Palangana	28.2638	-98.3959	100%	UEC	Exploration Stage	ISR	Roll-Front
		Salvo	28.2632	-97.7889	100%	UEC	Exploration Stage	ISR	Roll-Front
		Longhorn	28.1700	-98.1200	100%	UEC	Exploration Stage	ISR	Roll-Front
		Anderson	34.1829	-113.1632	100%	UEC	Exploration Stage	Conventional	Tabular
	Arizona	Los Cuatros	33.548	-112.322	100%	UEC	Exploration Stage	Conventional	Tabular
		Workman Creek	33.50	-110.57	100%	UEC	Exploration Stage	Conventional	Tabular
	New Mexico	C de Baca	34.18	-107.15	100%	UEC	Exploration Stage	Conventional	Tabular
	New Mexico	Dalton Pass	35.40	-108.14	100%	UEC	Exploration Stage	Conventional	Tabular
		Alexandra	58.023	-109.789	21.05%	Orano Canada Inc.	Exploration Stage	Conventional	Unconformity Related
		Axis Lake	59.304	-106.136	100.00%	UEC	Exploration Stage	Conventional	Unconformity Related
		Beatty River	57.897	-109.542	32.76%	Orano Canada Inc.	Exploration Stage	Conventional	Unconformity Related
		Black Lake	59.1167	-105.905	51.43%	UEC	Exploration Stage	Conventional	Unconformity Related
		Brander Lake	58.2895	-109.888	49.10%	Orano Canada Inc.	Exploration Stage	Conventional	Unconformity Related
		Candle Lake	57.9969	-104.93	12.50%	Denison Mines Corp.	Exploration Stage	Conventional	Unconformity Related
		Christie Lake	57.8128	-104.86	82.77%	UEC	Exploration Stage	Conventional	Unconformity Related
		Close Lake	57.9729	-105.082	5.16%	Orano Canada Inc.	Exploration Stage	Conventional	Unconformity Related
Canada	Saskatchewan	Cree Extension	57.5881	-105.551	15.05%	Cameco Corporation	Exploration Stage	Conventional	Unconformity Related
Canada	Saskatchewan	Diabase Peninsula	57.4294	-106.913	100.00%	UEC	Exploration Stage	Conventional	Unconformity Related
		Erica	58.1465	-109.731	49.10%	Orano Canada Inc.	Exploration Stage	Conventional	Unconformity Related
		Hidden Bay	58.157	-103.88	100.00%	UEC	Exploration Stage	Conventional	Unconformity Related
		Horseshoe-Raven	58.1331	-103.76	100.00%	UEC	Exploration Stage	Conventional	Unconformity Related
		Key West	57.2731	-106.217	100.00%	UEC	Exploration Stage	Conventional	Unconformity Related
		Laurie	57.6579	-108.721	32.99%	Orano Canada Inc.	Exploration Stage	Conventional	Unconformity Related
		Millennium	57.5138	-105.639	15.05%	Cameco Corporation	Exploration Stage	Conventional	Unconformity Related
		Mirror River	57.6078	-108.423	32.34%	Orano Canada Inc.	Exploration Stage	Conventional	Unconformity Related
		Moon Lake	57.4669	-105.634	10.07%	Orano Canada Inc.	Exploration Stage	Conventional	Unconformity Related
		Moore Tomblin	57.4512	-105.135	6.80%	Orano Canada Inc.	Exploration Stage	Conventional	Unconformity Related
		Nikita	58.0107	-109.574	12.72%	Orano Canada Inc.	Exploration Stage	Conventional	Unconformity Related

- 4 -

Country	State/Province	Project	Location (Latitude)	Location (Longitude)	Equity Interest	Operator	Stage	Mining Method	Mineralization Style
Uranium Projects
		Riou Lake	59.0491	-106.156	100.00%	UEC	Exploration Stage	Conventional	Unconformity Related
		Roughrider	58.3374	-104.021	100.00%	UEC	Exploration Stage	Conventional	Unconformity Related
		Shea Creek	58.1804	-109.49	49.10%	Orano Canada Inc.	Exploration Stage	Conventional	Unconformity Related
		Uchrich	57.7196	-108.483	30.48%	Orano Canada Inc.	Exploration Stage	Conventional	Unconformity Related
		Waterfound River	58.4588	-104.548	12.90%	Orano Canada Inc.	Exploration Stage	Conventional	Unconformity Related
		West Bear	57.8744	-103.975	100.00%	UEC	Exploration Stage	Conventional	Unconformity Related
		Wheeler River	57.5000	-105.421	5.00%	Denison Mines Corp.	Development	Conventional	Unconformity Related
		Wolly	58.3927	-103.799	6.38%	Orano Canada Inc.	Exploration Stage	Conventional	Unconformity Related
	Nunavut	Kiggavik	64.3752	-97.7685	16.91%	Orano Canada Inc.	Exploration Stage	Conventional	Unconformity Related
Paraguay		Yuty	25.2702	56.3125	100.00%	UEC	Exploration Stage	ISR	Roll-Front
Paraguay		Oviedo	25.2702	56.2828	100.00%	UEC	Exploration Stage	ISR	Roll-Front
Titanium Projects
Paraguay		Alto Parana	24.8147	54.9083	100.00%	UEC	Exploration Stage	Conventional	Surficial

- 5 -

Table 2.2 – Titles, Mineral Rights, Leases, and Acreage Summaries

			Acres	Hectares	State Leases			Fee Mineral Leases			Federal Lode Mining Claims			Provincial Mineral Dispositions			Provincial Mining Leases
Country	State/Province	Project	Total	Total	Number	Acres	Expiration Date	Number	Acres	Expiration Date	Number	Acres	Expiration Date	Number	Hectares	Expiration Date	Number	Hectares	Expiration Date
Uranium Projects
		Allemand-Ross	13,331.72	5,395.16	3	958	Annual	7	3,333.72	July 2025 - Feb 2029 (variable	452	9,040	Annual
		Antelope	13,220	5,349.94	1	640	Annual				629	12,580	Annual
		Barge	7,480	3,027.05	1	640	Annual				342	6,840	Annual
		Black Hills	1,280	518.00	1	640	Annual				32	640	Annual
		Brown Ranch	3,640	1,473.06	1	640	Annual				150	3,000	Annual
		Bull Springs	5,702.8	2,307.84	2	1,922.8	Annual				189	3,780	Annual
		Central Shirley Basin	2,380	963.15	2	760	Annual				81	1,620	Annual
		Charlie	820	331.84	1	720	Annual				5	100	Annual
United States	Wyoming	Christensen Ranch	11,140	4,508.20	1	1,280	Annual	1	720	Annual	358	9,140	Annual
		Clarkson Hills	400	161.87							20	400	Annual
		Crooks Creek	6,979.25	2,824.40	6	2,599.25	Annual				219	4,380	Annual
		Crook's Mountain	2,480	1,003.62	2	1,280	Annual				60	1,200	Annual
		Crossroads	5,680	2,298.61	2	1,280	Annual				220	4,400	Annual
		Cyclone Rim	4,280	1,732.06	0	0					214	4,280	Annual
		East Shirley Basin	4,599.90	1,861.51	4	2,099.9	Annual				125	2,500	Annual
		Gas Hills	6,114.76	2,474.56	5	3,394.76	Annual				136	2,720	Annual

- 6 -

			Acres	Hectares	State Leases			Fee Mineral Leases			Federal Lode Mining Claims			Provincial Mineral Dispositions			Provincial Mining Leases
Country	State/Province	Project	Total	Total	Number	Acres	Expiration Date	Number	Acres	Expiration Date	Number	Acres	Expiration Date	Number	Hectares	Expiration Date	Number	Hectares	Expiration Date
		Horse Creek	540	218.53							27	540	Annual
		Irigaray	2,320	938.87	2	480	Annual				92	1,840	Annual
		Jab/West Jab	5,300	2,144.83	3	960	Annual				217	4,340	Annual
		Ludeman	18,101.89	7,325.57	4	1,440	Annual	2	1,741.89	Sept. 2026 and Jan. 2029	746	14,920	Annual
		Moore Ranch	4,180	1,691.59	3	1,280	Annual	4	1,180	Aug. 2025 through Mar. 2027 (variable)	86	1,720	Annual
		Mule Creek	260	105.22							13	260	Annual
		Niles Ranch	3,560	1,440.68	6	2,560	Annual				50	1,000	Annual
		Nine Mile Lake	2,620	1,060.28	3	1,280	Annual				67	1,340	Annual
		Pine Ridge	3,780	1,529.71	2	720	Annual				153	3,060	Annual
		Pine Tree U1	1,540	623.22	1	80	Annual				73	1,460	Annual
		Pumpkin Creek	1,000	404.69							50	1,000	Annual
		Red Rim	680	275.19							34	680	Annual
		Reno Creek	18,763	7,593.12	4	3,200	Annual	36	4,583	Variable	549	10,980	Annual
		Ross Flats	5,480	2,217.68	3	1,040	Annual	3	1,680	Mar. 2027	138	2,760	Annual
		Sand Creek	3,000	1,214.06	3	1,920	Annual				54	1,080	Annual
		South Pine Ridge	4,020	1,626.84	5	2,360	Annual				83	1,660	Annual
		South Reno Creek	2,580	1,044.09	1	80	Annual				125	2,500	Annual
		South Sweetwater	1,120	453.25	1	640	Annual				24	480	Annual
		Stewart Creek	2,460	995.53	1	640	Annual				91	1,820	Annual
		Taylor Ranch	3,940	1,594.46	7	2,880	Annual				53	1,060	Annual
		Twin Buttes	7,740	3,132.27	3	1,600	Annual				307	6,140	Annual
		West Beaver Rim	1,900	768.90	1	640	Annual				63	1,260	Annual
		West Crook's Creek	1,520	615.12	1	640	Annual				44	880	Annual
		West Sweetwater	1,080	437.06							54	1,080	Annual
		Burke Hollow	17,511	7,086				1	17,511	2032
		Goliad	636	257				7	636	2024 & 2025
	Texas	Palangana	6,969	2,820				12	6,969	2025 thru 2032
		Salvo	800	324				2	800	2026 & 2027
		Longhorn	594	240				40	594	2027 thru 2028
	Arizona	Anderson	8,268	3,346	1	640	2024				386	7,628	2024
	Arizona	Los Cuatros	640	259	1	640	2024

- 7 -

			Acres	Hectares	State Leases			Fee Mineral Leases			Federal Lode Mining Claims			Provincial Mineral Dispositions			Provincial Mining Leases
Country	State/Province	Project	Total	Total	Number	Acres	Expiration Date	Number	Acres	Expiration Date	Number	Acres	Expiration Date	Number	Hectares	Expiration Date	Number	Hectares	Expiration Date
		Workman Creek	4,036	1,374							198	4,036	2024
	New Mexico	C de Baca	600	243							30	600	2024
	New Mexico	Dalton Pass	1,020	413							51	1,020	2024
		Alexandra	36,485	14,765										6	14,765	Oct. 4042
		Axis Lake	13,045	5,279										3	5,279	Aug. 2023
		Beatty River	16,526	6,688										7	6,688	Sept. 2027
Canada	Saskatchewan	Black Lake	78,335	31,701										13	31,701	Nov. 2024
		Brander Lake	34,577	13,993										9	13,993	Apr. 2035
		Candle Lake	6,412	2,595										1	2,595	Oct. 2038
		Christie Lake	19,575	7,922										6	7,922	Mar. 2044
		Christie West	813	329										2	329	Jun. 2023
		Close Lake	95,578	38,679										21	38,679	Oct. 2023
		Cree Extension	30,115	12,187										11	12,187	Aug. 2040
		Diabase Peninsula	77,164	31,227										22	31,227
		Erica	91,409	36,992										20	36,992	Nov. 2036
		Hidden Bay	126,933	51,368										45	51,368	Aug. 2037
		Horseshoe-Raven	11,085	4,486										1	4,486	Feb. 2041
		Key West	31,827	12,880										4	12,880	Apr. 2024
		Laurie	21,691	8,778										4	8,778	May 2027
		Millennium	1,458	590										1	590	Feb. 2039
		Mirror River	42,996	17,400										5	17,400	Apr. 2024
		Moon Lake	9,385	3,798										5	3,798	Oct. 2039
		Moore Tomblin	3,249	1,315										2	1,315	May 2028
		Nikita	37,390	15,131										6	15,131	Jun. 2043
		Riou Lake	27,634	11,183										14	11,183	Nov. 2023
		Roughrider	1,475	597													1	597	Jan. 2028
		Shea Creek	81,451	32,962										18	32,962	Mar. 2035
		Uchrich	5,592	2,263										1	2,263	May 2027
		Waterfound River	28,837	11,670										25	11,670	Jul. 2031
		West Bear	27,439	11,104										26	10,807	Feb 2043	1	297	June 2035
		Wheeler River	28,961	11,720										19	11,720	Oct. 2041
		Wolly	58,564	23,700										17	23,700	Nov. 2038
	Nunavut	Kiggavik	45,638	18,469										37	18,469	Oct. 2038
Paraguay		Yuty	289,687	117,232
Paraguay		Oviedo	223,754	90,550
Titanium Projects
Paraguay		Alto Parana	174,204	70,498

- 8 -

Table 2.3 – Permit Status and Conditions

Uranium Projects
Texas
Property	Fully Permitted to Mine	Partially Permitted to Mine	Not Permitted to Mine	RRC Exploration Permit	TCEQ Class 1 Well Permits	TCEQ Injection Control Permit	TCEQ Area Permit	TCEQ/EPA Aquifer Exemption	TCEQ Radioactive Materials License	Notes
Burke Hollow	X			Yes	2	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Has all major permits, waiting on final production authorization
Goliad	X			Yes	2	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Has all major permits and first production authorization
La Palangana	X			Yes	2	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Has all major permits and four production authorizations
Salvo			X	No	0	No	No	No	No
Longhorn			X	No	0	No	No	No	No
Wyoming
Property	Fully Permitted to Mine	Partially Permitted to Mine	Not Permitted to Mine	Class III UIC Permit to Mine	WDEQ Class 1 Well Permits	Source and Byproduct Materials License	BLM Plan of Operations	WDEQ/EPA Aquifer Exemption		Notes
Allemand-Ross			X							Drilling Notification DN339
Antelope			X				Yes			Drilling Notification DN353
Barge			X
Black Hills			X
Brown Ranch			X
Bull Springs			X
Central Shirley Basin			X
Charlie		X								Permitted as an open pit mine not ISR
Christensen Ranch	X			Yes	Yes	Yes		Yes
Clarkson Hill			X
Crooks Creek			X
Crook's Mountain			X
Crossroads			X
Cyclone Rim			X
East Shirley Basin			X
Gas Hills			X
Horse Creek			X
Irigaray Project	X			Yes	Yes	Yes		Yes		Irigaray mine expansion to north and south will require a permit revision. Drilling Notification DN342
Jab/West Jab			X							Drilling Notification DN353
Ludeman	X			Yes		Yes		Yes
Moore Ranch	X			Yes	Yes	Yes		Yes
Mule Creek			X
Niles Ranch			X
Nine Mile Lake			X							Drilling Notification DN339
Pine Ridge			X							Drilling Notification DN342

- 9 -

Pine Tree U1			X						Drilling Notification DN342
Pumpkin Creek			X						Drilling Notification DN342
Red Rim			X
Reno Creek	X			Yes	Yes	Yes		Yes	North Reno Creek and SW Reno Creek Resource areas are permitted.
Ross Flat			X						Drilling Notification DN342
Sand Creek			X
South Pine Ridge			X
South Reno Creek			X
South Sweetwater			X
Stewart Creek			X
Taylor Ranch			X						Drilling Notification DN342
Twin Buttes			X
West Beaver Rim			X
West Crook's Creek			X
West Sweetwater			X
Arizona
Property	Fully Permitted to Mine	Partially Permitted to Mine	Not Permitted to Mine	Class III UIC Permit to Mine	WDEQ Class 1 Well Permits	Source and Byproduct Materials License	BLM Plan of Operations	WDEQ/EPA Aquifer Exemption	Notes
Anderson			X
Los Cuatros			X
Workman Creek			X
New Mexico
Property	Fully Permitted to Mine	Partially Permitted to Mine	Not Permitted to Mine	Class III UIC Permit to Mine	WDEQ Class 1 Well Permits	Source and Byproduct Materials License	BLM Plan of Operations	WDEQ/EPA Aquifer Exemption	Notes
C de Baca			X
Dalton Pass			X
Canada
Property	Fully Permitted to Mine	Partially Permitted to Mine	Not Permitted to Mine						Notes
Alexandra			X						Exploration-Stage Project with no resources
Axis Lake			X						Exploration-Stage Project with no resources
Beatty River			X						Exploration-Stage Project with no resources
Black Lake			X						Exploration-Stage Project with no resources
Brander Lake			X						Exploration-Stage Project with no resources
Candle Lake			X						Exploration-Stage Project with no resources
Christie Lake			X						Exploration-Stage Project with resources

- 10 -

Christie West	X	Exploration-Stage Project with no resources
Close Lake	X	Exploration-Stage Project with no resources
Cree Extension	X	Exploration-Stage Project with no resources
Diabase Peninsula	X	Exploration-Stage Project with no resources
Erica	X	Exploration-Stage Project with no resources
Hidden Bay	X	Exploration-Stage Project with no resources
Horseshoe-Raven	X	Exploration-Stage Project with resources
Key West	X	Exploration-Stage Project with no resources
Laurie	X	Exploration-Stage Project with no resources
Millennium	X	Exploration-Stage Project with resources
Mirror River	X	Exploration-Stage Project with no resources
Moon Lake	X	Exploration-Stage Project with no resources
Moore Tomblin	X	Exploration-Stage Project with no resources
Nikita	X	Exploration-Stage Project with no resources
Riou Lake	X	Exploration-Stage Project with no resources
Roughrider	X	Exploration-Stage Project with resources
Shea Creek	X	Exploration-Stage Project with resources
Uchrich	X	Exploration-Stage Project with no resources
Waterfound River	X	Exploration-Stage Project with no resources
West Bear	X	Exploration-Stage Project with no resources

- 11 -

Wheeler River		X		Feasibility Field Test mining completed
Wolly			X	Exploration-Stage Project with no resources
Kiggavik			X	Development-Stage, not permitted to mine
Paraguay
Property	Fully Permitted to Mine	Partially Permitted to Mine	Not Permitted to Mine	Notes
Yuty			X	Exploration-Stage Project with resources
Oviedo			X	Exploration-Stage Project with no resources
Titanium Projects
Paraguay
Property	Fully Permitted to Mine	Partially Permitted to Mine	Not Permitted to Mine	Notes
Alto Parana			X	Exploration-Stage Project with no resources

- 12 -

Table 2.4 – Processing Plants and other Facilities

State/Province

Plant

Location (Latitude)

Location (Longitude)

Equity Interest

Operator

Status

Annual Permitted Production Capacity

Fully Permitted

to Mine

Partially Permitted

to Mine

Not

Permitted

to Mine

WDEQ Class 1 Well Permits

TCEQ Radioactive Materials License

Wyoming

Irigaray Central Processing Plant

100%

UEC

Production Suspended

2.5 Mlb/year

Yes

Christensen Ranch Satellite Production Plant

100%

UEC

Standby

9,000 gpm

Yes

State/Province

Plant

Location (Latitude)

Location (Longitude)

Equity Interest

Operator

Status

Annual Permitted Production Capacity

Fully Permitted

to Mine

Partially Permitted

to Mine

Not

Permitted

to Mine

TCEQ Class 1 Well Permits

TCEQ Radioactive Materials License

Texas

Hobson Central Processing Plant

28.945

-97.989

100%

UEC

Production Suspended

4.0 Mlb/year

Yes

Our Mineral Properties

Below is a table setting out our summary disclosure of current measured, indicated, and inferred mineral resource estimates. Details regarding the mineral resource estimate disclosed herein can be found in Section 11, Mineral Resource Estimates, of each relevant TRS.

Table 2.5 – Mineral Resources

Uranium Oxide Mineral Resources
Country	State/Province	Project	Measured				Indicated				Inferred
			Tons ('000's)	Tonnes ('000's)	Grade (% U₃O₈)	Pounds U₃O₈ ('000's)	Tons ('000's)	Tonnes ('000's)	Grade (% U₃O₈)	Pounds U₃O₈ ('000's)	Tons ('000's)	Tonnes ('000's)	Grade (% U₃O₈)	Pounds U₃O₈ ('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
		Red Rim					337	306	0.17%	1,142	473	429	0.16%	1,539
United States		Reno Creek	14,990	13,599	0.04%	12,920	16,980	15,404	0.04%	13,070	1,920	1,742	0.04%	1,490
		Wyoming Total	22,206	20,145	0.05%	23,899	36,254	32,889	0.06%	42,299	10,859	9,851	0.07%	15,054
		Burke Hollow	70	64	0.08%	115	1,337	1,213	0.09%	2,209	2,494	2,263	0.10%	4,859
		Goliad	1,595	1,447	0.05%	2,668	1,504	1,364	0.10%	3,492	333	302	0.20%	1,225
	Texas	Palangana					232	210	0.13%	643	302	274	0.18%	1,001
		Salvo									1125	1,020	0.09%	2,839
		Texas Total	1,665	1,510	0.08%	2,783	3,073	2,788	0.10%	6,344	5,469	4,961	0.09%	9,924
		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		23,871	21,655	0.06%	26,682	55,502	50,351	0.07%	80,698	18,309	16,610	0.08%	29,437
		Christie Lake									537	488	1.57%	16,836
		Roughrider					429	389	3.25%	27,842	396	359	4.55%	36,043
Canada	Saskatchewan	Horseshoe-Raven					11,412	10,353	0.16%	37,426
		Shea Creek					1,113	1,009	1.49%	33,175	679	616	1.02%	13,775
		Millennium					239	217	2.39%	11,423	68	62	3.19%	4,364
	Canada Total						13,192	11,968	0.42%	109,867	1,681	1,525	2.11%	71,019
Paraguay		Yuty					9,074	8,232	0.05%	8,962	2,733	2,479	0.04%	2,203
Total Resources			23,871	21,655	0.06%	26,682	77,768	70,550	0.13%	199,527	22,797	20,681	0.23%	102,658

Notes:

	1.	The Mineral Resource estimates in this table meet S-K 1300 definitions.
	2.	Mineral Resources are not Mineral Reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability.
	3.	The point of reference for mineral resources is in-situ at the Project.
	4.	Mineral Resources are estimated using a long-term uranium price of $40 per pound for ISR projects and $65 per pound for conventional projects, except for the Canadian projects where a price of $56 per pound was used for the Roughrider Project, a price of $75 per pound was used for the Horseshoe-Raven Project, a price of $50 per pound was used for the Shea Creek Project, a price of $50 per pound was used for the Christie Lake Project and a price of $62 per pound was used for the Millennium Project.
	5.	Mineral Resources in the table above are 100% attributable to the Company. Where JV projects have resources that are attributable to other companies, these resources are not listed in this table.
	6.	Numbers may not add due to rounding.

- 13 -

Table 2.6 – Year over Year Changes in Mineral Resources

UEC has recently completed updated mineral resource and reserve updates on the company’s material properties and presently does not have projects in production. As such, there were no changes to stated resources between fiscal year 2022 and 2023.

Uranium Oxide Resources
			FY 2022			FY 2023			YOY Change
Country	State/Province	Project	Measured Pounds U₃O₈ ('000's)	Indicated Pounds U₃O₈ ('000's)	Inferred Pounds U₃O₈ ('000's)	Measured Pounds U₃O₈ ('000's)	Indicated Pounds U₃O₈ ('000's)	Inferred Pounds U₃O₈ ('000's)	% Change in Measured Pounds	% Change in Indicated Pounds	% Change in Inferred Pounds
		Allemand-Ross	417	42	2,496	417	42	2,496	0%	0%	0%
		Barge		4,361			4,361			0%
		Charlie		3,100	988		3,100	988		0%	0%
		Christensen Ranch		9,596			9,596			0%
		Clarkson Hill			1,113			1,113			0%
		Irigaray		5,899	141		5,899	141		0%	0%
	Wyoming	Jab/West Jab	2,335	392	1,677	2,335	392	1,677	0%	0%	0%
		Ludeman	5,017	4,697	1,258	5,017	4,697	1,258	0%	0%	0%
		Moore Ranch	3,210		44	3,210		44	0%		0%
United States		Nine Mile Lake			4,308			4,308			0%
United States		Red Rim		1,142	1,539		1,142	1,539		0%	0%
		Reno Creek	12,920	13,070	1,490	12,920	13,070	1,490	0%	0%	0%
		Wyoming Total	23,899	42,299	15,054	23,899	42,299	15,054	0%	0%	0%
		Burke Hollow	115	2,209	4,859	115	2,209	4,859	0%	0%	0%
	Texas	Goliad	2,668	3,492	1,225	2,668	3,492	1,225	0%	0%	0%
	Texas	Palangana		643	1,001		643	1,001		0%	0%
		Salvo			2,839			2,839			0%
		Texas Total	2,783	6,344	9,924	2,783	6,344	9,924	0%	0%	0%
		Anderson		32,055			32,055			0%
	Arizona	Workman Creek			4,459			4,459			0%
		Arizona Total		32,055	4,459		32,055	4,459		0%	0%
	United States Total		26,682	80,698	29,437	26,682	80,698	29,437	0%	0%	0%
		Christie Lake						16,836			100%
		Roughrider					27,842	36,043		100%	100%
Canada	Saskatchewan	Horseshoe-Raven					37,426			100%
		Shea Creek					33,175	13,775		100%	100%
		Millennium					11,423	4,364		100%	100%
	Canada Total						109,867	71,019		100%	100%
Paraguay		Yuty		8,962	2,203		8,962	2,203		0%	0%
Total Resources			26,682	89,660	31,640	26,682	199,527	102,658	0%	123%	224%

Notes:

	1.	The Mineral Resource estimates in this table meet S-K 1300 definitions.
	2.	Mineral Resources are not Mineral Reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability.
	3.	The point of reference for mineral resources is in-situ at the Project.
	4.	Mineral Resources are estimated using a long-term uranium price of $40 per pound for ISR projects and $65 per pound for conventional projects, except for the Canadian projects where a price of $56 per pound was used for the Roughrider Project, a price of $75 per pound was used for the Horseshoe-Raven Project, a price of $50 per pound was used for the Shea Creek Project, a price of $50 per pound was used for the Christie Lake Project and a price of $62 per pound was used for the Millennium Project..
	5.	Mineral Resources are 100% attributable to the Company. Where JV projects have resources that are attributable to other companies, these resources are not listed in this table.
	6.	Numbers may not add due to rounding.

- 14 -

Internal Controls Over Uranium Resource Estimation Efforts

For Canadian and U.S. exploration programs, Quality Control and Quality Assurance (“QA/QC”) programs for geologic data collection and resource estimation are defined in each TRS along with protocols and procedures for data collection. To summarize, the QA/QC programs for exploration data are in place that cover four broad categories: geologic data collection; data verification; radiometric equivalent data; and geochemical data. The controls in each of these broad categories serve to help the Company and its QPs have confidence in the data and geologic interpretations that are being used in resource estimation.

Geochemical data for Canadian exploration programs is supplied by the Geoanalytical Laboratory at the Saskatchewan Research Council (“SRC”). The quality management system at SRC, Geoanalytical Laboratories, operates in accordance with ISO/IEC 17025, General Requirements for the Competence of Testing and Calibration Laboratories, and is also compliant to ASB, Requirements and Guidance for Mineral Analysis Testing Laboratories. The management system and selected methods are accredited by the Standards Council of Canada. As part of the SRC’s commitment to continually assess the effectiveness of the services, all processes are subject to internal, second party and third-party audits. In addition to the lab controls on QA/QC, the Company submits duplicate samples and blank samples to the lab at a rate of approximately one in 20 samples each along with standard and a round robin pulp that are inserted at the lab, so that in a 20-sample batch there are 16 geochemistry samples for analysis. Failures of lab standards, blanks or duplicates are investigated and can result in re-assay of the samples to replace the original data in the database if necessary. Samples of mineralization at a rate of about 5% of the population are checked externally with a different accredited lab to help assure accuracy.

For U.S. exploration programs the preponderance of data utilized for resource and reserve estimates is generated from radiometric equivalent measurements made utilizing downhole geophysical logging techniques such as gamma-ray and prompt fission neutron (“PFN”) techniques. This technology has been employed in the exploration and development of sandstone uranium deposits in the U.S. since the 1950s. QA/QC of gamma-ray and PFN probes from each logging truck are required to maintain calibration by regular cross-checking the probes at a U.S. Department of Energy test pits located in George West, Texas, or Casper, Wyoming. The pit is set up for logging units to calibrate the probes with a known radioactive source. Each test run generates calibration files for the operator to review and make necessary tool adjustments. Calibration runs typically are made on a one- or two-month interval, and files with the test pit run results are maintained by the operator. The available data indicate that the logging provided by the Company and contract probe trucks at the various U.S. projects have maintained industry standard calibration procedures for their probes.

For resource estimation the internal controls are more common to the U.S. and Canadian operations. Company staff will perform database verification on the geologic database which is then reviewed by the QP. If the QP was not involved in the primary data collection field program the QP will spot check a subset of drill collar locations and, if available, also compare collar elevations against a digital elevation model to evaluate and cross check the drill hole collar elevations. For resource estimation the block model is evaluated visually against geologic cross sections to ensure block grades match drill hole grades. The QP will evaluate probability plots and perform statistical analysis of the sample population to determine the need for an appropriate grade cap to limit the influence of high-grade samples to the appropriate area. The preparation of Swath Plots is another internal control which can inform the QP if high-grade samples have had an exaggerated influence on the resource model.

The resource estimates have inherent risks due to data accuracy, uncertainty from geological interpretation, mine plan assumptions, uncontrolled rights for mineral and surface properties, environmental challenges, uncertainty for future market supply and demand and changes in laws and regulations. Company management and QPs are aware of those risks that might directly impact the assessment of mineral reserves and resources. The current mineral resources are estimated based on the best information available and are subject to reassessment when conditions change.

ISR Uranium Activities

The Company conducts its ISR activities through two district scale hubs located in Wyoming and Texas. The Irigaray Central Processing Plant (“CPP”) is located in northeastern Wyoming, was acquired in December 2021 through the acquisition of U1A. The Hobson CPP is located in south Texas, which it acquired in 2009 from Uranium One.

The Wyoming hub is comprised of the following material ISR projects that are intended to feed resources into the Irigaray CPP: Christensen Ranch, Charlie, Reno Creek, Moore Ranch, Ludeman, Allemand-Ross, Barge, Jab/West Jab, the Nine Mile Lake, Red Rim and Clarkson Hill. Please refer to Summary Disclosure Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4 for detailed information on each project. Production from existing wellfields at Christensen Ranch ceased in 2018 and the project was put in care and maintenance mode. Processing of toll resins from other projects continues at the Irigaray CPP. In order for Christensen Ranch to engage in future uranium extraction, the Company will need to incur capital expenditures to restart idled wellfields.

- 15 -

United States Properties

Wyoming Properties

Below is a map showing our 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 and Moore Ranch project areas are fully permitted for ISR operations through both the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Land Quality Division (WDEQ/LQD) and the BLM as appropriate. Portions of the Irigaray and Reno Creek project areas are also permitted for ISR operations.

The Allemand-Ross, Barge, Charlie, Clarkson Hill, Jab/West Jab, Nine Mile and Red Rim project areas are not permitted. Portions of the Reno Creek project area and the majority of the Irigaray project area are also not permitted for ISR operations.

Geology and Mineralization in Wyoming

The Allemand-Ross, Barge, Charlie, Christensen Ranch, Irigaray, Ludeman, Moore Ranch, Nine Mile and Reno Creek project areas reside in the Powder River Basin (“PRB”). The PRB is a structural basin that extends over much of northeastern Wyoming and southeastern Montana and consists of a large north-northwest trending asymmetric syncline. The basin is bounded by the Big Horn Mountains on the west and Casper Arch to the southwest, the Black Hills to the east and the Hartville Uplift and Laramie Mountains to the south. The PRB is filled with marine, non-marine and continental sediments ranging in age from early Paleozoic through Cenozoic.

The Jab/West Jab and Red Rim project areas are located within the northeastern portion of the Greater Green River Basin (“GGRB”). The GGRB is a structural basin that extends over southwestern Wyoming and northwestern Colorado and is divided by the Rock Springs Uplift, a north-south trending anticline. The basin is bounded by the Wyoming thrust belt to the west, the Rawlins Uplift and the Sierra Madre Mountains to the east, the Wind River Mountains to the north and the Uinta Mountains to the south. The GGRB contains up to 25,000 feet of Cretaceous to recent sedimentary rocks.

- 16 -

The Clarkson Hill project area is located in the eastern portion of the Wind River Basin (“WRB”). The WRB is a structural basin in west-central Wyoming. The basin is bounded by the Wind River Range to the west, the Casper Arch to the east, the Owl Creek Mountains to the north and the Granite Mountains to the south. The WRB is filled with marine, lacustrine and fluvial sediments ranging in age from Paleozoic to Cenozoic.

Uranium mineralization at the project is typical of Wyoming roll-front sandstone deposits. The formation of roll-front deposits is largely a groundwater process that occurs when uranium rich, oxygenated groundwater interacts with a reducing environment in the subsurface and precipitates uranium. The most favorable host rocks for roll-fronts are permeable sandstones with large aquifer systems. Interbedded mudstone, claystone and siltstone are often present and aid in the formation process by focusing groundwater flow.

Geology of the Powder River Basin

The PRB extends over much of northeastern Wyoming and southeastern Montana and consists of a large north-northwest trending asymmetric syncline, with the basin axis located to the west of the projects. The PRB is bounded by the Big Horn Mountains and Casper Arch to the west, the Black Hills to the east and the Hartville Uplift and Laramie Mountains to the south. The PRB is filled with marine, non-marine and continental sediments ranging in age from early Paleozoic through Cenozoic.

Within the PRB, the Paleocene Fort Union Formation conformably overlies the Lance Formation and is a fluvial-sedimentary stratigraphic unit that consists of fine- to coarse-grained arkosic sandstone, which is interbedded with siltstone, mudstone and carbonaceous materials. In some areas of the PRB, the Fort Union Formation is divided into two members, identified as the Upper and Lower members of the Fort Union Formation. However, Flores divides the Fort Union into three members: the Tullock; Lebo; and Tongue River members (listed from oldest to youngest); as follows:

●

The Tullock member consists of sandstone, siltstone and sparse coal and carbonaceous shale;

●

The Lebo member consists of abundant drab gray mudstone, minor siltstone and sandstone and sparse coal and carbonaceous shale beds; and

●

The Tongue River member consists of interbedded sandstone, conglomerate, siltstone, mudstone, limestone, anomalously thick coal beds and carbonaceous shale beds. This member has been mined extensively for its coal beds, which can be hundreds of feet thick.

Uranium mineralization occurs in zones that are located in channel sands of the Fort Union Formation. These channel sands are typical fining upward sand sequences consisting of fine-grained sandstones. The zones of mineralization are formed as typical roll-front deposits in these sandstones.

The early Eocene Wasatch Formation unconformably overlies the Fort Union Formation around the margins of the PRB. However, the two formations are conformable and gradational towards the basin center. The relative amount of coarse, permeable clastics increases near the top of Fort Union, and the overlying Wasatch Formation contains numerous beds of sandstone that can sometimes be correlated over wide areas. The Wasatch-Fort Union contact is separated by Paleocene and Eocene rocks and is generally placed above the Roland coal. However, other authors have placed the Wasatch-Fort Union contact above the School, Badger and Anderson Coals in other parts of the PRB.

The Wasatch Formation occurs at the surface in the central PRB, but has been mostly removed by erosion with only small, scattered outcrops still present in the southern PRB. The Wasatch Formation is also a fluvial sedimentary unit that consists of a series of silt to very coarse-grained gradational intervals in arkosic sandstone. The sandstone horizons in the Wasatch Formation are the host rocks for several uranium deposits in the central PRB. Within this area, mineralization is found in a 50- to 100-ft thick sandstone lens. On a regional scale, mineralization is localized and controlled by facies changes within this sandstone, including thinning of the sandstone unit, decrease in grain size and increase in clay and organic material content. The Wasatch Formation reaches a maximum thickness of about 1,600 feet and dips northwestward from one degree to two-and-a-half degrees in the southern and central parts of the PRB.

The Oligocene White River Formation overlies the Wasatch Formation and has been removed from most of the basin by erosion. Remnants of this unit crop out on the Pumpkin Buttes, and at the extreme southern edge of the PRB. The White River Formation consists of clayey sandstone, claystone, a boulder conglomerate and tuffaceous sediments, which may be the primary source rock for uranium in the southern part of the PRB as a whole. The youngest sediments consist of Quaternary alluvial sands and gravels locally present in larger valleys. Quaternary eolian sands can also be found locally.

Geology of the Great Divide and Greater Green River Basins

The Jab/West Jab and Red Rim project areas are located within the northeastern portion of the Great Divide Basin.

- 17 -

The Great Divide Basin (“GDB”) and the Washakie Basin (“WB”) in the southwest together comprise the Greater Green River Basin (“GGRB”). The GGRB is a structural basin that extends over southwestern Wyoming and northwestern Colorado and is divided by the Rock Springs Uplift, a north-south trending anticline. The basin is bounded by the Wyoming thrust belt to the west, the Rawlins Uplift and the Sierra Madre Mountains to the east, the Wind River Mountains to the north and the Uinta Mountains to the south. The GGRB contains up to 25,000 feet of Cretaceous to recent sedimentary rocks.

During the end of the Cretaceous Period, the Laramide Orogeny divided the Wyoming Basin Province into a series of down warped basins. As these basins were created, uplift created the Granite and Seminoe Mountains, and older formations were altered during the same time. In the northern regions of the GDB, swamps, alluvial plains and fluvial fans were present at the margins of the uplifted Granite Mountains. To the southwest, the GDB is occupied by the lacustrine Eocene Green River Formation and by the lower energy Wasatch Formation. These two facies interfinger with the high-energy fluvial facies of the Battle Spring Formation at the central and eastern areas in the GDB.

Uranium deposits occur principally in the Battle Spring Formation which consists of alluvial-fluvial fan deposits of west- to southwest-flowing paleodrainage. The common rock type is arkosic sandstone with interbedded claystone. These types of rock are typical of alluvial-fan facies. Much of this material is sourced from the Granite Mountains, by blockages in normal drainages due to differential subsidence rates. The Wasatch Formation, due to its fluvial nature, contains interbedded siltstones, coal, carbonaceous shale, fine-grained sandstone, sandy limestone and medium-grained fluvial sandstones.

The Battle Spring Formation consists of alluvial-fluvial fan deposits of west to southwest-flowing paleodrainage. The common rock type is arkosic sandstone with interbedded claystone. These types of rock are typical of alluvial-fan facies. Much of this material is sourced from the Granite Mountains by blockages in normal drainages due to differential subsidence rates. The Wasatch Formation, due to its fluvial nature, contains interbedded siltstones, coal, carbonaceous shale, fine-grained sandstone, sandy limestone and medium-grained fluvial sandstones. The permeable medium- to very coarse-grained sandstones and arkoses are a favorable host for sandstone-type uranium deposits. Fluvial channels incised into less permeable underlying siltstones and sandstones in the Battle Spring during early Eocene time. The channels were backfilled by the massive, poorly-sorted, coalescing alluvial fan deposits, known as the Battle Spring Formation. The Battle Spring Formation includes impermeable carbonaceous shales that created an impermeable boundary for uranium deposits.

The Fort Union Formation surfaces around the boundary of the GDB. The Fort Union Formation is described as an interbedded sequence of white, gray, tan, buff and brown sandstone, gray to black shale, carbonaceous shale, siltstone, local conglomerate beds and (usually) thin coal beds. It may truncate and unconformably overlie older units near basin margins. The Fort Union is unconformably underlain by the Cretaceous Lance Formation and regionally overlain by either the Eocene Wasatch or Battle Spring Formation.

The Lance Formation is described as a gray to buff fine-grained to very fine-grained silty sandstone interbedded with drab to light-green to gray locally carbonaceous siltstone and thin conglomeratic lenses locally. The Lance Formation contains the upper Red Rim Member and the lower (unnamed) member. The Red Rim Member is a prominent sandstone package named for its color as it crops out south of Interstate 80 on the eastern rim of the WB.

Overbank and floodplain deposits in the Battle Spring Formation also were likely to restrict groundwater flow. These boundaries focused uranium-rich waters into confined permeable units. Faulting also created structural and permeability control.

Geology of the Wind River Basin

Both the Wind River and Fort Union Formations are Cenozoic fluvial sedimentary deposits containing sandstone with economic quantities of uranium. The primary source of sediments for the Wind River and Fort Union Formations in the eastern WRB was the ancestral Granite Mountains along the southern boundary of the basin. The Granite Mountains were formed during the Laramide Orogeny, a period of extensive mountain building, which began at the end of the Mesozoic Era and continued into the early Cenozoic Era. Subsequent erosion of the Granite Mountain highlands coupled with the down-warping of adjacent basins, such as the Wind River and Powder River Basins, combined to accumulate thousands of feet of sedimentary deposits.

The Paleocene Fort Union is the oldest Tertiary formation and consists of sandstone, siltstone, shale, coal and local conglomerates. The Fort Union is overlain, often unconformably, by the Eocene Wind River Formation, which consists of sandstones, conglomerates, siltstones and shale. Overlying the Wind River Formation is the Oligocene White River Formation. The White River Formation also consists of sandstones, siltstone and shale, however, along with fluvial deposition of the sands and clays, substantial volumes of windblown volcanic ash (tuffs) were also deposited. This volcanic ash is regarded by many as the source of uranium for many Wyoming sandstone uranium deposits. Economic uranium deposits in the WRB typically occur as roll-front deposits in porous sandstones within the Wind River and Fort Union Formations.

- 18 -

Material Project Descriptions in Wyoming

Irigaray CPP

The following technical and scientific description for the Irigaray CPP Project area (the “Irigaray Project Area”) is based in part on the TRS titled “S-K 1300 Mineral Resource Report Wyoming Assets ISR Hub and Spoke Project, WY USA”, dated March 31, 2022, prepared by Western Water Consultants d/b/a WWC Engineering (“WWC”), a qualified firm (the “QP” herein). The Irigaray Project Area does not have mineral reserves and is therefore considered an Exploration Stage property under S-K 1300 definitions, despite a history of commercial production.

Figure 2.3 – Location of the Irigaray Project

Property Description

The Irigaray Project Area is located in Johnson County, Wyoming, northwest of Pumpkin Buttes and near Willow Creek, within the PRB, at latitude 43.8683 and longitude 106.1186 in decimal degrees. The Irigaray Project Area covers 2,320 acres, including all (or portions of) 12 sections of the PRB.

The Irigaray Project Area is approximately 70 air miles north-northeast of Casper, Wyoming, 48 air miles southeast of Buffalo, Wyoming, and 40 air miles southwest of Gillette. The Irigaray Project Area can be accessed from Casper, Wyoming, by traveling north on I-25, exit onto State Highway 259 at Midwest turn onto State Highway 387, turn left onto State Highway 192 toward Lynch, travel approximately six miles past Lynch, then turn right onto Streeter Road County Road 135 and follow signs to Irigaray and/or Christensen site. From Buffalo travel south on I-25 exit onto Trabing Road County Road 13, travel for approximately 14 miles then exit left onto Irigaray Road and follow signs to the Irigaray site. For access from Gillette, take State Highway 50 south approximately 25 miles exit right onto Black and Yellow Road, travel for approximately 20 miles and follow signs to Irigaray. The Irigaray Project Area is primarily located on private surface land, federal BLM land and a portion located on one section of state-managed land.

- 19 -

The site is accessible year-round on county and private roads which are shared by oil and gas operators and ranchers. Limited services are available from several smaller towns proximal to the site. Primarily, services and personnel are available from Buffalo, Gillette, and Casper. Casper and Gillette provide flight services with daily service to Denver, Billings and Salt Lake City. Water is sourced locally at the mine while electrical service is provided by a regional power company.

UEC’s mineral holdings in the Irigaray Project Area include two State of Wyoming uranium leases (480 acres) and 92 unpatented lode claims on federally administered minerals (1,840 acres). These mineral holdings comprise 2,320 acres. All payments for all leases and claims are up to date.

History

Uranium was first discovered in the southern PRB during the early 1950s. By the mid- to late 1950s, small open pit mine operations were established in the PRB. Early prospecting and exploration included geologic mapping and gamma surveys, which led to discoveries of uranium in the Wasatch and Fort Union Formations. Extensive drill hole exploration has been utilized to locate deeper uranium mineralization since the 1960s to progress geologic models.

The table below describes the historic ownership and operations at the Irigaray Project Area.

Table 2.7: Historic Ownership and Operations at the Irigaray Project Area

Year	Company	Operations/Activity	Amount (No. of Drill holes)	Results of Work
1969	Homestake Mining (“Homestake”)	Original controller of the Irigaray Project Area.	Approximately 1,340	Right to mine secured. Preliminary delineation of mineralized areas.
1975	Westinghouse Electric Corporation (“Westinghouse”)	Acquired property from Homestake. The project was licensed for ISR production in 1978 and was operated by Wyoming Mineral Corporation, a subsidiary of Westinghouse. Operations ceased in 1982 due to market trends.	Approximately 470	Delineation of mineralized areas. Began ISR production.
1987	Malapai Resources Company (“Malapai”)	Acquired property from Westinghouse.	None	Ownership transition.
1990	Total Minerals Corporation (“TOMIN”) and Électricité de France (“EDF”)	Acquired property from Malapai. TOMIN acted as project operator.	None	Ownership transition.
1993	COGEMA Resources, Inc. (“COGEMA”) (now Orano S.A.)/Areva	Replaced TOMIN as project operator in partnership with EDF. COGEMA acquired interests from TOMIN.	Approximately 20	0.74 million lb. of U₃O₈ produced from 1978 through 2000.
2010	Uranium One	Dried many millions of pounds from Christensen Ranch and through toll milling.	N/A	Decommissioned Irigaray wellfields.
2021	UEC	Irigaray Project Area acquired by UEC from Uranium One.	N/A	Ownership transition.

Property Condition and Proposed Development

The condition of the property is very good, and meets all standards and requirements of Federal, State and local regulations. Future development of the property includes a proposed expansion of the permit boundary to include future Mine Units 15 through 19 and further delineation of known roll front type deposits through exploration and delineation drilling. Seventeen (17) exploration and delineation holes were drilled in 2023 in sections 28 and 33, T45N R77W, in the future Mine Unit 15 area.

- 20 -

Facilities, Infrastructure and Underground Development

The Irigaray CPP was first constructed in 1977-1978. Mining occurred at the time in Wellfields 1 through 9. These wellfields have gone through groundwater restoration, decommissioning and final reclamation, which has been approved by the Wyoming DEQ. Currently, the only facilities at the Irigaray Project are the CPP and associated infrastructure including evaporation ponds, access roads, power lines and chemical and fuel storage tanks. The CPP was upgraded in 2009 by removing the original equipment and adding replacement elution systems, additional precipitation tanks, new concrete foundations and upgrades to the filter press and other equipment. The CPP now contains two complete resin elution systems, multiple precipitation areas, filter press, yellowcake thickeners, and a calciner for drying yellowcake product. A vacuum dryer is in storage at the CPP for future installation when needed. The plant is capable of accepting third party resins for stripping, precipitation and drying of yellowcake product, as well as our own resins from Christensen Ranch and other properties. Although the building is older, it has been maintained in good condition. The entire CPP roof was replaced in 2021.

Permit Status and Encumbrances

The Irigaray Project is permitted under Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (“WDEQ”), Land Quality Division (“LQD”) Permit to Mine No. 478. The project is also licensed under WDEQ/LQD Uranium Recovery Program Radioactive Materials License WYSUA-1341, formerly a U.S. NRC license. Wyoming became an Agreement State for NRC regulation in 2018. Permit to Mine No. 478 and Radioactive Materials License WYSUA-1341 are in good standing, with no violations of permit or license conditions. Mining permit requirements can be found in Wyoming Statutes §35-11-400 through 437, with specific laws for ISR mining in sections 426 – 436. Conditions of the Radioactive Materials License applicable to ISR mining are generally standard for all licensees. Requirements of Radioactive Materials Licenses are found in WDEQ, LQD/Uranium Recovery Program Chapter 4 Rules and Regulations for Licensing of Source and Byproduct Material. There are no materially significant encumbrances on the Irigaray Project. Standard encumbrances include reclamation bonding, mining and surface lease royalties.

Geologic setting, Mineralization and Deposit

The Irigaray Project Area resides in the Powder River Basin and targets mineralization in the Eocene-aged Wasatch Formation. For additional information, refer to the discussion on the Powder River Basin geology previously outlined.

Mineralization in the Irigaray Project Area occurs in fluvial sandstones of the lower parts of the Wasatch Formation. Most of the upper Wasatch Formation has been eroded away. The sandstones are arkosic, fine- to coarse-grained with local calcareous lenses. The sandstones contain minor amounts of organic carbon that occurs as dispersed bits or as stringers. Unaltered sandstones are generally gray, while altered sandstones are tan or pink due to hematite or show yellowish coloring due to limonite.

Pyrite occurs in several forms within the host sandstones. In unaltered sandstones, pyrite occurs as small to large single euhedral crystals associated with magnetite, ilmenite and other dark detrital minerals. In altered sandstone, pyrite is typically absent, but locally occurs as tarnished, very fine-grained euhedral crystals. In areas of intense or heavy mineralization, pyrite locally occurs as massive, tarnished crystal aggregates (Utah International, 1971).

The Irigaray Project Area contains portions of four alteration systems, all within fluvial sands of the Wasatch Formation. These fluvial host systems are labelled K1, K2, K3 and K4 sands and are in descending order. These sands vary in thickness from 0 feet to 100 feet within the Irigaray Project Area. They coalesce within portions of the Irigaray Project Area and form massive sand sequences of roughly 250 feet (80 m) in thickness. These sands in turn host the K1, K2, K3 and K4 uranium roll-front systems, each of which is composed of multiple stacked individual roll-front deposits.

Table 2.8 – Mineral Resources for the Irigaray Project as at the date of this Annual Report

Classification	Tons Ore (000’s)	Tonnes Ore (1000’s)	Average Grade (% eU₃O₈)	Pounds eU₃O₈ (000’s)
Measured	-	-	-	-
Indicated	3,881	3,521	0.076	5,899.0
Total M&I	3,881	3,521	0.076	5,899.0
Inferred	104	94	0.068	141.0
Total Resources	3,985	3,615	0.076	6,040.0

Notes:

	1.	The sum of resource tons and lbs. may not add up to the reported total due to rounding.
	2.	Measured, indicated and inferred mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300.
	3.	GT Cutoff = 0.25 ft% eU₃O_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/lb U₃O₈ and an 80% metallurgical recovery factor were considered for the purposes of determining the reasonable prospect of economic extraction.

- 21 -

Christensen Ranch ISR Project

The following technical and scientific description for the Christensen Ranch Project area (the “Christensen Ranch Project Area”) is based in part on the TRS titled “S-K 1300 Mineral Resource Report Wyoming Assets ISR Hub and Spoke Project, WY USA”, dated March 31, 2022, prepared by WWC, a qualified firm (the “QP” herein). The Christensen Ranch Project Area does not have mineral reserves and is therefore considered an Exploration Stage property under S-K 1300 definitions, despite a history of commercial production.

Figure 2.4 – Location of the Christensen Ranch Project

Property Description

The Christensen Ranch Project Area is located in Johnson and Campbell Counties, Wyoming, west of Pumpkin Buttes within the PRB, at latitude 43.7982 and longitude -106.0235 in decimal degrees. The Christensen Ranch Project Area covers 11,140 acres, including all (or portions of) 30 sections of the PRB.

The Christensen Ranch Project Area is approximately 70 air miles north-northeast of Casper, Wyoming, 48 air miles southeast of Buffalo, Wyoming and 40 air miles southwest of Gillette. The Christensen Ranch Project Area can be accessed from Casper, Wyoming, by traveling north on I-25, exit onto State Highway 259 at Midwest turn onto State Highway 387, turn left onto State Highway 192 toward Lynch, travel approximately six miles past Lynch, turn right onto Streeter Road County Road 135, and then follow the signs to the Christensen site. From Buffalo travel south on I-25 exit onto Trabing Road County Road 13, travel for approximately 14 miles, then exit left onto Irigaray Road and follow signs to the Christensen site. For access from Gillette, take State Highway 50 south approximately 25 miles exit right onto Black and Yellow Road, travel for approximately 20 miles, then follow signs to Christensen. The Christensen Ranch Project is located 13 miles to the southeast of the Irigaray Central Processing Plant and is accessed by travelling west on Black and Yellow Road to Irigaray Road. The Christensen Ranch Project Area is primarily located on private surface land, with two portions located on federal BLM-managed land.

- 22 -

The site is accessible year-round on county and private roads which are shared by oil and gas operators and ranchers. Limited services are available from several smaller towns proximal to the site. Primarily, services and personnel are available from Buffalo, Gillette and Casper. Casper and Gillette provide flight services with daily service to Denver, Billings and Salt Lake City. Water is sourced locally at the mine while electrical service is provided by a regional power company.

UEC’s mineral holdings in the Christensen Ranch Project Area include one State of Wyoming uranium lease (1,280 acres), 358 unpatented lode claims on federally administered minerals (9,140 acres) and one fee (private) mineral lease (720 acres). These mineral holdings comprise 11,140 acres. All payments for all leases and claims are up to date.

History

The table below describes the historic ownership and operations at the Christensen Ranch Project Area.

Table 2.9: Historic Ownership and Operations at the Christensen Ranch Project Area

Year	Company	Operations/Activity	Amount (No. of Drill holes)	Results of Work
1967	Independent Operators	Assembled as a large land package by independent operators.	Approximately 4,860	Right to mine secured. Preliminary delineation of mineralized areas.
1979	Arizona Public Services (“APS”), parent company of Malapai	APS became a 50% partner in 1979.	Approximately 2,220	Delineation of mineralized areas.
1981	Malapai	Malapai assumed sole ownership of the Christensen Ranch Project Area by acquiring the interests of Wold Energy (“Wold”) and Western Nuclear Corporation (“WNC”). Malapai purchased the Irigaray Project Area from Westinghouse in 1987, and the Christensen Ranch Project Area was licensed for operations under the Irigaray U.S. NRC and Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (“WDEQ”) license/permit in 1988. Uranium production by ISR was started by Malapai in 1989 and was placed on standby in 1990.	Approximately 1,460	Delineation of mineralized areas. Began ISR production.
1990	TOMIN and EDF	EDF acquired the Irigaray and Christensen Ranch Project Areas from Malapai in 1990. TOMIN acted as project operator for EDF under a joint participation agreement. TOMIN restarted ISR operations in 1991.	Approximately 2,270	Delineation of mineralized areas. Restarted ISR production.
1993	COGEMA and EDF	In 1993, COGEMA acquired the assets of TOMIN and changed the name of the operating entity to COGEMA Mining, Inc. EDF (now Malapai) was still owner of 29%, COGEMA, as operator, owned 71% through the joint participation agreement.	Approximately 3,690	3.70 million lbs of U₃O₈ produced from 1989 through 2000.
2000	COGEMA and Malapai	Groundwater restoration of Mine Units 2 through 6 was completed. The Christensen Ranch Project Area was placed on standby from 2006 through 2010, at which time COGEMA and Malapai sold the project to Uranium One and Uranium One USA, Inc. (collectively, “Uranium One”).	N/A	188,000 lbs of U₃O₈ produced during restoration.
2010	Uranium One	Mine Units 7, 8 and 10 were installed and operated. A ramp up occurred in 2011, and a ramp down occurred in 2013 (all wellfield development ceased). Low production mode occurred in 2014 through 2018, and production ended in 2018, at which time the Christensen Ranch Project Area was placed on care and maintenance.	N/A	2.6 million lbs of U₃O₈ produced.
2021	UEC	The Christensen Ranch Project Area acquired by UEC from Uranium One.	N/A	Ownership transition.

- 23 -

Property Condition and Proposed Development

The condition of the property is very good while meeting all standards and requirements of Federal, State and local regulations. Development activity to advance the property includes the installation and completion of production and injection wells in Mine Unit 10. Additionally, exploration and delineation holes are planned in an area adjacent to Mine Unit 5.

Facilities, Infrastructure and Underground Development

The Christensen Ranch Project facilities include the ion exchange satellite plant, four evaporation ponds, one permeate storage pond, two EPA Class I injection disposal wells, several miles of buried production and injection trunklines connecting Mine Units to the satellite plant, access roads, office building, maintenance shop, powerlines, and eight installed wellfields (Mine Units 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10). Mine Units 2, 3, 4 and 6 have gone through groundwater restoration, which has been approved by Wyoming DEQ. These wellfields are undergoing decommissioning. Mine Units 7, 8 and 10 have been partially mined and will be the focus of resuming operations. Operations in portions of Mine Unit 5 may also be resumed in the future. All facilities are in very good condition.

Permit Status and Encumbrances

The Christensen Ranch Project is permitted under WDEQ Permit to Mine No. 478. The project is also licensed under WDEQ Radioactive Materials License WYSUA-1341, formerly a U.S. NRC license. Wyoming became an Agreement State for NRC regulation in 2018. Permit to Mine No. 478 and Radioactive Materials License WYSUA-1341 are in good standing, with no violations of permit or license conditions. Mining permit requirements can be found in Wyoming Statutes §35-11-400 through 437, with specific laws for ISR mining in sections 426 – 436. Conditions of the Radioactive Materials License applicable to ISR mining are generally standard for all licensees. Requirements of Radioactive Materials Licenses are found in WDEQ, LQD/Uranium Recovery Program Chapter 4 Rules and Regulations for Licensing of Source and Byproduct Material. There are no materially significant encumbrances on the Christensen Ranch Project. Standard encumbrances include reclamation bonding, mining and surface lease royalties.

Geologic Setting, Mineralization and Deposit

The Christensen Ranch Project Area targets mineralization in the Eocene-aged Wasatch Formation of the Powder River Basin.

Mineralization in the Christensen Ranch Project Area occurs in fluvial sandstones of the lower parts of the Wasatch Formation. Most of the upper Wasatch Formation has been eroded away. The sandstones are arkosic, fine- to coarse-grained with local calcareous lenses. The sandstones contain minor amounts of organic carbon that occurs as dispersed bits or as stringers. Unaltered sandstones are generally gray, while altered sandstones are tan or pink due to hematite, or show yellowish coloring due to limonite.

The Christensen Ranch Project Area contains portions of four alteration systems, all within fluvial sands of the Wasatch Formation. These fluvial host systems are identified as K1, K2, K3 and K4 sands and are in descending order. These sands vary in thickness from 0 feet to 100 feet within the Christensen Ranch Project Area. They coalesce within portions of the Christensen Ranch Project Area and form massive sand sequences of roughly 250 feet (80 m) in thickness. These sands in turn host the K1, K2, K3 and K4 uranium roll-front systems, each of which is composed of multiple stacked individual roll-front deposits.

Uranium mineralization at the Christensen Ranch Project Area is typical of Wyoming roll-front sandstone deposits. The formation of roll-front deposits is largely a groundwater process that occurs when uranium-rich, oxygenated groundwater interacts with a reducing environment in the subsurface and precipitates uranium. The most favorable host rocks for roll-fronts are permeable sandstones with large aquifer systems. Interbedded mudstone, claystone and siltstone are often present and aid in the formation process by focusing groundwater flux. The geometry of mineralization is dominated by the classic roll-front “C” shape or crescent configuration at the redox interface. The highest-grade portion of the front occurs in a zone termed the “nose” within reduced ground just ahead of the alteration front. Ahead of the nose, at the leading edge of the solution front, mineral quality gradually diminishes to barren within the “seepage” zone. Trailing behind the nose, in oxidized (altered) ground, are weak remnants of mineralization referred to as “tails” which have resisted re-mobilization to the nose due to association with shale, carbonaceous material or other lithologies of lower permeability. Tails are generally not amenable to ISR because the uranium is typically found within strongly reduced or impermeable strata, therefore making it difficult to leach.

- 24 -

Table 2.10 – Mineral Resources for the Christensen Ranch Project as at the date of this Annual Report

Classification	Tons Ore (000’s)	Tonnes Ore (1000’s)	Average Grade (% eU₃O₈)	Pounds eU₃O₈ (000’s)
Measured	-	-	-	-
Indicated	6,555	5,947	0.073	9,596
Total M&I	6,555	5,947	0.073	9,596
Inferred	-	-	-	-
Total Resources	6,555	5,947	0.073	9,596

Notes:

	1.	The sum of resource tons and lbs. may not add up to the reported total due to rounding.
	2.	Measured, indicated, and inferred mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300.
	3.	GT Cutoff = 0.25 ft% eU₃O_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/lb U₃O₈ and an 80% metallurgical recovery factor were considered for the purposes of determining the reasonable prospect of economic extraction.

- 25 -

Moore Ranch ISR Project

The following technical and scientific description for the Moore Ranch Project area (the “Moore Ranch Project Area”) is based in part on the TRS titled “S-K 1300 Mineral Resource Report Wyoming Assets ISR Hub and Spoke Project, WY USA”, dated March 31, 2022, prepared by WWC, a qualified firm (the “QP” herein). The Moore Ranch Project Area does not have mineral reserves and is therefore considered an Exploration Stage property under S-K 1300 definitions, despite a history of commercial production.

Figure 2.5 – Location of the Moore Ranch Project

Property Description

The Moore Ranch Project Area is located in Campbell County, Wyoming, the southern portion of the Pumpkin Buttes within the PRB, at latitude 43.5652 and longitude ‑105.8480 in decimal degrees. The Moore Ranch Project area covers 4,180 acres, including all (or portions of) 16 sections of the PRB.

The Moore Ranch Project Area is 54 air miles northeast of Casper, Wyoming, and 24 miles southwest of Wright, Wyoming, along State Highway 387. The Moore Ranch Project Area is primarily located on private surface land with some areas of state-managed land.

The site is accessible year-round via state, county and private roads which are shared by oil and gas operators and ranchers. Services and personnel are available from Gillette or Casper. Flight service is offered from Gillette or Casper with daily service to Denver, Billings and Salt Lake City. Water will be sourced locally while electrical service will be provided by a regional power company.

UEC’s mineral holdings within the Moore Ranch Project Area include three State of Wyoming uranium leases (1,280 acres), 86 unpatented lode claims on federally administered minerals (1,720 acres) and four fee (private) mineral leases (1,180 acres). These mineral holdings comprise 4,180 acres. All payments for all leases and claims are up to date.

- 26 -

History

The table below describes the historic ownership and operations at the Moore Ranch Project Area.

Table 2.11: Historic Ownership and Operations at the Moore Ranch Project Area

Year	Company	Operations/Activity	Amount (No. of Drill holes)	Results of Work
1971	Conoco Minerals (“Conoco”) and Kerr-McGee Corporation (“Kerr-McGee”)	Conoco and Kerr-McGee operated as a joint venture. Of the joint venture, Conoco controlled 50% of the Moore Ranch Project Area and served as the operator.	Approximately 2,700 rotary drill holes Approximately 130 core holes	Discovery and delineation of mineralized areas. Permitting and licensing of a proposed uranium processing facility known as Sand Rock Mill was completed through the WDEQ/LQD and the NRC.
1983	Wold and Kerr-McGee	Conoco sold its interests to Wold in 1983. Kerr-McGee retained the rights with Wold. Assessment drilling was conducted.	None	Retained mining claims. Mining claim assessment drilling.
1989	Rio Algom Mining Corp. (“Rio Algom”)	Rio Algom acquired the project in 1989. Rio Algom conducted mining claim assessment drilling to retain mining claims through 1992, which was the last year to allow mining claim assessment drilling.	None	Retained mining claims. Mining claim assessment drilling.
1992	Rio Algom	Claim maintenance paid directly to the BLM. No further drilling conducted.	None	Mining claims retained through payment.
2002	Power Resources, Inc. (“PRI”) (now Cameco Resources)	Rio Algom acquired by PRI.	None	Ownership transition.
2004	Energy Metals Corporation (“EMC”)	EMC acquired most of the mining claims and state leases.	N/A	Secured right to mine.
2007	Uranium One	Uranium One acquired EMC and all rights to the Moore Ranch Project Area. Uranium One completed verification and resource enhancement drilling, coring, baseline monitor wells, and pump test wells. The Moore Ranch Project Area is fully permitted by WDEQ/LQD in 2011 and the NRC in 2013.	Approximately 800	Exploration efforts focused on developing and upgrading mineral resources.
2021	UEC	Moore Ranch Project Area acquired by UEC from Uranium One.	N/A	Ownership transition.

Property Condition and Proposed Development

The condition of the property is good while meeting all standards and requirements of Federal, State and local regulations. Development is in the planning stage with no immediate plans for exploration or delineation drilling.

Facilities, Infrastructure and Underground Development

Facilities or wellfields have not been constructed to date. Power lines are constructed and accessible in the area.

- 27 -

Permit Status and Encumbrances

The Moore Ranch Project is permitted under WDEQ Permit to Mine No. 777. The project is also licensed under WDEQ Radioactive Materials License WYSUA-1596, formerly a U.S. NRC license. Wyoming became an Agreement State for NRC regulation in 2018. Permit to Mine No. 777 and Radioactive Materials License WYSUA-1596 are in good standing, with no violations of permit or license conditions. Mining permit requirements can be found in Wyoming Statutes §35-11-400 through 437, with specific laws for ISR mining in sections 426 – 436. Conditions of the Radioactive Materials License applicable to ISR mining are generally standard for all licensees. Requirements of Radioactive Materials Licenses are found in WDEQ, LQD/Uranium Recovery Program Chapter 4 Rules and Regulations for Licensing of Source and Byproduct Material. There are no materially significant encumbrances on the Moore Ranch Project. Standard encumbrances include reclamation bonding, mining, and surface lease royalties.

Geologic Setting, Mineralization and Deposit

The Moore Ranch Project Area targets mineralization in the Eocene-aged Wasatch Formation.

Mineralization in the Moore Ranch Project Area occurs in fluvial sandstones of the lower parts of the Wasatch Formation. Most of the upper Wasatch Formation has been eroded away. The sandstones are arkosic, fine- to coarse-grained with local calcareous lenses. The sandstones contain minor amounts of organic carbon that occurs as dispersed bits or as stringers. Unaltered sandstones are generally gray, while altered sandstones are tan or pink due to hematite, or show yellowish coloring due to limonite.

Geology at the Moore Ranch Project Area is similar to the geology at the North and Southwest Reno Creek resource areas and includes the Felix and Badger coals. The mineralized host sand lies 5 to 30 feet below this coal bed and at a depth of 200–350 feet below the surface. The host sandstone is 80-150 feet thick.

Uranium mineralization at the Moore Ranch Project Area is typical of Wyoming roll-front sandstone deposits. The formation of roll-front deposits is largely a groundwater process that occurs when uranium-rich, oxygenated groundwater interacts with a reducing environment in the subsurface and precipitates uranium. The most favorable host rocks for roll-fronts are permeable sandstones with large aquifer systems. Interbedded mudstone, claystone and siltstone are often present and aid in the formation process by focusing groundwater flux. The geometry of mineralization is dominated by the classic roll-front “C” shape or crescent configuration at the redox interface. The highest-grade portion of the front occurs in a zone termed the “nose” within reduced ground just ahead of the alteration front. Ahead of the nose, at the leading edge of the solution front, mineral quality gradually diminishes to barren within the “seepage” zone. Trailing behind the nose, in oxidized (altered) ground, are weak remnants of mineralization referred to as “tails” which have resisted re-mobilization to the nose due to association with shale, carbonaceous material or other lithologies of lower permeability. Tails are generally not amenable to ISR because the uranium is typically found within strongly reduced or impermeable strata, therefore making it difficult to leach.

Table 2.12 – Mineral Resources for the Moore Ranch Project as at the date of this Annual Report

Classification	Tons Ore (000’s)	Tonnes Ore (1000’s)	Average Grade (% eU₃O₈)	Pounds eU₃O₈ (000’s)
Measured	2,675	2,427	0.06	3,210.0
Indicated	-	-	-	-
Total M&I	2,675	2,427	0.06	3,210.0
Inferred	46	42	0.047	43.7
Total Resources	2,721	2,469	0.06	3,253.7

Notes:

	1.	The sum of resource tons and lbs. may not add up to the reported total due to rounding.
	2.	Measured, indicated, and inferred mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300.
	3.	GT Cutoff = 0.3 ft% eU₃O_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/lb U₃O₈ and an 80% metallurgical recovery factor were considered for the purposes of determining the reasonable prospect of economic extraction.

- 28 -

Reno Creek ISR Project

The following technical and scientific description for the Reno Creek Project area (the “Reno Creek Project Area”) is based in part on the TRS titled “S-K 1300 Mineral Resource Report Wyoming Assets ISR Hub and Spoke Project, WY USA”, dated March 31, 2022, prepared by WWC, a qualified firm (the “QP” herein). The Reno Creek Project Area does not have mineral reserves and is therefore considered an Exploration Stage property under S-K 1300 definitions.

Figure 2.6 - Location of the Reno Creek Project

Property Description

The Reno Creek Project Area is in Campbell County, Wyoming, within the PRB, at latitude 43.6796 and longitude ‑105.7226 in decimal degrees. The Reno Creek Project Area covers 18,763 acres, including all (or portions of) 46 sections of the PRB.

The Reno Creek Project Area is approximately five miles to the northwest of the North and Southwest Reno Creek Resource Areas. The Pine Tree resource area lies approximately five miles to the southwest of the permitted resource areas, immediately southeast of the intersection of U.S. Highway 387 and Wyoming Highway 50, also known as Pine Tree Junction. The Bing resource area lies approximately five miles west of the permitted resource areas adjacent to Wyoming Highway 50, three miles north of Pine Tree Junction.

The site is accessible year-round via state, county and private roads which are shared by oil and gas operators and ranchers. Services and personnel are available from Gillette or Casper. Flight service is offered from Gillette or Casper with daily service to Denver, Billings, and Salt Lake City. Water will be sourced locally while electrical service will be provided by a regional power company.

UEC’s mineral holdings in the Reno Creek Project Area include four State of Wyoming uranium leases (3,200 acres), 549 unpatented lode claims on federally administered minerals (10,980 acres) and 36 fee (private) mineral leases (4,583 acres). The mineral holdings comprise 18,763 acres. All payments for all leases and claims are up to date.

- 29 -

History

Uranium was first discovered in the southern PRB during the early 1950s. By the mid- to late- 1950s, small open pit mine operations were established in the PRB. Early prospecting and exploration included geologic mapping and gamma surveys, which led to discoveries of uranium in the Wasatch and Fort Union Formations. Extensive drill hole exploration has been utilized to locate deeper uranium mineralization since the 1960s to progress geologic models.

The table below describes the historic ownership and operations at the Reno Creek Project Area.

Table 2.13: Historic Ownership and Operations at the Reno Creek Project Area

Year	Company	Operations/Activity	Amount (No. of Drill holes)	Results of Work
Reno Creek – North Reno Creek
Late 1960s	Rocky Mountain Energy Company (“RME”)	Drilled exploration holes at and around North Reno Creek resource area.	Approximately 5,800	Delineated Approximately 10 miles of roll-front deposits.
Mid 1970s	RME, Mono Power Company (“Mono”) and Halliburton Services	Partnership formed to develop North Reno Creek Resource Area using ISR methods.	N/A	Acquisition of the Reno Creek Project Area.
1992	Energy Fuels Nuclear Inc./International Uranium Corporation	Energy Fuels Nuclear Inc. acquired RME’s North Reno Creek Resource Area and later became International Uranium Corporation.	N/A	Acquisition of the Reno Creek Project Area.
2001	Rio Algom	Rio Algom acquired International Uranium Corporation’s property.	N/A	Acquisition of the Reno Creek Project Area.
2001	PRI	PRI acquired North Reno Creek Area and dropped claims in 2003.	N/A	Acquisition of the Reno Creek Project Area and mining claims dropped.
2004	Strathmore Minerals Corporation and American Uranium Corporation (“AUCA”)	Re-staked and filed new mining claims on approximately 16,000 acres.	N/A	Refiled mining claims and secured right to mine.
2007	AUCA	Advanced project through acquisition of most major permits and required authorizations.	N/A	Acquisition of the Reno Creek Project Area and secured permits and authorizations.
2017	UEC	Consolidated ownership of multiple resource areas and oversaw technical reporting and auditing of Project resources.	N/A	Consolidation of ownership. Auditing of project resources.
Reno Creek – Southwest Reno Creek
Pre-2007	AUCA and Tennessee Valley Authority JV	Controlled Southwest Reno Creek and drilled exploration holes.	Approximately 700	Delineation of mineralized areas.
2007	AUCA	Advanced project through acquisition of most major permits and required authorizations.	N/A	Secured permits and required authorizations.
2017	UEC	Consolidated ownership of multiple Resource Areas and oversaw technical reporting and auditing of Project resources.	N/A	Consolidation of ownership. Auditing of the Reno Creek Project Area resources.
Reno Creek – Moore, Pine Tree, and Bing
1960s	Utah International Mining Company	Exploration on Moore and Pine Tree Resource Areas.	N/A	Delineation of mineralized areas.
Late 1970s	Pathfinder Mines, Inc.	Utah International Mining Company becomes Pathfinder Mines, Inc. and continues exploration on Moore and Pine Tree Resource Areas.	>1,560	Delineation of mineralized areas.
1980s	RME	Obtained ownership of Moore Area, continued exploration drilling until the 1990s.	>400	Acquired the Reno Creek Project Area. Delineation of mineralized areas.
1960s	Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Company	Exploration of Bing Area, drilled several hundred exploration holes and conducted limited hydrologic testing in the 1970s.	177	Delineation of mineralized areas through drilling and conducted hydrologic testing.
2007	AUCA	Consolidated the Resource Areas under one owner.	N/A	Consolidated ownership.
2017	UEC	Oversaw technical reporting and auditing of project resources.	N/A	Auditing of the Reno Creek Project Area resources.

- 30 -

Property Condition and Proposed Development

Facilities, Infrastructure and Underground Development

Facilities or wellfields have not been constructed.

Permit Status and Encumbrances

The Reno Project is permitted under WDEQ Permit to Mine No. 824. The project is also licensed under WDEQ Radioactive Materials License WYSUA-1602, formerly a U.S. NRC license. Wyoming became an Agreement State for NRC regulation in 2018. Permit to Mine No. 824 and Radioactive Materials License WYSUA-1602 are in good standing, with no violations of permit or license conditions. Mining permit requirements can be found in Wyoming Statutes §35-11-400 through 437, with specific laws for ISR mining in sections 426 – 436. Conditions of the Radioactive Materials License applicable to ISR mining are generally standard for all licensees. Requirements of Radioactive Materials Licenses are found in WDEQ, LQD/Uranium Recovery Program Chapter 4 Rules and Regulations for Licensing of Source and Byproduct Material. There are no materially significant encumbrances on the Reno Creek Project. Standard encumbrances include reclamation bonding, mining and surface lease royalties.

Geologic Setting, Mineralization and Deposit

The Reno Creek Project Area targets mineralization in the Eocene-aged Wasatch Formation.

Mineralization in the Reno Creek Project Area occurs in fluvial sandstones of the lower parts of the Wasatch Formation. Most of the upper Wasatch Formation has been eroded away. The sandstones are arkosic, fine- to coarse-grained with local calcareous lenses. The sandstones contain minor amounts of organic carbon that occurs as dispersed bits or as stringers. Unaltered sandstones are generally gray, while altered sandstones are tan or pink due to hematite or show yellowish coloring due to limonite.

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.

- 31 -

Uranium mineralization at the Reno Creek Project Area is typical of Wyoming roll-front sandstone deposits. The formation of roll-front deposits is largely a groundwater process that occurs when uranium-rich, oxygenated groundwater interacts with a reducing environment in the subsurface and precipitates uranium. The most favorable host rocks for roll-fronts are permeable sandstones with large aquifer systems. Interbedded mudstone, claystone and siltstone are often present and aid in the formation process by focusing groundwater flux. The geometry of mineralization is dominated by the classic roll-front “C” shape or crescent configuration at the redox interface. The highest-grade portion of the front occurs in a zone termed the “nose” within reduced ground just ahead of the alteration front. Ahead of the nose, at the leading edge of the solution front, mineral quality gradually diminishes to barren within the “seepage” zone. Trailing behind the nose, in oxidized (altered) ground, are weak remnants of mineralization referred to as “tails” which have resisted re-mobilization to the nose due to association with shale, carbonaceous material or other lithologies of lower permeability. Tails are generally not amenable to ISR because the uranium is typically found within strongly reduced or impermeable strata, therefore making it difficult to leach.

Table 2.14 – Mineral Resources for the Reno Creek Project as at the date of this Annual Report

Classification	Tons Ore (000’s)	Tonnes Ore (1000’s)	Average Grade (% eU₃O₈)	Pounds eU₃O₈ (000’s)
Measured	14,990	13,599	0.043	12,920.0
Indicated	16,980	15,404	0.039	13,070.0
Total M&I	31,970	29,003	0.041	25,990.0
Inferred	1,920	1,742	0.039	1,490.0
Total Resources	33,890	30,745	0.041	27,480.0

Notes:

	1.	The sum of resources tons and lbs. may not add up to the reported total due to rounding.
	2.	Measured, indicated, and inferred mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300.
	3.	GT Cutoff = 0.20 ft% eU₃O_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/lb U₃O₈ and an 80% metallurgical recovery factor were considered for the purposes of determining the reasonable prospect of economic extraction.

- 32 -

Ludeman ISR Project

The following technical and scientific description for the Ludeman Project area (the “Ludeman Project Area”) is based in part on the TRS titled “S-K 1300 Mineral Resource Report Wyoming Assets ISR Hub and Spoke Project, WY USA”, dated March 31, 2022, prepared by WWC, a qualified firm (the “QP” herein). The Ludeman Project Area does not have mineral reserves and is therefore considered an Exploration Stage property under S-K 1300 definitions, despite a history of successful in situ research and development testing.

Figure 2.7 – Location of the Ludeman Project

Property Description

The Ludeman Project Area is located in Converse County, Wyoming, in the southern portion of the PRB, at latitude 42.9119 and longitude ‑105.6277 in decimal degrees. The Ludeman Project Area covers 18,101.89 acres including all (or portions of) 31 sections of the PRB.

The Ludeman Project Area is located approximately 12 miles northeast of Glenrock and 30 miles east-northeast of Casper, Wyoming. State Highway 95 provides access to the Ludeman Project Area from the Towns of Glenrock and Rolling Hills to the west and State Highway 93 provides access from Douglas to the southeast. Interstate 25 provides access to both of these state highways from the south of the Ludeman Project Area. The Ludeman Project Area is primarily located on private surface land with some areas of Federal or state lands.

The site is accessible year-round on state and county roads. Services and personnel are available from Glenrock, Douglas or from Casper, which has full services and the nearest airport with daily service to Denver and Salt Lake City. Water will be sourced locally at the site while electrical service will be provided by a regional power company.

UEC’s mineral holdings in the Ludeman Project Area include four State of Wyoming uranium leases (1,440 acres), 746 unpatented lode claims on federally administered minerals (14,920 acres) and two fee (private) mineral leases (1,741.89 acres). These mineral holdings comprise 18,101.89 acres. All payments for all leases and claims are up to date.

- 33 -

History

The table below describes the historic ownership and operations at the Ludeman Project Area.

Table 2.15: Historic Ownership and operations at the Ludeman Project Area

Year	Company	Operations/Activity	Amount (No. of Drill holes)	Results of Work
1960s-1970s	Cordero Mining	Numerous exploration companies including Teton Exploration (“Teton”), PRI, Uranium Resources, Inc. (“URI”) and Malapai (a subsidiary of APS) collectively explored in the Ludeman Project Area.	Approximately 5,420	Explored for uranium roll-front mineralization and delineated deposits in the Ludeman Project Area.
1980	United Nuclear Corp. (“UNC”) and partner Teton	Constructed and operated the Leuenberger ISR pilot test facility for 12 months. Groundwater restoration was completed following production and a commercial permit to mine was granted. Due to a decline in the market, the permitted mine was not placed into commercial operation and the permit expired.	N/A	Produced 12,800 lbs of U₃O₈ from the pilot facility.
1981	URI	Constructed and operated the North Platte ISR project on a portion of the Ludeman Project Area. The pilot test facility produced for five months during 1982.	N/A	Produced 1,515 lbs of U₃O₈ from the pilot facility.
1980s	Malapai	Permitted the Peterson Project for pilot operations but was never operated.	N/A	Facility was never operated.
1985-Early 1990s	Central Electrical Generating Board of England (known as PRI)	Nedco and Union Pacific properties were consolidated into the Teton Leuenberger Project. PRI purchased the property and added to the acreage through the purchase of adjacent claim blocks owned by Kerr-McGee.	N/A	Ownership transition and growth in acreage through acquisitions.
Late 1990s	PRI	Leuenberger properties were released due to declining market trends. Some claims reverted to previous owners.	N/A	Decrease in claims and generally the Ludeman Project Area.
Early to Mid- 2000s	High Plains Uranium (“HPU”) and EMC	HPU held most claims and leases in the Ludeman Project Area. Energy Metals held the remaining claims in the Ludeman Project Area.	N/A	Claims and leases increased in the Ludeman Project Area.
2007	EMC	EMC acquired HPU.	N/A	Consolidation through acquisition.
2007	Uranium One	Uranium One acquired Energy Metals in late 2007 and continued exploration of the Ludeman Project Area from 2007 through 2012. The primary goals of drilling included exploration to establish continuity of regional ore trends, development drilling to determine the lateral extents of the ore body, stratigraphic investigation, confirmation of the location and nature of mineralization, and collection of cores for leach testing and analysis of uranium, mineralogy, trace metals, disequilibrium, permeability, porosity and density. Acquired the WDEQ/LQD mine permit and NRC license.	Approximately 2,180	Continued exploration of the Ludeman Project Area. Additional holes included boreholes, core holes, and monitor wells.
2021	UEC	The Ludeman Project Area acquired by UEC from Uranium One.	N/A	Ownership transition.

- 34 -

Property Condition and Proposed Development

The condition of the property is very good while meeting all standards and requirements of Federal, State and local regulations. There are no immediate plans for exploration or delineation drilling.

Facilities, Infrastructure and Underground Development

The Ludeman property is fully permitted and licensed for commercial ISR production. The engineering and design work has been completed for the satellite plant, evaporation ponds, infrastructure, and the first Mine Unit. Construction of these facilities has not occurred to date.

Permit Status and Encumbrances

The Ludeman Project is permitted under WDEQ Permit to Mine No. 844. The project is also licensed under WDEQ Radioactive Materials License WYSUA-1341, formerly a U.S. NRC license. Wyoming became an Agreement State for NRC regulation in 2018. Permit to Mine No. 844 and Radioactive Materials License WYSUA-1341 are in good standing, with no violations of permit or license conditions. Mining permit requirements can be found in Wyoming Statutes §35-11-400 through 437, with specific laws for ISR mining in sections 426 – 436. Conditions of the Radioactive Materials License applicable to ISR mining are generally standard for all licensees. Requirements of Radioactive Materials Licenses are found in WDEQ, LQD/Uranium Recovery Program Chapter 4 Rules and Regulations for Licensing of Source and Byproduct Material. There are no materially significant encumbrances on the Ludeman Project. Standard encumbrances include reclamation bonding, mining and surface lease royalties.

Geologic Setting, Mineralization, and Deposit

The Ludeman Project Area targets mineralization in the Fort Union Formation, which underlies the Wasatch Formation. The host rocks for the uranium ore deposits in the project areas are the arkosic sandstones of the Fort Union Formation. These channel deposits are confined by mudstones that serve as aquitards to the water saturated aquifers.

Uranium mineralization at the Ludeman Project Area is typical of Wyoming roll-front sandstone deposits. The formation of roll-front deposits is largely a groundwater process that occurs when uranium-rich, oxygenated groundwater interacts with a reducing environment in the subsurface and precipitates uranium. The most favorable host rocks for roll-fronts are permeable sandstones with large aquifer systems. Interbedded mudstone, claystone and siltstone are often present and aid in the formation process by focusing groundwater flux. The geometry of mineralization is dominated by the classic roll-front “C” shape or crescent configuration at the redox interface. The highest-grade portion of the front occurs in a zone termed the “nose” within reduced ground just ahead of the alteration front. Ahead of the nose, at the leading edge of the solution front, mineral quality gradually diminishes to barren within the “seepage” zone. Trailing behind the nose, in oxidized (altered) ground, are weak remnants of mineralization referred to as “tails” which have resisted re-mobilization to the nose due to association with shale, carbonaceous material or other lithologies of lower permeability. Tails are generally not amenable to ISR because the uranium is typically found within strongly reduced or impermeable strata, therefore making it difficult to leach.

Table 2.16 – Mineral Resources for the Ludeman Project as at the date of this Annual Report

Classification	Tons Ore (000’s)	Tonnes Ore (1000’s)	Average Grade (% eU₃O₈)	Pounds eU₃O₈ (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 lbs. may not add up to the reported total due to rounding.
	2.	Measured and indicated mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300.
	3.	GT Cutoff = 0.25 ft% eU₃O_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/lb U₃O₈ and an 80% metallurgical recovery factor were considered for the purposes of determining the reasonable prospect of economic extraction.

- 35 -

Allemand-Ross ISR Project

The following technical and scientific description for the Allemand-Ross Project area (the “Allemand-Ross Project Area”) is based in part on the TRS titled “S-K 1300 Mineral Resource Report Wyoming Assets ISR Hub and Spoke Project, WY USA”, dated March 31, 2022, prepared by WWC, a qualified firm (the “QP” herein). The Allemand-Ross Project Area does not have mineral reserves and is therefore considered an Exploration Stage property under S-K 1300 definitions.

Figure 2.8 – Location of the Allemand-Ross Project

Property Description

The Allemand-Ross Project Area is located in Converse County, Wyoming, in the southern PRB Uranium District of Wyoming, at latitude 43.3101 and longitude -105.7787 in decimal degrees. The Allemand-Ross Project Area covers 13,331.72 acres, including all (or portions of) 21 sections within three townships of the PRB.

The Allemand-Ross Project Area is located approximately 42 air miles northeast of Casper, Wyoming., The Allemand-Ross Project Area is primarily located on private surface land with some areas of federal or state-managed land. The Allemand-Ross Project Area was previously divided into North and South areas, with North Allemand-Ross historically called the Sand Draw Property and South Allemand-Ross called the North Bear Creek Property., This designation is not utilized by UEC, as both areas are now within the Allemand-Ross Project Area. The land ownership is a combination of private, state of Wyoming and federally owned land administered by the BLM.

UEC’s mineral holdings in the Allemand-Ross project area include three State of Wyoming uranium leases (958 acres), 452 unpatented lode claims on federally administered minerals (9,040 acres) and seven fee (private) mineral leases (3,333.72 acres). These mineral holdings comprise 13,331.72 acres. All payments for all leases and claims are up to date.

- 36 -

History

The table below describes the historic ownership and operation at the Allemand-Ross Project Area.

Table 2.17: Historic Ownership and Operations at the Allemand-Ross Project Area

Year	Company	Operations/Activity	Amount (No. of Drill holes)	Results of Work
1967	Kerr-McGee, Homestake, Teton	Early uranium exploration was completed by the three companies in the Allemand-Ross Project Area. Exploration was typically for shallower mineralization (<1,000 ft).	Approximately 100	Exploration of shallow mineralization (<1,000 ft).
1971	Conoco	Conoco staked lode mining claims in 1969. In 1970, Conoco entered an agreement with National Resources Corporation to earn in on the Allemand-Ranch land holdings. National Resources Corporation’s interests were acquired by Pioneer Nuclear in 1972 and the joint venture partnership was maintained until 1975. In 1979, Conoco continued to operate the drilling program. Conoco closed its mineral department in 1984.	Approximately 1,180	A significant amount of the mineralization within the Allemand-Ross Project Area was delineated.
1984	Power Reactor and Nuclear Fuel Development Corporation (“PNC”)	PNC assumed control of the Allemand-Ross Project Area and continued exploration.	Approximately 50	Additional exploration completed by PNC.
Early 1990s	PNC	Mineral rights were allowed to lapse due to further declining uranium market conditions.	N/A	Lost mineral rights.
Early 2000s-2005	HPU and EMC	Claims and leases were acquired during the uranium market upswing. HPU held most claims and leases and EMC holding the remainder of the Allemand-Ross Project Area.	N/A	Mineral rights were acquired.
2007	EMC	EMC acquired HPU. The properties were consolidated.	N/A	Properties consolidated.
2007	Uranium One	Uranium One acquired EMC. Uranium One proceeded to conduct verification and resource enhancement drilling. Most drilling was completed between 2008 and 2010.	Approximately 300	Additional exploration completed within the Allemand-Ross Project Area with average depths ranging from 1,118 ft to 1,546 ft.
2021	UEC	The Allemand-Ross Project Area acquired by UEC from Uranium One.	N/A	Ownership transition.

- 37 -

Property Condition and Proposed Development

The condition of the property is good while meeting all standards and requirements of Federal, State and local regulations. There are no immediate plans for exploration or delineation drilling.

Facilities, Infrastructure and Underground Development

Facilities or wellfields have not been constructed.

Permit Status and Encumbrances

The Allemand Ross Project has not been permitted or licensed for ISR operations. Exploration and delineation drilling is conducted under a WDEQ LQD Drilling Notification. There are no materially significant encumbrances on the Allemand Ross Project. Standard encumbrances include reclamation bonding, mining and surface lease royalties.

Geologic Setting, Mineralization and Deposit

Union Formation, which underlies the Wasatch Formation and is part of the thick PRB sedimentary series. It consists of mudstones, siltstones and clays with minor cross bedded sandstone channels and occasional thin limestone and lignite beds (Lemmers and Smith, 1981). The Fort Union Formation sandstones were deposited in a fluvial paleo-drainage system, which flowed generally in a north-northeasterly direction. The targeted host rocks for uranium ore deposits in the Allemand-Ross Project area are the arkosic sandstones of the Lebo member of the Fort Union formation. These channel deposits are confined by mudstones that serve as aquitards to the water saturated aquifers.

Uranium mineralization at the Allemand-Ross Project Area is typical of Wyoming roll-front sandstone deposits. The formation of roll-front deposits is largely a groundwater process that occurs when uranium-rich, oxygenated groundwater interacts with a reducing environment in the subsurface and precipitates uranium. The most favorable host rocks for roll-fronts are permeable sandstones with large aquifer systems. Interbedded mudstone, claystone and siltstone are often present and aid in the formation process by focusing groundwater flux. The geometry of mineralization is dominated by the classic roll-front “C” shape or crescent configuration at the redox interface. The highest-grade portion of the front occurs in a zone termed the “nose” within reduced ground just ahead of the alteration front. Ahead of the nose, at the leading edge of the solution front, mineral quality gradually diminishes to barren within the “seepage” zone. Trailing behind the nose, in oxidized (altered) ground, are weak remnants of mineralization referred to as “tails”, which have resisted re-mobilization to the nose due to association with shale, carbonaceous material or other lithologies of lower permeability. Tails are generally not amenable to ISR because the uranium is typically found within strongly reduced or impermeable strata, therefore making it difficult to leach.

Table 2.18 – Mineral Resources for the Allemand Ross Project as at the date of this Annual Report

Classification	Tons Ore (000’s)	Tonnes Ore (1000’s)	Average Grade (% eU₃O₈)	Pounds eU₃O₈ (000’s)
Measured	246	223	0.085	417.0
Indicated	32	29	0.066	42.4
Total M&I	278	252	0.083	459.4
Inferred	1,275	1,157	0.098	2,496.0
Total Resources	1,553	1,409	0.095	2,955.4

Notes:

	1.	The sum of resource tons and lbs. may not add up to the reported total due to rounding.
	2.	Measured and indicated mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300.
	3.	GT Cutoff = 0.25 ft% eU₃O_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/lb U₃O₈ and an 80% metallurgical recovery factor were considered for the purposes of determining the reasonable prospect of economic extraction.

- 38 -

Barge ISR Project

The following technical and scientific description for the Barge Project area (the “Barge Project Area”) is based in part on the TRS titled “S-K 1300 Mineral Resource Report Wyoming Assets ISR Hub and Spoke Project, WY USA”, dated March 31, 2022, prepared by WWC, a qualified firm (the “QP” herein). The Barge Project Area does not have mineral reserves and is therefore considered an Exploration Stage property under S-K 1300 definitions.

Figure 2.9 – Location of the Barge Project

Property Description

The Barge Project Area is located in Converse County, Wyoming, the southern portion of the PRB Uranium District of Wyoming, at latitude 43.2729 and longitude -105.5905 in decimal degrees. The Barge Project Area covers 7,480 acres, including all (or portions of) 18 sections of the PRB.

The Barge Project Area is located approximately 50 air miles northeast of Casper, Wyoming. The Barge Project Area is primarily located on private surface land with some areas of federal BLM or state-managed land.

UEC’s mineral holdings in the Barge project area include one State of Wyoming uranium lease (640 acres) and 342 unpatented lode claims on federally administered minerals (6,840 acres). These mineral holdings comprise 7,480 acres. All payments for the lease and claims are up to date.

- 39 -

History

The table below describes the historic ownership and operations at the Barge Project Area.

Table 2.19: Historic Ownership and Operations at the Barge Project Area

Year	Company	Operations/Activity	Amount (No. of Drill holes)	Results of Work
1969	Mono and RME	Under a joint venture, Mono and RME conducted the initial exploration program through drilling. Upon successful exploration, the Bear Creek Uranium Company was formed under general partnership between Mono and RME.	Unspecified and included in the total estimate.	Successful exploration led to joint venture and mill construction.
1975-1982	Bear Creek Uranium Company	A mill was constructed in 1975. Open pit mining operations began in 1977 until 1982. Mining claims were dropped after 1982.	Approximately 6,880	4.7 million tons of material from open pit mining processed at the Bear Creek mill.
2006	EMC	EMC located the unpatented mining claims and acquired the state mineral leases.	N/A	Lapsed mineral leases acquired.
2007	Uranium One	Uranium One acquired EMC and all rights to the Barge Project Area.	None as of 2019.	No exploration had been completed.
2021	UEC	Barge Project Area acquired by UEC from Uranium One.	N/A	Ownership.

Property Condition and Proposed Development

The condition of the property is good while meeting all standards and requirements of Federal, State and local regulations. There are no immediate plans for exploration or delineation drilling.

Facilities, Infrastructure and Underground Development

Facilities or wellfields have not been constructed.

Permit Status and Encumbrances

The Barge Project has not been permitted or licensed for ISR operations. Exploration and delineation drilling is conducted under a WDEQ LQD Drilling Notification. There are no materially significant encumbrances on the Barge Project. Standard encumbrances include reclamation bonding, mining and surface lease royalties.

- 40 -

Geologic Setting, Mineralization and Deposit

The Barge Project Area mineralization occurs in both the Wasatch Formation and the Paleocene Fort Union Formation.

Mineralization in the Barge Project Area occurs in fluvial sandstones of the lower parts of the Wasatch Formation. Most of the upper Wasatch Formation has been eroded away. The sandstones are arkosic, fine- to coarse-grained with local calcareous lenses. The sandstones contain minor amounts of organic carbon that occurs as dispersed bits or as stringers. Unaltered sandstones are generally gray while altered sandstones are tan or pink due to hematite, or show yellowish coloring due to limonite.

Table 2.20 – Mineral Resources for the Barge Project as at the date of this Annual Report

Classification	Tons Ore (000’s)	Tonnes Ore (1000’s)	Average Grade (% eU₃O₈)	Pounds eU₃O₈ (000’s)
Measured	-	-	-	-
Indicated	4,301	3,902	0.051	4,361.0
Total M&I	4,301	3,902	0.051	4,361.0
Inferred	-	-	-	-
Total Resources	4,301	3,902	0.051	4,361.0

Notes:

	1.	The sum of measured and indicated tons and lbs. may not add up to the reported total due to rounding.
	2.	Measured and indicated mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300.
	3.	GT Cutoff = 0.25 ft% eU₃O_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/lb U₃O₈ and an 80% metallurgical recovery factor were considered for the purposes of determining the reasonable prospect of economic extraction.

- 41 -

Jab/West Jab ISR Project

The following technical and scientific description for the Jab/West Jab Project area (the “Jab/West Jab Project Area”) is based in part on the TRS titled “S-K 1300 Mineral Resource Report Wyoming Assets ISR Hub and Spoke Project, WY USA”, dated March 31, 2022, as prepared by WWC, a qualified firm (the “QP” herein). The Jab/West Jab Project Area does not have mineral reserves and is therefore considered an Exploration Stage property under S-K 1300 definitions.

Figure 2.10 – Location of the Jab/West Jab Project

Property Description

The Jab/West Jab Project Area is located in the GDB in Fremont and Sweetwater Counties, Wyoming. The Jab/West Jab Project Area consists of two separate areas of mining claims and state leases separated by less than two miles in the GDB. The Jab/West Jab Project Area is located in both Fremont and Sweetwater Counties in all or portions of 11 sections (5,300 acres), at latitude 42.2611 and longitude -108.1225 in decimal degrees.

The Jab/West Jab Project Area is approximately 100 air miles southwest of Casper, Wyoming, and 20 air miles southwest of Jeffrey City, Wyoming. The Jab/West Jab Project Area is accessed from State Highway 287 and through Bairoil, Wyoming, by traveling west on Bairoil Road (County Road 22). Alternatively, the Jab/West Jab Project Area may be accessed by traveling south from Jeffrey City, Wyoming, following Crooks Gap Road. The Jab/West Jab Project Area is located on federal BLM and state-managed land.

The site is accessible year-round on county roads. Limited services and personnel are available from Rawlins, WY, Primarily, services and personnel will be sourced from Casper. Water will be sourced locally at the site while electrical service will be provided by a regional power company.

- 42 -

UEC’s mineral holdings in the Jab/West Jab Project Area include three State of Wyoming uranium leases (960 acres) and 217 unpatented lode claims on federally administered minerals (4,340 acres). These mineral holdings comprise 5,300 acres. All payments for all leases and claims are up to date.

History

Uranium mineralization was discovered in the GDB at the Lost Creek Schoekingerite deposit in the early 1950s. The Schoekingerite deposits were exposed at the surface along the Lost Creek drainage and were located using radiometric surveys. The USGS used shallow exploration to further evaluate the deposits. Similar to the PRB, drilling for deeper deposits began in the 1960s and exploration has primarily consisted of drilling since that time.

Table 2.21: Historic Ownership and Operations at the Jab/West Jab Project Area

Year	Company	Operations/Activity	Amount (No. of Drill holes)	Results of Work
Jab
Unspecified	Silverbell Industries	Originator of the Jab/West Jab Project Area.	Not specified.	The Jab/West Jab Project Area initially developed.
1972	Union Carbide Corporation (“UCC”)	Delineated an area of shallow oxidized mineralization and completed feasibility studies for open pit mining. The plan was not executed, and a mining permit was prepared for the WDEQ/LQD. The permit was withdrawn due to the declining uranium market in 1982.	Approximately 1,830	Delineation of shallow oxidized material.
1985-2000	Yellowstone Fuels	Property held until a decline in the uranium market in 2000. No data developed by Yellowstone Fuels were available for evaluation.	No data available.	The Jab/West Jab Project Area held but not substantially developed.
West Jab
Unspecified	AMAX Petroleum Company	Originator of the Jab/West Jab Project Area.	Not specified.	The Jab/West Jab Project Area initially developed.
1975-1983	WNC	WNC drilled the Jab/West Jab Project Area until 1983 when uranium markets had dropped. WNC terminated claim. AMAX Petroleum Company regained control until the claims were dropped.	Approximately 1,020	Exploration completed by WNC.
Jab/West Jab
2006	EMC	Identified the unpatented mining claims and acquired the state mineral leases.	N/A	Secured right to mine.
2007	Uranium One	Uranium One acquired EMC and all rights to the Jab/West Jab Project Area.	None as of 2019	No exploration had been completed. Right to mine secured.
2021	UEC	The Jab/West Jab Project Area acquired by UEC from Uranium One.	N/A	Ownership transition.

- 43 -

Property Condition and Proposed Development

The condition of the property is good while meeting all standards and requirements of Federal, State and local regulations. There are no immediate plans for exploration or delineation drilling.

Facilities, Infrastructure and Underground Development

Facilities or wellfields have not been constructed.

Permit Status and Encumbrances

The JAB/West JAB Project has not been permitted or licensed for ISR operations. Exploration and delineation drilling is conducted under a WDEQ LQD Drilling Notification. There are no materially significant encumbrances on the JAB/West JAB Project. Standard encumbrances include reclamation bonding for drilling work. There are no royalties on this project.

Geologic Setting, Mineralization and Deposit

The Jab/West Jab Project Area is located within the north-central part of the Great Divide Basin. Mineralization at the Jab/West Jab project area occurs in the Battle Spring Formation.

The Battle Spring Formation was deposited by a large alluvial fan system and consists of very fine to very coarse-grained arkosic sandstones with interbedded thick shales, mudstones and localized conglomerates. The Battle Spring Formation is relatively flat in the Jab/West Jab project areas.

Within the Jab project area, mineralization occurs as a trend that is approximately 10,000 ft long and 100 to over 1,000 ft wide. Mineralization occurs within a single sandstone unit and ranges in thickness from less than 1 to over 40 ft. The Jab project area contains the Silverbell and RD areas, which are divided by a high-angle normal fault with approximately 80 ft of displacement. The Silverbell portion of the mineralization is on the down-thrown side of the fault, and the RD portion of the mineralization is on the up-thrown side of the fault.

At the West Jab project area, mineralization occurs along a trend that is approximately 7,100 ft long and 50 to over 200 ft wide. Most of the mineralization occurs within a single unit; however, in the northeast portion of the project, there is also mineralization in a lower sand unit (BRS, 2019b). Mineralized thickness at the West Jab project area ranges from less than 1 to over 25 ft.

Table 2.22 – Mineral Resources for the Jab/West Jab Project as at the date of this Annual Report

Classification	Tons Ore (000’s)	Tonnes Ore (1000’s)	Average Grade (% eU₃O₈)	Pounds eU₃O₈ (000’s)
Measured	1,621	1,471	0.072	2,335.0
Indicated	253	230	0.077	392.0
Total M&I	1,874	1,701	0.073	2,727.0
Inferred	1,402	1,272	0.06	1,677.0
Total Resources	3,276	2,973	0.067	4,404.0

Notes:

	1.	The sum of resource tons and lbs. may not add up to the reported total due to rounding.
	2.	Measured, indicated, and inferred mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300.
	3.	GT Cutoff = 0.25 ft% eU₃O_8.
	4.	Measured and indicated resources occur below the static water table. The inferred resources at Jab/West Jab occur above the water table and may not be amenable to ISR.
	5.	The point of reference for mineral resources is in-situ at the Project.
	6.	Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
	7.	A long-term uranium price of $40/lb U₃O₈ and an 80% metallurgical recovery factor were considered for the purposes of determining the reasonable prospect of economic extraction.

- 44 -

Charlie ISR Project

The following technical and scientific description for the Charlie Project area (the “Charlie Project Area”) is based in part on the TRS titled “S-K 1300 Mineral Resource Report Wyoming Assets ISR Hub and Spoke Project, WY USA”, dated March 31, 2022, prepared by WWC, a qualified firm (the “QP” herein). The Charlie Project Area does not have mineral reserves and is therefore considered an Exploration Stage property under S-K 1300 definitions, though it is intended to be mined as part of the Christensen Ranch mine plan.

Figure 2.11 – Location of the Charlie Project

Property Description

The Charlie Project Area is in the PRB in Johnson County at latitude 43.8274 and longitude -106.0594 in decimal degrees. It is surrounded by the Christensen Ranch Project Area. The Charlie Project Area covers 820 acres including all (or portions of) two sections of the PRB.

The Charlie Project Area is located approximately 90 air miles north of Casper, Wyoming, and is located on private surface land.

The site is accessible year-round on county and private roads which are shared by oil and gas operators and ranchers. Limited services are available from several smaller towns proximal to the site. Primarily, services and personnel are available from Buffalo, Gillette and Casper. Casper and Gillette provide flight services with daily service to Denver, Billings and Salt Lake City. Water will be sourced locally at the site while electrical service will be provided by a regional power company.

UEC’s mineral holdings in the Charlie project area include one State of Wyoming uranium lease (720 acres) and five unpatented lode claims on federally administered minerals (100 acres). These mineral holdings comprise 820 acres. All payments for the lease are up to date.

- 45 -

History

Uranium was first discovered in the southern PRB during the early 1950s. By the mid to late 1950s, small open pit mine operations were established in the PRB. Early prospecting and exploration included geologic mapping and gamma surveys which led to discoveries of uranium in the Wasatch and Fort Union Formations. Extensive drill hole exploration has been utilized since the 1960s to locate deeper uranium mineralization and progress geologic models.

Table 2.23: Historic Ownership and Operations at the Charlie Project Area

Year	Company	Operations/Activity	Amount (No. of Drill holes)	Results of Work
1966	Preston Oil Co. (“Preston Oil”)	Awarded the state lease for 720 acres.	None.	Right to mine secured.
1966	Inexco Oil Company (“Inexco”)	Inexco assigned lease from Preston Oil in 1966 and conducted exploration drilling program in 1969 and 1970.	215	Delineation of mineralized areas.
1974	Uranerz USA	Inexco formed a joint venture with Uranerz USA who became the operator. Over the next two years, Uranerz expanded the drilling program, including core drilling.	715	Delineation of mineralized areas.
Not specified	Cotter Corporation (“Cotter”)	Cotter acquired the property and evaluated both conventional open pit and in situ mining methods. Cotter obtained a surface mining permit in 1979. A 200-foot-deep test pit was excavated in 1981 in a small mineralization area. The pit was subsequently reclaimed, but the state mining permit remains active.	Not specified	Falling uranium prices in the 1980’s halted further development.
1994	Cotter and PRI	PRI entered a joint venture agreement with Cotter and completed a feasibility study for development as an ISR mine (PRI, 1995). Completed additional drilling in 1994.	Not specified	The feasibility study was positive; however, the Charlie Project Area did not proceed, and the joint venture agreement expired.
2014	Cotter	In 2014 Cotter sought to convert the permit to ISR mining; however, that process has not been completed.	None	Unknown.
2018	Anfield Energy Inc. (“Anfield”)	Anfield acquired the Charlie Project Area from Cotter.	None	Oversaw technical reporting and auditing of Charlie Project Area resources.
2021	UEC	UEC acquired the Charlie Project Area from Anfield.	N/A	Ownership transition.

Property Condition and Proposed Development

The condition of the property is good while meeting all standards and requirements of Federal, State and local regulations. There are no immediate plans for exploration or delineation drilling. The Charlie Project will eventually be mined as part of the Christensen Ranch Life of Mine.

Facilities, Infrastructure and Underground Development

The Charlie Project is essentially an extension of the Christensen Ranch ore body located in Mine Units 8 and 10. There are currently no facilities located on the Charlie Project other than various monitor wells that have been used for groundwater baseline studies to permit the property.

Permit Status and Encumbrances

The Charlie Project was permitted through Permit to Mine No. 489 years ago for an open pit uranium mine. It is not permitted or licensed for ISR operations. Exploration and delineation drilling is conducted under a WDEQ LQD Drilling Notification or the Permit to Mine. There are no materially significant encumbrances on the Charlie Project. Standard encumbrances include reclamation bonding, mining, and surface lease royalties.

- 46 -

Geologic setting, Mineralization and Deposit

The Charlie Project Area targets mineralization in the Eocene-aged Wasatch Formation.

Mineralization in the Charlie Project Area occurs in fluvial sandstones of the lower parts of the Wasatch Formation. Most of the upper Wasatch Formation has been eroded away. The sandstones are arkosic, fine to coarse-grained with local calcareous lenses. The sandstones contain minor amounts of organic carbon that occurs as dispersed bits or as stringers. Unaltered sandstones are generally gray while altered sandstones are tan or pink due to hematite or show yellowish coloring due to limonite.

Pyrite occurs in several forms within the host sandstones. In unaltered sandstones, pyrite occurs as small to large single euhedral crystals associated with magnetite, ilmenite, and other dark detrital minerals. In altered sandstone, pyrite is typically absent, but locally occurs as tarnished, very fine-grained euhedral crystals. In areas of intense or heavy mineralization, pyrite locally occurs as massive, tarnished crystal aggregates.

At the Charlie Project Area, the Wasatch Formation sand units have been subdivided into eight separate sub-roll-fronts within the overall mineralized horizon. The sands have been designated locally as A through G in descending order. The majority of the currently defined mineral resource falls within the A through D sands, which have a combined thickness of approximately 80 to 100 feet. While mineralization is present in the F and G sands, less than 40 of the over 1,100 drill holes fully penetrated the F and G sands. Similarly, the E sand has only been partially explored.

Uranium mineralization at all of the Charlie Project Area is typical of Wyoming roll-front sandstone deposits. The formation of roll-front deposits is largely a groundwater process that occurs when uranium-rich, oxygenated groundwater interacts with a reducing environment in the subsurface and precipitates uranium. The most favorable host rocks for roll-fronts are permeable sandstones with large aquifer systems. Interbedded mudstone, claystone and siltstone are often present and aid in the formation process by focusing groundwater flux. The geometry of mineralization is dominated by the classic roll-front “C” shape or crescent configuration at the redox interface. The highest-grade portion of the front occurs in a zone termed the “nose” within reduced ground just ahead of the alteration front. Ahead of the nose, at the leading edge of the solution front, mineral quality gradually diminishes to barren within the “seepage” zone. Trailing behind the nose, in oxidized (altered) ground, are weak remnants of mineralization referred to as “tails” which have resisted re-mobilization to the nose due to association with shale, carbonaceous material or other lithologies of lower permeability. Tails are generally not amenable to ISR because the uranium is typically found within strongly reduced or impermeable strata, therefore making it difficult to leach.

Table 2.24 – Mineral Resources for the Charlie Project as at the date of this Annual Report

Classification	Tons Ore (000’s)	Tonnes Ore (1000’s)	Average Grade (% eU₃O₈)	Pounds eU₃O₈ (000’s)
Measured	-	-	-	-
Indicated	1,255	1,139	0.123	3,100.0
Total M&I	1,255	1,139	0.123	3,100.0
Inferred	411	373	0.120	988.0
Total Resources	1,666	1,512	0.123	4,088.0

Notes:

	1.	The sum of resource tons and lbs. may not add up to the reported total due to rounding.
	2.	Measured, indicated, and inferred mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300.
	3.	GT Cutoff = 0.20 ft% eU₃O_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/lb U₃O₈ and an 80% metallurgical recovery factor were considered for the purposes of determining the reasonable prospect of economic extraction.

- 47 -

Nine Mile Lake ISR Project

The following technical and scientific description for the Nine Mile Lake Project area (the “Nine Mile Lake Project Area”) is based in part on the TRS titled “S-K 1300 Mineral Resource Report Wyoming Assets ISR Hub and Spoke Project, WY USA”, dated March 31, 2022, prepared by WWC, a qualified firm (the “QP” herein). The Nine Mile Lake Project Area does not have mineral reserves and is therefore considered an Exploration Stage property under S-K 1300 definitions, but the area has undergone test mining for ISR mining processes.

Figure 2.12 – Location of the Nine Mile Lake Project

Property Description

The Nine Mile Lake Project Area is located in Natrona County, Wyoming, in the PRB, at latitude 42.9807 and longitude ‑106.3278 in decimal degrees. The Nine Mile Lake Project Area covers all or portions of approximately 22 sections of the PRB.

The Nine Mile Lake Project Area is located approximately 1.5 miles north of Casper, Wyoming, and is located on private surface land and state managed land. The Nine Mile Lake Project Area is bisected by Interstate 25 and is accessible from the Salt Creek highway which parallels Interstate 25 and from County Road 705. Casper is the major population center with a population of 58,287 and is located 5 miles south of the Nine Mile Lake Project Area. The east-west railway owned by BNSF is located approximately five miles south of the Nine Mile Lake Project Area.

All services and personnel will be available from Casper. Water will be sourced locally at the site or the City of Casper, while electrical service will be provided by a regional power company.

UEC’s mineral holdings in the Nine Mile project area include two State of Wyoming uranium leases (1,280 acres), 67 unpatented lode claims on federally administered minerals (1,340 acres). These mineral holdings comprise 2,620 acres. All payments for all leases and claims are up to date.

- 48 -

History

The initial discovery of mineralization at the Nine Mile Lake Project Area was made in the early 1950s by a Mr. Vickers of Casper, Wyoming, who reportedly discovered surficial mineralization and mined some 100 tons at an average grade of 0.30 % U₃O₈ which was shipped to the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (the “AEC”) buying station at Edgemont, South Dakota. Rocky Mountain Energy (“RME”) acquired an interest in the Nine Mile Lake Project Area in 1972 and conducted extensive drilling through 1978. Pilot scale ISR mining was conducted using four seven-spot patterns with a 50-foot radius. The first three patterns used sulfuric acid as the primary lixiviant and the fourth sodium carbonate-bicarbonate as the primary lixiviant. The U.S. Bureau of Mines assisted RME in conducting the pilot testing and documented the results in a publication titled “Case History of a Pilot-Scale Acidic In-Situ Uranium Leaching Experiment”.

RME controlled the Nine Mile Lake Project Area until the late 1980s after which it dropped its mineral interests due to the declining uranium market. In 2005 and 2006, EMC began locating unpatented mining lode claims and securing mineral leases and surface agreements within the former area held by RME. EMC also acquired a variety of geologic data including reports, maps and geophysical logs for the Nine Mile Lake Project Area. EMC was subsequently acquired by Uranium One Inc. in August of 2008. Uranium One sold its interest in 24 uranium projects located in Wyoming, including this project, to Anfield. The transaction closed on September 14, 2016. UEC acquired the Nine Mile Lake Project Area from Anfield in June 2022.

The table below describes the historic ownership and operations at the Nine Mile Lake Project Area.

Table 2.25: Historic Ownership and Operations at the Nine Mile Lake Project Area

Year	Company	Operations/Activity	Amount (No. of Drill holes)	Results of Work
Early 1950s	Independent operator	An internal report from 1969 states a Mr. Vickers reportedly discovered surficial mineralization and mined approximately 100 tons U₃O₈ at an average grade of 0.30%. Uranium was shipped to the AEC buying station at Edgemont, South Dakota.	None	Exploration and production of 100 tons U₃O₈.
1972	RME	RME acquired interest in the project in 1972 and conducted extensive drilling through 1978. Pilot scale ISR mining was conducted using four seven-spot patterns with a 50-foot radius. The first 3 patterns used sulfuric acid as the primary lixiviant and the fourth sodium carbonate-bicarbonate as the primary lixiviant. The U.S. Bureau of Mines assisted RME in conducting the pilot testing and documented the results in a publication titled “Case History of a Pilot-Scale Acidic In Situ Uranium Leaching Experiment” (Nigbor, N. T., et al, 1982). RME controlled the project until the late 1980s when the mineral interests were dropped due to declining uranium prices.	Approximately 1,100	Exploration and pilot scale ISR mining.
2005 and 2006	EMC	EMC located unpatented mining lode claims and secured mineral leases and surface agreements within the area formerly held by RME. EMC conducted exploratory drilling and compiled previous data and maps for the project.	Approximately 45	Secured right to mine.
2008	Uranium One	EMC was acquired by Uranium One.	None	Ownership transition.
2016	Anfield	Anfield purchased Nine Mile Lake Project from Uranium One.	None	Oversaw technical reporting and auditing of project resources.
2022	UEC	UEC acquired the Nine Mile Lake Project from Anfield.	N/A	Ownership transition.

- 49 -

Property Condition and Proposed Development

The property is in good condition. There are no plans for near term exploration or delineation drilling.

Facilities, Infrastructure and Underground Development

There are no facilities or wellfields constructed on the project.

Permit Status and Encumbrances

The Nine Mile Lake Project has not been permitted or licensed for ISR operations. Exploration and delineation drilling is conducted under a WDEQ LQD Drilling Notification. Standard encumbrances include reclamation bonding for drill holes, mining, and surface lease royalties. It should be noted that parts of the surface in the Nine Mile Lake vicinity are privately owned with dwellings.

Geologic Setting, Mineralization and Deposit

The Nine Mile Lake Project Area resides in the PRB.

The Nine Mile Lake Project Area is located along the southwestern flank of the PRB which is an asymmetric syncline trending north-northwest. The project is bounded to the west by the Casper Arch, a regional fold sub-parallel to the axis of the basin. In the vicinity of the project no major faults have been identified and the formation dip is less than 6° to the east, north-east.

Uranium deposits at the Nine Mile Lake Project Area are roll-front uranium deposits as defined in the “World Distribution of Uranium Deposits (UDEPO) with Uranium Deposit Classification”. The mineralization at the Nine Mile Lake Project Area is typical of the Wyoming roll-front sandstone deposits.

Table 2.26 – Mineral Resources for the Nine Mile Lake Project as at the date of this Annual Report

Classification	Tons Ore (000’s)	Tonnes Ore (1000’s)	Average Grade (% eU₃O₈)	Pounds eU₃O₈ (000’s)
Measured	-	-	-	-
Indicated	-	-	-	-
Total M&I	-	-	-	-
Inferred	3,405	3,089	0.036	4,308.0
Total Resources	3,405	3,089	0.036	4,308.0

Notes:

	1.	The sum of resource tons and lbs. may not add up to the reported total due to rounding.
	2.	Measured, indicated, and inferred mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300.
	3.	GT Cutoff = 0.25 ft% eU₃O_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/lb U₃O₈ and an 80% metallurgical recovery factor were considered for the purposes of determining the reasonable prospect of economic extraction.

- 50 -

Red Rim Project

The following technical and scientific description for the Red Rim Project area (the “Red Rim ISR Project Area”) is based in part on the TRS titled “S-K 1300 Mineral Resource Report Wyoming Assets ISR Hub and Spoke Project, WY USA”, dated March 31, 2022, as prepared by WWC, a qualified firm (the “QP” herein). The Red Rim Project Area does not have mineral reserves and is therefore considered an Exploration Stage property under S-K 1300 definitions.

Figure 2.13 - Location of the Red Rim Project

Property Description

The Red Rim Project Area is in the GGRB in Carbon County at latitude 41.6502 and longitude ‑107.5755 in decimal degrees. The Red Rim Project Area covers 680 acres, including all (or portions of) four sections.

The Red Rim Project Area is located approximately 20 air miles southwest of Rawlins, Wyoming, and is located on federal BLM-managed land. The site is accessible via two-wheel drive via three different routes - the Daley Road which proceeds south from Interstate 80 to the site and the Carbon County Road 605 which proceeds approximately 23 miles southwest from Rawlins along Hogback Ridge. The shortest route to the site is to proceed west from Rawlins on I-80 11 miles to the Daley Road, then travel south for approximately eight miles.

Limited services and personnel are available from Rawlins, WY, Primarily, services and personnel will be sourced from Casper. Water will be sourced locally at the site while electrical service will be provided by a regional power company.

UEC’s mineral holdings in the Red Rim Project Area include 34 unpatented federal mining lode claims (680 acres). All payments for all claims are up to date.

- 51 -

History

Uranium mineralization was discovered in the GGRB at the Lost Creek Schoekingerite deposit in the early 1950s. The Schoekingerite deposits were exposed at the surface along the Lost Creek drainage and were located using radiometric surveys. The USGS used shallow exploration to further evaluate the deposits. As in the PRB, drilling for deeper deposits began in the 1960s and exploration since that time has primarily consisted of drilling.

Table 2.27: Historic Ownership and Operations at the Red Rim Project Area

Year	Company	Operations/Activity	Amount (No. of Drill holes)	Results of Work
1970	Kerr McGee Corp. and UCC	Both companies located claims in the vicinity and conducted exploration and drilling programs. The claims were dropped by 1973.	Not specified.	Exploration is reported to have encountered alteration and mineralization at depth.
1974	Timberline Minerals and Wold	Both companies located claims in the vicinity.	None.	Secured federal mining claims.
1976	UCC	UCC leased the Timberline Minerals property and entered a joint venture agreement with RME, a subsidiary of the Union Pacific Railroad, for the alternate sections of railroad grant lands in the area. UCC relinquished their mineral interests at Red Rim in 1986 and the mining claims reverted to Timberline Minerals, which subsequently dropped the claims.	138	Conducted an exploration and drilling program. Of the 138 drill holes on the current Red Rim Project Area, 42 are barren or contain trace mineralization and the remaining 96 are mineralized.
2004	EMC	Located 49 unpatented mining lode claims that comprise the current Red Rim Project Area.	None.	Secured federal mining claims.
2007	Uranium One	Uranium One Inc. acquired EMC. Through subsequent transactions, Uranium One Inc. became Uranium One Americas, Inc.	None.	Ownership transition.
2016	Anfield	Anfield purchased Red Rim Project from Uranium One.	None.	Oversaw technical reporting and auditing of project resources.
2022	UEC	UEC acquired the Red Rim project from Anfield.	N/A	Ownership transition.

Property Condition and Proposed Development

The property is in good condition. There are no plans for near term exploration or delineation drilling.

Facilities, Infrastructure and Underground Development

There are no facilities or wellfields constructed on the project.

Permit Status and Encumbrances

The Red Rim Project has not been permitted or licensed for ISR operations. Exploration and delineation drilling is conducted under a WDEQ LQD Drilling Notification. There are no materially significant encumbrances on the Red Rim Project. Standard encumbrances include reclamation bonding for drilling, mining and surface lease royalties.

Geologic Setting, Mineralization and Deposit

The Red Rim Project Area is located within the WB portion of the GGRB. Together, the GDB and WB compromise the eastern portion of the GGRB. Mineralization at the Red Rim project area occurs in the Fort Union Formation.

- 52 -

The Fort Union Formation is a medium to coarse-grained arkosic sandstone that generally grades upward. The Fort Union is unconformably underlain by the Cretaceous Lance Formation and regionally overlain by the Eocene Wasatch Formation. North of Separation Creek, the basal portion of the Fort Union Formation is a prominent ridge-forming unit that is composed of dominantly arkosic sandstone that is often altered. South of Separation Creek, the formation becomes less resistant, is composed of sub-arkosic to quartzose, and is generally not altered. The two commonly cited sources of uranium for the Red Rim are the Granite Mountains and leaching of Oligocene and Miocene volcanics.

Uranium deposits at the Red Rim project area occur as roll-fronts in a single sand unit within the lower Fort Union Formation, near the contact with the Lance Formation. The host sandstone unit has been designated the #3 sand, and ranges in thickness from approximately 60 to 120 ft. Mineralized thickness ranges from 1 to 23.5 ft.

Table 2.28 – Mineral Resources for the Red Rim Project as at the date of this Annual Report

Classification	Tons Ore (000’s)	Tonnes Ore (1000’s)	Average Grade (% eU₃O₈)	Pounds eU₃O₈ (000’s)
Measured	-	-	-	-
Indicated	337	306	0.170	1,142.0
Total M&I	337	306	0.170	1,142.0
Inferred	473	429	0.163	1,539.0
Total Resources	810	735	0.165	2,681.0

Notes:

	1.	The sum of resource tons and lbs. may not add up to the reported total due to rounding.
	2.	Measured, indicated, and inferred mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300.
	3.	GT Cutoff = 0.25 ft% eU₃O_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/lb U₃O₈ and an 80% metallurgical recovery factor were considered for the purposes of determining the reasonable prospect of economic extraction.

- 53 -

Clarkson Hill Project

The following technical and scientific description for the Clarkson Hill Project area (the “Clarkson Hill Project Area”) is based in part on the TRS titled “S-K 1300 Mineral Resource Report Wyoming Assets ISR Hub and Spoke Project, WY USA”, dated March 31, 2022, as prepared by WWC, a qualified firm (the “QP” herein). The Clarkson Hill Project Area does not have mineral reserves and is therefore considered an Exploration Stage property under S-K 1300 definitions.

Figure 2.14 – Location of the Clarkson Project

Property Description

The Clarkson Hill Project is located in Natrona County, Wyoming, about 20 air miles southwest of Casper, Wyoming, at latitude 42.6593 and longitude -106.7006 in decimal degrees. The property is located on portions of sections 7, 17, and 18 of T31N R82W. Land ownership consists of federal lands administered by the BLM, state lands and private lands. The Clarkson Hill Project Area is accessible from either Highway 220 or from the Oregon Trail Road, a Natrona County improved gravel road. From Highway 220, the site is approximately four miles northwest of the junction of the highway with Natrona County Road 318. From the Oregon Trail Road, the site is approximately three miles to the southeast. Site access from either route will require an arrangement with intervening private landowners for ingress/egress. The communities of Alcova and Bessemer Bend are located 10 and 13 miles away, respectively, and have limited services. The east-west BNSF railway in Casper is approximately 25 miles northeast of the Clarkson Hill Project Area.

The site is accessible year-round on county and private roads as described above. All services and personnel will be available from Casper. Water will be sourced locally at the site, while electrical service will be provided by a regional power company.

UEC’s mineral holdings in the Clarkson Hill Project Area include 20 unpatented lode claims on federally administered minerals (400 acres). All payments for all claims are up to date.

- 54 -

History

The initial discovery of mineralization at the Clarkson Hill Claims was made in the 1950s and “small amounts of ore were mined and shipped for treatment from the old pit area located in Section 17, T31N, R82W” (Ljung et al, March 1974). However, USGS and the U.S. Bureau of Mines databases list the Clarkson Hill Project Area claims as a surface mine prospect with no reported production. The surface disturbance, based on site observation by the QP of the TRS, is shallow (less than 20 feet in depth) and limited in aerial extent. Surface disturbance is limited and there is no known infrastructure, tailings or mine waste apparent at the site. Drill data utilized in the estimation of mineral resources at the Clarkson Hill Project Area Claims in the TRS reflect a deeper horizon and is not affected by the presence of “old pit”. Surface disturbance from past exploration and/or limited mining activities at the site are readily apparent from current aerial views and on the ground.

Table 2.29: Historic Ownership and Operations at the Clarkson Hill Project Area

Year	Company	Operations/Activity	Amount (No. of Drill holes)	Results of Work
1959	Utah Construction and Mining	Conducted uranium exploration drilling.	Not specified.	Unknown.
1968	Minerals Exploration Company (“MEC”) and Nuclear Reserves Inc.	MEC performed exploratory drilling between 1968 and 1981. In 1969, MEC and Nuclear Reserves Inc. entered into a joint venture. MEC held the Clarkson Hill Project Area through the mid-1980s, when they dropped the claims due to declining uranium prices.	250	Delineation of mineralized areas. Falling uranium prices in the 1980’s halted further development.
Unknown	EMC	EMC performed initial staking of 14 claims and compiled relevant data for the Clarkson Hill Project Area. EMC optioned the Clarkson Hill Project Area to Artha Resources, who conducted limited verification drilling during 2008. The Clarkson Hill Project Area reverted from Artha to EMC.	5	Unknown.
2008	Uranium One	EMC was acquired by Uranium One Inc. Through subsequent transactions Uranium One Inc. became Uranium One Americas Inc.	None.	Ownership transition.
2016	Anfield Resources, Inc. (now Anfield Energy, Inc.)	Anfield purchased the Clarkson Hill Project Area from Uranium One.	None.	Oversaw technical reporting and auditing of the Clarkson Hill Project Area resources.
2022	UEC	UEC acquire the Clarkson Hill Project Area from Anfield.	N/A	Ownership transition.

Property Condition and Proposed Development

The property is in good condition. There are currently no plans for near term exploration or delineation drilling.

Facilities, Infrastructure and Underground Development

There are no facilities or wellfields constructed on the property.

Permit Status and Encumbrances

The Clarkson Hill Project has not been permitted or licensed for ISR operations. Exploration and delineation drilling is conducted under a WDEQ LQD Drilling Notification. There are no materially significant encumbrances on the Clarkson Hill Project. Standard encumbrances may include reclamation bonding for drilling, mining and surface lease royalties.

Geologic Setting, Mineralization and Deposit

The Clarkson Hill Project Area is located near the southern and eastern margin of the WRB, just west of the Casper Arch, which separates the PRB and WRB.

Mineralization at the Clarkson Hill Project Area occurs in the Fort Union Formation. Mineralization has also been reported in the overlying Wind River Formation, but exploration has not characterized this mineralization.

- 55 -

The Paleocene Fort Union Formation is a terrestrial sedimentary deposit consisting of sandstone, siltstone, shale, coal and local conglomerates. The primary source of Fort Union Formation sediments was the ancestral Granite Mountains west and south of the Clarkson Hill Project Area. At the Clarkson Hill Project Area, the Fort Union Formation is approximately 75 to 150 feet thick.

At the Clarkson Hill Project Area, mineralization occurs at multiple depths within the Fort Union Formation. Mineralized thickness ranges from less than five feet to over 20 feet, and the mineralized trend is approximately 5,500 feet long.

Table 2.30 – Mineral Resources for the Clarkson Hill Project as at the date of this Annual Report

Classification	Tons Ore (000’s)	Tonnes Ore (1000’s)	Average Grade (% eU₃O₈)	Pounds eU₃O₈ (000’s)
Measured	-	-	-	-
Indicated	-	-	-	-
Total M&I	-	-	-	-
Inferred	957	868	0.058	1,113.0
Total Resources	957	868	0.058	1,113.0

Notes:

	1.	The sum of resource tons and lbs. may not add up to the reported total due to rounding.
	2.	Measured, indicated, and inferred mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300.
	3.	GT Cutoff = 0.25 ft% eU₃O_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/lb U₃O₈ and an 80% metallurgical recovery factor were considered for the purposes of determining the reasonable prospect of economic extraction.

Texas Properties

Figure 2.15 – Location of our Projects in Texas

- 56 -

ISR Uranium Activities in Texas

Our ISR operations in Texas consist of the following projects, (i) the Hobson CPP; (ii) the Palangana Project; (iii) the Burke Hollow Project; (iv) the Goliad Project; and (v) the Salvo Project. Production from existing wellfields at the Palangana Project ceased in 2016 and the project was put in care and maintenance mode. In order for Palangana to engage in future uranium production, the Company will need to incur capital expenditures to restart idled wellfields.

Permitting Requirements in Texas

The Hobson CPP is fully permitted. The Burke Hollow, Goliad and Palangana Projects are fully permitted to mine. The Salvo Project still requires all mining permits. Regulatory agencies include the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (“TCEQ”), the Railroad Commission of Texas (“RRC”) and the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”).

Other potential permitting requirements, depending on the status of each project area, may include:

●

the TCEQ will require UEC to apply for and obtain a radioactive material license pursuant to Title 30 Texas Administrative Code Chapters 305 and 336. The application must address a number of matters including, but not limited to, site characteristics (ecology, geology, topography, hydrology, meteorology, historical and cultural landmarks and archaeology), radiological and non-radiological impacts, environmental effects of accidents, decommissioning, decontamination and reclamation;

●

to produce uranium from subsurface deposits, an operator must obtain an area permit and production area authorization (PAA) pursuant to the Texas Water Code, Chapter 27. Underground injection activities cannot commence until the TCEQ has issued an area permit and PAA to authorize such activities. In addition, all portions of the proposed production zone in groundwater with a total dissolved solids concentration less than 10,000 mg/L, which will be affected by mining solutions, are included within an aquifer exemption approved by TCEQ and the EPA. The PAA application may be developed concurrently with or after the area permit application. As additional production areas are proposed to be activated within the area permit, additional PAA applications must be submitted to the TCEQ for processing and issuance before injecting within the production area;

●

in 1975, the Texas Legislature gave the RRC jurisdiction to regulate surface mining for coal and uranium. No surface mining for uranium is currently conducted at the Project, but uranium exploration for ISR operations is administered by the Surface Mining and Reclamation Division of the RRC. Active uranium exploration sites are inspected monthly (RRC, 2023). The RRC requires exploration permits for any uranium exploration in the state;

●

Texas state law does not provide any agency with the authority to regulate the use or production of groundwater unless the location lies within a water conservation district (WCD). Burke Hollow and Salvo are both located in the Bee County WCD, Goliad is located in the Goliad County WCD and Palangana resides in the Duval County WCD. Prior to initiating uranium recovery at the Project, UEC will need to acquire industrial permits to withdraw groundwater from the host sandstones. Please refer to the TRS report for the Texas Hub and Spoke Project for further details.; and

●

Class I and III injection wells are also regulated by the TCEQ. Therefore, UEC will need to acquire the appropriate permits in order to construct and operate these wells.

In terms of leases and mineral rights, UEC’s mineral rights in Texas are held through private (fee) mineral leases. Fee mineral leases were obtained through negotiation with individual mineral owners.

Fee minerals have varying royalty rates and calculations, depending on the agreements negotiated with individual mineral owners. In addition, surface use and access agreements may include a production royalty, depending on agreements negotiated with individual surface owners at various levels. UEC’s average combined mineral plus surface production royalty applicable to each project are variable and based upon the selling price of U₃O₈. Most of the leases have term periods of 5 years with a 5-year renewal option. The primary lease stipulation for ISR mining is the royalty payments as a percentage of production. Royalties vary by lease and are confidential. The various lease fees and royalty conditions are negotiated with individual lessors and conditions may vary from lease to lease. No resources are reported in areas outside of the project area boundaries, which are determined by each project area’s leases.

Surface ownership at each project consists of fee lands predominantly used for agriculture and wind turbine development. On the project areas that are currently permitted, UEC has surface use agreements in place with the private landowners where appropriate. Obtaining surface access rights is a standard process in mine permitting and UEC does not anticipate that maintaining these rights presents a significant risk to UEC’s ability to perform work in Texas.

- 57 -

Geology and Mineralization in Texas

The Texas ISR Projects resides in the Gulf of Mexico Basin (“GMB”). The GMB extends over much of South Texas and includes the Texas coastal plain and South Texas Uranium Province (“STUP”) where the project is located. The coastal plain is bounded by the Rocky Mountain uplift to the west and drains into the Gulf of Mexico. The coastal plain is comprised of marine, non-marine and continental sediments ranging in age from Paleozoic through Cenozoic.

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

The coastal plains of the GMB were formed by the downfaulting and down warping of Paleozoic Era (252-541 Mya) basement rocks during the breakup of the Paleozoic mega continent, Pangaea and the opening of the North Atlantic Ocean in the Late Triassic Epoch (201-237 Mya). The Rocky Mountain Uplift in the Paleogene Period (43-65 Mya) gave rise to the vast river systems that flowed toward the Gulf of Mexico carrying abundant sediments. Deposits typically thicken down-dip towards the Gulf of Mexico from western-northwestern sources. Stratigraphy in this area can be complex because of the cyclic deposition of sedimentary facies. Shallow inland seas formed broad continental shelves that covered most of Texas and deposited sedimentary units that are dominantly continental clastic with some near shore and shallow marine facies. Volcanic episodes during deposition (more than 20 Mya) are credited as being the source of the uranium deposits through ash-fall and related sediments.

All mineralization at our Texas projects occurs in the Goliad Formation. The Goliad Formation was originally classified as Pliocene in age by most sources, but the formation has been reclassified as early Pliocene to middle Miocene after recent research revealed the presence of indigenous Pliocene-aged mega-fossils occurring in upper Goliad sands, whereas the lower Goliad fluvial sands are correlative with down-dip strata containing benthic foraminifera indicating a Miocene age. The Geology of Texas map published by BEG in 1992 classifies the Goliad as Miocene in age.

The BEG’s geologic map of Texas describes the Goliad Formation as clays, sandstones, marls, caliches, limestones and conglomerates with a thickness of 100 to 500 feet. Above the Goliad Formation lies the Deweyville Formation, Beaumont Clay, Lissie Formation, Montgomery Formation and the Willis Sand, which are composed of sand, gravel, silt and clay.

Three main structural zones are present in the STUP: the Balcones Fault Zone; the San Marcos Arch; and the Rio Grande Embayment. The Balcones Fault Zone is north of the Hobson Project Area and divides the Upper Cretaceous and Eocene strata. The Balcones Fault Zone is comprised of mainly normal faults that displace sediments by up to 1,500 feet, moving downward to the Gulf of Mexico. The San Marcos Arch, northeast of the Hobson Project Area between the Rio Grande Embayment and East Texas Basin, is a broad area of lesser subsidence and a subsurface extension of the Llano Uplift. The arch is crossed by basement-related normal faults that parallel the buried Ouachita Orogenic Belt of Paleozoic age. The Rio Grande Embayment is a small, deformed basin that lies between the El Burro Uplift in northeast Mexico and the basin marginal Balcones Fault Zone to the south. Some data indicate that the embayment was possibly compressed during the Laramide Orogeny in the Late Cretaceous–Paleogene.

The uranium-bearing units in the STUP include most sands and sandstones in Tertiary formations ranging in age from Eocene (oldest) to Lower Pliocene (youngest).

The formation of roll-front deposits is largely a groundwater process that occurs when uranium-rich, oxygenated groundwater interacts with a reducing environment in the subsurface and precipitates uranium. The most favorable host rocks for roll-fronts are permeable sandstones with large aquifer systems. Interbedded mudstone, claystone and siltstone are often present and aid in the formation process by focusing groundwater flux. The geometry of mineralization is dominated by the classic roll-front “C” shape or crescent configuration at the redox interface. The highest-grade portion of the front occurs in a zone termed the “nose” within reduced ground just ahead of the alteration front. Ahead of the nose, at the leading edge of the solution front, mineral quality gradually diminishes to barren within the “seepage” zone. Trailing behind the nose, in oxidized (altered) ground, are weak remnants of mineralization referred to as “tails” which have resisted re-mobilization to the nose due to association with shale, carbonaceous material or other lithologies of lower permeability. Tails are generally not amenable to ISR because the uranium is typically found within strongly reduced or impermeable strata, therefore making it difficult to leach.

- 58 -

Our Material Properties in Texas

Hobson CPP

The independent TRS for the Hobson CPP Project area (the “Hobson Project Area”) has been prepared for UEC, under the supervision of WWC (the “QP” herein”), pursuant to S‑K 1300. This TRS identifies and summarizes the scientific and technical information and conclusions reached from the initial assessment (“IA”) to support disclosure of mineral resources on projects surrounding the Hobson Project Area. There are no resources directly associated with the Hobson Project Area.

Property Description

The Hobson Project Area is located in Karnes County, Texas, northwest of Karnes City, within the GMB, approximately 100 miles northwest of Corpus Christi and 40 miles southeast of San Antonio. This facility represents the ‘hub’ of UEC’s ‘hub-and-spoke’ business model, which comprises a central processing facility supplied with uranium-loaded IX resin from ISR mining at one or more of the project areas. The Hobson CPP was constructed in 1978 when the Hobson Project Area was mined. In 2008, the plant was refurbished. The Hobson CPP has previously processed uranium from UEC’s Palangana Mine satellite facility (i.e., the first UEC ‘spoke’), and UEC plans to also process uranium from its Burke Hollow, Goliad, and Salvo Project satellite facilities.

The Hobson CPP consists of a resin transfer circuit for loading/unloading IX resin from tanker trucks, an elution circuit to strip uranium from the IX resin, a circuit to precipitate uranium oxide solids, a yellowcake thickener (if necessary) and a modern, zero-emission vacuum dryer. Other facilities and equipment include an advanced laboratory with inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry, office building, yellowcake and byproduct material storage area, chemical storage tanks and one permitted and constructed waste disposal well. Another waste disposal well is permitted but has not been drilled because additional disposal capacity is not needed at the current time. With an average dryer cycle time of 40 hours and a current dryer loading capacity of 8 to 10 drums, the plant appears capable of yielding up to 1.5 million pounds per year without requiring physical modifications. An amendment to the license to increase annual capacity up to 4.0 millons pounds per year was recently approved, so the Hobson CPP is now permitted for production of up to four million pounds per year of uranium concentrates (yellowcake or U₃O₈). WWC personnel visited the Hobson CPP on November 2, 2021, and found it to be in a well-maintained and apparently fully operational condition, although the plant was inactive (i.e., not processing a batch of uranium-loaded resin) during the site visit.

The Hobson CPP will serve as the ‘hub’ of the Hobson Project Area with the other project areas serving as satellite facilities, or the ‘spokes”. The satellite facilities are considered material to the Hobson CPP. Mineral is mined at the project areas and is then transported to the Hobson CPP for processing.

A surety bond is in place for the Hobson CPP decommissioning requirements and is updated annually.

History

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

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

Ownership, control and operation of the Hobson Project Areas has varied greatly since the 1950s. The table below summarizes the operations and activities of various companies, the timeframe during which these activities were completed and the results of the work. The table below also summarizes historic drilling and the number of drill holes completed during each period.

- 59 -

Table 2.31: Historic Ownership and Operations at the Hobson Project Area

Year	Company	Operations/Activity	Amount (No. of Drill holes)	Results of Work
1979-1988	Everest Minerals Corporation (later Everest Exploration, Inc. (EEI))	Hobson facility constructed.	N/A	N/A
2005	Standard Uranium	N/A	N/A	N/A
2006	EMC	Standard Uranium and EMC merger. Extensive renovation of the plant.	N/A	N/A
2007	Uranium One	Renovation of the plant.	N/A	CPP capable of processing 1.5 million lbs per year.
2009	UEC	Acquires the Hobson Plant through acquisition of South Texas Mining Venture (STMV)/Uranium One.	N/A	N/A

Geologic Setting, Mineralization and Deposit

The Hobson Project Area is located in the STUP which lies along the GMB.

All mineralization at the Hobson Project Area occurs in the Goliad Formation. The Goliad Formation was originally classified as Pliocene in age by most sources, but the formation has been reclassified as early Pliocene to middle Miocene after recent research revealed the presence of indigenous Pliocene-aged mega-fossils occurring in upper Goliad sands, whereas the lower Goliad fluvial sands are correlative with down-dip strata containing benthic foraminifera indicating a Miocene age. The Geology of Texas map published by the Texas Bureau of Economic Geology (“BEG”) in 1992 classifies the Goliad as Miocene in age.

Uranium mineralization occurs in zones that are located in fluvial channel sands of the Goliad Formation. These deposits consist of multiple mineralized sand horizons which are separated vertically by confining beds of silt, mudstone, and clay.

The Hobson project does not have associated current reserves or resources.

- 60 -

Palangana Project

The independent TRS for the Palangana Project area (the “Palangana Project Area”) has been prepared for UEC, under the supervision of WWC (the “QP” herein), pursuant to S-K 1300. This TRS identifies and summarizes the scientific and technical information and conclusions reached from the IA to support disclosure of mineral resources on the Palangana Project Area.

Figure 2.16 – Location of the Palangana Project

Property Description

The Palangana Project Area is 25 miles west of the town of Alice, Texas, and 15 miles to the southeast of Freer, Texas, in Duval County. Corpus Christi is about 65 miles to the east of the Palangana Project Area. The Palangana Project Area has been developed by several operators since the 1950s and has several wellfields that are drilled and ready for operations. In addition, the Palangana Project Area produced 563,600 pounds U₃O₈ from 2010 to 2016 and currently has the infrastructure to begin mining immediately. No resources are reported in areas outside of the Palangana Project Area boundary. There are no reserves associated with the Palangana Project Area and it is considered a remote ‘satellite’ to the Hobson CPP.

Mineral rights for the Project are private (fee) mineral leases, obtained through negotiation with individual mineral owners. There are 12 fee mineral leases comprised of 6,969 acres at the Palangana project area. No resources are reported in areas outside of the Palangana project area boundary.

The Palangana Project is considered an Exploration Stage property under S-K 1300 as it has no currently defined reserves, but is a past producer and in terms of present conditions has all of the required permits and infrastructure necessary for ISR production. It has been carried in a care and maintenance condition since cessation of uranium recovery in 2016. The Company intends to continue the care and maintenance of the Palangana ISR Project Area, pending restart of uranium recovery operations.

- 61 -

There are no significant encumbrances to the property though routine renewals of permits and authorizations is ongoing. No recent regulatory violations or fines have been levied. A surety bond is in place for the Palangana Project’s restoration, reclamation and decommissioning requirements and is updated annually.

History

Uranium mineralization was discovered during potash exploration drilling of the Palangana Project Area Dome’s gypsum-anhydrite cap rock in 1952 by Columbia Southern Inc. (“CSI”), a subsidiary of Pittsburgh Plate Glass Corp. CSI conducted active uranium exploration drilling on the property starting in March 1956. Records of CSI’s exploration work are unavailable. However, both CSI and the AEC estimated underground mineable uranium resources. The only known details of the estimation method include a 0.15% eU₃O₈, a minimum mining thickness of 3 feet and widely spaced drilling on a nominal 200-foot exploration grid.

Union Carbide Corporation (“UCC”) acquired the Palangana Project Area property in 1958 and initiated underground mine development. Development work was quickly abandoned due to heavy concentrations of H2S gas, and UCC dropped the property. UCC reacquired the Palangana Project Area in 1967 after recognizing that it would be amenable to exploitation by the emerging ISR mining technologies. During the 1960s and 1970s, UCC drilled over 1,000 exploration and development holes and installed over 3,000 injection-production holes in a 31-acre block.

UCC attempted an ISR operation from 1977 through 1979 using a push/pull injection/recovery system. Ammonia was used as the lixiviate that later caused some environmental issues with groundwater. About 340,000 pounds of U₃O₈ were produced from portions of a 31-acre wellfield block. The production pounds indicate a 32% to 34% recovery rate. The push/pull injection/recovery system was later proven to be less productive than well configurations or patterns of injection wells around a recovery well. Further, the wellfield was developed without any apparent regard to the geology of the deposit, including disequilibrium. The UCC ISR work was basically conducted at a research level in contrast to the current level of knowledge. The historic production area lies on the western side of the dome and is not part of this resource estimate.

UCC placed the property leases up for sale in 1980. In 1981, Chevron Corporation (“Chevron”) acquired the UCC leases and conducted their own resource evaluation. After the price of uranium dropped to under $10/lb., General Atomics acquired the property and dismantled the process plant in a property-wide restoration effort. Upon formal approval of the clean up by the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission and the NRC, the property was returned to the landowners in the late 1990s.

In 2005, EEI acquired the Palangana Project Area property and later joint ventured with Energy Metals through the formation of STMV. An independent consultant estimated that there were 5.7 million pounds of inferred resources in an area now referred to as the Dome trend proximal to the dome on the west side north of the prior UCC leach field. In 2006 and 2007, Energy Metals drilled approximately 200 additional confirmation and delineation holes. The PA-1 and PA-2 areas were found during this drilling program. In 2008, Energy Metals was acquired by Uranium One. During 2008 and 2009, the remainder of the holes on this Palangana Project Area were drilled by Uranium One. During this time, the five exploration trends to the east of the dome were identified and partially delineated. In December 2009, UEC acquired 100% ownership of STMV.

- 62 -

The table below describes the historic ownership and operations at the Palangana Project Area.

Table 2.32: Historic Ownership and Operations at the Palangana Project Area

Year	Company	Operations/Activity	Amount (# of Drill holes)	Results of Work
1952	CSI	Original controller of Palangana Project Area.	Records of CSI’s exploration work was unavailable	Right to mine secured. Uranium mineralization was discovered during potash exploration drilling of the Palangana Dome in 1952 by CSI. CSI conducted active uranium exploration drilling on the property starting in March 1956. CSI and the AEC estimated underground mineable uranium resources. The estimation method included identifying 0.15% eU₃O₈, a minimum mining thickness of 3 ft, and exploration was widely spaced drilling on a nominal 200 ft exploration grid.
1958	UCC	UCC acquired the Palangana Project Area in 1958 and ceased operations shortly after until 1967, when operations resumed for over a decade due to new technology. UCC placed the Palangana Project Area up for lease in 1980.	Over 1,000 exploration and development holes in 1960s and 70s (296 cores) Over 3,000 injection-production holes	Early development work was quickly abandoned because of concentrations of Hydrogen Sulfide (H₂S) gas. The property was reacquired in 1967 after emerging ISR mining technologies were available. ISR operation occurred from 1977 through 1979. About 340,000 lbs of U₃O₈ were produced from portions of a 31-acre wellfield block. The production pounds indicate a 32% to 34% recovery rate. The ISR work was conducted at a research level in contrast to the current level of knowledge. Historic production lies on the western flank of the dome and is not part of this resource estimate.
1981 – Unknown	Chevron	Chevron acquired the UCC leases and conducted their own resource evaluation.	N/A	Chevron resource evaluation indicated that an estimated 8 million lbs (non-CIM compliant) of eU₃O₈ existed on the entire site within unclassified material containing 0.125% eU₃O₈.
Unknown to late 1990’s	General Atomics	General Atomics acquired the Palangana Project Area for restoration work.	N/A	General Atomics acquired the property and dismantled the process plant in a property-wide restoration effort. Upon formal approval of the clean up by the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission and the NRC, the property was returned to the landowners in the late 1990s.
Late 1990’s to 2005	N/A	The Palangana Project Area returned to surface rights landowners.	N/A	N/A
2005	EEI and Energy Metals/Uranium One	EEI acquires Palangana and joint ventured with Energy Metals by forming the STMV. In 2008, Energy Metals was acquired by Uranium One.	Approximately 236 exploration and confirmation holes.	Blackstone (2005) estimated 5.7 million lbs of inferred resources in the area referred to as the Dome trend proximal to the dome on the west side, north of the prior UCC leach field. In 2006 and 2007, Energy Metals drilled approximately 200 additional confirmation and delineation holes. The PA-1 and PA-2 areas were delineated during this drilling program. During 2008 and 2009, the remainder of the holes were drilled by Uranium One. During this time, five exploration trends on the east side of the dome were identified and partially delineated.
2009	UEC	Palangana Project Area acquired by UEC from Uranium One.	N/A	UEC acquires Palangana. SRK was retained by UEC in 2010 to provide an independent resource and reserve evaluation on PA-1 and PA-2 and adjacent exploration areas. SRK concluded the sandstone, roll-front deposits on the east side of the Palangana Dome contain significant resources of eU₃O₈. Specifically, PA-1 and PA-2 bodies are adequately delineated for the calculation of Measured and Indicated Resources. SRK developed resource estimates within distinct sand and roll-front zones utilizing detailed computer block modeling of grade and GT modeling. The results of the resource estimation are complex and presented in more detail in this report. In 2010, UEC resumed production at Palangana. Approximately 563,600 pounds were produced from 2010 to 2016 in PA-1, PA-2 and PA-3.

Geologic Setting, Mineralization, and Deposit

The Palangana Project Area is located in the STUP, which lies along the GMB.

The local geology at the Palangana Project Area is characterized by the occurrence of a Gulf Coast piercement salt dome. This dome is approximately two miles in diameter and is overlain by Pliocene sediments of the Goliad Formation. The Palangana Project Area dome is marked at the surface by a shallow circular basin surrounded by low hills rising above the basin floor. The Palangana Project Area dome has an almost perfectly circular salt core with a remarkably flat top that is approximately 10,000 feet across and occurs from 800 to 850 feet below ground surface (“bgs”). Radial faulting is present in all Goliad Formation sands on the flanks of the dome due to uplift during the intrusion of the dome. Faults and fractures also exist in a random nature in the sands above the caprock due to dissolution of the salt dome from groundwater. Once the salt was solubilized and removed, the overlying sediment collapsed, creating the basin and associated faults.

Uranium mineralization at the Palangana Project Area is typical of Texas roll-front sandstone deposits. Uranium mineralization occurs along oxidation/reduction interfaces in fluvial channel sands of the Goliad Formation. These deposits consist of multiple mineralized sand horizons, which are separated vertically by confining beds of silt, mudstone, and clay.

The Goliad Formation at the Palangana Project Area is composed of fine- to medium-grained, often silty, channel sands interbedded with lenses of mudstone and siltstone. For the most part, the sand is very sparsely cemented although it varies from friable to indurated. There is known to be minor faulting on the north end of the PA-1 deposit. The Palangana Project Area stratigraphy is horizontal to sub-horizontal, with a 2-to-3-degree southeasterly dip at most.

- 63 -

Table 2.33 – Mineral Resources for the Palangana Project as at the date of this Annual Report

Classification	Tons Ore (000’s)	Tonnes Ore (1000’s)	Average Grade (% eU₃O₈)	Pounds eU₃O₈ (000’s)
Measured	-	-	-	-
Indicated	232	210	0.134	643.1
Total M&I	232	210	0.134	643.1
Inferred – PA-1 and PA-2	96	87	0.100	192.5
Inferred – Dome, NE Garcia, SW Garcia, CC Brine, Jemison Fence, Jemison East	206	187	0.110 – 0.300	808.8
Total Resources	534	484	0.154	1,644.4

Notes:

	1.	Pounds reported with Disequilibrium Factor (DEF) applied.
	2.	A range of grades is presented for the Palangana inferred mineral because the resource estimation methods differed between PA-1/PA-2 and the rest of the trends. There was no cutoff for PA-1 and PA-2 block models. See Section 11.1 of the Texas Hub and Spoke TRS for a more detailed explanation.
	3.	The sum of resource tons and lbs may not add up to the reported total due to rounding.
	4.	Measured, indicated, and inferred mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300.
	5.	Delineation drilling conducted at Palangana after 2010 was not incorporated into the resource estimate as in the experience of the QP, this type of drilling does not generally substantially change the resource estimates.
	6.	All reported resources occur below the static water table.
	7.	The point of reference for mineral resources is in-situ at the Project.
	8.	Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
	9.	A long-term uranium price of $40/lb U₃O₈ and an 80% metallurgical recovery factor were considered for the purposes of determining the reasonable prospect of economic extraction.

- 64 -

Burke Hollow ISR Project

The independent TRS for the Burke Hollow Project area (the “Burke Hollow Project Area”) has been prepared for UEC, under the supervision of WWC (the “QP” herein), pursuant to S-K 1300. This TRS identifies and summarizes the scientific and technical information and conclusions reached from the IA to support disclosure of mineral resources on the Burke Hollow Project Area. There are no reserves associated with the Burke Hollow Project Area.

Figure 2.17 – Location of the Burke Hollow Project

Property Description

UEC’s Burke Hollow Project property is located within the extensive STUP. The Burke Hollow Project is about 18 miles southeast of the town of Beeville and is located on the western side of US 77 and northeasterly of US 181, which links with US 59 in Beeville. The approximate center of the Burke Hollow Project lease is located at latitude 28.2638 and longitude -97.5176, in decimal degrees. Site drilling roads are entirely composed of caliche and gravel, allowing access for trucks and cars in most weather conditions. Four-wheel drive vehicles may be needed during high rainfall periods.

The Burke Hollow Project consists of one fee (private) mineral leases comprised of 17,511 acres. This lease area would allow for the mining of uranium by ISR methods while utilizing the land surface (with variable conditions) as needed, for mining wells and above ground surface facilities for fluid processing and uranium production during the mining and groundwater restoration phases of the Burke Hollow Project. All payments for the private lease are up to date. No mineral resources are reported in areas outside of the Burke Hollow Project boundary.

The present condition of the property is considered advanced with monitor well installation completed in the first production area. A caliche pad site with offices and storage containers in addition to some all-weather roads are constructed, and plans are in place for power and other infrastructure needs.

- 65 -

No significant encumbrances exist on the property. The Company intends to complete the permitting of the production area authorization (PAA) and other necessary approvals in the coming years. To date, there have been no violations or fines levied on the property. A surety estimate for Burke Hollow’s project restoration, reclamation and decommissioning costs have been prepared and approved by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). A surety bond for the current restoration, reclamation and decommissioning requirements will be in place at least 60 days prior to production.

History

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

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

The earliest known uranium exploration in the immediate area of the Burke Hollow Project Area was performed by Nufuels Corporation (“Nufuels”, a Mobil Corporation subsidiary) in 1982. Nufuels drilled a total of 18 exploration holes on or nearby UEC’s 1,825 acre Welder lease. These holes were drilled in conjunction with a larger regional program that was conducted by Nufuels. Each exploration hole was drilled to an average total depth of approximately 1,100 ft in order to test the entire prospective Goliad Formation. UEC acquired copies of the Nufuels logs through its purchase of TOMIN’s database.

Following Nufuels, in 1993, TOMIN conducted a short reconnaissance exploration drilling program on the Thomson-Barrow lease. TOMIN drilled a total of 12 holes on permitted acreage that they negotiated for exploration. 11 of the 12 drill holes intersected anomalous gamma ray log signatures indicative of uranium mineralization.

The historic data package obtained by UEC for portions of the current Burke Hollow Project Area provided the above-described information. Based on the limited number of drill holes, no meaningful resource or reserve determination was made by TOMIN or Nufuels. However, the actual drilling and geophysical logging results have been determined to be properly conducted according to current industry standards.

- 66 -

Table 2.34: Historic Ownership and Operations at the Burke Hollow Project Area

Year	Company	Operations/Activity	Amount (No. of Drill holes)	Results of Work
1982	Nufuels	Original controller of the Burke Hollow Project Area.	18 exploration holes on or nearby the Welder Lease	Nufuels drilled 18 exploration holes on or nearby UEC’s 1,825-acre Welder lease in conjunction with a larger regional program, which was conducted by Nufuels. Exploration holes were drilled to approximately 1,100 ft bgs and tested the entire prospective Goliad Formation. Results showed the presence of a reduction-oxidation interface in sands of the lower Goliad Formation, but there was insufficient data to link economically viable uranium mineralization.
1993	TOMIN	Exploration program.	12 exploration holes on or near the Thomson-Barrow Lease.	TOMIN conducted a short reconnaissance exploration drilling program on the Thomson-Barrow lease. TOMIN drilled a total of 12 holes on permitted acreage that they negotiated for exploration. 11 of the 12 drill holes intersected anomalous gamma ray log signatures indicative of uranium mineralization, but there was insufficient data to link economically viable uranium mineralization.
2011	UEC	The Burke Hollow Project Area was acquired by UEC from TOMIN.	From 2012-2017, 707 uranium exploration drill holes, including 30 monitor wells completed at the Welder lease (Kurrus et al. 2014).	The historic data package was obtained and reviewed by UEC for portions of the current Burke Hollow Project Area (Kurrus and Yancy, 2017). Based on the limited number of drill holes, no meaningful resource or reserve determination was made using the historic exploration data. However, the actual drilling and geophysical logging results were determined to be properly conducted, per industry standards. UEC completed two drilling campaigns to delineate the opened ended Lower B1 and B2 trends (Carothers et al., 2013). The results of historic and contemporary borehole gamma-ray, SP and resistance logs, as well as PFN logs indicate that uranium mineralization occurs in the upper to lower Goliad Formation sand/sandstone units below the water table at depths from approximately 180 to 1,100 ft bgs. Evidence indicate ISR would likely be the most suitable mining method for this project. In 2017, UEC estimated an Inferred Mineral Resource of 4,064,575 tons grading 0.088% pU₃O₈ (PFN determination) containing approximately 7.09 million pounds U₃O₈ in the combined Graben and Eastern Lower B trends.
2019	UEC	Exploration program.	In 2019, 129 delineation holes were drilled. From 2021-2022, 168 delineation and exploration holes were drilled.	In 2019, UEC completed 129 drill holes, mostly focusing on delineating the Lower B1 and Lower B2 sands in the proposed PA-1. In addition, UEC began installing perimeter monitor wells in proposed PA-1. In total, 57 holes were drilled solely for delineation and exploration purposes and 72 holes were drilled for monitoring purposes. From 2021 to 2022, UEC conducted another drilling program to upgrade a portion of their resources from inferred to measured and indicated, to better define the ore body in proposed PA-1 and to install monitor wells. 168 delineation and exploration holes were drilled as of March 7, 2022. 24 of these holes were also used as monitor wells. This drilling program is ongoing for the purpose of completing more monitor wells. The first production area authorization application has been submitted and 533 exploration and delineation holes have been drilled within PA-2 area as of July 31, 2023.

- 67 -

Geologic Setting, Mineralization and Deposit

The Burke Hollow Project Area is located in the STUP, which lies along the GMB.

Uranium mineralization at the Burke Hollow Project Area is typical of Texas roll-front sandstone deposits. All mineralization at the Burke Hollow Project Area occurs in the Goliad Formation. Uranium mineralization occurs along oxidation/reduction interfaces in fluvial channel sands of the Goliad Formation. These deposits consist of multiple mineralized sand horizons which are separated vertically by confining beds of silt, mudstone, and clay.

The uranium-bearing sands of the Goliad Formation at the Burke Hollow Project Area occur beneath a thin layer of Pleistocene-aged Lissie Formation gravels, sands, silts, and clays, which overlie much of the Burke Hollow Project Area. The Goliad Formation uncomfortably underlies the Lissie Formation. Uranium mineralization discovered to date occurs within three of the four sand members of the Goliad, designated as the uppermost Goliad A, Goliad B and the lowermost Goliad D.

The Goliad sand is one of the principal water-bearing formations in South Texas and is capable of yielding moderate to large quantities of water. All of the project areas included in this Burke Hollow Project Area target the Goliad Formation, which is a proven aquifer with characteristics favorable to ISR.

There are two northeast-southwest trending faults at the Burke Hollow Project Area that are likely related to the formation of uranium mineralization. The northwesterly fault is a typical Gulf Coast normal fault, downthrown toward the coast, while the southeastern fault is an antithetic fault downthrown to the northwest, forming a large graben structure. The presence of these faults is likely related to the increased mineralization at the site. The faulting may have served as conduits for reducing waters and natural gas to migrate upward from deeper horizons, as well as altering the groundwater flow system in the uranium-bearing sands.

Table 2.35 – Mineral Resources for the Burke Hollow Project as at the date of this Annual Report

Classification	Tons Ore (000’s)	Tonnes Ore (1000’s)	Average Grade (% eU₃O₈)	Pounds eU₃O₈ (000’s)
Measured	70	64	0.082	114.7
Indicated	1,337	1,213	0.087	2,209.0
Total M&I	1,407	1,277	0.083	2,323.7
Inferred	2,494	2,263	0.095	4,859.0
Total Resources	3,901	3,540	0.092	7,182.7

Notes:

	1.	Pounds reported with Disequilibrium Factor (DEF) applied.
	2.	The sum of resource tons and lbs. may not add up to the reported total due to rounding.
	3.	Measured, indicated, and inferred mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300.
	4.	GT Cutoff = 0.30 ft% eU₃O_8.
	5.	All reported resources occur below the static water table.
	6.	The point of reference for mineral resources is in-situ at the Project.
	7.	Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
	8.	A long-term uranium price of $40/lb U₃O₈ and an 80% metallurgical recovery factor were considered for the purposes of determining the reasonable prospect of economic extraction.

- 68 -

Goliad Project

The independent TRS for the Goliad Project area (the “Goliad Project Area”) has been prepared for UEC, under the supervision of WWC (the “QP” herein), pursuant to S-K 1300. This TRS identifies and summarizes the scientific and technical information and conclusions reached from the IA to support disclosure of mineral resources on the Goliad Project Area. There are no reserves associated with the Goliad Project Area.

Figure 2.18 – Location of the Goliad Project

Property Description

The Goliad Project Area is located in South Texas near the northeast end of the STUP. The Goliad Project Area consists of multiple contiguous leases that would allow the mining of uranium by ISR methods. The Goliad Project Area is about 14 miles north of the town of Goliad and is located on the east side of US Highway 77A/183, a primary highway that intersects with US Highway 59 in Goliad and I-10 to the north. Site drilling roads are mostly gravel based and allow access for trucks and cars in most weather conditions. Four-wheel drive vehicles may be needed during high rainfall periods.

There are seven fee (private) mineral leases comprised of 636 acres on the Goliad Project Area. Payments for the private leases are up to date. UEC obtained mining leases by assignment from a private entity (Brad A. Moore) in 2006. No resources are reported in areas outside of the Goliad Project Area boundary. UEC has completed all the required permitting in order to mine at the Goliad Project Area.

While the projects current designation under S-K 1300 is Exploration Stage due to lack of reserves, the current condition of the property is moderately advanced. The project lacks only the production area authorization in terms of regulatory authorizations and is otherwise fully permitted with the radioactive materials license in timely renewal. The Company plans to continue to keep the property in a care and maintenance status.

No significant encumbrances are on the property. The Company intends to continue permit renewals and there have been no violations or fines levied on the property. A surety estimate for the Goliad Project’s restoration, reclamation and decommissioning has been prepared and approved by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). A surety bond for the current restoration, reclamation and decommissioning requirements will be in place at least 60 days prior to production.

- 69 -

History

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

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

Table 2.36: Historic Ownership and Operations at the Goliad Project Area

Year	Company	Operations/Activity	Amount (No. of Drill holes)	Results of Work
1979	Coastal Uranium, Inc. (Coastal Uranium)	Exploration program.	12 exploration holes.	Coastal Uranium drilled widely spaced exploration holes in the region as part of the Coastal States wide-spaced drilling exploration effort. Eight of these holes were drilled at or near the Goliad Project Area. Additional information on the exploration is described below.
1980	Moore Energy Corporation	Review of data and leases from Coastal Uranium and exploration program.	479 exploration and delineation holes.	Moore Energy Corporation reviewed the Coastal States exploration data and soon after acquired several leases from Coastal Uranium, including several in the Goliad Project Area. From March 1983 through August 1984, Moore Energy Corporation conducted an exploration program at Goliad. All of the boreholes were drilled using truck-mounted drilling rigs contracted with various drilling companies. Samples were taken by the driller for review and logged by a geologist. The holes were logged for gamma ray, self-potential and resistance by contract logging companies. No down-hole deviation tool was available. Historical resource estimates were prepared by Moore Energy Corporation from data gathered in 1983-1985. For each drill hole, a Grade x Thickness (GT) was determined, and the mineral was outlined with a 0.3 GT contour. The average GT of the holes within the contoured outline was used to estimate the resources meeting the specified criteria. Moore Energy Corporation’s historical resource estimated approximately 3,366,000 tons at an average grade of 0.05% (eU₃O₈ and an average DEF of 1.494 (Moore, 1986). This equates to approximately 5.2 million lbs of uranium.
2006	UEC	Exploration program.	360 exploration and delineation holes.	UEC obtained mine leases by assignment from Brad A. Moore for the current Goliad Project Area in 2006. UEC drilled 360 more holes at the property from May 2006 through June 2007. These holes include closer-spaced delineation work on the areas drilled by Moore Energy Corporation. Additionally, several of the UEC holes were drilled to further exploration on contiguous leases to the east of the property. A 2007/2008 report by Thomas Carothers, PG estimated historical mineral resources based on the UEC 2006-2007 confirmation drilling results and the Moore Energy Corporation historical estimate. The author concluded that significant uranium resources from the work in 1983-85 described by Moore Energy Corporation appears to be backed and supported by the more recent UEC exploration data.
2014	UEC	Exploration and water well program.	33 exploration holes and two water wells drilled.	In 2014, UEC conducted a drilling program at the Goliad Project Area for exploration and water wells. 35 holes were drilled and logged for exploration and water supply purposes with a majority of the holes being drilled in PA-1 and PA-2.

- 70 -

Geologic Setting, Mineralization, and Deposit

The Goliad Project Area is located in the STUP, which lies along the GMB.

Uranium mineralization at the Goliad Project Area is typical of Texas roll-front sandstone deposits. All mineralization at the Goliad Project Area occurs in the Goliad Formation. The Goliad Formation occurs at surface on the Goliad Project Area. The mineralized units are sandstones within the Goliad Formation and are designated by UEC as the A through D sands from younger (upper) to older (lower), respectively. The sand units are generally fine to medium-grained sands with silt and varying amounts of secondary calcite. The sand units vary in color depending upon the degree of oxidation-reduction and could be from light brown-tan to gray. The sand units are generally separated from each other by silty clay or clayey silts that serve as confining units between the sand units.

The four sandstone units (A-D) designated as containing uranium mineralization at the site are all considered to be a part of the Gulf Coast Aquifer on a regional basis. At the Goliad Project Area, each unit is a hydrogeologic unit with similar but variable characteristics. Groundwater from sands of the Goliad Formation is used for water supplies over much of the northern portion of Goliad County.

The Goliad structures include two faults that intersect and offset the mineralized units. These faults are normal faults, with one downthrown toward the coast and one downthrown toward the northwest. The fault throws range from about 40 to 80 feet.

The Goliad sand is one of the principal water-bearing formations in South Texas and can yield moderate to large quantities of water. All of the project areas included in this Goliad Project Area target the Goliad Formation, which is a proven aquifer with characteristics favorable to ISR.

Table 2.37 – Mineral Resources for the Goliad Project as at the date of this Annual Report

Classification	Tons Ore (000’s)	Tonnes Ore (1000’s)	Average Grade (% eU₃O₈)	Pounds eU₃O₈ (000’s)
Measured	1,595	1,447	0.053	2,667.9
Indicated	1,504	1,364	0.102	3,492.0
Total M&I	3,099	2,811	0.085	6,159.9
Inferred	333	302	0.195	1,224.8
Total Resources	3,432	3,113	0.079	7,384.7

Notes:

	1.	Pounds reported with Disequilibrium Factor (DEF) applied.
	2.	The sum of resource tons and lbs. may not add up to the reported total due to rounding.
	3.	Measured, indicated, and inferred mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300.
	4.	GT Cutoff = 0.20 ft% eU₃O_8.
	5.	All reported resources occur below the static water table.
	6.	The point of reference for mineral resources is in-situ at the Project.
	7.	Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
	8.	A long-term uranium price of $40/lb U₃O₈ and an 80% metallurgical recovery factor were considered for the purposes of determining the reasonable prospect of economic extraction.

- 71 -

Salvo ISR Project

An independent TRS for the Salvo Project area (the “Salvo Project Area”) has been prepared for UEC, under the supervision of WWC (as “QP” herein), pursuant to S-K 1300. This TRS identifies and summarizes the scientific and technical information and conclusions reached from the IA to support disclosure of mineral resources on the Salvo Project Area. There are no mineral reserves associated with this Salvo Project Area.

Surety estimates for restoration, reclamation or decommissioning will be calculated when the project is permitted.

Figure 2.19 – Location of the Salvo Project

Property Description

The Salvo Project Area is located in South Texas near the northeast end of the STUP. The Salvo Project Area consists of two leases that would allow the mining of uranium by ISR methods. The Salvo Project Area is about 10 miles south of the city of Beeville and approximately five miles west of US Highway 181, a primary highway that intersects with US Highway 59 in Beeville and I-10 to the north. Site drilling roads are mostly caliche-gravel based and allow access for trucks and cars in most weather conditions. Four-wheel drive vehicles may be needed during high rainfall periods. The Salvo Project Area does not have mineral reserves and is therefore considered an Exploration Stage property under S-K 1300 definitions. The Company has maintained the leases though has no near-term work plans for the property.

The Salvo Project Area is also located in an area of Texas that has extensive farming activity. Most of the property is used for farming and has a high level of crop cultivation. There are two mineral leases comprised of 800 acres at the Salvo Project Area. All payments for the private lease are up to date.

- 72 -

No historic uranium mining is known to have occurred on any of the Salvo Project Area leases and only state permitted (RCC) uranium exploration drilling has taken place. Prior to any mining activity at Salvo, UEC will need to acquire all the necessary permits from the RCC, TCEQ and EPA.

No significant encumbrances are on the property. All necessary permits will be required though the Company does not intend to initiate those efforts in the near term. No violations or fines have been levied on the Property.

History

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 table below summarizes the historic ownership and operations at the Salvo Project Area.

Table 2.38: Historic Ownership and Operations at the Salvo Project Area

Year	Company	Operations/Activity	Amount (No. of Drill holes)	Results of Work
Unknown to 1983	Nufuels	Original controller of the Salvo Project Area.	111 exploration holes.	Nufuels discovered uranium mineralization in La Para sands of the Miocene-aged Goliad Formation in 1982 in Bee County, Texas. Mobil’s reconnaissance drilling located two areas of interest, known as the Salvo and Segar projects. Mobil had drilled a total of 111 exploration holes at Salvo and Seger in 1982. Shortly after conducting their exploration drilling in this area, Mobil elected to discontinue their uranium exploration efforts and sell their uranium production facilities. The early Salvo exploration drilling conducted by Nufuels indicated significant uranium mineralization was present.
1983	URI joint venture with Saaberg Interplan Uran Gmbh (“SIPU”) (“URI/SIPU”)	URI formed a joint venture exploration program with SIPU, a German utility. URI/SIPU acquired Salvo from Mobil, along with the Seger Project, an eastward extension along the same geochemical roll-front system. URI/SIPU leased the property until about 1993 when secondary lease expired.	295 exploration and delineation holes in 1984. 19 exploration holes at the nearby Seger Project.	URI/SIPU calculated a resource of approximately 1.5 million pounds U₃O₈ at Salvo using a 0.5 GT cutoff in 1984. Average GT was modeled at 0.989, with a ratio of 0.194, width of 45 ft, length of 140 ft, and tonnage factor of 1.236 lbs/ft². Due to low uranium prices, URI/SIPU elected not to permit the project at that time (R.B. Smith, unpublished report, 2005). URI utilized a Monte Carlo-based computer simulation to calculate the historic resource (URI, 1984).
2005	R.B. Smith & Associates Inc. (“R.B. Smith”)	Review of past exploration data.	N/A	R.B. Smith (2005) completed an evaluation of the Goliad Formation trend project data at the Salvo and Seger projects. Data were on loan from URI/SIPU. Smith did not retain copies of maps or electric logs, and the original data set of logs and maps was returned to URI. URI held the data in storage until 2010.
2010	UEC	The Salvo Project Area was acquired by UEC from URI/SIPU. UEC negotiated a purchase of available data from URI. URI and UEC reached agreement on sales of Salvo and Seger project data in 2010. The adjacent Seger property is no longer included in UEC’s Salvo leases.	N/A	Ownership transition. UEC received 425 exploration log files, and several drill hole location maps and land maps. The 425 log files include good quality electric logs from Mobil’s activities at Seger and Salvo in 1982, as well as URI/SIPU’s drill hole logs from exploration activities in 1984. Each log file also contains a detailed lithological report based on drill hole cuttings prepared by Mobil’s and later by URI’s field geologists supervising and monitoring drilling activity. Four core holes were drilled by URI, and core analysis reports were included in the appropriate log files. Eight holes were logged by Princeton Gamma-Tech (PGT, and early form of PFN), a logging company which specialized in uranium chemical assay logging. The PGT logs were utilized and verified as having excellent correlation to actual chemical uranium content by several south Texas ISR mining operations. These results are believed to be pertinent to the understanding of this deposit and indicated a generally positive DEF like other known Goliad Formation sandstones in the region. The historic mineralized intercepts from URI exploration boreholes were presented in the initial NI 43-101 UEC Salvo Project TRS dated July 16, 2010. The estimated historic uranium resource (URI 1984 classification only) of approximately 1.5 million pounds eU₃O₈ was determined but was not verified independently. However, it was presented in the initial 43-101 TRS.

- 73 -

Geologic Setting, Mineralization and Deposit

The Salvo Project Area is located in the STUP, which lies along the GMB.

All mineralization at the Salvo 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 Salvo Project Area is situated in the major northeast-southwest trending Goliad Formation of fluvial origin. The Geologic Map of Texas indicates that a thin layer of Pleistocene-aged Lissie Formation uncomfortably overlies the Miocene Goliad Formation. The Lissie Formation consists of unconsolidated deposits of sand, silt and clay, with minor amounts of gravel.

The uranium-bearing Goliad Formation underlies the Lissie Formation and is present at depths ranging from near-surface to approximately 600 feet in depth on the eastern side of the Salvo Project Area. Uranium Resources Inc. (“URI”) determined that uranium mineralization occurs within six individual sand units in the lower Goliad La Para member at depths generally ranging from 400 to 600 feet.

The entire La Para member can be considered to be a single thick uranium roll-front migration system, which is separated into six definable units designated as the L, M, N, O, P and Q, with the Q member located at the base. Each unit is separated from the other by continuous beds of clay or silts, which serve as confining units between the sand beds.

The Salvo Project Area uranium deposit is similar in many geologic characteristics to other known Goliad sand/sandstone deposits in south Texas. The mineralization occurs within fluvial sands and silts as roll-front deposits that are typically a “C” or cutoff “C” shape. The roll-fronts are generally associated with an extended oxidation–reduction boundary or front.

At the Salvo Project Area there are at least five stacked mineralized sand horizons that are separated vertically by zones of finer sand, silt and clay. Deposition and concentration of uranium in the Goliad Formation likely resulted due to a combination of leaching of uranium from volcanic tuff or ash deposits within the Goliad or erosion of uranium-bearing materials from older Oakville and Catahoula deposits. The natural leaching process occurred near the outcrop area where recharge of oxidizing groundwater increased the solubility of uranium minerals in the interstices and coating sand grains in the sediments. Subsequent downgradient migration of the soluble uranium within the oxygenated groundwater continued until the geochemical conditions became reducing and uranium minerals were deposited in roll-front or tabular bodies due to varying stratigraphic or structural conditions.

There are at least two northeast-southwest trending faults located near the Salvo Project Area that are likely related to the formation of the Salvo Project mineralization. These exist at a depth of approximately 3,000 feet bgs based on petroleum industry maps and are not believed to extend into the Goliad Formation. The northwesterly fault is a typical Gulf Coast normal fault, downthrown toward the coast, while the southeastern fault is an antithetical fault downthrown to the northwest, forming a graben structure. The presence of these faults is likely related to the increased mineralization at the site. The faulting has probably served as a conduit for reducing waters and/or gases to migrate from deeper horizons as well as altering the groundwater flow system in the uranium-bearing sands. The Geologic Atlas of Texas, Beeville-Bay City Sheet does not show any faulting at the surface in the Salvo Project Area.

- 74 -

Table 2.39 – Mineral Resources for the Salvo Project as at the date of this Annual Report

Classification	Tons Ore (000’s)	Tonnes Ore (1000’s)	Average Grade (% eU₃O₈)	Pounds eU₃O₈ (000’s)
Measured	-	-	-	-
Indicated	-	-	-	-
Total M&I	-	-	-	-
Inferred	1,125	1,020	0.091	2,839.0
Total Resources	1,125	1,020	0.091	2,839.0

Notes:

	1.	Pounds reported with Disequilibrium Factor (DEF) applied.
	2.	The sum of resource tons and lbs. may not add up to the reported total due to rounding.
	3.	Measured, indicated, and inferred mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300.
	4.	GT Cutoff = 0.30 ft% eU₃O_8.
	5.	All reported resources occur below the static water table.
	6.	The point of reference for mineral resources is in-situ at the Project.
	7.	Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.
	8.	A long-term uranium price of $40/lb U₃O₈ and an 80% metallurgical recovery factor were considered for the purposes of determining the reasonable prospect of economic extraction.

- 75 -

Arizona Properties

Arizona Conventional Uranium Activities

Uranium mining and processing work has occurred in Arizona over several historical periods, primarily from small tonnage production underground mines. Initial historical mining in the 1950’s and early 1960’s was primarily out of the Four Corners area of Southwestern Arizona in the Salt Wash member of the Morrison Formation. Mining was typically completed using underground access and targeted both uranium and vanadium. A second important deposit type was the breccia pipes of the Colorado Plateau area. A compilation produced by the U.S. Department of Energy in 1980 estimated that over 18 Mlb. of uranium oxide was produced out of Arizona between 1948 and 1970. (Scarborough, R.B., 1981)

UEC’s projects in Arizona include the material Anderson Project and the non-material Workman Creek Project. The uranium mineralization at both projects is hosted in flat lying sedimentary rocks. Uranium mineralization at the Anderson Project occurs in the Date Creek Basin. The uranium mineralization at Workman Creek occurs in the Sierra Ancha mountain range and hosted in flat-lying quartzite of the Dripping Spring Quartzite. While UEC’s conventional projects in Arizona remain at an Exploration Stage, with sufficient price support they would become economic and would be recovered through open pit and/or underground mining methods, benefitting from the proximity to existing power and road infrastructure, and available labor from the nearby city of Phoenix.

In the Workman Creek area up to 13 mines were in operation within the Sierra Ancha region. Between 1953 and 1960, over 21,000 tons of ore was produced with an average grade of 0.24% U₃O₈. In 1954, the United States Atomic Energy Commission (“AEC”) conducted a low-level airborne radiometric survey of the Sierra Ancha region. A large prospecting and developing rush followed the release of the results of the airborne survey. By 1957 more than 100 uranium showings were discovered within the Dripping Spring quartzite; of these about 30 had been explored by workings or drillholes. By 1960, all of the small mining operations in the Sierra Ancha region ceased production.

Uranium mining in the Anderson area began in January 1955, when anomalous radioactivity was detected in the vicinity of the Project using an airborne scintillometer. After a ground check revealed uranium oxide in outcrop, numerous claims were staked. The “Anderson Mine,” as the operation was known at the time, was drilled and mined by Mr. Anderson. Between 1955 and 1959 mining activity resulted in 10,758 tons that averaged 0.15% U₃O₈, and 33,230 pounds U₃O₈ were shipped to Tuba City, Arizona for custom milling. In 1959, production stopped when the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) ended the purchasing program.

Permitting Requirements in Arizona

Exploration drilling and associated activities require an exploration permit and a reclamation bond must be posted. Exploration and mining activities on Arizona state land are administrated by the Arizona State Land Office. In order to conduct additional work for BLM administered ground, UEC needs to submit a plan of operations, a minimal impact exploration permit and a special use permit.

The permitting and licensing requirements in Arizona are similar to other states in the US.

●

all exploration and mining activities must comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); and

●

required environmental permits and licenses would include but may not be limited to:

●

Mine Land Reclamation Plan; Arizona State Mine Inspector;

●

Exploration Permit; Arizona State Land Department;

●

Plan of Operations; Bureau of Land Management;

●

Source Material License; U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission;

●

Water Wells and Appropriations; Arizona Department of Water Resources;

●

Dams and Impoundments; Arizona Department of Water Resources;

●

Air Quality Control Permit; Arizona Department of Environmental Quality;

●

Water and Stormwater Discharge Permits; Arizona Department of Environmental Quality;

●

Hazardous Waste; Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and EPA;

●

Solid Waste; Arizona Department of Environmental Quality;

●

Mine Safety and Health; Arizona State Mine Inspector and MSHA; and

●

County Zoning and Construction Permits.

- 76 -

Geology and Mineralization in Arizona

Geology of the Date Creek Basin

The Date Creek Basin is one of hundreds of Paleogene basins throughout western Arizona, southeastern California, Nevada and western Utah. Paleogene lacustrine and fluvial sediments and Quaternary gravels have filled these basins to depths of several thousand meters.

The basin is surrounded by dissected mountain ranges containing Precambrian metamorphic rocks and granites. Surrounding mountain ranges include the Black Mountains, to the north and northeast, and the Rawhide, Buckskin and McCracken Mountains, to the west. To the south and southeast the basin is bordered by a low drainage divide imposed by the Harcuvar and the Black Mountains. The margins of the basin are filled with early Paleogene volcanic flows and volcaniclastic sediments. The basin itself is filled with Oligocene to Miocene lacustrine and deltaic sediments covered by a thick mantle of Quaternary valley fill.

The Date Creek Basin was an area of active volcanism during Paleogene time. A thick series of volcanic flows and associated sediments of volcanic ash and clastics were deposited on the pre-existing surface. During a quiescent period, the Date Creek Basin was covered by a shallow lake or swamp in which a thick sequence of fine-grained sediments was deposited. Interbedded coarse sediments, volcanic basalt flows and conglomerates overlay the lake-bed sediments. This sequence of stratified volcanic and sedimentary rocks is 3,000 to 5,000 feet thick in the central portion of the Date Creek Basin.

The regional stratigraphic sequence was summarized, from oldest to youngest by MinEx, as follows:

●

Precambrian or Jurassic granitic basement complex;

●

Lacustrine clastic and volcanic members of the Palaeocene-Eocene Artillery Peak Formation;

●

Arrastra Volcanic Complex, including dacitic intrusions, andesitic flows and volcaniclastic members of Paleogene age;

●

Chapin Wash Formation, Anderson Mine lacustrine sediments of Miocene age;

●

Conglomeratic-sandstone unit, possibly equivalent to upper Chapin Wash Formation;

●

Miocene basalt;

●

Pliocene-Pleistocene conglomerate; and

●

Quaternary alluvium.

The Date Creek Basin has been on the margin of several regional deformations. The basin was located on the northwestern margin of Mazatzal Land and the southeastern margin of the Cordilleran Geosyncline and was subsequently deformed by the Laramide Orogeny. The Date Creek Basin is presently located on the margin of the Basin and Range Province and exhibits structural deformation typical of the province. Basin and Range deformation is the dominant expression evident at the Anderson Project Area today. Structural trends of this deformation comprise a dominant northwest-southeast trend of parallel to sub-parallel hinged block faults and a less dominant west-northwest, east-southeast fault system. Many of these faults exhibit recurrent movements.

- 77 -

Our Material Properties in Arizona

Anderson Uranium Project

A TRS was prepared for UEC on the Anderson Project area (the “Anderson Project Area”) located in Arizona. This TRS was prepared for UEC by BRS Inc. Engineering (“BRS”) under the supervision of Douglas Beahm, PE, PG, and co-authored by Clyde Yancey, PG, then Vice President of Exploration, UEC (collectively, the “QP” herein). The Anderson Project Area does not have mineral reserves and is therefore considered an exploration stage property under S-K 1300 definitions.

Property Description

The Anderson Project Area is located in Yavapai County, west-central Arizona, approximately 75 miles northwest of Phoenix and 43 miles northwest of Wickenburg (latitude 34°18'29" N and longitude 113°16'32" W, datum WGS84). The general area is situated along the northeast margin of the Date Creek Basin. The Anderson Project Area is located on the south side of the Santa Maria River, approximately 13 miles west of State Highway 93 (refer to Project Location Map). The Anderson Project Area occupies part or all of Sections 1 and 3, 9 through 16, 21 through 27, and 34 of Township 11 North, Range 10 West and portions of Sections 18, 19, and 30 of Township 11 North, Range 9 West of the Gila and Salt River Base Meridian.

Figure 2.20 – Location of the Anderson Project

The Anderson Project Area covers 8,268 acres (12.9 square miles) and is comprised of 386 contiguous, unpatented lode mining and placer claims totaling 7,628 acres and one Arizona State land section totaling 640 acres. It is located in western Yavapai County, approximately 75 miles northwest of Phoenix. The northern section of the Anderson Project Area holds the open-pit resource, and the adjacent southern section holds the underground resource.

The Anderson Project Area is located along the northeast margin of the Date Creek Basin of the Basin and Range Province of the western United States. Uranium mineralization at the Anderson Project Area is strata bound and occurs exclusively in the sequence of Miocene-age lacustrine lakebed sediments. The lacustrine sediments unconformably overlie the andesitic volcanic unit over most of the Anderson Project Area.

To maintain the mineral tenor, UEC must pay annual claim maintenance fees of $165 per claim, due on September 1 of each year. In addition, Arizona State mineral leases are held with an exploration permit. There is a $500 annual fee for the exploration permit, plus $1 per acre rental for the first five years. For the first two years, there is also a minimal exploration expenditure requirement of $10 per acre per year. For years three through five, there is a $20 per acre minimum. There are no royalties on the BLM unpatented mining claims. Arizona State mineral leases are subject to a 5% production royalty. The state of Arizona has an overriding severance tax of 2.5% on 50% of the net proceeds. No other encumbrances are known.

- 78 -

Infrastructure and Local Resources

The Project area is undeveloped and there are no facilities or equipment on site, except for various access and drill roads and various water wells previously constructed. No utilities exist on or immediately adjacent to the Project area. Various water wells exist on and near the Project that can support large-scale mining operations.

The nearest town is Congress (population 1,700) located 32 road miles to the east. The nearest major housing, supply center and rail terminal is in Wickenburg (population 6,363) located approximately 43 miles from the Project by road. Phoenix (population 1.45 million), approximately 100 miles to the southeast by road, is the nearest major industrial and commercial airline terminal. Kingman (population 24,000) is located approximately 110 miles to the northwest by road.

History

In January 1955, T.R. Anderson, of Sacramento, California, detected anomalous radioactivity in the vicinity of the Anderson Project Area using an airborne scintillometer. After a ground check revealed uranium oxide in outcrop, numerous claims were staked. The Anderson Mine, as the operation was known at the time, was drilled and mined by Mr. Anderson. Work between 1955 and 1959 resulted in 10,758 tons that averaged 0.15% U₃O₈ and 33,230 pounds U₃O₈ were shipped to Tuba City, Arizona, for custom milling. In 1959, production stopped when the AEC ended the purchasing program.

During 1967 and 1968, Getty Oil Company (“Getty”) secured an option on claims in the northern portion of the Anderson Project Area. Some drilling and downhole gamma logging was conducted during the option period, but this failed to locate a sizeable uranium deposit. In 1968, Getty dropped their option.

In 1974, the increasing price of uranium created a renewed interest in the vicinity of the Anderson Project Area. Following a field check and an evaluation of the 1968 Getty drill data, MEC optioned the northern portion of the current Anderson Project Area.

In 1975, MinEx purchased the northern portion of the current Anderson Project Area after a 53-hole, 5,800 meter (19,000 foot) drilling program on 250 meter centers confirmed a much greater uranium resource potential than had been interpreted from the 1968 Getty gamma log data. Further exploration work, consisting of a 180-hole, 22,555 meter (74,000 ft) drill and core program on 120 meter centers, was conducted from November 1975 through February 1976 to further delineate the uranium resources. By 1980, MinEx had completed a total of 1,054 holes by rotary and core drilling.

In 1977, the Palmerita Ranch, located 11 kms west of the deposit along the Santa Maria River, was acquired by MinEx to provide a water source for the operations in the event that closer sources proved inadequate. Based on favorable economics, indicated in a Preliminary Feasibility Study completed by Morrison-Knudsen Company, Inc., in December 1977, a detailed Final Feasibility Study was undertaken early in 1978 to evaluate the MinEx holdings on the northern portion of the current project.

In 1973, Urangesellschaft expressed an interest in the former Anderson Property. Urangesellschaft located a claim block, “Date Creek Project”, on the down-dip extension of the mineralization immediately to the south of MinEx’s claims. In 1973 to 1982, subsequent drilling programs delineated mineralization from a total of 352 drill holes with 122,744 meters (402,773 feet) of rotary and core drilling.

Depressed uranium prices stalled exploration activities until 1995 when an individual, Hanson, consolidated portions of the former MinEx and Urangesellschaft claims under single ownership. Hanson dropped the claims by 1998. In 2001, Concentric Energy Corp. (“Concentric”) restaked the claims and controlled ownership until May, 2011. In 2006, Concentric drilled 24 reverse-circulation holes and one core hole on the MinEx portion of the Anderson Project Area to confirm the reproducibility and authenticity of the historical MinEx exploration database. Concentric had planned a similar confirmation drilling campaign on the former Urangesellschaft portion of the Anderson Project Area for the 2007 field season, but the drill program was never done. UEC has not conducted any drilling activity to date.

Permitting and Licensing

Exploration and mining activities for the mining claims of the Anderson Project Area are administrated by the BLM, Kingman Field Office. Exploration drilling and associated activities require an exploration permit and a reclamation bond must be posted. The Anderson Project Area was drilled as recently as 2006, and it is not expected that any of these requirements will have an effect on the ability to conduct exploration activities. UEC has exploration permits on the two state sections. In order to conduct additional work for BLM administered ground UEC needs to submit a plan of operations, a minimal impact exploration permit and a special use permit.

- 79 -

The authors are not aware of significant environmental liabilities on the property. However, it is important to note that 195 acres in the northern part of the project area were classified as “disturbed” by the Bureau of Land Management. The disturbed area is a result of minor production via dozer cuts from surface mining done in the 1950s. No specific social or community related requirements, negotiations, and/or agreements are known to exist with local communities and/or agencies other than those discussed herein. No outstanding environmental liabilities to UEC are known to the authors.

Arizona mine regulations do not require backfill and regrading to approximate original contours and do allow remnant highwalls so long as stability and protection of human health and the environment are adequately addressed. Heap leach recovery will require the isolation of all mill waste material including contaminated buildings and equipment to be disposed of in a lined disposal cell which is isolated from dispersion through all environmental pathways. The heap pads meet this criterion when covered with a radon cap and erosional protection layer. If properly sited, the heap pads can be reclaimed in place along with any contaminated materials for the plant decommissioning. Reclamation of the heap leach and mineral processing facility will be in accordance with USNRC source materials license conditions for the project.

Geologic Setting, Mineralization and Deposit

The Anderson Project Area is located along the northeast margin of the Date Creek Basin of the Basin and Range Province of the western United States.

Three major faults cross the Anderson Project Area: The East Boundary Fault System; Fault 1878; and the West Boundary Fault System. Faults trend predominantly from N30^oW to N55^oW and dip steeply (approximately 80^o) to the southwest.

Another set of faults trending more westerly (N65^oW) are present in the south-central portion of the Anderson Project Area. A fault set trending northeast-southwest has been speculated by Urangesellschaft and others but has not been observed in the field. Many of the north-westerly surface water drainage tributaries are developed partially along fault traces. Fault displacements range from a few inches to more than 300 feet. Fault movement is generally of normal displacement resulting in stair-stepped fault blocks. Local faults also tend to hinge.

Nine stratigraphic units were identified on the Anderson Project Area. Listed from oldest to youngest, they are as follows:

●

Crystalline Intrusive Rocks: coarse-grained to pegmatitic Precambrian granite;

●

Felsic to Intermediate Volcanic: flows, breccias, tuffs and minor intrusive;

●

Felsic to Intermediate Volcaniclastic: ash flows, tuffaceous beds and arkosic sandstone;

●

Andesitic Volcanic: porphyritic andesitic flows with a paleosurface and locally reddish-brown paleosols;

●

Lacustrine Sedimentary rocks: micaceous siltstones and mudstone, calcareous siltstones and silty limestone, thin beds of carbonaceous siltstone and lignitic material and host of uranium mineralization, averaging about 60 to 100 meters thick;

●

Lower Sandstone Conglomerate: arkosic sandstones and conglomerate, averaging about 60 to 100 meters thick;

●

Basaltic Flows and Dikes: amygdular basalt, averaging about 20 meters thick;

●

Upper Conglomerate: cobble and boulder conglomerate, partly indurate and locally calcite cemented, averaging about zero to 60 meters thick; and

●

Quaternary Alluvium: unconsolidated sand and gravel, caliche formed where calcite cemented.

Uranium mineralization at the Anderson Project Area occurs exclusively in the sequence of Miocene age lacustrine lakebed sediments. The lacustrine sediments unconformably overlie the andesitic volcanic unit over most of the Anderson Project Area. However, to the east of the Anderson Project Area they overlie the felsic to intermediate volcanic unit. The uranium host rock sequence consists predominantly of a green to gray-green tuffaceous mudstone, which is interbedded with calcareous mudstone, carbonaceous mudstone, limestone, marl, lignite, chert and minor sand lenses. This sequence has been called the Anderson Mine Formation by Sherborne and ranges from 100 meters to more than 500 meters in thickness. This section has been tentatively correlated westward with the Chapin Wash Formation and most probably inter-tongues with the Chapin Wash Formation.

Uranium mineralization in outcrops and the pit floor at the old Anderson Mine was reported by the U.S. Bureau of Mines in Salt Lake City as tyuyamunite (Ca(UO₂)²(VO₄)²·5-8H₂O). Carnotite (K(UO₂)²(VO₄)²·3H2O) and a rarer silicate mineral, weeksite (K₂(UO₂)²(Si₂O₅)³·4H₂O), was also reported in outcrop samples. Carnotite mineralization occurs as fine coatings and coarse fibrous fillings along fractures and bedding planes and has been noted in shallow drill holes and surface exposures. The uranium mineralization found at depth on the former Urangesellschaft property was reported by Hazen Research, Inc. (“Hazen Research”) to be poorly crystallized, very fine-grained, amorphous uranium with silica. This could be in the form of either coffinite (U(SiO₄)1-x(OH)4x) or uraninite (UO₂) in a primary or unoxidized state. Mineralogical studies performed by Hazen Research on Urangesellschaft core found that mineralization was associated, for the most part, with organic-rich fractions of the samples. Specifically, the uraniferous material occurs as stringers, irregular masses and disseminations in carbonaceous veinlets with uranium up to 54% as measured by microprobe analysis. X-ray diffraction identified the mineral as coffinite. It is possible that an amorphous, ill-defined uranium silicate with a variable U:Si ratio is precipitated and, under favorable conditions, develops into an identifiable crystalline form (coffinite).

- 80 -

Urangesellschaft distinguished seven mineralized zones, identified as Horizons A, B, C, D, E, F and G, with the youngest (uppermost) being Horizon A and the oldest (deepest) being Horizon G. The majority of uranium occurs in Horizons A, B and C within the property. A conglomeratic sandstone unit interbeds with these units, but does not contain uranium mineralization; it is referred to as the Barren Sandstone Unit and it lies between Horizon C and Horizon D. Consequently, Horizons A through C have been called the Upper Lakebed Sequence and Horizons D through G have been called the Lower Lakebed Sequence.

Grades of mineralization range from 0.025% U₃O₈to normal highs of 0.3 to 0.5% U₃O₈, with intercepts on occasion of 1.0% to 2.0% U₃O₈. Secondary enrichment of syngenetic mineralization is observed along faults and at outcrops.

Mineral Resources

Based on the density of drilling, continuity of geology and mineralization, testing, and data verification the mineral resource estimates meet the criteria for indicated mineral resources as summarized herein.

Estimated indicated mineral resources are summarized in the following table at a 0.02% eU₃O₈ grade cutoff and a 0.1 ft% GT cutoff. Mineral resources were estimated separately for each mineralized zone. The total contained mineralized material was first estimated. Then reasonable prospects for economic extraction were applied resulting in an 18% reduction from the estimate of total mineralized material.

Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability. However, considerations of reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction were applied to the mineral resource calculations herein.

Table 2.40 – Mineral Resources for the Anderson Project as at the date of this Annual Report

Classification	Tons Ore (000’s)	Tonnes Ore (1000’s)	Average Sum Thickness (ft)	Average Grade (% eU₃O₈)	Pounds eU₃O₈ (000’s)
Measured	-	-	-	-	-
Indicated – Zone A	862	782	3.8	0.111	1,907
Indicated – Zone B	7,347	6,665	9.5	0.108	15,816
Indicated – Zone C	6,211	5,634	10.4	0.094	11,730
Indicated – Zone D	760	689	3.2	0.093	1,421
Indicated – Zone E	911	826	7.6	0.060	1,095
Indicated – Zone F	84	76	4.6	0.051	86
Total M&I	16,175	14,673	8.2	0.099	32,055
Inferred	-	-	-	-	-
Total Resources	16,175	14,673	8.2	0.099	32,055

Notes:

	1.	The sum of resource tons and lbs. may not add up to the reported total due to rounding.
	2.	Measured, indicated, and inferred mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300.
	3.	GT Cutoff = 0.1 ft% eU₃O₈ and metallurgical Recovery estimated at 90%.
	4.	Economic factors have been applied to the estimates in consideration of reasonable prospects for economic extraction.
	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 $65/lb U₃O₈ was considered for the purposes of determining the reasonable prospect of economic extraction.

- 81 -

Canadian Uranium Projects

Canadian Conventional Projects

The majority of our Canadian projects are currently considered to be potential conventional open pit or underground uranium projects. These projects are in two different geological terrains, the well-known Athabasca Basin in Saskatchewan, and the Thelon Basin in Nunavut. We do not currently have Canadian projects that we operate at a Development stage, all assets operated by UEC are considered to be Exploration Stage projects under S-K 1300 definitions.

Conventional uranium deposits in the Athabasca and Thelon Basins of Saskatchewan and Nunavut respectively are typically unconformity-associated uranium deposits. Wherein uranium mineralization is focused by structures that have promoted the penetration of uranium bearing fluids into trap locations at or near the unconformity between Archean and early-Paleoproterozoic metamorphosed sedimentary and igneous basement rocks and the overlying unmetamorphosed late-Paleoproterozoic sandstone rocks.

Figure 2.20 – Canadian Uranium Projects

- 82 -

Figure 2.21 – Saskatchewan Uranium Projects

Geology of the Athabasca Basin

The Athabasca Basin is elongated along an east-west axis and straddles the boundary between two subdivisions of the Western Churchill Province. The Rae Subprovince to the west and the Hearne Subprovince to the east. The subprovinces are separated by the northeast trending Snowbird Tectonic Zone, locally known as the Virgin River-Black Lake shear zone in the area of the Athabasca Basin.

The Hearne Craton beneath the eastern Athabasca Basin comprises variably reworked Archean basement, which is dominated by granitic domes and foliated to gneissic granitoid rocks with infolded outliers of Paleoproterozoic metasedimentary rocks. The structural and tectonic regime of the area has been influenced strongly by collisional tectonics between the Hearne and Superior Cratons during the early Proterozoic Trans-Hudson Orogen, which occurred approximately 1.9 billion years ago (“Ga”) to 1.77 Ga. Prior to deposition of the Athabasca Group, rocks of the Rae and Hearne Provinces that would later form the basement of the basin rocks experienced a lengthy period of weathering and non-deposition. Consequently, the basal Athabasca stratigraphy is underlain by a regolith of deeply weathered, hematite-stained basement. In places, the preserved regolith can reach a thickness of up to 50 m, but typically less than 10 m.

Unconformably overlying the basement rocks is the late Mesoproterozoic Athabasca Group consisting mainly of fluvial clastic sedimentary rocks, which are about 1,400 m thick in the central part of the basin (Ramaekers, 2001). The Athabasca Group comprises eight formations, although in the eastern Athabasca Basin, the Manitou Falls Formation is the only formation present. It is subdivided into four units, from bottom to top, designated MFa to MFd. Lithologies are dominated by fine to coarse-grained, partly pebbly or clay-intraclast-bearing quartz arenites. Minor conglomerates, mudstones, and dolostones also occur. Apart from faulting and local folding associated with thrusting, the Athabasca Group strata are undeformed and unmetamorphosed. Age dating of zircons and diagenetic fluorapatite (SGS, 2003) indicate an age of sedimentary deposition around 1.77 Ga, post-dating the Trans-Hudson Orogeny (circa 1.9 Ga to 1.77 Ga).

- 83 -

Our Material Saskatchewan Properties

Roughrider Uranium Project

The independent TRS for the Roughrider Project area (the “Roughrider Project Area”) has been prepared for UEC, under the supervision of SRK Consulting (UK) Limited (the “QP” herein), pursuant to S-K 1300. 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. There are no mineral reserves associated with the Roughrider Project Area. The Roughrider Project does not have mineral reserves and is therefore considered an Exploration Stage property under S-K 1300 definitions.

Figure 2.22 – Location of the Roughrider Project

Property Description

The Roughrider Project Area is located seven kms north, via gravel road, of Points North Landing, a service centre on Provincial Road 905, in the eastern Athabasca basin of northern Saskatchewan, Canada. The Roughrider Project Area is approximately 440 kms north of La Ronge, and 700 kms north of Saskatoon, at the coordinates 556,545E and 6,466,820N UTM. The Roughrider Project Area is an Exploration Stage property within the 597-hectare mineral lease ML-5547, which is 100% held by UEC. 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 centre, La Ronge 440 kms south, by Highway 102. There are several daily commercial airline services from Saskatoon to Points North Landing, and regular charter flights for Orano’s McLean Lake operation.

- 84 -

There is one mineral lease on the Roughrider Project Area, which is 100% held by UEC. The lease covers 597 hectares and has been registered with the Saskatchewan Ministry of Energy and Resources.

The project is a mature Exploration Stage project, with significant historical drilling, environmental baseline work, and historical economic assessment work as outlined below. At present, UEC is completing an updated economic assessment of the project, as well as camp infrastructure rehabilitation and upgrades. UEC intends to complete additional resource delineation work in the upcoming 2023/2024 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.

History

Between 1969 and 1974, following the discovery of the Rabbit Lake uranium deposit in 1968 by Gulf Minerals Ltd., Numac Oil and Gas (“Numac”) held the large Permit Number Eight over the Midwest Lake (McMahon Lake) and Dawn Lake areas. At the time, Numac, in conjunction with their partners. Esso Minerals and Bow Valley Industries, focused on the Midwest Lake area, located adjacent to the Roughrider Project Area. In 1976, Asamera Oil Corp. (“Asamera”) initiated the Dawn Lake project, located approximately six kms southeast of the current Roughrider Project Area. In 1983, the Saskatchewan Mining and Development Corporation (“SMDC”), predecessor to Cameco Corporation (“Cameco”), became the operator of the Dawn Lake Joint Venture. By 1995, the Dawn Lake Joint Venture consisted of Cameco, Cogema Resources Inc. (now Orano SA), PNC Exploration Canada Ltd. and Kepco Canada Ltd.

Early work by Asamera on the Esso North claim consisted of electromagnetic (“EM”) and aeromagnetic surveys in 1977, followed by airborne very low frequency (“VLF”) EM, magnetic and radiometric surveys in 1978 and 1979 by Kenting and Geoterrex, respectively. From 1978 to 1981, Turam, Vector Pulse EM and VLF-EM surveys confirmed the east-west conductor as well as some weaker northeast trending VLF-EM conductors. During this same period, Asamera drilled 21 holes on the Esso North claim. The first 10 holes were drilled across the projected northeast strike extent of the Roughrider Project Area. The other eleven holes were drilled on the main east-west striking conductor.

In 1984, SMDC carried out Time Domain EM (“TEM”) on the Esso North claim and completed two additional holes. Exploration on the Esso North claim was dormant until 1995, when Cameco resurveyed the area with TEM and located both the east-west conductor and the weak northeast striking conductor. The latter target was tested by one hole, EN-20; it intersected faulted and altered sandstone but no significant radioactivity. In 1996 one drillhole, EN-21, was completed that targeted the east-west conductor. No conductive material was intersected, and the basement lithology was granite.

Under an agreement dated September 10, 2004, between Roughrider Uranium Corp. (“Roughrider”) and Bullion Fund Inc. (“Bullion Fund”), Roughrider earned a 90% interest in claim S-107243 (and six other claims that became part of Roughrider’s Russell South property). On August 10, 2006, Roughrider became a wholly owned subsidiary of Hathor. On April 12, 2007, Terra Ventures Inc. (“Terra”) announced that it had closed a deal with Bullion Fund to acquire an 8% carried working interest in seven claims comprising 56,360 acres in two separate projects located in the Athabasca Basin, Saskatchewan, of which 90% of the remaining 92% working interest was held by Hathor. One of the claims was S-107243. Terra’s interest was to be carried in all respects through to the completion of a feasibility study and the public announcement that the claims will be put into commercial production. On March 24, 2008, Terra announced that it had closed its agreement with Bullion Fund to purchase Bullion Fund’s remaining 2% of Hathor’s carried working interest in the project. This purchase increased Terra’s holding to a 10% carried working interest through to the completion of a feasibility study and the public announcement that the claims will be put into commercial production.

RRW was discovered by Hathor during the winter drilling program of February 2008. RRE was discovered during the summer drilling program in September 2009. A third zone, RRFE, was discovered during the winter drilling program in February 2011.

On April 18, 2011, Hathor and Terra announced that they had executed a binding letter agreement pursuant to which Hathor would acquire, in an all-share transaction, all of the issued and outstanding shares of Terra. On May 9, 2011, Hathor and Terra announced that they had executed a definitive plan of arrangement agreement (the “Arrangement”) to complete the previously announced merger. The result of the Arrangement was consolidation of 100% ownership of the Roughrider Project. On August 5, 2011, Hathor and Terra announced the completion of the Arrangement and Terra became a wholly owned subsidiary of Hathor.

On December 1, 2011, Rio Tinto announced that it was successful in acquiring Hathor, through a wholly-owned Canadian subsidiary, RTCU. On January 11, 2012, RTCU acquired all remaining Hathor common shares making RTCU 100% owners of the Roughrider Project Area. After acquiring the Roughrider Project, RTCU continued to advance the Roughrider Project Area. On October 17, 2022, UEC completed the acquisition of 100% of the Roughrider Project Area from RTCU.

Permitting and Licensing

Should the Roughrider Project Area proceed, either to advanced exploration or to full development, the necessary development and operational approvals will need to be obtained. This includes federal and provincial EIA and permitting/licensing processes and engagement and consultation with Indigenous groups. It is estimated the environmental and social assessment and CSNC licensing for the Roughrider Project Area may require between 48 months and 72 months to complete. A comprehensive list of the potential permits, approvals and authorizations required for the Roughrider Project Area can be found in the Roughrider Project Area TRS as filed. Currently, the project does not require formal environmental bonding or rehabilitation requirements outside of those required as part of early-stage exploration permit requirements.

- 85 -

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 km² in northern Saskatchewan and north-eastern Alberta. The saucer-shaped basin contains a relatively undeformed and unmetamorphosed sequence of Mesoproterozoic clastic rocks known as the Athabasca. These rocks lie unconformably on the basement rocks. The basement rocks consist of Archean orthogneisses, which are overlain by, and structurally intercalated with, the highly deformed supracrustal Palaeoproterozoic Wollaston Group.

The RRW, RRE, and RRFE deposits occur in the basal part of the Wollaston Group of the WMTZ. The basement is structurally complex, comprising steeply dipping Wollaston Group rocks dominated by garnet- and cordierite-bearing pelitic gneisses with subordinate amounts of graphitic pelitic gneisses and psammopelitic to psammitic gneisses, and rare garnetites. The pelitic gneiss varies from equigranular to porphyroblastic in texture. The porphyroblasts vary in size up to centimetre-scale and normally comprise red almandine rich garnets when fresh. The gneisses have been intruded by syn- to post-peak metamorphic felsic pegmatites, granites, and microgranites of Hudsonian age. These rocks locally contain up to 400 ppm of primary uranium.

Proximal to mineralization, graphite in graphitic pelitic gneisses has been consumed by alteration and mineralization; distal to mineralization, the graphite appears to be discontinuous. These two features may help explain the absence of basement-hosted graphitic conductors at the Roughrider Project. Hydrothermal calc-silicate alteration of the orthogneisses is present locally. The alteration is interpreted to be post-peak metamorphism in age and is probably related to the introduction of the Hudsonian felsic rocks. The sandstone and basement rocks have been subjected to several episodes of brittle deformation, including the brittle reactivation of older ductile shear zones.

Uranium deposits in the Athabasca Basin can be broadly subdivided into two styles: unconformity-hosted (occurring at or above the unconformity) and basement-hosted. The Roughrider Project is characterized by basement hosted mineralization, which is typically hosted in faults (often referred to as veins when hosting mineralization) which must have been open to hydrothermal fluid flow at the time of mineralization and thus were likely active at some stage post basin formation. Uranium mineralization at the Project is highly variable in thickness and style in all zones. High grade uranium mineralization occurs primarily as structurally controlled, medium- to coarse-grained, semi-massive to massive pitchblende with what has been termed worm-rock texture, and texturally complex redox controlled mineralization. This high-grade uranium mineralization is intimately associated locally with lesser amounts of red-to-orange coloured oxy-hydroxillized iron oxides. Yellow secondary uranium minerals, probably uranophane, are present locally as veinlets or void-filling masses within the high-grade primary mineralization.

Lower grade mineralization occurs as either disseminated grains of pitchblende, fracture-lining, or veins of pitchblende. Galena occurs in a number of habits and is variably present associated with the uranium mineralization. The lead is presumed to have formed from the radioactive decay of uranium. Veinlets of galena are up to 5 mm thick and either crosscut massive pitchblende, as anhedral masses (less than 1 mm in size) interstitial to the massive pitchblende, or as fine-grained, sub-millimetre-scale disseminated flecks of galena omnipresent throughout mineralized drill core. In all cases, the galena appears to have formed later than the uranium mineralization.

Mineralization is in general terms, mono-metallic (uraninite) in composition. In the RRW deposit, visible, crystalline nickel-cobalt sulph-arsenides are present locally. At the RRE and RRFE deposits, the presence of nickel-cobalt sulph-arsenides is rare. The exact relationship of these elements to uranium is variable and still unclear at this time. However, unlike many unconformity-type uranium deposits in the Athabasca Basin, variable amounts of copper mineralization are present within the Project deposits.

The deposits of the Roughrider Project are interpreted to be Athabasca unconformity-associated uranium deposits, or some variant thereof. Two end-members of the unconformity-associated uranium deposit model have been defined. A sandstone hosted egress-type model (one example is the Midwest A deposit south of the Roughrider Project) involves the mixing of oxidizing sandstone-hosted brine with relatively reduced fluids from the basement in the sandstone. Basement-hosted, ingress-type deposits (one example is the Rabbit Lake deposit) formed by fluid-rock reactions between an oxidizing sandstone brine and the local wall rock of a basement fault zone. Both types of mineralization and associated host-rock alteration occur at sites of basement—sandstone fluid interaction where a spatially stable redox gradient, or front, was present. Although either type of deposit can result in high grade pitchblende mineralization with up to 20% pitchblende, they are not physically large.

Egress-type deposits tend to be polymetallic (uranium-nickel-cobalt-copper-arsenic) and typically follow the trace of the underlying graphitic pelites 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.

- 86 -

Mineral Resources and Reserves

The current Mineral Resources for the Roughrider project are outlined in the following table:

Table 2.41– Mineral Resources for the Roughrider Project as at the date of this Annual Report

Mining Scenario	Deposit	Classification	Tons (‘000’s)	Tonnes (‘000s)	Grade (% U₃O₈)	Pounds U₃O₈ (‘000s)
Cut & Fill	RRW	Indicated	44	40	3.38	3,000
		Inferred	12	11	3.64	800
Long Hole Open Stope	RRW	Indicated	176	160	4.62	16,200
		Inferred	75	68	6.06	9,100
	RRE	Indicated	-	-	-	-
		Inferred	256	232	4.41	22,600
	RRFE	Indicated	208	189	2.07	8,600
		Inferred	53	48	3.26	3,500
Combined RRW, RRE, and RRFE
Total		Indicated	429	389	3.25	27,800
		Inferred	396	359	4.55	36,000

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 U₃O₈ price of US$56/1b of U₃O₈ and metallurgical recovery of 97%. Cut and Fill (“C&F”) and long-hole open stoping (“LHOS”) scenario cut-off grades are 0.52% U₃O₈ and 0.45% U₃O₈ respectively.
	5.	The Mineral Resources were estimated by SRK, a third-party QP under the definitions defined by S-K 1300.The tonnage (presented in metric tonnes), grade (%), and contained metal (metric tonnes and imperial pounds) have been rounded to reflect the accuracy of the estimates.

- 87 -

Horseshoe-Raven Project

An independent TRS for the Horseshoe-Raven Project area (the “Horseshoe-Raven Project Area”) has been prepared for UEC, under the supervision of Nathan Barsi, Chris Hamel and Roger Lemaitre (the “QPs” herein), pursuant to S-K 1300. This TRS identifies and summarizes the scientific and technical information and conclusions reached from the IA to support disclosure of mineral resources on the Horseshoe-Raven Project Area.

Figure 2.23 – Location of the Horseshoe Raven Project

Property Description

The Horseshoe-Raven Project Area is in the Wollaston Lake area of Northern Saskatchewan, approximately 695 kms north of Saskatoon, southwest of Wollaston Lake. The Horseshoe-Raven Project Area measures approximately 4,486 hectares comprising one mineral claim to which UEX Corporation (“UEX”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of UEC, has title. The Horseshoe-Raven Project does not have mineral reserves and is therefore considered an Exploration Stage property under S-K 1300 definitions.

In Saskatchewan, mineral resources are owned by the Crown and managed by the Saskatchewan Ministry of the Economy through the Crown Minerals Act and the Mineral Tenure Registry Regulations, 2012. Staking for mineral dispositions in Saskatchewan is conducted through the online staking system, Mineral Administration Registry Saskatchewan (“MARS”). The mineral disposition for the Horseshoe-Raven Project Areay was staked in 1977. Accordingly, ground staking methods were employed prior to the initiation of staking by the MARS system. These dispositions give the stakeholders the right to explore the lands within the disposition area for economic mineral deposits.

UEX holds a 100% interest in the Horseshoe-Raven Project Area, subject to standard royalties to the Government of Saskatchewan.

- 88 -

Access to the Horseshoe-Raven Project Area is via Highway 905, a well-maintained gravel road accessible year-round that passes through the central portion of the Horseshoe-Raven Project Area and over the west end of the Raven Deposit. Year-round access is possible by truck. The topography of the Horseshoe-Raven Project Area is relatively flat characterized by undulating glacial moraine, outwash and lacustrine plains. There is no permanent infrastructure on the project, a temporary work camp and core logging facility are the only infrastructure on the project area. Access to electricity is by diesel generator, but future mining operations would utilize the Saskatchewan Power grid that is nearby the project. Personnel can be drawn from local communities of Wollaston, Black Lake, Stony Rapids, Fond du Lac, that have supplied personnel for mining operations in the eastern Athabasca Basin for decades. Sources of water near the project area are plentiful and should not be a constraining factor. The nearest airport for public use is at Points North Landing, approximately 40 kilometres (25 miles) by road to the northwest of the project area. There are no rail lines or port facilities near the project area.

The project is an Exploration Stage project, with significant drilling to determine the indicated resources on the property in the Horseshoe and Raven deposits. A program to rehabilitate and upgrade the Raven Camp infrastructure was initiated in fiscal 2023 that is planned to be completed in fiscal year 2024. The camp facilities are approximately 20 years old but with the recent exploration camp remediation work remain in good condition. No mine infrastructure or underground development is present on the project, and the work camp on the site is temporary. The next step for the project to advance will likely be a drill program to collect metallurgy for the Horseshoe and Raven deposits in advance of a future economic study.

History

The Horseshoe-Raven Project Area was initially explored in the late 1960s as part of the greater Rabbit Lake Property after the discovery of the Rabbit Lake Uranium Deposit in 1968.

Early exploration for uranium was conducted by Gulf Minerals Canada Limited (“Gulf”) and Conwest Exploration Company Limited (“Conwest”). Eldorado Nuclear Limited acquired Conwest in 1979, Gulf in 1982 and amalgamated with Saskatchewan Mining and Development Corporation (“SMDC”) to form Cameco in 1988. Cameco transferred title to the Hidden Bay Property to UEX through an agreement reached with Pioneer Metals Corporation (“Pioneer”) in 2001.

The Horseshoe-Raven Project Area deposit was discovered in two stages, four years after the discovery of the Rabbit Lake Mine. In the fall of 1972, drill testing of a ground conductor became the discovery hole for the Raven Deposit. Subsequent drilling through 1973 and 1974 outlined the deposit. During the final year of the Raven Deposit drilling, the discovery hole of the Horseshoe Deposit intersected uranium mineralization to the east of the Raven Deposit while testing a geophysical anomaly similar to the Raven Deposit signature. Subsequent diamond drilling during the period of 1974 to mid-1975 succeeded in outlining the Horseshoe Deposit (Studer, 1984).

Permitting and Licensing

Mineral exploration on land administered by the Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment requires that surface disturbance permits be obtained before any exploration or development work is performed. The Saskatchewan Mineral Exploration and Government Advisory Committee has developed the Mineral Exploration Guidelines for Saskatchewan to mitigate environmental impacts from industry activity and facilitate government approval for such activities (SMEGAC, 2016). Applications to conduct an exploration work program need only to address the relevant topics of those listed in the guidelines. The types of activities are listed under the guide’s best management practices (“BMP”).

There are no environmental encumbrances on the project. The approximate timeline for projects in Saskatchewan for EA baseline work with permitting and licensing following that is 5-10 years once they are at the stage of having indicated resources. There have been no violations or fines associated with the project and the remediation work conducted in 2023 has left the temporary camp facilities in good working order. Future permit requirements will be permitting and licensing with both the federal and provincial governments, the Government of Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment, and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to obtain environmental permits, and construction and operating licenses.

Geologic Setting, Mineralization, and Deposit

The Horseshoe-Raven Project Area is located just east of the eastern margin of the Athabasca Basin. It is underlain by Paleoproterozoic metasedimentary gneiss and Archean granitic gneiss basement rocks of the Hearne Province. The basement rocks of the Horseshoe-Raven Project Area are within the Cree Lake zone of the Early Proterozoic Trans-Hudson orogenic belt. The Cree Lake zone is further subdivided into three transitional lithotectonic domains, of which the Horseshoe-Raven Project Area lies within one of them, the Wollaston Domain. Lithologies and foliation of the Wollaston Domain rocks of the Horseshoe-Raven Project Area trend northeast with predominantly moderate to steep southeast dips, although northwest dips occur as the result of the broad synform that is the host to uranium mineralization at Horseshoe and Raven.

- 89 -

The Wollaston Domain is composed of a mixed sequence of metamorphosed arkosic sandstones and pelitic to semi-pelitic gneisses that make up four successive lithostratigraphic units, of which the upper three are present in the deposit area:

●

a basal pelitic gneiss composed of coarse, mature quarzitic to arkosic metasedimentary rocks;

●

a meta-pelite, commonly graphitic and interlayered with quartzitic semi-pelite and calc-silicate;

●

a thick meta-arkose interlayered with minor calc-silicate and pelite; and

●

upper amphibole-quartzite interlayered with calcareous metasedimentary rocks and graphitic pelite, known as the Hidden Bay assemblage.

The Horseshoe and Raven Deposits are hosted by the Hidden Bay Assemblage, which occurs within a complex northeast trending D2 synclinorium that sits structurally above and south of the underlying meta-arkose unit of the Daly River subgroup. The synclinorium is cored by quartzite that is succeeded outward concentrically from the core of the folds by other components of the Hidden Bay Assemblage, which include a mixed sequence of calc-arkose, additional quartzite, locally graphitic sillimanite-bearing pelitic schist and amphibolite.

Lithologies in the Horseshoe and Raven areas outline several significant, upright open D2 (F2) folds in the local area. These folds have steep to moderate southeasterly dipping axial planes and horizontal to shallow northeast plunging fold axes.

Mineralization at the Horseshoe Deposit has been defined over a strike length of approximately 800 meters and occurs at depths between 100 and 450 meters below surface. Mineralization occurs in several stacked and shallow plunging shoots that generally follow the fold axis of a gently folded arkose-quartzite package. Uranium mineralization is often best developed along the dilational zones developed between the bedding units.

The Raven Deposit is located 500 meters southwest of the Horseshoe Deposit and has been defined over a strike 1000 meters and ranges between 100 and 300 meters in depth. The bulk of the uranium mineralization occurs in two sub-horizontal tabular zones that are oriented parallel to the axial plane of the folded arkose-quartzite package.

Mineral Resources and Reserves

The current Mineral Resources for the Horseshoe-Raven deposits are outlined in the following table:

Table 2.42 – Mineral Resources for the Horseshoe-Raven Project as at the date of this Annual Report

Deposit	Classification	Tons (‘000s)	Tonnes (‘000s)	Grade (% U₃O₈)	Pounds U₃O₈ (‘000s)
Horseshoe	Indicated	5,493	4,983	0.215	23,600
Raven	Indicated	5,919	5,370	0.117	13,800

Notes:

	1.	Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and have not demonstrated economic viability.
	2.	There is no certainty that all or any part of the mineral resource will be converted into mineral reserves.
	3.	All figures are rounded to reflect the relative accuracy of the estimates.
	4.	Resources were estimated using a COG of 0.05% U₃O₈. COG was determined using a uranium price of $75 / lb and metallurgical recovery of 95%.
	5.	Mineral Resources are reported on a 100% ownership basis.

- 90 -

Shea Creek Project

An independent TRS for the Shea Creek Project area (the “Shea Creek Project Area”) has been prepared for UEC, under the supervision of Chris Hamel, David Alan Rhys, and James Gray (the “QPs” herein), pursuant to S-K 1300. This TRS identifies and summarizes the scientific and technical information and conclusions reached from the IA to support disclosure of mineral resources on the Shea Creek Project Area.

Figure 2.24 – Location of the Shea Creek Project

Property Description

The Shea Creek Project Area comprises 18 mineral dispositions totaling 32,962 hectares (“ha”) (330 km²), which are registered to and administered by ORANO. ORANO acts as project operator.

UEX Corporation (“UEX Corp.”; having amalgamated with UEX, UEC’s wholly-owned subsidiary now) acquired its interest in the Shea Creek Project Area through an option agreement that was signed in March 2004 (the “2004 Agreement”). Under the 2004 Agreement, UEX Corp. was granted an option to acquire a 49% interest in eight uranium projects located in the Western Athabasca Basin that included the Shea Creek Project Area, from COGEMA Resources Inc. (“COGEMA”), the predecessor to AREVA, which subsequently became ORANO. To acquire the initial 49% interest, UEX Corp. was required to fund C$30 million in exploration expenditures over an 11-year period. UEX Corp. fulfilled the option terms of the 2004 Agreement well ahead of the maximum 11-year period by December 31, 2007. Under the terms of the 2004 Agreement, UEX Corp. granted AREVA (now ORANO) a royalty in an amount equal to US$0.212 per pound of future uranium in concentrate produced from the Anne and Colette deposits to a maximum total royalty of $10.0 million.

In April 2013, AREVA granted UEX Corp. an option to increase UEX Corp’s interest in the nine Western Athabasca Projects (the “Projects”), which include the Shea Creek Project Area, to 49.9% through the expenditure by UEX Corp. of an aggregate of C$18.0 million (the "Additional Expenditures") on exploration drilling intended to advance the four known Shea Creek deposits (the “2013 Agreement”). This 2013 Agreement expired on December 31, 2018, with exploration expenditures of C$1,949,275 attributed to the option that earned UEX Corp. the additional equity above the 2004 Agreement to attain a 49.0975% equity interest in the Shea Creek Project Area.

- 91 -

In Saskatchewan, mineral resources are owned by the Crown and managed by the Saskatchewan Ministry of the Economy through the Crown Minerals Act and the Mineral Tenure Registry Regulations, 2012. Staking for mineral dispositions in Saskatchewan is conducted through the online staking system, MARS. Accordingly, ground staking methods were employed prior to the initiation of staking by the MARS system. These dispositions give the stakeholders the right to explore the lands within the disposition area for economic mineral deposits.

Access to the property is by highway 955, approximately 230 km north of the community of La Loche and 5 km south of the formerly producing Cluff Lake mine, the highway passes through the property and within about 2 km of the deposit area. Much of the deposit area is below areas of dry ground, and accessible year-round. There is an unmaintained airstrip at the former Cluff Lake mine. Water is abundant in the area and is not perceived to be a constraint on project development. Personnel to operate future operations could be drawn from the local communities of La Loche, Buffalo Narrows, and several other communities in the area that have people experienced in uranium mining operations. There is currently no grid power supply to the Property. The electrical grid power source is approximately 300 km away at the Key Lake switching station. No buildings or ancillary facilities are currently present at the site of the Property.

History

The western portions of the Athabasca Basin were initially explored in the 1960s as exploration activities expanded outward from the established Beaverlodge uranium district. After airborne radiometric surveys in the late 1960s, ground prospecting followed by drilling led to the discovery of the Cluff Lake deposits. Production from the Cluff Lake deposits commenced in 1980 and operations continued until 2002. Total production from the Cluff Lake mine site amounted to 64.2 million pounds U₃O₈ at an average grade of 0.92% U₃O₈, from several deposits.

Despite its proximity to Cluff Lake, systematic exploration on the Shea Creek Project Area did not commence until 1990 when Amok Limited (“Amok”) conducted an airborne GEOTEM EM survey, which identified conductive north-northwest trending zones underlying the Athabasca sandstone sequence. Subsequent follow-up with ground EM surveys further refined the position of the conductors, prompting Amok to reduce their mineral permit area claim to claims that now comprise the Shea Creek Project Area. Amok drilled several of the EM conductors in 1992, intersecting narrow intervals of uranium mineralization in northern parts of the Shea Creek Project Area near the sub-Athabasca unconformity. In 1993, ownership of the Shea Creek Project Area was transferred to COGEMA (now ORANO), who continued exploration by drilling to the north the same conductive basement unit – now known as the Saskatoon Lake Conductor (“SLC”) – and between 1994 and 2000, drilled more than 95,000 meters in 156 drillholes. These resulted in the discovery of the Anne and Colette deposits. Between 2000 and 2003, no drilling was completed, but additional airborne and ground EM surveys were undertaken to further enhance targeting.

In March 2004, COGEMA (subsequently AREVA and now ORANO) and UEX Corp. signed the 2004 Agreement. Drilling re-commenced and was funded by UEX Corp., and between 2004 and December 2012, approximately 141,317 meters of drilling in 307 diamond drillholes was completed under management by AREVA (now ORANO). The drill programs during this period resulted in the discovery and partial delineation of the Kianna Deposit between the Colette and Anne deposits and discovery of new areas of mineralization along the prospective corridor between Anne and Colette (e.g. Colette South mineralization, 58B Deposit and Kianna South). Exploration during this period also included a MEGATEM survey of the Shea Creek Project Area and ground-based geophysical surveys, which included a DC Resistivity survey in 2005 that outlined several significant untested or poorly tested resistivity lows and a Tensor Magnetotelluric survey in 2008. In total, 278,889 meters of drilling in 563 drillholes have been completed on the Shea Creek Project Area since systematic exploration began in 1992, up to December 31, 2021.

Permitting and Licensing

There are no environmental encumbrances on the project. The approximate timeline for projects in Saskatchewan for EA baseline work with permitting and licensing following that is 5-10 years once they are at the stage of having indicated resources. There have been no violations or fines associated with the project. Future requirements with respect to permitting and licensing are with both the federal and provincial governments, the Government of Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment, and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to obtain environmental permits, and construction and operating licenses.

- 92 -

Geologic Setting, Mineralization, and Deposit

Local geology at the Shea Creek Project Area comprises 400 to 800 meters of Athabasca Group sandstone, which unconformably overlie Lloyd Domain amphibolite-grade granitic and pelitic gneisses. The latter includes the SLC, a 40- to 80-meter-thick north-northwest trending and west-southwest dipping graphitic pelitic gneiss unit that is spatially associated with mineralization. The gneiss sequence is affected by penetrative syn-metamorphic deformation that occurred in at least two foliation forming phases during the 1950-1900 Ma Taltson orogeny. These peak metamorphic fabrics are overprinted by northeast-trending, right-lateral/oblique, retrograde mylonitic shear zones (D₃; probable Hudsonian age) including the regional Beatty River Shear zone and northeast-trending second and third order narrow mylonitic shear zones that offset the SLC. Post-Athabasca faulting remobilizes these mylonites and is also associated with up to 50 meters of reverse displacement of the unconformity along the R3 fault at the base of the SLC. Textural and geometrical relationships suggest that uranium mineralization was coeval with the late faulting, and that the architecture of the older D₃ shear zones may have had a fundamental control on the position of mineralization.

To date, four uranium deposits have been discovered over a three km strike length along the SLC in northern parts of the Shea Creek Project Area: Kianna; Anne; Colette; and 58B. Uranium mineralization in these deposits occurs in three stacked styles that encompass the full range of types of unconformity uranium deposits. Most extensive is flat-lying, massive pitchblende-hematite and chlorite-matrix-breccia-hosted mineralization which straddles the unconformity along, and immediately east of, the trace of the SLC. Breccia mineralization occurs both as pitchblende-coffinite fragments and as matrix replacement, suggesting it may have occurred in pulses that temporally spanned brecciation. Continuous unconformity mineralization occurs along the SLC for much of the 2.5 km known strike extent of the Shea Creek Project Area deposits and is thickest and highest grade where basement mineralization lies beneath it. Basement mineralization forms a significant portion of the Shea Creek Project Area’s uranium inventory and is most extensive at the Kianna Deposit. It comprises: a) concordant-reverse-fault-hosted mineralization that often extends from the unconformity downward into granitic gneiss in the immediate footwall of the SLC; and b) discordant fault, vein and replacement pitchblende mineralization that occurs in steep east-west to west-northwest trending zones that may extend for several hundred meters below the unconformity, and which occurs along or beside remobilized mylonitic shear zones. Basement mineralization thickens where concordant and discordant faults intersect, forming west-plunging ore shoots. Lensoidal zones of perched mineralization are locally present up to several tens of meters above the unconformity and are often where reduced, pyritic chlorite alteration extends into the Athabasca sandstone above areas of basement and thicker unconformity mineralization.

Table 2.43 – Mineral Resources for the Shea Creek Project as at the date of this Annual Report

Deposit	Classification	Tons (000’s)	Tonnes (‘000s)	Grade (% U₃O₈)	Pounds U₃O₈ (‘000s)
Collette	Indicated	360	327	0.787	2,786
	Inferred	542	492	0.717	3,814
58B	Indicated	156	142	0.773	1,188
	Inferred	89	81	0.510	445
Kianna	Indicated	1,132	1,027	1.535	17,058
	Inferred	603	547	1.390	8,235
Anne	Indicated	617	560	2.002	12,144
	Inferred	148	134	0.883	1,282
TOTAL	Indicated	2,266	2,056	1.491	33,175
	Inferred	1,382	1,254	1.015	13,775

Notes:

	1.	Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and have not demonstrated economic viability.
	2.	There is no certainty that all or any part of the mineral resource will be converted into mineral reserves.
	3.	Figures are rounded to reflect the relative accuracy of the estimates.
	4.	Resources were estimated using a cut-off grade of 0.30% U₃O₈, a $50 uranium price, and a metallurgical recovery of 95% was used.
	5.	UEC's share of mineral resources is calculated based on UEC's 49.0975% equity in the project.

- 93 -

South American Uranium Properties

Paraguay ISR Properties

Below is a map showing the location for the Company’s uranium projects in Paraguay.

Figure 2.25 – Uranium Project Locations in Paraguay

Our Material Paraguay ISR Properties

Yuty ISR Project

An independent TRS for the Yuty Project area (the “Yuty Project Area”) has been prepared for UEC, under the supervision of BRS Inc. Engineering (“BRS”) (the “QP” herein), pursuant to S-K 1300. This TRS identifies and summarizes the scientific and technical information and conclusions reached from the IA to support disclosure of mineral resources on the Yuty Project Area. There are no mineral reserves associated with this Yuty Project Area. The Yuty Project is an exploration stage phase project.

- 94 -

Figure 2.26 – Location of the Yuty Project

- 95 -

Property Description

The Yuty Project Area is located in Paraguay, South America. UEC operates the Yuty Project Area through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Transandes Paraguay S.A. (“TPSA”), which holds a 100% interest in the Yuty Mining Exploration and Exploitation Concession (the “Yuty Concession”) Contract (the “Contract”). The planned mining method for the Yuty Project Area is by ISR mining.

The Yuty Project Area covers an area of 289,687 acres (117,232 hectares), located in the eastern region of the country in the Department of Caazapá, 167 miles northeast of the capital of Paraguay. The geographic coordinates of the central part of the Yuty Project Area, where the bulk of past exploration has been carried out (San Antonio area in Block 1), are approximately 26°37’S and 56°20’W.

Access to the Yuty Project is via road PY-08, a paved road that borders the town of San Antonio, through the district of the city of Yuty, and through the north portion of the Yuty Deposit area. Very close to the mentioned route, the town of San Antonio has storage of deposit samples containing material from an extensive uranium exploration (2007 to 2014), and hosts logging calibration wells, modest field office facilities, and facilities for staff accommodation. All facilities are kept in good condition through ongoing maintenance work. The Yuty project area is characterized by being primarily a rural area with well-maintained internal dirt roads, electricity, potable water service, hotels, and supplies and public services in the urban area of the city of Yuty.

Title to the Yuty Concession is now held through the Contract with the Republic of Paraguay (the “Republic”), which grants mining rights for a minimum period of 20 years, renewable every five years. The Contract was signed into Law 3575/08 (the “Law”) as an Act of the Paraguayan Congress in August 2008. The Law calls for payment of a 2.5% royalty to the Republic on all production, based on the production at the point of sale.

The Yuty Project Area is located within the Paraná Basin and is underlain by predominantly sedimentary rocks of undivided upper Permo-Carboniferous age. Uranium mineralization is sandstone hosted roll-front type.

The Yuty Project Area was explored extensively by Anschutz Corporation (“Anschutz”) of Denver, Colorado in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Cue Resources Ltd. (“CUE”) controlled the Yuty Project Area prior to acquisition by UEC and conducted exploration and verification drilling projects circa 2007 through 2011. UEC possesses the original drill data, from which a drill hole database has been developed and verified. Samples from Anschutz were not preserved, however, core samples from areas in the possession of UEC and have been reviewed by the TRS QP. Within the Yuty Project Area, drill data from 543 drill holes, including hole location and radiometric equivalent data in 0.1 m downhole increments, were available for the preparation of the TRS.

History

Exploration for uranium in Southeastern Paraguay was started in 1976 by Anschutz, after signing of the Concession Agreement between the Government of Paraguay and Anschutz in December 1975. The agreement allowed Anschutz to explore for “all minerals, excluding oil, gas and construction materials”. Previously intermittent exploration had been carried out by international oil companies, with insignificant results. The region, however, is known for its limited mining activities and production of high-grade iron ore, mineral pigments, clays, limestone, sandstone, sand and gravel by indigenous people.

In early 1976, a number of reports by Anschutz consultants, A.F. Renfro, D.G. Bryant and G.E. Thomas, covered the geology of eastern Paraguay based on reconnaissance field trips made through the southern Precambrian area, the sedimentary section from north to south, and the alkalic intrusions in the north-central part of a large concession. From field examinations of various rock types and airborne radiometric data, Renfro concluded that the Anschutz concession contained areas with good potential for uranium mineralization. The regional correlation of stratigraphic horizons favorable for uranium mineralization is shown in various figures of that report.

The initial uranium exploration by Anschutz in 1976 covered an exclusive exploration exploitation concession covering approximately 162,700 km², virtually the whole eastern half of Paraguay. This included geological mapping, water sampling, soil sampling and a broad reconnaissance Track Etch program, with stations spaced 10 kms apart. The station spacing for the Track Etch survey was subsequently reduced to five kms in the southern part of the concession. The reconnaissance program outlined large anomalous zones and Anschutz concluded that the concession in Paraguay constituted a new uranium province in an area underlain by granitic rocks and sandstones.

The initial reconnaissance program by Anschutz was followed by a program of airborne radiometric and magnetic surveys, a detailed Track Etch survey with station spacing of 100 to 200 meters and geochemical stream sediment and soil sampling. Flight line spacing for the airborne radiometric survey was five kms with a clearance of 100 meters above the surface. Anschutz carried out exploration on behalf of a joint venture with Korea Electric Power Corporation and Taiwan Power Company.

In 2006, TPSA resumed exploratory activities in San Antonio, a district of the town of Yuty in the Department of Caazapa, Paraguay, by virtue of a prospecting permit granted by the MOPC that enabled the start of the mining exploration phase in May 2007 in four blocks (Blocks I, II, III and IV), encompassing a total of 787,401 acres. In June 2008, with four mining blocks in the exploration phase, the Contract was approved by the Law, and signed between the Government of the Republic and TPSA for the exploration and exploitation of metallic and non-metallic minerals, precious and semiprecious gems.

- 96 -

In March 2012, UEC acquired Cue Resources Inc. (“CUE”). At the time of the acquisition, the Yuty Project Area consisted of four blocks with a total area now reduced to 492,234 acres (199,200 hectares). Data from 323 drill holes totaling 33,491 meters of core and rotary drilling was available and a technical report was completed.

Permitting and Licensing

In summary, all financial and other obligations related to the mineral concession for the Yuty Project Area have been met. All environmental licenses and permits are in good standing. Except for the San Antonio area, the Yuty Project Area is at an early-to intermediate stage of exploration. The Yuty Project does not have mineral reserves and is therefore considered an exploration stage property under S-K 1300 definitions. The San Antonio area is at a more advanced stage since it has received considerable drilling in the past by Anschutz and recently by CUE.

In 2015, the Ministry of Public Works and Communications (MOPC), which is the enforcement authority for mining activities in Paraguay, approved the exploitation phase carried out in the period (2007-2014). However, in 2018, the mining enforcement authority in a previous administration took the position that the Yuty concession was not eligible to continue with the exploitation phase, despite the fact that exploitation phase activities were suspended based on the Company’s subsidiary’s, Transandes Paraguay S.A. (“TPSA”), requests provided for in the concession contract and approved by the MOPC. TPSA initiated legal actions to protect its mining rights and entered into conversations in 2019 with the MOPC and other institutions of the executive branch. TPSA reached an out-of-court agreement in 2022 that suspends the ongoing litigation and begins the re-instatement of the TPSA’s mining rights, however, during the process of finalization, the Administrative Court was not in a position to approve the aforementioned agreement and TPSA has now filed an appeal with the Supreme Court in connection with the same.

Once the re-instatement process of these concession rights regarding the extrajudicial agreement signed with the executive branch is complete, the Yuty project is committed to making annual payments of the mining canon equivalent to $2.5 per hectare, equivalent to a final amount of $293,080 and to make minimum investments equivalent to $690,000 per year during the phase of exploitation. In addition, the Company’s subsidiary must report quarterly to the Enforcement Authority on the progress of the project, as well as once the production stage has begun. TPSA must also pay a 2.5% royalty to the Republic on all production, based on the production at the point of sale according to the Law 3575/2008.

The processing of environmental licenses for the new stages of the exploitation phase will require updating and compliance with management plans approved by the licenses in the future.

Geologic Setting, Mineralization and Deposit

The Yuty Project Area is situated within the Paraná Basin in Southeastern Paraguay. The Yuty Project Area is located on the western end of the Paraná Basin, which also hosts the Figueira uranium deposit in Brazil. The area is underlain by Upper Permian to Carboniferous continental sedimentary rocks, and is known for uranium occurrences, such as the San Pedro, Santa Barbara, Yarati-í and San Antonio occurrences. Significant radiometric anomalies also occur in Precambrian igneous and metamorphic rocks, Cambrian limestone, Silurian sandstone and Cretaceous to Tertiary carbonatites and alkaline intrusive rocks.

The exploration methodology applied during past programs has been to determine the favorable host rocks of the Upper Permian-Carboniferous (“UPC”) sequence and determine favorable areas of the host sandstone.

The stratigraphic sequence of the lithologies in the Yuty Project Area has been divided into the Southern UPC rocks and Lower Permian-Carboniferous (“LPC”) rocks. The Southern UPC contains the sequence of rocks as follows:

●

Cabacua Formation: 200 meters thick;

●

Tapyata Formation: 125 meters thick;

●

Tacuary Formation: 280 meters thick; and

●

San Miguel Formation: 20 to 90 meters thick.

Local sandstone units in descending stratigraphic order are:

●

Upper Sand Unit: Estimated to be approximately 50 meters thick;

●

Alternating Sandstone and Shale Unit: Estimated to be approximately 150 meters thick;

●

Massive Sand Unit: Estimated to be 60 to 100 meters thick;

●

Fine-grained Sand Unit: Estimated to be up to 15 meters thick; and

●

Wavy Unit: Estimated to be up to 20 meters thick.

- 97 -

The Massive Sand Unit, Fine-Grained Unit and the Wavy Unit are collectively referred to as the San Miguel Formation and are host to the uranium mineralization at the Yuty Project Area. At the Yuty Project Area, soils are typically 5 to 15 meters thick. There is a diabase sill between the upper sand unit and the Massive Sand Unit. Within the Massive Sand Unit there is a distinctive marker shale that is typically above the mineralization.

The rocks of the UPC are sub-horizontal (dipping 1° to 5° to the east) and cover the western flank of the Paraná Basin. Data from reconnaissance drilling indicates that “the basin margin is cut by a series of west and northwest trending faults, with displacements ranging from a few metres to several hundred metres”.

Continental sedimentary units of the Independencia Formation (of the UPC) are known to have high potential for uranium exploration in eastern Paraguay. Earlier work also suggests that the basal sandstone, a 20- to 90-meter-thick unit known as the San Miguel Formation (within the Independencia Formation), is the best host for uranium mineralization in the Yuty Project Area. Earlier work further suggests that the San Miguel Formation can be correlated with the Rio Benito Formation in the uranium-bearing Permian rocks near Figueira, in the Paraná Basin in Brazil. The source of the uranium is thought to be the Lower Permian-Carboniferous Coronel Oviedo Formation, which is correlated with the Itataré Formation underlying the Rio Benito Formation in Brazil. Occasional diabase sills and dikes intrude the sedimentary rocks, such as at the San Antonio area near the village of Yuty. Outcrops are rare, mostly along road cuts, and mapping is done by drilling.

The Lower Permian Coronel Oviedo Formation underlies the UPC rocks. This glacial marine sequence of black shales, glacial sands and diamictites is generally characterized by a high radioactive background.

Uranium mineralization within the San Miguel Formation is stratabound and possibly syngenetic or diagenetic in origin. Recent interpretation of exploration data suggests that areas of limonite and hematite alteration within the grey-green, fine-grained sandstones in the San Antonio area have some characteristics similar to the alteration assemblages present at roll-front-type uranium deposits of the Powder River Basin, Wyoming.

Uranium mineralization within the UPC rocks is present in other parts of the Paraná Basin, such as at Figueira, Brazil, as noted above. In a 1982 publication, S. Saad proposed a model of mineralization for Figueira-type mineralization. This model suggests that the uranium mineralization is predominantly of epigenetic type, and consists of five phases covering the source, sedimentation, precipitation, remobilization and enrichment of uranium along the more permeable coarser fluvio-deltaic channel sediments.

Past exploration has identified pitchblende or coffinite (or both) as the uranium minerals that are likely to occur in the Yuty Project Area. Honea (1981) examined three sandstone samples in a polished section under the scanning electron microscope. He reported that “pyrite is confirmed as the sulphide mineral phase present both alone and with clays as partial to complete filling of interstices between clasts… and occurs as relatively well-formed cubic crystals, as anhedral aggregates… grain size varies from less than one micron to almost one millimetre”. Honea further reported that the “uranium-bearing phase(s) could not be isolated even at high magnification but is shown by composition spectra to be present with clay and pyrite in the interstitial fillings. Available data indicate a reduced black opaque mineral (very probably either pitchblende or coffinite – or both) scattered as sub-microscopic particles”.

Uranium mineralization hosted by the basal San Miguel Formation of the UPC is interpreted to represent a variety of the roll-front-type mineralization by the early workers of Anschutz. Sandstone-type deposits are characteristically sedimentary formations of clastic-detrital origin, containing reducing environments. These deposits are usually tabular in shape and may occur in continental sandstones, deltaic or shallow marine environments. Typically, roll-front-type uranium deposits have, in the direction of the flow of mineralizing solutions, a barren (oxidized) interior zone surrounded by a (reduced) mineralized zone. Between the barren zone and the mineralized zone is an altered zone. The overall shape of the roll-front is like a crescent with extended tails at each end, which also outlines the barren interior zone, and uranium is deposited at the interface between the oxidized zone and the reduced zone. Ground water flow direction is usually a good guide in detecting roll-front-type deposits in sandstones.

The style of mineralization within the sandstones at the Yuty Project Area includes some characteristics of the roll-front-type mineralization, as in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming. It is likely that the style of mineralization is a variety of the roll-front-type uranium mineralization.

Table 2.44 – Mineral Resources for the Yuty Project as at the date of this Annual Report

Category	Tons Ore (000’s)	Tonnes Ore (1000’s)	Weighted Average Grade (% eU₃O₈)	Pounds eU₃O₈ (000’s)
Measured	-	-	-	-
Indicated – Massive Sand Unit	7,233	6,562	0.048	6,969
Indicated – Fine-Grained and Wavy Sand Units	1,842	1,671	0.054	1,994
Total M&I	9,074	8,232	0.049	8,962
Inferred – Massive Sand Unit	1690	1533	0.045	1,528
Inferred – Fine Grained and Wavy Sand Units	1043	946	0.032	675
Total Resources	2,733	2,479	0.040	2,203

Notes:

	1.	The sum of resource tons and lbs. may not add up to the reported total due to rounding.
	2.	Measured, indicated, and inferred mineral resources as defined in 17 CFR § 229.1300.
	3.	Resources estimated using a 0.02% eU₃O₈ grade cutoff and a 0.1 ft% GT cutoff.
	4.	Mineral Resources are estimated using a long-term uranium price of $65 per pound and a metallurgical recovery of 70%.
	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.

- 98 -

PART IV

Item 15. Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules

The following exhibits are filed with this Annual Report on Form 10-K:

Exhibit Number	Description of Exhibit

2.1	Merger Agreement & Plan of Merger between Uranium Energy Corp. and Concentric Energy Corp. dated May 5, 2011, including the Concentric Disclosure Schedule pursuant thereto ⁽¹⁵⁾
2.2	Amendment to Merger Agreement & Plan of Merger between Uranium Energy Corp. and Concentric Energy Corp. dated July 5, 2011. ⁽¹⁷⁾
2.3	Share Purchase Agreement between Pacific Road Capital A Pty Ltd., Pacific Road Capital B Pty Ltd., Pacific Road Holdings S.à.r.l and Uranium Energy Corp., dated May 9, 2017 ⁽⁴³⁾
2.4	Amending Agreement between Uranium Energy Corp., Bayswater Holdings Inc., Pacific Road Resources Reno Creek Cayco 1 Ltd., Pacific Road Resources Reno Creek Cayco 2 Ltd., Pacific Road Resources Reno Creek Cayco 3 Ltd., Pacific Road Resources Reno Creek Cayco 4 Ltd. and Reno Creek Unit Trust, dated August 7, 2017 ⁽⁴⁴⁾
2.5	Purchase Agreement between Uranerz Energy Corporation and Uranium Energy Corp., dated November 1, 2017 ⁽⁴⁷⁾
2.6	Share Purchase Agreement between Uranium One Investments Inc. and Uranium Energy Corp., dated November 8, 2021 ⁽⁶⁰⁾
3.1	Articles of Incorporation, as amended ⁽¹⁾
3.1.1	Certificate of Amendment to Articles of Incorporation ⁽²⁾
3.2	Bylaws, as amended ⁽³⁰⁾
4.1	Form of Indenture ⁽²⁷⁾
4.2	Form of Indenture ⁽⁴⁰⁾
4.3	Description of Registrant’s Securities †
4.4	Warrant Indenture between UEX Corporation and Computershare Trust Company of Canada, dated December 2, 2020 (75)(‡)
4.5	Warrant Indenture between UEX Corporation and Computershare Trust Company of Canada, dated September 7, 2021 ⁽⁷⁵⁾⁽‡⁾
4.6	First Supplemental Indenture between UEX Corporation, Uranium Energy Corp. and Computershare Trust Company of Canada, dated May 5, 2023, to the Warrant Indenture dated December 2, 2020 ⁽⁷⁵⁾⁽‡⁾
4.7	First Supplemental Indenture between UEX Corporation, Uranium Energy Corp. and Computershare Trust Company of Canada, dated May 5, 2023, to the Warrant Indenture dated September 7, 2021 ⁽⁷⁵⁾⁽‡⁾
10.1	Letter Agreement between La Merced del Pueblo de Cebolleta and Neutron Energy, Inc. ⁽³⁾
10.2	Limited Liability Company Members’Agreement of Cibola Resources LLC between Neutron Energy, Inc. and Uranium Energy Corp. ⁽³⁾
10.3	Limited Liability Company Operating Agreement of Cibola Resources LLC between Neutron Energy, Inc. and Uranium Energy Corp. ⁽³⁾
10.4	Consulting Services Agreement between Uranium Energy Corp. and Obara Builders Ltd. ⁽⁴⁾
10.5	Agreement to Purchase Assets between the Uranium Energy Corp. and Melvin O. Stairs, Jr. ⁽⁵⁾
10.6	Option and Joint Venture Letter Agreement between Uran Limited and the Company dated January 14, 2009 ⁽⁶⁾
10.7	Variation Agreement between Uran Limited and the Company dated May 28, 2009 ⁽⁷⁾
10.8	Mineral Property Option and Joint Venture Agreement between the Company and Strategic Resources Inc. ⁽⁸⁾
10.9	Further Amended and Restated Executive Services Agreement with Amir Adnani Corp. dated July 23, 2009 ⁽⁹⁾
10.10	Further Amended and Restated Executive Services Agreement with Harry L. Anthony dated July 23, 2009 ⁽⁹⁾
10.11	2009 Stock Incentive Plan ⁽¹⁰⁾
10.12	Uranium Mining Lease dated October 6, 2004 ⁽¹¹⁾
10.13	Uranium Mining Lease dated August 24, 2005 ⁽¹¹⁾
10.14	Uranium Mining Lease dated August 24, 2005 ⁽¹¹⁾
10.15	Uranium Mining Lease dated October 6, 2004 ⁽¹¹⁾
10.16	Uranium Mining Lease dated December 19, 2005 ⁽¹¹⁾
10.17	Uranium Mining Lease dated April 9, 2007 ⁽¹¹⁾
10.18	Plant Site Surface Lease dated May 30, 2007 ⁽³⁰⁾
10.19	Uranium Mining Lease dated September 1, 2005 ⁽³⁰⁾
10.20	Uranium Mining Lease dated January 14, 2005 ⁽³⁰⁾
10.21	Uranium Mining Lease dated March 24, 2005 ⁽³⁰⁾
10.22	Uranium Mining Lease dated February 15, 2006 ⁽³⁰⁾
10.23	Uranium Mining Lease dated May 24, 2008 ⁽³⁰⁾
10.24	Uranium Mining Lease dated February 20, 2012 ⁽³⁰⁾

- 99 -

10.25	Uranium Mining Lease dated May 15, 2009 ⁽³⁰⁾
10.26	Uranium Mining Lease dated February 21, 2012 ⁽³⁰⁾
10.27	State Mining Lease dated July 6, 2011 ⁽³⁰⁾
10.28	Executive Services Agreement between Uranium Energy Corp. and Harry L. Anthony, dated February 22, 2010 ⁽¹²⁾
10.29	2009 Stock Incentive Plan, as amended on May 25, 2010⁽¹³⁾
10.30	Executive Employment Services Agreement between Uranium Energy Corp. and Mark Katsumata, dated January 5, 2011 ⁽¹⁴⁾
10.31	Share Exchange Agreement among Transandes Resources, Inc., Piedra Rica Mining S.A., UEC Paraguay Corp., and Uranium Energy Corp. dated May 11, 2011, including schedules attached thereto ⁽¹⁶⁾
10.32	Property Acquisition Agreement between Minas Rio Bravo S.A., Compania Minera Rio Verde S.A., Minas La Roca S.A. and Piedra Rica Mining S.A. dated October 25, 2011⁽¹⁸⁾
10.33	Property Acquisition Agreement between Cooper Minerals, Inc. and Uranium Energy Corp. dated November 7, 2011⁽¹⁹⁾
10.34	Amendment No. 1 to Property Acquisition Agreement between Minas Rio Bravo S.A., Compania Minera Rio Verde S.A., Minas La Roca S.A. and Piedra Rica Mining S.A. dated February 28, 2012⁽²⁰⁾
10.35	Credit Agreement dated as of July 30, 2013 ⁽²¹⁾
10.36	Form of Indemnification Agreement ⁽²²⁾
10.37	Engagement Letter, dated as of October 17, 2013, between Uranium Energy Corp. and H.C. Wainwright & Co., LLC. ⁽²³⁾
10.38	Form of Securities Purchase Agreement, dated as of October 17, 2013 ⁽²³⁾
10.39	Form of Warrant Certificate related to Securities Purchase Agreement dated as of October 17, 2013 ⁽²³⁾
10.40	Form of Warrant Certificate with respect to 2,600,000 warrants issued by Uranium Energy Corp. pursuant to Credit Agreement dated July 30, 2013 ⁽²⁴⁾
10.41	2013 Stock Incentive Plan ⁽²⁵⁾
10.42	Further Restated and Amended Executive Services Agreement between Uranium Energy Corp. and Amir Adnani Corp., dated July 24, 2013 ⁽²⁶⁾
10.43	Further Restated and Amended Executive Services Agreement between Uranium Energy Corp. and Harry L. Anthony, dated July 24, 2013 ⁽²⁶⁾
10.44	Restated and Amended Executive Consulting Services Agreement between Uranium Energy Corp. and Mark Katsumata, dated July 24, 2013 ⁽²⁶⁾
10.45	Controlled Equity Offering^SM Sales Agreement, dated December 31, 2013, between Uranium Energy Corp. and Cantor Fitzgerald & Co. ⁽²⁸⁾
10.46	Amended and Restated Credit Agreement dated March 13, 2014 ⁽²⁹⁾
10.47	2014 Stock Incentive Plan ⁽³¹⁾
10.48	Executive Services Agreement between Uranium Energy Corp. and Scott Melbye, executed December 15, 2014 ⁽³²⁾
10.49	2015 Stock Incentive Plan ⁽³³⁾
10.50	Engagement Letter, dated as of June 22, 2015, by and between Uranium Energy Corp. and H.C. Wainwright & Co., LLC and amendment thereto dated June 23, 2015 ⁽³⁴⁾
10.51	Engagement Letter, dated as of June 24, 2015, among Uranium Energy Corp., Cantor Fitzgerald & Co. and Cantor Fitzgerald Canada Corporation ⁽³⁴⁾
10.52	Form of Warrant ⁽³⁴⁾
10.53	Form of Securities Purchase Agreement, dated June 22, 2015, by and between Uranium Energy Corp. and investors in the offering ⁽³⁴⁾
10.54	Amendment Letter Agreement to the Further Restated and Amended Executive Services Agreement between Uranium Energy Corp. and Amir Adnani Corp., dated August 13, 2015 ⁽³⁵⁾
10.55	Appointment Letter dated October 1, 2015 with Spencer Abraham †
10.56	Second Amended and Restated Credit Agreement dated February 9, 2016 ⁽³⁶⁾
10.57	Share Purchase and Option Agreement between CIC Resources Inc. and Uranium Energy Corp. dated March 4, 2016 ⁽³⁷⁾
10.58	Placement Agency Agreement, dated March 9, 2016, by and between Uranium Energy Corp., Dundee Securities Ltd., Dundee Securities Inc. and H.C. Wainwright & Co., LLC ⁽³⁸⁾
10.59	Form of Warrant ⁽³⁸⁾
10.60	Form of Securities Purchase Agreement, dated March 6, 2016, by and between Uranium Energy Corp. and investors in the offering ⁽³⁸⁾
10.61	2016 Stock Incentive Plan ⁽³⁹⁾
10.62	Underwriting Agreement, dated January 17, 2017, by and between Uranium Energy Corp., H.C. Wainwright & Co., LLC and Haywood Securities Inc. ⁽⁴¹⁾
10.63	Form of Warrant ⁽⁴¹⁾
10.64	Amendment to the Share Purchase and Option Agreement between Uranium Energy Corp. and CIC Resources Inc., dated March 3, 2017 ⁽⁴²⁾
10.65	Amendment No. 2 to the Share Purchase and Option Agreement between Uranium Energy Corp. and CIC Resources Inc., dated June 29, 2017 ⁽⁴⁶⁾
10.66	Form of Warrant Certificate with respect to 11,308,728 warrants issued by Uranium Energy Corp. pursuant to the Share Purchase Agreement dated May 9, 2017, as amended on August 7, 2017 ⁽⁴⁵⁾

- 100 -

10.67	Royalty Purchase Agreement between Uranium Energy Corp. and Uranium Royalty Corp., dated August 20, 2018 ⁽⁴⁹⁾
10.68	2018 Stock Incentive Plan ⁽⁴⁸⁾
10.69	Underwriting Agreement, dated as of October 1, 2018, by and between Uranium Energy Corp., H. C. Wainwright & Co., LLC, Haywood Securities Inc., TD Securities Inc., Eight Capital, Roth Capital Partners, LLC and Sprott Private Wealth LP ⁽⁵⁰⁾
10.70	Third Amended and Restated Credit Agreement dated December 5, 2018 ⁽⁵¹⁾
10.71	Securities Exchange Agreement, dated March 14, 2019, as entered between the Company and each of Pacific Road Resources Reno Creek Cayco 1 Ltd., Pacific Road Resources Reno Creek Cayco 2 Ltd., Pacific Road Resources Reno Creek Cayco 3 Ltd., Pacific Road Resources Reno Creek Cayco 4 Ltd. and Reno Creek Unit Trust ⁽⁵²⁾
10.72	At The Market Offering Agreement, dated April 9, 2019, by and between Uranium Energy Corp., H. C. Wainwright & Co., LLC, Haywood Securities (USA) Inc., TD Securities (USA) Inc., Eight Capital Corp., Roth Capital Partners, LLC and Cormark Securities (USA) Limited ⁽⁵³⁾
10.73	2019 Stock Incentive Plan ⁽⁵⁴⁾
10.74	Amending Agreement, dated March 19, 2020, by and between Uranium Energy Corp., H.C. Wainwright & Co., LLC, Haywood Securities (USA) Inc., TD Securities (USA) Inc., Eight Capital, Roth Capital Partners, LLC and Cormark Securities (USA) Limited ⁽⁵⁵⁾
10.75	Underwriting Agreement, dated as of September 21, 2020, by and between Uranium Energy Corp., H.C. Wainwright & Co., LLC, Haywood Securities Inc., TD Securities Inc., Eight Capital and Roth Capital Partners, LLC ⁽⁵⁶⁾
10.76	Form of Warrant ⁽⁵⁶⁾
10.77	Engagement Agreement, dated as of March 16, 2022, as amended on March 18, 2022, by and between Uranium Energy Corp., H.C. Wainwright & Co., LLC, Haywood Securities Inc., TD Securities (USA) LLC and Roth Capital Partners, LLC⁽⁵⁷⁾
10.78	Form of Securities Purchase Agreement, dated as of March 17, 2022, by and between Uranium Energy Corp. and the investors in the offering⁽⁵⁷⁾
10.79	Engagement Agreement, dated as of April 5, 2022, between Uranium Energy Corp. and H.C. Wainwright & Co., LLC.⁽⁵⁸⁾
10.80	Form of Securities Purchase Agreement, dated as of April 5, 2022, by and between Uranium Energy Corp. and the investors in the offering.⁽⁵⁸⁾
10.81	At The Market Offering Agreement, dated May 14, 2022 by and between Uranium Energy Corp., H.C. Wainwright & Co., LLC, TD Securities (USA) Inc., Haywood Securities (USA) Inc., Roth Capital Partners, LLC, Eight Capital and BMO Capital Markets Corp.⁽⁵⁹⁾
10.82	Settlement Agreement between Anfield Energy Inc. and Uranium Energy Corp., dated April 19, 2022 ⁽⁶³⁾
10.83	Property Swap Agreement between Anfield Energy Inc., ARH Wyoming Corp., Highbury Resources Inc. and Uranium Energy Corp., dated April 19, 2022 ⁽⁶³⁾
10.84	Arrangement Agreement between Uranium Energy Corp., UEC 2022 Acquisition Corp. and UEX Corporation, dated June 13, 2022 ⁽⁶⁴⁾
10.85	Form of Lock-up Agreement between Uranium Energy Corp., UEC 2022 Acquisition Corp. and certain Consenting Shareholders of UEX Corporation, dated June 13, 2022 ⁽⁶⁴⁾
10.86	Amending Agreement between Uranium Energy Corp., UEC 2022 Acquisition Corp. and UEX Corporation, dated June 23, 2022 ⁽⁶⁵⁾
10.87	Amending Agreement between Uranium Energy Corp., UEC 2022 Acquisition Corp. and UEX Corporation, dated August 5, 2022 ⁽⁶⁶⁾
10.88	Amending Agreement between Uranium Energy Corp., UEC 2022 Acquisition Corp. and UEX Corporation, dated August 15, 2022 ⁽⁶⁷⁾
10.89	Share Purchase and Sale Agreement between Rio Tinto Fer Et Titane Inc. and Uranium Energy Corp., dated October 11, 2022.⁽⁶⁸⁾
21.1	Subsidiaries of Uranium Energy Corp.⁽⁷⁶⁾
23.1	Consent of Independent Auditors, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP⁽⁷⁶⁾
23.2	Consent of Benjamin J. Schiffer ^*
23.3	Consent of Western Water Consultants, Inc. ^*
23.4	Consent of Douglas L. Beahm ^*
23.5	Consent of Clyde L. Yancey ^*
23.6	Consent of BRS, Inc. ^*
23.7	Consent of Victor Fernandez-Crosa ^*
23.8	Consent of Christopher J. Hamel^*
23.9	Consent of James N. Gray^*
23.10	Consent of David A. Rhys^*
23.11	Consent of Nathan A. Barsi^*
23.12	Consent of Roger M. Lemaitre^*
23.13	Consent of Carl David Warren^*
23.14	Consent of SRK Consulting (UK) Limited^*
31.1	Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Rule 13a-14(a) or 15d-14(a) *
31.2	Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Rule 13a-14(a) or 15d-14(a) *

- 101 -

32.1	Certification of Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 ⁽⁷⁶⁾
96.1	Technical Report Summary Mineral Resource Report Reno Creek Project Campbell County, WY, effective date December 31, 2021⁽⁶¹⁾
96.2	Technical Report Summary Mineral Resource Report Wyoming Assets ISR Hub and Spoke Project, WY, USA, dated March 31, 2022⁽⁶²⁾
96.3	SK-1300 Technical Report Summary 2022 Technical Report on the Shea Creek Project, Saskatchewan; Effective Date: October 31, 2022 ⁽⁶⁹⁾
96.4	Amended S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary 2024 Technical Report on the Horseshoe-Raven Project, Saskatchewan; Effective Date: March 1, 2024*
96.5	S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary 2022 Initial Assessment on the Workman Creek Project, Gila County, Arizona, USA; Effective Date: February 14, 2023 ⁽⁷²⁾
96.6	Anderson Uranium Project Initial Assessment US SEC Subpart 1300 Regulation S-K Report Yavapai County, Arizona, USA, dated March 9, 2023 ⁽⁷³⁾
96.7	Yuty Uranium Project Initial Assessment US SEC Subpart 1300 Regulation S-K Report Paraguay, SA, dated March 9, 2023 ⁽⁷³⁾
96.8	Amended S-K 1300 Mineral Resource Report Texas Hub and Spoke ISR Project, TX USA, dated March 9, 2023 ⁽⁷³⁾
96.9	Amended S-K 1300 Mineral Resource Report Wyoming ISR Hub and Spoke Project, WY USA, dated March 9, 2023 ⁽⁷³⁾
96.10	S-K 1300 Technical Report on The Roughrider Uranium Project, Saskatchewan, Canada; Effective Date: April 25, 2023 ⁽⁷⁴⁾
99.1	2022 Sustainability Report ⁽⁷¹⁾
99.2	Notice to Holders of UEX Warrants under the Warrant Indenture dated December 2, 2020 ⁽⁷⁵⁾
99.3	Notice to Holders of UEX Warrants under the Warrant Indenture dated September 7, 2021 ⁽⁷⁵⁾

101.1NS	Inline XBRL Instance Document

101.SCH	Inline XBRL Taxonomy Extension Schema Document

101.CAL	Inline XBRL Taxonomy Extension Calculation Linkbase Document

101.DEF	Inline XBRL Taxonomy Extension Definitions Linkbase Document

101.LAB	Inline XBRL Taxonomy Extension Label Linkbase Document

101.PRE	Inline XBRL Taxonomy Extension Presentation Linkbase Document

104	Cover Page Interactive Data File (formatted as Inline XBRL and contained in Exhibit 101)

Notes:

*	Filed herewith.
†	Previously filed as an exhibit to our Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the SEC on September 29, 2022.
‡	Portions of this exhibit have been omitted.
(1)	Incorporated by reference to our Registration Statement on Form SB-2 filed with the SEC on August 4, 2005.
(2)	Incorporated by reference to our Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on February 9, 2006.
(3)	Incorporated by reference to our Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on May 4, 2007.
(4)	Incorporated by reference to our Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on October 9, 2007.
(5)	Incorporated by reference to our Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on November 6, 2007.
(6)	Incorporated by reference to our Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on January 16, 2009.
(7)	Incorporated by reference to our Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on June 2, 2009.
(8)	Incorporated by reference to our Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on June 9, 2009.
(9)	Incorporated by reference to our Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on July 27, 2009.
(10)	Incorporated by reference to our Registration Statement on Form S-8 filed with the SEC on October 1, 2009.
(11)	Incorporated by reference to our Annual Report on Form 10-K/A filed with the SEC on April 21, 2010.
(12)	Incorporated by reference to our Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on February 23, 2010.
(13)	Incorporated by reference to our Registration Statement on Form S-8 filed with the SEC on February 7, 2011.
(14)	Incorporated by reference to our Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on January 10, 2011.
(15)	Incorporated by reference to our Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on May 11, 2011.
(16)	Incorporated by reference to our Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on May 17, 2011.
(17)	Incorporated by reference to our Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on July 11, 2011.
(18)	Incorporated by reference to our Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on October 31, 2011.
(19)	Incorporated by reference to our Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on November 8, 2011.

- 102 -

(20)	Incorporated by reference to our Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on March 5, 2012.
(21)	Incorporated by reference to our Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on August 5, 2013.
(22)	Incorporated by reference to our Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on October 2, 2013.
(23)	Incorporated by reference to our Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on October 23, 2013.
(24)	Incorporated by reference to our Registration Statement on Form S-3 filed with the SEC on November 19, 2013.
(25)	Incorporated by reference to our Registration Statement on Form S-8 filed with the SEC on November 21, 2013.
(26)	Incorporated by reference to our Current Report on Form 8-K/A filed with the SEC on December 6, 2013.
(27)	Incorporated by reference to our Registration Statement on Form S-3 filed with the SEC on December 27, 2013.
(28)	Incorporated by reference to our Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on December 31, 2013.
(29)	Incorporated by reference to our Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on March 19, 2014.
(30)	Incorporated by reference to our Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the SEC on October 14, 2014.
(31)	Incorporated by reference to our Registration Statement on Form S-8 filed with the SEC on January 9, 2015.
(32)	Incorporated by reference to our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q filed with the SEC on March 12, 2015.
(33)	Incorporated by reference to our Schedule 14A Definitive Proxy Statement filed with the SEC on June 19, 2015.
(34)	Incorporated by reference to our Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on June 25, 2015.
(35)	Incorporated by reference to our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q filed with the SEC on December 8, 2015.
(36)	Incorporated by reference to our Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on February 16, 2016
(37)	Incorporated by reference to our Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on March 10, 2016.
(38)	Incorporated by reference to our Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on March 10, 2016.
(39)	Incorporated by reference to our Registration Statement on Form S-8 filed with the SEC on September 2, 2016.
(40)	Incorporated by reference to our Registration Statement on Form S-3 filed with the SEC on January 5, 2017.
(41)	Incorporated by reference to our Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on January 17, 2017.
(42)	Incorporated by reference to our Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on March 9, 2017.
(43)	Incorporated by reference to our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q filed with the SEC on June 9, 2017.
(44)	Incorporated by reference to our Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on August 11, 2017.
(45)	Incorporated by reference to our Registration Statement on Form S-3 filed with the SEC on September 8, 2017.
(46)	Incorporated by reference to our Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the SEC on October 16, 2017.
(47)	Incorporated by reference to our Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on November 6, 2017.
(48)	Incorporated by reference to our Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the SEC on October 15, 2018.
(49)	Incorporated by reference to our Registration Statement on Form S-8 filed with the SEC on August 27, 2018.
(50)	Incorporated by reference to our Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on October 1, 2018.
(51)	Incorporated by reference to our Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on December 7, 2018.
(52)	Incorporated by reference to our Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on March 18, 2019.
(53)	Incorporated by reference to our Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on April 9, 2019.
(54)	Incorporated by reference to our Registration Statement on Form S-8 filed with the SEC on September 12, 2019.
(55)	Incorporated by reference to our Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on March 19, 2020.
(56)	Incorporated by reference to our Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on September 21, 2020.
(57)	Incorporated by reference to our Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on March 19, 2021.
(58)	Incorporated by reference to our Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on April 8, 2021.
(59)	Incorporated by reference to our Registration Statement on Form S-3 filed with the SEC on May 17, 2021.
(60)	Incorporated by reference to our Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on November 9, 2021.
(61)	Incorporated by reference to our Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on February 8, 2022.
(62)	Incorporated by reference to our Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on April 5, 2022.
(63)	Incorporated by reference to our Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on June 13, 2022.
(64)	Incorporated by reference to our Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on June 17, 2022.
(65)	Incorporated by reference to our Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on August 17, 2022.
(66)	Incorporated by reference to our Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on August 11, 2022.
(67)	Incorporated by reference to our Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on August 15, 2022.
(68)	Incorporated by reference to our Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on October 13, 2022.
(69)	Incorporated by reference to our Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on January 11, 2023.
(70)	Incorporated by reference to our Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on January 23, 2023.
(71)	Incorporated by reference to our Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on March 13, 2023.
(72)	Incorporated by reference to our Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on March 14, 2023.
(73)	Incorporated by reference to our Amendment to our Annual Report on Form 10-K/A filed with the SEC on April 3, 2023.
(74)	Incorporated by reference to our Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on May 1, 2023.
(75)	Incorporated by reference to our Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on May 11, 2023.
(76)	Previously filed as an exhibit to our Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the SEC on September 29, 2023.

- 103 -

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this Annual Report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

	URANIUM ENERGY CORP.

	By:	/s/ *Amir Adnani*
		Amir Adnani, President, Chief Executive Officer and Director
		(Principal Executive Officer)
		Date: April 2, 2024.

- 104 -

Dates Referenced Herein and Documents Incorporated by Reference

This ‘10-K/A’ Filing	Date	Other Filings

Filed on:	4/2/24
	3/1/24	D
	9/29/23	10-K, 8-K
	9/28/23	10-K
For Period end:	7/31/23	10-K, 4, 8-K
	5/11/23	8-K
	5/1/23	8-K, UPLOAD
	4/3/23	10-K/A, CORRESP
	3/14/23	8-K
	3/13/23	10-Q, 8-K
	1/31/23	10-Q, SC 13G/A
	1/23/23	8-K
	1/11/23	8-K
	10/17/22	8-K
	10/13/22	8-K
	9/29/22	10-K
	8/17/22	8-K
	8/15/22	8-K
	8/11/22	8-K
	6/17/22	8-K
	6/13/22	8-K
	4/5/22	8-K
	3/31/22
	3/7/22
	2/8/22	8-K
	12/31/21
	11/9/21	8-K
	11/2/21
	5/17/21	4, S-3
	4/8/21	424B5, 8-K
	3/19/21	424B5, 8-K
	9/21/20	424B5, 8-K, FWP
	3/19/20	424B5, 8-K
	9/12/19	S-8
	4/9/19	424B5, 8-K
	3/18/19	8-K, SC 13G/A
	12/31/18
	12/7/18	10-Q, 8-K
	10/15/18	10-K, 8-K
	10/1/18	4, 424B5, 8-K
	8/27/18	S-8
	11/6/17	8-K
	10/16/17	10-K, 8-K
	9/8/17	S-3
	8/11/17	8-K
	6/9/17	10-Q, 8-K
	3/9/17	8-K
	1/17/17	424B5, 8-K
	1/5/17	S-3
	9/14/16
	9/2/16	4, S-8
	3/10/16	424B5, 8-K
	2/16/16	8-K, SC 13G/A
	12/8/15	10-Q, 8-K
	6/25/15	4, 8-K
	6/19/15	4, 8-K, DEF 14A, DEFA14A
	3/12/15	10-Q, 8-K, D
	1/9/15	S-8
	10/14/14	10-K, 8-K
	3/19/14	8-K
	12/31/13	424B5, 8-K, S-3MEF
	12/27/13	4, S-3
	12/6/13	10-Q, 8-K/A
	11/21/13	S-8
	11/19/13	S-3
	10/23/13	8-K
	10/2/13	8-K
	8/5/13	8-K
	3/5/12	8-K
	1/11/12
	12/1/11
	11/8/11	8-K
	10/31/11	10-Q, 8-K
	8/5/11
	7/11/11	425, 8-K
	5/17/11	425, 8-K
	5/11/11	425, 8-K
	5/9/11
	4/18/11
	2/7/11	S-8
	1/10/11	8-K, SC 13G/A
	7/16/10
	4/21/10	10-K/A
	2/23/10	8-K
	10/1/09	8-K, S-8
	7/27/09	8-K
	6/9/09	8-K, NT 10-Q
	6/2/09	8-K
	1/16/09	8-K
	3/24/08
	12/31/07
	11/6/07	8-K
	10/9/07	8-K
	5/4/07	8-K
	4/12/07	8-K
	8/10/06
	2/9/06	5, 8-K, S-8
	8/4/05	SB-2
	9/10/04
		List all Filings

74 Previous Filings that this Filing References

  As Of               Filer                 Filing    For·On·As Docs:Size             Issuer                      Filing Agent

 9/29/23  Uranium Energy Corp.              10-K        7/31/23  146:19M                                    RDG Filings/FA
 5/11/23  Uranium Energy Corp.              8-K:1,9     5/05/23   17:2.2M                                   RDG Filings/FA
 5/02/23  Uranium Energy Corp.              8-K:8,9     5/01/23   13:8.2M                                   RDG Filings/FA
 4/03/23  Uranium Energy Corp.              10-K/A      7/31/22  133:31M                                    RDG Filings/FA
 3/14/23  Uranium Energy Corp.              8-K:8,9     3/14/23   15:1.8M                                   RDG Filings/FA
 3/13/23  Uranium Energy Corp.              8-K:8,9     3/13/23   12:13M                                    RDG Filings/FA
 1/11/23  Uranium Energy Corp.              8-K:8,9     1/11/23   15:5.3M                                   RDG Filings/FA
10/13/22  Uranium Energy Corp.              8-K:1,9    10/11/22   12:819K                                   RDG Filings/FA
 9/29/22  Uranium Energy Corp.              10-K        7/31/22  131:19M                                    RDG Filings/FA
 8/17/22  Uranium Energy Corp.              8-K:1,9     6/23/22   12:306K                                   RDG Filings/FA
 8/15/22  Uranium Energy Corp.              8-K:1,7,9   8/15/22   13:279K                                   RDG Filings/FA
 8/11/22  Uranium Energy Corp.              8-K:1,9     8/05/22   12:201K                                   RDG Filings/FA
 6/17/22  Uranium Energy Corp.              8-K:1,9     6/13/22   13:1M                                     RDG Filings/FA
 6/13/22  Uranium Energy Corp.              8-K:1,2,9   6/07/22   13:9.6M                                   RDG Filings/FA
 4/05/22  Uranium Energy Corp.              8-K:8,9     4/04/22   14:3.8M                                   RDG Filings/FA
 2/08/22  Uranium Energy Corp.              8-K:8,9     2/08/22   14:3.6M                                   RDG Filings/FA
11/09/21  Uranium Energy Corp.              8-K:1,7,9  11/08/21    3:584K                                   Toppan Merrill/FA
 5/17/21  Uranium Energy Corp.              S-3         5/14/21    7:1.9M                                   Toppan Merrill/FA
 4/08/21  Uranium Energy Corp.              8-K:1,9     4/05/21    5:422K                                   Toppan Merrill/FA
 3/19/21  Uranium Energy Corp.              8-K:1,9     3/17/21    4:300K                                   Toppan Merrill/FA
 9/21/20  Uranium Energy Corp.              8-K:1,9     9/21/20    4:405K                                   Toppan Merrill/FA
 3/19/20  Uranium Energy Corp.              8-K:1,9     3/19/20    3:63K                                    Newsfile Corp./FA
 9/12/19  Uranium Energy Corp.              S-8         9/12/19    4:1M                                     Michener Lang
 4/09/19  Uranium Energy Corp.              8-K:1,9     4/09/19    3:1.3M                                   Michener Lang
 3/18/19  Uranium Energy Corp.              8-K:1,3,8,9 3/14/19    3:242K                                   CNW Group Ltd./FA
12/07/18  Uranium Energy Corp.              8-K:1,2,3,812/04/18    3:909K                                   Michener Lang
10/15/18  Uranium Energy Corp.              10-K        7/31/18  102:27M                                    CNW Group Ltd./FA
10/01/18  Uranium Energy Corp.              8-K:1,8,9  10/01/18    5:277K                                   Newsfile Corp./FA
 8/27/18  Uranium Energy Corp.              S-8         8/27/18    4:355K                                   Michener Lang
11/06/17  Uranium Energy Corp.              8-K:1,8,9  11/01/17    3:394K                                   CNW Group Ltd./FA
10/16/17  Uranium Energy Corp.              10-K        7/31/17  104:17M                                    CNW Group Ltd./FA
 8/11/17  Uranium Energy Corp.              8-K:1,2,3,8 8/07/17    3:79K                                    Michener Lang
 6/09/17  Uranium Energy Corp.              10-Q        4/30/17   80:9.2M                                   CNW Group Ltd./FA
 3/09/17  Uranium Energy Corp.              8-K:1,9     3/03/17    2:47K                                    CNW Group Ltd./FA
 1/17/17  Uranium Energy Corp.              8-K:1,8,9   1/17/17    5:278K                                   Newsfile Corp./FA
 1/05/17  Uranium Energy Corp.              S-3                    5:1.3M                                   Toppan Merrill/FA
 9/02/16  Uranium Energy Corp.              S-8         9/02/16    4:338K                                   Michener Lang
 3/10/16  Uranium Energy Corp.              8-K:1,2,3,9 3/10/16    2:1M                                     Newsfile Corp./FA
 3/10/16  Uranium Energy Corp.              8-K:1,9     3/06/16    5:312K                                   Newsfile Corp./FA
 2/16/16  Uranium Energy Corp.              8-K:1,2,3,9 2/09/16    2:625K                                   Michener Lang
12/08/15  Uranium Energy Corp.              10-Q       10/31/15   69:5.7M                                   Newsfile Corp./FA
 6/25/15  Uranium Energy Corp.              8-K:1,9     6/22/15    6:800K                                   Michener Lang
 6/19/15  Uranium Energy Corp.              DEF 14A     7/30/15    1:703K                                   Michener Lang
 3/12/15  Uranium Energy Corp.              10-Q        1/31/15   74:9.4M                                   Newsfile Corp./FA
 1/09/15  Uranium Energy Corp.              S-8         1/09/15    4:805K                                   Michener Lang
10/14/14  Uranium Energy Corp.              10-K        7/31/14  104:14M                                    Newsfile Corp./FA
 3/19/14  Uranium Energy Corp.              8-K:1,2,3,9 3/13/14    2:585K                                   Michener Lang
12/31/13  Uranium Energy Corp.              8-K:1,9    12/31/13    3:705K                                   Michener Lang
12/27/13  Uranium Energy Corp.              S-3                    5:1.3M                                   Michener Lang
12/06/13  Uranium Energy Corp.              8-K/A:1,9   7/24/13    4:628K                                   Michener Lang
11/21/13  Uranium Energy Corp.              S-8        11/21/13    4:802K                                   Michener Lang
11/19/13  Uranium Energy Corp.              S-3                    4:740K                                   Michener Lang
10/23/13  Uranium Energy Corp.              8-K:1,9    10/17/13    5:739K                                   Michener Lang
10/02/13  Uranium Energy Corp.              8-K:1,5,8,9 9/26/13    3:117K                                   Michener Lang
 8/05/13  Uranium Energy Corp.              8-K:1,2,3,8 7/30/13    3:605K                                   Michener Lang
 3/05/12  Uranium Energy Corp.              8-K:1,9     2/28/12    2:61K                                    Michener Lang
11/08/11  Uranium Energy Corp.              8-K:1,7,9  11/07/11    3:4.1M                                   Newsfile Corp./FA
10/31/11  Uranium Energy Corp.              8-K:1,7,9  10/25/11    3:170K                                   Michener Lang
 7/11/11  Uranium Energy Corp.              8-K:1,9     7/07/11    3:3M                                     Michener Lang
 5/17/11  Uranium Energy Corp.              8-K:1,8,9   5/11/11    3:296K                                   Michener Lang
 5/11/11  Uranium Energy Corp.              8-K:1,8,9   5/05/11    4:3.3M                                   Michener Lang
 2/07/11  Uranium Energy Corp.              S-8         2/07/11    5:785K                                   Michener Lang
 1/10/11  Uranium Energy Corp.              8-K:1,5,9   1/05/11    2:97K                                    Michener Lang
 4/21/10  Uranium Energy Corp.              10-K/A      7/31/09   26:25M                                    Michener Lang
 2/23/10  Uranium Energy Corp.              8-K:1,5,9   2/22/10    2:16K                                    Michener Lang
 7/27/09  Uranium Energy Corp.              8-K:1,5,9   7/23/09    3:244K                                   Michener Lang
 6/09/09  Uranium Energy Corp.              8-K:1,9     6/08/09    2:1M                                     Michener Lang
 6/02/09  Uranium Energy Corp.              8-K:1,9     5/28/09    2:571K                                   Michener Lang
 1/16/09  Uranium Energy Corp.              8-K:1,9     1/14/09    2:480K                                   Michener Lang
11/06/07  Uranium Energy Corp.              8-K:1,9    11/01/07    2:64K                                    Michener Lang
10/09/07  Uranium Energy Corp.              8-K:1,9     8/15/07    2:95K                                    Michener Lang
 5/04/07  Uranium Energy Corp.              8-K:1,9     4/27/07    4:1.3M                                   Michener Lang
 2/09/06  Uranium Energy Corp.              8-K:5       2/01/06    2:6K                                     KMB Solutions, LLC/FA
 8/04/05  Uranium Energy Corp.              SB-2                   7:236K                                   Highland Services/FA

↑Top

Filing Submission 0001437749-24-010672 – Alternative Formats (Word / Rich Text, HTML, Plain Text, et al.)

Uranium Energy Corp. – ‘10-K/A’ for 7/31/23

On: Tuesday, 4/2/24, at 5:22pm ET · For: 7/31/23 · Accession #: 1437749-24-10672 · File #: 1-33706

Amendment to Annual Report — Form 10-K — SEA’34Filing Table of Contents

‘10-K/A’ — Amendment to Annual Report

This is an HTML Document rendered as filed. [ Alternative Formats ]

Dates Referenced Herein and Documents Incorporated by Reference

74 Previous Filings that this Filing References

Amendment to Annual Report — Form 10-K — SEA’34

Filing Table of Contents